Application of Importance and Performance Analysis to
teacher competencies for the identification of training
priorities

Aplicación de un análisis de importancia y realización
de competencias para la identificación de prioridades en la formación docente

DOI: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2021-393-487

Miryam Martínez-Izaguirre

Concepción Yániz-Álvarez-de-Eulate

Lourdes Villardón-Gallego

Universidad de Deusto

Abstract

Quality education for all requires competent teachers. An analysis of the functions that teachers must perform leads to a profile of teaching competences. By ascertaining teachers’ perception of the importance of these competencies, and how well they are actually achieved in practice, we can identify strengths and areas for improvement, to be considered in the design of in-service teacher training.

In order to accomplish this objective, this study analyses the view of 559 teachers of Primary and Compulsory Secondary Education, through the self-application of a teaching competencies assessment scale for compulsory education teachers (Martínez-Izaguirre, Yániz-Alvarez-de-Eulate & Villardón-Gallego, 2018).

The results show that teachers recognize the importance of the teacher profile competencies, especially primary school teachers, who also apply them to a greater extent than do secondary school teachers. Analysis of the discrepancy between the importance and the implementation of the competencies shows that development of the Competency in Learning, research and innovation, followed by the Competency in Instruction Planning and Management and the Competency in Guidance are the priority areas to be considered in training.

Key words: teacher competencies, professional development, self-assessment, importance-performance analysis, teacher education.

Resumen

Una educación de calidad para todas y todos requiere un profesorado competente. Un análisis de las funciones que tienen que desarrollar deriva en un perfil de competencias docentes. Conocer la percepción del profesorado sobre la relevancia de dichas competencias y sobre su nivel de realización en la práctica permite identificar puntos fuertes y áreas de mejora, a considerar en la planificación de la formación permanente del profesorado.

Con el fin de lograr este objetivo, en este estudio se analiza la visión de 559 profesores de Educación Primaria y Educación Secundaria Obligatoria, a través de la auto-aplicación de la Escala de evaluación de Competencias Docentes del Profesorado de Educación Obligatoria (Martínez-Izaguirre, Yániz-Alvarez-de-Eulate y Villardón-Gallego, 2018).

Los resultados muestran que el profesorado reconoce la importancia de las competencias del perfil docente, sobre todo en el profesorado de Educación Primaria, quien, a su vez, las aplica en mayor medida que el profesorado de Educación Secundaria. El análisis de la discrepancia entre la importancia y la realización de las competencias refleja como áreas prioritarias a considerar en la formación el desarrollo de la Competencia para el Aprendizaje y para la Investigación y la Innovación, seguida de la Competencia para la Planificación y Gestión educativa y de la Competencia para la Tutoría y la Orientación.

Palabras clave: competencias docentes, desarrollo profesional, autoevaluación, análisis importancia-realización, formación docente.

Introduction

Many studies emphasize the importance of the teacher in inclusive, quality education (Darling-Hammond, 2008; Fullan, 2002; Imbernón, 2020; Rodríguez-Gómez, Armengol & Meneses, 2017). Competent teachers are fundamental (Imbernón, 2020); this points to the importance of effective, evidence-based teacher training (Goldhaber, 2018).

Considering the functions that teachers are to fulfill, Martínez-Izaguirre, Yániz-Álvarez de Eulate and Villardón-Gallego (2017) identified two types of teaching competencies: key competencies, pertaining to the task of teaching; and generic-transversal competencies, which contribute to the attainment of educational purposes. The key competencies are: a) Instruction planning and management; b) Curriculum management and implementation; c) Educational assessment; d) Guidance. The generic-transversal competencies are: e) Learning, research and innovation; f) Ethics and professional commitment; g) Teaching coordination and teamwork with the educational community; h) Emotional management and building environments of trust; i) Communication with the educational community.

Traditionally, the preparation of teachers has focused on their execution of the typical functions of the profession (Van Der Schaaf, Slof, Boven & De Jong, 2019), so we expect teachers to be more knowledgeable and qualified in these key competencies. The generic-transversal competencies, however, were more recently incorporated in the teacher profile (Iranzo-García et al., 2020), and in teacher training (Amor Almedina & Serrano Rodríguez, 2018; Imbernón, 2020). For this reason, they may not be as highly valued or implemented by teachers (Maaranen, & Stenberg, 2020). Even if teachers do recognize their importance, they may not feel well prepared to apply these competencies (Stenberg & Maaranen, 2020).

Teacher training must adapt to the real needs of the teaching profession and ensure that all competencies are sufficiently developed, so that future teachers are able to effectively practice their profession (Imbernón, 2020; Zabalza, 2006).

The strategies of reflection and self-assessment of teachers’ experiences and needs seem to be effective for learning how well they match the competency profile that is needed in today’s educational context (Körkkö, Kotilainen, Toljamo & Turunen, 2020; Martínez-Izaguire et ál., 2018). From this understanding, training can be designed that focuses on the development of teaching competencies.

By evaluating the level of importance that teachers assign to each of the teaching competencies, and their perceived level of application in educational practice (Granjo, Castro Silva & Peixoto, 2021; Maaranen & Stenberg, 2020), we are able to analyze the actual effectiveness of training programs that lead to professional teaching positions (Körkkö et ál., 2020). We also gain information on aspects where help may be needed for facing the educational challenges of classroom practice.

In this regard, the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) technique, designed by Marilla and James in 1977, can show us the relationship between the importance that teachers assign to teaching competencies, and their perceived level of application in practice, that is, their self-efficacy. The technique offers a graphic representation of the results, facilitating the identification of areas for improvement in practice, making it an effective tool for educational improvement (Kitcharoen, 2004). It reveals not only the competencies with highest developmental priority, due to their high importance and low application, but also certain competencies where the existing effort should be maintained, as well as competencies where the existing effort is greater than what is actually needed. In this way, by placing the teaching competencies into different quadrants (See Figure 1), we can identify the training needs of teachers.

FIGURE I. Visual representation of Importance-Performance Analysis.

Source: Taken from Martilla and James (1977).

The coordinate axes enable us to place study variables in four quadrants, according to participants’ scores:

■ “Concentrate Here”: There is a mismatch between the importance assigned to the objectives and the effort applied for meeting them. Greater investment of effort and resources is required.

■ “Keep up the good work”: There is a balance between importance and performance. This quadrant justifies maintaining the effort and resources that are applied.

■ “Low Priority”: Here we find objectives that are not considered important, and consequently, low effort is applied.

■ “Possible Overkill”: Excessive effort is being applied to these objectives, in comparison to the low importance they are assigned. It would be advisable to reduce efforts and resources dedicated to these aspects, that they might be invested in other objectives, for example, those found in the “Concentrate Here” quadrant.

Several different methods of information analysis have grown out of this model (Ábalo, Varela & Rial, 2006; Huan & Beaman, 2005). When scores fall in mid-range values, variables tend to concentrate in the “keep up the good work” quandrant, making it hard to reach any conclusions about improving. To compensate for this, diagonal models (Ábalo et ál., 2006) have proposed placing the axis intersection at the mean value obtained from all the importance and performance scores.

Sethna (1982) and Novatorov (1992), for their part, stress analyzing the discrepancy between importance and performance of an objective. Similarly, Expectation Disconfirmation theory focuses on the mismatch between expectations regarding an objective and its reality (Ábalo et ál., 2006). According to this approach, the greater the importance assigned to a given objective and the lower its level of achievement, the greater the need for prompt action. To get a better perception of the distance between what is desired and reality, they propose a combined representation, using the quadrants and the diagonal from the diagonal models. The greater the distance between these, the greater the need to apply effort. The combined representation is also shown graphically (see Figure II).

FIGURE II. Visual representation of Importance-Performance Analysis combined with “diagonal models”.

Source: Taken from Ábalo et ál. (2006).

Method

Objective

Considering the need for training to be based on the development of teacher profile competencies, the aim of this study was to ascertain through self-assessments the importance that primary and secondary teachers give to the key and transversal competencies, and their consideration of how well these competencies are applied in their own practice. Contrasting the importance they assign with their perceived performance in these competencies will identify priority areas for improvement, to be taken into account in the design of training.

Participants

Of the total 439 schools in Bizkaia, 44 (10%) participated in this study. School selection was based on ease of access, maintaining population proportions in terms of school type (charter/public) and stage of education. There were 27 schools of primary education (17 public and 10 charter) and 17 schools of compulsory secondary education (7 public and 10 charter).

In total, the teacher sample contained 559 teachers with the following characteristics:

■ Gender: 73.7% women and 26.3% men.

■ Age: 18.8% under age 35; 40.8% from 36 to 50 years old; 40.4% from 51 to 65.

■ Stage of education: 57.5% worked in primary education, 38.9% in compulsory secondary education, and 3.6% at both levels.

■ Degree held: 45.7% held a Diplomatura (3-year undergraduate degree), 45.8% held a Grado or Licenciatura (4- or 5-year undergraduate degree), 7.9% held a master’s degree, and 0.5% held a doctorate.

■ Pre-service teacher training: 58.7% had studied an undergraduate degree in primary education; 22.9% had taken the Pedagogical Adaptation Course (short course to qualify university graduates from other fields to teach in secondary schools); 1.3% had completed a master’s in secondary education; and 11.1% had studied pedagogy or school psychology.

■ Years of teaching experience: 19.4% had less than 10 years of experience; 21.9% between 10-20 years; 35.7% between 21-30 years; and 23% betweeen 31 and 40 years.

Procedure

Schools were contacted by telephone to inform them about the study and to request their participation. Of the schools contacted, 82% agreed to collaborate in the study. In order to complete the sample, other schools were selected that would match these in stage of education and school type (charter/public).

Once approval was obtained from the school administration, we held a face-to-face meeting with the teaching staff to inform them about the study and to request their voluntary participation. The teachers from one of the schools of compulsory secondary education declined to participate.

Two modalities were proposed for data collection: hold a staff meeting where the questionnaires would be applied in one group session, or distribute the questionnaires to the teachers for them to complete and deposit into a collection box, as a means of ensuring anonymity. Most schools chose the second option.

Instrument

Participants responded to the Escala de Evaluación de Competencias Docentes del Profesorado de Educación Obligatoria [teaching competency assessment for teachers of compulsory education] (Martínez-Izaguirre et ál., 2018).

The scale comprises 65 items that correspond to key and transversal competencies identified in the teaching profile: a) Instruction planning and management; b) Curriculum management and implementation; c) Educational assessment; d) Guidance; e) Learning, research and innovation; f) Ethics and professional commitment; g) Teaching coordination and teamwork with the educational community, h) Emotional management and building environments of trust; i) Communication with the educational community.

For each item, participants were to rate its importance on a scale from 1 to 5 (from Not important at all, to Very important), for the Importance Subscale, and their frequency of performing that competency also on a scale from 1 to 5 (from Not performed at all, to Very much performed), for the Performance Subscale. The instrument showed high reliability in both the Importance Subscale (Alpha=.976) and the Performance Subscale (Alpha=.964) (Martínez-Izaguirre et ál., 2018).

Data analyses

Descriptive analyses of central tendency (mean and median) and dispersion (standard deviation) were carried out to determine the degree that teachers valued and applied the teaching competencies. Student’s t was used to analyze differences of means of teachers in primary and in secondary education. Calculations were made using SPSS version 22.

The IPA technique offers a combined analysis of the Importance and Performance subscales to observe the level of discrepancy between participants’ opinions and their actions in each of the key and transversal competences. As recommended by Ábalo et al. (2006), this study presents a combined reading of the results, based on a reading of the quadrants and the diagonals.

Results

Next, the results are presented in the following organization: relevance attributed to the teacher profile competencies, level of their application in educational practice, level of discrepancy between the levels of importance assigned and perceived application, and differences in the importance and performance according to the stage of education where the teacher carries out their work.

Relevance of the teacher profile competencies

The teachers acknowledged the importance of the teaching competencies analyzed (M=4.48; SD=.46), where the lowest rating assigned to any competency was a mean score of 4.30 (see Table I).

The competency considered to be most important was Ethics and Professional Commitment. This was immediately followed by Emotional management and building environments of trust, along with Guidance. The competencies with the lowest ratings were Instruction planning and management and Educational Assessment, despite that fact that these two competencies have the longest tradition in the teacher profile. In all competencies, the value of the median is above the mean, but near to it.

TABLE I. Teacher profile competencies in order of the importance attributed to them.

Teaching competencies ordered by importance	Mean	Standard Deviation	Median
Ethics and Professional Commitment	4.61	.40	4.75
Emotional management and building environments of trust	4.58	.44	4.67
Guidance	4.53	.47	4.63
Curriculum management and implementation	4.50	.43	4.62
Teaching coordination and teamwork with the community	4.49	.51	4.67
Learning, research and innovation	4.43	.48	4.50
Educational assessment	4.41	.49	4.50
Instruction planning and management	4.30	.53	4.40
TOTAL	4.48	.46	4.59

Source: prepared by the authors

Performance of the teaching competencies

0The mean for overall performance in teacher profile competencies was 3.88. Although the perceived level of teacher performance is acceptable, differences can be observed between competencies. The competency in Ethics and professional commitment was considered the most fully performed, while Instruction planning and management was applied the least, followed by the competency in Learning, research and innovation. The median in most competencies had values similar to the mean.

TABLE II. Teaching competencies in order by performance

Teaching competencies	Mean	Standard Deviation	Median
Ethics and professional commitment	4.27	.52	3.38
Teaching coordination and teamwork with the community	3.98	.60	4.00
Emotional management and building environments of trust	3.93	.54	4.00
Curriculum management and implementation	3.86	.54	3.86
Educational assessment	3.84	.57	3.88
Guidance	3.84	.66	3.88
Learning, research and innovation	3.70	.57	3.70
Instruction planning and management	3.60	.63	3.60
TOTAL	3.88	.57	3.78

Source: prepared by the authors

Discrepancy between importance and performance of the proposed teacher profile

Taking into account the mean level of acceptance of the teacher profile and the level of profile performance, the overall degree of discrepancy is 0.60. Discrepancy levels between importance and performance for each competency are shown in Table III. Appendix I contains the descriptive statistics of importance and performance for each item of the competencies.

TABLE III. Teaching competencies in order by discrepancy between level of importance and level of performance

Teaching competencies	Level of discrepancy
Learning, research and innovation (C5)	0.73
Instruction planning and management (C1)	0.70
Guidance (C4)	0.68
Emotional management and building environments of trust (C8)	0.65
Curriculum management and implementation (C2)	0.64
Educational assessment (C3)	0.57
Teaching coordination and teamwork with the community (C7)	0.51
Ethics and professional commitment (C6)	0.34
TOTAL	0.60

Source: prepared by the authors

The competencies that show the greatest discrepancy between the importance attributed to them and their level of execution are Learning, research and innovation (Difference=0.73), Instruction planning and management (Difference=0.70), and Guidance (Difference=0.68), while Ethics and Professional Commitment presented the least discrepancy (Difference=0.34).

Placement of the teaching competencies into the different IPA quadrants is shown below (Chart I).

CHART I. Priority of teaching competencies to be addressed, according to their placement on the Importance-Performance axes.

C1: Competency in Instruction planning and management

C2: Competency in Curriculum management and implementation

C3: Competency in Educational assessment

C4: Competency in Guidance

C5: Competency in Learning, research and educational innovation

C6: Competency in Ethics and professional commitment

C7: Competency in Teaching coordination and teamwork

C8: Competency in Emotional management and building environments of trust

Source: prepared by the authors, adapted from Ábalo et ál., 2006

If diagonal models are applied, all competencies fall in the “Concentrate Here” quadrant. The same situation is found using the classic interpretation of the quadrants, with the exception of Ethics and Professional Commitment (C6), which falls in the “Keep up the good work” quadrant. Even though all the competencies need further work, it is important to make a detailed analysis to differentiate which have the greatest priority.

To this end, the axes have been positioned to cross at their mean scores (Importance = 4.48; Performance = 3.88). We can now observe that the Low Priority quadrant, previously vacant, is now occupied by the competencies of Instruction planning and management (C1), Educational assessment (C3) and Learning, research and innovation (C5), being less valued and less implemented. In the “Keep up the good work” quadrant, where there is a balance between importance and performance, we find the following competencies: Ethics and professional commitment (C6), Teaching coordination and teamwork with the community (C7) and Emotional management and building environments of trust (C8). Finally, in the “Concentrate Here” quadrant, we find Curriculum management and implementation (C2) and Guidance (C4), indicating that teachers consider their performance to be much lower than the importance of these competencies and, consequently, they need to be worked on.

According to scores obtained, no competency falls into the “Possible Overkill” quadrant, that is, where performance level exceeds level of importance.

Importance and application of the teaching competencies, by stage of education

The level of importance assigned to the competencies differs according to the teacher’s stage of education (p=<.05), with primary education teachers assigning higher importance to the competencies (Table IV).

TABLE IV. Comparison of means according to stage of education

			IMPORTANCE SCALE			PERFORMANCE SCALE
Competency	Stage	N	Mean	t	Significance	Mean	t	Significance
Instruction planning and management	Primary	321	4.3745	3.841	.000*	3.6703	3.302	.001*
	Secondary	217	4.1866			3.4894
Curriculum management and implementation	Primary	321	4.5642	4.069	.000*	3.9421	4.964	.000*
	Secondary	217	4,4064			3.7216
Educational assessment	Primary	321	4.4620	3.183	.002*	3.8905	2.276	.023*
	Secondary	217	4.3195			3.7761
Guidance	Primary	321	4.6135	4.883	.000*	3.9854	5.597	.000*
	Secondary	217	4.4051			3.6692
Learning, research and innovation	Primary	320	4.4749	2.583	.010*	3.7511	2.670	.008*
	Secondary	217	4.3616			3.6167
Ethics and professional commitment	Primary	321	4.6501	2.841	.005*	4.3134	1.896	.058
	Secondary	217	4.5450			4.2264
Teaching coordination and teamwork with the community	Primary	321	4.5472	3.201	.001*	4.0432	3.426	.001*
	Secondary	217	4.4005			3.8649
Emotional management and building environments of trust	Primary	321	4.6107	2.369	.018*	3.9554	1.385	.167
	Secondary	217	4.5174			3.8865

Source: prepared by the authors

* significant values p <.05

There are also significant differences between primary and secondary education teachers in their performance level in the following competencies, where the primary education teachers produced higher scores: competency in Instruction planning and management, competency in Curriculum management and implementation, competency in Educational assessment, Competency in Guidance, competency in Learning, research and innovation, competency in Teaching coordination and teamwork with the educational community.

No significant differences were found in the implementation of Ethics and Professional Commitment or in Emotional management and building environments of trust.

Discussion

The aim of the study was to learn teachers’ opinion about the teacher profile and their level of perceived attainment. The results indicate a consensus among the participants regarding the relevance of the teacher profile competencies for addressing present-day educational needs (Martínez-Izaguirre et al., 2017).

Particularly noteworthy is the importance given to transversal competencies like Ethics and professional commitment, and Emotional management, above certain key competencies for teaching practice, like Instruction planning and management, and Educational assessment. However, the key competencies of Curriculum implementation and Guidance were considered highly important.

This result seems to indicate that teachers have accepted the need for generic-transversal competencies to adequately perform their teaching functions (Morales & Cabrera, 2012). On one hand, Ethics and professional commitment is related to professional practice that promotes quality education for all, that is, inclusive education (Granjo et ál., 2020). On the other hand, constant social changes, the advancement of technology and the diverse needs of students require changes and innovations in education, which can generate uncertainty, insecurity and stress in teachers (Gratacós, Mena, & Ciesielkiewicz, 2021), such that Emotional Management is an essential competency for facing these situations (López Goñi y Goñi, 2012; Reoyo, Carbonero & Martín, 2017).

By contrast, the lesser importance given to Educational assessment, and Instruction planning and management, may indicate that teachers oversimplify their conception of these competencies (Zabalza, 2004); or they hesitate to acknowledge higher importance because of the difficulty in addressing them (Vázquez-Cano, 2016). Competency-based assessment is a challenge for teachers due to its methodological implications; however, teachers may not be fully aware of this if they continue to carry out assessment based on content rather than performance (Villardón-Gallego, 2006).

Regarding level of performance, teachers consider that they apply the transversal competencies in greater measure than the key competencies, which are specific to teaching functions. This result could mean that teachers are more critical about their performance in specific, well-understood teaching functions, due to their familiarity and to having reflected more on their own effectiveness in these tasks (Maaranen, & Stenberg, 2020).

Only the transversal competence in Learning, research and innovation is positioned among the least applied, confirming the distance between educational practice and the innovations proposed from research, a gap that makes it difficult to improve educational processes (Álvarez, 2015). In effect, teachers do not always find answers in research to their problems of practice (Dumont, Istance & Benavides, 2010). In this regard, it is essential to bring research and teaching closer together, making teachers the agent and not the object of research (Farley-Ripple, May, Karpin, Tilley & McDonough, 2018). On the other hand, school culture or institutional inertia predispose the teacher to continue with “business as usual” (Carbonell, 2005; Edwards, Carr & Siegel, 2006; Gather, 2004).

A high percentage of participants were found to self-assess very positively, giving themselves values of 5 in the actions presented in the items, which are performance indicators of the competencies being assessed. This may be due to good job performance, with high perceived efficacy (Granjo et al., 2021), or to a low capacity for self-criticism regarding their professional practice (Gratacós et al., 2021). It might also be a defensive response, not necessarily conscious, in the face of an assessment situation that generates fear and distrust (Catalán & González, 2009).

The IPA analysis of the discrepancy between the importance that teachers assign to each competency and the level at which they apply it has made it possible to determine the areas where improvement efforts should be directed and, therefore, to draw conclusions for optimizing pre-service and in-service teacher training. In this same line, Elexpuru, Martínez, Villardón and Yániz (2006) used this technique to diagnose training needs in university professors.

Because the traditional placement of the Importance-Accomplishment axes results in all competencies being located in the same quadrant (high importance and high performance), giving minimal information for improvement, we followed the recommendations of Martilla and James (1977) and of Ábalo et al. (2006), modifying the scale of the graph and taking 3 as the starting value for the coordinate axes. Despite this modification, the competencies fall mainly in two quadrants, the “Concentrate Here” quadrant and the “Keep up the good work” quadrant. For this reason, we decided to place the origin of the axes at the overall mean scores for importance and performance (Ábalo et ál., 2006). In this way, the analysis of the distance between the two means helps us identify the competencies that need to be addressed with higher priority, and those that do not require urgent attention. The main results obtained from the discrepancy analysis place the competencies in different quadrants or areas.

In the “Concentrate Here” quadrant we find competencies that are applied at a very low level, considering their great importance. These competencies were Curriculum management and implementation and Guidance. Although teachers may adopt a competency-based educational approach at the discursive level, implementation of the curriculum requires changes in practice: increasing students’ protagonism in their own learning, encouraging collaboration and peer learning, improving the classroom climate and getting past knowledge transmission; facilitating the integration of ICT resources in the classroom, as well as meeting the diverse needs of students (OECD, 2019; 2009). To this end, it would be helpful in pre-service training to reinforce experimentation with diverse methodologies that favor competency development as well as attention to diversity, integrated use of languages, and the use of ICT as a means for learning and for transfer to educational practice. It has been found that teachers have difficulty incorporating technology in the classroom (Tirado-Morueta & Aguaded-Gómez, 2014) beyond its use as a resource to reproduce traditional forms of teaching (Sanz, Martínez-Piñeiro & Pernas, 2010). Therefore, it would be helpful for future teachers to experience integrated incorporation of ICT when developing their own teaching skills (Ruiz, Rubia, Anguita & Fernández, 2010).

On the other hand, in-service teachers’ low levels of language competence, as classified under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (MECD, 2002), hinder integrated treatment of languages, coordination and collaboration with families and agents of the educational community, as well as participation in meetings, forums or the interchange of teaching experiences and innovations. Language competency, therefore, is one area where efforts need to be focused if teachers are to meet current and future educational demands (Amor Almedina & Serrano Rodríguez, 2018).

Regarding the Guidance competency, teachers need to be trained to address the shared task of promoting students’ personal, socioemotional and academic development, in coordination with their family, going beyond individual action (Iranzo-García et ál., 2020).

In the quadrant called “Keep up the good work”, there is a balance between the importance given to these competencies and the degree that they are performed, even though certain aspects may need to improve. The Ethics and professional commitment competency was the highest valued and most implemented. This competency should continue to be worked on, so that quality education is offered to everyone, as directed by current legislation --though we are aware that educational improvement is not achieved merely by legislative change (Marcelo & Vaillant, 2011).

This quadrant also contains the competency in Teaching coordination and teamwork with the community. Teacher training should further emphasize coordination with agents in the community (Puigvert & Santacruz, 2006), and how to work in conjunction with families to encourage coherency in educational approaches and actions (Escorcia-Caballero & Gutierrez-Moreno, 2009). Similarly, coordination among teachers increases the effectiveness of education (Imbernón, 2020), so it is fundamental to develop competency in teamwork.

Teachers have been shown to experience stressful situations relatively often, sometimes producing symptoms of depression or the burnout syndrome (Gratacós et ál., 2021), possibly due to deficient emotional management (Hué, 2012). Difficulty in developing habits that favor personal and professional well-being and that help to manage stress indicate the importance of the competency in Emotional management and building environments of trust, even from the start of teacher training (López Goñi y Goñi, 2012; Palomera, Fernández-Berrocal & Brackett, 2008). When teachers feel better emotionally, they are more able to build a classroom atmosphere of trust and security, and adequately manage conflicts that arise (Camacho & Mendías, 2005).

In the “Low Priority” quadrant are competencies that are less valued and also less implemented. The competencies of Instruction planning and management and Educational assessment were placed here. Nonetheless, these competencies are fundamental to teaching practice. In fact, despite the fact that a competency-based curriculum has been in force since 2006, it is not fully applied in the educational system, neither in teaching nor in assessment (González-Mayorga, Vieira Aller, & Vidal García, 2017). Teachers should therefore continue being trained that they might effectively achieve the implementation of this educational paradigm shift (Tonda Rodriguez & Medina Rivilla, 2013; Villardón-Gallego, 2006). Teachers are sometimes reluctant in the face of these changes, and do not consider them important, even though studies reveal their effectiveness for learning (Álvarez Valdivia, 2008; Rodríguez & Hernández, 2014).

In this quadrant we also find the competency for Learning, research and innovation, despite the importance of basing educational innovation on scientific evidence, as the foundation of both educational improvement and professional development. Perhaps the quantity of new education plans that lack prior validation, and are promoted more out of fashion than in response to the real needs of schools (Coll, 2007), may have led to an increased task load with little meaning for teachers, resulting in reduced motivation for authentic innovation. It is therefore important to train and motivate teachers for educational improvement based on experiences that have been successful.

No competency was placed in the “Possible Overkill” quadrant, given that, in the teachers’ opinion, no low-importance competency was being implemented disproportionately.

In short, taking into account the distance between performance and importance, the priority competencies to be emphasized in teacher training and development are the Competency in Learning, research and innovation, followed by the Competency in Instruction planning and management and the Competency in Guidance.

The level of importance assigned to each of the competencies is significantly higher among primary education teachers, which may be explained by a genuine interest in teaching reflected in their early choice of a college degree in Education (Esteve, 2006; Martínez-de-la-Hidalga & Villardón-Gallego, 2016). By contrast, secondary education teachers have often been found to show little interest in the teaching profession, which may hinder the success of any improvement processes (Fernández Enguita, 2006; Sánchez Asín & Boix, 2008). These results confirm the greater effectiveness of the concurrent or simultaneous training model (Rebolledo, 2015; Imbernón, 2019).

In this regard, it is important that secondary teachers develop teaching competencies and a professional identity during their pre-service training, with a solid pedagogical foundation (Reoyo et ál. 2017; Martínez-de-la-Hidalga, Villardón-Gallego & Flores-Moncada, 2020).

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated the usefulness of the IPA technique for identifying teacher training priorities, both for the design of training plans and for reflection during training. Training must address the priority of developing teaching competencies that are located in the “Concentrate Here” quadrant, that is, competencies that are considered important, but are insufficiently implemented. Giving priority to these competencies does not imply neglecting the development of teaching competencies found in the “Keep up the good work” quadrant, since their importance warrants their continued development. The results produced by the IP analysis provide information that we should reflect on as individuals and collectively, especially concerning competencies that teachers considered Low Priority, despite their confirmed relevance for educational improvement.

The analyses we conducted here confirm that teachers accept the teacher competency profile. They consider that transversal competencies like Ethics and professional commitment, and Emotional competency, are important for good teaching performance, and they recognize difficulties in developing key competencies like Instruction Planning and management, Curriculum management and implementation, and Educational assessment. Although a competency-based educational approach is officially mandated, there still seems to be a need for teachers to modify their role, to move from knowledge transmitters to acting as a guide and support for students’ learning and development. In this process of change, evidence-based pre-service and in-service training takes on a fundamental role by offering forums for shared reflection on teaching practice (Goldhaber, 2018).

Primary teachers’ greater identification with the teacher profile, in comparison to secondary teachers, underscores that the mode of access to the profession and the training model both have an impact in professional development and educational practice, pointing to greater effectiveness with the concurrent model (Imbernón, 2019).

Nonetheless, we must note as a study limitation that the sample is not representative of the population, having been selected intentionally, even though we did maintain the proportionality of educational stage and of school type. On the other hand, the level of competency development was collected through self-reports, such that the information is based on teachers’ perceptions. It would be interesting to complement these data with information collected through other techniques, such as observation of performance, or through other agents such as colleagues.

Despite these limitations, the study offers a methodological proposal for establishing training priorities, as well as for group reflection during the training itself. Similarly, it allows us to ascertain what importance teachers give to the teacher profile competencies, and their self-assessment with respect to their implementation of each one.

Bibliographic references

Ábalo, J., Varela, J., and Rial, A. (2006). El análisis de importancia-valoración aplicado a la gestión de servicios. Psicothema, 18(4), 730-737.

Álvarez, C. (2015). De la innovación educativa a la transformación social: Teoría y práctica. Intangible Capital, 11(3), 285-292. https://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.663

Álvarez Valdivia, I. M. (2008). La coevaluación como alternativa para mejorar la calidad del aprendizaje de los estudiantes universitarios: valoración de una experiencia. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 63(22,3), 127-140.

Amor Almedina, M. I., and Serrano Rodríguez, R. (2018). Análisis y Evaluación de las Competencias Genéricas en la Formación Inicial del Profesorado. Estudios pedagógicos 44(2), 9-19. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052018000200009

Camacho, H., and Mendías, A. M. (2005). Aportación a la mejora de la calidad en la formación de maestros. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 35(6), 2-18.

Carbonell, J. (2005). El profesorado y la innovación educativa. En P. Cañal de León (Coord.), La innovación educativa (11-27). Madrid: Akal. Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.

Catalán, J., and González, M. (2009). Actitud hacia la Evaluación del Desempeño Docente y su Relación con la Autoevaluación del Propio Desempeño, en Profesores Básicos de Copiapó, La Serena y Coquimbo. Psykhe, 18(2), 97-112. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22282009000200007.

Coll, C. (2007). Las competencias en la educación escolar. Algo más que una moda y mucho menos que un remedio. Aula de Innovación Educativa 161, 34-39.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). A future worthy of teaching for America. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(10), 730-733. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808901008

Dumont, H., Istance, D., and Benavides, F. (2010). The Nature of Learning. Using Research to inspire practice. París: OECD Center for Educationa Research and Innovation. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264086487

Edwards, C. J., Carr, S., and Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences and training on effective teaching practice to meet the needs of diverse learners in schools. Education, 126(3), 580-592.

Elexpuru. I., Martínez, A., Villardón, L., and Yániz, C. (2006). Plan de formación del profesorado para la incorporación del modelo formativo de la UD. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.

Escorcia-Caballero, R., and Gutiérrez-Moreno, A. (2009). La cooperación en educación: una visión organizada de la escuela. Educación y educadores, 12(1), 121-133.

Esteve, J. M. (2006). La profesión docente en Europa: perfil, tendencias y problemática. La formación inicial. Revista de Educación, 340, 19-40.

Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpin, A., Tilley, K., and McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking Connections between Research and Practice in Education: A Conceptual Framework. Educational Researcher, 47 (4), 235–245. https://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18761042

Fernández Enguita, M. (2006). Los profesores cuentan. Revista de Educación, 340, 59-65.

Fullan, M. (2002). El significado del cambio educativo: un cuarto de siglo de aprendizaje. Profesorado. Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado, 6(1-2), 1-15.

Gather, M. (2004). Innovar en el seno de la institución escolar. Barcelona: Graó.

Goldhaber, D. (2018). Evidence-Based Teacher Preparation: Policy Context and What We Know. Journal of Teacher Education 70(2), 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118800712

González-Mayorga, H., Vieira Aller, M. J. V., and Vidal García, J. (2017). Opinión del profesorado de secundaria sobre la evaluación por competencias y el apoyo del departamento de orientación. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 28(2), 96-112. https://doi.org/10.5944/reop.vol.28.num.2.2017.20121

Granjo, M., Castro Silva, J., and Peixoto, F. (2021). Teacher Identity: Can Ethical Orientation Be Related to Perceived Competence, Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Commitment and Global Self-esteem?. European journal of teacher education,44(2), 158-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1748004

Gratacós, G., Mena, J., and Ciesielkiewicz, M. (2021): The complexity thinking approach: beginning teacher resilience and perceived self-efficacy as determining variables in the induction phase. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1900113

Huan, T. C., and Beaman, J. (2005). Importance Performance Analysis: the needs to bridge solitudes for its effective use. En T. Delamere, D. McDonald, y C. Randall (Eds.). Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research (17-20). Nanaimo BC: Department of Recreation and Tourism Management. Malaspina University-College.

Hué, C. (2012). Bienestar docente y pensamiento emocional. Revista Fuentes, 12, 47-68.

Kitcharoen, K. (2004). The Importance-Performance Analysis of service quality in administrative departments of private universities in Thailand. ABAC Journal, 24(3), 20-46.

Imbernón, F. (2019). La formación del profesorado de educación secundaria: la eterna pesadilla. Profesorado. Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado, 23(3), 49-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v23i3.9302

Imbernón, F. (2020). Desarrollo personal, profesional e institucional y formación del profesorado. Algunas tendencias para el siglo XXI. Qurriculum, 33, 49-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.25145/j.qurricul.2020.33.04

Iranzo-García, P., Camarero-Figuerola, M., Tierno-García, J. M., and Barrios-Arós, Ch.. (2020) Leadership and professional identity in school teacher training in Spain (Catalonia), Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(3), 309-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1750935

Körkkö, M., Kotilainen, M: R., Toljamo, S. y Turunen, T. (2020): Developing teacher in-service education through a profesional development plan: modelling the process. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1827393

López Goñi, I., and Goñi, J.M. (2012). La competencia emocional en los currículos de formación inicial de los docentes. Un estudio comparativo. Revista de Educación, 357, 467-489. http://dx.doi.org/10-4438/1988-592X-RE-2010-357-069

Maaranen, K., and Stenberg,K.. (2020). Making beliefs explicit - student teachers’ identity development through personal practical theories. Journal of Education for Teaching: JET, 46(3), 336-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1749994

Marcelo, M., and Vaillant, D. (2011). Desarrollo profesional docente. ¿Cómo se aprende a enseñar? Madrid: Narcea.

Martilla, J., and James, J. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41, 77-79.

Martínez-de-la-Hidalga, Z., Villardón-Gallego, L., and Flores-Moncada, L. (2020). Estrategias didácticas para el desarrollo de la identidad profesional del profesorado de Secundaria en la formación inicial. Revista de Docencia Universitaria REDU, 18 (2), 11-28. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2020.13956

Martínez-de-la-Hidalga, Z., and Villardón-Gallego, L. (2016). Using methaphors to know the conceptions about the teaching profession in initial teacher education. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 6 (2), 183-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2017.2602

Martínez-Izaguirre, M., Yániz-Álvarez de Eulate, C., and Villardón-Gallego, L. (2017). Competencias profesionales del profesorado de educación obligatoria. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 74, 171-192.

Martínez-Izaguirre, M., Yániz-Álvarez de Eulate, C., and Villardón-Gallego, L. (2018). Autoevaluación y reflexión docente para la mejora de la competencia profesional del profesorado en la sociedad del conocimiento. RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 56, 1-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/red/56/10

Morales, R., and Cabrera, J. (2012). Competencias docentes transversales, el método de selección MiZona-CDT. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 10(2), 75-101. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2012.6098

MECD (2002). Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. Madrid: Subdirección General de Cooperación Internacional.

OCDE (2019). TALIS 2018. Estudio internacional de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Informe español. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional.

OCDE (2009). TALIS: Estudio Internacional sobre la Enseñanza y el Aprendizaje. Informe Español. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación. Secretaría de Estado de Educación y Formación Profesional, Dirección General de Evaluación y Cooperación Territorial.

Palomera, R. Fernández-Berrocal, P., and Brackett, M.A. (2008). La inteligencia emocional como una competencia básica en la formación inicial de los docentes: algunas evidencias. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(6), 437-454.

Puigvert, L., and Santacruz, I. (2006). La transformación de centros educativos en comunidades de aprendizaje. Calidad para todas y todos. Revista de Educación, 339, 169-176.

Rebolledo, T. (2015). La formación inicial del profesorado de Educación Primaria y Secundaria en Alemania, España, Finlandia, Francia y Reino Unido. Estudio comparador. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 25, 129-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/reec.25.2015.14787

Reoyo, M., Carbonero, N.A., and Martín, L.J. (2017). Características de eficacia docente desde las perspectivas del profesorado y futuro profesorado de secundaria. Revista de Educación, 376, 62-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2017-376-344.

Rodríguez, A., and Hernández, A. (2014). Desmitificando algunos sesgos de la autoevaluación y coevaluación en los aprendizajes del alumnado. Revista de Estudios y Experiencias en Educación, 13(25), 13-31.

Rodríguez-Gómez, D., Armengol, C., and Meneses, J. (2017). La adquisición de las competencias profesionales a través de las prácticas curriculares de la formación inicial de maestros. Revista de Educación, 376, 229-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2017-376-350.

Ruiz, I., Rubia, B., Anguita, R., and Fernández, E. (2010). Formar al profesorado inicialmente en habilidades y competencias en TIC: perfiles de una experiencia colaboradora. Revista de educación, 352, 149-178.

Sánchez Asín, A., and Boix, J. L. (2008). La construcción de la identidad y profesionalización de los docentes noveles de la ESO, a través de un estudio experimental. Profesorado. Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado, 12(3), 1-23.

Sanz, M. D., Martínez Piñeiro, E., and Pernas, E. (2010). Innovación con TIC y cambio sostenible. Un proyecto de investigación colaborativa. Profesorado. Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado, 14(1), 319-337.

Stenberg, K., and Maaranen, K. (2020). Promoting practical wisdom in teacher education: a qualitative descriptive study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1860012

Tirado-Morueta, R., and Aguaded-Gómez, J. I. (2014). Influencias de las creencias del profesorado sobre el uso de la tecnología en el aula. Revista de Educación, 363, 230-255. http://dx.doi.org/10-4438/1988-592X-RE-2012-363-179

Tonda Rodríguez, P., and Medina Rivilla, A. (2013). La formación del profesorado en la competencia evaluadora: un camino hacia la calidad educativa. Enseñanza & Teaching: Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica, 31(2), 167-188

Van Der Schaaf, M, Slof, B, Boven, L., and De Jong, A. (2019). Evidence for measuring teachers’ core practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(5), 675-694. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1652903

Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Dificultades del profesorado para planificar, coordinar y evaluar competencias claves. Un análisis desde la Inspección de Educación. Revista Complutense de Educación, 27(3), 1061-1083. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_RCED.2016.v27.n3.47400.

Vila, I., and Casares, R. (2009). Educación y sociedad. Una perspectiva de las relaciones entre escuela y entorno social. Barcelona: Horsori.

Villardón-Gallego, L. (2006). Evaluación del aprendizaje para promover el desarrollo de competencias. Educatio siglo XXI, 24. 57-76.

Zabalza, M. A. (2006). Buscando una nueva hoja de ruta en la formación del profesorado. Revista de Educación, 340, 51-58.

Zabalza, M.A (2004). Guía para la planificación didáctica de la docencia universitaria en el marco del EEES. Guía de guías. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.

Contact information: Miryam Martínez Izaguirre. Universidad de Deusto, Facultad de Psicología y Educación, Departamento de Didáctica y Desarrollo Curricular. Avenida de las Universidades, 24 48007 Bilbao (SPAIN). E-mail: miryam.martinez@deusto.es

Appendix

Descriptive analysis of the importance and performance of items
associated with the teaching competencies.

TABLE A-I. Importance and Performance levels of the items from each teaching competency

TEACHING COMPETENCIES	IMPORTANCE		PERFORMANCE
	M	SD	M	SD
Competency in Instruction planning and management
C1_1- Participate actively in the development of school-wide projects such as curriculum projects, etc.	4.07	.897	3.47	1.173
C1_9- Design lesson planning according to competencies	4.15	.880	3.56	.983
C1_17- Develop teaching units and interdisciplinary projects that promote basic competency development	4.16	.874	3.40	1.006
C1_25- Use teaching materials that support learning	4.66	.562	4.18	.743
C1_33- Spread time evenly between different teaching tasks (classroom work, material preparation, planning, administrative tasks, etc.)	4.66	.562	3.39	1.016
Competency in Curriculum management and implementation
C2_2- Apply methodologies that encourage students to be active in learning	4.68	.569	3.96	.732
C2_10- Do activities that promote cooperation between students	4.55	.640	3.94	.827
C2_18- Adapt activities to students’ diversity	4.55	.693	3.74	.924
C2_26- Assign activities that have different possible solutions	4.18	.809	3.51	.914
C2_34- Design activities that require ICT use for their solution	4.12	.874	3.29	1.029
C2_41- Come up with ideas that require the use of (resources in) different languages	4.03	1.018	3.17	1.152
C2_48- Build an environment of trust in the classroom	4.75	.476	4.42	.675
C2_53- Encourage students’ participation in class	4.80	.425	4.50	.653
C2_58- Design activities that spark students’ interest in learning	4.75	.517	4.07	.807
C2_60- Direct and facilitate classroom work	4.69	.550	4.32	.706
C2_62- Guide students in their performance of learning tasks	4.65	.579	4.14	.789
C2_63- Connect learning with real situations or simulated, realistic situations	4.52	.683	3.90	.869
C2_64- Involve families and other agents in the educational community as support in learning activities	4.29	.834	3.38	.981
C2_65- Respond effectively to novel or unforeseen situations	4.44	.699	3.69	.826
Competency in Educational assessment
C3_3- Use assessment techniques and instruments that guide students toward competency development	4.39	.711	3.67	.816
C3_11- Use assessment to encourage learning	4.38	.723	3.96	.798
C3_19- Evaluate competency levels using previously established criteria as a reference	4.20	.783	3.65	.912
C3_27- Use assessment techniques that make it possible to evaluate students’ performance	4.34	.734	3.66	.846
C3_35- Use assessment techniques and instruments that are consistent with the learning methodologies used	4.53	.627	4.02	.755
C3_42- Help students reflect on the tasks performed, so that they improve their learning	4.55	.634	4.02	.817
C3_49- Adapt my communication of assessment results according to the audience (students, family, school, administration)	4.57	.638	4.27	.785
C3_54- Foster self-assessment and peer assessment in students	4.31	.779	3.49	.921
Competency in Guidance
C4_4- Detect student needs in order to effectively guide them individually and collectively	4.73	.503	4.03	.782
C4_12- Encourage students to know themselves and develop a well-adjusted self-concept	4.52	.669	3.82	.819
C4_20- Develop dynamics that foster students’ self-confidence and recognition of their achievements	4.57	.627	3.95	.842
C4_28- Promote educational coordination with families	4.52	.735	3.85	.983
C4_36- Apply activities that encourage students to have a positive attitude toward diversity	4.59	.633	4.06	.835
C4_43- Help students to identify their emotions and control how they express them	4.55	.646	3.86	.915
C4_50- Take advantage of conflicts in the group and the immediate environment to develop social skills and prosocial attitudes	4.56	.669	3.99	.841
C4_55- Collaborate in activities that offer a service to the community to promote students’ social participation	4.18	.846	3.23	1.019
Competency in Learning, research and innovation
C5_5- Modify my teaching activity after reflecting on my professional performance	4.54	.636	3.90	.778
C5_13- Reflect on my own professional practice to detect strong points and areas for improvement	4.57	.627	3.95	.812
C5_21- Analyze my students’ learning outcomes in order to improve my teaching	4.56	.619	4.02	.783
C5_29- Stay up to date in knowledge of the disciplines, methodologies and teaching resources	4.54	.656	3.70	.821
C5_37- Take training that helps me improve my teaching	4.59	.625	3.82	.919
C5_44- Be informed about in-service teacher training that is available	4.35	.731	3.61	.911
C5_51- Look for resources in different media (forums, journals, etc.) to apply them in my teaching effort	4.26	.788	3.64	1.001
C5_56- Participate in innovative teaching projects	4.25	.853	3.32	1.072
C5_59- Share my teaching experiences with colleagues	4.54	.616	3.97	.843
C5_61- Participate in meetings or forums about teaching innovations and experiences	4.11	.857	3.07	1.052
Competency in Ethics and professional commitment
C6_6- Reflect about the consequences of my teaching activity on students’ development	4.63	.571	4.20	.755
C6_14- Be aware of how my teaching performance influences the surrounding social reality	4.37	.804	3.82	.939
C6_22- Ensure the confidentiality and proper use of students’ assessment outcomes	4.60	.701	4.43	.791
C6_30- Keep the legal framework of my profession as a reference	4.14	.884	3.60	1.014
C6_38- Respect the confidential aspects of my profession	4.76	.554	4.61	.675
C6_45- Act as a model of respect and consideration toward all persons	4.72	.511	4.37	.711
C6_52- Act in a fair, equitable and respectful manner with students, families and colleagues	4.81	.466	4.51	.612
C6_57- Avoid any kind of discrimination toward students, families or colleagues	4.86	.420	4.69	.592
Competency in Teaching coordination and teamwork
C7_7- Adopt the purposes of the school where I am working	4.47	.685	4.15	.779
C7_15- Work with members of the pedagogical team on development and assessment of competencies included in the programming.	4.22	.870	3.43	1.047
C7_23- Follow the shared norms, classroom and school guidelines, as well as teaching-learning methods that are common to the teaching staff	4.62	.639	4.02	.897
C7_31- Assess students’ basic competencies by sharing techniques and information with other teachers	4.39	.748	3.78	.958
C7_39- Participate actively in the pedagogical teams that I belong to	4.56	.659	4.22	.809
C7_46- Agree on and respect rules of functioning between teachers and families	4.69	.560	4.30	.776
Competency in Emotional management and building environments of trust
C8_8- Regulate and effectively manage my own emotions in the classroom	4.60	.587	3.95	.748
C8_16- Dedicate time to solving problems that appear in any educational situation	4.63	.631	4.12	.912
C8_24- Relate well with my colleagues	4.65	.564	4.26	.711
C8_32- Control my own emotions in tasks carried out with other educational agents (colleagues, families)	4.38	.753	3.86	.852
C8_40- Manage the stress from everyday situations in this profession	4.63	.598	3.66	.853
C8_47- Create habits that promote my well-being on the job	4.57	.614	3.74	.880

M= Mean

SD= Standard Deviation

Source: prepared by the authors