SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL LEARNING AND SCHOOL CLIMATE: PREDICTORS OF TEACHER STRESS, JOB SATISFACTION, AND SENSE OF EFFICACY by Rebecca J. Collie B.Ed., University of Melbourne, 2006
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Human Development, Learning and Culture)
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2010
© Rebecca J. Collie, 2010
ii ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to investigate whether social and emotional learning and school climate have an impact on teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy. The sample included 664 public schoolteachers from suburban, rural, and remote areas of British Columbia and Ontario in Canada. Participants completed an online questionnaire about teacher outcomes, school climate, and social and emotional learning. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that positive school climates significantly predicted lower teacher stress, increased teacher job satisfaction, and increased teacher sense of efficacy. Of the school climate variables, student relations played the most significant role in predicting better teacher outcomes. Other significant variables were collaboration among staff, school resources, and input in decision making. For social and emotional learning, the findings demonstrated that stronger beliefs and integration of social and emotional learning predicted greater job satisfaction and increased teacher sense of efficacy; however, certain social and emotional learning variables also predicted increased stress. Of the social and emotional learning variables, comfort with and regular implementation of social and emotional learning in the classroom, the support and promotion of social and emotional learning , and the integration of social and emotional learning across the school predicted better outcomes for teachers, whereas commitment to improving social and emotional learning provided mixed results. Implications for practice and research are discussed.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Teacher Work Stress ............................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1. Consequences of Teacher-Related Stress ...................................................................... 4 2.1.2. Causes of Teacher-Related Stress.................................................................................. 5 2.1.3. Measuring Teacher-Related Stress ................................................................................ 6 2.2. Teacher Job Satisfaction....................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1. Significance of Teacher Job Satisfaction....................................................................... 8 2.2.2. Research on Teacher Job Satisfaction ........................................................................... 9 2.2.3. Measuring Teacher Job Satisfaction ............................................................................ 12 2.3. Teacher Sense of Efficacy .................................................................................................. 12 2.3.1. Significance of Teacher Sense of Efficacy .................................................................. 14 2.3.2. Research on Teacher Sense of Efficacy ...................................................................... 15 2.3.3. Measuring Teacher Sense of Efficacy ......................................................................... 17 2.4. School Climate ................................................................................................................... 17 2.4.1. School Climate and Students ....................................................................................... 19 2.4.2. School Climate and Teachers ...................................................................................... 21 2.4.3. Measuring School Climate .......................................................................................... 23 2.5. Social and Emotional Learning .......................................................................................... 24 2.5.1. SEL and Teachers ........................................................................................................ 25 2.6. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 28 Chapter 3: Methods .................................................................................................................... 31 3.1. Sample ................................................................................................................................ 31 3.2. Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 33 3.3. Measures............................................................................................................................. 35 3.3.1. Teacher Demographics ................................................................................................ 35 3.3.2. Outcome Variables ...................................................................................................... 37 3.3.3. Predictor Variables ...................................................................................................... 40 3.4. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 4: Results....................................................................................................................... 55 4.1. Teacher Stress .................................................................................................................... 56 4.1.1. Research Question One ............................................................................................... 56 4.1.2. Research Question Two ............................................................................................... 59 4.1.3. Research Question Three ............................................................................................. 60
iv 4.1.4. Research Question Four .............................................................................................. 64 4.2. Teacher Job Satisfaction..................................................................................................... 69 4.2.1. Research Question One ............................................................................................... 69 4.2.2. Research Question Two ............................................................................................... 72 4.2.3. Research Question Three ............................................................................................. 73 4.2.4. Research Question Four .............................................................................................. 79 4.3. Teacher Sense of Efficacy .................................................................................................. 79 4.3.1. Research Question One ............................................................................................... 79 4.3.2. Research Question Two ............................................................................................... 82 4.3.3. Research Question Three ............................................................................................. 83 4.3.4. Research Question Four .............................................................................................. 83 Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 87 5.1. Teacher Stress .................................................................................................................... 87 5.1.1. School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Stress ......................................................... 87 5.1.2. Interaction Effects for Teacher Stress ......................................................................... 89 5.2. Teacher Job Satisfaction..................................................................................................... 90 5.2.1. School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Job Satisfaction ......................................... 90 5.2.2. Interaction Effects for Teacher Job Satisfaction.......................................................... 93 5.3 Teacher Sense of Efficacy ................................................................................................... 94 5.3.1. School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Sense of Efficacy ...................................... 94 5.3.2. Interaction Effects for Teacher Sense of Efficacy ....................................................... 96 5.4 Summary Across Three Outcomes ...................................................................................... 96 5.4.1 School Climate ............................................................................................................. 96 5.4.2 SEL ............................................................................................................................... 97 5.5. Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 97 5.6. Conclusions and Implications ............................................................................................ 98 5.6.1. Implications for Practice ............................................................................................ 100 5.6.2. Implications for Research .......................................................................................... 101 References .................................................................................................................................. 103 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................ 114 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ 123 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................ 128 Appendix D ................................................................................................................................ 129
v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Frequencies and Percentages of the Study Demographic Variables............................... 37 Table 2. T-Tests of Differences Between Dichotomous Demographic Variables for the TSI, JSS, and TSES ...................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 3. Reliability Indexes, Means, and Standard Deviations of the R-SLEQ Subscales .......... 42 Table 4. Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix for SEL Beliefs Items ............... 45 Table 5. Reliability Indexes, Means, and Standard Deviations of the SEL Beliefs Subscale s .... 46 Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and T-Tests of SEL Beliefs scale for Dichotomous Demographic Variables ................................................................................................................ 47 Table 7. Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix for Original SEL Integration Items .............................................................................................................................................. 49 Table 8. Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix for Adapted SEL Integration Items .............................................................................................................................................. 51 Table 9. Size, Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis of Dependent Variables ...... 55 Table 10. Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Teacher Stress (N = 538). ........................................................................................ 58 Table 11. Comparison of the R2-Value in the Hierarchical Regression Models with Different Order of Entry (N = 538). ............................................................................................................. 60 Table 12. Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of Interaction Effects Between SEL and School Climate (N = 538). ..................................................................................................... 61 Table 13. Tests of Simple Slopes .................................................................................................. 63 Table 14. Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of Interaction Effects Between SEL and Demographic Variables (N = 538). ........................................................................................ 65 Table 15. Tests of Simple Slopes .................................................................................................. 67 Table 16. Tests of Simple Slopes .................................................................................................. 68 Table 17. Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Teacher Job Satisfaction (N = 537). ........................................................................ 71 Table 18. Comparison of the R2-Value in the Hierarchical Regression Models with Different Order of Entry (N = 537). ............................................................................................................. 73 Table 19. Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of Interaction Effects Between SEL and School Climate (N = 537). ..................................................................................................... 74 Table 20. Tests of Simple Slopes .................................................................................................. 76 Table 21. Tests of Simple Slopes .................................................................................................. 77 Table 22. Tests of Simple Slopes .................................................................................................. 78 Table 23. Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Teacher Sense of Efficacy (N = 535). ..................................................................... 81 Table 24. Comparison of the R2-Value in the Hierarchical Regression Models with Different Order of Entry (N = 535). ............................................................................................................. 83 Table 25. Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of Interaction Effects Between SEL and Demographic Variables (N = 535). ........................................................................................ 85 Table 26. Tests of Simple Slopes .................................................................................................. 86 Table 27. Intercorrelations Between Independent and Dependent Variables in the Study ........ 129
vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Teachers in Study by Years Experience ........................................................................ 36 Figure 2. The Relationship Between SEL Commitment and Stress at Different Level of Student Relations ....................................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 3. The Relationship Between SEL Commitment and Stress for Different Years Experience..................................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 4. The Relationship Between SEL Culture and Stress for Different Years Experience.... 68 Figure 5. The Relationship Between SEL Comfort and Job Satisfaction at Different Level of Student Relations .......................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 6. The Relationship Between SEL Commitment and Job Satisfaction at Different Level of Student Relations .......................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 7. The Relationship Between SEL Culture and Job Satisfaction at Different Level of Student Relations .......................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 8. The Relationship Between SEL Commitment and Sense of Efficacy for Male and Female Teachers ........................................................................................................................... 86
vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The importance of teacher well-being is something that I witnessed first-hand during my time as a classroom teacher and I returned to graduate studies with the hope of researching this important issue. There are many people that I would like to thank who helped me commence and complete this research. First, I would like to thank Dr. Jennifer Shapka, my research supervisor, for her support of my chosen topic and my development as a researcher. I would also like to thank Dr. Nancy Perry and my two other committees members, Dr. Marion Porath and Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl for their support, time, and advice. The members of the DCTech research lab, of which I am a part, must also be thanked for teaching me many of the finer points of conducting research, and more specifically, for their help in creating the additional scale items for the teacher stress measure. I would also like to acknowledge the support of Lisa Pedrini, who kindly checked the wording of the items in the SEL Integration scale to make sure that they were relevant to Canadian teachers. For those who helped me undertake graduate studies, I want to thank my family for their love and support, as well as for the excellent education that my parents worked hard for me to have. I also want to thank my sister, Claire, as well as my honorary sister, Jo, who have both been caring supporters of my well-being and open-minded sounding boards for my ideas during this study and long before. Last, but by no means least, I want to thank my partner, Hugues, for his love and unfaltering support of me, but also for his ability to nurture my well-being by making me see the lighter side of life.
1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Teacher stress, teacher job satisfaction, and teacher sense of efficacy are three areas of research that have received much attention from researchers and policy-makers over the past few decades (Shann, 1998; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007; Wilson, 2002). There are concerns about the negative effects that these three issues can have on teachers, and the ensuing reduction in teaching effectiveness and student learning (De Nobile & McCormick, 2005; Perie & Baker, 1997; Weiss, 1999). As a result, much time and effort has gone into researching reasons for and factors that cause teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy, and ways that these issues can be improved. Another two areas of research that have gained attention in recent years are school climate and social and emotional learning (SEL). School climate is being recognised for its relevance and importance in creating safe, happy, and effective schools (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009). Additionally, SEL has received attention from teachers, schools, and policy-makers, but also parents, due to its potential enhancement of students’ social and emotional competences (Payton et al., 2008), its potential reduction of high-risk behaviours among students, and its potential improvement of school safety (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2003). Although researchers have cited school climate as a key factor in teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy (Borg, 1990; Butt et al., 2005; De Nobile & McCormick, 2005; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993; Kim & Loadman, 1994), little research has been completed to investigate the direct influence of school climate on these outcomes. In relation to SEL, although much research has focused on ascertaining causes or consequences of teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teacher sense of efficacy (Crossman &
2 Harris, 2006; De Nobile & McCormick, 2005; Kyriacou, 2000; Shann, 1998; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007), no research has been done to see if SEL, which is generally aimed at students in schools, but deals with issues that relate to teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy, has any relationship to better teacher outcomes. The first aim of this study is to investigate whether positive school climates predict lower teacher stress, higher job satisfaction, and a greater sense of efficacy among teachers. The second aim of this study is to examine whether SEL predicts lower teacher stress, higher job satisfaction, and a greater sense of efficacy among teachers.
3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This section includes a review of literature in which key concepts, aims, and previous studies are defined, described and analysed. The first area discussed is teacher stress, followed by teacher job satisfaction, teacher sense of efficacy, SEL, and finally, school climate. 2.1. Teacher Work Stress Stress is considered a difficult concept to define, and as a result many definitions exist in the research literature (Borg, 1990; Chaplain, 2001). This is partly because it is a multilevel and multidimensional concept (Wilson, 2002), but also because it is defined differently depending on the field of research (such as in medicine, physiological, and psychological studies, Chaplain, 2001). The experience of stress that is related to working as a teacher is termed teacher occupational stress, teacher work stress, or simply, teacher stress. A pioneer in the area of general occupational stress was Selye (1974), who explained that stress can be both negative and positive for individuals and their work performance. In fact, Selye argued that stress is highly important for survival because it is invigorating and spurs individuals into action. However, there comes a point with stress when the amount becomes too great for an individual to handle. This can lead to “distress and attendant feelings of oppression, harassment, or collapse” (Wilson, 2002, p. 4). Kyriacou and Sutcliffe (1977, 1979) developed a definition of stress that has been much-used in defining teacher stress: Teacher stress is the experience of “unpleasant, negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, tension, frustration or depression, resulting from some aspect of their work as a teacher” (Kyriacou, 2001, p. 28). However, Wilson (2002) argues that definitions of stress must take into account two components of stress: “… the pressure imposed and the adaptive resources of the individual to withstand the pressure” (pp. 4-5). By taking into account these two aspects, stress is subsequently defined as a
4 phenomenon arising from a comparison of the demand on an individual and their ability to cope with that demand (Cox, 1978). Dunham (1992) proposed three different models of stress. The first, referred to as the engineering model, looks at the pressure or load that is exerted on teachers (Dunham, 1992; Wilson, 2002). The second is the medical model and it looks at the physiological and psychological symptoms that can arise as a result of stress (Dunham, 1992; Wilson, 2002). The third model is termed the interactive model and considers the pressures, reactions and coping strategies of the specific individual, as well as the situation or context (Dunham, 1992; Wilson, 2002). Wilson (2002) argues that the interactive model is the most appropriate because it implies that stress reduction is a two-way process. Namely, schools have a duty to ensure that the working environment does not promote stress in the teachers, but teachers must also “apply their adaptive resources to help them cope with the inherent pressures of their chosen profession” (Wilson, 2002, p. 5). In the current study, stress is approached using the interactive model: It is defined as including the pressures, the reactions, and the coping strategies of individual teachers and their schools; however, for the current study, attention is focused on the individual’s experience of stress as a negative phenomenon. 2.1.1. Consequences of Teacher-Related Stress The profession of teaching has been labelled as highly stressful by many researchers (AlFudail & Mellar, 2008; De Nobile & McCormick, 2005; Kyriacou, 2000, 2001). In fact, there has been concern over the apparent increase in teacher stress in recent decades (Bachkirova, 2005; De Nobile & McCormick, 2005), with different international studies showing that up to one-third of teachers are stressed or extremely stressed (Borg & Riding, 1991b; Geving, 2007; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Thomas, Clark, & Lavery, 2003). Teacher stress is a significant
5 concern because it affects schools, teacher performance, student learning, and the well-being of teachers and their families (Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; De Nobile & McCormick, 2005). For schools, stress leads to loss of skilled and experienced teachers or less effective teachers among those who remain, despite being stressed (Howard & Johnson, 2004). For teachers, performance is negatively affected in the areas of “lesson organisation, student behaviour management, responsiveness to students, and relationships with parents” (Howard & Johnson, 2004, p. 401). In addition, student learning and achievement, and teacher well-being are negatively affected, due to teachers’ feelings of detachment, alienation, cynicism, and apathy, and because of reduced teacher self-esteem and damaged interpersonal relationships (De Nobile & McCormick, 2005; Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998; Howard & Johnson, 2004). Stress has also been shown to link to teacher burnout, which involves “emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, and reduced personal accomplishment” (Thomas et al., 2003, p. 74), and to reduced job satisfaction (Borg & Riding, 1991a; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979). Moreover, the financial ramifications of teacher stress are steadily increasing due to early retirement and long absences of staff and because stressed teachers are leaving the profession altogether (Bachkirova, 2005; Thomas et al., 2003). According to De Nobile and McCormick (2005), the financial costs associated with absenteeism and teacher turnover due to stress are significant. Even greater, however, is the cost of disrupted student learning, which cannot be measured (De Nobile & McCormick, 2005). 2.1.2. Causes of Teacher-Related Stress Voluminous research has been conducted in the area of teacher stress since the late 1970s and has consistently revealed similar causes for teacher stress (Borg & Riding, 1991a, 1991b; De Nobile & McCormick, 2005; Geving, 2007; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979; Kyriacou, 2001;
6 Manthei & Gilmore, 1996; Thomas et al., 2003). Borg (1990) organised the causes of stress into five major categories. The first is student behaviour, which includes disobedience, misbehaviour, and poor attitudes to work. The second is workload and time pressures, and relates to excessive work and strict deadlines. The third is working conditions, which comprise inadequate facilities and resources, and large classes. The fourth is relationships with colleagues, which refers to conflict with and lack of support from other teachers, leadership, and school administration. The final category is school ethos, which relates to a lack of agreement on standards. In other research, causes of teacher stress have been identified as time pressure and workload, lack of motivation by students, role conflict and ambiguity, self-esteem and status, demands made by external agencies, coping with change, poor relations with colleagues and students, student behaviour, lack of support from administration and management, work-life imbalance, and school climate and culture (De Nobile & McCormick, 2005; Geving, 2007; Kyriacou, 2000; Phillips, Sen, & McNamee, 2007; Thomas et al., 2003). As is clear from the previous paragraph, a great deal of research in this area has been concerned with ascertaining causes for teacher stress (Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998). Instead of comparing with or adding causes to the existing list, the current study investigates whether there is a relationship between the amelioration of certain causes of teacher stress and reduced levels of stress. This is achieved by concentrating on a selection of factors that have been consistently cited as causes of stress. These factors include school climate, as well as those that are targeted by SEL such as student behaviour, interpersonal relationships, and interpersonal communication. 2.1.3. Measuring Teacher-Related Stress The majority of studies investigating teacher stress have used a subjective self-report technique (Borg, 1990). Historically, a common way of achieving this is through a single
7 questionnaire item, which asks teachers to rate their overall level of stress, from not at all stressful to extremely stressful ( Kyriacou, 2001; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979). More recent studies use a stress scale where teachers respond to a series of questions about their experiences of stress. For example, Clunies-Ross et al. (2008) investigated the relationship between teacher stress and use of management strategies. The researchers measured teacher stress by using the Teacher Stress Inventory (Boyle, Borg, Falzon, & Baglioni, 1995) and their results showed that workload and student misbehaviour were the two highest sources of stress for teachers. Although there are limitations to self-report measures of stress (Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998), they continue to be the most commonly used method, primarily due to their ease of administration and lack of intrusiveness (Wilson, 2002). Furthermore, because stress is a subjective experience, self-report measures are the only way to ascertain an individual’s cognitive appraisal of their degree and type of reaction to stress (Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998). For the current study, self-report data were collected using the Teacher Stress Inventory (Boyle et al., 1995). 2.2. Teacher Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is a concept that has been studied widely for many years (Evans, 1997; Perie & Baker, 1997; Zembylas & Papanastasiou, 2006). According to Locke (1969), it is the fulfilment, the gratification, or the satisfaction gained from working in an occupation. Evans (1997) argues, however, that this definition (along with many others) is ambiguous because it describes the construct vaguely, and merely lists consequences or characteristics. To remedy this, Evans suggested that a definition for job satisfaction should encompass both job comfort and job fulfilment. Job comfort refers to the extent to which individuals feel comfortable in their job and specifically relates to satisfaction with the conditions and circumstances of the job; whereas job
8 fulfilment refers to the state of mind determined by personal achievement that individuals attribute to their performance on tasks that they value (Evans, 1997). In amalgamating these two ideas, Evans describes job satisfaction as “a state of mind determined by the extent to which the individual perceives her/his job-related needs [are] being met” (p. 327). Job satisfaction is therefore a multifaceted and complex issue that is dependent on varying factors such as the demographic, the experience and the position of an individual (Shann, 1998). In the current study, job satisfaction utilises Evans’ (1997) definition . 2.2.1. Significance of Teacher Job Satisfaction Understanding and improving teacher job satisfaction is an essential aspect in supporting a successful educational system (Perie & Baker, 1997). Teacher job satisfaction has been found to link to teacher performance, student achievement, and greater school effectiveness (Perie & Baker, 1997; Shann, 1998). Furthermore, teachers who are not satisfied with their job may be less motivated to do their best teaching in the classroom (Perie & Baker, 1997). Improving job satisfaction is also a crucial aspect of reducing teacher turnover (Shann, 1998). According to Shann (1998), acquiring and retaining good teachers is a huge challenge for many urban school systems. Although much research has revealed the link between job commitment and satisfaction, research has shown mixed findings regarding whether commitment leads to job satisfaction or the other way around (Billingsley & Cross, 1992). Billingsley and Cross (1992) suggest that this may be because job commitment and satisfaction evolve simultaneously. Another significant reason for research into teacher job satisfaction is that teachers are the “largest cost and the largest human capital resource of a school system” (Perie & Baker, 1997, p. 1). By improving job satisfaction, schools can help to reduce costs associated with high levels of teacher stress, teacher absenteeism, and teacher illness (Billingsley & Cross, 1992).
9 2.2.2. Research on Teacher Job Satisfaction Research in the area of job satisfaction stems predominantly from work completed by Herzberg et al. (1959), who established the two-factor theory for job satisfaction. The two-factor theory highlights two key aspects of job satisfaction: intrinsic factors and extrinsic factors. Specifically, it states that job satisfaction relates to intrinsic factors such as work tasks, work performance and professional growth. In contrast, job dissatisfaction is found to relate to extrinsic factors, which are “conditions that surround the doing of the job” (p. 113), such as interpersonal relations, supervision, physical working conditions, salary, administrative practices, job security, and benefits (Herzberg et al., 1959). Herzberg et al. proposed that it is only through the performance of a task that an individual can become satisfied with their work. In other words, by improving extrinsic factors, schools are helping to prevent job dissatisfaction, but it is only the intrinsic factors of the work itself that can increase job satisfaction. According to De Nobile and McCormick (2005), however, the two-factor theory has been criticised for being too restrictive about what satisfies and dissatisfies teachers, with some researchers finding extrinsic factors, such as working conditions, to be significant predictors of job satisfaction among teachers. Despite De Nobile and McCormick’s (2005) criticism of the two-factor theory, many studies of teacher job satisfaction have utilised the two-factor theory to organise their findings. In two studies (Butt et al., 2005; Kim & Loadman, 1994), teachers were generally found to be satisfied with their job in respect to intrinsic factors, such as the kind of work that was required of them, professional challenge and professional autonomy. However, in relation to extrinsic factors such as school climate, working conditions, salary, the implementation of changes, and conflict resolution, many participants indicated dissatisfaction. Crossman and Harris (2006)
10 found similar results. Although these researchers did not use the two-factor theory to organise the causes of job satisfaction, their suggested category of environmental factors matches the extrinsic factors that Herzberg et al. (1959) suggested. Furthermore, their results correspond with the studies cited above, showing that environmental, or extrinsic, factors proved to be the major variance in satisfaction levels between different types of schools (religious, community, and independent). Building on the idea of the two-factor theory by Herzberg et al. (1959), Dinham and Scott (1998) proposed a three-domain model of teacher job satisfaction. In their model, intrinsic factors are highlighted as important for job satisfaction; however, extrinsic factors have been adapted to include two differentiated aspects. The first is universal extrinsic factors such as “educational change, the poor status of teachers, and increased administrative workloads” (pp. 375-376), and the second is school-based extrinsic factors such as “school leadership, climate and decision making, school reputation, and school infrastructure” (p. 376). In their research, intrinsic factors provided the most satisfaction, universal extrinsic factors provided the most dissatisfaction and school-based extrinsic factors provided the most variation from school to school. The authors conclude that it is by improving school-based factors, such as school leadership, infrastructure, school reputation, and school climate, that there is the greatest potential for improved teacher job satisfaction. The current study, therefore, looks at job satisfaction in relation to school climate, as well as in relation to other school-based extrinsic factors that are targeted by SEL, such as interpersonal relationships and communication skills between teachers, students, and school leadership. In a recent study by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2009), primary and middle school teachers in Norway filled out a questionnaire on their perception of the school context, teacher burnout, and
11 job satisfaction. The researchers then investigated relationships between these variables, and found that job satisfaction was negatively related to teacher burnout (especially emotional exhaustion), and time pressure. They also found that job satisfaction was positively related to supervisory support, relations to parents, and autonomy in teaching. These results show that the social and emotional aspects of teaching, such as interpersonal relationships and emotional wellbeing, are significantly related to job satisfaction. Furthermore, they highlight the need for research into SEL, and any impact that it may have on the social and emotional well-being of teachers. The development of caring and constructive relationships among members of a school community is a key element of SEL (CASEL, 2003). Moreover, it is a key factor that has been consistently cited as a determinant of job satisfaction (Bogler, 2001; Dinham, 1994; Shann, 1998). In a review of research by Spear, Gould, and Lee (1990), the development of “warm, personal relationships with students” (p. 37) is established as one of the main sources of teacher job satisfaction. Likewise, in research by Shann (1998) the same conclusion is supported, with results showing that teacher-student relationships are the most important factor in teacher job satisfaction. According to Bogler (2001), these relationships involve current and past students; however, Bogler found that other interpersonal relationships, such as with parents and colleagues, are also important for job satisfaction. The significance of relationships in teaching is also supported by the finding that effective teachers generally place a great emphasis on teacherstudent relationships (Gay, 1995). This highlights the importance of positive interpersonal relationships, not only for job satisfaction among teachers, but also for promoting effective teachers. As mentioned above, the development of skills for building constructive and caring relationships is a key aspect of SEL. Although the focus in SEL is on building these skills in
12 students, teachers who are in the same environment may also benefit. The current study, therefore, aims to begin to understand if SEL has relationship with teacher job satisfaction. In the past, research in the area of job satisfaction has concentrated on understanding causes. Instead of repeating this focus, the current study investigated whether there is a relationship between higher job satisfaction and the implementation of SEL and positive school climates. As shown by Herzberg et al. (1959), improving intrinsic factors increases job satisfaction, while improving extrinsic factors decreases job dissatisfaction. Considering that many teachers are satisfied with the intrinsic factors of their job (Butt et al., 2005; Crossman & Harris, 2006; Dinham & Scott, 1998; Kim & Loadman, 1994), it is now important that the extrinsic factors be targeted for improvement. Consequently, a focus on SEL and school climate is very relevant given that both these approaches focus on extrinsic factors such as working conditions, interpersonal relationships and administrative practices. The current study, therefore, investigates whether school climate and SEL are related to greater teacher job satisfaction. 2.2.3. Measuring Teacher Job Satisfaction In the studies mentioned above, job satisfaction was measured using Likert-type scales (Bogler, 2001; Kim & Loadman, 1994; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009) or through questions relating to reasons for job satisfaction (Butt et al., 2005; Dinham & Scott, 1998; Shann, 1998). Spector (1997) developed one such scale, the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). In the current study, the JSS was used to ascertain the overall level of job satisfaction of the participants. 2.3. Teacher Sense of Efficacy Teacher sense of efficacy is an important construct for teacher well-being and performance. General efficacy has been defined as the beliefs that influence “how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave” (Bandura, 1993, p. 118). Related to this is teacher sense
13 of efficacy, which has been defined as a teacher’s “judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001, p. 783). Development of the construct of teacher sense of efficacy began in two studies by a group called the RAND Corporation (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). These researchers explored teacher efficacy through two items in a questionnaire (Armor et al., 1976). The first item measured general teaching efficacy―beliefs about whether teachers in general can impact student learning (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). The second item measured personal teaching efficacy―individual teacher beliefs about the efficacy of their own teaching (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). In an attempt to improve the reliability of this two-item scale, researchers created multiple-item scales that were based on these two aspects of teacher efficacy (Guskey, 1981; Rose & Medway, 1981). Another approach to teacher sense of efficacy was developed by Bandura (1977, 1982, 1993, 1997), and was based on social cognitive theory. This approach includes two expectations: (a) outcome expectancy, which is a “person's estimate that a given behaviour will lead to certain outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193), and (b) efficacy expectancy, which is “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behaviour required to produce the outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). Bandura (1977) argued that outcome and efficacy expectancies are differentiated. Although individuals may believe that “a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes” (p. 193), if they do not believe that they can perform the necessary action, then their belief that the action can be taken in general will not influence them enough to try themselves. Bandura (1997) also suggested four factors that are major influences on teacher sense of efficacy: mastery experiences, verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, and physiological
14 arousal. The most important of these four influences is mastery experiences, which come from “actual teaching accomplishments with students” (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007, p. 945). Using the findings of the RAND studies and Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, Gibson and Dembo (1984) created a 30-item measure for assessing teacher efficacy: the Teacher Efficacy Scale. Based on preliminary research with this measure, they concluded, “Teacher efficacy is multidimensional, consisting of at least two dimensions” (p. 579): Personal Teaching Efficacy and Teaching Efficacy (since labelled General Teaching Efficacy). However, Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998) questioned the assumption that the “two RAND items reflected the two expectancies of Bandura's social cognitive theory, self-efficacy and outcome efficacy” (p. 212). Instead, they proposed an integrated model of teacher efficacy that incorporates the two conceptual strands. This model includes two factors that are related, but different from the original two factors: “self-perception of teaching competence (including an assessment of internal resources and constraints) and beliefs about the task requirements in a particular teaching situation” (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998, p. 233). In the current study, teacher sense of efficacy is defined using the model suggested by Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998); however, the focus is on the teachers’ judgement of their own personal competence, rather than their beliefs in a particular teaching situation. 2.3.1. Significance of Teacher Sense of Efficacy Teacher sense of efficacy has been linked with important outcomes for teachers, students, and schools. In relation to teachers, it has been linked with the implementation of instructional innovations (Guskey, 1988; Ross, 1994), as well as the “effort [that] teachers invest in teaching, their level of aspiration, and the goals they set” (Hoy & Spero, 2005, p. 345). It has also been linked with classroom management―teachers with higher efficacy in handling student behaviour
15 tend to be “more adaptive and responsive” (Tsouloupas, Carson, Matthews, Grawitch, & Barber, 2010, p. 174). Finally, it has been positively related to teacher well-being (Egyed & Short, 2006; Smylie, 1988; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). In relation to outcomes for students, teacher sense of efficacy has been linked with improved achievement (Armor et al., 1976; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), greater motivation among students, and an improved sense of efficacy among students themselves (Hoy & Spero, 2005). Moreover, in terms of outcomes that relate to schools, teacher sense of efficacy has been linked with effective teaching, a greater level of commitment to the profession by teachers (Coladarci, 1992), and higher teacher retention rates (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). 2.3.2. Research on Teacher Sense of Efficacy The area of teacher sense of efficacy has undergone much research over the past 35 years; however, this has been dominated by correlational research about the consequences of efficacy (Labone, 2004). For example, in an early study, Gibson and Dembo (1984) examined high self-efficacy beliefs among a small sample of teachers and found these were related to different classroom behaviours by the teachers. High-efficacy teachers spent more time in small group instruction, they criticised incorrect student responses less, and they were more effective “in leading students to correct responses through their questioning” (p. 577), rather than moving onto another student or another question. Much research in this area has also linked consequences of teacher sense of efficacy with social and emotional outcomes for teachers. For example, Chan (2002) assessed pre-service secondary teachers on their levels of stress, sense of efficacy, social support, and psychological distress. There were no significant differences between age and sex in self-efficacy; however, self-efficacy was found to correlate significantly with psychological distress: low-efficacy pre-
16 service teachers had significantly higher sleep problems, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. The relationship between self-efficacy and psychological distress provides support for exploring the relationships that SEL and school climate have with teacher sense of efficacy. Teacher efficacy has also been linked with job satisfaction (Guskey, 1988), and teacher burnout (Egyed & Short, 2006). Guskey (1988) found that teacher sense of efficacy was positively related to job satisfaction and confidence in teaching among elementary and secondary schoolteachers: “More efficacious teachers generally liked teaching more and expressed greater confidence in their teaching abilities” (p. 67). Higher efficacy was also associated with a mastery approach to learning―an approach that has been linked with higher levels of achievement and better learning outcomes (Guskey, 1988). Egyed and Short (2006) conducted a study with elementary teachers who filled out a burnout measure, a teacher efficacy measure, and responded to vignettes about different behavioural problems in children and their likelihood of referring that child to special education. No relationship was found for teacher sense of efficacy and decision to refer a child; however, personal teaching efficacy was negatively correlated with burnout, demonstrating the importance of the social and emotional aspects of teaching and once again, the need for further research about school climate and SEL, and any relationships they may have with teacher outcomes. According to Hoy and Woolfolk (1993), most of the research on teacher efficacy has incorporated teacher sense of efficacy as an independent variable. To remedy this, they examined teacher sense of efficacy as a dependent variable; elementary school teachers were given a questionnaire that included an adapted version of Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale and a school climate measure. The results showed that perceptions by teachers that their principal exerted influence on behalf of them, and that the “teaching environment was
17 academically oriented” (p. 363) predicted higher personal teaching efficacy beliefs. For general teaching efficacy, institutional integrity and a sense of trust and support among colleagues were significant predictors of higher general teaching efficacy. Similar to the study by Hoy and Woolfolk (1993), in the current study teacher sense of efficacy was explored as a dependent variable. This is important to help further this area of research, especially considering that in the Hoy and Woolfolk study, teacher sense of efficacy was measured using an older measure that has since been critiqued as inaccurate (Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001). In other research, input in decision making, an important determinant of school climate, has been proposed as a contributor to teacher sense of efficacy (Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Ross, 1994), as have other factors that are associated with both school climate and SEL. These include higher teacher collaboration (Ross, 1994), improved student behaviour (Ross, 1994), and greater sense of community in a school (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). The current study aims to extend this research by investigating any relationships that teacher sense of efficacy has with school climate and SEL. 2.3.3. Measuring Teacher Sense of Efficacy Because issues of reliability have been associated with the conceptualisation and measurement of teacher efficacy in older scales (Henson et al., 2001; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001), teacher sense of efficacy was measured using a more recent scale developed by Tschannen-Moran et al. (2001), the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale. 2.4. School Climate School climate, which is also known as organisational environment or social climate, is a dynamic and multidimensional construct (Cohen et al., 2009; Freiberg, 1999; Gittelsohn et al., 2003; Loukas & Murphy, 2007). While many different definitions for it exist, Freiberg (1999)
18 argues that it is both a historical construct, and a geographically universal construct. Freiberg and Stein (1999) also argue that definitions of school climate must consider the “depth and multiplicity of its roots and the speed and capacity of schools to change” (p. 28). Perry (1908), who first mentioned the concept of school climate over a century ago, defined it as “the esprit de corps, school atmosphere, pride in the school and thought for its name and honour” (p. 304). Since then, school climate has often been defined using a range of terms to describe the milieu of the school (Cohen et al., 2009). For instance, it has been referred to as the personality of a school (Halpin & Croft, 1963), the heart and soul of a school (Freiberg, 1999), and the atmosphere, culture, resources, and social networks of a school (Loukas & Murphy, 2007). According to Anderson (1982), definitions such as these have been “verifiable intuitively rather than empirically” (p. 369). School climate, however, has also been defined more precisely. For example, Tagiuri (1968) and Moos (1979) developed two well-known definitions of school climate. Tagiuri (1968) defined climate as a multidimensional construct including four dimensions: ecology, which involves the physical and material aspects; milieu, which includes the social characteristics; social systems, which include the social interactions; and culture, which involves the values, belief systems, cognitive structures and meanings. Moos (1979) defined three overarching dimensions of school climate. These include relationship dimensions, which refer to the nature of personal relationships; personal development dimensions, which refer to how people grow; and system maintenance and change dimensions, which refer to the system’s orderliness, the clarity of expectations and the effectiveness in responding to changes (B. Johnson & Stevens, 2006). More recently, school climate has been defined as including the “organisational, environmental, social emotional, structural, and linguistic elements” (Freiberg, 1999, p. 3). It has also been
19 defined as including the physical and psychological environment, the relationships between all members, the degree of safety for all members, the instructional approach, and the academic and social values encouraged among students (Cohen et al., 2009; Esposito, 1999; Gittelsohn et al., 2003). For the current study, school climate is defined as including the physical aspects, the social relationships, the culture, and the systems that are in place at the school. School climate is a significant issue that has been a concern to educators, researchers and policy-makers for over a century (Freiberg, 1999). It is important because it can foster resilience or it can become a risk factor in the lives of those involved, including students, teachers, administrators, parents, and members of the community (Freiberg & Stein, 1999). It has also been linked with a range of positive outcomes for students, teachers, and schools. 2.4.1. School Climate and Students For students, school climate has been linked with better behaviour and motivation, forming of positive peer relationships, higher self-esteem, successful negotiation of the transitions of childhood and adolescence, and more effective risk prevention and health promotion (Cohen, 2007; Cohen et al., 2009; Loukas & Murphy, 2007; Stewart, 2008). It has also been linked with greater achievement in students at all levels of schooling, as well as in students from diverse backgrounds (Gregory, Henry, & Schoeny, 2007). According to Cohen (2007), positive school climates foster “youth development and learning [that is] necessary for a productive, contributing, and satisfying life in a democratic society” (p. 18). In contrast, a negative school climate can reduce student participation in school activities and student learning (Chen & Weikart, 2008). For teachers, school climate has been linked with reduced teacher turnover, greater morale, and better performance (Cohen, 2007; Kelley, Thornton, & Daugherty,
20 2005), and for schools it has been linked with school effectiveness (Dietrich & Bailey, 1996; W. Johnson & A. Johnson, 1996) . Over three decades ago, Brookover et al. (1978) examined the relationship between school climate and school achievement in a selection of elementary schools. The results showed that school climate was tied to the academic achievement of students. In fact, the researchers found that school climate was at times a more significant predictor of academic achievement than school composition in terms of socioeconomic status and cultural background of students. More recently, MacNeil, Prater, and Busch (2009) also found that student achievement was related to school climate. In the study, teachers assessed the school climate and then compared this with the achievement level. The results showed that positive school climates were consistently related to higher student achievement. Esposito (1999) also found similar results. School climate was associated with academic development, but a relationship was also found between school climate and social development. Data were collected using parents’ and teachers’ perspectives, along with achievement tests in reading and mathematics. The results showed that school climate was a significant predictor of school adjustment, social skills, and academic achievement. In another study (Kuperminc, Leadbeater, Emmons, & Blatt, 1997), school climate in middle schools was examined for its importance in explaining student behavioural problems and emotional distress. Results of the study showed that positive school climate perceptions in boys were negatively related to self-reported externalising problems and internalising problems, while for girls positive school climate perceptions were negatively related to externalising problems and positively to higher self-worth. For both boys and girls, positive school climate perceptions related positively to fewer stressful events at school.
21 2.4.2. School Climate and Teachers In building positive school climates, teachers play an important role. For example, in research involving high-school students, teachers who offered greater support and who showed respect for student perspectives had students who were more likely to view their school as having a positive climate, and also reported greater social belonging and fewer symptoms of depression (LaRusso, Romer, & Selman, 2008). At the same time, however, school climate is significant in relation to teachers’ well-being. For instance, Grayson and Alvarez (2008) examined eight different factors of school climate―including student-peer relations, teacherstudent relations, administration, student academic values, etc.―for predicting three dimensions of teacher burnout―that is, emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and personal accomplishment. The results showed that burnout was related to school climate: Emotional exhaustion was associated with parent and community relations, and student peer relations; depersonalisation was found to relate to teacher relationships with other teachers, students and administrators; and personal accomplishment was found to relate to the school climate factor of instructional management. Also related to teachers, Rafferty (2003) found that schools with an open climate promoted improved upward communication from teachers to leadership. This finding is significant for the effective operation of schools, but also for the well-being of teachers―they can feel confident that their opinions are being heard and respected (Rafferty, 2003). This is a crucial factor that is linked to both teacher stress and teacher job satisfaction. More recently, Beets et al. (2009) investigated teacher and school-level factors including school climate for their influence on the fidelity of implementation of school-based SEL (termed social and character development) programs. The authors established that the delivery of a
22 program with fidelity was a crucial aspect in determining whether a program achieved success. In other words, teachers played a major part in the delivery of programs, and therefore, were an “integral part in the implementation process” (p. 265). Teachers who were enthusiastic about the program, identified with the goals, considered the program to be compatible with themselves, and held favourable attitudes towards the program were more likely to deliver the program more effectively. However, even if a teacher was highly enthusiastic and effective at implementing a program, if they were not part of a supportive school climate, the program outcomes were negatively affected. More specifically, the results showed a substantial relationship between school climate and teacher beliefs about the importance and usefulness of the program. The authors, therefore, concluded that it is important for schools to develop a climate that encourages “a shared and collective vision among staff and administration, is supportive of new innovations, and is aligned with the core values and concepts a given program is promoting” (pp. 272-273). In related research, Gregory, Jenry, and Schoeny (2007) examined school climate for its effects on SEL program implementation. The researchers examined the level and rate of change of implementation of a violence prevention program in relation to multiple dimensions of school climate, including administrative leadership, negative relationships, and supportive environment. Results showed that school climate was significantly associated with teachers’ implementation of the program. In particular, schools that had administrators who were open and collaborative had the fastest rate of program implementation over three years. Furthermore, the program implementation was higher in schools with supportive teacher-teacher and teacher-student relationships, thus highlighting the importance of school climate for better program implementation, but also for better interpersonal relationships: a key factor in teacher stress and job satisfaction.
23 2.4.3. Measuring School Climate Studies on school climate have utilised different methodological perspectives including surveys, focus groups, and observations, and they have collected data from teachers, students, parents, leadership, and school administration, and in some cases a combination of a few or all of these different groups (Freiberg, 1999; Kuperminc et al., 1997). Generally, school climate is assessed through the perceptions of individuals involved in the organisation (Rafferty, 2003). According to Cohen (2007), to best measure school climate it is important to question all members of the school community, including teachers, students, administrators, and parents. However, some researchers (Brand, Felner, Seitsinger, Burns, & Bolton, 2008) argue that logistical and financial limitations, as well as changes in laws, are making it harder for researchers to obtain student data on school climate. Logistical issues relate to required parental consent: Obtaining consent is a timely procedure that means that participation rates are lower and that data are less representative (Brand et al., 2008). Financial issues relate to preparing surveys for a multitude of students, while law changes have made it harder for researchers to “obtain survey data that is ‘psychological in nature’” (Brand et al., 2008, p. 510). Instead, Brand et al. suggest that researchers use teachers to assess school climate. Another important issue is the validity of data, and Brand et al. argue that teachers’ self-reports are a valid method for obtaining overall school climate. One such measure is the School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ; Fisher & Fraser, 1990; Rentoul & Fraser, 1983). This measure was originally created using 56 items (eight factors) to measure school climate, but has since been revised to 21 items (five factors) (B. Johnson, Stevens, & Zvoch, 2007). B. Johnson et al. (2007) revised the measure to “reduce instrument length and minimize item redundancy” (p. 835).
24 In the current study, the Revised SLEQ (21 items) was used to assess school climate based on the reports of teachers. Although research has shown that school climate is a significant factor in teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy, research has not been completed to see if schools with positive school climates have reduced levels of teacher stress, and higher levels of teacher job satisfaction and sense of efficacy. The current study, therefore, utilised the school climate data in order to ascertain any relationships between school climate, and teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy. 2.5. Social and Emotional Learning The focus of SEL is to address and nurture the social and emotional awareness and skills of students (CASEL, 2003; Payton et al., 2008). More specifically, SEL concentrates on developing the ability of students to “recognize and manage their emotions; set and achieve positive goals; demonstrate caring and concern for others; establish and maintain positive relationships; make responsible decisions; and handle interpersonal situations effectively” (Payton et al., 2008, p. 6). The area of SEL was initially developed from research on prevention and resilience (Zins & Elias, 2007); however, it gained much attention with the publication of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner (1993) and Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman (1995) (Zins & Elias, 2007). After the release of these two books in the 1990s, three organisations that focused on SEL were founded: the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning, the Centre for Social and Emotional Education and the Character Education Partnership. All three organisations work to encourage the inclusion of SEL in schools and to promote social and emotional competence and responsibility among students (Centre for Social and Emotional Education [CSEE], n.d.; Character Education Partnership [CEP], 2008; CASEL, 2008).
25 Research has linked a number of positive student outcomes to SEL. These include increases in happiness (Weare, 2000), self-efficacy beliefs (Zins & Elias, 2007), mental health (Durlak & Wells, 1997), academic performance (Zins et al., 2007), and decreases in risky behaviour (CASEL, 2003; Payton et al., 2008). For example, Frey et al. (2005) examined the effectiveness of Second Step, an SEL program that aims to improve social responsibility and decrease aggression among students. In the study, students from elementary schools were assessed by their teacher, through self-report, and by observation of their behaviour in two conflict situations. The results showed that the students were more likely to choose prosocial goals rather than retaliation goals in the conflict situations and give egalitarian reasons for their satisfaction with the outcomes. These students also required less adult intervention and behaved less aggressively, and among the female students more cooperatively too. In other research, however, there have been some mixed results regarding the effectiveness of SEL programs for students (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007; Merrell, Juskelis, Tran, & Buchanan, 2008). For example, Vreeman and Carroll (2007) investigated 26 different bullying intervention programs. Of the four different types of programs ―including curriculum interventions, social skills groups, mentoring programs, social worker support, and whole-school multidisciplinary approaches, only half had significant outcomes that helped with the reduction of bullying. Of these successful programs, the majority were whole-school multidisciplinary approaches, suggesting that a whole school approach may be important in successful SEL implementation. 2.5.1. SEL and Teachers Although the aims of SEL programs are laudable, according to Greenberg et al. (2003), schools have been overwhelmed by too many SEL programs that address many different SEL
26 issues from violence prevention to conflict resolution. To rectify this, several recommendations have been made. The first of these is a set of minimum requirements for SEL programs by CASEL (2003). These requirements establish that SEL programs must be school-based with at least eight sequential lessons per year, they must involve lesson reinforcement in following years, and they must be available across the US (CASEL, 2003). The second set of recommendations by Berkowitz and Bier (2005, in association with the CEP), establishes that effective SEL programs need to include professional development for teachers, opportunities for peer interaction among students, direct teaching, skill training, an explicit SEL agenda, family or community involvement, provision of models and mentors, integration of SEL into the academic curriculum, and a multi-strategy approach. Finally, according to Cohen (2006, in association with the CSEE), five steps are important for the successful implementation of SEL: planning and community building; creating a school climate that fosters learning and safety; creating longterm home and school partnerships; pedagogical practice that promotes SEL; and evaluation of the SEL approach. As is evident from the previous discussion, the various recommendations for effective SEL implementation are dependent upon teachers. For example, although creating home and school partnerships requires the involvement of parents and families, such partnerships also rely heavily on teachers to initiate and maintain them. Furthermore, although the evaluation of SEL may be undertaken by administrators, teachers are responsible for implementing any changes that need to be put in place after evaluation. Despite the important role that teachers play in successful SEL implementation, researchers are only just beginning to consider teachers in relation to SEL. For example, Ransford, Greenberg, Domitrovich, Small, and Jacobson (2009) examined teacher burnout, sense of efficacy, and perceptions of curriculum supports in relation
27 to the effective implementation of an SEL program, Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS). Among other findings, the results showed that burnout predicted implementation dosage of supplementary program activities―that is, “number of lessons delivered” (p. 512). However, sense of efficacy did not predict implementation dosage, and neither burnout nor sense of efficacy predicted implementation quality―that is, “adherence to program objectives” ( p. 512). The authors concluded that teachers’ psychological experiences “can be sources of stress that have the potential to undermine teaching effectiveness” (p. 528) and they call for further research in the area. Also highly relevant to teachers, Jennings and Greenberg (2009) proposed a mediational model, the prosocial classroom model, which highlights the relationships between teacher socialemotional competence and well-being, teacher-student relationships, classroom management, SEL implementation, classroom climate, and student social, emotional, and academic outcomes. Of particular interest are Jennings and Greenberg’s propositions that teachers with higher socialemotional competence implement SEL more effectively “because they are outstanding role models of desired social and emotional behaviour” (p. 493), but also that the implementation of SEL is related to a teacher’s own social-emotional competence and well-being. This model establishes the important role that teachers play in SEL implementation, and it also provides support for the current study’s hypothesis that SEL may have an impact on teachers. Furthering this, Brackett, Palomera, Mojsa-Kaja, Reyes, and Salovey (2010) found that the ability of a teacher to regulate their own and others’ emotional states was associated positively with job satisfaction and positive affect. This research is relevant to SEL because emotion-regulation ability is a skill that is a common focus of SEL programs (CASEL, 2003;
28 Payton, 2008). If teachers are engaged in teaching and learning emotional-regulation ability, then they may appropriate some of the skills and, in turn, this may impact their own well-being. Although there are emerging studies such as those described above that show the importance of teachers for effective SEL implementation and studies that support the hypothesis that SEL may have an impact on teachers, there is no research that has investigated directly the impact of SEL on teachers. For instance, do schools with SEL approaches that promote constructive interpersonal skills across the whole school have greater administrative support for teachers and, in turn, lower stress among teachers? Furthermore, because job satisfaction is highly related to teacher-student relationships, do SEL approaches that aim to develop constructive and caring relationship skills in students affect student relationships with teachers, and thus the teacher’s job satisfaction? The current study investigated these questions by examining whether SEL has any impact on teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy. In order to examine this, teachers completed a questionnaire that ascertained their beliefs about SEL, and the level of integration of SEL at their school. 2.6. Summary Teacher stress, teacher job satisfaction, and teacher sense of efficacy all play a major role in relation to important financial and educational issues. As demonstrated, these three teacher outcomes are highly interrelated and a great deal of research has been conducted to improve these outcomes for teachers. Although much research in all three areas has been completed to find out the causes for these three issues, little research has been completed on initiatives that can help to improve them. More specifically, SEL and school climate are two burgeoning areas of research and practice that potentially have significant impacts on teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy. As demonstrated, many of the factors that have been cited by teachers as
29 reasons for stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy in their work, are related to areas that are targeted by SEL and positive school climates. By investigating potential relationships that SEL and school climate have with teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy, this research aims to investigate possible initiatives that can facilitate the improvement of these significant teacher-related issues. The specific questions that guide this research include the following: 1. Does school climate have a relationship with teacher stress, job satisfaction, or sense of efficacy? Does this relationship change as a function of sex, age, province, years experience, school level or school setting? 2. Does SEL have a relationship with teacher stress, job satisfaction, or sense of efficacy? Does this relationship change as a function of sex, age, province, years experience, school level or school setting? 3. Are there interaction effects between SEL and school climate? 4. Are there interaction effects between SEL and demographic variables, or school climate and demographic variables? There are three research hypotheses based on these questions. First, it was hypothesised that there would be a beneficial relationship between school climate and all of the outcome variables. This hypothesis was based on the fact that many of the issues that cause teacher stress, reduced job satisfaction, and reduced sense of efficacy are ameliorated by positive school climates. Second, it was hypothesised that SEL would have a beneficial relationship with job satisfaction, and teacher sense of efficacy; however, it was hypothesised that the relationship between SEL and stress may not be completely beneficial. This is based on the belief that SEL may be viewed by some teachers as another subject area that they need to squeeze into an
30 already crowded curriculum. Third, it was hypothesised that there would be interactions between school climate and SEL. This is based on the belief that schools with positive school climates that also implement SEL may target more of the factors that are cited as causes for teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy. Finally, although no hypotheses were formulated for the impact of demographic variables on the teacher outcomes, analyses were conducted to determine if any demographic variables did, in fact, have interactions with school climate or SEL.
31 CHAPTER 3: METHODS In this chapter, the sample, procedures, demographic variables, measures, and data analysis techniques are discussed. In discussing the demographic variables and measures that were used in the current study, an overview of the measures is included, as well as preliminary analyses including descriptive statistics and factor analyses where required. The decision was made to include this information in this chapter so that the next chapter focuses solely on the results of the research questions. 3.1. Sample Participants were recruited from 17 different school districts in suburban, rural, and remote areas of British Columbia and Ontario in Canada. There were 664 participants in total, including 527 females (79.4%), 133 males (20.0%), and four participants who did not indicate their sex (0.6%). This was slightly different from the 2009/2010 split between sexes in British Columbia public schools, where 71.4% of teachers were female and 28.6% were male (Ministry of Education, 2009), and in Ontarian public schools, where 72.6% of teachers were female and 27.4% were male (Ontario College of Teachers, 2008a). To determine if these differences were statistically significant, the chi-square test for goodness-of-fit was conducted. The test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the sample and the split between sexes in British Columbia, χ2 (1) = 4.37, p < .05. However, the difference in the sex split between the study sample and teachers in Ontario was not statistically significant, χ2 (1) = 3.22, ns. Of the total sample, 652 participants reported their age, and 12 participants chose not to report, or did not report accurately (e.g., “445”, “ 50+”). Of the valid responses, the ages ranged between 24 and 71 years and the mean was 44.25 years (SD = 9.58). For females, ages ranged
32 between 24 and 65 years, and the mean was 43.78 years (SD = 9.52), whereas for males ages ranged from 26 to 71 years, and the mean was 46.26 years (SD = 9.55). In British Columbia, the mean age of teachers in the 2009/2010 school year was 44.3 years; 44.1 years for female teachers and 44.8 for male teachers. In Ontario, the mean age of educators (including teachers and administrators) in 2008 was 42.56; 41.95 for female teachers and 44.18 for male teachers. The mean age for female participants in the study was slightly less than teachers in British Columbia at the time of the study, and almost two years greater than educators in Ontario, whereas the mean age for male participants in the study was over one year greater than teachers in British Columbia and Ontario (Ministry of Education, 2009; Ontario College of Teachers, 2008b). Because standard deviations were not reported for the British Columbia or Ontario teacher data, it was not possible to see if the differences between the sample and the provincial averages were statistically significant. The difference for male participants may be explained by the fact that the current study includes teachers, but also educators in other positions, such as administrative positions (e.g., principals) that may have a higher mean age. More specifically, in the current study, there were 508 classroom teachers, 105 resource teachers, special education teachers, and/or teacher counsellors, 33 teacher librarians, 7 administrators (e.g., principal, vice- principal, director, etc.), 6 participants who were in non-teaching roles at the time of the study (e.g., local union president, teachers on leave, etc.), and 5 substitute teachers. Of the seven administrators, six also undertook teaching duties on top of their administration duties, and one was responsible for overseeing instruction in classrooms. These participants were included in the analyses for two reasons: (a) they were all involved in teaching, and (b) their responses were not significantly different from the rest of the sample in the predictor or outcome variables.
33 3.2. Procedures Data were collected through an online questionnaire. After the questionnaire was created, it was converted into a format appropriate for the Internet and was uploaded to a passwordprotected server in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Superintendents of school boards in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island in British Columbia were then emailed preliminary details of the study, and were asked to reply to the email if they thought there was potential for the study to be conducted in their school district. Superintendents that responded affirmatively or requested further information were sent a second email that contained further details about the study, including a copy of the research instrument (Appendix A), the ethics approval certificates, and samples of the invitation and reminder letters that would be emailed to teachers (Appendix B). Seven school boards agreed to participate. For all but two of the districts, an invitation email was forwarded to a district administrator―for example, a district research coordinator, or assistant superintendent―who then forwarded this to all the teachers in their district. For the remaining two school boards, permission was given to the researcher to forward the email to principals of each school, who were asked to forward the invitation to their teachers. Because permission was received from only seven school boards (of the 25 that were asked), to increase sample size, teachers were made aware of the study through their teachers’ association (only from districts whose school boards had not been previously contacted). These included teachers’ associations in both British Columbia and Ontario. The decision to recruit from teachers’ associations was made based on the lack of interest from school boards who already receive many requests for research with students, as well as the realisation that school board approval was not required for this research since it did not involve children. Presidents of the district-level teachers’ associations were emailed preliminary details of the study. If the
34 presidents and/or their executive committee gave permission for the research to be conducted in their district, an invitation email was forwarded to the staff representatives of the association at each school. These staff representatives were then asked to forward the email onto all the teachers at their school. Teachers received the initial invitation email with details of the study and the URL for the online questionnaire. Teachers were given three weeks to complete the survey; those who agreed to participate completed and submitted the questionnaire online. They were emailed a reminder about the study at the beginning of the third week; however, the questionnaire URL remained active after three weeks for any teachers who were busy during that time, but still wanted to participate. All teachers who were invited to participate were encouraged to submit their name to a draw for a gift card to thank them for their help with the study. Response rates varied greatly. Using a conservative method of calculation, the average response rate was 8.04%. For the school boards, rates varied from 1.24% to 36.84%, whereas for the teachers’ associations, they varied from 2.24% to 15.60%. The difference is attributed to the lack of control that the researcher had in forwarding emails to staff. For example, in one school district the email was sent through the central email server to the teachers’ school board email addresses. It is not known how many individuals regularly checked their email account for the district, since they may have used a different account on a daily basis. At the other extreme, for one of the teachers’ associations, the president forwarded the email with an accompanying cover letter explaining the importance of the study. Overall, the response rates are low; however, for online research lower response rates are generally reported (Shih & Xitao Fan, 2008).
35 3.3. Measures Teachers completed an online questionnaire that included questions pertaining to teacher stress, job satisfaction, teacher sense of efficacy, SEL, and school climate. Demographic information was also collected. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. 3.3.1. Teacher Demographics Demographic information was collected for each teacher. This included sex, age, province, years experience, school level currently teaching, and school setting (see Section 1, Appendix A). Province. Teachers from British Columbia and Ontario were involved in the study. Of the total sample, 356 participants (53.6%) were from British Columbia, and 308 participants were from Ontario (46.4%). Years experience. Of the total sample, 654 participants indicated how many years that they had worked as a teacher, whereas ten participants declined to indicate or answered invalidly (e.g., “25+ years”, “around 30 years”). Of the valid cases, years of experience ranged between 0.5 years and 51 years, and the average was 16.25 years (SD = 9.32). The mean study sample was over two years greater than the mean for all educators in British Columbia in the 2009/2010 school year, which was 13.2 years (Ministry of Education, 2009; years experience statistics were not available for Ontarian teachers, and so are not reported here). Because standard deviations were not reported for the British Columbia or Ontario teacher data, it was not possible to see if the difference between the sample and the provincial averages was statistically significant. The difference may be attributed to one participant whose years experience was much greater than the rest of the sample (see Figure 1). For male participants, years experience ranged between 0.5 and 51 years, whereas for female participants, years experience ranged between 0.5 and 40 years.
Frequency
36
Years Experience Figure 1. Teachers in study by years experience. School level. The majority of teachers involved in the study were elementary school teachers (487 participants, 73.3%), followed by secondary school teachers (171 participants, 25.8%). Six participants declined to report the school level at which they worked. For male participants, the split between school levels was almost even: 68 male participants worked at the elementary level (51.5%), whereas 64 male participants worked at the secondary level (48.5). For female participants, the majority worked at the elementary level, 416 participants (79.7%), compared to the secondary level, 106 participants (20.3%).
37 School setting. The school districts in which participants worked were classified according to their distance from major and regional cities. The majority of participants were working at a school district that was within 50kms of a regional city (39.8%). Table 1 shows the frequencies and percentages of the school settings in which the participants were teaching.
Table 1 Frequencies and Percentages of the Study Demographic Variables School Setting
Frequency
Percent
Major City ― Within 50kms of major city
199
30.0
Regional ― Within 50kms of regional city
264
39.8
Rural ― Within 60 to 200kms of a city
139
20.9
Remote ― Over 200kms from a city
60
9.0
3.3.2. Outcome Variables Teacher stress. The operational definition of teacher stress used in this study focused on the stress that results from working as a teacher. While stress can be both positive and negative for an individual and their work performance (Selye, 1974; Wilson, 2002), in the current study the focus is placed on the experience of negative or detrimental feelings associated with working as a teacher. Drawing from the interactive model (Dunhan, 1992), the definition used in the current study also accepts that the pressures, the reactions, and the coping strategies of the individual and the situation are all involved in the overall level of stress that an individual feels. In order to measure stress, the Teacher Stress Inventory (TSI, Boyle et al., 1995) was used (see Section 2, Appendix A). This measure involves participants rating how stressful certain
38 aspects of teaching are on a Likert-type scale ranging from no stress (0) to extreme stress (4). The original scale includes 20 items covering various factors that were cited as causes of stress among teachers (Borg & Riding, 1991b). In the 19 years since the original measure was created, technology has become a major part of teachers’ lives. As such, the decision was made to add four new items pertaining to technology to the original scale. The adapted TSI had 24 items, and an average score for teacher stress was calculated by adding the individual items for each participant and dividing by the total number of items, with a maximum score of four. The Cronbach’s alpha of the adapted TSI scale in the current study was at an acceptable level of .90 (Nunnally, 1978). Scores on the TSI ranged from 0.19 to 3.80. The mean score was 1.88 (SD = 0.64), which is slightly lower than the scale midpoint for this measure (i.e., 2). Independent t-tests and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were examined for any differences in the TSI within demographic variables (see Table 2). There was a statistically significant difference between the sexes, with female teachers reporting significantly higher stress, and between provinces, with teachers in Ontario reporting significantly higher stress. There were no other statistically significant differences among the demographic variables for the TSI.
39 Table 2 T-Tests of Differences Between Dichotomous Demographic Variables for the TSI, JSS, and TSES Gender
Province Means
Means
School Level Means
M
F
df
t
BC
ON
df
t
Elem.
Sec.
df
t
TSI
1.70
1.92
656
-3.547*
1.81
1.95
660
-2.865*
1.90
1.81
264.40
1.416
JSS
3.80
3.81
656
-0.191
3.75
3.87
660
-2.145*
3.86
3.67
654
2.908*
TSES
6.89
7.29
649
-4.032*
7.16
7.27
653
-1.389
7.25
7.10
648
1.522
Note. TSI = Teacher Stress Inventory; JSS = Job Satisfaction Survey; TSES = Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale * p < .05.
Job satisfaction. The operational definition of teacher job satisfaction used in this study stems from the definition by Evans (1997). Teacher job satisfaction refers to the degree to which the teacher feels that his/her job-related needs are being met or not. Teacher job satisfaction was measured using the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS, Spector, 1997, see Section 3, Appendix A). The JSS asks participants to rate their opinion of different aspects of teaching on a Likert-type scale that ranges from disagree very much (1) to agree very much (6). The average of all items produces an overall job satisfaction average for each participant out of a maximum score of six. In a pilot study completed by Crossman and Harris (2003), the Cronbach’s alpha for the JSS was .86, indicating a satisfactory reliability. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .91. Scores on the JSS ranged from 1.53 to 5.72. The mean was 3.80 (SD = 0.73), which is slightly higher than the scale midpoint for this measure (i.e., 3). Independent t-tests and ANOVA were examined for any differences in the JSS within demographic variables (see
40 Table 2). There was a statistically significant difference between provinces, with teachers in Ontario reporting significantly higher job satisfaction, and between school levels, with elementary teachers reporting significantly higher job satisfaction. There were no other statistically significant differences among the demographic variables for the JSS. Teacher sense of efficacy. The operational definition of teacher sense of efficacy used in this study stems from the definition by Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy (1998), and focused on the teacher’s judgement of his/her own personal competence. To measure teacher sense of efficacy, the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES, Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was used (see Section 4, Appendix A). This scale includes 12 items about teacher efficacy that are measured on a 9-point continuum from nothing (1) to a great deal (9). The average of all items produced an overall teacher sense of efficacy average for each participant out of a maximum score of nine. In a study completed by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001), the Cronbach’s alpha for the TSES was .90, indicating a satisfactory reliability. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .91. Scores on the TSES ranged from 3.50 to 9.00. The mean was 7.21 (SD = 1.05), which is quite a bit higher than the scale midpoint for this measure (i.e., 5). Independent t-tests and ANOVA were examined for any differences in the TSES within demographic variables (see Table 2). The only statistically significant difference was found between the sexes, with female teachers reporting significantly higher teacher sense of efficacy than male teachers. 3.3.3. Predictor Variables School climate. The operational definition of school climate used in this study is based on the work by Tagiuri (1968) and Moos (1979). It involves the physical aspects, social characteristics and relationships, culture, and the ability of the system to respond to change.
41 In the current study, school climate was measured using the Revised School Level Environment Questionnaire (R-SLEQ, B. Johnson, Stevens, & Zvoch, 2007). The R-SLEQ includes 21-items that fall into five subscales (see Section 6, Appendix A). The first subscale is Collaboration, which refers to the working relationships between teachers at the school (e.g., “There is good communication among teachers”). The second, Student Relations, refers to teacher perceptions of student behaviour and motivation (e.g., “Most students are helpful and cooperative with teachers”). The third, School Resources, refers to the availability of appropriate materials and equipment (e.g., “The school library has sufficient resources and materials”). The fourth, Decision Making, refers to the level of input that teachers have in decision making at the school (e.g., “Teachers are frequently asked to participate in decisions”). The final factor, Instructional Innovation, refers to the ability of the school to change and the professional growth of teachers (e.g., “We are willing to try new teaching approaches in my school”). Teachers responded to the questions on a scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). An average score for each subscale was calculated by dividing the total subscale score by the number of items in that subscale. The maximum score for each subscale was five. This instrument was chosen because it can be used at both elementary and secondary school levels, and because it has been found to have a reliability coefficient of .90 (B. Johnson, Stevens, & Zvoch, 2007). In the current study, scores on the R-SLEQ ranged from 1.43 to 4.81. The mean was 3.43 (SD = 0.59), which is slightly higher than the scale midpoint for this measure (i.e., 3). Table 3 shows the reliability indexes, means, standard deviations for the five subscales of the R-SLEQ.
42 Table 3 Reliability Indexes, Means, and Standard Deviations of the R-SLEQ Subscales Range Subscale
α
M
SD
Minimum
Maximum
Collaboration
.81
3.57
0.78
1.00
5.00
Student Relations
.86
3.73
0.81
1.00
5.00
School Resources
.75
3.06
0.92
1.00
5.00
Decision Making
.77
2.95
0.92
1.00
5.00
Instructional Innovation
.73
3.78
0.68
1.25
5.00
Note. Scores range from 1 (negative school climate) to 5 (positive school climate).
Independent t-tests were examined for any statistically significant differences in school climate within dichotomous demographic variables. For province, there was a significant difference in Student Relations, t (605.48) = 2.102, p = .034, although the effect size was very small, r2 = .007; there was a significant difference in School Resources, t (646) = 2.525, p = .012, r2 = .01; and there was a significant difference in Decision Making, t (579.53) = 6.801, p = .001, r2 = .07. In all three cases, teachers from British Columbia reported higher scores than teachers from Ontario. For school level, the only difference occurred with Student Relations, where elementary teachers reported statistically significantly greater student relations, t (646) = 2.263, p = .024, r2 = .06. For non-dichotomous demographic variables, ANOVA was used. There was a statistically significant difference between school settings for three of the school climate variables: Collaboration, F (3, 646) = 7.022, p = .001, r2 = .03; Student Relations, F (3, 648) = 6.115, p = .001, r2 = .03; and Decision Making, F (3, 624) = 8.704, p = .001, r2 = .05. For the
43 Collaboration variable, post-hoc analysis using Bonferroni revealed that teachers who worked in remote school settings reported significantly lower Collaboration than teachers in school settings that were rural, near a regional city, or near a major city. For Student Relations, post-hoc analysis using the Dunnett T3 test (the assumption of equal variances was not met) revealed that teachers working near a major city reported significantly better Student Relations than teachers in school settings that were remote, or near a regional city. For Decision Making, post-hoc analysis using the Dunnett T3 test revealed that teachers working near a major city reported significantly higher Decision Making than teachers in all other school settings. SEL. The operational definition of SEL used in this study is based on the definition by Payton et al. (2008): SEL involves learning about concepts and skills that help individuals to become socially and emotionally competent and responsible. Examples of SEL include learning about anti-bullying, conflict resolution, managing emotions, and interpersonal skills. To measure SEL, participants responded to two measures―a measure about their SEL beliefs, and a measure about the level of integration of SEL in their classroom and school. SEL beliefs. To measure SEL beliefs, the Beliefs in SEL – Teacher Scale (SEL Beliefs, Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, & Elbertson, 2009) was used. This scale includes 12-items separated into three subscales (see Questions 1 through 12, Section 5, Appendix A). The first, Comfort, refers to how comfortable a teacher is with SEL, and how regularly they implement it in their classroom (e.g., “I am comfortable providing instruction on social and emotional skills to my students”). The second, Commitment, refers to the commitment that a teacher has towards improving his/her skills in SEL (e.g., “I want to improve my ability to teach social and emotional skills to students”). The final subscale is Culture, which measures teachers’ perceptions of the level of support and promotion of SEL at their school (e.g., “The culture in my school supports
44 the development of children’s social and emotional skills”). Teachers responded to questions about their SEL beliefs on a Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Because this is a new scale, factorial validity of the 12-item scale was examined using maximum likelihood factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test established the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .778, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2 (66) = 2921.615, p < .001, indicated that the original correlation matrix was significantly different from an identity matrix and, therefore, that factor analysis was appropriate. Due to correlations between the extracted factors, oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was used (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Three factors with eigenvalues equal to or greater than one were extracted. Eigenvalues for these factors were 3.527, 2.559, and 1.708 and together they explained 64.95% of the variance. A screeplot was also examined to ascertain the optimum number of components and it revealed that there was a break after the first three factors. Furthermore, only 7% of the residuals were nonredundant and had absolute values great than .05, demonstrating that a three factor model was a good fit for the data. The rotated solution returned factor loadings that were considered eligible for interpretation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983). Table 4 shows the pattern matrix. The three factors that emerged and their associated items are identical to the factor structure suggested by the authors of the scale. As such, Factor 1 relates to commitment to improving SEL (SEL Commitment), Factor 2 relates to comfort with SEL and regular implementation of SEL in the classroom (SEL Comfort), and Factor 3 relates to the support and promotion of SEL in the school (SEL Culture).
45 Table 4 Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix for SEL Beliefs Items Item
1
I would like to attend a workshop to learn how to develop my students’ social and emotional skills.
.944
I want to improve my ability to teach social and emotional skills to students.
.852
I would like to attend a workshop to develop my own social and emotional skills.
.679
All teachers should receive training on how to teach social and emotional skills to students.
.482
Factor 2
I feel confident in my ability to provide instruction on social and emotional learning.
.928
I am comfortable providing instruction on social and emotional skills to my students.
.836
Informal lessons in social and emotional learning are part of my regular teaching practice.
.667
Taking care of my students’ social and emotional needs comes naturally to me.
.639
3
My principal creates an environment that promotes social and emotional learning for our students.
.768
The culture in my school supports the development of children’s social and emotional skills.
.693
My principal does not encourage the teaching of social and emotional skills to students.
.693
My school expects teachers to address children’s social and emotional needs.
.404
Note. Only factor loadings greater than .30 are included here due to the ineligibility of interpretation of lower factor loadings (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983).
46
An average score for each subscale was calculated by dividing the total subscale score by the number of items in that subscale. The maximum score for each subscale was five. Scores on the SEL Beliefs scale ranged from 2.17 to 5.00, and the mean was 3.93 (SD = 0.53). This mean is higher than the scale midpoint for this measure (i.e., 3). Table 5 shows the reliability indexes, means, and standard deviations for the three subscales of the SEL Beliefs scale.
Table 5 Reliability Indexes, Means, and Standard Deviations of the SEL Beliefs Subscales
Subscale
Range Minimum Maximum
α
M
SD
SEL Comfort
.85
4.01
0.79
1.25
5.00
SEL Commitment
.83
3.86
0.86
1.00
5.00
SEL Culture
.74
4.00
0.76
1.00
5.00
Note. Scores range from 0 (low SEL beliefs) to 5 (high SEL beliefs).
Independent t-tests were examined for any differences in SEL Beliefs within demographic variables. For sex and school level, there were statistically significant differences in all three subscales (see Table 6), with female teachers and elementary teachers reporting significantly higher scores for all subscales. There were no other significant differences among the demographic variables for SEL Beliefs.
47 Table 6 Means, Standard Deviations, and T-Tests of SEL Beliefs scale for Dichotomous Demographic Variables Comfort t
Commitment df t
df
Culture t
Variable
df
Sex
652
-4.035*
173.97
-4.495*
644
-3.526*
School Level
252.81
4.333*
247.87
3.624*
643
6.272*
Note. * p < .001.
SEL integration. To measure SEL integration in participants’ classrooms and schools, a 12-item measure was developed for this study (see all parts of Question 13, Section 5, Appendix A). The measure was designed with three subscales in mind. First, Curriculum Interventions refers to the teacher’s implementation of classroom level programs (e.g., “At my school, the lessons that students learn about SEL are quickly forgotten at the end of an SEL program or class”). Second, Multidisciplinary refers to the degree to which SEL is embedded in multiple subject areas (e.g., “In my classroom, I embed the lessons from SEL in the lessons of other curriculum areas”). Third, Whole School Approach refers to the school’s support, promotion, and implementation of SEL as a school-wide culture (e.g., “My school implements a wholeschool culture that is caring and inclusive”). Because this scale was created for the current study, factorial validity of the 12-item scale was examined using maximum likelihood factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test established the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .931, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, χ2 (66) = 2842.704, p < .001, indicated that factor analysis was appropriate. Due to correlations between the extracted factors, oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was used (Pedhazur &
48 Schmelkin, 1991). Rather than revealing three factors as presumed, two factors with eigenvalues equal or greater than one were extracted. Eigenvalues for these factors were 6.132, and 1.012, and in combination they explained 66.14% of the variance. A screeplot was also examined to ascertain the optimum number of components. It revealed a clear break after the one factor, suggesting that a two factor solution was not ideal. In this extraction, 16% of the residuals were non-redundant and had absolute values great than .05. The rotated solution returned factor loadings that were ‘very good’ for Factor 1 (Comrey & Lee, 1992). For Factor 2, however, the solutions were reasonably large, but they were negative (see Table 7). There was also cross-loading on the two factors for item 11.
49 Table 7 Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix for Original SEL Integration Items Factor Item
1
1. My school implements a whole-school culture that is caring and inclusive.
.865
2. The students at my school are encouraged to utilise the learning that they gain about SEL in their social interactions outside of the classroom.
.727
3. At my school, the lessons of SEL are not incorporated into wholeschool culture.
.656
4. My school/principal promotes the ideas and goals of SEL.
.649
5. At my school, the lessons that students learn about SEL are quickly forgotten at the end of an SEL program or class.
.617
6. Students are my school do not learn about SEL
.606
7. Students at my school only learn about SEL through programs that are not embedded into the rest of the curriculum.
.555
8. Teachers at my school are encouraged to embed the lessons from SEL in the lessons of other curriculum areas.
.554
9.In my classroom, I embed the lessons from SEL in the lessons of other curriculum areas.
.548
10. Students at my school learn skills specifically related to SEL (e.g., conflict resolution, emotion regulation, mindfulness, etc.). 11. My school promotes a multidisciplinary approach to SEL (i.e., SEL is taught or promoted in many different curriculum areas). 12. Students at my school learn about SEL during class time that is dedicated specifically to SEL related topics.
2
-.590
.393
-.552
-.547
Note. Only factor loadings greater than .20 are included here due to the ineligibility of interpretation of lower factor loadings (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983).
50 Based on these results, the meanings of the items were examined and the decision was made to remove two items, 10 and 12. The first reason for removing these items was that all of the items appear to refer to the integration of SEL in schools, with the exception of items 10 and 12. Items 10 and 12 relate to a decontextualised implementation of SEL, not integration. The removal of these two items was also supported in a statistical sense―when rotation is undertaken in factor analysis, a key aim is to “reduce the number of negative loadings to a minimum” (Lawley & Maxwell, 1962, p. 220). With the two items removed, one factor with an eigenvalue of 5.387 that explained 53.17% of the variance was extracted. Once again, the screeplot revealed a clear break after one factor. In this extraction, 13% of the residuals were non-redundant and had absolute values greater than .05, which was slightly better than the previous factor analysis. Because there was only one factor, no rotated solution was provided. Instead, the factor matrix revealed that the loadings were ‘good’ (Comrey & Lee, 1992). Table 8 shows the factor matrix. With the exception of item one, all of the other items loaded more strongly on this second factor analysis.
51 Table 8 Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix for Adapted SEL Integration Items Factor 1
Item
1. My school implements a whole-school culture that is caring and inclusive.
.814
2. The students at my school are encouraged to utilise the learning that they gain about SEL in their social interactions outside of the classroom.
.783
3. At my school, the lessons of SEL are not incorporated into whole-school culture.
.782
4. My school/principal promotes the ideas and goals of SEL.
.777
5. At my school, the lessons that students learn about SEL are quickly forgotten at the end of an SEL program or class.
.731
6. Students are my school do not learn about SEL
.690
7. Students at my school only learn about SEL through programs that are not embedded into the rest of the curriculum.
.639
8. Teachers at my school are encouraged to embed the lessons from SEL in the lessons of other curriculum areas.
.614
9.In my classroom, I embed the lessons from SEL in the lessons of other curriculum areas.
.590
11. My school promotes a multidisciplinary approach to SEL (i.e., SEL is taught or promoted in many different curriculum areas).
.519
Note. Only factor loadings greater than .30 are included here due to the ineligibility of interpretation of lower factor loadings (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983).
Teachers responded to the questions on a scale ranging from false (0) to true (6). An average score for the measure was calculated by dividing the total score by the number of items, out of a maximum score of six. The Cronbach’s alpha of the SEL Integration scale was .90. Scores on the SEL Integration scale ranged from 0.40 to 6.00, and the mean was 3.91 (SD = 1.14). This mean is higher than the scale midpoint for this measure (i.e., 3). Independent t-tests
52 and ANOVA were examined for any differences in SEL Integration within demographic variables. There was a statistically significant difference between the sexes, with female teachers reporting significantly higher SEL Integration, t (215.16) = 3.553, p < .001, r2 = .06. There was also a statistically significant difference between school levels, with elementary teachers reporting significantly higher scores, t (305.35) = 7.357, p < .001, r2 = .15. There were no other statistically significant differences among the demographic variables for SEL Integration. 3.4. Data Analysis Data were analysed using hierarchical multiple regression in order to answer the research questions. For research questions one and two, a regression model was completed for each of the outcome variables―teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teacher sense of efficacy. In the first block of these models, demographic variables were entered as covariates. These included Sex, Age, Province, Years Experience, School Level, and School Setting. School Setting was dummy coded into three variables―Regional, Rural, and Remote―in relation to the reference group, Major City. Even though Major City was not the largest group, it was chosen as the reference group because it serves as a useful comparison (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003)―that is, the majority of teachers in Canada work near major cities. Although data was collected on the different positions of participants (e.g., classroom teacher, teacher counsellor, administrator, etc.), this demographic information was not included in the analyses due to the limitation placed on the total number of predictor variables that can be entered into a model by the sample size (Stevens, 1992 – see further discussion below). In the current study, the term teachers is used to refer to the sample as a whole. In Blocks 2 and 3 of each analyses, the subscales of the two predictor variables were entered hierarchically. Two different models were run for each of the outcome variables with
53 reversed order of entry of the predictors to determine how they predicted teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy over and above the other. In other words, two different models were run to see if the predictors explained any additional variance over and above the other predictor, and to see which model explained the most variance. To answer research question three, moderator analyses were conducted for each of the outcome variables. In Block 1, demographic variables and the predictor variables were entered. In Block 2, interaction terms between SEL and school climate were entered. However, not all school climate variables were included in interaction terms with the SEL variables; only interaction terms that made theoretical sense and were evident in the theory of the outcome variables and SEL were included. Because of the interrelatedness between the three outcome variables, the same group of interaction terms was used for all of the outcome variables. The selected interaction terms used in research question three are found in Appendix C. For research question four, moderated regression models were conducted with interaction terms between the predictors and demographic variables. Two regression models were run: one for SEL interaction terms, and one for school climate interaction terms. In Block 1, demographic, SEL and school climate variables were entered, followed by interaction terms between SEL and demographic variables, or school climate and demographic variables in Block 2. Because all of the demographic variables could not be entered due to limitations on the number of predictors for the sample size (Stevens, 1992 – see further discussion below), a selection of demographic variables was chosen. These demographic variables were chosen based on suitability with the SEL or school climate variables. For example, Sex was deemed a personal-level variable and so was entered into interaction terms with SEL variables that were also on a personal level―that is, SEL Comfort and SEL Commitment. In contrast, School Level was entered into interaction
54 terms with SEL variables that were on a school-wide level―that is, SEL Culture, SEL Integration. The selected interaction terms between SEL and demographic variables, and school climate and demographic variables used in research question four are found in Appendix C. Of the 664 participants, 20% had substantial missing items in one or more of the measures and were excluded from analysis on a list-wise basis. It was important, therefore, to ensure that the sample size was large enough to conduct analyses. To do this, guidelines suggested by Stevens (1992) were consulted. In this study, up to 28 independent variables were included in regression models. Stevens suggests the minimum number of cases required is 15 times the number of independent variables. In this study the smallest model included 535 cases; therefore, this minimum requirement was met―28 x 15 = 420. The school climate variables, the SEL variables, and the continuous demographic variables, Age and Years Experience, were all centred on the mean prior to entry into all of the regression models to reduce nonessential multicollinearity and to aid interpretation of regression coefficients (Cohen et al., 2003).
55 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS The data were examined for spread and to examine the assumptions for each of the hierarchical regression models. Table 9 shows the descriptive statistics for the dependent variables. The assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity were examined using the normal probability plots and residuals scatterplots, and multicollinearity was assessed using the VIF statistic. These examinations suggested that the assumptions were met. The assumption of independence of the residuals in the model was tested using the Durbin-Watson test. In each model, this statistic suggested that the assumption was met. Finally, correlational analysis was completed, and it confirmed that the standardised residuals did not covary with the predictor variables. The intercorrelations between the dependent variables can be seen in Appendix D. Outliers and influential cases were also examined using diagnostics to ensure there were no extreme outliers or cases with undue influence on the regression models. These diagnostics revealed no extreme cases.
Table 9 Size, Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis of Dependent Variables Variable
n
Minimum
Maximum
M
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Stress
662
0.19
3.80
1.88
0.64
-0.33
0.19
Job Satisfaction
662
1.53
5.72
3.80
0.73
-0.20
0.19
Sense of Efficacy
653
3.50
9.00
7.21
1.05
-0.17
0.19
56 4.1. Teacher Stress 4.1.1. Research Question One Does school climate predict teacher stress? Does SEL predict teacher stress over and above school climate? As explained above, demographic variables were entered as covariates in Block 1, followed by the five subscales of the school climate measure in Block 2, and the four SEL variables in Block 3. The decision to enter the school climate variables before the SEL variables was made based on the belief that differing school climates are present in every school, whereas not all schools implement SEL. Table 10 shows the results of the regression model. The final model explained 25.7% of the variance in the dependent variable, stress (see Block 3, Table 10). Block 1 was statistically significant (p = .043), and of the demographic variables, Sex and Province were significant predictors (Block 3 and Block 1, respectively), with female teachers, and teachers from Ontario reporting higher levels of stress. Block 2 was also statistically significant (p < .001), and revealed that, after controlling for demographic variables, the school climate variables explained 20.2% of the variance. Of the school climate variables, Student Relations, School Resources, and Decision Making were all negatively associated with the experience of stress, demonstrating that as these three predictors increased, teacher stress decreased (Block 3). Finally, Block 3 was statistically significant (p = .001), and revealed that after controlling for demographic variables, and over and above school climate, the SEL variables explained 2.6% of the variance. Of the SEL variables, SEL Comfort was negatively associated with stress, demonstrating that as this predictor increased, teacher stress decreased (Block 3). However, SEL Commitment was positively associated with stress—as this predictor
57 increased, teacher stress also increased (Block 3). The largest unique contribution in the final model was made by School Resources (β = -.326, p < .001).
58 Table 10 Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Teacher Stress (N = 538) Teacher Stress Block 1 Constant Sex Age Province Years Experience School Level Regional school setting Rural school setting Remote school setting Block 2 Collaboration Student Relations School Resources Decision Making Instructional Innovation Block 3 SEL Comfort SEL Commitment SEL Culture SEL Integration *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
B
Block 1 SE
1.518 .160 .005 .155 -.004 .069 .049 .011 .023
.084 .068 .004 .076 .004 .075 .078 .088 .109
β
B
.105* .082 .126* -.053 .049 .039 .007 .011
1.612 .180 .002 .022 .003 -.022 .028 .025 -.044 .028 -.115 -.228 -.108 .026
Block 2 SE
Block 3 SE
β
B
β
.075 .061 .004 .071 .004 .068 .070 .080 .099
.118** .035 .018 .048 -.015 .022 .017 -.021
1.632 .169 .003 .017 .004 -.036 .024 .012 -.040
.075 .061 .004 .071 .004 .072 .070 .079 .098
.111** .047 .014 .062 -.025 .019 .008 -.019
.042 .036 .030 .032 .048
.035 -.147** -.337*** -.160** .029
.039 -.101 -.221 -.103 .033
.042 .037 .030 .034 .048
.049 -.129** -.326*** -.152** .037
-.082 .098 -.031 -.002
.035 .030 .050 .033
-.101* .132** -.037 -.003
R2
R2
.030
.030*
.231
.202***
.257
.026**
59 4.1.2. Research Question Two Does SEL predict teacher stress? Does school climate predict teacher stress over and above SEL? In order to examine the contribution of SEL prior to entering the school climate variables, as well as the contribution of school climate over and above SEL, the regression from the previous model was repeated. However, the order of entry for Block 2 and Block 3 was reversed—SEL variables were entered in Block 2 and school climate variables were entered in Block 3. Table 11 shows the comparison of the two models. Identical to the previous model (Model 1.1), this final model (with reversed entry of predictors, Model 1.2) explained 25.7% of the variance in the dependent variable, stress (see Block 3, Table 11). The reversed order of entry revealed that the SEL variables explained a greater proportion of the variance in this model (8.8%) compared to Model 1.1 (2.6%, Table 11). The opposite was true for the school climate variables, which explained less in this model (14.0%) compared to in the previous model (20.2%, Table 11). Of the predictors, the same relationships seen in Model 1.1 emerged for the demographic variables and the school climate variables. The only difference was revealed in Block 2. Once again, SEL Comfort and SEL Commitment were significant predictors, and they had the same relationships as those shown in Model 1.1; however, SEL Culture also emerged as a significant predictor (β = -.147, p = .013, Block 2). It was negatively associated with stress, demonstrating that as this predictor increased, teacher stress decreased.
60 Table 11 Comparison of the R2-Value in the Hierarchical Regression Models with Different Order of Entry (N = 538) Model 1.1 Block 2: School Climate Block 3: SEL Dependent Variable
Stress
R2
R2
Model 1.2 Block 2: SEL Block 3: School Climate Sig. F Change
R2
R2
Sig. F Change
1
.030
.030
.043
.030
.030
.043
2
.231
.202
< .001
.117
.088
< .001
3
.257
.026
.001
.257
.140
< .001
4.1.3. Research Question Three Are there interaction effects between SEL and school climate? In order to answer the third research question hierarchical regression analysis was completed with the addition of interaction terms. Demographic variables, the school climate variables, and SEL variables were entered in Block 1. In Block 2, the selected interaction terms between the SEL variables and school climate variables were entered. Table 12 shows the results of the moderated model.
61 Table 12 Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of Interaction Effects Between SEL and School Climate (N = 538) Teacher Stress Block 1 Constant Sex Age Province Years Experience School Level Regional school setting Rural school setting Remote school setting Collaboration Student Relations School Resources Decision Making Instructional Innovation SEL Comfort SEL Commitment SEL Culture SEL Integration Block 2 SEL Comfort * Student Relations SEL Commitment * Student Relations SEL Commitment * Instructional Innovation SEL Culture * Collaboration SEL Culture * Student Relations SEL Culture * Decision Making SEL Integration * Collaboration SEL Integration * Decision Making *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
B 1.632 .169 .003 .017 .004 -.036 .024 .012 -.040 .039 -.101 -.221 -.103 .033 -.082 .098 -.031 -.002
Block 1 SE .075 .061 .004 .071 .004 .072 .070 .079 .098 .042 .037 .030 .034 .048 .035 .030 .050 .033
Block 2 SE
β
B
β
.111** .047 .014 .062 -.025 .019 .008 -.019 .049 -.129** -.326*** -.152** .037 -.101* .132** -.037 -.003
1.638 .182 .003 .005 .005 -.052 .015 -.007 -.032 .050 -.092 -.237 -.118 .044 -.085 .113 -.016 -.014
.076 .061 .004 .071 .004 .073 .070 .079 .098 .043 .037 .030 .034 .048 .036 .030 .051 .034
.120 .041 .004 .077 -.037 .012 -.004 -.015 .063 -.119 -.350 -.176 .049 -.105 .151 -.019 -.025
-.032 .115 -.018 .063 .036 .019 -.044 -.031
.035 .035 .043 .062 .043 .051 .042 .035
-.040 .139** -.018 .061 .040 .022 -.066 -.054
R2 .257
R2 .257***
.281
.023*
62 The moderated model was statistically significant (p = .036) and explained an additional 2.3% of the variance in the dependent variable, stress (Block 2, Table 12). Of the interactions in Block 2, only the interaction between Commitment and Student Relations was statistically significant (p = .001). This interaction was plotted (see Figure 2), and simple slopes analysis was completed (see Table 13) as per the recommendations of Cohen et al. (2003). As can be seen in Figure 2 and Table 13, of the teachers who reported average and high Student Relations, those who had low SEL Commitment had statistically significantly lower stress than those with high SEL Commitment. For teachers with low Student Relations, their stress levels were similarly high when they had low commitment to SEL or high commitment to SEL.
63
Figure 2. The relationship between SEL commitment and stress at different levels of student relations.
Table 13 Tests of Simple Slopes Student Relations
Simple Slope
Std.Error
t-test
df
95% Low
95% High
Low
.02
.04
0.55
534
-0.06
0.10
Average
.11*
.03
3.57
534
0.05
0.17
High
.20*
.04
5.06
534
0.12
0.28
* p < .05.
64 4.1.4. Research Question Four Are there interaction effects between SEL and the demographic variables, or school climate and the demographic variables? In order to answer the fourth research question, a hierarchical regression model was run with interaction terms between SEL variables and demographic variables. In Block 1, the demographic variables, the school climate subscales, and SEL variables were entered. In Block 2, interaction terms between the SEL variables and the selected demographic variables were entered. Table 14 shows the results of the moderated model. The moderated block was statistically significant (p = .003) and explained an additional 3.8% of the variance in the dependent variable, stress (Block 2, Table 14). Of the interactions in Block 2, the interaction between Commitment and Years Experience, and the interaction between Culture and Years Experience were statistically significant (p < .027 and p = .002, respectively). These interactions were plotted and simple slopes analysis was completed as per the recommendations of Cohen et al. (2003).
65 Table 14 Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of Interaction Effects Between SEL and Demographic Variables (N = 538) Teacher Stress Block 1 Constant Sex Age Province Years Experience School Level Regional school setting Rural school setting Remote school setting Collaboration Student Relations School Resources Decision Making Instructional Innovation SEL Comfort SEL Commitment SEL Culture SEL Integration Block 2 Comfort * Sex Comfort * Years Experience Commitment * Sex Commitment * Years Experience Culture * Years Experience Culture * School Level Culture * Remote SEL Integration * Years Experience SEL Integration * School Level SEL Integration * Remote *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
B 1.632 .169 .003 .017 .004 -.036 .024 .012 -.040 .039 -.101 -.221 -.103 .033 -.082 .098 -.031 -.002
Block 1 SE .075 .061 .004 .071 .004 .072 .070 .079 .098 .042 .037 .030 .034 .048 .035 .030 .050 .033
Block 2 SE
β
B
β
.111** .047 .014 .062 -.025 .019 .008 -.019 .049 -.129** -.326*** -.152** .037 -.101* .132** -.037 -.003
1.638 .159 .003 .024 .004 -.067 .009 -.013 -.024 .047 -.093 -.224 -.131 .051 -.136 .131 .066 -.025
.077 .062 .004 .070 .004 .073 .069 .078 .098 .042 .036 .030 .034 .048 .070 .058 .066 .039
.105* .041 .020 .056 -.047 .007 -.009 -.011 .060 -.120* -.331*** -.194*** .056 -.169 .176* .078 -.044
.072 .004 -.050 .007 .015 .101 .152 .004 .077 .098
.078 .003 .066 .003 .005 .101 .152 .004 .077 .098
.078 .046 -.055 .088* .176** -.099 -.076 -.096 -.047 .029
R2 .257
R2 .257***
.295
.038**
66 The interaction effect between SEL Commitment and Years Experience (Figure 3 and Table 15) revealed that for teachers with high Years Experience, those who had low SEL Commitment had statistically significantly lower stress than teachers with high SEL Commitment. However, for teachers with low and average Years Experience, their stress levels were similar when they had low commitment to SEL or high commitment to SEL.
Figure 3. The relationship between SEL commitment and stress for different years experience.
67 Table 15 Tests of Simple Slopes Years Experience
Simple Slope
Std.Error
t-test
df
95% Low
95% High
Low
.07
.07
1.01
534
-.06
.19
Average
.13
.05
2.39
534
.02
.24
High
.20*
.06
3.38
534
.08
.31
* p < .05.
The interaction effect between Culture and Years Experience (Figure 4 and Table 16) revealed that for teachers with high Years Experience, those who reported low SEL Culture had statistically significantly lower stress than teachers who reported high SEL Culture. For teachers with low and average Years Experience, their stress levels were similar when they reported low SEL Culture or high SEL Culture.
68
Figure 4. The relationship between SEL culture and stress for different years experience.
Table 16 Tests of Simple Slopes Years Experience
Simple Slope
Std.Error
t-test
df
95% Low
95% High
Low
-.07
.07
-0.99
534
-.22
.07
Average
.07
.06
1.04
534
-.06
.19
High
.21*
.08
2.50
534
.004
.37
* p < .05.
69 A hierarchical regression model was also run with interaction terms between school climate variables and demographic variables. In Block 1, the demographic variables, the school climate variables, and SEL variables were entered. In Block 2, interaction terms between the school climate variables and the selected demographic variables were entered. The moderated model was not significant. 4.2. Teacher Job Satisfaction In order to answer the research questions for teacher job satisfaction, a similar process to the one used for teacher stress was followed. 4.2.1. Research Question One Does school climate predict teacher job satisfaction? Does SEL predict teacher job satisfaction over and above school climate? For research question one, demographic variables were entered in Block 1, the five subscales of the school climate measure were entered in Block 2, and in Block 3, the four SEL variables were entered. Table 17 shows the results of the regression model. The final model explained 40.3% of the variance in the dependent variable, job satisfaction (see Block 3, Table 17). Block 1 was not statistically significant; however, in subsequent significant blocks, there were statistically significant demographic variables. These included Province, with teachers from Ontario reporting significantly higher job satisfaction (Block 3), and Rural school setting, with teachers from rural school setting reporting significantly lower job satisfaction than teachers working near a major city (Block 3). Another demographic variable, Years Experience, was negatively associated with job satisfaction, demonstrating that as Years Experience increased, job satisfaction decreased (Block 3).
70 Block 2 was statistically significant (p < .001), and after controlling for demographic variables, the school climate variables explained 33.4% of the variance in the dependent variables, job satisfaction. Of the school climate variables, Collaboration, Student Relations, School Resources, and Decision Making were all positively associated with the experience of job satisfaction, demonstrating that as these three predictors increased, teacher job satisfaction also increased (Block 2). With the exception of Student Relations, these variables remained significant to the final model (Block 3). Block 3 was also statistically significant (p < .001). After controlling for demographic variables, and over and above school climate, the SEL variables explained 4.5% of the variance. Of the SEL variables, SEL Culture was associated with job satisfaction, demonstrating that as this predictor increased, teacher job satisfaction increased. The largest unique contribution in the final model was made jointly by Province (β = .243, p < .001) and SEL Culture (β = .243, p < .001).
71 Table 17 Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Teacher Job Satisfaction (N = 537)
Teacher Job Satisfaction Block 1 Constant Sex Age Province Years Experience School Level Regional school setting Rural school setting Remote school setting Block 2 Collaboration Student Relations School Resources Decision Making Instructional Innovation Block 3 SEL Comfort SEL Commitment SEL Culture SEL Integration *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
B 3.929 .014 .003 .129 -.002 -.139 -.161 -.185 -.312
Block 1 SE .095 .078 .005 .088 .005 .086 .090 .102 .127
β
B
.008 .044 .091 -.030 -.085 -.112 -.109 -.126*
3.801 -.045 .008 .328 -.012 -.012 -.135 -.173 -.116
Block 2 SE .079 .064 .004 .075 .004 .072 .074 .084 .105
β
B
-.026 .108 .231*** -.154** -.008 -.094 -.101* -.047
3.777 -.093 .005 .345 -.009 .122 -.115 -.163 -.090
Block 3 SE .077 .063 .004 .073 .004 .074 .072 .082 .102
β
R2 .023
R2 .023
-.053 .069 .243*** -.124* .075 -.080 -.095* -.036 .358 .334***
.137 .079 .173 .265 .016
.044 .038 .031 .034 .051
.150** .088* .222*** .342*** .015
.112 .032 .171 .184 -.027
.044 .038 .031 .035 .050
.122* .035 .219*** .237*** -.026
.013 .043 .235 .033
.036 .031 .052 .034
.014 .050 .243*** .052
.403 .045***
72 4.2.2. Research Question Two Does SEL predict teacher job satisfaction? Does school climate predict teacher job satisfaction over and above SEL? In order to examine the contribution of SEL prior to entering the school climate variables, as well as the contribution of school climate over and above SEL, the order of entry of Block 2 and Block 3 from research question one was reversed. SEL variables were entered in Block 2, and school climate variables were entered in Block 3. Table 18 shows the comparison of the two models. Identical to the previous model (Model 2.1), this final model (with reversed entry of predictors, Model 2.2) explained 40.3% of the variance in the dependent variable, job satisfaction (see Block 3, Table 18). The reversed order of entry revealed that the SEL variables explained a much greater proportion of the variance in this model (25.5%) compared to Model 2.1 (4.5%, Table 18). The opposite was true for the school climate variables, which explained less in this model (12.4%) compared to in the previous model (33.4%, Table 18). Of the predictors, the same relationship emerged for the demographic variables and the school climate variables as in Model 2.1. The only difference was revealed in Block 2. Once again, SEL Culture was a significant predictor and had the same relationship as that shown in Model 2.1; however, SEL Integration also emerged as a significant predictor (β = .181, p = .001), and was positively associated with job satisfaction, demonstrating that as this predictor increased, teacher job satisfaction increased.
73 Table 18 Comparison of the R2-Value in the Hierarchical Regression Models with Different Order of Entry (N = 537) Model 2.1 Block 2: School Climate Block 3: SEL Dependent Variable
R2
R2
Model 2.2 Block 2: SEL Block 3: School Climate Sig. F Change
R2
R2
Sig. F Change
1
.023
.023
.129
.023
.023
.129
Job 2 Satisfaction
.358
.334
< .001
.279
.255
< .001
3
.403
.045
< .001
.403
.124
< .001
4.2.3. Research Question Three Are there interaction effects between SEL and school climate? Hierarchical regression analysis was completed with the addition of interaction terms between SEL and school climate variables. Demographic variables, the school climate variables, and SEL variables were entered in Block 1. In Block 2, the selected interaction terms between the SEL variables and school climate variables were entered. Table 19 shows the results of the moderated model. The moderated model was statistically significant (p = .004), and explained an additional 2.6% of the variance in the dependent variable, job satisfaction (Block 2, Table 19). Of the interactions in Block 2, the interactions between Comfort and Student Relations, Commitment and Student Relations, and Culture and Student Relations were statistically significant. These interactions were plotted, and simple slopes analysis was completed.
74 Table 19 Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of Interaction Effects Between SEL and School Climate (N = 537) Teacher Job Satisfaction Block 1 Constant Sex Age Province Years Experience School Level Regional school setting Rural school setting Remote school setting Collaboration Student Relations School Resources Decision Making Instructional Innovation SEL Comfort SEL Commitment SEL Culture SEL Integration Block 2 Comfort * Student Relations Commitment * Student Relations Commitment * Instructional Innovation Culture * Collaboration Culture * Student Relations Culture * Decision Making SEL Integration * Collaboration SEL Integration * Decision Making *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
B 3.777 -.093 .005 .345 -.009 .122 -.115 -.163 -.090 .112 .032 .171 .184 -.027 .013 .043 .235 .033
Block 1 SE .077 .063 .004 .073 .004 .074 .072 .082 .102 .044 .038 .031 .035 .050 .036 .031 .052 .034
Block 2 SE
β
B
Β
-.053 .069 .243*** -.124* .075 -.080 -.095* -.036 .122* .035 .219*** .237*** -.026 .014 .050 .243*** .052
3.783 -.105 .006 .352 -.010 .119 -.102 -.150 -.088 .112 .011 .190 .190 -.036 .029 .035 .207 .041
.078 .063 .004 .072 .004 .075 .071 .081 .101 .044 .038 .031 .035 .050 .037 .031 .053 .035
-.060 .080 .249 -.135 .073 -.071 -.088 -.036 .123 .012 .243 .245 -.035 .031 .042 .214 .064
.088 -.083 .024 -.036 -.119 -.075 .055 .057
.036 .036 .044 .063 .045 .053 .043 .036
.096* -.087* .021 -.030 -.112* -.076 .071 .087
R2 .403
R2 .403***
.429
.026**
75 The SEL Comfort and Student Relations interaction effect (Figure 5 and Table 20) revealed that teachers who reported high Student Relations and low SEL Comfort had statistically significantly lower job satisfaction than those reporting high SEL Comfort. For teachers with low and average Student Relations, their job satisfaction levels were not significantly different when they reported low or high SEL Comfort.
Figure 5. The relationship between SEL comfort and job satisfaction at different levels of student relations.
76 Table 20 Tests of Simple Slopes Student Relations
Simple Slope
Std.Error
t-test
df
95% Low
95% High
Low
-.04
.04
-1.00
533
-0.12
0.04
Average
.03
.03
0.9
533
-0.03
0.09
High
.10*
.04
2.44
533
0.02
0.18
* p < .05.
For the interaction effect between SEL Commitment and Student Relations (Figure 6 and Table 21), it is clear that teachers who reported low Student Relations and low SEL Commitment had statistically significantly lower job satisfaction than those with high SEL Commitment. For teachers with average and high Student Relations, their job satisfaction levels were not significantly different when they reported low or high commitment to SEL. As can be seen in Figure 7 (and Table 22), the impact of SEL Culture on job satisfaction was much more pronounced for teachers who reported low and average Student Relations.
77
Figure 6. The relationship between SEL commitment and job satisfaction at different level of student relations.
Table 21 Tests of Simple Slopes Student Relations
Simple Slope
Std.Error
t-test
df
95% Low
95% High
Low
.10*
.04
2.49
533
0.02
0.18
Average
.11
.03
1.11
533
-0.03
0.10
High
.19
.04
-0.76
533
-0.11
0.05
* p < .05.
78
Figure 7. The relationship between SEL culture and job satisfaction at different level of student relations.
Table 22 Tests of Simple Slopes Student Relations
Simple Slope
Std.Error
t-test
df
95% Low
95% High
Low
.30*
.06
4.67
533
0.17
0.43
Average
.21*
.05
3.78
533
0.10
0.31
High
.11
.07
1.72
533
-0.02
0.24
* p < .05.
79 4.2.4. Research Question Four Are there interaction effects between SEL and the demographic variables, or school climate and the demographic variables? Two hierarchical regression models were run to answer this question: One with interaction terms between SEL and demographic variables, as well as one with interaction terms between school climate and demographic variables. In Block 1, the demographic variables, the school climate variables, and SEL variables were entered. In Block 2, interaction terms between the SEL or school climate variables and the selected demographic variables were entered. Neither of the moderated models were statistically significant. 4.3. Teacher Sense of Efficacy In order to answer the research questions for teacher sense of efficacy, a similar process to that used for teacher stress and job satisfaction was used once again. 4.3.1. Research Question One Does school climate predict teacher sense of efficacy? Does SEL predict teacher sense of efficacy over and above school climate? For research question one, demographic variables were entered in Block 1, the five subscales of the school climate measure were entered in Block 2, and in Block 3, the four SEL variables were entered. Table 23 shows the results of the regression model. The final model explained 29.4% of the variance in the dependent variable, sense of efficacy (see Block 3, Table 23). Block 1 was statistically significant (p < .001). Of the demographic variables, Sex and Years Experience were significant predictors (Block 3), with female teachers, and more experienced teachers reporting higher sense of efficacy. Block 2 was also statistically significant (p < .001) and revealed that, after controlling for demographic
80 variables, the school climate variables explained 12.5% of the variance. Of the school climate variables, Student Relations was positively associated with the teacher sense of efficacy, demonstrating that as this predictor increased, sense of efficacy also increased (Block 3). Finally, Block 3 was statistically significant (p < .001). After controlling for demographic variables, and over and above school climate, the SEL variables explained 10.0% of the variance. Of the SEL variables, SEL Comfort was positively associated with sense of efficacy, demonstrating that as this predictor increased, teacher sense of efficacy increased (Block 3). The largest unique contribution in the final model was made by SEL Comfort (β = .334, p < .001).
81 Table 23 Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Teacher Sense of Efficacy (N = 535)
Teacher Sense of Efficacy Block 1 Constant Sex Age Province Years Experience School Level Regional school setting Rural school setting Remote school setting Block 2 Collaboration Student Relations School Resources Decision Making Instructional Innovation Block 3 SEL Comfort SEL Commitment SEL Culture SEL Integration *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
B
Block 1 SE
6.888 .386 -.009 .075 .030 -.073 .004 .022 .044
.137 .113 .007 .127 .007 .125 .130 .147 .182
β
B
Block 2 SE
.149** -.081 .036 .269*** -.030 .002 .009 .012
6.807 .307 -.005 .150 .020 .058 .096 .050 .270
.131 .106 .007 .125 .007 .120 .123 .139 .174
β
B
.118** -.044 .072 .174** .024 .045 .020 .074
6.812 .224 -.010 .186 .019 .191 .077 .067 .246
Block 3 SE .124 .102 .006 .117 .007 .119 .116 .131 .164
β
R2 R2 .070 .070***
.086* -.086 .089 .170** .079 .036 .027 .067 .194 .125***
.110 .391 .052 .024 .016
.074 .062 .052 .056 .084
.081 .295*** .045 .021 .011
.062 .301 .024 .008 .041
.070 .061 .049 .057 .080
.046 .227*** .021 .007 .027
.458 -.049 -.034 .039
.058 .049 .084 .055
.334*** -.038 -.023 .041
.294 .100***
82 4.3.2. Research Question Two Does SEL predict teacher sense of efficacy? Does school climate predict teacher sense of efficacy over and above SEL? In order to examine the contribution of SEL prior to entering the school climate variables, as well as the contribution of school climate over and above SEL, the order of entry for Block 2 and Block 3 was reversed. SEL variables were entered in Block 2, and school climate variables were entered in Block 3. Table 24 shows the comparison of the two models. Identical to the previous model (Model 3.1), this final model (with reversed entry of predictors, Model 3.2) explained 29.4% of the variance in the dependent variable, sense of efficacy (see Block 3, Table 24). The reversed order of entry revealed that the SEL variables explained a greater proportion of the variance in this model (17.2%) compared to Model 3.1 (10.0%, Table 24). The opposite was true for the school climate variables, which explained less in this model (5.2%) compared to the previous model (12.5%, Table 24). Of the predictors, the same relationship emerged for the demographic variables and the school climate variables as in Model 3.1. Furthermore, no extra SEL variables emerged as predictors in Block 2, (Model 3.2). Once again, SEL Comfort was the only significant predictor and it had the same relationship as shown in Model 3.1.
83 Table 24 Comparison of the R2-Value in the Hierarchical Regression Models with Different Order of Entry (N = 535) Model 3.1 Block 2: School Climate Block 3: SEL R2
Dependent Variable
Sense of Efficacy
R2
Model 3.2 Block 2: SEL Block 3: School Climate Sig. F Change
R2
R2
Sig. F Change
1
.070
.070
< .001
.070
.070
< .001
2
.194
.125
< .001
.241
.172
< .001
3
.294
.100
< .001
.294
.052
< .001
4.3.3. Research Question Three Are there interaction effects between SEL and school climate? Hierarchical regression analysis was completed with the addition of interaction terms between SEL and school climate variables. Demographic variables, the school climate variables, and SEL variables were entered in Block 1. In Block 2, interaction terms between the SEL variables and the selected school climate variables were entered. The moderated model was not statistically significant. 4.3.4. Research Question Four Are there interaction effects between SEL and the demographic variables, or school climate and the demographic variables? A hierarchical regression model was run with interaction terms between SEL variables and demographic variables. In Block 1, the demographic variables, the school climate variables, and SEL variables were entered. In Block 2, interaction terms between the SEL variables and the
84 selected demographic variables were entered. The moderated model was not statistically significant. A second hierarchical regression model was run with interaction terms between school climate variables and demographic variables. In Block 1, the demographic variables, the school climate variables, and SEL variables were entered. In Block 2, interaction terms between the school climate variables and the selected demographic variables were entered. Table 25 shows the results of the moderated model. The moderated block was statistically significant (p = .012), and explained an additional 3.3% of the variance in the dependent variable, sense of efficacy (Block 2, Table 25). Of the interactions in Block 2, the interaction between Collaboration and Sex was statistically significant (p < .001). This interaction was plotted and simple slopes analysis was completed. The interaction effect between Collaboration and Sex (Figure 8 and Table 26) revealed that for male teachers, those who reported low Collaboration had a significantly lower sense of efficacy than teachers who reported high Collaboration. For female teachers, there was no significant difference in their sense of efficacy for low Collaboration or high Collaboration.
85 Table 25 Summary of the Hierarchical Regression Model of Interaction Effects Between SEL and Demographic Variables (N = 535) Teacher Sense of Efficacy Block 1 Constant Sex Age Province Years Experience School Level Regional school setting Rural school setting Remote school setting Collaboration Student Relations School Resources Decision Making Instructional Innovation SEL Comfort SEL Commitment SEL Culture SEL Integration Block 2 Collaboration * Sex Collaboration * Years Experience Student Relations * Sex Student Relations * Years Experience Student Relations *Remote School Resources * School Level School Resources * Remote Decision Making * School Level Decision Making * Remote Instructional Innovation * Years Experience Instructional Innovation * School Level *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
B 6.812 .224 -.010 .186 .019 .191 .077 .067 .246 .062 .301 .024 .008 .041 .458 -.049 -.034 .039
Block 1 SE .124 .102 .006 .117 .007 .119 .116 .131 .164 .070 .061 .049 .057 .080 .058 .049 .084 .055
Block 2 SE
β
B
β
.086* -.086 .089 .170** .079 .036 .027 .067 .046 .227*** .021 .007 .027 .334*** -.038 -.023 .041
6.796 .266 -.011 .176 .021 .188 .049 .099 .207 .565 .121 -.003 .006 .110 .455 -.051 -.044 .055
.124 .102 .006 .118 .007 .120 .116 .131 .166 .136 .129 .060 .064 .088 .057 .050 .083 .055
.103* -.100 .084 .190** .078 .023 .039 .056 .419*** .091 -.002 .005 .072 .332*** -.040 -.030 .058
-.621 .001 .181 -.007 .066 .075 .020 .107 -.168 .003 -.194
.143 .008 .139 .006 .206 .108 .204 .132 .145 .008 .153
-.418*** .005 .123 -.047 .016 .033 .005 .041 -.050 -.022 -.067
R2 .294
R2 .294***
.326
.033*
86
Figure 8. The relationship between collaboration and sense of efficacy for male and female teachers.
Table 26 Tests of Simple Slopes Sex
Simple Slope
Std.Error
t-test
df
95% Low
95% High
Male Teachers
.57*
.13
4.21
531
.30
.83
Female Teachers
-.06
.06
-0.89
531
-.18
.07
*p < .05.
87 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to determine if school climate and SEL, two areas that have received much attention in their outcomes for students, have any relationship with teachers’ sense of stress, job satisfaction, and efficacy for teaching. Based on the results, it is clear that school climate and SEL do relate to these factors. Below, the significant findings from the study are discussed in relation to each outcome variable. 5.1. Teacher Stress 5.1.1. School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Stress Both school climate and SEL predicted teacher stress uniquely, and over and above the other predictors. The fact that school climate and SEL were significant over and above each other demonstrates that they both play an important role in determining teacher stress. Amongst the subscales for both of these factors there were some interesting findings. School climate. As the results show, better student relations, better school resources, and more input in decision making all predicted reduced levels of teacher stress. These results are not surprising given that previous research has regularly cited poor relations with students, inadequacy of resources, and lack of influence over the work environment as causes of teacher stress (e.g., De Nobile & McCormick, 2005). There are several possible explanations for these results. First, teachers who report better student relations may experience less conflict and fewer issues of misbehaviour or disobedience in their class. Second, teachers who have better access to teaching resources may experience less stress in trying to plan and teach curriculum. Finally, teachers who report more input in decision making may experience increased ownership when they take part in decision making in school.
88 SEL. Comfort with and regular implementation of SEL, as well as commitment to improving SEL skills both predicted teacher stress, although in different ways. Comfort predicted lower stress, whereas commitment to improving SEL predicted higher stress. The role that comfort with SEL played in teacher stress was not surprising, and may be explained by the fact that teachers who are more comfortable with SEL and implement it more regularly in their classroom are more aware of their social and emotional well-being, and are also in an environment that aims to nurture social and emotional well-being. Considering that the research hypothesis postulated that SEL might cause teachers stress because they must fit it into an already busy day, it was also not surprising to find that commitment to improving SEL predicted increased stress. At this point it must be reiterated that although the subscale is called SEL Commitment, it refers to commitment to improving SEL. Teachers who scored highly on this subscale answered affirmatively to questions like, “I want to improve my ability to teach social and emotional skills to students.” Considering this, the relationship may be explained by the fact that commitment to improving skills requires extra work, plus the implementation of changes after this work is completed. These reasons are supported by previous research that has consistently linked workload and coping with change as causes of detrimental teacher stress (Borg, 1990; De Nobile & McCormick, 2005; Geving, 2007; Kyriacou, 2000; Phillips et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2003). Another reason may relate to the increasing call for teachers to implement SEL in their teaching, and as such, teachers may feel stressed if they think their SEL skills are not at a high enough level to do this. Demographics. Of the demographic variables, female teachers reported higher stress than male teachers. This result is supported by previous research (e.g., Griffith, Steptoe, & Cropley, 1999; Timms, Graham, & Caltabiano, 2006). Naylor (2001) suggested that the
89 difference between sexes might be an effect of the extra roles outside of teaching that females undertake, such as caregiving and domestic duties, that result in a double workload and increased stress as a result. However, in the current study reasons for this difference were not explored; further research is required to understand why female teachers report higher stress. 5.1.2. Interaction Effects for Teacher Stress SEL and school climate variables. Interaction effects that were examined between SEL and school climate variables revealed that teachers with average and high student relations had higher levels of stress when their commitment to improving SEL was high as opposed to when it was low. This result is not surprising. Once again, it may be explained by the extra workload that teachers feel they need to undertake in order to improve their SEL skills. The minimal role that commitment to improving SEL skills played in the stress levels of teachers with low student relations, however, is surprising. It shows that teachers with low student relations had similar levels of stress whether or not they were committed to improving their SEL skills. This may be explained by the already high level of stress that these teachers experience from their student relations. That is, level of commitment to improving SEL skills adds no further stress. Predictors and demographic variables. There were two significant interaction effects between SEL variables and demographic variables. The first interaction effect showed that teachers with high experience reported higher levels of stress when their commitment to improving SEL was high as opposed to when it was low. Once again, this relationship may be explained by the extra workload needed to improve SEL skills; however, it is interesting to note that this interaction was limited to teachers with high experience, suggesting that teachers with lower experience coped differently with their commitment to improving SEL. A possible reason
90 for the relationship between high experience, high commitment to improving SEL, and high stress is that these highly experienced teachers may have high confidence in their teaching skill, and thus the requirement to improve their skills may lead to increased stress because this is not something that they need to do regularly. Alternatively, it may be related to weariness with new educational innovations that consistently require change―teachers with less experience may not have experienced so many educational innovations or overhauls and so may be more open to developments like SEL. Previous research in the area of teacher stress has shown mixed findings when related to years experience: some studies have reported no significant difference (e.g., Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008), others have found that younger teachers report more stress (e.g., Russell, Altmaier, & Van Velzen, 1987), whereas others have found that older teachers report more stress (e.g., Borg & Riding, 1991). Clearly, more research is needed in this area. The second interaction effect showed that teachers with average and high experience reported higher levels of stress when the SEL culture in their school was high as opposed to when it was low. This finding was surprising, but may be explained by the recent advancement of SEL. Similar to the suggestions above, this relationship may refer to the experience of many teaching innovations of a career so that the requirement to introduce another causes highly experienced teachers more stress. 5.2. Teacher Job Satisfaction 5.2.1. School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Job Satisfaction Again, school climate and SEL predicted teacher job satisfaction uniquely and over and above each other, demonstrating that they both play an important role in determining teacher job satisfaction. The findings for the individual variables and interaction effects are discussed below.
91 School climate. Higher collaboration between colleagues, better student relations, better school resources, and more input in decision making all predicted higher levels of teacher job satisfaction. These results are not surprising; however, it is interesting to note that these four predictors are classified as extrinsic factors in job satisfaction research (Herzberg et al., 1959). An interesting finding was that the one variable that can be considered an intrinsic factor of job satisfaction, instructional innovation, was not significant. According to Dinham and Scott (1998), extrinsic factors such as these provide the greatest variance in teacher job satisfaction. Dinham and Scott also suggest that school climate is one way that these extrinsic factors can be improved. The results of this study appear to support this suggestion: positive school climates predicted higher job satisfaction. Another interesting finding is that the results suggest that positive school climates may allow teachers to focus more on the intrinsic aspects of teaching, rather than being concerned with the extrinsic aspects. For example, a possible reason for the relationship between student relations and job satisfaction is that teachers who have better student relations may have higher job satisfaction because they may be able to focus more on the act of teaching (intrinsic), rather than on disciplinary matters (extrinsic). Similarly, teachers who engage in higher collaboration with colleagues, may have better collegial relations (extrinsic), which in turn may foster a sense of camaraderie and encourage professional growth among teachers (intrinsic). Likewise with school resources, teachers who have access to better resources may be able to concentrate more on the act of teaching, rather than concentrating on finding the necessary materials. Finally, for decision making, teachers who feel confident that their opinion is heard may experience less concern about their working conditions (extrinsic), and instead focus on enjoying the intrinsic aspects of teaching.
92 These results suggest that the extrinsic factors of teaching do play a significant role in teacher job satisfaction. Furthermore, they extend the understanding of the role of extrinsic and intrinsic factors in job satisfaction. As discussed earlier, Herzberg et al. (1959) proposed that only the improvement of intrinsic factors, not extrinsic factors, can increase job satisfaction; however, this was critiqued by De Nobile and McCormick (2005) who argued that extrinsic factors are a significant aspect of job satisfaction. The findings of this study extend these understandings by suggesting a compromise between these opposing views. Specifically, in support of De Nobile and McCormick it appears that extrinsic factors did play an important role in improving job satisfaction; however, in support of Herzberg et al. (1959) it also appears that the role that extrinsic factors played is strongly related to intrinsic factors―that is, better extrinsic factors lead to greater job satisfaction because teachers are able to spend more time concentrating on intrinsic factors. SEL. Both the support and promotion of SEL in schools, and the greater integration of SEL within schools predicted higher job satisfaction. Once again, these results may relate to the intrinsic factors that are nurtured by the support and integration of SEL. Namely, because SEL focuses on the social and emotional well-being of individuals and schools, extrinsic factors that are related to social and emotional well-being―such as student misbehaviour, collegial relations, administrative practices, and supervision (Herzberg et al., 1959)―may be improved. In other words, greater support and integration of SEL may allow teachers (and students) to focus more on the act of learning and teaching (intrinsic factors). Demographics. Of the demographic variables, teachers from Ontario reported higher job satisfaction than teachers from British Columbia. This result is consistent with King and Peart (1992), who found that British Columbian teachers reported lower job satisfaction than six other
93 Canadian provinces. Rural and remote school settings also both predicted lower job satisfaction than school settings that were near a major city. This finding contrasts Mertler’s (2002) study in which job satisfaction was found to be similar in rural, suburban, and urban school settings. The final significant demographic variable was years experience, with more experienced teachers reporting lower job satisfaction. This also contrasts a previous study (Billingsley, 1992) in which no significant relationship was found between job satisfaction and years experience. More research is needed to understand how demographic variables like school setting and years experience affect job satisfaction among teachers. 5.2.2. Interaction Effects for Teacher Job Satisfaction SEL and school climate variables. There were three significant interaction effects between SEL and school climate variables. The first effect showed that teachers with high student relations had higher levels of job satisfaction when their comfort with SEL was high as opposed to when it was low. As described above, better student relations and greater comfort with and regular implementation of SEL appear to increase job satisfaction because they allow teachers to focus more on the intrinsic aspects of teaching. It follows, then, that when considered together these two variables may produce a related effect. However, an additional finding was that at low comfort with SEL, teachers with high student relations reported lower job satisfaction than teachers with low student relations. A reason for this may be that teachers with high relations felt an inconsistency between their student relations and their comfort about SEL. That is, because these two areas are related―that is, they both relate to social aspects of teaching―these teachers may have been concerned by their low comfort with SEL. In contrast, the teachers with low student relations and low SEL comfort may not have felt a contradiction
94 because it is not something that is important to them. More research is needed to explore this further. Another interaction effect showed that teachers with low student relations had significantly greater job satisfaction when they had a high commitment to improving SEL as opposed to when they had a low commitment to improving SEL. This is another intriguing finding, but a possible reason for this is that teachers who had a high commitment to improving their SEL skills may have been more satisfied because they were focusing on improving their skills―that is, professional growth, which is an intrinsic factor. Alternatively, they may have been feeling hopeful that the improvement of their SEL skills would impact their student relations in the future. Finally, a third interaction effect showed that teachers with low and average student relations had significantly greater job satisfaction when they reported high SEL culture in their school as opposed to low SEL culture. This interaction may relate to the fact that the support and promotion of SEL in schools targets multiple extrinsic factors of job satisfaction. Therefore, higher SEL culture may have buffered the negative effects of lower student relations on job satisfaction. 5.3 Teacher Sense of Efficacy 5.3.1. School Climate and SEL as Predictors of Sense of Efficacy Once again, school climate and SEL predicted teacher stress uniquely, and over and above each other, demonstrating that they both play an important role in determining teacher sense of efficacy. In a change from the other outcome variables, however, SEL was a stronger predictor of teacher sense of efficacy than school climate. Amongst the subscales for both of these factors there were also some interesting findings.
95 School climate. For teacher sense of efficacy, better student relations predicted increased teacher sense of efficacy. This result is not surprising; however, previous research has not considered this connection directly. In a study by Hoy and Woolfolk (1993), school climate was examined to see if it predicted teacher sense of efficacy; however, only the relations between teachers were considered, not those between teachers and students. In relation to the theoretical framework for teacher sense of efficacy, Bandura (1997) proposed that mastery experiences―which come from “actual teaching accomplishments with students” (TschannenMoran & Hoy, 2007, p. 945)―have the most influence on teacher sense of efficacy. Although the school climate measure used in this study did not consider mastery experiences, student relations may be related. In other words, a possible explanation for the relationship between student relations and teacher sense of efficacy is that better student relations may better facilitate the learning and teaching process, and subsequently, the mastery experiences in the classroom. More research is needed to explore this. SEL. For the SEL variables, comfort with and regular implementation of SEL strongly predicted higher teacher sense of efficacy. This relationship may be explained by the fact that comfort in implementing SEL is a similar construct to efficacy in teaching SEL. Teachers who scored high on this variable may feel more efficacious in general and, therefore, also scored highly on the teacher sense of efficacy variable. However, it may also be explained by the nature of SEL itself. That is, comfort with and regular implementation of SEL may increase teacher sense of efficacy because of the social and emotional well-being it nurtures and the caring relationships it promotes.1 Further research is needed to determine this distinction.
1
The regression model was rerun without the SEL Comfort variable (i.e., with the three other SEL variables)
and it revealed that SEL was still a significant predictor of teacher sense of efficacy when excluding SEL Comfort.
96 Demographics. Of the demographic variables, female teachers reported a higher sense of efficacy than male teachers. This result was not surprising, as it is supported by previous research (Ross, 1994), and has been explained as a product of the “cultural stereotype that teaching is a predominantly female occupation” (Ross, 1994, p. 7). Years experience was also a significant predictor, with greater experience predicting greater sense of efficacy. According to Ross (1994), this could be due to the increasing confidence that teachers gain as their experience increases. 5.3.2. Interaction Effects for Teacher Sense of Efficacy Predictors and demographic variables. Interaction effects that were examined between school climate variables and demographic variables revealed that male teachers who reported high collaboration with colleagues had significantly higher sense of efficacy than male teachers who reported low collaboration. There was no interaction effect for female teachers, who reported similar sense of efficacy for low or high collaboration. This is an intriguing finding that provides interesting information about how males and females react to collaboration, and the subsequent effect that it has on their sense of efficacy. Further research is needed to explore this connection. 5.4 Summary Across Three Outcomes 5.4.1 School Climate For school climate, student relations was a positive predictor across all three outcomes, suggesting that student relations play a crucial role in teacher well-being and sense of efficacy. School resources, and decision making were evident in two outcomes―stress and job satisfaction―suggesting that they play an important role in teacher well-being, but not in teacher sense of efficacy. Collaboration was a predictor of high job satisfaction, highlighting the
97 importance of collegial relations and work for teacher job satisfaction, but not for stress or sense of efficacy. Finally, it is interesting that instructional innovation did not predict any of the outcomes, suggesting that although this may be considered an important aspect of school climate, it does not appear to be an important factor in teacher stress, job satisfaction, or sense of efficacy. 5.4.2 SEL For SEL, the most prominent SEL variable was comfort with and regular implementation of SEL, which was a positive predictor for two outcomes: stress and sense of efficacy. It is worthy of note that comfort with and regular implementation of SEL did not predict job satisfaction, whereas the support and promotion of SEL in schools and greater SEL integration within schools did. This suggests that it may not be the teaching of SEL itself, but the support that SEL culture and integration offers that impacts teacher job satisfaction. The fourth SEL variable, commitment to improving SEL, only predicted one outcome, stress, and did so negatively. 5.5. Limitations There are a few limitations to this study. First, due to the nature of the study as an online questionnaire, a certain profile of teachers may have been more willing to respond than others. As such, it is not known if a full representation of teachers responded. Indeed, all teachers were invited to participate, however, self-selection may have meant that certain profiles of teachers were underrepresented. The low response rate presents another limitation, especially in relation to representation and generalisation of the results: it means that broad representation was not achieved, thus hindering the generalisability of the results. In the future, replication with different data collection methods would help to improve the response rate and, subsequently,
98 improve representation and generalisability. The third limitation is that responses were constrained by the questionnaire. Due to the nature of the measures involved in the study, the questions were closed-ended and did not allow participants to respond outside of the options given. In the future, an open-ended comment field included at the end of the questionnaire would allow participants to mention any other issues that they felt were not covered by the measures in the questionnaire. The fourth limitation is that the nature of the online questionnaire meant that it was not possible to know exactly how participants interpreted the questions, and if they were, in fact, responding to the same ideas or constructs that were intended. In the future, a pilot study involving interviews would be conducted to better understand participants’ interpretations of the questions. Triangulation through the collection of multiple types of data would also help to temper this limitation in future. Finally, this study was cross-sectional in nature, and therefore, the results do not show how teacher stress changes over time, nor can inferences be made about causality. Moreover, teachers were asked to respond about their average experiences; however, this is difficult to do and teachers may instead have responded relating to their most recent experiences. Future research should explore the issues of teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy in a longitudinal design to understand how these issues change over the course of a school year and beyond. 5.6. Conclusions and Implications This work is among the first to explore SEL as it pertains to teachers, and to examine the connections between teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy in relation to both school climate and SEL. In relation to school climate, this study has helped to extend research by providing evidence that school climate has an important part to play in teacher outcomes. Consistent with
99 the first research hypothesis, school climate played a significant role in teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy. For teacher stress, this means that positive school climates, particularly positive student relations, better school resources, and greater input in decision making predicted reduced teacher stress. Considering that research has shown that stress has increased in recent decades (De Nobile & McCormick, 2005), this is an important finding. For job satisfaction, the results suggest that better extrinsic factors predict greater job satisfaction levels, and they also suggest that the development of positive school climates is a method for achieving both better extrinsic factors and greater job satisfaction. For teacher sense of efficacy, positive school climates and, in particular, positive student relations play a significant role in determining sense of efficacy among teachers. This provides important new understandings about efficacy among teachers, as well as considerations for future research in the area of teacher sense of efficacy. In relation to SEL, the findings of this study suggest that although it is generally aimed at students in schools, it also appears to have a relationship with teachers. Consistent with the second research hypothesis, SEL played significant, but differing, roles in the teacher outcomes. For both job satisfaction and teacher sense of efficacy, SEL had a positive relationship. Like school climate, SEL predicted greater job satisfaction, and this appeared to relate to better perceptions of extrinsic factors by teachers so that they could focus more on the intrinsic factors of teaching that tend to increase job satisfaction. Similarly, SEL was a powerful predictor of greater teacher sense of efficacy; however, it is not known if this was due to SEL itself, or because the subscale appeared to measure a construct that was related to teacher sense of efficacy. For teacher stress, however, the results were not so clear-cut. That is, although comfort with SEL predicted lower stress, commitment to improving SEL skills predicted increased stress.
100 This increase is likely attributable to the extra workload that teachers envision when they want to improve their skills, and to the extra changes that will need to be implemented. Considering that previous research has associated teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teacher sense of efficacy with significant outcomes for teachers, students, and schools, the findings of this study provide some important implications for practice and research. These are discussed in detail below. 5.6.1. Implications for Practice First, it is evident from this study that the promotion of positive school climates is a powerful action for improving teacher outcomes. Specifically, by facilitating collaboration among teachers, by supporting better relations between teachers and students, by ensuring adequate resources are available for teachers, and by ensuring that teachers have input in decision making, schools will be more able to create a school climate where teachers experience lower levels of stress, higher levels of job satisfaction, and an increased sense of efficacy. In turn, this will help to reduce the myriad consequences that are associated with high teacher stress, low job satisfaction, and low sense of efficacy, including financial, educational and social ramifications. Second, SEL appears to aid in job satisfaction, and possibly, teacher sense of efficacy, although it has mixed findings for teacher stress. Considering this, SEL should be promoted in schools, especially the support, promotion, and integration of SEL across the whole school; however, the opportunities that teachers are given to improve their SEL skills must be considered carefully so that benefits can be harnessed, while not causing excess stress for those who do not feel that they have the appropriate skills. Specifically, carefully considered training for teachers should be provided for three key reasons: to (a) nurture comfort with and regular implementation
101 of SEL, which can lead to better outcomes for teachers; (b) ensure that teachers have appropriate SEL skills so they do not feel stressed by a need to improve their skills; and (c) give teachers strategies for implementing SEL into their classrooms, so they do not feel stressed by the changes that they will implement. 5.6.2. Implications for Research For researchers, this study helps extend understanding about teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teacher sense of efficacy, and the relationship that these have with school climate and SEL. More research, however, is required to further this understanding. In terms of school climate, this research has provided some very promising results about the positive effects that it can have on teachers’ perceived stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Further research is required to replicate these findings. For SEL, the findings of this study are important for researchers and designers of SEL programs and interventions. First, this study has shown that researchers and designers should consider the impact their program may have on teachers, not only students, especially the potential stress that might arise from learning the required skills to implement the program or intervention. Second, researchers and designers should study the positive impact that schoolwide support, promotion, and integration of SEL has on teachers (and students) when a program is designed or being researched. Third, more research is needed to understand if teacher sense of efficacy is affected by SEL, and what role SEL plays in this. As discussed, the results showed that SEL played a large part in teacher sense of efficacy; however, it is not known if this was a conflation of the constructs measured by the predictor and outcome variables, or the actual effect of SEL.
102 Finally, in terms of teacher characteristics, there are many contradictions in previous research regarding how these relate to teacher stress, job satisfaction, and sense of efficacy. The current study has provided an updated view on these issues; however, more research is needed to understand what differences exist between teacher characteristics, why, and how teacher stress can be reduced, and job satisfaction and sense of efficacy can be increased for all the differing teacher characteristics.
103 REFERENCES Al-Fudail, M., & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Computers and Education, 51, 1103-1110. Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., … Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 368-420. Bachkirova, T. (2005). Teacher stress and personal values. School Psychology International, 26(3), 340-352. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122 Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Barmby, P. (2006). Improving teacher recruitment and retention: The importance of workload and pupil behaviour. Educational Research, 48, 247-265. Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the olweus bullying prevention program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(3), 266-274. Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Acock, A. C., Li, K., & Allred, C. (2008). School climate and teachers' beliefs and attitudes associated with implementation of the positive action program: A diffusion of innovations model. Prevention Science, 9(4), 264-275. Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2005). What works in character education: A research-driven guide for educators. Washington, DC: Character Education Partnership. Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. Journal of Special Education, 25(4), 453.
104 Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683. Bogler, R. (2002). Two profiles of schoolteachers: A discriminant analysis of job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 665-673. doi:DOI: 10.1016/S0742051X(02)00026-4 Borg, M. G. (1990). Occupational stress in British educational settings: A review. Educational Psychology, 10, 103. Borg, M. G., & Riding, R. J. (1991a). Occupational stress and satisfaction in teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 17, 263. Borg, M. G., & Riding, R. J. (1991b). Stress in teaching: A study of occupational stress and its determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary schoolteachers. Educational Psychology, 11, 59. Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M., & Baglioni, A. J. (1995). A structural model of the dimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 49-67. Brackett, M., Palomera, R., Mojsa-Kaja, J., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2010). Emotionregulation ability, burnout, and job satisfaction among British secondary-school teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 406-417. doi:10.1002/pits.20478 Brackett, M., Reyes, M., Rivers, S., & Elbertson, N. (2009). Belief in SEL: Teacher scale. New Haven, CT: Health, Emotion and Behavior Laboratory. Brand, S., Felner, R. D., Seitsinger, A., Burns, A., & Bolton, N. (2008). A large scale study of the assessment of the social environment of middle and secondary schools: The validity and utility of teachers' ratings of school climate, cultural pluralism, and safety problems for understanding school effects and school. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 507-535. Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301-318. Butt, G., Lance, A., Fielding, A., Gunter, H., Rayner, S., & Thomas, H. (2005). Teacher job satisfaction: Lessons from the TSW pathfinder project. School Leadership and Management, 25(5), 455-471. Centre for Social and Emotional Education [CSEE]. (n.d.). The CSEE approach. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://www.csee.net/climate/aboutcsee/goals.aspx
105 Chaplain, R. P. (2001). Stress and job satisfaction among primary headteachers: A question of balance? Educational Management Administration Leadership, 29(2), 197-215. Character Education Partnership [CEP]. (2008). Mission, vision and history. Retrieved November 1, 2008, from http://www.character.org/missionvisionhistory Chen, G., & Weikart, L. A. (2008). Student background, school climate, school disorder, and student achievement: An empirical study of New York city's middle schools. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 3-20. Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., & Kienhuis, M. (2008). Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educational Psychology, 28, 693-710. Cohen, Jacob, Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, Jonathan. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning, participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 201-237. Cohen, Jonathan. (2007). Evaluating and improving school climate. Independent School, 67(1), 18-26. Cohen, Jonathan., McCabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 180213. Cohen, Jonathan., & Michelli, N. M. (2006). Evaluating school climate: Promoting the skills dispositions and a climate for democracy. National Network for Educational Renewal News, 6(1), 2-4. Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-337. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2003). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/downloads/Safe%20and%20Sound/1A_Safe_&_Sound.pdf
106 Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2008). Mission and strategic plan. Retrieved November 1, 2008, from http://www.casel.org/downloads/strategicplan1.27.08.pdf Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cox, T. (1978). Stress. London, England: Macmillan. Crossman, A., & Harris, P. (2006). Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 34(1), 29-46. Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers' sense of efficacy: An important factor in school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 2, 173-184. De Nobile, J., & McCormick, J. (2005). Job satisfaction and occupational stress in catholic primary schools. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, Australia. Dietrich, A. P., & Bailey, E. L. (1996). School climate: Common-sense solutions to complicated problems. NASSP Bulletin, 80(576), 16. Dinham, S. (1994). Enhancing the quality of teacher satisfaction. Paper Presented at the National Conference of the Australian College of Education, Launceston, Tasmania. Australia. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive career satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 319-331. Dunham, J. (1992). Stress in teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(2) doi:10.1023/A:1024654026646 Egyed, C. J., & Short, R. J. (2006). Teacher self-efficacy, burnout, experience and decision to refer a disruptive student. School Psychology International, 27, 462-474. doi:10.1177/0143034306070432 Esposito, C. (1999). Learning in urban blight: School climate and its effect on the school performance of urban, minority and low-income children. School Psychology Review, 28, 365.
107 Evans, L. (1997). Understanding teacher morale and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 831-845. Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). Validity and use of the school-level environment questionnaire. Paper Presented at American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. Freiberg, H. J. (1999). Introduction. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 1-11). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Freiberg, H. J., & Stein, T. A. (1999). Chapter 1: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 11-29). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. V. S., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the steps to respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41, 479-491. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gay, G. (1995). Modeling and mentoring in urban teacher preparation. Education and Urban Society, 28(1), 103-118. Geving, A. M. (2007). Identifying the types of student and teacher behaviours associated with teacher stress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 624-640. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.569 Gittelsohn, J., Merkle, S., Story, M., Stone, E. J., Steckler, A., Noel, J., …Ethelbah, B. (2003). School climate and implementation of the pathways study. Preventive Medicine, 37, S97S106. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. London, England: Bloomsbury. Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1349-1363. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Zins, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through
108 coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466474. Gregory, A., Henry, D. B., & Schoeny, M. E. (2007). School climate and implementation of a preventive intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 250-260. Griffith, J., Steptoe, A., & Cropley, M. (1999). An investigation of coping strategies associated with job stress in teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 517-531. Guglielmi, R. S., & Tatrow, K. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout, and health in teachers: A methodological and theoretical analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 61. Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of the responsibility teachers assume for academic successes and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 44-51. doi:10.1177/002248718103200310 Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63-69. doi: 10.1016/0742051X(88)90025-X Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). Organizational climate of schools. Chicago, IL: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago. Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 404-420. doi:10.1177/00131640121971284 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY: John Wiley. Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2004). Resilient teachers: Resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 399-420. Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007 Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 355. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79, 491-525. doi:10.3102/0034654308325693
109 Johnson, B., & Stevens, J. J. (2006). Student achievement and elementary teachers' perceptions of school climate. Learning Environments Research, 9(2), 111-122. Johnson, B., Stevens, J. J., & Zvoch, K. (2007). Teachers' perceptions of school climate: A validity study of scores from the revised school level environment questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(5), 833-844. Johnson, W. L., & Johnson, A. M. (1996). Assessing school climate priorities: A texas study. Clearing House, 70(2), 64. Kelley, R. C., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17-25. Kim, I., & Loadman, W., E. (1994). Predicting teacher job satisfaction. Columbus: Ohio State University. King, A., & Peart, M. (1992). Teachers in canada: Their work and quality of life. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Teachers' Federation. Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., Emmons, C., & Blatt, S. J. (1997). Perceived school climate and difficulties in the social adjustment of middle school students. Applied Developmental Science, 1(2), 76-88. Kyriacou, C. (2000). Stressbusting for teachers. London, England: Nelson Thornes. Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1; 1), 27-35. Kyriacou, C., & Sutcliffe, J. (1979). Teacher stress and satisfaction. Educational Research, 21, 89-96. Kyriacou, C., & Sutcliffe, J. (1977). The prevalence of stress among teachers in medium-sized mixed comprehensive schools. Research in Education, 18, 75-79. Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: Maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341-359. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.013 LaRusso, M., Romer, D., & Selman, R. L. (2008). Teachers as builders of respectful school climates: Implications for adolescent drug use norms and depressive symptoms in high school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(4), 386-398. Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1962). Factor analysis as a statistical method. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (the Statistician), 12(3), 209-229.
110 Linares, L. O., Rosbruch, N., Stern, M. B., Edwards, M. E., Walker, G., Abikoff, H. B., & Alvir, J. M. (2005). Developing cognitive-social-emotional competencies to enhance academic learning. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 405-417. Locke, E. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336. Loukas, A., & Murphy, J. L. (2007). Middle school student perceptions of school climate: Examining protective functions on subsequent adjustment problems. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 293-309. MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84. Manthei, R., & Gilmore, A. (1996). Teacher stress in intermediate schools. Educational Research, 38, 3. Merrell, K. W., Juskelis, M. P., Tran, O. K., & Buchanan, R. (2008). Social and emotional learning in the classroom: Evaluation of strong kids and strong teens on students' socialemotional knowledge and symptoms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 24(2), 209-224. Mertler, C. A. (2002). Job satisfaction and perception of motivation among middle and high school teachers. American Secondary Education, 31, 43-53. Ministry of Education. (2009). Teacher statistics: 2009/10. Vancouver, Canada: Ministry of Education. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ontario College of Teachers. (2008a). Annual report: Membership demographics. Retrieved from http://www.oct.ca/annual_report/2008/en/stats_downloads.html Ontario College of Teachers. (2008b). Membership demographics. Toronto, Canada: Ontario College of Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.oct.ca/annual_report/2008/en/stats_demographics.html Payton, J. W., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Retrieved from http://www.casel.org/downloads/PackardTR.pdf
111 Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Perie, M., & Baker, D. (1997). Job satisfaction among America's teachers: Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Perry, A. C. (1908). The management of a city school. New York, NY: Macmillan. Phillips, S., Sen, D., & McNamee, R. (2007). Prevalence and causes of self-reported workrelated stress in head teachers. Occupational Medicine, 57(5), 367-367. Rafferty, T. J. (2003). School climate and teacher attitudes toward upward communication in secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 31(2), 49. Ransford, C. R., Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Small, M., & Jacobson, L. (2009). The role of teachers' psychological experiences and perceptions of curriculum supports on the implementation of a social and emotional learning curriculum. School Psychology Review, 38, 510-532. Rentoul, A. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Development of a school-level environment questionnaire. Journal of Educational Administration, 21(1), 21-39. Rose, J. S., & Medway, F. J. (1981). Measurement of teachers' beliefs in their control over student outcome. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(3), 185-190. Ross, J. A. (1994). The impact of an inservice to promote cooperative learning on the stability of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 381-394. doi: 10.1016/0742051X(94)90020-5 Russell, D. W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress, social support, and burnout among classroom teachers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 269-274. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.269 Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 67-73. Shih, T., & Xitao Fan, . (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A metaanalysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249-271. doi:10.1177/1525822X08317085 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 518-524.
112 Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1-30. Spear, M., Gould, K., & Lee, B. (2000). Who would be a teacher? A review of factors motivating and demotivating prospective and practising teachers. Slough, England: National Foundation for Educational Research. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. London, England: Sage Publications. Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stewart, E. B. (2008). School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations, and parental involvement: The influence of school- and individual-level factors on academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 179-204. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri, & G. H. Litwin (Eds.), Organizational climate: Exploration of a concept (pp. 11-35). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Thomas, N., Clark, V., & Lavery, J. (2003). Self-reported work and family stress of female primary teachers. Australian Journal of Education, 47(1), 73-87. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944-956. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003 Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. Tsouloupas, C., Carson, R., Matthews, R., Grawitch, M., & Barber, L. (2010). Exploring the association between teachers’ perceived student misbehaviour and emotional exhaustion: The importance of teacher efficacy beliefs and emotion regulation. Educational Psychology, 30, 173-189.
113 Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161(1), 78-88. Weare, K. (2000). Promoting mental, emotional and social health: A whole school approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 861-879. Wilson, V. (2002). Feeling the strain: An overview of the literature on teachers' stress (No. SCRE Research Report No 109). Glasgow, Scotland: The Scottish Council for Research in Education. Yoneyama, S., & Rigby, K. (2006). Bully/victim students and classroom climate. Youth Studies Australia, 25(3), 34-41. Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. (2006). Sources of teacher job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in cyprus. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 36(2), 229-247. Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2), 191-210. Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2007). Social and emotional learning: Promoting the development of all students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2), 233-255.
114 APPENDIX A Teacher Questionnaire Section 1 of 6: Demographic Questions
1. What is your age?
2. What is your gender?
F
M
3. What school do you work at?
4. How many years have you worked as a school teacher?
5. What grades do you teach? Check all that apply. Kinder Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 6 Grade 2 Grade 7 Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 4
Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
6. What is your current position? Full-time teacher Part-time teacher Teacher aide Resource teacher Special education teacher Administrator (e.g., principal, assistant principal, director, school head) Library media specialist or Librarian Other professional staff (e.g., counsellor, curriculum coordinator, social worker) Support staff (e.g., secretary) Other:
115 Section 2 of 6: Teacher Work Stress As a teacher, how great a source of stress are these factors to you? 0 No stress
(1) Poor career structure (poor promotion prospects) (2) Difficult class (3) Lack of recognition for good teaching (4) Responsibility for students (exam, success) (5) Noisy students (6) Too short rest periods (mid-morning, midday break) (7) Students’ poor attitudes to work (8) Inadequate salary (9) Too much work to do (e.g. lesson preparation and marking) (10) Having a large class (i.e. many students) (11) Maintaining class discipline (12) Administrative work (e.g. filling in forms) (13) Pressure from parents (14) Ill-defined syllabuses (e.g. not detailed enough) (15) Lack of time to spend with individual students (16) Shortage of equipment and poor facilities (17) Attitudes and behaviour of other teachers (18) Students’ impolite behaviour or cheek (19) Pressure from leadership and the school district (20) Having extra students because of absent teachers (21) Using technologies to teach (e.g., the Internet, electronic whiteboards, etc.) (22) Using technologies for administrative work (e.g., report cards) (23) Lack of technical support for technologies at school (e.g., when the technology does not work) (24) Lack of training for using technologies at school
1 Mild stress
2 Moderate stress
3 Much stress
4 Extreme stress
116
Section 3 of 6: Job Satisfaction Please indicate your opinion about each of the statements below by marking any one of the six responses in the columns on the right side, ranging from (1) “Disagree Very Much” to (6) “Agree Very Much”. Please consider which response comes closest to reflecting your opinion. 1 Disagree very much
(1) I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. (2) There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. (3) My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. (4) I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. (5) When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. (6) Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. (7) I like the people I work with. (8) I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. (9) Communications seem good within this organization. (10) Raises are too few and far between. (11) Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. (12) My supervisor is unfair to me. (13) The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. (14) I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. (15) My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. (16) I find I have to work harder at my job than I should because of the incompetence of people I work
2 Disagree moderately
3 Disagree slightly
4 Agree slightly
5 Agree moderately
6 Agree very much
117 with. (17) I like doing the things I do at work. (18) The goals of this organization are not clear to me. (19) I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. (20) People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. (21) My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. (22) The benefit package we have is equitable. (23) There are few rewards for those who work here. (24) I have too much to do at work. (25) I enjoy my coworkers. (26) I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. (27) I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. (28) I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. (29) There are benefits we do not have which we should have. (30) I like my supervisor. (31) I have too much paperwork. (32) I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. (33) I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. (34) There is too much bickering and fighting at work. (35) My job is enjoyable. (36) Work assignments are often not fully explained.
118 Section 4 of 6: The Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale Please indicate your opinion about each of the questions below by marking any one of the nine responses in the columns on the right side, ranging from (1) “None at all” to (9) “A Great Deal”. Please respond to each of the questions by considering the combination of your current ability, resources, and opportunity to do each of the following in your present position. 1 None at all
(1) How much can you do to control disruptive behaviour in the classroom? (2) How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work? (3) How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? (4) How much can you do to help your students value learning? (5) To what extent can you craft good questions for your students? (6) How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? (7) How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work? (8) How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students? (9) To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies? (10) To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused? (11) How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school? (12) How well can you implement alternative teaching strategies in your classroom?
2
3 Very Little
4
5 Some Degree
6
7 Quite a Bit
8
9 A Great Deal
119 Section 5 of 6: Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (also known as Social Responsibility) involves students learning about concepts and skills that help them to become socially and emotionally competent and responsible. It may involve students participating in a focused program, it may be incorporated into the classroom curriculum and/or it may be practised at the whole school level. Examples of SEL approaches may include learning about anti-bullying, conflict resolution, managing emotions, interpersonal skills, and could be addressed through prevention programs such as Second Step, Friends, Roots of Empathy, Let’s Talk About Touching, MindUP etc. With this definition in mind, please read the following statements and think about how true each is for YOU. Rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Strongly disagree
(1) My school expects teachers to address children’s social and emotional needs. (2) The culture in my school supports the development of children’s social and emotional skills. (3) All teachers should receive training on how to teach social and emotional skills to students. (4) I would like to attend a workshop to develop my own social and emotional skills. (5) Taking care of my students’ social and emotional needs comes naturally to me. (6) My principal creates an environment that promotes social and emotional learning for our students. (7) I am comfortable providing instruction on social and emotional skills to my students. (8) Informal lessons in social and emotional learning are part of my regular teaching practice. (9) I feel confident in my ability to provide instruction on social
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
120 and emotional learning. (10) My principal does not encourage the teaching of social and emotional skills to students. (11) I want to improve my ability to teach social and emotional skills to students. (12) I would like to attend a workshop to learn how to develop my students’ social and emotional skills. 13. How true are the following statements about your classroom and/or your school? 0 Untrue
(1) Students are my school do not learn about SEL. (2) My school/principal promotes the ideas and goals of SEL. (3) Teachers at my school are encouraged to embed the lessons from SEL in the lessons of other curriculum areas. (4) Students at my school learn about SEL during class time that is dedicated specifically to SEL related topics. (5) My school implements a wholeschool culture that is caring and inclusive. (6) In my classroom, I embed the lessons from SEL in the lessons of other curriculum areas. (7) At my school, the lessons that students learn about SEL are quickly forgotten at the end of an SEL program or class. (8) The students at my school are encouraged to utilise the learning that they gain about SEL in their social interactions outside of the classroom. (9) Students at my school only learn about SEL through programs that are
1 Mostly untrue
2 More untrue than true
3 Neither true nor untrue
4 More true than untrue
5 Mostly true
6 True
7 No answer
121 not embedded into the rest of the curriculum. (10) Students at my school learn skills specifically related to SEL (e.g., conflict resolution, emotion regulation, mindfulness, etc.). (11) My school promotes a multidisciplinary approach to SEL (i.e., SEL is taught or promoted in many different curriculum areas). (12) At my school, the lessons of SEL are not incorporated into whole-school culture.
Section 6 of 6: School Environment Below are statements about the school in which you work and your working environment. Think about how well the statements describe your school environment and indicate this response in one of the columns to the right. 1 Strongly disagree
(1) Teachers design instructional programs together. (2) Most students are well mannered or respectful of the school staff. (3) Instructional equipment is not consistently accessible. (4) Teachers are frequently asked to participate in decisions. (5) New and different ideas are always being tried out. (6) There is good communication among teachers. (7) Most students are helpful and cooperative with teachers. (8) The school library has sufficient resources and materials. (9) Decisions about the school are made by the principal. (10) New courses or curriculum materials are seldom implemented. (11) I have regular opportunities to work with other teachers. (12) Students in this school are well behaved.
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
122 (13) Video equipment, tapes, and films are readily available. (14) I have very little to say in the running of the school. (15) We are willing to try new teaching approaches in my school. (16) I seldom discuss the needs of individual students with other teachers. (17) Most students are motivated to learn. (18) The supply of equipment and resources is not adequate. (19) Teachers in this school are innovative. (20) Classroom instruction is rarely coordinated across teachers. (21) Good teamwork is not emphasized enough at my school.
123 APPENDIX B
124
125
Dear Teacher,
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education The University of British Columbia Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver BC Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel 604-822-0242 Fax 604-822-3302 www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca
My name is Rebecca Collie and I am undertaking graduate research for a master’s degree. I am currently conducting a web-based research study entitled, “The impact of social-emotional learning and school climate on teacher stress, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy”, and I am writing to request your professional assistance in this research. The purpose of the study is to examine how (or if) social-emotional learning programs and school climate affect the stress, the job satisfaction, and the self-efficacy of teachers. Your school district has granted approval for teachers in your district to participate in the study. The purpose of this email is to ask for your participation in the study by simply completing the web-based questionnaire as honestly and openly as you can. The questionnaire should only take 15-20 minutes to complete. Please fill it out in one setting without consulting others. When you have completed the questionnaire, simply click on the SUBMIT button located on the last page to send your responses to me. Please make sure you submit your responses only once! Additionally, please complete the survey by [DATE]. There are no known risks for your participation in this research study. While the information collected may not benefit you directly, the information learned in this study may be helpful to others: The information you provide will advance understanding on the issues of teacher working conditions and teacher stress, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy Please be assured that your responses will be anonymous and that your participation in this study is voluntary. By completing and submitting the survey, you are giving your consent to participate. Please be assured that your decision to participate or not participate in this study will have no impact on your relationship with your respective school district. If you do not wish to participate, simply disregard this message. If you have any questions regarding the study, please contact me at
[email protected]. To ensure confidentiality, your completed survey will be stored on a secure and password protected server in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. A summary of the study's findings and implications will be provided to each participating district, without identifying any teachers. Please click on the following link in order to complete the survey: [LINK] Let me thank you in advance for your valuable time and assistance in this study, which aims to advance our understanding of teacher stress, job satisfaction, and self efficacy, and the
126 improvement of these issues. As a thank you for helping out with the study, click below and enter your name in a draw to win a $100 gift card for Chapters bookstore: [LINK] Please note: If you have any questions or concerns about this questionnaire, please contact Dr. Jennifer Shapka, the principal investigator and the supervisor of this study (Email:
[email protected] or by phone 604-822-5253). You may also contact the Research Subject Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 604-822-8598. Best of luck in the remainder of the school year! Regards, Rebecca Collie
[email protected] 604-822-3000
127
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education The University of British Columbia Faculty of Education 2125 Main Mall Vancouver BC Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel 604-822-0242 Fax 604-822-3302 www.ecps.educ.ubc.ca
Dear [Teacher], For those of you who have not yet completed the web-based questionnaire regarding the relationships between teacher stress, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy, and social-emotional learning and school climate, the link will remain active until [DATE]. You can access the survey by clicking on the following link: [LINK] In order for this study to be a success, a high response rate is needed. Your responses are very valuable to this study and greatly appreciated. I would like to thank each of you who have already completed the questionnaire. Your contribution to this study will help other teachers, such as yourself, as well as schools/school districts. Regards, Rebecca Collie
[email protected] 604-822-3000
128 APPENDIX C
Selected Interaction Terms Between SEL and School Climate Variables
SEL Comfort * Student Relations SEL Commitment * Student Relations, SEL Commitment * Instructional Innovation SEL Culture * Collaboration, SEL Culture * Student Relations, SEL Culture * Decision Making SEL Integration * Collaboration, SEL Integration * Decision Making
Selected Interaction Terms Between SEL and Demographic Variables
SEL Comfort * Sex, SEL Comfort * Years Experience SEL Commitment * Sex, SEL Commitment * Years Experience SEL Culture * Years Experience, SEL Culture * School Level, SEL Culture * Remote School Setting SEL Integration * Years Experience, SEL Integration * School Level, SEL Integration * Remote School Setting.
Selected Interaction Terms Between School Climate and Demographic Variables
Collaboration * Sex, Collaboration * Years Experience Student Relations * Sex, Student Relations * Years Experience, Student Relations * Remote School Setting School Resources * School Level, School Resources * Remote School Setting Decision Making * School Level, Decision Making * Remote School Setting Instructional Innovation * Years Experience, Instructional Innovation * School Level.
Note. For school setting, only the variable comparing schools in a remote setting with schools near a major city was included to ensure the number of predictors abided by the sample size recommendations by Stevens (1992) .
129 APPENDIX D Table 27 Intercorrelations Between Independent and Dependent Variables in the Study 1. 1. Stress
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
1
2. Job Satisfaction
-.538
1
3. Sense of Efficacy
-.208
.190
1
4. Collaboration
-.192
.409
.201
1
5. Student Relations
-.281
.314
.354
.351
1
6. School Resources
-.391
.378
.205
.341
.363
1
7. Decision Making
-.276
.467
.157
.432
.328
.318
1
8. Instr. Innovation
-.169
.362
.234
.640
.396
.369
.418
1
9. SEL Comfort
-.167
.202
.421
.139
.264
.174
.166
.127
1
.119
.044
.018
-.008
.063
-.040
.076
-.019
.090
1
11. SEL Culture
-.197
.499
.206
.401
.411
.245
.523
.435
.318
.070
1
12. SEL Approach
-.198
.428
.248
.433
.364
.289
.451
.454
.404
-.004
.726
10. SEL Commitment
12.
Note. Significance of correlations has not been indicated to reduce experiment-wise alpha.
1
