Understanding Teacher Safety in Schools in Kazakhstan
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Educational Leadership
Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education May, 2021
Word Count: 12,239
AUTHOR AGREEMENT
By signing and submitting this license, I grant to Nazarbayev University (NU) the non-exclusive right to reproduce, convert (as defined below), and/or distribute my submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.
I agree that NU may, without changing the content, convert the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.
I also agree that NU may keep more than one copy of this submission for purposes of security, back-up and preservation.
I confirm that the submission is my original work, and that I have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. I also confirm that my submission does not, to the best of my knowledge, infringe upon anyone's copyright.
If the submission contains material for which I do not hold copyright, I confirm that I have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant NU the rights required by this license, and that such third-party owned material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.
IF THE SUBMISSION IS BASED UPON WORK THAT HAS BEEN SPONSORED OR SUPPORTED BY AN AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN NU, I CONFIRM THAT I HAVE FULFILLED ANY RIGHT OF REVIEW OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY SUCH CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT.
NU will clearly identify my name(s) as the author(s) or owner(s) of the submission, and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission.
I hereby accept the terms of the above Author Agreement.
Dinara Dosmurzina May 7, 2021
Declaration
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been submitted for the award of any other course or degree at NU or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. This thesis is the result of my own independent work, except where otherwise stated, and the views expressed here are my own
Signed: Dinara Dosmurzina Date: May 7, 2021
CITI Training Certificate
Acknowledgment
Throughout the writing of this thesis I have received a great deal of support and assistance.
First and foremost I am extremely grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Matthew Courtney for his invaluable supervision, continuous support, patience during teaching me to work in R software and a great sense of humor. His insightful feedback pushed me to sharpen my thinking and brought my work to a higher level.
I would like to offer my special thanks to my parents, my siblings, my husband and my children. Without their tremendous understanding and encouragement in the past three years, one year in NUZYP and two years in NUGSE, it would be impossible for me to complete my study.
Finally, I sincerely thank all NUGSE professors and staff for a great experience and knowledge.
Abstract
Teaching is an important and valuable profession that functions as the basis of every other profession. The status of the teaching profession is an important pillar of a quality educational system. One of the crucial components of teacher status in society is respect for teachers. Teachers, who are respected and feel safe in their workplace, can demonstrate a higher level of job satisfaction contributing to teaching quality and learning outcomes.
The present research sought to understand teacher safety and to explore to what extent and how often teachers in Kazakhstan experience intimidation or verbal abuse. To explain a particular phenomenon and determine the drivers of teacher safety issues, this study employed a quantitative approach, carrying out a secondary analysis of TALIS 2018 dataset on Kazakhstan.
The results of the study show that teachers in Kazakhstan experience intimidation or verbal abuse less frequently by students. Moreover, individual factors such as gender, age, years of work, and community factors such as school type and location have no statistically significant correlation with the frequency of teacher victimization. While workplace conditions, school climate, and relational aspects between teachers and students are found to be the main predictors of student behavior stress. The study contributes to understanding the factors behind teacher safety issues in Kazakhstan and suggests the possible ways for improving the predicting factors to reduce teacher victimization.
Аннотация
Профессия учителя – важная и ценная профессия, лежащая в основе любой другой профессии. Статус профессии учителя является важной опорой качественной образовательной системы. Одним из важнейших компонентов статуса учителя в обществе является уважение к учителям. Учителя, которых уважают и которые чувствуют себя в безопасности на своем рабочем месте, могут продемонстрировать более высокий уровень удовлетворенности работой, что способствует повышению качества преподавания и результатов обучения.
Целью настоящего исследования было понять безопасность учителей и выяснить, в какой степени и как часто учителя в Казахстане подвергаются запугиванию или словесным оскорблениям. Чтобы объяснить конкретное явление и определить факторы, влияющие на безопасность учителей, в этом исследовании использовался количественный подход, в ходе которого был проведен вторичный анализ данных TALIS 2018 по Казахстану.
Результаты исследования показывают, что учителя в Казахстане реже подвергаются запугиванию или словесным оскорблениям со стороны учеников. Более того, индивидуальные факторы, такие, как пол, возраст, годы работы, и факторы сообщества, такие, как тип и местоположение школы, не имеют статистически значимой корреляции с частотой виктимизации учителей. В то время как условия на рабочем месте, школьный климат и аспекты взаимоотношений между учителями и учениками оказываются главными предикторами стресса учителей из-за поведения учеников. Исследование способствует пониманию факторов, стоящих за проблемами безопасности учителей в Казахстане, и предлагает возможные пути улучшения прогнозирующих факторов, чтобы уменьшить виктимизацию учителей.
Аңдатпа
Ұстаздық - кез-келген мамандықтың негізін салушы маңызды және құнды мамандық. Ұстаз мәртебесі - сапалы білім беру жүйесінің маңызды тірегі. Қоғамдағы мұғалім мәртебесінің маңызды компоненттерінің бірі - мұғалімдерге құрмет көрсету. Құрметті және жұмыс орнында өзін қауіпсіз сезінетін мұғалімдер жұмыс сапасының жоғарылауына және оқу нәтижелерінің жақсаруына ықпал ететін жұмысқа қанағаттанудың жоғары деңгейін көрсете алады.
Осы зерттеудің мақсаты мұғалімдердің қауіпсіздігін түсіну және Қазақстандағы мұғалімдер қаншалықты және қаншалықты жиі қорқытуға немесе ауызша қорлауға ұшырайтынын анықтау болды. Нақты құбылысты түсіндіру және мұғалімдердің қауіпсіздігіне әсер ететін факторларды анықтау үшін бұл зерттеуде сандық тәсіл қолданылды, оның барысында Қазақстан бойынша TALIS 2018 деректер жиынына қайталама талдау жүргізілді.
Зерттеу нәтижелері көрсеткендей, Қазақстандағы мұғалімдер оқушылар тарапынан қорқытуға немесе сөз арқылы қорлауға сирек ұшырайды. Сонымен қатар, жынысы, жасы, жұмыс істеген жылдары және мектеп түрі мен орналасқан жері сияқты жеке факторлар мұғалімдердің құрбан болу жиілігімен статистикалық маңызды корреляцияға ие емес.
Жұмыс орнындағы жағдайлар, мектеп климаты және мұғалімдер мен оқушылар арасындағы қарым-қатынас аспектілері оқушылардың мінез-құлқына байланысты мұғалімдердің күйзелісінің негізгі болжамшысы болып табылады. Зерттеу Қазақстандағы мұғалімдер қауіпсіздігінің проблемаларының артында тұрған факторларды түсінуге ықпал етеді және мұғалімдердің құрбан болуын азайту үшін болжамды факторларды жақсартудың ықтимал жолдарын ұсынады.
Table of Contents
AUTHOR AGREEMENT ... II Declaration ... III CITI training certificate ... IV Acknowledgment ... V Abstract ... VI Аннотация ... VII Аңдатпа ... VIII Table of Contents ... IX List of Tables ... XI List of Figures ... XII
Chapter 1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Introduction ... 1
1.2 Background: Teacher Safety ... 2
1.3 Context: Teaching Profession in Kazakhstan ………...3
1.4 Statement of the Problem ... 6
1.5 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ... 7
1.6 Significance of the Study ... 7
1.7 Outline of the Thesis ... 8
Chapter 2 Literature review ... 9
2.1 Introduction ... Ошибка! Закладка не определена.9 2.2 Framing Literature Review ... Ошибка! Закладка не определена.9 2.3 Theoretical Framework ... 10
2.4 The Importance of Teacher Safety ... 11
2.4.1 Individual Factors ... 12
2.4.2 Relationship Factors ... Ошибка! Закладка не определена.14 2.4.3 Community Factors ... 15
2.4.4 Societal Factors ... 15
2.4 Conclusion ... 16
Chapter 3 Methodology ... 18
3.1 Introduction ... 18
3.2 Research Design and Rationale ... 18
3.2.1 Sample and Secondary Data Analysis………..18
3.2.2 Sample Size and Description of Participants ………..…19
3.2.3 Classification of Items and Instruments………..….19
3.2.4 Instruments Used in the Study………...…...20
3.2.5 Procedures ………..……..22
3.2.6 Ethical Consideration ………...………23
Chapter 4 Results ... 24
4.1 Introduction ... 24
4.2 Analysis steps ... 24
4.2.1 Selection of Scales for the Measurenment and Structural Models ... 24
4.2.2 Semantically Revers Items ………..26
4.2.3 Demographic Variables………29
4.3 Results ... 29
4.3.1 RQ1a: What are teacher‟s perspectives towards a student‟s motivation? ... 31
4.3.2 RQ1b: How are high school teachers‟ approaches implemented to support student motivation?” ... 31
4.3.3 RQ2a: How are high school teachers‟ approaches implemented to support student motivation?” ... 32
4.3.4 RQ2b: How are high school teachers‟ approaches implemented to support student motivation?” ... 34
4.4 Conclusion ... 35
Chapter 5 Discussion ... 36
5.1 Introduction ... 36
5.2 Individual Factors ... 36
5.3 Realationship Factors ... 37
5.4 Community Factors ... 38
5.5 Societal Factors ………...38
5.6 Conclusion ……….39
Chapter 6. Conclusion ... 41
6.1 Summary of Research Findings ... 41
6.2 Limitations and Recommendations ... 41
References ... 43
Appendix A ... 51
Appendix B ... 52
Appendix C ... 53
List of Tables
Table 1. Selection of Literature Review Categories Applied in the Current Literature
Review...Ошибка! Закладка не определена.
...
9Table 2. Variables Classification into the Four-Level Social-Ecological Model. ... Ошибка! Закладка не определена.20 Table 3. Teacher-level variables from the TALIS 2018 Teacher Questionnaire. ... 2
1
Table 4. Principal-level variables from the TALIS 2018 Principal Questionnaire. ... 21Table 5. Teacher-Level Variables in Scales from the TALIS 2018 Technical Report. ... 25
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics for Scales ... 28
Table 7. Demographic Variables………..29
Table 8. Teacher Safety Issue Variables (Dependent Variable). ... 30
Table 9. Teacher Safety Factors Variables (Independent Variable) ... 31
Table 10. Model Fit Indices for Measurement and Structural Model ... 32
Table 11. Inter-Factor Correlation Matrix for the Measurement Mode l………34
List of Figures Figure 1. Ecological Model for Understanding Violence
………Ошибка! Закладка не определена.0
Figure 2. Teacher safety in Kazakstan. Measurenment Model...33 Figure 3. Structural Equation Model ………..35
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Teaching is an important and valuable profession that functions as the basis of every other profession. Teachers have a wide range of responsibilities with regards to their students. One of these responsibilities is to take care of students‟ safety while they are in school. However, recent studies have suggested that teachers are increasingly becoming victims of violence themselves (DeVoe, Peter, Kaufman, Miller, Noonan, Snyder, & Baum, 2004; McMahon et al., 2014; Gregory, Cornell, & Fan, 2012; Bang, 2018; Ofsted, 2019; Klassen & Anderson, 2009). Teachers might confront a range of different safety issues from physical violence to subtle emotional abuse and disrespect while carrying out employment activities. For example, an analysis of data collected by the American Psychological Association Classroom Violence Directed Against Teachers Task Force revealed that 80% of about 3,000 U.S. teachers sampled experienced victimization within one and a half academic years at least once (McMahon et al., 2014). Furthermore, when the frequency of student and teacher victimization was compared for all school crime safety indicators, it was revealed that incidents of teacher victimization were more than two times higher than students (14 incidents per 1000 teachers, as opposed to 6 incidents per 1,000 students) (DeVoe, et al., 2004). Assaulted, threatened with injury, harassed, and verbally abused educators may feel a mix of various emotions such as anger, frustration, anxiety, and guilt (Chang, 2009). These negative emotions can lead to impaired teaching performance. As a result, insights into teacher victimization in schools may go some way to eliminating the adverse consequences of abuse and result in the development of evidence-based policy solutions (Ricketts, 2007).
This chapter aims to provide background information on the teacher safety issue internationally and in Kazakhstan. The chapter is organized into six sections. The first section discusses teacher safety internationally and its impact on teaching performance. The second section focuses on issues in the teaching profession in Kazakhstan. In the third section, the problem statement and rationale for the current study are stated. The fourth section outlines the research
purpose and research questions. The next section summarizes the significance of the study. The final section outlines the thesis.
1.2 Background: Teacher Safety
In the context of education, the word “safety” is defined as the state of being free from emotional or physical threat or harm (Gregory, Cornell, & Fan, 2012, p. 401). Teachers can feel safe when colleagues and school leaders support them, and when relationships with parents are positive.
However, teacher-student relationships play the most significant role when teacher safety is considered. Student-teacher interactions are the main linchpin driver of teacher motivation and teachers‟ intention to stay in the profession (Hargreaves 1998; Hargreaves, 2000; O‟Connor 2008).
This means “personal relationships with children afford teachers internal rewards and give meaning to their work” (Spilt, Koomen, & Thijs, 2011, p. 460). However, recent studies have revealed that students are the main perpetrators of violence against teachers (Tiesman, Konda, Hendricks, Mercer, & Amandus, 2013; Gerberich et al., 2011; Turkum, 2011). Moreover, it is common for teachers to attempt to solve problems on the spot and forgive their students‟ misbehavior (Turkum, 2011). In the CNN‟s Schools of Thought blog, Goldberg (2013) mentioned as an example the words of an expert on social media and cyber-bullying, Professor Tynes. The professor admitted that the majority of victimized teachers are usually “very hesitant to report it to authorities or to the media”.
According to Tynes, the main reason for the lack of reporting is that educators “want to protect their students, even though they are being victimized by them, and they are worried about the reputations of the schools they work at”. Mainly due to this, the majority of educational bodies and other state agencies lack reliable data concerning teacher safety in schools.
Additionally, research suggests that teacher safety might also be related to teacher-parent collaboration. When teachers and parents share timely information about student's experiences, capabilities, and gaps, they can provide better opportunities for the student to succeed in learning (Bang, 2018). However, some parents‟ attitude towards the teaching profession might impede
teacher-parent collaboration. Generally, parents, by lobbying their children‟s teachers to change their children‟s grades or questioning their competence to teach and assess children hinder effective teacher-parent relations (Bang, 2018; Ofsted, 2019).
A variety of situations can emerge during the educational process which impact teacher safety.
In many cases, it is necessary for teachers to receive the support of competent and concerned leaders. However, the outcomes of Ofsted (2019) highlight that teachers are sometimes “the last people to be considered. Incidents are investigated with pupils before teachers being asked for their opinions” (p. 37). Consequently, teachers might feel exposed because of their devalued status.
Additionally, studies have revealed that teachers working in unsafe environments become estranged and strained with low motivation to make improvements to their craft (Allensworth, Ponisciak, &
Mazzeo, 2009; Galand et al., 2007). Reflecting on the problems, the effectiveness of the school leadership plays a significant role in creating and maintaining a safe working environment.
1.3 Context: Teaching Profession in Kazakhstan
Irsaliyev, Kamzoldayev, Tashibayev, and Kopeyeva (2019) conducted a study on the identification of factors that affect the motivations of youth to choose the teaching profession and the desire for teachers to continue in the profession. Results suggested that 51 percent of fourth-year students of teacher training institutions in Kazakhstan wish to join degree courses to study further in their specialist field of interest, as opposed to moving into the teaching profession (Irsaliyev, Kamzoldayev, Tashibayev, & Kopeyeva, 2019). However, the scholars based these findings on focus groups. Moreover, some students aspired to work as university teachers, while others, especially those who studied free of charge, just want to postpone or generally avoid compulsory work at schools. Moreover, six percent of respondents did not express any desire to work at school after any level of graduation. In addition, only 45 percent of these respondents entered the pre- service training due to the belief that the teaching profession provides a good opportunity for them
to contribute to the development of future generations and society. This reveals the low attractiveness of the profession in the country.
Since independence (October, 1990), the educational system of Kazakhstan has undergone in a series of reforms (Yakavets, 2014). During this short period of independence, thirteen policy officials were appointed to the post of the Minister of Education and Science. While teachers and school management were busy implementing reforms and fulfilling duties which were not related to educational process, the status of the teaching profession in Kazakhstan gradually decreased.
Nevertheless, in the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Education and Science for 2017-2021, it states that the number of teachers increased by 10 percent in comparison to the 2013-2014 period and it is claimed that this is closely linked to the annual republic teacher contests which recognize the “Best teacher” enabling teachers to gain general recognition.
However, other studies provide a different picture of the low status of the teaching profession in Kazakhstan (NUGSE, 2014; OECD, 2014; Kulakhmetova, McLaughlin, &
Ayubayeva, 2014). Firstly, the profession of teaching is less popular among high-performing high school students. For example, according to the PISA 2015 survey, only 6 percent of 15-year-old Kazakhstani students indicated the desire to become a teacher and the results of the test have revealed that these particular respondents were generally not the high performing students (OECD, 2018). Secondly, policymakers have made it possible for low-performing students to apply for teacher training scholarships by decreasing the passing score for the Unified National Test (Koroleva, 2017). Thirdly, the pre-service teacher training content needs reforms because it “still echoes the Soviet model” (Kanayeva, 2019, p. 14) and its content does not coincide with current school curriculum. Finally, the main factor influencing the prestige of profession is the uncompetitive salary. For example, the official salary of an urban schoolteacher with an average qualification level and less than three years of experience in 2019, was 60,347 tenge which constituted a third of the average wage of 186,815 tenge in 2019 in the country (Markova, 2020).
In general, journal articles and papers on issues relating to the teaching profession and state programs of education and research development in the Republic of Kazakhstan are mostly linked to its uncompetitive income and workload (NUGSE, 2014; Koroleva, 2017; Kanayeva, 2019;
MoES, 2010; MoES, 2016). However, international studies reveal that working conditions can have an essential effect on teachers‟ overall well-being (Roberts, Wilcox, May, & Clayton, 2007).
According to Irsaliyev, Kamzoldayev, Tashibayev, and Kopeyeva (2019), teacher’s working condition refers to the workload, the number of students in the class, student relationships and behavior, school leadership, the degree of autonomy, involvement in decision-making, possible career advancement, and the competitiveness of the salary. However, there are no reported nationwide statistics concerning teacher turnover in Kazakhstan; therefore, specifying these conditions as the main factors that drive teachers‟ wellbeing is not research based nor empirically based.
Policymakers have considered each point in the Law on the Status of Teachers in Kazakhstan (2019). For example, according to this law, disrespectful behavior towards teachers expressed by verbal abuse, indecency, or violent actions is punishable by an administrative fine of between 20 to 40 times the minimum wage, or administrative arrest. However, few, if any, empirical studies on teacher safety have been undertaken in Kazakhstan to inform the provision of these new regulations.
Moreover, in 2019 provincial based departments of the Committee for Quality Assurance in Education and Science were created in Kazakhstan. One of the objectives of the committee is to control the implementation of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and its regulatory legal acts in the field of education, in addition to the state compulsory education standards in educational organizations regardless of the form of school ownership and departmental hierarchical subordination (Committee for Quality Assurance in Education and Science, 2019). Currently, teachers can use direct telephone hotlines to the committee to report violence committed against them. Nevertheless, the data on teacher victimization reports is publicly unavailable. Therefore, to
learn more about the frequency and types of violence against teachers in Kazakhstan, a request for data on criminal and administrative offenses against teachers was sent by this author to the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Records of the Office of the Procurator-General of Kazakhstan (Appendix A). By way of letter received on the 13 of November 2020, the Committee replied that only two criminal offenses were registered in the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations in the last five years. Pre-trial investigations of these two cases were carried out under Article 107 (Intentional infliction of grievous harm to health), and Article 106 (Intentional infliction of average-gravity harm to health) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Concerning the administrative cases, the Committee has no registered data (Appendix B).
In summary, despite multiple reforms since the early 1990s, little is known about the extent of poor and abusive student behavior in schools. Furthermore, little is known about what the drivers of such incidents in classrooms in Kazakhstan might be.
1.4 Statement of the Problem
The aim of this thesis is to identify potential corollaries and drivers of teacher safety in Kazakhstan.
The study will use OECD‟s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 data. The survey was administered internationally to participating schoolteachers and principals. Kazakhstan was one of forty-eight countries which took part in this survey (OECD, 2019). Multiple questions addressed to teachers in the questionnaire pertained to the frequency with which they were abused and the extent to which they had to deal with parental/guardian concerns. In addition, questions addressed to principals pertained to perceived teacher-student relationships in schools and the frequency of verbal intimidation and abuse in each principal‟s school.
Studies often make the assumption that teachers, who it is assumed generally have positive relationships with students and their parents, and receive support from colleagues and school leaders, tend to feel less risk of victimization (Vettenburg, 2002). However, teachers‟ job satisfaction and instructional performance to some extent depend on their feelings of safety in
schools (Ricketts, 2007). An analysis of literature for the period from 1962 to 2007 on teacher job dissatisfaction suggests that students‟ behaviors and attitudes regarding the teaching profession had risen from the bottom to the top two positions of importance in 2007 (Klassen & Anderson, 2009).
Moreover, teachers report that parents have power over school staff, and mass media gives parents the opportunity to openly communicate negative remarks about a school (Ofsted, 2019).
Researchers have revealed the consequences of teacher victimization which mostly leads to negative emotions like depression, excessive worry, irritability, anxiety, stress, exhaustion, poor concentration, insomnia, burnout, and physical symptoms (Fox, & Stallworth, 2010; Gerberich et al., 2011). Therefore, it is essential to respond in a timely manner to challenges concerning teacher safety.
In this paper, secondary data analysis, including descriptive and regression-based analyses, will be undertaken on the Teaching and Leadership International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Kazakhstan dataset with the assistance of the open course R software program and associated packages (R Core Team, 2020; e.g., lme4, Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015). It is intended that the findings will inform teaching and administrative policy and practice in Kazakhstan.
1.5 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this quantitative focused study is to gain insights into the drivers of teacher safety (or lack thereof) in Kazakhstan. The study will make use of the TALIS 2018 Kazakhstan data to carry out this research. The following two main research questions are posed.
RQ1a: How frequently are middle-school teachers intimidated or verbally abused by students?
RQ1b: How much does teacher intimidation and verbal abuse vary within and between schools?
RQ2a: What measurement model best represents teacher safety in Kazakhstan?
RQ2b: What are the main student, workplace, and contextual drivers of teacher stress due to student behavior in Kazakhstan?
1.6 Significance of the Study
Research suggests that teacher safety affects teacher job satisfaction, teaching performance, and overall teacher well-being. Currently, there is a lack of investigations on teacher safety in Kazakhstan. This secondary analysis of data on Kazakhstan from the TALIS 2018 database will inform us if teachers feel safe in schools or not, and provide insight into the specific drivers of student behavioral stress for teachers. The findings of this thesis will benefit teaching and administrative policy and practice in developing or updating school regulations.
1.7 Outline of the Thesis
The introduction chapter provides a theoretical background of teacher safety issues and rationale for the current study. In Chapter 2, Cooper‟s taxonomy is applied to provide a frame for a comprehensive literature review of the previous studies on the issues of teacher safety, its drivers, and corollaries. The methodology of the current study is depicted in detail in Chapter 3. The results and discussion sections of the findings are presented in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes this thesis.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 2.1 Introduction
This chapter examines and synthesizes available literature on key factors of teacher safety issues and their corollaries. This chapter also includes a theoretical framework for the current study and is divided into the following four sections: framing the literature review, theoretical framework, the importance of teacher safety, and conclusion.
2.2 Framing the Literature Review
Cooper‟s taxonomy was applied as a guide in this chapter to determine the focus, goal, perspective, coverage, organization, and audience of the literature review categories (Randolph, 2009). Table 1 organizes all categories chosen for all six characteristics of this literature review.
Table 1
Selection of Literature Review Categories Applied in the Current Literature Review Characteristic Selected categories
Focus Research outcomes
Goal Integration: (a) Generalization
Perspective Neutral Representation
Coverage Central or Pivotal
Organization Conceptual
Audience General Scholars; Practitioners or Policy Makers
Note. Adapted from “Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews,” by H. M. Cooper, 1988, Knowledge in Society, 1, p. 109. Copyright by Springer Science + Business Media. Adapted with permission of Springer Science + Business Media. As cited in J. Randolph “A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review,” 2009, Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14, p. 3.
Research pertaining to teacher victimization and its association with the teaching profession overall will be analyzed and synthesized in this literature review by focusing on previous research outcomes. As cited in Randolph (2009) “the Educational Resources Information Center suggests that, in terms of a developing a research rationale, an outcomes-oriented review may help identify a lack of information on a particular research outcome, thus establishing a justifiable need for an outcome study” (p. 2). Consequently, the goal of this chapter is to integrate and generalize findings across entities, results, and settings. Since teacher safety is one of the understudied topics in the educational field, the central or pivotal articles in the field of teacher victimization and its corollaries will be examined to gain insights into teacher safety. Randolph (2009) in his Guide to
Writing the Dissertation Literature Review claims that “the perspective taken depends largely on whether the review is conducted in quantitative or qualitative traditions” (p. 4). This paper follows the quantitative tradition and, can, therefore, claim that it maintains a neutral position. Finally, the main audience of the thesis is general scholars, practitioners or policy makers.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
This study uses the four-level social-ecological model (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002) which was developed on the basis of Bronfenbrenner‟s (1977) Social Ecological Theory of Violence. The model allows for and addresses the drivers that put teachers at risk, and also accounts for some preventative strategies for the experience of violence (Figure 1).
Figure1
Ecological Model for Understanding Violence
Note. Ecological model for understanding violence. From “World report on violence and health,” edited by E.G. Krug, L.L.
Dahlberg, J.A. Mercy, A.B. Zwi, & R. Lozano, 2002, 12, World Health Organization. Copyright 2002 by Universal Copyright Convention.
Conceptually, the inner concentric circle represents the individual teacher surrounded by immediate and broader relationships and connections. Consequently, this chapter reviews the relationship between individual factors such as teachers' age, gender, work experience and the frequency of intimidation and associated risk of experiencing teacher safety issues. The chapter then focuses on teacher relationships as the next set of factors that research suggests are associated with the frequency of interactions with the main perpetrators of violence against teachers. Further, a
Individual Relationship
Community Societal
review of community factors explores schools and their neighborhoods as settings that influence teacher safety. Finally, teacher wellbeing, job satisfaction, attrition, professional development and social policies are observed as societal factors that create safe or unsafe workplace climate.
2.4 The Importance of Teacher Safety
Promoting feelings of safety in schools is one of the essential pillars of the educational system. A safe school environment is a basic element for both teachers to provide quality classes and students to succeed academically (Espelage et al., 2013; Galand, Lecocq, & Philippot, 2007). The meta- analytic study by Clarke (2010) introduces an integrative model of safety climate.The model posits that employees‟ psychological climate contributes to a generalized safety climate in an organization, and, in turn, this general safety climate contributes to commitment, wellbeing, safety behavior, and satisfaction.
Regarding teacher safety in schools, it is considered to be one of the key aspects which affects teachers‟ status in society. For example, China, Malaysia, Taiwan and Indonesia led in the Global Teacher Status Index in 2018, because teachers are highly respected in these communities.
Moreover, this survey reveals that parents in these countries probably or definitely encourage their children to become a teacher. “This indicates that the higher the respect for teachers, the more likely a person is to encourage their child to enter the profession” (Dolton, Marcenaro, De Vries, & She, 2018, p. 54). Contrasting the aforementioned East Asian countries, more respondents of European countries believe that students disrespect teachers rather than respect them. In addition, the findings of this study identified “a clear positive relationship between teacher status and PISA scores” which means that the higher the status of the teacher in the country, the higher the students‟ academic outcomes in PISA (Dolton, Marcenaro,De Vries, & She, 2018, p. 125).
However, international studies have presented concerning evidence of violence against teachers. The School Crime and Safety Report for the 2015-16 school years found that 10 percent of US public school teachers experienced threats of injury or physical attack by students (Musu,
Zhang, Wang, Zhang, Oudekerk, 2019). In these studies, the students themselves do not deny the fact that they often instigate teacher-target violence. For example, approximately 30 percent of Taiwanese students reported acting aggressively against their teachers at least once in the previous year and most of them aimed to cause psychological harm (Chen, & Astor, 2009). Despite student- violators, the list of perpetrators of teacher-targeted violence includes administrators, colleagues, and parents (Espelage et al., 2013). Additionally, studies list verbal harassment, physical attacks, damage to teacher property, social intimidation, and manipulative behavior with the intent to cause emotional and psychological harm as the types of violence against teachers (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007; Johnson & Barton-Bellessa, 2014).
International studies suggest that the frequency of teacher victimization and types of violence against educators vary depending on the socioeconomic and demographic predictors (Gottfredson, et al., 2005; Kondrasuk, Greene, Waggoner, Edwards, & Nayak-Rhodes, 2005).
Moreover, school climate, disciplinary standards, and school resources might be significant drivers of teacher safety issues (Gottfredson, et al., 2005). The Social Ecological Theory of Violence (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) indicates that investigating the background of teacher-directed aggression allows people to better comprehend how and why violence against teachers happens (McMahon, et al., 2014). Further, in this chapter, four factors identified as specific to teacher safety will be addressed separately.
2.4.1 Individual Factors
Individual factors such as gender, age, and teachers‟ work experience have been proposed as defining factors contributing to teacher abuse on the grounds that female teachers reported experiencing more attacks, while male teachers reported mostly experiencing threats. In addition, teachers with master‟s degrees and teachers with regular state certifications were less likely to report being attacked and threatened (Curran, Viano & Fisher, 2019). Although findings are not entirely consistent in this regard.
A Croatian study which aimed to study the incidences of violence against teachers by students, revealed that female teachers are less frequently subjected to violence in comparison with male teachers (Lokmić, Opić, & Bilić, 2013). In contrast female teachers in Canada reported higher levels of physical symptoms compared to men (Wilson, Douglas, & Lyon, 2011). In addition, Wills (2018) also revealed that female teachers were more likely to be victimized. However, the latter study takes into account socio-demographic factors such as race and socio-economic status indicating that female teachers in high-poverty non-White schools were more likely to be victimized. So, research suggests that there may be mediating effects in some instances.
Regarding age and years of work Martinez, McMahon, Espelage, Anderman, Reddy and Sanchez (2016) found that the older educators with more years of teaching experienced less violence from their students. However, the outcome of Casteel, Peek-Asa, and Limbos‟s (2007) study shows that more experienced teachers reported more violent attacks. Again, it appears that that the broader socio-cultural context may be important.
According to the developers of the four-level social-ecological model (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002), a teacher‟s history of abuse is often related to individual and broader school-related factors. Depending on individual and school demographics teachers experience one of the following eleven forms of victimization: obscene remarks, obscene gestures, verbal threats, intimidation, cyber violence, theft of personal property, damage to personal property, objects thrown, physical attack not resulting or resulting in a visit to physician, and weapon pulled (McMahon et. al, 2014) in a daily, weekly, monthly basis or during one academic year (Ofsted, 2019; Dinkes et al. 2009
;
Battle & Gruber, 2010). Understanding the source and drivers of violence against teachers might enable the enactment of policies that function to eliminate teacher safety problems. As part of a broader discussion about relational factors, the perpetrators of teacher victimization will now be discussed.2.4.2 Relationship Factors
Relational factors are associated with teacher relationships that may increase the risk of experiencing violence as a victim. Surveys such as that conducted by Mooij (2011) suggest that, compared to students, teachers reported more incidents in which they were victims of verbal and mild physical violence. Additionally, scholars have revealed that the main perpetrators of teacher victimization are students in “first” place, then parents (Gerberich et al., 2011; Tiesman et al., 2013, Ofsted, 2019), and verbal attacks happen more often than other types of violence against teachers (Gregory, Cornell, & Fan, 2012). For example, the results of Gerberich and other scholars‟ (2011) survey found that 95% of physical assaults and non-physical violence against educators were perpetuated by students.
However, school violence is not perceived as a major problem by many teachers (Zeira, Astor,
& Benbenishty 2004) and research has suggested that teachers and staff are sometimes hesitant to report incidents to the authorities (Turkum, 2011). The reason might be connected to teachers‟
misconduct as professionals. For example, Taiwanese students reported that they are mostly engaged in violent behavior due to teachers‟ unreasonable requirements (Chen, & Astor, 2009).
Some parents‟ attitude towards the teaching profession might impede teacher-parent collaboration. For instance, teachers involved in the study conducted by a non-ministerial department, the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) 2019 in the UK reported that the most frequent disrespectful and abusive parental behavior concerns parents‟ unreasonable expectations. The unreasonable expectations are more often expecting
„unrealistic‟, and „unfair‟ high grades for their children (Bang, 2018; Ofsted, 2019). Furthermore, by raising concerns straight to the highest authorities, parents usually make matters worse. As a result, the study established that “relationships with some parents appear among the top causes of moderate or high undue stress at work” (Ofsted, 2019, p. 37).
2.4.3 Community Factors
Community factors can be defined as the settings in which social relationships happen and the features of these settings that are associated with instances of victimhood. The main setting for teacher interaction is a school, its type and location.
The National Center for Education Statistics has reported that in the 2003-2004 school year, 12.7% of public school teachers and 3.3% of private school teachers experience verbal abuse on a daily basis. Additionally, about 20% of public school educators and 6.5% of private school teachers reported students' disrespectful behavior on a daily basis (DeVoe et. al., 2004). Therefore, it would appear that the frequency of such behavior is associated with socio-economic status of the school.
According to Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, and Gottfredson (2005), violence against teachers occurs more often in overcrowded urban schools; whereas, schools with more positive psychosocial climates have lower rates of teacher victimization. In addition, Dinkes, Kemp, Baum, and Snyder (2009) found that teachers in suburban, town, or rural schools reported being threatened with injury less frequently than teachers in urban schools. Therefore, the location and characteristics of the school appear to be associated with instances of violence toward teachers. A discussion of the societal factors that are associated with instances of violence toward teachers will be now discussed.
2.4.4 Societal Factors
This section of the literature review covers the sources of societal factors which can help create a climate in which violence is inhibited. School climate, disciplinary standards, and school resources might be significant drivers of teacher safety (Gottfredson, et al., 2005). Similarly, Steffgen and Ewen (2007) revealed that teacher workload, time pressure, and the quality of school climate considerably contributed to instances of victimization.
The analysis of the Schools and Staffing survey from the 2011-2012, administered by the National Center for Education Statistics for the United States Department of Education, found that teachers who experienced violence are less satisfied with their jobs and more eager to leave the
profession (Kapa & Gimbert, 2018). Additionally, the outcomes of study conducted in Belgium suggested that teachers who had been victimized reported increased feelings as anxiety and depression (Galand, Lecocq, & Philippot, 2007). As a result, 14% of the 487 teachers surveyed intended to leave the profession. This suggests that the management of violence toward teachers is important to teacher retention.
Scholars listed the common symptoms and feelings among teachers who experienced violence are antagonism, fear, anxiety, stress, frustration, sadness, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, depression, and irritability (Gerberich et al. 2011; Galand, Lecocq, & Philippot, 2007). These adverse consequences of teacher victimization might impact on teachers‟ well-being and the quality of teaching pedagogy and practice. One of the solutions suggested by researchers to maintain educators‟ psychological and professional well-being and performance is the capacity to provide support services and training on classroom behavioral and stress management (Daniels, Bradley, &
Hays, 2007; Dominguez Alonso, López-Castedo, & Pino Juste, 2009; Shernoff et al., 2011). While Gregory and his colleagues (2012) claim that authoritative school leadership can create a safe school climate with fewer incidents of violence.
To sum the management of more broad factors such as school climate, discipline, and teacher workload might have positive influence in preventing teacher attrition and in fostering their job commitment (Split, Koomen, & Thijs, 2011).
2.5 Conclusion
This chapter provided a literature review based on Cooper‟s taxonomy for each of drivers that put teachers at risk for experiencing violence. According to the studies, students are the main perpetrators of teacher victimization and verbal abuse is the common type of student aggression.
Parents also violate teachers by expecting high grades for their kids and concerning physiological problems. Individual factors such as gender, age, work experience and history of intimidation differ depending on the violence type and location of the schools. However, urban teachers experience victimization more frequently in comparison with other locations and school socio-economic status
also appears to be involved. The acts of violence cause teachers light physiological problems to physical harm. Scholars argue that support services and training on classroom management will help teachers to cope with the consequences or avoid conflict situations. To sum up, there is a need to study how these factors impact teacher safety in schools in Kazakhstan. In the next chapter of this thesis, the methodology for measuring those drivers are presented and described.
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents and justifies the methodology that was implemented in this thesis to explore the drivers of teacher safety (or lack thereof) in Kazakhstan. This chapter also provides a detailed description of the research instrument and models applied to the data to answer the research questions.
This research covers the following questions:
RQ1a: In Kazakhstan, how frequently are middle-school teachers intimidated or verbally abused by students?
RQ1b: How much does teacher intimidation and verbal abuse vary within and between schools?
RQ2a: What measurement model best represents teacher safety in Kazakhstan?
RQ2b: What are the main student, workplace, and contextual drivers of teacher stress due to student behavior in Kazakhstan?
3.2 Research Design and Rationale
3.2.1 Sample and Secondary Data Analysis
The data in this study was taken from the publicly available TALIS dataset (OECD, 2019). That data was based on a multi-stage cluster sampling design and makes an attempt to provide a representative sample of teachers in schools in Kazakhstan (OECD, 2019). Therefore, this study makes use of secondary analysis of the stated data. Secondary analysis is common with quantitative studies rather than with qualitative studies because it can be easily standardized, anonymized, and coordinated (MacInnes, 2020). According to Johnston (2014) “secondary analysis is an empirical exercise that applies the same basic research principles as studies utilizing primary data and has steps to be followed just as any research method” (p. 619). The following sub-sections provide details as to the sample size and description of participants in the study (3.2.2), the classification of
the items and instruments in the study (3.2.3), the instruments in the study (3.2.4), the procedures utilized to answer the research questions (3.2.5), and ethical considerations (3.2.6).
3.2.2 Sample Size and Description of Participants
The TALIS 2018 dataset involved 6,566 middle-school teachers and 331 associated principals (from 331 schools) in Kazakhstan. The dataset in SPSS (.sav) format used in this study was obtained from the official website of the OECD and imported into the R software program with the haven package (Wickham & Miller, 2020). Data were subset from the international dataset based on the unique Kazakhstan identifier, 398, under the “IDCNTRY” variable (see Appendix C).
The procedure started from merging teacher and principal datasets with the assistance of the R merge function. Further, only 49 variables of interest concerning teacher safety were drawn out from the broader Kazakhstan dataset. Missing data were dealt with likewise with the percentage of complete cases constituted 88.4 percent. With the assistance of the tidyr R package (Wickham, 2014) 5805 cases were retained. Thereafter, measures of central tendency (means) and variation (SDs) for each variable were explored with the assistance of the R base tapply function (Becker, Chambers, & Wilks, 1988). In order to explore RQ1b, with respect to the amount of variance in intimidation and verbal abuse within- and between-schools, schools with no within school variance for variables of interest were removed. This procedure resulted in a final 4,544 cases (teachers) ready for analysis.
3.2.3 Classification of Items and Instruments
In this study, a total 49 both principal- and teacher-level variables are analyzed. These variables pertain to school peculiarities, perceptions, and practices of principals and teachers. Multiple variables constituted each scale so therefore, the scales needed to be validated. In addition, a four- level social-ecological model is used to categorize different sets of scales that may make teachers in Kazakhstan feel unsafe in schools (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, and Lozano, 2002).
Table 2 organizes variables according to factors for violence against teachers in terms of individual, relationship, community, and societal related factors.
3.2.4 Instruments Used in the Study
Multiple questions pertaining to teacher safety were addressed to teachers and principals in both the Teacher and Principal Questionnaires. These selected measurement scales were developed by experts with details available in the TALIS 2018 Technical Report. To gain insights into teacher safety in Kazakhstan, other teacher-level variables were included into Table 3 (OECD, 2019). In order to examine the data correctly, the semantic direction of each question was identified and, where negative, was reversed where necessary.
Table 2
Variables Classification into the Four-Level Social-Ecological Model
Factors for violence Item in TALIS TALIS code
Individual Gender TT3G01
Categorized teacher age TCHAGEGR
Years of work as a teacher in total TT3G11B
Being intimidated or verbally abused TC3G30D
Relationship Teacher-Student Relations (scale of 4 items) T3STUD
Work stress Addressing parent or guardian concerns TT3G52J
Community School type TC3G12
School‟s location TC3G10
Societal Teaching was a secure job. (Personal utility motivation to teach) TT3G07C Areas prof.dev. Student behaviors and classroom management. (12 m.) TT3G23F Areas prof.dev. Teacher-parent co-operation (12 m.) TT3G23M Prof.dev needs Student behaviors and classroom management TT3G27F
Prof.dev. needs Teacher-parent co-operation TT3G27M
School staff enforces rules for student behaviors TT3G48G
Satisfied with performance in this school TT3G53I
Teachers who began work at this school during the last 12 months TC3G14A Teachers who permanently left this school during the last 12 months TC3G14B
ESCS TT3G35E
Workplace Well-Being (scale of 4 items) T3WELS
Job Satisfaction (composite of 2 scales consisting 8 items) T3JOBSA Teachers Perceived Disciplinary Climate (scale of 4 items) T3DISC
Student Behavior Stress (scale of 3 items) T3STBEH
Table 4 displays principal-level variables of interest.
Table 3
Teacher-level variables from the TALIS 2018 Teacher Questionnaire
Variable ID Item
TT3G35E ESCS.sch
TT3G01 Gender
TCHAGEGR Categorized teacher age
TT3G11B Years of work as a teacher in total
TT3G07C Teaching was a secure job (How imp. following for you to become a teacher?) TT3G23F Areas prof.dev. Student behaviours and classroom management (12 m.) TT3G23M Areas prof.dev. Teacher-parent co-operation (12 m.)
TT3G27F Prof.dev needs Student behaviours and classroom management
TT3G27M Prof.dev. needs Teacher-parent co-operation
TT3G48G School staff enforces rules for student behaviour
TT3G52J Work stress Addressing parent or guardian concerns
TT3G53I Satisfied with performance in this school
T3STBEH Student Behavior Stress
TT3G52F A. Responsible for students‟ achievement
TT3G52G B. Maintaining classroom discipline
TT3G52H C. Being intimidated or verbally abused
T3DISC Teachers Perceived Disciplinary Climate
TT3G41A A. Long time for students to quieten down
TT3G41B B. Students create a pleasant learning atmos.
TT3G41C C. Students interrupting the lesson
TT3G41D D. Much disruptive noise in this classroom
T3JOBSA Job satisfaction, composite
T3JSENV Job Satisfaction with Work Environment
TT3G53C A. Would like to change to another school
TT3G53E B. Enjoy working at this school
TT3G53G C. Would recommend this school
TT3G53J D. All in all, satisfied with job
T3JSPRO Job Satisfaction with Profession
TT3G53A A. Advantages outweigh disadvantages of being teacher
TT3G53B B. Still choose to work as a teacher.
TT3G53D C. Regret that become a teacher (rev.)
TT3G53F D. Better to choose another profess.
T3STUD Teacher-Student Relations
TT3G49A A. Teach. and students usu. get on well
TT3G49B B. Most teachers believe that the students‟ well-being is important
TT3G49C C. Teachers interested in students have to say
TT3G49D D. School provides extra assistance
T3WELS Workplace Well-Being
TT3G51A A. Experience stress in work (rev.)
TT3G51B B. Job leaves time for personal life
TT3G51C C. My job neg. impacts my mental health (rev.)
TT3G51D D. My job neg. impacts my phys. health (rev.)
Note. Items separated by scale where possible; rev. = semantically reversed.
Table 4
Principal-level variables from the TALIS 2018 Principal Questionnaire
Variable ID Item
TC3G12 School type
TC3G10 School‟s location
TC3G14A Teachers who began work at this school during the last 12 months TC3G14B Teachers who permanently left this school during the last 12 months
TC3G30D Intimidation or verbal abuse of teachers or staff
3.2.5 Procedures
All analysis was undertaken with the assistance of the open-source R software program and associated packages (R Core Team, 2020; e.g., lme4, Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015).
RQ1a involves gaining an understanding of the frequency with which middle-school teachers are intimidated or verbally abused by students in Kazakhstan. Therefore, descriptive statistics is an appropriate way to answer this question. Specifically, means and standard deviations for all of the variables of interest will be reported.
RQ1b involves gaining an understanding of how my teacher experience of intimidation and verbal abuse varies within and between schools. For this question, multi-level modeling is an appropriate method. Specifically, intra-class correlations for the variables of interest will be determined with the assistance of the lme4 R package (Bates, …). If the ICC values for the variables of interest exceed .10, then multilevel modeling would be chosen as the most appropriate technique to answer research questions RQ2a and RQ2b. This is because ICCs above .10 suggest some level of systemic differences between schools which would need to be accounted for by the form of analysis.
RQ2a involves the validation of the scales proposed for measuring teacher safety in Kazakhstan. For this question, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is chosen as the most appropriate method. Specifically, in accordance with the two-step approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1998) a measurement model will first be specified with the assistance of the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). Model fit indices will be interpreted in accordance with the following indices including the χ2/df ratio (under 3.83) and associated non statistically significant p value (Walker, 2013), SRMR (below .08) (Hu & Bentler, 1999), RMSEA (below .08) Browne and Cudeck (1989, 1992) and Byrne (2001), CFI (above .90) and TLI (above .90) (Hoyle, 1995) will be examined. Cronbach‟s alpha estimates of reliability (above .70) for factors construct validity are also interpreted. In addition to meeting the requirements for model fit, item factor loadings should also be greater than .40 to meet the requirements for indicator reliability (Ab Hamid, Sami, & Mohmad Sidek, 2017).
Additionally, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each factor should also exceed .50 (Ab Hamid, Sami, & Mohmad Sidek, 2017). Finally, discriminant validity is met when the AVE is greater than the shared variance (with connected factors) for each respective factor (Ab Hamid, Sami, & Mohmad Sidek, 2017).
For RQ2b pertaining to identifying the main student, workplace, and contextual drivers of teacher stress due to student behavior, structural equation modeling will be employed with the assistance of the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). For this question, the dependent variable of interest will be teacher experience of Student Behaviour Stress.
3.2.6 Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations are not required because human participants have not been directly involved in this study. The study makes use of secondary data analyses on the data from the online TALIS database. Importantly, “the manner in which data were collected during TALIS 2018 ensured the anonymity of teachers and principals in the reporting of results. It also ensured that any information encountered that may have identified the teachers or principals participating in the survey remained confidential” (OECD, 2019, p. 131).
Chapter 4. Results
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will present and describe the results in a systematic and detailed way. The purpose of this study is to identify potential corollaries and drivers of teacher safety in Kazakhstan. This secondary analysis involved the utilization of OECD‟s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 dataset. This chapter displays the findings of the analysis including comments on the process of data analysis. Also, each research question will be addressed separately to provide information about outcomes.
4.2 Analysis Steps
Principal and Teachers Questionnaires of TALIS 2018 (OECD, 2019) were examined carefully to identify variables of interest of this thesis in line with the theoretical framework. After data preparatory procedures mentioned in methodology chapter a total 4,544 teacher responses from 331 schools, and 49 variables of interest remained. Further, descriptive statistics were applied to visualize and present the data in meaningful way (Thompson, 2006). To identify the intra-class correlations for the variables of interest, multi-level modeling was required. However, the ICC values for the variables of interest were not substantive; consequently, the regression-based analysis was carried out at the single level (Stapleton, McNeish, & Yang, 2016). Since, there was a need to validate the scales proposed for measuring teacher safety in Kazakhstan confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied. Finally, a full structural equation modeling (SEM) was specified to identify the main student, workplace, and contextual drivers of teacher stress due to student behavior in Kazakhstan.
4.2.1 Selection of Scales for the Measurement and Structural Models
In order to perform the analysis for RQ2a (CFA measurement model) and RQ2b (full structural model), this study draws upon six associated measurement scales developed by TALIS experts (see TALIS, 2018, Technical Report). These six scales are represented in Table 5.