Corrigendum: Patterns of Teachers’ Occupational Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Relations to Experiences of Exhaustion, Recovery, and Interactional Styles of Teaching

A corrigendum on
Patterns of Teachers’ Occupational Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Relations to Experiences of Exhaustion, Recovery, and Interactional Styles of Teaching

by Pöysä, S., Pakarinen, E., and Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2021). Front. Educ. 6:699785. doi: feduc.2021.699785

In the original article, there was a mistake concerning the expressed norm values of the UWES measure. The original norm values are drawn with scale 0–6 whereas our study has used the same measure with scale 1–7. While this unfortunate misinterpretation does not jeopardize the integrity of the study in general, we do find it reasonable to request a possibility to make the corrections to the published article.

The corrections have been made into three places:

1) The last sentence of chapter Work Engagement (under Measures):

Based on norm scores drawn across occupations (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), vigor is considered high when the average value for the dimension is between 5.81 and 6.65, and dedication is considered high when the average value for the dimension is between 5.71 and 6.69.

2) The second sentence of Descriptive Statistics (under Results)

In addition, based on norm scores drawn across occupations (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), teachers reported, on average, high and average levels of work engagement.

3) The first three sentences in the fifth paragraph of the Discussion

Interestingly, the present findings also indicated that during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the teachers reported of being, on average, relatively highly engaged with their work. Based on the norm scores suggested for the UWES measure (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), teachers identified with highest work engagement (i.e., profile groups 3 and 4) assessed their experiences of vigor and dedication with values that can be interpreted as high. Teachers identified with mediocre work engagement (i.e., profile group 1), in turn, reported average levels of vigor and dedication, while teachers identified with lowest work engagement (i.e., profile group 2) experienced only low levels.

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Reference

Schaufeli, W., and Bakker, A. (2004). Utrecth Work Engagement Scale. Preliminary Manual. Utrecht: Utrech University. Available at: https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manual/Test_manual_UWES_English.pdf (Accessed March 30, 2021).

Google Scholar