| Literature DB >> 35686076 |
Chunlan Jiao1, Jing Qian1, Huan Liu1.
Abstract
This study aims to explore the relationship and mechanism between the preschool inclusive education teachers' organizational support, teacher self-efficacy, and work engagement. This study adopted the organizational support scale, inclusive education efficacy scale, and work engagement scale, measured for 600 preschool inclusive education teachers, eventually obtained 568 effective questionnaires, established research model, and analyzed the data using the structural equation model (SEM). There are significantly more men (65.1%) than women (34.9), and the majority (57.6%) were public kindergarten. Organizational support significantly positively affects teachers' self-efficacy (β = 0.526, p < 0.001) and work engagement (β = 0.385, p < 0.001) in preschool inclusive education. Preschool teachers' self-efficacy has a significant positive impact on work engagement (β = 0.222, p < 0.001). Preschool teachers' self-efficacy plays a partial mediating role between organizational support and work engagement (β = 0.202, p < 0.001, CIs = [0.077, 0.305]). Organizational support not only directly affects teachers' self-efficacy and work engagement in preschool inclusive education but also indirectly affects their work engagement through preschool teachers' self-efficacy, which provides theoretical and practical guidance for the research of inclusive education.Entities:
Keywords: mediation effect; organizational support; preschool inclusive education; teacher self-efficacy; work engagement
Year: 2022 PMID: 35686076 PMCID: PMC9171134 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.900835
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Research model.
Questionnaire items.
| Construct | Measurement item | Reference |
| Organizational support (OS) | 1. The organization attaches great importance to the objectives and values of the work done by employees. |
|
| 2. In case of difficulties in work, the organization will help. | ||
| 3. The organization will provide development opportunities for the future development of employees. | ||
| 4. In work, the organization will consider the opinions put forward by employees. | ||
| 5. The organization pays close attention to the living conditions of employees. | ||
| 6. The organization will be proud of the achievements of its employees. | ||
| Teacher self-efficacy (SE) | 1. I firmly believe that I can achieve my ideals and goals. |
|
| 2. I am confident that I can handle any situation freely. | ||
| 3. No matter whether others object or not, I will get what I want. | ||
| 4. I can keep calm in the face of difficulties. | ||
| 5. I always have many ways to meet difficulties. | ||
| 6. I am smart enough to face and solve any unexpected situation. | ||
| Work engagement (WE) | 1. I agree with the meaning of work. |
|
| 2. I often immerse myself in my work. | ||
| 3. I am always full of passion in my work. | ||
| 4. I always think clearly and feel happy after I put into work. | ||
| 5. I can insist on completing the task when I encounter difficulties. | ||
| 6. My work can inspire me to realize my own value. |
Demographics of the survey respondents (N = 568).
| Demographics | Category | Frequency | % |
| Gender | Male | 198 | 34.9 |
| Female | 370 | 65.1 | |
| Kindergarten type | Public kindergarten | 327 | 57.6 |
| Private kindergarten | 241 | 42.4 | |
| Teaching time | ≤1 year | 238 | 41.9 |
| 1–3 years | 236 | 41.5 | |
| 3–6 years | 56 | 9.9 | |
| 6–10 years | 26 | 4.6 | |
| ≥10 years | 12 | 2.1 |
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
| Construct | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
| Organizational support | 0.876 | 0.849 | 0.504 |
| Teacher self-efficacy | 0.915 | 0.906 | 0.622 |
| Work engagement | 0.897 | 0.879 | 0.557 |
Results of discriminant validity testing.
| Mean |
| OS | SE | WE | |
| OS | 4.342 | 2.023 |
| ||
| SE | 4.773 | 1.942 | 0.430 |
| |
| WE | 3.973 | 1.893 | 0.429 | 0.572 |
|
OS, organizational support; SE, teacher self-efficacy; WE, work engagement, Diagonal bold italics entries are square root of AVE; all others are correlations coefficients. M, mean, SD, standard deviation.
FIGURE 2Results of the research model (***p < 0.001).
Hypotheses test.
| Hypothesis path | Path coefficient | S.E | Results | ||
| H1: Organizational support | 0.526 | 0.053 | 9.863 |
| Supported |
| H2: Organizational support | 0.385 | 0.036 | 10.772 |
| Supported |
| H3: Teacher self-efficacy | 0.222 | 0.043 | 5.217 |
| Supported |
***p < 0.001.
Results of mediating effect analysis.
| IV | M | DV | IV → M | IV → DV | M → DV | Indirect effect | CIs | Mediation |
| OS | SE | WE | 0.526 | 0.385 | 0.222 | 0.202 | [0.077, 0.305] | Yes |
| 95% Bootstrap confidence intervals for indirect effect. | ||||||||
IV, independent variable; M, mediator variable; DV, dependent variable; CIs, confidence interval; OS, organizational support; SE, teacher self-efficacy; WE, work engagement. IV → DV is significant (M not included in the model); IV → M is significant; M → DV is significant (or the meaningful reduction in effect) of the relationships between the initial IV and DV in the presence of mediator.
Significance at, ***p < 0.001; SE, Standard Errors in brackets.