Predicting work satisfaction of teachers based on the teaching supervision behaviors of principal persons: Basis for Strategies to improve educational supervisor performance in curriculum reform www.jsser.org Journal of Social Studies Education Research Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2021:12 (1), 194-215 The Effect of a Principal’s Instructional Supervisory Practice on Teacher Satisfaction in the Religious Ministry Schools of Semarang, Indonesia Mustaqim1 Abstract In this empirical analysis, teachers' understandings of this activity examined the effect of the instructional supervisory praxis of a teacher's satisfaction. It also examined whether other demographic factors affect teacher’s work comfortable, e.g. school category, gender, lesson to teach, and work duration. This research used a correlational survey design that applied a quantitative approach. Instrinsic variables included instructional supervision and teacher satisfaction, which emerged as the first and second variables. This study assigned 374 teachers as respondents and 72 schools, all of which are Islamic elementary schools with the school names ranging from Islamic Elementary School 50, Junior Islamic School 12, and Islamic Senior School 10. The research instrument used in this study was a questionnaire on supervision. Teachers' total satisfaction and level of job satisfaction were found to be statistically significant correlates of their teaching performance, suggesting that instructional supervisory style is an important determinant of how teachers perform. The determination coefficient shows that principals' supervisory activities lead to 93.7 percent of the total difference in the managerial satisfaction of students. Furthermore, the Pearson correlation coefficient for this relationship was positive and reasonably high (R = 0.968), and the supervisory activities of principals were statistically important measures of the executive satisfaction of teachers. The ANOVA analysis revealed that only a certain school has a positive influence on work satisfaction, gender, and lesson whereas length of experience has no significant effect. Keywords: teachers; happiness at work; key behavior; supervision of instruction Introduction It is important to examine teacher satisfaction, since this affects how well teachers work (Arnett, Laverie, & McLane, 2002; Denton, Baliram, & Cole, 2021; Hill & Uribe-Florez, 2020; Hodgson et al., 2017; Klassen et al., 2012). Satisfied teachers provide their students with higher educational quality and improved learning support, content teachers display greater dedication to work and especially important when teacher turnover is high (Abu Karsh, 2018; Kara, 2020; Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). Teachers are vital to adapting student requirements, cultural, social trends, information, communication, and technology to meet students' needs while also ensuring traditional morality and social morality are preserved (Kaur, 2020; Lien, et. al., 2021; Mania & Alam, 2021; Minken et al., 1 State Islamic University of Walisongo, Semarang, Indonesia, mustaqimsamadi@yahoo.com Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 195 2021; Sirisuthi & Chantarasombat, 2021; Skoumios & Skoumpourdi, 2021; Walters et al., 2018). Teacher satisfaction also applies to school systems, which are too often overlooked (Solikhah & Budiharso, 2020; Chapagain, 2021). Every nation today wants to profit from education methods that are successful, and this is critical to creating stable education systems. By specifying how school leaders should supervise teaching activities while stressing a collaborative approach toward teachers, it is better to try to achieve better results in nations with high educational standards (Agostinelli & McQuillan, 2020; Zakariya, Bjorkestol & Nilsen, 2020). Literature shows that the involvement of school leaders has an impact on teachers' motivation. The key causes for teacher turnover and diminished prestige are a dissatisfactory working climate, with wages being a minor cause of discontent (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). The image of the profession is eroded when schools do not make sure that buildings are free of hazards or well-equipped for teachers, thus affecting the ability to recruit new teachers (Ingersoll, 2001; Din, Zaman & Nawaz, 2010). In this instance, we take a reference from Evans (1997), who calls that employee perceives that their job-related needs are met. Two kinds in teacher work satisfactory are acknowledged: work acceptance and work comfort. How works and opportunities are to an individual, personal accomplishments and significance within an occupation are to that person (Evans, 1997; Chapagain, 2021). There is currently little data available to identify the sources of teachers' happiness and feelings of gratitude. Despite previous studies that have investigated teacher happiness and gratitude separately and also looked into key management styles and their relationship to teachers' work efficiency and coordinated participation, there are few studies that comprehensively look at teachers' satisfaction (Thobega & Miller 2003; Salinas-Vasquez, et. al., 2020). This research examines to what extent educators enjoy their work. The greatest way to have an impact on teachers' performance and student learning is through the use of teacher management techniques (Chapagain, 2021; Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). Teachers may be tracked in different contexts, and therefore, we will include a short introduction to how monitoring works (Honegger, 2020). The Minister of National Education (2013) has its responsibility for ensuring all relevant laws and regulations are followed so that services are put to good use and resources are efficiently deployed to help achieve education goals. In turn, with the aid of school managers, boards, and departments, a principal manages the function and priorities of his or her school (Ayan & Kocacık, 2010). As part of his or her Mustaqim professional duties, it is important for a good school principal to ensure that educational expectations are followed (Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). This may include supervising the methods of teachers for courses taught in the school. Therefore, a school principal should visit the classrooms of a teacher at least once a year to find ways to enhance teaching efficiency and be (Budiharso & Tarman, 2020; Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). Teacher supervision research shows that results can vary with recent supervision. The evidence from empirical studies suggests that while principals believe supervision is important, they are not assigning enough time to it. teacher instructional supervision deficiencies are serious (Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). Yavuz (2010) reached the conclusion that supervisory staff did not have information on how teachers and principals can be effectively monitored and evaluated, basing their findings on a qualitative case study of eight school principals. Despite widespread agreement on the consistency and frequency of instructional supervision among school principals, a consensus remains elusive. Although, in a couple of cases, it has been found that some teachers consider teaching supervision of principals to be uncommon behavior (Yüce, 2010; Chapagain, 2021), most accept it as commonplace (Karatay, 2011). The only thing that can't be reconciled is that there is the conflicting factor of years of experience, subject matter being taught, and whether or not school standards contribute to a teacher's level of work satisfaction (Chapagain, 2021). In all this research analyzes activities of instructional supervisory made by school principals to predict educators work properness. More specifically, this study will (1) review perception of educators on their behavior of principals’ supervisory; (2) evaluate the degree to which educators’ work properness is determined by supervision of their principals; and (3) assess the level of educators’ work properness in references to kind of school, gender, course, length of work. Research questions As the guidance of the research procedures, two research questions below are sought to answer: 1) Does a principal’s instructional supervisory behavior affect teachers’ job satisfaction of teachers in the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Semarang? 2) To what extent do factors such as school type, gender, subject, and service period affect teachers’ satisfaction in the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Semarang? Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 197 Hypotheses 1) Ha1: A principal’s instructional supervision affects teachers’ job satisfaction in in the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Semarang. 2) Ha2: Factors such as kind of school, sex, course, and length of job affect educator’s satisfaction in the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Semarang. Literature review Teachers’ Work Satisfaction Work acceptance, which represents degree to which staffs are satisfied their work, has been broadly investigated on working environment (Judge et al., 2001), since this eventually affects their productivity and effectiveness (Arnett, Laverie & McLane, 2002). Job satisfaction is also related to career growth in literature (Margolis, 2008), organizational dedication (Brief & Weiss, 2002), and job participation (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Klassen et al., 2012; Chapagain, 2021). When employed people become dissatisfied with their jobs, their involvement naturally wanes, resulting in burnout or job abandonment (Budiharso & Tarman, 2020; Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). Studies on work satisfaction and retention of teachers generally use personal features, e.g. age, sex, professional attributes (e.g. length of work, graduation degree, involvement on vocational programmes), and teachers' motivation (e.g. self-effectiveness, teacher education) (Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). Individual Attributes Evidence indicates that age of teachers has been associated to work properness, though influence on sex is not detected (Sims, 2018). Teacher turnover indicates junior educators receive better wages than senior counterparts and female are more established than male (Ingersoll, 2001; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009). The evidences are partly because of the purposes of family rearing; younger female teachers leave schools but they prefer to teaching again (Allen, 2005). In teacher's gender and job satisfaction, there is substantial inconsistency even in similar national contexts. A report on the satisfaction of teachers showed no major gender differences, but female enjoyed to work as educators (Poppleton & Riseborough, 1990). Researches that correlate between work properness and sex of educator indicate inconsistencies, showing higher degree of work properness for female or male (Klassen & Mustaqim Chiu, 2010; Mertler, 2002; Soltero Lopez & Lopez, 2020). Although discrepancy in educators' views of job environment show some of the distinctions observed in these studies, differences in job satisfaction cannot be so easily explained, for instance, women found themselves feeling more stressed by student misbehavior and the stress of their jobs, resulting in a lower level of job satisfaction. Professional Characteristics With regard to teachers' subject-matter knowledge, their ability to handle subject areas (i.e., teacher subject-matter knowledge) and their teaching experience both impact on teachers' job satisfaction. While there is evidence to suggest that subject matter knowledge and teacher certification have little impact on teacher retention, there is little other research on the subject (Allen, 2005). The relation of work properness of educators, activities, and attitudes of school principals has also been identified by researchers. Principals directly affect the organizational atmosphere of their schools as educational leaders (Bryk et al., 2010). In addition, successful teacher-principal relationships are important to sustain educator properness as well as their attitude (Moolenaar, Daly & Sleegers, 2010; Nguni, Sleegers & Denessen, 2006). Teachers and school leaders who are satisfied with their work experience and their relationship with the administration are also likely to be engaged in their jobs (Price, 2012). Evans (2001), however, came to a different conclusion, saying job contexts ultimately depend on people. Within the behavior of teachers and work satisfaction, there is inevitably some kind of relationship, and research is needed to better understand it (Addai-Mununkum, 2019; Polat, 2020; Subedi & Subedi, 2020). Supervisory of Educator Principles of supervisory for educators are not new, but credentials have shifted recently. Approximately a century ago, teacher supervision started in the USA, and its present form has been with us since the mid-20th century. Different supervisory models have emerged, mainly based on the clinical supervisory model of Goldhammer (1969), which stressed the significance of empathy, cooperation, access, sensitivity on instructor's wants as well as activities of an effective supervisory process. The cyclical nature of the supervisory cycle was stressed by later researchers (Gall & Acheson, 2010; Cogan, 1973; Pajak, 1993; Zepeda, 2012). Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 199 Supervisory roles are multidimensional, and their definition and range of responsibilities has always changed in tandem with the ever-changing duties of teachers and educational leaders in the overall education process. Supervisory responsibilities range from routine management of curricular and instructional activities to scheduling and managing learning-related educational activities. Gall & Acheson (2010) note that supervisory goals should include providing positive feedback to students, resolving any problems in their training, helping teachers improve their teaching skills, and assessing the effectiveness of a teacher. The roles and responsibilities of school principals have expanded to include oversight responsibilities. Five primary tasks were described during supervision by Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon (2009): direct support, community development, intervention review, curriculum development, and professional advancement. Empirical Research for Teacher Supervision There were either inconclusive or negative findings from research on the efficacy of teacher supervision. Zepeda & Kruskamp (2007) found that in their supervisory positions, department chairs were unsure. Furthermore, time constraints and insufficient concentration restrict the efficacy of instructional supervision (Tarman, 2016; Wanzare, 2012). Moswela (2010) revealed that because of the hostile and intimidating climate it produces, monitoring was ineffective. The supervisor's conventional “inspection and control” attitude ensures that monitoring does not come into full play (Sidhu & Fook, 2010). Pansiri (2008) stated that principals restrict individual competence to guide educators effectively, while educators have shortages in imagination or innovation. Mestry, Hendricks & Bisschoff (2009) pointed out that the principal did not visit teaching classrooms to observe or track the teachings while teachers did not take such visits into account. Thus, it follows that the implementation of teacher supervision varies for various reasons. First, there are distinct opinions and aspirations of teachers and leaders regarding supervision, frequently mixing them with evaluation. They concluded that if they are to ensure successful and efficient teacher supervision, school leaders need to tackle many problems (Wanzare, 2012). Second, because of the weak interpersonal skills of supervisors and the lack of help given to teachers, teachers found instructional supervision to be insufficient (Gall & Acheson, 2010). Third, although supervision was considered a positive tool, concrete policies aimed at improving educational supervision were required. Fourth, while supervision is not directly Mustaqim connected to student achievement, an indirect link exists due to supervision helping teachers to engage more in their classrooms and classrooms to trust and cooperate with them (Ebmeier & Nicklaus, 1999). Empirical Research for Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction, since it is an important feature of professional life, is a common theme in management and organizational studies. Job satisfaction typically correlates with good performance because it affects the commitment, motivation, productivity, attendance and retention of employees (Fenwick 2006; Titanji & Yuoh, 2010). Employee satisfaction is linked to organizational commitment, morale and turnover of workers (Hsu, 2009) and knowing job satisfaction helps to gain an understanding of the occupational attitudes of teachers, including work performance and enthusiasm (Fuming, 2007). Studies have proven that teachers are unhappy with their jobs, which means they have a lower success rate when it comes to teaching (Shen, et. al., 2012). In other words, many teachers loved getting to work each day and looked forward to being teachers because they wanted to be a part of something they considered worthwhile (McConaghy, 1993). In other studies, educator work acceptance is lower at situations where their pay rate is low. Researchers looked at the relationships between individual attributes, e.g. age, temperament, psychosocial factors, economic variables, and work properness (Strydom et al., 2012). Methods Design The researchers combined a descriptive correlation survey design and a qualitative approach to gather data (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). This design was appropriate for a study that aimed to collect data about a large group of educators and search how supervisory behavior relates to the work satisfaction of educator. When an investigator is looking to investigate how correlated more measures, correlational designs are used (Vogt, 2005). Fraenkel & Wallen (2009) perform correlation research in order to decide how well two or more variables each predict. In the same way, Cresswell (2005) identifies correlational design into prediction and explanatory. Here, we applied a predictive correlational research. Study Sample Study’s sample (N=374) comprised teachers coming from Islamic primary schools (MI or SD), Islamic junior schools (MTs or SMP), and Islamic senior school (MA or SMA) in Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 201 Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia. The teachers for the sample were selected on cluster sampling. The sample was recruited from 50 MI, 12 MTs, and 10 MA. A number of 500 questionnaires were distributed, with one sent to each address. As an unintended consequence, the questionnaire's sample size was higher than the desired sample size, thus ensuring enough replies would be received in order to accept useful feedback as the sample size determined. When we examined the returned number of questionnaires, we found 74.8% of them were returned, resulting in a total of 374 responses. Table 1. Participants’ demographics Variable Level N % School type (1) MI 153 31.4 (2) MTs 126 35.9 (3) MA 95 14.1 Gender (1) Female 152 40.6 (2) Male 222 59.4 Subject (1) Islamic religion 99 26.5 (2) Social sciences (history, geography, social studies, foreign language, religion, etc.) 111 29.7 (3) Science and math 85 22.7 (4) Al-Quran and Hadiths 46 12.3 (5) Physical education, art, music, etc. 33 8.8 Service Period (1) 1–2 years 47 12.6 (2) 3–5 years 56 15 (3) 6–10 years 74 19.8 (4) 11–15 years 102 27.8 (5) 16–20 years 31 8.3 (6) 21 and more 64 17.1 Total 374 100 Instruments and Procedures We used two different questionnaires to assess the educator's work-satisfaction and principals' instructional management. The 14-item validated Work-Satisfaction Scale (Taşdan, 2008) asked how satisfied the test-taker was with their work life. A five-Likert scale responses were used: "Never Satisfies," "Adequately Satisfies," "Reasonably Satisfies," "Fairly Satisfies," and "Extremely Satisfies." Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) found that there were three sub- dimensions of the scale (see Table 2), namely managerial satisfaction (57.196%); adequacy of work-life (61.1%); economic services, self-development, and wellbeing (56.975%). The reliability coefficient for the principal component analysis was so high that no items were eliminated due to the EFA. Based on the main component analysis, the scale was identified as a three-indicator scale below KMO measure at 0.761-0.844 and above Bartlett coefficient at Mustaqim 0.000, with values within 0.761-0.844 and 0.000 respectively (Table 3). The load index was typically at 0.608 to 0.907. The structure for the Job Satisfaction Scale was therefore considered to be very accurate. Furthermore, the reliability coefficient was also high, showing that the employment level could be considered reliable and reliable. The researchers established the PISB (Principals’ Instructional Supervision Behavior) scale, which consisted of 23 items derived from an analysis of the literature. The PISB was a five-point Likert scale, with options such as "never," "rarely," "occasionally," "frequently," and "very frequently." The main component analysis had an EFA for scale which revealed that the scale was one- indicator with a KMO value of 0.967, and the Bartlett test value (0.000) was below the critical value (see Table 3). The factor loads ranged from 0.678 to 0.791. For the purpose of this study, the scale was deemed unidimensional because it accounted for 56.776% of total variance. Due to the scale's scale durability and construct validity, it was determined to have a high degree of internal consistency. Techniques to Analyze the Data We use SPSS (version 25) to evaluate the data obtained using the Job-Satisfaction and PISB scales, with the demographic variables being evaluated using percentages and frequencies. Table 2. The Job Satisfaction Scale’s validity and reliability Dimension Number of items KMO Explained variance (%) Factor loading range Reliability coefficient Item-total correlations range (1) Managerial satisfaction 4 0.763 57.196 0.689– 0.805 0.745 0.468– 0.605 (2) Adequateness of work life 6 0.844 61.100 0.608– 0.907 0.856 0.488– 0.802 (3) Economic facilities, self- development, and security 4 0,761 56,975 0.695– 0.786 0.742 0.473– 0.575 Table 3. The PISB scale’s validity and reliability Dimension Number of items KMO Explained variance (%) Factor loading range Reliability coefficient Item-total correlations range Principals’ Instructional Supervision Behavior (PISB) 23 0.967 56,776 0.678-0.791 0.965 0.648– 0.767 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 203 Results Classic Assumption Test This test is useful for determining whether there are deviations in the assumptions before regression, because the regression equation must not deviate from the BLUE (Best Linear Unbiased Estimator) criteria. The classical assumption test comprises the steps below. Normality Test This test is useful for determining a normal distribution of data. The Kolmogorov Smirnov test was used, where a KS Sig value above 5% indicates normality (Ghozali, 2018). Multicollinearity Test This test helps ensure the existence of the independent variables based on the VIF and tolerance values. The data are free from multicollinearity if tolerance is greater than 0.10 and the VIF value is less than 10 (Ghozali, 2018). Heteroscedasticity Test This test looks for the presence of heteroscedasticity with the Glejser test. Data is free from heteroscedasticity if the value of Glejser coefficient is larger than 0.05 (Ghozali, 2018). The results from these tests are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Classic assumption test Assumption Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Implication Normality Test KS Sig = 0.064 KS Sig = 0.076 KS Sig = 0.062 KS Sig = 0.055 Data is normal Multicollinearity Test Tolerance = 1 VIF = 1 Tolerance = 1 VIF = 1 Tolerance = 1 VIF = 1 Tolerance = 1 VIF = 1 Data is free of multicollinearity Heteroscedasticity Test Sig Glejser test = 0.065 Sig Glejser test = 0.075 Sig Glejser test = 0.057 Sig Glejser test = 0.052 Data is free from heteroscedasticity Based on the various test results, we saw that all the classical assumptions had been met, so we concluded that the regression model fulfilled the BLUE criteria. Predicting Job Satisfaction for Teachers Our hypothesis was as follows: Ha1: A principal’s instructional supervisory behavior affects teachers’ job satisfaction Mustaqim A basic linear regression model is applied to examine work satisfaction of educators, with the dependent variable being work acceptance and independent variable being supervisory behavior of principals. Regression analysis is used to see if supervisory behaviors of principals influenced teachers’ work satisfactory, as evaluated through the Job-Satisfaction Scale, as well as how much work acceptance of educators is described by supervisory behaviors of principals. According to the coefficient of determination (adjusted R2), the supervisory behaviors of principals accounted for 93.7% of the overall variation in teachers’ managerial satisfaction. The result of Pearson coefficient correlation is positive and high (R = 0.968). The supervisory behaviors of principals is statistically significant, stating teachers’ managerial acceptance (F = 5572.960, Sig. F = 0.000) has positive effect on work satisfactory. For the adequacy of work life, the adjusted R2 showed that the supervisory behaviors of principals explained 85.5% of the overall variance. The Pearson correlation coefficient was positive and fairly high (R = 0.925), and the supervisory behavior of principals was found to be a statistically important indicator of teachers’ perceived work-life adequacy (F= 2205.174, Sig F= 0.000). For work acceptance in terms of economic services, self-development, and security, the adjusted R2 showed that the supervisory behavior of principals explained 83.4% of the total variance. The Pearson correlation coefficient is positive and high (R = 0.914), and the supervisory behavior of principals is a statistically significant predictor for teachers’ work acceptance (F = 1877.024, Sig F = 0.000). Finally, for teachers’ overall work acceptance, the adjusted R2 showed that supervisory behavior of principals explained 90.4% of the total variance, and it predicted teachers’ overall work satisfactory is statistically significant (F = 3502.784, Sig F=0.000). These results indicate that teachers’ work satisfactory is related to principals’ teaching supervisory behavior, such that the greater that teachers’ managerial acceptance is, the more satisfied they are at work. Table 5. Predictors of job satisfaction for teachers Model R R2 Adjusted R2 SE of the estimate F Sig F 1 0.968 0.937 0.937 0.454 5572.960 0.000 2 0.925 0.856 0.855 1.034 2205.174 0.000 3 0.914 0.835 0.834 0.696 1877.024 0.000 4 0.951 0.904 0.904 1.903 3502.784 0.000 Comparison of Job-satisfaction Rates according to Demographic Factors Our hypothesis for this was as follows: Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 205 Ha2: The participants’ demographics—such as school type, gender, subject, and years of experience—affect their job satisfaction. Table 6. Parametric criteria and ANOVA test Parametric Criteria School Type Gender Subject Service Period Implication Normality Test (Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test) Sig = 0.092 Sig = 0.102 Sig = 0.148 Sig = 0.091 Data is normal Homogeneity Test (Levene’s Test) Sig =0.251 Sig = 0.951 Sig =0.660 Sig = 0.516 Data is homogeneous ANOVA F= 2.770 Sig F = 0.000 F= 0.847 Sig F=0. 685 F= 1.227 Sig F=0.208 F= 1.198 Sig F=0.234 As can be seen in Table 6, all the Kolmogorov–Smirnov values are greater than 0.05, indicating that the data follows a normal distribution. In addition, the homogeneity test with Levene’s test gave results that were all over 0.05, so it could be concluded that the data was homogeneous. The ANOVA test, meanwhile, showed that only the school type significantly influenced teachers’ job satisfaction, with gender, subject, and years of experience having no significant effect. Discussion and Conclusion Our findings show that supervisory practices of principals and teachers’ work acceptance at schools have positive impacts, thus adding to our body of knowledge about instructional supervision’s effect on the job satisfaction for teachers. More specifically, the research (1) evaluated teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ supervisory behavior; (2) investigated whether their job satisfaction was related to gender, school type, subject, or years of experience; and (3) established to what degree teacher satisfaction is predicted by a principal’s supervisory behavior. The findings indicate that the teachers favorably regarded the instructional supervision activities of their principals, but some statistically significant variations appear on teacher replies in terms of education degree, course, and duration of teaching. Similarly, the overall level of work satisfaction substantially differed according to education degree, course being taught, and the years of experience (Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). These variations warrant further scrutiny, so future research could explore in depth why MI educators receive higher degree of work acceptance and MA teachers accept a lower work Mustaqim satisfactory. Finally, the findings indicate that the supervisory behavior of principals is a substantial indicator on teachers’ work acceptance, indicating a request of further study into the nature of teaching supervisory. The recent research contributes theories by providing a detailed analysis of the relationship between the instructional supervisory activities of a principal and the job satisfaction of teachers (Sirisuthi & Chantarasombat, 2021; Lien, et. al., 2021; Chapagain, 2021). Supervisory Evaluation of Headmaster Our findings show that educators judge that headmasters show an acceptable degree of teaching supervisory (Karatay, 2011; Kaya, 2008; Klassen, et. al., 2012). Likewise, a South African study found that practices for professional growth contributed moderately to the satisfaction of teachers (Mestry, Hendricks & Bisschoff, 2009). Our findings suggest that the expectations of teachers for the instructional supervisory activities of principals did not vary according to the gender of teachers (Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021; Klassen, et. al., 2012). Given the inconclusive research, this study contributes to the debate by suggesting that more- experienced teachers have a better perception of their principals’ teaching supervision (Zakariya, Bjorkestol & Nilsen, 2020). This inference, however, may be attributable to a small sample in terms of the types of schools and the teaching subjects. Finally, this study found a discrepancy in teachers’ perceptions of teaching supervision depending on the type of school (Kaya 2008). Our research contributes data on teachers working in one region, comparing how they view the supervisory behaviors of their principals (Lien, et. al., 2021; Chapagain, 2021). Teachers’ Job Satisfaction An employee's job satisfaction is important for the company's overall success. Compared to Bowen’s et al. (2007) research, we found a relatively low degree of teacher acceptance work at a much lower level of performance than they would like, so there is a need to increase teacher work satisfactory. In recent times, assessment on teachers’ profession is considered crucial. The retention of effective teachers is heavily reliant on acceptance of their works. To meet the aims of schools, decision makers, headmasters, and stakeholders should share together how to select, hire, and prevent effective teachers so that the aims are achieved appropriate with the work credentials (Klassen & Smith, 2004). Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 207 According to Taylor (1911), people are economic beings, and money is a major factor in job satisfaction. It is also known that work satisfaction includes several non-money factors, such as challenges, opportunities for personal growth, and other non-extrinsic benefits. Following this, scholars such as Abraham Maslow, Frederick Herzberg, and Elton Mayo have tried to explain the variables that contribute to motivation, satisfaction and productivity. General features to define degree of work satisfactory comprise nature of work, payment, career, self-identity, advantages, and job environment. In broad terms, both intrinsic and extrinsic features in the workplace, affect work acceptance. Recently, researches have identified that individual features, such as sex, age, self-identity, competence, work attainment do influence degree of work acceptance (Beyene & Gituma, 2017). Money is, in fact, a major part of job satisfaction, according to Taylor (1911). When demographic factors were taken into consideration, our finding show that teacher work acceptance did not vary by gender. Gender has no effect on teachers' work satisfactory (Canbay, 2007; Hsu, 2009; Strydom et al., 2012). We agree that any differences between genders are unimportant enough to warrant investigation (Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021; Lien, et. al., 2021; Chapagain, 2021). The degree of work acceptance in general, directly related to school category where teachers get in touch, i.e. MI, MTs and MA. MI teachers reported of being more comfortable with their works than their colleagues in MTs and MA schools. Partially, MI or SD teacher requirements are much lower. In the end, our study found that teachers with more than a decade of experience had greater job satisfaction than teachers with a decade of experience or less (Toropova, Myrberg & Johansson, 2021). This refutes some prior studies, such as the aforementioned studies conducted on SMP teachers in Africa (Yaman, 2009; Yelboğa, 2012), but agrees with other studies on teachers in African secondary schools (George, Louw, & Badenhorst, 2008; Chapagain, 2021). It is unclear whether the practice of principals' instructional supervision influences teachers' job satisfaction; that is, whether it is the practice itself or whether this relates to the setting or culture (Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013). However, recent research shows that the instructional supervisory activities of principals and the roles of instructional leadership (Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013) are insufficient and intermittent, suggesting a need for reform. However, other research connects critical features of the environment and tasks that teachers perform to Mustaqim their feelings of satisfaction at work. Specifically, work acceptance is accessed to administrative support, which is related to unity of leadership, and headmaster’s mode of preference (Hariri, Monypenny & Prideaux 2012; Sirisuthi & Chantarasombat, 2021), administrative factors, and supervisory guidance at schools (Chapagain, 2021; Thobega and Miller, 2003; Lien, et. al., 2021). Conclusion and Implications In summary, teacher satisfaction has been proven to be affected by principal leadership. Demographic factors affect the motivation and happiness of teachers at work, including financial rewards, work safety, community links. School-management activities represent a factor that substantially influences the overall satisfaction of teachers, particularly job satisfaction. In light of these results, school authorities should pay further attention to how schooling is monitored. Indeed, leaders may benefit from rigorously focusing on the principles of effective instructor leadership, such that supervisors realize the importance of supervision activities for teacher productivity and the overall success of education. This study discovers a strong connection between work acceptance and supervisory practices of principals, thus gaining insights into how teachers feel when being monitored by a principal, the main aspects of the supervisory phase, and how the supervisory style of a principal can be enhanced. However, this study was constrained by convenience sampling, so the generalizability of its findings is limited. Future experiments could investigate associations between teacher satisfaction and supervisory policies in other countries, both within specific schools and on a broader national basis. Furthermore, contextual mechanisms should be used to help understand the leadership methods of effective and ineffective school principals and add to the literature for teacher retention and classroom monitoring by students. In short, this study revealed that key supervisory interventions could inspire or demotivate teachers. Our findings are of beneficial when analyzing factors that increase teachers’ success and innovate stronger schools. They may also inform scholars, educators, governments, and policy makers about teachers’ opinions on supervision of administrators. The relationship between managerial action and teachers’ acceptance has been well established in theory and practice, but this research indicates that teacher work satisfactory is close to supervisory behaviors of principals. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 209 References Abu Karsh, S. (2018). New Technology Adoption by Business Faculty in Teaching: Analyzing Faculty Technology Adoption Patterns. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 2(1), 17-30. Addai-Mununkum, R. (2019). Students’ representation of “other” religions. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 1(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.01.01.1 Agostinelli, A. & McQuillan, P. (2020). How Preservice Content Teacher Background Qualities Influence Their Attitude and Commitment to Supporting Multilingual Learners. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 2(2), 98-121. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2020.12 Arnett, D. B., D. A. Laverie, and C. McLane. (2002). Using Job Satisfaction and Pride as Internal- marketing Tools. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 87–96. Ayan, S., and F. Kocacık. (2010). The Relation between the Level of Job Satisfaction and Types of Personality in High School Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 27–41. Beyene, T., & Gituma, M. (2017). The influence of employee demographic factors on job satisfaction: A case study of Segen Construction Company, Eritrea. African Journal of Business Management, Article Number: 0D4069E66580, 608-618. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM2017.8403
 Bowen, G. L., W. B. Ware, R. A. Rose, and J. D. Powers. (2007). Assessing the Functioning of Schools as Learning Organizations. Children & Schools, 29, 199–208. Brief, A. P., and H. M. Weiss. (2002). Organisational Behaviour: Affect in the Workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279–307. Bryk, A. S., P. B. Sebring, E. Allensworth, S. Luppescu, and J. Q. Easton. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Budiharso, T. & Tarman, B. (2020). Improving Quality Education through Better Working Conditions of Academic Institutes, Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(1), 99-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/306 Canbay, S. (2007). The Relationship between the Locus of Control and Job Satisfaction of the Elementary School Teachers (unpublished masters’ dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University Graduate School of Social Sciences. Chapagain, Ram, Bal. (2021). Job Satisfaction among Academicians in Nepal: The Influence of Institutional Sector and Demographic Factors, Quantitative Economics and Management Studies (QEMS), 2(2), 94-104. https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.qems267 https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.01.01.1 https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2020.12 http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/306 Mustaqim Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Cresswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Denton, D. W., Baliram, N. S., & Cole, L. (2021). Understanding Why Math and Science Teachers Quit: Evidence of Cognitive Errors. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 9(2), 163-180. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1166 Din, S., Zaman, K., & Nawaz, A. (2010). Impacts of demographic variables on job satisfaction of the academicians in universities of NWFP, Pakistan. Bulletin of Education and Research, 32(1), 53-68. Ebmeier, H., and J. Nicklaus. (1999). The Impact of Peer and Principal Collaborative Supervision on Teachers’ Trust, Commitment, Desire for Collaboration, and Efficacy. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(4), 351–378. Evans, L. (2001). Delving Deeper into Morale, Job Satisfaction, and Motivation among Education Professionals. Educational Management and Administration, 29(3), 291–306. Fenwick, W. E. (2006). Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration. ThousandOaks, CA: SAGE. Fraenkel, J. R., and N. E. Wallen. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Fuming, X., and Jiliang, S. (2007). Research on Job Satisfaction of Elementary and High School Teachers and Strategies to Increase Job Satisfaction. Chinese Education and Society, 40(5), 86–96. Gall, M. D., and K. A. Acheson. (2010). Clinical Supervision and Teacher Development: Preservice and Inservice Applications (6th ed). New York: Wiley. George, D., and L. S. Mallery. (2001). SPSS for Windows Step by Step. A Simple Guide and Reference 15.0 Update (8th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. George, E., D. Louw, and G. Badenhorst. (2008). Job Satisfaction among Urban Secondary- school Teachers in Namibia. South African Journal of Education, 28(2), 135–154. Ghozali, I. (2018). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program IBM SPSS 25. Edisi 9. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro Glickman, C. D., S. P. Gordon, and J. M. Ross-Gordon. (2009). Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 211 Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical Supervision: Special Methods for the Supervision of Teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gumus, S., and M. Akcaoglu. (2013). Instructional Leadership in Primary Schools: An Analysis of Teachers’ Perceptions and Current Policy. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 41(3), 289–302. Hariri, H., R. Monypenny, and M. Prideaux. (2012). Principalship in an Indonesian School Context: Can Principal Decision-making Styles Significantly Predict Teacher Job Satisfaction? School Leadership and Management, 32 (5), 453–471. Hill, J.E. & Uribe-Florez, L. (2020). Understanding Secondary School Teachers’ TPACK and Technology Implementation in Mathematics Classrooms. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 3(1), 1-13. Hodgson, T.R., Cunningham, A., McGee, D., Kinne, L.J., & Murphy, T.J. (2017). Assessing Behavioral Engagement in Flipped and Non-Flipped Mathematics Classrooms: Teacher Abilities and Other Potential Factors. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 5(4), 248-261. DOI:10.18404/ijemst.296538 Honegger, M. (2020). What Does Education Mean: Cultural Values in Educational Language. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 3(2), 42-53. doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2020.12. Hsu, H. Y. (2009). Organizational Learning Culture’s Influence on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Turnover Intention among R&D Professionals in Taiwan during Economic Downturn (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of University of Minnesota. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2004). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33. Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. (2001). The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. Kara, S. (2020). Prospective Visual Arts Teachers’ Innovation Skills and Attitudes towards Computer Assisted Instruction. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(2), 98-107. Karatay, Ş. (2011). Primary School Principals’ Instructional Leadership Behaviors, (unpublished masters’ dissertation). Selçuk University Graduate School of Social Sciences. Mustaqim Kaur, D. (2020). Post-Positivist Approach to Factors that Influence K-12 Teachers’ Use of iPads and Chromebooks. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(1), 26-36. Kaya, G. (2008). Study of the Secondary School Teachers’ Opinions Regarding the Relationship between Principals’ Instructional Leadership and Their Decision Making Abilities] (unpublished masters’ dissertation). Yeditepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences. Klassen, R. M., & C h i u , M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and i n t e n t i o n to quit o f practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching c o n t ex t . Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(2), 114–129. Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741. Klassen, R. S., C. Aldhafri, E. Masfield, A. Purwanto, M. Siu Wong, and A. Woods- McConney. (2012). Teachers’ Engagement at Work: An International Validation Study. The Journal of Experimental Education 80(4), 317–337. doi:10.1080/00220973.2012.678409. Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in teacher mobility decisions. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 443–452. Lien, Ngoc, Thi, Nguyen; Khuyen, To, Thi, Nguyen; Tho, Thi, Nguyen, Hoa, Ngan, Nguyen, Hanh, Thi, Nguyen, Tho, Cam, Chu; Hai, Duy, Tuong & Bien, Van, Nguyen. (2021). Teacher’s Feelings of Safereness in School-Family-Community Partnerships: Motivations for Sustainable Development in Moral Education, International Journal of Evaluation and Research Education, 10(1), 97-107. DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20798 Mania, S. & Alam, S. (2021). Teachers’ Perception toward the Use of Ethnomathematics Approach in Teaching Math. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 9(2), 282-298. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1551 Margolis, J. (2008). What Will Keep Today’s Teachers Teaching? Looking for a Hook as a New Career Cycle Emerges. Teachers College Record, 110(1), 160–194. McConaghy, T. (1993). A Profile of the Teaching Profession in Canada. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 502–503. Mertler, C. (2002). Job satisfaction and perception of motivation among middle and high school teachers. American Secondary Education, 31(1), 43–53. Mestry, R., I. Hendricks, and T. Bisschoff. (2009). Perceptions of the Teachers on the Benefits of the Teacher Development Programmes in One Province of South Africa. South African Journal of Education 29(4), 475–490. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 213 Minken, Z., Macalalag, A., Clarke, A., Marco-Bujosa, L., & Rulli, C. (2021). Development of Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge during Lesson Planning of Socioscientific Issues. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 4(2), 113-165. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.50 Moolenaar, N. M., A. J. Daly, and P. J. C. Sleegers. (2010). Occupying the Principal Position: Examining Relationships between Transformational Leadership, Social Network Position, and Schools’ Innovative Climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 623–670. Moswela, B. (2010). Instructional Supervision in Botswana Secondary Schools: An Investigation. Educational Management, Administration, & Leadership, 38(1), 71–87. doi:10.1177/1741143209351811. Nguni, S., P. Sleegers, and E. Denessen. (2006). Transformational and Transactional Leadership Effects on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Primary Schools: The Tanzanian Case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145–177. Pajak, E. (1993). Approaches to Clinical Supervision: Alternatives for Improving Instruction. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Pansiri, N. O. (2008). Instructional Leadership for Quality Learning: An Assessment of the Impact of the Primary School Management Development Project in Botswana. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership, 36(4), 471–494. doi:10.1177/1741143208095789. Polat, S. (2020). Multidimensional analysis of the teaching process of the critical thinking skills. Research in Social Sciences and Technology (RESSAT), 5(2), 134-157. doi.org/10.46303/ressat.05.02.8 Poppleton, P., & Riseborough, G. (1990). A profession in transition: Educational policy and secondary school teaching in England in the 1980s. Comparative Education, 26(2–3), 211–226. Price, H. E. (2012). Principal-Teacher Interactions: How Affective Relationships Shape Principal and Teacher Attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39–85. Salinas-Vasquez, L., Varela, D. G., Martinez, M.E. & Jones, D. (2020). A comparative study of the 21st Century Afterschool Center on Education in elementary schools in south Texas. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 2(2), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2020.2 Shen, J., J. M. Leslie, J. K. Spybrook, and X. Ma. (2012). Are Principal Background and School Processes Related to Teacher Job Satisfaction? A Multilevel Study Using Schools and Staffing Survey 2003–2004. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 200– 230. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2020.2 Mustaqim Sidhu, G. K., and C. Y. Fook. (2010). Formative Supervision of Teaching and Learning: Issues and Concerns for the School Head. European Journal of Scientific Research, 39(4), 589–605. Sims, S. (2018). Essays on the recruitment and retention of teachers (Doctoral dissertation). University College London. Sirisuthi, C. & Chantarasombat, C. (2021). Development on the Learning Module of School- Based Supervision Course for Master Degree Students, Majoring Educational Administration in Thailand. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(4), 21-32. Skoumios, M. & Skoumpourdi, C. (2021). The Use of Outside Educational Materials in Mathematics and Science: Teachers’ Conceptions. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 9(2), 314-331. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1150 Solikhah, I. & Budiharso, T. (2020). Standardizing BIPA as an International Program of a Language Policy. Asian ESP Journal, 16(5.2), 181-205. https://www.elejournals.com/asian-esp-journal/volume-16-issue-5-2-october-2020/ Soltero Lopez, A., & Lopez, P. (2020). Expanding Our Reach: Cross-Institutional Collaborations and Teacher Preparation in Hispanic Serving Institutions. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 3(1), 120-135. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.03.01.8 Strydom, L., N. Nortje, R. Beukes, K. Esterhuyse, and J. van der Westhuizen. (2012). Job Satisfaction amongst Teachers at Special Needs Schools. South African Journal of Education, 32(3), 255–266. Subedi, D., & Subedi, R. (2020). Practicing Self Learning of ICT for Resilience Amidst the COVID-19 Outbreak: Experiences from Kathmandu Valley. Research in Educational Policy and Management, 2(2), 78-96. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2020.5 Tarman, B. (2016). Innovation and Education. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 1(1). Retrieved from http://ressat.org/index.php/ressat/article/view/3 Tasdan, M., & Tiryaki, E. (2008). Comparison of the level of job satisfaction between at private and state primary school teachers. Egitim ve Bilim, 33(147), 54. Taylor, F. W. (1911), Principals of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers. Thobega, M., and G. Miller. (2003). Relationship of Instructional Supervision with Agriculture Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Their Intention to Remain in the Teaching Profession. Journal of Agriculture Education, 44(4), 57–66. Titanji, P. F., and N. Yuoh. (2010). Supervision of Instruction in Cameroon: Are Pedagogic Inspectors Doing Their Work? International Studies in Educational Administration, 38(2), 21–40. https://www.elejournals.com/asian-esp-journal/volume-16-issue-5-2-october-2020/ https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.03.01.8 https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2020.5 http://ressat.org/index.php/ressat/article/view/3 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2021: 12 (1), 194-215 215 Toropova, Anna; Myrberg, Eva & Johansson, Stefan. (2021). Teacher job satisfaction: the importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics, Educational Review, 73:1, 71-97, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247 Vogt, P. (2005). Dictionary of Statistic and Methodology. London: SAGE. Walters, L.M., Green, M.R., Goldsby, D., & Parker, D. (2018). Digital storytelling as a problem-solving strategy in mathematics teacher education: How making a math-eo engages and excites 21st century student. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 2(1), 1-16. Wanzare, Z. (2012). Instructional Supervision in Public Secondary Schools in Kenya. Educational Management, Administration, and Leadership, 40(2), 188–216. doi:10.1177/1741143211427977. Yaman, Ç. (2009). Job Satisfaction Levels of Physical Education Teacher Trainers. International Journal of Human Sciences, 6(1), 683–711. http://www.j- humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/ issue/view/17. Yavuz, M. (2010). Effectiveness of Supervisions Conducted by Primary Education Supervisors According to School Principals’ Evaluations. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(6), 371–378. doi:10.1080/00220670903385338. Yelboğa, A. (2012). The Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Study. Ege Akademik Bakış, 12(2),171–182. Yüce, S. (2010). A Research on Relationship of Instructional Leadership Behavior of Elementary School Principals and Organizational Commitment of Teachers. (unpublished masters’ diss.), Gazi University Graduate School of Educational Sciences. Zakariya, F. Yusuf; Bjorkestol. K & Nilsen, H.K. (2020). Teacher job satisfaction across 38 countries and economies: An alignment optimization approach to a cross-cultural mean comparison, International Journal of Educational Research, 101, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101573 Zepeda, S. J. (2012). The Principal as Instructional Leader: A Practical Handbook (3rd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education. Zepeda, S. J., and W. Kruskamp. (2007). High School Department Chairs’ Perspectives about Instructional Supervision. The High School Journal, 90(4), 44–64. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101573