Sunteți pe pagina 1din 17


discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Effects on Teachers' Self-Efficacy and Job

Satisfaction: Teacher Gender, Years of
Experience, and Job Stress

Article in Journal of Educational Psychology · July 2010

Impact Factor: 3.52 · DOI: 10.1037/a0019237


192 8,528

2 authors:

Robert Klassen Ming Ming Chiu

The University of York University at Buffalo, The State University o…


All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Robert Klassen
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 10 May 2016
Journal of Educational Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 102, No. 3, 741–756 0022-0663/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019237

Effects on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction:

Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress

Robert M. Klassen Ming Ming Chiu

University of Alberta State University of New York at Buffalo

The authors of this study sought to examine the relationships among teachers’ years of experience,
teacher characteristics (gender and teaching level), three domains of self-efficacy (instructional strate-
gies, classroom management, and student engagement), two types of job stress (workload and classroom
stress), and job satisfaction with a sample of 1,430 practicing teachers using factor analysis, item
response modeling, systems of equations, and a structural equation model. Teachers’ years of experience
showed nonlinear relationships with all three self-efficacy factors, increasing from early career to
mid-career and then falling afterwards. Female teachers had greater workload stress, greater classroom
stress from student behaviors, and lower classroom management self-efficacy. Teachers with greater
workload stress had greater classroom management self-efficacy, whereas teachers with greater class-
room stress had lower self-efficacy and lower job satisfaction. Those teaching young children (in
elementary grades and kindergarten) had higher levels of self-efficacy for classroom management and
student engagement. Lastly, teachers with greater classroom management self-efficacy or greater in-
structional strategies self-efficacy had greater job satisfaction.

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

An emerging body of research shows that teachers’ self- size a model of the relationships among self-efficacy, overall
efficacy—the beliefs teachers hold about their capability to influ- perceived job stress, stress from classroom and workload factors,
ence student learning—is associated with student factors, like teacher characteristics (gender and teaching level), and job satis-
achievement and motivation (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & faction. Second, we examine patterns of self-efficacy beliefs of
Malone, 2006), as well as teacher factors, like job commitment and 1,430 teachers with varying years of experience.
job satisfaction (e.g., Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca,
2003). In spite of the evident association between teachers’ self-
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy
efficacy and student and teacher outcomes, little is known about
how self-efficacy and job stress are related to teachers’ job satis- Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs about their capabili-
faction or how teachers’ self-efficacy is related to years of expe- ties to carry out a particular course of action successfully (Ban-
rience. Teachers’ self-efficacy is believed to be most malleable in dura, 1997). Extensive research supports the claim that self-
the challenging early stage of a teacher’s career and then to efficacy is an important influence on human achievement in a
increase and become more firmly established as teachers gain variety of settings, including education, health, sports, and busi-
experience (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007; Wolters & ness (Bandura, 1997). In educational research, the self-efficacy
Daugherty, 2007). However, middle and late career stages bring beliefs of students have been shown to play an important role in
their own challenges that can influence motivation and job satis- influencing achievement and behavior. Furthermore, researchers
faction (e.g., Kooij, de Lange, Jansen, & Dikkers, 2008; Spickard, are finding that teachers’ self-efficacy influences their teaching
Gabbe, & Christensen, 2002). In this study, we use advanced behaviors and their students’ motivation and achievement (Skaal-
modeling techniques (factor analyses, item response models, sys- vik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
tems of equations, and structural equation models) to extend our Teachers with low self-efficacy experience greater difficulties in
understanding of teachers’ motivation beliefs. First, we hypothe- teaching, higher levels of job-related stress (Betoret, 2006), and
lower levels of job satisfaction (Klassen et al., 2009).
Self-efficacy researchers agree that teachers’ self-efficacy
should be operationalized to reflect beliefs about capability and
Robert M. Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology, University therefore should be phrased “in terms of can do rather than will do.
of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Ming Ming Chiu, Department of Can is a judgment of capability; will is a statement of intention”
Learning and Instruction, Graduate School of Education, State University (Bandura, 2006, p. 308, italics in original; also see Bong, 2006). In
of New York at Buffalo.
addition, self-efficacy measures should reflect a particular context
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support to Robert M.
Klassen from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
or domain of functioning, rather than global functioning (Bandura,
Canada. 1997). A global measure of teachers’ self-efficacy might ask,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert “How confident are you in your teaching ability?” whereas a
Klassen, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, domain-focused measure would inquire about teachers’ confidence
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2G5, Canada. E-mail: to accomplish particular tasks. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001)


created a teachers’ self-efficacy measure with item stems of “How entiation among the most-experienced teachers may mask changes
much can you do . . .?” that explored teachers’ beliefs about their in teachers’ self-efficacy that may occur toward the end of their
capabilities in three key classroom domains: implementing instruc- careers” (p. 189). In fact, most teachers have more than 10 years
tional strategies, managing student behaviors, and engaging stu- of experience: recent statistics show that American teachers have
dents in the learning process. By including items from these three an average of about 14 years of experience, and 60% of teachers
critical areas, and by situating the three areas in teachers’ class- have 10 or more years of experience (U.S. Department of Educa-
rooms, the authors balanced the demands for specificity (i.e., tion, 2009). Thus, additional research on how experience affects
self-efficacy assessments that reflect particular tasks) and practical teachers’ self-efficacy across the career span is needed.
usefulness (i.e., multifaceted measurement that is not “microscop- The developmental course of occupational self-efficacy is not
ically operationalized” [Pajares, 1996, p. 562]) in a meaningful uniform from early to late adulthood, and teachers’ self-efficacy
context (i.e., teachers’ classrooms). Although earlier teachers’ may ebb and flow over the course of a career as it is influenced by
self-efficacy measures were marred by faulty conceptualization, life and career events and challenges. Bandura (1997) suggested
including a focus on ability, not capability, and a focus on external that some workers at mid-to-late career stages may restructure or
influences, not internal beliefs (see Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk scale down overambitious goals due to waning self-efficacy, al-
Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), more recent measures such as Tschannen- though this experience is not universal. Workplace environments
Moran and Woolfolk Hoy’s (2001) Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale influence self-efficacy beliefs, with supervisors’ verbal persuasion
adhere more closely to the theoretical guidelines proposed by and modeling serving as important spurs to workers’ self-efficacy
Bandura (1997, 2006), specifically in the focus on forward-looking development (Bandura, 1997). Kooij et al. (2008) suggested that
capabilities (e.g., “I can craft good questions for students”) and not age-related physical and psychological factors can influence work
global ability (e.g., “I am a good teacher”). motivation, but workplace factors can mediate how age-related
Although Bandura (1997) hypothesized that self-efficacy beliefs concerns are interpreted. For teachers, the combination of success-
remain relatively stable once established, researchers have noted ful past experience; verbal support from principals, students, peers,
that “little evidence exists about how (teachers’) efficacy beliefs and parents; and opportunities for observation of successful peers
change or solidify across stages of a career” (Tschannen-Moran et builds self-efficacy for teaching (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998).
al., 1998, p. 238). A few studies have been conducted on the The influence of the sources of self-efficacy, however, may change
relationship between teaching experience and teachers’ self- over time, with verbal persuasion and contextual factors playing a
efficacy, yielding varied results. Ross, Cousins, and Gadalla more important role for novice teachers than for veteran teachers
(1996) found mixed support for the influence of experience on (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2007). Self-efficacy beliefs
teachers’ self-efficacy, and Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) found nega- in the workplace are not static and reflect a lifelong process of
tive correlations between years of experience and teacher self- development that ebb and flow according to personal attributes and
efficacy, with both studies using modest-sized samples (52 and 25, interpretation of environmental circumstances.
respectively). Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero (2005) conducted a
longitudinal study in which they collected data from teachers at Job Satisfaction and Job Stress
two points during their teacher-training program and at the end of
their first year of teaching. Results showed a significant rise in Despite reports of high levels of teachers’ job stress (Chaplain,
teachers’ self-efficacy during teacher training, followed by a de- 2008; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008), many teachers find personal
cline at the end of their first teaching year, but once again, the satisfaction in their work. Job satisfaction—perceptions of fulfill-
research was hampered by a modest sample of 29 teachers. ment derived from day-to-day work activities—is associated with
A recent study by Wolters and Daugherty (2007) used a large higher levels of job performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Pat-
online sample of teachers (N ! 1,024) from the United States to ton, 2001). Caprara et al. (2003) considered job satisfaction a
examine the influence of teaching experience on teachers’ self- “decisive element” (p. 823) influencing teachers’ attitudes and
efficacy and goal structures. Teachers were divided into four performance and found self-efficacy to be an important contributor
experience groups: "1 year, 1–5 years, 6 –10 years, and 11# years to teachers’ job satisfaction. Teachers report that job satisfaction is
of experience. Then, they completed the three-factor Tschannen- gained from the nature of day-to-day classroom activities, such as
Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Scale as working with children, seeing students make progress, working
well as a measure of goal structures. Results showed modest with supportive colleagues, and overall school climate (Cockburn
effects of experience on self-efficacy for instructional strategies & Haydn, 2004). Teachers who are dissatisfied with their work
($2 ! .04) and self-efficacy for classroom management ($2 ! display lower commitment and are at greater risk for leaving the
.02), but no effect of experience on self-efficacy for student profession (Evans, 2001; Ingersoll, 2001). Liu and Ramsey (2008)
engagement. Although the researchers have made an important found that stress from poor work conditions had the strongest
contribution by linking experience with teachers’ self-efficacy, influence on teachers’ job satisfaction and noted that inadequate
their findings paint an incomplete picture, with two potential time for planning and preparation and a heavy teaching workload
limitations. One problem is that the relationship between teachers’ reduced satisfaction from teaching.
self-efficacy and experience may not be linear. For example, Teaching may bring personal satisfaction, but it also brings
Woolfolk Hoy and Burke Spero (2005) found that teachers’ self- stress, with demands from administrators, colleagues, students,
efficacy initially rose and then fell over three data collection points and parents compounded by work overload, student misbehavior,
at the beginning of teachers’ careers. Another problem is that and a lack of recognition for accomplishments (Greenglass &
teachers with more than 10 years of experience were treated as a Burke, 2003). Teachers with greater teacher stress— defined as the
single group. The authors acknowledged that the “lack of differ- experience of negative emotions resulting from a teacher’s work

(Kyriacou, 2001)— have lower self-efficacy (Betoret, 2006; level, teaching experience, gender, and demographic factors like
Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), poorer teachers’ cultural or national background.
teacher–pupil rapport, and lower levels of effectiveness (Abel &
Sewell, 1999; Kokkinos, 2007). Teachers with high levels of job Current Study
stress may gain satisfaction from work, but the level of satisfaction
may be muted by stress from role ambiguity, low autonomy, or Although researchers have begun to examine teacher motivation
frequency or level of conflict with students and colleagues (Green- by studying self-efficacy, job stress, and job satisfaction, few have
glass & Burke, 2003). Teaching has been listed among the high- proposed explanatory models that take into account teacher char-
stress professions, with as many as one-quarter of teachers report- acteristics such as years of experience, teaching level, and gender.
ing that teaching is a very stressful job (Kyriacou, 2001). Whereas In the current study, we propose and test a model that accounts for
previous studies have conceptualized teachers’ job stress as a these contextual factors and also includes control variables for
unidimensional construct (e.g. Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008), other teachers’ ethnic heritage and grades taught within schools (see
studies have shown that workload and student misbehavior (i.e., Figure 1). Two research questions are addressed. First, how is
classroom factors) contribute separately to teachers’ overall stress teachers’ self-efficacy related to years of experience? We pre-
(Boyle, Borg, Falzon, & Baglioni, 1995). Teachers with high dicted that teachers’ self-efficacy would increase in early to mid-
levels of stress from these two sources show higher negative health career (e.g., Wolters & Daugherty, 2007) but show declines in the
and vocational outcomes, including burnout (emotional exhaus- late career stage, as has been found in previous research conducted
tion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment), outside educational settings (Kooij et al., 2008). Second, what are
absenteeism, and exit from the teaching profession (Betoret, 2006; the relationships among teachers’ self-efficacy, job stress (overall
Jepson & Forrest, 2006; Kyriacou, 2001). stress and sources of stress), job satisfaction, and contextual fac-
tors (teacher characteristics and school level)? We hypothesized
that teachers’ self-efficacy would be influenced by teachers’ stress
Teacher Characteristics
(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and that teachers’ job satisfaction
Teaching level and teacher gender are related to teachers’ job- would be influenced by teacher characteristics, teacher stress and
related beliefs. Elementary school teachers report higher levels of its two sources, and three domains of teachers’ self-efficacy (e.g.,
self-efficacy for student engagement than teachers in middle or Caprara et al., 2003; Liu & Ramsey, 2008).
high schools (Wolters & Daugherty, 2007). Liu and Ramsey
(2008) found that women experience less job satisfaction than Method
men, especially satisfaction from work conditions, and a number
of researchers have noted that female teachers report higher stress
than male teachers (e.g., Antoniou, Polychroni, & Vlachakis,
2006; Chaplain, 2008), possibly due to higher levels of overall The participants were part of a convenience sample of 1,430
workload (Greenglass & Burke, 2003). Whereas Klassen et al. practicing teachers (69% women, 31% men) from western Canada.
(2009) found similar relationships between self-efficacy and job Teachers reported working in elementary schools (20%; usually
satisfaction for teachers from five North American and Asian Grades K– 6), junior high schools (6%; usually Grades 7–9), high
countries, results from other studies suggest that teachers’ nation- schools (9%; usually Grades 10 –12), elementary–junior high schools
ality and associated cultural beliefs can influence the relationships (13%; usually Grades K–9), and junior high–senior high schools
among job stress, job satisfaction, and teachers’ efficacy (Klassen, (12%; usually Grades 7–12), as well as other combinations in a mix
Usher, & Bong, in press; Liu & Ramsey, 2008). Models explaining of urban (38%), suburban (11%), rural (28%), and “other” or not
teacher motivation must account not only for individual beliefs and reported (23%) settings. Teachers reported their ethnic heritage as
motivation but also for teacher characteristics such as teaching Anglo–European Canadian (92%), Asian Canadian (2%), First

Demographics Job
Teacher Self-efficacy Satisfaction
School Classroom management
Range of grade Teacher Experience in School Instructional Strategies
levels Years of experience Student Engagement
Years in current school
Teacher Range of grade levels taught
Gender Teacher Stress
by the teacher in this school
Classroom stress
Country of birth
Workload stress

Overall stress

Figure 1. Model of hypothetical relationships.


Nations or Aboriginal Canadians ("1%), African ("1%), or South TSES short form with a 9-point response scale, anchored by 1
American ("1%). Teachers had a mean age of 40.00 years (SD ! (nothing) and 9 (a great deal).
10.79) and an average of 13.21 years of teaching experience (SD ! Job satisfaction and job stress. Job satisfaction was mea-
13.97). The age and experience of teachers in this sample are sured with two items from Caprara et al. (2003) on a 9-point scale.
consistent with provincial government data showing the median Items consisted of (a) “I am satisfied with what I achieve at work,”
age of teachers at 40 – 44 years and median years of experience of and (b) “I feel good at work.” The measure showed adequate
10 –14 years (Alberta Education, 2009). reliability and validity in Caparara et al.’s 2003 study and has been
shown to be related to self-efficacy in previous studies (e.g.,
Procedure Klassen et al., 2009). Job stress was measured in two ways. First,
following the approach used in recent studies of teacher stress
Participants were attendees at one of several annual, compul- (e.g., Boyle et al., 1995; Chaplain, 2008; Manthei, Gilmore, Tuck,
sory, multidistrict teacher conferences, the total attendance of & Adair, 1996), we measured overall job stress with a single item
which was approximately 8,000 teachers from about 350 schools. (“I find teaching to be very stressful”). Next, we used six items
Teachers were approached by one of a team of researchers in an from Boyle et al.’s (1995) Teacher Stress Inventory plus an addi-
exhibit hall and asked to complete a brief questionnaire titled What tional item, class size, suggested from recent teacher stress re-
Motivates Teachers? Approximately 2,000 teachers were ap- search (Gates, 2007), to assess two major contributors of teaching
proached, and approximately 75% of the teachers completed the stress—workload stress and classroom stress from student behav-
survey. Participants were asked to read the instructions and par- ior. Boyle et al. found acceptable levels of reliability and validity
ticipate only if they were currently teaching in schools (i.e., not in their 1995 study of teachers in the United Kingdom, and Klassen
serving as administrators or counselors). Conference organizers (in press) found the that workload stress and stress from student
did not permit researchers to request school identities from partic- behavior were inversely related to job satisfaction. The job stress
ipants. (See previous studies for details regarding the procedure items were presented with the stem, “As a teacher, how great a
and measures [e.g., Klassen et al., 2009]). source of stress are these factors to you?” with responses ranging
from 1 (no stress) to 9 (extreme stress). Items representing sources
Variables of workload stress included “too much work to do,” “having extra
duties/responsibilities because of absent teachers,” “large class
The survey included (a) a front sheet describing the project and size,” and “responsibility for student achievement.” Items repre-
contact information for the lead researcher and the university senting classroom stress from student behavior included “main-
ethics board, (b) a demographics section, and (c) four measures: a taining class discipline,” impolite behavior and rudeness,” and
12–item teachers’ self-efficacy scale, a two-item job satisfaction “noisy students.”
scale, one item measuring overall job stress, and seven items
measuring sources of job stress (see Appendix Table A8 for the Analysis
survey items).
Teachers’ self-efficacy. Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk We tested the internal validity of the questionnaire items for
Hoy (2001) created and validated the Teachers’ Self-Efficacy each teacher characteristic with factor analyses and minimized
Scale (TSES). Because it closely aligns with self-efficacy theory, their measurement errors with item response models. To account
TSES is “superior to previous measures of teacher efficacy” for heteroskedasticity and contemporaneous correlation in the er-
(Woolfolk Hoy & Burke Spero, 2005, p. 354). Researchers have rors across equations with multiple outcome variables, we modeled
investigated the TSES short- and long-form measures in a variety teachers’ self-efficacy with a system of equations. Then, we esti-
of settings and have found adequate reliability and validity for the mated the association of job satisfaction with teacher self-efficacy
whole scales and their three subscales: self-efficacy for classroom and other variables with an ordinary least squares (OLS) regres-
management, instructional strategies, and student engagement. For sion. Lastly, we captured all these relationships simultaneously
example, Klassen et al. (2009) found reliabilities ranged from .71 with a structural equation model (SEM).
to .94 for TSES short-form subscales in five countries and signif- Factor analyses and item response models. We used factor
icant relationships between the TSES subscales and job satisfac- analysis with varimax rotation to test the internal structure of
tion in all settings. Wolters and Daugherty (2007) reported Cron- participant responses to sets of questions regarding teachers’ self-
bach’s alpha coefficients above .80 for the TSES. The TSES long efficacy, specifically whether they reflected (a) a single factor, (b)
and short forms are hypothesized to consist of three factors that separate factors, (c) hierarchical factors, (d) nested factors, or (e)
measure a teacher’s confidence to manage student behavior in the no factors–no valid construct(s) (Chow, Chiu, & Wong, in press;
classroom (e.g., “How much can you do to control disruptive Gustafsson & Balke, 1993). Using Monte Carlo simulation studies,
behavior in the classroom?”), to use effective instructional strate- Hu and Bentler (1999) showed that a combination of the standard-
gies (e.g., “How much can you do to craft good questions for ized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) and one of the following
students?”), and to engage all students in learning (e.g., “How indices tends to minimize Type I and Type II errors under many
much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in conditions for both factor analyses and SEMs: Tucker–Lewis
school work?”). These items show fidelity with self-efficacy the- Index (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), and root-mean-square
ory because they measure teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities to error of approximation (RMSEA). We used the following thresh-
carry out particular tasks (e.g., “provide an alternative explanation old values to separate good, moderate, and poor fits for each
when students are confused”) in a particular context (i.e., the measure: for SRMR, between ".08 and ".10 (good fit if less than
classroom). Participants in our study responded to the 12-item .08; moderate fit if between .08 and .10; poor fit if greater than

.10); for RMSEA, between ".06 and ".10; for TLI, between %.96 A nested hypothesis test (log likelihood chi-square) indicated
and %.90; and for IFI, between %.96 and %.90. whether each set of explanatory variables was significant
For each construct, we reduced measurement error by modeling (Kennedy, 2004). Nonsignificant variables were removed.
each questionnaire item’s characteristics by using item response Then, we entered a vector of z teacher stress variables: class-
(IR) models (Baker & Kim, 2004). Some questionnaire items room stress, workload stress, and overall teaching stress (Z).
capture higher levels of teacher self-efficacy more precisely,
whereas others capture lower levels of teacher self-efficacy more Yiy ! * 0y " e iy " * xyXiy " * zyZiy (4)
precisely (item difficulty). Likewise, there is variation in the
Next, all of these explanatory variables were entered into an
precision of each question for distinguishing among teachers with
OLS regression with teacher job satisfaction as the outcome vari-
higher versus lower self-efficacy (discrimination). Each teacher
able. The teacher self-efficacy variables were added last.
response ranged from 1 to 9. Hence, we modeled all of these
We used the Sobel (1982) test to identify mediation effects by
characteristics with a generalized partial credit response test model
testing the hypotheses that the explanatory variables’ direct and
(GPCM-IR, Baker & Kim, 2004).
total effects on the outcome variable do not differ in the presence
of potential mediators. We found that a 10% increase in each

ai&')bij( continuous variable above its mean was linked to the outcome
variable (result ! b ! 10%; for simple dummy variables: result !
e j!1

Pi&r!' ( ! (1) b ! 34%, 1 SD + 34%; for contrast-coded dummy variables:

mi)1 result ! b ! 2 ! 34%). As percentage of increase is not linearly
1# related to standard deviation, scaling is not warranted.
k!1 e j!1
An alpha level of .05 was used. Testing many hypotheses
increases the likelihood that at least one test will incorrectly reject
Pi(r!') is the probability that a teacher with underlying value ' for
a null hypothesis (a false positive result). To control for the false
a specific characteristic will give a rating r for question i, account-
discovery rate, we used the two-stage linear step-up procedure,
ing for the discrimination strength (ai) and difficulty (bij) of the
which outperformed 13 other methods in computer simulations
questionnaire item. A simpler partial credit model (PCM-IR) might
(Benjamini, Krieger, & Yekutieli, 2006).
fit the data better if discrimination (ai) is identical across items.
We used an SEM to test these results simultaneously (Jöreskog
Thus, we tested GPCM-IR and PCM-IR models and identified the
& Sörbom, 2004). As the linear and quadratic terms of years of
best-fitting model with Bayesian expected a posteriori (EAP)
experience were highly correlated (r % .99), the two variables
estimation and log-likelihood difference chi-square tests (Bock &
were combined into one variable ()0.02133 ! years of experi-
Mislevy, 1982; Kennedy, 2004; Mislevy & Bock, 1990). We
ence2 # years of experience) in the SEM to prevent a near-singular
computed each teacher’s self-efficacy using the best model’s EAP
matrix error. Nonsignificant variables were removed to yield the
estimation, which is more precise than classical statistics methods
final SEM.
(Baker & Kim, 2004).
We repeated this procedure for teachers’ sources of stress and
job satisfaction. These analyses yielded three teacher self-efficacy Results
indices (classroom management, instructional strategies, and stu-
dent engagement), two sources of stress indices (workload stress Test and Summary Statistics
and classroom stress), and one job satisfaction index.
Explanatory model. After computing the index values for The factor analyses yielded three teacher self-efficacy indices
each teacher, we estimated their relationships with systems of (classroom management, instructional strategies, and student en-
equations, specifically sequential sets of seemingly unrelated re- gagement), two sources of stress indices (classroom stress and
gressions (SUR; Kennedy, 2004) to account for heteroskedasticity workload stress), and one job satisfaction index. Table 1 presents
and contemporaneous correlation in the errors across equations via means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for the
Eviews software (Lilien, Startz, Ellsworth, Noh, & Engle, 1995). study variables. Factor analysis results generally confirmed the
We entered the variables according to time constraints, expected expected three-factor pattern of the TSES although one item—
causal relationships, and likely importance. “How much can you do to assist families in helping their children
do well in school?”— did not load as expected with the efficacy for
Y iy ! * 0y " e iy (2) student engagement factor and was deleted. The content of this
*0y are the grand mean intercepts of Yiy, a vector of y outcome item stands alone in the TSES as a measure of teachers’ efficacy
variables (classroom management self-efficacy, instructional strat- to influence events outside the classroom and does not appear to
egies self-efficacy, and student engagement self-efficacy) for each measure the same content as other items in the student engagement
teacher i. The residuals are eiy. First, we entered a vector of x factor. Appendix Tables A1 and A2 present results for eigenvalues
teacher and school background variables: gender, country of birth, and factor analysis results. The large, dominant first eigenvalue
nationality, years of experience, the squared term of years of and explained variance indicate single factors for each set of test
experience, range of grade levels in current school, years in current questions. The GPCM-IR model fit the data for each of these
school, and range of grade levels taught by the teacher in the teacher characteristics better than did the PCM-IR model, showing
current school (X). that the discrimination strength of the questionnaire items differed
(see Appendix Tables A3 and A4 for summary statistics of vari-
Yiy ! * 0y " e iy " * xyXiy (3) ables from item response models; see Appendix Table A4 for

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables

Variables Item mean Scale range Scale mean Scale SD ,

Classroom management self-efficacy (four items) 7.56 10–36 30.25 3.94 .85
Instructional strategies self-efficacy (four items) 7.55 11–36 30.21 4.32 .76
Student engagement self-efficacy (three items) 6.87 7–27 20.61 3.44 .82
Job satisfaction (two items) 7.30 2–18 14.60 2.68 .84
Workload stress (four items) 5.82 4–36 23.26 6.50 .68
Classroom stress (three items) 5.40 3–27 15.12 5.46 .84
Overall stress (one item) 6.81 1–9 6.81 2.05 —

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

standard errors of the GPCM-IR teacher characteristics and Ap- )0.16 ! 34% (see previous analysis section on percentage in-
pendix Table A5 for the correlation–variance– covariance matrix). crease). As shown in Figure 3, years of experience has nonmono-
tonic relationships with all teacher self-efficacies; on average,
Explanatory Model classroom management self-efficacy increases from 0 years of
experience to about 23 years of experience and falls afterwards. At
Preliminary analysis using SUR, OLS, and mediation tests
the peak, teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 76%
yielded a candidate model that was fit successfully via an SEM
(see Figure 2; for SEM details, see Appendix Tables A6 –A10, greater classroom management self-efficacy than that of new
which show a good fit between the SEM and the data). Detailed teachers, 76% ! 0.19 ! ()0.02133 ! 232 # 23) ! 34% (see
results of the factor analyses, IR models, SUR, and OLS are Appendix Table A6 and the discussion of SEM in the previous
available from the authors. analysis section).
Classroom management self-efficacy. Teachers’ gender, Teachers working in elementary schools averaged 7% better
years of experience, school type, teaching grade, and sources of classroom management self-efficacy than those in schools in
stress were linked to their classroom management self-efficacy which one or more sets of grade levels (elementary, junior high
(Figure 2). Compared with female teachers, male teachers aver- school, and senior high school) were combined, )7% ! )0.10 !
aged 5% better classroom management self-efficacy, )5% ! 2 ! 34%. Furthermore, teachers who taught kindergarten students

Years of + (non-monotonic)
School –0.10
(vs. Elementary) Teaching Classroom
1st or 2nd grade –0.05 management
(vs. Kindergarten) Self-Efficacy
–0.16 +0.26
+0.37 Workload


Overall Job
–0.21 Satisfaction

+0.24 –0.25 Instructional
Classroom Strategies
stress Self-Efficacy

other grades
(vs. –0.25
Other Schools +0.16 –0.09 Student
(vs. Elementary) –0.12 Engagement
+ (non-monotonic) Self-Efficacy
+ (non-monotonic)

Figure 2. Structural equation model for teachers’ self-efficacies and job satisfaction with their explanatory
variables. Teacher demographics and school characteristics are all exogenous variables, and other variables are
endogenous variables. Ovals indicate latent variables, and rectangles indicate single variables. Questionnaire
items for each latent variable are not shown. For the quadratic relationship between years of experience and the
three teacher self-efficacy variables, see Figure 3.

Figure 3. Relationship of years of experience with three teacher self-efficacy variables (teaching strategies,
classroom management, and student engagement) based on the structural equation model results.

averaged 3% better classroom management self-efficacy than Job satisfaction. Teachers’ overall teaching stress and self-
those who taught Grade 1 or 2 students, 3% ! )0.05 ! 2 ! 34%. efficacies were linked to job satisfaction. Teachers with 10%
The links of workload stress and classroom stress to classroom greater overall teaching stress averaged 2% less job satisfaction,
management self-efficacy differed substantially. Teachers whose 2% ! 0.21 ! 10%. Meanwhile, teachers with 10% more classroom
workload stress exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 2% better management self-efficacy or 10% more instructional strategies
classroom management self-efficacy, 2% ! 0.16 ! 10%. In con- self-efficacy averaged 3% more job satisfaction, 3% ! 0.26 !
trast, teachers whose classroom stress exceeded the mean by 10% 10%; 3% ! 0.29 ! 10%. These variables accounted for 31% of the
averaged 5% worse classroom management self-efficacy, 5% ! variance in teachers’ job satisfaction.
0.52 ! 10%. These variables accounted for 25% of the variance in Stress and gender. Teachers with 10% more workload stress
teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy (see Appendix Ta- had 6% more overall teaching stress, 6% ! 0.56 ! 10%. Workload
ble A6, squared multiple correlations). stress accounted for 31% of the variance in teachers’ overall
Instructional strategies self-efficacy. Teachers’ years of ex-
teaching stress. Teachers’ gender was linked to sources of stress.
perience and classroom stress were linked to their instructional
Female teachers averaged 13% more workload stress and 8% more
strategies self-efficacy, showing a nonmonotonic relationship with
classroom stress than male teachers, 13% ! 0.37 ! .34; 8% !
an increase in instructional strategies self-efficacy up to about 23
0.24 ! .34. Gender accounted for 3% and 1% of the variances in
years of experience and then falling. The instructional strategies
self-efficacy of teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 88% workload stress and classroom stress, respectively.
greater than that of new teachers, 88% ! 0.22 ! ()0.02133 !
232 # 23) ! 34% (see Table A6 and discussion of SEM in the Discussion
preceding analysis section). When their classroom stress exceeded
the mean by 10%, teachers averaged 3% less instructional strate- In this study, we modeled the relationships among teacher
gies self-efficacy, 3% ! 0.25 ! 10%. These variables accounted characteristics, years of experience, three forms of teachers’ self-
for 11% of the variance in teachers’ instructional strategies self- efficacy, job stress, and job satisfaction. The factor analysis con-
efficacy. firmed the expected factor pattern, and the SEM yielded by the
Student engagement self-efficacy. Teachers’ years of expe- SUR, OLS, and mediation tests fit the data well, with teachers’
rience, school type, teaching grade, and classroom stress were
self-efficacy for instructional strategies and classroom manage-
linked to student engagement self-efficacy, which again showed a
ment positively influencing job satisfaction, whereas overall job
nonmonotonic relationship with increasing self-efficacy up to mid-
stress lowered job satisfaction.
career and then falling in late career. The student engagement
The results show how self-efficacy varies with years of
self-efficacy of teachers with 23 years of experience averaged 68%
teachers’ experience. Furthermore, the results show how teach-
greater than that of new teachers, 68% ! 0.17 ! ()0.02133 !
232 # 23) ! 34% (see Table A6 and discussion of SEM in the ers’ self-efficacies mediate the links between two types of stress
preceding analysis section). Teachers working in elementary on job satisfaction. Female teachers had higher levels of both
schools averaged 8% more student engagement self-efficacy than classroom and workload stress. Similar to previous findings,
those working in other types of schools, 8% ! 0.12 ! 34%. our results show that years of experience and job-related stress
Furthermore, teachers who taught kindergarten students averaged were related to teachers’ self-efficacy, which in turn influenced
6% more student engagement self-efficacy than those who taught job satisfaction. The key new finding in the study was that
students in higher grades, 6% ! 0.09 ! 34%. When their classroom teachers’ self-efficacy was influenced by years of experience
stress exceeded the mean by 10%, teachers averaged 3% less in a nonlinear relationship, with the three factors of teacher
student engagement self-efficacy, 3% ! 0.25 ! 10%. These vari- efficacy increasing with experience for early and mid-career
ables accounted for 12% of the variance in teachers’ student stage teachers and declining for teachers in the late career
engagement self-efficacy. stages.

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy ers’ motivation and result in reduced skills, motivation, and op-
portunities for promotion. The lower levels of older teachers’
Teachers’ self-efficacy showed a nonlinear relationship with self-efficacy beliefs may be influenced not only by biological and
years of teaching experience; self-efficacy increased from 0 to psychological changes related to chronological age but also by
about 23 years of experience and then declined as years of expe- student and peer perceptions of declining competence influenced
rience increased. Our results show that this relationship held true by stereotyped beliefs about aging. In sum, age-related changes in
for each of the three factors of teachers’ self-efficacy, reflecting a motivation beliefs, like self-efficacy, are influenced not only by
relationship that has not been noted in previous research on teach- chronological age but by the psychosocial context of the work
ers’ self-efficacy. Teachers’ confidence in engaging students, man- environment.
aging student behavior, and using effective instructional strategies The contexts in which the teachers worked were also linked with
showed the same pattern of growth and gradual decline. Whereas their self-efficacy. Teaching in elementary schools and teaching kin-
previous researchers have noted that self-efficacy increases with dergarten were linked with higher levels of self-efficacy for classroom
teachers’ experience (e.g., Wolters & Daugherty, 2007), the rela- management and student engagement. There has been surprisingly
tionship between teachers’ experience and self-efficacy may be little research on how teaching context influences teachers’ self-
more complex than previously believed. Bandura (1997) proposed efficacy. Wolters and Daugherty (2007) found that teachers in higher
that self-efficacy beliefs remain relatively stable once established, grade levels reported lower self-efficacy than teachers in lower grade
and although this stability may be true within a specific career levels and that the inverse relationship between teaching level and
stage, the results from our study suggest that teachers gain confi- self-efficacy was especially marked for teachers of elementary-
dence in their teaching skills through their early years and into the school-aged students in comparison to teachers of middle- and high-
mid-career years but that these levels of confidence may decline as school-aged students. Our study also found that teachers in higher
teachers enter the later stages of their careers. grade levels had lower self-efficacy, but the pattern of grade-level-
The career stages outlined by Huberman (1989) in his study of dependent self-efficacy was also found within teaching levels, at
the professional life cycle of teachers map well on to the patterns least in the early elementary school grades. Teachers of the young-
of teachers’ self-efficacy found in the current study. According to est students had higher levels of self-efficacy than teachers of older
Huberman, teachers undergo a process of survival and discovery in students within elementary schools, and this result was observed
the early career years, during which the gulf between professional for teachers’ self-efficacy for classroom management and student
ideals and daily classroom life is exposed, and self-doubts and engagement, although not for instructional strategies. Together,
initial enthusiasm are entwined. About 4 – 6 years into their ca- these combined results suggest that variation of teachers’ self-
reers, teachers enter a period of stabilization, marked by a defin- efficacy associated with teaching level can also occur within a
itive commitment to the profession (or the choice to leave the school.
profession). The mid-career years (7–18) are marked by periods of
experimentation and activism or by a period of reassessment, Teachers’ Stress and Job Satisfaction
during which teachers take stock of their careers and question their
career choices. Huberman suggested two phases during the later- Teachers with higher overall teaching stress had lower job
career years. During Years 19 –30, teachers experience a period of satisfaction, whereas classroom stress was indirectly linked to job
serenity, during which a “gradual loss in energy and enthusiasm is satisfaction through self-efficacy for classroom management and
compensated for by a greater sense of confidence and self- instructional strategies. We predicted workload and classroom
acceptance” (p. 35, italics ours). Finally, teachers in the late-career stress to be negatively linked with self-efficacy. As expected,
stage (Years 31– 40) move into a period of disengagement, marked teachers with greater classroom stress had less self-efficacy in all
either by serenity or disappointment and bitterness. Our finding of three factors, especially classroom management self-efficacy.
teachers’ self-efficacy peaking at about 23 years of experience and Teachers who perceived higher levels of classroom stress from
then declining in the later-career years corresponds with the mo- student misbehavior reported lower levels of self-efficacy for
tivation pattern suggested by Huberman. More recent studies have classroom management. Likewise, teachers reporting greater
built on Huberman’s work, with Day and Gu (2007) finding that workload stress had greater overall stress. However, teachers re-
most teachers in mid-career (i.e., Years 8 –23) experience increases porting more workload stress had greater classroom management
in motivation and commitment, whereas increased proportions of self-efficacy (with no significant differences in the other two
teachers in the later stage of their career stage (24# years of self-efficacy factors). It may be that teachers who experience
experience) report declining motivation. higher levels of classroom stress from student misbehavior (i.e.,
Authors of previous studies outside education have noted this from noisy and impolite behavior) have lower confidence to man-
decline in work motivation in the late-career stages. A recent study age that behavior due to a history of unsuccessful experiences. In
by Kooij et al. (2008) examined research on work motivation and contrast, it may be that teachers who perceive greater stress from
aging and found that many age-related factors (i.e., chronological responsibility for student achievement and heavy workloads exert
age, physical health, self-perception, social perception, skill obso- more effort during lesson planning and are better prepared to
lescence, and life stage) had a negative impact on the motivation manage student behaviors during class.
beliefs of older workers. In addition, Kooij et al. found that work Female teachers had higher levels of workload and classroom
motivation was influenced by an interaction of age-related factors. stress. A growing number of researchers have noted the link
For instance, declining health may be related to a deterioration of between gender and work-related stress. For example, Antoniou et
self-concept or changes in weighting of work- and leisure-related al. (2006) found that female teachers experienced higher levels of
values, but stereotyped perceptions of peers also influence work- work-related stress compared with male teachers, particularly for

classroom and workload factors. Our results are consistent with our findings about the apparent changes in teachers’ self-efficacy
those of previous studies showing modest but persistent gender in the late-career stages lead us to propose that future studies
differences in job stress among teachers (e.g., Antoniou et al., should be focused on middle and late-career stage teachers’ mo-
2006; Chaplain, 2008). Greenglass and Burke (2003) proposed that tivation beliefs, an area that has been neglected despite the large
the elevated work stress of females might stem from gender number of teachers who are past the first decade of their teaching
differences in nonwork domains, with higher total workload careers.
(school tasks plus domestic tasks) and higher role conflict between Several data limitations hamper the generalizability of our re-
work and family roles. These previous findings do not explain sults. Additional indicators of teachers’ success and functioning
female teachers’ higher levels of stress from student behavior. not included in our model may influence job satisfaction. Also, the
Hopf and Hatzichristou (1999) found female teachers to be more measure of overall job stress consisted of only a single item, and
sensitive to externalizing behavior problems, especially from ad- job satisfaction was measured by two items. However, results of
olescent male students, and also found male teachers assessed recent studies have supported the inclusion of single-item mea-
children’s interpersonal behaviors as less problematic than did sures of job-related beliefs (e.g., Dolbier, Webster, McCalister,
female teachers. Findings of gender differences in teacher stress Mallon, & Steinhardt, 2005; Nagy, 2002) because of high levels of
bear further research. face validity and convenience for data collection in busy work-
Results from the current study reinforce previous findings that place settings, and investigators in many previous studies have
teacher self-efficacy is linked with job satisfaction. Teachers with measured job stress using one item (e.g., Boyle et al., 1995;
high levels of self-efficacy for classroom management and instruc- Chaplain, 2008; Manthei et al., 1996). We did not measure the
tional strategies reported higher levels of job satisfaction, whereas longitudinal development of teachers’ self-efficacy, and readers
teachers with high levels of overall stress reported lowered job should not infer from our results that the pattern of rise and fall of
satisfaction. Caprara et al. (2006) found that Italian teachers’ self-efficacy holds true for individual teachers over the career
self-efficacy was linked to their job satisfaction, although their span. The results from the current research are prone to the
conceptualization of self-efficacy was less specific than the limitations emerging from our reliance on a common method to
Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) measure used in this assess each variable. Lastly, the sample was restricted to Canadian
study. In particular, Bandura (1997) and others (e.g., Pajares, teachers in one province, and although teachers came from a wide
1996) have argued that more specific judgments of self-efficacy variety of schools, the sample was not randomized, and partici-
provide more information about how the construct influences pants in this study may not be representative of other groups of
beliefs and related behaviors. In the current study, we found teachers in different settings.
teachers’ self-efficacies for classroom management and instruc-
tional strategies were directly related to job satisfaction, whereas
self-efficacy for student engagement did not play a direct role. It Practical Implications and Conclusion
appears that not all facets of teachers’ self-efficacy are linked to
job satisfaction in the same way. Considerable research has examined the development of teacher
motivation beliefs at the beginning stages of teachers’ careers, but
the teaching workforce in many settings is decidedly graying, with
Limitations and Future Research more teachers at the mid- or late-career stages than at the
Future researchers can replicate the model of teacher motivation beginning-career stage (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
presented in this article, with the addition of factors such as Building an understanding of the motivation profiles of teachers
students’ socioeconomic status and teachers’ collective efficacy to across the career span makes sense because of the number of mid-
help account for more job satisfaction variance. The effect of and late-career teachers and because teachers’ motivation profiles
whole-school motivation, or collective efficacy, has been shown to and willingness to engage in new practices varies according to
influence the individual job satisfaction experienced by teachers career stage (Drake, 2002). A teacher’s skills, knowledge, and
(e.g., Caprara et al., 2003; Klassen et al., in press). The role of effectiveness may change over time without a continuous and
teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to job stress and job satisfaction focused effort to build those skills and knowledge on the part of
may vary as a function of cultural context, and additional research the teacher, school district officials, and school administrators
examining the relationships among the study variables should be (Drake, 2002). One-size-fits-all professional development that
conducted in contrasting cultural settings. aims to build the skills and knowledge of new, mid-career, and the
Our research provides new insight into the pattern of change in most experienced teachers may not be optimally effective. For
teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, but stronger claims about the de- example, Greller (2006) suggested that older workers’ professional
velopment of teachers’ self-efficacy could be made through lon- development needs shift from learning general skills to learning
gitudinal studies. As noted earlier, some studies of teachers’ self- specific skills. Older workers seek professional development op-
efficacy during the early career years (e.g., Woolfolk Hoy & Burke portunities that offer greater autonomy in content, learning pace,
Spero, 2005) have been performed, but to our knowledge, no one and learning environment (Greller, 2006). Professional develop-
has conducted a longitudinal study using the most recent, concep- ment programs that are tailored to teachers’ career stages may
tually sound measures of teachers’ self-efficacy. Conducting lon- enhance skills and knowledge but also boost the confidence that
gitudinal research of teachers’ motivation beliefs presents a host of teachers at a later career stage have in their capabilities to teach
practical challenges not found in cross-sectional research, but effectively. Using professional development opportunities to boost
findings from longitudinal studies can inform our understanding of skills and teachers’ self-efficacy may lower job stress and enhance
how motivation beliefs develop over the career. In related fashion, satisfaction from teaching.

Our study extends teacher motivation research by showing how gence, social problem solving skills, and psychological distress: A study
teachers’ years of experience, gender, and three domains of self- of Chinese undergraduate students. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
efficacy (student engagement, instructional strategies, and class- ogy.
room management) were related to their job stress (workload and Cockburn, A. D., & Haydn, T. (2004). Recruiting and retaining teachers:
classroom stress) and job satisfaction. Building on previous re- Understanding why teachers teach. London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
search showing that teacher self-efficacy often increases in the Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’
professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and
early stages of teachers’ careers, we found that early- to mid-career
effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 423– 443.
teachers reported progressively greater self-efficacies in these
Dolbier, C. L., Webster, J. A., McCalister, K. T., Mallon, M. W., &
three areas, while late-career teachers reported less self-efficacy in Steinhardt, M. A. (2005). Reliability and validity of a single-item mea-
each area. Female teachers had greater stress (from both workload sure of job satisfaction. American Journal of Health Promotion, 19,
and student behaviors during class) and lower self-efficacy for 194 –198.
classroom management. Teaching younger children (in elementary Drake, C. (2002). Experience counts: Career stage and teachers’ responses
grades and kindergarten) was linked with higher levels of self- to mathematics education reform. Educational Policy, 16, 311–337.
efficacy for classroom management and student engagement. Fi- Evans, L. (2001). Delving deeper into morale, job satisfaction, and moti-
nally, the impact of classroom and workload stress on job satis- vation among education professionals. Educational Management and
faction was mediated by teachers’ self-efficacy. Administration, 29, 291–306.
Gates, G. S. (2007). Emerging thought and research on student, teacher,
and administrative stress and coping. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
References Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher
Abel, M. H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional inno-
secondary school teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, vation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451– 458.
287–293. Greenglass, E. R., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Teacher stress. In M. F. Dollard,
Alberta Education. (2009). Alberta teaching certification standards. Re- A. H. Winefield, & H. R. Winefield (Eds.), Occupational stress in the
trieved February 14, 2009, from service professions (pp. 213–236). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
stats/certification.aspx Greller, M. M. (2006). Hours invested in professional development during
Antoniou, A.-S., Polychroni, F., & Vlachakis, A.-N. (2006). Gender and late career as a function of career motivation and satisfaction. Career
age differences in occupational stress and professional burnout between Development International, 6, 544 –559.
primary and high-school teachers in Greece. Journal of Managerial Gustafsson, J. E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as
Psychology, 21, 682– 690. predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28,
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S.-H. (2004). Item response theory. Boca Raton, FL: 407– 434.
CRC. Hopf, D., & Hatzichristou, C. (1999). Teacher gender-related influences in
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Greek schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 1–18.
Freeman. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 5. Self- tives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6,
efficacy and adolescence (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information 1–55.
Age. Huberman, M. (1989). The professional life cycle of teachers. Teachers
Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006). Adaptive linear College Record, 91, 31–57.
step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93, Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortage. American
491–507. Educational Research Journal, 38, 499 –534.
Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, self-efficacy, coping resources, and burn- Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer
out among secondary school teachers in Spain. Educational Psychology,
software]. New York, NY: Scientific Software International.
26, 519 –539.
Jepson, E., & Forrest, S. (2006). Individual contributory factors in teacher
Bock, R. D., & Mislevy, R. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability
stress: The role of achievement striving and occupational commitment.
in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 183–197.
6, 431– 444.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you could
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative
successfully perform these tasks? In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407.
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287–305). Greenwich, CT: In-
formation Age. Kennedy, P. (2004). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M., & Baglioni, A. J., Jr. (1995). A Klassen, R. M. (in press). Teachers’ stress: The mediating role of collective
structural model of the dimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of efficacy beliefs. Journal of Educational Research.
Educational Psychology, 65, 49 – 67. Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong,
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy I. Y., & Georgiou, T. (2009). Exploring the validity of the Teachers’
beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educa- Self-Efficacy Scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psy-
tional Psychology, 95, 821– 832. chology, 34, 67–76.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (in press). Teachers’ collective
Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. Journal
students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of of Experimental Education.
School Psychology, 44, 473– 490. Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality, and burnout in primary
Chaplain, R. P. (2008). Stress and psychological distress among trainee school teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229 –
secondary teachers in England. Educational Psychology, 28, 195–209. 243.
Chow, B. W.-Y., Chiu, M. M., & Wong, S. (in press). Emotional intelli- Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P., & Dikkers, J. (2008). Older workers’

motivation to continue to work: Five meanings of age. Journal of Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural
Managerial Psychology, 23, 364 –394. equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Edu- (pp. 290 –312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
cational Review, 53, 27–35. Spickard, A., Gabbe, S. G., & Christensen, J. F. (2002). Mid-career burnout
Lilien, D. M., Startz, R., Ellsworth, S., Noh, J., & Engle, R. (1995). Eview in generalist and specialist physicians. Journal of the American Medical
[Computer software]. Irvine, CA: Quantitative Micro Software. Association, 288, 1447–1450.
Liu, X. S., & Ramsey, J. (2008). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Analyses of the Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy:
Teacher Follow-Up Survey in the United States for 2000 –2001. Teach- Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,
ing and Teacher Education, 24, 1173–1184. 783– 805.
Manthei, R., Gilmore, A., Tuck, B., & Adair, V. (1996). Teacher stress in Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential an-
intermediate schools. Educational Research, 38, 3–19.
tecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers.
Mislevy, R. J., & Bock, R. D. (1990). BILOG 3 (2nd ed.) [Computer
Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944 –956.
software]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software International.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher
Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job
efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68,
satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
75, 77– 86.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Special analysis 2005: Mobility in
Educational Research, 66, 543–578. the teacher workforce. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://
Ross, J. A., Cousins, J. B., & Gadalla, T. (1996). Within-teacher predictors
of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 385– 400. Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2007). Goal structures and teach-
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a ers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching
predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation analysis. Applied Psy- experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology,
chology: An International Review, 57, 152–171. 99, 181–193.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy
and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures.
and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611– 625. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343–356.


Ancillary Tables and Results

Table A1
Eigenvalues Showing Single Dominant Factors in Each Set of Test Questions

Eigenvalues % of variance explained by

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

Classroom management self-efficacy 2.76 0.45 0.41 6.13 1.10 69 11

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

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

(Appendix continues)

Table A2
Three-Factor and Two-Factor Structures Best Fit Responses to Teacher Self-Efficacy and Teacher Stress
Questions as Shown by Goodness-of-Fit Measures (Varimax Rotation)

Factor structure

Goodness-of-fit measure Three Two Hierarchical Nested Single

Teacher self-efficacy
Standardized root mean residual 0.041 0.066 0.114 0.137
Comparative fit index 0.957 0.901 0.924 0.540
Incremental fit index 0.957 0.901 0.924 0.541
Tucker–Lewis index 0.933 0.871 0.901 0.438
Root-mean-squared error of
approximation 0.053 0.074 0.091 0.175
Chi-square test 208 409 674 1,334
Degrees of freedom 41 41 33 44
p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index 0.946 0.903 0.639 0.626
Relative fit index 0.924 0.863 0.892 0.433
Teacher stress
Standardized root mean residual 0.015 0.068 0.075 0.068
Comparative fit index 0.990 0.881 0.814 0.749
Incremental fit index 0.992 0.882 0.815 0.751
Tucker–Lewis index 0.976 0.825 0.740 0.610
Root-mean-squared error of
approximation 0.046 0.138 0.163 0.053
Chi-square test 41 322 405 961
Degrees of freedom 13 12 7 14
p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index 0.971 0.808 0.745 0.797
Relative fit index 0.971 0.821 0.736 0.607

Table A3a
Summary Statistics of Variables and of Item Response Models



Variable Mean SD Min Median Max df -LL .2

Classroom management self-efficacy 0.08 0.93 )3.39 0.13 1.75 4 57.06!!!

Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.03 0.88 )2.99 0.03 1.69 4 460.08!!!
Student engagement self-efficacy 0.00 0.93 )3.03 0.00 1.90 3 121.12!!!
Job satisfaction 0.03 0.91 )2.87 0.08 1.50 3 61.61!!!
Female 0.70 0 1 1
Years of experience 13.21 9.97 0 10 43
School grade range
School combinations
(vs. elementary) )1 1 1
Other (vs. elementary) )1 1 1
Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) )1 0 1
Teaching other grades (vs. K) )1 1 1
Workload stress 0.01 0.82 )2.31 0.02 1.93 9 1865.20!!!
Classroom stress 0.00 0.92 )2.22 0.01 2.25 3 233.77!!!
Overall stress 6.81 2.06 1 7 9

Note. Values created from responses to sets of questions with item response model comparison tests, showing that the
generalized partial credit models (GPCM) fit the data better than the partial credit models (PCM). IRT ! item response
tests; -LL .2 ! log-likelihood difference chi-square test; K ! kindergarten.
p " .001.

(Appendix continues)

Table A3b
Percentage of Teachers by School Level

High Junior Elementary/junior Junior high/high Elementary/junior

Variable Elementary school high high school high/high school

School grade range 20 20 10 26 15 9

Table A3c
Percentage of Teachers by Grade Level

Head Multiple
Variable K 1–2 3–4 5–6 7–9 10–12 Start grades

Teaching grade 3 7 7 13 19 20 0.3 29

Table A3d
Percentage of Responses for Job Stress Scale

Teaching grade

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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

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

Table A4
Standard Errors of Each Teacher Property at 2nd, 16th, 50th, 84th, and 98th Percentiles, Showing
Greater Standard Errors at Higher Percentiles

Standard errors at each percentile

Teacher property 2nd 16th 50th 84th 98th

Job satisfaction 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.45 1.16

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

(Appendix continues)

Table A5
Correlations (Lower Left Triangle), Variances (Diagonal), and Covariances (Upper Right Triangle)

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

1. Classroom management self-efficacy 0.86 0.41 0.44 )0.03 1.47 36.66 )0.07 )0.05 )0.02 )0.01 )0.07 )0.32 )0.25 0.41
2. Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.50 0.78 0.44 )0.01 1.82 54.85 )0.02 )0.02 )0.02 0.00 )0.05 )0.18 )0.07 0.32
3. Student engagement self-efficacy 0.51 0.36 0.87 0.02 1.39 37.50 )0.07 )0.10 )0.02 )0.04 )0.08 )0.17 )0.23 0.40
4. Female gender )0.07 0.21 0.05 0.21 )0.27 )10.24 )0.06 )0.06 0.01 )0.02 0.05 0.04 0.12 )0.05
5. Years of experience 0.16 0.19 0.15 )0.06 99.43 3206 )0.42 )0.65 )0.09 0.00 0.13 )0.08 0.65 0.14
6. Years of experience squared 0.12 )0.03 0.12 )0.07 0.96 112,464 )12.76 )17.19 )2.66 )0.08 )1.81 )1.67 13.37 0.14
7. School grade range: School
combinations (vs. elementary) )00.10 )0.03 )0.10 )0.18 )0.05 )0.05 0.61 0.52 )0.01 0.04 )0.05 0.00 0.08 )0.08
8. School grade range: Other (vs.
elementary) )00.07 )0.05 )0.13 )0.15 )0.08 )0.06 0.83 0.64 )0.01 0.05 )0.02 )0.02 0.10 )0.07
9. Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) )00.06 0.01 )0.05 0.06 )0.03 )0.02 )0.05 )0.04 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00
10. Teaching other grades (vs. K) )00.02 )0.07 )0.11 )0.10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.60 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.01 )0.01
11. Workload stress )00.10 )0.21 )0.10 0.13 0.02 )0.01 )0.08 )0.03 0.03 0.02 0.68 0.34 0.73 )0.21
12. Classroom stress )00.38 )0.04 )0.20 0.10 )0.01 )0.01 0.00 )0.02 0.02 0.00 0.45 0.85 0.58 )0.26
13. Overall stress )00.13 0.25 )0.12 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.43 0.31 4.22 )0.26
14. Job satisfaction 0.34 0.34 )0.02 1.24 42.01 )0.06 )0.05 0.00 0.00 )0.16 )0.22 )0.48 0.82

Note. K ! kindergarten.

Table A6
Total Effect and Indirect Effect of Each Independent Variable on Each Dependent Variable

Dependent variable

Stress Self-efficacy

Teaching other Classroom Instructional Student Job

Independent variable grades (vs. K) Workload Classroom Overall management strategies engagement satisfaction

Female gender
Total effect )0.24 0.37 0.24 0.21 )0.10 )0.06 0.02 )0.10
Indirect effect 0.21 0.06 )0.06 0.02 )0.10
Years of experience quadratic term
Total effect 0.19 0.22 0.17 0.11
Indirect effect 0.11
School grade range
School combinations vs. elementary
Total effect )0.1 )0.03
Indirect effect )0.03
Other vs. elementary
Total effect )0.16 )0.11
Indirect effect 0.01
Teaching Grade 1 or 2 vs. K
Total effect )0.05 )0.01
Indirect effect )0.01
Teaching other grades vs. K (total effect) )0.09
Workload stress
Total effect 0.56 0.16 )0.08
Indirect effect )0.08
Classroom stress
Total effect )0.52 )0.25 )0.25 )0.21
Indirect effect )0.21
Overall stress (total effect) )0.21
Classroom management self-efficacy 0.26
Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.29

Squared multiple correlations 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.31 0.25 0.11 0.12 0.31

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

(Appendix continues)

Table A7
Completely Standardized Solution of Structural Equation Model: Psi Matrix

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

1. Job satisfaction 0.69 !!!

2. Classroom management self-efficacy 0.75!!!

3. Instructional strategies self-efficacy 0.48!!! 0.89!!! 0.45!!!
4. Student engagement self-efficacy 0.46!!! 0.88!!!
5. School grade range: School combinations (vs. elementary) 1.00!!!
6. School grade range: Other (vs. elementary) 0.83!!! 1.00!!!
7. Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K) 1.00!!!
8. Teaching other grades (vs. K) 0.61!!! 0.96!!!
9. Workload stress 0.97!!!
10. Classroom stress 0.59!!! 0.99!!!
11. Overall stress 0.69!!!

Note. K ! kindergarten.
p " .001.

Table A8
Completely Standardized Solution of Structural Equation Model: Lambda-Y Matrix


Self-efficacy Stress

Job Classroom Student Instructional

Survey item satisfaction management engagement strategies Workload Classroom
I am satisfied with what I achieve at work. 0.85
I feel good at work. 0.85!!!
How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the
classroom? 0.75a
How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules? 0.78!!!
How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy? 0.75!!!
How much can you do to establish a classroom management system
with each group of students? 0.80!!!
How much can you do to craft good questions for students? 0.60a
How much can you do to implement a variety of assessment
strategies? 0.70!!!
How much can you do to provide an alternative explanation when
students are confused? 0.66!!!
How much can you do to implement alternative strategies in your
classroom? 0.73!!!
How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest
in school work? .78a
How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in
school work? .84!!!
How much can you do to help students to value learning? .74!!!
How great a source of stress is having too much work to do? 0.66a
How great a source of stress is having extra duties/responsibilities
because of absent teachers? 0.55!!!
How great a source of stress is having a large class size? 0.54!!!
How great a source of stress is being responsible for students’
achievement? 0.60!!!
How great a source of stress is having noisy students? 0.70a
How great a source of stress is maintaining class discipline? 0.90!!!
How great a source of stress is dealing with students’ impolite
behavior or rudeness? 0.80!!!
The first lambda-Y estimates of each latent variable is fixed by default.
p " .001.

(Appendix continues)

Table A9
Structural Equation Model Showing a Good Fit With the Data

Measure Result

Standardized root mean residual (SRMR) .039

Root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA) .041
Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) .967
Incremental fit index (IFI) .971
Comparative fit index (CFI) .971
.2(305), p ! .000 1068.00
Adjusted goodness of fit index .937
Relative fit index .954

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

Table A10
Sobel Mediation Tests for the Outcome Variable Job Satisfaction

Initial variable3Mediator % change z

Years of experience quadratic term3Class management self-efficacy 20 2.039!

School combinations (vs. elementary)3Class management self-efficacy 19 )2.638!!
Teaching Grade 1 or 2 (vs. K)3Class management self-efficacy 13 )2.225!
Workload stress3Class management self-efficacy 20 )3.285!!
Classroom stress3Class management self-efficacy 13 )4.212!!!
Workload stress3Overall stress 10 2.678!!
Years of experience quadratic term3Instructional strategies self-efficacy 13 1.986!
Classroom stress3Instructional strategies self-efficacy 21 )3.795!!!
p " .05. !!
p " .01. !!!
p " .001.

Received March 11, 2009

Revision received January 26, 2010
Accepted January 27, 2010 !