TEACHING COMPETENCY AND JOB SATISFACTION, AMONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

* N.V.S.Suryanarayana ** Goteti Himabindu  

 

            The process of Teaching learning transaction depends on the efficiency of a teacher, who is in turn able to manifest potentialities of a child. Teaching learning process cannot be undertaken in vacuum but it is a positively directed action, for which teachers are to be endowed with teaching competency.  There has been an enormous amount of research which could answer to such question as what teaching behaviours are related to pupil’s out comes in different areas and in what way they are related.  Though teaching competency has been recognized as an important component of teaching learning process, relatively little effort is made to define the term.  Donald M.Medley (1982) defined the teacher competency as ‘those of knowledges, abilities and beliefs a teacher process and brings to the teaching situation’.  Teacher competency differs from teacher performance and teacher effectiveness in the sense that it is a stable characteristic of the teacher that does not change appreciably when the teacher moves from one situation into another’.  Falk and Dow (1971) stated that ‘it is obvious that there is oneness of the subjects taught, and similarity of aims and objectives for different teaching subjects.  So there must be similarly in methods and ultimately as a result, in good teaching also.’

            The term ‘Job Satisfaction’ is generally used in organizational behavior in business management.  According to Keith Davi (1993), ‘Job satisfaction is the favourableness or unfavourableness with which employees view their work.  According to Garton (1976), employee’s satisfaction and morale are attitudinal variables that reflect positive or negative feelings about particular persons or situations, satisfaction when applied to work context of teaching seems to refer to the extent to which a teacher can meet individual, personal and professional needs as an employees’.  Whereas Maslow (1970) defined that ‘Job Satisfaction of a person determines in two ways viz., internal factors like achievement, recognition etc., and external factors such as salary and interpersonal relation.  Now, this is the right time to focus the significance of Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction of Primary and Secondary School Teachers.

            Biddle (1964) studied the history of evaluation of teacher competency critically and briefly.  Sharma (1971) disclosed that teaching aptitude, academic grades, socio-economic status, teaching experience and age, in the order of their arrangement, appeared to be sound predictors of teacher effectiveness.  While Tharyani (1986) has concluded that ‘intelligence and knowledge in their subject areas were found to be the best predictors of the teacher effectiveness’.

            For studies of Job Satisfaction, Girens Rebay (1988) found a positive relation between age, experience and job satisfaction and no significance of difference was found in respect of Sex and level of education, whereas Bhandarkar (1980) confirmed a significant relationship between qualification and job satisfaction.

The theoretical questions arise in the mind of the investigator that – Is teacher’s Teaching Competency is correlated with Job Satisfaction?  Is there significance of relationship between the dimensions of Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction?  How the demographic and professional variables are influencing on the Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction aspects?  Is there any significance of difference between high and low Teaching Competency in relation to Job Satisfaction and vice-versa?

Problem:

            The problem of the study is related with how to establish the relationship between Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction among the Primary and Secondary School Teachers in Vizianagaram District.

  Objectives of the Study:

(1)               To study the relationship between Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction.  

 

(2)               To find out the significance of relationship between Dimensions of – Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction.

 

(3)               To find out the significance of difference between the demographic and professional variables in respect of Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction, of Secondary School Teachers.

 

(4)               To find out significance of difference between High and Low Teaching Competency in relation to Job Satisfaction and High and Low Teacher’s Job Satisfaction in relation to their Teaching Competency.

Hypotheses:

(1)               There is no significant relationship between Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction of School Teachers.

 

(2)               There is no significant relationship between the Dimensions of Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction of School Teachers.

 

(3)               Teachers considered under Sex, Locality, Qualification, Age, Marital Status, Experience, and Type of Management do not differ significantly in their Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction of School Teachers.

 

(4)               Teachers of Low and High Job Satisfaction do not differ significantly in terms of their Teaching Competency and Teachers Job Satisfacton in relation to Teaching Competency.

Procedure adopted:                  

            In order to test the hypotheses, the investigation was planned and executed in three phases.  In the first phase, Teachers’ opinion was collected with the help of two self-rating scales of Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction.  In the second phase, using appropriate statistical procedure was used to determine the significance of relationship between Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction and in the third and last phase, appropriate statistical procedures were used to find out the significance of difference between the demographic and professional variables of teachers in terms of their Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction.

Administration of the Tools:

            The Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction tools were consisted of five alternatives provided against each item – Strongly Agreed, Agreed, Neutral, Disagreed and Strongly Agreed.   A clear instruction was given to the respondents to express their opinion by putting a tick mark against the response category to which they are consented with.  Each scale was provided with the demographic data sheet.  The two scales were administered to 132 Teachers of Primary Schools (28) and Secondary Schools (18) in and around the Vizianagaram City of Vizanagaram District.

Collection of Data:

            For collection of data, the investigator personally visited each institution and administered these scales for the teachers.  They advised to put their name, sex, qualification, designation, Age, experience etc., and address of the institution etc., in the demographic data provided with these tools.  Teachers were further requested not to leave any item of the tool.  Most of the teachers responded on the spot and returned the tools to the investigator.  Thus these two tools collected and scores are analyzed according to the statistical procedure mentioned in Garrette, H.E.(1981).

Scoring:

            The responses scored according to the key and against each item of the questionnaires of Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction.  In respect of Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction for all the positive items scores given from 5 to 1 for the responses viz., Strongly Agree (SA), Agreed (A), Neutral (N) Disagreed (DA) and Strongly Disagreed (SDA) for all the 40 items (i.e., Teaching Competency Scale 59 items and Job Satisfacton Scale 25 items) whereas weightages awarded in reverse order for all negative items.   Basing on the above scoring procedure both of these tools were scored and designed the statistical profiles presented in the analysis of data.  Thus the range of total score on Teaching Competency was in between 59 – 295.  Whereas the total Score of Job Satisfaction will be in between 25 – 125.  The investigator made use of the scoring key dimension wise as was designed earlier by Dr.VSR, Pakalapati (1994) and Dr.U.Nageswara Rao (1995) respectively.

Sample:

            The sample selected for the present investigation is consisted of the Teachers of Primary and Secondary Schools in Vizianagaram District.  Random sampling technique was followed to draw the sample for the study.  To measure the Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction of the selected sample of Teachers, the collected data was categorized into Sex (Male= 82; Female = 50), Locality (Rural = 69; Urban = 63), Qualification (TTC = 64; B.Ed., = 68); Age (Below 40 years = 58; Above 40 years = 74), Marital Status (Married – 56; Unmarried – 76), Experience (Below 15 years = 54; Above 15 years = 78), Type of management (Govt/Aided = 49; Private Unaided = 83) and Type of Institution (Primary Schools = 73 and Secondary Schools = 59).  Thus, it is found to be a representative and an adequate to test the hypotheses.  Thus, the total sample size of Teachers from Primary Schools (N = 28) and Secondary Schools (N=18) was of 132 teachers.

Delimitation of the Study:

This study is delimited to the Teachers working in Primary and Secondary Schools in and around Vizianagaram City in Vizianagaram District only. To measure the opinion of teachers regarding their Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction, self-rating Scale was used.  Of many dimensions of Teaching Competency – only Planning, Presentation, Closing, Evaluation and Managerial aspects were taken into account.  Similarly, out of many dimensions of Teacher’s Job Satisfaction – Professional, Teaching Learning, Innovation and Inter-Personal Relations were taken into account. 

Tool Description:

            The Teaching Competency was devised and standardized by Dr.VSR, Pakalapati (1994).  This tool consists of 59 items covering five areas viz., Planning (10 Items), Presentation (31 items), Closing (06 items), Evaluation (05 items) and Managerial (07) aspects.

            The Job Satisfaction tool was devised and standardized  by Dr.U.Nageswara Rao (1995), which was used by the present investigator with four Dimensions viz., Professional (07 items), Teaching Learning (06 items), Innovation (06 items) and Inter-Personal Relations (06 items).

 

 

Statistical Procedure adopted:

             The statistical procedure was used to establish the relationship between the two variables, i.e., Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction and ‘r’ values were computed.  To measure the significance of differences between these two variables in relation to the demographic and professional variables, the means, standard deviations and Critical Ratio values were computed.

Analysis of Data:

            The following statistical analysis were employed for arriving at conclusions i.e., co-efficient correlation and Critical Ratio values to find the relationship between Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction and concerned differences.

Table 1

Table showing significance of ‘r’ between

Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction

Variable category

N

Df

‘r’

Probability

 Teaching Competency

 

Job Satisfaction

 

132

 

130

 

0.76

Significant at 0.01

Level

           

The value of ‘r’ is found significant at .01 level and hence, the null hypothesis stated that ‘there is no significant relationship between Teaching Competency and Job Satisfactionof School Teachers’ is rejected.

Table 2

Significance of relationship between

the Dimensions of Teaching Competency

 

 

Planning

Presentation

Closing

Evaluation

Managerial

Planning

1.00

0.58

0.49

0.53

0.58

Presentation

 

1.00

0.45

0.59

0.49

Closing

 

 

1.00

0.36

0.62

Evaluation

 

 

 

1.00

0.54

Managerial

 

 

 

 

1.00

 

From the above table it is concluded that the obtained ‘r’ values are significant at 0.01 levels.   The dimensions viz., Planning, Presentation, Closing, Evaluation and Managerial aspects are correlated and statistically corroborated.  Hence, the null hypothesis stated that, ‘there is no significant relationship between the dimensions of Teaching Competency of School Teachers’ is rejected.

Table 3

Significance of relationship between the

Dimensions of Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale  

 

 

Professional

Teaching Learning

Innovation

Inter-Personal Relations

Professional

1.00

0.54

0.35

0.68

Teaching Learning

 

1.00

0.51

0.57

Innovation

 

 

1.00

0.63

Inter-Personal Relations

 

 

 

1.00

 

            From the above table, it can be concluded that the obtained ‘r’ values are significant at 0.01 levels.  The dimensions viz., Professional, Teaching Learning, Innovation and Inter-Personal Relations of Teacher’s Job Satisfaction are statistically corroborated.  Hence, the null hypothesis stated that ‘there is no significant relationship between the dimensions of Teacher’s Job Satisfaction’, is rejected.

Table 4

 Significance of difference of Mean among various demographic variables

of Primary and Secondary School Teachers in Teaching Competency

 

Variable category

Mean

S.D

N

C.R

Male

 

Female

184.94

 

199.27

40.37

 

33.7

82

 

50

 

2.19*

Rural area

 

Urban area

181.67

 

168.35

38.53

 

38.79

69

 

63

 

1.97*

T.T.C.,

 

B.Ed.,

185.89

 

171.82

38.8

 

38.52

64

 

68

 

2.09*

Below 40 years Age

 

Above 40 years Age

179,34

 

167.24

34.76

 

39.24

58

 

74

 

1.87@

Married

 

Unmarried

164.95

 

183.38

34.58

 

38.89

56

 

76

 

2.87**

Below 15 years Experience

 

Above 15 years Experience

174.33

 

189.54

34.67

 

39.32

54

 

78

 

2.34*

Govt./Aided

 

Private Unaided

186.41

 

172.65

33.64

 

40.35

49

 

83

 

2.1*

Primary Schools

 

Secondary Schools

188.49

 

172.84

39.23

 

34.75

73

 

59

 

2.43*

                            ** Significant at 0.01 level

                                 *Significant at 0.05 level

                               @Not Significant at any level

            From the above table, it can be concluded that all the values of Critical Ratio in respect of the demographic variables like Sex, Locality, Qualification, Marital Status Experience, Type of Management  and Type of Institutions, teachers do differ significantly as the values of obtained Critical ratio are more than 1.96 but less than 2.58, to be significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively.  Hence, the null hypotheses are rejected.  

Further, though there is significant  difference between the means of Age category, statistically it is not corroborated.  Hence, the null hypothesis is retained.

Table 5

  Significance of difference of Mean among Various variables

of Primary and Secondary School Teachers in Job Satisfaction

 

Variable category

Mean

S.D

N

C.R

Male

 

Female

78.46

 

73.2

14.75

 

16.38

82

 

50

 

1.85@

Rural area

 

Urban area

72.85

 

64.38

16.65

 

16.21

69

 

63

 

2.96**

TTC.,

 

B.Ed.,

77.85

 

63.49

16.21

 

16.63

64

 

68

 

5.03**

Below 40 years Age

 

Above 40 years Age

71.38

 

84.41

15.98

 

16.84

58

 

74

 

4.55*

Married

 

Unmarried

76.36

 

82.79

16.35

 

16.82

56

 

76

 

2.19*

Below 15 years Experience

 

Above 15 years Experience

71.74

 

80.19

15.96

 

16.81

54

 

78

 

2.93**

Govt./Aided

 

Private Unaided

76.68

 

68.54

16.29

 

14.73

49

 

83

 

3.4**

Primary Schools

 

Secondary Schools

75.86

 

65.47

16.83

 

15.96

73

 

59

 

3.63**

                                **Significant at 0.01 level

                               *Significant at 0.05 level

                         @Not Significant   

            The above table disclosed that the significance of difference among various variables of Primary and Secondary School Teachers in Job Satisfaction.  The values of means obtained by the teachers considered under Sex category do not differed significantly and the obtained value of C.R. 1.85 is not significant.  Hence, the null hypothesis accepted.

Further, the values of means obtained by the teachers considered under Locality, Qualification, Age, Marital Status, Experience, Type of Management and Type of Institution do differed significantly.  The obtained Critical Ratio values 2.96, 5.03, 4.55, 2.19, 2.93, 3.4 and 3.63 are more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively.  Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 6

 Mean and Standard Deviation values of the Dimensions in respect

 of Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction (N = 132)

                                     Teaching Competency                       Job Satisfaction

Dimension

Mean

S.D

Dimension

Mean

S.D

Planning

31.97

8.56

Professional

26.29

5.38

Presentation

89.74

18.12

Teaching Learning

26.52

4.52

Closing

21.63

4.38

Innovation

24.72

4.67

Evaluation

16.17

2.84

Inter-Personal Relations

29.65

6.17

Managerial

23.45

5.16

 

 

 

           

            From the above table it is observed that the influence of dimensions of Teaching Competency and Teacher Job Satisfaction.   The obtained highest mean value in respect of Teaching Competency is ‘Presentation’ followed by ‘Planning’, ‘Managerial’, ‘Closing’ and ‘Evaluation’ aspects.  Further, the dimensions of Teacher Job Satisfaction the obtained highest mean value is  ‘Inter-Personal Relations’ followed by ‘Teaching Learning’, ‘Professional’ and ‘Innovation’ aspects.

Table 7

 Significance of difference between High and Low Teaching Competency in relation to Job Satisfaction and High and Low Teacher’s Job Satisfaction in relation to Teaching Competency

 

Variable category

Mean

S.D

N

C.R

High Teaching Competency

 

Low Teaching Competency

202.76

 

154.27

32.23

 

42.11

82

 

50

 

7.0**

High Job Satisfaction

 

Low Job Satisfaction

94.29

 

57.69

18.12

 

16.25

79

 

46

 

11.65**

                       

                        **Significant at 0.01 level

 

            From the above table, it is concluded that the mean value of High Teaching Competency group in relation to Job Satisfaction is greater than that of Low Teaching Competency.  The mean value obtained by the High Teaching Competency is greater than Low Teaching Competency.  The obtained value of C.R.7.0 is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively.  Hence, the hypothesis stated that ‘there is no significant difference between High and Low Teaching Competency in relation to Job Satisfaction’ is rejected.  Further, the mean value of High Job Satisfaction is greater than Low Job Satisfaction.  The obtained values of Critical Ratio 11.65 is more than 1.96 and 2.58, which is significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels respectively.  Hence, the hypotheses stated that ‘there is no significant difference between High and Low Job Satisfaction in relation to Teaching Competency’ is  rejected.

 

 

 

Conclusions:

1)      There is significant relationship between Teacher’s Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction.

2)      There is a significant relationship between the dimensions of Teaching Competency.

3)      There is a significant relationship between the dimensions of Teacher’s Job Satisfaction.

4)      In respect of Teaching Competency, there is significance of difference between all the variables like – Sex, Locality, Qualification, Age, Marital Status,  Experience, Type of Management and Type of Institution.   

5)      In respect of Teacher’s Job Satisfaction, there is significance of difference between the variables like – Locality, Age, Marital Status, Experience, Type of Management and Type of Institution.  Further, no significance of difference is found between the Teachers in respect of Sex category, related with job satisfaction.

6)      The mean values of Teaching Competency in merit order is ‘Presentation’ followed by ‘Planning’, ‘Managerial’, ‘Closing’ and ‘Evaluation’.  Where the mean values from highest to lowest is ‘Inter-Personal Relations’, ‘Teaching Learning’, ‘Professional’ and ‘Innovation’ aspects.

7)      The highest mean in respect of Teaching Competency is found greater than the Lowest Teaching Competency in relation to Teacher Job Satisfaction.    Where, the highest mean value of Teacher’s Job Satisfaction is found greater than that of Lowest Job Satisfaction in relation to Teaching Competency.

Results and Discussions:

From the above findings it is concluded that the Teaching Competency variable is related with the Teacher’s Job Satisfaction.  Further, the results of the study reveal that the Teaching Competency in terms of all demographic variables like Sex, Locality, Qualification, experience, type of Management and Type of institution do differ significantly, whereas the Job Satisfaction in terms of all demographic variables like Sex, Locality, Qualification, Marital Status, Experience, Type of Management and Type of Institution categories also do differ significantly.  In view of these reasonses more attention is required to pursue the causes of disparity among the Teachers of Primary and Secondary Schools in terms of their Teaching Competency and Job Satisfaction so as to enhance the quality in Primary and Secondary Education.

References:

Aggarwar, J.C., (1975),‘Educational Research – An Introduction’, Arya Book Depot, New Delhi.

 

Baron, T. & Bernand, H.W. (1959), ‘Evaluation Techniques for Classroom Teachers’, Mc.Graw Hill & Co., New York.

 

Barr, A.S. (1950) ‘Teaching Competencies’, Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Revised Edition, 1950, 1446-54.

 

Best, J.W. (1963) ‘Research in Education’, Prentice Hall of India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi.

 

Bhandarkar,B,G (1980), ‘A Study of Polytechnic Teachers’ Attitude towards Teaching Profession and its correlates, Govt. Polytechnic, Jalgaon, (TTTI, Bhopal sponsored)

 

Bhatia, H.R.(1977), ‘A Text Book of Educational Psychology’, Mac.Millan & Co., Ltd., New Delhi.

Bischof, L.J.(1962), ‘Interpreting Personality theories’ Harper & Row Publishers, New York.

 

Davis Fantana (1986), ‘Psychology for Teachers’ the British Psychological Society and Max.Millan Publications Ltd.

 

Donald, M.Medley (1982) ‘Teacher Effectiveness’, Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Ed.Harold E.Mitzel, Vo.IV, Mac.Millan Publishing & Co., Inc., New York.

 

Dr.D.S.Kothari (1964-66), Education Commission Report, New Delhi

 

Dr.VSR, Pakalapati (1994), ‘Teaching Competency in relation to Attitude and Adjustment of Secondary Schools, Ph.D., Andhra University.

 

Garrette, H.E. (1975), ‘General Psychology’, Eurosia Publishing  House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Garrette, H.E.(1966), ‘Statistics in Psychology and Education’, New York, David Mc.Kay Co., Inc.

Gates, A.S. & Jersild, A.J. (1973), ‘Educational Psychology’, Mac.Millan & Co., New York, Pp.614-615.

Gupta, U. (1981), ‘Job Involvement and need patterns of Primary School Teachers in relation to Teaching Effectiveness’, Ph.D., Edu., All.Univ.

Mathew, K. (1980), ‘Factorial Structure of Teaching Competencies among Secondary School Teachers’, Indian Edu., Review, Vol.XV, No.3, July, NCERT, New Delhi.

Pachauri, G.K. (1983), ‘Proficiency in Teaching as a function of personality Factors, Frustration, Unpublished Ph.D., thesis, Psy., Agra Univ., Agra (UP)

Tharyani, D.K.(1986), ‘A Study of the important factors affecting Teacher Effectiveness of B.Ed., Students’, SCERT, Pune.

Travers, R.M.W., (Ed.) (1973): Second Hand book of Research in Teaching, Chicago, Rand Mc.Nally.

 

 

1. Dr. N.V.S.SURYANARAYANA : The author is an renowned personality in the field of Education. Presently he is working as Faculty in the Department of Education, Andhra University Campus, Vizianagaram. He has rich experience in the field of Teacher Education about a decade at Post Degree and PG level. He is very much fascinated to Psychology and possess much interested in Educational Psychology and Guidance & Counseling. He participated in so many National and International Seminars, Workshops, Refresher Courses, Symposia’s and published so many articles in reputed Journals. He produced a number of M.Ed and M.Phil Dissertations.He wrote so many books on recent trends in education and innovative Psychological concepts. He is having Lifetime memberships in various alleged Associations. E-Mail: suryanarayananistala@yahoo.in, Mobile : +91 94403 48609, +91 7893136613. Res. (08922) 229339

 

2. Mrs. GOTETI HIMABINDU : The author is a well qualified Teacher and posses good experience in the field of teaching and Research. She has great interest in the field of Education/Psychology/Politics and Contemporary issues and she is doing Educational/ Career Counseling. Now she is working as a Faculty in the Department of Political Science, Andhra University Campus, Vizianagaram. She participated in so many National and International Seminars, Workshops, Refresher Courses, Symposia’s and published so many articles in reputed Journals.  E-Mail: gotetihimabindu@yahoo.com  and Mobile : +91 9490622526.


Article from articlesbase.com

Tagged with:

Filed under: Education

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!