4.7 Article

Chinese University EFL Teachers' Perceived Support, Innovation, and Teaching Satisfaction in Online Teaching Environments: The Mediation of Teaching Efficacy

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.761106

关键词

teaching support; teaching efficacy; teacher innovation; teaching satisfaction; online teaching environments; university EFL teachers

资金

  1. Humanity and Social Science Fund of China's Ministry of Education [21YJA880017]
  2. Young Scholars Programme of Shandong University [2017WLJH09]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that perceived teaching support, teaching efficacy, and teaching satisfaction were interconnected for university EFL teachers in online teaching environments, with teaching efficacy playing a significant mediating role. The study highlights the importance of perceived support, teaching resources, and teaching autonomy in enhancing EFL teachers' satisfaction, as well as the significant role of online teaching efficacy in mediating the relationships between support and innovation and satisfaction.
This study investigated the relationships between university EFL teachers' perceived teaching support, teacher innovation, and teaching satisfaction in online teaching environments, especially the mediating role of teaching efficacy. The results of an online questionnaire survey with 473 university EFL teachers revealed that although online peer support did not directly make any difference to teacher innovation and teaching satisfaction, greater perceived support in the form of teaching resources and teaching autonomy improved university EFL teachers' online teaching satisfaction. Online teaching efficacy significantly mediated the relationships between teaching support and teacher innovation and satisfaction. The results offer significant implications for improving the effectiveness of EFL teaching and promoting university EFL teachers' innovation and satisfaction in online teaching environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据