Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Teaching is deemed a taxing enterprise, especially as far as higher education is concerned. As a result, much research attention has been showered upon exploring the correlates of engagement for instructors. To contribute to this research direction, the present researchers carried out this survey to test a model of work engagement in a Chinese higher education context. Teacher self-efficacy and resilience were added as predictors of the hypothesized model. A number of 372 Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) instructors in higher education contexts were selected through convenience sampling. The measurement models of the latent variables (i.e., self-efficacy, resilience, and work engagement) were confirmed via running Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Afterward, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test the structural model. The results obtained from the analyses showed that both teacher self-efficacy and resilience could significantly predict EFL teachers’ work engagement, with self-efficacy serving as a stronger predictor than resilience. The outcomes suggest some implications for EFL stakeholders such as teachers, teacher trainers, policy makers, and officials.

Plain Language Summary

This new article bridges the identified gaps in the literature, and the current research intends to examine the predictability of EFL teachers work engagement level in terms of their self-efficacy beliefs and resilience tendencies. Based on our observation, there is a paucity in the literature examining the causal relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teacher work engagement in HE, and to our knowledge, this is the first study to consider teacher self-efficacy as a potential predictive variable of work engagement of EFL teachers in HE.

Keywords

teacher resilience self-efficacy work engagement EFL instructors higher education

Introduction

In educational contexts, teachers are considered key stakeholders in providing quality education and influencing students’ achievement in higher education (HE) (Derakhshan & Nazari, 2022; Hénard & Roseveare, 2012; Mehdizadeh et al., 2023; M. Wang & Ho, 2020). This claim is well-substantiated in what Elrayah (2022) maintained in his study that “teachers are the most valuable asset in all universities, schools, and educational institutions” (p. 3). The increasing evidence has verified the critical role of teacher-related factors and characteristics in impacting learners’ educational outcomes (Adeyemi, 2017; S. Liu & Hallinger, 2018; Olagbaju, 2020). As a result, an increasing number of studies have examined constructs such as work engagement, self-efficacy, attrition, burnout, and resilience of teachers (e.g., Chan, 2008; Fathi, Greenier, & Derakhshan, 2021; Fathi, Nourzadeh, & Saharkhiz, 2021; Fu et al., 2022; Harper-Hill et al., 2022; Kasalak & Dagyar, 2020; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014; Tan, 2022). In recent decades, scant attention has been paid to teacher burnout and attrition in educational research (Küçükoğlu, 2014; Whalen et al., 2019), however, due to the flourishing of Positive Psychology (Budzińska & Majchrzak, 2021; Derakhshan, 2022a, 2022b) and with the emergence of Positive Organizational Psychology (Donaldson & Ko, 2010) that focuses on positive outcomes in organizations, the construct of work engagement among teachers has started gaining momentum (Han & Wang, 2021; Li et al., 2015; Mérida-López et al., 2017; Perera, Granziera, & McIlveen, 2018; Wang, Derakhshan, & Zhang, 2021; Wang, Gao, & Xun, 2021; Wang, Derakhshan, & Azari Noughabi, 2022; Wang, Derakhshan, & Rahimpour, 2022).

As Johnson (2022) indicated, researchers should give more attention to characteristics that make teachers stay at school rather than focusing on what factors make them leave. Recognized as a motivational construct, teacher engagement is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). An engaged teacher can be committed to the learning objectives, passionate about teaching, resistant when faced with challenges, vigilant and perceptive about learners’ needs, and absorbed in their profession (Burić & Macuka, 2018; Dong & Xu, 2021; Lyu, 2016; Van Wingerden & Poell, 2019). Given that engaged teachers may contribute to the success of students and schools, it is vital to safeguard teachers’ satisfaction and engagement at work (Park & Johnson, 2019). Furthermore, teacher engagement is found to be a key player in understanding and explaining of why teachers leave their work (Eldor & Shoshani, 2017; Hakanen et al., 2006; Minghui et al., 2018; Park & Johnson, 2019). As Klassen and Chiu (2011) suggested, low teacher engagement and work satisfaction can be significant predictors of teachers’ intention to leave. Therefore, it is necessary to identify antecedents and consequences of teacher engagement, especially when it comes to English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Many teachers, particularly EFL teachers, leave the teaching profession for a variety of reasons, such as lack of resilience (Drew & Sosnowski, 2019), lack of self-efficacy (Dai & Wang, 2023; Fathi, Greenier, & Derakhshan, 2021; Fathi, Nourzadeh, & Saharkhiz, 2021; Guo et al., 2023; Zhi et al., 2023), and burnout (Yong & Yue, 2007; Wu et al., 2023).

Given the positive impacts of self-efficacy and resilience on job performance in teachers’ work engagement (Granziera & Perera, 2019; Van Wingerden & Poell, 2019), there has been increased interest among educators and researchers in linking these constructs to important student and teacher outcomes in the realm of education in general and EFL contexts in particular. Research indicates that teachers with higher levels of resilience and self-efficacy are likely to be more engaged at work, resulting in increased organizational outcomes (Li et al., 2013; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014; Wilcox & Lawson, 2018). Notwithstanding the research on self-efficacy and resilience in educational settings and an array of research foci on the role of these constructs in work engagement, little attention has been paid to the effects of self-efficacy and resilience on teacher work engagement in HE, particularly in the Chinese EFL context. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there is no study that attends simultaneously to the associations among EFL teachers’ work engagement, self-efficacy, and resilience. To bridge the identified gaps in the literature, the current research intends to examine the predictability of EFL teachers’ work engagement level in terms of their self-efficacy beliefs and resilience tendencies. Consequently, the main research question in this research undertaking is whether there are any particular associations among EFL teachers’ resilience, self-efficacy, and work engagement in the Chinese HE context. To this end, the subsequent hypotheses were articulated in this research.

H₀₁. There is not any significant relationship between Chinese EFL teachers’ resilience, self-efficacy, and work engagement.

H₀₂. Teachers’ resilience does not predict Chinese EFL teachers’ work engagement.

H₀₃. Teachers’ self-efficacy does not predict Chinese EFL teachers’ work engagement.

Literature Review

Teacher Engagement

According to Kahn’s (1990) theory of engagement, Bakker (2011) referred to work engagement as engrossment, vigor, and dedication toward organizational objectives. Based on positive psychology, Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) proposed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) that measured the three concepts of work engagement, namely vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor pertains to one’s mental and physical resilience in the face of setbacks and challenges while working and his energy and willingness to invest effort in work. Dedication is recognized as a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and purpose toward organizational objectives and being actively engaged in one’s work. Absorption refers to a state of mind in which one is so engrossed in work that time passes by rapidly (Schaufeli et al., 2006). In their study, Klassen et al. (2013) classified the work engagement of teachers into four categories: cognitive engagement relating to a sense of absorption and performance; emotional engagement which pertains to teachers’ affective commitment; social engagement with students referring to relationships with students; social engagement with colleagues which relates to the relationship and interaction with peers. It is argued that vigor and dedication are the core dimensions of work engagement (Llorens et al., 2007). As a multidimensional motivational construct, teacher engagement reflects the effort and energy that teachers put into their work (vigor) and the enjoyment they gain from teaching (dedication). As Klassen et al. (2012) maintained in their study, teacher work engagement is a motivational concept denoting teachers’ voluntary sharing of his physical, cognitive, and emotional resources during teaching.

Research evidence indicates that teacher work engagement is positively associated with positive outcomes at both individual and organizational aspects, such as job satisfaction, student achievement, student engagement, and teacher well-being (Han and Wang, 2021; Bakker & Bal, 2010; Knowles, 1999; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014, 2018; Wang, Derakhshan, & Zhang, 2021; Wang, Gao, & Xun, 2021). Bakker and Bal (2010) gathered data from 54 Dutch teachers. Their results indicated that teacher work engagement could predict classroom achievement. In another study, Hakanen et al. (2006) concluded that teachers’ work engagement predicted their organizational commitment. Teacher engagement has also been found to correlate negatively with adverse outcomes, including intentions of leaving the teaching profession and burnout (Amini Faskhodi & Siyyari, 2018; Eldor & Shoshani, 2017). As Bermejo-Toro et al. (2016) demonstrated in their study, engaged teachers are immune to the disruptive effects of burnout syndrome. Park and Johnson (2019) probed the relationships between job satisfaction, work engagement, and turnover intention. An online questionnaire was administered to 249 teachers in the United States. Employing hierarchical multiple regression analysis, their results demonstrated that job satisfaction and work engagement of teachers were negatively correlated with their turnover intention.

Besides the contributions and consequences of teacher engagement, research on antecedents of this construct is of high importance and still less explored (Burić & Macuka, 2018; Xiao et al., 2022), especially in EFL contexts. Janik and Rothmann (2016) administered a cross-sectional survey to a sample of 502 school instructors. Their results indicated that low emotional exhaustion, high psychological meaningfulness, and availability had positive effects on teacher work engagement. Derakhshan, Dewaele, and Azari Noughabi (2022), Derakhshan et al. (2023) investigated the association between loving pedagogy, teaching for creativity, and work engagement among multinational EFL teachers. Their findings demonstrated that loving pedagogy and teaching for creativity significantly predicted work engagement of teachers. Likewise, Greenier et al. (2021) investigated the role of emotion regulation and psychological well-being as predictors of EFL teachers’ work engagement. Utilizing a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach, the authors stated that emotion regulation and psychological well-being significantly predicted teacher work engagement. Regardless of the mentioned literature, a limited number of studies examine teacher engagement in HE. However, Botham (2018) aimed to examine the factors that may shape the work engagement of university teachers. Data were collected via an online survey and semi-structured interviews. The results demonstrated that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation exert a strong influence on the work engagement of HE teachers. It was also found that extrinsic motivation was a less effective factor compared to intrinsic motivation. Despite the aforementioned studies, there is a relatively small body of literature that directly examines the antecedents of teacher engagement in the domain of HE in general and the EFL context in particular. In addition, no study has ever investigated the precursors of EFL teachers’ work engagement in HE. Hence, this study attempted to fill that void by investigating the potential predictive roles of teacher self-efficacy and teacher resilience in the work engagement of EFL teachers in an HE context in China.

Teacher Self-Efficacy

Efficacy pertains to one’s required expertise and competencies to attain expected or desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Rooted in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) and locus of control theory (Rotter, 1966), self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1986) as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (p. 391). Consistent with social cognition theory, teachers’ efficacy is labeled as their decision about their capabilities to cause preferred consequences of learner participation, even among students who might be unenthusiastic (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). Self-efficacy is a positive self-evaluation concept reflecting the capability of an individual to control the environment and exert influence upon it effectively (Schunk & Pajares, 2002; Schwarzer & Warner, 2013; Seifalian & Derakhshan, 2018). Characterized as a multidimensional and domain-specific concept (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), self-efficacy is a belief one holds about what he can do and how well he can do it (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Extending this construct into the teaching profession, teacher self-efficacy is concerned with teachers’ judgment of their abilities to create desired outcomes of students’ engagement and academic performance (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Milner and Hoy (2003) noted that teachers’ effort in the teaching process, their persistence in classrooms and the aspirations they set can be profoundly influenced by teacher self-efficacy. Put another way, a teacher with higher levels of self-efficacy is inclined to be engaged in more demanding activities, invest more effort, demonstrate resilience in the face of challenges, and maintain committed to the teaching objectives (Cerit, 2013; Chesnut & Burley, 2015; Fathi et al., 2020; L. Huang et al., 2020; Wilcox & Lawson, 2018). Teacher self-efficacy could be measured by four sources of information theorized by Bandura (1977); namely, enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological reactions. Relating to successful authentic teaching practices (Bautista, 2011), enactive mastery experiences are regarded as the most crucial source of self-efficacy for teachers (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Despite the significance of these sources, teachers’ self-efficacy can also be shaped by other factors such as teaching environment, interaction with students, students’ behavior, and demographical structures (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016; Andersen et al., 2004; Bing et al., 2022; Ross et al., 1996). As Bandura (1977) proposed, self-efficacy has two dimensions: personal efficacy referring to one’s belief about his abilities, and outcome expectancy referring to one’s belief that his actions will bring about optimal outcomes. Consequently, it can be argued that teachers who not only believe in their competencies but also in their desirable teaching outcomes are more likely to be committed to and engaged in their work (Bautista, 2011; Burić & Macuka, 2018; Fathi et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2022; Pan, 2014). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) introduced three facets of instructor self-efficacy: efficacy in classroom management; relating to teachers’ belief regarding their abilities to establish discipline and manage the classroom, efficacy in student engagement; referring to teachers’ perception of their competence in engaging students in classroom tasks, efficacy in instructional strategies; pertaining to teachers believing in their capabilities to employ effective teaching strategies to meet successful learning outcomes.

Teacher self-efficacy can not only have positive effects on teachers’ well-being (i.e., engagement and satisfaction) (Fathi & Derakhshan, 2019; S. Huang et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2019) but can also impact students’ academic performance and adjustment (Shahzad & Naureen, 2017; Zee & Koomen, 2016); hence, investigating teacher self-efficacy can be conducive to the development of both teachers and learners. Zee and Koomen (2016) conducted a study to examine the influences of teacher self-efficacy on the quality of learning processes, learners’ academic adjustment, and teachers’ psychological well-being. Their results revealed that teacher self-efficacy positively correlated with students’ academic adjustment, classroom quality, and teachers’ well-being. Additionally, teacher self-efficacy was negatively associated with teacher burnout and positively related with their job satisfaction and commitment. Using multiple group confirmatory factor analysis, Avanzi et al. (2013) indicated that teacher self-efficacy was positively associated with teacher job satisfaction and negatively associated with their burnout. In a similar vein, Sarıçam and Sakız (2014) concluded that teacher self-efficacy was negatively associated with teacher burnout. Love et al. (2020) explored the associations between teacher self-efficacy with stress, teacher engagement, and student outcomes. Collecting data from a sample of 44 special education teachers, the results demonstrated that teacher self-efficacy was strongly and positively associated with teacher work engagement and student outcomes, and negatively related to teacher stress. In another study, Federici and Skaalvik (2012) demonstrated that teacher self-efficacy was positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to emotional exhaustion. Conducting SEM analyses, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2019) found that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy positively correlated with teacher work engagement. In the same vein, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2014) reported that higher teacher self-efficacy predicted greater teacher engagement. Utilizing a longitudinal design, Simbula et al. (2011) conducted a study on a sample of 104 Italian teachers to examine the potential correlation between job resources, self-efficacy and work engagement. Results of SEM analysis demonstrated that teachers’ self-efficacy had a positive predictive role on teacher work engagement. In a similar attempt, Sokmen and Kilic (2019) conducted a quantitative research design to explore the association between teachers’ self-efficacy, autonomy, job satisfaction, teacher engagement, and burnout. Their results indicated that teaching self-efficacy had a predictive role in teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and autonomy. In addition, it was found that teacher self-efficacy negatively predicted burnout. Recently, teacher self-efficacy and work engagement have received some limited attention from EFL researchers. For instance, Fathi, Greenier, and Derakhshan (2021) and Fathi, Nourzadeh, and Saharkhiz (2021) collected data from a sample of 238 Iranian EFL teachers to examine self-efficacy, burnout, and emotion regulation. The findings revealed that the self-efficacy of teachers was positively associated with teacher emotion regulation and negatively correlated with teacher burnout. Han and Wang (2021) examined the relationships among EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and work engagement in the context of China. The results demonstrated that teacher self-efficacy positively correlated with their work engagement. In a similar study focusing on the impact of self-efficacy on the work engagement experience of a group of Iranian EFL teachers, Fathi, Greenier, and Derakhshan (2021), Fathi, Nourzadeh, and Saharkhiz (2021) concluded that teacher self-efficacy was a significant predictor of work engagement. Notwithstanding the aforementioned studies a paucity exists in the literature examining the causal relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teacher work engagement in HE, and to our knowledge, this is the first study to consider teacher self-efficacy as a potential predictive variable of work engagement of EFL teachers in HE.

Teacher Resilience

Scholars have conceptualized resiliency as a process developed by individuals while interacting with the external environment (e.g., Sammons et al., 2007). For instance, Sammons et al. (2007) noted that resiliency is “a dynamic construct subject to influence by environmental, work-specific and personal contexts” (p. 694). From a social perspective, resilience is composed of two components working in parallel: being exposed to hardships and the ability to adapt to hardships in a constructive manner (Johnston-Wilder & Lee, 2010). Commonly viewed as a multidimensional concept (Pooley & Cohen, 2010), resilience is the capacity of individuals to adapt when experiencing adversity and risk (Luthans, 2002) positively. It is evident that teaching is a stressful and challenging profession which can eventually lead to teacher attrition (Buchanan et al., 2013); however, some teachers remain committed to and engaged in their work despite the setbacks and obstacles in the workplace due to various reasons. One such particular reason is resilience which enables teachers to be persistent in the face of adversities and difficulties (Gu & Day, 2007). Conceptualized as the interaction between teachers’ personal and environmental factors (Tait, 2008), teacher resilience pertains to instructors’ positive coping and adaptation in the face of adverse teaching experiences (Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019; Wang, Derakhshan, & Azari Noughabi, 2022; Wang, Derakhshan, & Rahimpour, 2022; Y. Wang, 2021). Resilient teachers are equipped with the capacity to thrive when facing stress and setbacks (Drew & Sosnowski, 2019), draw satisfaction from work (Day & Gu, 2013), regulate their emotions (Tait, 2008), control any situation (Dworkin, 2009), teach effectively (Bobek, 2002; Yin et al., 2020), and remain committed to the teaching profession (Xun et al., 2021). In their study, Gu and Day (2007) identified three protective factors which exert impacts on resilience: the personal; referring to the support from families and friends, the situated; denoting teachers’ school life including the support from peers and their relationship with learners, and the professional; referring to teacher-related attitudes and beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy, reflection, inner drive), as well as external factors such as educational policies. This means that every teacher has his/her own particular beliefs, abilities, competencies and strategies that enable him/her to cope and adapt to adversities in teaching. Consequently, a number of studies have suggested an association between teacher resilience and their self-efficacy in educational psychology (e.g., Daniilidou et al., 2020; Derakhshan, Dewaele, & Azari Noughabi, 2022; Sammons et al., 2007; Yada et al., 2021), particularly in the EFL context (Fathi & Saeedian, 2020; H. Liu & Chu, 2022). Yada et al. (2021) examined the relationship between Finnish teachers’ self-efficacy and their resilience. Conducting survey of a sample of 105 pre-service teachers, it was indicated that self-efficacy of teachers had a strong impact on their resilience in the face of challenges.

Given the fact that resilience may contribute to teacher well-being (Mu et al., 2017; Xie & Derakhshan, 2021), and prevent burnout and intention to quit among teachers (Arnup & Bowles, 2016; F. Liu et al., 2021), it is argued that resilience has a primitive role in teachers’ professional life. F. Liu et al. (2021) carried out a study on 449 Chinese teachers to explore the associations among instructors’ resilience, job burnout, and turnover intention. The findings revealed that teacher resilience had a substantial negative predictive impact on burnout and turnover intention. Collecting data through a cross-sectional survey, Richards et al. (2016) investigated the effect of teacher resilience on role stressors and burnout among teachers. Employing SEM analysis, it was found that teacher resilience could reduce role stress and burnout. Adopting a cross-sectional survey design, Ugwu and Amazue (2014) investigated the association between teacher resilience and teacher work engagement. Their findings demonstrated that teacher resilience significantly predicted the work engagement of teachers. Recently, the association between resilience and teacher engagement has been subject to few EFL researchers. For example, Xie (2021) employed a sequential mixed-methods design to probe the predictive role of emotion regulation and resilience of EFL teachers in predicting their work engagement. Data were collected from 314 Chinese EFL teachers via online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The results demonstrated that the resilience of EFL teachers significantly and favorably predicted teacher work engagement. Despite the aforementioned literature, empirical evidence on the relationship between teacher resilience and teacher work engagement is still fairly limited, notably in the context of EFL. Furthermore, the current study is innovative in that we evaluate for the very first time how EFL teachers’ resilience, self-efficacy, and work engagement in higher education are dynamically and reciprocally related to each other. Put differently, we aimed to investigate the potential effective roles of teacher self-efficacy and teacher resilience in predicting the work engagement of EFL teachers in HE in China.

Materials and Methods

Participants

To accomplish the objective of this non-experimental study, 397 male and female Chinese teachers were selected based on the convenience sampling method. These participants were English university professors selected through convenience sampling from various Chinese cities and provinces. Indeed, they were from different universities and colleges across 30 cities of 12 provinces and 2 municipalities.

Sampling

Among the participants, only 372 Chinese English instructors who had completed the questionnaire were selected as the participants. They comprised male (N = 143) and female (N = 229) instructors teaching English at various institutions, schools, and universities. Teachers’ ages fell between 21 and 48 years (M = 25.35, SD = 6.82). The average teaching experience of the participants was also 9.82 (SD = 3.51). About 45% of teachers had Bachelor’s degrees while 37% had Master’s degrees and the rest about 18% had Doctoral degrees. The participants all mentioned that they had attended teacher training courses previously.

Instruments

Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

Teachers’ sense of efficacy was measured using the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) designed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001). This questionnaire includes 24 self-report items that evaluates instructors’ attitudes regarding their competencies in employing appropriate instructional strategies, student engagement, as well as classroom management. The items are evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (nothing) to 5 (a great deal). It should be noted that its reliability is 0.87 in the current study.

Resilience Scale

Teachers’ levels of resilience were measured using the CD-RISC scale developed by Campbell-Sills et al. (2009) which includes 10 self-report statements. The original version of this questionnaire (constituting 25 items) was designed by Connor and Davidson (2003) which is considered a multi-faceted scale for measuring resilience. We used the short-version form in this study in which every statement is evaluated on a Likert-type scale from 0 (not true at all) and four (true nearly all the time). The internal consistency and validity indices of CD-RISC have been previously approved (e.g., Campbell-Sills et al., 2009). It is worth mentioning that the reliability of this questionnaire in this study is 0.92.

Work Engagement Scale

We measured the work engagement of EFL teachers using the scale designed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) was used. This self-report scale includes 17 items that evaluate three facets of Vigor (VI) (six items), Dedication (DE) (five items), and Absorption (AB) (six items). The statements are evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale, from 0 (never) to 6 (always). The psychometric properties of this scale have been verified in the literature (e.g., Derakhshan, Dewaele, & Azari Noughabi, 2022). It should be noted that the reliability of this scale in this study is 0.89.

Procedure

The data collection began in Spring of 2022 with the distribution of the online format of the questionnaires. At the outset, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and importantly, they were assured that their data would be only used for research purposes under the anonymous premise. The online survey was constructed by inserting the items of the questionnaires into Google Docs application. The link of the survey was sent to the emails of those university instructors who volunteered to participate in this study. Some university professors cooperated with the researchers by kindly asking their colleagues who were English instructors to participate in this study. However, the teachers were notified that their participation is voluntary and the collected data would remain confidential. The link of the survey included some introductory information for the respondents explaining how to respond to the items of the survey.

Data Analysis and Results

SPSS and AMOS programs were used for the data analysis. As the first step, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to ensure the construct validity of the questionnaires. For this purpose, the measurement models were tested. Then, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was performed to examine the structural relationships among the latent constructs. Before embarking on the analyses, an initial data screening was run to check the outliers, missing values, and normal distribution of the data. An expectation– maximization algorithm was used for addressing the missing data (Kline, 2011). The outliers including both univariate and multivariate ones were examined via standard scores and Mahalanobis D², respectively. After these data screening, a total number of 366 individuals were considered valid cases for further statistical investigations.

We performed CFAs to examine the measurement models for the three latent variables and we used the goodness-of-fit indices to confirm the validity of measurement models (Kline, 2011). The indices included Chi-square divided by degree of freedom (χ²/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). According to Kline (2011), we considered a model to be fit if χ²/df < 3, CFI and TLI > 0.90, and RMSEA < 0.08. Since the measurement models did not show the adequacy of the models to the data, some modifications/revisions were made to the models. These revisions included eliminating some items with less factor loadings: three items from the self-efficacy scale, two items from the resilience scale, and two items from the work engagement scale. The revised models showed a good fit to the data (see Table 1). Also, the reliability coefficients were calculated and it was found that all the computed coefficient values were high, confirming the reliability coefficients of the used scales (see Table 1). In the next step, the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the variables were computed (see Table 2). The hypothesized model assuming the associations among the constructs was examined employing the AMOS, with the maximum likelihood procedure and variance-covariance matrices as the input. The outcomes revealed that the path coefficients were all significant (p < .05) and the fit indices were also acceptable. In other words, SEM findings substantiated all the associations in the structural model (see Figure 1).

Table 1.

Measurement Model of the Latent Constructs.

	χ ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	ö
Self-efficacy	43.47	23	1.89	0.97	0.96	0.05	.83
Resilience	18.36	9	2.04	0.93	0.92	0.06	.79
Engagement	69.54	36	1.93	0.94	0.93	0.05	.91

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

	M (SD)	1	2	3
(1) Self-efficacy	3.84 (0.97)	1.00
(2) Resilience	3.79 (0.97)	.26*	1.00
(3) Engagement	4.12 (1.01)	.52**	.37**	1.00

p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 1.

The final model of self-efficacy, resilience, and work engagement for EFL teachers.

As Figure 1 indicates, teacher self-efficacy had a slight impact on teacher resilience (β = .23, R² = .05). Also, it was revealed that teacher self-efficacy was a powerful predictor of teacher work engagement (β = .48, R² = .23). In addition, teacher resilience affected work engagement moderately (β = .32, R² = .10).

Discussion

The current research aimed to test a model of work engagement in which the predictive roles of teacher resilience and teacher self-efficacy were investigated among EFL teachers. A number of significant findings were obtained from SEM results. First, we found that teacher self-efficacy was a significant predictor of teacher engagement. This finding can be justified in light of Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory suggesting that higher levels of self-efficacy reduce stress and increase engagement. This result aligns with the findings of studies demonstrating that there is a significantly strong association between teacher self-efficacy and teacher work engagement (e.g., Love et al., 2020; Perera, Granziera, & McIlveen, 2018; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014, 2019). A possible explanation for this finding can be that teachers who believe in their capacities to perform particular job-related tasks often experience more engagement in their teaching work. In other words, teachers are more inclined to be engaged in tasks that are in accordance with their beliefs regarding their abilities in teaching (Bao et al., 2021). Furthermore, the predictability of teaching engagement through teacher self-efficacy justifies the study of Simbula et al. (2011) and Sokmen and Kilic (2019) who underscored the significance of teacher self-efficacy in predicting work engagement of teachers. Following Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy indicating that self-efficacy beliefs specify how contextual factors and impediments are viewed, we argue that instructors with greater efficacy perceptions might be more engaged and content with the teaching work (Burić & Macuka, 2018). This finding can also underpin the social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (Lent et al., 2002) by which it can be affirmed that teacher engagement and self-efficacy are mutually correlated (Granziera & Perera, 2019; Simbula et al., 2011).

Second, based on the SEM results, we figured out that teacher resilience positively predicted teacher engagement. Fredrickson (2001) presented work engagement as an important construct in the context of the PP. He adopted a constructivist approach, maintaining that the connection between people and their working conditions can be a deciding factor. Moreover, this theory also takes on a cognitive perspective that is related to general empathy, putting it in a cognitive perspective (Dewaele & Li, 2020). This finding converges with previous empirical evidence for links between teachers’ resilience and work engagement (e.g., Ugwu & Amazue, 2014; Van der Schoor, 2015; Van Wingerden & Poell, 2019; Wilcox & Lawson, 2018); this finding highlights the significant role of teacher resilience for the development of their work engagement. The studies conducted have already sought to examine the relationship between resilience and the individual’s capability of coping with job stress, the overwhelming pressures of multiple tasks, and organizational changes. These consequences provided evidence that the higher the level of resiliency, the greater the individual’s devotion to his/her job and institution (Petree et al., 2012; Zwack et al., 2011). A potential reason for this result could be in light of the fact that teachers who can cope with teaching-related adversities often draw satisfaction from their work (McCarthy et al., 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015), which in turn, may result in their engagement in the teaching profession (Demir Polat & İskender, 2018). These results support the empirical research of Xie (2021) regarding the predictive role of teacher resilience in teacher work engagement. As mentioned earlier, resilient teachers have the capability to regulate their emotions (Tait, 2008), and as Greenier et al. (2021) maintained, the emotion regulation of teachers can positively predict teacher work engagement. Therefore, we argue that teacher engagement can be predicted by teacher resilience through emotion regulation. The predictability of work engagement of teachers through resilience aligns with Fathi and Saeedian’s (2020) study in which it was demonstrated that the resilience of EFL teachers can play a central role in predicting their work engagement. Furthermore, personal resources, namely resilience and the capacity to influence the environment can positively affect work engagement (Van Wingerden et al., 2017). Following Tait’s (2008) theorization of resilience, it can be discussed that resilience can reduce teachers’ frustration and dissatisfaction, which eventually may help teachers be more committed and engaged in their work (Okeke & Mtyuda, 2017; Park & Johnson, 2019). Given that burnout is the opposite of engagement (Maslach et al., 2001), these findings support those of Daniilidou et al. (2020) and Richards et al. (2016), who concluded that teacher resilience negatively predicted teacher burnout, as resilience makes teachers immune to the disruptive effects of burnout (Howard & Johnson, 2004).

Third, the results of the SEM confirmed our third hypothesis according to which teachers’ self-efficacy had a positive role in predicting teacher engagement. Teachers with higher self-efficacy are more likely to persist in the face of academic challenges and cope with setbacks (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), simply put, teachers with high levels of efficacy are often equipped with resilience and are better able to handle adverse conditions that can lead to more engagement (Peixoto et al., 2018; Taylor & Reyes, 2012). Teachers who are involved will be more eager and devoted to their profession, which could bring about learning development and progress. The more engrossed they are in the process of their teaching, the more possible to involve their learners. A relationship between teacher self-efficacy and their involvement is strengthened by Ventura et al. (2015). This is in agreement with the work engagement model, suggesting that a factor such as self-efficacy is noteworthy in augmenting engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Furthermore, this finding accords with Bandura’s (1977) theory indicating that the self-efficacy of teachers is linked with their efforts in teaching and their participation in the face of challenges and difficulties. Therefore, we argue that teacher engagement can be predicted by teachers’ sense of self-efficacy.

Conclusions

To widen the research scope on work engagement, especially in the EFL context of China, the current research aimed to explore the role of self-efficacy and resilience as predictors of EFL teachers’ work engagement through adopting a quantitative design. The findings of correlational and SEM analyses gave rise to the following theme: work engagement of EFL teachers is predicted significantly and positively by their self-efficacy. Moreover, regarding the findings of thematic analysis, it can be demonstrated that teacher resilience is a significant antecedent of EFL teachers’ work engagement. The results of this study lend credibility to the importance of being resilient on the part of educators. More specifically, resilient educators can effectively manage difficult practices, decreasing adverse influences. The improvement of educators’ resilience entails creating opportunities for professional growth, as well as the provision of resources, creating effective peer connections, mutual decision-making, and providing opportunities. Likewise, based on the findings of this study, the enhancement of instructors’ work engagement can be realized by improving self-efficacy. These findings show that teaching organizations need to emphasize the enhancement of self-efficacy abilities among Chinese teachers as it can foster effective teacher behaviors, such as engagement while promoting their resilience.

Implications, Future Directions, and Limitations

The present study is the very first attempt to probe the simultaneous relationships among the constructs of teacher resilience, teacher self-efficacy, and work engagement of EFL teachers in a HE context. Hence, the findings of this study are illuminating and significant for EFL development researchers and teacher trainers, as investigating the precursors of teacher engagement can be conducive to promoting the psychological well-being of teachers, their positive functioning, and teaching attitudes (Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008). Furthermore, teacher educators and policymakers are recommended to encourage language schools and institutes to improve teachers’ self-efficacy and their resilience competencies by supporting teachers and establishing an amicable atmosphere and sense of community among instructors, administrators, and principals. If so, these organizational supports can promote EFL teachers’ job satisfaction and work engagement. Taken together, the results of the current study will, both theoretically and pedagogically, contribute to some ambiguity about the nature of EFL teachers’ work engagement and its relationships with resilience and self-efficacy in the context of HE, as done in no other study, and requires further attention by the policymakers and officials. The research endeavors undertaken by researchers have tried to develop training programs aimed at enhancing resilience as a completely unique topic. They have also sought to determine whether these programs have managed to achieve the stated outcomes, namely, increasing the effectiveness of teachers working as divining forces in the academic system. These programs and training modules can improve teachers’ resilience. Irrespective of the nuances in the educational environment, a resilient person possesses positive emotions, a high level of self-confidence, as well as optimism, which enable him/her to work efficiently. Indeed, resilience level can predict constructive emotions, decreasing stress and providing employees with more opportunities to focus on their work (Philippe et al., 2009).

Despite the contributions of this research, the findings have some limitations. The data were gathered through only quantitative questionnaires. Next researchers should use qualitative research methods to enhance the credibility of the findings. Bigger samples of the teacher not just from universities and not just from the Chinese context can be recruited to add to the generalizability of the findings. Other teacher variables can be added to such structural models so that the researchers can cast more light on the potential predictors of teachers’ work engagement. Additionally, the present investigation aimed to examine self-efficacy and resilience as predictors of work engagement, while prospective studies can consider other emotional variables (e.g., self-esteem, self-respect, enthusiasm) to find out if they can predict work engagement.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Henan Provincial Education Department, Mainland China. The author is grateful to the insightful comments suggested by the editor and the anonymous reviewers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was sponsored by the Education and Teaching Research Project of Henan Province, China (Grant No. 2022SYJXLX051), and the Education and Teaching Research Project of the International Cooperation and Exchange Division, Ministry of Education, P. R. C. (Grant No. (2023) No. 156).

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent letters were obtained from all the individual participants included in this study.

ORCID iD

Yongliang Wang

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Adeyemi

(2017). Teacher-related factors as correlates of pupils’ achievement in social studies in southwestern Nigeria. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(20), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v8i20.1403

Ainsworth

Oldfield

(2019). Quantifying teacher resilience: Context matters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 82, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.012

Aldridge

J. M.

Fraser

B. J.

(2016). Teachers’ views of their school climate and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Learning Environments Research, 19(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9198-x

Amini Faskhodi

Siyyari

(2018). Dimensions of work engagement and teacher burnout: A study of relations among Iranian EFL teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n1.5

Andersen

A. M.

Dragsted

Evans

R. H.

Sørensen

(2004). The relationship between changes in teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the science teaching environment of Danish first-year elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jste.0000031461.68912.3d

Arnup

Bowles

(2016). Should I stay or should I go? Resilience as a protective factor for teachers’ intention to leave the teaching profession. Australian Journal of Education, 60(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944116667620

Avanzi

Miglioretti

Velasco

Balducci

Vecchio

Fraccaroli

Skaalvik

E. M.

(2013). Cross-validation of the Norwegian teacher’s self-efficacy scale (NTSES). Teaching and Teacher Education, 31, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.002

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534

Bakker

A. B.

Bal

M. P.

(2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909x402596

10.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

11.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

12.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 12(1), 169. https://doi.org/10.2307/258004.

13.

Bao

Zhang

L. J.

Dixon

H. R.

(2021). Teacher engagement in language teaching: Investigating self-efficacy for teaching based on the project “Sino-Greece online Chinese language classrooms”. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 710736. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710736

14.

Bautista

N. U.

(2011). Investigating the use of vicarious and mastery experiences in influencing early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9232-5

15.

Bermejo-Toro

Prieto-Ursúa

Hernández

(2016). Towards a model of teacher well-being: Personal and job resources involved in teacher burnout and engagement. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1005006

16.

Bing

Sadjadi

Afzali

Fathi

(2022). Self-efficacy and emotion regulation as predictors of teacher burnout among English as a foreign language teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 900417. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.900417

17.

Bobek

B. L.

(2002). Teacher resiliency: A key to career longevity. Clearing House, 75(4), 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650209604932

18.

Botham

K. A.

(2018). An analysis of the factors that affect engagement of higher education teachers with an institutional professional development scheme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1407664

19.

Buchanan

Prescott

Schuck

Aubusson

Burke

Louviere

(2013). Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n3.9

20.

Budzińska

Majchrzak

(2021). Positive psychology in second and foreign language education. Springer.

21.

Burić

Macuka

(2018). Self-efficacy, emotions and work engagement among teachers: A two wave cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(7), 1917–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9903-9

22.

Campbell-Sills

Forde

D. R.

Stein

M. B.

(2009). Demographic and childhood environmental predictors of resilience in a community sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(12), 1007–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.01.013

23.

Cerit

(2013). Relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their willingness to implement curriculum reform. International Journal of Educational Reform, 22(3), 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791302200304

24.

Chan

D. W.

(2008). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701491833

25.

Chesnut

S. R.

Burley

(2015). Self-efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the teaching profession: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 15, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.001

26.

Connor

K. M.

Davidson

J. R

. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113

27.

Dai

Wang

(2023). Investigating the interplay of Chinese EFL teachers’ proactive personality, flow, and work engagement. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2174128

28.

Daniilidou

Platsidou

Gonida

(2020). Primary school teachers’ resilience: Association with teacher self-efficacy, burnout and stress. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 18(52), 549–582. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v18i52.3487

29.

Day

(2013). Resilient teachers, resilient schools: Building and sustaining quality in testing times. Routledge.

30.

Demir Polat

İskender

(2018). Exploring teachers’ resilience in relation to job satisfaction, burnout, organizational commitment and perception of organizational climate. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 5(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2018.03.001

31.

Derakhshan

(2022a). The “5Cs” positive teacher interpersonal behaviors: Implications for learner empowerment and learning in an L2 context. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/9783031165276

32.

Derakhshan

(2022b). Revisiting research on positive psychology in second and foreign language education: Trends and directions. Language Related Research, 13(5), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.52547/lrr.13.5.2

33.

Derakhshan

Dewaele

J. M.

Azari Noughabi

(2022). Modeling the contribution of resilience, well-being, and L2 grit to foreign language teaching enjoyment among Iranian English language teachers. System, 109, 102890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102890

34.

Derakhshan

Greenier

Fathi

(2023). Exploring the interplay between a loving pedagogy, creativity, and work engagement among EFL/ESL teachers: A multinational study. Current Psychology, 42, 22803–22822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03371-w

35.

Derakhshan

Nazari

(2022). Examining teacher identity construction in action research: The mediating role of experience. Educational Studies, 48, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2073177

36.

Dewaele

J. M.

(2020). Emotions in second language acquisition: A critical review and research agenda. Foreign Language World, 1(2), 34–49.

37.

Donaldson

S. I.

(2010). Positive organizational psychology, behavior, and scholarship: A review of the emerging literature and evidence base. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439761003790930

38.

Dong

(2021). The role of EFL teachers’ optimism and commitment in their work engagement: A theoretical review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 830402. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.830402

39.

Drew

S. V.

Sosnowski

(2019). Emerging theory of teacher resilience: A situational analysis. English Teaching Practice & Critique, 18(4), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-12-2018-0118

40.

Dworkin

A. G.

(2009). Teacher burnout and teacher resilience: Assessing the Impacts of the school accountability movement. In Saha

L. J.

Dworkin

A. G.

(Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching. Springer International Handbooks of Education (vol. 21). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73317-3_32

41.

Eldor

Shoshani

(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, 151(4), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1291488

42.

Elrayah

(2022). Improving teaching professionals’ satisfaction through the development of self-efficacy, engagement, and stress control: A cross-sectional study. Educational Sciences Theory & Practice, 22(1), 1–12.

43.

Fathi

Greenier

Derakhshan

(2021a). Self-efficacy, reflection, and burnout among Iranian EFL teachers: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(2), 13–37.

44.

Fathi

Nourzadeh

Saharkhiz

A. A.

(2021b). Teacher individual self-efficacy and collective efficacy as predictors of teacher work engagement: The case of Iranian English teachers. Journal of Language Horizons, 5(2), 167–186.

45.

Fathi

Derakhshan

(2019). Teacher self-efficacy and emotional regulation as predictors of teaching stress: An investigation of Iranian English language teachers. English Language Teaching, 13(2), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.22132/TEL.2019.95883

46.

Fathi

Derakhshan

Ebrahimi Galedar

(2022). An investigation of the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teacher academic optimism among Iranian EFL teachers: A structural equation modelling approach. Language and Translation Studies, 55(4), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.22067/JLTS.2021.71751.1060

47.

Fathi

Derakhshan

Saharkhiz

A. A.

(2020). Investigating a structural model of self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and psychological well-being among Iranian EFL teachers. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 12(1), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.22111/IJALS.2020.5725

48.

Fathi

Saeedian

(2020). A structural model of teacher self-efficacy, resilience, and burnout among Iranian EFL teachers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 14–28.

49.

Federici

R. A.

Skaalvik

E. M.

(2012). Teacher and principal self-efficacy: Relations with autonomy and emotional exhaustion. In Shari

B. L.

(Ed.), Self-efficacy in school and community settings (pp. 125–150). Nova Science Publishers Inc.

50.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

51.

Pan

Zhang

Cheng

(2022). Influencing factors of Chinese special education teacher turnover intention: Understanding the roles of subject well-being, social support, and work engagement. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 68(3), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2020.1780553

52.

Granziera

Perera

H. N.

(2019). Relations among teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, engagement, and work satisfaction: A social cognitive view. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.02.003

53.

Greenier

Derakhshan

Fathi

(2021). Emotion regulation and psychological well-being in teacher work engagement: A case of British and Iranian English language teachers. System, 97, 102446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102446

54.

Day

(2007). Teachers resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1302–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.006

55.

Guo

Wang

Ortega-Martín

(2023). The impact of blended learning-based scaffolding techniques on learners’ self-efficacy and willingness to communicate. Porta Linguarum, 40(2): 253–273. doi: https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi40.27061

56.

Hakanen

J. J.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

57.

Han

Wang

(2021). Investigating the correlation among Chinese EFL teachers’ self-efficacy, work engagement, and reflection. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.763234

58.

Harper-Hill

Beamish

Hay

Whelan

Kerr

Zelenko

Villalba

(2022). Teacher engagement in professional learning: What makes the difference to teacher practice? Studies in Continuing Education, 44(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037x.2020.1781611

59.

Hénard

Roseveare

(2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices. An IMHE Guide for Higher Education Institutions, 1(1), 7–11.

60.

Howard

Johnson

(2004). Resilient teachers: Resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of Education, 7(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-004-0975-0

61.

Huang

Zhang

Huang

(2020). Effects of school organizational conditions on teacher professional learning in China: The mediating role of teacher self-efficacy. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 66, 100893.

62.

Huang

Yin

(2019). Job characteristics and teacher well-being: The mediation of teacher self-monitoring and teacher self-efficacy. Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1543855

63.

Janik

Rothmann

(2016). Engagement of secondary school teachers in Namibia: Relational context effects. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(4), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2016.1208921

64.

Johnson

J. L.

(2022). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher work engagement for expats at international K12 schools in China: A correlation analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 3, 100176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100176

65.

Johnston-Wilder

Lee

(2010). Mathematical resilience. Mathematics Teacher, 218(2), 38–41.

66.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287

67.

Kasalak

Dagyar

(2020). The relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teacher job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the teaching and learning international survey (Talis). Educational Sciences Theory & Practice, 20(3), 16–33.

68.

Klassen

R. M.

Chiu

M. M.

(2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.01.002

69.

Klassen

R. M.

Perry

N. E.

Frenzel

A. C.

(2012). Teachers’ relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers’ basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026253

70.

Klassen

R. M.

Yerdelen

Durksen

T. L.

(2013). Measuring teacher engagement: Development of the engaged teachers scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 1(2), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v1i2.44

71.

Kline

R. B.

(Ed.). (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

72.

Knowles

K. T.

(1999). The effect of teacher engagement on student achievement and motivation. University of Maryland, College Park.

73.

Küçükoğlu

(2014). Ways to cope with teacher burnout factors in ELT classrooms. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2741–2746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.647

74.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2002). Social cognitive career theory. Career Choice and Development, 4(1), 255–311.

75.

Liang

Song

Sun

(2022). Can a professional learning community facilitate teacher well-being in China? The mediating role of teaching self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 48(3), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1755953

76.

Eschenauer

Yang

(2013). Influence of efficacy and resilience on problem solving in the United States, Taiwan, and China. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(3), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2013.00033.x

77.

Wang

You

Gao

(2015). Value congruence and teachers’ work engagement: The mediating role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.02.021

78.

Liu

Chen

Wen

Fang

(2021). Exploring the relationships between resilience and turnover intention in Chinese high school teachers: Considering the moderating role of job burnout. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6418. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126418

79.

Liu

Chu

(2022). Exploring EFL teacher resilience in the Chinese context. System, 105, 102752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102752

80.

Liu

Hallinger

(2018). Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Administration Quarterly: EAQ, 54(4), 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x18769048

81.

Llorens

Schaufeli

Bakker

Salanova

(2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 825–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.012

82.

Love

A. M. A.

Findley

J. A.

Ruble

L. A.

McGrew

J. H.

(2020). Teacher self-efficacy for teaching students with autism spectrum disorder: Associations with stress, teacher engagement, and student IEP outcomes following COMPASS consultation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619836767

83.

Luthans

(2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.165

84.

Lyu

(2016). Effect of organizational justice on work engagement with psychological safety as a mediator: Evidence from China. Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal, 44(8), 1359–1370. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.8.1359

85.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

86.

McCarthy

C. J.

Lambert

R. G.

Crowe

E. W.

McCarthy

C. J.

(2010). Coping, stress, and job satisfaction as predictors of advanced placement statistics teachers’ intention to leave the field. NASSP Bulletin, 94(4), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511403262

87.

Mehdizadeh

Pourhaji

Derakhshan

(2023). Evolution of communities of practice, realignment of possible selves, and repositionings in EFL teacher professional identity development: A longitudinal case study. Language Learning Journal, 51, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2163685

88.

Mérida-López

Extremera

Rey

(2017). Contributions of work-related stress and emotional intelligence to teacher engagement: Additive and interactive effects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10), 1156. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101156

89.

Milner

H. R.

Hoy

A. W.

(2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self-efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(02)00099-9

90.

Minghui

Lei

Xiaomeng

Potměšilc

(2018). Teacher efficacy, work engagement, and social support among Chinese special education school teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 648. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00648

91.

G. M.

Wang

(2017). Building resilience of students with disabilities in China: The role of inclusive education teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.004

92.

Okeke

C. I.

Mtyuda

P. N.

(2017). Teacher job dissatisfaction: Implications for teacher sustainability and social transformation. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 19(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2017-0004

93.

Olagbaju

O. O.

(2020). Teacher-related factors as predictors of students’ achievement in English grammar in Gambian senior secondary schools. Education Research International, 2020, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8897719

94.

Pan

Y. H.

(2014). Relationships among teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ motivation, atmosphere, and satisfaction in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(1), 68–92. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0069

95.

Park

K. A.

Johnson

K. R.

(2019). Job satisfaction, work engagement, and turnover intention of CTE health science teachers. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training Research, 6(3), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.13152/ijrvet.6.3.2

96.

Peixoto

Wosnitza

Pipa

Morgan

Cefai

(2018). A multidimensional view on pre-service teacher resilience in Germany, Ireland, Malta and Portugal. In Wosnitza

Peixoto

Beltman

Mansfield

C. F.

(Eds.), Resilience in Education (pp. 73–89). Springer.

97.

Perera

H. N.

Granziera

McIlveen

(2018). Profiles of teacher personality and relations with teacher self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.034

98.

Petree

R. D.

Broome

K. M.

Bennett

J. B.

(2012). Exploring and reducing stress in young restaurant workers: Results of a randomized field trial. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP, 26(4), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.091001-QUAN-321

99.

Philippe

F. L.

Lecours

Beaulieu-Pelletier

(2009). Resilience and positive emotions: Examining the role of emotional memories. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 139–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00541.x

100.

Pooley

J. A.

Cohen

(2010). Resilience: A definition in context. Australian Community Psychologist, 22(1), 30–37.

101.

Richards

K. A. R.

Levesque-Bristol

Templin

T. J.

Graber

K. C.

(2016). The impact of resilience on role stressors and burnout in elementary and secondary teachers. Social Psychology of Education, 19(3), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9346-x

102.

Ross

J. A.

Bradley Cousins

Gadalla

(1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051x(95)00046-m

103.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. The Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

104.

Salanova

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701763982

105.

Sammons

Day

Kington

Stobart

Smees

(2007). Exploring variations in teachers’ work, lives and their effects on pupils: Key findings and implications from a longitudinal mixed-method study. British Educational Research Journal, 33(5), 681–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701582264

106.

Sarıçam

Sakız

(2014). Burnout and teacher self-efficacy among teachers working in special education institutions in Turkey. Educational Studies, 40(4), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.930340

107.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2003). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual (Vol. 26, pp. 64–100). Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University. https://doi.org/10.1037/t76451-000

108.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

109.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

González-romá

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015630930326

110.

Schunk

D. H.

Pajares

(2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. In Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

(Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (pp. 15–31). Academic Press.

111.

Schwarzer

Warner

L. M.

(2013). Perceived self-efficacy and its relationship to resilience. In Prince-Embury

Saklofske

D. H.

(Eds.), Resilience in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 139–150). Springer.

112.

Seifalian

Derakhshan

(2018). The relationship between Iranian EFL teachers’ burnout and self-efficacy across English-related vs. non-English-related academic degrees. International Journal of English Language and Translation Studies, 6(2), 99–110.

113.

Shahzad

Naureen

(2017). Impact of teacher self-efficacy on secondary school students’ academic achievement. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 4(1), 48–72. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v4i1.1050

114.

Simbula

Guglielmi

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2011). A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian school teachers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903513916

115.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611

116.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0

117.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2015). Job satisfaction, stress and coping strategies in the teaching profession—What do teachers say? International Education Studies, 8(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n3p181

118.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2018). Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Social Psychology of Education, 21(5), 1251–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9464-8

119.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2019). Teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy: Relations with perceived job resources and job demands, feeling of belonging, and teacher engagement. Creative Education, 10(07), 1400–1424. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.107104

120.

Sokmen

Kilic

(2019). The relationship between primary school teachers’ self-efficacy, autonomy, job satisfaction, teacher engagement and burnout: A model development study. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(2), 709–721.

121.

Tait

(2008). Resilience as a contributor to novice teacher success, commitment, and retention. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 57–75.

122.

Tan

(2022). Summary of the research on teachers’ work engagement in China. The International Journal of Humanities Education, 2(2), 70–73.

123.

Taylor

Reyes

(2012). Self-efficacy and resilience in baccalaureate nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 9(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1515/1548-923X.2218

124.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1

125.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

(2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

126.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

Hoy

W. K.

(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

127.

Ugwu

F. O.

Amazue

L. O.

(2014). Psychological ownership, hope, resilience and employee work engagement among teachers in selected mission schools. Open Journal of Business and Management, 6(10), 98–106.

128.

Van der Schoor

S. C. M.

(2015). Teacher engagement and the role of psychological capital [Master Degree Thesis, Department of Organization Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222518

129.

Van Wingerden

Derks

Bakker

A. B.

(2017). The impact of personal resources and job crafting interventions on work engagement and performance. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21758

130.

Van Wingerden

Poell

R. F.

(2019). Meaningful work and resilience among teachers: The mediating role of work engagement and job crafting. PLoS One, 14(9), e0222518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222518

131.

Ventura

Salanova

Llorens

(2015). Professional self-efficacy as a predictor of burnout and engagement: The role of challenge and hindrance demands. The Journal of Psychology, 149(3–4), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.876380

132.

Wang

(2020). Making sense of teacher leadership in early childhood education in China. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1529821

133.

Wang

(2021). Building teachers’ resilience: Practical applications for teacher education of China. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 738606. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.738606

134.

Wang

Derakhshan

Zhang

L. J.

(2021). Researching and practicing positive psychology in second/foreign language learning and teaching: The past, current status and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731721

135.

Wang

Gao

Xun

(2021). Work engagement and associated factors among dental nurses in China. BMC Oral Health, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01766-y

136.

Wang

Derakhshan

Azari Noughabi

(2022). The interplay of EFL teachers’ immunity, work engagement, and psychological well-being: Evidence from four Asian countries. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2092625

137.

Wang

Derakhshan

Rahimpour

(2022). Developing resilience among Chinese and Iranian EFL teachers: A multi-dimensional cross-cultural study. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2042540

138.

Wang

(2023). What do we know about l2 teachers’ emotion regulation? a bibliometric analysis of the pertinent literature. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 5(3), 2012.

139.

Whalen

Majocha

Van Nuland

(2019). Novice teacher challenges and promoting novice teacher retention in Canada. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(5), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1652906

140.

Wilcox

K. C.

Lawson

H. A.

(2018). Teachers’ agency, efficacy, engagement, and emotional resilience during policy innovation implementation. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9313-0

141.

Xiao

Fathi

Mohammaddokht

(2022). Exploring a structural model of teaching enjoyment, teacher self-efficacy, and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 918488. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.918488

142.

Xie

(2021). A study on Chinese EFL teachers’ work engagement: The predictability power of emotion regulation and teacher resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 735969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735969

143.

Xie

Derakhshan

(2021). A conceptual review of positive teacher interpersonal communication behaviors in the instructional context. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2623. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.708490

144.

Xun

Zhu

Rice

(2021). How do beginning teachers achieve their professional agency and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic? A social-ecological approach. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(5), 745–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1945415

145.

Yada

Björn

P. M.

Savolainen

Kyttälä

Aro

Savolainen

(2021). Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing inclusive practices and resilience in Finland. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103398

146.

Yin

Xie

Wang

(2020). Demystifying and sustaining the resilience of teacher educators: The perspectives of teaching–research officers in China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09626-0

147.

Yong

Yue

(2007). Causes for burnout among secondary and elementary school teachers and preventive strategies. Chinese Education & Society, 40(5), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.2753/ced1061-1932400508

148.

Zee

Koomen

H. M. Y.

(2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801

149.

Zheng

Yin

(2019). Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(6), 843–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218764176

150.

Zhi

Wang

Y. S.

Wang

Y. L.

(2023). The role of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy in EFL teachers’ technology adoption. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00782-6

151.

Zimmerman

B. J.

Cleary

T. J.

(2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 45–69).

152.

Zwack

Abel

Schweitzer

(2011). [Physicians’ resilience–Salutogenetic practices and attitudes of experienced physicians]. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 61(12), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1291276

Modeling the Effect of Chinese EFL Teachers’ Self-efficacy and Resilience on Their Work Engagement: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Teacher Engagement

Teacher Self-Efficacy

Teacher Resilience

Materials and Methods

Participants

Sampling

Instruments

Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

Resilience Scale

Work Engagement Scale

Procedure

Data Analysis and Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Implications, Future Directions, and Limitations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

Informed Consent

ORCID iD

Data Availability

References