Self Efficacy II

7/27/2019 Self Efficacy II

1/16

Effects on Teachers Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction:Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress

Robert M. KlassenUniversity of Alberta

Ming Ming ChiuState University of New York at Buffalo

The authors of this study sought to examine the relationships among teachers years of experience,

teacher characteristics (gender and teaching level), three domains of self-efficacy (instructional strate-

gies, classroom management, and student engagement), two types of job stress (workload and classroom

stress), and job satisfaction with a sample of 1,430 practicing teachers using factor analysis, item

response modeling, systems of equations, and a structural equation model. Teachers years of experience

showed nonlinear relationships with all three self-efficacy factors, increasing from early career to

mid-career and then falling afterwards. Female teachers had greater workload stress, greater classroom

stress from student behaviors, and lower classroom management self-efficacy. Teachers with greater

workload stress had greater classroom management self-efficacy, whereas teachers with greater class-

room stress had lower self-efficacy and lower job satisfaction. Those teaching young children (in

elementary grades and kindergarten) had higher levels of self-efficacy for classroom management and

student engagement. Lastly, teachers with greater classroom management self-efficacy or greater in-structional strategies self-efficacy had greater job satisfaction.

Keywords: self-efficacy, teachers, job satisfaction, motivation

An emerging body of research shows that teachers self-

efficacythe beliefs teachers hold about their capability to influ-

ence student learningis associated with student factors, like

achievement and motivation (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, &

Malone, 2006), as well as teacher factors, like job commitment and

job satisfaction (e.g., Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca,

2003). In spite of the evident association between teachers self-

efficacy and student and teacher outcomes, little is known abouthow self-efficacy and job stress are related to teachers job satis-

faction or how teachers self-efficacy is related to years of expe-

rience. Teachers self-efficacy is believed to be most malleable in

the challenging early stage of a teachers career and then to

increase and become more firmly established as teachers gain

experience (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; Wolters &

Daugherty, 2007). However, middle and late career stages bring

their own challenges that can influence motivation and job satis-

faction (e.g., Kooij, de Lange, Jansen, & Dikkers, 2008; Spickard,

Gabbe, & Christensen, 2002). In this study, we use advanced

modeling techniques (factor analyses, item response models, sys-

tems of equations, and structural equation models) to extend our

understanding of teachers motivation beliefs. First, we hypothe-

size a model of the relationships among self-efficacy, overall

perceived job stress, stress from classroom and workload factors,

teacher characteristics (gender and teaching level), and job satis-

faction. Second, we examine patterns of self-efficacy beliefs of

1,430 teachers with varying years of experience.

Teachers Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to individuals beliefs about their capabili-

ties to carry out a particular course of action successfully (Ban-

dura, 1997). Extensive research supports the claim that self-

efficacy is an important influence on human achievement in a

variety of settings, including education, health, sports, and busi-

ness (Bandura, 1997). In educational research, the self-efficacy

beliefs of students have been shown to play an important role in

influencing achievement and behavior. Furthermore, researchers

are finding that teachers self-efficacy influences their teaching

behaviors and their students motivation and achievement (Skaal-

vik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).

Teachers with low self-efficacy experience greater difficulties in

teaching, higher levels of job-related stress (Betoret, 2006), and

lower levels of job satisfaction (Klassen et al., 2009).Self-efficacy researchers agree that teachers self-efficacy

should be operationalized to reflect beliefs about capability and

therefore should be phrased in terms ofcan do rather than will do.

Can is a judgment of capability; will is a statement of intention

(Bandura, 2006, p. 308, italics in original; also see Bong, 2006). In

addition, self-efficacy measures should reflect a particular context

or domain of functioning, rather than global functioning (Bandura,

1997). A global measure of teachers self-efficacy might ask,

How confident are you in your teaching ability? whereas a

domain-focused measure would inquire about teachers confidence

to accomplish particular tasks. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001)

Robert M. Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology, University

of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Ming Ming Chiu, Department of

Learning and Instruction, Graduate School of Education, State University

of New York at Buffalo.

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support to Robert M.

Klassen from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Canada.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert

Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta,

Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G5, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Educational Psychology 2010 American Psychological Association2010, Vol. 102, No. 3, 741756 0022-0663/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019237

741


2/16

created a teachers self-efficacy measure with item stems of How

much can you do . . .? that explored teachers beliefs about their

capabilities in three key classroom domains: implementing instruc-

tional strategies, managing student behaviors, and engaging stu-

dents in the learning process. By including items from these three

critical areas, and by situating the three areas in teachers class-

rooms, the authors balanced the demands for specificity (i.e.,self-efficacy assessments that reflect particular tasks) and practical

usefulness (i.e., multifaceted measurement that is not microscop-

ically operationalized [Pajares, 1996, p. 562]) in a meaningful

context (i.e., teachers classrooms). Although earlier teachers

self-efficacy measures were marred by faulty conceptualization,

including a focus on ability, not capability, and a focus on external

influences, not internal beliefs (see Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk

Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), more recent measures such as Tschannen-

Moran and Woolfolk Hoys (2001) Teachers Self-Efficacy Scale

adhere more closely to the theoretical guidelines proposed by

Bandura (1997, 2006), specifically in the focus on forward-looking

capabilities (e.g., I can craft good questions for students) and not

global ability (e.g., I am a good teacher).

Although Bandura (1997) hypothesized that self-efficacy beliefsremain relatively stable once established, researchers have noted

that little evidence exists about how (teachers) efficacy beliefs

change or solidify across stages of a career (Tschannen-Moran et

al., 1998, p. 238). A few studies have been conducted on the

relationship between teaching experience and teachers self-

efficacy, yielding varied results. Ross, Cousins, and Gadalla

(1996) found mixed support for the influence of experience on

teachers self-efficacy, and Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) found nega-

tive correlations between years of experience and teacher self-

efficacy, with both studies using modest-sized samples (52 and 25,

respectively). Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero (2005) conducted a

longitudinal study in which they collected data from teachers at

two points during their teacher-training program and at the end oftheir first year of teaching. Results showed a significant rise in

teachers self-efficacy during teacher training, followed by a de-

cline at the end of their first teaching year, but once again, the

research was hampered by a modest sample of 29 teachers.

A recent study by Wolters and Daugherty (2007) used a large

online sample of teachers (N 1,024) from the United States to

examine the influence of teaching experience on teachers self-

efficacy and goal structures. Teachers were divided into four

experience groups: 1 year, 15 years, 6 10 years, and 11 years

of experience. Then, they completed the three-factor Tschannen-

Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) Teachers Self-Efficacy Scale as

well as a measure of goal structures. Results showed modest

effects of experience on self-efficacy for instructional strategies

(2 .04) and self-efficacy for classroom management (2 .02), but no effect of experience on self-efficacy for student

engagement. Although the researchers have made an important

contribution by linking experience with teachers self-efficacy,

their findings paint an incomplete picture, with two potential

limitations. One problem is that the relationship between teachers

self-efficacy and experience may not be linear. For example,

Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero (2005) found that teachers self-

efficacy initially rose and then fell over three data collection points

at the beginning of teachers careers. Another problem is that

teachers with more than 10 years of experience were treated as a

single group. The authors acknowledged that the lack of differ-

entiation among the most-experienced teachers may mask changes

in teachers self-efficacy that may occur toward the end of their

careers (p. 189). In fact, most teachers have more than 10 years

of experience: recent statistics show that American teachers have

an average of about 14 years of experience, and 60% of teachers

have 10 or more years of experience (U.S. Department of Educa-

tion, 2009). Thus, additional research on how experience affectsteachers self-efficacy across the career span is needed.

The developmental course of occupational self-efficacy is not

uniform from early to late adulthood, and teachers self-efficacy

may ebb and flow over the course of a career as it is influenced by

life and career events and challenges. Bandura (1997) suggested

that some workers at mid-to-late career stages may restructure or

scale down overambitious goals due to waning self-efficacy, al-

though this experience is not universal. Workplace environments

influence self-efficacy beliefs, with supervisors verbal persuasion

and modeling serving as important spurs to workers self-efficacy

development (Bandura, 1997). Kooij et al. (2008) suggested that

age-related physical and psychological factors can influence work

motivation, but workplace factors can mediate how age-related

concerns are interpreted. For teachers, the combination of success-ful past experience; verbal support from principals, students, peers,

and parents; and opportunities for observation of successful peers

builds self-efficacy for teaching (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).

The influence of the sources of self-efficacy, however, may change

over time, with verbal persuasion and contextual factors playing a

more important role for novice teachers than for veteran teachers

(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). Self-efficacy beliefs

in the workplace are not static and reflect a lifelong process of

development that ebb and flow according to personal attributes and

interpretation of environmental circumstances.

Job Satisfaction and Job Stress

Despite reports of high levels of teachers job stress (Chaplain,

2008; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008), many teachers find personal

satisfaction in their work. Job satisfactionperceptions of fulfill-

ment derived from day-to-day work activitiesis associated with

higher levels of job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Pat-

ton, 2001). Caprara et al. (2003) considered job satisfaction a

decisive element (p. 823) influencing teachers attitudes and

performance and found self-efficacy to be an important contributor

to teachers job satisfaction. Teachers report that job satisfaction is

gained from the nature of day-to-day classroom activities, such as

working with children, seeing students make progress, working

with supportive colleagues, and overall school climate (Cockburn

& Haydn, 2004). Teachers who are dissatisfied with their work

display lower commitment and are at greater risk for leaving theprofession (Evans, 2001; Ingersoll, 2001). Liu and Ramsey (2008)

found that stress from poor work conditions had the strongest

influence on teachers job satisfaction and noted that inadequate

time for planning and preparation and a heavy teaching workload

reduced satisfaction from teaching.

Teaching may bring personal satisfaction, but it also brings

stress, with demands from administrators, colleagues, students,

and parents compounded by work overload, student misbehavior,

and a lack of recognition for accomplishments (Greenglass &

Burke, 2003). Teachers with greater teacher stress defined as the

experience of negative emotions resulting from a teachers work

742 KLASSEN AND CHIU


3/16

(Kyriacou, 2001)have lower self-efficacy (Betoret, 2006;

Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), poorer

teacherpupil rapport, and lower levels of effectiveness (Abel &

Sewell, 1999; Kokkinos, 2007). Teachers with high levels of job

stress may gain satisfaction from work, but the level of satisfaction

may be muted by stress from role ambiguity, low autonomy, or

frequency or level of conflict with students and colleagues (Green-glass & Burke, 2003). Teaching has been listed among the high-

stress professions, with as many as one-quarter of teachers report-

ing that teaching is a very stressful job (Kyriacou, 2001). Whereas

previous studies have conceptualized teachers job stress as a

unidimensional construct (e.g. Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008), other

studies have shown that workload and student misbehavior (i.e.,

classroom factors) contribute separately to teachers overall stress

(Boyle, Borg, Falzon, & Baglioni, 1995). Teachers with high

levels of stress from these two sources show higher negative health

and vocational outcomes, including burnout (emotional exhaus-

tion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment),

absenteeism, and exit from the teaching profession (Betoret, 2006;

Jepson & Forrest, 2006; Kyriacou, 2001).

Teacher Characteristics

Teaching level and teacher gender are related to teachers job-

related beliefs. Elementary school teachers report higher levels of

self-efficacy for student engagement than teachers in middle or

high schools (Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Liu and Ramsey

(2008) found that women experience less job satisfaction than

men, especially satisfaction from work conditions, and a number

of researchers have noted that female teachers report higher stress

than male teachers (e.g., Antoniou, Polychroni, & Vlachakis,

2006; Chaplain, 2008), possibly due to higher levels of overall

workload (Greenglass & Burke, 2003). Whereas Klassen et al.

(2009) found similar relationships between self-efficacy and job

satisfaction for teachers from five North American and Asian

countries, results from other studies suggest that teachers nation-

ality and associated cultural beliefs can influence the relationships

among job stress, job satisfaction, and teachers efficacy (Klassen,

Usher, & Bong, in press; Liu & Ramsey, 2008). Models explaining

teacher motivation must account not only for individual beliefs and

motivation but also for teacher characteristics such as teaching

level, teaching experience, gender, and demographic factors like

teachers cultural or national background.

Current Study

Although researchers have begun to examine teacher motivation

by studying self-efficacy, job stress, and job satisfaction, few have

proposed explanatory models that take into account teacher char-

acteristics such as years of experience, teaching level, and gender.

In the current study, we propose and test a model that accounts for

these contextual factors and also includes control variables for

teachers ethnic heritage and grades taught within schools (see

Figure 1). Two research questions are addressed. First, how is

teachers self-efficacy related to years of experience? We pre-

dicted that teachers self-efficacy would increase in early to mid-

career (e.g., Wolters & Daugherty, 2007) but show declines in the

late career stage, as has been found in previous research conducted

outside educational settings (Kooij et al., 2008). Second, what are

the relationships among teachers self-efficacy, job stress (overall

stress and sources of stress), job satisfaction, and contextual fac-

tors (teacher characteristics and school level)? We hypothesizedthat teachers self-efficacy would be influenced by teachers stress

(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and that teachers job satisfaction

would be influenced by teacher characteristics, teacher stress and

its two sources, and three domains of teachers self-efficacy (e.g.,

Caprara et al., 2003; Liu & Ramsey, 2008).

Method

Participants

The participants were part of a convenience sample of 1,430

practicing teachers (69% women, 31% men) from western Canada.

Teachers reported working in elementary schools (20%; usually

Grades K6), junior high schools (6%; usually Grades 79), high

schools (9%; usually Grades 1012), elementaryjunior high schools

(13%; usually Grades K9), and junior highsenior high schools

(12%; usually Grades 712), as well as other combinations in a mix

of urban (38%), suburban (11%), rural (28%), and other or not

reported (23%) settings. Teachers reported their ethnic heritage as

AngloEuropean Canadian (92%), Asian Canadian (2%), First

Demographics

School

Range of grade

levels

Teacher

Gender

Country of birth

Nationality

Teacher Experience in School

Years of experienceYears in current school

Range of gradelevels taught

by the teacher in this school

Teacher

Job

SatisfactionTeacher Self-efficacy

Classroom management

Instructional Strategies

Student Engagement

Teacher Stress

Classroom stress

Workload stress

Overall stress

Figure 1. Model of hypothetical relationships.

743EFFECTS ON TEACHERS SELF-EFFICACY


4/16

Nations or Aboriginal Canadians (1%), African (1%), or South

American (1%). Teachers had a mean age of 40.00 years (SD

10.79) and an average of 13.21 years of teaching experience (SD

13.97). The age and experience of teachers in this sample are

consistent with provincial government data showing the median

age of teachers at 4044 years and median years of experience of

1014 years (Alberta Education, 2009).

Procedure

Participants were attendees at one of several annual, compul-

sory, multidistrict teacher conferences, the total attendance of

which was approximately 8,000 teachers from about 350 schools.

Teachers were approached by one of a team of researchers in an

exhibit hall and asked to complete a brief questionnaire titled What

Motivates Teachers? Approximately 2,000 teachers were ap-

proached, and approximately 75% of the teachers completed the

survey. Participants were asked to read the instructions and par-

ticipate only if they were currently teaching in schools (i.e., not

serving as administrators or counselors). Conference organizers

did not permit researchers to request school identities from partic-ipants. (See previous studies for details regarding the procedure

and measures [e.g., Klassen et al., 2009]).

Variables

The survey included (a) a front sheet describing the project and

contact information for the lead researcher and the university

ethics board, (b) a demographics section, and (c) four measures: a

12item teachers self-efficacy scale, a two-item job satisfaction

scale, one item measuring overall job stress, and seven items

measuring sources of job stress (see Appendix Table A8 for the

survey items).

Teachers self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran and WoolfolkHoy (2001) created and validated the Teachers Self-Efficacy

Scale (TSES). Because it closely aligns with self-efficacy theory,

TSES is superior to previous measures of teacher efficacy

(Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005, p. 354). Researchers have

investigated the TSES short- and long-form measures in a variety

of settings and have found adequate reliability and validity for the

whole scales and their three subscales: self-efficacy for classroom

management, instructional strategies, and student engagement. For

example, Klassen et al. (2009) found reliabilities ranged from .71

to .94 for TSES short-form subscales in five countries and signif-

icant relationships between the TSES subscales and job satisfac-

tion in all settings. Wolters and Daugherty (2007) reported Cron-

bachs alpha coefficients above .80 for the TSES. The TSES long

and short forms are hypothesized to consist of three factors thatmeasure a teachers confidence to manage student behavior in the

classroom (e.g., How much can you do to control disruptive

behavior in the classroom?), to use effective instructional strate-

gies (e.g., How much can you do to craft good questions for

students?), and to engage all students in learning (e.g., How

much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in

school work?). These items show fidelity with self-efficacy the-

ory because they measure teachers beliefs in their capabilities to

carry out particular tasks (e.g., provide an alternative explanation

when students are confused) in a particular context (i.e., the

classroom). Participants in our study responded to the 12-item

TSES short form with a 9-point response scale, anchored by 1

(nothing) and 9 (a great deal).

Job satisfaction and job stress. Job satisfaction was mea-

sured with two items from Caprara et al. (2003) on a 9-point scale.

Items consisted of (a) I am satisfied with what I achieve at work,

and (b) I feel good at work. The measure showed adequate

reliability and validity in Caparara et al.s 2003 study and has beenshown to be related to self-efficacy in previous studies (e.g.,

Klassen et al., 2009). Job stress was measured in two ways. First,

following the approach used in recent studies of teacher stress

(e.g., Boyle et al., 1995; Chaplain, 2008; Manthei, Gilmore, Tuck,

& Adair, 1996), we measured overall job stress with a single item

(I find teaching to be very stressful). Next, we used six items

from Boyle et al.s (1995) Teacher Stress Inventory plus an addi-

tional item, class size, suggested from recent teacher stress re-

search (Gates, 2007), to assess two major contributors of teaching

stressworkload stress and classroom stress from student behav-

ior. Boyle et al. found acceptable levels of reliability and validity

in their 1995 study of teachers in the United Kingdom, and Klassen

(in press) found the that workload stress and stress from student

behavior were inversely related to job satisfaction. The job stressitems were presented with the stem, As a teacher, how great a

source of stress are these factors to you? with responses ranging

from 1 (no stress) to 9 (extreme stress). Items representing sources

of workload stress included too much work to do, having extra

duties/responsibilities because of absent teachers, large class

size, and responsibility for student achievement. Items repre-

senting classroom stress from student behavior included main-

taining class discipline, impolite behavior and rudeness, and

noisy students.

Analysis

We tested the internal validity of the questionnaire items foreach teacher characteristic with factor analyses and minimized

their measurement errors with item response models. To account

for heteroskedasticity and contemporaneous correlation in the er-

rors across equations with multiple outcome variables, we modeled

teachers self-efficacy with a system of equations. Then, we esti-

mated the association of job satisfaction with teacher self-efficacy

and other variables with an ordinary least squares (OLS) regres-

sion. Lastly, we captured all these relationships simultaneously

with a structural equation model (SEM).

Factor analyses and item response models. We used factor

analysis with varimax rotation to test the internal structure of

participant responses to sets of questions regarding teachers self-

efficacy, specifically whether they reflected (a) a single factor, (b)

separate factors, (c) hierarchical factors, (d) nested factors, or (e)no factorsno valid construct(s) (Chow, Chiu, & Wong, in press;

Gustafsson & Balke, 1993). Using Monte Carlo simulation studies,

Hu and Bentler (1999) showed that a combination of the standard-

ized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) and one of the following

indices tends to minimize Type I and Type II errors under many

conditions for both factor analyses and SEMs: TuckerLewis

Index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), and root-mean-square

error of approximation (RMSEA). We used the following thresh-

old values to separate good, moderate, and poor fits for each

measure: for SRMR, between .08 and .10 (good fit if less than

.08; moderate fit if between .08 and .10; poor fit if greater than



5/16

.10); for RMSEA, between .06 and .10; for TLI, between .96

and .90; and for IFI, between .96 and .90.

For each construct, we reduced measurement error by modeling

each questionnaire items characteristics by using item response

(IR) models (Baker & Kim, 2004). Some questionnaire items

capture higher levels of teacher self-efficacy more precisely,

whereas others capture lower levels of teacher self-efficacy moreprecisely (item difficulty). Likewise, there is variation in the

precision of each question for distinguishing among teachers with

higher versus lower self-efficacy (discrimination). Each teacher

response ranged from 1 to 9. Hence, we modeled all of these

characteristics with a generalized partial credit response test model

(GPCM-IR, Baker & Kim, 2004).

Pi r e

j1

r

ai bij

1

k1

mi1

e

j1

k

ai bij

(1)

Pi(r ) is the probability that a teacher with underlying value fora specific characteristic will give a rating rfor question i, account-

ing for the discrimination strength (ai) and difficulty (bij) of the

questionnaire item. A simpler partial credit model (PCM-IR) might

fit the data better if discrimination (ai) is identical across items.

Thus, we tested GPCM-IR and PCM-IR models and identified the

best-fitting model with Bayesian expected a posteriori (EAP)

estimation and log-likelihood difference chi-square tests (Bock &

Mislevy, 1982; Kennedy, 2004; Mislevy & Bock, 1990). We

computed each teachers self-efficacy using the best models EAP

estimation, which is more precise than classical statistics methods

(Baker & Kim, 2004).

We repeated this procedure for teachers sources of stress andjob satisfaction. These analyses yielded three teacher self-efficacy

indices (classroom management, instructional strategies, and stu-

dent engagement), two sources of stress indices (workload stress

and classroom stress), and one job satisfaction index.

Explanatory model. After computing the index values for

each teacher, we estimated their relationships with systems of

equations, specifically sequential sets of seemingly unrelated re-

gressions (SUR; Kennedy, 2004) to account for heteroskedasticity

and contemporaneous correlation in the errors across equations via

Eviews software (Lilien, Startz, Ellsworth, Noh, & Engle, 1995).

We entered the variables according to time constraints, expected

causal relationships, and likely importance.

Y iy 0y eiy (2)

0y are the grand mean intercepts of Yiy, a vector of y outcome

variables (classroom management self-efficacy, instructional strat-

egies self-efficacy, and student engagement self-efficacy) for each

teacher i. The residuals are eiy. First, we entered a vector of x

teacher and school background variables: gender, country of birth,

nationality, years of experience, the squared term of years of

experience, range of grade levels in current school, years in current

school, and range of grade levels taught by the teacher in the

current school (X).

Yiy 0y eiy xyXiy (3)

A nested hypothesis test (log likelihood chi-square) indicated

whether each set of explanatory variables was significant

(Kennedy, 2004). Nonsignificant variables were removed.

Then, we entered a vector of z teacher stress variables: class-

room stress, workload stress, and overall teaching stress (Z).

Yiy

0y e

iy

xyX

iy

zyZ

iy(4)

Next, all of these explanatory variables were entered into an

OLS regression with teacher job satisfaction as the outcome vari-

able. The teacher self-efficacy variables were added last.

We used the Sobel (1982) test to identify mediation effects by

testing the hypotheses that the explanatory variables direct and

total effects on the outcome variable do not differ in the presence

of potential mediators. We found that a 10% increase in each

continuous variable above its mean was linked to the outcome

variable (result b 10%; for simple dummy variables: result

b 34%, 1 SD 34%; for contrast-coded dummy variables:

result b 2 34%). As percentage of increase is not linearly

related to standard deviation, scaling is not warranted.

An alpha level of .05 was used. Testing many hypothesesincreases the likelihood that at least one test will incorrectly reject

a null hypothesis (a false positive result). To control for the false

discovery rate, we used the two-stage linear step-up procedure,

which outperformed 13 other methods in computer simulations

(Benjamini, Krieger, & Yekutieli, 2006).

We used an SEM to test these results simultaneously (Jreskog

& Srbom, 2004). As the linear and quadratic terms of years of

experience were highly correlated (r .99), the two variables

were combined into one variable (0.02133 years of experi-

ence2 years of experience) in the SEM to prevent a near-singular

matrix error. Nonsignificant variables were removed to yield the

final SEM.

Results

Test and Summary Statistics

The factor analyses yielded three teacher self-efficacy indices

(classroom management, instructional strategies, and student en-

gagement), two sources of stress indices (classroom stress and

workload stress), and one job satisfaction index. Table 1 presents

means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for the

study variables. Factor analysis results generally confirmed the

expected three-factor pattern of the TSES although one item

How much can you do to assist families in helping their children

do well in school?did not load as expected with the efficacy for

student engagement factor and was deleted. The content of thisitem stands alone in the TSES as a measure of teachers efficacy

to influence events outside the classroom and does not appear to

measure the same content as other items in the student engagement

factor. Appendix Tables A1 and A2 present results for eigenvalues

and factor analysis results. The large, dominant first eigenvalue

and explained variance indicate single factors for each set of test

questions. The GPCM-IR model fit the data for each of these

teacher characteristics better than did the PCM-IR model, showing

that the discrimination strength of the questionnaire items differed

(see Appendix Tables A3 and A4 for summary statistics of vari-

ables from item response models; see Appendix Table A4 for



6/16

standard errors of the GPCM-IR teacher characteristics and Ap-

pendix Table A5 for the correlationvariancecovariance matrix).

Explanatory Model

Preliminary analysis using SUR, OLS, and mediation tests

yielded a candidate model that was fit successfully via an SEM

(see Figure 2; for SEM details, see Appendix Tables A6A10,

which show a good fit between the SEM and the data). Detailed

results of the factor analyses, IR models, SUR, and OLS are

available from the authors.

Classroom management self-efficacy. Teachers gender,

years of experience, school type, teaching grade, and sources of

stress were linked to their classroom management self-efficacy

(Figure 2). Compared with female teachers, male teachers aver-

aged 5% better classroom management self-efficacy, 5%

0.16 34% (see previous analysis section on percentage in-

crease). As shown in Figure 3, years of experience has nonmono-

tonic relationships with all teacher self-efficacies; on average,

classroom management self-efficacy increases from 0 years of

experience to about 23 years of experience and falls afterwards. At

the peak, teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 76%

greater classroom management self-efficacy than that of newteachers, 76% 0.19 (0.02133 232 23) 34% (see

Appendix Table A6 and the discussion of SEM in the previous

analysis section).

Teachers working in elementary schools averaged 7% better

classroom management self-efficacy than those in schools in

which one or more sets of grade levels (elementary, junior high

school, and senior high school) were combined, 7% 0.10

2 34%. Furthermore, teachers who taught kindergarten students

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables

Variables Item mean Scale range Scale mean Scale SD

Classroom management self-efficacy (four items) 7.56 1036 30.25 3.94 .85Instructional strategies self-efficacy (four items) 7.55 1136 30.21 4.32 .76

Student engagement self-efficacy (three items) 6.87 727 20.61 3.44 .82Job satisfaction (two items) 7.30 218 14.60 2.68 .84Workload stress (four items) 5.82 436 23.26 6.50 .68Classroom stress (three items) 5.40 327 15.12 5.46 .84Overall stress (one item) 6.81 19 6.81 2.05

Note. N 1,430. Student engagement self-efficacy was three items.

Job

Satisfaction

+0.26

Classroom

management

Self-Efficacy

Workload

stress

Student

Engagement

Self-Efficacy

Years of

experience

Classroom

stress

Female

Teacher

Other Schools

(vs. Elementary)

Teaching

1st

or 2nd

grade

(vs. Kindergarten)

+ (non-monotonic)

0.10

0.16

0.05

+0.16+0.37

+0.24

0.24

+ (non-monotonic)

0.21

0.25

0.25

0.52

Teachingother grades

(vs.

Kindergarten) 0.09

0.12

+0.29

+0.56

+0.16

School

combinations(vs. Elementary)

+ (non-monotonic)

Instructional

Strategies

Self-Efficacy

Overall

Teaching

stress

Figure 2. Structural equation model for teachers self-efficacies and job satisfaction with their explanatory

variables. Teacher demographics and school characteristics are all exogenous variables, and other variables are

endogenous variables. Ovals indicate latent variables, and rectangles indicate single variables. Questionnaire

items for each latent variable are not shown. For the quadratic relationship between years of experience and the

three teacher self-efficacy variables, see Figure 3.



7/16

averaged 3% better classroom management self-efficacy than

those who taught Grade 1 or 2 students, 3% 0.05 2 34%.

The links of workload stress and classroom stress to classroom

management self-efficacy differed substantially. Teachers whoseworkload stress exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 2% better

classroom management self-efficacy, 2% 0.16 10%. In con-

trast, teachers whose classroom stress exceeded the mean by 10%

averaged 5% worse classroom management self-efficacy, 5%

0.52 10%. These variables accounted for 25% of the variance in

teachers classroom management self-efficacy (see Appendix Ta-

ble A6, squared multiple correlations).

Instructional strategies self-efficacy. Teachers years of ex-

perience and classroom stress were linked to their instructional

strategies self-efficacy, showing a nonmonotonic relationship with

an increase in instructional strategies self-efficacy up to about 23

years of experience and then falling. The instructional strategies

self-efficacy of teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 88%greater than that of new teachers, 88% 0.22 (0.02133

232 23) 34% (see Table A6 and discussion of SEM in the

preceding analysis section). When their classroom stress exceeded

the mean by 10%, teachers averaged 3% less instructional strate-

gies self-efficacy, 3% 0.25 10%. These variables accounted

for 11% of the variance in teachers instructional strategies self-

efficacy.

Student engagement self-efficacy. Teachers years of expe-

rience, school type, teaching grade, and classroom stress were

linked to student engagement self-efficacy, which again showed a

nonmonotonic relationship with increasing self-efficacy up to mid-

career and then falling in late career. The student engagement

self-efficacy of teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 68%

greater than that of new teachers, 68% 0.17 (0.02133232 23) 34% (see Table A6 and discussion of SEM in the

preceding analysis section). Teachers working in elementary

schools averaged 8% more student engagement self-efficacy than

those working in other types of schools, 8% 0.12 34%.

Furthermore, teachers who taught kindergarten students averaged

6% more student engagement self-efficacy than those who taught

students in higher grades, 6% 0.09 34%. When their classroom

stress exceeded the mean by 10%, teachers averaged 3% less

student engagement self-efficacy, 3% 0.25 10%. These vari-

ables accounted for 12% of the variance in teachers student

engagement self-efficacy.

Job satisfaction. Teachers overall teaching stress and self-

efficacies were linked to job satisfaction. Teachers with 10%

greater overall teaching stress averaged 2% less job satisfaction,

2% 0.21 10%. Meanwhile, teachers with 10% more classroom

management self-efficacy or 10% more instructional strategies

self-efficacy averaged 3% more job satisfaction, 3% 0.26

10%; 3% 0.29 10%. These variables accounted for 31% of the

variance in teachers job satisfaction.

Stress and gender. Teachers with 10% more workload stress

had 6% more overall teaching stress, 6% 0.56 10%. Workload

stress accounted for 31% of the variance in teachers overall

teaching stress. Teachers gender was linked to sources of stress.

Female teachers averaged 13% more workload stress and 8% more

classroom stress than male teachers, 13% 0.37 .34; 8%

0.24 .34. Gender accounted for 3% and 1% of the variances in

workload stress and classroom stress, respectively.

Discussion

In this study, we modeled the relationships among teacher

characteristics, years of experience, three forms of teachers self-

efficacy, job stress, and job satisfaction. The factor analysis con-

firmed the expected factor pattern, and the SEM yielded by the

SUR, OLS, and mediation tests fit the data well, with teachers

self-efficacy for instructional strategies and classroom manage-

ment positively influencing job satisfaction, whereas overall job

stress lowered job satisfaction.

The results show how self-efficacy varies with years of

teachers experience. Furthermore, the results show how teach-ers self-efficacies mediate the links between two types of stress

on job satisfaction. Female teachers had higher levels of both

classroom and workload stress. Similar to previous findings,

our results show that years of experience and job-related stress

were related to teachers self-efficacy, which in turn influenced

job satisfaction. The key new finding in the study was that

teachers self-efficacy was influenced by years of experience

in a nonlinear relationship, with the three factors of teacher

efficacy increasing with experience for early and mid-career

stage teachers and declining for teachers in the late career

stages.

Figure 3. Relationship of years of experience with three teacher self-efficacy variables (teaching strategies,

classroom management, and student engagement) based on the structural equation model results.



8/16

Teachers Self-Efficacy

Teachers self-efficacy showed a nonlinear relationship with

years of teaching experience; self-efficacy increased from 0 to

about 23 years of experience and then declined as years of expe-

rience increased. Our results show that this relationship held true

for each of the three factors of teachers self-efficacy, reflecting arelationship that has not been noted in previous research on teach-

ers self-efficacy. Teachers confidence in engaging students, man-

aging student behavior, and using effective instructional strategies

showed the same pattern of growth and gradual decline. Whereas

previous researchers have noted that self-efficacy increases with

teachers experience (e.g., Wolters & Daugherty, 2007), the rela-

tionship between teachers experience and self-efficacy may be

more complex than previously believed. Bandura (1997) proposed

that self-efficacy beliefs remain relatively stable once established,

and although this stability may be true within a specific career

stage, the results from our study suggest that teachers gain confi-

dence in their teaching skills through their early years and into the

mid-career years but that these levels of confidence may decline as

teachers enter the later stages of their careers.The career stages outlined by Huberman (1989) in his study of

the professional life cycle of teachers map well on to the patterns

of teachers self-efficacy found in the current study. According to

Huberman, teachers undergo a process ofsurvival and discovery in

the early career years, during which the gulf between professional

ideals and daily classroom life is exposed, and self-doubts and

initial enthusiasm are entwined. About 46 years into their ca-

reers, teachers enter a period of stabilization, marked by a defin-

itive commitment to the profession (or the choice to leave the

profession). The mid-career years (718) are marked by periods of

experimentation and activism or by a period of reassessment,

during which teachers take stock of their careers and question their

career choices. Huberman suggested two phases during the later-career years. During Years 1930, teachers experience a period of

serenity, during which a gradual loss in energy and enthusiasm is

compensated for by a greater sense of confidence and self-

acceptance (p. 35, italics ours). Finally, teachers in the late-career

stage (Years 3140) move into a period of disengagement, marked

either by serenity or disappointment and bitterness. Our finding of

teachers self-efficacy peaking at about 23 years of experience and

then declining in the later-career years corresponds with the mo-

tivation pattern suggested by Huberman. More recent studies have

built on Hubermans work, with Day and Gu (2007) finding that

most teachers in mid-career (i.e., Years 823) experience increases

in motivation and commitment, whereas increased proportions of

teachers in the later stage of their career stage (24 years of

experience) report declining motivation.Authors of previous studies outside education have noted this

decline in work motivation in the late-career stages. A recent study

by Kooij et al. (2008) examined research on work motivation and

aging and found that many age-related factors (i.e., chronological

age, physical health, self-perception, social perception, skill obso-

lescence, and life stage) had a negative impact on the motivation

beliefs of older workers. In addition, Kooij et al. found that work

motivation was influenced by an interaction of age-related factors.

For instance, declining health may be related to a deterioration of

self-concept or changes in weighting of work- and leisure-related

values, but stereotyped perceptions of peers also influence work-

ers motivation and result in reduced skills, motivation, and op-

portunities for promotion. The lower levels of older teachers

self-efficacy beliefs may be influenced not only by biological and

psychological changes related to chronological age but also by

student and peer perceptions of declining competence influenced

by stereotyped beliefs about aging. In sum, age-related changes in

motivation beliefs, like self-efficacy, are influenced not only bychronological age but by the psychosocial context of the work

environment.

The contexts in which the teachers worked were also linked with

their self-efficacy. Teaching in elementary schools and teaching kin-

dergarten were linked with higher levels of self-efficacy for classroom

management and student engagement. There has been surprisingly

little research on how teaching context influences teachers self-

efficacy. Wolters and Daugherty (2007) found that teachers in higher

grade levels reported lower self-efficacy than teachers in lower grade

levels and that the inverse relationship between teaching level and

self-efficacy was especially marked for teachers of elementary-

school-aged students in comparison to teachers of middle- and high-

school-aged students. Our study also found that teachers in higher

grade levels had lower self-efficacy, but the pattern of grade-level-dependent self-efficacy was also found within teaching levels, at

least in the early elementary school grades. Teachers of the young-

est students had higher levels of self-efficacy than teachers of older

students within elementary schools, and this result was observed

for teachers self-efficacy for classroom management and student

engagement, although not for instructional strategies. Together,

these combined results suggest that variation of teachers self-

efficacy associated with teaching level can also occur within a

school.

Teachers Stress and Job Satisfaction

Teachers with higher overall teaching stress had lower jobsatisfaction, whereas classroom stress was indirectly linked to job

satisfaction through self-efficacy for classroom management and

instructional strategies. We predicted workload and classroom

stress to be negatively linked with self-efficacy. As expected,

teachers with greater classroom stress had less self-efficacy in all

three factors, especially classroom management self-efficacy.

Teachers who perceived higher levels of classroom stress from

student misbehavior reported lower levels of self-efficacy for

classroom management. Likewise, teachers reporting greater

workload stress had greater overall stress. However, teachers re-

porting more workload stress had greater classroom management

self-efficacy (with no significant differences in the other two

self-efficacy factors). It may be that teachers who experience

higher levels of classroom stress from student misbehavior (i.e.,from noisy and impolite behavior) have lower confidence to man-

age that behavior due to a history of unsuccessful experiences. In

contrast, it may be that teachers who perceive greater stress from

responsibility for student achievement and heavy workloads exert

more effort during lesson planning and are better prepared to

manage student behaviors during class.

Female teachers had higher levels of workload and classroom

stress. A growing number of researchers have noted the link

between gender and work-related stress. For example, Antoniou et

al. (2006) found that female teachers experienced higher levels of

work-related stress compared with male teachers, particularly for



9/16

classroom and workload factors. Our results are consistent with

those of previous studies showing modest but persistent gender

differences in job stress among teachers (e.g., Antoniou et al.,

2006; Chaplain, 2008). Greenglass and Burke (2003) proposed that

the elevated work stress of females might stem from gender

differences in nonwork domains, with higher total workload

(school tasks plus domestic tasks) and higher role conflict betweenwork and family roles. These previous findings do not explain

female teachers higher levels of stress from student behavior.

Hopf and Hatzichristou (1999) found female teachers to be more

sensitive to externalizing behavior problems, especially from ad-

olescent male students, and also found male teachers assessed

childrens interpersonal behaviors as less problematic than did

female teachers. Findings of gender differences in teacher stress

bear further research.

Results from the current study reinforce previous findings that

teacher self-efficacy is linked with job satisfaction. Teachers with

high levels of self-efficacy for classroom management and instruc-

tional strategies reported higher levels of job satisfaction, whereas

teachers with high levels of overall stress reported lowered job

satisfaction. Caprara et al. (2006) found that Italian teachersself-efficacy was linked to their job satisfaction, although their

conceptualization of self-efficacy was less specific than the

Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) measure used in this

study. In particular, Bandura (1997) and others (e.g., Pajares,

1996) have argued that more specific judgments of self-efficacy

provide more information about how the construct influences

beliefs and related behaviors. In the current study, we found

teachers self-efficacies for classroom management and instruc-

tional strategies were directly related to job satisfaction, whereas

self-efficacy for student engagement did not play a direct role. It

appears that not all facets of teachers self-efficacy are linked to

job satisfaction in the same way.

Limitations and Future Research

Future researchers can replicate the model of teacher motivation

presented in this article, with the addition of factors such as

students socioeconomic status and teachers collective efficacy to

help account for more job satisfaction variance. The effect of

whole-school motivation, or collective efficacy, has been shown to

influence the individual job satisfaction experienced by teachers

(e.g., Caprara et al., 2003; Klassen et al., in press). The role of

teachers self-efficacy in relation to job stress and job satisfaction

may vary as a function of cultural context, and additional research

examining the relationships among the study variables should be

conducted in contrasting cultural settings.

Our research provides new insight into the pattern of change inteachers self-efficacy beliefs, but stronger claims about the de-

velopment of teachers self-efficacy could be made through lon-

gitudinal studies. As noted earlier, some studies of teachers self-

efficacy during the early career years (e.g., Woolfolk Hoy & Burke

Spero, 2005) have been performed, but to our knowledge, no one

has conducted a longitudinal study using the most recent, concep-

tually sound measures of teachers self-efficacy. Conducting lon-

gitudinal research of teachers motivation beliefs presents a host of

practical challenges not found in cross-sectional research, but

findings from longitudinal studies can inform our understanding of

how motivation beliefs develop over the career. In related fashion,

our findings about the apparent changes in teachers self-efficacy

in the late-career stages lead us to propose that future studies

should be focused on middle and late-career stage teachers mo-

tivation beliefs, an area that has been neglected despite the large

number of teachers who are past the first decade of their teaching

careers.

Several data limitations hamper the generalizability of our re-sults. Additional indicators of teachers success and functioning

not included in our model may influence job satisfaction. Also, the

measure of overall job stress consisted of only a single item, and

job satisfaction was measured by two items. However, results of

recent studies have supported the inclusion of single-item mea-

sures of job-related beliefs (e.g., Dolbier, Webster, McCalister,

Mallon, & Steinhardt, 2005; Nagy, 2002) because of high levels of

face validity and convenience for data collection in busy work-

place settings, and investigators in many previous studies have

measured job stress using one item (e.g., Boyle et al., 1995;

Chaplain, 2008; Manthei et al., 1996). We did not measure the

longitudinal development of teachers self-efficacy, and readers

should not infer from our results that the pattern of rise and fall of

self-efficacy holds true for individual teachers over the career

span. The results from the current research are prone to the

limitations emerging from our reliance on a common method to

assess each variable. Lastly, the sample was restricted to Canadian

teachers in one province, and although teachers came from a wide

variety of schools, the sample was not randomized, and partici-

pants in this study may not be representative of other groups of

teachers in different settings.

Practical Implications and Conclusion

Considerable research has examined the development of teacher

motivation beliefs at the beginning stages of teachers careers, but

the teaching workforce in many settings is decidedly graying, with

more teachers at the mid- or late-career stages than at the

beginning-career stage (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).

Building an understanding of the motivation profiles of teachers

across the career span makes sense because of the number of mid-

and late-career teachers and because teachers motivation profiles

and willingness to engage in new practices varies according to

career stage (Drake, 2002). A teachers skills, knowledge, and

effectiveness may change over time without a continuous and

focused effort to build those skills and knowledge on the part of

the teacher, school district officials, and school administrators

(Drake, 2002). One-size-fits-all professional development that

aims to build the skills and knowledge of new, mid-career, and the

most experienced teachers may not be optimally effective. Forexample, Greller (2006) suggested that older workers professional

development needs shift from learning general skills to learning

specific skills. Older workers seek professional development op-

portunities that offer greater autonomy in content, learning pace,

and learning environment (Greller, 2006). Professional develop-

ment programs that are tailored to teachers career stages may

enhance skills and knowledge but also boost the confidence that

teachers at a later career stage have in their capabilities to teach

effectively. Using professional development opportunities to boost

skills and teachers self-efficacy may lower job stress and enhance

satisfaction from teaching.



10/16

Our study extends teacher motivation research by showing how

teachers years of experience, gender, and three domains of self-

efficacy (student engagement, instructional strategies, and class-

room management) were related to their job stress (workload and

classroom stress) and job satisfaction. Building on previous re-

search showing that teacher self-efficacy often increases in the

early stages of teachers careers, we found that early- to mid-careerteachers reported progressively greater self-efficacies in these

three areas, while late-career teachers reported less self-efficacy in

each area. Female teachers had greater stress (from both workload

and student behaviors during class) and lower self-efficacy for

classroom management. Teaching younger children (in elementary

grades and kindergarten) was linked with higher levels of self-

efficacy for classroom management and student engagement. Fi-

nally, the impact of classroom and workload stress on job satis-

faction was mediated by teachers self-efficacy.

References

Abel, M. H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban

secondary school teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 92,287293.

Alberta Education. (2009). Alberta teaching certification standards. Re-

trieved February 14, 2009, from http://education.alberta.ca/department/

stats/certification.aspx

Antoniou, A.-S., Polychroni, F., & Vlachakis, A.-N. (2006). Gender and

age differences in occupational stress and professional burnout between

primary and high-school teachers in Greece. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 21, 682690.

Baker, F. B., & Kim, S.-H. (2004). Item response theory. Boca Raton, FL:

CRC.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:

Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F.

Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 5. Self-

efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307337). Greenwich, CT: InformationAge.

Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006). Adaptive linear

step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93,

491507.

Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burn-

out among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology,

26, 519539.

Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability

in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement,

6, 431444.

Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you could

successfully perform these tasks? In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),

Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287305). Greenwich, CT: In-

formation Age.

Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M., & Baglioni, A. J., Jr. (1995). A

structural model of the dimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 65, 4967.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy

beliefs as determinants of teachers job satisfaction. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 95, 821832.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006).

Teachers self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and

students academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of

School Psychology, 44, 473490.

Chaplain, R. P. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee

secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28, 195209.

Chow, B. W.-Y., Chiu, M. M., & Wong, S. (in press). Emotional intelli-

gence, social problem solving skills, and psychological distress: A study

of Chinese undergraduate students. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-

ogy.

Cockburn, A. D., & Haydn, T. (2004). Recruiting and retaining teachers:

Understanding why teachers teach. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.

Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers

professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and

effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 423443.

Dolbier, C. L., Webster, J. A., McCalister, K. T., Mallon, M. W., &

Steinhardt, M. A. (2005). Reliability and validity of a single-item mea-

sure of job satisfaction. American Journal of Health Promotion, 19,

194198.

Drake, C. (2002). Experience counts: Career stage and teachers responses

to mathematics education reform. Educational Policy, 16, 311337.

Evans, L. (2001). Delving deeper into morale, job satisfaction, and moti-

vation among education professionals. Educational Management and

Administration, 29, 291306.

Gates, G. S. (2007). Emerging thought and research on student, teacher,

and administrative stress and coping. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher

efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional inno-

vation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451458.Greenglass, E. R., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Teacher stress. In M. F. Dollard,

A. H. Winefield, & H. R. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational stress in the

service professions (pp. 213236). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Greller, M. M. (2006). Hours invested in professional development during

late career as a function of career motivation and satisfaction. Career

Development International, 6, 544559.

Gustafsson, J. E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as

predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28,

407434.

Hopf, D., & Hatzichristou, C. (1999). Teacher gender-related influences in

Greek schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 118.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in

covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-

tives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6,

155.

Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers

College Record, 91, 3157.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortage. American

Educational Research Journal, 38, 499534.

Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer

software]. New York, NY: Scientific Software International.

Jepson, E., & Forrest, S. (2006). Individual contributory factors in teacher

stress: The role of achievement striving and occupational commitment.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 183197.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job

satisfactionjob performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative

review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376407.

Kennedy, P. (2004). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Klassen, R. M. (in press). Teachers stress: The mediating role of collectiveefficacy beliefs. Journal of Educational Research.

Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong,

I. Y., & Georgiou, T. (2009). Exploring the validity of the Teachers

Self-Efficacy Scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psy-

chology, 34, 6776.

Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (in press). Teachers collective

efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. Journal

of Experimental Education.

Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality, and burnout in primary

school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229

243.

Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P., & Dikkers, J. (2008). Older workers



11/16

motivation to continue to work: Five meanings of age. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 23, 364394.

Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Edu-

cational Review, 53, 2735.

Lilien, D. M., Startz, R., Ellsworth, S., Noh, J., & Engle, R. (1995). Eview

[Computer software]. Irvine, CA: Quantitative Micro Software.

Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers job satisfaction: Analyses of the

Teacher Follow-Up Survey in the United States for 20002001. Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 24, 11731184.

Manthei, R., Gilmore, A., Tuck, B., & Adair, V. (1996). Teacher stress in

intermediate schools. Educational Research, 38, 319.

Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG 3 (2nd ed.) [Computer

software]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.

Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job

satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

75, 7786.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of

Educational Research, 66, 543578.

Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors

of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 385400.

Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a

predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analysis. Applied Psy-

chology: An International Review, 57, 152171.Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy

and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy,

and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611625.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural

equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982

(pp. 290312). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Spickard, A., Gabbe, S. G., & Christensen, J. F. (2002). Mid-career burnout

in generalist and specialist physicians. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 288, 14471450.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:

Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,

783805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential an-

tecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944956.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher

efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68,

202248.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Special analysis 2005: Mobility in

the teacher workforce. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://

nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/analysis/sa01.asp

Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teach-

ers sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching

experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology,

99, 181193.Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy

during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343356.

Appendix

Ancillary Tables and Results

Table A1

Eigenvalues Showing Single Dominant Factors in Each Set of Test Questions

Factor

Eigenvalues % of variance explained by

1st 2nd 3rd 1st/2nd 2nd/3rd 1st eigenvalue 2nd eigenvalue

Classroom management self-efficacy 2.76 0.45 0.41 6.13 1.10 69 11Instructional strategies self-efficacy 2.39 0.62 0.54 3.85 1.14 60 16Student engagement self-efficacy 2.22 0.46 0.33 4.86 1.39 74 15Workload stress 2.24 0.45 0.31 4.93 1.46 75 15Classroom stress 2.06 0.75 0.67 2.74 1.13 52 19

Note. The factor of job satisfaction only two variables; polychoric correlation 0.729.

(Appendix continues)



12/16

Table A2

Three-Factor and Two-Factor Structures Best Fit Responses to Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Stress

Questions as Shown by Goodness-of-Fit Measures (Varimax Rotation)

Goodness-of-fit measure

Factor structure

Three Two Hierarchical Nested Single

Teacher self-efficacyStandardized root mean residual 0.041 0.066 0.114 0.137Comparative fit index 0.957 0.901 0.924 0.540Incremental fit index 0.957 0.901 0.924 0.541TuckerLewis index 0.933 0.871 0.901 0.438Root-mean-squared error of

approximation 0.053 0.074 0.091 0.175Chi-square test 208 409 674 1,334Degrees of freedom 41 41 33 44

p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Adjusted goodness-of-fit index 0.946 0.903 0.639 0.626Relative fit index 0.924 0.863 0.892 0.433

Teacher stressStandardized root mean residual 0.015 0.068 0.075 0.068Comparative fit index 0.990 0.881 0.814 0.749Incremental fit index 0.992 0.882 0.815 0.751TuckerLewis index 0.976 0.825 0.740 0.610Root-mean-squared error of

approximation 0.046 0.138 0.163 0.053Chi-square test 41 322 405 961Degrees of freedom 13 12 7 14

p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Adjusted goodness-of-fit index 0.971 0.808 0.745 0.797Relative fit index 0.971 0.821 0.736 0.607

Table A3a

Summary Statistics of Variables and of Item Response Models

Variable Mean SD Min Median Max

GPCM vs. PCMIRT

df LL 2

Classroom management self-efficacy 0.08 0.93 3.39 0.13 1.75 4 57.06Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.03 0.88 2.99 0.03 1.69 4 460.08Student engagement self-efficacy 0.00 0.93 3.03 0.00 1.90 3 121.12Job satisfaction 0.03 0.91 2.87 0.08 1.50 3 61.61Female 0.70 0 1 1Years of experience 13.21 9.97 0 10 43School grade range

School combinations(vs. elementary) 1 1 1

Other (vs. elementary) 1 1 1Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) 1 0 1Teaching other grades (vs. K) 1 1 1Workload stress 0.01 0.82 2.31 0.02 1.93 9 1865.20

Classroom stress 0.00 0.92 2.22 0.01 2.25 3 233.77Overall stress 6.81 2.06 1 7 9

Note. Values created from responses to sets of questions with item response model comparison tests, showing that thegeneralized partial credit models (GPCM) fit the data better than the partial credit models (PCM). IRT item responsetests; LL 2 log-likelihood difference chi-square test; K kindergarten.

p .001.




13/16

Table A3b

Percentage of Teachers by School Level

Variable ElementaryHigh

schoolJuniorhigh

Elementary/juniorhigh

Junior high/highschool

Elementary/juniorhigh/high school

School grade range 20 20 10 26 15 9

Table A3c

Percentage of Teachers by Grade Level

Variable K 12 34 56 79 1012HeadStart

Multiplegrades

Teaching grade 3 7 7 13 19 20 0.3 29

Table A3d

Percentage of Responses for Job Stress Scale

Variable

Teaching grade

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Overall teaching stress 2 2 5 6 8 11 23 17 26

Note. Scale ranges from 1 (no stress) to 9 (extreme stress).

Table A4

Standard Errors of Each Teacher Property at 2nd, 16th, 50th, 84th, and 98th Percentiles, Showing

Greater Standard Errors at Higher Percentiles

Teacher property

Standard errors at each percentile

2nd 16th 50th 84th 98th

Job satisfaction 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.45 1.16Classroom management 0.12 0.15 0.25 0.56 0.93Instructional strategies 0.19 0.26 0.41 0.77 1.11Student engagement 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.42 0.96Workload stress 0.21 0.23 0.42 0.72 1.00Classroom stress 0.10 0.10 0.19 0.44 0.98




14/16

Table A5

Correlations (Lower Left Triangle), Variances (Diagonal), and Covariances (Upper Right Triangle)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Classroom management self-efficacy 0.86 0.41 0.44 0.03 1.47 36.66 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.32 0.25 0.412. Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.50 0.78 0.44 0.01 1.82 54.85 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.18 0.07 0.32

3. Student engagement self-efficacy 0.51 0.36 0.87 0.02 1.39 37.50 0.07 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.17 0.23 0.404. Female gender 0.07 0.21 0.05 0.21 0.27 10.24 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.055. Years of experience 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.06 99.43 3206 0.42 0.65 0.09 0.00 0.13 0.08 0.65 0.146. Years of experience squared 0.12 0.03 0.12 0.07 0.96 112,464 12.76 17.19 2.66 0.08 1.81 1.67 13.37 0.147. School grade range: School

combinations (vs. elementary) 00.10 0.03 0.10 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.61 0.52 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.088. School grade range: Other (vs.

elementary) 00.07 0.05 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.83 0.64 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.079. Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) 00.06 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00

10. Teaching other grades (vs. K) 00.02 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.0111. Workload stress 00.10 0.21 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.68 0.34 0.73 0.2112. Classroom stress 00.38 0.04 0.20 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.45 0.85 0.58 0.2613. Overall stress 00.13 0.25 0.12 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.43 0.31 4.22 0.2614. Job satisfaction 0.34 0.34 0.02 1.24 42.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.22 0.48 0.82

Note. K kindergarten.

Table A6

Total Effect and Indirect Effect of Each Independent Variable on Each Dependent Variable

Independent variable

Dependent variable

Teaching othergrades (vs. K)

Stress Self-efficacy

JobsatisfactionWorkload Classroom Overall

Classroommanagement

Instructionalstrategies

Studentengagement

Female genderTotal effect 0.24 0.37 0.24 0.21 0.10 0.06 0.02 0.10Indirect effect 0.21 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.10

Years of experience quadratic termTotal effect 0.19 0.22 0.17 0.11

Indirect effect 0.11School grade range

School combinations vs. elementaryTotal effect 0.1 0.03Indirect effect 0.03

Other vs. elementaryTotal effect 0.16 0.11Indirect effect 0.01

Teaching Grade 1 or 2 vs. KTotal effect 0.05 0.01Indirect effect 0.01

Teaching other grades vs. K (total effect) 0.09Workload stress

Total effect 0.56 0.16 0.08Indirect effect 0.08

Classroom stress

Total effect 0.52 0.25 0.25 0.21Indirect effect 0.21Overall stress (total effect) 0.21Classroom management self-efficacy 0.26Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.29

Squared multiple correlations 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.31 0.25 0.11 0.12 0.31

Note. Blanks indicate no total or no indirect effects. K kindergarten.




15/16

Table A7

Completely Standardized Solution of Structural Equation Model: Psi Matrix

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Job satisfaction 0.692. Classroom management self-efficacy 0.75

3. Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.48 0.89 0.454. Student engagement self-efficacy 0.46 0.885. School grade range: School combinations (vs. elementary) 1.006. School grade range: Other (vs. elementary) 0.83 1.007. Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) 1.008. Teaching other grades (vs. K) 0.61 0.969. Workload stress 0.97

10. Classroom stress 0.59 0.9911. Overall stress 0.69

Note. K kindergarten.p .001.

Table A8

Completely Standardized Solution of Structural Equation Model: Lambda-Y Matrix

Survey item

Factor

Jobsatisfaction

Self-efficacy Stress

Classroommanagement

Studentengagement

Instructionalstrategies Workload Classroom

I am satisfied with what I achieve at work. 0.85a

I feel good at work. 0.85How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the

classroom? 0.75a

How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? 0.78How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? 0.75How much can you do to establish a classroom management system

with each group of students? 0.80How much can you do to craft good questions for students? 0.60a

How much can you do to implement a variety of assessmentstrategies? 0.70

How much can you do to provide an alternative explanation whenstudents are confused? 0.66

How much can you do to implement alternative strategies in yourclassroom? 0.73

How much can you do to motivate students who show low interestin school work? .78a

How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well inschool work? .84

How much can you do to help students to value learning? .74How great a source of stress is having too much work to do? 0.66a

How great a source of stress is having extra duties/responsibilitiesbecause of absent teachers? 0.55

How great a source of stress is having a large class size? 0.54How great a source of stress is being responsible for students

achievement? 0.60How great a source of stress is having noisy students? 0.70a

How great a source of stress is maintaining class discipline? 0.90How great a source of stress is dealing with students impolite

behavior or rudeness? 0.80

a The first lambda-Y estimates of each latent variable is fixed by default.p .001.




16/16

Table A9

Structural Equation Model Showing a Good Fit With the Data

Measure Result

Standardized root mean residual (SRMR) .039Root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA) .041

TuckerLewis index (TLI) .967Incremental fit index (IFI) .971Comparative fit index (CFI) .9712(305), p .000 1068.00Adjusted goodness of fit index .937Relative fit index .954

Note. Threshold values separate good, moderate, and poor fits for each measure: for SRMR, good fit .08 moderate fit .10 poor fit; for RMSEA, between .06 and .10; for TLI, between .96 and .90; for IFI, between .96 and .90. Othermeasures are also included for reader interest.

Table A10

Sobel Mediation Tests for the Outcome Variable Job Satisfaction

Initial variable3Mediator % change z

Years of experience quadratic term3Class management self-efficacy 20 2.039School combinations (vs. elementary)3Class management self-efficacy 19 2.638Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K)3Class management self-efficacy 13 2.225Workload stress3Class management self-efficacy 20 3.285Classroom stress3Class management self-efficacy 13 4.212Workload stress3Overall stress 10 2.678Years of experience quadratic term3Instructional strategies self-efficacy 13 1.986Classroom stress3Instructional strategies self-efficacy 21 3.795

p .05. p .01. p .001.

Received March 11, 2009

Revision received January 26, 2010

Accepted January 27, 2010


Documents

Self Efficacy II