Uplifting teachers’ professional capital through promoting engagement in professional learning: Mediating effect of teacher job satisfaction

Figures & data

Table 2. Results from second-order CFA

Latent Constructs	#Items	Cronbach’s alpha (α)	Range of R^2	Range of β	p-value
Engagement in IL	6	0.87	0.42–0.64	0.65–0.80	.000
Engagement in CL	3	0.92	0.75–0.83	0.86–0.91	.000
Job Satisfaction	3	0.87	0.66–0.73	0.81–0.85	.000
Human Capital	4	0.86	0.38–0.70	0.61–0.84	.000
Social Capital	3	0.80	0.45–0.71	0.67–0.84	.000
Decisional Capital	4	0.82	0.48–0.68	0.70–0.82	.000
Professional Capital	11	0.87	0.38–0.82	0.61–0.90	.000

Table 1. Model fit indices of first-order and second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

CFA	CMIN	DF	p	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
First-Order CFA	385.709	213	.000	1.811	0.052	0.048	0.955	0.946
Second-Order CFA	441.832	219	.000	2.017	0.058	0.067	0.942	0.933

Note. CFA: confirmatory factor analysis; CMIN: Chi-square (χ2); CMIN/DF: Chi-square/degree-of-freedom ratio (relative chi-square); RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, and SRMR: standardized root mean square residual.

Fit indices acceptable criteria: CMIN/DF (< 5.0), RMSEA and SRMR (<0.08), and CFI and TLI (>0.90)

Figure 1. Second-order CFA Model with Standard Estimates.

Table 3. Inter-correlations, composite reliability, and average variance extracted generated from the second-order CFA

Constructs	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4
1.Engagement in individual PL	0.87	0.52	0.72
2. Job Satisfaction	0.87	0.69	0.25*	0.83
3. Engagement in collaborative PL	0.92	0.79	0.11	0.60*	0.89
4.Professional Capital	0.83	0.62	0.61*	0.53*	0.34*	0.79

^{Note. PL= professional learning, CR=composite reliability, AVE=average variance extracted.}*p^{< .001.}

Figure 2. Second-order structural equation model for teachers’ engagement in professional learning, job satisfaction and professional capital development with standardized estimates.

Table 4. SEM results predicting teachers’ professional capital development

Hypothesized Relationships	B	β	C.R.	S.E.	p-value	Hypothesis Supported
1. Engagement in collaborative PL ➞Professional Capital	.05	.07	1.01	.05	.311	Not Supported
2. Engagement in individual PL ➞Professional Capital	.63	.52	7.66	.08	<.001	Supported
3.Teachers’ Job Satisfaction➞Professional Capital	.24	.36	4.43	.05	<.001	Supported
4. Engagement in collaborative PL ➞Job Satisfaction	.57	.58	9.73	.06	<.001	Supported
5. Engagement in individual PL ➞Job Satisfaction	.34	.18	3.26	.10	.001	Supported

^Note.N=^{302, C.R. = critical ratio or calculated t-value}

Table 5. Standardized indirect effects of teacher engagement in individual and collaborative professional learning on professional capital

Paths	Estimate	S.E.	Bootstrapping		p-value	Hypothesis Supported
			Bias-corrected percentile 95% CI
			Lower	Upper
1. Engagement in Individual Professional Learning ➞Job Satisfaction➞ Professional Capital Development	.07	.03	.02	.14	.006	Supported
2. Engagement in Collaborative Professional Learning➞ Job Satisfaction➞ Professional Capital Development	.21	.06	.09	.33	.002	Supported