Teacher diversity: Do male and female teachers have

different self-efficacy and job satisfaction?

Lotte Bgh Andersen
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University &
Danish Institute of Governmental Research
lotte@ps.au.dk

Abstract
Managing diversity involves many challenges, and one of these is that the criteria for success
can favour one diversity group with adverse consequences for other workforce members
feelings of self-efficacy, job satisfaction and performance. Utilizing the fact that the Danish
school sector is female dominated (but with different gender composition at the school
level), this paper investigates whether (and why) female teachers in Danish schools have
higher teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction than male teachers. Based on a survey with
3439 teachers from 85 Danish schools, it is shown that female teachers have higher selfefficacy and job satisfaction, and that these gender differences are partly explain by the
female teachers higher level of empathy. The differences between male and female
teachers do not, however, depend on the proportion of female teachers at the specific
school or on the gender of the school principal. The main implication of the findings is that
future research should look more into the reasons behind gender differences in self-efficacy
and job satisfaction in order to be able avoid that certain diversity groups have
systematically lower self-efficacy and job satisfaction.

Paper prepared for the 33rd EGPA conference in Bucharest 7-10. September 2011

Introduction
Diversity in organizations has become a prominent theme in social science over the last
couple of decades (Bell and Barry, 2007: 21, Shore et al. 2009). Organizational diversity may
have positive effects on organizational outcome (Wise and Tschirhart, 2000; Bell and Berry,
2007), but managing diversity still involves many challenges. One of these is that the criteria
for success can favour one diversity group with adverse consequences for other workforce
members feelings of self-efficacy, job satisfaction and performance.
Focusing on one specific dimension of diversity, this study investigates whether and why
men and women have different self-efficacy and job satisfaction in a specific setting. These
two workplace attitudes are highly relevant, because existing research finds that they are
positively associated with performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono & Patton, 2001; Caprara,
2006), and because they can be expected to suffer if organizational criteria of success favour
one diversity group. To substantiate the claim that criteria for success may be biased, the
paper links gender differences in teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction to a personal
characteristic, which differs between the genders, namely empathy (the ability to
spontaneously and naturally tune into another person's thoughts and feelings (Baron-Cohen,
2003)). It also investigates whether the collective mix of men and women in a given
organization affects the gender differences in individual self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
This is investigated for Danish public schools, because these organizations are very similar
and still have variation in the gender composition. The specific research question is whether
(and why) female teachers in Danish schools have different teacher self-efficacy and job
satisfaction than male teachers.
Given that primary and lower secondary schools in Denmark on an aggregated level are
dominated by women, female teachers are expected to have higher job satisfaction and selfefficacy than male teachers, especially in schools with a high percentage of women or a
female school principal. Furthermore, individuals with high empathy are expected to have
higher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. A survey from spring 2011 tests these expectations.
It includes almost all teachers from 85 Danish schools (n= 3439 teachers). This design allows
me to measure the gender of the individual teachers (and their level of empathy, teacher
self-efficacy and job satisfaction) as well as the collective mix of men and women at the
schools.
The main contribution of the paper is that it provides knowledge about the relationships
between gender, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. The literature has shown that
2

self-efficacy is generally positively correlated with job satisfaction and job performance
(Judge & Bono, 2001). Specifically, teacher self-efficacy contributes significantly to students
achievement and teachers job satisfaction (Caprara et al. 2006: 485), but little is known
about how this depends on gender and gender composition. I therefore hope to contribute
both to the diversity literature and to the literature on school achievement. After this
introduction, the theoretical framework is presented, resulting in six hypotheses. A section
on data and methods then accounts for the research design and operationalizations,
followed by a section with the results. The conclusion then discusses the findings and briefly
discusses the implications for future research.

Theoretical framework
Studies of job satisfaction are widespread in industrial-organizational psychology as well as
in Economics and Public Administration. It can be defined as a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experiences (Locke, 1976:
1300), and especially the relationship between job satisfaction and performance has been
thoroughly studied. Although the general finding is a positive association (Judge et al. 2001),
Caprara et al. (2006) find that school teachers job satisfaction in itself does not contribute
to students learning. They find that a solid sense of competence is of greater consequence,
indicating that teacher self-efficacy should be included in the study in addition to job
satisfaction.
Bandura (1994) defined perceived self-efficacy as people's beliefs about their capabilities to
produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect
their lives. Perceived teacher self-efficacy is accordingly the extent to which a teacher
believes that she or he can influence students behavior and their academic achievement.
Teachers with high teacher self-efficacy expect to succeed in teaching and to handle
students well, and this influences their interpretation of successes and disappointments
(OECD, 2009: 111). Teacher self-efficacy has been found to contribute significantly to
teachers job satisfaction and students academic achievement (controlled for previous
achievement) (Anderson et al. 1988, Caprara et al. 2006: 485). This paper focuses on the
internal relationship between job satisfaction and teacher self-efficacy and on the
antecedents of the two concepts (especially gender), while a later paper will link the two
concepts to performance in terms of students exam scores.

A recent study finds that teachers within a school vary markedly in their levels of selfefficacy and job satisfaction, while differences between schools and between countries are
rather small (OECD, 2009: 111). This emphasizes the psychological nature of the constructs
and call attention to the teachers personality and other personal characteristics. The
diversity literature has investigated several diversity dimensions linked to the personal
characteristics, including race, culture, religion, gender, sexual preference, age and
profession (Wise and Tschirhart, 2000: 387), but gender is one of the most fundamental
diversity dimensions. It can be expected to affect organizational behaviour, both because
men and women have been socialized differently, and because the male and female brain
on average differs along relevant dimensions (Baron-Cohen, 2003).
Most studies find that females report higher teacher efficacy than males (Anderson, Greene,
& Lowen, 1988; Evans & Tribble, 1986: 83; Raudenbush et al., 1992: 162), and Ross et al.
(1996: 389) argue that this is because teaching is viewed as a female occupation. Still, other
studies (e.g. Lee et al. 1991) find no gender differences, and Klassen and Chiu (2010) even
find that female teachers have lower classroom management self-efficacy (a sub type of
teacher self-efficacy) while there was no gender effect for the other investigated domains of
teacher self-efficacy (instructional strategies and student engagement). Following Ross et
als argument, the reason behind these different results may be that the investigated
schools vary in terms of female dominance. High schools are for example generally less
dominated by females compared to primary schools. Given that 70 percent of Danish school
teachers are women (DLF, 2011), Danish female teachers are expected have higher teacher
self-efficacy than their male colleagues (hypothesis 1). Additionally, Ross et al. (1996: 389)
argue that female domination in the teaching occupation may also make females more
satisfied with teaching than men, and that is expressed in hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 1: Given that the Danish school sector is female dominated, female
teachers have higher perceived teacher self-efficacy than male teachers.
Hypothesis 2: Given that the Danish school sector is female dominated, female
teachers have higher job satisfaction than male teachers.
Combined with the expectation that teachers personality affects teacher efficacy (OECD
2009: 111) and the argument that success criteria may be biased in favour of the majority
diversity group, hypothesis 1 and 2 may imply that job satisfaction and teacher efficacy
could be correlated with a personality trait characteristic for women. The existing literature
(Krjer, 2000; Hale, 1999; Bellas, 1999 & Baron-Cohen, 2003) suggests looking at empathy. It
is the ability to spontaneously and naturally tune into the other person's thoughts and
4

feelings (Baron-Cohen, 2003), and it has been shown to affect priorities and approaches to
students. For example, Nielsen (2010) finds that the level of empathy is significantly
associated with high school counsellors counselling behaviour. Female counsellors have
significantly higher empathic capacity, and counsellors with higher empathic capacities more
often seek out students who are not thriving. Although Nielsen (2010) finds a gender
difference controlled for empathic capacities, empathy still mediates a large part of the
gender effect. Accordingly, it is possible that empathy affects teacher self-efficacy and job
satisfaction of Danish school teachers and thus helps explain the gender differences in the
two concepts. Hypothesis 3 and 4 concern the relationship between empathy, teacher selfefficacy and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Teachers with high empathy have higher perceived self-efficacy than
teachers with low empathy.
Hypothesis 4: Teachers with high empathy have higher job satisfaction than teachers
with low empathy.
Although the Danish school sector as a whole is female dominated, the extent of this varies
between organizations, depending on the collective mix of male and female teachers and on
the gender of the school principal. Organizational criteria for success may, in other words,
be biased to a different degree in different schools, and the collective mix of men and
women could affect the gender differences in individual self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5 and 6 concern this interaction effect between individual gender and collective
gender composition for teacher efficacy and job satisfaction, respectively. For female
teachers, female domination is expected to be positively associated with higher teacher
efficacy and job satisfaction (and opposite for male teachers).
Hypothesis 5: Female (male) teachers have higher (lower) perceived teachers efficacy
on schools with higher proportions of female teachers and/or female school principals
compared to female (male) teachers working at schools with a lower proportion of
females and/or a male school principal.
Hypothesis 6: Female (male) teachers have higher (lower) job satisfaction on schools
with higher proportions of female teachers and/or female school principals compared
to female (male) teachers working at schools with a lower proportion of females
and/or a male school principal.

Data and methods

Empirically, the paper is based on a cross-sectional survey among Danish school teachers at
municipal primary and secondary schools in Denmark from December 2010 until June 2011.
Data was collected at school staff meetings where the school principal agreed to let the

teachers answer the questionnaire at the meeting. This made the response rate at each
school very high, very close to a hundred percent (only a couple of teachers would not
answer), and teachers absent from the meetings got a questionnaire and a return envelope.
After a review of the data quality, where suspicious entries were deleted, 3439 usable
responses from 85 schools were retained. Given that the project focuses on teacher effects
controlled for school and student effects, the biggest schools in Denmark were investigated
to optimize the number of teachers investigated for the given resources.
40 percent of the contacted schools participated in the study. Most of the remaining 60
percent did not participate, because they did not have a staff meeting within the timeframe
where there was time to do the survey. This may introduce a slight selection bias at the
school level, but there is no reason to expect that the association between the variables
should differ systematically between the investigated schools and all big Danish school. For
the most important personal characteristic (gender), the data is not biased, given that 71 %
of the respondents are women and the corresponding percentage is 70 for Danish teachers
in general (according to statistics from the union which organizes 95 % of the teachers (DLF,
2011a & 2011b)). The data was collected by 10 employees at Danish Institute for
Governmental Research and Aarhus University and contains schools from all parts of
Denmark. The questionnaire was based on existing empirical research (as discussed below)
combined with interviews with a teacher, a school principal and an educational researcher.
The final questionnaire was adjusted after a pilot survey of 61 teachers on two schools.
Below, the operationalization of the key concepts is discussed.
Many different measures of teacher efficacy exist (Tschannen-Moran, M.; A. W. Hoy & W. K.
Hoy, 1998, Schwarzer, Schmitz and Daytner, 1999), and given that it has proven to work well
both in Denmark (Egelund, 2009) and internationally (OECD, 2010), the items from the OECD
Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) were used. One more item was added to
make sure that the reliability would be acceptable, which it is (Cronbachs alpha=0.73). Table
A1 in the Appendix (a principal axis factoring analysis of the five items intended to measure
self-efficacy) shows the wording of the specific items (both in Danish and English). Only one
factor with an Eigen value above 1 was extracted. An additive index was constructed so that
it goes from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum) self-efficacy. Missing values on the index were
replaced by the mean among all respondents for the specific item if respondents had at least
three valid answers on the items measuring teacher efficacy.

Three questions from the Empathy Quotient Test (see http://glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/

EmpathyQuotient/EmpathyQuotient.aspx) measures empathy. The three items were
chosen, because they had previously been found to work well in a Danish context (Nielsen
unpublished). It has high reliability (Cronbachs alpha=0.75), and the factor analysis (table A2
in the appendix) shows that only one factor with an Eigen value above 1 was extracted.
Table A2 also shows the wording of the items (in both Danish and English). An additive index
was constructed so that it goes from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum) empathy. Missing
values on the index were replaced by the mean among all respondents for the specific item
if respondents had at least two valid answers on the items.
A single item measures overall job satisfaction, asking the respondents All in all, how
satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your current job on a scale from 0 (very unsatisfied) to
10 (very satisfied)?.
The analyses in this paper is ordinary least square (OLS) regressions, but the robustness of all
the regressions was tested by performing Tobit regressions (because both dependent
variables are censored, that is, the values are clustered at the upper thresholds). The OLS
and Tobit regressions give very similar results, and only the OLS regressions are therefore
presented. School dummies for each of the investigated schools are controlled for, but they
are not shown in the tables. Due to this, it is only necessary to include control variables
related to the individual teacher. Tenure is included in the tables, because it may affect both
self-efficacy and job satisfaction, and alternative analyses with age instead of tenure were
also produced (but not shown) and gave similar results (including both variables at the same
time leads to problems with multicollinearity). A variable measuring whether the teachers
have a standard teacher education or a credit education is also included. The credit
education takes 2.05 or 2.65 years, depending on the qualifications of the students, who
must have a master or bachelor degree or a trade education combined with 2 years
experience (and be 25 years old). The ordinary teacher education is a 4-year bachelor
programme.

Results
Table 1 presents four OLS regressions of teacher self-efficacy. Models 1.1 and 1.2 show that
female teachers have higher teacher self-efficacy than male teachers as expected in
hypothesis 1, and model 1.2 shows that this gender difference is still significant when
empathy is included, although the size of the coefficient is approximately halved. Empathy is
7

strongly correlated with teacher self-efficacy; both indexes are measured on a scale from 0
to 100, and teachers with 1 unit higher empathy are estimated to have 0.29 unit higher
teacher self-efficacy. The coefficient is highly significant, supporting hypothesis 3, which
expects that teachers with high empathy have higher perceived self-efficacy than male
teachers. There is a small positive association between tenure and teacher self-efficacy in
model 1.2, and this model explains 14.6 percent of the variance in self-efficacy (adj. R2).
Model 1.3 and 1.4 test hypothesis 5, which expects that female teachers on schools with
higher proportions of female teachers and/or female principals have higher perceived
teachers efficacy, while it is opposite for male teachers. None of the interaction terms are
significant, and analyses (not shown) without the interaction terms but with female
proportion/gender of school principal, do not find significant effects for these variables. An
analysis also combined female proportion and gender of school principal in a formative
index (not shown), but this measure of female dominance did not affect the relationship
between gender and self-efficacy either. In model 1.3, the coefficient for gender is negative,
but given that it is estimated for a female proportion = 0, it is not meaningful, although the
signs of this variable and the interaction between female proportion and individual gender is
as should be expected (but they are not, as mentioned, statistically significant). The main
results in table 1 are thus that gender is both directly and indirectly (through empathy)
associated with teacher self-efficacy. Women have higher empathy and consequently higher
self-efficacy, but a female teacher with the same level of empathy as a given male teacher is
still estimated to have higher self-efficacy. The results thus support both hypothesis 1 and 3.
[TABLE 1 here]
Table 2 presents five OLS regressions of job satisfaction. Model 2.1 shows that female
teachers on average have higher job satisfaction, supporting hypothesis 2. This is also the
case when controlling for empathy and school dummies in model 2.2, although the
coefficient decreases a bit from model 2.1 to model 2.2. Empathy is strongly and significantly
related to job satisfaction, supporting hypothesis 4. Model 2.3 includes teacher efficacy, and
empathy is not related to job satisfaction controlled for teacher efficacy. It thus seems that
teacher efficacy mediates the effect of empathy on job satisfaction (although causal
inference cannot be made for this cross-sectional data). Model 2.4 and 2.5 include
interactions between individual gender and female proportion (model 2.4) and gender of
the school principal (model 2.5). None of the interaction terms are significant, although they
have the expected signs. Figure 1 illustrates that there might be a very small interaction,

given that the association between female proportion and job satisfaction is a negative for
men, while there is no association for women. Still, this interaction is both statistically and
substantially insignificant, and hypothesis 6 cannot be said to be supported.
[TABLE 2 here]
[Figure 1 here]
The main results from the analysis of job satisfaction are that gender is both directly and
indirectly (through empathy and teacher self-efficacy) associated with job satisfaction.
Female teachers, teachers with high empathy, and teachers with high self-efficacy thus tend
to have high job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2 and 4 are thus supported, while hypothesis 6
concerning the interaction between individual gender and female dominance at the specific
school is not supported. Finally, the expected positive association between teacher selfefficacy and job satisfaction is also found for Danish teachers.

Conclusion
This paper has investigated whether (and why) female teachers in Danish schools have
different teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction than male teachers. Female Danish
teachers do, as expected given the (numerical) dominance of women in Danish schools, have
both higher teacher efficacy and higher job satisfaction. Additionally, individuals with high
empathy have higher self-efficacy and therefore higher job satisfaction, so gender
differences in this personal (female) characteristic explain parts of the differences. This
indicates that the criteria of success in Danish schools may be biased, favouring women, but
any firm conclusions on this account must await more evidence. Like for other teachers,
there is a positive association between self-efficacy and job satisfaction for Danish teachers,
and that makes it even more relevant to link both concepts to performance in future
studies. Still, the most important finding is that female teachers see themselves as more
efficient and are more satisfied than male teachers, and the gender difference in empathy in
part explains this.
Although the investigated schools have varying proportions of female teachers (and some of
the schools have male school principals while others have female principals), no statistically
significant interaction between individual gender and the organizational mix of men and
women can be identified. This may indicate that the general female dominance in the sector
rather than the gender composition at each school is important. It would, however, be
9

highly interesting to compare the school sector to a similar sector which was male
dominated to see whether opposite gender differences in self-efficacy and job satisfaction
could be identified there.
In any case, attention on male teachers self-efficacy and job satisfaction seems to be
warranted. The proportion of female teachers is increasing, not only in Denmark, but also in
many other countries (National Education Association, 2010; Wylie, 2000), and this
decreasing diversity calls attention to the conflict perspective within the diversity literature
(e.g. Pelled, 1996). If more women mean that mens teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction
decrease, it may already have become a vicious spiral, where men leave the profession and
fewer men want to be teachers, leading again to further feminization of the schools. The
main implication of this paper for future research is therefore that gender is very relevant in
relation to self-efficacy and job satisfaction, and that we should continue to study diversity
dimensions such as gender, so that we can help make diversity an asset in public
organizations. Otherwise, we might well be moving towards an increasingly (gender)
segmented labour marked, because dominance of one diversity group may decrease selfefficacy and job satisfaction of other groups.

References
Anderson, R., Greene, M., & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers' and students'
thinking skills sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 34(2), 148-165.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (accessed at
http://www.westga.edu/~vickir/Healthcare/HC14%20FacititatingResiliency/Link%2010%20-%20Self-Efficacy.pdf (28072011).
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003), The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female
Brain, New York: Perseus Books Group
Bell, M. P., and D. P. Berry (2007) Viewing Diversity through Different Lenses: Avoiding a
Few Blind Spots. Academy of Management Perspectives, November: 21-25.
Bellas, Marcia L. (1999). Emotional labor in Academia: The case of professors, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 561 (1): 96-110.
Caprara, G.V., C. Barbaranelli, P. Steca & P. S. Malone (2006), Teachers Self-Efficacy Beliefs
as Determinants of Job Satisfaction and Students Academic Achievement: A Study at the
School Level, Journal of School Psychology, No. 44(6), pp. 473-490.
Cox, T. (1995) "A Diversity Framework," In M. M. Chemers, S. Oksamp, and M. A. Costanso
(eds.), Diversity in Organizations: 246-260. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

10

DLF (2011a). Udviklingen i andelen af mnd i fraktion 1, 2 og 3. DLF's medlemsregister

opgjort 14/3-2011(Development in the proportion of men for teachers, pre-school class
teachers and school principals, respectively according to the member register of the Danish
Union of Teachers per 14.03.2011. www.dlf.org (accessed 29072011).
DLF (2011b). The Danish Union of Teachers. dlf.org/files/DLF/English/Pjece-text.pdf
(Accessed 29072011)
Egelund, N. (2009) TALIS. Lrere og skoleledere om undervisning, kompetenceudvikling og
evaluering i et internationalt perspektiv. Kbenhavn: Skolestyrelsen.
http://www.ktst.dk/skolen/~/media/TALIS%202009/129782%20Talis%20rapport_web.ashx
(accessed July 28, 2011).

Evans, E., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and
commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Research,
80(2), 81-85.
Hale, Mary (1999). He says, she says: Gender and worklife, Public Administration Review, 59
(5): 410-424.
Judge, T.A. J. E. Bono (2001) Relationship of Core Self-Evaluations TraitsSelf-Esteem,
Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Emotional StabilityWith Job Satisfaction
and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1): 80-92.
Judge, T.A.; C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono & G. K. Patton (2001) The Job Satisfaction-Job
Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review Psychological Bulletin 127
(3): 376-407
Klassen, R. M.; M.M. Chiu (2010) Effects on Teachers' Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction:
Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.
102, No. 3, p 741-756.
Krjer, Jo (2000). Knnet i arbejdslivet et subjektivt eller diskursivt produkt?, Tidsskrift for
ARBEJDSLIV, 2 (4): 29-44.

Lee, V.E.; R. F. Dedrick & J. B. Smith (1991) The Effect of the Social Organization of
Schools on Teachers' Efficacy and Satisfaction Sociology of Education, 64 (3): 190-208.
Locke, E.A. (1976). Nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology pp. 1297-1349. Chicago: Rand McNally.
National Education Association (2010). Status of the American Public School Teacher,
selected years, 1960-61 through 2005-06. (Table 73).
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_073.asp. Accessed 31072011.
Nielsen, V.L. (unpublished). Survey of Danish public employees. Department of Political
Science, Aarhus University.
OECD (2009) Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments. FIRST RESULTS FROM
TALIS. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf (accessed July 28, 2011).
OECD (2010) TALIS 2008. Technical Report.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/14/44978960.pdf (accessed July 28, 2011).
Pelled, L.H. (1996) Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An
Intervening Process Theory Organization Science7 (6): 615-631.

Raudenbush, S., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. (1992). Contextual effects on the selfperceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 65, 150-167.16
11

Ross, J.A., J.B. Cousins & T. Gadalla (1996). Within-teacher predictors of teacher

efficacy Teaching & Teacher Education, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 385-400.
Schwarzer, R. Schmitz, G.S. and Daytner, G.T. (1999). Teacher Self-Efficacy [On line
publication http://web.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/Language_Selection/Turkish/Teacher_SelfEfficacy/teacher_self-efficacy.htm]

Shore, L. M., B. G. Chung-Herrera, M. A. Dean, K. H. Erhart, D. I. Jung, A. E. Randel, and G.

Singh (2009). Diversity in Organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?
Human Resource Management Review 19: 117-133.
Tschannen-Moran, M.; A. W. Hoy & W. K. Hoy (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and
Measure Review of Educational Research, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 202-248
Webber, S. S., and L. M. Donahue (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on
work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27: 141162.
Wise, L. R., and M. Tschirhart (2000) Examining Empirical Evidence on Diversity Effect: How
Useful Is Diversity Research for Public-Sector Managers? Public Administration Review, 60:
386-94.
Wylie C. (2000): Trends in the feminization of the teaching profession in OECD countries, 19801995, Sectoral Activities Working Paper WP.151.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/feminize/wp-151.htm. Accessed
31072011.

12

Table 1: OLS regressions of Teacher Efficacy. Unstandardized regression coefficients

with p-values in brackets.
Intercept
Gender (1= woman)
Tenure

Model 1.1
80.019***
(0.000)
3.396***
(0.000)
0.007
(0.721)

Credit education
Empathy

Model 1.2
57.323***
(3.045)
1.679***
(0.000)
0.041*
(0.027)
-0.720
(0.397)
0.292***
(0.000)

Female proportion at school

Female proportion at school *
individual gender (female)
Female school principal
Female school principal *
individual gender (woman)
N
Adjusted R2

2950
0.035

2950
0.146

Model 1.3
57.695
(0.000)
-0.644
(0.871)
0.037 *
(0.040)
-1.291
(0.121)
0.297 ***
(0.000)
0.481
(0.917)
3.313
(0.569)

2950
0.134

Model 1.4
57.711
(0.000)
2.227 ***
(0.000)
0.038 *
(0.036)
-1.287
(0.122)
0.297 ***
(0.000)

0.896
(0.236)
-1.542
(0.095)
2950
0.133

Note: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. School dummies included in model 1.2 (not shown)

13

Table 2: OLS regressions of Job Satisfaction. Unstandardized regression coefficients

with p-values in brackets.
Intercept
Gender (1= woman)
Tenure

Model 2.1
8.043***
(0.000)
0.222***
(0.000)
-0.005*
(0.046)

Credit education
Empathy

Model 2.2
7.388***
(3.045)
0.187**
(0.003)
-0.004
(0.140)
0.051
(0.657)
0.007***
(0.002)

Teacher efficacy

Model 2.3
5.501***
(0.000)
0.127*
(0.036)
-0.005*
(0.042)
0.085
(0.446)
-0.003
(0.174)
0.033***
(0.000)

Female proportion at
school
Female proportion*
individual gender (woman)
Female school principal
Female school principal *
individual gender (woman)
N
Adjusted R2

2908
0.005

2908
0.051

2908
0.107

Model 2.4
6.340 ***
(0.000)
-0.594
(0.262)
-0.005 *
(0.033)
0.050
(0.653)
-0.004 *
(0.037)
0.033 ***
(0.000)
-0.997
(0.106)
1.083
(0.165)

Model 2.5
5.669 ***
(0.000)
0.105
(0.169)
-0.005 *
(0.032)
0.053
(0.635)
-0.004 *
(0.038)
0.034 ***
(0.000)

-0.008
(0.9369)
0.068
(0.580)
2908
0.065

2908
0.066

Note: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. School dummies included in model 2.2 and 2.3 (not shown)

14

Figure 1: Scatterplot of school level proportion of female teachers and individual job
satisfaction with OLS regression lines separately for men and women. Danish teachers. 2011.

15

Table A1: Factor analysis of teacher self-efficacy items

English version of items

Danish version of items

Loadings

BTG31B I feel that I am

making a significant
educational difference in the
lives of my students.

Jeg fler, at jeg gr en

betydelig
uddannelsesmssig forskel i
mine elevers liv

0.516

BTG31C If I try really hard, I

can make progress with
even the most difficult and
unmotivated students.

Hvis jeg virkelig anstrenger

mig, kan jeg f selv den mest
vanskelige og umotiverede
elev til at gre fremskridt

0.473

BTG31D I am successful with

the students in my class.

Jeg ved normalt, hvordan jeg

fr elevernes
opmrksomhed.

0.744

BTG31E I usually know how

to get through to students.

Jeg har succes med eleverne

i min klasse.

0.725

I am able to get silence in

the class when necessary
(Not included in Talis)

Jeg evner i hj grad at skabe

ro i klassen, nr det er
ndvendigt

0.645

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. 1 factor with an Eigen value over 1 extracted.
Source of English versions: OECD (2010).

16

Table A2: Factor analysis of empathy items

English version of items

Danish version of items

Loadings

Empathy quotient test no.

55. I can tell if someone is
masking their true emotion.

Jeg er god til at forudsige,

hvordan en anden person
vil reagere flelsesmssigt.

0.766

Empathy quotient test no.

25. I am good at predicting
how someone will feel.

Jeg kan fornemme det, hvis

en anden forsger at
dkke over sine flelser.

0.717

Empathy quotient test no.

22. I find it easy to put
myself in somebody else's
shoes.

Jeg finder det let at stte

mig selv i andres sted

0.647

Source of English version of items: Empathy quotient test. Source of Danish version: Nielsen
(unpublished ). http://glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/EmpathyQuotient/EmpathyQuotient.aspx
Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring. 1 factor with an Eigen value over 1 extracted.

17