The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:

Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Fulltext of Oral Presentation

Concurrent session 1.1 July 19th 2017, 15.00 – 16.40

[AS0059]

AN INVESTIGATION INTO STUDENT TEACHERS STRESS AND STRESS COPING STYLE

Su Sandi Htun1, Nu Nu Nyunt2

Yangon University of Education, Department of Educational Psychology,

Yangon, Myanmar

*Corresponding author’s email: hsuhtetsandi@gmail.com; nyuntnn@gmail.com

Abstract

In the 21st century, changes in society have put new pressures and stress on teachers. So, this study
intended to examine level of stress and coping styles of student teachers. A total of 220 student teachers
from Yangon University of Education participated in this study. Stress Coping Style Inventory developed
by Ying Ming Lin & Farn Shing Chen (2010) and Stress Subscale of DASS (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale)
developed by Antomy et al (1998) were used as the research instruments. Concerning the stress level,
very small proportion of participant student teachers felt severe on stress. Regarding gender, the result
of t test showed that there was no significant difference on stress. Moreover, it was found that participant
student teachers from low SES families felt more stress than those who come from middle and high SES
families. Regarding the stress coping style, the t test result by gender indicated that significant difference
was found to be only on passive problem coping factor. It is recommended that coping with stress is a skill
that is needed and can be used for a lifetime. Stress affects the efficiency of teachers so there is a need
to provide proper conducive environment.

Keywords: stress, stress coping style, problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping.

Introduction

In the 21st century, teachers face many challenges such as rapid advancement in knowledge and
technology as well as requirement of new skills in workplace. These challenges and rapid changes can
cause stress. In order to overcome these kinds of stress, student teachers need to possess appropriate
stress coping styles. Stress provides the means to express talents and energies and pursue happiness; it
can also cause exhaustion and illness, either physical or psychological; heart attacks and accidents. Stress
is good to extent natural to all life and unavoidable for human beings. According to Selye (1976), there
are four dimensions of stress; overstress, under stress, good stress and bad stress. Specifically, overstress
(hyper stress): Where the load is very high and the demands are greater than what the individual is likely

79
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

to manage. In Selye's words, the person has ''exceeded the limits of his adaptability". Under stress (Hypo
stress): Where the load is very less and this leads to under stimulation, boredom, lack of motivation and
depression. In Selye's words, the person is ''suffering from a lack of self-realization". Good stress
(Eustress): When we find something really challenging and motivating. In his words this is the pleasant or
curative stress. Bad stress (Distress): That which makes us feels irritable and exhausted what he calls as
unpleasant or disease producing stress. Stress affects all of us regardless of gender, age, race or class. So,
people need to cope with stress.

Coping behavior has been defined as "the application of a person's acquired skills, technique & knowledge
to solve the problems that she is facing. Thus, coping is the action taken in the face of a stressful situation
in order to make an effort to lessen the threat to one. Most of people cope with stress in a characteristics
manner, employing a coping style that represents general tendency to deal with stress in a specific way.
People react to even the smallest amount of stress with hysteria, and others who calmly confront even
the greatest stress in an unflappable manner. These kinds of people clearly have quite difference coping
styles (Taylor, 1991). There are three main types of coping styles that people employ when attempting to
resolve or remove a stressor: problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping and avoidant coping
(Folkman & Lazarus, 1984).

Problem-focused coping appears to be the most adaptive coping style as it is associated with reduced the
symptoms of stress and anxiety. In problem-focused coping includes active problem-focused coping and
passive problem-focused coping. Active problem-focused coping points at instances when individuals face
stress, people solve problem by looking at the center of the problem and assist or search for assistance,
including: (a) solving a problem includes simplifying the problem, getting to the main point, being calm
and optimistic, independent planning and handing of the matter and (b) search for assistance includes
search for external resources, such as teachers or friends or collecting related data from various channels.
Passive problem-focused coping at individuals adopting procrastinating and evasive behaviors when
facing stress, including; (a) procrastinating problem: temporarily putting aside or passively constraining
the problem and (b) evasion of problems includes alcohol or drug abuse to cause numbness, evade
problems and decrease standards.

Emotional coping points at individuals adopting the attitude of emotional adjustment first. When faced
with stress, including: (a) emotional adjustment points at adjustment attitudes such as positive thinking
emotions and self-encouragement and (b) emotional outburst points as shifting the attention, changing
the emotions and searching for external resources to assist in adjusting the emotions or searching for de-
stressing methods. Passive emotional coping points at a passive situation that appears when an individual
faces stress, including: ( a) emotionally downcast points at constraining emotions and self-accusation,
blaming God and others or giving up and loss of emotional control points at getting angry easily or blaming
others.

80
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Common coping strategies include avoidance, planned problem solving, self-control, seeking support. Van
Dick and Wagner (2001) found that teachers who have higher level of stress have been found to be more
likely to use emotion-focused coping. Baloglu (2008) found that prospective teachers preferred emotion-
focused strategies rather than problem-focused strategies for coping with stress due to lack of student
control. This suggests that lack of student control is a stressful event and teaching programs lack teaching
skills to cope within training. In contrast, Wijndaele et al (2007) found that participants that engaged in
problem-focused coping had reduced symptoms of stress and anxiety, compared to participants that
engaged in other coping styles. A study investigating coping and outcomes concluded that non-productive
coping includes the use of strategies like self-blaming, keeping toself, wishful thinking, worrying, tension
reduction, and ignoring the problem (Lewis & Frydenberg, 2007). In contrast, problem solving, working
hard, physical recreation, and relaxing were viewed as productive stages (Lews & Frydenberg, 2007).
According to Lewis and Frydenberg (2007), girls have been found to employ nonproductive styles of coping
more than boys by putting more energy into stratagems such as worrying, wishful thinking, reduction and
self-blame. Good coping style is essential for people who need treatments prior to facing a stressful event.
Accordingly, people responses and coping mechanisms to stress and anxious situation vary. Changes in
society have put new pressures and stress on teachers. Teachers play a significant role in shaping the lives
of their students. Therefore, it is essential to explore the student teachers’ level of stress and how to cope
with stress.

For this purpose, the research questions motivating this study should be expressed as follow;

(1)What are the level of student-teachers stress?

(2) Is there any difference in stress and stress coping style by gender?

(3) Is there any difference in stress and stress coping style among student-teachers by SES level?

Methodology

The student teachers stress and coping style were examined by using descriptive survey method. A total
of 220 student teachers from Yangon University of Education participated in this study.

Stress Coping Style Inventory developed by Ying Ming Lin & Farn Shing Chen (2010) and Stress Subscale
of DASS (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale) developed by Antomy et al (1998) were used as the research
instruments. DASS contains three subscales such as depression, anxiety and stress. Stress subscale used
in this study. It consists of 13 items with four point likert scales. Stress Coping Style Inventory consists of
four factors such as active emotional coping, passive emotional coping, active problem coping and passive
problem coping. Specifically, active emotional coping consists of 8 items, passive emotional coping and
active problem coping consists of 6 items each, passive problem coping consists of 8 items. The target
participants might answer five point likert scales. The higher the points achieved in each factor presented,

81
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

the higher is the rate of this coping style used. On the other hand, the lower the points represented, the
lower is the type of coping style used.

Results and Discussion

According to Table 1, the mean and standard deviation of student teachers stress were 14.84 and 6.342.
There were 13 items in stress scale to ask about knowing the level of stress in life. According to criteria of
test developer, four level of stress were classified as normal, mild, moderate and severe. Specifically,
student teachers who earned the score 0 to 14 were identified as normal, 15 to 18 were mild, 19 to 25
were moderate and 26 and above were severe.

Regarding the level of stress, 51.8 % of student teachers were found to be normal, 21.8% of student
teachers were mild, 20 % of student teachers were moderate and only 5.9 % were severe (see Table 2 &
Figure 1). Results revealed that 94% of student teachers have low level of stress. On the other hand, only
5.9% of student teachers have severe stress level. It can reasonably be concluded that very small
proportion of student teachers felt severe on stress.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Student Teachers Stress

Mean SD N Minimum Maximum

Stress 14.84 6.342 220 0 33

Table 2 Frequency and Percentage of Student Teachers Stress Level

Stress Level Frequency Percentage

Normal 114 51.8%
Mild 48 21.8%
Moderate 45 20.5%
Severe 13 5.9%
Total 220 100%

82
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Severe
6%
Moderate
20%

Normal
52%

Mild
22%

Figure 1 Percentage of Student Teachers Stress Level

Comparison of Student Teachers Stress by Gender

Concerning gender, 22.7 % of male and 29.1% of female student teachers were found to be normal on
stress. And then, 7.7% of male and 14.1 % of female were identified as mild level of stress. Similarity, 7.7%
of male and 18% of female were classified as moderate level of stress. In addition, 2.7% of male and 11.5%
of female were found to be severe on stress. It can reasonably be said that small percentages of both male
and female were found to be sever on stress (see Table 3).

Table 3 Frequency and Percentage of Student Teachers Stress Level by Gender

Stress Level Male Female l Total

Normal 50(22.7%) 64(29.1%) 114
Mild 17(7.7%) 31(14.1%) 48
Moderate 17(7.7%) 28(12.7%) 45
Severe 6(2.7%) 7(3.2%) 13
Total 90 130 220

The mean and standard deviation of stress for both male and female were reported in table 4. The results
revealed that the mean score of male was greater than that of female on stress. Visual representation of
this finding was shown in figure 2. In order to confirm the gender difference, independent sample t test
was applied. The results revealed that there was no significant gender difference on stress.

Table 4 Results of Independent Sample t test for Student Teachers Stress by Gender

Gender Mean SD t p
Male 14.89 6.686 0.093 0.926
Female 14.81 6.118

83
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

17
15
13

Mean 11
9
7
5
Male Female

Figure 2 Mean Comparison of Student Teachers Stress by Gender

Comparison of Student Teachers Stress across Socioeconomic Status

Looking across the socioeconomic status, the mean score of student teachers from low SES was the
highest. The mean score of student teachers from high SES was the second highest. To obtain more
detailed information, ANOVA was calculated. Results show that there was no significant difference on
stress among SES level (see table 5).

Table 5 ANOVA Results of Student Teachers Stress Across Socioeconomic Status

Stress SES Low SES Middle SES High F p

Mean 15.35 14.82 14.61 0.138 0.871
(SD) (7.287) (5.865) (6.94)

Descriptive Analyses of Student Teachers Coping Style

By using the descriptive procedure with the data obtained from the Stress Coping Style Inventory
(SCSI), final year students’ coping styles such as active emotional coping, passive emotional coping, active
problem coping and passive problem coping were investigated. The descriptive results for all final year
students (220) were revealed in table 6.

Table 6 Descriptive Analyses of Final Year Students’ Coping Style

Scale Name Mean SD

Active emotional coping (7 items) 29.79 3.359

Passive emotional coping (5 items) 18.87 2.7

84
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Active problem coping (6 items) 18.85 2.504

Passive problem coping (8 items) 16.55 2.717

Comparison of Student Teachers Coping Style by Gender

In this study, although a slight variation of mean scores exists in all factors, significant difference was
found to be only on passive problem coping factors. Male mean score was found to be significantly higher
than female on this factor. As the result, male students were more being able to use passive problem
coping when they face stressful situations than female participants.

Table 7 Descriptive Statistics of Final Year Students’ Coping Style by Gender

Scale Name Male Female t p

Active emotional coping 29.67 29.88 -0.456 0.77

Passive emotional coping 18.94 18.82 0.327 0.316

Active problem coping 18.81 18.88 -0.214 0.361

Passive problem coping 17.37 15.98 3.603 0.000

Comparison of Student Teachers Coping Style Across Socioeconomic Status

Table 8 revealed that the difference in mean and standard deviations of stress coping style inventory
factors across socioeconomic status. Visual presentation of mean comparison of coping style inventory
factor was shown in figure 3. To assess if there were socioeconomic status differences of coping style
factors such as active emotional coping, passive emotional coping, active problem coping and passive
problem coping, detailed analyses and computations were undertaken by using one way ANOVA. But
there were no significant difference on coping style among socioeconomic status.

Table 8 Descriptive Statistics of Student Teachers Coping Style Across socioeconomic Status
SCSI Factors SES Low SES Middle SES High F p
Active emotional coping 29.84 29.8 29.74 0.11 0.989
(3.831) (3.403) (3.027)

Passive emotional coping 18.97 18.81 18.96 0.087 0.917

(2.664) (2.772) (2.591)

85
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Active problem coping 19.71 18.66 18.84 2.235 0.109

(2.036) (2.754) (2.016)

Passive problem coping 16.26 16.55 16.68 0.247 0.782

(2.72) (2.711) (2.766)

40

30

20

10

0
AEC PEC APC PPC

SES Low SES Middle SES High

Figure 3 Mean Comparison of Student Teachers Coping Style Across Socioeconomic Status

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the level of stress among student teachers. Then, to
study the coping style of student teachers is of next interest.
Concerning the level of stress, 51.8 % of student teachers were found to be normal, 21.8% were mild, 20%
of were moderate and only 5.9 % were severe. Results revealed that 94% of student teachers have low
level of stress. On the other hand, only 6% of student teachers have severe stress level. It can reasonably
be concluded that very small proportion of student teachers felt severe on stress. The result of
independent sample t test revealed that there was no significant gender difference on stress. Moreover,
it was found that student teachers from low SES felt more stress than those who have middle and high
level of SES when facing the stressful situation.
Although a slight variation of mean scores exists in all factors, significant difference was found to be only
on passive problem coping factors. Male mean score was found to be significantly higher than female on
this factor. As the result, male students were more being able to solve problem negatively when they face
stressful situations than female participants. From the point of view of socioeconomic level, there was no
significant difference on coping style among socioeconomic status.

86
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Conclusion and Recommendations

Student teachers today are faced with everyday stressful events such as overexposure to the media (war,
extreme weather, illness and death), family related issues (divorce, single parent families, addictions,
illness and death), and school (ever rising expectations, over scheduling, bullying, and peer pressure). We
as a society need to begin to take a proactive approach to helping student teachers to deal with them in
a harmful or hurtful way. Counselors and parents can implement simple things into everyday activities,
things such as relaxation techniques, increased physical activity, healthy eating, and daily journaling
(Marcy L.Kusz. 2009).
Parents, teachers, and society need to take at the long-term impacts of these high levels of stress on
student teachers and figure out a way to counter act them. The impacts of stress on individual are lifelong
worries and concerns. While there are plenty of actors that increase the stress levels in student teachers,
there are few strategies in place to help them to cope in a healthy manner. Healthy coping patterns for
stressful experience are not as well spelled out. Recently, psychologists have emphasized that life's daily
experiences as well as life's major events may be the culprits in stress. Enduring a tense family life, hostel
life and university life and living in poverty do not show up on scales of major life events in individual
development, yet the everyday pounding individual take form these living situations can add to a highly
stressful life and eventually psychological disturbance or illness (Compas, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988).
Counselors and parents can implement simple things into everyday activities, things such as relaxation
techniques, increased physical activity, healthy eating, and daily journaling (Marcy L.Kusz. 2009) .
According to Chan (1988), problem-focused coping is typically associate with positive outcome for
teachers. So, there will be more successful in life if student teachers would properly use problem- focused
coping. This study could help teacher educators and school principals to acknowledge the factors that
affect student teachers’ stress in order to make better plans and strategies for improving the quality of
education and teaching learning process.

References

Compas, B. (1989). Stress and life events during childhood and adolescence. Clinical Psychological Review, 7, 275-
302.
Edlin, G., & Golanty, E. (2004), Health and wellness. (8th Ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Baartlett Publishers.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle- aged community sample. Journal of Health and
social behavior, 21(3), 219-239
Folkman, s-, & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). The ways of coping Questionnaire, Polo Alto: Consulting Psychonlogists Press

87
 The 3rd AsTEN Conference: Teaching Competency Development:
Issues, Innovations, & Initiatives

19 – 22 July 2017 at Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Lewis, R & Frydenberg, E. (2007). Adolescent problem-solving efficacy and coping strategy usage in a population of
Australian adolescent. In Gates, G.S. Emerging thought and research on student, teacher, and administrator
stress and coping. (PP.35-48). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Marcy, L. K. (2009). Stress in elementary children in America.
Ying Ming Lin & Farn Shing Chen (2010). A stress coping style inventory of students at universities and colleges of
technology. Journal of World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, Vol.8, No.1, 2010.

88