What’s behind Work Engagement in Teaching Practice?

Ika Febrian Kristiana

1 2

, Rahkman Ardi

, andWiwin Hendriani

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia

Faculty of Psychology, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia

Keywords: teacher, engagement, systematic review

Abstracts: This systematic review aims to identify the various antecedents, outcomes, and dynamics of engagement as

a state, whereas the development of research on engagement leads to a state concept. The search was

conducted in September 2017 using four e-databases: ScienceDirect, ERIC, ProQuest, and psycINFO.

Review methods followed the PRISMA-P 2015 guideline. Through the screening process, 33 articles were

obtained and included in this study. Ninety-nine factors that affect teacher engagement were identified and

grouped into five topics: job resources, personal resources, job demands, psychosocial variables, and

demographic variables. A total of 11 outcomes were grouped into three topics: performance, social

outcomes, and personal outcomes. The dynamics of teachers’ engagement is explained only by the tendency

to change throughout their career as a result of personal and organizational influences. The definition of

work engagement used in all these studies refers to Schaufeli, in which work engagement is considered a

state. However, no single study has illustrated the dynamics of work engagement as a state, in detail.

1 INTRODUCTION

Educational institutions require teachers as its

primary driving force. Teachers play a central role in

increasing students’ success and implementing

educational policy. Every positive change in the

school environment invariably involves a teacher’s

role in implementing, maintaining, and evaluating

those changes (Chen, Lattuca, and Hamilton, 2008;

Clifton and Harter, 2003). Teachers’ significant role

in school, especially in the classroom, makes the

study of teachers' engagement relevant to the

management of every school. Engagement appears

to provide considerable impact towards job

satisfaction, participation at work, positive

aspirations towards future careers, resilience, and

reducing absenteeism (Parker, Martin, Colmar, and

Liem, 2012).

Teachers' work engagement is related to

increasing job satisfaction, work productivity, and

students' engagement (Parker et al., 2012). Teaching

is a profession that has special characteristics that

must be considered. The general requirements of

teaching as a profession are closely related to their

primary duties, which are to teach, to educate, to

plan lessons, to evaluate, and to provide counselling.

Alhough, in general, teachers’ primary duties are

identical, teachers are responsible for creating a

unique learning experience in the classroom. In

other words, teachers have to handle different

situations with varying demands and resources

(Doyle, 1986). Prior researches show that teachers

are prone to experiencing burnout and stress at the

highest level of overall job concomitance and a high

level of fatigue and cynicism (Hakanen, Bakker, and

Schaufeli, 2006; Johnson et al., 2005). Therefore, it

is important to study and assess teachers’

engagement. To date, there is an inadequate level of

systematic review and documentation related to

teacher engagement.

There are considerable amount of research about

teacher engagement that have been published;

however, it has not been reviewed systematically. A

systematic review is necessary to identify

antecedents, consequences, and an understanding of

work engagement as a psychological state. The

result of systematic review study might become a

reference for researchers who have an interest in

developing or replicating a study with a similar

topic.

Work engagement is defined as a state of mind,

which is indicated by the presence of vigor,

dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova,

Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker, 2002). In studies with

Kristiana, I., Ardi, R. and Hendriani, W.

What’s behind Work Engagement in Teaching Practice?.

DOI: 10.5220/0008588102670275

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings (ICP-HESOS 2018) - Improving Mental Health and Harmony in

Global Community, pages 267-275

ISBN: 978-989-758-435-0

267

an educational context, the teachers’ engagement

construct is emphasized to describe work

engagement, which is specific to teachers. Studies

of teachers’ engagement is mainly explored using

the job-demands resources model. This model

examines various job demands and personal

resources, which differentiate between teachers who

experience fatigue and those who do not. It also

distinguishes teacher who engage with their work

and those who are disengaged. Teacher engagement

is conceptualized by Klassen, Yerdelen, and

Durksen (2013) based on Kahn’s (1990) definition

as a motivational construct, which encompasses four

dimensions, which, among others, are cognitive

engagement (CE), emotional engagement (EE),

social engagement: student (SES) and social

engagement: colleagues (SEC). Cognitive

engagement (CE) is indicated by the presence of

passion, persistence, and devotion to teach.

Emotional engagement (EE) is manifested in

positive emotional response during work. Social

engagement: student (SES) is demonstrated by the

extent of warmth given by teachers to students, their

commitment, and connectedness. Meanwhile, social

engagement: colleagues (SEC) is demonstrate

through the degree of warmth, commitment, and

effort to maintain a responsible relationship with

colleagues.

The vast majority of work engagement studies

have attempted to explain work engagement by

using an inter-individual approach. Earlier

researches have managed to explain antecedents and

consequences, as well as describing a means to

establish work engagement using the

aforementioned approach, by measuring and

comparing each individual degree of engagement

(Schaufeli, 2012). Numerous studies used an inter

individual approach due to its view of engagement

as a static trait. In other words, engagement is

considered to be permanent in an individual. Several

of the latest researches employing an inter-

individual approach, showed that teachers'

engagement fluctuates regularly. This fluctuation

depends on the event that occurs during the working

day (Sonnetag, 2003; Xanthopoulou dkk, 2008;

Xanthopoulou et al., 2009; Baker and Bal, 2010;

Schaufeli, 2014; Kirkpatrick and Johnson, 2014;

Makikangas, Hyvonen, and Feldt, 2017). Generally

speaking, the notion of engagement is a state

consistent with the definition of engagement

proposed by Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli et al (2002).

In terms of an intra-personal approach, the state in

the engagement is focused on the fluctuation of

vigor, dedication, and absorption during a short

period (daily or weekly basis) (Sonnetag, Dormann,

and Demerouti, 2010).

The aim of this literature review is to

systematically examine antecedents or factors that

influence the outcomes of, and describe dynamics of

teachers' engagement as a state. Therefore, the

research questions behind this systematic review are:

1. What factors are known to influence or predict

work engagement in teaching practice?

2. What outcomes are known to be associated with

work engagement in teaching practice?

3. How is the dynamic of work engagement a state

in teaching practice?

2 METHOD

This study used Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols

2015 (PRISMA-P 2015) for its guidelines.

PRISMA-P 2015 consists of a 17-item checklist

intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of

a robust protocol for a systematic review (Moher et

al., 2015). Protocol preparation is a critical

component of the systematic review process. It

ensures that the literature study being conducted

with scientific rigor, is documented explicitly before

commencing the study, is consistent, and ensures

transparency until the review process is complete

2.1 Search Strategy and Data Sources

The search strategy in this study employed four

electronic database resources, namely ScienceDirect,

ERIC, ProQuest, and psycINFO. A data search was

conducted in September 2017. Keywords used in the

databases were “work engagement” and “teacher”.

See Table 1 for the search strategy.

Table 1: Research Strategy and Result. Total abstracts and

titles reviewed: 1,857. Total abstracts and titles reviewed

minus duplicates: 267. First selection of studies (after title

and abstract review): 121.

Database/source

(2008–2018)

Search term Sum of

titles and

abstracts

Science Direct “work

engagement”

AND “teacher”

895

ERIC “work

engagement”

AND “teacher”

735

ProQuest “work

engagement”

210

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

268

AND “teacher” ,

include grey

publication

(online

dissertation)

psycINFO “work

engagement”

AND “teacher”

For the second selection of manuscripts/studies

(after the full text review), there were 33 with only

demographic data, such as gender and age.

2.2 Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria applied were: 1) peer-

reviewed journals; 2) articles fully written in

English; 3) examining teachers' work engagement;

4) investigates antecedents, outcomes, and, or state

of work engagement; and 5) quantitative and

qualitative studies.

2.3 Screening

The initial screening was conducted by selecting all

the titles and abstracts that corresponded to the

inclusion criteria. Selected titles and abstracts from

the initial screening were then further selected based

on the inclusion criteria.

2.4 Data Extraction

Data that was extracted from articles involved the

writer’s name, the year, the name of the journal,

countries, aims, theoretical framework or model,

conceptualization or definition of work engagement,

methodological approach, sample or participants,

reported reliability and validity, data analysis

techniques, and the results.

2.5 Methodological Quality Review

The review of methodological quality was

performed by evaluating the study design, sampling

techniques (articles or participants), the

measurement or data collection process, and analysis

techniques (Cowden, Cummings, Profetto-McGrath,

2011; Cummings, MacGregor, Davey, Lee, Wong,

Lo, Muise, Stafford, 2010; Germain and Cummings,

2010).

2.6 Analysis

Data that had been extracted, was then synthesized

by using narrative-descriptive techniques. Reviews

carried out on teachers' work engagement outcomes

and factors, were considered influential to the

aforementioned construct. By using content analysis,

these influencing factors and teachers’ work

engagement outcomes were then grouped into

several topics. The Job Demands-Resource (JD-R)

model of work engagement was used in almost all of

studies that had been

reviewed. The identified topics

later compared with JD-R to discover consistent or

novel findings to expand the explanation of the JD-R

model. All the studies in this review applied a total

score of work engagement in the same manner as

Schaufeli dan Bakker (2003; in Bakker and

Demerouti, 2008).

3 RESULTS

3.1 Search Result

The initial screening process to which was applied

inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielded 121

manuscripts for which the full text would be

reviewed. There were 17 articles with unavailable

full texts, therefore they were omitted. Thirty-four

out of 63 full-text manuscripts explained their

methodology in a clear and detail manner. The 34

selected articles, which passed initial screening,

were then further selected based on more rigid

inclusion criteria. There was one article excluded

(Klassen, Yerdelen, and Durksen, 2013; Klassen

et.al, 2012) due to the aims which did not match this

study. In total, 33 articles were analyzed.

Among the 33 articles analyzed, three of the

articles were dissertations (Sokolov, 2017; Coleman,

2016; Munson, 2012). There were two articles with

qualitative study design (Kirkpatrick and Johnson,

2014; Mäkinen, 2013) and one article employing a

mixed-method study design (Munson, 2012), the rest

of the 28 articles were quantitative correlation

studies.

3.2 Summary of Methodological

Quality Assessment

A methodological quality assessment for

correlational studies was conducted by adapting

Cummings et al. (2010) and the method of Germain

and Cummings (2010), which consisted of

evaluating study design quality, a sampling

technique, measurement, a theoretical model/ the

framework used for guidance, and statistical

analysis. Meanwhile, for qualitative studies, an

assessment was performed by using criteria from the

Critical Skills Appraisal Program (CASP, 2010).

What’s behind Work Engagement in Teaching Practice?

269

One study applied a mixed-method design wherein

the quantitative method became primary procedure,

whereas the qualitative method was applied to assist

the data analysis process, methodological quality

assessment through the application of quantitative

criteria. According to the methodological quality

assessment tool, 33 articles fulfilled 99% of the

listed criteria. However, the “are outliers managed"

criteria was unexplained in all quantitative study

articles.

3.3 Descriptive - Narrative Synthesis of

Result

During the analysis process, all of the articles used a

definition of engagement definition from Schaufeli,

Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2002) and

JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008) to

describe theoretical framework and the work

engagement measurement (Schaufeli and Taris,

2014). The analysis result identified factors and

outcomes, which were aligned with the JD-R

engagement model.

Factors influencing teachers' engagement, cover:

1) Job resources topic, consisted of factors such as:

perception of trust in colleagues and students,

organizational support, and organizational

climate (Altunela, Kocak, and Cankir, 2015;

Song, Bae, Park, and Kim, 2013),

communication of learning goals, feedback or

evaluation of supervisor, leadership (Kulophas,

Hallinger, Ruengtrakul, Wongwanich, 2017;

Song, Bae, Park, and Kim, 2013); work-role fit

(Rothmann and Hamukang’andu, 2013), learning

and development opportunities (Altunela, Kocak,

and Cankir, 2015; Bakker and Bal, 2010), job

resource (autonomy, coaching, task significance)

(Altunela et al., 2015; Runhaar, Konermann, and

Sanders, 2013; Bakker et al., 2010), and job

satisfaction, and extra-role behavior (Skaalvik

and Skaalvik, 2013; Simbula and Guglielmi,

2013).

2) The personal resources topic, comprised of self-

efficacy (Buric and Macuka, 2017; Gumbau,

Salanova-Soria, 2014; Skaalvik and Skaalvik,

2014; Høigaard, Giske, and Sundsli, 2012),

calling orientation (Rothmann and

Hamukang’andu, 2013), teacher experience

(Amini and Siyyari, 2018); academic optimism

(Kulophas, Hallinger, Ruengtrakul, Wongwanich,

2017), career satisfaction (Timms and Brough,

2013), role conflict and ambiguity (Bermejo-

Toro, Prieto-Ursúa, and Hernandez, 2015), belief

about teaching and teacher ability to approach

mastery (Hana, Yin, and Wang, 2015), hope,

resilience or buoyancy, and coping style

(Munson, 2012; Parker and Martin, 2009),

teacher goal orientation (Skaalvik and Skaalvik,

2013), mental health problems (Simbula and

Guglielmi, 2013), compassion (Eldor and

Shoshani, 2016), negative emotion (Buric et.al,

2017), psychological capital (Coleman, 2016),

and personalities (Perera, Granziera, Mclleven,

2018; Li, Wang, and You, 2017).

3) Job demand topics shaped by two factors, namely

work overload and challenging behaviour from

students (Bermejo-Toro et al, 2015).

4) The psychosocial topic consisted of six factors,

which were students' social background

(Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Ludtke, and

Baumert, 2008), social support and parental

involvement (Bermejo-Toro et al., 2015; Bakker

et al., 2010), control, reward, fairness, and work-

life balance (Timms et al., 2013).

5) The demographic variables topic involved two

factors, namely gender and age (Guglielmi, Bruni,

Simbula, Fraccaroli, and Depolo, 2015; Runhaar

et al., 2013).

Teachers’ work engagement outcomes include:

1) The performance topic, which contains five

consequences, namely OCB and teaching

performance (Scheepers, Arah, Heineman, and

Lombart, 2014), teaching intention (Shuo Chen,

2017), number of differented instructional

formats used in each class, and time to use

instruction (Sokolov, 2017).

2) Social or organizational topic outcomes

consisting of three consequences, namely attitude

toward student and perception of organizational

trust (Gülbahar, 2017).

3) The personal outcomes topic covers five

consequences: job satisfaction (Skaalvik and

Skaalvik, 2013; Simbula et al., 2013), burnout

(Amini and Siyyari, 2018; Gumbau et al., 2014;

Hakanen, Bakker, and Schaufeli, 2006), intention

to quit (Høigaard, Giske, and Sundsli, 2012),

commitment (Hana, Yin, and Wang, 2015), and

mental health problems (Simbula et al., 2013).

A review of teachers’ engagement dynamics

showed several findings:

1) Teachers’ engagement was inclined to change

throughout their career and was formed by both

personal or organizational influences

(Kirkpatrick and Johnson, 2014).

2) There were dissimilarities between teachers’

engagement types in some studies. For example,

Kirkpatrick and Johnson (2014) proposed three

types of teacher engagement, namely modified

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

270

engagement, focused engagement, and

diversified engagement. Another study by

Makinen (2013) suggested different categories of

engagement, namely one-size-fits-all, engaging

in didactic pedagogy, and engaging in

transformational teaching.

There were very limited number of qualitative

designed studies that could illustrate the process and

dynamics of work engagement fluctuation in detail.

Gaining an understanding of the dynamics of

teachers’ work engagement will potentially guide

efforts to encourage and sustain the engagement

itself.

4 DISCUSSION

The findings of this study offered a more

comprehensive understanding of teachers'

engagement. The result provided insights in term of

antecedents and outcomes, which are unique to

teachers. It clarified knowledge discrepancy and

served as fundamental for study in the professional

teaching field.

During the analysis process, synthesized findings

were compared with the Job Demands-Resources

(JD-R)model, which was mostly used in work

engagement studies. However, the aforementioned

model was considered inadequate to describe several

essential variables in teachers' work engagement,

such as psychosocial variables (e.g., students' social

background and parents involvement in students'

educational process). The JD-R model actually has

limitations, namely specificity and an in-depth

explanation of the process between the concept in

the model (Schaufeli and Taris, 2014).

The JD-R model was inclined to be a heuristic

and descriptive model rather than explanatory; thus,

it is necessary for the researcher to provide an

additional theoretical framework to explain the

psychological mechanism that occurred. This

psychological mechanism referred to relationship

between job demands, resources, and outcomes of

work engagement process. However, this JD-R

model was mostly used due to its generalizability

and flexibility, which was suitable with teachers'

current work engagement study trends.

The association between control and rewards

with teachers' work engagement still gains minimum

attention. Generally, the job of teachers job demands

a considerable overload; moreover they have to deal

with students' challenging behavior, thus it is

logically acceptable that control and rewards for

teachers should be given more attention (Bermejo-

Toro et al., 2015).

Leadership and organizational support have also

become key factors to encourage teachers' work

engagement (Kulophas et al., 2017; Song et al.,

2013). There was strong correlation between these

two variables and teachers' work engagement. The

head teacher’s role, which manifested from

transformational leadership, was critical to develop

high levels of engagement in teachers. Leadership

roles were not there merely to give feedback to

teachers, but also to provide support (Altunela et al.,

2015; Song, Bae, Park, and Kim, 2013),

communicate study aims, and facilitate teachers with

learning opportunities (Kulophas et al., 2017;

Altunela et al., 2015; Song et al., 2013; Bakker and

Bal, 2010).

The outcomes of this study were expected to

bring some attention towards teachers' professional

factors in future studies. Bakker and Demerouti

(2008) and several other work engagement

researchers mainly focused on organizational

outcomes of work engagement or performance.

However, this systematic review discovered that

personal factor variables dominated studies and

corresponded to teachers' engagement. Teachers'

work engagement outcomes mostly contribute

benefits to teacher as individuals rather than

organizational level outcomes.

Several studies applied flagged analysis and

feedback demonstrated that antecedents variables

might became outcomes in relation to work

engagement. Among others were job satisfaction,

self-efficacy, and mental health (Skaalvik and

Skaalvik, 2013; Simbula and Guglielmi, 2013). In

fact, the result of this study also indicates its

drawbacks. The articles reviewed were limited to

correlational studies. Correlational studies merely

indicated the relationship between variables. Thus,

the researcher was unable to conclude any influence

or causal relationships between variables. Therefore,

future research should consider including teachers'

work engagement studies, which utilize

experimental or longitudinal design.

4.1 Implications for Teachers'

Professional Practice

The review findings showed that personal resources

and professionalism corresponded with work

engagement. Identification towards specific

variables from job demands and resources

significantly contributed towards teachers as

What’s behind Work Engagement in Teaching Practice?

271

individuals and the development of their

professionalism.

4.2. Implications for Leaders and Policy

Maker

The responsibility of improving work engagement is

not solely a teacher’s individual duty, but extends to

the practical environment, such as the organization

and educational system. Therefore, it is important

for this issue to be taken into consideration when

stakeholders and policy makers wish to improve

teachers' professionalism. Leadership, organizational

support (i.e. a supportive organizational climate,

coaching, and training availability) and family and

social support are also associated with teachers'

work engagement.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND

LIMITATIONS

This systematic review’s findings showed that both

individual and organizational factors were related to

influencing teachers' work engagement. Teachers'

work engagement also provides both positive and

negative consequences on an individual and

organizational level.

These literature review findings suggest further

study to consider applying the JD-R model to

explain teachers' work engagement. However,

subsequent studies should consider teachers' work

engagement, social resources, and outcomes. This is

because teachers' duties require them to intensively

build and maintain social relationships, especially

with students, parents, and colleagues.

The results of this study could be grounding to

develop various studies of teachers' work

engagement antecedents and consequences based on

teachers' social resources. Furthermore, a future

study could develop an instrument to measure

teachers' work engagement. However, the described

teachers' work engagement still had some limitations.

These solely consider engagement as a trait. The

explanation of teachers' engagement as a state, by

depicting its dynamics, requires further

comprehensive study. Aside from contribution

towards the work engagement theoretical gap,

gaining a comprehensive understanding about the

dynamics of engagement could contribute towards

the establishment of evidence-based intervention for

teachers.

There were few things that had been taken into

consideration before conducting this study and it

became our limitation. Among others were that this

literature review exclusively analyzed articles about

teachers' work engagement without considering

schools' context (i.e. level of education and

environment). Including the schools' context in the

search keywords may lead to different articles. Most

of the analyzed articles were correlational design

studies, therefore it was impossible to draw any

causal relationship that could directly support

specific variables of a causal claim. Thus,

antecedent variables and outcome variables could

not be used interchangeably.

REFERENCES

Altunela, M., C., Kocak, O., E., and Cankir, B. 2015. The

Effect of Job Resources on Work Engagement: A

Study on Academicians in Turkey. Educational

Sciences: Theory and practice. 15, 2, 409-417.

Retrieved in September 21

2017. doi:

10.12738/estp.2015.2.2349.

Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L., Leiter, M.P., 2011. Key

questions regarding work engagement. Eur. J. Work

Organ. Psychol. 20, 1, 4–28. Retrieved in September

2017. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2010.485352.

Bakker, A.B., Bal, P.M., 2010. Weekly work engagement

and performance: a study among starting teachers. J.

Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83, 189–206. Retrieved in

September 2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2007. The job demands-

resources model: state of the art. J. Manag. Psychol.

22 (3), 309–328. Retrieved in April 2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of

work engagement. Career Dev. Int. 13 (3), 209–223.

Retrieved in September 2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 13620430810870476..

Bakker, A., and Bal, M., 2010. Weekly work engagement

and performance: A study among starting teachers.

Journal Of Occupational And Organizational

Psychology, 83, 189-206. Retrieved in September

2017. doi:10.1348/096317909X402596.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of

work engagement. Career Development International,

13, 3, 209-223. Retrieved in February 2018. doi:

10.1108/13620430810870476

Bermejo-Toro, L., Prieto-Ursúa, M., and Hernández, V.,

2015. Towards a model of teacher well-being:

personal and job resources involved in teacher burnout

and engagement. Educational Psychology. Retrieved

in September 21

2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1005006.

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

272

Buric, I., and Macuka, I., 2017. Self-efficacy, emotions

and work engagement among teachers: A two wave

cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Happiness Study.

Retrieved in September 2017. Doi: 10.1007/s10902-

017-9903-9

Chen, I., S 2017. Work engagement and its antecedents

and consequences: A case of lecturers teaching

synchronous distance education courses. Computers in

Human Behavior, 72, 655-663. Retrieved in

September 2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.002.

Chen, H. L., Lattuca, L. R., and Hamilton, E. R. (2008).

Conceptualizing engagement: Contributions of faculty

to student engagement in engineering. Journal of

Engineering Education, 97, 3, 339-353. Retrieved in

September 2017. doi:10.1002/j.2168-

9830.2008.tb00983.x

Coleman, S. 2016. Teachers as a leader: The role of

Psycap on the work engagement of elementary school

teacher. Proquest: online dissertation.

Cummings, G., MacGregor, T., Davey, M., Lee, H., Wong,

C.A., Lo, E., Muise, M., Stafford, E., 2010.

Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing

workforce and work environment: a systematic review.

Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 47, 363–385. Retrieved in April

2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu. 2009.08.006.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), 2010. 10

Questions to Help You Make Sense of Qualitative

Research. Retrieved in April 2018. http://www.

caspinternational.org/mod_product/uploads/CASP%20

Qualitative%20Research%20Checklist%2031.05.13.p

df.

Doyle, W. 1986. Handbook on research on teaching. New

York: MacMillam.

Eldor, L., Shoshani, A. 2016. Caring relationships in

school staff: Exploring the link between compassion

and teacher work engagement. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 59, 126-136. Retrieved in Sepetember

2017. doi: org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.001.

Eldor, L. Shoshani, A. 2017. Are you being served? The

relationship between school climate for service and

teachers' engagement, satisfaction, and intention to

leave: A moderated mediation model. The Journal of

Psychology. Retrieved in September 2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1291488.

Faskhod, A., A., Siyyari, M., 2018. Dimensions of Work

Engagement and Teacher Burnout: A Study of

Relations among Iranian EFL Teachers. Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 1. Retrieved in

September 30

2017.

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol43/iss1/5

Germain, P.B., Cummings, G., 2010. The influence of

nursing leadership on nurse performance: a systematic

review. J. Nurs. Manag. 18, 425–439,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01100.x.

Guglielmi, D., Bruni, I., Simbula, S., Fraccaroli, F.,

Depolo, M. 2016. What drives teacher engagement: a

study of different age cohorts. European Journal of

Psychology and Educational, 31:323–340. Retrieved

in September 2017. doi: 10.1007/s10212-015-0263-8.

Gulbahar, B., 2017. The Relationship between Work

Engagement and Organizational Trust: A Study of

Elementary School Teachers in Turkey. Journal of

Education and Training Studies, 5, 2; Retrieved in

September 20

2017. doi:10.11114/jets.v5i2.2052.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2006).

Burnout and work engagement among teachers.

Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495-513.

Retrieved in September 2017.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

Halbesleben, J.R.B., Wheeler, A.R., 2008. The relative

role of engagement and embeddedness in predicting

job performance and turnover intention. Work Stress

22, 242–256.

Halbesleben, J.R.B., 2010. A meta-analysis of work

engagement: relationships with burnout, demands,

resources, and consequences. In: Bakker, A.B., Leiter,

M.P (Eds.), Work Engagement: A Handbook of

Essential Theory and Research. Psychology Press,

New York, NY, pp. 102–117.

Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., and Schaufeli, W. B. 2006.

Burnout and work engagement among teachers.

Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513. Retrieved

in September 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001.

Han, J., Yin, H., and Wang, W., 2015. The effect of

tertiary teachers’ goal orientations for teaching on

their commitment: the mediating role of teacher

engagement. An International Journal of Experimental

Educational Psychology. Retrieved in September 2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1044943 .

Høigaard, R., Giske, R., and Sundsli, K., 2012, Newly

qualified teachers’ work engagement and teacher

efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and

the intention to quit. European Journal of Teacher

Education, 35, 3, 347-357. Retrieved in September

2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.633993

Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor,

P., and Millet, C. 2005. The experience of work-

related stress across occupations. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 20, 2, 178-187. Retrieved in

September 2017. doi:10.1108/02683940510579803

Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal

engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of

Management Journal, 33, 4, 692-724. Retrieved in

September 2017. doi:10.2307/256287.

Kirkpatrick, C., L., Johnson, S., M. 2014. Ensuring the

ongoing engagement of second-stage teachers.

Educational Change, 15, 231–252. Retrieved in

September 2017. doi: 10.1007/s10833-014-9231-3.

Klassen, R. M., Yerdelen, S., and Durksen, T. L. 2013.

Measuring teacher engagement: Development of the

engaged teachers scale (ETS). Frontline Learning

Research, 1(2), 33–52.

Klassen, R., M., Aldhafri, S., Mansfield, C., A., Purwanto,

E., Siu, A., F., Y., Wong, M., W., and Woods-

McConney, A. 2012. Teacher’ engagement: An

international validation study. The journal of

experimental education, 80, 4. Retrieved in September

2017. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2012.678409.

What’s behind Work Engagement in Teaching Practice?

273

Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Ulrich, T., Lüdtke, O., and

Baumert, J., 2008. Engagement and Emotional

Exhaustion in Teachers: Does the School Context

Make a Difference?. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 57, 127–151. Retrieved in

September 2017. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-

0597.2008.00358.x.

Kulophas, D., Hallinger, P., Ruengtrakul, A.,

Wongwanich, S., 2017. Exploring the effects of

authentic leadership on academic optimism and

teacher engagement in Thailand. International Journal

of Educational Management. Retrieved in September

2017. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2016-0233

Leiter, M.P., Bakker, A.B., 2010. Work engagement:

introduction. In: Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M.P. (Eds.),

Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory

and Research. Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp.

10–24.

Li, M., Wang, Z., Gao, J., and You, X., 2017. Proactive

personality and job satisfaction: The mediating effects

of self-efficacy and work engagement in teachers.

Curr Psychology, 36, 48–55. Retrieved in September

2018. Doi: 10.1007/s12144-015-9383-1.

Llorens-Gumbau, S., Salanova-Soria, M. 2014. Loss and

gain cycles? A longitudinal study about burnout,

engagement and self-efficacy. Burnout Research xxx

(2014) xxx–xxx. Retrieved in September 2017.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2014.02.001

Mäkinen, M. 2013. Becoming engaged in inclusive

practices: Narrative reflections on teaching as

descriptors of teachers’ work engagement. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 35, 51-61. Retrieved in

September 2017. doi: org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.005.

Makikangas, A., Hyvonen, K., and Feldt, T. 2017. The

energy and identification continua of burnout and

work engagement: Development profiles over eight

years. Burnout Research, 5, 44-54. Retrieved in June

2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.04.00

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., and Harter, L. M. 2004. The

psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety

and availability and the engagement of the human

spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 77, 1, 11-37. Retrieved in

September 2017. doi:10.1348/096317904322915892.

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati,

A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L., A., and

PRISMA-P Group 2015. 2015. ‘Preferred reporting

items for systematic review and meta-analysis

protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement’. Systematic

Reviews, 4, 1. Retrieved in May 10

2018.

http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/

Munson, V. 2012. Teacher engagement in a northwestern

british Columbia school district. Proquest: online

dissertation

Parker, P. D., Martin, A. J., Colmar, S., and 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. Retrieved in September

2017. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.001.

Pereraa, H., N., Granziera, H., McIlveen, P. 2018. Profiles

of teacher personality and relations with teacher self-

efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction.

Personality and Individual Differences, 120 (2018)

171–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.034.

Rothmann, S., and Hamukang’andu, L., 2013. Callings,

work role fit, psychological meaningfulness and work

engagement among teachers in Zambia. South African

Journal of Education, 33, 2. Retrieved in September

2017. http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za.

Runhaar, P., Konermann, J., Sanders, K., 2013. Teachers’

organizational citizenship behaviour: Considering the

roles of their Work engagement, autonomy and leader-

member exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education,

30, 99-108. Retrieved in September 2017. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.008

Schaufeli, W.B. 2012. Work engagement: What do we

know and where do we go? Romanian journal of

applied psychology, 14, 1, 3-10.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., and

Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of

engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory

factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies,

3, 71–92. Retrieved in September 2017. doi:

10.1023/A:1015630930326.

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., 2014. A critical review of

the job demands resources model: implications for

improving work and health. In: Bauer, G.F., Hammig,

O. (Eds.), Bridging Occupational, Organizational, and

Public Health: A Transdiscplinary Approach. Springer

Science and Business Media, Dordrecht, pp. 43–68,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-007-5640-3_4.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., 2003. Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (UWES): Preliminary Manual.

Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht

University, ND.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., and

Bakker, A. B. 2002. The measurement of engagement

and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor

analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3,

71–92. Retrieved in September 2017. doi:

10.1023/A:1015630930326.

Scheepers, R., A., Arah, O., R., Heineman, M., J.,

Lombarts, K., M., J., M., H. 2015. In the eyes of

residents good supervisors need to be more than

engaged physicians: the relevance of teacher work

engagement in residency training. Advance in Health

Science and Education, 20:441–455. Retrieved in

September 2017. doi: 10.1007/s10459-014-9538-0.

Simbulaa, S., Guglielmi, D. 2013. I am engaged, I feel

good, and I go the extra-mile: Reciprocal relationships

between work engagement and consequences. Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29, 117-125.

Retrieved in September 2017 doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a17.

Skaalvik, E., M., Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-

efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with

teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

274

exhaustion. Psychological Reports: Employment

Psychology & Marketing. Retrieved in September

2018. doi: 10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0.

Sokolov, C., K. 2017. Teacher engagement in grades 4-8.

Proquest: online dissertation.

Sonnentag S. 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and

proactive behavior: A new look at the interface

between nonwork and work. Journal Applied

Psychology. 88:518–528.

Song, J., H., Bae, S., H., Park, S., Kim, H., K., 2013.

Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of

CTE teachers: mutual impact of perceived school

support, transformational leadership, and work

engagement. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev, 14:467–482.

Retrieved in September 2017. Doi: 10.1007/s12564-

013-9283-8

Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., and Demerouti, E. 2010. Not

all days are created equal: The concept of state work

engagement. In A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter (Eds.),

Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and

research (pp. 25-38). New York, NY: Psychology

Press.

Timms, C., and Brough, P. 2013. “I like being a teacher”

Career satisfaction, the work environment and work

engagement. Journal of Educational Administration,

51, 6, 768-789. Retrieved in Septemebr 2017. doi:

10.1108/JEA-06-2012-0072

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E.,

Schaufeli, W.B., 2007. The role of personal resources

in the job demands-resources model. Interv. J. Stress

Manag. 14, 121–141.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Schaufeli,

W.B., 2009. Work engagement and financial returns: a

diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J.

Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82, 183–200. Retrieved in

September 2017. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317908X28563

What’s behind Work Engagement in Teaching Practice?

275