1、中文 1652 字 外文翻译 原文 2 Teaching Satisfaction Scale Measuring Job Satisfaction of Teachers The present study sought to develop a measure of teaching satisfaction.We defined teaching satisfaction based on Lockes (1969) concept of job satisfaction“the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the apprais
2、al of ones job as achieving or facilitating ones job values” (p. 316). Lockes definition is commonly used by other researchers (e.g., Ho, 2003； Hoy & Miskel, 1991； Ma & MacMillan, 1999； McCormick & Ilgen, 1980； Muchinsky, 1991； Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996； Wu & Watkins, 1996). Teaching satisfaction is
3、a function of the perceived relation between what one wants from ones job and what one perceives teaching as offering or entailing. This is the product resulting from attitudinal and affective responses of teachers. Facet Versus Global Measure Global and facet measures are two general ways to measur
4、e teaching satisfaction originated from the distinction of bottom-up versus top-down theories (e.g., Maddi, Bartone, & Puccetti, 1987； Schroeder & Costa, 1984). Top-down theories maintainthat individuals are predisposed to experience and react to events and circumstances in positive or negative ways
5、, and therefore a global dimension of measurement is preferred. The respondent gives an overall evaluation of the various aspects of the job and produces an integrated response. Bottom-up theories suggest that teaching satisfaction is derived from a summation of pleasurable and unpleasurable moments
6、 and experiences. In other words, satisfaction comes from a number of particular domains (e.g., good colleagues relationship, clear work role, and happy teaching environment). Facet measures target on specific aspects of their jobs. Most researchers adopt the facet approach to measure satisfaction (
7、e.g., Job Descriptive Index JDI； Smith, Kendall,&Hulin, 1969, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Warrs Job Satisfaction Scale WJSS；Warr, Cook,&Wall, 1979) because not only can the domains of contributing to teaching satisfaction be found, but the overall level of satisfaction is obtained thro
8、ugh simply adding up all the domain scores. However, the facet approach has several methodological problems. Problems of the Facet Approach First, some researchers assume that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. An example is the JDI, which sums scores of five subscales despite serious probl
9、ems with this procedure. In fact, the JDI scale was not designed to be aggregated across the five dimensions. The JDI was constructed to measure five distinctively different areas. Furthermore, these five dimensions are only moderately correlated (.25 to .45； Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and repre
10、sent at least five factors. Improper aggregation would distort the findings and interpretations eventually. Second, these facet scales usually involve too many items for practical use. For example, the JDI is a 72-item modified adjective checklist. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Da
11、wiss, England, & Lofquist, 1967) is a 100-item instrument measuring 20 facets of job satisfaction. A respondent needs to complete 100 items for a single measurement of satisfaction. They are time-consuming in survey Administration. Although the WJSS, which is a 14-item bipolar scale that classifies
12、satisfaction/ dissatisfaction into three underlying factors, is free from the first two shortcomings, there is no consensus regarding the number of facets contributing towards teaching satisfaction, which ranges between 3 and 13 (e.g., Coughlan, 1971； Kim & Loadman, 1994； Sergiovanni, 1969； Smilansk
13、y, 1984). The absence of consensus on the number of facets arises from the researchers belief and judgment on what factors should contribute to teaching satisfaction. It is difficult to judge how many facets, and in what proportions, should represent the overall teaching satisfaction. Based on Locke
14、s (1969) definition of “teaching satisfaction,” affective feelings come from a decision process of weighing ones circumstances with what is thought to be an appropriate standard. A person evaluates a large number of daily events or incidents to make a judgment on the level of work satisfaction. The
15、whole decision process is not externally imposed. As Campbell (1976) argued, the process resides within the experience of the individual. It centers on the persons own subjective judgments, and there searcher should not force a person to use a predetermined set of criteria to evaluate the teaching s
16、atisfaction experience. However, facet measurements (including WJSS) do impose those criteria upon the respondents. Although affect or satisfaction within a certain domain may be assessed, the emphasis is usually placed on an integrated judgment of the persons job. The simple evaluation of job satis
17、faction from work domains may be inadequate to present a true and fair picture. Therefore, it is our opinion that a global measure is preferred to a facet measure to evaluate teaching satisfaction. Inadequacies of Available Global Scales The Brayfield-Rothe Job Satisfaction Scale (BRJSS； Brayfield a
18、nd Rothe, 1951) scale is a global measure of teaching satisfaction that is commonly adopted by many researchers. However, it measures the affective level of the present job only. According to Lockes (1969) definition, the evaluation of teaching satisfaction involves a cognitive,judgmental process as
19、 well. Solely measuring the affective state of teachers cannot fully address teaching satisfaction. As Hart (1994) stated, “emotional responses, however, are only one component . . . , it is also necessary to consider the cognitive dimension” (p. 110). Job satisfaction is a kind of subjective well-b
20、eing. When the level of job satisfaction is assessed, it involves an integrated judgment of the persons job, and therefore, affective state and cognitive judgment based on daily work experiences should be taken into account simultaneously. Author: Chung-Lim Ho & Wing-Tung Au Nationality: USA Originate from： Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2006(66), 172 185
