Profiles of Mathematics Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Stress and Their Association with Dialogic Instruction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Conceptual Framework
2.2. Teacher Job Satisfaction
2.3. Teacher Stress
2.4. Mathematics Teachers’ Teaching Practice
2.5. The Present Study
- RQ 1.
- What are the latent profile memberships of mathematics teachers?
- RQ 2.
- What are the significant covariates predicting the latent profile memberships of mathematics teachers?
- RQ 3.
- How are latent profile memberships related to mathematics teachers’ implementation of dialogic instruction?
3. Methods
3.1. Data Sources and Participants
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Latent Profile Indicators
3.2.2. Covariates
3.2.3. Outcome Variable
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Identification of Latent Profiles
4.3. Description of Latent Profiles
4.4. Prediction of Latent Profile Membership
4.5. Relationship between Latent Profile Membership and Dialogic Instruction
5. Discussion
6. Limitations
7. Conclusions and Implications
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kim, H.-J. Concreteness fading strategy: A promising and sustainable instructional model in mathematics classrooms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- NCTM. Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All; NCTM: Reston, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Munter, C.; Stein, M.K.; Smith, M.S. Dialogic and direct instruction: Two distinct models of mathematics instruction and the debate (s) surrounding them. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2015, 117, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, T.G.; Yeo, S. Exploring in-the-moment teaching moves that support sociomathematical and general social norms in dialogic instruction. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2021, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Doorman, M.; van Joolingen, W. Inquiry-based learning practices in lower-secondary mathematics education reported by students from China and the Netherlands. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2021, 19, 1505–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, G.M. Implementing a reform-oriented pedagogy: Challenges for novice secondary mathematics teachers. Math. Edu. Res. J. 2014, 26, 399–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullis, I.V.; Martin, M.O.; Foy, P.; Kelly, D.L.; Fishbein, B. TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics; TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center: Boston, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- O’Shea, J.; Leavy, A.M. Teaching mathematical problem-solving from an emergent constructivist perspective: The experiences of Irish primary teachers. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 2013, 16, 293–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opdenakker, M.-C.; Van Damme, J. Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teach. Teach. Edu. 2006, 22, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klusmann, U.; Kunter, M.; Trautwein, U.; Lüdtke, O.; Baumert, J. Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 702–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaalvik, E.M.; Skaalvik, S. Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teach. Teach. Edu. 2011, 27, 1029–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaalvik, E.M.; Skaalvik, S. Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession. Creat. Educ. 2016, 7, 1785–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsai, P.; Antoniou, P. Teacher job satisfaction in Taiwan: Making the connections with teacher attitudes, teacher self-efficacy and student achievement. Int. J. Edu. Man. 2021, 35, 1016–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakariya, Y.F. Effects of school climate and teacher self-efficacy on job satisfaction of mostly STEM teachers: A structural multigroup invariance approach. Int. J. Stem. Educ. 2020, 7, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory- taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health. Psych. 2017, 22, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antoniou, A.-S.; Efthymiou, V.; Polychroni, F.; Kofa, O. Occupational stress in mainstream and special needs primary school teachers and its relationship with self-efficacy. Educ. Stud. 2020, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldridge, J.M.; Fraser, B.J. Teachers’ views of their school climate and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Learn. Environ. Res. 2016, 19, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muthén, B.; Muthén, L.K. Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoho. Clin. Exp. Res. 2000, 24, 882–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spurk, D.; Hirschi, A.; Wang, M.; Valero, D.; Kauffeld, S. Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 120, 103445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, N.; Stearns, E.; Moller, S.; Mickelson, R.A. Teacher job satisfaction and student achievement: The roles of teacher professional community and teacher collaboration in schools. Am. J. Educ. 2017, 123, 203–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, R.M.; Chiu, M.M. Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010, 102, 741–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toropova, A.; Myrberg, E.; Johansson, S. Teacher job satisfaction: The importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educ. Res. 2021, 73, 71–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hickendorff, M.; Edelsbrunner, P.A.; McMullen, J.; Schneider, M.; Trezise, K. Informative tools for characterizing individual differences in learning: Latent class, latent profile, and latent transition analysis. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2018, 66, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nylund-Gibson, K.; Choi, A.Y. Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Transl. Ins. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 4, 440–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, S. Bullying victimization, negative emotionality, and suicidal ideation in Korean youth: Assessing latent class analysis using the manual 3-step approach. J. Sch. Violence 2019, 18, 550–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullis, I.V.; Martin, M.O. TIMSS 2015 Assessment Frameworks; TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center: Boston, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Steiner, E.D.; Woo, A. Job Related Stress Threatens the Teacher Supply: Key Finding from the 2021 State of the US Teacher Survey Technical Appendixes; Rand Corp: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Skaalvik, E.M.; Skaalvik, S. Motivated for teaching? Associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Teach. Teach. Edu. 2017, 67, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ainley, J.; Carstens, R. Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, L. Addressing problems of conceptualization and construct validity in researching teachers’ job satisfaction. Educ. Res. 1997, 39, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. TALIS 2013 Technical Report; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, A.; Xia, J. Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 TALIS data. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2018, 92, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolin, F. A study of teacher job satisfaction and factors that influence it. Chin. Edu. Soc. 2007, 40, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drudy, S.; Martin, M.; O’Flynn, J.; Woods, M. Men and the Classroom; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, S.M.; Kraft, M.A.; Papay, J.P. How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2012, 114, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaplain, R.P. Stress and psychological distress among trainee secondary teachers in England. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betoret, F.D. Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burnout among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educ. Psychol. 2006, 26, 519–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collie, R.J.; Shapka, J.D.; Perry, N.E. School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. J. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 104, 1189–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yoon, S.J. Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-student relationships: Stress, negative affect, and self-efficacy. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2002, 30, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitchett, P.G.; McCarthy, C.J.; Lambert, R.G.; Boyle, L. An examination of US first-year teachers’ risk for occupational stress: Associations with professional preparation and occupational health. Teach. Teach. 2018, 24, 99–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ssenyonga, J.; Hecker, T. Job perceptions contribute to stress among secondary school teachers in southwestern Uganda. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, B.Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Reynolds, B.L.; Wang, S. The relation between school climate and preschool teacher stress: The mediating role of teachers’ self-efficacy. J. Educ. Admin. 2019, 57, 748–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartholomew, K.J.; Ntoumanis, N.; Cuevas, R.; Lonsdale, C. Job pressure and ill-health in physical education teachers: The mediating role of psychological need thwarting. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2014, 37, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zee, M.; Koomen, H.M. Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 2016, 86, 981–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boaler, J.; Staples, M. Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside school. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2008, 110, 608–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, S. The mediating effects of self-efficacy and classroom stress on professional development and student-centered instruction. Int. J. Instr. 2021, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meece, J.L. Applying learner-centered principles to middle school education. Theor. Pract. 2003, 42, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; Roseth, C. Cooperative learning in middle schools interrelationship of relationships and achievement. Mid. Grad. Res. J. 2010, 5, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Gillies, R.M. Promoting academically productive student dialogue during collaborative learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2019, 97, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keiler, L.S. Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. Int. J. Stem. Educ. 2018, 5, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ball, D.L.; Thames, M.H.; Phelps, G. Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? J. Teach. Educ. 2008, 59, 389–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gill, M.G.; Ashton, P.T.; Algina, J. Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 29, 164–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Son, J.-W.; Han, S.; Kang, C.; Kwon, O.N. A comparative analysis of the relationship among quality instruction, teacher self-efficacy, student background, and mathematics achievement in South Korea and the United States. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. 2016, 12, 1755–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fröberg, A.; Lundvall, S. Sustainable development perspectives in physical education teacher education course syllabi: An analysis of learning outcomes. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuliá-Jordán, R.; Vilches Peña, A.; Calero Llinares, M. The press as a resource for promoting sustainability competencies in teacher training: The case of SDG 7. Sustainability 2022, 14, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, E.; Kim, S. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abel, M.H.; Sewell, J. Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. J. Educ. Res. 1999, 92, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weller, B.E.; Bowen, N.K.; Faubert, S.J. Latent class analysis: A guide to best practice. J. Black. Psychol. 2020, 46, 287–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asparouhov, T.; Muthén, B. Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Struct. Equ. Model. 2014, 21, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermunt, J.K. Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Polit. Anal. 2010, 18, 450–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ingersoll, R.M.; Perda, D. Is the supply of mathematics and science teachers sufficient? Am. Educ. Res. J. 2010, 47, 563–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Redding, C.; Booker, L.N.; Smith, T.M.; Desimone, L.M. School administrators’ direct and indirect influences on middle school math teachers’ turnover. J. Educ. Admin. 2019, 57, 708–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A.; Freeman, W.H.; Lightsey, R. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Tschannen-Moran, M.; Hoy, A.W. Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teach. Teach. Edu. 2001, 17, 783–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacob, R.; Hill, H.; Corey, D. The impact of a professional development program on teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching, instruction, and student achievement. J. Res. Educ. Eff. 2017, 10, 379–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, F.-L.; Wang, T.-Y.; Yang, K.-L. Description and evaluation of a large-scale project to facilitate student engagement in learning mathematics. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2018, 58, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nel, B.; Luneta, K. Mentoring as professional development intervention for mathematics teachers: A South African perspective. Pythagoras 2017, 38, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variable (#, α) | Range | Sample Questions |
---|---|---|
LCA indicator variables | ||
Job satisfaction (7, 0.93) | 1 (very often)– 4 (never or almost never) |
|
Stress (8, 0.79) | 1 (agree a lot)– 4 (disagree a lot) |
|
Covariates | ||
Self-efficacy (9, 0.92.) | 1 (very high)– 4 (very low) |
|
Leadership support (3, 0.89) | 1 (very high)– 5 (very low) |
|
School Safety (3, 0.78) | 1 (agree a lot)– 4 (disagree a lot) |
|
Student behavior (3, 0.93) | 1 (agree a lot)– 4 (disagree a lot) |
|
School condition (7, 0.83) | 1 (Not a problem)– 4 (serious problem) |
|
Teacher cooperation (7, 0.90) | 1 (very often)– 4 (never or almost never) |
|
Distal outcome | ||
Dialogic instruction (7, 0.80) | 1 (every or almost every lesson)–4 (never) |
|
No | Variable | M | SD | Pearson’s r Correlations | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||||
1 | Job satisfaction | 3.28 | 0.67 | −0.34 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.46 ** | 0.29 ** | 0.42 ** | 0.30 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.27 ** | −0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
2 | Stress | 2.64 | 0.57 | −0.10 * | −0.29 ** | −0.17 ** | −0.19 ** | −0.28 ** | −0.13 * | −0.02 | −0.09 | −0.03 | 0.00 | |
3 | Leadership support | 3.59 | 0.83 | 0.26 ** | 0.27 ** | 0.39 ** | 0.36 ** | 0.51 ** | 0.19 ** | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.07 | ||
4 | School safety | 3.57 | 0.57 | 0.04 | 0.62 ** | 0.38 ** | 0.17 ** | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.03 | |||
5 | Student behavior | 2.99 | 0.86 | 0.16 ** | 0.37 ** | 0.20 ** | 0.14 ** | −0.06 | 0.09 | 0.00 | ||||
6 | School condition | 3.35 | 0.59 | 0.06 | 0.26 ** | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |||||
7 | Teacher cooperation | 2.58 | 0.72 | 0.24 ** | 0.23 ** | −0.04 | −0.09 | 0.06 | ||||||
8 | Self-efficacy | 3.06 | 0.58 | 0.49 ** | 0.07 | 0.14 ** | 0.07 | |||||||
9 | Gender | 1.34 | 0.47 | −0.13 * | −0.05 | −0.03 | ||||||||
10 | Years of teaching | 13.36 | 90.63 | 0.05 | 0.10 | |||||||||
11 | Teacher major | 1.67 | 0.47 | 0.11 * | ||||||||||
12 | Dialogic instruction | 3.34 | 0.49 |
Model | AIC | BIC | SABIC | Entropy | LMRT | BLRT | Profile Sizes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 profiles | 2038.35 | 2065.75 | 2043.54 | 0.69 | 0.032 | <0.001 | 119; 251 |
3 profiles | 2029.07 | 2063.20 | 2036.48 | 0.63 | 0.042 | <0.001 | 51; 94; 225 |
4 profiles | 1995.94 | 2046.81 | 2005.57 | 0.72 | 0.46 | 0.16 | 42; 137; 161; 30 |
Variable | Profile 1 (n = 51, 13.8%) | Profile 2 (n = 94, 25.4%) | Profile 3 (n = 225, 60.8%) | Significant Mean Differences | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ||
Job satisfaction | 0.73 | 0.10 | −1.30 | 0.06 | 0.42 | 0.17 | 2 < 1 **; 2 < 3 ** |
Stress | −1.60 | 0.34 | 0.63 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 1 < 2 **; 1 < 3 **; 3 < 2 ** |
Profile | Covariates | Reference Profile | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Profile 2 | Profile 3 | ||||||
B | SE | OR | B | SE | OR | ||
Profile 1 | Leadership support | 0.99 ** | 26 | 2.71 | 0.18 | 0.22 | 1.19 |
Student behavior | 0.49 | 29 | 1.64 | 0.09 | 0.27 | 1.09 | |
Teacher cooperation | 0.03 | 24 | 1.03 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 1.06 | |
School condition | −0.59 | 33 | 0.55 | −0.40 | 0.32 | 0.67 | |
School Safety | 0.33 | 30 | 1.39 | 0.21 | 0.29 | 1.23 | |
Self-efficacy | 0.52 * | 23 | 1.67 | 0.17 | 0.22 | 1.19 | |
Gender | 0.30 | 21 | 1.34 | 0.26 | 0.17 | 1.30 | |
Years of teaching | 0.17 | 20 | 1.19 | 0.24 | 0.17 | 1.28 | |
Teacher major | −0.05 | 22 | 0.95 | −0.01 | 0.19 | 0.99 | |
Profile 3 | Leadership support | 0.82 ** | 20 | 2.27 | |||
Student behavior | 0.41 * | 17 | 1.50 | ||||
Teacher cooperation | −0.03 | 17 | 0.97 | ||||
School condition | −0.20 | 18 | 0.82 | ||||
School Safety | 0.12 | 17 | 1.13 | ||||
Self-efficacy | 0.34 * | 15 | 1.41 | ||||
Gender | 0.03 | 16 | 1.03 | ||||
Years of teaching | −0.07 | 14 | 0.93 | ||||
Teacher major | −0.03 | 16 | 0.97 |
Distal Outcome | Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 | Significant Mean Differences | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ||
Dialogic instruction | 0.19 | 0.16 | −0.31 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 2 < 1 **; 2 < 3 ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hwang, S. Profiles of Mathematics Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Stress and Their Association with Dialogic Instruction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116925
Hwang S. Profiles of Mathematics Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Stress and Their Association with Dialogic Instruction. Sustainability. 2022; 14(11):6925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116925
Chicago/Turabian StyleHwang, Sunghwan. 2022. "Profiles of Mathematics Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Stress and Their Association with Dialogic Instruction" Sustainability 14, no. 11: 6925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116925