Cai 2021

Thinking Skills and Creativity 41 (2021) 100854
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
School support for teacher innovation: Mediating effects of

teacher self-efficacy and moderating effects of trust
Yonghong Cai 1, Runjia Tang 1, *
Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, China
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Teacher innovation is becoming increasingly important. School support for innovation (SSI) offers
School support for innovation critical work resources and forms professional capital that facilitates teacher innovation. How
Teacher innovation ever, the concrete mechanisms that determine how SSI affects innovation remain unclear. Using
Teacher self-efficacy
survey data from 1,123 teachers in China, this study explored the relationship between different
Trust
sources of SSI (i.e., supervisor, colleagues, and students) and teacher innovation, the mediating
effects of teacher self-efficacy, and the moderating effects of teachers’ trust in their supervisors,
colleagues, and students. Results showed that colleagues’ and students’ support was positively
correlated with teacher innovation and that this relationship was mediated by teacher self-
efficacy. Supervisor support neither predicted teacher innovation nor had a significant relation
ship with teacher self-efficacy. Teachers’ trust moderated the relationship to varying degrees.
Teachers’ trust in their students positively moderated the effect of student support on teacher
innovation, while the other two types of trust did not affect the relationships between supervisor
or colleague support and teacher innovation to a large degree. Theoretical and practical impli
cations are discussed.
1. Introduction
Teacher innovation is becoming increasingly vital for the success of educational reform in the 21st century (Cayirdag, 2017;
Rubenstein, McCoach & Siegle, 2013), as students’ expanding learning needs demand sustained changes in teaching content and
methods (Mourshed, Chijioke & Barber, 2010). Given that teachers are students’ most effective agents of change (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2012), educational reform can hardly achieve its goals without teacher innovation (Fullan, 2009). Research has shown that the
provision of supportive organizational resources is a key facilitator of innovation (Choi, Madjar & Yun, 2018; Holdsworth & Maynes,
2017; Ibrahim, Isa & Shahbudin, 2016; Suifan, Abdallah & Al Janini, 2018; Zhang, Bu & Wee, 2016). However, organizational support
is a complex construct, which contains a variety of supportive resources. Previous studies often viewed organizational support as a
unidimensional construct (Suifan et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2016), but some researchers have found that support from different sources
represents different types of capital and that its impact on innovation also varies (Holdsworth & Maynes, 2017). Therefore, it is
imperative to investigate the concrete relationships between school support from different sources (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, and
students) and teacher innovation; this is because investigation may not only offer clearer theoretical insights into the function of
supportive treatment in individual beliefs and behaviors, but also provide a reference for developing more effective educational reform
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: caiyonghong@bnu.edu.cn (Y. Cai), 201831010067@bnu.edu.cn (R. Tang).
1
Postal Address: 19 Xinjiekouwai St., Haidian District, Beijing 100875, P.R. China
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100854
Received 24 February 2021; Received in revised form 13 May 2021; Accepted 18 May 2021
Available online 24 May 2021
1871-1871/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Cai and R. Tang Thinking Skills and Creativity 41 (2021) 100854
policies.
In this respect, Holdsworth and Maynes (2017) provide a valuable theoretical framework that classifies supportive school resources
for teacher innovation into three types of profession capital: decisional (e.g., school leadership), social (e.g., teacher collaboration and
trust), and human capital (e.g., teacher emotion and efficacy). However, the concrete relationship between these resources and teacher
innovation has not been explicitly discussed in the model. In Industrial and Organizational Psychology (I/O) studies, the conservation
of resources (COR) theory proposes a useful theoretical model to explain the function of various organizational resources in employee
outcomes, in which different resources can be transferred to the employee through a crossover process (Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu &
Westman, 2018). Consequently, supportive treatment from school supervisors, colleagues, or students can become the supportive
resources that are owned by teachers themselves. Furthermore, teacher self-efficacy is viewed as an antecedent of successful teacher
innovation because most successful innovative teachers show great confidence in their professional abilities (Davies, 2013), and is
considered one important resource or capital in both the professional capital framework and COR theory. COR theory postulates that
self-efficacy is a key motivator in employee behavior, and can be exchanged within the organization (Neff, Sonnentag, Niessen &
Unger, 2012). Moreover, such exchange processes are influenced by interpersonal relationships among organizational members
(Westman, 2001).
Following these previous studies, we explored how school support for innovation (SSI) from different sources—supervisors, col
leagues, and students—affects teacher innovation through teacher self-efficacy. We further explored whether these relationships are
affected by teachers’ level of trust in the source of support.
2. Literature review
2.1. Teacher innovation
Innovation is defined as “initiatives which are new to those who introduce them” (Emo, 2015, p. 172). More specifically, innovation
is a mental process that includes both the creation and the implementation of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996; Lin, 2009). In
Amabile’s (1996) componential theory, domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and task motivation are three key
components that form the structure of innovation. The emphasis on motivation suggests that innovative processes demand the in
dividual’s feeling of enjoyment in new ideas; the importance of skills indicates that enjoyment alone will not necessarily lead to success
because innovation requires constant learning to gain the relevant knowledge and skills that can produce desired results (Liu, Jiang,
Shalley, Keem & Zhou, 2016). Furthermore, componential theory addresses the critical role of organizational support, such as a su
pervisor’s leadership and supportive behaviors, colleagues as cofactors or role models, and others’ feedback, in the facilitation of
individual innovation (Zhou & Shalley, 2003).
In the present study, teacher innovation refers to the generation and practice of novel and effective teaching content, resources, and
methods, to create a student-centered learning environment that facilitates the development of student creativity (Cai, Wang, & Lei,
2012, Zhu, Wang, Cai, & Engels, 2013). Different aspects of teacher innovation have been discussed in previous educational research
studies. For example, Ferrari, Cachia and Punie (2009) stressed the use of new teaching contents, tools, and methods in innovative
teaching. The implementation of a student-centered approach and the establishment of a creativity-facilitating classroom environment
have been addressed in many educational studies (e.g., Amabile, 1989; Nemeržitski, Loogma, Heinla & Eisenschmidt, 2013; Slabbert,
1994). Though described in different ways, there is general consensus among researchers that teacher innovation involves the use of
novel teaching strategies to meet students’ individualized needs, facilitate their interest in learning, and ultimately improve their
creativity and the effectiveness of instruction. With respect to the teaching process, the present study proposed that teacher innovation
comprises five aspects: the application of innovative thoughts, the innovative use of teaching content, the use of teaching innovation
methods and strategies, the innovative use of teaching resources, and innovative evaluation (Cai, Wang, & Lei, 2012, Zhu, Wang, Cai,
& Engels, 2013).
2.2. School support for innovation as professional capital
Organizational support is considered an important antecedent that positively predicts individual innovation not only in educational
research (Huang, Lee & Dong, 2019), but also in I/O studies (Zhang et al., 2016). Drawing on Hargreaves and Fullan’s (2012) theory of
professional capital, Holdsworth and Maynes (2017) classified different personal and contextual factors that affected teacher inno
vation into three aspects: decisional capital, social capital, and human capital.
Decisional capital influences an individual’s ability to make evidence-based judgements and balance risk-taking with informed
action (e.g., school leadership) (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Supervisor support for innovation is an important source of decisional
capital (Holdsworth & Maynes, 2017). Studies have shown that when school supervisors share leadership with teachers, teachers’
sense of responsibility increases, which leads to stronger efforts for innovation (Copland, 2001; Leithwood, Patten & Jantzi, 2010).
Explicit expressions of support for risk-taking (Goodyear & Casey, 2015), the allocation of adequate time for generating new ideas
(Aubusson, Steele, Dinham & Brady, 2007), the provision of teaching resources to support implementing innovation (Coburn, Mata &
Choi, 2013), and a fair reward system (Lohman & Woolf, 2001) have all been mentioned by teachers as critical contributors to both
initiating and sustaining innovation.
Social capital refers to the collaborative power of a group of teachers (e.g., teacher collaboration) (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Colleagues’ supportive behavior is a major source of social capital. Teachers often experience isolation during classroom instruction
owing to the “egg crate” model of education (Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson & Orphanos, 2009). However, teacher
2
innovation can be most effectively achieved with collective efforts by teacher groups (Goodyear & Casey, 2015). Sharing knowledge
and exchanging ideas with each other greatly facilitates the generation of new ideas (Amabile & Pillermer, 2012). A collaborative
structure is also essential for the creation of safe work environments, in which teachers are more willing to take risks, face challenges,
and persist in their innovative endeavors (Coburn et al., 2013). Additionally, collaboration among teachers is unlikely to succeed
without teachers’ sense of trust within the school (Tschannen-Moran, 2014).
Human capital involves an individual’s qualities such as his or her qualifications and competencies (e.g., teachers’ beliefs, emo
tions, and self-efficacy) (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Student engagement and support is a teacher’s key human resource because the
intrinsic value of teaching is its contribution to society through the education of students (McKenzie, Santiago, Sliwka & Hiroyuki,
2005). Students’ support for their teacher’s innovative efforts showcases the effectiveness of new teaching ideas for engaging students
in the learning process (Emo, 2015; Owen, 2015), and mitigates the teacher’s sense of uncertainty when trying new teaching content or
methods (Davies, 2013; Goodyear & Casey, 2015). Hence, students’ active and positive engagement forms the primary driving force
behind teachers’ desire to take initiative and sustain innovation in their classrooms. Furthermore, teachers may not attempt to
innovate if they doubt their competence in such new endeavors (Abrami, Poulsen & Chambers, 2004). Research indicates that suc
cessful innovative teachers have confidence in their own abilities, and show a high degree of self-efficacy during innovation (Davies,
2013; Emo, 2015).
On the basis of previous studies on organizational support, we define SSI as the degree to which teachers are encouraged, assisted,
and responded to by the school and its members throughout the innovation process (Madjar, Oldham & Pratt, 2002). Teachers may
obtain support from multiple sources, each of which represents a different type of professional capital. In the present study, SSI is
classified according to its three sources: supervisor support, colleague support, and student support.
In sum, Holdsworth and Maynes (2017)’s framework helps us understand how a congruence of various personal and contextual
factors affects teacher innovation through their impact on the three aspects of teachers’ professional capital. However, a more concrete
theoretical model that investigates the detailed relationships among different capitals is needed, in order to further unfold the
motivational mechanism of teacher innovation.
2.3. School support for innovation, teacher self-efficacy, trust, and teacher innovation: from the conservation of resources theory
In the field of I/O, COR theory offers a comprehensive framework that involves different types of resources (i.e., personal, social,
and material resources) and offers specific hypotheses about the relationship between work resources and employee outcomes. Re
sources refer to the key things that an individual values most and spares no effort to obtain and protect (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Most
work will consume employees’ resources, and if such resources are threatened or lost, employees tend to feel stressed and their
performance will be negatively affected. Hence, an effective way to promote the desired employee outcome is to increase their re
sources. COR theory is thus a powerful motivational theory to explain human behaviors in occupational settings.
Hobfoll (2011) suggests that resources do not exist in isolation but tend to appear in combination with other resources. Resources
generate from common developmental conditions, and the organizational environment has a vital impact on the emergence of personal
resources. COR theory proposes a crossover model to interpret how positive or negative resources are exchanged among the members
of an organization (Westman, 2001). Westman (2001) posited that the crossover of resources can occur directly via empathy; indi
rectly, mediated, or moderated by the quality of support and interaction between individuals; and in spurious ways, by which re
sources shared by everyone in the work environment would lead to common outcomes. In sum, COR theory and the crossover model
offer a useful theoretical framework with which to investigate how resources are transferred within a school and act as motivators to
enhance teacher innovation.
2.3.1. The mediating role of teacher self-efficacy

According to the COR theory, job-related self-efficacy can be effectively transferred within an organization and function as a key
motivator for individual outcomes (Neff et al., 2012; Neff, Niessen, Sonnentag & Unger, 2013). In the present study, teacher
self-efficacy is defined as a teacher’s belief in his/her ability to achieve desired outcomes in student learning and engagement
(Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Individuals will not invest substantial resources in certain work unless they believe that they can
produce what is desired (Bandura, 2001). Efficacious people often show a higher likelihood of thriving on problems, trying new
methods, and challenging themselves (Tierney & Farmer, 2004). People with a high degree of self-efficacy also show strong resilience
against the failure of innovative efforts, whereas less-efficacious people are more prone to despair, withdraw from innovative efforts,
and return to traditional teaching approaches (Bandura, 1997; Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Additionally, self-efficacy has been attracting
increasing attention in positive psychology; research has found that efficacious people tend to employ cognitive capacities (e.g.,
symbolizing, forethought, observation, self-regulation, and self-reflection) more often to accomplish their goals (Luthans, Youssef &
Avolio, 2007). Many studies, moreover, have reported a positive relationship between self-efficacy and innovation. For example,
Tierney and Farmer (2002) found that both job-related self-efficacy and creative self-efficacy significantly predicted employee
innovation. In schools, teacher self-efficacy has been shown as an important motivational factor that directly influences innovative
teaching (Cayirdag, 2017; Rubenstein et al., 2013). A positive correlation between self-efficacy and innovation has also been found
among elementary students (Beghetto, Kaufman & Baxter, 2011).
According to self-expansion theory (Aron, Aron, Tudor & Nelson, 1991), self-efficacy transfers between individuals because of
people’s fundamental motivation to self-expand in view of enhancing the “physical and social resources, perspectives, and identities
that facilitate achievement of any goal that might arise” (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2001, p. 478). Therefore, when a teacher’s super
visors, colleagues, or students actively engage in new initiatives and confirm the effectiveness of their innovation, a potential self of
3
that teacher may emerge. If the teacher’s potential self shows some improvement compared with their current self, they will tend to be
motivated to self-expand to a promotion of their self-efficacy. Research has shown that people’s self-efficacy can be improved in
multiple ways, including through direct experiences of success, indirect experiences of learning and constructive communication with
successful others, and the receipt of psychological stimulation (Bandura, 1997; Neff et al., 2013). While Kelm and McIntosh (2012)
found that overall school support could positively predict teacher self-efficacy, a closer inspection of the sources of support found
inconsistent results. For example, colleague support was a positive predictor of primary school teachers’ self-efficacy in China (Huang
et al., 2019), but such a statistically significant relationship was not observed in American ESOL teachers, although colleague support
was recognized as an important facilitator in the qualitative data (Brannan & Bleistein, 2012). Besides, in some studies, the school
supervisor’s leadership positively predicted teacher self-efficacy (Karacabey, Bellibaş, & Adams, 2020; Li & Liu, 2020; Sun & Xia,
2018), whereas other researchers have found nonsignificant relationships between supervisor support and teacher self-efficacy
(Brannan & Bleistein, 2012; Chang, McKeachie & Lin, 2010; Han, Yin & Wang, 2018). Furthermore, although teachers often stress
the impact of student factors on their self-efficacy in qualitative studies (Davies, 2013; Goodyear & Casey, 2015), quantitative data for
such effects are still scarce. Thus, further exploration of the relationship between support from different sources and teacher
self-efficacy is needed.
2.3.2. The moderating role of teachers’ trust in supervisors, colleagues, and students
COR theory further proposes that different types of resources may interact to affect the process of resource preservation and
development (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl & Westman, 2014). The crossover of personal resources is contingent on the
organizational environment. For example, Rofcanin, LasHeras and Bakker (2017) reported that without the creation of an environment
that encourages using resources, the provided supportive work-family resources would also lose their effectiveness. Graen and
Uhl-Bien (1995) also found that the transfer of work engagement was facilitated if high-quality social exchange relationships existed
between organizational members. Such findings highlight the fact that the mere provision of support will not necessarily lead to in
cremental improvements in desired employee outcomes. In schools, the interpersonal relationships among supervisors, teachers, and
students may be particularly critical in shaping a school environment in which supportive treatments can be correctly recognized and
utilized. In this study, we use trust as a way to measure teachers’ perceptions of their school environment.
Trust refers to “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the
intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt & Camerer, 1998, p. 395). Viewed as an important source of social capital
(Holdsworth & Maynes, 2017), and affecting how individuals’ make resource-investment decisions (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2015),
trust is a fundamental component of school effectiveness—trust determines school members’ willingness to collaborate with one
another and creates the collective power of a teacher group (Leithwood et al., 2010; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). When they trust their
colleagues and supervisors, teachers tend to express genuine vulnerability that is associated with innovation (Tschannen-Moran,
2014), whereas superficial communication does not offer constructive contributions (Coburn et al., 2013). On the basis of their review
of previous studies about trust, Dirks and Ferrin (2001)) suggested that trust might have a critical moderating effect on the
organization-employee relationships. Because trust represents a trustor’s “accumulated experience with, and knowledge about” the
trustee in situations that involve vulnerability (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, p. 456), trust influences how one partner interprets the motives
underlying the past or present actions of another partner, and how one assesses the future behavior of that other partner. Therefore,
trust facilitates the creation of a safe environment in vulnerable circumstances, where people can confidently share ideas and feelings
and collaboratively face challenges and solve problems (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; McAllister, 1995).
In this study, trust was also classified into three types in line with the classification of SSI: teachers’ trust in supervisors, colleagues,
and students. This was intended to show how different kinds of interpersonal relationships function in the motivational process of
teacher innovation. Research has shown that employees’ trust in their supervisor moderates the relationship between supervisor
support and employee outcomes. For example, Zhang and Zhou (2014) found that employees’ trust in their supervisor influenced the
impact of supervisor’s empowering leadership on employees’ creative self-efficacy. Trust in supervisors also enhances the connection
between procedural fairness and collaboration (De Cremer & Tyler, 2007).
Trust in colleagues is also a critical resource that facilitates individual outcomes, especially in schools. A trustful environment
among teachers can trigger care about and encouragement of one another by the sharing of positive and negative feelings (Tschan
nen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Teachers’ trust in their colleagues has also been shown to positively relate to their collective efficacy and job
satisfaction (Lee, Zhang & Yin, 2011; Van Maele & Van Houtte, 2012). Even if teachers usually implement innovation in their isolated
classrooms, trust in colleagues is still strongly valued, and plays a key role in cultivating a culture of appreciation among teachers
(Zehetmeier, 2015).
Finally, teaching differs from other professions owing to its constant interaction with students. Thus, students play an important
influential role in their teachers’ beliefs and behaviors (Hatt, 2005). Although few quantitative studies have attempted to explore the
effect of teachers’ trust in students on teacher outcomes, many studies have found that students’ active engagement with and positive
response to new teaching endeavors are powerful facilitators in the initiating and sustaining of teacher innovation (Ali, 2011; Davies,
2013; Emo, 2015; Goodyear & Casey, 2015; Owen, 2015; Zehetmeier, 2015). Teachers’ trust in students, moreover, is likely to affect
how they interpret students’ feedback. A teacher who has deeper trust in their students tends to show more confidence when the
students are engaged in the new teaching methods, and is thereby more convinced to persist in innovation.
2.4. Research questions
Previous work in both education and I/O domains has suggested the importance of accounting for multiple kinds of capital or
4
resources in the enhancement of individual innovation. Following these efforts, the present study further explored how teacher
innovation is affected by support from different sources (i.e., supervisors, colleagues, and students), whether the relationship between
supportive treatment and teacher innovation is mediated by the teacher’s motivational factor (i.e., teacher self-efficacy), and to what
extent this relationship is influenced by the social environment of the school (i.e., teachers’ trust in supervisors, colleagues, and
students), to decode the concrete psychological functioning underlying teacher innovation and to offer practical suggestions for future
education reform policies.
On the basis of the foregoing literature, this study aimed to answer the following research questions and test the hypothesized
model as shown in Fig. 1:
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between the three types of SSI (i.e., supervisor support, colleague support, and
student support) and teacher innovation?
Research Question 2: What is the relationship among the three types of SSI, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher innovation?
Research Question 3: What is the relationship among the three types of SSI, teacher self-efficacy, teachers’ trust in supervisors,
colleagues, and students, and teacher innovation?
3. Methods
3.1. Research procedure and participants
A stratified sampling approach was employed. First, we selected 41 primary and high schools (28 urban and 13 rural) in northern
China. Second, a total of 1400 questionnaires were given to teachers in these schools, 1123 of which were usable for analysis (response
rate = 80.2%).
The final sample comprised 965 females (85.9%) and 158 males (14.1%). The average age was 35.6 years (SD = 7.93) and the
average tenure was 13.4 years (SD = 8.99); 892 respondents (79.4%) had a bachelor’s degree or similar educational background. There
were 390 teachers from rural schools (34.7%) and 733 teachers from urban schools (65.3%).
3.2. Measures
Five-point Likert-type scales in Chinese, ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree,” were used to measure all
variables except control variables.
3.2.1. School support for innovation (SSI)

The SSI scale was adapted from the KEYS scale (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996), and included three dimensions:
four items measured supervisor support for innovation (Cronbach’s α = 0.93; a sample item was, “School leaders encourage me to
Fig. 1. Research model.
5
explore new methods and express new ideas”), four items measured colleague support (Cronbach’s α = 0.89; a sample item was, “My
colleagues actively share their suggestions and ideas when I come up with new ideas”), and three items measured student support
(Cronbach’s α = 0.85; a sample item was, “My students actively respond when I try new teaching strategies”). Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) showed good model fit (χ2 = 274.666; df = 36; χ2/df = 7.63; GFI = 0.958; AGFI = 0.923; CFI = 0.975; RMSEA = 0.077;
SRMR = 0.033).
3.2.2. Trust in supervisors, colleagues, and students

The scale used to measure teachers’ trust in their supervisors, colleagues, and students was adapted from the scales of trust
employed by Mascall, Leithwood, Strauss and Sacks (2009). Four items addressed the teacher’s trust in their supervisor (Cronbach’s α
= 0.88; a sample item was, “I can talk with school leaders about my feelings and worries easily”), four items addressed the teacher’s
trust in their colleagues (Cronbach’s α = 0.88; a sample item was, “Teachers in school trust each other”), and four items addressed the
teacher’s trust in their students (Cronbach’s α = 0.89; a sample item was, “I am getting along well with my students”). As a whole, CFA
indicated a good model fit (χ2 = 344.216; df = 51; χ2/df = 6.75; GFI = 0.951; AGFI = 0.926; CFI = 0.967; RMSEA = 0.072; SRMR =
0.035).
3.2.3. Teacher self-efficacy

We referred to Yu, Xin and Shen (1995) and Schwarzer, Schmitz and Daytner (1999) teacher self-efficacy scales to develop our
measurement. On the basis of their items and interviews with 30 primary and high school teachers in China, a nine-item teacher
self-efficacy scale was developed. Cronbach’s α = 0.90; a sample item was, “I am able to solve the problems students have in their
learning processes.” CFA showed good model fit (χ2 = 124.044; df = 27; χ2/df = 4.594; GFI = 0.975; AGFI = 0.959; CFI = 0.979;
RMSEA = 0.057; SRMR = 0.027).
3.2.4. Teacher innovation

Cai, Wang, and Lei (2012) and Zhu, Wang, Cai, and Engels (2013) scales of teacher innovation were used, which included five
dimensions: (a) five items measured the application of innovative thoughts in teaching (Cronbach’s α = 0.92; a sample item was, “I try
to integrate new instructional theories and methods into my teaching practices”); (b) four items measured the innovative use of
teaching content (Cronbach’s α = 0.89; a sample item was, “The content I teach can facilitate students’ imagination”); (c) five items
measured the use of teaching innovation methods and teaching strategies (Cronbach’s α = 0.92; a sample item was, “I encourage
students to learn through exploration and discovery”); (d) four items measured the innovative use of teaching resources (Cronbach’s α
= 0.88; a sample item was, “I can use resources from the Internet to improve my instruction”); and (e) three items measured innovative
evaluation (Cronbach’s α = 0.83; a sample item was, “I use both test scores and everyday performances to evaluate students”). CFA
indicated good model fit (χ2 = 783.976; df = 173; χ2/df = 4.532; GFI = 0.939; AGFI = 0.919; CFI = 0.969; RMSEA = 0.056; SRMR =
0.028).
3.2.5. Control variables

Teacher’s sex, tenure, and educational background (in dummy variables) were controlled for in the following analyses. Teacher’s
age was not added to the control variables owing to its high positive correlation with tenure (Pearson’s r = 0.910, p < .01), which
indicated the existence of strong collinearity.
3.3. Data analysis
Data logging, descriptive analysis, correlations, and scale reliability calculations were made using SPSS 20.0. CFA was conducted
via Amos 21.0. Because the teacher-level data were nested in school-level data, the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was
calculated via HLM 6.08, and the results showed no systematic difference in school-level data (ICC1 = 0.043 < 0.059, ICC2 = 0.526 <
0.70; Castro, 2002; Cohen, 1988). Finally, using Mplus 7.4, we calculated the hierarchical moderated regression (Cohen & Cohen,
1983), moderated path analysis (Edwards & Lambert, 2007), and effect difference test (Dawson & Richter, 2006) to further explore the
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and scale reliabilities.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 SupSI 4.14 0.80 0.93

2 ColSI 4.08 0.72 .66** 0.89
3 StuSI 4.15 0.67 .62** .63** 0.85
4 TSup 3.82 0.87 .63** .49** .41** 0.88
5 TCol 4.11 0.71 .54** .61** .54** .62** 0.88
6 TStu 4.24 0.66 .44** .53** .58** .36** .55** 0.89
7 TSE 3.96 0.63 .40** .52** .54** .35** .46** .54** 0.90
8 TI 4.04 0.58 .45** .57** .55** .40** .55** .72** .58** 0.97
Note. SupSI = Supervisor support for innovation; ColSI = Colleague support for innovation; StuSI = Student support for innovation; TSup = Trust in
supervisor; TCol = Trust in colleagues; TStu = Trust in students; TSE = Teacher self-efficacy; TI = Teacher innovation. Internal reliabilities for the
constructs are shown in bold on the diagonal. **p < .01.
6
results.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, and correlations
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities are presented in Table 1. Supervisor, colleague, and student support were all
significantly positively correlated with teacher innovation. Furthermore, teacher self-efficacy was positively related to all types of
support and innovation, indicating the possibility of its mediating effect. Finally, each of the three types of trust also showed a sig
nificant correlation with its corresponding type of support, teacher self-efficacy, and innovation, which indicates the possibility of their
moderating effects.
4.2. The relationship between supervisor support, colleague support, and student support on teacher innovation
Although it has been established that mean-centering cannot change the essential collinearity that influences tests of moderation, it
can still contribute to the interpretability of the regression coefficients, especially when the variable scores do not include zero (Aiken
& West, 1991). Therefore, all interaction variables (i.e., supervisor, colleagues, and student support, and trust in supervisors, col
leagues, and students) were mean-centered before conducting the regression analysis.
In the first step, three types of SSI, teacher innovation, and control variables were added to the model to explore the relationship
between different types of SSI and teacher innovation. Results (see Table 2, M1) showed that colleague support and student support
could significantly predict teacher innovation (βcolleague support = 0.280, p < .01; βstudent support = 0.271, p < .01), whereas supervisor
support had a nonsignificant relationship with teacher innovation (βsupervisor support = 0.016, p > .10).
4.3. The mediating effect of teacher self-efficacy
In the second step, to further investigate the mediating role of teacher self-efficacy a mediating regression model was constructed
by adding teacher self-efficacy into the regression of teacher innovation (Table 2, M2b) and building another regression of SSI (Table 2,
M2a). Results showed that after adding teacher self-efficacy, the new model could explain 6.6% more of the variance of teacher
innovation (ΔR2 = 0.066; M2b in Table 2). Colleague support and student support was significantly related to teacher self-efficacy
(βcolleague support = 0.245, p < .01; βstudent support = 0.340, p < .01; M2a in Table 2), while self-efficacy could significantly predict
Table 2
Standardized results of hierarchical moderated regression.
Dependent variable
Teacher self-efficacy Teacher innovation
M2a M3a M1 M2b M3b
Control variable
Sex − 0.033 − 0.058 − 0.017 − 0.007 − 0.035
Tenure 0.008** 0.008** 0.004* 0.001 0.001
Education1 − 0.062 − 0.073 0.151 0.169 0.139
Education2 − 0.144† − 0.060 − 0.036 0.007 0.095†
Independent variable
SupSI − 0.004 − 0.038 0.016 0.017 − 0.007
ColSI 0.245** 0.149** 0.280** 0.208** 0.108**
StuSI 0.340** 0.230** 0.271** 0.171** 0.041
Mediator
TSE 0.295** 0.160**
Moderators
TSup 0.054* 0.042*
TCol 0.031 0.058*
TStu 0.256** 0.441**
Interaction items
SupSI*TSup 0.015 0.035*
ColSI*TCol − 0.068* − 0.017
StuSI*TStu − 0.020 0.089**
R2 0.362 0.423 0.388 0.454 0.614
ΔR2 0.060 0.066 0.160
F 90.536** 62.415** 101.121** 115.785** 125.929**
ΔF 19.240** 133.997** 76.596**
Note. Bachelor’s degree or similar educational level was used as the criterion for education level dummy variable analysis. Education1 ¼
high school or similar educational backgrounds; Education2 ¼ master’s or doctoral degree or similar educational level; SupSI ¼ Supervisor
support for innovation; ColSI ¼ Colleague support for innovation; StuSI ¼ Student support for innovation; TSup ¼ Trust in supervisor; TCol
¼ Trust in colleagues; TStu ¼ Trust in students; TSE ¼ Teacher self-efficacy; TI ¼ Teacher innovation. yp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
7
8 (caption on next page)

Fig. 2. a. Impact of the interaction of supervisor support and trust in supervisor on teacher innovation.
Note. High and low refer to one standard deviation above/below the average
b. Impact of the interaction of colleague support and trust in colleagues on teacher innovation.
Note. High and low refer to one standard deviation above/below the average
c. Impact of the interaction of student support and trust in students on teacher innovation.
Note. High and low refer to one standard deviation above/below the average.
teacher innovation (βself-efficacy = 0.295, p < .01; M2b in Table 2), indicating a mediating effect of self-efficacy between these two types
of support and innovation. Conversely, supervisor support evidenced a nonsignificant relationship with self-efficacy (βsupervisor support
= − 0.004, p > .10; M2a in Table 2). Therefore, supervisor support could neither positively predict teacher innovation directly, nor
through the function of teacher self-efficacy.
4.4. The moderating effect of teachers’ trust in their supervisors, colleagues, and students
In the last step, a hierarchical moderated regression analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) was conducted to test trust’s moderating
effect. Three types of trust and three interaction items were added to the regressions for both teacher self-efficacy (Table 2, M3a) and
innovation (Table 2, M3b). Results showed that the addition of trust and interaction items helped explain 6% more of the variance in
teacher self-efficacy (ΔR2 = 0.060; M3a in Table 2), and 16% more of the variance in teacher innovation (ΔR2 = 0.160; M3b in
Table 2). The interaction of supervisor support and teachers’ trust in supervisors, as well as the interaction of student support and
teachers’ trust in students, was significantly related to teacher innovation (βsupervisor*supervisor = 0.035, p < .05; βstudent*student = 0.089, p
< .01; M3b in Table 2), but not to teacher self-efficacy (βsupervisor*supervisor = 0.015, p > .10; βstudent*student = − 0.020, p > .10; M3a in
Table 2), indicating that trust moderated the direct effect of supervisor and student support on teacher innovation. Additionally, the
interaction of colleague support and teachers’ trust in colleagues was significantly related to teacher self-efficacy (βcolleague*colleague =
− 0.068, p < .05; M3a in Table 2) rather than innovation (βcolleague*colleague = − 0.017, p > .10; M3b in Table 2). Moreover, it was noted
that teachers’ trust in colleagues negatively moderated the relation between colleague support and innovation, which is the opposite
outcome proposed according to the literature reviewed. Figs. 2a, 2b, and 2c show the moderating effects of teachers’ trust on the
support-innovation relationship with supervisors, colleagues, and students, respectively. Fig. 3 shows the overall result of the research
model.
To get a clearer look at the moderating effects of trust, a moderated path analysis (Edwards & Lambert, 2007) and an effect dif
ference test (Dawson & Richter, 2006) were used to examine the effects of SSI’s three types on teacher innovation under different levels
of trust. Results, shown in Table 3, indicate that when teachers’ trust was at an average level, supervisor support had a nonsignificant
relationship with innovation (Total Effectsupervisor support-average trust = − 0.013, p > .10). Colleague support (Total Effectcolleague
support-average trust = 0.132, p < .01) and student support (Total Effectstudent support-average trust = 0.077, p < .01), by contrast, could
significantly predict teacher innovation. While teacher self-efficacy partially mediated the relationship between colleague support and
teacher innovation (Direct Effectcolleague support-average trust = 0.108, p < .01), it had a complete mediating effect on student support
(Direct Effectstudent support-average trust = 0.041, p > .10). When teachers’ trust was at a high level, the effect of supervisor and colleague
support remained, and student support also showed a significant direct effect on teacher innovation (Direct Effectstudent support-high trust
= 0.099, p < .01). However, when trust was low, supervisor support had a weak negative effect on teacher innovation (Total
Effectsupervisor support-low trust = − 0.045, p < .10). In a comparison of the effects of three support types on innovation at different levels of
trust, only student support showed a significant difference (Total Effect Differencestudent support = 0.112, p < .01), which mainly came
from the significant difference between the direct effects (Direct Effect Differencestudent support = 0.117, p < .01). Differences between
the total effect (Total Effect Differencesupervisor support = 0.065, p < .10) of supervisor support on teacher innovation were weak, and
differences between the indirect (i.e., mediating) effect (Indirect Effect Differencecolleague support = − 0.015, p < .10) of colleague
support on innovation were also weak. In sum, teachers’ trust in supervisors, colleagues, and students all showed significant
moderating effect. Specifically, trust in supervisors and students positively moderated the direct effect of support, while trust in
colleagues negatively moderated the indirect effect of support. Besides, trust in supervisor had the strongest moderating effect,
whereas trust in colleagues’ and supervisors’ moderating effect were weak.
5. Discussion
This study investigated the relationships among the interactions of different types of SSI with trust, teacher self-efficacy, and
teacher innovation. The results showed that colleague support and student support could positively predict teacher innovation. This
effect, moreover, was mediated by the facilitation of teacher self-efficacy. Conversely, supervisor support neither affected teacher
innovation nor had a significant relationship with teacher self-efficacy. Furthermore, teachers’ trust in students significantly
moderated the direct effect of student support on teacher innovation: when teachers have greater trust in their students, student
support enhances teacher innovation to a larger degree. However, trust in supervisors or colleagues did not significantly differentiate
the effect of supervisor or colleague support on teacher innovation.
First, we found that the impact of different types of SSI on teacher innovation varied. Specifically, colleague support and student
support each had a positive effect on teacher innovation. Our result agrees with existing studies on the relationships between colleague
support and individual innovation (Binnewies & Gromer, 2012; Madjar & Ortiz-Walters, 2008; Madjar et al., 2002; Wang, Xue & Su,
9
2010). Furthermore, these studies viewed supervisor and colleague support as an integrated variable and investigated its overall effect
on individual innovation (Binnewies & Gromer, 2012; Madjar & Ortiz-Walters, 2008; Madjar et al., 2002; Wang et al., 2010) whereas
our study distinguished supervisor support from colleague support and student support and found no significant relationship between
supervisor support and teacher innovation. Additionally, we added our quantitative results to the existing qualitative findings on the
important role of student support and engagement in teacher innovation (Ali, 2011; Davies, 2013; Emo, 2015; Goodyear & Casey,
2015; Owen, 2015; Zehetmeier, 2015). A possible reason why supervisor support does not significantly affect teacher innovation may
be the typically distant relationship between the school supervisor and teachers compared with the closer relationships among teacher
colleagues and students. While a school supervisor may be able to give teachers general suggestions for their teaching, colleagues can
offer more accurate assistance specific to the subject that is more useful to the teacher. Students, moreover, usually offer the quickest
and most direct feedback to their teachers. In a qualitative study, teachers reported that during their busy daily work, they had less
time communicating with their supervisors and tended to discuss the problems they faced in teaching with their colleagues (Brannan &
Bleistein, 2012). Besides, a high level of support may also represent a high degree of requirements for teaching quality from supervisors
(Han et al., 2018). Particularly, under the pressure of student scores for passing various standardized exams, teachers in China are
likely to understand supervisor support as a stressor, thus leading to undesired consequences. For example, a majority of novice
teachers agreed that they did not often receive support from supervisors, and they showed a certain degree of fear when asking their
supervisor for help (Brannan & Bleistein, 2012). However, support from colleagues is effective in facilitating teacher innovation in that
the collaborative structure built by teachers is much more likely to be sustained in the long term and manifests a high level of
collegiality (Ali, 2011). Unlike supervisor support, which is usually a formal approach, both formal and informal teacher collaboration
has been shown to be a useful practice that helps form a consensual perception of the importance of innovation, shape a safe and
welcoming environment, and offer valuable experience and knowledge to encourage teachers to persist in innovating (Holdsworth &
Maynes, 2017; Huang et al., 2019). Student support is also a key facilitator because the active interaction with and effective devel
opment of students form the core of teachers’ motivations to teach and guide teachers’ behavioral intention (Ali, 2011; Parsons et al.,
2018). Teachers’ teaching experience is largely determined by their interactions with students (Quin, 2017). When teachers perceive
that students are enthusiastic about new teaching methods, they will adapt their teaching approaches and include more innovative
teaching strategies in their classrooms (Parsons et al., 2018). Therefore, compared with colleague and student support, supervisor
support is arguably a less critical type of SSI.
Second, teacher self-efficacy was found to mediate the effects of colleague- and student-sourced SSI on teacher innovation. Many
studies have found a positive connection between self-efficacy and innovation not only in the education field (Cayirdag, 2017) but also
in the I/O domain Tierney and Farmer, (2002). Our findings provide further evidence of such a relationship and show that self-efficacy
may function as a key motivational resource that is transferred among organizational members and can facilitate desired outcomes
such as innovation. Similar to our findings on the support-innovation relationship, we showed that colleague and student support
Fig. 3. Results of the research model.

Note. Dashed lines indicate nonsignificant paths; the nonsignificant relationships between supervisor support and teacher innovation, as well as
between student support and innovation, are presented because of their significant interacting effects; other nonsignificant paths are not shown in
this figure, *p < .05, **p < .01.
10
Table 3
Results of the moderated path analysis of supervisor, colleague, and student support’s effects on teacher innovation.
Independent variables Conditions Effects on teacher innovation
Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Supervisor support for innovation Effect size at average trust in supervisor − 0.007 − 0.006 − 0.013
Effect size at high trust in supervisor 0.024 − 0.004 0.020
Effect size at low trust in supervisor − 0.037 − 0.008 − 0.045†
Difference of effect size between high and low trust in supervisor 0.061† 0.004 0.065†
Colleague support for innovation Effect size at average trust in colleagues 0.108** 0.024** 0.132**
Effect size at high trust in colleagues 0.096* 0.016* 0.112**
Effect size at low trust in colleagues 0.120** 0.032** 0.152**
Difference of effect size between high and low trust in colleagues − 0.024 − 0.015† − 0.040
Student support for innovation Effect size at average trust in students 0.041 0.037** 0.077**
Effect size at high trust in students 0.099** 0.035** 0.134**
Effect size at low trust in students − 0.018 0.039** 0.021
Difference of effect size between high and low trust in students 0.117** − 0.004 0.112**
Note. High and low refer to one standard deviation above/below the average. †p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
significantly facilitated teacher self-efficacy while supervisor support had a nonsignificant effect. First, a sense of self-efficacy can be
effectively transferred among teachers by communicating directly and through course observation to learn how other teachers
innovate successfully. For example, Vescio, Ross and Adams (2008) reported that professional collaboration and discussion among
teachers would promote their efficacy in innovative teaching strategies. Professional development workshops in which teachers can
constructively work with each other have also been suggested as an effective way to enhance teacher efficacy (Thomson, 2011).
Second, since one of the core professional abilities is to attract students to learning, student engagement proves the effectiveness of
their new initiatives, thus undoubtedly decreasing teachers’ sense of uncertainty when trying new things and increasing teachers’
confidence in their new teaching (Ali, 2011; Goodyear & Casey, 2015). Moreover, according to self-expansion theory, teachers’ ex
pectations of their potential selves can be shaped by students’ energetic engagement with their new teaching initiatives, thus leading to
a greater effort to further develop their professional abilities and sustain innovation (Davies, 2013; Goodyear & Casey, 2015). In
contrast, hierarchical and top-down school administrative structures may impede the transfer of resources from supervisors to teachers
(Brannan & Bleistein, 2012; Han et al., 2018). As mentioned above, a supervisor’s support may be viewed as a source of pressure in the
standardized educational system (Han et al., 2018). Therefore, the provision of supervisor support alone is insufficient for motivating
teachers to innovate, and additional approaches that help establish an environment in which teachers feel no hesitation or fear when
using supportive resources from supervisors are essential. Furthermore, research also suggests that the style of supervisor leadership
determines teachers’ perceptions of support for innovation. An initiator type of leadership that sets long-term school goals and high
expectations for teachers can more effectively provide a supportive school climate for innovation (Park, 2012). Additionally,
distributed leadership, transformational leadership, and empowering leadership have all shown positive relationships with teacher
self-efficacy or innovation (Brown, Flood, Armstrong, MacGregor & Chinas, 2021; Gkorezis, 2016; Vermeulen, Kreijns, & Evers, 2020),
indicating the need to further test the effects of supervisors’ supportive treatments on innovation in more specific ways.
Third, our findings suggest that teachers’ trust in supervisors, colleagues, and students moderates the relationship between the
three types of SSI and teacher innovation to different degrees. Teachers’ trust in students significantly impacts the effect of student
support, and student support has a much greater impact on teacher innovation when teachers’ trust in their students is stronger.
However, the relationship between supervisor/colleague support and innovation does not vary to a large degree when trust in su
pervisor/colleague changes. Trust between teachers and students plays a more important role, possibly because the teacher-student
relationship is the most important interpersonal relationship for all teachers. Teachers spend most of their work time interacting
with their students and devote all of themselves to the development of their students. The commitment to students shapes a teacher’s
fundamental conception of their role and the intrinsic value of teaching (Ali, 2011). Moreover, teachers not only engage cognitively
with their students in classrooms but also emotionally in depth (Hargreaves, 2004). Teachers obtain a sense of comfort from students’
respect and understanding, and such emotional bonds are crucial nutrients for teachers to overcome vulnerability in innovation.
Compared to the relationship with students, teachers may not engage that much emotionally with their supervisors and colleagues.
Thus, the moderating effect of trust in these two groups is weaker. However, the significance of their moderating effect shows that
interpersonal relationships between supervisors and teachers and among teachers themselves are still important. As discussed, su
pervisors’ supportive treatment is less likely to be effective without a good supervisor-teacher relationship, and our qualitative results
add further evidence for this argument. Conversely, teachers’ trust in their colleagues shows a negative effect on the relationship
between colleague support and efficacy, which is opposite to the findings of previous studies (Lee et al., 2011; Van Maele & Van
Houtte, 2012). Considering the small size of the moderating effect and the low degree of significance, future studies could investigate
whether this negative moderating effect exists in other research contexts.
6. Theoretical and practical implications
This study makes some critical contributions to the existing body of knowledge. First, we show that different aspects of profession
capital have varying effects on teacher innovation. SSI from supervisors, colleagues, and students represents decisional, social, and
11
human capital respectively (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Our findings show the importance of social capital and human capital in
promoting teacher innovation. Colleague support contributes to teacher collaboration, which is vital because without teachers’ joint
efforts, even the most efficacious teacher will tend to return to old teaching methods when faced with increasing difficulties (Coburn
et al., 2013). Student support is also a key facilitator of teacher innovation because a primary goal of teaching is to attract students to
the learning process (Hatt, 2005; Holdsworth & Maynes, 2017). Thus, students’ active engagement in a new teaching practice proves
its effectiveness and helps reduce teachers’ sense of vulnerability during their innovative endeavors (Davies, 2013; Goodyear & Casey,
2015). However, although supervisor support is considered an important source of decisional capital, we did not observe a significant
impact on teacher innovation.
Second, by testing the hypothesized model, we illustrate a clear picture of how different types of resources function in affecting
teacher innovation. The generation and implementation of innovative ideas consume substantial psychological resources (Shalley,
Gilson & Blum, 2009). COR theory postulates that self-efficacy is an important personal resource that fuels employees’ psychological
energy and helps them recover from emotional exhaustion (Hobfoll et al., 2018). COR theorists further suggest that positive orga
nizational resources can be transferred to individuals and increase their personal resources. Specifically, self-efficacy can be facilitated
by the provision of supportive organizational resources from other organizational members (Neff et al., 2012), and such transference is
realized through the process of self-expansion (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2001). Our findings show that the transfer of schools’ orga
nizational resources to teachers’ personal resources does play a critical role in initiating and sustaining teacher innovation. Addi
tionally, we further illustrate that the facilitation of teacher self-efficacy may be more effectively achieved between teachers
themselves, and between teachers and students, but not between teachers and the school supervisor.
Third, our findings further show that the transferring process of organizational resources to individuals’ personal resources, and the
direct impact of organizational resources on individual outcomes is influenced by the organizational environment such as interper
sonal relationships among organizational members. Moreover, the differentiated interacting effect found in this study indicates that
the effect of different organizational environmental factors varies. While teachers’ interpersonal relationships with their students may
play a more important role in primary and high schools in China, different environmental factors may stand out in other contexts.
Additionally, this study offers some practical implications for school supervisors and policy makers. The nonsignificant relationship
between supervisor support and teacher innovation shows that teacher innovation might be more effectively initiated using a bottom-
up model through interaction between teachers and students, as well as among teachers themselves, instead of a top-down approach
that is introduced by school administrators (Fullan, 2009). Hence, to facilitate successful teacher innovation, it is vital to create an
effective platform where teachers can constructively communicate with each other, and to design new teaching content and methods
that can successfully attract students. Second, given the importance of teacher self-efficacy, a variety of professional development
programs can be introduced to promote teachers’ innovation capabilities and increase their confidence in implementing such new
initiatives. Finally, a harmonious school environment in which the school supervisor, teachers, and students trust each other is
beneficial to teachers’ effective use of supportive organizational resources that are provided by either the school regulations or the
school members.
7. Limitations and future research
This study had several limitations. First, this study was conducted exclusively in the Chinese educational context. China is often
viewed as a collectivistic society, where interpersonal relationships tend to be more important in determining people’s beliefs and
behaviors (Ip, 2009; Xu, 2015). Thus, trust may play a more important role in Chinese school settings than it does in other cultures.
Furthermore, one meta-analysis found that the connection between self-efficacy and innovation differs according to cultural back
ground (Liu et al., 2016). Self-efficacy is likely to have a greater impact on innovation in countries that have clearer and more pervasive
cultural norms. Future studies can expand on our research to include a broader cultural context, and test whether the relationship
between different sources of SSI, trust, teacher self-efficacy, and innovation changes across cultures.
Second, the teacher self-efficacy scale we employed is unidimensional. Researchers have suggested that the construct of self-
efficacy is likely to have multiple dimensions. For example, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) develop the Norwegian Teacher
Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES), which includes six dimensions: instruction, adapting education to individual students’ needs, motivating
students, keeping discipline, cooperating with colleagues and parents, and coping with changes and challenges. The widely used
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) also contains three dimensions: instructional
strategies, classroom management, and student engagement. The differentiation of dimensions enables researchers to have closer
insight into the concrete mechanism by which specific parts of self-efficacy function more effectively in motivating teachers. Although
our measurement covered some of the dimensions in these scales, future studies can use a multidimensional measurement of teacher
self-efficacy to conduct a deeper exploration of the role that self-efficacy plays in teacher innovation.
Third, SSI, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher innovation were measured using Likert scales reported by teachers themselves.
Although Likert scales have been widely used as an effective approach to measure individuals’ affect, attitudes, and behaviors, scholars
suggest that the employment of different measurements could affect the relationship between research variables (Hülsheger, Anderson
& Salgado, 2009). For example, people tend to report a higher degree of creativity for themselves compared to when creativity is
measured via some objective standards (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Therefore, future studies may use multiple measurements, such as
observation with objective measuring standards, to gage the extent to which teachers are innovative, supportive, and confident in their
teaching.
Last, we used a questionnaire survey to explore the relationship between variables; however, the cross-sectional data are insuf
ficient to claim a casual effect of support on teacher self-efficacy and innovation. Future work should employ experimental designs to
12
further examine the causal connections among these variables or should collect longitudinal data to offer more explicit insights into
these relationships.
8. Conclusion
To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to both explore how diverse types of organizational resources and professional
capital impact teacher innovation within a theoretically driven model and provide useful implications for future educational reform
policies. The differing effects of differently sourced SSI on teacher innovation indicates that teacher innovation, to a large extent, is
likely a bottom-up process in which teacher collaboration and student engagement play a more important role than previously
thought. Teacher self-efficacy is also a key motivator for teacher innovation and suggests the importance of promoting teachers’
confidence in their abilities during educational reforms. Finally, interpersonal relationships also facilitate the effectiveness of SSI on
teacher innovation, which indicates a need to encourage closer emotional connections among school members.
Funding
This work was supported by the International Joint Research Project of the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University [Grant
ICER202004] (Project Title: Development of Teaching Expertise: Multidisciplinary Study of Teacher’s Practice).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yonghong Cai: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review
& editing, Funding acquisition. Runjia Tang: Formal analysis, Data curtion, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,
Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests, we do not have any possible conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
We thank the school supervisors and teachers who participated in our study, the research participants who helped gather the survey
data, and the staff who did language polishing for this article. www.liwenbianji.cn/ac.
References
Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of
cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000160146.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Ali, T. (2011). Understanding the evolving roles of improvement-oriented high school teachers in Gilgit-Baltistan. The Qualitative Report, 16(6), 1616–1644. https://
www.proquest.com/docview/920380492?OpenUrlRefId=info:XRi/sid:BAidu&accountid=8554.
Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative. New York: Crown Publishing Group, Inc.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder: Westview.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5),
1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995.
Amabile, T. M., & Pillemer, J. (2012). Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.001.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Norman, C. (2001). Self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond. In G. Fletcher, & M. Clark (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 478–501). Malden: Blackwell.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241.
Aubusson, P., Steele, F., Dinham, S., & Brady, L. (2007). Action learning in teacher learning community formation: Informative or transformative? Teacher
Development, 11(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530701414746.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions: Exploring the relationship between students’ creative self-efficacy and
teacher ratings of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022834.
Binnewies, Carmen, & Gromer, Marco (2012). Creativity and innovation at work: The role of work characteristics and personal initiative. Psicothema, 24(1), 100–105.
http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3985.pdf.
Brannan, D., & Bleistein, T. (2012). Novice ESOL teachers’ perceptions of social support networks. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.40.
Brown, C., Flood, J., Armstrong, P. W., MacGregor, S., & Chinas, C. (2021). Is distributed leadership an effective approach for mobilising professional capital across
professional learning networks? Exploring a case from England. Journal of Professional Capital & Community, 6(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-02-2020-
0010.
Cai, Y., Wang, D., & Lei, J. (2012). Research on the relationship between teachers’ teaching innovative ability and innovative performance. Educational Research and
Experiment, 2, 40-44. (in Chinese).
Castro, S. L. (2002). Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: A comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg(j), hierarchical linear
modeling, within- and between-analysis, and random group resampling. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00105-9.
Cayirdag, N. (2017). Creativity fostering teaching: Impact of creative self-efficacy and teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 17(6), 1959–1975.
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.6.0437.
Chang, T., McKeachie, W., & Lin, Y. (2010). Faculty perceptions of teaching support and teaching efficacy in Taiwan. Higher Education, 59(2), 207–220. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10734-009-9243-8.
13
Choi, W., Madjar, N., & Yun, S. (2018). Suggesting creative solutions or just complaining: Perceived organizational support, exchange ideology, and learning goal
orientation as determining factors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000143.
Coburn, C. E., Mata, W. S., & Choi, L. (2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from a study of mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86
(4), 311–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040713501147.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Eribaum.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Copland, M. A. (2001). The myth of the super principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 528–533.
Davies, T. (2013). Incorporating creativity into teachers practice and self-concept of professional identity. Journal of Educational Change, 14(1), 51–71. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10833-012-9192-3.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope different test. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917.
De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 639–649. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.639.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.611.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis.
Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1.
Emo, W. (2015). Teachers’ motivations for initiating innovations. Journal of Educational Change, 16(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9243-7.
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Literature review on innovation and creativity in E&T in the EU member states. Retrieved from http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Accessed January 20, 2021.
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9108-z.
Gkorezis, P. (2016). Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovative behavior: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Educational
Management, 30(6), 1030–1044. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2015-0113.
Goodyear, V. A., & Casey, A. (2015). Innovation with change: Developing a community of practice to help teachers move beyond the “honeymoon” of pedagogical
renovation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(2), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.817012.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5.
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of
resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal hain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of
Management, 41(6), 1628–1650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455246.
Han, J., Yin, H., & Wang, J. (2018). A case study of faculty perceptions of teaching support and teaching efficacy in China: Characteristics and relationships. Higher
Education, 76, 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0223-0.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management,
24(3), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243042000266936.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hatt, B. E. (2005). Pedagogical love in the transactional curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500109247.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 84, 116–122. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02016.x.
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their
consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640.
Holdsworth, S., & Maynes, N. (2017). But what if I fail?” A meta-synthetic study of the conditions supporting teacher innovation. Canadian Journal of Education, 40(4),
665–703. http://cje-rce.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/01/10.-3118-Holdsworth-Maynes-FINAL.Jan2_.pdf.
Huang, X., Lee, J. C., & Dong, X. (2019). Mapping the factors influencing creative teaching in mainland China: An exploratory study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31,
79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.002.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978.
Ibrahim, H. I., Isa, A., & Shahbudin, A. S. Md (2016). Organizational support and creativity: The role of developmental experiences as a moderator. Procedia Economics
and Finance, 35, 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00063-0.
Ip, P. K. (2009). Is Confucianism good for business ethics in China? Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0120-2.
Karacabey, K. M., Bellibaş, M.Ş., & Adams, D. (2020). Principal leadership and teacher professional learning in Turkish schools: Examining the mediating effects of
collective teacher efficacy and teacher trust. Educational Studies, ahead-of-print, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1749835.
Kelm, J. L., & McIntosh, K. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavior support on teacher self-efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pits.20624.
Lee, J. C. K., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a professional learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on
teacher commitment to students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 820–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.006.
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5),
671–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10377347.
Li, L., & Liu, Y. (2020). An integrated model of principal transformational leadership and teacher leadership that is related to teacher self-efficacy and student
academic performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, ahead-of-print, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1806036.
Lin, C. D. (2009). Researches into creative talents and creative education. Beijing: Economic Science Press (in Chinese).
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., & Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: A meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension
of the creativity literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 137, 236–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001.
Lohman, M.C., .& Woolf, N.H. (.2001). Self-initiated learning activities of experienced public school teachers: Methods, sources, and relevant organizational
influences. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600123835.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home?: The contributions of work and non-work sources of creativity support to employees’
creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069309.
Madjar, N., & Ortiz-Walters, R. (2008). Customers as contributors and reliable evaluators of creativity in the service industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29,
949–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.522.
Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Sacks, R. (2009). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. In A. Harris (Ed.),
Distributed leadership: Different perspectives. Berlin: Springer Netherlands.
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256727.
McKenzie, P., Santiago, P., Sliwka, P., & Hiroyuki, H. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey & Company.
Neff, A., Niessen, C., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. (2013). Expanding crossover research: The crossover of job-related self-efficacy within couples. Human Relations, 66
(6), 803–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712465095.
Neff, A., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Unger, D. (2012). What’s mine is yours: The crossover of day-specific self-esteem. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(3),
385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.10.002.
14
Nemeržitski, S., Loogma, K., Heinla, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2013). Constructing model of teachers’ innovative behaviour in school environment. Teachers and
Teaching, 19(4), 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.770230.
Owen, S. M. (2015). Teacher professional learning communities in innovative contexts: “Ah hah moments,” “passion” and “making a difference” for student learning.
Professional Development in Education, 41(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.869504.
Park, H. (2012). The effects of principal’s leadership style on support for innovation: Evidence from Korean vocational high school change. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 13(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9182-9.
Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., & Davis, S. G. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198.
Quin, D. (2017). Longitudinal and contextual associations between teacher–Student relationships and student engagement: A systematic review. Review of Educational
Research, 87(2), 345–387. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316669434.
Rofcanin, Y., LasHeras, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). Family supportive supervisor behaviors and organizational culture: Effects on work engagement and performance.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000036.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23,
387–392. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.
Rubenstein, L. D. V., McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for creativity scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow for the
teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813807.
Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G.S., & Daytner, G.T. (1999). The teacher self-efficacy scale [On-line publication]. Retrieved from http://www.ralfschwarzer.de/. Accessed May
13, 2021.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330806.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611.
Slabbert, J. A. (1994). Creativity and education revisited: Reflection in aid of progression. Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-
6057.1994.tb00720.x.
Suifan, T. S., Abdallah, A. B., & Al Janini, M. (2018). The impact of transformational leadership on employees’ creativity: The mediating role of perceived
organizational support. Management Research Review, 41(1), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2017-0032.
Sun, A., & Xia, J. (2018). Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 TALIS data.
International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006.
Thomson, P. (2011). Editorial comment: Capacity building: Introduction. In J. Sefton-Green, P. Thomson, K. Jones, & L. Bresler (Eds.), The Routledge international
handbook of creative learning (pp. 347–349). London/New York: Routledge.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 45
(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1.
Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). The role of teacher and faculty trust in forming teachers’ job satisfaction: Do years of experience make a difference? Teaching
and Teacher Education, 28(6), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.001.
Vermeulen, M., Kreijns, K., & Evers, A. T. (2020). Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange and school learning climate: Impact on teachers’ innovative
behaviour in the Netherlands. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, ahead-of-print, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220932582.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004.
Wang, D., Xue, H., & Su, H. (2010). Influence of work support on employee creativity: An empirical examination in the Peoples Republic of China. African Journal of
Business Management, 4(8), 1546–1553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2010.01312.x.
Wei, R., Darling-Hammond, L. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff
Development Council.
Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, 557–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701546002.
Xu, K. (2015). The priority of "Liberty" or " PingAn”: Two different cultural value priorities and their impacts. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 10(4), 579–600. https://
doi.org/10.3868/s030-004-015-0047-0.
Yu, G., Xin, T., & Shen, J. (1995). Teacher’s sense of teaching efficacy: Its structure and influencing factors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 27(2), 159–166. doi:CNKI:SUN:
XLXB.0.1995-02-007 (in Chinese)https://doi.org/.
Zehetmeier, S. (2015). Sustaining and scaling up the impact of professional development programmes. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11858-015-0671-x.
Zhang, L., Bu, Q., & Wee, S. (2016). Effect of perceived organizational support on employee creativity: Moderating role of job stressors. International Journal of Stress
Management, 23(4), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000025.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.02.002.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 22, 165–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22004-1.
Zhu, C., Wang, D., Cai, Y., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers’ teaching innovation? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1),
9–27.
15

Cai 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cai 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thinking Skills and Creativity 41 (2021) 100854

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

School support for teacher innovation: Mediating effects of

2.1. Teacher innovation

2.2. School support for innovation as professional capital

2.3.1. The mediating role of teacher self-efficacy

2.4. Research questions

3.1. Research procedure and participants

3.2.1. School support for innovation (SSI)

Fig. 1. Research model.

3.2.2. Trust in supervisors, colleagues, and students

3.2.3. Teacher self-efficacy

3.2.4. Teacher innovation

3.2.5. Control variables

3.3. Data analysis

1 SupSI 4.14 0.80 0.93

4.1. Descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, and correlations

4.3. The mediating effect of teacher self-efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy Teacher innovation

M2a M3a M1 M2b M3b

8 (caption on next page)

Fig. 3. Results of the research model.

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

6. Theoretical and practical implications

7. Limitations and future research

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of Competing Interest

You might also like