Happiness, Optimism, Positivity and Ethos in Schoolshopeschools.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HOPES_Consolidated_… · Project Number: 2016-1-CY01-KA201-017354 Happiness, Optimism,

Consolidated Report

Prepared by the

University of Malta:

Carmel Cefai, Rachel

Spiteri, Denise Mizzi

Project Number: 2016-1-CY01-KA201-017354

Happiness, Optimism, Positivity and

Ethos in Schools

IO2: CONSOLIDATED REPORT

THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN FUNDED WITH SUPPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION UNDER THE ERASMUS+ PROGRAMME. THIS PUBLICATION [COMMUNICATION] REFLECTS THE

VIEWS ONLY OF THE AUTHOR, AND THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE WHICH MAY BE MADE OFTHE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN

PROJECT NUMBER: 2016-1-CY01-KA201-017354

2

Contents

INTRODUCTION 3

METHODOLOGY 4

FINDINGS……… 6

CYPRUS…… 6

GREECE…. 12

IRELAND 37

MALTA 41

PORTUGAL 49

DISCUSSION 57

CCONCLUSION 59

REFERENCES 59

APPENDICES: COUNTRY REPORT

CYPRUS…… 61

GREECE 76

IRELAND 147

MALTA 165

PORTUGAL 176





3

INTRODUCTION

Teaching is considered as a highly stressful career with increasing levels of burnout, turnover and attrition

(Moon 2007; Ingersoll 2001; Smith and Ingersoll, 2004). A survey amongst European teachers found that

burnout, depression and emotional exhaustion are the most frequently encountered stress indicators and

stress reactions for teachers, particularly in primary schools (ETUCE 2007). Working intensity, role

overload, increased class size per teacher, unacceptable pupil behaviour and lack of support from

management were the top five stressors amongst teachers in Europe (ETUCE 2007). There is decreasing

interest in young people entering the profession (Moon 2007), while as much as 50 % of newly qualified

teachers may leave the profession within the first 5 years (Alliance for Excellent Education 2005;

Ingersoll 2003). Teaching is turning more and more into a revolving door profession (Ingersoll 2001).

Teachers’ health, wellbeing and resilience is related to their own practice including the quality of

their teaching, their relationships with the students and students’ own academic achievement and social

and emotional wellbeing (Cefai and Cavioni, 2014; Day and Qing 2009). High-quality teaching, one of

the most important factors in teacher effectiveness and student learning and achievement is dependent on

teachers’ motivation, satisfaction, commitment and positive attitudes (Bullough 2011; Day and Qing

2009).These positive attitudes and emotions help to build the teachers’ cognitive, social and emotional

resources, which in turn contribute to their ability to cope with the demands and stresses of the profession

and to their sense of well-being (Frenzel et al. 2009). This is particularly true of primary school teachers

where relationships are closer and more personal (Hamre and Pianta 2001).

One of the main objectives of the HOPEs project is thus to strengthen teachers’ ability to

positively interact and influence students’ behaviour and competences so as to ensure more effective and

meaningful education in schools. HOPEs aims to support the development and implementation of new

approaches in primary education by enhancing the efforts of educators to get accustomed to current trends

and strengthen their professional and personal development. The development of a new curriculum that

rests on the theoretical framework of Positive psychology and Character Education will result to an

increase of teachers’ professional skills. Consequently, advanced skills motivate teachers to improve their

teaching methods leading to a more effective coaching of their students on issues related to self

awareness, psychological resilience, happiness and positivity. Developing an innovative curriculum that

combines Positive psychology aspects with Character education resources will achieve a more

advantageous school environment for students and educators providing them with the necessary tools to

improve their academic, professional development as well as their quality of life in general.





4

One of the objectives of the project in the initial phase of its lifetime is thus to identify the current

needs of practicing primary school teachers in relation to their wellbeing and resilience. Intellectual

Output 2 (National research evaluation reports) sought to identify teachers' training needs in 5 out of 6

participating in the project, namely Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Malta and Portugal. This includes the

administration of a number of health, wellbeing and resilience questionnaires to 140 teachers from the

five partner countries, focusing on subjects such as: stress and depression, job satisfaction, happiness, self

esteem, resilience, and engagement. This information enables the partners to identify these needs and

design activities that correspond to them. Interventions will be acquired from the theoretical background

of positive psychology, which has been demonstrated to decrease levels of depression, anxiety and stress

and increase resilience and in turn, wellbeing. Each of the five partner produces a national report of their

findings which are then integrated into a consolidated report that will include all partners’ analyses of the

research findings for further analysis.

This consolidated report provides an overall profile of the findings on the basis of the five

national reports.

METHODOLOGY

The objective of this research study was to measure the health, wellbeing and resilience of practicing

teachers. More specifically it examined the degree of depression, anxiety and stress, the degree of

wellbeing and resilience, as well the values of the practicing teachers from five partner countries in the

HOPEs project.

Sample

Five partner countries were involved in this research; Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Malta, and Portugal. A

total of 153 practicing primary school teachers participated in the data collection, with ages ranging from

25-55. The table below outlines the number of participants from each country, their gender and their level

of qualification:

Number of Teachers

Male Female Bachelor’s Degree

Master’s Degree

Cyprus 50 0 50 12 38 Greece 45 6 39 19 26 Ireland 15 2 13 13 2 Malta 13 0 13 12 1 Portugal 30 5 25 24 6 TOTAL 153 13 140 80 73





5

Instruments Used

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS 21) (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), The DASS 21 is

a 21 item self-report questionnaire which measures the severity of symptoms related to depression,

anxiety and stress in participants. Participants were asked to indicate the occurrence of particular

symptoms over the previous 3 week period. Once the questionnaire has been completed, each participant

is given an overall score for depression, anxiety and stress which can range from normal to extremely

severe. Previous research (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns & Swinson, 1998; Henry & Crawford, 2005)

suggests that this instrument has an acceptable level of validity and internal consistency.

PERMA-Profiler (Butler & Kem, 2016). The PERMA-Profiler is an instrument used to measure

wellbeing across five areas: Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and

Accomplishment, with 23 items in total. Research by Butler & Kem (2016) suggests that the instrument

has a good level of consistency and validity.

Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) (Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2003) The

RSA measures the resilience of an individual across different dimensions; Personal Competence, Social

Competence, Family Coherence, Social Support and Personal Structure. This instrument provides a valid

and reliable measurement to assess the protective factors which an individual may use in order to

maintain a good level of mental health (Friborg, et al., 2003). Research by Hjemdal, Roazzi, Dias, &

Friborg, 2015) suggests that this instrument demonstrates cross-cultural validity.

Values Questionnaire. This questionnaire measured the participants’ views on 12 values, namely

love, offer, responsibility, boldness, justice, cooperation, citizenship, peace, respect, leadership, modesty

and freedom. Each participant selects a number indicating the importance each value has for him/her.

Analysis

Once the data was collected, this was analysed by working out the frequencies, means, and sum of scores

of the scores in the four measures. Both individual and group profiles for each country were computed.





6

FINDINGS

1.CYPRUS

DASS

DASS Individual Profiles

With regards to Depression 60% of the participants show normal severity rating, 18% moderate and 16%

mild severe and only 2% extremely severe . For anxiety, 74% shows normal rating, 10% moderate and

only 2% extremely severe. As far as stress severity rating is concerned, 72% of the participants show

normal rating, 12% mild and moderate and 4% severe.

Total DASS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

p1 p3 p5 p7 p9 p11 p13 p15 p17 p19 p21 p23 p25 p27 p29 p31 p33 p35 p37 p39 p41 p43 p45 p47 p49


Depression Anxiety Stress

0

100

p1

p3

p5

p7

p9

p1

1

p1

3

p1

5

p1

7

p1

9

p2

1

p2

3

p2

5

p2

7

p2

9

p3

1

p3

3

p3

5

p3

7

p3

9

p4

1

p4

3

p4

5

p4

7

p4

9

Dass Total





7

DASS Severity









8

PERMA-Profiler

Individual Profiles

PERMA Profiler Subscales

Mean

The data gathered concerning Perma Profiler Subsacales has revealed the following means for each

subscale: Positive Emotion: 7.23; Engagement: 7.03; Relationships: 7.71; Meaning: 7.64;

Accomplishment: 7.29; Negative Affect: 4.69; Health: 7.03. The mean for participants’ happiness is

estimated to 7.44 whereas the mean for loneliness is 3.5. The overall mean is 7.36.

0

5

10

15

Positive Emotion Engagement Relationships Meaning Accomplishment Negative Affect Health

Perma Profiler Subscales

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Participants' Happiness Levels (Mean=7.44)





9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Participants' Loneliness Levels (Mean=3.5)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Overall (Mean=7.36)





10

RESILIENCE SCALE

Individual Profiles

The individual profile reveals social resources, family cohesion, social competence and self-perception as

the most important variables that define participants’ resilience.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Self-perception Future-perception Structured-Style Social

Competence

Family Cohesion Social Resources

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Total Score





11

Mean

VALUES

Group Profile

All participants rated values quite highly. Leadership (18%) and boldness (32%) have the lowest value while respect (90%), love (88%), responsibility (88%), justice (86%) and peace (86%) are the most rated values.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Self-perception Future perception Structured Style Social

Competence

Family cohesion Social Resources Total score

Mean

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Values





12

2.GREECE

DASS

Descriptive Statistics

DASS 21


N Valid 45 45 45

Missing 0 0 0

Mean 3,07 2,84 5,04

Median 1 2 5

Mode 0 0 2

Std. Deviation 3,81 3,50 4,21

Minimum 0 0 0

Maximum 16 18 20





13





14





15

DASS Severity Ratings


1. Normal 0 - 4 0 - 3 0 - 7

2. Mild 5-6 4-5 8-9

3. Moderate 7-10 6-7 10-12

4. Severe 11-13 8-9 13-16

5. Extremely severe

14+ 10+ 17+





16





17





18





19

PERMA-Profiler

Total PERMA Profiler Chart and Subscale Charts

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

PERMA

Participants' levels of well-being

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Positive Emotions

Participants' levels of experiencing positive emotions

Mean=7.80

Mean=7.67





20

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Engagement

Participants' levels of engagement

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Positive Relationships

Participants' levels of having positive relationships

Mean=7.58

Mean=8.17





21

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Meaning in Life

Participants' levels of meaning in life

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Accomplishment

Participants' levels of accomplishments

Mean=7.70

Mean=7.95





22

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Negative Emotions

Participants' levels of experiencing negative emotions

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Health

Participants' health status

Mean=8.10

Mean=4.68





23

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Happiness

Participants' happiness levels

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Loneliness

Participants' loneliness levels

Mean=3.31

Mean=7.96





24

RESILIENCE SCALE

Total Resilience Scale Chart and Subscale Charts

125

141136132135131127

141

118127

112

136

91

144

129

107

122120

140

95

126

145138

121126

110

139

117

142

118125

150

136127

143

125

107105

145

158

127

157

131

118

138

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Resilience (sum)

3.79

4.274.124.004.093.973.85

4.27

3.583.85

3.39

4.12

2.76

4.36

3.91

3.24

3.703.64

4.24

2.88

3.82

4.394.18

3.673.82

3.33

4.21

3.55

4.30

3.583.79

4.55

4.123.85

4.33

3.79

3.243.18

4.39

4.79

3.85

4.76

3.97

3.58

4.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Resilience (mean)

Mean=128.51

Mean=3.89





25

2323

21

24

21

23

18

21

1617

22

14

25

16

20

23

25

10

16

24

21

24

19

24

18

2323

21

18

21

16

14

2021

2223

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Self-perception

1918

1617

14

12

15

12

10

16

1818

8

16

1413

16

1415

12

15

20

17

13

15

9

1314

16

1414

171716

15

18

89

18

20

12

16

12

1718

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Future-perception

Mean=21.73

Mean=14.80





26

10

16

1819

121313

19

10

2020

1515161616

13

19

14

12

16

18

15

10

1514

1717

131414

20

17

14

16

11

14

7

1817

12

2019

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Structured style

25

30

27

20

23

30

25

30

2223

25

2020

2324

18

2222

25

2021

20

2728

19

22

27

17

28

23242424

27

29

25

19

21

29

27

20

30

23

18

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Social competence

Mean=15.09

Mean=23.09





27

18

212121

28

21

17

30

26

23

10

28

12

27

23

18

24

15

27

15

25

28

23

2122

18

23

19

24

18

21

28

2625

27

22

25

18

21

30

27

30

23

13

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Family cohesion

27

3331

3434343432

2929

22

33

22

35

2726

2727

34

26

333535

23

31

28

35

3233

26

29

35

31

27

3533

27

3031

3435

3132

3333

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Social Resources

Mean=22.47

Mean=30.73





28

VALUES

Questionnaire of Values

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Love M=6,78

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Offer M=6,51





29

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Responsibility M=6,64

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Boldness M=5,60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Justice M=6,73





30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Cooperation M=6,49

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Citizenship M=5,96





31

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Peace M=6,64

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Respect M=6,64

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Leadership M=4,36





32

The most important values of the Greek Sample were: Love, Justice, Respect, Peace, Freedom and Responsibility, while the less important was Leadership.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Modesty M=6,11

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Freedom M=6,64





33

3. IRELAND

DASS DASS group profile

The chart below shows the average levels of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress reported by the participants. The group rated most highly along the stress scale, with a score of 16.3.

Total DASS

The chart below shows the combined scores of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress for each participant. The average score for the group (as shown by the red line in the chart) was 29.7, and the majority of respondents fell below this level.

7.2 6.3

16.3

0

5

10

15

20


DASS Group profile

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total DASS score





34

DASS individual profiles

The chart below shows the comparative levels of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress for each participant.

DASS Severity

Depression severity

The majority of respondents scored in the normal range for depression (67%; n=10). The remaining participants fell into the mild (20%;n=3) and moderate (13%; n=2)categories.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DASS Individual profiles


67%

20%

13%

Depression severity

Normal

Mild

Moderate





35

Anxiety severity

Along the dimension of anxiety most participants fell into the normal range (67%; n=10), with the

remainder categorized as moderate (13%; n=2), and some severe (20%; n=3).

Stress severity

On the stress scale responses were more variable, with the majority still categorized as normal (47%; n =7). Others were categorized as mild (27%; n=4), moderate (13%; n=2), although some participants scored higher on the severity scale, with one each in the severe and extremely severe categories.

67%

13%

20%

Anxiety severity

Normal

Moderate

Severe

47%

27%

13%

7%7%

Stress severity

Normal

Mild

Moderate

Severe

Extremely severe





36

PERMA-Profiler

Group profile

Overall wellbeing

The average score (as shown by the red line in the chart) was 7.23.

7.26.8

7.8 7.62

6.627.23

4.18

6.96

2.07

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

P E R M A Overall N Health Lonely

PERMA group profile

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

PERMA overall wellbeing





37

Individual profiles

Participants scored a 5 on Positivity, Relationships, Meaning, and Health. One participant scored less than 4 on Engagement, although all others scored above 5. Two participants scored 4 on Accomplishment, and all others scored above a 5. On the Negative Affect scale all participants scored under 6, with 8 scoring under 4.

Happiness levels

All participants scored above 5 on the happiness scale, with 9 participants scoring above the average of 7.6 (shown by the red line in the chart below).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

P E R M A N Health

PERMA individal profiles

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Participant happiness levels





38

Loneliness levels

The majority of respondents (n=9) scored below the group average of 2 (shown by the red line below). Of the remainder, 2 participants scored 3, 2 scored a 4, one a 5, and the one remaining participant scored a 6.

Resilience Scale

Individual profiles by scale

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Participant lonliness levels

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Self-perception Future

perception

Structured style Social

competence

Family cohesion Social resources

Resilience individual profiles





39

Individual profile

The average score (as shown by the red line in the chart below was 3.72).

Group profile

Participants scored similarly across each of the subscales, although social resources was scored highest, and self-perception scored the least.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

RSA global

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Group profile





40

Values

Group profile

The minimum average was 2.25 for Leadership, and the highest average was 4 for Responsibility.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Group profile





41

4.MALTA

DASS

DASS Group Profile


7.08

8.62

14.15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35






42

Total DASS

DASS Severity

Most of the participants (69.23%) rated as ‘normal’ on the level of depression, whilst 30.77% of participants showed mild signs of depression. 38.46% of participants showed a ‘normal’ level of anxiety, whilst 23.08% showed signs of ‘mild’ anxiety, 23.08% showed signs of ‘moderate’ anxiety, 7.69% had ‘severe’ anxiety’ and another 7.69% had ‘extremely severe’ anxiety. This demonstrates that the majority of participants displayed some level of anxiety above the ‘normal’ level. 69.23% of participants showed a ‘normal’ level of stress, 7.69% showed ‘mild’ levels of stress, another 7.69% showed ‘moderate’ levels of stress and 15.38% showed ‘severe’ levels of stress.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

69.23%

30.77%

Depression Severity

1 (Normal)

3 (Moderate)





43

38.46%

23.08%

23.08%

7.69%

7.69%

Anxiety Severity

1 (Normal)

2 (Mild)

3 (Moderate)

4 (Severe)

5 (Extremely Severe)

69.23%

7.69%

7.69%

15.38%

Stress Severity

1 (Normal)

2 (Mild)

3 (Moderate)

4 (Severe)





44

PERMA-Profiler

Group Profile

Individual Profiles

The graphs below show the levels of Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning,

Accomplishment, Negative Affect, Health, Happiness and Loneliness in participants, with 0 indicating

extremely low levels and 10 indicating extremely high levels.


All participants scored 5 or above on Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and

Accomplishment. 4 participants scored below 3 on Negative Affect, whilst 4 participants scored between

4-5 and 5 participants scored 6 or above. All participants obtained a score of above 6 for Health.

7.54

6.97

7.778.00

7.59 7.60

4.87

7.64

3.38

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9






45

All participants scored 6 or above on ‘Happiness’, with 9 participants obtaining a score of 8 or above.

5 participants scored between 0-1 on the Loneliness scale indicating very low levels of loneliness, whilst 3 participants scored between 2-4, 3 participants scored between 5-6 and 2 participants scored between 7-8 indicating high levels of loneliness.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

P E R M A N Health

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participants' Happiness Levels





46

The graph below shows the combined average score of P, E, R, M and A for each participant.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Participants' Loneliness Levels

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

PERMA Overall





47

RESILIENCE SCALE

Individual Profiles

The graph below shows the global Resilience score for each participant, calculated from the average of Self-Perception, Future Perception, Structured Style, Social Competence, Family Cohesion and Social Resources for each participant.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Self-Perception Future

Perception

Structured

Style

Social

Competence

Family

Cohesion

Social

Resources

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

RSA Global





48

Group Profiles

Participants generally scored highest on Self-Perception, followed by Social Resources, Family Cohesion, Structured Style, Social Competence, and Future Perception.

VALUES

Group Profile

Participants obtained a score of over 2.5 on all values from a scale of 1-4. Love and Respect were rated the highest, whilst Boldness and Leadership were rated the lowest.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5





49

Individual Profiles

5.PORTUGAL

DASS-

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

MT7004

M8280

MT5579

MT3170

MT9373

MTAnna

MT2743

MT3282

MT0473

MT6180

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Citizenship Peace Respect Leadership Modesty Freedom

MT7004

M8280

MT5579

MT3170

MT9373

MTAnna

MT2743

MT3282

MT0473

MT6180





50

DASS Group Profile


The analysis of the individual profiles obtained in the DASS scale reveals some discrepancies when comparing the constructs examined. Teachers 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 29, and 31 have the highest scores in, at least, one dimension of DASS, and highlighting the presence of severe stress in 5 participants (13, 16, 17, 29 and 30) and extremely severe depression in one teacher (29).

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

5.003.43

8.10

0

5

10

15

20

P2

3

P7

P1

8

P3

P1

5

P1

1

P1

2

P1

9

P2

5

P2

6

P9

P2

P2

0

P2

2

P2

7

P2

8

P6

P4

P2

1

P2

4

P5

P1

P1

0

P8

P1

4

P2

9

P3

0

P1

3

P1

6

P1

7

DEPRESSION ANXIETY STRESS

Normal

Mild

Moderate

Severe

No

rma

l M

od

era

te

Mil

d

Se

ve

re





51

Total DASS individual profile

DASS Severity for each dimension

The majority of teachers (58%) present normal scores on Depression, Anxiety and Stress. However, 23% show Moderate and Severe levels of Depression, 19% have Moderate and Extremely severe levels of Anxiety and 34% show Moderate and Severe levels of Stress.

58%19%

11%

12%

0%

Depression

Normal Mild

Moderate Severe

Ext. Severe

58%23%

15%0%

4%

Anxiety

Normal Mild

Moderate Severe

Ext. Severe

58%

8%

23%

11%

0%

Stress

Normal Mild

Moderate Severe

Ext. Severe





52

PERMA-Profiler

PERMA Group Profile

In general, all the scales measuring the PERMA constructs score very high. The overall score was 7.52, engagement scale has the highest value (7.75) and negative affect the lowest. The individual profiles show a relatively homogeneous distribution amongst the majority of the dimensions of PERMA profile, with the exception of Negative Affect dimension.

PERMA Individual Profiles

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

7.157.75 7.47 7.64 7.41

4.22

7.37 7.52

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10





53

Participants’ Happiness level

Participants’ Loneliness level

Despite the majority of participants show good levels of happiness, there are some with very low scores for Happiness. In what concerns Loneliness, near half of participants show null or low levels of loneliness, and the other half reveal moderate to high levels of loneliness

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10P11P12P13P14P15P16P17P18P19P20P21P22P23P24P25P26P27P28P29P30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Mean= 7.37

Mean= 3.33





54

PERMA Individual Profiles (total)

Individual profile analysis shows that teachers 8, 14, 17, 27 and 29 have the lowest scores. Similarly to the DASS scale responses (high values for depression and stress), teachers 17 and 29 scored low in the measure that evaluate well-being.

RESILIENCE SCALE

RSA Group Profile

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P1

0

P1

1

P1

2

P1

3

P1

4

P1

5

P1

6

P1

7

P1

8

P1

9

P2

0

P2

1

P2

2

P2

3

P2

4

P2

5

P2

6

P2

7

P2

8

P2

9

P3

0

Overall

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

5.21 5.21 5.12

5.97 6.03

5.50 5.49

Mean= 7.52





55

RSA group profile scores show values above the scale mid-point, although they are not too high. Family cohesion and social resources emerge as the strongest measures of resilience, and social competence as the weaker.

RSA Individual Profiles

Generally, all the teachers score above the average in the resilience scale with the exception of participants 17 and 29 who had the lowest scores both in resilience dimensions and for the global measure.

RSA Individual Profiles (total)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Perception

Social

Competence

Family Cohesion Social Resources Structured Style

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P1

0

P1

1

P1

2

P1

3

P1

4

P1

5

P1

6

P1

7

P1

8

P1

9

P2

0

P2

1

P2

2

P2

3

P2

4

P2

5

P2

6

P2

7

P2

8

P2

9

P3

0

RSA Global

Mean= 5.49





56

VALUES All teachers rated values highly. Leadership (2.87) and boldness (3.3) have the lowest values, although

over the medium point of the scale, while respect and responsibility are the most rated values.

Values Group Profile

Values Individual Profiles

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

43.91 3.91 3.96

3.3

3.83 3.783.93 3.91 4

2.87

3.613.83

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Love Offer Responsibility Boldness Justice Cooperation

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4






57

Leadership has the most imbalance distribution among the all set of values, followed by boldness. In general, we can conclude that both values are not very important for the inquired teachers.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

DASS Scale

Depression. More than two-thirds of the Irish, Maltese and Greek participants scored in the ‘normal’

range on depression. Almost one-third of Maltese participants showed mild signs of depression; 20% and

13% of Irish participants reported mild and moderate levels of depression, respectively. About 60% of the

Cypriot and Portugese participants reported normal levels of depression. 16% and 18% of Cypriot

teachers show mild and moderate signs of depression respectively; quite similar to the 11% and19% of

Portuguese participants.

Anxiety. Greek and Cypriot teachers show a similar profile of anxiety: more than two-thirds of Greek

participants’ experienced ‘normal’ levels of anxiety and 18% and 7% showed mild and moderate anxiety,

respectively; 74% of Cypriot participants showed normal rating and 10% moderate level of degree of

anxiety. A similar trend can be observed amongst Irish participants for normal (67%) and moderate

ratings (13%). In contrast, only 38% of Maltese participants are experiencing ‘normal’ levels of anxiety,

with 23% of participants showing mild and moderate levels of anxiety, respectively, and 8% experiencing

extremely severe levels of anxiety. On similar lines, 20% of the Irish counterparts are suffering from

severe anxiety. Therefore, more than half of the Maltese participants and more than one-third of Irish

participants are displaying some level of anxiety above the ‘normal’ level. 58% of Portuguese participants

experienced normal anxiety, while 23% and 15% of participants showed mild and moderate levels of

anxiety, respectively.

Stress. As in the case of anxiety, the great majority of Geek and Cypriot participants do not report high

levels of stress, with only about 12% showing mild and moderate levels of stress. The majority of

participants in the study show a similar profile to the Greek and Cypriot teachers on the normal, mild and

moderate levels, but not on severe levels of stress. In contrast to the Greek and Cypriot participants, 15%

and 11% of Maltese and Portuguese participants, respectively, experienced severe levels of stress. More

than half of Portuguese participants experience normal stress levels whereas almost one third (8% and

23%) show mild and moderate levels of stress. Irish participants’ responses were more scattered; almost





58

half of the respondents experienced normal levels of stress whereas 27% and 13% showed mild and

moderate levels of stress, respectively.

PERMA PROFILE

Very similar overall scores for the PERMA group profile were obtained for the participants across the

various partner countries (range: 7.23-7.80), namely: Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships,

Meaning, and Health. The same profile was also found on Happiness. A slightly lower score for

participants’ level of loneliness was recorded by the Irish participants (2.07) as opposed to participants

from Cyprus, Portugal, Malta and Greece who recorded a score of 3.5, 3.33, 3.38, and 3.31, respectively.

The overall findings suggest an overall positive PERMA profile with high scores on the positive

components (Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Health as well as Happiness)

and low on Loneliness and Negative Affect.

Resilience Scale

The RSA Global Score for the participants from Ireland, Malta and Portugal (GS for Cyprus and Greece

not available) ranged from 3.7 (Ireland) to 5.5 (Portugal). Higher Global resilience scores were reported

by the Portuguese participants (5.49), with the other participants scoring less (e.g. Maltese scored 4.3

whereas the Irish scored 3.7). The mean for Cyprus and Greece is 128-130. Social resources was the

highest for both Cyprus and Greece, followed by social competence and family cohesion; lowest scores

were on future perception and structured style. Self-perception’, ‘social resources’ and family cohesion

were the highest scores for Maltese participants. Similarly, ‘social resources’ and ‘family cohesion’ were

the most rated by Portuguese participants whereas Irish rated ‘social resources’ and ‘future perception’.

On the other hand, scored low on future perception, the Irish on self perception, and the Portugese on

social competence. Clearly social resources emerges as the key resilience factor for all participants across

countries; family is also a strong resilience process as well.

Values Scale

Very similar scores on the twelve values were obtained by all participants across the five countries. The

average score for Maltese, Portuguese and Irish participants was 3 (4 being maximum), while that for

Greek and Cypriot participants was 6 (7 being maximum score). ‘Respect’, ‘love’ and ‘responsibility’

were the most rated values by Maltese. Similarly, the Portuguese rated the most the values of ‘respect’,

‘responsibility’, ‘love’ and ‘offer’. The values of ‘responsibility’, ‘respect’, ‘love’ and ‘peace’ were

mostly rated by the Irish participants. For Cypriot participants, the most rated values were ‘respect’,





59

‘peace’, ‘justice’ and ‘love’. Greeks rated highly the values of ‘love’, ‘justice’, ‘freedom’, ‘respect’,

‘responsibility’ and ‘peace’. Thus, ‘respect’ and ‘love’ were two highly-rated values mentioned by all

participating countries, whilst leadership was generally rated quite low, followed by boldness.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of the data from the five country reports indicates a number of common features across the

five countries as well as various differences on the four measures. The overall picture of the health,

wellbeing and resilience of the participants appears to be positive such as overall positive PERMA

profiles, high resilience scores overall, and high ratings on values. On the other hand, the scores on DASS

suggest a moderate to high level degree of stress and anxiety amongst a considerable number of

participants; in some countries a significant minority suffer from severe stress. Clearly this is one area

which need to be addressed in the intervention being planned in the next phase of the project. However,

even within the PERMA Profiler and RSA, there are the relative high and low subscales which need to be

taken into consideration when developing the curriculum; these vary also from one country to another as

well. This suggests that while the development of the interventions in the subsequent intellectual output

of the HOPEs project needs to take into account the overall findings in seeking to present a common

intervention, it needs to make provision for adaptations according to the respective countries needs

identified in the national report.

REFERENCES

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation and to the

states. Washington: Author.

Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological assessment, 10(2), 176.

Bullough, R. V. (2011). Hope, happiness, teaching, and learning. In C. Day & J. C. Lee (Eds.), New understandings of teacher’s work. Emotions and educational change (pp. 15–30). New York: Springer

Butler, J., & Kem, M.L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3), 1-48.

Cefai, C & Cavioni, V (2014) Social and Emotional Education in Primary School. Integrating Theory

and Research into Practice. New York, USA: Springer Publications.





60

Day, C., & Qing, G. (2009). Teacher emotions: Well being and effectiveness. In P. A. Schutz & M.

Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research. The impact on teachers’ lives. New York:

Springer.

European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) (2007). Report on the ETUCE Survey

on teachers’ work-related stress.

http://etuce.homestead.com/News/2008/March2008/DraftReport_WRS_EN.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec

2012.

Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Stephens, E. J., & Jacob, B. (2009). Antecedents and effects of teachers’ emotional experiences: An integrated perspective and empirical test. In P. A. Schutz and M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research the impact on teachers’ lives (pp. 129– 151). New York: Springer.

Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult resilience: what are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment?. International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 12(2), 65-76.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638.

Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short‐form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS‐21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample. British journal of clinical psychology, 44(2), 227-239.

Hjemdal, O., Roazzi, A., Maria da Graça, B. B., & Friborg, O. (2015). The cross-cultural validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults: a comparison between Norway and Brazil. BMC psychology, 3(1), 18.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools.

Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lovibond, S.H., & Lovibond, P.F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. (2nd. Ed.) Sydney: Psychology Foundation

Moon, B. (2007). Research analysis: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers – a

global overview of current policies and practices. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714.





61

APPENDIX: COUNTRY REPORTS

APPENDIX 1 CYPRUS COUNTRY REPORT

CURRENT NEEDS Cyprus’ teachers have not drawn much attention for research, even though the worldwide

literature illustrates that this is one of the most extensive researched areas. Thus, very few studies

exist to demonstrate the mental health, wellbeing, depression anxiety and stress levels of teachers

in Cyprus. .

The majority of teachers in Cyprus seem to have chosen the profession due to the salary and

the benefits of working hours and holidays. There is a small number of teachers that wanted to

follow this profession (28.3%). It was found that as teachers’ age increases, job satisfaction levels

increase as well, which is contradictory when compared to other countries. Reasons for this could

be the salary increases as age increases, or, that they tend to improve their teaching practices,

which in turn helps them increase their satisfaction levels (Zembylas, & Papanastasiou, 2004).

Sources of satisfaction for Cypriot teachers are; “satisfaction of working with children and seeing

them grow and achieve, making a contribution to the society, working collaboratively with

colleagues and achieving personal professional growth” (Zembylas, & Papanastasiou, 2006, p.235)

This fact illustrates that the emotional rewards of teaching influence what teachers do as

they modify their teaching to make sure that they continue to experience these feelings of

satisfaction. On the other hand, sources of dissatisfaction are; social problems and how they

influence teachers’ work, students’ lack of interest, failure and bad behaviour, that has become a

worrying issue in schools, the centralized educational system and the lack of professional autonomy

in schools, and teacher evaluation and promotion prospects (Zembylas, & Papanastasiou, 2006).

Another study in Cyprus has demonstrated that the majority of teachers are satisfied with their job

(86.7%), while only a small percentage reported dissatisfaction (13.3%) (Menon, Papanastasiou,

Zembylas, 2008). However, even though the percentage is small, it is still of worry, since there is no

teacher turnover, and this means that teachers feeling dissatisfied are forced to stay in the

profession, as there is no alternative career option. Another important factor for job satisfaction is

the school climate, showing that a better school climate results in better job satisfaction. School

climate is linked to the quality of institutional climate and school effectiveness (Deal & Peterson,

1990). Teachers who were satisfied with the professional goals were more likely to report that they

are satisfied with their job (Menon, Papanastasiou, Zembylas, 2008).

In Cyprus, it has been demonstrated that teachers’ stress arises from managing discipline in

classroom and time constraints (Kokkinos, 2002; 2007). These factors were found to be related to

emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Kokkinos, 2007). Cypriot teachers report less

burnout levels compared to the U.S standardization sample of teachers (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter

1996). Personal accomplishment levels are comparable to the U.S sample, however, emotional

exhaustion and depersonalization were lower compared to the U.S sample, demonstrating

moderate physical and mental stress symptoms, even though, their attitudes towards students and

their work were not reported to be significantly influenced (Kokkinos, Panayiotou, & Davazoglou,

2005).

A study on teachers’ health styles in Cyprus found that 45% of the teachers thought that

their general state of health to be below average for their age. The authors went a step further to

propose that there is a need for “greater healthcare support (including psychological counselling)





62

for teachers suffering from low spirits” (Fontana, & Apostolidou, 2002 pg. 76), as lower levels of

self-care are associated with depression. These findings should be alarming. The authors propose

that training programmes should not only give emphasis to facts about health, but aim to develop

self-worth and self-belief.

Teachers need to face challenges such as low achievement and also behavioural problems

such as bullying of students. Cyprus’s educational outcomes, as measured by average national

scores in PISA and TIMSS, are below what might be expected given the country’s level of economic

development and investments in education. Results from PISA and TIMSS place students in Cyprus

significantly below the OECD average in reading, mathematics, and science (The World Bank, 2014).

Cyprus is becoming a multicultural island. This is evident from the numbers of immigrant

populations and refugee children attending Cypriot schools. This took society by surprise, including

the educational system (Angelides, Stylianou, and Leigh, 2003). Children from abroad admitted into

Cypriot schools have to deal with challenges such as; nationalism, racist behaviour, marginalisation

of some students and aggressive behaviour, as even our educational system contains many

nationalistic elements (Frangoudaki & Dragona, 1997) that pertain teachers’ education, the

curriculum and the books used (Millas, 1991; Mina, 2000).

It has been reported that, 17% of the Cypriot children are involved in some form of bullying

and victimization. Moreover, 5.4% of the children are involved in such events as exclusively bullies,

7.4% of the children as exclusively victims, and 4.2% as bully/victims (Stavrinides, Paradeisioutou,

Tziogouros, Lazarou, 2011).

Data Analysis

Sample Characteristics:

The sample was composed by 50 teachers from primary education. All of the participants were females.

12 of them hold an undergraduate and 38 of them a postgraduate degree.

Education Frequency Percent (%)

Undergraduate Studies 12 24

Postgraduate Studies 38 76

TOTAL 50 100%

The participants’ age range is shown in the table below:

Age Frequency Percent (%)

25-30 2 4

31-35 20 40





63

36-40 14 28

41-45 12 24

46-50 1 2

51-55 1 2

Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale






0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40








64

Total DASS

DASS Severity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Dass Total





65

With regards to Depression 60% of the participants show normal severity rating, 18% moderate

and 16% mild severe and only 2% extremely severe . For anxiety, 74% shows normal rating,

10% moderate and only 2% extremely severe. As far as stress severity rating is concerned,

72% of the participants show normal rating, 12% mild and moderate and 4% severe.





66

PERMA-Profiler

• Describe main results and include relevant graphs as follows:

Individual Profiles


Mean

The data gathered concerning Perma Profiler Subsacales has revealed the following means for each

subscale: Positive Emotion: 7.23; Engagement: 7.03; Relationships: 7.71; Meaning: 7.64;

Accomplishment: 7.29; Negative Affect: 4.69; Health: 7.03

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Positive Emotion Engagement Relationships Meaning Accomplishment Negative Affect Health

Perma Profiler Subscales





67

The mean for participants’ happiness is estimated to 7.44 whereas the mean for loneliness is 3.5. the

overall mean is 7.36.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Participants' Happiness Levels (Mean=7.44)





68

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Participants' Loneliness Levels (Mean=3.5)





69

0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Overall (Mean=7.36)





70

RESILIENCE SCALE


Individual Profiles

The individual profile reveals social resources, family cohesion, social competence and self-perception as

the most important variables that define participants’ resilience.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Self-perception Future-perception Structured-Style Social Competence Family Cohesion Social Resources





71

Mean

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Total Score

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Self-perception Future perception Structured Style Social

Competence

Family cohesion Social Resources Total score

Mean





72

VALUES


Group Profile

All participants rated values quite highly. Leadership (18%) and boldness (32%) have the lowest

value while respect (90%), love (88%), responsibility (88%), justice (86%) and peace (86%) are

the most rated values.

Discussion:

There are limited studies concerning teachers in Cyprus. Despite this, the results from the

HOPEs research seem to be in agreement with previous research (Kokkinos, 2002; 2007) that

demonstrated that burnout levels of Cypriot teachers are lower when compared to other countries.

This is evident by the small percentages of severity in Depression, Anxiety and Stress and higher

percentages of happiness, engagement, relationships, meaning accomplishment, negative affect and

health. In conjunction with previous research, teachers demonstrate moderate physical and mental

stress symptoms, even though, their attitudes towards students and their work were not reported

to be significantly influenced (Kokkinos, Panayiotou, & Davazoglou, 2005). Furthermore, there is a

distinction between primary and secondary school teachers in Cyprus. Primary teachers reported

more feelings of being exhausted in work than their secondary school colleagues that

communicated more feelings of being hardened and treating students impersonally, and more

feelings of reduced personal accomplishment (Kokkinos, 2006). Thus, primary teachers are in need

of training to increase their wellbeing, as there is no teacher turnover, and this means that teachers

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Values





73

feeling dissatisfied are forced to stay in the profession, as there is no alternative career option (Menon, Papanastasiou, Zembylas, 2008).

Moreover, even if it is a small number of teachers that have higher negative affect, others

have proposed that teachers need even psychological counselling to deal with the challenges of the

school environment (Fontana, & Apostolidou, 2002), and that teachers trainings should aim at

developing self-worth and self-belief.

With the training material that will be proposed by the HOPEs consortium, the aim is to

cultivate good character and increase wellbeing in both, teachers and students, in an attempt to put

an end to existing problems. By cultivating values in children, such as love, responsibility, justice,

and peace which are the most rated values by Cypriot teachers, it can act as a preventive measure

against bullying, since it has been demonstrated that school ethos, teacher-student relationships

and curriculum are the factors that influence in a negative way students’ behaviour (Mongon, &

Hart, 1989). By creating schools with ethos, we are hoping to eliminate these problems. Moreover,

studies have identified teachers as a key factor of change in bullying prevention (Hirschstein,

Edstrom, Frey, Snell, & Mackenzie, 2007; Kallestand & Olweus, 2003).

Schools, the educational system and teachers have the responsibility to shape individuals as

good citizens, where they respect others, have the feeling of justice and responsibility, as all

children should feel integrated, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual

orientation and the behavioural problems mentioned earlier to be eliminated (Theodorou, 2011).

This could be done with character education, where children learn values. Furthermore, it has been

extensively illustrated that positive emotions can broaden thoughts and actions and improve

physical, mental, psychological and social resources (Fredrickson, 2013). School interventions

focusing on these skills have facilitated prevention and reduction of symptoms of depression and

anxiety, hopelessness and behavioural problems as aggression and bullying (Brunwasser & Gillham,

2008). Similarly, PP interventions increase academic success levels, improved social skills (Casel,

2008) and classroom behaviour (Weber, Ruch, 2011) and attitudes towards school (Casel, 2008)

have been reported to have a positive impact on academic success.

The aforementioned problems could be dealt with the provision of trainings in Positive

Psychology principles and character education that teachers will be first trained and then train

their students. A research carried out in Cyprus concerning in-service training

needs of teachers, reports that, primary school teachers are motivated to get involved in training

activities that have to do with their personal need for development, the need to become better

qualified and the opportunity to differentiate their work (Karagiorgi, & Symeou 2007). Hence,

teachers believe in the life-changing effects of the educational process, and it is possible for them to

respond to appropriate efforts to improve their own psychological and physical well-being

(Fontana, & Apostolidou, 2002). This fact is encouraging, as this implies they will want to attend the

HOPEs training to improve their own psychological wellbeing, and transfer this knowledge in the

school and class setting.





74

References:

Angelides, P., T. Stylianou, and J. Leigh. 2004. Multicultural education in Cyprus: A pot of

multicultural assimilation? Intercultural Education 15, no. 3: 307–15.

Brunwasser, S.M. & Gillham, J.E. (2008) A meta-analytic review of the Penn Resiliency Programme.

Paper presented at the Society for Prevention Research, San Francisco

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2009) Standards and policies:

SEL policy. Available from http://www.casel.org/standards/policy.php

Deal, T.E. & Peterson, K.D. (1990), The Principal’s Rote in Shaping School Culture (Washington, DC:

US Printing Office).

Fontana, D., and Apostolidou, M. (2002). A survey of teachers’ health lifestyles in Cyprus. Health

education journal 61, (1), 70-77

Frangoudaki, A., & Dragona, T. (1997) What’s our Country? Nationalism in education. Athens:

Alexandreia [in Greek]

Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Updated Thinking on Positivity Ratios. American Psychologist. Advance

online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0033584

Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., Frey, K. S., Snell, J. L., & Mackenzie, E. P. (2007). Walking the talk in

bullying prevention: Teacher implementation variables related to initial impact of the steps to

respect program. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 3–21, Retrieved from

http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/index.aspx?volΌ36&issueΌ1.

Kallestand, J. H., & Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A multilevel study. Prevention and Treatment, 6(1),

Article 21. doi:10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.621a

Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2007). Teachers' in-service training needs in Cyprus, European Journal

of Teacher Education, 30 (2), 175- 194, DOI: 10.1080/02619760701275487

Kokkinos, C. M. (2002). Sources of stress in primary school teachers from Cyprus. In A. Gagatsis, L.

Kyriakides, N. Tsaggaridou, E. Ftiaka, & M. Koutsoulis (Eds.), Educational research in the era of

globalization. Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Cyprus Pedagogical Society. (In

Greek) (pp. 193–203). Nicosia, Cyprus: The Pedagogical Society.

Kokkinos, C. M. (2006). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Maslach Burnout

Inventory – Educators Survey among elementary and secondary school teachers in Cyprus. Stress

and Health, 22, 25–33.

Kokkinos, C. M., & Davazoglou, A. (2005). Burnout in special education teachers: The role of

personality and work-related stressors. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. (2005). Correlates of teacher appraisals of

students behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 79–89.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Menon, E, M., Papanastasiou, E., Zembylas, M. (2008). Examining the Relationship of Job Satisfaction

to Teacher and Organisational Variables: Evidence from Cyprus. SEA, 36, (3), 75-86

Millas, H. (1991) History textbooks in Greece and Turkey. History Workshop Journal, 21(2), pp. 21–

33.

Mina, G. (2000) The Greek–Turkish relations and the review of history books. Newspaper Simerini,

19 March, p. 27 [in Greek

Mongon, D., and Hart, S. (1989). Improving Classroom Behaviour. London: Cassell.





75

Stavrinides, P., Paradeisioutou, A., Tziogouros, C., Lazarou, C. (2011). Prevalence of Bullying Among

Cyprus Elementary and High School Students. International Journal of Violence and School, 11,

114-128

Theodorou, E. (2011). Children at our school are integrated. No one sticks out: Greek-Cypriot

teachers’ perceptions of integration of immigrant children in Cyprus, International Journal

of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(4), 501-520, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2010.509118

The World Bank. (2014). Analysis of the Function and Structure of the Ministry of Education and

Culture of the Republic of Cyprus. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit Southern

Europe Program Europe & Central Asian Region.

Zembylas, M. & Papanastasiou, E. (2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus. Journal

of Educational Administration, 42 (3) 357 – 374

Zembylas, M. & Papanastasiou, E. (2006). Sources of teacher job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in

Cyprus, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 36, (2), 229-247, DOI:

10.1080/03057920600741289

Weber, M., & Ruch, W. (2012). The role of a good character in 12-year-old school children: Do

character strengths matter in the classroom? Child Indicators Research, 5, 317-334.

doi:10.1007/s12187-011-9128-0





76

APPENDIX 2: GREECE NATIONAL REPORT

CURRENT NEEDS

During the last eight years Greece is experiencing a major social-economic crisis. In order to cope with it,

the Greek government has implemented a number of austerity memoranda which have had serious

financial, social, occupational and psychological effects on Greeks. Education, particularly, is a sector

that has been severely afflicted. As a result of the crisis there have been a lot of rapid and unexpected

changes in the educational structures and occupational status of teachers. From 2009 to 2013 the

primary school units were reduced by 13,5% (ELSTAT, 2015). School units, educational services, health

and welfare services have been eliminated or merged. According to research from the European Trade

Union Committee for Education (ETUCE, 2013), since 2008 there have been important cuts in education

budgets and in teachers’ salaries. In particular, the law 4024/2011 has brought about a reduction of 25%

in teachers’ salary.

These changes have placed a heavy burden not only on teachers but on students and their families,

presenting them with increased adversities, challenges and problems. Families and children are also

severely afflicted by the economic crisis, with one in five families experiencing unemployment and 10%

of the early childhood population lacking the basics for an uninterrupted school attendance (Kakana et

al., 2016). All these changes have important negative consequences in providing and receiving quality

education.

Apart from the crisis Greek teachers face a number of student problematic behaviors such as discipline

problems, covert aggression, deviant behavior, or social interpersonal dysfunctions (Kourkoutas,

Georgiadi, & Xatzaki, 2011). Kourkoutas et al. (2011) have found that Greek teachers report a high

percentage of student dysfunctional and problematic behaviors, which may elicit in them negative

feelings or confusing emotional reactions.

Research on Greek teachers has mainly focused on occupational stress and burnout. There is a scarcity

of research studies focusing on happiness and other well-being concepts. We managed to find only one

published research study that focused on teachers’ resilience, and some research that examines school

teachers’ job satisfaction.

Regarding stress research has shown that Greek teachers experience moderate to high levels of stress

on average, caused mainly by problems in interaction with students that show difficult behaviors and

lack of resources and equipment (Antoniou, Polychroni, & Vlachakis, 2006).Teachers of Primary

Education experience higher levels of stress than teachers of Secondary Education (Antoniou, Ploumpi,

& Ntalla, 2013). Research has also consistently shown that female teachers experience more stress and

lower personal accomplishment than men (Antoniou et al., 2013; Kourmousi & Alexopoulos, 2016;

Kourmousi, Darviri, Varvogli, & Alexopoulos, 2015), and the same applies to younger teachers

(Kourmousi & Alexopoulos, 2016; Kourmousi et al., 2015). In particular, Kourmousi and Alexopoulos

(2016) found that women and younger teachers reported significantly higher levels of stress mainly due

to lack of time and other work-related stressors. They also reported experiencing more emotional and





77

gastronomic symptoms. Kourmousi et al. (2015) have also found that additional factors which make the

teacher’s work harder such as having an increased number of students in the classroom or having

students that need support from special educators or have language difficulties, were associated with

greater stress levels.

Overall, research shows that Greek teachers experience lower levels of burnout than colleagues in other

countries (Papastylianou, Kaila, & Polychronopoulos, 2009; Polychroni & Antoniou, 2006). Indeed, a

study of Papastylianou et al. (2009) found that Greek teachers experience low-moderate levels of

burnout, depression, role conflict and role ambiguity and that teachers experience positive emotions of

personal accomplishment that help them cope with grief and lack of pleasure.

Research on resilience has also shown that Greek teacher’s resilience has been influenced by the

economic crisis at a moderate level and that more than half of primary school teachers in Athens display

moderately high and high resilience, while a very small percentage shows very low and low resilience

(Botou, Mylonakou-Keke, Kalouri, & Tsergas, 2017).

Finally, research has shown that Greek school teachers are generally satisfied with their profession,

despite all the problems they face (Saiti & Papadopoulos, 2015). In particular, Greek teachers are

satisfied with administration, their colleagues and the nature of their work and less satisfied with their

salary, benefits and potential rewards, which is understandable due to the financial instability and

economic restraints that exist in the Greek eco

Data Analysis

Figures 1-5 depict the distribution of the Greek sample regarding demographic variables. In particular,

we have taken measures for gender, age category and educational level. The sample consists of 45

teachers. 12 were in the 25-30 years old category group, 7 were 31 to 35 years old, 7 were 36 to 40

years old, 3 were 41-45 years old, 5 were 46-50 years old, 9 were 51-55 years old while 2 were 56-60

years old. The sampling procedure was carried out in a way to ensure satisfactory representation of

every age category in the sample. As far as gender is concerned 87% were female and 13% were male.

This quota is similar to the Greek teacher population distribution in which the majority are women.

Finally, we took into consideration the educational level of the participants. According to the analysis

58% of the participants were Master’s Degree holders while the remaining 42% were university

graduates. Tables 4 and 5 depict the crosstabulation between gender and age (Table 4.), and

educational level and age category (Table 5.). These crosstabulations may prove to be of particular

importance in the final stages of the program in regard to interpretations of results as well as to

comparisons to other countries that participate in the program.





78

Figure 1. Demographics Table – Age distribution in the Greek Sample

Figure 2. Sex distribution in the Greek Sample

12

7 7

3

5

9

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60

Age Distribution

39

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Female Male

Sex distribution in the Greek Sample

13,33 %

86,67%





79

Figure 3. Educational level distribution in the Greek Sample

Figure 4. Gender distribution in the specific age categories of the Greek Sample

26

19

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Masters Degree

University Degree

2.22%

24.44%

2.22%

13.33%

2.22%

13.33%

6.67%

11.11%

6.67%

13.33%

4.44%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

Ma

n

Wo

ma

n

Ma

n

Wo

ma

n

Ma

n

Wo

ma

n

Wo

ma

n

Wo

ma

n

Ma

n

Wo

ma

n

Wo

ma

n

25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60

Gender / Age Distribution

42,22 %

57,78 %





80

Figure 5. Educational Level distribution in the specific age categories of the Greek sample

In the present study, participants answered to four questionnaires in order to evaluate their levels of

psychological symptoms, well-being, psychological resilience and their values. More specifically, we

measured depression, anxiety and stress levels, levels of five well-being components, and levels of

resilience pillars. Figure 6 depicts the general profiles of the participants. Figure 7 shows the profile of

the participant with highest scores in depression, anxiety and stress scales. Figure 8 illustrates the

profile of the participant with the highest scores in well-being and resilience. Those results will be

discussed in the next parts of the present report, where the scores of each participant in each scale will

be analyzed.

13.33%13.33%

6.67%

8.89%

13.33%

2.22%

4.44%

2.22%

6.67%

4.44%

8.89%

11.11%

4.44%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

Ma

ste

rs D

eg

ree

Un

ive

rsit

y D

eg

ree

Ma

ste

rs D

eg

ree

Un

ive

rsit

y D

eg

ree

Ma

ste

rs D

eg

ree

Un

ive

rsit

y D

eg

ree

Ma

ste

rs D

eg

ree

Un

ive

rsit

y D

eg

ree

Ma

ste

rs D

eg

ree

Un

ive

rsit

y D

eg

ree

Ma

ste

rs D

eg

ree

Un

ive

rsit

y D

eg

ree

Ma

ste

rs D

eg

ree

25-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60

Educational Level / Age Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Participants' profiles

Depression Anxiety Stress PERMA Resilience (mean)





81

Figure 6. Participants profiles in depression, anxiety, stress, well-being, and resilience scales.

Figure 7. Profile of the participant with the highest scores in depression, anxiety and stress scales.

Figure 8. Profile of the participant with the highest scores in well-being and resilience scale

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


Participant with highest DAS score

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Participant with highest Well-being and Resilience scores





82


(DASS 21)

The DASS21 is a self-report scales designed to measure the negative emotional states of depression, anxiety and stress. The DASS was constructed not merely as another scale to measure conventionally defined emotional states, but to further the process of defining, understanding, and measuring the ubiquitous and clinically significant emotional states usually described as depression, anxiety and stress. The DASS should thus meet the requirements of both researchers and scientist-professional clinicians. Each of the three DASS sub-scales contains 7 items. The Depression scale assesses dysphoria, hopelessness, devaluation of life, self-deprecation, lack of interest/involvement, anhedonia, and inertia. The Anxiety scale assesses autonomic arousal, skeletal muscle effects, situational anxiety, and subjective experience of anxious affect. The Stress scale is sensitive to levels of chronic non-specific arousal. It assesses difficulty relaxing, nervous arousal, and being easily upset/agitated, irritable/over-reactive and impatient. Participants are asked to use 4-point severity/frequency scales to rate the extent to which they have experienced each state over the past week. Scores for Depression, Anxiety and Stress are calculated by summing the scores for the relevant items.

As the scales of the DASS have been shown to have high internal consistency and to yield meaningful discriminations in a variety of settings, the scales should meet the needs of both researchers and clinicians who wish to measure current state or change in state over time (e.g., in the course of treatment) on the three dimensions of depression, anxiety and stress.

Characteristics of high scorers on each DASS scale

Depression scale

• self-disparaging • dispirited, gloomy, blue • convinced that life has no meaning or value • pessimistic about the future • unable to experience enjoyment or satisfaction • unable to become interested or involved • slow, lacking in initiative

Anxiety scale

• apprehensive, panicky • trembly, shaky • aware of dryness of the mouth, breathing difficulties, pounding of the heart, sweatiness of

the palms • worried about performance and possible loss of control





83

Stress scale

• over-aroused, tense • unable to relax • touchy, easily upset • irritable • easily startled • nervy, jumpy, fidgety • intolerant of interruption or delay

The DASS in research

The DASS may be administered either in groups or individually for research purposes. The capacity to discriminate between the three related states of depression, anxiety and stress should be useful to researchers concerned with the nature, aetiology and mechanisms of emotional disturbance.

As the essential development of the DASS was carried out with non-clinical samples, it is suitable for screening normal adolescents and adults. Given the necessary language proficiency, there seems no compelling case against use of the scales for comparative purposes with children as young as 12 years. It must be borne in mind, however, that the lower age limit of the development samples was 17 years.

Clinical use of the DASS

The principal value of the DASS in a clinical setting is to clarify the locus of emotional disturbance, as part of the broader task of clinical assessment. The essential function of the DASS is to assess the severity of the core symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress. It must be recognised that clinically depressed, anxious or stressed persons may well manifest additional symptoms that tend to be common to two or all three of the conditions, such as sleep, appetite, and sexual disturbances. These disturbances will be elicited by clinical examination, or by the use of general symptom check lists as required.

The DASS may be administered and scored by non-psychologists, but decisions based on particular score profiles should be made only by experienced clinicians who have carried out an appropriate clinical examination. It should be noted also that none of the DASS items refers to suicidal tendencies because items relating to such tendencies were found not to load on any scale. The experienced clinician will recognise the need to determine the risk of suicide in seriously disturbed persons.

The DASS and diagnosis

The DASS is based on a dimensional rather than a categorical conception of psychological disorder. The assumption on which the DASS development was based (and which was confirmed by the research data) is that the differences between the depression, the anxiety, and the stress experienced by normal subjects and the clinically disturbed, are essentially differences of degree. The DASS therefore has no direct implications for the allocation of patients to discrete diagnostic categories postulated in classificatory





84

systems such as the DSM and ICD. However, recommended cutoffs for conventional severity labels (normal, moderate, severe) are given in the DASS Manual.

Table1. Descriptive Statistics

DASS 21


N Valid 45 45 45

Missing 0 0 0

Mean 3,07 2,84 5,04

Median 1 2 5

Mode 0 0 2

Std. Deviation 3,81 3,50 4,21

Minimum 0 0 0

Maximum 16 18 20





85

Figure 1. Sample distribution and mean in the Depression subscale





86

Figure 2. Sample distribution and mean in the Anxiety subscale





87

Figure 3. Sample distribution and mean in the Stress subscale

Table 2. DASS Severity Ratings


6. Normal 0 - 4 0 - 3 0 - 7

7. Mild 5-6 4-5 8-9

8. Moderate 7-10 6-7 10-12

9. Severe 11-13 8-9 13-16

10. Extremely severe

14+ 10+ 17+





88

Figure 4. Depression severity ratings





89

Figure 5. Anxiety severity ratings





90

Figure 6. Stress severity ratings





91

Participants Variance Per Item of the Scale

Figure 7. Sample distribution and mean in question 1.


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I found it hard to wind down M=0,44

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I was aware of dryness of my mouth M=0,38





92



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all M=0,49

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5 I experienced breathing difficulty (eg, excessively rapid breathing,

breathlessness in the absence of physical exertion)

M=0,36





93



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things M=0,44

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I tended to over-react to situations M=0,80





94



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I experienced trembling (eg, in the hands) M=0,33

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy M=0,73





95



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool of myselfM=0,60

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5I felt that I had nothing to look forward to M=0,44





96



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I found myself getting agitated M=0,96

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I found it difficult to relax M=0,84





97



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I felt down-hearted and blue M=0,78

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with what I was doing

M=0,47





98



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I felt I was close to panic M=0,29

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything M=0,36





99



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

I felt I wasn’t worth much as a person M=0,31

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5I felt that I was rather touchy M=0,78





100



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5 I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physicalexertion (eg,

sense of heart rate increase, heart missing a beat)M=0,51

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

I felt scared without any good reason M=0,36





101


The results show that the Greek Sample reported mild severity ratings of depression and anxiety and mild to moderate severity ratings of stress. Many studies have indicated that economic crisis has a significant impact on mental health. Findings from a Greek sample showed that individuals, who face serious financial difficulties, report higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress (Madianos et al., 2011). The monitoring of symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress is of crucial importance as it will allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention by comparing the before and after measures.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

I felt that life was meaningless M=0,27





102

PERMA-Profiler

The PERMA Profiler was constructed by Butler and Kern (2013) based on the theory of Seligman for the

five major components of well-being. Its purpose is to measure these components (positive emotions,

engagement, positive relationships, meaning in life and accomplishments) and experiencing negative

emotions and individual’s health status. The questionnaire consists of 23 questions and we used its

Greek version by Pezirkianidis and Stalikas (2016). The mean well-being of the sample was 7.80 and

standard deviation 0,96. The following tables present sample distribution in each item of the scale. In

the graphs, we depict personal scores of the 45 participants as well as the comparison to the sample’s

mean. The mean in each graph is depicted with a red line which is tagged with the mean score for each

item. The same applies to the results of the total scale and the subscales. In general, participants

reported high levels in every well-being pillar (M=7.58 to 8.17). Also, they gathered higher scores in the

subscales of positive relationships (M=8.17) and meaning in life (M=7.95). This may reflect specific

cultural characteristics that are common in Greece and may have influenced participants answers. For

example, family and friend relationships are very strong in Greek society.



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 1: In general, to what extent do you lead a purposeful and meaningful

life?

Mean=7.76





103



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Item 2: How lonely do you feel in your daily life?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 3: How much of the time do you feel you are making progress towards

accomplishing your goals?

Mean=3.31

Mean=7.26





104



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 4: In general, how often do you feel anxious?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 5: How often do you become absorbed in what you are doing?

Mean=5.68

Mean=7.82





105



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 6: In general, how would you say your health is?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 7: In general, how often do you feel joyful?

Mean=8.15

Mean=7.55





106



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Item 9: In general, how often do you feel angry?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 10: How often do you achieve the important goals you have set for

yourself?

Mean=4.15

Mean=7.64





107



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 11: In general, to what extent do you feel that what you do in your life

is valuable and worthwhile?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 12: In general, how often do you feel positive?

Mean=8.13

Mean=7.89





108



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 13: In general, to what extent do you feel excited and interested in

things?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 14: To what extent have you been feeling loved?

Mean=7.71

Mean=8.51





109



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 15: How satisfied are you with your current physical health?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Item 16: In general, how often do you feel sad?

Mean=7.75

Mean=4.22





110



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 17: How often are you able to handle your responsibilities?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 18: To what extent do you generally feel you have a sense of direction

in your life?

Mean=8.20

Mean=7.98





111



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 19: Compared to others of your same age and sex, how is your health?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 20: How satisfied are you with your personal relationships?

Mean=8.40

Mean=7.84





112



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 21: How often do you lose track of time while doing something you

enjoy?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 22: In general, to what extent do you feel contented?

Mean=7.22

Mean=7.58





113


Total PERMA Profiler Chart and Subscale Charts

Figure 23. Sample distribution and mean in the total well-being score of the scale

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Item 23: Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

PERMA

Participants' levels of well-being

Mean=7.80

Mean=7.95





114

Figure 24. Sample distribution and mean in the Positive Emotions subscale.

Figure 25. Sample distribution and mean in the Engagement subscale.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Positive Emotions

Participants' levels of experiencing positive emotions

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Engagement

Participants' levels of engagement

Mean=7.67

Mean=7.58





115

Figure 26. Sample distribution and mean in the Positive Relationships subscale.

Figure 27. Sample distribution and mean in the Meaning subscale.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Positive Relationships

Participants' levels of having positive relationships

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Meaning in Life

Participants' levels of meaning in life

Mean=8.17

Mean=7.95





116

Figure 28. Sample distribution and mean in the Accomplishment subscale.

Figure 29. Sample distribution and mean in the Negative Emotions subscale.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Accomplishment

Participants' levels of accomplishments

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

Negative Emotions

Participants' levels of experiencing negative emotions

Mean=7.70

Mean=4.68





117

Figure 30. Sample distribution and mean in the Health subscale.

Figure 31. Sample distribution and mean in the Happiness single item.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Health

Participants' health status

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Happiness

Participants' happiness levels

Mean=8.10

Mean=7.96





118

Figure 32. Sample distribution and mean in the Loneliness single item.

RESILIENCE SCALE


The resilience scale for adults that was administered in the study consists of 33 items that are scored

with a 5 point Likert scale. All items were calculated after reversed items were transformed. The items

add up to a total resilience score (min 33 points – maximum 165 points) and 6 subscales scores, namely:

Personal Strength / Perception of Self, Perception of Future, Structured Style, Social Competence, Family

Cohesion and Social Resources. The mean psychological resilience of the sample was 128.51 and the

standard deviation was 14.78. The following tables present sample distribution in each item of the scale.

In the figures, we depict personal scores of the 45 participants as well as the comparison to the sample’s

mean. The mean in each graph is depicted with a red line which is tagged with the mean score for each

item. The same applies to the results of the total scale and the subscales. In general participants

gathered higher scores in the social resources and family cohesion items (items 20-33). This may reflect

specific cultural characteristics that are common in Greece and may have influenced participants

answers. For example family relationships and openness to family and friends is quite common in Greek

adults, while this characteristic may not be at the exact same levels in the other countries that

participate in the program.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Loneliness

Participants' loneliness levels

Mean=3.31





119



5 5

4 4

5 5

3

2

4

2

3

4

2

4 4

2 2

5

4

1

2

3

4

5 5

4 4 4

5

4 4

5

4

2

3 3

2

4

5 5

4

5

3

5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

1) Ability to react when something unforeseen happens

3 3

4 4 4

3

4 4

3

4 4 4

3

5

4 4

3 3

4

3 3

4 4 4 4

3

4

3

5

4 4

5

4 4 4

3 3 3

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

2) Ability to solve personal problems

Mean=3.73

Mean=3.82





120



5 5

4

5

4 4

5

2

4

1

3

4

2

5 5

2

4 4

5

2

4

5

3

5 5

4

5

4

5

4

3

5

3

2

5

4

3 3

5 5

3

5

3

5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

3) Faith in personal abilities and skills

4

3 3

4 4

3 3

5 5

4

2

4

1

5

4

3

4 4 4

1

3

4

3 3

4 4 4

3

5

4 4 4

3

4 4

2 2

4 4

5

3

5

4

5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

4) Faith in personal judjements and decisions

Mean=3.73

Mean=3.64





121



5

3

4

3

4

3

4 4

2

4

3

4

3

4 4

2

4

3

4

1

2

4

3

5

4

3

5

2

5

4 4 4

3

4

3

2 2 2

5 5

4

5

4

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

5) Reaction in difficult periods

4 4 4

1

3 3

4

1

3

1

2 2

3

4 4

3 3

4 4

2 2

4 4 4

2

1

2 2

3 3

4

3

4

2 2 2 2

4

5 5

3

5

4 4

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

6) Accepting life events that i cannot influence

Mean=3.53

Mean=3.07





122



5 5

4

5 5

4 4

5

3

5

4

5

3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5

4 4

1

4 4

5

4

3

5

4 4

3

5

2 2

5 5

3

5

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344

7) Ability to accomplish future plans

5

4 4

5

2 2

4

2 2 2

5

4

2

4 4

2

4 4 4

2

4

5 5

3

4

2

4 4

3

4

3

4 4

3

4 4

2 2

4

5

3

1

2

4 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

8) Knwowledge for accomplishing future goals

Mean=4.09

Mean=3.42





123



5

4 4 4

3

4 4

1

2

4

5

4

1

4

2

4 4

3

4

3 3

5

3 3 3 3 3 3

5

3

4 4

5 5

3

5

2

3

5 5

3

5

3

5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

9) Promising Future perception

4

5

4

3

4

2

3

4

3

5

4

5

2

4 4

3

4

3 3 3

4

5

4

3

4

3

2

3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5

4

2 2

4

5

3

5

3 3

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

10) Future goals clarity

Mean=3.67

Mean=3.62





124



1

4

5 5

3 3

4

5

3

5 5

4

5 5

4

5

4

5

3

5

2

5 5

3

4 4 4

5

3

4 4

5

4

2

4

3

4

1

5 5

3

5 5

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

11) Preference for a clear goal to strive for

3

4

5 5

3

2 2

5

3

5 5 5 5

4 4 4

3

4 4

3

4

3

4

2

3

4

5

3

2

3

4

5

4 4 4

3 3

2

5 5

3

5 5

1

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

12) Preference for a thorough plan when i start something

new

Mean=3.98

Mean=3.69





125



3 3

4

5

3

4

3

5

1

5 5

3

2

3

4

2

3

5

3

2

5 5

3 3

4

3

4

5 5

3 3

5 5 5 5

2

3

2

4 4

3

5

4

5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

13) Organizing skills

3

5

4 4

3

4 4 4

3

5 5

3 3

4 4

5

3

5

4

2

5 5

3

2

4

3

4 4

3

4

3

5

4

3 3 3

4

2

4

3 3

5 5

1

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

14) Preference for rules and regular routines

Mean=3.73

Mean=3.69





126



3

5 5

3 3

5

4

5

4

1

3

2

5

3

4

2

3

5 5

3

4

3 3 3 3

4

5

3

5 5

4

5 5 5 5

4

3

4

5

3

4

5 5

1

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

15) Preference for social activities

5 5 5

4 4

5

4

5 5 5 5

3

5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3

5 5

4 4

5

4

5 5 5

4 4 4

5 5

4

5 5 5

4

5 5

1

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

16) Flexibility in social settings

Mean=3.84

Mean=4.40





127



3

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

3

5

3

2

3

2

4

2

3 3

4

3 3

1

5 5

3 3

4

2

4

3

4 4

3

4

5

4

2

4

5 5

3

5

3

5

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

17) Abiity to make new friendships

5 5

4

3

4

5 5 5

3

4 4 4

2

4 4

3

4

3

4 4

3

4

5 5

1

4 4

3

5

3

4

3

4

5 5

4

3

2

5

4

3

5

3

5

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

18) Ability in meeting new people

Mean=3.87

Mean=3.87





128



5 5 5

3

4

5

4

5

3

5 5 5

3

5

4 4 4 4 4

3

4 4

5 5

4

5 5

3

4 4 4 4 4

5 5

4 4

5 5 5

3

5 5 5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

19) Laughing when i am with other people

4

5

4

2

4

5

4

5

4

3

5

4

2

4 4

3

4

3

4

3 3

5

4

5

4

2

4

2

5

3 3

4 4 4 4 4

3

1

4

5

3

5

2

1

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

20) Thinking of good topics for conversation

Mean=4.33

Mean=3.61





129



3

4

2

4 4

3

2

5

4 4

1

5

3

4 4 4 4

1

5

1

4 4

3

4

3 3

4

3

4

3 3 3

5

4

3

4 4

2 2

5

4

5

4

2

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

21) My family's understanding of life important matters

similarity to mine understanding

3

4 4 4

5 5

4

5 5 5

1

5

3

5 5

3

4

3

5

3

5 5

3 3 3

4 4

3

4

3

4

5 5 5 5

4 4

5

4

5 55 5 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

22) Feeling happy with my family

Mean=3.49

Mean=4.20





130



3 3

4

5 5

3 3

5 5 5

1

5

1

5

4

3

4

2

5

3

4 4 4

3

4

3

4 4 4

3 3

5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 55 5

1

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

23) Healthy coherence in my family

2

3

4

2

5

3

2

5

3

1

2

4

2

4 4

2

5

4 4

1

4

5

3 3

5

3

4

2

4

3

4

5

4

5 5

2

4

2

3

5 55

2

3

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

24) My family keeps a positive outlook on the future in

difficult periods

Mean=3.84

Mean=3.49





131



4

5

4

5 5

4 4

5 5 5

4

5

1

5

4

3

4

3

5

4

5 5 5

3

4

3

4 4

5

3

4

5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4

5 55

4

1

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

25) Family members supporting one another

3

2

3

1

4

3

2

5

4

3

1

4

2

4

2

3 3

2

3 3 3

5 5 5

3

2

3 3 3 3 3

5

3

2

5

3

4

1

4

5

3

5

3

1

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

26) Doing things together with family members

Mean=4.24

Mean=3.20





132



5 5

4

5 5 5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

5

4

3 3

4

5

4

5 5 5

2

4 4

5

4

5

4 4

5

4 4

5

4 4 4

5 5 55 5 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

27) Discussing personal issues with friends and family

4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

3

5

3

5

4

2

4

3

4 4

5 5 5

4

5 5 5 5 5

4 4

5 5 5 5 5

4

5 5 5 55 5 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

28) Encouragement from friends and family

Mean=4.40

Mean=4.60





133



4

5

4

5 5 5 5 5

4

5

3

4

3

5

3

4 4 4

5

4 4

5 5

3

5

4

5

4

5

4 4

5

4 4

5

4

3

4 4 4

55

3

5

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

29) Strong bonds with my friends

3

5 5 5 5 5 5

2

5

1

2

5

2

5

4

5

3

5 5

2

4

5 5

4

5 5 5

4

3

4

5 5

4

2

5 5

4 4 4

5 5

1

5

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

30) Immidiately being informed in case of family

emergency/crisis

Mean=4.27

Mean=4.13





134



4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

3

5

3

5

4 4 4 4

5

4

5 5 5

4 4

3

5 5 5

3

4

5 5

4

5 5

4 4 4

5 55 5 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

31) Support from family and friends

3

4 4

5 5 5 5 5

4

5

3

4 4

5

4 4 4 4

5

4

5 5 5

3 3 3

5 5 5

4 4

5

4 4

5 5

4 4

5 5 55 5

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

32) Someone to help me when i need it

Mean=4.51

Mean=4.40





135


Total Resilience Scale Chart and Subscale Charts

Figure 34. Sample distribution and mean in the total resilience score of the scale

4

5

4 4 4 4

5 5

2

3

4

5

3

5

4 4

5

3

5

4

5 5 5

3

5

4

5 5 5

3

4

5 5

4

5 5

4

5

4

5 55

4

5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

33) Friends and famiy appreciate my qualities

125

141136132135131127

141

118127

112

136

91

144

129

107

122120

140

95

126

145138

121126

110

139

117

142

118125

150

136127

143

125

107105

145

158

127

157

131

118

138

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Resilience (sum)

Mean=4.38

Mean=128.51





136

Figure 35. Sample distribution regarding the total individual mean in the scale.

Figure 36. Sample distribution and mean in the Self-Perception subscale

3.79

4.274.124.004.093.973.85

4.27

3.583.85

3.39

4.12

2.76

4.36

3.91

3.24

3.703.64

4.24

2.88

3.82

4.394.18

3.673.82

3.33

4.21

3.55

4.30

3.583.79

4.55

4.123.85

4.33

3.79

3.243.18

4.39

4.79

3.85

4.76

3.97

3.58

4.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Resilience (mean)

2323

21

24

21

23

18

21

1617

22

14

25

16

20

23

25

10

16

24

21

24

19

24

18

2323

21

18

21

16

14

2021

2223

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Self-perception

Mean=3.89

Mean=21.73





137

Figure 37. Sample distribution and mean in the Future Perception subscale

Figure 38. Sample distribution and mean in the Structured Style subscale

1918

1617

14

12

15

12

10

16

1818

8

16

1413

16

1415

12

15

20

17

13

15

9

1314

16

1414

171716

15

18

89

18

20

12

16

12

1718

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Future-perception

10

16

1819

121313

19

10

2020

1515161616

13

19

14

12

16

18

15

10

1514

1717

131414

20

17

14

16

11

14

7

1817

12

2019

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Structured style

Mean=14.80

Mean=15.09





138

Figure 39. Sample distribution and mean in the Social Competence subscale.

Figure 40. Sample distribution and mean in the Family Cohesion subscale.

25

30

27

20

23

30

25

30

2223

25

2020

2324

18

2222

25

2021

20

2728

19

22

27

17

28

23242424

27

29

25

19

21

29

27

20

30

23

18

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Social competence

18

212121

28

21

17

30

26

23

10

28

12

27

23

18

24

15

27

15

25

28

23

2122

18

23

19

24

18

21

28

2625

27

22

25

18

21

30

27

30

23

13

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Family cohesion

Mean=23.09

Mean=22.47





139

Figure 41. Sample distribution and mean in the Social Resources subscale.

The results show that the Greek Sample has satisfactory resilience levels especially regarding the social

competence, family cohesion and social resources factors. Nevertheless, the sample’s mean in the first

three psychological resilience factors, namely perception of self, perception of future and structured

style even though it was not negative/below median, it was somewhat lower than in the social

psychological resilience factors. This finding may be linked to the need for personal growth and

interventions aiming at the increase of resilience levels. The monitoring of psychological resilience levels

is of crucial importance as it will allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention by comparing

the before and after measures.

27

3331

3434343432

2929

22

33

22

35

2726

2727

34

26

333535

23

31

28

35

3233

26

29

35

31

27

3533

27

3031

3435

3132

3333

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445

Social Resources

Mean=30.73





140

VALUES

Questionnaire of Values

This Questionnaire consists of 12 values. Each participant indicates the importance that each value has for him/her.

Figure 1. Sample distribution and mean in value 1.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Love M=6,78

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Offer M=6,51





141



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Responsibility M=6,64

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Boldness M=5,60





142



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Justice M=6,73

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Cooperation M=6,49





143



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Citizenship M=5,96

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Peace M=6,64





144



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Respect M=6,64

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Leadership M=4,36





145



The most important values of the Greek Sample were: Love, Justice, Respect, Peace, Freedom and Responsibility, while the less important was Leadership.

Values are very crucial because they determine our behavior and our quality of life.

REFERENCES

Antoniou, A. S., Ploumpi, A., & Ntalla, M. (2013). Occupational stress and professional burnout

in teachers of primary and secondary education: the role of coping strategies. Psychology, 4(03), 349-

355.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Modesty M=6,11

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Freedom M=6,64





146

Antoniou, A. S., Polychroni, F., & Vlachakis, A. N. (2006). Gender and age differences in

occupational stress and professional burnout between primary and high-school teachers in

Greece. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 682-690.

Botou, A., Mylonakou-Keke, I., Kalouri, O., & Tsergas, N. (2016). Primary School Teachers’

Resilience during the Economic Crisis in Greece. Psychology, 8(01), 131-159.

European Trade Union Committee for Education - ETUCE (2013). ETUCE survey: The continued

impact of the crisis on teachers in Europe. Brussels. Retrieved from https://www.csee-

etuce.org/en/documents/publications/99-report-of-the-etuce-survey-the-continued-impact-of-the-

crisis-on-teachers-in-europe

Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) (2015). Hellas in Numbers (Special Edition) [Ελληνική

Στατιστική Αρχή (ΕΛΣΤΑΤ) (2015) Ελλάς με αριθμούς Ειδική Έκδοση]. (In Greek) Retrieved from

http://www.statistics.gr/documents/20181/300673/GreeceInFigures_1015_GR.pdf/557c 814b-f984-

4caa-ad4f-deac8c1dfa55

Kakana, D., Garagouni-Areou, F., Theodosiou, S., Manoli, P., Mavidou, A., Roussi-Vergou, C., ... &

Tsafos, V. (2016). Το Πρόγραμμα TOCSIN: διαστάσεις και επιπτώσεις της οικονομικής κρίσης στην

πρωτοβάθμια εκπαίδευση. Διάλογοι! Θεωρία και πράξη στις επιστήμες αγωγής και εκπαίδευσης, 2, 78-

102.

Kourkoutas, E., Georgiadi, M., & Xatzaki, M. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ social

dysfunctions: A combined qualitative and quantitative approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 15, 3870-3880.

Kourmousi, N., & Alexopoulos, E. C. (2016). stress sources and Manifestations in a nationwide

sample of Pre-Primary, Primary, and secondary educators in greece. Frontiers in public health, 4.

Kourmousi, N., Darviri, C., Varvogli, L., & Alexopoulos, E. C. (2015). Teacher Stress Inventory:

validation of the Greek version and perceived stress levels among 3,447 educators. Psychology research

and behavior management, 8, 81-88.

Papastylianou, A., Kaila, M., & Polychronopoulos, M. (2009). Teachers’ burnout, depression, role

ambiguity and conflict. Social Psychology of Education, 12(3), 295-314.

Polychroni, F., & Antoniou, A. S. (2006). Occupational stress and burnout of Greek teachers of

primary and secondary education. In X. F. Papailiou, G. Ksanthakou, & S. Xatzichristou (Eds.), Educational

and school psychology (pp. 161-186). Athens: Atrapos.

Saiti, A., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2015). School teachers’ job satisfaction and personal

characteristics: A quantitative research study in Greece. International Journal of Educational

Management, 29(1), 73-97





147

APPENDIX 3 IRELAND COUNTRY REPORT

1 CURRENT NEEDS

Teacher stress refers to the “the experience by a teacher of unpleasant, negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, tension, frustration or depression” (Kyriacou, 2001, p.28). The issue of teacher stress is ubiquitous and can have detrimental effects upon burnout rates, job satisfaction, absenteeism and rates of attrition amongst teachers as well as adversely effecting pupil outcomes (Kyriacou, 1987; Montgomery & Rupp, 2005). Thus, it is evident that the concept of stress be requires extensive research in order to identify the factors which influence the levels of teacher stress and attempt to determine how to reduce or control job stress and minimise these adverse outcomes. A limited pool of research has been conducted exploring the concept of teacher stress in an Irish context and has yielded some insight into the sources and outcomes of job stress among Irish education professionals. In 2014, the Association for Secondary Teacher in Ireland (ASTI) commissioned survey into job stress level in Irish teaching professionals revealed the extent to which stress had become an issue nationwide, with the 60% of ASTI members (secondary school teachers) self-reporting as feeling "continuously stressed" with 51% declaring their workload to be "very heavy" which rose from 30% in 2009. The ESRI conducted a research study which focused on occupational stress and job satisfaction among Irish teaching professionals in which 45% of primary school teachers declared themselves to be stressed (Darmody & Smyth, 2011). These teachers indicated that behavioural problems among students, inter-staff relationship issues, inadequately resourced working environments, low levels of teacher control and poor or antiquated facilities all contributed to this elevated job stress (Darmody & Smyth, 2011). The ETUCE report (2007) into teacher stress in a European sample showed that the main stressors for Irish primary school teachers included increased class sizes, negative school environments and a shortage in school funding. Stressors for secondary school teachers appeared to centre around workload with workload intensity, class sizes, role overload and behavioural issues emerging as the most significant sources of stress. Consistent, long-term stress has been shown to contribute significantly to a multitude of negative physical and psychological health outcome among sufferers. The findings produced in a study researching job stress in an Irish primary school teacher sample conducted by Reilly, Dhingra and Boduszek (2014) indicates that an individual's perceived stress levels adversely influences one's job satisfaction, a pertinent finding as job satisfaction has been linked in the research to rates attrition in the education profession (Perrachione, Petersen & Rosser, 2008). Further research revealed that the principle outcomes of excessive stress on members of the Irish teaching profession ranged from demotivation, fatigue, strain, reduced confidence levels, decreased social contact, increased anxiety and decreased psychological wellbeing (Wynne, Clarkin & Dolphin, 1991; Fitzgerald, 2008; Bolton, 2015). Elevated job stress also impacts upon teacher motivation and performance which has been postulated as having knock effects for student learning and performance (Miller, Murnane & Willett, 2007), which underlines just how





148

imperative it is that this ever growing issue of teacher stress be alleviated for both the affected teachers and the students under their tuition. Though the research into the coping strategies adopted by Irish teachers in response to these increased stress levels is limited, research by Kerr, Breen, Delaney, Kelly & Miller (2011) has offered some insight into this area. The participants within this research were secondary school teachers and indicated that the coping strategies they availed of most regularly were discussing any issues they may have been experiencing with their colleagues, disclosing the issue to their superior (principal of the school) and engaging in distraction techniques such as physical activity or socialising. The participants stated that they felt underprepared for the stresses they were encountered with on a daily basis. Half of the sample indicated that they felt that the HDipEd did not provide ample preparation for the realities of working in a classroom environment. From the evidence presented, it becomes increasing clear that the issue of teacher stress is one which is in need of addressing in an Irish context. Occupational stress is exerting an increasingly deleterious influence over the quality of teaching which Irish teachers are capable of engaging in whilst also adversely impacting teacher morale, mental health and longevity. Prompt and decisive intervention is required in order to ensure that the downward trajectory of the mental and physical health of Irish teachers is halted and a more positive working environment can be cultivated.

2 DATA ANALYSIS

1 Participant demographics

43%

36%

14%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

25-30 31-35 41-45 51-55

Age range of participants





149

The participants in the study were primary school teachers (N=15) from Ireland. They were recruited

using an email campaign, asking them to take part in an online survey as part of the HOPEs Project. The

majority of participants fell into the 25-30 year old age group (43%; n=7), and there were participants in

all age groups up to the 51-55 year old group. The gender ratio of the participants was 6.5:1 (Female to

male), which reflects the demographic of primary school teachers in Ireland. The majority of participants

87%

13%

Gender of participants

Female

Male

87%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree

Educational attainment





150

had attained an educational standard of Bachelors degree (87%; n=13), and the remainder had achieved

a masters degree (13%; n=2).

2 Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale

DASS group profile

The chart below shows the average levels of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress reported by the

participants. The group rated most highly along the stress scale, with a score of 16.3.

Total DASS

The chart below shows the combined scores of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress for each participant. The

average score for the group (as shown by the red line in the chart) was 29.7, and the majority of

respondents fell below this level.

7.2 6.3

16.3

0

5

10

15

20


DASS Group profile

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total DASS score





151

DASS individual profiles

The chart below shows the comparative levels of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress for each participant.

DASS Severity

Depression severity

The majority of respondents scored in the normal range for depression (67%; n=10). The remaining

participants fell into the mild (20%;n=3) and moderate (13%; n=2)categories.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DASS Individual profiles






152

Anxiety severity

Along the dimension of anxiety most participants fell into the normal range (67%; n=10), with the

remainder categorized as moderate (13%; n=2), and some severe (20%; n=3).

67%

20%

13%

Depression severity

Normal

Mild

Moderate

67%

13%

20%

Anxiety severity

Normal

Moderate

Severe





153

Stress severity

On the stress scale responses were more variable, with the majority still categorized as normal (47%; n

=7). Others were categorized as mild (27%; n=4), moderate (13%; n=2), although some participants

scored higher on the severity scale, with one each in the severe and extremely severe categories.

3 PERMA-Profiler

Group profile

The chart below shows the average scores for the group along each of the subscales of the PERMA

profiler.

47%

27%

13%

7%7%

Stress severity

Normal

Mild

Moderate

Severe

Extremely severe





154

Overall wellbeing

The chart below shows the measure of overall wellbeing for each participant. The overall wellbeing is

calculated as the mean of the scores from Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning,

Accomplishment, and Happiness. The average score (as shown by the red line in the chart) was 7.23.

7.26.8

7.8 7.62

6.627.23

4.18

6.96

2.07

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


PERMA group profile

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

PERMA overall wellbeing





155

Individual profiles

The chart below shows the score for each individual grouped by the PERMA sub-scales. Participants

scored a 5 on Positivity, Relationships, Meaning, and Health. One participant scored less than 4 on

Engagement, although all others scored above 5. Two participants scored 4 on Accomplishment, and all

others scored above a 5. On the Negative Affect scale all participants scored under 6, with 8 scoring

under 4.

Happiness levels

All participants scored above 5 on the happiness scale, with 9 participants scoring above the average of

7.6 (shown by the red line in the chart below).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

P E R M A N Health

PERMA individal profiles

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Participant happiness levels





156

Loneliness levels

The majority of respondents (n=9) scored below the group average of 2 (shown by the red line below).

Of the remainder, 2 participants scored 3, 2 scored a 4, one a 5, and the one remaining participant

scored a 6.

4 Resilience Scale

Individual profiles by scale

The chart below shows the level for each participant within each of the Resilience sub-scales.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Participant lonliness levels

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Self-perception Future

perception

Structured style Social

competence

Family cohesion Social resources

Resilience individual profiles





157

Individual profile

The chart below shows the global resilience score for each participant. This is calculated as the sum of

the average for each of the sub-scales for each participant. The average score (as shown by the red line

in the chart below was 3.72).

Group profile

The chart below shows the average levels of each of the resilience subscales. Participants scored

similarly across each of the subscales, although social resources was scored highest, and self-perception

scored the least.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

RSA global

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Group profile





158

5 Values

Group profile

The chart below shows the average score for each of the items on the values survey. The minimum

average was 2.25 for Leadership, and the highest average was 4 for Responsibility.

3 CONCLUSIONS The results from the DASS scale’s group profile show that the factor of Stress is almost double that of

either Depression or Anxiety. When we look at the combined averages (of each scale) for each

participant we can see that there are four participants whose total DASS scores are well above the

average and may be causing a loading for Stress in the group results. Looking at the Depression, Anxiety,

and Stress scores for each individual we can see that those with higher total DASS scores rated most

highly in Stress and this can account for the high Stress scores in the group profile.

Looking at the severity of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress amongst the group we can see again that the

factor of Stress has the highest scores, with some participants in the severe and extremely severe

categories. The factors of Depression and Anxiety show the majority of respondents in the normal to

moderate range.

These findings from the DASS indicate that Stress is a key factor that may need to be addressed in the

participant group.

The PERMA profiles suggest that the group have a positive health profile, with average scores being over

6.5 for each PERMA sub scale and Health, below 4.5 for Negative Emotion, and below 2.5 for Loneliness.

The results also show a high level of overall wellbeing for each individual, with an average score of 7.23,

the lowest score being 5.5, and the highest being 8.5.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Group profile





159

As part of the PERMA questionnaire participants also rated highly on Happiness, with the majority

scoring above the average of 7.6, and only three participants scoring below 6.

Although the group profile is positive there were a number of individuals within the group who scored

well above average for loneliness, and this might be a factor worth addressing.

As with the PERMA, the RSA global scores for each individual (averages of all subscales combined)

reflect a group with a healthy level of resilience, with all participants close to the average score. Looking

at the subscales also, we can see that the combined individual average for each scale are all close to

each other, with only self-perception being slightly lower than the others. The scales of Social Resources

and Future Perception were rated highest, indicating perhaps that the participants had a wider network

to draw on in times of need, and felt supported by that.

On the Values Scale participants rated the values of Love, Responsibility, and Respect as most important,

whilst Leadership and Boldness were rated as less important.

4 REFERENCES

Billehøj, H. (2007). Report on the ETUCE Survey on Teachers' Work Related Stress (p. 8).

European Trade Union Committee for Education.

Bolton, M. (2015). Work Related Stress among Second Level Teachers in Ireland. (Doctoral

dissertation, Dublin, National College of Ireland).

Butler, J. & Kern, M. L. (2015). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of

flourishing.

Darmody, M., & Smyth, E. (2011). Job satisfaction and occupational stress among primary

school teachers and school principals in Ireland. Dublin, Ireland., ESRI/The Teaching

Council.

Fitzgerald, B. (2008). Teachers and workplace stress. ASTIR. 26(1), pp. 17-18.

Friborg,O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J., & Hjemdal, O. (2005). Resilience in

relation to personality and intelligence. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric

Research, 14(1), 29-42.

Gomez, R., Summers, M., Summers, A. et al. (2014). DASS-21 Scale. Journal of

Psychopathology Behavioral Assessment, 36, 308.





160

Humphreys, J. (2014, April 16th). Sixty per cent of teachers "feeling continuously stressed". The

Irish Times. Retrieved from http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/sixty-per-cent-

of-teachers-feeling-continuously-stressed-1.1763843.

Kerr, R. A., Breen, J., Delaney, M., Kelly, C., & Miller, K. (2011). A qualitative study of

workplace stress and coping in secondary teachers in Ireland. Irish Journal of Applied

Social Studies, 11, 3.

Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher stress and burnout: An international review. Educational research,

29(2), 146-152.

Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational review 53, 27-

35.

Miller, R. T., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2008). Do teacher absences impact student

achievement? Longitudinal evidence from one urban school district. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 181-200.

Montgomery, C., & Rupp, A. A. (2005). A meta-analysis for exploring the diverse causes and

effects of stress in teachers. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de

l'éducation, 458-486.

Perrachione, B. A., Petersen, G. J., & Rosser, V. J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary

teachers' perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32, 1.

Reilly, E., Dhingra, K., & Boduszek, D. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, self-esteem, and

job stress as determinants of job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational

Management, 28, 365-378.

Wynne, R., Clarkin, N., & Dolphin, C. (1991). Stress and teachers, Council of Teachers’ Unions

Survey on Teacher Stress. Dublin: Work research Centre. ltd.





161

APPENDIX 4: MALTA COUNTRY REPORT

CURRENT NEEDS Teaching is considered as a highly stressful career with increasing levels of burnout, turnover and attrition

(Moon 2007; Ingersoll 2001; Smith and Ingersoll, 2004). A survey amongst European teachers found that

burnout, depression and emotional exhaustion are the most frequently encountered stress indicators and

stress reactions for teachers, particularly in primary schools (ETUCE 2007). Working intensity, role

overload, increased class size per teacher, unacceptable pupil behaviour and lack of support from

management were the top five stressors amongst teachers in Europe (ETUCE 2007). There is decreasing

interest in young people entering the profession (Moon 2007), while as much as 50 % of newly qualified

teachers may leave the profession within the first 5 years (Alliance for Excellent Education 2005;

Ingersoll 2003). Teaching is turning more and more into a revolving door profession (Ingersoll 2001).

In one of the few relatively large scale studies on teacher stress in Malta, Borg and Falzon (1989)

conducted a survey amongst 844 Maltese primary school teachers in state schools, to assess the

prevalence of stress and level of job satisfaction. Three out of every ten teachers rated their job as very

stressful. The study reported significant negative correlations between self‐reported teacher stress and job

satisfaction, and between teacher stress and intention to take up a teaching career a second time. The

teaching load in primary and secondary schools in Malta is one of the highest in the European Union,

with Maltese teachers dedicating long hours to the preparation of lessons and the correction of homework,

increasing clerical work and facing increasing challenging pupil behaviour. (Malta Independent, 30th

March, 2008). A more recent study with primary school teachers in Gozo, one of the ten regional

colleges in the country, Grech (2010) found that the main sources of stress were having arrogant children

in class, covering all the syllabus in the time available and heavy workload. A study by Cassar and

Formosa (2011) with 376 secondary school teachers found that the main sources of stress were low

salaries compared to their workload followed by low motivated and misbehaving students. 37% found

teaching very or extremely stressful and 82% felt their salary should improve, creating high stress levels

for them. Student misbehaviour was another source of stress for secondary teachers, particularly in state

schools; the highest source of stress in church schools was coping with syllabus requirements while long

hours of work was more evident as a source of stress in independent schools.





162

In a recent press conference on 16th January 2017, the Malta Union of Teachers (MUT) (2017)

warned that the teaching profession is experiencing a crisis to the extent that there is a shortage of

teachers in core areas in both secondary and primary school sectors. The Union mentioned poor salaries,

too many reforms implemented in a short period of time, the inflexibility of the curriculum and school-

based issues such as crowdedness and lack of security, as some of the problems facing the teaching

profession. In 2012, Borg and Giordmaina (2012) had conducted a study with 1474 school staff from

across all state school sectors to investigate the impact of the College Reform and accompanying reforms

on education personnel in all teaching grades, including primary and secondary school teachers. Most

educators interviewed complained that too many reforms at the same time were being implemented. The

overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that the College System has brought about an increase in

the volume of work for teachers and is rendering schools even more impersonal to students. More than

half of the respondents felt that the reforms were not resulting in better quality education for all students

and were impacting negatively on the teachers’ work in class. The study concluded that the reforms that

were taking place had not impacted positively on the teachers’ job happiness and satisfaction, and the

overwhelming majority maintained that the pressure in their work has increa

Data Analysis

Sample Characteristics:

Age

Age Frequency Percentage

25-30 0 0.00%

31-35 2 15.40%

36-40 4 30.80%

41-45 3 23.00%

46-50 2 15.40%

51-55 2 15.40%

56-60 0 0.00%

61+ 0 0.00%





163

Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage Male 0 0.00% Female 13 100.00%

Educational Level

Educational Level Frequency Percentage Bachelor’s Degree 12 92.31% Master’s Degree 1 7.69%


DASS Group Profile

7.08

8.62

14.15

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16






164


The graph below shows the levels of Depression, Anxiety and Stress in each participant.

Total DASS

The graph below shows the combined score of Depression, Anxiety and Stress in each participant.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70





165

DASS Severity

Most of the participants (69.23%) rated as ‘normal’ on the level of depression, whilst 30.77% of participants showed mild signs of depression.

38.46% of participants showed a ‘normal’ level of anxiety, whilst 23.08% showed signs of ‘mild’ anxiety, 23.08% showed signs of ‘moderate’ anxiety, 7.69% had ‘severe’ anxiety’ and another 7.69% had ‘extremely severe’ anxiety. This demonstrates that the majority of participants displayed some level of anxiety above the ‘normal’ level.

69.23% of participants showed a ‘normal’ level of stress, 7.69% showed ‘mild’ levels of stress, another 7.69% showed ‘moderate’ levels of stress and 15.38% showed ‘severe’ levels of stress.

69.23%

30.77%

Depression Severity

1 (Normal)

3 (Moderate)





166

38.46%

23.08%

23.08%

7.69%

7.69%

Anxiety Severity

1 (Normal)

2 (Mild)

3 (Moderate)

4 (Severe)

5 (Extremely Severe)

69.23%

7.69%

7.69%

15.38%

Stress Severity

1 (Normal)

2 (Mild)

3 (Moderate)

4 (Severe)





167

PERMA-Profiler

Group Profile

Individual Profiles

The graphs below show the levels of Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment, Negative Affect, Health, Happiness and Loneliness in participants, with 0 indicating extremely low levels and 10 indicating extremely high levels.


All participants scored 5 or above on Positive Emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment. 4 participants scored below 3 on Negative Affect, whilst 4 participants scored between 4-5 and 5 participants scored 6 or above. All participants obtained a score of above 6 for Health.

7.54

6.97

7.778.00

7.59 7.60

4.87

7.64

3.38

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9






168

All participants scored 6 or above on ‘Happiness’, with 9 participants obtaining a score of 8 or above.

5 participants scored between 0-1 on the Loneliness scale indicating very low levels of loneliness, whilst 3 participants scored between 2-4, 3 participants scored between 5-6 and 2 participants scored between 7-8 indicating high levels of loneliness.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

P E R M A N Health

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Participants' Happiness Levels





169

The graph below shows the combined average score of P, E, R, M and A for each participant.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Participants' Loneliness Levels

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

PERMA Overall





170

RESILIENCE SCALE

Individual Profiles

The graph below shows the levels of Self-Perception, Future Perception, Structured Style, Social Competence, Family Cohesion and Social Resources for each participant.

The graph below shows the global Resilience score for each participant, calculated from the average of Self-Perception, Future Perception, Structured Style, Social Competence, Family Cohesion and Social Resources for each participant.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Perception

Structured

Style

Social

Competence

Family

Cohesion

Social

Resources





171

Group Profiles

The graph below shows the average levels of Self-Perception, Future Perception, Structured Style, Social Competence, Family Cohesion, Social Resources and the average Global RSA score for the group of participants.

Participants generally scored highest on Self-Perception, followed by Social Resources, Family Cohesion, Structured Style, Social Competence, and Future Perception.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

RSA Global

0

1

2

3

4

5

6





172

VALUES

Group Profile

Participants obtained a score of over 2.5 on all values from a scale of 1-4. Love and Respect were rated the highest, whilst Boldness and Leadership were rated the lowest.

Individual Profiles

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

MT7004

M8280

MT5579

MT3170

MT9373

MTAnna

MT2743

MT3282

MT0473

MT6180





173

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the DASS scale shows that while depression levels are relatively now amongst the

participants, anxiety is quite prevalent, with 61.5% of participants demonstrating some degree of

anxiety above the ‘normal’ level, 7.69% demonstrating ‘severe’ anxiety and another 7.69%

demonstrating ‘extremely severe’ anxiety.

The PERMA profiles on the whole suggests a positive health profile, with high levels of sense of

‘meaning’, ‘relationships’, ‘health’ and ‘happiness, and low levels of ‘negative affect’ and ‘loneliness’

The RSA scores similarly suggest an overall profile of resilience, with highest scores on ‘self-perception’,

‘social resources’ and ‘family cohesion’, while the lowest scores on ‘future perception’

All participants rated the values of ‘love’ and ‘respect’ as very important, whilst a majority also rated

‘responsibility’, ‘peace’ and ‘modesty’ to be highly important. On the other hand, the values of

‘boldness’, ‘leadership’ and ‘justice’ received a more mixed response from participants

REFERENCES

- Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher attrition: A costly loss to the nation and to the

- states. Washington: Author.

- Borg, M.G. and Giordmaina, J. (2012) Towards a Quality Education for All – The College System

Examining the Situation, Report presented to the Malta Union of Teachers on 11 June,

unpublished, available: www.mut.org.mt/files/College Research 2012.pdf

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5


MT7004

M8280

MT5579

MT3170

MT9373

MTAnna

MT2743

MT3282

MT0473

MT6180





174

- Borg, M.G and Falzon, J. (1989) Stress and Job Satisfaction among Primary School Teachers in

Malta. Educational Review, 41 (3), 271-279

- Cassar, S. & Formosa, A.M. (2011) The New Academic Disease. Unpublished BE.Ed (Hons)

dissertation. Faculty of Education, University of Malta..

European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) (2007). Report on the ETUCE Survey

on teachers’ work-related stress.

http://etuce.homestead.com/News/2008/March2008/DraftReport_WRS_EN.pdf. Accessed 30

Dec 2012.

- Grech, L. (2010) Stress and its causes amongst Gozitan primary school teachers. Unpublished

BE.Ed (Hons) dissertation. Faculty of Education, University of Malta.

- Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools.

- Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

- Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

- Malta Independent (2008) Teachers’ Work-related stress

- .http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2008-03-30/opinions/teachers-work-related-stress-

205621/

- Malta Union of Teachers (2017) Crisis in the teaching profession – MUT proposes solutions

https://mut.org.mt/press-release-crisis-in-the-teaching-profession-mut-proposes-solutions/

Moon, B. (2007). Research analysis: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers – a

global overview of current policies and practices. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on

beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714.





175

APPENDIX

DASS Severity Ratings

APPENDIX 5: PORTUGAL COUNTRY REPORT





176

CURRENT NEEDS

The teaching profession is considered to be particularly exposed to stress. Several studies in different

countries highlighted the recurrence of stress in this profession (e.g. Chan, 2009; Kokkinos &

Davazoglou, 2009; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978; Guthrie, 2006; Pithers & Soden, 1998). In this section of

the report, we summarise existing studies about stress, burnout and job satisfaction among Portuguese

teachers. Research findings indicates the presence of levels of burnout, stress, depression and anxiety

among teachers of different educational levels (e.g. Capelo, Pocinho, & Jesus, 2009; Cardoso & Araújo,

2000; Carlotto & Palazzo, 2006; Gomes, Silva, Mourisco, Mota, & Montenegro, 2006; Gomes,

Montenegro, Peixoto, & Peixoto, 2010; Pinto, Lima, & Silva, 2003; Pinto, Lima, & Silva, 2005; Reis,

Araújo, & Carvalho, 2006).

A recent study sponsored by the National Federation of Education (FNE, 2015) with the cooperation

of a research team from the Psychology and Health Research Unit of ISPA-Instituto Universitário

inquired 800 Portuguese teachers. This study showed that approximately one third of Portuguese

teachers suffers from high levels of stress, and had high levels of burnout (physical and mental

exhaustion caused by working conditions), and the results stressed the direct relationship between the

high level of burnout and the low levels of job satisfaction. Researchers have realized that age, contract

type and teaching experience is related to stress levels, and that older teachers have higher levels of

burnout as well as those who teach in secondary school. In the same sense, teachers who work with

special educational needs’ students, also suffer more from anxiety and burnout.

Correia and colleagues (2010) found that elementary teachers reveal high levels of stress, and the

main stress sources are bureaucratic tasks, time constraints and classroom indiscipline. In this line Pinto,

Lima and Silva (2005) research also showed that the main sources of stress of Portuguese teachers are

problems related to students, namely indiscipline and lack of motivation, workload as well as time

pressure. Similar conclusions can be retained from Capelo, Pocinho and Jesus (2009) research, where

stressors in the teaching profession are related to misbehaviour and indiscipline problems, followed by

time constrictions and overburden. This study also demonstrated that self-efficacy can be considered as

a predictor of low vulnerability to stress. Finally, studies examining the effect of class size over stress and

burnout conclude that teachers with fewer students in the classroom showed lower levels of stress

compared to their colleagues with larger classes. In fact, teachers with smaller classes revealed lower

values at both stress and sources of stress (e.g., indiscipline of the students, time pressures and

bureaucratic work), lower emotional exhaustion and intention to leave teaching (Gomes, Montenegro,

Peixoto, & Peixoto, 2010).





177

Data Analysis

Participants

Thirty elementary teachers responded to the survey, from which 25 were female and five were male.

Figure 1 – Participants gender distribution

Figure 2 – Age and teaching experience of participants

Age

Teaching experience (TE)

TE in current school

The age of the teachers’ ranges from 30 to 59 years of age and the average age is 43. The teacher with

less teaching experience has 4 years of service, the most experienced 36 and the average is 19 years.

The teaching experience in the current school ranges from 1 to 29 years.

30 years

43.3 years

59 years

4 years

19.79 years

36 years

<1 year

9.7 years

29 years





178

Fig. 3 – Distribution of participants’ educational level

DEPRESSION, ANXIETY AND STRESS SCALE

The reliability of the scale was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Cronbach's alpha (Table

1) ranged from .81 (anxiety) to .90 (depression).

Table 1 – DASS reliability data

Dimensions Cronbach's Alpha

Depression .90

Anxiety .81

Stress .91

DASS group profile analysis shows differences between dimensions, and stress scores are higher

when compared to depression and anxiety. Taking into account the thresholds for each dimension all

dimensions showed values slightly higher to the normal value (Gomez, n.d.).

80%

13%

7%

Graduation Master Post-Graduation





179

Figure 4 – DASS Group Profile

Figure 5 – DASS Individual Profiles

The analysis of the individual profiles obtained in the DASS scale reveals some discrepancies when

comparing the constructs examined. Teachers 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 29, and 31 have the highest scores in, at

least, one dimension of DASS, and highlighting the presence of severe stress in 5 participants (13, 16, 17,

29 and 30) and extremely severe depression in one teacher (29).

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

5.003.43

8.10

0

5

10

15

20

P2

3

P7

P1

8

P3

P1

5

P1

1

P1

2

P1

9

P2

5

P2

6

P9

P2

P2

0

P2

2

P2

7

P2

8

P6

P4

P2

1

P2

4

P5

P1

P1

0

P8

P1

4

P2

9

P3

0

P1

3

P1

6

P1

7

DEPRESSION ANXIETY STRESS

Normal

Mild

Moderate

Severe

No

rma

l M

od

era

te

Mil

d

Se

ve

re





180

Figure 6 – Total DASS individual profile

Figure 7 – DASS Severity for each dimension

The majority of teachers (58%) present normal scores on Depression, Anxiety and Stress (see Figure

7). However, 23% show Moderate and Severe levels of Depression, 19% have Moderate and Extremely

severe levels of Anxiety and 34% show Moderate and Severe levels of Stress.

58%19%

11%

12%

0%

Depression

Normal Mild

Moderate Severe

Ext. Severe

58%23%

15%0%

4%

Anxiety

Normal Mild

Moderate Severe

Ext. Severe

58%

8%

23%

11%

0%

Stress

Normal Mild

Moderate Severe

Ext. Severe





181

PERMA-Profiler

Table 2 – PERMA reliability data

Dimensions Cronbach's Alpha

P .92

E .41 (.52 if deleted item 13)

R .83

M .84

A .80

PERMA Overall .95

N .78

Health .91

Cronbach's alpha for PERMA was excellent (0.95) and reliability ranged between .52 (engagement)

and .92 (positive emotion). Engagement scale reliability coefficient scored very low (poor) and its use

maybe is questionable. Portuguese validation data (see Table 3) shows that problem also arises in those

studies suggesting that this measure has reliability weaknesses probably due to cultural issues.

Table 3 – PERMA reliability data (Portuguese validation)

Dimensions Portuguese validation data

Brito, 2015 | N=548 Gouveia & Caracol, 2016 |N=480 Santana, 2016 |N=124

P .88 .88 .92

E .55 .59 .71

R .71 .83 .86

M .82 .86 .87

A .68 .74 .88

PERMA Overall .92 .86 .96

N .72 .68 .81

Health .87 .86 .88





182

Figure 7 – PERMA Group Profile

In general, all the scales measuring the PERMA constructs score very high (Figure 7). The overall

score was 7.52, engagement scale has the highest value (7.75) and negative affect the lowest. The

individual profiles (Figure 8) show a relatively homogeneous distribution amongst the majority of the

dimensions of PERMA profile, with the exception of Negative Affect dimension.

Figure 8 – PERMA Individual Profiles

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

7.157.75 7.47 7.64 7.41

4.22

7.37 7.52

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10





183

Figure 9 – Participants’ Happiness level

Figure 10 – Participants’ Loneliness level

Despite the majority of participants show good levels of happiness, there are some with very low

scores for Happiness (Figure 9). In what concerns Loneliness, near half of participants show null or low

levels of loneliness, and the other half reveal moderate to high levels of loneliness (Figure 10)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Mean= 7.37

Mean= 3.33





184

Figure 11 – PERMA Individual Profiles (total)

Individual profile analysis (Figure 11) shows that teachers 8, 14, 17, 27 and 29 have the lowest scores.

Similarly to the DASS scale responses (high values for depression and stress), teachers 17 and 29 scored

low in the measure that evaluate well-being.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P1

0

P1

1

P1

2

P1

3

P1

4

P1

5

P1

6

P1

7

P1

8

P1

9

P2

0

P2

1

P2

2

P2

3

P2

4

P2

5

P2

6

P2

7

P2

8

P2

9

P3

0

Overall

Mean= 7.52





185

RESILIENCE SCALE

Table 4 – RSA reliability data

Dimensions

Cronbach's Alpha

Present study | N = 30 Pereira et al. (2017) | N = 304

Self-Perception .87 .78

Future Perception .86 .75

Social Competence .78 .72

Family Cohesion .90 .81

Social Resources .85 .84

Structured Style .43 (.73 if deleted items 6 & 13) .38

RSA_Global .95 .94

Internal consistency for RSA is excellent (.95) and reliability ranges between .73 (structured style) and

.90 (family cohesion).

Figure 12 – RSA Group Profile

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

5.21 5.21 5.12

5.97 6.03

5.50 5.49





186

RSA group profile scores show (Figure 12) values above the scale mid-point, although they are not

too high. Family cohesion and social resources emerge as the strongest measures of resilience, and

social competence as the weaker.

Figure 13 – RSA Individual Profiles

Generally, all the teachers score above the average in the resilience scale (Figure 13), with the

exception of participants 17 and 29 who had the lowest scores both in resilience dimensions and for the

global measure (Figure 14).

Figure 14 – RSA Individual Profiles (total)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Perception

Social

Competence

Family Cohesion Social Resources Structured Style

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P1

0

P1

1

P1

2

P1

3

P1

4

P1

5

P1

6

P1

7

P1

8

P1

9

P2

0

P2

1

P2

2

P2

3

P2

4

P2

5

P2

6

P2

7

P2

8

P2

9

P3

0

RSA Global

Mean= 5.49





187

VALUES

All teachers rated values highly. Leadership (2.87) and boldness (3.3) have the lowest values,

although over the medium point of the scale, while respect and responsibility are the most rated values.

Figure 15 – Values Group Profile

Figure 16 – Values Individual Profiles

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

43.91 3.91 3.96

3.3

3.83 3.783.93 3.91 4

2.87

3.613.83

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Love Offer Responsibility Boldness Justice Cooperation

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4






188

As shown in Figure 16, leadership has the most imbalance distribution among the all set of values,

followed by boldness. In general, we can conclude that both values are not very important for the

inquired teachers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of the survey showed that stress and social-emotional skills (measured through social

competence construct of RSA) are the most important areas for intervention. Some of the participants

presented moderate or severe levels of stress, and social competence had the lowest score among

resilience dimensions. A brief literature review regarding stress and strain among teachers shows that

minor episodes of indiscipline in the classroom are one of the more prevalent and relevant stress risk

factors (e.g. Capelo, Pocinho, & Jesus, 2009; Gomes, Montenegro, Peixoto, & Peixoto, 2010; Pinto, Lima,

& Silva, 2005). Concurrently, when asked, teachers point out that good and close relationships with their

students are one of the major gratifications of their profession (Hargreaves 1998; Klassen, Perry, &

Frenzel, 2012; O’Connor 2008).

Connectedness with students and colleagues is identified as protective against teacher stress and

burnout (e.g. Klassen, Perry, & Frenzel, 2012). Teachers' relatedness with students feed teachers

professional assets and give meaning to their work, and teacher–student relationships are often

mentioned as one of the core reasons for staying in the teaching profession (Hargreaves 1998; O’Connor

2008). Research indicates that teachers get intrinsic rewards from close relationships with students and

experience negative affect when relationships are characterized as disrespectful, conflictual, or distant

(Hargreaves, 2000; Mashburn, Hamre, Downer, & Pianta, 2006).

Furthermore, the evaluation of positive strengths programs such as SEAL, designed to develop

children’s social, emotional and behavioural skills, showed that it helped not only children but also

teachers to better understand their pupils, enhanced their confidence in their interactions with pupils,

and led them to approach behaviour incidents in a more thoughtful way (Hallam, 2009). Protective

factors, such as professional development regarding classroom management techniques, help teachers

feel more confident and competent (Dicke, Elling, Schmek, & Leutner, 2015; Jennings & Greenberg,

2009).

In general, the evaluation of social emotional learning (SEL) intervention programs underline the

impacts over teacher practices, teacher-student relationship, and student outcomes (Durlak &

Colleagues, 2011; Hallam, 2009; Jones & Bouffard, 2012). Hallam (2009) suggests that such programs

increase staff understanding of the social and emotional aspects of learning and helped them to better

understand their pupils and enhanced their confidence in their interactions. Hallam (2009) also

enhances that this programs influence how teachers behaved as they became aware that they were role

models for the children. Jones and Bouffard (2012) claim that teachers with stronger SEL skills have

more positive relationships with students, engage in more skilful and effective classroom management,





189

and implement SEL curricula more effectively. In contrast, when teacher socio-emotional skills are low,

all phases of the cycle are more negative, resulting in teacher burnout and less effectiveness.

These arguments suggest that intervention programmes providing social and emotional learning,

positive teacher-student relationships, fostering character strengths and values, positive emotions,

optimism, resilience and purpose for life may provide the opportunity to reinforce teacher-student

relationships and to build mutual understanding and respect in and out of the classroom.





190

Documents

Happiness, Optimism, Positivity and Ethos in Schoolshopeschools.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/HOPES_Consolidated_… · Project Number: 2016-1-CY01-KA201-017354 Happiness, Optimism,