教导何以有方?教师辩证反馈对大学生团队创造力的作用机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01301

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用实地问卷调查和纵向现场实验相结合的研究方法, 从社会信息加工理论视角探讨了教师辩证反馈对大学生团队创造力的作用机制。结果发现: 教师辩证反馈与团队创造力呈正相关关系; 团队信息深加工中介了教师辩证反馈对团队创造力的影响; 精熟氛围在教师辩证反馈与团队信息深加工关系间起正向调节作用, 而绩效氛围在二者间起负向调节作用; 教师辩证反馈能够通过团队信息深加工对团队创造力产生有条件的、正向的间接影响, 当精熟氛围水平高、绩效氛围水平低时, 教师辩证反馈对团队创造力的间接促进作用更为显著。研究从理论上提出教师辩证反馈并实证探索其对团队创造力的作用机制, 从团队创新层面上丰富和深化了“教育与发展”这一经典理论范畴, 并为促进大学生团队创造力发展提供了实践启示。

关键词: 教师辩证反馈, 团队创造力, 团队信息深加工, 精熟氛围, 绩效氛围

Abstract:

Teacher dialectical feedback reflects teachers’ dialectical thinking and accord with college students’ development rules, which is of great significance to boost students’ team creativity. Less attention, however, has been given to the influence of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity. Therefore, we expect to examine the effect of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity and explore the underlying mechanism. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a field survey and a longitudinal field experimental study. The results overall provided support for our theoretical model and showed that (1) teacher dialectical feedback was positively correlated with team creativity; (2) team information elaboration mediated the relationship between teacher dialectical feedback and team creativity; (3) the interaction between teacher dialectical feedback and mastery climate significantly predicted team information elaboration, such that the positive relationship between teacher dialectical feedback and team information elaboration was stronger when mastery climate was high rather than low; (4) performance climate also played a moderating role in the relationship between teacher dialectical feedback and team information elaboration, such that the positive relationship between teacher dialectical feedback and team information elaboration was weaker when mastery climate was high rather than low; (5) the indirect effect of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity through team information elaboration was significantly moderated by mastery climate and performance climate, such that when mastery climate was higher and performance climate was lower, the positive indirect effect is stronger, and vice versa. Drawing upon these findings, our work offers multiple contributions. First, this research expands the existing feedback paradigm and theoretical category of “education and development” by examining the effect of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity. Second, our study enriches the theory of creativity and broadens the antecedents of team creativity by exploring the effect and mechanism of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity. Third, this work provides novel insights into the mechanism through which teacher dialectical feedback influences team creativity from the perspective of team information processing. The results suggest that team information elaboration plays an important role for the effects of teacher dialectical feedback. Finally, by exploring the contingent role of team motivational climate, our study revealed the critical boundary condition for the effect of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity, which provide a more integrative and accurate understanding of whether and when team performs more or less creativity as results of teacher dialectical feedback.

Key words: teacher dialectical feedback, team creativity, team information elaboration, mastery climate, performance climate

中图分类号:

B849: G44

张建卫, 周愉凡, 李林英, 李海红, 滑卫军. (2023). 教导何以有方?教师辩证反馈对大学生团队创造力的作用机制. 心理学报, 55(8), 1301-1316.

ZHANG Jianwei, ZHOU Yufan, LI Linying, LI Haihong, HUA Weijun. (2023). How to teach resourcefully? The mechanism of teacher dialectical feedback on team creativity of college students. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(8), 1301-1316.

图/表 10

参考文献 68

[1]	Aggarwal, I., & Woolley, A. W. (2019). Team creativity, cognition, and cognitive style diversity. Management Science, 65(4), 1586-1599. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2017.3001
[2]	Ali, A., Wang, H., & Boekhorst, J. A. (2023). A moderated mediation examination of shared leadership and team creativity: A social information processing perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40(1), 295-327. doi: 10.1007/s10490-021-09786-6
[3]	Amabile, T. (2012). Componential theory of creativity. Boston: Harvard Business School.
[4]	Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305-337. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154.x URL
[5]	Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J.Klein & S. W.Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[6]	Bodla, A. A., Tang, N., Jiang, W., & Tian, L. (2018). Diversity and creativity in cross-national teams: The role of team knowledge sharing and inclusive climate. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(5), 711-729.
[7]	Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2), 241-264. doi: 10.1002/hrm.2015.54.issue-2 URL
[8]	Breugst, N., Preller, R., Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2018). Information reliability and team reflection as contingencies of the relationship between information elaboration and team decision quality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1314-1329. doi: 10.1002/job.v39.10 URL
[9]	Buch, R., Nerstad, C. G., & Säfvenbom, R. (2017). The interactive roles of mastery climate and performance climate in predicting intrinsic motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(2), 245-253.
[10]	Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197-253. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 URL
[11]	Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172-192. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0122 URL
[12]	Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 pmid: 17402809
[13]	Fodor, E. M., & Carver, R. A. (2000). Achievement and power motives, performance feedback, and creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 380-396. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2289 URL
[14]	Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827-851. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0177 URL
[15]	Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454. pmid: 14771441
[16]	Han, G., Bai, Y., & Peng, G. (2021). Creating team ambidexterity: The effects of leader dialectical thinking and collective team identification. European Management Journal, 40(2), 175-181. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2021.06.004 URL
[17]	Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484-500. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0200 URL
[18]	Harrison, S. H., & Dossinger, K. (2017). Pliable guidance: A multilevel model of curiosity, feedback seeking, and feedback giving in creative work. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2051-2072. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0247 URL
[19]	Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. (2015). An inductive study of feedback interactions over the course of creative projects. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 375-404. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0737 URL
[20]	Harvey, S. (2015). When accuracy isn’t everything: The value of demographic differences to information elaboration in teams. Group & Organization Management, 40(1), 35-61.
[21]	Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford publications.
[22]	He, Y., Yao, X., Wang, S., & Caughron, J. (2016). Linking failure feedback to individual creativity: The moderation role of goal orientation. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 52-59. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1125248 URL
[23]	Hoever, I. J., Zhou, J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2018). Different strokes for different teams: The contingent effects of positive and negative feedback on the creativity of informationally homogeneous and diverse teams. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2159-2181. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0642 URL
[24]	Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389-403. doi: 10.1080/09500690110098912 URL
[25]	Huang, C. Y., & Liu, Y. C. (2021). Influence of need for cognition and psychological safety climate on information elaboration and team creativity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(1), 102-116. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2021.1932815 URL
[26]	Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145. doi: 10.1037/a0015978 pmid: 19702361
[27]	James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85-98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 URL
[28]	James, K., & Drown, D. (2012). Organizations and creativity:Trends in research, status of education and practice, agenda for the future. In M. D.Mumford (Ed.) Handbook of organizational creativity (17-38). Academic Press. United Kingdom:Cambridge.
[29]	Joo, B. K., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Yoon, S. W. (2012). Team creativity: The effects of perceived learning culture, developmental feedback and team cohesion. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(2), 77-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00395.x URL
[30]	Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581-598. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.41331431 URL
[31]	Kim, Y. J., & Kim, J. (2020). Does negative feedback benefit (or harm) recipient creativity? The role of the direction of feedback flow. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 584-612. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1196 URL
[32]	Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2005). The effect of perceived teacher feedback on intrinsic motivation in physical education. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36(2), 91-106.
[33]	Kooij-de Bode, H. J., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2008). Ethnic diversity and distributed information in group decision making: The importance of information elaboration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(4), 307-320. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.12.4.307 URL
[34]	Li, H., & Lv, L. (2019). Influence of prevention focus and motivational climate on knowledge hiding in enterprises. Science Research Management, 40(4), 245-255.
	[ 李浩, 吕鸾鸾. (2019). 防御定向, 动机氛围对企业中知识隐藏的影响. 科研管理, 40(4), 245-255.]
[35]	Lin, C. (2003). Education and Development: The psychological integration research of creative talents. Beijing Normal University Press.
	[ 林崇德. (2013). 教育与发展: 兼述创新人才的心理学整合研究 (p. 95). 北京师范大学出版社.]
[36]	Lin, C. (2009). Research on creativity talents and creative education. Beijing: Economic Science Press.
	[ 林崇德. (2009). 创新人才与教育创新研究. 北京: 经济科学出版社.]
[37]	Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Yang, S., & Ma, B. (2013). Research and cultivation of team scientific creativity among science and engineering postgraduates. Academic Degrees & Graduate Education, (8), 34-39.
	[ 刘玉新, 张建卫, 杨世荣, 马奔. (2013). 理工科研究生团队科学创造力的研究与培养. 学位与研究生教育, (8), 34-39.]
[38]	Mavri, A., Ioannou, A., & Loizides, F. (2020). Design students meet industry players: Feedback and creativity in communities of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100684. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100684
[39]	Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., R. Sanchez, D., & Dean, M. D. (2019). Do I really know you and does it matter? Unpacking the relationship between familiarity and information elaboration in global virtual teams. Group & Organization Management, 44(1), 3-37.
[40]	Nerstad, C. G., Roberts, G. C., & Richardsen, A. M. (2013). Achieving success at work: Development and validation of the Motivational Climate at Work Questionnaire (MCWQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2231-2250. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12174 URL
[41]	Nerstad, C. G., Searle, R., Černe, M., Dysvik, A., Škerlavaj, M., & Scherer, R. (2018). Perceived mastery climate, felt trust, and knowledge sharing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 429-447. doi: 10.1002/job.v39.4 URL
[42]	Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 pmid: 11381831
[43]	O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results‐oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 34-44. doi: 10.1111/caim.2006.15.issue-1 URL
[44]	Paletz, S. B., Bogue, K., Miron-Spektor, E., Spencer-Rodgers, J., & Peng, K. (2018). Dialectical thinking and creativity from many perspectives: Contradiction and tension. The Psychological and Cultural Foundations of East Asian Cognition, 267-308.
[45]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 pmid: 14516251
[46]	Rupert, T. J., & Kern, B. B. (2016). Advances in accounting education: Teaching and curriculum innovations. Bingley: Emerald.
[47]	Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450-461. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450 URL
[48]	Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. pmid: 10307892
[49]	Smither, J. W., & Walker, A. G. (2004). Are the characteristics of narrative comments related to improvement in multirater feedback ratings over time? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 575-581. pmid: 15161414
[50]	Son, S., & Kim, D.Y. (2016). The role of perceived feedback sources’ learning-goal orientation on feedback acceptance and employees’ creativity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(1), 82-95.
[51]	Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467-1478. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467 URL
[52]	Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 607-627. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607 URL
[53]	Thanh, B. T., & Thuan, L. C. (2019). Mediating mechanisms linking developmental feedback with employee creativity. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(2), 108-121. doi: 10.1108/JWL-06-2019-0070 URL
[54]	van Knippenberg, D., de Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008-1022. pmid: 15584838
[55]	Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[56]	Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
[57]	Wang, D., & Xue, H. (2011). The relationship between transactive memory system and team creativity. Science Research Management, 32(1), 122-128.
	[ 王端旭, 薛会娟. (2011). 交互记忆系统与团队创造力关系的实证研究. 科研管理, 32(1), 122-128.]
[58]	Wang, Y., Li, K., Gai, X., & Cao, Y. (2020). Training and transfer effects of response inhibition training with online feedback on adolescents and adults’ executive function. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(10), 1212-1223. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01212
	[ 王元, 李柯, 盖笑松, 曹逸飞. (2020). 基于即时反馈的反应抑制训练对青少年和成人执行功能的训练效应和迁移效应. 心理学报, 52(10), 1212-1223.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01212
[59]	Wang, Y., & Shi, K. (2003). The impact of supervisor’s feedback on workers’ behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(2), 255-260.
	[ 王永丽, 时勘. (2003). 上级反馈对员工行为的影响. 心理学报, 35(2), 255-260.]
[60]	Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321. doi: 10.2307/258761 URL
[61]	Wu, X., Chen, Y., Yan, R., & Guan, H. (2022). Core self- evaluation and employee creativity: A perspective based on the self-consistent theory. Management Review, 34(9), 243-253.
	[ 吴湘繁, 陈赟, 严荣, 关浩光. (2022). 基于自我一致性理论视角的员工创造力产生机制研究. 管理评论, 34(9), 243-253.]
[62]	Xu, J., Shang, Y., & Song, H. (2018). Supervisor developmental feedback and creativity: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Management Science, 31(1), 69-78.
	[ 徐珺, 尚玉钒, 宋合义. (2018). 上级发展性反馈与创造力: 一个被调节的中介模型. 管理科学, 31(1), 69-78.]
[63]	Yates, E., & Twigg, E. (2017). Developing creativity in early childhood studies students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 42-57. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.001 URL
[64]	Zhang, J., Ren, Y., Zhou, J., & Zhao, H. (2017). The mechanisms of how leader empowering behavior influences undergraduates’ team scientific creativity. Fudan Education Forum, 15(5), 56-63.
	[ 张建卫, 任永灿, 周洁, 赵辉. (2017). 领导授权行为对大学生团队科学创造力的作用机制. 复旦教育论坛, 15(5), 56-63.]
[65]	Zhao, H., Zhang, J., Heng, S., & Qi, C. (2021). Team growth mindset and team scientific creativity of college students: The role of team achievement goal orientation and leader behavioral feedback. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100957, DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100957. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100957 URL
[66]	Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261-276. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.261 URL
[67]	Zhou, Y. (2022). Research on the relationship between teacher dialectical feedback and college students’ multilevel scientific creativity (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Beijing Institute of Technology.
	[ 周愉凡. (2022). 高校教师辩证反馈与大学生多层面科学创造力研究 (博士学位论文). 北京理工大学.]
[68]	Zhu, Z., & Lin, C. (2002). History of child psychology (pp. 471-472). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
	[ 朱智贤, 林崇德. (2002). 儿童心理学史 (pp. 471-472). 北京: 北京师范大学出版.]

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
五因子模型: DF; MC; PC; TIE; TC	2319.92	692	3.35	0.84	0.83	0.08	0.09
四因子模型: DF; MC + PC; TIE; TC	2952.12	696	4.24	0.73	0.72	0.10	0.11
三因子模型: DF + MC + PC; TIE; TC	3548.86	699	5.08	0.66	0.64	0.12	0.13
二因子模型: DF + MC + PC + TIE; TC	4093.73	701	5.84	0.60	0.58	0.13	0.14
单因子模型: DF + MC + PC + TIE + TC	4898.03	702	6.98	0.51	0.48	0.14	0.14

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
五因子模型: DF; MC; PC; TIE; TC	2319.92	692	3.35	0.84	0.83	0.08	0.09
四因子模型: DF; MC + PC; TIE; TC	2952.12	696	4.24	0.73	0.72	0.10	0.11
三因子模型: DF + MC + PC; TIE; TC	3548.86	699	5.08	0.66	0.64	0.12	0.13
二因子模型: DF + MC + PC + TIE; TC	4093.73	701	5.84	0.60	0.58	0.13	0.14
单因子模型: DF + MC + PC + TIE + TC	4898.03	702	6.98	0.51	0.48	0.14	0.14

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1团队高校背景	2.45	0.78
2团队性别构成	1.11	0.17	-0.07
3团队规模	3.92	0.75	-0.31^**	-0.05
4教师接触频率	3.69	0.74	-0.11	0.02	-0.08
5教师反馈频率	3.56	0.81	-0.06	0.03	-0.17	0.83^**
6教师辩证反馈	4.09	0.67	-0.22	-0.05	-0.18	0.64^**	0.66^**
7精熟氛围	3.10	0.68	0.01	-0.15	0.05	0.15	0.24^*	0.11
8绩效氛围	3.90	0.49	-0.22	-0.21	-0.05	0.20	0.29^**	0.41^**	0.28^*
9团队信息深加工	4.23	0.61	-0.15	-0.14	-0.13	0.36^**	0.39^**	0.63^**	0.04	0.30^**
10团队创造力	4.17	0.46	-0.16	-0.21	-0.15	0.34^**	0.46^**	0.69^**	0.19	0.45^**	0.82^**

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1团队高校背景	2.45	0.78
2团队性别构成	1.11	0.17	-0.07
3团队规模	3.92	0.75	-0.31^**	-0.05
4教师接触频率	3.69	0.74	-0.11	0.02	-0.08
5教师反馈频率	3.56	0.81	-0.06	0.03	-0.17	0.83^**
6教师辩证反馈	4.09	0.67	-0.22	-0.05	-0.18	0.64^**	0.66^**
7精熟氛围	3.10	0.68	0.01	-0.15	0.05	0.15	0.24^*	0.11
8绩效氛围	3.90	0.49	-0.22	-0.21	-0.05	0.20	0.29^**	0.41^**	0.28^*
9团队信息深加工	4.23	0.61	-0.15	-0.14	-0.13	0.36^**	0.39^**	0.63^**	0.04	0.30^**
10团队创造力	4.17	0.46	-0.16	-0.21	-0.15	0.34^**	0.46^**	0.69^**	0.19	0.45^**	0.82^**

变量	团队创造力		团队信息深加工
变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5
团队高校背景	-0.14	-0.08	-0.09	-0.06	-0.06
团队性别构成	-0.18	-0.11	-0.11	-0.16	-0.07
团队规模	-0.04	-0.02	-0.04	-0.06	0.01
教师接触频率	-0.30^*	-0.27^*	-0.05	-0.28	0.02
教师反馈频率	0.30^*	0.29^*	0.03	0.31	-0.02
教师辩证反馈	0.64^***	0.27^**	0.61^***	0.74^***	0.55^***
精熟氛围				-0.15
教师辩证反馈× 精熟氛围				0.42^***
绩效氛围					0.09
教师辩证反馈× 绩效氛围					-0.27^**
团队信息深加工		0.61^***
R²	0.55	0.77	0.42	0.55	0.48
ΔR²		0.22		0.13	0.06