Teaching without a system: resilience and engagement in Myanmar’s non-state schools

Abstract

Teachers in conflict-affected Myanmar continue to sustain education despite the collapse of formal state systems. This study examines how resilience and work engagement are maintained in non-state, community-led schools where salaries, training, and administrative support are largely absent. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, survey data were collected from 87 teachers and focus group discussions were held with 14 teachers working in high-risk areas. Quantitative analyses showed that both personal resources (self-efficacy, sense of purpose) and external supports (peer collaboration, community engagement) significantly predicted teacher resilience, which in turn mediated their impact on work engagement. Qualitative findings deepened these results, revealing how moral duty, peer solidarity, community support, and student determination sustained teachers’ motivation amid chronic insecurity and trauma. By integrating the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model with Social Capital Theory, the study demonstrates that resilience in fragile, non-state education systems is not simply an individual trait but a socially embedded process shaped by relationships and community networks. The findings extend these frameworks by showing how informal and locally grounded resources can function as critical buffers in the absence of formal structures. Practically, the study suggests that supporting grassroots education in crisis settings requires modest but targeted assistance, such as stipends, basic teaching materials, and psychosocial support delivered through community networks. While these informal systems are vital, they cannot fully replace the stability of formal institutions, highlighting the need for future research on how resilience evolves over time and across diverse fragile contexts.

Introduction

Education is often seen as a stabilizing force during times of crisis, yet in protracted conflict settings, it becomes one of the most disrupted sectors. Globally, more than 222 million children and adolescents experience educational disruptions due to war, displacement, and violence (UNICEF, 2022). In Myanmar, the military coup of 2021 intensified decades of political unrest and armed violence, leading to the collapse of much of the formal state-run education system. Thousands of schools were closed or destroyed, and many teachers left the public system through the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) or relocated to resistance-held areas. By 2024, over 5 million children were out of school, with hundreds of schools destroyed, repurposed for military use, or rendered inoperable (UNICEF Myanmar, 2024). Student enrollment in government schools dropped from approximately 9 million in 2019–2020 to around 6.4 million in 2023–2024 (Mohinga Matters, 2024).

In this vacuum, non-state, community-led schools emerged to sustain learning in conflict-affected regions. These schools operate under extreme conditions—with limited resources, no formal oversight, and the constant threat of violence. Despite limited state presence, some interim education programs and Ethnic Basic Education Providers (EBEPs) have expanded significantly to meet rising demand from displaced populations (Mohinga Matters, 2024). Within these high-risk environments, teachers have become frontline actors—not only delivering education but also preserving hope, safety, and social cohesion for displaced and traumatized communities. Their professional commitment endures despite threats to personal safety, financial hardship, and emotional strain. Rather than simply coping, these teachers are leading, adapting, and collaborating to keep education alive. Their resilience is not a fixed personal trait but a dynamic, evolving process shaped by values, student relationships, peer support, and community engagement.

Previous research has examined teacher resilience in emergencies, often emphasizing coping strategies, self-efficacy, or institutional support within formal or NGO-administered systems (Beltman et al., 2011; Gu and Day, 2007; Howard and Johnson, 2004). A broader body of scholarship has also documented community-based and non-state education efforts in conflict-affected countries such as Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Syria (Burde et al., 2017; Dryden-Peterson, 2011; Sharifian et al., 2022). These studies show that resilience is sustained not only through individual agency but also through community-led initiatives when formal systems collapse.

However, what remains underexplored is how these dynamics unfold in Myanmar's unique post-2021 context, where the military coup triggered a near-total breakdown of the state education system and the rapid expansion of grassroots non-state schools without state recognition or systematic external coordination. While some non-state education initiatives in Myanmar receive support from NGOs or international actors, the schools examined in this study function almost entirely through local networks, moral purpose, and community solidarity. This creates a distinctive environment for examining how resilience and engagement are sustained in the absence of formal structures.

This study addresses this gap by investigating the factors that make educational continuity possible in Myanmar's non-state schools. Drawing on survey data from 87 teachers and focus group discussions with 14 educators, it examines how personal resources such as self-efficacy and sense of purpose, together with external supports including peer collaboration and community engagement, contribute to resilience and work engagement. It further assesses the extent to which resilience mediates the relationship between these resources and sustained professional commitment, while also exploring how teachers themselves describe the ways they maintain motivation and adapt their practices in the absence of centralized systems.

By centering the experiences of teachers working outside formal structures, this study offers a grounded contribution to the global literature on teacher resilience. It demonstrates that in Myanmar's non-state, community-led schools, resilience and engagement are sustained not through formal institutions but through moral leadership, peer solidarity, and community networks, thereby extending the JD-R model and Social Capital Theory into contexts of systemic collapse.

Literature review

Teacher resilience and work engagement

Teacher resilience refers to educators’ capacity to adapt positively to adversity, sustain motivation, and continue performing effectively under challenging conditions (Gu and Day, 2007). Rather than a fixed personal trait, resilience is increasingly understood as a dynamic process shaped by both internal coping strategies and external support systems (Mansfield et al., 2012). This perspective is especially important in education systems affected by instability, scarce resources, and persistent professional and psychological hardship (Beltman et al., 2011).

Research consistently highlights the role of resilience in helping teachers navigate high-stress environments, particularly in under-resourced and conflict-affected settings (Howard and Johnson, 2004). In these contexts, educators face threats to personal safety, forced displacement, emotional fatigue, and the absence of institutional support (Herman et al., 2018; UNHCR, 2019). At the same time, they remain central to sustaining children's psychosocial stability and sense of normalcy during crises (Winthrop and Kirk, 2008). These combined demands increase the risks of distress, burnout, and disengagement (Betancourt et al., 2012; Cardozo et al., 2015). Resilience thus functions as a protective factor that enables teachers to remain committed to their roles despite adversity (Dinni and Maharani, 2022).

Personal resources such as self-efficacy and adaptability, alongside external supports including collegial relationships and community involvement, have been shown to strengthen teacher resilience (Wobete et al., 2024). Importantly, resilience is not only about coping but also about sustaining professional identity and agency under pressure. Yet, as Mendenhall et al. (2017) warns, the discourse of resilience can obscure systemic neglect, with policymakers relying on teachers' persistence rather than addressing structural deficits in policy and support.

Beyond individual traits, international scholarship highlights how resilience is often sustained through collective and community-based practices. Research from Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Syria shows that teachers draw on informal networks, solidarity, and community-led initiatives to keep education functioning amid violence and displacement (Burde et al., 2017; Dryden-Peterson, 2011; Sharifian et al., 2022). Taken together, this literature demonstrates that resilience is shaped not only by personal coping but also by teachers' embeddedness in local social systems.

Work engagement, characterized by energy, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002), is closely tied to resilience in such environments. Resilience helps reduce the emotional toll of adversity and supports teachers in maintaining motivation and focus (Mansfield et al., 2012; Wang and Pan, 2023). Where teachers are able to draw on both personal and collective resources, resilience becomes a mechanism that enables sustained engagement. However, how this relationship unfolds in Myanmar's post-2021 context, where non-state, community-led schools have expanded rapidly following the collapse of formal education, remains underexplored and warrants closer investigation.

Integrating the JD-R model and social capital theory

The Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model provides a useful framework for understanding the relationship between teacher resilience and engagement. It proposes that employee motivation and well-being are shaped by the interaction between job demands, such as workload, emotional strain, and insecurity, and job resources, such as supportive relationships, autonomy, and a sense of purpose (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). When resources are sufficient to buffer high demands, individuals are more likely to remain motivated and engaged in their work (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).

In conflict-affected, non-state schools, job demands are particularly acute: insecurity, trauma, lack of pay, and absence of institutional support create sustained professional and emotional pressures. At the same time, resources often emerge not from formal structures but from informal mechanisms such as peer solidarity, moral purpose, and community engagement. In this sense, the JD-R model overlaps with insights from Social Capital Theory (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000). Social networks, including bonding ties among teachers and bridging ties with communities, can be understood as key “job resources” within the JD-R framework, since they provide emotional support, practical assistance, and shared purpose that help offset the extreme demands of teaching in crisis conditions.

This interaction suggests that resilience is not only a product of individual coping strategies but also of the availability and mobilization of social capital. In fragile education systems such as Myanmar's, where linking capital to formal institutions is often absent, teachers rely primarily on bonding and bridging networks to sustain their professional engagement. Integrating JD-R with Social Capital Theory therefore allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how teachers maintain both resilience and engagement: resources are not confined to institutional provisions but are embedded in collective relationships and community solidarity.

Personal and external factors contributing to teacher resilience

Personal resources

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy, or individuals' belief in their capacity to achieve intended outcomes (Bandura, 1997), is a critical personal resource for sustaining resilience. In teaching, self-efficacy influences how educators respond to challenges, adapt their instructional approaches, and maintain engagement (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). Teachers with higher self-efficacy are more likely to employ problem-solving strategies, persevere through adversity, and remain committed to their roles (Barni et al., 2019). Research consistently shows that self-efficacy reduces emotional exhaustion and strengthens confidence in managing classroom difficulties, thereby reinforcing resilience (Schwarzer and Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010). In fragile, under-resourced settings, self-efficacy is especially important for managing stress and sustaining engagement (Heng and Chu, 2023; Sharifian et al., 2022; Wang and Pan, 2023). While these dynamics are well documented in more stable systems, relatively little research has explored how self-efficacy functions in crisis-affected or displaced contexts, where teachers often take on additional responsibilities as informal leaders and community anchors.

Sense of purpose

A strong sense of purpose is another vital personal resource underpinning resilience. For teachers, purpose often stems from commitment to student well-being, belief in the transformative power of education, and the intrinsic value they attach to teaching (Day and Gu, 2009). This moral purpose serves as a psychological buffer, enhancing motivation, strengthening coping strategies, and reinforcing long-term engagement (Dweck, 2006; Howard and Johnson, 2004). Studies show that educators with a strong sense of meaning in their work demonstrate greater adaptability, perseverance, and emotional stability in the face of adversity (Lavy, 2023; Sanger and Osguthorpe, 2011; Stephen et al., 2023). Yet, little is known about how such purpose is sustained in non-state, conflict-affected schools where institutional incentives are absent and educators continue largely out of conviction and shared responsibility.

External supports

Peer and professional networks

Social networks play a critical role in sustaining teacher resilience. Bonding capital among peers provides emotional and professional support, while bridging ties with communities foster collaboration and practical assistance (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000). In fragile settings, teachers often rely on such networks to mitigate stress, reduce isolation, and maintain professional identity (Beltman et al., 2011; Gu and Day, 2007). Research from war-affected schools in the Philippines illustrates how peer collaboration and solidarity sustained morale and professional identity under duress (Catoto and Flores, 2016). Similar patterns are evident in Myanmar, where teachers rely on trusted colleagues for advice, encouragement, and shared problem-solving amid displacement and insecurity (No, 2024a; 2024b; 2024c). These interpersonal ties act as job resources within the JD-R model, reinforcing teachers’ ability to remain engaged despite extreme demands.

Community engagement and support

Community support is another essential external factor. Parents, local leaders, and grassroots organizations often substitute for absent state systems by providing logistical support, moral encouragement, and basic resources (Sharifian and Kennedy, 2019). In Myanmar and other conflict-affected regions, community-based education committees and volunteer networks have taken on roles traditionally carried out by education authorities, such as organizing learning spaces, ensuring safety, and managing resources (McDiarmid et al., 2021; Paradies, 2023). These forms of support align with bridging social capital, strengthening teachers' resilience by affirming their value and creating protective environments for teaching. Regional evidence further shows that community-led programs often sustain literacy and psychosocial support where formal schools are inaccessible (SEAMEO, 2020; Yasunaga, 2014). However, while communities are frequently recognized in policy documents, peer-reviewed research has only partially explored their role as de facto governance structures in sustaining education during protracted crises (Dryden-Peterson, 2011; Kirk, 2009). Recent conceptual work (Tyrosvoutis et al., 2025) highlights this gap, framing resilience as an outcome of localized leadership and community solidarity when formal systems collapse.

Synthesis

Together, personal resources such as self-efficacy and sense of purpose, and external supports including peer and community networks, interact to sustain resilience in crisis-affected schools. Within the JD-R framework, these factors function as critical job resources that help balance the extraordinary demands of conflict contexts. Viewed through the lens of Social Capital Theory, they also represent the social infrastructures that make education possible in the absence of state institutions. Understanding these dynamics is essential for analyzing how resilience translates into sustained teacher engagement in Myanmar's non-state schools.

Literature gap

Existing research has substantially developed our understanding of teacher resilience in both conflict-affected and non-conflict settings, demonstrating its role in helping educators adapt to adversity and sustain engagement. Studies highlight both individual coping mechanisms and the importance of social and community supports (e.g., Burde et al., 2017; Dryden-Peterson, 2011Sharifian et al., 2022);. However, much of this work has focused on formal or NGO-administered systems where some institutional structures remain in place. Far less attention has been given to fully non-state, community-led schools that operate with little or no formal recognition, resources, or external coordination. Myanmar's post-2021 context makes this gap particularly salient. Following the military coup, the collapse of state education has left grassroots, non-state schools as the main providers of learning in many areas, especially in territories controlled by resistance armed groups, although these schools are organized and run by local communities rather than by the armed groups themselves. Unlike other conflict settings where international actors play a stabilizing role, these schools function almost entirely through local networks, moral commitment, and community solidarity amid armed-conflicts. This creates a distinctive setting for examining how resilience and engagement are sustained without institutional anchors.

This study responds to this gap by examining how teachers in Myanmar's non-state schools maintain resilience and professional engagement under protracted conflict. Using a mixed-methods design, it investigates how personal resources (such as self-efficacy and moral purpose) and external supports (such as peer and community networks) interact, with resilience conceptualized as a mediating process that enables sustained engagement. By integrating the Job Demands–Resources model with Social Capital Theory, the study extends existing frameworks and contributes new empirical evidence from a rarely documented context. Beyond theoretical insights, the findings hold practical relevance for NGOs and community initiatives working to support grassroots schooling in fragile settings, where education depends primarily on local actors rather than state or international institutions.

Conceptual framework

This study integrates the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) with Social Capital Theory (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000) to examine how teachers in Myanmar's non-state schools sustain resilience and professional engagement under protracted conflict. The JD-R model proposes that engagement arises when resources help buffer high demands. In Myanmar's non-state schools, where salaries, training, and administrative support are limited or absent, resources are primarily informal and community-based, emerging from teachers' self-efficacy, sense of purpose, and peer and community ties. Social Capital Theory complements this perspective by emphasizing relational supports: bonding capital (peer networks among teachers) and bridging capital (community and parental support) are essential, while linking capital (state or international institutions) remains largely absent or unreliable. This configuration makes Myanmar's non-state schools an important context for extending theory, highlighting how resilience is sustained without institutional anchors. As shown in Figure 1, personal and external resources contribute to teacher resilience, which mediates their impact on work engagement. By reconceptualizing job resources through the lens of social capital, this framework extends JD-R into fragile, non-state education systems while advancing understanding of how community-based supports substitute for absent institutional structures.

Figure 1

Hypotheses

• H1: Personal factors positively predict teacher resilience.

• H2: External support positively predicts teacher resilience.

• H3: Teacher resilience positively predicts work engagement.

• H4: Teacher resilience mediates the relationship between personal factors and work engagement.

• H5: Teacher resilience mediates the relationship between external support and work engagement.

Methodology

This study employed a convergent mixed-methods design, in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed separately and then integrated during interpretation (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). This approach was selected to capture both the measurable relationships between personal and contextual factors and the lived experiences of teachers navigating extreme conditions. The survey data allowed for testing hypothesized relationships and mediation effects, while the qualitative focus groups provided rich insights into teachers' motivations, coping strategies, and everyday practices. Bringing both strands together offered a more nuanced understanding of resilience and engagement in non-state schools during protracted conflict. Importantly, this study also functioned as a pilot phase of a larger dissertation project, serving to adapt, refine, and initially validate instruments in preparation for later, expanded research.

Quantitative phase

The quantitative component consisted of a cross-sectional survey of 87 teachers working in community-led high schools in Kayah State and surrounding areas. These schools operated outside formal government structures, often without salaries, administrative oversight, or access to formal professional development. Teachers were recruited through a combination of community education networks and snowball sampling. Local education committees and trusted contacts helped distribute invitations, and participating teachers were asked to share the survey link with colleagues. This approach enabled access to participants in insecure areas, although it also introduced potential selection bias, as teachers who were more connected or resilient may have been more likely to participate.

The survey measured personal factors (instructional self-efficacy, emotional self-efficacy, and sense of purpose), external support (peer collaboration, community engagement, and informal organizational support), teacher resilience, and work engagement. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Totally Disagree to 5 = Totally Agree). Instructional and emotional self-efficacy items were adapted from the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). Work engagement items were drawn from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2002), which captures vigor, dedication, and absorption. Additional items on purpose, resilience, and social support were informed by the work of Day and Gu (2009), Gu and Day (2007), Schwarzer and Hallum (2008), and Henderson and Mapp (2002).

The survey was translated from English into Burmese using a forward–backward translation process, reviewed by bilingual researchers to ensure accuracy and cultural appropriateness. Although the tool was not piloted formally due to field constraints, items were refined based on feedback from local educators familiar with the context. Internal consistency was acceptable across constructs (Cronbach's α = .72–.79). Descriptive statistics, multiple linear regression, and structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to analyze the data and test whether resilience mediated the relationship between personal/external factors and work engagement. Analyses were conducted in Stata 17.

Qualitative phase

The qualitative strand consisted of two online focus group discussions held in February 2024 with a total of 14 high school teachers working in non-state schools in conflict-affected areas. Participants were recruited purposively through community networks to ensure variation in teaching experience and school context. Each session lasted approximately 90 min and was conducted in Burmese, following a semi-structured guide that explored teachers' coping strategies, motivations, sources of support, and instructional adaptations. Discussions were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed in Burmese, and translated into English. A bilingual researcher reviewed the transcripts to ensure accuracy and preserve cultural nuance.

Data were analyzed thematically using an inductive approach. Initial open coding was conducted from participants’ own words, followed by clustering codes into categories and broader themes. Recurring patterns across both groups indicated that thematic saturation was reached, consistent with Guest et al. (2006), who note that saturation can often be achieved with a small number of focused groups when participants share key contextual experiences. To strengthen trustworthiness, analytic decisions were documented in a codebook, and summaries were checked with participants during the discussions to ensure interpretations reflected their perspectives.

Qualitative phase

The qualitative strand consisted of two online focus group discussions held in February 2024 with a total of 14 high school teachers working in non-state schools in conflict-affected areas. Participants were recruited purposively through community networks to ensure variation in teaching experience and school context. Each session lasted approximately 90 min and was conducted in Burmese, following a semi-structured guide that explored teachers' coping strategies, motivations, sources of support, and instructional adaptations. Discussions were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed in Burmese, and translated into English. A bilingual researcher reviewed the transcripts to ensure accuracy and preserve cultural nuance.

Data were analyzed thematically using an inductive approach. Initial open coding was conducted from participants’ own words, followed by clustering codes into categories and broader themes. Recurring patterns across both groups indicated that thematic saturation was reached, consistent with Guest et al. (2006), who note that saturation can often be achieved with a small number of focused groups when participants share key contextual experiences. To enhance credibility, the researcher summarized key points during the discussions and invited participants to confirm or clarify whether these summaries accurately reflected their perspectives.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Massachusetts Lowell (Protocol ID: 23-133-THA-EXM). All participants provided informed consent and were reminded of their right to withdraw at any time. Confidentiality was strictly maintained, and the use of online discussions minimized physical risks. The research was conducted by a Myanmar national with prior experience in community-led education initiatives in conflict-affected areas. This insider position facilitated trust and access but also required ongoing reflexivity to remain attentive to how the researcher's background and commitments could shape interpretation. Given the volatile environment, ethical decision-making was treated as an ongoing, adaptive process, with participant safety and well-being prioritized throughout.

Limitations

This study's findings are grounded in the specific context of non-state, community-led schools in conflict-affected Myanmar. Conducting research in this setting presented significant challenges, including internet blackouts, displacement, and insecurity, which restricted participation to teachers with relatively more stable access and safer conditions. This limitation may have excluded some of the most vulnerable or disengaged teachers, introducing potential selection bias. The modest sample sizes also limit generalizability. Nevertheless, strategies such as integrating survey and focus group findings (triangulation), maintaining a systematic codebook, and conducting real-time member checking with participants helped strengthen the trustworthiness of the results. Despite these constraints, the convergence of data across methods and alignment with comparable evidence from other fragile contexts suggest that the findings are both valid within this setting and potentially transferable to similar crisis-affected education systems.

Quantitative findings

Descriptive analysis and reliability

Descriptive statistics were calculated for four constructs: personal factors, external support, teacher resilience, and work engagement. Teachers reported relatively high agreement across all scales, with means ranging from 3.85 to 4.07 on a five-point scale. Standard deviations (0.49–0.57) indicated moderate consistency among responses. Internal reliability was acceptable for all scales (Cronbach's α = .72–.79). Table 1 presents the descriptive results.

Regression results: predictors of teacher resilience and work engagement

Linear regression models tested the first three hypotheses. Results showed that personal factors, such as teachers’ self-efficacy and sense of purpose, strongly predicted resilience (B = 0.53, SE = 0.08, p < .001), explaining 33% of the variance. External support, including collegial and community relationships, also predicted resilience (B = 0.45, SE = 0.09, p < .001), accounting for 24% of the variance. In turn, resilience significantly predicted work engagement (B = 0.81, SE = 0.13, p < .001), explaining 32% of the variance. These findings confirm that both internal motivation and supportive environments contribute to sustaining teachers' resilience and professional commitment under conditions of conflict and institutional breakdown (Table 2).

Mediation analysis

Mediation analyses using structural equation modeling (SEM) tested whether resilience served as a mediating process (Figure 2). Model fit was strong (CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.04). Personal factors predicted resilience (B = 0.53, p < .001), which in turn predicted engagement (B = 0.61, p < .001). Both direct (B = 0.32, p = .020) and indirect (B = 0.32, p = .001) effects were significant, indicating partial mediation (Table 3).

Figure 2

A second SEM model tested external support. External support predicted resilience (B = 0.45, p < .001), which in turn predicted engagement (B = 0.63, p < .001). Direct (B = 0.33, p = .011) and indirect (B = 0.28, p = .001) effects were significant, again indicating partial mediation (Table 4).

In both models, resilience acted as a key pathway but not the only one: personal and external resources influenced engagement directly as well as indirectly through resilience.

Qualitative findings

The qualitative strand provided rich insights into how teachers experienced and responded to the realities of conflict, complementing the survey results. Four themes emerged: (1) living under conflict, (2) resilient and purpose-driven leadership, (3) educational barriers and adaptations, and (4) student agency and community engagement. These themes map directly onto the study's core constructs: job demands, personal factors, teacher resilience, and external support.

Theme 1: living under conflict: fear, exposure, and trauma

Teachers described schools as sites of survival rather than safe spaces for learning. The extreme job demands of working in active conflict zones shaped both daily routines and psychological well-being. As one teacher explained, “Since the area where we live is near a flight path, we are constantly on alert, running to bomb shelters.” Others recounted digging shelters: “Our school has dug shelters..a large trench, like a drainage ditch, where we take cover.”

The trauma was constant and deeply personal. “The worst incident was when a bomb hit the displacement camp, resulting in the deaths of students and an entire family,” recalled another participant. Teachers also noted the secondary effects on children: “Whenever they hear loud noises, they panic..Some children become so frightened that they faint.”

Despite their own fears, teachers felt obligated to shield students: “Our knees tremble, and our hands shake, but we cannot show our fear in front of the children.” Others relied on spiritual practices: “We are terrified amidst the bombings..We turn to the teachings of the Dhamma and rely on prayer.”

Despite these conditions, schools remained open. One teacher reported, “At the beginning of the school year, 788 students were enrolled. However, due to repeated airstrikes, only 712 remain.” Parents were anxious: “They often ask if we can guarantee their safety, which we cannot.”

This theme demonstrates how constant exposure to violence created extraordinary job demands (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), reinforcing the quantitative finding that resilience was essential for sustaining engagement in environments of chronic insecurity.

Theme 2: resilient and purpose-driven leadership

Teachers' ability to remain engaged was closely tied to personal factors such as self-efficacy, moral conviction, and a sense of duty. Their narratives echoed the quantitative finding that personal resources were strong predictors of resilience.

Teachers framed their work as moral duty and collective responsibility rather than employment. “There are reasons for our fears and anxieties, but we continue to push forward, driven by our sense of duty and the need to ensure the children's education is not disrupted.” Another described returning to the classroom after personal tragedy: “Last year I thought I wouldn't continue teaching after losing my wife and child (due to airstrike attack to the school). But as the new year approached, I felt compelled to keep going.”

Leadership was marked by solidarity. “Our team is like a family… We support each other unconditionally,” one participant explained. Such close-knit ties exemplify bonding social capital (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000), which served as an informal but vital job resource. Community partners also stepped in: “They provide support and even land for our school.”

Values of sacrifice were central. “In times of conflict, three things are essential: goodwill, passion, and sacrifice. Passion drives us, goodwill sustains us, and sacrifice strengthens us.”

These accounts show how personal purpose and peer support, both quantitative predictors of resilience, translated into purpose-driven leadership that sustained teachers' engagement despite overwhelming pressures.

Theme 3: educational barriers, disruptions, and adaptations

Teachers described the collapse of formal oversight and resources as creating significant barriers to teaching and learning, while also forcing constant improvisation and adaptation, an experience that aligned closely with the construct of teacher resilience.

Resource shortages were acute: “If we have acid, we might not have a base… or lack the materials to demonstrate reactions,” one explained. Many adapted instruction to ease student burdens, especially when families struggled financially. “The students are eager to attend school, and we don't force them to pay if they can't afford it.”

Pedagogy also shifted. “Before, it was all about memorization and exams. Now, we focus on a child-centered approach, encouraging children to explore and create on their own,” one said. Teachers admitted limited preparation for these changes: “We weren't trained deeply in hands-on or child-centered teaching methods, so we often look to experts or university educators for guidance.”

With little oversight, educators exercised greater autonomy. “Now, there are no orders from superiors. I focus on the children's problems, their desire to learn, and their emotional stress,” one teacher shared.

These adaptations reveal resilience in action, teachers drawing on autonomy, adaptability, and peer consultation as informal job resources that buffered extreme demands, echoing the quantitative finding that both personal and contextual supports sustained resilience and engagement.

Theme 4: student agency and community engagement

Students and communities emerged as central actors in sustaining education. One teacher recalled, “Some parents are reluctant (for security reason)...but the children insist on coming because they want to learn.” Other described that students also used creative outlets such as music, film, and writing to process trauma and express commitment. As one teacher explained, ‘Soon, we will release a second album featuring songs written and performed by the students...” Such creative projects highlight students' agency and illustrate how education in these contexts extends beyond academics, providing both a coping mechanism and a means of civic expression.

Teachers highlighted the value of student autonomy: “Students have the freedom to choose… The students have the right to decide.” Despite trauma, attendance resumed quickly after attacks: “The school closed for only a week after a nearby attack, and students continued attending.”

Community involvement was also vital. “They provide support and even land for our school,” one teacher explained. Teachers expressed cautious optimism: “We hope the village community, recognizing this as their school, will continue to maintain and promote education even after we are gone.” Events like ceremonies and competitions further strengthened family–school ties, while inclusive practices fostered a culture of trust and responsibility: “When disputes arise, we bring all parties together..and impose appropriate consequences.”

This theme reflects the role of bridging social capital, where students and communities act as active partners in sustaining education. These qualitative insights complement the quantitative finding that external support significantly predicted both resilience and engagement.

Joint display of quantitative and qualitative findings

As Table 5 shows, quantitative models demonstrated that both personal and external resources significantly predicted teacher resilience, which in turn strongly sustained work engagement. The qualitative findings deepen this picture by showing what these resources looked like in practice: moral duty and self-belief, peer solidarity, community support, and students' determination. Together, the strands highlight resilience not just as an individual attribute, but as a socially and ethically grounded process that enables engagement under extreme conditions.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative results provides a fuller understanding of how resilience sustains work engagement in Myanmar's non-state schools. The survey models demonstrated that both personal factors (e.g., self-efficacy, sense of purpose) and external supports (e.g., peer collaboration, community engagement) significantly predicted resilience, which in turn strongly influenced engagement. These statistical patterns were deepened by teachers' narratives, which revealed how moral duty, peer solidarity, and community contributions gave meaning and substance to these relationships. For example, the quantitative finding that community support predicted resilience was reflected in accounts of villagers donating land, resources, and moral encouragement, while the predictive effect of personal resources aligned with teachers' descriptions of sacrifice, purpose-driven leadership, and persistence after personal loss. By connecting general patterns from the survey with lived experiences from focus groups, the two strands together demonstrate that resilience is not only a measurable mediator but also a socially embedded process shaped by collective networks, ethical commitments, and shared responsibility.

Discussion

In Myanmar's conflict-affected, non-state schools, formal institutional support is largely absent, yet teachers continue to demonstrate strong professional commitment. The findings reaffirm central elements of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model by showing that teachers draw on psychological and social resources. moral purpose, collegial support, and student motivation, to manage extreme work demands. Resilience emerged as a central mechanism linking these resources to sustained engagement. However, the results also highlight the limits of resilience. Teachers described masking fear, suppressing grief, and enduring chronic exposure to trauma, underscoring that resilience does not eliminate the emotional costs of teaching under protracted crisis. Rather, resilience should be understood as a fragile and costly resource, one that sustains engagement but cannot fully shield educators from burnout or long-term harm.

This tension is not unique to Myanmar. Research in South Sudan (Novelli and Smith, 2011), Syria (Dryden-Peterson, 2011), and Afghanistan (Kirk and Winthrop, 2007) similarly shows that while teachers often remain committed, the prolonged strain of conflict produces significant emotional and professional risks. By situating the Myanmar case within this broader landscape, the study contributes comparative insights into how resilience is sustained, and strained, across diverse fragile settings.

Theoretically, the study extends the JD-R model into contexts where formal structures are almost entirely absent. While most JD-R applications assume institutional job resources (e.g., leadership, training), this study demonstrates how informal and community-generated resources, peer solidarity, moral conviction, and student agency, can substitute as functional equivalents. This reframing highlights the adaptability of the JD-R model and underscores its value for understanding resilience and engagement in fragile, non-state education systems. Likewise, the findings advance Social Capital Theory by showing how, in the absence of linking capital to formal institutions, bonding and bridging ties take on expanded roles in sustaining education. Teachers' close-knit networks and community partnerships not only buffered emotional strain but also substituted for collapsed state structures, pointing to the centrality of relational trust in contexts of institutional breakdown.

At the same time, the study's focus carries limitations. The teachers who participated were those still actively teaching in community schools. As in other resilience research, this creates a form of survivor bias: the voices of teachers who disengaged, left the profession, or were displaced are absent. Their stories may reveal different dynamics, particularly the limits of resilience and the conditions under which commitment cannot be sustained. This caution reminds us that resilience is not a universal outcome, but one contingent on both personal resources and the availability of social supports.

These insights have practical relevance. They suggest that efforts to sustain education in crisis contexts should not only provide material assistance (e.g., stipends, basic teaching resources) but also strengthen the informal networks that teachers themselves rely on, such as peer groups and community partnerships. Supporting teacher well-being requires addressing both the emotional toll of crisis and the adaptive strategies educators have already developed. In fragile settings where formal institutions are collapsed, external actors can amplify these grassroots systems rather than attempting to replace them.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the growing literature on teacher resilience by applying established theories to a non-state, conflict-affected context that has received limited empirical attention. It shows that resilience in such environments is not simply a psychological trait but a socially embedded process shaped by relationships, moral conviction, and community support. Teachers in Myanmar's non-state schools sustained engagement not through institutional incentives but through peer solidarity, shared purpose, and collaboration with local communities.

The findings highlight a clear novelty: while the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model and Social Capital Theory have been applied widely in formal education systems, this study demonstrates how they operate in the near-total absence of state structures. Grassroots networks, peer teams, village committees, and student groups, acted as necessary buffers and functional alternatives that helped sustain teachers in the short term, though they cannot fully replace the stability and scale of formal institutions in the long run. For education actors, this points to the importance of modest but targeted support: stipends for unpaid teachers, basic teaching materials, and psychosocial care tailored to conflict contexts (e.g., trauma-informed workshops and peer-support circles). Policymakers and community leaders can reinforce local trust structures and safeguard teachers’ autonomy, while avoiding interventions that weaken the organic resilience of these non-state systems.

Future research should build on these insights through longitudinal studies tracing how resilience evolves during protracted crises, cross-country comparisons to situate Myanmar alongside other fragile contexts, and gender- and ethnicity-sensitive analyses to capture how diverse teachers access and experience support differently. Ultimately, sustaining education in prolonged emergencies requires both recognition of grassroots capacities and carefully tailored external support. By documenting how teachers in Myanmar's non-state schools endure and adapt, this study provides a grounded contribution to rethinking how resilience and engagement can be fostered where formal systems have collapsed.

References

• 1

  BakkerA. B.DemeroutiE. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J. Manag. Psychol.22 (3), 309–328. 10.1108/02683940710733115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman (New York, NY: Freeman) https://www.academia.edu/28274869/Albert_Bandura_Self_Efficacy_The_Exercise_of_Control_W_H_Freeman_and_Co_1997_pdf?auto=download(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BarniD.DanioniF.BeneveneP. (2019). Teachers’ self-efficacy: the role of personal values and motivations for teaching. Front. Psychol.10, 1645. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01645

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BeltmanS.MansfieldC.PriceA. (2011). Thriving not just surviving: a review of research on teacher resilience. Educ. Res. Rev.6 (3), 185–207. 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BetancourtT. S.BorisovaI.WilliamsT. P.Meyers-OhkiS. E.Rubin-SmithJ. E.AnnanJ.et al (2012). Research review: psychosocial adjustment and mental health in former child soldiers – a systematic review of the literature and recommendations for future research. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry54 (1), 17–36. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02620.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BurdeD.KapitA.WahlR. L.GuvenO.SkarpeteigM. I. (2017). Education in emergencies: a review of theory and research. Rev. Educ. Res.87 (3), 619–658. 10.3102/0034654316671594

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  CardozoL.CyrilB.MarieL.NebilK.HigginsS.ElizabethJ. (2015). Literature Review: Youth Agency, Peacebuilding and Education. Research Gate. http://learningforpeace.unicef.org/partners/research?consortium/research?outputs/(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  CatotoJ. S.FloresS. C. (2016). Teachers in the war zone: a hermeneutics phenomenology. IOSR J. Humanit. Soc. Sci.21 (11), 50–55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361305236_Teachers_In_The_War_Zone_A_Hermeneutics_Phenomenology

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol.94 (Supplement), S95–S120. 10.1086/228943

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. https://bayanbox.ir/view/236051966444369258/9781483344379-Designing-and-Conducting-Mixed-Methods-Research-3e.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  DayC.GuQ. (2009). Veteran teachers: commitment, resilience, and quality retention. Teach. Teach.15 (4), 441–457. 10.1080/13540600903057211

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  DinniS. M.MaharaniE. A. (2022). Do resilience and social support reduce job stress? Study on preschool teachers. J. Educ. Health Commun. Psychol.11 (4), 917–935. 10.12928/jehcp.v11i4.24262

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Dryden-PetersonS. (2011). Refugee education: A global review (Policy Development and Evaluation Service Report PDES/2011/10). United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org/4fe317589.html(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new Psychology of Success. New York, NY: Random House. https://adrvantage.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Mindset-The-New-Psychology-of-Success-Dweck.pdf(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  GuQ.DayC. (2007). Teachers’ resilience: a necessary condition for effectiveness. Teach. Teach. Educ.23 (8), 1302–1316. 10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough?Field Methods18 (1), 59–82. 10.1177/1525822X05279903

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  HendersonA. T.MappK. L. (2002). A new Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. https://sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  HengQ.ChuL. (2023). Self-efficacy, reflection, and resilience as predictors of work engagement among English teachers. Front. Psychol.14, 1160681. 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1160681

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  HermanK.Hickmon-RosaJ.ReinkeW. (2018). Empirically derived profiles of teacher stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and coping and associated student outcomes. J. Posit. Behav. Interv.20 (2), 90–100. 10.1177/1098300717732066

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  HowardS.JohnsonB. (2004). Resilient teachers: resisting stress and burnout. Soc. Psychol. Educ.7 (4), 399–420. 10.1007/s11218-004-0975-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  KirkJ. (2009). Certification Counts: Recognizing the Learning Attainments of Displaced and Refugee Students. UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180906(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  KirkJ.WinthropR. (2007). Promoting quality education in refugee contexts: supporting teacher development in Northern Ethiopia. Int. Rev. Edu.53 (5–6), 715–723. 10.1007/s11159-007-9061-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  LavyS. (2023). A meaningful boost: effects of Teachers’ sense of meaning at work on their engagement, burnout, and stress. J. Educ. Psychol.. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1360106.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  MansfieldC. F.BeltmanS.PriceA.McConneyA. (2012). “Don’t sweat the small stuff:” understanding teacher resilience at the chalkface. Teach. Teach. Educ.28 (3), 357–367. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  McDiarmidS.DurbeejN.SarkadiA.OsmanF. (2021). Schools’ and teachers’ roles and challenges in supporting the mental wellbeing of refugee youths: a qualitative study with Swedish teachers. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-being17 (1), 10.1080/17482631.2021.2007568

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  MendenhallM.BartlettL.Ghaffar-KucherA. (2017). “If you need help, they are always there for US”: education for refugees in an international high school in NYC. Urban. Rev.49 (1), 1–25. 10.1007/s11256-016-0379-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Mohinga Matters. (2024). Education Left Behind: COVID, Coup, and Conscription. Mohinga Matters. Available online at: https://mohingamatters.com/2024/03/07/education-left-behind-covid-coup-and-conscription/(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  NoL. (2024a). Our community, our future: community-driven educational management and leadership in war zones. Asian Educ. Stud.9 (2), 1–15. 10.20849/aes.v9i2.1462

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  NoL. (2024b). Crisis and continuity: evaluating teacher and community strategies for sustaining education in war-torn areas of Myanmar. Asian J. Soc. Sci. Stud.9 (3), 1–20. 10.20849/ajsss.v9i3.1450

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  NoL. (2024c). From conflict to classroom: understanding school-community-family partnerships in conflict-affected Myanmar. J. Educ. Dev.8 (3), 1–20. 10.20849/jed.v8i3.1432

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  NovelliM.SmithA. (2011). The Role of Education in Peacebuilding: A Synthesis Report of Findings from Lebanon, Nepal and Sierra Leone. New York: UNICEF.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  ParadiesM. (2023). I do not want to stop teaching”: the impact of conflict and displacement on teachers in southern mosul. Prospects. 10.1007/s11125-023-09666-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  SangerM. N.OsguthorpeR. D. (2011). “Teacher candidate beliefs about the moral work of teaching,” in The Moral Work of Teaching and Teacher Education. eds. SangerM. N. and OsguthorpeR. D. (New York, NY: Teachers College Press), 14–25. https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cifs_facpubs/125(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  SchaufeliW. B.BakkerA. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav.25(3), 293–315. 10.1002/job.248

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  SchaufeliW. B.SalanovaM.González-RomáV.BakkerA. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud.3 (1), 71–92. 10.1023/A:1015630930326

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  SchwarzerR.HallumS. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: mediation analyses. Appl. Psychol.57 (1), 152–171. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  SEAMEO Centre for Community Education Development. (2020). Annual report 2019–2020. SEAMEO. https://www.seameo.org/img/SEAMEO_General/About_SEAMEO/SEAMEO%20Units/Centres_Annual_Rpt/2019-2020/CED.pdf(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  SharifianM. S.KennedyP. (2019). Teachers in war zone education: literature review and implications. Int. J. Whole Child4 (2), 9–21.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  SharifianM. S.HootJ. L.ShiblyO.ReyhanianA. (2022). Trauma, burnout, and resilience of Syrian primary teachers working in a war zone. Early Child. Educ. J.50 (1), 115–135. 10.1080/02568543.2022.2076267)

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: a study of relations. Teach. Teach. Educ.26 (4), 1059–1069. 10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  StephenF.DinaG.HanimaC.CayambaeD.AlimA. (2023). Struggles and coping strategies of teachers pursuing graduate studies: a basis for intervention. Res. Gate21 (3), 324–338. https://zenodo.org/records/10202489

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Tschannen-MoranM.HoyA. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teach. Teach. Educ.17 (7), 783–805. 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  TyrosvoutisG.CharoensukaranW.ChanM. L. (2025). Conceptualising educational resilience during Myanmar’s conflict. Educ. Confl. Rev.5, 107–115. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10207910/

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  UNHCR (2019). Inter-agency Brief: Access to Education for Refugee and Migrant Children in Europe. Geneva: UNICEF, IOM. https://data.unhcr.org/en/documents/details/71202(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  UNICEF (2022). Education in Crisis. New York, NY: The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). https://www.unicef.org(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  UNICEF Myanmar (2024). 2024: A Harrowing Year for Myanmar’s Children as Conflict and Crisis Deepen. Yangon: UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/myanmar/stories/Myanmar-in-2024-eng(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  WangY.PanZ. (2023). Modeling the effect of Chinese EFL teachers’ self-efficacy and resilience on their work engagement: a structural equation modeling analysis. SAGE Open13 (4), 1–15. 10.1177/21582440231214329

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  WinthropR.KirkJ. (2008). Learning for a bright future: schooling, armed conflict, and children’s well-being. Comp. Educ. Rev.52 (4), 639–661. 10.1086/591301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  WobeteA. A.AndargieS.AzmerawE.MogessieM. G.MoritaniK.KibretB. T.et al (2024). Mental Health and Psychosocial Support for Teachers and Learners in Conflict-affected areas: Results for Northern Ethiopia. UNESCO International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa (IICBA). https://www.iicba.unesco.org/en/articles/mental-health-and-psychosocial-support-teachers-and-learners-conflict-affected-areas-results(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  YasunagaM. (2014). Non-formal Education as a Means to Meet Learning Needs of out-of-school children and Adolescents. UNESCO. http://policytoolbox.iiep.unesco.org/library/2TI227B4(Accessed March 19, 2026).

  • Google Scholar