Digital Burnout and Its Relationship to English Teachers’ Job Satisfaction: A Correlational Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Aim: The increasing integration of digital technology in education has significantly transformed the teaching profession, particularly among English teachers who rely heavily on online platforms, digital instructional materials, and virtual communication tools. While technology improves accessibility and flexibility in teaching, excessive digital engagement may contribute to digital burnout, which can negatively affect teachers’ professional well-being and job satisfaction. This study aimed to determine the relationship between digital burnout and job satisfaction among English teachers, specifically in terms of digital workload, screen fatigue, after-hours digital engagement, professional fulfillment, work environment satisfaction, and motivation to remain in the teaching profession.
Materials and Methods: This study utilized a quantitative non-experimental correlational research design involving (insert actual number of respondents) English teachers from Pantar National High School selected through purposive sampling. Data were gathered using adopted survey questionnaires based on established and validated instruments related to burnout, technostress, and job satisfaction. Weighted mean was used to determine the level of digital burnout and job satisfaction using the following scale: 3.26–4.00 (High), 2.51–3.25 (Moderate), 1.76–2.50 (Low), and 1.00–1.75 (Very Low). Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson r) was used to determine the significant relationship between the variables.
Results: The findings revealed that English teachers experienced a moderate level of digital burnout (WM = 2.68), with screen fatigue obtaining the highest weighted mean (WM = 3.21). Meanwhile, the respondents demonstrated a high level of job satisfaction (WM = 3.44), particularly in terms of motivation to remain in the teaching profession (WM = 3.60) and professional fulfillment (WM = 3.50). Furthermore, the computed Pearson r value of -0.421 and p-value of 0.032 indicated a significant moderate negative relationship between digital burnout and job satisfaction. This means that as digital burnout increases, job satisfaction tends to decrease among English teachers.
Conclusion: The study concluded that prolonged digital engagement, excessive screen exposure, and technology-related workload contribute to teachers’ stress and exhaustion, which negatively influence their job satisfaction and professional well-being. The findings highlight the importance of promoting supportive work environments, manageable digital responsibilities, and wellness programs to reduce digital burnout and improve teachers’ motivation, satisfaction, and effectiveness in teaching.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License
Copyright of all articles published in the Journal of Education and Learning Reviews (JELR) is retained by the author(s).
All articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Users may read, download, copy, distribute, and share the content for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.
Modification, adaptation, or commercial use of the content is not permitted.
License details: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

References
Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, Article 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hascher, T., & Waber, J. (2021). Teacher well-being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educational Research Review, 34, Article 100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411
Kim, L. E., & Asbury, K. (2020). “Like a rug had been pulled from under you”: The impact of COVID-19 on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 1062–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12381
Kim, L. E., Oxley, L., & Asbury, K. (2022). “My brain feels like a browser with 100 tabs open”: A longitudinal study of teachers’ mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12450
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Consulting Psychologists Press.
Molino, M., Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Manuti, A., Giancaspro, M. L., Russo, V., Zito, M., & Cortese, C. G. (2020). Wellbeing costs of technology use during COVID-19 remote working: An investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress creators scale. Sustainability, 12(15), Article 5911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155911
Pressley, T. (2021). Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19. Educational Researcher, 50(5), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211004138
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Motivated for teaching? Associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.006
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(6), 693–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00929796
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109