Student Teachers' Proactive Strategies and Experienced Learning Environment for Reducing Study-Related Burnout

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