Teachers and Teaching

ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Pedagogical well‐being: reflecting learning and

well‐being in teachers’ work

Tiina Soini , Kirsi Pyhältö & Janne Pietarinen

To cite this article: Tiina Soini , Kirsi Pyhältö & Janne Pietarinen (2010) Pedagogical well‐being:
reflecting learning and well‐being in teachers’ work, Teachers and Teaching, 16:6, 735-751

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2010.517690

Published online: 11 Oct 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1575

View related articles

Citing articles: 30 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20

Download by: [5.158.27.213] Date: 17 May 2017, At: 02:15

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
Vol. 16, No. 6, December 2010, 735–751

Pedagogical well-being: reflecting learning and well-being in

teachers’ work
Tiina Soinia*, Kirsi Pyhältöb and Janne Pietarinenc
a
Department of Teacher Education, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; bCentre for
Research and Development in Higher Education, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland;
cFaculty of Education, University of Joensuu, Joensuu, Finland

(Received 8 October 2008; final version received 22 January 2010)

Taylor and Francis
CTAT_A_517690.sgm

Teachers
10.1080/13540602.2010.517690
1354-0602
Original
Taylor
602010
16
Dr
tiina.soini@uta.fi
00000December
TiinaSoini
&Article
and
Francis
(print)/1470-1278
Teaching:
2010 Theory
(online)
and Practice

Teachers’ learning and occupational well-being is crucial in attaining educational

goals both in the classroom and at the school community level. In this article
teachers’ occupational well-being that is constructed in teaching–learning
processes within the school community is referred to as pedagogical well-being.
The article focuses on exploring teachers’ experienced pedagogical well-being by
examining the kinds of situations that teachers themselves find either empowering
and engaging or burdening and stressful in their work. The study aims to: (1)
identify the primary contexts of teachers’ experienced critical incidents of
pedagogical well-being; and (2) determine the kind of action strategies teachers
have adopted in these contexts when they are reported as empowering and
engaging. The study included data collected from the teachers of nine case-schools
around Finland. Altogether, a selected group of 68 comprehensive school teachers,
including both primary and secondary school teachers, were interviewed. Our
results suggested that interaction with pupils in socially and pedagogically
challenging situations constitutes the core of teachers’ pedagogical well-being.
Success in both the pedagogical goals and more general social goals seem to be
fundamental preconditions for teachers’ experienced pedagogical well-being.
Further investigation showed that teachers’ approaches to socially challenging
situations varied. Results suggest that teachers’ pedagogical well-being is
centrally generated in the challenging social interactions of their work. Moreover,
the way in which a teacher acts in the situation is found to be a regulator for
experienced pedagogical well-being.
Keywords: occupational well-being; learning; comprehensive school; teachers

1. Introduction
Teachers’ learning and occupational well-being is crucial in attaining educational
goals both in the classroom and at the school community level. This means that teach-
ers’ occupational well-being is closely entwined with the success of their pedagogical
task, which in turn is linked to the ability of the teacher and the teacher community to
develop and revise their pedagogical actions. More specifically, skillful and motivated
teachers are likely to promote active and functional learning strategies, and conse-
quently achieve the best learning outcome on pupils (Bolhuis & Voeten, 2004;
Hoekstra, Beijaard, Brekelmans, & Korthagen, 2007; Hoy, Hoy, & Kurz, 2008). In

*Corresponding author. Email: tiina.soini@uta.fi

ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2010.517690
http://www.informaworld.com
736 T. Soini et al.

addition, empowered and engaged teachers are also more likely to implement peda-
gogical innovations in their daily work. Research on teachers’ instructional practices
have shown that teachers’ self-efficacy, emotional involvement, motivational struc-
ture, and work engagement are interrelated and have an effect on the practices teachers
adopt (Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Pelletier, Legault, & Séguin-Lévesque, 2002; Ryan,
Gheen, & Midgley, 1998). This, in turn, affects the goals and strategies adopted by the
pupils, such as help seeking. Yet, very little is known about how teachers themselves
perceive the main sources of inspiration and burden in their everyday work. In this
article, teachers’ occupational well-being that is constructed in teaching–learning
processes within the school community is referred to as pedagogical well-being. The
article focuses on exploring teachers’ experienced pedagogical well-being in nine
different comprehensive schools in Finland.

1.1. Aim of the study

This study aims to gain better understanding of Finnish comprehensive school teach-
ers’ pedagogical well-being by examining the kinds of situations that teachers them-
selves find either empowering and engaging or burdening and stressful in their work.
These situations are seen as critical incidents in which the constructed pedagogical
well-being becomes observable. Teachers’ pedagogical well-being is empirically
examined in two complementary aspects: (1) identifying the primary contexts of
teachers’ experienced critical incidents of pedagogical well-being; and (2) determin-
ing the kind of action strategies teachers have adopted in these contexts when they are
reported as empowering and engaging.

1.2. The study context

This study is a part of a larger national research project: ‘Learning and development
in comprehensive school’ (2004–2009), which focuses on undivided basic education
in Finland. The project aims to identify and understand preconditions for successful
school reforms. Altogether 87 municipalities and 237 schools around Finland partici-
pated in the first phase of the research project (2005–2007). The project was carried
out using a systemic design research approach (Brown, 1992; Collins, Joseph, &
Bielaczyc, 2004; De Corte, 2000; Salomon, 1996). It included data collection from four
different levels of the schooling system: (1) heads of school districts; (2) principals;
(3) teachers; and (4) pupils (9th graders). To capture the views of different actors, the
data were collected through mixed methods such as inquiries, interviews, reflective
discussion, and activating methods.

1.3. Learning of socio-psychological well-being in school

In addition to the intended learning outcomes, the pedagogical processes within school
communities can generate either feelings of engagement and empowerment and a sense
of satisfaction or feelings of stress and anxiety for the participants of the processes
(Boekaerts, 1993; Konu, Lintonen, & Autio, 2002; Krapp, 2005; Pelletier et. al., 2002;
Savolainen, 2001; Silins & Mulford, 2002; Tarter & Hoy, 2004; Van Houtte, 2006).
Construction of socio-psychological well-being for members of the school community
can be understood as a learning process that promotes relatedness, competence, and
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 737

autonomy (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2002; Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005;
Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola, & Lehtinen, 2004; Krapp, 2005; Lazarus & Lazarus,
1994; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Sheldon & King, 2001). Learning of socio-
psychological well-being within school can be seen as an active, collaborative, and
situated process in which the relationship between individuals and their environment
is constantly constructed and modified. In turn, well-being experienced by the
members of the school community regulates their learning in many ways, for example,
it can affect the ability to concentrate and observe the environment, perceive affor-
dances, and interpret received feedback (Antonovsky, 1987, 1993; Bowen, Richman,
Brewster, & Bowen, 1998; Deci & Ryan, 2002; Kristersson & Öhlund, 2005; Morrison
& Clift, 2005; Pallant & Lae, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Torsheim, Aarø, & Wold,
2001). Hence, teachers’ sense of engagement and empowerment in their work are
regulated by their experienced professional relationships (including relationships with
pupils), belonging to the professional community, professional self-efficacy and
perceived control and agency over one’s professional action.
The quality of pedagogical processes in school can be assessed by examining to
what extent they facilitate the preconditions for learning and well-being both for pupils
and teachers (Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Retelsdorf, Butler, Streblow, & Schiefele, 2010).
However, well-being perceived by the members of a school community is often gener-
ated as an unintended by-product of pedagogical processes and school practices. A
sense of autonomy, relatedness, competence, and belonging or a lack of these elements
generated for teachers and pupils in the everyday interactions of school are here
referred to as pedagogical well-being. The construction of pedagogical well-being
could be understood as a process of succeeding cycles of positive or negative learning
experiences leading to empowerment and engagement, or in severely negative cases,
even to burnout. Accordingly, pedagogical well-being is constructed in the core
processes of teachers’ work that is, carrying out and developing teaching–learning
process, including for example planning classroom activities, interacting with pupils,
making evaluations, and choosing and developing instructional tools. The experienced
pedagogical well-being may either hinder or promote attainment of the pedagogical
goals, and it therefore serves as a regulator for attaining learning outcomes.

1.4. Teachers’ pedagogical well-being

Pedagogical well-being is a part of teachers’ occupational well-being, along with
other important elements, such as leadership in the school, continuity, work load, and
resources (Meriläinen & Pietarinen, 2007; Rudow, 1999). The experienced pedagog-
ical well-being may either promote or hinder the teacher’s occupational well-being. A
teacher may simultaneously experience empowerment, joy, and satisfaction in their
classroom interactions with pupils along with feelings of anxiety and stress caused by
problems in collaborating with parents. In positive cases the pedagogical well-being
generated in the teacher community, for example, may function as a buffer against the
burden caused by the unsolved problems that they face with parents. Accordingly,
pedagogical well-being could be seen as a crucial asset of teachers’ work-related
resilience (e.g., Masten & Reed, 2005). On the other hand in negative cases, the action
orientation and coping strategies adopted by the teachers, such as avoidance or defen-
sive strategies, may gradually cause an inability to collaborate with parents that could
have a severe negative impact on the pupil’s attitudes towards school as well as the
teachers’ occupational well-being.
738 T. Soini et al.

Hence, the ways in which the teacher solves the problematic situation with her
colleagues, pupils or their parents are likely to affect not only the end result of the situ-
ation, but also the feedback the teacher receives of themselves as a professional and
hence one’s self-image as a teacher. This in turn further reflects on pedagogical prac-
tices and strategies adopted by the teacher, thus resulting in either positive or negative
cycles of experienced pedagogical well-being. Characteristic for the types of pedagog-
ical interactions that promote teachers’ satisfaction, engagement, and empowerment
are participants’ perceptions of themselves as active learners and their experience of
a sense of coherence, meaningfulness, and belonging (Antonovsky, 1987, 1993;
Bowen et al., 1998; Deci & Ryan, 2002; Kristersson & Öhlund, 2005; Morrison & Clift,
2005; Pallant & Lae, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Torsheim et al., 2001). In contrast,
lack of professional efficacy, feelings of alienation, and inequality are all typical of
the interactions that undermine the construction of pedagogical well-being. If the
teacher, for example, is feeling emotionally overwhelmed and threatened by misbe-
having pupils, she or he is more likely to adopt teacher centered and rigid problem-
solving strategies than if she or he feels empowered in their work and appreciated
by the members of the school community. Respectively more flexible and reflective
strategies may generate feelings of empowerment and support equal and reciprocal
professional relationships with pupils and other teachers. These kinds of strategies and
practices can be learned.

1.5. Teachers’ pedagogical well-being is constructed in complementary contexts

Teachers’ pedagogical well-being is constructed in the interaction processes of a
school’s multilevel learning environment, not only with pupils but also with colleagues,
families, and other members of the school community. In order to understand the gener-
ation of teachers’ pedagogical well-being, some features of the school as a distinctive
social, cultural, and psychological environment should be discussed.
Schools are complex contexts with multiple levels and practices, some of them
contradictory. There are opportunities for agency, avoidance, opposition, and resis-
tance, and as a consequence there is inevitable tension in interactions between different
actors in the context (Lahelma, 2002). Teachers and pupils are the core of the school
community. However, teachers’ and pupils’ intentions, orientations, and perceptions
towards school activities have been found to differ fundamentally. For instance, teach-
ers tend to perceive the classroom environment more positively and more favourably
than pupils do (e.g., Hofman, Hofman, & Guldemont, 2001). At the same time a
teacher may be increasingly overwhelmed in pedagogical situations where their didac-
tic intentions and subject-specific expertise do not provide them with functional tools
to cope with the social aims and challenges of school education. In teachers’ experi-
ences, learning outcomes and the more general social goals of education may even
appear to be in conflict, and this constitutes a paradox to teachers’ pedagogical work.
On the other hand, in pupils’ experiences the concentration on learning outcomes may
override the social aims of school education, for example, if a teacher ignores or does
not recognize challenges such as bullying within the pupils’ peer group interaction.
This may generate tension within the interaction of teachers and pupils and thus affect
their experienced pedagogical well-being.
However, there is also an interrelation between teachers’ and pupils’ orientations
towards school work: for example, if a teacher perceives her work as primarily regu-
lated by demands coming from different stakeholders outside the school community
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 739

(such as politicians and school administrators), she or he is likely to use more external
control and this results in more external strategies of learning for the pupils (Pelletier
et al., 2002). It could be argued that a modern school is a context of continuing nego-
tiations between pupils and teachers of authority and meaning-making and that both
the ambiance of the school community and the achievement of pedagogical goals are
to a great extent dependent on the success of the negotiations between these actors
(Gregory & Ripski, 2008; Schweinle et al., 2008; Van Petegem et al., 2006).
In addition to the pupil–teacher interaction in schools, interaction within the profes-
sional community is another crucial element of the school as a social environment. At
its best, the teacher community provides not only emotional support but a collaborative
professional community that takes shared responsibility for pupils’ learning and
growth as well as development of the whole school community. However, in practice
teachers often need to strike a balance between autonomy and external regulation. The
teacher community as a loosely coupled expert organization (Orton & Weick, 1990;
Weick, 1979) enables and even facilitates autonomy but does not necessarily offer a
sense of belonging or encourage professional collaboration. Although, teachers are
learning to collaborate they are still accountable for their own subjects and classes and
they face this responsibility mostly individually and alone. This is reflected also in the
somewhat ambiguous role of teachers in school development: teachers are expected to
be active school developers and to be involved in implementing pedagogical reforms
and facilitating collaboration between schools and at the level of local school district.
However, according to the substantial research on school change, it seems that teachers
are not highly committed to developing the school community outside their own class-
rooms and content area; in fact, quite the opposite is true (Clement & Vandenberghe,
2000; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Hargreaves, Lieberman, Fullan, & Hopkins, 1998;
Sarasom, 1991; Stevens, 2004; Tyrack & Cuban, 1995). Accordingly, it seems that
teachers’ work is fragmented not only at an individual level, but also at a community
level. This means that teachers’ sense of coherence, professional efficacy, and
meaningfulness may also vary from one context to another; it may be high in one’s
classroom and at the same low in the teacher community. Hence, a teacher may at the
same time feel highly engaged and empowered in their pedagogical encounters with
pupils and stressed by the implementation of the school reform.
Parents and families may constitute external pressure on teachers’ work which is
linked to teachers’ occupational well-being and success in teaching. Professional self-
efficacy is supported and anxiety decreased by good relations and interaction with
parents (Betoret, 2006; Forsyth, Barnes, & Adams, 2006; Westergård, 2007).
To sum up, teachers’ work provides challenges but also opportunities for teachers’
pedagogical well-being. There are elements that challenge teachers’ engagement and
commitment to the work, as well as resources for positive work drive and work satis-
faction. In other words, teaching itself embodies the potential for a profession that is
simultaneously highly inspiring and emotionally exhausting (Hakanen et al., 2005).

2. Study design
2.1. Participants
This study included data collected from the teachers of nine case-schools around
Finland. The criteria for selecting the case-schools were variation and representative-
ness of the sample. Primary, secondary, and grade one to nine comprehensive schools
740 T. Soini et al.

were included in the cases. The schools were of various sizes and phases in their undi-
vided basic education development work, and they were situated throughout the whole
country (Pyhältö, Pietarinen, Huusko, & Soini, 2005). Altogether, a selected group of
68 comprehensive school teachers, including both primary and secondary school
teachers, were interviewed (female: 42, male: 26, age: mean = 44.6, range = 31, min./
max. = 30/61 years, std. deviation = 9250). The teachers were selected for interviews
based on the open-ended responses to questionnaires collected previously from all the
case-school teachers. The criteria for selecting the teachers were variation in teachers’
perceived professional orientation in terms of school development and their own role
in it, their educational background, gender, work history, and working experience.
Hence, the sample was representative of teachers in case-schools. As required since
the 1970s, all the participants held MA degrees in elementary education, secondary
content areas, or special education, and were teaching in their area of certification.

2.2. Data collection

Teacher interviews were conducted in case-schools during spring 2006. The semi-
structured theme interview embodied questions on two wide themes: (1) developing
the teaching profession; and (2) developing the school community (see the Appendix).
The interview instrument aimed at gaining a wide view on teachers’ work, especially
in the context of school reform. Experiences of burden and empowerment emerged in
teachers’ reflections about their work. This study focuses on exploring those situations
teachers perceived as significant for their occupational well-being. All questions and
instructions were validated by the members of the research group before the inter-
views. In total, the interview contained 27 questions on different aspects of teachers’
work and three background questions on participants’ working history, years of teach-
ing, and current responsibilities. The data were collected by the researchers during
their fieldwork on case-schools. Each interview took between 60 and 90 minutes to
complete. The interviews were tape-recorded digitally and decoded into the text files
by two trained research assistants.

2.3. Analysis
The interviews were content analyzed using an abductive strategy. In the first phase
of the content analysis, all the text segments in which teachers referred to the critical
incidents of their learning of social–psychological well-being were coded into the
same hermeneutic category. After this, the category was coded into the two basic cate-
gories using a grounded strategy. The categories resulting from the second phase
were: (A) empowerment and engagement; and (B) burden and stress. At the end of
the first phase, both basic categories were classified into the three main categories
that constituted the primary context of pedagogical well-being: (1) teacher–pupil
interaction; (2) teacher community; and (3) teacher–parent interaction.
In the second phase of the content analysis, the focus was on analyzing action
strategies reported to be used by the teachers in the primary contexts of pedagogical
well-being. In line with the ideas of positive psychology we wanted to explore the
resources and possibilities of teachers themselves in fostering their sense of auton-
omy, relatedness, competence, and belonging in their work. Consequently, the text
segments in category (A) empowerment and engagement were coded into the four
sub-categories according to:
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 741

(1) holistic orientation, systemic and multifaceted perception of the situation;

(2) emotional support, reflecting on the meaning of emotional aspects in problem-
solving strategies;
(3) professional efficacy, utilizing professional competence in the situation; and
(4) identification of object of activity, analyzing and elaborating on the situation.

These sub-categories were considered to constitute components of teachers’ action

strategies in the primary contexts of pedagogical well-being. The content analysis was
conducted by using the ATLAS-ti program.
Categories resulting from the content analysis were validated by the research
group at the end of each analysis phase (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994). The
researchers read the data carefully, constructed the categories and negotiated them in
detail. In the few cases of disagreement, consensus of final categorization was reached
in a discussion between researchers. Moreover, the ecological validity of findings was
tested and verified during visits on case-schools’ in-service training days where
researchers and teachers reflected together on the results (e.g., Bryman, 2004;
Creswell, 2003). The typical working method in these visits was a teachers’ small-
group discussion facilitated by the researchers’ introduction to the results. Teachers
verified the authenticity of the results and researchers’ conclusions.

3. Results
3.1. Primary contexts of teachers’ pedagogical well-being
Results suggested that the teachers’ experienced pedagogical well-being varied
widely, ranging from exhaustion to a positive work drive. Both satisfaction and
engagement and burden and stress were reported by the teachers. However, more than
half of the descriptions (59%) related to experiences of empowerment and engage-
ment. In general, it seems that teachers perceive social interactions as being both the
most rewarding and the most problematic part of their work in several different levels
in their school community.
Further investigation showed that teachers’ pedagogical well-being was
constructed in three primary contexts of their daily work. These primary contexts
were: (1) the teacher–pupil interaction; (2) the peer interaction within the teacher
community; and (3) the teacher–parent interaction.
Table 1 shows that teachers considered interaction with pupils a significant
context for their experienced pedagogical well-being. Both empowering and stressful
events described by the teachers related to socially challenging pedagogical situations
with pupils, such as dealing with bullying, loss of study motivation, or disturbing
behavior:

Table 1. Primary contexts of teachers’ experienced pedagogical well-being (frequencies).

Empowering and engagement (f) Burden and stress (f) Total (f)
Teacher–pupil 105 82 187
Teacher community 107 41 148
Teacher–parent 13 35 48
Total (f) 225 158
742 T. Soini et al.

That you kind of have to get a hold of the pupil so that you make contact, some sort of
a contact with them, a ‘plus’ contact. If it’s negative, if you have to scold the kid and
remind them all the time, and, well, scold them over and over again, that you’re late
again, you haven’t done your homework again, then after all this negative scolding
you’ve got to find that huge plus for them somewhere. And if you can’t find it, the kid
will just fade away … So that the kid won’t be left with a feeling that the teacher didn’t
care for them enough … Like when I think about my own situation, that have I just let
it go too easily too many times, then yes, sometimes I feel like I have and it bothers me,
but then I remember the supervisory aspect, that wait a second, it’s not like I’m supposed
to be able to do everything.

During my last class I noticed that this girl who can’t, for example, do her reading task
at home, or she’s not supported at home, so in this job I’ve got to be a mother and a father
to them and sometimes more. So, for example in this situation, she’d done her reading
really well. And I’ve been asking over and over that ‘did you do your reading task?’ And
yes, she’d done it, ‘I read it at home’. So she’s done it independently, with no support,
and that’s a big step. I mean, a huge one for an under-achiever like her. So, we were reading
aloud just now and I noticed immediately that she’d done her homework, all right, and
said you can do it now. (T: Job well done.) Job well done, so I gave immediate feedback
to her, ‘xxx, you’ve, now listen the rest of you, you’ve really done this task so well, I can
definitely hear it’. Oh, the smile on her face and the good feeling, oh boy … So, maybe
that’s the kind of a, kind of a little incident. That I try to notice every day (T: Right.)
’cause then I feel I can cope with it better, when I, like, gather them up every day.

Teachers considered solving these problematic situations with their pupils as being
a core task of their work and at the same time a highly demanding task. This was also
reflected in the emotional coloring of descriptions which ranged from joy and inspi-
ration to disappointment and anxiety depending on the course of events.
Results indicated that teachers also considered professional peer interaction as an
important primary context in which their experienced pedagogical well-being was
constructed. Teachers often emphasized the importance of good atmosphere and colle-
gial support as a positive resource for their occupational well-being:

T: Where do you get support for your work at the moment? H: Well … Of course
it’s nice to have this great crowd around me, but … Now that we have these,
yeah, these co-operative meetings of ours, Friday meetings and such, as we’ve
been able to have a say. They’ve brought us a sort of a foundation, that I really
feel like it’s a more intelligent contact. Like I can think about pedagogic issues
more than before, more in that way, that I actually bother to think about them.
And then you can talk about them with someone. ‘Cause, this like, this is like a
starting point, we have all these staff rooms where you run around and do all
your work and others do the same, and you just about get your own stuff done.
But these pedagogic issues are such that you should … should get to talk about,
discuss, ponder with adults.

On the other hand, a poor atmosphere, destructive frictions within the community,
and a lack of leadership were reported to be burdensome and a cause for anxiety and
stress. However, the professional community was more often perceived as a resource
for positive work drive than as a cause for burden and stress.
As Table 1 shows that teachers also described teacher–parent interaction as the
primary context of pedagogical well-being. Teachers did not perceive encounters with
parents as significant as interactions with pupils and peers in terms of their experi-
enced pedagogical well-being, though functional collaboration with parents was
recognized as a regulator for successful studying. Teachers experienced collaboration
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 743

with parents as a positive resource for their work when parents shared and supported
pupils’ efforts for attaining learning goals:

These so called parents who just don’t know what they’re doing … I mean, I feel it’s,
it’s very unfortunate. And I, for one, have been, am, I mean it really hurts me and it makes
me stay up all night, these parents, parents who don’t know what they’re doing. And then
these kids who no one cares for. That’s what’s a real challenge, what’s making me wonder
more all the time. (T: So there are more of these children in each age group?) Yes, yes.
So if a kid says we don’t have any food in the fridge, like one of them did this morning.
I just send them in the kitchen to eat … just go and ask for a sandwich.

In turn, if parents were not interested in their child’s education or questioned the
teacher’s pedagogical efforts and authority the situation was considered problematic
and burdensome by the teachers.

3.2. Teachers’ action in socially challenging situations

Results showed that teachers’ action in socially challenging situations varied. Both
teachers’ perceptions about the situations and their own role in it varied according to
the primary context of pedagogical well-being (see Figure 1). In general teachers who
experienced positive work drive and empowerment in their work reported using
active, reflective, holistic, and collaborative problem-solving strategies.
Figure 1 shows how the components of teachers’ strategies varied in the primary
Figure 1. Components of teachers’ strategies in primary contexts of pedagogical well-being (frequencies).

contexts of pedagogical well-being. Teachers reported using multifaceted and active

strategies to solve problems both in teacher–pupil and teacher–parent interactions.
They described using holistic orientation and attempting to identify and specify the
object of activity. Teachers also described the diversity of opportunities for professional
development and experiences of efficacy provided by the teacher–pupil interactions.

Figure 1. Components of teachers’ strategies in primary contexts of pedagogical well-being

(frequencies).
744 T. Soini et al.

In fact, teachers often perceived new insight or better understanding gained in the chal-
lenging situation with pupils as a cause of experienced empowerment and engagement.
Results also indicated that offering emotional support for the pupils was a key element
of pedagogical well-being in teacher–pupil and also teacher–parent contexts:

It’s, well if I think of it now, it’s those times when a pupil comes to you to tell about their
problems, things that are really difficult for them (R: Yep.) so you have to have time for
them. It’s not like you can tell them you’re sorry and that you actually should be in
charge of monitoring the break or that you have this and that going on, so come back
tomorrow. It may be that it’s the last time they ever try to talk to you. (R: I bet.) So you
need to be like sensitive to these situations, be there when the kid comes to you and says
his or her father didn’t come and pick them up although it was their turn. Or something.
You just have to be like, alert, present.

There are always some problematic pupils. So, how they’re treated, that’s the question.
And if a pupil misbehaves, there’s always something that causes it, you should actually
know the background, the reasons. It’s not like we accept bad behaviour, that’s a definite
‘no’. The pupil just needs to understand this. But it’s not just that the pupil wants to be
bad, it’s what’s in the background that causes it, that they feel bad.

I had to go to xxx elementary school, so the name of the school was then xxx second-
ary school, and they have a completely different set of pupils there than we have here,
so it’s like they come from a different social environment, those children. So, I had
some difficulties there, I felt like I was mentally ill myself and had a rash and allergy
and all that, so it was really hard … mentally, until I realised that it’s just their anxiety
they’re shouting out, the children, and that although they were so rude and nasty when
they knew I was only going to be there for a short time, I was there for just – was it
once a week or sometimes a day and a half at the most? – so I was a sort of a visitor
there, a stranger, so it was easy to be horrible towards me, so that’s when I learned,
through experience that if I never see that pupil as an entity, a person, and try to help
him, it’s going to be so horrible to do my job for the rest of my life. So, er, so that’s
when I sort of got that, the impression that I need to look at the student straight in
the eyes, feel their essence and figure out what’s happening, only then would I be able
to help them and only then would they understand what I’m saying, and be on the
same page.

So, this prolonged [bullying] process just dissolved last week, it was really that we …
that it’s been going on for so long and for the whole time we didn’t quite know who did
what, so this is, like, the time to speak our minds now. So firstly, er, I can’t keep dwelling
on this for the whole spring, and we have these parents dwelling on this every now and
then, they phone each other and it all gets reflected on you, so you’re feeling good about
it and bad with all this and, and always a bit in a bad mood, feeling bad about this, like
now is the time to talk this through and then, like, well, like still those words just won’t
come out and so I thought that if you can’t say it, at least write it down. So, that was it,
and that’s where I found the core of the problem this time.

Characteristic of teachers’ descriptions of empowerment in peer interaction was

the gaining of emotional support from colleagues. Teachers also emphasized the
importance of sharing their work and using their peers as a reflective mirror for their
work. Consequently, reflection was emphasized as the main element of action strategy
teachers reported using with peers. However, teachers used reflection as a tool for
affirming themselves about their interpretations of challenging situations and their
decisions and choice of action strategies with pupils in the class. Furthermore, teach-
ers seldom reported using holistic orientation in the context of the teacher community
or attempts to collegially identify and analyze the problem at hand. Descriptions of
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 745

opportunities for professional development and efficacy were also infrequent. In sum,
teachers preferred a less active and learning-oriented problem-solving approach
within the teacher community than in the context of teacher–pupil interaction:

And this community I work in is this size and people always think a bit different from
the next guy, so. I sometimes fear that the problem [a socially challenging situation]
could just spread around and reach those it doesn’t concern. Like I’m trying to limit these
things, include only those who it concerns. I’m working with the counsellor who is like
the most important person to me at work. (R: Right.) So, he’s been working here since
the 1980s and is a sort of a calm, relaxed man with a good outlook, so he’s, again, a
person I can work with and get support from. I can, in a way, test things, ask what he’d
think, if this makes sense and so on.

But this democracy, it really works here [in the teacher community]. The leadership is
nowadays such that, that it’s like … it’s like, well, just, there’s equality shown towards
us, so we have this very … We have this equality and everyone gets … the tasks get
distributed quite equally and … and if need be, heads will roll, though there hasn’t been
need really. But let’s put it like this … it’s not like, it’s like this sort of, sort of a pretty
good feeling there, so … It’s not like we wouldn’t argue should we feel like it, but we
haven’t lately.

I [the principal] always tell the teachers that we should always try to avoid any situation
in which there could be any conflicts between the pupil and the teacher, they can go on
for so long that they disturb teaching the pupil and your work. So if a situation gets really
bad, we have this procedure, for example, that we don’t automatically give it, like
remove from classroom and give detention. Of course it’s easier for the teacher to deal
with the situation and set it aside. But if it was then done so that the pupil comes
afterwards, when he/she comes after the class, you’d talk with them. Both would tell
their side of the story and you’d discuss with the pupil. If you’d still after this feel that
you need to give detention, then you give detention. The pupil will probably accept it
then, too, and feel, and find it justified.

Moreover, only a few teachers described empowerment and engagement in the

parent–teacher interaction. Therefore, the strategies adopted by the teachers in the
teacher–parent interaction were not often reported. However, those teachers who did
report a strategy usually assumed a diverse and active approach to problem-solving
pupils’ problems with parents.

3.3. Conclusion
The results demonstrated that teachers’ experienced pedagogical well-being varied
widely, ranging from burdensome to empowering. More than half of the descriptions
were related to the experiences of empowerment and engagement. In general, teach-
ers’ experienced pedagogical well-being was situated in the everyday interactions of
their work: (1) the teacher–pupil interaction; (2) the peer interaction with colleagues;
and (3) the teacher–parent interaction. Further investigation showed that teachers’
approaches on socially challenging situations also varied. Teachers’ most often used
active, holistic and multifaceted strategies to solve problematic situations with pupils.
In contrast, a more passive approach was adopted in problem-solving with colleagues.
Strategies adopted by teachers to solve problems with parents are less well understood
as these were seldom reported.
To sum up, results suggest that teachers’ pedagogical well-being is centrally
generated in the challenging social interactions of their work. Moreover, the way in
746 T. Soini et al.

which a teacher acts in the situation is found to be a regulator for experienced

pedagogical well-being.

3.4. Methodological reflections

There were some methodological limitations in the study. Although our qualitative
inquiries related to teachers’ work in the context of school reform appeared to be quite
extensive (see also Creswell, 2003), in future studies a methodological challenge
would be to capture a richer understanding about the process in which teacher’s
pedagogical well-being is constructed.
To our knowledge, there are few previous studies that have looked at such phenom-
ena in this way. Therefore, a qualitative approach along with an abductive strategy
within a semi-structured theme interview was chosen to explore the phenomena.
However, further studies combining both qualitative and quantitative methods are
needed to capture a more specific understanding about the process of teachers’ empow-
erment or burdening in the complementary contexts of school. Hence, using a mixed
methods approach (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003) would make it possible to explore in
more detail the processes and regulators for teachers’ pedagogical well-being.

4. Discussion
4.1. Reflections on results
Our results suggest that interaction with pupils in socially and pedagogically challeng-
ing situations constitutes the core of teachers’ pedagogical well-being. Success in both
the pedagogical goals and more general social goals seem to be fundamental precon-
ditions for teachers’ experienced pedagogical well-being in this context. It seems that
teachers’ experienced pedagogical well-being is regulated by the quality of interaction
with pupils, as perceived by the teachers. It could be argued that the more rich and
variable the teacher’s strategy in the challenging situation with the pupil was, the more
the experience supported the teacher’s perceived empowerment and engagement,
hence constructing the pedagogical well-being.
Our results also suggest that in addition to teacher–pupil interactions, the teacher
community plays an important part in teachers’ occupational well-being. Aspects such
as the emotional support gained from the teacher community and a positive atmosphere
were especially emphasized by the teachers in our study. They rarely referred to the
teacher community as a source of stress and burden. A reason for this may be that the
overall atmosphere of teacher communities in our case-schools is positive and collab-
orative. Problematically, previous studies on school development suggest that methods
for attaining functional teacher collaboration are not self-evident (Bakkenes, De
Barbander, & Imants, 1999; Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000; Fullan, 1995; Sleegers,
van den Berg, & Geisel, 2000). Accordingly, another less obvious interpretation of the
result may be that the teacher community provides emotional support that generates a
functional buffer against the negative and burdensome experiences with pupils (e.g.,
conflicts in the class) (Zapf, 2002). The significance of this buffer for a teacher is likely
to increase if one experiences difficulties in teacher–pupil interaction. In turn, if a
teacher succeeds in their pedagogical work with pupils (which was perceived as the
most important primary context of pedagogical well-being), the significance of the
teacher community as a source of burden may be perceived as modest, although
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 747

destructive frictions may occur with colleagues. The hypothesis is supported by the
finding that teacher’s use less active strategies to solve the problematic situations
within their teacher community. This also suggests that though teachers do recognize
the importance of collegial support for their pedagogical well-being, they do not gener-
ally consider themselves to be active professional agents in constructing pedagogical
well-being in the context of the teacher community (see also Pyhältö, Pietarinen, Soini,
& Huusko, 2008).
Our results seem to say that teachers do not typically perceive themselves as active
collaborative learners within the teacher community. This may be caused by a lack of
skills related to relational aspects of professional agency, such as offering and receiving
peer feedback. Then again, the somewhat passive role of the teacher community in the
generation of pedagogical well-being could also result from features of the school
culture that do not facilitate collaboration in facing challenging pedagogical matters.
However, it must also be kept in mind that the variety of strategies reported by the teach-
ers across primary contexts indicates a strong context dependency for the assumed strat-
egy. These contexts in which pedagogical well-being is being generated may also offer
various possibilities for action and for developing a sense of agency among teachers.

4.2. Implications on school development

In our analysis, we focused on elaborating the successful strategies of teachers and
hence took the positive resource approach to teachers’ occupational well-being and
the school development work. We argue that this is a relevant approach, since in
school reforms teachers may appear to be obstacles to the development, when in fact,
they are and should be the main resource. Development and reforms should take the
core of teachers’ work, with interaction with pupils as a starting point. The signifi-
cance of the teacher–pupil interaction may provide new insights into both developing
the school and education and supporting teachers’ pedagogical well-being at work.
From this perspective, for example, collaborative investment in developing teacher–
pupil interactions within the school community should not only be about developing
learning environments for pupils, but it should also include ways to promote teachers’
pedagogical well-being. According to our results this means finding varying, active,
and many-sided ways to deal with challenges at hand. And this, in turn, requires more
support for teachers’ learning in work.
In terms of developing school communities as learning environments for teachers,
more engaging and more empowering conditions for pedagogical work in schools
should be created. For example, teachers should be encouraged to analyze and concep-
tualize challenging situations instead of just trying to solve them. This could provide
them with more elaborated view on the problem, help them to ask right questions and
consequently support their self-efficacy in work. The results suggest that there lies an
unutilized resource of development in teachers’ collaborative strategies of analyzing
their work. It could be argued that more analytic strategies incorporated with the
possibility and ability to use the social resources of the school environment can also
protect teachers from experiencing burden and stress. One example would be that
teachers may benefit from reflecting together on the strategies they adopt, and on how
and why the strategies vary in different sub-contexts within the school community.
Moreover, to promote teachers’ experienced empowerment and satisfaction in their
work, their sense of active agency outside their own classes and subjects should also
be facilitated.
748 T. Soini et al.

In summary, we argue that the concept of pedagogical well-being offers a tool for
reflecting on teachers’ occupational well-being by emphasizing the pedagogical core of
teachers’ work, the entwined relationship between learning and well-being, and the
resources teachers have and can use in solving challenging situations in their work.
Moreover, it appears that the primary context of teachers’ pedagogical well-being
provides challenges, but it also provides a positive resource for generating teachers’
empowerment and work drive. This is, however, dependent on whether the concept of
teachers as a community of learners and the school as a learning environment for teach-
ers as well as students is seriously considered as a premise for school development.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Annabel Battersby-Järvinen for the language revision. We also wish to thank
the Finnish Ministry of Education and Finnish Work Environment Fund for funding the
research project Learning and Development in Comprehensive School.

References
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery: How people manage stress and stay well.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social
Science Medicine, 36, 725–734.
Bakkenes, I., De Barbander, C.J., & Imants, J. (1999). Teacher isolation and communication
network analysis in primary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 166–203.
Betoret, F.D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary
school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 519–539.
Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 149–167.
Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, J.M.M. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of student learning and own
learning. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 10(1), 78–98.
Bowen, G.L., Richman, J.M., Brewster, A., & Bowen, N. (1998). Sense of school coherence,
perceptions of danger at school, and teacher support among youth at risk of school failure.
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 15, 273–286.
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating
complex interventions in classroom setting. Journal of the learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students’
perceptions of instructional practices and students’ help seeking and cheating. Learning
and Instruction, 18(5), 453–467.
Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: A solitary or
collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(1), 81–101.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and method-
ological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
De Corte, E. (2000, November). High-powered learning communities: A European perspec-
tive. Keynote address presented at the first conference of the Economic and Social
Research Council’s Research Programme on Teaching and Learning, Leicester.
Forsyth, P.B., Barnes, L.L.B., & Adams, C.M. (2006). Trust-effectiveness patterns in schools.
Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 122–141.
Fullan, M. (1995). The school as learning organization: Distant dreams. Theory into Practice,
34(4), 230–235.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi
Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744–752.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 749

Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for behaviour
in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 337–353.
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2005). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513.
Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked
expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Oxford: Elsevier.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D.W. (Eds.). (1998). International
handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Hoekstra, A., Beijaard D., Brekelmans, M., & Korthagen, F. (2007). Experienced teachers’
informal learning from classroom teaching. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,
13(2), 189–206.
Hofman, R.H., Hofman, A., & Guldemond, H. (2001). Social context effects on pupils’
perception of school. Learning and Instruction, 11(3), 171–194.
Hoy, A.W., Hoy, W.K., & Kurz, N.M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development
and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 821–835.
Konu, A.I., Lintonen, T.P., & Autio, V.J. (2002). Evaluation of well-being in schools – A
multilevel analysis of general subjective well-being. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 13, 187–200.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational
orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 381–395.
Kristersson, P., & Öhlund, L.S. (2005). Swedish upper secondary school pupils’ sense of
coherence, coping resources and aggressiveness in relation to educational track and
performance. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science, 19, 77–84.
Lahelma, E. (2002). School is for meeting friends: Secondary school as lived and remem-
bered. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3), 367–381.
Lazarus, R.S., & Lazarus, B.N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Masten, A.S., & Reed, M.-G.J. (2005). Resilience in development. In C.R. Snyder &
S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Meriläinen, M., & Pietarinen J. (2007). Stress as a barrier to professional development. In
J. Löwstedt, P. Larsson, S. Karsten, & R. Van Dick (Eds.), From intensified work to
professional development (pp. 111–128). Berlin: P.I.E. Peter Lang.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrison, I., & Clift, S.M. (2005). Mental health promotion through supported further educa-
tion: The value of Antonovsky’s salutogenic model of health. Health Education, 106,
365–380.
Orton, J.D., & Weick, K.E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.
Pallant, J.F., & Lae, L. (2002). Sense of coherence, well-being, coping and personality
factors: Further evaluation of the sense of coherence scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 33, 39–48.
Pelletier, L.G., Legault, L., & Séguin-Lévesque, C. (2002). Pressure from above and from
below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviours. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 94, 186–196.
Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., Huusko, J., & Soini, T. (2005, December). Towards undivided
basic education: Reflections on Finnish school system in change. Paper presented at Inter-
learn – Multidisciplinary Approaches to Learning Conference (Academy of Finland, Life
as Learning), Helsinki.
Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Huusko, J. (2008). Luokan-, aineen- ja erityisopettajat
yhtenäisen perusopetuksen rakentajina [Class-, subject- and special teachers as construc-
tors of the undivided basic education]. Kasvatus, 39(3), 218–234.
Retelsdorf, J., Butler, R., Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2010). Teachers’ goal orientations for
teaching: Associations with instructional practices, interest in teaching, and burnout.
Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 30–46.
Rudow, B. (1999). Stress and burnout in the teaching profession: European studies, issues and
research perspectives. In R. Vandenberghe & M.A. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding
750 T. Soini et al.

and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice

(pp. 38–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2001). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
Ryan, A.M., Gheen, M.H., & Midgley. C. (1998). Why do some students avoid asking for
help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’
social–emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 90(3), 528–535.
Salomon, G. (1996). Unorthodox thoughts on the nature and mission of contemporary
educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 397–417.
Sarasom, S.B. (1991). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Savolainen, A. (2001). Koulu työpaikkana. Työolojen itsearviointi ja kehittämistarpeet
oppilaiden ja henkilöstön näkökulmasta [School as a work place: Pupils’ and personel’s
perspectives] (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere). Acta Universitatis Tamper-
ensis 830.
Schweinle, A., Turner, J.C., & Meyer, D.K. (2008). Understanding young adolescents’
optimal experiences in academic settings. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(2),
125–143.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
Sheldon, K.M., & King, L. (2001). Why positive psychology is necessary. American
Psychologist, 56(3), 216–217.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Schools as learning organisations: The case for system,
teacher and student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 425–446.
Sleegers, P., van den Berg, R., & Geisel, F. (2000). Building innovative schools: The need for
new approaches. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 801–808.
Stevens, R.J. (2004). Why do educational innovations come and go? What do we know? What
can we do? Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 389–396.
Tarter, C.J., & Hoy, W.K. (2004). A systems approach to quality in elementary schools: A
theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 539–554.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torsheim, T., Aarø, L.E., & Wold, B. (2001). Sense of coherence and school-related stress as
predictors of subjective health complaints in early adolescence: Interactive, indirect or
direct relationships. Social Science and Medicine, 53, 603–614.
Tyrack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Van Houtte, M. (2006). Tracking and teacher satisfaction: Role of study culture and trust.
Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 247–254.
Van Petegem, K., Aelterman, A., Rosseel, Y., & Creemers, B. (2006). Student perception as
moderator for student wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 83, 447–463.
Weick, K.E. (1979). Social psychology of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Westergård, E. (2007). Do teachers recognise complaints from parents, and if not, why not?
Evaluation and Research in Education, 20(3), 159–178.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zapf, D. (2002). Emotional and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some
conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237–268.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice
Appendix. Teacher’s Professional Landscape Inventory (TPLI) in the context
of school development
Biographical information and professional orientation:
1.1 Describe your educational background and working history.
1.2 Do you have any special assignments or duties as a teacher? How do these duties
affect your work?
1.3 What made you want to become a teacher?
Theme 1. Developing teaching profession
(1) What is the core of your work as a
teacher? Why?
(2) Describe your strengths as a teacher;
what do you do well or are good at in
your work in school’s everyday life?
(3) Have your perceptions about teachers’
work changed during your professional
career? Describe the changes.
(4) When you think of your career can you
describe a situation that has strongly
affected on your thoughts about your
work or some work-related matter? What
happened? Why? What did you think and
how did you feel in this situation?
(5) Are there work-related challenges, ques-
tions, or things that bother you at this
moment? What kind of challenges are
these and why are these significant?
(6) Do you get support in your work at the
moment? How are you supported? What
is the support like? Would you need
more support for your work?
(7) How do you perceive your work in the
future – in five years time?
(8) In your opinion, what direction is the Finn-
ish comprehensive school developing?
(9) In what way, if any, has the development
of undivided basic education affected
your work?
(10) Do you think that it (UBE) should
have an effect on your work? In what
way?
Theme 2. Developing school community
(1) What kind of a working environment is
this school? Do you like to work here?
(2) How would you describe the teacher
community in this school?
(3) Has this school changed during your
professional career in this school? How?
What things or circumstances have
contributed the change?
751
(4) How does this school change and develop?
How are plans made and things decided?
What things are discussed in the teachers’
room? Is there collaboration? Can you
disagree with your collegues? etc.
(5) How do you think your school should be
developed in the future?
(6) How should the development in school be
carried out (implemented)? What kind of
instruments should be used?
(7) Has the development of undivided basic
education effected (positively or nega-
tively) on school’s everyday life? How?
(8) What have been the critical phases in devel-
oping undivided basic education? Why?
(9) Which things or circumstances have
promoted your school development?
Which things have challenged your
school development?
(10) How you would describe your school
from the pupils’ perspective?
(11) How would you define a pupil’s role in
your school?
(12) When you imagine pupils recalling their
school memories, what would you hope
for them to remember from this school?
(13) In your opinion what should pupils be
able to master when they graduate from
this school?
(14) Could you describe the case/an example
of a successful interaction situation
between teacher(s) and pupils? What
happened? What makes these kind of
situations possible?
(15) Teacher faces many challenging/prob-
lematic situations in his/her work. Please,
describe some typical situations and
describe how you are trying to solve these
situations.
(16) What does the latest school reform,
developing undivided basic education,
mean to you?
(17) How do you perceive your own role
to promote pupils’ learning and develop-
ment?