Potential classroom stressors of teachers: An audiovisual and physiological approach

Highlights

• Previous studies found various classroom stressors for teachers.

• Teacher stress is measured by heart rate.

• Classroom situations is coded by a deductive coding scheme.

• Teacher-centered activities and low engagement significantly predict stressful situations.

• The impact of teacher-centered activities on teacher stress shows most variance.

Abstract

The number of teachers leaving their professions due to high levels of stress is a growing worldwide concern. Previous psychological and physiological research has already identified potential classroom stressors: low student engagement and motivation, negative teacher-student relationships and interactions, as well as teacher-centered activities. The current study extends this research by examining the frequency and intensity of these stressors during actual classroom teaching. The heart rates of 40 teachers were recorded throughout one real-life classroom lesson as a proxy for teacher stress. Heart rate measurements were used to select potentially stressful and non-stressful classroom situations. We transcribed the interactions during these situations and coded the stressors according to the previously mentioned stressor categories. Multilevel regression analyses were conducted to predict teachers' heart rates based on the occurrence of classroom stressors. Students’ low engagement and motivation, as well as teacher-centered activities, significantly predicted an increased heart rate. However, pronounced differences were observed between teachers in what they experienced as stressful. This points to significant individual differences in teacher stress triggers and processes. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Introduction

Elevated stress levels are a major problem for teachers around the world (e.g., Chaplain, 2008; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Kyriacou, 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015) as they are more likely to be affected by occupational stress than individuals in most other professions (Smith et al., 2000; Travers & Cooper, 1993). As a result, occupational stress and its influence on the number of teachers leaving the profession is a growing global concern (Brunsting et al., 2014; Ingersoll, 2001; Kyriacou, 2001; National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996; Schlichte et al., 2005). In the US, around 40% of teachers change careers before the end of their fifth teaching year (Player et al., 2017; Reeves et al., 2017; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017), while in China, the same percentage of teachers have at least considered leaving the profession (Liu & Onwuegbuzie, 2012).

In addition to factors outside the classroom, such as principal leadership (Newberry & Allsop, 2017; Tickle et al., 2011; Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2015) or conflicts with colleagues (Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2015), interactional processes inside the classroom play a major role in the development of teacher stress and burnout. Such processes include classroom management difficulties (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015) and struggling with building positive and sustainable teacher-student relationships (O'Brennan et al., 2017; Richards et al., 2018; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015; Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2015).

Previous research into the factors underlying teacher stress and burnout has largely relied on interviews and questionnaires (e.g., Aldrup et al., 2018; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Montgomery & Rupp, 2005). Such studies focused on retrospective reports and subjective aspects of teacher stress, often evaluating stressors at a more general or habitual level. The most prominent types of stressors identified in these studies are low student engagement and negative teacher-student relationships due to both negative teacher and student behavior.

However, stress is also considered a biopsychosocial phenomenon (Blascovich et al., 2001) and thus includes, in addition to cognitive and motivational aspects, more implicit and physiological components (e.g., autonomic nervous system reactivity; Blascovich et al., 1999; Mendes et al., 2008, Mendes et al., 2003). The present study contributes to our understanding of teacher stress by examining classroom stressors and their association with physiological stress (i.e., heart rate) during actual teaching.

Stress is defined as “certain types of experiences, as well as the body's responses to such experiences. The term generally refers to challenges, real or implied, to the homeostatic regulatory process of the organism” (McEwen & Mendelson, 1993, p. 101). Short-term or acute psychological stress triggers the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA; Hellhammer et al., 2009). Subsequently, the adrenal glands release glucocorticoids, which stimulate cardiovascular tissues and give feedback to the central nervous system to inhibit activation of the HPA axis. Under stress, the stimulation of cardiovascular tissues leads to an increased heart rate (Burford et al., 2017).

Repeated exposure to stressors that cannot be adequately managed may give rise to psychological symptoms of burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2016) and a physiological effect called “allostatic overload” (McEwen, 2005). According to previous research, the main psychological symptoms of burnout are “overwhelming exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job, and a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment” (Maslach & Leiter, 2016, p. 103). Many recent investigations on teacher stress, negative emotions, or burnout focused on the psychological experience of stress. Some studies evaluate this concept using single items such as “I find teaching to be very stressful” (Klassen & Chiu, 2010), whereas others applied more detailed questions referring to facets of stress such as “tension” or “discontent” (Clunies-Ross et al., 2008). Stress can be assessed as single (Aldrup et al., 2017; Dicke et al., 2014) or multi-dimensional concept (Aloe et al., 2014), comprising factors such as burnout or occupational well-being (Aldrup et al., 2018).

The few studies that used physiological indicators to investigate teacher stress have evaluated heart rate (Bönner & Walenzik, 1982; Donker et al., 2018, 2021; Scheuch & Knothe, 1997; Sperka & Kittler, 1995), electrodermal activity (Junker & Holodynski, 2021), cortisol levels (Susoliakova et al., 2014), or blood pressure (Bönner & Walenzik, 1982). While all of these are useful physiological indicators of stress, measures of heart rate and electrodermal activity provide an especially easy, inexpensive, and reliable method of recording stress reactivity (Lohani et al., 2019).

Sperka and Kittler (1995) assessed the heart rate of 16 student-teachers as they taught their first professional lessons. Following a situational analysis, the authors found that teachers’ heart rate decreased throughout the lesson, likely because their regulatory necessities declined. Scheuch and Knothe (1997) examined the heart rate of 67 teachers and found these rates to be highest during teacher-centered activities like explaining concepts or giving directions and instruction. Junker and Holodynski (2021) analyzed the electrodermal activity and classroom interactions of eight teachers during a lesson. This study also showed that teacher-centered classroom activities produced more physiological stress than, for example, student-centered activities. Moreover, Donker et al. (2021) measured the heart rate of 80 teachers and rated video segments of their interpersonal behavior (agency and communion). Like the aforementioned studies, this investigation found that teachers showed an increased heart rate in situations where they had more interactional dominance.

A stressor is defined as a situation or stimulus “which produces stress” (Selye, 1976, p. 78), and conveys a certain personal demand or threat (Deckers, 2018). Much like the studies on teacher stress, most research on stressors in teaching has largely relied on self-report measures (e.g., Aldrup et al., 2018; Becker et al., 2015; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). One of the most often used instruments in these studies is the Teacher Stress Inventory (Fimian, 1984, as cited in; Fimian & Fastenau, 1990), a self-report measure that identifies habitual stressors during teaching. Self-report studies provide important information on subjectively perceived negative mental states. Still, the external assessment of stressors through student reports or process-based data, such as observational records or ambulatory physiological monitoring, may provide additional situation-specific information to complement survey data (Lindahl et al., 2019). For example, Clunies-Ross and colleagues (2008) used the Observing Pupils and Teachers in Classrooms Schedule (OPTIC) by Merrett and Wheldall (1986) to record the percentage of time students spent engaging in task-related behavior (rather than disruptive-disrespectful behavior). Becker et al. (2015) used student ratings of class discipline collected with the following two items: “In this lesson, instruction was often disrupted” and “In this lesson, a lot of time was wasted.”

Although at an individual level, stressors are perceived as such based on personal, internal appraisal processes (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Lazarus, 1984), previous psychological and physiological studies have been able to identify three general categories of stressors in teaching. The first category pertains to students’ lack of motivation or effort (Becker et al., 2015; Benmansour, 1998; Buchanan, 2010; Geving, 2007; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008). Teachers may interpret this as a (potential) personal shortcoming due to an inability to provide engaging and interesting lessons.

The second category encompasses poor teacher-student relationships, which are often referred to as psychological stressors (Aldrup et al., 2017, 2018; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Klassen et al., 2012; Spilt et al., 2011). The quality of student-teacher relationships is influenced by fixed or external factors like student gender (Jerome et al., 2009) and parental involvement (Wyrick & Rudasill, 2009), as well as process-based classroom factors like student and teacher beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and interactions with one another (Hamre & Pianta, 2006). Hamre and Pianta (2006) suggested that relationships include internal (e.g., beliefs and attitudes) and external (behavioral) aspects. In this study, we mainly focused on two conflict-related observable aspects of the teacher-student relationship: student behavior (i.e., disruptive-disrespectful behavior; Aloe et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2015; Benmansour, 1998; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Dicke et al., 2014; Harmsen et al., 2018; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Paquette & Rieg, 2016) and teacher behavior (i.e., negative interpersonal teacher behavior; Aldrup et al., 2017; Aldrup et al., 2018; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Klassen et al., 2012; Spilt et al., 2011). Teachers may experience aversive student behavior as a stressor especially if they feel responsible for creating a positive classroom environment (Lewis & Sugai, 1999), establishing effective rules and routines, or conducting adequate monitoring (Colvin et al., 1993). Negative interpersonal teacher behavior may generate stress due to the emotional labor involved in bridging the gap between experienced and expressed emotion so as not to violate display rules (Donker et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2019).

Third, especially studies including physiological measures (see paragraph 1.1), discovered that teacher-centered episodes with increased regulatory necessities were associated with higher physiological stress (Donker et al., 2021; Junker & Holodynski, 2021; Scheuch & Knothe, 1997; Sperka & Kittler, 1995). Therefore, teacher-centered activities were included as a stressor in the present study.

The aim of the present study was to explore the extent to which classroom stressors identified by previous studies are predictive of heart rate as an indicator of physiological stress during actual teaching. We also aimed to determine which stressor had the strongest association with teachers’ heart rate. We expected that low student engagement and motivation (Becker et al., 2015; Benmansour, 1998; Buchanan, 2010; Geving, 2007; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008), as well as disrespectful-disruptive student behavior (Aloe et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2015; Benmansour, 1998; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Dicke et al., 2014; Harmsen et al., 2018; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Paquette & Rieg, 2016), would lead to an increased heart rate in teachers. Moreover, negative interpersonal teacher behavior was expected to be a predictor of physiological teacher stress (Aldrup et al., 2017, 2018; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008; Klassen et al., 2012; Spilt et al., 2011). Finally, we hypothesized that teacher-centered activities like classroom instruction would be associated with a heightened heart rate, indicating higher stress (Donker et al., 2021; Junker & Holodynski, 2021; Scheuch & Knothe, 1997, Sperka & Kittler, 1995).

Most previous studies included only one or two categories of stressors. We could therefore not formulate an explicit hypothesis for the relative strength of their associations with teacher stress.