| Literature DB >> 32204451 |
Chia-Ming Chang1, Li-Wei Liu2, Huey-Hong Hsieh3, Ko-Chia Chen4.
Abstract
Limited research has evaluated the performance of physical education (PE) teachers. This study aimed to use person-environment fit and organizational support to evaluate PE teachers' work performance using multilevel analysis. The relationship between person-environment fit and performance of university physical education teachers (at the person-level) and a cross-level effect on performance of university physical education teachers of perceived organizational support (at the school-level) and a moderator effect of organizational support were examined. A total of 447 PE teachers recruited from 55 universities in Taiwan were invited to participate in this survey, with a return rate of 65.74%. Using hierarchical linear modeling, the study found that person-job fit, person-organization fit, and person-supervisor fit at individual level have positive impacts on the performance of university PE teachers. As for cross-level effect, organizational support has positive impacts on the performance of university physical education teachers. However, organizational support at school level had no significant moderating effects on the relationship between person-environment fit and the performance of university physical education teachers. The implications of the findings for both university PE teachers and administrators and suggestions for future research are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: organizational support; physical education; university teachers; work performance
Year: 2020 PMID: 32204451 PMCID: PMC7143768 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17062041
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research hypotheses.
Descriptive statistics of participants.
| Variables | Frequency | % | Variables | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Work title | ||||
| Female | 146 | 32.7 | Instructor | 83 | 18.6 |
| Male | 301 | 67.3 | Assistant professor | 139 | 31.1 |
| Age | Associate professor | 160 | 35.8 | ||
| 35- | 22 | 4.9 | Professors or distinguished professors | 65 | 14.5 |
| 36−50 | 256 | 57.3 | University type | ||
| 51+ | 169 | 37.8 | Public university | 172 | 38.5 |
| Education | Private university | 275 | 61.5 | ||
| College diploma | 2 | 0.4 | Teaching experience | ||
| University degree | 52 | 11.6 | 5-years and less | 25 | 5.6 |
| Master’s degree | 264 | 59.1 | 6-10 years | 51 | 11.4 |
| Doctoral degree | 129 | 28.9 | 11-20 years | 142 | 31.8 |
| Administrative work | More 21 years | 229 | 51.2 | ||
| Yes | 166 | 37.1 | Married | ||
| No | 281 | 62.9 | No | 68 | 15.2 |
| Yes | 379 | 84.8 |
Summary statistics and Pearson’s coefficient of correlation of individual- and school-level variables.
| Individual-Level Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. School type (public/private) | 1.62 | 0.487 | 1.00 | ||||||||||
| 2. Gender | 1.33 | 0.470 | 0.06 | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 3. Teaching experience | 20.33 | 8.794 | 0.20 * | −0.01 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 4. Position | 2.46 | 0.955 | −0.09 | −0.04 | 0.42 * | 1.00 | |||||||
| 5. Administrative work | 1.63 | 0.484 | 0.11 * | 0.01 | 0.18 * | 0.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| 6. Education | 3.16 | 0.630 | −0.27 * | −0.02 | −0.35 * | 0.18 * | −0.12 * | 1.00 | |||||
| 7. Marriage | 1.85 | 0.360 | 0.07 | −0.18 * | 0.23 * | 0.19 * | 0.05 | −0.04 | 1.00 | ||||
| 8. P-J Fit | 3.74 | 0.74 | −0.11 * | −0.07 | 0.11 * | 0.15 * | −0.04 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 1.00 | |||
| 9. P-G Fit | 3.38 | 0.74 | −0.08 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.48 * | 1.00 | ||
| 10. P-S Fit | 3.30 | 0.93 | −0.11 * | −0.04 | −0.02 | 0.02 | −0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.56 * | 0.52 * | 1.00 | |
| 11. P-O Fit | 3.43 | 0.87 | −0.09 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.10 * | −0.04 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.59 * | 0.60 * | 0.56 * | 1.00 |
| 12. Performance | 3.71 | 0.63 | −0.05 | 0.02 | 0.14 * | 0.26 * | −0.04 | 0.13 * | 0.03 | 0.43 * | 0.35 * | 0.42 * | 0.46 * |
| School-level variables | |||||||||||||
| Organizational Support | 3.87 | 0.46 |
Note: n = 447 at individual-level variables; n = 55 at school-level variables; SD = standard deviation; * p < 0.05.
Null model analysis.
| Random Effect | Standard Deviation | Variance Component |
| χ2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INTRCPT1, | 0.293 | 0.086 | 54 | 173.93 | 0.001 |
| level-1, | 0.561 | 0.314 |
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analysis of PE teacher performance.
| Fixed Effect | Coefficient | Standard | Approx. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| For INTRCPT1, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 2.99 | 0.24 | 12.50 * | 53 | 0.001 |
| organizational support, | 0.37 | 0.09 | 4.01 * | 53 | 0.001 |
| For School type slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | −0.59 | 0.50 | −1.17 | 377 | 0.244 |
| For gender slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.41 | 377 | 0.682 |
| For Position slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.11 | 0.03 | 3.32 | 377 | 0.001 |
| For Education slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.12 | 0.05 | 2.67 | 377 | 0.008 |
| For Administrative work slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | −0.07 | 0.05 | −1.37 | 377 | 0.173 |
| For Teaching experience slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.80 | 377 | 0.073 |
| For Marriage slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 377 | 0.895 |
| For P-J Fit slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.13 | 0.05 | 2.57 | 377 | 0.010 |
| SPOS, | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.67 | 377 | 0.502 |
| For P-G Fit slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.84 | 377 | 0.403 |
| SPOS, | −0.01 | 0.10 | −0.14 | 377 | 0.886 |
| For P-S Fit slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.13 | 0.04 | 3.29 | 377 | 0.001 |
| SPOS, | −0.02 | 0.09 | −0.18 | 377 | 0.858 |
| For P-O Fit slope, | |||||
| INTRCPT2, | 0.14 | 0.04 | 3.22 | 377 | 0.001 |
| SPOS, | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 377 | 0.894 |
Figure 2Results of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). * p < 0.05