Journal of ISSN: 2373-6445JPCPY

Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry
Research Article
Volume 6 Issue 3 - 2016
Burnout and It’s Relation to Some Variables among Scholars of Diploma of Guiding and Counseling Psychology
Muhammad Othman Al-Mehasi* and Hassan Idris Al-Sumaili
Department of Psychology, Najran University, Saudi Arabia
Received: March 28, 2016 | Published: July 25, 2016
*Corresponding author: Muhammad Othman Al-Mehasi, Department of Psychology, Najran University, Saudi Arabia, Email:
Citation: Al-Mehasi MO, Al-Sumaili HI (2016) Burnout and It’s Relation to Some Variables among Scholars of Diploma of Guiding and Counseling Psychology. J Psychol Clin Psychiatry 6(3): 00358. DOI: 10.15406/jpcpy.2016.06.00358

Abstract

This study is an attempt to survey the burnout level and its relation to some variables among a sample of scholars of Diploma of Guiding and Counseling Psychology, Najran University. The researchers used the descriptive analytical method for a sample of (129) scholars that were selected randomly from the original study population numbered (150) scholars for the academic year 2013/2014. The teacher burnout scale of Siedman & Zager was used in this study. The researchers made sure of the validity and reliability of this scale. The statistical program (SPSS) was applied to the sample and the results indicate that most of the scholars suffer from various levels of burnout. There are statistically significant differences in burnout among scholars due to gender; age, academic major, academic qualification, marital status and teaching experience. There are no statistically significant differences in burnout among scholars attributed to academic specialization. The study concluded with some of the recommendations and suggestions that would help scholars overcome burnout and stress in order to make them more effective, adaptable and happy.

Keywords: Burnout; Scholars; Variables; Najran University

Introduction

Burnout is considered one of the most complicated psychological and social phenomena. It is affected by technological advance, but some researchers perceive it as a result of the gap emerged from recent advances. In this connection, many studies indicate that psychological stresses cause about (80%) of the diseases of this age. Different communities have seen a marked increase in the institutions that provide the necessary services needed to meet the rapid changes in all aspects of life, thereby the psychological and social services have been greatly developed that will help the individual adapt to the developments and challenges of the time. In education, the teacher is an essential element in the teaching-learning process. For various reasons, scholars undergo some circumstances which they cannot control, and eventually feel unable to properly perform the tasks required from them as expected by administrators and decision makers, as well as the seriously negative effects they have on students. According to Jason [1], Ozdemir [2], and Colangelo [3], scholars are exposed to various negative experiences and situations related to the teaching process which are reflected on their trends and feelings towards others and the work. They also affect the scholars’ achievement and cause burnout.

Statement of the Problem

Various obstacles and pressures appear in many occupations, especially with a human and cooperative nature of occupations. These obstacles prevent the employees to do their required duties to the full. Burnout is one of the phenomena that have attracted the attention of researchers over the past thirty years; where they addressed burnout as a result of occupational stress, and some other reasons, and it was described as more frequent among service occupations. The researchers focused their research heavily on the teaching occupation as it is one of the most occupations that cause stresses; researchers have dealt with its symptoms, causes, and impact on the scholars, and its effect upon their students and colleagues and their work in general [4]. Thus, studying of burnout may benefit the teacher, the student and the educational process; where it is possible to avoid negative effects on the teacher; and accordingly improve teacher relationships with those around him, including students, as well as improving the educational process.

The current study seeks to identify the relationship between burnout and some of the variables, and then answer the following questions:

  1. Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among the participants and the dimensions of burnout?
  2. Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among a sample of scholars due to gender, years of experience, age, marital status and academic qualification?
  3. Are there statistically significant differences in the means of burnout among the participant scholars due to academic major?

Objectives

The present study aims to investigate the burnout level among a sample of scholars and its relationship to some psychological and educational variables and identify the psychological and professional stresses leading to their burnout.

Significance of the study

Theoretically, the importance of this study based on information provision of subject matter of the study and the important targeted sample i.e. scholars, who are more liable to burnout.

As for the application side, the study importance lies in that identifying the burnout level faced by scholars would help them:

  1. Better plan to improve the conditions of scholars.
  2. Identify appropriate and possible solutions for causes and negatives of burnout.
  3. Prepare appropriate professional, guiding, and psychological programs that help solve the problems of burnout among these scholars, according to the characteristics of certain variables, and thus achieve adaptation and improve the quality of services provided to them.

Terms of the Study

Burnout: Burnout is defined as a function of stress individuals feel in their social and professional life [5], loss of aim, energy and idealism towards job [6], exhaustion and tiredness because of a decrease in physical and emotional energy [7]. Maslach et al. [8] conceptualized burnout in three dimensional phenomenon, these are exhaustion, depersonalization and accomplishment. As a result of burnout individual’s performance at work decreases and it causes damages in his health both physically and psychologically at behavioral level. Seidman & Zager, quoted in [9], defined burnout as: a negative pattern of responses to stressful teaching, the students and the teaching profession, as well as the realization that there is a shortage in the support and endorsement by the school administration. But the procedural definition of burnout within the limits of this study is the scores earned by the respondents by answering the scale used in the study.

Limitations of the Study

The study is limited to “Teacher Burnout and its Relation to some Variables” and is determined by a sample of scholars in Najran, KSA. The study conducted in the second semester of the academic year 2013/2014.

Definition of Burnout

Most researchers agree that burnout can be defined as “a state of exhaustion or physical and emotional drain; as a result of continuous vulnerability for hypertension, and burnout is represented in a range of negative phenomena including: fatigue, exhaustion, a sense of helplessness, loss of concern for others, loss of interest in work, ridicule from others, depression, uncertainty in the value of life, and social relations in the negative self-concept.” [10]. Maslash & Jackson [11] defined burnout as “the individual’s sense of Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Lower Personal achievement.” Emotional exhaustion, in the teaching profession, happens when the teacher has a feeling of tiredness and fatigue that develops when emotional energies are drained. As a result, the scholars find that they cannot give their best to students as they once could. Scholars experience depersonalization when they do not have positive feelings about their students. For example, they show cold, callous, negative, and indifferent attitudes toward them and sometimes resort to physically distancing themselves from the students. Depersonalization usually develops in response to the overload exhaustion [12]. The lower personal accomplishment or inefficacy occurs when scholars feel that they can no longer help the students learn and grow. In other words, their feelings of competence and successful achievement in relation to the students decrease. Among the three dimensions, emotional exhaustion represents the basic experience of an individual stress [11,12]. Burnout is a state of emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion caused by excessive and prolonged stress. It occurs when you feel overwhelmed and unable to meet constant demands. As the stress continues, you begin to lose the interest or motivation that led you to take on a certain role in the first place.

Burnout reduces your productivity and saps your energy, leaving you feeling increasingly helpless, hopeless, cynical, and resentful. Eventually, you may feel like you have nothing more to give. Studies conducted with scholars about their burnout level include variables such as age, sex, seniority, type of school graduated from, their subject, type of school they work, self-efficacy, socioeconomic level, satisfaction with work atmosphere depression [7,13-19].

Causes of burnout: But burnout is not caused solely by stressful work or too many responsibilities. Other factors contribute to burnout, including your lifestyle and certain personality traits. What you do in your downtime and how you look at the world can play just as big of a role in causing burnout as work or home demands.

Work-related causes of burnout

  1. Feeling like you have little or no control over your work.
  2. Lack of recognition or rewards for good work.
  3. Unclear or overly demanding job expectations.
  4. Doing work that’s monotonous or unchallenging.
  5. Working in a chaotic or high-pressure environment.

Lifestyle causes of burnout

  1. Working too much, without enough time for relaxing and socializing
  2. Being expected to be too many things to too many people
  3. Taking on too many responsibilities, without enough help from others
  4. Not getting enough sleep
  5. Lack of close, supportive relationships
  1. Role conflict.
  2. Lack of professional adjustment.
  3. Lack of autonomy (loss of control):
  4. Sense of isolation and lack of assistance and support.
  5. Lack of rewards and incentives.

Symptoms of burnout: Many scientific and research studies indicated that the symptoms of burnout lie in the following:

  1. Negative emotions: Frustration, anger, depression and sometimes disappointment, anxiety and emotional fatigue. Negative emotions are represented in (cynicism, pessimism and apathy).
  2. Psychiatric symptoms: They are the loss of enthusiasm and inability to work or carry out one’s own responsibilities and lack of harmony on a personal level or with co-workers, feelings of anxiety, distress and aggression, and lack of patience and nervousness.
  3. Physical symptoms: Deterioration in health status such as stress, fatigue, , insomnia, feeling tired and drained most of the time, lowered immunity, feeling sick a lot, frequent headaches, back pain, muscle aches, change in appetite or sleep habits.
  4. Behavioral symptoms: Withdrawing from responsibilities, isolating yourself from others, procrastinating, taking longer to get things done, taking out your frustrations on others, skipping work or coming in late and leaving early, cynicism and cruelty in dealing with students.

Review of Literature

A study by DiAnn [20] conducted to investigate whether individual differences in the dispositional characteristics of optimism and extraversion led to less stress and, concomitantly, to less occupational burnout in a population of 108 scholars in one southern California school district. An additional aim was investigating whether coping strategies employed by optimists and extraverts either moderated or mediated levels of perceived stress. Optimists reported significantly less stress and burnout than pessimists, and pessimists were significantly more likely to use negative coping strategies. Extraverts tended to use social support coping strategies and were significantly less likely than introverts to experience burnout. However, no evidence was found of optimists and extraverts using problem-solving coping, or of a significant correlation between extraversion and stress. Coping strategies neither moderated nor mediated stress. Results found one third of respondents experiencing burnout. Stress was highest among youngest scholars, females, and those with least experience.

Butler, K and Constantine, M [21] examined the relationship between collective self-esteem (i.e., the extent to which school counselors possess favorable perceptions of their professional or social group) and professional burnout in a sample of (533) school counselors. They also explored whether there were significant differences in professional burnout in school counselors by sex, geographic location of work setting, and number of years employed as a school counselor. Results indicated that higher collective self-esteem generally was associated with lower professional burnout. Moreover, the authors found that school counselors working in urban school environments reported significantly higher levels of burnout than did their peers working in other types of school environments. Furthermore, school counselors who had been employed in their roles for 20 years or longer reported higher levels of burnout than did their counterparts working fewer than 10 years. Gavrilovici [22] studied the burnout level of 178 scholars in primary, secondary, high schools, and special schools in Iasi County of Romania during the period 2007-2009. The results showed that emotional exhaustion of scholars with work experience of more than 17 years was significantly higher than scholars with less work experience. In contrast, no significant differences were found between the scholars’ work experience and their levels of depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment. Likewise, gender and marital status did not show any effect on any dimension of the burnout.

With respect to the studies that dealt with burnout and its relation to personality, Mohammed [8] indicated that the most experienced scholars are less burning than scholars with less experience and burnout leads to vulnerability to anxiety, high blood pressure; regarding the personality impact on burnout, pattern (A) was positively associated with the professional pressures as in a study conducted by Ibrahim & Mashaan [24]. Mahmoud [23] pointed that normal personality traits [self-systematic, control and emotional stability] make the teacher more able to cope with work pressures and burnout; as opposed to abnormal personality traits [tension and impulsiveness] make the teacher more susceptible to the pressures of work and burnout. Hashim [25] showed that personality traits (psychotic and neurotic and locus of control) can predict the level of burnout, which is in line with the results of Maqablah [25], where it showed that those with external locus of control are more susceptible to burnout than those of internal control. Concerning the impact of academic qualification and gender, Mahmoud [22] pointed that secondary school scholars are more susceptible to burn out than primary school scholars; and regarding gender impact, DiAnn [19] indicated that females were more susceptible to burnout than males, the same result shown by Maqablah [23], who pointed out that female scholars are suffering from burnout more than male scholars; while Mohammed [8] conveyed that there are no differences in burnout among male and female scholars which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the current study.

Instruments

Seidman & Zager Burnout Scale (1986)

The scale aims to identify the burnout levelfor scholars, consisting of (21) items divided into four sub-dimensions that measure: professional dissatisfaction (1-5-10-12-19), lower administrative support as perceived by the teacher (3- 8 -11-15-18-20), professional pressures (2-4-7-9-13-14), and the negative attitude towards students (6-16-17-21). Each item includes the sense or feeling felt by the teacher as a result of the exercise of the teaching profession, respondents are required to answer the questionnaire, based on the type of Likert scale with (5) responses arranged as follows: strongly agree =5, agree = 4, undecided = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1.

Validity of the scale

The scale had been reviewed by a group of professors (reviewers) specialized in the field of education and psychology in order to express their own opinion (Table 1).

S. No

Dimensions

N

Mean

Standard Deviation

1

Professional dissatisfaction.

129

3.0326

0.76067

2

Professional pressures.

129

2.7119

0.53064

3

Lower administrative support.

129

2.5891

0.73334

4

Negative attitude towards students

129

2.7829

0.60384

5

Total

129

2.7791

0.3878

Valid N (list wise)

129

Table 1: Differences of order between scale dimensions.

Burnout scale reliability test

The researchers used two methods:

  1. The Kuder Richardson Coefficient of reliability (K-R 20) is used to test the reliability of scale. The coefficient was (0.93), total mean = (63.65), standard deviation = (14.69) and total= (17.86). In the Egyptian environment, the reliability coefficient was (0.73), [26].
  2. Re-testing method: the re-test method was applied to a sample of (40) male and female scholars; two weeks interval, the correlation coefficient, according to this method, was (0.89).

Method

The present study was conducted as a survey among scholars to identify their burnout levels. The two researchers used the descriptive method in the form of a survey that suits the nature and objectives of the study. As for statistical treatment, findings of the present study were analyzed by using the Statistic Package for Social Sciences SPSS.

Population of study

The current study conducted among a sample of scholars in Najran, KSA for the academic year 2013/2014. The study population consists of (150)scholars shown in the following Table 2 & 3.

Males

Females

Total

No. of Respondents

No. of scholars

70

80

150

129

Table 2: Number of scholars.

Characteristics

Males

Females

Percentage

Total

Age

35 years

50

69

92.20%

119

>35 years

6

4

7.80%

10

Total

56

73

100%

129

Gender

Male

0

73

56.60%

73

Female

56

0

43.40%

56

Total

56

73

100%

129

Specialization

Scientific

33

33

51.20%

66

Humanities

23

40

48.80%

63

Total

56

73

100%

129

Marital Status

Married

36

21

44.20%

57

Single

20

52

55.80%

72

Total

56

73

100%

129

Teaching Experience

< 5 years

42

50

71.30%

92

5-10 years

7

12

14.70%

19

< 10

7

11

14.00%

18

Total

56

73

100%

129

Table 3: The characteristics of the sample in the study population.

Data Analysis and Discussion

The study tried to identify the levels of burnout of the scholars in Najran, KSA. This is done according to the variables of age, gender, scientific qualification, teaching experience and marital status.

  1. The findings related to the first hypothesis: “Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among the participants and the dimensions of burnout?

Table 4 shows the factors affecting the formation of burnout among respondents depending on their importance, so the first dimension (professional dissatisfaction) represents the highest dimensions of burnout with a mean = (3.03), followed by the fourth dimension (the negative attitude towards students) with a mean = (2.78), followed by the total dimensions with a mean (2.77), then the second dimension (professional pressures) with a mean = (2.71) and finally the third dimension (lower administrative support) with mean = (2.58), which explains the existence of this correlation between burnout dimensions and total score of all dimensions.

S. No

Dimension

No.

Mean

Std. Deviation

1

Professional dissatisfaction

129

3.033

0.76067

2

Professional pressures

129

2.712

0.53064

3

Lower administrative support

129

2.589

0.73334

4

Negative attitude

129

2.783

0.60384

5

Total

129

2.779

0.3878

Valid N (list wise)

129

Table 4: The means and standard deviations of the dimensions of burnout and total scores of the scale.

  1. The findings related to the second hypothesis: “Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among the participant scholars due to gender (male / female)?”

The above Table 5 indicates that T value calculated for the first dimension (professional dissatisfaction)= (.01), which is less than T value (0.05). The mean for males = (2.85) and the females was (3.17) which shows that there are statistically significant differences in the dimension of professional dissatisfaction in favor of females.

S. No

Dimensions

Gender

Sample

Mean

Std. Deviation

T Value

Significance level

1

Professional dissatisfaction

Male

56

2.8536

0.78299

-2.383-

0.019

female

73

3.1699

0.71854

2

Professional pressures

Male

56

2.7738

0.56087

1.162

0.247

Female

73

2.6644

0.50499

3

Lower administrative support

Male

56

2.7351

0.70623

2.003

0.047

Female

73

2.4772

0.73876

4

Negative attitude

Male

56

2.6741

0.54756

-1.809-

0.073

Female

73

2.8664

0.63476

5

Total

Male

56

2.7592

0.41934

-.511-

0.61

Female

73

2.7945

0.36398

Table 5: Indicates T-Test for differences between burnout levels based on gender.

This result is consistent with Maqablah [23], DiAnn [19] and the study of Mahmoud [22], where it indicated that females are more burnt-out than males. There are also statistically significant differences in the third dimension (lower administrative support) at the significance level (.05), the T value = (.04), and the mean for males was (2.73) and for females = (2.47), indicating the existence of differences between males and females in the dimension of lower administrative support in favor of males. This result is consistent with the study of each of Batayneh and Jawarneh [27] which indicated that male scholars are more sensible for burnout than female scholars. This result of the current study differs from Mohammed [8], and the study of Abu Bakr [26], which indicated no differences for burnout between male and female scholars.

Consequently, the researchers explain this result that burnout may arise for reasons related to the work environment and individual’s personality.

  1. The findings related to the third hypothesis: “Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among a sample of scholars due to age?”

The above Table 6 points out that the significance level (.05) is non-significant for the first, second, third and fourth dimensions, although the total dimensions have T value calculated (.04), and it is less than the T value (.05), which explains that there are no statistically significant differences in burnout dimensions due to age, except for the total score of the scale [28]. This result is consistent with Abdeen, Gad, and the study of Cunningham, et.al [29]. This result is different from DiAnn [19] in the total score of the burnout for age.

S. No

Dimensions

Age

Sample

Mean

Std. Deviation

T Value

Significance level

1

Professional dissatisfaction

≥ 35 years

119

3.0706

0.73535

1.981

0.05

years 35<

10

2.58

0.94493

 

 

2

Professional pressures

≥ 35 years

119

2.7269

0.53798

1.109

0.27

years 35<

10

2.5333

0.41425

 

 

3

Lower administrative support

≥ 35 years

119

2.5924

0.74747

0.175

0.861

years 35<

10

2.55

0.56683

 

 

4

Negative attitude

≥ 35 years

119

2.8067

0.59343

1.551

0.123

years 35<

10

2.5

0.68718

 

 

5

Total

≥ 35 years

119

2.7992

0.37888

2.048

43

years 35<

10

2.5408

0.43395

 

 

Table 6: T-test for the differences between burnout levels based on age.

The authors of the current study explain that age is not a requirement for the burnout occurrence; it might be the surrounding circumstances or personality traits that lead to the occurrence of burnout. Gad (2005) assured that normal personality traits make scholars more able to cope with the pressures of work, and to avoid burnout as opposed to those of abnormal personality traits that are more susceptible to burnout.

  1. The findings related to the fourth hypothesis: “Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among a sample of scholars due to academic specialization?” Table 7 shows T-test of the differences between burnout dimensions according to academic major.

The above Table 7 shows that the T value calculated for the total burnout dimensions = (.05), which means that there are no statistically significant differences in burnout among specializations of scientific and humanities. This result is consistent with Osman, which showed that there are no statistically significant differences based on specialization.

S. No

Dimensions

Specialization

Sample

Mean

Std. Deviation

T Value

Sig. Level

1

Professional dissatisfaction

Scientific

66

3.0061

0.71723

-.404-

0.687

Humanities

63

3.0603

0.80853

2

Professional pressures

Scientific

66

2.7702

0.50954

1.281

0.203

Humanities

63

2.6508

0.54929

3

Lower administrative support

Scientific

66

2.6364

0.75668

0.747

0.456

Humanities

63

2.5397

0.71072

4

Negative attitude

Scientific

66

2.803

0.60529

0.385

0.701

Humanities

63

2.7619

0.60646

5

Total

Scientific

66

2.8039

0.32951

0.742

0.46

Humanities

63

2.7532

0.44193

Table 7: T-test of the differences between burnout dimensions according to academic major.

The authors assure that specialization has no great importance in the teaching profession asscholars of scientific specialization are similar to those of humanities in the practice of the teaching profession.

  1. The findings related to the fifth hypothesis: “Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among a sample of scholars due to academic qualification?” Table 8 shows T-test of the differences between burnout dimensions according to academic qualification.

Given the above table, the T value for the third dimension (lower administrative support) = (0.041), which is less than the T value (0.05).The mean of Bachelor qualification is (2.72) and higher diploma qualification is (2.45), which means that there are differences between the academic qualifications(bachelor/higher diploma) in the dimension of lower administrative support for the Bachelor holders.

S. No

Dimension

Qualification

sample

Mean

Std. Deviation

T Value

Sig. Level

1

Professional dissatisfaction

Bachelor

69

2.9942

0.79111

-.694-

0.489

Higher Diploma

59

3.0881

0.72898

2

Professional pressures.

Bachelor

69

2.7464

0.52829

0.783

0.435

Higher Diploma

59

2.6723

0.53959

3

Lower administrative support.

Bachelor

69

2.715

0.7271

2.065

0.041

Higher Diploma

59

2.4492

0.72467

4

Negative attitude.

Bachelor

69

2.7826

0.52144

0.067

0.947

Higher Diploma

59

2.7754

0.69434

5

Total

Bachelor

69

2.8095

0.38025

0.917

0.361

Higher Diploma

59

2.7463

0.39967

Table 8: T-test of the differences between burnout dimensions with academic qualification.

This result is in line with Al-Zahrani , DiAnn [19], and inconsistent with the study of Osman, and the study of Abdeen, which proved that there are no differences in burnout attributed to the academic qualification.

The authors attribute holding Bachelor for scholars is more burnt-out than holders of Higher Diploma in the dimension of lower administrative support to the degrading look for Bachelor holders of being less than those holding higher diploma, therefore a lot of scholars who hold Bachelor degrees seek to enroll for higher diplomas in all Saudi Universities, which demonstrates the hypothesis that there are differences in burnout for differences due to academic qualification.

  1. The findings related to the sixth hypothesis: “Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among a sample of scholars due to marital status?” Table 9 shows T-test of the differences between burnout dimensions and marital status.

This result is consistent with Al-Zahrani, and the study of Osman in the presence of statistically significant differences in marital status. This result differs from Abdeen in the absence of significant differences in burnout levels among scholars attribute to marital status.

S. No

Dimensions

Marital status

sample

Mean

Std. Deviation

T value

Sig. Level

1

Professional dissatisfaction

Married

57

2.9579

0.78261

-.992-

0.323

Single

72

3.0917

0.743

2

Professional pressures.

Married

57

2.7485

0.51958

0.697

0.487

Single

72

2.6829

0.54108

3

Lower administrative support.

Married

57

2.7836

0.76698

2.748

0.007

Single

72

2.4352

0.67167

4

Negative attitude.

Married

57

2.6886

0.53302

-1.588-

0.115

Single

72

2.8576

0.64844

5

Total

Married

57

2.7947

0.37603

0.403

0.687

Single

72

2.7668

0.39906

Table 9: T-test of the differences between burnout dimensions and marital status.

The authors explain that married scholars may be dealing with their students in terms of paternity as if they were their children, therefore negative attitudes towards students may completely disappear, while the unmarried scholars may feel (the negative attitude towards students) due to the lack of parenting passion toward their students and therefore take negative attitude toward their students.

  1. The findings related to the seventh hypothesis: “Are there statistically significant differences between burnout levels among a sample of scholars due to years of experience?” Table 10 shows F-test of the differences between burnout dimensions according to years of experience.

Table 10 indicates that F value is less than the significance level (0.05)for the first, second and third dimension, which indicates that there are statistically significant differences between the burnout levels among the scholars due to the variable of teaching experience. Those who are highly experienced are less burnt-out than less-experienced.

S. No

Dimensions

Variance

Total of squares

Degrees of freedom

Mean of squares

F Value

Sig. Level

1

Professional dissatisfaction

Between groups

2.065

2

1.032

1.807

0.168

Within groups

71.998

126

0.571

Total

74.063

128

2

Professional pressures

Between groups

0.014

2

0.007

0.025

0.975

Within groups

36.028

126

0.286

Total

36.042

128

3

Lower support

Between groups

1.541

2

0.771

1.443

0.24

Within groups

67.295

126

0.534

Total

68.836

128

4

Negative attitude

Between groups

0.779

2

0.389

1.069

0.346

Within groups

45.894

126

0.364

Total

46.672

128

5

Total

Between groups

0.118

2

0.059

0.387

0.68

Within groups

19.132

126

0.152

Total

19.25

128

Table 10: shows F-test of the differences between burnout dimensions according to years of experience.

This result is consistent with DiAnn [19], Cunningham, et.al [29] and Al-Zahrani; but it differs from the study of Gad, the study of Osman and the study of Abdeen in the absence of differences in burnout levels attributed to teaching experience. The authors of the current study illustrates that the highly experienced scholars are accustomed to much work than the less-experienced, therefore they properly deal with the pressures of life and work, according to the acquired experience that helped them avoid burnout in dealing with matters of life and work.

Results and Recommendations

At the conclusion of the discussion of hypotheses, the current study resulted in:

  1. Most scholars in Najran, KSA, are suffering from psychological pressures and burnout.
  2. There are differences in burnout attributed to gender, teaching experience, age and academic qualification, while specialization has no differences among them.
  3. Paying attention to guidance programs that would alleviate burnout for scholars.
  4. Taking into account the distance of scholars’ accommodation from work owing to the demographic distribution lest the scholars feel physically and psychologically exhausted – the thing that causes their burnout.
  5. Paying attention to the financial and moral support to the scholars, because the individuals’ satisfaction with his career is the first stage of their professional achievement, and then avoid burnout.

Acknowledgement

The research is funded by the Deanship of the Scientific Research at Najran University (NU/SHED//)

References

  1. Jason JT (2006) Teacher Temperament: Correlates with Teacher 30. Caring, Burnout, and Organizational Outcomes. Communication Education 56(3): 382-400.
  2. Ozdemir Y (2007) The Role of Classroom Management Efficacy in Predicting Teacher Burnout. International Journal of Social Sciences 1-7.
  3. Colangelo TM (2004) Teacher Stress and Burnout and the Role of Physical Activity and Parent Involvement. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Psychology, Department of Psychology, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, Connecticut, USA, p.1-35.
  4. Al-Zahrani N (2008) Burnout and its relationship to some personality traits among working women with people with special needs. Unpublished Master Thesis, Umm Al Qura University, Saudi Arabia.
  5. Gold Y, Bachelor P (2001) Signs of burnout are evident for practice scholars during the teacher training period. Education 108(4): 546-555.
  6. Edelwich J, Brodsky A (1980) Burn-out: stages of disillusionment in the helping professions. New York: Human Sciences Press, New York, USA.
  7. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP (2001) Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 397-422.
  8. Mohammed A (1994) Burnout scale for scholars. The Anglo-Egyptian library, Egypt.
  9. Askar A (2000) The pressures of life and methods of response. Modern Book House, Cario, Egypt.
  10. Leiter MP, Maslach C (2004) Areas of work life: A structured approach to organizational predictors of job burnout. In: Perrewe PL & Ganster DC (Eds.), Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, Oxford, England.
  11. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP (1996) Maslach Burnout Inventory manual. (3rd edn), CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, USA.
  12. Berg BD (1994) Educator burnout revisited: Voices from the Staff Room. Clearing House 67(4):185-188.
  13. Burke RJ, Greenglass ER, Schwarzer R (1996) Predicting teacher burnout over time: Effects of work stress, social support, and self-doubts on burnout and its consequences. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 9: 261-275.
  14. Haycock K (1998) Good teaching matters: How well-qualified scholars can close the gap. Good teaching matters 3(2):3-31.
  15. Johnson SM, Birkeland S (2003) Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teacher explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal 40(3): 581-617.
  16. Labone E (1995) Teacher Burnout and Teacher Efficacy: Trends over time. Australian Association for Research in Education, Tasmania, Australia, p. 1-27.
  17. Perlman B, Hartman EA (1982) Burnout: Summary and future research. Human Relations 35(4): 238-305.
  18. Sarı H (2004) An analysis of burnout and job satisfaction among Turkish special school headscholars and scholars, and the factors affecting their burnout and job satisfaction. Educational Studies 30(3): 291-306.
  19. Diann H (2002) More Than an Apple a day: The Effect of Personal Characteristics and Coping Strategies on Teacher Stress and Burnout. Dissertation Abstracts International, California State University, USA, pp.1-182.
  20. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-138224970/collective-self-esteem-and-burnout-in-professional
  21. http://holon.ladipu.com/resources/15/Romanian%20scholars'%20burnout%20and%20.pdf
  22. Mahmoud A (2005) Some Personal Factors and Demographic Variables contributing to the burnout in a sample of teachers. Mansoura University, Egypt, pp. 203-250.
  23. Maqablah N (1995) The effect of locus of control and some demographic variables on burnout among a sample of scholars. Journal of College of Education in Mansoura University, Egypt, p. 81-105.
  24. Ibrahim H, Mashaan O (2004) Work pressures and its relationship to the pattern (a), locus of control and job satisfaction among Kuwaiti and Egyptian scholars. Arab studies in psychology, Egypt, 2(3): 5-32.
  25. Hashim (2001) A comparative study between Mahtrgin is psychologically and emotionally in some personal characteristics and destination settings, the Journal of contemporary psychological science and psychology, University of Al-Menya, Egypt, pp. 219-268.
  26. Abu Bakr N (2007) Burnout for scholars with pattern (a & b) in relation to the methods of problem-solving, Master Thesis, electronic library for the children of the Gulf with special needs.
  27. Batayneh O, Jawarneh (2004) Burnout levels among special education scholars in the governorate of Irbid and its relationship with some variables, Damascus University, Syria 2(2): 48-86.
  28. Abdel-Maksoud H, Tahoun H (1993) Psychological stress for scholars and its relationship with some variables (non-cultural study in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia), Journal of College of Education, Egypt, 17(3): 295-330.
  29. Cunningham J, Lischeron J, Kho H, Ferrier M (2004) A Cybernetic Framework Linking Personality and other Variable in Understanding General Health. Personal Review Farnborough33(1): 55.
© 2014-2016 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://medcraveonline.com
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy