RESEARCH ARTICLE


Teacher's Job Satisfaction On Elementary School: Relation To Learning Environment



Ahmad Suriansyah, Aslamiah*
Department of Educational Management, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin, Indonesia

Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2018
Volume: 11
First Page: 123
Last Page: 130
Publisher ID: TOPSYJ-11-123
DOI: 10.2174/1874350101811010123

Article History:

Received Date: 8/3/2018
Revision Received Date: 16/4/2018
Acceptance Date: 31/5/2018
Electronic publication date: 19/7/2018
Collection year: 2018

Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
2
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 12235
Abstract HTML Views: 3233
PDF Downloads: 1431
ePub Downloads: 1116
Total Views/Downloads: 18015
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 6352
Abstract HTML Views: 1612
PDF Downloads: 1087
ePub Downloads: 631
Total Views/Downloads: 9682



Creative Commons License
© 2018 Aslamiah et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Educational Management, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin, Indonesia; Tel: +6281348260253; E-mail: aslamiah.fkip.unlam@gmail.com


Abstract

Background:

Teacher’s job satisfaction had the effect for teacher job quality and productivity. The learning environment has contributed to teacher’s job satisfaction. The objectives of this study are to analyze teacher’s job satisfaction of elementary school on excellence school and low achievement school in urban and suburban areas in Banjarmasin, to analyze the learning environment of elementary school on excellence school and low achievement school in urban and suburban in Banjarmasin, and to analyze the relation between learning environment and teacher’s job satisfaction.

Methods:

The research method was cross-sectional survey design and a standardized questionnaire to collect data from respondents. The number of respondents was 247 teachers. The Teaching Satisfaction Scale (TSS) was used to measure teacher’s job satisfaction. School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ) instrument had been used to measure the learning environment. The ANOVA was used to analyze the relationship between learning environment and teacher satisfaction. The job satisfaction in excellent school is better than low achievement school in both urban and suburban areas.

Results:

The result of stepwise regression analysis showed that the learning environment also contributes to teacher’s job satisfaction.

Conclusions:

This study also found that school climate has a strong influence on teacher’s job satisfaction.

Keywords: Teacher’s job satisfaction, Learning environment, TSS, SLEQ, ANOVA, Elementary school.

1. INTRODUCTION

Job satisfaction reflects happiness or positive emotions originated from one’s work experience, in which individual’s happiness in working will impact the individual tasks positively [1]. Positive attitude and happiness lead to whether supporting or not supporting the experience gone through by employees [2]. Job satisfaction is one-way staff appreciates himself/herself and his/her work [3]. In addition, job satisfaction is about individual’s positive or negative feeling towards various factors or dimensions in the tasks [4].

Theoretically, there are various factors influencing job satisfaction, such as leadership style, work productivity, organizational behavior, control locus, meeting expectation, and work effectiveness. Job satisfaction itself is categorized into two parts: (1) staff factor, i.e. intellectual, area of expertise, age, gender, working environment, educational level, work experience, working hour, personality (emotion), thinking style (perception), and working attitude; and (2) task factor, i.e. type of job, organizational structure, status, quality control, financial guarantee, promotion opportunity, social interaction, and work relationship [5].

Being more specific to teacher’s job satisfaction, it has a positive or negative effect on organizational functioning due to teacher’s job satisfaction has been found affecting for teacher quality of the job and productivity [6, 7]. Teacher’s job satisfaction leads to their behavior and profession as a teacher [7]. It also has the effect of teaching quality assurance in which the teaching quality assurance has an effect on teaching effectiveness [8-9].

Teacher’s job satisfaction is significantly related to teacher’s job success in terms of student achievement and teacher’s performance [10, 11]. A teacher with low satisfaction makes students achieve less and increases the absent rate [12]. Students will be less creative and depressed, leading to low achievement among them.

Reference [13] mentions that there are three factors influencing the teacher’s job satisfaction namely intrinsic demand, external rewards, and organizational rewards. The intrinsic demand is feeling exchange and value fitness. The external rewards are material exchange and salary. The organizational reward is distributional justice, job load, and commute hours.

The other things that contribute to the teacher’s job satisfaction are policymakers and society. The infrastructure facilities, pay scale, jobbing hours, recognition for the teacher’s job load, class size number of classes handled per day, the attitude of students, awareness, and mentality of the parents, socio-economic status of the parents have a significant influence for teacher’s job satisfaction [9]. Compensation is one of the methods to drive the motivated jobbers. Compensation has been increasing the positive feeling of teachers toward their jobs [14]. The organizational reward has the most important effective factor for teacher’s satisfaction [13]. Promotion and pay from the organization is an important issue to increase the teacher’s job satisfaction [15].

Learning environment refers to a situation that supports teaching and learning process in schools, such as collaboration among teachers, teacher-involvement decision making, learning innovation, teacher-student relationship and resources in the schools for teaching and learning purposes [16]. The factors in the environment are referred to as school climate. Therefore, school climate in this study refers to the learning environment.

The learning environment has contributed to teacher’s job satisfaction. The learning environment attributes such as positive teacher-student relationships and support from school management have the positive effect on teacher’s job satisfaction [17]. Learning environment has the significant increase in teacher performance [18-20].

This research is located in Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Study about job satisfaction and relation to the learning environment has not been carried out in Banjarmasin. Various current problems in Banjarmasin are low performance among students, low discipline among teachers, and low job satisfaction among teachers. The elementary school profile is imbalanced because Banjarmasin has a big number of schools (247 primary schools). Education performance and management aspect in Banjarmasin has the effect for other cities in South Kalimantan Province.

Therefore, this research aims to analyze elementary school teacher’s job satisfaction particularly on excellent school and low achievement school in urban and suburban areas in Banjarmasin, to analyze the learning environment of elementary schools on excellent school and low achievement school in urban and suburban areas in Banjarmasin, and to analyze the relation between the learning environment and teacher’s job satisfaction.

2. METHODS

The population of this study was comprised of all teachers in 247 elementary schools in Banjarmasin. This population was divided into 4 categories, i.e. teachers of excellent schools in the urban area, teachers of excellent schools in the suburban area, teachers of low achievement school in the urban area, and teachers of low achievement school in the suburban area. Low achievement schools have the characteristics of not having proper buildings, high-performance students, unhealthy environment and school culture, less efficient teachers and headmasters, and less innovative and creative learning process. In Indonesia, excellent schools are those that have excellence, competence, and performance values as well as are effective, highly disciplined, prestigious, independent, have appreciation and tolerance, faith and sincerity and freedom.

The number of teachers on excellent schools in the urban area was 15, the number of teachers on excellent schools in the suburban area was 15 teachers, the number of teachers on low achievement schools in the urban area was 108, and the number of teachers on low achievement schools in the suburban area was 109. To determine the respondents, the criteria are (1) teachers who teach at state elementary schools, (2) teachers who have been teaching in the schools for at least two years.

For the instruments, the Teaching Satisfaction Scale (TSS) has been used to measure teacher’s job satisfaction. Although it sounds like an instrument to measure teaching satisfaction, that the instrument measures job satisfaction covering all aspects. The instrument is valid and reliable to measure teacher’s job satisfaction [21]. It contains five items: (1) self-motivation, (2) self-ability, (3) self-satisfaction, (4) self-meaning, and (5) job stability. Similarly, it uses a five-point Likert scale, with 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3= between agreeing and disagree; 4=agree; and 5=strongly agree.

Meanwhile, the School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ) instrument has been used to measure learning environment. It contains 21 items in five dimensions: (1) instructional innovation, (2) collaboration, (3) decision making, (4) school resources, and (5) student relations [22]. The reliability of SLEQ various studies is greater than 0.7 [23]. It uses a five-point Likert scale with 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3= between agreeing and disagree; 4=agree; and 5=strongly agree.

Table 1. The results of the reliability test.
Dimension Cronbach Alpha Number of Items
Teacher’s job satisfaction 0.80 5
Learning environment 0.85 21
    Instructional Innovation 0.85 4
    Collaboration 0.97 6
    Decision Making 0.80 3
    School Resources 0.88 4
    Student Relations 0.77 4

Table 1 shows the results of the reliability test. It could be seen that the Cronbach Alpha for all dimensions is greater than 0.70, hence, the instruments were proven fit enough to be used for the current study.

Before the data were analyzed, boxplot was applied to clean them, in which outlier data were removed. Then, descriptive data analysis was carried out, involving percentage and mean. Meanwhile, the inferential statistic was used to test the hypotheses, including one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, regression analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15 has been used in this study for the purpose of the reliability testing.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Job Satisfaction

Tables 2 and 3 are the descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA result for job satisfaction both in excellent schools and low achievement schools. Test Result of H01: There is no significant difference in teacher’s job satisfaction between excellent schools and low achievement schools in Banjarmasin.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for job satisfaction in excellent schools and low achievement schools.
– N Mean Standard Deviation Standard Error
Excellent schools 130 4.35 0.44 0.03
Low achievement schools 131 4.21 0.46 0.04
Total 261 4.28 0.46 0.02
Table 3. One-way ANOVA for job satisfaction in excellent schools and low achievement schools.
Source Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Square F-Values Sig.
Between groups 20.07 1 1.253 5.973 0.015
Within group 101.21 259 0.210 – –
Total 121.28 260 – – –

Tables 2 and 3 show that mean for job satisfaction in excellence schools is 4.35, while in low achievement schools, the mean is 4.21. Standard deviations for them are 0.44 and 0.46 respectively. One-way ANOVA gives F value 5.973 and is significant at 0.015 levels. Accordingly, H01 is rejected because there are significant differences in job satisfaction between excellent schools and low achievement schools.

Table 4. Two-way ANOVA for teacher’s job satisfaction in excellent schools and low achievement schools in urban and suburban areas in Banjarmasin.
Source Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean Square F-Values Sig.
Corrected Model 3.620 3 1.207 5.966 .001
Intercept 3171.620 1 3171.620 15681.904 .000
Performance 0.050 1 0.050 .249 .618
Location 1.487 1 1.487 7.352 .007
Location interaction X Performance .882 1 .882 4.362 .038
Error 51.978 257 .202 – –
Total 4849.720 261 – – –

Table 4 shows that mean for teacher’s job satisfaction in the excellent schools of the urban area is 4.42, and 4.10 for the excellent schools of suburban. The low achievement schools in the urban area gained the mean 4.25, while 4.20 was on the low achievement a school of suburban. Results of two-way ANOVA in Table 4 show that F value for the interaction on teacher’s job satisfaction in excellent schools and low achievement schools in urban and suburban areas is 4.362, which is significant (<0.05). This shows that there are differences in teacher’s organizational commitment between excellent schools and low achievement schools either in urban or suburban areas.

3.2. Learning Environment

Means for learning environment are presented in Table 5. Overall, the means are high, except for instructional innovation (X21), which is moderate (mean = 3.06).

Table 5. Means for the learning environment.
Dimension Mean
Instructional innovation (X21) 3.06
Collaboration (X22) 4.20
Decision making (X23) 3.70
School resources (X24) 3.80
Student relation (X25) 4.19
Overall (X2) 3.79
Table 6. Means for school climate for different school types.
No Dimension Mean
Excellent Schools Low Achievement Schools
Overall Urban Suburban Overall Urban Suburban
1 Instructional innovation 4.04 4.20 3.46 2.74 3.43 2.56
2 Collaboration 4.13 4.10 3.88 4.00 4.33 3.91
3 Decision making 3.69 3.53 4.26 3.64 3.99 3.55
4 School resources 4.11 4.21 3.75 3.56 3.37 3.61
5 Student relation 4.17 4.24 3.92 4.11 4.32 4.05
Overall 4.02 4.07 3.85 3.60 3.88 3.55

It is seen that the mean for each dimension in the learning environment and the overall mean are high for both school types. In detail, means in the excellent schools are greater than means in low achievement schools (Table 6).

Test Result of H02: There is no significant difference in learning environment among excellent schools and low achievement schools in Banjarmasin.

Table 7. One-way ANOVA for the learning environment in excellent schools and low achievement schools.
Source Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Square F-Values Sig.
Between groups 11.45 1 11.45 93.09 0.000
Within group 31.85 259 0.123 – –
total 43.30 260 – – –

Table 7 shows that mean for the learning environment in excellent schools is 4.02 and 3.60 in low achievement schools. Their standard deviations are 0.37 and 0.33 respectively. One-way ANOVA shows that F value is 93.09 and is significant at level 0.000. Thus, it is deduced that H02 is rejected because there are significant differences between excellent schools and low achievement schools.

Two-way ANOVA for the learning environment in excellent schools and low achievement schools in urban and suburban areas in Banjarmasin is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Two-way ANOVA for the learning environment in excellent schools and low achievement schools in urban and suburban areas in Banjarmasin.
Source Sum of Squares Degree of Freedom Mean Square F-Values Sig.
Corrected Model 15.288 3 5.096 46.739 0.000
Intercept 2,591.372 1 2,591.372 2,3767.263 0.000
Performance 2.849 1 2.849 26.128 0.000
Location 3.644 1 3.644 33.421 0.000
Location interaction X Performance 0.192 1 0.192 1.758 0.186
Error 28.021 257 0.109 – –
Total 3,847.826 261 – – –

Table 8 shows that mean for the learning environment in urban excellent schools is 4.07, and 3.85 for the suburban excellent schools. Low achievement schools of the urban area, the mean are 3.88, while 3.53 for the low achievement schools of suburban area. The results of two-way ANOVA in Table 8 show that F value for the interaction on the learning environment in excellent schools and low achievement schools in urban and suburban areas is 1.758, which is not significant (>0.05). This shows that there is no difference in learning environment between excellent schools and low achievement schools either in urban or suburban areas.

Test result of HA1: Learning environment is a significant determinant of teacher’s job satisfaction in excellent schools. Stepwise regression for the learning environment and teacher’s job satisfaction in excellence schools school is presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Stepwise regression for the learning environment and teacher’s job satisfaction in excellent schools school.
Variable Beta β T Sig. t R2 Contribution
Instructional innovation 0.117 0.241 2.836 0.005 0.078 7.8%
Decision making. -0.108 -0.206 -2.427 0.017 0.119 11.9%
Constant 4.281 16.589 0.000 – –

Table 9 shows that the determinant of teacher’s job satisfaction in excellent schools is decision making with β = -0.206, t = -2.427 and is significant at 0.017, while contributing at 11.9%. β = -0.206 explains that when the score for decision-making increase 1 unit, teacher’s job satisfaction will increase 0.206 unit. The second determinants instructional innovation with β = 0.241, t = 2.836 and is significant at 0.005, while contributing at 7.8%. β = 0.241 explains that when the score for instructional innovation increases 1 unit, teacher’s job satisfaction will increase 0.241 unit. Thus, HA1 fails to be rejected because two of the dimensions of the learning environment have been proven as the determinant of teacher’s job satisfaction in excellent schools.

Test Result of HA2: Learning environment is a significant determinant of teacher’s job satisfaction in low achievement schools. Stepwise regression for the learning environment and teacher’s job satisfaction in low achievement schools is presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Stepwise regression for the learning environment and teacher’s job satisfaction in low achievement schools.
Variable Beta Β T Sig. t R2 Contribution
Student relation 0.470 0.450 5.664 0.000 0.175 17.5%
Instructional innovation -0.126 -0.197 -2.477 0.015 0.213 21.3%
Constant 2.631 – 7.547 0.000 – –

Table 10 shows that the determinant of teacher’s job satisfaction in the low achievement schools is student relation and instructional innovation. For instructional innovation, β = 0-.197, t = -2.477 and significant at 0.015, while contributing at 21.3%. β = -0.197 explains that when the score for instructional innovation increases 1 unit, teacher’s satisfaction will decrease 0.197 unit. Meanwhile, for student relation, β = 0.450, t = 5.664 and is significant at 0.000, while contributing at 17.5%. β = 0.450 explains that when the score for student relation increases 1 unit, teachers satisfaction will increase 0.450 unit. Therefore, HA2 fails to be rejected because two of the dimensions in the learning environment are proven as the determinant of teacher’s job satisfaction in the low achievement schools.

Regression test in SEM structure model was used in testing HA3. The hypothesis is: There is a significant relationship between learning environment and teacher’s job satisfaction in elementary schools in Banjarmasin. The analysis shows a significant positive relationship between learning environment and job satisfaction (β= 0.36, P < 0.05). This is determined by the critical ratio that is greater than 1.96 i.e. 2.477 and p ≤ 0.05, i.e. 0.013. These values indicate a significant relationship. Therefore, the hypothesis fails to be rejected. Testing HA3 reveals a significant positive relationship between learning environment and job satisfaction both in the excellent schools and low achievement schools in urban and suburban. Some research has the same finding that is a significant positive relationship between learning environment and job satisfaction [6], [24-31]. This shows that the learning environment affects the job satisfaction, indicating that if a headmaster wants their teachers to be highly satisfied, they have to provide the conducive of the learning environment.

Organizational climate also found similarly that a significant positive relationship between the learning environment and job satisfaction [32-38]. The findings require schools to ensure that their learning environments are conducive to satisfy their teachers. Without good learning environment, teacher’s satisfaction will be low. Improving the work environment will increase the teacher productivity and teacher quality [39].

Referring to job satisfaction theory, job satisfaction is a reaction to the learning environment [24]. The satisfaction will increase if teachers have the opportunity to get a job in the team and solve problems together with peers. This highly requires collaboration among teachers, including their headmaster, with enough resources, supporting a good relationship with students, and promoting innovation, which eventually leads to rewards.

CONCLUSION

The teacher’s job satisfaction has influenced the teacher performance and student achievement. The learning environment is related to teacher’s job satisfaction because the positive motivation of teacher will be increased in a learning environment with good condition. The job satisfaction in excellence school is better than low achievement school in both urban and suburban. The result of stepwise regression analysis showed that the learning environment in elementary schools in Banjarmasin has contributed to teacher’s job satisfaction. This study also found that school climate has a strong influence on teacher’s job satisfaction both in excellent school and low achievement schools in urban and suburban areas in Banjarmasin.

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Not applicable.

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

No animals/humans were used for studies that are the basis of this research.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Dr. Deasy Arisanty, M.Sc, who has advised and revised the manuscript.

REFERENCES

[1] Judge TA, Locke EA. Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on subjective well-being and job Satisfaction. J Appl Psychol 1993; 78: 475-90.
[2] Davis T. Managing culture at the bottom, in gaining control of the corporate culture.1985.
[3] Wexley KN, Yukl GA. Perilaku organisasi dan psikologi personalia 2003.
[4] Hariandja MTE. Manajemen sumber daya manusia 2002.
[5] Mangkunegara AP. Manajemen sumber daya manusia 2004.
[6] Chamundeswari S. Job satisfaction and performance of school teachers. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci 2013; 3
[7] Hoy WK, Miskel CG. Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice 3rd ed. 1996.
[8] Luthans F. Organizational behavior 1992; 1-656.
[9] Huang SY, Huang YC, Chang WH, Chang LY, Kao PH. Exploring the effects of teacher job satisfaction on teaching effectiveness: Using ‘teaching quality assurance’ as the mediator. Int J Mod Edu Forum 2013; 2: 17-30. [IJMEF].
[10] Dinham S, Scott C. Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction. J Educ Adm 2000; 38: 379-96.
[11] Pilarta MAB. Job satisfaction and teachers performance in abra state institute of sciences and technology. Global J Manage Bus Res: Admi Manage 2015; 15: 80-6.
[12] Zembylas M, Papanastasiou E. Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus. J Educ Adm 2014; 42: 357-74.
[13] Cheng JN, Chen Y. The empirical study of the kindergarten teachers’ job satisfaction in Taiwan: Exploring the effect of the intrinsic demand, external reward, and organizational treatment. J Hum Resour Adult Learn 2011; 7: 127-32.
[14] Muguongo MM, Muguna AT, Muriithi DK. Effects of compensation on Job satisfaction among secondary school teachers in maara sub-county of taraka nithi County, Kenya. J Hum Resour Manage 2015; 3: 47-59.
[15] Shafi M, Memon AS, Fatima H. Job satisfaction in college teachers: A survey based study of government colleges of district Hyderabad, sindh, Pakistan. J Hotel Bus Manage 2016; 5: 2-5.
[16] Johnson B, Stevens JJ, Zvoch K. Teachers’ perceptions of school climate: A validity study of scores from the revised school level environment questionnaire. Educ Psychol Meas 2007; 67: 833-50.
[17] Dorozynska A. Teacher job satisfaction in primary schools, the relation to job environment 2016.
[18] Kigenyi EM, Kakuru D, Ziwa G. School environment and performance of public primary school teachers in Uganda. Int J Technol Manag 2017; 1: 1-14.
[19] Fullan M. The new meaning of educational change 1992.
[20] Paquet LN, Bocala C, Bailey J. Relationship between school professional climate and teachers’ satisfaction with the evaluation process (REL 2016–133) 2016. Available from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
[21] Ho CL, Au WT. Teaching satisfaction scale measuring job satisfaction of teachers. Educ Psychol Meas 2006; 66: 172-85.
[22] Johnson B, Stevens JJ, Zvoch K. Teachers’ perceptions of school climate: A validity study of scores from the revised school level environment questionnaire. Educ Psychol Meas 2007; 67: 833-50.
[23] Fisher DL, Fraser BJ. Validity and use of the school-level environment questionnaire. Conference Proceedings, Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association 1990.
[24] Hoy WK, Tarter CJ, Kottkamp RB. Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate 1991.
[25] Hoy WK, Miskel C. Contemporary issues in school policy and school outcomes 1996.
[26] Hoy WK, Sabo DJ. Quality middle schools: Open and healthy 1998.
[27] Miller A. Taxonomy of technological settings, with related strategies and performance level. Strateg Manage J 1988; 9: 239-54.
[28] Goddard RD, Sweetland SR, Hoy WK. Academics emphasis of urban elementary school and achievement in middle school: A multiple analysis. Educ Adm Q 2000; 26: 683-702.
[29] Hoy AW, Hoy WK. Instructional leader: Learning-centered guide 2003.
[30] Stempien LR, Loeb RC. Differences in job satisfaction between general education and special education teachers: Implication for retention. Remedial Spec Educ 2002; 23: 258-67.
[31] Sing RR, Chahan A, Agrawal S, Kapoor S. Impact of organizational climate on job satisfaction-a comparative study. IJCSM int J Comput Sci Manage Stud 2011.
[32] Wibisono A. The Influence of Organizational Climate on Job Satisfaction (Study on Influence of Climate Organization on Satisfaction of Puskesmas Turen Employee Worker in Malang). J App Man 2011; 9: 1000-10.
[33] Hartuti R. Influence of organization climate to job satisfaction of employee of university administration bureau of North Sumatera university. J Com Res 2006; 18: 28-37.
[34] Gordon JR, Mondy RW, Sharplin A. Management and organizational behavior 1990.
[35] Tarter CJ, Hoy WK, Kottkamp RB. Schools’ health and organizational commitment. J Res Dev Educ 1990; 23: 236-42.
[36] Tsui KT, Cheng YC. School organizational health and teacher commitment: A contingency study with multi-level analysis. Educ Res Eval 1999; 5: 249-68.
[37] Ma X, MacMillan RB. Influences of workplace conditions on teachers’ job satisfaction. J Educ Res 1999; 9: 39-47.
[38] Xiaofu P, Qiwen Q. An analysis of the relation between secondary school organizational climate and teacher job satisfaction. Chin Educ Soc 2007; 40: 65-77.
[39] Nakpodia ED. Work environment and productivity among primary school teachers in Nigeria. Int Multidis J 2011; 5: 367-81.