How and when does perceived organizational support promote more work engagement? The roles of basic psychological needs satisfaction and growth teaching mindset
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizational support plays a crucial role in fostering teachers’ work engagement, but the mechanisms through which and the conditions under which it leads to greater engagement remain unclear. The present study addressed these gaps by examining the psychological mechanisms of basic psychological needs satisfaction and growth teaching mindset. A total of 243 teachers recruited through language centers completed a questionnaire. Structural equation modeling revealed that perceived organizational support (POS) positively predicted work engagement, and satisfaction of teachers’ basic psychological needs mediated the link between teachers’ POS and engagement. Additionally, moderation analyses revealed that POS fostered greater engagement among teachers who had stronger growth beliefs about their teaching abilities. These findings suggest that organizational support promotes engagement by fulfilling teachers’ psychological needs, and this effect is amplified when teachers hold more growth beliefs regarding their teaching abilities. Therefore, enhancing teachers’ work engagement may require an integrated approach to fostering both organizational support and growth beliefs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it