Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies

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 identified. 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 selfand co-regulative strategies, are related to lower risk of experiencing sociocontextual burnout. The utilization of strong co-regulative strategies was related to lower risk of experiencing exhaustion and inadequacy during teacher-pupil interactions. However, 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 [email protected] 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 interactions 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 symptoms: 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 determinants 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). Depending 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. Accordingly, 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 selfand 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 selfregulative 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 sociocontextual burnout profiles, in terms of proactive strategy use, i.e., selfand 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 selfand 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 participation. 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 SocioContextual 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 sociocontextual 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 sociocontextual 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 Proactive 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 bestfitting 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 membership based on the posterior probabilities obtained in the first step. In the final third step, the mean variables of selfand 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 goodnessof-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 fiveclass 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 fiveclass 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 memberships, which was favorable for the subsequent analysis with covariates. In addition, the separation of latent profiles was validated with the analysis of variance (see Table 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 relationship, and cynicism towards the professional community. The levels were statistically significantly 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 constantly experiences failures in teacher-pupil interaction, they are likely to distance themselves 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, particularly 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 selfand 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 selfand 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 experienced 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 interplay 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 representativeness 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 coand selfregulative 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 sociocontextual burnout profiles were identified. Proactive strategies, both in terms of selfand co-regulative strategies, protect teachers from experiencing socio-contextual burnout. Funding information Open access funding provided by University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital. 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). Work 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/10.1037/1082989X.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/S0742051X(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 webor 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/10.1111/1467-9450.00113. 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.1464-0597.2008.00358.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: exploring 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—channelling, 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. Publisher’snoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. K. Pyhältö et al. 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: [email protected] 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 inservice teachers’professional agency. Regulators in different national contexts. https://www.learninginschool.fi 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: [email protected] 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 of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111 (Yliopistokatu 2), 80101, Joensuu, Finland. E-mail: [email protected] 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: [email protected] 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 Teacher burnout profiles and proactive strategies in-service teachers’professional agency. Regulators in different national contexts. https://www. learninginschool.fi Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education: 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: [email protected] 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. Affiliations Kirsi Pyhältö 1,5 &Janne Pietarinen 2 &Kaisa Haverinen 2 &Lotta Tikkanen 3 &Tiina Soini 4 Kirsi Pyhältö [email protected] Janne Pietarinen [email protected] Kaisa Haverinen [email protected] Tiina Soini [email protected] 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.