Professional Stress Among Engineering College Teachers and Their Coping Strategies

7/30/2019 Professional Stress Among Engineering College Teachers and Their Coping Strategies

1/18

International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 6502(Print), ISSN 0976

6510(Online), Volume 3, Issue 2, May-August (2012)

80

PROFESSIONAL STRESS AMONG ENGINEERING COLLEGETEACHERS AND THEIR COPING STRATEGIES

Dr. T. Manvel Raj*, Dr. A. Mohamed Siddique

**and Dr. T. Shalini Rani***

*Principal, Mohamed Sathak A.J.College of Engineering, Siruseri IT Park, Chennai 603103, Tamilnadu, India. Email: [email protected].

**Reader, Department of Management Studies, Khadir Mohideen College,Adirampattinam 614701, Tamilnadu, India, Email:[email protected],

***Professor and Head, Department of Corporate Secretaryship, Thiruthangal NadarCollege, Chennai - 600051, Tamilnadu, India,

Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The article summarizes the results of research on the professional stress among

Engineering College teachers (N = 300) in and around the Chennai city. Both the external

and internal causes of teachers stress (stressors) were analyzed. Investigation of external

causes of stress was carried out by means of Questionnaire of Teacher Stress (by C.Kyriacou). This measure contains the fifty sources of teachers stress. To define the

internal sources of stress The Life Style Scale (by R. M. Kern) was applied. The

information will be given about the self-evaluation of teacher stress, causes of teacherstress, evaluation of differences between the teachers with different lifestyles and

developmental model of teacher stress. The opportunities of Engineering College

psychologist in the prevention and coping with the professional stress at Engineering

College are derived from the research data and partially reflected in the visual model ofteachers professional stress.

Key words: Stress, Coping strategies, Sources of stress, Causes of stress, EngineeringTeacher stress, stressors

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM)

ISSN 0976 6367(Print)

ISSN 0976 6375(Online)

Volume 3, Issue 2, May- August (2012), pp. 80-97

IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijm.html

Journal Impact Factor (2011): 1.5030 (Calculated by GISI)

www.jifactor.com

IJM I A E M E


2/18



81

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In many countries work of the Engineering Teacher currently is considered as one

of the most stressful professions (Hunter M., 1977). Last two decades an intensive

research in USA and Europe has been developed regarding both the sources andsymptoms of teacher professional stress (Dunham I., 1992; Kyriacou C., 1990;

McLauglin M.W., 1986; Kelly M.J., 1988; Kokss T., 1989; Cole M. & Walker S., 1989;Gold J. & Roth R. A., 1993; Schwab R.L., 1995, etc.). Investigations in the field of

teacher stress indicate that the great part of teacher stress can be explained with a rapid

pace of changes in education in 1980s

and 1990s.

In his article Teachers in the Twenty-first Century: time to renew the vision C.

Day focuses on the situation within the teaching profession: For many teachers, the last20 years have been years of survival, rather than development. As social and economic

change have placed new demands upon and created new expectations from Engineering

Colleges, hardly a year has passed without some reform being mooted, negotiated orimposed in the name of raising standards (appraisal, inspection), increasing user

participation (open enrollment, local financial management) and pupil entitlement (a

national curriculum). Yet I would predict that teachers in the twenty-first century will

become more, rather than less important to the fabric of society and that theircontributions to the socio-economic health of nations will become more valued.

During the workshops, discussions and consultation process Engineering College

teachers point to the similar situation in their profession. The established situation and

problems in contemporary Engineering College can be illustrated by the words of

Engineering Teacher with fifteen years of work experience: Unfortunately, the part ofthe society does not understand that Engineering Teacher is not the preprogrammed

machine, which can continuously work in an overloaded regime. Engineering Teacher

simply is a person with his own needs and problems, which lately has been especiallyhard to cope with. Engineering Teacher can not perform his tasks motivated only by his

enthusiasm, if the professional problems stay unsolved. Therefore, the young generation,

the children will have to suffer. In order, to raise the spiritually and bodily healthychildren, the Engineering Teacher has to be healthy himself.

To help Engineering teachers and, therefore, also the pupils, we started theresearch of teacher professional stress. We were interested in:

The sources and peculiarities of Engineering Teacher stress; The factors of Engineering Teacher personality influencing a perception of the

sources of stress.

Therefore, the aim of our research was to discover the internal and external

factors of Engineering teacher professional stress such as the professional stressors(internal) and individual lifestyle of Engineering teacher (external).


3/18



82

2.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

Fifteen Chennai based self-financing Engineering Colleges were randomly

selected in the middle of academic year 2011-2012. The following constraints were

observed: colleges selected for the experiment were Chennai based self-financingEngineering Colleges with 1200 1800 pupils. 300 Assistant Professors, Associate

Professors and Professors were offered 2 methods: Questionnaire of Teacher Stress andKern Lifestyle Scale.

2.1 Methods

Questionnaire of Teacher Stress (by C. Kyriacou & I. Sutcliffe). The measure wasdesigned considering the assumption that teachers are able to provide valid reports of the

sources of experienced stress; therefore, the questionnaire can be used as a self-report

method. The questionnaire consists of some sections.

The first section requests the biographical information regarding sex,

qualification, age, length of teaching experience and position held in the college. Thissection contains the open questions. The second section consists of 50 items regardingsources of stress. The teachers are asked to rate their response to each of the sources of

stress on a five-point scale labeled: No stress (0), Mild stress (1), Moderate stress (2),

Much stress (3), Extreme stress (4). (Stress is seen as a result of the interaction betweenthe professional activities and personality). The third section asks teachers to give an

answer on the question: In general, how stressful do you find being a teacher?

Response on this question is measured on a five-point scale. The response to this questionwas used as a measure of self-reported teacher stress.

Kern Lifestyle Scale (by R. Kern). Kern Lifestyle Scale (KLS) is a 35-item surveyinstrument, developed by R. M. Kern from the Georgia University (1982). KLS has been

continuously improved by means of its component analysis, research of its validity and

reliability.

This measure can be used to help the family couples, individuals, students,

management staff and educational groups. KLS was developed to obtain the informationon the lifestyle necessary for an evaluation of the relationships with spouse or other

people, carrier decisions, organizational or conflicting style of leadership as well as to

help professionals to understand the individual reactions in the stress situations. KLS canbe applied to determine the hidden way individual interacts with other individuals in

personal, social or professional environment. Hidden phenomena can be changed into the

overt ones through the evaluation of lifestyle in scores.

The author provides the following description of scales: The control scale

attempts to assess the persons need to direct others, control the showing on emotions,and approach problems in a rational logical fashion. Perfection scale identifies the

persons needs to work hard at organizing their life and avoid mistakes. The scale need to


4/18



83

please focuses on how important it is for the individual to go along with others, notcauses interpersonal problems, and work hard at being liked by all. The Scale Self esteem

addresses the individuals belief that they can handle most of lifes problems and that they

can encourage others and themselves. The Expectations Scale tries to get at how realistic

the individual is in setting goals and expectations on self and others.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Analysis of subjective evaluation of teacher stress:

To conduct a valid research on teacher stress it should be started with an

exploration of teachers attitude toward the professional stress. To reach this purpose weused the answers on the question: In general, how stressful do you find being a teacher?

provided by 300 teachers. The results are reflected in Table 1 and they show the

differences of attitudes in various biographical categories of teachers.

Table 1: Subjective evaluation of professional stress

Percentage distribution

N

Not at

all

stressful

Mildly

stressfulModerately

stressfulVery

stressfulExtremely

stressfulMean

Total 300 1 10 111 163 15

0.3 3.3 37.0 54.3 5.0

Sex

Male 27 0.0 14.8 48.1 37.0 0.0 2.2

Female 273 0.4 2.2 35.9 56.0 5.5 2.6

Professional

qualification of teacher

University Graduate 153 0.0 4.6 33.3 55.6 6.5 2.6

Teachers professional

qualification 106 0.0 0.9 39.6 55.7 3.8 2.6

Other 41 2.4 7.3 43.9 46.3 0.0 2.3

Age

Under 30 years 111 0.9 1.8 32.4 61.3 3.6 2.6

30 to 44 years 119 0.0 5.9 34.5 53.8 5.9 2.6

45 years and over 70 0.0 1.4 48.6 44.3 5.7 2.5

Length of teaching

experience

First year 30 0.0 3.3 20.0 70.0 6.7 2.8

1 to 4 years 54 0.0 1.9 42.6 53.7 1.9 2.6


5/18



84

5 to 10 years 79 1.3 3.8 41.8 50.6 2.5 2.5

11 to 24 years 85 0.0 2.4 34.1 57.6 5.9 2.7

Over 25 years 52 0.0 5.8 38.5 46.2 9.6 2.6

Work load, positionOne workload 79 0.0 3.8 40.5 50.6 5.1 2.6

More than one workload 182 0.5 2.7 35.7 54.9 6.0 2.6

Work in more than one

school 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 0.0 2.7

Vice principal 20 0.0 10.0 45.0 45.0 0.0 2.4

The table reflects the teachers subjective evaluation of their stress. More than a

half of respondents suggest that a work of teacher is connected with much stress (54%)

and extreme stress (5%).

3.2 Sources of teacher stress:To understand the determination of engineering teacher stress we have to look

upon the evaluation of the sources of teacher stress. To reach this goal, the data received

from the analysis of teachers ratings on the 50 items has to be explored. These items areconnected with more or less serious causes of stress in the profession of teacher. The data

are displayed in Table 3. A correlation matrix of the sources of stress consisted only of

positive correlations (1225). All 50 sources of teacher stress were positively correlatedwith subjective evaluation of teacher stress (rranging from 0.134 to 0.364; all p < 0.05)

(see Table 2).

Table 2 Sources of teacher stress: means, correlations with subjective evaluation of

teacher stress and loadings on the first (unrotated) factor

Item

no.

Source of stress

Mean Correlation

with

subjective

evaluation

of teacher

stress*

Loading

on first

(unrotated)

factor

3 Punishing pupils 2.25 0.24 0.39

14 Responsibility for pupils (e.g. exam success) 2.17 0.31 0.46

32 Inadequate salary 2.13 0.13 0.29

42 Pupils impolite behavior or cheek 2.12 0.27 0.58

5 Too much work to do 2.00 0.19 0.40


6/18



85

11 Difficult classes 1.98 0.24 0.53

45 Generally high noise level 1.97 0.28 0.58

16 Pupils poor attitudes to work 1.91 0.31 0.53

36 Too much paperwork 1.90 0.20 0.39

17 Low status of the teaching profession 1.86 0.19 0.45

26 Pupils general misbehavior 1.80 0.30 0.56

7 Not enough time to do the work 1.79 0.21 0.48

21 Lack of time for further study 1.79 0.32 0.46

25 Non-exam final year pupils 1.74 0.13 0.42

10 Poorly motivated pupils 1.72 0.16 0.48

41 Difficult behavior problems 1.72 0.36 0.67

37 Lack of time to spend with individual pupils 1.68 0.31 0.52

4 Constant monitoring of pupils behavior 1.66 0.27 0.50

20 Pupils non-acceptance of teachers authority 1.65 0.35 0.57

22 Shortage of equipment 1.62 0.33 0.53

44 Large classes 1.61 0.35 0.55

6 Pace of school day is too fast 1.59 0.15 0.47

51 Pupils general low ability 1.59 0.29 0.59

15 Inadequate disciplinary policy of school 1.58 0.26 0.52

2 Lack of time to prepare lessons 1.57 0.24 0.44

33 No time to relax between lessons 1.56 0.28 0.46

31 Poor facilities 1.56 0.21 0.50

29 Noisy pupils 1.55 0.29 0.53


7/18



86

12 Trying to uphold/maintain values and standards 1.55 0.24 0.57

40 Demands on after school time 1.51 0.20 0.43

46 Supervisory duties (e.g. playground, school meals) 1.51 0.23 0.46

39 Pupils who show a lack of interest 1.49 0.28 0.56

8 Lack of time for marking 1.46 0.17 0.40

27 Lack of recognition for good teaching 1.46 0.21 0.50

35 Individual pupils who continually misbehave 1.45 0.36 0.53

1 Administrative work 1.43 0.25 0.35

24 Lack of effective consultation 1.43 0.31 0.45

30 Maintaining class discipline 1.42 0.28 0.52

19 Attitudes and behavior of some other teachers 1.40 0.22 0.37

23 Inadequate disciplinary sanctions available 1.32 0.24 0.53

43 Lack of participation in decision-making 1.32 0.27 0.50

47 Mixed ability groups 1.28 0.23 0.45

9 Lack of recognition for extra work 1.26 0.16 0.39

48 Attitudes and behavior of the headmaster 1.26 0.22 0.40

34 Poor promotion opportunities 1.18 0.25 0.42

38 Covering lessons for absent teachers 1.17 0.18 0.36

49 Too many periods actually teaching 1.13 0.23 0.47

50 Poor career structure 1.11 0.27 0.49

13 School too large 1.06 0.25 0.41

28 Groups of too wide an ability .91 0.22 0.42

*p


8/18



87

The rating of mean scores shows that the largest indices in relation to the teacherstress sources are tied to such sources aspunishing pupils (2.25), responsibility for

pupils(e.g., exam success) (2.17), inadequate salary (2.13),pupils impolite behavior orcheek. The distribution of answers within the each source of stress ranging from no

stress to extreme stress was rather different reflecting the individuality of everyteacher For the most part the answers had the normal distribution or positive skew. This

skewness ranged from 0.32 to 1.036, the standard deviations from 0.9 to 1.14. For the

purposes of grouping all 50 sources of stress were subjected to a principal componentanalysis. The matrix of the components was designed with all 50 stress sources loading

positively (ranging from 0.287 to 0.692).

Table 3 Sources of teacher stress: Varimax rotated factors (loadings greater than 0 .40)

Factor I Pupil misbehavior

Loading Item no. Source of stress

0.752 41 Difficult behavior problems

0.733 30 Maintaining class discipline

0.731 29 Noisy pupils

0.670 26 Pupils general misbehavior

0.628 42 Pupils impolite behavior or cheek

0.619 35 Individual pupils who continually misbehave

0.585 45 Generally high noise level

0.515 11 Difficult classes

0.469 16 Pupils poor attitudes to work

0.430 39 Pupils who show a lack of interest

Factor II Professional demands and responsibility


0.545 14 Responsibility for pupils (e.g. exam success)

0.543 17 Low status of the teaching profession

0.528 16 Pupils poor attitudes to work


9/18



88

0.525 24 Lack of effective consultation

0.523 19 Attitudes and behavior of some other teachers

0.495 51 Pupils general low ability

0.452 10 Poorly motivated pupils

0.438 23 Inadequate disciplinary sanctions available

0.429 15 Inadequate disciplinary policy of college

0.425 25 Non-exam final year pupils

0.420 27 Lack of recognition for good teaching

0.406 22 Shortage of equipment

0.406 12 Trying to uphold/maintain values and standards

Factor III 'College Management


0.689 34 Poor promotion opportunities

0.679 50 Poor carrier structure

0.599 33 No time to relax between lessons

0.488 49 Too many periods actually teaching

0.445 43 Lack of participation in decision-making

0.438 48 Attitudes and behavior of the Principal

0.406 40 Demands on after college time

Factor IV Time pressures


0.752 6 Pace of college day is too fast

0.631 5 Too much work to do


10/18



89

The first extracted factor accounted for 24.43 per cent of the total variance,

second factor accounted for 5.12 per cent of the total variance, third and fourth factors

accounted for 4.36 and 3.96 per cents of the total variance respectively. Results of factor

analysis obtained in the given sample allow discerning the most important groups ofstress sources relevant for the contemporary Latvian teacher (Table 3).

The first group of sources was labeledpupil misbehavior, as all sources of stress

included in this group deal with the problem teacher encounters monitoring the discipline

and working environment in class. Why does this factor account for the highest percentsof the total variance (24.3)? During the discussions, workshops, in their compositions

teachers explained that misbehavior is the main cause of teacher professional stress, as

this factor hinders the fulfillment of main professional task to teach, self-esteem ofteacher suffers, his authority among the colleagues and administration decreases. The

data show that regardless of differences in teacher education and different contingent of

pupils, the group of causes concerning a discipline problem appears as a fundamentalsource of teacher stress.

3.3 Influence of lifestyle on teacher professional stress:

We will begin the analysis of teachers answers about their lifestyle with a general

characteristic and distribution of lifestyles in a given sample (see Table 4).

0.623 7 Not enough time to do the work

0.557 8 Lack of time for marking

0.548 2 Lack of time to prepare lessons

0.463 1 Administrative work

0.458 4 Constant monitoring of pupils behavior

0.402 13 College too large


11/18



90

Table 4Distribution of teacher sample by lifestyle (n=300)

ScaleControl

scale

Perfectionism

scale

Need to

please scale

Self esteem

scale

Expectations

scale

Respondents

with adominance ofgiven scale

%

37 232 240 12 77

12% 77% 80% 4% 26%

Type of life

style

Controller Perfectionist One with a

need to

please

Victim Martyr

How the

representativeof given style

can obtain his

self-esteem?

through the

monitoringof others

and fights

for the owntruth

doing

everythingright,

observing all

theregulations

fulfilling the

needs ofothers,

searching the

recognitionof others

provoking

the pitytoward

himself,

complainingabout the

adversities of

life

criticizing

others andhimself

As the table shows, the largest number of answers has received two scales: needto please and perfectionism. According to the interpretation of R. Kern, the scale of needto please is a component of the perfectionism scale. The large number of answers in these

scales, as well as the essential difference of this number from the number of answers

obtained regarding the other scales suggests the following.

Among the individuals choosing the profession of teaching, two lifestyles are

dominating, i.e. perfectionist and person who wants to be liked by others. Therefore,according to a conception of A. Adler and his view on the lifestyles, these are the

individuals who, in order to rise their self-esteem, to increase the feelings of own

significance, to experience the community with the society and belonging to this society,

unconsciously have made a decision in favor of I have to be perfect, I have to be likedby others. Lets see what happens when the perfectionist and person who want to be

liked by others enter the system of education and how these lifestyles influence thedevelopment of stress.

Perfectionist is a person characterized by a meticulousness, cautiousness,sensibility, prudence and wish to do everything right. As the perfectionist endures his

mistakes very acutely, one can predict that while working as a teacher he is bond to


12/18



91

encounter the negative emotions as the teachers work is hardly pictured without themistakes not at the beginning nor at the end of carrier. The teachers work always means

the cooperation with the pupils and, as the success is depending on mutual efforts, it is

obvious, that a teacher-perfectionist facing the professional failure because of the poor

motivation of pupils will experience guilt for an incompleteness of results obtained. Asthe perfectionist is fond of an order, structure, precision and planning ahead, one can easy

imagine the difficulties created for him by this profession, especially, concerning the

current situation of teacher in Latvia. Frequent changes and changing of nationalstandards raise the doubts and uncertainty of perfectionist about the right and wrong

activities. Therefore, despite the fact that perfectionists are great employees, this

profession can cause them large stress, as the perfectionism in this profession is just anideal to reach for. Besides, this way toward the ideal is possible only through the learning

from the own mistakes, which is so hard for perfectionist.

Regarding the second dominating lifestyle with an aim to receive the recognition

of other people, one can see how difficult is to reach this aim in such a field of humanactivity as the work of teacher. Strive to offend nobody, consideration of the interests ofall parties are reached at an expense of individual needs of persons with mentioned

lifestyle. This can lead to the lack of the control over ones life and to the loss of self-

respect.

Wishing to receive the recognition of others, teacher with this lifestyle will try

hard to avoid any conflicts in an external world. The cost will be the frequent innerconflicts (health problems). During their professional activities the teachers themselves

can discover the strategies of coping with professional stress and the analysis of these

strategies shows that these teachers who have developed their positive self-evaluationskills, the skills of self-acceptance without the search of recognition of others have found

the way out of continuous experience of stress in their work. A teacher with the 25 years

work experience recognizes that one of ways to cope with a stress is to be liked by your-

self.

Therefore, we can state that despite of several advantages of two above mentionedstyles such as remarkable social interests, meticulousness, good listening skills and other

traits rather valuable in the teaching profession, there are some weak points facilitating

the development of stress for the employees with the dominance of these two lifestyles.

Table 5 shows the combinations of these two lifestyles perfectionism and need

to please, dominating in the research sample.


13/18



92

Table 5Most frequent combinations of teachers lifestyles (n=300)

Combination

of scales

Scales of

perfectionism

and need toplease

Scales of

perfectionism

and expectations

Scales of need to

please and

expectations

Scales of

control and

need to please

Respondentswith a

combinationof given

scales

174 38 37 21

Combinationof life styles

Perfectionist

+

need to please

Perfectionist

+

Martyr

Need to please

+

Martyr

Controller

+

Need to please

We have discovered the correlation between these two lifestyles (r = 0.245, p=0.05). According to the description provided by R. Kern these individuals are the best inthe situations creating the minimal inner conflict and ensuring the high level of personal

recognition. As the conflicts are natural component of educational process, but an issue

about the appropriate recognition of teachers work is still unresolved, we can state thatthe individual lifestyle can develop the sensitivity of teacher toward the certain stressors

in the professional field.

As the perfectionists conception of lifestyle can not be implemented in the

process of teaching, his self-esteem suffers, the teacher feels as a looser and it is difficult

for him to admit that he is not completely perfect. In this case he chooses to keep his fearsuppressed, to spend his energy for a defense; however, the cost of this strategy can be

very high. Therefore, it can be noticed that the analysis of teacher lifestyle hides many

ways of prevention of teacher professional stress, as the person is prone to develop theabilities for the management of phenomena he is aware of. Lets analyze the influence of

teacher lifestyle on his peculiar perception of certain sources of stress in the teaching

profession. Regardless of a lack of serious correlations between the explored variables

obtained through the data analysis, the figures still allow to reveal some tendencies ofcorrelation between the sources of stress and lifestyle.

The sources of stress indicating the statistically significant correlation within thecritical limits of Pearson correlation coefficient are displayed in Table 6.


14/18



93

Table 6Intercorrelations of teachers lifestyle and sources of professional stress

scores(Pearson r*)

N Sources of stress

Teachers life style

Need

to

please

Perfectionist Martyr Controller Victim

1. Administrative work - - - - -

2. Lack of time to preparelessons

0.115 0.186 - 0.133 0.146

3. Punishing pupils 0.226 0.151 - - -

4. Constant monitoring of

pupils behavior

0.116 - - - -

5. Too much work to do 0.141 - - 0.135 -

6. Pace of school day is too

fast

0.145 - - - -

7. Not enough time to do the

work

0.117 - 0.122 - 0.124

8. Lack of time for marking - - - - -

9. Lack of recognition forextra work

0.119 0.113 0.115 - 0.119

10. Poorly motivated pupils - - - - -

11. Difficult classes 0.131 - - - -

12. Trying to uphold/maintainvalues and standards

0.136 - - - -

13. School too large - - - - -

14. Responsibility for pupils

(e.g. exam success)

0.150 0.131 - - 0.129

15. Inadequate disciplinary

policy of school

- - - - -


15/18



94

16. Pupils poor attitudes to

work

0.170 0.137 0.154 - 0.118

17. Low status of the teaching

profession

- - 0.114 - -

19. Attitudes and behavior of

some other teachers

0.156 - - - -

20. Pupils non-acceptance of

teachers authority

0.232 - - - -

21. Lack of time for further

study

0.124 - - - 0.122

22. Shortage of equipment - - 0.124 - 0.115

23. Inadequate disciplinary

sanctions available

- 0.133 - - 0.124

24. Lack of effective

consultation

- 0.212 - - -

25. Non-exam final year pupils 0.135 0.133 0.113 - -

26. Pupils general misbehavior 0.188 0.163 0.141 - -

27. Lack of recognition forgood teaching

- - 0.140 - -

28. Groups of too wide an

ability

- - - - 0.145

29. Noisy pupils 0.120 - - - -

30. Maintaining class discipline 0.137 - 0.117 0.131

31. Poor facilities - 0.121 - - -

32. Inadequate salary - - 0.207 - -

33. No time to relax between

lessons

- - - - -

34. Poor promotionopportunities

- 0.140 - - -


16/18



95

35. Individual pupils who

continually misbehave

0.115 - - - 0.149

36. Too much paperwork - - - - -

37. Lack of time to spend with

individual pupils

- - - - -

38. Covering lessons for absentteachers

- - - - -

39. Pupils who show a lack ofinterest

- 0.183 0.156 - -

40. Demands on after school

time

0.119 0.173 - - -

41. Difficult behavior problems - 0.118 - -

42. Pupils impolite behavior or

cheek

- - - - -

43. Lack of participation indecision-making

0.119 - 0.119 - 0.140

44. Large classes 0.113 - - - -

45. General high noise level - - - - -

46. Supervisory duties (e.g.playground, school meals)

- - - - -

47. Mixed ability groups - - - - 0.133

48. Attitudes and behavior of

the headmaster

- - - - -

49. Too many periods actually

teaching

0.115 - - - 0.133

50. Poor career structure - - - - -

51. Pupils general low ability - - 0.121 - 0.143

* Critical limits of Pearson correlation coefficient ( = 300) are the 0.113 for two-tailed

test (p< 0.05).


17/18



96

As the tables shows, the largest number of significant correlations can be observed

inspecting the most frequent style need to please (23 correlations all together). Therefore, the

first difference of this style is that in comparison with other lifestyles the larger number of

sources of stress is a peculiarity of teachers craving for the recognition from others. Wishing to

please pupils, administration and other teachers (parents were not included in the stress sources),

teacher with such a style is sensible to all the sources diminishing his professional self-respect:these are the difficulties with a discipline and poor discipline of pupils. Besides, exactly this

lifestyle has a certain correlation with such source of stress as an attitude of other teachers. The

table shows that for the teachers, whose self-esteem completely depends on the evaluation of

others, experience when the pupils do not accept the authority of the teacher is more painfulcomparing with other teachers (0.232). Results of teachers with a lifestyle aimed to please the

others, comparing with the other groups of lifestyle, indicate a closer correlation with the

subjective evaluation of stress (r = 0.203). Though the data obtained do not show the high

correlations, consultation experience with the teachers allows assuming that teacher group,

wishing to receive the recognition of others, can be included in the group of employees mostsensitive to the professional stress. This assumption can be approved also by the T-test results

suggesting that the teacher with the dominance of these scales differ from the representatives of

other lifestyles with the higher subjective evaluation of stress.Analysis of the sources of stress causing dissatisfaction among theperfectionists shows

the zones of discomfort typical for the representatives of given lifestyle. Inadequate disciplinary

sanctions available destroy the perfectionists feelings of clearness concerning the school

situation. We can see that exactly this lifestyle with a credo to be ideal correlates with such

sources of stress as lack of effective consultation and poor promotion opportunities.

In turn such lifestyle group as a martyrhas the results correlating with a low status of

teaching profession and inadequate salary. These correlations obviously reflect the unfulfilled

expectations of teachers with a given lifestyle. As the results show, teachers with a domination of

control scale did not indicate the significant correlations with the sources of stress; only one

source of stress too much work to do was more emphasized. This source really can lead to the

larger stress for the teachers with a mentioned lifestyle, as it inhibits the convincing control of

school situation. In relation to the lifestyle victim the correlations with such sources as groups oftoo wide an ability and mixed ability groups should be noticed as these sources create the

difficulties in ones work and can point to the lack of ability to deal with the situation. Teachers

with the given lifestyle can loose their self-confidence and they can also experience the negative

emotions.

In course of analysis the correlations common for almost all lifestyles were not discussed.

These correlations indicate that there are the sources of stress significant for all teachers

regardless not only of length of work experience, country, but also of their individual

peculiarities. The source of stress corresponding to these conditions is pupils misbehavior. One

can discover also that representatives of almost all lifestyles need the recognition for extra work

and they suffer from a pressure of time.

4.0 CONCLUSIONS Therefore, the research has approved that the causes of teacher professional stress have a

multidimensional character: professional stress is the combination of internal and external

causes.

Teacher lifestyle influences the perception and reaction toward the certain sources ofstress and this influence displays itself in a definite profile of stress sources.

Objective sources of professional stress (stressors) can be considered only as the potentialsources of stress. These sources can lead to the real stress if the teacher perceives them as

the threats to satisfaction of fundamental needs presented through his lifestyle to be


18/18



97

ideal, to fulfill all the requirements, to avoid mistakes, to receive the recognition of

others. Therefore, the subjective evaluation of stressors is a result of the frustration of

these needs. Lack of possibilities to fulfill the needs of lifestyle within the teaching

profession endangers the Self-concept of teacher and, as a result, leads to the negative

emotions. Feeling of professional failure influences the self-esteem of teacher and his

sense of self in general. Research also reveals the possible activity directions of school psychologist toward an

improvement of teacher professional well-being. One of these directions includes the

different activities targeted to help teachers change the perception of their work situation

and their personal competence, as well as to find the ways of constructive interactionwith the stressors in professional field. The next field of activity is the work with college

administration, helping to choose the healthy management strategies to avoid the

unnecessary sources of stress at school. School psychologists can help the college

administration to become aware that an atmosphere of positive support at college can

improve the work of entire college.

5.0 REFERENCES

1. Borg. M. G (1990), Occupational stress in British educational settings: A review.

Educational Psychology, Vol.10, No.2, pp. 103-126.

2. Brown. M., et al. (1992), Towards the identification of stress in teachers. Research in

Education, Vol.48, No. 4, pp.103-110.

3. Cox. T., et al. (1998), Stress in schools: An organizational perspective, Work and Stress,

Vol.8, No.2, pp. 353-362.

4. Day. C (2000), Teachers in the Twenty-first century: time to renew the vision, Teachers

and Teaching: Theory and Practice, vol.6, No.1, pp.101115.

5. Dunham. T (1996), Stress in teaching L & Syd: Croom Helm, Dover, New York.

6. Kern. R.M., et al. (1989), Brief therapy using the life-style scale, Journal of Individual

Psychology, Vol.45, No.3, pp.186-190.

7. Kyriacou. C (1996), Teacher stress: a review of some International comparisons EducationSection Review (of the British Psychological Society), Vol.20, No.1, pp.17-20.

8. Kyriacou. C (1998), Stress in Teachers: Past, Present and Future, London: Whirr, Vol.32,

No.2, pp. 1-13.

9. Kyriacou. C., et al. (1978), Teacher stress: prevalence, sources and symptoms, British

Journal of Edu. Psychology, Vol.48, No.1, pp.159-167.

10. Salo. K (1995), Teacher stress processes: how can they be explained?, Scandinavian

Journal of Edu. Research, Vol.39, No.3, pp.205-222.

11. Worral. N., et al. (1989), Towards a person-in-situation model of teachers stress, British

Journal of Edu. Psychology, Vol.59, No.2, pp.174-186.

Professional Stress Among Engineering College Teachers and Their Coping Strategies

Documents