Effects of teacher cooperation types on perceived principal cognitive empathy,social support among teachers,and strain

Abstract

Teachers may benefit from engaging in different cooperation forms with their colleagues and perceive social support from them to maintain a high quality of instruction. This can help to meet professional demands, and extra-curricular obligations, and minimize negative strain. However, whether teachers’ cooperation forms predict their later perceived social support, principal cognitive empathy, and strain has been investigated rarely. Drawing upon the stress-strain-resources concept, we assumed that five teacher cooperation forms predict low levels of perceived negative strain but high levels of perceived social support and cognitive empathy from principals. In this longitudinal study, 456 teachers completed the same questionnaire at 2 measurement times, at the beginning of a school year and 19 months later at the end of the next school year. We explored which teacher cooperation form affected teachers’ perceived principal cognitive empathy, social support, and strain. The criterium variables were teachers’ perceived principal cognitive empathy and social support. Teachers’ information exchange as cooperation form significantly, and positively predicted their perceived principal cognitive empathy and social support. In turn, perceived principal cognitive empathy and social support were negatively related to teachers’ strain 19 months later. Our results indicate that teachers who cooperate with their colleagues through information exchange perceive principals’ cognitive empathy and social support among teachers as higher as well as less strain than those who cooperated rarely by information exchange. These results can be utilized to support and encourage principals in promoting cooperation among teachers to mitigate negative strain and maintain high instructional quality.

Keywords

Social support teacher cooperation teachers’ strain

Introduction

Teachers are indispensable to the development of a just and high-quality education system and the successful implementation of innovative teaching methods (Davydovskaia et al., 2021). Moreover, through their commitment and dedication, teachers can ensure inclusive high-quality education so that all students have equal opportunities to achieve their full cognitive and social potential for their later professional and social lives. Ensuring inclusive high-quality education requires various professional, individual, social, and material resources from teachers and principals to balance teachers’ perceived high workload and strain (Keller-Schneider & Keller, 2023). Cooperation among teachers fosters frequent information exchange and relates to the perception of social support (Wolgast & Fischer, 2017). Working together toward common goals, addressing challenges collectively, understanding among colleagues, and perceiving support related to perceived reduced workload and strain (Keller-Schneider & Keller, 2023). Evidence exists about the relationships between cooperation activities among teachers, individual resources such as self-efficacy, and teachers’ perceived school-related workload, strain, and distress (Bartholomew et al., 2014; Birolim et al., 2019; Davydovskaia et al., 2021; Dicke et al., 2015; Egodawatte et al., 2011; Fernet et al., 2012; Grund et al., 2016; Keller-Schneider, 2024; Keller-Schneider & Keller, 2023; O’Brennan et al., 2017; B. Pithers & Soden, 1998; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Vangrieken et al., 2015; Wolfgramm et al., 2022; Wolgast & Fischer, 2017). However, teachers who work in school act in a social environment. This social environment includes, for example, their colleagues and the principal. Previous research has rarely investigated whether cooperation is longitudinally concurrently related to perceived strain and social resources reflected in perceived social support, and perceived principal empathy. The current study addresses these concurrent relationships of five teacher cooperation forms at Time 1 on teachers’ perceived strain, social support, and perceived principal empathy 19 months later with a focus on Switzerland.

In Switzerland, teacher’s working time is regulated, and full-time teachers are expected to work 42 hr per week (2,000 hr a year). This working time may be broken down into teaching hours and extra-curricular activities in or outside school (Davydovskaia et al., 2021). Teacher roles and compensation mechanisms are largely determined by the autonomy of the school rather than top-level authority regulations. This offers teachers different possibilities for diversifying their work within the school (Davydovskaia et al., 2021).

Perceived adult social environment and cooperation in school

Cooperation among teachers is a dynamic process factor and is often considered a quality feature of short to long-term school development (Rollett et al., 2020; Steinert et al., 2006). Frequent cooperation can support teachers in meeting professional demands (Keller-Schneider, 2021; Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2013a), contribute to the further development of teachers, their individual resources (Vangrieken et al., 2015), their job satisfaction and student achievements (Reeves et al., 2017). Further research has shown that goal-oriented cooperation among teachers is related to perceived social support and relatively less subjective distress (Wolgast & Fischer, 2017) as well as to increase specific factors of school quality (Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2015). Thus, frequent teacher cooperation and perceived social support may also help to perceive high workload as an activating process rather than distress (Keller-Schneider, 2016). Collective norms, values, and uncertainties, as well as a shared focus on student learning, can provide resources to teachers that can reduce their distress levels (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Kelchtermans, 2006; Louis et al., 1996).

Reflective discussions of methods and learning objectives can also serve as resources for teachers, as can social support (Keller-Schneider, 2021; Klusmann et al., 2008; Roeser et al., 2013). Furthermore, sharing occupational interests, goals, understanding, and experiences among teachers can reduce subjective distress (Wolgast & Fischer, 2017) and promote psychological health (Bartholomew et al., 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 2005). Thus, principals need to be aware of the resources that can be found within school processes and among teachers that can help reduce teachers’ perceived levels of distress (Egodawatte et al., 2011), especially within the autonomy of Swiss schools (Davydovskaia et al., 2021).

For principals, empathy is one of the other essential traits for effective leadership toward achieving the school’s goals (Gehlbach, 2010). High levels of cognitive empathy (i.e. interpersonal understanding through social perspective taking, Wolgast et al., 2020) involve the underlying processes to encourage trust (Erle et al., 2018), human relations skills (Gehlbach & Mu, 2023), and conflict resolution (Bilali & Godfrey, 2021; Gehlbach et al., 2015; Gilin et al., 2013) that can have a positive effect on school climate and further school development (Justice, 2018; P. A. Smith et al., 2020). High levels of emotional empathy (i.e. emotional concern) related to high levels of subjective distress (Davis, 1983) and might be a risk factor for emotional exhaustion in teachers (e.g. Wolgast et al., 2020; Wróbel, 2013). The principal is one of the most influential figures in the lives of teachers; thus, school leaders are essential to creating a sense of support among teachers (Slavit et al., 2011; Vangrieken et al., 2015).

To avoid issues of low staff morale and performance, leaders in the field of education should strive to increase their interpersonal sensitivity (Hoyle & Crenshaw, 1997; Justice, 2018). Consequently, teachers would perceive their principal’s cognitive empathy. This perceived cognitive empathy can be defined as the perception of being listened to and understood by the principal. In this case, teachers perceive their principals’ ability to understand and recognize their cognitive perspective of each and to empathize with their experiences. It involves the principal being able to put themselves in the shoes of the teachers and to understand their struggles, successes, and goals. Perceived principal cognitive empathy has received only marginal attention in previous research on school development.

Cooperation is more than just collaborating as often as possible, it is also engaging with professional demands together to come to insights and solutions that are mutually accepted (Vangrieken et al., 2015; Wolgast & Fischer, 2017). Cooperation can be seen at an individual level (Terhart & Klieme, 2006), or at the collective level (Steinert et al. 2006) and used in specific forms of activities for specific purposes and goals (Keller-Schneider, 2018).

There is both theoretical and empirical consensus concerning the three main forms of teacher cooperation (1) information exchange, (2) task sharing, and (3) co-construction (Fussangel & Gräsel, 2012; Gräsel, Fussangel, & Parchmann, 2006; Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2013b; Little, 1990). Information exchange among teachers typically occurs outside classes. Task sharing can happen inside and outside the classroom, such as when teachers share specific tasks or search for learning materials. Co-construction is implemented through (a) joint planning activities, (b) discussions of pedagogical questions, and (c) shared responsibility, according to recent evidence (Keller-Schneider, 2021; Keller-Schneider & Keller, 2023).

In summary, the five empirically identified forms of teacher cooperation are (1) information exchange, (2) task sharing, (3) joint planning activities, (4) discussion of pedagogical issues, and (5) shared responsibility. These cooperation forms require specific conditions, pursue different goals, and differ in the binding implementation of common objectives (Keller-Schneider, 2018, 2021; Keller-Schneider & Keller, 2023). However, little evidence exists on whether the five teacher-cooperation forms relate to individually perceived low levels of strain. The association between teacher cooperation and their subjectively low levels of strain is conceptualized by Hobfoll et al., (1990), within the stress-strain resources model (e.g. Rudow, 1999), and the Job demands-resources model (e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

Demands and resources

According to a large body of research, teachers experience multiple demands and distress due to curricular and extra-curricular obligations, limited resources, and lack of autonomy (Kyriacou, 2001). For example, teachers have limited influence in decision-making or setting education standards (Egodawatte et al., 2011; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Instead, teachers are faced with demands including meeting educational system requirements, supporting positive learning outcomes, considering and coordinating students’ individual learning needs (Wolgast & Barnes-Holmes, 2022), and managing deviant behaviors (Fernet et al., 2012). These time-consuming responsibilities often leave teachers with limited time to regularly interact with students (Deutsch, 2011) and cooperate with colleagues (Kyriacou, 2001; Roeser et al., 2013; C. Smith & Gillespie, 2007; Wolgast & Fischer, 2017). Colleague cooperation may include, for example, collaboratively planned lessons and shared responsibilities with colleagues (Keller-Schneider, 2021; Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2013b; Wolgast & Fischer, 2017). This may be attributable to the demands placed on teachers between classes (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010).

In Switzerland, researchers (Wolfgramm et al., 2022) focused on different trajectories of teachers’ perceived work overload, emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and self-regulation before and after the lockdown of the Coronavirus pandemic. Their results suggested that the perception of job characteristics as demands or resources relates to both the work context and individual attributes. During the pandemic-related lockdown, work overload increased for teachers with high individual resources (extroverted, high self-efficacy) and decreased for those with low individual resources (introverted, lower self-efficacy) due to changes in social contact (Wolfgramm et al., 2022). Introverted teachers found reduced social interaction during the lockdown beneficial, while extroverted teachers experienced it as a loss of a critical job resource, leading to increased strain. Wolfgramm et al. (2022) concluded from their findings that the same job characteristics can be interpreted as a demand or as a resource, depending on teachers’ individual resources and personalities (Wolfgramm et al., 2022).

This conclusion is consistent with job-demands-resources models (e.g. Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) and stress-strain-resources concepts (Rudow, 1999, 2005) that describe relations between teacher’s perceived workload or demands, perceived available resources (individual, social/collective, environmental), strain reaction, and health.

Stress-strain-resources concepts and empirical evidence

Teacher strain refers to the negative consequences that can result from chronic exposure to stressful demands (Grund et al., 2016; B. Pithers & Soden, 1998; R. T. Pithers & Soden, 1998; Rudow, 1999; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Strain reactions can manifest in various forms, such as burnout, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and physical symptoms like headaches and backaches. The stress-strain-resources concept describes that teachers’ negative strain reactions can be mitigated by increasing and optimizing individual and collective resources (Rudow, 1999).

Teachers who perceive high levels of strain, but also cognitive empathy of their principals with their situation, may feel protected and see their basic need of ‘social integration’ met (Justice, 2018; Malone, 2013; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Thus, perceived principal cognitive empathy might be related to relatively less perceived teacher strain.

In this study, we first identified theoretically which forms of cooperation teachers use and integrated teacher cooperation, differentiated in forms of cooperative activities, into existing theoretical frameworks (Rudow, 1999). Figure 1 presents the theoretical model adapted to the current study based on the existing theoretical frameworks (Rudow, 1999). Then, we analyzed whether teachers’ cooperation forms in Switzerland affected their perceived principal cognitive empathy, perceived social support among teachers, and strain.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model adapted to the current study.

The theoretical frameworks (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Hobfoll et al., 1990; Rudow, 1999) link the ergonomic and psychological demands-stress-strain approaches, activity and action theory, and the concept of salutogenesis (Antonovsky, 1993; Ewart, 1991; Rudow, 1999). Salutogenesis concerns factors that support health and well-being (Antonovsky, 1993). In brief, the frameworks (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Rudow, 1999) emphasize high demands in school and resulting in teacher strain, especially strain reactions. Strain reactions are reversible, short-time phenomena (Rudow, 1999).

When individual and social (collective) resources are available, the strain reaction can be some kind of activation (i.e. positively). In case of insufficient available resources, the strain reaction would be negative (e.g. anger, anxiety). The emotional status of teachers and the atmosphere through this strain reaction can be reflected in a teacher’s self-presentation (e.g. voice and body language, miming, movement), which, in turn, impacts the teacher-student interactions. In different studies, the mental and physical health of teachers related to the quality of their instruction, the motivation of their students, and the classroom climate (Fernet et al., 2012; Keller-Schneider, 2019; Klusmann et al., 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). For example, women reported higher depersonalization – a component of exhaustion – than men over time (Fernet et al., 2012).

Teacher self-efficacy – the teacher’s belief in their professional action competences to teach – influences both teacher and student motivation (Fernet et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010; Wolfgramm et al., 2022). Teacher self-efficacy is a well-known individual mental resource that may balance individually perceived strain through high demands and support activation (Dicke et al., 2015; O’Brennan et al., 2017; Roeser et al., 1996; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2010; Toropova et al., 2021; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Wolfgramm et al., 2022). Teachers may also be rather activated than negatively strained when they feel competent, experience a certain degree of occupational autonomy, and identify with colleagues from their school (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). In such a social environment, the likelihood of perceiving social support should be high.

Perceived social support can be seen as an experience in that another person gives a qualitative and helpful response to the perceiving person’s needs in a specific situation rather than a measure of cooperative actions. Perceived social support is an evident mental resource for teachers since it may buffer and reduce perceived strain through high demands as a social or collective resource. Interaction and cooperation among teachers have been linked to perceived social support and lower distress levels (Fernet et al., 2012; Keller-Schneider, 2019; Klusmann et al., 2008; Wolgast & Fischer, 2017). Teachers’ daily work may relate to the perceived social support of their colleagues and principals (Fernet et al., 2012). This perceived social support may foster or limit teachers’ perceived autonomy and low or high strain levels, respectively. In other words, the behavior of colleagues and principals may have an impact on teachers’ strain levels (Keller-Schneider & Keller, 2023; Kyriacou, 2001).

Moreover, we propose that even the perceived principal cognitive empathy might be related to perceived social support and strain of teachers. The model adapted to the current study and depicted in Figure 1 served as the basis of the study presented in the next section.

Research questions

According to the research findings outlined above (Keller-Schneider, 2021; Rollett et al., 2020; Rudow, 1999; Steinert et al., 2006; Wolgast & Fischer, 2017), teachers’ different forms of cooperation with their colleagues may help to meet professional demands, and curricular and extra-curricular obligations, and minimize negative strain. Our research question was: Do different forms of teacher cooperation relate to perceived social support, perceived principal cognitive empathy, and subjective teacher strain? We investigated this, in part, previously unexplored area of research in the current study by analyzing these constructs longitudinally including two measurement times over 19 months. Theoretically described differential effects of different cooperation forms on these kinds of support, empathy, and strain are empirically relatively unexplored. Therefore, we chose an explorative approach to investigate the different effects of the frequencies versus the importance of cooperation concerning each cooperation form at T1 on the perceived cognitive empathy of the principal, the perceived social support among teachers, and the perceived strain of the individual teacher 19 months later at T2. We explored these relationships while controlling for gender and teachers’ self-efficacy, in the current study to get more insights into these relationships.

Method

Data source

Data from the school development study RUMBA were used. In the study, all in-school-involved professionals of 16 entire primary schools or school units were surveyed through questionnaires with open and closed questions about cooperation among teachers in the school, characteristics of their school, school management, and individual characteristics at 2 measurement points.

The study design follows the CIPP approach (Stufflebeam, 2004; Stufflebeam & Zhang, 2017); cooperation is viewed as a process factor of school development (Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2013a). The pre-post design frames an intervention that consists of data reflection by the project management and the use of the data by the schools and their teachers under the leadership of the school principals. To support evidence-based school development processes, teachers and principals received assessments presented as means and standard deviations to derive objectives and to work on in school development processes (Keller-Schneider, 2021; Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2015).

The schools volunteered for the project, with the school management expressing particular interest and giving consent to participate and invest their time in school development when working on this project. From the 16 primary schools or school units, n = 456 primary teachers (68.4% female, 13.4% male, 18.2% missing values; M_age = 43.15, SD_age = 11.95, 2.4% missing values) responded to the questionnaire at Time 1 and Time 2 19 months later (see Keller-Schneider, 2021, for a detailed data description).

Measures

We provide a list of all constructs captured in the current large-scale assessment in Supplementary Material 1 in line with Open Science approaches (Obels et al., 2020; Simmons et al., 2011). The measures used to answer the current research question are established and published in German language.

The cooperation-activities scale (Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2013c), based on (Gräsel, Fußangel, & Pröbstel, 2006; Soltau & Mienert, 2009) assesses information exchange, work sharing, cooperative planning, discussion of pedagogical questions, and shared responsibility (see Table 1). Specifically, how often do teachers engage in these collaborative activities with their colleagues and how important these cooperative activities are to the teachers. The assessed cooperation activities at T1 served as five predictor variables (observations) in the structural equation model (SEM).

Table 1.

Measures used for the current study and corresponding reliability coefficient.

Measure	Introduction and sample item	ω
Cooperation activities^a	Cooperation among teachers: How often do you act in these activities? How relevant are these activities for you?	ω_Frequency	ω_Importance
• Information exchange	- We ask each other for ideas, perspectives, and opinions.	.75	.73
• Work sharing	- We develop teaching sequences together	.73	.69
• Cooperative planning	- We develop teaching materials in a division of labor and make them available to each other.	.83	.82
• Discussion of pedagogical questions	- We discuss our expectations for student behavior to find common ground.	.71	.69
• Shared responsibility	- We discuss our expectations regarding the performance level of the students and align our ideas.	.70	.71
Teacher self-efficacy^b	Please also comment on the following statements and mark the value that best represents your opinion. - I know that I can teach even problematic students the material.	.80
Perceived social support^c	How strongly do you feel supported by the following people when work at school becomes difficult?- Among my colleagues, members are interested in each other.	.84
Perceived principal cognitive empathy^d	How do you describe your principal? Please respond to the following statements and evaluate to what extent they apply to your principal.- The principal takes the concerns and worries of teachers seriously.	.89
Subjective strain^e	To what extent do you feel strained by the following working conditions and tasks? – Class size	.91

Keller-Schneider and Albisser (2013c), based on (Gräsel, Fußangel, & Pröbstel, 2006; Soltau & Mienert, 2009).

Schmitz and Schwarzer (2002).

Albisser et al. (2007).

Bonsen (2002).

Albisser et al. (2007).

The teacher self-efficacy scale (Schmitz & Schwarzer, 2002) captures a teacher’s confidence in their ability to successfully teach and manage students who present challenges or difficulties. High self-efficacy in this context reflects the teacher’s belief in their skills and effectiveness in handling diverse and potentially difficult classroom situations. The assessed teacher self-efficacy at T1 served as the control variable (observation) in the structural equation model (SEM).

The perceived social support scale (Albisser et al., 2007) assesses the interest and care that colleagues express for one another during challenging times at work. This includes the emotional and possibly practical support teachers receive from their colleagues when facing difficulties in their professional environment. The factor perceived social support was included as a predictor variable at T1 and as a criterion variable at T2 in the SEM.

The perceived-principal-cognitive empathy scale (Bonsen, 2002) captures how well the principal understands and acknowledges the concerns and worries of the teachers. It evaluates the extent to which the principal demonstrates empathy and understanding toward the teachers’ challenges and emotional states. The factor perceived-principal-cognitive empathy at T1 served as the control variable and at T2 as the criterion variable in the SEM.

The subjective-strain scale (Albisser et al., 2007) assesses how much the size of the class contributes to the teacher’s feelings of stress and burden in their work environment. It evaluates the extent to which managing a certain number of students impacts the teacher’s workload and stress levels. The factor subjective-strain at T1 served as the control variable and at T2 as the criterion variable in the SEM.

Table 1 presents the measures used in the current study in English for the presentation purpose in this text, including the corresponding reliability coefficient, introductions to the items, and one sample item each. McDonald’s coefficient ω (McDonald, 1999; Revelle, 2019) estimates the degree of measurement accuracy (AERA et al., 2014) and indicates the extent to which a construct reflects the common variance of all items (Dunn et al., 2014). McDonald’s ω captures the construct as a whole and can range from 0 to 1 (Dunn et al., 2014). The coefficient ω > .60 allows us to interpret that there is an acceptable internal consistency of the items capturing a construct.

Teachers subjectively rated their school-related cooperative activities, self-efficacy, perceived social support among teachers, principal cognitive empathy, and strain each on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 = not true at all to 6 = absolutely true.

Statistical analyses

We first conducted correlational analyses for linear and non-linear relationships (Harrell, 2021; Hoeffding, 1948; see Table 2 and Supplementary Material 2 for the results). Second, we constructed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) including the six factors measuring at the latent level by their respective items described in Measures (see Supplementary Material 3 for the technical CFA model). The six latent factors measured teachers’ perceptions concerning their social environment and themselves at T1 and T2, (a) teacher’s perceived social support, (b) perceived principal cognitive empathy, and (c) perceived strain. The latent measurement accounts for measurement error (Rosseel & Loh, 2022). We then used this CFA model to test measurement invariance over time.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and linear correlations with confidence intervals for the frequency and importance of the different cooperation forms among teachers and teacher self-efficacy on their perceived social support, perceived principal cognitive empathy, and perceived strain (see Supplementary Material 2 for non-parametric correlation coefficients).

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. F. Exchange	4.85	.89
2. F. Work Sharing	3.86	1.27	.60** [.52, .66]
3. F. Shared Plans	3.51	1.21	.49** [.41, .57]	.58** [.50, .65]
4. F. Discussion	4.45	.97	.67** [.60, .72]	.45** [.36, .54]	.52** [.44, .60]
5. F. Responsibilities	3.50	1.25	.46** [.37, .54]	.49** [.41, .57]	.63** [.56, .69]	.54** [.46, .62]
6. I. Exchange	5.23	.68	.57** [.49, .64]	.36** [.26, .45]	.28** [.18, .38]	.36** [.27, .45]	.32** [.22, .41]
7. I. Work Sharing	4.45	1.09	.32** [.22, .42]	.69** [.63, .75]	.31** [.21, .40]	.21** [.11, .31]	.32** [.22, .42]	.54** [.46, .62]
8. I. Shared Plans	4.20	1.07	.21** [.10, .31]	.38** [.28, .47]	.65** [.59, .71]	.24** [.13, .34]	.43** [.33, .51]	.44** [.35, .52]	.56** [.49, .63]
9. I. Discussion	4.99	.76	.38** [.29, .47]	.31** [.21, .40]	.32** [.22, .42]	.57** [.50, .64]	.34** [.24, .44]	.61** [.54, .67]	.41** [.32, .50]	.44** [.35, .52]
10. I. Responsibilities	4.06	1.17	.30** [.20, .39]	.41** [.32, .50]	.47** [.38, .55]	.33** [.23, .42]	.70** [.64, .75]	.49** [.41, .57]	.53** [.44, .60]	.64** [.58, .70]	.49** [.41, .57]
11. T. Self-Efficacy	4.75	.53	.11* [.00, .21]	.10 [−.01, .21]	.13* [.02, .23]	.09 [−.01, .20]	.20** [.09, .30]	.14* [.03, .24]	.12* [.01, .22]	.11 [−.00, .21]	.10 [−.01, .21]	.09 [−.02, .20]
12. S. Support	2.80	.37	.35* [.08, .57]	.08 [−.20, .35]	.27 [−.01, .51]	.19 [−.09, .44]	.10 [−.18, .37]	.35* [.08, .57]	.12 [−.16, .39]	.26 [−.02, .50]	.27 [−.01, .51]	.12 [−.16, .39]	.40** [.14, .60]
13. P. C. Empathy	4.83	.85	.19** [.08, .29]	.13* [.02, .24]	.23** [.12, .33]	.18** [.07, .28]	.16** [.05, .27]	.29** [.19, .39]	.19** [.08, .29]	.25** [.14, .35]	.24** [.13, .34]	.20** [.09, .31]	.26** [.16, .36]	.24 [−.04, .48]
14. Strain	3.23	.96	−.03 [−.14, .09]	−.04 [−.16, .07]	−.10 [−.22, .01]	.02 [−.10, .14]	.01 [−.11, .12]	−.04 [−.16, .07]	−.06 [−.17, .06]	−.10 [−.21, .02]	−.10 [−.21, .02]	.02 [−.10, .13]	−.22** [−.33, −.11]	−.29* [−.52, −.01]	−.08 [−.20, .03]

Note. The cooperation form F. = Frequency, I. = Importance (exchange = information exchange, discussion = pedagogical discussion, responsibilities = shared responsibilities) and teacher self-efficacy were assessed at T1, s. support = perceived social support, P. C. Empathy = perceived principal cognitive empathy, and Strain = subjective strain of the teachers at T2. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. The confidence interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have caused the sample correlation (Cumming, 2013).

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

Third, we included the five predictor variables concerning the frequency of teachers’ cooperation forms and the covariates teachers’ self-efficacy and gender in the model to construct SEM 1 predicting the simultaneous relations between teachers’ perceived social support, perceived principal cognitive empathy, and perceived strain. In SEM 2, only the five predictor variables about the frequency of teachers’ cooperation forms were replaced by the five predictor variables concerning the subjective importance of the teachers’ cooperation forms. We decided on these two SEM since teacher cooperation frequency and importance are theoretically and empirically (Keller-Schneider, 2021) closely linked to each other, and a high risk of multicollinearity is expected when including items assessing cooperation frequency and importance in a single SEM.

Measuring the predictor variables (including teacher’s perceived social support, perceived principal cognitive empathy, and perceived strain at Time 1) and self-efficacy at the latent level would lead to more parameters than observations, then, the model cannot be identified (Jöreskog, 1978). Each of the three factors at T2 measured at latent level was regressed on itself at T1 and the control variables. Figure 2 presents a simplified scheme of the relationships between the factors measured at the latent level specified in SEM 1 and SEM 2. The SEM approach allows the inclusion of full information maximum likelihood algorithms (FIML) for handling missing values in the data (Wolgast et al., 2017).

Figure 2.

The structural equation modeling results include the frequency or importance of the different cooperation forms among teachers and teacher self-efficacy on their perceived social support, principal cognitive empathy, and perceived strain (without presenting the included items, residuals, and non-significant relations between the factors).

Descriptive statistics were calculated with the R package psych (Revelle, 2021). Manifest linear correlations were calculated with the R packages car (Fox et al., 2012) and apaTables (Stanley, 2021) respectively, non-parametric correlation coefficients for non-linear relationships with the R package Hmisc (Harrell, 2021). The CFA and SEM were constructed with the R package lavaan (Rosseel et al., 2018). All variables were z-standardized and weighted least squares means and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimation was applied (Brauer et al., 2023; Rosseel et al., 2018).

Results

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and linear correlation coefficients for the measures used in the current study. Since some linear correlation coefficients were unexpectedly low, we additionally conducted correlation analyses for non-linear relationships (Harrell, 2021; Hoeffding, 1948; see Supplementary Material 2 for the results). The teachers’ responses were distributed over the full range of available response levels (1–6) but on average above the range mean, except for perceived social support with M = 2.80 (see Table 2). Thus, the teacher indicated above-average strain (see Table 2, M = 3.23).

CFA results: The χ² -test supported the assumed six-factor model: χ² (725) = 648.791, p = .980. Despite this, we additionally provide the fit indices: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ⩽ 0.001, 95% confidence interval CI [<0.001, <0.001], comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.999, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.098. This longitudinal CFA model suggested measurement invariance over time according to Rutkowski and Svetina (2014) with ΔCFI = 0.002 and ΔRMSEA = 0.001.

The SEM results also suggested no significant difference between the model and the data: χ²(371) = 401.882, p = .130, CFI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.029, 95% CI [<0.001, 0.048], SRMR = 0.088. The SEM results are depicted in Figure 2. Table 3 provides detailed information on the path coefficients, standard errors, significance levels, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

Table 3.

SEM results concerning subjective cooperation forms frequency and importance: Predicted perceived social support, perceived principal cognitive empathy, and perceived strain of teachers.

Factor	Regressed on	β	SE	p	95% CI
					Lower	Upper
Strain	Frequent exchange	.137	0.132	.298	−0.121	0.396
	Frequent work sharing	.005	0.188	.981	−0.364	0.373
	Frequently shared plans	.142	0.176	.422	−0.204	0.487
	Frequent discussion	−.099	0.159	.536	−0.411	0.214
	Frequent responsibilities	.067	0.152	.660	−0.232	0.366
	Teacher self-efficacy	−.234	0.122	.055	−0.473	0.005
	Gender	.303	0.107	.005	0.093	0.513
	Strain at T1	.903	0.071	<.001	0.764	0.942
	Principal cognitive empathy (c. e.) at T1	−.105	0.147	.473	−0.393	0.182
	Social support at T1	.159	0.165	.335	−0.165	0.483
Social support	Frequent exchange	.573	0.145	<.001	0.288	0.858
	Frequent work sharing	−.198	0.236	.400	−0.661	0.264
	Frequently shared plans	−.099	0.186	.597	−0.464	0.267
	Frequent discussion	.094	0.194	.629	−0.287	0.474
	Frequent responsibilities	.138	0.138	.316	−0.132	0.408
	Teacher self-efficacy	.267	0.107	.013	0.057	0.476
	Gender	.032	0.091	.729	−0.147	0.210
	Strain at T1	−.036	0.144	.804	−0.318	0.247
	Principal cognitive empathy (c. e.) at T1	−.197	0.210	.348	−0.607	0.214
	Social support at T1	.873	0.225	<.001	0.432	0.914
Principal cognitive empathy (c. e.)	Frequent exchange	.307	0.156	.049	0.002	0.612
	Frequent work sharing	−.313	0.166	.059	−0.639	0.012
	Frequently shared plans	.234	0.152	.125	−0.065	0.532
	Frequent discussion	.126	0.143	.375	−0.153	0.406
	Frequent responsibilities	−.211	0.136	.122	−0.478	0.056
	Teacher self-efficacy	.141	0.123	.253	−0.101	0.383
	Gender	.171	0.102	.092	−0.028	0.37
	Strain at T1	.087	0.116	.453	−0.141	0.315
	Principal cognitive empathy (c. e.) at T1	.590	0.158	<.001	0.28	0.900
	Social support at T1	.040	0.177	.821	−0.308	0.388
Factor 1	Factor 2	CORR _latent	SE	p	95% CI
					Lower	Upper
Strain at T1	Principal cognitive empathy at T1	−.095	0.115	.410	−0.321	0.131
Strain at T1	Social support at T1	−.229	0.172	.183	−0.566	0.108
Principal c. e. at T1	Social support at T1	.689	0.078	<.001	0.537	0.841
Factor	Regressed on	β	SE	p	95% CI
					Lower	Upper
Strain	Importance exchange	.325	0.162	.046	0.006	0.643
	Importance work sharing	−.007	0.215	.973	−0.429	0.414
	Importance shared plans	.119	0.180	.508	−0.234	0.472
	Importance discussion	−.109	0.165	.509	−0.432	0.214
	Importance responsibilities	−.067	0.150	.656	−0.360	0.227
	Teacher self-efficacy	−.262	0.124	.035	−0.506	−0.018
	Gender	.364	0.103	<.001	0.162	0.567
	Strain at T1	.903	0.071	<.001	0.764	0.941
	Principal cognitive empathy (c. e.) at T1	−.106	0.146	.468	−0.392	0.180
	Social support at T1	.158	0.164	.336	−0.164	0.480
Social support	Importance exchange	.310	0.186	.096	−0.055	0.675
	Importance work sharing	.023	0.196	.906	−0.361	0.407
	Importance shared plans	−.201	0.185	.277	−0.563	0.161
	Importance discussion	.187	0.175	.286	−0.156	0.529
	Importance responsibilities	.082	0.165	.620	−0.241	0.405
	Teacher self-efficacy	.261	0.103	.011	0.059	0.463
	Gender	.051	0.082	.534	−0.109	0.211
	Strain at T1	−.032	0.142	.822	−0.311	0.247
	Principal cognitive empathy (c. e.) at T1	−.181	0.205	.378	−0.583	0.221
	Social support at T1	.853	0.220	<.001	0.421	0.985
Principal cognitive empathy (c. e.)	Importance exchange	.038	0.179	.832	−0.313	0.389
	Importance work sharing	−.125	0.212	.555	−0.540	0.290
	Importance shared plans	.105	0.198	.596	−0.283	0.492
	Importance discussion	.294	0.139	.034	0.022	0.566
	Importance responsibilities	−.087	0.153	.569	−0.387	0.212
	Teacher self-efficacy	.086	0.131	.511	−0.171	0.343
	Gender	.157	0.097	.104	−0.032	0.346
	Strain at T1	.087	0.116	.457	−0.141	0.314
	Principal cognitive empathy (c. e.) at T1	.588	0.157	<.001	0.280	0.896
	Social support at T1	.040	0.176	.820	−0.305	0.385
Factor 1	Factor 2	CORR _latent	SE	p	95% CI
					Lower	Upper
Strain at T1	Principal cognitive empathy at T1	−.095	0.115	.409	−0.322	0.131
Strain at T1	Social support at T1	−.229	0.172	.183	−0.565	0.108
Principal c. e. at T1	Social support at T1	.688	0.078	<.001	0.536	0.840

The significant effects are as follows: Subjectively frequent teacher cooperation by information exchange at T1 predicted the teachers’ perceived social support among teachers (T2) and perceived principal cognitive empathy (T2) each at moderate levels (Cohen, 1988). The importance of discussing pedagogical questions as a form of cooperation at T1 predicted only teachers perceived principal cognitive empathy (T2) at moderate levels (see Figure 2 and Table 3). In turn, both teachers perceived social support (T2) and perceived principal cognitive empathy (T2) negatively correlated with teachers’ perceived strain (T2) at moderate to low levels, respectively. The SEM 1 including the frequency of the cooperation forms/SEM 2 including the subjective importance of the cooperation forms yielded the following proportion of explained variance in the three factors: perceived social support among teachers R² = .850/.859, perceived principal cognitive empathy R² = .527/.487, and perceived strain R² = .943/.971. The described results support our assumption in part that the five teacher cooperation forms have positive effects on the teachers’ perceived social support, principal cognitive empathy, and perceived strain. These findings are discussed next.

Discussion

Discussion of the results

The present study analyzed the relationship between the frequency and importance of different forms of teacher cooperation, perceived social support among teachers, principal cognitive empathy, and subjective strain. Following stress-strain-resources concept (Rudow, 1999), we explored relationships between different forms of cooperation and teachers’ perceived social support among teachers, their perceived principal cognitive empathy, and their individually perceived strain.

We investigated this in an explorative approach without hypotheses about the differential relationships between each of the cooperation forms and their frequency or importance for the teachers. We explored these relationships in the current study to get more insights into these relationships.

The results disclosed significant direct effects of teachers’ frequency of cooperation as information exchange at T1 on their perceived high levels of social support among teachers (T2) and cognitive principal empathy (T2), both related to low levels of perceived strain (T2). This finding also suggests indirect or nonlinear relationships between teachers’ frequency of cooperation as information exchange and perceived strain. Indirect linear effects in terms of mediation effects did not exist as the manifest bivariate correlation coefficient close to zero demonstrates (r = −.03 between information exchange at T1 and strain at T2, see Table 2). However, increasing frequency of information exchange might be related to low strain up to a certain point. Beyond that point, further increases in this frequency would be related to increasing strain in the case of a nonlinear relationship.

Similarly, the importance of cooperating by discussion of pedagogical questions with colleagues (T1) predicted teachers perceived principal cognitive empathy (T2) that, in turn, related to teachers’ low perceived strain (T2). The direct relationships between perceived high levels of social support among teachers and low levels of perceived strain are in line with the stress-strain-resources concept (Rudow, 1999) and with findings from previous research (Birolim et al., 2019; Collie et al., 2012; Egodawatte et al., 2011). When teachers feel supported by their colleagues, they report less subjectively negative strain (C. Smith & Gillespie, 2007).

Our results indicate that teachers often cooperate by exchanging school-related information. Thus, frequent cooperation for information exchange among colleagues is common for teachers in Switzerland. According to Keller-Schneider (2021), the cooperation form frequency reflects their degree of obligation. Information exchange as the least obligatory cooperation form is practiced most frequently, as evident from other studies (Böhm-Kasper et al., 2016). Received impulses can be accepted or set aside during information exchange with colleagues (Keller-Schneider, 2021).

Cooperation as a discussion of pedagogical questions, however, requires more obligation, as the contribution of individual perspectives and commonality in pedagogical goals are favorable. Pedagogical questions can be discussed in different situations, in freely chosen as well as rather formal formats (e.g. year team meetings) or with a focus on specific children or school-related tasks (Keller-Schneider, 2021).

The findings from our current study have important implications for school principals and policymakers. Our results suggest that encouraging and facilitating frequent and meaningful cooperation among teachers, particularly through information exchange and discussions about pedagogical questions, may be an effective way to promote social support among teachers and perceived cognitive empathy of their principal while reducing teachers’ perceived strain. Furthermore, our findings suggest that further longitudinal research including at least three measurement times is needed to test a mediation model.

Overall, our study gives valuable insights into the role of specific cooperation forms for teachers’ perceptions of their professional social environment. The finding on teachers’ perceived principal cognitive empathy and its negative relationship with teachers’ perceived strain highlights the importance of creating supportive and collaborative work environments for teachers by their principals, they are part of (Keller-Schneider & Keller, 2023). The principal is responsible for supporting teacher cooperation, considering teacher cooperation in time schedules, and providing space, a room, and necessary materials in the school.

Limitations and implications

It remains unclear to what extent the cooperation-related findings presented in this paper also apply to schools that were not part of the RUMBA school development study and did not actively seek to participate. It cannot be clarified to what extent the cooperation in the sample is due to the schools’ initiative and the non-randomized sample selection process. Although close collaboration among teachers is often beneficial, it can also be related to tension and conflicts and minimize them (Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2013a). Our study measured five forms of cooperation among teachers but did not assess their satisfaction with the specific form of cooperation. Additionally, all measures were based on the subjective frame of reference influenced by individual beliefs and experiences or social expectations biases. In addition, there could be a bias by Swiss work conditions, in which cooperation is an explicit part of the teacher’s demands, they must fulfill (‘Berufsauftrag’, VSA 2016). To obtain higher degrees of ecologically valid responses, replication of these results in different countries could verify the generalizability of contextual factors’ effect, situated at the macro level of school systems. The missing values in the variable gender can be explained by the small numbers of teachers in small collegial groups. Some teachers were worried about being identified when they reported their gender when their collegial group was small (e.g. five teachers including one male teacher). The current study’s findings have significant implications for understanding the longitudinal relationships between teacher cooperation as activities, their positive social perceptions, and their perceived negative strain. The findings suggest that principals should regularly express interpersonal understanding toward teachers and prioritize creating a supportive and collaborative work environment that values and encourages teacher cooperation, as this can ultimately relate to lower levels of teacher strain and probably better overall well-being.

Conclusion

The current study provides new important insights into the longitudinal relationships between teacher cooperation and positive teacher perceptions later related to low levels of their negative strain. The frequency of the teacher cooperation activity of information exchange and the importance of discussing pedagogical questions positively predicted teachers’ perceived social support among teachers and perceived cognitive empathy of their principal 19 months later. This longtime prediction effect underlines the important role of social interactions among teacher colleagues (e.g. frequent information exchange), positive teacher perceptions about perceived social support among teachers, and the perceived cognitive empathy by their principals.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-imp-10.1177_13654802251325394 – Supplemental material for Effects of teacher cooperation types on perceived principal cognitive empathy, social support among teachers, and strain

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-imp-10.1177_13654802251325394 for Effects of teacher cooperation types on perceived principal cognitive empathy, social support among teachers, and strain by Anett Wolgast and Manuela Keller-Schneider in Improving Schools

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-imp-10.1177_13654802251325394 – Supplemental material for Effects of teacher cooperation types on perceived principal cognitive empathy, social support among teachers, and strain

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-imp-10.1177_13654802251325394 for Effects of teacher cooperation types on perceived principal cognitive empathy, social support among teachers, and strain by Anett Wolgast and Manuela Keller-Schneider in Improving Schools

Footnotes

Data availability

The dataset analyzed during the current study is available .

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research: This school development study was funded by the Volksschulamt of the Bildungsdirektion ‘Kanton Zurich’ in Switzerland.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

ORCID iD

Anett Wolgast

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Albisser

Kirchhoff

Meier

Grob

(2007). Anforderungsverarbeitung und Gesundheit im Berufszyklus von Lehrpersonen [Processing demands and health in the professional cycle of teachers]. Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich. https://edudoc.ch/record/25438?ln=de

Antonovsky

(1993). The implications of salutogenesis: An outsider’s view. In Turnbull

A. P.

Patterson

J. M.

Behr

S. K.

Murphy

D. L.

Marquis

J. G.

Blue-Banning

M. J.

(Eds.), Cognitive coping, families, and disability (pp. 111–122). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bartholomew

K. J.

Ntoumanis

Cuevas

Lonsdale

(2014). Job pressure and ill-health in physical education teachers: The mediating role of psychological need thwarting. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 101–107.

Bilali

Godfrey

E. B.

(2021). Perspective taking in conflict settings: Can perspective taking smooth tensions between Trump and Clinton supporters in the aftermath of 2016 U.S. presidential election? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(7), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12772

Birolim

M. M.

Mesas

A. E.

González

A. D.

dos Santos

H. G.

Haddad

C. F. L.

de Andrade

S. M.

(2019). Job strain among teachers: Associations with occupational factors according to social support. Ciencia & Saude Coletiva, 24, 1255–1264.

Böhm-Kasper

Dizinger

Gausling

(2016). Multiprofessional collaboration between teachers and other educational staff at German all-day schools as a characteristic of today’s professionalism. IJREE–International Journal for Research on Extended Education, 4(1), 9–10.

Bonsen

(2002). Schulleitungshandeln aus Lehrersicht—Einschätzungen zu schulentwicklungsbezogenen Handlungsdimensionen [School management actions from a teacher’s perspective - assessments of school development-related dimensions of action]. In Wissinger

Huber

S. G.

(Eds.), Schulleitung—Forschung und Qualifizierung [School management research and qualification] (pp. 63–77). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-01338-9_5

10.

Brauer

Ranger

Ziegler

(2023). Confirmatory factor analyses in psychological test adaptation and development. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 4(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000034

11.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

12.

Collie

R. J.

Shapka

J. D.

Perry

N. E.

(2012). School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356

13.

Cumming

(2013). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504966

14.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

15.

Davydovskaia

De Coster

Birch

Vasiliou

Motiejunaite-Schulmeister

(2021). Teachers in Europe: Careers, development and well-being (Eurydice Report). Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–108). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.013.0006

17.

Deutsch

(2011). Cooperation and competition. In Coleman

P. T.

(Ed.), Conflict, interdependence, and justice. Peace Psychology Book Series (11th ed., pp. 23–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9994-8_2

18.

Dicke

Parker

P. D.

Holzberger

Kunina-Habenicht

Kunter

Leutner

(2015). Beginning teachers’ efficacy and emotional exhaustion: Latent changes, reciprocity, and the influence of professional knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.003

19.

Dunn

T. J.

Baguley

Brunsden

(2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046

20.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

21.

Egodawatte

McDougall

Stoilescu

(2011). The effects of teacher collaboration in Grade 9 Applied Mathematics. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10(3), 189.

22.

Erle

T. M.

Ruessmann

J. K.

Topolinski

(2018). The effects of visuo-spatial perspective-taking on trust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.006

23.

Ewart

C. K.

(1991). Social action theory for a public health psychology. American Psychologist, 46(9), 931.

24.

Fernet

Guay

Senécal

Austin

(2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 514–525.

25.

Fox

Weisberg

Adler

Bates

Baud-Bovy

Ellison

Firth

Friendly

Gorjanc

Graves

(2012). Package ‘car’. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 16. https://cran.r-project.org/package=car

26.

Fussangel

Gräsel

(2012). Lehrerkooperation aus der Sicht der Bildungsforschung. In Baum

Idel

T.-S.

Ullrich

(Eds.), Kollegialität und Kooperation in der Schule: Theoretische Konzepte und empirische Befunde [Collegiality and cooperation in schools: Theoretical concepts and empirical findings] (pp. 29–40). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Wiesbaden.

27.

Gallimore

Goldenberg

(2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56.

28.

Gehlbach

(2010). The social side of school: Why teachers need social psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9138-3

29.

Gehlbach

Marietta

King

A. M.

Karutz

Bailenson

J. N.

Dede

(2015). Many ways to walk a mile in another’s moccasins: Type of social perspective taking and its effect on negotiation outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.035

30.

Gehlbach

(2023). How we understand others: A theory of how social perspective taking unfolds. Review of General Psychology, 27(3), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231152595

31.

Gilin

Maddux

W. W.

Carpenter

Galinsky

A. D.

(2013). When to use your head and when to use your heart: The differential value of perspective-taking versus empathy in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212465320

32.

Gräsel

Fussangel

Parchmann

(2006). Lerngemeinschaften in der Lehrerfortbildung: Kooperationserfahrungen und-überzeugungen von Lehrkräften [Learning communities in teacher training: teachers’ experiences and beliefs of cooperation]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 545–561.

33.

Gräsel

Fußangel

Pröbstel

(2006). Lehrkräfte zur Kooperation anregen - eine Aufgabe für Sisyphos [Encouraging teachers to cooperate – a task for Sisyphus]? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4453

34.

Grund

Brassler

N. K.

Fries

(2016). The long arm of work: A motivational conflict perspective on teacher strain. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 153–163.

35.

Harrell

F. E.

(2021). Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.7-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc

36.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Freedy

Lane

Geller

(1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590074004

37.

Hoeffding

(1948). A non-parametric test of independence. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19(4), 546–557. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730150

38.

Hoyle

Crenshaw

H. M.

(1997). Interpersonal sensitivity. Eye On Education.

39.

Johnson

D. W.

Johnson

R. T.

(2005). Training for cooperative group work. In West

M. A.

Tjosvold

Smith

K. G.

(Eds.), The essentials of teamworking: International perspectives (pp. 131–147). Wiley.

40.

Jöreskog

K. G.

(1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 43(4), 443–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293808

41.

Justice

(2018). The relationship between administrator interpersonal skills and school climate, student learning, and teacher retention. Gardner-Webb University.

42.

Kelchtermans

(2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A review. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 52(2), 220–237.

43.

Keller-Schneider

(2010). Entwicklungsaufgaben im Berufseinstieg von Lehrpersonen. Beanspruchung durch berufliche Herausforderungen im Zusammenhang mit Kontext-und Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen [Developmental tasks at the start of a teacher’s career. Stress caused by professional challenges in connection with context and personality characteristics]. Waxmann.

44.

Keller-Schneider

(2016). Professionalisierung ohne Beanspruchung? Diskussionsbeitrag zum Themenschwerpunkt:„Burnout und Stress beim Übergang in den Lehrerberuf “ [Professionalization without stress? Discussion paper on the main topic: “Burnout and stress during the transition to the teaching profession”]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 63(4), 305–314.

45.

Keller-Schneider

(2018). Job demands appraisals, classroom climate, and team support predict changes in emotional exhaustion among teachers after two years: A sequential mediation model. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 7(3), 223–242.

46.

Keller-Schneider

(2019). Die Bedeutung des Belastungserlebens von Lehrpersonen für das von den Schülerinnen und Schülern wahrgenommene Klassenklima, ihre Selbstwirksamkeit, ihr schulisches Selbstkonzept und ihre Motivation [The significance of teachers’ experiences of stress for the classroom climate perceived by pupils, their self-efficacy, their school self-concept and their motivation]. Empirische Pädagogik, 33, 433–455.

47.

Keller-Schneider

(2021). Effekte von individuellen und kollektiven Ressourcen auf praktizierte Kooperation in unterschiedlichen Formen [Effects of individual and collective resources on practiced cooperation in different forms]. In Kunze

Petersen

Bellenberg

Fabel-Lamla

Hinzke

J.-H.

Moldenhauer

Peukert

Reintjes

te Poel

(Eds.), Kooperation – Koordination – Kollegialität: Befunde und Diskurse zum Zusammenwirken pädagogischer Akteur*innen an Schule(n) [Cooperation - coordination - collegiality: Findings and discourses on the cooperation of pedagogical actors at school(s)] (pp. 249–264). Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5585263

48.

Keller-Schneider

(2024). Challenge-appraisal profiles of beginning teachers and inter-profile differences in self-efficacy, self-regulation, and emotions. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1971647

49.

Keller-Schneider

Albisser

(2013a). Kooperation von Lehrpersonen und die Bedeutung von individuellen und kollektiven Ressourcen [Teacher cooperation and the importance of individual and collective resources]. In Keller-Schneider

Albisser

Wissinger

(Eds.), Professionalität und Kooperation in Schulen. Beiträge zur Diskussion über Schulqualität [Professionalism and cooperation in schools. Contributions to the discussion on school quality] (pp. 33–56). Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3695705

50.

Keller-Schneider

Albisser

(2013b). Formen der Kooperation von Lehrpersonen und ihr Zusammenhang mit Berufsmotiven [Forms of cooperation between teachers and their connection with career motives]. In Wannack

Bosshart

Eichenberger

Fuchs

Hardegger

Marti

(Eds.), 4- bis 12-Jährige – ihre schulischen und außerschulischen Lern- und Lebenswelten [4 to 12-year-olds – their learning and living environments in and out of school] (pp. 319–327). Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3744271

51.

Keller-Schneider

Albisser

(2013c). Kooperation – Skalen zur Erfassung von Kooperation in unterschiedlichen Formen [Cooperation - scales for recording cooperation in various forms]. ReserachGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30013.47846

52.

Keller-Schneider

Albisser

(2015). Teamentwicklung als Strategie der Personalentwicklung [Team development as a personnel development strategy]. In Kansteiner

Stamann

(Eds.), Zwischen Fremdsteuerung und Selbstentwicklung [Between external control and self-development] (pp. 152–172). Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6938423

53.

Keller-Schneider

Keller

(2023). Professionalisierung und Schulentwicklung – Die Bedeutung der Schulleitung für die Stärkung von individuellen und kollektiven Ressourcen [Professionalization and school development – The importance of school management for strengthening individual and collective resources]. In Hinzke

J.-H.

Keller-Schneider

(Eds.), Professionalität und Professionalisieurng von Lehrpersonen [Professionalism and professionalization of teachers] (pp. 197–219). Klinkhardt.

54.

Klusmann

Kunter

Trautwein

Lüdtke

Baumert

(2008). Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 702–715.

55.

Kyriacou

(2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628

56.

Little

J. W.

(1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.

57.

Louis

K. S.

Marks

H. M.

Kruse

(1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798.

58.

Malone

M. E.

(2013). The relationship of the principal’s soft skills to school climate. The University of Texas at San Antonio. https://search.proquest.com/openview/6b5ab085f7d306924db7b565df58469a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

59.

McDonald

R. P.

(1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://www-taylorfrancis-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/books/mono/10.4324/9781410601087/test-theory-roderick-mcdonald

60.

Obels

Lakens

Coles

N. A.

Gottfried

Green

S. A.

(2020). Analysis of open data and computational reproducibility in registered reports in psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(2), 229–237.

61.

O’Brennan

Pas

Bradshaw

(2017). Multilevel examination of burnout among high school staff: Importance of staff & school factors. School Psychology Review, 46(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2015-0019.V46-2

62.

Pithers

Soden

(1998). Personal resource strength and teacher strain. Research in Education, 60(1), 1–9.

63.

Pithers

R. T.

Soden

(1998). Scottish and Australian teacher stress and strain: A comparative study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 269–279.

64.

Reeves

P. M.

Pun

W. H.

Chung

K. S.

(2017). Influence of teacher collaboration on job satisfaction and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 227–236.

65.

Revelle

(2019). Using R and the psych package to find ω (pp. 1–20). http://www.personality-project.org/r/tutorials/HowTo/omega.tutorial/omega.pdf

66.

Revelle

(2021). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University. https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/psych-procedures-for-personality-and-psychological-research/

67.

Roeser

R. W.

Midgley

Urdan

T. C.

(1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.408

68.

Roeser

R. W.

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

Jha

Cullen

Wallace

Wilensky

Oberle

Thomson

Taylor

Harrison

(2013). Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: Results from two randomized, waitlist-control field trials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 787.

69.

Rollett

Lossen

Holtappels

H. G.

(2020). Ausgewählte Befunde der Studie zur Entwicklung von Ganztagsschulen (StEG) [Selected findings from the study on the development of all-day schools]. In Bollweg

Buchna

Coelen

Otto

H.-U.

(Eds.), Handbuch Ganztagsbildung [All-day education handbook] (pp. 1507–1524). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23230-6_111

70.

Rosseel

Loh

W. W.

(2022). A structural after measurement approach to structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 29(3), 561–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000503

71.

Rosseel

Oberski

Byrnes

Vanbrabant

Savalei

Merkle

E. C.

Hallquist

Chow

(2018). Package lavaan. https://cran.r-project.org/package=lavaan

72.

Rudow

(1999). Stress and burnout in the teaching profession: European studies, issues, and research perspectives. In Vandenberghe

Huberman

A. M.

(Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout. A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 38–58). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/understanding-and-preventing-teacher-burnout/5BC229F108D2917B746467CBC3BF0B50

73.

Rudow

(2005). Belastungen und der Arbeits-und Gesundheitsschutz bei Erzieherinnen in Sachsen-Anhalt. Projekt Bericht Im Auftrag Der Unfallkasse Sachsen-Anhalt. https://www.ukst.de/dateien/projektbericht.pdf/@@download/file/projektbericht.pdf

74.

Rutkowski

Svetina

(2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257

75.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

76.

Schmitz

G. S.

Schwarzer

(2002). Individuelle und kollektive Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung von Lehrern [Individual and collective self-efficacy expectations of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik Beiheft, 44, 192–214. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:3936

77.

Simmons

J. P.

Nelson

L. D.

Simonsohn

(2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.

78.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625.

79.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069.

80.

Slavit

Kennedy

Lean

Nelson

T. H.

Deuel

(2011). Support for professional collaboration in middle school mathematics: A complex web. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 113–131.

81.

Smith

Gillespie

(2007). Research on professional development and teacher change: Implications for adult basic education. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 7(7), 205–244.

82.

Smith

P. A.

Escobedo

Kearney

W. S.

(2020). Principal influence: A catalyst for positive school climate. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 16(5), n5.

83.

Soltau

Mienert

(2009). Teamorientierung und Einstellungen zu Formen der Lehrerkooperation bei Lehrkräften [Team orientation and attitudes towards forms of teacher cooperation among teachers]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 56(3), 213–223.

84.

Stanley

(2021). apaTables: Create American Psychological Association (APA) style tables. R package version 2.0.8. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/apaTables/apaTables.pdf

85.

Steinert

Klieme

Maag Merki

Döbrich

Halbheer

Kunz

(2006). Lehrerkooperation in der Schule: Konzeption, Erfassung, Ergebnisse [Teacher cooperation in schools: concept, recording, results]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52(2), 185–204.

86.

Stufflebeam

D. L.

(2004). The 21st century CIPP model: Origins, development, and use. In Alkin

M. C.

(Ed.), Evaluation roots (pp. 245–266). Sage.

87.

Stufflebeam

D. L.

Zhang

(2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Publications.

88.

Terhart

Klieme

(2006). Kooperation im Lehrerberuf: Forschungsproblem und Gestaltungsaufgabe [Cooperation in the teaching profession: research problem and design task]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 52, 163–166. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4450

89.

Toropova

Myrberg

Johansson

(2021). Teacher job satisfaction: the importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review, 73(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247

90.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

91.

Van den Broeck

Vansteenkiste

De Witte

Lens

. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277–294.

92.

Vangrieken

Dochy

Raes

Kyndt

(2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002

93.

Wolfgramm

Berweger

Frei

A. K.

Bührer

Buschor

C. B.

(2022). How the COVID-19 pandemic changed Swiss primary school teachers’ perceptions of stress, emotional exhaustion, and personal resources – insights from a longitudinal study. In Burgsteiner

Krammer

(Eds.), Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic’s distance learning on students and teachers in schools and in higher education international perspectives (pp. 325–349). Leykam. https://doi.org/10.56560/isbn.978-3-7011-0496-3

94.

Wolgast

Barnes-Holmes

(2022). Flexible social perspective taking in higher education and the role of contextual cues. Frontline Learning Research, 10(1), 76–107.

95.

Wolgast

Fischer

(2017). You are not alone: Colleague support and goal-oriented cooperation as resources to reduce teachers’ stress. Social Psychology of Education, 20(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9366-1

96.

Wolgast

Schwinger

Hahnel

Stiensmeier-Pelster

(2017). Handling missing data in structural equation models in R. A replication study for applied researchers. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 15(1), 5–45. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.41.16125

97.

Wolgast

Tandler

Harrison

Umlauft

(2020). Adults’ dispositional and situational perspective-taking: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 353–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09507-y

98.

Wróbel

(2013). Can empathy lead to emotional exhaustion in teachers? The mediating role of emotional labor. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 26(4), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13382-013-0123-1

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.23 MB

0.02 MB