The Teachers’ Attitudes in Facilitating Adult Learning Program in Relation to the Learning Organization in China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/9ak9wg05Keywords:
Teachers’ Attitudes, Adult Learning Program, Learning OrganizationAbstract
Most respondents are aged 26 to 30. The data analysis found that the composite mean score is 2.82 with a standard deviation of 0.35, implying an average rating that they agreed that they are confident in their final output or project (M = 2.85), satisfied with their knowledge as communicated properly by the teacher (M = 2.82), and appreciate their learnings by displaying them in the exhibit. The data analysis revealed that they agree that their adult class is always participating in planning and decision-making, rarely loses concentration on the job at hand, and can synchronize activities based on what is required. The research accepted the null hypothesis and inferred that attitudes toward aiding adult learning are assessed similarly regardless of age. The respondents generally agree that their learning organization is adequately implementing adult education practices. Among the dimensions, "Openness to Ideas" has the highest mean score (2.98), suggesting that respondents feel most positive about the openness to ideas in their organization. "Psychological Safety" has the lowest mean score (2.79), indicating that there may be room for improvement in creating a psychologically safe environment for teachers and learners. The data analysis yielded an average composite score of 2.79 with a standard deviation of 0.33, indicating an average rating. The composite mean scores for all dimensions are in the "Average" range, indicating that respondents generally agree that their learning organization is adequately implementing adult education practices. Among the dimensions, "Openness to Ideas" has the highest mean score (2.98), suggesting that respondents feel most positive about the openness to ideas in their organization. "Psychological Safety" has the lowest mean score (2.79), indicating that there may be room for improvement in creating a psychologically safe environment for teachers and learners.
Downloads
References
[1] Barth, R. S. (2018). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 82 no. 6, 443-449.
[2] Ash, R. C., & Persall, J. M. (2020). The principal as chief learning officer: Developing teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 15-22.
[3] Snell, J., & Swanson, J. (2016). The essential knowledge and skills of teacher leaders: A search for a conceptual framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
[4] Katzenmeyer, M. & Moller, G. (2019). Awakening The Sleeping Giant: Helping Teacher Develop as Leaders (3rd Edition). CA: Corwin.
[5] Abdullah, A. G. (2015). Leadership and School Improvement. PTS Professional Publishing Sdn Bhd. Selangor.
[6] Martin, J. J., & Hodges-Kulinna, P. H. (2020). Self-efficacy theory and the theory of planned behavior: Teaching physically active PE classes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 288–297.
[7] Cobonaglu, F. & Yurek, U. (2018). School administrators’ self-efficacy beliefs and leadership styles. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 555-565.DeWitt, P. (2017). Collaborative leadership: Six influences that matter most. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
[8] Duran, A., & Yildirim, N. (2017). The relationship between school administrators’ happiness levels and their self-efficacy levels. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(4), 210-228.
[9] Kelleher, J. (2016). You’re ok, I’m ok. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 70-73.
[10] Versland, T.M., & Erickson, J.L. (2017). Leading by example: A case study of the influence of principal self-efficacy on collective efficacy. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-17.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Education and Educational Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.