SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Teacher Education and Educators / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 2

Perceived Control of Time as a Linking Mechanism Between Time-Management Behaviours and Pedagogical Performance Among Female University Faculty in Algeria

Zinelaabidine Touidjeni(Abdelhamid Mehri, University of Constantine2)0000-0001-6237-9755
Nousseiba Maougal(Abdelhamid Mehri, University of Constantine2)0009-0000-6306-2718
Naima Ghallab(Abdelhamid Mehri, University of Constantine2)0009-0004-2693-1580
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-08-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study extends Macan’s process logic to Algerian female faculty while delimiting generalization to senior faculty

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examined associations among goal setting/prioritization, time planning/organization, perceived control of time, and self-reported pedagogical performance among 425 female faculty members across 68 Algerian institutions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample was predominantly early career: 60.5% reported fewer than five years of seniority and 64.7% were Assistant Professors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study extends Macan’s process logic to Algerian female faculty while delimiting generalization to senior faculty
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Time management · perceived control of time · pedagogical performance

Abstract

This study examined associations among goal setting/prioritization, time planning/organization, perceived control of time, and self-reported pedagogical performance among 425 female faculty members across 68 Algerian institutions. The sample was predominantly early career: 60.5% reported fewer than five years of seniority and 64.7% were Assistant Professors. Spearman correlations, a covariate-adjusted Gamma generalized linear model, and covariate-adjusted bootstrap path analyses were used. Perceived control of time showed the strongest bivariate association with pedagogical performance (ρ = .496) and remained positively associated in the Gamma model (B = .048, p < .001); planning/organization also remained positive (B = .028, p = .003), whereas goal setting/prioritization did not (p = .311). Indirect associations through perceived control were positive for both goal setting and planning. Sensitivity analyses deleting one planning item and two perceived-control items preserved the Gamma-model conclusions. Beta regression supported the planning and perceived-control main effects but identified a positive planning-by-control interaction, indicating that the interaction result is model-dependent. Because all focal measures were collected cross-sectionally by self-report, the findings do not establish causal mediation and may be inflated by common method variance. The study extends Macan’s process logic to Algerian female faculty while delimiting generalization to senior faculty

🔖

Cite This Article

Touidjeni, Z., Maougal, N., Ghallab, N. (2026). Perceived Control of Time as a Linking Mechanism Between Time-Management Behaviours and Pedagogical Performance Among Female University Faculty in Algeria. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, Volume: 15 Issue: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1514033

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Aeon, B., & Aguinis, H. (2017). It’s about time: New perspectives and insights on time management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31(4), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0166
  2. Aeon, B., Faber, A., & Panaccio, A. (2021). Does time management work? A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 16(1), e0245066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066
  3. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions (pp. xi, 212). Sage Publications, Inc.
  4. Akhtar, M., Riaz, M. N., & Waheed, S. (2021). Mediating role of perceived control of time between time management behavior and its outcomes. International Review of Management and Business Research, 10(1), 268–284. https://doi.org/10.30543/10-1(2021)-23
  5. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 3(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x
  6. Çetin, G., & Eren, A. (2019). Turkish prospective teachers’ professional goals, beliefs about the attainability of these goals, identities, and possible selves. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(3), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9561-6
  7. Chen, Z., Lee, T., Yue, X., & Wang, J. (2022). How time pressure matter university faculties’ job stress and well-being? The perspective of the job demand theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 902951. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.902951
  8. Claessens, B. J. C., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2004). Planning behavior and perceived control of time at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.292
  9. Claessens, B. J. C., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time management literature. Personnel Review, 36(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710726136
  10. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
  11. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
  12. Ferrari, S., & Cribari-Neto, F. (2004). Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics, 31(7), 799–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/0266476042000214501
  13. Guarino, C. M., & Borden, V. M. H. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Research in Higher Education, 58(6), 672–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9454-2
  14. Häfner, A., & Stock, A. (2010). Time management training and perceived control of time at work. The Journal of Psychology, 144(5), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.496647
  15. Häfner, A., Stock, A., & Oberst, V. (2015). Decreasing students’ stress through time management training: An intervention study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0229-2
  16. Häfner, A., Stock, A., Pinneker, L., & Ströhle, S. (2014). Stress prevention through a time management training intervention: An experimental study. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785065
  17. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications.
  18. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The Varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233
  19. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  20. Kerras, N., & Eddine Salhi, S. (2021). University education in Algeria during the COVID-19 pandemic: Limitations and challenges. Arab World English Journal, 12(3), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no3.2
  21. Link, A. N., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.04.002
  22. Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.381
  23. Macan, T. H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College students’ time management: Correlations with academic performance and stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 760–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.760
  24. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23
  25. McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, Second Edition. CRC Press.
  26. MESRS. (2023). GRANDS AGRÉGATS (2022-2023). Ministère de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche scientifique. https://www.mesrs.dz/index.php/fr/agregats-2/
  27. Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche scientifique. (2008). Décret exécutif n° 08-130 du 3 mai 2008 portant statut particulier de l’enseignant chercheur. Journal Officiel de la République Algérienne. https://services.mesrs.dz/DEJA/fichiers_sommaire_des_textes/137%20FR.PDF
  28. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, 97(1), 22–26.
  29. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., & Templer, A. (2012). Gender, work time, and care responsibilities among faculty. Sociological Forum, 27(2), 300–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01319.x
  30. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  31. O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017). Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty workload in research universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1154–1186. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716767
  32. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  33. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  34. Smithson, M., & Verkuilen, J. (2006). A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychological Methods, 11(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.54
  35. Stevenson, N. A. (2016). Effects of planning and goal setting on reducing latency to task engagement for struggling readers in middle school. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25(2), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9238-8
  36. Tinajero, C., Mayo, M. E., Villar, E., & Martínez-López, Z. (2024). Classic and modern models of self-regulated learning: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1307574. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1307574
  37. Uhlig, L., Baumgartner, V., Prem, R., Siestrup, K., Korunka, C., & Kubicek, B. (2023). A field intervention study on the effects of planning on unfinished tasks, rumination, and cognitive flexibility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 96(3), 575–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12430
  38. Winslow, S. (2010). Gender inequality and time allocations among academic faculty. Gender & Society, 24(6), 769–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210386728
  39. Yahiaoui, F., Chergui, K., Aissaoui, N., Brika, S. K. M., Lamari, I. A., Musa, A. A., & Almezher, M. (2022). The impacts of total quality management practices in Algerian higher education institutions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 874209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874209
  40. Zuo, M., Zhong, Q., Wang, Q., Yan, Y., Liang, L., Gao, W., & Luo, H. (2024). Supporting home-based self-regulated learning for secondary school students: An educational design study. Sustainability, 16(3), 1199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031199