The interplay of self-efficacy, grit, and metacognition in shaping work engagement among EFL teachers: a comparative study of Mainland China and Hong Kong

Table 3 Multi-group SEM results for Mainland China and Hong Kong samples

Path	Region	β	95% Confidence interval	Effect type
Direct Effects
Self-Efficacy → Work Engagement	Mainland China	0.38**	[0.31, 0.45]	Direct
	Hong Kong	0.52***	[0.44, 0.60]	Direct
Grit → Work Engagement	Mainland China	0.28**	[0.21, 0.35]	Direct
	Hong Kong	0.30**	[0.22, 0.38]	Direct
Teaching Metacognition → Work Engagement	Mainland China	0.43***	[0.36, 0.50]	Direct
	Hong Kong	0.51***	[0.43, 0.59]	Direct
Self-Efficacy → Teaching Metacognition	Mainland China	0.43***	[0.35, 0.55]	-
	Hong Kong	0.40***	[0.32, 0.48]	-
Grit → Teaching Metacognition	Mainland China	0.37***	[0.29, 0.45]	-
	Hong Kong	0.44***	[0.35, 0.55]	-
Indirect Effects via Teaching Metacognition
Self-Efficacy →… → Work Engagement	Mainland China	0.18**	[0.13, 0.24]	Indirect
	Hong Kong	0.20**	[0.14, 0.26]	Indirect
Grit →… → Work Engagement	Mainland China	0.16*	[0.09, 0.22]	Indirect
	Hong Kong	0.22**	[0.15, 0.29]	Indirect
Total Effects on Work Engagement
Self-Efficacy → Work Engagement	Mainland China	0.56***	[0.47, 0.65]	Total
	Hong Kong	0.72***	[0.63, 0.81]	Total
Grit → Work Engagement	Mainland China	0.44***	[0.35, 0.53]	Total
	Hong Kong	0.52***	[0.42, 0.62]	Total

Note β = Standardized path coefficient. Effect Type indicates paths within the model; Total Effect shows the overall impact on Work Engagement. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001._

ISSN: 2050-7283