学者研究议程与教学情绪:教学效能感的中介作用

IF 4.5 2区 教育学 Q1 Social Sciences
Li-fang Zhang , Zhengli Xie , Mengting Li , Weiqiao Fan
{"title":"学者研究议程与教学情绪:教学效能感的中介作用","authors":"Li-fang Zhang ,&nbsp;Zhengli Xie ,&nbsp;Mengting Li ,&nbsp;Weiqiao Fan","doi":"10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scholars have long debated the existence of the research-teaching nexus. Guided by the Job Demands-Resources model, the present study pioneered the investigation of the predictive power of academics’ research agendas for their emotions in teaching, considering the mediating role of academic self-efficacy (i.e., teaching efficacy and research efficacy). Participants were 332 academics from nine research-oriented comprehensive universities in mainland China. The participants responded to the <em>Multi-Dimensional Research Agendas Inventory-12</em>, the <em>Research-Teaching Efficacy Inventory-6</em>, and the <em>Emotions in Teaching Inventory-Revised-6</em>. Academics who were more deeply engaged in creative research agendas tended to report more positive emotions in teaching, whereas those more engaged in conventional research agendas tended to report more negative teaching emotions. These statistical predictive findings were obtained, with academics’ age, academic rank, gender, and academic discipline controlled for. Moreover, teaching efficacy provided a pathway from creative research agendas to both positive and negative teaching emotions. These findings unveiled intricate interconnections between academics’ research and teaching. The study has made theoretical contributions and it has practical implications for both academics and university senior managers in their respective efforts to promote positive teaching emotions through fostering creativity in research agendas and boosting teaching efficacy. Furthermore, the limitations of the study can provide guidance for future research directions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47729,"journal":{"name":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","volume":"59 ","pages":"Article 101991"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research agendas and teaching emotions among academics: The mediating role of teaching efficacy\",\"authors\":\"Li-fang Zhang ,&nbsp;Zhengli Xie ,&nbsp;Mengting Li ,&nbsp;Weiqiao Fan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101991\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Scholars have long debated the existence of the research-teaching nexus. Guided by the Job Demands-Resources model, the present study pioneered the investigation of the predictive power of academics’ research agendas for their emotions in teaching, considering the mediating role of academic self-efficacy (i.e., teaching efficacy and research efficacy). Participants were 332 academics from nine research-oriented comprehensive universities in mainland China. The participants responded to the <em>Multi-Dimensional Research Agendas Inventory-12</em>, the <em>Research-Teaching Efficacy Inventory-6</em>, and the <em>Emotions in Teaching Inventory-Revised-6</em>. Academics who were more deeply engaged in creative research agendas tended to report more positive emotions in teaching, whereas those more engaged in conventional research agendas tended to report more negative teaching emotions. These statistical predictive findings were obtained, with academics’ age, academic rank, gender, and academic discipline controlled for. Moreover, teaching efficacy provided a pathway from creative research agendas to both positive and negative teaching emotions. These findings unveiled intricate interconnections between academics’ research and teaching. The study has made theoretical contributions and it has practical implications for both academics and university senior managers in their respective efforts to promote positive teaching emotions through fostering creativity in research agendas and boosting teaching efficacy. Furthermore, the limitations of the study can provide guidance for future research directions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking Skills and Creativity\",\"volume\":\"59 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101991\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking Skills and Creativity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187125002408\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking Skills and Creativity","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187125002408","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,学者们一直在争论研究-教学关系的存在。本研究在工作需求-资源模型的指导下,考虑学术自我效能感(即教学效能感和研究效能感)的中介作用,首次探讨了学者研究议程对其教学情绪的预测能力。参与者是来自中国大陆9所研究型综合性大学的332名学者。参与者对多维研究议程量表-12、研究-教学效能量表-6、教学情绪量表-修订量表-6进行了问卷调查。那些更深入地参与创造性研究议程的学者倾向于在教学中报告更多的积极情绪,而那些更参与传统研究议程的学者倾向于报告更多的消极教学情绪。这些统计预测结果是在控制了学者的年龄、学术等级、性别和学术学科的情况下得出的。此外,教学效能提供了从创造性研究议程到积极和消极教学情绪的途径。这些发现揭示了学术研究和教学之间错综复杂的相互联系。本研究对学术界和高校高层管理人员如何通过培养研究议程的创造性和提高教学效能来促进积极的教学情绪有一定的理论贡献和现实意义。此外,本研究的局限性可以为未来的研究方向提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Research agendas and teaching emotions among academics: The mediating role of teaching efficacy
Scholars have long debated the existence of the research-teaching nexus. Guided by the Job Demands-Resources model, the present study pioneered the investigation of the predictive power of academics’ research agendas for their emotions in teaching, considering the mediating role of academic self-efficacy (i.e., teaching efficacy and research efficacy). Participants were 332 academics from nine research-oriented comprehensive universities in mainland China. The participants responded to the Multi-Dimensional Research Agendas Inventory-12, the Research-Teaching Efficacy Inventory-6, and the Emotions in Teaching Inventory-Revised-6. Academics who were more deeply engaged in creative research agendas tended to report more positive emotions in teaching, whereas those more engaged in conventional research agendas tended to report more negative teaching emotions. These statistical predictive findings were obtained, with academics’ age, academic rank, gender, and academic discipline controlled for. Moreover, teaching efficacy provided a pathway from creative research agendas to both positive and negative teaching emotions. These findings unveiled intricate interconnections between academics’ research and teaching. The study has made theoretical contributions and it has practical implications for both academics and university senior managers in their respective efforts to promote positive teaching emotions through fostering creativity in research agendas and boosting teaching efficacy. Furthermore, the limitations of the study can provide guidance for future research directions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Thinking Skills and Creativity EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.20%
发文量
172
审稿时长
76 days
期刊介绍: Thinking Skills and Creativity is a new journal providing a peer-reviewed forum for communication and debate for the community of researchers interested in teaching for thinking and creativity. Papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches and may relate to any age level in a diversity of settings: formal and informal, education and work-based.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信