Search

The COVID-19 outbreak led to widespread school closures and the shift to remote teaching, potentially resulting in lasting negative impacts on teachers' psychological well-being due to increased workloads and a perceived lack of administrative support. Despite the significance of these challenges, few studies have delved into the long-term effects of perceived instructional leadership on teachers' psychological health. To bridge this research gap, we utilized longitudinal data from 927 primary and secondary school teachers surveyed in two phases: Time 1 in mid-November 2021 and Time 2 in early January 2022. Using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), our findings revealed that perceptions of instructional leadership, especially the "perceived school neglect of teaching autonomy" at Time 1 were positively correlated with burnout levels at Time 2. Additionally, burnout at Time 2 was positively associated with psychological distress and acted as a mediator between the "perceived school neglect of teaching autonomy" and psychological distress. In light of these findings, we recommend that schools prioritize teachers' teaching autonomy and take proactive measures to mitigate burnout and psychological distress, aiming for the sustainable well-being of both teachers and students in the post-pandemic era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In light of the significant impact that teachers have on education quality and student growth, their mental health warrants special attention. With the increasing popularity of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the rise of online teaching during the pandemic, teachers have become a group prone to developing problematic smartphone use (PSU). Psychological need thwarting (PNT) has been shown to be closely related to PSU, psychological distress, and perceived administrative support. However, most previous studies have adopted a variable-centered approach, which may overlook the possibility that the three basic needs are not closely associated and could form distinct profiles. Therefore, this study aims to apply latent profile analysis to identify different PNT profiles and their associations with PSU, psychological distress, and perceived administrative support., Methods: A longitudinal survey was conducted using convenience and purposive sampling methods. The survey involved 1,642 primary and middle school teachers working in China over a two-month interval, with the first assessment in November 2021 (Time 1) and the second in January 2022 (Time 2)., Results: The results indicate that a three-profile model, intricately based on the PNT data gathered at Time 1, is most optimal: Class 1 is labeled as 'High autonomy-High competence and Moderate relatedness thwarting', Class 2 as 'High autonomy-High competence and High relatedness thwarting', and Class 3 as 'Low psychological needs thwarting'. Distinct associations were observed among the three profiles concerning PSU, psychological distress, and perceived administrative support. Specifically, in terms of PSU, the score of Class 2 was higher than Class 1, with that of Class 3 being the lowest at Time 1, while at Time 2 no significant difference was found between any two of these three groups; in terms of distress, the scores of the three profiles were arranged from high to low as Class 2, 1, and 3 at both time points; and in terms of perceived administrative support, the order was just the opposite, with 3, 1, and 2 from high to low at both Time 1 and Time 2., Conclusion: Notably, the consistent ranking of the three classes in terms of psychological distress and administrative support suggests a lasting influence of PNT. Future studies should explore this enduring impact further by employing additional longitudinal data sets and examining potential mediators or moderators beyond the current study's scope., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2023 Liao, Cao, Gamble, Li, Jiang, Bo and Chen.)