How Teacher Social-Emotional Competence Affects Job Burnout: The Chain Mediation Role of Teacher-Student Relationship and Well-Being

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article, “How teachers’ social-emotional competence affects burnout: the chain mediating role of teacher-student relationships” used questionnaires to investigate various pathways between social-emotional competence, student-teacher relationships, teacher well-being, and teacher burnout among a small group of teachers in China. Unfortunately, I don’t think that this article is acceptable for publication.

I had to read the introduction several times to understand the author’s reasoning. There are several sentences that are so long, they should probably be split up into at least three separate sentences. It should be clear what the authors are trying to say from the first sentence, but this is not the case in this article. What is meant by “dehumanization” this term is used several times but never explained. Some statements like “the academic community . . . is shifting the focus . . . from a concern for things to the concern for people themselves” are incredibly hard to decipher what the authors are actually talking about. Even “social-emotional competence”, one of the main objects of the study, is quite vaguely and poorly defined.

What is M-city?

Hypothesis 2 suggests that teacher-student relationships should mediate the relationship between social-emotional competence and burnout while hypothesis 3 states that teacher well-being should partially mediate this relationship. Does this mean H2 suggests full mediation?

The methods section is very underdeveloped and lacking a lot of important information. How were the clusters sampled? How were the schools selected? When were the questionnaires administered? Were they answered digitally or in person? Was ethical approval obtained? Subheadings would be useful to describe the sample, the measures, and the statistical analysis. Information on the covariates like education background, school, teaching ages, etc. are completely lacking. How were they measured? How are they categorized? There is no description in the methods section of what statistical methods were used and why.

Figure 2 is extremely difficult to follow. What does T1-T6 mean? Are there different time points? What about W1-W6. Figures should be able to stand alone and be possible to understand with the help of notes and legends.

In the discussion section the authors state that previous studies have focused on individual and personality traits. How is social-emotional competence not an individual trait? Why is there no strengths and limitations or methodological considerations section? In the end, this feels like another cross-sectional study of individual characteristics that throws all the data in a SEM and claims to elucidate some important pathways. The limitations of this approach must be addressed somehow.

The results should be contextualized and given some sort of implications. What does this study contribute? What new knowledge is added? How can this contribute to future research and policy?s. What does this study contribute? What new knowledge is added? How can this contribute to future research and policy?

Author Response

Reviewer 1’s comments are really helpful for us to improve the quality of our manuscript. Thus, we take his/her comments seriously while revising the manuscript. We further checked the English during revision, the whole paper was examined and enhanced. In the recent manuscript, we have marked the modified font in blue. Here are our responses to his/her comments.

Comment 1: I had to read the introduction several times to understand the author’s reasoning. There are several sentences that are so long, they should probably be split up into at least three separate sentences. It should be clear what the authors are trying to say from the first sentence, but this is not the case in this article. What is meant by “dehumanization” this term is used several times but never explained. Some statements like “the academic community . . . is shifting the focus . . . from a concern for things to the concern for people themselves” are incredibly hard to decipher what the authors are talking about. Even “social-emotional competence”, one of the main objects of the study, is quite vaguely and poorly defined.

Response1: Thanks so much about this comment. Based on the suggestions of Reviewer1, we have rewritten the INTRODUCTION. In the updated manuscript, we have refined all linguistic expressions, while dividing the longer sentences into several independent sentences to help understanding. In addition, we conceptually defined important concepts for this study (e.g., socio-emotional competence) (line 44-51).

Comment 2: What is M-city?

Response2: M city is Beijing, China, where our survey was conducted. Thanks so much to highlight this point. In the new draft, we have added to this information. (lines 151-160).

Comment 3: Hypothesis 2 suggests that teacher-student relationships should mediate the relationship between social-emotional competence and burnout while hypothesis 3 states that teacher well-being should partially mediate this relationship. Does this mean H2 suggests full mediation?

Response3: Thanks very much for this suggestion. We updated Hypotheses 2 and 3 to state that both teacher-student relationship and well-being partially mediated the relationship between social-emotional competence and burnout (lines 105-109& line124-127).

Comment 4: The methods section is very underdeveloped and lacking a lot of important information. How were the clusters sampled? How were the schools selected? When were the questionnaires administered? Were they answered digitally or in person? Was ethical approval obtained? Subheadings would be useful to describe the sample, the measures, and the statistical analysis. Information on the covariates like education background, school, teaching ages, etc. are completely lacking. How were they measured? How are they categorized? There is no description in the methods section of what statistical methods were used and why.

Response 4: Thanks very much to note this important issue to us. Based on Reviewer 1's suggestions, we have refined the content. As for participants and procedures (lines 151-160)，we collected data of teacher in 14 public elementary schools in two districts of Beijing. Considering school size and location (urban, rural, and suburban), the schools were selected according to a stratified random sample. Prior to data collection, we communicated with school officials to obtain the consent of the teachers, and our study was approved by the ethics committee of author’s institution. Second, we supplemented the descriptive statistics of the sample (lines 162-164). In addition, in the 3.2 of new script, we added a description of Control Variables, detailing their measurement methods and category.  In addition, we provide further clarification on the research ethics of this paper in Ethics Statement (Line191-196).

Comment 5: Figure 2 is extremely difficult to follow. What does T1-T6 mean? Are there different time points? What about W1-W6. Figures should be able to stand alone and be possible to understand with the help of notes and legends.

Response 5: Much thanks for this point. Based on Reviewer2’s suggestion, we have updated Figure 2. Adding notes to illustrate the content of the figure. T1 to T6 are 6 items that measure positive teacher-student relationship. Figure 2 shows the structural equation model（SEM）we made using AMOS21.0. In line 202-217, we have added the reasons and criteria for using SEM to help understanding.

Comment 6: In the discussion section the authors state that previous studies have focused on individual and personality traits. How is social-emotional competence not an individual trait? Why is there no strengths and limitations or methodological considerations section? In the end, this feels like another cross-sectional study of individual characteristics that throws all the data in a SEM and claims to elucidate some important pathways. The limitations of this approach must be addressed somehow.

Response 6: Thanks very much for these suggestions, we have added relevant content in the latest draft. First, we rewrote the discussion section. Secondly, we have added limitations and future research to this study in 5.4(line 407-418). The use of cross-sectional data is one of the limitations of this study. The same questionnaire respondents may lead to common method bias problems. Therefore, we added a common method bias test (4.1.). The results showed that there was no serious common method bias in this study. For the approach, we refer to the following articles:

Zhang, S., Bowers, A. J., & Mao, Y. (2021). Authentic leadership and teachers’ voice behaviour: The mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of interpersonal trust. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(5), 768–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220915925

Zhang, S., Long, R., & Bowers, A. J. (2022). Supporting teacher knowledge sharing in China: The effect of principal authentic leadership, teacher psychological empowerment and interactional justice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221120330

Comment 7: The results should be contextualized and given some sort of implications. What does this study contribute? What new knowledge is added? How can this contribute to future research and policies? What does this study contribute? What new knowledge is added? How can this contribute to future research and policy?

Response 7: Thanks so much for this suggestion. We have added relevant content in the latest draft. In the Discussion, we have added 5.2 (Theoretical Significance) and 5.3 (Practical Significance) to contextualize the findings and provide a detailed explanation of the significance of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Because this research is rather quantitative. Therefore, the research team should pay attention to the presentation of the research methodology in the abstract.

2. In Figure 1, the hypothesis of each line linking latent variables should be clearly stated (see Figure 1 in Pimdee, P. (2020). Antecedents of Thai Student Teacher Sustainable Consumption Behavior. Heliyon, 6, (8), e04676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04676)

3. In the topic of Theoretical foundations and hypothesis development, the research team covered only 4 hypotheses that are not related to Figure 1 which may have up to 6 hypotheses.

4. The researchers did not show population size in Materials and Methods. and how to determine the sample size This is necessary for quantitative research that uses structural equation modeling analysis.

5. In the analysis of the structural equation model The research team should carefully examine various preliminary agreements in order to ensure that the results of the structural equation model analysis are reliable.

6. The research team should summarize and present the hypothesis test results with tables, which will make it easier for readers to understand (see Pimdee, P. (2021). An Analysis of the Causal Relationships in Sustainable Consumption Behaviour (SCB). of Thai Student Science Teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 999-1018. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14159a)

7. Check Figure 2. The observed variable value of the latent variable Teacher burnout is missing.

8. The method for presenting hypothesis test results according to Tables 2 and 3 should be revised to be easy to understand and concise.

 

9. The research team should clearly summarize how many hypotheses there are. (It will be used according to Figure 1 or according to theoretical study). Then proceed to discuss the results according to the aforementioned hypothesis.

Author Response

Thanks very much for Reviewer 2’s comments. We appreciate so much to his/her efforts to give us constructive feedbacks. We find the quality of the revised manuscript improves a lot after taking his/her advices into consideration. We further checked the English during revision, the whole paper was examined and enhanced. In the recent manuscript, we have marked the modified font in blue. Therefore, we would like to show how we respond to the comments in this revision as follows.

 

Comment 1: Because this research is rather quantitative. Therefore, the research team should pay attention to the presentation of the research methodology in the abstract.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have rewritten the abstract section with reference to other articles by Sustanbility in order to enhance the presentation of the research methodology(line14-16).

Comment 2:  In Figure 1, the hypothesis of each line linking latent variables should be clearly stated (see Figure 1 in Pimdee, P. (2020). Antecedents of Thai Student Teacher Sustainable Consumption Behavior. Heliyon, 6, (8), e04676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04676)

Response 2: Thank you for suggesting the direction of the changes. In response to this suggestion, we have updated Figure1 to explicitly state the hypothesis of each line linking latent variables.

Comment 3:  In the topic of Theoretical foundations and hypothesis development, the research team covered only 4 hypotheses that are not related to Figure 1 which may have up to 6 hypotheses.

Response 3: Thanks very much for this suggestion. In 2.2, we have a total of 4 hypotheses. Among them, H2 and H3 are hypotheses about the mediation role, so they both contain two paths respectively. In H2 contains H2a and H2b, and in H3 contains H3a and H3b. So there are 6 lines in Figure 1. We have updated Figure 1 to help understand.

Comment 4:  The researchers did not show population size in Materials and Methods. and how to determine the sample size This is necessary for quantitative research that uses structural equation modeling analysis.

Response 4: Thanks very much to note this important issue to us. We have replenished this part (lines 151 -160)，we collected data of teacher in 14 public elementary schools in two districts of Beijing. Considering school size and location (urban, rural, and suburban), the schools were selected according to a stratified random sample.

Comment 5:  In the analysis of the structural equation model. The research team should carefully examine various preliminary agreements in order to ensure that the results of the structural equation model analysis are reliable.

Response 5: Thank you for suggesting this point. To complete this part, we added two paragraphs before presenting the results of the study (lines202 -217). These paragraphs described the steps and criteria by which structural equation model analysis was performed in detail.

Comment 6: The research team should summarize and present the hypothesis test results with tables, which will make it easier for readers to understand (see Pimdee, P. (2021). An Analysis of the Causal Relationships in Sustainable Consumption Behaviour (SCB). of Thai Student Science Teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 999-1018. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14159a)

Response 6: Thank you very much for the suggestion. We have carefully read the article you recommended. In the latest manuscript, we have added Table4 to summarize and present the hypothesis testing results so as to help understanding.

Comment 7: Check Figure 2. The observed variable value of the latent variable Teacher burnout is missing.

Response 7: Many thanks for pointing this out. We have updated Figure2, and also checked all other charts to avoid such problems.

Comment 8: The method for presenting hypothesis test results according to Tables 2 and 3 should be revised to be easy to understand and concise.

Response 8: Thanks very much to note this important issue to us. We have updated the presentation of the results in Tables 2 and 3 and explained in line(269-295) why we did this in order to help understanding.

Comment 9: The research team should clearly summarize how many hypotheses there are. (It will be used according to Figure 1 or according to theoretical study). Then proceed to discuss the results according to the aforementioned hypothesis.

Response 9: Thanks so much for this suggestion，We have rewritten 2.2 Hypothesis development。As Figure1 shows, we have a total of 4 hypotheses. Among them, H2 and H3 are hypotheses about the mediation role, so they both contain two paths respectively. In H2 contains H2a and H2b, and in H3 contains H3a and H3b.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have significantly improved the manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you to the researchers who value the suggestions, and revised them to make this research article perfect.