The Teaching Emotions Scales: A New Self-Report Instrument for Assessing Teacher Enjoyment, Anger, and Anxiety

• In Event: Sometimes My Teaching Just Flows: Emerging Research on Teachers’ Emotions and Motivation

Abstract

Theoretical framework and objectives. The discrete emotions of enjoyment, anxiety and anger are particularly relevant affective states of teachers while being engaged in classroom teaching (Frenzel, Goetz, Stephens, & Jacob, 2009; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003). The majority of studies targeting these emotions have followed qualitative, interview-based approaches: Quantitative studies are scarce. One reason for this research deficit likely is the lack of psychometrically sound measurement instruments. In the present research, we aimed to develop and validate self-report scales assessing enjoyment, anger, and anxiety during teaching (“Teaching Emotions Scales”, TES). We aimed to assess trait emotions, thus targeting teachers’ habitual tendencies to experience these emotions, following successful previous approaches to assessing students’ achievement emotions (Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, & Perry, 2011).
Methods. The presented scales on teaching enjoyment, anger, and anxiety contain four items each. There are two versions of these scales focusing on teaching in general vs. teaching a particular group of students (referred to here as “class”). Sample items are, “I (generally) enjoy teaching (this class)” [enjoyment], “I (generally) have good reason to get angry when I teach (this class)” [anger], and “I feel tense and nervous when teaching (this class)” [anxiety]. Validation analysis draws upon data from a total of N=895 teachers across a variety of teaching contexts (German primary schools, secondary schools, and pre-service teachers). To analyze convergent and divergent validity, several related variables were assessed in one of the subsamples (n=85), including affect intensity, positive/negative affectivity, teacher burnout, and social desirability.
Results. All scale versions yielded good reliabilities (general scales: Cronbach’s Alpha=.81/.73/.70 [in-service teachers]; .91/.89/.86 [pre-service teachers]; class-specific scales: .83/.84/.85 [in-service teachers]). Further, two sets of analyses were conducted. First, using SEM, we analyzed the internal validity of the general versus class-specific questionnaires by competitively testing a unidimensional model (one bipolar positive vs. negative emotion factor), a two-dimensional model (separating positive and negative emotion), and a three-dimensional model (enjoyment, anger, and anxiety as separate, discrete emotion factors). Second, we inspected the convergent and divergent validity of the class-specific emotions questionnaire.
Results showed that the three-dimensional models clearly fitted better than the other models. Moreover, the class-specific scales showed an even better fit than the general scales for in-service teachers (Chi-square=191/df=51/CFI=.96/RMSEA=.036). Convergent and divergent validity of the scales were supported as well. None of the emotions correlated significantly with affect intensity (r=.19/.04/.14 for enjoyment/anger/anxiety), but there were small to moderate correlations with positive affectivity (r=.37**/-.20/-.10) and negative affectivity (r=.19/.04/.14), as well as moderate to high correlations with emotional exhaustion (r=-.51**/.45**/.40**) and depersonalization (r=-.42**/.36**/.06). Answers did not seem to be strongly affected by self- and other-directed social desirability (self: r=.13/-.04/-.25*; other: r=-.14/.14/.03).
Implications. The findings corroborate the reliability and validity of the presented self-report scales on teaching enjoyment, anger, and anxiety. Moreover, in line with earlier research, our data provide evidence that it is advisable to assess discrete teacher emotions with a focus on one class wherever applicable (Frenzel & Goetz, 2007). We hope to further stimulate research on teacher emotions with our scales.

Authors

• Anne C. Frenzel, University of Augsburg

• Thomas Goetz, University of Konstanz

• Reinhard Pekrun, University of Essex

• Lia Marie Daniels, University of Alberta