Teachers who believe that emotions are changeable are more positive and engaged: The role of emotion mindset among in- and preservice teachers

Highlights

• Teachers with growth emotion mindset have more positive and less negative emotions.

• Increased positive emotions and decreased negative emotions predict engagement.

• Growth emotion mindset predicted emotions, which then predicted engagement.

• This pattern held for both in-service and preservice teachers.

Abstract

Emotions are fundamental to teachers' lives. However, until recently, there is relative lack of attention given to emotions in teacher education. Moreover, teacher emotions are often viewed as a function of external factors, neglecting the role of emotion mindset (i.e., beliefs regarding the malleability of emotions) in affecting teachers' emotions and subsequent outcomes. Hence, this research intends to provide a better understanding of how teachers' emotion mindset and emotions contribute to their engagement. We examined a model of growth emotion mindset predicting engagement via positive and negative emotions. We tested this model among in-service (Study 1) and preservice (Study 2) teachers using structural equation modeling (SEM). Results of the SEM showed that an implicit belief in the malleability of emotions (i.e., growth emotion mindset) predicted higher engagement through increased positive emotions and decreased negative emotions. This pattern held for both in-service and preservice teachers. The findings highlight the importance of emotion mindset and emotions for teachers in both work and learning contexts. Implications for teacher education for both practicing and prospective teachers are discussed.

Introduction

Emotions are fundamental to teachers' lives. Teachers report experiencing positive emotions (e.g., joy, pleasure, pride) when they witness their students make progress or when they accomplish their goals. On the other hand, negative emotions (e.g., frustration, anger, anxiety) arise when students misbehave, when parents or colleagues fail to cooperate, or when uncertain about their teaching and goals (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003). Teacher emotions have been found to be related to important teacher outcomes (e.g., well-being, job satisfaction, self-efficacy, motivation, engagement, quality of classroom instruction) (Burić & Macuka, 2018; Frenzel et al., 2015, Frenzel et al., 2016; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003), as well as student outcomes (e.g., student emotions, motivation, classroom discipline, social behavior, learning, academic performance) (Frenzel et al., 2018; Rodrigo-Ruiz, 2016; Sun & Leithwood, 2017).

However, until recently, research on teacher emotions has received little attention (Anttila et al., 2016; Hargreaves, 2005; Malm, 2009). Most studies posit teacher emotions as a function of external factors (e.g., student behaviors, job resources) (Hagenauer et al., 2015; Moreira-Fontán et al., 2019). A critical gap in the existing research on teacher emotions is on how teachers' views on emotions affect their emotional experience and subsequent outcomes. Past studies have provided evidence that emotion mindset (i.e., beliefs regarding the malleability of emotions) can influence one's emotions (e.g., King & Dela Rosa, 2019; Romero et al., 2014; Tamir et al., 2007), but this has rarely been explored among teachers.

Hence, we aim to provide a better understanding of the role of teachers' emotion mindset on their emotions and subsequent engagement, which is a crucial factor to success in both work and learning contexts (Kim et al., 2013; Lei et al., 2018). Specifically, we focus on how emotion mindset predicts emotions, and how emotions, in turn, predict engagement among in-service and preservice teachers. Examining this model in both in-service and preservice teachers would allow us to test its robustness across these two samples, as well as provide more context-specific implications and recommendations. For in-service teachers who are currently engaged in teaching, emotions and engagement are operationalized as teaching emotions and work engagement. As for preservice teachers whose teaching serves as a hands-on learning experience to prepare them for the actual teaching profession, emotions and engagement are operationalized as academic emotions and learning engagement. This information can have important implications and provide valuable insights to the role of emotion mindset in teacher education for both practicing and prospective teachers.

Mindset (or implicit beliefs or theories) refers to the assumptions a person has regarding the malleability or fixedness of attributes. A growth (or incremental) mindset refers to the view that an attribute can be changed or developed, while a fixed (or entity) mindset pertains to the notion that an attribute is fixed or relatively stable (Dweck, 1986, Dweck, 2006; Dweck et al., 1995). Research on mindset has covered a wide range of attributes, including intelligence (e.g., Dweck et al., 1995), athletic ability (e.g., Biddle et al., 2003), social skills (e.g., Rhodewalt, 1994), socioeconomic status (e.g., Zhao et al., 2021), and teaching ability (e.g., Nalipay et al., 2019), among others.

In the educational setting, the bulk of research on mindset has focused on the domain of intelligence among students. Intelligence mindset has been found to be associated with learning-related processes and outcomes (e.g., academic achievement, self-regulation, motivation, engagement) (Burnette et al., 2013; Costa & Faria, 2018; Dinger & Dickhäuser, 2013; King & Trinidad, 2021). Recently, teachers' intelligence mindset, or their perceptions regarding the malleability of their students' intelligence, has also gained attention and has been found to influence important outcomes in both teachers (e.g., well-being, engagement) and students (e.g., students' mindsets, engagement, achievement) (Bostwick et al., 2020; Frondozo et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2019).

However, teachers' emotion mindset has remained relatively underexplored despite the recognition of the importance of emotions in teaching (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003); the evidence that emotion mindset affects student functioning (Romero et al., 2014); and that teachers' mindset can influence that of their students (Bostwick et al., 2020). Thus, in this research, we are particularly interested in teachers' emotion mindset as a predictor of their emotions and engagement. Individuals with growth emotion mindset are likely to view emotions as malleable, whereas those with fixed emotion mindset tend to believe that emotions cannot be modified (Tamir et al., 2007). Growth and fixed emotion mindsets are conceptualized as opposite poles of the emotion mindset construct, wherein a having a low growth emotion mindset is indicative of a fixed mindset (Romero et al., 2014; Tamir et al., 2007).

Past studies on emotion mindset found that growth emotion mindset is positively related with emotion regulation self-efficacy and cognitive reappraisal (Tamir et al., 2007), as well as with fewer depressive symptoms and improved well-being over time (Romero et al., 2014). Moreover, students who received an intervention that taught them that they can modify their emotions had greater emotional well-being in school (Smith et al., 2018). On the other hand, having a fixed emotion mindset has been found to be associated with less adaptive emotion regulation, lower well-being, and increased psychological distress (De Castella et al., 2013; Tamir et al., 2007).

Among teachers, a construct similar to emotion mindset, emotional display rules, has been found to be associated with emotional processes and outcomes. Teachers' emotional display rule perceptions, or their beliefs regarding the appropriate kinds of emotional expressions and how they should be displayed (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007), have been found to be associated with emotional labor strategies, as well as anxiety, contentment, enthusiasm, and burnout (Chang, 2020; Huang et al., 2019). Its alignment with teachers' implicit beliefs on whether emotions should be regulated or expressed has been found to affect the cost and benefits of their use of certain emotion regulation strategies. Specifically, experienced teachers who have implicit positive attitude towards regulating their emotions were less likely to report emotional exhaustion with the use of expressive suppression, whereas those who have implicit positive attitude towards emotional expression were more likely to have higher levels of emotional exhaustion with the use expressive suppression (Donker et al., 2020). These studies provide support to the importance of implicit beliefs or emotion mindset on teachers' emotional processes and outcomes.

Control-value theory of emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2007) posits that appraisals of control (perceived capability) and value (perceived task importance) are proximal antecedents of emotions. Specifically, higher levels of control and value could result to more positive emotions and less negative emotions. Because individuals with growth emotion mindset believe that emotions can be modified, they tend to perceive greater control over their emotions. This makes them more likely to use antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal, wherein the emotion-eliciting situation is construed in a way that changes its emotional impact before it occurs. Doing so allows them to view a situation in a way that could elicit more positive emotions and less negative emotions (Gross & John, 2003; Tamir et al., 2007). This suggests that growth emotion mindset could be associated with more positive emotions and less negative emotions.

Emotions can be regarded as either state-like, which are specific to certain situations, or trait-like, which are experienced habitually (Pekrun, 2006; Sainio et al., 2020). In this research, we operationalize emotions as trait-like emotions associated with in-service and preservice teachers' experience of teaching and learning. For in-service teachers, we focus on teaching emotions (Frenzel et al., 2016), or emotions that teachers experience in the context of the teaching profession. For preservice teachers, who are students training to become teachers, we focus on academic emotions (Pekrun et al., 2011), which involve emotions related to learning and achievement in academic situations, such as when they are learning how to teach and during teaching as a hands-on learning experience.

Engagement has consistently been demonstrated to be a significant contributor to success in both work (Kim et al., 2013) and academic settings (Lei et al., 2018). It has also been found to be associated with a number of important teacher outcomes. Past studies have shown that engaged teachers are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs, and less likely to develop job burnout and express intentions to quit (Høigaard et al., 2012). Furthermore, engagement has been linked with better teacher performance (Bakker & Bal, 2010), as well as greater commitment to the teaching profession (Han et al., 2016).

The control-value theory of emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2007) further postulates that emotions affect engagement and performance, as emotions influence cognitive resources, motivation, strategy use, and self-regulatory processes. This is in accordance with the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2018), which proposes that positive emotions broaden one's attention and behavioral repertoire, leading to enhanced skills and an upward spiral of resources. In contrast, negative emotions narrow one's attention and range of behavioral responses, which debilitate one's capacity to foster resources. Hence, positive emotions could lead to enhanced engagement, whereas negative emotions could lead to lower engagement.

Past studies have demonstrated the link between emotions and engagement. Among teachers, the positive emotion of teaching enjoyment has been found to predict work engagement (Nalipay et al., 2021). Likewise, in a longitudinal study, teachers with higher levels of positive emotions of joy, pride, and love during the first time point tended to be more engaged at work in the subsequent assessment, whereas those who experienced negative emotions of anger, fatigue, and hopelessness were found to be less engaged at work (Burić & Macuka, 2018). Negative emotions among teachers have also been found to be associated with higher levels of burnout, which is indicative of a loss of engagement (Chang, 2013).

Studies conducted among students have likewise supported the link between emotions and engagement (see the special issue on students' emotions and academic engagement by Linnenbrink-Garcia & Pekrun, 2011). Those who experience positive emotions were found to have higher levels of learning engagement and decreased disaffection, which is the opposite of engagement (King & Gaerlan, 2014). In another study, students with high levels of enjoyment in their math class were found to have greater math engagement (Liu et al., 2018). These findings support the notion that positive emotions could predict greater engagement, while negative emotions could predict lower engagement in both work and learning contexts.

In this research, we operationalize engagement among in-service teachers as work engagement, or the positive work-related state characterized by vigor (being energetic and persistent), dedication (being, inspired and enthusiastic), and absorption (being happily engrossed) in one's work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). For preservice teachers, we focus on learning engagement, or the involvement, attachment, and commitment to a learning activity composed of the cognitive (use of self-regulated approaches and strategies), behavioral (active participation in a learning activity), and emotional (affective attitude and sense of belongingness) aspects (Fredricks et al., 2004).

The current research intends to investigate a model of growth emotion mindset predicting engagement through positive and negative emotions (see Fig. 1). This model is consistent with the propositions of both the control-value theory of emotions and broaden-and-build theory that having a growth emotion mindset (as opposed to a fixed emotion mindset) entails greater control over one's emotions, thereby increasing one's positive emotions and decreasing negative emotions. This, in turn, could lead to positive outcomes, such as enhanced engagement. To control for the effects of other factors that could also influence engagement, such as intelligence mindset (Zeng et al., 2019, Zeng et al., 2016) and demographic factors, such as age (Guglielmi et al., 2016; Perkmann et al., 2021) and gender (Nosek & Smyth, 2011; Topchyan & Woehler, 2021), we added these as covariates to the model. We examine this model in samples of both in-service (Study 1) and preservice (Study 2) teachers.

These two samples of teachers represent different teacher contexts, wherein in-service teachers teach as a profession, while preservice teachers study how to teach and teach in order to learn and prepare them for the teaching profession. To align the constructs of emotions and engagement with their respective contexts, we focus particularly on teaching emotions and work engagement of in-service teachers, and academic emotions and learning engagement of preservice teachers. By looking at these two samples of teachers in different contexts, we would be able to assess the robustness of the proposed model, as well discuss its implications and possible applications in teacher education for both practicing and prospective teachers.

Moreover, we aim to contribute to teacher education in the following ways: first, this could address the limited attention given to the role of emotions in teacher education. Second, although studies on mindset have been conducted in the educational context, most of them focus on the intelligence domain among students. We intend to expand education research on mindset by investigating the domain of emotions among teachers. Lastly, the proposed model of emotion mindset and emotions as a pathway towards engagement could provide useful information for designing professional development programs and interventions to enhance practicing and prospective teachers' engagement. Similar interventions are currently available for students (e.g., Smith et al., 2018), which can be modified accordingly to enhance teacher engagement with inputs from the current investigation.