Teaching in higher education is not only a cognitive and pedagogical process, but also an emotionally demanding activity for teachers. Teaching involves continuous interaction with students, pedagogical decision-making, and responsibility for supporting learning in often complex and uncertain situations. These demands give rise to a range of emotional experiences that are integral to teaching practice. Among these emotions, anxiety is closely linked to stress and represents one of its key negative manifestations (Kyriacou, 2001). Previous research has shown that university teachers experience relatively high levels of stress and anxiety compared to many other professional groups (Kinman et al., 2006). Despite this, anxiety has received limited empirical attention in research on higher education teaching. Some research indicates that teaching strategies, particularly those used in evaluation situations, are associated with higher anxiety among academics (Houlihan et al., 2009). However, there is still a lack of understanding of how teachers’ everyday teaching processes and pedagogical practices are related to anxiety in higher education teaching. Addressing this gap is essential for developing pedagogical practices that support both high-quality teaching and teachers’ emotional well-being.

In the present study, pedagogical practices are investigated through the approaches to teaching framework, which conceptualises teaching as a combination of teachers’ intentions and strategies (Trigwell & Prosser, 2004). Within this framework, teaching has traditionally been described in terms of learning-focused and content-focused orientations. Recent research has operationalised these orientations into four distinct but interrelated dimensions of teaching approaches: interactive, transmissive, organised, and unreflective (Parpala & Postareff, 2021; Postareff et al., 2024).

The interactive approach emphasises dialogue, discussion, and the active engagement of students in constructing understanding. The transmissive approach focuses on the clear presentation and delivery of content, with the teacher positioned as the primary source of knowledge. The organised approach highlights careful planning, systematic preparation, and structured teaching. In contrast, the unreflective approach reflects limited pedagogical awareness, including difficulties in understanding how students learn and how teaching can support learning (Postareff et al., 2024).

However, these four dimensions do not fully capture how teachers actively support students’ deep approach to learning, such as helping students integrate ideas, link new knowledge to prior understanding, and use evidence in reasoning (see Entwistle, 2009; Uiboleht, 2019). To address this gap, the present study introduces a fifth dimension, the Constructive approach to teaching, which captures teachers’ intentional practices aimed at supporting students’ deep learning processes. This dimension aligns with constructivist learning theory and extends earlier operationalisations of learning-focused teaching.

Previous research has demonstrated that learning-focused teaching approaches are associated with more positive emotions, higher self-efficacy, and lower levels of burnout and stress among teachers (Chen, 2019; Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2011; Virtanen & Parpala, 2023). Understanding further how different pedagogical processes relate to anxiety is important, as anxiety may undermine teachers’ concentration, confidence, and long-term well-being.

The objective of the present study is therefore to examine how higher education teachers’ teaching is related to teaching-related anxiety. The study addresses the following research question: How are different teaching approaches (interactive, transmissive, organised, unreflective, and constructive) related to teachers’ anxiety in higher education teaching? By linking pedagogical processes with anxiety, the study aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of teacher well-being in HE and to inform pedagogical development practices that support both effective teaching and teacher well-being.

The study involved 110 Finnish higher education teachers from universities and universities of applied sciences representing a range of disciplinary fields. Participation was voluntary, and data were collected using a cross-sectional self-report survey administered online. Teachers’ approaches to teaching were measured using the Higher Education Approaches to Teaching (HEAT) instrument (Parpala & Postareff, 2021), which has been validated in HE contexts (Postareff et al., 2024). The instrument includes four established scales: Interactive approach, Transmissive approach, Organised approach, and Unreflective approach. In addition, a Constructive approach to teaching scale was developed for this study to capture teachers’ practices aimed at supporting students’ deep approach to learning, such as encouraging students to integrate ideas, seek evidence, and connect new knowledge with prior understanding. The Constructive scale was adapted from validated instruments measuring students’ deep approach to learning and showed acceptable internal consistency. All HEAT items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Teacher anxiety was measured using a modified version of the Sport Anxiety Scale-2 (Smith et al., 2006), adapted to the context of teaching. The instrument included two dimensions of anxiety: Concentration Disruption, referring to difficulties in maintaining focus during teaching, and Worry, reflecting concerns and anxious thoughts related to teaching performance. Responses were given on a Likert-type scale, and scale reliabilities were satisfactory (.76–.80). The data were analysed using Spearman’s rank-order correlation. Building on these preliminary findings, future work will employ structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the relationships within a more comprehensive analytical framework.

The results showed that teaching approaches were systematically related to higher education teachers’ anxiety. Both the interactive and constructive approaches to teaching were negatively and statistically significantly related to concentration disruption, indicating that teachers who emphasise student interaction, dialogue, and support for students’ deep learning experience fewer challenges in maintaining focus during teaching situations. These findings suggest that learning-focused teaching practices may protect teachers from anxiety-related difficulties in maintaining concentration during teaching. In contrast, the unreflective approach to teaching was positively and statistically significantly related to both concentration disruption and worry. This indicates that limited pedagogical awareness and difficulties in understanding how students learn are associated with higher levels of anxiety in teaching. Difficulties in understanding student learning may increase teachers’ uncertainty, resulting in both concentration problems and worries about teaching. Interestingly, the organised approach to teaching was positively and statistically significantly related to worry, although not to concentration disruption. This association suggests that a strong emphasis on detailed planning and structure may be linked to increased concerns about teaching outcomes and performance. However, it is also possible that teachers who experience more worry adopt a more organized approach in order to feel better prepared and maintain control. Future analyses using structural equation modelling (SEM) will further examine these relationships and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between teaching approaches and teacher anxiety. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of pedagogical awareness and learning-focused teaching in reducing teaching-related anxiety in higher education. Professional development should support teachers in understanding student learning and adopting interactive and constructive practices, which may enhance both student learning and teachers’ emotional well-being.

Chen, J. (2019). Exploring the impact of teacher emotions on their approaches to teaching: A structural equation modelling approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 57-74. Entwistle, N. (2009). Teaching for understanding at university. Palgrave Macmillan. Houlihan, M., Fraser, I., Fenwick, K. D., Fish, T., & Moeller, C. (2009). Personality effects on teaching anxiety and teaching strategies in university professors. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(1), 61–72. Kinman, G., Jones, F., & Kinman, R. (2006). The well-being of the UK academy, 1998–2004. Quality in Higher Education, 12(1), 15–27. Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35. Parpala, A., & Postareff, L. (2021). Supporting high-quality teaching in higher education through the HowUTeach self-reflection tool. Finnish Journal of Professional and Vocational Education, 23(4), 61–67. Postareff, L., Lahdenperä, J., Hailikari, T., & Parpala, A. (2024). The dimensions of approaches to teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 88(1), 37–59. Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2011). Emotions and confidence within teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 799–813. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., Cumming, S. P., & Grossbard, J. R. (2006). Measurement of multidimensional sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28(4), 479–501. Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (2004). Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 409–424. Uiboleht, K. (2019). The relationship between teaching-learning environments and undergraduate students’ learning in higher education: A qualitative multi-case study (Doctoral dissertation, Tartu University). In Dissertationes Pedagogicae Universitatis Tartuensis 32. University of Tartu Press. Virtanen, P., & Parpala, A. (2023). The role of teaching processes in turnover intentions, risk of burnout, and stress during COVID-19: A case study among Finnish university teacher educators. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1066380).