Category: </td
-
p=. 018) at the 95% confidence interval. Therefore
—
by
in .018</td, .359</td, .829</td, </p, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </tr, </tr, <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <em, <p, <p, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <th, <tr, <tr, 2.01</td, 2.430</td, 3.670</td, 6.78</td, 66</td, 95% Confidence</strong, Df</strong, df</td, Lower</strong, Mean Square</td, Mean</strong, Mean</th, Pair 1</strong, Paired Differences</strong, Post-total</td, Pre-total</td, Sig.</strong, Sig.</td, Std. Deviation</strong, T., T</strong, Table 9. Paired Sample T-Test Results of Pre-service Teachers self-efficacy after the Content Pedagogy Courses.</em, Therefore, these results indicate that pre-service teachers self-efficacy decreased between the beginning and the end of mathematics content pedagogy courses.</p, Upper</strongthe paired T-Test results in Table 9 indicate that there were differences between the pre-test and post-test instrument scores in self-efficacy among the respondents (t=2.43
-
the Bivariate regression analysis revealed that the independent and dependent variables had a statistically significant relationship because Beta was.578
—
by
in .000(a)</td, .000</td, .058</td, .234</td, .256</td, .376</td, .396</td, .53505</td, .578</td, .619(a)</td, .656</td, (9), (Constant)</td, </p, </p, </p, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, </tr, <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <em, <p, <p, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td colspan=""2"", <tr, <tr, <ul, 1.378</td, 1</em, 1</td, 16.672</td, 16.672</td, 2 </sup, 25.511</td, 42.183</td, 56.565</td, 6.897</td, 7.656</td, 94</td, 95</td, A Summary of Model.</em, Adjusted R Square</strong, ANOVA (b).</em, b</sup, B</td, B</td, Beta</td, Co-efficient (a).</em, Df</strong, df</td, F</strong, F</td, Mean Square</strong, Mean Square</td, Model</strong, R Square</strong, R</strong, Regression</td, Residual</td, Sig.</strong, Sig.</td, Sig.</td, Standardised Coefficients</strong, Std. Error of the Estimate</strong, Std. Error</td, Strategic Evaluation</h4, Strategy Evaluation</h2, Sum of Squares</strong, Sum of Squares</td, T., t</td, Total</td, Unstandardised Coefficients</strong, was 0.396.</p, while R<sup, X3SE</tdwhile the outsourcing performance was the dependent variable. According to the table below
-
we drop our hypothesis
—
by
in .000<sup, (9), </p, </p, </td, </td, </td, </tr, </tr, <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <p, <p, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <tr, 000</td, 1</td, 1</td, 3.638</td, 3.638</td, 40.814</td, ANOVA</strong, b</sup, df</td, F</strong, F</td, Mean Square</td, Model</strong, Regression</td, Sig.</td, Sum of Squares</td, Table 12. ANOVA test for variables intention to stay and Employee satisfaction</em, which didnt associate employee satisfaction with CSR incentives.</stronglinear regression analysis has been done. The model summary table shows that the value of R-square is 0.074 or 7.4% which means that the independent variable employee satisfaction causes a 7.4% variation in the dependent variable intention to stay. As a result
-
which means that this hypothesis was also rejected. The respondents felt that a firms competitiveness may not necessarily be defined by knowledge-oriented leadership.
Hypothesis (H4): Organizational learning culture positively and significantly influences open innovation.
The fourth hypothesis focuses on investigating if organizational learning culture significantly influences open innovation. Data obtained from the respondents were analyzed and table 6 below shows the outcome.
Table 6: Organizational Learning Culture and Open Innovation.
Model R R Square ² F Significance Organizational Learning Culture 0.202 0.041 0.202 0.933 0.344 The significance of 0.344 is greater than 0.05
—
by
in </p, </p, </tbody, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </td, </tr, </tr, <div class=""webkit-scrollbars webkit-scrollbars–table"", <em, <p, <p, <p, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, <td, 0.008</td, 0.090</td, 0.090</td, 0.181</td, 0.674</td, ²</strong, F</strong, Hypothesis (H5): Organizational learning culture positively and significantly influences a firms competitiveness.</em, Model</strong, Organizational Learning Culture</em, R Square</strong, R</strong, Significance</strong, Strategy Evaluation</h2, Table 7: Organizational Learning Culture and Firm Competitiveness.</em, The significance value was determined to be 0.674, which means that this hypothesis was also rejected. Organizational learning culture does not positively and significantly influence open innovation.</pbut it is not a guarantee that open-innovation will be promoted in such a firm. Hypothesis (H3): Knowledge-oriented leadership positively and significantly influences firms competitiveness. This hypothesis focused on determining the relationship that exists between knowledge-oriented leadership and a firms competitiveness. The researcher wanted to determine if a firms competitiveness is defined by its ability…