This chapter provides an overview of teachers’ perceptions of their professional outcomes and how these have evolved in recent years. It investigates which teacher and school characteristics are associated with higher levels of professional thriving. The analysis further examines how teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs in a growth mindset are linked to variations in their professional outcomes. The chapter concludes by exploring the relationship between the demands placed on teachers and their fulfilment of lesson aims, as well as their well-being and job satisfaction.
Results from TALIS 2024
The State of Teaching
Abstract
Many teachers – especially female and experienced teachers – report meeting key lesson aims, though supporting students' social and emotional learning remains challenging. This suggests that fewer teachers feel capable of handling tasks related to social and emotional learning compared to other teaching responsibilities.
Stress is unevenly distributed within education systems. Female and younger teachers are more likely to experience stress “a lot” in their work, on average across OECD education systems. These findings suggest that education systems can consider providing different types of support to help teachers with different needs. In Albania, Brazil, Colombia, the French Community of Belgium, Korea, Montenegro, the Netherlands*, North Macedonia, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, teachers’ work-related stress levels do not vary by gender and age.
The large majority of teachers are satisfied with their profession, which indicates that most teachers find meaning and personal fulfilment in their work. Almost nine in ten teachers report that, on average across OECD education systems, they are satisfied with their jobs overall. In Bulgaria, Czechia and Saudi Arabia, the share of teachers who think that the advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages has increased by more than 9 percentage points since 2018. The reverse pattern is observed in Alberta (Canada)*, Australia and Norway*.
Teachers’ fulfilment of lesson aims and their well-being and overall job satisfaction, including satisfaction with both the profession and their current work environment, varies more within rather than between education systems. This suggests that individual and school-level factors play a significant role in shaping teachers' experiences.
Maintaining discipline as a source of stress is a key predictor of teachers’ fulfilment of their lesson aims, as well as their well-being and job satisfaction. In addition to discipline and behaviour issues, workload, adapting teaching to diverse learning needs and accountability as sources of stress are associated with the largest differences in teacher well-being.
Teachers who believe in a growth mindset tend to have higher self-efficacy. Teachers who believe that intelligence is malleable and can be developed tend to report higher self-efficacy in student engagement and instruction. In some education systems, such as those in Azerbaijan, Czechia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China, hereafter “China”), South Africa and Viet Nam, only around half of teachers believe that intelligence is malleable. Older teachers and male teachers tend to believe less in a growth mindset. To note, belief in a growth mindset may be shaped by cultural factors and is therefore not unique to teachers.
Second-career teachers are equally likely to meet their lesson aims, experience stress “a lot”, and be satisfied with their job as their peers in most education systems.
* For countries highlighted with an asterisk (*), estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias. See the Reader's Guide and Annex A for more detail.
Teachers play a pivotal role in delivering education programmes, shaping the learning experiences and outcomes of their students (Chetty, Friedman and Rockoff, 2014[1]; Chetty, Friedman and Rockoff, 2014[2]; Hattie, 2009[3]; Jackson, Rockoff and Staiger, 2014[4]; Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain, 2005[5]; Seidel and Shavelson, 2007[6]). Teachers can also boost students’ social and emotional skills (Blazar and Kraft, 2016[7]; Jackson, 2018[8]). Research indicates that classroom practices directly influence student outcomes (Hattie, 2009[3]; Muijs et al., 2014[9]), while teacher well-being and job satisfaction are indirectly associated with the quality of teaching and learning (Viac and Fraser, 2020[10]). Thus, ensuring a sufficient supply of thriving teachers – those who are competent and engaged – is key to successful education.
Education systems can help teachers thrive. Teachers are more likely to exhibit effective practices, experience high well-being and job satisfaction, and remain in the profession when they have sufficient support to face the challenges at hand (Admiraal and Kittelsen Røberg, 2023[11]; Awwad-Tabry et al., 2023[12]; Babb, Sokal and Trudel, 2022[13]; Collie and Mansfield, 2022[14]; Granziera, Collie and Martin, 2020[15]; Harmsen et al., 2019[16]). Education policy can play an important role in both alleviating certain hindrances and making relevant aids available.
This chapter first takes stock of teachers’ views about their professional outcomes and explores how these have evolved in recent years. Then, it examines which teachers are more likely to be thriving professionally. Finally, this chapter examines the relationship between teachers’ job demands and their sense of thriving.
The professional outcomes considered throughout this report include teachers’ self-reported fulfilment of lesson aims, well-being, job satisfaction and career intentions. This chapter focuses on the first three. Teachers’ career intentions, which are key to understanding teacher retention and attrition, are addressed in Chapter 7.
Fulfilment of lesson aims
Research highlights the crucial role of teachers in student learning (Muijs et al., 2014[9]; Muijs and Reynolds, 2001[17]; Nilsen, Gustafsson and Blömeke, 2016[18]). What teachers do in the classroom is the strongest direct school-based influence on student learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009[3]). Nevertheless, teachers’ performance can vary considerably across teachers (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2010[19]), which emphasises the importance of supporting all teachers to thrive.
The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) asks teachers to what extent (“not at all”; “to some extent”; “quite a bit”; “a lot”) the lessons they taught over the past week in the target class1 achieved some often-competing goals. The lesson aims covered by TALIS are related to:
teaching clarity (“presenting the content in a comprehensible way”)
cognitive activation (“engaging students in work that challenges them”)
feedback (“providing students with feedback to support their learning”)
support for consolidation (“offering students opportunities to practise what they learned”)
adapting teaching to the different needs of students
supporting students' social and emotional learning (“helping students to manage their own emotions, thoughts, and behaviour”)
classroom management (“managing student behaviour”).
These lesson aims are interrelated. For instance, supporting students' social and emotional learning and classroom management may have a mediating role in meeting the other lesson objectives covered by TALIS. Low fulfilment may reflect a lack of support, instructional challenges, or unrealistic goals, leading to frustration or diminished confidence. On the other hand, high fulfilment can not only suggest high performance but also low expectations or overconfidence, limiting reflection and professional growth.
Around two in five teachers report meeting their lesson aims across all seven areas covered by TALIS, on average across OECD countries and territories with available data (hereafter, “on average”) (Figure 2.1). Teachers’ fulfilment of lesson aims in five areas, including teaching clarity, cognitive activation, feedback, support for consolidation, and adapting teaching to the different needs of students, tends to show greater variation within rather than across education systems participating in TALIS with available data (hereafter, “education systems”). While average scale scores2 across education systems range up to 4 index points, within-country gaps between the lowest and highest achievers with respect to lesson aims (measured by the difference in 10th and 90th percentiles of teachers’ fulfilment of lesson aims) can range up to 6 index points (Table 2.2). This finding suggests that individual and school-level factors play a significant role in shaping teachers' experiences. Allocating resources equitably across teachers and schools within a system is crucial to reducing disparities in teacher experience.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report fulfilling the following lesson aims “quite a bit” or “a lot” (OECD average-27)
Note: Results refer to lessons taught to a class randomly selected from teachers' current weekly timetables during the week preceding the survey.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.1.
Among teachers’ lesson goals, supporting students’ social and emotional learning is the least likely to be achieved. Around two out of three teachers report achieving their lesson aims in helping students manage their emotions, thoughts and behaviour (69%), on average (Table 2.1). These results are aligned with the findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills (SSES) 2023, according to which fewer teachers feel capable of handling tasks related to social and emotional learning compared to other teaching responsibilities (OECD, 2024[20]).
Based on data from Bogotá (Colombia) and Helsinki (Finland), students’ social and emotional skills, in particular open-mindedness skills (i.e. tolerance, creativity and curiosity), decreased between 2019 and 2023 (OECD, 2024[21]). In addition to potentially higher need for support for developing students’ social and emotional skills, education in this area also tends to be underrepresented in teacher training compared to subjects and pedagogy, leading many teachers to rely on unregulated materials for lesson planning (OECD, 2024[20]). Alberta (Canada)* and Portugal offer examples of how to support teachers in promoting students’ social and emotional development (Box 2.1).
Alberta (Canada) supports teachers in advancing social-emotional learning (SEL) by providing practical, research-informed tools to guide instruction. Alberta also offers conversation guides (Government of Alberta, 2022[22])to help teachers reflect on their practice, while LearnAlberta.ca provides a curated library of classroom-ready resources. In addition, the Healthier Together initiative supplies lesson plans and activities to promote SEL in daily school routines, reinforcing a whole-school approach to well-being (Alberta Health Services, n.d.[23]).
The province has also developed a resource called “Building Social-Emotional Competencies: Choosing Instructional Resources” to help educators select high-quality instructional materials that allow them to design and implement SAFE – sequenced, active, focused, and explicit – tasks that are also developmentally and culturally appropriate for their local contexts (Government of Alberta, 2021[24])). In addition, the Alberta government has approved new funding for schools to provide universal and targeted support and services that promote positive student mental health and well-being.
Portugal has also taken practical steps to integrate SEL into schools. In 2016, the Directorate-General for Education and the Directorate-General for Health jointly published a manual to support teachers in developing socio-emotional competencies among students. This manual provides teachers with guidelines, strategies and detailed templates of structured activities to promote skills such as self-regulation, empathy and co-operation. It also emphasises the importance of adopting a whole-school approach that engages families and the broader community in SEL initiatives. The manual is part of Portugal’s Educação para a Cidadania (Citizenship Education) framework, which places SEL within the broader context of children’s civic and personal development.
Note: Alberta Health Services is now “Alberta Recovery” and the resources for teachers can be found at https://recoveryalberta.ca/Page14056.aspx.
Source: Alberta Education (n.d.[25]), LearnAlberta.ca, https://new.learnalberta.ca; Alberta Health Services (n.d.[23]), Teach Resources, https://schools.healthiertogether.ca/en/teach; Government of Alberta (n.d.[26]), Social-Emotional Learning, https://www.alberta.ca/social-emotional-learning; Ministério da Saúde (2016[27]), Manual para a Promoção de Competências Socioemocionais em meio escolar, https://cidadania.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/pdfs/manual-para-promocao-de-competencias-socioemocionais-em-meio-escolar.pdf.
Well-being
Teacher well-being refers to positive and effective functioning at work (Collie and Martin, 2016[28]). Low teacher well-being can disrupt education systems through high turnover, poor performance, absenteeism and reduced instructional quality (Albulescu, Tuşer and Sulea, 2018[29]; Borman and Dowling, 2008[30]; Ingersoll, 2001[31]; Ronfeldt, Loeb and Wyckoff, 2013[32]). Teachers with high well-being report greater self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment to the profession (Viac and Fraser, 2020[10]). TALIS measures teacher well-being by asking teachers to what extent (“not at all”; “to some extent”; “quite a bit”; “a lot”): they experience stress in their work; their job leaves them time for personal life; their job negatively impacts their mental health; their job negatively impacts physical health.
Some level of stress is natural when professionals hold themselves accountable and strive for high performance. According to the Gallup survey of employees (2024[33]), for example, globally, 41% of employees report experiencing a lot of daily stress. According to TALIS, on average, around one in five (19%) of teachers report experiencing stress “a lot” in their work (Figure 2.2). While more than 30% of teachers in Alberta (Canada)*, Australia, Bahrain, Costa Rica, Malta and New Zealand* experience stress “a lot” in their work, less than 5% do so in Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Viet Nam (Table 2.3). In Albania, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, around 50% of teachers do not experience stress in their work at all.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report experiencing the following occurrences “a lot” in their work
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.3.
Between 2018 and 2024, the share of teachers experiencing stress “a lot” in their work decreased by 5 percentage points or more in Bulgaria, Colombia, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Portugal and the United Arab Emirates, while it increased by the same magnitude in Alberta (Canada)*, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Croatia, Estonia, France, Japan, New Zealand*, Norway* and Spain (Figure 2.3).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report experiencing stress “a lot” in their work
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 2.4.
Having a good work-life balance can help ease the negative effects of stress. On average, 11% of teachers consider that their work leave them time for their personal lives “a lot” (Table 2.3). This varies from below 5% in Shanghai (China) and Singapore to above 20% in Albania, Denmark, Hungary, the Netherlands* and Uzbekistan. In more than one-third of the education systems, teachers report an improvement in work-life balance between 2018 and 2024. Notably, the share of teachers who think that their jobs leave them time for their personal lives “a lot” increased by more than 5 percentage points in Brazil, the Netherlands*, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the United States (Table 2.4). The reverse pattern is observed in Colombia, France and the French Community of Belgium.
In terms of health, 10% of teachers say their job negatively impacts their mental health “a lot”, while 8% report that it negatively impacts their physical health “a lot”, on average (Figure 2.2). In many education systems, teachers report growing negative impacts of their jobs on mental and physical health (Table 2.4). These developments can partly reflect the heavy toll the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic took on teachers’ well-being (Chen et al., 2024[34]; McLean, Bryce and Johnson, 2023[35]; Sacré et al., 2023[36]; Walter, 2021[37]). Yet, there are exceptions to this pattern. In Iceland, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the share of teachers reporting “a lot” of negative impacts of their jobs on their mental and physical health has decreased since 2018.
Similar to teachers’ fulfilment of their lesson aims, teacher well-being also varies more within rather than across education systems. The difference in the average scale scores3 between the education systems with the highest and lowest teacher well-being is 3 index points (Table 2.5). The within-country gaps between teachers with the highest and lowest well-being (measured by the difference in 10th and 90th percentiles of teacher well-being) can reach up to 6 index points.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction, which is the sense of gratification from working, has a positive impact on teachers, school culture and, ultimately, on students (Ainley and Carstens, 2018[38]). Based on previous TALIS results, teachers’ job satisfaction (both with the current work environment and with the teaching profession) is positively associated with teachers’ self-efficacy (OECD, 2020[39]; 2014[40]). Moreover, job satisfaction plays a key role in teachers’ attitudes, efforts and confidence in their daily work with students (Caprara et al., 2003[41]; Klassen et al., 2012[42]; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001[43]), and it is strongly correlated with teaching performance (Banerjee et al., 2017[44]).
TALIS measures job satisfaction by asking teachers to rate their agreement (“strongly disagree”; “disagree”; “agree”; “strongly agree”) with statements reflecting both positive and negative aspects of their profession (“The advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages”; “If I could decide again, I would still choose to work as a teacher”; “I regret that I decided to become a teacher”; “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”) and current work environment (“I would like to change to another school if that were possible”; “I enjoy working at this school”; “I would recommend this school as a good place to work”).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statements
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Tables 2.6 and 2.8.
Almost nine in ten teachers report that, all in all, they are satisfied with their jobs (on average), ranging from 79% in Japan to 98% in Albania (Figure 2.4). Yet, in France, the French Community of Belgium, Latvia, Malta and Serbia, less than six out of ten teachers report that the advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages (Table 2.6). In Korea, Malta and Portugal, around 20% of teachers regret becoming a teacher. However, over 90% of teachers in Portugal also report overall job satisfaction, which suggests their regret might reflect a partial assessment of their current working conditions.
While in most education systems, teachers’ satisfaction with their jobs is comparable to other professions, in Chile, France, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania, teachers tend to be less satisfied with their jobs than people with similar education level in other professions (Box 2.2). The opposite is observed in Japan, Spain, Sweden and the United States.
Data from the Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), provide valuable comparative insights across professions, as the survey collects a rich set of information on participation in adult training by the entire adult population, including teachers.
On average, across OECD countries and economies participating in PIAAC, the share of teachers who report being “satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” with their jobs is similar to that of adults with similar education in other professions (Table 2.11). Yet, in Chile, France, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania, the share of adults who are satisfied with their jobs is between 10 and 23 percentage points higher compared to teachers, ranging from a difference of 10 percentage points in France to 21 percentage points in Chile and 23 percentage points in Hungary. There are also some countries, such as Japan, Spain, Sweden and the United States, where the opposite is observed.
Note: The analysis presented in this box adopts a different definition of teachers than the one used in TALIS, as it refers to school teachers in primary, secondary and vocational education. See the Reader’s Guide for more detailed information on how PIAAC data are used for this analysis.
Source: OECD (2023[45]), Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC) database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/piaac-2nd-cycle-database.html.
Teachers’ satisfaction with their profession has evolved differently across education systems since 2018. In Saudi Arabia and South Africa, the share of teachers who report being, all in all, satisfied with their jobs has increased by more than 5 percentage points since 2018, while the reverse pattern is observed in Alberta (Canada)*, Australia, Croatia, France and Norway* (Table 2.7). In Bulgaria, Czechia and Saudi Arabia, the share of teachers who think that the advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages has increased by more than 9 percentage points during the same period (Figure 2.5). The reverse pattern is observed in Alberta (Canada)*, Australia and Norway*.
Most teachers are not only satisfied with their profession but also with their current work environment. Four out of five teachers, or more depending on the measure, report being satisfied with their current work environment, on average (Table 2.8). In most education systems, teachers’ satisfaction with the current environment has either not changed or improved since 2018 (Table 2.9). In Bulgaria, Hungary, Israel, Korea, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Shanghai (China), Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, teachers’ satisfaction with their current work environment has improved across all three dimensions measured by TALIS (enjoying teaching at their current school; not wanting to change to another school; and considering their current school as a good place to work).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that the advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 2.7.
Teachers’ overall job satisfaction, including satisfaction with both the profession and their current work environment, varies more within rather than between education systems. While average scale scores4 across education systems differ by up to 2 index points, within-country gaps between the least and most satisfied teachers (measured by the difference in 10th and 90th percentiles of teacher job satisfaction) can reach up to 6 index points (Table 2.10). This finding, along with the variation in teachers’ fulfilment of their lesson aims and teacher well-being, suggests that individual and school-level factors strongly shape teachers’ experiences. It underscores the importance of providing adequate support – including non-material resources, such as training and leadership opportunities as well as collaborative work environment (see Chapters 4, 5 and 6) – to teachers who need it most.
All teachers should have equal opportunities to thrive, regardless of who they are and where they teach. Examining variations in teachers' professional outcomes based on personal and contextual factors can help education authorities identify teachers most in need of support. Education authorities may consider allocating resources to better support teachers facing greater challenges. Failing to do so can lead to imbalances in teachers’ professional outcomes and the concentration of struggling teachers in certain schools, which can lead to growing divides in student outcomes (OECD, 2020[39]; 2020[46]; 2019[47]; 2019[48]).
Teacher characteristics
Gender
Female teachers are more likely to report fulfilling their lesson aims “quite a bit” or “a lot” regarding all seven areas measured by TALIS – cognitive activation, feedback, support for consolidation, adapting teaching to the different needs of students, supporting students' social and emotional learning, and classroom management (Table 2.12). In more than one-third of education systems, the share of female teachers who report achieving their lesson aims “quite a bit” or “a lot” is at least 5 percentage points higher than that of male teachers. In Alberta (Canada), Czechia, Denmark, Iceland, and Saudi Arabia, this difference ranges from 11 to 14 percentage points.
Female teachers are also more likely to report higher levels of stress than male teachers. The share of female teachers who report experiencing stress “a lot” in their work is 21% compared to 15% for male teachers, on average (Figure 2.6). This pattern holds in more than two-thirds of education systems. These findings suggest that education systems can consider providing different types of support to help teachers with different needs. For example, in Albania, the French Community of Belgium, Korea, Montenegro, the Netherlands*, North Macedonia and Uzbekistan, teachers’ work-related stress levels do not vary by gender or age. Although these results should be interpreted with caution due to potential mediating factors, such as workload, social expectations and domestic responsibilities, they reflect the broader trend of women reporting higher stress levels in general (Gallup, 2024[33]; Gao, Ping and Liu, 2020[49]; Matud, 2004[50]; Prowse et al., 2021[51]).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report experiencing stress “a lot” in their work
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.13.
In most education systems, teacher job satisfaction does not vary by gender. Yet, in New Zealand* and Serbia, the share of male teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that, all in all, they are satisfied with their job is more than 5 percentage points higher compared to their female colleagues (Table 2.14).
Age and teaching experience
The evidence on the relationship between teaching experience and teacher effectiveness is mixed. Novice teachers, defined as those with up to five years of teaching experience, often face significant challenges and leave the profession at higher rates than their more experienced peers (Paniagua and Sánchez-Martí, 2018[52]). Some studies suggest that the benefits of additional years of experience tend to diminish after the early stages of a teacher’s career (Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain, 2005[5]), while others indicate that experience continues to play a significant role in teacher effectiveness even later in the profession (Papay and Kraft, 2015[53]). Teaching experience also appears to affect student achievement in a non-linear way – rising during the early and middle years, then gradually declining (Toropova, Johansson and Myrberg, 2019[54]).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report fulfilling their lesson aims “quite a bit” or “a lot”
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Novice teachers refer to those with up to five years of teaching experience. Experienced teachers refer to those with more than ten years of teaching experience. Results refer to lessons taught over the week preceding the survey to a class randomly selected from teachers' current weekly timetables.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.15.
More experienced teachers are more likely to report meeting their lesson aims. The share of experienced teachers (i.e. those with more than ten years of teaching experience) who report fulfilling lesson aims across all seven areas covered by TALIS is 6 percentage points higher than that of novice teachers, on average (Figure 2.7), which could reflect the benefits of greater experience in the profession. This difference exceeds 10 percentage points in Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. The only exceptions are Costa Rica and North Macedonia, where novice teachers are more likely to meet their lesson objectives. Education systems, such as Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Portugal are noteworthy because their teaching populations are among the oldest in the world (see Chapter 1), yet their experienced teachers are no more likely to fulfil their lesson aims than their novice teachers.
The share of older teachers (aged 50 and above) who report experiencing stress “a lot” in their work is 6 percentage points lower than that of younger teachers (under age 30), on average (Table 2.13). This suggests that education systems can consider providing different types of support to help teachers with different needs. Due to their experience, older teachers may be more adept at coping with the stresses of the profession. Furthermore, teachers who are unable to cope might have left the profession before the age of 50. The only exception is Bulgaria, where the share of older teachers who report experiencing stress “a lot” is 8 percentage points higher than among younger teachers. In Albania, Brazil, Colombia, the French Community of Belgium, Korea, Montenegro, the Netherlands*, North Macedonia, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, teachers’ work-related stress levels do not vary by age and gender.
Older teachers also tend to be more satisfied with their jobs than their younger peers (Table 2.14). Apart from greater experience, older teachers may be more satisfied with their jobs due to job stability, stronger professional networks and adjusted expectations. Additionally, those who remain in the profession are often those who find it personally and professionally rewarding.
Career pathway
In response to growing teacher shortages, some countries are seeing a rise in second-career teachers entering the profession (see Chapter 1). Research has been inconclusive on the effectiveness of second-career teachers. Boyd et al. (2011[55]) show that teachers with prior professional experience are no more effective than other new teachers, and may even be less effective at raising students’ math scores. On the other hand, there is also evidence for second-career teachers having higher self-efficacy beliefs than first-career teachers (Troesch and Bauer, 2017[56]). Examining the professional outcomes of second-career teachers can reveal how well they manage job demands.
Based on TALIS 2024 data, second-career teachers (i.e. those with at least ten years of work experience in non-education roles and for whom teaching was not a first career choice) are equally likely to meet their lesson aims across the seven areas covered by TALIS in most education systems (Table 2.16). In Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, New Zealand* and the United Arab Emirates, the share of second-career teachers who report fulfilling their lesson aims “quite a bit” or “a lot” regarding all seven areas measured by TALIS is more than 10 percentage points lower compared to non-second-career teachers.
Regression analysis focusing on lesson aims related to five areas – teaching clarity, cognitive activation, feedback, support for consolidation, and adapting teaching to the different needs of students – indicates that in most education systems there is no statistically significant relationship between fulfilling lesson aims and being a second-career teacher (Table 2.17). This holds after accounting for teacher characteristics, including the type of teaching qualification completed, and school characteristics, in all but seven education systems. In Australia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco, South Africa and Türkiye, there is a negative relationship between fulfilment of lesson aims in the five areas and being a second-career teacher, while in Latvia and Shanghai (China), the opposite association is observed.
The share of teachers experiencing stress “a lot” does not vary by career pathway in most education systems (Table 2.18). Yet, like lesson aims, stress levels can be influenced by various factors, including gender, age, years of teaching experience, type of teaching qualification and the school context. Second-career teachers tend to report lower well-being after controlling for teacher characteristics, including the type of teaching qualification completed, and school characteristics in 11 education systems (Table 2.19).
The share of second-career teachers who are satisfied with their jobs is similar to that of other teachers, in most education systems (Table 2.20). Yet, in Alberta (Canada)*, Bahrain and Brazil, the share of second-career teachers who are satisfied with their jobs is lower compared to their peers. This difference is particularly large in Alberta (Canada)* (20 percentage points) and Bahrain (19 percentage points). While in Bahrain the share of second-career teachers is fairly low (2%), in Alberta (Canada)*, second-career teachers make up 11% of the teaching force (see Chapter 1 and Table 1.14).
Results of regression analysis indicate that the association between job satisfaction and being a second-career teacher is negative in around one-fourth of the education systems, after controlling for teacher characteristics, including the type of teaching qualification completed, and school characteristics (Table 2.21). Lower job satisfaction among second-career teachers may indicate inadequate or irrelevant support, which can lead to disengagement, poor performance and attrition.
School characteristics
School characteristics refer to school-based contextual factors that can mediate the link between teachers’ job demands, resources and professional outcomes. Variations in teachers' professional outcomes are analysed by the following school characteristics: school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs.
Teachers’ fulfilment of their lesson aims does not tend to vary by school characteristics (Table 2.22). However, on average, teachers in urban schools (i.e. those located in community with a population of over 100 000 people), publicly managed schools or schools with a high intake of disadvantaged students (over 30%) are more likely to experience stress “a lot” than their colleagues teaching in rural areas (up to 3 000 people), in privately managed schools or schools with a low intake of disadvantaged students (up to 10%) (Table 2.23). Higher stress levels in certain schools can undermine teacher well-being, reduce instructional quality, and contribute to higher turnover in schools that already face greater educational challenges (Viac and Fraser, 2020[10]). Education authorities may need to consider providing adequate resources and support for teachers teaching in these school contexts.
Fulfilment of lesson aims
Teachers in primary education are more likely to fulfil their lesson aims than their colleagues in lower secondary education. Three in five primary teachers meet their lesson aims across all seven areas covered by TALIS, on average, ranging from over four in five in Brazil to less than one in five in Japan (Table 2.1). In particular, the share of teachers who fulfil their lesson aims in supporting students’ social and emotional learning is between 3 percentage points (Saudi Arabia) and 23 percentage points (French Community of Belgium) higher in primary education.
The share of primary teachers fulfilling their lesson aims across all seven areas tend to be higher in privately managed schools compared to publicly managed schools (Table 2.22). In Morocco and Türkiye, the share of primary teachers who meet their lesson aims is 10 percentage points higher in privately managed schools.
The difference in the share of primary teachers fulfilling their lesson aims between socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged schools (in favour of advantaged schools) ranges from 6 percentage points in the French Community of Belgium to 11 percentage points in Spain.
Well-being
Teacher well-being in primary education has decreased since 2018 (Table 2.4). In Australiaa, France and Japan, the share of primary school teachers experiencing “a lot” of stress in their work increased by more than 5 percentage points between 2018 and 2024. In Australiaa, Japan and Korea, the share of primary school teachers reporting that their job negatively impacted their mental or physical health has increased by more than 5 percentage points during the same period. The only exception is the United Arab Emirates, where teacher well-being in primary education has increased since 2018.
Teacher stress levels in primary education do not tend to vary by school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes (Table 2.23). Yet, in the French Community of Belgium, the share of teachers in disadvantaged schools who report a high level of work-related stress is 6 percentage points higher compared to teachers in advantaged schools.
Job satisfaction
In Australiaa, France, Japan, Korea and Spain, primary school teachers’ satisfaction with the teaching profession has decreased since 2018 (Table 2.7). In Korea, the share of teachers who report regretting their decision to become a teacher has increased by 20 percentage points since 2018. In the Netherlands* and the United Arab Emirates, however, teacher job satisfaction among primary teachers has increased during the same period.
Note: ª Estimates for TALIS 2018 and the change between TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
In Bahrain, Costa Rica and the United States, the share of teachers in publicly managed schools who report a high level of work-related stress is between 13 and 17 percentage points higher compared to teachers teaching in privately managed schools (Table 2.23). In Austria, Costa Rica and South Africa, the share of teachers in urban schools who report high levels of work-related stress is at least 10 percentage points higher compared to their colleagues working in rural schools (Table 2.23).
In Costa Rica, Hungary, New Zealand* and the United States, the share of teachers in disadvantaged schools who report a high level of work-related stress is between 14 and 19 percentage points higher compared to teachers in advantaged schools (Figure 2.8). In addition, in some education systems, such as New Zealand*, novice teachers, who tend to be less equipped to maintain discipline in the classroom, are more likely to work in disadvantaged schools (Chapter 1 and Table 1.11). It is only in Israel that teachers working in advantaged schools are more likely to report being stressed than their colleagues teaching in disadvantaged schools (Table 2.23). This might be partly explained by the fact that, in Israel, the share of novice teachers in advantaged schools is higher than in disadvantaged schools, which is uncommon internationally (Chapter 1 and Table 1.11).
The differences in teachers’ work-related stress levels by school characteristics have not changed substantially since 2018 in most education systems (Tables 2.24, 2.25 and 2.26). However, there are exceptions to the general pattern:
In Colombia, the share of teachers experiencing stress “a lot” was 13 percentage points higher in urban schools compared to rural schools in 2018. Based on TALIS 2024 data, teachers’ work-related stress levels are similar across urban and rural schools (Table 2.24).
In Estonia, the share of teachers experiencing stress “a lot” was 9 percentage points higher in publicly managed schools than in privately managed schools in 2018. This gap between publicly and privately managed schools is no longer observed according to TALIS 2024 data (Table 2.25).
In New Zealand*, there was no statistically significant difference in the share of teachers experiencing stress “a lot” between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in 2018. Based on TALIS 2024 results, the share of teachers experiencing stress “a lot” is 17 percentage points higher in disadvantaged schools than in advantaged schools (Table 2.26).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report experiencing stress “a lot” in their work
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Advantaged schools refer to those with 10% or fewer students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. Disadvantaged schools refer to those with more than 30% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.23.
On average, the share of teachers “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that, all in all, they are satisfied with their jobs tend to be higher in rural schools, privately managed schools, advantaged schools and schools with no students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction (Table 2.27). Satisfied teachers tend to have higher self-efficacy (OECD, 2020[39]; 2014[40]) and are less likely to leave the profession (Canrinus et al., 2011[57]; Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond, 2017[58]; Whipp and Geronime, 2015[59]; Ingersoll, 2001[31]), which suggests that challenging environments in some countries might lead to difficulty in securing an adequate supply of teachers.
In most education systems, the differences in teacher job satisfaction by school characteristics remained similar between 2018 and 2024 (Tables 2.28, 2.29 and 2.30). Yet, there are some exceptions. In Alberta (Canada)* and Estonia, the share of teachers who are, all in all, satisfied with their jobs was not statistically significantly different between urban and rural schools in 2018. Based on TALIS 2024 results, however, a higher share of teachers report being satisfied with their jobs in rural schools than in urban schools (Table 2.28).
Fulfilment of lesson aims
Teachers in upper secondary education are less likely to fulfil their lesson aims than their colleagues in lower secondary education. Approximately 50% of upper secondary teachers meet their lesson aims across all seven areas covered by TALIS, on average, ranging from 79% in Saudi Arabia to 25% in Denmark (Table 2.1). Lesson goals related to adapting teaching to the different needs of students, supporting students' social and emotional learning, and classroom management are less likely to be achieved in upper secondary education. The share of teachers meeting lesson aims related to these areas is lower in upper secondary education compared to lower secondary education in Croatia, Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Slovenia and Türkiye.
In Portugal, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, the share of upper secondary teachers fulfilling their lesson aims across all seven areas is higher in privately managed schools than in publicly managed schools (Table 2.22). The opposite pattern is observed in the United Arab Emirates.
Well-being
Teacher stress in upper secondary education has decreased between 2018 and 2024 in Denmark, Portugal and the United Arab Emirates (Table 2.4). Moreover, in Denmark, the share of upper secondary teachers reporting that their job leaves “a lot” of time for their personal lives increased by 8 percentage points during the same period.
Job satisfaction
Upper secondary teachers are more likely to report that the advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages and that, if they could decide again, they would still choose to work as teachers (Table 2.6). In Croatia, Denmark and Slovenia, the share of teachers agreeing with these statements is over 5 percentage points higher among upper secondary teachers compared to lower secondary teachers. Since 2018, the share of upper secondary teachers reporting that the advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages has increased in Denmark, Türkiye and the United Arab Emirates, while it has decreased in Slovenia (Table 2.7).
Contrary to teacher characteristics, which are more easily observable, teachers’ personal resources are defined as employees' capacities to influence their work environment (Collie et al., 2020[60]) and as beliefs about the degree of control they have over it (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017[61]). Personal resources can increase employee engagement and help in achieving positive professional outcomes (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017[61]; Collie et al., 2020[60]).
TALIS 2024 collected information about teacher self-efficacy, motivation and teachers’ beliefs about growth mindset. This section explores the extent to which teachers’ professional outcomes vary in relation to their self-efficacy and beliefs about growth mindset. Motivation is examined in relation to career intentions in Chapter 7.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy reflects individuals’ beliefs in their ability to perform tasks. Higher teacher self-efficacy is linked to better pedagogical practices, instructional quality (Holzberger, Philipp and Kunter, 2013[62]), and improved student outcomes (Caprara et al., 2006[63]; Woolfolk Hoy and Davis, 2006[64]). TALIS views teacher self-efficacy as multidimensional, assessing the extent to which teachers can perform goal-oriented actions and focusing on three key areas: classroom management, instruction and student engagement.
As described in Chapter 1, teachers with higher self-efficacy tend to be older, more experienced, and have higher educational attainment, although exceptions exist across countries (see Chapter 1, Table 1.22). Gender differences are minimal overall, with female teachers slightly more represented, except in Japan, where male teachers lead.
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers’ job satisfaction1 associated with an increase in the scale of self-efficacy1,2
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between teacher job satisfaction and self-efficacy.
1. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and a mean of 10. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Results based on linear regression analysis, showing the change in the outcome variable associated with a one-unit increase in the explanatory variable. Teacher characteristics include gender, age (standardised at the international level) and years of teaching experience (standardised at the international level). School characteristics include school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.35.
Regression analyses indicate that there is a positive association between teacher self-efficacy and teachers' fulfilment of their lesson aims regarding teaching clarity, cognitive activation, feedback, support for consolidation and adapting teaching to the different needs of students in all education systems (Table 2.31). Notably, teachers who believe they can help every student progress “quite a bit” or “a lot” are four times more likely to report fulfilling their lesson aims regarding adaptive teaching, on average (Table 2.32). This relationship holds while controlling for teacher and school characteristics. Similarly, teachers who believe they can support students’ social and emotional learning “quite a bit” or “a lot” are six times more likely to meet their lesson aims regarding adaptive teaching (Table 2.33).
TALIS 2024 data also show that teacher self-efficacy is positively associated with well-being (Table 2.34) and job satisfaction (Figure 2.9), after accounting for teacher and school characteristics. These findings are in line with research showing that teachers with high self-efficacy show higher job satisfaction and commitment, and are less likely to be affected by burnout (Avanzi et al., 2013[65]; Chesnut and Burley, 2015[66]; Klusmann et al., 2008[67]; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010[68]).
Beliefs about growth mindset
Growth mindset refers to the belief that intelligence is malleable and can be developed through effort, perseverance and support from others (Dweck and Yeager, 2019[69]). A person with a growth mindset is more likely to embrace challenges and learn from setbacks than someone with a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2016[70]). A growth mindset is not a fixed trait. Most people hold both growth and fixed beliefs, which evolve over time (Dweck, 2016[71]). Research shows that teachers’ beliefs in growth mindset can improve students’ academic achievement, particularly for students at risk of falling behind (Bostwick et al., 2020[72]; Claro, 2021[73]; Dweck, 2010[74]). Results from the 2018 round of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) suggest that teachers play a key role in fostering environments that support growth mindset and in providing ongoing guidance and feedback to aid student learning (OECD, 2021[75]).Based on Dweck’s (2016[70]) model of two mindsets (fixed versus growth mindsets), TALIS 2024 asked teachers whether they believe that intelligence is not malleable and cannot be developed (i.e. fixed mindset) or the opposite (i.e. growth mindset).5 Results show:
Around four in five teachers on average “strongly disagree” or “disagree” with the statement that people’s intelligence is something about them that they cannot change very much, ranging from less than 55% in Azerbaijan, Czechia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Shanghai (China), South Africa and Viet Nam to over 90% in Australia, Chile, New Zealand* and the United States (Table 2.36).
Similarly, around four in five teachers on average “strongly disagree” or “disagree” with the statement that everyone has a certain amount of intelligence and no one can really do much to change it (Table 2.36). However, in Lithuania, Montenegro, Shanghai (China), South Africa, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam, more than half of teachers share this view.
Two out of three teachers on average “strongly disagree” or “disagree” with the statement that someone can learn new things, but people cannot really change their basic intelligence, ranging from below 40% in Czechia and Shanghai (China) to 85% in Chile and New Zealand* (Table 2.36).
The PISA 2022 results on 15-year-old students’ growth mindsets show patterns similar to those found in the TALIS 2024 data for teachers, suggesting that beliefs in growth mindset may reflect broader cultural influences rather than being unique to teachers (OECD, 2024[76]; 2021[75]). Singapore and South Africa offer examples of how growth mindset principles can be embedded more broadly within an education system (Box 2.5).
Singapore
The belief that all students can learn and grow is a core professional value reflected in the Ethos of the Teaching Profession. This value is introduced early through the Ministry of Education’s Introduction to Teaching Programme, which familiarises recruits with growth mindset principles before they enter the National Institute of Education (NIE).
NIE’s Teacher Education Model for the 21st Century (TE²¹) emphasises reflection, adaptability and lifelong learning – traits aligned with a growth mindset. Student teachers build this mindset by curating digital portfolios that promote self-directed learning and critical reflection.
By embedding these principles in teacher preparation, Singapore fosters a culture where teachers model lifelong learning and demonstrate their belief in every student’s potential.
South Africa
The Western Cape (South Africa) Education Department’s “Transform to Perform” strategy aims to foster a growth mindset among students, teachers, non-teaching staff and school leaders. Alongside various resources – such as videos, FAQ sheets and implementation guides – the department has partnered with registered neuro-linguistic practitioners to deliver teacher training. The first training interventions were launched in 2020, with a goal of reaching over 20 000 educators within 4 years.
Source: NIE (n.d.[77]), Three competency dimensions, https://www.ntu.edu.sg/nie/about-us/programme-offices/office-of-teacher-education-and-undergraduate-programmes/te21/three-competency-dimensions; Jacovidis et al. (2020[78]), Growth Mindset Thinking and Beliefs in Teaching and Learning, https://inflexion.org/growth-mindset-thinking-and-beliefs-in-teaching-and-learning/; WCED (n.d.[79]), Change Mindset, https://wcedonline.westerncape.gov.za/change-mindset-cm-teachers.
The meta-analysis by Bardach et al. (2024[80]) indicates a positive association between teachers’ beliefs in a growth mindset and their self-efficacy. Indeed, TALIS 2024 data show that teachers who endorse a growth mindset tend to report higher self-efficacy in student engagement, instruction, and overall, in over half of the education systems and on average. The association remains even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics (Tables 2.41, 2.42 and 2.44).
Regression analyses also indicate that teachers’ beliefs in growth mindset relate differently to teacher well-being than to job satisfaction. While in most education systems, teachers’ beliefs in growth mindset are not associated with teacher well-being, it is positively related to job satisfaction in around half of the education systems (Tables 2.39 and 2.40).
On average, belief in growth mindset is more prevalent among female teachers than male teachers and teachers under age 30 compared to their older peers (i.e. aged 50 or above) (Table 2.37). Furthermore:
In Alberta (Canada)*, Poland and Serbia, the share of male teachers who “strongly disagree” or “disagree” with the statement that people’s intelligence is something about them that they cannot change very much is between 8 and 10 percentage points lower compared to their female colleagues (Figure 2.10).
In Azerbaijan, Lithuania and Uzbekistan, the share of teachers aged 50 and above disagreeing with the same statement is more than 14 percentage points lower compared to their peers under age 30.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “strongly disagree” or “disagree” that people’s intelligence is something about them that they cannot change very much
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.37.
Job demands include all physical, social or organisational aspects of a job that require sustained effort and are linked to physiological and psychological costs (Demerouti et al., 2001[81]). This report considers the following factors covered by the TALIS questionnaire under teachers’ sources of stress (“not at all”; “to some extent”; “quite a bit”; “a lot”) as demands that teachers face:
workload
adapting teaching to diverse learning needs
maintaining discipline
accountability
keeping up with reforms.
This section explores the extent to which demands on teachers are related to their self-reported ability to fulfil lesson aims, as well as their well-being and job satisfaction. Chapter 3 examines how teachers experience demands across and within education systems.
The results presented in this section are based on linear regression analyses, which provide insights into how the scale scores of teachers’ professional outcomes change when teachers report a source of stress, while teacher and school characteristics included in the models are held constant. Teachers’ professional outcomes are measured in TALIS using scales, which combine information from teachers’ answers to batteries of questions. The resulting scales – except for composite scales6 that combine different scales – are standardised to have a standard deviation of two across all education systems participating in TALIS and where value 10 corresponds to the item mid-point value of the response scale.7
Demands and fulfilment of lesson aims
Regression analyses indicate that maintaining discipline might matter the most for teachers to meet their lesson aims. Maintaining classroom discipline and being intimidated or verbally abused by students are negatively associated with teachers’ fulfilment of their lesson aims (regarding teaching clarity, cognitive activation, feedback, support for consolidation, and adapting teaching to the different needs of students) across most education systems, after accounting for teacher and school characteristics (Figure 2.11). For instance, in Hungary, teachers who report being intimidated or verbally abused by students as a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” tend to report lower fulfilment of their lesson aims (i.e. associated with a decrease of around 30% of a standard deviation in the scale of fulfilment of lesson aims). In Chile, teachers who report maintaining classroom discipline as a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” also tend to report lower fulfilment of their lesson aims – equivalent to almost 50% of a standard deviation decrease. In no education system, including Norway* and Serbia, is fulfilling lesson aims positively associated with the sources of stress of keeping order in class or being verbally abused by students.
These findings suggest that disruption can reduce instructional time, making it harder to achieve lesson goals. At the same time, not meeting lesson aims can also lead to more behavioural issues among students, which in turn can increase teacher stress.
In many education systems, reporting excessive workload, adapting teaching to diverse learning needs, accountability and keeping up with reforms as sources of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” is not related to the fulfilment of lesson aims (Figure 2.11). In some, they are even positively related. For example, as shown on Figure 2.11, in Uzbekistan, teachers who report having too much lesson preparation as a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” also tend to report higher fulfilment of their lesson aims (i.e. associated with an increase of 20% of a standard deviation in the scale of fulfilment of lesson aims). Stress from lesson preparation may reflect the significant effort teachers invest in preparation and planning, which in turn can support their ability to meet their lesson goals. In Viet Nam, teachers who report addressing parents’ and guardians’ concerns as a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” tend to report higher fulfilment of their lesson aims – equivalent to almost 15% of a standard deviation increase. This suggests that accountability might help teachers fulfil their lesson aims if implemented properly.
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers’ fulfilment of lesson aims1 associated with encountering the following as sources of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” at work2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between fulfilment of lesson aims and sources of stress, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and the value of 10 corresponding to the item mid-point value of the response scale. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “not at all” and “to some extent”.
3. Results based on 13 separate linear regression analyses, showing the change in the scale of fulfilment of lesson aims associated with a one-unit increase in the explanatory variable. After controlling for teacher (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience) and school characteristics (i.e. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs). Results refer to lessons taught over the week preceding the survey to a class randomly selected from teachers' current weekly timetables.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.45.
Demands and well-being
Regression analyses indicate that maintaining discipline, workload, adapting teaching to diverse learning needs and accountability might be more closely associated with teacher well-being than keeping up with reforms (Figure 2.12). These relationships hold in all education systems, after accounting for teacher and school characteristics. As shown on Figure 2.12, on average, teacher well-being decreases by less than 60% of a standard deviation, as measured by the scale of workplace well-being and stress, when teachers report keeping up with changing requirements or with curriculum or programme changes as sources of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”. Teacher well-being tends to decrease by a greater extent, on average, when teachers report other sources of stress covered by TALIS. These findings suggest that maintaining discipline, workload, adapting teaching to diverse learning needs and accountability may have a more direct link with teachers’ well-being, while reforms are more abstract and episodic, making them less taxing on well-being.
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers’ workplace well‐being and stress¹ associated with encountering the following as sources of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” at work2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between worse workplace well-being and sources of stress, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Higher values on the workplace well-being and stress scale reflect lower levels of well-being. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and the value of 10 corresponding to the item mid-point value of the response scale. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “not at all” and “to some extent”.
3. Results based on 13 separate linear regression analyses, showing the change in the scale of workplace well‐being and stress associated with encountering specific sources of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” at work. After controlling for teacher (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience) and school characteristics (i.e. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs).
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.46.
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers’ workplace well‐being and stress1 associated with an increase in the hours full-time teachers report having spent on the following activities during the most recent complete calendar week2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between worse workplace well-being and weekly working hours, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Higher values on the workplace well-being and stress scale reflect lower levels of well-being. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and the value of 10 corresponding to the item mid-point value of the response scale. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Weekly working hours standardised at the international level.
3. Results based on ten separate linear regression analyses, showing the change in the scale of workplace well‐being and stress associated with a one standard deviation increase in weekly working hours spent on specific tasks. After controlling for teacher (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience) and school characteristics (i.e. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs).
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.47.
Regression analyses focusing on full-time teachers show that, in comparison to teaching, lesson preparation, student counselling and other tasks, teacher well-being decreases most with additional time spent on administrative tasks, marking and communicating with parents (Figure 2.13). On average, a one standard-deviation increase in hours spent on marking, administrative tasks or communicating with parents by full-time teachers is associated with over a 10% standard deviation decrease in teacher well-being, as measured by the workplace well-being and stress scale. An increase of similar magnitude in hours spent on teaching or lesson preparation is associated with around 8% of a standard deviation decrease in teacher well-being. In contrast, time spent on professional learning activities, school management, or extracurricular activities is not statistically significantly associated with teacher well-being.
On average, teachers spend most of their time on teaching (23 hours per week) and lesson preparation (7 hours per week) (Chapter 3 and Table 3.10). However, as shown on Figure 2.13, an additional hour spent on administrative tasks, marking or communicating with parents, is associated with a steeper decrease in teacher well-being. Thus, even small increases in time spent on these non-teaching tasks – like administration, marking, or parent communication – can lead to lower teacher well-being.
Demands and job satisfaction
Regression analyses suggest that maintaining discipline, in particular being intimidated or verbally abused by students, might be more closely associated with job dissatisfaction than workload, adapting teaching to diverse learning needs, accountability and keeping up with reforms (Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.). On average, teachers who report being intimidated or verbally abused by students as a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” tend to report lower job satisfaction (i.e. associated with a decrease of 50% of a standard deviation in the scale of job satisfaction). The negative relationship between maintaining discipline and job satisfaction holds in all education systems, after accounting for teacher and school characteristics. Supporting teachers in managing disciplinary issues is therefore an important way to help maintain their overall high job satisfaction.
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers’ job satisfaction1 associated with encountering the following as sources of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” at work2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between job satisfaction and sources of stress, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and a mean of 10. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “not at all” and “to some extent”.
3. Results based on 13 separate linear regression analyses, showing the change in the scale of teacher job satisfaction associated with encountering specific sources of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” at work. After controlling for teacher (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience) and school characteristics (i.e. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs).
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 2.48.
References
[11] Admiraal, W. and K. Kittelsen Røberg (2023), “Teachers’ job demands, resources and their job satisfaction: Satisfaction with school, career choice and teaching profession of teachers in different career stages”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 125, p. 104063, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2023.104063.
[38] Ainley, J. and R. Carstens (2018), “Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 187, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/799337c2-en.
[25] Alberta Education (n.d.), LearnAlberta.ca, https://www.learnalberta.ca/alrdb.aspx (accessed on 12 May 2025).
[23] Alberta Health Services (n.d.), Teach Resources, https://schools.healthiertogether.ca/en/teach (accessed on 12 May 2025).
[29] Albulescu, P., A. Tuşer and C. Sulea (2018), “Effective strategies for coping with burnout. A study on Romanian teachers”, Psihologia Resurselor Umane, Vol. 16/2, pp. 59-74, https://doi.org/10.24837/PRU.2018.2.487.
[65] Avanzi, L. et al. (2013), “Cross-validation of the Norwegian Teacher’s Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES)”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 31, pp. 69-78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.002.
[12] Awwad-Tabry, S. et al. (2023), “Arab teachers’ well-being upon school reopening during COVID-19: Applying the job demands–resources model”, Education Sciences, Vol. 13/4, p. 418, https://doi.org/10.3390/EDUCSCI13040418.
[13] Babb, J., L. Sokal and L. Trudel (2022), “This is us: Latent profile analysis of Canadian teachers’ burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, Vol. 45/2, pp. 555-585, https://doi.org/10.53967/CJE-RCE.V45I2.5057.
[61] Bakker, A. and E. Demerouti (2017), “Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22/3, pp. 273-285, https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056.
[44] Banerjee, N. et al. (2017), “Teacher job satisfaction and student achievement: The roles of teacher professional community and teacher collaboration in schools”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 123/2, pp. 203-241, https://doi.org/10.1086/689932.
[80] Bardach, L. et al. (2024), “A meta-analysis on teachers’ growth mindset”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 36/3, pp. 1-35, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-024-09925-7/TABLES/10.
[7] Blazar, D. and M. Kraft (2016), “Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 39/1, pp. 146-170, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716670260.
[30] Borman, G. and N. Dowling (2008), “Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 78/3, pp. 367-409, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455.
[72] Bostwick, K. et al. (2020), “Teacher, classroom, and student growth orientation in mathematics: A multilevel examination of growth goals, growth mindset, engagement, and achievement”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 94, p. 103100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103100.
[55] Boyd, D. et al. (2011), “The effectiveness and retention of teachers with prior career experience”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 30/6, pp. 1229-1241, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECONEDUREV.2011.08.004.
[57] Canrinus, E. et al. (2011), “Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity”, European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 27/1, pp. 115-132, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2.
[41] Caprara, G. et al. (2003), “Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95/4, pp. 821-832, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821.
[63] Caprara, G. et al. (2006), “Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 44/6, pp. 473-490, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.
[58] Carver-Thomas, D. and L. Darling-Hammond (2017), Teacher Turnover: Why It Matters and What We Can Do About It, Learning Policy Institute, https://doi.org/10.54300/454.278.
[34] Chen, X. et al. (2024), “The long-term effects of perceived instructional leadership on teachers’ psychological well-being during COVID-19”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 19/8, p. e0305494, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305494.
[66] Chesnut, S. and H. Burley (2015), “Self-efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the teaching profession: A meta-analysis”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 15, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.001.
[1] Chetty, R., J. Friedman and J. Rockoff (2014), “Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates”, American Economic Review, Vol. 104/9, pp. 2593-2632, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2593.
[2] Chetty, R., J. Friedman and J. Rockoff (2014), “Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood”, American Economic Review, Vol. 104/9, pp. 2633-2679, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633.
[73] Claro, S. (2021), “Do Students Improve their Academic Achievement When Assigned to a Growth Mindset Teacher? Evidence from Census Data in Chile using a Student Fixed Effect Design”, EdWorkingPaper: 21-402, Annenberg Institute at Brown University, Providence, RI, https://doi.org/10.26300/wxmt-dc81 (accessed on 22 April 2025).
[60] Collie, R. et al. (2020), “A multilevel person-centered examination of teachers’ workplace demands and resources: Links with work-related well-being”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00626.
[14] Collie, R. and C. Mansfield (2022), “Teacher and school stress profiles: A multilevel examination and associations with work-related outcomes”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 116, p. 103759, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2022.103759.
[28] Collie, R. and A. Martin (2016), “Adaptability: An important capacity for effective teachers”, Educational Practice and Theory, Vol. 38/1, pp. 27-39, https://doi.org/10.7459/EPT/38.1.03.
[81] Demerouti, E. et al. (2001), “The job demands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86/3, pp. 499-512, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.
[70] Dweck, C. (2016), Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
[71] Dweck, C. (2016), “What having a “growth mindset” actually means”, Harvard Business Review.
[74] Dweck, C. (2010), “Mindsets and equitable education”, Principal Leadership, Vol. 10/5, pp. 26–29.
[69] Dweck, C. and D. Yeager (2019), “Mindsets: A view from two eras”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 14/3, pp. 481-496, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166.
[33] Gallup (2024), State of the Global Workplace Report, https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx (accessed on 25 April 2025).
[49] Gao, W., S. Ping and X. Liu (2020), “Gender differences in depression, anxiety, and stress among college students: A longitudinal study from China”, Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 263, pp. 292-300, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAD.2019.11.121.
[22] Government of Alberta (2022), Building a Shared Understanding: Social-Emotional Learning, https://www.alberta.ca/system/files/custom_downloaded_images/edc-social-emotional-learning-coversation-guide.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[24] Government of Alberta (2021), Creating Welcoming, Caring, Respectful and Safe Learning Environments - Building Social-Emotional Competencies: Choosing Instructional Resources, Government of Alberta, https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/6bbac88b-a6a7-41c6-938a-bebfe461e3d4/resource/b3dc90c0-ea7a-4b48-a230-414cedcf6844/download/edc-choosing-social-emotional-learning-resources.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[26] Government of Alberta (n.d.), Social-Emotional Learning, https://www.alberta.ca/social-emotional-learning (accessed on 12 May 2025).
[15] Granziera, H., R. Collie and A. Martin (2020), “Understanding teacher wellbeing through Job Demands-Resources Theory”, Cultivating Teacher Resilience: International Approaches, Applications and Impact, pp. 229-244, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5963-1_14/FIGURES/1.
[19] Hanushek, E. and S. Rivkin (2010), “Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality”, American Economic Review, Vol. 100/2, pp. 267-271, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509683.pdf.
[16] Harmsen, R. et al. (2019), “The longitudinal effects of induction on beginning teachers’ stress”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 89/2, pp. 259-287, https://doi.org/10.1111/BJEP.12238;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.
[3] Hattie, J. (2009), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Routledge, London.
[62] Holzberger, D., A. Philipp and M. Kunter (2013), “How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 105/3, pp. 774-786, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032198.
[31] Ingersoll, R. (2001), “Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38/3, pp. 499-534, https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499.
[8] Jackson, C. (2018), “What do test scores miss? The importance of teacher effects on non–test score outcomes”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 126/5, pp. 2072-2107, https://doi.org/10.1086/699018.
[4] Jackson, C., J. Rockoff and D. Staiger (2014), “Teacher effects and teacher-related policies”, Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 6, pp. 801‑825, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-040845.
[78] Jacovidis, J. et al. (2020), “Growth mindset thinking and beliefs in teaching and learning”, Inflexion Policy Paper.
[42] Klassen, R. et al. (2012), “Preservice teachers’ work stress, self-efficacy, and occupational commitment in four countries”, European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 28/4, pp. 1289-1309, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0166-x.
[67] Klusmann, U. et al. (2008), “Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 100/3, pp. 702-715, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.702.
[50] Matud, M. (2004), “Gender differences in stress and coping styles”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 37/7, pp. 1401-1415, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2004.01.010.
[35] McLean, L., C. Bryce and B. Johnson (2023), “Describing teachers’ well-being prior to and 18 months after COVID-19 school closures, with a focus on early-career teachers and teachers of color”, Sage Open, Vol. 13/4, https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231217872.
[27] Ministério da Saúde (2016), Manual para a Promoção de Competências Socioemocionais em meio escolar, Lisboa, https://cidadania.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/pdfs/manual-para-promocao-de-competencias-socioemocionais-em-meio-escolar.pdf.
[9] Muijs, D. et al. (2014), “State of the art: Teacher effectiveness and professional learning”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 25/2, pp. 231-256, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.
[17] Muijs, D. and D. Reynolds (2001), Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice, Sage Publications, London.
[77] NIE (n.d.), “Three competency dimensions”, Nanyang Technological University, https://www.ntu.edu.sg/nie/about-us/programme-offices/office-of-teacher-education-and-undergraduate-programmes/te21/three-competency-dimensions (accessed on 17 May 2025).
[18] Nilsen, T., J. Gustafsson and S. Blömeke (2016), “Conceptual framework and methodology of this report”, in Teacher Quality, Instructional Quality and Student Outcomes, Springer Open, https://www.oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=1002053#page=10.
[20] OECD (2024), Nurturing Social and Emotional Learning Across the Globe: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/32b647d0-en.
[76] OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Results (Volume V): Learning Strategies and Attitudes for Life, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c2e44201-en.
[21] OECD (2024), Social and Emotional Skills for Better Lives: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/35ca7b7c-en.
[45] OECD (2023), Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC) database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/piaac-2nd-cycle-database.html (accessed on 6 May 2025).
[75] OECD (2021), Sky’s the Limit: Growth Mindset, Students, and Schools in PISA, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/growth-mindset.pdf.
[46] OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en.
[39] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
[47] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
[48] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[40] OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
[52] Paniagua, A. and A. Sánchez-Martí (2018), “Early career teachers: Pioneers triggering innovation or compliant professionals?”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 190, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4a7043f9-en.
[53] Papay, J. and M. Kraft (2015), “Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 130.
[51] Prowse, R. et al. (2021), “Coping with the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining gender differences in stress and mental health among university students”, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 12, p. 650759, https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYT.2021.650759/BIBTEX.
[5] Rivkin, S., E. Hanushek and J. Kain (2005), “Teachers, schools, and academic achievement”, Econometrica, Vol. 73/2, pp. 417-458, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x.
[32] Ronfeldt, M., S. Loeb and J. Wyckoff (2013), “How teacher turnover harms student achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 50/1, pp. 4-36, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212463813.
[36] Sacré, M. et al. (2023), “Teachers’ well-being and their teaching quality during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective study”, Frontiers in Education, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1136940.
[6] Seidel, T. and R. Shavelson (2007), “Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77/4, pp. 454-499, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317.
[68] Skaalvik, E. and S. Skaalvik (2010), “Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26/4, pp. 1059-1069, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001.
[54] Toropova, A., S. Johansson and E. Myrberg (2019), “The role of teacher characteristics for student achievement in mathematics and student perceptions of instructional quality”, Education Inquiry, Vol. 10/4, pp. 275-299, https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1591844.
[56] Troesch, L. and C. Bauer (2017), “Second career teachers: Job satisfaction, job stress, and the role of self-efficacy”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 67, pp. 389-398, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2017.07.006.
[43] Tschannen-Moran, M. and A. Hoy (2001), “Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17/7, pp. 783-805, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
[10] Viac, C. and P. Fraser (2020), “Teachers’ well-being: A framework for data collection and analysis”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 213, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c36fc9d3-en.
[37] Walter, H. (2021), “Understanding teacher well-being during the Covid-19 pandemic over time: A qualitative longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Psychology, Vol. 21/5, https://doi.org/10.33423/jop.v21i5.4716.
[79] WCED (n.d.), “Change Mindset”, Western Cape Education Department, https://wcedonline.westerncape.gov.za/change-mindset-cm-teachers.
[59] Whipp, J. and L. Geronime (2015), “Experiences that predict early career teacher commitment to and retention in high-poverty urban schools”, Urban Education, Vol. 52/7, pp. 799-828, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915574531.
[64] Woolfolk Hoy, A. and H. Davis (2006), “Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents”, in Urdan, T. and F. Pajares (eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
← 1. Refers to lessons taught over the week preceding the survey to a class randomly selected from teachers' current weekly timetables.
← 2. The scale of fulfilment of lesson aims (complexity of teaching) (T4FULFIL) was constructed using teacher responses ("not at all", "to some extent", "quite a bit", "a lot") about the extent to which the following aims were fulfilled in the past week (TT4G58): "Presenting the content in a comprehensible way"; "Engaging students in work that challenges them"; "Providing students with feedback to support their learning "; "Offering students opportunities to practise what they learned"; "Adapting teaching to meet the different needs of students". Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and the value of 10 corresponding to the item mid-point value of the response scale.
← 3. Higher values on the workplace well-being and stress scale reflect lower levels of well-being. The scale of workplace well‐being and stress (T4WELS) was constructed using teacher responses ("not at all", "to some extent", "quite a bit", "a lot") about the extent to which the following situations occur (TT4G76): "I experience stress in my work"; "My job leaves me time for my personal life"; "My job negatively impacts my mental health"; "My job negatively impacts my physical health". Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and the value of 10 corresponding to the item mid-point value of the response scale.
← 4. The scale of job satisfaction overall (T4JOBSAT) was constructed as an average of the two subscales: job satisfaction with profession (T4JSPROT) and job satisfaction with work environment (T4JSENVT). Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and a mean of 10. The scale of job satisfaction with profession (T4JSPROT) was constructed using teacher responses ("strongly disagree", "disagree", "agree", "strongly agree") about the following statements related to how they feel about their job (TT4G78): "The advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages"; "If I could decide again, I would still choose to work as a teacher"; "I regret that I decided to become a teacher"; "All in all, I am satisfied with my job". The scale of job satisfaction with work environment (T4JSENVT) was constructed using teacher responses ("strongly disagree", "disagree", "agree", "strongly agree") about the following statements related to how they feel about their job (TT4G78): "I would like to change to another school if that were possible"; "I enjoy working at this school"; "I would recommend this school as a good place to work".
← 5. It is important to note that the TALIS instrument does not allow respondents who have no opinion about the mindsets to opt out. Moreover, the way the TALIS instrument measures beliefs in fixed versus growth mindset may be affected by: 1) acquiescence bias – the tendency to agree regardless of content; and 2) measurement error, as high cognitive load increases random responses (OECD, 2021[75]).
← 6. There are two composite scales at the teacher level: the scale of self-efficacy (overall) (T4SELF) and the scale of job satisfaction (overall) (T4JOBSAT). These two scales are standardised to have a standard deviation of two across all education systems participating in TALIS and a mean of 10.
← 7. While the annex tables present regression coefficients, the text mostly expresses the estimated associations in terms of standard deviation changes in the scale (this is done by simply dividing the estimated coefficient by 2). This is meant to facilitate interpretation, as all associations are expressed on the same metric. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.