Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
Kirsi Pyhältö
1,5
&Janne Pietarinen
2
&Kaisa Haverinen
2
&Lotta Tikkanen
3
&
Tiina Soini
4
Received: 12 August 2019 /Revised: 28 November 2019 / Accepted: 20 January 2020
#The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
Teacher burnout has been identified as a significant occupational hazard. However, our
understanding about individual variations in burnout risk among in-service teachers is
still less than sufficient. This study explored socio-contextual burnout risk profiles and
their association with the reported use of proactive strategies among in-service teachers
by using a person-oriented approach. The survey data were collected from 2310 Finnish
in-service primary and lower secondary school teachers using a probability sampling
method. In the latent profile analysis, five socio-contextual burnout profiles were identi-
fied. The profiles differed from each other in terms of burnout symptoms and proactive
strategy use. Results suggested that there is individual variation in teachers’risk of
burnout. In addition, the results imply that well-developed proactive strategies, both in
terms of self- and co-regulative strategies, are related to lower risk of experiencing socio-
contextual burnout. The utilization of strong co-regulative strategies was related to lower
risk of experiencing exhaustion and inadequacy during teacher-pupil interactions. How-
ever, strong self-regulation combined with low levels of co-regulation was related to an
increased risk of experiencing cynicism. This implies that learning proactive strategies
may be useful in preventing teacher burnout.
Keywords Burnout profiles .Proactive strategies .Socio-contextual burnout .Teacher profiles .
Teachers
Introduction
Teacher burnout is a significant occupational problem worldwide (Akça and Yaman 2010;
meta-analysis by García-Carmona et al. 2018). Although burnout rates are generally quite low
in Finland (Schaufeli 2018), about 12% of Finnish educators have been shown to suffer from
high levels of work stress, which is more than workers in any other branch (Perkiö-Mäkelä
European Journal of Psychology of Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00465-6
*Lotta Tikkanen
lotta.tikkanen@helsinki.fi
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
2009). Similarly, the Trade Union of Education in Finland recently reported that one-third of
teachers suffered from extensive work stress (Länsikallio et al. 2018). This implies that a
significant number of Finnish teachers are at risk of burnout. Burnout is costly, both personally
and for the working environment, since it impairs teachers’functioning, resulting in a decline
in quality of work and health (e.g., Saleh and Shapiro 2008; Dupriez et al. 2016; Klusmann
et al. 2008). Teachers who suffer from burnout are more likely to experience the symptoms of
depression and sleep disturbances (Saleh and Shapiro 2008;Shinetal.2013), undergo job
turnover, and retire earlier (Dupriez et al. 2016; Goddard and Goddard 2006). They also
provide a lower quality of instruction (Klusmann et al. 2008) than their counterparts, who have
not experienced burnout.
Extensive previous research on teacher burnout has identified several individual and
environmental antecedents for teacher burnout, such as workload and years of teaching
experience (Brewer and Shapard 2004; Gavish and Friedman 2010; van Droogenbroeck
et al. 2014). Also, the importance of social interrelations to teachers’wellbeing has been
emphasized (Hakanen et al. 2006;Richardsetal.2018). However, we still know surprisingly
little about individual variations in burnout risk experienced by in-service teachers (Bianchi
et al. 2015;Brudnik2004; Hultell et al. 2013), especially in terms of primary social interac-
tions of teachers’work, i.e., with pupils and the professional community. Even less is known
about the association between the teachers’burnout risk profiles, and the strategies they use to
be proactive in buffering work stressors. In this study, we explored the individual variations
between teachers in experiencing socio-contextual burnout risk. The person-oriented strategy
was applied in order to identify burnout risk profiles among in-service teachers by using a
latent profile analysis (see Leiter and Maslach 2016; Meyer et al. 2013;Virtanenetal.2018).
Moreover, the association with the profiles and the reported use of proactive strategies is
explored.
Teachers’socio-contextual burnout
It has been suggested that teacher burnout gradually develops as a result of extensive and
prolonged work-related stress (Foley and Murphy 2015; Holland 1982; see also seminal work
on burnout by Freudenberger 1974; Maslach and Jackson 1981). It has three distinct symp-
toms: exhaustion that is characterized by a lack of emotional energy and a feeling of being
strained and tired at work; cynicism consisting of detachment from work in general as well as
from students, parents, or colleagues at work; and professional inadequacy consisting of a
reduced sense of personal accomplishment at work (Brouwers and Tomic 2000; Hakanen et al.
2006;Maslach2015; Maslach et al. 2001; meta-analysis by Montgomery and Rupp 2005;
Schaufeli and Buunk 2003). In cases of full-blown burnout, all of these symptoms are
experienced to a great extent (see Maslach et al. 2001).
Given that teachers work every day with both pupils and members of the professional
community, social interrelations play a central role in teachers’work (Pyhältö et al. 2015).
There is strong body of evidence showing that social interrelations can promote teachers’
wellbeing (e.g., Berkovich and Eyal 2018; Hakanen et al. 2006). For instance, positive
relationships with colleagues have been shown to buffer teacher stress (e.g., Richards et al.
2018). However, social interaction within the professional community and with pupils does
not automatically increase teacher wellbeing. In fact, frictions in these interrelations might
reduce teachers’wellbeing (Harmsen et al. 2018;Kyriacou2001). For example, unresolved
problems in social interrelations have shown to increase teacher’sriskofdevelopingburnout
K. Pyhältö et al.
symptoms (Gavish and Friedman 2010; Milfont et al. 2008; Santavirta et al. 2007; Sharplin
et al. 2011; van Droogenbroeck et al. 2014). Research has shown that a poor sense of
community and destructive friction in social interactions, with both pupils and colleagues,
are related to teacher burnout (Aloe et al. 2014; Cano-Garcia et al. 2005;Dorman2003;
Gavish and Friedman 2010; Leung and Lee 2006). Different social relationships may have a
different impact on the burnout symptoms experienced (Pietarinen et al. 2013b). For example,
teachers’experiences of destructive friction and problematic encounters with pupils are shown
to contribute to feelings of professional inadequacy, while destructive friction within the
professional community is shown to be associated with cynicism (Pyhältö et al. 2011).
Although the central role played by social interaction in teacher wellbeing has been
recognized (e.g., Hakanen et al. 2006; Volgast and Fischer 2016), the complexity and
dynamics of the social working environments provided by the school have not been considered
to the same extent in studies on teacher burnout (Devos et al. 2012;Parkeretal.2012)whichis
shown in the frequent use of decontextualized burnout measures. In order to catch the socially
embedded nature of teachers’work, the measures used to explore teacher burnout should
consider the social working environments provided by the school. Moreover, the social
embeddedness of teacher burnout also means that the forms of experienced burnout may vary
between schools, between the social working environments within a single school (see also
Fernet et al. 2012; Kokkinos 2007; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2009,2017), and between the
teachers.
There is some evidence that individual differences in burnout risk are related to gender,
years of teaching experience, and grades being taught (e.g., Brewer and Shapard 2004; Klassen
and Chiu 2010). For example, female teachers are more likely to experience higher levels of
work stress and exhaustion than male teachers, who, in turn, are more prone to suffer from
cynicism (Klassen and Chiu 2010; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2017; see also meta-analysis by
Purvanova and Muros 2010). Moreover, early career teachers seem to be more vulnerable to
burnout than more experienced ones (Brewer and Shapard 2004). Also, variations between
teacher groups have been detected: special education teachers are more likely to be at increased
burnout risk compared with primary or subject teachers (see Soini et al. 2019).
Even though it has been acknowledged that some teachers may be at greater risk of
developing certain burnout symptoms than others, studies on teacher burnout have
traditionally relied on variable-based approaches instead of person-centered ones
(Mäkikangas and Kinnunen 2016). However, interest in individual variations in teacher
burnout experience in terms of teacher burnout profiles has grown recently (e.g.,
Tikkanen et al. 2017; Brudnik 2011;Mojsa-Kajaetal.2015; systematic review by
Mäkikangas and Kinnunen 2016). Earlier studies on teacher burnout profiles have mainly
adopted two separate approaches: studies that concentrate solely on teachers’profiles in
terms of work stress and burnout (e.g., Brudnik 2011) and studies that explore teacher
profiles in which burnout is clustered with other wellbeing-related constructs, such as
work engagement or coping behavior (e.g., Herman et al. 2018; Salmela-Aro et al. 2019).
The studies focusing solely on individual differences in burnout experiences among
teachers are rare. However, the findings of Mojsa-Kaja and others (Mojsa-Kaja et al.
2015), Brudnik (2011), as well as our recent findings (Tikkanen et al. 2017) imply that
consistent and discrepant burnout profiles can be found among teaching professionals.
Consistent profiles were characterized by systematically high, moderate, or low levels of
all burnout symptoms, whereas teachers with discrepant profiles reported increased or
high levels of one or two burnout symptoms. In their longitudinal study, Hultell and
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
others (2013) identified seven burnout trajectories: three stable (low, moderate, or high)
and four changing trajectories of varying shapes. These studies on teachers’burnout
exclusively indicate that typically two or three consistent profiles and up to four
discrepant profiles can be identified.
Studies displaying a person-centered approach in which burnout is combined with other
attributes (e.g., Herman et al. 2018; Salmela-Aro et al. 2019) are more common than those
concentrating solely on burnout. Salmela-Aro and her colleagues (Salmela-Aro et al. 2019)
and Timms and others (Timms et al. 2012) showed that some teachers experience burnout
symptoms simultaneously with work engagement, whereas others experience mere work
engagement or burnout symptoms. In turn, Bianchi and others (Bianchi et al. 2015)showed
that burnout and depression symptoms clustered together suggesting an overlap between the
concepts of burnout and depression. In their longitudinal study, Kanayama and others
(Kanayama et al. 2016) focused on co-occurrence of burnout and collaboration among school
personnel, and found out that there was an inverse relationship between collaboration and
burnout. The study by Herman and his colleagues (Herman et al. 2018) showed four distinct
patterns of teacher adjustment in terms of burnout, stress, coping, and self-efficacy, and
concluded that coping behaviors distinguished the profiles characterized by high stress.
Taken together, research findings on teacher burnout profiles are not consistent, as the
number of burnout profiles identified varied across the studies. Also, individual variations in
the associations between burnout and other wellbeing-related constructs, such as coping and
collaboration within professional community, have been detected (Herman et al. 2018;
Kanayama et al. 2016). Accordingly, so far the results on teacher burnout profiles and factors
contributing to the individual variation in this regard have been inconsistent. Teachers with
different burnout profiles may utilize different strategies to deal with stressors and the effect of
these strategies on teacher wellbeing may also vary between individuals. Hence, more studies
utilizing a person-oriented approach to examine the individual variations and their determi-
nants in teacher burnout are needed.
Proactive strategies for reducing burnout
When confronted with stressful situations, teachers can use a variety of strategies to deal with
it. For instance, they can adapt to or ignore the challenges posed by the situation (Pietarinen et
al. 2013a) to change the environment and/or manage their emotions (Arnold et al. 2010; Foley
and Murphy 2015; see also seminal work of coping by Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Depend-
ing on the teachers and the situation, the strategies used can be more or less effective in solving
the situation and buffering burnout (Kammeyer-Mueller et al. 2009; Klassen and Durksen
2014). Past research has focused heavily on teacher reactions when faced with stressful
situation, that is, coping with stressors (e.g., Austin et al. 2005; Carmona et al. 2006;Grossi
1999; Gustems-Carnicer and Calderón 2013; Howard and Johnson 2004; Kieschke and
Schaarschmidt 2008; Kyriacou 2001; Parker et al. 2012). However, teachers do not simply
react to a certain stressor, they can also make an effort to deal with future stressors. Accord-
ingly, they can utilize proactive strategies that aim to cope with immediate stressors being
faced, and also to buffer potential stressors in advance by building and using resources at hand
(Aspinwall and Taylor 1997; Schwarzer and Hallum 2008;Straudetal.2015).
Proactive strategies can focus primarily on regulation of one’s own behaviors and thoughts,
(self-regulation), or on collaboration with others, (co-regulation), or both (Pietarinen et al.
2013a,Tikkanen et al. 2017,Väisänen et al. 2018). Proactive self-regulation entails regulation
K. Pyhältö et al.
of one’s own behavior, cognition, and emotions such as slowing work pace, while proactive
co-regulation strategies refer to building and modifying social resources intentionally such as
asking for, providing, and receiving help from colleagues to deal with the potential stressor
(Pietarinen et al. 2013a, Smith and Lev-Ari 2005,Tikkanen et al. 2017,Väisänen et al. 2018). It
has been suggested that proactive strategies can be effective in reducing teacher burnout
(Klassen and Durksen 2014; Pietarinen et al. 2013a). Klassen and Durksen (2014) have shown
that proactive strategies, including being prepared, staying organized, and seeking help when
needed, are related to lower levels of stress in teaching among novice teachers. There is also
evidence that time management (goal setting, prioritizing, and planning) is an effective strategy
in reducing burnout risk among teachers (Peeters and Rutte 2005). We recently showed that the
proactive strategy use was associated with the reduced risk of student teacher burnout,
particularly in terms of exhaustion and inadequacy being experienced (Väisänen et al.
2018). Proactive self-regulation has also been found to be related to lower risk of burnout
among school principals (Tikkanen et al. 2017). Moreover, the use of self- and co-regulative
proactive strategies has been associated with reduced experiences of exhaustion and a better
working-environment fit among experienced teachers (Pietarinen et al. 2013a). The effects of
the proactive strategies on the perceived working-environment fit were mediated by reduced
exhaustion and cynicism towards the teacher community. Moreover, the use of co-regulative
strategies was associated with reduced levels of cynicism and inadequacy, whereas self-
regulative strategies were only effective in reducing teacher exhaustion. In turn, a lack of
reciprocity in social relationships at work has been found to be related to increased levels of
experienced burnout among teachers (Bakker et al. 2000). However, prior knowledge of the
association between teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategy use is less than sufficient.
Aim of the study
The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the individual differences in
experiences of socio-contextual burnout among in-service teachers by analyzing burnout risk
profiles
1
among Finnish comprehensive school teachers, and the proactive strategies they use
to manage stressful transactions in their work. Therefore, the differences between the socio-
contextual burnout profiles, in terms of proactive strategy use, i.e., self- and co-regulation
strategies, were examined. In addition, the associations between background variables (i.e.,
gender, years of experience, and teacher domain) and socio-contextual burnout profiles were
analyzed. The following general hypotheses were formulated based on earlier research:
H1: Different teacher profiles in terms of experienced socio-contextual burnout, consisting
of exhaustion, cynicism towards the professional community, and inadequacy in teacher-pupil
interaction, can be detected (Brudnik 2011; Mäkikangas and Kinnunen 2016). Based on earlier
research on teachers’burnout profiles, we expect to identify several burnout profiles, two or
three of which will be consistent ones, i.e., displaying systematically low, moderate, or high
levels of all burnout symptoms (Brudnik 2011; Mojsa-Kaja et al. 2015;Tikkanen et al. 2017).
In addition to these two or three consistent profiles, up to four discrepant burnout profiles with
varying emphases on exhaustion, cynicism, and inadequacy could be found (Brudnik, 2011;
Mojsa-Kaja et al. 2015; Tikkanen et al. 2017). These could be characterized either by high
levels of inadequacy, high on exhaustion, or high on both exhaustion and cynicism.
1
It is important to note that the aim is not to diagnose burnout or develop any diagnosis standards of teacher
burnout, but to explore the individual differences there are among in-service teachers at risk of burnout.
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
H2: Teachers with the different profiles differ from each other in terms of reported use of
proactive strategies (Aspinwall and Taylor 1997; Schwarzer and Hallum 2008;Straudetal.
2015).
H3: Proactive strategy use is likely to be associated with reduced burnout risk (Pietarinen et
al. 2013a,Tikkanenetal.2017). However, the function of self- and co-regulative strategies in
reducing experienced socio-contextual burnout varies (Tikkanen et al. 2017,Väisänen et al.
2018) across the profiles.
H4: Gender, teacher domain (i.e., primary, subject, or special education teacher), and years
of teaching experience are likely to be associated with burnout risk (e.g., Brewer and Shapard
2004; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2017).
Method
Research context
All Finnish comprehensive school teachers have a master’s degree in either educational
science or another domain, such as mathematics or biology, with compulsory additional
studies (35 credits) in educational science. Primary school teachers, who typically work in
grades (0
2
)1–6, hold an MA degree in educational science, with the main subject being applied
educational science or educational psychology, while subject teachers, who typically teach in
grades 7–9 (lower secondary school), usually have an MA in a certain subject with an
additional compulsory year of study in educational science. Special education teachers who
teach in both primary and secondary schools in grades (02)1–9haveanMAineducational
science, with the main subject being special education. Flexible accountability structures are in
place that emphasize trust in individual school autonomy (Aho et al. 2006).
Participants
In 2010, 2310 in-service school teachers, including primary (n= 815; 35%), subject (n= 727;
32%), and special education teachers (n= 760; 33%), completed a survey. A probability
sampling method (N= 6000) was used. The sample was taken from the teacher register held
by the Trade Union of Education in Finland (95% of Finnish teachers are members of the
Union) and data were collected via a paper survey sent to teachers’home address by mail with
a return envelope. The total response rate was 39%. All respondents had an MA degree, and all
were at various stages of their careers. The specified non-response analysis showed that the
sample representation was plausible. The mean age of the respondents was 45.3 years (SD =
9.84; min/max, 25/68 years). In terms of age and grades taught, the sample was also
representative of the Finnish teacher population (see also National Board of Education
2010). The majority of the respondents were women (n= 1876) and the minority men (n=
428). Accordingly, female teachers were slightly over-represented in the sample. Respondents’
average work experience in the teaching profession was 17.3 years (SD = 9.90; range 1–45).
Participation in the study was voluntary. The participants were informed of the purpose of the
study, the use and storage of the data, and their rights as participants in a cover letter relating to
the survey. Also, contact details of the research group were provided in case participants
2
Grade 0 refers to pre-primary education provided the year preceding the start of comprehensive school.
K. Pyhältö et al.
wanted more information about the project. No incentives were used to encourage participa-
tion. The study did not require an ethics review in Finland (cf. Finnish Advisory Board for
Research Integrity 2009).
Measures
The authors developed two scales for measuring teachers’socio-contextual burnout (9 items)
and proactive strategies (7 items) (Pietarinen et al. 2013b;seetheAppendix). The Socio-
Contextual Teacher Burnout Scale draws on Maslach and Jackson’s(1981) burnout scale. The
exhaustion component includes the Elo et al. (2003) single-item stress scale. The socio-
contextual burnout scale was constructed by specifying the social contexts of cynicism and
inadequacy (Pyhältö et al. 2011), and consists of 9 items measuring three factors of socio-
contextual teacher burnout: (a) exhaustion (3 items), (b) cynicism towards the teaching
community (3 items), and (c) inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction (3 items) (Pietarinen et
al. 2013b).
The Proactive Strategy scale (see the Appendix) was based on research evidence showing
that functional strategies for reducing exhaustion can be adopted in teachers’everyday routines
(Pyhältö et al. 2011;Salmela-Aro2009). The scale consists of 7 items, measuring two factors
of proactive strategies: a) self-regulation (4 items) and b) co-regulation (3 items).
The validity and reliability of the Socio-Contextual Teacher Burnout Scale and the Proac-
tive Strategy Scale have been examined and supported in prior studies (Pietarinen et al. 2013a,
b). All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7
(completely agree) (except for the stress item that was rated on a 10-point scale). Mean
variables were formed to represent the different components of teacher burnout and proactive
strategies. The Cronbach alpha reliability and descriptive statistics of the subscales are
displayed in Table 1.
Statistical analysis
Latent profile analysis (LPA) was utilized in order to explore burnout risk profiles that may
emphasize different components of socio-contextual teacher burnout risk, that is, exhaustion,
cynicism towards the professional community, and inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction.
LPA served our purpose of examining the individual variation and distinct profiles of burnout
risk in teachers and offered statistical criteria for model comparisons in selecting the best-
fitting number of latent classes in comparison with other clustering approaches (Meyer et al.
2013).
LPA involved grouping individuals into latent classes based on their observed response
pattern on specific variables (Berlin et al. 2014). All the analyses were conducted using Mplus
(version 7.4; Muthén and Muthén 1998–2015). The robust maximum likelihood (RML)
estimator was used, as it produces robust standard errors and chi-square statistics to handle
non-normally distributed data. There were few missing values in the data so the analysis was
mostly based on complete cases; nevertheless, the full information estimation was applied.
Model building strategy The analysis followed the three-step method for identifying
profiles and examining the covariates of latent profile membership (Asparouhov and
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
Muthén 2014). First, latent burnout profiles were extracted without covariates. The
indicator variables, that is, the mean variables of experienced exhaustion, cynicism,
and inadequacy, were allowed to correlate with each other, and the extraction of latent
classes was based on variable means, maximizing the within-class homogeneity and
between-class heterogeneity. Within-class variances and correlations were held constant
across classes for parsimony and to avoid convergence problems (Berlin et al. 2014). The
teachers were assigned a posterior probability of being a member in each latent class
identified by the LPA model.
The two other steps concerned the relationship between covariates and latent burnout
profiles. The second step assigned each individual teacher the most likely class mem-
bership based on the posterior probabilities obtained in the first step. In the final third
step, the mean variables of self- and co-regulative strategies were included as antecedents
of the latent class variable while accounting for the measurement error in classification in
the second step (Asparouhov and Muthén 2014). These final steps were conducted using
the R3STEP procedure of Mplus with the proactive strategies as auxiliary variables
(Muthén and Muthén 1998–2015). The R3STEP procedure performs a multinomial
logistic regression and provides the odds ratios describing the effect of proactive
strategies on the likelihood of membership in each of the latent profiles compared with
other profiles. Finally, three background covariates were included in the model as
auxiliary variables in order to examine whether teacher domain (primary/subject/special
education), gender, or teaching experience has an effect on the membership of burnout
risk profiles.
The 3-step approach offers a clear and more readily interpretable latent class model in the
first step than a single-step approach, and statistically sound estimates for covariate effects in
the final steps (see Asparouhov and Muthén 2014; for discussion on alternative approaches,
see Clark and Muthén 2009).
Evaluating model fit The first step of the analysis includes identifying the model with the
number of latent profiles that best describes the data. Multiple LPAs were run with 1–7 classes
(see Table 2for LPA models with 1–6 classes). Several statistical fit indices as well as the
content criterion were applied to determine the most appropriate number of latent profiles (see
Bauer and Curran 2003; Muthén 2003;Nylundetal.2007). The Akaike (AIC), Bayesian
(BIC), and adjusted Bayesian (aBIC) information criteria were employed to test the goodness-
of-fit of the model with the data, with lower values indicating a better fit. The BIC and aBIC
are adjusted for sample size and improve when the sample size increases (Nylund et al. 2007),
and thus, provided the most useful information criteria for our purposes.
Entropy value and latent class probabilities were used to evaluate the statistical accuracy of
assigning people to profiles. Both vary between 0 and 1, with values close to 1 indicating a
Table 1 Reliability and descriptive statistics of the burnout and proactive strategies scales
Scale No. of items Alpha NMean SD Min Max
Exhaustion 3 .82 2310 3.31 1.76 1.00 9.00
Inadequacy 3 .73 2309 2.82 1.26 1.00 7.00
Cynicism 3 .78 2308 2.97 1.42 1.00 7.00
Self-regulation 4 .84 2307 5.12 1.07 1.00 7.00
Co-regulation 3 .61 2307 5.22 0.89 1.67 7.00
K. Pyhältö et al.
higher degree of accuracy. The entropy value describes the overall accuracy whereas latent
class probabilities describe the accuracy of the classification for each class separately.
The subsequent models were also compared with the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin (VLMR)
likelihood ratio test, the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (aLRT), and the
bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT). A statistically significant test result (p< 0.05)
indicates that the model with kclasses fits the data better than the model with one latent class
less, that is, k-1 classes.
Results
Determining the number of latent classes
The information criteria (AIC, BIC, aBIC) showed that adding a new latent class
enhanced the model fit all the way to 6 classes, suggesting that at least 6 separate
classes could be distinguished from the data.
According to the entropy values, the accuracy increased until the 5-class model,
after which it displayed a decrease. The entropy values were close to or above 0.80,
which can be considered high (Clark and Muthén 2009). Moreover, the latent class
probabilities stayed high (close to 0.80) for all classes up to the 5-class model and
decreased slightly for the 6-class model (see Table 2).
Statistically significant test results on the VLMR and aLRT indicated that the five-
class model fit the data better than the model with four latent classes. In fact, adding
the sixth class into the model did not result in a statistically significant improvement
in fit.
Based on the statistical criteria, most of the LPA models we tested would have
been acceptable. The VLMR and aLRT tests gave the clearest indication of the five-
class model having better model fit than the models with fewer or more latent classes.
We selected the 5-class model as it showed the best balance between parsimony
(fewer classes) and subtleness of dividing the data into more classes. The 5-class
model also had the highest entropy value indicating a high accuracy of class mem-
berships, which was favorable for the subsequent analysis with covariates. In addition,
the separation of latent profiles was validated with the analysis of variance (see
Tab le 3). In terms of content, this model provided the most comprehensive insight
into the teachers’socio-contextual burnout, by highlighting the varying emphases on
different symptoms. Hence, the final model comprised five latent profiles of the
teachers’socio-contextual burnout.
Profiles of teachers’socio-contextual burnout risk
The model with five latent profiles of the teachers’socio-contextual burnout risk achieved the
best fit with the data. The five profiles are shown in Fig. 1.
The first latent profile culled from our analysis was No burnout risk. It was the most
common profile among the teachers, with a 47% sample share. Teachers belonging to the No
burnout risk profile displayed low levels of exhaustion, inadequacy in teacher-pupil relation-
ship, and cynicism towards the professional community. The levels were statistically signif-
icantly lower than those in the other profiles (see Table 3). Hence, the teachers within this
profile showed no risk of experiencing burnout.
The second profile, the Minor burnout risk, presented one-quarter (25%) of the teachers in
the sample. The Minor burnout risk profile holders showed they experienced moderate levels
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
Table 2 Fit indices and class frequencies for latent profile analyses (LPA) with different numbers of latent classes
No. of
classes
LogL (nf) AIC BIC aBIC Entropy Latent class
probabilities
VLMR (p
value)
aLRT (p
value)
BLRT (p
value)
Class counts (most likely/posterior)a
1−11,949.32 (9) 23,916.65 23,968.35 23,939.76 N/A 1.000 N/A N/A N/A 2310/2310
2−11,728.72 (13) 23,483.44 23,558.13 23,516.83 0.796 0.96, 0.91 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1614, 696/1621, 689
3−11,634.43 (17) 23,302.86 23,400.52 23,346.51 0.796 0.95, 0.83, 0.89 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1313, 651, 346/1314, 660, 336
4−11,584.71 (21) 23,211.43 23,332.07 23,265.35 0.810 0.94, 0.84, 0.83, 0.89 0.0021 0.0025 0.0000 1096, 582, 437, 196/1116, 553, 453, 188
5−11,548.15 (25) 23,146.29 23,289.92 23,210.49 0.816 0.94,0.84,0.83,0.82,
0.76
0.0322 0.0353 0.0000 1091,573,430,130,86/ 1116,541,448,
126,79
6−11,510.49 (29) 23,078.97 23,245.58 23,153.44 0.759 0.90, 0.74, 0.79, 0.75,
0.79, 0.86
0.0949 0.1017 0.0000 985, 438, 256, 251, 242, 137/1016, 437,
249, 241, 232, 135
LogL log likelihood value, nf number of free parameters, AIC Akaike information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criterion, aBIC adjusted Bayesian information criterion, VLMR
Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test, aLRT Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjustedlikelihoodratiotest,BLRT bootstrapped likelihood ratio test. The selected model is in italics
aFinal class counts based on estimated posterior probabilities (before slash) and based on individuals’most likely latent class membership. Nis 2310
K. Pyhältö et al.
of exhaustion, inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction, and cynicism towards the professional
community. To some extent, teachers within this profile had an increased risk of developing
burnout, especially as the exhaustion, inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction, and cynicism
towards the professional community seemed to occur with slightly increased levels
simultaneously.
The third profile, the Increased exhaustion profile, represented 19% of the teachers in our
sample. The Increased exhaustion profile holders showed high levels of exhaustion together
with moderate levels of inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction and cynicism towards the
professional community. The teachers displaying the Increased exhaustion profile had in-
creased risk of burnout, as reporting high levels of exhaustion, but did not yet experience
increased sense of inadequacy in terms of teacher-pupil interaction or cynical attitudes towards
the professional community. The Increased exhaustion and the Minor burnout risk had similar
profile shapes, but the former showed a radically higher exhaustion level (see Table 3).
The fourth risk profile, the Increased exhaustion and cynicism, was presented by 6% of the
teachers. Teachers with this profile showed high levels of exhaustion and moderate levels of
cynicism towards the professional community, combined with low levels of inadequacy in
teacher-pupil relationships.
The High burnout risk profile was least commonly detected among teachers. Only 4% of
the teachers fell into this profile. Teachers belonging to this profile showed the highest levels of
exhaustion and inadequacy in terms of teacher-pupil relationships, with moderate levels of
cynicism towards the professional community (see Fig. 1).
In general, the profiles detected differed from each other in terms of all burnout
symptoms, i.e., levels of exhaustion, inadequacy, and cynicism experienced. The greatest
variation was in the exhaustion experienced, ranging from very low to very high levels.
The profiles differed from each other in terms of exhaustion, except for the Increased
exhaustion and cynicism and High burnout risk profiles (see Table 3). The levels of
inadequacy varied mostly between low and moderate, only the High burnout risk profile
showing a high level of inadequacy. All profiles differed statistically significantly from
each other in inadequacy (see Table 3). In turn, none of the profiles showed high levels
of cynicism towards the professional community, though the profiles with moderate or
low levels of cynicism were clearly distinguishable (only the Increasedexhaustionand
cynicism and High burnout risk profiles showing a similar level, as for exhaustion; see
Tab le 3).
Table 3 Means (and standard deviations in parentheses) for teacher socio-contextual burnout symptoms and
proactive strategies in latent profiles of teacher burnout
No burnout
risk
Minor burnout
risk
Increased
exhaustion
Increased exhaustion and
cynicism
High burnout
risk
Exhaustion 1.82 (0.56) 3.51 (0.60) 5.10 (0.60) 6.65 (0.66)a6.81 (0.66)a
Inadequacy 2.27 (0.97) 3.12 (1.16) 3.38 (1.22) 2.70 (1.05) 5.10 (1.09)
Cynicism 2.51 (1.26) 3.08 (1.29) 3.42 (1.36) 4.24 (1.56)a4.00 (1.53)a
Self-regulation 5.62 (0.85) 4.93 (0.90) 4.60 (1.00) 4.09 (1.21)a3.85 (1.09)a
Co-regulation 5.48 (0.79) 5.13 (0.83)b5.00 (0.88)b4.70 (1.00)a4.37 (1.08)a
One-way analysis of variance with post hoc comparisons assuming unequal variances between groups was used
for examining the mean differences between latent profiles. Matching superscript letters after the statistics
indicate which group means were similar and did not display statistically significant differences. All other
differences in group means were statistically significant at p<.05level
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
Proactive strategies as antecedents of socio-contextual burnout profiles
The results showed that the teachers had developed skills for buffering work-related stressors,
through proactive strategies. Teachers within the different profiles typically reported either a
stronger emphasis on co-regulative strategies or a similar emphasis in self- and co-regulated
strategy use (see Table 3). More specifically, the self- and co-regulation skills were high in the
No burnout risk and Minor burnout risk profiles, and especially low in the High burnout risk
and Increased exhaustion and cynicism profiles (see Table 3). Moreover, it seemed that the
intensive use of the co- and self-regulation skills decreased regularly along the increased levels
of the experienced burnout symptoms, especially in terms of the exhaustion experienced and
cynicism towards the professional community. Further investigation showed that most of the
differences in proactive strategy use were statistically significant between the profiles (see
Table 3). Accordingly, multinomial logistic regression was carried out in order to examine how
proactive strategy use was related to the membership in different latent profiles of burnout (see
Table 4).
Table 4shows that teachers displaying strong proactive strategy use in both self- and co-
regulation (high odds ratios above 1.0 with pvalue < .05) had the highest odds of belonging to
the No burnout risk profile, as opposed to the High burnout risk profile. A similar pattern is
visible for the differences between the No burnout risk profile and the two other profiles as
well, that is, Minor burnout risk and Increased exhaustion. Self-regulative strategy was a
stronger antecedent with higher odds than the co-regulative strategy in these comparisons.
A more pronounced effect of self-regulation skills is seen when using the Increased
exhaustion and cynicism profile as a reference profile: Self-regulation strategy use was
associated with the profile membership whereas co-regulation skills were not a statistically
significant antecedent of profile membership (see Table 4). The better the teachers’self-
regulation skills, the higher their odds of belonging to the No burnout risk,Minor burnout
risk,orIncreased exhaustion profile than to the Increased exhaustion and cynicism profile. A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
EXH INAD CYN
High burnout
risk (n = 86,
3.7%)
Increased
exhauson and
cynicism (n =
130, 5.6%)
Increased
exhauson (n
= 430, 18.6%)
Minor burnout
risk (n = 572,
24.8%)
No burnout
risk (n = 1091,
47.2%)
Fig. 1 Profiles of teachers’socio-contextual burnout
K. Pyhältö et al.
similar effect was detected for the Minor burnout risk profile as opposed to the Increased
exhaustion profile.
Moreover, teachers with a strong emphasis on proactive strategy use were also more likely to fall
into the Minor burnout risk or Increased exhaustion profile than to display a High burnout risk
profile. A new pattern emerged for these two profiles: While both proactive strategies were
statistically significant antecedents of membership, the co-regulation skills were a stronger anteced-
ent than self-regulation skills.
Finally, the proactive strategy use did not differentiate the Increased exhaustion and cynicism
profile and the High burnout risk profile. The reason for this might be that both profiles show high
exhaustion and moderate cynicism levels, and also similar lower levels of self- and co-regulation
skills (see Table 3).
The High burnout risk and Increased Exhaustion and cynicism profiles exhibited the lowest
frequency of self- and co-regulative strategy use (see Table 3for means). More specifically, showing
lower levels of self- and co-regulated strategy use was also related to a teacher’soddsofexhibiting
either one of these two profiles including experiencing several burnout symptoms compared to the
three profiles in which no symptoms or purely exhaustion at different levels were experienced.
Furthermore, it seemed that the self-regulation is an effective strategy in terms of buffering the
exhaustion, but not a sufficient strategy for avoiding the expansion of the exhaustion to the
experienced inadequacy in teacher-pupil relationships and cynicism towards the professional
community. All in all, the results indicated that well-developed proactive strategies, both in terms
of self- and co-regulative strategies, protect teachers from experiencing socio-contextual burnout.
Effects of gender, teaching experience, and teacher domain on burnout risk profiles
The relationship between background variables, that is, gender, teaching experience, and
teacher domain, and the teacher burnout profiles was examined using the multinomial logistic
regression within R3STEP procedure. Gender did not have statistically significant relation
with burnout profiles.
Teachers with more teaching experience had higher odds (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01–1.08;
p= .021) of belonging to the No burnout risk profile than to the High burnout risk profile.
Also, they were more likely (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.03; p= .048) to have the No burnout
risk profile as opposed to the Increased exhaustion profile.
In comparison with primary and subject teachers, special education teachers more probably
(OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.25–5.21; p= .010) belonged to the Increased exhaustion and cynicism
profile than to the Increased exhaustion profile.
Discussion
While the majority of teachers did not suffer from an increased risk of burnout, a number of teachers
displayed high levels of exhaustion and inadequacy, and even increased levels of cynicism. That is,
nearly half the teachers in the sample displayed increased burnout risk. As educational professionals
are frequently shown to experience high levels of work stress (Heus and Diekstra 1999; Perkiö-
Mäkelä 2009), the number of teachers displaying increased risk of burnout is not surprising.
However, it is thought-provoking. As our aim was not to diagnose burnout among teachers, the
profiles need to be interpreted in relation to each other. For example, teachers in the Increased
exhaustion profile experienced significantly more exhaustion than teachers within Minor burnout
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
risk. However, this does not mean that those teachers with the former profile fulfill clinical criteria of
being burnt out, but that they do entertain increased risk of developing it. Still, the large number of
teachers with increased or high risk of burnout is an alarming finding especially when taking into
account the crucial role of teachers’wellbeing in pupils’learning (Herman et al. 2018;Klusmann
2008).
The results also showed that there was considerable variation in burnout risk among in-service
teachers. Five distinct socio-contextual burnout profiles were identified, including No burnout risk,
Minor burnout risk,Increased exhaustion,Increased exhaustion and cynicism,andHigh burnout
risk profiles. Accordingly, the first hypothesis was supported by the findings. Three of the burnout
profiles were considered consistent, i.e., displaying systematically either low, moderate, or high
levels of all burnout symptoms (namely No burnout risk,Minor burnout risk,andHigh burnout risk
profiles) and two discrepant profiles, reporting increased or high levels in one or two symptoms
(Increased exhaustion and Increased exhaustion and cynicism). These findings were in line with
Table 4 Odds ratios with95% confidence intervalfor the effects of self-regulative and co-regulative strategies on
teacher burnout profile membership
Burnout profile Odds ratio LL 2.5% UL 2.5%
Reference profile: High burnout risk
No burnout risk
Self-regulation 6.265*** 3.793 10.348
Co-regulation 3.554** 1.687 7.484
Minor burnout risk
Self-regulation 2.404*** 1.487 3.885
Co-regulation 2.863** 1.373 5.972
Increased exhaustion
Self-regulation 1.859* 1.137 3.040
Co-regulation 2.804** 1.313 5.987
Increased exhaustion and cynicism
Self-regulation 1.092 0.556 2.143
Co-regulation 2.411 0.851 6.826
Reference profile: Increased exhaustion and cynicism
No burnout risk
Self-regulation 5.743*** 3.973 8.302
Co-regulation 1.474 0.926 2.346
Minor burnout risk
Self-regulation 2.203*** 1.564 3.105
Co-regulation 1.188 0.749 1.882
Increased exhaustion
Self-regulation 1.704** 1.188 2.444
Co-regulation 1.163 0.715 1.891
Reference profile: Increased exhaustion
No burnout risk
Self-regulation 3.370*** 2.825 4.020
Co-regulation 1.267* 1.056 1.521
Minor burnout risk
Self-regulation 1.293** 1.092 1.530
Co-regulation 1.021 0.826 1.262
Reference profile: Minor burnout risk
No burnout risk
Self-regulation 2.606*** 2.189 3.103
Co-regulation 1.241* 1.044 1.475
LL lower limit of the confidence interval, UL upper limit
*p<.05; **p< .01; ***p<.001
K. Pyhältö et al.
previous studies on teacher burnout profiles (Brudnik, 2011;Mojsa-Kajaetal.2015;Tikkanen et al.
2017). However, the results expand the previous research on teacher burnout profiles by showing
more fine-grained socio-contextualized differences in teacher burnout profiles, in terms of the levels
of general work-related exhaustion, cynicism towards the professional community, and experienced
inadequacy in teacher-pupil interactions. The results imply that there is variation in the primary
sources of burnout among in-service teachers: some of the teachers seem to experience interaction in
a professional community as being especially burdensome, while for others, the general work
overload seemed to be the dominant stressor.
The results showed that the teacher burnout profiles differed from each other primarily in terms of
the exhaustion experienced. Yet, those teachers who suffered from high levels of exhaustion also
tended to suffer from cynicism towards the professional community. A reason for this alignment of
experienced exhaustion and cynicism across the profiles may be that exhaustion decreases the
toleration of negotiating the different, or even contradictory, professional views and affairs in the
professional community. This may further trigger alienation from colleagues and eventually lead to
experiencing cynicism towards the professional community (see also Pietarinen et al. 2013a). The
results also showed that inadequacy in terms of teacher-pupil interaction was less systematically
aligned with exhaustion and cynicism within the teacher burnout profiles. This may imply that
inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction develops somewhat independently from general work-
related exhaustion and cynicism towards the professional community (see Maslach and Leiter
2008; Skaalvik and Skaalvik 2017). The results also imply that exhaustion is a crucial determinant
triggering teacher burnout risk, and further, had the most significant variation in the different teacher
burnout profiles in the sample.
Our study contributes to the literature on teachers’socio-contextual burnout prevention (Pyhältö
et al. 2011, Pietarinen et al. 2013a) by being one of the first studies to explore the function of
proactive strategy use in reducing teacher burnout. The results showed that the teachers with
different burnout profiles typically reported quite high levels of proactive strategy use in buffering
work-related stressors. Moreover, the high level of use of both self- and co-regulative strategies was
related to lower risk of experiencing socio-contextual burnout. This implies that utilizing proactive
strategies (Pietarinen et al. 2013a;Straudetal.2015) that not only aim to cope with immediate
stressors, but also to buffer potential stressors in advance by building and using resources, is a
functional way to prevent teacher burnout. However, differences between the burnout profiles, in
terms of proactive strategy use, also occurred, suggesting that there could be individual variations in
the effect of proactive strategies on burnout symptoms (see also Herman et al. 2018; Kanayama et al.
2016). Reporting high levels of proactive strategy use was related to a high probability in belonging
to the No burnout risk or Minor burnout risk profiles, compared with other less favorable profiles.
Moreover, the results suggested that self- and co-regulative strategy use played partly different
functions. Self-regulative strategies were particularly associated with reduced risk of experiencing
exhaustion, whereas employing both strong self- and co-regulative strategies and co-regulation-
dominated strategies was related to decreased risk of experiencing all the socio-contextual burnout
symptoms. This implies that a balanced combination of self- and co-regulative strategies and co-
regulation-dominated strategies can be effective in reducing teacher burnout, whereas the role of
self-regulation is more ambiguous. The results imply that self-regulation provides an effective
strategy in buffering exhaustion, but it is not by itself a sufficient strategy for avoiding the burnout
syndrome. Hence, our second and third hypotheses were partly supported.
The results imply that the utilization of mere self-regulation strategies was related to
increased risk of experiencing cynicism or inadequacy at work. An explanation may be that
if a teacher experiences a mismatch between themselves and professional community or
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
constantly experiences failures in teacher-pupil interaction, they are likely to distance them-
selves from the primary arenas of teacher’s work. Thus, when facing or anticipating stressors,
they are more inclined to employ a high degree of self-regulation than co-regulation, for
instance. However, the balanced use of both self and co-regulative strategies would provide a
more effective way to buffer all burnout symptoms, and further, renewing the constructive
match between the teachers and working environment. Accordingly, further studies, particu-
larly longitudinal person-oriented studies on proactive regulation strategies, are needed to test
these assumptions.
Our results indicated that burnout risk was related to background variables, i.e., teaching
experience and teacher domain. The more years of teaching experience a teacher had, the
lower the burnout risk was. In addition, special education teachers seemed to be at higher risk
of burnout, especially in terms of increased cynicism, compared with primary and subject
teachers. However, no differences in burnout risk were identified between female and male
teachers. Thus, our fourth hypothesis was partly supported.
Practical implications
The results revealed that nearly half the teachers in our sample demonstrated an indicative risk of
burnout. This implies that more attention should be paid to teachers’wellbeing. Teachers’working
conditions should be considered from the perspective of teachers’wellbeing (Herman et al. 2018).
Facilitating the learning of proactive strategies, including both self- and co-regulative strategies
among in-service teachers, has a significant potential for preventing teacher burnout. Results showed
that the utilization of proactive strategies was related to lower burnout risk among the teachers,
although the strategies had distinctively different roles in it. This implies that these strategies
constitute a different set of skills and therefore require a different kind of learning. As early career
teachers seemed to have higher burnout risk compared with more experienced teachers, the findings
have significant implications for teacher education: both self- and co-regulative skills need to be not
only acknowledged but also built as a part of becoming a competent teacher both in pre-service and
in-service teacher education. In particular, learning to regulate one’s actions, particularly with others,
is a demanding skill that calls for intentionally constructed learning situations in which teachers and
teacher students can try out and experience co-regulation.
Our results showed that both the in-service teachers’risk of experiencing burnout and the
dominant symptoms experienced varied. This implies that it would be important to identify teachers
at risk at the earliest possible stages of symptom onset. In addition, the means of relieving work
overload should be adapted according to the dominant symptom(s). For example, effective methods
to ease experienced exhaustion are likely to be different from functional means to reduce experi-
enced cynicism towards the teacher community and/or inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction. To
buffer burnout effectively, it is crucial not only to identify the individual causes of stress but also
attempt to find incisive ways to support teachers in avoiding full-blown burnout. It is also important
to acknowledge that methods that support individual wellbeing may be collective in nature and
require measures at the level of the teacher community.
Methodological limitations
In this study, the person-oriented methodological approach was utilized. The approach
made it possible to account for the inter-individual variation by extracting latent
burnout profiles among Finnish teachers. Along with the advantages of model-based
K. Pyhältö et al.
estimation and multitude of statistical criteria for model selection, mixture modeling
still includes issues of selecting the most appropriate number of latent classes as well
as convergence issues in estimation (Berlin et al. 2014). Convergence issues were
avoided by keeping the model simple enough. As recommended in the literature
(Asparouhov and Muthén 2014), we used the three-step approach to analyze the
effects of the proactive strategies as exogenous covariates of burnout profiles. It is
not suggested that the effects of proactive strategies are causal in nature, due to the
cross-sectional design of the study. However, the results revealed the dynamic inter-
play between the proactive strategies adopted by teachers and the experienced burnout
symptoms.
Even though the study’s response rate was moderate, the representativeness of the
sample was acceptable (see also Pietarinen et al. 2013b). Earlier studies have shown
that, particularly when a probability sampling method is utilized, the representative-
ness of the sample is a more important criterion for evaluating the validity of the
study than the response rate (Krosnick 1999;Cooketal.2000).Thedatacontained
cases with complete records to except few, and hence, did not contain systematic data
loss patterns. The respondents also used the whole item scale and the data did not
include outliers. The majority of the respondents were women and they were slightly
over-represented in the sample.
Although the construct validity of the scales used in this cross-sectional study was
adequate, further construct validation of the scales introduced in the study is needed
(see also Pietarinen et al. 2013b). The validity and reliability of the co- and self-
regulative strategy measures could be increased by constructing additional items for
both subscales. The co-regulation subscale particularly requires further refinement. The
developed burnout scale sufficiently specified the social contexts of experienced
cynicism and inadequacy in teachers’work and general exhaustion.
The scales developed made it possible to differentiate the teacher profiles in terms
of burnout symptoms typical in the teaching profession. However, the validity of the
measures could be increased by exploiting the instruments in other educational
contexts and with larger data sets. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed to
strengthen the consistency of the developed scales and to understand how these novel
teacher profiles that seem to be associated with the proactive strategies adopted by
teachers develop and evolve over time.
Conclusions
The results showed that nearly half the teachers in our sample demonstrated different
combinations of burnout symptoms, and hence were an indicative risk of gradually
proceeding burnout. However, considerable variation among in-service teachers, in
terms of their risk of experiencing burnout, was detected. Five latent socio-
contextual burnout profiles were identified. Proactive strategies, both in terms of
self- and co-regulative strategies, protect teachers from experiencing socio-contextual
burnout.
Funding information Open access funding provided by University of Helsinki. This work was financially
supported by the Academy of Finland under Grants [295022] and [326647].
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
Appendix. The scales and items of teacher burnout and proactive
strategies (translated from Finnish)
Scales and items*
Socio-contextual teacher burnout inventory (STBI)
Exhaustion (EXH) (3 items)
Exh11: Stress means a situation in which a person feels tense, restless, nervous or anxious or is unable to sleep
at night because his/her mind is troubled all the time. Do you feel this kind of work-related stress?1
Exh12: I feel burnt out.
Exh13: With this work pace I don’t think I’ll make it to the retiring age.
Cynicism towards the teacher community (CYN) (3 items)
Cyn21: I’m disappointed in our teacher community’s ways of handling our shared affairs.
Cyn22: In spite of several efforts to develop the working habits of our teacher community they haven’t really
changed.
Cyn23: I often feel like an outsider in my work community.
Inadequacy in teacher-pupil interaction (INAD) (3 items)
Inad31: The challenging pupils make me question my abilities as a teacher.
Inad32: I often feel I have failed in my work with pupils.
Inad33: Dealing with problem situations considering my pupils often upsets me.
Proactive strategies for reducing teachers’socio-contextual burnout symptoms
Self-regulation (SREG) (4 items)
Stra11: I’m able to control my work pace in the busy school work schedule.
Stra12: I can set limits to my work assignments.
Stra13: I know when it’s time for me to adjust my work pace.
Stra14: It’s possible to learn to adjust the way you manage your work strain.
Co-regulation (CREG) (3 items)
Stra21: I’m able to support the colleagues who feel strain in their work.
Stra22: I’m asking my colleagues for support when facing exhausting work situations.
Stra23: I’m getting better and better in recognizing the situations in which I have succeeded as a teacher.
*The item scale: completely disagree—1234567—completely agree.1Except for the item Exh11 that was
measured on a 10-point scale from 1 = not at all to 10 = very much
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and
indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's
Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included
in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy
of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Aho, E., Pitkänen, K., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy development and reform principles in basic and secondary
education in Finland since 1968. Education working paper series 2. World Bank.
Akça, F., & Yaman, B. (2010). The effects of internal-external locus of control variables on burnout levels of teachers.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3976–3980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.626.
Aloe, A. M., Shisler, S. M., Norris, B. D., Nickerson, A. B., & Rinker, T. W. (2014). A multivariate meta-analysis
of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30–44. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.003.
Arnold, J., Randall, R., Patterson, F., Silvester, J., Robertson, I., Cooper, C., & Hartog, D. D. (2010). Wor k
psychology: understanding human behaviour in the workplace (5th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
K. Pyhältö et al.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: three-step approaches using
Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10705511.2014.915181.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological
Bulletin, 121(3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.417.
Austin, V., Shah, S., & Muncer, S. (2005). Teacher stress and coping strategies used to reduce stress.
Occupational Therapy International, 12(2), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.16.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Demerouti, E., Janssen, P. P., van der Hulst, R., & Brouwer, J. (2000). Using
equity theory to examine the difference between burnout and depression. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 13(3),
247–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800008549265.
Bauer, B. J., & Curran, P. J. (2003). Distributional assumptions of growth mixture models: implications for over
extraction of latent trajectory classes. Psychological Methods, 8(3), 338–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-
989X.8.3.338.
Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2018). The effects of principals’communication practices on teachers’emotional
distress. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4), 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1741143217694894.
Berlin, K. S., Williams, N. A., & Parra, G. R. (2014). An introduction to latent variable mixture modeling (part
1): overview and cross-sectional latent class and latent profile analyses. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
39(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst084.
Bianchi, R., Schonfeld, I. S., & Laurent, E. (2015). Is burnout separable from depression in cluster analysis? A
longitudinal study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50(6), 1005–1011. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00127-014-0996-8.
Brewer, E. W., & Shapard, L. (2004). Employee burnout: a meta-analysis of the relationship between age or years of
experience. Human Resource Development Review, 3(2), 102–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484304263335.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in
classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(99)00057-8.
Brudnik, M. (2004). Burnout in physical training teachers: a macro-path of professional burnout. Acta
Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Gymnica, 34,7–17.
Brudnik, M. (2011). Professional burnout in female and male physical education teachers: a four-phase
typological model. Human Movement, 12(2), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10038-011-0018-6.
Cano-Garcia, F. J., Padilla-Muñoz, E. M., & Carrasco-Ortiz, M. A. (2005). Personality and contextual variables
in teacher burnout. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(4), 929–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2004.06.018.
Carmona, C., Buunk, A. P., Peiro, J. M., Rodriguez, I., & Bravo, M. J. (2006). Do social comparison and coping
styles play a role in the development of burnout? Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X40808.
Clark, S. & Muthén, B. (2009). Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis.
https://www.statmodel.com/download/relatinglca.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2019.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based
surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1177
/00131640021970934.
Devos, C., Dupriez, V., & Paquay, L. (2012). Does the social working environment predict beginning teachers’
self-efficacy and feelings of depression? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 206–217. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.008.
Dorman, J. P. (2003). Relationship between school and classroom environment and teacher burnout: a LISREL
analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 6(2), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023296126723.
Dupriez, V., Delvaux, B., & Lothaire, S. (2016). Teacher shortage and attrition: why do they leave? British
Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3193.
Elo, A.-L., Leppänen, A., & Jahkola, A. (2003). Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 29(6), 444–451.
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: the
role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4),
514–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013.
Finnish Advisory Board for Research Integrity (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and
behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review.https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf.
Accessed 28 July 2019.
Foley, C., & Murphy, M. (2015). Burnout in Irish teachers: investigating the role of individual differences, work
environment and coping factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50,46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2015.05.001.
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues, 30,159–165. https://doi.org/10.1111
/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x.
García-Carmona, M., Marín, M. D., & Aguayo, R. (2018). Burnout syndrome in secondary school teachers: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 22(1), 189–208. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11218-018-9471-9.
Gavish, B., & Friedman, I. A. (2010). Novice teachers’experience of teaching: a dynamic aspect of burnout.
Social Psychology of Education, 13(2), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9108-0.
Goddard, R., & Goddard, M. (2006). Beginning teacher burnout in Queensland schools: associations with serious
intentions to leave. The Australian Educational Researcher, 33(2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216834.
Grossi, G. (1999). Coping and emotional distress in a sample of Swedish unemployed. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 40(3), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/146 7-945 0.00113.
Gustems-Carnicer, J., & Calderón, C. (2013). Coping strategies and psychological well-being among teacher
education students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1127–1140. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10212-012-0158-x.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers.
Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001.
Harmsen, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Maulana, R., & van Veen, K. (2018). The relationship between beginning
teachers’stress causes, stress responses, teaching behaviour, and attrition. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6),
626–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1465404.
Herman, K. C., Hickmon-Rosa, J., & Reinke, W. M. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717732066.
Heus, P., & Diekstra, R. (1999). Do teachers burn out more easily? A comparison of teachers with other social
professions on work stress and burnout symptoms. In R. Vandenberghe & A. Huberman (Eds.),
Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: a sourcebook of international research and practice (The
Jacobs Foundation Series on Adolescence) (pp. 269–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527784.019.
Holland, R. P. (1982). Special educator burnout. Educational Horizons, 60(2), 58–64.
Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2004). Resilient teachers: resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of
Education, 7(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-004-0975-0.
Hultell, D., Melin, B., & Gustavsson, J. P. (2013). Getting personal with teacher burnout: a longitudinal study on
the development of burnout using a person-based approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32,75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.007.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B. A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in the coping
process: testing an integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 177–195. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0013214.
Kanayama, M., Suzuki, M., & Yuma, Y. (2016). Longitudinal burnout collaboration patterns in Japanese medical
care workers at special needs schools: a latent class growth analysis. Psychology Research and Behavior
Management, 9,139–146. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S93846.
Kieschke, U., & Schaarschmidt, U. (2008). Professional commitment and health among teachers in Germany. A
typological approach. Learning & Instruction, 18(5), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2008.06.005.
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. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0019237.
Klassen, R. M., & Durksen, T. L. (2014). Weekly self-efficacy and work stress during the teaching practicum: a mixed
methods study. Learning and Instruction, 33, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.003.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Engagement and emotional
exhaustion in teachers: does school context make a difference? Health and Wellbeing, 57,127–151.
https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1464-0597.2 008.00358.x.
Kokkinos, M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 77(1), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X90344.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567. https://doi.org/10.1146
/annurev.psych.50.1.537.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00131910120033628.
Länsikallio, R., Kinnunen, K., & Ilves, V. (2018). Opetusalan työolobarometri 2017. OAJ:n julkaisusarja, 5,2018
https://www.oaj.fi/globalassets/julkaisut/2018/tyoolobarometri_final_0905_sivut.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2019.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: Springer.
K. Pyhältö et al.
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2016). Latent burnout profiles: a new approach to understanding the burnout
experience. Burnout Research, 3,89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2016.09.001.
Leung, D. Y. P., & Lee, W. W. S. (2006). Predicting intention to quit among Chinese teachers: differential
predictability of the component of burnout. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 19(2), 129–141. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10615800600565476.
Mäkikangas, A., & Kinnunen, U. (2016). The person-oriented approach to burnout: a systematic review. Burnout
Research, 3(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2015.12.002.
Maslach, C. (2015). Burnout, Psychology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences,
2nd edition. 2, 929–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26009-1929.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational
Behaviour, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(3), 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2013). A person-centered approach to the study of commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 23, 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.07.007.
Milfont, T. L., Denny, S. J., Ameratunga, S. N., Robinson, E. M., & Merry, S. N. (2008). Burnout and wellbeing:
testing the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in New Zealand teachers. Social Indicators Research, 89(1),
169–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9229-9.
Mojsa-Kaja, J., Golonga, K., & Tadeusz, M. (2015). Job burnout and engagement among teachers –worklife
areas and personality traits as predictors of relationships with work. International Journal of Occupational
Medicine and Environmental Health, 28(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00238.
Montgomery, C., & Rupp, A. A. (2005). A meta-analysis for exploring the diverse causes and effects of stress in
teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 458–486. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126479.
Muthén, B. (2003). Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modeling: comment on Bauer and
Curran (2003). Psychological Methods, 8(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.369.
Muthén,L.K.&Muthén,B.O.(1998–2015). Mplus user’sguide(7th ed). Los Angeles, CA.
National Board of Education (2010). Opettajat Suomessa [The Healthy Organization Barometer].http://www.
oph.fi/julkaisut/2011/opettajat_suomessa_2010. Accessed 3 April 2012.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis
and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–
569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396.
Parker, P. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. (2012). Teachers’workplace well-being: explorin g a
process model of goal orientation, coping behavior, engagement, and burnout. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.001.
Peeters, M. A. G., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Time management behavior as a moderator for the job demand-control
interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.1.64.
Perkiö-Mäkelä, M. (2009). Koulutus [Education]. In T. Kauppinen, R. Hanhela, I. Kandolin, A. Karjalainen, A.
Kasvio, M. Perkiö-Mäkelä, E. Priha, J. Toikkanen, & M. Viluksela (Eds.), Työ ja terveys Suomessa 2009.
[Work and health in Finland 2009] (pp. 234–238). Työterveyslaitos: Helsinki.
Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013a). Reducing teacher burnout: a socio-contextual
approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35,62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.003.
Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013b). Validity and reliability of the socio-contextual
teacher burnout inventory (STBI). Psychology,4(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.41010
Purvanova, R. K., & Muros, J. P. (2010). Gender differences in burnout: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 77, 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.006.
Pyhältö, 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(7), 1101–1110. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.05.006
Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, K., & Soini, T. (2015). Teachers’professional agency and learning –from adaption to
active modification in the teacher community. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(7), 811–830.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.995483.
Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2018). Dynamic and shared sense-making in large-scale curriculum reform in
school districts. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1447306.
Richards, K. A. R., Hemphill, M. A., & Templin, T. J. (2018). Personal and contextual factors related to teachers’
experience with stress and burnout. Teachers and Teaching,24(7), 768–787. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13540602.2018.1476337. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.07.012
Saleh, P., & Shapiro, C. M. (2008). Disturbed sleep and burnout: implications for long-term health. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 65(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.05.028.
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
Salmela-Aro, K. (2009). Personal goals and well-being during critical life transitions: The four C’s—channel-
ling, choice, co-agency and compensation. Advances in Life Course Research, 14(1–2), 63–73. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.alcr.2009.03.003.
Salmela-Aro, K., Hietajärvi, L., & Lonka, K. (2019). Work burnout and engagement profiles among teachers.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02254.
Santavirta, N., Solovieva, S., & Theorell, T. (2007). The association between job strain and emotional exhaustion
in a cohort of 1,028 Finnish teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(Pt 1), 213–228.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X92045.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2018). Burnout in Europe. Relations with national economy,governance,and culture.Research
Unit Occupational & Organizational Psychology and Professional Learning (internal report). KU Leuven,
Belgium. https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/500.pdf Accessed 14 Nov 2019.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2003). Burnout: an overview of 25 years of research in theorizing. In M. J. Winnubst &
C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 383–425). Chichester: Wiley.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout:
mediation analyses. Applied Psychology, 57, 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x.
Sharplin, E., O’Neill, M., & Chapman, A. (2011). Coping strategies for adaptation to new teacher appointments:
intervention for retention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2010.07.010.
Shin, H., Noh, H., Jang, Y., Park, Y. M., & Lee, S. M. (2013). A longitudinal examination of the relationship
between teacher burnout and depression. Journal of Employment Counseling, 50,124–137. https://doi.
org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2013.00031.x.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job
satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.006.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Dimensions of teacher burnout: relations with potential stressors at
school. Social Psychology of Education, 20(4), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9391-0.
Smith, K., & Lev-Ari, L. (2005). The place of the practicum in pre-service teacher education: the voice of the
students. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13598660500286333.
Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Haverinen, K., Jindal-Snape, D., & Kontu, E. (2019). Special education
teachers’experienced burnout and perceived fit with the professional community: a 5-year follow-up study.
British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 622–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3516.
Straud, C., McNaughton-Cassill, M., & Fuhrman, R. (2015). The role of the Five Factor Model of personality
with proactive coping and preventive coping among college students. Personality and Individual
Differences, 83,60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.055.
Tikkanen, L., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2017). Interrelations between principals’risk of burnout
profiles and proactive self-regulation strategies. Social Psychology of Education, 20(2), 259–274. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11218-017-9379-9.
Timms, C., Brough, P., & Graham, D. (2012). Burnt-out but engaged: the co-existence of psychological burnout and
engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(3), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211223338.
Van Droogenbroeck, F., Spruyt, B., & Vanroelen, C. (2014). Burnout among senior teachers: investigating the
role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43,99–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.00.
Väisänen, S., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., & Soini, T. (2018). Student teachers’proactive strategies for
avoiding study-related burnout during teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3),
301–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1448777
Virtanen, T. E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Kuorelahti, M. (2018). Student engagement and school
burnout in Finnish lower secondary schools: latent profile analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 62(4), 519–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1258669.
Volgast, A., & Fischer, N. (2016). You are not alone: colleague support and goal-oriented cooperation as resources to
reduce teachers’stress. Social Psychology of Education, 20(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9366-1.
Kirsi Pyhältö. Centre for University Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of
Helsinki, P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 1B), 00014, Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: kirsi.pyhalto@helsinki.fi
Current themes of research:
Interrelated nature of teachers’regulation strategies, agency, and wellbeing. Student adjustment and learning
agency. Comparative research on active and intentional early career in-service teacher learning. Early-career in-
service teachers’professional agency. Regulators in different national contexts. https://www.learninginschool.fi
K. Pyhältö et al.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Pyhältö, K. Pietarinen, K. & Soini, T. (2015). Teachers’professional agency and learning –from adaption to
active modification in the teacher community. Teachers and teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(7), 811–830.
DOI:10.1080/13540602.2014.995483.
Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J. & Soini, T. (2018).Dynamic and shared sense-making in large-scale curriculum reform
in school districts. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 181–200. DOI:10.1080/09585176.2018.1447306.
Janne Pietarinen. School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education,University of Eastern Finland,
P.O. Box 111 (Yliopistokatu 2), 80101, Joensuu, Finland. E-mail: janne.pietarinen@uef.fi
Current themes of research:
Interrelated nature of teachers’regulation strategies, agency, and wellbeing. Student adjustment and learning
agency. Comparative research on active and intentional early career in-service teacher learning. Early-career
in-service teachers’professional agency. Regulators in different national contexts. https://www.
learninginschool.fi
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K. & Soini, T. (2014). Student’s emotional and cognitive engagement as the determinants
of well-being and achievement in school. International Journal of Educational Research,67,40–51. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijer.2014.05.001.
Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Reducing teacher burnout: a sociocontextual
approach. Teaching and Teacher Education,35,62–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.003.
Kaisa Haverinen. School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University ofEastern Finland,
P.O. Box 111 (Yliopistokatu 2), 80101, Joensuu, Finland. E-mail: kaisa.haverinen@uef.fi
Current themes of research:
Interrelated nature of teachers’regulation strategies, agency, and wellbeing. Student adjustment and learning
agency. Comparative research on active and intentional early career in-service teacher learning. Early-career
in-service teachers’professional agency. Regulators in different national contexts. https://www.
learninginschool.fi
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Haverinen, K., Jindal-Snape, D. & Kontu, E. (2019). Special education
teachers’experienced burnout and perceived fit with the professional community: a 5‐year follow‐up study.
British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 622–639. DOI:10.1002/berj.3516.
Lotta Tikkanen. Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 1B),
00014, Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: lotta.tikkanen@helsinki.fi
Current themes of research:
Interrelated nature of teachers’regulation strategies, agency, and wellbeing. Student adjustment and learning
agency. Comparative research on active and intentional early career in-service teacher learning. Early-career
in-service teachers’professional agency. Regulators in different national contexts. https://www.
learninginschool.fi
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies
Tikkanen, L., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J. & Soini, T. (2017). Interrelations between principals’risk of burnout
profiles and proactive self-regulation strategies. Social Psychology of Education,20(2),259–274.
DOI:10.1007/s11218-017-9379-9.
Tiina Soini. Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, P.O. Box 700, FI-33014, Tampere, Finland.
E-mail: tiina.soini-ikonen@tuni.fi
Current themes of research:
Interrelated nature of teachers’regulation strategies, agency, and wellbeing. Student adjustment and learning
agency. Comparative research on active and intentional early career in-service teacher learning. Early-career
in-service teachers’professional agency. Regulators in different national contexts. https://www.
learninginschool.fi
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Soini, T., Pietarinen, J. & Pyhältö, K. (2016). What if teachers learn in the classroom? Teacher Development,
20(3), 380–397. DOI:10.1080/13664530.2016.1149511.
Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Haverinen, K., Jindal-Snape, D. & Kontu, E. (2019). Special education
teachers’experienced burnout and perceived fit with the professional community: a 5‐year follow‐up study.
British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 622–639. DOI:10.1002/berj.3516.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Affiliations
Kirsi Pyhältö
1,5
&Janne Pietarinen
2
&Kaisa Haverinen
2
&Lotta Tikkanen
3
&Tiina Soini
4
Kirsi Pyhältö
kirsi.pyhalto@helsinki.fi
Janne Pietarinen
janne.pietarinen@uef.fi
Kaisa Haverinen
kaisa.haverinen@uef.fi
Tiin a Soini
tiina.soini-ikonen@tuni.fi
1
Centre for University Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki,
P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 1B), 00014 Helsinki, Finland
2
School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111
(Yliopistokatu 2), 80101 Joensuu, Finland
3
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 1B),
00014 Helsinki, Finland
4
Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, P.O. Box 700, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland
5
Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
K. Pyhältö et al.