1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Satisfied and High Performing? A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Correlates of Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Job satisfaction has long been discussed as an important factor determining individual behavior at work. To what extent this relationship is also evident in the teaching profession is especially relevant given the manifold job tasks and tremendous responsibility teachers bear for the development of their students. From a theoretical perspective, teachers’ job satisfaction should be negatively related to turnover intentions and absenteeism, and positively to high-quality teacher-student interactions (i.e., emotional support, classroom management, and instructional support), enhanced student motivation, and achievement. This research synthesis provides a comprehensive overview of the relationship between teachers’ job satisfaction and these variables. A systematic literature search yielded 105 records. Random-effects meta-analyses supported the theoretically postulated relationships between teachers’ job satisfaction and their turnover intentions, absenteeism, teacher-student interactions, and students’ outcomes. Effects were significant not only for teachers’ self-reports of their professional performance, but also for external reports. On the basis of the research synthesis, we discuss theoretical, conceptual, and methodological considerations that inform future research and prospective intervention approaches.

          Related collections

          Most cited references135

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The theory of planned behavior

            Icek Ajzen (1991)
            Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Educational Psychology Review
                Educ Psychol Rev
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1040-726X
                1573-336X
                December 2023
                December 07 2023
                December 2023
                : 35
                : 4
                Article
                10.1007/s10648-023-09831-4
                792049c1-91a8-4369-9be9-b3c4f7fdf10a
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article