Next Article in Journal
Parent-Implemented Interventions for Children with Special Needs in Türkiye: An Analysis of Single-Subject Research Studies
Previous Article in Journal
Demographic Differences and Associations Between Body Image and Quality of Life Among Japanese Adolescents with Congenital Physical Disabilities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Work–Family Interface Profiles and Their Associations with Personal and Social Factors among South Korean Dual-Earner Parents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/bs14121210
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Do Korean Secondary School Teachers Perceive Psychological Burnout in Their Teaching Careers?

by
Taeeun Shim
1,
Mikyung Jun
2,* and
Song Yi Lee
3,*
1
Department of Education, College of Education, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Home Economics Education, College of Education, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Counselling and Coaching, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14(12), 1210; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121210
Submission received: 28 October 2024 / Revised: 13 December 2024 / Accepted: 13 December 2024 / Published: 17 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Burnout, Mental Health and Work-Family Interface in Today’s Workplaces)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The psychological burnout experienced by teachers is not merely a personal issue; it is a significant social problem that impacts the entire educational environment. This study utilised Q methodology to identify the subjective perceptions of psychological burnout among Korean secondary school teachers and then analysed the characteristics of these perception types. An analysis of 34 statements and a P sample of 30 teachers resulted in four types of perceptions regarding teachers’ psychological burnout: ‘burnout due to damaged self-esteem’ (Type 1), ‘burnout due to organisational neglect’ (Type 2), ‘burnout due to excessive role demands’ (Type 3) and ‘burnout due to disrespectful behaviour’ (Type 4). This study’s meaningfulness is in its classification of teachers’ psychological burnout into types and its exploration of the types’ features. The results can also help in developing specific intervention programmes for each type.

1. Introduction

Recently, burnout has rapidly increased due to changes in lifestyles and human relationships and the rising complexity of organisational societies worldwide. This trend negatively affects individuals’ well-being and job performance [1,2]. Among various professions, teaching is one of the most affected by burnout. Teachers face emotional exhaustion caused by prolonged working hours, heavy workloads, and challenging student behaviour [3,4]. Burnout, characterised by physical and mental fatigue, lethargy, self-loathing and even depression, often results from using excessive energy during job tasks [5,6]. In particular, teachers often experience burnout due to student misconduct and conflicts with parents, regardless of school level [7,8].
In addition to these factors, changes in school organisation, culture and the digital environment create challenges in curriculum development and student guidance. These challenges further contribute to teacher burnout, decreasing job satisfaction and increasing job turnover rates [5,9,10]. Burnout can reduce passion for teaching and job satisfaction, ultimately lowering the quality of education and student engagement. Burned-out teachers may leave the profession, worsening teacher shortages and deepening educational inequality [10,11]. In addition, teacher burnout has broader implications. It hinders the teacher’s ability to deliver effective instruction and negatively impacts student academic performance and emotional well-being. There is also an effect on the overall learning environment and teacher–student interactions, creating a cycle of dissatisfaction for all involved [12].
In South Korea, high academic achievement expectations and intense competition for university entrance are significant stressors for teachers. Factors such as high parental expectations, frequent changes in educational policies and rapid digital transformation intensify Korean teachers’ burnout experiences [13]. Given these challenges, it is crucial to explore teacher burnout through their subjective experiences. Thus, this study employs Q methodology, a systematic approach for investigating subjective perspectives, to categorise teachers’ personal experiences of burnout into types. By uncovering the diversity of perceptions, it provides valuable insights into the complex nature of teacher burnout. Scholars can use the findings to develop targeted prevention and management strategies tailored to each type of burnout.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Concepts and Components of Psychological Burnout

People commonly understand burnout as a combination of emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment. While the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), introduced by Maslach and Jackson (1981), laid the foundation for burnout measurement, recent studies have refined this framework to address diverse occupational settings, including education [14,15].
Emotional exhaustion, marked by persistent fatigue and depleted energy, arises when individuals face sustained stressors without sufficient recovery. For teachers, this often results from societal pressures and role overload, such as handling excessive administrative responsibilities and managing students’ character development [16,17,18,19]. Depersonalisation, characterised by a detached and cynical attitude, frequently occurs when teachers encounter disrespect or inadequate support from students, parents or administrators [9,20]. The increasing emphasis on student rights and a customer-oriented approach to education intensifies these challenges and contributes to burnout [21,22]. In addition, there is a close link between reduced sense of personal accomplishment and self-efficacy. Teachers with lower self-efficacy are less likely to meet job expectations, which heightens burnout risk. Conversely, higher self-efficacy supports resilience and enhances educational outcomes [23,24].
In South Korea, unique cultural and organisational dynamics further shape burnout experiences. Teachers must balance evolving societal expectations, including heightened parental demands and the rapid integration of digital technologies [25,26,27,28]. Initiatives like parental education programs and efforts to redistribute workloads have shown promise in alleviating these pressures [14].

2.2. Shifting Teaching Profession and Challenges Faced by Teachers

Teaching in Korea was once regarded as a highly respected and attractive profession. Kang and Hong (2008) [29] attributed the achievements of Korean students to adequate class hours and preparation time and a structure that recognised teachers as professionals. However, social changes and shifts in the educational environment have altered this perception. Thus, people no longer see teaching as a desirable job.
According to the 2018 Early Childhood Development Teaching and Learning International Survey (ECD TALIS), Korean secondary school teachers reported low job satisfaction and self-efficacy compared to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. Korea ranked third in the proportion of teachers expressing regret about choosing teaching as a profession, following Saudi Arabia and Portugal (OECD, 2018) [30]. Korean teachers identified excessive administrative work, maintaining classroom order and handling parental complaints as primary stressors. Additionally, they were more likely to report threats or verbal abuse from students and parental conflicts as high stress factors than teachers from other countries [31]. To address these challenges, South Korea implemented measures in September 2023 to support teachers’ mental health. These included expanded access to psychological assessments and counselling services [32].
The challenges faced by teachers are not unique to Korea. In the United Kingdom, the Teacher Well-being Report revealed that 77% of teachers experience mental health issues, with 46% reporting insomnia or other sleep disorders caused by work-related stress. Major causes of burnout include excessive workloads, poor work–life balance and a diminished sense of professional value (Education Support, 2024) [33]. Teachers in the United States report high levels of occupational stress driven by unrealistic expectations, overwhelming responsibilities and insufficient support. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these issues by adding new responsibilities related to remote learning and virtual student engagement [34,35]. In addition, Australia identifies key stressors as workforce shortages, insufficient leadership support and time constraints. These factors contribute to high turnover rates and negatively impact the well-being of children and adolescents [36].
A comparative analysis of teacher burnout in South Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia highlights similarities and differences. Teachers universally report high stress levels that negatively affect educational quality and retention rates. However, the specific sources of burnout differ by country. In Korea, stress arises from handling parental complaints and verbal abuse from students. In the United Kingdom, a poor work–life balance and diminished professional value are primary concerns, while in the United States, teachers struggle with excessive responsibilities and adapting to remote learning. Finally, in Australia, resource shortages and leadership challenges are key issues. These findings underscore the need for tailored solutions that address the cultural and contextual specificities of each country.
Therefore, this study explores the types of subjective perceptions of burnout among Korean teachers and asks the following research questions:
  • How do Korean secondary school teachers perceive psychological burnout?
  • What are the characteristics of the types of psychological burnout as perceived by Korean secondary school teachers?

3. Methods

This study applies the Q methodology to explore the perceptions of psychological burnout among Korean secondary school teachers. Q methodology is a mixed research approach that focuses on measuring the diversity of human subjectivity, including mindsets, preferences, opinions and attitudes [37,38]. This framework can present distinct perspectives on a given topic, provide an overview of historical and theoretical foundations and describe underlying perceptions [39,40]. This method emphasises phenomenological generalisation over statistical generalisation, enabling the categorisation of subjective viewpoints within a population to present diverse perspectives on the subject [41].
In Q methodology, researchers select statements related to a specific topic, and participants rank these statements based on their level of agreement. The researchers then conduct factor analysis on these data to group similar viewpoints among respondents and derive representative perspectives for each group. The process focuses on identifying patterns in subjective data, making it effective for uncovering significant psychological experiences [42]. Therefore, Q methodology is well-suited for understanding teachers’ subjective perceptions of burnout.
This study followed the Q methodology steps shown in Figure 1.

3.1. Q Concourse

The Q concourse is a collection of statements encompassing all perspectives, including research participants’ subjective thoughts and opinions regarding the topic under study [43,44,45]. This study developed the Q concourse by following a structured process, which included two main steps: (1) extracting statements from the academic literature and (2) gathering additional statements through written interviews.
First, we reviewed the literature to identify statements related to psychological burnout. The keywords used included ‘measurement tools for psychological burnout’, ‘emotional exhaustion of teachers’, ‘job satisfaction’, ‘job stress’ and ‘attitudes towards students that induce burnout’ [21,46,47,48,49]. Based on these criteria, we initially selected 121 statements representing various aspects of teachers’ psychological burnout.
Second, we conducted written interviews with middle and high school teachers to gather additional statements and perspectives. We recruited participants via email, informed them about the study and invited them to participate after they gave informed consent. To capture diverse experiences, we used purposive sampling to select five middle school teachers and five high school teachers. The participants included five males and five females, with five teachers from Seoul and five from Gyeonggi Province. Their teaching subjects included English (3), home economics (2), social studies (1), mathematics (1), Korean language (1), science (1) and ethics (1).
The written interviews included questions such as the following:
-
What types of psychological burnout are teachers currently experiencing?
-
If you have experienced burnout, can you provide specific examples?
-
How did you overcome psychological burnout?
We repeatedly read and analysed the responses to ensure that participants’ statements reflected their subjective experiences. As a result, we derived 220 statements from the interviews and combined these with the 121 statements from the literature review, resulting in a total of 341 statements for the Q concourse.

3.2. Q Sample

The Q sample refers to the subset of statements extracted from the Q concourse [50,51]. To create the Q sample, we followed a three-step process: categorisation, review and final selection.
First, the research team categorised the 341 statements from the Q concourse into thematic groups, such as causes of burnout, prevention methods, policies, job stress, attitudes towards students, administrative support, frustration, relationship dissatisfaction and lack of personal achievement. After categorising the statements, we selected those that comprehensively and diversely represented opinions within each categorised domain. Each researcher independently chose statements, and we included those selected by two or more researchers. This process narrowed the statements down to 99.
Second, four middle and high school teachers reviewed the 99 statements to assess their relevance and appropriateness for the study. We excluded statements judged as irrelevant or redundant by more than three participants, resulting in the elimination of 32 statements.
Finally, the researchers further reviewed the remaining 67 statements to confirm their relevance, representativeness and comprehensiveness and selected statements agreed upon by all researchers. This final step reduced the list to 34 statements, which constituted the Q sample for the study.

3.3. P Sample

The P-sample refers to the respondents participating in the Q-sorting process. In Q methodology, sampling aims to identify diverse perspectives related to the research topic rather than achieving statistical generalisation. Researchers typically use purposive sampling to select participants who can provide meaningful insights, with a sample size of 30 to 60 participants being sufficient for this purpose [43,52].
To ensure representativeness within the cultural context, we purposively selected participants in this study based on key demographic and professional criteria, including school level, gender, school type, teaching years, geographic region, teaching subject and age. These criteria reflect the diversity of teachers’ experiences and backgrounds relevant to the research topic. For example, participants included 17 middle school teachers and 13 high school teachers to capture differences between school levels and 14 teachers from Seoul and 16 from Gyeonggi Province to account for geographic variation. Similarly, the inclusion of 17 public school teachers and 13 private school teachers ensured representation across different school systems. Further, we considered teaching experience, with 18 participants having more than 10 years of experience and 12 having less than 10 years. These demographic details, summarised in Table 1, provide a robust foundation for understanding diverse perspectives on teacher burnout in the Korean context.

3.4. Q Sorting

In Q sorting, participants sort the Q sample statements based on their degree of agreement. In this study, participants arranged 34 statement cards in a forced distribution format, ranging from strongly disagree (−4) to strongly agree (+4), as illustrated in Figure 2 [53].
The Q sorting process involved three main steps.
First, participants read the 34 statements multiple times to become familiar with all of them. Second, they sorted the statement cards into three categories based on whether they agreed or disagreed with each statement: agree, disagree and neutral. Third, they distributed the cards sequentially on the Q sorting sheet, placing those they most agreed with on the right end (+4) and those they most disagreed with on the left end (−4).
Additionally, we asked participants to explain their choices for the two statements that they agreed with most (positions +4, ① and ②) and the two statements that they disagreed with most (positions −4, ③ and ④). This qualitative feedback provided deeper insights into their perspectives and enhanced the richness of the data. Each sorting session took approximately 40–50 min to complete.

3.5. Data Analysis

We analysed the collected Q sorting data using KADE v1.2.1, a desktop application designed for Q methodology analysis. This software supports multiple operating systems, including Microsoft Windows, Apple macOS and Linux [54].
We applied principal component analysis to group similar responses into factors and used the varimax rotation method to improve interpretability. Using a scree plot and cumulative variance, we identified four factors for this study; we calculated Z-scores and Q-sort values for each type and statement.
Moreover, to interpret the characteristics of each factor, we reviewed participants’ qualitative explanations for the statements with which they agreed and disagreed most. This approach provided a comprehensive understanding of each type’s unique perspectives and their underlying rationale.

4. Results

4.1. Preliminary Results

The analysis resulted in four perception factors of burnout experienced by Korean secondary school teachers. Each factor explains the characteristics of the grouped individuals by clustering the P sample based on similar opinions, thoughts and attitudes.
The cumulative variance of these four factors was 54%, with a value above 50% considered to have high explanatory power [45]. An examination of the explanatory power by type revealed that Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4 accounted for 25%, 13%, 9% and 7%, respectively. Lastly, the eigenvalues for each factor were 7.3738, 3.7675, 2.6625 and 2.0241, respectively (Table 2).

4.2. Characteristics of Psychological Burnout in Secondary School Teachers

As a result of the factor analysis [55], we classified the four factors representing the characteristics of teacher burnout types (Table 3).

4.2.1. Type 1: Burnout Due to Damaged Self-Esteem

Type 1 teachers expressed shame and frustration due to the rude attitudes of parents and students, being treated as service providers by the school and their perceived lack of influence over students and parents. These factors contributed significantly to their burnout. Thus, we named the burnout of Type 1 teachers ‘burnout due to damaged self-esteem’.
Type 1 teachers agreed with statements such as ‘I feel frustrated when student misconduct is blamed on teachers’ (S7), ‘I feel a sense of shame when parents or students view the school as a service institution’ (S34), ‘I feel humiliated by the rude attitudes of students or parents’ (S3) and ‘I feel frustrated when I think I lack competence as a teacher’ (S32). However, they disagreed with statements like ‘I am exhausted by the feeling that people see me only as someone with teaching duties’ (S4), ‘I get angry when fellow teachers disregard my subject’ (S9) and ‘The excessive emphasis on student rights compared to teacher authority is problematic’ (S6).
P11 and P14, with high factor weights, stated, ‘The essence of the problems caused by students lies with the students and their families, and it is wrong to ignore this and place full responsibility on the teachers’. They also mentioned, ‘Guiding and managing students is mentally stressful, and linking student problems to the teacher’s qualifications increases frustration’. P4 noted, ‘Parents interpret teachers’ criticisms of student behaviour as the teacher’s fault and protest, which psychologically intimidates teachers who have to persuade such parents’. Lastly, P18, a first-year teacher, responded, ‘I experience burnout when arrogant parents treat me as an incompetent teacher lacking ability and qualifications and even try to teach me’.
An examination of the Q-sort values revealed that Type 1 teachers agreed strongly with S34 (+4) and S32 (+3), unlike other types. Participants who chose these statements said the following:
My self-esteem drops when asked to take care of trivial matters for each student. Additionally, I feel ashamed when they act like consumers receiving care services. I wonder if they make such requests because of my lack of competence, which leads to burnout (P11, P14).
Type 1 participants disagreed more strongly with S4 (−4) compared to other types, feeling confident that others did not merely see them as duty performers (P27). For S6 (−3), while other types agreed, Type 1 teachers did not, stating, ‘The causes of infringement on teacher authority should not solely emphasise student rights; other issues should also be considered’ (P11, P14).
For Type 1 teachers, psychological burnout stems from feelings of humiliation due to damage to their self-esteem as teachers. The rude attitudes of students and parents cause deep frustration. They experience psychological loss and identity confusion when others regard teaching merely as a service provision. In other words, they feel shame and humiliation when students and parents do not respect their influence as professionals, and they experience psychological intimidation when others undervalue their qualifications as teachers. Modern societal changes increasingly challenge the cultural emphasis on teacher authority and respect in South Korea, amplifying these experiences.

4.2.2. Type 2: Burnout Due to Organisational Neglect

Type 2 teachers expressed a deep sense of helplessness, citing burnout as a result of the teaching organisation or administrators failing to protect them due to indifference. We classified the burnout of these teachers as ‘burnout due to organisational neglect’.
Type 2 teachers agreed with statements such as ‘The administrator’s passive response to complaints lowers motivation’ (S12), ‘There’s not much I can do for fellow teachers who suffer from infringement of their authority in the school field’ (S11), ‘I feel frustrated with a teaching organisation that does not prioritise the well-being of teachers’ (S1) and ‘It is unfair for administrators to assign tasks unilaterally without considering my aptitude or circumstances’ (S29). However, they disagreed with statements like ‘Distrust in public education causes psychological burnout for teachers’ (S30), ‘I feel anxious about how long I can continue my teaching career’ (S14) and ‘To prevent teacher burnout, I cannot correct every mistake students make’ (S15).
P26, with the highest factor weight, stated, ‘I experience psychological burnout when students are disrespectful and behave rudely towards teachers and when parents make unreasonable demands to write student records in their desired way’. P2 mentioned, ‘If teachers do not act as teachers because they are wary of students or parents, this place is no different from a cram school that only delivers knowledge’. In addition, P3 states:
When facing difficulties, the lack of support and assistance from administrators or the school further intimidates teachers. Therefore, higher institutions like the education office can prevent teachers from leaving the profession due to helplessness by maintaining a basic attitude of respect towards teachers.
An examination of the Q-sort values revealed that Type 2 teachers agreed more strongly with S11 (+4) and S1 (+3) compared to other types. Participants said, ‘Teachers are a special group, so the social standards for teachers are strict. Therefore, teachers must rely on and trust each other, but it is most frustrating when the teacher community or other teachers trample on their well-being’ (P20). Type 2 teachers showed relatively high agreement with S9 (+2), but other types showed disagreement. This finding indicates that teacher burnout occurs when fellow teachers infringe upon their authority. Unlike other types, Type 2 strongly agreed with S29 (+3), indicating that administrators’ unilateral actions are a factor in teacher burnout, a distinctive perception characteristic of this type.
Type 2 experiences burnout due to institutional issues, particularly when the school organisation shows no interest in teachers’ problems and lacks appropriate responses. This situation reflects the cultural context in South Korea, where hierarchical structures and administrative indifference can exacerbate feelings of helplessness among teachers.

4.2.3. Type 3: Burnout Due to Excessive Role Demands

Type 3 teachers emphasise burnout caused by unrealistic role expectations, poor treatment and the irrationality of holding teachers responsible for students’ character development. Thus, we named Type 3 ‘burnout due to excessive role demands’.
Type 3 teachers agreed with statements such as ‘If teachers’ salaries and treatment improve, teacher authority will increase’ (S31), ‘I feel frustrated when student misconduct is blamed on teachers’ (S7), ‘I feel humiliated by the rude attitudes of students or parents’ (S3) and ‘It’s wrong to make teachers responsible for students’ character development’ (S16). However, they disagreed with statements like ‘I feel frustrated when I think I lack competence as a teacher’ (S32) and ‘Unreasonable demands to include specific content in student records diminish my motivation’ (S23).
P28, with a high factor weight, stated, ‘When guiding students in their daily lives, it is often difficult to respond rationally. I also experience psychological burnout from repeatedly encountering situations where a simple apology follows rude behaviour’. P25 mentioned, ‘Parents say student problems are due to friends, the school, or teachers, but they seem unaware that this attitude hinders students’ growth. The reality of parents focusing only on students getting into good universities leads to psychological burnout’.
An examination of the Q-sort values revealed that Type 3 teachers agreed with S31 (+4) and S5 (+1), unlike the other three types. Participants said, ‘Improving teachers’ treatment is vital for enhancing teacher authority, job satisfaction and social status. This improvement will also attract talented individuals to the teaching profession, thereby increasing teachers’ professionalism’ (P27). Type 3 strongly disagreed with S32 (−4) and S23 (−3), unlike other types, indicating that Type 3 teachers are confident in their professionalism but suffer burnout when experiencing unreasonable responsibilities.
Type 3 teachers experience burnout due to social expectations and role overload, feeling burnout from the unreasonable demand that they are responsible for students’ character development beyond education. Rude attitudes from students and parents particularly exacerbate emotional burnout. In South Korea’s cultural context, societal expectations heavily burden teachers by demanding they fulfil multiple roles beyond academic instruction.

4.2.4. Type 4: Burnout Due to Disrespectful Behaviour

Type 4 teachers emphasise burnout caused by student indifference, the excessive emphasis on student rights and disrespectful behaviours from students in the classroom. We termed this type ‘burnout due to disrespectful behaviour’.
Type 4 teachers agreed with statements such as ‘The excessive emphasis on student rights compared to teacher authority is problematic’ (S6), ‘I experience psychological burnout when I see students openly sleeping during class’ (S27) and ‘I experience psychological burnout when I see students doing academy homework during class’ (S26). However, they disagreed with statements like ‘I experience psychological burnout when I lose confidence in my work’ (S13), ‘I feel burned out when others demand only exemplary behaviour from teachers’ (S18)’ and ‘Schools should not offer teachers’ personal contact information to students or parents (S19).
P8, with the highest factor weight, stated the following:
I work after hours and on weekends to provide better lessons, but it becomes difficult when students make dismissive comments like “My academy teacher said this”. Additionally, I experience burnout when the demands of students and parents increase while trust in teachers decreases.
In addition, P5 commented:
Providing high-quality lessons is the role of a teacher. I engage in endless research and reflection to improve the quality of education. However, I feel helpless when I encounter students who give up on participating in class and ignore the teacher, such as sleeping during lessons.
An examination of the Q-sort values revealed that Types 2 and 3 disagreed with S27 (+4), while Type 1 indicated that burnout occurs due to lowered self-esteem. P23, a Type 4, stated, ‘When I see students sleeping in class after attending academy lessons, or when students who have lived abroad ignore English lessons, or when I am unable to discipline students, I question whether I am truly a teacher’. Type 4 strongly agreed with S6 (+4), while Type 1 did not agree. Additionally, unlike other types, Type 4 did not agree with S19 (−2), indicating that while they saw the need to share personal contact information to facilitate communication with parents and students, they felt burnout from rude behaviour such as contacting them after hours or on weekends.
Type 4 teachers experience burnout due to student indifference and the excessive emphasis on student rights. Disrespectful student behaviour and lack of class participation diminish the teacher’s passion for education, contributing significantly to teacher burnout. This attitude creates a sense of helplessness regarding their work. Type 4 teachers also feel that the excessive emphasis on student rights undermines their authority during the guidance process. They struggle with a loss of self-esteem when they cannot appropriately address student behavioural issues. South Korea’s cultural context amplifies these challenges, as the increasing focus on student rights often clashes with traditional expectations of teacher authority and respect.

5. Discussion

This study explored the types of burnout experienced by teachers and the characteristics of each type. The findings identified four distinct teacher burnout types, each influenced by unique personal, organisational and cultural factors.
Teachers in the type ‘burnout due to damaged self-esteem’ (Type 1) experience burnout stemming from feelings of humiliation and a loss of professional identity, often caused by rude behaviours from students and parents. This finding aligns with research indicating that damaged self-esteem contributes to reduced job satisfaction and increased turnover rates [56].
In Korea, the cultural emphasis on hierarchical respect further complicates this issue. When students and parents treat teachers as service providers rather than professionals, it exacerbates feelings of inadequacy. Successful programmes, such as the ‘Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)’ piloted in Gyeonggi-do, have shown positive outcomes in helping teachers rebuild self-esteem. Expanding this model nationwide could provide targeted support for Type 1 teachers. Similarly, the ‘Teachers’ Healing Centre’ initiative in Seoul offers regular counselling services. Enhancing the programme by adding peer support groups and one-on-one coaching sessions could further strengthen community resilience [57,58]. In addition, individual interventions for reducing teacher burnout, such as programmes for developing emotional intelligence, enhancing resilience and improving stress management skills, can effectively alleviate teacher burnout [59]. For the successful implementation of these programmes, it is essential to train expert counsellors specialising in schools and the teaching profession.
Teachers experiencing ‘burnout due to organisational neglect’ (Type 2) feel burnout when others undermine their authority, and they receive little institutional support. This issue arises from a broader organisational failure to include teachers in decision-making and policy development, leaving them feeling helpless and frustrated [60].
In Korea, while the Teacher Status Act aims to protect teachers, it often lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. For example, during cases of school violence or parental complaints, many teachers report inadequate support from administrators [61]. The government could revise the Act to include explicit punitive measures for violations of teacher authority and better support mechanisms during school incidents. Successful examples from other contexts, such as the U.S. Teacher Protection Act, which allows teachers to discipline students without legal liability, could inform these reforms [62].
Active interactions within and outside the system are necessary to improve the quality of education [63]. Research indicates that inadequate institutional support contributes significantly to teacher burnout [25], whereas educational institutions employing teachers with high levels of well-being tend to cultivate more collaborative and positive organisational environments [64]. In addition, empowering teacher unions to participate in policy discussions and creating platforms for regular consultations between teachers and administrators could address organisational neglect. Additionally, formal recognition programmes for innovative teaching practices and annual awards could enhance motivation and collaboration among teachers [65].
Teachers experiencing ‘burnout due to excessive role demands’ (Type 3) face burnout due to unrealistic societal expectations and role overload, including additional administrative tasks and responsibilities for students’ character development, which often go beyond their formal duties. One effective approach to mitigating teacher burnout is enhancing work–life balance. By implementing strategic task management and offering flexible scheduling, schools can significantly reduce educator stress and boost overall job satisfaction [59]. However, teachers in Korea are vulnerable due to the dual burden of administrative work and classroom management. For instance, homeroom teachers must often resolve parental complaints, which is a task more appropriate for senior administrators [31]. This situation highlights a need for clear role definitions and equitable workload distribution within schools.
Programmes such as parental education workshops piloted in Seoul have successfully recalibrated parents’ expectations and encouraged shared accountability in education. Expanding these workshops nationwide could foster mutual respect between teachers and parents. Additionally, mentoring programmes for early-career teachers and ongoing professional development initiatives are essential for building resilience and reducing burnout [66].
Finally, teachers experiencing ‘burnout due to disrespectful behaviour’ (Type 4) do so when students show indifference or engage in disrespectful behaviours. This finding aligns with studies indicating that rude student behaviour significantly increases emotional burnout and depersonalisation among teachers [67,68].
In Singapore, teachers cultivate tailored educational approaches to address the diverse backgrounds and needs of their students by undergoing training in cultural sensitivity and inclusive teaching practices [69]. In addition, programmes like ‘Student–Teacher Dialogue Days’, introduced in Daejeon, have shown promise in bridging the communication gap between students and teachers. These initiatives foster mutual understanding and respect, reducing burnout caused by classroom disruptions. Regular one-on-one meetings and project-based learning could further enhance student engagement and minimise indifference.
Teachers also need training in emotional regulation and behaviour management techniques to address student indifference. Building trust between teachers and students is crucial, as it fosters a positive classroom atmosphere and reduces teacher burnout.

6. Conclusions

This study’s results highlight how cultural and institutional factors influence teacher burnout. For example, teachers in the ‘burnout due to self-esteem type’ (Type 1) reflect the Korean cultural emphasis on respect and professional identity, which clashes with modern challenges in teacher–parent dynamics. Teachers experiencing ‘burnout due to organisational neglect’ (Type 2) illustrate how hierarchical organisational structures in Korean schools exacerbate feelings of helplessness. Similarly, those experiencing ‘burnout due to excessive role demands’ (Type 3) highlight societal pressures for teachers to perform roles beyond their expertise, while teachers experiencing ‘burnout due to disrespectful behaviour’ (Type 4) underscore the growing emphasis on student rights, which sometimes undermines teacher authority.
Addressing burnout requires tailored solutions that consider these cultural contexts. For example, revising teacher training programmes to include strategies for navigating cultural challenges, enhancing teacher autonomy and promoting mutual respect between stakeholders could mitigate burnout more effectively.
Based on this study’s results, we recommend the following strategies to prevent and mitigate teacher burnout.
First, strengthen interpersonal relationships: Develop evidence-based programmes to enhance teacher–student engagement and build trust among colleagues. Peer mentoring, regular communication sessions and conflict resolution training could improve workplace relationships.
Second, recalibrate expectations: Implement parental education programmes to adjust unrealistic expectations. Workshops and public campaigns should emphasise shared accountability in education.
Third, enhance institutional support: Revise the Teacher Status Act to include explicit measures for protecting teacher authority. Establishing a dedicated hotline for reporting violations and offering immediate legal support could strengthen institutional protections.
Fourth, promote sociocultural change: Launch campaigns that promote respect for teachers at home and in schools. Public recognition of teachers’ contributions and stricter penalties for verbal or physical abuse could enhance their professional standing.
Finally, addressing teacher burnout requires a comprehensive approach that integrates cultural awareness, institutional reforms and proactive engagement with all stakeholders. By implementing this study’s recommendations, schools and policymakers can create a more supportive environment that fosters teacher well-being and enhances the quality of education.

7. Limitations

This study used the Q methodology to categorise the various types of burnout experienced by teachers and explore their characteristics. However, there are several limitations:
First, while the sample size of 30 participants is acceptable for a Q methodology, it is relatively small and may not adequately represent the broader population of Korean teachers. This limitation raises concerns about the statistical generalisability of the findings. Another potential limitation is the small sample size and the potential influence of cultural biases on participants’ responses. Therefore, future research should include quantitative studies examining factors such as teachers’ gender, experience, work environment and school characteristics that influence each type. Additionally, researchers might consider conducting longitudinal studies or cross-cultural comparisons to provide more robust insights and enhance generalisability.
Second, the Q methodology involves participants expressing subjective opinions on presented statements, which may not fully capture the complex aspects of burnout experienced by teachers. In particular, qualitative research methods such as narratives could complement the in-depth exploration of burnout’s emotional and psychological aspects.
Third, while this study provides valuable insights into teacher burnout, its cross-sectional design does not account for changes in burnout patterns over time. Teacher burnout can evolve across different career stages and in response to shifts in educational policies or social environments, potentially influencing its degree and types. Future research should consider adopting longitudinal or experimental designs to capture burnout’s dynamic nature, analyse its underlying causes and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.
Finally, this study lacks comparative insights across diverse cultural or educational contexts. Teacher burnout may manifest differently based on international differences in policies, societal attitudes and school environments. Thus, comparative research across various countries could provide a more comprehensive understanding and enable the development of globally relevant solutions.
By addressing these limitations, future studies can enrich the theoretical and practical contributions in order to mitigate teacher burnout effectively.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S., M.J. and S.Y.L.; Methodology, T.S. and S.Y.L.; Investigation, M.J.; Resources, T.S.; Writing—original draft, T.S., M.J. and S.Y.L.; Writing—review & editing, M.J. and S.Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Ethics Committee of the Dongguk University Institutional Review Board approved this study (DUIRB-2024-06-03) (26 June 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

We obtained informed consent from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Nadon, L.; De Beer, L.T.; Morin, A.J. Should burnout be conceptualized as a mental disorder? Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sim, K.R. How teacher’s mindfulness affects psychological burnout: Focusing on mental health and teacher-student relationship as mediator variables. J. Korea Soc. Wellness 2022, 17, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. García–Carmona, M.; Marín, M.D.; Aguayo, R. Burnout syndrome in secondary school teachers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2019, 22, 189–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Thomas, J.; Reyes ME, S. Understanding the new stress factors affecting teachers’ burnout: A scoping review. Makara Hum. Behav. Stud. Asia 2024, 28, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Farber, B.A. Crisis in Education: Stress and Burnout in the American Teacher; Jossey–Bass: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  6. Phillips, L. Stress vs. anxiety vs. burnout: What’s the difference? Couns. Today 2022, 64, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  7. Greenier, V.; Derakhshan, A.; Fathi, J. Emotion regulation and psychological well-being in teacher work engagement: A case of British and Iranian English language teachers. System 2021, 97, 102446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, N.K.; Hur, J. MZ differences in values, teaching activities, job satisfaction, and burnout between MZ generation and older generation elementary school teachers. Korean Teach. Educ. Res. 2024, 41, 241–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Agyapong, B.; Obuobi–Donkor, G.; Burback, L.; Wei, Y. Stress, burnout, anxiety and depression among teachers: A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, H.; Shi, Y.; Eng, L.S. Exploring relationships of job satisfaction and burnout with turnover intention among Chinese English language teachers. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 2024, 33, 587–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Madigan, D.J.; Kim, L.E. Does teacher burnout affect students? A systematic review of its association with academic achievement and student-reported outcomes. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2021, 105, 101714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Madigan, D.J.; Kim, L.E. Towards an understanding of teacher attrition: A meta-analysis of burnout, job satisfaction, and teachers’ intentions to quit. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 105, 103425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, J.; Kang, Y.; Kim, H. The influence of preschool teachers’ adaptability on burnout through digital literacy and teaching efficacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of the online teaching experience. Korean J. Child Stud. 2022, 43, 201–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lim, W.; Ong, J.; Ong, S.; Hao, Y.; Abdullah, H.; Koh, D.; Mok, U.S. The abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory can overestimate burnout: A study of anesthesiology residents. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 9, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. De Beer, L.T.; de Vaart, L.V.; Escaffi–Schwarz, M.; Witte, H.D.; Schaufeli, W. Maslach Burnout Inventory—General survey. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2024, 40, 360–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Edú–Valsania, S.; Laguía, A.; Moriano, J.A. Burnout: A review of theory and measurement. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhao, W.; Liao, X.; Li, Q.; Jiang, W.; Ding, W. The relationship between teacher job stress and burnout: A moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 784243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maas, J.; Schoch, S.; Scholz, U.; Rackow, P.; Schüler, J.; Wegner, M.; Keller, R. Teachers’ perceived time pressure, emotional exhaustion and the role of social support from the school principal. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2021, 24, 441–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. García-Arroyo, J.A.; Segovia, A.O. Work overload and emotional exhaustion in university teachers: Moderating effects of coping styles. Univ. Psychol. 2019, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Oh, H. Teacher burnout in educational organizations. In Burned Out—Exploring the Causes, Consequences, and Solutions of Workplace Stress in Public Service Organizations; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cho, Y.S. Analysis of differences in teachers’ psychological difficulties by types of infringement on teacher authority. Learn. Centered Curric. Stud. 2018, 18, 1073–1090. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, S.M.; Choi, B.Y. The impact of elementary school teachers’ perceptions of pedagogical authority on psychological exhaustion: The sequential dual mediating effects of social support and positive psychological capital. Spec. Educ. Res. 2024, 31, 208–233. [Google Scholar]
  23. Li, S. The effect of teacher self-efficacy, teacher resilience, and emotion regulation on teacher burnout: A mediation model. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1185079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Weißenfels, M.; Klopp, E.; Perels, F. Changes in teacher burnout and self-efficacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: Interrelations and e-learning variables related to change. Front. Educ. 2022, 6, 736992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, E.J. Exploration of causes and coping strategies for teacher burnout. Theory Pract. Educ. 2017, 22, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pressley, T. Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19. Educ. Res. 2021, 50, 325–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Park, H.S. The relationship between elementary school teachers’ perceived student problem behavior and burnout: Moderating effect of teacher mindfulness. Learn. Centered Curric. Stud. 2023, 23, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cho, S.; Lee, M.; Lee, S.M. Burned-out classroom climate, intrinsic motivation, and academic engagement: Exploring unresolved issues in the job demand-resource model. Psychol. Rep. 2023, 126, 1954–1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kang, N.H.; Hong, M. Achieving excellence in teacher workforce and equity in learning opportunities in South Korea. Educ. Res. 2008, 37, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), Original Data. 2018. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/talis-2018-results-volume-ii_19cf08df-en.html (accessed on 1 October 2024).
  31. Ji, S.H. An International Comparison of Middle School Teachers’ Job Perceptions Through OECD Statistics. Wongan Labor Review, September. 2023. Available online: https://repository.kli.re.kr/bitstream/2021.oak/10006/2/%EB%85%B8%EB%8F%99%EB%A6%AC%EB%B7%B0_no.222_2023.9_5.pdf (accessed on 7 December 2024).
  32. Ministry of Education. Support Measures for Restoring Teachers’ Mental Health for Inclusive Schools. Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Joint Task Force Team. 2023. Available online: https://url.kr/u3ysd12024.11.24 (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  33. Education Support. Teacher Well-Being Index. 2024. Available online: https://www.educationsupport.org.uk/resources/for-organisations/research/teacher-wellbeing-index (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  34. Jotkoff, E. NEA Survey: Massive Staff Shortages in Schools Leading to Educator Burnout; Alarming Number of Educators Indicating They Plan to Leave Profession. 2022. Available online: https://www.nea.org/about-nea/media-center/press-releases/nea-survey-massive-staff-shortages-schools-leading-educator-burnout-alarming-number-educators (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  35. Waler, T. Getting Serious About Teacher Burnout. National Education Association. 2021. Available online: https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/getting-serious-about-teacher-burnout (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  36. Beyond Blue. New Beyond Blue Data Reveals Significant Mental Health Concerns for Educators, Children and Young People. 2024. Available online: https://www.beyondblue.org.au/about/media/media-releases/be-you-mental-health-in-education (accessed on 23 November 2024).
  37. Rahma, A.; Mardiatno, D.; Hizbaron, D.R. Q methodology to determine distinguishing and consensus factors (A case study of university students’ ecoliteracy on disaster risk reduction). E3S Web Conf. 2020, 200, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Robbins, P.; Krueger, R. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Prof. Geogr. 2000, 52, 636–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ramlo, S.E. Divergent viewpoints about the statistical stage of a mixed method: Qualitative versus quantitative orientations. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2020, 43, 93–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rieber, L.P. Q methodology in learning, design, and technology: An introduction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2020, 68, 2529–2549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ramlo, S. Non-statistical, substantive generalisation: Lessons from Q methodology. Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2024, 47, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brown, S.R. Political psychology from the standpoint of naturalistic subjectivity. Political Psychol. 1997, 23, 26. [Google Scholar]
  43. Brown, S.R. Q methodology and naturalistic subjectivity. In Modern Perspectives on JR Kantor and Interbehaviorism; Bryan Midgley, D., Morris, E.K., Eds.; New Harbinger Publications: Oakland, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 251–268. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kim, H.G. Q Methodology: Philosophy of Science, Theory, Analysis, and Application; Communication Books: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  45. Stenner, P.; Watts, S. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hwang, M.S.; Shim, H.J. The influence of teachers’ perception of student misbehavior and teacher efficacy on burnout: Testing the mediated moderating effect of social support. Korean J. Sch. Psychol. 2015, 12, 87–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kim, S.C. Patterns and critical reflections of defensive educational activities by teachers: Focusing on the flow before and after the Seoicho incident. Educ. Crit. 2024, 55, 119–177. [Google Scholar]
  48. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E. Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual; Consulting Psychologist Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  49. Seidman, S.A.; Zager, J. The Teacher Burnout Scale. Educ. Res. Q. 1987, 11, 26–33. [Google Scholar]
  50. Herrington, N.; Coogan, J. Q methodology: An overview. Res. Teach. Educ. 2011, 1, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  51. Watts, S.; Stenner, P. Book Review–Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2016; Volume 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kim, H.S.; Won, Y.M. Q Methodology; Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  53. Brown, S.R.; Durning, D.W.; Selden, S.C. Q methodology. In Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration, 2nd ed.; (Public Administration and Public Policy series, 134); Yang, K., Miller, G.J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; p. 721. [Google Scholar]
  54. Banasick, S. KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kwok ML, J.; Kwong, R.; Hui, C.; Liu, K.H. Unraveling the sustainability components of organizational value statements: A Q-sort methodology approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Choi, H.S. Exploring the model of childcare teachers’ turnover intentions: Focusing on the mediating effect of burnout. J. Future Early Child. Educ. 2015, 22, 101–118. [Google Scholar]
  57. Agyapong, B.; Brett–MacLean, P.; Burback, L.; Agyapong VI, O.; Wei, Y. Interventions to reduce stress and burnout among teachers: A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kim, M.H. Suicide in occupational groups and the political interpretation of [suicide theory]: Focusing on ‘anomic-fatalistic suicide’ among elementary school teachers. Soc. Theory 2024, 47, 173–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Baranggan, J. Effectiveness of strategies for reducing burnout among public school teachers: A literature review. Int. J. All Res. Educ. Sci. Methods (IJARESM) 2024, 12, 2290–2300. [Google Scholar]
  60. Seo, J.K.; Hwang, Y.W. A study on the experience of work stress and infringement of teaching authority of elementary and secondary school violence teachers in a city—Focusing on the school violence processing process, the role of teachers, and the areas of daily life. Compr. Educ. Res. 2020, 18, 121–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xie, M.; Huang, S.; Ke, L.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y. The development of teacher burnout and the effects of resource factors: A latent transition perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Simbre, A.P.; Palad, I.A.; Salazar, C.A. How protected are teachers and school personnel? Critical analysis of The Teacher Protection Act (Senate Bill 956). Int. J. Soc. Learn. 2021, 1, 333–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Niemi, H. Education reforms for equity and quality: An analysis from an educational ecosystem perspective with reference to Finnish educational transformations. Cent. Educ. Policy Stud. J. 2021, 11, 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dreer-Goethe, B. On the outcomes of teacher well-being: A systematic review of research. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1205179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tian, Y.; Guo, Y. How does transformational leadership relieve teacher burnout: The role of self-efficacy and emotional intelligence. Psychol. Rep. 2024, 127, 936–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hogan, J.P.; White, P. A self-study exploration of early career teacher burnout and the adaptive strategies of experienced teachers. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2021, 46, 18–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hastings, R.; Bham, M.S. The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher burnout. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2003, 24, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. McDaniel, S.C.; Mahatmya, D.; Bruhn, A.L. Educator burnout in the age of COVID-19: A mediation analysis of perceived stressors, work sense of coherence, and sociodemographic characteristics. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2024, 137, 104384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chang, W.-C. Teacher professionalization in Singapore: Equity-centered social justice teaching for a multicultural society. In International Handbook on Education Development in Asia-Pacific; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Behavsci 14 01210 g001
Figure 1. Research process.
Figure 1. Research process.
Behavsci 14 01210 g001
Behavsci 14 01210 g002
Figure 2. Sample grid for Q sorting pattern.
Figure 2. Sample grid for Q sorting pattern.
Behavsci 14 01210 g002
Table 1. Demographic background and factor weights by type.
Table 1. Demographic background and factor weights by type.
TypeNo.WeightSchool LevelGenderSchool TypeTeaching YearsRegionSubjectAge
Type 1
(N = 9)		P1110High schoolFemalePrivate21GyeonggiCareer47
P1410Middle schoolFemalePublic15GyeonggiSociety46
P42.85764Middle schoolFemalePublic20GyeonggiMath48
P222.28672High schoolMalePrivate11SeoulPhysics41
P182.25649Middle schoolMalepublic1GyeonggiHome Economics27
P12.11011High schoolFemalePublic15GyeonggiChinese23
P151.65303High schoolFemalePrivate20SeoulScience51
P271.20072Middle schoolFemalePublic2.6GyeonggiMusic30
P160.61227High schoolMalePublic2GyeonggiBiology29
Type 2
(N = 8)		P264.33816High schoolMalePrivate18SeoulSociety46
P73.84102High schoolMalePublic8GyeonggiMath36
P123.21178High schoolFemalePrivate21SeoulMath51
P132.86707High schoolFemalePrivate19SeoulEthics52
P32.4256High schoolFemalePrivate7SeoulPhysics36
P201.64409Middle schoolFemalePublic6.5GyeonggiHome Economics29
P301.13859Middle schoolFemalePublic20SeoulMath58
P291.10706Middle schoolFemalePublic1.8GyeonggiMath30
Type 3
(N = 6)		P284.51538Middle schoolFemalePublic10SeoulHome Economics42
P173.35335Middle schoolMalePrivate17SeoulTechnology44
P252.33583High schoolMalePrivate12SeoulMath40
P22.03878Middle schoolMalePrivate9SeoulMath37
P191.85507Middle schoolMalePublic0.5GyeonggiPhysical Education27
P101.57046Middle schoolFemalePublic4GyeonggiHome Economics30
Type 4
(N = 7)		P82.04755Middle schoolFemalePublic24GyeonggiKorean Language50
P231.85312Middle schoolMalePrivate18SeoulEnglish49
P61.71067High schoolFemalePublic12GyeonggiEnglish44
P91.64245Middle schoolMalePrivate6SeoulTechnology34
P241.59924Middle schoolMalePrivate14SeoulSociety43
P51.5407Middle schoolFemalePublic11GyeonggiScience41
P211.48056High schoolFemalePublic9GyeonggiArt37
Table 2. Eigenvalues and explained variances for four factors.
Table 2. Eigenvalues and explained variances for four factors.
Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4
Eigenvalue7.3738513.7675692.66252.0241
% Explained Variance251397
Cumulative % Explained Variance25384754
Table 3. Z-scores and Q-sort values of the statements for each factor.
Table 3. Z-scores and Q-sort values of the statements for each factor.
No.StatementFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4
Z-ScoreQ-Sort ValueZ-ScoreQ-Sort ValueZ-ScoreQ-Sort ValueZ-ScoreQ-Sort Value
S1I feel frustrated with a teaching organisation that does not prioritise the well-being of teachers.−0.1401.373 *0.200.711
S2There is a need for legal measures to limit parents’ excessive expectations and demands.1.1920.010 *0.7720.982
S3I feel humiliated by the rude attitudes of students and parents.1.2431.231.433−0.070 *
S4I am exhausted by the feeling that people see me only as someone with teaching duties.−1.65−4 *0.170−0.080−0.48−1
S5I feel insignificant when I think about the level of welfare for teachers.−1.16−2−1.12−20.441 *−0.94−2
S6The excessive emphasis on student rights compared to teacher authority is problematic.−1.53−3 *0.4910.8821.844 *
S7I feel frustrated when student misconduct is blamed on teachers.2.0441.1621.6641.023
S8Teachers should not have to perform school duties outside of working hours.−0.010 *0.87212−0.99−2 *
S9I get angry when fellow teachers disregard my subject.−1.83−40.862 *−0.38−1 *−1.33−3
S10Family support greatly enhances a teacher’s resilience against psychological burnout.−1.37−30.81 *−0.080 *−1.06−2
S11There’s not much I can do for fellow teachers who suffer from infringement of their authority in the school field. 0.0901.494 *0.610.421
S12The administrator’s passive response to complaints lowers motivation.1.4231.9341.2230.741
S13I experience psychological burnout when I lose confidence in my work.−0.16−1−0.76−2−1.79−4−1.79−4
S14I feel anxious about how long I can continue my teaching career.−0.080−1.41−3 *−0.37−1−0.29−1
S15To prevent teacher burnout, I cannot correct every mistake students make.−0.070−1.21−3 *−0.38−1−0.21−1
S16It’s wrong to make teachers responsible for students’ character development.0.281 *−0.8−21.133 *−0.4−1
S17There is a need to define the scope of teachers’ duties.1.0820.651−0.29−10.150
S18I feel burned out when others demand only exemplary behaviour from teachers.−1.41−3−0.38−1−0.47−2−1.76−4
S19Schools should not offer teachers’ personal contact information to students or parents. 0.3710.430−0.120−1.04−2 *
S20Psychological burnout occurs due to conflicts among colleagues.−0.42−1−0.370−0.64−2−0.85−1
S21Social distrust towards teachers causes psychological burnout.−0.72−2−0.280−0.100.591
S22Most current measures to prevent teachers’ psychological burnout are ineffective.0.4910.932−0.0201.053
S23Unreasonable demands to include specific content in student records diminish my motivation.0.220−0.270−1.61−3 *0.10
S24Excessive interest in my private life makes me tired.−0.96−2−0.67−1−1.03−20.180 *
S25Receiving indiscriminate KakaoTalk messages or texts annoys me.0.251−0.79−2 *0.5610.892
S26I experience psychological burnout when I see students doing academy homework during class.0.521−0.44−1 *0.5411.253 *
S27I experience psychological burnout when I see students openly sleeping during class.0.982 *−0.39−1−0.95−21.74 *
S28Meaningless administrative tasks exhaust me.0.532−0.74−1 *0.9920.82
S29It is unfair for administrators to assign tasks unilaterally without considering my aptitude or circumstances.−1.02−21.183 *−1.38−30.010 *
S30Distrust in public education causes psychological burnout for teachers.−0.34−1−1.69−4 *−0.39−10.771 *
S31If teachers’ salaries and treatment improve, teacher authority will increase.−0.33−1 *−1.43−31.754 *−1.29−3
S32I feel frustrated when I think I lack competence as a teacher.1.243 *0.531−1.94−4 *00
S33I feel insignificant when I compare myself to other teachers who seem superior.−0.31−1 *−1.84−4−1.68−3−1.61−3
S34I feel ashamed when parents or students view the school as a service institution.1.574 *0.4910.5210.892
* p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shim, T.; Jun, M.; Lee, S.Y. How Do Korean Secondary School Teachers Perceive Psychological Burnout in Their Teaching Careers? Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121210

AMA Style

Shim T, Jun M, Lee SY. How Do Korean Secondary School Teachers Perceive Psychological Burnout in Their Teaching Careers? Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(12):1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121210

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shim, Taeeun, Mikyung Jun, and Song Yi Lee. 2024. "How Do Korean Secondary School Teachers Perceive Psychological Burnout in Their Teaching Careers?" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 12: 1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121210

APA Style

Shim, T., Jun, M., & Lee, S. Y. (2024). How Do Korean Secondary School Teachers Perceive Psychological Burnout in Their Teaching Careers? Behavioral Sciences, 14(12), 1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121210

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop