FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO STRESS IN BUSINESS/MARKETING EDUCATORS RESULTING FROM ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL CLIMATE, AND RESOURCES Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information _____________________________________ Bonita Morgan Johnson Certificate of Approval: __________________________ __________________________ Gordon D. Patterson Bonnie J. White, Chair Assistant Professor Humana Foundation, Germany, Curriculum and Teaching Sherman Distinguished Professor Curriculum and Teaching __________________________ ___________________________ William A. Spencer Leane B. Skinner Professor Associate Professor Educational Foundations, Curriculum and Teaching Leadership and Technology ______________________________ Joe F. Pittman Interim Dean Graduate School FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO STRESS IN BUSINESS/MARKETING EDUCATORS RESULTING FROM ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL CLIMATE, AND RESOURCES Bonita Morgan Johnson A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Auburn, Alabama May 10, 2008 iii FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO STRESS IN BUSINESS/MARKETING EDUCATORS RESULTING FROM ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL CLIMATE, AND RESOURCES Bonita Morgan Johnson Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. _______________________________ Signature of Author _______________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA Bonita Ann Morgan Johnson, daughter of John and Lorene Morgan, was born July 3, 1961 in Tuskegee, Alabama. She graduated from Opelika High School in 1979. She worked at Auburn University in the department of Anatomy & Histology, College of Veterinary Medicine, and University Relations from 1979 through 1989. She graduated from Auburn University in 1991 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Education, and from Auburn University in 1993 with a Masters Degree in Business Education. She is a business education teacher, co-op coordinator, FBLA adviser, and department chair at Smiths Station High School. In 2003 she was named Teacher of the Year at the secondary level for Lee County Schools, and further nominated that year as Alabama Teacher of the Year. In 2000 and 2004, she was chosen by her peers for the Sara Spano Top Teacher Award sponsored by the Columbus/Ledger Enquirer newspaper in Columbus, Georgia. She has taught at Southern Union State Community College as Adjunct Instructor, and has held various offices in her professional organizations. She has twin sons, Corey and Courtney Johnson. v DISSERTATION ABSTRACT FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO STRESS IN BUSINESS/MARKETING EDUCATORS RESULTING FROM ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL CLIMATE, AND RESOURCES Bonita M. Johnson Doctor of Education, May 10, 2008 (M.S., Business Education, Auburn University 1993) (B.S., Business Education, Auburn University, 1991) 117 Typed Pages Directed by Bonnie J. White This study was designed to identify the level of stress among secondary business/marketing educators relating to administration, school climate, and resources that are associated with stress and to determine if business/marketing educators perceive they are receiving support from administration in dealing with factors that are associated with stress. Data were analyzed using SPSS 15.0 using the following statistical procedures: Descriptive, Multiple Regression, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and Pearson Correlation. The majority of the participants were female (87.9%) who fell in the vi age group of 40-49 years of age (33.6%). The average number of years of teaching experience was 14 years, with the majority of the respondents teaching in county school systems (57%). Respondents reported that mild stress was due to school climate, mild to moderate stress was due to school administration and mild to moderate stress was due to resources. There was a significant difference (p<.05) in the relationship between stress due to school climate and the level of support received from administrators in dealing with school climate. There was a significant difference in the relationship between stress and resources and the level of support received from administrators in dealing with resources. No significant differences were found between self-reported personality type and the overall stress level reported for teaching, collegiality, school climate, administration and resources. However, significant differences were found in the relationship between overall stress level and the individual stress factors for administration, school climate, administration and resources. In this study, business/marketing educators indicated the need for stress management workshops through in-service or professional development programs, the implementation of coping strategies, and more administrative support in dealing with factors that cause stress. vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to first give an honor to God who has been a spiritual and emotional foundation during the process of this degree and everyday day of my life. I would like to express sincere appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Bonnie White, for her constant support and words of encouragement that assisted me through this endeavor; Dr. William Spencer, for his patience and expertise in data analysis; Dr. Leane Skinner, who always focused on the positive side when I could not; and Dr. Gordon Patterson, who taught me not to be uptight about things I could not control. Special thanks are expressed to my friend and colleague, Dr. Christal Pritchett, who always encouraged me not to give up. I could not have made it without the support of my Smiths Station High School family, Quincy Robinson, Veronica Jackson, Stephen Faulk, Tamara Powe, Calvin Cannon, Merrell Warren, and Daniel Kirkland. Love and gratitude is expressed to my family and friends who went through the ups and downs of my obtaining this degree. I will always cherish your acts of support. To my two special sons, Corey and Courtney, always strive to reach your goals. It may take longer than you expect, but you will meet them eventually by not giving up. viii Style manuals or journals: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2001 (Fifth Edition); Sabin, William, The Gregg Reference Manual, 2004 (Tenth Edition). Computer software: Word Perfect 10, Microsoft Word 2003, and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for Windows Release 9 and 15.0. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES...................................................... xi I. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM.......................................1 Introduction and Background ........................................1 Purpose of the Study ...............................................4 Statement of the Problem............................................5 Research Questions ................................................6 Definitions of Terms ...............................................7 Limitations .......................................................9 Delimitations .....................................................9 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................................10 An Overview of Business Education ..................................10 History of Stress..................................................11 School Climate ...................................................15 Administrative Support ............................................18 Teacher Stress ...................................................20 Stress and The Career-Technical Education Teacher .....................28 Stress and The Office Employee .....................................30 Teacher Preparation Programs and Stress ..............................31 Legal Ramifications...............................................32 Summary .......................................................33 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ...................................35 Introduction .....................................................35 Population ......................................................35 Instrumentation ..................................................36 Validity and Reliability ............................................40 Data Collection ..................................................42 Data Analysis....................................................43 x IV. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ..........................46 Introduction and Restatement of the Problem ...........................46 Descriptive Data Analysis and Results ................................46 Research Questions ...............................................55 Personal Responses of Respondents ..................................72 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............77 Introduction .....................................................77 Summary of Findings..............................................78 Conclusions .....................................................80 Recommendations ................................................81 REFERENCES ........................................................82 APPENDICES .........................................................94 A. Auburn Institutional Review Board Approval Letter................................................95 B. Information Letter ..............................................96 C. Researcher-Developed Survey Instrument Stress Questionnaire ............................................97 D. Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of Stress Caused by Administration ..........................102 E. Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of Stress Caused by School Climate ..........................103 F. Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of Administrative Support Received In Dealing with School Climate ..................................104 G. Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of Stress Caused by Resources ..............................105 H. Means and Standard Deviations of the Level of Administrative Support Received In Dealing with Resources ......................................106 I. Means and Standard Deviations of Personal Characteristics Experienced On The Job as Teacher .........................................107 J. Means and Standard Deviations of the Overall Level of Stress .........................................108 xi LIST OF TABLES 1. Demographic Data of Respondents ...................................48 2. Distribution of Personality Types Reported by Participants ...................................................49 3. Respondents Reporting Additional Duties and Hours Spent Performing the Duties ...................................51 4. Breakdown of Percentages of Respondents Who Perform Additional Duties and the Amount of Time Spent on the Duties...........................................53 5. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Stress Related to School Climate and Support for School Climate and Their Respective Items .................................................57 6. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Resources and Support for Resources and Their Respective Items ............................................59 7. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, Resources Stress, and Stress Due to Personal Characteristics Related to Gender.............................61 8. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, Resources Stress, and Stress Due to Personal Characteristics Related to Age .............................63 9. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, and Resources Stress Due to Degree Held ...........................................................65 xii 10. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, Resources Stress, and Stress Due to Personal Characteristics Related to School System .........................................................67 11. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, and Resources Stress Due to Administrative Duties .............................................68 12. Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Stress Level Reported for Teaching, Collegiality, School Climate, Administration, and Resources by Personality Types ..................................70 13. Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Overall Stress Level and Individual Stress Factors for Administration, School Climate and Resources ...................................................72 1 I. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction and Background Within the teacher?s emotional life are the forces that most powerfully affect the entire teaching process. The human, emotional qualities of the teacher are the very heart of teaching. No matter how much emphasis is placed on such other qualities in teaching as educational technique, technology, equipment or buildings,?the humanity of the teacher is the vital ingredient if children are to learn?(Greenberg, 1969, p. 20). The description for a teaching position sounds ideal ? short working days, summers and holidays off, and pay to help young people achieve. According to Reese (2004), however, many who accept teaching positions leave the profession within five years. Teachers who stay often become disillusioned and increasingly frustrated by the difficulties facing educators (Tammar, 1998). Stress has been studied for many years by researchers in psychology, sociology, and medicine. People have become enormously interested in the topic of stress, the affects of stress, and stress management (Hubert, 1984; Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Selye, 1974, 1980). Stress exists when a discrepancy occurs between a person and his/her environment. 2 Teaching is a vulnerable occupation (Dworkin, 1987) that is susceptible to stressors at both the organizational and personal level. ?Across the nation and around the world, increasing numbers of teachers report serious work-related stress. When teachers become stressed, too many leave their schools? (Reese, 2004, p. 26). Many educators who stay are bored, irritated, or performing in a perfunctory manner just to get through the workday. Many are also counting the days until retirement or investigating other career choices. Others feel helpless and trapped in their once-loved profession (Javis, 2002; Reese, 2004; Tammar, 1998). Teacher stress is defined by Kyriacou (1987) as ?the experience by a teacher of unpleasant emotions, such as tension, frustration, anxiety, anger, and depression resulting from aspects of work as a teacher (p.146).? Stress has been identified as one of the factors related to teacher attrition and is believed to be a cause of high teacher turnover and absenteeism (Hammond & Onikama, 1997). Stress can lead to problems in the workplace, such as poor morale, job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, lowered productivity, and high medical care costs (Kedjidjian, 1995). At the school level, the increase in stress is reflected in a growing average of teacher absences and a rise in the number of early retirements (Gaziel, 1993). If job stress can have such devastating effects on teachers, then it is important to be able to recognize the sources of such pressure so that effective management strategies can be developed (Kiff, 1986). Researchers Brightwell (1985), Barnette (1990), and Pares (1995) determined that a teacher?s ability to perform a job was significantly diminished by stressful conditions. A direct relationship between principals and teachers was identified. When the principal and teacher supported each other, the teacher?s stress level decreased. When a principal 3 reduced job-related stressors, the teacher?s ability to accomplish job responsibilities improved. Klanderman (1985) likewise concluded that management tensions or poor relationships with principals increased teacher stress levels. A strong supportive relationship between teacher and principal lowers job-related stress. The principal of a school can be conceptualized as a mediator of stress. According to Calabrese (1987), it should be considered a part of the principal?s responsibilities to create a positive working environment. Principals should be proactive in assessing their own stressors and levels of stress. They should also develop an awareness of the stressors experienced by their staff. Principals, administrators, and even school board members should work with department chairs to provide a means to alleviate stress before a teacher reaches the breaking point. According to Kiff (1986), if administrators and school boards do not develop ways to alleviate stress, the superior teacher may become an endangered species. What is the business/marketing educator?s role in the area of stress? Business/marketing educators are working daily to prepare future office assistants and administrators. In preparing students to be successful on the job, the business/marketing teacher is responsible for assisting students to develop skills and attitudes that contribute to success. With office jobs listed among stressful occupations, including instruction on stress management seems logical (Hagler, 1990). Business/marketing educators must first learn to recognize and control stress themselves and then prepare business students to deal with stress. A benefit to studying stress in business/marketing educators is to enhance their knowledge, understanding, and awareness of stress. It will assist administrators and 4 principals in developing strategies to reduce stress and enhance the working life of secondary business educators and their students through stress management. Purpose of the Study ?Stressed out? is a daily cry of almost everyone who works, but researchers say educators are sounding off in record numbers ? and for good reason (Crute, 2004). Teachers strive to care for their students and administer to their educational, emotional, and social needs while meeting a demanding schedule and a constantly changing curriculum. Teaching is characterized as a high-stress occupation (Travers & Cooper, 1996; Farber, 2000; Milstein & Golasziewski, 1985). According to Bertoch (1989), the primary health problem among teachers is stress. The effect of workplace stress on teachers not only impacts their own health and well-being but also the lives of their families and friends. Some evidence suggests that teacher stress affects students as well. Blase` (1986) found that workplace stress diminishes teachers? enthusiasm and distances them emotionally from their students, thereby reducing teacher-student interaction. As reported by Kyriacou (1987) ?stress may significantly impair the working relationship a teacher has with students and the quality of commitment and teaching he or she is able to give? (p. 146). A survey by Optum Research, a Minnesota-based company that studies work-related health risks, found that 88% of teachers experience moderate to high levels of stress (Crute, 2004). The study of stress among teachers is timely as social and economic changes have challenged the teaching profession. Teachers suffer not just from the stress of having 5 additional duties, but also having additional administrative responsibilities. The purpose of this study is to provide information on stress in secondary business/marketing educators. Administrators and educators can use results of this research as a foundation upon which to develop strategies to reduce stress among business/marketing educators. Statement of the Problem While employed in the profession, business/marketing education teachers face demanding challenges. In fact, a number of these challenges has been identified by business education teachers as factors for leaving the teaching profession. A common factor identified in the literature by Ruhland (2002) that influences attrition is teacher stress. Research conducted by Anderson and Sinha (1999) indicated 49% of secondary business education teachers surveyed were seeking alternative careers due to stress. Other factors mentioned for seeking alternative careers included salary, advancement potential, and more prestige and power. This study was designed to address selected factors related to business/marketing educators: (1) stress among secondary business/marketing educators in the State of Alabama public schools relating to school climate, administrative support and resources, (2) support received from administration in dealing with stress factors, (3) level of stress among secondary business/marketing educators as it relates to his/her background, and (4) strategies developed by teachers and/or administrators to deal with stress. 6 Research Questions The following research questions were designed to address the statement of the problem: 1. What is the perceived level of stress as it relates to administration, school climate, and resources? 2. What is the perceived level of administrative support as it relates to school climate and resources? 3. What is the relationship between the level of stress relating to: a. School climate and the perceived level of administrative support for school climate. b. Resources and the perceived level of administrative support for resources. 4. Is there a difference in the level of stress associated with administration, school climate, resources, and personal characteristics when analyzed by demographic factors (gender, age, teaching experience, degree, school system, and administrative responsibilities)? 5. Is there a difference between self-reported personality type and the overall stress level reported for teaching, collegiality, school climate, administration, and resources? 6. What is the relationship between the overall stress level and the individual stress factors for a. Administration b. School climate c. Resources 7 Definitions of Terms Attrition - Teacher turnover from year to year. Cooperative Education Program (co-op)- A structured component of the Career/Technical Education curriculum that integrates classroom instruction and learning with productive, supervised work experiences in fields related to students? career objectives. Goals 2000 - Education act to improve student achievement through a long-term, broad-based effort to promote coherent and coordinated improvements in educational systems throughout the nation at the state and local levels. ?No Child Left Behind? Legislation - Legislation signed into law by President George Bush in 2002 to ensure that all children receive a high-quality education. Postsecondary Business/Marketing Educator - An educator teaching in an institution of higher learning, such as a community college, technical institute/college, junior college, senior college, or university. Role Ambiguity - The single or multiple roles that confront the role incumbent, which may not be clearly articulated (communicated) in terms of behaviors (the role activities or tasks/priorities) or performance levels (the criteria by which the role incumbent will be judged). School Climate - A social atmosphere of a school setting or learning environment. Secondary Business/Marketing Educators - Professional educators in the field of business at the high school and junior high levels in the state of Alabama. Stress - A condition of disequilibrium within the intellectual, emotional, and physical state of the individual that is generated by one?s perception of a situation and 8 results in physical and emotional reactions that can be either positive or negative. (Gold and Roth, 1993) Stressors - Something in the environment that acts as a stimulus and is either physical, psychological, or behavioral in nature. (Travers & Cooper, 1996, cited by Harris, 1999, p. 14) Teacher Induction Program - A systematic structure of support for beginning teachers which includes new teacher orientation, mentoring, support teams, and workshops. Type A Personality - An individual who is hard driving, a self-starter, competitive, structured, and with a high sense of time urgency. Type B Personality - An individual who is easy going, relaxed, spontaneous, and tends to let problems work themselves out. Vocational Education Act - Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1963 that provides funds for the field of vocational education. Limitations Limitations are the conditions beyond the control of the researcher that may place restrictions on the conclusions of the study and their applications to other situations. Limitations in this study include (a) number of teachers responding to the survey and (b) self-reporting survey instrument. 9 Delimitations Delimitations are the boundaries beyond which the study is concerned. This study will involve only secondary Alabama business/marketing educators teaching grades 6-12. 10 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of literature will consist of the following topics: An Overview of Business Education History of Stress School Climate Administrative Support Teacher Stress Stress and The Career-Technical Education Teacher Stress and The Office Employee Teacher Preparation Programs and Stress Legal Ramifications Summary An Overview of Business Education With the passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, business and office education became eligible for federal funding of approved vocational programs in the public secondary schools. New programs demanded leadership and supervision and changes in the curriculum. Teacher preparation institutions were called upon to provide adequately prepared instructors for these programs. A study by Pierce (1969) indicated that the Vocational Education Act of 1963 had considerable impact on business education 11 teachers. This act expanded the role and scope of vocational education. Business education teachers were faced with attending workshops, establishing advisory committees, and implementing training programs for students and displaced and employed persons. Findings of a study conducted by Yaworski (1975) on secondary and postsecondary business educators? patterns of interest, personal background, and educational background concluded (1) business education teachers tended to find satisfaction in their work; (2) postsecondary business educators received higher salaries and earned higher educational degrees; and (3) secondary and postsecondary business educators had similar interests. Wilkins and Graves? (1991) five-year study of Illinois secondary business education teachers found that the number of teachers had declined significantly, and teachers were leaving the profession at all experience levels. According to the National Assessment of Vocational Education?s Report to Congress in fall 1992, there were 118,000 vocational education teachers in the nation?s public secondary schools. Twenty-nine percent of the total vocational education teachers in the nation?s public secondary schools taught business/office education (Vocational Education Journal, 1995). History of Stress The origin of the word stress is from the Latin words strictus meaning strict and stringere meaning to draw tight. Selye, a pioneer in the biological research of the causes and effects of stress, described stress as the rate at which we live at any moment. 12 Anything pleasant or unpleasant that speeds up the intensity of life causes a temporary increase in stress (Selye, 1974). Hinkle (1973) pointed out that the term stress was first used in the seventeenth century to mean hardship, straits, adversity, or affliction. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it became known as meaning force, pressure, strain, or strong effort. Regardless of terminology, two general usages of the word stress seem to be prominent in the literature (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978). One common usage defines stress in terms of an external force in the environment acting on an individual. The second common usage defines stress in terms of the impact or effects it has on a person. This usage essentially conceptualizes stress as something that happens within a person. A more comprehensive definition of stress is provided by Gold and Roth (1993) who state: Stress is a condition of disequilibrium within the intellectual, emotional, and physical state of the individual that is generated by one?s perception of a situation, and results in physical and emotional reactions that can be either positive or negative depending on one?s interpretation. (p. 17) When the above definition of stress is used in conjunction with workplace, it refers to the adverse emotional, mental, or physical experiences that arise from personal interpretations of workplace circumstances (Gold and Roth, 1993). During and after World War II, the word stress became very popular among social scientists. Concerns developed over evidence that conditions of battle could affect a person?s psychological and physiological state. Thus, these conditions were attributed to stress or vulnerability to stress in the individual (Lazarus, 1966). 13 In the 1950s Hans Selye, a Vienna-born endocrinologist heading Montreal?s Institute of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, explored and greatly extended research concerning stress. Selye (1974) used the rat as his main experimental subject and through his research developed the general adaptation syndrome. Selye predicted that if reacting negatively to stress, most people would eventually be exhausted by stress and might even die from it (Selye, 1974). In the late 1950s and early 1960s, stress research shifted from using experimental rats to using human subjects. Rating scales were developed by scientists to determine what events in an individuals?s life brought about more stress than others. Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe of the University of Washington?s School of Medicine developed the Holmes-Rahe Rating Scale that ranked 43 critical changes in the life of an individual according to the severity of the impact. In a period of approximately 20 years, Holmes and Rahe interviewed over 5,000 people and researched medical histories to determine how the cumulative impact of multiple crises over time could lead to illness and injury. Holmes and Rahe?s discoveries significantly increased the importance of stress research (Tanner, 1976). Hiebert (1985) reviewed the concept of stress and found the terms pressure, demands, stressors, and stress are used interchangeable by many people. He differentiated between these terms by explaining that demands placed on an individual are pressures. Hiebert explains that when a situation is perceived by an individual to be beyond his/her coping resources, the demand becomes a stressor and results in stress. A stressor may be physical or emotional. Those demands that do not invoke a stress response remain as pressures. 14 The physiological signs of stress response include the discharge of adrenaline-like hormones, the involution of the lymphatic organs, the enlargement of the adrenal glands, and the feeling of fatigue. Continued stress can result in a breakdown in adaptive response, which can lead to common stress diseases like peptic ulcers, high blood pressure, heart disease, and nervous disturbances (Goldberger & Brenitz, 1993). Bloch (1977) studied 253 classroom teachers who were referred for psychiatric evaluation because of varying degrees of psychological stress and physical trauma. Although many of these teachers had experienced physical assaults in inner-city schools, the symptom of stress was still considered a major variable. Additionally, a study reported at the 1986 Office Systems Research Association Conference identified training as incubating technostress. Anxiety resulted from training programs which were too demanding in terms of complexity and length of time. Inadequate training manuals or poorly qualified instructors also contributed to stress (Roderick & Augustin, 1991). Much of the stress experienced by office workers trained by business educators is inherent in the job itself. Job stress was found among clerical operators of video display terminals (VDT) in 1981 (O?Connor & Regan, 1986). The VDT was frequently considered to be a stressor in the automated office environment. Physical symptoms of stress related to the VDT included eye strain, headaches, and neck and backaches. The VDT itself is a direct light causing glare and resulting in eye strain. The stressfulness of any given situation varies from person to person; and even within an individual, it varies from time to time. Individuals react differently to stress at different times, and the emotional state of a person at the time a given situation occurs determines if the situation is experienced as stressful (Worrall & May, 1989). 15 School Climate The characteristics of a school that makes it an organization are the presence of people, the existence of a common goal, and a regulated structure (Basson, Van der Westhuizen & Nieman, 1991). The school, unlike industry, should never be concerned with production based on a profit motive. Teachers have no control over the quality of the children whom they encounter; nor do children come in neat, homogenic packets, ready to learn and play (Fields, 1993). The demand upon school teachers differs from employees working in industry due to the complexity of teaching. Since the school is focused on educative teaching, there are people (teachers and children) involved. Therefore, the school as an organization is more complicated than it may appear at first sight. Consequently, different demands that may cause stress are imposed on the teacher. As Kiff (1986) discussed, America?s early teachers were told what kinds of clothes to wear and where they could and could not be seen. They were not permitted to smoke, drink, dance, or marry. Church attendance was mandatory. Vestiges of these hard-line attitudes are still held by the public in some areas. With the possible exception of ministers, the teaching profession is probably scrutinized by the public more closely than any other. Teachers may perceive negative attitudes in the community for causes ranging from the way the teachers dress, social habits, to even the type of automobile they own. Reaction to these attitudes can be the beginning of stress for a teacher. To reduce stress in school, school climate must be improved. The teacher and the school climate are in continuous interaction (Cooper and Marshall, 1980). School climate is the social atmosphere of a setting or learning environment in which students have different experiences depending upon the protocols set up by the teachers and 16 administrators. School environment conditions operate as stressors to the extent that they tax or exceed these adaptive resources. School climate affects attitudes, values, norms, and feelings employees have concerning the organization. The teachers? attitude toward teaching is impacted by classroom climate (Byrne, 1993; D?Arienzo et al., 1982; Dunham, 1984; Weiskopf, 1980). As the classroom climate erodes, the stress of teaching increases. Sources of teacher stress within the classroom include student discipline problems, student apathy, low student achievement, and verbal and physical abuse by students (Byrne, 1993; D?Arienzo et al., 1982; Dunham, 1984; Weiskopf, 1980). Nisbet (1999) states that lack of administrative support, low pay, and crowded classrooms add to teacher stress. In 2002, years after studies conducted in the 1980s, The Washington Post cited a number of teachers who complained that their jobs, while rewarding, were getting harder due to lack of resources, too much paperwork, crowded classes, students who suffered from emotional problems, low pay, and standardized tests (Everyday Problems, 2002). One teacher added differentiating instruction to meet the needs of learning styles as a constant source of stress. The No Child Left Behind legislation further contributes to stress by requiring that every child receives a high-quality education no matter what his/her situation may be. Several determinants of organization/school climate are discussed in the literature. Steers (1977) suggests four factors that can influence the organization climate. These factors include managerial policies and practices, organizational structure, technology, and external environment. Quick and Quick (1984) state that ?organizational stress is the general, patterned, unconscious mobilization of the individual?s energy when confronted with any organizational or work demand. Mismanagement of organization 17 stress can produce individual strain and distress and is detrimental for the organization?s human resources? (p. 8). One aspect of school climate that has been reported to contribute to teacher stress is student misbehavior. One reason why student misbehavior may be contributing greatly to teacher stress today is that violent student behavior has become a strong concern for teachers. In 1996, 27% of educators surveyed stated that they had been physically attacked at school within the past year (Petersen, Pietrzak & Speaker, 1996). In 1997, the United States Department of Education reported 22,600 violent incidents at school, including homicide, rape, suicide, physical attack, fighting with a weapon, and robbery (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Woods and Weasmer (2002) also state that problems with student behavior or confrontations with students are the primary cause of teacher stress. The most common theme of student behavior is that it consistently materializes as a significant variable that teachers consider stressful (Schonfeld, 2001). Positive feedback from students can be rewarding, even counteracting negative feedback. The literature, however, is inconclusive as to how stressful student behavior may be. Another reason why teachers frequently cite student misbehavior as a strong contributor to their work stress is that more students with behavioral and emotional disorders are being mainstreamed in regular classrooms (Bru, Stephens, & Torsheim, 2002). These students may tend to disregard social norms and require greater emotional and/or academic support from teachers. When these students misbehave, teachers have to direct additional attention toward these misbehaving students, which may create classroom situations where other students are more likely to misbehave. 18 Student behavior can be either exacerbated by or alleviated by teacher strategies. As the teacher realizes which strategies work versus those that do not, stress may be managed by developing effective skills. It is critical to note, however, that the process of finding and implementing effective strategies is an evolutionary one that begins during teacher-induction experiences (Brown & Nagel, 2004). Teacher-induction experiences occur during the first year of teaching as the teacher socializes in the school as an organization. These experiences go beyond the classroom level. Administrative Support There may be an administration/principal influence on levels of stress in school personnel. It is understood that leadership is essential to the success of schools. Researchers indicate that leaders have a direct effect on teacher stress and teacher effectiveness. Classroom teachers state that the lack of administrative support (Byrne, 1993; Farber, 1991) and lack of support from other teachers (Dworkin, 1987) are factors that can lead to stress. It has been determined that an ineffective leadership style of a principal is a potential source of stress for employees. Fredrick (2001) states that a school?s administration is the key determinant in whether a teacher stays or leaves the profession. The reason this determinant is important is that administrators set the tone for the entire working environment. Teachers experience stress when the style of the leader is very domineering and non-consultative (Travers & Cooper, 1996). Peer and supervisory support are seen as contributing to the development of positive attitudes (Humphrey & Humphrey, 1986) that are likely to assist teachers in avoiding stress. 19 BlaseN conducted a study in 1984 using the Teacher Stress Inventory. According to the data, task-focused behaviors by principals which contributed to teacher stress were lack of knowledge, ambiguous expectations, unreasonable expectations, lack of consistency, poor evaluation, indecisiveness, lack of follow-through, and failure to provide resources (BlaseN, 1986). BlaseN also reported that relationship-focused behaviors by principals toward teachers were lack of support which include backing and recognition. Others reported were lack of opportunities for input, favoritism, and harassment. It has been reported that many teachers feel administrators and principals may even encourage community criticisms that effectively lower faculty morale (Hartsell, Ricker, & Calmes, 2002). Harris (1999) examined principal leadership styles and stress perceived by teachers. The study found that although teacher stress is a multifaceted problem, principal leadership style was a significant contributing factor to stress. The National Education Association?s study, conducted once every decade, revealed that during the past decade, teachers ranked ?incompetent and uncooperative administrators? as the number one cause of disruption and stress in doing their jobs successfully (Natale, 1993). School systems and educational administrators can improve the conditions that contribute to stress. Based on research findings related to teacher stress and administrative support (Adams, E, Camp, W.G. & Heath-Camp, B., 1999): (a) School system leaders can clarify teachers? occupational roles. Clarifying these roles reduce stress by eliminating the confusion teachers feel when encountering role ambiguity; (b) Administrators can reduce extra tasks performed by individual teachers such as unnecessary paperwork and attending school-related meetings after school hours; c) 20 School systems should incorporate programs that encourage support among teachers. These programs could include mentoring, teacher support groups involving teachers across the curriculum, and a variety of appropriate social events; and (d) Administrators need to ensure that career-technical education teachers are provided with the resources that they need to perform their jobs adequately. Teacher Stress Teacher stress is defined as a condition where negative effects, such as frustration and anxiety, result from aspects inherent to teaching which are perceived by the teacher to threaten their psychological or physical well-being (Abel & Sewell, 1999). According to Woods and Weasmer (2002), there appears to be a significant relationship between the cause of teacher stress and job dissatisfaction. As reported by Meyers (1980), in 1900 when only 6% of the United States youth graduated from high school, Americans viewed their public school teachers as accomplished scholars and important facilitators of education. However, society began to question the effectiveness of that system when the Soviet Union launched its Sputnik satellite in 1957. For the first time, public attention and criticism focused on the school system. Steadily declining achievement scores of the last decade further aggravated the public dissatisfaction with the school system and its teachers. Teachers themselves became dissatisfied and abandonment of the profession increased dramatically. Teacher education institutions were the first to see the decline in the number of quality candidates entering their programs. Enrollment in teacher training programs dropped 20% between 1973 and 1975, and school systems began to see teachers leave the profession. 21 Farber (1984) attributed teacher turnover at both the state and national level to the high incidence of teacher stress. People-oriented occupations, such as teaching, often include responsibility for making unpleasant interpersonal decisions. Stress is an inherent part of the pedagogy of teaching because the profession is filled with stress factors (Rean & Baranov, 1998). Jobs having responsibility for people lend themselves to professional distress, role conflict, and role ambiguity. In a 1978 study by Kyriacou and Sutcliffe, the authors investigated the association between self-reported teacher stress and selected response components of teacher stress. The results of this study supported the predicted negative correlation between self-reported teacher stress and job satisfaction and the predicted positive correlation between stress and the intention to leave teaching. The correlation between stress and frequency of absences failed to reach significance (Kyriacou and Sutcliffe, 1978). However, the correlation between stress and another measure of absenteeism, total days absent, showed a significant relationship. Likewise, a study conducted by the Retention and Attrition of Pacific School Teachers and Administrators (RAPSTA) also attributed stress to absenteeism and total days absent (Brown & Uehara, 1999). Research cited by Kyriacou and Sutcliffe (1978) showed that 23.4% of the teacher respondents rated being a teacher as either very stressful or extremely stressful. A large proportion (72.5%) of the respondents were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with teaching. Twenty-three percent of the respondents indicated that it was fairly unlikely that they would still be a teacher ten years from that date. Kyriacou and Sutcliffe?s study indicated that the conditions of work rather than the experience of teaching itself may provide sources of stress which most strongly contribute to job 22 dissatisfaction. Surplus stress burdens teachers and administrators with fatigue, headaches, indigestion, and other ailments. As early as 1979, educators feeling tension generated by the demands of the classroom found it difficult to meet their own personal standards of teaching (Miller, 1979). Stress was a problem then and remains a problem today. In addition to the anxiety created by the often unreasonable demands of the job, the individual?s dissatisfaction with self adds to the upset and stress. Stress is on the rise and can be seen by the number of referrals of teachers to occupational therapists with stress-related disorders such as anxiety, depression, and burnout (Austin, Shah, & Muncer, 2005). Manera and Wright (1981) stated that professional stress was at the heart of the problem for teachers with 10, 15, and 20 years of experience who seek job change. Saville (1979) surveyed 3,500 teachers in Nevada and found that 51.4% had experienced stress-related illnesses the previous year; 65% considered teaching a stressful job; and 58% considered quitting because of stress. Eight stressors were considered as the most important: loss of personal time, paperwork, conflict with principal, threat of lawsuit, violence, involuntary transfers, and overcrowded classrooms. According to Brown and Uehara, (1999), ?work-related stress accounted for many workers? compensation and disability claims in 1995. Teachers in particular represented a large proportion of work-related stress claims? (p. 3). These claims cost school systems billions of dollars in medical costs, substitute teacher pay, and disability payments. Many parents and students felt that student academic difficulties were due, in part, to frequent teacher absenteeism (Pacific Region Educational Laboratory R&D Cadre, 1995). 23 Farber (1991) summarized the history of educator stress in his work Crisis in Education: Stress and Burnout in the American Teacher as an intensification of stressors since the 1960s that included an ambivalent society continuing to increase its predominately negative view of teachers. Hunter (1977) believed that air traffic control, surgery, and teaching are probably three of the most potentially stressful occupations in the world. In these occupations, people are responsible for practicing skills they were taught in certain situations. At the same time, they are expected to possess on-their-feet, high-speed thinking and decision-making skills to handle the unexpected situations triggered by variations of humans and the change in nature. According to Goodall and Brown (1980), there are two distinct types of stressors, those without and those within. Without stressors originate outside individuals and include such things as environmental or work-related demands. Within stressors are those from within individuals. These stressors tend to include individuals? personal values, attitudes, and self-concepts. According to Gutpa (1981), there are three major types of stressors: environmental, organizational, and individual. Smith and Milstein (1984) found stressors to emerge from the environment and individuals. Environmental stressors would be stressors from internal characteristics within the individual teachers. Internal characteristics were identified in numerous documents and cited as major sources of teacher stress (Bennett, 1997; BlaseN, 1986; Byrne, 1992; Farber, 1984, 1991; Fimian 1982; Fimian & Santoro, 1983; Goodall & Brown, 1980; Gutpa, 1981; Iwanicki, 1983; Kaiser & Polzynski, 1982; Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978, 1978; Maslach, 1982; Pettegrew & Wolf, 1983; Phillips, 1993; Schamer & Jackson, 1996; Terry, 1997). Researchers have found that internal characteristics could contribute to teachers? 24 susceptibility to stress and that these factors may even dictate how teachers handled the stress they encountered (Byrne & Fimian, 1982). Kaiser and Polzynski (1982) stated that internal characteristics actually contributed to the amount of stress teachers were able to tolerate. Heath-Camp and Camp (1990) found that a large number of the negative experiences of beginning vocational teachers emerged from internal characteristics. The internal disposition of a person who has characteristics of a Type A personality have been significantly linked to coronary problems (Fimian, 1988). Friedman and Rosenman (1974) isolated a set of behavior patterns that seem to be related to patients who showed stress, particularly those behavior patterns that connect with the heart and coronary arteries. They concluded that a Type A personality is two to three times more likely to develop coronary heart disease than a Type B personality. Type A personalities can be described as aggressive, competitive, intense, and less able to tolerate frustration than a Type B personality (Pine, 1982). Personality can be defined as ?the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical sytems that determine his unique adjustments of his environment? (Allport, 1937, p. 48). Type A personality has become a household term since researchers began studying it over 50 years ago (Scott, 2006). Most people know that characteristics of Type A personality has something to do with being competitive and obsessed with work. It has also been associated with an increased risk of health problems. According to research (Scott, 2006), the following characteristics are attributed to Type A behavior: 1) time urgency and impatience, 2) aggressiveness, 3) competitiveness, and 4) strong achievement-oriented. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been the standard-bearer of testing of personality types since 1943, and it is said to still be the most widely used 25 personality assessment tool in the world. Approximately 2.5 million test are given each year (Shuit, 2003). Both supporters and critics of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator say that it endures because it does a good job of pointing out differences between people and offering individuals a revealing look at themselves. We all experience stress, but individuals with Type A personalities greatly increase the level of stress they experience in a given situation by their behavior patterns. If individuals have these tendencies, they need to employ some type of stress management techniques. In 1989, Wilson and Mutero analyzed the association between Type A behavior and occupational stress in Zimbabwean teachers. In this study, the relationship between Type A behavior and self-reported stress among male and female Zimbabwean teachers were examined. The data suggest that behaviors of a person with a Type A personality may be related to occupational stress. Self-esteem, as an internal characteristic, has been reportedly linked to teacher stress (Byrne, 1992; Farber, 1991). Persons possessing low self-esteem tend to be more susceptible to stress than those having high self-esteem. Teachers with high self-esteem tend to handle stressors in a more productive manner. As reported by Terry (1997), much of a teacher?s day is occupied with unnecessary interruptions and disruptions, a seemingly large amount of paperwork, and too many meetings. Teachers who have little control over the occupational environment, planning, and decision-making processes experience stress (Pettegrew & Wolf, 1982). Undefined work roles, work overload, and role conflict were found in the literature (Kaiser & Polzynski, 1982; BlaseN, 1986; and Byrne, 1992) to be important determinants of the amount of stress suffered by teachers. Teachers experience high degrees of stress 26 when they are deprived of time and when they experience interference with instruction (BlaseN, 1986). Lack of adequate teaching resources and lack of authority create frustration for teachers as reported by Pettegrew & Wolf (1982). Teachers encounter stress when their school administrators do not express guidance and facilitation for their occupational goals, efforts, and struggles. Lack of feedback about teaching performance and unclear methods of evaluation can be extremely frustrating for teachers (Terry, 1997). Teachers often complain of stress when they feel professionally isolated (Dussault, M., Deaudelin, C., Royer, N. & Loiselle, J., 1997). Student-related issues were identified in the literature as teacher stressors more often than any other issue. Much of the job-related stress reported by teachers was caused by their inability to control the classroom situation (Goodall & Brown, 1980; Fimian, 1982). Laughlin (1984) found strong relationships among pupil control in the classroom, student behavior, and teacher stress. Low achievement, student apathy, students? inability to understand, and students? lack of preparation for class can cause teachers to become frustrated and stressed (Blase, 1986). Researchers have been successful in identifying students? behavior in the classroom and attitudes toward learning as primary stressors for teachers (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978, 1979; Fielding & Gall, 1982). According to Terry (1997), the physical demand placed on teachers is increasing and the student/teacher ratio present in many of classrooms may aggravate an already stressful situation. Common demographics such as gender, age, and years of teaching experience are often used to correlate teacher stress (Borg & Riding, 1991.) Some studies suggest that teachers with greater number of years in the classroom report increased levels of stress. Borg & Riding (1991) indicated that teachers with greater than twenty years of teaching 27 reported significantly greater stress than their colleagues with less than eleven years of experience. A study conducted by Green-Reese, Johnson & Campbell, (1991) examining teacher stress, indicated that age and years of experience were not significant predictors and suggest that findings regarding experience may be unique to each sample. A 1997 study by Medica, a health plan provider, of teacher stress in Midwestern public schools, found teacher stress highest among those reporting little social support from colleagues, friends, and family (Black, 2003). The high-stress teachers suffered from depression and fatigue, stated they had little control over administrative issues, and had little time to perform their jobs and routine tasks such as paperwork. Stress sometimes has serious consequences which makes it an important topic of study for the profession of teaching (Pithers & Soden, 1999). DeCicco and Allison (1999) attribute the growing level of teacher stress to mission clutter. They state that mission clutter is doing too many tasks and playing too many roles to be effective. They believe decision and policy makers have overloaded teachers with too many responsibilities which do not relate directly to teaching. This burden of being expected to excel in numerous roles demoralizes teachers. The mission clutter associated with teaching often drives the best and brightest teachers away from the profession. Stress and the Career-Technical Education Teacher Adams, et al. (1999), conducted a study that examined the relationship between educational system stressors and stress in career-technical education teachers. The 28 specific objective of the study was to build and test a model to explain the interrelationships among school-system variables and career-technical teacher stress. The population of the study was all secondary career-technical teachers in public schools in Virginia. Two separate samples were identified in the data collection process. The first sample consisted of all career-technical teachers in five specific school systems in central and southwest Virginia (n=182). The second sample was a randomly selected sample of 182 career-technical teachers identified from career-technical teacher lists provided by the Virginia Department of Education. This sample consisted of twenty-six teachers in each of the following career-technical service areas: agriscience education, business education, family and consumer sciences, health occupations education, marketing education, technology education, and trade and industrial education. Results of this study showed role ambiguity, task stress, peer support, and role overload as significant contributors to career-technical teacher stress. Data also indicated that task stress contributed the most to explaining career- technical teacher stress. The nine tasks identified as contributing to career-technical teacher stress included (1) completing reports and paperwork; (2) dealing with student discipline; (3) complying with state, federal, and school rules and policies; (4) resolving conflicts with parents; (5) decreasing financial support; (6) changing professional standards; (7) maintaining an interesting work environment; (8) spending time outside of normal working hours; and (9) dealing with the needs and problems of fellow faculty. In 1989 Hoffman found that most business communication teachers experienced many symptoms of stress. The time and energy required for grading writing assignments coupled with a large class enrollment are elements that directly contribute to a high level 29 of stress. Administering an objective grading policy with subjective material is probably the most stressful situation facing business communication teachers. Knowledge and expertise is used to create the criteria for writing assignments, but the actual evaluating involves a high measure of subjectivity. Demands of grading classroom projects, preparing course material, and working with students are just a few of the situations that weigh heavily on the emotional well- being of business communication teachers. How they respond to these situations depends on attitude and determination. Business communication teachers cannot remove all the stressful factors they face as a result of their profession, but making a conscious effort to keep a healthy balance among work, family, and extracurricular activities will make a difference (Hoffman, 1989). Seiler and Pearson (1984) investigated stress among accounting educators and examined relationships between stress levels and work satisfaction levels, personality traits, and stress coping techniques. Self-administered questionnaires were used, and 164 accounting faculty members from 41 states responded. Results of regression analyses indicated that higher stress levels can be predicted by a combination of variables. Of the variables investigated, overall work satisfaction was the variable most closely related to higher stress levels. The most important personality characteristics of higher stress individuals were impatience, assertiveness, workaholism, and idealism. Stress-coping techniques used by individuals with higher stress levels were recreational time off, cultivation and maintenance of friendships among colleagues, and physical exercise. Although stress-related studies have been conducted on other groups (special education, elementary teachers, and science teachers), none was found specifically on 30 business/marketing education teachers related to stress (Adams, et al., 1999). Additionally, no literature was found that suggests that business/marketing education teachers are an exception to arguments regarding teachers and stress. Learning necessary skills to deal with stress must precede the occurrence of stressful situations. In learning coping skills, one must be able to recognize the signs of stress and identify the potential for stress in oneself and one?s students (Hagler, 1990). To prepare students to handle stress in personal living and on the job, specific activities should be designed and implemented in business classes (Hagler, 1990). These activities could include goal setting, managing time, working efficiently, learning sources of stress and methods of coping. Hagler (1990) believes that business/marketing education teachers should incorporate stress management in classes so that students will be aware of stressors and how to alleviate them. Stress and The Office Employee Several aspects of clerical job design, as reported by O?Connor and Regan (1996), related directly to high stress. Automation can intensify the effects of stressful activities or help alleviate the effects depending on how it is implemented. Office automation can increase work loads by increasing the complexity of the tasks, the pace of work, the amount of information needed to complete the task, or the number of tasks. The level of stress created by the increased expectations depends on the amount of control the employee has over the job. Jobs with restricted job responsibilities, such as data entry, can be repetitive and routine. Such jobs can lead to anxiety, boredom, and dissatisfaction, 31 especially when compounded by isolation and little opportunity to interact with co-workers. Roderick and Augustin (1991) recommended the following with regard to job- related stress producers: (1) Increase employment involvement in planning for implementation of new equipment; (2) Design jobs to sustain or increase satisfaction whenever possible; (3) Remember that adults learn best when training strategies are individualized and meaningful, provide immediate feedback, and relate directly to their job; and (4) Revise job descriptions and salaries whenever skills are learned or jobs redesigned. Teacher Preparation Programs and Stress With the overcrowding and curriculum demands placed on teacher preparation programs, it is often not feasible to create an additional course that focuses on the health issues most relevant to future teachers. Brown and Nagel (2004) suggest, however, that teacher educators include the integration of stress management techniques within the curriculum. One approach is to have teacher educators model stress management skills in the classroom. Teacher educators would need to identify the stress management objectives within specific methods and content course work. Future business teachers need to learn and apply shortcuts to stretch the days. Some time-savers and stress reducers business teachers can learn to employ include (1) organizing the classroom to get the maximum use of available space, (2) keeping computers in working condition, (3) using textbook-prepared tests, (4) delegating as much as possible, (5) organizing teaching materials, (6) entering grades in the computer for averaging, and (7)using technology to assist with lesson planning (Kiff, 1986). 32 Legal Ramifications As early as the 1980s, teacher stress was recognized in the courts. In addition to problems in the classroom caused by stressed teachers, schools and school boards began dealing with financial issues caused by teacher stress. Stress and strain on the job was ruled by the courts as legitimate claims in worker?s compensation claims. Worker?s compensation claims for teacher stress and strain increased in frequency, and the actual costs of such claims grew (Remley, 1985). In 1999, secondary school teacher Muriel Benson won a landmark case when she was awarded $47,000 in compensation for stress (Carvel, 1999). Mrs. Benson was forced to retire from her job as department head at a secondary school in England in 1996 on grounds of ill health. She joined the school in her first teaching job in 1977. She taught English and media studies and was appointed department head in the 1980s. Mrs. Benson ran many after-school activities, served as a teacher-governor, and undertook various pastoral tasks. Her workload gradually increased and became more complex. She notified employers regarding her workload, but was not offered help. Stress-related problems emerged, and finally one morning she snapped from sickness and depression. Since then, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) has supported more than 90 cases in which teachers won compensation for stress. Benson?s case confirmed teacher stress as an occupational hazard that could lead to more widespread litigation. For example, actions have been taken on behalf of one teacher who will never be able to work again due to mental distress. Another is unable to drive any distance due to the effects of stress (Carvel, 1999). 33 In Baggett v. Industrial Commission, 2001, Darwin Baggett filed a claim alleging that workplace stress caused him to suffer a heart attack (Baggett v. Industrial Commission, 2001). The episode began on March 13, 1990, when Mr. Baggett, a high school industrial arts teacher, collapsed while on the job. Fourteen witnesses testified that Mr. Baggett?s supervisory duties, demands of the job, deadlines, and other activities involving students created a stressful work condition. Upon hearing the evidence, it was determined that Baggett?s injuries arose out of, and were suffered in the course of his employment, and that he was entitled to benefits for permanent total disability and medical expenses. Summary Hans Selye, director of the University of Montreal?s Institute of Experimental Medicine and an internationally recognized authority on stress, believes stress is the salt of life. ?Stress wakes us up and makes us alive? ( p. 12). Behind every human accomplishment lies worry, frustration, and discontent. If one were totally satisfied and free of stress, one would have little motivation to do anything. There must be a level of dissatisfaction to cause action (Miller, 1979). According to Selye, avoidance of stress is not the goal, a productive life needs appropriate levels of dissatisfaction, stress, or tension to encourage individuals to get the job done. He also states that stress becomes a problem for educators when it endangers or impairs the individual?s mental or physical health. The review of the literature indicates that teacher stress is a major problem in education today. Alienation, isolation, a sense of powerlessness, and non-support have 34 helped to create a climate of great dissatisfaction and frustration with teaching. Fortunately, all teachers do not experience stress, but there is no doubt stress is a way of life for teachers (Black, 2003). Education is vital to the future of this country; therefore, it is critical that schools operate well. As illness, absenteeism, and frequent turnover of faculty and staff are unproductive expenses for schools, it is reasonable to support the goal of determining the cause of teacher stress and to advise educators and administrators how to minimize stressors. Teacher stress is defined in a number of ways. Some researchers have noted that highly stressed teachers do not work as effectively as less-stressed teachers. The literature also suggests that the educational environment has the potential to impact a teacher?s level of stress. Although teachers suffer from stress as does any person who works, there is one reason why some people will always teach. The greatest reward a teacher can receive comes from the success his/her students achieve under his/her supervision. This type of validation is an intrinsic benefit that the teacher gets from working with children. For this reason alone, veteran teachers must nurture younger teachers to follow in their footsteps and keep those rewards alive (Reiter, 2003). 35 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction The focus of this study is to determine the level of self-reported stress among business/marketing educators related to their jobs as teachers. The study sought to determine if there is a difference in the level of stress among these educators as it relates to school climate, resources, and personal characteristics. The study will also focus on how business/marketing teachers perceive they are receiving support from their principals in dealing with stress. The survey was further designed to determine if strategies have been developed by teachers and/or administrators for dealing with stress. Permission to conduct the study was granted from the Auburn University Institutional Review Board. Permission was also granted by the participants by the return of the completed survey. Population The participants included Alabama business/marketing educators. The Alabama Department of Career-Technical Education provided the names of business/marketing educators for the 2006-2007 school year. This directory is updated yearly and provides a listing of all business/marketing educators in the state of Alabama. The population included 1000 business/marketing educators listed in the directory. Systematic sampling was used and every third business/marketing educator from the list received a survey, resulting in a sample of 333. 36 Instrumentation Data were collected through a researcher-designed survey entitled Stress Questionnaire. The instrument employed to gather data was developed by the researcher to identify the perceived level of stress experienced by business/marketing educators in the state of Alabama. The researcher developed the survey instrument after reviewing several instruments in the literature. No appropriate instrument was found. The researcher-designed survey includes the following components: a) background facts (demographic data); b) administrative factors regarding stress; c) school climate factors regarding stress; d) administrative support received in dealing with school climate; e) resource factors regarding stress; f) administrative support received in dealing with resources e) personal characteristics regarding stress; f) overall stress level; and g) personal responses regarding stress and stress management. The instrument used a readable format and included specific instructions for responding to questions at the beginning of each section. Section A (Background Facts) of the survey instrument includes the demographic data (gender, age, years of teaching experience, degree held, type of school system, personality type, and duties). In Section B (Administration) of the survey instrument, participants were asked to indicate how administrative factors affected their level of stress on an individual basis. A Likert-type scale was used depicting the following stress levels: (0) No Stress, (1) Mild Stress, (2) Moderate Stress, and (3) Extreme Stress. Section C (School Climate) of the survey instrument asked participants to indicate how factors regarding school climate affected their level of stress. A Likert-type scale 37 was used depicting the following stress levels: (0) No Stress, (1) Mild Stress, (2) Moderate Stress, and (3) Extreme Stress. Section D (Administrative Support Received in Dealing With School Climate) of the survey instrument includes a list of factors regarding the level of administrative support received in dealing with school climate. Participants were asked to indicate the level of support they receive individually from their principal in dealing with factors listed. A Likert-type scale was used depicting the following levels of support: (0) No Support, (1) Mild Support, (2) Moderate Support, and (3) Total Support. Section E (Resources) of the survey instrument includes a list of factors regarding school resources. Participants were asked to indicate how the factors affected their level of stress on an individual basis. A Likert-type scale was used depicting the following levels of support: (0) No Stress, (1) Mild Stress, (2) Moderate Stress, and (3) Extreme Stress. Section F (Administrative Support In Dealing With Resources) of the survey instrument includes a list of factors regarding administrative support received in dealing with school resource issues. The participants were asked to indicate the level of support they received individually from their principal in dealing with these factors. A Likert- type scale was used depicting the following levels of support: (0) No Support, (1) Mild Support, (2) Moderate Support, and (3) Total Support. Section G (Personal Characteristics) of the survey instrument includes a list of personal characteristics one may experience on the job as a teacher. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement. A Likert-type scale was used 38 depicting the level of agreement or disagreement as follows: (0) Strongly Agree, (1) Agree, (2) Disagree, and (3) Strongly Disagree. In Section H (Overall Stress Level) of the survey instrument, participants were asked to indicate their overall level of stress regarding teaching, collegiality, school climate, administration, and resources. A Likert-type scale was used depicting the overall level of stress as follows: (0) No Stress, (1) Mild Stress, (2) Moderate Stress, and (3) Extreme Stress. The final Section I (Personal Responses) of the survey instrument includes open- ended questions. These questions deal with the implementation of coping strategies to alleviate stress by teachers and the administration, and attendance of stress management workshops. Section I of the survey also asked participants to list factors causing stress that were not listed on the survey. If participants indicated factors that were not listed on the survey, they were asked to explain these factors. The survey instrument was constructed with the intent of projecting a feeling of value and importance. The participants? responses were necessary to help identify factors that promote stress. It was also intended by the researcher to project a feeling of urgency toward the topic of stress in business/marketing educators, that the study was critically dependent on the responses of the participants, and that their responses assisted business/marketing teachers, administrators, and principals in developing strategies that will help alleviate stress. The research instrument was included as part of the survey packet sent to each identified business/marketing teacher. The survey packet contained the following items: 39 1. An information letter (Appendix B). The information letter, as required by the Auburn University Institutional Review Board, described the study to the potential participants and outlined the procedures to be followed to complete the survey. An explanation was provided in the information letter of the purpose, need and importance for each Alabama business/marketing educator to respond completely and to the best of their ability. 2. Survey Instrument (Appendix C). The survey instrument contained components of teacher stress designed to elicit responses on teacher stress related to administration, school climate, and resources. 3. A pre-addressed stamped envelope was enclosed for the convenience of the respondent to encourage participation. To preserve the confidentiality of the participants, each returned envelope was assigned a code number to be used only for follow-up purposes. During data collection, only the researcher had access to the code numbers. As the surveys were returned, the participant?s name was removed from the list, and the coded returned envelope was destroyed. Researchers at Auburn University must obtain permission from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to use the response of human subjects. A request for exempt status, an information letter, and a copy of the survey instrument was forwarded to the IRB for approval prior to continuation of the study. The Board reviewed the protocol and granted the necessary permission to proceed with the study on March 27, 2007 (Appendix A). 40 Validity and Reliability The most prominent internal validity concern in designing the survey was presence and degree of measurement error and the attitude of participants toward surveys. Minimizing the degree of measurement errors was addressed during the survey development. Several sections of questions were developed in the survey instrument, with each section pertaining to one factor. Covering one factor at a time enables participants to understand each question more clearly and answer more truthfully and accurately. By projecting a feeling of critical importance in responding to the survey. The survey items were developed in conjunction with the research objectives of this study after conducting the review of literature. The areas included in the review of literature focused on topics such as an overview of Business Education, history of stress, school climate, administrative support, teacher stress, stress and the Career-Technical Education teacher, stress and the office employee, teacher preparation programs and stress, and legal ramifications. To ensure content and face validity of the scores from the survey instrument, a panel of experts was used to evaluate the content. The panel of experts consisted of university faculty members chosen for their knowledge and experience in descriptive survey research design, survey instruments, and data collection, as well their content area expertise. The panel was asked to assist in developing an instrument which accurately reflected the area and realm of interest (teacher stress) in this study, and the perception that the instrument will measure what it was intended to measure. Comments of the panel, input, and recommendations were considered and incorporated to produce the final 41 Stress Questionnaire. After modifications of the instrument, packets were mailed to the sample for data collection. The more consistent the results from a measurement instrument are, the more reliable they will be. More consistent items will result in a higher coefficient alpha, representing a higher level of reliability (Shannon & Davenport, 2001). Cronbach?s Alpha was used in this study to estimate the internal consistency of the instrument in this study. The instrument was made up of items scored with a Likert-type scale using four possible values. In sections B (Administration), C (School Climate), E (Resources), and H (Overall Stress Level), a Likert-type scale was used depicting the following stress levels: (0) No Stress, (1) Mild Stress, (2) Moderate Stress, and (3) Extreme Stress. In sections D (Administrative Support Received in Dealing With School Climate) and F (Administrative Support Received in Dealing With Resources), a Likert-type scale was used depicting the following levels of support: (0) No Support, (1) Mild Support, (2) Moderate Support, and (3) Total Support. In section G (Personal Characteristics), a Likert-type scale was used depicting the level of agreement or disagreement as follows: (0) Strongly agree, (1) Agree, (2) Disagree, and (3) Strongly Disagree. For a scale to be considered reliable, it should have an alpha of .70 (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Results of the Cronbach?s Alpha for the scales used to determine levels of stress due to administration was .89; levels of stress due to school climate, .84; levels of support received from administration in dealing with school climate, .91; levels of stress due to resources, .88; levels of support received from administration in dealing with resources, .92; and levels of overall stress, .77. The results of the Cronbach?s Alphas for each scale indicate acceptable levels for research purposes. 42 Data Collection The sample in this study was 333 business/marketing teachers in the state of Alabama. Each member of the sample received a packet including a) an information letter describing the study and an outline of the procedures to be followed (Appendix B); b) a survey instrument (Appendix C); and c) a pre-addressed stamped envelope. The participants were asked to return the survey within two weeks using a pre- addressed envelope enclosed in the research packet. Each return envelope contained a code on the label to assist in the follow-up of non-returned surveys. During the data collection process, only the researcher had access to the code number. As the surveys were returned, the participant name was removed from the list and the coded returned envelope was destroyed. The information letter explained the purpose of the code. Follow-up procedures were conducted with subjects who had not returned the survey. Subjects were sent a reminder letter asking for their help in satisfying research requirements by returning the survey. Participants were also offered the survey by e-mail if they had misplaced their original copy. Participants were only contacted once through the use of follow-up. One hundred seven surveys were returned which resulted in a 32% participation rate. Data Analysis Statistical treatment of the data included the use of the software application Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics including frequencies and percentages were used to summarize, analyze, organize, and describe the collected data. Descriptive statistics were also used to provide an indication of 43 relationships between variables. Demographic data were explained in this study using descriptive statistics. Research Question 1 and 2 were analyzed using descriptive statistics, means, and standard deviations. Standard deviation is the most common measure of statistical dispersion, measuring how widely spread the values are in a data set (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2002). The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to analyze research Question 3. The Pearson r correlation is the most common correlation (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2002). It measures the degree and the direction of the linear relationship between two variables. A basic property of Pearson?s r in the range is from -1 to 1. A correlation of -1 means a perfect negative linear relationship, a correlation of 0 means no linear relationship, and a correlations of 1 means a perfect linear relationship (Lane, 2003). The coefficient of determination (R 2 ) was calculated to determine the proportion of variance present in the variables. The adjusted R 2 was calculated to represent a more accurate estimate of the true R 2 that would be found in the population. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)was used to analyze Question 4. MANOVA is a type of multivariate analysis used to analyze data that consists of more than one dependent variable at a time (Creech, 2003). MANOVA allows the testing of the hypotheses regarding the effect of one or more independent variables on two or more dependent variables. A MANOVA analysis generates a p-value that is used to determine whether or not the null hypothesis can be rejected. There are two major circumstances in which MANOVA is used. The first circumstance is when there are several correlated dependent variables, and the researcher desires a single, overall statistical test on this set 44 of variables instead of performing multiple individual tests (Carey, 1998). The second circumstance, and sometimes the most important, is to explore how independent variables influence some patterning of response on the dependent variables. Additionally, the effect size was calculated to determine the strength of the relationship between two variables. The effect size quantifies the size of the difference between two groups, and gives a true measure of the significance of the difference. ?Effect size is a numerical way of expressing the strength or magnitude of a reported relationship, be it causal or not. Effect size is expressed as a decimal number, and while numbers greater than 1.00 are possible, they do not occur very often? (Gay, Airasian, 2003, pg. 294). ?In general, Z 2 is interpreted as the proportion of variance of the dependent variable that is related to the factor. Traditionally, Z 2 values of .01, .06, and .14 represent small, medium, and large effect sizes respectively? (Green, Salkind, & Akey, 1997, pg. 193). MANOVA was also used to analyze Question 5. Question 5 deals with the relationship between self-reported personality types and the overall stress level reported for teaching, collegiality, school climate, administration, and resources. For the purpose of this study, personality type was self-identified by the participants after reading a description for each type. One might question the validity of classifying self-identifying personality types, and how accurately individuals can predict their types. The reason for including personality types in this study evolved around findings in the review of literature whereby individuals with Type A personalities were more susceptible to stress. These findings are reported in Chapter 2. 45 Multiple Regression Analysis was used to analyze Question 6. The main purpose of this analysis is to learn more about the relationships between several independent or predictor variables and a dependent or criterion variable. A score was taken of the dependent variable to determine which items account for the greatest portion of variability. Multiple regression can establish that a set of independent variables explains a proportion of the variance in a dependent variable at a significant level, and can establish the relative predictive importance of the independent variables. 46 IV. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Introduction and Restatement of the Problem This research study was designed to examine the perceived level of stress, if any, that exists in Business/Marketing educators in the state of Alabama relating to school climate, administration, and resources. Specifically, this study was conducted to determine if business/marketing educators perceived they receive support from administration in dealing with stress relating to school climate and resources. The study also examined the relationships that exist between selected demographic variables and stress levels relating to school climate, administration, and resources. This chapter presents the analysis of the data collected from business/marketing educators utilizing the Stress Questionnaire designed by the researcher. Descriptive Data Analysis and Results Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages were run using SPSS to summarize, analyze, and present the demographic data of business/marketing educators responding to the study. Table 1 presents the demographic information related to gender of respondents, age, years of teaching experience, highest degree held, and type of school system in which one teaches. One hundred seven business/marketing educators responded to the study which included 13 males (12.1%) and 94 females (87.9%). The highest percentage of respondents by age group was 40-49 years (33.6%), followed closely by 50-59 years (33.5%), 30-39 years (15.8%), 24-29 years (13.0%), and 60-67 years (3.7%). The number of years of teaching experience reported by 47 business/marketing educators were 1-5 years (23.3%), 6-10 years (16.9%), 11-20 years (29.9%), 21-30 years (19.5%), and over 30 years (10.3%). The average years of teaching experience reported by the respondents was 14 years. Degrees held by respondents included 26 with bachelors (24.3%), 74 with masters (69.2%), 7 with specialist (6.5%). No respondents reported having obtained a doctorate degree. Forty-six respondents (43.0%) teach in city school systems, while 61 respondents (57.0%) teach in county school systems. 48 Table 1 Demographic Data Reported by Business/Marketing Educators Categories n Percentage Gender Male 13 12.1 Female 94 87.9 Age Group 24-29 years 14 13.0 30-39 years 17 15.8 40-49 years 36 33.6 50-59 years 36 33.5 60-57 years 4 3.7 Years of Teaching Experience 1-5 years 25 23.3 6-10 years 18 16.9 11-20 years 32 29.9 21-30 years 21 19.5 over 30 years 11 10.3 Degree Held Bachelors 26 24.3 Masters 74 69.2 Specialist 7 6.5 Doctorate 0 0.0 School System City 46 43.0 County 61 57.0 49 Descriptive statistics were used also to identify perceived personality types. Table 2 reflects this data. Respondents who described themselves as having Type A personalities perceived themselves as hard driving, competitive, structured, self-starters, and individuals with a high sense of time urgency. Respondents who described themselves as having Type B personalities perceived themselves as easy going, relaxed, spontaneous, and one who lets problems work themselves out. Eighty respondents perceived they have Type A personalities (74.8%), while the remaining 27 report having Type B personalities (25.2%). Table 2 Distribution of Personality Types Reported by Participants Category n Percentage Personality Type Type A Personality 80 74.8 Type B Personality 27 25.2 Respondents who performed additional school duties, such as SACS committee or school improvement committee, reported the number of hours spent per month performing these duties. The majority of the respondents reported having additional duties. Seventy-three respondents (68.2%) reported having to perform additional duties, while 34 respondents (31.8%) reported performing no additional duties. Table 3 reflects this data. Of the 73 respondents who reported having to perform additional duties, 51 51 respondents (69.8%) perform these duties 1-10 hours monthly, 15 respondents (20.5%) perform these duties 11-20 hours monthly, 3 respondents (4.1%) perform these duties 21- 30 hours monthly, and 2 respondents (2.7%) reported performing these duties 40 hours monthly. Forty hours was the maximum hours reported by respondents as performing additional administrative duties. Table 3 Respondents Reporting Additional Duties and Hours Spent Performing the Duties Category n Percentage Additional Administrative duties Yes 73 68.2 No 34 31.8 Number of hours spent performing additional duties 1-10 hours monthly 51 69.8 11-20 hours monthly 15 20.5 21-30 hours monthly 3 4.1 40 hours monthly 2 2.7 The final area of demographics involved respondents who performed duties as head of the department or co-op coordinator. If respondents served in the capacity of department head or co-op coordinator, they were asked to list the number of hours spent 52 performing these duties per month. Respondents reported performing duties as department head or co-op coordinator, but not both. Table 4 reflects this data. 53 Table 4 Breakdown of Percentages of Respondents Who Perform Additional Duties and the Amount of Time Spent on the Duties Category n Percentage Respondents serving as Department Head Yes 37 34.57 No 70 65.42 Number of hours spent performing duties as Department Head 1-5 hours monthly 17 45.94 6-10 hours monthly 12 32.43 12-20 hours monthly 5 13.51 25 hours monthly 2 0.05 30 hours monthly 1 0.03 Respondents serving as Co-op Coordinator Yes 19 17.80 No 88 82.20 Number of hours spent performing duties as Co-op Coordinator 4-10 hours monthly 3 15.70 20-25 hours monthly 2 10.50 30 hours monthly 2 10.50 40-45 hours monthly 5 26.30 50 hours monthly 1 0.05 60 hours monthly 4 21.00 80 hours monthly 1 0.05 165 hours monthly 1 0.05 As shown in table 4, 37 respondents (34.57%) reported that they served as department head, and 70 respondents (65.42%) reported that they did not. Nineteen 54 respondents (17.80%) reported that they served as co-op coordinator and 88 respondents (82.20%) reported they did not. Of the 37 respondents who acknowledged serving as a department head, 17 respondents (45.94%) reported spending 1-5 hours monthly performing department head duties, 12 respondents (32.43%) reported spending 6-10 hours monthly, five respondents (13.51%) reported spending 12-20 hours monthly, two respondents (0.05%) reported spending 25 hours monthly, and one respondent (0.03%) reported spending 30 hours monthly performing duties as a department head. The maximum hours respondents reported performing these duties were 30 hours. Only a small number of respondents reported performing duties as a co-op coordinator. Of the 19 respondents who acknowledged serving as co-op coordinator, three respondents (15.70%) reported spending 4-10 hours monthly performing duties related to being coordinator, two respondents (10.50%) reported spending 20-25 hours monthly, two reported (10.50%) spending 30 hours monthly, five respondents (26.30%) reported spending 40-45 hours monthly, one respondent (0.05%) reported spending 50 hours monthly, four respondents (21.00%) reported spending 60 hours monthly, one respondent (0.05%) reported spending 80 hours monthly, and one respondent (0.05%) reported spending 165 hours monthly as co-op coordinator. The respondent reporting 165 hours on duties as co-op coordinator each month is probably due to that individual serving as the community co-op coordinator at the school. The community coordinators co-op students in every career-technical area, which demands more hours each month than a person who serves as co-op coordinator in only one area. 55 Research Questions Question 1: What is the perceived level of stress as it relates to administration, school climate, and resources? (This research question was addressed by sections B, C and E of the Stress Questionnaire.) Eight items were included on the subscale for stress relating to administration and measured using a Likert-type scale with stress levels: (0) No Stress, (1) Mild Stress, (2) Moderate Stress, and (3) Extreme Stress. The mean score was 1.23 (SD = .745). Based on the original scale, this mean score indicated a level of mild stress. Nine items were included on the subscale for stress relating to school climate and measured using a Likert-type scale with stress levels: (0) No Stress, (1) Mild Stress, (2) Moderate Stress, and (3) Extreme Stress. The mean score was 1.57 (SD = .591). Based on the original scale, this mean score indicated a level between mild and moderate stress. Five items were included on the subscale for stress relating to resources and measured using a Likert-type scale with stress levels: (0) No Stress, (1) Mild Stress, (2) Moderate Stress, and (3) Extreme Stress. The mean score was 1.53 (SD = .900). Based on the original scale, this mean score indicated a level between mild and moderate stress. Question 2: What is the perceived level of administrative support as it relates to school climate and resources? (Sections D and F on the Stress Questionnaire addressed this question.) Nine items were included on the subscale for administrative support received in dealing with school climate and measured using a Likert-type scale with support levels: (0) No Support, (1) Mild Support, (2) Moderate Support, and (3) Total Support. The mean score was 1.82 (SD = .719). Based on the original scale, this mean score indicated a level between approximating moderate support. Nine items were 56 included on the subscale for administrative support received in dealing with resources and measured using a Likert-type scale with support levels: (0) No Support, (1) Mild Support, (2) Moderate Support, and (3) Total Support. The mean score was 1.59 (SD = .922). Based on the original scale, the respondents indicated a level between mild and moderate support. Question 3: What is the relationship between the level of stress relating to: a. School climate and the perceived level of administrative support for school climate. b. Resources and the perceived level of administrative support for resources. (Sections C and D were used to address part (a) of this question on the Stress Questionnaire). Table 5 reports the means and standard deviations between school climate and administrative support for school climate. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to analyze the linear relationship between the stress of school climate and the perceived level of administrative support for school climate. The Pearson correlation coefficient indicated an overall statistically significant linear relationship between stress relating to school climate and the perceived level of administrative support for school climate: r(105) = .35, p < .05. In terms of the strength of the relationship, the Coefficient of Determination, adjusted R 2 = .111 indicates that 11% of the variance in school climate stress can be explained by the level of support received from administration in dealing with school climate. Ironically, the higher the level of school climate stress, the higher the level of perceived support received by administration. 57 Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure 1 of Stress Related To School Climate and Support for School Climate and Their Respective Items Stress Related Support To School Climate For School Climate Item 2 M SD MSD 1 1.56 .88 1.90 .83 2 1.49 .82 1.82 .90 3 1.05 .99 2.13 .96 4 1.93 .88 1.69 .88 5 1.82 1.04 2.01 .96 6 1.93 .82 1.82 .97 7 2.03 .85 1.78 .96 8 0.87 .89 1.74 1.09 9 1.53 .87 1.57 .94 Note 1. Likert-type scale 0 = No Stress, 1 = Mild Stress, 2 = Moderate Stress, and 3 = Extreme Stress Note 2. Item 1 = Overall school climate (Atmosphere of the learning environment) Item 2 = Minor student discipline (excessive talking, getting out of seat, display of cell phone, or horseplay Item 3 = Verbal or physical abuse by students toward teacher in the classroom Item 4 = Motivation of students in the classroom Item 5 = Accountability regarding ?No Child Left Behind? Legislation Item 6 = Modification of the curriculum for special needs students Item 7 = Dealing with low student achievement Item 8 = Threat of lawsuits in my school system Item 9 = Overall teacher morale (Sections E and F were used to address part (b) of this question.) Table 6 reports the means and standard deviations between resources and administrative support for resources. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used to analyze the linear 58 relationship between the stress of resources and the perceived level of administrative support for resources. The Pearson R indicated an overall statistically significant linear relationship between stress related to resources and the perceived level of administrative support for resources: r(105) = .36, p < .05. In terms of the strength of the relationship, the Coefficient of Determination, adjusted R 2 = .122 indicates that 12% of the variance in resources stress can be explained by the level of support received from administration in dealing with resources. Ironically, the higher the level of stress related to resources, the higher the level of support for resources. 59 Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure 1 of Resources and Support for Resources and Their Respective Items Stress Related Support To Resources For Resources Item 2 M SD M SD 1 1.11 1.03 1.79 1.30 2 1.42 1.09 1.51 1.01 3 1.61 1.12 1.55 1.10 4 1.61 1.11 1.51 1.10 5 1.94 1.09 1.59 1.05 Note 1. Likert-type scale 0 = No Stress, 1 = Mild Stress, 2 = Moderate Stress, and 3 = Extreme Stress Note 2. Item 1 = Resources (textbooks, workbooks, reference books, etc.) Item 2 = Funds for program improvement Item 3 = Up-to-date equipment Item 4 = Up-to-date software Item 5 = Technology support personnel to solve computer technology problems Question 4: Is there a difference in the level of stress associated with administration, school climate, resources, and personal characteristics when analyzed by demographic factors (gender, age, teaching experience, degree, school system, and administrative responsibilities)? (Sections A, B, C, E, and G were used to address this question.) General MANOVA was used to analyze the multiple dependent variables. This type of multivariate analysis is used to analyze data that consists of more than one dependent variable at a time. 60 Gender Table 7 reports means and standard deviations for administration, resources, school climate, and personal characteristics based on age. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic factors (p < .05) due to gender on the measures of administration F(1,105) = .059, p = .808; school climate F(1,105) = 1.879, p = .173; resources F(1,105) = .068, p = .795; and personal characteristics F(1,105) = .952, p = .331. 61 Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, Resources Stress, and Stress Due To Personal Characteristics Related to Gender Measure M SD Administrative Stress Male 1.18 .466 Female 1.23 .777 School Climate Stress Male 1.36 .381 Female 1.60 .610 Resources Stress Male 1.47 .929 Female 1.54 .901 Personal Characteristics Male 2.51 .468 Female 2.37 .498 Note 1. Likert-type scale 0 = No Stress, 1 = Mild Stress, 2 = Moderate Stress, and 3 = Extreme Stress Note 2. Item 1 = Resources (textbooks, workbooks, reference books, etc.) Item 2 = Funds for program improvement Item 3 = Up-to-date equipment Item 4 = Up-to-date software Item 5 = Technology support personnel to solve computer technology problems 62 Age Table 8 reports means and standard deviations for administration, resources, school climate, and personal characteristics based on age. No statistically significant differences (p < .05) due to age were found on the measures of administration F(1,105) = 1.177, p = .280, resources F(1,105) = .024, p = .876 and personal characteristics F(1,105) = 3.116, p = .080. A significant difference, however, was found due to age on the measure of school climate F(1,105) = 10.540, p = .002. The multivariate Z 2 = .12 indicates 12% of the multivariate variance of climate stress can be explained by the age of the respondent. The analysis revealed that respondents over the age of 48 experienced more stress related to school climate than did their younger cohorts. 63 Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, Resources Stress, and Stress Due To Personal Characteristics Related to Age Measure M SD Administrative Stress Up to 47 years old 1.15 .721 48 years and over 1.30 .767 School Climate Stress Up to 47 years old 1.40 .540 48 years and over 1.75 .591 Resources Stress Up to 47 years old 1.55 .845 48 years and over 1.52 .960 Personal Characteristics Up to 47 years old 2.30 .491 48 years and over 2.47 .488 64 Teaching Experience No significant differences due to teaching experience were found on the measures of administration F(1,105) = .039, p = .844; school climate F(1,105) = 2.030, p = .157; resources F(1,105) = 1.942, p = .166; or personal characteristics F(1,105) = .771, p = .382. Degree Held Table 9 reports means and standard deviations for administration, resources and school climate based on degree held by respondents. No statistically significant differences (p < .05) were found due to the highest degree held by respondents on the measures of administration F(1,105) = 2.081, p = .130; school climate F(1,105) = .644, p = .527; resources F(1,105) = 1.946, p = .148; and personal characteristics F(1,105) = .568, p = .568. 65 Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, and Resources Stress Due To Degree Held Measure M SD Administrative Stress Bachelor?s 1.480 .7686 Master?s 1.138 .7090 Specialist 1.267 .9226 School Climate Stress Bachelor?s 1.688 .5397 Master?s 1.548 .6095 Specialist 1.476 .6076 Resources Stress Bachelor?s 1.769 .9710 Master?s 1.502 .8564 Specialist 1.057 .9778 Type of School System Table 10 reports means and standard deviations for administration, resources, and school climate based on type of school system. No statistically significant differences (p < .05) due to type of school system existed on the measures of administration F(1,105) = 2.167, p = .144; school climate F(1,105) = .593, p = .443; and personal characteristics F(1,105) = .876, p = .351. A significant difference existed, however, on the measure of resources due to type of school system in which respondents were employed: F(1,105) = 6.621, p = .011. The 66 multivariate Z 2 = .07 indicates 7% of the multivariate variance of resources stress can be explained by the type of school system in which one is employed. Respondents employed in county school systems experienced a higher level of stress due to resources than respondents who were employed in city school systems. 67 Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, Resources Stress, and Stress Due To Personal Characteristics Related to School System Measure M SD Administrative Stress City school system 1.10 .834 County school system 1.32 .662 School Climate Stress City school system 1.52 .687 County school system 1.61 .509 Resources Stress City school system 1.28 .830 County school system 1.72 .911 Personal Characteristics City school system 2.33 .505 County school system 2.42 .486 68 Administrative Duties Table 11 reports means and standard deviations for administration, resources, and school climate based on administrative duties. No statistically significant differences were found due to administrative duties on the measures of school climate F(1,105) = .781, p = .379, resources F(1,105) = .064, p = .801 and personal characteristics F(1,105) = .001, p = .981. A statistically significant difference, however,(p <. 05) was found due to administrative duties on the measure of administration F(1,105) = 6.940, p = .010. The multivariate Z 2 = .09 indicates 9% of the multivariate variance of administrative stress can be explained by the administrative duties performed by the respondents. The analysis revealed that respondents who reported performing administrative duties experienced more stress than those who did not perform duties. Table 11 Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Administrative Stress, School Climate Stress, and Resources Stress Due To Administrative Duties Measure M SD Administrative Stress Administrative duties 1.356 .7112 No administrative duties .959 .7542 School Climate Stress Administrative duties 1.611 .5759 No administrative duties 1.503 .6257 Resources Stress Administrative duties 1.553 .8495 No administrative duties 1.505 1.0141 69 Question 5. Is there a difference between self-reported personality type and the overall stress level reported for teaching, collegiality, school climate, administration, and resources? (Section A6 with H were used to answer this question.) Table 12 reports means and standard deviations for overall stress level reported for teaching, collegiality, school climate, administration, and resources by personality types. No statistically significant differences (p < .05) were found between self-reported personality type and the overall stress level reported for teaching, F(1,105) = .099, p = .754; collegiality, F(1,105) = .272, p = .603; school climate, F(1,105) = .896, p = .346; administration, F(1,105) = .296, p = .588; and resources, F(1,105) = 1.557, p = .215 70 Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Stress Level Reported for Teaching, Collegiality, School Climate, Administration, and Resources by Personality Types Source of Overall Stress Self-Reported Personality Type a MSDn Teaching A B 1.58 1.52 .792 .849 80 27 Collegiality A B 1.01 1.11 .819 .934 80 27 School Climate A B 1.40 1.59 .936 .844 80 27 Administration A B 1.51 1.63 .928 1.079 80 27 Resources A B 1.34 1.63 1.090 .926 80 27 Note. a Self-Reported Personality Type A: Hard driving, competitive, structured, a self- starter, and with high sense of time urgency. Self-Reported Personality Type B: Easy going, relaxed, spontaneous and one who lets problems work themselves out. Question 6. What is the relationship between the overall stress level and the individual stress factors for a.Administration 71 b. School climate c. Resources Multiple Regression Analysis was used to analyze the relationship between the overall stress level and the individual stress factors for administration, school climate, and resources. The purpose of this analysis is to learn more about the relationships between several independent or predictor variables and a dependent or criterion variable. Table 13 reports means and standard deviations. Statistical significance was found in the relationship between the overall stress level and the individual stress factors for administration, school climate, and resources. Based on the relationship and looking at each variable alone, the strongest relationship is observed between the overall stress level and the individual stress factor due to school climate, r(103) = .819, p < .001. The second strongest relationship exists between overall stress level and the individual stress factor due to administration, r(103) = .797, p < .001. Stress due to resources has the lowest relationship to overall stress, r(103) = .648, p < .001. The multiple correlation coefficient (R), using all three variables is .953 and the adjusted R 2 is .905 meaning 91% of the variance in overall stress can be predicted from the three variables. 72 Table 13 Means and Standard Deviations on the Measure of Overall Stress Level and Individual Stress Factors for Administration, School Climate and Resources Factors M SD Teaching 1.56 .436 Collegiality 1.04 .803 School Climate 1.45 .846 Administration 1.54 .964 Resources 1.41 1.055 Personal Responses of Respondents Participants were asked four open-ended questions in the last section of the survey. The first question asked the respondents if they have implemented coping strategies to alleviate stress in their teaching. If the respondents answered yes, they were asked to list the strategies. Not all respondents answered the open-ended questions. Thirteen respondents reported that they leave school work at school, ten reported they make sure they are prepared and organized each day, eight reported exercising on a regular basis, and six reported relaxing frequently. Four respondents each reported taking medication, meditating, praying, and talking with colleagues to alleviate stress. Three respondents each reported learning to say no, seeking assistance from parents, taking personal days off from school, and decreasing time grading papers to alleviate stress. Two respondents each reported making plans to retire, keeping a positive attitude, avoiding contact with administration, listening to music, keeping in contact with 73 Alabama Education Association representatives, delegating work to other teachers or student aides, and drinking alcohol to alleviate stress. The remaining individual respondents who answered this question reported taking trips, utilizing a mentor, keeping students busy, counseling, reading motivational poems, and eating chocolate candy to alleviate stress. The second question asked respondents if the administration at their school implemented coping strategies to assist in dealing with stress. If the respondents answered yes, they were asked to list these strategies. Over 75 respondents reported that their administration had not implemented coping strategies. Twenty respondents left this question blank. Thirteen respondents reported that their administration conducted workshops as a coping strategy. Three respondents reported that their administration had put mentors in place as a coping strategy. The remaining individual respondents reported that their administration gave duty-free weeks and award opportunities, such as food and refreshments as coping strategies. The third question asked respondents if they had attended a stress management workshop. If respondents answered yes to this question, they were asked to explain the nature of the workshop. Eighty respondents reported that they had never attended a stress management workshop. Twenty respondents reported that they had attended a stress management workshop which topics included learning how to say no and relaxation techniques. The final question asked respondents if there were factors causing them stress that were not listed on the survey. If the respondents answered yes, they were asked to list these factors. Eight respondents reported that personal family problems of their own were 76 causing stress. Six respondents reported that having to go through Business and Industry Certification in their programs caused stress, and six reported that career-technical education paperwork was stressful. Five respondents reported that sponsorship of career- technical education student organizations was causing them to be stressed, and four reported lack of parent support was a problem. Two respondents each reported that new cooperative education guidelines, personal family problems of the students, interruption of classes, and fear of students bringing weapons to school caused stress. The remaining individual respondents who answered this question reported that unfair treatment of employees, politics on the school board, providing assignments to students in alternative school, lack of reinforcement of school uniforms, racism, teaching in a poverty area, and special education inclusion caused stress. 77 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Teaching is one of the most stressful occupations in the world. Stress in teachers has escalated over the years due to the demanding responsibilities of the profession. A research survey instrument was developed to assess the level of self-reported stress among business/marketing educators related to their jobs as teachers. Analyses were conducted to determine stress among secondary business/marketing educators in the State of Alabama public schools relating to school climate, administrative support, and resources. Analyses were also conducted to determine the factors causing stress in business/marketing educators and if business/marketing educators were receiving support from their administration in dealing with factors that cause stress. In the previous chapter, data collected from Alabama business/marketing educators utilizing the researcher-designed survey instrument entitled Stress Questionnaire were presented and analyzed. This chapter includes discussions of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Summary of Findings The majority of the Alabama business/marketing educators who participated in the study are female (87.9%) and fall in the age group of 40-49 years (33.6%). The average number of years of teaching experience was 14 years with the majority of the 78 respondents teaching in county school systems (57%). A masters degree (69.2%) was the highest degree held by the respondents. Business/marketing educators were asked if they considered themselves to exhibit Type A or Type B personalities. Most respondents reported exhibiting Type A personalities (74.8%). Business/marketing educators were asked if they performed additional duties and how much time they spent performing these duties. Most of the respondents reported performing additional duties (68%). Of those respondents who reported performing additional duties, 69% reported performing these duties 1-10 hours monthly. The highest number of hours reported by respondents as performing additional duties was 40 (3%). Respondents were also asked if they served as department chairs or cooperative education coordinators. Most of the respondents (62.6%) reported not serving as department chair and not serving as cooperative education coordinators (82.2%). Alabama business/marketing educators were asked their perceived level of stress as it related to administration, school climate, and resources. The findings of this study indicated that respondents felt school climate caused a mild level of stress, school administration caused a mild to moderate level of stress, and resources caused a mild to moderate level of stress. There was a significant difference found in this study r(105) = .35, p < .05 in the relationship between school climate and the level of support received from administrators in dealing with school climate. In terms of the strength of the relationship, the Coefficient of Determination, adjusted R 2 = .111 indicates that 11% of the variance in school climate stress can be explained by the level of support received from administration in dealing with school climate. There was also a significant difference r(105) = .36, p < .05 in the 79 relationship between resources and the level of support received from administrators in dealing with resources. In terms of the strength of the relationship, the Coefficient of Determination, adjusted R 2 = .122 indicates that 12% of the variance in resources stress can be explained by the level of support received from administration in dealing with resources. Ironically, higher the level of support participants perceived they received from their administration in dealing with school climate and resources produced higher levels of stress. No statistically significant differences were found in the level of stress associated with administration, school climate, resources, and personal characteristics when analyzed by demographic factors such as gender, teaching experience, degree, school system, and administrative responsibilities. Multivariate tests indicated no significant difference in gender F(4,102) = 1.590, p = .183; teaching experience F(4,102) = 1.956, p = .107, degree F(4,102) = 1.193, p = .305, school system F(4,102) = 1.922, p = .112 or administrative responsibilities F(4,102) = 2.645, p = .038. No statistical significant differences were found between self-reported personality type and the overall stress level reported for teaching, collegiality, school climate, administration, and resources. However, statistically significant differences were found in the relationship between the overall stress level and the individual stress factors for administration r(103) = .797, p < .001, school climate r(103) = .819, p < .001 and resources r(103) = .648, p <. 001. Based on the relationship and looking at each variable alone, the strongest relationship is observed between the overall stress level and the individual stress factor due to school climate. The second strongest relationship exists 80 between overall stress level and the individual stress factor due to administration. Stress due to resources has the lowest relationship to overall stress. Individual responses to open-ended questions revealed coping strategies some business/marketing educators or their administrators used to alleviate stress in their teaching. Factors causing stress that were not covered on the research instrument were also mentioned. Conclusions The following conclusions were based on the findings of the study. 1. Stress conditions exist in Alabama business/marketing education teachers in the areas of administration, school climate, and resources which have an impact on the job performance of these teachers. 2. There is a lack of administrative support received by business/marketing educators in dealing with factors that cause stress. When stress factors were correlated using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation with the perceived level of administrative support received relating to these factors, data ironically indicated that the higher the level of support received from administration, the higher the level of stress experienced by teachers. 3. School systems lack workshops and other stress management techniques to assist educators in implementing coping strategies to reduce or help to alleviate stress. 81 Recommendations Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations are made: 1. School systems should promote an awareness of health knowledge in their schools regarding teacher stress in the areas of administration, school climate, and resources through communication and training. 2. School administrators should implement administrative support systems to ensure that all teachers have an avenue to collaborate and solve issues which cause stress. 3. School systems should implement stress management workshops, stress reduction activities, and coping strategies through in-service or professional development programs. 4. School systems should also implement stress management strategies that target teachers who are older than their younger cohorts. 82 REFERENCES Abel, M.H., & Sewell, J. (1999). Stress and burnout in rural and urban secondary school teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 287-293. Adams, E., Camp, W.G. & Heath-Camp, B. (1999). Vocational Teacher Stress and the Educationa System. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 24(30, 133-144. Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Anderson, M.A. & Sinha, R. (1999). Business teaching as a career in the United States. NABTE Review, 26, 28-33. Austin, V, Shah, S, & Muncer, S. (2005). Teacher stress and coping strategies used to reduce stress. Occupational Therapy International, 12(2), 63-80. Baggett v. Industrial Commission, No. 90385 (Marion County School District No. 2, March 29, 2001). Basson, C.J.J., Van der Westhuizen, P.C., and Niemann, G.S. (1991). Organisasieleer, p. 615-683. In: Doeltreffende Onderwyshestuur. Pretoria: HAUM. Bennett, H. (1997). Managing Teacher Stress. Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(2), 292-293. Bertoch, M., Neilson, E., Curley, J., Borg, W. (1989). Reducing teacher stress. Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 117-128. Black, S. (2003). Stroking Stressed-Out Teachers. American School Board Journal, 190, 28-32. 83 Blase`, J.J. (1986). A qualitative analysis of sources of teacher stress: Consequences for performance. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 13-40. Bloch, A.M. (1977). The battered teacher. Today?s Education, 66(2), 58-65. Borg, M. & Riding, R. (1991). Occupational Stress and Satisfaction in Teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 263-282. Brightwell, M.A. (1985). Factors involved in burnout among West Virginia teachers of exceptional children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University. Brown, S. & Nagel, L. (2004). Preparing Future Teachers To Respond To Stress: Sources and Solutions. Action in Teacher Education, 26(1), 34-42. Brown, Z.E. & Uehara, D.L. (1999). Coping with teacher stress: A research synthesis for Pacific educators. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Bru, E., Stephens, P., & Torsheim, T. (2002). Students? perception of class management and reports of their own misbehavior. Journal of School Psychology, 40(4), 287-307. Byrne, B.M. (1992). Investigating causal links to burnout for elementary, intermediate and secondary teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Byrne, B.M. (1993). The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Testing for factorial validity and invariance across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 3, 97-211. Calabrese, R.L. (1987). The Principal: An agent for reducing teacher stress. NASSP Bulletin, 71, 66-70. 84 Camp, W.G. & Heath-Camp, B. (1990). The teacher proximity continuum: A conceptual framework for the analysis of teacher-related phenomena. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Vocational Association, Cincinnati, OH. Carey, G. (1998). Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA): I. Theory. Retrieved March 6, 2007 from http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring07/federicoc/psy8815/lectures/Stats_Le cture7_Reading.pdf Carvel, J. (1999, October 1). Overworked teacher awarded $47,000. The Guardian. Cooper, C.L., & Marshall, J. (1980). White collar and professional stress. New York: Johnson Wiley & Sons. Creech, S. (2003). Multivariate Analysis and MANOVA. Retrieved September 27, 2007 from http://Statisticallysignificantconsulting.com/Manova-Statistic-SPSS.htm Crute, S. (2004). Teacher Stress. NEA Today, 22(4), 34-35. D?Arienzo, R.V., Moracco, J.C. & Krajewski, R.J. (1982). Stress in teaching: A comparison of perceived occupational stress factors between special education and regular classroom teachers. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America. DeCicco, E.K. & Allison, J. (1999). Ockhams?s Razor applied: It?s mission clutter. Childhood Education, 75, 273-275. Dunham, T. (1984). Stress in teaching. London: Croom Helm. Dussault, M., Deaudelin, C. Royer, N. & Loiselle, J. (1997). Professional isolation and stress in teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago. 85 Dworkin, A.G. (1987). Teacher burnout in the public schools: Structural causes and consequences for children. Albany State, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Everyday problems stress teachers the most. (2002, October 22). The Washington Post, p. A16. Farber, B. (2000). Treatment strategies for different types of teacher burnout. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 675-689. Farber, B.A. (1984). Teacher burnout: Assumptions, myths and issues. Teachers College Record, 86(9), 321-332. Farber, B.A. (1991). Crisis in education: Stress and burnout in the American teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fielding, M. & Gall, M. (1982). Personality and situational correlates of teacher stress and burnout. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Fields, J.C. (1993). Total quality for schools: a suggestion for American Education. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASOC Quality Press. Fimian, M.J. (1982). What is teacher stress? The Clearing House, 56, 101-105. Fimian, M.J. (1988). Teacher stress inventory manual. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Company, Inc. Fimian, M.J., & Santoro, T.M. (1983). Sources and manifestations of occupational stress as reported by full-time special education teachers. Exceptional Children, 49(6), 530-540. Frederick, J.G. (2001). Why teachers leave. The Education Digest, 66(8), 46-48. 86 Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.H. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: competencies for analysis and applications (7 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J., Merrill prentice Hall. Gaziel, H.H. (1993). Coping with occupational stress among teachers: A cross-cultural study. Comparative Education, 29(1), 67-79. Goodall, R. & Brown, L. (1980). Understanding teacher stress. Action in Education, 26, 17-22. Gold, Y. & Roth, R.A. (1993). Teachers managing stress and preventing burnout. Bristol, Pennsylvania: The Falmer Press. Goldberger, L. & Brenitz, S. (1993). Handbook of Stress. New York: McMillan. Gravetter, F.J. and Wallanu, L.B. (2002). Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Thomson Learning, Inc. Green, S.B., Salkins, N.S., & Akey, T.M. (1997). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. Green-Reese, S., Johnson, D., & Campbell, W. (1991). Teacher job satisfaction and teacher stress: School size, age, and teaching experience. Education, 112(2), 247- 252. Greenberg, H.M. (1969). Teach with feeling, compassion and self-awareness in the classroom today. New York: Macmillan. Gupta, N. (1981). Some sources and remedies of work stress among teachers. Report No. 51 019 326. Austin, TX: ERIC No. Ed. 211 496. 87 Hagler, C.M. (1990). The Business Educator?s Role in Stress Management. Business Education Forum, Jan., p. 3-5. Hammond, O.W., & Onikama, D.L. (1997). At risk teachers. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Educational Learning. Harris, C. (1999). The relationship between principal leadership styles and teacher stress in low socioeconomic urban elementary teachers as perceived by teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60100, 1911. Hartsell, T., Ricker, A., & Calmes, R. (2002). What teacher think: Intellectual, social, and physical changes in students since 1993. Educational Horizons, 45 (1), 45-51. Heath-Camp, B. & Camp, W.G. (1990). What new teachers need to succeed. Vocational Education Journal, 65, 14, 20-24. Hiebert, B. (1985). Stress and teachers. The Canadian Scene. Canadian Education Association, Toronto. Hinkle, L.O. (1973). The concept of stress in the biological and social sciences. Science, Medicine and Man, 1, 31-48. Hoffman, R. & Kocar, M. (1989). Introducing Objectivity in Evaluating Writing Assignments. The Bulletin, 52(3), 25. Hubert, J.A. (1984). The relationship of school organizational health and teacher need satisfaction to teacher stress. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45,05-A, 1343. Humphrey, J.N. & Humphrey, J.H. (1986). Coping with stress in teaching. New York: AMS. 88 Hunter, M. (1977). Counter irritants to teaching. Paper presented at the American Association of School Administrators Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV. Ivancevich, J.M., & Matteson, M.T. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. New York: Praeger. Iwanick, E.F. (1983). Toward understanding and alleviating teacher burnout. Theory into Practice, 12, 27-32. Jarvis, M. (2002). Teacher stress: a critical review of recent findings and suggestions for future research directions. Stress News, 14(1). Kaiser, J.S. & Polczynski, J.J. (1982). Sources reactions, preventions. Peabody Journal of Education, 59(2), 127-136. Kedjidjian, C.B. (1995). Say no to booze and drugs in your workplace. Safety and Health, 152(6), 38-42. Kiff, S.C. (1986). Combating Teacher Burnout. Business Education Forum. April/May, p. 15-18. Klanderman, S. (1985). A study of teacher stress and principal leadership style in private urban schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46/09, 2503. Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher stress and burnout: An international review. Educational Research, 29, 146-152. Kyriacou, C. & Sutcliffe, J. (1978). Teacher Stress: Prevalence, Sources, and Symptoms. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 159-167. Lane, D. (2003). ?Properties of Pearson?s r.? Retrieved March 6, 2007 from the Connexions Web site: http://cnx.org/content/m10951/2.2/ 89 Laughlin, A. (1984). Teacher stress in an Australian setting: the role of biographical mediators. Educational Studies, 10, 7-22. Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw- Hill. Manera, E.S. & Wright, R.E. (1981). Can you identify your source of stress? The Clearing House, 55, 53-58. Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Clifts, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Meyers, J.A. (1980). Help! Teachers can?t teach. Time Magazine. Miller, W.C. (1979). Dealing with stress: A challenge for educators. Fastback 130. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa. Milstein, M. & Golaszewski, T.J. (1985). Effects of organizationally based and individually based stress management efforts in elementary school settings. Urban Education (4), 389-409. Natale, J. (1993). Why teachers leave. The Executive Educator, 7, 14-18. Nisbet, M.K. (1999). Worker?s compensation and teacher stress. Journal of Law and Education, 28, 531-542. O?Connor, B.N. & Regan, E.A. (1986). Reducing Stress In the Automated Office. Business Education Forum, Oct., p. 22-24. Pacific Region Educational Laboratory R & D Cadre. (1995). A study of risk factors among high school students in American Samoa. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Region Educational Laboratory. Pares, P. (1995). Prolonged teacher stress as a function of teachers perceptions of principal leadership style, adaptability and teachers belief system. (Doctoral 90 dissertation, College of William and Mary). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(6A), 2119. Pedhazur, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, New Jersey: LEA. Peterson, G., Pietrzak, D., & Speaker, K. (1996). The enemy within: A national study on school violence and prevention. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394907. Pettegrew, L.S. & Wolf, G.E. (1983). Validating Measures of Teacher Stress. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 373-396. Phillips, B.M. (1993). Stress of teachers in public schools: An educational and psychological perspective on stress in students, teacher, and parents. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing. Pierce, R.B. (1969). An analysis of the impact of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 on business education in the public secondary schools of Missouri with implications for teacher preparation. (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International. Pithers, R.T. & Soden, R. (1999). Person-environment fit and teacher stress. Educational Research, 41(1), 51-61. Quick, J.C., & Quick, J.D. (1984). Organizational stress and preventive management. New York: AMS Press. Rean, A.A., & Baranov, A.A. (1998). Factors on teachers? tolerance of stress. Russian Education and Society, 40(5), 52-68. Reese, R. (2004). The Bottom Line. American School Board 91 Journal, Aug., p. 26-27. Reiter, M. (2003). Before It?s Too Late: Curing teacher burnout. (Unpublished Master?s Thesis, 2003.) Caldwell College. Remley, D. (1985). Teacher stress and strain. Thrust, 14, 46-47. Roderick, J. & Augustin, H. (1991). Make Stress A Positive Force. Business Education Forum, Jan., p. 28-30. Ruhland, S.K. An Examination of Secondary Business Teachers? Retention Factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 1-5, 2002). Saville, A. (1979). Teacher stress is a problem for many in suburban Nevada. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 676. Schamer, L.A. & Jackson, M.J. (1996). Coping with stress: Common sense about teacher burnout. Education Canada, 36(2), 28-31. Schonfeld, I. (2001). Stress in first-year women teachers: the context of social support and coping. Genetics, Social & General Psychology-Monography, 127(2), 133- 169. Scott, E. (2006). Type A Personality Traits: Characteristics and Effects of a Type A Personality. About, Inc. The New York Times Company. Seiler, R.E. & Pearson, D.A. (1984). Stress Among Accounting Educators in the United States. Research in Higher Education, 1(3), 301-316. Selye, H. (1974). Stress: Without distress. New York: Lippincott & Cromwell. Shannon, D.M. & Davenport, M.A. (2001). Using SPSS To Solve Statistical Problems: A Self-Instruction Guide. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 92 Shuit, D.P. (2003). At 60, Myers-Briggs is still sorting out and identifying people?s types. Workforce Management, 82(13),72-74. Smith, D., & Milstein, M.N. (1984). Stress and teachers: Old wine in new bottles. Urban Education, 19, 39-51. Steers, R.M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 46-56. Tammar, R. (1998). Impacts of stress, especially as it applies to teacher burnout. Retrieved January 7, 2005 from http:www.collegecourseonline.com/renewal/trail3/outcomes/matrix/impacts3.html Tanner, O. (1976). Stress. New York: Time-Life Books. Terry, P.M. (1997). Teacher burnout: Is it real? Can we prevent it? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Chicago, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 409 258. Travers, C.J. & Cooper, C.L. (1996). Teachers under pressure: stress in the teaching profession. New York: Rutledge. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1997). Job satisfaction among America?s teachers: effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher compensation. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Weiskopf, P.E. (1980). Burnout Among Teachers of Exceptional Children. Exceptional Children, 47, 18-23. Wilkins, M. & Graves, P.R. (1991). Demographic Trends ? challenges for business education. NABTE Review, 18, 21-23. 93 Woods, A.M., & Weasmer, J. (2002). Maintaining job satisfaction: Engaging professionals as active participants. The Clearning House, 75, 186-189. Worrall, N., & May, D. (1989). Toward a person-in-situation model of teacher stress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 174-186. Yaworski, S.E. (1975). An analysis of the interests, personal and educational background of selected business educators. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota) Dissertation Abstracts International, 3b(2), 674A. 94 APPENDICES 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 APPENDIX D MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE LEVEL OF STRESS CAUSED BY ADMINISTRATION (SECTION B OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT) n=107 Factors MSD Cooperativeness of principal in 1.13 .98 dealing with teaching duties and deadlines Involvement in school decision 1.19 .94 making Recognition by administration of 1.06 1.04 good teaching practices Additional administrative tasks 1.33 .94 assigned by the principal Leadership style of the principal 1.61 1.09 Relationship between faculty and 1.50 .97 administration Support from principal when dealing 1.16 1.07 with parents Unfair deadlines for lesson plans .88 .90 and reports Note. Likert-type scale 0 = No Stress 1 = Mild Stress 2 = Moderate Stress 3 = Extreme stress 103 APPENDIX E MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE LEVEL OF STRESS CAUSED BY SCHOOL CLIMATE (SECTION C OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT) n = 107 Factors MSD Overall school climate (Atmosphere 1.56 .88 of the learning environment) Minor student discipline (excessive 1.49 .82 talking, getting out of seat, display of cell phone, or horseplay) Verbal or physical abuse by students 1.05 .99 toward teacher in the classroom Motivation of students in the 1.93 .88 classroom Accountability regarding ?No Child 1.82 1.04 Left Behind? Legislation Modification of the curriculum for 1.93 .82 special needs students Dealing with low student 2.03 .85 achievement Threat of lawsuits in my school .87 .89 system Overall teacher morale 1.53 .87 Note. Likert-type scale 0 = No Stress 1 = Mild Stress 2 = Moderate Stress 3 = Extreme stress 104 APPENDIX F MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT RECEIVED IN DEALING WITH SCHOOL CLIMATE (SECTION D OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT) n = 107 Factors M SD Overall school climate (Atmosphere 1.90 .83 of the learning environment) Minor student discipline (excessive 1.82 .90 talking, getting out of seat, display of cell phone, or horseplay) Verbal or physical abuse by students 2.13 .96 toward teacher in the classroom Motivation of students in the 1.69 .88 classroom Accountability regarding ?No Child 2.01 .96 Left Behind? Legislation Modification of the curriculum for 1.82 .97 special needs students Dealing with low student 2.03 .85 achievement Threat of lawsuits in my school .87 .89 system Overall teacher morale 1.53 .87 Note. Likert-type scale 0 = No Support 1 = Mild Support 2 = Moderate Support 3 = Total Support 105 APPENDIX G MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE LEVEL OF STRESS CAUSED BY RESOURCES (SECTION E OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT) n = 107 Factors MSD Resources (textbooks, workbooks, 1.11 1.03 reference books, etc.) Funds for program improvement 1.42 1.09 Up-to-date equipment 1.61 1.12 Up-to-date software 1.61 1.11 Technology support personnel to 1.94 1.09 solve computer technology problems Note. Likert-type scale 0 = No Stress 1 = Mild Stress 2 = Moderate Stress 3 = Extreme stress 106 APPENDIX H MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT RECEIVED IN DEALING WITH RESOURCES (SECTION F OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT) n = 107 Factors M SD Resources (textbooks, workbooks, 1.79 1.03 reference books, etc.) Funds for program improvement 1.51 1.01 Up-to-date equipment 1.55 1.10 Up-to-date software 1.51 1.10 Technology support personnel to 1.59 1.05 solve computer technology problems Note. Likert-type scale 0 = No Support 1 = Mild Support 2 = Moderate Support 3 = Total Support 107 APPENDIX I MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS EXPERIENCED ON THE JOB AS TEACHER (SECTION G OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT) n = 107 Characteristics MSD I feel fatigued and frustrated 2.38 .94 on my job as a teacher I am absent from work due to 2.84 .52 fatigue and frustration I often consider finding another 2.96 1.05 field of work I am dissatisfied with the stress 2.46 1.00 of teaching I have lost my enthusiasm for 2.88 .99 teaching due to stress I put more effort in my preparation 2.72 .89 for teaching due to stress Stress does not impact my teaching 2.78 .92 performance Stress does not have an impact on my 2.47 .82 performance evaluation (PEPE) I am satisfied with my job as a 2.05 .95 teacher and will probably retire from this position Note. Likert-type scale 0 = Strongly Agree 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree 3 = Strongly Disagree 108 APPENDIX J MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE OVERALL LEVEL OF STRESS (SECTION H OF THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT) n = 107 Factors M SD Teaching 1.56 .80 Collegiality (Mutual respect, 1.04 .85 collaboration, and positive working relationship with other teachers) School climate 1.45 .91 Administration 1.54 .96 Availability of resources 1.41 1.05 Note. Likert-type scale 0 = No Stress 1 = Mild Stress 2 = Moderate Stress 3 = Extreme Stress