Chapter 2

Review on Related Literature

New Normal Education
The COVID-19 epidemic is currently affecting people all over the world. Various
societal issues have been addressed in several countries (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020). The
problem encapsulates the challenge policymakers have in deciding whether to prolong the school
year or impose an academic freeze. Homeschooling throws parents' productivity, children's
social well-being, and learning into disarray (Zhao et al., 2020). In terms of how knowledge is
delivered to students, teaching has evolved significantly. Students are also graded on their ability
to change. A large number of assessments have been canceled. Importantly, these roadblocks
may be temporary, but they might have long-term consequences for the impacted group,
resulting in increased inequality.
As of October 5, 2020, 324,762 Filipinos were infected with COVID-19 (DOH, 2020;
Worldometer, 2020). The Department of Education (DepEd) has responded by establishing the
Learning Continuity Plan (LCP), which will begin on October 5, 2020. (DepEd, 2020). In the
new normal, the situation puts every educational leader's decision-making process to the test. In
all schools, the institution can provide high-quality instruction. The Department is now
delivering lessons in a different way.
The DepEd's self-learning modules are available to all Filipino students (SLMs).
Integrating various delivery modalities, such as modular, television-based, radio-based teaching,
blended learning, and online learning, can also help raise or improve learning quality and
eventually aid in the Department's Learning Continuity Plan (DepEd, 2020).
Transitioning to new positions necessitates the management of workplace stress
(Schaufeli, 2015). When a person can't handle the stress, many employment concerns or requests
become stressors. Due to the obligations of encouraging education throughout the pandemic,
teachers have faced challenging challenges (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020; Chitra, 2020; Li et al.,
2022; Mari et al., 2021; Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2021; Pressley et al., 2021; Santamara et al.,
2021; Sokal et al., 2020). They must prepare for a variety of learning modalities, including
online, modular, and blended learning. Despite the fear of contracting the COVID 19 virus,
teachers must undertake educational activities, assist pupils, and motivate them (Petrakova et al.,
2021). They must create self-learning modules and learn various computer applications to
augment their teaching (Bravo et al., 2021).
Self-efficacy Theory
With the release of the essay Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral
Change and the book Social Learning Theory, Bandura (1977) established the idea of self-
efficacy. Human action or conduct, according to social learning theory, is determined by the
interaction of the situation, the person's behavior, cognitions, and emotions. One of Bandura's
research concerns is how people use beliefs in personal and collective efficacy to control their
own motivation, cognitive patterns, affective states, and action. He emphasizes how one's
perceived abilities influence one's conduct.
Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1997) as self-perceptions or beliefs about one's
ability to learn or do tasks at a certain level. The other authors have attempted to define self-
efficacy, but they all use Bandura's notion as a starting point. McCombs (2001) references
Bandura (1991) in explaining self-efficacy judgments as the learner's assessment of his or her
ability to complete a task successfully. Self-efficacy is a concept in Bandura's theory of human
functioning, according to Schunk (2001), and it is defined as "beliefs about one's capacities to
learn or perform actions at designated levels." Pintrich and Schunk (1996) use another of
Bandura's (1986) definitions, stating that self-efficacy refers to people's assessments of their
skills to plan and carry out the actions necessary to achieve specific sorts of results. Self-efficacy
expectations are defined by Huang and Shanmao (1996) as views about one's ability to complete
a task or behavior successfully.
Bandura developed his Social leaning theory by adding elements such as motivation and
self-regulation and in the bottom line changing its name to Social Cognitive Theory. For
Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara and Pastorelli (1996), self-efficacy theory is one aspect of social
cognitive theory. The latter is an approach to understanding human cognition, action, motivation,
and emotion.
Bandura introduced the self-efficacy component to his theory in 1986, claiming that
people have a self system that allows them to manage their ideas, feelings, and behaviors. The
ability to represent, learn from others, develop options, adjust one's own conduct, and engage in
self-reflection were all part of this self system.
"Efficacy is a generative talent in which cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral sub
skills must be arranged and efficiently orientated to serve infinite objectives; rather, it is a steady
standard ability that individuals have or do not have in their lists of behaviors" (Bandura, 1997:
36-37).
"People differ in the areas of life in which they nurture their sense of effectiveness,"
writes Bandura (1995).
Not only in general learning, but also in highly particular learning tasks, teachers must
have some understanding of students' perceived strengths and shortcomings. "The efficacy-belief
system is a differentiated set of self-beliefs tied to distinct areas of functioning, not a global
quality" (p.1). Self-efficacy judgments, according to Maehr and Pintrich (1997), are task and
situation specific; students employ their judgments about their talents in relation to a given task
or objective. According to Bruning, Schraw, and Ronning (1999), having high self-efficacy in
one domain does not guarantee that a person would have high self-efficacy in another, as
mentioned by Schulze and John M. Schulze (2003:106).
With selfefficacy, there are various constructs that have ambiguous bounds. Self-esteem
is one such construct. Self-esteem is a personal quality, according to Maddux (1995), whereas
self-efficacy is not. The difference between self-esteem and self-efficacy is this. One of Self-
applications efficacy's is its ability to be applied to specific sectors or even subfields of human
behavior. A person may have poor self-esteem yet great self-efficacy in a subject such as
painting, sports, or learning languages, for example. He or she may also have a high sense of
self-worth while feeling inept in math and science. The primary distinction between self-efficacy
and self-esteem, according to Epstein and Morling (1995), is that the former assesses potential
while the latter assesses self-worth. What a person believes he is capable of achieving is not the
same as what he believes he is worth. "Individuals may evaluate themselves hopelessly
inefficacious in a specific activity without suffering any loss of self-esteem whatsoever,"
according to Bandura (1997), "because they do not invest their self-worth in that activity" (p.
11).
Confidence is another construct that blurs the lines between self-efficacy and confidence.
According to Bandura (1997:382), confidence is a vague term that relates to the strength of one's
opinion but does not always indicate what the assurance is about. In science, a person can be
certain that he will either fail or succeed. The belief in one's ability to reach particular levels of
performance is known as self-efficacy. Confidence has little to do with a person's ability to
perform at a high level.
According to Schulze and John M. Schulze, the key components of self-efficacy are
mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological condition
(Alderman, 1999; Bandura, 1986; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Maehr and Pintrich, 1997)
(2003:106). The most influential factor is mastery experience, which refers to a student's
subjective assessment of previous experience with a task or skill.
Vicarious experience, or seeing others accomplish a task, is the second sort of experience
that affects self-efficacy beliefs. "...observing that others thought to be similarly capable fail
despite significant effort decreases observers' perceptions of their own skills and weakens their
efforts," according to Bandura (1986). (p.99). Although this type of experience may not have the
same impact as mastery, it can be a beneficial educational tool.
Verbal persuasions or verbal judgments are statements made by others that lead to self-
efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986; Alderman, 1999). If the heightened appraisal is within
reasonable limitations, Bandura believes that verbal persuasion can contribute to good
performance. Observers' ideas that they, too, had the potential to master comparable tasks to
achieve are bolstered by seeing persons similar to themselves succeed via prolonged effort,
according to Bandura (1994). Negative comments, according to Alderman (1999), are more
successful at diminishing self-efficacy than good comments are at improving it. Positive
feedback, it is stated, stimulates the learner's interest and ingenuity in order to complete the
assignment.
Our personal responses and emotional reactions to situations are one of the main aspects
that influence our selfefficacy. Moods, emotional states, physical reactions, and stress levels can
all have an impact on how a person perceives their own talents in a given scenario. Self-efficacy
beliefs can be influenced by a learner's physiological state; for example, anxiety, fear,
exhaustion, or pain can all alter self-efficacy views (Bandura, 1997). Anxiety, in particular, can
impair self-efficacy, which can negatively impact a student's performance.
In these settings, a person who becomes excessively frightened before speaking in public
may have a low feeling of self-efficacy. "It is not the mere strength of emotional and physical
reactions that is essential, but how they are perceived and interpreted," Bandura adds (1994).
People's sense of self-efficacy can be improved by learning how to reduce stress and increase
mood when confronted with obstacles or difficult tasks.
Multidimensional Theory of Burnout
Bandura introduced the self-efficacy component to his theory in 1986, claiming that
people have a self-system that allows them to manage their ideas, feelings, and behaviors. The
ability to represent, learn from others, develop options, adjust one's own conduct, and engage in
self-reflection were all part of this self-system.
"Efficacy is a generative talent in which cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral sub
skills must be arranged and efficiently orientated to serve infinite objectives; rather, it is a steady
standard ability that individuals have or do not have in their lists of behaviors" (Bandura, 1997:
36-37). "People differ in the areas of life in which they nurture their sense of effectiveness,"
writes Bandura (1995).
Not only in general learning, but also in highly particular learning tasks, teachers must
have some understanding of students' perceived strengths and shortcomings. "The efficacy-belief
system is a differentiated set of self-beliefs tied to distinct areas of functioning, not a global
quality" (p.1). Self-efficacy judgments, according to Maehr and Pintrich (1997), are task and
situation specific; students employ their judgments about their talents in relation to a given task
or objective. According to Bruning, Schraw, and Ronning (1999), having high self-efficacy in
one domain does not guarantee that a person would have high self-efficacy in another.
With self-efficacy, there are various constructs that have ambiguous bounds. Self-esteem
is one such construct. Self-esteem is a personal quality, according to Maddux (1995), whereas
self-efficacy is not. The difference between self-esteem and self-efficacy is this. One of Self-
applications efficacy's is its ability to be applied to specific sectors or even subfields of human
behavior. A person may have poor self-esteem yet great self-efficacy in a subject such as
painting, sports, or learning languages, for example. He or she may also have a high sense of
self-worth while feeling inept in math and science. The primary distinction between self-efficacy
and self-esteem, according to Epstein and Morling (1995), is that the former assesses potential
while the latter assesses self-worth. What a person believes he is capable of achieving is not the
same as what he believes he is worth. Individuals may evaluate themselves hopelessly
inefficacious in a specific activity without suffering any loss of self-esteem whatsoever,
according to Bandura (1997), because they do not invest their self-worth in that activity.
Confidence is another construct that blurs the lines between self-efficacy and confidence.
According to Bandura (1997:382), confidence is a vague term that relates to the strength of one's
opinion but does not always indicate what the assurance is about. In science, a person can be
certain that he will either fail or succeed. The belief in one's ability to reach levels of
performance is known as self-efficacy. Confidence has little to do with a person's ability to
perform at a high level.
The key components of self-efficacy are mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal
persuasion, and physiological condition (Alderman, 1999; Bandura, 1986; Dweck and Leggett,
1988; Maehr and Pintrich, 1997) (2003:106). The most influential factor is mastery experience,
which refers to a student's subjective assessment of previous experience with a task or skill.
Vicarious experience, or seeing others accomplish a task, is the second sort of experience
that affects self-efficacy beliefs. "...observing that others thought to be similarly capable fail
despite significant effort decreases observers' perceptions of their own skills and weakens their
efforts," according to Bandura (1986). (p.99). Although this type of experience may not have the
same impact as mastery, it can be a beneficial educational tool.
Verbal persuasions or verbal judgments are statements made by others that lead to self-
efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986; Alderman, 1999). If the heightened appraisal is within
reasonable limitations, Bandura believes that verbal persuasion can contribute to good
performance. Observers' ideas that they, too, had the potential to master comparable tasks to
achieve are bolstered by seeing persons like themselves succeed via prolonged effort, according
to Bandura (1994). Negative comments, according to Alderman (1999), are more successful at
diminishing self-efficacy than good comments are at improving it. Positive feedback, it is stated,
stimulates the learner's interest and ingenuity to complete the assignment.
Our personal responses and emotional reactions to situations are one of the main aspects
that influence our self-efficacy. Moods, emotional states, physical reactions, and stress levels can
all have an impact on how a person perceives their own talents in each scenario. Self-efficacy
beliefs can be influenced by a learner's physiological state; for example, anxiety, fear,
exhaustion, or pain can all alter self-efficacy views (Bandura, 1997). Anxiety can impair self-
efficacy, which can negatively impact a student's performance.
In these settings, a person who becomes excessively frightened before speaking in public
may have a low feeling of self-efficacy. "It is not the mere strength of emotional and physical
reactions that is essential, but how they are perceived and interpreted," Bandura adds (1994).
People's sense of self-efficacy can be improved by learning how to reduce stress and increase
mood when confronted with obstacles or difficult tasks.
Self-efficacy on Teaching Performance
Several variables of teaching effectiveness have been linked to teacher efficacy (short for
teacher self-efficacy). For example, research has found that teacher self-efficacy has an impact
on teacher retention and attrition rates (Billingsley, 2004). Teacher efficacy in classroom
management has also been linked to teacher burnout (Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. 2000); and
teaching assistants' self-efficacy in teaching literature as measured by sources, personal
assessments, and outcomes (Mills, N., 2011).
 Billingsley (2004) tackles four primary themes in his study of factors that contribute to
special education teacher attrition and retention: teacher traits and personal factors, teacher
qualifications, work settings, and teachers' affective reactions to work. Negative affective
reactions to work are caused by problematic district and school issues, which can lead to retreat
and finally attrition. It is assumed that some teachers remained calm and confident in the face of
the situation and continued to carry out their tasks and obligations as normal.
Gibson and Dembo (1984), who were interested in instructors' self-efficacy, discovered
that it is a substantial factor to individual variances in teaching effectiveness. While Coladarci
(1992) was interested in the degree to which teachers felt efficacious, as well as other theorized
variables on teaching commitment. It appears that teachers' dedication has been deemed a
significant element in promoting teacher satisfaction and retention. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy,
A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998); and Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (1998); and
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Ho (2000). As a result, researchers have been able to
demonstrate how self-efficacy influences other dimensions like self-achievement and learning
achievement.
One study looked at the direction and timing of connections between perceived self-
efficacy in classroom management and the three aspects of teacher burnout in class management
(Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. 2000).
Teacher self-efficacy, according to Henson (2001), is a significant factor that determines
a teacher's choice of classroom management strategies. Other researchers have also demonstrated
the impact of teachers' self-efficacy on various aspects of teaching, for example, Pajares (1996)
demonstrated that self-efficacy is closely related to academic performance; Zimmerman (2000;
82) revealed that self-efficacy is a highly effective predictor of students' motivation and learning.
However, in the teaching literature, elements that may influence instructional techniques and
teacher conduct have gotten less attention.
The Effect of Teacher Burnout on Learners’ Academic Achievements
Many research have been conducted on emotional characteristics (e.g., well-being
motivation, personality, etc.) that may be regarded important determinants in language
acquisition achievement (Madigan and Curran, 2021). Teacher burnout has a major impact on
students' academic achievement as a specific component of teacher well-being (Schleicher,
2018). According to Brouwers and Tomic (2000), teacher fatigue leads to poor classroom
management while dealing with students' disruptive actions. They also claimed that teacher
burnout could be a factor in low academic results. Furthermore, according to Klusmann et al.
(2008), EFL learners' poor performance in language learning is caused by teacher burnout, which
is characterized by disengagement and low levels of resilience. Madigan and Kim (2020)
discovered that teacher burnout is associated with worse educational achievement and motivation
in a study. They did not, however, uncover a link between teacher exhaustion and student
happiness. According to Arens and Morin's (2016) research, there is a substantial negative
association between teacher burnout and students' cognitive and non-cognitive academic
performance. In addition, Atik and Elik (2021) discovered that academic engagement and
motivation are linked. Teacher burnout, on the other hand, serves as a bridge between them.
Teachers who are burnt out, according to Shen et al. (2015), have unfavorable attitudes toward
themselves, which might influence their performance and the academic results of their students.
Overall, the research found that teacher burnout creates a less positive language teaching
environment for students, which can lead to lower levels of academic accomplishment.
Synthesis and Gap
Education during pandemic has been a challenge to the educational system of the
Philippines. With so many changes on modality, health protocol and practices in the institution,
it has been difficult for the teachers as well as the education leaders. Burnout among the teachers
is common at this moment since there are lots of things to cope up in the mainstream.
Tangub City Division has used radio-based instruction as the modality of learning.
Because of this, teachers are challenged to make self-learning module that would be broadcasted
through radio. Burnout are experienced by the teachers because of this. Hectic schedule and
heavy workloads have been carried by the teachers. Thus, it could affect the delivery of learning
on the students.
Self-efficacy belief is crucial to this point as it affects a lot of factors in teaching and
learning process. Because of its consequences for teaching effectiveness, instructional methods,
and students' academic achievement, teachers' self-efficacy has become increasingly significant
in school psychology research (Klassen et al., 2009; Klassen and Tze, 2014). According to
extensive research, teachers with high levels of self-efficacy have higher job satisfaction,
reduced job-related stress, and have fewer issues dealing with students' misbehaviors (Caprara et
al., 2003). Understanding the key antecedents of self-efficacy may thus have significant
implications for working to increase teacher well-being as well as school effectiveness and
efficiency.
At this point, there is no evidence on the level of burnout and self-efficacy beliefs of
teachers in new normal education. Hence, the researcher wants to find out the level of burnout
and self-efficacy of teachers as well as the relationship of burnout to self-efficacy beliefs of
teachers during the stage of adjustments in the new normal.
References
Alderman, M.K.(1999). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Arens, A. K., & Morin, A. J. (2016). Relations between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and
students’ educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 800.
Atik, S., and Çelik, O. T. (2021). Analysis of the relationships between academic motivation,
engagement, burnout and academic achievement with structural equation modelling.
Intern. J. Contemp. Educ. Res. 8, 118–130. doi: 10.33200/ijcer.826088
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359.
Bandura, A. (1994). Social cognitive theory and exercise of control over HIV infection. In
Preventing AIDS (pp. 25-59). Springer, Boston, MA.
Bandura, A. (1995). Comments on the crusade against the causal efficacy of human thought.
Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 26(3), 179-190.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of
the research literature. The journal of special education, 38(1), 39-55.
Bouza, E.; Gil-Monte, P.R.; Palomo, E.; Cortell-Alcocer, M.; Del Rosario, G.; González, J.;
Gracia, D.; Martínez Moreno, A.; Melero Moreno, C.; Molero García, J.M.; et al.
Síndrome de quemarse por el trabajo (burnout) en los médicos de España. Rev. Clínica
Española 2020, 220, 359–363. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal:
Observations from the past, insights from the present and projections for the
future. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), i-x.
http://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/512
Bravo, A., Buenaflor, N., Baloloy, J., Guarte, L., Osinaga, A., Salartin, A., & Tus, J. (2021).
Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Job Burnout and Job Satisfaction of Public
School Teachers in the Philippines. International Journal of Advance Research and
Innovative Ideas in Education. https://bit.ly/39OMSLG
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-
efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher education, 16(2), 239-253.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-
efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher education, 16(2), 239-253.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-
efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher education, 16(2), 239-253.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19
on education. VoxEu. org, 1(2). https://voxeu.org/article/impact-covid-19-education
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as
determinants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of educational psychology, 95(4), 821.
Chitra, A. (2020). Study on impact of occupational stress on job satisfaction of teachers during
Covid-19 pandemic period. Global Development Review, 4(2), 52-62.
https://bit.ly/39kDMpG
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of
experimental education, 60(4), 323-337.
DepEd Order No. 012 and 013 (2020). Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan for Private
Schools. www.deped.gov.ph
DOH AO No. 0015 (2020). DOH Guidelines on the Risk-Based Public Health Standards for
COVID-19 Mitigation. www.doh.gov.ph
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256.
Epstein, S., & Morling, B. (1995). Is the self motivated to do more than enhance and/or verify
itself?. In Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 9-29). Springer, Boston, MA.
Freudenberger, H.J. Staff burn-out. J. Soc. Issues 1974, 30, 159–165. [CrossRef]
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
educational psychology, 76(4), 569.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American educational research journal,
37(2), 479-507.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational researcher, 33(3),
3-13.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement
dilemmas.
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching
effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational research review, 12, 59-76.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y., & Georgiou, T.
(2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries.
Contemporary educational psychology, 34(1), 67-76.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Teachers'
occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory
patterns. Journal of educational psychology, 100(3), 702.
Li, H., Ma, M., & Liu, Q. (2022). How the COVID-19 pandemic affects job sentiments of rural
teachers. China Economic Review, 72, 101759.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2022.101759
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory. In Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 3-
33). Springer, Boston, MA.
Madigan, D. J., & Curran, T. (2021). Does burnout affect academic achievement? A meta-
analysis of over 100,000 students. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 387-405.
Madigan, D. J., & Kim, L. E. (2021). Does teacher burnout affect students? A systematic review
of its association with academic achievement and student-reported outcomes.
International journal of educational research, 105, 101714.
Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding Motivation and Schooling: Where We’ve
Been, Where We Are, and Where We Need to Go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4),
371–409. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23359409
Mari, E., Lausi, G., Fraschetti, A., Pizzo, A., Baldi, M., Quaglieri, A., ... & Giannini, A. M.
(2021). Teaching during the pandemic: a comparison in psychological wellbeing among
smart working professions. Sustainability, 13(9), 4850.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094850
Maslach, C. Understanding job burnout. In Stress and Quality of Working Life: Current
Perspectives in Occupational Health; Rossi,A.M., Perrewé, P.L., Sauter, S.L., Eds.;
Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2006; pp. 37–52.
Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E. Maslach Burnout Inventory. Manual; Consulting Psychologists Press:
Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1981.
Maslach, C.; Leiter, M.P. Bumout. Hum. Behav. 1976, 5, 16–22.
Mills, N. (2011). Teaching assistants’ self‐efficacy in teaching literature: Sources, personal
assessments, and consequences. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 61-80.
Montero-Marín, J. El síndrome de burnout y sus diferentes manifestaciones clínicas: Una
propuesta para la intervención [The burnout syndrome and its various clinical
manifestations: A proposal for intervention]. Anest. Analg. Reanim. 2016, 29, 1–16.
Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N., Berasategi Santxo, N., Idoiaga Mondragon, N., & Dosil Santamaría, M.
(2021). The psychological state of teachers during the COVID-19 crisis: The challenge
of returning to face-to-face teaching. Frontiers in psychology, 11,
3861.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.620718
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of educational research,
66(4), 543-578.
Petrakova, A. V., Kanonire, T. N., Kulikova, A. A., & Orel, E. A. (2021). Characteristics of
teacher stress during distance learning imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Вопросы
образования, (1 (eng)). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/characteristics-of-teacher-
stress-during-distance-learning-imposed-by-the-covid-19-pandemic
Pressley, T., Ha, C., & Learn, E. (2021). Teacher stress and anxiety during COVID-19: An
empirical study. School Psychology, 36(5), 367–
376. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000468
Santamaría, M. D., Mondragon, N. I., Santxo, N. B., & Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N. (2021). Teacher
stress, anxiety and depression at the beginning of the academic year during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Global Mental Health, 8. https://bit.ly/3FKDJ2I
Schaufeli, W.B.; Buunk, B.P. Burnout: An overview of 25 years of research and theorizing. In
The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology, 2nd ed.; Schabracq, M.J., Winnubst, J.A.M.,
Cooper, C.L., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 282–424.
Schleicher, A. (2018). Valuing Our Teachers and Raising Their Status: How Communities Can
Help. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., Garn, A., Kulik, N., and Fahlman, M. (2015). The
relationship between teacher burnout and student motivation. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 85,
519–532. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12089
Sokal, L., Trudel, L. E., & Babb, J. (2020). Canadian teachers’ attitudes toward change, efficacy,
and burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational
Research Open, 1, 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100016
Taris, T.W.; Le Blanc, P.M.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Schreurs, P.J. Are there causal relationships
between the dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory? A review and two longitudinal
tests. Work. Stress 2005, 19, 238–255. [CrossRef]
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of educational research, 68(2), 202-248.
Zhao, Y., Guo, Y., Xiao, Y., Zhu, R., Sun, W., Huang, W., ... & Wu, J. L. (2020). The effects of
online homeschooling on children, parents, and teachers of grades 1–9 during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Medical science monitor: international medical journal of
experimental and clinical research, 26, e925591-1.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7507793/
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary educational
psychology, 25(1), 82-91.