Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidhyapeeth Varanasi

Workshop

Innvation For Motivated Learning

19 nov – 2 dec 2019
Faculty of Education Mgkvp Varanasi up
vkys[k
izkFkfed f”k{kk % leL;k,Wa ,oa lq>ko

Submitted By

Dr.Lokpati Tripathi
Asst Professor Deptt. Of B.Ed KN Government PG College Gyanpur Bhadohi.
Introduction:-

Today, colleges and universities are facing major challenges of quality deterioration
in the national phenomenon as they navigate the 21st century and make decisions that will
not only impact higher education but will also contribute to our country’s future
competitiveness in the global marketplace (Dey, 2000). During the last seventy years after
independence, higher education has expanded in India somewhat remarkably (John,
2007). The current scenario of a burst out of mushroom type higher education institutes
without any concern to teachers’ working hours, pay scale, job satisfaction and quality as
well, resulting grossly deteriorated whole education system, warrants most urgent action
regarding meeting the challenges posed by dissatisfied teachers. Educational opportunities
and traditions that Indian higher education institutions have built up, since independence,
have been able to produce graduates, capable only of pursuing limited careers (UNESCO,
1998). Something is missing in our educational system. We are producing merely degree
holders but we are not producing skilled and competent human resource (Derek Bok,
2004). What are the root causes of this contradiction? In this task competent and
committed teachers may play a major role in developing a multifaceted personality in the
students to cope up with the rapid changes in the world at large.

New development in science and technology, media revolution and

internationalization of education and the ever expanding competitive environment are
revolutionizing the educational scene (Neil and William, 2000). Rapid scientific growth
and technological advancements resulting in industrialization have threatened our age-old
traditional education system. There is growing evidence that current trends in employment
conditions may be eroding levels of life satisfaction and directly damaging the physical and
mental health of teachers. New working practices and rapid technological advances have
changed the nature of teaching job. Teachers are regularly being required to work well beyond
their contracted hours, often unwillingly, as organizations struggle to meet tight deadlines and
targets. Work practices are becoming more automated and inflexible, leaving teachers with less
and less control over their workload. Many higher education institutions are reducing their
permanent workforce and converting to a culture of short term contracts or ‘out-sourcing,’ that
is increasing the feelings of job insecurity among teachers. These trends have undoubtedly
contributed considerably to the development of a ‘workaholic’ culture throughout the India—a
climate which is impacting negatively on the levels of enjoyment and satisfaction that teachers
gain from their teaching. As Fimian and Blenton (1987) indicated that issues such as litigation,
liability, accountability, tenure, unions, along with increasingly diverse responsibilities and fast
changing ideas have made teaching more stressful.
 Disgruntled teachers who are not satisfied with their job could not be committed
and productive and would not be performing at the best of their capabilities. Teachers’
satisfaction and motivation is very crucial to the long-term growth of any educational
system around the world. Professional knowledge, skills and teaching competencies occur
when one feels effective in one’s behaviour or in other words, professional knowledge,
skills and competencies can be seen when one is taking on and mastering the challenging
tasks directed at educational success and performance (Filak& Sheldon, 2003). The above
factors are closely similar to efficacy, and, of course, it is well known that many teachers
lose or fail to develop self-efficacy within educational settings (Dweck, 1999). In addition,
needs satisfaction and motivation to work are very essential in the lives of teachers
because they form the fundamental reason for working in life. While almost every teacher
works in order to satisfy his or her needs in life, he or she constantly agitates for need
satisfaction. Job satisfaction in this context is the ability of the teaching job to meet
teachers’ needs and improve their job /teaching performance.

Need of the Study:-

Over the last two decades, many studies have attempted to identify sources of
teacher satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers at elementary and secondary
schools (e.g., Farber, 1991; Friedman and Farber, 1992; Kyriacou, 1987; Kyriacou and
Sutcliffe, 1979; Mykletun, 1984). The majority of these studies reveals that job
dissatisfaction as principally contributed to by work overload, poor pay and
perceptions of how teachers are viewed by society. Most importantly, though, teacher
dissatisfaction appears to be a main factor in teachers leaving the profession in many
countries (Huberman, 1993; Woods et al., 1997). Thus, research into teacher
satisfaction is becoming more and more important given not only that a growing
number of teachers leave the profession but also that dissatisfaction is associated
with decreased productivity (Tshannen-Moran et al., 1998).

In general, though, studies have found variations in the levels of job

satisfaction of teachers and the factors like job design, work environment, feedback,
recognition, participation in decision making are the potential factor for
satisfying teachers in higher education (Rasheed, 2010), constructive association
among promotion and job satisfaction (Bloch, 2009). In the same way, Sujata (2012)
supports that academicians are more motivated and committed to perform a job and
also more satisfied if promotion opportunities are available to them and
ShamimaTasnim (2006), in her study found that one of the main purposes of job is
to get the payment or salary and it is very natural that a handsome salary will bring
job satisfaction, job characteristics such as salary, promotional opportunity, task
clarity and significance, and skills utilization, as well as organizational characteristics
such as commitment and relationship with supervisors and co-workers, have
significant effects on job satisfaction (Ramkrishnaiah, 1997). Likewise, Blum and
Naylor (2001) found that job satisfaction is the result of various attitudes possessed
by an employee. In a narrow sense, their attitudes are related to the job and are
concerned with such specific factors as wages supervision, steadiness of employment,
conditions of work, opportunities for advancement, recognition of ability, fair
evaluation of work, social relations on job, prompt settlement of grievances, and fair
treatment by employer and similar other items. Education Commission (1966),
cautioned that dissatisfaction of individual, whatever may be the occupation in which
he is engaged, results in professional stagnation and becomes harmful to the
clientele.

Today, teaching profession is facing problems related to teachers’ job

satisfaction. A dissatisfies teacher spells disaster to the country’s future.
Dissatisfaction among the workers is undesirable and dangerous in any profession. It
is suicidal if it occurs in the teaching profession. Herzberg (2007) has shown that
more satisfied workers will tend to add more value to an organization. Unhappy
employees, who are motivated by fear of job loss, will not give 100 percent of their
effort for very long. Hoppock’s (1935), seminal study of job satisfaction revealed that
dissatisfaction with wages was the most important reason advanced for voluntary
separation across a broad array of occupations. After reviewing the above related
literature, the researcher found a few studies in the field of job satisfaction of college
teachers in relation to their personal variables. Further, the researcher found that
Most of the teachers are dissatisfied with their profession. If the claim is true that the
college teachers are dissatisfied. It’s essential to know what are the root causes of
their dissatisfaction? In what aspects are they dissatisfied? Therefore, it is
necessary to probe into this matter through a careful study. The questions that this
study seeks to probe are as follows:

 Whether the Gender of college teachers affect their job satisfaction?

 Whether the teaching experience of college teachers affect their job
satisfaction?
 Whether the nature of the job of college teachers affect their job satisfaction?
 Whether the marital status of college teachers affect their job satisfaction?

Researcher will constitute his study in the context of above research

questions.

Statement of the problem: In the light of above need of study, the problem has
been formally sated as follows:-

‘Job Satisfaction of College Teachers in Relation to their Personal

Variables’

Operational Definition of the Technical Term Used :

 Job Satisfaction :

Job satisfaction may be defined as the teachers’ effective relation to his or her
teaching role and is a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants
from teaching and what one perceives it is offering to him. According to Filak&
Sheldon (2003) job satisfaction is defined as simply how people feel about different
aspects of their job. It is the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike
(dissatisfaction).

 College Teachers :

For the purpose of present study, college teachers refer to all the teachers
teaching in UGC recognised Government/aided and non-aided Graduate/Post-
Graduate colleges situated in Mgkvp varanasi Region, pertaining to U.P., India.

 Nature of the Job :

For the purpose of present study, nature of the job refers to the conditions of
teaching e.g. permanent or temporary/contractual in UGC recognised aided and non-
aided Graduate /Post- Graduate colleges, situated in Mgkvp varanasi Region,
pertaining to U.P., India.

 Teaching Experience :

For the purpose of present study, teaching experience refers to the period of
teaching in UGC recognised aided and non-aided Graduate/Post- Graduate colleges
situated in Mgkvp varanasi Region, pertaining to U.P., India.

 Marital Status :

For the purpose of present study, marital status of college teachers refers to
their status of being married or unmarried.

Objectives of the Study:In the light of above research questions, the researcher
has formulated the following objectives:

 To study the level of job satisfaction among college teachers in relation to their
personal variables e.g.

(a). Gender;

(b). Teaching Experience;

(c). Nature of Job;

(d). Marital Status;

Hypotheses of the Study:

For obtaining the above research objectives, the researcher has formulated the
following null hypotheses:

H01. There is no significant difference between the level of job satisfaction among
college teachers in relation to their personal variables.
H01.1. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of job satisfaction of
male and female college teachers.

H01.2. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of job satisfaction of
the college teachers having more teaching experience and the college teachers having
less teaching experience.

H01.3. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of job satisfaction of
permanent and temporary/contractual college teachers.

H01.4. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of job satisfaction of
married and unmarried college teachers.

H01.5. Gender and teaching experience interact significantly for the job satisfaction of
college teachers.

H01.6. Teaching experience and nature of job interact significantly for the job
satisfaction of college teachers.

H01.7. Nature of job and marital status interact significantly for the job satisfaction of
college teachers.

H01.8. Marital status and Gender interact significantly for the job satisfaction of
college teachers.

H01.9. Gender and nature of job interact significantly for the job satisfaction of college
teachers.

H01.10. Teaching experience and marital status interact significantly for the job
satisfaction of college teachers.

H01.11. Gender, teaching experience and nature of job interact significantly for the job
satisfaction of college teachers.

H01.12. Teaching experience, nature of job and marital status interact significantly for
the job satisfaction of college teachers.

H01.13. Nature of job, marital status and Gender interact significantly for the job
satisfaction of college teachers.

H01.14. Marital status, Gender and teaching experience interact significantly for the
job satisfaction of college teachers.

H01.15. Gender, teaching experience, nature of job and marital status interact
significantly for the job satisfaction of college teachers.

Methodology :-
The Method:-Survey research method will be used in the proposed study.
Population and Sampling :

In the proposed study, all the teacher teaching in UGC recognized aided and
non-aided Graduate/Post- Graduate colleges, situated in Mgkvp varanasi Region,
pertaining to U.P., India will be included as population.

For the selection of college teachers as a sample, the researcher will use ‘Multi
Stage Random Sampling’ in the following way :

 Selection of Districts of varanasi Region Pertaining to U.P., India

The researcher will select 5 districts Which are Affiliated to Mgkvp varanasi U.P.
through simple random sampling.

 Selection of Aided and Non-Aided Colleges :

The researcher will select 20 government/aided and non-aided colleges from 5

districts Which are Affiliated to Mgkvp varanasi through stratified random sampling
in the following way :

Table – I :Proposed Paradigm for the Selection of

Government/Aided and Non-Aided Graduate/Post- Graduate
Colleges of Mgkvp varanasi Region Pertaining to U.P., India as
Sample

Type of Govt/ Aided Non-Aided U.G./

college Name U.G./ P.G. P.G. College Total
Of the District College
Varanasi 2 2 4
Bhadohi 2 2 4
Chandauli 2 2 4
Mirzapur 2 2 4
Sonbhadra 2 2 4
Total 10 10 20

 Selection of College Teachers :

The researcher will select 128 college teachers through ‘Stratified Random
Sampling’ in which 4 male and 4 female teachers from each Government / aided and
non-aided Graduate/Post- Graduate college that were selected as a sample.
Tools : Appropriate tools will be used in the proposed study.

Statistical Analysis : Appropriate statistical technique will be used in the proposed

study.

Potential Contribution of the study :

1. The proposed study may be helpful in identifying the factors affecting job
satisfaction.
2. The proposed study may be helpful in improving the teacher effectiveness and
also in reducing teachers’ burn out by implementing some corrective
measures of increasing job satisfaction among teachers.
3. The proposed study may be helpful in producing well educated, trained and
skilled human resource by providing them the competent, committed, and
effective teachers.
4. The proposed study may be helpful in improving the
organizational/institutional climate by implementing some corrective
measures of increasing job satisfaction among teachers.
5. The proposed study may be helpful in improving total quality of the whole
education system through conducive organizational/institutional climate.
6.

Reference :

 Ahmad, N., Raheem A. & Jamaal, S. (2003). Job Satisfaction among School
Teachers. The Educational Review, Vol. III (3), NCERT : New Delhi, p.
123-
123

 Bishay, A. (2006). Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction. Teacher

Education
Quality, 11, p. 41-48.

 Bloch, C. (2009). A Developmental Theory of Motivation in the

Classroom.
Teacher Education Quality, 13, p. 64-77.

 Blum,M.L.&Naylor,J.C.(2001).IndustrialPsychology:ItsTheoreticaland
SocialFoundation. New York: Harper and Row, P. 648.

 Derek, Bok (2004). Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of

Higher Education. USA :Princeton University Press, P. 321-334.

 Dey, A. (2000). Who Actually Paid for My Education?.Socio- Cultural. Retrieved

on June 20, 2013 from http://www.deeshaa.org/who-actually-paid-for
myeducation.
 Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and
Development. Educational Research, Vol. 29, 146-152.

 Filak, V. F. &Sheldon, K. M. (2003). StudentPsychologicalNeed Satisfaction and

College Teacher-Course Evaluations. Educational Psychology,Vol. 23, No. 3,
P. 235-247.

 Fimian, D. and Blenton, K. (1987).Individual Differences in theNatureofthe

Relationship between JobandLifeSatisfaction.Journal ofOccupational
andOrganizationalPsychology,Vol.67,pp.101-107.

 Friedman, I. A. & Farber, B. A. (1992). Professional Self-Concept as a Predictor

of
Experience. Journal of Undergraduate Science, 43 (2),p.65.

 Gazioglu, H. and Tansel, V. (2008).Job Satisfaction as an Indicator of the

Quality
of Work. Department of Applied Economics, University of
Salamanca,
Retrieved on June 20, 2013 fromhttp://web.usal.es/~efm/jse.pdf

 Herzberg, F. (2007). The Motivation-Hygiene Concept and Problemsof

Manpower.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 71, pp. 334 –
342.

 Hoppockes, M. (1995). Teacher Commitment, Working Conditions

and
Differential Incentive Policies. Review of Educational Research,
63 (4), P.
489-505.

 Huberman,M.(1993). The Lives of Teachers, Cassell : London. P. 58.

 John, Morton (2007). Engineering Skills: The Threat from China and India.
paper presented at the meeting of European Engineers Forum, Hanover,
England,Retrieved on June 12, 2013 fromhttp://eduportal.org/
education/en/filedownload.php/onII-E.pdf

 Khan, Imran (2012). Job Satisfaction Among College Teachers, International

Journal of Business and Management Research (VSRD), Vol. 2 No. 12,
Retrieved on June 12, 2013 fromhttp://www.vsrdjournals.com

 Khatoon, Tahira& Pandey, Dheeraj (2009). Job Satisfaction of Secondary School

Teachers in Relation to Their Personal Variables. Indian Educational
Psychology Review. 36, 64-73.

 Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher Stress and Burnout: An International Review,

MeaningandMeasure. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 55 (3), P. 202-
218.
 Mykletun, R. J. (1984). Teacher Stress: Perceived and Objective Sources, and
Quality of Life. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 28,
pp.
17-45.

 National Curriculum Frame Work (2005).New Delhi, NCERT.

 National Knowledge Commission: Report to the Nation (2007). MHRD, Govt.

of India. Retrieved on November 3, 2012 from
http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/reports/report07.asp

 Neil, Howe and William, Strauss (2000). Millennial Rising: The Next Great
Generation.Perspectives,8 (1), pp. 153.

 Parashar , Nikita (2010). A Study of Vocational Aspiration of

Primary Teachers
in Relation to Their Qualification and Socio-economic Status.
Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis in Sociology, Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University,
Sagar, M.P., P.
192.

 Ramakrishnaiah, D. (1997). A Study of Job Satisfaction, Attitudes

towards
Teaching and Job Involvement of College Teachers. M. Phil
Dissertation,
Sri Venkateswara University, T.N., P. 179.

 Rasheed, E. A. (2010). The Natural Causes of Job Satisfaction.

Journal of
Undergraduate Science, 61 (3), p. 97-113.

 Report Education Commission (1964-66). Education for National

Development. New Delhi, Govt. of India.

 Rasheed, Mohammad Imran (2010). Journal of Management Research, Vol-

2.
P. 138-147.

 Shamima,Tasnim (2006).Reconstructing Teachers: Responding to Change in

the Primary School. Doctoral Dissertation inAdministrationand
OrganizationTheory. University of Bergen, Norway, p. 132.

 Singh, Amar & Sharma, T.R. (2007). Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS).
National
Psychological Corporation, Agara :KacheriGhat, India.
 Pandey, Dheeraj (2011). A Study of Professional Development of
Teachers at
Secondary Level in Relation to Their Personal Variables. Vivek
Journal of
Education & Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, New Delhi : Discovery Publishing
House, p. 69-73.

 Sujata, T. (2012). Factors Affecting Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

of Teachers.
Journal of Educational Administration, 65(1), P. 66-81.

 Tshannen, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher Efficacy Vs. Teacher
Burnout. Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 86, pp. 28-35.

 Teacher Education Curriculum : A Framework (1978).New Delhi ,NCTE.

 Teacher Education Curriculum : A Framework (1987).New Delhi ,NCTE.

 Vandenberghe, R. &Huberman, A. M. (1999). Understanding and

Preventing
Teacher Burnout. Cambridge University Press : Cambridge,
England, P.
367.

 Whawo, D. D. (1993). EducationalAdministration:Planning and Supervision.

Benin City:JodahPublications, P. 3-7.

 Woods, P., Jeffrey, B., Troman, G. and Boyle, M. (1997). Restructuring Schools :
The Need of the Hour. Personnel Administration, Vol. 27. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press. P. 43-60.

 UNESCO (1998). World Conference on Higher Education for the Twenty-First

Century: Vision and Action, Commission II: Quality of Higher Education,
Final Report. Retrieved on November 2, 2012 http://portal.unesco.org/
education/en/filedownload.php/8e7bc55cc8d95504234f5f4c0d11cc94
CommissionII-E.pdf.