דוקטורט באנגלית: מודל ניהולי להתמודדות עם שחיקה של מורים במגזר הערבי בישראל. A management model of coping with the teacher burnout phenomenon within the Israeli Arab sector. כולל שאלונים

    מודל ניהולי להתמודדות עם שחיקה של מורים במגזר הערבי בישראל A management model of coping with the teacher burnout phenomenon within the Israeli Arab sector                                 Abstract Today’s teachers deal with a substantial amount of psychological stress laid by superior, pupils, and parents alike. All these confront him or her with the constant need to make decisions and to choose between needs and wells on the one hand and rational and norms on the other, which often seem to contradict each other and clash with the constraints of reality.
The connecting link between environmental pressure and adaptation of the individual is that of coping (Monat & Lazarus, 1977). Coping represents the ways in which individuals manage environmental demands in their lives, cognitively as well as behaviorally. Differences in how people cope with occupational stress affect the outcomes of that stress (Mearns & Cain, 2003).  A certain level of professional pressures is acceptable as part of the demands of daily working of almost every profession. However, the failure to cope with ongoing working pressures can bring burnout, a harmful phenomenon, during which expression at work decreases and general mental and physical fatigue develops.
This phenomenon, standing out especially in the teaching profession, encompasses negative ramification for society, for the teacher and for students. The negative results of the phenomenon of burnout increased the awareness to it, and encouraged, especially during the last years, the search for different solutions, which would prevent it or would moderate its influences.
The current study will focus on three central factors connected to the prevention of burnout: team instruction, social support and staff unity. These three variables will be discussed in length in the next section. Considering those three factors, I have formulated the following three hypothesis:
1.      The more helpful and supportive the teachers at school perceive the instruction, their level of burnout will be lower and their level of organizational commitment will be higher.
2.      The more supportive the teachers perceive the staff, their level of burnout will be lower and their level of organizational commitment will be higher.
3.      The more cohesive the teachers at school perceive the staff, their level of burnout will be lower and their level of organizational commitment will be higher.
Table of Contents Abstract 2
Literary review.. 3
Methodology. 8
Results. 11
Discussion. 13
Conclusions and recommendations. 15
1 .
Introduction. 22
2 .  The Arab education system in Israel from the point of view of the Arab minority. 23
2 .1.  The Arab education system in Israel, and the organizational      structure. 23
2 .1.1.  The organizational structure. 28
3 .
The phenomenon of teachers’ Burnout 33
3 .1. definition of burnout 33
3 .1.1.
Burnout – definition, syndrome and components. 36
3 .2. Teachers’ burnout 39
3 .3. Burnout- a concept in itself. 40
3 .4. The causes of burnout 41
3 .4.1.
Burnout factors deriving from the individual 41
3 .4.2.
Burnout factors deriving from the type of work profession. 43
3 .4.3.
Factors deriving from the climate at school 44
3 .5. Stress and burnout 51
3 .5.1.
What is stress?. 60
3 .5.2.
The causes of stress. 65
3 .5.3.
The causes of pressure. 66
3 .6. Introduction to models of stress. 69
3 .7. Coping with stressful situations. 71
4 .
Models for coping with teachers’ burnout 76
4 .1. Coping with burnout 76
4 .2. Instruction, burnout and organizational commitment and social support 82
4 .3. Team cohesiveness. 85
4 .4. Conclusions. 88
5.
The research methodology. 90 5.2. Participants. 90 5.3. The research Apparatuses. 92
5.4.  Procedure. 95
6 .
Results. 96
6 .1. Findings. 96
6 .2. Test of the research hypotheses. 101
6 .2.1.
The contribution of the different variables to burnout and to organizational commitment 102
6 .3. Further analyses. 105
7.
Discussion of the results. 111
7.1. Questionnaire results – general 112
7.2. Staff instruction. 114
7.3. Colleagues’ support 116
7.4. Staff cohesiveness. 117
7.5. Instruction, support and staff cohesiveness as predictors of burnout and organizational commitment 119
8 .
Conclusions and recommendations. 122
8 .1. The study’s Limitations. 1
5
8 .2. Future research directions. 127
8 .3. Implications and practical conclusions. 128
8 .4. Conclusions. 130 9.
Appendices. 152
Appendix 1 – Burnout questionnaire. 152
Appendix 2 – Social support questionnaire. 153
Appendix 3 – Organizational commitment questionnaire. 154
Appendix 4 – Instruction questionnaire. 155
Appendix 5 – Staff cohesiveness questionnaire. 156
Appendix 6 – Teachers’ stress questionnaire. 157
Appendix 7 – Questionnaire of nuisances in daily life. 159
Appendix 8 – Demographic questionnaire. 160 List of tables and diagrams Table 1 – Teachers’ Educational Background .. 94
Table 2 – Subjects’ Family Status – 94
Table 3 – Reception of Regular Instruction From a Member of the School Staff-.. 95
Table 4 – Frequency of Instruction of Teachers Receiving Regular Instruction– 95
Table 5 – Results of the Burnout Questionnaire –… 99
Table 6 – Results of Social Support questionnaire -.. 100 Table 7 – Results of the Organizational commitment questionnaire — 100 Table 8 – Results of the Instruction Questionnaire -.. 101
Table 9 – Results of the Staff Cohesiveness Questionnaire — 101
Table 10 – Teachers’ stress questionnaire -. 102
Table 11 – Nuisances in Daily Life Questionnaire -.. 103
Table 12 – Pearson correlations for the perception of staff cohesiveness and the level of burnout and the level of commitment .. 105
Table 13 – Standardized Regression Coefficients for an Explanation of the Variance of Burnout   106
Table 14 – Standardized Regression coefficients for an Explanation of the Variance of Organizational Commitment – 107
Table 15 – Averages, Standard Deviations and t Values of the Various Measures by Reception of Instruction –. 108
Table 16 – Averages, Standard Deviations and t Values of the Various Measures by Gender          110 Table 17 – Averages, Standard Deviations and t Values of the Different measures by teachers’ Specialization –. 111
Table 18 – Pearson Correlations of Age and Seniority . 113
Diagram 1 – Averages of the Research Variables by Reception of Instruction–. 89
Diagram 2 – Averages of the Research Variables by Reception of Instruction and Teachers’ Specialization –… 92