1. Introduction

Algeria, like other countries in the world, has always been striving for quality in teaching and learning to suit the future demands of the society as well as the demands of globalization. Therefore, an urgent need for the establishment of a QA system for Algerian higher education institutions has become mandatory. On January 27, 2008, the Algerian government enforced the application of QA in higher education institutions via a significant ministerial instruction (Ministerial Instruction No. 01of January 27, 2008). The QA system was expected to enable the Algerian universities to perform properly their functions in serving the country and supporting its progress.

QA manifests itself in the form of an internal as well as an external system. The external QA system provides the national framework within which the various institutional internal QA systems operate. Both QA systems are monitored by two governmental bodies: the National Commission for Implementing Quality Assurance (CIAQES), and the National Assessment Committee (CNE). These bodies were established as legal entities as part of a series of Ministerial Orders, where the first Order entered in force in 2010(Order No. 167of May 31, 2010; Order No. 2004of December 29, 2014).

The CIAQES and CNE are supposed to work together to upgrade the Algerian universities’ performance through ensuring the application of the QA standards in compliance with the internationally recognized accreditation and QA canons. Nevertheless, both bodies show a number of significant differences in their quality assurance responsibilities and mode of operation in the higher education area.  

By virtue of the law of higher education, the CIAQES is chiefly responsible for the development of quality assurance practices in academic institutions and the units therein. The CIAQES statutory requirements include: preparing a national framework for QA and undertaking a range of internal assessment and external reviews. The national QA framework is a conceptual model that set prior regulations to be used for classifying and analyzing the operational activities of higher education institutions for the purpose of quality assurance and hence its implementation, adaptation and follow-up. The model incorporates seven areas: Teaching; Research; Governance; Infrastructures; Life on Campus; Relations with the Socio-Economic Environment; and International Cooperation.

As to the CNE, this has the responsibility for, and makes recommendations to the Ministry of Higher Education on, matters relating to the management of policy and planning for operations relating to assessment. These operations include, but are not limited to the following: assessment of the effectiveness of the QA arrangements operated by higher education institutions; establishment of quality standards; examination of institutions’ internal assessment reports; supervision of the teams in charge of internal assessment and networking with QA bodies throughout the world.        

QA can indeed be a carter for Algerian institutions to achieve excellence in higher education as long as the objectives, procedures, and scope of the QA system are in line with the suggestions and recommendations of both local and transnational expert commissions. Yet, mechanisms for QA implementation and efforts to provide quality education will prove fruitless if not all stakeholders and policy makers pay attention to teachers’ job satisfaction.

Low job satisfaction undesirably affects the efficiency level of even highly qualified and skilled teachers, and results in teachers’ absenteeism, stress, lack of enthusiasm for the job, irregularity, shortage of commitment, adverse performance, work sabotage, theft, burnout, and turnover (Bennell & Akyeampong, 2007; Chamundeswari, 2013; Cohen & Aya, 2010; Sonmezer & Eryaman, 2008). Job dissatisfaction has also undulate effects on students’ academic growth (Umme, 1999). However, given an adequate training and development, promotion, remuneration, appropriate working conditions and sufficient support material will certainly boost teachers’ motivation; enhance quality instructional provision, quality feedback; and guarantee QA in higher education.

Teachers are often blamed for lower students’ performance without comprehending the factors influencing them and their effectiveness. Besides, teacher effectiveness does not depend only on the teachers. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to address some of those factors which might act as a barrier to teachers’ motivation, effectiveness and satisfaction, and quality assurance in higher education.Specifically, this paper investigates the influence of job security, working conditions, and support material on teachers job satisfaction. To achieve its aims, the study purports to answer these two questions:

1)                       What is the level of teachers job satisfaction in terms of job security, working environment (conditions), and support material?

2)                       Is there a significant difference between teachers of different: age, marital status, teaching experience and educational level?

2. Literature review

The literature review is divided into the following themes: concept of job satisfaction in relation to teaching; relationship between job satisfaction and variables of: job security, working conditions, andsupport material. This paper is premised on the assumption that teachers job dissatisfaction is a barrier to quality assurance.

Job satisfactionis not a new research topic at all. Many studies have been conducted on this particular topic. The literature on job satisfaction can be traced back to the beginning of industrial revolution in UK. Scholars at that time focused their research on maximizing workers output and prescribed many solutions to address the challenges of job satisfaction. Having clear daily tasks, standard conditions of work and high pay for well accomplished work, to name but few, were considered prerequisites for an increased workers production (Taylor, 1976). However, when it comes to defining the construct, one can find no universally accepted definition of job satisfaction.

Locke (1969) defined job satisfaction as a positive or pleasant emotional state resulting from a person’s appreciation of his or her own job or experience. Strumpfer (1998) defined job satisfaction as the individual’s cognitive, affective and evaluative reactions towards their job. According to Tasnim (2006), job satisfaction is the extent to which one feels good about the job. When linked to teaching, job satisfaction was defined as the sense of fulfillment and gratification teachers’ experience through their work (Locke, 1969).

 Newstrom (2007) described job satisfaction as the particular views of employees, which are affected by the favourable and unfavourable (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014) feelings and attachments of one’s work. Similarly, Kumari (2011) in his research on job satisfaction of some employees at the workplace indicated that job satisfaction is a set of favourable or unfavourable feelings and emotions with which those employees view their work. According to the writer, a person with high level of job satisfaction holds positive feelings about the job, while a person who is dissatisfied with his/her job holds negative feelings about the job.

Klassen, Usher and Bong (2010) stated that job satisfaction is an individual’s perceptions of fulfillment and enjoyment derived from work. According to Okoye (2011, as cited in Obineli, 2013), job satisfaction is simply how an individual is opposed with his or her job. Likewise, Lu, Liang, Li and He (2014) view job satisfaction as the employees’ or workers’ feelings and state of mind towards the nature of their work. Job satisfaction includes judgments of the job as a whole, possibly including multiple facets such as the work itself, pay and other returns, advancement, supervision and co-workers. There are many factors counting job security that upset job satisfaction.

Past literature found that job security is most often cited as the most important factor from a list of seven specific job attributes (Clark, 2001). Some literature revealed that job stability and job security are the two most important indicators of job satisfaction (Tangian, 2007). Job security is understood as people’s perceptions of their future in their current job from both positive and negative perspectives (Sverke,De Witte, Näswall, & Hellgren,2010). In other words, it is one’s expectation about continuity in a job situation. It has to do with workers feeling over job loss and related looked-for features, such as lack of advancement and promotion opportunities, undesirable working conditions and professional development opportunities.

Theodossiou and Vasileiou (2007) advocated that the higher job satisfaction of workers is, the more readiness these latter are to proclaim their jobs as secure. Other researchers proved that job security prompts workers commitment in any work situation (Lambert, 1991; Iverson, 1996). Quite the reverse, workforces who perceive risk of job security may become less committed to their job and might even end in quitting it. Literature has theorized job insecurity as: a subjective experience (different workers might perceive the same situation differently); which implies indecision regarding the future; and reservations about the maintenance of the job (De Witte, 1999).

Other researchers contested that job insecurity refers not only to the degree of uncertainty, but also to the continuity of certain job dimensions, such as opportunities for promotion and professional development (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). The phenomenon of job insecurity is also recognized as a form of job-related stressor that is hypothetically damaging to workers’ job attitudes and behaviours.

Person-Environment Fit Theory assumes that stress occurs because of one of two types of misfit between the individual and the environment. The first type refers to the fit between the burdens of the environment and the capacities and proficiencies of the persons. The second type refers to the fit between the person’s needs and provisions from the environment (Edwards, Caplan, & Harrison, 1998). Literature shows that job insecurity like any other stressor, has a damaging impact on workers’ job satisfaction.           

The working conditions or work environment conditions refer to the environment in which one works. It covers a variety of issues such as: temperature, humidity, ventilation, lighting, noise, work load, organizational culture, offices, provision of adequate space, classrooms, school operating procedures, collegial cooperation, physical and social infrastructure such as roads, water, electricity, cleanliness of the workplace, safety, closeness of the workplace to home, and adequate instructional equipment (Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2003; Leithwood, 2006; Wells, 2000).

Working environmental conditions are regarded important in influencing the job satisfaction of teachers. If these conditions are not adequate, they will negatively affect job satisfaction (Jordan, Miglič, Todorović, & Marič, 2017). However, if teachers are provided with these conditions, this can improve their effectiveness, enhance their commitment to teaching and endorse their job satisfaction.

Research on job satisfaction suggests that work place environment has a positive and momentous association with the mental and physical well-being of employees (Buchel, Melgar, Rossi & Smith, 2010; Donald & Siu, 2001; Halpert, 2011; Hui et al., 2014; Nie, Chua, Yeung, Ryan, Chan, 2015; Van Den Berghe et al., 2014). Indeed, clean and attractive surroundings’ tend to make workers happy when doing their job and hence increase their satisfaction. Workers are usually satisfied when the work place is organized with satisfactory tools, and materials, whereas poor equipment and facilities will lead to pressure and tension among employees (Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2003).  

Literature on working conditions suggests that these latter play a critical role in shaping the supply of qualified teachers; influencing their decisions about remaining in the profession (Plunkett & Dyson, 2011); reducing their turnover; and developing a high performance work force (Orodho & Waweru, 2013). Yet, if the working conditions are not advantageous, if the workload is heavy, hardworking employees who can find better jobs elsewhere leave easily (Demirdag, 2015; Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2003). In contrast, teachers who cannot find better opportunities will be forced to improvise in order to make learning effective.

The availability of support material is also considered an essential factor that enables individuals (teachers) to incur job satisfaction (Korb & Akintunde, 2013). In teaching, the essence of support material is to facilitate the teaching learning process. Instructional technology materials, including computers, internet, audio and video materials, and others, help teachers solve educational difficulties and concerns, such as students’ lack of motivation, disciplinary problems, basic skills, and critical thinking. The availability of such materials helps teachers implement a student-centred approach. 

While working on quality assurance practices, higher education institutions are ideally expected to develop internal quality cultures which take into account both their institutional realities and organizational culture. Thus, failing to do so, and in the absence of the aforementioned job-related factors that guarantee quality assurance, and under stressful conditions, teachers might be challenged to maintain their job performance. Indeed, the relevance of teachers satisfaction and motivation are very crucial to the long-term growth of Algerian educational system. Yet, one should remember that while some teachers will be highly satisfied with particular conditions of the job, other teachers may find the same conditions extremely dissatisfying.      

In this paper, the following definitions are adopted. Job satisfaction refers to how the selected participants (teachers) feel about their job, and what conditions they are satisfied or unsatisfied with. Job security is defined as an indicator that focused on items regarding promotion and reclassification, recognition, salaries and benefits. Work environment is defined as an indicator that emphasized items regarding university management policies and physical facilities (hygiene, hitting, lighting, and ventilation). In this study support material is defined as study material, as well as infrastructure such as classrooms, offices, and instructional technology.    

3. Theoretical Framework

   This research is anchored in Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Satisfaction, also referred to as Hertzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory. In the late 1950s, Frederick Herzberg interviewed a group of employees (200accountants and engineers) to find out what made them satisfied or dissatisfied about their job. He asked his participants two essential questions: (a) Think of a time you felt especially good about your job? Why did you feel that way? (b) Think of a time when you felt bad about your job? Why did you feel that way? Herzberg assumed that there are two discrete factors that must be employed to evaluate job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. From the interview responses, Herzberg developed a theory, based on two dimensions of job satisfaction: motivation and hygiene.

According to Herzberg, the hygiene factors are extrinsic (not related to the job itself) and cannot cause satisfaction. Yet, these can change dissatisfaction into no dissatisfaction or short term motivation. Motivational factors, such as advancement, growth, recognition, responsibilities and accomplishment, have on the contrary long lasting effect as they raise workers positive feelings towards job and convert no dissatisfaction into satisfaction. Moreover, in the absence of hygiene factors, such as working conditions, pay, job security, work relationships, and organizational politics, the employees chances of getting dissatisfied increase (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Nevertheless, these cannot support satisfaction or motivate workers (Tyson, 2015).  

4. Conceptual framework of the study

   Based on the review of literature, the present writer developed a conceptual framework, where the independent variables are: job security, working conditions, and support material; and the dependent variable is: job satisfaction indicators (quality of instruction, motivation). These variables are a reflector of Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory.  There are also intervening variables between the dependent and independent variables. These are demographic factors counting gender, age, marital status, education level and teaching experience (in terms of number of years). These factors intervene between job satisfaction and job related factors (job security, work conditions, support material). The stronger the job related factors of teachers are, the higher the level of their job satisfaction factor might be.    

5. Research gap

Very few studies about job satisfaction and dissatisfaction have been conducted in Algeria. Those studies differed in aim and scope. Some studies aimed at: examining the relationship between employees’ motivation and performance in SORALCHINE Business Company (Gourida, 2011); or defining the correlation between job satisfaction and Algerian excellence model (Saidi & Sari, 2015). Other studies aimed at highlighting the impact of job satisfaction on employees’ loyalty and commitment in SONELGAZ (a national society for electricity and gas) (Mokaddem, Slimani & Douli, 2017); or examining the relationship between job satisfaction and performanceof Algerian pharmacists (Adjali, 2017). Recent studies investigated the impact of job satisfaction on employees’ performance and motivation (Guidoum & Haidra, 2018) as well as the influence of the system of benefits and social services on employees job satisfaction of public companies (Ammam, 2018).

The scope of the existing literature was limited to understanding the job satisfaction of employees and its relationship with different variables in business, management, environment, religious affairs and endowments, sports and scientific sectors. Yet, to the best knowledge of the present writer, no one study was conducted in higher education or has related job satisfaction to teachers’ job security, working conditions, support material or even to quality assurance. Thus, this paper aims at filling the existing research gap by making a significant, novel contribution to the field of higher education.

6. Methodology

6.1. Research design

   The present study is exploratory in nature. It does not aim at verifying hypotheses or testing the conceptual framework. The study used the descriptive design because it looks at the phenomena of job satisfaction and its related issues the way they are. Moreover, this design is used because it examines the problem at hand thoroughly to define it, clarify it and obtain pertinent information that can be of use to faculty and university management.

6.2. Target population

Thetarget population consisted of all civil service employers (English language teachers), who were appointed by the Faculty of Letters and Languages’ board at the department of English language and literature, at Mohamed Lamine Debaghine Sétif2University. The target population considered only tenured teachers, as these have certain guaranteed rights (salary, promotion, scientific leaves, etc) that protect them from losing their jobs for unsubstantial reasons.

Both probationary teachers and members of the administration were excluded from the whole population. Probationary teachers were excluded as they are new to the job, they are not yet paid and are being watched and tested before tenure (after 12months) or not. To ensure objectivity and reliability of the results, the administration staff members were not invited as they are members of the faculty and university management, and might be conservative to raise issues relating to their dissatisfaction.   

6.3. Sample procedure and sample size

   The participants of the study were drawn from a non-probability homogenous purposive sample. In this sampling procedure the sample is one that is selected for having a shared characteristic or set of characteristics. The homogeneous sample in this study was created on the basis of job effectiveness. In other words, only effective or highly effective, not to say the best teachers, were invited to participate in the online self-designed survey questionnaire. This gave a total sample size of 31teachers.  

The participants (n = 31) share certain qualities that set them apart from the mediocre teachers. The participants are serious, fair, enthusiastic, accessible, involved in the department’s committees and demonstrate commitment both to their work and the university as a whole. The 31teachers were all invited individually to participate in the survey questionnaire by email. The questionnaire required few minutes to complete. The main data collection window was fifteen days (12/26/19to 01/09/20) of the 2019/20academic year. The study yielded a response rate of 27teachers (90%) of the total effective teachers identified. Yet, two incomplete survey responses were discarded.        

6.4. Data collection instruments

   Data collection took place by means of an online survey. The questionnaire was used to determine the level of job satisfaction among teacher respondents. The questionnaire consisted of two main sections. The first section measured personal information. This section has 5questions on demographics all based on the nominal scale. Items of section B measured the three key variables (job security, working conditions, and support material). All constructs were rated on a five-point Likert-type response scale, ranging from strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree and each construct entailed six items. All statistical analysis was performed through the help of SPSS.

6.5. Validity and Reliability of the instruments

   The present writer ensured that the questionnaire measured what it intended to measure and that the items adequately represented concepts that covered all relevant constructs under investigation. For reliability purposes, a pilot study was conducted. Five teachers from another department were given a printed version of the questionnaire for the trial. The length of the questionnaire was noted during the pilot study and this helped for the modification of the last version. To determine the reliability of the questionnaire, the alpha value was computed for each factor using SPSS version 23. The Cronbach alpha of all the constructs (as it is shown in the table below) were greater than 0.60indicating acceptable internal consistency.

Table 1 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha	Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items	N of Items
,672	,752	18

6.6. Ethical considerations

The respondents were informed of the purpose of the study. Each respondent was invited individually to fill the online questionnaire and was assured that any information s/he provided would be treated strictly confidential and that reports on the results would not include data that could identify individuals. 

7. Discussion of the Results

   For a logical presentation of the findings, the results are presented and discussed as a whole from the respondents.

Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

   The study findings indicated that 19respondents (76%) were females whereas six respondents (24%) were males. This shows that the majority of the respondents were females, which is also the case for the whole department of English Language and Literature. The findings show that 13respondents (52%) are aged between 31-35years, four respondents (16%) are aged between 25-30years, four respondents (16%) are aged between 36-40years, two respondents (8%) are aged between 41-45years, and the remaining two respondents (8%) are over 45years in age. Classification of the respondents reveals therefore that the majority of teachers are young; that is 16of them (66.7%) are in the age group of 35and below, and six (25%) are middle aged (between 36and 45).

   Demographic statistics on marital status shows that the majority of the respondents (18; 72%) are married, while seven (28%) are single. The respondents were categorized into four groups depending on their educational qualification (Magister degree, Doctorate ES.S degree, Doctorate LMD degree, and Professoriate). The results show that the majority (16) of respondents (64%) hold a Magister degree. Eight teachers are doctors and one respondent is a professor.

With respect to the length of service, findings show that 14(56%) teachers have between 6to 10years of teaching experience, nine teachers (36%) have between 1to 5years of teaching, one teacher has more than 11years of teaching and one has over than 21years of teaching experience. The respondents in this study are moderately experienced teachers.

Job Security

The questionnaire’s section on job security sought to establish how job opportunities, promotion, independence in teaching, salary and benefits influence teachers (Ts) job satisfaction. The findings show that most teachers (15Ts; 60%) believe that the teaching job increases their responsibility and commitment, and gives (13Ts; 52%) them freedom and independence in completing it. Moreover, most of the respondents (14Ts; 56%) are satisfied with the opportunities the job offers for their career advancement. Teachers (12Ts; 48%) also agree that the job gives them the chance to be reclassified. Nevertheless, it was stated by almost all (24Ts; 96%) respondents that their salaries were not reflective of their dedication. In addition, twenty two respondents (68%) believe that the benefits received by the job are not good as most other universities.

Working Conditions

Findings from the study show that teachers rate the working conditions as demotivating. Most teachers (23Ts; 92%) are dissatisfied with current university (and department) maintenance, human resources management, as well as (22Ts; 88%) hygiene, heating, lighting and the absence of ventilation. Respondents (20Ts; 80%) do not even feel comfortable raising issues about their working conditions since, according to them (18Ts; 72%), the university management does not support teachers consistently. The findings also indicate that teachers (18Ts; 72%) are dissatisfied with the disrespectful working environment they work in. Teachers (17Ts; 68%) claimed that the faculty and staff do not share the same views on educational objectives.  

Support Material

   Teachers (24Ts; 96%) identified the problem of access to instructional technology (computers, printers, software, and internet access) as a major problem. Moreover, teachers (23Ts; 92%) rated their dissatisfaction with the poor infrastructure including the shortage of technical support in classes; office equipment and supplies; and study material (22Ts; 88%). Teachers also believe that class sizes are too large (21Ts; 84%) to be conductive to a good teaching and learning environment (20Ts; 80%).    

   The low level of teachers job satisfaction was also due to other factors cited in teachers comments. These include: mistrust, weak social interaction, students’ attitudes or indifference towards teachers, lack of in-service training, lack of collegial coordination, poor remuneration, problem with salary scales, lack of vision by authority, lack of appreciation for work done, favourism in promotion and training leaves, lack of accommodation, and high work load. One of the respondents commented:

‘To feel comfortable at work enhances motivation. To be listened to in the way we are in international conferences is necessary. To have meeting hours with staff members in the same specialties is necessary. To share time with students is also necessary. To have a guiding psychologist is necessary for students and teachers as well. To have more teachers and less students in classes could help a lot in the assessment of works and in the improvement of language competencies as well as content tasks. It is also important to give time to teachers for research by allowing for teaching hours to be grouped and giving free weeks entirely devoted to research. To teach is not to work as if in a factory and to simply produce regardless of the end product. Quality time for quality teaching is a target too often neglected’                              

8. Conclusions and Implications

Teacher job satisfaction is paramount, as this may influence the productivity of teachers in higher education. The findings of this study adequately explain the influence of job security, working conditions, and support material on the level of job satisfaction of teachers. The study has revealed that there are many scarcities in work conditions, such as overcrowded classes, inadequate workplace and lack of instructional materials, to name but few. The study has also revealed that all teachers reported their dissatisfaction about the same challenges regardless of their gender, age, educational level, length of service, and their marital status. The results suggest therefore that the demographic factors of respondents did not intervene with the level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the present study’s participants.

   From the findings of the study many recommendations are advanced. First, policy makers should recognize the motivational needs of teachers, such as promotion, in-service training, housing and good salaries to promote teachers efficiency for quality outcomes. Second, the working environment must be provided with enough physical facilities such as clean classes, modern and appropriate tools for work, offices and staff rooms, electricity, water and upgraded technology. Moreover, the university and faculty management are urged to provide adequate instructional material for teachers to enhance teacher job satisfaction as well as students’ learning.

The university and faculty management are expected to provide a greater level of support and understanding for teachers to understand their needs and provide solutions to address those needs. This can be achieved, for instance, through an organization of regular sessions in which open and honest talk can take place between teachers and the whole university management. This would help reduce teachers’ feelings of pressure and contribute to their job satisfaction. Indeed, the teacher being an instrument of quality assurance requires physical, psychological and social well-being.               

9. Limitations

This study had several limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, it has limited sample size, so the findings may not be generalizable to all highly effective teachers. Second, some of the replies from the respondents may be biased. Moreover, the scope of the study was restricted to the English language teachers of the department of English Language and Literature, and may not be generalizable to other teachers of the other departments. In addition to that, the use of the questionnaire as the principle method of getting information may have few limitations. Lastly, this study did not seek to understand all of the factors that may influence a highly effective teacher’s level of job satisfaction. The study investigated only eighteen items of three constructs.

10. Future Directions for Research

                The current research topic could be researched further through qualitative methods and data analysis techniques for a more thorough understanding of the phenomenon of university teachers job satisfaction