. . 1 hnag ..

r '- OIOD...‘ It‘s Q I"

e .. 3 .2 . .3? if. i-..

. . . . .a

$355,. n ‘ h z“
2.1.22.3:

   

      

       

, . . . .5. . ititztén . .~
: . If 2:: . .. L... 2 3. 2.: tuna.
. ~ :§ .wiﬂﬂl Ls?titxrﬁrﬁzzﬁiﬁY‘Plhuﬁnﬁx u.
ﬁggyﬂﬂdlﬁuxvtﬁ 5;.» :yhﬁxi. aunuﬁuu. 7. x at. x r .wl t f “(3.5”.
L; i3213Xa:l.ai§1..t¥:.3¢.«uiﬁ? .gza‘lkg l1. ’5': ‘v 33‘
» 4.53.5. L 6:51; l!~|’.él§t ggf} i).
4344... 1.8{Raniaicﬂnzievtfﬁi3E5 : s. A: ataxia
. f . n frat: {lift {its 1: t... x. .11.
.c‘tﬁqnulhqsﬂ r «ardu‘wzltky E‘ziz\.))t>). 1.)..Esltltllav: thing’sﬂnﬁﬂ...
i is. .3... {fh‘wawusiﬂgii 1.2.5.. kﬁﬂzgisel. h; “3555...?! 35¢
5 .. .gk ;. ..
.3: ..§..;r...\m.«,2. . um», .. a... Wmﬁiutiiﬁvzanﬁttfhudnm?§.}z .63.“.
5.1:!!! 3.1 ”£41,! ilk-MN! 7.1.1)!!!“ xiii)... .N.
:ﬂagyz;.l£ z xxx 1.. £91,... .E..!..R_.}22t
. .qul. 5) .kaitrntt‘ h7xgggx‘fl ié’31aéﬁl}: D
L 1 ‘5’ .>\: In“!!! lg is; gum-H
531%....1. 1.55; Na . 3.13:!!! 0.... 34...». .51. 33‘

. ixﬁéﬁbpaé 21s... testrtrhaargz an... rib. té..:f§sz..{.tsw¢5
.. v.4 . » Lt... 1.6.3.1.... :29», 4N3»... ., tuna. .3 .
int. A. nu,nmu{z..v. l -f;§.%.wo¢o.2§i§u3i§ 33:3 .
i Ska» AP ~ i5gggif $.12

\ .l kmmmu‘ t. . : futpkwmﬂx )

5‘ b

    

      

 

 

 

)

 

Q! «:r’: S‘s-fut .
3!: . {.25 .
., 1 a hit: a u-...€:...€.nﬂ&.uaz.u§f-$5 z
. 8 31..“ I
2 an , 29”....an
S 1 . v .ﬁbrgt .n‘ths.:t..,(iD. .
~§..3 .ﬁ .7 5 I: Q ,

. A n V ‘
n13. .,z&&...na 2:. ﬁgs...
MW .

  

gﬁsﬂlldﬂthileiﬁ
5.2.. \l‘.) :c.‘ it;
I; ~ .
~ £9! b.5I5O \55‘50“! . ~21. .&.‘$
m In 2.... 11.13.... 31.5. as. r x
1 . .mﬁii.ii§..g§ml?§bo: ignnxulert.
_ kt. :- ”91.15."..1239Pﬂ- VIM” . isn‘t-3.01 .. .‘..

are: z ..w.:»....! gunner

..

  

      

 

Eatil: d... . #9. r .9: . NPR, H‘ s. . «Jul. . ﬁ
.. 233w“? 31.1....;Huf{ Hi... Pﬁzn.é~dwiv a I£~.s..!‘l‘.1§§t ;\ . {.5
. é Jada-1 \{iPtYhNIr .Ihﬁu‘ﬂi‘vgi’ \Ii iffy... .31.: {.1013}. ..
it! at. n. ..... flirt. In “viii 2}! . {Mi (Fiﬁ
. i-

    
       

 

&
it.

 

.

.

.mﬁ mm
.

l . ttlévi t
N s ; . .6 . . fl‘ . n. ”I g1$ﬁ3 E
Wkﬁmﬂ. a? . : ﬂan ﬁn. .

. ~ A.

   

-‘2fi

: i
ashuvﬁv «mu
,
$1 I!
..
:

\‘Q'v

 

            

     
    

      

          

 

 

,
. 9a. 923...: l
. ﬂ 3"“:
. 1 £2. 3...? ; .§§ is ..,
. I» a. .32: ﬂ 2.. .iliri .1: .uhﬂutaigwr .(3
11..

«a L. .C $.th .31 2 \ DEE; “It .ls
“ﬂunk, ‘g‘Wilhﬂ. via: .16. . > :kais. LWixgtjuﬂQTqiﬂtrasﬁsoi «5.2. . L

6173.312} . nus! . .. .35 . . s . . . 33.1.1.53. .133331. 14:91.“;
$§aam§§ ) .13». . {I . .2 {ﬁrm-NW u mzf‘giﬂl;
. (”9%. .s\ M; . .iYY-AE’WGNW:

. h . .

    

 

    
    

 

.
11...... ..... Ir 1 I»
V."¢O tiﬂ' u "I‘ »
P:.XL«..3.3LPWW..9V§XPIJ..
15;)11..:£X5:8:3.
kw 3’43;ll1:1227«ﬂu
c. .. Lr..~.~¢vil1..tiv$>l1
"Niko. 4.33114 5.35311 .
V. ink!!!“ :55: 5:53.
3.3:. . 7 u
L «Enlv 1.12”” . .
. .

.f}..il.lé
.t‘ttkmqmn, f _ .
I.

 

 

          

 

. t.
35:31... .
, .. 3. y... .9 .
.zﬂgfgih.bwkg, 2t .1
_ I... . $3 :2 . .w
£51.31 riser-H.» zzhuuu. .,
.Yannpi.w5a...~‘m, 111).. J5WI)
. .i.ﬂ.w..uﬁﬂ%3§£¥:§iil~d&r .
iaffgaizvirnﬂ. . a? a . a,
3.5.3» 4.1).... V
. .. vii. ...iz....:$
.~. .iﬂzﬂ..nﬂ%. .
r12..l7u.. $1.. .5.) 1 .
.(ti’? 1). a .u .s ) 0!. .. . . ,
E 1 . ., a

. ..va....v.>..t?1ﬁ7ﬂls :1.u4_ 2 . ...9h.ma_~3§ Firing. I.
. r: xiii} 3.? Van”... ,erstﬁﬁiiwtg n. :1 {swan » iii...
Jnéde$3~K1nu£v~zcy32rﬁk 113$!5ﬁ5ﬁlﬂbu» P‘Ut‘ 7
.....in.....5..zﬁ.it;. 1., ﬁficgél‘xx a...

. .

z
3.5.x. .22.!
3 a925.....95235:1nuﬂgrwﬁhiﬁuitﬂurhﬂi

               

 

 

. in?» . :4 g .
. . c
. ﬁ§;$
. , 3:

S. .
inc . ()5th
‘H&.

         

        

     

    

 

5
{z
1'

 

 

 

   

 

   

         

 

           

Beggténii

                              

 

 

         

    

   

 

 

            

        

¢ - if L
. . of" _ 1.3.1. 1‘ II n
i 7 .. . RH
3.2.3.; 325.2: 4 a . hm.” ntguﬂﬁgrﬁpffarxtg
2.3L}: $21.? 4.. . s a 2.6:; 3:135)? Joi-t:i}
. .535. .ﬁxﬁxfﬂnw h. Azaerzihax t...i¥.u.u. Liz . «risk. 3:; {é .Itttxifk
u: Junknvsﬂuziéiizsﬂpn ﬁgiizz §.. .11.. , .. ittd .. . . 129...?! 31!?! Ln"
.H.gﬂbzxa}. :25: 2‘. :3.vmn515132v1.t$hvwﬂm 1"». hurl. . an . (gums , , “uhikbyssb l
1.1K ?§«ufvnﬁag.gndpwj. val. . 1. 5.3-2 1 3 1492.1 JI . ‘
.1) <9! ti:— ~ » . u _ v
QMHJPﬁmﬁuinﬁeizubu .“dﬁéui 1.5.3.. . Iii. . a...
h. 5133?... #53. ..P£ut.:i.....q. . .E I.
ﬁzzzbz. at Hun; ... w
1’ .

 

 

    
  
 

‘
. é .. . z
i . ham. ﬁaﬁxti
Jam. “3%.. .31...

a

     

gisz’tts
, q A \LA .
. gs! {.151 I. .a. .
. v 5355.405?
1... "final... if...” ttlbsg‘txtixli
x, . $5.23!} {fiscfﬁa u
. . 3?}: . £Nq§.t~«&r}ii&bgg
In. $215“S.I..,. . . . lifttﬁllfllflh M)». nut-50.2.5 .. .
{tsﬁg‘iog‘si igxtgt‘ t,
}.§\Jll . l {CA \uf l {iblxtilg
gnulsé l9 .s “I. {4.52.311
5| .{gr \ . (”PM At burgitﬂﬂﬂé‘ tilts-
. {r « z. I)... 3. E2 05km...
. v I)??? E‘ELWHI unﬁnﬂﬂ
in g. xi, . x:
.z )5. .. :f‘rl k , $0.?!
LC. rug . P
”.1533th ét.f$.€ . tut. J.
ltt‘bsgav‘tillz . I (I. A
E;
(’92

 

 

        

24.2.“.2. drum. .
u 7 '2. 10;: l .
X35 é 5t»; £552.32 . .t‘ "ﬂirt It
. VT .5” N.- ..u . . . ~ . 1x
11:: 2.81;.” {Lﬁﬁwhs . k «5.11)... IR #93:... V2...
2.5%. x ageftititfzhﬂvfmmwn‘ix. 5.: 3...: lit
.19; "mums. giggliinnétgfrs. 532..."..8 on“: I
., .23... i8! ‘
.W‘N‘Klil‘ﬁu’i 5|

    

  

    

   

 

      

        

         

        

                  

 

 

. .‘1.

. . . 2.“... 10.3 . 39 Aka-HBO" 12.1: . Xv.) .Hﬁ ,. | a 7?3§i§1\19.
«3%Jgu5‘mhﬁhﬁuﬁmwﬂyiz ~%, 5 2m, w 153.... gszzﬁuﬂai ,
.Hﬁuuwlviz auﬂifg: . ‘. .2 1% .1. 51.! . f
qvgi‘cﬂudf

ppﬁ" to". -

 

  

3553.3,“
1.... 7..
v?) .4.

    

 

 

 

(millingill/alarmWill 3.x
72 4‘36 mama?

34%in mate

University

 

 

 

 

   
 
  

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Factors Influencing Secondary
School Male Teachers in saudi
Arabia to Leave Teaching

presented by
Saleh H. Assaf ‘i

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

 

 

    

Doctor of .
Philosophy CkgﬁwinAdministration & Curriculum
(Ph.D.) lﬁgigher Education)
.I/
1
/;//,

 

Major professor /

Date l0/25/82

 

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
n

»

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

' ‘ “up p..‘~

____.__

FACTORS INFLUENCING SECONDARY SCHOOL
MALE TEACHERS IN SAUDI ARABIA TO
LEAVE TEACHING

BY

Saleh Hamad Assaf

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Curriculum

1982

 

Cumin)?

Copyright by
SALEH HAMAD ASSAF
1982

 

ﬁn ﬁgs name of 041%}; £55 most merciful, and tgs most gensficésnt

ABSTRACT

FACTORS INFLUENCING SECONDARY SCHOOL
MALE TEACHERS IN SAUDI ARABIA TO
LEAVE TEACHING

BY

Saleh Hamad Assaf

The purpose of this study was to identify the factors
and to explore the extent to which they have influenced the
Saudi teachers to leave the teaching profession. And to
determine if there was a relationship between the factors
and certain personal characteristics.

A questionnaire with one hundred and nine items was
utilized in gathering data for this study. The question—
naire was refined into its final form following a pilot
study.

A randomized sample of 200 respondents was selected
from a population of 461 former male secondary school
teachers, who graduated between 1970/71 and 1979/80 school
years and taught for no less than one year. A total of 182
completed questionnaires ‘was returned.

The data gathered were analyzed in relation to the

research questions. The "Statistical Package for Social

Saleh Hamad Assaf
Sciences (SPSS) was used for facilitating the statistical
techniques.

The results of the analysis indicate that

1. Economic, social, and professional factors had
the strongest influence on the teachers' decision to leave
teaching. The differences between these three factors
were not noteable.

Specifically, those items that appear to be of the
greatest influence were:

a. Little advancement opportunities

b. Teachers don't have the Opportunities to supple-
ment their income by business travel, extra pay for over-
time, and opportunities to earn some extra pay through
profession—related activities.

c. Low social status and prestige.

d. Heavy work load.

e. Lack of involvement in program and policy making.

2. Preparational and personal factors had little
influence upon the teachers' decision to leave teaching.
There was no significant difference between these two
factors.

3. There was no significant overall difference in
the level of influence of the five factors, between those
who were below and those who were above 30 years of age.

4. There was a significant overall difference in the
level of influence of the five factors between married and

single respondents.

Saleh Hamad Assaf
5. There was no significant overall difference in
the level of influence of the five factors, among those
who graduated from Imam, Riyadh, and Umm Al—Qura Univer—
sities.
6. There was a significant overall difference in
the level of influence of the five factors, among the

three groups of respondents with different lengths of

teaching time.

 

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents,
Hamad, and Lateefah, my brother, Mohammed, my
wife, Norah, and to my children Waleed, Khaolah,

Assma, and Lubabah.

ii

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise and thanks be to God, first and last, Lord
and Cherisher of all the world, who taught humankind
everything they knew not.

This dissertation is the outcome of the moral sup-
port, intellectual encouragement, concern, and prayers of
all those who were intimately connected with this work and
this research. Consequently, it is impossible to list all
of the many people to whom the writer is deeply indebted.

Sincere appreciation is extended to my parents,
brothers and sisters who have offered a great deal of con-
cern, support, encouragement, and prayers throughout the
six years of study in the United States.

The researcher also wishes to express his greatest
appreciation and gratitude to his wife, Norah Al—Nazir,
for much help, encouragement and emotional support, and
to his children, Waleed, Khaolah, Assma, and Lubabah, who
understood this work in their own way.

Appreciation must also go to his major advisor, Dr.
Howard Hickey, and his doctoral guidance committee members,
Dr. Richard Featherstone, Walter Johnson and Lawrence Lezotte,

for their professional assistance and continuous support.

iii

I would be remiss in my duty if I were not to
acknowledge Islamic University of Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud
which has offered a great support.

Finally the writer extends his appreciation to all

the former teachers who participated in this study.

iv

CHAPTER II:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM . . . . .

Introduction. . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem. . .
Purposes of the Study . . . .
Importance of the Study . . .
Generalizability of the Study
Research Questions. . . . . .
Research Hpotheses. . . . . .
Basic Assumptions . . . . . .
Delimitations of the Study. .
Limitations of the Study. . .

Definitions of Important Terms. . . .

Organization of the Study . .

Introduction. . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Factors Influencing Teachers to

Leave the Profession . . . .
1. Economic Factors . . .
2. Professional Factors .
3. Social Factors . . . .
4. Preparational Factors.
5. Personal Factors . . .

O O O O

O O O O

O O O O

The Available Related Literature in

Saudi Arabia . . . . . . .

O O O 0

Social Root Causes of the Exodus. . .

Official Measures to Stem the
Overall Summary . . . . . . .

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH DESIGN AND

Introduction. . . . . . . . .
The Population . . . . . .
Selection of the Sample. .
The Research Instrument. .

Exodux.

PROCEDURE

,viii

PAGE

16

17
18
19
20
22
23

25
30
39
46

48

48
48
51
51

CHAPTER

CHAPTER III: Cont

Translation of the Instrument.

Pilot Testing of the Instrument.
Data Collection. . . . .
Problems Faced in Collecting
Data Analysis

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS. . .

Demographic Data
Personal Characteristics

Educational Background and

PAGE
. . . . 53
. . . . 53
. . . . 54
the Data. . . 56
. . . . 58
. . . . 60
. . . . 61
. . . . 61

Characteristics 63
Professional Background and Character-

istics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
First Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Rank Orders of the Factors by Their
Mean Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
The Social Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
The Professional Factors . . . . . . . . 79
The Preparational Factors. . . . . . . . 83
The Personal Factors . . . . . . . . . . 86
Overall Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Test of the First Hypothesis . . . . . . . 90
Second Research Question. . . . . . . . . . 93
Hypothesis 2A . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Hypothesis 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Hypothesis 2C . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Hypothesis 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Hypothesis 2E . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
Hypothesis 2F . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
Respondents' Comments . . . . . . . . . . .118

Comments Relating to Professional Factors.120
Comments Relating to the
Comments Relating to the
Comments Relating to the

Factors .

Comments Relating to the

CHAPTER V:

Summary . . .
Findings. . .

O O O O O 0

vi

Social Factors. .120
Economic Factors.121

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
TIONS

Preparational

. . . . . . . . .122

Personal Factors.122
RECOMMENDA—

. . . . . . . . .123

. . . . . . . .123

. . . . . . . . 125

g'ﬁl

CHAPTER?

CHAPTER V: Cont

Demographic Data. . . . . . . . . . . .
Rank Orders of the Factors. . . . . . .
First Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . .
Second Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2A . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2B . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2C . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2D . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2E . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2F . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . .
Suggestions for Further Research. .

APPENDICES
A. EnglishemuiArabic Versions of the Cover
Letterand the Questionnaire. . . . . .
B. OfficialLetters. . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Reliability Analysis of the Scales
"After Collecting the Data". . . . . .
D. Reliability Analysis of the Scales

”Pilot Study" .. . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .

vii

 

PAGE

125
125
126
127
127
128
129
130
131
133
133
135
139

141
179

182

197

208

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Teachers in Secondary
Schools and the Percentage of the Saudis
In Accordance with School Subjects
(1974/75). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Teachers in Intermediate
Schools and the Percentage of Saudis in
Accordance with the Subjects (1974/75
and 1975/76) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Teachers in Teacher-
Training Institutes and Percentage of
Saudis in Accordance with the Subjects
(1974/75 and 1975/76). . . . . . . . . .

Initial Teaching Assignments of Three
Saudi Universities . . . . . . . . . .

Summary Table for Reliability Analyses
of the Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of the Sample, Returned
and Non—Returned Questionnaires. . . . .

Teachers' Age, Marital Status and Number
of Children They Had When They Left
TeaChing O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

City of Residence After the Respondents
Left the Profession. . . . . . . . . . .

Institution of Teacher Preparation,
College Major, and Year of Graduation. .

Subject Taught, The Level At Which Taught,

And The Number of Years Taught . . . . .

Salary During and After Teaching "Monthly

Salary in 0.8. Dollars". . . . . . . . .

Non—Teaching Job's Characteristics . . .

viii

PAGE

34

35

36

50

55

57

62

64

65

67

7O

72

TABLE Page

4-7: Rank Orders of Economic Factors By
Mean Item Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4-8: Rank Orders of Social Factors By

Mean Item Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4—9: Rank Orders of Professional Factors By
Mean Item Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4—10: Rank Orders of Preparational Factors By
By Mean Item Scores. . . . . . . . . . . 84

4—11: Rank Orders of Personal Factors By
Mean Item Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4-12: Rank Orders of the Group of Factors By
Overall Means. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4-13A: Cell Means and Standard Deviations of the
Repeated Measures of Five Factors
Affecting Teachers' Decision to Leave
Teaching . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

4—13B: Hotellings' Multivariate Analysis of
Variance of the Overall Difference Between
The Five Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

4-l3C: Univariate F-Tests with (1,181) DF Com-
paring the Difference Between the Factors 92

4-14: Cell Means and Standard Deviations of the
Two Age Groups With Respect to the
FaCtorSO O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 96

4—15: Hotelling's Multivariate Analysis of
Variance of Age With Respect to the
Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4-16: Univariate F-Tests With (1,180) DF Com-
paring the Two Age Groups With Respect
to the Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

4—17: Cell Means and Standard Deviation of the
Two Marital Status Groups With Respect
to the Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4-18: Hotellings' Multivariate Analysis of
Variance of Marital Status with Respect
to the Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

4-19: Univariate F-Tests With (1,180) DF Com—
paring the Two Marital Status Groups With
Respect to the Factors . . . . . . . . . 101

ix

 

Cell Means and Standard Deviations Of
the Three Universities' Groups With
Respect to the Factors. . . . . . . . . .

Hotellings' Multivariate Analysis of
Variance of the Universities With Regard
to the Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Univariate F—Tests With (2,175) DF Com-

paring the Three Universities' Groups With

Respect to the Factors. . . . . . . . . .

Special Group Contrasts Comparing Graduate

of University of Riyadh With Other Two
Universities With Respect to the Factors.

Cell Means and Standard Deviations of the
Five Fields of Study Groups With Respect
to the Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hotellings' Multivariate Analysis of
Variance of Fields of Study With Respect
to the Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Univariate F-Tests With (1,181) DF Com-
paring the Five Fields Of Study Groups
With Respect to the Factors . . . . . . .

Special Groups Contrasts Comparing Some
of the Fields of Study Groups With Others
With Respect to the Factors . . . . . . .

Cell Means and Standard Deviations of
the Three Teaching Experience Groups With
Respect to the Factors. . . . . . . . . .

Hotellings' Multivariate Analysis of
Variance Of Teaching Experience With
Respect to the Factors. . . . . . . . . .

Univariate F—Tests with (2,179) DF Compar—

ing the Three Teaching Experience Groups
With Respect to the Factors . . . . . . .

Special Group Contrasts Comparing Some
of the Teaching Experience Groups With
Others With Respect to the Factors. . . .

Distribution of the Former Teachers'
Comments by the Five Factors. . . . . . .

X

Page

103

104

104

106

107

110

110

112

114

115

115

117

119

-1---——.‘

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

As a result of rapid development in Saudi Arabia de—
mand for professional personnel has greatly expanded. Some
professions tend to be desirable because factors such as
salary, working conditions, social status, etc. are attrac-
tive. At the same time, other professions tend to be less
desirable, either because they don't have such attractive
factors or have negative factors which discourage potential
applicants and cause those already in their positions to
leave.

The profession of teaching is one of those which to-
day appears to be less desirable among Saudi professionals,
to the extent that soon after they become teachers, many
begin efforts to leave teaching, seeking other jobs. Dur-
ing 1975/76 the number of male Saudi teachers in high schools
was 239, of whom nearly 31 percent voluntarily left the pro—
fession (University of Riyadh, 1977, p. 9). This loss be-
comes more striking when it is recognized that the percentage
Of the administrators who left their positions in 1976 was

only 1.9 percent (University of Riyadh, 1977, p. 9).

l

 

Saudi Arabia is not the only country facing this prob—
lem. It is a common problem in many other countries. Ander-
son and Mark (1976) reported that it is conventional wisdom
that the profession of teaching is characterized by large
numbers of peOple who teach for a few years and then quit
(p.4).

A study by the United States Office of Education (1967)
indicated that the annual net loss of teachers in U.S. pub-
lic elementary and secondary schools through teacher drop-
outs exceeded eight percent.

More recent studies conducted in various settings also
show that the number of teachers who leave their positions

voluntarily is extremely high (Pederson, G. 1970; Gosnell,

l

J. 1977; Dunathan, A. 1979). In addition, many of the

I I

teachers who still hold their positions would prefer to quit
and say they will do so as soon as they find other jobs.
Hunter (1962) reports that in the spring of school
year 1956—57 the U.S. Office of Education asked about one-
tenth of the nation's first year teachers to give their
"best guess” as to what they would be doing the next year.
The replies showed that nearly 30 percent planned to leave
their jobs (p. 22).
Very recently P. Schlechty and V. Vance (1981) pre-
dicted, based on the results of their study in North Carolina,
that approximately half of those who entered teaching in 1980

will no longer be teaching in 1990 (p. 112).

3
In summary, the trend of teachers leaving the pro—
fession, in Saudi Arabia in particular and in other countries
in general, has generated much concern, especially within
the profession, and it is apparent that research is needed

to Obtain a greater understanding of the trend.

Statement of the Problem

 

As of the school year 1979/80 there were 3,216 citi-
zen teachers and 9,959 non—citizen teachers in secondary
education in Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Educa-
tion, 1980, pp. 154, 188). Stated differently, the percen-
tage of citizen to non-citizen teachers was nearly 33 percent.
The reasons for this significant percentage were essentially
two: (1) a rising demand for teachers, and (2) an exodus of
citizen teachers from the profession. The rising demand is
an inevitable result of increased birth rates, greater hold—
ing power of the schools, and technological and social changes
of the society of Saudi Arabia. The exodus from the pro—
fession, however, is not so inevitable and many of these
losses are avoidable. In other words, the shortage of citi—
zen teachers is due, in part, to increased need beyond the
control of educational leaders. It is felt, however, that
the annual loss of citizen teachers from the profession may
be reduced, especially when the loss results from avoidable

factors.

4

Some Of the disadvantages resulting from the short—
age of citizen teachers and dependence on non-citizens are
as follows:

The guidance of young people in preparation for in-
telligent, purposeful, and satisfying lives should be en-
trusted to persons from the same cultural background as
their students. It is felt that the objective of education
can only be effectively accomplished by citizen teachers.
W. Reeder (1947) said ”As is the teacher, so is the school"
(p. 115). More recently, M. Zafer (1971) stated two major
reasons it is considered essential to have more citizen
teachers in Saudi schools.

Economic Reasons: The cost of the non—

citizen teacher is very high. It might

be equal to two or three Saudi teachers.

Political Reason: Since most secondary

education teachers have been coming from

different foreign nations, and each teacher

has his own philosophy, feelings, and values,

the people are confused, as well as the

government, by the different ideas of ach-

ieving in the Muslim Arab developing nations.

(p.25).

Moreover, the personnel loss and consequent replace-
ment of citizen teachers by non—citizen teachers result in
continual readjustments and loss of continuity in policy and
instruction, particularly when the number who leave their
positions includes many who are experienced and successful

teachers. Elsbree (1928) in discussing teacher turnover and

its effects on the education Of youth, said

 

Inefficient teaching is not as apparent

as spoiled work in industry. Hence, the
community is scarcely aware of the loss

it is sustaining at each withdrawal of a
competent teacher. Could it but realize
the seriousness of the problem and all its
implications, it would exhibit an anxiety
as to the amount of nature of its teacher
turnover and an aggressive interest in
means for its control rivaling that of our
largest industrial concerns (p.1).

Stinnett, T. (1961) stresses the seriousness of the high.
rate of teacher loss in the following statement:

We must fight with every weapon we have,
and in this fight we must somehow enlist
the convictions of the American people,

to retain in teaching every possible one

of our present staff of qualified teachers.
We are presently losing at least 75,000

a year to the armed forces, to industry, to
other jobs, by retirement, marriage and
family responsibilities. This is about
seven percent. Can we reduce this to five
percent? If so, a big part of our battle
is won (p.285).

The exodus of citizen teachers from the profession
has become a cause of concern to educational policy makers
in Saudi Arabia. Al—Khowaiter, Minister of Education in
Saudi Arabia (1980) points out the seriousness of the prob—
lem in his letter to the president of Civil Service Bureau.

I would like to bring to your attention

one of the serious problems which we are

facing currently.

We are being requested by a huge number

of public school teachers to get per-

mission to leave the job for other posi-

tions.

This problem has put the ministry in a

difficult situation. If we reject their

requests, the teachers will lose interest
in teaching and their job performance will

 

be affected. On the other hand, if

we grant their requests, the ministry

will face a serious problem of lack of

citizen teachers.

Al-Khowaiter concluded by requesting possible solu-
tions and the Bureau responded by raising the salaries of
the teachers. This solution, however, was not effective,
because of the increased number of secondary school teachers
who leave their positions voluntarily.

By looking at the above information it is apparent
that a serious and complex problem exists. Until educational
authoritiesidentify what is contributing to or influencing
tjuaexodus of citizen teachers from the profession of teaching

jxisecondary education in Saudi Arabia, the solution cannot

be provided. It is to this question that this study gives

its attention.

Purposes of the Study

 

It was expected that identification of the major
factors, given by male, former secondary school teachers
in Saudi Arabia for leaving the profession of teaching, will
be of particular benefit to Saudi educational policymakers
in solving the problem of the exodus of citizen teachers from
the profession. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was
to identify these factors as well as to explore the extent
to which they have influenced the teachers to leave the teach—

ing profession.

 

Additional purposes were:

A. To determine the relationship, if any, that ex—
ists between the above factors and the following personal
characteristics.

1. age (when they left teaching)

2. marital status (when they left teaching)

3. number of years in teaching

4. size of the city in which they taught

5. institution of preparation

6. college major

B. To provide recommendations, based on the findings
of the study, which will assist educational leaders in Saudi

Arabia in retaining male secondary school teachers.

Importance of the Study

 

This study is important for several reasons: First,
no study of its kind has been conducted before in Saudi

Arabia.* Second, such information has broad implications

for school administrations, supervisors and teacher educators.

Personnel in these areas will be able to perform their func—

tions more effectively once they have a better understanding

 

*This was confirmed by: (1) an interview, conducted
by the researcher in November 1981, with the administrators
in the Ministry of Education and Civil Service Bureau, and
(2) a thorough search of the literature conducted by this
researcher to find any studies related to this area Of con—
cern. None were found except for the very limited studies
included in the review of the literature.

of why citizen teachers leave the profession. Such infor—
mation will enable them to play a major role in the solu—
tion of one of the most serious problems facing the Saudi
public schools. Third, Zafer (1971) showed a need for this
study when he studied the factors associated with enrollment
and non—enrollment in teacher education in Saudi Arabia. He
claims that further study is needed on teacher and student
dropout, the most important factors which cause each to leave
the school and teaching (p. 234).

In summary, it is apparent that, based on the above
reasons, such study is seriously needed and important to
determine the extent to which avoidable losses from teaching

profession may be reduced.

Generalizability of the Study

 

It is worth indicating that the findings Of this study
may have impact far beyond the limits Of the study itself.
First, since the teachers involved, male secondary school
teachers, are hired by the Ministry of Education, it can
be concluded that the findings, or at least some of them,
will hold for all teachers hired by the same Ministry and
subject to the same regulations. This will include male
teachers in elementary schools, religious schools, institu—
tions of physical education,...etc. Second, there is no
reason to believe that the findings of this study are appli—

cable only for male teachers. At least some of them may

9
appropriately be applicable for female public school teach—
ers since they are subject to the same regulations.
Finally, the reader is invited to decide, given the
research procedures and the demographics of the sample,
whether results can be generalized to some other relevant

population.

Research Questions

 

The primary purpose of this study was to identify the
major factors, given by male former secondary school teachers
in Saudi Arabia, for leaving the profession of teaching as
well as to explore the extent to which they have influenced
the teachers to leave the teaching profession.

In order to identify these factors, answers were
sought to the following questions.

1. According to the teachers who have left the pro—
fession, how did the following factors influence their de—
cision to leave? Specifically, what are their perceptions
regarding the following factors as to their influence in
this decision?

a. economic factors

b. professional factors

c. personal factors

d. social factors

e. preparational factors

10

2. What is the relationship, if any, bewteen the
above factors and the following demographic characteristics?

a. age when they left teaching

b. marital status when they left teaching

c. number of years in teaching

d. size of the city in which they taught

e. institution of preparation

f. college major

Research Hypotheses

 

From the research questions for this study, the fol—
lowing hypotheses have been drawn.

1. There is no significant difference in the level
of influence attributed to the economic, professional, per-
sonal, social and preparational factors by secondary school
former teachers.

2. There is no significant relationship between the
following demographic characteristics:

a. age when they left teaching

b. marital status when they left teaching

c. number of years in teaching

d. size of the city in which they taught

e. institution of preparation

f. college major
and the factors that had an influence on the former teacher's

decision to leave teaching.

 

11

The testing of these hypotheses will provide empiri—

cal evidence toward answering the stated research questions.

Basic Assumptions

 

1. It was assumed that the decision to leave the
teaching profession is usually influenced by one or more
of the above factors.

2. It was assumed that former teachers are in a good
position to identify the factors that influenced them to
leave the profession.

3. It was assumed that the lack of adequate data
regarding the exodus of male citizen teachers from the pro-
fession constitutes a serious handicap to the development
of effective solution(s) to the problem. Therefore, the
investigation of factors associated with leaving, given by
former citizen teachers, will contribute to: greater un—
derstanding of the problem, and the development of effective

and feasible plans for resolving it.

Delimitations Of the Study

 

1. Because the investigator was not able to collect
data from all former public school male teachers, the study
was delimited to male secondary school citizen teachers who

have left the profession of teaching.

12

2. The findings of this study were interpreted only
in terms Of the school years 1970/71 through 1979/80.

3. This study was further delimited to include only
voluntary avoidable and unavoidable withdrawals. In other

words, the involuntary withdrawals will be excluded.

Limitations of the Study

 

This study was limited by the following:

1. One of the chief limitations of this.study lies
in the fact that responses from the subjects will necessarily
require a high degree of ego-involvement. As a result, the
former teacher may purposefully or unconsciously distort
the actual reasons they left the profession. The investi—
gator had no alternative but to accept their responses
at their face value.

2. The extent to which the personal procedure of
distributing the questionnaire affects responses.

3. The extent to which the investigator is able,

objectively, to interpret and describe the data secured.

Definitions of Important Terms

 

LEAVING THE PROFESSION is the departing entirely

 

from teaching and having no immediate intention of returning

to teaching.

13

VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL is defined as leaving the pro—

 

fession of teaching by the teacher's own choice.

AVOIDABLE WITHDRAWAL is leaving the profession for

 

factors that could be eliminated by actions that are within
the powers of the educational leaders of public schools.

UNAVOIDABLE WITHDRAWAL is defined as withdrawl for

 

reasons which the educational leaders of public schools can
not control.

FACTOR refers, for the purpose of this study, to
the circumstances which produce a satisfied or dissatisfied
result.

TURNOVER is defined as leaving one position within
teaching profession in favor of another.

TEACHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION is any educational in-

 

stitution concerned with the conduct of activities regarded
as significant in the professional education of teachers
and whose program is given appropriate recognition by state
agencies that certify teachers including teachers colleges,
universities and colleges of education (C.V. Good, 1959, p.
289).

SECONDARY EDUCATIONIfor'the purpose of this study,

 

it means period of education planned especially for young
boys of ages approximately 13 to 18, and involving grades
7 through 12. It is sponsored and administered by the Min-

istry of Education in Saudi Arabia.

l4
CITIZEN TEACHER refers, in this study, to a full-
time secondary school man teacher whose nationality is Saudi
by birth or by immigration and who lives in the nation per-
manently having all the rights of citizenship.
FORMER TEACHER is a public secondary school citizen
teacher that once taught and did not continue teaching. It

refers, in this study, to male teachers only.

Organization Of the Study

 

This study is organized into five chapters. The
first Chapter is an introduction to the study including state-
ment of the problem; purposes of the study; importance of the
study; generalizability of the study; research questions; re—
search hypotheses; basic assumptions; delimitations of the
study; limitations of the study; and definitions of important
terms. Review Of related literature is presented in Chapter
II. It includes factors influencing teachers to leave the
profession; the available related literature in Saudi Arabia;
social root causes of the exodus; and official measures to
stem the exodus. Chapter III is devoted to the research de—
sign and procedure, including the population; selection of
the sample; research instrument; translation of the instru—
ment; pilot testing of the instrument; data collection; prob—
lems faced the researcherin COlleCtingthe data; and data

analysis. The results Of the study are reported in Chapter IV.

‘— «MW

15
Finally the summary of the study; conclusions; recommenda—
tions; and suggestions for further research are presented

in Chapter V.

H-

 

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

 

The purpose of this study was to identify the factors
and to explore the extent to which they have influenced the
Saudi teachers to leave the teaching profession. In pursuit
of these ends, a thorough investigative attempt was made to
unearth, in general, materials regarding teacher turnover,
resignation and overall teacher satisfaction or dissatis—
faction, and, in particular, the related literature that
specifically referred to teachers' leaving the profession
in the Saudi and/or United States schooling setting. The
ERIC search, for the related materials of general and speci-
fic nature, turned up very little. This investigator's
search in Saudi Arabia for the similar related literature
pertaining to Saudi teachers produced as little.

Within these limited resources, the available re—
lated literature has been organized into four categories of
review:

1. the factors that seem to influence teachers'

decision to leave the teaching profession;

16

17
2. the related literature which has a specific
reference to Saudi Arabia in the related area,
3. the social root causes of the exodus of teachers
from the profession in Saudi Arabia, and
4. the official measures taken to stem this exodus

of Saudi teachers.

Factors Influencing Teachers
To Leave The Profession

 

 

Most of the related literature touches upon the prob-
lem of teacher turnover from one teaching setting to another
and very few available studies are closely related to focus
of this study, that is, a switch from the profession to
another. While the two problems are distinct in nature,
they do have elements of similarity in the sense that mobil-
ity from one school to another or the total abandonment of
the profession have some common root causes. As a result,
this section of the review will attempt, based upon avail—
able materials about the two problems, to answer the follow-
ing question: What are the factors that seem to influence
teachers' decisions to leave the profession?

The factors that emerge out of various studies can,
in general, be grouped under five categories: economic,

professional, social, preparational, and personal.

18

1. Economic Factors

 

Orlich (1972) Charters (1956), Bloland and Selby

I

(1980), Pedersen (1970) Richard (1960) and many others have

emphasized the importance of such economic factors as the
salary and other related fringe benefits as the major causes
influencing teachers' decision to leave the profession.
Orlich (1972) concludes:

Teacher salary for males appears to be

contributing factor in causing males to

leave both their initial jobs and, in

some cases, those they have held as long

as ten years (p.231).

Further down he adds:

Yet, when we analyzed all factors causing

teachers to leave their positions, we con-

sistently found that the male tended to

attach greater importance to the economic

components associated with teaching, that

is, too low a salary (p. 232).

A similar conclusion was reached by Bloland and others in a
recent article (1980) that salary is an important factor in
career changes for male teachers (p. 19).

A few studies have supported the belief that salary
is undoubtedly important but it is not the most important
factor encouraging persistence in the profession. Stinnett
(1970) in this regard reported:

It is possible that salary may be more

important as a factor in recruitment

than it is in encouraging persistence
in the profession (p.3).

Thus the review of the literature regarding the econ-

omic factors supports the view that they are important and

19

influential in the teachers' decision to leave the pro—

fession.

2. Professional Factors

 

A second set of factors influencing the teachers'
decision to leave the profession centers around such im-
mediate work situation factors as the working conditions,
advancement opportunities and work load. Most of the re-
viewed literatureaconsiders these factors as the next
mostinfluential cause of teachers' changing their pro~
fession.

With regard to the working conditions, Dalen and

Brittell (1960) state:

The working conditions in a school sys—
tem are a factor quite as important in
determining your full future welfare as
tenure, salary, and retirement policies.
A high salary will not wholly compensate
for having to teach under unpleasant, un—
healthy, or unjust conditions (p.65).

Bloland and Selby (1980) have recently summarized

what they call, school—related factors, as follows:

The problems of classroom discipline and
the lack of intrinsic rewards for inter—
action with students may be important
factors in the career change decisions of
teachers.... An important factor in teacher
career change is dissatisfaction with the
principal which may stem in part from the
principal's role, often unintentional, in
reducing or eliminating teacher opportunity
for creativity in the classroom (p. 22).

20

With regard to the advancement Opportunities, Corrigan
(1981) reports:

It is not the nature of the teaching pro—
fession to be promotion oriented. A first—
grade teacher usually has no desire to
teach high school seniors some day....
Teaching jobs, as well as most administra-
tive positions in education, plateau at a
certain level and have a rather limited
amount of upward mobility (p. 440).

With regard to the workload, Stinnett (1970) points
out:

Nearly all investigations of subjective

reactions of teachers who have left the

profession reveal excessive workload

as one of the most important reasons for
the decision (pp. 7—8).

These studies provide a relatively clear picture of
the relation Of the professional factors to the teachers'

decision to leave teaching.

3. Social Factors

 

Numerous studies have found the problem of oxodus
from teaching to be positively related to such social fac—
tors as status and prestige.

A very detailed chapter in Stinnett’s book (1970)
by Buch has emphasized the role which social status and
prestige play in the problem of exodus from teaching. He
believes that in order to increase the likelihood of attract-

ing and retaining more and better persons for teaching, every

 

21
possible attempt should be made to improve the status of
the teacher. He concludes:
If we are able to effect a change in the
status of the career teacher, it will be,
I anticipate, more symptomatic than cau—
sal.... When the status of the career

teacher changes for the better, the teacher
drop-out rate will have dropped (p. 134).

Retting and Pasamanick (1959) found a strong re-
lationship between the public school teachers' dissatisfac—
tion and his low social status, and a recognition that to
the extent his desire for status increases, the possibility
of his satisfaction is reduced.

In a particularly interesting study, because of its
somewhat different approach, Kleinert (1968) found that the
social status and prestige was a more important factor with
regard to leaving teaching than salary or working conditions.
A well-financed school, which offers an above average salary
and excellent working conditions, experiences excessive
exodus of faculty ”due, in large part, to the need of today's
young teaching professionals has for a greater recognition
and challenge than the conventional teaching role gives him”
(p. 299).

Such studies provide supportive evidence regarding

the importance of social factors that cause the teacher to

leave teaching.

22

4. Preparational Factors

 

Although research has dealt with preparational fac-
tors in relation with the exodus in a very limited manner,
a number of investigators such as Haubrich (1960), Edelfelt
(1970), Pedersen (1970), and Herbert (1970) believe that a
strong and relevant pre—service as well as in-service train—
ing might reduce the exodus from teaching and vice versa.

Pedersen (1970) in this connection states:

Teacher preparation characteristics proved
to be important predictors of teacher
turnover.... Further evidence indicated
that the employment of teachers trained

in higher status Michigan post-secondary
institution ensured greater stability in
the teaching force (p. 3).

With regard to the relationship between pre-service
and in—service teacher education, Edelfelt (1970) points to
the importance of this relationship in reducing the problem

of exodus from teaching. He states:

If programs of teacher education are to
contribute to a reduction in the number
of teaching dropouts, there needs to be
some drastic revision in the concept of
how and when and where teachers are
prepared. Pre—service and in-service
teacher education will need to become
unified instead of being separated, as
they are now (p. 95).

However, some authors question the influence of

teacher preparation on exodus from teaching. Schlechty

23

and Vance (1981) hypothesize that the ”able persons who are
attracted to teaching will also be likely to remain in the
classroom for a reasonable period of time,” but their find—
ings reveal:

Consistent with popular opinion, our

findings indicated that those most likely

to leave teaching early and in the great—

est numbers come from the ranks of the

more academically able. Finally, our

findings indicate that those who are likely

to stay in the classroom the longest and in

the greatest numbers come from the ranks of

the least academically able (p. 106).

On the whole, there is some evidence to suggest that

the problem Of exodus from teaching is affected, however

slightly, by the preparation factors.

5. Personal Factors

 

Such unique factors as the individual teacher's
health, self—confidence, and family responsibilities,un—
doubtedly cause some teachers to leave the teaching pro—
fession. They are believed to be much less significant in
the teacher's decision to leave the profession than the
other factors discussed in the foregoing sections. The
personal factors are generally downgraded in all these
studies, perhaps because of the general tendency on the
part of the teachers questioned not to admit to a personal

factor as a cause of leaving the profession. Very few studies

24
such as the ones by Blaser (1964), and Knight (1977) have
dealt with the problem. Blaser (1964) concludes that
"personal reasons may be considered as contributing factors
in teacher loss, but they were not considered extremely im-
portant as primary causes for teacher losses" (p. 156).

More recently, Knight (1977) has pointed out that
”it seemed appropriate to at least consider the personal
factors in light of the information that many teachers were
influenced to leave the profession because of such factors
as lack of time for their families" (p. 28).

In conclusion, it should be added that though in the
problem of exodus from teaching the personal factors are
less significantly related to the incidents of exodus from
the profession, they are generally regarded as only con—
tributory factors.

In summary, it appears from the review of the liter-
ature that there is a significant agreement among scholars
that the factors that influence teachers' decision to leave
the profession can be divided into the following five cate-
gories: (1) economic, (2) professional, (3) social, (4)
preparation, and (5) personal. However, the degree to which
each category influences the teacher's decision has varied
from study to study. On the whole, the related literature
has tended to support the following arrangement in the order
of importance: (1) economic, (2) professional, (3) social,

(4) preparational and (5) personal.

25

The Available Related Literature
In Saudi Arabia

 

 

There is a great need for in—depth research regard—
ing the exodus of Saudi citizen teachers from the teaching
profession to the public and private sectors, due to the
facts that Saudi public school systems are in an urgent
need of native Saudi teachers, that a large number of citi—
zen teachers leave the profession every year, and that there
is a general lack of desire on the part of Saudi high school
graduates to enroll in teacher education institutions. De-
spite these urgent needs, no comprehensive study has been
undertaken to address these problems. However, from time
to time, studies and reports of limited scope have been
published by the University of Riyadh (1977), Zafer (1972),
Al—Sainy (1979), Al—Faar (1982), and Al—Fozan (1980). These
publications, jointly and severally, point out that the pro-
fession of teaching in Saudi Arabia is less attractive than
other government jobs, because, in the main, of the econ—
omic, professional, and social reasons.

With regard to the economic factors, Zafer (1972)

found that

although teaching is more helpful, more
enjoyable, and has more opportunities to
develop knowledge than other government
jobs, it is also more difficult, offers
less attractive salaries and less Oppor—
tunities for promotion than other govern—
ment jobs.

26

With regard to the professional problems, studies
conducted by the University of Riyadh (1980) and Al—Faar
(1980) indicate that the teachers face many professional
problems that make teaching a less attractive profession
than other government employments. Unpleasant working con-
ditions, inadequate administrative support, centralization
of decision-making, and the amount of mental effort re—
quired to do the job are some of the examples that plague
the teaching profession in Saudi Arabia.

With the focus on the social factors involved in
the teaching profession in the Saudi school systems, Al-
Fozan (1980) concludes that

teaching is not a prestigious profession

in Saudi Arabia.... No matter how hard

the teachers tried, their efforts at

teaching have never been appreciated

...Or even respected by the general pub—

lic (p.24).

The enormity of the problem Of the exodus of teach-
ers of the native Saudi origin from the profession is re-
flected in the statistics published in a University of
Riyadh study:

During 1975/76 the number of male Saudi

teachers in high schools was 239, Of whom

31 percent voluntarily left the profession.

This loss becomes more striking when it is

recognized that the percentage of the ad—

ministrators who left their positions in

1976 was only 1.9 percent (University of
Riyadh, 1977, p. 9).

27

Furthermore, several studies by Western scholars

point to the same conclusions. Nyrop, in this regard,

adds:

Egbert

The profession of teaching is an un—
desirable profession because it is less
paid than other comparable jobs...
(because of) the possibility of being
posted to a distant or rural school,
the relative difficulty of the work as
compared with most other government
jobs, the limited promotion potential,
and the low social status of the pro-
fession. (pp. 100-101).

and others (1974) point out:

It is difficult for school districts

to attract and hold qualified personnel.
Unsatisfactory service conditions, low
salary with a feeling of low social

status may be responsible for that. (p.24)

There are several studies that maintain the pre—

service preparation of teachers play a major role in the

stability of the teacher in the profession. The teacher

who has had a strong and effective preparation will feel

satisfied with his work and will, as a result, remain in

the profession, whereas the poorly prepared teacher will

derive

little satisfaction from teaching and will tend to

leave the profession altogether. Discussing the need for

teachers in the rapidly develOping educational programs.

Al-Rasheed and others (1980) argue that

yet, we do believe that such achievements

in the field of education cannot be fruit-

ful until the country has trained and made
available efficient teachers who can under—

take the responsibility Of teaching future
generations to the best of their ability (p.177)

is. ..i

 

 

28
In a more direct way they assert that

in our belief, faculties of education in

Saudi Arabia must have a serious and spec-

ific role to play in order to overcome

the shortage of Saudi teachers. They

should produce sufficient and efficient

teachers who are competent enough to bear

the responsibility of teaching (p.183).

Al—Afandi (1974) focuses in on the same problem and
addes in a more emphatic tone that the problem of the short—
age Of citizen teachers will continue unless the teacher
education institutes recognize the role they have to play
in training prospective teachers sufficiently and efficiently
in a manner that they should have confidence in themselves
as teachers—-otherwise they will not continue in the pro—
fession (p.60).

However, this study has hypothesized that the educa-
tional authorities have failed to stem the exodus because
their measures are based exclusively on economic causes.
They have failed to take into account the professional and
social causes of the exodus as well.

One serious limitation of most of the studies and
reports reviewed in this section is that they delimit them—
selves to mere listing of several economic, professional,
social, and preparation problems besetting the profession,

without going into the precise nature of their influence

on the exodus of teachers to other jobs and professions.

29

In other words, they don't rank them according to their
significance and show to what extent each one, or at least
each homogeneous group, causes the profession to be less
attractive. This lack of overall comprehensivenss of these
studies renders them incapable of addressing the problem of
exodus of teachers effectively.

Another limitation of all these studies and reports,
without exception, is that they are based on the perceptions
of the currently practicing teachers, students, and educa~
tional administrators. These studies have failed to enlist
the Opinion and perception of teachers who have already made
their decision and have left the teaching profession. The
currently practicing teachers, perceptions are least likely
to indicate why their erstwhile colleagues left the pro-
fession. The students and administrators are outsiders to
the problem and are least involved in the decision—making
process whether to stay in the profession or leave it. Their
views and perceptions have the least evidentiary value.

To sum up, there are a number of studies and reports
conducted in the Saudi Arabian school systems, based on the
perceptions of currently practising teachers, students and
administrators concerning the problem as to what makes the
profession of teaching less attractive than other govern-
ment jobs. Most of these studies attribute this perception
Of the profession to a series of professional, social and
preparational causes. Their conclusions, however, suffer
from two basic limitations. First, these studies merely

list the problems without rank-ordering them and determining

30

the precise degree of their influence. Second, they draw
on the perceptions of the currently practising teachers,
students, and administrators, without the benefit of the
perceptions of the former teachers who actually made the

decision to leave the profession.

Social Root Causes of the Exodus

 

The exodus of the Saudi teachers from the profession
of teaching can be better understood in its historical con-
text. NO single event has more profoundly affected life in
Saudi Arabia than the discovery of oil. As a result, a rapid
development and expansion of industry, commerce, and education
at all levels have come to be the first priority of national
economic and cultural planning. Before the Saudi Oil re—
serves were discovered, life in Saudi Arabia was practically
untouched by the industrial and social revolutions that were
taking place, particularly in the West.

Saudi people in the pre—oil era depended for their
livelihood largely on primitive agriculture and animal hus-
bandry, some fishing and internal trade on a limited scale,
but the evolution of the Oil industry soon brought in its
wake not only unprecedented wealth to the country but also
exposed the Saudis to extensive contacts with the non—Islamic
world, particularly the West. No aspect of Saudi existence
has since remained uninfluenced by these profound changes

that have followed the fundamental reorganization of the

31
Saudi economy. Lipsky and others (1959) have described these

changes in Saudi Arabia in the following words:

The difference between the traditional

order and what is taking shape is very

great and for the present at least change

is occurring more rapidly here than in

the Middle East (p.90).

These changes, a sequel Of the policy of rapid in—
dustrial and commercial development, created a heavy demand
for trained manpower and managerial expertise. It was evid—
ent to the national planners that the country suffered from
acute shortages in both these areas. The more skilled a
job, the more acute the shortage. Yet the development, the
planners argued, must proceed at a pace the economy can sup-
port. Consequently, Saudi Arabia had to resort to the im-
portation of skilled labor and expertise from abroad. The
situation is summed up by Nyrop (1977) thus:

In contrast to most Arab countries,

Saudi Arabia faces the problem of

abundance rather than of poverty.

The major Obstacle to the rapid

development Of the society is the

critical shortage Of trained Saudi

manpower (p. 99).

The national economic planners agreed that to create
indigenous trained manpower and expertise, education must
be given tOp priority in the national developmental plans.
The government of Saudi Arabia believes that education at

all levels must form the central core of the comprehensive

plan of development. Education, as a result, has increased,

32
and is still increasing, at a rapid rate in the country,
perhaps unparalleled elsewhere in the world. Progress
and education are, indeed, inextricably linked in the Saudi
economic context.

The history of Saudi school education has gone through
distinct stages of evolution, and in order to understand
the background of this study, it is necessary to rehearse
this history. Before the establishment of modern school in
1925, Saudi Arabia's form of education could essentially be
categorized as traditional and formal. Traditional educa—
tion consisted entirely of an education through the insti—
tutions of the mosque and the family, and it was largely
religious in character. Formal education, on the other hand,
was modern in a limited sense. Its curriculum consisted
mainly of courses in religion, elementary mathematics,
Arabic language and literature, and it catered exclusively
to male learners.

Historians of Saudi education agree that the modern
education era in the country began in 1925, with the es—
tablishment of the General Directorate of Education whose
primary function was to supervise education in Saudi Arabia
at all levels. The General Directorate was later recon—
stituted into the Ministry of Education in 1953. Eight
years later in 1961, a General Directorate for Girls was
decreed to be formed for the education of girls. Educa-

tion, until then, was exclusively for males.

 

33

The government statistics published in 1980 reflect
the measure Of success these Official efforts toward the
education of the Saudi people have attained. In 1980, there
were 1,550,744 students enrolled in 11,377 fully government-
supported schools at different levels. This enormous rise
in the school population and the increase in the numbers of
schools have necessitated the need for teachers. The avail—
able statistics further reveal that the native Saudi teachers
are in severe short supply to meet the country's needs. The
educational authorities have, consequently, resorted to en—
listing the services of teachers from the neighboring Arab
countries as a temporary measure to tide over its initial
difficulty in educating its citizenry. At the same time,
these additional authorities have put into practice schemes
that will result in making Saudi education totally a Saudi—
run operation.

However, of late, the government has been experiencing
some difficulty in keeping to its schedule to make education
a totally Saudi operation. Education in Saudi Arabia con-
tinues to rely heavily on foreign expertise and teachers
(see Tables 2-1, 2—2 and 2-3). One of the major causes for
the failure to meet the schedule is the exodus of Saudi
teachers to other more satisfying and lucrative professions
in the public as well as the private sector. Demands for
educated native Saudi personnel in other sectors are so great
that if there is a clash of interests between the teachers

and the institutions, the teachers find it more satisfactory

.Hom .Q Am>\mhmav .m.< mm\mmma mo wumao Hmoapmﬂpmpm "coapmospm mo >uuchH2 ANV
.ma .a .Ams\esmac.m.< mm\vmma ca mmbsbabmcH mcacamnsuumnumme ecm
mowepm coaumospm Hmuocmo CH mnonumme mo Ho>mq >ocoﬂoﬂwmm ”coavmospm mo >uumﬂcaz AHV
.mmocmuommu GCHSOHHOM ecu
EOHM pouoso mum moanmu 03¢ Ocazoaaow ecu mm Ham3 mm manmw many ca UOCOHpcmE mpmp one

mump mHQMHHm>MCS u...

 

 

34

 

. .m n.4a mmm vmma s.sa oqm mmma maasos
... ... ... Has .. a maumnazm amuoasmamm
... ... a a 4m coaumosem baa
-s.aa m.m m ow om oa om coabmosem Hmoamsaa
m.m Has I- a m.m a ma mcumz a mmocmaom
-o.a H.s ea mmm s.m ea mam mmocmaom amoawscm
+m. m.s ha mam e.s «a mma mnumz
uo.m m.am mm sea m.mm om aha mmucmaom Hmauom
+m.a o.m oa new H.N m Hem emaaocm
us.m m.o a ma OH H OH coaOHHmm a banana
-e.m o.ma ms amm ma om mom mmmsocma banana
-m.m ~.mm mm mma me am «ma coaoaamm

Hamm HOQEDZ Monssz
.anmuOB ou mHUSmm Hepoe Op mﬁbzmm
mmﬁm meSmm MO qu552 mapsmm mo nonssz

Mo K Mo x qu552 Hmuoe Mo K HOQEDZ amuoe pounnsm

 

Amm\vmmav mBummem JOOmOm EBHZ MUZ<QmOOU< ZH mHQD<m

mmB m0 m0¢52m0mmm mmB Qz< mJOOmUm wm<mzoumm ZH mmmmu<m9 mo ZOHBDmHmEmHQ "HIN mdm<9

35

mHQD¢m m0 mU<Bzm0mmm HEB QZ< MEOOIUm MB¢HszmmBZH

 

 

 

lo.m s.o~ mama Amsm em mesa mama maaeos
+A.ma n.0o ea am mm oa ma maomﬂnsm achabmoo>
um. om o.aa was mm ama Nam acaumosem use
-o.a am am mam mm mm mam coaamosem amoamsca
:e.m a.m a saa m.s aa sea mnumz a mommaom
+s.a m.ma m.oa mas ON mm mms mmocmaom amoamsca
+m. m.aa ms was s.oa mm Nam mesa:
+4. e.em N.sm owe em omm mom mmocmaom amaoom
+a.e a.m mm «mm m mm has nmaaocm
-m.~a N.ma ea mo s.mm om em coamaamm a banana
In.» m.om m.mm mam mm saw one momsocma banana
-e.sm o.mm s.mm smoa ms was mmm coaoaamm
Hawk HODESZ HOQEDZ

no amuoe Op mapsmm HmpOB ou mapsmm

mmam mapsmm mo umnssz mapsmm mo amnesz

Mo K x HwQEDZ Hmuoe Mo K amnesz Hence pomhnsm

 

 

.z.< ©m\mmma

.:.< mm\vmma

 

Amn\mnma Oza ms\vsmac msomnmam mes :Baz mozaomoooa 2a
za mmmzoams no anaamamemao ”Nam mamas

mump manmpao>mcsn...

 

 

 

ua.~ m.ma oma smw e.sa mma amp amaos

no.0 me am aaa 0.4m as oma abomﬂnsm amuoa>mzmm
... n: .: oa m.sm m ma maomhasm amcoaamoo>

+ .em o.e a as ~.v N we coaumosem amoamssm
... II II N II I: m mmocmﬂom w wnpmz

. .N o.m a oaa o.m m mm mmocmaom amoamsnm
... l- i. am e.a a on mean:

+m.e o.o~ mm soa s.ma ea moa mmocmaom amaoom
... II II he I: II mm cnﬂamcm
... n- u- s l- l- o :Oamaamm a banana

-a o.~ m aaa m.m a aaa mmmsmcma banana

IN a.em mm mm s.em mm om coamaamm

Hamm Honesz quESZ

.ﬁoHMpOB ou mapsmm Hmuoe Op mapdmm

mwam mapsmm MO “@3552 mapsmm mo umnssz

Mo x Mo K amnesz amuoe mo x Hmnssz Hmuoe pounnsw

 

.:.¢ om\mmma

.$.< mm\vmma

 

Ams\msma 6cm ms\enmav msomnmsm mus sea: mozaamoooa 2a maaa<m

m0 m0<Bzmummm Qz< mMBDBHBmZH UZHZH<mBImMIU<m9

ZH mmmmo<m9 m0 ZOHEDQHMBmHQ

”MIN mqm<9

37
to quit the teaching profession. Professional ethics and
the laws of the country prohibit the use of such drastic
actions as strikes and public demonstrations on the part
of teachers.

It must be recognized that though male and female edu—
cation is strictly segregated in Saudi Arabia to the extent
that men are not allowed to teach in girls' school and vice—
versa and women teachers have far fewer opportunities out-
side the teaching profession owing to social and religious
pressures, equally severe shortages in Saudi girls' school
system have been acutely felt, as the Saudi educational
authorites, according to 1978 policy statement, place heavy

emphasis on the education of women:

The object of girls' education is to
prepare her for other activities that
suit her nature such as teaching, nursing,
and medicine (Article 153).

And that ought to make teaching an attractive profession
for women. Yet a large number of women teachers leave the
profession for full—time housewifely duties of raising a

family. Hammad (1973) in this connection adds:

It is interesting to note, however, that
although there has been a considerable in—
crease in the number of Saudi women teachers
from year to year, the increase is out of
proportion to the number of Saudi women who
have been graduated from teacher—training
institutes. The small number of women
teachers is usually the result of factors
such as early marriage (p. 313).

38

It is difficult to change social and cultural prac—
tices and norms Of early marriage and the belief that the
rightful place of women is in the home. One can do precious
little to overcome these causes of Saudi women teacher short—
ages. However, the shortage Of men teachers is the result
of more complex causes and their exodus to other professions
can be attributed definitely to economic, professional,
social, preparational and personal causes. For these rea-
sons, this study concentrates only on the men teachers who
have left teaching.

In summary, the day Saudi Arabia struck her rich re-
serves Of Oil was the beginning of a new era in the social,
cultural and economic life of Saudi Arabia. Saudi contacts
with the Western world increased manifold; Oil revenues
gave rise to the national need and desire to develop rapidly,
and this desire created a trained manpower and qualified per—
sonnel vacuum, which could be filled with borrowed techni—
cians and experts from abroad, particularly from the neigh—
boring Arab countries. It was recognized right at the very
beginning that if Saudi developmental programs were to be
carried out by Saudis themselves, education and training of
the needed manpower and expertise must be given the first
priority in the national effort. This effort required a
hugh army of qualified teachers. Soon it was realized by

the planners of the national programs of education for the

 

39
country that the country suffered not only from severe short—
ages of qualified teachers but also from a regular exodus of
qualified Saudi teachers to other government and private jobs
thus causing a severe strain on the national educational re-
sources. Though shortages of women teachers were experienced,
they were not experienced precisely for the same reasons.
Qualified Saudi women teachers left the profession, not for
better opportunities elsewhere, but to shoulder the respon—

sibility to raise a family.

Official Measures To Stem The Exodus

 

The educational authorites in Saudi Arabia are alert
to the problems of the shortage of Saudi teachers and their
exodus to other professions, and the measures they have taken
to stem this exodus are a reflection of their recognition of
the enormity of the problem. In the first place, the auth-
orities encourage high school graduates to specialize in
teaching, and in the second, they have issued orders pro—
hibiting the employment of graduate teachers in professions
other than teaching without a written permission from the
government. The teachers who intend to change the profession
have been steadfastly denied permission to change. Yet teach—
ers have found ways around the government policy.

Though the policy of denial Of permission to be em-

ployed outside the teaching profession has long been in force,

40
educational authorities are aware of the drawbacks of such
a policy. Al-Khowaiter, the Minister of Education, in this
connection, pointed out to the President of the Civil Ser—
vice Bureau in 1980:

We are being requested by a huge number

of public school teachers to get permis-

sion to leave the job for other positions....

If we reject their requests, the teachers

will lose interest in teaching and job

performance will be affected. On the other

hand, if we grant their requests, the

Ministry will face a serious problem of

lack of citizen teachers.

In the third place, to retain the graduates of edu-
cation institutes in the teaching profession, the prospective
teacher graduates were placed, upon employment in a school
setting, in a grade higher in the pay scale than was appli—
cable to non-education graduates. The scheme has had a very
limited success in stemming the migration, because an average
teacher's chances of promotion are limited and he has to stay
on the same salary for four years. The teacher finds that
in other professions people move up faster either by recom—
mendation or by passing qualifying examinations for the next
grade of pay. An advance increase in fact holds no signifi—
cant inducement for graduate teachers to stay in the pro-
fession.

In the fourth place, the authorities devised a scheme
whereby a teacher becomes entitled to an extra allowance if

he continues to stay in the profession beyond a specified

period of service. As from 1977,

41

All teachers who are still practicing

teaching and their experience in teaching

is less than five years are granted 20

percent of their salary as a monthly

allowance for staying in the profession.

All teachers who are still practicing

teaching and their experience in teaching

is more than five years are granted 30

percent.*

The measure has met the fate of other three, for
when compared with the salaries of other government servants,
teachers find these allowances as a mere pittance. Besides,
the teachers, when compared to other professionals and govern-
ment employees find that their responsibilities are much more
arduous than those of other professions and employees. An
average teacher is required to teach 24 hours a week in addi—
tion to 2 hours of substitute-teaching. Besides this teaching
load, the teacher has to prepare his lessons, correct home—
work, assess the performance of the students and grade them,
in his own time. In fact, his profession keeps him occupied
with the business of teaching all through the week. Employees
in other professions get paid for extra work, but not the
teacher.

The fifth measure taken by the authorities, which is,
in fact, a part of the first—-that is, to encourage high

school graduates to go in for teaching——is to open teacher—

education institutions in most major cities so that high

 

* .
Regulation of Civil Service in Saudi Arabia, NO.
27/16.

42
school graduates do not have to go far from their hometowns
for training. Most educators commend the appropriateness
of this measure, but unfortunately the scheme does not
attract high quality students to these teacher-education
institutions. The scheme has attracted very low grade stu-
dents who are largely rejected by other specialty. Indeed,
there is a total absence of selective criteria used to admit
these students.

This situation raises a serious question regarding
these high school graduates' motivation, interests, and
ultimate effectiveness as teachers. In fact, most of these
teacher-graduates feel frustrated and inadequate to meet the
responsibility of a teacher, and the result is that even
among these teacher—graduates, the incidents of transfer to
other professions is high. In this regard, Frances and Nila
(1948) add:

One of the most important factors in

the life and program of a teacher—

educating institution is the personnel

of its student body. If the students

who are admitted to such an institution

are of a type that shows promise of

educational leadership, then we have

material with which we can successfully

work in meeting our goal. (p. 133).

More recently, Dr. S. Alheber (1982) has confirmed
these facts while analyzing the two main causes of poor pro-

ficiency among some Saudi teachers who have been graduated

from Saudi teacher—education colleges. In the first place,

 

43
teacher—education institutes, Dr. S. Aleheber affirms, are
more concerned with the numbers rather than the quality of
its student body, and, in the second, they readily accept
such low caliber students as are, by virtue of their grades,
found unfit for other areas of specialization (Al-Jazeerah,
No. 3543).

Finally, in August, 1981, the Saudi Civil Service
Bureau-—an agency that determines the salary scales of var—
ious categories Of Saudi civil servants—~created six levels
cadre for teachers depending on their academic qualification
and professional training. Under the scheme, each level is
placed in an applicable salary scale, earning regular annual
increments over twenty to twenty—five years. The rationale
behind the scheme is that the teacher will continue to earn
monetary benefits over the years, without having to wait,
as under the Old system, for an opening in the higher grade
in his category for promotion and corresponding monetary
advancement. Thus, monetarily the teacher will be on par
with the administrative cadre where promotions are faster
because of frequent vacancies in positions. It is hoped
that the scheme will ”raise the teachers' standards, en—
couraging them to assume their educational task and perform
their mission with loyalty and devotion, and ensuring their

continued services in the field of education.”*

*
Educational Policy, Article No. 169.

 

44

It is too early to judge the outcome of this scheme,
as it was implemented only in May 1982. Complaints about
the cadre among the teachers have, however, been heard.
Based on these complaints, the educational authorities took
some corrective measures in March 1982. Yet Saudi teachers
are not fully satisfied with the final version. The main
Objection to the cadre is that under the scheme a teacher
can hope to be a principal or a supervisor and no more,
and his experience as a teacher is hardly acceptable for an
administrative position, whereas other civil servants move
upwards faster both in hierarchical positioning and in pay,
based on their experience and qualification. Other areas
of the cadre that have come in for criticism from teachers
are the salary structure, mode of promotion, and qualifying

standards (See Al—Jazeerah Daily News, Nos. 3413, 3418,

 

3425, 3427, 3429, 3435, 3446, 3451, 3539, and 3440).

Though in some educational quarters hopes have been
raised that this cadre will go a long way in alleviating
the problems Of shortages of Saudi teachers and their exodus
to other professions. This researcher believes that such
hopes are exaggerated because this cadre does not take into
account the Opinions and wishes of the teachers concerned.
Besides, the teachers as a body were never invited to evalu—
ate the cadre's strengths and weaknesses before its first
draft. On the other hand, the promoters of the cadre have

used primarily economic inducements and teacher—preparation

 

45
as the bases to manipulate the situation to overcome the
shortages and exodus without regard to professional and
social ingredients of the situation, which, in the opinion
of the researcher, are as significant as, if not more signi—
ficant than, the economic inducement and teacher preparation.
Stated differently, all available information indicate that
there is no other action has been taken by the government
to overcome the problem professionally and socially.

These are some of the significant measures undertaken
to overcome the problem of the shortages of native Saudi
teachers and their exodus to other professions. To sum up,
the government has attempted to overcome the problem of
shortages of national talents in the teaching profession and
their subsequent migration to other professions by preven—
ting the teachers from moving to administrative positions,
by Offering pay raises, by various allowances and inducements,
by opening teacher training institutions within the reach of
prospective teachers and finally be setting up a special
cadre for teachers. Unfortunately, all of these measures
have serious demonstrable shortcomings to overcome the prob—
lem. Primarily, the government has used economic incentives
to overcome the problem without sufficient regard to the
professional and social needs of security for the teachers
to continue in the profession. Al-Rasheed and others (1980)

in this regard reported:

 

46

In view of this, improving teachers'
working conditions, we can safely

say that to give adequate support

to teachers in their important task,
the state should make them feel econ-
omically, socially and psychologically
secure (p.190).

Overall Summary

 

The extant related literature confirms that economic,
professional, social, preparational and personal factors do
play a part in the exodus Of teachers from the teaching pro—
fession. However, there is a lack of agreement in these
studies regarding the degree to which each of these fcators
influences the teachers' decision to leave the profession for
another, because of the fact that the effect of each of these
factors is different from one setting to another. Further—
more, the literature review tends generally to support the
following order in terms of their significance: (1) econ-
omic, (2) professional, (3) social, (4) preparational, and
(5) personal factors, though it must be recognized that some
studies do not rank these factors in this order.

The studies and reports that specifically deal with
the problem of the exodus in the Saudi setting merely list
the economic, professional, social and preparational factors
involved in making teaching a less attractive profession than
jobs in the public and private sectors. Since these studies

and reports lack precision and pointedness, their contribution

 

47
to an understanding that will ultimately help stem the exodus
is limited. However, these studies and reports point to the
inescapable need for a solution to the problem of shortages
and exodus of Saudi teachers.

The problem is closely related to the rapid develop—
ment taking place in Saudi Arabia. The country suffers not
only from the severe shortage and exodus of qualified citizen
teachers from teaching, but also from the shortage of skilled
citizens in most areas due to the fundamental reorganization
of the Saudi economy after the discovery of oil and the ex—
tensive contact with the non-Islamic world.

The educational authorities, however, have made con-
certed efforts to find a solution to the shortage and exodus
of Saudi teachers by preventing the teachers from moving to
administrative positions, by offering various allowances and
monetary inducements, by Opening teacher training institutions
within the reach of prospective teachers and finally by
creating a special cadre for teachers. Unfortunately, all
of these measures suffer from serious shortcomings to over-
come the problem.

In conclusion, the information contained in the re—
lated literature having a bearing on the exodus of teachers
in general and on the Saudi situation in particular and the
analysis of the root causes of the problem form the ground

upon which this study is built.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

Introduction

 

This study identified the factors and explored the
extent to which they have influenced the Saudi secondary
school men teachers to leave the teaching profession. Pre-
sented in this chapter, therefore, are (l) the population;
(2) selection of the sample; (3) the research instrument;
(4) translation of the instrument; (5) pilot testing of
the instrument; (6) data collection; (7) problems the re-
searcher faced in collecting the data and finally (8) data

analysis.

The Population

 

The target pOpulation of this study consists of all
men teachers who (1) have taught in Saudi public secondary
schools, (2) are citizens of Saudi Arabia, (3) had been
graduated between 1970/71 school year and 1979/80 inclusive
and (4) taught for at least one whole year before leaving
the profession. One whole year's experience of teaching was
regarded as an essential condition for the teachers to identify
the major factors that induced them to leave the profession.

48

 

49

TO get the complete list of the population, the re—
searcher first obtained the names of all the Saudi secondary
school teachers who had been graduated between the 1970/71
and 1979/80 school years from teacher education programs of
Saudi universities, including Islamic University of Imam M.
Ibn Saud, the University Of Riyadh, and Umm—Al-Qura Univer-
sity, and had taught in the Saudi public school system for
at least a full academic year (See Table 3-1). The researcher
was not, however, able to get the exact distribution of the
teacher—training institution graduates between 1970 and 1980
who were involved in teaching. Therefore, this table was
prepared by the researcher based upon the available data in
the ”Educational Statistics books of the years 1969 to 1980”
by the Ministry of Education. Second, the Civil Service
Bureau computer was used to collect the following items of
information about the population: their current jobs and
addresses; their last jobs as teachers; and the number of
years they had taught, before quitting. It was found that
the Civil Service Bureau did not have the most up to date
information. To complete the data, the files of the Ministry
of Education, and the Ministry of Defense, which administers
an element of secondary education in Saudi Arabia, were exam-
ined and data compiled. It was found that of the total pop-
ulation that graduated between the years 1970-71 and 1980—81,
461 or 19.5 percent had left teaching after teaching at least

for a year.

50

TABLE 3-1: INITIAL TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS OF THREE SAUDI

 

 

 

UNIVERSITIES*
School Year Middle High Teacher— Total
School School Training
Institutes
1970/71 118 50 24 192
1971/72 225 25 2 252
1972/73 60 84 4 148
1973/74 139 48 13 200
1974/75 408 112 53 573
1975/76 ... 12 ... 12
1976/77 148 32 ... 180
1977/78 241 55 18 314
1978/79 136 61 46 243
1979/80 125 109 14 248
Total 1600 588 174 2362
...:unavailable data
* = Graduated of (1) Islamic University of Imam M. Ibn Saud

(2) University of Riyadh

(3) Umm Al—Qura University

51

Selection of The Sample

 

A representative sample of 200 leaving teachers, con-
stituting 43.3 percent of the population, was randomly sel-
ected,by using random numbers' table, with a view that
"each individual in the defined population has an equal and
independent chance of being selected as a member of the sam—
ple” (Borg and Gall, 1979, p. 182). A simple random sampling

technique was used to arrive at a representative figure.

The Research Instrument

 

The data for this study was obtained by means of a
questionnaire develOped after a review of the literature on
teacher turnover and resignations, their satisfactions or
dissatisfactions with the teaching profession, and the supply—
demand situation in the profession. Special attention was
paid to studies of similar problems in various settings in
the United States.

The purpose of the review was mainly to identify the
factors that other researchers had found instrumental in the
decision of teachers to leave the profession. The review
was to aid to provide not only the major directions in the
development of the research instrument, but also in refin-
ing the research question and hypotheses.

The questionnaire was developed in four stages. In
the initial stage the first draft was prepared by the re—

searcher after a careful review of the literature. In the

52

second stage, the first draft was submitted to a research
consultant from Office of Research Consultation at the College
of Education, Michigan State University. Third, the re—
searcher's dissertation committee chairman examined the ques-
tionnaire critically and made his recommendations. Lastly,
the final version of the questionnare prepared by the re-
searcher was approved by his advisory committee.

The final version Of the questionnaire consisted of
one hundred and nine items, divided into six parts (see Appen—
dix A). Part I consisted of seventeen items (1—17) delinea—
ting demographic characteristics in order to determine if any
relationships exist between those characteristics and the
factors influencing leaving teachers' decisions to quit
teaching.

The next five parts deal with the classifications of
five factors: (1) economic factors, comprising seventeen
items (18-34), (2) professional factors, consisting of thirty—
two items (35-66), (3) personal factors, covering the next
eighteen items (67-84), (4) social factors, including ten
items (85-94) and, (5) preparational factors, with fifteen
items (95—109).

Additional space was provided for the respondents'
suggestions and comments. The purpose of the five parts of
the questionnaire was to examine the level of the influence
each part had in the leaving teachers' decision to leave the

profession.

53
The questionnaire was accompanied with a cover let—
ter indicating the intent Of the study and requesting the

respondents to return the duly completed questionnaires.

Translation of the Instrument

 

Since the respondents in this study were to be Arabs,
the instrument (109 items) and the cover letter were trans-
lated from the English into Arabic by the researcher.

In order to determine the accuracy and reliability of
the translation, both the English and Arabic versions of the
questionnaire were submitted for review to the instructor
of Arabic at Michigan State University (See Appendix B).
After minor changes and revisions, incorporated in the ques—
tionnaire, the researcher's Arabic translation of the ques-

tionnaire was certified to be accurate and reliable.

Pilot Testing of the Instrument

 

To inhance‘Uue‘validity and reliability of each item
lJlthe questionnaire, the following procedures were adopted:
first, the questionnaire was developed after reviewing the
related literature (see Research Instrument section). Second,
the English version of the questionnaire was administered to
twenty former Saudi secondary school teachers who are cur—
rently graduate students at Michigan State University. An

analysis was made of their responses to each item in order to

 

54

identify and correct possible defects in the questionnaire.
Third, the same procedure was repeated with the Arabic ver—
sion of the questionnaire. Fourth, reliability analyses were
conducted for the five scales. Results of these analyses
are presented in Table 3-2.

Data presented in Table 3—2 indicates that there is
a high correlation among the responses Of the respondents
to items that have close logical relationships among one
another. It can be concluded, based on these results of
the internal reliability of items, that the research instru—
ment has an acceptable level of reliability for the purpose
of this study. Furthermore, it was Observed that the re-
spondents Of the questionnaire experienced no difficulties
with regard to the language and meaning of the items. Com—
plete results of the reliability analyses are presented in
Appendix D.

This procedure was adopted to make sure that the ques-
tionnaire would elicit the data needed for the study and was

written in a clear and comprehensible manner.

Data Collection

 

Armed with information regarding the names and current
job addresses of the leaving teachers, the researcher was
able to contact each individual member of the selected sample

and deliver the questionnaire personally to him. In most

 

 

55

TABLE 3—2: SUMMARY TABLE FOR RELIABILITY ANALYSES OF THE

 

 

SCALES
Standardized
NO. Scales Item Alpha Alpha
1. Economic Factors .94253 .93686
2. Professional Factors .91751 .91684
3. Personal Factors .68819 .58562*
4. Social Factors .77375 .77345
5. Preparational Factors .88651 .88421

 

*It is interesting to note that when the number of respon—
dents increased, after conducting the study, the value of
ALPHA of the personal factors also increased to (.72072).

 

56

cases, he was able to collect the completed questionnaire
personally, and when, for various reasons, the completed
questionnaires could not be collected personally, such re—
spondents' divisional Offices collected them and delivered
them to the researcher. This cooperation was made possible
through the help ofthe Ministry of Education (See Appen-
dixIB).

A total of 182 or 91 percent of the sample com-
pleted questionnaires was returned. Six members of the
respondent sample refused to participate in the study, and
the remaining twelve respondents agreed to participate but
failed to return the questionnaire or the researcher could

not reach them to deliver the questionnaires (See Table 3—3).

Problems Faced in Collecting the Data

 

1. Since this study dealt mainly with the teachers
who have already left the profession, the location of these
teachers was one Of the major problems because information
was not easily obtainable in Saudi Arabia. One has to be
prepared for it, as this researcher was.

2. Contrary to expectation, some people concerned
with education were least cooperative. Indeed, at times they
discouraged this researcher to pursue the line of research.
Very often, he was denied access to material files. It was

difficult to fathom the source of this noncooperative and

57

 

 

TABLE 3—3: DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE, RETURNED AND NON—
RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRES
No. Visited Cities Total Number of % of
Number of Returned Total
Sample Question- Responses
naires
l. Riyadh 48 44 22.0
2. Buraidh 12 11 5.5
3. Unaizah 8 7 3.5
4. Arres 8 8 4.0
5. Hail 6 5 2.5
6. Madina 12 9 4.5
7. Al-Jouf 3 3 1.5
8. Jeddah 29 27 13.5
9. Makkah 15 15 7.5
10. Taif ll 10 5.0
11. Abha ll 9 4.5
12. Jizan 7 7 3.5
13. Nejran 3 3 1.5
14. Dammam 13 11 5.5
15. Hafuf 8 7 3.5
16. Al—Kharej 6 6 3.0
TOTAL 200 182 91.0

 

 

.58
discouraging attitude in view of the fact that those very
people would benefit the most from this study. However, it
must be added that the majority Of the educational author—
ities were cooperative and encouraging.
Among the minor irritants were transportation and the

time consumed in collecting the data. Despite these un-
pleasant experiences, this study has been a very rewarding

experience for this researcher.

Data Analysis

 

The data collected were manually coded on “computer
laboratory-—Fortran coding forms" by the researcher. These
forms were transformed into computer cards by the scoring
center at Michigan State University. The punched cards were
then sent to the computer center at M.S.U. for analysis.

The ”Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)" (Nie,

et a1 1975) was used for facilitating the statistical tech—

niques. The analyses were divided into four sections: First,
the frequencies and percentages were used to analyze the
demographic data included in the questionnaire items, 1 through
17. Second, the mean and standard deviation ratings were used
to rank order the items (factors), 18 through 109, that in-
fluenced the teachers to leave teaching. Third, a multi—
variate analysis of variances (MANOVA) for repeated measure,

and the Univariate F—tests were used to test the research

hypotheses. In order to determine acceptance or nonacceptance

59
Of the null hypotheses, the standard (a:= 0.5) level was

treated as the level of significance for each test. Fourth,L//
respondents' written suggestions and comments were described

and classified. These analyses are presented in Chapter

Four.

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

DATA ANALYSIS

This study was conducted to find out the prOper answer
for the research questions presented in Chapter I.

1. According to the teachers who have left the
profession, how did the following factors influence their
decision to leave? Specifically, what are their perceptions
regarding economic, professional, personal, social and pre-
parational factors, as to their influence in this decision?

2. What is the relationship, if any, between the
above factors and the following demographic characteristics?

a. Age when they left teaching

b. Marital status when they left teaching

c. Number Of years in teaching

d. Size of the city in which they taught

e. Institution of preparation

f. College major.

In this chapter, findings related to these questions
are presented in four sections. The first section deals with
the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Rank,
orders of the factors influenced teachers to leave teaching,
and testing of the first hypothesis are presented in the
second section. The third section deals mainly with answer—

ing of the second research question. Finally, reporting of

60

61
the respondents' comments on the factors is presented in the

fourth section.

Demographic Data

 

The first part of the questionnaire used for this
study consists of a set of questions designed to determine
if there exists any relationship between the tendency to leave
the profession of teaching and the individual characteristics
and environment, educational background, professional setting
and salary of the respondents at the time of leaving teach—

ing for another profession.

Personal Characteristics

 

Of the personal characteristics of the sample, the
four variables considered to determine a relationship between
the exodus of teachers from the profession and the personal
characteristics are the teachers' age, their marital status,
the number of children they had, and the area of residence
while they were still in the profession and after they had
left the profession.

The data with regard to the respondents' age, marital
status, and the number of children the teachers had at the
time of leaving teaching are presented in Table 4—1. The
analysis of the data shows that the teachers tends to leave
the profession when they are relatively young. That is, 70.9

percent of the respondents were below the age of 31. Those

62

 

 

TABLE 4-1: TEACHERS' AGE, MARITAL STATUS AND NUMBER OF
CHILDREN THEY HAD WHEN THEY LEFT TEACHING
Absolute Relative
Item No. Category Lable Frequency Frequency %
1. Age 25-30 years 129 70.9
31 plus years 53 29.1
Total 182 100.0
2. Marital
Status Married 142 78.0
Single 40 22.0
Total 182 100 0
3. Number None 25 17.6
of
Child— One 37 26.1
ren
Two 27 19.0
Three 27 19.0
Four 24 16.9
Five and over 2 1.4
Total 142* 100.0

 

*Total of married teachers only

63

who are 31 or older continue to remain in the profession.
Only 29.1 percent of them in the age group of 31 and older
decided to leave. The marital status seems to play a very
significant role in the decision of the respondents whether
they wanted to continue to stay in the profession or leave
it for another. Seventy-eight (78.0) percent of the respon—
dents are married, while only 22.0 percent are unmarried.

The analysis of the data in Table 4—1 regarding the
number of children the respondents had at the time of leaving
the teaching profession revealed an inverse relationship.
That is, figures in the table show a tendencythat those
who have fewer than two children tend to leave the pro-
fession more Often tjuni those with three or more depend-
ent children. Sixty-two (62.7) percent of the respondents
had 2 or fewer children when they left teaching while only
33.3 percent had three or more children.

There seems to be no significant.relationship)Ibetween
the respondents' leaving the profession and their subsequent
place of residence or the size of the city they taught in
(Table 4—2). Seventy-five (75.3) percent continued to live
in the same city that they taught in, while only 24.7 percent
moved either to a big or a small city after leaving the pro—

fession.

Educational Background and Characteristics

 

The data on the preservice education and background are

recordedin Table 4—3 under three variables: the institution

 

 

64

TABLE 4—2: CITY OF RESIDENCE AFTER THE RESPONDENTS LEFT THE

 

 

PROFESSION
Item Absolute Relative
NO. Category Label Frequency Frequency %
10,13 Still live in the city
where they taught 137 75.3
Moved to a larger city 37 20.3
Moved to a small city 8 4.4
TOTAL 182 100.0

 

of teacher education, the subject specialization, and the
year Of graduation. With regard to the institution of
teacher education, Table 4-3 shows that 57.9 percent of the
respondents had been graduated from the Islamic University
of Imam Mohamed Ibn Saud, while 28.1 percent came from the
University of Riyadh, and 14.0 percent from the Umm Al-Qura
University.

A majority of the respondents, 51.7 percent (Table
4-3) had specialized in Islamic Studies and/or the Arabic
language followed by 33.0 percent who majored in Social
Studies. A small minority had majored either in Science
and Mathematics, a total of 9.9 percent, or in English, a

total of 5.5 percent. This distribution of exodus figures

65

TABLE 4-3: INSTITUTION OF TEACHER PREPARATION, COLLEGE MAJOR,
AND YEAR OF GRADUATION

 

 

 

 

Item Absolute Relative
No. Category Label Frequency Frequency %
4 Institution Islamic University of
of Prepar- Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud 103 57.9
ation University of Riyadh 50 28.1
Umm AlQura University 25 14.0
Total 178* 100.0
6 College Islamic Studies 42 23.1
Major Arabic Language 52 28.6
English Language 10 5.5
Science and Math 18 9.9
Social Sciences 60 33.0
Total 182 100.0
5 Year of 1970—1971 23 14.6
Graduation 1971—1972 27 17.0
1972-1973 22 13.9
1973-1974 24 15.1
1974—1975 16 10.1
1975-1976 17 10.8
1976—1977 12 7.6
1977—1978 14 8.9
1978-1979 2 1 3
1979—1980 1 6
Total 158** 100.0

* Data arexnat available in the case of four respondents

**Data areruat available in the case of twenty-four respondents

66

is consistent with the distribution of specialization among
Saudi teachers in schools in the country. Current statistics
show that "66.8 percent of the Saudi teachers have their
specialization in Islamic Studies and the Arabic language,
31.5 percent in Social Studies, 5.3 percent in Science and
Mathematics, and 3.6 percent in English (See Table 2—1,p.34L

The analysis of the year of graduation variable in
Table 4—3 shows that the majority of the respondents, 66.6
percent, had been graduated between 1970 and 1974 while 39.3

percent between 1975 and 1980.

Professional Background and Characteristics

 

The professional background and characteristics are
summarized in Tables 4-4, 4—5 and 4-6. Table 4-4 classifies
the respondents according to the subject or subjects taught,
the level at which taught, and the number of years the teacher
was in the profession before leaving it for another.

The data with regard to the subject the respondents
taught, recorded in Table 4-4, reveal that their teaching a
subject other than their specialization has had no apparent
significant influence on the respondents' decision to leave
teaching as 97.8 percent of the respondents were teaching the
subject of their specialization at the time of their leaving
the profession.

The summary of the data in Table 4—4 further shows

that the majority of the respondents, a total of 122 out Of

67

TABLE 4-4: SUBJECT TAUGHT, THE LEVEL AT WHICH TAUGHT, AND
THE NUMBER OF YEARS TAUGHT

 

 

Item Absolute Relative
No. Category Label Frequence Frequency %
7 Subject Taught his major 178 97.8
Taught Did not teach his
major 4 2.2
Total 182 100.0
8 Level at Middle School (grade
which 7-9) 122 67.0
taught High School (grade
10-12) 60 33.0
Total 182 100.0
9 Number of One Year 27 15.0
years Two Years 33 18.3
taught Three Years 30 16.7
Four Years 23 12.8
Five Years 17 9.4
Six Years Plus 15 27.8
Total 180* 100.0

*Data are not available in the case Of two respondents

68

182 or 60.0 percent were teaching in middle schools (grades
7—9), while the rest, 33.0 percent were teaching in high
schools (grades 10-12). The difference in the exodus fig—
ures for middle and high schools might be due to the large
proportion of middle schools to high schools. The analysis
of the number of years a teacher has taught before quitting
(Table 4-4) indicates that the first four years of the
teachers stay in the profession are very crucial in his de—
cision to stay in the profession or to quit it. Of the re—
spondents who left the profession, 15 percent had only one
year of teaching, 18.3 percent had only 2; 16.7 percent had
three years, and 12.8 percent had four years of teaching
experience. After the fifth year in the profession, the
teacher exodus rate declines to only 2.4 percent.

The respondents' earning in and out of the profession
are summarized in Table 4-5. Under the Saudi system, the
teacher is a civil servant, and the salaries of all civil
servants are governed by eighteen salary scales, regardless
of the nature of the employment and profession. A secondary
school teacher with training in education is placed in the
seventh scale of pay, and the secondary school teachers
without any teacher training are placed in scale six.
Teachers continue to stay in the same scale four years unless
there is a vacancy in the next scale.

In the context of this system, it is significant to

note, as Table 4—5 reveals, that though there were only

69

seventeen respondents (9.3 percent) in the sixth salary

scale while they were teaching. Twenty—six (14.3 percent)

Of the total who left the profession accepted their place-
ment in the sixth scale. In other words, nine leaving
teachers accepted a lower scale of pay than they were draw-
ing while teaching. The teachers accept the lower scale
because of the fact that the promotion in the long run from
one scale to another in a non-teaching setting is much faster
and much more rapid than in the teaching profession. Nor—
mally, civil servants move from one level of pay scale to
another in four years of time automatically, but in the

event of a vacancy occurring before an employee has com—
pleted four years, he is allowed to take an examination and,
based on his score, he can be promoted to the next scale. But
such opportunities to be promoted to the next scale before
four years of service is rare, indeed almost non-existent,

in the teaching profession. For these considerations,
leaving teachers werevulling to be placed in a salary grade
lower than they had in the teaching profession.

Of the total of 102 respondents, 115 (63.2 percent)
were in the seventh salary scale--an initial scale appli—
cable to all teachers who have had requisite teacher train-
ing. Eighty-nine (89) teachers (48.9 percent) of the total
of 182 transferred to other government jobs that placed them

in the same scale. It is not clear from the data that all

7O

 

 

TABLE 4—5: SALARY DURING AND AFTER TEACHING "MONTHLY SALARY
IN U.S. DOLLARS”
Item Absolute Relative
NO. Category Label Frequence Frequency %
11 Salary Sixth Salary Scale
During ($1321) 17 9.3
teaching Seventh Salary Scale
($1535) 115 63.2
Eighth Salary Scale
($1761) 44 24.2
Nineth Salary Scale
($2047) 5 2.7
Tenth Salary Scale
($2275) 1 .5
Total 182 100.0
12 Salary Sixth Salary Scale
After ($1321) 26 14.3
Leaving Seventh Salary Scale
Teaching ($1435) 89 48.9
Eighth Salary Scale
($1761) 61 33.5
Nineth Salary Scale
($2047) 5 2.7
Tenth Salary Scale
($2275) 1 .5
Total 182 100.0

71

89 of them were from among the 115 in the seventh scale.

It is, however, reasonable to assume that a fairly large
percentage was from among the 115. These data do support
the hypothesis that one of the major reasons for quitting
the profession is the low opportunity for promotion in the
teaching profession (Table 4-5). The teachers' tendency to
accept government jobs in a lower scale is motivated by the
desire to enhance the chances of promotion.

There were forty—four respondents (24.2 percent) of
the total of 182 in the eighth salary scale but those who
accepted alternative jobs in the non-teaching setting were
61 or 33.5 percent of the total. It must be noted that only
those who have had a post-bachelors' degrees are placed in the
eighth scale. It seems that the higher the degree in Educa—
tion, the higher the teacher perception that their chances of
promotion are better served in alternative government jobs.

As the data in Table 4—5 reveal, there were very
few teachers in therﬂjmnjisalary scale who left the pro~
fession. However, their subsequent placement reveals that
they accepted alternative jobs in the government agencies
in the comparable scale of pay.

The nature of the non—teaching jobs the leaving teach—
ers moved to is summarized in Table 4-6 which lists the num—
ber of jobs held after leaving teaching,job satisfcation in
their current employment, whether placed in the same salary
scale or not, and the nature of the profession the leaving

teachers are currently in.

72

TABLE 4—6: NON—TEACHING JOB'S CHARACTERISTICS

 

 

Item Absolute Relative
No. Category Label Frequency Frequency%
14 Number of One 141 78.8
jobs moved Two 32 17.9
to after Three 3 1.7
teaching Four Plus 3 1.7
Total 178* 100.0
16 Do you Yes 137 75.3
like the
current jOO? NO 45 24.7
Total 182 100.0
17 Would you Yes 49 26.9
leave the
current No 133 73.1
job with
the same Total 182 100.0
salary?
15 Current Educational** 100 54.9
job
category Administrative 80 44.0
Others ”accounting...
etc” 2 1.1
Total 182 100.0

*Data are not available in the case of three respondents

**Does not include Principals, Assistant Principals and/or
educational supervisors

73

The table reveals that 78.8 percent of the respondents
have held only one job after leaving teaching ; 75.3 percent
like their current jobs; and 73.1 percent don't want to
leave their present job for another carrying a comparable
salary. Further, the analysis of these data reveals that
more than 73.0 percent of the respondents preferred stability
in their professions, and had to leave the teaching profession
for reasons other than the wanderlust. This study concen—
trates on investigating these reasons.

Further, the table indicates that the majority of the
respondents, 54.9 percent, hold non—teaching jobs in the
education setting. In other words, a substantial number of
the outgoing teachers wish to remain educators, as they were
originally qualified. Administrative jobs other than in the
educational setting, attracted a total of 44 percent of the
respondents and the rest (1.1 percent) moved to such jobs

as accountancy and others.

Summary

The personal data summarized in Tables 4—1 and 4—2
indicate that the typical teacher who left the profession
after graduating from the university during the period 1970
and 1979-80 was(l) less than 31 years of age, (2) married,
(3) has 2 or fewer children, and (4) continues to live in

the same city that he taught in.

74
The educational data summarized in Table 4-3 indicate

that the typical teacher who left the profession after grad-
uation from a university during the period 1970 to 1979-80
was majoring in Islamic Studies or the Arabic language.
This is due to the fact that the majority of Saudi teachers
are teaching Islamic studies or Arabic language (See Table
2—1, page 34).

Finally, the professional data summarized in Tables
4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 indicate that the typical teacher who left
the profession after graduation from a university during the
period between 1970 and 1979—80 was (1) teaching his subject
Of specialization, (2) teaching in a middle school, (3) in
the profession for four or less than four years, (4) receiving
a pay in the 7 salary scale, (5) willing to accept a lower
salary scale when transferring to a non—teaching job, (6)

stable in nature, and (7) generally in a non—teaching edu-

cational job.

First Research Question

 

This section of the analysis of the data, first, rank—
Orders the factors by the level of their influence upon the
teachers' decision to leave the profession of teaching in
terms of their mean scores, and second, tests the hypothesis
to determine whether there was a significant difference be-

tween the factors.

75

Rank Orders of the Factors by Their Mean Scores

 

The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to
which each factor had influenced their decision to leave the
profession in the scale from 1 (very much) to 5 (none).
Consequently, the lower the mean, the higher the correlation
of the factor that had influenced the teachers to leave
teaching.

It is noted that, based on the mean scores of the
factors, it cannot be accurately determined whether there
exists a significant difference among the factors or not.
The mean score analyses, however, gives a first insight into
the differences in significance among the categories of fac—
tors and within the individual items in the categories. An
accurate determination of the difference in the significance
will be made in the next section, when the first hypothesis

is tested.

Economic Factors

 

Despite the fact that the teachers' starting monthly
salary Of $1535.00, by the Saudi standard of living, was
adequate, respondents had listed the economic causes as the
most important factors that had influenced them to leave the
profession. The overall mean of the economic factors (Y=2.8)

indicates that the respondents had regarded the economic factors

n’

76
as the strongest influencing factors in their decision to
leave the profession of teaching. It must be noted that the
economic factors did not include only the traditional factors
like salary and other allied monetary emoluments, but also
such fringe benefits as chances for promotion, allowance
for overtime, and opportunities to earn some allowance through
profession—related activities. Table 4-7 reveals that the
factors ”teachers have fewer Opportunities to take the quali—
fying examination, after two years of service, for promotion
to the next scale of pay than their counterparts (7:1.80)”
(with the highest mean score) and "Little advancement oppor—
tunities (7 = 1.99)” were rated as a much higher cause in
the respondents' decision than "salary, too low for hours
expected (Y = 2.31)" and "salary inadequate for desired liv-
ing standards (Y = 3.37)”. Table 4-7 indicates that the ex—
teachers perceived that in terms of the economic benefits,
the teachers did not hold equal opportunities when compared
with other professions.

Stated differently, teachers did not have the oppor—
tunity to supplement their income by business travels, pros
motion and advancement possibilities when compared with other
government jobs. These concerns are rated much higher than
the salary drawn by the teachers in their decision to leave

teaching (See Table 4-7).

77

TABLE 4—7: RANK ORDERS OF ECONOMIC FACTORS BY MEAN ITEM

 

 

SCORE
Item Rank _
No. Order Economic Factors X SD
34 1 Teachers have fewer opportun- 1.80 1.29

ities to take the qualifying
examination, after two years,
of service, for promotion, to
the next scale of pay, then
their counterparts

32 2 Little advancement opportunities 1.99 1.32
22 3 Salary not adjusted to work load 2.15 1.39
23 4 NO business travel opportunities 2.18 1.44
30 5 Little chance for promotion 2.20 1.37
27 6 There was no housing or assis—

tance for the rent 2.22 1.56
20 7 Salary too low for hours of

work expected 2.31 1.41
25 8 Extra part time work not

available 2.38 1.52
26 9 No exceptional promotion for

teachers 2.63 1.65
21 10 Salary increments small; too

long to reach maximum 2.79 1.55
19 11 Salary below of equally re—

sponsible positions 2.88 1.55
18 12 Salary inadequate for desired

living standard 3.37 1.48
33 13 Decreasing one degree salary

with a change to a non—teaching 3.51 1.71

position
29 14 No time to conduct private

business 3.57 1.50

TABLE 4-7: CONT

78

 

 

 

Item Rank _
No. Order Economic Factors X SD
31 15 Eligible for promotion refused 3.60 1.65
24 16 Area expensive to live in,

had to move 4.04 1.38
28 17 Non—citizen teacher gets

higher salary than citizen 4.26 1.26
Number of Respondents = 182
Overall Mean = 2.81577
Alpha = .88139

Standardized Item Alpha

.88268

79

The Social Factors

 

The social factors, with an overall mean of (Y = 2.9)
(Table 4—8), compared with the mean (Y'= 2.8) for the economic
factors, have been rated by the respondents as almost equally
important in their decision to leave teaching. In the group
of social factors, "low social status and prestige (Y = 2.21)”
as a reason for their decision has been rated as the most im-
portant in the list. In other words, the predominant social
cause for the teachers' decision to leave the profession was
their perception that their status and prestige in the Saudi
society was not consistent with what they feelthey deserved.

Further, the respondents' perception that they were
treated as mere civil servants rather than as members of a
prestigious profession, as medical doctors and military Of-
ficers are treated and well respected by the Saudi society
at large and the Saudi government, was the second leading
social cause (Y = 2.24), in their decision to change the pro-

fession.

The Professional Factors

 

The professional factors, with an overall mean (Y =
3.0), had within them items that had little or no influence
on the respondents' decision to leave teaching, as well as
some that had a strong influence on their decision to leave

(See Table 4-9). Among the strongest influencing factors in

80

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4—8: RANK ORDERS OF SOCIAL FACTORS BY MEAN ITEM
SCORE

Item Rank __
No. Order Social Factors X SD
85 1 Low social status and

prestige 2.21 1.39
86 2 Idea of teacher as “public

employee” is overdone 2.24 1.32
90 3 Parents don't cooperate

with school 2.33 1.30
93 4 Teachers are regarded as

inexperienced persons 2.49 1.40
87 5 Unfair criticism of school

from outside groups 2.64 1.33
88 6 My liberal ideas on edu—

cation not accepted 2.64 1.30
92 7 Teachers are regarded as

low class people 3.25 1.56
91 8 My friends and relatives

don't View teaching as one's

life work 3.74 1.36
94 9 Low average students majoring

in education 3.88 1.37
89 10 Writers, cartoonists, and

others mock teachers and

belittle them 3.93 1.28
Number of Respondents = 182
Overall Mean = 2.93297
Alpha = .88136
Standardized Item Alpha = .88133

 

 

 

 

81
TABLE 4—9: RANK ORDERS OF PROFESSIONAL FACTORS BY MEAN ITEM
SCORE

Item Rank
No. Order Professional Factors Y SD
53 1 No reward for professional

Growth 1.79 1.12
54 2 No intellectual stimulation 2.22 1.30
51 3 Better working conditions

elsewhere 2.29 1.36
43 4 No voice in program making 2.36 1.41
66 5 Cannot have vacation anytime 2.41 1.45
62 6 Inadequate facilities 2.49 1.42
44 7 No voice in policy making 2.53 1.50
52 8 Sick leave provisions un—

satisfactory 2.59 1.41
56 9 Curriculum rigidity 2.61 1.43
50 10 Disliked rigid school schedule 2.73 1.53
37 11 No administrative support for

professional problems 2.75 1.46
42 12 Initiative and creativeness

were discouraged 2.77 1.35
48 13 Not enough free periods 2.80 1.46
59 14 Pupils not interested to learn 2.82 1.36
65 15 Unpleased pupils behavior to-

ward the teachers 2.90 1.52
60 16 Too much preparation time

required for teaching 2.91 1.29
49 17 Fatigue from job prevented

full social life 2.92 1.47
55 18 Inadequate administrative trust 2.95 1.47

TABLE 4—9 CONT

82

 

 

Item Rank
No. Order Professional Factors Y SD
47 19 Overcrowded classes 3.02 1.48
40 20 No release time for pro-

fessional activities 3.10 1.52
63 21 Supervisors make too many

demands 3.23 1.31
45 22 Insufficient instructional

materials 3.24 1.44
64 23 Inadequate assistance from

supervisors 3.34 1.30
61 24 TOO many extra-curricular

activities 3.36 1.25
41 25 Assigned to teach too many

classes 3.48 1.43
38 26 Unfair report from supervisors 3.71 1.36
39 27 Assigned to teach too many

subjects 3.73 1.46
58 28 Little or no opportunity to

specialize 3.85 1.30
46 29 Could not select own in-

structional materials 3.95 1.31
57 30 Too many meetings to attend 4.02 1.19
35 31 Principal difficult to work

with 4.03 1.35
36 32 Assigned to teach in fields

where I was not qualified 4.53 .99
Number of Respondents = 182
Overall Mean = 3.04430
Alpha = .92388
Standardized Item Alpha = .92434

83

the decision to leave the profession were those of the items

"lack of reward for professional growth (Y'= 1.79)," "lack of
stimulation (Y = 2.22)," "uncomfortable working conditions
(Y = 2.29),” and "no voice in program making (Y’= 2.36)."

On the other hand, the professional factors that had little
or no effect on the respondents' decision were "too many

meetings to attend (Y = 4.02)," ”the principal is difficult
to work with (Y = 4.03)," and “assigned to teach in a field

not qualified to teach (Y = 4.53)."

The Preparational Factors

 

The data tabulated in Table 4-10 confirm some of the
findings of the related research reviewed in Chapter 2 that
the exodus from teaching was very slightly affected by the
preparational factors. With a mean (Y = 3.9) for the cate—
gory, most of the items recorded a below-average influence
on the decision of the respondents to leave the profession.
Only "lack of in-service training (Y = 2.48)” and ”lack of
opportunity to complete education while teaching (Y = 2.97)"
had had a slightly positive effect on the ex-teachers' de-
cision. Even though the influence Of these factors is slight,
they stand out as a distinct category among the preparation-
al factors because of their close relationship with the future

advancement opportunities in the profession.

84

 

 

TABLE 4—10: RANK ORDERS OF PREPARATIONAL FACTORS BY MEAN
ITEM SCORE
Item Rank
NO. Order Preparational Factors Y SD
100 1 Few opportunities for
further inservice training 2.48 1.33
109 2 Could not complete my educa-
tion while teaching 2.97 1.59
106 3 Felt better prepared for
current job 3.73 1.41
97 4 Method courses were not good
for stimulating me in teaching 3.92 1.33
95 5 The preparation was adequate
generally but not profession—
ally 3.99 1.31
99 6 Too much emphasis on social
life and no non—academic
matters 4.01 1.22
104 7 Student teaching was not
sufficient 4.04 1.30
98 8 Inadequate preparation on
how to teach 4.13 1.22
102 9 Inadequate preparation for
organizing and conducting the
curriculum 4.21 1.15
108 10 No sound selection for edu—
cational majors 4.25 1.25
103 ll Inadequate technical prepar—
ation for the profession 4.25 1.14
96 12 Inadequate pedagogical pre—
paration 4.29 1.10
105 13 Inadequate training to ex—
press ideas clearly 4.34 1.07
107 14 Inadequate preparation for
the subject I was teaching 4.34 1.07

85

TABLE 4—10 CONT

 

Item Rank

 

No. Order Preparational Factors Y SD
101 15 Inadequate preparation to
teach in secondary school 4.46 .92

 

Number of Respondents = 182

Overall Mean = 3.95897
Alpha = .90468
Standardized Item Alpha = .91369

86

The Personal Factors

 

A conclusion reached in the review of the related
literature that the personal factors are mostly downplayed
by leaving teachers because of the general unwillingness on
their part to admit to personal factors as a cause of the
decision to leave the profession was also confirmed by the
findings of this study (Table 4-11). With an overall mean
of 4.1, the entire category can be ruled out as of little
significance in the teachers' decision to leave the pro—

fession.

Overall Summary

 

The level of influence of the five categories of fac—
tors is summarized in Table 4-12 in terms of their overall
means. Based on these means, the categories can be classi—
fied into two groups:

(1) The factors that have had the strongest
influence on the teachers' decision to
leave teaching. Under this category of
factors falls the economic, social and
professional factors with the respective
overall means of 2.8, 2.9 and 3.0. The
difference between their overall means
is so small that their classification as
the strongest influence on the decision
of the teachers to leave teaching is
reasonable, and

(2) the factors that have had little or no
influence upon the teachers' decision.
In this category of factors are included
preparational and personal factors with
the respective overall means of 3.9 and
4.1. As in the first group of factors,

87

 

 

TABLE 4—11 RANK ORDERS OF PERSONAL FACTORS BY MEAN ITEM
SCORE

Item Rank _
No. Order Personal Factors X SD
78 1 Could not accept the school

philosophy 2.94 1.44
79 2 Disliked student attitudes 3.36 1.36
75 3 My talents could be of more

service in another field 3.37 1.54
74 4 Just did not like teaching 3.70 1.56
81 5 Teaching was stepping stone

to another career 3.88 1.49
72 6 Resigned for further study

in education 4.03 1.58
67 7 Poor health 4.04 1.46
84 8 Fellow teachesr were not

cooperative 4.07 1.21
83 9 Favoritism existed in staff

relations and assignments 4.11 1.31
77 10 Family responsibilities 4.34 1.17
73 11 Resigned for further study

in another field 4.42 1.19
70 12 Move to a more desirable

geographic area 4.46 1.25
82 13 Freedom from supervision by

others 4.49 1.02
69 14 Nervous tension and frustration 4.51 1.00
80 15 Could not get students to learn 4.61 .86
68 16 Illness of a member of my

family 4.67 .92

88

TABLE 4-ll CONT

 

Item Rank

 

 

No. Order Personal Factors Y SD
71 17 Lost my self-confidence as

a teacher 4.71 .84
76 18 Family pressure 4.85 .54
Number of Respondents = 182
Overall Mean = 4.14225
Alpha = .72072
Standardized Item Alpha = .73182

89

TABLE 4—12: RANK.ORDERS OF THE GROUP OF FACTORS BY OVERALL

 

 

MEANS
Category Overall Means
First Economic Factors 2.81577
Second Social Factors 2.93297
Third Professional Factors 3.04430
Fourth Preparational Factors 3.95897
Fifth Personal Factors 4.14225

 

the difference between the overall means
is small and their inclusion under one
category, least influenced, is justified.

Although the difference in the overall means of two
groups 1 and 2 are small, statistical significance of these
differences will be determined when the first hypothesis

is tested in the next section.

 

90

Test of the First Hypothesis

 

In the previous section the rank ordersof the mean
scores of the scales dealing with five reasons to leave
teaching are presented. As pointed out earlier, this rank-
ing gives only a general idea about the level of influence
that each of these factors had on the decision, and does not
indicate whether one factor is indeed more important than
another. The first research question to be considered thus,
was

According to the teachers who have left

the profession, how did the following

factors influence their decision to leave?

Specifically, what are their perceptions

regarding the following factors as to their

relative influence in this decision?

1. economic factors

2. social factors,

3. professional factors

4. preparational factors

5. personal factors

To answer this research question, the following null hypo-
thesis was tested in order to determine whether there was a
significant different in the level of relative influence of
the five factors upon the respondents' decision to leave
teaching:

HO: There is no significant difference in the
level of influence attributed to the econ-
omic, professional, social, personal, and
preparational factors by former secondary
school teachers in their decision to leave

teaching.

91

To test this hypothesis, the multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used, specifically, the subroutine for repeated
measures analysis of variance. It must be noted in this con-
text that the repeated measures analysis of the MANOVA is
based on the DIFFERENCE scores between the variables being
compared, the five factors, rather than mean scores of the
variables themselves. For this purpose, the variables were
ordered first, as presented in Table 4-12 above, and differ-
ence scores between adjacent variables were computed and used
in the analysis. The difference scores for the present, and
all subsequent, MANOVAs are as follows:

1. SOCIECON
between the SOCIal and ECONomic factors

2. PROFSOCI
between the PROFessional and SOCIal factors

3. PREPPROF
between the PREParational and PROFessional factors

4. PERSPREP
between the PERSonal and PREParational factors

The results of the repeated measures MANOVA were pre—
sented in Table 4—13A,B, and C. Table 4—13A presents the
mean difference scores being compared in this analysis. The
largest difference score was between the PROFessional and
the PREParational factor, while the other difference scores
were relatively small. As may be noted from the Hotellings'
MULTIVARIATE TEST in Table 4-13B, there was a significant

difference between the five factors in their importance for

Hm>ma mo.o may pm pcmoHMHconx

 

 

 

Hmoho. mahoa.m mmmmh. mommv.m vamm.mva mommv.m zoomHOom
*hwmvo. whmma.v vowvm. bmmmm.m vmmvm.mm hmmmm.m Huommomm
xaoooo. ommmv.omm mnomo. momom.mma mmmmo.mma momwm.mma mommmmmm
*Nmooo. bmwma.va Hmomv. mamaa.o vmmmm.nb mamaa.o mmmmmmmm

m m0 Om :mmz Om.cmoz Om mo 63m Om mo esm

.macmﬂm m uouum mammsp0Q>m . uounm mﬂmwnuom>m mpmaum>

mmoeoam

mmB szZBmm muzmmmmmHQ MIR 02Hm<m200 m0 AHmH.Hv EBHZ mEmmBlm mB<Hm<>HZD "U MHlv mqm<9

Hm>ma mo.o mzu um ugmuwwwcmwm4
*Hoooo. ooooo.m>a oooco.v mmnms.ava ommma.m mocﬂaamuoz

 

.MHCOHm mm uouum ma mﬂmmzuoa>m m xouma< 05Hm> mEmz ummB

92

 

mmOBU<m m>Hm mmE ZMMZBmm
muzmmmmmHQ JJ<mm>O mEB m0 MUZ<Hm<> m0 mHmMJ<Z¢HF54Hm<>HBJDZ.deHJJmBOE um MHIw MJm<B

 

 

mma ovmmm. manaa. mamemm muﬂucm you zoomHoom
mma mmmms. mmHHH. maaemm mnwucm Mom Hoommomm
mma vaamw. novam. maoemm muaucm Mom mommmmmm
NmH Hmomo. smmma. maaemm muﬂucm uom mmmmmmmm
z coawma>mo Unmbcmum com: @600 wHQMHum>

 

OZHEUdME m><ma OB ZOHmHUMQ .mmmzu<m8 OZHBUHmm¢ mmOBU¢m m>Hm
m0 mmmDm<m2 Dmﬁﬁmmmm mmB m0 mZOHB<H>mQ Qm<QZ<Bm QZ< mz<mz JJMUN< MHIV mdm<8

 

 

93

leaving teaching. Consequently, the first hypothesis was
rejected.

Table 4-13C presents the results of univariate analy—
ses for the four difference scores. All results except the
last, SOCIECON,were significant, suggesting differences be-

tween adjacent factors.

Second Research Question

 

In the previous section, the relative influence of
five factors related with the decision to leave teaching
was examined. A significant difference between these five
factors was found, as well as the order of importance of
these factors. Given that several personal characteristics
of the respondents are known, as presented in the first
section of this chapter, it might be asked whether there
were differences between various groups of respondents.
Thus, the second research question to be considered was:

What is the relationship, if any, be—

tween the five factors (economic, social,

professional, preparational, and person—

al) and selected demographic characteristics?

The antecedent variables, i.e., personal and professional
characteristics of the respondents, to be considered in
this context were:

1. AGE at the time the respondent left teaching,

divided into two groups: 30 years and less,
31 years and more.

94

2. MARITAL status at the time the respondent
left teaching, considering two groups:
married and single.

3. COLLEGE, i.e. the institution where
the graduate degree was obtained, three
universities are considered: IMAM,
RIYADH, and UMM AL-QURA.

$. MAJOR field of study at the under-
graduate level, five areas were con—
sidered: ISLAMIC studies, ARABIC,
ENGLISH, SCIENCE including mathematics,
and SOCIAL sciences.

5. number of YEARS taught before the
respondent left teaching, divided into
three groups: Zero through two years,
three and four years, five and more years.

6. size of the CITY where the respondent
had taught at the time he left teaching.

The second null hypothesis to be tested is as follows:

H : There is no significant difference in
the level of influence of the ECONomic,
SOCIal, PROFessional, PREParational and
PERSonal factors with regard to the fol—
lowing characteristics:

1. AGE

2. MARITAL status
3 . COLLEGE

4. MAJOR

5. YEARS taught

To test these hypotheses, multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) for repeated measures was used. As men—
tioned on page 91, to test for repeated measures, MANOVA
considers DIFFERENCE scores, rather than the scores of the

individual variables.

 

95

Hypothesis 2A

 

There is no significant difference in

the level of influence of the ECONomic,

SOCIal, PROFessional, PREParational and

PERSonal factors with regard to the AGE

at which respondents left teaching.

To test this hypothesis, the subjects of this study
were divided into two groups, those who at the time were 30
years and younger, and those who were older than 30 years
at the time. Tables 4—14, 4-15 and 4—16 present the results
of this hypothesis. Table 4-15 presents the results of the
multivariate test of significance, indicating no significant
difference between the level of influence of the four differ—
ent scores for the two groups of subjects. In other words,
there was no significant overall difference between those
who were below and those who were above 30 years of age at
the time they left teaching in the level of influence of the
five factors. Therefore, hypothesis 2A was not rejected.

Table 4-16 presents the results of four univariate F—
tests comparing the two age groups with respect to the dif-
ference scores between the five factors. As indicated above
(First Research Question, Page 74) the five scales were pre—
sented in the order of importance, i.e., the ECONomic factor
being the most important one, the PERSonal one being the

least important. The results of the univariate F-tests in-

dicate that:

96

 

 

«ma ovmmm. manaa. maoemm muwpcm
mm aommm. Hanmm. mu» om m>on< mm<
mma smmvm. Haaso. mu» Hm zoamm mm<
zoomHUOm "manmﬂum>

mma mmams. mmHHH. maaemm muﬂucm
mm omomm. mmovo.u mu» om m>on< mma
mma omsmm. woman. mu» Hm gonm was
HUOmmomm "mﬁnmﬂum>

mma «Hamm. novam. maaemm magnum
mm mmomb. vaNH.H mus om m>on< mma
mma mammm. Rammm. mu» Hm zoamm mo<
mommmmmm "manmwum>

NmH Hmomo. hmmma. maaemm muﬂpcm
mm mmmmm. smamo. mus om m>ona moa
mNH mmvmo. mvmvm. mu» Hm zoamm woe
ammmmmmm "manmﬂum>

«ma mommm. mmmsm.m maaemm muﬂucm
mm omqvm. mmmav.m mu» om m>on< mma
mNH omaom. Hamom.m mu» Hm zoaom moa
mmmum>m "magmaum>
z coaumﬂ>ma com: 0600 HOuomm

oumocmum

 

OB Bummmmm EBHE mmDOmO m0¢ ORE mEB m0 mZOHB<H>mo Qm<az<8m

mmOBU<m HEB
Qz< mz<mz JJMU ”valv mqm<9

97

Hm>ma mo.o map gm pcmoHMHcmHm*

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmvmm. mmHmH.H mmmmh. mmmom. Nmovm.HvH mmmom. zoumHOOm
mooho. vmvma.m maovm. mmman.a o>mmm.nm mmmah.a HUOmmomm
*bowmo. vomom.w Hmmho. mNmHm.m mawah.ama mmmam.m mommmmmm
ambmvo. mbbvo.v mvmmv. vHan.H mnmmm.o> wavan.a mmmmmmmm
mvmmm. momvm. mmmvm. onmaa. mommo.mo onmaa. momuw><
.m mo m Om cmmz Om cmmz Om m0 53m Om mo Esm mumaum>
.macmﬂm uouum wﬂwmnpoawm nounm mammauogwm
mmOBU<m HEB OB Bummmmm
:BHZ mmDOmU mu< 039 mmB 02Hm<mzoo mo Aoma.av EEHS msmmﬁlm m9<Hm¢>HZD ”wanv mqm<B
mmmma. ooooo.ona ooooo.m ovvmo.a aﬁwqo. mmcﬂaamuoz
.wﬂcoﬂm no mo m xouoaa msam> memz pmms
uouum mammnuoawm
mmOBU<m

WEB OB Bummmmm mEHz m0< m0 MUZ<Hm<> m0 mHm>J<Z¢ MB<Hm<>HBJDS .mDZHJJmBOE

umHIv mdm<9

98

1. There was a significance difference (p=.04572)
between age groups with respect to the differ—
ence score "PREPPERS". As may be noted from
the cell means presented in Table 4-14 the dif—
ference score of .24548 for the younger group
is significantly larger than the difference
score of .03187 for the older group. In other
words, while the PREParational factors was
more influential than the PERSonal for both
age groups, it was more so for the younger
group.

2. There was a significant difference (p = .02807)
between the age groups with respect to the dif-
ference score "PREPPROF". As may be noted from
the data in Table 4-14 the difference score of
.82817 for the group below 31 years is signi-
ficantly less than the difference score of
1.12524 for the older group. While the PROF—
essional factor was more influential than the
PREParational for both groups, it was more so
for the older group.

3. There was a tendency toward a significant
difference (p = .07603) between age groups with
respect to the difference score "PROFSOCI”.

As may be noted from the mean values presented
in Table 4-14 the positive difference score

of .17364 for the younger group indicates that
the SOCIal factor was more influential than the
PROFessional reason, while the negative differ-
ence score of -.04033 for the older group indi—
cates that for them the PROFessional factor was
more important than the SOCIal one.

4. There was no significant difference (p = .28458)
between age groups with respect to the differ-
ence score ”SOCIECON". In other words, the
relatively greater importance of the ECONomic
factor over the SOCIal factor is unchanged for
both groups.

Hypothesis 2B

 

There is no significant difference in the
level of influence of the ECONomic, SOCIal,
PROFessional, PREParational and PERSonal
factors with regard to the MARITAL status at
the time the respondents left teaching.

99

To test this hypothesis, the subjects of the study
were divided into two groups, those married at the time, and
those still single. Tables 4-17, 4-18 and 4-19 present the
results of the MANOVA testing of this hypothesis. Table 4~18
presents the results of the multivariate test of significance,
indicating a significant difference between the level of in—
fluence of the four difference scores for the two groups of
subjects. In other words, there was a significant overall
difference between married and single respondents. Conse-
quently, hypothesis 28 was rejected. Table 4-19 presents the
results of four univariate F-tests comparing the two marital
status groups with respect to the difference scores between
the five factors. The results of the univariate F-tests in—
dicate that:

1. There was no significant difference with re-
spect to the difference scores "PERSPREP” and
"SOCIECON". In other words, the relative
distance between the factors does not vary
much between married and single respondents.

2. There was a significant difference (p=.00274)
between marital groups with respect to the
difference score "PREPPROF". As may be noted
from the cell means presented in Table 4—17
the difference score of 1.01183 for the married
respondents is significantly larger than the
difference score of .56979 for the single.

In other words, while the PROFessional reason
to leave teaching was more important than the
PREParational for both groups, it was signi—
ficantly more so for the married respondents.

3. There was a significant difference (p=.01817)
between marital groups with respect to the dif-
ference score "PROFSOCI". As may be noted from
the cell means presented in Table 4-17, the dif—
ference score of.04287 for the married

100

 

 

mma ovmmm. manna. maaemm muapcm

ow mmmmm. maomo.- maocﬂm
was somnm. mmvma. omﬂuumz Hmuﬂumz
zoomHoom "mﬁnmﬂum>

«ma mmmmh. mmHHH. maaemm muﬂpcm
ow mapom. Amvmm. maocﬂm Hmpwumz
was mason. Ammvo. omﬂuumz Hmpﬂnmz
HoOmmomm ”magmaum>

mma «Hamm. Assam. mamemm muﬂncm
ow ommmm. msmom. mamcwm Hmpanmz
mad mmhom. mmaao.a omﬂuumz Hmpﬂumz
mommmmmm "manmwum>

mma Hmomm. Ammma. mamemm magnum
ow moovm. oomvm. mamcﬂm Hmpﬂumz
Nan mmmmm. Macon. omwuumz Hmpﬂumz
mmmmmmmm "manmﬂum>

NmH mommm. mmmsm.m maaemm muwncm
ow mmomm. mmoam.m maocﬂm Hmuﬂumz
Nag vmwam. mmomm.m omﬂunmz Hmuﬂumz
momum>< "magmaum>
z coaumﬂ>ma Unmpcmpm cmmz mpoo Houumm

 

meEU<m MIR

EEHZ meOmw mDB<Bm JmEHmﬂz 038 mmh m0 mZOHB<HE§uQm¢QZ<Bm QZ<

OE Bummmmm
mz<mz Jde

"NHIV mqm<8

 

lOl

Hm>ma mo.o on“ pm unmoﬂmﬂcoﬂmw

 

 

 

 

 

vamna. Nmnmw.a momwn. oommv.a mmmav.HvH mommv.a ZOOMHOOm

«namao. mmmmo.m ommmm. ommmo.m mmvam.mm mmmmo.m Huommomm

xvnmoo. mmmmm.m mbomm. oommo.o mmmmm.waa oommo.m mommmmmm

onmam. havmv. mmamv. mmmma. ovomh.nh mmmma. mmmmmmmm

mmamw. momom. mmhvm. mamma. momam.mm mamma. wmmum><

.m mo m Om Cmmz Om cmmz Om MO Esm Om mo Edm m#MHHm>
.macmam Houum mammcuoa>m uouum mammcpomwm
mmOBU<m WEB OB Bummmmm EBHZ

mmDOmO mDB<Bm JﬁBHm<2 038 m:& UZHmdmZOU mo AowH.HV :BHZ mBWMBIm m9<Hm<>HZD ”maxv mam¢8

Hm>ma mo.o mnp pm pcmoﬂwﬁcoﬂmw

*smooo. ooooo.oha ooooo.m Nmmam.m mmvmo. mmcHHHmpom

ll‘ .MHCmHm mm mm m xouma< msam> memz pmme

l, nonum mammnwom>m

 

mmOBU<m HEB OB Bommmmm
:EHZ mDB<Em J<EHm<z m0 mozmHm<> m0 mHm>J<z< MBde<>HBJDz .mUZHJJmBOE

”malv mdmde

102

respondents is significantly lower than

the score of .35437 for the single group.

In other words, while SOCIal reasons were
more influential than PROFessional reasons
for both groups to leave teaching, this was
markedly more so for the single respondents.

Hypothesis 2C

 

There is no significant difference in the

level of influence of the ECONomic, SOCIal,

PROFessional, PREParational, and PERSonal

factors with respect to the UNIVERSITIESat

which the respondents had received their

undergraduate degree.

As may be noted from Table 4-3 (Page 65), respondents
of this study received their degree from three universities:
Imam, Riyadh and Umm Al—Qura, with a few respondents indicat—
ing other institutions. Tables 4—20, 4—21 and 4—22 present
the results of the MANOVA testing this hypothesis. Table
4-21 presents the results of the multivariate test of signi—
ficance, indicating no significant difference between the
levels of influence of the four difference scores for the
three groups of universitngraduates. In other words, there was
no significant overall difference between those who graduated
from Imam, Riyadh, and Umm Al—Qura universities in the level
of influence of the five factors. Consequently, hypothesis
2C was not rejected. Table 4-22 presents the results of four

univariate F—tests comparing the three universitygroups with

respect to the difference scores between the five factors.

103

 

 

 

med Nmmmm. mmoma. maaemm muﬂpcm
mm mommn. svmsa. mucouaa as: momaaoo
om ovmhm. mmmso. nomsﬂm momaaoo
moa nmonm. ommam. emsH momaaoo
zoomHoom ”manmﬂum>

mna heave. mmmoa. maaemm muﬂucm
mm «ammo. mnvom. musoua< as: momaaoo
om mmvvm. omvaa. nomsﬂm oomaaoo
moa mmmvo. mammo. emeH momaaoo
Hoommomm "magmwum>

mus moamm. mmnom. maasmm mqucm
mm Hmsms. mmswn. musolaa as: mmmaaoo
om ammo». havms. comswm mmmaaoo
MOH vvmvm. momoo. amen mmmﬁaoo
Lommmmmm "manmﬂum>

mus mammo. nmmma. mamemm ouﬂpcm
mm mmmos. noona. musonaa ses mmmaaoo
om mmmvn. mmmmm. nomsﬂm momaaoo
moa omomm. momma. emeH momaaoo
mmmmmmmm umﬁnmﬂum>

mag ammmm. vnmmm.m maoemm muwucm
mm msmvn. mmvmﬁ.m musouaa as: mmmaaoo
om anamm. mmmmm.m acmsﬂm mmwaaoo
moa momom. mavmv.m emeH momaaoo
wmmum>< "manmﬂum>
z soapmﬂ>mo pumpcmwm cmmz moou Howumm

mmoeoam may 09 sommmmm 39H:

mmsomo .mmHeHmmm>Hzo mamas was no mone<H>ma omaozasm oza mzamz sumo "omnv mamae

104

 

 

 

 

 

moova. mammm.a hmamh. Hmmmm.a vmmmh.mma Homoa.m ZOOHHOOm
movmm. oaamm.a Nmovm. mmmmh. movmo.mm mwoam.a Huommomm
mmmom. mmhom.a mmmmo. mmmoa.a Hmamo.oma momom.m mommmmmm
Hommv. mmamm. mmamv. vahom. mmmmv.mh mmvmh. mmmmmmmm
mmmaa. on¢om.m momvm. NMhoh. Hamom.om wovmm.a mamum><
.m mo m Om cmmz Om cmmz Om Ho esm Om Ho EDm mpMHum>
.mﬂcmﬂm HOHHH mHmm£p0Q>E HOHMH mﬂmmLpOQ>E
mmOBO¢m HEB OB Bommmmm EBHZ mmaomw
.mHHBHmmH>HZD HHmEB HEB UZHH<QEOU HQ AmbH.NV EBHB mEmHBIm HB¢HH¢>HZD uNNIV HJH<B
mmmma. ooooo.ovm ooooo.oa mmmvm.a Neomo. mUCHHHmpom
.macmﬂm mo mo m xonao< msHm> memz paws
uouum mammnp0Q>E

 

mmOBU<H HEB OB QEdOHm
EBHZ HHHBmeH>HZD HEB HO HUZ<HH¢> HO mHmwg<z< HE<HH¢>HBJDZ .mOZHJHBBOE

"HNIQ HJH<B

105
The results of the univariate analyses indicate that none
of the difference was significant; in other words, while there
were some differences in the relative importance of the var-
ious factors between college graduates, it was not statisti-
cally significant.

Since there were more than two groups in the antecedent
variables, namelyg threeciffferent universities, various selected
contrasts were computed as well with the MANOVA program. In
Table 4-23 one such contrast was reported, comparing graduates
from the university in the capital, Riyadh, with those from
the two newer universities: Imam and Umm Al-Qura. Again, no

significant differences were found from these comparisions.

Hypothesis 2D

 

There is no significant difference in the

level of influence of the ECONomic, SOCIal,

PROFessional, PREParational and PERSonal

factors with regard to the MAJOR field of

study at the undergraduate level.

As can be seen from Table 4—3 (Page 65), respondents
indicated six fields of study: Islamic studies, Arabic,
English, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Mathematics.
As there were relatively few respondents who had studied
mathematics or natural sciences, these two groups were joined

into one category, science. Tables 4-24, 4-25, 4—26 and 4-27

present the results of the MANOVA testing of this hypothesis.

106

TABLE 4—23: SPECIAL GROUP CONTRASTS COMPARING GRAUDATE OF
UNIVERSITY OF RIYADH WITH OTHER TWO UNIVERSITIES
WITH RESPECT TO THE FACTORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard Signif.

Contrasts Coeff. Error T—Value of T.
Estimates for

Average

Riyadh VS Others .01807 .21247 .08507 .93230
Estimates for

PERSPREP

Riyadh VS Others .25997 .23651 1.09919 .27320
Estimates for

PREPPROF
Riyadh VS Others -.16100 .29827 -.53977 .59004
Estimates for

PROFSOCI
Riyadh VS Others -.05574 .26632 —.20929 .83447

Estimates for
SOCIECON

 

Riyadh VS Others .11708 .31834 .36780 .71347

 

107

 

NmH mmmm». mmama. mamsmm muﬂpcm
om vavm. omsmm. .om Hmﬂuom “ohm:
ma mommo.a mmmmm. mocmmum “ohm:
OH wmmmm. mamas. nmﬂaocm “ohm:
mm mammm. wmmmo.- unnmua “ohm:
ma bvnmh. Ammno.- smHmH “ohm:
Hoommoma "manmﬂum>

NmH «Hamm. Amwam. maoemm muﬂpcm
om mamms. mmmmm. .um ammoom “ohm:
ma vamwm. mmmam. mucmﬂom “ohm:
ca mmmmm. mmpmm. zmﬂamcm “ohm:
mm mmmam. assoo.a cabana Hemmz
Na mmmvm. momoo.a emHmH “ohm:
mommmmmm “mHQMHum>

mma Hmmmm. smmma. maoemm muﬂpcm
om mnmvm. mmmsm. .om Hmﬂuom uoﬂm:
ma momma. mammm. mocmﬂom “ohm:
ca omhms. 444mg. nmﬂamcm “ohm:
mm mmmmm. mamaa. oﬂnmua “ohm:
Na mosmm. momvo. emHmH hemmz
mmmmmmmm "manmmum>

mmH mommm. mmmnm.m maqemm muﬂucm
om mmemm. vooma.m .om Hmauom “ohm:
ma mmmmv. mavma.m mocmﬂom “ohm:
OH oammm. omvov.m cmwaocm Hemmz
mm maavm. mmvmm.m oﬁnmha henmz
Na mmmmm. smsmm.m emHmH 60mm:
ommuw>< "manmﬂnm>
z coHumH>wo cmmz mpou HOpomm

wumocmum

 

mmDOmO BHDBm HO

mmOBU<H HEB OB BUHmem EBHB

mQJHHH H>HH HEB HO mZOHB<H>HH HH<HZ<BH QZ< mZ<H2 JJHU "VNIV HJH<B

108

 

 

mma ovmmm. mHAHH. maoemm muﬂucm
om mmmme. mamso. .om Hmﬂuom “ohm:
ma ommao.ﬁ mmmmo. mucmmum “ohm:
OH soomo.a hvmmm.- nmﬂaocm “ohm:
mm mvmvm. Hommm. oﬂnmua “ohm:
we mavsm. mmmma. emHmH “ohm:
zoomHoom "manmmum>
z coﬂpmﬁ/mm cmmz mUOU uouomm
oumocmum

 

BZOU VNIV HJH<B

109

Table 4-25 presents the results of the multivariate test
of significance, indicating a significant difference between
the level of influence of the four difference scores for
the five groups of respondents having various undergraduate
majors. In other words, there was a significant overall
difference between respondents of different college majors
in the level of influence of the five factors. Therefore,
hypothesis 2d was rejected. Table 4-26 presents the results
of four univariate F—tests comparing the respondents with
various major fields of study with respect to the difference
scores between the five factors. The results of the uni—
variate F-tests indicate that only with respect to the dif—
ference scores of (PROFSOCI) there were significant differ—
ences. As may be noted from the cell means presented in
Table 4—24 the largest difference score of (.71875) was
found for those who studied English, i.e., social factors
were more influential from professional factors for this
group. For those who studied sciences or social sciences,
social factors were also more influential, though less so.
For those, finally, who studied Islam or Arabic, professional
factors were more important than social ones.

Again, as there were more than two groups in the
antecedent variable that were being compared in the univar—
iate F—tests, individual contrasts were possible. In the

present case, comparisons made were:

llO

Hm>ma mo.o may pm

unmoawﬂcmamx

 

 

 

 

 

ommNH. vmmmw.a mombh. oBBHv.H mmmma.hma Noaho.m zoumHoom
*omaoo. ommnv.v monom. mmmnm.m mwmvm.mm oommo.m Huommomm
oovmo. Bmwmm. Haomm. mvmmv. hmaam.mma mnamm.a mommmmmm
vmmom. Nmmom.a mnnmv. Hmmmm. momon.m> wmmmN.N mmmmmmmm
mmaoo. «wham.v oommm. omvmv.a mmmmm.mm mmmam.m wmmnm><
m Ho m Ow cwmz Om cmmz Om H0 55m m0 55m mpmﬂum>
.mﬂcmmm uouum wﬂwocuoa>z HOHHH mammnuoa>m
mmOBU¢H HEB OB BUHmmHm EBHB mmDOmo
BQDBm HO HQJHHH H>Hm HEB OZHH<HZOU HQ AHmH.HV EBHZ mBmHBIH HB<HH<>HZD "mmlv HJH<B
Hm>ma mo.o may um pamoﬂmacoﬂmm
4mmHHo. oooooaomo ooooo.om vbahm.a mmcmaamuom
.HHcmHm .m xouma¢ memz pmwB

uouum

mmmmnpommz

 

EBHZ BHDBH HO HHJHHH HO HUZ¢HH<>

HO HHHBJ<Z< HB<HH<>HBJDZ

mmOBU<H HEB OB BUHmmHm

.HOZHJJHBOE

nlev HJHHB

111

1. Respondents of Islamic studies versus the other
respondents
2. Respondents of language (Arabic and English)
versus respondents of natural and social sciences.
3. Respondents of Arabic versus respondents of English.
4. Respondents of natural sciences versus respondents
of social sciences.
The results of the special contrasts are presented in
Table 4-27. Considering the difference scores "PERSPREP"
and ”PREPPROF", no significant differences were found for
any of the special contrasts. Considering the difference
score "PROFSOCI", two significant contrasts were found, com—
paring (a) the respondents of Islamic studies with the rest
of the respondents, and (b) the respondents of Arabic with
those of English. In both cases, the overall direction of
the order of importance of the two factors, PROFessional
and SOCIal does not change, i.e., the social factor had a
stronger influence on the decision to leave teaching than
the professional one. However, in both cases, the differ-
ence between the two factors was stronger for those who
studied Islam, in the first contrast, or Arabic, in the
second. Considering the difference score "SOCIECON", one
significant contrast was found between those who had studied
Arabic and English. While for those who had studied Arabic,
the ECONomic reason was stronger than the SOCIal, to leave

teaching, this was noteably reversed for those who had studied

112

TABLE 4—27: SPECIAL GROUP CONTRASTS COMPARING SOME OF THE
FIELDS OF STUDY GROUPS WITH OTHERS WITH RESPECT
TO THE FACTORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard Signif

Contrasts Coeff. Error T-Value of T.
Estimates for

Average

Islam Vs Others .99818 .42932 2.32505 .02120
Lang. Vs. Sciences .58523 .24829 2.35706 .01951
Arabic Vs. Engl. .12026 .19594 .61377 .54016
Science Vs. Social

Science -.01584 .15250 —.lO388 .91738
Estimates for

PERSPREP

Islam Vs Others —.78700 .49480 -l.59053 .11350
Lang. Vs. Sciences—.3459l .28616 —l.20880 .22835
Arabic Vs Engl. -.07628 .22583 — .33779 .73592
Science Vs. Social

Science .11185 .17576 .63640 .52534
Estimates for

PREPPROF

Islam Vs. Others .66824 .63123 1.05862 .29121
Lang Vs. Sciences .05541 .36506 .15179 .87953
Arabic Vs. Engl. .30986 .28809 1.07554 .28360
Science Vs. Social

Science -.02250 .22422 -.10035 .92018
Estimates for

PROFSOCI

Islam Vs Others —l.47790 .53904 -2.74l71 .00674*
Lang Vs Sciences .10202 .31175 .32727 .74385
Arabic Vs Engl -.80409 .24602 -3.26841 .00130*
Science Vs Social

Science —.00361 .19147 - .01886 .98497
Estimates for

SOCIECON

Islam Vs Others .89423 .66607 1.34256 .18113
Lang Vs Sciences -.37611 .38521 -.97638 .33021
Arabic Vs Engl .78948 .30399 2.59706 .010l9*
Science Vs Social

Science -.03422 .23659 —.l4462 .88518

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level

113

English, i.e., the SOCIal reason influenced their decision

more than the ECONomic one.

Hypothesis 2E

 

There is no significant difference in

the level of influence of the ECONomic,

SOCIal, PROFessional, PREParational,

and PERSonal factors with regard to the

number of YEARS the respondents had

taught prior to leaving teaching.

As may be noted from Table 4-4 (Page 67) respondents
had taught from anywhere between zero and six years prior
to looking for another job. The respondents were grouped
into three categories: (a) zero through two years exper-
ience, (b) three and four years, and (c) five and more years.

Tables 4-28, 4—29 4—30 and 4—31 present the results of

the MANOVA testing of this hypothesis. Table 4-29 presents

the results of the multivariate test of significance, indi-
cating a significant overall difference between the level of
influence of the four difference scores for the three groups

of respondents with different lengths of teaching experience.
Thus, hypothesis 2E was rejected. Table 4-30 presents the results

of four univariate F-tests comparing the respondents with var-

ious length of prior teaching experience with respect to the

I114

 

 

Nmm ommmm. mamaa. madamm muﬂucm
mm mNmmm. mmmmm. +m ocmcomms mumm»
mm HNNAm. mmmmo. m.m mammumme mummy
we mmmmm. mmomo.- Nuo ocmzomme mama»
zoomHUOm "mﬂnmmum>
NmH mmmmm. mmHHH. mHQEmm mumucm
mm ommmm. Nammo.u +m mammumma mumm»
mm mmmmm. mmoma. m.m acmnomme mumm»
mm ommum. HAmNN. Nuo magnumma mummy
Hoommomm "manmmmm>
mmm «mama. mmmHm. maaemm mumucm
mm mmmmm. mmmmm.m +m mammomms mumm»
mm mommm. mommm. m.m ocmcomme mumm»
~m mmmmm. Hands. ~-o mammomme mumm»
mommmmmm “manmmum>
Nmm Hmmmm. mNmmH. maaemm mumucm
mm mmmmm. mmmmo. +m acmnomme mumm»
mm Hmmmm. mmmma. m.m ocmnumme mmmm»
mm vmhoh. wvmvm. Nlo ocﬁnummB mummy
ammmmmmm ”mmnmmum>
mma mommm. mmmmm.m maaemm mumucm
mm mmmNm. mmmcm.m +m ocmnomme mumm»
mm mmmmm. ~mmmm.m m.m acmcomms mumm»
Nm mmmmm. ~m~m~.m Nuo ocmnumme mumm»
mmmum>¢ “manmﬂum>
z coaumw>wo cmmz mpou uouumm
mummcmum

 

mmOBU<H HEB OB BUHmmHH EBHZ mmDOHO
HUZHHHHQXH OZHEU<HB HHHEB HEB m0 HZOHB<H>HQ Qm<az<Bm QZ¢ m2¢Hz AJHU umNIv HJH<B

115

 

oommo. vomcm.m wanes. Hmvmo.m mmmwv.hma mommm.m ZOUHHUOm

 

mmmmo. mmhhm.m vmmmm. «movm.a whoom.mm mmamo.m Huommomm
wowoo. mmmhm.w mvmmm. mmmmm.m wwwmm.maa oammv.m mommmmmm
mwvmo. omamv.m vmmav. mmmmv.a wamwo.m> mhhnm.m mmmmmmmm
mmmmo. vmmmm.m Bmmmm. mavao.a mvmmn.ow mNmNo.N mmmum><

H MD m Om Gmmz Om mez Om HO 53m Om MO Esm mummum>
.mﬂcoﬂm Mouum mammchme nouum mammLpOQ>m

 

HHOBUHH HEB OB BUHmmHH EBHZ mmDOmO HUZHH
IHHHXH OZHEU<HB HHHEB HEB OZHH<HZOU .HD AmbH.Nv EBHZ mBmHBIH HB<HH<>HZD "OMIV HJH<B

Hm>mH mo.o mam mm mcmummmcmmmm

 

 

mammoc. ooooo.mmm ooooo.oa mmmmm.m Homma. mommaampom
mmcomm mo mo m xouomm msam> memz umme
uouum mammcpoa>z

 

mmOBUQH HEB OB BUHHHHH
EBHZ HUZHHHmeH OZHEU<HB HO HUZ<HH<> HO mHmBJ<Z< HB<HH<>HBJDZ .mUZHJJHBOE umNIv HJH<B

J

116

difference scores between the five factors. The results

of the univariate F-tests indicate that:

1.

There was a significant difference

(p = .03449) between groups with
respect to the difference score of
”PERSPREP", such that with less prior
teaching experience, the distance be-
tween PREParational and PERSonal factors
increases. The special contrasts pre-
sented in Table 4—31 indicate that the
more difference is between those with
less teaching experience and the rest
of the respondents.

There was a significant difference

(p = .00868) between groups with
respect to the difference score
"PREPPROF", such that with more teach-
ing experience, the distance between
the PROFessional and PREParational fac-
tors increases. The special contrasts
presented in Table 4-31 indicate that
there was a significant difference be-
tween all the three groups.

There was a nearly significant differ-

ence (p = .05889) between groups with
respect to the difference score "PROFSOCI”
such that with increasing teaching exper-
ience, the distance between the SOCIal

and PROFessional factors decreases, and,
for those with most teaching experience;

it actually reverses,i.e., the PROFessional
factor becomes more important than the
SOCIal. The special contrasts presented in
Table 4-31 indicate that the larger differ-
ence was between those with more teaching
experience and the others.

There was a significant difference (p = .03200)
between groups with respect to the difference
score "SOCIECON", such that with less prior
teaching experience, the distance between the
ECONomic and SOCIal factors decreases, and,
for those with least teaching experience,

it actually reverses, i.e., the SOCIal factor
becomes more important than the ECONomic.

The special contrasts presented in Table 4-31
indicate that the larger difference was be-
tween those with less teaching experience and
the others.

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4-31: SPECIAL GROUP CONTRASTS COMPARING SOME OF THE
TEACHING EXPERIENCE GROUPS WITH OTHERS WITH
RESPECT TO THE FACTORS
Standard Signif

Contrasts Coeff Error T—Value of T
Estimates for

Average

0-2 VS 3+ -.36662 .18271 —2.00655 .04630
3,4 VS 5+ —.l344l .10712 —1.25477 .21120
Estimates for

PERSPREP

0—2 VS 3+ .49275 .20304 2.42685 .01622*
3,4 VS 5+ .09739 .11904 .81809 .41439
Estimates for

PREPPROF
0-2 VS 3+ —.56085 .25519 -2.19775 .02925*
3,4 VS 5+ —.30862 .14962 -2.06271 .O4059*
Estimates for

PROFSOCI
0-2 VS 3+ .32098 .22945 1.39889 .16358
3,4 VS 5+ .24868 .13453 1.84856 .06617
Estimates for

SOCIECON
0—2 VS 3+ —.57303 .27477 —2.08548 .03844*
3,4 VS 5+ -.23958 .16110 -l.48718 .13873

 

*Significant at the 0.05 level

118

Hypothesis 2F

 

H : There is no significant difference in the
level of influence of the ECONomic, SOCIal,
PROFessional, PREParational, and PERSonal
factors with regard to the size of the city
where they taught.

From Table 4-2 (Page 64), it may be gathered that the

response alternatives for this variable, did not vary suf-

ficiently to warrant an analysis using this variable.

Respondents' Comments

 

The respondents were provided with some space at the
end of the questionnaire for their suggestions and comments
with regard to factors that influenced their decision to
leave the profession of teaching.

One hundred and five (105) respondents made 446 dif—
ferent statements about the factors which influenced them to
leave teaching. Although these statements are closely re—
lated to what has been elicited in the questionnaire, it
still seems appropriate to consider them separately in this
chapter under data analyses.

These statements are classified into the five cate-
gories of factors previously discussed and the total number
of the statements in each category is presented in Table 4-32,
Following are some examples of the respondents' perception

of the profession and their reasons for leaving it.

 

119

TABLE 4-32: DISTRIBUTION OF THE FORMER TEACHERS' COMMENTS
BY THE FIVE FACTORS

 

 

Categories Number of Comments
Professional factors related comments 132
Social factors related comments 119
Economic factors related comments 112
Preparational factors related comments 51
Personal factors related comments 32

TOTAL 446

 

in

120

Comments Relating to Professional Factors

 

1. The principal plays a major role in the satis—
faction or dissatisfaction of the teacher. He,
therefore, should be chosen with care.

2. In the first few years I was very happy with
teaching, but for the following reasons I tried
hard to transfer to a non-teaching job:

a. Heavy work load of the teacher,
b. crowded classes, and
c. lack of appreciation of my work as a teacher.

3. I was required strictly to adhere to the
textbook and complete the syllabus within a
prescribed period without regard to whether
students learn anything or not.

4. The teacher is required to adhere to cer—
tain methods of teaching whether he believes
in them or not.

5. The teachers are not allowed to discipline
the students, which encourages them to be
careless.

6. I was required, as an Arabic teacher, to
teach many Arabic classes, assign and correct
a lot of homework without regard to whether
I had time to take care of it or not. I
found that if I wanted to do a thorough job
of it, I did not simply have the time. The
only solution was either to do a poor job of
it all or quit teaching. I preferred the
latter.

7. If you have a good relationship with the

principal you will be considered an active
and effective teacher, and vice versa.

Comments Relating to the Social Factors

 

1. Why should I continue in the teaching pro—
fession when I know that the profession has
been accorded a low social status, not only

121

today but also since the distant past, when
he was called the "instructor of children",
thriving on the charity of society?

Teachers are never shown any appreciation.
How come they are never interviewed on TV,
and their views elicited by the print media?

It is impossible for me to remain in teaching
when I see my own students as army officers

and engineers honored and appreciated by the
people more than I, even though I serve society
more than they?

Teachers need to be respected and appreciated
before anything else in order that they may
continue in the teaching profession, other—
wise the current teachers will very soon move
to non-teaching jobs.

Money is not everything for the teacher, but
teachers do look for reasonable respect of
society and prestige.

Comments Relating to the Economic Factors

 

I used to work day and night as a teacher and
I never got paid for my extra work but now
whenever I work extra time I get paid for it.

Teachers make a fixed amount of money every
month, unlike people in other professions whose
earnings vary from month to month on account of
payments for extra work, business trips, etc.

Teachers simply haven't got the time to think
of private business, like other professionals,
to supplement their income.

I believe that if the teachers' emoluments
increased, the leaving teachers, such as my—
self, would never be thinking of moving to a
non-teaching job, because teaching is an inter-
esting profession.

122

Comments Relating to the Preparational Factors

1.

Most teachers, I believe, originally did not
have the intention to become teachers, but
they went in for teaching as their GPA was
too low for other specializations.

I was, in all honesty, not qualified to
teach. Even though I was prepared by
training for the job; psychologically I
was unprepared to teach kids.

The college supervisor who used to accompany
us during student-teaching turned me off
completely from teaching by his method of
supervision. In fact, I have to come to hate
teaching ever since he asked me to sit down
and took over my class.

Comments Relating to the Personal Factors

 

1.

My friends who are teachers at school used
to tell me not to be a teacher.

I could not simply continue teaching as my
doctor advised me that I should not teach.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The trend of secondary school citizen teachers leaving
the profession in Saudi Arabia has generated much concern,
especially within the profession. It is apparent that until
educational authorities identify what is contributing to or
influencing the exodus of citizen teachers from the profession
of teaching in secondary education in Saudi Arabia, the solu—
tion cannot be provided. It is to this question that this
study gives its attention.

In order to identify these factors, answers were
sought to the following questions.

1. According to the teachers who have left
the profession, how did economic, pro—
fessional, social, preparational, and
personal factors influence their decision
to leave? Specifically, what are their
perceptions regarding these factors as to
their influence in this decision?

2. What is the relationship, if any, between
the above factors and the following demo-
graphic characteristics:

. age when they left teaching

marital status when they left teaching
number of years in teaching

size of the city in which they taught
institution of preparation

. college major

1150902069.)

The following steps were followed to answer these

questions.

123

 

124

1. A review of the related literature was conducted
to identify the factors that seem to influence teachers'
decisions to leave the profession. This review made it pos-
sible to refine the research questions and give major di—
rection to the development of the research instruments neces-
sary for the researCh.

2. A questionnaire with one hundred and nine items
was developed as an instrument for collecting the data. The
items of the questionnaire were categorized into six cate—
gories.

a. Demographic data, 17 items

b. Economic factors, 17 items

c. Professional factors, 32 items

d. Personal factors, 18 items

e. Social factors, 10 items

f. Preparational factors, 15 items

3. Two hundred former secondary school teachers were
randomly selected from a population of 461 former teachers,
who graduated between 1970/71 and 1979/80 school years and
taught for no less than one year, to participate in the study.

4. All people selected for the study were personally
contacted and delivered the questionnaire by the researcher.
A total of 182, or 91 percent of the sample, completed ques-

tionnaires were returned.

125
5. The data were then analyzed in relation to the
research questions. The ”Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS)" was used for

facilitating the statistical techniques.

Findings

 

Demographic Data

 

The personal data indicated that the typical teacher
who left the profession was (1) less than 31 years of age,
(2) married, (3) has two or fewer children, and (4) continues
to live in the same city that he taught in.

The educational data indicated that the typical teacher
who left the profession was majoring in Islamic studies or
Arabic language.

Finally, the professional data indicated that the
typical teacher who left the profession was (1) teaching his
subject of specialization, (2) teaching in a middle school,
(3) in the profession for four or less than four years, (4)
receiving pay in the seventh salary scale, (5) willing to
accept a lower salary when transfering to a non—teaching job,
(6) stable in nature, and (7) generally in a non-teaching

educational job.

Rank Orders of the Factors

 

The level of influence of the five categories of

factors is as follows:

126

a. The factors that have had the strongest influence
on the teachers' decision to leave teaching were economic,
social, and professional factors. The difference between
their overall means is so small that their classification
as the strongest influence on the decision of the teachers
to leave teaching is reasonable, and

b. the factors that have had little or no influence
upon the teachers' decision were preparational and personal
factors. As in the first group of factors, the difference
between the overall means is small and their inclusion under

one category, least influenced, is justified.

First Hypothesis

 

The following null hypothesis was tested in order to
determine whether there was a significant difference in the
level of relative influence of the five factors upon the
respondents' decision to leave teaching.

HO: There is no significant difference in

the level of influence attributed to
the economic, professional, social,
personal, and preparational factors by
former secondary school teachers in
their decision to leave teaching.

By testing this hypothesis, results show that there
was a significant difference between the five factors in

their importance for leaving teaching. Therefore, the first

hypothesis was rejected.

127

Second Hypothesis

 

The second null hypothesis was tested to determine
if there was a significant difference in the level of in-
fluence of the economic, professional, social, personal,
and preparational factors, with regard to the following
characteristics of the respondents:

a. age when they left teaching

b. marital status when they left teaching

c. number of years in teaching

d. size of the city in where they taught

e. institution of preparation

f. college major

This general hypothesis was broken down into six sub-
hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2A

 

HO: There is no significant difference in
the level of influence of the economic,
social, professional, preparational,
and personal factors with regard to the
age at which respondents left teaching.
Test of this hypothesis shows that there was no signi-
ficant overall difference in the level of influence of the
five factors between those who were below and those who were

above 30 years of age at the time they left teaching. Con—

sequently, hypothesis 2A was not rejected.

128

Specifically, the results of the Univariate F-tests
indicate that:

.Both age groups were influenced by preparational
factors more than personal factors.

.The younger group were influenced by preparational
factors more than the older group.

.Both groups were influenced by professional factors
more than preparational factors.

.The older group were influenced by professional
factors more than the younger group.

.The younger group were influenced by social factors
more than the professional factors.

.The older group were influenced by professional
factors more than the social factors.

.Both groups were influenced by economic factors

more than the social factors.

Hypothesis 2B

 

HO: There is no significant difference in
the level of influence of the economic,
social, professional, preparational,
and personal factors with regard to the
marital status at the time the respondents
left teaching.

Test of this hypothesis shows that there was a signi—
ficant overall difference between married and single respon-

dents. Consequently, hypothesis 2B was rejected.

 

129

Specifically, Univariate F-tests indicate that:

.Both marital groups were influenced by preparational
factors more than personal factors, and economic factors more
than social factors.

.Both groups were influenced by professional factors
more than the preparational factors.

.The married group were influenced by professional
factors more than the single group.

.Both groups were influenced by the social factors
more than the professional factors.

.The single group were influenced by social factors

more than the married group.

Hypothesis 2C

 

H : There is no significnt difference in
the level of influence of the economic,
social, professional, preparational,
and personal factors with respect to
the universities at which the respon—
dents had received their undergraduate
degree.

Test of this hypothesis shows that there was no signi-
ficant overall difference between those who graduated from
Imam, Riyadh, and Umm Al Qura Universities in the level of
influence of the five factors. Therefore, hypothesis 2C was
not rejected.

Specifically, the results of the Univariate F—tests

and the special contrasts test indicate that the graduates

130
of the three Universities were not significantly different
in the influences of the five factors. In other words,
the order of importance did not differ significantly from
the order presented in the first hypothesis section for all

the graduates of the three Universities.

Hypothesis 2D

 

H ° There is no significant difference in
the level of influence of the economic,
social, professional, preparation, and
personal factors with regard to the major
field of study at the undergraduate level.

Test of this hypothesis shows that there was a signi—
ficant overall difference between respondents of different
college majors in the level of influence of the five factors.
Thus Hypothesis 2D was rejected.

Specifically, multivariate F—tests indicate that the
order of importance did not differ significantly from the
order presented in the first hypothesis section for all the
five majors' groups except with only the difference score
of (PROFSOCI). The English, Science, and Social Sciences
majors' groups were influenced by social factors more than
professional factors, while the Islamic studies and Arabic

majors' groups were influenced by professional factors more

than the social factors.

131

The results of the special contrasts test indicate
that:

.The order of importance of the "PERSPREP" and
"PREPPROF" did not differ significantly from the order pre-
sented in the first hypothesis section for all the majors'
groups.

.Islamic studies and Arabic groups as well as others
were influenced by the social factor more than professional
factors, but the differences between these two factors were
stronger for those who studied Islamic studies or Arabic from
other groups.

.While for those who had studied Arabic, the economic
factor was stronger than the social factor, this was noteably

reversed for those who had studied English.

Hypothesis 2E

 

H ' There is no significant difference in
the level of influence of the economic,
social, professional, preparational,
and personal factors with regard to
the number of years the respondents
had taught prior to leaving teaching.
Test of this hypothesis indicates that there was
a significant overall difference between the level of influ-
ence of the five factors for the three groups of respondents

with different lengths of teaching experience. Consequently,

hypothesis 2B was rejected.

 

132

Specifically, the Univariate F-Tests shows that:

.The less teaching experience group and the other
groups were influenced by preparational factors more than
personal factors, but the difference between these two
factors were stronger for those with less teaching eXper-
ience.

.The more teaching experience group and the other
groups were influenced by the professional factors more
than preparational factors but the difference between these
two factors were stronger for those with more teaching ex-
perience.

.Unlike other groups, the more teaching experience
group were influenced by professional factors more than the
social factors.

.Unlike other groups, the less teaching experience
were influenced by social factors more than the economic
factors.

The results of special contrast test indicate that:

.The more difference, with regard to the difference
score of "PERSPREP" was between those with less teaching
experience and the rest of the respondents.

.There was a significant difference, with regard to
the difference score of "PREPPROF” between all the three
groups.

.The larger difference, with regard to the difference

score of "PROFSOCI" was between those with more teaching ex-

I

perience and the rest of the respondents.

 

133

.There was a significant difference, with regard
to the difference score of "PREPPROF" between all the three
groups.

.The larger difference, with regard to the difference
score of ”PROFSOCI" was between those with more teaching ex—
perience and the rest of the respondents.

.The larger difference, with regard to the difference
score of ”SOCIECON“ was between those with less teaching ex—

perience, and the rest of the respondents.

Hypothesis 2F

H ' There is no significant difference in
the level of influence of the economic,
social, professional, preparational,
and personal factors with regard to the
size of the city where the respondents
had taught at the time they left teaching.

From Table 4—2 (See Page 64), it may be gathered that

the response alternatives for this variable did not vary

sufficiently to warrant an analysis using this variable.

Conclusions

In relation to the specific problem stated in Chapter

I the following conclusions were made based on the analysis

I

of the data presented in this study.

 

l.

134

Economic, social and professional factors had the

strongest influence on the teachers' decision to leave teach-

ing. The differences between these factors were not noteable.

Specifically, those factors that appear to be of the

greatest influence were:

a.

b.

2.

Little advancement opportunities

When compared with other government jobs, teachers
did not have the opportunities to supplement
their income by business travel, allowance for
overtime, and opportunities to earn some allow—
ance through profession-related activities.

Low social status and prestige especially when
compared with most of the other governmnent jobs.
Heavy work load.

Lack of involvement in program and policy making.
The appreciation of the teachers' job, by educa—
tional authorities, parents, students and the
public as whole, was not consistent with what
they feel they deserve.

Preparational and personal factors had little

influence upon the teachers' decision to leave teaching and

there was

3.

no significant difference between them.

There is a strong indication that the teachers

accept the lower scale of pay because of the fact that the

promotion in the long run from one scale to another in a

135
non-teaching setting is much faster and much more rapid
than in the teaching profession. For this consideration,
leaving teachers were willing to be placed in a salary grade
lower than they had in the teaching profession.

4. Teachers who left the profession after a long
teaching experience seem to be influenced by professional
factors more than the social factors. Teachers who left
the profession after a short teaching experience seem to be
influenced by social factors more than the economic factors.

5. The first four years of the teachers' stay in
the profession are very crucial in their decision to stay
in the profession or to quit it. More than 60 percent of
the respondents taught four years or less.

6. The teachers who left the profession of teaching
tended to do so after they get married. That is, 78.0
percent of the respondents are married.

7. The majority of the leaving teachers preferred
stability in their professions, and had to leave the teach-

ing profession for reasons other than the wanderlust.

Recommendations

 

The following recommendations are made by the re—
searcher on the basis of the findings of this study.
1. Because this study reveals that, the exodus of

secondary school teachers were caused mainly by economic,

136
social, and professional factors. Therefore, any plan to
stem the exodus of citizen teachers from the profession
should take these factors into consideration and not neglect
any one of them.

2. It appears from this study that the teachers'
salary is competitive. However, after a few years in the
profession, teachers' income appears to be somewhat lower
because the teachers do not have the opportunities to supple-
ment their income by business travel, promotion, allowance
for overtime, and opportunities to earn some allowance through
profession-related activities. Thus an increase of such
fringe benefits for the teachers seem to be highly needed to
help in the retention of the teachers.

3. Other government agencies have been able to attract
teachers by providing them with more fringe benefits such as
rewards for greater efficiency, health and recreational acti—
vities, and others. Educational authorities should consider
similar possibilities for teachers.

4. This study identifies the social factors as being
among the most influential in the decision of teachers to
leave teaching. Thus, the public should accept the teachers
in a friendly way, make them know they are wanted, and re-
spect them as important citizens. This can be done through
different means such as interviewing the teachers on TV and

their views should be elicited by the print media.

 

137

5. Professional factors seem to be of much influence
upon the teachers decision to leave the profession. There-
fore, educational authorities, superintendents, supervisors,
and principals, should realize this and evaluate carefully
the schools in order to make adjustments as needed to insure
good working conditions and pleasant relationships. More—
over, educational authorities should recognize their role in
defining duties and assisting in social adaptation.

6. In order for the teachers to do their best teach-
ing, they should be given the necessary freedom to act and
to teach, as well as their creative ability should be en-
couraged. Consequently, they should have a voice in policy
and program making.

7. Much of the professional dissatisfaction exper—
ienced by leaving teachers grew out of unfavorable relations
with their administrators. A two-way communication betWeen
the teacher and administrator should be developed. It should
include a full realization of each other's problems.

8._ Most of the respondents complained about the un—
fairness of the reports written about them. Thus"there
should be a reliable rating scale for teachers. Principals
and supervisors should be skilled in using it". This will
"keep therteacher aware of how he is doing and where he stands,
and promote stability in the profession".

9. This study reveals that the respondents believe

they were asked to teach more than what they think they were

 

138
able to do. Therefore, some attention should be given to
the teachers' work load. One way to minimize the teacher's
work load is by decreasing his workload as his experience in
teaching increased. This way will also encourage him to stay
in the profession.

10. Student teachers often do not have the opportun-
ities "tosee the underlying tasks and assignments that make
up a sizeable segment of the teacher's total job”. Thus,
“thereashould be closer contact between school districts and
teacher—training institutions so that student—teachers would
have a better idea of what to expect in teaching".

11. Teacher—training institutions should apply more
rigorous selective measures in admitting students to be
teachers and attempt to make them not ”just teachers” but
proud members of a respected profession.

12. Pre-service training will also help in retention
of the teachers, that is, the teacher—training institutions
should eliminate some of the weaknesses of the teachers by
W1) more educational psychology courses, (2) wider field
base and/or more practical approach to the nature of class—
room teaching, (3) methods courses must increase the time
and effort spent in translating the theory into practice and
(4) a reordering of time or priorities needs to be done so
that the more essential needs can be met".

13. In the light of this study, the number of the

teachers who left the profession after four or less than four

139
years was much greater than those who left after five or
more years. Consequently, beginning teachers need to be
placed in as positive situations as possible and the edu—
cational authorities should concentrate their efforts to
stem the exodus on these initial four years of the teachers'

stay in the profession.

Suggestions for Further Research

 

The following suggestions for further research ap-
pear, as a result of this study, to be appropriate for ob—
taining important additional information.

1. A study should be done to determine why so many
graduates of teacher training institutes never enter the
teaching profession after spending so much time preparing
for it.

2. "An intensive analysis of the working conditions
in teaching compared with those of other occupations for
which teachers qualify may reveal more retention measures
that school leaders should adOpt".

3. Many teachers never leave the profession but con—
tinue as teachers. Research should be conducted to determine
why teachers stay in the profession.

4. Teachers have repeatedly indicated that they have
been aseked to do more than what they think they are able
to do. Therefore, a study to concentrate on this issue

should be conducted.

5. It is felt
possible contribution
ers. In other words,
tribute to helping to

teaching.

140
that there should be a study of the
of the mass media to retaining teach—
to what extent can the mass media con-

stem exodus of citizen teachers from

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

   

APPENDIX A

ENGLISH AND ARABIC VERSIONS
OF THE COVER LETTER AND THE
QUESTIONNAIRE

“Q.-

 

 

141
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND LETTERS EAST LANSING ‘ MICHIGAN ' 48824
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND

ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN LANGUAGES

WELLS HALL

February 25, 1982
To whom it may concern:

I hereby certify that Mr. Saleh H. Assaf has translated into the Arabic
language the English version of the questionnaire used as a tool in his
research for his doctoral dissertation. I have seen photocopies of English
and Arabic versions of the questionnaire titled "Factors influencing
secondary school male teachers in Saudi Arabia to leave teaching.”

The translation is accurate, and reliable. The cover letter as well as the
questionnaire was translated into Arabic in the same format, except that
it follows the standard writing style for the Arabic language.
I do wish him the best of luck.
Abdulghaffar Eldamatty
W W Micmgan Stateunzvaraky
. a: We”? of Linguistics mound
Instructor of Arab1 C and African Languages

A6) ‘3 Wells Hall
East Lansing Michigan 48824

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

   

142

HJJIWJJI 31.11 r__.... .

fJ____"¢~‘JI " L3,.1._..._H "Quid! :91
. .3.a._, 4...;de 4.1.“ ’Lo-JJ r___€.._..L; r31...“

3.10.“ 15.—La...“ Us 'a_,.,.-u.n_, leim 3.1.le ....Usufpmuqm 6...):
U____J; (3...: 1”an t_m.st.._~.;l_, 9...)...41 Q__,.._,.\...H ”3H. 0.. 3.3,...41
luv; 3..L..3n J..|_,..JI Q. 7131‘, ol ”.1.qu (.5) . War-...)! ﬂ; 0,9.»le
. 3.3.13.6)» 0...?!lequ upwmsﬁmwjm‘ gm: £03.31.“

0 ‘SJJaJl ‘L_"..i_“...3ll U'J" HILL—31.31.... (31.1.3) L?“ AMI JJéJl 45.33;" “L;

(Hijjsijg L,x..H WI 4.1le 3.3,...»ny Iquiglj

° LL?“ u-‘d-M" J54); OS 9.9-l.) Y Iii—l: J'a-I J.» 59,,...J,_ J

st__:._3.~..>u ISAwa WaitiqdéijMOl 03H bustsjjwlb
4.1.9:.) ”5.2,.“ 3.)! L..s. 1.2.3.5 L.~._.3_,.,..U=.~..:y 3.3.}. ml OI lathJJLa-gswl
dL—eleQJlfSL;

cL__J;>.l alel t.sl v.1. L.L.3 3.1)le a.» Csumuklwl Ql ”J 131 ; Liszt.

--.“... ~

.___f..§J_lI

143

 

| u.
A A. . J
O.

Q!

C X131». 5.3,. mum) 3.4m: 3.13“»: v.1; 3.9m ‘LsJJI

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .‘

QHJLJIESJ; L434; al)—...: QLS #5-}..___.

Dewy-31$ Dew—21 Disc—u DY°—Y‘l Dre—H Bro-Ti

 

b—‘--

D so“ 6:34-

‘0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ __-‘

 

 

 

 

90...lech L....3_‘..c JLJJmﬁll we)“ 0L5 rJ—l"

{:1de swotsu. V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.-..--a

swﬁjﬂtsbl angels.» 3.3.995: 9..-;

UJJJI r.I buts. :1 ”all," 3.3..Ls El ruin mu: 2

( ) " Lassa New" Lao—"J

 

 

 

 

 

 

P‘A-“
..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- ------ CIW‘l‘i/li” [:3 lY‘lA/‘H [:1 \MV/M D__\_\‘_‘l-‘l_/_‘1_\/__C_Q_l_\'_‘l°/‘l_l "i“-
D‘LL—HOLJJ Y wNIbﬂlmelﬁlbLo—‘I 1
I! Ira—Le EjLu—JA—J 3.3.J Elwf'i-U ‘ II WLIQl—“IJJ
(; )" ..sz.”pr 1.3.x. I! i 3.4:...“ (334.:

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________ J—--- .1

 

erJI . 144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or)
UJWJAJEESJE.HJ.;.H L'LSJJ L...).3.s_A
I

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3 n-

.WJJJJI L2...§U..SJ.'.L;_.JI 6....JIL5.9.'..'.S Hfé' U.Lc_\

 

$0....le 4.9., WLSSJIGLJ‘; L+..§c.l..i.g;.".Jl 3.....JlgsJ.‘.‘.S 3.3).,51 u-b-ll'

 

 

 

 

3.ng LJA.‘ ...?

 

 

 

9 HJJL—LHF—SEA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«3.5.3.1.... :3 :3 1:1 1:1 :31

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘4 )"Lszsmustl" Ls)... Dy. Dq DA ADV E11

3.9-H Cal—9...! JP LHWJA.’C‘...SG_.JIA...AAJ10..9.6.9M U.S.: f.) IJI _\\"

[:1 L... m --.-

 

...-....--------------nulna-----n-un---.uu-un-—u..—...-...-.c----.¢-----.¢---.--c——-—--c-n----.----------u---————--h
- u. - .4

<2 w_'3.,.,ssﬁmjl 3.._,.<..>_3_3.s_, rs.,_,.._,,._,.._--..H.—.s_,,.:¢,l a..-”
......wa 44.. 3.3.2) .sL. Jul .1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I- -‘ 4

\c‘

-‘d --

IS

 

 

 

 

 

145

C ,..- -
. AQLSJIWJG, 3.9L.

( )" LBJSJ‘teJ-J'" Ups-é D tum—4.2.519...» a at)”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Llo

YUJLaJluLmUJMQIqJJJA-H
N f——""

LLIJJIUJ HJLHJJUJIMJQLAJIWHJLJQIUJJALJA_\Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to

mi

 

 

 

 

146

 

3......Lsin sum 3.31...“ ..L...,.L..-..JI CL!“ -4.)le J53.“ c._st.._,_n

0 .tLglJcaamUL‘JI WI LLa-YIUJ

X

. 3.u"'JSU.Ls_IJJS.L-_..?I
. ij1dfwml Jsl 5.3.9.1; 3.,..-.,...¢L:.L_>I 4...?!
33.3.3111 5,3.“ uswjmidjsuslﬁljjs DOIM31¢G 51.3.3l

M44

 

lg

- - - L...” ‘l .3...
nglmfgsdﬂ .2— «5

(ode X

 

I,

 

 

 

 

 

 

:‘1 “JJJ‘h‘J Jar-U has-"H «SJ—3 ‘4?L$J-3
i o i Y Y I
MOE-..m ugh-:43“) w! l
NHJJJJIAR 6_..2..,, IAQHJELSULJI
.3_....,>.Il er—H'"n waééJlgilJ r
”NJJ—t-J‘ 0.....erth .( ..
.11.. ~_ ,5}?! 3.3.31 DJ! JL.3....""YI C‘
”.33.: )LmLS l_,.L.a..u..5¢.u’. @SJIUUAEJI
O
U”:J':1§AJIU“J'\‘°JIE‘°H‘JIJJIH-9Au Q—O CC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

147
,J___..IJ.:JI . Q:
...... ...... -. ...... w. .. 1 m
o i l“ I ) :1
L d
1
:9
csl..|.\.'.‘...l dL...o,,...J_,
”gig“! 9.3.35.4!) WI ‘35 Y
W dLi-‘é-‘J‘ u—L‘téJ-t Wmﬁ i
. 0...).le (
n f‘JJ 6‘)va ail-bl J...‘ 4?)?! 3’ A < O
”1.4:.“ 3.5.5wa») r—’ ‘l
, <1
. ”J3; H...|
I: (V

szwpdbjléssﬁy

 

 

 

oafSI 54);...“ P‘u.u'_)w“.‘:".) H
GJW‘WJN‘HJ‘J (A
cJJJI 0.. U.S. LanSAI 3.9m; H
n {SJW n J, ’ I. fluilI (q
J
. I.» 3.1.4.3ij 1.3);JlkaJ ll”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___-___.,.;J_n

 

 

 

 

148
0...;le L9); L145 J—ﬂw‘ J—-:" '64—--‘ :31 C
r‘l - ' ﬂ u; 3 #‘J‘J‘ 1L3 Oq/
. z Y 41‘

 

...l . .. “L5 '5; .. I I bJN—Jl b) .3. u

’(l

 

 

 

 

 

9

I..L.._3.5L13J gstwl Muff.
I . "|.. I"

 

 

lo

 

9c

 

H, IA éIJJJl 9.30..”qu L31.J.u.3m.mL.. 5J3! 3...L...:._3| LLJ. ,5" 3.,.L.~.s._. N5... 01 3J1

 

1,..- L... W... 0.. _.-.,.. ...-7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I L§JIJI J...‘ U.“ r‘ v?
..L...L.... JJs. bJJWJwIMM
61.))” o " " ' ,Y Y i
“J J.L_.s._..LLJJI
)A
H

 

QJLLJJI .J..lJ,.-.Jl ,JJ; .31;L13.>)L. O; 9.4:... 31¢».ng ;.~.L.E.>)L.

------ ==

 

141
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND LETTERS EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND

ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN LANGUAGES

WELLS HALL

February 25, 1982
To whom it may concern:

I hereby certify that Mr. Saleh H. Assaf has translated into the Arabic
language the English version of the questionnaire used as a tool in his
research for his doctoral dissertation. I have seen photocopies of English
and Arabic versions of the questionnaire titled ”Factors influencing
secondary school male teachers in Saudi Arabia to leave teaching.“

The translation is accurate, and reliable. The cover letter as well as the
questionnaire was translated into Arabic in the same format, except that
it follows the standard writing style for the Arabic language.
I do wish him the best of luck.
Abdulghaffar Eldamatty

2 g 5 V W Michigan Stateumvalﬂy

M Department of Lingublb «some

Instructor of Arabic and/thanLengwﬂxs

A6) 5 Wells Hail
East Lansing; Michigan 48824

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

142

rJ___".>..J\ " [Ht—....“ "wa1 :5)!
......J ......LsJi, .1413.ij r__s._._i.. .31...”

3..J.._n 35.1....119 2..J.L:.n_, '3..I=....J:..Jl 3.1.3.11 ..-LJLEEG... y
”...—L. i'J..s i”..t...~..i L_....t...-...iJ o..._,....li 0....J...Ji L,.3,,.__3.. 0.. 3.1,...“
134,... 3....L..5H J..1J..Ji o. ibs-1,, ol ”.1...” L..sJ . o...J..Ji J... WJMI
. 3.3.1.3..5Jsi WuJinssJi wagsﬁqinEJi Jun-1.1 Jawi

. 5.5.11 31.-1.3.1.31 L,1. .31:..L?L. ..LbJ L1,... 3J3...“ JJsJi 5.13:2, 3...,»L.

.3L.“.'..:...Yl lﬁvJdeL?’ stwdy‘W‘WJw‘dJ-QQSIGJH‘J‘WJM‘J‘J-su-s

a IJJ__';S.1.JJ UhlJSEQJKgL-ﬂ my). 31.3.3511 1.1.591 JSAJL. J...,>.JI 0.,
3 1.31-e)“ L,.5L31.....i Jssscjil 0.1.)! 13.1. Jé-TLJJALQIMJ

FL_:..L“.....YI 130.13% wésusemewuoi o3“ .31...UsL._.JJU._LL
3.4.9.3.) rJSLIJL-Jl 3J1 L...S. lﬁS-LQJCABJY Luca}... Lubl Oi luchJLa-LSSJI
3 sews. vb. .33...» ask-J1 ,1. 3.3.4! mix-3.43.»
dwleMJlJJ—LJ.

.31._.J;1.J 31.14;.31 (.31 0.1.. L.L_3 3.1J...Ji 3;... 6.3ququ ,3le 131 ; 3.43.31.
. .LIJ...J¢L..\ L,_I.~.1..Ji 1:11 3.91.5.

 

 

.4341

143

 

r’.
f
Tr

 

o on n

 

...... 9.1... .5... 9M1...

V

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .‘

c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ever-£51 Cleo—£1 SO—U ro—n Ere—v1 Bro—vi

S‘ 0.3.31453. [—04.29935‘ .1 L;_,3.:...c..'..$.J.ao_y

A | a)“ 9):“

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...—u..."

D dLJb‘ 4.5.1.2:- (3L5 La

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90.3.33JLS4JI by...” 2......51 0..-:

Cjww .. 1:1... .. 1’11 ...». ..

< > " muss w..." are

 

 

 

[:3 was/ac Cj war/‘12 C] W‘lT/‘IY CZ] wen/n C3 \Mo/M [

DW‘H/H" C3 W‘M/‘i‘1 C3 \Y‘lV/‘M [:3 \Y‘i‘l/‘W E: \Y‘io/‘H

W.-----------------------------—------------------------ﬂ

 

 

 

Bowl—.33 Y HAUL—3“ beJlésWOLS lbLo -1
l [‘93.]; EIQWI 3.54 :4.ny B «....Llubl‘).
( ) " wuss ‘l—wJ' " LBJ—.4 {:1 «14%| w—L‘

 

..,.__.3.>.:..l\.~.53. bdeQLSHS_\

baa--

.-‘--l

.--—....

 

--------------q
--------------------------—------------------------------------------

 

 

Law

 

144

 

 

 

 

 

.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(N

a)
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

".-....mﬁ L: L: [.1 L3 L431

 

P‘-‘ --<h

1» *

--‘--P

 

(3 H

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54| $4.3_"._',l “1...: wwjucLSWI LHMJIULGJHQS. .4 m _\\"

--.-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - . - - 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

l4... J45! LL...

WJLJILL. M‘S‘U'M LLJLLILGAJI MIG—9:45 LJfQI U45-”

" LQJSA‘LJJI" LQJ... C]. C] [3‘ ADV E] 1

'3

#_ _‘ -

\c‘

-" --

W

r--_.

$2

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

c ,... .
. a..Jl_xJ|L.L.3..bJ.‘S 3151—0

( )"L.J53‘L.JJI" Ln... [:1 «am—14...- EDA-Hm D 412'“

4-‘0

YQWLWQMQ‘QJJJL:_H

 

3!

 

 

 

 

r———J_'a

 

 

 

S..LJJL v.5 HJLWJAJUJ|J4€SAJJVJLA4lm¢JJLJQ‘ UJJ_.§._:J._W

 

)1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146

 

Owl—'3
. e9“, rwwL 13......“ LL?“ Us[x LL: ca_1

o 3J3JJSU45_‘JJS.L¢_.¢1

. WledJsuime JM 54.9.1. 'LL..L:..L.LJ...L_\~

.UAJHIJI 53.119..ledele IJJ.) AJQ‘ MfT¢u 51.5.1-5

 

 

Code 8

 

 

 

 

 

. «ﬂ
.. .. - L.-Jl ‘\ .3.- ‘ AI - -J|
de-J' '41.)" L2" ‘L—d. J—d ‘5 U (6:,
o i T T \

3.4%)! $L.IJ_"._L\HJ WI \

ﬁwylglJJwJJ‘waiglJ y
Lbnwéi-‘Hw ...__..... HRH-L u—J“ ‘ J
L ' .
L «\‘k

 

 

$L_?J.>.JIJ 3.4.. 3.3.41 2J3...“ g
$9.1... 5...“: a..L_,.IL 'a..;._,..u u.
.45....5J391 'LstL L,.JL wa

. a. 31.). L...)

(V

 

 

 

Us. ws ......3. www
wt... 3...»).344'? 9...: m...
0.34.31.5le 0"le (5‘ 95'.)le Q.

.bLA; J: 440..., WM

 

 

 

 

 

(C

 

 

 

____‘__.r—;J-H

 

 

 

147
WJLJLLJJ; u—9 J____.L_..H J34 ‘5-L——- "i: . (‘0
J—..L_,...JL . 9:
Law-J - 5%
O ‘1‘

 

oL..l ...".l .9me

...l

 

 

U:.J!‘L'-.A...J! 0.50de W‘ ‘3”

3. ...JLJ;._'.)H U.Ls._,a_,.6 $.39qu
. wJqu

<2

 

" «L» ..w aw J» 4m N

(O

 

'5...5l‘“".m‘ Qﬁu-L‘ .JcOJ r—J
. WJL 9L...“

(T

 

qu-Iéd-w.‘o&4.>ﬁv

(V

 

C)" JASL ‘SJJ—I-n-J‘ ﬁéWJJ‘J‘ "3“.)
LSJJJ‘J‘ 0.1).)...“ 5.31.)

H

(A

 

...?le 0.. U.S.. 1.99.3.4! ....su-u—l
n LSJW n J” l I. r|“.||

H’

(0‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. LA;- 13.-1*”wa HH‘U’J"

 

H”

 

 

 

_.__._ ...-a,“

 

 

148
an... — .. .. ' L ' ? d——-——“r-J‘ l? °<¥
J" -- Jr“ J“ «5:4 ”#634 9

 

 

"I ...st U "H 4.0le b) .-.H
'1...le L‘J‘S‘L‘S'Ujés'l‘c

\H

 

7
l_._.L'_ . Luv gstwl LL.» " qu—‘i
I . .. I" I-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

k

 

\q‘ IA E‘J'L“ UJWJLJL uJ.J_-. Jami... 5J3! 2......“ J._,. 6L 3.1.25... Us; Oi 3J1

 

TL... ...... w... 0. ,J. -, .7

kﬂnggl J... U-“

\’\’

 

LLLLL» Lbs. LoJJJJwLuhgy
“HSJIJJJI 6.13.5.1" QILLEJJI ‘Y

\“L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...;Jm J...“ J). at...» o5 t,.-.....-..... yLLJL Hm...»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149
Lqm H.142! 1.4L;._Hc.L.....L-;.Jl ...-.1 _J.J?.JL J53.“ c._;t.,>JJL

.1..IJ 'C.‘_~,.L.-..-L,_-.JL WI Lgm J. (x) ...». c. _

wJ-u—I‘L‘JJJUJJ-al-a-H JMLs-uu-b 'LL'La-déawd-w—v

wJJWIéiJJJ193WJJLJIcJJquiﬁélJJJ UQIMJ.U51401_5
WJJJJIGJJ; v.53 LJ-‘L 4” 51154” z]: (3%
! , 1.. - .. .. J4- -JL —_ e

o s v Y s :31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ﬁ-éJl—J‘QLSLJw1ﬁ4‘C’LJ-“J‘ \
' 9.)th 9.94.1.3 3.2... (O
-PWJ.LUJJL_,.WJ3;.¢.LLS y Y‘
“13.14);qu O-‘L-xJL-F' .9494 r
LJJ‘J1u5ouJAJI 91:3”:41 $315.14! YV
E
WJW'o-C a—LwJ.JL_§..- JIM! VA
J
3ﬂ541wa43-aw O Qﬁ
y ’I ,
UJIJ...J L..JL.S UJJWJML UL... Y '1
WM‘ 15.2.5“ &.

 

 

 

 

 

 

'—

 

 

 

J Ale

 

.-

r-‘J

J13...“

 

3

'3‘)..._.5._ ‘ 04.)" WJd-‘W ka-l—IS" '

 

3

*JQQLJ‘JJ1.SL.Y1U.LGU.J4A41 C»... Y

 

H

 

I”

53,

 

LALS Wdﬂ-«J 4.5,.»

\01'

 

... 2.
LwJéngﬂl 3.3L...LJ3...L.'...JI Ml

 

1.3.?J—un—35Jaa—i-J1UJW1J—LC

N:

 

2A

 

cud—3.519 u-uL-‘J‘ {2.94-r

“L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.41:3. L...- 3.9.3.3wa1 JJ.»

 

 

 

 

 

1'51

 

 

......

J.,.JJ

LSJ-i'

~‘¢.>LsJ-3

 

 

J -LJ.._JL

JI’J..JL

r-JJ

 

5J1JAH 419-)..41 3.4.: J». Lad—‘4

1V

0’)
.. {‘41

 

’

1......“ -L..3.JL..J {my ..sJJs

1A

0<

 

1‘1

0'!

 

JJsm 0...... J2“. .14....

OS.

 

J...JI MJJML oJIJNI as...»

J24 A-e-lsLPJ-L: o' wJJ-«J' o-o .11.

J...“

T1

 

15—9 t-(v—HJ ' 1 ‘H—51 u-L‘u'JM-J' JL-.‘?1
0.; M1.p.n..ﬂ_ Lg-HIJM' ‘91—341 5.1....

YT

0“

 

$L5L4>”_Y1o.o ...SM 4.30),... .wai

1’1"

0"!

 

 

 

 

 

 

9,5... ()1wa Lari—11C14'” Y
2
3.3.1.5... alywj... L35! La»...

 

 

1'2

 

0A

 

 

 

HJ-H

152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WJ‘A-u‘ﬁ d‘)‘ u-‘UL ALI-11 J—___‘«1 LS-L' \{L (10
‘1 4.19,...) 1.1-9L? buy... ‘533 14.5}? .. Q/
r UL 4134.11 - Q
o 2 1" A Y 1 1
rJ.-_:Jl UJ 1.4.) 3.4th ...“... To 64
NHHJ._U...WJ..J1 n ‘1'
. ’
J'-*"S 4.3:. U.Ls.31J.z)lL..J.JS..UU¢aJ1 \‘v
WM! 21...»..3119. 1\
91...)“; LJAUI .9th JJJ. 1“” YA
'5.__.,...1J.)J1 -‘<
‘L.-“-1 c-‘f-‘JL‘J-hd cry-1J1 air-H H ‘v
Gyfhu 5?)...“
U‘J'X‘J‘ Uxﬁ" Y 3.3.1.13.“ f} ‘c1

 

 

\“5. (VVE1JM1UJWleg'JJUJngL5Jé-1 WJyty‘ﬁ 21.1.... NS... Q1 3J1,

 

TY

“'11

 

1'1”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YE

 

 

 

-\....

 

f—‘J'H

153

1.1.311 a...“ 2._..11._“..J1c«1-—..-LI-"~11 €1.41_J.J.J1 Jsut c..-‘L.>J.H =======
at, c-énsuz-J|W1LL.>¥IUJ( x)7¥-3LF c—b—1
zﬁdsﬁ—‘JJSAH—%1—Y

WJg'idJquJuL-J! J31 LS-é-ﬁu-L‘ war-.91 Jaw—r

, V
.uu ......“ £14...“ QWJm1¢fuJIJ..s 1.». do! “wu51w1-g

 

“..lede , “4J1 ,____."1 L5...

 

A

f

1

.49..

,J.._1.i luv.» ‘53-? 1&635 U A“: ‘

 

i 1" . Y 1

 

dfuﬁuuﬂ1w1wJJb \
9.,qu

 

c.2131. .1,“ ..>51 1.9.4.11 QJJEM
U
0...)th ..JJLJ U..:.J.1a.a|

.4

 

WJALJI ....LasYIfjstJxll v

 

'21....“ U.“ Jun-.311 O. 05....“ g
LQ-P-i 05-“ C)‘ 9.21 u-"-“

 

Wm W. .5 I 1.5—d.""w p.» °

V1

 

 

99.1).3441JAWJQJ1QSJ; 1
'5...le

\IC.

 

L,.:.....1_).> WIHWJLUI 1.25).". y

W

 

WJJLJ1U>1 Y A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\Ii

 

 

-11..

 

Hum

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

J -1J.J1

r5.»

1

J1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9??”1—3—31 0" Ji‘s' QJIJlﬁ (59%| 1
- QUJAAS
WJw1df5kA-G wink... \. V1
gag—Una)» 1.4.5 A.
J...“ 0' k3913.31 QSI 1“"
.. 1O
UJ'SI M3
«.JIJMcALL-USI 01%;»)! 1'1
...—.9531 A(
"zL.1JJ1" 3.015.116.1J3LIJ1 .33.) w Av
WW'J crew—M4! ”......“
WJJA—H WWW! r45. 1A

AS.

 

 

—\c-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pr“
155

exam UJWJLJIdequLng! WJIfGI 1.1.4.5. ”Luci 3‘;
0.1qu

 

 

 

T)

 

YT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" W! 44.1ny dymwayuymywwu " :9u-931.

 

 

 

 

 

__\\J.,

 

 

 

 

Pl

156

 

-o_'>l

AnAJ I“.

 

'5___,.L?.)ll n.2,! '3._,.JL:..JI¢.L..._._L-.:.H Ct..:.1_d_,,J-?.J| Jsu‘ C._‘L.?JJ1

guewwl w! nguq x )Lyca-‘

WledJsvsJ‘Lw «9154.9 'WcquI‘J—qi_r
MSW!élJJJIuJWJw‘dfuéiﬁgSlJJauo|M$U51db1_z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ 0
WquJ; g, “L...__.L.a.JI J_.____‘.‘ 4.5.)... ‘1‘... o
J“ “Jo-=4 Ja-U 6.3-3 ‘4?L$J-3 tJ—O‘L -” 1 9
‘3 3%
o i Y \
0.. .JJ‘ ou-‘JJ pww 3.1).}...Jl \ o
5JIJNI 3.13;... A
ulwwaA‘JJ ,b—~"..Y¢-a-J“. ‘ Y A‘
n .. . H (4": n . '
LJA‘J‘J
WIJEJNJ W’JIJQI 1"" i A
U“.)-‘-°-” LHA-‘i-g ‘ A
a, w )
wt)” ﬁngLsm f1....‘¢,.,L.:._<._H o
LJA‘J‘J W". ‘ "r—A-II". UJL-L‘J” ‘ rd; 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0"!qu 0.9.2193 owl-3‘.) 9.51.3»!

 

‘\\

 

 

 

_\<—-'

 

e5»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

157
”4“,leng U.SJ____oL_aJ‘ ; A “4‘ 64.0 1- Q
g # " Q’
J3" QWJ[ M LP 6:5 ‘k‘i’j p I)...“ '3‘ (5
° 2 V V x 1 =3 7!:
L—Ja-LJ‘ wa-r-ns crud—h" A QQ

 

 

'5; I'LL” mug-Y!
WI

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.419.). 1c. w 1.9wa ”4'
kg! UJUM 0.5.3.“ r.»

 

 

 

v.11...“ 5J4.“ Qwa'.uJ;uJML.LstI MIA—'9‘ J»); U‘ LL41, ”5.2-. J 34‘

 

. + r-

f

f

H

 

1T

 

H"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\i

 

 

" 3—..~sL-:e-.\J| Jab—n.“ Jyuubzbos 0.4.5.... Yul...“ "

-‘o

 

 

r—JJJ‘

 

158
"A______,_J‘ AS)" .‘—.¢‘J—I—H

 

9W

--- -‘ --. ---
'- .-.-.-o—o.‘-

2.4+)“ n.2,! 'LJLJIQW! CL!“ _J,J?.JI Jsul chute,“
alJfgmuu| 2.3.9.9.“ qu1uj(x)2..\u 8-\

on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZJJJJSUJ;_IJJSL.-%1-V
wJas—l'dyu-idut—w 4M sac—Ls wuw d-.>| —v
glJSAJMI 51,3.“ QWJﬁJ'xﬂ.J—'¥u§ 5.3.51»; L191 w+u51w1_g
w 8
..Jé-"J' dﬁ.&g—£’d——_'.'L"'J‘ J_._"—" “59—“ 1— 9.
J -|,_._J| (0
“ UH 4.5.1.3 Jaw}... 5J5 lyggjéi :1 38
o S Y T 3
“4.. L.....L.;.. ¢Ls GﬂfJI 6414.3‘ 3
o
WJJ-o-L’" ‘r—n-l. (,SJJ LL; q
OSJJUQJV L_,....L_'.. $55,931 64‘4“ V
W18J¢L¢JJ #15141»! .351 H “h
HJJ-LJ‘JJL J‘J‘J L‘J“ LyJL.“ J‘J—gJ‘ Y
P—" law! UJ 1.9.11); 9:.“ 3.4L; 3.5.0..
- .. . . . ‘W
4...“; “WJJJJ‘ 9.9wa UL)»;
l-ALS uS-f r-’ Lu» ”5‘ o» «s—H-w i «A
”5.40! DJ" 14,5). 91.5 LSﬁjs‘J‘ LSJ‘J‘ 0 q"
JraAJ' 3&4»lequ ‘LJLcl rd; \u
ol 9......0" tafoljg; 3| 9| ,4." 3.0 1
a»
WIJWI "

 

 

 

..\-\_

 

r_3JJ|

159

 

 

 

ﬁ

 

 

 

 

2.45.1.1 9.5.9! 3....“

.3
l ’1.
£1 «.10....1 J...L3 3.3:... 5).; 1&6); :1 q:
. UL 4 !
o g x» y | ' ”J ‘9'"
ELJM‘ 1.15..” 1.4502,.)3! Gala-I V \.\
quuuS-r r-J L—v—‘L-‘J‘J
I
Hmjﬁm 9.55141»! .51 H A

\°(

 

uh... Laugjs‘ 03’ 93...); .le r-’

WJJ-‘J‘ Le-o' w». Low

\4

 

1.4695. r-J W1L..._,..J| 2J3
mJJ‘Jgs LH r—LIJ‘ 03’

 

 

 

(M. " UUJI

Hm 9.33.: 9531):.” 5.31.»! \i
”.449... afﬁJ‘ 5.31.»! 01 4.3;.“ \f
WJALJ‘ Q... JILS‘ UJLle 04“.! \.‘
Q)! Lyn... wa; m»! .31 r.J n"

 

4...:wa éalml r...§__, PJ

\6

\oA

 

 

 

 

 

 

MIoLAaL? ..\_sl 6.: 43."...qu

ful!»

ww-‘T! 3°:

 

IO‘

 

wx

 

 

-\V—-

 

 

r—5 160 .. - -- .1 . ‘
E‘J-L" u—JWJ-‘LJ‘dJ-‘U‘ ”J

 

ﬂ

 

\V

 

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- y~L_,..n";.-.L.2.~y..

 

 

 

 

....IA,

 

 

F

A QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR THE FORMER SECONDARY SCHOOL
CITIZEN TEACHERS IN SAUDI ARABIA

 

161

COVER LETTER TO ACCOMPANY QUESTIONNAIRE
TO THE FORMER TEACHERS

Dear Former Teacher of Secondary School:
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED

The public secondary school teaching profession in
Saudi Arabia is faced with a tremendous shortage of citizen
teachers. Contributing to this shortage has been the number
of citizen teachers leaving the profession.

As a former secondary school teacher, you can be of
tremendous help, not only to the profession, but also to
make this study a success by completing the enclosed re—
search instrument. It has been designed to identify those
factors that influenced you to leave the teaching profession.
Your individual response is absolutely essential in answering
this concern and giving direction to improvement of the
profession. Thus your honest opinion is desired to meet
this need. Your responses will be kept completely confi—
dential and you need not write your name anywhere.

It is my request and hope that you will take a few
minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire which is an
essential part of my Ph.D. Dissertation and return it to me.
If you would be interested in knowing the results of this
study I will be glad to send you that information if you
will enclose your name and address on a separate sheet of
paper.

I am very grateful for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Saleh H. Assaf

Ph.D. Student at

Michigan State University
February 1982

PART I

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

 

162

 

 

No
DIRECTION: PLEASE put X in the correct response.
Item
1. How old were you when you left teaching?
I. __ 25-30 2.__;31—35 3. _ 36—40 4. __41—45

5. __ 46—50 6. _ Over 50
2. Were you married or single when you left teaching?
1. __ married 2. __single
3. How many children did you have when you left teaching?
1. __ none 2. __one 3. __two 4. _ three

5. __ Four 6. _ Over Four

4. From which University did you obtain your Bachelor's

degree?

I. _ Islamic U. of Imam M. Ibn Saud
2. __ University of Riyadh

3. __ Umm Al—Qura University

4. Others

3. When did you graduate from the University?
1. __ 1970-71 2. __71—72 3. _ 72-73 4._ 73—74
5. _, 74—75 6. _ 75-76 7. _ 76~77 8.__ 77—78

9. __ 78—79 10. __79-80 11. _ Others

163 No

 

Item

6. What was your major field?

1. __ Islamic Studies 2. __Arabic Language
3. __ Englisn Language 4. _yScience
5. __ Social Sciences 6. __Math
7. __ Other
7 Did you teach your major field?
1. __ Yes 2 __No
8. Did you teach in

1. __Middle School "7—9 grade”
2. __High School "IO—12 grade”
3. _ Others

9. How many years did you teach?
I. __ None 2. __One 3.__ Two 4._; Three
5. __ Four 6. _yFive 7.__ Over Five

10. Do you still live in the same city which you taught in?
l. __ Yes 2. __No

ll. In which salary level were you in the last year of your

teaching experience?

1. __ Sixth 2.__ Seventh 3.__ Eighth

 

”Hi: ‘

 

164
No

 

Item

12. In which salary level were you in the first year of your
non-teaching experience?

1. Sixth 2.__ Seventh 3.__ Eighth
4. Ninth 5.__ Tenth 6.__ Other

13. Where do you live now?

1. __ In the same city that I taught in
2. __ Big city
3. __ Small city
14. Since teaching, how many employment outside education

 

have you worked?

1. __ None 2.__ One 3.__ Two
4. __ Three 5.__ Over three
15. What is your current job title?
1. __ Administrative
2. __ Educational
3. Other
16 Do you like the kind of work you are doing?
I Yes 2 No

17. Would you leave your current job to another one with the
same monthly salary?

1. Yes 2. No

PART II

ECONOMIC FACTORS

165

No.

ECONOMIC FACTORS

DIRECTIONS: PLEASE (1) put X in the correct response
(2) Response to EVERY FACTOR
(3) Rate each factor according to the level
of influence it had in your decision
to leave the profession of teaching
(4) If important factors are not included,
write them down in the space indicated.

 

"-4

I
:Item
{No. Factors lLevel of Influence
IVery}
'Much' Much
I 2

 

Z
U10

So e

:3
(D

 

003

 

}_a
(I)

Salary inadequate
for desired living
standard

}_a
KO

Salary below that
of equally respon—
sible positions.

N
0

Salary too low
for hours of work
expected

 

“1..----
l-‘

Salary increments
small; too long to
reach maximum

KF’F“'
N

Salary not adjusted
to work load

 

R).--—
U.)

No business travel
opportunities

 

RSI-_-
.5

Area expensive to
live in, had to
move

13'""-"
m

Extra part time work
not available

I—

N
O'\

There was no excep—
tional promotion for
teachers

—-—-—JL———-qb————-—I—————_————}—————-ﬁ—-————qb——————h———————————d————ﬁ

______l____l_____-___----____-_______-_-_-______-_-_-___-________

——————4»-————-n————-———p——-———p————-—-—————————————Jr-——————-u———————J—ab
--——‘-————-b-———_-_-——-—-_-I—-—__—————-——-_-——-—_L--—4-JL-—+

——————uh————dL——————r—v——-——-—-———-—————————c———-——-}-————--L———c—-——o——-+o-—~

——-——-‘-—-—-db—-_-—___-—_—-—-————————-———--L—-——-—-—--d-dh—-

—_—_——qb————q--—-————L———_-p—_—-—_———————1——————u|————————————————

 

‘W'
.- I

 

166

No.

A

 

e
n
05
N
e
1
t4
t
.l
L
Gill... lllll J
C i.
n e
e m3
u 0
l S
f..." I IIIIII
HI #1
I h
C
f U2
0 M
lllllﬁIII llllll
EYh
VICl
eeu
LVM
.T lllll T IIIIIIIIIII
g
n
.1
Sr.
UO
Of
h
8
OC
DH
31
Sta
38...»
S W.ln
r SE
0 esr
t ra
C e e
a hrh
F T 0+.
II'I.|4 lllllllllll
Ium
e o o
to 7
IN 2

1"'l'l"|'ll'|ll|""ll'lvll'Ill-I'IIlgI'II'll."l'll'l'|'|'lll|"|'l'|'|ll'll'l

 

 

I|"l'l

 

 

vl|||"

 

Ll
r e
e h
h c
CYa
arie
e.at
t.l
.an
nse
e z
28.1
.1rit
tnui
.1mmc
c
..sn
n+.a
occh
Nnut
8
2

O
t
88
mt
.18
tv
.1
hr
90..
u S
OtS
nce
eun
di
tnS
OOU
NCb
9
2

 

IIIII IIIIII I
lllll IIIIIII"
r
r o
o f
f h
e c
e 1.1
c b.h
n .inwd
a g e
hn ins
c o 1.0 u
.1 e.1;l
e.t t e
l o s owl
tm am
t o w Gas
1 r r a
LP Ipw
O l
3 3

|'l|l

'I'IJ

..II-I'J

 

 

t
n
e
m
e
CS
ne
a.i
v+.
d.1
an
u
et
1 r
to
t P
i P
L o
2
3

 

 

e
hoe
m tn
0 n o
rscb
eclhuo g
n w.3nu
o e .1
lrsh
aaa eilc
nchha
i sac e
8 ast
anye e.
ertgn
ra no
C1ie.an
eahh
D 5+.C a
3
3

take the qualifying
after

examination,

88
Ch _
.lt r
V ye
rnat
eopn
S u
nfO
fOOC
0.1
ter
501.1
rmae
aOCh
erSt
YD.
tn
orxa
woeh
tfnt

'|II|'II|"|'||IJ

l'l'l'l'||lll-llllv

l'||'l'|l|lllllllv

l'l"l||"|lll||lv

parts

"l'l|l|ll'|l"llv

 

167

No.

 

I
I
l
I
I
l
I
I
I
J

jLevelypf Influence

Factors

INone

j
I

{Little

I I
Much :Some

Nery
Much

 

T
l

 

 

ECONOMIC FACTORS

PLEASE LIST ANY ADDITIONAL

A I'll-I.

I'll'l

Ill-ll

I'll]

Illll

 

 

IIIIJ

'll'l

'l'lll

I'llJ

 

ll'll

'lll'nl

III|'J

III'II

I'll'l

 

l'lll

|'lll

IIIIIIL

IIIII

 

REMARKS:

Use back if necessary

PART III

PROFESSIONAL FACTORS

 

168

No.

PROFESSIONAL FACTORS

DIRECTIONS: PLEASE (1) Put X in the correct response

(2) Respond to EVERY FACTOR

(3) Rate each factor according to the
level of influence it had in your
decision to leave the profession
of teaching.

(4) If important factors are not ine
cluded, write them down in the space
indicated.

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t I
I I
Item I I I
No. I Factors ILevel of Influence I
I WerYI II I I I
I Much IMuch ISome ILittleIJNone I
I I l I 2 I 3 I 4 7 5 I
I i T i I I |
I I I I I I I
35. I Principal difficult I I I I I I
I to work with I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
36. I Assigned to teach inI I I I I I
I fields where I was I I I I I I
. not qualified I I I I I I
I I I I I I l
I I I I I I I
37. I No support from ad- I I I I I I
I ministration in my I I I I I I
I professional prob— I I I I I I
I lems I I I I I I
I T I AI I I l
I l I I I I I
38. I Unfair reports from I I I I I I
J the supervisors I I I I I I
l I I l I I
I I I I I I I
39. I Required to teach I I I I I I
1 too many subjects I I I I I I
r I I I I I
I I I I I I I
40. I No released time I I I I I I
I for professional I I I I I I
I . . . I I I I I I
I act1v1t1es I . I I I I
I I I I I I I
I , I I I I I I
41. I Required to teach I I I I I I
I too many classes I I I . I I
I I I I I I I
I . . I I I I I I
42. I Initative and I I I I I I
I creativeness were I . I I I I
I discouraged I I I I I I

 

No.

169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I a I
8
n5
0
N I
IIII. IIIIIIIIIIII IIII; IIIIIII III. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII JIIIIJIIIIJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
e
l
t
t4
M
e "lilv ''''' w llllllllll 4 ''''''' 1|": IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII In lllll ..llll I'lllj IIIIIIIIIIII v
c a
n e
e m3
u o
l S
cm IIIIA IIIII f IIIIIIIIII a IIIIIII fli IIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I h
C2
f u
o M
l IIII- IIIIII I IIIIIIIIII I IIIIII III-IIIII IIIIIIIIIIII i IIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I
eYh
vrcl
eeu
LfVM...
ll-‘lll llllllllll VIIII'nll llllllllllll ‘llllilv lllllllllll A IIIII ._ IIIII :I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
. s _m _
m _ nr e . _ mu r
a Y C we 8 n s ol fe
r C u 0t 8 I 08 . .1 cueod
g .1 rs a a b cr _ oh n ch n
O l tl tm l e 0 e e .s rt 1 .1 Oitsu
r o sa c c e .31 d1 9h oi Pw a m tr 5
P D. ni 11 r l in nw rt 0 u dt rfe-
ir ea d f mu 9d ie Pa rr t as suols
n n e sn e ofe ie ks s 09 Ch u ac dt
.1 i ht o d h r f rh rl en f eo er h drn
9a ti w 9 fdi c 0e vu dl li tt enae
e e um ot o u el ds w a ra It a shegdg
S C C 0 nc r OS et 8 S eSY an ea ue rt eun
r .19 .19 nl u C nd unl kl rn lnr wo tl QV e erti
o on on ea dr . eo gea .10 e0 oo 61 nu ei heh sd
t vi v.1 n lts r i ivi lo ti kit rs im dt cttr n
c k k to usl e tr tec sh tt csc s .1 aa ae aea
a oa 0a 0.1 ona V oe arO iC ei iia oe 0t nr elneht
F Nm Nm Nt C11 0 NP Fps Ds Bd SVf Nf NS It TPths
all-'IJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII lul'nlj IIIIIII I'll-J IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uTII'IJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIII
m
to 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O l 2 3 4 5 6
IN 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

"'|'||-'ll"'|l||'I'll"Illll"'Ill|'|'|"lllll'll“|'l"ll"'|"l'l'-‘||'|l|l I-
l ‘lllll'l'll'

No.

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8
n5
m
I'I.I|I lllllllllllllll j |||||||| 1 llllllllllllllll j IIIII L IIIII LT """"""
e
1
t4
t
m
ellllA |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| .A lllllll
c j +
n e
8 m3
u 0
l S
rmnl'l:lnl ||||||||||||||||||||| T ||||||||||||||| I llllllllllllllllllll i
I h
C2
,m. m
.l'l..¢l| lllllllllllllllllll j ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1 '''''' [A
l
GYh
VICl
eeu
LVM
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 41'l'l'lllllllllnl|"|llllllll"1Illll'IillIn-llll|||4
e
.2 e
ri d _ t t
S 01 _g _e d .l a n
0.. pa rn ar er 1 85 u Sd a
n 0.4:. 8.1 r.l ra .1 dd qm 1r te W
.1 0C tn au .11 C an 80 .la ..Vﬂ
t 8 Dr. pqm DU 8 ma dr pw naOy
6 Op .13 880 qC f m 3.1 UOS Ghie
8 n8 8 rrO 8.1 88 n S ptr r th
m t1 0.. r rrS 8 rd .ler e 303....
.0 r0 0 85 re t O CO dSh tC
yn Ot nn thg yu.1 a Sy dnS erC 5 ar
. ne .1 Cian nCt U in 88.1 SOB rdve
r at ey S Utl.l 8...... 0.. va VtV 8.18 88 V
0 mt 1t 1.0 m Ch maV e rm .lsr th hwre
t a t.l .18 n C r.l d8 8 8.18 13 CO.ln
C O tn pt Cora Ott 88 p0 CSp phe 3168
a CO .lu US 0.108 .OXC n.l UO esu neh elhh
F Tt Lt Pe tht Tea It St Ras Ubt Tatw
"l'J IIIIIIIII llullll|l'|'ll1 IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII|L """""""" 1 lllllll 1| IIIIIII
m
e o o o o o o o o o o o
to 7 8 9 O l 2 3 4 .5 6
IN 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 r0 6 6

171

NO.

 

 

 

 

'l'J

I'IJ

F;

r|IJI

A'l'll

r'|l

IIIJ

i'lj

AI'II

e
n
05
N
lllln S
R
e O
l T
t C
t4 A
.1 F
L
e III]: L
C A
n e N
9 m3 0
u 0 T.
l S S
:1. III]! S
n E
I h F
C2 0
f u R
O M P
l L
8 Yb A
V r Cl N
e e u 0
LVM I
lllllllll T
I
D
D
A
Y
N
A
T
S
I
L
S
r E
O S
t A
C E
a L
F P
IIIIJ llllllll
m
e o
t O
I...T._..NL llllllll

 

 

 

 

l|'1l'l'

 

IIIFII

 

REMARKS:

Use back if necessary

PART IV

PERSONAL FACTORS

 

172
No.

PERSONAL FACTORS

DIRECTIONS: PLEASE (1) Put X in the correct response

(2) Respond to EVERY FACTOR

(3) Rate each factor according to
the level of influence it had in
your decision to leave the pro—
fession of teaching

(4) If important factors are not in-
cluded, write them down in the
spaces indicated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

could be of more serI
vice in anotherfield;

I I
IItem I I
INo. IIFactors ILevelJof Influence I
I I IVery I l I I I
I I IMuch IMuchI SomeILittle INone I
I I I 1 L 2 I 3 I! 4 I 5 I
I I I I I I I I
I67. IPoor health I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I68. IIllness of a member I I I I I I
I iIof my family I I I I I I
I I I I I ' . .
I69 INervous tension and l I I I I I
I Ifrustration I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I70. IMove to a more de- I I I I I I
I Isirable geograophic I I I I I I
I Iarea I I I I I I
I 4e I I I I I i
I I I I I I I I
I71. ILost my self— I I I I I I
I Iconfidence as a I I I I I I
I Iteacher I I I I I I
1 I I l I I I
I I I I I I I I
:72. IResigned for further: I I I I I
I Istudy in education I I I I I I
l I I I I I I |
I I I I I I I I
I73. IResigned for further: I I I I I
I Istudy in another I I I I I I
I Ifield I I I I I I
I I I I I I

I I , .
I74. IJust did not like I I I I I I

I I -

I I_teach1ng I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I75. IFelt that my talentSI I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I

 

 

 

No.

8

n

O

N

JIIIJ

e

l

t

t

.1

L

e I II 1
C

n e

e m

u 0

1; S
f

n III

vi h

C

.I u

0 M

1 III

enlh

V rap

ace u

IIIII .HIrIVI IML
S
r
O
t
C
a
F
IIIIl

m

e o
t O
T.N

 

 

 

'1'---

IJI'II

 

ILI'IL

Family pressure

'lllllll'll

 

IIIIL

'l'll

||||l

Ill'll

Family responsi—

bilities

II'I-I'al

 

ll'l'll‘llll‘

 

I'|'Ill|

‘l|'|lll.|

 

IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
_ t n
t O t e r
pl n ga
e.1 e e
”ch d OIl
c P u .t e
a t O.l
l s e+tb
t O 8 1i a
O 0 d 8 bus r
n.n eau a+ti
C k u n n.:
d SHY .llL u en:
.l h 171 .OAu
u env slt s u
huh o i.t nut 8
hot 5 D a W s.a
8 9 O
7 7 8

 

ll'llll

llll'll

 

 

r
e
e
aacr
n a
snuc
.at
wnsr
e
gash
nnut
.iaio
h Pm“
C an
a e
e+.o
Tnst
l
8

Il'll

IIIIJ

III-ll

"|"|l'|||ll'

I'll-I'll]

l'lIlIl

'lllll'lvi

 

_S
Prl
u e
Sh
t
m 0
O
r Y
f.b
m n
O O
8.1
was
8.1
e V
II
F e
2
8

.IIII'I'

‘IIIIII

vl'llll'l

 

d S
e n
t O
5.1
.l+ct
ann
€148
e m
mrln
S as
ilf.l
+cf S
ila S
r.t a
O S
V d
anun
F.l a
3
8

.
s r
r e
e p
h o
c o
a c
e
t.t
o
w.n
o e
1.e v
Iir.i
e ert
F wad
I IIIIII
4
8

III'I'll'Ill'llI"'lllll'IlI-IllIIIIIIIIIII'II'IIIll'llllll"Il|

 

PLEASE LIST ANY ADDITIONAL PERSONAL FACTORS

'I'a'L

Illi‘l'l

.rlll

.I'I'l

 

 

 

 

lull-1r

ll'l‘

IIIIIJU

 

REMARKS:

Use back if necessary

 

PART V

SOCIAL FACTORS

 

174

SOCIAL FACTORS

DIRECTIQNﬁ; PLEASE (1) Put X in the correct response

(2) Respond to EVERY FACTOR

No

(3) Rate each factor according to the
level of influence it had in your
decision to leave the profession of
teaching

(4) If important factors are not included,
write them down in the space indicated

 

4_-__-_t____-___-____--_-_____4--__i

— ——————qI——_—————c—I —_———-ql——-———_—

Factors

Low social status
and prestige

Idea of teacher as
”public employee”
is overdone

Unfair criticism
of school from out—
side groups

My liberal ideas
on education not
accepted

Writers, cartoon—
ists, and others
mock teachers and
belittle them

Parents don't co-
operate with
school

My friends and

relatives don't
view teaching as
ones' life work

Teachers are re—
garded as low
classgpeople

I
l
l

ILevel of Influence
IVery
gMuch

_--———‘I——_—-—--I-_—-—-Ib-——————_I—--_—-II-————— ———————l—-—————-

l

--q

L

————————-———+——-—a-1

__--——-P——-——-—I-——-—-dh—-—--—J—-————-‘L

Much
2

I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
l
l
l
I
l
I
l
|
1
l
I
I
l
I
l

—--———1>—--—-_-—-————d>-—————-——————_q

Some
3

__-——-—-———-dp——————1_——--_-—_-—qL-

#.

_-—-——-b-——--———-———

Little
4

———-——-J»-——-—————-————————>—-——————————————J ——————4u———————y——————— ———

None

---db———-—-———-_-——_ ——————————————— —-—————-————-—-———————-———-

 

175

No.

 

 

 

 

8
HS
0
IIWIII IIIIII L
e
.1.
t4
t
.1
L
e
CIIIJﬁI IIIIII J
n e
6 m3
u 0
l S
f
nT lg.- II.
I h
C2
f u
0 M
11 ﬂ J
8 Yh
V r Cl
8 e u
LVM

""II""'J

 

 

S
r
O
t
C
a
F
m
e.
t0
IN

_

.l

r
_ e
e P
r x

e s
enun
rri o
a s

s r
qua e
r or
ed
h eau
nod e
a rho
pea n
m_o,e
3
9

 

_
u
tg
SD
.ln
erO
90.1
3.3+.
raa
emC
V u
an
te
wn
Cen
.bd.l
4
9

PLEASE LIST ANY ADDITIONAL SOCIAL FACTORS

IIIJ

lllli

IIIiTIII

I'llr'll

III-Iv

llllv

 

 

AII'J

 

Ill-[1

'lll‘

 

Illlt

 

REMARKS:

Use back if necessary

 

 

PART VI

PREPARATIONAL FACTORS

 

 

176 No.

PREPARATIONAL FACTORS

DIRECTION: PLEASE (1) Put X in the correct response

 

(2) Respond to EVERY FACTOR

(3) Rate each factor according to the
level of influence it had in your
decision to leave the profession
of teaching

(4) If important factors are not in-
cluded, write them down in the space
indicated.

 

ZI—I
Or't
OID

3

Factor Level of Influence

 

KO
U7

Very I '

I
Much [Much{ Some Little None

 

' 2 3 4 S

l—l

 

My educational pre-
paration was ade-
quate generally but
not professionally

 

KO
0

My educational pre-
paration was good

to teach the subject
matter but not to
deal with the stu—
dents

 

O
\I
0

Method courses were
not good for stimu—
lating my interest
in teaching as a
profession

 

KO
CD
0

KO
KO
0

_L—————--————_———_-c—I————_-————q———-————-——-b————————————_—.-_—d

Inadequate prepar—
ation on how to
teach

There was too much
emphasis on social
life and on non-
academic matter
outside the class—
room

——-—-—————-_—-—-—-—_———__———————-————qyn-——-——-T—q
——_——-———-— In.-—-—————————-—-—1————-———————p————n——-—l—«IL—_—

—-—————————I-u——u—.——-————————-—I———————-———qb———-———_—
——-—————-——P——————n-——_——-————————————————np———--_---d

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
I

 

No.

177

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8
n5
0
N
IIIle;I IIIIIIII v IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I
8
1
t4
t
i
L
wﬁlIIle# IIIIII 4 IIIIII AI 4 IIIIIIII i IIIIIIII
n 8
8 m3
u 0
1 S
f IIIII .I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i
n i i
I h
C
f u2
0 M
l.IIIlI1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4T IIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIII L IIIIIIIII 1+
8Yh 4
VIC].
Km
IIIIII r------------------I------I---+--------------i-------i------.-I-----i---------i
_ r g
r _g ..g .0 nt
0 d In rzn .lf -ln 8 y t S _f
0.. ng 3.11 3.1.1 n he vnm _n 8 a rtno
0.. 8n phO pnt hn C.10 .1.1 88 trw 008
08t.1 8C0 eaCm C0n aCt 8 8 II 30 fn 8
htn rah rguu 8.10 8.1 CgSy pr UfI 89
Otai p8C prdl tti tfw 8n81 ..u q SSI8
n 8 ts Gnu as f0 r.1rr rC ent $801
for 8 8 0C 8rS tUh npa 8 dOC 8Wfl
r0tt try trC.1 tae US t.1X8 tr 3.18 n 80D
0f aOIS 30 r 80.5... 8 H 02.81 to nt...Jg .1gbC0
rr Ufat der U80 .Qtr nr C 8f .labn dn .1
r 8V..88 0.. dB 0.. nu qrr uoa to b ru.l aidgt
0 lthh 8nn8 enaC 8pp tneh d t8 .0 daSh 8h8na
t t.1Ct dOOd d0 .d S 1C .1d 3 t8 30.. C rCt.1C
C tnar aicu 8.10.8 3.18 S a d0W8 lrb heea asru
a iueu ntet ntnh nah ya08 00d 880 rhe Y888d
F Lttf Iass Iait Ict tht Ith FPj IPtt Mttte
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII L.iIIIﬁIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIIILIIIIJ
m 0 O O 0
e . O l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
to O O O O O O 0 O O
IN 1 l l l l l l l l

 

 

178

No.

 

 

 

I
I
AJLevel of Influence

Factor

 

 

plete their edu-
cation while
teaching

vl|||"'|||l|'ll

v||IIIIII

'|'L

 

 

 

I'Illv

ll'l'J'

IIIJ'

[lllv

Illlw'll'

[l'lv

 

 

Illi

 

 

REMARKS:

Use back if necessary

 

 

APPENDIX 8

OFFICIAL LETTERS

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY l 79

 

  

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ° 48824
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

February l0, I982

Imam Mohamed Bin Saud University
Riyadh, Saudi Arabai

Dear Sir:

I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Saleh H. Assaf, who is at present a graduate
student working on his Ph.D. in the Department of Administration and Higher
Education under my direction.

Mr. Assaf has proposed a study of the:

”Identification of factors influencing secondary school
teachers in Saudi Arabia to leave teaching"

He plans to return to Saudi Arabia to do his research during the spring quarter
between approximately the first of March and the first of June. These plans meet
with my approval.

I request that you provide him with the necessary in country transportation,
because this topic requires him to travel to different parts of Saudi Arabia to
gather information.

Your prompt attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated. If you need
further information, pleas do not hesitate to write.

 
   

oward
Professor
Administration & Higher Education

 

.Ya

HNHzmh

 

Lied;
5

3%”. 33% I“ (“x I
‘ a a (w " I‘vf
(a 1" to.

 

 

\l/C
h‘d//ﬁ r__9J.II ; , I / ,
.............. 144nm CULJI Wdﬁdﬁv) W
.............................. main W115?)
" I g». u...” 2,! ..I
{NI ~ 6...}. 04);.“ k,,.,._I.JI 24L»...

,‘ 44., "gaff, LUIS»), £1,141
e419 0L1: fiﬁAI/II/‘I (Eat) orvaéx .54- 4,9551le J'bw ,
°I___.J..,. LL; 61.21;: 1,.“ at..." 4...”. CJL. /c.....,.JIzJL. chug»
Maﬁwby U. 3,...“ .J>L;.. my», UJIgLJJdIEQﬁUIdJI
. ﬂ ‘IAY wLme‘: 'J' {I ‘IAI
as: u. 2,..I...JI hm...” 1L... UILyIpclIJ 0. Lunch. at “If“...
, rwImm I ...)L who“ ..., chnguw

.‘S-LJQrJ-L LOUI, eruDLILLIA: _
4).,

o Uta: P)

../t

 

 

 

a5 ZiaﬂI WI QWI “35.:
0/ ‘K\L\_. : 5’1)” .13

 

k

Q \Sg R /\1cA . s d" I;
/ I

 

 

 

 

 

 

, ' F207"? 181
wit/aw

‘ JJLdII 33L}; -
31:93)": 330:” 05-?“ 5J3)" J9? 5“!" "

 

................................................ : OI‘MII’\‘1\>/ﬂ/’?‘\ :1“:ij ’\\‘< 1 r2)“

 

”z...” {MMIXLIJIM
“.44..“ ’kLJL-QJI J...- CJL' / JbiIfw b.h.
o iSJ-JI yWJxJIvCAIEHLEQ; ' obr'SJUL-J .
09%od'cb’v I-I‘JcJJ-‘aﬁI-Mrﬁ ‘50
‘“"‘q:L-v“:fgj}

QJL._.JMJI3)I” M,
mm. LJIJYBW' og‘M
ﬁnd—W

J‘LqJIrnggI a. 4,.“ o J

‘r‘~/c

‘ DU)“ .1!) «WI 243' ’ r-‘I =2" e)“:

 

 

APPENDIX C

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE SCALES

“After Collecting the Data”

 

182
Reliability for Scale ECONOMIC FACTOR

1. V018 c s INAD FOR DESIRED LIVING STANDARD

2. V019 c s BELOW OF E UAL LY RESPONSIBLE POSITI
3. V020 C s TOO LOW HOURS WORK

4. V021 c s < SMALL TOO LONG REACH MAXIMUM

5. v022 C 5 NOT ADJUSTED TO WORK mo

6. V023 O NO TRAVEL OPPORTUNIT Es

7. V024 c AREA RENT TOO HIGH HAD TO MOVE

8. V025 c PA RT TI ME WORK NOT AVAILABLE

9. V026 c NO EXCEPTIONAL PROMOTION APOR TEACHERS
10. V027 c O USI G RENTAL ASSIST CE

11. V028 c EXPATRIATE ALA Y H1

12. V029 c ME OR PRIVATE BUSINESS

13. v030 c LITTLE CH Nc FOR PRO TION

14. V031 c LIGIBLE PROMOTION R

15. V032 c LITTLE CH NCE FOR ADVANCE ME NT

16. V033 C DECREASE 1 SALARY LEVEL WITH CHANGE
17. V034 c NO OPPORTUNITIES FOR JOB INTERVIEWS

 

CORRELATION MATRIX

V018 V019 V020 V021 V022 V023
V018 1.00000
V019 .56729 1.00000
V020 .46646 .65193 1.00000
V021 .23216 .33937 .44446 1.00000
V022 .18667 .39034 .40254 .46550 1.00000
V023 .25172 .23491 .33693 .31117 .26957 1.00000
V024 .50685 .30051 .25429 .26318 .19206 .25190
V025 .29746 .26390 .39210 .39129 .29234 .75712
V026 .17129 .18597 .25297 .34294 .34680 .44087
V027 .35616 .32136 .44938 .43875 .30356 .51898
V028 .13553 .12389 .09493 .15030 .10632 .06006
V029 .16916 .25295 .25862 .25404 .28263 .29548
V030 .08117 .31667 .34584 .46306 .37500 .45269
V031 .16248 .15604 .18117 .23391 .11814 .14808
V032 .17708 .23590 .37588 .40881 .32297 .46668
V033 .20150 .17804 .13454 .25211 .11341 .15671
V034 .29109 .32793 .39535 .39800 .30002 .37852

CORRELATION MATRIX

V024 V025 V026 V027 V028 V029
V024 1.00000
V025 .36081 1.00000
V026 .31592 .55648 1.00000
V027 .31579 .53046 .48964 1.00000
V028 .25777 .08630 .17643 .19539 1.00000
V029 .34547 .34887 .48134 .41673 .08587 1.00000
V030 .13895 .42498 .38743 .46468 .14017 .30800
V031 .28698 .26398 .29436 .26304 .27330 .14985

V032 .10990 .45665 .41429 .52683 .21111 .30354

 

183

V033 .17840 .25228 .25876 .24773 .24484 .20446
‘V034 .28156 .45923 .40850 .53929 .17191 .28756
CORRELATION MATRIX
V030 V031 V032 V033 V034
V030 1.00000
V031 .21621 1.00000
V032 .56251 .34749 1.00000
V033 .22423 .29373 .30395 1.00000
'V034 .54850 .27776 .52997 .32776 1.00000
N OF CASES = 182.0
STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES
SCALE 47.868 217.861 14.8 17
ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE
2.816 1.8 4.3 2.5 2.4 .583
ITEM VARIANCES MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE
2.184 1.6 2.9 1.3 1.8 .151
INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MINfMAX VARIANCE
.307 .1 .8 .7 2.6 .017
ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED
STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- S UARED ALPHA
IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MU TIPLE IF ITEM
~ DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
‘V018 44.500 197.124 .446 .521 .878
'V019 44.989 193.624 .507 .565 .875
V020 45.560 193.231 .577 .548 .873
V021 45.082 191.048 .570 .409 .873
V022 45.714 197.553 .469 .340 .877
'V023 45.692 193.109 .566 .628 .873
'V024 43.824 198.057 .462 .437 .877
‘V025 45.484 188.074 .658 .676 .869
'V026 45.236 188.513 .588 .471 .872
V027 45.648 186.262 .682 .531 .868
V028 43.610 206.792 .262 .169 .883
V029 44.302 195.858 .469 .342 .877
‘V030 45.670 194.034 .576 .514 .873
V031 44.269 197.446 .381 .252 .881
‘V032 45.874 193.680 .613 .522 .872
‘V033 44.363 197.150 .371 .222 .882
'V034 46.071 193.492 .632 .481 .871
A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF VARIATION SS DF MEAN SQ F SIG.
BETWEEN PEOPLE 2319.579 181 12.815
WITHIN PEOPLE 6099.412 2912 2.095
BETWEEN MEASURES 1697.430 16 106.089 69.795 .0001
RESIDUAL 4401.982 2896 1.520
NONADDITIVITY 32.411 1 32.411 21.473 .0001
BALANCE 4369.571 2895 1.509
TOTAL 8418.990 3093 2.722
GRAND MEAN = 2.81577

TUKEY ESTIMATE OF POWER TO WHICH OBSERVATIONS

MUST BE RAISED TO ACHIEVE ADDITIVITY =

1.4493673

 

 

184
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 17 ITEMS

ALPHA = .88139 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .88268

 

185
Reliability for PROFESSIONAL FACTOR

CIPAL HARD TO WORK WITH

GNED TO TEACH FOR WHICH NOT aUALI
DMIN SUPPORT FOR PROF PROBLE S

IR REPORT FROM SUPERVISORS

GNED TO TEACH TOO MANY SUBJECTS
ELEASE TIME FOR PROF ACTIVITIES
GNED TO TEACH TOO MANY CLASSES
OURAGED INITIATIVE AND CREATIVITY
OICE IN PROGRAMMING

OICE IN POLICY MAKING

PF INSUFFICIENT INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL
PF COULD NOT CHOOSE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERI

PF NOT ENOUGH FREE PERIODS

PF JOB FATIGUE PREVENTED SOCIAL LIFE
DISLIKED RIGID SCHOOL SCHEDULE

PF BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS ELSEWHERE
PF SICK LEAVE PROVISIONS UNSATISFACTORY
PF NO REWARD FOR PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

PF NO INTELLECTUAL STIMULATION

PF LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST

PF CURRICULUM RIGIDITY

PF TOO MANY MEETINGS

PF LACK OPORTUNITY TO SPECIALIZE

PF PUPILS NOT INTERESTED TO LEARN

PF TOO MUCH PREPARATION NECESSARY

PF TOO MANY EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
PF INADE UATE FACILITIES

PF SUPER ISOR MAKES TO MANY DEMANDS

PF INADE UATE ASSISTANCE FROM SUPERVISOR
PF UNPLE SANT PUPIL BEHAVIOR TO TEACHER
PF CAN'T HAVE VACATION ANYTIME

'0

'11
ZZU>Z>CZ3WU
OOHmOmZOmw
(DU) mu) (DH

N
I
A
A
I
R
I
C
V
V

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
cxmacmxmscmxmacmxmscmxmocxmscmmacmxmacmxa
owmmmowwmnmuwumnmuwumbpcwwmppnwmmuwuwu»

 

NHOKOGJNONWQWNi-‘OkomﬂmmQNNHOKDOJQONLHPWNH
mmpwmwommqmmbwmwommvmmwaI—‘oxoooximm
'0
u]

unmnw«mumvmnmnmvwkmwwawk+waa

CORRELATION MATRIX

V035 V036 V037 V038 V039 V040
V035 1.00000
V036 .40568 1.00000
V037 .35458 .21537 1.00000
V038 .33704 .33522 .44586 1.00000
V039 .34099 .44840 .16317 .27920 1.00000
V040 .14694 .11166 .25693 .20071 .36466 1.00000
V041 .36137 .34719 .14808 .26682 .71143 .47520
V042 .33546 .20407 .35007 .27651 .23306 .33942
V043 .06045 -.02043 .14049 .03404 .12837 .34043
V044 .09251 “.01748 .12953 .04253 .08210 .33050
V045 .09034 .03533 .19412 .15923 .14407 .26526
V046 .17686 .11241 .19174 .14639 .09593 .30296
V047 .17217 .12437 .07673 .15177 .32244 .33163
V048 .21948 .10957 .15376 .21764 .42497 .40407
V049 .20841 .06084 .13676 .18182 .35957 .27613
V050 .10072 .02782 .05742 .07862 .39394 .09698
V051 .18468 .06458 .18669 .17636 .21488 .17820
V052 .19689 .06923 .41117 .18149 .25664 .33425
V053 .15819 .13055 .36085 .26456 .24384 .25178

V054 .17604 .08461 .37210 .19207 .21784 .36119

 

 

I

V055
V056
V057
V058
V059
V060
V061
V062
V063
V064
V065
V066

.33814 .16601
.21595 .14358
.28677 .20413
.33065 .47316
.08804 .08884
.19585 .11273
.19695 .14476
.12110 .00405
.15870 .11773
.22761 .20626
.13963 .19170
“.03233 .00600

CORRELATION MATRIX

V041
V042
V043
V044
V045
V046
V047
V048
V049
V050
V051
V052
V053
V054
V055
V056
V057
V058
V059
V060
V061
V062
V063
V064
V065
V066

V041 V042
1.00000

.25211 1.00000
.17748 .48068
.23164 .36638
.19941 .30753
.19123 .35248
.41845 .26038
.45045 .20814
.39226 .15757
.37992 .12649
.21916 .21696
.21880 .31679
.22117 .27410
.19798 .49205
.32565 .22751
.30247 .31015
.39823 .24705
.39106 .41066
.22734 .23936
.34136 .14286
.42213 .18028
.22054 .28349
.30837 .29890
.29425 .35706
.20628 .16332
.25547 .20575

.29894
.33722
.20262
.13373
.22428
.13066
.18569
.22697
.26967
.34487
.24649
.18878

V043

1.00000
.80940
.37398
.33349
.26625
.14796
.08635
.10725
.31782
.35789
.25675
.39556
.23147
.34841
.13137
.23333
.14102
.20331
.12970
.43963
.24097
.29953

“.02859
.22634

186
.29894
.25432
.22530
.30018
.22322
.12001
.22964
.12456
.32870
.48088
.36799
.06469

V044

1.00000
.43902
.32204
.24933
.13522
.11795
.07595
.29417
.29973
.26659
.37348
.25458
.33388
.10365
.21037
.16723
.16285
.10732
.43174
.24645
.34608

-.02881
.12059

.30104
.22254
.33635
.39851
.17224
.32836
.37445
.13958
.21474
.18321
.20572
.21120

V045

1.00000
.61343
.38111
.26505
.16144
.21525
.21339
.31887
.16453
.28918
.19899
.37029
.29286
.14891
.22646
.22974
.22720
.49637
.25012
.40739
.03167
.15507

.26134
.38071
.25021
.29770
.08109
.25259
.35996
.37011
.38542
.31889
.11944
.24191

V046

1.00000
.27559
.23094
.12144
.24024
.27592
.33334
.17282
.21866
.26254
.32481
.26404
1.26447
.11896
.21305
.24576
.35568
.23334
.32038
.06947
.16891

 

 

CORRELATION MATRIX

V047 V048

V047 1.00000

V048 .53192 1.00000
V049 .39387 .69207
V050 .31261 .53846
V051 .25534 .44587
V052 .20141 .39730
V053 .22966 .39114
V054 .29741 .32316
V055 .24972 .36710
V056 .36492 .47077
V057 .37846 .43146
V058 .34103 .26243
V059 .26706 .20403
V060 .28259 .56926
V061 .39792 .59684
V062 .35225 .38239
V063 .31199 .44856
V064 .21249 .29270
V065 .10712 .22175
V066 .27168 .40564

CORRELATION MATRIX

V053 V054

V053 1.00000

V054 .63052 1.00000
‘V055 .27446 .34951
‘V056 .30645 .43253
V057 .15189 .19839
‘V058 .14120 .25134
‘V059 .23263 .22350
V060 .28015 .22333
V061 .29810 .24454
V062 .41723 .43660
V063 .34872 .39568
V064 .30318 .42411
V065 .19142 .13504
V066 .30309 .27455

CORRELATION MATRIX

187

V049 V050

1.00000
.48547 1.00000
.40749 .40338
.41741 .34222
.35173 .23272
.19222 .11641
.28955 .27998
.31320 .32550
.40684 .39078
.25953 .16471
.14511 .25462
.55900 .49751
.56836 .50741
.31289 .21154
.40676 .30943
.26430 .18872
.10029 .28647
.35016 .45685

V055 V056

1.00000
.54610 1.00000
.40191 .39708
.31014 .37458
.17250 .32171
.41619 .47937
.33138 .42774
.22761 .45780
.45006 .54910
.33261 .42855
.28191 .20988
.23673 .36346

V051

1.00000
.51809
.50631
.35107
.28826
.30505
.33206
.23324
.20524
.44634
.36121
.28987
.25650
.31872
.19924
.33926

V057

1.00000
.38763
.26269
.40143
.60414
.20751
.33885
.25458
.25858
.29093

V052

1.00000
.53744
.52120
.28637
.38989
.38143
.22029
.12913
.33517
.40755
.52277
.34831
.40326
.12496
.40325

V058

--1.00000
.17860
.30401
.36258
.16479
.27614
.34713
.17658
.10215

 

 

 

188

V060 V061 V062 V063 V064

V059

1.00000

V059

.26172 1.00000

.28983
.24389
.21345
.18592
.41474
.26475

V060

.60759 1.00000

V061

1.00000

.36935
.48359
.32704
.20066
.38583

.31371
.51965
.38197
.22064
.40648

V062

1.00000

.49522
.42226
.11085
.37745

V063

1.00000

.62648
.27628
.39483

V064

.28739
.25142

V065

V066

CORRELATION MATRIX

V066

V065

1.00000

V065

1.00000

.32506

V066

182.0

N OF CASES

VARIABLES
32

.1

24
RANGE MIN
2.7

STD DEV

STATISTICS FOR

SCALE

ANCE
.389

MAX VARI
2.5

/
/

MAX
4.5

ITEM MEANS

MAX VARIANCE
.100

2.4

RANGE MIN
1.4

ITEM VARIANCES

X VARIANCE
.016

0

/MA

-25

RANGE MIN

MAX
.8

INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS

ALPHA
IF ITEM
DELETED

UARED

MUETIPLE

N

O

I

T

A

L

E

R

R

O

C

D. LN

EMAO

TETI

CTOT

EITA

R L

R E

O R

C R

O

C

EEMD

LCEE

ANTT

PYGIE

SI L

RFE

REID
V

ENMD

LAEE

AETT

CMViE

S L

FE

ID
LS
AC
TI
OT
TS
. T.
MT
EA
TT
IS

34332212232210121011101231010142
22222222222222222222222222222222
99999999999999999999999999999999

64520355388736205025103733856088
24.5959535310787—60303884171383314
44446465776546655666455536656644

813484.56884503351364658101864365
671091603164.7.54899025455989262937
3244.4.555444456545655565435656534

97096536777756339682022605677883
1.8034723799813373135975755783925
69205009604684.5614?4123065610143

O O I O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C I O O O O O O O O O O O O .
56034216997124135915158943211346
56554.4.4.44.44.54.34.4.4354434454444454
55555555555555555555555555555555

550329485513610264.687811691037721
88709134.588792092229600691628721
386763960814.36561861484555091050
32433434544344445455443344.44.4445
99999999999999999999999999999999

56789012345678901234567890123456
33333444444444455555555556666666
000000000000 00000000000000000000

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

 

A;

189
A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE OF VARIATION SS DF MEAN SQ F SIG.
BETWEEN PEOPLE 3284.883 181 18.149
WITHIN PEOPLE 9945.688 5642 1.763
BETWEEN MEASURES 2194.252 31 70.782 51.237 .0001
RESIDUAL 7751.435 5611 1.381
NONADDITIVITY 17.308 1 17.308 12.554 .0004
BALANCE 7734.128 5610 1.379
TOTAL 13230.571 5823 2.272
GRAND MEAN = 3.04430
TUKEY ESTIMATE OF POWER TO WHICH OBSERVATIONS
MUST BE RAISED TO ACHIEVE ADDITIVITY = 1.3600112

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 32 ITEMS
ALPHA = .92388 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .92434

 

190
Reliability for PERSONAL FACTOR

PR POOR HEALTH

PR FAMILY MEMBER ILL

PR NERVOUS TENSION & FRUSTRATION

PR MOVE TO NICER AREA

PR DONT LIKE STATUS OF TEACHER

PR RESIGNED FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES EDUCA
PR RESIGNED FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES OTHER
PR JUST DID NOT LIKE TEACHING

PR MY TALENTS BETTER IN OTHER FIELD
FAMILY PRESSURE

PR FAMILY RESPONSABILITIES

PR COULD NOT ACCEPT SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY

PR DISLIKED STUDENTS' ATTITUDES

PR COULD NOT GET STUDENTS TO LEARN

PR TEACHING WAS STEPPING STONE

PR FREEDOM FROM SUPERVISION

PR FAVORITISM EXISTED IN STAFF ASSIGNMEN
PR COLLEAGUES NOT COOPERATIVE

mummbwwwommqmmpwmw
O O O O O O O O
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
oooooooooooooooooo
mmmmmqqqqqqqqqqmmm
pmmpowmqmmpwmpommq
'U
:0

HHHHHHHHH

CORRELATION MATRIX

V067 V068 V069 V070 V071 V072
V067 1.00000
V068 .42386 1.00000
V069 .36161 .38052 1.00000
V070 .14277 .49614 .19883 1.00000
V071 .24432 .18200 .42117 .17078 1.00000
V072 “.03401 .13898 .22180 .16145 .16869 1.00000
V073 .00833 .06252 .12404 .12465 .17997 .08824
V074 .18453 .08372 .31448 .00391 .31144 .05488
V075 .21151 .17317 .20936 -.05577 .11918 -.02022
V076 .09898 .10065 .11009 .01193 .02600 -.09224
V077 .21128 .41083 .11265 .27566 .02686 .03097
V078 .01436 .16759 .07125 -.O2427 -.00549 .04686
V079 .08339 .02090 .23192 .08926 .12180 -.03035
V080 .07092 .05993 .15611 -.06809 .40892 .02835
V081 .06600 .05540 .30550 -.00549 .23745 .06270
V082 .10790 .09610 .16547 .03872 .02533 .07414
V083 .02911 .08023 .16303 .04970 .06932 .14789
V084 .07632 .15801 .14070 .00898 .07337 .04821

CORRELATION MATRIX

V073 V074 V075 V076 V077 V078
V073 1.00000
V074 .14984 1.00000
V075 .11301 .29591 1.00000
V076 .02948 .07080 .01389 1.00000
V077 *.01520 .01948 .10856 .31537 1.00000
V078 .15724 .13645 .13754 -.01156 .09746 1.00000

V079 .07550 .29811 .29934 .06588 -.05600 .30084

 

 

191

V080 —.04866 .33580 .22447 .05315 -.03973 .09246
V081 .14842 .46478 .27916 .06005 .01394 .14102
V082 .08858 .16631 .08397 .08230 .02405 .25367
V083 .02676 .21552 .10016 .19423 .10206 .06191
V084 .08440 .09817 .15613 .04032 ‘.00009 .15423
CORRELATION MATRIX
V079 V080 V081 V082 V083 V084
V079 1.00000
V080 .23504 1.00000
V081 .22651 .20985 1.00000
V082 .21005 -.02075 .26226 1.00000
V083 .19075 .14618 .07770 .18289 1.00000
V084 .26679 .12063 .15502 .33246 '.38837 1.00000
N OF CASES = 182.0
STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES
SCALE 74.560 86.811 9.3 18
MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE
4.142 2.9 4.9 1.9 1.7 .279
VARIANCES MEAN MIN MAX RANG MIN/MAX VARIANCE
1.540 .3 2.5 2.2 8.5 .446
INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIA CE
.132 -.1 .5 .6 -5.4 .014
ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED
STATISTICS VARIANCE T - SEUARED ALPHA
F ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MU TIPLE IF ITE
DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
V067 70.516 77.235 .289 .299 .711
V068 69.890 78.949 .427 .518 .701
V069 70.049 76.710 .519 .398 .692
V070 70.099 80.753 .200 .371 .718
V071 69.852 80.359 .382 .373 .705
V072 70.533 80.339 .141 .138 .729
V073 70.137 81.180 .198 .130 .718
V074 70.863 72.296 .454 .367 .691
V075 71.187 75.158 .349 .246 .704
V076 69.709 85.036 .149 .177 .720
V077 70.225 81.303 .197 .297 .718
V078 71.621 78.303 .252 .226 .715
V079 71.198 76.005 .377 .325 .701
V080 69.951 81.793 .276 .312 .712
V081 70.681 74.583 .391 .316 .699
V082 70.071 80.011 .317 .226 .708
V083 70.451 78.194 .297 .255 .709
V084 70.495 78.494 .319 .289 .707
A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF VARIATION SS DF MEAN SQ F SIG.
BETWEEN PEOPLE 872.935 181 4.823
WITHIN PEOPLE 5006.778 3094 1.618
BETWEEN MEASURES 862.230 17 50.719 37.655 .0001

 

RESIDUAL 4144.548 3077 1.347
NONADDITIVITY 56.243 1 56.243 42.317 .0001
BALANCE 4088.305 3076 1.329
TOTAL 5879.713 3275 1.795
GRAND MEAN = 4.14225
TUKEY ESTIMATE OF POWER TO WHICH OBSERVATIONS
MUST BE RAISED TO ACHIEVE ADDITIVITY = 3.0494632
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 18 ITEMS

ALPHA = .72072 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .73182

 

Reliability for SOCIALl FACTOR

LOW SOCIAL STATUS AND PRESTIGE
TEACHER 'PUBLIC EMPLOYEE' OVERDONE
UNFAIR CRITICISM OF SCHOOL

MY LIBERAL IDEAS NOT ACCEPTED

WRITERS CARTOON BELITTLE TEACHERS
PARENTS DONT COOPERATE WITH SCHOOL
FRIENDS & RELATIVE DONT RESPECT TEACH
TEACHERS REGARDED AS LOWER CLASS
TEACHERS REGARDED AS INEXPERIENCED
LESS QUALIFIED STUDENTS IN EDUCATION

ommqmmpwww
<<<<<<<<<<
oooooooooo
mommmmmmmm
pwmpommumm
mmmmmmmmmm
0000000000

...;

CORRELATION MATRIX

V085 V086 V087 V088 V089 V090
V085 1.00000
V086 .76969 1.00000
V087 .57840 .66563 1.00000
V088 .50918 .61422 .60701 1.00000
V089 .27517 .30900 .38711 .34849 1.00000
V090 .36476 .48119 .56657 .49161 .23774 1.00000
V091 .38058 .30226 .35878 .31286 .37642 .23896
V092 .46631 .46599 .33666 .43677 .34770 .30009
V093 .65790 .68918 .57888 .64752 .32571 .59715
V094 .24395 .26381 .24325 .24098 .24176 .19306

CORRELATION MATRIX

V091 V092 V093 V094
V091 1.00000
V092 .50730 1.00000
V093 .41844 .58159 1.00000
V094 .37521 .43347 .40936 1.00000
N OF CASES = 182.0
STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES
SCALE 29.330 89.891 9. 10
ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE
2.933 2.2 3.9 .7 1.8 .484
ITEM VARIANCES MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE
1.859 1.6 2.4 .8 1.5 .051
INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE
.426 .2 8 .6 4.0 .022
ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED
STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE ITEM- S UARED ALPHA
IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MU TIPLE IF ITEM
DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
V085 27.121 71.941 .681 .652 .864
V086 27.088 71.617 .737 .711 .861
V087 26.687 72.481 .689 .594 .864
V088 26.687 73.288 .673 .528 .865
V089 25.396 78.229 .442 .243 .881
V090 27.000 75.834 .544 .456 .875
V091 25.593 75.801 .516 .366 .877

 

194

V092 26.104 71.210 .618 .475 870
V093 26.841 69.240 .801 .701 855
V094 25.451 78.072 .413 .262 884
A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF VARIATION SS DF MEAN SQ F SIG.

BETWEEN PEOPLE 1627.022 181 8.989
WITHIN PEOPLE 2530.800 1638 1.545
BETWEEN MEASURES 793.470 9 88.163 82.666 .0001
RESIDUAL 1737.330 1629 1.067
NONADDITIVITY 20.766 1 20.766 19.695 .0001
BALANCE 1716.563 1628 1.054
4157.822 1819 2.286
GRAND MEAN = 2.93297
TUKEY ESTIMATE OF POWER TO WHICH OBSERVATIONS
MUST BE RAISED TO ACHIEVE ADDITIVITY = 1.5018334
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 10 ITEMS

ALPHA = .88136 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .88133

 

 

 

195

Reliability for PREPARATIONAL FACTOR

1. V095
2. V096
3. V097
4. V098
5. V099
6. V100
7. V101
8. V102 PP
9. V103
10. V104
11. V105
12. V106
13. V107
14. V108
15. V109

CORRELATION MATRIX

V095 V096

V095 1.00000

V096 .53624 1.00000
V097 .47607 .46641
V098 .55895 .58812
V099 .31019 .45195
V100 .21211 .18660
V101 .40219 .53348
V102 .47434 .61438
V103 .40536 .47544
V104 .42127 .49574
V105 .33354 .50793
V106 .42403 .28542
V107 .43596 .58348
V108 .44186 .47585
V109 .06583 .09720

CORRELATION MATRIX

V101 V102

V101 1.00000

V102 .59743 1.00000
V103 .70528 M .64914
V104 .61173 .62311
V105 .55202 .65277
V106 .17989 .39647
V107 .54640 .60323
V108 .47710 .55463
V109 .12336 .16690

CORRELATION MATRIX
V107 V108

V097 V098

1.00000
.70521 1.00000
.43485 .43975
.24072 .25877
.57590 .64662
.57817 .66595
.54939 .68162
.65580 .68212
.53540 .60666
.30763 .28212
.48110 .60666
.45896 .48868
.26910 .14120

V103 V104

1.00000
.66584 1.00000
.62295 .64203
.27541 .28614
.63205 .54253
.40314 .46178
.11430 .17142

V109

PP PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION INADE UATE
PP PEDAGOGICAL PREPARATION INADE ATE
PP METHOD COURSES LACKED STIMULA ION
PP INADE UATE PREPARATION TO TEACH

PP TOO M CH EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL LIFE
PP FEW OPPORT FOR FURTHER TRAINING

PP INAD PREP TEACH SECOND STUDENTS
INAD PREP ORGANIZE CURRICULUM

PP INAD TECHNICAL PREP FOR PROFESSION
PP STUDENT TEACHING INSUFFICIENT

PP INAD PREP EXPRESS IDEAS CLEARLY

PP FELT BETTER PREPARED FOR CURRENT JOB
PP INAD PREP FOR SUBJECTS TAUG
PP NO ENTRANCE EXAM FOR COLL EDUC

PP CANT COMPLETE EDUCATION WHILE TEACHIN

HT

V099

1.00000
.19766
.43813
.52623
.42783
.40351
.50532
.27049
.32323
.31248
.14210

V105

1.00000
.40759
.60785
.52413
.16552

V100

1.00000
.15971
.26208
.17375
.24060
.13564
.13950
.19404
.11786
.38324

V106

1.00000
.41490
.31863
.09656

 

 

 

V107 1.00000 196
V108 .49110 1.00000
V109 .05195 .20340 1.00000
N OF CASES = 182.0
STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES
SCALE 59.385 147.686 12. 15
ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE
3.959 2.5 4.5 2.0 1.8 .296
ITEM VARIANCES MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MIN/MAX VARIANCE
1.532 .8 2.5 1.7 3.0 .172
INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS MEAN MIN MAX RANGE MINfMAX VARIANCE
.414 .l .7 .7 3.6 .032
ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED
STATISTICS MEAN VARIANC ITEM- 5 UARED ALPHA
IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MU TIPLE IF ITEM
DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
‘V095 55.396 128.716 .579 .484 .899
‘V096 55.099 129.957 .662 .546 .896
V097 55.467 124.460 .721 .602 .893
'V098 55.258 124.811 .783 .707 .891
'V099 55.374 131.086 .540 .382 .900
V100 56.907 136.284 .311 .242 .909
V101 54.929 132.266 .689 .609 .897
V102 55.170 126.087 .786 .656 .892
'V103 55.137 128.097 .711 .675 .895
‘V104 55.341 124.756 .732 .625 .893
V105 55.049 129.042 .721 .631 .895
V106 55.654 131.896 .425 .343 .906
V107 55.049 129.882 .684 .594 .896
V108 55.137 128.981 .602 .445 .898
‘V109 56.418 136.576 .230 .236 .916
A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF VARIATION SS DF MEAN SQ F SIG.
BETWEEN PEOPLE 1782.072 181 9.846
WITHIN PEOPLE 3131.333 2548 1.229
BETWEEN MEASURES 753.130 14 53.795 57.319 .0001
RESIDUAL 2378.203 2534 .939
NONADDITIVITY 19.325 1 19.325 20.751 .0001
BALANCE 2358.878 2533 .931
TOTAL 4913.405 2729 1.800
GRAND MEAN = 3.95897
TUKEY ESTIMATE OF POWER TO WHICH OBSERVATIONS
MUST BE RAISED TO ACHIEVE ADDITIVITY = .2150787
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 15 ITEMS
ALPHA = .90468 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .91369

CPU TIME REQUIRED..

TOTAL CPU TIME USED.

2.6180 SECONDS

. 3.1360 SECONDS

 

 

APPENDIX D

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE SCALES
”Pilot Study"

 

 

 

SCALE: Economic Factors

197

CASES

STD DEV

MEANS

000000000000000
. C O O O O O O C O O O C O 0
000000000000000
222222222222222

825692280941080
150494717208457
210101341152060

111111111111111

000000000000000
000550500000505
328996230752837

221112322123131

123456789012345
000000000111111
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

123456789012345
111111

CORRELATION MATRIX

EC02 EC03 EC04 EC05 EC06

EC01

0157607200
0085926254
0372518141
0067956090
0444556303

06681944135
05728128789
08247654194
01987624990
03357650547

1

073735341218
095132331821
026025053503
080128297593
055477754656

0 O

l

0838469755659
0530093745290
0704780569465
0601805225218
0786678863646

1

04902271339237
08130248000565
02674318435522
07002346943841
06656254424625

1

09193625481799
71840657978175
29637944713893
93784156533238
57548556766323

23456789012345
00000000111111
CCCCCCCCCCCCCC
EEEEEEEEEEEEEE

EC08 EC09 EC10 EC11 EC12

EC07

0786
0121
0235
0491
0111

03694
08627
06838
03150

04224.

1

099971
099586
043235
074407
074536

0664198
0404487
0786220
0525643
0764556

1

03503936
07586436
06286743
05568663
08544554

0 O O O O O O C

1

50779427
80931162
86499238
05991178
66554211

0 O O O O O O 0

89012345
00111111
CCCCCCCC
EEEEEEEE

EC14 EC15

EC13

1.00000

03
O3
00
03

O O

73
25

01
38

45
11

EE

 

 

198

Economic Factors

SCALE:

20.0

N OF CASES

15
MAX VARI

6 VARIABLES
1.9

13
RANGE MIN
1.6

STATISTICS FOR STD DEV

SCALE

ANCE
.307

/

ITEM MEANS

MAX VARIANCE
9.1 .035

{

RANGE MIN

MAX
.9

INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS

DELETED

ITEM-
TOTAL
DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION

CORRECTED

SCALE

VARIANCE
IF ITEM

SCALE
MEAN
IF ITEM
DELETED

ITEM-TOTAL
STATISTICS

048924607947524
332233332233343
999999999999999

......OOOOOOOOO

432388375090979
488765548012586
989998999998989

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

470933303059626
631314899460054
769876578865646

143624184158486
620132113740712
655145481432287

O OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
839823136865614

565566655556666
111111111111111

000000000000000
555005055555050
348770436914839

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
222222122221212
333333333333333

123456789012345
000000000111111...
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED

15 ITEMS

STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS

.94253

.93686

ALPHA

 

199

Professional Factors

SCALE:

CASES

STD DEV

MEANS

0000000000000000000000000000000

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
0000000000000000000000000000000
2222222222222222222222222222222

1493089510042569947415125346418
0213186932523552006996304719164.
541341430004.4434359814239221443

llllllllllllllllll 1.1.11 111111

0000000000000000000000000000000
0505500505555050555050005000055
4812745477084796157854634602086

O O O C C OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

3323222211222222221122332232322

1234567890123456789012345678901
OOOOOOOOOllllll1111222222222233
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

1234.567890123456789012345678901
1111111111222222222233

CORRELATION MATRIX

PFOZ PF03 PF04 PFOS PF06

PFOl

08099614816635023577747059
01673908753619145147702778
02332342700560646148129800
09438705774.662296351495337
03787553344363430300024441

l _ _

05502039377.8956939514021672
0170071128371.169022776748308
002843121366419670514292053
042249554425690638874296848
046333142261nUo30132404370562

0902848220618151505801901116
0206682495638772159554160089
0191738386346710426350209396
0190165009968321472744759672
0532 4. 331 4237 3030040602360342

............................

00244658936099028694171202846
02241366412014549730758495774
05012042280902822804004394830
0354.5172233652427735554003961
03263656654533360141400135430

l _ _ .

062793654355547409242044446603
09.5480225024781175736181247630
018925551656826391877423276936
04409117845877.8188430608516392
010614100140031201123204051330

893326929254784040649690517461
659063747226211694140650642788
298939548079182831604219848646
71792.].356279795258804694105964
430101100114331111442003441330

234567890123456789012345678901
000000001111111111222222222233
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
PPPPPpPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

 

Professional Factors 200

CORRELATION MATRIX

SCALE

PF08 PF09 PFlO PFll PF12

PF07

06478874997343227713
02558038341184214178
02246201430425366420
01005839622202229448
01040163240300042430

1 . . . _

016650736060371177862
093487609495400187910
074019855130480533896
094202617925253520123
045303533251031017302

0922511948967891679225
0376111148293576368058
0175714166651189470257
0500371204461535296984
0644336651342212325210

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .......

1 . . .

02311503846433494241689
02168872044107683428507
06535227290505338407683
02934205419475707817140
09643345552450221124220

077902586314431581440366
07.512119534817052 69630956
015964156282404661561661
017780280222462868961493
066341143463213300145333

236549951830685223255676
975109650176489454124362
923482941385058772519145
816281825275216022239808
032305623110332403252443

890123456789012345678901
001111111111222222222233
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

PF15 PFl6 PF17 PF18

PF14

07162797831839
07202532950566
01931282093343
06968567253413
04320330124661

1 . _ _

094890988274717
074661757236778
030157895393279
083411582495196
035334005508302

0272414509450615
0824502295502501
0212395374930815
0585664665578321
0611250200624314

0000000000000000

01599466473438883
00851825734033446
05440893480498697
01505336597835616
03050150504360480

022389688045085491
085365398720569568
083153259920678099
037079350928856699
036310050301333423

1 .

137070215151496588
11974637699810.1872
169533990704839599
050922449161035454
827411061011535515

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

456789012345678901
111111222222222233
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

PF20 PF21 PF22 PF23 PF24

PF19

05010208
02795839
01299866
04190242
01002420

1 _ _ _

006252845
004360231
033880223
045295063
0222503411

0825192919
0025653102
0559398674
0870622771
0335105013

1 _ _

09128932366
01592602716
09196544326
02073961428
02312332334

0 O O ........

1 .

003056603153
0703861 4647
0850910 4140
0061862 3460
0122121 3002

...... O O O O

1 _ _ .

182615763392
813498781056
874803246161
017827444347
620002005201

012345678901
222222222233
FFFFFFFFFFFF
PPPPPPPPPPPP

 

201
PF28 PF29 PF30

PF27

Professional Factors
PF26

CORRELATION MATRIX
PF25

SCALE:

04
06
01
06
01

l.

058
035
023
060
063

0677
0407
0588
0310
0402

05756
06153
03139
05298
02552

1

097805
087 696
080734
070630
054434

1

327200
012252
033556
716180
043350

678901
222233
FFFFFF
PPPPPP

ANCE
.290
IANCE
.064

X VAR

31
MAX VARI

2.3
.8

/MA

-1

VARIABLES
/

2.1
RANGE MIN

21.5
RANGE MIN

STD DEV
l

STATISTICS
OFESSL CANNOT BE COMPUTED.

IS 0.0.
SCALE PR

20.0

..DETERMINANT OF MATRIX

BASED ON INVERSE OF MATRIX FOR
ITEM MEANS

INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS

STATISTICS FOR

N OF CASES
SCALE

WARNING.

ALPHA
IF ITEM
DELETED

TIPLE

MUEUARED

ITEM-
TOTAL
CORRELATION CORRELATION

CORRECTED

SCALE
VARIANCE
IF ITEM
DELETED

SCALE
MEAN
IF ITEM
DELETED

ITEM-TOTAL
STATISTICS

7723223433443323627722407425037
lllllllllllllllllllllZl21111111
9999999999999999999999999999999

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000000000 O O O O

0000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
9999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999

4514948126484155532093314411703
2256587423929037014563361887408
3365665566455665462260502464762

8564134826513632224419052402682
6512657046471204982878099703219
1339686607967758869445062428768

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
8997053732773234609066251355522
3322222233322222324525355323124
4444444444444444444444444444444

0000000000000000000000000000000
0505500505555050555050005000055
2753821198571960408802031064679

.............................. O
7687788888878778888888778878777
7777777777777777777777777777777

1234567890123456789012345678901
0000000001111111111222222222233
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

.91751

31 ITEMS

STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS
.91684

A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED
ALPHA

 

 

202

SCALE: Personal Factors

CASES

STD DEV

MEANS

000000000000000000

O O O O O O O O O O O . O O . O . O
000000000000000000
222222222222222222

636283224786143616
412510799889897455
182128538594085163

. . O O O O O O . O O O O . O .

1 111111 11 1111

000000000000000000
555005500555000505
46123206263837.5999

44444243444234.3322

123456789012345678
000000000111111111
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

oooooooooooooooooo
12345678901234.5678
111111111

CORRELATION MATRIX

PR02 PR03 PR04 PROS PR06

PROI

0708832278515
0662893572719
0475164736378
0276132690327
0530104023134

05025577152175
05221105820221
09423331182584
09706489311795
02067702264220

1. .. ....

075001818906911
051174454250719
078292260539148
012211464362790
022101311110002

l _ _ .

0046735494235911
0618652512522424
0837051589338566
0371449125506593
0260136511340100

1.. _. .

03.109716694571553
09117333914671260
00618091075334.2082
03.179500754374962
05420101130211012

.................

.1. _ . . _

47.813517612671012
01952484850660232
1.6749876292953850
98015812031617922
28061126401320021

23456789012345678
00000000111111111
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

PR08 PRO9 PR10 PRll PR12

PR07

0740021
0499668
0885498
0905018
0140044

07627182
09482280
02136033
08428385
03201010

11......

070616476
026544789
022717302
024542604
022164320

0 O
l . . _

0194872202
0423047132
0152396582
0491833728
0602253511

0 . O O . O . . O .

l . . _

07725209249
04509969886
00291598622
09998952132
04511165311

...........

l ... .-

12162756634
09006259404
74494049118
84345452021
50123023024

89012345678
00111111111
RRRRRRRRRRR
PPPPPPPPPPP

 

203
PRl6 PR17 PR18

PR15

Personal Factors
PR14

CORRELATION MATRIX
PR13

SCALE:

1.00000

01
02
02
03

077
052
076
040
025

O . .

0172
0087
0359
0740
0042

.l. . .

04784
01038
04118
07223
03401

.I. .

58843
55626
39494
40850
03212

4E2b7ho
l1T#+l
RRRRR
PPPPP

ANCE
.490
ANCE
.093

X VARI

18

MAX VARI
2.1

MA

11.7

VARIABLES
/

RANGE MIN
2.4

RANGE MIN
1.4

= 20.0

ITEM MEANS
INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS

STATISTICS FOR

N OF CASES
SCALE

ALPHA
IF ITEM
DELETED

TIPLE

MgEUARED
DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION

ITEM-
TOTAL

CORRECTED

SCALE

VARIANCE
IF ITEM

SCALE
MEAN
IF ITEM
DELETED

ITEM‘TOTAL
STATISTICS

40390860233754.5740
662522432491337305
555556655556655565

88281142121371.2626
448601968275106906
999698789989999888

661425363035695201
53193403463494.9453
235250246600251403

177962737851857824
68981985415760.4042
213510727858199205

..... O O C O O C O O C O O . .
893732634722856505
555556655566655565

000000000000000000
555005500555000505
083322493816230565

. C O O . O O O O O O O O O O . O O
43444644434554.5455
666666666666666666

.12173967REK912233967RV
nXHUOﬂﬁXXQUl1?#+il1T¢I
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

.68819

18 ITEMS

STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS
.58562

A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED
ALPHA

 

204

SCALE: Social Factors

CASES

STD DEV

MEANS

0000000000

oooooooooo
0000000000
2222222222

4472255942
3938009867
2211310015

0 O O O O O O O O 0

1111111111

0000000000
5055000555
9118784670

0 C ........
1223313213

1%é34ﬁﬂ2786ﬁu
nXEUnﬁXHUnHYI
CCCCCCCCCC
5558558555

0 O O O O O O O 0

1234567890
1

CORRELATION MATRIX

SC02 SC03 SC04 SCOS SC06

SCOI

 

07346
09474
06328
08624
02412

1

098432
071872
082559
044121
026524

......

0285362
0053412
0671189
0011658
0122120

1 ._

05158320
00178144
09222263
03590721
01312161

081697021
044206278
039621066
039524502
062403251

00.00....

1 _ _

242555802
423469567
584006439
917502609
644323052

234567890
000000001
CCCCCCCCC
SSSSSSSSS

SC08 SC09 SCIO

SC07

1.00000

03
08
09
00

079
080
078
011
023

036
360
679
749
425

O O

890
001
CCC
SSS

 

SCALE: Social Factors

N OF CASES = 20.0 205
STATISTICS FOR MEAN VARIANCE STD DEV VARIABLES
SCALE 26.400 49.411 7.0 10
ITEM MEANS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIAN
2.640 1.8 3.8 .1 2.2 .6
INTER—ITEM CORRELATIONS MEAN MIN MAx RANGE MIN/MAX VARIAN
.255 -.5 .7. 1.2 -1.5 .0
ITEM-TOTAL SCALE SCALE CORRECTED
STATISTICS MEAN VARIANCE IT - s UARED ALPHA
IF ITEM IF ITEM TOTAL MU TIPLE IF ITEM
DELETED DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION DELETED
SC01 24.450 41.629 .393 .684 .760
SC02 24.300 39.379 .515 .688 .744
SC03 24.250 40.934 .494 .611 .748
SC04 22.550 49.208 -.072 .399 .814
SC06 22.700 37.274 .657 .563 .723
sc06 24.600 44.042 .283 .375 .773
SC07 23.000 38.947 .677 .612 .726
SC08 23.750 41.145 .507 .445 .747
SCO9 24.650 40.450 .514 .598 .745
SClO 23.350 37.292 .502 .543 .747
A VALUE OF 99.0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS 10 ITEMS
ALPHA = .77345 STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA = .77375

 

206

SCALE: Preparational Factors

CASES

STD DEV

MEANS

000000000000

oooooooooooo
000000000000
222222222222

826060884360
145798910527
230113225321

111111111111

000000000000
00000000 5050
732087030680

0 O ..... O O O O C

333323333334

17373967REK912
DHXHUOEXEUOT¢+1
PPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPP

123456789012
111..

CORRELATION MATRIX

PP02 PP03 PP04 PPOS PP06

PPOI

0927444
0197443
0319976
0235485
0341764

1

01763353
03280038
02738840
01320310
03227303

1

074325646
043063174
046088538
015235603
074576545

0 O O ......

1

0151107927
0376167969
0691924272
0945982421
0541443222

0 O

O O O O O O O O

1

02390659526
01671420489
01320073005
04035655323
01642042324

77604282655
73918028064
85311304625
03508369609
53513250462

21X396786K912
nXXHUOnﬁxyéll
PPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPP

CORRELATION MATRIX

PP08 PP09 PPlO PPll PPlZ

PP07

1.00000

89012
00.1.1.1.
PPPPP
PPPPP

 

ANCE
.149
ANCE
.032
ALPHA
IF ITEM
DELETED

12
MAX VARI

1.4
MAX VARI

2.2

/
é

VARIABLES
SEUARED
MU

TIPLE

RANGE MIN
1.2
RANGE MIN

ITEM-
TOTAL
DELETED CORRELATION CORRELATION

207
CORRECTED

SCALE

VARIANCE
IF ITEM

Preparational Factors
20.0

SCALE:

ITEM MEANS
INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS

N OF CASES
STATISTICS FOR
SCALE
ITEM-TOTAL
STATISTICS

710885872605
788577768687
888888888888

797562360940
028219323309
766998688885

0 O O O O O O O O O I O

406332616732
5989292 38288
544855574745

222669574411
334128043872
446335177884

0 O O O O O O O O O O O
770184735187
889888888888

000000000000
000000005050
823578524965
677776777666
333333333333

12£54éﬂ9l86K919_
nﬁXHUOﬁﬁXHUIW?I
PPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPP

= .88651

12 ITEMS

PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED
STANDARDIZED ITEM ALPHA

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS
.88421

A VALUE OF 99.0 IS
ALPHA

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abduldaim, A. Experimental Education and Educational Re-
search. Beirut, Lebanon: Daralalem Co. 1981 (In
Arabic).

 

Al-Afendi, M., and Baloch, N. (Eds) Curriculum and Teacher
Education. Great Britain, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.
l98l.

 

 

Al-Afendi, M.H. ”The Role of the University Toward Prepar-
ation of the Teacher" in The Recommendations of the
First Teacher Preparation Conference in Saudi Arabia.
King Abdulaziz University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia,
1974 (In Arabic).

 

 

Al-Faar,M.F. "The Exodus from Teaching Profession in
Saudi Arabia" Unpublished Master Thesis, 1982.
Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
(In Arabic).

Al-Fozan, M. "Problems Confronting Public Education in
Saudi Arabia" Unpublished Master Report, University
of Southern California, 1980.

Alheber, S. ”Causes of Poor Proficiency of Saudi Teacher"
Al-Jazeerah Daily Newspaper, No. 3543, 1982 (In
Arabic).

 

Al-Jazeerah Daily Newspaper, Riyadh, Jan. 7, 1982 (In
Arabic).

 

, Riyadh, November 30, 1982

 

(In Arabic).

, Nos. 3413, 3418, 3425, 3427,
3429, 3435, 3446, 3451, 3539, and 3440 (In Arabic).

 

Al—Khowaiter, A. Official Letter to the Civil Service
Bureau, Feb. 1980 (In Arabic).

 

Al—Rasheed, M.A. and Abdullatif, A.R. ”The Role of
Faculties of Education in Teacher—Training of
Saudi Arabia: A Case Study" in Curriculum and
Teacher Education. Edited by Al-Afendi, M.H. and
Baloch, N.A. 1981.

 

 

208

 

209

Al—Riyadh Daily Newspaper. Riyadh. Nov. 1982 (In Arabic).

 

Al-Sainy, H.R. "Causes of the Exodus of Youth From the
Profession of Teaching” Unpublished Master Thesis.
King Abdulaziz University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia,
1979 (In Arabic).

Al-Zaid, A.M. Education in Saudi Arabia. Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia. Tihama Publications, 1981.

 

Anderson, B.D. and Mark, J.H. "Attrition, Mobility and
Productivity Among Teachers: The Case of Metro—
politan St. Louis" ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED. NO. l62~964.

Andrus, H.G. "The extent and causes of turnover among
secondary school teachers in New York State central
schools for the year 1948-49" Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
1951.

Atchison, T.J. and Lefferts, E.A. "The Prediction of
Turnover Using Herzberg's Job Satisfaction Technique"
Personnel Psychology. 1972, 25, 53-64.

 

Bisconti, A. and Solman, L.C. College Education on the
Job: The Graduate Viewpoint. The CPC Foundation.

 

 

Blaser, J.W. "Factors contributing to the public of men
graduates from the University of Idaho (1951-1960)
leaving the teaching profession". Unpublished Ed.D.
Dissertation, University of Idaho, 1964.

Bloland, P.A. and Selby, T.J. "Factors associated with
career change among secondary school teachers: A
review of the literature”. Educational Research
Quarterly, 1980, 5, 13-24.

 

 

Borg, W.R. and Gall, M.D. Educational Research...An
Introduction. New York, Longman, Inc., 1979.

Bridge, J.T., et al. ”Faculty stability and effective
schools", NASSP Bulletin, April 1978, 36-41.

 

Browning, R.C. ”How to tackle the problem of teacher
turnover" School Management, June 1963, 80-82.

 

 

210

Bush, R.N. "The Status of the Career Teacher: Its Effect
Upon the Teacher Dropout Problem" in The Teacher
Dropout, edited by T.M. Stinnett, Itasca, Illinois,
F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1970.

 

Chapman, D. and Hutcheson, S. "Attrition From Teaching
Careers: A Discriminant Analysis" American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 1982, XIX, 93-105.

 

 

 

Charters, W.W. "Some Factors Affecting Teacher Survival
in School Districts” American Educational Jouranl,
1970, 7, 1-27.

Charters, W.W. "What causes Teachers Turnover?” School

Review, 1956, 64, 294—299.

Civil Service Bureau, Saudi Arabia, The Cadre of the
Public School Teachers, First Edition, 1980 (In

 

 

 

 

Arabic).

Civil Service Bureau, Saudi Arabia. The Cadre of the
Public School Teachers, Second Edition, 1981 (In
Arabic).

Civil Service Bureau, Saudi Arabia. Regulations of Civil
Service in Saudi Arabia, First Part. Second Edition,
1981 (In Arabic). '

 

 

Conant, J.B. The Education of American Teacher. New York,
McGraw Hill Book Co., 1963.

 

Corrigan, G.J. ”Ten Consequences of Career Change" Phi
Delta Kappan, Feb. 1981, 439—440.

 

Davidson, M.L. ”Univariate Versus Multivariate Tests in
Repeated-Measures Experiments". Psychological Bulletin

 

1972, 77, 446-452.

Davison, R.G. "Work Satisfaction and Teacher Mobility"
Clearing House, 1971, 45, 265—268.

 

Denton, J.J. "Adequacy of Teacher Preparation Programs
as Perceived by Graduates of Agricultural Education,
Industrial Education and Educational Curriculum and
Instruction". The Journal of Vocational Education
Research, Winter, 1979, H, 65-78.

 

 

Dunathan, A.T. ”Where have all the Teachers gone?" School
and Community. Sept. 197 , 12—13—40.

 

 

211

Dunnette, M.D. et al., ”Why Do They Leave?‘l Personnel,
May—June 1973, 25—39.

 

Edelfelt, R.A. "The Preparation of Teachers: Preservice
and In—Service" in The Teacher Dropout, edited by
T.M. Stinnett. Itasca, Illinois, F.E.Peacock Pub-
lishers, Inc 1970.

 

' I

Egbert, R. et al., Education in Saudi Arabia: Findings,
Recommendations and Proposed Projects. A Report of
the Education team to Saudi Arabia, Nov. 1974.

 

 

Elliott, P. and Steinkellner, L. "Weaknesses in In-Service
and Pre-Service Teacher Training”. The Clearning
House, 1979, 52, 421-423.

 

Elsbree, W.S. ”Teacher Turnover in the Cities and Villages
of New York State" Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York,
1928.

Finn, J.D. and Mattson, I. Multivariate Analysis in Educa—
tional Research.

 

 

Frances, M. and Nila, B.S. "Life and Program of the Teacher
Educating Institutions” in Teachers for Democracy.
Edited by Anderson, W. et al., New York, D. Appleton-
Century Co., 1940.

 

Froehlich, L.H. "Factors Related to the Tendency of Iowa
State University Agricultural Education Graduates Not
to Enter or to Leave the Vocational Agriculture Teach-
ing Profession“ Unpublished Master Thesis. Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa, 1966.

Good, C.V. Dictionary of Education. New York, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959.

 

Goodall, R. and Brown, L. "Understanding Teacher Stress”
Action in Teacher Education, 1980, 2, l7-21.

 

Gosnell, J.W. ”The relationship between work experience
and occupational aspiration and attrition from teach—
ing” Clearing House, 1977, 51, 176-179.

 

Hammad, M.A. "The educational system and planning for hand—
power development in Saudi Arabia" Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. Indiana University, 1973.

Haubrich, V.F. "The motive of prospective teachers“. The
Journal of Teacher Education, 1960, XI, 381—386.

 

 

212

Hunter, S.J. "Turnover Among Beginning Teachers——A
Followup" School Life, 1962, 44, p.22.

 

Kahalas, H. and Groves, D. ”Professional Motivational
Problems in Educational Institutions" The
Educational Forum, May, 1975, 465-471.

 

King, Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. The Recommenda-
tions of the First Teacher Preparation Conference
in Saudi Arabia, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, 1974 (In
Arabic).

 

 

 

Kleinert, J. "Teacher Turnover in the Affluent School
Distrct" Clearing House. 1968, 42, 297-299.

 

Knight, J.A. "Why vocational agriculture teachers in
Ohio leave teaching" Unpublished Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, Ohio State University, 1977.

Kremer, I. and Hofman, J. "Teachers' Professional
Identity and Job Leaving Inclination" ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED. NO. 202-851.

Libsky, G.A. "Saudi Arabia: Its People, Its Society,
Its Culture" In Survey of World Culture.
Edited by Fitzsimmons, T New Haven: Harf Press,
1959.

 

° I

Lieberman, M. Education as a Profession. Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

 

Martin, T.N. and Hunt, J.G. ”Social Influence and Intent
to Leave: A Path-Analytic Process Model" Personnel
Psychology, 1980, 33, 505-527.

 

 

McPherson, R.B. "Teacher turnover in the Inner—City"
Administrators' Notebook, 1970, XIX, 1—4.

 

Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia. Efficiency Level
of Teachers in General Education Stages and Teacher-
Training Institutes in 1974/75.

 

 

 

, Saudi Arabia. Statistical Dairy

 

 

of 1975/76.

 

, Saudi Arabia. Preliminary Statistics
on Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1980/81.

 

 

 

, Saudi Arabia. Educational Statistics'
Books of the Years 1969 to 1980.

 

 

 

 

213

Ministry of Education, Saudi Arabia. Files of Teachers
(In Arabic).

 

, State of Qatar, The Exodus of Qatar
Youth From Teaching Profession. Unpublished Paper
(In Arabic).

 

 

 

Ministry of Higher Education, Saudi Arabia. The Educational

 

 

Policy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 1978.

 

Mobley, W. H. et al., ”Review and Conceptual Analysis of
the Employee Turnover Process” Psychological Bulletin
1979, 86, 493-522.

 

Nie N.H. et al., SPSS--Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences. New York, NcGraw-Hill, 1975.—

I

 

 

Nyrop, R.F. et al., Area Handbook for Saudi Arabia.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office,

 

 

1977.

Office of Education, U.S.A. Teacher Turnover, 1959-60.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967.

Orlich, D.C. "An Analysis of Teacher Mobility" The Journal

 

 

of Teacher Education, Summer, 1972, XXIII, 230-236.

 

Paul, C. "They Are Alive and Well--But Working Elsewhere”
Clearing House, 1980, 53, 389-390.

 

Pedersen, K.G. ”Teacher Migration and Attrition” Admin-
istrator's Notebook, 1970, xviii, 1-4.

 

, ”Teacher Turnover in the Metropolitan
Setting" Education and Urban Society. Feb. 1972,
177-196.

 

 

Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. "Organizaional, Work, and
Personal Factors in Employee Turnover and Absenteeism'I
Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 80, 151-176.

 

Reeder, W.G. The Fundamentals of Public School Administra-
tion, New York, 1947.

 

Rettig, S. and Pasamanick, B. llStatus and Job Satisfaction
of Public School Teachers” School and Society, March
1959, 113-116.

 

214

Richards, R. "Prospective Students' Attitudes Toward
Teaching" The Journal of Teacher Education, 1960,
XI, 375-380.

 

Schlecty, P.C. and Vance, V.S. "Do Academically Able
Teachers Leave Education? The North Carolina Case“
Phi Delta Kappan, Oct. 1981, 106-112.

 

Sergiovanni, T. ”Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction of Teachers" The Journal of Educa—
tional Administration, 1967, V 66-81.

 

I

 

Shalaby, A. History of Muslim Education, Publishing,
Printing, Distributing House, Beirut, Lebanon, 1954.

 

Stinnett, T.M. The Profession of Teaching. Washington,
D.C., The Center for Applied Research in Education,
Inc., 1962.

 

, The Teacher and Professional Organization,
The National Education Association of the United
States, 1956.

 

 

(ed). The Teacher DrOpout. Itasca, Illinois
F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1970.

 

 

”Guidelines for Action” Journal of Secon-
dary Education, May 1961, p.285.

 

 

 

Tape, H.A. ”Factors Affecting Turnover of Teachers of the
One-Room Rural Schools of Michigan” Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia
University. Bureau of Publication, Teachers College,
Columbia University, New York, 1939.

Thompson, J.F. “A look at some who Quit Teaching” The

Agricultural Education Magazine. Jan. 1967, 156,
158.

 

University of Riyadh, College of Education. The Exodus
From the Profession of Teaching: In Saudi Arabia:
Final Report, University of Riyadh Press, 1977
(In Arabic).

 

 

Vandalen, D.B. and Brittell, R.W. Looking Ahead to Teaching
Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1960.

 

Wallace, J.H. ”Why Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in
Kansas Leave the Field" Unpublished Master Thesis
Kansas, State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1967.

Zafer, M.I. ”An investigation of factors which are assoc-
iated with enrollment and non-enrollment in teacher
education programs of public secondary education in
Saudi Arabia" Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1973.

 

 

   

 

"I1111111111711111111S