More alarmingly, Köber, Risberg, an

More alarmingly, Köber, Risberg, and Texmon (2005) found that
84 percent of those with a teacher’s degree who were under 67,
which is the retirement age in Norway, were employed in the
autumn of 2003, though only 57 percent were employed in the
education sector. Moreover, they reported that 49 percent of all
teachers leaving their teaching positions in 2003 went to jobs in
non-educational sectors.
The attrition rate seems to follow a U-shaped curve, with the
highest attrition rate early and late in teachers’ careers (Borman &
Dowling, 2008; Rinke, 2007). Teacher attrition has been studied in
relation toworking conditions as well as the personal characteristics
of teachers, teachers’ life situation, and teachers’ roles, responsibilities,
and status. Similarly, Day, Sammons, Stobard, Kington, and
Gu (2007) discriminate between “situated factors,” “personal
factors,” and “professional factors.” In this study, wewere concerned
with school context variables, which also may be termed working
conditions or situated factors. Recent research reveals that working
conditions are important predictors of teacher attrition (see a metaanalysis
by Borman & Dowling, 2008). A study of 1.066 teachers who
left their teaching positions in England also showed that an excessive
work load was the most important factor leading to teacher
attrition (Smithers & Robinson, 2003; see also Buchanan, 2010),
while a study byWeiss (1999) found that supportive environments
were related to teachers’ motivation to stay in the profession.
Although the present study was inspired by the problem of
teacher attrition, this article does not examine teacher attrition
directly. Instead, we examine assumed antecedents of teacher

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Lebih mengkhawatirkan, Kober, Risberg, dan Texmon (2005) menemukan bahwa
84 persen dari mereka dengan gelar guru yang berada di bawah 67,
yang merupakan usia pensiun di Norwegia, yang bekerja di
musim gugur tahun 2003, meski hanya 57 persen yang bekerja di yang
sektor pendidikan. Selain itu, mereka melaporkan bahwa 49 persen dari semua
guru meninggalkan posisi mengajar mereka pada tahun 2003 pergi ke pekerjaan di
sektor non-pendidikan.
Tingkat erosi tampaknya mengikuti kurva berbentuk U, dengan
tingkat erosi tertinggi awal dan akhir karir guru ( Borman &
Dowling, 2008; Rinke, 2007). Guru gesekan telah dipelajari dalam
kondisi hubungan toworking serta karakteristik pribadi
guru, 'situasi kehidupan, dan guru guru peran, tanggung jawab,
dan status. Demikian pula, Hari, Sammons, Stobard, Kington, dan
Gu (2007) membedakan antara "faktor terletak," "pribadi
faktor, "dan" faktor profesional. "Dalam penelitian ini, wewere peduli
dengan variabel konteks sekolah, yang juga dapat disebut bekerja
kondisi atau faktor berada. Penelitian terbaru mengungkapkan bahwa bekerja
kondisi prediktor penting dari gesekan guru (lihat metaanalisis
oleh Borman & Dowling, 2008). Sebuah studi dari 1,066 guru yang
meninggalkan posisi mengajar mereka di Inggris juga menunjukkan bahwa berlebihan
beban kerja adalah faktor yang paling penting yang mengarah ke guru
gesekan (Smithers & Robinson, 2003; lihat juga Buchanan, 2010),
sementara studi byWeiss (1999) ditemukan bahwa lingkungan yang mendukung
terkait dengan motivasi guru untuk tinggal di profesi.
Meskipun studi ini terinspirasi oleh masalah
gesekan guru, artikel ini tidak memeriksa gesekan guru
secara langsung. Anteseden Sebaliknya, kita memeriksa diasumsikan guru