Technology and Education

People

System &
Process

Infrastructure

Teachers’ morale and Job

Performance
Overview

Background

Lead to the Research

Pillars of success

Our Hypothesis

Instrument

Findings & Conclusion

Recommendations
The Framework of Malaysian Smart
School

Background
Learning Resources
 SMART school Components

There are 87 SMART

schools throughout
Malaysia

Background
A day in life of Smart School Students
What is the KEY for the success of these
Students
Students

SMART schools? Teachers

Teachers

Curriculum
Curriculum

ICT
ICT

Teaching
Teaching and
and
Learning
Learning

Environment
Environment

Infra
Infra

Background
Lead to this research
 After 14 years of implementation and much
used of resources, the ambitious plan of
making all Malaysian schools to become Smart
School not only stagnated but regressed.
 Even the pilot Smart Schools have reverted back
to ‘the old way’ of teaching and learning.
 Teachers’ of these pilot schools after being
promised with ‘the excitement’ became
demotivated.
 There is no difference in the performance of the
Smart Schools compared with the normal
schools.
Ingredient for teachers performance

Syllab
T&L us &
materi Infra
Psych
al
ology
Teac
her

Knowl
edge &
School Performance Skills

Attitude
&
Aptitude
The objective

 To identify the various factors that contribute to

teachers’ performance.

 To statistically validate conceptual model relating

these factors.

 To create a Management Simulation Lab

Our Hypothesis

Leadership P
E
R

Environment Personal F
Reward 0
R

Belongingness M
A
Cohesive N

Personal Dev. Pride C

E

Collegiality

Morale Det. Morale Status Performance

 Staff
Personal
»» Cohesive
Morale
Reward
Pride
INSTRUMENT Collegia
Leaders
Environ
Belongi
Personal
Morale
Determinant
developmen
lity
ngness
ment
hip
Scale
t

»Job
»Job
»Work
Job
Accomplish
Role
Habit
Performance
ment

Respondents are required to rate

their perceptions on a seven point
Likert scale
Reliability
Constructs Cronbach Alpha Coefficient
Morale
1. Cohesive Pride 0.917
2. Personal Reward 0.926

Morale Determinant
1. Leadership 0.928
2. Belongingness 0.835
3. Environment 0.786
4. Personal Development 0.866
5. Collegiality 0.840

Job Performance 0.907

Demography
Variables Number Percentage (%)

GENDER 41 44.6
Male 51 55.4
Female
AGE
20 to 40 years 52 56.5
41 to 50 40 43.5

POSITION
Management (Senior Assistance
and ‘Ketua Bidang’) 36 39.1
Ordinary Teachers 58 60.9

Teachers from 4 SMART schools in

Seremban
 The theoretical model

Leadership P
E
R

Environment Personal F
Reward 0
R

Belongingness M
A
Cohesive N

Personal Dev. Pride C

E

Collegiality

The significance of the relationships were tested using the SPSS

AMOS software version 5.0
δ1 1 X1
1
λ1 ε1 ε2 ε3 ε4 ε5 ε6 ε7
δ2 X2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
λ2
δ3 X3 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7
λ3
δ4 1 X4 1
δ5 1 X5 λ4 ξ1 η1
1 λ5 1
δ6 X6
λ6 γ1 ζ1
1
δ7 X7 λ7 γ2
δ8 1 X8 β1
1
δ9 X9 λ8 γ6
δ10 1 X10 λ9 ζ2
1 λ10 ξ2 γ7
δ11 X11 1 1
1 γ3 γ8 Y15 ε15
δ12 1 X12 1
1
η2 Y16 ε16
β3 1
δ13 1 X13 λ11 Y17 ε17
δ14 1 X14 λ12
δ15 1 X15 λ13 ξ3
1 1 β2
δ16 X16

δ17 1 γ4 ζ3
X17 λ14
δ18 1 X18 λ15
ξ4 1
δ19 1 X19 λ16 γ5
1 1
δ20 X20 η3
1 1
δ21 X21 λ17
Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14
δ22 1 X22 λ18 ξ5
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
δ23 X23 ε8 ε9 ε10 ε11 ε12 ε13 ε14
Analysis of the structural model
Causing construct  Caused construct Std Coefficient p-value

Environment 6 Personal Reward 0.27 0.052

Personal development 7 Personal Reward 0.36 0.013
Collegiality 8 Personal Reward 0.05 0.047
Leadership 2 Cohesive Pride 0.013 0.051
Belongingness 3 Cohesive Pride 0.22 0.011
Environment 4 Cohesive Pride 0.414 0.001
Personal development 5 Cohesive Pride 0.74 0.000
Personal Reward 3 Cohesive Pride 0.17 0.05
Leadership 1 Performance 0.54 0.000
Personal Reward 1 Performance 0.13 0.04
Cohesive Pride 2 Performance 0.11 0.04
 Findings
Personal reward = 0.27(Environment) + 0.36(Personal
Development) + 0.05(Collegiality) + Error

Cohesive Pride = 0.013(Leadership) + 0.22(Belongingness) +

0.41(Environment) + 0.74(Personal Development) +
0.17(Personal Reward) + Error

Performance = 0.54(Leadership) + 0.13(Personal Reward) +

0.11 (Cohesive Pride) + Error

Goodness of Fit measures of the structural model

Cmin/df = 2.21 ; GFI = 0.89 ; AGFI = 0.89 ; NFI = 0.88; Std RMSEA = 0.07
 Simulation Model
The structural equation

Cohesive Pride = 0.013(Leadership) + 0.22(Belongingness) +

0.41(Environment) + 0.74(Personal Development) +
0.17(Personal Reward) + Error

Performance = 0.54(Leadership) + 0.13(Personal Reward) +

0.11 (Cohesive Pride) + Error

Goodness of Fit measures of the structural model

Cmin/df = 2.21 ; GFI = 0.89 ; AGFI = 0.89 ; NFI = 0.88; Std RMSEA = 0.07
Management Simulator
Enter the Values

Leadership Display Graph

Environment
Personal Reward
Belongingness
Cohesive Pride
Personal Dev

Performance
Collegiality

Sensitivity
Submit
Sample Sensitivity Analysis
Performance

Leadership
 Implications and Recommendations

The findings of this study suggested that administrators

need to pay close attention to the factors affecting the
morale of the teachers since it is evident that these factors
have significant influence on their morale status and job
performance.
 The spirit of teamwork needs to be inculcated and the
management needs to provide avenue for rewarding
teamwork.

 Create a conducive working environment by fostering

teamwork and constructive competition.

 Visionary leadership that can set a clear direction is vital.

 Reward teachers’ creative contribution.

 Instill the sense of belongingness amongst teachers by

providing opportunity to take pride in their work.

 Promote collegiality, where teachers are encouraged to share

the responsibilities.

 Provide ample opportunity for personal development in the

form of training and development.
 Thank You

Questions and comments are welcome