00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
film s the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction iis dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. M l 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
CORRELATES AND MEASUREMENT OF TEACHING
SATISFACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
PROFESSORS IN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
By
TERITREASURE
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 1995
UMI Number: 9614077
UMI Microform 9614077
Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
Teri Treasure
under the direction o f h .er— Dissertation Committee, and
approved by all members o f the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School
o f Education in partialfulfillment o f the requirementsfor
the degree of
D o c t o r o f E d u c a t io n
Dissert mmittee
■
Chairperson
TERI TREASURE DR. DENNIS HOCEVAR
Correlates and measurement o f teaching satisfaction in
higher education professors in the Republic o f Korea
The purpose of this study was first, to help higher education institutions and
professors gain an understanding of the variables that affect teaching satisfaction,
and second, to offer an instrument to measure teaching satisfaction in a higher
education setting. This study also attempts to increase the international knowledge
of teaching satisfaction in higher education professors by using a sample of 282
professors from the Republic o f Korea.
A forty-one item questionnaire with a Likert-type response scale and two
open-ended questions was developed. Reliability test were run before and after
exploratory factor analysis. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were
used to analyze the questionnaire's dimensionality. ANOVA and zero-order PM
correlation analysis were carried out for seven independent variables.
Findings of the study were: (1) Instructor's teaching satisfaction was
significantly related to rank. More specifically, Full Professors had higher teaching
satisfaction than other groups of instructors. In this study, Assistant Professors
also were found to have higher teaching satisfaction than Associate Professors.
The least highest teaching satisfaction group was full-time instructors.
(2) Significant differences on teaching satisfaction based on instructor's teaching
department were also found. Departments with the highest teaching satisfaction to
the least teaching satisfaction were as follows, science, engineering, humanities,
education, and business. (3) Teaching satisfaction was significantly and positively
correlated with instructor’ s age. More specifically, as the instructor's age increased
their level of teaching satisfaction also increased.
Recommendations for further study included. (1) The final 34-item teaching
satisfaction questionnaire could be administered to higher education professors in
the United States to compare U. S. findings with the present results. (2) Other
departments also should be included in future studies and also more female
instructors should be included to better define gender differences in teaching
satisfaction. (3) Further study o f the unusual finding that assistant professors have
higher teaching satisfaction than associate professors should be undertaken.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Paee
iv
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The Problem Situation
Purposes
Importance of the Study
Research Questions
Delimitations
Assumptions
Organization of the Reminder of the
Dissertation
Job Satisfaction
Teaching Satisfaction
Relationship of Teaching Satisfaction with Selected Variables
Design
Sample
Instrumentation'
Methods o f Data Collection
Data Analysis and Procedures
Methodological Assumptions
Limitations
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................... 38
REFERENCES........................................................................................ 74
II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE 7
HI. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 25
APPENDIX................................................................................................... 86
A. Demographic Survey and Teaching Satisfaction Questionnaire
(Original 43 Item s).......................................................................... 86
B, Teaching Satisfaction Questionnaire (Final 36 Items)..................... 94
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Description o f Data......................................................................... 35
2. Means, Standard Deviations, Item-total Correlation.................... 37
3. Item Sub-categoiy Reliability......................................................... 43
4. Factor Item Loading........................................................................ 50
5. Reliability After Factor Analysis..................................................... 54
6. Confirmatory Factor Analytic Results............................................ 59
7. One-way Analysis of Variance for Teaching.................................. 62
Satisfaction by Instructor's Sex, Rank, Educational
Level, Types o f School and Teaching Department
8. Mean, Standard Deviation and Number of the Group.................... 65
9. Correlation Matrix: Teaching Satisfaction by.................................. 67
Age and Teaching Experience
CHAPTER 1
1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Higher education institutions have a unique situation which cannot be compared to
any other organization. The institutions primary goal is to carry out their responsibility of
supporting students in reaching their academic potential. In achieving this goal, higher
education institutions must attract and retain quality faculty members in their institution.
A step towards this end is defining the teaching satisfaction level of the faculty and then
taking action to resolve identified deficiencies.
The Problem Situation
During the last several decades a number of research studies have been conducted
on job satisfaction in education (Braxton, Bayer & Finkelstein, 1992; Glick, 1992;
Lester, 1987; Moxley, 1977; Opp, 1992; Person & Seiler, 1983; Serafin, 1991; V.
Wheeless, L. Wheeless & Howard, 1983). Studies have shown that higher education
professors consider teaching, research and service as their most important work-related
activities (Centra, 1983; Gmelch, Lovrich & Wilke, 1984; Serafin, 1991 & 1993), Of
these three areas, teaching and research are considered to be the most important
elements o f job satisfaction (Braxton, Bayer & Finkelstein, 1992; Braxton & Toombs,
2
1982; Centra, 1983, Kremer, 1991; Parsons & Platt, 1973; Pearson & Seiler, 1983;
Serafin, 1993). In analyzing current promotion trends in education, more emphasis has
been placed on research productivity (Astin, Korn & Dey, 1991; Bess, 1977; Brookes &
German, 1983; Light, Marsden & Carl, 1973; Moses, 1986; Tuckman, 1979), even
though university faculty members consider teaching their principal job activity (Astin,
Korn & Dey, 1991; Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker & Riley, 1978; Braxton, Bayer &
Finkelstein, 1992). Also, university faculty members have focused more on research
instead of teaching because of economic problems (Bess, 1977; Brookes & German,
1983; Moses, 1986; Thornton, 1992; V. Wheeless, L. Wheeless & Howard, 1983).
Additionally, experts believe teaching satisfaction is declining because stress in colleges
and universities is increasing (Blackburn, Horowitz, Edington & Klos, 1986; Gmelch,
Lovrich & Wilke, 1984).
There have been several studies that suggest teaching is a central responsibility of
academic institutions and professors (Brookes & German, 1983; Powell, Barrett &
Shanker, 1983). A significant amount o f research has emphasized that teaching is a
primary source of satisfaction for professors (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker & Riley, 1978;
Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Boyer, 1987; Braxton, Bayer & Finkelstein, 1992; Clark,
1985; Cooper, 1973; Cross, 1977; DeFrain, 1979; Hunter, Ventimiglia & Crow, 1980,
Ibrahim, 1986; Mckeachie, 1982; McNair, 1980; Mellinger, 1982; Miller, 1986; Riday,
1981; Serafin, 1993; Weissman, 1982; Wilson, Gaff, Dienst, Wood & Baury, 1975).
Success in teaching is another element that produces job satisfaction (Diener, 1985;
Nussel, Wiersma & Rusche, 1988; Serafin, 1991). Other research studies have correlated
faculty job satisfaction with student perceptions o f teaching effectiveness (Cooper, 1973;
Moxley, 1977; Stuntebeck, 1974).
The development of Korea's higher education system is influenced by Western
education systems, specifically America's system (Lee, 1989). Earlier American
missionaries (1884-1910) were successful in establishing the structure and context of
higher education systems. After the Korean war (1953), the U. S. Military Government
adopted a strategy for reshaping Korean education (Herbert, 1971; Noel, 1980). During
this time many Korean students and educators went to America to learn the U.S.
national education system. They returned to Korea to become leaders of Korean
education. Today, Korea recognizes the importance o f faculty in higher education.
However, the primary focus of faculty development is still limited to instructional
development and has not been extended to organizational, personal, and community
development (Lee, 1989).
A limited number o f studies are available in the United States on the teaching
satisfaction o f Korean professors. This situation results in a lack o f information
concerning the teaching satisfaction level of Korean faculty members.
Purpose
The primary purpose o f this study is to analyze correlates o f teaching satisfaction
among current higher education professors in the Republic of Korea. This study attempts
to increase international knowledge of the teaching satisfaction of higher education
professors in the Republic of Korea and more importantly, to increase our understanding
of the variables that affect teaching satisfaction. Also, this study offers an instrument to
identify teaching satisfaction trends in a higher educational setting.
Importance of the Study
This study represents a first attempt to analyze correlates of teaching satisfaction
among higher education professors in the Republic of Korea. Overall, faculty members
believe that it is essential to continue their involvement and interest in the teaching aspect
of the profession in order to maintain the quality of education provided by an institution.
Negative job attitudes o f faculty members might diminish productivity in that they could
become bored, stagnant, or uninterested in teaching, as they continue in the same job for
many years. This can have undesirable consequences for students, instructional quality,
and institutional vitality (Hamish & Creamer, 1986). Faculty teaching satisfaction is a
crucial educational and organizational concern (Argyris, 1975; Braxton, Bayer &
Finkelstein, 1992; Moxley, 1977) because from a management perspective, it is desirable
to keep quality faculty (Braxton, Bayer & Finkelstein, 1992). Also, faculty satisfaction
may have a positive effect on student development through a variety of mediating
variables (Cohen, 1974; Cooper, 1973; Moxley, 1977; Stuntebeck, 1974).
Research Questions
The main purpose o f this study is to provide data that answers the following seven
research question:
1. Is there a relationship between instructor's teaching experience
5
and degree of teaching satisfaction?
2. Is there a relationship between instructor's level of education (Masters,
Doctorate) and degree of teaching satisfaction?
3. Is there a relationship between instructor rank (Full-time Instructors, Assistant
Professors, Associate Professors, Full Professors) and degree of teaching satisfaction?
4. Is there a relationship between type of school (Public, Private) and degree of
teaching satisfaction?
5. Is there a relationship between the instructor's age and degree o f teaching
satisfaction?
6. Is there a relationship between the instructor's gender and degree of teaching
satisfaction?
7. Is there a relationship between the instructor's teaching department (Business,
Education, Engineering, Humanities, Science) and degree of teaching satisfaction?
Delimitations
The following delimitations are noted:
1. The study will be limited to higher education professors in the Republic of
Korea.
2. Only the data from those instructors who completed all items of the
questionnaire were used for the data analyses.
Assumptions
The following methodological assumptions were implicit in the investigation:
1. The instructors sampled in this study are representative of teachers throughout
the Republic of Korea.
2. Participants responded honestly and the data was accurately recorded and
analyzed.
3. The design and data processing procedures used in this study were appropriate
to the intent of the investigation.
Organization of the Remainder of the Dissertation
Chapter II presents a review of relevant research literature centered around (a) job
satisfaction of higher education professors, (b) teaching satisfaction of higher education
professors, and (c) the relationship of selected variables to satisfaction such as teaching
experience, level of instructor's education, rank, type of school, age, gender, and their
teaching department. In Chapter III the methods and procedures of the inquiry are
described with particular emphasis upon the measures employed and the methods of data
analysis. Chapter IV sets forth the findings of the study within the framework of each of
the seven research questions posed in this chapter. The statistical outcomes are discussed
and conclusions and recommendations are made.
CHAPTER II
7
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
This chapter provides a review of the literature that is specifically related to
teaching satisfaction among higher education professors. Unfortunately, there has been
little research regarding the teaching satisfaction of Korean professors. This chapter is
organized around three topics: (a) job satisfaction o f higher education professors; (b)
teaching satisfaction of higher education professors; (c) relationship of teaching
satisfaction with selected variables such as instructor's gender, age, rank, educational
level, school, department and years o f teaching experience.
Job Satisfaction
The study of job satisfaction and its correlates has been an area of active investigation
in both industrial and educational settings for over 50 years (Baldwin & Blackburn,
1981; Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Boyer, 1987; Fjortoft, 1993; Olsen, 1993; Porter,
Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Sorcinelli, 1988). The job satisfaction studies over
the years have involved workers in a variety of occupations, from production activities in
manufacturing plants to the service professions. A study by V. Wheeless, L. Wheeless
and Howard (1983) identified a number of variables that possibly contributed to job
satisfaction in education. However, overall, only a limited amount of research has
attempted empirically to examine the factors contributing to job satisfaction in education
8
(Fjortoft, 1993). Educational research has traditionally adopted concepts, theories, and
measures from other disciplines (Carver & Sergiovanni, 1971; Miskel & Heller, 1973),
but teaching is unique (Lortie, 1975) and there is great variance among professions,
value systems, and specific job features.
Many research studies emphasize the intrinsic rewards of an academic career which
have traditionally been viewed as central to higher institution faculty job satisfaction
(Bess, 1981; Bowen, Bond, Gemd, Krager, Krantz & Lukin, 1986; Louis, 1980). Also,
extrinsic factors such as university support, salary, structure and the reward system are
thought to be important aspects o f job satisfaction (Austin & Gamson, 1983; Finkelstein,
1984; Winkler, 1982). Olsen (1993) reports in his research that sense of autonomy, the
opportunity to use skills and abilities, and a sense of accomplishment were consistently
among the most satisfying aspects of faculty's professional life. Conversely, salary,
recognition by the university, conflict among work commitments, and time pressures
were among the least satisfying.
The study of job satisfaction among faculty at institutions of higher learning is a
recent development. Further, the research directed toward work-related stress and job
satisfaction among academicians in higher education is limited. Perhaps this area has not
received enough attention because a high level o f job satisfaction generally has been
presumed to exist in a university setting. In studies of higher education, the relative
importance of teaching, research, and service is a much discussed topic. While examining
the literature related to satisfaction in higher education it was found that teaching and
research are generally reported as the more satisfying elements of academic work
(Pearson & Seiler, 1983). Instructors normally find teaching itself to be a source of
satisfaction (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Boyer, 1987; Clark, 1985; Ibrahim, 1986;
McKeachie, 1982; McNair, 1980; Mellinger, 1982; Miller, 1986; Riday, 1981;
Weissman, 1982), but research is perceived as the academic role of a professorate
(Boberg & Blackburn, 1983; Ladd, 1979). Other researchers agree that teaching as a
profession is another element that may produce satisfaction (Diener, 1985; Nussel,
Wiersma & Rusche, 1988), but some studies show that research is more highly valued
than teaching (Blackburn et al., 1980; Parelius, 1982).
According to Moore and Gardner (1992), faculty members should be successful and
the successful faculty member should be satisfied. Moore indicated that low job
satisfaction can imply that a faculty member has not been able to meet institutional
expectations and is in the process o f disaffiliating from the institution. Mowday, Porter,
and Steers (1982) concentrated on commitment as a chief determinant of turnover, with
job satisfaction only an interim variable in the turnover process. They reviewed much of
the previous research on the satisfaction/ turnover relationship, and determined that it
needed to be taken a step further. Their review indicated that job satisfaction was more
influenced by short-term factors and by daily job situations. The Steers and Mowday
(1982) model o f turnover views job satisfaction as a component o f the commitment/
turnover relationship. Job dissatisfaction itself is insufficient to bring about a turnover
decision, but could result in absenteeism based on a spontaneous decision to cope with
10
the job environment. Unfortunately, Mowday et al. (1982) did not simultaneously
evaluate critical variables to confirm the distinction. Later, researchers did so (Glisson &
Durick, 1988), and confirmed the discriminant validity on these constructs.
Recently, the economic situation in the United States has made it increasingly difficult
for colleges and universities to retain high-quality faculty and staff. The rate o f inflation
has far exceeded salary increases, thus lessening the buying power o f wages paid to
university employees (Howard, Skarpness, Zirke & McLanghlin, 1982). In addition,
faculty, administrators, and staff are confronted with increased work demands because of
hiring freezes, retrenchment, and academic and administrative changes. These problems
can result in decreased productivity, increased turnover, absenteeism, complaints,
grievances, and eventually even burnout (Wheeles et al., 1983).
Locke, Fitzpatric, and White (1983) explored job satisfaction among college and
university faculty and examined selected predictor variables in the process. The authors
were not convinced by the theories of Herzberg (1959) and Maslow (1954) who
concentrated on the needs aspect o f motivation. Locke et al. (1983) posited a previous
theoiy which focused on the value aspect of motivation. Locke et al. suggested that
recent studies indicated an overall decline in job satisfaction among university faculty
(Willie & Stecklein, 1982). Scores of over four on a five-point scale were reported
before 1970, whereas more recent studies showed mean overall levels o f satisfaction
below four, and in some cases, under three on a five-point scale. Willie and Stecklein
(1982) found a favorable response of 83 percent in 1956, as compared to 72 percent in
11
1980 amongst university professors, on a single item question, concerning whether they
would choose the same occupation again. In another study, Hunter, Ventimiglia, and
Crow (1980) found that high morale was held by only 30 percent of the university
faculty.
Astin, Korn and Dey (1991) conducted a study on 35,478 faculty members at 392
two and four-year colleges and universities across the country. The survey questionnaire
was designed for a national study of the outcomes of general education programs. The
results o f this study showed that the greatest level of satisfaction (83 percent) by faculty
was on "autonomy and independence." This finding certainly confirms that tenure and
academic freedom provide faculty with a great deal of autonomy. Given that nearly
two-thirds o f the faculty respondents held tenure, it is not surprising that job security
produced a relatively high 75 percent level of satisfaction. Relationships with other
faculty (75 percent) and course assignments were generally seen as satisfying, although
course load was not (51 percent). Competency of colleagues (68 percent), and working
conditions (65 percent) were also important factors in job satisfaction. Faculty were least
satisfied with visibility for outside jobs, salaries, fringe benefits, and with the quality of
their students. Not surprisingly, the results revealed that those faculty members who
were tenured were much more likely to report satisfaction with job security (89 percent),
than those who were not tenured (44 percent). Interestingly enough, whether or not the
faculty member holds tenure does not affect his or her satisfaction with job related
autonomy and independence (84 and 93 percent).
12
Teaching Satisfaction
American educators have often been criticized for not spending enough time
teaching, and for spending proportionately more time in research and writing (Daly,
1994). However, in reviewing the literature on higher education professor's job
satisfaction, many researchers have found that teaching is a primary source of
satisfaction for professors (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Ibrahim, 1986). According to Daly
(1994), a national survey of the professorate published by the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement o f Teaching in 1990, indicated that the number o f faculty at research
universities who believed it would be difficult to get tenure without publications had
risen over the last twenty years, from 44 percent to a whopping 83 percent. Further, the
number who shared that view had doubled from 21 percent to 42 percent, over the same
period, even when nonresearch institutions were added to the count. In another national
survey subsequently published at UCLA, 44 percent o f the faculty at public universities
indicated that the pressure for published research had become so intense that it was
interfering with their teaching efforts, and one-third o f the faculty expressed the same
view even at four-year baccalaureate colleges with presumably unambiguous missions as
teaching institutions (Astin, 1991).
Volkwein and Carbone (1994) mentioned that Caplow and McGee (1958) were
among the first to study the interesting dichotomy created by institutions that hire faculty
primarily to teach but give them promotion and salary advancement based primarily on
their research and scholarship. Many authors (Clark, 1987; Barnett, 1992) view the
13
faculty’ s research and teaching roles as being in conflict. Barnett (1992) suggests that
over emphasizing research obligations can have deleterious effects on the teaching
process. Also, faculty focusing on research can produce intellectual narrowness and
overspecialization.
Powell, Barrett and Shanker (1983) found in their study of teaching satisfaction that
the demands of research on faculties' time was very sporadic, but teaching was a daily
routine. They determined that research could be neglected, even ignored, without fear of
calamitous consequences, but this was not true of teaching. Failure to teach one's classes
was impossible to conceal and persistent failure could lead to a request for an
explanation. Teaching students was a central responsibility of academics, and anyone
who found it unrewarding or irritating would be dealing with a career which
incorporated a large element of frustration. None of the respondents in the Powell et al.
study were dissatisfied with teaching, and many admitted that it offered them important
rewards and satisfactions. Most faculty gained considerable satisfaction from teaching,
yet many indicated that they felt that this was undervalued by the institution. This idea
was supported by Genn (1980) in a study o f 796 academics which showed that 92
percent rated teaching performance as being higher or extremely high in importance.
Boyer (1987) mentions that the college professor's incongruent goals of being both a
researcher and a teacher are well-known. Although the college administration assumes
that faculty will be teachers first and foremost; the reality is that tenure, promotion and
prestige are usually a function of research rather than teaching. This characteristic of
14
American colleges is often traced back to the influence of the German model of
education.
Schultz and Chung (1988) reported in their study that faculty were somewhat
dissatisfied with their job. A negative beta weight in a regression analysis indicated that
faculty who were teaching more class hours reported a higher level of job pressure. The
faculty who were more heavily involved in teaching appeared to experience more
pressure in meeting the demands o f the position.
A study by Astin, Korn and Dey (1991) found that nine out of ten faculty members
identified their principal job activity as teaching, with many admitting to having a greater
interest in research. This study included 35,478 university faculty members across the
country who completed a job satisfaction survey. A substantial number o f faculty from
all types of institutions reported discrepancies between job responsibilities and personal
preferences. When asked whether they believed that institutional demands for doing
research interfered with their teaching effectiveness, more than one-quarter of the faculty
agreed that it did. Another similar finding showed that within this study, faculty who
worked in universities were most likely to view research demands as interfering with
their teaching. It is also pertinent to note that about one-third (32 percent) of faculty
who taught in the public four-year colleges believed institutional demands for doing
research interfered with their teaching effectiveness. This finding should be a cause for
concern because these institutions produce about one-third o f all the baccalaureate
degrees in the country and they represent the principle teacher training institutions.
15
Serafin (1993) studied the satisfaction of university faculty in regards to teaching,
research, and service. The study included a random sample o f 54 education faculty from
Western Michigan University. Ninety six percent felt satisfied with the academic freedom
to select and decide the design, content, objectives, and instructional materials o f the
courses they taught. On the contrary, large class sizes seemed to negatively affect the
satisfaction levels o f education professors at Western Michigan University. Sixty-one
percent of the participants expressed being dissatisfied with the number of students per
class.
Volkwein and Carbone (1994) report that faculty's research activity helps increase
their knowledge, interest and enthusiasm; and therefore helps students achieve desirable
outcomes. Further, faculty who are productive in research are more likely to challenge
students by their higher expectations.
Relationship of Teaching Satisfaction with Selected Variables
Gender
Various gender differences have been noted in several studies that have dealt with
important aspects o f the academic career (Balazadeh, 1981; Carleo, 1989; Grahn, Khan,
& Kroll, 1982; Hill, 1987). When female faculty were compared to male faculty, more
stress was reported among the female subjects (Brown, 1986). Furthermore, females
were reported as having less job satisfaction (Armour, Fuhrman, & Wergin, 1990), lower
efficiency as researchers (Landino & Owens, 1988; Schoen & Winocur, 1988), less
promotional opportunities (Astin & Snyder, 1982), marked salary disadvantages (Astin
16
& Snyder, 1982; Sandler, 1986; Schoen & Winocur, 1988), and a higher dropout rate
from academic life (Project on the status and education of Women, 1986). Also, research
supports the notion that females are less satisfied in the academic environment than men
(Armour, Fuhrman & Wergin, 1990; Balazadeh, 1981; Carleo, 1989; Grahn, Khan &
Kroll, 1982; Hill, 1987; Karoonlanjakom, 1986; Sprague, 1974),
The study o f job satisfaction among education faculty at Western Michigan
University by Serafin (1993) identifies many significant gender differences. The study
investigated a random sample of 54 full-time regular education faculty engaged in
classroom activities at the Western Michigan University. In the study, significant
differences were found between female and male respondents when they were asked
about their satisfaction with teaching. In this study, full-time male faculty at the Western
Michigan University appeared more satisfied with their teaching role than their female
counterparts. Further, there was a significant difference between male and female
professors in performing all components, actions, conditions, and/or functions of
teaching. Clearly, all these differences may be attributed to many other variables besides
gender itself These findings rejected the general belief that teaching is a female-oriented
role,
A study by Lovano-Kerr and Fuchs (1982) reported that more women complained
about lack o f time to accomplish tasks. It is important to note that researchers both
support and refute the claim that women generally experience lower levels o f stress than
men in comparable roles. Burke and Weir (1976) and Golembieski (1977) assert that
17
women experience a lower stress level, whereas Boyenga (1978) has found sufficient
evidence to refute this assertion, suggesting that females experience greater stress.
Several studies have emphasized that faculty responsibilities and salaries reveal
differences between genders. Most research is in agreement that female faculty are
typically paid less than their male counterparts and females are found to have lower
status positions (Acker & Piper, 1984; Finkelstein, 1984; Over, 1981). Also, females
tend to have heavier undergraduate teaching loads (Johnson & Stafford, 1974; Katz,
1983; Tuckman & Tuckman, 1976).
It is important to differentiate between academic activities and amount of job
satisfaction because Schoen and Winocur's (1988) study o f ten major universities in
Australia (n=907) found that females perceived that they were involved in actual
teaching more frequently than males. Other studies have found that women spent more
time teaching, and less time conducting research or performing administrative tasks
(Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker& Riley, 1978; Centra, 1974).
According to Finklestein (1984), the following conclusions are warranted: (1)
women's representation in the academic profession in 1984 was no greater than in
1929-1930, when they similarly occupied 28% of all faculty positions, (2) women tend to
be located in institutions with lower prestige and in "soft" and "applied" disciplines, and
(3) women are disproportionately represented in the lower academic ranks, and their
promotion rate is less frequent than that of their male colleagues. Also, in Finklestein's
study female faculty were found to have a lower level of satisfaction at research and
18
doctoral-granting universities.
Barbezat (1990) found that women preferred academic over private positions.
Moreover, females normally selected liberal arts colleges rather than research
universities or institutions where the teaching role was emphasized.
Educational Level
Usually, a doctoral degree is a prerequisite for employment consideration at
universities. Astin and Other's (1991) study o f 35,478 full-time college and university
faculty members at 392 colleges, universities and community colleges indicated that
while three-fourths o f four-year institutions' faculty held a doctorate degree, fewer than
one faculty member in five at two-year institutions held the doctorate. As would be
expected, the highest proportion o f faculty holding doctorate degrees (more than 80
percent) was found in the universities, whereas the highest percent with Master’ s degree
(60-plus percent) was found among faculty at two-year institutions. In the four-year
colleges, 60-plus percent of the instructors held doctoral degree and around 20 percent
only held the Masters degree.
Instructors' educational level is often used in developing questionnaires to investigate
higher education instructors job satisfaction (Lester, 1987; Serafin, 1991). Educational
level helps us understand the characteristics o f instructors and it can sometimes explain
the greatest amount o f variance in work satisfaction (Pearson & Seiler, 1989). However
some studies that used educational level as a demographic item have not provided an
analysis of the relationship between instructors' educational level and job satisfaction. For
19
example, Serafin (1991) used instructors educational level in examining college faculty
satisfaction with their roles of teaching, research, and service. Although educational level
was included in the questionnaire, the study did not provide any analysis of the
relationship between educational level and instructors job satisfaction.
Teaching Experience
The research conducted since the 1960's reports that several age related factors are
related to job satisfaction. For example, research finds that age, length of teaching
experience, and salary all demonstrate positive relationships with job satisfaction
(Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981; Borg & Riding, 1991; Opp, 1992, Wheeless & Wheeless,
1983). These aspects o f one's employment at an institution are generally correlated with
each other. Therefore, as one works longer at an organization, the individual is able to
get higher wages, and consequently, the employee gets more mature or older. Thus,
employment factors such as age, length of service, and salary are all related to job
satisfaction and it is difficult to determine which is the likely "cause" of greater
satisfaction.
Feldman (1983) reported that both the teacher’ s age and extent of instructional
experience were inversely related to the instructor's overall evaluation by students.
Possibly greater instructor satisfaction does not lead to greater student satisfaction.
Rank
Academic rank of the teacher has been one of the most frequently studied
variables in relation to satisfaction. The academic rank held by faculty has been found to
20
be one of the strongest predictors of research productivity in several studies (Blackburn,
Behymer & Hall, 1978; Kelly, 1986; Linsky & Straus, 1975). These studies indicated
that research productivity increased steadily with academic rank. This is not surprising in
that greater research productivity is often a prerequisite for promotion.
The results of the study by Moxley (1977) found that when comparing "very
satisfied" frequencies with all other scores for "interpersonal relations with students"
there were significant differences on the basis of rank and age. Older faculty with higher
rank were more likely to be satisfied with their interaction with students. The faculty
members with higher rank and tenure were also more likely to be satisfied with the
amount of recognition that they received.
The study by Feldman (1983) found that the teacher's academic rank is positively
correlated with the overall evaluation of the teacher and that rank was one of the best
indicators o f instructional experience and seniority. Perhaps this is one reason why
instructors with higher rank are more satisfied.
Age
Many research studies show a positive relationship between faculty age and job
satisfaction (Boice, 1986; Lawler, 1971; Marske& Vago, 1980; Moxley, 1977; Schwab,
1983). In life-stage theory, age is an important variable for it purports that people have
different needs at successive points in time and these needs motivate behavior. As faculty
become older, their need for affiliation increases. Also, their interest in teaching increases
as they approach retirement (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981). Overall, many researchers
21
have found that as faculty become older, their interest in teaching increases (Fulton &
Trowe, 1974; Johnson & Stafford, 1974; Lewis, 1975; 1980). Gmelch, Wilke and
Lovrich (1984) also found that as faculty become older they are more interested in
teaching.
The research on educational retirement has suggested that the optimal retirement time
reflects the influence of both economic and non-economic factors. These influences
include earnings, assets, anticipated retirement income, and attitudes toward and
satisfaction with work (Pames, 1988). Older faculty can afford to live more comfortably
after they have achieved their career goals of professorship and tenure through research
activities (Fulton & Trow, 1974; Johnson & Stafford, 1974; Lewis, 1975 & 1980).
School (Public versus Private!
The research by Astin, Korn and Dey (1991) o f the American College Teacher
Association revealed that the public universities are more involved in teaching than
private universities. Their report summarizes the highlights of a national survey of
college and university faculty that was carried out by the Higher Education Research
Institute (HERI) in the Fall and Winter o f 1989-1990. The results reported are based on
the responses o f 35,478 full-time college and university faculty members. Faculty from
both public and private institutions were satisfied with their autonomy and independence,
but not entirely satisfied with their salary and fringe benefits. Also, findings showed that
institutional demands to engage in research interfered with their teaching effectiveness in
both private and public settings.
22
With regard to public universities, 52 percent of those faculty members interests
leaned more toward teaching as contrasted with only 36 percent of those individuals
whose interests leaned towards research. In the teaching sector, faculty in public
institutions gave somewhat higher priority to preparing students for employment after
college, than did their counterparts in the private institutions. The faculty in private
institutions gave relatively high priority to 'affective' outcomes such as personal values,
moral character, and family living. Astin et al. also discovered that the faculty at private
universities are most satisfied with the quality o f their students, whereas, faculty at public
institutions are least satisfied with the quality of their students.
Perason and Seiler (1983) found that a larger proportion of professional schools
appeared to be located in public rather than private institutions. Possibly as a result,
public schools tend to have easier teaching loads, higher salaries, a smaller proportion of
women, fewer years at the current institution, and fewer tenured members. A study by
Opp (1992) revealed that public control of institutions had a significant influence on
instructor's career satisfaction. Faculty members in humanities, social sciences and
physical sciences were less satisfied with their careers when at public verses private
institutions. The faculty in public institutions often had to teach larger classes than their
counterparts in the private sector, which usually required them to spend more hours in
preparation for teaching, especially in grading. Faculty in the public sector also must do
more community service than their counterparts in the private sector. This added
requirement o f public schools becomes very time-consuming for the faculty. The
23
instructors at public institutions have less time for research and writing, and this may
consequently subtract from their career satisfaction (Feldman, 1988).
Academic Discipline
Several research studies examined the relationship between job satisfaction and
department. A study by Corcoran and Clark (1984) found that as environmental
dissatisfaction at work increased, perceived dysfunctional stress also increased. They has
suggested that in order to understand the culture of the academic profession, researchers
in higher education must focus more attention on disciplinary and institutional locations,
rather than on just demographic characteristics. Consequently, it is more important to
know that individuals are from certain departments rather than simply acknowledging the
level of experience as a professor. Corcoran and Clark concluded that American levels of
career satisfaction are based on such intrinsic motivators as the rewards inherent in
doing academic work, recognition from peers and students, and flexibility over work
schedule. Further, these factors will vary by department.
Blackburn, Lawrence, Bieber and Trautvetter (1991) discovered that sometimes there
is great variation among disciplines in teaching at research universities. Some faculties
have access to grants (e.g., chemistry and psychology) which are often given in addition
to funding for teaching, whereas other faculties (e.g. English) have less external funding.
The latter group are appreciably above the institutional average with regard to the norm
for the percentage of time given to teaching. Furthermore, humanities faculty have
traditionally seen teaching as a fundamental component of their profession, a basic value
24
difference from faculty in the sciences.
Astin (1984) stated that the theory of involvement postulates that learning and
development are a function of the amount of physical and psychic time and energy that
individuals invest in the learning process. Although Astin has argued that involvement
theory can be applied with equal validity to faculty development in any department,
Opp's (1992) study o f five departments including fine arts, humanities, social science,
biological science and physical science, discovered that there was a relationship between
job satisfaction and department. Specifically, Opp's study revealed that the department of
humanities faculties are more satisfied than other departments, and science department
faculties are least satisfied with their academic careers.
CHAPTER HI
25
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Chapter III sets forth a description of: (a) the research design, (b) the
characteristics of the sample, (c) the instrumentation employed in the study which
provided scores for the statistical analysis, (d) methods of data collection, (e) methods
employed in the data analyses and procedures, (f) the methodological assumptions, and
(g) the limitations that might have occurred.
Design
The research design is nonexperimental. The dependent variable is instructor's
teaching satisfaction. The seven independent variables are: years o f teaching experience,
level of education (Masters, Doctorate), rank (full-time Instructors, Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors, Full Professors), school (Public, Private), age, gender, and
teaching department (Business, Education, Engineering, Humanities, Science).
Sample
The study's theoretical population is comprised of professors who are teaching in
four-year higher education institutions in the Republic of Korea. The sample of
participants in the study population includes 282 higher education professors chosen
from private and public universities in the departments of Business, Education,
Engineering, Humanities, and Science. The size o f the sample has been calculated
26
based on the following formula:
N ' Sample Size
Z = Standard score of the desired probability for the desired confidence level
CT = Standard deviation on the measured variable
T = The range of the confidence interval desired on each side of the mean
1.96(0.6903) j 2
-0 * 0’
=(13.52988)2
= 183.05
A total o f282 professors participated in the survey. Preceding the satisfaction
questionnaire was a demographic survey (see Appendix A). Thirty-nine female and 243
male responses were collected. One hundred ninety-seven respondents had 1 to 10 years
of teaching experience, 66 respondents had 11 to 20 years, 14 respondents had 21 to 30
years, and finally 5 respondents had more than 31 years o f teaching experience. One
hundred fifty-five respondents taught at private universities and 127 respondents taught
at public universities. The total number of respondents for each department was 38 from
Business, 71 from Education, 65 from Engineering, 61 from Humanities and 47 from
Science. Fifty-one respondents were full-time Instructors, 61 Assistant Professors, 85
Associate Professors and 85 Full Professors. Seventy-two respondents held a Masters
degree and 210 a Doctorate degree. The age ranged from 31 to over 61. One hundred
thirty-six respondents were between the age of 31 and 4 0 ,1 11 respondents were
27
between the ages of 41 to 50, 29 respondents were between the ages of 51 and 60, and 6
respondents were 61 or over.
Instrum entation: Teaching Satisfaction Questionnaire
A forty-one item questionnaire with a Likert-type response scale (Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree) was developed. The instructors also were asked to
express their opinion in two open-ended questions. These were "What two aspects of
teaching do you like the most?" and "What two aspects of teaching do you like the lest?"
The 41 objective items reflected teaching characteristics that were identified at the initial
stage o f the instrument development process. A primary concern was the inclusion of
those items considered to be indicative of a large number of teaching characteristics
thought to represent teaching satisfaction. The different factors which might account for
instructor teaching satisfaction were identified as the instructors' relationship with
students, teaching itself, the curriculum, working conditions, and salary.
The 43 question full questionnaire is shown in the Appendix. To illustrate the
objective portion, instructors are asked to rate their level of satisfaction using four
categories: strongly disagree (1 point), disagree (2 points), agree (3 points), and strongly
agree (4 points). All questions were positively phrased so high numbers on each item
were associated with greater satisfaction. Sample questions for each category are as
follows:
1. Relationship with students
a. I like meeting and talking with students.
28
b. I get along well with my students.
2. Teaching Itself
a. I am happy and comfortable teaching students.
b. Teaching is exciting and stimulating.
3. Curriculum
a. In my course, subject matter is presented in ways that are academically
challenging.
b. The objectives of my current courses are very clear.
4. Working Conditions
a. I am happy with my current working conditions.
b. I am happy with my chairman's willingness to discuss problems related
to teaching.
5. Salary
a. My salary is fair and appropriate.
b. I have found my career in teaching to be financially rewarding.
The following procedures were used to develop the questionnaire:
1. An initial pilot questionnaire was developed in consultation with the
researcher's chair.
2. A group o f instructors from the Republic o f Korea translated the pilot
questionnaire from English to Korean.
3. The pilot group retranslated the questionnaire from Korean to English.
29
The results o f the back translation were analyzed and the final survey
questionnaire was modified to enhance its transliteral equivalence.
4. Forty-one questions were prepared and sent to a stratified random
sample o f282 instructors in the Republic of Korea.
Methods of Data Collection
A personal letter from the researcher and a self-addressed stamped envelope
accompanied the questionnaire sent randomly to selected instructors in the Republic of
Korea. This survey was conducted around March because Korea begins school at this
time. Three weeks after the initial mailing, a postcard reminder was sent to each
instructor who did not respond, and two weeks later a phone call was made to those
instructors who did not respond. The final return rate was 47 percent.
Data Analysis and Procedures
Because this is the first time this teaching satisfaction questionnaire was used, it
was important to test each question's internal consistency reliability. The 41
questionnaire items were initially subdivided into categories that represented the
following categories: Relationship with Students; Teaching Itself; Curriculum; Working
Conditions; and Salary. The calculation of means, standard deviations, and item-total
correlations for the 41 teaching satisfaction questionnaire was carried out. A factor
analysis of the questionnaire also was carried out. Both exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis were used to analyze the questionnaires dimensionality.
ANOVA analyses were carried out for five independent variables and zero-order PM
30
correlation was used for the other two independent variables. Whenever a significant F
value occurred between the means o f the samples on a selected variable, the Scheffe test
was used to ascertain which pair of means for a given variable yielded significance at or
beyond the .05 level.
Methodological Assumptions
The following methodological assumptions were made in the study:
1. The measures were reasonably reliable and valid indicators of the constructs that
they were intended to represent.
2. The sample was sufficiently representative o f Korean higher education
instructors to afford a basis for generalization to the Korean population of higher
education instructors.
3. Methods of test scoring and of data collection and recording were relatively free
of error.
4. Procedures employed in data analyses were appropriate to obtain the evidence
necessary to answer the research questions.
Limitations
The following limitations posed a possible threat to the validity of the investigation:
1. The absence of normative data for instructors on the particular measures
employed prevented the determination of cross-cultural comparisons that would have
been of considerable interest.
2. The results will be limited by the subject’ s accuracy and integrity as respondents
31
to the questionnaires.
3. The extent to which any of the methodological assumptions were not met would
constitute a limitation in the study.
CHAPTER IV
32
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Four major statistical methods were used to develop the teaching satisfaction
instrument and answer the seven research questions stated in first chapter. The four
major statistical analysis were: (1) descriptive statistics, (2) item analysis o f the 41-item
questionnaire's reliability and sub-category reliabilities, (3) exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis, and (4) ANOVA and correlation statistical analyses related to the seven
research questions. Subsequently, these statistical results are interpreted and discussed as
well as related to other relevant research.
Descriptive Data
Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1. The following data demographics were
used in the study: (1) Gender, (2) Teaching Experience, (3) Type o f School, (4)
Teaching Department, (5) Rank, (6) Instructor's Educational Level and (7) Instructor's
Age.
Gender. There were 39 female respondents in the study which represented 14
percent o f the total number. The 243 o f male respondents represented 86 percent o f the
total sample size.
Teaching Experience. Each group includes respondents within a ten-year span. There
were 197 respondents who had 1 to 10 years of teaching experience, and this was 69.9
33
percent of the total number of respondents. There were 66 respondents who had 11 to
20 years of teaching experience, and this was 23.4 percent of the total number of
respondents. There were 14 respondents who had 21 to 30 years of teaching experience,
and this was 4.9 percent of total number of respondents. Finally, there were 5
respondents who had more than 31 years of teaching experience, and this was 1.8
percent of total number o f respondents.
School. This study looked at two different types o f school. There were 155
respondents who taught at private universities, and this was 55 percent o f the total
number of respondents. Also, there were 127 respondents who taught at public
universities, and this was 45 percent o f the total number of respondents.
Department. The percentage of respondents for each department was as follows: (1)
13.5 percent of the total respondents equals 38 members from the Business Department,
(2) 25.2 percent of the total respondents equals 71 members from the Education
Department, (3) 23 percent of the total respondents equals 65 members from the
Engineering Department, (4) 21.6 percent of the total respondents equals 61 members
from the Humanities Department, and (5) 16.7 percent o f the total respondents equals 47
members from the Science Department.
Rank. There were 51 Full-Time Instructor respondents, and this was 18.1 percent of
the total respondents. There were 61 Assistant Professors, and this was 21.6 percent of
the total respondents. There were 85 Associate Professors, and this was 30.1 percent of
the total respondents. There were 85 Full Professors, and this was 30.1 percent o f the
34
tota] respondents.
Educational Level. The number of respondents who answered that they held a
Masters degree was 72. This was 25.5 percent of the total respondents. The number of
respondents who answered that they held a Doctoral degree was 210. This was 74.5
percent of the total number of respondents.
Age. The number of respondents who were between the ages of 31 and 40 was 136.
This was 48.2 percent of the total number o f respondents. The number of respondents
who were between the ages of 41 and 50 was 111. This was 39.4 percent of the total
number o f respondents. The number of respondents who were between 51 and 60 years
o f age was 29. This was 10.3 percent of the total number of respondents. Finally, the
number of respondents who were 61 years o f age or greater was 6, and this was 2.1
percent of the total number of respondents.
35
Table 1
Description o f Data
Frequency Percent
(n=282) (100% )
Gender
Female 39 13.8
Male 243 86.2
Teaching Experience
I through 10 years 197 69.9
II through 20 years 66 23.4
21 through 30 years 14 4.9
Over 31 years 5 1.8
School
Private 155 55.0
Public 127 45.0
Department
Business 38 13.5
Education 71 25.2
Engineering 65 23.0
Humanities 61 21.6
Science 47 16.7
Rank
Full-time Instructor 51 18.1
Assistant Professor 61 21.6
Associate Professor 85 30.1
Full Professor 85 30.1
36
Table 1 (continued)
Frequency
(n=282)
Percent
(100%)
Education Level
Masters 72 25.5
Doctorate 210 74.5
Age
31 through 40 136 48.2
41 through 50 111 39.4
51 through 60 29 10.3
Over 61 6 2.1
Item Analysis: Means. Standard Deviations and Item-total Correlations
A forty-one item questionnaire with a Likert-type response scale, Strongly
Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Agree (3), Strongly Agree (4) was developed. These 41
items reflected teaching characteristics that were identified at the initial stage of the
instrument development processes. The data from returned questionnaires was prepared
for computerized data processing (SPSS). Table 2 describes the means, standard
deviations and item-total correlations for each of 41 items. The mean for the 41 items
ranges from 2.27 to 3.68 and the standard deviations range from .53 to .85. Also the
item-total correlation (r2) range between -. 14 and .64. The total 41 item mean is 2.99,
the total item standard deviation is .69, and total standardized item alpha is .90.
37
Table 2
Means. Standard Deviations. Item-total Correlations
Item M SD r2
1. When teaching, I clearly articulate
my goals. 3.60 .54 .35
2. Through discussion and other appropriate
activities, I actively encourage students
to participate in their learning. 2.99 .70 .33
3. Teaching is exciting and stimulating. 3.07 .60 .52
4. Overall, I am very much satisfied with
the quality o f my teaching. 3.10 .62 .50
5 .1 am extremely satisfied with how my
current courses are organized. 2.98 .65 .42
6 .1 doubt that I shall ever become "burned out"
even if have to teach the same courses the
remainder of my career. 3.02 .82 .35
7 .1 am known to be accessible to students. 2.81 .76 .39
8 .1 am an enthusiastic teacher. 3.15 .61 .58
9. Preparing course materials is intrinsically
motivating. 2.94 .71 .40
Table 2 (Continued)
Item M SD r2
10.1 carefully explain difficult concepts,
methods and subject matter when I teach. 3.51 .60 .35
11.1 am extremely satisfied with my use of
knowledge about related areas aside from
my own in my teaching. 3.35 .61 .45
12.1 am happy and comfortable teaching students. 3.11 .64 .53
13.1 am happy with my chairman's willingness to
discuss problems related to teaching. 2.46 .82 .35
14. The objectives of my current courses are very
clear. 3.48 .59 .54
15.1 try to make every courses the best course
every time. 3.42 .63 .46
16.1 like meeting and talking with students. 3.18 .67 .43
17. Overall, my students would rate my teaching
as excellent. 2.95 .64 .58
18. My teaching workload is fair and appropriate. 2.45 .83 .26
19. Overall, I would rate my teaching as excellent. 2.82 .61 .40
Table 2 (continued)
Item M SD r2
20. My assignments contribute to an appreciation
and understanding o f the subject matter. 3 .07 .67 .44
2 1 .1 am extremely satisfied with the way my
course exams are written, 3.17 .63 ,51
22. I am happy with my current working conditions. 2.27 .85 .28
23. I am very much satisfied that my exams
are graded in a fair manner. 3.68 .53 .33
2 4 .1 am very satisfied with the teaching materials
(e.g., lectures, seminars, etc.) used in my
current courses. 3.01 .66 .43
2 5 .1 try to creatively teach every course. 3.26 .58 .49
2 6 .1 have a genuine interest in the problems that
students encounter outside of the classroom. 2.71 .70 .38
2 7 .1 evaluate student work in a fair and
appropriate manner. 3,49 .66 .41
2 8 .1 am very happy with my personal
relationship with my colleagues. 3.01 .72 .40
Table 2 (continued)
Item M SD r2
29. The most important component of teaching
is in the instructor/student interactions. 3.41 .69 .31
30. My course provides students with a
highly valuable learning experience. 3.16 .57 .53
3 1 .1 am very much pleased with the chairman's
support of my teaching assignment. 2.50 .84 .36
3 2 .1 am satisfied with my salary. 2.47 .83 .06
3 3 .1 get along well with my students. 3.20 .57 .62
3 4 .1 am very much satisfied with content of the
courses that I teach. 2.97 .66 .64
35. In my course, subject matter is presented
in ways that are academically challenging. 2.94 .73 .41
3 6 .1 have found my career in teaching
to be financially rewarding. 2.65 .75 .14
37. My salary is fair and appropriate. 2.59 .77 .16
3 8 .1 am delighted with the cooperation
among the faculty members in my school. 2.91 .66 .41
41
Table 2 (continued)
Item M SD r2
39. Counseling students is an important
part of teaching. 2.66 .77 .44
40. Course preparation is easy for me. 2.70 .69 .28
4 1 .1 do not find teaching to be difficult
or overwhelming. 2.46 .76 -.14
Total Item Mean = 2.99
Total Item Standard Deviation = .69
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .90
Item Sub-categorv Reliability Analysis
The 41 items were subdivided into five categories which represented teaching
satisfaction areas based on theory. The five categories are teaching itself, the curriculum,
working conditions, students, and salary. Table 3 describes the reliability of the five
sub-categories. The curriculum category had highest mean score (3 .38 on a 1-4 scale)
and teaching itself and the student category both had the same mean scores (3.00).
Working conditions (2.60) was fourth and the least highest mean score was reported for
the salary category (2.57).
As shown in Table 3, the scale reliabilities for each subcategory all exceeded the
42
conventional .70 standard. Specifically, the scale reliabilities were .87, .77, .90, .74 and
.86 for the teaching itself, curriculum, working condition, student and salary categories.
Table 3
Item Sub-catecorv Reliability
Item M SD r2
Teaching Itself
3. Teaching is exciting.......... 3.07 .60 .61
4. Overall, I am very m uch...... 3.10 .62 .65
5 .1 am extremely satisfied , . 2.98 .65 .47
6 .1 doubt that I shall ev er....... 3.02 .82 .38
8 .1 am an enthusiastic teacher 3.15 .61 .64
9. Preparing course materials 2.94 .71 .39
12. I am happy and comfortable........ 3.11 .64 .52
17. Overall, my students would 2.95 .64 .63
19. Overall, I would rate my 2.82 .61 .52
20. My assignments contribute 3.07 .67 .40
2 1 .1 am extremely satisfied , 3.17 .63 .48
2 4 .1 am very satisfied w ith.... 3.01 .66 .58
25 . 1 try to creatively......... 3.26 .58 .49
30. My course provides............. 3.16 .57 .53
3 4 .1 am very much satisfied 2.97 .66 .71
40. Course preparation i s ........... 2.70 .69 .29
Table 3 (continued)
Item M SD r 2
4 1 .1 do not find teaching t o 2.46 .76 .09
Total Number of Items =17 Items
Total Item Mean = 3.00
Total Item Standard Deviation = .66
Total Standardized Item-AIpha = .87
Curriculum
1. When teaching, I clearly............ 9.60 .54 .49
2. Through discussion an d............. 2.99 .70 .36
10.1 carefully explain difficult........ 3.51 .60 .42
11.1 am extremely satisfied . . . 3.35 .61 .46
14. The objectives of 3.48 .59 .64
15.1 try to make every........... 3.42 .63 .51
2 3 .1 am very much satisfied .......... 3.68 .53 .40
2 7 .1 evaluate student w ork............ 3.49 .66 .39
35. In my course, subject........... 2.94 .73 .38
Table 3 (continued)
Item M SD r2
Total Number of Items = 9 Items
Total Item Mean = 3.38
Total Standard Deviation = .62
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .77
Working Condition
13.1 am happy with m y ............. 2.46 .82 .58
18. My teaching w orkload......... 2.45 .83 .33
2 2 .1 am happy with m y ........... 2.27 .85 .38
2 8 .1 am very happy with my , 3.01 .72 .50
3 1 .1 am very much pleased 2.50 .84 .59
38.1 am delighted with the .......... 2.91 .66 .56
Total Number of Items = 6 Items
Total Item Mean = 2.60
Total Standard Deviation = .79
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .90
Table 3 (continued)
Item M SD r2
Student
7 .1 am known to b e ......
16.1 like meeting a n d.....
2 6 .1 have a genuine.......
29. The most important.....
3 3 .1 get along w ell......
39. Counseling students......
Total Number o f Items = 6 Items
Total Item Mean = 3.00
Total Standard Deviation = .70
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .74
Salary
3 2 .1 am satisfied w ith 2.47 .83 .69
3 6 .1 have found m y 2.65 .75 .73
37. My salary is fair 2.59 .77 .77
2.81 .76 .41
3.18 .67 .55
2.71 .70 .51
3.41 .69 .26
3.20 .57 .58
2.66 .77 .49
47
Table 3 (continued)
Item M SD rJ
Total Number o f Items = 3 Items
Total Item Mean = 2.57
Total Standard Deviation = .79
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .86
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis was used to analyze patterns of intercorrelation among variables and
isolate the dimensions that account for these patterns of correlation. The Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the underlying factor
structure o f instructors responses to a 38-item teaching satisfaction scale. Confirmatory
factor analysis also was used to analyze the questionnaire items.
Exploratory Factor Analysis. A factor analysis was run to explore the factors which
explain the instructors' teaching satisfaction. Of the 41 original items, 38 items were
selected for the exploratory factor analysis. Items 29 (.26). 40 (.29), and 41 (.09) had
low item/total correlations from the previous sub-category reliability analysis and
therefore, these items were not included in the exploratory factor analysis.
The exploratory factor analysis o f the data consisted of a maximum likelihood
extraction with a varimax rotation for five factors. The items and factor loadings
48
are presented in Table 4. The 16 items loading on the first factor, teaching itself, pertain
to faculty members' satisfaction with quality of their teaching, their perception that
teaching is exciting and stimulating, and their overall happiness and comfort with
teaching. Thus, the factor was labeled "Teaching Itself."
The 8 items loading on the second factor describe the faculty members' concern with
the area of curriculum. The items ask about faculty satisfaction with lesson planning,
goals and objectives, course content and evaluating students work. Therefore, this factor
was labeled "Curriculum."
The 6 items loading the third factor describe the faculty members' concern with their
working conditions. The items ask about their relationship with their chairpersons,
colleagues and workload.
The fourth factor includes 5 items which ask faculty members about their relationship
with students. The items asks about their interest in and support for their students. This
factor was labeled "Student."
The fifth factor, labeled "Salary" is another important part of faculty's teaching
satisfaction. This factor includes 3 items which ask faculty about the fairness and
appropriateness of their salary.
Table 4 describes the target loadings for each of the five factors. The 16 items on the
first factor, teaching itself were highly loaded except item 9 (.29) and item 27 (.24). The
8 items of the second factor curriculum are also highly loaded. The third factor, working
condition has 6 items which are highly loaded except for item 18 (.27). The student
49
factor has 5 items which are highly loaded (.42 to .64). Finally, the salary factor has 3
items and those items load extremely high (.73 to .88).
50
Table 4
Factor Item Loading
Item No. Factor Loading
Item loading on Factor 1: Teaching Itself
34 .73
24 .67
4 .66
3 .63
17 .61
8 .61
19 .54
5 .52
12 .45
25 .45
30 .43
21 .42
6 .38
20 .32
9 .29
51
Table 4 (continued)
Item No. Factor Loading
27 .24
Factor 2: Curriculum
14 .77
1 .60
15 .55
11 .40
10 .40
2 .34
35 .31
23 .31
Factor 3: Working Conditions
31 .77
13 .74
38 .59
28 .55
Table 4 (continued)
Item No. Factor Loading
22 .36
18 .27
Factor 4: Student
26 .64
16 .63
39 .54
33 .52
7 .42
Factor 5: Salary
37 .88
36 .79
32 .73
Reliability After Factor Analysis
Table 5 presents results for rescaled subscales based on the exploratory factor
analysis. The factor analysis showed low loadings for items 9, 18,22 and 27. Therefore,
item 9 (.29) and 27 (.24) were removed from factor 1 and items 18 (.27) and 22(.36)
were removed from factor 3. This was done to increase internal consistency reliability.
Table 5 shows the new results. Factor 5 was not included in Table 5 because the scale
did not change.
54
Table 5
Reliability After Factor Analysis
Item M SD r2
Factor 1: Teaching Itself
34 2.97 .66 .72
4 3.10 .62 .65
3 3.07 .60 .63
24 3.01 .66 .58
17 2.95 .64 .65
8 3.15 .61 .65
19 2.82 .61 .53
5 2.98 .65 .52
12 3.11 .64 .51
25 3.26 .58 .49
30 3.16 .57 .53
21 3.17 .63 .49
6 3.02 .82 .39
20 3.07 .67 .43
55
Table 5 (continued)
Item M SD r2
Total Number of Items = 14
Total Item Mean = 3.06
Total Standard Deviation = .64
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .88
Factor 2: Curriculum
14 3.48 .59 .67
15 3.42 .63 .51
1 3.60 .54 .52
10 3.51 .60 .42
11 3.35 .61 .47
23 3.68 .53 .33
35 2.94 .73 .39
2 2.99 .70 .36
Total Number o f Items = 8
Total Item Mean = 3.37
Total Standardize Deviation = .62
56
Table 5 (continued)
Item M SD r2
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .76
Factor 3. Working Condition
31 2.50 .84 .63
13 2.46 .82 .58
38 2.91 .66 .60
28 3.01 .72 .53
22 2.27 .85 .32
Total Number o f Items = 5
Total Item Mean = 2.63
Total Standard Deviation = .78
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .76
Factor 4: Student
16 3.18 .67 .55
33 3.20 .57 .57
26 2.71 .70 .56
57
Table 5 (continued)
Item M SD r2
39 2.66 .77 .50
7 2.81 .76 .42
Total Number of Items = 5
Total Item Mean = 2.91
Total Standard Deviation = .70
Total Standardized Item Alpha = .76
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The exploratory factor analysis was followed by a
confirmatory factor analysis. The purposes o f the confirmatory factor analysis were to:
1) test the extent to which the empirical data were consistent with predictions based on
the aforementioned five-factor model; 2) test how well each of the five factors were
defined, and 3) test the extent to which the five factors were correlated. Purpose number
one was accomplished by examining the fit indices associated with confirmatory factor
analysis. Purpose number two was accomplished by examining the factor loadings. And
finally, purpose number three was accomplished by examining the disattenuated factor
intercorrelations.
Most researchers use a chi-square test to assess the fit of the theoretical model.
58
However, the chi-square test is highly dependent on sample size. Therefore, in this study
the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was used instead of the chi-square. Usually, a fit index
greater than .90 is required by researchers so this criteria for "good" fit was adopted in
this study. The Bentler-Bonett normed (NFI) and non-normed (non-NFI) fit indices also
will be reported.
In reference to fit, the following results were obtained: chi-square (80) = 137.29,
p. < .001; CFI = .97; NFI = .92, Non-NFI = .95. Because the comparative fit index
(CFI) exceeded .90, the results were taken as supportive o f the theoretical model. Table
6 explains the results of confirmatory factor analysis. The test shows that the five factors
are well defined and correlated.
59
Table 6
Confirmatory Factor Analytic Results
.79*
.72*
?77*
T eaching Itself .72*
-.05(N.S.)
.76
Curriculum
.62
.34
.66*
.66*
\ Working Condition / \ - 3 1
.44*
Jill .48*
.70*
jd Z
Student .86*
.14(N.S.)
Salary
60
ANOVA Analysis
In this study, 5 research questions are analyzed by ANOVA and two by correlation.
Tables 7 and 8 describe the ANOVA analysis for the five research questions.
Specifically, instructor's overall teaching satisfaction is analyzed by sex, rank, educational
level, type of school, and teaching department.
The homogeneity of variance test result shows homogeneity p > .05 between the
group in teaching satisfaction by sex, rank, educational level, school, and department.
Therefore, variance assumptions are satisfied.
The instructor's teaching satisfaction by sex F-ratio is not significant, F(l, 280) = .08
p > .05. Teaching satisfaction by rank is significant; F (3,279) = 3.12 p <.05. The
Scheffe multiple range test were used to examine which two groups are significantly
different at the .05 level. Results are the Full Professors have higher teaching satisfaction
than the other groups o f instructors. In this study, Assistant Professors also were found
to have higher teaching satisfaction than Associate Professors. Full-time Instructors are
the least satisfied with their teaching.
Teaching satisfaction by educational level is not significant; F(l, 280) = 1.27 p > .05.
Teaching satisfaction by department is significant; F (4,277) =.4.47 p <.05 which
indicates a significant difference among departments. Professors in the science
department have highest teaching satisfaction followed by engineering, humanities,
education, and finally the business department. In the multiple range test, the Scheffe
procedure indicated differences between group 5 (Science) and group 1 (Business),
61
and 2 (Education).
Teaching satisfaction by school is not significant; F(l, 280) = 1.73 p > .05.
62
Table 7
One-way Analysis of Variance for Teaching Satisfaction by Instructor's Sex. Rank.
Educational Level. Type of School and Teaching Department
Source DF Sum of Mean F Ratio PROB
Probability Squares Squares
Teaching satisfaction by Sex
Between
Group 1 10.02 10.02 .0833 .7731
Within
Group 280 33681.28 120.29
Total 281 33691.30
Teaching satisfaction by Rank
Between
Group 3 1097.60 365.86 3.1206 .0265
Within
Group 278 32593.70 117.24
Total 281 33691.30
Teaching satisfaction by Educational Level
Between
Group 1 152.21 152.21 1.2708 .2606
Within
Group 280 33539.09 119.78
63
Table 7 (continued)
Source
Probability
DF Sum of
Squares
Mean F Ratio
Squares
PROB
Total 281 33691.30
Teaching Satisfaction by Department
Between
Group 4 2024.72 506.18 4.42 .0017
Within
Group 277 31666.58 114.31
Total 281 33691.30
Teaching satisfaction by School
Between
Group 1 206.32 206.32 1.7253 .1901
Within
Group 280 33484.98 119.58
Total 281 33691.30
The means for teaching satisfaction by sex, rank, educational level, department and
types of school are shown in Table 8. In the teaching satisfaction by sex, the mean of
male group (M = 105.46) is higher than the female group's mean (M = 104.92). In
64
teaching satisfaction by rank, the mean of Full Professor group (M = 107.55) is greater
than the other groups. In the next category, the mean o f the doctorate group (M =
105.82) is greater than the mean o f Master's degree group (M = 104.13). Next, teaching
satisfaction by department shows that the mean of science department group (M =
110.44) is greater than the mean of the other groups. Finally, teaching satisfaction by
type of school shows the mean of the public institution group (M = 106.33) is higher
than the mean of the private institution group (M = 104.61).
As discussed in the previous section, the above mean differences were not significant
except in the case of rank and department.
65
Table 8
Mean. Standard Deviation and Number of the Group
Group M SD N
Teaching satisfaction by Sex
Group 1 (Female) 104.92 10.34 39
Group 2 (Male) 105.46 11.06 243
Teaching satisfaction by Rank
Group 1 (Full-time Instructor) 103.13 11.67 51
Group 2 (Assistance Professor) 106.90 10.43 61
Group 3 (Associate Professor) 103.50 9.96 85
Group 4 (Full Professor) 107.55 11.39 85
Teaching satisfaction by Educational Level
Group 1 (Master) 104.13 11.64 72
Group 2 (Doctorate) 105.82 10.69 210
Teaching satisfaction by Department
Group 1 (Business) 101.44 8.50 38
66
Table 8 (continued)
Group M SD N
Group 2 (Education) 104.05 10.15 71
Group 3 (Engineering) 106.33 12.28 65
Group 4 (Humanities) 104.50 10.11 61
Group 5 (Science) 110.44 11.39 47
Teaching satisfaction by School
Group 1 (Private) 104.61 10.89 155
Group 2 (Public) 106.33 10.98 127
Zero-order PM correlation
Table 9 describes the relationship between the general teaching satisfaction and
instructor's age and teaching experience. The results show teaching satisfaction is
significantly and positively correlated with instructor’ s age. Also, the results show that
the instructor's age is significantly and positively associated with instructor's teaching
experience.
67
Table 9
Correlation Matrix: Teaching satisfaction bv Age and Teaching experience
Age Teaching Teaching
Experience Satisfaction
Age 1.00
Teaching
Experience .7473* 1.00
Teaching
Satisfaction .1513* .0781 1.00
Note. N = 282
*P <.05 is significant
Discussion
This study focused on the development of a higher education instructor's teaching
satisfaction instrument. The study also examines the relationship between seven variables
and level o f instructor's teaching satisfaction. Analysis of an initial 41-item questionnaire
showed that the total standardized item alpha was .89. In the item sub-category reliability
analysis, five dimensions of instructor's teaching satisfaction were supported. The five
sub-categories were consistent with previous theory: teaching itself (Bowen & Schuster,
1986; Corcoran & Clark, 1984; Deci & Ryan, 1982; Erdle & Murray, 1986; Lester,
1987; Murray, 1980; Willie & Stecklein, 1982), curriculum (Apple & Jungck, 1990;
Pearson & Seiler, 1983; Serfin, 1991& 1993), working conditions (Astin, Korn & Dey,
1991; Bess, 1981; Finkelstein, 1984; Lester, 1987; Powell, 1983), students (Andersen,
Bonett, Powell & Wieneke, 1985; Bess, 1977; Cohen, 1981; Miller, 1974; Pallone,
Hurley & Rickard, 1971; Powell & Shanker, 1983 ), and salary (Ladd & Lipset, 1975;
Opp, 1992; Person & Seiler, 1983; Tuckman & Leahey, 1974). The standardized item
alphas for each category were: (1) teaching itself .8659, (2) curriculum .7733, (3)
working conditions .8981, (4) students .7382, (5) salary .8603.
In an exploratory factor analysis, only 38 items were analyzed as items 29 (.26), 40
(.29) and 41 (.09) were removed because of low item/total correlations in the
sub-category reliability analysis. Items 9, 18, 22, 27 failed to load highly in the
exploratory factor analysis. Therefore, another reliability test was run omitting these
items. O f the initial 41 items, 34 were confirmed through the first and second set of
analyses.
In a follow-up confirmatory analysis, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was used
instead of the chi-square. Usually, a fit index greater than .90 is required by researchers
so this criteria for "good" fit was adopted in this study. The Bentler-Bonett normed
69
(NFI) and non-normed (non-NFI) fit indices also were computed. In reference to fit, the
following results were obtained: chi-square (80) = 137.29, p. < .001; CFI = .97, NFI =
.92, Non-NFI = .95. Because the comparative fit index (CFI) exceeded .90, the results
were taken as supportive of the theoretical model. Inspection of the factor loadings
suggested that the factors were well-defined in the CFA (all loadings exceeded .60) and
also inspection of the factor correlations suggested good factor differentiation (all
correlations were less than .80).
ANOVA analysis results indicated that instructor's teaching satisfaction was
significantly related to rank (p <.05). More specifically, Full Professors had higher
teaching satisfaction than other groups o f instructors. In this study, Assistant Professors
also were found to have higher teaching satisfaction than Associate Professors. Full-time
Instructors were the least satisfied with their teaching. A number o f studies have
supported the relationship between teaching satisfaction and instructor's rank
(Blackburn, Behymer & Hall, 1978; Feuville & Blandin, 1976; Kelly, 1986; Kemerer &
Baldridge, 1975; Linsky & Straua, 1975), and the most consistent finding has been that
Full Professors are more satisfied.
According to Moxley (1977), faculty members with higher rank and tenure are more
likely to be satisfied because o f the amount o f recognition that they receive. Feldman
(1983) found in his study that the instructor’ s academic rank also is positively correlated
with students overall evaluation of the instructor and this is possibly one reason
experience and seniority are associated with greater satisfaction. Fjortoft's (1993) study
70
of factors predicting faculty commitment to the university revealed that Full Professors
were significantly more committed to the institution than lower ranked professors.
ANOVA analysis showed significant differences on teaching satisfaction between
instructors' teaching department. Means were as follows: science department (mean =
110.44), engineering department ( mean = 106.33), humanities (mean = 104.50),
education department (mean = 104.05), and business department (mean = 101.44). A
relationship between the instructor's teaching department and their teaching/job
satisfaction has been reported in previous research. Opp's (1992) study of five
departments including fine arts, humanities, social science, biological science and
physical science, discovered a relationship between job satisfaction and teaching
department. However, in contrast to this study, the humanities faculty had the highest
satisfaction and fine arts faculty were least satisfied with their job.
Teaching satisfaction's relationship with age and experience was analyzed by PM
correlation. The result reported that teaching satisfaction is significantly and positively
correlated with instructor's age (p <.05). More specifically, as the instructor's age
increased their level of teaching satisfaction also increased. Many studies have found a
relationship between the instructor's age and their teaching satisfaction. One hypothesis
is that older faculty can afford to live more comfortably, after they have achieved their
career goals of professorship and tenure through research activities (Fulton & Trow,
1974; Lewis, 1980; Johnson & Stafford, 1974). Also, the results of the study by Moxley
(1977) indicated that older faculty with higher rank were more likely to be satisfied with
71
their interaction with students. The study by Bently and Blackburn (1990) also identified
age as an important variable for the instructor's job satisfaction. As faculty members
become a older, their interest in teaching increases. In another study, Gmelch, Wilke &
Lovrich (1984) also found that as faculty become older they are more interested in
teaching.
Open-ended questions were used to identify most and least liked aspects of
teaching. The number o f respondents for these questions was 178 instructors which was
only 63 percent of total sample size. The most liked aspects o f teaching were autonomy
and freedom (32%), research (19%), spending time with students (13%), working
condition (11%), administration (10%), colleagues (8%), and salary (7%), The least
liked aspects were administration (29%), support from the institution such as materials,
library, and research (25%), work load (12%), environment (10%), colleagues (10%),
salary (5%), quality of student (5%), and too many student per class (4%). Similar
findings were reported in previous research studies. A major study o f higher education
faculty's job satisfaction by Astin, Korn and Dey (1991) found that 83% of the
respondents were satisfied with their autonomy and independence, 78% were satisfied
with their undergraduate teaching assignments and 75% were satisfied with job security
and their relationship with other faculty. Faculty were less satisfied with their working
conditions (65%), relationship with administrators (52%), teaching load (50%), salary
(44%) and quality of students (38%).
Finkelstein's (1984) review of literature on faculty job and career satisfaction
72
concluded faculty were satisfied with autonomy. Similar to this study, the study by
Pearson and Seiler (1983) showed that the faculty in their study were most satisfied with
classroom-related elements such as overall teaching load, schedule, class size and least
satisfied with pay and support for research activities. Finally, the study by Serafin (1993)
reported that 96 .3 % of respondents felt satisfied with academic freedom while 61% of
faculty felt dissatisfied with the number of students per class. Also, the lack of release
time offered by the institution for research was seen as a dissatisfying factor.
Summary and Recommendations
First, item reliability analysis yielded respectable results for 34 of the original 41
questionnaire items. Second, reliability analysis, exploratory factor analysis and
confirmatory factor analysis suggested that there are five dimensions of teaching
satisfaction: teaching itself, curriculum, working conditions, student and salary. Third,
there was no significant relationship between professors' years of teaching experience,
level o f education, types of school and gender with their level of teaching satisfaction. In
regards to level of education, 75 percent o f the surveyed instructors were doctorate
degree holders. The study also shows that institutions prefer to hire doctorate degreed
instructors, and therefore, instructors level of education may not be a strong predictor of
teaching satisfaction. Fourth, instructor's rank, age and teaching department had a
significant relationship with their level of teaching satisfaction. Fifth, Korean instructors
most liked aspects of teaching are autonomy and freedom, research and their relationship
with students. Instructor's least liked aspects of teaching were administration, support
73
from the institution and workload.
A recommendation for further research is that the 34-item teaching satisfaction
questionnaire be administered to higher education professors in the United States to
compare the U. S. findings with the present results. The cultural and educational system
differences between the two countries may affect the results. Other departments also
should be included in future studies and also more female instructors to better define
gender differences in teaching satisfaction. In this study, only 14 percent of the survey
participants were female, and this likely is a reason for this study's failure to identify any
significant gender differences. Finally, further study of the unusual finding that assistant
professors have higher teaching satisfaction than associate professors should be
undertaken.
References
74
Acker, S., & Piper, D. W. (1984). Is higher education fair to women? Guilford,
Surrey: SRHE & NFER-Nelson.
Andersen, L., Barrett, E., Powell, J., & Wieneke, C. (1985). Planning and
monitoring courses: University teachers reflect on their teaching. Instructional
Science. 13. 305-328.
Apple, M. W., & Jungck, S. (1990). You don't have to be a teacher to teach this unit:
Teaching, technology, and gender in the classroom. American Educational Research
Journal. 27. 227-251.
Armour, R., Fuhrmann, B., & Wergin, J. (1990). Racial and gender differences in
faculty careers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 825).
Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Dey, E. L. (1991). The American college teacher.
Higher Education Research Institute Graduate School of Education.
University of California, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 351 906).
Astin, A. (1991). The American college teacher. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute.
Astin, A., & Gamson, Z. (1983). Academic workplace: New demands, heightened
tensions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10: George
Washington University.
Astin, H. S. (1984). Academic scholarship and its rewards. Advances in
Motivation and Achievement. \, 259-279.
Astin, H. S., & Snyder, M. B. (1982). Affirmative action 1972-1982. A decade of
response. Change. 14, 26-32.
Avakian, A. N. (1971). An analysis of factors relating to the job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction of faculty members in institutions of higher education.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.
75
Balazadeh, G. (1981). A comparative study of motivation to work and job
satisfaction between male and female faculty members at a midwestem
regional university. Dissertation Abstracts International. 4 2 .4313A.
Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G., & Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy making
and effective leadership. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a
developmental process. Journal of Higher Education. 52, 598-614.
Barbezat, D. A. (1990). The market for new Ph.D. economists. Unpublished
paper. Amherst College, Amnerst, MA.
Barnett, R. (1992). Linking teaching and research. Journal o f Higher Education.
63, 619-636.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in
the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 88. 588-606.
Bentler, P. M. (1990a). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin. 107. 238-246.
Bentler, P. M. (1990b). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes, and
incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 25,
163-172.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the
Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin. 112.400-404.
Beltley, R. J., & Blackburn, R. T. (1990). Relationship of faculty publication
performance with age, career age, and rank. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Portland, OR.
Bess, J. L. (1977). Motivation to teach. Journal of Higher Education. 8,243-260.
Bess, J. L. (1981). Intrinsic satisfaction from academic versus other professional
work. A comparative analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Association for the study of Higher Education, Washington, D. C.
Blackburn, R., Behymer, C. E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: Correlates of
faculty publication. Sociology of Education. 51. 132-141.
76
Blackburn, R., Horowitz, S., Edington, D., & Klos, D. (1984). University faculty
and administrator responses to job strains. Research in Higher Education. 2 5 ,31-41.
Blackburn, R., Lawerence, J. H., Bieber, J. P., & Trautvetter, L. (1991). Faculty at
work: Focus on teaching. Research in Higher Education. 32. 363-381.
Boberg, A. L,, & Blackburn, R. T. (1983). Role stress, coping, and iob-related
strains in the academic workplace. Paper presented at annual AERA
meeting, Montreal.
Boice, R, (1986). The middle-aged, male, paranoid faculty member. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Borg, M., & Riding, R. (1991). Occupational stress and satisfaction in teaching,.
British Educational Research Journal. 17. 263-281.
Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. (1986). American professors: A national resource
imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boyenga, K. W, (1978). Job stress and coping behavior of married male and
female university faculty members. Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New
York: Harper & Row.
Braxton, J., Bayer, A., & Finkelstein, M. (1992). Teaching performance norms in
Academia. Research in Higher Education. 33. 533-569.
Braxton, J., Toombs, W. (1982). Faculty uses of doctoral training: Consideration of
a technique for the differentiation of scholarly effort from research activity.
Research in Higher Education. 16. 265-282.
Brookes, M., German, K. (1983). Meeting the challenges: Developing faculty
careers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 235 695).
Brown, R., Rond, S., Gemd, J., Krager, L., Krantz, B., & Lukin, M. (1986).
Stress on campus. Research in Higher Education. 24. 97-112.
Burke, R. J., & Weir, T. (1976). Relationship of wives' employment status to
husband, wife, and pair satisfaction and performance. Journal of Marriage and
the Family. 38. 279-287.
77
Caplow, T., McGee, R. (1958). The academic marketplace. New York.. Basic
Books.
Carleo, A. (1989). Job satisfaction among full-time faculty in the Los Angeles
community college district. Dissertation Abstracts International. 50, 58A.
Carver, F. D., & Sergiovanni, T. J. (1971). Complexity adaptability and job
satisfaction in high school: An axiomatic theory applied. The Journal of
Educational Administration. 9. 10-31.
Centra, J. A. (1974). College thinking: Who should evaluate it? Findings, 5-8.
Centra, J. P. (1983). Research productivity and teaching effectiveness. Research in
Higher Education. 18. 379-389.
Clark, B. R. (1985). Academic life in America. Change Magazine. 36-43.
Clark, B.R. (1987). Academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, N.J.:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Cliff, R. (1975). Faculty professional interests. Office of Institutional Studies,
University o f Southern California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 134 125).
Cohen, A. M. (1974). Community college faculty job satisfaction. Research in
Higher Education. 2. 369-376.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings o f instruction and student achievement . A
meta-analysis o f multisection validity studies. Review of Educational
Research. 51.281-309.
Cooper, J. F. (1974). Job satisfaction o f Mississippi Hinds Junior College teachers as
related to teaching effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International. 34,
4604-4605A.
Corcoran, M., & Clark, S. M. (1984). Professional socialization and contemporary
career attitudes of three faculty generations. Research in Higher Education. 20.
131-153.
Cross, K. P. (1977). Not can, but will college teaching be improved? In J. A.
Centra (ED ). New Direction for Higher Education. 17. 1-16.
78
Daly, W. (1994). Teaching and scholarship. Journal of Higher Education. 65,
46-57.
Deci, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1982). Intrinsic motivation to teach: Possibilities and
obstacles in our colleges and universities. In J. Bess (ED.). New Directions for
Teaching and Learning: Motivating professors to teach effectively. 10. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 27-35.
DeFrain, J. (1979). College teachers' work motivation, central life interests, and
voluntarism as predictors of job satisfaction and job performance. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 40. 4322A.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffen, S. (1985). The satisfaction
with life scale. Journal o f Personality Assessment. 49. 71-75.
Diener, T. (1985). Job satisfaction and college faculty in two predominant black
institutions. Journal of Negro Education. 54, 558-565.
Eckert, R. E., & Williams, H. Y. (1972). College faculty view themselves and their
jobs. Minneapolis: College o f Education, University o f Minnesota.
Erdle, S., & Murray, H. G. (1986). Interfaculty differences in classroom teaching
behaviors and their relationship to student instructional ratings. Research in
Higher Education. 24. 115-127.
Feldman, K. (1983). Seniority and experience of college teachers as related to
evaluations they receive from students. Research in Higher Education. 18. 3-69.
Feldman, K. (1988). Effective college teaching from the students' and faculty's
view: Matched or mismatched priorities? Research in Higher Education. 28,
291-328.
Feuville, P., & Blandin, J. (1976). University faculty and attitudinal militancy
toward the employment relationship. Sociology of Education. 49, 139-145.
Finkelstein, M. (1984). The American academic profession. Columbus: Ohio State
University Press.
Fjortoft, N. (1993). Factors predicting faculty commitment to the university.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 268).
Fulton, O., & Trow, M. (1974). Research activity in American higher education.
Sociology of Education. 47. 29-73.
79
Genn, J. M. (1980). Australian university teachers' perceptions of the ideal and
actual reward structure in the academic profession. Research and
Development in Higher Education, vol III. Sydney: HERDSA.
d ic k , N. (1992). Job satisfaction among academic administrators. Research in
Higher Education. 33. 625-639.
Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors o f job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly.
33,61-81.
Gmelch, N., Lovrich, N„ & Wilke, P. (1984). Sources of stress in academe: A
national perspective. Research in Higher Education. 20,477-490.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1977). Testing some stereotypes about the sexes in
organizations: Differential centrality o f work? Human Resources
Management. 16. 21-24,
Grahn, J., Khan, P., & Kroll, P. (1982). General college job satisfaction survey.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 208 716).
Hamish, D., Creamer, D. (1986). Faculty stagnation and diminished job
involvement. Community College Review. 13. 33-39.
Herbert, D. (1971). A history of US. Assistance to Korean Education. 1953-1966.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, George Washington University, p. 201,
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hill, B. (1987). A profile o f Job satisfaction among faculty members of selected
Oklahoma public junior/community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 48. 546A.
Howard, R. D., Skarpness, B., Zirke, M. B., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1982). A.
longitudinal analysis of selected administrative and faculty salaries at
land-grant institutions. Paper presented at the 1982 AERS Annual meeting,
New York.
Hunter, M., Ventimiglia, J., & Crow, M. L. (1980). Faculty morale in higher
education. Journal of Teacher Education. 3 1 .27-30.
80
Ibrahim, J. M. (1986). Job satisfaction of faculty members at selected southern
universities. Dissertation Abstracts International. 4 2 ,4737A.
Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Chicago: The
University o f Chicago Press.
Johnson, G. E., & Stafford, F. P. (1974). The earnings and promotion of women
faculty. American Economic Review. 64, 888-903.
Karoonlanjakom, S. (1986). Job satisfaction among faculty members at
non-metropolitan teachers colleges in Central Thailand. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 4 7 .1206A.
Kelly, M. E. (1986). Enablers and inhibitors to research productivity among higher
and low-producing vocational education faculty members. Journal of
Vocational Education Research. 11.63-80.
Kemerer, F. R., & Baldridge, J. V. (1975). Unions on campus. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kitz, D. A. (1983). Faculty salaries, promotions, and productivity at a large
university. American Economic Review. 63, 469-477.
Kremer, J. (1991). Identifying faculty types using peer ratings o f teaching,
research, and service. Research in Higher Education. 32. 351-361.
Ladd, E. C. (1979). The work experience of American college professors: Some
data and an argument. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 184
406).
Ladd, E. C., & Lipset, S. M. (1975). Technical report-1975 survey of the
American professoriate. CT: University o f Connecticut, The Social Science
Data Center.
Landino, R. A., & Owen, S. V. (1988). Self-efficacy in university faculty. Journal of
Vocational Behavior. 33. 1-14.
Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, S. (1989). The emergence o f the modem university in Korea. Higher
Education. 18. 87-116.
81
Leon, J. (1973). An investigation of the applicability of the college and university
professors. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arkansas.
Lester, P. E. (1987). Development and factor analysis of the teacher job
satisfaction questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 47.
223-233.
Lewis, L. S. (1975). Scaling the ivory tower: Merit and its limits in academic
careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lewis, L. S. (1980). Getting tenure: Change and continuity. Academe. 66.
373-381,
Light, W. D., Marsden, L. R., & Carl, T. C. (1973). The impact o f the academic
revolution on faculty careers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 072 758).
Linsky, A. S., & Straus, M. A. (1975). Student evaluation, research productivity,
and eminence of college faculty. Journal o f Higher Education. 22. 135-154.
Locke, E. A., Fitzpatrick, W., & White, F. M. (1983). Job satisfaction and role
clarity among university and college faculty. The Review o f Higher Education.
6, 343-365.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). School-teacher. A sociological study. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense marking: What newcomers experience in
entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly.
25, 226-251.
Lovano-Kerr, J., & Fuchs, R. G. (1982). Retention revisited: A follow-up study of
female/male non-tenured faculty percepment and quality of life. Paper
presented at AERA meeting, New York.
Marske, C. E., & Vago, S. (1980). Law and dispute processing in the academic
communhv. Judicature. 64. 175.
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York : Harper.
Mckeachie, W. J. (1982). The rewards of teaching. In J. Bess (ED ). New
Directions for Teaching and Learning. 10. 7-14.
82
McNair, B. (1980). The relationships between selected faculty characteristics and
teaching effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International. 4 1 ,4916A.
Mellinger, G. (1982). An investigation of academic job satisfaction/dissatisfaction in
a small struggling liberal at college. Dissertation Abstracts International. 44,
941 A.
Miller, G. (1986). Organizational climate and job satisfaction of independent
college faculty. Dissertation Abstracts International. 47. 2047A.
Miller, R. I. (1974). Developing programs for faculty evaluation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miskel, C., & Heller, L. (1973). The educational work components study: An
adapted set of measures for work motivation. The Journal o f Experimental
Education. 42. 45-50.
Moore, K. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Faculty in a time o f change: Job
satisfaction and career mobility. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 367 258).
Moses, I. (1986). Promotion of academic staff reward and incentive. Higher
Education. 15. 135-149.
Mowday, R. T., Porters, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Emplovee-organization
linkages: The psychology o f commitment absenteeism, and turnover. New
York: Academic Press.
Moxley, L. (1977). Job satisfaction o f faculty teaching higher education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 139 349).
Murray, H. G. (1980). Evaluating university teaching: A review of research.
Toronto: Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations.
Noel, M. (1980). Education and development in Korea. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, p. 91.
Nussel, E., Wiersma, W., & Rusche, P. (1988). Work satisfaction of education
professors. The Journal of Teacher Education. 39,45-50.
Olsen, D, (1993). Work satisfaction and stress in the first and third year of
academic appointment. Journal of Higher Education. 6 4 .453-471.
83
Opp, R. (1992). Disciplinary differences in faculty career satisfaction. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 919).
Over, R. (1981). Affiliations of psychologists elected to the national academy of
sciences. American Psychologist. 36. 744-753.
Pallone, N. J., Hurley, R. B., & Rickard, F. S. (1971). Emphases in job satisfaction
research: 1968-1969. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1. 11-28.
Pames, H. S. (1988). The retirement decision. In the older worker, edited by M. E.
Borus. et al.. p.l 15-150. Industrial Relations Research Association Series.
Parsons, T., & Paltt, G. M. (1973). The American university. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Person, D. A., & Seiler, R. E. (1983). Environmental satisfaction in academe.
Higher Education. 12. 35-47.
Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 59. 603-609.
Powell, J. P., Barrett, E. E., & Shanker, V. (1983). How academic, view their
work. Higher Education. 12.297-313.
Project on the Status and Education of Women (1986). Survey documents faculty
dissatisfaction. On Campus with Women. 16. 1-2.
Riday, G. (1981). Job satisfaction: A comparative study of community college
faculty to secondary school and four-year college faculty. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 42,4371A.
Sandler, B. R. (1986). The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women faculty.
administrators, and graduate students. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges, Project on the Status and Education of Women.
Schoen, L. G., & Winocur, S. (1988). An investigation of the self-efficacy o f male
and female academics. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 32. 307-320.
Schultz, J. B., & Chung, Y. L. (1988). Research productivity and job satisfaction of
university faculty. Journal of Vacational Education Research. 13. 33-48.
84
Schwab, R, L. (1983). Teacher burnout: Moving beyond psychobabble. Theory
into Practice. 2 2 .21-26.
Serafin, A. G. (1991). Faculty satisfaction questionnaire: Development, validity.
and reliability. Paper presented at the research convocation of the college of
education of Western Michigan University. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 333 816).
Serafin, A. G. (1993). Teaching . research, and service: The statisfiers o f education
faculty at Western Michigan University. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 355 878).
Sorcinelli, M. D. (1988). Satisfaction and concerns of new university teachers. In To
Improve the Academy, edited by J. G. Kurfiss, p. 121-131.
Sprague, B. (1974). Job satisfaction and university faculty. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 3 5 .2018A.
Stuntebeck, S. V. (1974). Perceived need satisfaction and teaching effectiveness: A study
of university faculty. Dissertation Abstracts International. 3 5 .225A.
Swierenga, L. G. (1970). Application of Herzberp's dual factor theory to faculty
members in a university. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Western Michigan
University.
Thornton, S. (1992). Private lives, public forums: What teachers share of
themselves in teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350
279).
Tuckman, B. M., & Tuckman, H. P. (1976). Structure of salaries at American
universities. Journal of Higher Education. 47. 51-61.
Tuckman, H. P. (1979). The academic reward structure in higher education. In
Academic Rewards in Higher Education, p. 165-190.
Tuckman, H. P., & Leahey, J. (1974). What is an article worth? Journal o f Political
Economy. 83. 951-967.
Volkwein, F., & Carbone, D. (1994). The impact of departmental research and
teaching climates on undergraduate growth and satisfaction. Journal o f Higher
Education. 65. 147-167.
85
Volmer, H. M., & Mills, D. L. (1966). Professionalization. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Vreeland, R. S., & Bidwell, C. E. (1966). Classifying university departments.
Sociology o f Education. 38, 237-254.
Weissman, J. W. (1982). The effect of faculty gender on job satisfaction in selected
sex-types units within institutions o f higher education. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 43, 1856A.
Wheeless, V. E., Wheeless, L. R., & Howard, R. D. (1983). An analysis of the
contribution of participate decision making and communication with
supervisor as predictors o f job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education. 18.
145-160.
Willie, R., & Stecklein, J. E. (1982). A three decade comparison of college faculty
characteristics, activities, and attitudes. Research in Higher Education. 16.
81-93.
Wilson, R. C., Gaff, J. G., Dienst, E. R., Wood, L., & Bavry, J. L. (1975). College
professors and their impact on students. New York: Wiley.
Winkler, L. D. (1982). Job satisfaction o f university faculty in the U.S.. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
APPENDIX A
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND
TEACHING SATISFACTION
QUESTIONNAIRE (Original 43 Items)
87
Please answer the following questions about your personal and professional
background by marking with an (x) and or filling in the appropriate space.
1. Sex:
2. Age:
3. Academic Rank:
4. Highest Degree:
( ) Male
( ) Female
( ) 20-29
( ) 30-39
( ) 40-49
( ) 50-More
( ) Instructor
( ) Assistant Professor
( ) Associate Professor
( ) Full Professor
( ) Bachelor
( ) Master
( ) Doctorate
5. C urrent Teaching
Institution: ( ) Private
( ) Public
6. Teaching Department:
7. Teaching Experience:
) Education Department
) Business Department
) Science Department
) Engineering Department
) Humanities Department
) 0-9
) 10-19
) 20-29
) 30-More
89
Please mark the response which best describes your feeling about the following
statements.
SD: Strongly Disagree
D: Disagree
A: Agree
SA: Strongly Agree
1. When teaching, I clearly articulate my goals.
2. Through discussion and other appropriate activities,
I actively encourage students to participate in their
learning.
3. Teaching is exciting and stimulating.
4. Overall, I am very much satisfied with the quality of
my teaching.
S . I am extremely satisfied with how my current courses
are organized.
6 .1 doubt that I shall ever become "burned out" even if
have to teach the same courses the remainder of my career.
7 .1 am known to be accessible to students.
8 .1 am an enthusiastic teacher.
9. Preparing course materials is intrinsically motivating.
10.1 carefully explain difficult concepts, methods and
subject matter when I teach.
11.1 am extremely satisfied with my use o f knowledge
about related areas aside from my own in my teaching.
12.1 am happy and comfortable teaching students.
13.1 am happy with my chairman's willingness to
discuss problems related to teaching.
14. The objectives of my current courses are very clear.
15 . 1 try to make every course the best course every
time.
16.1 like meeting and talking with students.
17. Overall, my students would rate my teaching
as excellent.
18. My teaching workload is fair and appropriate.
19. Overall, I would rate my teaching as excellent.
20. My assignments contribute to an appreciation
and understanding of the subject matter.
2 1 .1 am extremely satisfied with the way my course
exams are written.
2 2 .1 am happy with my current working conditions.
2 3 .1 am very satisfied that my exams are graded in
a fair manner.
2 4 .1 am very satisfied with the teaching methods
(e.g., lectures, seminars, etc.) used in my current
course.
2 5 .1 try to creatively teach every course.
2 6 .1 have a genuine interest in the problems that students
encounter outside of the classroom.
2 7 .1 evaluate student work in a fair and appropriate
manner.
28 . 1 am very happy with my personal relationship
with my colleagues.
29. The most important component of teaching is in the
instructor/student interactions.
30. My course provides students with a highly valuable
learning experience.
3 1 .1 am very much pleased with the chairman's support
of my teaching assignment.
3 2 .1 am satisfied with my salary.
3 3 .1 get along well with my students.
3 4 .1 am very much satisfied with the content of the
course that I teach.
35. In my courses, subject matter is presented in ways
that are academically challenging.
3 6 .1 have found my career in teaching to be financially
rewarding.
37. My salary is fair and appropriate.
3 8 .1 am delighted with the cooperation among
the faculty members in my school.
39. Counseling students is an important part
of teaching.
40. Course preparation is easy for me.
4 1 .1 do not find teaching to be difficult
or overwhelming.
42. What two aspects of teaching do you like
the most?
43. What two aspects of teaching do you like
the least?
APPENDIX B
TEACHING SATISFACTION
QUESTIONNAIRE (Final 36 Items)
95
Please mark the response which best describes your feeling about the following
statements.
SD: Strongly Disagree
D: Disagree
A: Agree
SA: Strongly Agree
1. When teaching, I clearly articulate my goals.
2. Through discussion and other appropriate activities,
I actively encourage students to participate in their
learning.
3. Teaching is exciting and stimulating.
4. Overall, I am very much satisfied with the quality of
my teaching.
5 .1 am extremely satisfied with how my current courses
are organized.
6 .1 doubt that I shall ever become "burned out" even if
have to teach the same courses the remainder of my career.
7.1 am known to be accessible to students.
8 .1 am an enthusiastic teacher.
10.1 carefully explain difficult concepts, methods and
subject matter when I teach.
11. I am extremely satisfied with my use of knowledge
about related areas aside from my own in my teaching.
12.1 am happy and comfortable teaching students.
13.1 am happy with my chairman's willingness to
discuss problems related to teaching.
14 The objectives o f my current courses are very clear.
15. I try to make every course the best course every
time.
16.1 like meeting and talking with students.
17. Overall, my students would rate my teaching
as excellent.
19. Overall, I would rate my teaching as excellent.
20. My assignments contribute to an appreciation
and understanding of the subject matter.
2 1 .1 am extremely satisfied with the way my course
exams are written.
2 3 .1 am very satisfied that my exams are graded in
a fair manner.
2 4 .1 am very satisfied with the teaching methods
(e.g., lectures, seminars, etc.) used in my current
course.
2 5 .1 try to creatively teach every course.
2 6 .1 have a genuine interest in the problems that students
encounter outside of the classroom.
2 8 .1 am very happy with my personal relationship
with my colleagues.
30. My course provides students with a highly valuable
learning experience.
3 1 .1 am very much pleased with the chairman's support
of my teaching assignment.
32.1 am satisfied with my salary.
3 3 .1 get along well with my students.
34 . 1 am very much satisfied with the content of the
course that I teach.
35. In my courses, subject matter is presented in ways
that are academically challenging.
3 6 .1 have found my career in teaching to be financially
rewarding.
37. My salary is fair and appropriate.
3 8 .1 am delighted with the cooperation among
the faculty members in my school.
39. Counseling students is an important part
of teaching.
42. What two aspects of teaching do you like
the most?
43. What two aspects of teaching do you like
the least?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets