Teacher wellbeing and resilience: towards an integrative model

ABSTRACT

Background

Teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience are frequently used constructs when discussing and researching teachers’ work and lives. However, these terms are often used interchangeably and without clarification, highlighting a need to strengthen both conceptual clarity and understanding of the relationship between wellbeing and resilience in teacher research.

Purpose

To address this need, our discussion paper examines how teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience have been conceptualised and introduces an integrative model that aims to elucidate the relationship between the two.

Sources of evidence and main argument

First, we reviewed papers that addressed teacher wellbeing as well as teacher resilience during the last 10 years. In terms of their relationship, we identified four different positions. The most prominent position was that teacher resilience supports the maintenance and development of teacher wellbeing. Second, based on these findings, we developed the Aligning Wellbeing and Resilience in Education (AWaRE) model to specify the relationship between the two constructs and the key aspects of a resilience process. We explain the framework, the individual components of the model and outline the crucial role of appraisals and emotions within the resilience process. We also discuss how this model contributes to the field and may be used as a framework for future research.

Conclusion

The AWaRE model describes a resilience process that is embedded in contextual as well as individual challenges and resources. Within the process, the individual teacher aims at maintaining, restoring and developing their wellbeing. Further research is needed, including empirical validation of the model across the teaching profession. However, the AWaRE model is proposed as a useful tool that can help to clarify the constructs of resilience and wellbeing in educational contexts, and can assist educational practitioners to better understand the resilience process.

KEYWORDS:

• Teacher
• wellbeing
• resilience
• education
• AWaRE model
• emotions

Introduction

The ability to maintain wellbeing and respond resiliently to professional challenges is recognised as a valuable capacity for teachers. The literature has widely supported this claim, with a burgeoning amount of research in the fields of teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience over the past 10 years (see, for example, Collie et al. 2015; Day and Gu 2014; Mansfield 2021; Rahm and Heise 2019). Although the terms “resilience” and “wellbeing” are widely used, the conceptualisation of these constructs can, in general, appear quite limited, and there may be a lack of explanation of the relationship between the two. This is perhaps not surprising since both constructs are dynamic, complex in nature and conceptualised as multi-dimensional. Given that the fields of research concerning teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience are moving rapidly, we feel that it is timely to consider within this context how each construct has been defined and the relationship between the two, potentially bringing greater coherence to teacher research (Tweed, Mah, and Conway 2020).

Teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience are broad constructs used in various disciplines and research areas, and are often studied together. Thus, the benefits of a clearer delineation between them, while acknowledging their interrelatedness, would enable a deeper understanding of these two crucial sources of teacher professional and personal development. This could build greater knowledge about strategies to support teachers in dealing with professional demands and, more specifically, working in challenging situations.

Purpose

With these considerations in mind, the first aim of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the key conceptualisations of teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience and to review how these constructs are related in empirical research. The second aim is to propose a model for understanding the relationship between wellbeing and resilience in the context of the teaching profession that explains the role of teacher resilience in maintaining and restoring teacher wellbeing. The significance of our contribution lies in unpacking and creating a richer understanding of the two constructs and their relationship. This may serve as a basis for new projects and support research that examines the development of teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience. The model can also be used in teacher education and professional learning settings to promote awareness of teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience processes.

Reviewing the literature

Conceptualisations of wellbeing and resilience

Wellbeing and resilience are well-known psychological constructs that are discussed across various disciplines. Prominent definitions of wellbeing root back to Ed Diener’s (1984) early definition of (general) psychological wellbeing, consisting of various cognitive and affective factors such as satisfaction as well as positive and negative emotions. Wellbeing is broadly understood to result from a subjective (positive) evaluation of the quality of life (Deci and Ryan 2008).

The understanding of resilience is inspired by Ungar (2012) who defined (general) resilience as a process whereby individuals harness personal and contextual resources in order to successfully navigate challenging circumstances. Like wellbeing, resilience is a multidimensional construct involving activation of multiple personal and contextual resources.

Thus, wellbeing and resilience are distinct constructs, albeit with some similarities. With regard to teacher wellbeing and resilience, both constructs have been shown to have positive outcomes for teachers, including teaching and learning quality, teacher self-efficacy, commitment, and job satisfaction (e.g., Day and Gu 2014; Schleicher 2018). It can also be seen that teacher wellbeing is important in the resilience process, as a state of more positive wellbeing will influence how teachers interpret and respond to challenges, as well as being an important outcome of the resilience process (Mansfield et al. 2016). In the sections below, we consider conceptualisations of teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience separately, before turning attention to the relationship between the two.

Teacher wellbeing

In recent years, attention has been increasingly drawn to the issue of teacher wellbeing. Accordingly, there has been growing scientific interest in studying the wellbeing of teachers. This has led to a range of different conceptualisations, due to diverse disciplinary and methodological perspectives (for an overview, see McCallum et al. 2017). For example, whereas Cenkseven-Önder and Sari (2009) refer to teacher wellbeing as general wellbeing that consists of satisfaction with life and positive versus negative affect, Capone and Petrillo (2018) define wellbeing as mental health, and Aldrup et al. (2018) refer to teacher wellbeing as the relationship between work-enthusiasm and emotional exhaustion.

Thus, the resultant heterogeneity of definitions risks a blurred conceptualisation of the construct of teacher wellbeing. Aiming at conceptual clarification, we first argue that an understanding of teacher wellbeing calls for an understanding of the term wellbeing itself. The early work of Diener on general well-posedness (e.g., Diener 1984), with the notion of a relationship between positive and negative dimensions to describe the complex construct of wellbeing, provides a major contribution in this regard. Here, wellbeing is defined as an individual’s multi-layered and subjective evaluation of their life that results in a positive judgment. Following this approach, we make the assumption that teacher wellbeing results from a teacher’s evaluation of their professional life as one that achieves what we describe as a positive imbalance. This means that positive and negative aspects may coexist but the positive dimensions are more pronounced than the negative ones (e.g., Bradley et al. 2018). For example, when teachers experience more positive than negative emotions in interactions with students and parents, they sense a deeper feeling of professional meaningfulness. Even though there may be simultaneous demands and conflicts, they feel positive even when some job-related issues might occur. This definition implies that the construct of teacher wellbeing could be adequately described by neither the sole absence of negative aspects, such as worries and concerns related to a teacher’s work, nor the sole presence of positive emotions or satisfaction. This definition also implies that teacher wellbeing is an integral part of a teacher’s professional life. As such, it serves as an indicator of a successful fulfilment of the professional role and meaningfulness, which highlights the eudemonic or meaning-oriented (instead of hedonic or pleasure-oriented) character of teacher wellbeing (Deci and Ryan 2008; Dolan and Metcalfe 2012). Thus, a teacher’s wellbeing goes beyond single aspects of cognitive and affective evaluation of a situation such as pleasure and can be viewed as “a complex construct that concerns optimal experience and functioning” (Deci and Ryan 2001, 141).

Second, we argue for the need for a more domain-specific approach to teacher wellbeing. Teacher wellbeing is most frequently described as a complex, multidimensional construct, simultaneously comprising various elements, such as the experience of satisfaction and positive emotions and the absence or relatively fewer experiences of negative emotions and complaints. However, a criticism that may be levelled here is that these elements are not necessarily related to the teaching profession per se, but rather address a general construct relevant to all individuals (e.g., life-satisfaction). A weakness of the research field may therefore be that many approaches to teacher wellbeing suffer from the lack of a domain-specific perspective (Hascher and Waber (submitted)). Thus, we argue for a more domain-specific approach that investigates the factors that can support or impede teacher wellbeing. Among these would be contextual factors, such as class composition, school climate, collegial support or educational resources, and individual factors, such as tenure, professional competence, self-regulation skills and resilience (for an overview, see, for example, McCallum et al. 2017).

Teacher resilience

Research examining teacher resilience has also burgeoned over the past 15 years (Mansfield 2021). The construct of resilience has been examined from multiple perspectives using a variety of methodologies (Beltman and Mansfield 2018). As with the conceptualisation of teacher wellbeing and wellbeing in general, we argue that an understanding of teacher resilience calls for an understanding of resilience in general. In addition to focusing on the resilience capacities and processes for individuals, definitions of resilience have broadened to systemic ones. For example, Masten (2014, 10) defined resilience as “the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten system function, viability, or development”. A system may refer to an individual, but could be ”a family, a school, a community, an organization, and economy, or an ecosystem” (Masten 2014, 10). Within such a system, resilience is the process of harnessing resources in order to adapt successfully (Ungar 2012).

Similarly, conceptualisations of teacher resilience have expanded from an individual, psychological focus to an understanding of resilience as not only a capacity but also a process and an outcome too. Gu and Li (2013, 300) argue that resilience in educational contexts is not simply an innate characteristic but is “influenced by individual qualities in interaction with contextual influences in which teachers’ work and lives are embedded”. Current views of teacher resilience thus focus on an individual teacher, but crucially with recognition that the teacher is living and working within multiple, dynamic and changing contexts (Day and Gu 2010).

The multidimensional nature of resilience is evident in that to operationalise resilience, researchers have measured a variety of constructs such as self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, teacher–pupil relationships, workload, school culture and support, and student behaviour (e.g., Ainsworth and Oldfield 2019) – in order to better understand the importance of personal and contextual factors. Outcomes of resilience such as professional commitment, job satisfaction, engagement and wellbeing have also been identified (e.g., Cook et al. 2017; Gu 2014). Recent research in teacher resilience has drawn on Ungar’s (2012) comprehensive definition of resilience to highlight the socio-ecological influences on resilience:

Where there is potential for exposure to significant adversity, resilience is both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources that sustain their wellbeing, and their capacity individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be provided in culturally meaningful ways.

Understanding the relationship between teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience

In order to identify and understand how teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience have been aligned in the field of educational research, we reviewed recent publications that addressed both teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience. A literature search covering the time frame of January 2010 to June 2020 yielded 81 peer-reviewed research articles with ERIC and SCOPUS that included the keywords “teacher wellbeing” (“teacher well-being”, “well-being of teacher(s)”) and “teacher resilience” (“resilience of teacher(s)”) in titles, abstracts and/or keywords. From these, two papers were excluded because they addressed student, rather than teacher, wellbeing and resilience. Furthermore, in nine papers, only teacher wellbeing (e.g., Lauermann and König 2016; Logan, Cumming, and Wong 2020; Moè 2016; Song, Gu, and Zhang 2020; Spilt, Koomen, and Thijs 2011) was addressed; in four papers, only teacher resilience (Buchanan et al. 2013; Gu and Day 2013; McGeown, St Clair-Thompson, and Clough 2015) was addressed. Among the remaining 66 papers, 21 papers provided no explicit clarification of how teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience might be related (e.g., Carroll et al. 2020; Leroux and Théorêt 2014; Price and McCallum 2014; Taylor 2013; Wabule 2020; Wood, Ntaote, and Theron 2012). The final 46 papers (see Table A1) included theoretical as well as empirical papers applying qualitative, quantitative or mixed research methods. One review article was also included. Due to our central focus on the theoretical conceptualisations of the relationship between teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience, evaluation of the empirical quality of the research papers (e.g., regarding the representativeness of the sample) was not in scope. Instead, our aim in analysing this body of research was to identify and systematise explicit or inferred statements of how teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience were interlinked, according to our interpretation of the conceptualisations in the papers. In order to construct an overview, we extracted all relevant statements from the texts and clustered the papers based on similar approaches. This method revealed four main ways that teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience were related in the literature that we analysed.

First, it is evident from our analysis that various studies appeared to treat teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience as similar constructs. For example, teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience were used interchangeably when they were mentioned as important issues for teachers (e.g., Gibbs and Miller 2014) or when they were attributed to the same outcomes (Larson et al. 2018). In some studies, factors such as positive emotions were described as equally impacting teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience without differentiation (Critchley and Gibbs 2012; Roffey 2012). Likewise, some studies discussed strategies for supporting both teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience, such as mindfulness (Wells and Klocko 2018). Elsewhere, teacher resilience and teacher wellbeing have been identified as related (Ballantyne and Zhukov 2017); their indicators defined as correlated (Fernandes et al. 2019) or teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience are expected to relate similarly to a third construct (Papatraianou and Le Cornu 2014). In the above approaches, the unique aspects of the constructs “teacher wellbeing” and “teacher resilience” were not highlighted.

In a second group of studies, teacher resilience and wellbeing were regarded as components of each other. For some, teacher resilience was a part, an indicator or a component of teacher wellbeing (Acton and Glasgow 2015; Noble and McGrath 2015). Other studies, however, argued that teacher wellbeing was a part or indicator of teacher resilience (Soini, Pyhältö, and Pietarinen 2010). Both approaches have in common that they define one construct as including the other. However, the theoretical rationale for the different hierarchical relations (e.g., wellbeing as superior or subordinate) remains unclear.

According to our analysis, a third group of studies viewed teacher wellbeing as a predictor being relevant for the development and/or improvement of teacher resilience. In these studies, teacher wellbeing was regarded as a general precondition or supporting factor that enables teacher resilience to mature (Gray, Wilcox, and Nordstokke 2017). Others argued that the application of wellbeing strategies and skills leads to teacher resilience (Lester et al. 2020). Thus, teacher wellbeing was understood as a resource that nourishes teacher resilience.

In the fourth group, the role of teacher resilience in the maintenance and development of teacher wellbeing was highlighted in the majority of studies. Teacher resilience was viewed as a capacity to maintain, to lead to or to restore teacher wellbeing (e.g., Clarà 2017; Johnson and Down 2013). Teacher resilience was regarded as a protective factor of teacher wellbeing (e.g., Burić, Slišković, and Penezić 2019) and some studies contended that successful teacher resilience intervention programmes led to improvements in teacher wellbeing (Beshai et al. 2015; Cook et al. 2017; Griffiths 2014; Johnson et al. 2014; Mahfouz 2018). However, some specifications have to be made, as Pretsch, Flunger, and Schmitt (2012) found that the role of teacher resilience for teacher wellbeing may not hold for all aspects of teacher wellbeing: i.e., teacher resilience can serve as a predictor of only some dimensions of teacher wellbeing. Additionally, they suggested that the role of resilience for wellbeing was more pronounced for the teaching profession in comparison to other professions (e.g., engineering, media design and sales). Other papers discuss how positive adaptivity (Ainsworth and Oldfield 2019; McCallum et al. 2017), balance of demands and resources (Simmons et al. 2019), the strengthening of various resources or overcoming of challenges (Owen 2016) mediated the possible effect of teacher resilience on teacher wellbeing. The current paper aligns with this view, and while all studies in this group stress the influential role of teacher resilience for teacher wellbeing, the process by which this influence occurs needs further elaboration.

Our review of the current literature reflects the valuable scholarship in this area. It highlights, too, the challenges of conceptualisation and our contention that the relationship between teacher resilience and teacher wellbeing is highly complex. Although a relationship between these constructs may be demonstrated, there is little consistency of conceptualisation or operationalisation across the board. The majority of the reviewed papers argue that resilience is important for the maintenance and development of teacher wellbeing; however, how this may occur is not clear. Thus, in the section of the paper following, we propose a model that aims to contribute to the understanding of the relationship between teacher resilience and teacher wellbeing.

A proposed model

Aligning wellbeing and resilience in education (AWaRE): an overview

We have drawn on the above literature to develop the AWaRE (Aligning Wellbeing and Resilience in Education) model, which is presented in Figure 1. Through this model, we sought to offer a contribution to the understanding of the crucial role of teacher resilience in the maintenance and development of teacher wellbeing (i.e., the fourth group identified in the section above). Our model is built on the idea that teacher resilience is an individual process that is situated and mediates between experiences of teacher wellbeing, namely at the beginning and at the end of the resilience process (see A in Figure 1). The AWaRE model shows a resilience process that is framed by challenges and resources at the contextual (see C in Figure 1) and individual level (see D in Figure 1) and nested within a teacher’s experiences of wellbeing (see B in Figure 1). The function of this resilience process is to maintain or re-establish wellbeing in the face of challenges, and the function of the AWaRE model is to describe the steps of this resilience process.

Figure 1. The AWaRE (Aligning Wellbeing and Resilience in Education) model

(Source: original figure created by the authors for this publication.)

One key assumption guiding the design of the model is that teacher resilience is understood as a “bi-directional person-ecology transaction” (Wood, Ntaote, and Theron 2012, 438). As a better understanding of the interplay of the individual with the context is needed when referring to teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience (Johnson and Down 2013), the model focuses on the role of the individual during the resilience process but takes transactional processes and the context into account.

Examining the components of the AWaRE model

The following section explains the AWaRE model, and unpacks each of the components of the model, outlining wellbeing (A), challenges and resources (C and D), and the resilience process (B).

Teacher wellbeing as starting point and outcome (A): In the AWaRE model, teacher wellbeing is positioned at either end (see A in Figure 1) to show that it is both a starting point and outcome of the resilience process. According to the theory of wellbeing as a multidimensional construct with higher levels of wellbeing indicating a predominance of positive over negative elements (“positive imbalance”), a predominance of negative elements serves as a starting point. If a teacher experiences a “negative imbalance” (i.e., a dominance of negative emotions, feelings and cognition) that corresponds with a negative evaluation of their current situation, the process commences. As an outcome, a teacher’s wellbeing is experienced as a positive imbalance (i.e., a dominance of positive emotions, feelings and cognition) that results from a positive, or at least improved, evaluation of the situation. As argued in the literature, the motivation to maintain and restore wellbeing can be seen as a protective factor against long-term harm and the development of severe complaints such as depression, stress or burnout (e.g., Ainsworth and Oldfield 2019; Capone and Petrillo 2018; Richards, Hemphill, and Templin 2018).

Individual and contextual challenges and resources (C and D): The wellbeing and resilience process in the AWaRE model is framed by personal and contextual challenges and resources (see C and D in Figure 1). Although our focus in the model is on an individual teacher with multiple personal characteristics, it recognises that a teacher is situated within multiple, dynamic and changing contexts and that the teacher lives and works within these contexts. Both individual and contextual factors have been analysed in terms of the extent to which they present risks or have a protective function (Beltman, Mansfield, and Price 2011). Moreover, contextual aspects are important as they might frame the teacher resilience process within a culture that can differ, for example, with regard to aspects of school qualities such as leadership, cooperation and social relationships. This school culture directly influences the resilience process. Specifically, for early-career teachers, it can make a difference in terms of how schools respond to their challenges and needs (Gray, Wilcox, and Nordstokke 2017).

From a social-ecological view of resilience, teachers may face individual challenges (see D in Figure 1) and contextual challenges (see C in Figure 1) that may lead to a threat to their wellbeing or become an “event” that triggers the resilience process. Well-established examples of personal or intra-individual challenges are low self-efficacy (Kitching, Morgan, and Leary 2009) or issues such as poor health (Day and Gu 2010). Contextual challenges may include interpersonal ones, such as difficulties in relationships with students, parents or colleagues (Beltman et al. 2019). At a broader contextual level, policy changes (Gu and Day 2013), assessment and reporting requirements (Johnson et al. 2014), or societal expectations (Schelvis et al. 2014) may be events that threaten teacher wellbeing.

Similarly, resources may be framed within a social-ecological framework. For teachers, intra-individual characteristics such as a high intrinsic motivation and a sense of competence are related to resilience (Beltman, Mansfield, and Price 2011). Contextual, interpersonal aspects of a teacher’s work including supportive colleagues, mentors and school administrators (Day and Gu 2014) as well as positive feedback from students and parents (Gu 2014) also support resilience. Resources at a broader level of context include school funding, induction programmes, teacher networks and ongoing professional learning opportunities (Day and Gu 2014).

We recognise the important roles of the environment and context by incorporating contextual resources and challenges as well as individual resources and challenges equally in the model. Within this interplay, the same setting, or level of context, can offer both challenges and support. For teachers, children in a classroom may present challenges regarding their behaviour or individual needs, but equally they provide enjoyment and a sense of fulfilment when they interact positively or develop skills and understandings. The presence, availability and nature of both challenges and resources can be unique for each individual, as well as for specific locations and for different nations (Gu and Li 2013).

Resilience process (B): As experiencing wellbeing is a general need for individuals and the basis for individual functioning and growth (Deci and Ryan 2008), individuals strive to maintain or improve their wellbeing and to reduce the factors that impede wellbeing. In the case of impairment of wellbeing, the resilience process (see B in Figure 1) will be operating. The following is an overview of the resilience process, and each component is then further elucidated.

Activation of the resilience process (B) is prompted by a single event or situation (a set of factors) that potentially negatively affects a teacher’s wellbeing (see B1 in Figure 1). The model is underpinned by the general understanding that, as individuals in general, a teacher aims at maintaining their wellbeing and appraises daily events and situations with regard to their wellbeing (see B2 in Figure 1). These wellbeing experiences might be subconscious or partly or fully conscious and are framed by contextual and individual resources and challenges. Should the event or situation seem to be positive (see B2a in Figure 1) or neutral (see B2b in Figure 1), the process is deactivated because there is no threat to a teacher’s wellbeing. In case of a negative appraisal of the event or situation (see B2c in Figure 1), the resilience process is activated or prompted, with the aim being to re-establish wellbeing. This first appraisal is followed by the selection and use of strategies (see B3 in Figure 1) that result in an outcome (see B4 in Figure 1). This outcome is evaluated through secondary appraisal (see B5 in Figure 1) in terms of its effects on wellbeing. A positive (see B5a in Figure 1) or neutral appraisal (see B5b in Figure 1) will lead to a deactivation of the resilience process. In the case of a negative appraisal (see B5c in Figure 1), the resilience process tends to continue by reversing to strategy selection and activation (B3 in Figure 1). This reverse loop (see reverse arrow B6 in Figure 1) will continue as long as the outcome of the strategy selection and activation is evaluated as negative. As with the experience of wellbeing, the resilience process can operate with different levels of consciousness and, thus, might be beyond an individual’s awareness.

The nature of an event or situation (B1): A key component of the AWaRE model is a representation of an event or situation, which has the potential to disrupt wellbeing (see B1 in Figure 1). As noted by Ungar (2012), resilience in general occurs “where there is potential for exposure to significant adversity…” so that the resilience process is connected to exposure to perceived significant adversity. Severe or intense adverse events are regarded by some to be a precondition for resilience. For example, Doney (2012) maintains, “individuals are considered resilient only if there has been a significant threat to their development”. Ebersöhn (2014) states that “resilience only ever becomes pertinent in the presence of significant adversity: succeeding despite considerable risk”. Fletcher and Sarkar (2013, 14), however, suggested that the adversities encountered by adults in daily life may be more modest and may comprise “ongoing daily stressors and highly taxing, yet still common, events”.

In relation to teacher resilience, the AWaRE model is applicable to singular and moderate forms of stressful, negative, aversive or threatening events affecting teachers, such as a difficult discussion with parents or a challenging class, as well as more far-reaching stressors such as a pandemic and its impacts (Wood, Ntaote, and Theron 2012). Rather than intensity, the frequency of events is raised most often in the teacher resilience literature because in teaching, “people are confronted with continuing emotional demands” (Pretsch, Flunger, and Schmitt 2012, 322). In teachers, then, the resilience process may be activated in the face of “everyday challenges” (Gu 2014, 520), as well as in response to “initial, brief spikes” (Gu and Day 2013, 40). The section relating to contextual challenges indicates some other situations that may trigger the resilience process.

Whether or not an adverse event is viewed as being significant is criterion-based and determined by the insider (Ebersöhn 2014, 571). Returning to Ungar’s (2012) definition of resilience, it should be noted that it begins with the phrase “potential” for significant adversity. Fletcher and Sarkar (2013, 12) highlight that the use of this term in definitions of resilience “is important because it draws attention to the differences in how people react to life events and whether trauma occurs as a result”. The next component of our model, the appraisal process, focuses on this reaction.

An appraisal of the event or situation (B2): The AWaRE model shows that following an event or situation, individuals make appraisals (see B2 in Figure 1): a well-documented concept. In this context, appraisals are subjective evaluations of the significance and valence of a situation or an event with regard to individual wellbeing (Lazarus 1991). Given the subjective nature of an appraisal process, there are inter- and intra-individual differences. Appraisals are not stable or fixed: they can change and are continuously modified by the individual (e.g., Gross 2002). It is widely accepted that there are two forms of appraisal – namely, primary appraisals that are related to the evaluation of the situation as threatening or challenging and secondary appraisals that address an individual’s perceptions of their own capabilities to cope with the situation (Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Velichkovsky 2009). To activate the resilience process, the appraisal of the situation or event needs to be negative or aversive and related to personal threat or stress, to some degree at least (see B2c in Figure 1). As in the case of resilience, negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, discontent, shame or guilt can be considered as relevant. Evaluative judgements (e.g., the evaluation of a situation as failure that leads to shame or guilt) as well as anticipated consequences (e.g., evaluation of a situation as potentially harmful for the self-concept or as leading to disapproval) can lead to the experience of negative emotions (see also Clarà 2017). In the teaching profession, it has been suggested that self-efficacy beliefs play a role, as they shape teachers’ perspectives and interpretations of an event or a situation (Gibbs and Miller 2014). Social embeddedness, represented by relationships that teachers can rely on (Greenfield 2015), as well as feelings of control, seems to be important (Grenville-Cleave and Boniwell 2012).

Strategy selection and activation (B3): Once an event or series of events has been appraised as negative, stressful or a threat to teacher wellbeing in the AWaRE model, an individual then selects a strategy or strategies designed to restore wellbeing to a level that is appraised as positive by that individual (see B3 in Figure 1). In Ungar’s (2012) definition, this is seen as harnessing resources. Thus, strategies are the mechanism by which a teacher taps into personal or contextual resources.

Teachers use a range of strategies in the resilience process and these can be grouped in various ways. For example, a framework for building resilience in pre-service teachers included quite broad strategies such as persistence, emotion regulation, problem-solving and maintaining a work–life balance (Mansfield et al. 2016). Other strategies were more specific, such as time management, mindfulness, reflection and help-seeking. When teachers felt their emotions heightened and reported the strategies they implemented to regulate these, it was apparent that strategies could also be grouped into specific categories (Beltman and Poulton 2019). The category of waiting incorporated more specific actions, such as taking a deep breath, or stepping away from the situation for a few seconds. Assessing included strategies such as looking at the bigger picture or imagining the other person’s perspective. In the third grouping of problem-solving, actions were those such as talking with collegial networks or selecting a different strategy from the ones already tried to solve the issue. Finally, participants in this study were being proactive in order to be better prepared for future difficult situations. They endorsed strategies such as engaging in a hobby or exercise. Participants reported using multiple strategies, sometimes sequentially, as a way of managing their emotions while addressing the issue that was causing stress.

As well as personal strategies, some research has shown that relational strategies can be important for teachers. Sumsion (2004, 2007) found that some individuals are able to achieve changes by engaging in debates and supporting collective action, thus influencing their community. Similarly, in the context of poverty in South Africa, research reports that teachers and whole communities were able to “flock” together ”to change the ability of an at-risk environment to enable resilience” (Ebersöhn 2012, 30). Elsewhere, Brouskeli, Kaltsi, and Loumakou (2018) found Greek teachers’ wellbeing and resilience to be above average, despite them facing many societal problems. The notion of collective resilience, where individuals gather together to harness resources (Ungar 2012), may also be seen as a proactive, transformational response to adversity (Mintrop and Charles 2016). Hence, the bi-directional arrows in the AWaRE model (located between B and C, as well as between B and D, in Figure 1) indicate that individual persons and their contexts are mutually shaping each other.

An outcome and an appraisal of strategy use (B4 and B5): In the AWaRE model, the strategy selection and application result in an outcome (see B4 in Figure 1). This outcome reflects the effectiveness of the selection and application of strategies as a response to the aversive event or situation. Generally, it can be characterised by a change in the situation, an individual’s modified or new capacities, as well as a modified or new interplay between the situation/event and the individual. This outcome is evaluated by a second cognitive and emotional appraisal process where the individual reflects on the success of strategy use in ameliorating and/or mitigating the stressful, aversive, threatening event or situation (see B5 in Figure 1). If the appraisal leads to a perception of a reduced averseness of the event/situation resulting in a neutral (see B5b in Figure 1) or even positive evaluation (see B5a in Figure 1), the process of wellbeing restoration continues and might finally lead to restoration of perceived wellbeing. If the appraisal of the outcome is still negative (see B5c in Figure 1), the process loops back (see B6 in Figure 1) to new strategy selection and activation (see B3 in Figure 1). Thus, this evaluation process includes, according to the Lazarus model of primary and secondary appraisal (Lazarus and Folkman 1984), not only the event/situation itself but the individual’s evaluation of their personal skills and development as well. Individual perception of their new capacity to respond successfully to similar challenges and to solve problems might act as a personal resource in the future.

The model as a whole: In sum, the AWaRE model reveals, in detail, the relationship between teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience, where the aim of the resilience process is to restore wellbeing. The process is framed by contextual and personal challenges and resources, which also influence the process. The model shows a process that is likely to occur if a teacher appraises an event or situation as a threat to wellbeing and draws on personal and contextual resources to select and activate strategies to restore wellbeing – or to continue the process, if a negative secondary appraisal occurs.

Discussion

Our aim in this paper has been to contribute to a clarification of two constructs: teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience. We have provided an overview of key conceptualisations of teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience in the current literature and presented a model illustrating the relations between the constructs. Whilst recognising that teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience each have large, independent bodies of valuable scholarship, we have suggested how these concepts might be interrelated and understood within the teaching profession. From our perspective, both teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience could be described as “slippery” constructs, as they are connected in multiple ways in the literature, operationalised in different ways in empirical work, and examined in a variety of contexts and settings. We have endeavoured to contribute to what is understood about the relation between these constructs in teaching settings.

We have developed the AWaRE model that reflects existing theory and research, as well as our previous work that illustrated the relation between individual and contextual aspects of the resilience process, incorporated resilience-related strategies, and included the role of multiple levels of context (Beltman, Mansfield, and Harris 2016; Mansfield, Beltman, and Price 2014). We based our thinking on current discussions about the nature and role of teacher wellbeing as a complex subjective process that is embedded into contextual frames (Hascher 2010; Hascher and Waber (submitted)). We also draw on models related to coping (Lazarus 1991, 1999). In the AWaRE model, the resilience process is presented as critical for maintaining, restoring or developing wellbeing in teaching contexts. Despite the different conceptualisations and different settings from which the literature to develop the model was drawn, it provides an overview of the resilience process with wellbeing as its core. It aims to reflect a process and represents the dynamic character of these constructs – and of their interrelation – that need to be empirically investigated in the future.

Limitations

The AWaRE model can be viewed as an initial proposal to clarify the relationship between teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience. We consider the model as a starting point to encourage future research in investigating this relationship in more detail. Further theoretical work and empirical studies aimed at testing the model are needed. However, we recognise, too, that there are limitations in the paper and the model. While we have explicitly focussed on teacher resilience and teacher wellbeing and incorporated work related to appraisals and coping, we have not explicitly compared or related teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience with other constructs, such as, for example, self-efficacy, motivation, persistence, buoyancy or grit (e.g., Duckworth, Quinn, and Seligman 2009). A further important step would be to investigate explicitly the connection of teacher wellbeing and resilience with instructional quality and student outcomes – factors that are not present in our model, although the literature indicates that both teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience are associated with quality teaching (e.g., Day 2019; Klusmann et al. 2008).

There are inherent challenges with a static, two-dimensional representation of multidimensional, multi-level and dynamic constructs such as wellbeing and resilience. Rogoff (2003, 49), for example, discussed the difficulties of the traditional models “using entities connected by arrows or contained in concentric circles”. Such diagrams, perhaps unintentionally, may support the assumption that personal and contextual processes are separate, whereas Rogoff’s view is that these processes mutually create each other, as we maintain in the AWaRE model. It remains a challenge to reflect the complexity and dynamic nature of personal and contextual aspects of teacher wellbeing and resilience in a two-dimensional model.

Implications and future perspectives

Despite its limitations, our work has implications for research and practice. There is a need for research to link other constructs related to personal–social aspects of work and learning, and our model could serve as a template for relating constructs such as wellbeing and burnout, wellbeing and health, resilience and coping, and resilience and buoyancy. As previously indicated, there is still work to do to disentangle further the various components of teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience, and their relation to other constructs, in order to reach consistency of conceptual understanding. Such a clarification has significance for positive psychology as well as other disciplines interested in these topics, such as philosophy (Prinzing et al. 2020). This type of endeavour has the potential to stimulate dialogue between different research fields, as well as within and between disciplines. In addition, it can contribute to explaining the mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of intervention programmes such as ACHIEVER or CARE that aim to improve teacher wellbeing through resilience training (Cook et al. 2017; Jennings et al. 2013). Whether the model would transfer to other professions, such as nursing, or contexts, such as higher education, remains to be explored.

The AWaRE model could have useful applications in teacher education and professional development situations. In particular, it may assist educators to articulate specific challenges and resources and identify strategies that support wellbeing, as well as raising the level of consciousness of the appraisal process. Such reflection is important; “the processes of reflection may have a crucial role in teacher resilience processes” (Clarà 2017, 89). While specific challenges and resources may differ for different individuals and at different career stages (Gray, Wilcox, and Nordstokke 2017), the process of maintaining wellbeing would be the same for teachers at any level, including those at early career and more experienced stages. The AWaRE model can be used to help teachers to understand the resilience process, which, in turn, can support their own and their students’ wellbeing when they are able ”… to model and to promote the resilience they wish to see in their students” (Cook et al. 2017, 14). The AWaRE model may play a helpful role in clarifying the constructs of resilience and wellbeing for the profession: colloquially, they are often used interchangeably.

In addition to individual reflection, the model incorporates context as a crucial element of the resilience process. This points to the significant roles of policymakers, professional learning developers, teaching colleagues, and principals. For example, colleagues may provide social support, or set up mentoring programmes that serve as resources. The model explains the connection with such resources in supporting teacher wellbeing as an outcome of the resilience process.

Conclusion

The search for a deeper understanding of the important role of wellbeing and resilience in the teaching profession, and of the mechanisms by which they are interrelated, lies at the heart of this paper. Wellbeing is regarded as of utmost importance for individuals because a long-term absence of wellbeing can be harmful (e.g., Wood and Josephs 2010). Given current concerns about teacher attrition, and the role of health and burnout in teacher retention (e.g., Ryan et al. 2017), we need to better understand how to enhance teacher wellbeing as a driving source for personal and professional flourishing. Ultimately, this will contribute to the profession as a whole because it can lead to an empowering of teachers to care for their students, create positive learning environments, commit to the role of education, and support a learning society.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest to report.

Appendix

Table A1. Overview of illustrative examples and categorisation of the reviewed papers (N = 46)

Author(s) and publication date	Examples of how wellbeing and resilience are defined and/or aligned in the papers*	Group and categorisation
Acton and Glasgow (2015)	“In addition, articles that focused on ‘resilience’ or ‘burnout’ without reference to wellbeing were also excluded, as while these are important aspects of wellbeing, this review was concerned with capturing holistic notions of teacher wellbeing … ” (p. 101).	2: Resilience as part of wellbeing
Ainsworth and Oldfield (2019)	“When assessing levels of resilience, we look for evidence of positive adaptation despite challenging circumstances. The three outcome measures used within the current study were chosen because high levels of wellbeing and job satisfaction, and low levels of burnout are indicators of positive adaptation in teachers”. (p. 118)	4: Resilience leads to positive adaptation that leads to wellbeing
Ballantyne and Zhukov (2017)	“In addition, the positive psychology lens enables a focus on the notion of “flourishing” and resilience which are associated with effectiveness and well-being … ” (p. 246)	1: Resilience associated with wellbeing
Beltman et al. (2019)	“ … view resilience as: …  both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources that sustain their well-being … ” (p. 2)	4: Resilience leads to resources that lead to wellbeing
Beltman, Mansfield, and Harris (2016)	“Finally, teacher resilience is evident in the outcome of a teacher who, despite facing challenges, experiences professional commitment, growth, wellbeing … ” (p. 173)	2: Wellbeing as an indicator of resilience
Beltman, Mansfield, and Price (2011)	“Difficulties are not simply managed, but individuals are able to bounce back quickly and efficiently, persevere and thrive (e.g. Malloy & Allen, 2007). Successful adaptation occurs despite obstacles and personal wellbeing is maintained … ” (p. 188)	4: Wellbeing as an outcome of resilience
Beshai et al. (2015)	“In their pilot trial, Jennings et al. 2011 found that their Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) mindfulness programme was efficacious in improving students’ and teachers’ well-being”. (p. 199)	4: Resilience (programme) fosters wellbeing
Birchinall, Spendlove, and Buck (2019)	‘A strong case is therefore developing to equip pre-service teachers at the earliest stages of their career with the appropriate skills to increase resilience and bring the social physical and mental aspects of their wellbeing into alignment’. (p. 3)	1: resilience and wellbeing equalised
Brouskeli, Kaltsi, and Loumakou (2018)	“Both resilience and occupational well-being, thus, seem to be dependent upon personal and external factors”. (p. 44)	1: Resilience and wellbeing equalised
Burić, Slišković, and Penezić (2019)	“This study is aimed at … and to explore the protective role of resilience in these aspects of teachers’ psychological well-being”. (p. 1136)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
Clarà (2017)	“With the notion of teacher resilience, many authors have found a way to study not those teachers who leave the profession, but those who, despite the difficult work conditions, stay with commitment and emotional and psychological equilibrium and well-being … ” (p. 82)	4: Resilience represents wellbeing under difficult conditions
Cook et al. (2017)	“There has been a recent surge in conceptual and empirical work highlighting the relationship between teachers’ own well-being and resilience and student outcomes … ” (p. 15)	4: Wellbeing and resilience not explained but implicitly mentioned that resilience leads to wellbeing
Critchley and Gibbs (2012)	“Efficacy beliefs have been found to have significant influence on effort and persistence, and are associated with protective factors such as resilience, personal well-being and achievement … ” (p. 64)	1: Resilience and wellbeing equalised
Czerwinski et al. (2020)	‘Increased levels of resilience shown in the colouring group may have aided in improving levels of wellbeing … ’ (p. 7)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
Ebersöhn (2012)	“I put forward that when individuals use RRR they are able to create a climate where the environment can buffer the effect of risk on individuals’ wellbeing and development – enabling resilience”. (p. 30)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
Eldeleklioglu and Yildiz (2020)	‘ … it is observed that psychological resilience is related to both well-being and emotional expression. Recent evidence has revealed that resilience is a strong identifier of subjective well-being … ’ (p. 49)	2: Resilience as indicator/identifier of wellbeing
Fernandes et al. (2019)	“Resilience is a predictor of job satisfaction and well-being amongst teachers, and can act as a protective factor for negative costs of the teaching profession … ” (p. 682) “A number of studies have shown that resilience correlates positively with teachers’ well-being and the well-being indicators have a direct and strong correlation with the indicators of resilience … ” (p. 682)	4: Resilience predicts wellbeing 1: Resilience correlates with wellbeing; Resilience and wellbeing indicators correlate
Gibbs and Miller (2014)	“The wellbeing, engagement, motivation and resilience of teachers are, therefore, all important issues if this investment is to be recouped with interest”. (p. 609)	1: Resilience and wellbeing equalised
Gray, Wilcox, and Nordstokke (2017)	“Teacher mental health may contribute to the resilience of teachers who choose to stay in the profession”. (p. 203) “Teacher resilience refers to the capacity … This capacity to maintain well-being … ” (p. 203/204)	3: Wellbeing may contribute to resilience 4: Resilience is the capacity to maintain wellbeing
Griffiths (2014)	“ … resilience training at work has resulted in improved job satisfaction, self-esteem, well-being and performance”. (p. 656)	4: Resilience (training) leads to wellbeing
Hagenauer, Hascher, and Volet (2015)	‘ … positive interpersonal relationships … appear to function as antecedent of teachers’ emotional wellbeing … This is also consistent with recent research on “teacher resilience” … ’ (p. 395)	1: Resilience and wellbeing share association with social relationships
Harris et al. (2015)	‘Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) … A randomized trial of 50 teachers showed reductions in time pressure and burnout and improvements in mindfulness, emotion regulation, physical wellbeing, … ’ (p. 144).	4: Resilience (training) leads to wellbeing
Hwang et al. (2017)	‘ … teachers who were equipped with personal resources … were likely to have resilience and therefore to experience wellbeing’. (p. 27)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
Idris, Khairani, and Shamsuddin (2019)	‘ … a positive relationship between resilience, happiness and satisfaction; in which the latter two are constructs that demonstrated subjective well-being’. (p. 154)	1: Resilience and wellbeing are (positively) related
Jennings et al. (2013)	“CARE was designed to reduce teachers’ distress and promote improvements in teachers’ well-being, motivational orientation/efficacy, and mindfulness”. (p. 38)	4: Resilience (training) leads to wellbeing
Johnson and Down (2013)	“ … new ways of seeing early career teacher resilience with the aim of creating and sustaining a spirit of optimism and human agency, as well as a sense of health and well-being among early career teachers”. (p. 703)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
Johnson et al. (2014)	“We have undertaken this work to better understand how the ‘social construction of teacher resilience … on their capacities to sustain their emotional well-being and professional commitment’ … ” (p. 531)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing (as a part of a dynamic interplay)
Kangas-Dick and O’Shaughnessy (2020)	‘Resilience refers to the capacity to demonstrate wellbeing … ’ (p. 131)	2: Resilience as indicator/identifier of wellbeing
Klusmann et al. (2008)	“ … teachers scoring high on resilience (i.e. who are better able to distance themselves from work and to adopt an active coping style that protects them against exogenous stressors) were expected to score higher on measures of well-being”. (p. 705)	1: Resilience and wellbeing related
Larson et al. (2018)	“Overall, ACHIEVER is grounded in a logic model that positions teacher resilience and well-being … ” (p. 63). “The ACHIEVER includes a total of eight resilience practices that have been independently linked to improved psychological and/or physical well-being … ” (p. 63)	1: Resilience and wellbeing equalised 4: Resilience (training) fosters wellbeing
Lester et al. (2020)	“Being provided with opportunities to participate in school decision-making … were found to be key protective organisational factors which promote job satisfaction, staff wellbeing and resilience (Gu and Day 2013; Konu, Viitanen, & Lintonen, 2010)”. (p. 4) “Emotional wellbeing inspires positive mental health by reducing depression, stress and anxiety, and increasing coping skills and resilience … ” (p. 4)	1: Wellbeing and resilience equallized 3: Wellbeing enhances resilience
Li, Gu, and He (2019)	‘Howard (2003) defined teacher resilience as “capacity to overcome personal vulnerabilities and environmental stressors, to be able to ‘bounce back’ in the face of potential risks, and to maintain well-being” (2003, p. 50).’ (p. 145)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
Lomas et al. (2017)	‘Secondary summary measures of interest were outcomes that pertain to mental health and wellbeing (e.g. compassion, empathy, emotional intelligence and regulation, resilience, and spirituality)’. (p. 135)	2: Resilience as indicator/identifier of wellbeing
Mahfouz (2018)	“ … the purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE), a mindfulness-based professional development program, on the leadership and well-being of 13 school administrators”. (p. 602)	4: Resilience (training) leads to wellbeing
Mansfield et al. (2016)	“Teacher wellbeing is another important resilience-related outcome”. (p. 84)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
Margolis, Hodge, and Alexandrou (2014)	‘This article addresses the rise of the concept of “teacher resilience” as a means to promote well-being within teacher education … ’ (p. 391)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
McCallum et al. (2017)	“Teacher wellbeing is found to be impacted by a myriad of factors … Some of these significant factors are discussed in further depth in this review, namely: resilience … ” (p. 2)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
McKay and Barton (2018)	‘Awareness of personal and contextual factors that support resilience can help to improve teachers’ wellbeing and counter burnout.’ (p. 356)	4: Resilience leads to wellbeing
Noble and McGrath (2015)	“Resilience is considered an important indicator of wellbeing as illustrated in Huppert and So’s (2013) model of flourishing used to measure wellbeing of citizens in twenty-three European countries with 43,000 participants”. (p. 2)	2: Resilience as an indicator of wellbeing
Owen (2016)	“The research is also about building resilience to overcome challenges and to foster wellbeing, with the establishment of strong relationships being a key part of this process”. (p. 406)	4: Resilience leads to (overcome challenges leads to) wellbeing
Papatraianou and Le Cornu (2014)	“The relational connectedness … appeared to enhance the teachers’ general wellbeing. The importance of maintaining such social connections is consistent with research which discusses the significance of social relationships in enhancing overall resilience … ” (p. 106)	1: Resilience and wellbeing show similar relation to third concepts
Pretsch, Flunger, and Schmitt (2012)	“We suggest that resilience as a trait that actively fosters well-being is more important for the well-being of teachers than for the well-being of non-teaching employees”. (p. 322)	4: Resilience predicts wellbeing
Simmons et al. (2019)	“To be resilient speaks to the agency that allows us to influence the balance between resources and challenges and affords interactional spaces for effective teaching, which positively impacts well-being”. (p. 856)	4: Resilience leads to balance (challenges – resources) leads to wellbeing
Soini, Pyhältö, and Pietarinen (2010)	“Accordingly, pedagogical well-being could be seen as a crucial asset of teachers’ work-related resilience … ” (p. 737)	2: Wellbeing as an asset of resilience
Sullivan and Johnson (2012)	‘It further raises the question about employing authorities’ propensity to rely on early career teachers’ resilience – their capacity to adapt and cope despite being exposed to serious on-going threats to their wellbeing … ’ (p. 102)	2: Wellbeing as a part of the definition of resilience
Wells and Klocko (2018)	“Principal training in mindfulness … could not only mitigate principal stress but also support well-being and resilience”. (p. 168)	1: Mindfulness leads to wellbeing and resilience

*Note on Table 1: It should be noted that these examples are illustrative of the evidence we found in the papers for aligning wellbeing and resilience. The examples are not a comprehensive record of all evidence in each paper.

Key to groups: 1 = teacher wellbeing and teacher resilience as similar constructs; 2 = teacher resilience is a part, an indicator or a component of teacher wellbeing or teacher wellbeing is a part or indicator of teacher resilience; 3 = teacher wellbeing as a predictor of teacher resilience.; 4 = teacher resilience relevant for the maintenance and development of teacher wellbeing.