ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research

© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0

Research Article ISSN 2229 – 3795

Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education

Senthil Kumar A1, Mohan S2, Velmurugan R3
1- Lecturer, Department of Applied Sciences, Dr. Mahalingam College of Engineering
and Technology, Pollachi, Coimbatore (District), Tamil Nadu – 642 003, India
2- Associate Professor and Head, PG and Research Department of Commerce, NGM
College, Pollachi, Coimbatore (District), Tamil Nadu – 642 001, India
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce, Karpagam University, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu – 641 021, India
senthilvisangm@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Teachers are conscious of their conduct and adherence to human value. In higher education,
teachers are experiencing pressures to increase productivity and efficiency at their work
places to meet out the expectations of general public, management as well as from state and
central governments, which creates stress among them. In the field of engineering and
technology, there is a significant gap in the study of stress among the teachers and this study
aims to fill the organizational and geographical gaps by examining the sources of work stress.
Thus the study sets out to investigate various causes of work stress among 478 engineering
faculty members of 58 self-financing engineering and technology colleges and four deemed
universities in the Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu. The objectives of the study are to find
out the significant difference and association among demographic and job profile variables of
engineering teachers on causes of stress. ANOVA, ‘t’ test and Chi-square test were used to
analyze the data. The results showed a significant association among gender, type of
institution, location of the college, current working status and average number of working
hours with causes of stress.

Keywords: Stress, Stressors, Agreeability, Agreeability Index, Engineering Education

1. Introduction

Technical Education plays a vital role in human resource development of the country by
creating skilled manpower, enhancing industrial productivity and improving the quality of
life. Technical Education covers courses and programs in engineering, technology,
management, architecture, town planning, pharmacy, applied arts & crafts, hotel management
and catering technology. The technical education system in India can be broadly classified
into three categories viz. Central Government funded institutions, State Government / State-
funded institutions & Self-financed institutions. “Engineering Education’ is the activity of
teaching knowledge and principles related to the professional practice of engineering
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering, 2012).

Teachers are conscious of their conduct and adherence to human value. The teacher plays an
important role in shaping the behavior of student especially in the beginning year. They are
considered as a core stone of successful education system. Teaching has often been attributed
to be a physically wearing and psychologically stressful occupation (Sarah Basu, 2009). In
higher education, pressure is mounting from the general public, management as well as from

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 406

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

state and central government, to increase productivity and efficiency. This pressure will
likely intensify the stress experienced by faculty. Stress in the workplace is generally
considered to result when condition in the work environment are difficult for individual to
manage. A survey at a research university, found that most faculty descried their job at least
fairly stressful due to competing demands (Olsen and Maple, 1993). A teacher who is
satisfied with his job can perform his duties efficiently and effectively and has a positive
attitude towards teaching, but if he is under stress then he cannot work effectively and has a
negative attitude towards his job. High stress can cause teachers to leave the profession.
Stress is one of the many reasons teachers leave their jobs; unfortunately, many engineering
colleges cannot find sufficient replacements and currently face several teacher shortages.
Stress can lead to illness and absenteeism. When a qualified educator is absent from the
classroom, student achievement is negatively affected (Woods and Montagno, 1997).
Teacher stress is significantly correlated with the total number of days that teachers are away
from college (Zoe and Denise, 1999).At present, the teacher is not satisfied with his job due
to changing job conditions, insecurity of job, poor salary, biasness in promotions, work
overload, role conflict, powerlessness, motiveless, harassment etc. (Geetha Nema et al. 2010).

1.1 Stress types in higher education

Stress can have both positive and negative impact on individuals. Stress, which has good
results attached to it, is called Eustress (Positive stress) and stress which is negative in nature
is known as Distress (Negative stress). Negative impacts of stress will spoil the behavior of
faculty members. Thus present research confined to reason for piling up of negative stress
(distress). There are two types of Occupational stress factors: exogenous (outside the
individual) including the demand of the job, and changes in the work load or environment;
and endogenous (within the individual) including the employee’s abilities both physical and
mental, and coping mechanism (Gandham, 2000). In a teacher, stress can be caused by a
number of factors, both external and internal. External causes may include institutional
conditions such as large, mixed-ability classes, lack of student discipline and motivation, lack
of resources, overwork or uneven distribution of workload, poor communication, unclear
expectations and inadequate rewards and recognition. (Gmelch, 1993; Brown and Ralph,
1998; Travers and Cooper, 1998). Problematic relationships with colleagues can generate
other stressors, such as personality conflicts, lack of community spirit, feelings of isolation,
lack of support, and limited academic and social interaction with other teachers. Internal
causes may include an aggressive, impatient, competitive ‘Type A’ personality; workaholism;
negative attitude toward students; and in particular, unrealistic self-expectations (Charles
Kowalski, 2002).

The factors like environmental, organizational, and individual causes chronic stress at
workplace and these factors are correlated with each other. Thus it influences stress levels
among teachers in educational institution (Gaurav Bhargava et al. 2010). a) The
environmental factors which cause the stress are economic uncertainty and technological
changes. Stephen and Timothy (2007) and Geetha Nema et al. (2010) observes that in current
economic slowdown and fluctuations in demand for the programmes, a few institutions are
fighting for survival and that had caused survival problems for teachers within organization.
Technology is enabling multi-modal teaching, changing curricula and spawning rich forms of
online research and collaboration. The purpose of higher education is not static, rather it is
adaptive and changes according to the systems of provision and the vision of institution.
Teachers must adapt their skills suitably to the technological changes, otherwise they have to
face stressful situation. b) Task demands, role demands and interpersonal demand are the

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 407

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

Organizational Factors that cause stress at workplace. Task Demand is related to individual's
job. Jobs are becoming more complicated and demanding rigorous work from teacher's side
as a result of layoff during the middle of the academic year, his work assignment is shifted to
other faculty members who continue their job in the same place. Thus, it creates stressful
situation for teachers. Role demands are related to pressures placed on a person as a function
of the particular role he or she plays in the organization. Role overload is experienced when
the teacher is expected to work more than time permits. They have pressure to fulfill
expectations of top management, thus entangle them in the trap of stress. Interpersonal
Demand is a pressure created by other employees. Specially, when teachers have high need
for affiliation and team work and do not get support from colleagues. In that case poor
interpersonal relations can cause stress at workplace. Job insecurity in difficult time creates
conflict between colleagues and leads to stress in relations. C) Individual Factors like lay off,
inadequate salary, lack of promotion are creating financial problems for teachers. Also due to
workload, teachers need to work long hours and till late evening. Thus they are facing work
life balance issues and increase stress burden. The causes of stress are known as stressors and
there are literally hundreds of different types of stressors. So here we will consider only
workplace stressors in context of current challenging events of engineering education
industry.

2. Causes of stress

Stress related to work environment is known as work stress or job stress. Teacher stress is a
specific type of occupational stress. It is “the experience by a teacher of unpleasant emotions
such as tension, frustration, anger and depression resulting from aspects of his work as a
teacher” (Kyriacou, 1987). Workplace stress differs from person to person. It can depend on
your personality type and how you respond to pressure. Many researches were conducted on
the sources of stress in teaching professions also found that workload contributes a significant
part in producing stress (Dewe, 1986; Manthei and Solman, 1988). Student related issues
involve faculty to conflict with students over evaluation, advising and teaching.
Organizational structural & procedural characteristics are supported by many researches as a
considerable source of stress (Hardie, 1996; Ramage, 2001). Disruptive behavior by students
was also found to be one of the important stressors for faculty (Griffith et al. 1999; Kyriacou,
2001). Work load includes sheer number of hours on the job, administrative work (Kinman,
2001), being frequently called by the institutional works, also found statistically significant
correlation between workload in form of hours of work and its ill effects on physical health
(Gmelch, 1984). Abouserie (1996) found poor relationship with colleagues as one of the
important factors producing stress. Regarding students feedback on faculty, administrators
may not even see the results at all or if they do, the results can easily be ignored or selectively
invoked (Palmer 1998). While all the possible permutations of the causes and effects of stress
have yet to be thoroughly investigated, it is probable that other things being equal, stress
tends to affect younger, less experienced teachers over older, more experienced ones; those of
lower academic rank over higher; single teacher over married; and women over men,
although men are at greater risk of self-destructive reactions to stress (Griffith et. al., 1999).

Research evidences have shown that there is high stress prevailing among teachers of higher
educational institutions and a very few studies have been conducted in ascertaining the
reasons for generation of stress in engineering colleges that too identified the meager reasons
for generations of stress.

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 408

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

2.1 Statement of the problem

Research evidence on occupational stress suggests that teaching is among one of the most
stressful occupations (Boyle et al. 1995; Hui and Chan, 1996; Doune, 1999; Shonfeld, 2001).
As far as the social welfare occupations are concerned, it has been claimed that in fact,
teachers experience the highest levels of stress (Travers and Cooper, 1993). Although many
researches related to stress have been studied with reference to teachers working in primary
school, higher secondary school and arts colleges whereas only very few studies have been
conducted in the areas of stress among engineering teachers in deemed universities and self-
financing engineering colleges.

Research of occupational stress in higher education has focused largely upon stressors related
to workplace factors (Gmelch et al., 1984; Richard and Krieshok, 1989; Olsen, 1993; Smith
et al., 1995) and personal factors (Smith and Witt, 1993; Dey et al., 1993). Studies of these
influences have yielded fairly consistent results. Dey’s work and other alert researchers need
to examine the issue by sub-populations rather than treating faculty as a homogeneous
population. All faculties do not respond to stressors in the same way. Various factors in the
workplace and home, including the need to secure financing for research, committee
responsibilities, and household responsibilities, affect tenured and non-tenured, male and
female individuals in different way. Furthermore, the negative consequences of job stress on
the work of college teachers induce further research on the stress among engineering teachers
in order to focus on how to stem the tide of increasing stress among the teachers of higher
educational institutions. The present study has been carried out to identify the further reasons
that are initially hidden to the previous researchers. In order to understand the consequences
of stress and to be able to cope effectively, some of the major causes of stress should be
identified. What are the work-related causes that lead to stress with respect to work culture in
engineering educational institutions? Whether there is any significant difference and
association among demographic variables with causes of stress? and How far job profile
variables of engineering teachers differs significantly and associated with causes of stress?.

3. Objectives

A systematic study of stress among engineering college teachers in the Indian environmental
context is very much needed. The present study is conducted with the following objectives:

1. To identify the various causes of stress among teachers of self financing engineering and
technology colleges and deemed universities.

2. To find out the significant difference among agreeability index on causes of stress in
engineering teachers with demographic and job profile variables.

3. To ascertain the significant association between agreeability on causes of stress among

engineering teachers with demographic and job profile variables.

3.1 Hypotheses

H0: Mean agreeability index on causes of stress does not differ among demographic and
job profile variables of engineering teachers.
H0: Demographic and job profile variables are not associated with level of agreeability on
causes of stress among the engineering teachers.

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 409

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

3.2 Research Methodology

3.2.1 Data

The data required for the study is primary in nature. The primary data are collected through
making questionnaire. Pilot study was conducted with 25 faculty members who belong to
engineering discipline. Based on the feedbacks and discussions with the academic experts,
the questionnaire has been restructured.

3.2.2 Period and area

The study was conducted during the academic year 2011-12. Coimbatore district is chosen
for the study because large number engineering colleges are functioning in the district. It
holds the second place next to Kanchipuram district in Tamil Nadu, with reference to number
of engineering colleges.

3.2.3 Sample and tools employed

Engineering teachers working in six self-financing autonomous engineering and technology

colleges, 52 self-financing non-autonomous engineering and technology colleges and four
deemed universities in the Coimbatore district were selected for the study. Totally 600
questionnaires were distributed among the selected population using convenient sampling
method. Only 510 questionnaires have been returned by the respondents. Of which, only 478
questionnaires are complete in all aspects and considered for the study. The collected data
were analyzed using‘t’ test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Chi-square test.

3.4 Need and significance of the study

In India, both Central and State government have approved for high number of students
enrollment in engineering institutions in recent years. There is an increase in the awareness
among people for the need of higher education, rising aspirations of the youth for better job
opportunities and most of the parents desire a secured future for their children through better
education. The expectations of the students and their parents are quiet high in private self-
financing engineering colleges and colleges having the autonomy status. This in turn results
in the demand for better performance from the teachers in private colleges as. Keeping the
competition in view the management demands good results from the faculty members and
also their workload is much more than the faculty members of the government colleges. This
creates stress which leads to reduced teaching efficiency. Given the paucity of research that
investigated the work stress in engineering education in India, there is a need to fill the
organizational and geographical gaps by examining the outcomes of work stress. The
findings of the study may be immensely useful to teaching faculty members, students’
community and the public in general. It may hold benefit for institutions and teachers of
engineering college.

3.5 Limitations

Data being primary in nature, all sorts of limitations applicable to primary data is applicable
to the present study also. This study is confined to Coimbatore district so utmost care should
be taken while generalizing the result.

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 410

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

4. Analysis and findings

Causes of Stress have been measured by giving scores to stress related questions. Sixty three
such questions are included in the questionnaire. Answers to the questions have been rated
on a five point scale. The scores allotted to the answers range from one to five. Thus, the
maximum score a faculty would get is 315. Score obtained by each faculty is divided by 315
and multiplied by 100 to convert it into an index. This index is called ‘Agreeability Index’.
The index ranges between 26.03 and 93.02 and the grand mean of Agreeability Index is
59.68. Of the 478 faculty members, 227 (47.49%) are with indices above the average and 251
(52.51%) are with indices below the average. Based on the Agreeability Index, the faculty
members have been divided into three groups as faculty members with low, moderate and
high level of agreeability. In order to classify the faculty members into three such groups,
quartiles have been made use of. Accordingly, faculty members with Agreeability Index
ranging up to 48.76 are termed as faculty members with low level of agreeability; those with
Agreeability Index ranging between 48.77 and 70.59 are termed as faculty members with
moderate level of agreeability and those faculty members with Agreeability Index ranging
above 70.59 are termed as faculty members with high level of agreeability.

Of the 478 faculty members, 71 (14.86%) respondents have low level of agreeability; 334
(69.87%) respondents have moderate level of agreeability and the rest 73 (15.27%)
respondents have high level of agreeability. The significant difference and association of each
demographic and job profile variable of engineering teachers with the causes of stress are
found using ‘t’ test, ANOVA test and Chi square test and these are indicated in the Table
10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4.

Table 1 shows the result of significant difference among the ten demographic variables with
the agreeability index. Out of this, only one variable such as gender is found to significantly
differ with agreeability index on causes of stress. The mean agreeability index of male
teachers (61.17) is higher than the female teachers (57.91) and its calculated ‘t’ value (3.288)
is greater than the table value (2.586) at one per cent level of significance. Hence, the null
hypothesis is rejected and it can be inferred that there is highly significant difference between
gender and agreeability on causes of stress among the teachers. Table 2 finds out the
significant differences among the eleven job profile variables with agreeability index. The
agreeability index on causes of stress is high in teachers who belong to non-autonomous
institution and low in teachers who belong to autonomous institution. The calculated F value
(7.635) is greater than the table value (4.650) at one per cent level of significance, it can be
said that there is high significant difference between agreeability on causes of stress among
the teachers and type of institution. The teachers who belong to the institution located at
semi-urban areas have high agreeability index (64.77) and the calculated F value (14.260) is
greater than the table value (4.650) at one per cent level of significance, results a high
significant difference between agreeability on causes of stress among the teachers and
location of the college. The teachers who belong to temporary working status have high level
of agreeability index (61.72) and the calculated ‘t’ value (3.450) is greater than the table
value at one per cent level, shows high significant difference between agreeability on causes
of stress among the teachers and their working status. Hence, the null hypothesis related to
job variables such as type of institution, location of the college and current working status are
rejected. The rest of job profile variables do not significantly differ from the mean
agreeability index, hence, the null hypothesis is accepted with respect to these variables. The
tables 3 and 4 exhibit the association among demographic and job profile variables with level
of agreeability of causes of stress respectively. The table 3 reveals only gender category

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 411

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

associates with level of agreeability out of ten demographic variables is considered for study.
It indicates that the percentage of teachers with high level of agreeability (17.40%) is high
with male teachers. The percentage of teachers with low level of agreeability (20.10%) is
high with female teachers. Hence, it is inferred that male teachers have high level of
agreeability on the causes of stress and chi-square value (9.539) is greater than the table value
(9.210) at one per cent level, there exists a highly significant association between gender and
level of agreeability. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected with respect to gender category.
Table 1: Demographic Variables and Agreeability Index
(Source: Primary data)
ANOVA / ‘t’
Demographic Variables N AI
Test
Area of Residence
Rural 189 59.87
0.063
Semi-urban 144 59.44
Urban 145 59.66
Gender
Male 259 61.17 3.288**
Female 219 57.91
Age
Up to 25 66 61.15
1.294
26 to 36 346 59.70
Above 36 66 58.10
Marital Status
Married 306 59.19 -1.308
Unmarried 172 60.55
Educational Qualification
UG 21 60.17
PG 295 60.19 1.389
M.Phil. 125 59.36
Ph.D. 37 56.39
Type of Family
206 59.86
Joint 0.312
272 59.54
Nuclear
Status in the Family
Head 121 59.00 -0.788
Member 357 59.91
Total Family Members
Up to Two 150 58.77
0.854
Thee 113 59.71
Four and Above 215 60.29
Monthly Income
Low 31 60.80
2.211
Medium 409 59.92
High 38 56.19
Family Income
Low 12 56.88
0.457
Medium 421 59.81
High 45 59.25
N = No. of Teachers; AI = Agreeability Index; ** One per cent level;

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 412

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

Table 2: Job Profile Variables and Agreeability Index

(Source: Primary data)

Job Profile Variables N AI ANOVA / ‘t’ Test

Type of Institution
Autonomous 181 57.48
7.635**
Non-autonomous 258 61.45
Deemed universities 39 58.17
Nature of College
Women 11 57.23 -0.752
Coeducation 467 59.74
Location of the College
Rural 359 58.70
14.260**
Semi-urban 92 64.77
Urban 27 55.39
Total Teaching Experience
One 57 60.92
1.019
2 to 11 360 59.75
Above 11 61 58.10
Present Designation
Assistant Professor 420 59.78
Associate Professor 34 58.13 0.523
Professor 22 59.58
Dean 2 66.83
Area of Specialization
Science 120 58.96
Engineering 307 59.93 0.613
Humanities 30 58.53
Management 21 61.84
Working Status
Temporary 196 61.72 3.450**
Permanent 282 58.26
Administrative responsibility
Nil 65 58.04
One 234 60.26 0.735
Two 105 59.37
Three and Above 74 59.74
Location of Residence
Off Campus 460 59.68 -0.001
Within Campus 18 59.68
College Timings
Up to 7.5 hours 333 58.77 -2.786
Above 7.5 hours 145 61.77
Average No. of Teaching hours
Up to 14 hours 78 60.13
2.101
15 – 23 hours 344 60.03
Above 23 hours 56 56.88
N = No. of Teachers; AI = Agreeability Index; ** One per cent level;

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 413

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

Table 3: Demographic Variables and Level of Agreeability

(Source: Primary data)

Level of Agreeability χ2
Demographic Variables N
Low Moderate High Value
Area of Residence
Rural 189 28 132 29
0.132
Semi-urban 144 21 102 21
Urban 145 22 100 23
Gender
Male 259 27 187 45 9.539**
Female 219 44 147 28
Age
Up to 25 66 5 52 9
5.051
26 to 36 346 53 237 56
Above 36 66 13 45 8
Marital Status
Married 306 51 208 47 2.326
Unmarried 172 20 126 26
Educational Qualification
UG 21 3 15 3
PG 295 38 208 49 8.250
M.Phil. 125 19 90 16
Ph.D 37 11 21 5
Type of Family
206 27 149 30
Joint 1.175
272 44 185 43
Nuclear
Status in the Family
18 87 16
Head 121 0.541
53 247 57
Member 357
Total Family Members
Up to Two 150 26 108 16
7.424
Thee 113 16 83 14
Four and Above 215 29 143 43
Monthly Income
Low 31 5 21 5
Medium 409 55 292 62 7.001
High 38 11 21 6
Family Income
Low 12 4 7 1
Medium 421 61 294 66 3.707
High 45 6 33 6

N = No. of Teachers; ** One per cent level

The table 4 shows the association among job profile variables with level of agreeability. It is
found that the percentage of teachers with high level of agreeability (17.80%) is high with
teachers who belong to non-autonomous institution. The percentage of teachers with low
level of agreeability (22.70%) is high with teachers who are working in autonomous
institution.

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 414

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

Table 4: Job Profile Variables and Level of Agreeability

(Source: Primary data)

Level of Agreeability
Job Profile Variables N χ2 Value
Low Moderate High
Type of Institution
Autonomous 181 41 116 24
16.856**
Non-autonomous 258 26 186 46
Deemed universities 39 4 32 3
Nature of College
Women 11 1 10 0 2.684
Coeducation 467 70 324 73
Location of the College
Rural 359 59 259 41
28.460**
Semi-urban 92 7 55 30
Urban 27 5 20 2
Total Teaching Experience
One 57 7 41 9
2.468
2 to 11 360 51 254 55
Above 11 61 13 39 9
Present Designation
Assistant Professor 420 60 300 60
Associate Professor 34 6 21 7 6.731
Professor 22 5 11 6
Dean 2 0 2 0
Area of Specialization
Science 120 22 80 18
Engineering 307 38 220 49 5.083
Humanities 30 6 21 3
Management 21 5 13 3
Current Working Status
Temporary 196 18 141 37 10.221**
Permanent 282 53 193 36
Administrative responsibility
Nil 65 14 45 6
One 234 32 166 36 4.644
Two 105 15 73 17
Three and Above 74 10 50 14
Location of Residence
Off Campus 460 69 321 70 0.215
Within Campus 18 2 13 3
College Timings
Up to 7.5 hours 333 57 230 46 5.417
Above 7.5 hours 145 14 104 27
Average No. of Teaching hours
Up to 14 hours 78 10 55 13
15 – 23 hours 344 45 245 54 9.707*
Above 23 hours 56 16 34 6
N = No. of Teachers; * Five Per cent level; ** One per cent level

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 415

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

Hence, it is inferred that teachers who belong to non-autonomous institution have high level
of agreeability on the causes of stress. As the calculated chi-square value (16.856) is greater
than the table value (13.277) at one per cent level, there exists a highly significant association.
With respect to location of college, teachers working in the institutions which are located in
semi-urban areas have high level of agreeability (32.60%) on the causes of stress and the chi-
square value (28.460) is greater than the table value (13.277) at one per cent level, shows a
high significant association. The percentage of teachers with high level of agreeability
(18.90%) is high with teachers who are working on temporary basis and the calculated chi-
square value (10.221) is higher than the table value (9.210) at one per cent level, proves a
high significant association between current working status and level of agreeability. The
variable ‘average number of teaching hours’ shows that the percentage of teachers with high
level of agreeability (16.70%) is high with teachers allotted up to 14 hours as an average per
week for teaching. The percentage of teachers with low level of agreeability (28.60%) is
high with teachers allotted above 23 hours as an average per week for teaching. Hence, it is
inferred that the average number of hours allotted per week for teaching above 23 hours has
high level of agreeability on the causes of stress and chi-square value (9.707) is greater than
the table value (9.488) at five per cent level. Therefore there exists a significant association
between average number of teaching hours and level of agreeability. Hence, the null
hypothesis are rejected with respect to the job profile variables such as type of institution,
location of the college, current working status and average number of teaching hours.
Hypothesis with respect to the rest of other job profile variables are accepted.

5. Conclusion

The study identifies the teachers working in the engineering institutions as one the
occupational group that functions under conditions of high stress. The variables such as
gender, type of institution, location of college and current working status have high level of
significant association with level of agreeability on causes of stress and average number of
teaching hours is significantly associated at five percent level. Further, the result reveals that
there is a need to ensure stress free environment in engineering educational institutions .

5.1 Future Work

It is suggested that the further research can be conducted in the stress in engineering
institutions like stand alone colleges, comparative study with the government and self
financing engineering institutions and similar research in non-teacher control groups.

6. References

1. Abouserie, R. (1996), Stress, Coping Strategies and Job Satisfaction in University

Academic Staff, Educational Psychology, 16, pp 49-56.

2. Boyle, G. J., Borg, M. G., Falzon, J. M. & Baglioni Jr., A. J. (1995), A Structural
Model of the Dimensions of Teacher Stress, British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 65, pp 49-67.

3. Brown, M. and Ralph, S. (1998). The Identification of Stress in Teachers. In J.

Dunham & V. Varma (Eds.). Stress in teachers: Past, present, and future. London:
Whurr, pp 37-56.

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 416

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

4. Charles Kowalski (2002), Caring for Teachers in Uncaring Schools. Curriculum

Innovation, Testing and Evaluation: Proceedings of the 1st Annual JALT Pan-SIG
Conference, Kyoto, Japan, pp 53-57.

5. Dey, E.L., Ramirez, C.E., Korn, W.S., and Astin, A. W. (1993), The American
College Teacher: National Norms for the 1992-93 HERI Faculty Survey, Los
Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.

6. Dewe, P. (1986), An investigation into the causes and consequences of teacher stress.
New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 21 (2), pp 145- 157.

7. Doune, M. (1999), Teacher Attrition: A Review of Literature. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 15, pp 835-848.

8. Gandham, S. R., (2000),The Safety and Health Practioner, Borehamwood, 18(1), 20.

9. Gaurav Bhargava, NeelamSaraswat and Aakanksha Singh (2010), Stress and Stress
Management in Recession. Pacific Business Review International, pp 47-58.

10. Geetha Nema, Dhanashree Nagar, YogitaMandhanya (2010), A Study on the Causes
of Work Related Stress among the College Teachers, Pacific Business Review
International, pp 1-7.

11. Gmelch, W. H. (1993), Coping with Faculty Stress. New York: Sage Publications.

12. Gmelch, W. H. (1984), Educators’ responses to stress: Towards a coping taxonomy.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.

13. Gmelch, W. H., Lovrich, N. P., and Wilke, P. K., (1984), Stress in Academe: A
National Perspective. Research in Higher Education, 20(4), pp 477-490.

14. Griffith, J., Steptoe, A., and Cropley, M. (1999), An Investigation of Coping
Strategies Associated with Job Stress in Teachers. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69 (4), pp 517-531.

15. Hardie Boys, N. (1996), Workload and Stress: a report of ASTE members.
Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational research and Association of Staff
in Tertiary Education.

16. Hui, E. K. P. & Chan, D. W. (1996), Teacher Stress and Guidance Work in Hong
Kong Secondary School Teachers. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24,
pp 199-211.

17. Kinman, G. (2001). Pressure points: A review of research on Stressors and Strains in
UK Academics. Educational Psychology, 21, pp 473-492.

18. Kyriacou, C.,(1987), Teacher Stress and Burnout: An International Review.

Educational Research, 29(2).

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 417

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

19. Kyriacou, C. (2001), Teacher Stress: Directions for Future Research. Educational
Research, 53(1), pp 27-35.

20. Manthei, R. and Solman, R. (1988), Teacher stress and negative outcomes in
Canterbury state schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 23, pp 145-
163.

21. Olsen, D. (1993), Work Satisfaction and Stress in the first and their year of Academic
Appointment. Journal of Higher Education, 64, pp 453-471.

22. Olsen, D. and Maple, S. A. (1993), Gender Differences among Faculty at a Research
University: Myths and Realities. Initiatives, 55(4), pp 33-42.

23. Palmer, P. (1998), The Courage to Teach. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.

24. Ramage, J. (2001), The Identification of Work Place Stressors by Academic Staff at
Hutt Valley Polytechnic. Unpublished manuscript. Victoria University: Graduate
School of Business and Government Management.

25. Richard, G.V. and Krieshok, T.S. (1989), Occupational Stress, Strain, and Coping in
University Faculty. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 34, pp 117-132.

26. Sarah Basu (2009), Stress among Teacher Educators.University News, 47(49).

27. Shonfeld, I. S. (2001), Stress in 1st-year Women Teachers: The Context of Social
Support and Coping.Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 127, pp
133-168.

28. Smith, E., Anderson, J.L. and Lovrich, N.P. (1995), The Multiple Sources of
Workplace Stress among Land-Grant University Faculty. Research in Higher
Education, 36, pp 261-282.

29. Smith, E, & Witt, S. L. (1993), A Comparative Study of Occupational Stress among
African American and White University Faculty: A Research Note. Research in
Higher Education, 34, pp 229-241.

30. Stephen P. Robbins and Timothy A. Judge, (2007), Organizational Behavior,

Pearson/Prentice Hall.

31. Travers, C.J. & Cooper, C.L. (1993).Mental Health, Job Satisfaction and
Occupational Stress among UK Teachers. Work and Stress, 7, pp 203-209.

32. Travers, C. and Cooper, L. (1998), Increasing Costs of Occupational Stress for
Teachers. In Dunham, J. and Verma, V. (Eds). Stress in Teachers: Past, Present, and
Future, London: Whurr, pp 57-75.

33. Woods, R. C., & Montagno, R. V. (1997), Determining the Negative Effect of
Teacher Attendance on Student Achievement. Education, 118(2), pp 307-316.

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 418

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013
 Causes of work stress of teachers in engineering education
Senthil Kumar A, Mohan S, Velmurugan R

34. Zoe Ann Brown and Denise L. Uehara (1999), Coping with Teacher Stress: A
Research Synthesis for Pacific Educators. Pacific Resources of Education and
Learning, ED 440 924, pp 1-22.

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 419

Volume 3 Issue 2, 2013