Conceptualising teacher resilience: A comparative systematic multidisciplinary review of teacher resilience literature

<p><b>Background –</b> Substantive research into teacher resilience has focused on a variety of individual and contextual factors that hinder or help teachers to overcome challenging situations in the exercise of their profession. Rooted primarily in psychological theories, extant...

Повний опис

Бібліографічні деталі
Автор: Subosa, MR
Інші автори: Randhawa, A
Формат: Дисертація
Мова:English
Опубліковано: 2021
Предмети:
Опис
Резюме:<p><b>Background –</b> Substantive research into teacher resilience has focused on a variety of individual and contextual factors that hinder or help teachers to overcome challenging situations in the exercise of their profession. Rooted primarily in psychological theories, extant teacher resilience literature has largely focused on personal dispositions, social relations, and school processes, with little attention to cultural and structural factors that affect teachers’ work. Comparative, cross-country analysis has also been limited. </p> <p><b>Purpose –</b> This systematic review aims to conceptualise teacher resilience based on empirical literature regarding three countries (the Philippines, United Kingdom, and United States), as well as appraise the breadth and quality of the evidence base. </p> <p><b>Methods –</b> A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant articles based on pre-defined eligibility criteria. The following databases were searched: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), British Education Index (BEI), PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge. Identified articles were analysed via thematic synthesis and appraised for methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). </p> <p><b>Findings –</b> The thematic synthesis revealed a multi-dimensional framework of teacher resilience, incorporating four dimensions: personal, social, organisational-institutional, and cultural-structural. The cultural-structural dimension was the least examined among the four dimensions. The review also demonstrated gaps pertaining to the geographical distribution of the articles, population of interest, and sub-sectoral coverage (i.e., early childhood care and education, primary, secondary, tertiary, technical and vocational, non-formal). These results were discussed in relation to the research questions and possible areas for future enquiry.</p>