Work Stress Level Amongst Seconday School Teachers in The State of Malacca : Implications To Human Resource Development

The main purpose of this study was to determine the level of work stress amongst 1209 randomly selected secondary school teachers in the State of Malacca, and across these sub-dimensions: Students’ Misbehaviour, Workload, Time and Resource Difficulties, Professional Recognition, and Interpersonal Relationship. The study also investigated differences in work stress levels, and the relationships between levels of work stress and the following independents variables: age, gender, marital status, working experience, subject taught, monthly income, academic qualification, and school grade.
In assessing work stress, a questionnaire (Cronbach Alpha=O.9568) developed by Mokhtar (1998) was adopted in the research. Statistical tools used were frequency counts, percentages, means, t-test, One-Way ANOVA, Pearson’s r, and Chi-square. Analyses were set at 0.05 level of significance using the SPSS for Windows (Version 11.O) computer software.
The overall work stress level of respondents was “moderate”. Across the Sub-Dimensions of work stress, the respondents experienced “moderate” stress level in terms of Workload, Time and Resource Difficulties, professional Recognition, and Interpersonal Relationship. However, the respondents demonstrated “high” level of work stress in terms of Students’ Misbehaviour.
There were significant differences between work stress (overall) and (a) age, (b) teaching experience,
(c) subject taught, (d) monthly income, and (e) academic qualification.
In terms of the sub-dimensions of work stress, significant differences were also noted between work stress (Students’ Misbehaviour) and (a) age, (b) teaching experience,
(c) subject taught, (d) monthly income, and (e) academic
qualification; between work stress (Workload) and (a) age, and (b) subject taught; between work stress (Time and Resources Difficulties) and (a) age, (b) teaching
experience, (c) subject taught, and (d) academic qualification; between work stress (Professional Recognition) and (a) age, (b) subject taught, and
(c) monthly income; and between work stress (Interpersonal Relationship) and (a) age, (b) marital status,
(c) teaching experience, (d) subject taught, (e) monthly income, and (e) academic qualification.
There were significant relationships between work stress (overall) and (a) gender, (b) marital status, (c) subject taught, (d) academic qualification, and (e) school grade.
Across the sub-dimensions of work stress, there were significant relationships between work stress (Students’ Misbehaviour) and (a) age, (b) teaching experience,
(c) monthly income, (d) gender, (e) marital status,
(f) subject taught, (g) academic qualification, and
(h) school grade; between work stress (Workload) and
(a) gender, (b) marital status (c) monthly income
(d) subject taught (e) academic qualification, and
(f) school grade; between work stress (Time and Resource Difficulties) and (a) age, (b) teaching experience,
(c) gender, (d) marital status, (e) subject taught, (f) academic qualification, and (g) school grade; between work stress (Professional Recognition) and (a) gender, (b) marital status, (c) subject taught, (d) academic qualification, and (e) school grade; and, between work stress (Interpersonal Relationship) and (a) gender, (b) marital status, (c) subject taught, (d) academic qualificatron, and (e) school grade.