Jou nal o Educa ion and Lea ning; Vol. 7, No. 1; 2018
ISSN 1927-5250 E-ISSN 1927-5269
Published by Canadian Cen e o Science and Educa ion
208
S uden Teache s’ P oac i e S a egies and Expe ienced Lea ning
En i onmen o Reducing S udy-Rela ed Bu nou
Sanna Väisänen1, Janne Pie a inen1, Ki si Pyhäl ö 2,3, Auli Toom3,4 & Tiina Soini5
1 School o Applied Educa ional Science and Teache Educa ion, Uni e si y o Eas e n Finland, Sa onlinna,
Finland
2 Facul y o Educa ional Science, Uni e si y o Oulu, Oulu, Finland
3 Cen e o Uni e si y Teaching and Lea ning (HYPE), Uni e si y o Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
4 Facul y o Educa ional Sciences, Uni e si y o Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
5 School o Educa ion, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland
Co espondence: Sanna Väisänen, School o Applied Educa ional Science and Teache Educa ion, Uni e si y o
Eas e n Finland, Kuninkaanka anonka u 7, Sa onlinna, 57101, Finland. Tel: 358-505-31-0834. E-mail:
[email p o ec ed]
Recei ed: Sep embe 21, 2017 Accep ed: No embe 9, 2017 Online Published: Decembe 13, 2017
doi:10.5539/jel. 7n1p208 URL: h p://doi.o g/10.5539/jel. 7n1p208
Abs ac
The s udy aims o gain a be e unde s anding o he in e ela ion and he de elopmen o s uden eache s’
p oac i e coping s a egies, i.e., sel - egula i e and co- egula i e s a egies, pe cei ed lea ning en i onmen and
s udy- ela ed bu nou . Longi udinal da a we e u ilized wi h h ee annual measu emen s du ing bachelo s udies.
Al oge he , 270 p ima y school s uden eache s comple ed he su ey. The da a was analyzed by using
S uc u al Equa ion Modeling (SEM). Resul s showed ha he sel - egula i e s a egy adop ed by s uden
eache s p omo ed he use o co- egula i e s a egy. Co- egula i e s a egy use in u n con ibu ed o he
pe cei ed i be ween he s uden eache and he lea ning en i onmen , and u he , educed s udy- ela ed
bu nou . Mo eo e , s uden eache s’ abili y o u ilize p oac i e sel - egula i e s a egies o bu e po en ial
s esso s in ad ance, i.e., an abili y o manage one’s own s udy pace in he di ec ion o well-being, was e ec i e
in educing he isk o de eloping bu nou . Resul s also showed ha bo h he key de e minan s o educing
s udy- ela ed bu nou , i.e., p oac i e s a egies and expe ienced lea ning en i onmen , and he s udy- ela ed
bu nou symp oms hemsel es we e ela i ely s able.
Keywo ds: bu nou , lea ning en i onmen , p oac i e s a egies, s uden eache
1. In oduc ion
The majo i y o beginning eache s a e en husias ic and pe cei e hei wo k engaging (Godda d & Godda d,
2006; see also Soini, Pyhäl ö, & Pie a inen, 2010). A he same ime beginning eache s a e pa icula ly
ulne able o de eloping bu nou symp oms (i.e., exhaus ion, cynicism and inadequacy) due o signi ican
amoun o wo k s ess hey ace (B ewe & Shapa d, 2004; Ga ish & F iedman, 2010; Godda d & Godda d,
2006). The isk o de eloping bu nou is sugges ed o be cumula i e: p io bu nou expe iences also p edic such
expe iences in he u u e (Maslach, Schau eli, & Lei e , 2001). Indica o s o he inc eased isk o de eloping
bu nou can eme ge al eady du ing eache s udies. Some s uden eache s ha e been ound o su e bu nou
symp oms, pa icula ly exhaus ion (Chan, 2003; Fi es, Hamman, & Oli a ez, 2007). Fu he mo e, s uden s who
expe ience s udy bu nou also ace a g ea e isk o de eloping he symp oms la e on in hei wo king li e
(Hul ell, Melin, & Gus a sson, 2013; Salmela-A o, Tol anen, & Nu mi, 2011). This implies ha i s p e en i e
measu es o educing isk o eache bu nou should be aken du ing eache educa ion.
P io esea ch has iden i ied se e al an eceden s o eache bu nou (Hakanen, Bakke , & Schau eli, 2006;
Kokkinos, 2007). Fo ins ance, a lack o su icien suppo (Jacobs & Dodd, 2003) and excessi e wo kload ha e
been ound o con ibu e o inc eased le els o eache bu nou bo h among p e- and in-se ice eache s (Paque e
& Rieg, 2016; Rieg, Paque e, & Chen, 2007), whe eas su icien suppo , good wo king en i onmen i and
suppo i e leade ship p ac ices, a e sugges ed o educe such isk (Ga ish & F iedman, 2010; Lam & Yan, 2011;
Pyhäl ö, Pie a inen, & Salmela-A o, 2011). Howe e , s uden eache s may u ilize di e en s a egies o cope
jel.ccsene .o g Jou nal o Educa ion and Lea ning Vol. 7, No. 1; 2018
209
wi h s ess ul e en s aced in hei s udies (Paque e & Rieg, 2016; Gus ems-Ca nice & Calde ón, 2013). Ye ,
ou unde s anding o he unc ional s a egies o p e en bu nou among beginning s uden eache s is s ill sca ce.
We know e en less abou he su icien means o p omo e an op imal eache educa ion lea ning en i onmen
ha may con ibu e u he o educing he isk o de eloping bu nou . Ou s udy aims o con ibu e o he gap in
he li e a u e by explo ing how a p oac i e s a egy use in e ms o sel - egula i e and co- egula i e s a egies
ha bu e po en ial s esso s in ad ance (Aspinwall & Taylo , 1997) con ibu es o he pe cei ed lea ning
en i onmen and expe ienced s udy- ela ed bu nou isk among ea ly ca ee p e-se ice eache s du ing he i s
h ee yea s o hei eache s udies.
1.1 Teache Bu nou
Teache bu nou de elops g adually as a esul o he p olonged exposu e o se e e s ess and ch onic s ain (e.g.,
F eudenbe ge , 1974; Maslach, 2003; Maslach & Goldbe g, 1998; Maslach e al., 2001). I has h ee dis inc i e
symp oms: exhaus ion: cha ac e ized by lack o ene gy and eelings o a igue, cynicism: in ol ing a dis an o
nega i e a i ude owa ds s udy, wo k o pupils, pa en s and pee s, and inadequacy: en ailing a sense o
insu iciency, incompe ence and educed sense o sel -e icacy, i.e., ine icacy (B esó, Salano a, & Schau eli,
2007; Lei e & Maslach, 2016; Maslach, 2003; Maslach & Goldenbe g, 1998; Pyhäl ö e al., 2011; Schau eli,
Ma inéz, Pin o, Salano a, & Bakke , 2002). S uden eache s a e epo ed ypically o expe ience exhaus ion
(Chan, 2003). A he same ime, hey ha e been shown o su e low le els o cynicism, whe eas hei sense o
inadequacy is epo ed o be ela i ely high (Väisänen, Pie a inen, Pyhäl ö, Toom, & Soini, submi ed), which
has been shown also among beginning eache s (Ga ish & F iedman, 2010). Howe e , ull-blown bu nou
p o ides a simul aneous occu ence o all h ee symp oms.
Pa ly simila ac o s ha e been shown o con ibu e o bo h in- and p e-se ice eache bu nou (Chaplain, 2008;
Ge ing, 2007; Klassen & Du ksen, 2014). Hea y wo kload (Aus in, Shah, & Munce , 2005; Hong, 2010),
p oblems wi h ime managemen and high p essu e (Aus in e al., 2005; Skaal ik & Skaal ik, 2010) and s uden
misbeha io (Ge ing, 2007) ha e been ound o inc ease exposu e o bu nou bo h among in- and p e-se ice
eache s. S uden eache s ha e, on he o he hand, been ound o su e dis inc i ely om a lack o con idence in
eaching hei academic goals (Pie ceall & Keim, 2007), conce ns abou hei compe ence (Zhang, Gan, & Cham,
2007), wo ies abou hei pe o mance as eache s (Chan, 2003; Chaplain, 2008) and insu icien suppo om
eache educa o s (ibid., 2008; Klassen & Du ksen, 2014; Paque e & Rieg, 2016; Rieg e al., 2007). In addi ion,
cons an ailu es in esol ing socially challenging pedagogical si ua ions wi h pupils, o ins ance, du ing
eaching p ac ices, has been associa ed wi h expe iencing inc eased le els o exhaus ion, inadequacy and
cynicism (e.g., Gonzalez-Mo ales, Rod iguez, & Pei o, 2010; Saks, Ugge sle , & Fassina, 2007).
The e is pa ly con adic o y e idence on he s abili y o eache bu nou . While he majo i y o a iable-based
longi udinal s udies show a leas mode a e le els o consis ency in expe ienced bu nou (Salmela-A o,
Sa olainen, & Holopainen, 2009; see also Maslach & Lei e , 2008; Ta is, Le Blanc, Schau eli, & Sch eu s, 2005)
du ing hei i s yea s o eaching (Ga ish & F iedman, 2010), esul s o he ew longi udinal s udies wi h a
pe son-cen e ed app oach indica e ha inc eases and dec eases in beginning eache ’s bu nou le els occu
(Hul ell e al., 2013). A eason o his is maybe ha he s a egies lea ned du ing eache s udies, and applied
la e on in he i s yea s o eaching when acing s ess ul ansac ions, can be mo e o less e ec i e bo h in
educing isk o bu nou as well as building wo king en i onmen i .
1.2 P oac i e S a egies o Reducing Bu nou
P e ious s udies ha e shown ha he s a egies s uden eache s use o handle s udy- ela ed s esso s can ei he
educe o inc ease he isk o de eloping bu nou (Ca nice & Calde ón, 2014; Gus ems-Ca nice & Calde ón,
2013; Pie a inen e al., 2013a; Väisänen e al., submi ed). In gene al, he ac i e and op imis ic coping s a egies,
such as a ask-o ien ed o p oblem- ocused s a egy (i.e., di ec coping s yle), ha e been ound o be e ec i e in
educing bu nou (Ca mona, Buunk, Pei ó, Rod ígues, & B a o, 2006; Ky iacou, 2001; Renk & Smi h, 2007). In
u n, pallia i e and a oidance s a egies, such as wi hd awal, ha e been associa ed wi h isk o inc eased bu nou
among s uden s and eache s (Ca mona e al., 2006; Ca nice & Calde ón, 2014; Gus ems-Ca nice & Calde ón,
2013).
S uden eache s, do no , howe e , simply eac o a speci ic s esso ; hey can also u ilize p oac i e s a egies o
bu e po en ial s esso s in ad ance by building and using he esou ces a hand (Aspinwall & Taylo , 1997;
Väisänen e al., submi ed). P oac i e s a egies encompass he e o s o p e en o adjus po en ially s ess ul
e en s in ad ance (Aspinwall & Taylo , 1997), and hence, hey a e ac i e and u u e-o ien ed (ibid., 1997;
G eenglass, 2005; S aud, McNaugh on-Cassill, & Fuh man, 2015). Neu alizing he s esso be o e i becomes
ha m ul is shown o be e ec i e (e.g., Fo es-Fe ei a, Pei ó, Gonzáles-Mo ales, & Ma ín, 2006; Pie a inen e
jel.ccsene .o g Jou nal o Educa ion and Lea ning Vol. 7, No. 1; 2018
210
al., 2013a). P oac i e s a egy use has, o ins ance, been shown o be associa ed wi h a educed isk o s uden
eache bu nou , pa icula ly in e ms o expe ienced exhaus ion and inadequacy (Väisänen e al., submi ed).
Mo eo e , lowe le els o s ess a he beginning o uni e si y s udies and be e adjus men o he lea ning
en i onmen also among i s yea uni e si y s uden s displaying p oac i e s a egies ha e been de ec ed (Gan,
Hu, & Zhang, 2010). Those s a egies can display di e en ly depending on he si ua ion and ask a hand (Sohl &
Moye , 2009), i.e., di e en conce ns may adduce di e en ype o p oac i e s a egy use (De Ridde & Ke ssens,
2003). A s uden eache may u ilize ei he sel - egula i e o co- egula i e s a egies o bo h o p oac i ely deal
wi h he s esso (Pie a inen e al., 2013a; Väisänen e al., submi ed).
P oac i e sel - egula ion s a egies en ail beha io al, cogni i e and emo ional egula ion such as alloca ing
enough ime o s udying (Randi, Co no, & Johnson, 2011), being o ganized (S aud e al., 2015), and aking
ca e o good s udy-leisu e balance (Mu ay-Ha ey e al., 2000) when expec ing o ace po en ially s ess ul
ansac ions (Chang, 2009; see also Boekae s, Pin ich, & Zeidne , 2000; Zimme man, 2002). S uden eache s
ha e been shown o use p oac i e sel - egula ion success ully o educe he isk o bu nou (Renk & Smi h, 2007;
Väisänen e al., submi ed). They ha e been shown, o example, o apply a ious wo kload and ime
managemen s a egies (e.g., Paque e & Rieg, 2016; Randi e al., 2011), o o ganize and plan academic asks in
ad ance (e.g., Aspinwall & Taylo , 1997; Paque e & Rieg, 2016), and o u ilize posi i e hinking, se ealis ic
expec a ions and p epa e o expec ed challenges (Mu ay-Ha ey e al., 2000), i.e., hey ha e displayed
p oac i e sel - egula i e s a egies ha ha e been associa ed wi h a educed isk o de eloping bu nou .
Howe e , social in e ac ions play a cen al ole in he eaching p o ession and in becoming a eache .
Acco dingly, me e use o p oac i e sel - egula ion is no su icien o bu e eache bu nou (Pie a inen e al.,
2013a). In o de o be e ec i e, i needs o be complemen ed wi h he use o p oac i e co- egula ion s a egies
(ibid., 2013a; Pyhäl ö e al., submi ed). P oac i e co- egula ion s a egies include building and modi ying social
esou ces in en ionally such as asking o , p o iding and ecei ing help om pee s (Smi h & Le -A i, 2005;
Väisänen e al., 2017) o deal wi h he po en ial s esso . Fu he mo e, sha ing expe iences (Mu ay-Ha ey e al.,
2000) and discussing s udy- ela ed conce ns (Rieg e al., 2007; Väisänen e al., 2017), ecei ing social suppo ,
pa icula ly emo ional and in o ma ional suppo such as ecei ing cons uc i e eedback, ad ice, encou agemen
and ca e om pee s and eache educa o s (Hobson, 2002; Le Co nu, 2009; Paque e & Rieg, 2016; Rieg e al.,
2007; Smi h & Le -A i, 2005; Väisänen e al., 2017) a e ela ed o educed le els o s ess and lesse isk o
de eloping bu nou .
P io esea ch on p oac i e s a egies implies ha u ilizing bo h sel - and co- egula i e s a egies in educing
bu nou is use ul bo h among in- and p e-se ice eache s (Pie a inen e al., 2013a; Pyhäl ö e al., submi ed;
Väisänen e al., submi ed). Ye , ou unde s anding o he in e ela ion and ecip ocal de elopmen o he
p oac i e sel - and co- egula ion s a egies is sca ce. I can be assumed ha , o a ce ain ex en , he co- egula ion
can enhance he de elopmen o p oac i e sel - egula ion, o ins ance, by enabling guidance on how o manage
he academic wo kload o h ough p o iding a sou ce o in o ma ion (Ala con, Edwa ds, & Menke, 2011;
Väisänen e al., 2017). On he o he hand, he p oac i e co- egula ion p o ides an abili y o apply sel - egula i e
s a egies, because hey enable u iliza ion o he po en ial sou ces o social suppo a ailable and gi ing suppo o
o he s (e.g., Boekae s & Co no, 2005; Fo d & Blaus ein, 2013). Fo ins ance, use o sel - egula i e s a egies,
such as moni o ing one’s beha io (e.g., G eenglass, 2005; Hadwin, Jä elä, & Mille , 2011, p. 76) may esul in
awa eness o he need o help ha u he launches he help-seeking (Ryan, Pin ich, & Midgley, 2001),
g adually de eloping in o ecip ocal social suppo . Acco dingly, we p esume ha , in he p oac i e s a egy
de elopmen , he sel - egula i e s a egies igge he de elopmen o he co- egula i e s a egies. Fu he mo e,
he e is some e idence ha he p oac i e s a egy use, pa icula ly u ilizing co- egula i e s a egies, con ibu es o
a good wo king en i onmen i , i.e., he sense o p o essional ecogni ion and cons uc i e wo k clima e in he
p o essional communi y among in-se ice eache s (Pie a inen e al., 2013a). Respec i ely, i can be p esumed
ha s uden eache s’ pe cep ions abou he lea ning en i onmen p o ided by he eache educa ion can be
enhanced by he co- egula i e s a egy use (Soini, Pie a inen, Toom, & Pyhäl ö, 2015).
1.3 Lea ning En i onmen in Teache Educa ion
Teache educa ion p o ides he p ima y lea ning en i onmen o s uden eache s. Acco dingly, he dynamics
be ween he s uden s and hei lea ning en i onmen is, depending on i s quali y, likely o ei he educe o
inc ease he isk o de eloping bu nou (Soini e al., 2015; see also Folkman, 1984; Maslach & Lei e , 2008). Fo
example, while a suppo i e and good a mosphe e is linked o well-being a he beginning o a eache ’s ca ee
(Ga ish & F iedman, 2010), a suppo i e a mosphe e and belonging o a eache communi y du ing eaching
p ac ice a e a ely epo ed among s uden eache s (Timoš šuk & Ugas e, 2010). Also, p io esea ch indica es
jel.ccsene .
o
ha ecei
educes s
u
ecognize
d
Lei e , 20
0
o inc eas
e
Also, a la
c
inc ease
h
These in
d
o he s u
d
S uden e
a
i by di e
c
lea ning e
n
al., 2013a
(Mu ay-
H
de elopm
e
(Soini e
co- egula
i
eache -le
a
2. The Ai
m
The s udy
p
e cei ed
con ibu e
eache s
d
es ed (se
e
1) Se
l
a e
e
1).
2) Se
l
each
e
e al.,
3) Co
each
e
expe
i
2008;
Figu e 1
lea ni
n
o
g
ing social s
u
u
den
eache
s
d
and ea ed
e
0
8; Maslach e
e
nega i e ou
c
c
k o ecogni
h
ei eelings o
d
ings imply h
a
d
en eache ’s
a
che s a e no
,
c
ing and e-di
n
i onmen d
y
; Soini e al.,
H
a ey e al.,
2
e
n o a psych
o
al., 2015;
T
i
on, may no
o
a
ning en i o
n
m
o he S ud
y
aims o gain
b
lea ning en
s o he pe cei
d
u ing he i s
e
Figu e 1 and
l
- egula i e s
e
y ime poin
l
- egula i e s
e
s’ expe ienc
e
2013a; Väisä
n
- egula i e s
e
educa ion
i
enced s ud
y
-
Pyhäl ö e al.
,
. Hypo hesize
d
n
g en i onme
n
u
ppo , cons
s
’ isk o de e
e
qually by he
al., 2001). In
c
omes among
ion and app
e
ailu e, and
h
a
s uden eac
h
isk o de el
o
,
howe e , on
l
ec ing hei o
y
namics and
e
2015). Fo
e
2
000) and al
k
o
logically sa
e
T
ang, 2003).
o
nly educe
h
n
men dynami
c
y
b
e e unde s
a
i onmen an
d
ed lea ning
e
h ee yea s
o
Figu e 2):
a egy (SELF
(wi hin T1,
T
a egy (SEL
F
e
d s ud
y
- ela
e
n
en e al., sub
m
a egy (CO) c
(see Pie a in
e
ela ed bu no
u
,
2011) (see F
i
d
model o h
e
n
in eache e
d
Jou nal o E
d
uc i e eedb
a
loping bu no
u
eache educa
u n, a highly
ea ly ca ee
e
e
cia ion is o
u
h
ence inc eas
e
h
e s’ expe ie
n
o
ping bu nou .
l
y a ec ed by
wn and o he
s
e
duces bu no
u
e
xample, p o
i
k
ing abou one
e
(Tang, 2003
)
Acco dingly,
h
e isk o bu
n
c
s.
a
nding o he
d
s udy- ela e
d
e
n i onmen a
n
o
hei each
e
) co ela es [
p
T
2 and T3) (B
o
F
) and co- e
g
e
d bu nou (B
U
m
i ed) (see Fi
g
o ela es [pos
i
e
n e al., 20
1
u
(BURN) a
e
i
gu e 1).
e
ela ions be
w
d
uca ion (EN
V
d
uca ion and L
e
211
a
ck and enco
u
u
(e.g., Chan,
o s may edu
c
compe i i e
a
e
ache s (De o
s
u
nd o educe
b
e
he isk o d
e
n
ces o hei le
a
hei lea ning
s
’ de elopme
n
u
(e.g., Fe ne
i
ding and see
k
’s conce ns (
P
)
and encou a
g
applying h
e
n
ou , bu is lik
e
in e ela ions
d
bu nou b
y
n
d expe ience
d
e
s udies. Ac
c
p
osi i ely] wi
h
o
ekae s & C
o
g
ula i e s a e
g
U
RN) a e e
y
g
u e 1).
i
i ely] wi h
1
3a), which,
e
e y ime po
i
w
een s uden
e
V
), and s ud
y
-
e
a ning
u
agemen
o
2002; Väisän
e
c
e s uden ea
c
a
nd compa a i
s
, Dup iez, &
b
eginning ea
c
e
eloping bu
n
a
ning en i o
n
en i onmen ,
b
n
and beha io
, Guay, Senec
k
ing help wh
e
P
aque e & Ri
e
g
ing lea ning
e
e
p oac i e s
ely o also co
n
be ween s ud
e
y
explo ing
h
d
s udy bu no
u
c
o dingly, he
h
s uden eac
h
o
no, 2005; Fo
g
y (CO) co
y
ime poin (
w
he pe cei ed
in u n, u
h
i
n (wi hin T1
e
ache s’ p oa
c
ela ed bu nou
o
m pee s and
e
n e al., 201
7
c
he s’ bu den
i
e lea ning en
Paquay, 2012
;
c
he s’ sense
o
n
ou (Ga ish
&
n
men is a sig
n
b
u hey can a
l
in a way ha
c
al, & Aus in,
e
n acing s u
d
e
g, 2016) is li
k
e
n i onmen i
n
a egies, pa
n
ibu e o a c
e
n eache s’
p
h
ow he p oa
u
among ea l
y
ollowing o
u
h
e ’s co- egul
a
d & Blaus ei
n
ela
es [nega i
w
i hin T1, T2
a
lea ning en i
h
e co ela es
, T2 and T3)
(
c
i e s a egies
(BURN) a e
Vol . 7, No . 1;
eache edu
c
7
). Mo eo e ,
b
i
ng (see Masl
a
i onmen is s
h
;
Pashia dis, 2
o
compe ence
&
F iedman, 2
n
i ican de e
m
l
so ac i ely m
o
p omo es po
s
2012; Pie a i
n
d
y- ela ed s
e
k
ely o enhan
c
n
eache edu
c
icula ly p o
a
ons uc i e s
u
p
oac i e s a
e
c i e s a eg
y
y
ca ee p e-s
e
u
hypo heses
a
i e s a egy
n
, 2013) (see F
ely] wi h s
u
a
nd T3) (Pie
a
onmen (EN
V
[nega i ely]
(
Maslach &
L
(SELF and C
O
e y ime poi
n
2018
c
a o s
b
eing
ch &
h
own
0
00).
,
and
0
10).
m
inan
o
di y
s
i i e
n
en e
sso s
c
e he
a ion
a
c i e
u
den
e
gies,
y
use
ice
we e
(
CO)
i
gu e
u
den
inen
V
) in
wi h
ei e ,
O
),
n
jel.ccsene .
o
4) Th
e
Salm
e
Moye
p
edi
c
Figu e
2
lea nin
g
3. Me ho
d
In Finlan
d
ea ned in
The p im
a
c edi s o
subjec s a
n
and op io
n
subjec (6
0
each also
3.1 Pa ic
i
P ima y s
p
a icipa i
n
om s ud
e
and T3 5
p
opula io
n
su icien l
y
hese case
s
Pa icipan
Pa icipan
b
asis and
le e and
b
ack o
e
minu es.
o
g
e
p
e cei ed
e
la-A o e al.,
, 2009) and
h
c
ed o e ime
2
. Hypo hesize
d
g
en i onmen
d
d
, all p ima y
s
i e yea s. I
a
y s uden ea
c
m eaching p
n
d c oss-cu i
n
al s udies (75
0
c edi s) o
m
a g ades 7-9.
i
pan s
chool s uden
n
g was eache
e
n eache s d
u
7%. The no
n
n
wi hin he
U
y
in e ms o
g
s
. The pa ici
p
s we e equ
e
s we e in o
m
con iden ial.
T
ques ionnai e
e
sea che s. Th
e
s udy- ela ed
2009) and p
h
e pe cei ed l
e
( h ough T1,
T
d
model o h
e
in eache ed
u
s
chool eache
comp ises a
B
c
he s’ majo i
ac ices). In a
d
cula issues c
c edi s) a e i
n
m
a pa icula
eache s co
m
educa ional
s
u
ing he sp i
n
n
- esponse an
a
U
ni e si y o E
g
ende . Non-
e
p
an s also use
d
e
s ed o ill o
u
m
ed o he na
u
T
hose s uden
o hei hom
e
e
ime aken
b
Jou nal o E
d
bu nou (B
U
oac i e s a
e
e
a ning en i
o
T
2 and T3) (s
e
e
ela ions be
w
u
ca ion (ENV)
,
s (g ades 1-6
)
B
achelo ’s de
g
s educa ional
s
d
di ion, o ien
a
o e ed in co
m
n
cluded in he
d
subjec , such
m
ple ed he l
o
s
udies begun
n
g 2013, 201
4
a
lysis showed
as e n Finlan
d
e
sponse analy
s
d
he whole sc
a
u
he ques io
u
e o he s u
d
s who we e
n
e
add esses, a
n
b
y he pa ici
p
d
uca ion and L
e
212
U
RN) (Ga is
h
e
gies adop ed
o
nmen (ENV)
e
e Figu e 2).
w
een s uden
e
,
and s ud
y
- el
)
mus ha e a
M
g
ee (180 c e
d
s
cience o ed
u
a
ion s udies (
2
m
p ehensi e s
c
d
eg ee. A pa
as his o y o
m
o
ngi udinal s
in all o 201
2
4
and 2015. T
h
d
ha he sa
m
d
, he Uni e s
i
s
is showed h
a
a
le in hei a i
n
nnai e du ing
d
y and ha h
e
n
o eached d
u
n
d hey we e
a
p
an s o illin
g
e
a ning
h
& F iedma
n
by s uden e
a
ha egula e
i
e
ache s’ p oa
c
a ed bu nou (
Mas e ’s deg
d
i s) and Mas
e
u
ca ional psyc
h
2
5 c edi s), m
u
c
hool (60 c e
d
o p ima y s
u
m
a hema ics,
udy su ey (
s
2
. The longi u
d
h
e o al espo
n
m
ple ep esen
i
y o Helsink
i
a
he e we e
n
n
gs.
a ace- o- ac
e
i pa icipa i
o
u
ing hese se
a
sked o ill o
u
g
in he ques
i
n
, 2010; Hu
l
a
che s (SELF
i
, a e ela i e
l
c
i e s a egies
BURN) wi hi
n
ee, which co
n
e
’s deg ee (1
2
h
ology (140 c
u
l idisciplina
y
d
i s), and op i
u
den eache s
which jus i ie
s
ee Table 1).
d
inal da a wa
s
n
se a e was a
ed he p im
a
i
, and he Uni
n
o sys ema ic
d
e session in
u
o
n in he s ud
y
ssions we e s
u
he ques io
n
i
onnai e was
b
Vol . 7 , No. 1 ;
l
ell e al.,
2
and CO) (S
o
l
y s able and c
a
(SELF and C
O
n
and ac oss i
m
n
sis s o 300 c
2
0 c edi s) s
u
edi s, includi
n
y
s
udies o
a
onal mino s
u
also s udy a
m
s a quali ica i
o
The c i e io
n
s
collec ed an
n
T1 83%, T2
a
y s uden e
a
e si y o Ta
m
d
a a loss pa e
u
ni e si y lec
y
was on ol
u
en an in o
m
n
nai e and e
u
b
e ween 15 a
n
2018
2
013;
o
hl &
a
n be
O
),
m
e
edi s
u
dies.
n
g 20
ious
u
bjec
m
ino
o
n o
n
o
u
ally
55%
a
che
m
pe e
ns in
u es.
n
a y
m
a ion
u
n i
n
d 20

jel.ccsene .o g Jou nal o Educa ion and Lea ning Vol. 7, No. 1; 2018
213
Table 1. Response a es, gende and age a ime 1, 2 and 3
T1 T2 T3
Response a e 83% 55% 57%
Gende n/%
emale 211/78.1% 133/73.9% 139/75.1%
male 59/21.9% 47/26.1% 46/24.9%
Age min/max 20/46 21/47 22/48
Mean (SD) 23.9 (5.04) 24.3 (4.37) 25.2 (4.41)
Median 22 23 24
Mode 21 21 24
3.2 Measu es
A ques ionnai e con ained scales measu ing p oac i e s a egies used, lea ning en i onmen and s udy- ela ed
bu nou symp oms. These h ee scales we e de eloped o he s udy by he esea ch g oup senio s. The inal
e sions o scales a e shown in Appendix A. The scales used in his s udy d ew on he Socio-Con ex ual Teache
Bu nou In en o y (STBI), which was de eloped o measu ing eache bu nou wi hin he social con ex o he
eache ’s wo king en i onmen (see Pie a inen e al., 2013a, 2013b). The ins umen was modi ied o s uden
eache s and pilo es ed in ano he eache educa ion uni (see Soini e al., 2015; Väisänen e al., submi ed).
The P oac i e S a egy scale was based on he esea ch e idence showing ha unc ional p oac i e s a egies o
educing bu nou can be adop ed in eache s’ e e yday ou ines (Pie a inen e al., 2013a). The scale consis s o a)
sel - egula i e s a egy (4 i ems) and b) co- egula i e s a egy (3 i ems), wo componen s o measu ing p oac i e
s a egies. All i ems we e a ed on a 7-poin Like - ype scale anging om 1 (comple ely disag ee) o 7
(comple ely ag ee).
The Lea ning en i onmen in eache educa ion scale (Soini e al., 2015) d aws on p e ious s udies on beginning
eache s’ expe iences o eache educa ion (Ing a son, Bea is, & Kleinhenz, 2004; Lipponen & Kumpulainen,
2011; Wa & Richa dson, 2008). The scale consis s o nine i ems measu ing ou aspec s o he lea ning
en i onmen : a) social suppo (3 i ems), b) equali y in eache educa ion (2 i ems), c) clima e (2 i ems), and d)
ecogni ion om eache educa o s (2 i ems). All i ems we e a ed on a 7-poin Like - ype scale anging om 1
(comple ely disag ee) o 7 (comple ely ag ee).
The S uden Teache Bu nou scale (STB) (Pie a inen e al., 2013a) d aws bo h on Maslach and Jackson’s (1981)
bu nou scale and Elo, Leppänen, and Jahkola’s (2003) single-i em s ess scale, which measu es pe cei ed
exhaus ion. The STB scale was cons uc ed by speci ying he s udy- ela ed exhaus ion, inadequacy and cynicism
in eache educa ion, measu ing h ee componen s o s uden eache bu nou consis ing o eigh i ems: a)
exhaus ion in s udies (3 i ems), b) inadequacy in s udying (3 i ems), and c) cynicism owa ds eache s udies (2
i ems). All i ems we e a ed on a 7-poin Like scale anging om 1 (comple ely disag ee) o 7 (comple ely
ag ee), excluding he s ess i em ha was a ed on a 10-poin scale. In his s udy, hese h ee symp oms a e
ea ed as unidimensional cons uc indica ing he expe ienced s udy- ela ed bu nou du ing he eache s udies
(see also Ca mona e al., 2006; Salmela-A o e al., 2009).
3.3 Da a Analysis
S uc u al Equa ion Modeling (SEM) was used o es he longi udinal model (see Figu e 2). The analyses we e
conduc ed using an Mplus s a is ical package e sion 6.11. (Mun hén & Mun hén, 1998-2010). The Robus
Maximum Likelihood (MLR) es ima o was used because i p oduces obus s anda d e o s and chi-squa e
s a is ics o handle non-no mally dis ibu ed da a (ibid., 1998-2010). The goodness-o - i o he es ima ed
s anda dized model was es ed by a χ² es , he Compa a i e Fi Index (CFI), Tucke -Lewin Index (TLI), Roo
Mean Squa e E o o App oxima ion (RMSEA), and S anda dized Roo Mean Squa e E o o App oxima ion
(SRMR) (ibid., 1998-2010). A non-signi ican χ² alue, CFI and TLI alues abo e .95, an RMSEA alue
below .06 and an SRMR alue below .08 indica e a good i wi h he da a (ibid., 1998-2010). The s abili y and
in e play o he p oac i e s a egies adop ed by s uden eache s, pe cei ed lea ning en i onmen and
s udy- ela ed bu nou symp oms we e es ed wi h pa h analysis. Also, non-pa ame ic es s wi h SPSS ( e sion
21.), F iedman’s ANOVA, was used o explo e po en ial di e ences be ween means.
4. Resul s
All bi a ia e scale co ela ions be ween a iables wi hin ime we e s a is ically signi ican and in he expec ed
di ec ions (see Table 2). The eliabili y coe icien alphas o sel - egula i e s a egy (α (min-max)=.81-.85),
jel.ccsene .o g Jou nal o Educa ion and Lea ning Vol. 7, No. 1; 2018
214
lea ning en i onmen (α (min-max)=.86-.88) and s udy- ela ed bu nou (α (min-max)=.81-.83) scales we e adequa e in
each measu emen poin . The alphas o co- egula i e s a egy (α (min-max)=.64-.73) scale we e also consis en o e
ime, bu a he mode a e le el (See Nunnally & Be ns ein, 1994, pp. 264-266).
The s uden eache s epo ed o employ unc ional p oac i e s a egies o educing hei s udy- ela ed bu nou
and o egula ing he pe cei ed i be ween he lea ning en i onmen and hemsel es. S uden eache s u ilized
he sel - egula i e s a egies (SELF) consis en ly du ing he s udies (T1; M=5.20, T2; M=5.23, T3; M=5.23), o
ins ance by moni o ing and delimi ing hei s udy. They also epo ed u ilizing co- egula i e s a egies (CO), i.e.,
he capaci y o gi e and ask o social suppo when acing bu dening si ua ions in s udies (T1; M=5.40, T2; 5.31,
T3; 5.28), pa icula ly du ing he i s yea in hei s udies. Howe e , he p oac i e co- egula ion dec eased
sligh ly du ing he s udies (see Table 2).
S uden eache s also ypically expe ienced he lea ning en i onmen (ENV) in eache educa ion posi i ely (T1;
M=5.17, T2; M=4.98, T3; M=5.04), and u he , he expe ienced s udy- ela ed bu nou (BURN) symp oms we e
a a mode a e le el (T1; M=3.40; T2; M=3.53, T3; M=3.39). Howe e , he expe ienced s udy- ela ed bu nou
emained mo e s able (see he ange o Min/Max) o e ime, compa ed o p oac i e sel - egula ion and
co- egula ion and he pe cei ed lea ning en i onmen ha changed sligh ly o e ime (see Table 2). As a whole,
he desc ip i e s a is ics indica ed ha he p oac i e s a egies adop ed by s uden eache s, expe ienced lea ning
en i onmen and s udy- ela ed bu nou we e a he s able and p edic able cons uc s o e ime, and he e a e no
s a is ically signi ican di e ences be ween he means a di e en measu e poin s.
Table 2. Co ela ions, means, s anda d de ia ions, anges and C onbach’s alphas among examined mean
a iables
SELF
T1
SELF
T2
SELF
T3
CO
T1
CO
T2
CO
T3
ENV
T1
ENV
T2
ENV
T3
BURN
T1
BURN
T2
BURN
T3
SELFT1 -
SELFT2 .59 -
SELFT3 .63 .58 -
COT1 .55 .33 .31 -
COT2 .40 .52 .30 .54 -
COT3 .38 .39 .53 .45 .58 -
ENVT1 .37 .24 .22 .47 .29 .32 -
ENVT2 .23 .30 .21 .32 .40 .40 .48 -
ENVT3 .22 .36 .30 .23 .35 .35 .46 .62 -
BURNT1 -.55 -.45 -.40 -.28 -.22 -.24 -.35 -.22 -.15 -
BURNT2 -.42 -.55 -.40 -.11ns -.28 -.21 -.22 -.32 -.30 .71 -
BURNT3 -.49 -.51 -.59 -.22 -.22 -.41 -.24 -.25 -.36 .66 .71 -
Mean 5.20 5.23 5.23 5.40 5.31 5.28 5.17 4.98 5.04 3.40 3.53 3.39
SD 1.09 1.00 1.08 .93 .98 .94 .88 .86 .87 1.17 1.14 1.14
Range 1.75-
7.00
1.50-
7.00
2.25-
7.00
2.00-
7.00
1.33-
7.00
2.33-
7.00
1.44-
7.00
2.44-
5.56
2.56-
6.78
1.00-
6.50
1.13-
6.88
1.13-
6.38
α .84 .81 .85 .64 .73 .67 .88 .86 .87 .83 .81 .82
No e 1. All he co ela ions (excep BURNT2/COT1) we e signi ican a p le el <.05.
No e2. SELF=sel - egula i e s a egy, CO=co- egula i e s a egy, ENV=pe cei ed lea ning en i onmen , BURN= s udy- ela ed bu nou .
4.1 The Complex In e play be ween he P oac i e S a egies, Pe cei ed Lea ning En i onmen in Teache
Educa ion and S udy-Rela ed Bu nou wi hin and o e Time
The hypo hesized mean a iable s uc u es o s uden eache s’ p oac i e s a egies, lea ning en i onmen in
eache educa ion and bu nou scales we e es ed wi hin and o e ime (Bollen, 1989; Hu & Ben le , 1999). The
esul s showed ha he es ed model i s he da a (see Figu e 2). The goodness-o - i o he model was e alua ed
by χ² es , RMSEA, CFI, TLI and SRMR and all goodness-o - i indices indica ed a good model i .
jel.ccsene .
o
The es e
d
and consi
s
T2=.45,
T
s udy- ela
T3=-.27).
Figu e
No e 1. One
[
No e 2. SEL
F
The esul
s
did no c
o
acco ding
associa e
d
T2=.31,
T
s udy- ela
The esul
one’s ow
n
con ibu e
d
expe ienc
e
b
e ween
en i onm
e
b
achelo
s
s udy- ela
eache s i
n
4.2 The S
Time
I was p e
s
o educi
n
and can b
e
we e ela
i
o
g
d
heo e ical
m
s
en ly wi h h
e
T
3=.39). Mo
e
ed bu nou (
H
3. S anda diz
e
SRM
R
[au oco ela i e]
F
=sel - egula i e
s
s
showed ha
o
ela e wi h
h
o hypo hesis
d
posi i ely w
i
T
3=.24). Posi
ed bu nou (
T
s indica ed h
a
n
s udy pace),
d
o pe cei
e
e
d s ud
y
- ela
he p oac i e
e
n and expe
i
s
udies (see F
ed bu nou s
e
n
hei eache
abili y o he
P
s
umed (H4)
h
n
g s ud
y
- ela
e
p edic ed o
e
i
ely s able (s
e
m
odel con i m
e
e
co- egula i
e
e
o e , he s
e
H
2) in e e y
y
e
d model: χ² (
4
R
=.07. *χ²/d
esidual co a ian
c
s
a egy, CO=co-
con e sely, a
s
h
ei expe ien
c
3, he esul s
i
h he expe i
e
i ely pe cei
T
1=-.23, T2=-.
1
a
well de elo
p
enabled he
u
e
d i be wee
n
ed bu nou .
M
sel - and c
o
i
enced s udy-
igu e 3). Ho
w
e
emed also o
b
educa ion pa
h
P
oac i e S
a
h
a bo h he ke
y
ed bu nou a
n
e
ime (hypo
e
e Figu e 3).
Jou nal o E
d
e
d (see Figu e
e
s a egy (H1
)
e
l - egula i e
y
ea du ing
h
4
2)=54.916*
p
a io=1.31. All
c
e o he obse e
d
egula i e s a eg
y
s
was expec e
d
c
ed s udy- ela
con i med h
a
e
nced lea nin
g
ed lea ning
1
8, T3=-.11).
p
ed p oac i e
u
se o co- eg
u
n
he lea nin
g
M
o eo e , h
e
o
- egula i e s
ela ed bu nou
w
e e , he s a
b
b
e dependen
o
h
.
a
egies, Pe ce
i
y
de e minan
s
n
d he expe ie
n
hesis 4). The
d
uca ion and L
e
215
3) ha he se
l
)
adop ed by s
s a egy was
h
e bachelo s
u
p
=.09; RMSE
A
pa ame e s
w
d
ac o indica o s
y
, ENV=pe cei e
d
d
(H2), he co-
ed bu nou i
n
a
he co- egul
g
en i onmen
en i onmen
sel - egula i
e
u
la i e s a eg
g
en i onme
n
e
se in e ela i
o
a egies ado
p
we e some
w
b
ili y o hes
e
o
n he p e io
u
i
ed Lea ning
s
(p oac i e s
n
ced s ud
y
- e
l
esul s con i
m
e
a ning
l
- egula i e s
uden eache
associa ed n
e
u
dies in eac
h
A
=.03 (90% C
.
w
e e signi ican
was added.
d
lea ning en i o
n
egula i e s
a
n
any academi
l
a i e s a egy
p o ided b
y
co ela ed n
e
e
s a egies (s
u
ies (such as
p
n
and hems
e
o
nships (c os
p
ed by s ude
w
ha s able in
e
de e minan
s
u
s s udy- ela e
d
En i onmen
a egies and e
x
l
a ed bu nou
m
ed ha he a
u
a egy was a
s
s in each acad
ega i ely wi
h
h
e educa ion
(
.
I.=.00-.06);
C
a p le el <.0
n
men , BURN= s
u
a
egy adop ed
b
c yea (see F
i
adop ed by s
u
y
he eache
e
e
ga i ely wi
h
u
ch as moni o
p
o iding and
e
l es, and u
s-sec ional c
o
e
n eache s,
p
each academi
s
ha egula
e
d
expe iences
and S udy-Re
x
pe ienced lea
symp oms h
e
u
o eg essi e
c
Vol . 7 , No. 1 ;
s
socia ed posi
emic yea (T1
h
he expe i
e
(
T1=-.51, T2
=
C
FI/TLI=.99/.9
5
u
dy- ela ed bu no
u
b
y s uden ea
c
i
gu e 3). Ho
w
u
den eache
s
e
duca ion (T1
h
he expe i
e
ing and man
a
seeking help
)
he , educe
d
o
a ia e s uc
p
e cei ed lea
c yea h oug
h
e
s uden ea
c
adop ed by s
u
la ed Bu nou
ning en i on
m
e
msel es a e
s
c
o a ia e s u
c
2018
i ely
=
.55,
e
nced
=
-.31,
8;
u
.
c
he s
w
e e ,
s
was
=
.50,
e
nced
a
ging
)
ha
d
he
u es)
ning
h
he
he s’
u
den
o e
m
en )
s
able
c
u es
jel.ccsene .o g Jou nal o Educa ion and Lea ning Vol. 7, No. 1; 2018
216
The p oac i e s a egies exploi ed by s uden eache s we e ela i ely s able h ough he academic yea s (see
Figu e 3). Howe e , employmen o he sel - egula i e s a egy was mo e p edic able han he use o
co- egula i e s a egy. Hence, he use o sel - egula i e s a egy in he i s yea p edic ed sel - egula i e s a egy
use la e in eache educa ion s udies (T1–T2=.60, T2–T3=.34, T1–T3=.44). In u n, he use o co- egula i e
s a egy was p edic able only o he nex academic yea (T1–T2=.41, T2–T3=.48, T1–T3=no s a is ically
signi ican ).
The s uden eache s’ pe cep ions ela ed o he lea ning en i onmen p o ided by he eache educa ion we e
also ela i ely s able du ing he bachelo s udies (T1–T2=.40, T2–T3=.51, T1–T3=.17). Fo ins ance, pe cei ing
he lea ning en i onmen as suppo i e and equal in he i s yea p edic ed such expe ienced la e in he s udies.
As was expec ed (H4), he expe ienced s udy- ela ed bu nou was p edic able du ing he bachelo s udies in
eache educa ion (T1–T2=.28, T2–T3=.37, T1–T3=.31). This indica es ha , i he s uden expe iences
s udy- ela ed bu nou symp oms al eady in he i s yea , hen he isk o expe iencing hese symp oms la e in
s udies was also inc eased (see Figu e 3).
5. Discussion
5.1 Conclusions and Implica ions o Teache Educa ion
This s udy p o ides new insigh s in o he de elopmen and he unc ion o p oac i e s a egies in p omo ing
good s uden eache -lea ning en i onmen i , and in educing isk o s udy bu nou du ing eache s udies (see
also Pie a inen e al., 2013a; Väisänen e al., submi ed). This s udy emphasizes he impo ance o seeing
s udy- ela ed bu nou in eache s udies as some hing ha de elops g adually and is in e wined wi h lea ning o
become a eache , and he e o e also o ms a isk in e ms o de eloping bu nou symp oms also la e on in a
eaching ca ee (Hul ell e al., 2013; Salmela-A o e al., 2011). The e o e, he abili y o ac i ely egula e one’s
well-being could be seen as impo an pa o a eache ’s compe ence and i should al eady be ecognized and
acili a ed du ing he eache s udies. Mo eo e , p io s udies on eache educa ion shows ha a posi i ely
pe cei ed lea ning en i onmen is a c ucial ac o in bu e ing s udy- ela ed bu nou . The esul s om his s udy
sugges ha he e is ac ually a complex and dynamic in e ela ion be ween he way s uden s egula e well-being
in hei s udies, expe ience hei lea ning en i onmen and he isk o bu nou .
Fi s o all, in es iga ion showed ha p oac i e sel - egula ion educed isk o expe iencing s udy- ela ed
bu nou du ing bachelo phase s udies (see also Pie a inen e al., 2013a; Väisänen e al., submi ed). Resul s
sugges ha s uden s egula ed hei s udying, o example managed hei s udy pace, and ha hese s a egies o
bu e po en ial s esso s in ad ance we e e ec i e and success ul in e ms o educing he isk o de eloping
bu nou . The esul s a e in line wi h p e ious indings on he de e minan s o s uden eache bu nou (Ca nice
& Calde ón, 2014; Gus ems-Ca nice & Calde ón, 2013; Väisänen e al., submi ed). Hence, sel - egula ion
seemed o be nega i ely in associa ion wi h he isk o bu nou and he e o e he skills ela ed o iden i ying and
egula ing onesel in s ess ul si ua ions cons i u e an impo an lea ning goal in eache educa ion.
P io esea ch on in-se ice eache s has de ec ed ha co- egula i e s a egies con ibu e o he pe cei ed
wo king en i onmen i (Pie a inen e al., 2013a); howe e , o ou knowledge, his is among he i s s udies
con i ming such a ela ionship wi h s uden eache s. Displaying p oac i e co- egula ion, i.e., u ilizing social
esou ces in he o m o seeking and p o iding suppo , enhanced a mo e unc ional lea ning en i onmen i ha
u he educed he isk o expe iencing s udy- ela ed bu nou . Acco dingly, he esul s imply ha he use o
p oac i e s a egies con ibu ed o he educed s udy- ela ed bu nou h ough lea ning en i onmen expe ience,
which includes a suppo i e clima e, social suppo , a sense o equali y and ecogni ion om eache educa ion.
I also seems ha his ela ion is s able o e ime ( o p io esul s o s abili y o bu nou , see also Ga ish &
F iedman, 2010; Maslach & Lei e , 2008; Salmela-A o e al., 2009; Ta is e al., 2005) also sugges ing ha he
abili y o co- egula e he s ess ul si ua ions wi h o he s plays a dis inc i e ole in s uden eache s bu nou isk.
Mo eo e , esul s show ha he di e en p oac i e s a egies s uden s use a e ela ed. Mo e speci ically, he
sel - egula i e s a egies seem o suppo he use o co- egula i e s a egies. Acco dingly, being able o p o ide
suppo o o he s and u ilize suppo p o ided by hem calls o he abili y o egula e one’s own beha io ,
hough s and emo ions in he di ec ion o well-being. The esul u he ex ends he indings o p io s udies
sugges ing ha use o sel - egula i e s a egies, o example moni o ing beha io (e.g., G eenglass, 2005; Hadwin
e al., 2011, p. 76) may esul in one’s awa eness o he need o help (Ryan e al., 2001). The esul sugges s ha
de elopmen o p oac i e s a egies is launched by sel - egula ion ha u he acili a es de elopmen o
co- egula ion. This implies he e is a “posi i e chain” in e ms o well-being in eache s udies; sel - egula ion