Next Article in Journal
The Importance of Post-Mortem Investigations in Stillbirths: Case Studies and a Review of the Literature
Next Article in Special Issue
Vocal Behavior of Teachers Reading with Raised Voice in a Noisy Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Validation of Vectra 3D Imaging Systems: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Publications of the Bucharest University of Economic Studies in Time of Pandemics: Implications for Teachers’ Professional Publishing Activity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph19148821
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Teacher Trainees’ Well-Being—The Role of Personal Resources

by
Elena Hohensee
1,* and
Kira Elena Weber
2
1
Zukunftszentrum Lehrkräftebildung: ZZL-Netzwerk, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
2
Department of Educational Research and Educational Psychology, IPN—Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Olshausenstraße 62, 24118 Kiel, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(14), 8821; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148821
Submission received: 1 June 2022 / Revised: 12 July 2022 / Accepted: 18 July 2022 / Published: 20 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Teachers' Well-Being at Work and Quality of Life)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Teacher well-being is intrinsically associated with their personal resources, including health literacy and occupational self-regulation. However, there are few empirical findings on teacher trainees’ health literacy. Furthermore, occupational self-regulation has so far only been associated with indicators of occupational well-being. From a public health perspective, research on teacher trainees’ general well-being will benefit from taking both research aspects into account. In this study, we analysed data from 407 teacher trainees in Germany. Latent profile analysis confirmed the four occupational self-regulatory types (healthy-ambitious, unambitious, excessively ambitious, and resigned), which differed significantly on the health literacy dimensions self-regulation, self-control, self-perception, proactive approach to health, communication and cooperation, and dealing with health information. The health literacy dimensions of self-regulation and self-control were mainly related to occupational self-regulation. Independently of each other, the self-regulatory types and the health literacy dimensions of self-regulation, self-control, and proactive approach to health predicted teacher trainees’ general well-being. If both constructs are considered together, the health literacy dimensions explain more variance in teacher trainees’ general well-being than the self-regulatory types. Research and practical implications are discussed.

1. Introduction

The teaching profession is associated with various work-related stressors (e.g., heavy workloads, time pressures, and a variety of social interactions almost every day) and is considered one of the most stressful occupations [1,2,3,4]. This is especially true for teacher trainees, who are confronted day after day with their unique challenges (e.g., Kiel and Weiß [5]). During the last decades, the well-being of teachers has gained increasing attention [6,7]. In their recent review, Hascher and Waber [6] underlined the fact that high teacher well-being is positively associated with positive emotions and satisfaction and negatively associated with emotional exhaustion and burn-out. In accordance with the salutogenic approach, well-being is not just the opposite of stress but a multidimensional construct, and can be distinguished into general well-being, defined as ‘open, engaged, and healthy functioning’ [8] (p. 47), or occupational well-being, which refers to healthy functioning in the work environment [9]. Regarding the relationship between these two categories of well-being, teachers who report high general well-being also tend to report high occupational well-being [10,11]. Accordingly, we advocate a public health approach that explores teachers’ general well-being across multiple areas of life (including work and working conditions); thus, we focus on teachers’ general well-being in our study.
To maintain and foster general well-being, the personal resources of teachers are of high importance (e.g., [12,13]). One personal resource used to meet occupational demands is occupational self-regulation [14], which can be described as the responsible use of one’s own resources [15]. Occupational self-regulation has been widely researched in the context of teachers’ occupational well-being [16], as it influences job satisfaction and the maintenance of professional productivity and effectiveness [17]. It is also seen as an aspect of teachers’ occupational health literacy [18] (p. 21).
A newer construct in the context of teachers’ well-being is health literacy. Health literacy can be understood as a personal health-related resource that is primarily determined by perceptive-motivational dimensions (self-perception and a proactive approach to health) and behavioural dimensions (dealing with health information, self-control, self-regulation, and communication and cooperation) and can make a vital contribution to the maintenance of teachers’ well-being [19,20].
Overall, both resources seem to be important for teachers’ well-being, but to our knowledge, there is an absence of studies which simultaneously investigated both resources. We argue that these two personal resources should not be considered separately, and that research in the context of teacher trainees’ health literacy and well-being will profit from taking both aspects into account. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated not only how these two personal resources are developed among teacher trainees but also how these resources are related to each other. Further, the association with teacher trainees’ general well-being and the relative importance of health literacy and occupational self-regulation in predicting well-being are emphasised. To this end, we reveal a more comprehensive picture of how a work-related personal resource (occupational self-regulation) and a health-related personal resource (health literacy) predict teacher trainees’ well-being from a public health perspective.

2. Teachers’ Well-Being

Promoting and maintaining teachers’ well-being is an important prerequisite for teaching quality and student achievement [16,21]. Teachers who suffer from impaired health report reduced job satisfaction and are therefore more likely to leave the teaching profession [22], whereas high teacher well-being is positively associated with resilience, motivation, and commitment (e.g., [23,24]). Teachers’ well-being has mostly been examined through a focus on negative dimensions of well-being, such as stress and burnout [25]. However, during the last decade, the focus of research has shifted towards a more positive and resource-orientated perspective. This shift is important to avoid a deficit view [26] and to examine personal resources [27]. In this study, we focus on two personal resources and their importance for teachers’ general well-being: health literacy and occupational self-regulation.

2.1. Teachers’ Well-Being and the Importance of Health Literacy

One multifaceted construct associated with well-being is health literacy, which can be seen as a personal resource for teachers’ well-being. Health literacy is considered a determinant of health [28] and is integrated into various World Health Organization initiatives, such as the Shanghai Declaration [29], the Roadmap for the Promotion of Health Literacy over the Life Course [30], and the Manifesto on Health Literacy [28]. Limited health literacy is associated with lower physical and psychological well-being [31] and lower self-reported health status [32].
Several studies have investigated the health literacy of (prospective) teachers. For example, pre-service teachers in Tehran rated their health literacy as inadequate to problematic [33]. Another cross-sectional study among secondary school teachers from Sri Lanka identified limited health literacy among 32.5% of the study sample (n = 520) [34]. Empirical research on primary and secondary school teachers in Germany has indicated that more than half of them have limited health literacy [35]. In the area of health promotion, teachers find it particularly difficult to deal with mental health issues and have great difficulty finding information to improve their mental well-being [35]. Previous results have tended to indicate a low level of health literacy among prospective teachers [33,34,35], but research in this field is still limited and inconsistent.
Lenartz ([20] (p. 138), German version) and Soellner et al. ([36] (p. 251), English version) developed a structural model of health literacy from a health promotion perspective, which provides the theoretical and analytical framework in this study. Health literacy in this model is understood as a kind of personal health-related resource and encompasses the totality of skills and abilities that a person must have to act in everyday life and deal with the health system in a way that has a positive impact on their health and well-being [37]. In addition to health-related knowledge and basic health-related skills, the core of the model consists of perceptive-motivational dimensions (self-perception and proactive approach to health) and behavioural dimensions (dealing with health information, self-control, self-regulation, and communication and cooperation) (for a figure of the structural model of health literacy, see [20,36]).
In this study, we focus only on these core dimensions of health literacy. Recent findings in the context of teacher education indicate that student teachers rate their health literacy predominantly better than teacher trainees [38]. Student teachers rated themselves significantly better in all dimensions, except communication and cooperation. For both groups, the highest means were found in the dimension dealing with health information and the lowest in self-regulation [38].
Lenartz [20] identified that up to 42% of the variance in mental health could be explained by the dimensions of self-perception, proactive approach to health, self-regulation, and self-control in particular. Furthermore, 40% of the variance in the prevalence of health complaints could also be explained by these dimensions [39]. Other studies have emphasised that both self-regulation and higher means of self-perception were significantly associated with managers’ general well-being, the former directly and the latter indirectly [40]. Overall, the components of health literacy contained in Lenartz’s structural model describe the central prerequisites for health-promoting behaviour and one’s own health. However, research in the field of teacher education is still rare, and it remains unclear how the work-related personal resource occupational self-regulation is associated with the health literacy of teacher trainees.

2.2. Teachers’ Well-Being and the Importance of Occupational Self-Regulation

In the prominent model of teachers’ professional competence, in addition to professional knowledge and beliefs, motivation and occupational self-regulation are seen as important prerequisites for successfully coping with professional demands [41]. Occupational self-regulation is described as the responsible use of one‘s own resources [15]. It represents a resource for teachers’ occupational well-being [16] and is central to job satisfaction and the maintenance of professional productivity and effectiveness [17]. Klusmann et al. [16] understood adaptive self-regulation as a combination of high occupational engagement and high occupational resilience [42], which is also adopted in the present article. Occupational engagement is understood as a basic willingness to invest resources (i.e., energy and effort) in one’s profession. Occupational resilience is described as the ability to distance oneself from occupational concerns and to cope successfully with failure, that is, to protect resources ([14,43]). ‘It includes emotional distancing, a low tendency to give up after failure, active coping, and mental stability’ [16] (p. 704). The intra-individual interaction of the two factors can be operationalised by the multidimensional personality diagnostic procedure described by Schaarschmidt and Fischer [43,44], which identifies work-related behaviour patterns (AVEM). The procedure records health-promoting or health-threatening behaviours in coping with occupational demands and integrates these dimensions into four self-regulatory patterns (the healthy-ambitious, unambitious, ambitious, and resigned types). The healthy-ambitious type (H) is characterised by a high level of occupational engagement and pronounced resistance to stress and is the most adaptive self-regulatory pattern. The unambitious type (U) is characterised by low occupational engagement but high resilience, whereas the excessively ambitious type (A) scores high on engagement and low on resilience. A low level of engagement with work and a low level of occupational resilience describe the resigned type (R) [45]. The last two types are thought to be at high risk for burnout and stress [16,43].
Previous empirical findings have confirmed these four types [16,17,46,47]. A first study by Klusmann et al. [16] identified that 54.6% of the participating teachers tended to classify themselves as a health-promoting pattern (healthy-ambitious and unambitious types). Recent research on teacher trainees [47,48] indicated that slightly less than half of them assign themselves to health-threatening patterns (ambitious and resigned types) [47,48]. Klusmann et al. [16] found correlations between affiliation to the types and occupational well-being in terms of emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction. Teachers of the healthy-ambitious type reported the most favourable results for job satisfaction, followed by teachers of the unambitious type. Moreover, teachers of the healthy-ambitious and unambitious types reported less emotional exhaustion compared to teachers of the ambitious and resigned types [8]. To our knowledge, associations of these self-regulatory patterns with teacher trainees’ general well-being have not been investigated thus far, and it remains unclear how occupational self-regulation is associated with teacher trainees’ health literacy.

3. Research Questions and Hypotheses

Teacher trainees’ general well-being could be fostered by personal resources, such as occupational self-regulation and health literacy. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated the association between the work-related personal resource occupational self-regulation and the health-related personal resource health literacy. Our research aims to narrow this research gap and to shed more light on the field of teacher trainees’ health literacy and teacher trainees’ general well-being. The following research questions are addressed:
  • How developed are teacher trainees’ personal resources of health literacy and occupational self-regulation?
H1. 
To our knowledge, there are only a few studies in the field of health literacy that have focused on (prospective) teachers (e.g., [35]). In a recent study [46], we showed that student teachers possess better health literacy than teacher trainees. Therefore, we assume that teacher trainees’ health literacy, especially the dimensions of self-regulation and communication and cooperation, are not well developed.
H2. 
There is considerably more research on occupational self–regulation of teacher trainees, and several findings (e.g., [47,48]) indicate that most teacher trainees can be characterised as health-promoting types. In line with this, we hypothesise that the majority of teacher trainees in our study can also be assigned to the health-promoting types. However, we conducted our research during the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, the results may be slightly different to those of previous studies.
2.
How is occupational self-regulation related to teacher trainees’ health literacy?
H3. 
We assume that teacher trainees who belong to the healthy-ambitious type (H type) also have the highest health literacy. Regarding the different dimensions of health literacy, we assume that self-regulation and self-control have the highest associations with occupational self-regulation because of similar psychological terminology.
3a.
How are the two personal resources related to teacher trainees’ general well-being?
H4. 
We assume that the correlation between well-being and the dimensions of health literacy is higher than the correlation between the dimensions of occupational self-regulation. A study on managers showed that the health literacy dimensions of self-regulation and self-control were the strongest predictors of general well-being [40]. Due to the lack of studies on teachers, we explored how the dimensions of teachers’ occupational self-regulation are associated with teacher trainees’ general well-being.
3b.
What is the relative importance of health literacy and occupational self-regulation in predicting teacher trainees’ general well-being, in terms of the portion of variance?
H5. 
Health literacy is expected to explain a higher specific portion of variance in well-being than occupational self-regulation because it is a health-related personal resource rather than a work-related personal resource and therefore should have greater influence on one’s general well-being. Moreover, previous findings in other research areas [20,40] have shown that the health literacy dimensions of self-regulation and self-control are the most important predictors for well-being. Regarding occupational self-regulation, we assume that the health-promoting types in particular explain a portion of variance of well-being [16]. The same was expected for the shared portion of variance explained by both predictors.

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

Teacher education in Germany is divided into three phases (Phase 1: student or pre-service teachers; Phase 2: teacher trainees; and Phase 3: in-service teachers). The first phase takes place at the university and usually lasts five years. Student teachers receive theoretical and empirical knowledge and gain their first teaching experience. Following this, the traineeship, also known as the referendariat, takes place, which is intended to provide more practical knowledge and usually lasts between 18 and 24 months. During the traineeship, teacher trainees work in the school but receive support and feedback from mentors and teacher training colleagues and are evaluated by them. After this period, teacher trainees develop into in-service teachers and work full time while they continue their professional development (for more details, see [49]). Our sample consisted of 407 teacher trainees in Germany (female: 82.6%) recruited from eight teacher training colleges (One part of this sample was used in a previous study [38]). The sample taught at primary schools (i.e., Grades 1–4; 50.4%) and secondary schools (i.e., Grades 5–13; 49.6%). The teachers in our sample reported a mean age of 28.3 years (SD = 5.0).

4.2. Instruments

Occupational Self-regulation. Occupational self-regulation consists of occupational engagement and resilience [16], which were measured using eight subscales from the occupational stress and coping inventory (AVEM; [43]). Participants responded on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Occupational engagement was measured using the following subscales: significance of work, career ambitions, exertion, and perfectionism. Occupational resilience was measured with four subscales: emotional distancing, low tendency to give up, active coping, and mental stability.
Health Literacy. Health literacy was measured based on the German questionnaire by Lenartz ([50]; validated by Lenartz [20] and Soellner et al. [36]), which has already been used in other studies (e.g., [39,51]). The questionnaire focused on the following subscales: self-regulation, self-control, self-perception, proactive approach to health, communication and cooperation, and dealing with health information. All items were rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree at all to 4 = strongly agree.
Well-being. The WHO-5 Well-being Index (1998 version) is a short, self-report questionnaire containing five positively worded items related to positive mood, vitality, and general interests. It is recommended and successfully used for screening depressive disorders [52], but it is also used in various studies regarding teachers’ well-being (see the review of [6]). Respondents were given five statements and were asked to indicate how they had been feeling over the past two weeks using a six-point Likert scale (0 = none of the time to 5 = all of the time). Responses were summed so that the final total score ranged from 0 (absence of well-being) to 25 (maximal well-being). A score below 13 indicates low mental well-being and a risk of depression.

4.3. Procedures

Participants were recruited via their teacher training colleges. The survey took place online in the context of a pedagogical seminar; only one college sent the study description and the link to the survey (LimeSurvey) by mail to the teacher trainees. All teachers completed the online questionnaire and answered demographic items (e.g., gender, age) and the self-report measures outlined above. The data collection was initiated at the end of November 2020 and lasted 12 weeks.
Regarding ethical approval of the study, the German Research Foundation (DFG) states that a study requires ethical approval whenever the participants, for example, have to endure high emotional or physical strains, cannot be fully informed about the purpose of the study, are patients, or undergo functional magnetic resonance imaging or transcranial magnetic stimulation during the course of the study. Our study did not affect any of the above-mentioned conditions and therefore did not require ethical approval. However, the initial consent page informed teachers about the study’s purpose and confidentiality as well as data protection information, and teachers were informed that they could drop out at any time.

4.4. Statistical Analyses

Preliminary analyses were conducted with the aim of reporting descriptive statistics. The determination of occupational self-regulation followed a person-centred approach and was described via four self-regulatory patterns (healthy-ambitious type (H), unambitious type (U), excessively ambitious type (A), and resigned type (R) [16,44,47]), which were conducted by latent profile analysis (LPA). We used four criteria to identify the number of latent clusters [17]. First, adding an additional class should lead to a decrease in the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayes information criterion (BIC), and sample-size-adjusted BIC (SSA-BIC). Second, the Lo–Mendell–Rubin likelihood ratio test (LMR test; [53]) gives a p-value that tests the null hypothesis that a solution with k classes has the same goodness of fit as a solution with k-1 classes. Third, entropy can range from 0 to 1, with higher values representing a better fit of the profiles to the data and values of 0.80 or greater providing supporting evidence that profile classification of individuals in the model occurs with minimal uncertainty [54,55]. Lastly, the interpretability of the different cluster solutions was assessed against the background of their theoretical plausibility [56,57] and previous empirical findings on behavioural styles. The LPA was conducted with MPlus software [58].
Intercorrelations and correlations were calculated to highlight the relation within the personal resources, as well as with general well-being. We also performed analyses of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc tests (Tukey) to compare mean health literacy across self-regulatory patterns. A Bonferroni-type adjustment was made to avoid inflated Type I errors through multiple testing. With a familywise error rate (α) of 0.05 and six significance tests, the critical value for each test (α) was adjusted to 0.0086.
We designed multiple regression models to analyse the relative importance of health literacy and occupational self-regulation in predicting teacher trainees’ well-being. Separate multiple-regression analyses were conducted to highlight the association between both personal resources and general well-being (M1–3).

5. Results

5.1. Well-Being and Personal Resources

Using the scores of the WHO-5, 40.3% (n = 164) of the participants were screened as having a low general well-being (score < 13). Overall, the average mean of 13.13 (SD = 5.00) was on the threshold of low well-being.
The first research question was related to the state of teacher trainees’ personal resources: health literacy and occupational self-regulation. The means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies are provided in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the results of the latent profile analysis to identify the self-regulatory patterns, starting with a one-to-five-class solution based on the z-standardised mean values of the eight subscales of engagement and resilience. The fit indices supported the three-class solution, but based on theoretical assumptions and empirical evidence on latent classes of the AVEM (e.g., [16]), we decided to take the data as confirmation of the four-class solution for teacher trainees. The z-scores of the eight scales also supported the four-class solution and showed the respective differences between the resilience and engagement scales (Figure 1).
Class 1 reflected the H type (35.4%) teacher trainees who had above-average scores in engagement and resilience compared to the mean of the overall sample. Class 2, which corresponded to the pattern of the U type (22.9%) teacher trainees, was characterised by very low scores on the engagement and high scores on the resilience scales. Class 3, representing the risk A type (19.2%) teacher trainees, was characterised by very high means of engagement and predominantly low means of resilience. Class 4, which had below-average scores in both the engagement and resilience scales compared to the overall sample, represented the R type (22.6%) teacher trainees.
Referring to teacher trainees’ health literacy, they rated themselves highest in the dimensions dealing with health information (M = 3.21, SD = 0.51) and self-perception (M = 3.16, SD = 0.47), and lowest in self-regulation (M = 2.45, SD = 0.56).

5.2. Relationship between Health Literacy and Occupational Self-Regulation

Research Question 2 focused on the relationship between teacher trainees’ health literacy and self-regulatory patterns. The results of the correlation analyses indicated how the occupational self-regulation dimensions and health literacy dimensions were related to each other (see Table 3). Strong and medium correlations (r > 0.30) between the personal resources were found between the health literacy dimensions self-regulation and self-control and the subdimensions of occupational self-regulation. For the health literacy dimension self-regulation, a strong positive correlation was found with the subdimension emotional distancing (r = 0.67), medium positive correlations with the dimensions low tendency to give up (r = 0.46) and mental stability (r = 0.44), and a medium negative correlation with the dimension exertion (r = −0.43). Medium positive correlations were found between the dimensions of career ambitions (r = 0.30), perfectionism (r = 0.34), and active coping (r = 0.36), and the health literacy dimension of self-control.
The results of the ANOVA are shown in Table 4. Substantial differences in the health literacy dimension of occupational self-regulation were reported by the four self-regulatory patterns (F (3,403) = 48.75, p > 0.001, η2 = 0.27). The effect size was large and indicated that the patterns accounted for about 27% of the variance in the health literacy dimension of self-regulation. As post-hoc analyses (Tukey) showed, teacher trainees belonging to the H type and U type reported statistically better self-regulation than teacher trainees of the A and R types. In terms of the effect sizes, the differences between the average self-regulation of the H type and both the R type (Cohen’s d = 1.33) and A type (Cohen’s d = 1.15) teacher trainees can be classified as large. Large standardised differences were also observable between the U type and the R type (Cohen’s d = 1.22) and between the U type and the A type (Cohen’s d = 1.05) teacher trainees.
Substantial differences were also indicated for self-control reported by the four self-regulatory patterns (F (3,403) = 23.30, p > 0.001, η2 = 0.15). The effect size was large, indicating that the patterns explained about 15% of the variance in self-control. Post-hoc analyses (Tukey) showed that the H type teacher trainees scored the highest on self-control, followed by the A type. Teacher trainees of the U type and R type scored the lowest and did not differ from each other. In terms of the effect sizes, the difference between the self-control of the H type and U type (Cohen’s d = 0.94) teacher trainees can be classified as large, whereas a medium-sized difference was observed between the H type and R type (Cohen’s d = 0.76) teacher trainees. Similar results were found for the A type teacher trainees. A large standardised difference was observed between the A type and U type (Cohen’s d = 0.86) teacher trainees, and a medium-sized difference was observed between the A type and R type (Cohen’s d = 0.68) teacher trainees.
Substantial differences in self-perception were reported by the four self-regulatory patterns (F (3,403) = 5.31, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04). The effect size was medium and indicated that the patterns accounted for about 4% of the variance in self-perception. As post-hoc analyses (Tukey) showed, teacher trainees belonging to the H type reported statistically better self-perception than teacher trainees of the R type. In terms of the effect sizes, the differences between the average self-perception of the H type and the R type (Cohen’s d = 0.55) teacher trainees were classified as medium.
Similar results were found for proactive approach to health and dealing with health information of the four teacher trainee types. Overall, we found substantial differences in proactive approach to health reported by the four types (F (3,403) = 5.85, p < 0.001). The moderate effect size (η2 = 0.04) indicated that about 9% of the variance in proactive approach to health could be explained by the self-regulatory patterns. Post-hoc analyses (Tukey) showed that the H type teacher trainees scored the highest on proactive approach to health, and the R type teacher trainees scored the lowest. In terms of the effect sizes, the differences between the average proactive approach to health of the H type and the R type teacher trainees were classified as small (Cohen’s d = 0.49).
Substantial differences were also indicated for dealing with health information reported by the four self-regulatory patterns (F (3,403) = 5.14, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.04). The effect size was medium and indicated that the patterns accounted for about 4% of the variance in dealing with health information. As post-hoc analyses (Tukey) showed, teacher trainees belonging to the H type reported statistically better dealing with health information than teacher trainees of the R type. In terms of the effect sizes, the differences between the average dealing with health information of the H type and the R type teacher trainees were classified as medium (Cohen’s d = 0.51).
Substantial differences in communication and cooperation were reported by the four self-regulatory patterns (F (3,403) = 8.74, p > 0.001, η2 = 0.06). The effect size was medium and indicated that the patterns accounted for about 6% of the variance in communication and cooperation. On average, teacher trainees of the U type reported a better communication and cooperation than the H type, but they did not differ significantly from each other. As post-hoc analyses (Tukey) showed, teacher trainees belonging to the U type and H type reported better communication and cooperation than teacher trainees of the A and R types. In terms of the effect sizes, the differences between the average communication and cooperation between the H type and the A type (Cohen’s d = 0.47) or R type (Cohen’s d = 0.45) teacher trainees were classified as small. Medium standardised differences were observable between the U type and the A type (Cohen’s d = 0.60) and between the U type and the R type (Cohen’s d = 0.58) teacher trainees.

5.3. Associations between the Two Personal Resources and Well-Being

To answer research question three, Table 3 shows the correlations between occupational self-regulation dimensions and health literacy dimensions and general well-being. Well-being correlated predominantly with the subdimension occupational resilience (emotional distancing, low tendency to give up, active coping, and mental stability) of occupational self-regulation, with the highest correlation being with emotional distancing (r = 0.41). The highest correlations between the dimensions of health literacy and well-being were found for the self-regulation dimension (r = 0.47). Medium correlations were also found for the proactive approach to health dimension (r = 0.35).
We hypothesised that teacher trainees’ general well-being was associated with their self-regulatory patterns and health literacy. Three multiple regression analyses were conducted (see Table 5). The categorical variable self-regulatory pattern was dummy coded, and assignment to the R type was taken as the reference category. Hence, the regression coefficients of the self-regulatory pattern must be interpreted relative to teacher trainees of the R type. The results revealed a statistically significant association between teacher trainees of the H, U, and A types and well-being (M1). Teacher trainees of these types reported better general well-being compared to teacher trainees of the R type. However, the amount of variance explained in well-being was small (R2 = 0.09). The results of the second regression model (M2) with the health literacy dimensions as predictors identified that proactive approach to health (β = 21, p < 0.001), self-control (β = 15, p < 0.001), and self-regulation (β = 39, p < 0.001) had a positive, significant association with teacher trainees’ general well-being. The variance explanation of teacher trainees’ well-being was 28% and corresponded to strong variance elucidation ([59] see Table 5).
If both resources for the elucidation of general well-being were considered, similar results were found for health literacy (self-control: β = 0.10, p < 0.05; proactive approach to health: β = 0.21, p < 0.001; self-regulation: β = 0.38, p < 0.001). Regarding the self-regulatory types, only teacher trainees of the H type (β = 14, p < 0.05) still had a positive, significant association with well-being, but the β-coefficient decreased (see M3). The amount of variance explained in general well-being was strong (R2 = 0.29).

6. Discussion

In the present study, we aimed to shed more light on both teacher trainees’ personal resources in terms of occupational self-regulation and health literacy. We argue that both constructs are highly important concerning the general well-being of teachers and that they should be considered collectively in health-related research. We initially investigated how these personal resources were developed among teacher trainees and then further investigated how occupational self-regulation was related to teacher trainees’ health literacy. Moreover, we analysed associations with teacher trainees’ general well-being.
Regarding Research Question 1, the results of our study revealed that 35.4% of the teacher trainees associated themselves with the H type, 22.9% with the U type, 19.2% with the A type, and 22.6% with the R type. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was confirmed. Similar percentage distributions of the self-regulatory patterns for teacher trainees appeared in previous studies (e.g., [17,47]). Compared to the teacher sample in Klusmann et al.’s [16] study, our sample had a higher proportion of teachers with patterns regarding health-promoting types. Nevertheless, 41.8% classified themselves into a health-threatening pattern, which was associated with lower occupational well-being, reflected by higher emotional exhaustion and lower job satisfaction than the H type [16]. Overall, the results underline the need for learning opportunities in the context of teacher education to develop the acquisition of occupational self-regulation [17,60]. This was also confirmed by Lohse-Bossenz and Rutsch’s [47] study results. They investigated whether these self-regulatory patterns changed during the referendariat and identified a pattern change in approximately 44% of the teacher trainees, which illustrated the dynamics of professional experience and behaviour [47].
Regarding our results for teacher trainees’ health literacy, the findings revealed the highest scores in the dimension dealing with health information and the lowest in self-regulation, which has also been presented in previous findings of student teachers and teacher trainees [38,61]. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed. Overall, the behaviourally relevant components (self-control, but especially self-regulation), which refer to the inner processes and procedures that enable a person to act and implement the intended actions [20], are not well developed according to the self-assessments of the teacher trainees in our sample. Accordingly, our results draw attention to the importance of health literacy in the context of teacher education [62,63]. Regarding the structural model of health literacy, these findings necessitate promotion measures and follow up on Lamanauskaus’ claim that health-related competences have been neglected in teacher education [64]. Its early promotion has been widely discussed in the school setting [65,66], but (trainee) teachers should have well-developed health literacy as health promoters [67,68]. It is considered a necessary prerequisite for health-promoting behaviour and the maintenance and promotion of health [19].
However, we acknowledged that our study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, the extent to which contextual factors influenced teacher trainees’ health literacy and their occupational self-regulation remains unclear. Regarding health literacy, recent findings from Germany [69] revealed that the majority of the population is able to find information about activities that are good for mental health and well-being [69]. Our results for teacher trainees are somewhat similar, with the highest scores recorded for dealing with health information. However, the authors highlighted the fact that there are still difficulties in finding information for health promotion in one’s own environment (e.g., workplace, school) [69]. Occupational stressors could also have an influence on teacher trainees’ health literacy and occupational self-regulation. The second phase of teacher education (referendariat) is often experienced by teacher trainees as a phase of adjustments, stresses, ambivalences, and has the potential for conflict [70]. This is primarily due to various stressors, such as the perceived high workload, the pressure to perform, conflicts with students, or the perceived stressful dependence on instructors (e.g., [48,71,72,73,74]). How these occupational stressors are related to health literacy is an open question and should be investigated in more detail in further studies.
Our study also offered new insights into teacher trainees’ health literacy research by exploring the association between health literacy and occupational self-regulation (Research Question 2). In relation to the health literacy of teacher trainees, 27% of the variance in self-regulation and 15% in self-control could be explained by occupational self-regulatory patterns, whereby the post-hoc results revealed that the H type teacher trainees differed most significantly from the R type teacher trainees. Teacher trainees of the H type had the highest scores in all dimensions of health literacy. The lowest means for the health literacy dimension self-regulation were found on the health-threatening pattern (A and R types), which also revealed low occupational resilience. The highest means of self-control were indicated among the types that showed high occupational engagement (H and A types). The correlations between the two personal resources provide a possible explanation. In particular, the individual dimensions of occupational engagement and resilience were related to the health literacy dimensions of self-regulation and self-control. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. The strongest correlations between the health literacy dimension of self-regulation and the dimensions of occupational self-regulation revealed, for example, in the dimensions of emotional distancing, low tendency to give up, and mental stability. In terms of content, this can also be found in the description by Lenartz [20]: self-regulation comprises skills and abilities in dealing with tension and stress, the reduction of tension, the ability to relax, and the change between concentration and relaxation [20] (p. 135). Similar findings were revealed for the health literacy dimension of self-control, which was mainly related to the subdimensions of occupational self-regulation: active coping, perfectionism, and career ambitions. Self-control, for example, aims to implement and enforce behaviour once it has been decided, plans are kept in mind, planned actions are implemented with discipline, and distractions and digressive thoughts are overcome [20] (p. 135). This suggests that the development of occupational self-regulation strategies could be derived concerning promoting the health literacy of teacher trainees. Teachers need self-regulatory skills that enable them to use action- and emotion-related strategies in ways that are functional for coping with job demands and health issues [75]. Mindfulness represents a possible emotion-related form of coping and can help identify and regulate individual stress patterns [76], as well as promote self-care and overall well-being [77]. The relevance of mindfulness in the educational context has been investigated in numerous studies, and the positive effects of mindfulness-based interventions in relation to novice teachers and teachers seem to be promising (see recent meta-analyses [78,79,80]). The usefulness of self-regulatory strategies has been highlighted both for the teaching profession in general and for beginning teachers in particular [81].
Regarding teacher trainees’ general well-being, although 59.7% rated their well-being as sufficient, the mean score was on the threshold of low well-being. One explanation for this could be derived from previous findings on teacher trainees’ health, which indicate that emotional exhaustion increases during the transition from university to the second phase of teacher education (referendariat) [82,83]. Only at the end of the referendariat was a decrease in emotional exhaustion indicated among teacher trainees [14,84,85]. The results of a study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic replicated that teacher trainees were at a higher risk for high emotional exhaustion [86], which may have also influenced the results of our study.
The importance of health literacy for well-being can be deduced above all from the results of the multiple regression and correlations (Research Questions 3a and 3b). In terms of health literacy, the self-regulation dimension was the strongest predictor for well-being, with self-control and a proactive approach to health being additional predictors. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was only partially confirmed. Fiedler et al. [40] indicated similar associations between health literacy and well-being by industry managers. In their path model, self-regulation was the strongest predictor for well-being, whereas proactive approach to health had no direct effect on well-being, but ‘directly enables self-control and self-regulation at the ‘action-oriented’ level’ [40] (p. 7). In this context, our results should be further examined in future studies with latent and confirmatory designs. Nevertheless, Lenartz [20] was also able to explain over 40% of the variance in mental health. Without personal resource health literacy, the H, U, and A types had a significant association with well-being compared to the R type, but the variance clarification was small. If the health literacy dimensions were added, only the H type remained as a significant predictor for well-being, but the β-coefficient decreased. Overall, a stronger variance explanation was shown due to the dimensions of health literacy. Thus, Hypothesis 5 can be confirmed. An explanation for this could be derived from the post-hoc results. The H type had the highest means in all dimensions of health literacy and always differed significantly from the R type. Furthermore, statistical analyses can be used to confirm the assumption that the self-regulation and self-control dimensions of health literacy are related to occupational self-regulation.

7. Limitations

Although the results of our study add important findings to the field of health research for teacher trainees, this study still has some limitations that need to be highlighted. First, the data for the present study were collected online from teacher trainees in Germany. Thus, even though there was a variety in the distribution of age and school type, the findings may not generalise to teacher trainees outside Germany. Specifically, our findings may differ for countries with different educational systems. Second, the cross-sectional design did not allow causal inferences to be made between the investigated variables. In particular, a closer examination of the interplay between and causal direction of general health-related resources and in the context of the teaching profession should be followed in further studies for more insights. Third, we did not integrate other contextual factors or control variables into our analyses and therefore were not able to obtain a comprehensive picture of possible mediators and moderators of teacher trainees’ general well-being.

8. Conclusions

Overall, our study underlines that the health literacy dimensions self-regulation and self-control were mainly related to occupational self-regulation, and that the self-regulatory types and the health literacy dimensions self-regulation, self-control, and a proactive approach to health predicted teacher trainees’ general well-being independently of each other. These findings also have practical implications, as reflected by the magnitude of the effect sizes observed. First, teacher education and in-service teacher training that includes aspects of teachers’ self-regulatory skills and coping behaviour might enhance not only teacher trainees’ well-being but also their individual health literacy. Second, the health literacy of teacher trainees—especially the dimensions of self-regulation and self-control—are related to occupational self-regulation. However, the development of occupational self-regulation at an early stage through learning opportunities could also be associated with strengthening the personal resource health literacy of teacher trainees; therefore, the focus should be primarily on promoting emotional distancing and mental stability through intervention strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, E.H. and K.E.W.; Data curation, E.H.; Formal analysis, E.H.; Investigation, E.H.; resources, E.H.; Methodology, E.H. and K.E.W.; Project administration, E.H.; Supervision, E.H. and K.E.W.; Validation, E.H. and K.E.W.; Writing—original draft, E.H. and K.E.W.; Writing—review & editing, E.H. and K.E.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This article has been written as part of the research and development project ‘ZZL-Netzwerk’ at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany. The project is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the framework of the teacher training quality campaign ‘Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung’ (project code: 01JA1903; www.leuphana.de/zzl-netzwerk, accessed on 31 May 2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the teacher trainees for their participation in our study. Their willingness to contribute to this important area of research was greatly appreciated. Moreover, we acknowledge the funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), which made the realisation of this study possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Redín, C.I.; Erro-Garcés, A. Stress in teaching professionals across Europe. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 103, 101623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Klusmann, U.; Aldrup, K.; Schmidt, J.; Lüdtke, O. Is emotional exhaustion only the result of work experiences? A diary study on daily hassles and uplifts in different life domains. Anxiety Stress Coping 2020, 34, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. MacIntyre, P.D.; Ross, J.; Talbot, K.; Mercer, S.; Gregersen, T.; Banga, C.A. Stressors, personality and wellbeing among language teachers. System 2019, 82, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Travers, C. Current Knowledge on the Nature, Prevalence, Sources and Potential Impact of Teacher Stress. In Educator Stress; MendonÇa, T.M., MCIntyre, S.E., Francis, D.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 23–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kiel, E.; Weiß, S. Gesund im Referendariat–Die zweite Ausbildungsphase des Lehramts aus salutogener Perspektive. Seminar 2015, 21, 93–106. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hascher, T.; Waber, J. Teacher well-being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educ. Res. Rev. 2021, 34, 100411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mercer, S.; Gregersen, T. Teacher Wellbeing; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. A self-determination theory perspective on social, institutional, cultural, and economic supports for autonomy and their importance for well-being. In Human Autonomy in Cross-Cultural Context: Perspectives on the Psychology of Agency, Freedom, and Well-Being; Chirkov, V.I., Ryan, R.M., Sheldon, K.M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Van Horn, J.E.; Taris, T.W.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Schreurs, P.J. The structure of occupational well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2004, 77, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Collie, R.J.; Shapka, J.; Perry, N.E.; Martin, A.J. Teacher Well-Being: Exploring its components and a practice-oriented scale. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2015, 33, 744–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Weziak-Bialowolska, D.; Bialowolski, P.; Sacco, P.L.; VanderWeele, T.J.; McNeely, E. Well-Being in Life and Well-Being at Work: Which Comes First? Evidence From a Longitudinal Study. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Faltermaier, T. Salutogenese und Ressourcenorientierung. In Psychologie in der Gesundheitsförderungl; Kohlmann, C.-W., Salewski, C., Wirtz, M.A., Eds.; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 2018; pp. 85–97. [Google Scholar]
  13. Becker, P. Gesundheit Durch Bedürfnisbefriedigung; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. Klusmann, U.; Kunter, M.; Voss, T.; Baumert, J. Berufliche Beanspruchung angehender Lehrkräfte: Die Effekte von Persönlichkeit, pädagogischer Vorerfahrung und professioneller Kompetenz. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychol. 2012, 26, 275–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Klusmann, U. Allgemeine berufliche motivation und selbstregulation. In Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkraften: Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV; Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., Eds.; Waxmann Verlag: Münster, Germany, 2011; pp. 277–294. [Google Scholar]
  16. Klusmann, U.; Kunter, M.; Trautwein, U.; Lüdtke, O.; Baumert, J. Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 702–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Henoch, J.R.; Klusmann, U.; Lüdtke, O.; Trautwein, U. Die Entwicklung beruflicher Selbstregulation: Ein Vergleich zwischen angehenden Lehrkräften und anderen Studierenden. Z. Padagog. Psychol. 2015, 29, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rupprecht, S. Achtsamkeit Macht Schule?! Fördert ein Achtsamkeitstraining das Lehrerwohlbefinden und die Unterrichtsqualität; GRIN Verlag: Munich, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nutbeam, D. Health literacy as a public health goal: A challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot. Int. 2000, 15, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Lenartz, N. Gesundheitskompetenz und Selbstregulation; Bonn University Press: Bonn, Germany, 2012; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  21. Klusmann, U.; Richter, D.; Lüdtke, O. Teachers’ emotional exhaustion is negatively related to students’ achievement: Evidence from a large-scale assessment study. J. Educ. Psychol. 2016, 108, 1193–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Skaalvik, E.M.; Skaalvik, S. Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2018, 21, 1251–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Beltman, S.; Mansfield, C.; Price, A. Thriving not just surviving: A review of research on teacher resilience. Educ. Res. Rev. 2011, 6, 185–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Cameron, M.; Lovett, S. Sustaining the commitment and realising the potential of highly promising teachers. Teach. Teach. 2014, 21, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Spilt, J.L.; Koomen, H.M.Y.; Thijs, J.T. Teacher Wellbeing: The Importance of Teacher–Student Relationships. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2011, 23, 457–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Huppert, F.A.; So, T.T. Flourishing Across Europe: Application of a New Conceptual Framework for Defining Well-Being. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 110, 837–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkmann, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  28. World Health Organization. Health Literacy: The Solid Facts; WHO Regional Office Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  29. World Health Organization. Erklärung von Shanghai über Gesundheitsförderung im Rahmen der Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung. In Procceedings of the Globale Konferenz zur Gesundheitsförderung, Shanghai, China, 21–24 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. World Health Organization. Draft WHO European roadmap for implementation of health literacy initiatives through the life course. In Procceedings of the World Health Organization—Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark, 16–19 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tokuda, Y.; Doba, N.; Butler, J.P.; Paasche-Orlow, M. Health literacy and physical and psychological wellbeing in Japanese adults. Patient Educ. Couns. 2009, 75, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jordan, S.; Hoebel, J. Health literacy of adults in Germany: Results of the study “Gesundheitskompetenz von Erwachsenen in Deutschland Aktuell” (GEDA). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh. Gesundh. Gesundh. 2015, 58, 942–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ahmadi, F.; Montazeri, A. Health Literacy of Pre-Service Teachers from Farhangian University: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Int. J. Sch. Health 2019, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Denuwara, H.M.B.H.; Gunawardena, N.S. Level of health literacy and factors associated with it among school teachers in an education zone in Colombo, Sri Lanka. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Hartmann, A.; Rückmann, J.; Tannen, A. Individuelle Gesundheitskompetenz von Lehrkräften und deren (Un)Sicherheit im Umgang mit chronisch erkrankten Schulkindern und Notfallsituationen. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundh. Gesundh. 2020, 63, 1168–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Soellner, R.; Lenartz, N.; Rudinger, G. Concept mapping as an approach for expert-guided model building: The example of health literacy. Eval. Program Plan. 2017, 60, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Soellner, R.; Huber, S.; Lenartz, N.; Rudinger, G. Facetten der Gesundheitskompetenz. In Zeitschrift für Pädagogik; Klieme, E., Ed.; Beltz Juventa: Weinheim, Germany; Basel, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 104–114. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hohensee, E.; Schiemann, S. Health and Health Literacy in Teacher Education: Comparative Analyses of Student Teachers and Teacher Trainees. Kwart. Pedagog. 2022, 66, 92–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kuhlmann, K.; Beauducel, A.; Predel, G.; Preuß, M.; Preuß, P.; Rudinger, G. Evaluation des Gesundheitsverhaltens Studierender. Diagnostica 2015, 61, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fiedler, S.; Pfaff, H.; Soellner, R.; Pförtner, T.-K. Exploring the Association Between Health Literacy and Psychological Well-Being Among Industry Managers in Germany. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 60, 743–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Baumert, J.; Kunter, M. Das Kompetenzmodell von COACTIV. In Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften: Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV; Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., Eds.; Waxmann: Münster, Germany, 2011; pp. 29–53. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schaarschmidt, U.; Kieschke, U.; Fischer, A. Beanspruchungsmuster im Lehrerberuf. Psychol. Erzieh. Unterr. 1999, 46, 244–268. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schaarschmidt, U.; Fischer, A.W. AVEM—Ein diagnostisches Instrument zur Differenzierung von Typen gesundheitsrelevanten Verhaltens und Erlebens gegenuber der Arbeit. Z. Differ. Diagn. Psychol. 1997, 18, 151–163. [Google Scholar]
  45. Schaarschmidt, U. Halbtagsjobber? Psychische Gesundheit im Lehrerberuf—Analyse eines Veränderungsbedürftigen Zustandes; Beltz: Weinheim, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kieschke, U.; Schaarschmidt, U. Professional commitment and health among teachers in Germany: A typological approach. Learn. Instr. 2008, 18, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lohse-Bossenz, H.; Rutsch, J. Arbeitsbezogene Verhaltens—und Erlebensmuster im Verlauf des Vorbereitungsdienstes—Stabilität und Transition. In Professionalisierung in der Lehrerbildung. Erkenntnisse und Perspektiven des Interdisziplinären Forschungsprogramms “Effektive Kompetenzdiagnose in der Lehrerbildung”; Lohse-Bossenz, H., Rehm, M., Friesen, M., Seidenfuß, M., Rutsch, J., Vogel, M., Dörfler, T., Eds.; Waxmann Verlag: Münster, Germany, 2021; pp. 254–270. [Google Scholar]
  48. Darius, S.; Bunzel, K.; Ehms-Ciechanowicz, E.; Böckelmann, I. Psychische Gesundheit bei Referendaren. Prävention Gesundh. 2020, 16, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Howe, E.R. Exemplary Teacher Induction: An international review. Educ. Philos. Theory 2006, 38, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lenartz, N. Fragebogen zur Gesundheitskompetenz–Version Mai; Universität Bonn: Bonn, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  51. Stassen, G.; Grieben, C.; Sauzet, O.; Schaller, A.; Se, I.F. Health literacy promotion among young adults: A web-based intervention in German vocational schools. Health Educ. Res. 2020, 35, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Krieger, T.; Zimmermann, J.; Huffziger, S.; Ubl, B.; Diener, C.; Kuehner, C.; Holtforth, M.G. Measuring depression with a well-being index: Further evidence for the validity of the WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5) as a measure of the severity of depression. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 156, 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lo, Y.; Mendell, N.R.; Rubin, D.B. Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika 2001, 88, 767–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tein, J.-Y.; Coxe, S.; Cham, H. Statistical Power to Detect the Correct Number of Classes in Latent Profile Analysis. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2013, 20, 640–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ferguson, S.L.; Moore, E.W.G.; Hull, D.M. Finding latent groups in observed data: A primer on latent profile analysis in Mplus for applied researchers. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2019, 44, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lubke, G.H.; Muthén, B. Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychol. Methods 2005, 10, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Nylund, K.L.; Asparouhov, T.; Muthén, B.O. Deciding on the Number of Classes in Latent Class Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2007, 14, 535–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B. MPlus User’s Guide 1998–2015, 7th ed.; Muthen & Muthen: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  59. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences; Taylor and Francis: Abingdon, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hohenstein, D.-P.F.; Zimmermann, F.; Kleickmann, T.; Köller, O.; Möller, J. Sind die bildungswissenschaftlichen Standards für die Lehramtsausbildung in den Curricula der Hochschulen angekommen? Z. Erzieh. 2014, 17, 497–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hohensee, E.; Schiemann, S. Gesundheitskompetenz und Gesundheit von Studierenden unter besonderer Betrachtung der Lehramtsstudierenden. Prävention Gesundh. 2021, 17, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hurrelmann, K.; Bauer, U.; Schaeffer, D. Strategiepapier #1 zu den Empfehlungen des Nationalen Aktionsplans. Das Erziehungs-und Bildungssystem in die Lage Versetzen, die Förderung von Gesundheitskompetenz so Früh wie Möglich im Lebenslauf zu Beginnen; Nationaler Aktionsplan Gesundheitskompetenz: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vamos, S.; Okan, O.; Sentell, T.; Rootman, I. Making a Case for “Education for Health Literacy”: An International Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Lamanauskas, V. Teacher health literacy: Why does it matter? Probl. Educ. 21st Century 2018, 76, 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Peralta, L.R.; Rowling, L. Implementation of school health literacy in Australia: A systematic review. Health Educ. J. 2017, 77, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Paakkari, L.; Inchley, J.; Schulz, A.; Weber, M.W.; Okan, O. Addressing health literacy in schools in the WHO European region. Public Health Panor. 2019, 5, 186–190. [Google Scholar]
  67. Byrne, J.; Roderick, P.; Pickett, K.; Rietdijk, W.; Shepherd, J.; Grace, M. A Longitudinal Study to Explore the Impact of Preservice Teacher Health Training on Early Career Teachers’ Roles as Health Promoters. Pedagog. Health Promot. 2016, 2, 170–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lamanauskas, V.; Augiene, D. Identifying Primary School Teachers Health Literacy. Turk. J. Sci. Educ. 2019, 16, 451–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schaeffer, D.; Berens, E.-M.; Gille, S.; Griese, L.; Klinger, J.; de Sombre, S.; Vogt, D.; Hurrelmann, K. Gesundheitskompetenz der Bevölkerung in Deutschland–vor und während der Corona Pandemie: Ergebnisse des HLS-GER 2. Bielefeld: Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Gesundheitskompetenzforschung (IZGK); Universität Bielefeld: Bielefeld, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Speck, K.; Schubarth, W.; Seidel, A. Theorie-Praxis-Verhältnis in der zweiten Phase der Lehrerbildung. Empirische Befunde und theoretische Implikationen. Lehr. LLF-Ber. 2007, 22, 5–26. [Google Scholar]
  71. Christ, O.; Van Dick, R.; Wagner, U. Belastung und Beanspruchung bei Lehrern in der Ausbildung. In Psychosomatische Erkrankungen bei Lehrerinnen und Lehrern; Hillert, A., Schmitz, E., Eds.; Schattauer: Stuttgart, Germany, 2004; pp. 113–119. [Google Scholar]
  72. Manning, C.; Hobson, A.J. Judgemental and developmental mentoring in further education initial teacher education in England: Mentor and mentee perspectives. Res. Post Compuls. Educ. 2017, 22, 574–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Thompson, S.; Clarke, E.; Quickfall, A.; Glazzard, J. Averting the Crisis in Trainee Teacher Well-being–Learning Lessons across European Contexts: A Comparative Study. J. Comp. Int. High. Educ. 2020, 12, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Weiß, S.; Schlotter, P.; Kiel, E. Das Referendariat–Eine Zeit “schwieriger Beziehungen”? In Beziehungen in Schule und Unterricht. Teil 1. Theoretische Grundlagen und Praktische Gestaltungen Pädagogischer Beziehungen; Tillack, C., Fischer, N., Raufelder, D., Fetzer, J., Eds.; Prolog: Kassel, Germany, 2014; pp. 148–167. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sandmeier, A.; Mustafić, M.; Krause, A. Gesundheit und Selbstregulation in der Lehrerinnen-und Lehrerbildung. In Handbuch Lehrerinnen-und Lehrerbildung; Cramer, C., Koenig, J., Rothland, M., Blömeke, S., Eds.; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2020; pp. 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lutz, A.; Slagter, H.A.; Dunne, J.D.; Davidson, R.J. Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008, 12, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Goyal, M.; Singh, S.; Sibinga, E.M.S.; Gould, N.F.; Rowland-Seymour, A.; Sharma, R.; Berger, Z.; Sleicher, D.; Maron, D.D.; Shihab, H.M.; et al. Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being. JAMA Intern. Med. 2014, 174, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Iancu, A.E.; Rusu, A.; Măroiu, C.; Păcurar, R.; Maricuțoiu, L.P. The Effectiveness of Interventions Aimed at Reducing Teacher Burnout: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2017, 30, 373–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Klingbeil, D.A.; Renshaw, T.L. Mindfulness-based interventions for teachers: A meta-analysis of the emerging evidence base. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2018, 33, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Oliveira, S.; Roberto, M.S.; Veiga-Simão, A.M.; Marques-Pinto, A. A Meta-analysis of the Impact of Social and Emotional Learning Interventions on Teachers’ Burnout Symptoms. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 33, 1779–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mansfield, C.; Beltman, S.; Price, A.; McConney, A. “Don’t sweat the small stuff:” Understanding teacher resilience at the chalkface. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2012, 28, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Dicke, T.; Elling, J.; Schmeck, A.; Leutner, D. Reducing reality shock: The effects of classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2015, 48, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dicke, T.; Parker, P.D.; Holzberger, D.; Kunina-Habenicht, O.; Kunter, M.; Leutner, D. Beginning teachers’ efficacy and emotional exhaustion: Latent changes, reciprocity, and the influence of professional knowledge. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kunter, M.; Linninger, C.; Schulze-Stocker, F.; Kunina-Habenicht, O.; Lohse-Bossenz, H. Evaluation des reformierten Vorbereitungsdienstes in Nordrhein-Westfalen-Bericht an das Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen; Goethe University Frankfurt: Frankfurt, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  85. Richter, D.; Kunter, M.; Lüdtke, O.; Klusmann, U.; Anders, Y.; Baumert, J. How different mentoring approaches affect beginning teachers’ development in the first years of practice. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2013, 36, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hansen, J.; Klusmann, U.; Hanewinkel, R. Stimmungsbild: Lehrergesundheit in der Corona-Pandemie: Befragung zur Lehrergesundheit 2020; Institut für Therapie-und Gesundheitsforschung (IFT-Nord): Kiel, Germany, 2020; Available online: https://www.dak.de/dak/download/ergebnisbericht-2389012.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2022).
Ijerph 19 08821 g001 550
Figure 1. Z-scores for subscales of engagement and resilience by self-regulatory patterns. H = healthy-ambitious type; U = unambitious type; A = excessively ambitious type; R = resigned type.
Figure 1. Z-scores for subscales of engagement and resilience by self-regulatory patterns. H = healthy-ambitious type; U = unambitious type; A = excessively ambitious type; R = resigned type.
Ijerph 19 08821 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive results for occupational self-regulation, health literacy, and well-being.
Table 1. Descriptive results for occupational self-regulation, health literacy, and well-being.
ScaleMSDαN Items
Occupational self-regulation (scale range: 1–5) Occupational engagement
Significance of work2.360.790.854
Career ambitions3.270.740.774
Exertion3.100.890.834
Perfectionism3.410.860.834
Occupational resilience
Emotional distancing2.850.840.854
Low tendency to give up3.210.750.794
Active coping3.330.670.824
Mental stability3.350.680.714
Health literacy (scale range: 1–4)
Self-regulation2.450.560.785
Self-control2.930.480.775
Self-perception3.160.470.745
Proactive approach to health2.960.510.825
Communication and cooperation2.860.590.774
Dealing with health information3.210.510.845
Well-being (scale range: 0–20)13.135.000.855
Note.n = 407, M Mean, SD Standard deviation.
Table
Table 2. Fit indices for different class solutions: Latent profile analysis for the class-dependent variance model.
Table 2. Fit indices for different class solutions: Latent profile analysis for the class-dependent variance model.
ModelNo. of ParameterAICBICSample-Adjusted BICEntropyp LMR
1-class169264.1809328.3219277.551−−
2-class258847.8678948.0888868.7590.7350.0000
3-class348675.9118812.2108704.3230.7350.0101
4-class438558.5338730.9128594.4660.7560.6075
5-class528494.5008702.9588537.9550.7760.0315
Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; the Lo–Mendell–Ruben (LMR) test compares the current model to a model with k-1 profiles; n = 407.
Table
Table 3. Intercorrelations and correlations between occupational self-regulatory dimensions (1–8), health literacy dimensions (9–14), and well-being (15).
Table 3. Intercorrelations and correlations between occupational self-regulatory dimensions (1–8), health literacy dimensions (9–14), and well-being (15).
Scale Self-Regulatory Dimensions Health Literacy DimensionsWell-Being
123456789101112131415
1Significance of work−
2Career ambitions0.53 **−
3Exertion 0.38 **0.40 **−
4Perfectionism 0.34 **0.43 **0.62 **−
5Emotional distancing−0.24 **−0.12 *−0.57 **−0.40 **−
6Low tendency to give up0.10 *0.050.26 **0.24 **−0.49 **−
7Active coping0.26 **0.29 **0.16 **0.21 **0.14 **0.46 **−
8Mental stability−0.010.07−0.21 **−0.060.37 **0.46 **0.25 **−
9Self-regulation−0.040.02−0.43 **−0.20 **0.67 **0.46 **0.27 **0.44 **−
10Self-control0.21 **0.30 **0.19 **0.34 **0.060.20 **0.36 **0.20 **0.19 **−
11Self-perception0.020.12 *−0.040.10 *0.13 **0.22 **0.27 **0.16 **0.27 **0.39 **−
12Proactive approach to health−0.040.08−0.23 **−0.060.23 **0.18 **0.18 **0.11 *0.34 **0.26 **0.42 **−
13Communication and cooperation−0.08−0.04−0.22*−0.18 **0.19 **0.22 **0.14 **0.030.24 **0.090.33 **0.32 **−
14Dealing with health information−0.060.080.06−0.030.090.16 **0.17 **0.17 **0.11 *0.25 **0.42 **0.26 **0.14 **−
15Well-being0.070.15 **−0.17 **0.030.41 **0.26 **0.25 **0.21 **0.47 **0.26 **0.21 **0.35 **0.12 *0.07−
Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Mean differences between the four self-regulatory patterns on health literacy: Results of analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Table 4. Mean differences between the four self-regulatory patterns on health literacy: Results of analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Scale Self-Regulatory PatternsANOVA
Type H
n = 144		Type U
n = 93		Type A
n = 78		Type R
n = 92		Fdfη2
Self-regulationM2.712.672.142.0948.75 *30.27
SD0.460.480.530.47
Self-controlM3.112.693.082.7723.30 *30.15
SD0.420.470.440.47
Self-perceptionM3.253.113.203.015.31 *30.04
SD0.410.520.440.48
Proactive approach to healthM3.073.002.862.825.85 *30.04
SD0.510.500.510.51
Communication and cooperationM2.953.022.682.698.74 *30.06
SD0.590.570.560.57
Dealing with health informationM3.293.203.273.045.14 *30.04
SD0.490.520.500.49
Note. Means with unequal subscripts differ statistically significantly in the Turkey post-hoc tests. Type H = healthy-ambitious type; type U = unambitious type; type A = excessively ambitious type; type R = resigned type. * p < 0.0086.
Table
Table 5. Work-related and health-related personal resources and the association with general well-being: Results of the multiple regression.
Table 5. Work-related and health-related personal resources and the association with general well-being: Results of the multiple regression.
M1 βM2 βM3 β
Self-regulatory patterns
H0.40 ** 0.14 *
U0.16 * −0.01
A0.12 * 0.09
Health literacy
Self-regulation 0.39 **0.38 **
Self-control 0.15 **0.10 *
Self-perception 0.000.00
Proactive approach to health 0.21 **0.21 **
Communication and cooperation −0.06−0.05
Dealing with health information −0.06−0.07
R20.090.280.29
Note. R (resigned type) is the reference category. M = model; H = healthy-ambitious type; type U = unambitious type; type A = excessively ambitious type. For each regression, highly significant F value (p < 0.001), * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hohensee, E.; Weber, K.E. Teacher Trainees’ Well-Being—The Role of Personal Resources. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8821. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148821

AMA Style

Hohensee E, Weber KE. Teacher Trainees’ Well-Being—The Role of Personal Resources. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(14):8821. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148821

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hohensee, Elena, and Kira Elena Weber. 2022. "Teacher Trainees’ Well-Being—The Role of Personal Resources" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 14: 8821. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148821

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop