Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The number of teaching assistants (TAs) working in mainstream schools has soared in recent years as students with special educational needs (SEN) are integrated into regular classrooms. However, research on TAs is rare. This study investigated whether and how work engagement mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction among 292 Chinese TAs working in Hong Kong mainstream schools. Survey data were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Supported by the social cognitive theory of self-efficacy and self-determination theory of work engagement, our results showed that TAs’ self-efficacy is positively related to their job satisfaction through the mediation of work engagement. Implications for an appropriate focus on enhancing TAs’ self-efficacy through classroom experiences and training courses are discussed.

Keywords

self-efficacy work engagement job satisfaction teaching assistants inclusive education

Introduction

Teaching assistants (TAs) had been employed in Hong Kong primary, secondary, and special schools since 1997. The Board of Education, Sub-Committee on Review of School Education (1997) recommended the recruitment of “Teaching Assistant” to alleviate the heavy workload of in-service teachers, including for the purpose of recording pupils’ test scores, compiling and performing data search for class preparation, preparing teaching aids, organizing class activities, as well as handling pupils’ disruptive behaviors (Chapter 10). With such support from TAs, teachers would be able to be relieved of their nonteaching duties and thus have more time to concentrate on teaching responsibilities. Besides, in response to the implementation of the 2-year pilot project on inclusive education since 1997, coupled with the Hong Kong education reform in 2000 (Education Bureau [EDB], 2014), schools have been subsidized by the EDB to recruit more TAs to support students with special educational needs (SENs) in ordinary schools where SEN students are provided with opportunities to access the mainstream curriculum and to learn alongside their able peers for gaining essential lifelong learning experiences (EDB, 2012; Wong-Ratcliff & Ho, 2011). Integrated education was extended to all public sector ordinary schools from 1999/2000 onward after the 2-year pilot project (Audit Commission, 2018).

The first large-scale survey, which entailed the job status of 392 Hong Kong TAs, was conducted by the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union (HKPTU, 2016) in March 2016. A total of 392 TAs participated in this survey in which 150, 224, and 18 respondents worked in primary, secondary, and special schools, respectively, where children with more severe or multiple disabilities are placed. Regarding the job nature, 214 of them were responsible for teaching and 178 performed nonteaching duties. The results revealed that many participating TAs were young and educationally trained. More than 60% of them were aged below 30 years. About 55% of them had completed or were currently attending teacher training programs (e.g., postgraduate diploma in education [PGDE]). Their job creation was based on the availability of funds and they were employed on a yearly contract basis. Hence, the contract extension was not guaranteed and the retention rate was generally low. Moreover, more than 60% of them believed that they were underpaid. Besides, about 31.4% and 24.4% of those surveyed stated that they were discouraged by the heavy workload and long working hours, respectively. A similar survey in a sample of 251 TAs was conducted by the HKPTU again in 2018 (HKPTU, 2018). It was found that the work situation of TAs had not improved. Kwok (2013) had indicated that TAs in Hong Kong were unable to change from contract-based jobs to permanent jobs. They were treated by schools as external help and thus their working relationships with schools have not been stable. Trent (2014) had also investigated the clarity of “positionings” of TAs and discovered that TAs experienced identity confusion, that is, the discrepancy between the way they make sense of themselves and the image of themselves that they present to others. On one hand, the TAs working at different Hong Kong secondary schools had positioned themselves as a “teacher-to-be,” as applying the knowledge and skills acquired from their PGDE course. On the other hand, they were incompatible with fellow colleagues’ positioning the TAs as controllers of students or preparers and distributors of teaching materials. Trent’s result implied that to attract and retain TAs, the issue of identity conflict needs to be solved and the identity positions of “TA” and “teacher” need to be reconceptualized.

The experiences of TAs is under-researched compared with teachers, so this is an area that is worth exploring. Little research has been conducted to examine the relationships among self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction of TAs (e.g., Higgins & Gulliford, 2014). The following empirical evidence and theories are therefore reviewed on sources related to teachers.

Literature Review

Self-Efficacy

According to Bandura (1977, 1997), individuals’ behavior is affected by both outcome and efficacy expectations. Outcome expectations referred to the judgment individuals make about the likelihood of behaviors that would lead to certain outcomes in a particular situation or context. However, individuals would not produce such behavior unless they held the beliefs that they were capable of doing so, that is, efficacy expectations. Grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory, self-efficacy can be defined as people’s beliefs about the extent to which their capabilities can bring about changes for desired results. Teacher self-efficacy has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct in various domains (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Meta-analysis and review of studies have shown that teacher self-efficacy contributes to teaching effectiveness, student achievement and motivation, quality of classroom processes, and teacher well-being in a wide array of settings (Klassen & Tze, 2014; Zee & Koomen, 2016).

Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction

Teachers’ job satisfaction has been conceptualized as the affective reactions and cognitive appraisal of their day-to-day work (Ho & Au, 2006; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Having a high level of self-efficacy can contribute to job satisfaction. Specifically, teachers who consider themselves competent to promote changes in teaching and learning processes are more likely to make positive evaluative judgments about their jobs (Klassen & Chiu, 2010). The associations between teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction have also been examined in studies worldwide. For example, teachers’ self-efficacy was found to be positively related to job satisfaction in both Western (e.g., Canada and United States) and Eastern countries (e.g., Singapore and South Korea; Klassen et al., 2009; Lee & Shin, 2017). In a longitudinal study, Caprara et al. (2006) showed that teachers’ self-efficacy predicted their job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement. Its replication performed in two subsequent scholastic years has also revealed similar results. In a study of 523 Canadian teachers, Wang et al. (2015) found that those with high self-efficacy levels in student engagement and classroom management are more satisfied with their job.

Work Engagement

With the recent trend of positive psychology, organizational researchers start focusing on one’s engagement with their work. Work engagement is defined as “a persistent, positive affective-motivational state of fulfillment, which is characterized by the three components of vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Maslach et al., 2008, p. 103). Vigor concerns high levels of energy and mental resilience of a worker, that is, a willingness to invest effort in one’s job, and persistence in facing difficulties (Maslach et al., 2008). Dedication refers to an individual’s strong enthusiasm in their work, accompanied by feelings of personal significance, pride, and inspiration (Maslach et al., 2008). Finally, absorption is characterized by being fully committed to one’s work to such an extent that an individual is unable to detach oneself from work (Maslach et al., 2008).

Self-Efficacy and Work Engagement

Self-efficacy, as a personal resource, is considered as one of the important antecedents of work engagement (Tims et al., 2011). Self-efficacy fits well with a person’s feeling of competence—an inherent psychological need within the self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985). According to the SDT, individuals’ work has provided them with the opportunities to demonstrate their competence, which is essential to the development of work engagement (Timms & Brough, 2013). It was found that workplace buoyancy (i.e., “ability to effectively deal with setback, challenge, adversity, and pressure in the workplace setting”; Parker & Martin, 2009, p. 70) predicted work-related engagement among a sample of 515 teachers in Australia. Teachers who rated themselves higher on self-efficacy are more engaged in their work, experience more positive emotions, and less negative emotions toward their students (Burić & Macuka, 2018). Longitudinal studies have also shown that teacher self-efficacy and work engagement reciprocally influence each other (Salanova et al., 2011; Simbula et al., 2011).

Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction

Work engagement contributes to job satisfaction. Engaged teachers are more likely to perform better in their jobs (Bakker & Bal, 2010), be more committed to their schools (Hakanen et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2006), and be more likely to report higher levels of job satisfaction primarily characterized by positive experiences. A number of studies have also shown that teachers’ overall engagement was moderately to strongly related to their job satisfaction (Klassen et al., 2012; Shoshani & Eldor, 2016; Simbula, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2013). Targeting the three dimensions of engagement individually (i.e., vigor, dedication, and absorption), a longitudinal study had shown that both Time 1 and Time 2 vigor, dedication, and absorption were positively associated with job satisfaction among the 312 Australian teachers (Timms & Brough, 2013), showing that job satisfaction is the outcome of these dimensions.

Self-Efficacy, Work Engagement, and Job Satisfaction

There were a few studies that simultaneously examined teacher self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction. For example, Høigaard et al. (2012) indicated that teacher efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction were positively correlated with one another in a sample of newly qualified teachers. In another study of 2,569 Norwegian teachers in elementary and middle schools, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2014) also reported that self-efficacy significantly predicted both work engagement and job satisfaction. Latent profile analysis revealed that the dimensions of teacher self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction differed meaningfully across four different personality profiles (i.e., rigid, ordinary, well-adjusted, and excitable), with well-adjusted teachers reporting the highest levels on all the outcomes (Perera et al., 2018).

Rationale and Hypotheses of Study

There has been an increase in the number of TAs in mainstream schools for inclusive practices in recent years. However, relatively little is known about TAs in Hong Kong. Specifically, previous research has mainly examined the relationships among self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction in teachers. There is a need to fill this gap in the literature. Based on the aforementioned literature review on self-efficacy as an antecedent of work engagement and work engagement as an antecedent of job satisfaction, together with the assumptions of social cognitive and self-determination theories, we proposed a theoretical model (Figure 1) that specified the direct effects of self-efficacy on job satisfaction and its indirect effects through work engagement. We hypothesized that

Hypothesis 1: There would be a positive relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: There would be a positive relationship between self-efficacy and work engagement.

Hypothesis 3: There would be a positive relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: The relation between self-efficacy and job satisfaction (if any) would be mediated through work engagement.

Figure 1.

The proposed mediation model.

Method

Participants and Procedures

According to the EDB, it was estimated that 580 TAs were serving in Hong Kong public schools (HKPTU, 2018). As a result, a purposeful sample of 326 TAs working in various schools was recruited for this study because they were assumed to share common characteristics with the population of TAs in Hong Kong. The participants had attended a government-funded workshop for inclusive education in the 2015–2016 school year. An anonymous questionnaire was administered to the participants of the workshop during the last session. In particular, an oral informed consent was obtained and participants were free to decide whether to fill out the questionnaire or not. Survey completion was voluntary. From the 326 questionnaires, 310 questionnaires were returned, with a return rate of 95.1%. As the target participants to be studied are TAs working in primary or secondary schools, two participants working in other schools were discarded. There were 292 valid questionnaires involved in the final statistical analysis after deleting 16 more cases with a total of 82 missing values.

Among the 292 respondents, 201 of them were from secondary schools and 91 were from primary schools, with 88 males and 204 females. More than half of them were aged 24 years and below. In addition, 209 of them were involved in classroom and/or assisted teaching and 83 of them were only responsible for performing nonteaching duties. About three quarters of the participants had not received any teacher training (e.g., PGDE) and more than 95% of them had never attended a special education training course. About 60% of the participants have been working as TA for 1 to 2 years, with about one fourth having worked for 2 to 7 years and less than 1% having worked for 10 years or more.

Instruments

Self-efficacy

The TAs’ self-efficacy was measured by the 30-item Teaching Assistant Efficacy Scale (TAES), assessing five domains of efficacy: learning support (six items; for example, “I can motivate students who show low interest in school work”), teaching support (five items; for example, “I can provide an alternate explanation or example when students are confused”), behavior management (eight items; for example, “I can control disruptive behavior in the classroom”), cooperation (seven items; for example, “I can cooperate with non-teaching staff in my school”), and administrative support (four items; for example, “I can assist to improve the learning environment”; Yan et al., 2015). The items are presented on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The results of the Rasch analyzes supported the five-domain structure, with Rasch reliabilities for all domains above .90. The reliability coefficients (.96 for total, .91 for learning support, .88 for teaching support, .92 for behavior management, .86 for cooperation, and .75 for administrative support) were higher than .75, indicating satisfactory internal consistency in the present study.

Job satisfaction

In the present study, the Chinese version of the short-form Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was adopted (Wu, 1998). Six items (e.g., The feeling of accomplishment I get from my job) relevant to the job nature of TAs in Hong Kong were properly selected based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). The wordings of selected items had been slightly modified to fit into the Hong Kong context. The reliability for these six items was satisfactory (α = .83) in the present study.

Work engagement

Work engagement was measured by the Chinese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9; Fong & Ng, 2012). It consists of nine items grouped evenly into three components: vigor (e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”), dedication (e.g., “I am enthusiastic about my job”), and absorption (e.g., “I feel happy when I am working intensely”). Responses to items are given on a 7-point Likert-type frequency scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (everyday). The factorial validity of the three-factor model was intact, as shown by decent goodness-of-fit indices (i.e., comparative fit index [CFI] =.93, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .90, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .08, and standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .05). In this study, all of the Cronbach coefficients (.92 for the overall scale, .79 for vigor, .83 for dedication, and .80 for absorption) were higher than .70, suggesting satisfactory internal consistency.

Data Analysis

Using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach (Hair et al., 2017), the data analysis was performed by Smart PLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015). PLS-SEM can be applied to the analysis of non-normally distributed data, does not demand a large sample size, and serves the purposes of exploratory study rather than theory testing (Urbach & Ahlemann, 2010). For the present study, the data set contains non-normally distributed data (e.g., items JOBSAT 32, TAEFF 41, and TAEFF 60), which violate the assumptions of the covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) approach. Besides, the present study only involves 292 valid cases, which are fewer than 300—the minimum required sample size for confirmatory factor analysis (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). What is more, the TAES is a newly developed scale that has neither been validated nor been used for independent study. Therefore, the present study is the first study to use this scale to explore TAs’ efficacy and its potentially related constructs such as work engagement and job satisfaction. PLS-SEM is more suitable for theory development in this case.

Following the instructions of conducting and reporting PLS-SEM analyses (Hair et al., 2019), the data analysis of the present study includes evaluation of the measurement models (i.e., examining the reliability and validity of the latent constructs) and the structural model (i.e., examining the hypothesized relationships among the latent constructs).

Results

Measurement Models

The psychometric properties of TAs’ self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction scales were assessed by using Smart PLS 3.0 (Ringle et al., 2015). To satisfy convergent validity, indicator loadings should exceed .70 and both indicator reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) should be higher than .50. Discriminant validity was assessed by the Fornell–Larcker criterion and cross-loadings. The square root of AVE of each latent construct should be higher than the correlations with other latent constructs based on the Fornell–Larcker criterion. In addition, an indicator’s outer loading on the associated construct should be higher than its cross loadings with all other constructs (Hair et al., 2017). Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alphas between .60 and .70 indicate acceptable internal consistency in exploratory research, with values between .70 and .90 indicating satisfactory to good reliability (Hair et al., 2019).

It was found that TAES would be reliable and valid after deleting four items with outer loadings equal to or less than .70. The 26-item TAES has satisfactory levels of convergent validity and reliability with significant loadings (>.70), good indicator reliability (>.50), acceptable AVE (>.50), and high level of internal consistency on each of the five factors (i.e., learning support, teaching support, behavior management, cooperation, and administrative support), with composite reliability and alphas ranging from .788 to .934. As the TAES met the evaluation criteria of discriminant validity based on the Fornell–Larcker criterion and higher outer loadings, these five factors discriminated each other clearly. TAs’ self-efficacy, as a second order construct, also demonstrated good composite reliability (α = .909), AVE (=.666) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .951).

Regarding work engagement, it was shown that the work engagement scale (UWES-9) was reliable with high internal consistency (composite reliability and Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .797 to .898). It was valid in terms of both acceptable convergent validity, that is, good and significant loadings (>.70) and indicator reliability and high AVE, and discriminant validity on each of the three factors (i.e., vigor, dedication, and absorption). It was noteworthy that work engagement was also a second order construct, with good composite reliability (α = .938), AVE (=.834), and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .918). Regarding job satisfaction, two out of six items in MSQ were deleted as the outer loadings of these two items were lower than .70 in the first round of analysis. The remaining four items were independence, ability utilization, creativity, and achievement, reflecting the intrinsic motivational aspect of job satisfaction. Subsequent analysis indicated that job satisfaction represented by these four items was of high internal consistency (composite reliability α = .897 and Cronbach’s α = .850), satisfactory convergent validity with significant loadings (>.70) and both indicator reliability and AVE values were greater than .50, and acceptable discriminant validity. The results were summarized and presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Results Summary for the Measurement Models.

Latent variables	Indicators	Convergent validity			Internal consistency		Discriminant validity		Second-order construct	Composite reliability	AVE	Cronbach’s α
		Loadings	Indicator reliability	AVE	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s α	Fornell–Larcker criterion	Cross-loadings		Composite reliability	AVE	Cronbach’s α
		> .70	> .50	> .50	.60–.90	.60–.90	$\sqrt{A V E}$ is higher than the correlations with other latent constructs	All cross-loadings are lower than their outer loadings		.60–.90	> .50	.60–.90
Learning support	TAEFF40	0.856	0.733	.682	.928	.906	Yes	Yes	Teaching assistant’s self-efficacy	.909	.666	.951
	TAEFF41	0.841	0.708
	TAEFF42	0.887	0.787
	TAEFF43	0.761	0.578
	TAEFF44	0.844	0.712
	TAEFF45	0.760	0.577
Teaching support	TAEFF46	0.737	0.543	.671	.911	.877	Yes	Yes
	TAEFF47	0.779	0.607
	TAEFF48	0.878	0.771
	TAEFF49	0.857	0.734
	TAEFF50	0.838	0.702
Behavior management	TAEFF52	0.744	0.554	.671	.934	.918	Yes	Yes
	TAEFF53	0.859	0.738
	TAEFF54	0.785	0.615
	TAEFF55	0.849	0.721
	TAEFF56	0.851	0.724
	TAEFF57	0.847	0.718
	TAEFF58	0.792	0.628
Cooperation	TAEFF59	0.818	0.669	.665	.908	.874	Yes	Yes
	TAEFF60	0.768	0.590
	TAEFF62	0.828	0.686
	TAEFF63	0.824	0.678
	TAEFF64	0.838	0.702
Administrative support	TAEFF67	0.838	0.702	.703	.876	.788	Yes	Yes
	TAEFF68	0.884	0.781
	TAEFF69	0.792	0.627
Vigor	WENG21	0.880	0.774	.725	.806	.887	Yes	Yes	Work engagement	.938	.834	.918
	WENG22	0.922	0.850
	WENG25	0.743	0.551
Dedication	WENG23	0.897	0.804	.746	.898	.830	Yes	Yes
	WENG24	0.833	0.694
	WENG27	0.861	0.741
Absorption	WENG26	0.759	0.576	.714	.881	.797	Yes	Yes
	WENG28	0.907	0.823
	WENG29	0.861	0.742
Job satisfaction	JSAT31	0.806	0.650	.686	.897	.850	Yes	Yes
	JSAT33	0.874	0.764
	JSAT34	0.801	0.641
	JSAT35	0.831	0.690

Note. AVE = average variance extracted; TAEFF = Teaching Assistant Efficacy Scale; WENG = work engagement; JSAT = job satisfaction.

Descriptive Data and Correlational Analysis

Scale means, standard deviations, and the intercorrelations among the latent and observed variables are shown in Table 2. The intercorrelations among self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction were statistically significant. Specifically, self-efficacy was positively related to work engagement (r = .46, p < .01) and job satisfaction (r = .43, p < .01), with medium to large effect sizes. A strong positive relationship was found between work engagement and job satisfaction (r = .54, p < .01). Thus, Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were supported.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the Observed and Latent Variables.

Variables	M	SD	LEASUPP	TEASUPP	BEHMGT	COOPER	ADMSUPP	VIGOR	DEDICATE	ABSORPT	WE	JSAT	SE
LEASUPP	4.07	0.79	1	.76**	.57**	.46**	.66**	.38**	.48**	.36**	.44**	.41**	.86**
TEASUPP	4.20	0.75		1	.64**	.52**	.61**	.32**	.41**	.31**	.38**	.34**	.88**
BEHMGT	3.98	0.76			1	.50**	.57**	.30**	.36**	.20**	.32**	.30**	.83**
COOPER	4.80	0.69				1	.56**	.28**	.34**	.24**	.32**	.36**	.72**
ADMSUPP	4.22	0.83					1	.33**	.42**	.31**	.39**	.33**	.79**
VIGOR	3.47	1.15						1	.79**	.74**	.93**	.48**	.39**
DEDICATE	3.76	1.15							1	.70**	.92**	.54**	.49**
ABSORPT	3.34	1.23								1	.89**	.47**	.34**
WE	3.53	1.07									1	.54**	.45**
JSAT	3.50	0.77										1	.43**
SE	4.23	0.62											1

Note. LEASUPP = learning support; TEASUPP = teaching support; BEHMGT = behavior management; COOPER = cooperation; ADMSUPP = administrative support; VIGOR = vigor; DEDICATE = dedication; ASORPT = absorption; WE = work engagement; JSAT = job satisfaction; SE = self-efficacy.

Correlation is significant at the .01 level, two-tailed.

Structural Model

After the assessment of measurement models, the validity of the structural model was evaluated. The coefficient of determination (R²) reflected the combined effect of exogenous latent variables on a target endogenous latent variable, ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating a better explanatory power of the model. As shown in Table 3, the R² values of work engagement (.208) and job satisfaction (.360) were considered weak and moderate. The f² effect size was measured to assess the change of the R² value of a specified endogenous latent variable when a certain exogenous latent variable was removed. The effect size of self-efficacy on work engagement R² value was moderate (f² = .262) and on job satisfaction the R² value was low (f² = .058). The effect size of work engagement on job satisfaction R² value was moderate (f² = .273). The Q² value (the threshold of zero) indicates the predictive relevance of exogenous latent variables for a certain endogenous latent variable. In the present study, Q² values of work engagement (.117) and job satisfaction (.220) depicted small to medium predictive relevance of the model. The effect sizes of self-efficacy and work engagement on job satisfaction Q² values were small (q² = .031) and small to medium (q² = .133), respectively (Hair et al., 2017).

Table 3.

Result Summary for the Structural Model.

	R² value.25–.35	Q² value>0	WENG			JSAT
			Path coeff	f² effect size	q² effect size	Path coeff	f² effect size	q² effect size
Variables			p < .05	.020–.350		p < .05	.020–.350
SE	—	—	.456	.262	—	.431	.058	.031
WENG	.208	.117	—	—	—	.469	.273	.133
JSAT	.360	.220	—	—	—	—	—	—

Note. WENG = work engagement; JSAT = job satisfaction; SE = self-efficacy.

To assess the significance of path coefficients, bootstrap procedure was performed to establish confidence intervals (CIs) for the coefficients. No assumption of normality is required for the sample distribution by using bootstrapping procedure. A path coefficient is significant when zero does not fall within the lower and upper 95% CIs. Critical t-value for a two-tailed test larger than 1.96 indicates that a path coefficient is significant at p < .05. As shown in Table 4 and Figure 2, the direct and indirect effects of self-efficacy on job satisfaction were estimated with the mediator (i.e., work engagement). The result indicated that the indirect effect of self-efficacy, through work engagement, on job satisfaction was significant (β = .214, p < .05), with significant direct effect of .217, indicating that Hypothesis 4 was supported. The strength of mediation was estimated using variance accounted for (VAF). It was equal to the indirect effect divided by the sum of direct and indirect effects (i.e., the total effect) and had a value of .497, showing that 49.7% of self-efficacy’s effect on job satisfaction was explained through work engagement. As the value of VAF was between 20% and 80%, this mediation was classified as partial mediation, with work engagement serving as a complementary mediator (Hair et al., 2017).

Table 4.

Significance Analysis of the Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects.

Paths	Path coefficients(β)	95% confidence interval	t-value	Significance (p < .05)
Exclude mediator
SE → JSAT	.431	[0.326, 0.531]	3.819	Yes
Include mediator
SE → WENG	.456	[0.352, 0.555]	8.801	Yes
WENG → JSAT	.469	[0.375, 0.563]	9.569	Yes
SE → JSAT	.217	[0.107, 0.327]	3.804	Yes
	Indirect effect	Direct effect	Total effect
SE → WENG → JSAT	.214			Yes
SE → JSAT		.217		Yes
SUM of direct and indirect effects			.431	Yes
Sobel z test	6.584			Yes
VAF (indirect/total effects)	0.497

Note. SE = self-efficacy; JSAT = job satisfaction; WENG = work engagement; VAF = variance accounted for.

Figure 2.

The structural model of the relationships among self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction.

Discussion

The present study examined the relationships among self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction in a sample of TAs in Hong Kong. We also investigated whether their self-efficacy contributes to job satisfaction through work engagement. Our results supported the predictions that there were positive correlations among TAs’ self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction. TAs who reported high levels of self-efficacy in this study were more engaged and more satisfied with their jobs. The strengths of these relationships are in line with previous studies conducted with school teachers (e.g., Høigaard et al., 2012; Perera et al., 2018; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2014), showing that self-efficacy contributes to work engagement and job satisfaction. In particular, work engagement partially mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction, indicating that work engagement played a role in explaining this relationship. Our results also gave support to the social cognitive theory of self-efficacy and SDT of work engagement, highlighting the importance of beliefs in competence and intrinsic motivation in job satisfaction among the TAs in this sample. According to the social cognitive theory, efficacy belief regulates engagement, serving as a self-motivation mechanism (Simbula et al., 2011). TAs with high levels of self-efficacy may tend to interpret demands and problems as challenges instead of hindrances, which in turn will relate to more engagement at work (Ventura et al., 2015). A strong sense of self-efficacy may also enhance the performance of TAs, contributing to the promotion of school commitment and job satisfaction (Caprara et al., 2006). Based on the perspective of SDT, for TAs who are more engaged at work, aspects such as enjoying the student–teacher interaction and observing student progress (Scott et al., 2001) may serve as an important intrinsic motivation for job satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

A limitation of the present study is that we have examined only one mediator—work engagement. Work engagement in this study has been found to partially mediate the relationship between TAs’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction, without indicating whether other potential variables would account for this relationship. For example, work conditions and goal progress were found to mediate the relation of self-efficacy with job satisfaction in teachers (Badri et al., 2013; Lent et al., 2011). Future research could extend the number of mediators. Another limitation of this study was that it has been designed as a cross-sectional study. Although we have tested the proposed model in which self-efficacy predicts job satisfaction through work engagement, no causal interpretations among the study variables could be inferred. Longitudinal studies would be needed in future research to explore the hypothesized causal relations among self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction for extended periods of time. Finally, all the instruments in the current study were self-report measures, which would be subject to inflated bias of social desirability. Multiple sources of data would be recommended in further studies. As self-efficacy is crucial to teaching and learning effectiveness, and well-being, further investigation of TAs’ self-efficacy and its relation to various educational and psychological outcomes is critically necessary.

Suggestions and Conclusion

It was suggested that schools should assign appropriate in-class and assisted teaching duties to TAs to raise their level of self-efficacy as TAs were least confident in teaching support and managing students’ misbehavior (Sin et al., 2017). This experience also provides opportunities for TAs to explore new issues in the teaching process, collaborate with other teaching staff (Gavish & Friedman, 2010; Guo et al., 2011; Pas et al., 2010), and engage students with SENs more readily. Increased self-efficacy can be attributed to increased confidence gained through various classroom experiences (Klassen & Durksen, 2014). More importantly, in-class teaching is a relatively and highly complexed task; the more complex the task, the more self-efficacious the TAs become (Mills, 2011).

With the implementation of inclusive education, TAs have grown in numbers and they have also been changed from nonteaching staff (i.e., technician, office clerk, and administrative staff who do not need to support students under teachers’ supervision) to para-educators (i.e., school employees who provide instructional support to students under the supervision of teachers or special educators; Butt & Lance, 2005; Cajkler & Tennant, 2009; Nguyen, 2015). Along with the change of roles of TAs, provision of more advanced professional training in teaching and learning for TAs would be inevitable. The findings of the current study thus call for strengthening TAs’ self-efficacy with these courses. The effectiveness of such courses on improving teacher self-efficacy has been evidenced in Hong Kong (Chao et al., 2017; Forlin et al., 2014; Wan, 2016). Efficacy would be one of the intervention foci on school management in developing TAs’ training courses as well. Future research could examine whether TAs report enhanced self-efficacy (e.g., pretest vs. posttest) after participating in these courses (Giangreco, 2013; Gkolia et al., 2014; Sin et al., 2017).

When Hong Kong continues to embrace inclusive education to cater to the needs of students with SEN (EDB, 2012, 2014), it would be important to promote the self-efficacy of TAs. To better equip TAs with more skills for future needs, to provide support for SEN students, and to enhance TAs’ engagement in more complex classroom duties, professional development programs for TAs may have to be included to enable them to have more hands-on experience in workplace. The inclusive classroom is a dynamic environment that demands flexible and prompt responses from TAs and teachers, and professional training with focus on developing TAs’ knowledge-in-action would prepare them to handle problems and challenges in the inclusive classroom contexts.

Although schools in Hong Kong have been hiring TAs for more than two decades, the position of the TAs has been relatively unstable, which has resulted in high turnover rate (HKPTU, 2016, 2018; Kwok, 2013) and low propensity for professional development among them. TAs’ contributions should be recognized in teaching and learning, as well as student support. It is recommended that government should review the current employment situation of TAs to promote TAs’ professional development. In the long run, concrete plans and policies should be formulated to provide more regular teachers posts, so as to enhance the career prospects and construct the professional identity of TAs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sammy K. Ho

References

Audit Commission. (2018). Integrated education. https://www.aud.gov.hk/pdf_e/e70ch03.pdf

Badri

M. A.

Mohaidat

Ferrandino

EI Mourad

(2013). The social cognitive model of job satisfaction among teachers: Testing and validation. International Journal of Educational Research, 57, 12–24.

Bakker

A. B.

Bal

P. M.

(2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Board of Education, Sub-Committee on Review of School Education. (1997). Report on review of 9-year compulsory education [Revised version]. https://www.eduhk.hk/cird/publications/edpolicy/29.pdf

Burić

Macuka

(2018). Self-efficacy, emotions and work engagement among teachers: A two wave cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 1917–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9903-9

Butt

Lance

(2005). Modernizing the roles of support staff in primary schools: Changing focus, changing function. Educational Review, 57(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191042000308323

Cajkler

Tennant

(2009). Teaching assistants and pupils’ academic and social engagement in mainstream schools: Insights from systematic literature reviews. International Journal of Emotional Education, 1(2), 71–90.

10.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Steca

Malone

P. S.

(2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001

11.

Chao

C. N. G.

Chow

W. S. E.

Forlin

F. C.

(2017). Improving teachers’ self-efficacy in applying teaching and learning strategies and classroom management to students with special education needs in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.004

12.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.

13.

Education Bureau. (2012). A message from secretary for education and manpower. https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/cs-curriculum-doc-report/about-cs-curriculum-doc-report/exe_sum.pdf

14.

Education Bureau. (2014). Operation guide on the whole school approach to integrated education (3rd ed.). http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/special/support/wsa/ie%20guide_en.pdf

15.

Fong

T. C.

(2012). Measuring engagement at work: Validation of the Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19(3), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-011-9173-6

16.

Forlin

Sharma

Loreman

(2014). Predictors of improved teaching efficacy following basic training for inclusion in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(7), 718–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.819941

17.

Gavish

Friedman

I. A.

(2010). Novice teachers’ experience of teaching: A dynamic aspect of burnout. Social Psychology of Education, 13(2), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9108-0

18.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2013). Teacher assistant supports in inclusive schools: Research, practices and alternatives. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2013.1

19.

Gkolia

Belias

Koustelios

(2014). Teacher’s job satisfaction and self-efficacy: A review. European Scientific Journal, 10(22), 321–342.

20.

Guo

Justice

L. M.

Sawyer

Tompkins

(2011). Exploring factors related to preschool teachers self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 961–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.008

21.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE.

22.

Hair

J. F.

Risher

J. J.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

23.

Hakanen

J. J.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

24.

Higgins

Gulliford

(2014). Understanding teaching assistant self-efficacy in role and in training: Its susceptibility to influence. Educational Psychology in Practice, 30(2), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2014.896250

25.

C. L.

W. T.

(2006). Teaching satisfaction scale: Measuring job satisfaction of teachers. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(1), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405278573

26.

Høigaard

Giske

Sundsli

(2012). Newly qualified teachers’ work engagement and teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.633993

27.

Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union. (2016). Short-term contract but long-term damage: A report on survey of contract teachers and teaching assistants. (In Chinese). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union.

28.

Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union. (2018). The government provides a drop in the bucket: A report on survey of contract teacher and teaching assistant. (In Chinese). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union.

29.

Jackson

L. T. B.

Rothmann

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2006). A model of work-related well-being for educators in South Africa. Stress and Health, 22(4), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1098

30.

Klassen

R. M.

Aldhafri

Mansfield

C. F.

Purwanto

Siu

A. F. Y.

Wong

M. W. Y.

Woods-McConney

(2012). Teachers engagement at work: An international validation study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(4), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.678409

31.

Klassen

R. M.

Bong

Usher

E. L.

Chong

W. H.

Huan

V. S.

Wong

I. Y. F.

Georgiou

(2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.08.001

32.

Klassen

R. M.

Chiu

M. M.

(2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237

33.

Klassen

R. M.

Durksen

T. L.

(2014). Weekly self-efficacy and work stress during the teaching practicum: A mixed methods study. Learning and Instruction, 33, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.003

34.

Klassen

R. M.

Tze

V. M. C.

(2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001

35.

Kwok

D. T. S.

(2013). Fixed-term employment and individual mobility: A study of teaching assistants in the aided secondary schools of Hong Kong (Restricted Access Theses and Dissertations, Paper 1553). https://repository.hkbu.edu.hk/etd_ra/1553/

36.

Lee

E. S.

Shin

Y. J.

(2017). Social cognitive predictors of Korean secondary school teachers’ job and life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.008

37.

Lent

Nota

Soresi

Ginevra

Duffy

Brown

(2011). Predicting the job and life satisfaction of Italian teachers: Test of a social cognitive model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.006

38.

Maslach

Leiter

M. P.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2008). Measuring burnout. In Cooper

C. L.

Cartwright

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational well-being (pp. 86–108). Oxford University Press.

39.

Mills

(2011). Teaching assistants’ self-efficacy in teaching literature: Sources, personal assessments, and consequences. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01145.x

40.

Nguyen

(2015). Reaching out: Extending collaboration and training to paraeducator. Revista Científica Hermes, 13(13), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.21710/rch.v13i0.221

41.

Parker

P. D.

Martin

A. J.

(2009). Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: Understanding their effects on teachers’ work-related well-being and engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.009

42.

Pas

E. T.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Hershfeldt

P. A.

Leaf

P. J.

(2010). A multilevel exploration of the influence of teacher efficacy and burnout on response to student problem behavior and school-based service use. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018576

43.

Perera

H. N.

Granziera

McIlveen

(2018). Profiles of teacher personality and relations with teacher self-efficacy, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.034

44.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J. M.

(2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS.

45.

Salanova

Llorens

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2011). “Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!” On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(2), 255–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00435.x

46.

Scott

Stone

Dinham

(2001). “I love teaching but . . . .” International patterns of teacher discontent. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v9n28.2001

47.

Shoshani

Eldor

(2016). The informal learning of teachers: Learning climate, job satisfaction and teachers’ and students’ motivation and well-being. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.007

48.

Simbula

(2010). Daily fluctuations in teachers’ well-being: A diary study using the Job Demands-Resources model. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23(5), 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615801003728273

49.

Simbula

Guglielmi

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2011). A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian school teachers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903513916

50.

Sin

K. F.

Lum

C. W.

Lui

T. L. R.

Yung

S. C.

(2017, 30 November–2 December). Overview of TAs’ self-efficacy in Hong Kong and reform suggestion to teaching assistants’ training program to accommodate students with special education need [Paper presentation]. WERA Focal Meeting & HKERA International Conference 2017 (WERA-HKERA 2017), The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

51.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001

52.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the school goal structure: Relations with teachers’ goal orientations, work engagement, and job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.004

53.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0

54.

Timms

Brough

(2013). “I like being a teacher”: Career satisfaction, the work environment and work engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(6), 768–789. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2012-0072

55.

Tims

Bakker

A. B.

Xanthopoulou

(2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.011

56.

Trent

(2014). “I’m teaching, but I’m not really a teacher.” Teaching assistants and the construction of professional identities in Hong Kong schools. Educational Research, 56(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.874147

57.

Tschannen-Moran

Woolfolk Hoy

(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

58.

Urbach

Ahlemann

(2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(2), 5–40.

59.

Ventura

Salanova

Llorens

(2015). Professional self-efficacy as a predictor of burnout and engagement: The role of challenge and hindrance demands. The Journal of Psychology, 149(3), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.876380

60.

Wan

S. W. Y.

(2016). Differentiated instruction: Hong Kong prospective teachers’ teaching efficacy and belief. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(2), 148–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055435

61.

Wang

Hall

N. C.

Rahimi

(2015). Self-efficacy and causal attributions in teachers: Effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.005

62.

Wong-Ratcliff

K. K.

(2011). Can integrated education meet the needs of students with SEN? New Horizons in Education, 59(2), 101–115.

63.

Worthington

R. L.

Whittaker

T. A.

(2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127

64.

C. C.

(1998). Activities for personal and group development. Yuan-Liou.

65.

Yan

Lum

C. W.

Lui

R. T. L.

Chu

S. S. W.

Lui

(2015). Measuring teaching assistants’ efficacy using the Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 16(1), 60–75.

66.

Zee

Koomen

H. M. Y.

(2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teaching well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801

Self-Efficacy,Work Engagement,and Job Satisfaction Among Teaching Assistants in Hong Kong’s Inclusive Education

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Self-Efficacy

Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction

Work Engagement

Self-Efficacy and Work Engagement

Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction

Self-Efficacy, Work Engagement, and Job Satisfaction

Rationale and Hypotheses of Study

Method

Participants and Procedures

Instruments

Self-efficacy

Job satisfaction

Work engagement

Data Analysis

Results

Measurement Models

Descriptive Data and Correlational Analysis

Structural Model

Discussion

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Suggestions and Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References