The Relationship of EFL Teacher Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Work-related Burnout

The Relationship of EFL Teacher Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Work-related Burnout Fateme Akhavanattar Department of English, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran Fateme.akhavanattar@gmail.com Seyyed Dariush Ahmadi Department of English Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran sdariush.ahmadi@gmail.com Abstract Work-related burnout is a gradual process widespread among teachers, including EFL teachers, and is a response to stressful events. Variables that may be related to burnout in EFL teachers, including self-efficacy and job satisfaction, were explored. To this end, 104 EFL teachers were selected through convenience sampling from different language institutes in Hamedan. Correlation coefficient analyses and multiple regression analyses were used to analyze the data collected from the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey, the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale, and the Teaching Satisfaction Scale. Teacher efficacy significantly predicted two aspects of burnout, personal accomplishment and depersonalization, but not emotional exhaustion dimension. Teacher job satisfaction significantly predicted emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment dimensions of burnout but not the depersonalization dimension. Between teacher efficacy and job satisfaction, teacher efficacy showed a strong positive correlation with the personal accomplishment dimension of burnout. The findings imply that perceived teacher efficacy requires more consideration. Moreover, institute administrators are recommended to help teachers to cope with stressors to experience a higher degree of satisfaction. Key words: Job Satisfaction-Teacher Efficacy - Burnout 1. Introduction There is ample evidence that teachers, in the course of their careers, experience a great deal of stress (e.g., Byrne, 1999; Jennett, Harris, & Mesibov). The experience of stressors at work often results in depressed mood, exhaustion, poor performance, and attitude and personality changes (Cherniss, 1985). The term burnout has been applied to this phenomenon and has been defined as a response to chronic difficulty in controlling stress (Cherniss, 1985). Maslach and Jackson (1981) described burnout as a syndrome with three dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced feelings of personal accomplishment. Emotional exhaustion refers to feelings of depletion of one s emotional and physical resources (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Depersonalization or dehumanization occurs in response to emotional exhaustion and refers to negative, cynical attitudes and feelings about one s job and those people associated with the job (Maslach, 1999). Finally, reduced personal accomplishment refers to a tendency to evaluate oneself negatively with regard to ones achievement at work and interactions with the people associated with the job (Maslach, 1999). Individuals experiencing this phase of burnout are not happy with either their jobs or themselves (Anderson & Iwanicki, 1984). Compared to the general population, teachers are at risk for higher levels of psychological distress and lower levels of job satisfaction (Travers & Cooper, 1996). Although the reasons may differ, all teachers experience stress in their work (Jennett et al., 2003). Most teachers cope successfully with such stress. However, burnout may be the endpoint of coping unsuccessfully with chronic stress (Cheriness, 1985). Research has shown that classroom teachers, including EFL teachers, face many problems. These stressors include an increase in the number and severity of discipline problems (Fattash, 2013; Mousavi, 2007; Pennington & Richards, 1997; Zhouchun, 2011), an increase in criticism on the part of the students and parents discontent with the application of a new teaching approach (Pennington & Richards, 1997), the threat of job security as students populations decrease (Anderson & Lwanicki, 1984), an increase in feelings of insecurity 20

over teaching proficiency (for EFL teachers feelings of insecurity over the English proficiency) (Mousavi, 2007), and a sense of obligation to cover the required syllabus material (Pennington & Richards, 1997). Current teachers working in these demanding surroundings have difficult and exacting jobs to perform. These instructors experience a high level of burnout and, therefore, often reach the point that they feel they might leave the job and that they have had enough of their work (Friedman & Farber, 1992). Therefore, it is quite logical that burned-out teachers are not able to properly perform their job any longer. Both contextual and individual factors are found to contribute to the beginning and development of burnout among teachers (Friedman, 1999). However, Hobfoll (2001) suggests that professionals who have appropriate resources are able to avoid burnout. Resources are defined as valued objectives or tools that individuals strive to attain and maintain (Hobfoll, 2001). Hobfoll (2001) suggests that these resources, such as adequate job training, represent effective coping mechanisms, which may enable individuals to adjust themselves to the demands and challenges in the environment. Consistent with this, researchers suggest that professional self-efficacy or teacher efficacy (e.g., Cheriness, 1985; Friedman, 1999) along with job satisfaction may help teachers cope with burnout (Hobfoll, 2001). The construct of teacher efficacy has a theoretical basis in Bandura s (1977) concept of self-efficacy. It has been defined as a teacher s judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p.783). Teachers with low efficacy are associated with strict regulations and negative sanctions to get students to study and are generally pessimistic about students ability to improve (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Teachers with high efficacy tend to direct their efforts at resolving their problems (Pennington & Richards, 1997) and to be less critical of students when they make errors (Ashton & Webb, 1986). Also, teacher efficacy is related positively to students achievement and motivation (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006). Not surprisingly, given those outcomes, efficacious teachers tend to be satisfied with their job (Caprara et al., 2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010), committed to teaching (Coladarci, 1992), and experience low levels of burnout (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). In addition to professional self-efficacy, satisfaction with work has been identified as another resource in helping individuals cope with work stress (Hobfoll, 2001). Locke (1969) assumes job satisfaction as the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one s job values (p. 316). It is the result of an overall personal assessment of contextual factors of work and work experiences (Veldman, Tartwijk, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2013). Several studies indicate that job satisfaction is one of the most important factors influencing teachers relations with students (Van den Berg, 2002), teachers enthusiasm (Chen, 2007) as well as teachers retention (Ingersoll, 2001). When job satisfaction declines, phenomena such as work-related stress and burnout may naturally manifest (Veldman et al., 2013). Although much research has been conducted on teacher burnout, no previous study has addressed the issue of burnout by considering the influence of teachers resources of efficacy and job satisfaction in an EFL context. The purpose of the study presented in this article was therefore to examine whether burnout can be moderated through the resource pools of teacher efficacy and teacher job satisfaction among a group of EFL language institute teachers. 1.1 Hypotheses This study examines the relationship between teacher efficacy and job satisfaction with the dimensions of burnout among EFL teachers teaching at English language institutes in Hamedan. In this study, the following null hypotheses were proposed. First, teacher efficacy does not predict work-related burnout. Second, job satisfaction does not predict workrelated burnout. Third, teacher efficacy and job satisfaction do not predict work-related burnout. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The study was conducted among EFL teachers currently teaching English in language institutes in Hamedan. They were selected using convenience sampling; that is, those teachers willing to participate in the study were selected. Twenty-three language institutes represented the accessible population (N ¼ 104) of EFL teachers. In all, 104 teachers completely filled out the questionnaires. They were heterogeneous in terms of their gender, 21

graduate degree (B.A. or M.A.), language proficiency, and teaching experience. Most of them had majored in different branches of English (i.e., English Literature, TEFL, English Translation and those who had held a degree in majors other than English and had the necessary supplementary qualifications to teach English). 2.2. Instruments Teacher efficacy was measured by the long English version of the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) and adapted to fit the context of EFL by adding or substituting English and learning English for school work in items 6, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25. The utilized scale consists of 24 items including eight items for each of the three subscales: efficacy for engagement, efficacy for management, and efficacy for instructional strategies. The items representing the richness of teachers work lives and the requirements of good teaching use a 9-point scale anchored with the notations: nothing, very little, some influence, quite a bit, a great deal (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001, p. 801). Sample items were How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in learning English? (Efficacy in Student Engagement); How much can you do to craft good questions for students? (Efficacy in instructional strategies) and How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom? (Efficacy in classroom management). The Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measure for the whole scales and their three subscales. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) reported the reliability for the 24-item be.94 and found its positive correlation with previous measures of teacher efficacy such as Rand items, and the Gibson and Dembo (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale. Job satisfaction was measured with five items from Ho and Au (2006) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An example item includes So far, I have gotten the important things I want to be a teacher. A high mean score is indicative of a high degree of teacher satisfaction. Ho and Au (2006) reported that Cronbach internal-consistency (alpha) was 0.77 and the two-week test-retest reliability was.76 for their sample. They validated scores on the five-item of the scale on a sample of 202 primary and secondary school teachers and they found favorable psychometric properties. They found that teaching satisfaction as measured by the Teaching Satisfaction Scale (Ho & Au, 2006) correlated positively with selfesteem but negatively with psychological distress and teaching stress. The Teaching Satisfaction Scale (Ho & Au, 2006) scores had good incremental validity for psychological distress and teaching stress beyond its earlier job satisfaction scales. Burnout was measured with the original English version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educators Survey (Maslach et al., 1996). The questionnaire is divided into three subscales; emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment and consists of 22 statements; on each of which the participant rates the frequency of the feelings addressed through the statement on a 7-point continuum (0 = never, 6 = every day). Scores on the scales are added separately. High scores on the scales emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and low scores on the personal accomplishment scale are indicative of burnout. The first subscale, emotional exhaustion measures feelings of being emotionally exhausted and overextended by one s work (9 items; e.g., I feel used up at the end of the workday) ; the second subscale, depersonalization measures the negative attitudes and feelings toward one s students (5 items; e.g., I feel I treat some students as if they were impersonal objects); and the last one, personal accomplishment measures the satisfaction one has with their accomplishments with their students (8 items; e.g., I feel I am positively influencing other people s lives through my work). Prior research substantiated the validity and reliability of the Maslach Burnout Inventory- Educators Survey (Iwanicki & Schwab, 1981). 2.3. Procedure The questionnaires were distributed among teachers of 23 private language institutes in Hamedan during the summer of 2015. Before this, the heads of language institutes were asked for their co-operation. These preliminary requests were also meant to explain the purpose of the study and the way it had been organized. After the heads approval of the request, the questionnaires were hand out to every EFL teacher in the language institute accompanied by a letter explaining the nature and general aim of the study. They were asked to complete the survey and to return it within one week to their language school secretary. A second collection was conducted a week later for any additional returns. Completed surveys were collected from the institutes one 22

week following distribution. Of hundred fifty distributed questionnaires, one hundred ten were returned indicating that 73% of the teachers had returned the questionnaire. Six of the returned questionnaires had missing values and were excluded from the analysis. Thus, the analysis was based on 104 teachers responses. 2.4. Data Analysis In data analysis procedure, to answer the research questions, two correlation coefficient analyses were computed. The first one investigated the correlation between teacher efficacy and burnout dimensions; the second one investigated the correlation between job satisfaction and burnout dimensions. Then three multiple regression analyses were conducted to study the effect of teacher efficacy and job satisfaction on EFL teacher burnout components. It should be noted that prior to running the regression analysis, preliminary data screening techniques were used to check the assumptions including normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, outliers and sample size. No assumption was violated and therefore no data transformation techniques were required. 3. Results The descriptive statistics including means (M), standard deviations (SD), Skewness, and Kurtosis values for predictor variables, teacher efficacy and job satisfaction, and criterion variables, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment dimensions of burnout are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment M SD Skewness Kurtosis Job Satisfaction 4.0555 1.0834 -.460.237 -.182.469 Teacher Efficacy 7.1783 1.18108-1.759.237 1.065.469 Emotional Exhaustion 1.7457 1.24959 1.186.237 1.114.469 Personal Accomplishment 4.5505.95999-1.164.237 1.620.469 Depersonalization 1.2731 1.39041 1.249.237 1.250.469 As seen in Table 4.1, the mean and standard deviation gathered on the study variables are as follows: job satisfaction (N = 104, M = 4.0555 and SD = 1.0834), teacher efficacy (M = 7.1783 and SD = 1.18108), emotional exhaustion (M = 1.7457 and SD = 1.24959), personal accomplishment (M = 4.5505 and SD =.95999), and depersonalization (M = 1.2731 and SD = 1.39041). A one Pearson correlation was performed to test the correlation between teacher efficacy and aspects of burnout (emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment, and depersonalization). The results of the Pearson correlation analysis are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Pearson Correlations among Teacher efficacy and the Dependent Variables (Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment) Teacher Efficacy Emotional Exhaustion Personal Accomplishment Depersonalization Pearson Correlation -.185.463 ** -.475 ** Sig. (2-tailed).060.000.000 N 104 104 104 As the data in Table 2 indicate, teacher efficacy significantly and negatively correlated to depersonalization (r = -.475, P <.05), significantly but positively correlated to personal accomplishment (r =.463, P <.05). However, 23

correlation between teacher efficacy and emotional exhaustion was nonsignificant and negative (r = -.185, P >.05). Another Pearson correlation was performed to determine the relationship between job satisfaction and aspects of burnout (emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment, and depersonalization). The results of the Pearson correlation analysis are presented in table 3. Table 3 Pearson Correlations among Job Satisfaction and the Dependent Variables (Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment) Job Satisfaction Emotional Exhaustion Personal Accomplishment Pearson Correlation -.423 **.353 ** -.063 Sig. (2-tailed).000.000.522 N 104 104 104 Depersonalization Table 3 depicts that job satisfaction significantly and negatively correlated to emotional exhaustion (r =-.423, P <.05) and significantly but positively correlated to personal accomplishment(r =.353, P <.05). There was a nonsignificant correlation between job satisfaction and depersonalization (r = -.063, P >.05). Then three multiple regression analyses were carried out in order to examine to what extent the predicting variables, self-efficacy and job satisfaction would explain the teachers burnout level. In the first regression analysis, emotional exhaustion was the dependent variable. Table 4, the Model summary statistics indicates the value of correlation coefficient (R) and the coefficient of determination (R 2 ), presenting the strength of the linear trend between the variables. Table 4 Model Summary for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Emotional Exhaustion Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1.423 a.179.171 1.13794 a. Predictors: (Constant), Job Satisfaction As Table 4 depicts, using all the predictors simultaneously, the multiple correlation coefficient R is.423 (R 2 =.179) and the adjusted R 2 is.171, meaning that 17% of the variance in emotional exhaustion can be predicted from teacher efficacy and job satisfaction combined. Then a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for teacher efficacy, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion was run to determine whether the combination of the predictors, teacher efficacy and job satisfaction, significantly predict the outcome variable, emotional exhaustion. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5. Table 5 One-Way Analysis of Variance for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Emotional Exhaustion ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 28.751 1 28.751 22.203.000 a Residual 132.080 102 1.295 Total 160.831 103 a. Predictors: (Constant), Job Satisfaction b. Dependent Variable: Emotional Exhaustion 24

As shown in Table 5, the results of the one-way analysis of variance revealed that the combination of teacher efficacy and job satisfaction significantly predicted emotional exhaustion, F(1, 102) = 22.203, P =.000. Finally, Table 6, the Coefficient table provides the y-intercept and the slope for the regression equation. It determines how much each independent variable is contributing to the equation. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Coefficient Table for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Emotional Exhaustion Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error β 1 (Constant) 3.726.435 8.570.000 Teacher- Efficacy Job- Satisfaction -.081.099 -.077 -.823.412 -.489.104 -.423-4.712.000 a. Dependent Variable: Emotional Exhaustion Based on the results presented in Table 6, teacher efficacy negatively predicted emotional exhaustion. Teacher efficacy did not significantly predict emotional exhaustion (β = -.077, P >.05) whereas job satisfaction significantly and negatively predicted emotional exhaustion (β = -.423, P <.001). Next, another multiple regression analysis was performed to determine whether teacher efficacy and job satisfaction predicted depersonalization aspect of burnout. The correlation coefficient (R) and the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) in the Model Summary, Table 7, indicate the strength of the linear trend between the variables. Table 7 Model Summary for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Depersonalization Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1.475 a.226.218 1.22922 a. Predictors: (Constant), Teacher Efficacy As Table 7 shows, using all the predictors simultaneously, the multiple correlation coefficient R is.475 (R 2 =.226) and the adjusted R 2 is.218, meaning that 21% of the variance in depersonalization can be predicted from teacher efficacy and job satisfaction combined. Then a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for teacher efficacy, job satisfaction, and depersonalization was run to determine whether the combination of the predictors significantly predict the outcome variable, depersonalization. The results of this analysis are presented in the ANOVA table, Table 8. Table 8 One-Way Analysis of Variance for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Depersonalization ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig 1 Regression 45.005 1 45.005 29.786.000 a Residual 154.119 102 1.511 25

Total 199.125 103 a. Predictors: (Constant), Teacher Efficacy b. Dependent Variable: Depersonalization As shown in Table 8, the results of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the combination of teacher efficacy and job satisfaction significantly predicted depersonalization, F(1, 102) = 29.786, P =.000. Finally, Table 9, the Coefficient table provides the y-intercept and the slope for the regression equation. It determines how much each independent variable is contributing to the equation. Model Table 9 Coefficient Table for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Depersonalization Coefficients a Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients B Std. Error β 1 (Constant) 5.291.746 7.093.000 Job Satisfaction Teacher Efficacy a. Dependent Variable: Depersonalization 26 t Sig..090.117.070.773.441 -.560.103 -.475-5.458.000 Based on the results presented in Table 9, job satisfaction was not a significant predictor of depersonalization (β = -.070, P >.05) whereas teacher efficacy was a significant negative predictor of depersonalization (β = -.475, P <.001). Again, another multiple regression analysis was performed to determine whether teacher efficacy and job satisfaction predicted personal accomplishment. The correlation coefficient (R) and the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) in the Model Summary, Table 10, indicate the strength of the linear trend between the variables. Table 10 Model Summary for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Personal Accomplishment Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1.520 a.270.256.82811 a. Predictors: (Constant), Teacher Efficacy, Job Satisfaction As Table 10 indicates, using all the predictors simultaneously, the multiple correlation coefficient R is.520 (R 2 =.270) and the adjusted R 2 is.256, meaning that 25% of the variance in personal accomplishment can be predicted from teacher efficacy and job satisfaction combined. Then a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for teacher efficacy, job satisfaction, and personal accomplishment was run to determine whether the combination of the predictors significantly predict the outcome variable, personal accomplishment. The results of this analysis have been presented in the ANOVA table, Table 11. Table 11 One-Way Analysis of Variance for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Personal Accomplishment ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 25.661 2 12.830 18.710.000 a Residual 69.262 101.686

Total 94.922 103 a. Predictors: (Constant), Teacher Efficacy, Job Satisfaction b. Dependent Variable: Personal Accomplishment As shown in Table 11, the results of the one-way analysis of variance revealed that the combination of teacher efficacy and job satisfaction significantly predicted personal accomplishment, F(2, 101) = 18.710, P =.000. Lastly, Table 12, the Coefficient table provides the y-intercept and the slope for the regression equation. It determines how much each independent variable is contributing to the equation. Model Table 12 Coefficient Table for Teacher efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Personal accomplishment Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error β Standardized Coefficients 1 (Constant) 1.352.533 2.536.013 Job satisfaction.218.078.246 2.785.006 Teacher efficacy.322.072.397 4.492.000 a. Dependent Variable: Personal Accomplishment t Sig. Based on the results presented in Table 12, the Coefficients analyses indicated that job satisfaction significantly and positively predicted personal accomplishment (β =.246, P <.05). Teacher efficacy also significantly and positively predicted personal accomplishment (β =.397, P <.001). Between the two independent variables, teacher efficacy had more contribution to the prediction of personal accomplishment (β =.397). 4. Discussion The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between teacher efficacy and job satisfaction with dimensions of the burnout construct among EFL teachers. Specifically, three hypotheses were proposed and tested. With regard to hypothesis one, the results of Pearson correlations indicated that the teacher efficacy was significantly related to two dimensions of burnout. Teacher efficacy positively related to depersonalization and negatively related to personal accomplishment. As participants sense of efficacy increased, their feeling of depersonalization tended to decrease. As the participants sense of efficacy increased, their personal accomplishment increased, as well. Unlike the significant correlation between teacher efficacy, personal accomplishment, and depersonalization, the analysis of the quantitative data did not reveal any significant correlation between teacher efficacy and emotional exhaustion. In the regression analyses, the independent variable of teacher efficacy emerged as a significant predictor of depersonalization and personal accomplishment, which means that null hypothesis one was rejected for two dimensions of burnout. The direction of the relationships between the variables does not necessarily contradict the findings of Brouwers and Tomic s (2000) study. The results of their longitudinal research of teacher burnout and perceived efficacy showed that teachers efficacy beliefs were only related to the depersonalization and personal accomplishment dimensions of burnout, and not to emotional exhaustion dimension (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000). However, the results are different from the findings of Yazdi, Motallebzadeh, and Ashraf s (2013) study of teacher efficacy and burnout with Iranian EFL teachers. Yazdi et al. s (2013) study found that teacher efficacy beliefs were related to all dimensions of burnout. The explanation of the relation between teachers sense of efficacy and depersonalization can be found in Gibson and Dembo s (1984) study of relating teachers efficacy and the student achievement. Teachers with high efficacy believe that they can help and instruct even the most difficult or unmotivated students. They think it can be done even if they have to spend longer proportions of time in instruction, discover appropriate teaching methods, exhibit different types of feedback, and persist in failure situations (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). 27

Therefore, they tend to maintain a positive outlook toward their students. On the other hand, it is possible that teachers with low efficacy in effective teaching usually blame others, including students for their failures (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000). As a consequence, sooner or later they develop a negative attitude toward students. The relation between teachers sense of efficacy and personal accomplishment supports the results of studies that are proof of the relationships between the salutary effects of successes in one s personal professional life (Evers, Tomic, & Brouwers, 2005, p. 435). Successes lead to self-confidence, increased levels of self-efficacy, and an optimistic view of one s capabilities (Evers et al., 2005, p. 435). The nonsignificant correlation between teacher efficacy and emotional exhaustion indicates that EFL teachers sense of emotional exhaustion does not relate to their lack of efficacy. It might be related to other stressors such as job insecurity, work overload, students low motivation, lack of sufficient time, insecurity over their English proficiency, etc. Regarding hypothesis two, the results indicated that job satisfaction negatively correlated with emotional exhaustion and positively correlated with personal accomplishment. It had nonsignificant relationship with depersonalization. In the regression analyses, the independent variable of job satisfaction emerged as a significant predictor of two dimensions of burnout, emotional exhaustion and reduced personal accomplishment, which means null hypothesis two was rejected for two dimensions of burnout (i.e., emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment). The results are similar to the findings of Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2009) study of relations between teachers perception of the school context, teacher burnout, and teacher job satisfaction with Norwegian elementary and middle school teachers. Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2009) found that teacher job satisfaction was directly related to two of the dimensions of burnout (emotional exhaustion and reduced personal accomplishment). However, the results are different from Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) study of teacher efficacy and teacher burnout. In the latter study, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) found that job satisfaction significantly and negatively related to depersonalization and emotional exhaustion dimensions of burnout. There was no previous study examining job satisfaction in relation to EFL teachers burnout to support these particular results. The relations of job satisfaction with emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment may be explained by Friedman and Farber s (1992) assertion. As documented by them, teachers who feel that they are significant and that their work is making a difference in the lives of their students experience a strong sense of accomplishment; they are able to tolerate a great deal of the stresses inherent in teaching. Finally, hypothesis three was rejected only for one dimension of burnout (i.e., personal accomplishment). Three multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between teacher efficacy and job satisfaction with each dimension of burnout. In the first regression analysis, the independent variables of teacher efficacy and job satisfaction together accounted for 17% of the variance in emotional exhaustion, but only job satisfaction emerged as a significant negative predictor in relation to emotional exhaustion. In the second regression analysis, the independent variables of teacher efficacy and job satisfaction together accounted for 22% of the variance in depersonalization, but only teacher efficacy emerged as a significant negative predictor in relation to depersonalization. In the third regression analysis, the independent variables of teacher efficacy and job satisfaction together accounted for 27% of the variance in personal accomplishment, and job satisfaction and teacher efficacy significantly and positively predicted personal accomplishment. And between teacher efficacy and job satisfaction, teacher efficacy contributed more to the prediction of personal accomplishment. Teachers who feel effective and satisfied in their professional functioning deal better with stressful events, experience less aspects of burnout, and maintain a strong sense of accomplishment. Therefore, promoting EFL teachers sense of efficacy and satisfaction with work may be successful in the prevention or treatment of burned-out teachers. Friedman and Farber (1992) believe that the greatest job satisfaction for teachers is related to their personal sense of accomplishment, the feeling that they have made a significant difference in the life of another human being. Teachers who feel that their work is making a difference in the lives of their students are able to tolerate a great deal of the stresses of teaching and to avoid burnout (Friedman & Farber, 1992). Institute managers, therefore, are expected to consider the fact that job satisfaction may lead to endurance in dealing with stressors inherent in teaching and avoid burnout. This study suffered from several limitations. First, the data were only being collected from EFL teachers teaching at English language institutes in Hamedan so the findings cannot be generalized to EFL teachers in other contexts such as schools, universities, and other geographical areas. Second, none of the instruments used had open-ended statements. This limited the responses the participants made. Thus, additional factors that could have been considered are unknown. Future research may benefit from a mixed method research design employing both quantitative and qualitative measures which may give a more meaningful result obtained by 28

self-report measures and may be contaminated by the common method variance. Third, the data collected was from self-report questionnaires. Self-report questionnaires are susceptible to answers tinged with social desirability. Results of this study should, therefore, be interpreted with caution. A longitudinal sequel to this study may overcome the drawbacks of the cross-sectional study. Finally, the cross-sectional character of the present study, the variables have only been measured at one time, imposes restrictions on the generalization of the results, which may be counteracted by a longitudinal follow-up. In this study, it was determined that the combination of teacher efficacy and job satisfaction probably tackle burnout symptoms. As noted in the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001), there are numerous resources that could potentially be considered as buffers, including professional self-esteem, professional self-concept, professional support, job autonomy, group cohesion, etc. REFERENCES Anderson, M. B. G., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1984). Teacher motivation and its relationship to burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(2), 109-132. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191-215. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239 254. Byrne, B. M. (1999). The nomological network of teacher burnout: A literature review and empirically validated model. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 15-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of school psychology, 44(6), 473-490. Chacon, C. (2005). Teachers perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 257-272. Chen, W. (2007). The structure of secondary school teacher job satisfaction and its relationship with attrition and work enthusiasm. Chinese Education and Society, 40(5), 17-31. Cheriness, C. (1985). Stress, burnout, and the special services provider. Special Services in the Schools, 2(1), 45-61. Evers, W., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2005). Constructive thinking and burnout among secondary school teachers. Social Psychology of Education, 8(4), 425-439. Fattash, M. M. (2013). Demotivating factors of university ESL teachers. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(19), 125-132. Friedman, I. A. (1999). Turning our schools into a healthier workplace: Bridging between professional self-efficacy and professional demands. In R. Yandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 166-175). New York: Cambridge University Press. Friedman, I. A., & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional self-concept as a predictor of teacher burnout. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 28-35. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582. Ho, C.L., & Au, W.T. (2006). Teaching Satisfaction Scale: Measuring job satisfaction of teachers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(1), 172-185. Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 337-421. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534. Iwanicki, E.F., & Schwab, R.L. (1981). A cross-validation study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(4), 1167-1174. Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B. (2003). Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(6), 583 593. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational behavior and human performance, 4(4), 309-336. Maslach, C. (1999). Progress in understanding teacher burnout. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 211-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981).The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2(2), 99-113. 29

Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, M.P. (1996). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd Ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397 422. Mousavi, E. S. (2007). Exploring teacher stress in non-native and native teachers of EFL. ELTED, 10, 33 41. Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1997). Reorienting the teaching universe: the experience of five first-year English teachers in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 149-178. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(3), 518-524. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783 805. Travers, C. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Teachers under pressure: Stress in the teaching profession. London: Routledge. Van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers meaning regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72, 577-625. Veldman, I., Tartwijk, J. V., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2013). Job satisfaction and teacher-student relationships across the teaching career: Four case studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32(1), 55-65. Yazdi, M., Motallebzadeh, k., & Ashraf, H. (2013). Iranian EFL teachers' self-efficacy and teachers' burnout: A case of comparison. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4 (2), 59-73. Zhouchun, H. (2011). Job burnout of English teachers in secondary schools in western China. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 35-46. 30