خطر فرسودگی شغلی در میان دانشجویان معلم سال اول: نقش شخصیت و انگیزش

The present study identified individual variables by which first-year teacher students' risk for burnout can be detected at an early stage. We analyzed a sample of teacher students (n = 559) and a control group of psychology students (n = 150) by using multinomial logistic regression analyses. We estimated the impact of personality (Five-Factor model) and motivation for choosing teacher education on work-related coping behavior and experiences (WCEP types: healthy-ambitious, unambitious, excessively-ambitious, and risk for burnout). Neuroticism and the extrinsic motivation of choosing teacher education (the assumed low difficulty of studies) were risk factors for unhealthy, stress-related coping behavior and experiences. In contrast, high levels of extraversion and conscientiousness as well as intrinsic motivation for choosing teacher education (subject-specific interest) were related to healthy-ambitious behavior. Relations of personality and stress-related WCEP types were partially moderated according to field of study (teaching versus psychology). Our results are of particular importance for improving counseling programs that advise prospective teacher students regarding their individual fit to the requirements and challenges of the teaching profession and for correcting false expectations about study demands.

The teaching profession is associated with various demands, such as high workload, pupil misbehavior, and lack of reciprocity in social-exchange relationships (Montgomery and Rupp, 2005 and Van Horn et al., 1999). Accordingly, de Heus and Diekstra (1999) provided evidence for teachers showing more psychological and physical stress symptoms than other occupational groups. Consequences of teacher stress and high levels of burnout are far reaching. On the one hand, burnout symptoms have been shown to predict health problems such as depressive symptoms, cardiovascular diseases, or sleep disturbances (Ahola and Hakanen, 2007 and Saleh and Shapiro, 2008). In Germany, about half of teachers retire early, mainly due to psychological and psychosomatic disorders (Weber, Weltle, & Lederer, 2003). On the other hand, teachers' feelings of exhaustion have been linked to the quality of instruction (Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2008). Consequently, detecting factors by which stress-related health problems among teachers can be predicted and prevented at an early stage is not only important for individual teachers, but also for their students and society in general. However, most empirical studies thus far have focused on samples of working teachers and investigated professional demands. In contrast, a growing body of research underlines the importance of teachers' individual characteristics (for an overview, see Schaufeli & Buunk, 2003). In meta-analytic examinations, neuroticism has shown to strongly and positively correlate with the burnout symptoms emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, while extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness have shown moderate negative correlations (Alarcon et al., 2009 and Swider and Zimmerman, 2010). These relations may be mediated by the association of personality traits with coping mechanisms (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995): Especially neuroticism is associated with supposedly less functional coping behavior, such as wishful thinking or focusing on negative emotions. In contrast, extraversion and conscientiousness are positively correlated with problem-solving behavior and cognitive restructuring (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). However, previous research also suggested that relationships between personality traits and coping might be moderated by contextual factors. For example, stronger correlations between personality traits and a set of coping mechanisms were observed in samples reporting high stress levels than in those estimated in average-stress groups (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Carver and Connor-Smith (2010) further argued that the context of stressors influences the relevance of personality traits for stress coping. In this sense, the impact of personality on work-related coping behavior may not be comparable across occupational groups. Thus, it seems particularly important to identify personality traits that are predictive of specific work-related coping behavior and experience patterns in teacher education. Another promising predictor of burnout symptoms was identified by studies on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the context of academic training: Psychology students who were intrinsically motivated to learn, to accomplish things, and to experience stimulation reported lower levels of stress than students who were extrinsically motivated (Baker, 2004). Moneta and Spada (2009) further reported findings of intrinsic motivation being related to approach coping among undergraduate students, whereas extrinsic motivation was associated with avoidance coping. These findings suggest that the high levels of burnout among teachers might partially be due to the fact that some individuals already show unfavorable characteristics at the beginning of teacher education. In the present study, we therefore focused on identifying factors by which an individual's risk of ineffective stress coping and vulnerability to burnout could be detected at an early stage. For this purpose, the work-related coping behavior and experience patterns (WCEP; Kieschke and Schaarschmidt, 2008 and Schaarschmidt and Fischer, 2008) offer a useful conceptualization of the interplay between vocational engagement and individual coping capacity. Subscales measuring the three dimensions professional commitment, coping capacity, and subjective well-being (in the context of work) are used to derive typical work-related coping behavior and experience patterns, namely, healthy-ambitious (type H), unambitious (type U), excessively ambitious (type A), and risk for burnout (type B). The aim of the present study was to identify correlates of stress-related coping behavior patterns that are specific for teacher students at the beginning of their academic studies. By identifying correlates of ineffective coping behavior and experiences such as personality traits or motives for career choice, it may be possible to detect burnout risk at an early stage before prospective teachers even take up their studies. We assumed that neuroticism and extrinsic motives for choosing teacher education would be positively related to the stress-related risk patterns of types A and B. In contrast, extraversion, conscientiousness, and intrinsic motives should be related to the favorable type H. To verify these assumptions, we analyzed two models. First, we tested for the effects of personality (Five-Factor model) on the four WCEP types (H, U, A, B) and for the moderating role of field of study (teaching versus psychology). Psychology students were thought to represent a suitable control group for two reasons: On the one hand, the samples share important characteristics. Both first-year teacher students and first-year psychology students face academic stressors and need to socialize and identify with their student roles. Moreover, students of both groups have chosen occupations that are characterized by interpersonal interactions (teaching; caregiving). Due to the emotional challenges associated with working with people, a large body of burnout research has focused on professions in human services and the educational sectors (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). On the other hand, the sample of teacher students differs from the sample of psychology students as regards the occupation-specific challenges they face during studies and internships (e.g., coping with pupil misbehavior; learning how to teach). Second, we investigated whether motivation for enrolling in teacher education studies was incrementally related to work-related coping behavior and experience patterns beyond the influence of personality.

3. Results Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and Pearson correlations are reported in Table 1 (detailed information about descriptive statistics for WCEP types within the samples can be obtained from the first author on request). All scales showed good reliability estimates (α ≥ .71). Sample 2 was slightly older, F(1, 707) = 5.66, p = .02, d = .22, and the proportion of female participants was higher (OR = .65, CI = .44–.97) than in sample 1. In regard to the work-related coping behavior and experience patterns, a significantly higher proportion of individuals from sample 2 were assigned to type B than from sample 1 (OR = 2.33, CI = 1.40–3.87). In sum, 146 (26.12%) and 28 (18.67%) participants were assigned to type H, 157 (28.09%) and 40 (26.67%) to type U, 126 (22.54%) and 24 (16.00%) to type A, and 130 (23.26%) and 58 (38.67%) to type B for samples 1 and 2, respectively. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability estimates for the five personality dimensions, the six motivational subscales, and the eleven scales assessing work-related coping behavior and experience patterns. N E O A C F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 M SD N (.86) − .33 − .12 − .25 − .29 .02 .05 .28 .16 − .45 .62 − .47 − .54 − .36 − .60 − .38 2.88 .65 E − .38 (.74) .21 .34 .12 .08 .17 − .10 − .14 .11 − .14 .15 − .02 .24 .48 .33 3.43 .47 O − .04 .08 (.74) .13 − .01 .04 − .04 − .06 .07 .07 − .19 .07 .12 − .01 .07 .00 3.71 .52 A − .22 .29 .13 (.76) .12 .05 − .05 − .06 − .01 .08 − .20 .16 .24 .09 .42 .38 3.64 .48 C − .24 .15 .03 .27 (.85) .18 .41 .31 .48 − .09 − .01 .31 .10 .32 .18 .11 3.54 .54 F1 − .07 .29 .17 .29 .19 (.89) F2 − .05 .14 .11 .14 .13 .22 (.71) F3 − .16 .18 .17 .10 .28 .37 .21 (.79) F4 − .02 .12 − .11 − .06 − .03 − .08 .04 .07 (.85) F5 .10 − .14 − .14 − .14 − .20 − .20 − .01 − .17 .04 (.80) F6 .04 .09 − .13 − .02 .00 .08 .18 .12 .23 .16 (.83) W1 .02 .05 − .05 .04 .31 .19 .22 .17 − .10 − .03 .20 (.80) .39 .32 .24 − .31 − .01 .13 .04 .17 .01 − .01 2.53 .61 W2 .04 .11 − .15 .04 .35 .09 .21 .16 .09 − .02 .24 .46 (.82) .42 .39 − .29 .19 .18 − .17 .37 − .01 .00 3.61 .69 W3 .18 .05 − .07 − .02 .34 .13 .11 .08 − .01 .01 .05 .42 .48 (.75) .58 − .50 .22 .12 − .26 − .05 − .24 − .15 2.84 .69 W4 .11 .01 − .05 .07 .45 .13 .19 .12 .03 − .13 .06 .31 .46 .54 (.84) − .42 .23 .17 − .03 − .01 − .19 − .22 3.45 .72 W5 − .20 .13 − .04 .01 − .22 − .08 − .10 − .08 .08 .03 − .04 − .46 − .31 − .51 − .37 (.82) − .47 .26 .39 .14 .30 .19 3.06 .74 W6 .55 − .29 − .16 − .14 − .04 − .09 − .02 − .12 .10 .13 .11 .11 .17 .28 .28 − .31 (.87) − .58 − .47 − .21 − .43 − .24 3.26 .79 W7 − .40 .32 .13 .14 .30 .22 .23 .23 − .04 − .16 − .03 .11 .15 .09 .17 .15 − .50 (.82) .43 .32 .39 .10 3.43 .61 W8 − .51 .11 .12 .17 .08 .03 .02 .16 − .06 − .01 .00 − .08 − .09 − .24 − .17 .29 − .52 .36 (.80) .17 .30 .10 3.17 .82 W9 − .20 .18 .08 .06 .32 .11 .07 .26 .10 − .20 .03 .06 .23 .09 .22 − .06 − .14 .26 .18 (.85) .45 .26 3.60 .69 W10 − .47 .38 .03 .23 .25 .24 .12 .22 .15 − .22 .01 .02 .11 − .07 .08 .12 − .33 .42 .33 .51 (.83) .52 3.43 .73 W11 − .29 .33 .03 .27 .15 .23 .05 .12 .12 − .17 .02 − .07 .03 − .12 .02 .13 − .22 .22 .16 .29 .59 (.79) 3.74 .67 M 2.67 3.58 3.36 3.66 3.66 3.57 3.31 3.33 3.00 1.36 2.36 2.61 3.44 2.98 3.51 3.08 2.92 3.58 3.22 3.66 3.63 3.86 SD .60 .44 .51 .47 .54 .46 .51 .47 .52 .50 .69 .66 .65 .63 .70 .71 .76 .57 .69 .63 .64 .69 Notes: N = neuroticism; E = extraversion; O = openness to new experiences; A = agreeableness; C = conscientiousness; F1 = educational interest; F2 = subject-specific interest; F3 = ability beliefs; F4 = utility; F5 = low difficulty of the studies; F6 = social influences; W1 = subjective significance of work; W2 = professional ambition; W3 = tendency to exert; W4 = striving for perfection; W5 = emotional distancing; W6 = resignation tendencies; W7 = offensive coping with problems; W8 = balance and mental stability; W9 = sense of achievement; W10 = life satisfaction; W11 = experience of social support; M = mean; and SD = standard deviation. Reliability estimates (α) appear on the diagonal. Coefficients below the diagonal are for sample 1 (n = 559). Coefficients above the diagonal are for sample 2 (n = 150). For sample 1, correlations of r > І.09І are significant at p ≤ .05 and correlations of r > І.12І are significant at p ≤ .01. For sample 2, correlations of r > І.17І are significant at p ≤ .05 and correlations of r > І.22І are significant at p ≤ .01. Table options Results of multinomial logistic regression and moderator analyses in the pooled samples of teacher and psychology students are presented in Table 2. Type U behavior was associated with increased levels of agreeableness (RRR = 1.34, p = .03) and with low scores on extraversion (RRR = .59, p < .001) and conscientiousness (RRR = .30, p < .001). Type A behavior was positively related to neuroticism (RRR = 3.45, p < .001) and negatively related to extraversion (RRR = .66, p < .001). Finally, the risk of showing type B behavior was increased for individuals scoring high on neuroticism (RRR = 3.91, p < .001) or low on extraversion (RRR = .45, p < .001) or conscientiousness (RRR = .41, p < .001). Field of study significantly moderated the impact of openness and agreeableness on type A behavior. Whereas high scores on openness to new experiences and agreeableness were not significantly related to type A behavior in sample 1 (RRR = 1.06, p = .69 and RRR = 90, p = 45, respectively), they were protective traits within sample 2 (RRR = .41, p = .02 and RRR = 34, p < .01, respectively). Moreover, field of study significantly moderated relations between agreeableness and type B behavior. Again, scoring high on agreeableness constituted a protective trait within sample 2 (RRR = 46, p = .03) but not within sample 1 (RRR = 1.09, p = .60). Likelihood ratio tests revealed that the model including personality traits (step 1; LR χ2 = 409.81, df = 15, p < .001) could significantly predict assignment to WCEP types. The model improved significantly when considering field of study and interaction terms (step 3; LR χ2 = 39.41, df = 18, p < .01). Table 2. Main and interaction effects of personality and study course on work-related coping behavior and experience patterns among first-year teacher and psychology students (n = 709). Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 WCEP RRR 95% CI (RRR) p RRR 95% CI (RRR) p RRR 95% CI (RRR) p Type U Neuroticism 1.15 .86–1.55 .34 1.16 .86–1.55 .33 1.22 .89–1.69 .22 Extraversion .59 .45–.77 < .001 .59 .44–.77 < .001 .57 .42–.78 < .001 Openness 1.08 .86–1.36 .50 1.08 .85–1.38 .51 1.19 .91–1.55 .20 Agreeableness 1.34 1.04–1.74 .03 1.35 1.04–1.74 .02 1.36 1.03–1.80 .03 Conscientiousness .30 .22–.40 < .001 .30 .22–.40 < .001 .32 .23–.44 < .001 Study course .99 .53–1.83 .97 1.08 .41–2.86 .88 Neuroticism × study course .72 .32–1.65 .44 Extraversion × study course 1.11 .54–2.28 .77 Openness × study course .57 .29–1.12 .11 Agreeableness × study c. .82 .39–1.72 .60 Conscientiousness × study c. .56 .23–1.36 .20 Type A Neuroticism 3.45 2.53–4.72 < .001 3.48 2.55–4.76 < .001 3.18 2.27–4.47 < .001 Extraversion .66 .50–.88 < .001 .66 .49–.87 < .001 .62 .45–.85 < .001 Openness .90 .70–1.16 .41 .93 .71–1.20 .56 1.06 .80–1.41 .69 Agreeableness .80 .62–1.05 .10 .80 .61–1.04 .10 .90 .67–1.19 .45 Conscientiousness 1.09 .80–1.48 .60 1.08 .80–1.48 .61 1.11 .79–1.55 .55 Study course .75 .37–1.49 .41 1.10 .40–3.00 .85 Neuroticism × study course 2.14 .81–5.65 .12 Extraversion × study course 1.44 .64–3.24 .37 Openness × study course .39 .17–.85 .02 Agreeableness × study c. .38 .16–.87 .02 Conscientiousness × study c. .72 .27–1.88 .50 Type B Neuroticism 3.91 2.83–5.40 < .001 3.85 2.79–5.33 < .001 3.58 2.48–5.18 < .001 Extraversion .45 .34–.61 < .001 .46 .34–.62 < .001 .40 .28–.56 < .001 Openness 1.04 .80–1.34 .78 1.00 .76–1.30 .98 1.06 .78–1.44 .70 Agreeableness .94 .71–1.23 .64 .94 .71–1.23 .63 1.08 .79–1.48 .60 Conscientiousness .41 .30–.55 < .001 .41 .30–.56 < .001 .33 .23–.46 < .001 Study course 1.38 .72–2.65 .33 2.53 1.00–6.35 .05 Neuroticism × study course 1.85 .75–4.52 .18 Extraversion × study course 1.63 .78–3.39 .19 Openness × study course .58 .28–1.20 .14 Agreeableness × study c. .42 .20–.91 .03 Conscientiousness × study c. 1.90 .78–4.64 .16 Note. The healthy-ambitious type (H) is used as the reference category. WCEP = work-related coping behavior and experience pattern; type U = unambitious type; type A = excessively ambitious type; type B = risk for burnout type; RRR = relative risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; and p = probability. Significant predictors are marked in bold. Study course has been coded as teaching = 1 and psychology = 2. Table options Table 3 provides an overview of the results of multinomial logistic regression analyses with personality traits and motives for enrolling in teacher education, entered stepwise in the analysis. Again, the model turned out to fit the data better than a baseline model which did not control for any predictor (LR χ2 = 369.31, df = 33, p < .001). Low scores on extraversion (RRR = .60, p < .001), conscientiousness (RRR = .33, p < .001), and subject-specific interest (RRR = .65, p < .001) and high scores on agreeableness (RRR = 1.43, p = .02) significantly increased the risk of being assigned to the unambitious type U. The excessively ambitious type A was associated with high levels of neuroticism (RRR = 2.97, p < .001), low scores on extraversion (RRR = .59, p < .001), and the motivation of choosing teacher education owing to the assumed low difficulty of studies (RRR = 1.36, p < .05). Finally, high values on neuroticism (RRR = 3.58, p < .001), low scores on extraversion (RRR = .45, p < .001) and conscientiousness (RRR = .34, p < .001), and the motivation of choosing teacher education owing to the assumed low difficulty of studies (RRR = 1.40, p = .04) significantly increased the probability of being assigned to the risk for burnout type B. Table 3. Common influence of personality and motivation for choosing teacher education on work-related coping behavior and experience patterns among first-year teacher students (n = 559). WCEP Unambitious type (U) Excessively-ambitious type (A) Risk for burnout type (B) Predictors RRR 95% CI (RRR) p RRR 95% CI (RRR) p RRR 95% CI (RRR) p Neuroticism 1.21 .87–1.68 .25 2.97 2.11–4.16 < .001 3.58 2.47–5.19 < .001 Extraversion .60 .44–.82 < .001 .59 .42–.82 < .001 .45 .32–.64 < .001 Openness 1.29 .98–1.70 .07 1.06 .80–1.42 .67 1.17 .85–1.60 .33 Agreeableness 1.43 1.06–1.93 .02 .85 .63–1.14 .29 1.18 .85–1.64 .34 Conscientiousness .33 .23–.45 < .001 1.16 .82–1.63 .41 .34 .24–.49 < .001 Educational interest 1.03 .74–1.42 .86 1.34 .93–1.93 .11 .88 .62–1.26 .49 Subject-specific interest .65 .49–.87 < .001 1.03 .76–1.41 .84 .77 .56–1.06 .11 Ability beliefs .83 .61–1.13 .24 .93 .70–1.30 .69 .75 .53–1.05 .09 Utility 1.26 .96–1.65 .10 .90 .68–1.19 .45 1.11 .81–1.53 .52 Low difficulty of studies 1.12 .83–1.52 .46 1.36 1.01–1.85 .05 1.40 1.01–1.94 .04 Social influences .79 .60–1.05 .10 1.13 .85–1.52 .40 .75 .54–1.04 .08 Note. The healthy-ambitious type (H) is used as the reference category. WCEP = work-related coping behavior and experience pattern; type U = unambitious type; type A = excessively ambitious type; type B = risk for burnout type; RRR = relative risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; and p = probability. Significant predictors are marked in bold.