Universal Journal of Education and General Studies (ISSN:2277-0984) Vol. 2(3)pp. 084-097, March, 2013 Available online http://www.universalresearchjournals.org/ujegs Copyright © 2013 Transnational Research Journals
Full Length Research Paper
stress and coping strategies among science elementary school teachers in Israel Raed Zedan and Jarmas Bitar Academic College for Education in Israel, Email:
[email protected] Accepted 31 August, 2012
This research study examines the phenomenon of stress, and strategies used by Israeli teachers or by the authorities to cope with it. There were 425 teacher participants in the research, and a structured questionnaire was use to examine the level of stress, stressors and coping strategies in the teaching work (Kyriacou and Chien, 2004). It was found that 36.2% of the Israeli teachers reported a high to very high level of stress due mainly to the stress of overloaded classes, pupil behavioral problems, lack of educational resources, and poor working conditions. The most effective strategies of coping with stress was through conducting a healthy family life, understanding and control in teaching, personal acquaintance with the pupils, and devoting time to self leisure activities. With regard to the coping strategies thatinshould beconditions, adopted byreduction the authorities, it was found that in thea most ones were improvement working of the number of pupils class,effective and raising teachers’ salaries. Keyword: Stress, coping strategies, elementary schools teachers and Israel
INTRODUCTION Stress among teachers is a widespread phenomenon (Geving, 2007). Studies conducted in Western countries have shown that one out of every three teachers reported being under stress or even extreme stress (Pithers and Soden, 1998). In studies conducted in Eastern countries it was found that the stress level among teachers was very high and widely prevalent (Kyriacou and Chien,
Sources and Causes of Stress
2004; Meng and Liu, 2008), while those conducted in Arab countries also reported a high level of stress among teachers (Al-Khalefa, 1999; Khaleel, 1999; Mohammed, 2000 in: Al-Mohannadi and Capel, 2007). Stress is defined as a state in which the individual faces higher demands than the resources at his disposal (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Good adjustment between people and their environment lessens stress, while a lack of rapport between them leads to stress (Wilson and Hall, 2002; Brown and Ralph, 2002).Later on the concept was define as a situation that creates negative feelings such as frustration, tension, worry and anxiety (Abel and Sewell, 1999; Byrne, 1998). Comish and Swindle (1994), has defined stress as a mental and bodily state that influences a person’s productivity, efficiency, health and the quality of work that he performs.
In the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) carried out by Travers and Cooper (1996) in the research they conducted among teachers in Britain, they defined ten factors: pupil-teacher interaction, culture and school organizational structure, class size, changes in the educational system and in educational policy, teacher appreciation, attitude of supervisors, low status and no chance of promotion, lack of security or instability in work, ambiguity in the role of the teacher. In a survey carried out by Howard and Johnson (2004) on the sources of stress, they found a number of factor categories: 1. Pupil-teacher interaction: Pupils who lack motivation and respect for teachers, behavioral problems in the class, defective communication or lack of understanding between the teacher and the pupils against the background of different cultural, ethnic, or social status.
Among the main causes of stress were bad behavior of pupils, heavy demands, few promotion opportunities, low salary, lack of teaching accessories, crowded classrooms, and fear of violence (Abel and Sewell, 1999; Adams, Heath-Camp and Camp, 1999; Byrne, 1998).
Zedan and Bitar
085
2. Time stress: Insufficient time for preparation, exaggerated demands. 3. Conflicts and ambiguity in teacher role: Conflicts among approaches and philosophies of the teachers and those of the school, demands by the Education Department for changes and innovations, new functions required to be carried out without suitable training, exaggerated administrative demands and tasks. 4. Poor working conditions: Insufficient appliances, means and resources, overloaded classes, a high noise level in the working environment, a geographically isolated school (far from residential areas). 5. Decision-making process: Rigid bureaucratic structure of the school, power centered in a few hands, existence of “sole authority” in the school. 6. Bad relations among colleagues: Lack of trust and cooperation among colleagues and competitiveness. 7. Lack of personal adaptation: Teachers feel they are incapable and/or are not well-trained, teachers who wish to teach courses or subjects outside the their sphere of training, lack of appreciation, encouragement or support by their colleagues and the school administration. 8. Extra-organizational stress factors: Negative attitude of the public towards the work of teachers and
status of mathematics in Chinese high schools increased the level of stress for teachers of mathematics. In their research, Meng and Liu (2008) found that the five main causes of stress were: Pupils without motivation, pupils who showed a bad attitude towards class assignments; bad pupil behavior; a lack of teaching accessories, and of public understanding of the difficulties of the teaching profession. Less important causes were Special students in the class (e.g. with autism, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, low ability or low emotional intelligence), too many teaching subjects, overloaded tasks, and too few leisure hours, vocations and holidays. In an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) conducted for stress factors, they defined two main factors, the first of which they called the “teachers’ work environment” and the second “teacher-pupil-parents relations”. The research of Grayson and Alvarez (2008) found that bad relations with the administration, lack of public esteem, and improper behavior of the pupils increased the stress. Frequent changes, reforms and innovations in the education system, created stress, as well as poor working conditions, social and family problems (loneliness, divorce …), and lack of social support led to
schools, unstable and insecure living conditions and interpersonal relations. Kyriacou and Chien (2004), researched stress among elementary school teachers in Taiwan. They found that stress among elementary school teachers constitutes a serious problem, since 26% of the teachers reported that they were under great to extreme stress. These findings correlate with the research of Kyriacou (2001) in which 20% to 30% of the teachers were reported to be suffering from stress. The main factors for stress were found to be the workload and the changes in educational reform that were conducted by the authorities. The extensive load and crowded conditions in the school and classes were an important factor for stress. Many researchers (Abel and Sewell, 1999; Byrne, 1998; Woods and Weasmer, 2002) believe that the main source for stress among teachers is the confrontation with pupils for bad behavior. This is also the conclusion reached by Taylor, Zimmer and Womack (2005). In the exploratory factor analysis carried out by Kokkinos (2007) in the research he conducted among elementary school teachers in Cyprus, he defined eleven factors for stress: Pupil behavior, control over improper pupil behavior, decision making, connections with colleagues, ambiguity of role, poor working conditions, pupil respect for the teacher, workload, appreciation of teachers by their colleagues, time stress, certain teaching demands. The research conducted by Meng and Liu (2008) found that the level of stress among teachers in China were extremely high, and that the stress factors among teachers in China were more serious than in other
high stress and reduction in the quality of life (Yang, Ge, Hu, Chi, and Wang, 2009).
countries dueand to the therigid educational system, the school environment, value system. The prestigious
Regarding the meanstothat the schools and authorities should take, according the views of the teachers, the
Strategies for Coping with Stress Coping is defined as the effort to control situations of harm or any kind of challenge when automatic reaction is not possible (Monat and Lazarus, 1977). Coping does not require success but only effort, and forms the link between environmental stress and adjustment of the individual. Teachers come into daily contact with pupils, confronting innumerable disruptions and difficulties with special need pupils, with the absence of sufficient resources and the lack of support – all those factors that had been shown above as causing stress. Their work does not end when they come home, and in order to withstand all this, a teacher has to adopt strategies of coping and adjustment. If the ability to cope is low or dependent only on basic and not well-developed coping strategies, this might lead to negative emotional reactions and burnout among teachers (Montgomery and Rupp, 2005). In the research conducted by Kyriacou and Chien (2004) it was found that the best way to overcome stress was to adopt coping strategies such as “ensuring a healthy family life”, besides “someone is standing by you and understands you”. Other coping means are: “to ensure a good understanding of the material you have to teach”; “to learn how to control your emotions”; “to see the humor in the situation”; and “to rest after work”.
086. Univers. J. Edu. Gen. Stud.
first place is given to “lessening the workload”, followed by acquiring professional advice and raising salaries. Bindhu and Sudheeshkumar (2006), found that there are two main categories to cope with stress: to give maximum attention to the stressful event, or not to think about it at all. In the research of Hemmings and Hockley (2002) various ways to cope with stress were found: Communications with others; self help; relaxation; organization; engaging in sports, etc. fun and entertainment also reduces stress and improves the quality and enjoyment of life (McKay, 2008), and there is a noticeable influence in self care (regular exercise and sport, eight hours of sleep a day, preserving a correct diet, applying relaxation techniques) on the reduction of stress and improvement in the quality of life (Yang et al., 2009). Teachers who find it difficult to cope with the behavior of pupils take various measures to disregard it, either by concealing the problem and pushing it away (not telling anyone about it), self blame, worry and anxiety, development of eating and sleeping disorders, or even by becoming ill (Lewis, Romi, Qui and Katz, 2005). Montgomery and Rupp (2005) defined two main categories of coping strategies, active coping strategies
RESEARCH METHOD
and passive coping strategies. Active coping strategies can be cognitive strategies (changes in perspective, imposing self control, rational distancing of oneself); behavioral strategies (determining borderlines to the job, requesting advice from others, engaging in relaxation exercises); emotional strategies (remaining calm and quiet, thinking positively). On the other hand, passive coping strategies such as resignation, drinking, wishful thinking, and avoidance, are characterized by a lack of engagement with the stressful event. Montgomery and Rupp (2005) note that as a result of the application or non-application of coping techniques, and sometimes as a direct result of stressful events, the individual experiences either positive emotions such as hope, pleasure, desire, enthusiasm, or negative emotions such as dread, frustration, disappointment, depression and even suicidal thinking. The individual can also experience feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in work or in life in general, which influences his commitment towards his job. Finally, he may experience a feeling of exhaustion, depersonalization, or lack of fulfillment as aspects of burnout.
1. What is the general degree of stress experienced by Israeli teachers? 2. What are the greatest sources of stress for Israeli teachers? 3. What are the efficient strategies of coping that
frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations for variables were calculated Before the process of exploratory factor analysis, the following coefficients were examined: skewness and kurtosis measurements, discriminate coefficient, variance, communality, means, and standard deviations for the items that describe the sources and causes of stress (the second part of the questionnaire), the items of the fourth part (personal coping strategies), and the items of the fifth part (coping strategies of the school and authorities). On the assumption of dependency among the factors, an exploratory factor analysis was carried out according to the method of the principle axis factoring with direct Oblimin rotation on the items of the second part which relates to stress causes, and on the items of the fourth and fifth parts related to coping strategies. Use was made of scree plot in order to decide on the number of factors. With regard to the factor analysis, scree plot, Cronbach’s internal consistency alpha coefficients and the explained variance, it was decided also to include in the factors all the items that had coefficient loadings above 0.3. The considerations taken into account in determining the threshold of loadings were the size of the sample (Stevens, 1996), and rotation method (Comrey and Lee, 1992). On the basis of a factor analysis, new variables were created, which were factors of source stress, factors of personal coping strategies, and factors of school and authorities coping strategies. The reliability of the data was examined by means of Cronbach alpha coefficients for internal consistency reliability. The validity was examined by means of matching of the factors that the
are adopted by the Israeli teachers, schools or authorities in order to reduce stress?
exploratory factor analysis had produced for the factors reported in the professional literature.
Research Questions
Participants
Research Tool The research tool is a structured questionnaire drawn up by Kyriacou and Chien (2004) based on international studies conducted on the subject of teacher stress. The questionnaire is intended to examine and measure the level of general stress in the work of teachers, the causes for stress, and the ways adopted by the teachers to cope with it, or the strategies they believe the school or the authorities should adopt to reduce the stress in their work as teachers. The questionnaire includes a very wide range of stress sources and coping strategies that were reported in the many studies that were reviewed above.
Statistical Analysis Process The data was inserted within the SPSS 17 program,
Zedan and Bitar
RESULTS In order to answer the first research question, the frequency of teachers’ replies to the following question was examined: “In general, to what degree do you feel stress as a teacher in the school? Table 2 presents the frequency of the teachers’ replies to this question. A review of the table below indicates that 91.3% of the teachers in Israel experience stress in their work at various levels: 55.1% feel stressed at a low to very low level, as compared with 36.2% that report a high to very high level of stress. The average degree of stress reported by all the teachers was 3.13 (with deviations from the norm of 0.96), which is the medium average on a scale of 1 – 5.
087
poor working conditions. The factor includes the following sources: unpaid tasks and functions in addition to teaching, overloaded classes, the physical surroundings for work, inconvenient working conditions (teaching schedule, job range, etc.), changing educational policy, lack of teaching resources (teaching hours, teaching assistants …), overloaded study program (Too much subject matter to teach), Break time is too short. This factor explains 24.30% of the stress variables in the work of the teacher. All items are loaded in a reasonable manner, with a minimal loading of 0.30 (Stevens, 1996). This factor was created by calculation of the balanced average between the answers of the teachers on the items that compose the factor. It was found that the average degree of stress for this factor equals 3.24 (on a scale of 1-5), which means that this factor causes stress beyond the medium level.
Second Research Question
What are the greatest sources of stress for Israeli teachers? The findings indicate that the ten greatest causes of stress for Israeli teachers are: overloaded classes, problems in pupil behavior, disdain of pupils for class assignments, pupils without motivation, lack of teaching resources (teaching hours, teaching assistants …), violence in school, inconvenient working conditions (schedule, work load, etc.), lack of public understanding of the burden placed upon the teacher, overloaded study program, integration of pupils with special needs. An exploratory factor analysis was carried out for sources of stress and coping strategies. The psychometric measurements for the items (skewness, kurtosis, discriminate coefficient, variance, communality, means and standard deviations) had examined. The distribution values indicate that the distribution of the teachers’ answers on the items is asymmetrical with a mixed negative and positive trend, but within the accepted limits. the items have good discriminate ability and the communality seems acceptable. On the basis of these measurements, it was decided to enter all the items into the process of exploratory factor analysis. Tables 4, presents the results of the factor analysis. It should be noted that item 15 in the questionnaire did not satisfy the loading criterion and was therefore deleted, and a factor analysis was carried out again without this item, the results of which are presented in the table below.
The first factor, conditions
overload
and
poor
working
This factor as examines degree of stress thatand teachers experience a result the of overload in their work of
The second factor, competitiveness and lack of appreciation This factor examines the degree of stress that teachers experience as a result of competitiveness and achievement, and of the lack of public appreciation for the teachers’ work and the burden placed upon them, as well as the result of deficient communication with parents. The factor includes the following sources: communication with parents, lack of public understanding of the burden placed upon the teacher, competition among colleagues, Instructing pupils who take part in local or national competition, required participation in supplementary courses, Being observed by colleagues, student teachers, college tutors, parents or others (supervisor, principal, etc.). This factor explains 5.53% of the stress variables in the work of the teachers. All items loaded in a reasonable manner, with a minimal loading of 0.30 (Stevens, 1996). This factor was created by calculation of the balanced average between the answers of the teachers on the items that compose the factor. It was found that the average degree of stress for this factor equals 2.87 (on a scale of 1-5), which means that this factor causes stress below the medium level.
The third factor, school environment and style of the principal This factor examines the degree of stress that teachers experience as a result of the school environment and of the style of the principal. The factor includes the following sources: the style management of school principal, the school environment, violence in the school, damage to property (teachers/school). This factor explains 5.10% of the stress variables in the work of the teachers. All items are loaded in (Stevens, a reasonable with minimal loading of 0.30 1996).manner, This factor wasa created
088. Univers. J. Edu. Gen. Stud.
Table 1. Distribution of Teachers Participants According to Background Data
Gender
Age
Seniority
Education
Subject
Level of School
female male under 30 31 – 40 41 – 50 up 50 less 1 year 1–5 6 – 10 Up 10 certified B.A. / B.Ed. M.A. / M. Ed. Ph.D. sciences humanistic languages elementary secondary high city village other Jew Arab
Sector Total
count 330 95 63 179 109 74 12 63 92 258 40 295 87 3 188 69 168 235 81 109 289 99 37 203
percent 77.6 22.4 14.8 42.1 25.6 17.4 2.8 14.8 21.6 60.7 9.4 69.4 20.5 .7 44.2 16.2 39.5 55.3 19.1 25.7 68.0 23.3 8.8 47.8
222 425
52.2 100.0
Table 2. Number and Percentage of Teachers according to the Degree of Stress they Experience in their Work at School Not at all stressful Mildly stressful Moderately stressful Very stressful Extremely stressful Not respond
count 22 79 155 133 21 15
percent 5.2% 18.6% 36.5% 31.3% 4.9% 3.5%
Table 3. Ten Greatest Sources of Stress for Israeli Teachers (N=425) scaling
source
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Too many pupils in one class Pupils’ misbehavior Pupils’ poor attitudes toward classroom tasks Pupils who lack motivation Not enough teaching resources Violence in the school Pupils who lack motivation Public’s attitude and misunderstanding about teachers’ workload Too much subject matter to teach Special needs pupils in the class (eg with autism, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), low ability or low emotional intelligence)
8 9 10
percent 62.82 59.29 56.24 54.82 54.80 51.76 49.88 46.58 45.88 44.24
Zedan and Bitar
089
Table 4. Factor analysis of stress sources according to direct oblemin rotation method Factor/item A. overload and poor working conditions 1. unpaid tasks and functions in addition to teaching 2. overloaded classes 3. inconvenient working conditions (teaching schedule, job range, etc.) 4. the physical surroundings for work 4 5. Changeable education policy of the government 5 6. Not enough teaching resources 7. overloaded study program (Too much subject matter to teach) 8. Break time is too short variance Eigenvalue B. competitiveness and lack of appreciation 1. communication withparents 2. lack of public understanding of the burden placed upon the teacher 3. competition among colleagues 4. Instructing pupils who take part in local or national competition 5. required participation in supplementary courses 6. Being observed by colleagues, student teachers, college tutors or parents variance Eigenvalue C. school environment and style of the principal 1. Management style of the school principal. 2. school environment 3. Violence in the school 4. Property Damage variance Eigenvalue D. problems in behavior and motivation of the pupils 1. Pupils who lack motivation. 2. Pupils’ misbehaviour 3.Subject or grade taught does not fit expectations or self ability. 4. Pupils’ poor attitudes toward classroom tasks. variance Eigenvalue
by calculation of the balanced average between the answers of the teachers on the items that compose the factor. It was found that the average degree of stress for this factor equals 3.06 (on a scale of 1-5), which means that this factor causes stress on the medium level. The fourth factor, problems motivation of the pupils
in
behavior
and
This factor examines the degree of stress that teachers experience as a result of improper and problematic behavior of the pupils, as well as the outcome of their low motivation. This factor was created by calculation of the balanced average between the answers of the teachers on the items that compose the factor. It was found that the average degree of stress for this factor equaled 3.42 (on a scale of 1-5), which means that this factor causes stress above the medium level, and that it was the most stressful These factor. four factors explain 38% of stress variables. The level of reliability according to the Cronbach alpha
loading 0.424 0.543 0.443 0.621 0.432 0.510 0.495 0.369 24.30% 5.35 0.431 0.336 0.555 0.517 0.420 0.374 5.53% 1.22 0.302 0.529 0.780 0.760 5.10% 1.12 0.695 0.597 0.482 0.476 3.07% 0.676
coefficient for the four factors ranges between 0.663 and 0.787, and all the items together were 0.870. The coefficient values for internal consistency reliability are satisfactory, considering that it concerns effective variables, and that the number of questions in each factor is not particularly large. The general degree of stress derived from the stress sources presented in this section, was calculated as a balanced average for 23 stress sources, and it was found that it equaled 3.14. This average for the general degree of stress is very close to the average for the general degree of stress that was received from the direct question presented in the third part of the questionnaire which equaled 3.13. The connection between the two general stress measurements was examined through a correlation test by Pearson correlation coefficients, and it was found that there was an outstanding positive medium link between them (r = 0.464, p < 0.001), which indicates that validity is convergent.
090. Univers. J. Edu. Gen. Stud.
Table 5. Cronbach alpha coefficients for internal consistency reliability of the factors produced by the factor analysis, means, and deviations from the norm for source stress factors factor A. overload and poor working conditions B. competitiveness and lack of appreciation C. school environment and style of the principal D. problems in behavior and motivation of the pupils General stress
M
S. D.
3.24 2.87 3.06 3.42 3.14
0.72 0.73 0.92 0.82 0.59
Cronbach alpha reliability 0.787 0.663 0.734 0.753 0.870
Table 6. Ten Effective Strategies for Coping with Stress among Israeli Teachers N= 425 scaling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strategy conducting a health family life understanding and control over the subject being taught knowing each of the pupils personally devoting time to oneself [for leisure activities] Starting the term with clearly defined classroom rules and expectations controlling one’s emotions Planning ahead and prioritizing Continuing further education Relaxing after work emotional support from others (friend, colleague)
Third Research Question
What are the efficient strategies of coping that are adopted by Israeli teachers, schools or authorities in order to reduce the stress? The findings indicate that the ten most effective strategies for teachers to cope with stress are: conducting a healthy family life, understanding and control of the subject taught, knowing each pupil personally, devoting time to oneself [for leisure activities], setting clear rules and defining expectations in advance, emotional support from others (friend, colleague). An analysis was conducted for the strategies adopted by teachers of coping with stress, and the strategies adopted by the school and the authorities. An exploratory factor analysis was carried out for teacher coping strategies. The psychometric measurements for the items (skewness, kurtosis, discriminate coefficient, variance, communality, means and standard deviations) had examined. The distribution values indicate that the distribution of the teachers’ answers on the items is asymmetrical with a mixed negative and positive trend, but within the accepted limits. the items have good discriminate ability(>0.3) and the communality seems acceptable(>0.3). On the basis of these measurements, it was decided to enter all the items into the process of exploratory factor analysis. Tables 7 presents the results of the factor analysis.
percent 86.82 84.47 77.65 77.41 76.71 75.29 73.41 70.12 68.24 67.76
Coping Strategies Adopted by Teachers It should be noted that the initial analysis of factors produced six factors, two of which were identified as active coping with stress sources and coping that is focused on the attempt to solve the problems that cause stress on two levels, personal and professional. Two others were identified as passive coping such as isolation, escape, and lack of ability to cope with stress sources. The final two were identified as based on emotion and support, which means self control, restraint, and social and emotional support from others. In addition to a reviewtoofjustify the research we studies did not findthis, anyinsources the six literature, factors. The referred to two or three factors, but no more. It was therefore decided to group the six factors into three.
The first factor, active coping on the personal and professional level This factor examines the degree of efficiency in the active strategies of coping with stress sources which are focused on attempts to solve the problems that lead to stress on both the personal and professional levels. The factor includes the following strategies: relaxation after work, understanding and control over the subject being taught, devoting time to oneself [for leisure activities], knowing each of the pupils personally, giving more time to communication with parents, Thinking about the
Zedan and Bitar
091
Table 7. Factor analysis of teacher coping strategies according to direct oblemin rotation method. Factor/item active coping on the personal and professional level 1. Relaxing after work 2. understanding and control over the subject being taught 3. devoting time to oneself [for leisure activities] 4. knowing each of the pupils personally 5. devoting more time to communication with parents
loading 0.52 0.43 0.55 0.54 0.32
6.Thinking about thework coming 0.40 7. detachment from aftervacation working hours 0.40 8. conducting a health family life 0.54 10. Planning ahead and prioritizing. 0.41 variance 19.35% Eigenvalue 4.45 passive coping 1. Psychological counseling 0.43 2.Deep breathing 0.49 3. Practicing activities associated with religious belief 0.51 4. Isolation (Being alone) 0.58 5. Changing your school 0.38 6.Reading books about stress 0.58 variance 6.92% Eigenvalue 1.59 C. emotional coping through self control and social and emotional support from others 1.Discussing your problems with colleagues or friends 0.42 2. Starting the term with clearly defined classroom rules and 0.44 expectations 3. controlling one’s emotions 0.34 4.Seeing the humor in the situation 0.53 5. Avoiding confrontations 0.56 6. Continuing further education 0.46 7. sharing failures with others 0.63 8. emotional support from others (friend, colleague) 0.52 variance 3.96% Eigenvalue 0.91
Table 8. Means and Deviations from the Norm for the Factors of Strategies for Coping with Stress M
S. D.
A. active coping
3.89
0.61
Cronbach alpha reliability 0.76
B. passive coping C. emotional coping
2.62 3.70
0.78 0.62
0.68 0.75
factor
Table 9. Five Most Effective Strategies for Coping with Stress by the Authorities or School Among Israeli Teachers (N=425) scaling 1 2 3
Strategy Improve working conditions Reducing the pupils number of in classroom Increase teachers’ salary
coming vacation, detachment from work after working hours, conducting a health family life, Planning ahead and prioritizing. These strategies can be classified into two levels, the personal level that includes strategies
percent 84.24 84.73 79.31
used in personal and family life, level that includes control over relations with pupils and their explains 19.35% of the variables in
and the professional the profession and parents. This factor the efficiency of
092. Univers. J. Edu. Gen. Stud.
strategies to cope with stress in the work of teachers. All items are loaded in a reasonable manner, with a minimal loading of 0.30 (Stevens, 1996). This factor was created by calculating the balanced average of the answers of the teachers on the items composing the factor. It was found that the average efficiency in the coping strategies that compose this factor equals 3.89 (on a scale from 1-5), which means that this factor is efficient to a degree above the medium level in the coping of teachers with stress.
factors range between 0.68 and 0.76, and for all the items together it was 0.82. The coefficient values for internal consistency reliability are satisfactory, considering that it concerns effective variables, and that the number of questions in each factor is not particularly large.
The second factor, passive coping
The findings indicate that the three most effective strategies for authorities to cope with stress(according to the teachers) are: Improve working conditions , Reducing the pupils number of in classroom, Increase teachers’ salary. An exploratory factor analysis was carried out for coping strategies. The psychometric measurements for the items (skewness, kurtosis, discriminate coefficient, variance, communality, means and standard deviations) had examined. The distribution values indicate that the distribution of the teachers’ answers on the items is asymmetrical with a mixed negative and positive trend, but within the accepted limits. the items have good
This factor examined the degree of efficiency in the passive strategies of coping with stress sources: psychological consultation, deep breaths, Practicing activities associated with religious belief, . Isolation (Being alone), Changing your school, reading books about stress. This factor explains 6.92% of the variables in the efficiency of strategies to cope with stress in the work of teachers. All items are loaded in a reasonable manner, with a minimal loading of 0.30 (Stevens, 1996). This factor was created by calculating the balanced average of the answers of the teachers on the items composing the factor. It was found that the average efficiency in the coping strategies that compose this factor equals 2.62 (on a scale from 1-5), which means that this factor exerts stress to a degree below the medium level.
The third factor, emotional coping through self control and social and emotional support from others This factor examines the degree of efficiency in emotional strategies of coping with stress based on self control and the social and emotional support given by colleagues and others. The factor includes the following strategies: Discussing your problems with colleagues or friends, Starting the term with clearly defined classroom rules and expectations; controlling one’s emotions, seeing the humor of the situation, avoiding confrontations, Continuing further education, sharing failures with others, emotional support from others (friend, colleague). This factor explains 3.96% of the variables in the efficiency of strategies to cope with stress in the work of teachers. All items are loaded in a reasonable manner, with a minimal loading of 0.30 (Stevens, 1996). This factor was created by calculating the balanced average of the answers of the teachers on the items composing the factor. It was found that the average efficiency in the coping strategies that compose this factor equals 3.70 (on a scale from 1-5), which means that this factor exerts stress to a degree above the medium level. All three factors explain 30.23% of the variables in the strategies of the coping with alpha stress.coefficients The level for of the reliability according to Cronbach three
Coping strategies that the teachers believe the school or authorities should adopt
discriminate ability and the communality seems acceptable. On the basis of these measurements, it was decided to enter all the items into the process of exploratory factor analysis. Tables 10, presents the results of the factor analysis. It should be noted that item 3 did not measure up to the loading criterion and was therefore discarded. A factor analysis was repeated without this item and the results are presented in the above table. It should be noted that the first analysis of factors produced three factors. However, on one hand the research literature in this field reports about one factor, and on the other hand there exists a conceptual meaning in both directions, and therefore it was decided to force the procedure to group the items into two factors.
The first factor, direct coping (at the teacher level) This factor examines the degree of efficiency in the strategies of coping with sources of stress that the school or authorities should adopt in order to reduced the degree of stress in the work of the teacher. The factor included the coping strategies focused on the teacher himself, and in carrying out changes in his working conditions at the personal level, such as raising his salary, and at the working environment level, such as reducing the number of pupils in the class, as well as at the level of direct treatment of stress through workshops for stress reduction. This factor explains 29.44% of the variables in the efficiency of strategies in coping with stress in the work thatloaded the school or authorities should adopt.ofAllthe theteacher items are in a reasonable manner,
Zedan and Bitar
093
Table 10. Factor analysis of authorities coping strategies according to direct oblemin rotation method Factor/item A. direct coping (at the teacher level) 1. Improve working conditions 2. Increase teaching resources 3. Establish workshops to reduce teacher stress 4. Decrease teachers’ workload 5. Increase teachers’ salary
loading 0.499 0.414 0.288 0.673 0.497
6. Reducing the pupils number of in classroom variance Eigenvalue B. indirect coping (at the organizational level) 1. Provide professional administrators 2. Change education policy less frequently 3. Providing professional support variance Eigenvalue
0.650 29.44% 2.94 0.617 0.683 0.414 5.05% 0.51
Table 11. Means and Deviations from the Norm for the Factors of Coping with Stress Strategies factor A. direct coping (at the teacher level) B. indirect coping (at the organizational level)
with a minimal loading of 0.30 (Stevens, 1996). This factor is created by calculation of the balanced average between the answers of the teachers on the items that compose the factor. It was found that the average degree of stress for this factor equals 4.00 (on a scale of 1-5), which means that this factor is efficient at a high level in coping with stress. The second factor, organizational level)
indirect
coping
(at
the
This factor examines the degree of efficiency in the strategies of coping with sources of stress that the school or authorities should adopt in order to reduced the degree of stress in the work of the teacher. The factor included indirect strategies of coping, superficial, not focused on the teacher, but which can be attributed to organizational policy which do not directly and intensively affect the teacher himself, such as Change education policy less frequently. This factor explains 5.05% of the variables in the efficiency of strategies in coping with stress in the work of the teacher that the school or authorities should adopt. All the items are loaded in a reasonable manner, with a minimal loading of 0.40 (Stevens, 1996). This factor is created by calculation of the balanced average between the answers of the teachers on the items that compose the factor. It was found that the average degree of stress for this factor equals 3.67 (on a scale of 1-5),
M
S. D.
4.00 3.67
0.67 0.78
Cronbach alpha reliability 0.67 0.78
which means that this factor is efficient at a level above medium in coping with stress. Both factors together explain 34.50% of the variables in the strategies of coping with stress. The level of reliability according to the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the two factors ranges between 0.624 and 0.743. The coefficient values for internal consistency reliability are satisfactory, considering that it concerns effective variables, and that the number of questions in each factor is not particularly large.
DISCUSSION First Question The findings showed that 91.3% of the teachers in Israel experience stress in their work at various levels. 55.1% of them experience stress at a low to very low level as compared with 36.2% who report a high to very high level of stress. The degree of stress reported by all the teachers was moderate. The findings indicate the frequency of the phenomenon and its widespread nature among Israeli teachers. The findings of this research support those of international research as well as that of Geving (2007) and others which indicate that this phenomenon is a frequent one. In studies conducted in the United States, England, Australia and New Zealand, it was found that
094. Univers. J. Edu. Gen. Stud.
one out of every three teachers reported being under stress or very high stress (Pithers and Soden, 1998). Even in research conducted in the Far East support the findings in the West. Kyriacou and Chien (2004) found that 26% of the teachers reported that they were under great or extreme stress, and that stress among elementary school teachers constitutes a serious problem.
Second Question The findings indicate that the ten most stressful factors for Israeli teachers are: overloaded classes, problems in pupil behavior, disdain of pupils for class assignments, pupils without motivation, lack of teaching resources (teaching hours, teaching assistants …), violence in school, inconvenient working conditions (schedule, work load, etc.), lack of public understanding of the burden placed upon the teacher, overloaded study program, integration of pupils with special needs. In an exploratory factor analysis conducted for stress sources, four factors were received. The number of factors produced in this research does not correspond to the number of factors reported in any other research, but even among the other studies no agreement was found regarding the number of stress factors that were produced from all the factor analyses that were conducted. Meng and Liu (2008) found two main factors. They called the first “the work environment of the teacher” and the second “the relationship of teachers to pupils and their parents”. Kokkinos (2007) found eleven stress factors, Travers and Cooper (1996) found ten stress factors, and in a survey by Howard and Johnson (2004) on stress sources, they found eight factors. On the other hand, the factors defined in these research studies overlap with our own definition of factors and the degree of influence they have on the teachers’ sense of stress.
contained more than 60 classes of 35-40 each (Kyriacou, 2001). b.
Competition and lack of appreciation
This factor examines the degree of stress that teachers experience as a result of competition and achievements, the lack of appreciation by the public for their work as teachers, the overload of tasks imposed upon them, as well as bad communication with parents. The teachers reported that the degree of stress caused them by this factor was below the medium level. The main factor for stress in elementary schools as shown in the research of Chiang and Lee (2002) in Kyriacou and Chien (2004) is the desire for competition and higher achievements. Parents put enormous stress on teachers to help their children to reach a high level of achievement in their studies in order to ensure their entry into the best universities, and criticize them if they do not succeed in doing so. Research by Grayson and Alvarez (2008) found that the lack of public appreciation increases stress.
c. Environment of the school and the style of the principal This factor examines the degree of stress that teachers experience as a result of the school environment and the style of the principal. The teachers reported that the degree of stress caused them by this factor is medium in level. This finding corresponds to the findings of Grayson and Alvarez (2008) who found that bad relations with the administration increased stress.
d. Problems of behavior and motivation of the pupils
This factor examines the degree of stress experienced by teachers as a result of overloading and poor working conditions. The teachers reported that the degree of stress caused them as a result of this factor was a little above the medium level. These findings correspond with the research of Chiang (2002) and Lee (2002) in Kyriacou and Chien, (2004) in Taiwan, and in Kyriacou (2001) in England, who reported that the main factors of stress that were found were work overload and changing educational reform conducted by the authorities. Also the considerable overload and crowding in schools were an
This factor examines the degree of stress that teachers experience as a result of the problematic and inappropriate behavior of pupils as well as the outcome of the low motivation and level of achievement of the pupils. It was found that this was the most stressful factor. Appropriate behavior in class is considered as one of the main factors in education and a primary factor in the stress caused to teachers. Researchers such as KremerHayon and Ben-Peretz (1986) and Brackenreed and Barnett (2006) have shown that most of the teachers are worried about the situation in the classroom, the lack of discipline, and the unruly behavior of the pupils. In the research by Chan (2003), which was conducted on the teachers of Hong Kong, it was found that disorderly behavior of pupils was a stress factor second in importance and influence.
important stress factor, since most of the schools
The conducted ofbypupil Lewis et al. in (2005) with theresearch major significance behavior the deals
a.
Overloading and poor working conditions
Zedan and Bitar
095
classroom and its influence on study. According to them, the damage involved in the unruly behavior of pupils is a double one because it has an influence not only on the pupils in class but also increases stress on the teacher and injures their efficiency and health. Our findings accord with the consensus around the importance of pupil behavior in the classroom, and its influence on the sense of stress by the teachers. Many researchers (Abel and Sewell, 1999; Byrne, 1998; Woods and Weasmer, 2002) believe that the main factor in stress among teachers is confrontation with pupils over bad behavior. This is also the conclusion that is made by Taylor, Womack and Zimmer, (2005). The research of Grayson and Alvarez (2008) also finds that inappropriate behavior of pupils increases stress.
focused on attempts to solve the problems that lead to stress on two levels, the personal and the professional. It was found that this factor is efficient to a degree above the medium level for teachers coping with stress.
Third Question
c. Emotional coping through self control and friendly emotional support from others
The findings indicate that, according to Israeli teachers, the ten most effective strategies for coping with stress are: conducting a health family life, understanding and control over the subject being taught, knowing each pupil personally, devoting time to oneself [leisure activities], setting down clear rules and defining expectations in advance, controlling one’s emotions, planning and determining and ordered schedule, professional development, relaxation after work, emotional support from others (friend, colleague). An analysis of the factors that was conducted with regard to the coping strategies adopted by teachers produced three factors. The factors overlap with the factors that were found in the research of Montgomery and Rupp (2005) who defined two main categories of coping strategies, active coping strategies and passive coping strategies. Active strategies can be cognitive strategies (changes in perspective, imposing self control, rational distancing of oneself); behavioral strategies (determining borderlines to the job, requesting advice from others, engaging in relaxation exercises); emotional strategies (remaining calm and quiet, thinking positively). On the other hand, passive coping strategies such as resignation, drinking, wishful thinking, and avoidance, are characterized by a lack of engagement with the stressful event with the aim of resolving it. The factors also overlap with those in the research of Bindhu and Sudheeshkumar (2006) who found that there were two main categories to cope with stress: to give full attention to the stressful event, or not to think about it at all. The factors that were found in our research are a. Active coping professional level
on
the
personal
and
This factorofexamines thestress degree of efficiency strategies coping with sources which arein active
b.
Passive coping
This factor examines the degree of efficiency in passive strategies for coping with stress sources such as escape, lack of ability to confront the stress source, and demands for external assistance. It was found that the factor was efficient to a degree below the medium level for teachers coping with stress.
This factor examines the degree of efficiency in emotional strategies of coping based on self control and friendly emotional support from colleagues and others. It was found that this factor was efficient to a degree above the medium level. Teachers thought that the use of the active coping factor (on the personal and professional level) was the most efficient, followed by the emotional coping factor (through self control and friendly, emotional support), and that the passive coping factor was the least efficient. These findings correspond with those in the research of Chris Kyriacou and Pei-Yu Chien (2004) who fond that the best way to overcome stress was “a healthy family life” alongside “someone standing beside you and understanding you”. Other means for coping with stress are: “to ensure a good understanding of the material that you are teaching”; “to learn to restrain your emotions”; “to see the humor of the situation”; and “to relax after work”. These are the strategies in the factors for active and emotional coping. Other research studies (Hemmings and Hockley, 2002) support the efficiency of the strategies for active and emotional coping for the reduction of stress. Several strategies were found for coping with stress, and all of them are considered as active or emotional ones such as: communication with others; self help; relaxation; organization; engaging in sport activities, etc. Leisure activities and entertainment also reduce stress and improve the quality and enjoyment of life (McKay, 2008), and considerable influence is exerted by self care (regular exercise and sport, eight hours sleep a day, maintaining a correct diet, applying relaxation techniques) on the reduction of stress and improvement in the quality of life (Yang et al., 2009). With regard to the strategies of coping that the teachers think the school or authorities should adopt, the teachers noted the most effective strategies were rankedinas follows:that improvement in working conditions, reduction
096. Univers. J. Edu. Gen. Stud.
the number of pupils in the class, raising the salaries of teachers, reducing the load of work, the addition of teaching assistants, providing professional support, transparency in school administration, less frequent changes in educational policy, workshops for teachers to reduce stress in work, and reduction in social activities in the school. Contrary to the decision of Meng and Liu (2008) to conduct an analysis of factors on both types of coping strategies (those adopted by teachers and those adopted by the school or authorities), that produced three factors for coping: “coping with stress through improvement in professional skills and personal life”; “strategies adopted by the school and authorities”; “coping with stress through sharing or forgetting”, we decided to conduct an analysis of the factors for each type separately. With regard to the coping strategies that the teachers thought should be adopted by the school or authorities, an analysis of the factors conducted on this type produced two main factors
a.
Direct coping (at the teacher level)
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This research focused on the location and definition of the sources and factors of stress and the strategies used by teachers, the school and the authorities to cope with it. An analysis of the factors that were conducted through tools of research produced four factors for stress sources, three factors for strategies used by teachers for coping with stress, and two factors for strategies of coping with stress by the school and the authorities. The findings show that 91.3% of the teachers in Israel experience stress in their work at various levels. 55.1% of them experience stress at a low to very low level, as compared with 36.2% who report a high to very high level of stress. Although the subject of stress has been much researched, it is still a subject that demands interest and can always be examined from various angles and for different populations and working conditions. Already in the first research studies, emphasis was give to the vital importance of researching the subject of stress in the work of teachers. This is because of its effects and its negative influence on the work of the teacher, on the study environment and on the pupils. Through this
This factor examines the strategies of coping with stress sources that the school or authorities should adopt in order to reduce the degree of stress in the work of teachers. The factor included coping strategies focused on the teacher himself, and on carrying out changes in his working conditions on the personal level such as increasing his salary, in his working environment such as reducing the number of pupils in his class, and in the direct treatment of stress through organizing workshops to reduce stress. It was found that this factor was efficient to high degree in coping with stress.
research I am strengthening the demand to study the subject with intensity and in relation to additional variables such as organizational climate, satisfaction, erosion, and other factors. It is more important to research and identify the strategies used by teachers to cope with stress and the strategies used by the school or authorities in order to reduce the sense of stress among teachers. The understanding of this phenomenon provides the school and the educational system with the basis for the intelligent planning of interventions that will assist teachers to cope with the sense of stress.
b.
REFERENCES
Indirect coping (at the organizational level)
This factor examines the degree of efficiency with the sources of stress that the school or authorities should adopt in order to reduce the degree of stress in the work of teachers. The factor included indirect coping strategies, which are superficial and not focused on the teacher, but can be related to organizational policy that do not directly or intensively affect the teacher himself such as infrequent changes in educational policy. It was found that this factor was efficient to a degree above the medium level in coping with stress. In the research literature there is no reference to these factors separately, but it was reported that in the opinion of teachers the first place in coping strategies is given to “reducing the work load”, followed by acquiring professional advice and increase in salaries, which are direct coping strategies at the teacher level – according to our definition.
Abel MH, Sewell J(1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. The J. Edu. Res. 92:287-293. Adams E, Heath-Camp B, Camp WG(1999). Vocational teacher stress and the education system. The J. Voc. Edu. Res. 24:133144. AL-Mohannadi A, Capel S (2007). Stress in physical education teachers in Qatar. Soc. Psychol. Edu. 10:55-75. Bindhu CM, Sudheeshkumar PK (2006). Job Satisfaction and Stress Coping Skills of Primary School Teachers , Calicut: Department of Education publication, Kerala, India. Brackenreed D, Barnett J .(2006). Teacher Stress and Inclusion: Perceptions of Pre-Service Teachers. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin. 34(12):156-176. Brown M, Ralph S(2002). Teacher stress and school improvement. Improving Schools 5(2): 55–65. Byrne JJ(1998). Teacher as hunger artist: Burnout: It’s causes and remedies. Contemporary Education. 69(2):86-91. Chan DW.(2003). Hardiness and its role in the stress-burnout relationship among prospective chinese teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(4):381-95.
Zedan and Bitar
Comish R, Swindle B(1994). Managing stress in the workplace. National Public Accountant . 39(9):24-28. Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992). A first course in factor analysis . Academic Press, San Diego, and University of California. Geving AM(2007). Identifying the types of student and teacher behaviours associated with teacher stress, Teaching and Teacher Education . 23:624–640. Grayson JL, Alvarez HK .(2008). School Climate Factors Relating to Teacher Burnout: A Mediator Model.Teaching and Teacher Education. 24(5) :1349-1363. Hemmings B, Hockley T (2002). Student teacher stress and coping mechanisms. Education in Rural Australia . 12(2) :25-35. Howard S, Johnson B(2004). Resilient teachers: resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of Education 7(4):399-420. Kokkinos CM(2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. Br. J. Edu. Psychol. 77: 229-243. Kremer-Hayon L, Ben-Peretz M (1986). Becoming a teacher: The transition from teachers' college to classroom life. Int. Rev. Edu. 32:413-422. Kyriacou C(2001). Teacher stress: directions for future research. Educational Review, 53 (1):27-35. Kyriacou C, Chien PY(2004). Teacher stress in Taiwanese primary schools. J. Edu. Enq. 5(2):86 – 104. Lazarus RS, Folkman S(1984). Stress appraisal and coping . New York: Springer. Lewis R., Romi SH, Qui K, Katz YJ(2005). Teachers’ classroom discipline and student misbehavior in Australia, China and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education. 21( 6):729-741 Mckay E(2008). of Forrecreation refreshment preservinge health-the . definition Historical and function in and early modern England Research. 81(211): 52–74. Meng L, Liu S (2008) Mathematics teacher stress in Chinese secondary schools. J. Edu. Enq. 8(1):73-96. Monat A, Lazarus R.S(1977). A New Look at Stress and the School Counselor. The School Counselor. 35(3):194-198 Montgomery C, Rupp AA (2005). A Meta‐ analysis for Exploring the Diverse Causes and Effects of Stress in Teachers. Canad. J. Edu. 28(3):458‐486. Pithers R., Soden R. (1998). Teacher Stress and Strain. Br. J. Edu. Psychol. 68(4):269-281. Stevens S(1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L awrence Erlbaum Associates. Taylor B, Zimmer C, Womack S(2005). Strategies to prevent teacher ERIC Document Reproduction Service stress and burnout. ED490663.
097
Travers C, Cooper C(1996). Teachers under pressure. New York: Routledge. Wilson V, Hall J (2002). Running twice as fast? A review of the research literature on teachers’ str ess. Scot. Edu. Rev. 34 (2):175– 187. Woods AM, Weasmer J(2002). Maintaining job satisfaction: Engaging professionals as active participants. The Clearing House. 75:186189. Yang X, Ge C, Hu B, Chi T, Wang L(2009). Relationship between quality of life and occupational stress among teachers. Public Health. 123(11):750-755.
