Factors Constraining Teachers’ Wellbeing and Agency in a Finnish University : Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Factors Constraining Teachers’ Wellbeing and Agency in a Finnish University : Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland Published version Mäkelä, Tiina; Sikström, Pieta; Jääskelä, Päivikki; Korkala, Salme; Kotkajuuri, Jimi; Kaski, Saara; Taalas, Peppi Mäkelä, T., Sikström, P., Jääskelä, P., Korkala, S., Kotkajuuri, J., Kaski, S., & Taalas, P. (2022). Factors Constraining Teachers’ Wellbeing and Agency in a Finnish University : Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Education Sciences, 12(10), Article 722. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100722 2022 Citation: Mäkelä, T.; Sikström, P.; Jääskelä, P.; Korkala, S.; Kotkajuuri, J.; Kaski, S.; Taalas, P. Factors Constraining Teachers’ Wellbeing and Agency in a Finnish University: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci12100722 Academic Editors: Elena Makarova and Kerstin Göbel Received: 22 September 2022 Accepted: 17 October 2022 Published: 19 October 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). education sciences Article Factors Constraining Teachers’ Wellbeing and Agency in a Finnish University: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic Tiina Mäkelä 1,* , Pieta Sikström 2, Päivikki Jääskelä 1, Salme Korkala 2, Jimi Kotkajuuri 2, Saara Kaski 3 and Peppi Taalas 2 1Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland 2Centre for Multilingual Academic Communication, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland 3Department of Chemistry, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jyväskylä, Finland *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic forced teachers to undergo a sudden shift toward technologyenhanced teaching and learning, challenging their capacities for change in many ways. This study explores those factors constraining teachers’ wellbeing and agency that influenced their capacities as teachers in a Finnish university during the first year of the pandemic. Two sets of data were collected, with an online survey in the spring (n= 297) and autumn (n= 246) of 2020. At both times, challenges with workload, time management, and interactions with colleagues were found to be the most constraining factors. Difficulties with work–life balance and home office facilities seemed more of an issue in the spring, whereas transforming teaching and adopting new technological tools were reported as more burdensome in the autumn. The findings show the need for teachers to be heard and holistically supported, particularly when extensive changes in teaching arrangements are expected on a rapid schedule. Keywords: COVID-19; emergency remote teaching; university teachers; wellbeing; agency 1. Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak forced educational institutions to undergo sudden and unexpected changes in how teaching and learning were arranged. Teaching rapidly shifted from campus-based learning to emergency remote teaching without the opportunity for structured planning [ 1 ]. This sudden change was a stressful experience, resulting in negative effects on teacher and student wellbeing [ 2 , 3 ]. The rapid change from onsite to online education was reported as causing an exceptional workload for both teachers and students [4,5]. A systematic mapping review describing the characteristics of 282 primary empirical studies on emergency remote teaching in higher education in the first months of the COVID-19 lockdown concluded that most of the studies focus solely on student experiences of online learning [ 6 ]. There is, however, a growing body of research on teachers’ experiences of emergency remote teaching, indicating that the sudden change to an online mode put teachers’ wellbeing to the test. Teachers reported suffering from stress, anxiety, exhaustion, and burnout due to information overload, their workload, and time pressures [ 7 , 8 ]. Moving from onsite to online teaching required, for instance, reshaping the curricula, creating online assessment methods, and formulating replacement assignments for students to complete the courses [4]. Teachers may, however, exercise agency to adapt, promote, or resist change [ 9 ] and to manage wellbeing [ 10 ] in exceptional circumstances. At the time of the initial COVID-19 outbreak, teachers were found to be capable of exercising transformative agency and having a positive attitude, willingness, and ability to cope with a challenging situation [ 11 ]. A survey-based study of university teachers in the first month of the COVID-19 lockdown Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100722 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 2 of 16 reported that teachers’ agency varied, from an iterative, non-transformative agency that noted constraints but did not actively manage them, to the projective and transformative agency that actively managed constraints and used new methods and software in their teaching [ 12 ]. Badiozaman [ 7 ] claims that strong agentic competence, including resilience, goal-setting, and adaptive behavior, was an important factor influencing teachers’ readiness for emergency online teaching. In addition, teachers exercised their agency by reducing their workload and safeguarding the wellbeing of both their students and themselves [ 13 ]. Studies reporting teachers’ experiences of wellbeing in the long term during a pandemic are still rare. An exception is the study by Lavonen and Salmela-Aro [ 14 ], which revealed that the number of teachers considering themselves to be fully engaged was found to have dropped in the period from the spring (41.8%) to the autumn (30%) of 2020, while the number of teachers feeling severe burnout rose from 9.8% to 20%. Dinu et al. [ 15 ] suggest that the teachers’ workload continued to be high when preparing online teaching materials for the 2020/21 academic year, as it became apparent that returning to campus was not viable. The present study focuses on the identifying factors constraining university teachers’ wellbeing and agency at two different time points in the first year of the pandemic. The additional value of this study is twofold. First, we need to identify teacher-experienced constraints, in order to develop support practices for teachers to overcome them and enhance their agency and overall wellbeing. This is expected to improve both student wellbeing (see [ 16 ]) and high-quality teaching practice (see [ 17 ]). Second, we perceive that it is important to acquire more longitudinal knowledge of this topic to evaluate the possible changes in factors constraining wellbeing and agency. Thus, we base our analyses on the data collected at the first stage of the initial COVID-19 outbreak and then, after the pandemic had already become a more permanent part of people’s daily lives and teachers were likely to be more accustomed to online teaching. In this study, teachers’ wellbeing and agency are seen as being intertwined: fostering teachers’ wellbeing supports their role as agents of change [ 18 ]; in turn, teachers’ strong agency supports their wellbeing [ 19 ]. As concluded by Vähäsantanen [ 20 ], teachers’ opportunities and power to influence work practices are likely to foster wellbeing, while a lack of agency over one’s work, time, and social resources may lead to exhaustion. Possibilities for influencing practices vary, depending on sociocultural and material circumstances [ 21 ]. In circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals’ and communities’ agency are strongly constrained by external factors that have to be accepted without being able to influence them. This alone may negatively affect wellbeing. This article analyzes university teachers’ experiences of the factors that influenced their wellbeing and agency during the first year of the pandemic. The following research questions were set: • What factors do teachers experience as being constraining for their wellbeing and agency in the spring and autumn of 2020? • What are the most common factors in teachers’ experiences that can be found in the spring and autumn of 2020? • The focus is on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic that could be applied in post-pandemic higher education instead of merely returning to pre-pandemic “normal” [22]. 2. Conceptualizing Wellbeing and Agency This study conceptualizes both teacher wellbeing and agency as contextually situated. Furthermore, teacher wellbeing and agency are viewed as interrelated and even partly overlapping. First, our conceptualization of wellbeing is in line with that of Dodge et al. [ 23 ], considering it to be a state of equilibrium between the individual’s psychological, social, and physical resources and existing challenges. That is, there is a need for adequate resources to meet a particular challenge. In a similar vein, according to the theory of Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 3 of 16 self-determination [ 24 ], satisfying basic physiological and psychological needs (autonomy, belongingness/relatedness, and competence) has an effect on motivation, social development, health, wellbeing, and work performance. The need for autonomy refers to ownership and self-actualization; belongingness refers to close relationships and support; competence refers to feeling capable of achieving the desired outcomes and effectively coping with challenges [ 24 ]. Naidoo et al. [ 25 ] concluded that during the pandemic, the sense of an external locus of control lowered faculty members’ feelings of autonomy, a lack of social connection influenced relatedness, and competence was also put to the test. In line with Acton and Glasgow [ 26 ] (p. 100), we position teacher wellbeing within wider social and professional contexts and the “complex interplay between individual, relational and external factors that affect, constrain and mediate the wellbeing of teachers”. Individual factors refer to the need for autonomy and a sense of competence, a healthy work–life balance, happiness, and satisfaction. Relational factors entail the quality of staff and student interactions and working environments, connectedness, and belonging. External factors include policy initiatives, work intensification, and organizational culture. Second, our conceptualization of agency follows the ecological view proposed by Biesta and Tedder [ 27 ]: agency is seen as the personal capacity to act in a specific environment that sets conditions for one’s actions. Individual agency and social context are seen as being analytically separate but mutually constitutive and highly interdependent [ 21 ]. As defined by Eteläpelto et al. [ 21 ] (p. 62), teachers’ professional agency is practiced and manifested when individuals and communities “exert influence, make choices, and take stances in ways that affect their work and/or their professional identities” in specific sociocultural and material circumstances. These circumstances can constrain or enable both teachers’ professional agency [ 21 ] and their wellbeing [ 26 ]. Agency and wellbeing at work can also be linked with the way that professional capacity is employed in an unexpected situation. In particular, collegiality and collaborative capability are found to be important factors in coping with pressure and uncertainty [28,29]. Several studies have demonstrated the overlap of wellbeing and agency. For instance, wellbeing is related to a sense of autonomy, environmental mastery, the realization of one’s potential, and the ability to fulfill goals [ 23 ], which are also viewed as fundamental in exercising agency. Ryan and Sapp [ 30 ] connect wellbeing with agency by relating it to an individual’s vitality, ability to thrive within one’s everyday environment, capacity for optimal functioning, confidence in being able to fulfill goals, and the motivation and energy to persist despite encountering obstacles. Taylor [ 31 ] adds to this definition the concept that wellbeing and agency, or “agency for wellbeing”, refers to self-fulfillment and the capability or capacity to act in the context of specific social relations. Constraints in teachers’ circumstances may include the curriculum, professional and power relationships with colleagues and management, and the dominant culture in educational institutions, while available material circumstances or resources include equipment, instructional methods, ICT devices, and so on [ 9 ]. Alternatively, as defined by Priestley et al. [32] , teacher agency is constrained or supported by cultural aspects, such as beliefs, values, and aspirations, that direct intrapersonal and interpersonal communication, material resources and physical environments, and social and relational resources. In the conceptualization of agency, an individual’s belief in their capability of controlling events and their quality of life plays an important role [ 33 ]. As described by Hargreaves and Fullan [ 29 ], capabilities—meaning the skills and qualities that lead to accomplishment—build confidence and support teachers in becoming active agents of change. In the context of remote working, both the individual’s belief regarding capability and the actual capacity to control life events are being challenged. For instance, work–life balance has been experienced as being difficult to manage [ 34 ]. In addition, in online teaching, the lack of face-to-face contact with students has led teachers to feel less control over how to manage their classes [ 35 ]. Agency depends on an individual’s experiences and interpretations of contextual factors, such as the opportunities provided for participation, influencing, and making choices [ 36 ]. While teachers’ agency is constrained, for instance, Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 4 of 16 by the available resources, these constraints are not completely out of teachers’ control but depend on their interpretation of the contextual constraints within which they enact their teaching [ 9 ]. In spring 2020, teachers were, however, forced to switch their teaching to an online mode, which may have also lowered their sense of control over their teaching. This, together with the pandemic, which is likely to affect everyone’s sense of agency and control over life events in general, is also likely to influence teachers’ wellbeing. Dam¸sa et al. [ 12 ] viewed teachers’ conduct as a dynamic relationship with their environment, entailing varying resources, tools, institutions, infrastructures, and communities. They argue that in emergency circumstances, such as a pandemic, notions of agency should consider both the individual or contextual background constraints, including limitations in digital or pedagogical skills, technical infrastructure, institutional support, or time. Our study deepens the earlier work by Dam¸sa et al. [ 12 ] by extending the analysis of the constraints to both wellbeing and agency inherent in emergency online teaching, as well as by examining the teachers’ experiences at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in spring 2020 and after they had gained experience of implementing their whole courses under pandemic circumstances by autumn 2020. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Context of the Study The study was conducted at a Finnish multidisciplinary university. The university has six faculties and five independent institutes and comprises approximately 2600 staff members and 14,000 students. The study was designed and conducted as part of preparing the university’s education development program, which aimed to involve the university community in the development of pedagogically and digitally relevant teaching practices and environments in multiple forms and over several sites. The university campuses were closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic on 16 March 2020. With three days’ notice, the university switched to distance learning mode for the rest of the spring term. Autumn 2020 began by alternating between remote work and working on campus, limiting the group sizes and courses offered onsite, and offering hybrid teaching. Since the further acceleration of the pandemic at the beginning of December 2020, the share of time spent working and studying on campus decreased further. This situation offered an opportunity to gather information on the preparedness of the university community to work remotely and to identify needs as well as resources that are required to support teachers in transforming teaching and guidance (or supervision) to an online or hybrid mode. 3.2. Participants The invitation to participate anonymously in the questionnaire was sent to all university staff members who were in charge of teaching or providing guidance (herein referred to as teachers) during the spring and autumn of 2020: 1062 persons in the spring of 2020 and 1042 persons in autumn 2020. In the spring, there were 297 respondents and in the autumn, there were 246. At both times, most of the respondents were university teachers (65%), followed by researchers (20%) and professors (15%) with teaching or supervising responsibilities. Most of the respondents (68%) in the spring reported having no or very little online teaching experience. The respondents represented all six faculties. Of the independent institutes, most of the respondents represented the Center for Multilingual Academic Communication (Table 1). 3.3. Materials The data analyzed in the present study are part of a larger dataset on the experiences teachers have had regarding teaching and guidance during the pandemic in 2020. The analysis of this study utilizes one structured and one open-ended question dealing with the theme of Personal resources and sense of control, which examines the teachers’ perceptions of available resources and their control over their work and life (see [ 9 , 23 , 33 ]), affecting Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 5 of 16 both their wellbeing and agency. Both questions focused on identifying the interrelated individual or psychological factors; social, relational or (socio)cultural factors; and physical, material, or external factors (see [ 21 , 23 , 26 , 32 , 37 ]) that could have constrained both the wellbeing and agency of university teachers. Table 1. Numbers of respondents according to faculty/unit and their proportion of the data. Faculty/Unit Spring 2020 Autumn 2020 n%n% Humanities and Social Sciences 70 23.6 55 22.4 Education and Psychology 51 17.1 39 15.9 Mathematics and Science 45 15.2 43 17.5 Center for Multilingual Academic Communication 41 13.8 39 15.9 Sport and Health Sciences 32 10.8 20 8.1 Information Technology 23 7.7 18 7.3 Business School 20 6.7 18 7.3 Other (e.g., university services, open university, open science center) 15 5.1 14 5.6 Total 297 100 246 100 The structured question was, “How well have you managed to control the following during the COVID-19 period of spring/autumn 2020?” (1 = very poorly, 5 = very well). This question focused on teachers’ beliefs of their capabilities to control [ 33 ] factors that can be viewed to influence not only their agency but also their wellbeing and “agency for wellbeing” [ 31 ]. The query items for this question were formulated based on the earlier literature on both remote working in general (e.g., [ 34 ]) and online teaching in particular [ 35 ], as well as on teachers’ professional capital [ 29 ], which topic the research team saw as particularly applicable to the sudden change from onsite to online teaching. The items were (a) organizing one’s work; (b) organizing one’s time; (c) life management and coping; (d) adopting new technological tools; (e) offering support to one’s colleagues; and (f) aligning work and free time. These six items were used as independent variables in the analyses. The open-ended question, “What aspects were the most burdensome for you during the COVID-19 remote teaching period?” allowed the respondents to describe their own thoughts concerning the issues they perceived as challenging, particularly for their wellbeing (“burdensome factors”). Burdensome factors are likely to influence an individual’s ability to thrive within their everyday environment, also with negative consequences for their sense of agency [30]. 3.4. Data Analysis Responses to the structured question (sense of control) in the spring and autumn were analyzed separately. Mean values were used to examine the average level of control in the measured items. To obtain more detailed knowledge of the distribution of responses for each item on the rating scale, the frequencies for each rating were calculated. We were especially interested in frequencies rated as either 1 or 2, which indicated the respondents’ sense of weak control over their work. Responses to the open question were analyzed using data-driven thematic analysis [ 38 ]. The length of the responses varied from a few words or a single sentence to more than ten sentences covering several themes. The second author first coded the data by marking the emerging themes and naming them. Then, the identified themes, their coding criteria, and naming were discussed and refined. Next, each response was coded by two authors who classified them independently, according to the agreed themes. These classifications were compared to find interrater reliability, which was found to be strong, with the immediate agreement of coding of between 78% and 86%. When the coding differed, the authors discussed and agreed upon the final coding. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 6 of 16 Finally, the results of the structured and open-ended questions were considered side by side, to see whether they coincided with each other. From the responses to the structured question, the aggregated frequencies and proportions indicating difficulty in managing control (rated as 1 = very poorly or 2 = poorly) were compared with the frequencies and proportions that were calculated in the context of the thematic analysis of the open responses. 4. Results 4.1. Sense of Control over Remote Working In both the spring and autumn of 2020, the teachers considered that they had, on average, better control (1 = low control; 5 = high control) over organizing their work (T1M= 3.74 ,SD = 1.05; T 2 M=3.63, SD = 0.97) and adopting new technological tools ( T1M= 3.88 ,SD = 0.98; T 2 M= 3.47, SD = 1.13) than they did over time management ( T1M= 3.20 , SD = 1.20 ; T 2 M= 3.19, SD = 1.07), life management, and coping ( T1M= 3.07 , SD = 1.13; T 2 M= 2.90, SD = 1.14), offering support for their colleagues (T 1M= 3.15 , SD = 1.00 ; T 2 M= 3.04, SD = 1.03), and aligning work and free time (T 1 M= 2.99, SD = 1.21; T2M= 3.00, SD = 1.16). When considering the proportions of responses for each item on the rating scale, approximately one-third of the respondents experienced a low or a very low sense of control over organizing their time, managing and coping with problems in their lives, and aligning their work and free time (Figure 1). Half of the items were rated as difficult to handle (ratings 1 and 2) by more respondents in the spring survey than in the autumn one. These were: organizing my work (13% in spring; 10% in autumn), organizing my time (32% in spring; 26% in autumn), and aligning work and free time (39% in spring; 32% in autumn). On the other hand, half of the items were rated by more respondents as being more difficult to handle in the autumn than in the spring. They were life management and coping (34% in spring; 37% in autumn), adopting new technological tools (9% in spring; 20% in autumn), and offering support to my colleagues (25% in spring; 28% in autumn). 4.2. Burdensome Factors in Remote Working Next, based on the analysis of responses to the open question, Table 2summarizes the themes describing those factors that teachers viewed as burdensome in terms of their work during the pandemic. It also presents the frequencies of the responses according to the theme, and their proportions to the total number of responses, separately in the spring and autumn of 2020. Seventeen themes were identified in the analysis. The teachers most frequently reported issues related to workload and time management as being burdensome (38% of the respondents in the spring; 33% in the autumn). Various respondents commented that there was an increased workload and burden due to more challenging and time-consuming tasks. They had to re-design courses in a short time and deal with their feelings of inadequacy. Some respondents mentioned that they had to work excessively long days, including weekends, and still felt that they would have not accomplished everything that was needed. As one teacher stated: ‘Feeling that you always have to be available in front of the computer causes overload.’ Feelings of overload due to extensive working days also seemed to continue in the autumn, when online teaching continued after the summer break. Regarding a problem partly linked to workload and time management, a growing proportion of the respondents mentioned study administration (3% in spring; 7% in autumn) and research (1% in spring; 5% in autumn) as burdensome factors in their work. In relation to finding time for research, one teacher commented in the autumn: “It is very hard to manage extra teaching responsibilities and keep up research, with limited access to the laboratories and students demanding a lot of time”. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 7 of 16 Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 Figure 1. Burdensome factors in remote working. Note 1: The number of respondents for each item varied in spring (T1) between 284 and 290 respondents, and in autumn (T2), between 244 and 246 respondents, as it was not mandatory for participants to respond to all items. Note 2: Numbers in bar charts refer to the proportions of responses on the rating scale. 4.2. Burdensome Factors in Remote Working Next, based on the analysis of responses to the open question, Table 2 summarizes the themes describing those factors that teachers viewed as burdensome in terms of their work during the pandemic. It also presents the frequencies of the responses according to the theme, and their proportions to the total number of responses, separately in the spring and autumn of 2020. Table 2. Themes of the burdensome factors, frequencies of responses according to theme, and their proportion of the total number of responses in the spring and autumn of 2020. Theme Spring 2020 Autumn 2020 (n = 297) (n = 246) f % of n f % of n Workload and time management 114 38 81 33 Work–life balance 81 27 25 10 Interaction with colleagues 68 23 53 22 Transforming teaching 58 20 66 27 Psychological and physical wellbeing 45 15 32 13 Learning new technologies 32 11 21 9 Student guidance, scaffolding, and support 26 9 24 10 Facilities at the home office 25 8 11 4 Figure 1. Burdensome factors in remote working. Note 1: The number of respondents for each item varied in spring (T1) between 284 and 290 respondents, and in autumn (T2), between 244 and 246 respondents , as it was not mandatory for participants to respond to all items. Note 2: Numbers in bar charts refer to the proportions of responses on the rating scale. Table 2. Themes of the burdensome factors, frequencies of responses according to theme, and their proportion of the total number of responses in the spring and autumn of 2020. Theme Spring 2020 Autumn 2020 (n= 297) (n= 246) f % of nf % of n Workload and time management 114 38 81 33 Work–life balance 81 27 25 10 Interaction with colleagues 68 23 53 22 Transforming teaching 58 20 66 27 Psychological and physical wellbeing 45 15 32 13 Learning new technologies 32 11 21 9 Student guidance, scaffolding, and support 26 9 24 10 Facilities at the home office 25 8 11 4 Online meetings 22 7 15 6 Problems with technology 22 7 15 6 Offering and asking for support 22 7 21 9 Interaction with students 17 6 32 13 Leadership 16 5 23 9 Worry about students 12 4 12 5 Uncertainty 9 3 14 6 Study administration 9 3 16 7 Research 4 1 12 5 Miscellaneous (e.g., “nothing to mention”, “new staff members”, “a new work role”) 68 23 59 24 Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 8 of 16 Work–life balance was the second most frequent challenge in the spring (27%). The participants reported difficulties in finding a balance between work and their personal life, including free time, home duties, family, children, spouses, and aging parents. As one teacher commented: “At some point, I felt I was always at home doing nothing else than working and sleeping; before, with having an office on campus, I could more easily separate work and private life. Now I respond to student emails even in the middle of the night, which was not my style before.” Particularly in spring 2020, when schools were under nearly complete lockdown, teachers with children found it difficult to combine work and taking care of their children. In the autumn, when children were back to daycare and school, fewer respondents (10%) referred to work–life balance as a challenge. Children were, however, still at home more often than usual, due to different symptoms, outbreaks, or quarantine restrictions. As one respondent commented: “Children returned to daycare at the beginning of autumn and during the first month there were many sick leaves, but now everyday life is running smoothly again”. Lack of interaction with colleagues was also among the most frequently mentioned challenges (23% of the respondents in spring; 22% in autumn) when working from home. The respondents missed their spontaneous and unplanned face-to-face encounters and felt that many things that were easy and quick to arrange when face-to-face were more difficult in online communication. Online encounters limited their creativity and innovation. As one teacher stated: “Spontaneous coffee-break conversations are missing, developing and ideating new things is rare”. Seven percent of the respondents in the spring and six percent in the autumn mentioned online meetings as being burdensome. The participants felt that there were too many online meetings in a row, and it was more difficult to concentrate online than when face to face. Too-short breaks between meetings made it difficult to make progress with other work. As one teacher commented in the spring: “You have to be so intensively present there, that they burden you more than face-to-face meetings”. Another respondent wrote in the autumn that there were “a huge number of online meetings, which impedes doing other tasks during the workday”. Psychological and physical wellbeing was also a concern that was directly mentioned by many participants (15% of the respondents in spring 2020; 13% in autumn 2020). Participants were worried about both their physical and mental health and recovery. As one teacher commented: “The most challenging aspects were related to wellbeing. I did exercise regularly and tried to have reasonable hours dedicated to work each day (but initially there were long days). However, [the number of] changes and the amount of work I had to do at the time caused great stress. I could not really shake off the stress.” Closely connected to psychological wellbeing, 3% of responses in the spring and 6% in the autumn mentioned uncertainty as being stressful. Uncertainty was related both to the continuity of work (e.g., renewing contracts or achieving research funding) and to the general insecurity provoked by the pandemic. One participant noted in the spring: “The stress [was] provoked generally by the state of emergency, insecurity about the future and, for that reason, the impossibility [of planning] anything”. Every fifth respondent in the spring survey (20%) reported challenges related to transforming teaching. Adapting course objectives, tasks, and activities to fit online teaching in such a short period of time was viewed as challenging. The teachers were concerned about how to maintain high standards and achieve the course objectives. Forced and sudden changes in their teaching environments affected the teachers’ sense of agency, such as how they perceived the possibility of their influencing their work and tailoring their pedagogy to adapt to new circumstances. Consequently, the need for rapid changes affected teachers’ overall wellbeing. As one teacher described in the spring survey: Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 15 of 16 10. Panti´c, N.; Galey, S.; Florian, L.; Joksimovi´c, S.; Viry, G.; Gaševi´c, D.; Knutes Nyqvist, H.; Kyritsi, K. Making sense of teacher agency for change with social and epistemic network analysis. J. Educ. Chang. 2022,23, 145–177. [CrossRef] 11. Gudmundsdottir, G.B.; Hathaway, D.M. “We always make it work”: Teachers’ agency in the time of crisis. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2020,28, 239–250. 12. Dam¸sa, C.; Langford, M.; Uehara, D.; Scherer, R. Teachers’ agency and online education in times of crisis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021,121, 106793. [CrossRef] 13. Trust, T.; Whalen, J. Should teachers be trained in emergency remote teaching? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2020,28, 189–199. 14. Lavonen, J.; Salmela-Aro, K. Experiences of moving quickly to distance teaching and learning at all levels of education in Finland. In Primary and Secondary Education during COVID-19; Reimers, F.F., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 105–123. 15. Dinu, L.M.; Dommett, E.J.; Baykoca, A.; Mehta, K.J.; Everett, S.; Foster, J.L.H.; Byrom, N.C. A case study investigating mental Wellbeing of University Academics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2021,11, 702. [CrossRef] 16. Brewster, L.; Jones, E.; Priestley, M.; Wilbraham, S.J.; Spanner, L.; Hughes, G. ‘Look after the staff and they would look after the students’ cultures of wellbeing and mental health in the university setting. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2022,46, 548–560. [CrossRef] 17. Turner, K.; Theilking, M. Teacher wellbeing: Its effects on teaching practice and student learning. Issues Educ. Res. 2019 , 29, 938–960. [CrossRef] 18. Spilt, J.L.; Koomen, H.M.Y.; Thijs, J.T. Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher–student relationships. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2011,23, 457–477. [CrossRef] 19. Dabrowski, A. Teacher wellbeing during a pandemic: Surviving or thriving? Soc. Educ. Res. 2020,2, 35–40. [CrossRef] 20. Vähäsantanen, K. Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2015,47, 1–12. [CrossRef] 21. Eteläpelto, A.; Vähäsantanen, K.; Hökkä, P.; Paloniemi, S. What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educ. Res. Rev. 2013,10, 45–65. [CrossRef] 22. Kerres, M.; Buchner, J. Education after the pandemic: What we have(not) learned about learning. Educ. Sci. 2022 ,12, 315. [CrossRef] 23. Dodge, R.; Daly, A.P.; Huyton, J.; Sanders, L.D. The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int. J. Wellbeing 2012 ,2, 222–235. [CrossRef] 24. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000,55, 68–78. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Naidoo, K.; Kaplan, S.; Roberts, C.J.; Plummer, L. Three stressed systems: Health sciences faculty members navigating academia, healthcare, and family life during the pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 483. [CrossRef] 26. Acton, R.; Glasgow, P. Teacher wellbeing in neoliberal contexts: A review of the literature. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2015 ,40, 99–114. [CrossRef] 27. Biesta, G.; Tedder, M. Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Stud. Educ. Adults 2007 , 39, 132–149. [CrossRef] 28. Hargreaves, A.; O’Connor, M. Collaborative Professionalism. When Teaching Together Means Learning for All; Corwin Impact Leadership Series; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018; ISBN 1506328156. 29. Hargreaves, A.; Fullan, M. Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-8077-5332-3. 30. Ryan, R.M.; Sapp, A.R. Basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective on the promotion of wellness across development and cultures. In Wellbeing in Developing Countries: From Theory to Research; Gough, I., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 71–92. ISBN 978-0521180801. 31. Taylor, D. Wellbeing and welfare: A psychosocial analysis of being well and doing well enough. J. Soc. Policy 2011 ,40, 777–794. [CrossRef] 32. Priestley, M.; Biesta, G.; Robinson, S. Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2015; ISBN 10.1474297366. 33. Bandura, A. The human agency in social cognitive theory. Am. Psychol. 1989,44, 1175–1184. [CrossRef] 34. Felstead, A.; Henseke, G. Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Technol. Work Employ. 2017,32, 195–212. [CrossRef] 35. Kebritchi, M.; Lipschuetz, A.; Santiague, L. Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2017,46, 4–29. [CrossRef] 36. Jääskelä, P.; Poikkeus, A.-M.; Vasalampi, K.; Valleala, U.M.; Rasku-Puttonen, H. Assessing agency of university students: Validation of the AUS scale. Stud. High. Educ. 2017,42, 2061–2079. [CrossRef] 37. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000,11, 227–268. [CrossRef] 38. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006,3, 77–101. [CrossRef] 39. Ashencaen Crabtree, S.; Esteves, L.; Hemingway, A. A ‘new(ab)normal’?: Scrutinising the work-life balance of academics under lockdown. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2021,45, 1177–1191. [CrossRef] 40. Nokkala, T.; Bladh, A. Institutional autonomy and academic freedom in the Nordic context—Similarities and differences. High. Educ. Policy 2014,27, 1–21. [CrossRef] Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 722 16 of 16 41. Eringfeld, S. Higher education and its post-coronial future: Utopian hopes and dystopian fears at Cambridge University during COVID-19. Stud. High. Educ. 2021,46, 146–157. [CrossRef] 42. Agasisti, T.; Soncin, M. Higher education in troubled times: On the impact of COVID-19 in Italy. Stud. High. Educ. 2021 ,46, 86–95. [CrossRef] 43. Alqahtani, A.Y.; Rajkhan, A.A. E-learning critical success factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives. Educ. Sci. 2020,10, 216. [CrossRef] 44. Tarafdar, M.; Cooper, C.L.; Stich, J.-F. The technostress trifecta—Techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Inf. Syst. J. 2019,29, 6–42. [CrossRef]