Universidad del Zulia (LUZ)
Revista Venezolana de Gerencia (RVG)
Año 31 No. 115, 2026, e311155
JULIO-SEPTIEMBRE
ISSN 1315-9984 / e-ISSN 2477-9423
Como citar: Deroncele-Acosta, A., Gil-Monte, P., Gil-LaOrden, P., y Ortega, A. (2026). Teacher Well-Being: Novel Approaches for Assessment and Intervention. Revista Venezolana De Gerencia, 31(115), e311155. https://doi.org/10.52080/rvgluz.31.115.5
Teacher Well-Being: Novel Approaches for Assessment and Intervention
Deroncele-Acosta, Angel*
Gil-Monte, Pedro**
Gil-LaOrden, Pedro***
Ortega Mansilla, Arturo****
Abstract
Although teacher well-being has become a central focus in educational and organizational psychology, the field remains characterized by conceptual fragmentation and a predominance of cross-sectional, self-report studies. To address these limitations, this study analyzed global scientific output on teacher well-being and proposed a nomological network to guide future evaluation and intervention methods. Using a four-stage bibliometric approach, we retrieved 8,186 documents from the Scopus database and analyzed the data using Bibliometrix (R) and VOSviewer. The findings reveal sustained publication growth since 2011. Teaching and Teacher Education emerged as the most influential journal, while The Education University of Hong Kong and the United States were identified as the leading institution and the most productive, cited, and funded country, respectively. Thematic network analysis highlighted teacher self-efficacy as a core concept, alongside a strong presence of positive psychology perspectives and a heavy reliance on self-report scales. In conclusion, teacher well-being is a multidimensional construct that necessitates multilevel and multimethod approaches. Future research must transition beyond subjective measures to incorporate objective indicators—such as neurocognitive or psychophysiological biomarkers—combined with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence for emotion evaluation. Ultimately, the identification of these trends and the construction of a comprehensive nomological network offer an integrative, forward-looking framework to advance theory, assessment, and intervention in teacher well-being.
Keywords: burnout; mental health; nomological network; organizational psychology; self-efficacy.
Recibido:10.02.26 Aceptado: 13.03.26
* Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Perú Graduate School *Author correspondent. Research Professor at Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola. Postdoctoral researcher in Educational Psychology (University of Almería, Spain, 2018), Postdoctoral researcher in Organizational Psychology (University of Valencia, Spain, 2019), Postdoctoral researcher in Cognitive Neurosciences in Education (European University of the Atlantic, Spain, 2026). PhD. in Pedagogical Sciences, Master in Social Sciences, and Bachelors in Psychology. Email: aderoncele@usil.edu.pe ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0413-014X
** Universitat de València (UVEG) (España). Unidad de Investigación Psicosocial de la Conducta Organizacional (UNIPSICO) Director of the Group of Psychosocial Research on Organizational Behavior at the University of Valencia, Spain. He is currently a Full Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology in the Department of Social Psychology at that university. Email: pedro.gil-monte@uv.es, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2827-2388
*** Universitat de València (UVEG) (España). Unidad de Investigación Psicosocial de la Conducta Organizacional (UNIPSICO) Máster Universitario en Dirección de Personas y Desarrollo Organizativo; Grado en Psicología; miembro de la Unidad de Investigación Psicosocial de la Conducta Organizacional (UNIPSICO). Email: pegilaor@alumni.uv.es, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7541-4388
**** Universidad Europea del Atlántico (España). Department Director CITICAN Projects (Center for Industrial Research and Technology of Cantabria). Barcelona Digital Technological Center, Catalan Institute of Technology, Specialized Publishers and Consultants (FUNIBER Corporation, European University of the Atlantic), Ibero-American University Foundation, Institute for the Development of Interuniversity Programs, Ramon Llull University, European University of the Atlantic Polytechnic School, Ibero-American International University, University of Barcelona. arturo.ortega@citican.org https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3692-2416
Bienestar del profesorado: nuevos enfoques para la evaluación y la intervención
Resumen
Aunque el bienestar del profesorado se ha convertido en un tema central en la psicología educativa y organizacional, este campo sigue caracterizándose por una fragmentación conceptual y por el predominio de estudios transversales basados en autoinformes. Para abordar estas limitaciones, este estudio analizó la producción científica mundial sobre el bienestar del profesorado y propuso una red nomológica que sirva de guía para futuros métodos de evaluación e intervención. Mediante un enfoque bibliométrico en cuatro etapas, se recopilaron 8.186 documentos de la base de datos Scopus y se analizaron los datos utilizando Bibliometrix (R) y VOSviewer. Los resultados revelan un crecimiento sostenido de las publicaciones desde 2011. La revista *Teaching and Teacher Education* se erigió como la más influyente, mientras que la Universidad de Educación de Hong Kong y Estados Unidos se identificaron como la institución líder y el país más productivo, citado y financiado, respectivamente. El análisis de redes temáticas puso de relieve la autoeficacia del profesorado como concepto central, junto con una fuerte presencia de perspectivas de la psicología positiva y una gran dependencia de las escalas de autoinforme. En conclusión, el bienestar del profesorado es un constructo multidimensional que requiere enfoques multinivel y multimétodo. Las futuras investigaciones deben ir más allá de las medidas subjetivas para incorporar indicadores objetivos —como los biomarcadores neurocognitivos o psicofisiológicos— combinados con tecnologías emergentes, como la inteligencia artificial, para la evaluación de las emociones. En última instancia, la identificación de estas tendencias y la construcción de una red nomológica integral ofrecen un marco integrador y con visión de futuro para avanzar en la teoría, la evaluación y la intervención en materia de bienestar del profesorado.
Palabras clave: agotamiento; salud mental; red nomológica; psicología organizacional; autoeficacia.
1. Introduction
Teacher well-being has become an important area of educational and organizational research in recent decades due to its connection with teaching quality, retention, school climate, and student success. Far from being a minor aspect, teacher well-being is now seen as a key factor for the healthy functioning of educational systems and for the sustainability of teaching careers in increasingly challenging environments. This growing significance has led to substantial increase in empirical studies, systematic reviews, and explanatory models aimed at understanding the personal, relational, and organizational factors that influence it (Hascher & Waber, 2021; Spilt et al., 2011).
This work is part of the research area on psychosocial factors in education, specifically focusing on sustained efforts related to mental health and teacher well-being (Deroncele-Acosta et al., 2023, 2024, 2025). Comprehensive reviews indicate that while teacher well-being has been approached from diverse conceptual traditions—significantly enriching the field—this diversity has also introduced theoretical and methodological fragmentation (Hall-Kenyon et al., 2014; Hascher & Waber, 2021). Consequently, beyond generating empirical knowledge, there is a critical need to analyze how this field is conceptually organized, identify the dominant themes driving its development, and map the most influential connections among authors, theoretical approaches, and variables.
Revisiting the debate on personal factors, a seminal study by Anglim et al. (2025) examines the relationship between personality traits and well-being. Drawing on a large-scale meta-analysis (n = 334,567, k = 462), the research focuses on two primary axes: first, personality frameworks, specifically the Big Five (neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness) and the HEXACO model (which incorporates honesty–humility); and second, dimensions of well-being, distinguishing between subjective well-being (life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) and psychological well-being (purpose in life, autonomy, personal growth, and positive relationships). The findings indicate that traits such as neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness are key predictors of well-being and further demonstrate that analyses at the facet or subtrait level yield a more precise understanding of this relationship.
Among the most studied personal factors is teacher self-efficacy. In this context, understanding the nature of stress becomes essential for interpreting teacher well-being. Stress is not a uniform phenomenon but can be differentiated into distinct types. As noted by McEwen (2017), three forms of stress can be identified: good stress (eustress), tolerable stress, and toxic stress. Good stress arises from challenging situations that promote growth and resilience; tolerable stress refers to adverse experiences that can be managed with adequate personal and social support; and toxic stress occurs when intense or prolonged adversity is experienced without sufficient support, leading to negative behavioral and physiological consequences. This distinction provides a more nuanced framework for understanding how stress interacts with personal and contextual resources in shaping teacher well-being.
Various studies have shown that higher levels of self-efficacy are linked to greater job satisfaction, less burnout, better professional engagement, and higher quality instruction (Caprara et al., 2003, 2006; Holzberger et al., 2013; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014; Zee & Koomen, 2016). Similarly, self-efficacy has been seen as a protective resource against stress and burnout, as well as a key mechanism for understanding retention or abandonment of teaching, especially in the early stages of a career (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2017).
Additionally, evidence highlights the importance of the school environment in shaping teacher well-being. Factors such as administrative support, collaboration among colleagues, student discipline, time pressure, sense of belonging, and school culture are significantly connected to job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to stay in the profession (Liu et al., 2021; Nguni et al., 2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Toropova et al., 2021). As a result, school leadership and teacher empowerment stand out as key organizational factors because they influence commitment, organizational citizenship, self-efficacy, and professional satisfaction (Bogler, 2001; Bogler & Somech, 2004).
Another important aspect of the field concerns the relational dimension of well-being, the quality of relationships between teachers and students plays a crucial role in educators’ emotional experience, serving as both a source of meaning and of tension. From this perspective, student behavioral problems, relational closeness, perceived support, and the mental images teachers form about their students directly influence their enthusiasm, burnout, and psychological adjustment (Aldrup et al., 2018; Jennings, 2015; Spilt et al., 2011). Some findings even suggest that teacher well-being extends beyond the teachers themselves and impacts students’ emotional well-being and adjustment, further emphasizing its pedagogical and social importance (Harding et al., 2019; Roffey, 2012).
Similarly, teacher resilience has become an increasingly essential focus, especially in studying professional retention and the ability to navigate complex situations. Resilience is described as a dynamic, context-dependent, and relational process connected to professional identity, self-efficacy, social support, and organizational work conditions (Beltman et al., 2011; Gu & Day, 2007, 2013; Hong, 2012; Mansfield et al., 2012). This view has shifted the focus from a solely deficit- or burnout-centered perspective toward broader approaches that include adaptive resources, a sense of purpose, and the ability to maintain commitment to teaching over time.
Despite the ongoing growth of the field, significant gaps remain. On one hand, the literature continues to exhibit conceptual fragmentation, with multiple analytical traditions coexisting and certain approaches—particularly correlational models relying heavily on self-reports—remaining disproportionately dominant (Alvear et al., 2026; Amirian et al., 2025; Chen & Yin, 2025; Christopoulou et al., 2026; Ortiz et al., 2026; Tu et al., 2025). On the other hand, it remains necessary to more clearly identify the main thematic areas, the countries, authors, and journals that have led in scientific output, and how the key conceptual frameworks of teacher well-being have evolved. In this context, a bibliometric study offers a useful way to map the field’s development, understand its intellectual structure, and highlight emerging trends, gaps, and opportunities for future research.
Consequently, this study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of teacher well-being research to map temporal trends, identify key academic contributors and influential journals, and delineate the conceptual networks shaping the field. Beyond merely organizing past literature, this systematic approach establishes an objective foundation for projecting future research trajectories and addressing the field’s remaining theoretical and methodological challenges.
While the proliferation of studies on self-efficacy (Homann et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025), job satisfaction, burnout, resilience (Christopoulou et al., 2026; Tu et al., 2025), teacher–student relationships (Aldrup et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2026), school leadership (Liu et al., 2025), work engagement (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014), and mental health (Harding et al., 2019) demonstrates a broad scope, the literature remains conceptually fragmented. Bibliometric analysis serves as a powerful tool in this context, clarifying growth patterns, identifying influential stakeholders, and mapping the primary thematic trends driving the field. Concurrently, a critical gap persists regarding which real-world problems remain unaddressed. By synthesizing these disparate elements, this study establishes an empirical foundation to catalyze new, targeted evaluation and intervention frameworks.
2. Perspective methodology
This study utilized the Bibliometrix package and its web interface, Biblioshiny—open-source tools distributed under the MIT license and applied in compliance with their terms of use (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). The study strictly adhered to the established methodological framework for bibliometric analysis outlined by Donthu et al. (2021). This systematic approach is structured into the following four sequential stages, which are more fully explained below:
•Step 1: Defines the aims and scope of the bibliometric study
•Step 2: Chooses the techniques for bibliometric analysis
•Step 3: Collects the data for bibliometric analysis:
•Step 4: Runs the bibliometric analysis and report the findings
Step1: In this initial stage, the study’s objectives and scope were defined, delimiting the conceptual field of teacher well-being within educational and organizational psychology. The analysis examined the scientific evolution of the area, identifying its main publication sources, authors, institutional affiliations, countries, sponsors, and thematic structure to understand the field’s intellectual architecture.
Step 2: According to the objectives of the study, complementary bibliometric techniques were selected, combining performance analysis and science mapping, in order to examine both the scientific performance of academic actors and the conceptual relationships among the main topics in the field.
Step 3: At this stage, data for bibliometric analysis are collected. Data collection was conducted using the Scopus database, selected for its extensive international coverage, editorial rigor, and consistency in bibliographic metadata. The search strategy was developed progressively. It began with the central descriptor “Teacher well-being,” and was later refined through a meeting with experts in the field, who proposed including conceptually related terms for the construct. These proposals were tested and validated directly within the database, iteratively adjusting the query until an adequate coverage of the field of study was achieved.
“Teacher well-being” OR “Teacher wellbeing” OR “Educator well-being” OR “Teacher mental health” OR “Teacher psychological well-being” OR “Teacher happiness” OR “Teacher engagement” OR “Teacher empowerment” OR “Teacher job satisfaction” OR “Teacher work engagement” OR “Teacher subjective well-being” OR “Teacher occupational well-being” OR “Teacher professional well-being” OR “Teacher resilience” OR “Teacher flourishing” OR “Teacher Self-Efficacy”
This final equation was applied to the TITLE-ABS-KEY fields, identifying 8,186 documents that constituted the study’s bibliographic corpus. Subsequently, records were extracted in BibTeX and RIS formats, enabling their subsequent processing and analysis using Bibliometrix (R package) and VOSviewer.
Step 4: In this final stage, the bibliometric analysis is conducted, and the findings are reported. The bibliometric analysis was performed using the Bibliometrix package in R (RStudio) to assess scientific performance and compute bibliometric indicators. Conversely, VOSviewer was employed to build and visualize scientific networks. Indicators such as annual scientific production, the Life Cycle of Scientific Production, sources, authors, institutional affiliations, countries, sponsors, and thematic structures were examined. The results were analyzed and presented in tables, networks, and bibliometric maps, which helped identify patterns of scientific growth, key conceptual nodes, and emerging research trends on teacher well-being.
3. Structure and dynamics of scientific production on teacher well-being: RESULTS
The earliest document on teacher well-being retrieved from Scopus was Sergiovanni’s (1967) seminal paper, “Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Teachers.” Following this initial publication, scientific output in the field remained sparse, showing minimal growth through the close of the 20th century. However, a significant paradigm shift occurred during the second decade of the 21st century. In 2011, annual publications exceeded 100 documents for the first time, initiating a period of steady acceleration. This upward trajectory intensified by 2020, with annual output reaching approximately 500 publications. Growth has since escalated exponentially, tripling within a five-year window to surpass 1,500 annual documents indexed in Scopus by 2025 (Graphic 1).
Graphic 1
Documents per year
As a complement to the above, the analysis of the Life Cycle of Scientific Production (Graphic 2) shows that, although the annual production of studies on teacher well-being exhibits sustained growth and reaches maximum values in recent years, the logistic model estimates the theoretical peak around 2023.9, with approximately 1,006 publications per year. This apparent discrepancy between the model’s projection and the recent empirical data—which even surpasses it—suggests that the field has not yet fully entered a phase of maturity or saturation. Consistent with the cumulative curve, which projects a saturation level near 9,578 publications, the observed behavior indicates that the area remains in a phase of scientific expansion, driven by new post-pandemic research agendas focused on teachers’ mental health, interdisciplinary approaches, and recent technological developments such as artificial intelligence.
Graphic 2
Life Cycle of Scientific Production
At the Most Relevant Sources level, scientific publications on teacher well-being are primarily published in five journals. Teaching and Teacher Education leads prominently with 287 articles, followed by Frontiers in Psychology with 279. In the second tier are Education Sciences (108), Frontiers in Education (103), and Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice (96). This pattern indicates that the field is mainly connected through journals focused on teacher training and education, as well as journals of educational psychology, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of the study of teacher well-being (Graphic 3).
Graphic 3
Most Relevant Sources
When analyzing the local impact of sources using the H-index, Teaching and Teacher Education (H=71) and Frontiers in Psychology (H=41) remain the most influential journals, aligning with their high productivity in the Most Relevant Sources analysis. However, the comparison also reveals that the number of publications does not always correspond to the level of scientific influence. For instance, journals such as Educational Psychology, Social Psychology of Education, and System have relatively high H-indices despite not being among the sources with the most documents. Conversely, some high-productivity journals—such as Education Sciences—do not rank among the top-impact journals. This suggests that, in the field of teacher well-being, scientific impact depends more on the citation capacity of published articles than on the total number of publications. Furthermore, it reveals the primary journals serving as hubs for scientific dialogue and knowledge exchange within the field (Table 1).
Table 1
Sources Local Impact
|
Sources |
h_index |
g_index |
m_index |
TC |
NP |
PY_start |
|
Teaching and Teacher Education |
71 |
134 |
2.29 |
19489 |
287 |
1996 |
|
Frontiers in Psychology |
41 |
63 |
3.417 |
6237 |
279 |
2015 |
|
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice |
32 |
58 |
1.231 |
3655 |
96 |
2001 |
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |
26 |
42 |
2.167 |
2006 |
74 |
2015 |
|
Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership |
24 |
45 |
0.828 |
2028 |
56 |
1998 |
|
Educational Psychology |
24 |
47 |
1.263 |
2213 |
49 |
2008 |
|
Psychology In The Schools |
20 |
35 |
0.455 |
1328 |
78 |
1983 |
|
Social Psychology Of Education |
20 |
42 |
0.645 |
1794 |
55 |
1996 |
|
Sustainability (Switzerland) |
20 |
29 |
2.5 |
1123 |
78 |
2019 |
|
System |
20 |
36 |
1.111 |
2369 |
36 |
2009 |
Overall, this multidimensional perspective confirms that scientific impact in teacher well-being research is shaped by a combination of productivity -Number of Publications- (NP), accumulated influence, Total Citations (TC), citation consistency (H-index), prominence of highly cited works (g-index), and temporal dynamics (m-index and PY_start), rather than by publication volume alone.
The analysis of highly influential authors focused on studies that explicitly include teacher well-being in their titles, ensuring it is the central research topic. Five works were identified with more than 1,000 citations, highlighting their significant impact and recognition within the scientific literature (Table 2).
Table 2
Most cited studies
|
Title |
Authors |
Journal |
Year |
Citations |
|
Effects on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress |
Klassen, R. M.; Chiu, M. M. |
Journal of Educational Psychology |
2010 |
1,477 |
|
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Its Effects on Classroom Processes, Student Academic Adjustment, and Teacher Well-Being: A Synthesis of 40 Years of Research |
Zee, M.; Koomen, H. M. Y. |
Review of Educational Research |
2016 |
1,248 |
|
Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations |
Skaalvik, E. M.; Skaalvik, S. |
Teaching and Teacher Education |
2010 |
1,084 |
|
Dimensions of Teacher Self-Efficacy and Relations With Strain Factors, Perceived Collective Teacher Efficacy, and Teacher Burnout |
Skaalvik, E. M.; Skaalvik, S. |
Journal of Educational Psychology |
2007 |
1,073 |
|
Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion |
Skaalvik, E. M.; Skaalvik, S. |
Teaching and Teacher Education |
2011 |
1,001 |
The studies shown above examine variables such as teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction, work stress, burnout, professional and emotional exhaustion, collective efficacy, intention to leave, and sense of belonging. This indicates that teacher well-being should be understood from a relational perspective that includes both positive and negative factors. The details of the authors involved in the most cited studies are provided below (Table 3).
Table 3
Relevant authors
|
Author |
Institution |
Country |
Documents |
Citations |
h-index |
|
Robert Mark Klassen |
University of Oxford |
United Kingdom |
117 |
10,965 |
49 |
|
Mingming Chiu |
The Education University of Hong Kong |
Hong Kong |
243 |
8,976 |
45 |
|
Marjolein Zee |
Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences |
Netherlands |
48 |
3,001 |
21 |
|
Helma M. Y. Koomen |
Universiteit van Amsterdam |
Netherlands |
77 |
7,565 |
35 |
|
Einar M. Skaalvik |
NTNU Samfunnsforskning |
Norway |
58 |
10,430 |
37 |
|
Sidsel Skaalvik |
Norwegian University of Science and Technology |
Norway |
28 |
6,528 |
21 |
In the analysis of Most Relevant Affiliations (Graphics 4), a strong institutional concentration is evident among Asian universities and academic centers specializing in education. The Education University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) clearly leads in production with 185 articles, establishing itself as the most influential institution in the field. It is followed by the Faculty of Education in Australia with 124 publications, reflecting the prominence of faculties specialized in teacher training. In third place is the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) with 119 articles, followed by Beijing Normal University with 116 articles, an institution internationally recognized for its research in the education sciences.
Graphics 4
Most relevant affiliations
Regarding the funding sponsor’s document analysis, it reveals that government agencies and public research organizations primarily dominate research funding for teacher well-being. First, the National Science Foundation (United States) leads in funding with 97 documents, followed by the U.S. Department of Education (United States) with 75, and the Institute of Education Sciences (United States) with 74. This clearly indicates a concentration of funding within the U.S. scientific system, as three of the top five funding agencies are based in the United States. Outside this context, the Humanities and Social Science Fund of the Ministry of Education of China (China) stands out with 58 documents, reflecting the growing momentum of educational research driven by Chinese science policies. Finally, the European Commission (European Union) appears with 48 funded documents, representing the main institutional support from Europe. Overall, these results demonstrate that scientific production on teacher well-being is mainly supported by public funding programs led by the United States, with an emerging presence of China and research organizations from the European Union (Graphic 5).
Graphic 5
Documents by funding sponsor
In relation to countries’ scientific production, the United States leads in scientific output, consistent with previous findings on funding agencies, with three of the five main sponsors also based in this country (National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Education, and Institute of Education Sciences). The following countries are China, Australia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These findings confirm that the United States’ scientific leadership in research on teacher well-being is closely tied to its strong capacity for funding and institutional development of research (Graphic 6).
Graphic 6
Countries’ scientific production
This pattern is also consistent with the analysis of Most Cited Countries, where the United States overwhelmingly leads in scientific impact, with 30,814 citations, far surpassing other countries. Australia, China, the United Kingdom, and Germany follow at a considerable distance, forming the second group of countries with the greatest influence in terms of citations. These results reinforce that scientific leadership in research on teacher well-being is primarily concentrated in countries with established scientific research systems and strong scientific funding (Graphic 7).
Graphic 7
Most cited countries
•Conceptual structure
To deepen understanding of the field’s conceptual structure, a thematic analysis was performed by creating specific networks centered on the most influential clusters identified in the global network: teacher well-being, teacher self-efficacy, self-report, and positive psychology. This approach allowed for a more detailed analysis, as the overall network shows high density and term overlap, which makes it hard to pinpoint the main conceptual dynamics precisely. Using these thematic networks, the key constructs, their relationships, and research methods that shape studies on teacher well-being were examined, helping to move toward identifying a nomological network for the construct.
Teacher well-being is connected to the organizational psychology of teaching, in which concepts such as job satisfaction, burnout, working conditions, and the job demands–resources model, play a pivotal role. This connection indicates that teacher well-being is often examined through the lens of the balance between job demands and professional resources. A second focus area includes self-efficacy and positive psychology, with terms such as psychological capital and teacher self-efficacy.
This pattern shows that positive psychological resources, particularly teacher self-efficacy, are crucial in understanding professional well-being. Additionally, terms like teacher resilience, psychological resilience, emotion regulation, and emotional resilience highlight the growing interest in socio-emotional resources that help teachers manage the stressors of their work. Lastly, the network connects to educational leadership and professional development, as represented by terms such as distributed leadership, teacher leadership, and professional development, suggesting that organizational conditions and school leadership also impact teacher well-being (Graphic 8).
Graphic 8
Cluster teacher well-being
Teacher self-efficacy emerges as one of the most influential factors in its connection to teacher well-being; in fact, within the conceptual network, it plays a central role — and even greater significance in some links — compared to the very description of teacher well-being. This finding aligns with the most-cited research in the field, in which several of the most impactful studies examine the relationships among teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and burnout. Within this core idea, other relevant concepts are also linked, such as self-concept, collective efficacy, classroom climate, leadership, student-teacher relationships, social-cognitive theory, inclusive education, distributed leadership, and teacher collaboration, showing that self-efficacy acts as a key psychological resource connecting personal, relational, and organizational aspects of teacher well-being (Graphic 9).
Graphic 9
Teacher self-efficacy cluster
An interesting finding from the thematic analysis was the emergence of a self-report cluster (Graphic 10). This cluster reveals that most studies on teacher well-being rely on questionnaires and surveys, usually using cross-sectional designs. Reliance on self-report can lead to response biases (such as social desirability or acquiescence), underscoring the need to include multimethod approaches, such as longitudinal designs and objective measures like neurophysiological biomarkers, to achieve a more comprehensive assessment of teacher well-being.
Graphic 10
Self-report Cluster
Meanwhile, positive psychology arises as the central theoretical focus in research on teacher well-being (Graphic 11). Surrounding it are several aspects, such as the PERMA model (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment) and another group focused on resilience, mental health, and positive education, which highlights resilience as a protective resource against professional demands. A third cluster links teacher well-being, professional development, and burnout, showing that well-being is studied both from the perspective of strengthening resources and preventing professional burnout. Additionally, work engagement and teaching enjoyment are included, reflecting interest in commitment and enjoyment in teaching.
Graphic 11
Positive Psychology Cluster
•Nomological network on teacher well-being
Based on the previous analysis, the nomological network of teacher well-being is uncovered, enabling an understanding of this construct as a system of relationships among antecedents, associated variables, mediators, moderators, indicators, and consequences, rather than reducing it to a single emotional or work-related dimension. From this perspective, teacher well-being is a multidimensional state of healthy professional functioning, sustained by a balance among personal, relational, and organizational resources in response to the demands and tensions inherent in the teaching profession.
The nomological network of teacher well-being illustrates that this construct develops through the dynamic interaction of personal resources—such as self-efficacy, resilience, autonomy, and emotional regulation—relational factors—such as the quality of the teacher-student relationship, collaboration among colleagues, and a sense of belonging—and organizational conditions—such as school leadership, a supportive institutional culture, and professional development opportunities. In turn, teacher well-being is positively associated with job satisfaction, engagement, mental health, instructional quality, and retention in the profession, and negatively associated with work stress, emotional exhaustion, burnout, and intention to leave (chart 1).
Chart 1
Nomological network of teacher well-being
|
Component |
Variables |
|
Central construct |
Teacher well-being, occupational well-being, psychological well-being, mental health, and well-being |
|
Personal background |
Self-efficacy, resilience, autonomy, emotional regulation, self-compassion, teacher resilience, professional identity, personal identity, self-regulation, mindfulness, positive affect, life satisfaction, physical health, beliefs, values, altruistic motives |
|
Relational background |
Teacher-student relationships, teacher collaboration, social support, sense of belonging, school administration support, trust, respect, value, social capital, relationships with principals, colleagues, staff, students, and families |
|
Organizational background |
School leadership, teacher empowerment, school climate, professional development, supportive culture, transformational leadership, transactional leadership, participative decision-making, instructional leadership, distributed leadership, supportive school culture, school working conditions, school goal structure, professional growth, teacher status, financial stability |
|
Demands/risks |
Work stress, overload, time pressure, behavioral problems, burnout, emotional exhaustion, student misbehavior, classroom disturbances, presenteeism, attrition risk, work-life conflict, reform/accountability pressures |
|
Positive correlates |
Job satisfaction, engagement, mental health, quality of life, collective efficacy, organizational commitment, professional commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, work enthusiasm, teacher effectiveness, instructional quality, supportive classroom climate, cognitive activation, individual learning support |
|
Mediators |
Job satisfaction, school culture, teacher collaboration, emotional regulation, supportive school culture, perceptions of school constituencies, collective efficacy, teacher-student relationship, presenteeism, instructional quality |
|
Moderators |
Gender, experience, educational level, cultural context, type of institution, cross-cultural context, measurement invariance, self-efficacy level, career stage |
|
Consequences |
Teacher retention, instructional quality, better school climate, student well-being, student mental health, psychological distress, student motivation, technology use intention, technology integration, long-term retention |
This nomological network also suggests that evaluating teacher well-being should not rely solely on self-reports. Instead, it should use multimethod and multilevel approaches that include questionnaires, organizational indicators, classroom observations, relational assessments, longitudinal measurements, and possibly psychophysiological biomarkers. Similarly, the most effective interventions would combine positive psychology, organizational psychology, and occupational health, aiming to improve individual resources like resilience and self-efficacy, as well as strengthen institutional factors such as leadership, collaboration, and school climate.
In accordance with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA & NCME, 2014), the proposed nomological network provides the theoretical foundation necessary to cultivate diverse sources of validity evidence—specifically those based on test content, internal structure, and, crucially, relations to other variables. By systematically mapping teacher well-being across its structural dimensions (antecedents, positive correlates, occupational demands, mediators, moderators, and systemic consequences), this network reinforces the construct’s conceptual and empirical coherence. Ultimately, this framework serves as an integrative matrix that underpins content, criterion (both concurrent and predictive), convergent, and discriminant validity evidence, establishing a rigorous benchmark for the psychometric development and validation of future assessment tools.
•Teacher Well-Being: Determinants and Gaps
Teacher well-being is understood as a multidimensional concept encompassing emotional, cognitive, motivational, relational, and occupational aspects of professional practice. This view goes beyond simplistic approaches that focus solely on the absence of stress or job satisfaction and suggests that well-being results from the interplay among positive emotions, a sense of efficacy, professional commitment, satisfying interpersonal relationships, and positive organizational conditions (Hascher & Waber, 2021; Hall-Kenyon et al., 2014). In this framework, teacher self-efficacy is one of the most important psychological resources (Klassen et al., 2009; 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2017), since teachers’ beliefs about their ability to teach, manage classrooms, and handle challenges positively relate to job satisfaction and negatively relate to stress and burnout (Caprara et al., 2003, 2006; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, 2010; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Zee & Koomen, 2016). Additionally, evidence shows a dynamic link between self-efficacy and teaching practices, where high-quality teaching experiences improve perceptions of professional competence (Holzberger et al., 2013).
Another important aspect of teacher well-being involves balancing work demands with available professional resources, especially regarding occupational stress, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Research has shown that factors such as classroom demands, organizational challenges, and work pressure can negatively impact well-being and increase the risk of burnout (Klusmann et al., 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011, 2017). However, personal resources like self-efficacy and perceived autonomy can serve as protective factors against work-related stress and help improve engagement and job satisfaction (Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014). In this context, job satisfaction is recognized as a key indicator of teacher well-being and is closely linked to organizational factors such as school leadership, school climate, teacher collaboration, and opportunities for professional growth (Bogler, 2001; Toropova et al., 2021).
Connections with students, colleagues, and administrators strongly influence teachers’ professional experiences, with the strength of the teacher–student relationship being one of the most consistent indicators of well-being (Spilt et al., 2011; Aldrup et al., 2018). Moreover, factors such as mindfulness, self-compassion, and institutional support can improve classroom climate and encourage more positive teaching attitudes (Jennings, 2015). At the organizational level, transformational leadership, a collaborative culture, and teacher empowerment are associated with increased engagement, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction (Nguni et al., 2006; Bogler & Somech, 2004; Liu et al., 2021). Furthermore, teacher resilience is viewed as a dynamic process that enables teachers to maintain professional commitment despite adversity and is shaped by the interaction of personal, relational, and contextual factors (Gu & Day, 2007, 2013; Beltman et al., 2011; Mansfield et al., 2012; Hong, 2012).
There are also aspects related to technology (Joo et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2004), especially the use of artificial intelligence in education, where recent studies explore its link with technostress, educational anxiety, mental health, and inclusive leadership (Almaki et al., 2025; Kohnke et al., 2024; Zhang & Cao, 2025). Overall, these findings show that teacher well-being influences not only retention and professional performance but also the quality of learning and student well-being (Klusmann et al., 2008; Jennings, 2015; Harding et al., 2019; Roffey, 2012). Therefore, when evaluating teacher well-being, it is useful to consider integrating artificial intelligence into emotion recognition in learning environments (Rojas et al., 2024).
The proposed nomological network reveals a key gap: the lack of a neuroscientific perspective on teacher well-being. Despite reliance on highly cited studies, neurocognitive and psychobiological dimensions remain largely unexplored. Emerging evidence (Jõgi et al., 2023) links physiological stress biomarkers to classroom affect, indicating that well-being is not solely psychological but also biologically grounded. However, these approaches remain underdeveloped, underscoring the need to integrate neurocognitive measures into future research.
•Emerging Trends in Teacher Well-Being
Recent evidence (2025–2026) reveals a significant reconfiguration of teacher well-being as a complex, dynamic, and multilevel construct. Overall, these trends point toward a more integrative, context-sensitive, and forward-looking research agenda (Chart 2).
Chart 2
Emerging Trends in Teacher Well-Being
|
No. |
Emerging Trends |
Estudios asociados |
|
1 |
Predicting Teacher Well-Being |
(Amirian et al., 2025; Anglim et al., 2025; Zhang & Derakhshan, 2025). |
|
2 |
Psychosocial and Organizational Factors: Job Demands, Burnout, Mental Health, Leadership, Institutional Support, and Organizational Climate |
(Amirian et al., 2025; Chen & Yin, 2025; Christopoulou et al., 2026; Liu et al., 2025; Lousada et al., 2026; Lu et al., 2025; Ortiz et al., 2026; Resnik et al., 2026; Soomro et al., 2026; Tu et al., 2025; Unger & Dreer-Göthe, 2026) |
|
3 |
Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Technostress, Digital Anxiety, Digital Transformation, Educational Change, Crisis, and Remote/Hybrid Teaching |
(Almaki et al., 2025; Christopoulou et al., 2026; Durrani & Makhmetova, 2025; Lahdenperä & Postareff, 2026; Lousada et al., 2026; Soomro et al., 2026; Tu et al., 2025; Vassaux et al., 2026; Zhang & Cao, 2025) |
|
4 |
Teacher Training and Interventions for Teacher Well-Being |
(Almaguer-Botero et al., 2025; Alsayed et al., 2026; Avola et al., 2025; Griffiths et al., 2026; Homann et al., 2025; Piedade et al., 2026) |
|
5 |
Personal Resources and Individual Factors, Including Personality |
(Anglim et al., 2025; Chen & Chen, 2026; Homann et al., 2025) |
|
6 |
Ergonomics, Physical Environment, Working Conditions, and Ecological Context |
(Durrani & Makhmetova, 2025; Lahdenperä & Postareff, 2026; Lousada et al., 2026; Vermeulen Steyaert, 2026) |
|
7 |
Equity, Race, and Inclusion |
(Almaki et al., 2025; Griffiths et al., 2025, 2026) |
|
8 |
Measurement, Conceptualization, and Theoretical Models of Teacher Well-Being |
(Alvear et al., 2026; Alsayed et al., 2026; Gámez-Genovart et al., 2025) |
|
9 |
Performance, Innovation, and Effects on Students |
(Chen & Chen, 2026; Liu et al., 2026; Lu et al., 2025; Piedade et al., 2026; Stark & Daulat, 2025) |
|
10 |
Teacher Retention, Job Satisfaction, and Professional Persistence |
(Almaguer-Botero et al., 2025; Aslam et al., 2026; Resnik et al., 2026; Stark & Daulat, 2025). |
These trends indicate that the recent literature on teacher well-being adopts a predominantly psychological and organizational approach. Notably, several studies implicitly incorporate neurophysiological dimensions, such as cognitive load, emotional regulation, physical fatigue, and environmental conditions (Lousada et al., 2026; Durrani & Makhmetova, 2025; Vermeulen Steyaert, 2026). Likewise, research on anxiety, depression, and stress (Christopoulou et al., 2026; Ortiz et al., 2026; Zhang & Cao, 2025) addresses phenomena with a neurobiological basis, though it does not explicitly develop them within this framework. Consequently, a trend emerges toward understanding well-being from a multidimensional perspective with implicit biopsychological foundations, yet with limited explicit integration of neuroscientific approaches, revealing a significant theoretical gap and an opportunity to advance toward more comprehensive models of teacher well-being.
In this sense, the neuroscience of stress provides a clear foundation for this need. The brain acts as the central regulator of stress, shaping both behavioral and physiological responses through adaptive processes (allostasis) and, when dysregulated, contributing to wear (allostatic load). Moreover, stress can disrupt neural circuits underlying cognition, decision-making, anxiety, and mood. These mechanisms are directly related to key variables among teachers, such as emotional regulation, pedagogical decision-making, and burnout (McEwen, 2017).
5. Conclusions
Teacher well-being should no longer be understood as a fragmented set of psychological indicators but as a complex, multilevel, and dynamic system shaped by the continuous interaction of personal, relational, organizational, and increasingly technological factors. The evidence synthesized in this study supports a shift from reductionist, predominantly descriptive approaches to a systemic, integrative understanding, in which well-being emerges as both a condition and a driver of educational quality, professional sustainability, and student development. In this sense, teacher well-being can be conceptualized as a regulatory process of adaptation to professional demands, rather than a static outcome.
A critical contribution of this study lies in identifying a persistent epistemological limitation: the overreliance on self-report and cross-sectional designs. While these approaches have enabled the rapid expansion of the field, they also constrain the depth and validity of current knowledge. The findings suggest that advancing the field requires a decisive transition toward multimethod and longitudinal frameworks that can capture the temporal, contextual, and intra-individual variability of well-being. In particular, the limited incorporation of neurophysiological and neurocognitive indicators represents a significant gap. Given that stress, emotional regulation, cognitive load, and fatigue are inherently neurobiological processes, future research should integrate biomarkers (e.g., physiological stress responses, neural indicators) to develop a more robust and empirically grounded understanding of teacher well-being.
Recent trends indicate that teacher well-being is being redefined amid digital transformation and increasing professional complexity. The emergence of phenomena such as technostress, AI-related anxiety, hybrid teaching demands, and changing organizational structures suggests that well-being is no longer solely determined by traditional psychosocial variables. Instead, it is shaped by the interaction between technological environments, institutional conditions, and individual adaptive capacities. This reinforces the need for theoretical models that are flexible, context-sensitive, and capable of integrating multiple levels of analysis, including ecological and biopsychological perspectives.
At the same time, the field is evolving toward a more personalized and predictive approach that recognizes heterogeneity in teachers’ experiences. The identification of differentiated profiles of well-being, burnout, and emotional regulation suggests that universal interventions may be insufficient. Future research should prioritize precision-oriented models, capable of tailoring interventions to individual, contextual, and career-stage characteristics. This shift aligns with broader developments in psychological and educational sciences toward data-informed and adaptive intervention systems.
Despite its contributions, this study is subject to limitations that must be acknowledged. The exclusive use of the Scopus database may restrict the representativeness of the analyzed corpus, potentially underrepresenting regional or non-indexed research traditions. In addition, while powerful for mapping scientific structures, bibliometric methods do not capture the depth, quality, or theoretical nuances of individual studies. These limitations highlight the need to complement bibliometric analyses with systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and qualitative syntheses to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the field.
From a practical standpoint, the findings underscore that promoting teacher well-being requires integrated, multilevel interventions. At the individual level, strengthening resources such as self-efficacy, emotional regulation, and resilience remains essential. At the relational level, fostering supportive professional communities and positive teacher–student relationships are critical. At the organizational level, leadership, school climate, and working conditions emerge as decisive factors. Importantly, these interventions should increasingly incorporate technological tools, including artificial intelligence for real-time monitoring and support of emotional states, while ensuring ethical and contextual appropriateness.
In conclusion, advancing the study of teacher well-being demands a paradigm shift: from static to dynamic models, from subjective to multimethod assessment, from generalized to personalized interventions, and from psychologically centered frameworks to integrated biopsychosocial and neuro-informed approaches. Addressing these challenges will not only strengthen the field’s scientific foundation but also enhance its capacity to inform policies and practices that sustain teachers and improve educational systems globally.
References
Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Student misbehavior and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher–student relationship. Learning and Instruction, 58, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.006
Almaguer-Botero, A. P., Miller, E. L., Chen, R. K., & Carlson, R. (2025). Effects of a mindfulness intervention to improve teachers’ well-being. Trends in Psychology, 33(3), 1209–1224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-023-00318-3
Almaki, S. H., Mafarja, N., & Al Mansoori, H. M. S. (2025). Teacher well-being and use of artificial intelligence applications and tools: Moderation effects of leadership support in an inclusive classroom. STEM Education, 5(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025006
Alsayed, A., Wigelsworth, M., & Murtagh, L. (2026). A novel categorization of teacher well-being interventions: Systematic framework mapping. Teaching and Teacher Education, 176, Artículo 105494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105494
Alvear, E., Rosas-Maldonado, M., Martínez-Líbano, J., & Sánchez, B. (2026). Psychometric properties of the Teacher Well-being Scale (TWBS) in the Chilean context. Límite (Chile), 21. https://doi.org/10.64966/rl.1627
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Amirian, S. M. R., Rezaee, F., & Boroumand, M. (2025). Predicting teacher well-being through teacher leadership and collective teacher efficacy. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 49, 269–286. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2025.49.14
Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2025). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Aslam, A., Kamran, M., & Siddiqui, S. (2026). Job crafting and teachers’ well-being: A case of private school teachers. BMC Public Health, 26(1), Artículo 25945. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-25945-6
Avola, P., Soini-Ikonen, T., Jyrkiäinen, A., & Pentikäinen, V. (2025). Interventions to teacher well-being and burnout: A scoping review. Educational Psychology Review, 37(1), Artículo 9986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09986-2
Beltman, S., Mansfield, C. F., & Price, A. (2011). Thriving not just surviving: A review of research on teacher resilience. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.001
Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969460
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001
Chen, C., & Yin, H. (2025). Investigating the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher well-being: A moderated mediation analysis of PISA 2022. International Journal of Educational Research, 133, Artículo 102699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102699
Chen, K., & Chen, X. (2026). Latent profiles of teacher well-being: Linking emotional labor strategies to classroom climate across a national sample in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 176, Artículo 105544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105544
Christopoulou, S., Antonopoulou, H., Zapantis, R., Gkintoni, E., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2026). Teacher well-being and burnout resilience: Dimensional independence, pandemic burden, and profile analysis in primary education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 23(2), Artículo 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23020190
Deroncele-Acosta, A., Gil-Monte, P. R., Norabuena-Figueroa, R. P., & Gil-LaOrden, P. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Spanish Burnout Inventory in university teachers in hybrid education. Chronic Stress, 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/24705470231214950
Deroncele-Acosta, A., Rojas-Vistorte, A. O., Sartor-Harada, A., Ulloa-Guerra, O., López-Mustelier, R., & Cruzata-Martínez, A. (2024). Positive mental health of Latin American university professors: A scientific framework for intervention and improvement. Heliyon, 10(2), Artículo e24813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24813
Deroncele-Acosta, A., Norabuena-Figueroa, R. P., López Mustelier, R., Román-Cao, E., & Sotomayor-Soloaga, P. (2025). Employee Well-Being Scale for Teachers in Latin America (EWBTS-LATAM). SAGE Open, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251379089
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Durrani, N., & Makhmetova, Z. (2025). A multi-layered socio-ecological framework for investigating teacher well-being: Key predictors and protective factors. Sustainability, 17(3), Artículo 900. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17030900
Gámez-Genovart, M., Oliver-Trobat, M. F., & Rosselló-Ramon, M. R. (2025). Research on teacher well-being: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 168, Artículo 105264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105264
Griffiths, C. M., Brady, S. T., & Pearman, F. A. (2025). Considering race in teacher well-being. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 47(4), 1349–1356. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737241271410
Griffiths, C. M., Pearman, F. A., O’Sullivan, K. E., Knight-Williams, L., Pagnani, M., Martin, S. E., & Brady, S. T. (2026). Attending to race in teacher well-being interventions: A systematic review and recommendations. Review of Educational Research, 96(1), 53–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241289568
Gu, Q., & Day, C. (2007). Teachers’ resilience: A necessary condition for effectiveness. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(8), 1302–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.006
Gu, Q., & Day, C. (2013). Challenges to teacher resilience: Conditions count. British Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.623152
Hall-Kenyon, K. M., Bullough, R. V., Jr., MacKay, K. L., & Marshall, E. E. (2014). Preschool teacher well-being: A review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(3), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0595-4
Harding, S., Morris, R., Gunnell, D., Ford, T., Hollingworth, W., Tilling, K., Evans, R., Bell, S., Grey, J., Brockman, R., Campbell, R., Araya, R., Murphy, S., & Kidger, J. (2019). Is teachers’ mental health and wellbeing associated with students’ mental health and wellbeing? Journal of Affective Disorders, 242, 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.08.080
Hascher, T., & Waber, J. (2021). Teacher well-being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, Artículo 100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411
Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032198
Homann, H.-S., Beckmann, T., & Ehmke, T. (2025). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ well-being during long-term internships: The roles of self-efficacy, mentoring, and task-related sense of coherence. International Journal of Education and Practice, 13(2), 566–586. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v13i2.4080
Hong, J. Y. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay? Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.696044
Jennings, P. A. (2015). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion in relation to classroom quality and attitudes towards challenging students. Mindfulness, 6(4), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0312-4
Jõgi, A.-L., Aulén, A.-M., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2023). Teachers’ daily physiological stress and positive affect in relation to their general occupational well-being. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12561
Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., & Georgiou, T. (2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.08.001
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.702
Kohnke, L., Zou, D., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2024). Technostress and English language teaching in the age of generative AI. Educational Technology & Society, 27(2), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202404_27(2).TP02
Lahdenperä, J., & Postareff, L. (2026). Teacher well-being in change: A quantitative analysis of schoolteachers’ approaches to teaching and their teaching-related well-being. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 70(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2025.2468182
Liu, Y., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2021). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438
Liu, P., Thien, L. M., Song, H., & Wang, X. (2025). The effects of instructional leadership on teacher well-being: The mediating roles of professional learning community and teacher self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 51(4), 638–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2024.2322947
Liu, Y., Li, M., Chen, H., & Zhang, X. (2026). Multilevel analysis of teachers’ well-being and personal accomplishment and students’ outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 172, Artículo 105386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2026.105386
Lousada, S., Jankauskienė, D., Virbalienė, A., & Šiurienė, A. (2026). Multidimensional aspects of teachers’ well-being imbalance during remote teaching. Education Sciences, 16(2), Artículo 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020266
Lu, C., Xu, Z., & Tian, Q. (2025). Teachers’ well-being and innovative work behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 15(10), Artículo 1419. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15101419
Mansfield, C. F., Beltman, S., Price, A., & McConney, A. (2012). “Don’t sweat the small stuff”: Understanding teacher resilience at the chalkface. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.001
McEwen, B. S. (2017). Neurobiological and systemic effects of chronic stress. Chronic Stress, 1, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547017692328
Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565746
Ochoa, R. L., & Peña, J. I. (2012). Teoría de la difusión de innovaciones: Evolución y uso en los sistemas de información [Ponencia]. Repositorio Institucional UNAL. https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/56292
Ortiz, G. A. C., Cerquera, J. E. H., & Sandoval, J. Á. C. (2026). Teacher well-being and burnout: Anxiety, depression, and stress in the school context. Sportis, 12(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17979/sportis.2026.12.2.12553
Piedade, F., Ferreira, T., Lemos, A., Guedes, C., Alves, D., Grande, C., Leal, T., Vatou, A., & Cadima, J. (2026). Integrating the PERMA model and SWPBS approach. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 74, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2025.09.008
Resnik, P., Moskowitz, S., Dewaele, J.-M., & Botes, E. (2026). A rising tide lifts all boats. Modern Language Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.70049
Roffey, S. (2012). Pupil wellbeing – Teacher wellbeing: Two sides of the same coin? Educational and Child Psychology, 29(4), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2012.29.4.8
Rojas Vistorte, A. O., Deroncele-Acosta, A., Martín Ayala, J. L., Barrasa, A., López-Granero, C., & Martí-González, M. (2024). Integrating artificial intelligence to assess emotions in learning environments: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Artículo 1387089. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1387089
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology, 57(Suppl. 1), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1967). Factors which affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 5(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009610
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Motivated for teaching? Associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.006
Soomro, S., Fan, M., Sohu, J. M., Soomro, S., & Shaikh, S. N. (2026). AI adoption: A bridge or a barrier? Kybernetes, 55(2), 1059–1085. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-07-2024-1889
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher–student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y
Stark, K., & Daulat, N. (2025). Teacher well-being and teacher retention. Social Psychology of Education, 28(1), Artículo 10109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-025-10109-6
Toropova, A., Myrberg, E., & Johansson, S. (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
Tu, L., Rao, Z., Jiang, H., & Dai, L. (2025). Technostress, burnout, and job satisfaction. Behavioral Sciences, 15(7), Artículo 992. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15070992
Unger, K., & Dreer-Göthe, B. (2026). Teacher well-being and child protection in schools. International Journal on Child Maltreatment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-025-00244-0
Vassaux, C., Molinari, G., & Felder, J. (2026). Understanding teacher well-being in the context of teaching with digital technologies. Acta Psychologica, 265, Artículo 106656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106656
Vermeulen Steyaert, S. (2026). School buildings and teachers’ well-being. International Journal of Educational Research, 137, Artículo 102925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102925
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
Zhang, F., & Derakhshan, A. (2025). On the role of academic buoyancy and interpersonal emotion regulation in predicting Chinese EFL teachers’ psychological well-being. International Journal of Educational Research, 133, Artículo 102722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102722
Zhang, H., & Cao, J. (2025). From digital disruption to mental health: The impact of AI-induced educational anxiety on teacher well-being in the era of smart education. BMC Public Health, 25(1), Artículo 4010. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-25372-7