Happy students make happy teachers
The Relationship between Job Satisfaction of Teachers and Students’ Achievements
Tjallien de Boer
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Human Resource Management & Organizational Behavior Department Msc Human Resource Management
December 9, 2015
Supervisor: prof. dr. B.A. Nijstad
Abstract
This study set out to examine whether job satisfaction of teachers is related to student subjective and/or objective outcomes. Additionally, the causal direction of the relationship between teacher satisfaction and student outcomes is examined. The relationship between teachers’ satisfaction and teachers’ performance and effectiveness has often been studied, but previous research did not focus on the student outcomes. To study if and how teacher
satisfaction and students outcomes are related, a sample of 50 teams at Noorderpoort college, a teaching institution for professional education is examined. Results show a positive
relationship between teacher satisfaction and subjective student outcomes, but no relationship between teacher satisfaction and objective student outcomes. Further examination of cross-lagged panel correlations indicates a positive relationship between students’ satisfaction and teachers’ satisfaction one year later, but no evidence for the reverse relationship. These results suggest that happy students make happy teachers, but not the other way around.
Introduction
All children in the Netherlands receive education. There are different levels of education and when they are about 12 years old, children choose which secondary school they attend. The duration of this education is four to six years, and after they have finished they can choose if they want to study even more. Most inhabitants will be educated until they are eighteen to twenty-three years old. That is quite a long time, but which factors are related to student achievements? Of course the ability of the student is an important factor, but also the school system, climate and the characteristics of the teacher (Spinath, Eckert & Steinmayr, 2014). If teachers perform well the student can learn more from the teacher. Multiple teacher
characteristics are related to job performance of the teacher, and one of these aspects is job satisfaction (Ashton & Webb, 1986, as cited in Tahir & Sajid, 2014). Is it the case that the teachers’ job satisfaction is related to the students’ achievement? This is the main question that will be addressed in this research.
Job satisfaction has often been studied, and most research has focused on the causes and effects for the persons themselves. In particular, the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is of interest. In a meta-analysis, a substantial positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been found (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001). Is there also a relationship between job satisfaction of teachers and
So there is a relationship between job satisfaction of leaders and outcomes of followers, but what about the relationship between job satisfaction of teachers and
performance of their students? The relationship between leader and follower is has similarities with the relationship between teacher and student, so the same relationship is expected, but an important difference is that students have multiple teachers, whereas followers have one leader. The relationship between teachers’ satisfaction and student outcomes has not been studied much, but the research to the relationship between teachers’ satisfaction and teacher effectiveness, which is related to student performance, indicate a positive relationship (Ashton & Webb, 1986, as cited in Tahir & Sajid, 2014; Collie, Shapka & Perry, 2012). Another study of the relationship between job satisfaction of teachers and performance of students was done by Caprara, Barbarnelli, Steca and Malone (2006). They expected that self-efficacy beliefs of the teacher would contribute to job satisfaction, which in turns should affect academic
performance of students. However, they did not find evidence for this relationship. A
limitation of this research was that academic achievement was measured only by overall grade at the end of the year. So will the results be different for other types of student outcomes, for example students’ satisfaction?
teacher satisfaction and student outcomes when student achievement is measured objectively (Caprara et al., 2006), the relationship between teacher satisfaction and subjective outcomes has not been studied much.
These questions are examined in a sample of teachers and their students at
Noorderpoort. This school offers mostly senior secondary vocational education for 17,500 students. The staff consists mostly of teachers; around 1,200 of the 1,400 staff members (Noorderpoort.nl). In 2015 all the senior secondary vocation education will receive more money, which is intended for extra trainings for the teachers (Berentsen, 2014). What is the best way for educational institutions to spend it? Should it be invested to increase job satisfaction? If this research indicates that student achievement is related to teachers’ job satisfaction, the organizations can potentially improve student outcomes by increasing job satisfaction of teachers.
The goal of this study is to gain more insight into the relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and especially subjective student outcomes, and the research design is
depicted in Figure 1. By using existing data spanning multiple years, the relationships will be examined. Job satisfaction of teachers is measured every two years at Noorderpoort, and student outcomes are measured every year. To examine the direction of causality, cross-lagged panel correlations will be computed between teachers’ job satisfaction at time 1 and student outcomes at time 2 to see if teachers’ job satisfaction is related to the student outcomes the next year. To examine the causal relationship from student outcomes to teachers’ job satisfaction, cross-lagged panel correlations will be computed between student outcomes of time 2 and teachers’ job satisfaction at time 3.
Theory
Teacher Effectiveness
Around 26 thousand teachers are working in senior secondary vocational education (in Dutch: middelbaar beroepsonderwijs) in the Netherlands (DUO, 2014). It is not a surprise that the topic of teacher effectiveness has been studied a lot. There are some articles and books like ‘The Ten Traits of Highly Effective Instructors’ (Lanouette, 2012) or ‘Twelve
Characteristics of an Effective Teacher’ (Walker, 2008), which almost imply that the principal can easily predict which of their teachers will be effective. Unfortunately this is not the case, and many different aspects are related to teacher effectiveness. These aspects are not only characteristics of the teacher, but also of the environment. Not all predictors of teacher effectiveness will be addressed here, but the characteristics of the teachers themselves are an important factor in predicting teachers’ effectiveness and will be discussed (Collie, Shapka & Perry, 2012).
Despite the fact that teacher effectiveness has been studied a lot, there is no universal meaning or definition of teacher effectiveness (Bélanger & Longden, 2009). Most definitions include facilitating student learning and care for the students. So if a teacher is effective, the students’ performance is likely to be higher. Some characteristics that are related to teachers’ effectiveness are verbal ability, years of teaching experience (Darling-Hammend, 2000), job satisfaction (Ashton & Webb, 1986, as cited in Tahir & Sajid, 2014; Collie, Shapka & Perry, 2012), knowledge, preparation, respecting the students, and having positive attitudes about teaching and about students (Walker, 2008). All those aspects are positively related to teachers’ effectiveness, except years of teaching experience; unexperienced teachers are less effective than teachers with more experience, but after working around five years as teacher, experience is not related to effectiveness anymore (Darling-Hammend, 2000).
another study teacher effectiveness was measured by the effect of the set of teachers’
behaviours in-classroom on student learning (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). The students of the teachers who are perceived as effective by the supervisors had higher outcomes than the expected levels of achievement (Milanowski, 2004). This positive relationship has also been found in another study, in which a positive relationship between teacher effectiveness and student achievement was found (Ashton & Webb, 1986, as cited in Tahir & Sajid, 2014).
Job satisfaction
As mentioned above, one of the aspects that was related to teacher effectiveness was job satisfaction (Ashton & Webb, 1986, as cited in Tahir & Sajid, 2014; Collie, Shapka & Perry, 2012). In the field of organisational behaviour, a lot of research has been done on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance, and teacher effectiveness can be seen as job performance specific to teachers. In a review study, a positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been found (Judge et al., 2001). Job
satisfaction is defined by Locke (1969, p. 316) as: “The pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values.” This can be used for all professions, so also for teachers. The correlation between job satisfaction and job performance in the meta-analysis of Judge et al. (2001) was .30. This means that nine percent of the variation in performance between persons is explained by job satisfaction. From a psychological perspective, this is quite a lot.
A lot of research has been done on factors that are related to job satisfaction. Most researchers have found that high scores of job satisfaction are related to being more
other professions are working with children, intellectual challenge of teaching and employee autonomy (Spear et al., 2000, as cited in Butt, Lance, Fielding, Gunter, Rayner & Thomas, 2005). Other aspects that are positively related to job satisfaction among teachers are commitment, motivation, well-being (Carprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni & Staca, 2003), teacher effectiveness (Ashton & Webb, 1986, as cited in Tahir & Sajid, 2014), and teacher performance (Arifin, 2015).
A negative relationship has been found between stress and job satisfaction. This is also the case for overall teaching stress and job satisfaction (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Gender differences suggest that female teachers are overall less satisfied with their job, especially about their working conditions (Liu & Ramsey, 2008). It is also the case that women experience more classroom and workload stress (Chaplain, 2008), which could explain the gender difference in satisfaction (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). Another factor that is related to the job satisfaction of teachers is the years of experience. In the first twenty years job satisfaction of the teachers increases, just like self-efficacy, and after twenty years both variables decline (Klassen & Chiu, 2010).
teachers and to student achievement, but are these last two aspect also directly related to each other?
Student achievement
Student achievement is a broad concept and can be measured in many ways. Objective student outcomes are for example final grades and absenteeism, and subjective student
outcomes are more based on students’ experiences and feelings, such as student satisfaction. A meta-analysis of Spinath, Eckert and Steinmayr (2014) examined student characteristics that predicted student performance. General intelligence was the strongest predictor of student performance, with a correlation of .50 or higher. Other important predictors of student
performance are ability and self-discipline of students. Motivation and personality were also related to school performance, but not very strongly (Huang, 2012).
Student characteristics are related to student outcomes, but are student outcomes also related to job satisfaction of teachers? Research on the relationship between leaders’ job satisfaction and outcomes of followers indicated a stronger relationship between the leaders’ job satisfaction and subjective outcomes than with objective outcomes of followers (Rowold, Borgmann & Bormann, 2014). Is this also the case for teachers’ job satisfaction and student outcomes?
To start with objective student outcomes, research on job satisfaction of teachers and their relationship to objective students outcomes indicate a positive relationship. For example, researchers compared high performing schools and low performing schools and have found that teachers in low performing schools are slightly less satisfied with their job (Brown, Anfara, & Roney, 2004). The performance of a school was determined by math and reading scores of their students. So schools with lower student performance had teachers with lower levels of job satisfaction. These results are supported by a study of Van Houtte (2006) which also compared two kinds of schools. He found that teachers in technical and vocational
higher education), because of the difference in teaching methods. In lower tracks, emphasis is on facts and basic skills, whereas in higher tracks the emphasize is on concepts, processes and complicated skills; teachers are more enthusiastic and their lessons are better prepared (Van Houtte, 2004).
There may be a relationship between teacher satisfaction and objective student outcomes, but this relationship is probably weak. The studies of Van Houtte (2006) and Brown et al. (2004) compared two different types of schools, but this study compares student outcomes within the same school. Although teaching methods between a high performing and low performing students can differ, difference are not likely to be large. It is possible that teachers of high performing students are more enthusiastic and better prepared, so that there is a small positive relationship between objective student outcomes and teachers’ job
satisfaction. As already mentioned, objective student outcomes are strongly predicted by students’ characteristics (Spinath, Eckhart & Steinmayr, 2014), so teachers’ satisfaction may not be a strong predictor.
But what about the relationship between job satisfaction of teachers and subjective student outcomes (satisfaction)? The relationship between job satisfaction of teachers and subjective student outcomes is also be expected to be positive, but probably a bit stronger, because of emotional contagion. Emotional contagion is a process of mimicking the
the classroom (Mottet & Beebe, 2000). Displaying positive emotions is related to feeling better (Cohn et al., 2009) and thus can be related to higher levels of satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and student outcomes is stronger for the subjective measurements of student outcomes than for objective measurements of student outcomes.
But what about causality? Is it the case that when a teacher is enthusiastic the student is more motivated? These variables can also be related in a reversed way; if students are motivated the teacher will behave and feel differently (Skinner & Belmount, 1993), which can be related to teachers’ job satisfaction. To examine issues of causality, cross-lagged panel data will be examined. With cross-lagged panel correlations, it is examined how a variable (e.g., teachers’ job satisfaction) is related to another variable at a later point in time (e.g., student outcomes), while controlling for this variable (i.e., student outcome) at the first measurement. Thus, it is possible to see if the change in one variable (e.g., the change in student achievement from time 1 to time 2) is related to a predictor (e.g., teacher job satisfaction) at time 1. Because this analysis can also be reversed (e.g., examine job satisfaction of teachers at time 2 as a function of job satisfaction at time 1 and student achievements at time 1), some evidence for causal direction is obtained.
It is possible that job satisfaction of teachers is causally related to student outcomes. An explanation for this positive relationship would be self-efficacy of teachers, which entails the belief that one is able to master specific tasks. Teachers with high self-efficacy implement more didactic innovations, are better at managing classroom problems and are more
less depression, improved retention and motivation to improve teaching skills. In turn, retention and motivation to improve one’s teaching skills are related to better student achievements (Knox & Anfara, 2013). So this indicates a positive relationship from job satisfaction of teachers to student outcomes.
Another explanation for a positive relationship from job satisfaction to student outcomes focusses on subjective student outcomes. This positive relationship is explained by the theory of emotional contagion. The first theory about emotional contagion focused on the process of copying emotions between two individuals (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson, 1993). Later research examined emotional contagion in groups, and found that group members develop a collective mood by copying the moods and emotions of their fellow group members (Hatfield, Carpenter & Rapson, 2014). Emotional contagion also happens in organizational settings and research indicates that a leader can influence the mood of followers through emotional contagion. This process is mainly top-down, because of the visibility of the leader and because the leader can control the time, resources, and personal interactions of the subordinates, by displaying emotions (Lewis, 2000). The relationship between a leader and follower has some similarities with the relationship between teacher and students, and the process of emotional contagion has also been found in the classroom (Mottet & Beebe, 2000). However, this study that it was done in secondary school, where the students primarily had one teacher, whereas in senior secondary vocational education the students are educated by multiple teachers. So there is some evidence that the job satisfaction of teachers also predict subjective student achievements.
Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between job satisfaction of teachers and student achievements the next year.
of teachers. Netemeyer, Maxham and Lichtenstein (2010) studied this relationship between manager and employees and found that job satisfaction of the manager is related to job performance of their employees, and that job performance of employees influenced job satisfaction of the manger. It is possible that this is also the case in the classroom, but this effect probably is less strong, because of the different relationship between managers and their employees and teachers and their students. Employees have one manager, whereas students have multiple teachers. An explanation of the relationship from student outcomes to job satisfaction of teachers is that progress of students leads to higher job satisfaction
(Cockburn & Haydn, 2004). If students make progress, they have higher grades and
achievement, so this indicates that objective student outcomes may lead to the job satisfaction of teachers.
But what about the effect of students’ satisfaction on job satisfaction of teachers? Intuitively, happy students have positive effects on the teacher; one of them is more satisfaction. Satisfied students are happier, are more motivated, and show less disturbing behaviour, and this leads to a positive working environment for teachers. A positive working environment is related to higher levels of job satisfaction (Robbins, 2001). Disturbing
behaviour of students and showing disrespect to teachers are for example negatively related to job satisfaction of teachers. No direct relationship has been found between effort and
motivation of students and job satisfaction of teachers (Landers, 2008). So this gives some implications for the relationship from student outcomes to job satisfaction of teachers, but the evidence is not that strong.
Another explanation of the positive effect of subjective student outcomes on teachers’ job satisfaction can be emotional contagion. Most research that focused on emotional
(2009) who proposed that emotional contagion does not only happen top-down, but also bottom-up (from followers to leaders). Their theory includes a meso level process, in which the effect of group and leader are bidirectional. Not much research is done on this level, but a laboratory study found evidence for the fact that the collective mood of groups influences leader performance (Tee, 2013).
Hypothesis 2b: A positive relationship exists between student outcomes and teachers’ job satisfaction in the next year.
There is some research that indicates a positive relationship between student outcomes and teachers’ job satisfaction the next year, but more research indicates the opposite
relationship. For subjective student outcomes, emotional contagion plays an important role in both directions. Most research is done it the direction from leader to follower (Hatfield et al., 1993). For a teacher, it is easier to manipulate the emotions that they sent. They probably learn that they can influence the attitude of students by their own attitude. So if they want enthusiastic students, it helps if they are enthusiastic. Another explanation is that students have to read the emotion of one person (teacher), so it is unambiguous what emotion it is and the leader is very visible to the students (Lewis, 2000). Another aspect that explains the process from top-down is that the teacher can control the time, resources and personal interactions of the students (Lewis, 2000).
The evidence for the relationship from objective student outcomes to job satisfaction of teachers is also not strong. Only students progression was related to job satisfaction of teachers (Cockburn & Haydn, 2004), but overall grade was not related to job satisfaction of teachers (Caprara et al., 2013).
So for the relationship between student outcomes in general and job satisfaction of teachers, it is expected is that the influence from job satisfaction to student outcomes will be stronger than the other way around.
Method
This study examines the relationship between student outcomes and teachers’ job satisfaction. To examine this relationship, data of Noorderpoort was used. Noorderpoort is a large centre for secondary, vocational and adult education in the province of Groningen in the Netherlands. Noorderpoort trains 17,500 students and has 1,400 staff. Job satisfaction of the staff is measured every two years by an external office and these results were reported to Noorderpoort at the team level. A team consist of teachers of one educational area and is responsible for multiple educational programmes of their educational field. All the other data was also collected at Noorderpoort and had been aggregated to the team level. The data was available for multiple years. For each team the data was ordered per year. Some teams changed or were removed, so some teams had missing data for some schoolyears.
Participants
The participants were teachers and students of Noorderpoort. The teachers worked in teams and each team was responsible for multiple educational programmes. Teams were composed of 10 to 30 team members, and data was available for 51 teams. One team was excluded from the analysis1, because this team had more than 1,000 students, and all the other teams had fewer than 600 students. Around 17,500 students received education at
Noorderpoort each year and of these students 12,000 to 14,000 received senior secondary vocational education and were included in this study. The data for teachers was available for the school year 2012/2013 and 2014/2015, for the students the data was available of the same years and for 2013/2014 as well. In Table 1, the mean and standard deviations are presented per team per schoolyear.
Teams of teachers. In both years there were 50 teams of teachers and each team was
responsible for 4.91 educational programmes (SD = 3.69) that consisted of 1.96 (SD = 0.82) levels of educations. A team consisted on average of 17.6 teachers (SD = 7.6) in 12/13 and
19.8 (SD = 8.6) in 14/15. About half of the teachers of each team was female (M12/13 = 0.46,
SD = 0.3, M14/15 = 0.52, SD = 0.3). The mean years of teaching experience per team was 12
years, with a standard deviation of 4.4.
Students. Each team of teachers educated 238 to 272 students on average (SD12/13 =
202, SD13/14 = 165, SD14/15 = 134). The mean age of the students per team was 20.5 (SD =
3.2) and 52% of the students was male (SD = 0.36).
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of teachers and students characteristics per team per schoolyear
General 12/13 13/14 14/15 Number of programs 4.80 (3.2)
Number of levels 1.98 (0.8)
Teachers
FTE’s 9.54 (4.9) 10.87 (6.0)
Number of team members 17.43 (7.5) 19.76 (8.7) Percentage female 0.47 (0.3) 0.52 (0.2) Mean years of experience 12.77 (4.8) 11.98 (4.5) Response rate 0.68 (0.2) 0.73 (0.2) Students Number of students 245.76 (126.5) 245.76 (132.0) 235.76 (134.4) Percentage male 0.50 (0.3) 0.52 (0.3) 0.54 (0.4) Mean age 22.47 (3.8) 21.46 (3.6) 19.93 (2.8) Response rate 0.60 (0.2) 0.60 (0.1) 0.72 (0.1) Measures
Job satisfaction of teachers. Job satisfaction was measured during the employee
survey in March in 2013 and 2015. The survey was in Dutch and intended for all the employees at Noorderpoort (so not only for the educational staff). Items that were used to measure this variable are: “I am enjoying my work”, “I am satisfied with my tasks at
Noorderpoort” and “I am satisfied with my supervisor” and all the items were asked on a 10-point scale with different anchors. Cronbach’s Alpha was not communicated to Noorderpoort. The response rate of the teachers was 68% (SD = 0.2) in the schoolyear 12/13, and 73% (SD = 0.2) in schoolyear 14/15.
Student satisfaction. The only subjective measurement of student outcome was
March each year. This questionnaire consisted of questions like “Which grade should you give to you teacher?” and could be answered on a scale from 1 to 10. This aspect was measured by three items (α12/13 = 0.85, α13/14 = 0.68 , α14/15 = 0.91). The response rate was
60% (SD12/13 = 0.2, SD13/14 = 0.1) in 12/13 and 13/14 and 72% (SD = 0.1) the next year. Graduation rate. This measurement was one of the objective student outcomes and
involved the percentage of the students that graduated in relationship to all the students that could have graduated that year. The rates were published half a year after graduation, so for this study the rates of 12/13 and 13/14 have been analysed.
Student absenteeism. Absenteeism was measured by the teachers’ administration of
the times that the student did not attend class. In this research, the focus of absenteeism was the percentage of student that is absent without a legitimate reason. This was also an objective student outcome measurement.
Dropout. The last objective student outcome was dropout, which included the
percentage of the students who left their education before graduation.
Control variables. The possible control variables that were measured were aspects that
were related to the teachers (gender, number, amount of FTE’s, years of experience), to the students (gender, number, age) and number of programs and levels per team.
Data-analysis
Results
Relation between teachers’ job satisfaction with objective vs subjective student outcomes
The first analysis was done to examine the relationship between the job satisfaction of the teachers and subjective or objective student outcomes. Hypothesis 1 predicted a stronger relationship for subjective than for objective student outcomes.
Correlations. The means, standard deviations and correlations of teachers’ job
satisfaction, objective student outcomes, subjective student outcomes and possible control variables are presented in Table 2 and 3. In Table 2 the relations of the variables measured in 12/13 are presented and in Table 3 the relations of the same variables measured in 14/15 are presented. Some variables had the same pattern of the correlations in both years, but there were also some relations with a different pattern.
For subjective outcomes, students’ satisfaction, most variables were correlated in the same way. Students’ satisfaction was positively related to number of teachers (r12/13 = .29 and
r14/15 = .28, p < .05) and negatively correlated to the number of programs (r12/13 = -.36 and
r14/15 = -.39, p < .05), and number of levels (r = -.37 , p < .01). This subjective outcome was
also negatively related to years of teaching experience of the team (r = -.33, p < .05) and the percentage of male students (r = -.34, p < .05), but these relations were only significant in the schoolyear 14/15.
Table 2. Correlations for the year 2012-2013
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Number of programs 4.80 3.23 1
2. Number of levels 1.98 0.81 .65** 1
3. Number of teachers 17.43 7.54 -.16 -.19 1
4. Percentage of female teachers 0.47 0.26 -.31* -.38** .31* 1
5. Years of experience 12.77 4.76 -.06 -.10 .08 .04 1
6. Number of students 245.76 126.50 -.05 -.06 .70** .11 .25^ 1
7. Percentage of male students 0.50 0.35 .21 .33 .37** -.84** -.05 -.13 1
8. Age of students 22.47 3.81 -.08 .06 .09 .28* -.11 .25^ -.16 1 9. Graduation rate 0.70 0.14 .16 .07 .05 -.05 -.14 -.31* -.03 -.10 1 10. Absenteeism 0.13 0.11 .23 .16 -.05 -.09 -.13 -.24 .13 .07 .03 1 11. Dropout 0.10 0.06 .13 .16 -.14 .07 .16 .06 -.06 .30* -.53* .20 1 12. Students’ satisfaction 6.57 0.46 -.36* -.37** .29* .24 .12 -.04 -.19 -.17 .03 -.31* -.06 1 13. Job satisfaction 6.69 0.85 .03 -.01 -.24* -.27* -.03 -.39* .22 -.38* .10 .30^ .08 .33* 1 Note. ^ = p<.10, * = p<.05, ** = p<.01
Table 3. Correlations for the year 2014-2015
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Number of programs 4.80 3.23 1
2. Number of levels 1.98 0.81 .65** 1
3. Number of teachers 19.76 8.70 -.14 -.18 1
Finally, job satisfaction of the teachers was significantly negatively correlated to the number of teachers (r = -.24, p < .05), the percentage of female teachers (r = -.27, p < .05), number of students (r = -.39, p < .05) and age of students (r = -.38, p < .05) in schoolyear 12/13, but these relations were insignificant in the schoolyear 14/15. Of the student outcomes, only the students’ satisfaction was positively related to job satisfaction of teachers in both years (r12/13= .33 and r14/15 = .35, p < .05). By inspecting the means it also appeared that the
job satisfaction of the teachers has increased, whereas the standard deviations has decreased. In schoolyear 12/13 the job satisfaction of teachers was 6.69 (SD = 0.85) and in 12/15 it was 7.24 (SD = 0.54).
Control variables. To test the hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were
performed. To identify the relative importance of the predictor variable(s) per team, some variables were controlled for. The regression included multiple control variables and for consistency all the regressions included the same control variables. Which of the control variables were included was based on the mutual overlap of the variables and on theoretical grounds. To examine which variables had mutual overlap, the correlations presented in Tables 2, 3, 5 and 6 were examined.
The number of programs and the number of levels were highly correlated (r = .65, p < .01) and they were related to the same variables in a similar pattern. For example the number of programs (r = -.36, p < .05) and to number of levels (r = -.37, p < .01) are both negatively related students’ satisfaction in 12/13. Given the mutual overlap of these two variables only the number of levels was included as control variable.
Two other control variables that were highly related were the number of teachers and the number of students, especially when measured in the same schoolyear (r12/13= .70 and
of teachers was more strongly correlated to the variables so this was the second control variable in the regression analyses.
The third control variable was the percentage of female teachers. Research has found evidence that gender is related to job satisfaction, so it was important to control for this before drawing conclusions about other relations. The percentage of female teachers was strongly negatively correlated to percentage of male students (r12/13= -.84, p < .01 and r14/15 = -.79, p <
.05). So of these two aspects only the percentage of female teachers was added in the regression analyses as control variable.
The last two measured control variables were teaching experience and the mean age of students. These two were theoretically very different from the other control variables and did not correlate strongly with other control variables. Teaching experience was only positively related to number of students in both years (r = .25, p < .05) . The age of the students was positively related to the percentage of female teachers (r12/13= .28, p < .05 and r14/15 = .24, p <
.10) and the number of students (r12/13= .25, p < .10 and r14/15 = .29, p < .05) . Both of these
variables were added as control variables in the regression analyses.
So for each regression analysis the control variables were number of levels, number of teachers, percentage of female teachers, experience of teachers and age of students. The control variables were measured in multiple years. The measurement of the control variables which were related to teachers (number of teachers, percentage of female teachers and experience of teachers) were included of the same year that the job satisfaction of teachers were included in the regression. For the mean age of students, the measurement was used of the year that the main student outcomes was included in the regression analysis.
Regression analysis for subjective vs objective outcomes. To examine hypothesis 1,
satisfaction was the dependent variable in both analyses and this analysis has been done for both years. The results were presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Regression coefficients for the regression with job satisfaction of teacher as dependent variable
Schoolyear 12/13 Schoolyear 14/15
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Constant 8.62** 1.90 6.72** -0.50
Control variables
Number of levels -0.07 -0.10 0.15 0.17 Number of teachers 0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 Percentage of female teachers -0.57 -0.70 -0.30 -0.40 Experience of teachers 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05* Age of students -0.06^ -0.05^ 0.00 0.00 Main effects Graduation rate 0.71 - Absenteeism 2.55* 1.17 Dropout 2.69 -2.00 Students’ satisfaction 0.85** 1.12** Models R square .20 .48 .22 .54 R square change .28* .32* Note: ^ = p<.10, * = p<.05, ** = p<.01
In line with the hypothesis, most of the objective measures were not related to job satisfaction of teachers, only absenteeism in 12/13 (b = 2.76, p < .05), but not in 14/15. Satisfaction of student had almost the same positive relationship with the job satisfaction of the teachers in both years (b12/13 = 0.78, p < .01, b14/15 = 0.81, p < .05). So these results were in
line with hypothesis 1, and this hypothesis was accepted. The positive relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction is stronger for subjective measurements of student outcomes than the objective measurement of student outcomes.
Prediction of student outcomes by job satisfaction of teachers the previous year
Table 5. Correlations between job satisfaction 12/13, student outcomes 13/14 and possible control variables.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Number of programs1 4.80 3.23 1
2. Number of levels1 1.98 0.81 .65** 1
3. Number of teachers 12/131 17.43 7.54 -.16 -.19 1
4. Percentage of female teachers 12/131 0.47 0.26 -.31* -.38** .31* 1
5. Experience of teachers 12/131 12.77 4.76 -.01 -.10 .08 .04 1
6. Number of students 13/141 247.90 132.05 -.10 -.13 .74** .019 .27^ 1
7. Percentage of male students 13/141 0.52 0.34 .20 .33* -.39** -.84** -.01 -.21 1
8. Age of students 13/141 21.46 3.64 -.05 .05 .08 .25 -.13 .29* -.15 1 9. Graduation rate 13/14 0.72 0.13 -.04 .05 .08 .10 -.24 -.27^ -.19 -.12 1 10. Absenteeism 13/14 0.09 0.09 -.12 -.10 -.04 -.06 -.31* -.26^ -.04 -.11 .21 1 11. Dropout 13/14 0.10 0.07 .23 .15 -.14 .02 .13 .03 -.05 .26^ -.43* -.07 1 12. Student’s satisfaction 13/14 6.75 0.57 -.17 -.02 .27^ .18 -.07 .22 -.28* -.03 .01 .24 -.14 1 13. Job satisfaction 12/13 6.69 0.85 -.03 .-01 -.24* -.27^ -.03 -.34* .22 -.36* .13 .34* .00 .16 1 Note. ^ = p<0.10, * = p<0.05, ** = p<.01 Table 6. Correlations for the year 13/14 and 14/15
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Number of programs 4.80 3.23 1 2. Number of levels 1.98 0.81 .65** 1 3. Number of teachers 14/15 19.76 8.70 -.14 -.18 1
4. Percentage of female teachers 14/15 0.52 0.25 -.31* -.35* .35* 1
5. Experience of teachers 14/15 11.98 4.46 .12 -.04 .06 .00 1 6. Number of students 13/14 247.90 132.05 -.10 -.13 .71** .12 .31* 1
7. Percentage of male students 13/14 0.52 0.34 .20 .33* -.39** -.86** -.11 -.21 1 8. Age of students 13/14 21.46 3.64 -.05 .05 .11 .26^ -.07 .29* -.15 1
9. Graduation rate 13/14 0.72 0.13 -.04 .05 .14 .22 -.03 -.27^ -.19 -.12 1 10. Absenteeism 13/14 0.09 0.09 -.12 -.10 .04 -.01 -.24 -.26^ -.04 -.11 .21 1 11. Dropout 13/14 0.10 0.07 .23 .15 -.23 .01 .13 -.03 -.05 .26^ -.43* -.07 1 12. Students’ satisfaction 13/14 6.75 0.57 -.17 -.02 .29* .10 -.04 .22 -.28* -.03 .01 .24 -.15 1 13. Job satisfaction of teacher 14/15 7.26 0.52 -.13 .13 -.15 -.21 .22 -.01 .08 .19 -.10 .28 .15 .40* 1
Correlations. Firstly the correlations among teachers’ job satisfaction in 12/13, student
outcomes in 13/14 and possible control variables were examined. Table 5 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations for these variables. Job satisfaction of teachers in 12/13 was only positively related to absenteeism in the next year (r = .34, p < .05). The other student outcomes were not significantly related to job satisfaction of teachers in the previous year.
The main variables were also related to some control variables. Job satisfaction of teachers was negatively related to the number of students (r = -.34, p < .05), the number of teachers (r = -.24, p < .10), the percentage of female teachers (r = -.27, p < .10), and the mean age of the students the next year (r = -.36, p < .05). Students’ satisfaction was positively related to the number of teachers (r = .27, p < .10), and negatively related to the percentage of male students (r = -.28, p < .05). Absenteeism was negatively related to the number of
students (r = -.26, p < .10), and the experience of teachers (r = -.31, p < .05). Graduation and dropout were both related to one control variable; the former was negatively related to the number of students (r = -.27, p < .10) and the latter was positively related to the age of students (r = .26, p < .10).
Regression. Hypothesis 2a, which was stated “There is a positive relationship
Table 7. Regression coefficients for the regression for predicting student outcomes in 2013/2014
Graduation rate Absenteeism Dropout Students’ satisfaction
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Constant 0.44 0.09 0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.01 2.06 1.73
Control variables
Number of levels 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 Number of teachers 12/13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 Percentage of female teachers 12/13 0.08 0.10 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.37 0.45 Experience of teachers 12/13 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 Age of students 13/14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 Student outcome 12/13 0.57** 0.56** 0.67** 0.67** 1.10** 1.10** 0.61* 0.54* Predictor variable Job satisfaction 12/13 0.04 0.00 -0.01 0.09 Models R square .45 .49 .73 .73 .70 .70 .30 .31 R square change .03 .00 .00 .01 Note. ^ = p < .10, * = p < .05, ** = p<.01
The student outcome of the previous year explained some variance in the student outcome the next year for all the student outcomes, namely graduation rate (b = 0.57, p < .01), absenteeism (b = 0.67, p < .01), dropout (b = 1.10, p < .01), and student satisfaction (b = 0.61, p < .05). All the other control variables did not explain any variation in the student outcome. By adding the factor job satisfaction of the teachers of the previous year, no extra variance was explained for any of the student outcomes (R2 change graduation rate = .03, R2 changeabsenteeism
= .00, R2 changedropout = .00, R2 changestudents’ satisfaction = .01, all p >.05 ), so job satisfaction of
the teachers did not predict any of the variation in the student outcomes the next year. No evidence was found that the job satisfaction of teachers predicted the student outcomes of the next year; hypothesis 2a was rejected.
Prediction of job satisfaction of teacher by student outcomes of the previous year
To examine hypothesis 2b (a positive relationship exists between the student outcomes and the teachers’ job satisfaction the next year), the student outcomes of 13/14 and job
satisfaction of 14/15 are inspected.
Correlations. The first step was again examining the correlations, which were
13/14, job satisfaction of teacher in 14/15 and all the possible control variables were included in this table. The students’ satisfaction of the previous year was positively correlated to job satisfaction of teachers (r = .39, p < .05). None of the objective student outcomes was related to the job satisfaction of the teachers.
None of the control variables was related to the teachers’ job satisfaction. The number of students was negatively related to the graduation rate (r = -.27, p < .10). The students’ satisfaction was related to the percentage of male students (r = - .28, p <.05). The student outcome absenteeism was negatively related to number of students (r = - .26, p < .10) and the age of students was positively related to the dropout of students (r = .26, p < .10).
Regression. The examine the second part of hypothesis 2, which is about the
prediction of the job satisfaction of teachers by the student outcomes the previous year, several regressions were performed. The results are presented in Table 8. Model 1 of each student outcome consisted of the same control variables, but not all the coefficients are the same. This was explained by the missing data of the student outcomes of some teams.
Table 8. Regression coefficients for the regression for predicting job satisfaction in 2014/2015
By graduation rate By absenteeism By dropout By students’ satisfaction
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Constant 4.07 4.22 4.42** 3.95** 4.07** 4.21** 4.07** 2.65*
Control variables
Number of levels 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 Number of teachers 14/15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 Percentage of female teachers 14/15 -0.17 -0.13 -0.49 -0.34 -0.17 -0.16 -0.17 -0.39 Experience of teachers 12/13 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 Age of students 13/14 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 Job satisfaction 12/13 0.27* 0.28* 0.21^ 0.20 0.27* 0.28* 0.27* 0.18^ Predictor variable Student outcome 13/14 -0.58 2.98 -0.97 0.31^ Models R square .41 .45 .36 .39 .28 .29 .28 .38 R square change .04 .03 .01 .10^ Note. ^ = p<.10, * = p<.05, ** = p<.01
variable was added, this coefficient changed (for students’ satisfaction b = 0.18, p < .10). All the other control variables were not significantly related to job satisfaction of the teachers. Of the student outcomes only the students’ satisfaction explained a part of the variance in the job satisfaction of the teachers (R2change = .10, p < .10). There was a positive relationship between the students’ satisfaction and the teachers’ job satisfaction the next year (b = 0.31, p < .10), so hypothesis 2b was accepted for subjective student outcomes, but rejected for objective student outcomes.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to gain insight into the relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and student outcomes. It was expected that job satisfaction of teachers is more strongly related to subjective than objective student outcomes (hypothesis 1). Another aspect that was addressed in this paper is the causality between student outcomes and teachers’ satisfaction. The hypothesis was that the job satisfaction of the teachers predicted student outcomes more than that student outcomes predicted job satisfaction of teachers the next year (hypothesis 2). These two hypotheses have been examined at Noorderpoort, a senior
secondary vocational education school. Aggregated data was available for 50 teams of the schoolyears 12/13, 13/14 and 14/15.
The findings of these study support hypothesis 1, job satisfaction of teachers was more strongly related to subjective student outcomes than objective student outcomes. This is in line with the results of Rowold, Brogmann and Bormann (2014) who found this result by studying leaders and followers. The fact that subjective outcomes are more strongly related to job satisfaction of teachers can be due to emotional contagion, which is a process of copying the emotions of the others (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson, 1993).
The direction of causality has not often been examined in previous work. Most evidence suggest that job satisfaction of teachers influences student outcomes (Caprara et al., 2006), which can be explained by teacher self-efficacy: satisfied teachers are more motivated to improve their teaching skills, which lead to higher self-efficacy. This in turn leads to higher student outcomes. This study did not confirm a positive relationship from job satisfaction of teachers to student outcomes, but gave indications for the causal relationship in the other direction; student satisfaction was related to job satisfaction of the teachers the next year. An explanation for finding no support for a causal relationship between the job satisfaction of the teachers to the student achievement can be that this study included senior vocational
control the time and resources of the student all the time, but only a few hours a week. Lewis (2000) has found that these aspects are related to emotional contagion for leader-follower relationship. So that can explain the fact that the emotional contagion was not as strong (Motell & Reebe, 2000) as when the students would be educated by one teacher.
For the causality from student achievement to job satisfaction of teachers, only the students’ satisfaction of the previous year explained a part of the variance in job satisfaction of the teachers. This is in line with Carprara et al. (2006) who found that objective student outcomes do not predict job satisfaction of teachers. An explanation is that objective student outcomes are for example more strongly related to ability and motivation of the student and less to the satisfaction of the teacher. The findings of this study are not in line with manager performance to employee satisfaction: Netemeyer et al. (2010) found a positive relationship between those two aspects. It can be due to the fact that the relationships between a manager and the employees and between teacher and the student students are not exactly the same. An employee usually has one manager whereas a student has multiple teachers.
The positive relationship between subjective student outcomes and job satisfaction of teachers the next year can also be related to emotional contagion, but then the other way around. If students display positive emotions, it is more likely that the teacher copies these emotions. Another explanation of this positive relationship is that the teachers of satisfied students are more motivated to go to work, so they have higher scores on job satisfaction, because motivation is one of the aspects that is related to job satisfaction of teachers (Carprara et al., 2003).
Implications
that the behavior of students also influences teachers’ satisfaction. So not only working conditions are related to teachers’ satisfaction, but also the behavior of students. To find out if more characteristics of students are related to teachers’ satisfaction, more research needs to be done to this topic. This bottom-up effect is also interesting from the perspective of leadership. The results of this study suggested that followers may be able to influence affective reactions of leaders. It is useful to examine this more and to gain more insight to this bottom-up
process.
This research also contributes to the current literature about emotional contagion. The first theory of emotional contagion was focused on the contagion of emotions between
individuals (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson, 1993). Some researchers broadened this theory by emotional contagion in groups, top-down and bottom-up. Top-down means that the leaders’ mood is spread among the members of the group and bottom-up is this process from the members to the leader. Most evidence supports the process top-down (Barsade & Gibson, 2007), but the findings of this study do not support a top-down process. Not a lot of research has been done on the process bottom-up, but Tee (2013) manipulated the collective mood of followers and found that this was related to the mood of the leader. The current study support this relationship, but did not manipulate the collective mood of the followers. So this study gives some implications that emotional contagion also happens bottom-up in the field.
Besides the theoretical implications, this research has also some practical implications. The results of this study suggested that high student satisfaction may raise teacher
student satisfaction is an important aspect, is because of the negative relationship to absenteeism; the higher the satisfaction, the lower the absenteeism for a team is.
Factors that are related to higher satisfaction are fewer programs and levels per team of teachers and more teachers per team. Another factor that is related to higher scores is fewer male students, but for the practice it is not desirable to influence gender distributions among students. But for the composition of the teachers teams it is favourable that more teachers are involved in one team, but not too many levels or programs per team. It seems that students prefer multiple teachers, who only teach a limited number of programs. Teaching fewer programs can be related to being more focused as a teacher, and multiple teachers can be related to more attention for the students or more variation of teachers and their teaching skills and methods. Unfortunately, this study included aggregated data, so these conclusions cannot be made by this study, but is interesting for future research.
Limitations and further research
Besides some theoretical and practical implications this research has some several limitations. This research was done at Noorderpoort, so these results are only applicable to Noorderpoort and similar educational institutions. To increase the generalizability of these results, more and different types of schools have to be examined. Another factor is that not many teams were involved in this research. This limits statistical power as well as may reduce the stability of certain results. Future research with more teams therefore is desirable.
Although this study focused on the issue of causality, it cannot make any definitive conclusions about causality. The results of this study only gives indications of the direction of the relationship, but third variables may play a role, like ability of students, that can
year. So it will be useful to influence the satisfaction of half of the students and see if that is related to the job satisfaction of the teachers the next year.
Another limitation of this research is that the data was only available at the team level. So the distributions of the variables are not clear, but can influence the researched
relationships. It is possible that the age of students is related to students’ satisfaction, but is not found in this study. It is possible this has not been founc, because the mean age of the students and mean scores of student’ satisfaction are examined. So by using individual data, more information can be gathered about possible underlying relationships. Another limitation with regard to the data, is that job satisfaction data was only available for every second year. So when there was controlled for job satisfaction, it was controlled for job satisfaction two years earlier. An effect of this time gap is that the relationship between previous and current job satisfaction was weaker, and perhaps this is the reason why other variables (e.g. student satisfaction) had stronger effects.. The last limitation of this study is that the control variable quality of collaboration was not measured. As mentioned by Ronfeldt et al. (2015), teacher teams with a higher quality of collaboration have higher student achievements.
research it is interesting to examine if collective efficacy plays a role in the relationship between student outcomes and job satisfaction of teachers. It may be especially interesting to examine how collective efficacy is distributed in a team of teachers; is it important that all teachers have the same sense of collective efficacy, or is the mean score more important? And what are the factors that are related to collective efficacy in a team of teachers? Team
characteristics like group size, years of experience, but also affective factors like satisfaction of team members, quality rate of collaboration and commitment to the group may play a role.
Conclusion
The goal of this study was to gain insight into the relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and student outcomes. This research support that job satisfaction of teachers is more strongly related to subjective student outcomes than to objective student outcomes. Findings also indicate a positive relationship between students’ satisfaction and job
satisfaction of teachers the next year, but no support was found for the relationship from job satisfaction of teachers to student outcomes the next year.
As already mentioned, all senior secondary vocation education will receive money, which they can spent for extra trainings for the teachers (Berentsen, 2014). But based on this research, would it not be better to spent it to increase the satisfaction of the students?
References
Arifin, H. M. (2015). The Influence of Competence, Motivation, and Organisational Culture to High School Teacher Job Satisfaction and Performance. International Education Studies, 8(1), 38-45.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of Human Agency Through Collective Efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why Does Affect Matter in Organizations? Academy Of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36-59.
doi:10.5465/AMP.2007.24286163
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The Collective Construction of Work Group Moods. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 197-231.
Belanger, C. H., & Longden, B. (2009). The effective teacher's characteristics as perceived by students. Tertiary Education And Management, 15(4), 323-340.
Berentsen, L. (2014). Extra geld voor betere mbo-scholen. Financieel Dagblad. Retrieved from http://fd.nl/economie-politiek/115665/extra-geld-voor-betere-mbo-scholen. Brown, K. M., Anfara, V. J., & Roney, K. (2004). Student Achievement in High Performing,
Suburban Middle Schools and Low Performing, Urban Middle Schools: Plausible Explanations for the Differences. Education And Urban Society, 36(4), 428-456. Butt, G., Lance, A., Fielding, A., Gunter, H., Rayner, S., & Thomas, H. (2005). Teacher job
satisfaction: Lessons from the TSW Pathfinder Project. School Leadership & Management, 25(5), 455-471.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821-832. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.821
achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473–490.
Chaplain, R. P. (2008). Stress and Psychological Distress among Trainee Secondary Teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28(2), 195-209.
Cockburn, A. D., & Haydn, T. (2004). Recruiting and retaining teachers: Understanding why teachers teach. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361-368. doi:10.1037/a0015952
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189-1204. doi:10.1037/a0029356
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E. J., & Tse, H. M. (2009). What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately
determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 571-585. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.009
DUO (2014). Arbeidsmarktcijfers middelbaar beroepsonderwijs. Retrieved from www.onderwijsincijfers.nl/kengetallen/mbo/personeelmbo/arbeidsmarkt. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current
Directions. Psychological Science, 2(3), 96-99. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953 Hatfield, E., Carpenter, M., & Rapson, R. L. (2014). Emotional contagion as a precursor to
108-122). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659180.003.0008
Huang, C. (2012). Discriminant and Criterion-related Validity of Achievement Goals in PredictingAcademic Achievement: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 48–73.
Johns. G. (1997). Contemporary research on absence from work: correlates, causes and consequences. International Review for Industrial and Organiational Psychology, 12, 115-173.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741-756.
Knox, J. A., & Anfara, V. J. (2013). Understanding job satisfaction and its relationship to student academic performance. Middle School Journal (J3), 44(3), 58-64.
Landers, E., Alter, P., & Servilio, K. (2008). Students' Challenging Behavior and Teachers' Job Satisfaction. Beyond Behavior, 18(1), 26-33.
Lanouette, M. (2012). Ten traits of highly effective instructors. Techniques: Connecting Education And Careers (J3), 87(6), 52-54.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 21(Spec Issue), 221-234.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<221::AID-JOB36>3.0.CO;2-0
motivation at work. The International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 22(4), 963-980. doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.555136
Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers' Job Satisfaction: Analyses of the Teacher Follow- Up Survey in the United States for 2000-2001. Teaching And Teacher Education: An International Journal Of Research And Studies, 24(5), 1173-1184.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(69)90013-0.
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal Of
Education, 79(4), 33-53.
Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A. (2000). Emotional Contagion in the Classroom: An Examination of How Teacher and Student Emotions Are Related.
Noorderpoort.nl (2015). Over Noorderpoort. Wie wij zijn. Retrieved from http://www.noorderpoort.nl/overnoorderpoort/Paginas/Default.aspx.
Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. I., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2010). Store manager performance and satisfaction: Effects on store employee performance and satisfaction, store customer satisfaction, and store customer spending growth. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 530-545. doi:10.1037/a0017630
Pounder, D. G. (1999). Teacher Teams: Exploring Job Characteristics and Work-Related Outcomes of Work Group Enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 317-48.
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475-514. doi:10.3102/0002831215585562.
performance in profit versus nonprofit organizations? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25(2), 147-164. doi:10.1002/nml.21116
Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis
results. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454–499.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 1-17.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal Of
Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Spinath, B., Eckert, C., & Steinmayr, R. (2014). Gender differences in school success: What are the roles of students’ intelligence, personality and motivation? Educational Research, 56(2), 230-243. doi:10.1080/00131881.2014.898917
Tahir, S., & Sajid, S. M. (2014). Job satisfaction among college teachers: A comparative analysis. IUP Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 13(1), 33-50.
Tee, E. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Paulsen, N. (2013). The influence of follower mood on leader mood and task performance: An affective, follower-centric perspective of
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 496-515. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.005
Tee, E. J. (2015). The emotional link: Leadership and the role of implicit and explicit emotional contagion processes across multiple organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 654-670. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.05.009
Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff.
American Journal of Education, 110, 354–388.
Journal Of Educational Research, 99(4), 247-254.
Walker, R. J. (2008). Twelve characteristics of an effective teacher: A longitudinal, qualitative, quasi-research study of in-service and pre-service teachers' opinions. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 61-68.
