Content uploaded by Umut Birkan Özkan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Umut Birkan Özkan on Mar 28, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Vol. 7, Iss. 3, 2022, pp. 1-23
TEACHERS' JOB SATISFACTION: MULTILEVEL
ANALYSES OF TEACHER, SCHOOL, AND
PRINCIPAL EFFECTS
Umut Birkan Özkan1
National Defence University, Turkey
Ertan Akgenç
National Defence University, Turkey
Abstract
Teachers' job satisfaction (TJS) can be defined as the emotional reactions of teachers
to their jobs or teaching roles. In this study, it is aimed to investigate the determinants of
teachers, principal and school-based factors on job satisfaction of teachers. In this study,
which is based on relational survey model, secondary data obtained from TALIS-2018
evaluation were analyzed with Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling. 196 principals and
3952 teachers from Turkey who participated in TALIS-2018 survey constitute the sample
of the research. According to the results of the study, teachers' age, gender, career
preferences and participation in professional development activities, the locations of the
schools they work in and the type of school (state / private) and the gender of the school
principals were found to be determinants of job satisfaction. Teachers' work experience,
having foreign students in their classes, school principal's age and work experience did not
affect teachers' job satisfaction.
Keywords: teacher job satisfaction, multilevel analysis, multilevel structural equation
modelling, principal effects, school effects, TALIS
1 Correspondence: uozkan@msu.edu.tr
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 2
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Introduction
21st century skills have become sparks that trigger changes in educational policies
and practices, and schools should provide the knowledge and skills that young people need
to succeed in the 21st century. There is a widespread consensus that teachers are the main
factor contributing to the acquisition of these knowledge and skills. Job satisfaction of
teachers has a significant importance for having positive teaching styles and it enables and
supports meaningful teaching and learning (Parveen & Bano, 2019). Teachers with high job
satisfaction are more likely to be eager to improve their teaching efforts and skills (Knox &
Anfara Jr., 2013). Job satisfaction of teachers plays an important role in students' learning
(Ainley & Carstens, 2018; Michaelowa & Wittmann, 2007; Ostroff, 1992), attitudes towards
students' motivation and beliefs (Salehi et al., 2015), and the continuation of teachers'
profession (Bogler 2002; Houchins et al., 2004; Ingersoll, 2001). In addition, teachers' job
satisfaction has come to the forefront in recent years with the effect of addressing this issue
in international education evaluation studies and efforts are being made to increase teachers'
job satisfaction. In order for these efforts to give positive results, it is necessary to
determine which factors may affect teacher job satisfaction. The fact that teachers are one of
the occupational groups that play an important role in the future of the countries makes it
important to determine the factors that affect teachers' job.
Regarding the facts that Turkey has a young population and accepts the greatest
number of refugees in the world and provides education for them, it could be suggested that
Turkey is one of the most ideal laboratories for research of education. TALIS-2018
(Teaching and Learning International Survey), which is based on the data of Turkey,
focuses on examining components of the framework that job satisfaction displays in
accordance with the requirements of teaching profession (Torres, 2019), working on the
multi-cultural country sample, like Turkey. Therefore, this study, which takes into
consideration various working conditions originating from teachers, principals and schools,
tries to identify the most prominent factors that determine teachers' job satisfaction.
Although there are many studies about the relationship between working conditions and
job satisfaction in other professions (Tang, 2020), studies related to teaching profession are
relatively rare (Ferguson et al., 2012). Taking into account the variables of teachers,
principals and schools, this study also tries to fill this gap in the literature with evidence
obtained from the secondary analysis of TALIS data.
Three research questions guided this study:
(1) Are there any significant and direct relationships between the teacher's age,
gender, career choice, work experience, participation in professional development activities,
the presence of foreign students in the classroom and the job satisfaction of the teacher?
(2) Are there any significant and direct relationships between the school
principal's age, gender, work experience and teacher's job satisfaction?
(3) Are there significant and direct relationships between the school's location
and type and the teacher's job satisfaction.
Theoretical Framework
Teachers’ Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is generally seen as emotional states caused by employees'
evaluating their work lives and can be defined as the degree of liking their jobs or being
happy with them. (Spector, 1997; Sun & Xia, 2018; Won & Chang, 2019). Job satisfaction is
conceptualized as a dynamic structure determined by the interaction among many factors.
(Yuh & Choi, 2017). Job satisfaction, which expresses the feelings perceived by employees
3 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
against their work, has both rational and emotional elements. (Borah, 2019). TJS can be
perceived as emotional reactions they give to their jobs or teacher roles. (Crisci et al., 2019;
Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Job satisfaction is a multidimensional structure due to the
nature of teaching profession (Torres, 2019). Malinen and Savolainen (2016) stated that the
research shows that teachers' job satisfaction is related to social and organizational factors,
cognitive factors and affective factors. According to Sharma and Jyoti (2006), factors that
affect a teacher's job satisfaction include internal and external factors, demographic factors,
and individual characteristics of the teacher and the school. Teachers' job satisfaction
includes external factors such as school and principal characteristics and internal factors
such as teacher's own characteristics.
Teacher-Level Effects on TJS
In a study by Kinman et al. (2011) involving six hundred and twenty-eight teachers
working in secondary schools in the UK, teaching experience was found to be positively
related to job satisfaction. As a result of the analysis conducted by Van Maele and Van
Houtte (2012) with the data of 2091 teachers in 80 secondary schools in Belgium, job
satisfaction was negatively related to their seniority. In a study conducted with 135
teachers in Taiwan, it was concluded that the level of education is an important determinant
of job satisfaction (Cheng & Ren 2010). According to Bevendum (2000), in order to achieve
job satisfaction; decent leadership, improvement in relative strength and working
standards, righteous rewarding and ample authority are of great importance.
Age Effect on TJS. A study in higher education was conducted by Saner and
Eyupoglu (2012) in order to determine the age and job satisfaction. MSQ (Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire) was applied to academics from five universities in North Cyprus.
It is mentioned in the article that how one feels about the nature of his/her job’s tasks is
related to intrinsic satisfaction while how s/he feels about the external factors such as the
job’s environment is related to extrinsic satisfaction. Though there is no significant
relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and age; there is a major variety in extrinsic
job satisfaction among academics in regard of age. The result of the study shows that older
educators are, in general, more satisfied than the younger ones.
The findings of another study (Clark et al., 1996) shows that until an educator
reaches the age of approximately 31, job satisfaction decreases and only after that age it
increases. As for payment, what teachers care is rank and their ages rather than their
genders and devoted holidays. In addition; as teachers get older, their satisfaction derived
from their occupation increases (Guo & Wang, 2017).
Yucel and Bektas (2012) suggest in their study that young teachers feel more
emotionally connected to their jobs, they embrace the institution’s problems and they are
likely to remain in the institution when their job satisfaction level is either high or low.
Moderate levels of job satisfaction are seen in older and self-confident teachers.
Shrestha (2019) conducted a study with 345 teachers and she concluded that older
teachers display more job satisfaction, hence, they have more commitment to the job,
leading the way to high performance. Masath (2015) explored the job satisfaction of
secondary school teachers regarding some age groups. It is stated in the research that there
is an increasing dissatisfaction of teaching profession among young teachers. In order to
find solutions to the problem, it is suggested that orientation activities should be realised
and that teacher-educators should form organisations to prepare young teachers to the
profession. The same case is valid for Albania. According to a study (Rapti & Karaj, 2012),
younger teachers are more dissatisfied.
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 4
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Newman (1978) conducted a research with ten elderly teachers. Those teachers
stated some differences among themselves and some younger teachers. They taught that
younger teachers were more energetic, were more willing, more informal and were closer to
the attitude of mind of the students. In the elderly teachers’ opinion, they were also
professionally full of zeal. However, some elderly teachers taught that novice teachers were
incapable. Newman stated that differences among teachers were related to the composition
of teaching dynamism rather than a change in individual educators over time.
Gender Effect on TJS. Using the data of 2202 teachers from New Brunswick
Elementary School Study by Ma and MacMillan (1999), the study showed that gender and
professional seniority were important in job satisfaction. According to this study, female
teachers were more satisfied than their male counterparts. Seniority showed a statistically
significant but negative effect on job satisfaction of teachers. Teachers who stayed longer in
the teaching profession were less satisfied with their professional roles.
A study of 362 teachers from 57 primary schools in Serbia showed that female
teachers had higher job satisfaction (Gligorović et al., 2014). Females in Indian education
sector are found to be more satisfied (Kumari et al., 2014). Another study (Ogedengbe et al.,
2018) came out with a similar conclusion. Mocheche et al. (2017) point out that, female
secondary school teachers in Kenya have higher satisfaction levels than males. The analysis
of a T-test conducted in Serbian primary schools also shows results in favor of female
teachers (Gligorovic et al., 2014). In a study conducted in Egyptian primary schools, male
teachers were reported to be more satisfied with their jobs (Fattah, 2010).
When a multivariate statistical analysis of a research concerning university teachers
in UK is examined (Oshagbemi, 2000), it is seen that merely gender does not affect
occupational satisfaction yet under certain ranks, gender affects occupational satisfaction of
university teachers and within those ranks, females were found to be more satisfied. It is
found out in primary schools of Bangladesh that female teachers start their profession more
eagerly yet both genders are dissatisfied with their jobs. Male teachers in Bangladesh attach
importance to having a guaranteed, prestigious job as well as having a social status
(Tasnim, 2006).
According to a study conducted in Cyprus (Menon & Reppa, 2011), female teachers
in Cyprus and in many other countries do not report more satisfaction in occupation than
male teachers do. Menon and Reppa (2011) state that women are reported to have little or
no confidence, contemplating that they need to have male behaviours and male style of
management in order to move forward in their careers.
Taking Visakhapatnam city as the base, results of Susmitha and Raghavaya’s (2018)
study show that female teachers were more satisfied with their jobs than males. Bentea and
Anghelache (2012) found out in their study that the hypothesis ‘Gender affects job
satisfaction’ is false. Akhtar et al. (2010) found that female teachers had more job
satisfaction than male teachers.
Career Effect on TJS. According to a study (Guo & Wang, 2017), for teachers’
satisfaction; organization system, reputation, working conditions, career development and
salary are the important factors. It is also found out in the study that male teachers are
more satisfied with career development than females. A study conducted with Australian
teachers showed that the minority group was the teachers who never taught of leaving or
changing their jobs. It was recommended that positive relationships should be boosted, job
security should be provided, teachers’ needs should be cared about and different alternatives
in teaching should be offered (Howes & Delahunty, 2015).
5 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
There was a study of UCL Institute of Education, conducted among 22 countries
and according to the answers of the four questions that were asked, the most dissatisfied
teachers were in England. The questions covered the issues of the satisfaction that teachers
had from their professions, whether they could recommend the profession to others,
whether they would like to remain in the profession. The causes of leaving the profession
were stated to be heavy workload, low pay and stable curriculum (Busby, 2018). Tickle’s
(2018) writing sheds light on the hardship of the teaching profession. She mentions some
teachers who had to get up very early in the mornings to do some paperwork, give lessons
and arrive at home in the late evening; who quit job after seventeen years because of
overstrain and who nearly had no chance to see and spare time for their own children. It is
stated that according to National Education Union Survey, only 20% of teachers did not
think of quitting profession. In relation, Tickle gives an example of a teacher by stating that
because of high stress levels, the teacher decided to change profession and work in hotel
business, never thinking of returning to teaching.
Job Experience Effect on TJS. When the job experience is considered, it is stated
that teachers working for a long time are happier with their jobs (Ogedengbe et al., 2018).
It was found that duration of teachers’ working years did not have any effect on job
satisfaction (Fattah, 2010). Tye and O’Brien (2002) state in their work that even though the
longer one continues teaching the harder it gets to quit the profession, teachers feel
battered. It is also mentioned that newly-joining teachers affect the motivation of teachers
who are already in the profession for a long time.
Bennett et al. (2013) discovered that both new and experienced teachers had joy of
teaching. Experienced teachers attributed the reason of their remaining the job to personal
and spiritual aspects. They stated that they liked shaping the characteristics of children and
that they were meant to sustain the job. In addition, teachers who left the profession
explained the reasons as such: untold workload, state and meeting requirements, insufficient
time to allocate for the children. According to the research, both novice and experienced
teachers think that managerial support and caring for children are of great importance to
staying in the profession.
Bivona (2002) states in her research that teachers who have at least ten years of
teaching experience are more optimistic towards teaching. It is also stated that experienced
teachers majored in education while only some of the novice teachers did so as they thought
majoring is a loss of time. Furthermore, it was found out that teacher training and
experience decrease teachers’ stress levels, enable them to feel adequate.
Professional development effect on TJS
Teacher Professional development is defined as structured learning related to one’s
profession, which changes teacher practices to make student learning better (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017). A study about professional support and its effects on teachers’ job
satisfaction indicates that professional support enhances teachers’ sense of belonging to the
profession (Singh & Billingsley, 1998). The study also indicates that if principals encourage
shared goals, values and professional development; an environment of unity and supportive
learning is formed.
Beaudry (2009) states that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs should be kept in mind if a
plan aiming to boost teacher satisfaction with professional development is to be
implemented. Bentea and Anghelache (2012) discovered that teachers are more satisfied
with their jobs if they achieve a professional position with the help of a regular professional
training which enables them to advance, get promotion, get recognised and have higher
amounts of salary.
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 6
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
In the study of Conley et al. (1998), what mattered for experienced teachers for their
job satisfaction was the promotion process whereas it was the evaluation process of the
principal for experienced teachers who did not participate in professional development
activities. Nasser and Shabti (2010) found out in their study that within different
participants, there were similar levels of satisfaction with the professional development
activities. Those participants’ opinions differed in terms of motivation and perspective of
participating in professional development activities.
According to a study conducted in Turkey (Bayar & Kosterelioglu, 2014), though a
number of teachers thought that professional development activities are of great source to
improve, most teachers reported dissatisfaction with those activities and did not intend to
participate. The researchers discovered the reasons for such a reluctance, which are; old and
traditional characteristics of the activities, lack of teacher involvement in the activities,
these activities’ falling short of teacher needs, irrelevance to real classroom context and the
low quality of the instructors of the activities.
Foreign Students Effect on TJS. Alismail (2016) states that pedagogy of racially
mixed classrooms have three dimensions which are; liberal, critical and conservative.
Conservative dimension regards those classrooms as an integration of students into society.
Liberal dimension praises diversity while critical dimension highlights social disparity over
multicultural classrooms. Alismail (2016) states that many teachers request more training
on multicultural classes and he suggests that a well-designed multicultural training is
essential for teachers.
TJS Principal-Level Effects on TJS
Effect of Principals’ Age on TJS. Eckman’s (2004) study indicated that male high
school principals had remained in the profession for a longer time than female principals did
despite the fact that male principals had less teaching experience and that they were the
same age as their female counterparts. It is also stated that as females also have a role of
‘mother’ or ‘wife’, they are reported to become principals when they get older. Sawati et al.
(2013) found out in their study that the leadership style does not have an effect on
principals’ age.
Effect of Principals’ Gender on TJS. Eckman (2004) contemplates that male
principals’ remaining in the profession longer is because of several factors one of which is
‘perception’. By this, it is meant that there are perceptions about professions related to
gender. For instance, while nursing, teaching etc. are regarded most suitable for females;
administrative roles are regarded most suitable for males. Another factor could be,
according to Eckman (2004), is societies’ expected roles for both men and women.
Ballou and Podgursky (1995) found out that female principals get higher evaluations
than male principals. In addition to that, female teachers regard female principals as more
assistive. The results of the study show that male teachers give higher rates to male
principals whereas female teachers perceive no difference between male and female
principals.
Ching Shum and Cheong Cheng (1997) state that as males and females have
different styles of management and taking the lead; leadership training prepared for females
may be a solution. Wangai (2015) found out in his study that according to the determined
leadership behaviours, male principals did better than their female counterparts.
Effect of Principals’ Job Experience on TJS. Ballou and Podgursky (1995) state
that despite the fact that principals who have more than 15 years of experience are
supported more by their faculties, most states regard a few years’ of experience enough.
7 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Shen et al. (2012) stated that a principal with a prior experience as a department’s head
leads to low teacher job satisfaction whereas a principal with a prior experience as a sports
coach or director leads to higher teacher job satisfaction. In addition, it was found that
school process was more significant than principals’ education and experience. Sawati et al.
(2013) found out in their study that there is no relationship between principals’ leadership
styles and experience.
School-Level Effects on TJS
Effect of School Location on TJS. Wang et al. (2017) stated in their study that
job satisfaction and involvement of teachers of rural are higher than those of urban.
Considering the factors such as psycho-social, economic etc., urban university teachers were
found to be more satisfied in the study of Showkat et al. (2013). According to the study of
Trentham and Schafer (1985), teachers in rural areas are more satisfied than teachers in
urban areas in terms of ethics and morality.
Derlin and Schneider (1994) found out that urban teacher satisfaction is related to
the teachers’ aims of providing their students with quality education whereas suburban
teacher satisfaction is related to learning about new teaching techniques, playing a part in
resolutions.
Effect of School Type on TJS. Torres (2019) used a set of data from the TALIS-
2013 to investigate the relationship between shared leadership, professional collaboration,
and teachers' job satisfaction in US schools. In this research, job satisfaction of teachers was
examined through two types of schools: state and private. As a result of the research, it was
observed that the difference of school type had no effect on teachers' job satisfaction.
The study of Susmitha and Raghavaya (2018) revealed the fact that teachers
working in public schools are happier with their jobs compared to teachers working in
private schools, which is because private school teachers feel more insecure, less
independent and have more problems with their payments provided by the institutions they
work for. The findings of Kapa and Gimbert's (2017) study showed how school demography
can affect teachers' satisfaction. School size and student population were found to be
effective on job satisfaction. Ahmed’s (2014) study is also in line with the former study,
illustrating that the total occupational satisfaction of public school teachers is higher than
private school teachers.
Akhtar et al. (2010) investigated a comparative study of job satisfaction among state
and private school teachers. In the study, five state and five private schools were
determined from Lahore region and 150 teachers were randomly selected from these
schools. They applied a 5-point Likert-type 25-item questionnaire to the selected teachers.
As a result, they made it clear that teachers in public schools were more satisfied than
teachers in private schools.
Tasdan and Tiryaki (2008), applied the ‘Job Satisfaction Scale of Education
Manager’ to 151 teachers in total from 12 schools, 6 of which were public schools and 6 of
which were private schools, which were affiliated to the ‘Trabzon National Education
Directorate’. The total scores of the private and public school teachers who participated in
the study on the job satisfaction scale were examined and a significant difference was
observed according to the type of school the teachers worked. As a result, it is stated that
job satisfaction level of teachers working in private school is higher than teachers working
in public school.
Papanastasiou and Zembylas (2005) compared differences in job satisfaction between
private and public kindergarten teachers in Cyprus. In addition, motivation factors that
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 8
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
affect job satisfaction of teachers and selection of teaching profession, factors of working
conditions of educational institutions and associations were discussed. As a result, they
found that private kindergarten teachers had less job satisfaction because the factors such as
working hours, salary amounts, holiday periods, working environments were in worse
conditions than state kindergarten teachers’.
The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
TALIS is a large-scale teacher, school leader and learning environment survey
conducted in 2008, 2013 and 2018 (Ainley & Carstens, 2018). TALIS-2018, in which the
level of professionalism in teaching and how relevant and interesting teachers find their
professions are examined, the knowledge and skills needed to teach, perceived prestige of
the profession, career-oriented, collaborative culture among teachers and the levels of
professional responsibility and autonomy of teachers and school leaders were analyzed
(OECD, 2019).
Benefiting from the data of TALIS-2018, in our study we focus on the factors that
are influential in job satisfaction of teachers in Turkey. Turkey participated in TALIS, the
study which is about school leaders, the work conditions of teachers at schools and their
education environment, for the first time in 2008 and participated again for the second time
in 2018.
Method
In this study, secondary data were analyzed from TALIS-2018 evaluation. It can be
said that the analysis of the secondary data is a research method that applies the same basic
research principles as the studies using the primary data and has some steps to be followed
(Johnston, 2017). While determining the method of this research, attention was paid to the
appropriateness of the sample to the research question, to include teacher job satisfaction in
the analyses together with the school principals, and to ensure the adequacy of the program
used to obtain unbiased findings after the analysis of the data.
Sample
The population size of the participating teachers in the TALIS was selected by using
stratified two-stage cluster sample design method in proportion to the sample size (Martin
et al., 2016). In the present study, 196 principals and 3952 teachers who represent the
schools of basic education in the second stage or at secondary school level, designated by
the International Education Classification Standard (International Standard Classification
of Education, ISCED),participating from Turkey to TALIS-2018 survey, form the sample of
the study (OECD, 2019). The data in the current study, using secondary data, were
accessed through the OECD website (As of July 15, 2019, the OECD listed on its website
http://www.oecd.org/education/talis/)
Data Collection
Turkey participated in TALIS research, which is held every five years, for the first
time in 2008 and for the second time in 2018. Arranged by the OECD, TALIS is the largest
international survey that asks teachers and school leaders about working conditions and
learning environments. More than 107,000 teachers at the national level, 200 schools per
country, 20 teachers per school and a school leader, responded to the survey (OECD, 2019).
Research questions or variables of studies using secondary data should represent variables
derived from primary data (Heaton, 2008; Long-Sutehall et al., 2011). In the present study,
9 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
as the first step of data collection, within-group and between-group variables were
determined from teacher and principal questionnaire. In the second step, the variables that
will determine the results to be obtained in accordance with the purpose of the research
were selected from the questionnaire of teachers and principals. In the last step, these data
were obtained from both questionnaires to explain the job satisfaction of teachers and
divided into two levels within the group and included in the analysis.
Data Analysis
In large scale evaluation studies such as TALIS, PISA, TIMSS, the data are complex
and hierarchical. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is widely used for analyzing or
resolving this data structure. SEM is a comprehensive statistical analysis method for
testing hypotheses about the relationships between latent and observed variables (Hoyle,
1995). In the theoretical model of structural equality developed by Jöreskog, the structural
part connects the latent variables simultaneously, and the measurement model part
expresses the latent variables with the observed variables (Kaplan, 2008). SEM is a
multivariate statistical analysis that is used to analyze data based on cause-effect
relationships and which is widespread in social, behavioral and commercial research and
which measures the causality on complex data structure. (Alkis, 2016; Barrett, 2007; Cha et
al., 2017).
Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling (MSEM) is used since SEM analysis is
insufficient for single factor data structures in multilevel cases. MSEM analyzes the
variables simultaneously within group and between groups and analyzes them with the help
of common covariance matrix (Muthén & Muthén, 1998; Schreiber, 2008). MSEM is the
analysis technique used for the analysis of models with complex data sets in social sciences,
behavioral sciences, international research (with comparative surveys) (Davidov et al., 2012;
Holtmann et al., 2016; Hox et al., 2012; Peugh & Enders, 2010). In short, MSEM is a
multivariate statistical method for clustered and complex data. Multi-level structural
equation modeling is expressed with the equations of;
Within group (Level 1),
yij=B0j+rj (1)
Between group (Level 2),
B0j= y0+u0j (2)
Here, B0j: represents the mean of the variable yij for class, rj: represents the error
whose mean is zero, variance is σ2, u0j: represents zero-average random effect, yij: represents
the result variable of observations (Acar & Ogretmen, 2012).
Clustered within group variables in multilevel structural equation modeling are
represented with variables such as class, student, teacher, etc., between group variables,
which include ingroup variables are represented with the variables of school, city, faculty,
country and alike. In addition, the categorical variables included in the analysis are ordered
from small to large, or the first variable expressed is fixed and interpreted by evaluating the
coefficient sign relative to the other variable. For example; In the MSEM analysis of gender
variable 1 = female and 2 = male, if a negative coefficient is found for the gender variable,
“female” variable is kept constant and it is concluded that “male” variable affects negatively.
In the same case, if a positive coefficient is obtained, the variable “woman” is again kept
constant and this time the “male” variable is said to have a positive effect.
In order to examine TALIS-2018 data with multi-level structural equation
modeling, firstly the results of the socio-demographic data obtained from the teacher and
principal questionnaire were obtained with IBM SPSS Statistic 21.0 version. After this
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 10
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
process, Mplus Version 5.1 program (Base Program and Combination Add-on 32-bit) was
used for multilevel structural equation modeling analysis. Mplus is a ready-made package
program for the analysis of various latent variable models and hierarchical data of both
continuous and categorical variables. This package program can analyze advanced, multi-
level and complex models (Muthén & Muthén, 1998; Schreiber, 2008).
00 10 1 20 2 30 3 40 4 50 5 60 6
ij
Y XXXXXX
γγγγγγγ
=++++++
01 7 02 8 03 9 04 10 05 11 0 j ij
XXXX X e
γγγγ γ τ
+ + + + + ++
(3)
Y : Teacher Job Satisfaction (Spss code: T3JOBSA)
X1 : Age (Spss code: TCHAGEGR)
X2 : Gender (Spss code: TT3G01)
X3 : Career (Spss code: TT3G08)
X4 : Job Experience (Spss code: TT3G11B)
X5 : Professional Development Activities (Spss code: TT3G25)
X6 : Foreign Students (Spss code: TT3G46)
X7 : Age of Principal (Spss code: PRAGEGR)
X8 : Gender of Principal (Spss code: TC3G01)
X9 : Job Experience of Principal (Spss code: TC3G04B)
X10 : School Location (Spss code: TC3G10)
X11 : School Type (Spss code: TC3G12)
The path diagram of the multi-level structural equation model showing the within
group and between group level established for teacher job satisfaction is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1
The path diagram of multi-level structural equality model established for teacher job satisfaction
11 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
For the validity of the model established for TALIS-2018 teacher job satisfaction, it
is necessary to evaluate the model's fit. There are four goodness of fit indices which are
preferred for multilevel structural equation models and presented to the researcher after the
Mplus package program analysis. The comparative fit index (CFI) evaluates the model fit or
adequacy by comparing the relationship between the model of the alternative hypothesis,
which is to be established in the research, and the model of the null hypothesis. The Tucker
Lewis Index (TLI) is the fit index which reveals findings based on the null hypothesis and is
interpreted as the amount of adjustment increase sensitive to the degree of freedom. For
CFI and TLI model fit assessment, good fit criteria should be over 0.97 for CFI and over
0.95 for TLI. Approximate Error Square Root of Squares Mean (RMSEA) measures the
mean squares of distance between observed and predicted matrices per degree of freedom
(Knoke, 2003). The Square Root of the Residual Squares Mean (SRMR) is the index
showing the mean residual covariance between the estimated covariance matrix of the mass
and the sample covariance matrices. When assessing model fit in RMSEA and SRMR, good
fit criteria should be less than 0.05 for both RMSEA and SRMR (Ayyildiz & Cengiz, 2006;
Cokluk et al., 2012; Hoyle, 1995; Kaplan, 2008; Marcoulides & Schumacker, 2013; Meydan
& Sesen, 2011).
One or more independent variables are represented by the coefficient expression
(R2), which indicates the level of fit of the model established for the dependent variable, and
explains the relationship of the independent variables in the dependent variable (Albayrak,
2005; Cameron & Windmeijer, 1997). The coefficient of determination (R2), which
calculates the variance explanation ratio of the dependent variable according to independent
variables, and the ratio of explaining teacher job satisfaction of the variables within and
between groups were obtained.
In the present study where teacher job satisfaction was examined, statistical
assumptions (normality, variance homogeneity, model fit, etc.) of the determined variables
were checked and assumption conditions were provided. The analysis of the missing data
was performed using Expectation Maximization (EM) method in accordance with the data
structure (Little & Rubin, 2019).
Results
Descriptive statistics of TALIS-2018 survey, in which teachers from Turkey
participated, and school principals are shown in Table 1. In Table 1, the mean of job
satisfaction score of teachers participating in TALIS-2018 study from Turkey is estimated
as 12.008. Mean of job satisfaction levels of teachers of the countries participating in
TALIS-2018 are 12.062. Mean of job satisfaction levels of teachers in 29 OECD member
countries participating in TALIS-2018 were calculated as 12.05.
Accordingly Table 1, the teachers’ job satisfaction levels in Turkey and the teachers'
job satisfaction levels in OECD member countries can be said to be close to each other.
When the variables within the group were examined, it was found that approximately half
(47%) of the teachers participating in the study were in the 30-39 age range, the ratio of
female teachers (57.8%) was higher than that of men (42.2%), the majority of teachers were
the ones who chose teaching as the first career option. It can also be said that the average of
job experience is 12.32 years and that most of the teachers (73%) think that participation in
professional development activities positively affects their professional lives and more than
half of the teachers (56%) have foreign students in their class.
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 12
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Table 1
TALIS-2018 Descriptive Statistics on the Specified Variable Sample from Turkey
M*- F
SD*-
%
Min.
Value
Max.
Value
Dependent
Variable
Job Satisfaction of Teachers(Y) 12.008* 2.32* 4.57 16.09
Within
-
group Variables
Age(X1)
Under the age of 25 (1)
65
2%
Ages between 25-29 (2)
739
19%
Ages between 30-39 (3)
1865
47%
Ages between 40-49 (4)
955
24%
Ages between 50-59 (5)
270
7%
The age of 60 and above (6)
58
1%
Gender (X2)
Female (1)
2286
57.8
Male (2)
1666
42.2
Career (X3)
Yes (1)
2521
64%
No (2)
1431
36%
Job Experience (X4)
12.32*
8.01*
0
43
Professional Development Activities (X5)
Had a positive effect (1)
2886
73%
Did not have a positive effect (2)
1066
27%
Foreign Students (X6)
Existent (1)
2200
56%
Non-existent (2)
1752
44%
Between-group Variables
Age of Principal (X7)
Under the age of 40 (1)
45
22%
Between the ages 40-49 (2)
105
54%
Between the ages 50-59 (3)
30
15%
The age of 60 and above (4)
16
8%
Gender of Principal (X8)
Female (1)
19
9.6%
Male (2)
177
90.4%
Job Experience of Principal (X9)
6.91*
6.70*
0
36
Location of School (X10)
Village or countryside (1)
33
17%
Small town (2)
10
5%
Town (3)
51
26%
City (4)
46
24%
Big city (5)
56
29%
Type of school (X11)
Public school (1)
180
91.9%
Private school (2)
16
8.1%
M: Mean, F: Frequency, SD: Standard Deviation, %: Percentages
13 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
When the between-group variables were examined, it was found that approximately
half of the principals (54%) participated in the study were in the 40-49 age range, the
majority (90.4%) of the principals participating in the study were men, the average work
experience of the principals was 6.91 years, and approximately half of the participating
schools (52%) were in cities and most of the schools (91.9%) were public schools.
Table 2 shows the goodness of fit statistics displaying the fit of the model of the
multi-level structural equation model established for teacher job satisfaction.
Table 2
Goodness of Fit Statistics for Multilevel Structural Equation Model
Goodness of fit index
The result obtained from the model
Criterion
CFI
1.000
≥0.97, good fit
TLI
1.000
≥0.95, good fit
RMSEA
0.000
≤0.05, good fit
SRMR
0.000
≤0.05, good fit
When Table 2 is examined, it is seen that TALIS 2018 research compliance
statistics for the established model which analyses job satisfaction of teachers participating
from Turkey, were calculated as CFI = 1.000> 0.97 and TLI = 1.000> 0.95, RMSEA =
0.000 <0.05 and SRM = 0.000 <0.05. According to these values, it could be suggested that
the multilevel structural equation model which was established for the assessment of job
satisfaction of teachers who participated in TALIS 2018 from Turkey showed good
agreement.
In Table 3, TALIS-2018 research results of the two-level models of multi-level
structural equation modeling analysis related to job satisfaction of teachers participating
from Turkey, is shown.
Table 3
MSEM Analysis Results of the Job Satisfaction of Teachers from Turkey Who Participated in the
Evaluation of TALIS-2018
Estimation SE
Estimation
/ SE
p
Dependent
Variable
Teacher Job Satisfaction (Y) 12.064 0.434 25.502 0.000
Within
-group
Variables
Age (X1)
0.094
0.033
2.838
0.005
Gender (X2)
-0.069
0.016
-4.228
0.000
Career (X
3
)
-0.214
0.016
-13.638
0.000
Job Experience (X4)
0.03
0.033
0.929
0.353
Professional Development Activities (X
5
)
-0.173
0.016
-10.879
0.000
Foreign Students (X6)
0.022
0.016
1.366
0.172
Between
-
group
Variables
Age of Principal (X7)
0.122
0.123
0.986
0.324
Gender of Principal (X8) 0.236 0.08 2.935 0.003
Job Experience of Principal (X9)
0.005
0.121
0.045
0.964
School Location (X10) 0.215 0.109 1.973 0.048
School Type (X11)
-0.194
0.065
-2.978
0.003
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 14
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
When Table 3 is examined, it is seen that the job satisfaction score of the teachers
participating TALIS-2018 research from Turkey is affected by four of the within-group
variables (X1, X2, X3, X5 < p=0.05) while it is not affected by two of them (X4, X6 >
p=0.05). In the between-group variables, 3 variables (X8, X10, X11 < p=0.05) affect the
teacher job satisfaction while 2 (X7, X9 > p=0.05) of them do not. According to the results
obtained for within-group variables determined from the teacher questionnaire, it is seen
that teachers' job satisfaction increases with the increasing age of teachers, teacher job
satisfaction varies according to gender; job satisfaction of those whose first choice is not
being teachers as career and job satisfaction of teachers who do not participate in
professional development activities decrease. In addition, it was observed that the teacher's
work experience and having foreign students in classes had no effect on the job satisfaction
of the teacher. According to the results obtained for between-group variables determined
from the principal questionnaire, it was seen that the gender of the principal had an effect
on the job satisfaction of the teachers, job satisfaction increased from rural places to cities in
terms of the location of the school, and the job satisfaction of teachers teaching in private
schools was low. In addition, it was observed that the age and work experience of the
principal did not affect teachers' job satisfaction. Table 4 shows the results of R2 showing
the ratio of explaining the teacher job satisfaction score of the within-group and between-
group variables belonging to the model established.
Table 4
R2 Results for Determined Within-Group and Between-Group Variables
Estimation SE
Estimation /
SE
p
R2 for within group variables
Y
0.291
0.030
9.70
0.000
R2 for between group variables
Y
0.135
0.065
2.090
0.037
When both the within-group and between-group coefficients of specification of the
multi-level structural equation model given in Table 4 are examined, it is seen that the ratio
of explaining the total variation in the dependent variable of the independent variables used
in the group is relatively 0.291. The remaining part of 0.709 can be stated to be caused by
unknown factors. The ratio of explaining the total variation in the dependent variable of the
independent variables between the groups used was relatively 0.135.
Discussions and Recommendations
In this study, the factors affecting the job satisfaction of teachers were analyzed with
the multi-level structural equation model established by using within-group variables
obtained from the teacher questionnaire and between-group variables obtained from the
principal questionnaire. One of the results obtained based on the findings of the study;
teachers' age, gender, career preferences and participation in professional development
activities affect job satisfaction. According to the results of the study, job satisfaction of
young teachers is lower. This result is consistent with the studies of Clark et al. (1996),
Newman (1978), Rapti and Karaj (2012) and Shrestha (2019). Worries of young teachers in
Turkey about the future can reduce their job satisfaction (Uygun, 2012). The future
perspective provides an open space for different cognitive processes and emotional attitudes,
15 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
depending on how much the future is expected to be full of positive or negative events
(Zaleski, 1996). A disturbing sense of tension that may arise as a result of young teachers
worrying about something that may happen in the future can always have a strong impact
on job satisfaction. Young teachers often start working in schools in a different province, far
from their families. Young teachers with little life experience may need someone to guide
them, such as school heads. However, young teachers in Turkey state that they cannot get
support from school administrators (Sari & Altun, 2015) and that school administrators are
not interested in the problems of teachers in the school (Cermik, 2003; Kuzey, 2002).
Failure of school administrators to support young teachers may cause the teaching
profession to be perceived as a stressful and intimidating occupation, and hence lower job
satisfaction.
Job satisfaction of women teachers in Turkey was found to be higher than male
teachers. This finding is consistent with the studies of Gligorovic et al. (2014), Kumari,
Joshi, and Pandey (2014), Ma ve MacMillan (1999) and Ogedengbe et al. (2018). The fact
that women teachers in Turkey give a more devoted impression to their jobs due to socio-
cultural and socio-economic reasons might be a cause of this. Stepping out of a socio-
economic perception as; men are primarily responsible for making a living for the family
and a socio-cultural perception as; the profession of teaching is more suitable for females in
Turkey (Kumas & Deniz, 2010), might be considered as the factors that increase the job
satisfaction of women. Conversely, the studies of Fattah (2010), Mennon and Reppa (2011),
Sahin (2013) and Tasnim (2006) concluded that male teachers have more job satisfaction.
Therefore, instead of saying that gender has an effect on job satisfaction, it can be said that
socio-cultural and socio-economic conditions that shape social position and work life are
effective in differentiating job satisfaction by gender.
Another result obtained in the study is that the job satisfaction of the teachers
whose first option as a career is teaching profession is higher. The studies of Aslan (2015),
Godbey and Johnson (2011), and Kumas and Deniz (2010) are consistent with this result. It
can be stated that those teachers who choose teaching as the first career option do their job
lovingly and this provides high job satisfaction. In addition; when the fact that a large
proportion of teachers who graduated from teacher training faculties in Turkey can not be
employed taken into consideration, it is an expected result that the job satisfaction of the
teachers who can perform their first-choice profession is high.
Participation of teachers in development activities increases their job satisfaction.
The studies Bentea and Anghelache (2012), Ayra and Kosterelioglu (2015) reached similar
findings. It can be said that the increasing motivation of the teachers who participate in
professional development activities and their tendency to conform to the era are effective in
increasing job satisfaction. In this context, the participation of teachers in professional
development activities has an important role in increasing teachers' job satisfaction.
Teachers should be provided with opportunities and environments in which they can
participate professional development activities.
The job experience of teachers in Turkey and their having foreign students in the
classes did not affect their job satisfaction. The studies of Bennett et al. (2013), Durualp and
Kaytez (2016), Fattah (2010), Kilic et al. (2013) and Teltik (2009) are consistent with this
result. The fact that in Turkey; among the teachers whose working years are more or less,
there is no difference in terms of income and social status, might cause job experience to
have no effect on job satisfaction. The perspective of hospitality that exists in the structure
of the Turkish society may have made the teachers' attitude towards foreign students
positive and hence the foreign students do not affect the teachers' job satisfaction.
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 16
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Another result obtained based on the findings of the study is that the factors of
school principals’ gender, the location of schools and their type (state/private) are effective
in teachers’ job satisfaction. Teachers working with male principals have higher job
satisfaction. This result is consistent with the results in the studies of Wangai (2015) and
Ballou and Podgursky (1995). It can be said that job satisfaction is higher due to the point
of view of the teachers working with male school principals and the fact that the society
assumes the role of gender in terms of leadership is more appropriate for men might have
led to higher job satisfaction. It is another reason to be accustomed to the male leader figure
in societies with a male-dominated structure like Turkish society.
Teachers working in urban schools have higher job satisfaction than teachers
working in rural settlements. Though this result is not consistent with the works of Wang
et al. (2017) and Trentham and Schafer (1985), it is consistent with the work of Showkat et
al. (2013). Compared to rural settlements, cities in Turkey provide much more
opportunities in terms of psycho-social factors, economic satisfaction and broadness of life
facilities, which may be effective in the finding.
It is seen that job satisfaction of teachers working in private schools is lower than
teachers working in public schools. It is consistent with the studies of Ahmed (2014),
Akhtar et al. (2010), Papanastasiou and Zembylas (2005), Susmitha and Raghavaya (2018).
In private schools in Turkey, low teacher salaries and long working hours as well as
teachers’ not feeling safe and free might have led to this result. In addition, there is a
guarantee of employment in public schools but the fear that teachers may lose their jobs in
private schools may also reduce the job satisfaction of teachers working in private schools.
From the findings of the study, it was concluded that the school principal's age and
work experience did not affect teachers' job satisfaction. In fact, it seems normal for this
conclusion to come, because naturally a young manager cannot be expected to have much
work experience. Therefore, it is a consistent result that if principal’s age does not have an
effect on job satisfaction, experience of principal does not have an effect on job satisfaction,
either. The interesting point here is that principals, who have experience both in job and
life, do not have any effect on increasing teachers’ job satisfaction. This may be because of
the inability of school principals to go out of certain patterns due to the excessive
bureaucratic structure of the Turkish education system; and as a result of the bureaucracy,
not being able to allocate sufficient time and attention to teachers due to the intensity of
stationery.
In this study, it was found that the age of the teachers, the gender of the teachers,
the career preferences of the teachers, the participation of the teachers in the professional
development activities, the gender of school principals, the location of schools, and the type
of school affect the job satisfaction of the teachers. The results of this study show
similarities with some studies in the literature and differences with some others. The reason
for this may be that the variables that are discussed in this study can be affected by socio-
cultural and socio-economic structures. Analyzing socio-cultural and socio-economic
structures separately for different countries may provide healthier results on teachers' job
satisfaction. Based on these study results, it could be suggested that in countries with
similar characteristics to Turkey in terms of socio-cultural and socio-economical
dimensions, it is necessary for school administrators and policy makers to realize the
required regulations and improvements related to the factors that affect teachers’ job
satisfaction. Mentoring of school administrators to young teachers, providing employment
opportunities for those who prefer education faculties in the first place in university
preferences, increasing the participation of teachers in professional development activities,
17 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
improving the opportunities of teachers working in rural areas and private schools can
improve teachers' job satisfaction.
References
Alivernini, F., & Manganelli, S. (2015). Country, school and students factors associated with
extreme levels of science literacy across 25 countries. International Journal of Science
Education, 37(12), 1992-2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1060648
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Sage Publications, Inc.
Acar, T. & Ogretmen, T. (2012). Analysis of 2006 PISA science performance via multilevel
statistical methods. Education and Science, 37(163), 178-189.
Ahmed, O. (2014). Job satisfaction of teachers at private and public secondary schools. The
Bangladesh Journal of Psychology, 20, 31-41.
Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey’ (TALIS) 2018
conceptual framework. Paris: OECD Publishing.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/799337c2-en.
Akhtar, S. N., Hashmi, M. A., & Naqvi, S. I. H. (2010). A comparative study of job
satisfaction in public and private school teachers at secondary level. Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4222-4228.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.668.
Albayrak, A. S. (2005). Çoklu doğrusal bağlantı halinde en küçük kareler tekniğinin
alternatifi yanlı tahmin teknikleri ve bir uygulama [Alternative of the least squares
technique in case of multicollinearity, biased estimation techniques and an
application]. International Journal of Management Economics and Business, 1(1), 105-
126.
Alismail, H. A. (2016). Multicultural education: Teachers’ perceptions and preparation.
Journal of Education and Practice, 7(11), 139-145.
Alkis, N. (2016). Bayesian structural equation modeling: Concepts and a general overview.”
Gazi Journal of Economics and Business, 2(3), 105-116.
Aslan, N. (2015). The foundations of the basic factors effecting the choice of teaching as a
profession. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 8(37), 53-64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS2958.
Ayra, M., & Kosterelioglu, I. (2015). Öğretmenlerin yaşam boyu öğrenme eğilimlerinin
mesleki öz yeterlik algıları ile ilişkisi [The relationship between teachers’ lifelong
learning tendencies and their perceptions of professional self-efficacy]. Education
Sciences, 10(1), 17-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.1.1C0630.
Ayyildiz, H. & Cengiz, E. (2006). Pazarlama modellerinin testinde kullanılabilecek yapısal
eşitlik modeli (YEM) üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme [A conceptual analysis on the
structural equation model (SEM) that can be used in testing marketing models].
The Journal of Faculty of Economics Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 63-84.
Ballou, D. & Podgursky, M. (1995). What makes a good principal? How teachers assess the
performance of principals. Economics of Education Review, 14(3), 243-252.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(95)00005-5.
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and
Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824. https://doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018.
Bayar, A. & Kosterelioglu, I. (2014). Satisfaction levels of teachers in professional
development activities in Turkey. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature
and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 321-333.
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 18
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Beaudry, K. (2009). Improving teacher satisfaction with professional development.
University of Oregon Libraries.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/55c8/a2711baf5d6130bd8256a27f127177612f23.p
df
Bennett, S. V., Brown, J. J., Kirby-Smith, A., & Severson, B. (2013). Influences of the heart:
Novice and experienced teachers remaining in the field. Teacher Development, 17(4),
562–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2013.849613.
Bentea, C. & Anghelache, V. (2012). Teachers’ motivation and satisfaction for professional
activity. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 563-567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.184.
Bivona, K. N. (2002). Teacher morale: The impact of teaching experience, workplace
conditions and workload. Report-Research, ERIC. ERIC Number:
ED467760. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467760.pdf.
Bogler, R. (2002). Two profiles of schoolteachers: A discriminant analysis of job satisfaction.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 665-673. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-
051X(02)00026-4.
Borah, A. (2019). Impact of teachers' job satisfaction in academic achievement of the
students in higher technical institutions: A study in the Kamrup District of Assam.
Clarion: International Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(1), 51-55.
https://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2277-937X.2019.00007.8.
Busby, E. (2018). Teachers in England have lowest job satisfaction of all English speaking
countries’ study finds. Independent.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/teachers-
england-job-satisfaction-shortages-ucl-study-workload-pay-us-a8543621.html.
Cameron, A. C. & Windmeijer, F. A. (1997). An R-squared measure of goodness of fit for
some common nonlinear regression models. Journal of Econometrics, 77(2), 329-342.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(96)01818-0.
Cermik, A. (2003). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin insan ilişkileri sorunları ve bu sorunların
performans üzerindeki etkileri [The human relations problems of primary school
teachers and their affects of these problems on teacher performance]. Unpublished
Master Thesis, Pamukkale University.
Cha, E., Sanderson, M., Renter, D., Jager, A., Cernicchiaro, N., & Bello, N. M. (2017).
Implementing structural equation models to observational data from feedlot
production systems. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 147, 163-171.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.09.002.
Cheng, Y. W. & Ren, L. (2010). Elementary resource room teachers' job stress and job
satisfaction in Taoyuan County, Taiwan. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental
Disability, 35(1), 44-47. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250903496369.
Ching Shum, L. & Cheong Cheng, Y. (1997). Perceptions of women principals’ leadership
and teachers’ work attitudes. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(2), 165-184.
Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction u-shaped in age?. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(1), 57-81.
Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli
istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS
and LISREL applications]. Pegem Akademi.
Conley, S., Bas-Isaac, E., & Brandon, J. (1998). What matters to whom: Predictors of
teacher satisfaction in a career development plan. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 11(4), 299-322. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007969908988.
19 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Crisci, A., Sepe, E., & Malafronte, P. (2019). What influences teachers’ job satisfaction and
how to improve, develop and reorganize the school activities associated with them.
Quality and Quantity, 53(5), 2403-2419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0749-y.
Davidov, E., Dulmer, H., Schluter, E., Schmidt, P., & Meuleman, B. (2012). Using a
multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural
measurement noninvariance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(4), 558-575.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022112438397.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional
development. Learning Policy Institute.
Derlin, R. & Schneider, G. T. (1994). Understanding job satisfaction: Principals and
teachers, urban and suburban. Urban Education, 29(1), 63–88.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085994029001006.
Durualp, E. & Kaytez, N. (2016). Evaluation of pre-school teachers’ job satisfaction from the
point of their children love and other variables. Pegem Journal of Education and
Instruction, 6(1), 97-112. https://dx.doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2016.006.
Eckman, E. (2004). Does gender make a difference? Voices of male and female high school
principals. Planning and Changing, 35(3&4), 192-208.
Fattah, S. (2010). Longitudinal effects of pay increase on teachers’ job satisfaction: a
motivational perspective. The Journal of International Social Research, 3(10), 12-19.
Ferguson, K., Frost, L., & Hall, D. (2012). Predicting teacher anxiety, depression, and job
satisfaction. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 27-42.
Gligorovic, B., Terek, E., Glusac, D., Sajfert, Z., & Adamovic, Z. (2014). Job satisfaction and
gender differences in job satisfaction of teachers in Serbian primary schools. Journal
of Engineering Management and Competitiveness, 4(2), 94-100.
Godbey, K., & Johnson, C. (2011). Career choice influences and job satisfaction for early
career family and consumer sciences teachers. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences
Education, 29(2), 12-25.
Guo, L. & Wang, B. (2017). What determines job satisfaction of teachers in universities?.”
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 5893–5903.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.01038a
Heaton, J. (2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Historical Social
Research, 33(5), 33-45.
Holtmann, J., Koch, T., Lochner, K., & Eid, M. (2016). A comparison of ML, WLSMV, and
Bayesian methods for multilevel structural equation models in small samples: A
simulation study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(5), 661-680.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1208074.
Houchins, D. E., Shippen, M. E., & Cattret, J. (2004). The retention and attrition of juvenile
justice teachers. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 374-394.
Howes, L. & Delahunty, J. (2015). Teachers’ career decisions: perspectives on choosing
teaching careers, and on staying or leaving. Issues in Educational Research, 25(1), 18-
32.
Hox, J. J., van de Schoot, R., & Matthijsse, S. (2012). How few countries will do?
Comparative survey analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Survey Research Methods,
6(2), 87-93.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage
Publications.
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 20
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499.
Johnston, M. P. (2017). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come.
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619-626.
Kapa, R. & Gimbert, B. (2017). Job satisfaction, School rule enforcement, and teacher
victimization. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(1), 150–168.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1395747.
Kaplan, D. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Sage Publications.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452226576.
Kilic, S., Tanrıkulu, T., & Ugur, H. (2013). Job satisfaction and social comparison levels of
teachers working for state schools. Journal of Human Sciences, 10(1), 760-779.
Kinman, G., Wray, S., & Strange, C. (2011). Emotional labour, burnout and job satisfaction
in UK teachers: The role of workplace social support. Educational Psychology, 31(7),
843-856. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.608650.
Knoke, D. (2003). Structural equation models. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 3(1), 689-
695.
Knox, J. & Anafara Jr., V. (2013). Understanding job satisfaction and its relationship to
student academic performance. Middle School Journal, 44(3), 58-64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2013.11461857.
Kumari, G., Joshi, G., & Pandey, K. (2014). Analysis of factors affecting job satisfaction of
the employees in public and private sector. International Journal of Trends in
Economics Management & Technology (IJTEMT), 3(1), 11-19.
Kumas, V. & Deniz, L. (2010). Ögretmenlerin iş doyum düzeylerinin incelenmesi [An
investigaton about job satisfaction of teachers]. Marmara University Ataturk
Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 32(32), 123-139.
Kuzey, M. (2002). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin bazı sorunları ve bazı çözüm önerileri [Some
problems primary schol teachers face and some possible solutions]. Unpublished
Master Thesis, Ataturk University.
Little, R. J. & Rubin, D. B. (2019). Statistical analysis with missing dat. Wiley.
Long-Sutehall, T., Sque, M., & Addington-Hall, J. (2011). Secondary analysis of qualitative
data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population?.
Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(4), 335-344.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987110381553.
Ma, X. & MacMillan, R. B. (1999). Influences of workplace conditions on teachers' job
satisfaction. The journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39-47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597627.
Malinen, O. P. & Savolainen, H. (2016). The effect of perceived school climate and teacher
efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal
study. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and
Studies, 60(1), 144-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.012.
Marcoulides, G. A. & Schumacker, R. E. (2013). Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues
and techniques. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315827414.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V., & Hooper, M. (2016). Methods and procedures in TIMSS 2015.
IEA.
Masath, F. (2015). Teacher job satisfaction’ and ‘intention to leave the profession’: Does age
matter?. Journal of Education, Humanities and Sciences, 4(2), 66-75.
21 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Menon, M. & Reppa, A. (2011). Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers: The role
of gender and experience. School Leadership and Management, 31(5), 435- 450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614942.
Meydan, C. H. & Sesen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları [Structural
equation modeling AMOS applications]. Detay Yayıncılık.
Michaelowa, K. & Wittmann, E. (2007). The cost, satisfaction, and achievement of primary
education-evidence from Francophone Sub-saharan Africa. The Journal of Developing
Areas, 41(1), 51-78.
Mocheche, E., Bosire, J., & Raburu, P. (2017). Influence of gender on job satisfaction of
secondary school teachers in Kenya. International Journal of Advanced and
Multidisciplinary Social Science, 3(2), 40-48.
https://doi.org/10.5923/j.jamss.20170302.02.
Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent
variables. Muthén & Muthén.
Nasser, F. & Shabti, A. (2010). Satisfaction with professional development: Relationship to
teacher and professional development program characteristics.” Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2739–2743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.406.
Newman, K. (1978). Middle-aged experienced teachers’ perceptions of their career
development. PhD disseraiton, The Ohio State University.
OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
Ogedengbe, E., Adelekun, T., Eyengho, T., Ogunley, S., & Bankole, K. (2018). The influence
of gender on job satisfaction of teachers in Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. Bulgarian
Journal of Science and Education Policy, 12(1), 48-59.
Oshagbemi, T. (2000). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of university teachers.”
Women in Management Review, 15(7), 331-343.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420010378133.
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An
organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963-974.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.6.963.
Papanastasiou, E. C. & Zembylas, M. (2005). Job satisfaction variance among public and
private kindergarten school teachers in Cyprus. International Journal of Educational
Research, 43(3), 147-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.06.009.
Parveen, H. & Bano, M. (2019). Relationship between teachers’ stress and job satisfaction:
Moderating role of teachers’ emotions. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research,
34(2), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2019.34.2.19.
Peugh, J. L. & Enders, C. K. (2010). Specification searches in multilevel structural equation
modeling: A Monte Carlo investigation. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(1), 42-65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903438948.
Rapti, E. & Karaj, T. (2012). The relationship between job satisfaction, demographic and
school characteristics among basic education teachers in Albania.” Problems of
Education in the 21st Century, 45, 73-80.
Sahin, İ. (2013). Öğretmenlerin iş doyumu düzeyleri [Job satisfaction levels of teachers].
YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 9(1), 142-167.
Salehi, H., Taghavi, E., & Yunus, M. (2015). Relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction
and their attitudes towards students’ beliefs and motivation.” English Language
Teaching, 8(7), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n7p46.
Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Multilevel Analyses of Teacher, School, and Principal Effects 22
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Saner, T. & Eyupoglu, S. (2012). Have gender differences in job satisfaction disappeared? A
study of Turkish Universities in North Cyprus. African Journal of Business
Management, 6(1), 250-257. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.1935.
Sari, M. & Altun, Y. (2015). Problems faced by beginning primary education teachers.”
Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(1), 213-226.
Sawati, M., Anwar, S., & Majoka, M. (2013). Do qualification, experience and age matter for
principals leadership styles?. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 3(7), 403-411. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v3-i7/63.
Schreiber, J. B. (2008). Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in
Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4(2), 83-97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2007.04.003.
Sharma, R. D. & Jyoti, J. (2006). Job satisfaction among school teachers.” Indian Institute of
Management - Bangalore Management Review, 18(4), 349-363.
Shen, J., Leslie, J. M., Spybrook, J. K., & Ma, X. (2012). Are principal background and
school processes related to teacher job satisfaction? A multilevel study using schools
and staffing survey 2003-04. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 200-230.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419949.
Showkat, S., Khan, I., & Khan, I. (2013). Job satisfaction among rural and urban teachers of
Kashmir University. Journal of Research, Extension and Development, 2(1), 9-11.
Shrestha, M. (2019). Influence of age group on job satisfaction in academia.” SEISENSE
Journal of Management, 2(3), 30-41. https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v2i3.141.
Singh, K. & Billingsley, B. S. (1998). Professional support and its effects on teachers’
commitment.” The Journal of Educational Research, 91(4), 229–239.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597548.
Skaalvik, E. M. & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001.
Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. SAGE
Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452231549.
Sun, A. & Xia, J. (2018). Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and
job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 TALIS data.
International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86-97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006.
Susmitha, V. & Raghavaya, K. (2018). A study of job satisfaction in public and private
school teachers with reference to Visakhapatnam City. International Journal of
Advance Research in Science and Engineering, 7(4), 463-471.
Tang, Y. (2020). It’s not only work and pay: The moderation role of teachers’ professional
identity on their job satisfaction in Rural China. Applied Research in Quality of Life,
15, 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-019-09716-1.
Tasdan, M. & Tiryaki, E. (2008). Comparison of job satisfaction levels of private and state
primary school teachers. Education and Science, 33(147), 54-68.
Tasnim, S. (2006). Job satisfaction among female teachers: A study on primary schools in
Bangladesh. PhD dissertation, Bergen University.
Teltik, H. (2009). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin mesleki yeterlik algılarının iş doyumu ve
tükenmişlik düzeyleriyle ilişkisinin belirlenmesi [The determination of teacher self-
efficacy perception between job satisfaction and burnout level correlations for
preschool teachers]. Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University.
23 U. B. Özkan & E. Akgenç
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education
Tickle, L. (2018). ”Every lesson is a battle’: Why teachers are lining up to leave.” The
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/apr/10/lesson-battle-
why-teachers-lining-up-leave.
Torres, D. G. (2019). Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers’ job
satisfaction in U.S. schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 111-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.001.
Trentham, L. & Schafer, B. (1985). Rural and urban teachers: Differences in attitudes and
self concepts. Research in Rural Education, 3(1), 3-5.
Tye, B. B. & O’Brien, L. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession?. Phi
Delta Kappan, 84(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208400108.
Uygun, S. (2012). Basında ögretmen sorunları [Press coverage on teachers’ problems].
Milli Egitim Dergisi, 194, 72-91.
Van Maele, D. & Van Houtte, M. (2012). The role of teacher and faculty trust in forming
teachers' job satisfaction: Do years of experience make a difference?. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(6), 879-889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.001.
Wangai, N. (2015). Principals’ leadership behaviours and teachers’ job satisfaction in public
secondary schools Nairobi County, Kenya. PhD dissertation, School of Education of
Kenyatta University.
Wang, C., Lin, H., & Liang, T. (2017). A study on comparing the relationship among
organizational commitment, teachers’ job satisfaction and job involvement of
schools with urban-rural discrepancy. Academic Journals, 12(16), 762-771.
https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2017.3290.
Won, S. D. & Chang, E. J. (2019). The relationship between school violence-related stress
and quality of life in school teachers through coping self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
School Mental Health, 12, 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09336-y
Yucel, I. & Bektas, C. (2012). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment and demographic
characteristics among teachers in turkey: younger is better?. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1598-1608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.346.
Yuh, J. & Choi, S. (2017). Sources of social support, job satisfaction, and quality of life
among childcare teachers. The Social Science Journal, 54(4), 450-457.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.08.002.
Zaleski, Z. (1996). Future anxiety: Concept, measurement, and preliminary research.
Personality and Individual Differences, 21(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-
8869(96)00070-0.
About the Authors
Umut Birkan Özkan is an assistant professor and head of Educational Sciences
Department at National Defence University Army NCO Vocational HE School, Balikesir,
Turkey. His academic interest areas are curriculum studies, teacher education, instructional
design, academic achievement, large scale assessments and instructional technologies.
Ertan Akgenç worked at National Defence University Army NCO Vocational HE
School during the writing of the present research article. He is He is a PhD student at
Selçuk University. His academic interest areas are statistics and especially multilevel
structural equation modeling and applications.
