International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025, pp. 3735~3743

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v14i5.32757  3735

School innovation climate as a driver of teachers’ innovative

work behavior: the mediating role of self-efficacy

Safiek Mokhlis1, Abdul Hakim Abdullah2

1
Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Islamic Contemporary Studies, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Teachers’ innovative work behavior (IWB) is widely recognized as a driving
force behind educational improvement in the complex and demanding
Received Mar 12, 2025 conditions of the 21st century. Among a wide range of factors that could
Revised Jul 1, 2025 affect IWB, innovation climate (IC) has emerged as a crucial determinant.
Accepted Jul 12, 2025 However, research exploring the mechanism that mediate the link between
IC and IWB is still limited. Drawing upon social cognitive theory (SCT), the
present study proposes that teachers’ self-efficacy (SE) acts as a mediator in
Keywords: the relationship between IC and IWB. The study involved 376 teachers at 12
public schools in Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, who were determined based
Innovation climate on a stratified random sampling technique. Analysis of data was
Innovative teacher implemented through the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) with
School management AMOS software to test causal relationships. Results confirmed that schools’
Self-efficacy IC was positively correlated with IWB and that this relationship was
Work behavior partially mediated by teachers’ SE. These results align with SCT, which
emphasizes the interaction between individual behavior, environment (IC),
and personal factors (SE). To cultivate a culture of innovation and improve
educational outcomes, school leaders should actively foster an IC that
enhances teachers’ SE, thereby promoting their IWB.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Safiek Mokhlis
Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu
21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
With the rapidly changing trends nowadays, innovation has become a cornerstone for organizations
of all types, and schools are certainly no exception. Innovation becomes the driving force behind a culture of
ongoing learning and improvement, equipping schools to proactively anticipate educational challenges and
readily adapt to changes with agility [1]. Moreover, innovation has the potential to streamline operational
efficiency, reduce costs, and position a school ahead of its educational peers. Embracing innovation is thus
imperative for educational organizations to remain resilient, responsive, and capable of harnessing the
potential of emerging technologies and evolving pedagogical demands, ultimately ensuring long-term success
and a positive impact on students’ learning experiences [2].
Teachers undeniably hold an important part in the success of innovation in schools, given their
status as the largest unit in the education sector and the primary drivers of the educational system. In this
regard, teachers’ engagement in innovative work behavior (IWB), marked by their willingness to explore
opportunities, generating, supporting, and implementing ideas, is seen as critical to driving transformative
change in schools [3], [4]. Primarily, IWB acts as a catalyst for elevating the standard of teaching and
learning. Innovative teachers are proactive in looking for original ways and unique solutions to satisfy the

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

3736  ISSN: 2252-8822

demands of the constantly evolving educational landscape. Their willingness to embrace innovation fills
classrooms with dynamic and engaging learning experiences, motivating students to develop as critical
thinkers and lifelong learners [5]–[8]. Furthermore, innovative teachers actively cultivate a culture of shared
learning, fostering increased collaboration as they collectively explore novel ideas and solutions, thus
enhancing educational standards through continuous improvement [9].
However, cultivating IWB among teachers is fraught with obstacles that impede its achievement.
Foremost among these obstacles is the longstanding dominance of traditional educational paradigms with
emphasis on standardized testing and regulatory compliance over creativity and experimentation [10], [11]. This
emphasis frequently discourages teachers to take risks or go beyond the established curricular boundaries.
Additionally, serving as a formidable barrier is resistance to change, prevalent among both teachers and
administrators, driven by concerns about potential failures or disruptions [12]. Studies on educational
innovations have shown that many innovation initiatives fail because, over time, teachers often revert to their
familiar routines, abandoning the newly introduced innovative practices [13], [14].
Complicating matters further are bureaucratic and conservative administrative structures, which
hinder innovation by making the implementation of innovative ideas cumbersome [15]. Another major
complication is limited time and financial resources, restricting opportunities for innovative initiatives such
as investing in the latest technology, facilitating professional development, or embracing novel teaching
methodologies [12], [16]. Furthermore, the absence of comprehensive training and support for teachers in
innovation-related competencies undermines their ability to effectively incorporate innovative practices into
pedagogy [17].
Considering these challenges, there has been growing interest within academic and professional
communities to identify the key factors that impact teachers’ IWB with the aim of developing the most
appropriate intervention strategies. Research has extensively identified a variety of environmental factors
associated with teachers’ IWB [18], [19]. Among the factors, school innovation climate (IC) has been the
focus of several studies. IC denotes teachers’ collective perceptions regarding their school’s ability to create a
supportive environment, providing motivation and the resources needed for teachers to engage in IWB [20].
Studies indicate that a supportive environment for innovation can cultivate all key aspects of IWB [21], [22].
A positive organizational climate, which includes elements such as structure, standards, responsibility,
rewards, support, and commitment, has been linked to enhanced teachers’ IWB [23]. Research indicates that
both supportive and challenging organizational climates [24], as well as the overall IC in schools [25],
significantly enhance teachers’ IWB. When management actively supports innovation by providing the
necessary resources, guidance, consultation, delegation and recognition, teachers are more prone to
demonstrate higher levels of IWB [26]–[28]. Conclusively, these outcomes highlight the vital role of IC in
encouraging IWB among teachers, emphasizing the need for comprehensive strategies to cultivate a
conducive environment for teacher innovation.
Although the relationship between schools’ IC and IWB may appear straightforward, it is important
to recognize that this relationship is intricate and can be significantly influenced by various personal factors.
While IC may create conditions for innovation, either supportive or inhibitive, it is often personal factors that
serve as the driving force for teachers to embrace and effectively implement innovative practices. One
potential key factor in this relationship is teachers’ self-efficacy (SE), which is defined as their confidence in
their own ability to develop and execute the tasks required to reach their goals [29]. Extensive research has
demonstrated the profound impact of teachers’ SE on numerous aspects of their professional practice,
including instructional quality [30], classroom management efficacy [31], teacher–student interactions [32],
organizational citizenship behavior [33], and job satisfaction [34]. Moreover, studies have indicated that
teachers’ SE is essential for instilling confidence in their ability to engage in IWB such as implementing
novel teaching strategies, experimenting with new technologies, and adapting instructional methods to meet
diverse student needs [5], [35]–[39]. This sense of confidence not only motivates teachers to explore new
ideas and practices but also strengthens their resilience in overcoming challenges associated with adopting
innovative approaches [39].
Notwithstanding the extensive research on IC, SE, and IWB, a notable gap persists in the existing
literature. Although many studies have reported the effects of IC on teachers’ IWB or the impact of SE on
their IWB, there is a lack of focused investigation into how teachers’ SE might mediate the link between IC
and IWB. This crucial aspect remains insufficiently addressed, despite SE being widely recognized as a key
mediating variable in the context of organizational behavior and performance. Therefore, this study sought to
investigate the mediating role of teachers’ SE in the association between schools’ IC and IWB. By shedding
light on this mediating mechanism, the study seeks to enrich the current body of knowledge and offer school
leaders and policymakers useful insights. These insights may offer guidance for the effective cultivation of an
innovative culture within schools and the enhancement of teachers’ confidence and commitment to
innovative practices, ultimately fostering improved educational outcomes for students.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3735-3743
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3737

Figure 1 illustrates the study’s conceptual framework, outlining the relationship between IC,
teachers’ SE, and IWB. Social cognitive theory (SCT) serves as the theoretical underpinning of this
framework [40], which holds that human behavior is a dynamic product of the interaction between
environmental, personal, and behavioral factors. This theory is mainly concerned with how SE, which is
based on an individual’s assessment of their ability to execute a certain action, affects the development of
human behavior [41], [42]. Within this framework, IC serves as the environmental factor, influencing
teachers’ SE as a personal factor, which, in turn, impacts their engagement in IWB as a behavioral outcome.
A positive IC in schools cultivates an environment that empowers teachers, fostering a greater belief in their
capacity to successfully embrace and implement innovative practices. This increased SE leads to a greater
willingness to engage in IWB. Based on this framework, three hypotheses have been developed:
- H1: IC has a positive direct effect on teachers’ SE.
- H2: Teachers’ SE has a positive direct effect on IWB.
- H3: The relationship between IC and IWB is mediated by teachers’ SE.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

2. METHOD
A correlational research design was utilized in this study to explore the causal relationship between
IC and IWB, while also examining the mediating role of SE. For data collection, a self-administered
questionnaire, adapted from previous studies, was created, consisting of seven items on IC [20], six items on
teachers’ SE [43], and 20 items on IWB [4]. To assess responses, a 7-point Likert scale was utilized to,
starting with 1 for “strongly disagree” and ending with 7 for “strongly agree.” Demographics variables
questioned include the respondents’ gender, age, educational background, and years of service. Following
pre-testing with nine experts to establish content validity, the instrument was piloted with 58 teachers from
two public schools to assess the instrument’s reliability, identify potential issues, and collect feedback for
refinement. Several modifications were made to improve the clarity and relevance of the instrument.
The study’s population includes permanent teachers currently teaching in public schools in Kuala
Terengganu, Malaysia. Sample size was determined using a formula [44], and it was established that for a
population of 4,199 teachers, a sample size of 352 would be adequate. However, to account for potential
non-responses and unusable data, the sample size was enlarged to 500. A total of 12 schools were selected
from a comprehensive list of public schools using a stratified random sampling approach. The schools were
first categorized into two strata: primary and secondary. The proportionate technique was employed in
determining how many schools would be sampled. In the second stage, the specific schools within each
stratum were selected using simple random sampling. Finally, within each selected school, a proportionate
technique was used to determine how many teachers would make up the sample.
Consent was first secured before the survey was conducted, specifically from the Educational
Planning Research Division (EPRD), the State Education Department, and the head teachers at selected the
selected schools. Drop-off and pick-up (DOPU) were the technique applied in the survey to mitigate potential
non-response bias through increased response rate [45]. In this approach, a visit was made to each selected
school to personally deliver the questionnaire to a designated teacher, typically appointed by the head teacher
to facilitate survey administration. Subsequently, completed questionnaires were collected after a specified
period. Out of the 500 questionnaires delivered, 465 were returned, and 376 were deemed usable.
The collected data were first entered into SPSS for initial data processing and descriptive analysis.
Following this, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed using AMOS version 24 software for
advanced statistical analysis and model testing. The selection of the SEM approach was based on its
capability to simultaneously test an entire model comprising multiple distinct hypothetical relationships.
SEM also accommodates measurement error, integrates confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and provides
robust statistical methods to evaluate model fit, rendering it particularly suitable tool for investigating causal
relationships and the mediating effect for the present study [46]. SEM was implemented in two stages. First,
a measurement model was assessed to see how well the observed variables represent the underlying latent
constructs. Secondly, a structural model was examined to evaluate the direct and indirect effects between
constructs and whether the model fits the data and supports the proposed relationships.
School innovation climate as a driver of teachers’ innovative work behavior: the … (Safiek Mokhlis)
3738  ISSN: 2252-8822

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Demographic profile
The survey participants comprised 218 primary (58%) and 158 secondary (42%) school teachers.
They were predominantly female (80.1%) and completed at least a bachelor’s degree (84%). Respondents
aged 41 to 50 made up the largest group (50%). Respondents with a service of over 21 years made up 50.8%
of the sample, while those who had served for a period of between 11 and 20 years made up 41.5%. The
percentage of respondents with below 10 years of service was 7.7%. Overall, the sample was notable due to
its predominance of female teachers, high degree of experience, large concentration of mid-career teachers.

3.2. Measurement model

The initial stage in SEM approach involves the validation of the measurement model. To
accomplish this, a pooled CFA using maximum-likelihood (ML) estimation was conducted to simultaneously
assess the validity of all constructs [46]. Four commonly used fit indices, namely χ 2/df (<0.50),
Tucker-Lewis’s index (TLI>0.90), comparative fit index (CFI>0.90) and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA<0.08), were used to determine the overall model fit [46]. The initial model failed to
meet three of these criteria, with the following fit indices: χ 2/df=3.626, TLI=0.866, CFI=0.876, and
RMSEA=0.084. To improve the model fit, observed variables with factor loadings below 0.50 and items with
modification indices greater than 15 were removed [46]. As a result, 12 items were eliminated from the
model. While this reduction might initially seem to compromise the breadth of the constructs, it was a
necessary step to refine the model, enhancing the focus, relevance, and conceptual clarity of the measures.
The remaining items retained the core dimensions of the constructs, ensuring that the scales remain valid and
reliable representations of the underlying theoretical concepts. In fact, these adjustments resulted in improved
fit indices: χ2/df=2.724, TLI=0.936, CFI=0.945, and RMSEA=0.068.
Convergent validity was assessed to determine whether indicators purposed to measure the same
construct are strongly correlated and effectively capture the underlying concept [46]. This was established by
analyzing the item loading on their respective constructs. As displayed in Table 1, the standardized factor
loading estimates for all items ranged from 0.71 to 0.94 and thus exceeded the 0.50 cut-off value.
Furthermore, the values of construct’s composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE)
appeared to be higher than the cut-off points of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively [46].
After establishing the convergent validity, the √AVE and the correlation between constructs were
compared to assess the discriminant validity [46], [47]. Table 2 shows that all the √AVEs exceeded the
correlation coefficients between the constructs, demonstrating that the construct’s correlation with its own
item was stronger than that with the other constructs’ items. Furthermore, the correlations between constructs
were not greater than 0.85 [48], further confirming that the constructs within the full model exhibited
discriminant validity.

Table 1. Factor loading, CR, and AVE

First order Second order Item Loading CR AVE
Opportunity exploration (OE) OE3 0.745 0.831 0.621
OE4 0.813
OE5 0.805
Idea generation (IG) IG1 0.710 0.848 0.653
IG3 0.853
IG4 0.852
Idea promotion (IP) IP3 0.841 0.923 0.800
IP4 0.943
IP5 0.897
Idea realization (IR) IR1 0.823 0.869 0.689
IR2 0.862
IR3 0.804
IWB OE 0.841 0.890 0.670
IG 0.878
IP 0.740
IR 0.809
IC IC4 0.834 0.905 0.704
IC5 0.763
IC6 0.913
IC7 0.839
SE SE2 0.791 0.894 0.631
SE3 0.630
SE4 0.862
SE5 0.833
SE6 0.835

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3735-3743
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3739

Table 2. Discriminant validity

Item IWB IC SE
IWB 0.819*
IC 0.754 0.839*
SE 0.671 0.644 0.794*
*exceeded the correlation coefficients between the constructs

Achieving univariate and multivariate normality of the data is essential for conducting SEM analysis
[48]. To evaluate univariate normality, each variable’s skewness and kurtosis values were examined.
Skewness values were between -0.549 and 0.032, and kurtosis values were between -0.424 and 1.037. These
results indicated a normal distribution, as all values fell within the acceptable ranges of +2 for skewness and
+7 for kurtosis [48]. Mardia’s coefficient, which measures multivariate normality, is supposed to be lower
than p (p+2), where p represents the number of observed variables [49]. The model for the current study
contained 21 observed variables; therefore, the threshold value was 483. With the obtained Mardia’s
coefficient of 165.26, we were able to confirm that multivariate normality was achieved.

3.3. Structural model

Once the measurement model’s reliability and validity were verified, proposed hypotheses were
tested with SEM using ML estimation. Three models were tested: i) the full model; ii) the indirect model
(IC→IWB=0, constraining coefficient of the path from IC to IWB as zero); and iii) the direct model
(IC→SE=0, SE→IWB=0, constraining coefficients of the path from IC to SE and that from SE to IWB as
zero). The SEM fit indices for three competing models were deemed satisfactory, as illustrated in Table 3.
These results signified the presence of a statistically significant model capable of describing the relationships
among the variables that predicted IWB.

Table 3. Fit indices for full, indirect and direct models

Indices χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA
Level of acceptance <5.0 >0.90 >0.90 <0.08
Full 2.724 0.936 0.945 0.068
Indirect 2.858 0.931 0.940 0.070
Direct 4.089 0.886 0.900 0.091

A summary of the results is presented in Table 4. As hypothesized, IC was positively related to SE

(β=0.644, p<0.001), lending support to H1. Teachers who held a strong perception of IC had a higher
likelihood to possess greater levels of SE. Furthermore, a positive and significant relationship between SE
and IWB (β=0.549, p<0.001) suggests that the teachers who highly perceived their SE were more likely to
engage in IWB. Thus, H2 was also supported. In examining the influence of both IC and SE on IWB, it
became evident that SE had a more substantial impact. The beta value for the direct effect of SE on IWB
(β=0.549) was notably higher compared to the beta value for the direct effect of IC on IWB (β=0.317). This
suggests that SE was a more influential factor in predicting IWB than the IC itself. Therefore, while both IC
and SE contributed to IWB, SE played a more critical and direct role in driving teachers’ engagement in
innovative practices. This finding emphasizes the importance of promoting SE among teachers to enhance
their IWB.
H3 proposed that teachers’ SE plays a mediating role in the relationship between IC and IWB.
Mediation is demonstrated when there is an alteration in the direct relationship between an exogenous
variable (IC) and an endogenous variable IWB after a mediator variable is introduced. Specifically,
mediation is indicated by a diminution in the direct path coefficient from the exogenous variable (IC) to the
endogenous variable IWB after accounting for the mediator (SE) in the model [46]. As shown in Table 4, the
relationship between IC and IWB in the direct model was statistically significant (β=0.671, p<0.001).
However, in the full model, while this path remained significant, there was a notable diminution in the
regression weight for the relationship between IC and IWB (β=0.317, p<0.001). This diminution in the direct
effect indicated that part of the relationship between IC and IWB was explained through SE. The partial
mediation effect suggested that while IC directly influenced IWB, a significant portion of this effect was
channeled through SE. In other words, IC impacted IWB not only directly but also indirectly by enhancing
teachers’ SE, which in turn promoted their IWB. This supported H3, providing empirical evidence that the
effect of IC on IWB was partially mediated by SE.

School innovation climate as a driver of teachers’ innovative work behavior: the … (Safiek Mokhlis)
3740  ISSN: 2252-8822

Table 4. Path coefficients

Path Full Indirect Direct
IC->SE 0.644 *** 0.666 ***
SE->IWB 0.549 *** 0.770 ***
IC->IWB 0.317 *** 0.671 ***
*** p<0.001

3.4. Discussion
The analysis confirmed all three hypotheses proposed. IC directly influences teachers’ IWB and
indirectly through SE as a mediator highlights the dual role of both environmental and personal factors in
fostering IWB among teachers. A supportive IC appears to not only encourage teachers to engage in IWB but
also strengthens their belief in their own abilities to do so. This enhanced SE, in turn, further motivates them
to take initiative, experiment with new ideas, and persist in the face of challenges. The mediating role of SE
suggests that while external support is crucial, internal confidence plays a significant part in translating a
positive climate into actual innovative actions.
From a theoretical standpoint, the study’s findings support the fundamental ideas of SCT that
emphasize the concept of reciprocal determinism, which refers to the dynamic interaction between an
individual’s behavior, environment, and personal factors [40]. The finding that schools’ IC predicted
teachers’ SE illuminates the influential role of external factors in shaping an individual’s self-belief, a core
element of SE theory. Furthermore, the fact that teachers’ SE mediated the relationship between the IC and
IWB aligns with the theory’s emphasis on SE as a cognitive mechanism through which individuals interpret
and act upon their surroundings. This implies that teachers’ perceptions of their SE play a crucial role in
translating the innovation-supportive environment into actual innovative work practices.
The study’s results have significant implications for school leaders as well as educational
policymakers. Firstly, school leaders should focus on creating a positive IC by fostering a supportive and
inclusive culture that encourages creativity, risk-taking, and collaboration among teachers and staff. By
providing opportunities for professional growth, training, and resources, school leaders can enhance IC,
which, in turn, can positively influence teachers’ SE beliefs and their willingness to engage in innovative
practices. One effective approach is to implement regular brainstorming sessions where teachers are
encouraged to share and develop new ideas without fear of criticism. Such an environment can be further
supported by adopting a “fail-forward” mindset, which views mistakes as valuable learning opportunities
rather than impediments. Schools could also introduce initiatives such as a grant program that provides
financial support for innovative projects, thereby reducing the risks associated with trying new methods.
Another key component in fostering a positive IC is collaboration. Here, schools could establish
interdisciplinary teaching teams, where teachers from various subjects collaborate to design and execute
cross-curricular projects. This approach not only stimulates creativity but also allows teachers to learn from
each other’s expertise. Moreover, investing in professional growth opportunities is crucial. For example,
organizing regular seminars and workshops focused on emerging educational technologies and pedagogical
strategies can help teachers stay current and feel more confident in implementing new practices. Partnering
with universities or educational organizations for these development opportunities can further enhance the
support provided to teachers.
For educational policymakers, it is essential to prioritize the development of programmers and
policies that support teachers’ SE. Recognizing the role of SE in driving IWB, policymakers should ensure
that teachers have access to professional development programmers that enhance their confidence in adopting
and implementing innovative teaching methods. For example, putting in place coaching and mentorship
programmers, in which experienced teachers offer support and guidance to their less experienced colleagues,
can significantly enhance teachers’ SE. These programs provide practical strategies and moral support,
helping newer teachers gain confidence in their abilities.
Another effective policy tool is recognition and reward systems. Establishing programmers that
celebrate and reward teachers for successfully implementing innovative practices can enhance motivation and
SE. For example, public acknowledgment of these achievements and tangible rewards can further encourage
teachers to embrace new approaches. Additionally, supportive policies that grant teachers adequate planning
time and resources for exploring and integrating new methods are crucial. Policies that provide dedicated
time during the school day for collaborative planning and sharing of innovative practices can help create a
more dynamic and responsive educational environment. By focusing on these strategies, school leaders and
policymakers can significantly impact teaching and learning effectiveness in schools.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3735-3743
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3741

4. CONCLUSION
This study examined the mediating role of teachers’ SE on the relationship between IC and IWB.
The results revealed a significant effect of IC on teachers’ SE, as well as the effect of teachers’ SE on their
IWB. Additionally, the partial mediating role of SE was also confirmed by study’s results. This study
contributes to the literature in terms of comprehending the mechanism of how SE plays a role in the
relationship between IC and IWB. Practically, these results indicate that school leaders and policymakers
should foster an environment that supports innovation and invest in programs designed to enhance teachers’
confidence and skills. Such initiatives can improve educational outcomes and better prepare students for
future challenges. By prioritizing the development of a supportive and innovative culture, educational leaders
can encourage IWB among teachers, leading to more effective teaching practices. Future research is
warranted to explore additional factors that determine teachers’ IWB, as well as mediating and moderating
variables that may affect this process.

FUNDING INFORMATION
This research was supported by Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Grant No. UMT/TAPE-RG-
2021/55334.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT

This journal uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author
contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration

Name of Author C M So Va Fo I R D O E Vi Su P Fu
Safiek Mokhlis ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Abdul Hakim Abdullah ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C : Conceptualization I : Investigation Vi : Visualization

M : Methodology R : Resources Su : Supervision
So : Software D : Data Curation P : Project administration
Va : Validation O : Writing - Original Draft Fu : Funding acquisition
Fo : Formal analysis E : Writing - Review & Editing

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

INFORMED CONSENT
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

DATA AVAILABILITY
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding
author, [SM]. The data, which contains information that could compromise the privacy of research
participants, is not publicly available due to certain restrictions.

REFERENCES
[1] J. Sitthisomjin, K. Somprach, and S. Phuseeorn, “The effects of innovation management on school performance of secondary
schools in Thailand,” Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 34–39, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.kjss.2018.02.007.
[2] N. H. Rahmat, “Innovation in education: barriers and facilitating factors,” European Journal of Eduaction Studies, vol. 6, no. 10,
pp. 55–67, 2020.
[3] Jumini, “Development of teacher innovativeness instruments in the face of educational innovation,” Ideguru: Jurnal Karya Ilmiah
Guru, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 247–256, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.51169/ideguru.v8i2.523.
[4] M. F. Baharuddin, M. N. Masrek, and S. M. Shuhidan, “Content validity of assessment instrument for innovative work behaviour
of Malaysian school teachers,” International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1940–1946, 2020.
[5] S. Nemeržitski, K. Loogma, E. Heinla, and E. Eisenschmidt, “Constructing model of teachers innovative behaviour in school
environment,” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 398–418, Aug. 2013,
doi: 10.1080/13540602.2013.770230.
[6] V. Žydžiūnaitė and A. Arce, “Being an innovative and creative teacher: Passion driven professional duty,” Creativity Studies,
vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 125–144, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.3846/cs.2021.14087.

School innovation climate as a driver of teachers’ innovative work behavior: the … (Safiek Mokhlis)
3742  ISSN: 2252-8822

[7] M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, M. I. Loaiza-Aguirre, A. Zúñiga-Ojeda, and M. Portuguez-Castro, “Characterization of the teaching

profile within the framework of education 4.0,” Future Internet, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 91, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.3390/fi13040091.
[8] M. A. Zainal and M. E. E. M. Matore, “How teachers’ innovative work behaviour can affect education quality,” Journal of
Critical Reviews, vol. 7, no. 17, pp. 770–779, 2020.
[9] S. Blömeke, T. Nilsen, and R. Scherer, “School innovativeness is associated with enhanced teacher collaboration, innovative
classroom practices, and job satisfaction,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 113, no. 8, pp. 1645–1667, Nov. 2021,
doi: 10.1037/edu0000668.
[10] L. D. V. Rubenstein, L. M. Ridgley, G. L. Callan, S. Karami, and J. Ehlinger, “How teachers perceive factors that influence
creativity development: applying a social cognitive theory perspective,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 70, pp. 100–110,
Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.012.
[11] P. Sahlberg, “The role of education in promoting creativity: potential barriers and enabling factors School education and
creativity,” in Proceedings of Measuring Creativity, 2009, pp. 337–344.
[12] J. Moate, L. Lempel, A. Palojärvi, and T. Kangasvieri, “Teacher development through language-related innovation in a
decentralised educational system,” Professional Development in Education, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 730–745, Jul. 2024,
doi: 10.1080/19415257.2021.1902838.
[13] D. K. Cohen and D. L. Ball, “Educational innovation and the problem of scale,” in Scale Up in Education: Ideas in Principle,
B. Schneider and S. K. McDonald, Eds., Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefiel, 2006, pp. 19–36.
[14] S. Holdsworth and N. Maynes, “‘But what if i fail?’ A meta-synthetic study of the conditions supporting teacher innovation,”
Canadian Journal of Education, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 665–703, 2017.
[15] V. V. Sánchez and P. Gutiérrez-Esteban, “Challenges and enablers in the advancement of educational innovation. The forces at
work in the transformation of education,” Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 135, p. 104359, Dec. 2023,
doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104359.
[16] M. Lucas, “External barriers affecting the successful implementation of mobile educational interventions,” Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. 107, p. 105509, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.001.
[17] N. N. Savina, “Major factors of teachers’ resistance to innovations,” Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas Em Educação,
vol. 27, no. 104, pp. 589–609, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1590/S0104-40362019002701807.
[18] M. Thurlings, A. T. Evers, and M. Vermeulen, “Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior,” Review of
Educational Research, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 430–471, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.3102/0034654314557949.
[19] M. A. Zainal and M. E. E. M. Matore, “Assessing the factors influencing teachers’ innovative behaviour: a systematic review,” in
New Horizons in Education and Social Studies, E. S. Koc, Ed., Hooghly, West Bengal: Book Publisher International, 2020,
pp. 137–152, doi: 10.9734/bpi/nhess/v5.
[20] N. M. Moolenaar, A. J. Daly, and P. J. C. Sleegers, “Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between
transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate,” Educational Administration Quarterly,
vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 623–670, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.1177/0013161X10378689.
[21] D. Abun, L. G. R. Macaspact, E. B. Valdez, and F. P. Julian, “The effect of innovative work environment on the innovative work
behavior of employees,” International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 140–158, May
2023, doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v12i3.2467.
[22] P. Lambriex‐Schmitz, M. R. van der Klink, S. Beausaert, M. Bijker, and M. Segers, “When innovation in education works:
stimulating teachers’ innovative work behaviour,” International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 118–134, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12175.
[23] U. A. Izzati, “The relationships between vocational high school teachers’ organizational climate and innovative behavior,”
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, vol. 173, pp. 343–345, 2018, doi: 10.2991/icei-17.2018.91.
[24] B. Balkar, “The relationships between organizational climate, innovative behavior and job performance of teachers,” International
Online Journal of Educational Sciences, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 81–92, 2015, doi: 10.15345/iojes.2015.02.007.
[25] M. Sagnak, “The empowering leadership and teachers’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of innovation climate,” African
Journal of Business Management, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1635–1641, Feb. 2012, doi: 10.5897/ajbm11.2162.
[26] A. Almessabi and M. Alhosani, “How principals influence teachers’ innovative work behavior: a qualitative study,” International
Journal of Educational Reform, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1177/10567879241238363.
[27] M. Al-Taie and M. N. Khattak, “The impact of perceived organizational support and human resources practices on innovative
work behavior: does gender matter?” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 15, p. 1401916, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1401916.
[28] O. K. T. Kilag et al., “Transformational leadership and educational innovation,” European Journal of Higher Education and
Academic Advancement, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 103–109, May 2023, doi: 10.61796/ejheaa.v1i2.107.
[29] R. Lazarides and L. M. Warner, “Teacher self-efficacy,” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, Oxford University Press,
2020, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.890.
[30] I. Burić and L. E. Kim, “Teacher self-efficacy, instructional quality, and student motivational beliefs: An analysis using multilevel
structural equation modeling,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 66, p. 101302, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101302.
[31] R. Lazarides, H. M. G. Watt, and P. W. Richardson, “Teachers’ classroom management self-efficacy, perceived classroom
management and teaching contexts from beginning until mid-career,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 69, p. 101346, Oct. 2020,
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101346.
[32] D. B. Hajovsky, S. R. Chesnut, and K. M. Jensen, “The role of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs in the development of teacher-
student relationships,” Journal of School Psychology, vol. 82, pp. 141–158, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2020.09.001.
[33] Y. O. Choong, L. P. Ng, S. A. Na, and C. E. Tan, “The role of teachers’ self-efficacy between trust and organisational citizenship
behaviour among secondary school teachers,” Personnel Review, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 864–886, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1108/PR-10-
2018-0434.
[34] F. Ortan, C. Simut, and R. Simut, “Self-efficacy, job satisfaction and teacher well-being in the K-12 educational system,”
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 23, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph182312763.
[35] R. Hidayat and Y. E. Patras, “Teacher innovativeness: The effect of self-efficacy, transformational leadership, and school
climate,” Journal of Pedagogical Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 208–222, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.33902/JPR.202424547.
[36] A. Gkontelos, J. Vaiopoulou, and D. Stamovlasis, “Teachers’ innovative work behavior as a function of self-efficacy, burnout,
and irrational beliefs: a structural equation model,” European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education,
vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 403–418, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3390/ejihpe13020030.
[37] S. R. Daud et al., “A conceptual framework for the individual factors fostering the innovative work behaviour of STEM teachers,”
Information Management and Business Review, vol. 16, no. 1(I), pp. 252–261, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.22610/imbr.v16i1(i).3709.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3735-3743
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3743

[38] R. Aryani, W. Widodo, and S. Susila, “Model for social intelligence and teachers’ innovative work behavior: serial mediation,”
Cogent Education, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2312028, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2312028.
[39] M. A. Zainal and M. E. E. M. Matore, “The Influence of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and School Leaders’ Transformational
Leadership Practices on Teachers’ Innovative Behaviour,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
vol. 18, no. 12, p. 6423, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126423
[40] A. Bandura, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986
[41] A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, no. 2,
pp. 248–287, Dec. 1991, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L.
[42] D. M. Williams and R. E. Rhodes, “The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual analysis and recommendations for future
research,” Health Psychology Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 113–128, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1080/17437199.2014.941998.
[43] P. M. Short and J. S. Rinehart, “School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school
environment,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 52, no. 4, p. 951, 1992, doi: 10.1177/0013164492052004018.
[44] R. V. Krejcie and D. W. Morgan, “Determining sample size for research activities,” Educational and Psychological
Measurement, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 607–610, Sep. 1970, doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308.
[45] A. N. Junod and J. B. Jacquet, “Insights for the drop-off/pick-up method to improve data collection,” Society and Natural
Resources, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 76–88, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1080/08941920.2022.2146821.
[46] Z. Awang, W. M. A. W. Afthanorhan, L. S. Hui, and N. F. S. Zainudin, SEM made simple 2.0: A gentle approach of structural
equation modelling. Kuala Nerus: Penerbit Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, 2023.
[47] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,”
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, Feb. 1981, doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104.
[48] R. B. Kline, Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 5th ed. New York: The Guilford Press, 2023, doi:
10.15353/cgjsc.v1i1.3787.
[49] T. Raykov and G. A. Marcoulides, An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2008, doi:
10.4324/9780203809532.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Safiek Mokhlis is an associate professor attached to the Faculty of Business,

Economics and Social Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu. He has over 18 years of
teaching experience at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. His research interests
include education management and educational psychology. He is currently pursuing an EdD
at Open University Malaysia. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Abdul Hakim Abdullah is a professor in the Faculty of Islamic Contemporary

Studies, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Malaysia. He obtained his PhD in 2004 and actively
involved in teaching, postgraduate supervision, research and publication particularly in the
field of education. His research interests are curriculum development, teaching innovation, and
teachers’ competency. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

School innovation climate as a driver of teachers’ innovative work behavior: the … (Safiek Mokhlis)