A Possible Dark Side of Listening? Teachers Listening to Pupils Can Increase Burnout

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with a very interesting topic that we could summarise with a phrase like ‘the cost of listening’, however one has to be very moderate in the conclusions one arrives at. The entire study is based on the teachers' own declaration of listening to their students and this is the main limitation. If, as the authors claim, motivation and satisfaction are negatively correlated with Burnout are we to assume that teachers who claim to listen well to their students are unmotivated and dissatisfied teachers? Is their listening statement therefore considered reliable? To improve their contribution the authors should:
1) integrate in the premises and theoretical framework some reference to the student voice literature and student/teacher alliance;
2) better specify what the actual drop-out of teachers is in the context of their research (as support they cite US literature where there is a much more mobile labour market than in other geographical contexts). Moreover, one of the cited articles reviews four studies that say different things with a series of reflections and conclusions relating to social justice, representation of minorities in the teaching profession etc..
3) could not the level of social desirability of the answer to the question ‘do I listen well to my students?’ also be a disruptive factor in the research? There are no ways of monitoring this listening, nor do questions on listening practices appear.
4) Literature from other fields, especially ‘medicalised’ fields, confirming the predictivity of listening on Burnout appear questionable. Indeed, how can one compare listening to emotionally charged and complex events in a dual relationship with the relationship with the class group?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The article deals with a very interesting topic that we could summarise with a phrase like ‘the cost of listening’, however one has to be very moderate in the conclusions one arrives at. The entire study is based on the teachers' own declaration of listening to their students and this is the main limitation.

Response. Thank you for the detailed and constructive review. We agree that teachers’ perception of their own listening is not an ideal measure and that we should be careful and moderate with the conclusions. Given that we are interested in the association between perceptions (listening, competence, motivation, burnout) we thought that this teacher’s self-perceptions of listening are the most appropriate to be consistent with the other perception measures. Moreover, your comment gave us an idea about an additional analysis regarding a better-than-average of teachers’ self-perception. Specifically, we now write:

“Better-than-average effect of Listening Perception

The better-than-average effect is a cognitive bias where individuals tend to overestimate their abilities, believing they are better than the average person in various domains, such as intelligence, driving skills, or morality. This phenomenon has been widely observed across different contexts, as individuals often hold inflated views of their competencies [1]. Previous work found that individuals overrate their listening ability in conversation with strangers. Specifically, Welker, Walker [2] asked participants to rate from 1 (I'm at the very bottom) to 100 (I'm at the very top) 15 common social activities. Of these 15 activities, participants were the most biased when they rated their listening ability by answering how well they listen to someone who is struggling. Specifically, the average percentile was 71.37 which suggests a strong better-than-average effect. We aim to conceptually replicate these findings in the context of teachers’ evaluation of their listening skills. Our results replicated [2] and found an even more extreme better-than-average effect as 98.1% rated themselves about the mid-point of the scale, 3 (moderately). Furthermore, none of the teachers rated their listening abilities as 1 (not at all) or 2 (to a small extent).” (pp. 8-9).

It is noteworthy that despite the strong better-than-average effect on listening perception, the item had enough variance to conduct the regression analyses.

If, as the authors claim, motivation and satisfaction are negatively correlated with Burnout are we to assume that teachers who claim to listen well to their students are unmotivated and dissatisfied teachers? Is their listening statement therefore considered reliable?

Response. We believe that the listening statement is reliable. First, this statement is the most common way to evaluate people’s perceptions about their own listening. Second, and more importantly, we found positive and significant correlations between the listening statement and teachers’ motivation, competence, and job satisfaction (see Table 1) which are consistent with prior work [e.g., 3, 4]

To improve their contribution the authors should:
1) integrate in the premises and theoretical framework some reference to the student voice literature and student/teacher alliance

Response. Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We now integrate literature about student voice as follows:

“Teachers' listening plays a crucial role in fostering pupils' voice behavior, which refers to the active participation of students in sharing ideas, concerns, or feedback [5]. When teachers engage in high-quality listening, they create an environment of psychological safety [6-8], where pupils feel valued and confident to express themselves without fear of judgment or reprisal [9]. This psychological safety enables pupils to voice their opinions, and concerns and feel a sense of belonging and agency within the classroom and concerns [10].” (p. 2).

2) better specify what the actual drop-out of teachers is in the context of their research (as support they cite US literature where there is a much more mobile labour market than in other geographical contexts).

Response. We now specify the actual drop rate of teachers in the context of the research as follows:

“These conditions lead to burnout, absenteeism, and even leaving the profession. In Israel, where the present study was conducted, 1 out of 5 teachers leave the profession in the first five years [11]. (p. 2).

Moreover, one of the cited articles reviews four studies that say different things with a series of reflections and conclusions relating to social justice, representation of minorities in the teaching profession etc.

Response. We deleted this reference (Cochran-Smith (2004)) from the paper.
3) could not the level of social desirability of the answer to the question ‘do I listen well to my students?’ also be a disruptive factor in the research? There are no ways of monitoring this listening, nor do questions on listening practices appear.

Response. You are correct that there is a social desirability in the assessment of listening. However, as mentioned in a response to previous comments given that we were interested in the association between teachers’ perceptions, asking teachers to evaluate their own listening is the only way to maintain the consistency between the sources of the reports. Nevertheless, we note it as a limitation of the study as follows:

“A limitation of the study is that we relied on self-reported measures to assess teachers’ listening quality, which is inherently susceptible to social desirability bias. Despite this limitation, self-evaluation was necessary to maintain consistency across various data sources, given the research focus on exploring the associations between teachers' perceptions of listening, competence, motivation, job satisfaction, and burnout. Additionally, the use of self-reported listening quality has been frequently used in previous listening research [e.g., 4, 12-14].” (pp. 13-14).

4) Literature from other fields, especially ‘medicalised’ fields, confirming the predictivity of listening on Burnout appear questionable. Indeed, how can one compare listening to emotionally charged and complex events in a dual relationship with the relationship with the class group?

Response. We have removed references related to burnout from fields outside of education, as well as most references on listening and burnout that are not specific to education. We have retained two references on listening and burnout from the Organizational Behavior literature (at the bottom of page 11) to support a general point. However, if you believe these should also be deleted, we are open to doing so.

We truly appreciate the helpful review!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:  The authors argue that while evidence of positive effects of listening in the workplace is well documented, little attention has been paid to possible negative effects.  Authors evaluated the extent to which listening in a teacher-pupil relationship can contribute to teacher burnout using a field study of 106 teachers in Israel.  The author find a positive correlation.

 

Detailed comments:

 

1.       Abstract focuses on highlighting a positive correlation between listening quality and burnout but does not mention the magnitude or, perhaps more important, how the magnitude compares to other key/main predictors of burnout.  Please add this information.  I would also like to know how “quality of listening” is measured and why not focus on the magnitude/length of time? 

 

2.       Abstract: It would be worthwhile to mention context for the field study in terms of time (year), country, type of teachers for example. This information is provided later on but should be included in the Abstract.

 

3.       Introduction (page 1): Key distinction that may matter is what is the nature of conversation: is it related to the subject matter/teaching material or is listening related to students’ mental health issues.  This distinction matters as it would suggest different policy implications.  If it is mental or behavioral issues that require listening, then that would clearly suggest that a better allocation of tasks is needed between teachers and people in the school setting who are trained to offer mental health support.

 

4.       Introduction (bottom two paragraph on page 2): The authors describe their estimation and their choice of explanatory variable, at least the way they present the information. As such it seems it is the type of thing to include in the methodology section of the paper and not the introduction.  Introductions work best by concluding by mentioning all the novel aspects of the paper and outlining its key contribution. Consider revising in this regard.

 

5.       Methodology: I think Introduction should mention that you are looking at teachers from three different contexts (kindergarten, elementary, and high school) which makes your conclusions stronger. It would also be of interest to comment on any differences in patterns/findings across teachers from the three different types of settings.

 

6.       Measures: It would be nice if the authors had access to teachers’ attributes that are not self-reported.  Can the authors control for school characteristics the teachers are coming from?  The paper mentions teachers come from three institutions.  If these differ in some important way that might affect the analysis that would be interesting to know as it would point to possible institutional changes that would be helpful.

 

7.       Going forward, if the authors continue to work on this, it could be nice to do student surveys at the same time to get the other side of the interactions as well.

 

8.       Results: For burnout, it would be nice to supplement the measure with days off from work or something that would demonstrate clearly the costs.

 

9.       Addition of interaction terms between listening and other explanatory variables could highlight whether certain attributes exasperate versus mediate the effect listening has on burnout.

 

10.   It would be of interest to allow for non-linear effects: perhaps listening more has a different link to burnout at lower versus higher levels of listening.

Author Response

Summary:  The authors argue that while evidence of positive effects of listening in the workplace is well documented, little attention has been paid to possible negative effects.  Authors evaluated the extent to which listening in a teacher-pupil relationship can contribute to teacher burnout using a field study of 106 teachers in Israel.  The author find a positive correlation.

Detailed comments:

1. Abstract focuses on highlighting a positive correlation between listening quality and burnout but does not mention the magnitude or, perhaps more important, how the magnitude compares to other key/main predictors of burnout.  Please add this information.  

Response. It might be that we misunderstood this comment. The abstract does mention the magnitude of the effects by providing beta coefficients which are standardized estimates that, unlike unstandardized estimates (b) provide the magnitude of the effect. We now discuss it as follows:

“The regression coefficients for teachers’ perception of their listening quality predicting job burnout, with βs ranging from .24 to .36, reflect a small-to-moderate effect size. In comparison, a meta-analysis of various well-established burnout predictors, including workload, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and autonomy, reported effect sizes ranging from |.08| to |.44| [15]. This suggests that the magnitude of listening as a predictor of burnout in the present study is in the range of well-established predictors.” (p. 13).

I would also like to know how “quality of listening” is measured and why not focus on the magnitude/length of time?

Response. Quality of Listening was measured by the item: “I listen well to my students” (see page 7). Consistent with previous listening research we did not focus on magnitude/length of time for a couple of reasons because the length of time does not capture the quality of listening. For example, an individual can perceive listening to a speaker for 30 minutes or even longer while conveying poor listening behavior such as being distracted, inattentive and judgmental.

2. Abstract: It would be worthwhile to mention context for the field study in terms of time (year), country, type of teachers for example. This information is provided later on but should be included in the Abstract.

Response. Done, thank you.

3. Introduction (page 1): Key distinction that may matter is what is the nature of conversation: is it related to the subject matter/teaching material or is listening related to students’ mental health issues.  This distinction matters as it would suggest different policy implications.  If it is mental or behavioral issues that require listening, then that would clearly suggest that a better allocation of tasks is needed between teachers and people in the school setting who are trained to offer mental health support.

Response. We agree and adderss this issue in the General Discussion as follows:

“A key factor that could influence the implications of our findings is the nature of teacher-pupil conversations. Different effects might emerge in conversations about academic content or pupils' mental health issues. When conversations are primarily related to academic material, the focus may be on enhancing teachers' listening skills to support learning effectively. Conversely, if listening is more impactful in conversations about pupils' mental health issues, it might indicate a need for a different approach. In such cases, policy implications might advocate for a better distribution of responsibilities between teachers and specialized mental health professionals within the school. Allocating specific tasks to trained mental health staff could alleviate the burden on teachers, allowing them to concentrate on educational roles while ensuring that students' emotional and psychological needs are adequately addressed. Although our study did not address this distinction directly, future research should explore the role of these topics on the association between teachers’ listening and burnout to better inform policy and practice.” (p. 14).  

4. Introduction (bottom two paragraph on page 2): The authors describe their estimation and their choice of explanatory variable, at least the way they present the information. As such it seems it is the type of thing to include in the methodology section of the paper and not the introduction.  Introductions work best by concluding by mentioning all the novel aspects of the paper and outlining its key contribution. Consider revising in this regard.

Response. We believe it is important to include a brief explanation of the control variables in the introduction to establish the theoretical rationale behind their selection. By doing so, we provide readers with insight into the foundational reasons for including these variables, thereby reinforcing the robustness of our analytical approach. Omitting this explanation from the introduction might lead readers to perceive the inclusion of these variables as arbitrary or post-hoc. Therefore, we have opted to retain the discussion of these constructs in the introduction to ensure that our rationale is clearly communicated and to underscore the methodological rigor of our study.

5. Methodology: I think Introduction should mention that you are looking at teachers from three different contexts (kindergarten, elementary, and high school) which makes your conclusions stronger. It would also be of interest to comment on any differences in patterns/findings across teachers from the three different types of settings.

Response. Thank you for this comment. We add this information on page 5:

“In the present study, we focused on teachers from a middle school and a high school from a school in North Israel.”

We did not mention kindergarten teachers because we omitted them from the analyses as they are not considered “teachers” in Israel and have different roles and tasks than school teachers.

Regarding the subgroup analyses for teachers from middle and high schools, the small sample sizes in each group (fewer than 50 participants) would render these analyses underpowered. This limitation increases the risk of Type II errors, meaning that any true effects might not be detected, making the interpretation of these findings questionable. However, as you will see in our response to the following comment we added an analysis controlling for school type.

6. Measures: It would be nice if the authors had access to teachers’ attributes that are not self-reported.  Can the authors control for school characteristics the teachers are coming from?  The paper mentions teachers come from three institutions.  If these differ in some important way that might affect the analysis that would be interesting to know as it would point to possible institutional changes that would be helpful.

Response. Good point. We now added a regression controlling for school characteristics (see addition in Table 2) and report it as follows:

“Finally, in the fourth regression analysis, the results remained similar when adding school types (high school and middle school). This addition did not change the effect of listening perception on burnout which remained significant, β = .28, p = .022.” (p. 9).

7. Going forward, if the authors continue to work on this, it could be nice to do student surveys at the same time to get the other side of the interactions as well.

Response. We agree. Unfortunately, we had no IRB to sample students.

8. Results: For burnout, it would be nice to supplement the measure with days off from work or something that would demonstrate clearly the costs.

Response. We appreciate this suggestion. While using objective measures such as days off from work could provide insight into the tangible costs of burnout, research indicates that burnout is a chronic and pervasive issue, often affecting employees beyond the workplace. Burnout symptoms frequently extend into personal life, making it difficult to capture its full impact through workplace absenteeism alone (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). Therefore, we chose to focus on subjective measures of burnout, which are more comprehensive in reflecting the emotional and psychological toll on individuals both at work and at home.

9. Addition of interaction terms between listening and other explanatory variables could highlight whether certain attributes exasperate versus mediate the effect listening has on burnout.

 Response. We agree, however, in the current dataset we have no potential variables for such analysis as we did not plan to test moderation.

10. It would be of interest to allow for non-linear effects: perhaps listening more has a different link to burnout at lower versus higher levels of listening.

Response: We agree that exploring non-linear effects, such as whether the relationship between listening and burnout changes at different levels of listening, would be an interesting avenue for future research. However, our current sample size of 105 participants is underpowered for such analyses. Detecting non-linear effects typically requires a substantially larger sample to provide the necessary statistical power and avoid type II errors (Cohen, 1988). Studies exploring non-linear relationships often recommend sample sizes exceeding 200-300 participants to ensure reliable detection of curvilinear patterns (McClelland & Judd, 1993).

We thank you very much for the thoughtful and detailed review of our manuscript.