Revealing the Voices of Efl Teachers in a Thai Context

TEACHER ATTRITION AND RETENTION: REVEALING THE VOICES OF EFL TEACHERS IN A THAI CONTEXT

VIRASUDA SRIBAYAK

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING LANGUAGE INSTITUTE THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC YEAR 2017 COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

TEACHER ATTRITION AND RETENTION: REVEALING THE VOICES OF EFL TEACHERS IN A THAI CONTEXT

VIRASUDA SRIBAYAK

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

DISSERTATION

VIRASUDA SRIBAYAK

ENTITLED

TEACHER ATTRITION AND RETENTION: REVEALING THE VOICES OF EFL TEACHERS IN A THAI CONTEXT was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (English Language Teaching) on September 3, 2017 Chairman (Associate Professor Sucharat Rimkeeratikul, Ph.D.) Member and Advisor (Associate Professor Supong Tangkiengsirisin, Ph.D.) Member and Co-advisor

(Chantarath Hongboontri, Ph.D.) Member

(Assistant Professor Kittitouch Soontornwipast, Ed.D.) Member

(Assistant Professor Pragasit Sitthitikul, Ph.D.)

Member (Chirasiri Kasemsin Vivekmetakorn, Ph.D.) Director (Associate Professor Pornsiri Singhapreecha, Ph.D.)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (1) Thesis Title TEACHER ATTRITION AND RETENTION: REVEALING THE VOICES OF EFL TEACHERS IN A THAI CONTEXT Author Virasuda Sribayak Degree Doctor of Philosophy Major Field/Faculty/University English Language Teaching Language Institute Thammasat University Thesis Advisor Associate Professor Supong Tangkiengsirisin, Ph.D. Thesis Co-Advisor Chantarath Hongboontri, Ph.D. Academic Year 2017

ABSTRACT This convergent mixed-methods research study aims to investigate factors influencing EFL teachers to consider leaving their teaching profession and factors encouraging EFL teachers to remain within the teaching profession. Forty-eight participants including 29 currently in-service Thai teachers, 11 currently in-service foreign teachers, 4 retired Thai teachers, 3 Thai teachers leaving full-time teaching career, and 1 Thai teacher moving to another institution completed the questionnaire. Twenty-three of them including 10 currently in-service Thai teachers, 5 currently in- service foreign teachers, 4 retired Thai teachers, 3 Thai teacher leaving full-time teaching career, and 1 Thai teacher moving to another institution gave an interview. Their teaching experiences varied between less than 5 and more than 30 years. The data collection tools used to strengthen the validity of the findings include a close- ended questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, written documents and artifacts. Findings showed that all three factors – employments, external, and personal factors -- affected teacher attrition. The teacher participants regarded inappropriate and inadequate salary, health conditions, limited opportunity in career advancement or job promotion, inadequate salary increase, family responsibility, especially child-rearing, job-related stress, wage structure or wage system for teachers, and excessive paperwork to meet the school requirements as the factors affecting their decision to leave or have an intent to leave their teaching profession. Also, this study showed

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (2) many employment factors including intrinsic and extrinsic work rewards and characteristics of the school as the factors the participants perceived affecting teacher retention. The teacher participants considered like of teaching, good relationship with colleagues, opportunities in professional development, job stability and job prestige as factors encouraging EFL teachers to remain within the teaching profession. It can be concluded from this study that there is a wide range of factors influencing teacher attrition and retention. This research study, to some extent, brings greater understanding of the situations and factors involved with teacher attrition and retention through the voices of EFL teachers.

Keywords: Teacher Attrition, Teacher Retention, Teacher Shortage, Teacher Voice, Employment Factors, External Factors, Personal Factors

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to all who supported me throughout my doctoral study and extend my special thanks to:

 Dr. Chantarath Hongbootri and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Supong Tangkiengsirisin, my dissertation advisors, for their great support and wonderful guidance  The participants in my research study for all of the valuable data  Khun Pang (Kobkorn Panmuang), the doctoral program staff, for her great assistance  Art (Asst. Prof. Dr. Kittitouch Soontornwipast), my buddy, for his great help, support, suggestions, and encouragement  My ELT and my LITU friends for their help and moral support  My dissertation committee for their constructive suggestions

Finally, I wish to thank my dad, my mom, Nut, and Jedi for their LOVE.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ABSTRACT (1) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (3) LIST OF TABLES (9) LIST OF FIGURES (10)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Teacher Shortage 1 1.2 Teacher Shortage in Thailand 3 1.3 Teacher Attrition and Retention and the Impacts 4 1.4 Research Objectives 7 1.5 Scope of the Study 7 1.6 Conceptual Framework 8 1.7 Chapter Summary 10

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 11

2.1 Factors Affecting Teacher Attrition and Retention 11 2.1.1 Employment Factors 13 2.1.1.1 Work Conditions 14 2.1.1.1.1 Characteristics of Schools 14 2.1.1.1.2 Characteristics of Students 17 2.1.1.1.3 Characteristics of Job Assignments 18 2.1.1.2 Work Rewards 19 2.1.1.2.1 Intrinsic Work Rewards 19 2.1.1.2.2 Extrinsic Work Rewards 19 2.1.1.3 Professional Qualifications 20

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (5)

2.1.2 External Factors 21 2.1.2.1 Economic Factors 21 2.1.2.2 Societal Factors 22 2.1.2.3 Institutional Factors 22 2.1.3 Personal Factors 23 2.1.3.1 Demographic Characteristics 23 2.1.3.2 Family Circumstances 24 2.2 Teacher Voice 24 2.3 Previous Studies on Teacher Attrition and Retention 26 2.4 Chapter Summary 27

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 28

3.1 Research Paradigm 28 3.2 Data Collection Tools 29 3.2.1 Questionnaire 30 3.2.2 Semi-structured Interview 30 3.2.3 Written Documents and Artifacts 31 3.3 Ethical Considerations 31 3.4 Data Analysis 32 3.5 Chapter Summary 32

CHAPTER 4 CONTEXT 34

4.1 Participants 34 4.2 THINK University 37 4.3 The Language Institute, THINK UNIVERSITY 37 4.4 Chapter Summary 38

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (6)

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS 39

5.1 Quantitative Results 39 5.1.1 The Demographic Data of the Participants 39 5.1.2 The Participants’ Perceptions of English Language Teaching 42 5.1.3 Reasons Why EFL Teachers Leave or Consider Leaving 42 Their Teaching Career 5.1.4 Factors Influencing Teacher Attrition and Retention 43 5.2 Qualitative Results 43 5.2.1 Factors Affecting Teacher Attrition 43 Work Policies 43 Work Requirements 44 Excessive Paperwork 53 Inappropriate Evaluation Process 56 Salary and Benefits 60 Characteristics of the Profession 63 Family Responsibilities 65 Health 67 5.2.2 Factors Affecting Teacher Retention 67 Like of Teaching 67 Good Relationship with Colleagues 75 High Opportunities in Professional Development 78 Job Stability 80 Job Prestige 80 Medical and Retirement Benefits 81 5.3 Chapter Summary 82

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (7)

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 83

6.1 Discussion 83 6.1.1 What factors influence EFL teachers to consider leaving their 84 profession? 6.1.2 What factors encourage EFL teachers to remain within their 87 profession? 6.2 Implications 89 6.2.1 Implications for Policy Makers 89 6.2.2 Implications for Teachers 90 6.3 Limitations of the Study 91 6.4 Recommendation for Further Studies 91 6.5 Conclusions 92

REFERENCES 93

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A 103 APPENDIX B 112 APPENDIX C 116 APPENDIX D 127 APPENDIX E 129 APPENDIX F 130 APPENDIX G 131 APPENDIX H 132 APPENDIX I 133 APPENDIX J 134 APPENDIX K 135 APPENDIX L 136 APPENDIX M 137 APPENDIX M 138

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (8)

APPENDIX O 139 APPENDIX P 140 APPENDIX Q 141 APPENDIX R 142 APPENDIX S 143 APPENDIX T 147 APPENDIX U 154 APPENDIX V 158 APPENDIX W 159 APPENDIX X 163 APPENDIX Y 164 APPENDIX Z 167

BIOGRAPHY 168

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (9)

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page 1.1 Participants in Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection 35 Procedure

1.2 Participants in Both Quantitative and Qualitative Phases 36

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP (10)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page 1.1 Conceptual Framework of Factors Affecting Teacher Attrition 9 and Retention 1.2 Convergent Triangulation Mixed Method Design 29

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Teacher issues are also currently high on policy agendas because of concerns expressed by teachers themselves about the future of their profession – whether it is sufficiently attractive to talented new entrants, and whether teachers are sufficiently rewarded and supported in their work. As teachers are in daily contact with the students who potentially form the next generation of teachers, the enthusiasm and morale of the current teacher workforce are important influences on future teacher supply.

(OECD Education and Training Policy, 2005, p.3)

Overview

This chapter presents an introduction of this study including the background of the teacher shortage and teacher attrition and retention and the impacts, the purposes of this study, the research objectives and research questions, the scope of study, the Conceptual Framework of Factors Influencing Teacher Retention and Attrition, and the chapter summary.

1.1 Teacher Shortage

According to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2016), teacher shortage has long been an ongoing global concern, and chronic teacher shortage will persist worldwide. An extra 9.8 million primary school teachers and 22.3 million secondary school teachers will be needed by 2020, rising to 17.8 million primary school teachers and 33.5 million for secondary school teachers by 2025, and 24.4 million primary school teachers and 44.4 million for secondary school teachers by 2030. The chronic shortage of teachers who play an important role in education will greatly affect the quality of the students and then the quality of education as a whole. UNESCO’s (2016) report highlighted the importance of teachers as follows:

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Teachers play a critical role in enabling students to achieve good learning outcomes within effective education systems. While their ability to positively shape a child’s learning experience depends on a myriad of factors, the first step towards good learning outcomes is to ensure that there are enough teachers in classrooms. (UNESCO Report, 2016, p.1)

Many areas in the world are now facing teacher shortage problems. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012) reported that 140 countries around the world encountered the problems of teacher shortage. North America and Western Europe need an additional 174,000 teachers, while South and West Asia were experiencing a shortage of 114,000 teachers. The problem was much more serious in Sub-Saharan Africa, where an additional 993,000 teachers were needed. It was estimated that by 2016, primary schools around the world will face a shortage of 18 million teachers including a shortage of 13 million teachers in developing countries and a shortage of 5 million teachers in industrialized countries. At the primary and secondary education levels, the total teacher recruitment needed for replacement for attrition and for staffing new classrooms is projected by 2020 to be 1,051,000 for Northern Africa, 8,988,000 for Sub-Saharan Africa, 2,279,000 for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2,596,000 for Eastern Asia, 8,475,000 for Southern Asia, 2,685,000, 1,630,000 for Western Asia, 62,000 for Oceania, 482,000 for Caucasus and Central Asia, and 3,871,000 for developed regions, and it is estimated to be much more by 2030 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2016). Large and comprehensive bodies of research related to teacher shortage reveal different situations from country to country. In the United States, the teacher shortage was mainly due to the departure of new and inexperienced teachers from their teaching positions (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2015). The NCES report revealed that seventeen percent of the teachers left their teaching profession during their first five years, resulting in a great shortage of teachers. The shortage of teachers is not a new problem. In 2006, more than 30 percent of newly- trained teachers left their teaching position within the first year (Strizek, Pittsonberger, Riordan, Lyter, & Orlofsky, 2006). This was not the case in Australia, where teacher shortage was caused by teachers’ early retirement. Two-thirds of an

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

3 ageing teacher force in Australia – teachers aged 55-59 – left the schools (Preston, 2000), and the Audit Office of New South Wales (2008) reported that one-third of permanent school teachers would reach their retirement age in the next five years. Premature retirement was the main reason for teacher shortage in Germany and New Zealand, where the teaching workforce was ageing (Santiago, 2016). Besides, teacher shortages have been found in many different fields of education. In the USA, teacher shortage was found in special education, science, and mathematics (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999-2000). The American Association for Employment in Education (2003) revealed that bilingual education and Spanish as a foreign language were disciplines faced with teacher shortages. The shortage of mathematics and special education still continued. To conclude, teacher shortage is a worldwide problem, and the situations and the causes of teacher shortage problems in each context are different. In the next section, the situation of the teacher shortage in Thailand will be discussed.

1.2 Teacher Shortage in Thailand In Thailand, teacher shortage is found in mathematics, science and foreign languages. English teacher shortage is the second most serious, following the shortage of mathematics teachers. Besides, teacher shortages occur in all sectors of education -- basic education, vocational education, higher education, and non-formal education (The Office of Basic Education Commission [OBEC], 2007). OBEC (2007) reported that the teacher shortage at the basic education level was around 70,000 to 90,000 each year from 2000-2005. 15,915 teachers were requested at pre-primary level, 31,159 at primary level, 25,329 at secondary school level, and 2,549 at special schools. This shows that teacher shortage is a serious concern, and it will become more serious since 188,071 teachers, or 48% of the workforce, will end their teaching careers between 2010 and 2019. This is consistent with the 2011 UNESCO report that even though the secondary school age group in Thailand would decline by 1.6% per year from now to 2020 due to the changing population demographics, there still will be an increasing demand for teachers since the number of teachers retiring will significantly increase from 2008 to 2020 (Atagi, 2011).

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

It seems that the teacher shortage has been a great problem for many countries including Thailand. Many studies showed that the shortage of teachers was mainly affected by teacher attrition and retention; therefore, teacher shortage problems have brought attention on teacher attrition and retention and its impacts (Billingsley,1993; Boe, 1990; Cooper & Alvarado; 2006; Houchins, Shippen, & Cattret, 2004; Ingersoll, 2000; Justice, Greiner, & Anderson, 2003; Locklear, 2010; Macdonald , 1999; Miller & Chait, 2008; Scheib, 2006).

1.3 Teacher Attrition and Retention and the Impacts Teacher Attrition and Retention Cooper and Alvarado (2006) defined teacher attrition as “leaving teaching altogether, either to take another job outside of teaching, for personal reasons as child rearing, health problems, family moves, and retirement (18)”. In a similar way, Miller and Chait (2008) referred to teacher attrition as “teachers leaving the classroom to take up other professional responsibilities, inside or outside of education, or to spend more time with their families (p. 2)”. Using a more specific concept, Macdonald (1999) defined teacher attrition as “either a problem for work force planning and resources or an indicator of the relatively poor quality of school life and teacher morale” (p. 835). Locklear (2010) defined teacher retention as a method of maintaining teachers within the school or in the field of education. According to Boe (1990), retention occurred if educators remained in the same profession and in the same school. In a more specific way, Nelson (2004) defined teacher retention as the keeping of teachers beyond the third through fifth years of their teaching profession. Billingsley (1993) gave the definitions of the terms teacher attrition and teacher retention in her four-category schematic representation of special education teachers. She defined retention in the first category as the remaining of teachers in the same teaching assignment and the same school as the previous year; transfers to another special education teaching position in the second category as the staying in special education teaching but transferring to another position; transfers to general education teaching in the third category as the transferring of special education

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

5 teachers to general education teaching position; and the departure of teachers from the teaching career due to retirement, education, family responsibilities, or career change. In this research study, teacher attrition means the departure of Thai and non- Thai EFL teachers from the teaching position at a public university except the departure due to the retirement age, and teacher retention means the staying and the maintaining of Thai and non-Thai EFL teachers at a public university in their teaching career. The Impacts of Teacher Attrition and Retention Teacher attrition and retention greatly impact education quality (Johnson, Kraft, & Papy, 2012; Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005). It was stated in the 2009 Literature Review on Teacher Retention and Attrition that teacher attrition and turnover imposed two main types of costs: instructional costs and organizational costs. The instructional costs affect both the quality of teachers and the quality of students. These costs occur when schools have to replace the teachers leaving the school with novices whose teaching may be weak (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). According to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future study (2002), teacher effectiveness increases with teaching experience. When departing, the teachers take with them their knowledge, instructional techniques and instructional strategies. This means if many experienced and effective teachers leave their school, students will be taught by a string of inexperienced and less effective teachers, which costs students the educational experience. Many schools solved the problem of teacher shortage by hiring less qualified teachers trained in another field or grade level to teach and make extensive use of substitute teachers. To illustrate, many schools in Thailand do not have teachers who major in critically needed subjects such as English. Forty-five percent of the lower-secondary schools do not have teachers with English majors; therefore, the schools assigned out-of-field and non-English- major teachers to teach English. Many students are taught by these teachers each year. This leads to the low quality of the students and then to the quality of education in Thailand (OBEC, 2007). In addition to the instructional costs, teacher attrition imposes the organizational costs since it disrupts organizational cohesion and development. The

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

6 disruption of school organization and the discontinuity of school staff can be a major obstacle to school efficacy (Billingsley, 2007; Macdonald, 1999; Neild, Useem, Travers & Lesnick, 2003). The organizational costs include the expenses needed to recruit, hire, induct and develop the replacement teachers. Brownell, Hirsch, and Seo (2004) stated that the US federal government estimated 90 million dollars for recruitment each year. Such costs also included vacancy costs like paying substitute teachers until adequate fulltime replacements are found. According to the Texas Center for Educational Research, in 2000 the higher the turnover rate, the more expenditure the schools had to spend on hiring, inducing, and professional development. Undeniably, teacher attrition and retention problems are too great to ignore. Many studies show that teacher attrition is the main factor impacting the needs for additional teachers, and the factors of teacher attrition and retention vary across contexts and cultures. (Houchins, Shippen, & Cattret, 2004; Justice, Greiner, & Anderson, 2003; Scheib, 2006). In Thailand, there is little empirical evidence revealing the factors influencing teacher attrition and retention despite the critical shortage of teachers in the country. In fact, there appear to be only essays or articles in the newspapers discussing why teachers leave their jobs and what solution should be made (Govt. Prepares for Teacher Shortage, 2010; Haeg, 2016). Those essays or articles are not research-based; therefore, they can neither reflect the real situation nor reveal the real factors of teacher attrition in Thailand. In order to fully understand the problems and causes of teacher attrition and retention, the researcher believes that the voices from teachers can best reveal the factors affecting attrition and retention of teachers. Listening to teachers’ voices makes listeners better understand how teachers feel and act (Kosko & Herbst, 2012). Butt, Raymond, McCue and Yamagishi (1992) highlighted the importance of teachers’ voices:

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

The notion of the teacher’s voice is important in that it carries the tone, the language, the quality, the feelings, that are conveyed by the way a teacher speaks or writes. In a political sense, the notion of the teacher’s voice addresses the right to speak and be represented. It can represent both the unique individual and the collective voice; one that is characteristic of teachers as compared to other groups. (Raymond, McCue and Yamagishi , 1992, p. 57)

A 2005 report from Duke University revealed that when teachers are allowed to voice, they stay in the teaching profession longer. Many studies on factors of teacher attrition and retention in many countries have been carried out. In Thailand, however, very little research on factors affecting teacher attrition and retention has been conducted through the voices of teachers. Given that Thailand is facing a serious problem of teacher shortage, especially the shortage of English teachers, the researcher conducted a mixed-methods research study to reveal the voices of EFL teachers in Thailand about factors affecting teacher attrition and retention.

1.4 Research Objectives This research has two main objectives. One is to investigate factors influencing EFL teachers to consider leaving their teaching profession; the other is to investigate factors encouraging EFL teachers to remain within the teaching profession.

1.5 Scope of the Study In response to the research objectives, the researcher went to one public university in Thailand to investigate the EFL teachers’ voices about factors affecting teacher attrition and retention. Two research questions help frame the study: (1) What factors influence EFL teachers to consider leaving their teaching profession?, and (2) What factors encourage EFL teachers to remain within the teaching profession?

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

1.6 Conceptual Framework This study is grounded in Billingsley (1993)’s Model of the Influences of Teachers’ Career Decisions. This model includes three main factors: employment, external, and personal factors. Each factor is regarded an influential factor of teacher attrition and retention. To investigate the factors affecting the decision of the participants in this study whether to stay in or to leave the teaching profession, this study followed Mathison’s (1988) notion of methodological triangulation technique by which more than one method is used for gathering data helped reduce the uncertainty of the interpretation and to augment the validity of the findings. To frame this study, the researcher used a triangulation mixed-methods design consisting of quantitative phase and qualitative phase to obtain different but complementary data. In addition, to comprehensively understand the situations and factors influencing teacher attrition and retention in the context in this study, the researcher followed the notion of teacher voice in which teacher voices are not only presented but represented critically and contextually. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework for this study.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework of Factors Influencing Teacher Retention and Attrition Teacher Voices

Factors Influencing Teacher Retention and Attrition Employment Factors / External Factors / Personal Factors

Employment factors

Work condition Characteristics of school support from admin / support from colleagues opportunity to engage in activities / policies / decision- making / opportunity in PD / availability of resources / facilities / quality of school environment Characteristics of classrooms/students students’ behaviors / class size/ course load Characteristics of one’s job assignment job responsibilities / paperwork Work reward Extrinsic  salary / benefits career advancement / promotion Intrinsic experiences with students recognition / cooperation / appreciation from administrators recognition / cooperation / appreciation from colleagues Professional qualifications pre-service training / college credits in education career satisfaction External factors Staying in Societal the Socioeconomic characteristics of students  teaching Characteristics of community Teacher profession Economic Retention  Employment opportunities and  Wage structure or wage systems for teachers Attrition Leaving Institutional the State policies teaching School policies profession

Personal factors 

Demographic Age / Race Gender / Health condition Family circumstances Family responsibility

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

1.7 Chapter Summary Concerning the seriousness of teacher shortage and the importance of teachers that affect the quality of education, this study attempts to investigate and understand the problem of teacher shortage and teacher attrition and retention in Thailand through the EFL teachers’ voices. To gain a wider picture of this issue, what has been discovered and previous studies are discussed in the next chapter.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Why do teachers leave in such high numbers? There are many factors, but one reason, according to an expert on the subject, is that teachers “have very little say” in what goes on in schools. And a 2005 report from Duke University found that teachers remain in the profession longer when they feel that their principals include them as part of a school community and allow them a voice in school decisions.

(Levknecht, 2014, para. 1)

Overview

This chapter documents previous research studies on teacher retention and attrition. The beginning of the chapter discusses factors contributing to teacher attrition and retention. The studies on teachers’ voices are next reviewed. The summary of the chapter concludes what has been done on teacher attrition and retention factors.

2.1 Factors Affecting Teacher Attrition and Retention Owing to the great costs that teacher attrition and teacher retention impose, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the contributing factors leading teacher attrition and teacher retention in order to maximize teacher retention. A great deal of literature was reviewed in order to investigate these factors. Quartz, Barraza- Lyons, and Thomas (2005) stated that a variety of emotional factors influenced teachers’ decisions to leave their profession such as tension, frustration, anxiety, anger, and depression stemming from heavy workload, school violence, and arduous work. Teachers’ age was also one of the predictors of teacher departure from their job (Boe, Bobbitt, & Cook, 1997; Ingersoll 2001). Pitsoe (2013) found different factors. He pointed out that apart from a lack of adequate incentives, a lack of facilities, and appalling working conditions, the factors included policy overload and disintegration of discipline.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Many studies found similar factors affecting teachers’ decision whether to stay with or leave their teaching job. Carroll, Reichardt, Guarino, and Meiji (2000) found in their study of California school district teachers that many other factors such as a lack of supplies and materials and bad school facilities were responsible for teacher attrition. Confirming what Carroll, Reichardt, and Meiji found, Johnson and Birkeland (2003) pointed out in their longitudinal interview study of 50 new teachers in Massachusetts that poor working conditions related to safety, facilities, and supplies greatly influenced teacher attrition. Likewise, Buckley, Schneider, and Shang (2005) revealed that dissatisfaction with facilities was one of the causes of the teacher attrition problem. Guarino, Santibanez, and Daley (2006) suggested in a review of empirical literature on teacher recruitment and retention in the United States that working conditions and school facilities should be improved in order to attract teachers to continue their teaching career. Another factor affecting teacher attrition and retention which was found in many research studies was dissatisfaction with the level of support and dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the school leadership (Ingersoll, 2001; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Weiss, 1999). For example, Ingersoll (2001) pointed out that schools with high levels of administration support had lower teacher attrition. This agrees with Smith and Ingersoll’s study in 2004 that the strongest relationship to teacher retention was support from school administrators by providing a mentor in the same field. However, some research revealed different results. For example, regarding teacher characteristics, whereas Darling-Hammond and Sclan (1996) explored the relationship of the characteristics of teachers to attrition, Billingsley (2003) stated that few conclusions could be made about such relationships. While many studies revealed low salary was the main factor for teacher attrition (Allen, 2005; Billingsley, 1993; Brownell & Smith, 1992; Bryk, 1993; Certo & Fox, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 1996; Imazeki, 2004; Kirby & Glissmer, 1993), several studies found no effect of salary on the decision to resign (Perrachione, Rosser, & Petersen, 2008). Several research studies recommended that a key to retention is to address the problem issues directly and immediately. For example, Billingsley (1993) suggested ways to increase retention rate and to reduce attrition rate in teachers was by providing beginning teachers with long-run formal induction programs, giving all

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

13 teachers administrative support and professional development opportunities, and providing positive work environments. Allen (2005) recommended having a thorough understanding of the characteristics of the teachers and the impact such characteristics have on teachers’ decisions to enter and stay in their teaching career. Cooper and Alvarado (2006) proposed several solutions in order to retain teachers including better pay, opportunities for new teachers in mentoring programs, and opportunities in professional development. Mindful of the significance of teacher attrition and retention, this researcher reviewed many previous research studies in order to investigate significant factors. In this chapter, the researcher will also discuss the literature on three main factors: employment factor, external factor, and personal factors, based on Billingsley’s (1993) Conceptual Model of the Influences of Teachers’ Career Decisions. This model provides a clear and comprehensive understanding of factors influencing teacher attrition and retention. In her model, Billingsley (1993) classified those factors into employment factors including professional qualifications, work conditions and work rewards; external factors including economic trends, societal influences and institutional influences; and personal factors including teacher dynamics and family dynamics.

2.1.1 Employment Factors In Billingsley’s (1993) Conceptual Model of the Influences of Teachers’ Career Decisions, employment factors included work conditions, work rewards and professional qualifications. These factors were revealed in many studies to primarily and indirectly affect teacher attrition and retention (Allen, 2005; Ashiedu & Scott- Ladd; Billingsley, 1993; Boe, Bobbitt & Cook, 1996; Bolich 2001; Certo & Fox, 2002; Chapman, 1994; Clotfelter, Glennie, Ladd & Vigdor, 2006; Delors, 1996; Denlinger, 2002; Feistrizer, 2005; George, Gersten & Grosenick, 1995; Grissmer & Kirby, 1997; Horng, 2005; Imazeki, 2004; Ingersoll, 1999; Ingersoll, 2001; Jimerson, 2003; Johnson, 1990; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Kardos, 2004; Kemmerer, 1990; Kevessiga, 2013; Luekens, Lyter & Fox, 2004; Martin 2008; Morvant, Gersten, Gillman, Keating, & Blake, 1995; Murnane, Willett, Kemple, & Olsen, 1991; Otto & Arnold, 2005; Perrachione & Rockoff, 2004; Schneider, 2005; Shann 1998;

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Stinebricker, 1998; Stone, 1990; Theobald, 1990; Tye & O’Brien, 2002; Westling & Whitten, 1996).

2.1.1.1 Work Conditions Less attractive working conditions increase teacher attrition and decrease teacher retention. Both retired and currently serving teachers in Ashiedu and Scott- Ladd (2012)’s study ranked “working conditions” as the most influential for teacher attraction and retention. This is consistent with the finding in Tye and O’Brien’s (2002) survey research on “Why Are Experienced Teachers Leaving the Profession?” that a good working environment could attract teachers to stay in their teaching career. Billingsley (2003) summarized in her paper, entitled Special Education Teacher Retention and Attrition: A Critical Analysis of the Literature, that working conditions were evidently linked to attrition and retention. She concluded that schools with good work conditions were those with supportive and encouraging administrative behavior, sufficient teaching materials, cooperative and supportive staff members, safety, and the sense of belonging of the staff members. Following Billingsley’s Model, this study discusses work conditions as (1) characteristics of schools; (2) characteristics of students; and (3) characteristics of teachers’ job assignment, which include job responsibilities and paperwork.

2.1.1.1.1 Characteristics of Schools Characteristics of schools including support from administrators, support from colleagues, teachers’ opportunities to engage in school activities, policies and decision-making, teachers’ opportunity in professional development, availability of school resources and facilities, and quality of school environment have been found to be significant factors leading to teacher retention and attrition. Schools with great support and clear communication from the administration had a lower rate of teacher attrition (Bolich 2001; Ingersoll, 2001; Nance & Calabrese, 2009; Otto & Arnold, 2005). Nance and Calabrese (2009) revealed from their qualitative study, the data of which were collected from 40 current and former special education teachers through focus groups, semi-structured interviews that the teachers wanted to be listened to by the administrators, and

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

15 that the lack of support from administrators could contribute to the attrition of special education teachers. Similarly, Otto and Arnold (2005), conducting a research study of 228 experienced special education teachers in South Texas, emphasized the importance of support from administrators on teacher retention and that administrative support tended to motivate teachers to remain in their school and their teaching career. Bolich’s study (2001) showed an interesting finding that more than eighty percent of the teachers would stay in a school with strong administrative support, when asked to choose between working in a school with great support from the administrators or in the one with much higher salaries but little administrative support. Besides administrative support, teacher attrition and retention is influenced by support from colleagues. According to Billingsley’s (1993) study, teacher retention could be influenced by collegial support and interaction. Chapman (1994) mentioned that job sharing, team teaching and peer support were main reasons for teacher retention. He also proposed encouraging implementation of teacher support groups to increase retention and reduce attrition in teachers. Shann (1998) confirmed through his research conducted with 92 teachers in four urban middle schools by using questionnaires and interview questions that support from and interaction with colleagues appear to influence job satisfaction and then retention among teachers. This is consistent with Kardos (2004)’s study and Smith and Ingersoll’s study (2004). Kardos (2004) conducted a survey study on 486 first-and second-year teachers and found that the majority of his participants regarded support and collaboration helped reduce inexperienced teachers’ job responsibilities, and then attracted them to stay in their school. Smith and Ingersoll (2004) analyzed the data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) and found that collaborative activities with other teachers reduced the risk of teacher attrition. In addition to administrative and collegial support, schools with good work conditions are also schools where teachers are given opportunities to engage in school policies and to develop themselves professionally. Stone (1990) pointed out that the lack of professional development was a major factor influencing teachers’ decision to leave their school, especially schools in rural areas. Jimerson (2003) suggested strategies to improve teacher quality and retention by providing teachers with ongoing

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

16 professional development since limited opportunities in professional development were found to increase teacher attrition and decrease teacher retention. He also mentioned the lack of opportunities to engage in school policies as a factor causing teachers to leave. Another characteristic of schools with good work condition is sufficient facilities. Problems with school facilities are another reason for teacher attrition. Loeb, Darling-Hammond, and Luczak (2005) pointed out that many teachers wanted to move to another school or to leave their teaching profession owing to dissatisfaction with the school facilities. This was supported by Johnson and Birkeland’s (2003) study and Borman and Dowing’s (2008) study reporting that a lack of supplies, teaching materials and school facilities were responsible for teacher attrition. In their longitudinal interview study of 50 new teachers in urban and suburban public schools in Massachusetts, Johnson and Birkeland conducted face-to face interviews and revealed that teachers in schools with sufficient facilities and resources, and schoolwide structures supporting teaching and learning, were more likely to stay in their teaching career. Likewise, in Borman and Dowing’s (2008) paper, entitled Teacher Attrititon and Retention: Meta-Analytic and Narrative Review of the Research, instructional resources and facilities provided to teachers were one of the factors influencing their decision to stay in or to leave the teaching profession. Besides, several studies showed that teachers prefer working in schools with a good school environment (Chapman, 1994; Delors, 1996, Horng, 2005; Kemmerer, 1990). Poor sanitary workplace made the teachers feel dissatisfied and causing them to want to leave their school. This was supported by a study undertaken by Horng (2005) and Schneider (2003) reporting that working in a clean and safe school was very important for teachers and this attracted them to stay in the school. Class size also affects teachers’ consideration of staying or leaving. Several studies found that teachers preferred small class size (Schneider, 2003; Theobald, 1990; Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). In his report entitled Linking School Facility Conditions to Teacher Satisfaction and Success published in the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, Schneider (2003) documented how school work conditions affected the Chicago and Washington, D.C. school teachers’ teaching effectiveness and decision about their teaching career. He reported that the teachers

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

17 enjoyed teaching small classes more than big classes, and they said that small class size benefited their students, especially young children. More than 40 percent of the teachers complained about their class size, which affected their teaching effectiveness. Because of this, 65 percent of Washington teachers considered moving to another school, and about 40 percent of Chicago and Washington teachers thought about leaving teaching. Duncombe and Yinger (2007) discussed in his paper The Impact of Class Size on Teacher Retention how the class-size reduction policies reduced the attrition rate in teachers. He mentioned that teachers with smaller classes had more satisfaction, less stress, and then less interest in leaving the school.

2.1.1.1.2 Characteristics of Students Not only do characteristics of schools contribute to teacher attrition and retention, students’ characteristics or students’ behaviors are another employment factor that affects teachers’ decision whether to stay or to leave. Schools with many student discipline problems showed a high rate of teacher attrition. Also, the experiences that the teachers had with the students also influenced teachers to stay or to leave their teaching. Ingersoll (2001) analyzed the data from the 1991-1992 National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES), Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and its supplement, and the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) using a questionnaire reported that 25% of the public school teachers who left their teaching said student discipline problems and student motivation problems were the reasons why they did not stay in the teaching career. He concluded that schools with fewer problems of student discipline showed lower teacher attrition. Thus, the behavior and discipline of students are part of the school environment which can either satisfy or dissatisfy teachers and their decision about the teaching career. Similarly, Luekens, Lyter, and Fox (2004) found that students’ characteristics were associated with teacher attrition and retention. They mentioned that inexperienced teachers who reported dissatisfaction with student discipline were twice as likely to leave their school. Among these teachers, 25% were likely to move to another school, and 13% were likely to leave their profession. Galand, Lecocq, and Phillippot (2007) conducted a quantitative study with 487 French-speaking teachers from 24 secondary

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

18 schools in Belgium and found out that student misbehavior and violence negatively affected teachers, which then led to their intention to leave their teaching.

2.1.1.1.3 Characteristics of Job Assignments Teachers’ job assignments include teaching and non-teaching job responsibilities and paperwork. Apart from their teaching workload, teachers must attend meetings, mark and grade students’ papers, conduct research, and do many other assignments. Teachers’ unmanageable teaching workload and non-teaching workload can increase stress and decrease satisfaction. Too many teaching hours, excessive meetings and paperwork were more influential factors than any other factor, and many teachers found the paperwork unnecessary and redundant (Billingsley, 2003). The Mirror dated January 30, 2015 reported that statistics showed nearly 40,000 teachers in the UK cited their excessive workload and more requirements in out-of-school hour’s activities as the main factor for them to decide to resign, and many primary and secondary school teachers in Australia who worked 50-hour weeks said they wanted to quit teaching and mentioned the same reason. Characteristics of teachers’ job assignments are found to be one of the main factors of teacher retention and attrition in many research studies (Karsenti & Collin, 2013; Westling & Whitten, 1996). Many teachers in such studies reported that doing too much paperwork interfered with their teaching, and non-teaching and non- classroom assignments took time from their personal lives, which contributed to their decision to abandon their teaching career. Westling and Whitten (1996) reported from their survey study of 158 rural special education teachers to investigate the teachers' plans for remaining in or leaving their current teaching positions, that only 57% would remain in 5 years and job requirements and responsibilities were the reason for their decision not to remain. The results of a survey of 868 special educators in three urban areas by Morvant, Gersten, Gillman, Keating and Blake (1995) revealed that job characteristics and workload manageability influenced teachers to have the intent to leave their teaching career. In Karsenti and Collin’s (2013) research study, the data from the open-ended and close-ended questionnaires revealed that 26 out of 34 drop- out Canadian teachers regarded too heavy workload -- both teaching and non-teaching -- as the reason for their departure from teaching.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

2.1.1.2 Work Rewards Work rewards or benefits that teachers receive from teaching can influence teacher retention (Billingsley, 1993). Work rewards are classified into two types: (1) intrinsic work rewards; and (2) extrinsic work rewards.

2.1.1.2.1 Intrinsic Work Rewards Intrinsic work rewards come from teachers’ psychological satisfaction with their teaching, such as positive experiences with students, attracts many teachers to stay in their profession. Studies showed the joy of teaching and the belief in teaching work as a valuable contribution to society were the main factors for teacher retention (Ashiedu & Scott-Ladd, 2012; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). A survey of teachers carried out in 2002 by Australia’s Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (2003) showed that about 31% of the teachers liked working with children, 22% liked teaching, and 11.5% regarded teaching as an honorable job and teachers as a role model, and 8.3% wanted to contribute to society. This was consistent with the findings in several studies that the teaching profession attracted people because it gave them personal satisfaction when seeing their students’ success (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Laser, 1986; Steiner, 1988). In Ashiedu and Scott-Ladd’s (2012) paper entitled Understanding Teacher Attraction and Retention Drivers: Addressing Teacher Shortages, intrinsic work rewards, especially enjoyment with teaching students and the perception that teachers can help contribute to society, attracted them to the teaching career and also encouraged them to stay in this profession.

2.1.1.2.2 Extrinsic Work Rewards Salary, extra teaching fees, medical care benefits, retirement benefits, and career advancement are extrinsic work rewards that play a key role in teacher attrition and retention. Extrinsic rewards, especially monetary rewards, were revealed in many studies to greatly affect the teachers’ decision whether to stay in or to leave their job. Many educators discussed the positive relationship between satisfaction in salary and happiness in the teaching career, which then led to retention; in the same way, the negative relationship resulted in attrition (Allen, 2005; Billingsley, 1993; Certo &

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Fox, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 1996; Denlinger, 2002; Imazeki, 2004; Kevessiga, 2013; Kirby & Glissmer, 1993; Murnane & Olsen, 1990; Rockoff, 2004). Murnane and Olsen (1990) pointed out in their work based on a dataset on teaching career histories of 13,890 teachers in North Carolina that salaries greatly affected the length of stay in the teaching career. Brownell and Smith (1992) reviewed 12 studies of attrition in special education teachers and revealed that salary was the main extrinsic factor affecting teachers. An increase in salary could reduce the rate of attrition. Denlinger (2002) and Allen (2005) suggested that raising salaries could slow teacher transfer and attrition, which is consistent with Imazeki (2004) mentioning that at least a 15-20% increase in salary could reduce the attrition rate in suburban schools. Apart from monthly salary, Rockoff (2004)) emphasized the importance of benefits such as bonus payments in helping reduce teacher transfer and attrition rates. Many studies focused on the effects of an increase in salary; however, not much research mentioned the effect of a salary cut on teacher attrition and retention. Kevessiga (2013) reported that a cut and no increment of salary for primary school teachers in Uganda resulted in the teachers’ departure from their teaching positions. The situation of the consequences of inadequate and inappropriate salary have been more serious. According to the Center on Education Policy (CEP)’s survey, almost 50% of teachers would quit for a higher paying job.

2.1.1.3 Professional Qualifications According to Billingsley (2003), professional qualification was another important factor in teacher attrition and retention. Professional qualifications are teachers’ professional preparation and experience from their education and past employment. Teacher certification or teacher education degrees systematically show that teachers are qualified. Teachers’ college credits in education are an indicator that they are traditionally prepared for their teaching career. According to NCTAF (2003), teachers’ professional qualifications and preparation positively correlated with teacher retention. Teachers are more likely to retain their teaching careers if they are well- prepared with teaching qualifications. However, those who lack a degree in education but want to enter the teaching profession can become a teacher through the alternative certification process. In the

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

21 alternative certification process, prospective teachers are required to work with teachers or educational staff and attend workshops and teacher trainings. The knowledge and skills that teachers gain from the workshops and trainings enable them to teach. Alternative teacher certification could provide a workforce of qualified teachers and alleviate the teacher shortage problem. Feistrizer (2005) claimed that liberal arts graduates with alternative licensure were attracted into the teaching profession. The higher number of teachers without a degree in education who were certified through the alternative route program increased from 275 in 1995-1996 to 38,519 in 2003-2004.

2.1.2 External Factors External factors include economic, societal, and institutional factors. These factors are external to teachers and institutions and indirectly affect teachers’ career decisions. 2.1.2.1 Economic Factors Economic factors are trends in the economy that directly affect the labor markets. Economic factors including employment opportunities influence teachers’ decision to stay in or leave their career in that if there are employment opportunities elsewhere in the labor market, teachers are more likely to leave their position (Billingsley, 1993). Little research has been conducted on external factors; however, these factors could affect employment opportunities and then could influence teacher attrition and retention (Billingsley, 1993). People would leave their workplace to find a new job that would match their knowledge and skills (Abelson, 1987). Ashiedu and Scott-Ladd (2012)’s study confirmed that alternative employment opportunities are one of the reasons for teacher attrition. More than 25% of the teachers in their study said that they wanted to leave their teaching profession immediately, and 66% of those with up to 5 years’ experience wanted to leave within 5 years if they had alternative employment opportunities.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

2.1.2.2 Societal Factors Another external factor affecting teacher retention and attrition is societal factors including socioeconomic characteristics of students. Generally, students’ socioeconomic backgrounds are different. Those with a lower socioeconomic background face more challenges regarding learning resources, which negatively affects their performance and then influences teachers’ decision to move to another school or to leave their teaching career. Teachers who work in a school having students with good socioeconomic background are likely to stay in their teaching position (Billingsley, 1993). This is consistent with the result from the US Teacher Attrition and Mobility 2008-2009 Follow-up Survey. The percentage of teachers changing school and leaving their profession increased as the students’ socioeconomic status worsened.

2.1.2.3 Institutional Factors Institutional factors, which affect teacher attrition, include (1) state policies; and (2) school policies. Undesirable state or school policies led to unfavorable employment conditions and consequently causes teachers to leave their position (Billingsley, 1993). Many research studies showed that teachers were dissatisfied with burdensome tasks required by states and institutions (Delors, 1996; Kemmerer, 1990; Liu, 2007). Many teachers said that they were forced to do too much work to help their school meet the state requirements. Delors (1996) pointed out that schools needed to cope with changes in curriculum and then forced teachers to do more work. Kemerer (1990) reported that too many state and school requirements greatly affect teachers’ decision to leave their career, especially new and inexperienced teachers. This is consistent with Liu’s (2007) study on The Effect of Teacher Influence at School on First-year Teacher Attrition: A multilevel analysis of the Schools and Staffing Survey for 1999–2000. Liu (2007) found that the first-year public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States who were dissatisfied with the school and state policies were very likely to leave. In this study, seven areas of school policy were discussed as factors affecting teacher attrition and retention: performance standards, curriculum, professional development programs, teacher evaluation, new full-time teacher recruitment, discipline policy, and school budget.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

2.1.3 Personal Factors Personal factors include variables such as teachers’ demographic characteristics and their family or life circumstances like family responsibilities. Teachers were more likely to leave their career if they have problems related to these demographic features (Billingsley, 1993).

2.1.3.1 Demographic Characteristics Demographic characteristics include age and teaching experience, ethnicity, and gender of the teachers. Many studies showed that age and teaching experience are important personal factors that affect how long teachers stay in their career (Allen, 2005; Bellingsley, 1993; Hanushek, Kain & Rivin, 2003; Singer, 1993). Allen (2005) pointed out that teachers in their 20s are more likely to leave teaching. This was supported by Ingersoll (2001) considering age “the most salient predictor of the likelihood of teacher attrition.” Singer (1993) analyzed the longitudinal data on career paths of 3,941 special educators and revealed that among all demographic characteristics, the age of teachers showed the most consistent correlation wi th teacher attrition, especially teachers under 35 years old. The reasons why young, less experienced teachers left the teaching profession were revealed in several studies. Unlike senior teachers who left for retirement, young teachers found their teaching job dissatisfying and stressful (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007; Grissmer & Kirby, 1997). Besides, teachers with only one to five years of teaching experience are more likely to leave, compared with those with more experience. Hanushek, Kain and Rivkin (2003) claimed that teachers in the first two years of teaching are likely to leave twice as much as those with more experience. Ethnicity is another personal factor influencing teacher retention or attrition in some studies but not in others. Whitener, et al. (1997) mentioned that there were no differences in teacher attrition between teachers of different races. This is consistent with the studies conducted by Singer (1993). However, Dworkin (1980) discussed the intent, not actual behavior, and found that White female teachers were more likely to intend to leave their urban school positions than Black or Hispanic teachers. Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (2004) pointed out in their paper entitled Why Schools Lose Teachers that race was one of the factors influencing teachers to move to another

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

24 school or to leave their teaching career. They revealed that black teachers tended to move to schools with higher enrollment of black students.

Not many research studies discussed the relationship between gender and attrition. Some showed no relationship between them (Whitner et al, 1997). However, Morvant et al (1995) reported from the results of a survey of 868 special educators in three urban areas that male teachers were found more likely to leave than female teachers.

2.1.3.2 Family Circumstances Family circumstances are the factors that involve teachers’ family matters, family responsibilities and family interaction. If teachers have problems handling their family matters, they are more likely to leave their teaching position (Billingsley, 1993). A school survey carried out by Smithers and Robinson (2003) revealed that 9 of every 100 teachers left the school for maternity or family care. A similar result was also found in many studies indicating that family circumstances such as pregnancy and child raising contributed to teachers’ decisions to leave their career (Billingsley, 1993; Morvant et al, 1995).

So as to have a clear understanding about factors involved, the voices from teachers -- the persons whose experiences could best reveal the problems and causes of teacher attrition and retention – must be heard.

2.2 Teacher Voice …the teacher is the ultimate key to educational change and school improvement. The restructuring of schools, the composition of national and provincial curricula, the development of benchmark assessments — all these things are of little value if they do not take the teacher into account.

(Hargreaves, 1994)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

In order to have a clear understanding of what causes teachers make the decisions they do, we must fully comprehend what is meant by teacher voice. According to The Glossary of Education Reform (2013), teacher voice refers to “the values, opinions, beliefs, perspectives, expertise, and cultural backgrounds of the teachers working in a school, which extends to teacher unions, professional organizations, and other entities that advocate for teachers” (Teacher Voice section, para. 1). Teacher voice can be expressed in both formal and informal wayห. Teacher voice can be formally expressed in official school meetings. In an informal way, teachers may voice their opinions in open-invitation teacher forums or surveys of teachers.

Nonetheless, voices have hardly been heard in the policy-making process and in educational research (Hargreaves, 1996). Cohn and Kottkamp (1993) noted that teachers were absent from the dialogue and decision-making on educational reform and that efforts to improve education would not be made successful until teachers become respected partners in the process. Referring to a survey of 3000 public school teachers, “teacher voices are seldom heard in the policy space” (Teacher Voices Matter, para 1) and “there is a perception that teacher voices are not included; 53% of teachers agreed that their voices aren’t heard in the school building; an even fewer believe their voices are factored into the decision-making process at the district (19%), state (2%), and national (1%) levels (Teacher Voices Matter, para 4). Llorens (1994) pointed out that teachers who are the most actively engaged in education are the least recognized in the educational process. This is consistent with what Hargreaves and Shirley (2011) said.

Teachers are often “the end-point of educational reform; the last to hear, the last to know, the last to speak. They are mainly the objects of reform, not its participants.

(Hargreaves & Shirley, 2011. P. 1)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

In education, however, due to its importance, the concept of teacher voice has been increasingly discussed and highlighted. Hargreaves (1996) noted, “The voices of those whose lives are managed and assigned meaning by others deserve to be heard with attentiveness and sincerity” (p.16). Teacher voice was very important and should be valued since teachers are responsible for carrying out the policies (Bangs and Frost, 2012). Quaglia and Lande (2016) pointed out the importance of teacher voice since it provides an insider’s perspective on the state of the school, establishes a sense of belonging within the school community, advances collaboration and continual school improvement, facilitates mutual engagement between students and staff, encourages a shared sense of responsibility for the well-being of the school, promotes curiosity and creativity, and stimulates innovative problem solving.” (Why Does Teacher Voice Matter? para. 4). To clearly understand the problems that teachers and educational institutions experience and to investigate factors affecting teacher attrition and retention, the researcher believes that teachers’ voice should be expressed, listened to, understood, and acted upon.

2.3 Previous Studies on Teacher Attrition and Retention Many quantitative research studies on teacher attrition used questionnaires and survey methods to explore the range of variables associated with teacher attrition Hanushek et al (2004); Kardos (2004); Leukens & Chandler (2004); Tye & O’Brien (2002); Walker (2010). Some research investigated if a particular variable (e.g., age, gender, salary) is associated with attrition (George, N. L., George, M. P., Gersten, & Grosenick, 1995; Grissmer & Kirby, 1987; Morvant et al., 1995); some examined if there is a relationship between a particular class of variables such as demographic variables and attrition (Grissmer & Kirby, 1987); some focused on a greater number of work and demographic variables (Morvant et al., 1995); and others tested relationships between various work-related variables such as support, professional growth, role demands, and commitment) and job satisfaction, commitments, and ultimately teacher retention (Singh & Billingsley, 1996).

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Not many researchers use qualitative methods in attrition studies. Among those studies, Billingsley et al. (1993) uses open-ended surveys of leavers; some researchers interviewed teachers leaving the teaching position (Brownell et al., 1994- 1995; Morvant et al., 1995), and those who intend to leave (Billingsley et al., 1995). Ashiedu and Scott-Ladd (2012) interviewed retired teachers. Even though many studies on teacher attrition and retention have been conducted, most of them were undertaken using either a quantitative or qualitative approach (See Appendix A). Not many were conducted in a mixed-methods study, and very little research was undertaken through teachers’ voices in a Thai context. This research study attempts to depict teacher attrition and retention in one Thai university context through EFL teachers’ voices.

2.4 Chapter Summary The studies reviewed in this chapter illustrated three main factors affecting attrition and retention in order to help answer what factors influence EFL teachers’ decision to stay in or to leave their teaching profession. Research methodology including research design, instruments and procedures are discussed in the next chapter.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The integration of multiple forms of data: In mixed methods studies, investigators intentionally integrate or combine quantitative and qualitative data rather than keeping them separate. The basic concept is that integration of quantitative and qualitative data maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of each type of data. This idea of integration separates current views of mixed methods from older perspectives in which investigators collected both forms of data, but kept them separate or casually combined them rather than using systematic integrative procedures. One of the most difficult challenges is how to integrate different forms of data.

(Creswell, Klassen, Clark, & Smith, 2011, p. 5)

Overview

This chapter presents the methodology of this study including research paradigm, research instruments, and the procedures of data collection and data analysis. The chapter begins with how the research paradigm benefits this study, followed by the description and the benefit of each data collection instrument and the procedures of data collection. At the end of the chapter are the description and explanation of data analysis.

3.1 Research Paradigm

Following the theoretical notions of a mixed-methods research paradigm, which expands the research in a way that a single approach cannot and results in more comprehensive research (Creswell, 2003; Metz, 2000), the researcher gained insights into the broad array and a deep understanding of data, which enabled the research to better understand teacher attrition and retention. In addition, a methodological triangulation technique by which more than one method is used for gathering data helped reduce the uncertainty of the interpretation and to augment the validity of the findings (Mathison, 1988). To frame this study, the researcher used a convergent triangulation mixed-method design consisting of quantitative phase and qualitative

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

29 phase to obtain different but complementary data on the same topic to yield the differing strengths and nonoverlapping weaknesses of quantitative method with those of qualitative method and to validate quantitative results and qualitative findings (Creswell, 2003).

In this convergent triangulation mixed-method design, quantitative data and qualitative data were collected and then analyzed during the same period. The quantitative data and their subsequent analysis provided an understanding of the research problem, and the qualitative data and their analysis helped explain the results by exploring participants’ views in more depth (See Figure 2).

QUAN QUAL

Data Collection Data Collection

  Interpretation based on

QUAN + QUAL results

Data Analysis

(Data collection and analysis are done during the same time frame with equal weight)

Figure 2: The Convergent Triangulation Mixed-Method Design (Creswell & Clark , 2007)

3.2 Data Collection Tools

Following the notions of the mixed-method paradigm, the researcher used three different data collection tools to strengthen the validity of the findings: (1) a questionnaire, (2) semi-structured interviews, (3) written documents and artifacts.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

3.2.1 Questionnaire

According to Dornyei (2003), a questionnaire is one of the primary sources of gathering various types of information from a large number of respondents such as opinions, facts, experiences and behaviors in quantitative research studies. The researcher adapted the questionnaires from those of Giacometti (2005) and Walker (2010) in this study since their questionnaire items support the conceptual framework of this study. However, the questionnaire in this study contained more question items in order to cover all of the three main factors affecting teacher attrition and retention that were used to frame this study: employment factor, external factor, and personal factor. The present questionnaire was divided into three parts: participants’ demographic information (12 items); participants’ perceptions of English Language Teaching as a field (9 five-Likert Scale items); and participants’ opinions about reasons why teachers of English as a Foreign Language left or might leave their teaching career (81 five-Likert Scale items). The scale ranged from (5) = strongly agree, (4) = agree, (3) = uncertain or sometimes agree/sometimes disagree, (2) = disagree, and (1) = strongly disagree (See Appendix B).

Before its actual use, the questionnaire was piloted with ten EFL university teachers to ensure the questionnaire reliability. Responses to the questionnaires were tallied, tabulated, and calculated for the reliability. This questionnaire had the reliability of 0.95. (See Appendix C). Bryman and Cramer (1990) suggested that a reliability coefficient of at least 0.70 is considered “acceptable”.

3.2.2 Semi-structured Interview

A semi-structured interview is another data collection tool which allows participants to deeply elaborate on the issues from a set of pre-prepared guiding questions (Creswell, 2007). Considering the weakness of a structured interview, in which the questions are predefined and the sequence cannot be changed, and the interviewer cannot ask further questions, so the data cannot be as rich, and the weakness of an unstructured interview, in which the interviewer may miss important information to answer the research questions since there are no prepared questions, the researcher used a semi-structured interview in this study for these reasons: the

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

31 questions could be prepared ahead of time, flexibility was allowed for both the researcher (as the interviewer) and interviewees, and the researcher had opportunities to ask further important questions

In this study, the researcher developed a set of interview questions (See Appendix D), piloted these questions with four EFL university teachers, and then improved the questions before their actual use. The semi-structured interview encouraged the interviewees to express their voices about teacher attrition and elaborate on what they think, what they experience, how they act, and what they want about the situations. The researcher conducted the semi-structured interviews in Thai and English, depending on the participants’ preferences. Each interview lasted about 45- 90 minutes. Each interview was audio-taped and then transcribed.

3.2.3 Written Documents and Artifacts

Throughout the data collection process, the written documents and artifacts such as this institute’s policies, rules and regulations, minutes of the meeting, and posters were collected as source of information. According to Creswell (2007), the data in the raw, written form such as written documents, official documents and artifacts are full of detailed information. Besides, collecting the data from written documents and artifacts requires less time consuming and cheaper than using other research tools.

3.3 Ethical Considerations

It is necessary for a researcher to assure the participants of their right and privacy (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990). Considering the rights of the participants, the researcher sent a letter to the Director of the Department where the research was conducted to ask for permission and to explain the purpose of the study and the data collection methods (See Appendix E). After the permission was granted, the researcher sent a letter and a consent form to each participant informing the participant of the purpose of the research study, its data collection methods, and the protection of their confidentiality and privacy (See Appendix F) To ensure the confidentiality and privacy of the participants, the researcher made the data

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

32 anonymous by using pseudonyms to replace the names of the participants and the name of the institution.

3.4 Data Analysis

The data from the returned and completed questionnaires were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequencies and percentages were reported concerning nationality, gender, age group, marital status, education, teaching experiences, teaching hours, academic title, and monthly income. Descriptive statistics including measures of central tendency such as mean and measures of dispersion such as standard deviation and range were used to analyze the respondents’ perceptions of English Language Teaching and their reasons why teachers of English as a Foreign Language left or might consider leaving their teaching career.

The transcribed data from the interviews, the written documents and the artifacts were analyzed using open and axial coding techniques. The aim of open coding was to discover, identify, name, and then categorize and describe phenomena. Axial coding was used to refine and differentiate the categories or subcategories from open coding, and then those categories or subcategories were related to each other to help explain the phenomena investigated (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Adhering to the notions of triangulation (Mathison, 1988; Metz, 2000), the researcher increased the validity of research findings by triangulating the data from all of the research instruments in terms of the consistency, inconsistency, or contradictory within the three data sets.

3.5 Chapter Summary

This convergent mixed-method study was conducted to investigate what factors influence EFL teachers to consider leaving their teaching profession and what factors encourage them to remain within their teaching profession Three research instruments employed in this study include a questionnaire, interviews, and written documents and artifacts. Adhered to Mathison’s (1988) notions of triangulation, the data from all of the research instruments were triangulated to validate the research

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

33 findings. The next chapter gives information about the research context and participants.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

CHAPTER 4

CONTEXT

Individual teachers have different expectations and priorities for their work and workplace; what satisfies one may be insufficient for another. For example, a new teacher may be more concerned than a veteran about not having a curriculum. One teacher may be exasperated about the shabby condition of the school building while her colleague barely notices the disrepair. Having the chance to exercise influence in the school may be essential for one teacher’s ongoing engagement in her job, while her peer in the classroom next door may care far more about having access to good professional development. Pay matters more to the teacher who does not have the down payment for a house she wants to buy than it does to another who entered teaching at mid-career and has a military pension to supplement his salary. Therefore, it is impossible to specify a simple set of elements that will satisfy all teachers, since people are different and many features of the workplace are interdependent. In order to meet the expectations of a wide array of individuals and enable them to find satisfaction in their work, all elements require attention.

(Moore, Harrison, & Donaldson, 2005, pp.1-2)

Overview

This chapter gives information about the participants taking part in both quantitative and qualitative data collection. The information includes their background, characteristics and workplace. The chapter also describes the participants’ workplace and overall picture of the research context.

4.1 Participants

Sixty-five EFL teachers at one language institute of one public university in Thailand – native and non-native speakers – were invited to participate in this study. These teachers included currently in-service teachers, teachers having left their teaching job, and retired teachers. Forty-eight participants including 29 currently in- service Thai teachers, 11 currently in-service foreign teachers, 4 retired Thai teachers,

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

3 Thai teacher leaving full-time teaching career, and 1 Thai teacher moving to another institution completed the questionnaire. Twenty-three of them including 10 currently in-service Thai teachers, 5 currently in-service foreign teachers, 4 retired Thai teachers, 3 Thai teachers leaving full-time teaching career, and 1 Thai teacher moving to another institution gave an interview (See Table 1). Their teaching experiences varied between less than 5 and more than 30 years.

Table 1 Participants in Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection Procedure

Participants Number of Number of participants participants completing the giving the questionnaire interview

Currently in-service teachers (Thai) 29 10

Currently in-service teachers (Foreign) 11 5

Retired teachers (Thai) 4 4

Teachers leaving teaching careers (Thai) 3 3

Teachers moving to another institution (Thai) 1 1

Total 48 23

More information about the participants who participated in both quantitative and qualitative phases can be seen in Table 2.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Table 2 Participants in Both Quantitative and Qualitative Phases

Names Work Status Nationality Years of Teaching Experiences at This Institute

Bobby Currently in-service Foreign 25-30

Demon Currently in-service Foreign 10-15

Diana Currently in-service Thai Below 5

Daniel Retired Thai Over 30

Eddy Currently in-service Foreign 5-10

Faye Currently in-service Thai 21-25

Jodie Leaving teaching career Thai 5-10

Kate Currently in-service Thai Below 5

Kim Currently in-service Thai 25-30

Lila Currently in-service Foreign 5-10

Nanny Currently in-service Thai Below 5

Natalie Currently in-service Thai Over 30

Natty Retired Thai Over 30

Nicky Moving to another institution Thai Below 5

Palmy Retired Thai Over 30

Peter Retired Thai Over 30

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Names Work Status Nationality Years of Teaching Experiences at This Institute

Simon Currently in-service Foreign 5-10

Sue Currently in-service Thai Below 5

Summer Leaving full-time teaching career Thai 5-10

Susie Currently in-service Thai Below 5

Tania Currently in-service Thai 21-25

Tina Currently in-service Thai 21-25

Vicky Leaving full-time teaching career Thai 5-10

4.2 THINK University THINK University (pseudonym) is the second oldest state-run university in Thailand with four campuses. Two main campuses are located in the capital city. The other three were in three different regions of Thailand. This university had 24 faculties and 240 programs for undergraduate and graduate students.

4.3 The Language Institute, THINK University The Language Institute of THINK University, established as a faculty in 1985. The Language Institute is responsible for fundamental English and English for Specific Purposes courses for all undergraduate students. Moreover, it offers two international graduate programs: Teaching English as a Foreign Language and English for Careers and an international doctoral program in English language Teaching. Apart from instructional responsibilities, the language Institute provided many language services and organized an English language proficiency test for the public.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

The Language Institute had two main offices – one in the capital city and the other in a suburban province of Thailand.

4.4 Chapter Summary

This chapter identifies the participants’ background, characteristics, and the detailed information about their workplace. Their opinions about factors affecting teacher retention and attrition were presented in the next chapter.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS

The notion of the teacher’s voice is important in that it carries the tone, the language, the quality, the feelings that are conveyed by the way a teacher speaks or write. In a political sense, the notion of the teacher’s voice addresses the right to speak and be represented. It can represent both the unique individual and the collective voice; one that is characteristic of teachers as compared to other groups. (Butt, Raymond, McCue, & Yamagishi, 1992, p. 57)

Overview

This chapter reports the triangulated results from the quantitative and qualitative data. The results are divided in two sections. The first section describes the quantitative results including the demographic data of the participants, the participants’ perceptions of English Language Teaching, and the participants’ perceptions of factors affecting teacher attrition based on Billingsley’s (1993) Model of the Influences of Teachers’ Career Decisions . The second section explains the qualitative results on factors affecting teacher attrition and retention.

5.1 Quantitative Results

The following are the results from the researcher’s computation of the data the returned questionnaires analyzed by the Statistics Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Three main parts in the questionnaire are discussed as follows: the demographic data of the participants; the participants’ perceptions of ELT; and the participants’ opinions about reasons why EFL teachers leave or consider leaving their teaching career.

5.1.1 The Demographic Data of the Participants

Of the questionnaires which were distributed to 65 participants, 48 were returned. The demographic data of the participants which were analyzed were as follows: status, academic title, nationality, gender, age, marital status, level of

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

40 education, field of study, years of teaching experience, years of teaching at this university, years of teaching at this institute, regular teaching hours per week, extra teaching hours per week, and monthly income.

Current Status of Participants

The majority of the participants (83.3%) were currently in-service Thai and foreign teachers. The rest was Thai teachers who were retired, who left the teaching career, and who moved to another institution (See Appendix G).

Nationality of Participants

Regarding nationality, three-fourths of the participants were Thai, and one- quarter were American, Canadian, Irish, and English(See Appendix H).

Academic Title of Participants

The majority (62.5%), which were new, young Thai teachers and foreign teachers, had no assistant or associate professor title. About 18% each were assistant professors and associate professors (See Appendix I).

Gender and Age of Participants

The majority of the participants (70.8%) were female. A wide range of teachers’ age could be seen at this institute. Teachers aged 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60 years old took around 20% each. About 12%, which were Thai retired teachers who continuing their teaching career as part-time teachers and one currently in-service foreign teacher with language expert position, were more than 61 years old (See Appendix J).

Marital Status of Participants

Concerning the marital status of the participants, half of the participants were married, and almost half were single (See Appendix K).

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Level and Field of Education of Participants

With respect to the participants’ level and field of education, the majority (70.8%) held a master’s degree. About 20% had a doctoral degree, and about 8%, all of whom were foreign teachers, held a bachelor’s degree. The participants had various fields of studies. The majority -- around 50% of the participants -- had a degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Nearly 25% had a degree in applied linguistics, linguistics, English, English Literature, and Language and Communication. One-quarter of the participants had a degree in other fields of study including music, engineering, sociology, Japanese, math, philosophy and cinema (See Appendix L).

Years of Teaching Experience of Participants

Regarding teaching experience, 31.3% had 5-10 years of teaching experience, and 20.8% had more than 30 years. About 10% were new teachers with less than 5 years of teaching experience (See Appendix M).

Years of Teaching Experience of Participants at this University

More than half of the participants had less than 10 years of teaching experience at this university. About 12% taught for more than 25 years at this university (See Appendix N).

Years of Teaching Experience of Participants at this Institute

Around 30% had below 5 years of teaching experience at this institute, and only 2.1% had more than 30 years (See Appendix O).

Regular and Extra Teaching Hours per Week of Participants

Considering regular and extra teaching hours per week, about 30% had 3-6 hours a week of teaching regular courses, and almost 40% had 7-12 hours. The similar pattern could be seen in the number of participants with their extra teaching hours, about 30% were those with 3-6 hours a week of teaching extra courses and 20% had

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

7-12 hours. However, around 12% of the participants had had more than 12 hours of extra teaching hours (See Appendix P).

Monthly Income of Participants

Regarding the montly income, about 60% of the participants had lower than 50,000 baht. Nearly 40% had the range of of 50,001-80,000 baht. Only one participant (2.1%) had more than 80,000 baht (See Appendix Q).

5.1.2 The Participants’ Perceptions of English Language Teaching

The majority of the participants had positive thoughts about being an EFL teacher and was satisfied with teaching EFL as an occupation (x̅ = 4.46). They were also satisfied with their current teaching profession (x̅ = 4.21). Around 70% planned to teach until retirement, but about 6 % had no intention of doing so, and nearly 21% accepted that they were not sure or undecided. Many participants planned to continue teaching at this institution until reaching the retirement age, but just above 20% did not want to and about 16% were undecided. Approximately 70% had no plan, while about 10% wanted to move to another institution or to leave the teaching profession, and around 20% felt undecided. 65% did not feel tempted to leave the teaching career, but 22.5% did. (See Appendix R)

5.1.3 Reasons Why EFL Teachers Leave or Consider Leaving Their Teaching Career

The statistical calculation of the 48 completed questionnaires revealed that among eight-one reasons, nine reasons were considered to influence teacher attrition at the high-level degree (3.41-4.20): inappropriate salaries (x̅ = 3.75), inadequate salaries (x̅ = 3.69), health condition (x̅ = 3.65), limited opportunity in career advancement or job promotion (x̅ = 3.60), inadequate salary increase (x̅ = 3.56), family responsibilities (e.g., pregnancy, child-rearing, etc.) (x̅ = 3.56), job-related stress (x̅ = 3.50), wage structure or wage systems for teachers (x̅ = 3.44), excessive paper work to meet the school requirement (x̅ = 3.42). Forty-three reasons were considered to affect teacher attrition at the moderate- level degree (2.61-3.40), twenty-seven reasons at the low-level degree (1.81-2.60),

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

43 and two reasons at the very low-level degree (0.01-1.80), which were gender (x̅ = 1.73) and religion (x̅ = 1.60). (See Appendix S) 5.1.4 Factors Influencing Teacher Attrition and Retention

Regarding factors influencing teacher attrition, the statistical calculation of the 48 completed questionnaires revealed family matters (x̅ = 3.56), economic trends (x̅ = 3.345), extrinsic work rewards (x̅ = 3.227), institutional influence (x̅ = 3.115), and characteristics of job assignments (x̅ = 2.948), and as the first five main factors influencing their decision whether to stay in or leave their teaching careers.

Among eleven factors, family matters (x̅ = 3.56) was considered to influence teacher attrition at the high-level degree (3.41-4.20). Economic trends (x̅ = 3.345), extrinsic work rewards (x̅ = 3.227), institutional influence (x̅ = 3.115), characteristics of job assignments (x̅ = 2.948), intrinsic work rewards (x̅ = 2.73), professional qualifications (x̅ = 2.693), and characteristics of school (x̅ = 2.686) were at the moderate-level degree (2.61-3.40). Characteristics of classroom/ students (x̅ = 2.508), demographic aspects (x̅ = 2.28), and societal influence (x̅ = 2.203) were at the low-level degree (1.81-2.60). (See Appendix T)

5.2 Qualitative Results

5.2.1 Factors Affecting Teacher Attrition

The data from the semi-structured interview revealed that demotivating work policies, inappropriate salary and benefits, negative characteristics of the profession, family responsibilities, and health problems are believed to be the three major factors influencing the teachers’ decision to leave their teaching career or moving to another institution.

Work Policies Many participants – both Thai and non-Thai teachers reported that the work policies both demotivated and discouraged them and tempted them to leave their

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

44 teaching job. These policies include demotivating and unrealistic work requirements, excessive paper work, and unfair and unclear evaluation process.

Work Requirements Work requirements, especially research and research publication requirements, stressed these teachers and provoked them to think about leaving. These teachers were unhappy with conducting research and then were not satisfied with this institute’s policy and requirement that the teachers have at least one research article, research paper, or textbook published in every two years (See Appendix V). The four currently in-service Thai teachers having taught at this institute for more than 20 years – Faye, Tina, Kim, and Tania – were unsatisfied with this work requirement. To these teachers, whose passion lay in teaching, the work requirements, especially those about research and research publications, were not appropriate and should not be valued as much as teaching.

Faye had little interest in conducting research and said that she entered the teaching career not because she wanted to conduct research, but because she loved teaching. Faye also mentioned that research and research publication requirements really discouraged her to continue being in the teaching career. I am unhappy, VERY unhappy that the university requires us to do what we do not want to. When I decided to work here, no one told me that I had to conduct research or to have my research paper published. I love teaching and I am happy teaching my students. When I was offered a position here, I knew that being a teacher could not make me a fortune, and I accepted it. I even found out later that I had a lot more teaching workload than I expected, and I accepted it. BUT I cannot accept these research requirements. I think one day I will have to leave if I am seriously forced to fulfill these TERRIBLE requirements. (Faye)

Faye furthered discussed that such research requirements did not benefit the students at all. She believed that the main responsibility of teachers was teaching.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

The university is too concerned about the number of research studies and research publications. The university wants more research and more research publications just because they want to be in the high university rank. The number of research does not benefit the students at all. It is a good teacher, not a good researcher, who can make a difference in helping improve students. (Faye)

Disagreeing with the university’s goal to be in the high rank and the university’s research policy, Faye continued discussing that this would definitely affected teachers who did not enjoy research or were not able to conduct it. When asked what would affect those teachers, she said that now she did not see any serious effect yet, but it really upset and discouraged her. She said that if she was seriously forced to do it, she would definitely move to another university or leave the teaching career. I once thought that when the university put too much pressure about research on me, I would move to another university, but this problem is not only our university’s problem but also the nationwide problem. So, I think leaving the full-time teaching career will be a good solution. If I am invited to teach part- time, I will. If not, I will just quit being a teacher. (Faye)

In consistent with Fay’s response on demotivating research requirements, Tina thought that each person had different preferences and skills. Some enjoyed and were good at doing research; others preferred teaching to research work. She admitted that even though she understood why the university wanted more research work, she could not do it. This made her unhappy and sometimes thought about resigning.

I discussed the problem about this requirement with my husband. I told him I would have to resign when the university seriously requires me to do this. I feel like a drag to my institution. I know I could not make it. I love teaching and will always enjoy it. Why don’t they value more on teaching, which is our main responsibility? (Tina)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Similarly, Kim believed that the university should consider teaching responsibility, NOT research, as a priority. To her, teaching – not conducting research -- was teachers’ main responsibility. These research requirements upset me and many teachers. When I started working here, no one told me that I had to conduct research. At that time the focus was not on research at all. I was mainly responsible for teaching, and I really enjoyed that. I was never late for class. I prepared the lessons to help improve my students’ English. But now, the university wants to be in the high rank, and what can make it happen is the great number of research publications. But I think we should consider many aspects like the quality of teaching. We are teachers, NOT researchers. If teachers are forced to do something they are not happy with, they might quit. Why doesn’t the university focus more on our teaching? (Kim)

Tania, another well-experienced Thai teacher, admitted that she thought about leaving a full-time teaching career to be a part-time teacher when she knew that the university required the teachers to do research work and to have at least one research article published each year. I don’t think I can meet the university’s research requirements, and I will quit when I am seriously forced to do it. I still love teaching, so I might apply for a part-time teaching position or I can be a translator. (Tania)

When asked why she believed that she could not meet the research requirements, Tania said that she did not agree with these requirements and did not think language teachers should be required to do so. I think it is ok to ask people in the field of science or medicine to do research. That makes sense. But in the field of language, research, especially in teaching, is not that necessary. It takes a lot of time. Is it better to spend time teaching and helping students to improve their English? (Tania)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Tania also mentioned that everyone focused only on the quantity of the research, not its quality. It seemed that people do care about the number of research papers and publications. No one talks about the quality of research work. The university just wants many papers to meet the Quality Assurance Standard. This is why I do not agree with the university policy. (Tania)

Tania suggested what she believed should be done to solve this problem. I think the university should not force all people to do research. Some teachers can teach very well, but they do not like conducting research, while others prefer doing it and can do it well. Some can do very well on both teaching and doing research. Why doesn’t the university let them do what they can do and are happy to do? This can help retain many teachers who are good at teaching. (Tania)

To the retired teachers, even though research requirements did not seem to be major problems since the requirements were initiated after all of them were retired, they found those requirements could cause teacher attrition. Natty, a retired teacher with more than 30 years of teaching experience in this institution, mentioned that if she had been forced to do it, she might have been upset and thought about leaving. In her view, research was not necessary in the field of language. During my time, teachers were not required to do research. We were encouraged to do academic work, but we could do other academic work like writing textbooks or developing supplementary teaching materials, which we were pleased to do. It is a good idea to encourage people in the field of science to conduct research, but I don’t think it works in the field of language. I would have been unhappy and might have thought about leaving if I had been forced to conduct research. I think in teaching English, we need to help students improve their English by giving them opportunities to practice. To me, research is more about theory than practice. You can see that many teachers at my age continued their teaching until the retirement age. This is because we did not have to do this frustrating thing. (Natty)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

The research work requirements dissatisfied not only the well-experienced teachers but also the less experienced one like Nanny, a young new teacher with three years of teaching experience. Nanny felt negative about conducting research just in order to meet the requirement or just in order to obtain the academic title. I think the work requirement that teachers need to have the academic titles like assistant professor or associate professor are the negative reinforcement. Why doesn’t the university encourage us with the positive reinforcement? (Nanny)

Discussing further about the research requirements as the negative and positive reinforcements, Nanny sighed. I think it is the negative reinforcement since the university says they will not continue our contract if we cannot fulfill the requirements. I am always told that I have to leave if I cannot obtain the assistant professorship in five years. To me, it is like a penalty. It would be much better if they could convince us that this could give opportunities for our professional development and opportunities for us to help the university move forward. I will definitely feel valuable if I, with assistantship, can help lead the institute to be the better educational institution. (Nanny)

She continued to point out that most of the English teachers at her institute enjoyed and were better at teaching rather than conducting research. So, they were concerned not only about the number of research studies they had to produce but also the types of research that they should do to satisfy the institute. She thought that the teachers should be able to choose to conduct the one that they wanted and were interested in. We are asked and encouraged to conduct research, but I think we are the ones who know when we are ready for it and what type or topic of research we would like to do. Anyway, the main problem I think is that many English teachers were happier with teaching than carrying out research. I have a friend who left the full-time teaching position and turned to the part-time teaching job in order to avoid being forced to conduct research. (Nanny)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Work requirements affect not only the Thai but also the two foreign teachers. The foreign teachers felt insecure about their work. While the Thai teachers thought the new policies demanded too much from them, the foreign teachers felt the policies were not reasonable. The foreign teachers said they were willing to do all work required by the institute and the university; however, they felt insecure because they were not sure whether they could fulfill some requirements. Some suggested the university reconsider the ideas and the decisions.

Demon, a foreign teacher who had been teaching EFL in Thailand for more than ten years, was quite upset with the work requirement and said he had considered leaving the teaching career owing to the policies and requirements. Yes, I thought about leaving. Administrative policy decisions at the ministerial and university level are often bone-headed, when I hear of them. This can be witnessed at many university systems. (Demon)

Demon admitted that the work requirements and the new policies made him frustrated and worried about his job security.

I heard from one teacher at another institute said that her university has the new rules and policies to force the teachers to do extra duties. She also said that many people at her university left owing to the new policies. If the university requires me to do too much work, I will definitely quit. (Demon)

When asked what the new policy was about, he said he did not know exactly what it was, but he heard that the teachers would have to do too many things apart from teaching, and there would be more requirements. I felt there will be more extra responsibilities, and I heard that we will be required to have a license in order to teach. These affect our job security. (Demon)

Like Demon, Simon, another foreign teacher, said that his institution tried to persuade foreign teachers to do more work, especially research, and he knew that this

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

50 was because it would affect the quality assurance results, but it was impossible for teachers to conduct research and get their research paper published or to develop textbooks since they had too many teaching hours. The institute has tried to encourage us to conduct research, but as far as I am concerned, it is UNREALISTIC to ask people who have 28 teaching hours a week to do research or to develop the course book. (Simon)

Simon also compared the institute’s work system and requirements with those in the west. In the west, teachers have small teaching schedule and teach the same course, so they specialize in it. With small teaching schedule and a TA, they have time to do research and get it published. This is impossible here. (Simon)

To Eddy, an experienced foreign teacher, although he understood why he was required to do research, what he did not understand was why the research article that he wrote for the institute for a year was never published, and some did not even submit the paper as required, and he felt that the requirements affected many people in the institute. I am willing to do research and write a research article. I understand that we need to do this because we need to be competitive, and we try to raise our standard. I was asked to write a research article, and I wrote one and submitted it last year for our institute’s journal, but I haven’t seen it published yet, and some of us have done this assignment, but asome haven’t. It has been over a year ever since. I think people are not happy about the requirements because they are expected to do more work. Some people are struggle with the demanding workload and research requirements. From what I see, people try hard to get it done, which makes them too tired. (Eddy)

When asked to explain about the standard that he mentioned and how he felt about it, he said …. The institute needs to reach higher standard and to meet the university’s goals. I am willing to do more things apart from teaching, but it is frustrating

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

since it takes a lot of time to do such things, and there is no compensation, and we have classes to teach, too. (Eddy)

Work policies, especially those about research and research publication requirements also affected Vicky, a Thai participant who got her first full-time job at this institution, worked for about ten years there and finally decided to quit her full- time teaching career. My roles were to teach foundation courses and ESP courses and to do some administrative jobs as assigned. I was very happy with all the teaching jobs but VERY UNHAPPY with some insignificant paperwork such as the QA (Quality Assurance) documents. I wanted to be an English teacher because I like English and teaching English. It is challenging in that I have to keep changing my teaching strategies and activities based on students’ English abilities. BUT what I enjoy least is doing research and paperwork. (Vicky)

When asked to give more details about the research requirement, Vicky said she could not remember all of the requirements, but what she remembered was it really discouraged her to continue working as a full-time teacher. I cannot remember all the research requirements, but as far as I remember, teachers need to do a piece of research and need to have research publications every year. I felt that I was forced to do what I do not like and I did not have other options for my career at all. So I decided to leave it to work as a part-time lecturer, instead. As a part-time lecturer, I can still pursue my passion for teaching and can choose not to do research. (Vicky)

Apart from her lack of interest in research, Vicky admitted that she had never been trained to do so. She found it very difficult for her to conduct a research study. It is hard to do research. Developing the tools is difficult. I haven’t known and haven’t learned how to do it. All steps of research require knowledge and experiences. I have neither of them. (Vicky)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Vicky also considered that it was not worth conducting research. She did not see much benefit of it. I don’t think we should spend so much time on something worthless. I think we already know the answers of many research questions, especially the ones about our teaching or about our students. Conducting research is time- consuming, conducting unnecessary and worthless research is a waste of time. Shouldn’t we spend time on something more beneficial like teaching students and improving their English? (Vicky)

Research publication requirements also affected Summer, a former full-time university teacher at a state-run university and now works full time in the field of public relations and communication and part time as a teacher at the graduate program in the same university. Knowing that there would be the new university policies requiring part time teachers to do research, she was not happy and said that she would definitely leave her teaching career. It does not make any sense requiring people who have expertise and experiences in the field to conduct research. These experts are invited to teach at the graduate program since their knowledge, experiences and competencies cannot be found in the books. I do not doubt the requirements for full-time university teachers since those are parts of their careers and evaluation. But this should not be applied to the part-time teachers teaching the specific field – not the general English. (Summer)

Summer continued expressed her opinions about research requirements that those requirements would discourage people with expertise and great work experience to teach at the university. The students would then miss great opportunities to study with people with real experiences, which would definitely affect the quality of education. Summer also complained about the inappropriate and unreasonable quality assurance หัหำท . She said research was essential in some fields but NOT essential at all in many. Should a judge with more than 30 years of experience in law be required to conduct research just to meet the requirements of the quality assurance? I

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

don’t think so. Should an expert in a top PR organization be required to do that? I don’t think so. The university should reconsider this before losing the good assets for their organization. The university should think about the students. I understand that evaluation brings development, but there are better ways for the university to be evaluated, not just by the number of research publications. (Summer)

She further gave the university a suggestion in order not to lose part-time teachers with expertise. I think the university should find the appropriate criteria. The same evaluation criteria cannot be applied with all fields of studies. The university should value more about knowledge, experiences, and competencies of the experts they invite to teach their students. Otherwise, university graduates will be people with only knowledge from the books and will not be able to work successfully and effectively in the future. (Summer)

Apparently, it can be said that work policies and requirements were an influential teacher attrition and retention factor. A lack of interest, a lack of knowledge, and ignorance of importance made many participants in this study feel negative about those policies and requirements, which then led to their decision to leave or have an intent to leave the teaching profession.

Excessive Paperwork Excessive paperwork especially the work required to meet the quality assurance standard made these teachers very unhappy and discouraged them to work as a full-time teacher. This affected both full-time and part-time teachers who considered the paperwork required by the Quality Assurance Committee such as the Thai Qualification Frameworks for Higher Education (TQF) (See Apendix W) redundant and very time-consuming. Faye, a well-experienced Thai teacher, felt that the university and their institution focused too much on Quality Assurance and then required the teachers to do too much paperwork.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

We, teachers, should be encouraged to teach and help students -- not to complete such paperwork. I think the authority knows little about this. They just want us to submit the paper. Is that the right thing to do? They just follow or COPY the idea about Quality Assurance form the West. I think QA should be done to improve the quality of education -- not just to waste our time on writing and submitting papers. This paper work makes me sick ---VERY SICK. If I am forced to do too much paper work like this, I might leave to be a part- time teacher. (Faye)

Not only the experienced teachers but also the new teachers with less than 5 years of teaching experience felt the same about the paper work requirement. Diana and Nanny, two young newly-hired Thai teachers, said they wondered why the university required such paper. To them, the paper work was redundant and unnecessary, and too much paper work took the time that should be spent on their students. I was asked to complete the Thai Qualifications Framework for Higher Education (TQF), and my colleagues were asked to do the same paper for the same course. I thought that this wasted our teachers’ time. Why do we have to do the same paper work? Too much of our time was spent on it. I think only the course coordinator should be responsible for it. We should spend that much time on teaching and helping our students. Too much paper work definitelt affects the happiness we have in our teaching career. We really are NOT HAPPY about it. (Diana)

I know and understand that the university wants to reach the educational standard and to meet the Quality Assurance requirements, so they want much --- TOO MUCH paper work from us. But, I don’t think it makes sense at all. It wasted our valuable time. Our time should be spent on thinking about and doing for our students. (Nanny)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

The paperwork requirements also affected a part-time teacher. Unlike others who were upset about the number of paper work requirements, Summer was not quite happy about types of required paper. She highlighted the inappropriate questions in the paper that she was required to complete by the graduate program. I was asked to develop a TQF for the course I teach in the graduate program. I think some points in this paper do not make sense at all. But I was told that the paper was developed to use for all faculties and departments. The paper is a part of Quality Assurance requirements. (Summer)

She discussed further the quality of such paper. The questions are too broad. Each field of study is different in nature. The questions should be specific enough in order to obtain the information that will later be used to improve the course and the program. I think many teachers feel the same. (Summer)

Vicky, who also left for a part-time teaching career after her 10 years of working full-time at this institute, expressed the same feeling about the TQF document requirement. She said it was a waste of time for her to do this kind of paperwork every semester. She thought that the university needed these documents just because they wanted to meet the Quality Assurance Standard. She said she was happy being a part-time teacher since she did not have to be responsible for this paperwork.

I don’t understand why we have to do this boring task over and over. I have to do the TQF papers every semester. Besides, the information in the TQF documents is exactly the same as that in the course outline. Why can’t we use the course outline for the Quality Assurance then? Why do we have to do both? Currently, as a part-time teacher, I do not have to do this. (Vicky)

According to what the teachers at this institute shared, it was not worth doing the required paperwork, especially that to meet the Quality Assurance standard. They

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

56 believed it was very time-consuming and redundant. They also thought that there was very little benefit from this paperwork.

Inappropriate Evaluation Process An inappropriate, unfair and unclear evaluation process is another factor that influenced the teachers to think about leaving their position. At this institute, the teachers are evaluated based on the number of teaching hours, the amount of academic work such as research and research publication, textbooks, and other teaching materials, and the amount of administrative work. These evaluation criteria were considered by many Thai and foreign teachers unfair and unreasonable. Many Thai teachers stated that their workplace’s currently used evaluation system should be reconsidered and improved. They felt the evaluation criteria were not appropriate in terms of proportion when compared with the previos ones which put more value on teaching (See Appendix Y).

Tina, a Thai teacher with almost thirty years of teaching experience at this institute, said that she felt hurt and wanted to quit her teaching career when being evaluated “below standard” despite dedicating herself to teaching, participating in all of the activities, and doing everything that she could to make her institution successful. I never understand and I am never explained some work that I do like writing English Proficiency Tests is not included in the evaluation criteria. I think these test papers are one of the factors of our institution’s success. I have helped developing many test papers, but this doesn’t count at all. I feel very depressed and sometimes feel myself worthless. (Tina)

In Tina’s opinion, career growth depended too much on the evaluation process. The inappropriate one could lead to teacher attrition. I think the evaluation system should be made more appropriate since it affects career advancement, which influences teachers to stay in or to leave our teaching career. (Tina)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Like Tina, Kim also felt stressed about the evaluation system. She mentioned the old system was less demanding and more reasonable. Back then, the situation was not so stressful. Some were promoted in some years, and some in others. The system and criteria were fair and reasonable, I think. But now, the administrative team is putting too many aspects in, especially the number of research and research publications. I understand that these are what the university wants, but should we consider other aspects, too? (Kim)

To Kim, teachers with high responsibility, especially teaching responsibility should be more rewarded. Some teachers conduct many research studies but are not quite responsible for teaching students. They have many papers published and presented in the conferences but leave the classrooms and their students. Is it the right thing to do? I think we should consider adjusting the evaluation system and criteria like rewarding our teachers who are very responsible for our teaching job. (Kim)

Palmy, a Thai teacher reaching the retirement age at 60 three years ago and now being hired to teach at this institute under the 1-year contract, also thought that the evaluation system and criteria was not appropriate and should be changed. She compared the evaluation system used in the past and the one currently used that the former was much more appropriate since it valued many aspects. The latter with unsuitable criteria could affect teachers’ happiness and then teachers’ attrition. I think we should consider many aspects when evaluating our teachers. In the past, I was evaluated “good” and got promoted since the university at that time considered many aspects including the teaching quality, the academic work, the contribution to the university, and many others. But, right now it seems that we mainly consider only academic work, especially research papers and publications. The teachers who are promoted these days are the ones with many papers and publications. This can upset and discourage the

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

teachers with the high quality of teaching who produce a little research. (Palmy)

Palmy also highlighted the drawbacks of the currently used evaluation system and criteria that this system could affect the quality of teaching and then the quality of students, which finally would result in the poor quality of education. With this system, she said, many teachers focused mainly on their academic work which was one criterion in evaluation and could help them receive the academic title. With this system, many teachers feel stressed and were not happy being a teacher. I think many of our teachers forget about teaching our students and helping them learn and live successfully, which was our main responsibility. They focus SERIOUSLY and ONLY on their academic work and academic title. I understand that it is very important for them to meet the university requirement. But not everyone can do that, and the ones who cannot meet the requirement will not be happy at all. I’ve heard that some teachers in other departments quit owing to this inappropriate system. I think the whole system is wrong. (Palmy)

She further discussed that these requirements would discourage the teachers to stay in their full-time position. She said that these teachers would leave for the part- time position in which they could still teach but would not have to worry about not meeting the requirement or not being promoted. Her suggestions were the reconsideration about and the changes in the requirements and the evaluation system and criteria. She proposed that the university take many aspects into account such as teachers’ volunteer work, teachers’ participation in the university’s activities, teachers’ initiations or innovations in teaching, or any contribution that the teachers could give to the university. The university should value the research based on its benefits to education, not on the difficulty in conducting or writing it. The university should reconsider both the requirements and the evaluation criteria, or else we will end up with the failure in teaching and learning and with the departure of our teachers from their job. Teachers who do volunteer work like teaching the disabled students or help organize the university

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

activities should also be promoted. The institute considers this important, but I don’t think they believe it is as important as conducting research. (Palmy)

Holding similar comments about the evaluation system and criteria, Daniel, another retired teacher asserted that the unfair and inappropriate evaluation could discourage teachers, especially the ones with academic work outside the institution. Such academic work, this teacher believed, brings reputation to the institution, too. Therefore, it should also be valued in the evaluation criteria. I think our evaluation system and criteria should be reconsidered. The unfair one can discourage our teachers. We should take many aspects into account. Being a committee for the organizations – both in and outside the institution— is also academic work. The institute should think about this, too. When doing academic outside the institute, our teachers could represent and bring reputation to our institution. (Daniel)

To Vicky, a participant leaving for a part-time teaching position, inappropriate evaluation process affected her career growth and also her decision to leave her full- time teaching career. The new evaluation system for teachers is that they must do research. And it is what I enjoy least about working as a teacher at the university level. I am not interested in doing research at all and I would like to spend time teaching only. I didn’t want to quit my full-time teaching career, which I love, but I had no options at all. (Vicky)

When asked to explain further about the evaluation system, it seemed that Vicky did not want to discuss it. What she said was it could influence teachers to leave the teaching career. Disagreeing with many participants’ views that the evaluation system and criteria were not appropriate, Sue, a newly hired teacher who had many years of teaching experiences at a private secondary school, believed that the evaluation was reasonable; however, what she disliked was that it was not clear about when she, as a new teacher, would be evaluated.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

I think we have the fair evaluation here. I don’t think research is a problem. We conduct research since we want to use the results of our research to help make our teaching and learning process better. That is why one of the evaluation criteria is academic work like research work and publication. However, I never know when the institute will evaluate me. I know only how often. I think it should be clear so that we, new teachers, can prepare for it. (Sue)

Apparently, teachers’ voices from this institute evidently revealed that many teachers were not satisfied with the work requirements and doubted the fairness and appropriateness of the evaluation criteria. To them, the demotivating work policies could discourage teachers to stay in the teaching profession. The teachers whose passion lay in teaching found these policies adversely affected them, and the best solution was to leave for the part-time teaching position.

Salary and Benefits Inappropriate salary and benefits are likely to be factors influencing the teachers, especially the young new Thai teachers and foreign teachers to think about leaving their teaching career. Many Thai teachers, especially the young and inexperienced, and some foreign teachers believed their salary was not appropriate. The Thai teachers said that their salary was quite low, compared with that of other careers, and the foreign teachers mentioned that the teachers at many institutions like International schools get much higher salary and better insurance policy. Kate and Susie, young and newly hired Thai teachers, said they were very financially worried since their salary was quite low, and as a non-government official, they felt financially insecure about their future. The salary is enough for me just for now. But it will not be enough when I plan to buy things – expensive things. And I am not a “government official” teacher, so I will not have pension when I am retired. I think the salary is too low. I think I should plan carefully about my future. No one wants to have financial problems when they are retired, right. I think about having a small business that I can do while still being a teacher. (Kate)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Compared with the salary I got when I worked at the private company, my current salary here is very low. It would be much better if I had higher salary. Now I have to teach a fundamental course offered during the school break to earn some money. Otherwise, I would not survive. (Susie)

According to the three Thai teachers -- Sue, Faye, and Palmy, the salary affected many people’s decision whether to enter, stay in or leave their career. They said that many people did not want to enter the teaching career since they believe that the salary is inappropriate and very low. Many friends of mine turned to other careers after graduation since they were very concerned about the salary. Compared with other jobs, teachers have lower salary. They are able to earn high income from teaching extra classes, but the monthly salary is low. (Sue)

Many people complain about how low the teachers’ salary is. (Faye)

To Palmy, a retired Thai teacher, the appropriate salary would help retain the teachers in the career and it could increase the teachers’ satisfaction and happiness at work. To many teachers I know, the teacher salary is quite low. They have to teach much more hours to earn extra money. I think if the salary is appropriate, our teachers will not have to spend much time teaching extra classes and they will have more time to spend on academic work like research. Then, they will not have problems or complaints about the requirements or evaluation or anything. (Palmy)

Low salary affected not only the currently in-service and the retired teachers but also Nicky, a Thai teacher moving to another institution, also mentioned that she had to have extra classes to sustain the costs of living. I had to work extra hours to sustain the costs of living – the rent, the nanny’s wage, and many others. Even though the institute assigned us to teach extra courses from which we could earn more money, we would have less time or

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

even no time for ourselves, our family, and the required academic work. I taught at many institutions. Problems were quite the same. (Nicky)

The foreign teachers including Simon, Jane, and Lila, claimed that the salary and benefits were not appropriate. Simon complained that if foreign teachers want to earn more money, they have to have more teaching hours. But they already had many or too many teaching hours. Besides, foreign teachers never had a pay raise. The teachers at international schools got far higher salary with a salary raise and a real school summer break. We have no pay raise. My salary has been about 30,000 baht since I started working here. Everything goes up except my salary. Taxes go up. Food price goes up. But .. not my salary. I can earn more, but I have to teach more hours, and it’s impossible. (Simon)

Simon admitted that he thought about moving to an international school where he could earn much more salary and greater benefits. I thought about leaving here for an international school. The teachers at international schools get a lot higher salary. People teaching at a good school can have over 100,000 baht a month with 3-month holidays, while we have only 30,000 baht a month. We could earn 50,000 to 100,000 here, but we have to teach a lot more hours. That means so much preparation. (Simon)

Consistent with Simon’s response, Eddy and Lila, the foreign teachers believed that benefits really affected teachers’ decision to stay in or to leave their teaching career. Some teachers leave their career because they want more money for themselves and for their family. They have to support their family. I have to teach one or two extra courses to gain more money. (Lila)

The salary itself is not enough, and we should have some extra courses like courses for public or for government organization. (Eddy)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Low salary was proved to be one of the main factors of teacher attrition in this institution. It affected Jodie, a Thai participant who got her first job, worked for ten years there and finally decided to quit her teaching career. Apart from her health problem, very low income made her quit working at the institution in 1999 and never returned to the teaching career. After teaching for a decade, my last salary was only 16,000 baht. That was ONLY 454 USD a month after tax. What I liked the least about being a teacher was definitely a measly salary. How could I survive with this little amount of money? (Jodie)

Characteristics of the Profession Characteristics of the teaching profession was claimed to be one of the factors of teacher attrition. Three participants – Nanny, Diana, and Nicky -- considered the teaching career demanding, and one said teaching was boring. Nanny and Diana, the Thai teachers with less than 5 years of teaching experience at this institute, said that it was not easy at all being a university teacher. In Nanny’s opinion, despite the opportunities to develop themselves professionally, the teachers are not able to take such opportunities since the teaching job was demanding. It seemed to me that we, university teachers, are at the top level position of the education system. So we have to improve ourselves, always. I think I have to update myself on teaching theories. And the university gives us opportunities to develop ourselves professionally; we can attend conferences, seminars, short courses, or workshops or even pursue our doctoral degree with the university’s financial support. But, many of us have many things to take care of. Then, it is hard to keep our work-life balance. The ones who cannot handle this may have to quit. And I have heard and seen many teachers leave the full- time teaching career for this reason, which means that they still love teaching, right? (Nanny)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Diana said even though she understood why the institute wanted her to further her study, she preferred teaching. She was very stressed when asked about her study plan. I feel stressed when the institute says that it is time for me to pursue my doctoral degree. I have been told about this since the job interview day. But enjoying spending time with my students, I don’t not feel like continuing my education. Besides, I need time to prepare for my study, how can I since there are many things for the teachers at the institute to do – teaching, attending meetings, writing tests, and organizing activities for students. I know the institute wants the teachers to hold a doctoral degree since it is a good thing both for ourselves and for our students. I want to study one day, but I am not ready yet. (Diana)

Similarly, to another participant, Nicky, being a teacher was a hard and demanding work. It was not about teaching only. There was much work and responsibility that came with teaching. At my previous workplace, I loved the teaching job, but I got very exhausted with the work that came with it like coordinating coursing, writing exam papers, developing supplementary materials, taping audio materials, and a lot more work. These were time-consuming tasks for me as a young, inexperienced and indecisive lecturer. But as long as it was a teaching related task, I would rather do it and be willing to learn about it. But the part that I disliked was administrative work such as checking office supplies or being involved in any procurement procedure. I felt like I was not trained to do such work and was unhappy having to take responsibility for it. (Nicky)

One participant who left the teaching profession said teaching was boring. Jodie, who did not want to become an English teacher at all, said that she was too young and did not know what she wanted. She just found out later that teaching was boring. She was assigned to teach the same courses only to undergraduate students and she did not like teaching at all since teaching was a boring job. She said she felt very bored with repeating the same lessons.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

I would not say that I wanted to teach English or become an English teacher. Right after graduation, I never figured out what I really wanted to do with my life. I would rather say that it was purely timing how I got into teaching English. I was assigned to teach the Fundamental English courses during the entire 10 years I was at the institute. Frankly speaking, it got pretty boring after about five years of having to teach the very same three courses the whole time. Some teachers stay because they simply love teaching. I do not. (Jodie)

Family Responsibilities Family matters and responsibilities were considered to be one factor of teacher attrition. For the three participants, family responsibilities, especially in raising children influenced their decision to leave the teaching career at this institute. All of them reported that bringing up their children was a big burden for them. One of them left the full-time teaching career to become a housewife; one left for a part-time teaching position, and one moved to another institution located in her hometown. Jodie became a housewife after leaving her teaching position when she had baby. She had never returned to work since then because she had three babies to take care of. She spent her time looking for good teachers and good schools for them. It was impossible to do so if she still taught at the university. I do not want to return to the teaching career any more. Raising three little boys take almost all of my time. The teaching job is time-consuming. I can’t do both at the same time. (Jodie)

Family responsibilities were also the reason why Nicky, a young Thai teacher quit teaching at this university and moved to teach in an institution in her hometown. She admitted that she wanted to spend more time taking care of her child. I wanted to spend more time with my son. He was not a very healthy child. Resigning from the position at my previous workplace could give me a break from the pressure and was best for my family, too. (Nicky)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

In consistent with Nicky’s response, Vicky thought that it is impossible for her to teach and do other assigned tasks and to raise her children at the same time. I like teaching, but it was not only the teaching job that I had. There was a lot more work. I would like to spend my time teaching only, and I also needed more time to take care of my kids and do a lot of activities with them. This greatly influenced me to leave the full-time teaching career. It is impossible to do everything. (Vicky)

Two currently in-service teachers – Susie and Faye also thought that family responsibilities play a major role in many teachers’ decisions whether to stay in or to leave the teaching profession. For both of them, family was regarded the priority. Working as a full-time teacher, they found it impossible to take good care of their family. I think personal matters like family responsibilities are important for many people. Some have to take care of their parent or themselves. Some have to leave their full-time teaching job to become part-time teachers. Doing this, they still can look after their family. (Susie)

One of our teachers got married and then had to resign since she had to move to the United States to be with her family. (Faye)

Faye’s response was not different from Nina’s response about the importance of family. She once thought about moving to another institution since she was planning to get married but was being told by her institution to further her education abroad, but she did not want to. I kind of thought much about it. It was quite hard to live and study very far away from my family. I once thought about leaving this institute for another university where I don’t have to be apart from my family. (Nina)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Health

Health problem was proved to affect one teacher at this institute to resign. Jodie, a Thai participant leaving the teaching position at this institute mainly owing to her health problem, pointed out that her decision to leave was right and best for her during that time. If continuing working, her health condition would be much worse.

It was the right decision because my health took a nosedive. Now looking back, I regret not quitting a term sooner and not asking my colleagues to fill in for me. My health deteriorated rapidly in the last term, and it clearly affected my performance. I could not continue teaching. (Jodie)

The responses from these teacher participants overall indicated teacher attrition was influenced by all three factors – employment, external, and personal factor. Employment factor was found to affect the participants’ decision whether to leave their teaching career. Many were upset with and worried about the evaluation system and criteria, which they found inappropriate and unfair. Some were dissatisfied with the salary and benefits, which they believed too low. Regarding external factor, the majority of the teacher participants were not satisfied with the work policies and requirements, which they thought excessive and too demanding. Personal factor like family responsibilities and health problems was clearly evident to affect the decision of some participants to leave their teaching career.

5.2.2 Factors Affecting Teacher Retention The data from the semi-structured interviews revealed like of teaching, good relationship with colleagues, high opportunities in professional development, job stability, prestige, and medical and retirement benefits as factors affecting the participants’ decisions to stay in their teaching careers.

Like of Teaching When asked what made them stay or want to stay in their teaching profession, like of teaching was most of the participants’ main reason. Most Thai participants revealed that the reason they entered the teaching career was that they loved teaching

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

68 and they were happy to teach and to be able to improve the students’ English. Like of teaching was also the reasons why they stayed in this career. For Natalie, Tina, Kim Faye, and Tania, the well-experienced teachers, teaching can make a difference. These four participants were happy that their teaching strategies and materials could help the students improve their English and make them successful. Natalie, a senior Thai teacher having taught for almost 37 years, said that she enjoyed teaching and was proud of being a teacher and very happy to help her students improve their English. This keeps her in her teaching profession for more than 30 years. I love and feel very proud of my job. It is great to know that the lessons I prepared can make my students understand more and improve their English. I am so glad to see my students’ achievement. Teachers can inspire students academically and personally. Teachers can teach them, explain them the lessons, and give them advice. This is why I am still happy teaching here for many years. (Natalie)

Natalie further discussed that the joy and happiness of teaching has kept her in the teaching career since her first day of work. I have never been bored with teaching despite having been in this career for more than 30 years. I am happy when I teach and even happier when my teaching can make a difference. I think we, teachers, are part of the students’ success. If teachers are happy and enjoy our teaching, I think no matter how hard our work is, if we love what we are doing, we will be successful and never want to quit. (Natalie)

Tina, Thai currently in-service teacher who chose to leave her secretary position at a state enterprise voiced the more or less the same reason as that of Natalie. She mentioned that the main reason why she was still teaching even though she sometimes thought about leaving this career owing to the unsatisfying work policies and requirements was that she felt very happy teaching her students.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Teaching makes me happy. Also, I feel myself active and enthusiastic to prepare the lessons for my students. I can spend many hours searching for the information or thinking about how to explain the lessons to my students. And when they understand the lessons, I am very glad. There is a lot of work that comes with teaching like writing exam papers and marking the students’ paper. But I never feel bored with it. It is a part of the teaching job that can help the students. (Tina)

Liking of teaching also made Kim and Faye, both of whom were well- experienced teachers at this institute, stay in their teaching career. I am happy teaching my students. I have been teaching for almost 30 years and still enjoy it. I am glad and happy to improve my students’ English. (Kim)

What I like about being a teacher is the act of teaching. I like to explain the lessons. I want to share what I know with my students. I think no matter what job you are doing, you can do it well and stay with it happily if you love doing it. And teaching is what I love doing. (Faye)

Unlike most of the teachers who entered the teaching career because they loved and enjoyed teaching, Tania admitted that she had not wanted to be a teacher and got accepted by a bank. However, because of her parents’ influence and advice, she entered the teaching career, and with many years of teaching at this institute, she found herself happy to teach.

I enjoy teaching now even though I did not want to become a teacher and got a job from a bank when I graduated. But having worked here for more than 20 years, I enjoy teaching. How and what you teach your students can make them love studying English. The students at this institute are nice, so I like teaching them. (Tania)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Not only experienced teachers but also the four young, new and less teaching experienced teachers -- Diana, Sue, Susie, and Nanny -- considered like of teaching the reason why they were in the teaching career. These four teachers were very happy teaching at this institute. They were also happy spending time with the students and knowing that their students understood the lessons.

I am happy teaching here. I enjoy teaching both fundamental and ESP courses. I think I choose the right career for myself. I think I am good at explaining and making difficult lessons easy for my students to understand. My students told me that my explanation is clear and helpful. They like studying with me. This is the reason why I want to be a teacher. (Diana)

Sue, another new teacher at this institute who taught at the secondary school before working at this institute, also mentioned her like of teaching as one of the reasons for staying in the teaching profession. I enjoy being with children and teaching them. Teaching secondary school students, teachers spend time with the students since they are young and really need to be taken care of. Teaching university students are not different. I am happy to teach them. (Sue)

I first felt that I liked teaching when I was a graduate student. While being a student, I applied to work at a secondary school. Then, I worked as a teacher at many institutions and I finally found that being a teacher at this institution suits me most since I enjoy teaching the students here. Even though their English proficiency is not as high as I expected, I like teaching and helping them improving their proficiency. I don’t think I will leave this career or move to another university. (Susie)

I started my first career as an employee at a private company. Despite the high salary, I never felt happy with my job and tried to think what could make me happy. Teaching was the answer. Being a teacher might be more tiring than working at the company, but I could be much happier. (Nanny)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

When asked what she felt happy most about teaching, Nanny said … I find myself good at explaining the lessons to the students. I think I can help them succeed in learning English. I have many teaching methods and techniques and a lot of advice for my students. I want to teach and enjoy teaching at this institute because it is a state-run university where I can forget about the business – I mean commercial goals. I worked at a private language tutoring school before and it was business-oriented. Here I can apply all of my knowledge and skills to teach and help my students. (Nanny)

In common with many Thai teachers’ perceptions, several non-Thai teachers regarded like of teaching as the factor of their retention in the teaching career. Bobby, a foreign teacher with an M.A. in TEFL who previously taught at another state-run university and the Buddhist University in Bangkok, has been in the teaching career for 50 years since 1966. He said that he never wanted to stop teaching since “love of teaching’ kept him in this career. I first came here to Thailand with the U.S. Peace Corps, but to my surprise, I loved teaching from the very first day of practicing teaching in Bangkok. I have loved teaching since the very first day I did it. I enjoy meeting new students and teaching new subjects. I have never seriously considered leaving the teaching profession because it seems to be the ideal career for me. (Bobby)

Bobby further explained that teachers he knew did not stay in the teaching career mainly because they did not like teaching. Unlike those teachers, he found that his like of teaching encouraged him to work as a teacher in this institution for a very long time. Some want to change because teaching does not match with their previous academic training; they do not know what being a teacher involves, so they don’t enjoy it; they burn out after years of teaching; they are disappointed with the low English proficiency of the students. They had much higher expectations. But I think if they liked and enjoyed teaching, they would not be disappointed. First, we have to love what we are doing. (Bobby)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Similar to Bobby, two foreign teachers, Lila and Simon, admitted that they unintentionally entered the English teaching career but finally enjoyed teaching very much, especially teaching university students. Joy of teaching was their main reason for them to stay in the teaching profession. At first, it was quite difficult for me to teach English to people with different culture. I started teaching because I was asked by the organization I worked for in the USA to choose between recruiting new students and teaching. I chose teaching and taught there for some time before my organization was taken over. Then, I came to Thailand just to travel, but got a job teaching little kids and then a job at this institute. Before teaching here, I taught for six weeks at a temple in Chiengmai. I taught very young kids – or you can say “monsters” (LAUGH). I intended to teach at the university, but at that time there were no vacancies. …. After I applied for a job here and got accepted, I have found that seven years of teaching makes me love this job. It is hard to get such good experiences like this. I am happy every time I am in my class. I enjoy teaching and feel that what I teach my students can help them when they graduate. Many students expressed their gratitude and their appreciation to my work. I am very glad when knowing that they are going to graduate. (Lila)

I had taught at a university in Thailand for many years and then left for my graduate study. After having a master degree, I came back to my teaching career again at the same institution. This is because I find teaching enjoyable. When I am in the classroom with my students, I find myself happy and the job rewarding to make the students be able to understand the lessons and then improve their English. (Simon)

Demon, a foreign teacher having taught at a language school for almost a year before moving to and having been teaching at this institute for about 11 years, admitted that first he just wanted to try a new career but found out later that he enjoyed teaching and was happy teaching at this institute. I just want to try teaching to see if I would like it or not. And yes, I did like teaching. I felt good teaching here. I enjoyed teaching, especially ESP

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

courses, for my students. I am happy preparing the materials for my classes, especially ESP classes. It can help when explaining the difficult lessons. (Demon)

Another foreign teacher with many years of teaching experience at this institute, Eddy also stays in the teaching career for many years because he loves teaching.

Teaching is the best thing I can do, and it is more natural and easier for me than doing other things. I like the academic atmosphere. (Eddy)

Like of teaching is also the main reason for the retired teachers to be in the teaching career until retirement. All of the retired Thai teachers including Daniel, Peter, Natty, and Palmy, noted that they were in the full-time teaching career until their retirement age because they loved teaching, enjoyed teaching, and were happy to see that their teaching could lead their students to success. We cannot deny that there are many problems when working with many people in a big organization. I won’t say that we don’t have problem here. But, the happiness that I got from teaching my students made me stay in this profession for almost 40 years. I was NEVER reluctant to go to my class. I think a teaching job is rewarding. What you teach your students can make a difference. I like when the students pay attention in class. I like when they participate in class activities. I try to engage them in every teaching step. I enjoy that. (Daniel)

I entered this teaching career and stayed in it for more than 40 years since I like teaching. I like teaching, and I like teaching English. I think I have the characteristics of a good teacher. I am happy when my students understand the lessons and when their English becomes better. The teaching job can make a difference. (Peter)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

When asked what difference a teacher could make, Peter further explained. A teacher is a not a person who comes to class just to teach the lessons from the textbooks. A good teacher teaches students how they can be good citizen in the society. This is why I love the teaching job. (Peter)

I started the teaching career at a very young age. I admitted that at first I did not enjoy teaching this much, but having spent more than 30 years teaching students, I have never wanted to leave. Seeing their success makes me happy. Besides, teaching university students is fun. I have different groups of students each semester. Teaching them and being with them make me young, too. (Natty)

I could say that I love teaching. Having been in this career for more than 30 years can guarantee how happy I am. I enjoy preparing the teaching materials that I think can help my students understand the lessons. The students are different. The courses are different. So, we teachers should be aware of this and try to find the best teaching strategies and materials for our students, and I have been doing so and I am so happy when it pays off. It can help my students. (Palmy)

Two participants who left the full time teaching career – Vicky and Summer -- said that they still love teaching, and that is why they continue their teaching career as part-time teachers. For Vicky, who now teaches English at another institute, being a teacher is what she is very happy with. Summer also felt the same. Summer, who left her full-time teaching profession to work at a private company in the field of public relations, still continues her teaching career as a part-time university said that she was happy when seeing that her teaching lessons and strategies helped her students understand the lessons and improve themselves. I wanted to work at the university because I like English and I like teaching. I like the nature of the job. I enjoy designing my own lesson plans and teaching methods and preparing the teaching materials for my students. It is also challenging in that I have to keep changing my teaching strategies and

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

activities based on my students’ English abilities. I am happy when my teaching can help them improve their English. (Vicky)

I have found teaching fun, enjoyable, challenging, and rewarding. I am happy when knowing that my knowledge, experiences, and competencies can help my students improve themselves professionally and personally. My experiences from my full-time job in the public relations and communication field have been proved to be very useful for my students. I have given them opportunities to learn things not just from the books. (Summer)

It could be concluded that joy of teaching and happiness in seeing the students’ improvement and success from their teaching techniques and strategies make the teaching job rewarding for both Thai and non-Thai, both well-experienced and less-experienced teachers at this institute.

Good Relationship with Colleagues Good relationship with colleagues was found to make some teachers feel happy with teaching at this institution. Four highly-experienced Thai, one novice Thai, and three foreign teachers revealed that they had good relationship with most of their colleagues. They also got support from their colleagues. They thought that they might not have as much good relationship and support as they did if having other careers.

Kim considered good relationship with her colleagues was one of the reasons why she enjoyed working as a teacher at her institution. I would say that what makes me happy working here is that I have good friends here. We talk and laugh. A LOT about everything. We share teaching lessons and materials, some jokes, and funny experiences. I think these make me happy. I am sure that I will not experience this in other departments or other universities. (Kim)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Similar to Kim, Natalie valued good relationship with colleagues, and it was one of the reasons why she was happy working at this institute. I think colleagues are important. We cannot work alone. Having good relationship with and support from colleagues makes my life here happy. WE help each other in everything like sharing teaching techniques and giving feedbacks on our teaching and teaching materials. I think if we had no friends or no relationship with others, we would not be happy to work and might quit. (Natalie)

To Natty, another well-experienced teacher, good relationship among colleagues could create a warm and happy work environment, and the happiness could result in retention. I have been happy working here because of the good relationship with my colleagues. I have a group of friends who have the same interest and preference. We hang out eating and talking. We go traveling. We help each other when having problems about work. I think this is the reason why I have never thought about leaving. (Natty)

Consistent with Natty, Tania found that she had good relationship with her colleagues at this institute, and this made her happy to work there.

I have good colleagues and good friends here. I am happy working with them and enjoy hanging out and eating out with them. I have a group of friends at the same age who I can talk about anything with. I think this is one of the main reasons why I am still happy to teach at this institute. (Tania)

Diana, a young teacher, said that she was happy teaching here since her colleagues, especially the close ones, were great and cooperative, and the staff are very supportive. These could help working here smoothly. I got very good friends here, especially the ones at my age. We share everything – not only the teaching materials but also problems, advice, and support. We discuss everything – academic and non-academic topics -- and even hang out after class. The staff here are also very nice. Most of them are

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

service-minded. They smile and help me solve the problems – mostly about the paperwork. I could say that without these staff many things cannot get done. This creates a warm atmosphere where I work happily. (Diana)

Not only Thai but also foreign teachers said what made them happy to teach at this institute was the good relationship among colleagues. Demon, an experienced foreign teacher, said the good relationship and support from staff was one of the reasons why he enjoyed working at this institute. He believed that the both academic and non-academic opportunities and activities that he and colleagues had together resulted in good relationship among colleagues at the institute.

I feel good teaching at this institute. I can get along well with everyone – both my colleagues and the staff. Working together and sharing teaching materials and techniques and traveling together every year can help us bond. When you work with somebody for many years and you don’t have major problems, you can trust your coworkers. That is good. And the support staff here are very nice. They did fantastic job all the time. Mr. A always has everything ready for us. Miss B is excellent at her job. Mr. C, the new guy helps me a lot about the paper work. And Miss D, Miss E, and Miss F, and everyone. They deserve a big bonus. (Demon) Like Demon, Eddy, with 20 years of working as a teacher and almost 10 years of teaching experience at this institute, mentioned that one of the reasons why he has been teaching there for many years was the nice people whom he worked with. I really enjoy working here. We have nice work environment. I mean nice people to work with. Everyone here is kind and helpful. Colleagues are nice, and the support staff are polite and very pleasant to work with. (Eddy)

From what the teachers at this institute voiced, the support, help, problems and advice – both academic and non-academic that they shared with their colleagues created good relationship among colleagues at this institution, which then resulted in happiness and retention at work.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

High Opportunities in Professional Development Opportunity in professional development was considered important and made three participants enter and retain in the teaching career at the university level. To the young, less-experienced teacher, this could help them improve themselves and develop themselves professionally. Sue, a 35-year-old teacher who taught at a private secondary school, said that working as a university teacher, she had many opportunities to develop herself professionally. The university motivated the young teachers to pursue doctoral degrees. This is the reason why she quit working at the secondary school, applied for and stayed in the teaching position at this university. Working here, I have many opportunities to attend conferences, workshops, seminars and short courses. This institute gives many PD opportunities to all of the teachers, especially the young new teachers including me. These could help me improve myself. I am even luckier since I have just got the scholarship from the university to pursue my doctoral degree. Other jobs cannot offer these PD courses and scholarship. After I get the degree, I will work here in order to help develop my institute. (Sue)

To the well-experienced teachers like Peter and Natalie, these opportunities can help upgrade their knowledge and skills. In their opinion, these opportunities are hardly offered for people in other careers.

Good teachers should be knowledgeable. The university supports the staff financially to develop themselves professionally. Many professional development activities like seminars, workshop, and trainings are given to our teachers to upgrade their knowledge and skills. We are also given research grants to develop our research skills. If I were not in this career, how could I be given these opportunities? Our young teachers even have the financial support for their doctoral study. (Peter)

Teaching at the university level, teachers need to develop themselves. They should not stop learning new things. I am glad that I teach here since the institution encourages professional development by providing us with

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

trainings, seminars, conferences, and many others. I am glad that I am given this support. The benefits are not only for myself but also for my students. I have applied what I have learned to my teaching in order to make it effective and useful for my students. (Natalie)

Consistent with the responses from Sue, Peter, and Natalie, Nicky having left a full-time teaching position at this institute before being a, translator, a private tutor, a part-time teacher at a secondary school in her hometown but finally returning to the full-time position at a public university in her hometown pointed out that not many opportunities in professional development were given in other careers. She also said that these opportunities in private universities were much fewer than in public universities. To her, opportunities in professional development were necessary for the teachers. This was the reason why she returned to the full-time position at a public university. I returned to the public university again since I could take many opportunities in PD – both in Thailand and abroad -- like trainings, workshops, seminars, and conferences to develop and improve myself. These opportunities are much less offered by the private universities and are hardly found in other careers. Teachers have to develop themselves academically and professionally so as to help improve students. (Nicky)

The voices from the participants at this institute revealed that high opportunities in professional development were important for them since these opportunities could broaden their knowledge and help develop their skills. From their view, the more opportunities in professional development they had, the better and more effective teachers they could be. Retaining in the teaching position at the public university, they were offered these opportunities, which benefits both themselves and their students.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Job Stability Job stability is considered by two teachers as one of the main factors for teacher retention. One retired teacher and one well-experienced teacher, both of whom had more than 30 years of teaching experiences at this state-run institution, had the same reason why they wanted to be teachers and why they would like to continue teaching until they were not able to. Natty, a retired teacher pointed out … I think the benefit of being in this career is the stability that this career brings. Teachers at the public universities work until they reach their retirement age. I am one of them. I feel secure about my job, and I still have the retirement pension to live my life. (Natty)

Parallel with Natty, Natalie highlighted the benefit of working at the public university that the job was stable, especially when compared with that in the private sector. Job stability is very important to me. That is why I entered this teaching career at the public university. The salary is not high. I could say it is very low, but it is very stable. I can do what I love until retirement. Working in the private sector is not. (Natalie)

Job Prestige Prestige is another reason why Natalie and Natty, two Thai teachers with more than 30 years of teaching experience, enter and stay in this career. They said that teaching, especially at the university level, was a good, privileged, and highly-status career.

Natalie, who was a secondary school teacher for many years before working as a university teacher, proudly said that her parents were very proud of her getting a teaching position at the university. My parents and I were very happy that I was accepted by one of the best universities in Thailand. Being a university teacher, especially the one with

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

good reputation is prestigious. I am lucky and happy to teach. This is one of the most highly-respected jobs in Thailand. (Natalie)

Like Natalie, Natty, a retired teacher admitted that one of the main reasons for staying in the teaching career for many years because teaching is one of the most highly-respected professions in Thailand. The teaching profession is publically respected. People view teachers as a highly-respected career. There is a Thai saying that “teachers are the second parents”. To the Thais, being a teacher at a top university like this university is a prestigious job. (Natty)

To these two participants, teaching was an honorable and prestigious career in Thailand. Furthermore, the teachers at reputed and prestigious universities were highly respected, which influenced them to retain in the teaching profession at this institute for more than 30 years.

Medical and Retirement Benefits Two participants regarded the medical and retirement benefits offered in the public sector as one of the factors for teacher retention. These benefits make working for the state or federal government worthwhile not only for them but also for their family.

Tina said … The medical benefits for state-run teachers are great. Not only I but my parents have these benefits, too. When my father was seriously ill and had to be admitted in a hospital for months. I paid just a little thanks to the medical benefits. I think many people want to work for the government because of this. People working in the private sector have far less medical benefits. (Tina)

Paralleled with Tina, Natalie highlighted that the medical and retirement benefits draw many people to work for the public sector and her to the teaching career at the public school and then this public university.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Public university teachers’ salary is very low – much lower than other occupations, but we have great medical and retirement benefits. Such benefits attract many teachers to enter and stay in the teaching career at the public institution. Having at least 25 years of service in the public sector, we can receive a pension. This makes us feel secure to live after our retirement. If I worked at the private university, I could not have a pension when I reached the retirement age. (Natalie)

From these two participants’ responses, fringe benefits including medical and retirement benefits were important and influenced them to enter and stay in the teaching career at the public institution. The medical benefits helped save their medical expenses for themselves and their family. The retirement benefits made them feel financially secure.

5.3 Chapter Summary The triangulated data could clearly portray the participants’ voices about what influenced their decision to stay in or to leave the teaching career. The findings in this chapter will be re-discussed to answer the two research questions in the next chapter.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

For a lot of teachers I spoke with, this seems to be the common sentiment: If the overall attractiveness of teaching as a profession gets better, the best teachers will enter the profession, stay, and help increase the effectiveness of schools.

“To improve the quality of teaching,” Ingersoll says, you need to “improve the quality of the teaching job.” And, “If you really improve that job… you would attract good people and you would keep them.”

(Ingersoll, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-do-teachers- quit/280699/)

Overview

This chapter aims to discuss the results of this study in order to answer the research questions: (1) What factors influence EFL teachers to consider leaving their teaching profession?; and (2) What factors encourage EFL teachers to remain within their teaching profession? The implications of this study are next discussed, followed by the limitations of this study and recommendations for further studies. The conclusion ends this chapter.

6.1 Discussion

With reference to the analyzed data and the results of previous studies, this discussion answers the research questions of this study. Comparisons between the results of previous studies and those of this study are also discussed through the voices of the participating teachers.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

6.1.1 What factors influence EFL teachers to consider leaving their teaching profession? With adherence to the notion of a mixed-methods paradigm, a clear picture of factors influencing teacher attrition was revealed through the voices of the teacher participants. Findings from the questionnaire and the interviews showed that employment factors including characteristics of the job assignments; external factors such as institutional influence including work policies and extrinsic work rewards including salaries and benefits; and personal factors including family matters as the factors the participants perceived affecting teacher attrition. This study also uncovered what the Thai and non-Thai participants thought and how negative they felt about those factors. From the results of the questionnaire, family matters, economic trends, extrinsic work rewards, institutional influence, and characteristics of job assignments were considered the influential factors for teacher attrition. To explain, the teacher participants regarded inappropriate and inadequate salary, health conditions, limited opportunity in career advancement or job promotion, inadequate salary increase, family responsibility, especially child-rearing, job-related stress, wage structure or wage system for teachers, and excessive paperwork to meet the school requirements as the factors affecting their decision to leave or have an intent to leave their teaching profession. The findings from the interviews with these teacher participants further offered more understanding about the factors.

Based on Billingsley’s 1993 model focusing on three main factors – employment, external, and personal factor, one of the employment factors found in this study was characteristics of job assignments. This study revealed that excessive non-teaching job assignments demotivated and dissatisfied many teachers and then affected their decision to leave or to have an intent to leave the teaching profession. The study showed that the teachers considered teaching as their main responsibility, but they felt that the institute and the university valued non-teaching over teaching duties. Not only that, they found excessive paperwork such as the Thai Qualification Frameworks for Higher Education (TQF) paperwork was assigned to them just in order for the institute to meet the university’s quality assurance requirement. To them, this work was time-consuming and unnecessary and gave no benefits to them and the

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

85 students. They found filling the TQF forms, in which the five domains of the students’ learning outcomes including ethical and moral development, cognitive skills, interpersonal skills and responsibilities, analytical and communication skills, and numerical analysis, communication and information technology have to be reported, was complicated (See Appendix W). Doing this excessive paperwork took a large amount of time which they believed should be spent on preparing and teaching classes. Many participants complained that these excessive job assignments discouraged them from continuing their teaching career. This factor affected the majority of the teachers – both the well-experienced and the less-experienced teachers. Most of these teachers also felt that too many non-teaching jobs, especially conducting research, were a big burden for them. They thought they could not meet such requirements that they have at least one research article or research paper published in every two years (See Appendix V) mainly owing to their teaching workload and their lack of interest in research. Apparently, it was the reason why the three participants, two of whom still loved teaching, left their full-time teaching career. One of them was deciding to even leave the part-time teaching career when learning that academic work publication would also be required for the part-time teachers. To several participants, these requirements also affected their job promotion since the requirements were one of their work evaluation criteria. Consequently, these participants found the evaluation criteria and system inappropriate, which also affected their decisions about their teaching profession. Also, to many participants, non-teaching responsibilities including conducting research and supervising theses should not be valued more than teaching when evaluating work performance (See AppendixY). Another employment factor in this study was extrinsic work rewards including salary and benefits. This study showed that inappropriate and inadequate salary and benefits greatly displeased many teachers – both Thai and non-Thai. To most of the Thai teachers, the salary for teachers in Thailand was too low. The monthly salary of 30% of the participants in this study was 20,000-30,000 baht (600- 900 USD), which was quite low when compared with other careers with the same educational qualifications and experience. Evidently, one Thai participant said that she left the teaching profession mainly because of her low salary. To non-Thai teachers, there was no salary increase, and their monthly salary was only 20,780-

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

30,790 baht (629-933 USD) (See Appendix X). To earn more, they needed the extra classes, so they felt financially insecure. Even though the teachers at this institute could earn additional money by having extra teaching hours, they needed to spend more time on teaching, which might affect their time on other job responsibilities, especially on academic work. It seemed that the solution of one problem could lead to another problem or another factor for attrition.

The results of this study about employment factors are neither far different from the previous studies conducted by Delors (1996), Karsenti and Collin (2013), Kemerer (1990), Liu (2007), Morvent et al. (1995) and Westling and Whitten (1996), which revealed that undesirable policies and burdensome tasks greatly influenced teacher attrition nor from Allen, (2005), Brownell and Smith (1992), and Denlinger (2002) which showed that negative extrinsic work rewards, especially low salary, could affect teacher attrition, and an increase in salary could reduce the rate of attrition.

External factors, especially institutional factors including university policies, were also found in this study as factors for teacher attrition. Many participants were dissatisfied with the institute and university policies requiring them to do many non- teaching assignments (See Appendix Z). Many complained that these policies were so demanding that could lead to their departure from the teaching profession. This is in complete agreement with previous studies by Delors (1996), Kemerer (1990), and Liu (2007) in that when educational institutions needed to cope with changes in curriculum or to meet the requirements in institution or in state policies, teacher were forced to do more work. This could dissatisfy the teachers and discourage them to continue in their teaching career.

Regarding personal factors, this study revealed that family responsibilities, especially in child-raising, and health problems strongly and evidently affected teacher attrition. Three participants left their teaching position owing to not being able handle their family circumstances while working full time, and one left due to her health problems.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

This study is also in line with a school survey carried out by Smithers and Robinson (2003), which revealed that 9 of every 100 teachers left the school for maternity or family care, and in many other studies indicated that family circumstances such as pregnancy and child raising contributed to teachers’ decisions to leave their career (Billingsley, 1993; Brownwell et al., 1997; Morvant et al, 1995).

Obviously, many aspects of employment factor, external factor, and personal factor play an important role in teacher attrition. However, some findings in the current study differ from those in some previous studies. Unlike the studies by Allen (2005), Hanushek et al., (2003), and Ingersoll (2001) showing that age and teaching experience affect how long teachers stay in their career, age was not a major factor in this study. Also, socioeconomic characteristics were not found to be the main factor in this study, unlike the study by Billingsley (1993) and Singer (1993) which reported that teachers with a low socioeconomic background faced more challenges regarding learning resources, which negatively affected their performance and then influenced their decision to move to another school or to leave their teaching career and those having students with low socioeconomic background were likely to leave their teaching position as well.

6.1.2 What factors encourage EFL teachers to remain within their teaching profession? This study showed many employment factors including intrinsic and extrinsic work rewards and characteristics of the school as the factors the participants perceived affecting teacher retention. This study also discovered what the Thai and non-Thai participants thought and what they wanted in their teaching profession. Furthermore, two factors including job stability and job prestige of the profession have emerged as factors influencing teacher retention in this study. This study revealed that intrinsic work rewards are a major contributor to their retention in the teaching career. Almost all of the participants – both Thai and non- Thai and both retired and currently in-service – believed that their enjoyment of teaching encouraged them to enter and also to stay in this profession. The top reason why many participants became teachers and still stayed in their teaching position was

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

88 the joy of working with students. Many teachers admitted that they were happy when the students understood the lessons and enjoyed studying with them, and they also felt that their teaching was part of the students’ success. Extrinsic rewards are also found in this study as a contributing factor influencing teacher retention. The well- experienced Thai participants regarded the medical and retirement benefits not only for themselves but also for their family offered in the public sector as the reason why they entered this career and why they continue teaching. Characteristics of schools, especially good relationship with and support from colleagues and high opportunities in professional development, are another important employment factor found in this research study to play a role in teacher retention. Many teachers revealed that they had good relationships with most of their colleagues and got both academic and non- academic support from their colleagues and staff, which they might not have in other careers. Not only that, high opportunities in professional development are another influential employment factor of teacher retention. To the young, less-experienced teacher, professional development activities such as training, workshops, and seminars, can help them improve themselves and develop themselves professionally; to the well-experienced teachers, professional development opportunities which are rarely offered for people in other careers can help upgrade their knowledge and skills. The factors for teacher retention found in this study are consistent with many previous studies. This study agrees well with the studies by Ashiedu & Scott-Ladd (2012), Johnson and Birkeland (2003), Laser (1986), and Steiner (1988), revealing that teachers who felt successful with their students enjoyed their teaching and were likely to stay in their teaching profession, and by the studies of Allen (2005), Delinger (2002), Rockoff (2004), and Kevessiga (2013) in that positive work rewards such as appropriate salary and benefits could promote teacher retention. This study is also similar to many studies demonstrating that teacher retention influenced by collegial support and interaction and that support and collaboration helped reduce teachers’ job responsibilities, and then attracted them to stay in their school (Billingsley, 1993; Jimerson, 2003; Stone, 1990). This study is not far different from the studies of Jimerson (2003) and Stone (1990) in that many teachers wanted to work in schools with good work conditions where teachers are given opportunities to develop themselves professionally.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Apparently, the findings in this study showed many employment factors as contributors to teacher retention, as shown in many previous studies. However, two emerging factors – job prestige and job stability -- were discovered in this study. Job prestige and job stability are factors that emerged from the data collected from the interviews. None of the previous studies reviewed in the present research discussed these two factors. Two teachers with more than 30 years of teaching experience considered the teaching career, especially at the university level, a good, privileged, and high-status career, which led them into this career and guided them to stay in it for a very long time. Teaching is a highly respected career in Thailand, as in the Thai saying that “Teachers are second parents”. This concept is often used in the speech on Teacher’s Day in Thailand. The same teachers also mentioned job stability attracted them to enter and to continue teaching in this state-run organization. They felt secure to work until their retirement. The teaching job in the private universities, they said, was not so stable as their position in a public university.

6.2 Implications As stated in the 2009 Literature Review on Teacher Retention and Attrition, teacher turnover imposed instructional costs and organizational costs. The results from the voices of the EFL teachers in this study about factors affecting teacher attrition can help provide a framework for keeping people in the teaching profession. This study has implications for lowering teacher attrition since understanding the factors of teacher attrition can help policy makers and practitioners prioritize and design teacher retention strategies.

6.2.1 Implications for Policy Makers The lessons that policy makers -- the institute and the university -- could learn from this research study include the need for an improved recruitment process in which the teacher candidates are informed of the organization goals, the expectations the institute has of a hired teacher and the missions of the institute and the university in order for the candidates to decide whether or not their qualities and the needs of the institute match. Furthermore, the institute and the university should always keep the teachers informed of their roles and responsibilities that apart from teaching, teachers

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

90 at public universities’ responsibilities include “developing English language teaching and interdisciplinary research studies and to integrate them into their teaching and academic services; developing textbooks and other teaching materials to facilitate English language teaching; providing academic services, including courses for students, faculty members and the staff of other institutions, improving their English and to provide training sessions for English teachers around Thailand to improve their English proficiency and teaching methodologies; preserving and integrating culture into language teaching and research; continuously promoting presentations and publications of academic work at the national and international level; and establishing and maintaining regular quality assurance procedures for sustained development”. The policy makers should also consider increasing motivating work policies and appropriate salary and benefits. More attention about work requirements, especially research and research publications, should be given since it affected both Thai and non-Thai teachers at the institute. Also, the salary and benefit scheme and the career path scheme might be reconsidered, especially those for non-Thai teachers. Besides, the new schemes could financially support and help retain experienced Thai teachers having family burdens. Additionally, the policy makers should pay more attention to work conditions such as promoting collaboration among teachers and providing more opportunities in professional development since it helps increase job satisfaction and retention and reduce the teacher attrition rate. Also, the institute should take many aspects into account when evaluating teachers for job promotion. Appropriate evaluation criteria and system should be used to ensure the fairness of the evaluation and work promotion. Most importantly, the policy makers should give opportunities for teachers to express their voices and listen to those voices so that they will understand how satisfied or dissatisfied teachers feel and then will be able to make appropriate policies in order to retain their teachers.

6.2.2 Implications for Teachers In order to work satisfyingly and to continue in the teaching profession, teachers should have a clear understanding of their roles – both teaching and non- teaching roles. The lack of understanding of their roles can lead to job dissatisfaction and then quitting. Teachers should be aware of the importance of keeping abreast of

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

91 current roles and responsibilities. Moreover, the teachers should know what the institute and the university expect from them in order to meet the expectations. Teachers should also develop themselves professionally in order to have sufficient knowledge and experience, especially in research, so that they will be able to work effectively, and then will be able to stay in their teaching career happily.

6.3 Limitations of the Study Although this research has reached its objectives, there are some unavoidable limitations of this study that need to be addressed. First, the questionnaire return rate was not as high as the researcher had expected. Due to the time constraint, some respondents did not return the questionnaire because of their busy work schedule. However, the data collection time was beyond the researcher’s control. Another limitation was that the results of the study may not be generalized to other populations since the study was conducted in only one Thai public university, the context and culture of which might be different from other universities. Moreover, even though teachers’ voices can be a reflection of the situation, voices from teachers’ alone might not be enough to investigate the situations and the factors influencing teacher retention and attrition at the university level, in which many groups of people are involved.

6.4 Recommendation for Further Studies The recommendations for further studies are as follows: First, similar studies could be done in other public universities in Thailand in order for the people involved to ascertain more knowledge and understanding about teacher retention and attrition situations in public universities in Thailand and their factors. Such additional knowledge and understanding would help policy makers and practitioners prioritize and design more effective teacher retention strategies. Moreover, in order to have a clearer picture of the situation and factors influencing teacher retention and attrition at the university level, more research studies should be conducted on other groups of population who are involved such as administrators and candidate interview committees, to name just a few.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

6.5 Conclusions

It can be concluded from this study that there is a wide range of factors influencing teacher attrition and retention. Without listening to teachers, policy makers and administrators are not able to understand what situations are happening in their organization or how teachers feel about these situations. Not listening to the teachers’ voices could lead to inappropriate policies and practices for increasing teacher retention. This research study, to some extent, brings greater understanding of the situations and factors involved with teacher attrition and retention through the voices of EFL teachers.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

REFERENCES

Abelson, M. (1987). Examination of avoidable and unavoidable turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 382-86.

Allen, M. (2005). Eight questions on teacher recruitment and retention: What does the research say? Retrieved on October 22, 2013, from http://www.ecs.org/html/educationissues/teachingquality/trrreport/home/ TeacherRecruitmentRetention.pdf

Ashiedu, J.A. & Scott-Ladd, B.D. (2012). Understanding Teacher Attraction and Retention Drivers: Addressing Teacher Shortages. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. 17-35.

Atagi, R. (2011). Secondary Teacher Policy Research in Asia: Secondary Teachers in Thailand. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.

Audit Office of New South Wales (2008). Department of State and Regional Development – Provision of Industry Assistance, Government Printer, Sydney.

Australian Associated Press. (2007). World shortage of 18m teachers by 2016. The Australian Council of Deans of Education.

Bangs, J., & Frost, D. (2012). Teacher self-efficacy, voice and leadership: Towards a policy framework for Education International. Paper presented at the Education International Research Institute, Cambridge, UK.

Billingsley, B. (1993). Teachers retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 137-174.

Billingsley, B. (1995). Improving the retention of special education teachers. Special Education Programs. (Report No. 143). Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 860).

Billingsley, B. (2007). Teacher turnover in special education. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Annual Convention, Louisville, Kentucky.

Billingsley, B. S. (2003). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the literature (COPSSE Document No. RS-2). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Boe, E. E. (1990, November). Comprehensive retention and attrition model (CRAM). Paper presented at the Research Forum on Differing Approaches to Defining and Measuring Personnel Supply and Demand, Washington, DC.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Boe, E. E., Bobbitt, S. A., & Cook, L. H. (1996). Whither didst thou go? Retention, reassignment, migration, and attrition of special and general education teachers a national perspective. (Report No. NCES-WP-96-12). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED417159)

Boe, E., Bobbitt, S. and Cook, L. (1997). Why didst thou go? Predictors of retention, transfer, and attrition of special and general education teachers from a national perspective. Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 390–411.

Bolich, A.M. (2001). Reduce Your Losses: Help New Teachers Become Veteran Teachers. Southern Regional Education Board. Retrieved from http://www.sreb.org/main/HigherEd/ TeacherAttrition.pdf.

Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta- analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367-409.https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455

Brownell, M.T., Hirsch, E., & Seo, S. ( 2004). Meeting the demand for highly qualified special teachers during severe shortages. Journal of Special Education, 38, 56-61.

Bryman A, Cramer D (1990). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. London: Routledge.

Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2005). Fix it and they might stay: School facility quality and teacher retention in Washington, D.C. Teachers College Record, 107, 1107–1123.

Butt, R., Raymond, D., McCue, G., & Yamagishi, L. (1992). Collaborative autobiography and the teacher’s voice. In I. F. Goodson (Ed), Studying reachers’ lives. New York: Teachers College Press.

Carroll, S. J., Reichardt, R. E., Guarino, C. M., & Mejia, A. (2000). The distribution of teachers among California’s school districts and schools (No. MR-1298.0- JIF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Certo, J.L., & Englebright Fox, J. (2002). Retaining Quality Teachers. The High School Journal, 86(1), 57-75.

Chapman, D.W. (1994). Reducing teacher absenteeism and attrition: Cause, consequences, and responses. Paris: UNESCO, Institute for Education Planning.

Clotfelter, C., E. Glennie, H. Ladd, and J. Vigdor (2006): Would Higher Salaries

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Keep Teachers in High-Poverty Schools?. Evidence from a Policy Intervention in North Carolina, Sanford Instutitute of Public Policy, Duke University.

Cohn. M. & Kottkamp.B. (1993). Teachers: the Missing Voice in Education. Albany: State University of New York press.

Cooper, J. M. and Alvarado A.. (2006). Preparation, recruitment, and retention of teachers. Education Policy Series, No. 5. The International Academy of Education, The International Institute for Educational Planning, and UNESCO. Paris, France. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001520/152023e.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. (2011, August). The protection of human subjects. In Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from: http://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why: Dilemmas of building a profession for twenty-first century schools. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton 40 (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 67-101). New York: Simon & Schuster

Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris, UNESCO.

Denlinger, B. (2002). Teaching as a profession: A look at the program of teacher deficits. Clearing House, 75(3),116-117.Elmore, R. F. (2002). The testing trap.Harvard Magazine 105 (1), 35-37

Dörnyei, Z. 2003: Questionnaires in second language research construction, administration and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2007). Does school district consolidation cut costs? Economics of Education Review, 22, 193–201.

Dworkin, A. G. (1980). The changing demography of public school teachers: Some implications for faculty turnover in urban areas. Sociology of Education, 53(April), 65-73.

Eisner, E.W. and Peshkin, A. (eds) (1990) Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Feistritzer, C. E. 2005. Profile of teachers in the U.S. 2005. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

Galand, B., Philippot, P. & Lecocq, C. (2007). School violence and teacher professional disengagement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 465-477.

George, N. L., George, M. P., Gersten, R., & Grosenick, J. R. (1995). To leave or to stay? An exploratory study of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 16(4), 227-236.

Giacometti, K. S. (2005). Factors affecting job satisfaction and retention of beginning teachers. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Govt Prepares for Teacher Shortage. (2010, January 4). Retrieved from http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/education-features/30434/govt- prepares-for-teacher-shortage.

Grissmer, D. & Kirby, S. (1989). Teacher Attrition: The uphill climb to staff the nation’s schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173–208.

Haeg , E. (2016, February 15). Ask The Ajarn: A look at the 'ism' status quo of Thailand English teacher. Retrieved from http://www.thephuketnews.com/ask-the-ajarn-a-look-at-the-ism-status-quo-of- thailand-english-teacher-recruitment-56063.php.

Hanushek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326-354.

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 11154. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.

Horng, E.L. (2005). Poor working conditions make urban schools hard-to-staff. UC ACCORD Public Policy Series, PB-010-0305. University of California, Los Angeles, California. Retrieved from http://ucaccord.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/pubs/pb-010-0305.pdf.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Houchins, D. E, Shippen, M.E., & Catrett, J. (2004). Juvenile justice teacher attrition and retention. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 374393.

Imazeki, J. (2004). Teacher salaries and teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review (24), 431- 449. Retrieved from http://wwwrohan.sdsu.edu/~jimazeki/papers/EERAugust2005.pdf.

Ingersoll, R.M. (1999). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools (CTP Working Paper W-99-1). Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages and the organisation of schools. Seatle: Washington: University of Washington, Centre for the Study of Teaching Policy. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TurnoverIng-01-2001.pdf.

Ingersoll, R. 2000. Turnover Among Mathematics and Science Teachers in the U.S. Paper prepared for the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, Chaired by John Glenn. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/compapers.html

Ingersoll, R. (2013). Why do teachers quit? And why do they stay?. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/why-do- teachers-quit/280699/

Ingersoll, R. & Smith, T., (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.

Jimerson, L. (2003). The competitive disadvantage: Teacher compensation in rural America. Washington, DC: Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved on October 22, 2013, from http://www.ruraledu.org/docs/Teacher_Pay.pdf

Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Cambridge, MA: Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Johnson, S. & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.

Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.

Johnson, S.M., Kraft, M.A., & Papay, J.P. (2012). How context matters in high need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement.Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-39.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Justice, M., Greiner, C., & Anderson, S. (2003). Determining the influences of traditional Texas teachers vs. teachers in the emergency teaching certification program. Education, 124(2), 376-389. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from the EBSCOhost database.

Kardos, S.M. (2004), Supporting and sustaining new teachers in schools: The importance of professional culture and mentoring, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Karsenti, T. & Collin, S. (2013). Why are new teachers leaving the profession? Results of a Canada-wide survey Education, 3 (3), pp. 141-149.

Kemmerer, F. 1990. An integrated approach to primary teacher incentives. In Chapman, D.W . ; Carrier, C.A . (Eds.). Improving educational quality: a global perspective. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood.

Kirby, S. N. and Grissmer, D. W. (1993). Teacher attrition: Theory, evidence and suggested landscape: How special education leadership preparation can make a difference for learn. Sacramento, CA: Center for Teacher Quality

Kosko, K.W. & Herbst, P. (2012). A deeper look at how teachers say what they say: A quantitative modality analysis of teacher-to-teacher talk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 589-598.

Levknecht, J. (2014). Preventing teacher turnover, part 1: Give teachers a voice in school decision making, Greater Greater Washington. Retrieved from https://ggwash.org/view/34456/preventing-teacher-turnover-part-1-give- teachers-a-voice-in-school-decision-making/

Liu, X. S. (2007). The effect of teacher influence at school on first-year teacher attrition: a multilevel analysis of the schools and staffing survey for 1999- 2000. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(1), 1-16.

Llorens, M. B. (1994). Action research: Are teachers finding their voice? The Elementary School Journal, 95(1), 3. http://doi.org/10.1086/461784.

Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2003). Teacher turnover: The role of working conditions and salaries in recruiting and retaining teachers. Stanford University School of Education, Stanford, CA.

Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-70.

Locklear, T. M. (2010). Factors contributing to teacher retention in Georgia.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

Unpublished Doctoral dissertation submitted to Department of Educational Leadership, Policy and Technology Studies in the Graduate School. University of Alabam

Luekens, M.T., Lyter, D.M., & Fox, E.E. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the teacher follow-up survey, 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

MacDonald, D. (1999). Teacher attrition: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education. 15, 839-848.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(1): 13-17. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017002013

Metz, M. H. (2000). Sociology and qualitative methodologies in educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 60-74.

Miller, R. and Chait, R. (2008). Teacher turnover, tenure policies, and the distribution of teacher quality can high-poverty schools catch a break? Retrieved March 3, 2013 from http://www.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2008/12/pdf/teach er_attritio. pdf.

Moore, S.J., Harrison J.B. & Donaldson M.L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/articles/NRTA/Harvard_report.pdf

Morvant, M., Gersten, R., Gillman, J., Keating, T., & Blake, G. (1995). Attrition/retention of urban special education teachers: Multi-faceted research and strategic action planning. Final Performance Report, Volume 1. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED338154)

Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., Willett, J.B., Kemple, J.J., & Olsen, R.J. (1991). Who will teach? Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nance, E., & Calabrese, R. L. (2009). Special education teacher retention and attrition: The impact of increased legal requirements. International Journal of Educational Management, 23, 431-440.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2002). No dream denied: A pledge to America’s children. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/no-dream-denied_full-report.pdf .

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Public school teacher Attrition and mobility in the first five years. DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

100

Neild, R. C., Useem, E., Travers, E. F., & Lesnick, J. (2003). Once & for all: Placing a highly qualified teacher in every Philadelphia classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.

Nelson, C. (2004). Reclaiming teacher preparation for success in high-needs schools. Education Journal, 124(3), 475-480.

Office of the Basic Education Commission of Thailand (2007). Educational Statistics of OBEC. Bangkok, OBEC.

OECD Education and Training Policy (2005). Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.

Otto, S. J., & Arnold, M. (2005). A study of experienced special education teachers’ perceptions of administrative support. College Student Journal, 39(2), 253- 259

Perrachione, B. A., Rosser, V. J., & Petersen, G. J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 1-18.

Pitsoe, V.J. (2013). Teacher attrition in South Africa: Trends, challenges and prospects. Journal of Social Science. 36(3): 309-318.

Preston, B. (2000). Teacher supply and demand to 2005: Projections and context. Canberra, Profession? Gender Issue. London. Institute for Public Policy Research programs for certification in special education: Program Infrastructure. Instructional Psychology, 14(1): 42-45.

Quaglia, R. J., & Lande, L. L. (2016). Teacher voice: Problem or potential? Principal, 95(4), 32–35.

Quartz, K. H., Barraza-Lyons, K., & Thomas, A. (2005). Retaining teachers in high- poverty schools: a policy framework. International Handbook of Educational Policy, 491-506 Nina Bascia, Alister Cumming, Amanda. Springer: Great Britain.

Rockoff J (2003). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from panel data. Cambridge, US: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Santiago, P. (2016). Teacher shortage. OECD Observer. Retrieved from http://oecdobserver.org/news/archivestory.php/aid/431/Teacher_shortage.html #sthash.6M2AGeTZ.dpuf.

Scheib, J. W. (2006). Policy implications for teacher retention: Meeting the needs of

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

101

Dual identities of arts educators. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(6), 5-10. Retrieved January 6, 2007, from the ProQuest database.

Schneider, M. 2003. Linking school facility conditions to teacher satisfaction and success. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Washington DC.2003. Retrieved from http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/teachersurvey.pdf

Shann, M. H. (1998). Professional commitment and satisfaction among teachers in urban middle schools. Journal of Education Research, 92, 67-73.

Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching: Teachers of students with emotional disorders versus other special educators. Remedial and Special Education, 17(1), 37-47.

Smith, T. & Ingersoll, R. (2004). Reducing teacher turnover: What are the components of effective induction? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 687-714

Smithers, A. & Robinson, P. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ decisions to leave the profession, DfES, Nottingham.

Stinebrickner, T. R. (1998). An empirical investigation of teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 17(2), 127–136

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Theobald, N. D. (1990). An examination of the influence of personal, professional, and school district characteristics on public school teacher retention. Economics of Education Review, 9(3), 241-250.

Thematic Review on Teacher Policy. (2015). Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/48627229.pdf.

Tye, B. B., L. O'Brien. (2002). Why are experienced teachers leaving the profession? Phi Delta Kappan. 84(1):24-32.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012). The global demand for primary teachers- 2012 update. Information Bulletin No. 10.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2016). The world needs almost 69 million new

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

102

teachers to reach the 2030 education goals. UIS Factsheet. No. 39..

Walker, R. (2010). 12 Characteristics of effective teachers. Retrieved from ERIC ED509908.

Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career choice commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 861-879.

Westling, D. L., & Whitten, T. M. (1996). Rural special education teachers' plans to continue or leave their teaching positions. Exceptional Children, 62(4), 319- 335.

Whitener, S. D., Gruber, K. J., Lynch, H., Tingos, K., Perona, M., & Fondelier, S. (1997). Characteristics of stayers, movers, and leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup Survey, 1994-95 (NCES Publication No. 97- 450). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Yogev, A. (1994). The spirit of capitalism and school reform in America. In V. Rust, Educational reform in international perspective (151–164). Middlesex: JAI Press.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

103

APPENDIX A

Research Researchers Purposes Instruments Main Titles (years) Findings (Participants)

Understanding Ashiedu & To investigates the Interviews 1. The retired teacher Scott-Ladd motivational teachers attraction and drivers that can (5 retired teachers) ranked (2012) retention attract teachers to and a survey “working drivers: stay in their (currently serving conditions” the addressing teaching career teachers) most teacher influential for shortages teacher attraction and retention.

2. The top reason for the currently serving teachers was an intrinsic reason the joy of working with children.

Why special Billingsley, To investigate Open-ended There were educators leave Bodkins, & special education questionnaire four major teaching: Hendricks teachers’ reasons themes: Implications (1993) for leaving (42 former special teacher for teaching an related educators in characteristics administrators work experiences Virginia) and personal factors, teacher qualifications, work environments, and teachers' affective reactions to work.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

104

Whither ist Boe, Bobbit, & To analyze from Survey Higher annual thou go? Cook (1997) national turnover for Retention, perspective, four (Sample sizes vary special reassignment, components of depending on education migration, and turnover in the question and teachers attrition of teaching force in analyses.) (SFTs) than for special and public schools and general general teachers’ activities education education upon leaving teachers teachers in (GETs), in national terms of both perspective attrition from public school teaching (SETs = 8%; GETs = 6%) and transfer among public schools (SETs = 13%; GETs = 7%). However, the SET-GET difference in attrition percentages was modest in absolute terms, and lower than those reported from several states. SETs and GETs who left teaching did not differ significantly in postteaching activities or plans to return to teaching.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

105

Why didst thou Boe, Bobbit, & To investigate from Survey teacher go? Preictors Cook, Whitener, a national turnover of retention, & Weber (1997) perspective, a wide (188 special decreased as transfer, an variety of teacher educators an 1,424 the following attrition of school, and district general educators) variables special an characteristics that increased: general are either known to teacher age education be or suspected to (until teachers from a be associated with retirement national teacher turnover an age), the perspective retention of both number of public school dependent general and special children, the educators level of certification, the number of years since the last degree was earned, teaching experience and salary level.

Newly Hoigaard , Gisk To investigate Questionnaires -Proposed qualified e & Sundsli work engagement work teachers’ work and teacher (192 teachers who engagement engagement (2011) efficacy and their had less than six and teacher years teaching and teacher relationship to job efficacy are efficacy satisfaction, experience in positively influences on burnout and the southern Norway) related to job job intention to quit satisfaction but satisfaction, among newly negatively burnout, and qualified teachers related to job the intention to burnout and quit the intention to quit.

Teacher Hughes To determine the Survey -83.50% of Retention: impacts of teacher participants Teacher (2012) characteristics, (782 teachers) planned to Characteristics school teach until

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

106

, School characteristics, retirement. Characteristics organizational , characteristics, and -Teaching Organizational teacher efficacy on experience, Characteristics retention in socioeconomic , and Teacher teaching status (SES), Efficacy salary and workload, parent and student, and technology made statistically significant contributions to the model.

-Teachers in the lowest SES schools were more likely to continue teaching until retirement than teachers in the highest SES schools

Incentives for Johnson To explore the link A research While high teachers: between motivation evidence salary and high What (1986) and teachers’ examination status might motivates, performance link draw teachers what matters to the teaching profession, they could not attract the most talented ones.

Supporting and Kardos To investigate -Survey 1. Mentoring, sustaining new whether mentoring under certain teachers in (2004) and professional (486 first-and conditions, is schools: The culture are second-year associated with importance of associated with new teacher

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

107 professional teacher satisfaction. teachers) satisfaction. culture and mentoring 2. There was a significant relationship between satisfaction and a school’s having an integrated professional culture including the inexperienced and the experienced, frequenting feature exchange and collaboration, and reducing the inexperienced teachers’ responsibilities .

Teacher Leukens & To describe who is School and staffing There were attrition and Chandler most likely to leave survey (8,400 variations mobility: teaching teachers) among teacher Results from (2004) profession, why attrition, the teacher they leave, and mobility and follow-up where they go retention survey, 2000- between public 2001 and private school teachers, among inexperienced and experienced teachers, and

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

108

among teachers with different salary levels.

Reducing Smith & To explore what School and staffing 1. Mentoring teacher Ingersoll (2004) the components of survey data (1999- positively turnover: effective induction 2000) and teacher affects new What are the to reduce teacher follow-up survey teacher components of turnover data (2000-2001) retention in the effective of 3,235 teachers profession. induction? 2. Collaboration is the most effective induction and it has the greatest positive impact on new teacher retention in the profession.

Factors Smithers & 1. To quantify the A schools survey 1. Turnover affecting Robinson relative importance (1,349 schools), a (14.1%) and teachers’ of the factors leavers survey wastage decisions to (2003) influencing (1,066 leavers) and (7.9%) leave the teachers’ decision interviews (306 profession to leave the leavers), and a 2. Of every profession follow-up survey 100 teachers (395 leavers) resigning, 40 2. To identify the were moving destinations of the to other teachers leaving maintained their profession schools, 13 were retiring 3. To analyze the (9 characteristics of prematurely), 9 teachers leaving were leaving

their profession for maternity 4. To explore what or family care, 7 were going

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

109 factors might on supply, 7 influence teachers’ were taking decision to stay other teaching posts, 5 were 5. To identify what going to other factors might professions, 4 encourage those had left for who have left the other teaching profession to return posts, and 4 to teaching had resigned to travel. 3. Leavers tended to be female and either young with a few years’ service or older and approaching retirement.

4. Five main factors are workload, new challenge, the school situation, salary, and personal circumstances.

5. More than 40% of the leavers mentioned that nothing would induce then to stay. What would have made a difference to

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

110

the others were a reduced workload, more support from the school and a higher salary.

Why are Tye & O’Brien To determine A survey 1. experienced whether MA Accountability teachers (2002) graduates (114 MA (defined as leaving the experienced the graduates) high stakes profession? same discontent testing, and regarding increased test accountability, of preparation which many and standards) California teachers was the No. complained One reason for teachers having left their teaching job.

2. Accountability was among the three top reasons for teachers considering leaving their teaching job.

3. Good working environment and conditions can attract teachers to stay in their professions.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

111

Stay or Leave? Walker To examine if A questionnaire There was a Factors significant survey strong influencing the (2010) relationship exists correlation retention of between the (142 certified between the teachers of variables of staff special education factors of emotionally development, stress teachers) administrative disturbed in and burnout, support, southwestern compensation, compensation, Virginia student discipline, staff role conflict, development workload, and and the administrative retention of support and teacher special retention education teachers who work with emotionally disturbed students.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

112

APPENDIX B

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA)

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha

if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item

Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted

A1 304.7500 2246.2143 .0072 . .9583

A2 304.8750 2288.6964 -.2654 . .9591

A3 304.0000 2267.1429 -.3420 . .9575

A4 304.6250 2195.6964 .4067 . .9566

A5 305.1250 2200.4107 .3701 . .9567

A6 305.1250 2200.4107 .3701 . .9567

A7 306.5000 2195.7143 .5799 . .9561

A8 305.6250 2241.6964 .0349 . .9582

A9 305.3750 2253.1250 -.0345 . .9579

B1 304.6250 2183.9821 .5420 . .9561

B2 304.2500 2233.3571 .1497 . .9572

B3 304.3750 2265.1250 -.1751 . .9578

B4 304.3750 2234.5536 .1470 . .9571

B5 304.3750 2194.2679 .5506 . .9562

B6 304.0000 2188.0000 .6191 . .9560

B7 304.7500 2256.5000 -.0652 . .9578

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

113

B8 304.3750 2213.4107 .4165 . .9565

B9 305.1250 2203.5536 .4726 . .9564

B10 304.0000 2207.1429 .6130 . .9562

B11 303.8750 2217.5536 .4555 . .9565

B12 305.0000 2163.1429 .7075 . .9556

B13 305.7500 2186.2143 .7412 . .9558

B14 304.0000 2229.1429 .2969 . .9568

B15 305.2500 2233.0714 .2128 . .9569

B16 305.2500 2236.5000 .0865 . .9576

B17 305.5000 2228.2857 .1596 . .9573

B18 305.2500 2197.3571 .5620 . .9562

B19 305.2500 2182.2143 .5735 . .9560

B20 305.0000 2243.4286 .0508 . .9575

B21 305.8750 2180.1250 .6940 . .9558

B22 304.5000 2159.7143 .7061 . .9556

B23 304.6250 2161.9821 .7293 . .9556

B24 305.2500 2198.2143 .3971 . .9566

B25 304.7500 2242.2143 .0864 . .9572

B26 305.0000 2159.4286 .7388 . .9555

B27 304.7500 2184.2143 .5848 . .9560

B28 304.5000 2227.4286 .2367 . .9569

B29 305.6250 2192.5536 .5873 . .9561

B30 305.2500 2166.5000 .9004 . .9554

B31 304.2500 2237.9286 .1511 . .9570

B32 304.6250 2237.6964 .1203 . .9572

B33 306.0000 2183.1429 .7776 . .9557

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

114

B34 305.5000 2157.4286 .7909 . .9554

B35 304.3750 2192.5536 .4590 . .9564

B36 305.5000 2199.1429 .5425 . .9562

B37 305.3750 2176.8393 .5434 . .9561

B38 305.1250 2170.4107 .7258 . .9557

B39 305.1250 2170.4107 .7258 . .9557

B40 305.7500 2160.5000 .7297 . .9556

B41 304.1250 2210.9821 .3955 . .9565

B42 305.6250 2168.5536 .7433 . .9556

B43 305.2500 2164.7857 .7261 . .9556

B44 305.8750 2162.4107 .8750 . .9553

B45 304.7500 2155.6429 .8478 . .9553

B46 305.3750 2164.2679 .7630 . .9555

B47 305.2500 2145.0714 .6758 . .9556

B48 305.2500 2181.6429 .6431 . .9559

B49 305.2500 2166.5000 .9004 . .9554

B50 304.8750 2186.9821 .7242 . .9558

B51 304.8750 2221.5536 .2447 . .9570

B52 305.8750 2156.4107 .7601 . .9555

B53 304.7500 2226.2143 .2718 . .9568

B54 305.1250 2209.8393 .6049 . .9562

B55 304.3750 2207.4107 .3714 . .9566

B56 304.3750 2210.8393 .4463 . .9564

B57 305.6250 2209.9821 .3230 . .9568

B58 305.2500 2123.3571 .8227 . .9551

B59 304.3750 2160.2679 .8970 . .9553

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

115

B60 304.2500 2191.3571 .5495 . .9561

B61 305.0000 2205.7143 .4388 . .9564

B62 304.6250 2243.1250 .1034 . .9571

B63 304.2500 2191.0714 .5523 . .9561

B64 305.2500 2219.3571 .5098 . .9564

B65 305.6250 2150.5536 .6649 . .9557

B66 304.7500 2202.7857 .3768 . .9566

B67 305.0000 2206.0000 .3867 . .9566

B68 306.1250 2251.2679 -.0194 . .9578

B69 306.5000 2196.8571 .4967 . .9563

B70 304.8750 2170.1250 .5548 . .9561

B71 304.5000 2174.0000 .7170 . .9557

B72 305.3750 2199.9821 .3661 . .9567

B73 304.8750 2184.6964 .6476 . .9559

B74 304.3750 2211.6964 .3751 . .9566

B75 304.1250 2267.5536 -.2599 . .9576

B76 304.6250 2189.6964 .7241 . .9559

B77 305.0000 2213.7143 .5183 . .9564

B78 306.7500 2237.0714 .1837 . .9569

B79 304.7500 2199.3571 .5860 . .9561

B80 306.1250 2229.5536 .2039 . .9570

B81 304.2500 2275.6429 -.3239 . .9579

Alpha = .9569 Standardized item alpha = .9579

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

116

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE

FACTORS AFFECTING TEACHER ATTRITION AND RETENTION

This questionnaire is divided into three parts:

Part 1: Participants’ demographic information

Part 2: Participants’ perceptions of ELT (English Language Teaching)

Part 3: Participants’ opinions about reasons why EFL teachers left or might leave their teaching career

PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL ITEMS.

All information provided will be confidential. Thank you in advance for your help gaining information about the teacher profession.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

117

Part 1

Directions: Write an X in the box for the response that you have chosen, or write an answer in the blank.

1. Nationality

 Thai  Others (Please identify: ______)

2. Gender

 male  female

3. Age group

 21-30  31-40  41-50  51-60  60 and over

4. Marital status

 Single (Number of Children: ____)

 Married (Number of Children: ____)

 Widowed (Number of Children: ____)

 Divorced (Number of Children: ____)

 Separated (Number of Children: ____)

5. Highest degree received

 Bachelor’s degree  Master’s degree  Doctorate degree

Major field of education: ______

Minor field of education(if any): ______

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

118

6. Years of teaching experiences

 Below 5  5-10  11-15  15-20  21-25  26-30  Over 30

7. Years of teaching at this university

 Below 5  5-10  11-15  15-20  21-25  26-30  Over 30

8. Years of teaching at this institute

 Below 5  5-10  11-15  15-20  21-25  26-30  Over 30

9. Regular teaching hours per week

 Less than 3  3-6  7-9  10-12  over 12

10. Extra teaching hours per week

 Less than 3  3-6  7-9  10-12  over 12

11. Academic title

 Ajarn  Assistant Professor  Associate Professor  Professor

12. Monthly income (Baht)

 Less than 20,000  20,001-30,000  30,001-40,000

 40,001-50,000  50,001-60,000  60,001-70,000

 70,001-80,000  80,001-90,000  Over 90,000

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

119

Part 2

Directions: Please circle the number that most closely corresponds to your perceptions of ELT (English Language Teaching).

5 = SA (Strongly agree)

4 = A (Agree)

3 = U (Uncertain)

2 = D (Disagree)

1 =SD (Strongly disagree)

Perceptions of ELT SA A U D SD

1. I have positive thoughts about being an EFL teacher. 5 4 3 2 1

2. I am satisfied with teaching EFL as an occupation in 5 4 3 2 1 general.

3. I am satisfied with my current teaching position. 5 4 3 2 1

4. I plan to continue teaching until my retirement. 5 4 3 2 1

5. I plan to continue teaching at this university until my 5 4 3 2 1 retirement.

6. I plan to continue teaching at this department until my 5 4 3 2 1 retirement.

7. I plan to move and teach in another institution. 5 4 3 2 1

8. I plan to leave the field of ELT. 5 4 3 2 1

9. I sometimes feel tempted to leave the field of ELT. 5 4 3 2 1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

120

Part 3

Directions: Please circle the number that most closely corresponds to your opinion about reasons why EFL teachers left or consider leaving their teaching career.

5 = SA (Strongly agree)

4 = A (Agree)

3 = U (Uncertain or Sometimes agree/Sometimes disagree))

2 = D (Disagree)

1 =SD (Strongly disagree)

Reasons why EFL teachers leave or consider SA A U D SD leaving their teaching career 1 Unmanageable workload 5 4 3 2 1

2 Excessive paper work to meet the school requirement 5 4 3 2 1

3 Inappropriate salaries 5 4 3 2 1

4 Inadequacy of resources 5 4 3 2 1

5 Inadequacy of facilities 5 4 3 2 1

6 Excessive class size 5 4 3 2 1

7 No respect from students 5 4 3 2 1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

121

8 Excessive paper work on a daily basis 5 4 3 2 1

9 Excessive test writing responsibilities 5 4 3 2 1

10 Lack of administrators’ support when experiencing 5 4 3 2 1 difficulty with the teaching workloads

11 Lack of administrators’ support for 5 4 3 2 1 continuing/ongoing professional development

12 Limited access to mentors/specialists 5 4 3 2 1

13 Limited opportunity to attend trainings 5 4 3 2 1

14 Unsatisfactory working condition 5 4 3 2 1

15 Difficulty in maintaining daily classroom discipline 5 4 3 2 1

16 Frustration in daily interaction with students 5 4 3 2 1

17 Excessive out-of-classroom responsibilities 5 4 3 2 1

18 Excessive meetings 5 4 3 2 1

19 Excessive non-paid extracurricular activities 5 4 3 2 1

20 Violence involving students against teachers 5 4 3 2 1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

122

21 Violence involving students against other students 5 4 3 2 1

22 Inconsistency of teachers’ responsibilities with their 5 4 3 2 1 job descriptions

23 Too many daily job responsibilities 5 4 3 2 1

24 Inadequate vacations 5 4 3 2 1

25 Inappropriate promotion procedure 5 4 3 2 1

26 Inconvenient work hours 5 4 3 2 1

27 Lack of colleagues’ support when experiencing 5 4 3 2 1 difficulty with the teaching workloads

28 Limited opportunity to attend conferences 5 4 3 2 1

29 Poor quality of resources 5 4 3 2 1

30 Stressful job assignments 5 4 3 2 1

31 Dissatisfaction in working with EFL students 5 4 3 2 1

32 Limited opportunity to attend seminars 5 4 3 2 1

33 Poor quality of facilities 5 4 3 2 1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

123

34 Negative working partnership with colleagues 5 4 3 2 1

35 Limited opportunity to help formulate instructional 5 4 3 2 1 objectives

36 Limited autonomy in choosing teaching methods 5 4 3 2 1

37 Lack of administrators’ appreciation in work 5 4 3 2 1 performance

38 Lack of administrators’ respect to the opinions 5 4 3 2 1

39 Inadequate healthcare benefits 5 4 3 2 1

40 Not enjoying teaching the students 5 4 3 2 1

41 Not seeing the students’ progress 5 4 3 2 1

42 Lack of colleagues’ support for continuing/ongoing 5 4 3 2 1 professional development

43 Limited opportunity to engage in selecting the 5 4 3 2 1 teaching materials

44 Lack of administrators’ recognition in work 5 4 3 2 1 performance

45 Lack of administrators’ feedback in work 5 4 3 2 1 performance

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

124

46 No EFL teaching degree 5 4 3 2 1

47 Never attending courses/trainings in classroom 5 4 3 2 1 behavior management

48 Lack of administrators’ enforcement of the schools’ 5 4 3 2 1 discipline procedures

49 Unsatisfactory teaching assignments 5 4 3 2 1

50 Characteristics of Students 5 4 3 2 1

51 Never attending courses/trainings in assessment 5 4 3 2 1

52 School policies (e.g., TQF, SARs) 5 4 3 2 1

53 Limited opportunity to engage in schools’ curriculum 5 4 3 2 1 development

54 Poor school environment 5 4 3 2 1

55 Lack of colleagues’ cooperation 5 4 3 2 1

56 Limited pre-service training for teaching EFL 5 4 3 2 1 students

57 Lack of administrators’ clarification about the 5 4 3 2 1 teachers’ job expectations

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

125

58 Negative relationship with colleagues 5 4 3 2 1

59 Limited opportunity in career advancement or job 5 4 3 2 1 promotion

60 Not being able to help students 5 4 3 2 1

61 Inadequate incentives for additional academic degrees 5 4 3 2 1

62 Wage structure or wage systems for teachers 5 4 3 2 1

63 State’s required education reform policies 5 4 3 2 1

64 Age (e.g., they think they are too old or too to teach) 5 4 3 2 1

65 Inadequate salary increase 5 4 3 2 1

66 Inadequate retirement package 5 4 3 2 1

67 Ethnicity 5 4 3 2 1

68 Gender 5 4 3 2 1

69 Characteristics of community 5 4 3 2 1

70 Lack of colleagues’ support when experiencing 5 4 3 2 1 difficulty with other excessive responsibilities

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

126

71 Socioeconomic characteristics of students 5 4 3 2 1

72 Limited opportunity to engage in developing the 5 4 3 2 1 teaching materials

73 Inadequate salaries 5 4 3 2 1

74 Having negative experiences with the students 5 4 3 2 1

75 Lack of administrators’ cooperation 5 4 3 2 1

76 Employment opportunities 5 4 3 2 1

77 Religion 5 4 3 2 1

78 Lack of colleagues’ respect to the opinions 5 4 3 2 1

79 Never attending courses/trainings in in curriculum 5 4 3 2 1 development

80 Health Condition 5 4 3 2 1

81 Family responsibilities (e.g., pregnancy, child- 5 4 3 2 1 rearing, etc.)

Thank you very much.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

127

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS:

FACTORS AFFECTING TEACHER ATTRITION AND RETENTION

1. How long have you been an English teacher?

-Why did you want to become an English teacher?

-How do you feel about being an English teacher? What makes you feel ………?

2. How long have you been teaching at your current institution?

-Is this your first job?

-(If not, please tell me about your previous work experience and reasons why you left that job.)

-How do you feel about teaching at your current institution?

-How do you compare your current teaching with your teaching in the past?

3. Please describe your role as a teacher at your current institution.

-How do you feel about these roles? Please explain.

4. Have these roles changed over the years?

(If so, in what way?)

What causes those changes?

(Have the changes affected you? In what way? How do you handle them?

(Do you think whether these changes affect your colleagues? How do your colleagues handle them?)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

128

5. Have you ever considered leaving teaching?

(If so, what is the major reason?)

(If not, what is the main reason why you want to stay in your teaching career?

6. In your opinion, what influences EFL teachers to leave their teaching career?

-Please explain.

7. Have you ever considered moving to another institution?

(If so, what is the major reason?)

(If not, what is the main reason why you want to continue teaching at your current institution?

8. In your opinion, what influences EFL teachers to move to another institution?

-Please explain.

9. In your opinion, what influences EFL teachers to stay in their teaching career?

-Please explain.

10. Where/How do you see yourself professionally in the next 5 years?

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

129

APPENDIX E

LETTER FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH

September 16, 2014 ……………… Language Institute ...... University Dear………………….., I hereby apply for permission to conduct research at Language Institute, ……………. University as part of my thesis study at the Doctor of Philosophy Program in English Language Teaching, ……………. University. I am conducting a research study on Teacher Attrition and Retention: Revealing EFL Teachers’ Voices, the main objectives of which are to investigate factors influencing EFL teachers to consider leaving their teaching profession and to investigate factors encouraging EFL teachers to retain within their teaching profession. The study will employ a mixed- methods approach to collect the data from currently in-service Thai and non-Thai teachers of Language Institute, ………….. University. I will be collecting data for this research study between September 2014 and June 2015. As part of this study, the participants will be asked to complete a questionnaire and an interview on Factors Affecting Teacher Attrition and Teacher Retention. Understanding the factors of teacher attrition and retention can help policy makers and practitioners prioritize and design teacher retention strategies. Besides, this study can provide a framework basing on the context under an investigation. All of the information collected will be confidential and will only be used for research purposes. This means that the participants’ identity will be anonymous. Whenever data from this study are published, their name will not be used. The data will be stored in a computer, and only the researcher will have access to it. Once I have received your consent to approach the teachers to participate in the study, I will send a letter and a consent form to each individual teacher informing the teacher of the purpose of this research study, its data collection methods, and the protection of their confidentiality and privacy. If you have any questions about the research, you can contact me by telephone at …………. or by email via …………………. Thank you for considering my request. Yours Sincerely,

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

130

APPENDIX F

INFORMED CONSENT FOR STUDY Title of Project: Teacher Attrition and Retention: Revealing EFL Teachers’ Voices Investigator: Virasuda Sribayak

Introduction You are invited to consider participating in this research study. The purposes of this research study are to investigate factors influencing EFL teachers to consider leaving their teaching profession and to investigate factors encouraging EFL teachers to remain within their teaching profession. As part of this project, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire and an interview on Factors Affecting Teacher Attrition and Teacher Retention. This form will describe your rights as a participant in the study. The decision to participate or not is yours. If you decide to participate, please sign and date the last line of this form. Confidentiality All of the information collected will be confidential and will only be used for research purposes. This means that your identity will be anonymous, in other words, no one besides the researcher will know your name. Whenever data from this study are published, your name will not be used. The data will be stored in a computer, and only the researcher will have access to it. Your participation Participating in this study is strictly voluntary. You may withdraw your consent to participate in this study at any time. You also have the right to cancel your permission to use and disclose information collected about you at any time. If you have any questions about the research, you can contact the researcher by telephone at ………….. , by email via …………….. , or in person at the Language Institute of ……………….. University.

Investigator’s statement I have fully explained this study to the participant. I have discussed the activities and have answered all of the questions that the participant asked. Signature of investigator______Date______

Participant’s consent I have read the information provided in this Informed Consent Form. All my questions were answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. Your signature______Date______

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

131

APPENDIX G

Current Status of Participants

N = 48

Status N %

Currently in-service Thai 29 60.4

Retired Thai 4 8.3

Foreign 11 22.9

Leaving the full-time teaching career 3 6.3

Moving to another institution 1 2.1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

132

APPENDIX H

Nationality of Participants

N = 48

Nationality N %

Thai 36 75

American 9 18.7

Canadian 1 2.1

Irish 1 2.1

British 1 2.1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

133

APPENDIX I

Academic Title of Participants

N = 48

Academic Title N %

Ajarn 30 62.5

Assistant Professor 9 18.8

Associate Professor 9 18.8

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

134

APPENDIX J

Gender and Age of Participants

N = 48

Gender N %

Male 14 29.2

Female 34 70.8

Age

21-30 5 10.4

31-40 13 27.1

41-50 11 22.9

51-60 13 27.1

61 and over 6 12.5

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

135

APPENDIX K

Marital Status of Participants

N = 48

Marital Status N %

Single 23 47.9

Married 24 50.0

Widowed 1 2.1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

136

APPENDIX L

Level and Field of Education of Participants

N = 48

Level of Education N %

Bachelor’s degree 4 8.3

Master’s degree 34 70.8

Doctorate degree 10 20.8

Field of Study

TEFL/TESL 25 52.0

Applied Linguistics 4 8.3

Linguistics 3 6.3

English/English Literature 2 4.2

Language and Communication 2 4.2

Others 12 25.0

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

137

APPENDIX M

Years of Teaching Experience of Participants

N = 48

Years of Teaching Experience N %

below 5 5 10.4

5-10 15 31.3

11-15 6 12.5

16-20 4 8.3

21-25 4 8.3

25-30 4 8.3

over 30 10 20.8

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

138

APPENDIX N

Years of Teaching Experience of Participants at this University

N = 48

Years of Teaching at this University N %

below 5 15 31.3

5-10 10 20.8

11-15 3 6.3

16-20 5 10.4

21-25 9 18.8

25-30 3 6.3

over 30 3 6.3

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

139

APPENDIX O

Years of Teaching Experience of Participants at this Institute

N = 48

Years of Teaching at this Institute N %

below 5 16 33.3

5-10 10 20.8

11-15 2 4.2

16-20 6 12.5

21-25 8 16.7

25-30 5 10.4

over 30 1 2.1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

140

APPENDIX P

Regular and Extra Teaching Hours per Week of Participants

N = 48

Regular Teaching Hours per Week N %

less than 3 1 2.1

3-6 19 29.6

7-9 8 16.7

10-12 11 22.9

over 12 9 18.8

Extra Teaching Hours per Week

less than 3 12 25.0

3-6 14 29.2

7-9 10 20.8

10-12 6 12.5

over 12 6 12.5

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

141

APPENDIX Q

Monthly Income of Participants

N = 48

Monthly Income N %

20,001 - 30,000 14 29.2

30,001 - 40,000 8 18.8

40,001 - 50,000 6 12.5

50,001 - 60,000 7 14.6

60,001 - 70,000 9 16.7

70,001 - 80,000 3 6.3

80,001 - 90,000 1 2.1

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

142

APPENDIX R

The Participants’ Perceptions of English Language Teaching

Perceptions of ELT as a field SA A U D SD X S.D.

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

1. Having positive thoughts about being 56.3 35.4 6.3 2.1 0 4.46 .71 an EFL teacher.

2. Being satisfied with teaching EFL as 54.0 39.6 4.2 2.1 0 4.46 .68 an occupation

3. Being satisfied with current teaching 43.8 39.6 12.5 2.1 2.1 4.21 .90 positions

4. Planning to teach until retirement 47.9 25.0 20.8 4.2 2.1 4.13 1.02

5. Planning to teach at this university 35.4 25.0 25.0 6.3 8.3 3.73 1.25 until retirement

6. Planning to teach at this department 41.7 20.8 16.7 8.3 12.5 3.71 1.41 until retirement

7. Planning to move and teach in 5.0 7.5 15.0 22.5 50.0 1.95 1.20 another institution

8. Planning to leave the field of ELT 5.0 5.0 20.0 22.5 47.5 1.98 1.17

9. Sometimes feeling tempted to leave 7.5 15.0 12.5 32.5 32.5 2.33 1.29 the field of ELT

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

143

APPENDIX S

The Participants’ Reasons Why EFL Teachers Leave or Consider Leaving Their Teaching Career

Item Reasons why EFL teachers leave or consider leaving S.D. their teaching career Rank No.

1 3 Inappropriate salaries 3.75 .98

2 73 Inadequate salaries 3.69 1.26

3 80 Health Condition 3.65 1.31

4 59 Limited opportunity in career advancement or job promotion 3.60 1.23

5 65 Inadequate salary increase 3.56 1.25

6 81 Family responsibilities (e.g., pregnancy, child-rearing, etc.) 3.56 1.22

7 30 Stressful job assignments 3.50 1.19

8 62 Wage structure or wage systems for teachers 3.44 1.20

9 2 Excessive paper work to meet the school requirement 3.42 1.20

10 1 Unmanageable workload 3.31 1.19

11 25 Inappropriate promotion procedure 3.29 1.17

12 40 Not enjoying teaching the students 3.27 1.41

13 76 Employment opportunities 3.25 1.18

14 6 Excessive class size 3.23 1.15

15 17 Excessive out-of-classroom responsibilities 3.21 1.18

16 52 School policies (e.g., TQF, SARs) 3.21 1.20

17 14 Unsatisfactory working condition 3.21 1.27

18 66 Inadequate retirement package 3.17 1.24

19 8 Excessive paper work on a daily basis 3.13 1.21

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

144

20 22 Inconsistency of teachers’ responsibilities with their job 3.13 1.12 descriptions

21 39 Inadequate healthcare benefits 3.06 1.17

22 49 Unsatisfactory teaching assignments 3.06 1.10

23 58 Negative relationship with colleagues 3.02 1.34

24 63 State’s required education reform policies 3.02 1.00

25 10 Lack of administrators’ support when experiencing 2.96 1.22 difficulty with the teaching workloads

26 11 Lack of administrators’ support for continuing/ongoing 2.92 1.22 professional development

27 4 Inadequacy of resources 2.85 1.05

28 5 Inadequacy of facilities 2.85 1.11

29 38 Lack of administrators’ respect to the opinions 2.85 1.30

30 61 Inadequate incentives for additional academic degrees 2.85 1.17

31 23 Too many daily job responsibilities 2.83 1.23

32 55 Lack of colleagues’ cooperation 2.81 1.27

33 34 Negative working partnership with colleagues 2.81 1.23

34 44 Lack of administrators’ recognition in work performance 2.79 1.25

35 75 Lack of administrators’ cooperation 2.79 1.20

36 57 Lack of administrators’ clarification about the teachers’ job 2.79 1.13 expectations

37 12 Limited access to mentors/specialists 2.75 1.12

38 7 No respect from students 2.75 1.10

39 36 Limited autonomy in choosing teaching methods 2.73 1.14

40 26 Inconvenient work hours 2.71 1.27

41 9 Excessive test writing responsibilities 2.71 1.03

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

145

42 54 Poor school environment 2.69 1.17

43 31 Dissatisfaction in working with EFL students 2.67 1.21

44 35 Limited opportunity to help formulate instructional 2.67 1.06 objectives

45 15 Difficulty in maintaining daily classroom discipline 2.67 1.12

46 16 Frustration in daily interaction with students 2.67 1.12

47 37 Lack of administrators’ appreciation in work performance 2.65 1.10

48 48 Lack of administrators’ enforcement of the schools’ 2.65 1.04 discipline procedures

49 19 Excessive non-paid extracurricular activities 2.63 1.16

50 70 Lack of colleagues’ support when experiencing difficulty 2.63 1.12 with other excessive responsibilities

51 29 Poor quality of resources 2.63 1.08

52 43 Limited opportunity to engage in selecting the teaching 2.63 1.08 materials

53 41 Not seeing the students’ progress 2.60 1.12

54 53 Limited opportunity to engage in schools’ curriculum 2.60 1.09 development

55 60 Not being able to help students 2.60 1.07

56 72 Limited opportunity to engage in developing the teaching 2.58 1.13 materials

57 13 Limited opportunity to attend trainings 2.56 1.13

58 27 Lack of colleagues’ support when experiencing difficulty 2.56 1.13 with the teaching workloads

59 45 Lack of administrators’ feedback in work performance 2.56 1.07

60 56 Limited pre-service training for teaching EFL students 2.54 1.05

61 74 Having negative experiences with the students 2.52 1.09

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

146

62 78 Lack of colleagues’ respect to the opinions 2.52 1.03

63 42 Lack of colleagues’ support for continuing/ongoing 2.48 1.01 professional development

64 79 Never attending courses/trainings in in curriculum 2.46 .97 development

65 64 Age (e.g., they think they are too old or too to teach) 2.46 1.17

66 46 No EFL teaching degree 2.44 1.20

67 18 Excessive meetings 2.42 .99

68 50 Characteristics of Students 2.38 1.08

69 33 Poor quality of facilities 2.38 .96

70 28 Limited opportunity to attend conferences/seminars 2.38 .94

71 32 Limited opportunity to attend short courses 2.33 .86

72 51 Never attending courses/trainings in assessment 2.25 .89

73 69 Characteristics of community 2.23 .95

74 47 Never attending courses/trainings in classroom behavior 2.15 .87 management

75 20 Violence involving students against teachers 2.10 1.19

76 24 Inadequate vacations 2.08 .99

77 71 Socioeconomic characteristics of students 2.00 .92

78 67 Ethnicity 1.96 .87

79 21 Violence involving students against other students 1.85 .92

80 68 Gender 1.73 .82

81 77 Religion 1.60 .84

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

147

APPENDIX T

Factors Influencing Teacher Attrition and Retention

Factors Questionnaire Items Mean S.D.

Family Matters 3.56 0

81. Family responsibilities (e.g., pregnancy, 3.56 1.22 child-rearing, etc.)

Economic Trends 3.345 0.13

62. Wage structure or wage systems for 3.44 1.20 teachers

76. Employment opportunities 3.25 1.18

Extrinsic Work Rewards 3.227 0.53

3. Inappropriate salaries 3.75 .98

73. Inadequate salaries 3.69 1.26

59. Limited opportunity in career 3.60 1.23 advancement or job promotion

65. Inadequate salary increase 3.56 1.25

25. Inappropriate promotion procedure 3.29 1.17

66. Inadequate retirement package 3.17 1.24

39. Inadequate healthcare benefits 3.06 1.17

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

148

61. Inadequate incentives for additional 2.85 1.17 academic degrees

24. Inadequate vacations 2.08 .99

Institutional Influence 3.115 0.13

52. School policies (e.g., TQF, SARs) 3.21 1.20

63. State’s required education reform 3.02 1.00 policies

Characteristics of Job Assignments 3.05 0.34

30. Stressful job assignments 3.50 1.19

2. Excessive paper work to meet the school 3.42 1.20 requirement

1. Unmanageable workload 3.31 1.19

17. Excessive out-of-classroom 3.21 1.18 responsibilities

8. Excessive paper work on a daily basis 3.13 1.21

22. Inconsistency of teachers’ 3.13 1.12 responsibilities with their job descriptions

49. Unsatisfactory teaching assignments 3.06 1.10

23. Too many daily job responsibilities 2.83 1.23

26. Inconvenient work hours 2.71 1.27

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

149

9. Excessive test writing responsibilities 2.71 1.03

19. Excessive non-paid extracurricular 2.63 1.16 activities

18. Excessive meetings 2.42 .99

Intrinsic Work Rewards 2.73 0.21

40. Not enjoying teaching the students 3.27 1.41

38. Lack of administrators’ respect to the 2.85 1.30 opinions

55. Lack of colleagues’ cooperation 2.81 1.27

44. Lack of administrators’ recognition in 2.79 1.25 work performance

75. Lack of administrators’ cooperation 2.79 1.20

31. Dissatisfaction in working with EFL 2.67 1.21 students

37. Lack of administrators’ appreciation in 2.65 1.10 work performance

41. Not seeing the students’ progress 2.60 1.12

60. Not being able to help students 2.60 1.07

74. Lack of colleagues’ respect to the 2.52 1.09 opinions

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

150

78. Lack of colleagues’ respect to the 2.52 1.03 opinions

Professional Qualifications 2.37 0.17

56. Limited pre-service training for teaching 2.54 1.05 EFL students

79. Never attending courses/trainings in in 2.46 .97 curriculum development

46. No EFL teaching degree 2.44 1.20

51. Never attending courses/trainings in 2.25 .89 assessment

47. Never attending courses/trainings in 2.15 .87 classroom behavior management

Characteristics of School 2.71 0.24

6. Excessive class size 3.23 1.15

14. Unsatisfactory working condition 3.21 1.27

58. Negative relationship with colleagues 3.02 1.34

10. Lack of administrators’ support when 2.96 1.22 experiencing difficulty with the teaching workloads

11. Lack of administrators’ support for 2.92 1.22 continuing/ongoing professional development

4. Inadequacy of resources 2.85 1.05

5. Inadequacy of facilities 2.85 1.11

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

151

34. Negative working partnership with 2.81 1.23 colleagues

57. Lack of administrators’ clarification 2.79 1.13 about the teachers’ job expectations

12. Limited access to mentors/specialists 2.75 1.12

36. Limited autonomy in choosing teaching 2.73 1.14 methods

54. Poor school environment 2.69 1.17

35. Limited opportunity to help formulate 2.67 1.26 instructional objectives

48. Lack of administrators’ enforcement of 2.65 1.04 the schools’ discipline procedures

70. Lack of colleagues’ support when 2.63 1.12 experiencing difficulty with other excessive responsibilities

29. Poor quality of resources 2.63 1.08

43. Limited opportunity to engage in 2.63 1.08 selecting the teaching materials

53. Limited opportunity to engage in 2.60 1.09 schools’ curriculum development

72. Limited opportunity to engage in 2.58 1.13 developing the teaching materials

27. Lack of colleagues’ support when 2.56 1.13 experiencing difficulty with the teaching workloads

13. Limited opportunity to attend trainings 2.56 1.13

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

152

45. Lack of administrators’ feedback in work 2.56 1.07 performance

42. Lack of colleagues’ support for 2.48 1.01 continuing/ongoing professional development

33. Poor quality of facilities 2.38 .96

28. Limited opportunity to attend 2.38 .94 conferences/seminars

32. Limited opportunity to attend short 2.33 .86 courses

Characteristics of Students 2.40 0.59

7. No respect from students 2.75 1.10

15. Difficulty in maintaining daily classroom 2.67 1.12 discipline

16. Frustration in daily interaction with 2.67 1.12 students

50. Characteristics of Students 2.38 1.08

20. Violence involving students against 2.10 1.19 teachers

21. Violence involving students against other 1.85 .92 students

Demographic Aspect 2.08 0.45

80. Health Condition 2.65 1.31

64. Age (e.g., they think they are too old or 2.46 1.17 too to teach)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

153

67. Ethnicity 1.96 .87

68. Gender 1.73 .82

77. Religion 1.60 .84

Societal Influence 2.12 0.16

69. Characteristics of Community 2.23 .95

71. Socioeconomic characteristics of 2.00 .92 students

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

154

APPENDIX U

Reasons why EFL 5 4 3 2 1 teachers leave or consider leaving Mean S.D. their teaching Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % career

1 Unmanageable 9 18.75 15 31.25 7 14.58 16 33.33 1 2.08 3.31 1.19 workload

2 Excessive paper 10 20.83 16 33.33 8 16.67 12 25.00 2 4.17 3.42 1.20 work to meet the school requirement 3 Inappropriate 12 25.00 18 37.50 12 25.00 6 12.50 3.75 .98 salaries

4 Inadequacy of 3 6.25 12 25.00 10 20.83 21 43.75 2 4.17 2.85 1.05 resources

5 Inadequacy of 3 6.25 14 29.17 7 14.58 21 43.75 3 6.25 2.85 1.11 facilities

6 Excessive class size 6 12.50 17 35.42 10 20.83 12 25.00 3 6.25 3.23 1.15

7 No respect from 2 4.17 11 22.92 15 31.25 13 27.08 7 14.58 2.75 1.10 students

8 Excessive paper 8 16.67 11 22.92 11 22.92 15 31.25 3 6.25 3.13 1.21 work on a daily basis

9 Excessive test 4 8.33 7 14.58 9 18.75 27 56.25 1 2.08 2.71 1.03 writing responsibilities 10 Lack of 6 12.50 12 25.00 8 16.67 18 37.50 4 8.33 2.96 1.22 administrators’ support when experiencing difficulty with the teaching workloads 11 Lack of 4 8.33 15 31.25 8 16.67 15 31.25 6 12.50 2.92 1.22 administrators’ support for continuing/ongoing professional development 12 Limited access to 2 4.17 12 25.00 13 27.08 14 29.17 7 14.58 2.75 1.12 mentors/specialists

13 Limited opportunity 2 4.17 10 20.83 9 18.75 19 39.58 8 16.67 2.56 1.13 to attend trainings

14 Unsatisfactory 9 18.75 13 27.08 9 18.75 13 27.08 4 8.33 3.21 1.27 working condition

15 Difficulty in 3 6.25 8 16.67 14 29.17 16 33.33 7 14.58 2.67 1.12 maintaining daily classroom discipline 16 Frustration in daily 3 6.25 7 14.58 17 35.42 13 27.08 8 16.67 2.67 1.12 interaction with students 17 Excessive out-of- 6 12.50 16 33.33 13 27.08 8 16.67 5 10.42 3.21 1.18 classroom responsibilities 18 Excessive meetings 1 2.08 6 12.50 13 27.08 20 41.67 8 16.67 2.42 .99

19 Excessive non-paid 3 6.25 10 20.83 8 16.67 20 41.67 7 14.58 2.63 1.16 extracurricular activities 20 Violence involving 2 4.17 6 12.50 6 12.50 15 31.25 19 39.58 2.10 1.19 students against teachers 21 Violence involving 1 2.08 1 2.08 8 16.67 18 37.50 20 41.67 1.85 .92 students against

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

155

other students

22 Inconsistency of 4 8.33 17 35.42 12 25.00 11 22.92 4 8.33 3.13 1.12 teachers’ responsibilities with their job descriptions 23 Too many daily job 4 8.33 13 27.08 9 18.75 15 31.25 7 14.58 2.83 1.23 responsibilities

24 Inadequate vacations 2 4.17 2 4.17 7 14.58 24 50.00 13 27.08 2.08 .99

25 Inappropriate 7 14.58 16 33.33 13 27.08 8 16.67 4 8.33 3.29 1.17 promotion procedure

26 Inconvenient work 5 10.42 9 18.75 10 20.83 15 31.25 9 18.75 2.71 1.27 hours

27 Lack of colleagues’ 2 4.17 9 18.75 12 25.00 16 33.33 9 18.75 2.56 1.13 support when experiencing difficulty with the teaching workloads 28 Limited opportunity 7 14.58 12 25.00 21 43.75 8 16.67 2.38 .94 to attend conferences/seminars - - 29 Poor quality of 2 4.17 10 20.83 10 20.83 20 41.67 6 12.50 2.63 1.08 resources

30 Job-related stress 11 22.92 16 33.33 9 18.75 10 20.83 2 4.17 3.50 1.19

31 Dissatisfaction in 3 6.25 12 25.00 7 14.58 18 37.50 8 16.67 2.67 1.21 working with EFL students 32 Limited opportunity 4 8.33 16 33.33 20 41.67 8 16.67 2.33 .86 to attend short courses - - 33 Poor quality of 7 14.58 13 27.08 19 39.58 9 18.75 2.38 .96 facilities - - 34 Negative working 3 6.25 14 29.17 11 22.92 11 22.92 9 18.75 2.81 1.23 partnership with colleagues 35 Limited opportunity 1 2.08 11 22.92 14 29.17 15 31.25 7 14.58 2.67 1.06 to help formulate instructional objectives 36 Limited autonomy in 2 4.17 13 27.08 10 20.83 16 33.33 7 14.58 2.73 1.14 choosing teaching methods 37 Lack of 3 6.25 7 14.58 15 31.25 16 33.33 7 14.58 2.65 1.10 administrators’ appreciation in work performance 38 Lack of 8 16.67 6 12.50 12 25.00 15 31.25 7 14.58 2.85 1.30 administrators’ respect to the opinions 39 Inadequate 3 6.25 19 39.58 10 20.83 10 20.83 6 12.50 3.06 1.17 healthcare benefits

40 Not enjoying 11 22.92 15 31.25 5 10.42 10 20.83 7 14.58 3.27 1.41 teaching the students

41 Not seeing the 3 6.25 8 16.67 11 22.92 19 39.58 7 14.58 2.60 1.12 students’ progress

42 Lack of colleagues’ 9 18.75 14 29.17 16 33.33 9 18.75 2.48 1.01 support for continuing/ongoing professional development - - 43 Limited opportunity 2 4.17 9 18.75 13 27.08 17 35.42 7 14.58 2.63 1.08 to engage in selecting the teaching materials 44 Lack of 4 8.33 12 25.00 11 22.92 12 25.00 9 18.75 2.79 1.25 administrators’ recognition in work

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

156

performance

45 Lack of 1 2.08 8 16.67 18 37.50 11 22.92 10 20.83 2.56 1.07 administrators’ feedback in work performance 46 No EFL teaching 3 6.25 7 14.58 10 20.83 16 33.33 12 25.00 2.44 1.20 degree

47 Never attending 1 2.08 1 2.08 13 27.08 22 45.83 11 22.92 2.15 .87 courses/trainings in classroom behavior management 48 Lack of 2 4.17 8 16.67 15 31.25 17 35.42 6 12.50 2.65 1.04 administrators’ enforcement of the schools’ discipline procedures 49 Unsatisfactory 3 6.25 18 37.50 9 18.75 15 31.25 3 6.25 3.06 1.10 teaching assignments

50 Characteristics of 9 18.75 13 27.08 13 27.08 13 27.08 2.38 1.08 Students - - 51 Never attending 1 2.08 2 4.17 14 29.17 22 45.83 9 18.75 2.25 .89 courses/trainings in assessment 52 School policies (e.g., 8 16.67 12 25.00 14 29.17 10 20.83 4 8.33 3.21 1.20 TQF, SARs)

53 Limited opportunity 2 4.17 8 16.67 15 31.25 15 31.25 8 16.67 2.60 1.09 to engage in schools’ curriculum development 54 Poor school 2 4.17 12 25.00 12 25.00 13 27.08 9 18.75 2.69 1.17 environment

55 Lack of colleagues’ 4 8.33 13 27.08 10 20.83 12 25.00 9 18.75 2.81 1.27 cooperation

56 Limited pre-service 1 2.08 9 18.75 13 27.08 17 35.42 8 16.67 2.54 1.05 training for teaching EFL students 57 Lack of 4 8.33 7 14.58 19 39.58 11 22.92 7 14.58 2.79 1.13 administrators’ clarification about the teachers’ job expectations 58 Negative relationship 7 14.58 13 27.08 11 22.92 8 16.67 9 18.75 3.02 1.34 with colleagues

59 Limited opportunity 14 29.17 14 29.17 10 20.83 7 14.58 3 6.25 3.60 1.23 in career advancement or job promotion 60 Not being able to 1 2.08 9 18.75 17 35.42 12 25.00 9 18.75 2.60 1.07 help students

61 Inadequate 5 10.42 8 16.67 16 33.33 13 27.08 6 12.50 2.85 1.17 incentives for additional academic degrees 62 Wage structure or 8 16.67 20 41.67 10 20.83 5 10.42 5 10.42 3.44 1.20 wage systems for teachers 63 State’s required 3 6.25 11 22.92 22 45.83 8 16.67 4 8.33 3.02 1.00 education reform policies 64 Age (e.g., they think 3 6.25 7 14.58 9 18.75 19 39.58 10 20.83 2.46 1.17 they are too old or too to teach) 65 Inadequate salary 12 25.00 17 35.42 10 20.83 4 8.33 5 10.42 3.56 1.25 increase

66 Inadequate 6 12.50 16 33.33 13 27.08 6 12.50 7 14.58 3.17 1.24 retirement package

67 Ethnicity 1 2.08 14 29.17 15 31.25 18 37.50 1.96 .87

- -

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

157

68 Gender 11 22.92 13 27.08 24 50.00 1.73 .82

- - 69 Characteristics of 4 8.33 16 33.33 15 31.25 13 27.08 2.23 .95 community - - 70 Lack of colleagues’ 2 4.17 9 18.75 15 31.25 13 27.08 9 18.75 2.63 1.12 support when experiencing difficulty with other excessive responsibilities 71 Socioeconomic 3 6.25 11 22.92 17 35.42 17 35.42 2.00 .92 characteristics of students - - 72 Limited opportunity 2 4.17 8 16.67 16 33.33 12 25.00 10 20.83 2.58 1.13 to engage in developing the teaching materials 73 Inadequate salaries 15 31.25 16 33.33 8 16.67 5 10.42 4 8.33 3.69 1.26

74 Having negative 1 2.08 10 20.83 11 22.92 17 35.42 9 18.75 2.52 1.09 experiences with the students 75 Lack of 1 2.08 18 37.50 8 16.67 12 25.00 9 18.75 2.79 1.20 administrators’ cooperation 76 Employment 6 12.50 16 33.33 16 33.33 4 8.33 6 12.50 3.25 1.18 opportunities

77 Religion 1 2.08 8 16.67 10 20.83 29 60.42 1.60 .84

- - 78 Lack of colleagues’ 1 2.08 7 14.58 17 35.42 14 29.17 9 18.75 2.52 1.03 respect to the opinions 79 Never attending 8 16.67 14 29.17 18 37.50 8 16.67 2.46 .97 courses/trainings in in curriculum development - - 80 Health Condition 15 31.25 16 33.33 7 14.58 5 10.42 5 10.42 3.65 1.31

81 Family 12 25.00 17 35.42 8 16.67 8 16.67 3 6.25 3.56 1.22 responsibilities (e.g., pregnancy, child- rearing, etc.)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

158

APPENDIX V บันทึกผลงานวิชาการส าหรับ ข้าราชการ และพนักงานมหาวิทยาลัย สายวิชาการ ชื่อ - สกุล ต าแหน่งทางวิชาการ อีเมล เบอร์โทรศัพท์ ( ) ระยะที่ 1/4 ( ) ระยะที่ 2/4 ( ) ระยะที่ 3/4 ( X ) ระยะที่ 4/4

รายละเอียดผลงาน คะแนน (1) บทความเผยแพร่ในเวทีวิชาการ (proceedings) 1. ชื่อเรื่อง- ชื่องานประชุม- ประเทศ- ว/ด/ป ที่ประชุม / / หน้า __ - ___ 2. ชื่อเรื่อง- ชื่องานประชุม- ประเทศ- ว/ด/ป ที่ประชุม / / หน้า ___ - __

(2) บทความวิชาการ หรือบทความวิจัยตีพิมพ์ (กรุณากรอกโดยใช้ฟอร์ม APA)

(3) รายงานวิจัยฉบับสมบูรณ์ (กรุณากรอกโดยใช้ฟอร์ม APA)

(4) ต ารา หรือหนังสือที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์เผยแพร่ฉบับสมบูรณ์ (กรุณากรอกโดยใช้ฟอร์ม APA)

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

159

APPENDIX W TQF Document No. 3

Course Specification

Name of Institution

Faculty/Department/ Program

Section 1: General Information

1. Course Code and Course Title

2. Number of credits

3. Program and type of course

4. Course Administrator and lecturer

5. Semester/ Academic Year

6. Pre-requisite

7. Co-requisite

8. Classroom

9. Date of this documentation

Section 2: Goals and Objectives

1. Course objectives

2. Rationale for developing or revising the course

Section 3: Course Description and Administration

1. Course description

2. Number of class hours per semester

Lecture Extra classes or Practicum/field Self study supervision work/internship

3. Number of hours of academic supervision/ discussion per student

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

160

Section 4: Expected Learning Outcomes

1. Morals and ethics

1.1 Expected morals and ethics

1.2 Pedagogy

1.3 Assessment

2. Knowledge

2.1 Expected knowledge

2.2 Pedagogy

2.3 Assessment

Take quizzes

Take exams

Give presentations

3. Cognitive skills

3.1 Expected cognitive skills

3.2 Pedagogy

3.3 Assessment

4. Interpersonal skills and responsibilities

4.1 Expected interpersonal skills and responsibilities

4.2 Pedagogy

4.3 Assessment

5. Numerical analysis, communication and information technology skills

5.1 Expected Numerical analysis, communication and information technology skills

5.2 Pedagogy

5.3 Assessment

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

161

Section 5: Study Plan and Assessment

1. Course Plan

Week Topic/ Content Number Number of Activities/ Lecturer/ of hours remark hours media/ Theory Practice reference textbok

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

162

2. Assessment Plan

No. of Relevant Assessment Assessment Proportion of Activities learning methods week assessment outcomes from score Section 4

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

163

APPENDIX X

บัญชีโครงสร้างอัตราค่าจ้างลูกจ้างชาวต่างประเทศที่มีสัญญาจ้าง

หน้าที่ความรับผิดชอบ อัตราค่าจ้าง สอนภาษาต่างประเทศในระดับอนุปริญญาหรือระดับ 20,780 - 21,620 - 22,490 - 23,370 – 24,270 – ปริญญา สอนวิชาแขนงอื่นในระดับอนุปริญญาหรือระดับ 26,460 – 27,480 – 28, 560, - 29, 680 – 30-790 ปริญญาและท าการวิจัยด้วย สอนภาษาต่างประเทศในระดับบัณฑิตวิทยาลัยหรือใน 25,530 – 26,660 – 27,800 – 28,930 – 30,100 – ระดับบัณฑิตวิทยาลัยและทาการวิจัยด้วย 31,290 – 32,510 – 33,730 – 35,090 – 36,410

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

164

APPENDIX Y

(ร่าง) คู่มือประเมินผลการปฏิบัติงานของของผู้ด ารงต าแหน่งอาจารย์ ผู้ช่วยศาสตราจารย์ รองศาสตราจารย์ และศาสตราจารย์ …………………….. ------คู่มือประเมินผลการปฏิบัติงานของอาจารย์ฉบับนี้ ให้ใช้ในการประเมินผลการปฏิบัติงานของ ผู้ปฏิบัติงานสายวิชาการทั้งที่เป็นข้าราชการและพนักงานของมหาวิทยาลัย โดยมีการอนุโลมให้นับรอบ พิจารณาประเมินผลการปฏิบัติงานพร้อมกันทั้ง 2 กลุ่มเพื่อคิดผลงานการสอนจากรอบภาคการศึกษา เดียวกัน แม้จะมีการเบิกจ่ายจากงบประมาณต่างกันก็ตาม โดยมีรอบระยะเวลาการประเมินดังนี้ ครั้งที่ 1 ระหว่างวันที่ 1 ตุลาคม ถึงวันที่ 31 มีนาคม ของปีถัดไป ครั้งที่ 2 ระหว่างวันที่ 1 เมษายน ถึงวันที่ 30 กันยายน ของปีนั้น 1. เป้าหมายของการประเมิน 1.1 เพื่อปรับปรุง พัฒนา เพิ่มพูนประสิทธิภาพ ประสิทธิผลการท างาน 1.2 เพื่อประกอบการพิจารณาเลื่อนขั้นเงินเดือน การให้รางวัลประจ าปี และค่าตอบแทน 1.3 อื่นๆ ตามที่มหาวิทยาลัยก าหนด 2. วิธีการรวบรวมข้อมูล 2.1 ผู้รับการประเมิน เขียนรายงานการปฏิบัติงานในรอบ 6 เดือน และจัดส่งเอกสาร ผลงาน ประกอบการประเมิน 2.2 คณะกรรมการประเมิน ตรวจสอบข้อมูล ประสานงานผู้เกี่ยวข้องเพื่อความครบถ้วนของ ข้อมูล กลั่นกรอง และจัดให้มีการประเมินผลการปฏิบัติงานตามแบบฟอร์มที่ก าหนด 3. คณะกรรมการประเมิน ประกอบด้วย 2 กลุ่ม ดังนี้ 3.1 คณะกรรมการประเมินโดยต าแหน่ง ประกอบด้วย ……… 3.2 คณะกรรมการประเมินจากผู้แทนที่ได้รับการเลือกตั้งจากคณาจารย์ภายในจานวน 3-5 คน เป็นกรรมการ โดยมีข้าราชการ 1 คน และพนักงาน 1 คนเป็นอย่างน้อย ……. 4. การคิดภาระงานและน้ าหนักสัดส่วน ผู้รับการประเมินของสถาบันภาษาต้องมีภาระงานตามมาตรฐานภาระงานตามกรอบภาระ งาน (Work Load) ในประกาศ ก.พ.อ. คืออาจารย์ทุกคนต้องท างานก าหนดภาระงานขั้นต่าเป็น 35 หน่วย ชั่วโมง/สัปดาห์/ภาคการศึกษาปกติ และควรปฏิบัติงานให้ครบทุกภารกิจของบุคลากรสายวิชาการและ สอดคล้องกับเป้าหมาย พันธกิจของสถาบันภาษา คือ 4.1 ภาระงานสอนและพัฒนานิสิต 4.2 ภาระงานวิจัย งานสร้างสรรค์ และผลงานวิชาการ 4.3 ภาระงานบริการวิชาการ 4.4 ภาระด้านการทะนุบารุงศิลปวัฒนธรรม 4.5 ภาระด้านการบริหารและกรรมการอื่นๆ

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

165

ทั้งนี้ในแต่ละรอบของการบันทึกผลงานเชิงปริมาณนั้น ภาระงานสอนให้คิดระยะเวลา 15 สัปดาห์ต่อภาคการศึกษา ส่วนภาระงานด้านอื่นๆให้คิดระยะเวลา ครึ่งปี หรือ 26 สัปดาห์ต่อ 1 รอบประเมิน 5. ค านิยาม 5.1 "งานสอน" หมายถึง งานสอนในรายวิชาที่ก าหนดไว้ในหลักสูตรของมหาวิทยาลัย งานคณะกรรมการที่ปรึกษาวิทยานิพนธ์ สารนิพนธ์ และงานคณะกรรมการที่ปรึกษาในศูนย์เรียนรู้ด้วย ตนเอง 5.2 "งานวิจัย" หมายถึง งานศึกษาค้นคว้าอย่างมีระบบและมีวัตถุประสงค์ที่ชัดเจน เพื่อให้ ได้มาซึ่งข้อมูล หลักการหรือข้อสรุปรวมที่จะน าไปสู่ความก้าวหน้าทางวิชาการ หรือเอื้อต่อการน าวิชาการนั้น ไปประยุกต์ มีลักษณะเป็นเอกสารที่มีระเบียบวิธีวิจัยที่เหมาะสมกับธรรมชาติของวิชา 5.3 "การผลิตผลงานทางวิชาการ" หมายถึง การนาเสนอการผลิตผลงานทางวิชาการ อย่างมี ระบบ มีหลักการ มีการทบทวน เอกสารที่เกี่ยวข้อง (Literature review) มีก าหนดระยะเวลา ผลงานทาง วิชาการนี้จะต้องสนองเนื้อหาทั้งหมด หรือส่วนหนึ่งของรายวิชา หรือหลักสูตรโดยมีการวิเคราะห์ สังเคราะห์ ความรู้ที่เกี่ยวข้อง และสะท้อนให้เห็นถึงความสามารถในการถ่ายทอดวิชาในระดับอุดมศึกษา ซึ่งรวมถึงการ ผลิตเอกสาร ต ารา หนังสือ หรือสื่อต่าง ๆ ทั้งนี้ จะต้องได้รับการกลั่นกรองและอนุมัติจากกรรมการที่เกี่ยวข้องตามล าดับ โดยมีเกณฑ์การ พิจารณาว่าผลงานทางวิชาการนั้นจะก่อให้เกิดความก้าวหน้าทางวิชาการ และการผลิตผลงานทางวิชาการใน เวลาราชการปกติ สามารถนามาคิดเป็นภาระงานได้เทียบเท่ากับภาระงานวิจัย 5.4 "งานบริการวิชาการ" หมายถึง งานที่มีลักษณะช่วยส่งเสริมเผยแพร่วิชาความรู้ทั้ง ทางด้านวิชาการและวิชาชีพต่อกลุ่มบุคคล สังคม เพื่อนาไปพัฒนาคุณภาพชีวิตในทุกด้าน 5.5 "งานทะนุบ ารุงศิลปวัฒนธรรม" หมายถึง งานที่มีส่วนร่วมในการจัดท ากิจกรรมเพื่อ ทะนุบ ารุงศาสนาศิลปวัฒนธรรมและการกีฬา รวมตลอดถึงการจัด/พัฒนาระเบียบสังคม การปรับปรุง คุณภาพชีวิต หรือวิถีชีวิตให้ดีขึ้น รวมถึงงานที่ปรึกษา และงานพัฒนานิสิต 6. การก าหนดภาระงานของบุคลากรต าแหน่งวิชาการ เป็นกลุ่ม การก าหนดสัดส่วนการประเมินตามภาระงานขึ้นอยู่กับพันธกิจและเป้าหมายของ หน่วยงาน โดยมีกรอบการพิจารณาจากตัวอย่างดังนี้ 6.1 คณะ สถาบัน วิทยาลัย และส านักที่เทียบเท่าคณะ ที่มีภาระงานหลักด้านการผลิต บัณฑิต สอนและพัฒนานิสิต ร้อยละ 45 วิจัย ร้อยละ 30 บริการวิชาการ ร้อยละ 20 ท านุบ ารุงศิลปวัฒนธรรม ร้อยละ 5 6.2 คณะ สถาบัน และสานักที่เทียบเท่าคณะ ที่มีภาระงานหลักด้านการวิจัย สอนและพัฒนานิสิต ร้อยละ 20 วิจัย ร้อยละ 50 บริการวิชาการ ร้อยละ 20 ท านุบ ารุงศิลปวัฒนธรรม ร้อยละ 10 6.3 คณะ สถาบัน และสานักที่เทียบเท่าคณะ ที่มีภาระงานหลักด้านการบริการวิชาการ

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

166

สอนและพัฒนานิสิต ร้อยละ 20 วิจัย ร้อยละ 20 บริการวิชาการ ร้อยละ 50 ท านุบ ารุงศิลปวัฒนธรรม ร้อยละ 10

เมื่อพิจารณาสัดส่วนจากข้างต้นแล้ว จะพบว่าการที่….มีภาระการสอนให้แก่ทุกคณะใน มหาวิทยาลัยเกือบทุกชั้นปี ภารกิจหลักจึงต้องเป็นด้านการสอนอย่างหลีกเลี่ยงมิได้ ฉะนั้นจึงไม่สามารถ ก าหนดภารกิจหลักให้สอดคล้องกับมหาวิทยาลัยที่มุ่งสู่ความเป็นมหาวิทยาลัยแห่งการวิจัยได้เพราะถ้าลด สัดส่วนด้านการสอนให้เหลือเพียงร้อยละ 20 และเพิ่มสัดส่วนงานวิจัยให้มากขึ้น มหาวิทยาลัยจะต้องมี นโยบายที่ชัดเจนในการจัดการกับหลักสูตรที่ครอบคลุมวิชาภาษาอังกฤษมากมายเหล่านั้นด้วย จากเหตุผลข้างต้น …จึงจาเป็นต้องก าหนดภาระงานของบุคลากรของหน่วยงาน เองตามสภาพของหน่วยงาน แต่ก็พยายามที่จะก าหนดสัดส่วนภาระงานของบุคลากรให้สอดคล้องกับ มาตรฐานภาระงานที่งานบริหารบุคคล ก าหนดให้ถือปฏิบัติตามประกาศ ก.พ.อ. เลขที่ ….ลงวันที่ …ว่าด้วย มาตรฐานภาระงานทางวิชาการของผู้ด ารงต าแหน่งอาจารย์ ผู้ช่วยศาสตราจารย์ รองศาสตราจารย์ และ ศาสตราจารย์ ให้มากเท่าที่จะกระท าได้ โดยก าหนดขั้นต่ าจ านวน 35 หน่วยชั่วโมงต่อสัปดาห์

หมวดภาระงาน สัดส่วน หน่วยชั่วโมง คะแนนเต็ม % ขั้นต่ าสุด/สัปดาห์ 1. ภาระงานสอนและที่ปรึกษา 30 10.5 600 2. ภาระผลิตผลงานวิชาการ 30 10.5 600 3. ภาระงานบริหารในหน่วยงาน 20 7.0 500 4. ภาระงานทะนุบ ารุงศิลปวัฒนธรรม 10 3.5 200 4. ภาระงานบริการสังคม 10 3.5 200 100 35 2000

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

167

APPENDIX Z

Philosophy:

Language capabilities enable the individual and society to advance towards worldclass excellence.

Resolution:

To develop foreign language education to international standards

Vision:

To develop the Language Institute of ….. University into one of the premier institutes in Thailand with expertise in teaching, academic services and research in applied linguistics and English Language Teaching

Missions:

1. To provide undergraduate and graduate English courses to enable students to communicate effectively in English for academic and career purposes;

2. To provide undergraduate Korean courses as an elective in foreign languages;

3. To educate high caliber graduates, capable of teaching English and using English at work in different careers with a deep sense of morality and responsibility to contribute to society;

4. To develop linguistic, English Language Teaching, and interdisciplinary research studies and integrate them into our teaching and academic services;

5. To develop textbooks and other teaching materials to facilitate English language teaching;

6. To provide academic services, including courses for ….. University students, faculty members, and staff in other institutions, to improve their English and training sessions for English teachers around Thailand to improve their English proficiency and teaching methodologies;

7. To preserve and integrate culture into language teaching and research;

8. To continuously promote presentations and publications of academic work at the national and international level;

9. To establish and maintain regular quality assurance procedures for sustained development.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

168

BIOGRAPHY

Name Virasuda Sribayak

Education B.Ed. (Second Class Honors) in Secondary Education, Chulalongkorn University M.Ed. in Instructional and Curricular Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA Ph.D. in English Language Teaching, Thammasat University Certificate in TEFL, University of Edinburgh, UK

Work Position Full-time Lecturer Language Institute, Thammasat University

Scholarship/ Research Funding: ทุนสนับสนุนการเขียนต าราจากปีงบประมาณ 2539 ทุนโครงการวิจัยเสริมหลักสูตร ปีงบประมาณ 2541 ทุนสนับสนุนการเขียนต าาราจากปีงบประมาณ 2547 ทุนอุดหนุนการวิจัยสถาบันปีงบประมาณ 2547 ทุนวิจัยสถาบันภาษาปีงบประมาณ 2551 ทุนฝึกอบรมตามโครงการพัฒนาและเพิ่มพูนความรู้ทางวิชาการในต่างประเทศ ปีงบประมาณ 2547 ณ University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Publications Articles Sribayak, V. & Soontornwipast, K. (2015). EFL Teachers’ Beliefs about Teacher Training, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 9, 1, 24-34. Sribayak, V. & Soontornwipast, K. (2012). Promoting Self-Access Learning: Action Research, Thammasat Journal, 1, 8-24. วีรสุดา ศรีพยัคฆ์ และปราจรีย์ อมาตยกุล. (2555). ความคาดหวังและความพึงพอใจของผู้ใช้บริการ โครงการ อบรมภาษาอังกฤษ. สถาบันภาษา มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์. วารสารธรรมศาสตร์, 31(2).

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP

169

Textbooks Sribayak, V. (Co-Authors) (1996). English Course I. Sribayak, V. (Co-Authors) (2008). EL 172: English Course III, Thammasat University Press.

Ref. code: 25605521320126CSP