www.jsser.org Journal of Social Studies Education Research Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2019:10 (2), 46-73 46 How Could Management of School Environment Improve Organizational Citizenship Behaviors for The Environment? (Case Study at Schools for Specifics Purposes) Eliana Sari 1* , Rekha Koul 2, Siti Rochanah 3 , Wahyu Sri Ambar Arum 4 & Iskandar Muda 5 Abstract Organization citizenship behavior for the environment is needed in schools for specifics purposes in order to provide a safe and comfortable learning environment with the same quality of education as in regular schools. This study aims to estimate the effect of school environment, work engagement, and job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. The sample of this study was 306 teachers from 24 School for specifics purposes spread across 5 regions of Indonesia capital, Jakarta, which were taken a proportionally random sampling. This research design using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with seven hypotheses developed. Data was collected through questionnaires with a Likert scale, and processed using Wrap Pls 6.0 and the Sobel test. The results of this study show that there are a positive effect school environment, work engagement, and job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. The school environment was found to have the strongest positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. The results of this study show that work engagement and job satisfaction are the important factors that must be considered in improving organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. We discuss the findings of this study and we convey the managerial implications that are beneficial for the managers of schools for specifics purposes. Keywords: Management the School Environment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment, the Schools for Specifics Purposes Introduction Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment at schools for specifics purposes in Indonesia is very much needed, because the majority of schools for specifics purposes have many shortcomings, both in terms of infrastructure and teaching staff. Meanwhile, the learning process in the schools for specifics purposes requires the school environments are safe, comfortable and quality for long time period (Ghavifekr and Pillai, 2016). However, creating a conducive school environment for students with special needs is not easy in Indonesia. The number of schools for 1 Dr., Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia. Corresponding Author: elianasari@unj.ac.id 2 Dr., School of Education, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley Western Australia, 6102. R.Koul@curtin.edu.au 3 Dr., Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia. siti-rochanah@unj.ac.id 4 Dr., Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia. wahyusri@unj.ac.id 5 Dr., Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Indonesia. iskandar1@usu.ac.id mailto:desysafitri@unj.ac.id Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 specifics purposes are still far from the standard required by the government. The condition of infrastructure and teaching staff at schools for specifics purposes in Indonesia capital, Jakarta, can be seen in table 1 below Table 1 Data of Human Resource and Infrastructure Conditions of Schools for Specific Purposes in Indonesia Capital, Jakarta Region Number of School for specifics purposes Total Number of Teachers Total Number of Students Total Number of infrastructures Public Private Good Lightly damaged Moderately damaged Heavily damaged West Jakarta 2 19 254 1167 79 167 0 1 Central Jakarta 1 6 98 470 101 6 3 2 South Jakarta 3 24 428 2074 214 227 18 5 East Jakarta 1 23 268 1566 124 140 12 0 North Jakarta 2 6 94 512 61 29 0 2 Total 9 78 1141 5789 579 569 33 10 Sources: takola.pklk.kemdikbud.go.id (2018). Because of these limitations, many communities in the society establishing and managing a school for specifics purposes independently. Management the schools for specifics purposes independently have a lot of problems. The most common problems are limitations in infrastructure and the lack of competent and highly committed teachers. The limitations of infrastructure and teaching staff make it difficult for students to obtain special education services that are safe, comfortable and of the same quality as a regular education. Learning activities tend to be less conducive to learning because of inadequate infrastructure and the difficulty in controlling student behavior. The conditions require teachers have a creative and innovative mindset to take discretionary actions in sustaining the conduciveness of the learning process voluntary. Implementation of schools for specifics purposes in Indonesia based on the 2013 curriculum focuses on building 18 positive characters, namely: 1) Religiosity, 2) Honesty, 3) Tolerance, 4) Discipline, 5) Hard work, 6) Creativity, 6) Independence, 7) Democratic, 9) Curiosity, 10) Nationalism, 11) Patriotism, 12) Achievement Appreciation, 13) Friendship, 14) Love of Peace, 15) Fondness of Reading, 16) Environmental Awareness, 17) Social Care, and 18) Responsibility. The character of environmental awareness in the 2013 curriculum is intended to Sari et al. ensure that students have the knowledge, awareness, and ability to develop a clean and healthy lifestyle both inside and outside the school environment (Machali, 2014; Rahayu, 2013). In realizing this purpose, the schools for specifics purposes need teachers who are willing to contribute to the school, ready to help students and coworkers voluntarily so that the school can develop over a longer period of time. In recent years, organizational citizenship behavior for the environment has gained alot of attention because it has a positive effect on the school environment and plays a very significant role in the success of educational organizations (Selamat, Samsu & Kamalu, 2013; Fantuzzo, Leboeuf & Rouse, 2014). Research about organizational citizenship behavior for the environment at schools shows that teachers who have high organizational citizenship behavior for the environment will provide support and assistance to fellow teachers and students in need voluntarily, so that activities at the school can run smoothly (Zeinabadi and Salehi, 2011). Developing organizational citizenship behavior for the environment of teachers is one of the strategic goals of school human resources management which must be done, because it can be added value for the schools. High organizational citizenship behavior for the environment encourages teachers to actively participate in various school activities and willing to give innovative suggestions for the sustainability of school activities (Mahdiuon, Ghahramani & Rezaii, 2010; Esnard and Jouffre, 2008). Various studies on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment use work motivation, job satisfaction, work commitment, and school environment as antecedent variables (Supriyanto, 2013; Zeinabadi and Salehi, 2011). High organizational citizenship behavior for the environment is important for teachers in schools for specific purposes because children with special needs have conditions that are different to regular children's conditions, in terms of physical, mental, and social behavior (Wang et al., 2018). Children with special needs are children who have problems in the ability to think, see, hear, socialize and move. Therefore, the teacher serving children with special needs must be creative in the classroom, more tolerant and volunteer to do jobs outside of their normal duties. Teachers with high organizational citizenship behavior for the environment are able to provide a sense of security and comfort for students with special needs to get the same quality learning environment as regular schools over a long period of time Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 Theoretical Background Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment Organizational citizenship behavioral for the environment can be defined as discretionary behavior carried out by an individual voluntarily beyond the main task that aims to maintain the long-term survival of the organization (Priyankara et al., 2018; Mahdiuon, Ghahramani & Rezaii, 2010; Pawar, 2015). Organizational citizenship behavioral for the environment is a volunteer action because of the awareness to support the organization's social and psychosocial environment in maintaining the health of the organization on an ongoing basis (Tosti-kharas, Lamm & Thomas, 2016; Wang, et al., 2018). Organizational citizenship behavioral for the environment is not directly recognized by the formal reward system although it supports task performance and plays a major role in maintaining and improving the smooth activities of the organization. Organizational citizenship behavioral for the environment plays an important role in supporting the effectiveness and well-being of the organization (Tuan, 2018). Organizational citizenship behavioral for environment makes individuals willing to cooperate, be reliable and have spontaneous and innovative behavior, therefore employees who have organizational citizenship behavior for the environment should be given awards. Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment is a voluntary behavior, so that employees who don't do it, can't be intimidated or punished. Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment will help other people voluntarily so that organizations can develop healthier even without getting compensation. All activities of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment can improve overall organizational functions, increase productivity, ensure sustainable organizational performance and enhance the ability of organizations to adapt to changes in the environment (Neves et al., 2015; Podsakof et al., 2009). Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment is strongly influenced by the management of the organizational environment carried out by the leader (Kudryavtsev, Stedman & Krasny, 2012). Leaders are responsible for delivering information about environment maintenance goals clearly and encourage employees to integrate environment maintenance into their work. The leader must also transform the positive values of the organization through interactive communication with its employees so that employees can accept and internalize these values into their behavior. Social learning theory explains that an individual can be influenced through observation and imitation of a person's behavior. Several studies show that leadership factor in organization have a significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the Sari et al. environment, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and ethical behavior (Bogler and Somech, 2004). Employess hope the leader of organizations are willing to identify factors that can enhance organizational citizenship behavior for the environment and incorporated into the organization's management policies (Priyankara et al., 2018; Gati, Mukhtar, & Sujanto, 2018; Testa et al., 2018). This explains why various studies on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment focus on potential antecedents from organizational citizenship behavior such as personality traits (Zellars and Tepper, 2002; Podsakof et al., 2000), employee attitudes, employee's perception of justice and various task characteristics (Liu and Onwuegbuzie, 2014; Dussault, 2006; IIies, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007; Wang et al., 2005). School Environment School environments can be defined as a set of internal features that distinguish between school organizations and other organizations, which affect the behavior of all members in schools and play an important role in school activities (Doppelt and Schunn, 2008; Khine et al., 2018). The school environment also refers to a system of values, beliefs, norms and regulations that are accepted and implemented with full awareness by all school members (Bronfman et al., 2015; Fu et al., 2018). Moore defines the school environment as a hierarchical system with many sub- systems such as school leadership, drainage, classrooms, blackboards, school complexes, sanitation, toilets, teacher rooms, sitting facilities, teaching and learning materials, leadership style of principals, monitoring and evaluation, and then community (Kigenyi, Kakuru & Ziwa, 2017; Moore, 2012). The school environment has long been understood can influence teacher self-efficacy in the classroom, teacher enthusiasm, professional development, teacher commitment, and retention (Fisher, Fraser & Cresswell, 1995; Watt, Carmichael & Callingham, 2017). Other aspects of the school climate, such as school security and the close emotional connection between teachers and students, are also seen as important factors in understanding work engagement and performance (Gage et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016). Elements in the school environment such as administrative support, autonomy, and collegiality have a relationship with professionalism and a teacher's commitment to the organization (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Martinez and Tadeu, 2018). The organizational environment which consists of social, cultural, size and organizational structure elements influence job satisfaction. Social elements such as work relationships, interactions, and relationships with colleagues. Culture elements such as beliefs, attitudes, Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 values, and religion. Size and organizational structure elements such as organizational policy and leadership are elements of the organizational environment that affect job satisfaction (Johnson and Stevens, 2001; Karpov, 2017; Rea et. al., 2017). Some elements in the school environment that are directly related to teacher satisfaction, among them are facilities for learning, school hygiene and comfort, the relationship between teacher colleagues, principals and students, tribal and socio-economic of students also influence on teacher's job satisfaction (Lee and Quek, 2018; Okeke, 2013; Ko et al., 2018; Tian, Cai & Jiang, 2018). Work Engagement Employee work engagement is the willingness and ability of employees to help the success of the organization by providing discretionary efforts on an ongoing basis (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2018). Work engagement is a positive psychological condition of an individual related to their work, which is characterized by vigor, dedication and high absorption in work, making it difficult to escape from the work being done. According to Kahn (Tosti-kharas, Lamm & Thomas, 2016), the engagement of an individual in an organization is a dedication in the form of cognitive, emotional, and physical energy in doing duties enthusiastically and with high endurance. Employee work engagement is also called commitment or motivation because it refers to consistent and fully concentrated allocation and use of resources. Employees who have high work engagement will have an energetic and effective relationship to their work activities and see themselves as able to handle the demands of their work well (Matteuci, Guglielmi & Lauermann, 2017; van den Berg et al., 2018). Engagement is a condition of effective fulfillment and persistent and positive motivation in a person, which is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Cropanzano and Rupp, 2014; Ko, et al., 2018). Vigor is high energy, resilience, ability, perseverance and willingness to invest greater effort on the job (Kirkpatrick and Johnson, 2014). While dedication is a strong engagement in work, enthusiasm, and a sense of pride and inspiration at work. Meanwhile, absorption is described as a pleasant condition for an employee when doing work so that they cannot escape from the job; even feeling that time passes quickly (Federici and Skaalvik, 2011; Elffers, 2013). Employee work engagement is a positive attitude held by employees towards the organization and its value. Work engagement takes the form of employee willingness to dedicate physical, cognitive, and emotional resources to focus on their work (Esnard and Jouffre, 2008). Work engagement makes employees more focused, full of confidence, energized, and creative about doing extra tasks and taking on higher roles. Work engagement is the emotional attitude Sari et al. of the employee to his work which is influenced by the condition or the environment of the organization where he works (Elffers, 2013; Supriyanto, 2013; Sun, Aryee & Law, 2007). Employee work engagement in an organization will lead them to organizational citizenship behavior (Basak and Ghosh, 2011; Sun, Aryee & Law, 2007). High work engagement makes employees better understand the various activities that will benefit the organization and to be willing to carry out these activities voluntarily (Canrinus et al., 2012). Job Satisfaction Almost all definitions of job satisfaction refer to Locke’s (1976) concept which defines job satisfaction as a pleasant or positive emotional state of one's work or work experience (Liu and Onwuegbuzie, 2014; Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2004). Job satisfaction is an employee's emotional response to their work and the situation in which they work (Guillen-Gamez, Mayorga-Fernandez, & Alvarez-Garcia, 2018; Suriansyah and Aslamiah, 2018). Job satisfaction is a reflection of a positive mood that is shown in a person's positive attitude towards work. Positive moods increase the frequency of helpfulness and spontaneous prosocial behavior. Positive moods and helpful behavior reinforce each other because helping others usually makes people feel happier. However, job satisfaction also depends on feelings, attitudes, and enthusiasm related to work (Lavy and Bocker, 2018). Regarding teaching, teacher job satisfaction is defined as a series of affective reactions that explain how they feel about their work and their role (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2013; Chen, 2010). Teacher job satisfaction is also defined as the teacher's emotions relationship with the teaching role and the benefits of teaching (Zembylas and Papanastasiou, 2004). Teacher job satisfaction has an important influence on students, teachers, and schools. Highly satisfied teachers have more positive relationships with students and are more likely to help them achieve higher academic results (Chen, 2010; Rahayu et al., 2018). Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Figure 1 shows a picture of theoretical framework based on theoretical background Figure 1. Theoretical Framework Note: ES : School Environment SS : Student Support SF : Staff Freedom PD : Participation on Decision Making RA : Resource Adequacy JS : Job Satisfaction SU : Supervision WC : Working Conditions PA : Pay RE : Recognition WI : Work It Self WE : Work Engagement VIG : Vigor DED : Dedication ABS : Absorption OCBE : Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Environment ALT : Altruism CON : Conscientiousness COU : Courtessy CIV : Civic participation Sari et al. The hypotheses in this study are: 1) School environment positively effects on organizational citizenship behavior for environment; 2) Work engagement positively effects on organizational citizenship behavior for environment; 3) School environment positively effects on work engagement; 4) Work engagement mediates positively effects school environment and organizational citizenship behavior for environment; 5) Job satisfaction positively effects on organizational citizenship behavior for environment; 6) School environment positively effects on job satisfaction; 7) Job satisfaction mediates the positively affects school environment on organizational citizenship behavior for environment. Methods This study aims to estimate the effects of the school environment, work engagement, and job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. This study uses a descriptive causal method with hypothesis testing using structural equation models (SEM). Data analysis techniques using Wrap Partial Least Square (PLS) 6.0 for direct testing, while indirect testing is done using the Sobel test. The selection of SEM in this study because it has many advantages, such as flexibility in developing the model, so that researchers can make modifications in accordance with supporting theories. Testing with SEM can also be done comprehensively. SEM is also able to overcome the problem of distribution abnormalities (with several conditions) so that even though it uses an ordinal scale to collect data about feelings and perceptions (Likert scale), with several items and indicators removed or censored, SEM is still able to provide accurate estimation results (Hair et al., 2017). Measurement of all variables is done through a questionnaire to all respondents using a Likert scale. Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment was collected using a questionnaire consisting of 4 indicators with 24 items, namely: 1) Altruism (6 items), 2) Conscientiousness (7 items), 3) Courtesy (5 items) and 4) Civic participation (7 items). Measurement of organizational citizenship behavior for the environment is carried out using a Likert scale starting from points 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Organizational citizenship behavior for environment questionnaire was adapted from the concept of Spector and Paille (Tosti-kharas, Lamm & Thomas, 2016; Testa et al., 2018), which links researchers with adjustments to the situation of the respondent. School environment was measured using a questionnaire consisting of 4 indicators with 25 items, namely: Student support (7 items), staff freedom (8 items), participation decision-making (6 items) and adequacy of resources (4 items). School environment questionnaire was adapted from the school level environmental questionnaire Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 (SLEQ) developed by Fisher & Fraser and Johnson & Zvoch (Johnson, Stevens & Zvoch, 2007; Johnson and Stevens, 2006; Aldridge, Laugksch & Fraser, 2006), which was later modified by researchers to adapt to the situation. Job satisfaction was measured using a questionnaire consisting of 5 indicators with 27 items, namely: Supervision (4 items), working conditions (7 items), salary (4 items), work itself (8 items), and recognition (4 items). Job satisfaction questionnaire was adapted from the concept of Lester and Weiss (Adil, Owais & Qamar, 2018; Federici and Skaalvik, 2011). which is then modified by researchers by adjusting to the situation of the respondent's condition. Work engagement is measured using a questionnaire consisting of 3 indicators with 17 items, namely: Vigor (6 items), dedication (5 items) and absorption (6 items). The job satisfaction questionnaire was adapted from the concept of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UTRECHT) and Schaufeli which were later modified by researchers (Matteucci, Guglielmi & Lauermann, 2017; Federici and Skaalvik, 2011) by adjusting to the situation of the respondents. All questionnaires used to measure school environment, job satisfaction and work engagement use a Likert scale starting from point 1 (disagree) to point 5 (strongly agree). The participants in this research were 306 teachers from 24 schools for specifics purposes across 5 Indonesia Capital, Jakarta, regions whose distribution data and profiles can be seen in table 2 below. Table 2 Sample of Research Region Total Number of Teachers Total Number of Schools Gender Teaching Experience (Years) Male Female < 5 6 –15 > 15 West Jakarta 56 4 11 45 7 26 23 Central Jakarta 39 4 8 31 8 13 18 South Jakarta 113 8 29 84 12 39 62 East Jakarta 60 5 14 46 10 19 31 North Jakarta 38 3 7 31 5 13 20 Total 306 24 69 237 42 86 178 Sources: Summary from researchers The data analysis technique in this study uses Wrap PLS 6.0 for direct testing and the Sobel test for indirect testing. The use of Wrap PLS 6.0 because Partial Least Square 6.0 software has many advantages, including: can simultaneously test measurement models and structural models at Sari et al. once, can identify and estimate linear and non-linear relationships both for variables with reflective models and formative models. PLS 6.0 can also calculate probability values, fit models, and other quality indicators can calculate the effect size and Q-square as a validity coefficient and can calculate indirect effects (Hair et al., 2017). Several stages of testing carried out in this study include: First, testing the suitability of the research model by using the Goodness of Fit Model (GOF) which aims to examine the existence of a model that is built with data and the quality of the model under study. Model suitability testing is done by using four measurements, namely Average Path Coefficient (APC), Average R-Square (ARS), Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) and Average block VIF (AVIF). The model has categorized accordingly and can be accepted if it has APC, ARS and AARS values <= 5 and has an AVIF value <= 3.3. Second, testing the convergent validity of items, indicators, and variables aimed at ensuring the suitability of each item, indicator, and variable in this study. Testing for convergent validity using loading factor and P-value, with criteria if the loading factor ≥ 0.4 and P-value <0.05, then the items, indicators, and variables meet convergent requirements. Third, the composite reliability testing phase 1 of items and indicators, then continued with composite reliability testing stage 2 on indicators and variables. The purpose of this test is to ensure that the items, indicators and research variables that will be used can present the measurement of the concept consistently without any bias. Composite reliability items, indicators, and variables are said to be reliable if they have a value of ≥ 0.6. Fourth, testing hypotheses to test the relationships between variables that have a positive effect. This test uses standardized path coefficients (β) and P-value, with hypothesis criteria accepted if it has a standardized path coefficient value (β) greater than 0 and has a P-value below 0.01. Fifth, testing the hypothesis of school environment variables on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment with mediating variables of job satisfaction and work engagement. This test uses the Sobel test with calculator tools, with hypothesis criteria accepted if it has a standardized path coefficient (β) greater than 0 and has P-value below 0.01. Results and Discussion Results The following are the results of testing the questionnaire data that was collected from respondents and presented in accordance with the stages of data analysis as described in the research methodology above. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 Test Results for the Suitability of the Model The model of research was tested with the goodness of fit (GOF) technique, using four test sizes, namely APC, ARS, AARS, and AVIF. The test results are presented in Table 3. Table 3 Testing of Goodness of Fit Model Statistic Indices P-value Criteria Average path coefficient (APC) 0,373 <0,001 Fit Average R-squared (ARS) 0,340 <0,001 Fit Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) 0,336 <0,001 Fit Average block VIF (AVIF) 1,607 Acceptable /Ideal Source: Results of WrapPLS 6.0 The results from table 3 about testing the Goodness of Fit model show that all the assessments used meet the requirements, namely APC, ARS and AARS have values below 5 with P values below 0.001 and AVIF has a value below 3. Thus the model used in the Research this can be accepted accordingly, ideally, and can be accepted for use in this research. Test Results of Convergent Validity on Items, Indicators and Variables Table 4 Testing Validity Based on Loading and P-value ITEMS INDICATORS P-value SS SF PDM RA SU WC PA RE VIG DED ABS SE7 0,66 <0,001 SE8 0,72 <0,001 SE14 0,41 <0,001 SE20 0,61 <0,001 SE21 0,74 <0,001 SE10 0,78 <0,001 SE15 0,57 <0,001 SE17 0,75 <0,001 SE3 0,71 <0,001 SE16 0,75 <0,001 SE22 0,61 <0,001 SE6 0,65 <0,001 SE18 0,61 <0,001 SE24 0,72 <0,001 KK4 0,76 <0,001 KK5 0,80 <0,001 KK22 0,70 <0,001 KK26 0,67 0,90 <0,001 KK8 0,79 0,88 <0,001 KK9 0,78 0,88 <0,001 KK21 0,63 0,91 <0,001 KK25 0,54 <0,001 KK1 0,78 <0,001 KK6 0,56 <0,001 Sari et al. KK18 0,80 <0,001 KK27 0,76 <0,001 KK7 0,63 <0,001 KK11 0,74 <0,001 KK24 0,74 <0,001 WE1 0,75 <0,001 WE4 0,71 <0,001 WE8 0,64 <0,001 WE12 0,48 <0,001 WE15 0,71 <0,001 WE17 0,44 <0,001 WE2 0,74 <0,001 WE5 0,74 <0,001 WE7 0,72 <0,001 WE10 0,54 <0,001 WE13 0,60 <0,001 WE3 0,64 <0,001 WE9 0,63 <0,001 WE11 0,65 <0,001 WE14 0,60 <0,001 WE16 0,70 <0,001 ITEMS INDICATORS VARIABLES P-value ALT CON COV CIV SE JS WE OCBE OCBE1 0,75 OCBE2 0,65 <0,001 0CBE8 0,66 <0,001 OCBE11 0,72 <0,001 OCBE17 0,80 <0,001 OCBE22 0,60 <0,001 0CBE9 0,73 <0,001 OCBE13 0,62 <0,001 OCBE14 0,65 <0,001 OCBE18 0,66 <0,001 OCBE23 0,66 <0,001 OCBE25 0,60 <0,001 OCBE4 0,66 <0,001 OCBE7 0,69 <0,001 OCBE12 0,65 <0,001 OCBE15 0,61 <0,001 OCBE24 0,58 <0,001 OCBE5 0,71 <0,001 OCBE6 0,72 <0,001 OCBE10 0,58 <0,001 OCBE19 0,57 <0,001 OCBE20 0,64 <0,001 OCBE21 0,71 <0,001 INDICATORS <0,001 SS 0,82 <0,001 SF 0,85 <0,001 PDM 0,78 <0,001 RA 0,65 <0,001 SU 0.80 <0,001 WC 0.88 <0,001 PA 0,71 <0,001 RE 0,73 <0,001 VIG 0,89 <0,001 DED 0,89 <0,001 ABS 0,83 <0,001 ALT 0,90 <0,001 CON 0,88 <0,001 COV 0,89 <0,001 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 CIV 0,91 <0,001 Source: Results of Warp PLS 6.0 The results of table 4 about testing convergent validity based on loading factors and P-values on items, indicators and variables indicate that each factor loading value has reached above 0.4 with P-value below 0.001, thus according to the validity test convergent has been fulfilled. This result is obtained after the WI indicator is deleted, because this indicator is rated below 0.4. Test Results of Composite Reliability First Order The results of reliability testing on the indicators and dimensions of the first stage are presented in table 5, as follows. Table 5 Composite Reliability Testing for First Order Indicators Composite Reliability Number of Indicators SS 0,769 4 SF 0,747 3 PDM 0,729 3 RA 0,699 3 SU 0,826 4 WC 0,782 4 PA 0,821 4 RE 0,745 3 VIG 0,795 6 DED 0,802 5 ABS 0,779 5 ALT 0,850 6 CON 0,816 6 COV 0,777 5 CIV 0,818 6 Sources: Results of WarpPLS 6.0 The results of table 5 about composite reliability testing first order for items and indicators show the composite reliability value of all indicators above 0.6. Thus all indicators can be said to be reliable to use in this study. Test Results of Composite Reliability Second Order The results of reliability testing on indicators and dimensions of the second stage are presented in table 6, as follows. Table 6 Composite Reliability Testing for Second Order Sari et al. Variable Composite Reliability Number of Indicators School Enviroment 0,869 4 Job Satisfaction 0,862 4 Work Engagement 0,904 3 Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment 0,940 4 Sources: Results of WarpPLS 6.0 The results of table 6 about the composite reliability testing second order of indicators and variables shows the composite reliability value of all variables above 0.6. Therefore all variables can be said to be reliable to use in this research. Test Results for Standardized Path Coefficients (β) and P-value for Total Effects Table 7 Test Results for Standardized Path Coefficients (β) and P-value for Total Effects Variable School Environment Job Satisfaction Work Engagement (β) P-value (β) P-value (β) P-value Job Satisfaction 0,659 < 0,001 Work Engagement 0,491 < 0,001 Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Enviroment 0,482 < 0,001 0,163 0,002 0,345 < 0,001 Sources WarpPLS 6.0 processed products Table 8 Test results of the Standardized Path Coefficient (β) and P-value for the Effect of the School Environment on Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment through Mediating Variables Mediating Variables (β) P-value Job Satisfaction 0,106 0,003 Work Engagement 0,167 < 0,0001 Source: Processed WarpPLS 6.0 and Sobel test calculator results Table 7 and table 8 show the testing of standardized path coefficients (β) and P-values for the total direct effect between variables and influences between variables through mediating variables. Table 7 shows that the standardized path coefficient (β) for all direct effects between variables has a value above 0 with a P-value below 0.01, meaning that all direct effects between variables can be said to have a positive effect. Table 8 shows the results of testing the effect of Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 school environment on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment through mediation job satisfaction and work engagement shows the β value above 0 and P-value below 0.01. The school environment is proven to have a positive indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment through job satisfaction and work engagement. In detail, tables 7 and 8 show that: 1) The school environment is proven to have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment; 2) Work engagement is proven to have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment; 3) The school environment is proven to have a positive effect on work engagement; 4) Work engagement is proven to mediate a positive effect between the school environment and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment; 5) Job satisfaction is proven to have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment; 6) The school environment is proven to have a positive effect on job satisfaction, and 7) Job satisfaction mediates a positive effect between the school environment and the organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Table 9 Summary of the Hypothesis Test Results Hypothesis β Result H1: School environment has positive effect on OCBE H2: Work engagement has a positive effect on OCBE H3: School environment has a positive effect on work engagement H4: Work engagement mediates has a positive effect school environment on OCBE H5: Job satisfaction has a positive effect on OCBE H6: School environment has a positive effect on job satisfaction H7: Job satisfaction mediates has a positive effect school environment on OCBE 0,21*** 0,34*** 0,49*** 0,17*** 0,16** 0,66*** 0,11*** Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Total Effect β Result School Environment to OCBE 0,48*** Supported Note: n = 306; unstandardized path coefficients are reported *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01 Table 9 displays a summary of the results of testing all hypotheses indicating that all relationships between variables predicted to have a positive effect are proven. In detail the results of testing the validity, reliability and testing of influences between variables can be seen in Figure 3 below. Sari et al. Figure 3. Structural Model Figure 3 shows that all indicators of the school environment, work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment are valid and reliable, but in the job satisfaction, there was 1 indicator that was invalid and not reliable, namely the work itself indicator (WI). In addition, Figure 3 also shows that the school environment proved to have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment, work engagement and job satisfaction. Work engagement and job satisfaction proved to have a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Furthermore, it is shown that the school environment is the strongest positive effect on the organizational citizenship behavior for the environment, which is equal to 0.48. Discussion The results of this study indicate that estimates about positive effects of the school environment, work engagement and job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment were proven. School environment has the strongest positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment compared to work engagement and job satisfaction. In detail, the results of this study indicate that: 1) There are positively effects of school environment on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. It reinforces the results of research that the school environment can improve a teacher's discretionary behavior to connect more closely with students, with peer teachers, and with principals through various activities outside of their main tasks (Dussault, 2006). Teachers give support for student learning by providing additional Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 material in class and teaching new skills that students will need after they graduate. Teachers preparing special assignments to the highest and lowest class students so that they can more easily understand the material. Teachers voluntarily helping school committees, helping absent teachers by giving learning assignments to their classes, and working collaboratively with other teacher colleagues (Ko et al., 2018). 2) The research findings show that work engagement has a positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment, in accordance with various findings that indicate that high work engagement can encourage teachers to do organizational citizenship actions for the environment higher (Hudson et al., 2010). Teachers who have high engagement make a variety of creative efforts to prevent student dropouts, even use innovative ways in the learning process to maximize student achievement (Kirkpatrick and Johnson, 2014). The teacher is also willing to cooperate with students in extracurricular activities that make students happy to be in school (Wang and Holcombe, 2010). 3) Further findings show a positive effect of school environment on teacher's work engagement which reinforced research conducted with Spanish teachers showing that a school's environment positively supports teacher's work engagement. The work engagement also made teachers want to contribute to various school activities so that the school environment becomes more positive (Guglielmi et al., 2016). Previous research also shows that being engaged will increase a teacher’s participation in academic and non-academic activities (Elffers, 2013). 4) Work engagement mediates a positive effect between school environment and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. It is in accordance with the result of research of teacher in Malaysia about the relationship between the dimension of schools environment with commitment and engagement of teachers (Yusof, 2012). Teachers who have high work engagement strive to make the classroom learning process more effective and interesting. The teacher will introduce new ways of learning, update presentation material that is more relevant and up to date, and modify learning models and techniques so that learning activities are more enjoyable. This finding further recommends that principals take the initiative to collaborate more with teachers in creating a positive school environment to improve job satisfaction and work engagement (Ghavifekr and Pillai, 2016). 5) Job satisfaction has a positive effect on teacher's organizational citizenship behavior for the environment that correlates with the results that explain that teacher job satisfaction is positively related to professionalism, teacher innovation and collegiality. When teachers are satisfied, the Sari et al. level of friction decreases, collegiality is increased, and job performance increases (Basak and Ghosh, 2011). Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment directs the teacher's actions to issued extra effort to carry out administrative duties, devote more energy with innovative approaches to solving problems related to learning and then engage in many collaborative activities with students (Rahayu et al., 2018). 6) Another finding from this study shows the school environment has a positive effect on job satisfaction that reinforce about the domain of the school environment is a determinant of teacher job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction cause teachers to leave their positions and create a teaching crisis (Liu and Onwuegbuzie, 2014; Sak, 2018). Furthermore, teacher job satisfaction has been identified as determining teacher behavior, teacher retention, teacher commitment, teacher performance, school effectiveness and student success (Chen, 2010). A similar result was reported from into the source of teachers' job satisfaction in Cyprus, Cina dan Amerika (Liu and Onwuegbuzie, 2014; Sak, 2018; Federici and Skaalvik, 2012), where teachers reported that they like to work with children, see them grow, contributing to society, and to be a professional person. 7) Job satisfaction mediates a positive effect between school environment and organizational citizenship behavior for environment. It is correlates with the results that explain that components of the school environment such as class size, school learning environment, support from parents, and the availability of school resources are important factors for teachers in terms of job satisfaction (Kigenyi, Kakuru & Ziwa, 2017; Moore, 2012). The relationships with students and witnessing their emotional development are the main factors that cause teachers to feel satisfaction in carrying out their duties (Lavy and Bocker, 2018; Chen, 2010). Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment also can make teachers take more responsibilities, able to persevere, and be resilient in teaching. All of that are intended to higher student achievement, and create a good atmosphere that enables of all members schools can interaction as a big family for a long time (Lauermann and Konig, 2016). Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment aims to make the learning process in the classroom more active, innovative, creative, effective and fun. Manajerial Implications In increasing the organizational citizenship behavior for the environment of teachers in schools for specifics purposes, the factors of the school environment, work engagement, and job satisfaction of teachers plays a big role that must be prioritized by school management. Efforts Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 to improve organizational citizenship behavior for the environment for teachers in schools for specifics purposes should do formally and programmed. The principal should be developing programs and activities that have a direct or indirect effect on both work engagement and job satisfaction of teachers. The Principals should build teachers' positive attitude through giving teachers greater trust to do their duties independently and building a conducive school environment creatively to improve organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (Yang et al., 2016; van den Berg et al., 2018). The Principals should be motivating of teachers to work more effectively through school's policies that provide the necessary work facilities, adequate learning administration support, and facilitate teachers to develop a safe and comfortable school environment. Principals must formally reward organizational citizenship behavior for the environment that teachers have done and support teacher's initiatives in maintaining the school environment. The principal should create school programs that focus on increasing teacher organizational citizenship behavior for the environment through training activities that are scheduled regularly. The principals must be able to manage organizational citizenship behavior for the environment in accordance with the vision and mission of a school for specifics purposes in creating a sustainable school environment. Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment must be conducted based on the school's beliefs and values, communication between the principal and the teacher, and cooperation between all school members. The principal must be able to control the organizational citizenship behavior for the environment of the teachers so that discretionary behavior is not excessive and become counterproductive towards the vision and mission of the school environment. Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment is not a culture- free action, therefore, organizational citizenship behavior for the environment is expected in accordance with the culture that exists in each school for specifics purposes. This can be facilitated by developing a meaningful vision and mission for the school organization, and by showing concern for the school environment. The vision, mission, and strategy must then be clearly communicated to the whole school community to ensure appropriate with reality. The principal can become a role model who can influence the lives and attitudes of the teachers. The principal can maximize organizational citizenship behavior for the environment of teachers by giving an example and practicing of the organizational citizenship behavior for the environment at school. Principals should try to make organizational citizenship behavior for the environment a lifestyle factor for all school residents by building awareness, Sari et al. care, and a sense of responsibility to create a sustainable school environment (Sari, 2016). Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment can be conducted based on the principles: first, it must be voluntary, so it does not always have to be a role or part of a formal task; second, can provide broad benefits from an organizational perspective; third, It should be multidimensional and include aspects of curriculum implementation and student development (Bogler and Somech, 2004; Podsakof et al., 2000). The principal must be able to encourage teachers to integrate all the components related to the school environment into each learning activities and shape it as a potential way to express and negotiate opportunities that lead to high organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. The principal should engage parents and school committees to improve organizational citizenship behavior for the environment with maintaining school environment sustainability. Principals are advised to implement shared leadership in decision making and communicate regularly and effectively with teachers. In managing a sustainable school environment in school for specifics purposes, principals must choose the right strategy to empower teachers through collaboration, providing opportunities to improve their profession and encourage engagement that can produce reliable and responsible teacher. Effective supervision of activities in maintaining the school environment and the enforcement of regulations from a violation in schools is the responsibility of the principal (Clark, Kotchen & Moore, 2003). Conclusions This research was conducted in schools for specifics purposes in Indonesia Capital, Jakarta. This research shows that school environment, work engagement, and job satisfaction have positive effects on a teacher's organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment. School environment has the strongest effect on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. The research findings show that all indicators are confirmed valid and reliable for each of the variables, except the indicator of the work itself, which it is not valid and not reliable of the job satisfaction variable. Efforts to improve organizational citizenship behavior for the environment of teachers will be more effective through the right management of the school environment. Strategy of the school environment management can do by optimizing student support, giving teachers the freedom to creative and innovate, involving teachers in school decision making process and providing adequate school infrastructure. Teachers' organizational citizenship behavior for the environment can also be improved through more effective academic supervision activities, creating conducive conditions for work, making fair and competitive payment systems Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 and providing recognition to outstanding teachers. Efforts to increase organizational citizenship behavior for the environment of teachers can also be conducted through work engagement and job satisfaction of teachers. Teachers should be given greater freedom, trust and opportunity to be more independent and innovative in conducting learning activities in the classroom. Freedom to innovate will make teachers more enthusiastic and dedicated in carrying out their duties. The process of sustainable school environment management for the schools for specifics purposes should focus more on making policies, program structures and school activities that are more flexible, participatory, creative and innovative by still referring to the school's vision, mission, and culture. Improvements of the quality of school environment management will automatically improve the organizational citizenship behavior for the environment of teachers. Teacher who have high organizational citizenship behavior for the environment will determine the success of school for specifics purposes in providing a safe and comfortable learning environment with the same quality education process as regular schools. Sari et al. References Adil, M.S., Owais, M. & Qamar, A. (2018). Impact of Occupational Stress, Interpersonal Trust, and Organizational Commitment on Valence, OCB and Job Satisfaction: A Variance-Based SEM Analysis. Journal of Management Sciences, 5(1). 38–61, Retrieved from: https://geistscience.com/papers/jms/5/1 Aldridge, J.M., Laugksch, R.C. & Fraser, B.J. (2006). School-level environment and outcomes- based education in South Africa. Learning Environments Research,9(2), 123–147, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10984-006-9009-5. Basak, R. & Ghosh, A. (2011). School Environment and Locus of Control in Relation to Job Satisfaction among School Teachers- A Study from Indian Perspective. Procedia- Social Behavior Sciences,29(1). 1199–1208, Retrieved from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042811028151. Bogler, R. & Somech. (2004). A. Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers ’organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3). 277-289. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222396910_Influence_of_Teacher_Empowermen t_on_Teachers%27_Organizational_Commitment_Professional_Commitment_and_Organi zational_Citizenship_Behavior_in_Schools Bronfman, N.C., Cisternas, P.C., López-vázquez, E., Maza, C. De. & Oyanedel, J.C. (2015). Understanding Attitudes and Pro-Environmental Behaviors in a Chilean Community. Sustainability,7(10), 14133–14152, Retrieved from: http://www.mdpi.com/2071- 1050/7/10/14133 Canrinus, E.T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J. & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology Education, 27(1), 115– 132, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2. Chen, J. (2010). Chinese middle school teacher job satisfaction and its relationships with teacher moving. Asia Pacific Education Review,11(3), 263–272, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12564-010-9085-1. Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M.J. & Moore, M.R. (2003).Internal and external influences on pro- environmental behavior : Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psycholology, 23(3), 237–246, Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494402001056. Cropanzano, R. & Rupp, D.E. (2003). The Relationship of Emotional Exhaustion to Job Performance Ratings and Organizational Citizenship Behavior The Relationship of Emotional Exhaustion to Work Attitudes , Job Performance , and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160–169, Retrieved from:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Russell_Cropanzano/publication/10822964_ Doppelt, Y. & Schunn, C.D. (2008). Identifying students’ perceptions of the important classroom features affecting learning aspects of a design-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 11(3), 195–209, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10984-008-9047-2. Dussault, M. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviors, Psychological Reports, 98(2), 427–432, Retrieved from: http//:journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pr0.98.2.427-432. https://geistscience.com/papers/jms/5/1 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10984-006-9009-5 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877042811028151 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222396910_Influence_of_Teacher_Empowerment_on_Teachers%27_Organizational_Commitment_Professional_Commitment_and_Organizational_Citizenship_Behavior_in_Schools https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222396910_Influence_of_Teacher_Empowerment_on_Teachers%27_Organizational_Commitment_Professional_Commitment_and_Organizational_Citizenship_Behavior_in_Schools https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222396910_Influence_of_Teacher_Empowerment_on_Teachers%27_Organizational_Commitment_Professional_Commitment_and_Organizational_Citizenship_Behavior_in_Schools http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/10/14133 http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/10/14133 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12564-010-9085-1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494402001056 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Russell_Cropanzano/publication/10822964_The_Relationship_of_Emotional_Exhaustion_to_Job_Performance_Ratings_and_Organizational_Citizenship_Behavior/links/00b49533aedc5e63d5000000 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10984-008-9047-2 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 Elffers, L. (2013). Staying on track: Behavioral engagement of at-risk and non-at-risk students in post-secondary vocational education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(2) , 545–562, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10212-012-0128-3 Esnard, C. & Jouffre, .S. (2008).Organizational citizenship behavior : Social valorization among pupils and the effect on teachers ’ judgments. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 255–274, Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03172999. Fantuzzo, J.W., Leboeuf, W.A. & Rouse, H.L. (2014). An Investigation of the Relations Between School Concentrations of Student Risk Factors and Student Educational Well-Being. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 25–36, Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/rbtfl/nehWph3kVvhAU/full Federici, R.A. & Skaalvik, E.M. (2011). Principal self-efficacy and work engagement: Assessing a Norwegian Principal Self-Efficacy Scale. Social Psychology of Education, 14(4), 576- 600, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4. Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J. (2003). Emergence of learning environment research in south africa: editors’ introduction.Learning Environments Research, 6 (3) 229–230, Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1027391819710 Fisher, D., Fraser, B. & Cresswell, J. (1995). Using the " Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction in the Professional Development of Teachers Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 20(1). 8–18, Retrieved from: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://id.search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir= 1&article=1269&context=ajte Gage, N.A., Larson, A., Sugai, G.& Chafouleas, S.M. (2016). Student Perceptions of School Climate as Predictors of Office Discipline Referrals. American Education Research Journal, 20(1). 1–24, Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0002831216637349. Gati, K., Mukhtar, M. & Sujanto, B. (2018). The Influence of Self Efficacy, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Toward Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of Teachers Of Private Vocational Schools in South Jakarta. International Journal Scientific Research and Managemet, 6(1). 406–414, Retrieved from: https://ijsrm.in/index.php/ijsrm/article/view/1527 Ghavifekr, S. & Pillai, N.S. (2016).The relationship between school’s organizational climate and teacher’s job satisfaction: Malaysian experience. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(1). 87– 106, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12564-015-9411-8. Guglielmi, D., Bruni, I., Simbula, S., Fraccaroli, F.& Depolo, M. (2016). What drives teacher engagement: a study of different age cohorts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(3),323–340, Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10212-015-0263-8 Guillén-Gámez, F.D., Mayorga-Fernández, M.J. &Álvarez-García, F.J. (2018). A Study on the Actual Use of Digital Competence in the Practicum of Education Degree. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(2), 1–18, Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10758-018-9390-z Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2^nd^ Ed., Sage: Thousand Oaks, Retrieved from: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/literature/books Hudson, P., Usak, M., Fančovičová, J., Erdoǧan, M. & Prokop, P. (2010). Preservice Teachers’ Memories of Their Secondary Science Education Experiences. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 546–552, Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10956-010-9221-z http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10212-012-0128-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03172999 https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/rbtfl/nehWph3kVvhAU/full https://link.springer.com/journal/11218 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4 https://link.springer.com/journal/10984 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1027391819710 https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://id.search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1269&context=ajte https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://id.search.yahoo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1269&context=ajte http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0002831216637349 https://ijsrm.in/index.php/ijsrm/article/view/1527 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12564-015-9411-8 https://link.springer.com/journal/10212 https://link.springer.com/journal/10212 https://link.springer.com/journal/10758 https://link.springer.com/journal/10758 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10758-018-9390-z http://www.pls-sem.com/ http://www.pls-sem.com/ https://link.springer.com/journal/10956 https://link.springer.com/journal/10956 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10956-010-9221-z Sari et al. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J.D. & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(1). 269–277, Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.92.1.269. Johnson, B., Stevens, J.J. & Zvoch, K. (2007). Teachers' Perceptions of School Climate: A Validity Study of Scores From the Revised School Level Environment Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(5), 833-844, Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013164406299102 Johnson, B. & Stevens, J.J. (2006). Student achievement and elementary teachers’ perceptions of school climate. Learning Environments Research, 9(2). 111–122, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10984-006-9007-7. Karpov, A.O.(2017). Education for Knowledge Society: Learning and Scientific Innovation Environment. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 8(3), 201-214, http://www.jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/211/204 Khine, M.S., Fraser, B.J., Afari, E., Oo, Z.& Kyaw, T.T. (2018). Students’ perceptions of the learning environment in tertiary science classrooms in Myanmar. Learning Environments Research, 21(1), 135–152, Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10984-017-9250-0 Kigenyi, E.M., Kakuru, D. & Ziwa, G.(2017). School environment and performance of public primary school teachers in Uganda. International Journal of Technology and Management, 2(1), 1–14, Retrieved from: https://ijotm.utamu.ac.ug/index.php/ijotm/article/view/26 Kirkpatrick, C.L. & Johnson, S.M. (2014).Ensuring the ongoing engagement of second-stage teachers. Journal of Educational Change, 15(3), 231–252, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10833-014-9231-3. Ko, S-H., Choi, Y., Rhee, S-Y. & Moon, T.W.(2018). Social Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behavior : Double-Mediation of Emotional Regulation and Job Engagement. Sustainability, 10 (3600), 1–15, Retrieved from: https://www.mdpi.com/search?q Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656–669, Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/256704?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Kudryavtsev, A., Stedman, R.C. & Krasny, M.E. (2012). Sense of place in environmental education. Enviromental Education Research,18(2), 229–250, Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/13504622.2011.609615?scroll=top&nee dAccess=true Lauermann, F.& König, J. (2016). Teachers’ professional competence and wellbeing: Understanding the links between general pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and burnout. Learning and Instruction45(2), 9–19, Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475216300639?via%3Dihub Lavy, S.and Bocker, S. (2018). Path to Teacher Happiness? A Sense of Meaning Affects Teacher–Student Relationships, Which Affect Job Satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(5), 1485–1503, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-017- 9883-9. Lee, P.M.J. & Quek, C.L. (2018). Preschool teachers’ perceptions of school learning environment and job satisfaction. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 369-386, Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10984-017-9256-7#citeas Liu, S. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2014). Teachers’ motivation for entering the teaching profession and their job satisfaction: A cross-cultural comparison of China and other countries. Learning Environments Research, 17(1), 75–94, Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10984-013-9155-5. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.92.1.269 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013164406299102 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10984-006-9007-7 http://www.jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/211/204 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10984-017-9250-0 https://ijotm.utamu.ac.ug/index.php/ijotm/article/view/26 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10833-014-9231-3 https://www.jstor.org/stable/256704?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475216300639?via%3Dihub http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-017-9883-9 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-017-9883-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10984-017-9256-7#citeas http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10984-013-9155-5 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 Machali, I. (2014). 2013 Curriculum Change Policy in Welcoming Indonesia Gold in 2045. Journal of Islamic Education, 3(1), 71-94, Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280902180_Kebijakan_Perubahan_Kurikulum_2 013_dalam_Menyongsong_Indonesia_Emas_Tahun_2045 Mahdiuon, R., Ghahramanib, M. & Sharif, A. R. (2010). Explanation of organizational citizenship behavior with personality. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,5(2), 178– 184, Retrieved from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82225116.pdf Martinez, I., & Tadeu, P. (2018). The impact of pedagogical leadership on pedagogical coordination in secondary schools. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 3(3), 1-15. Retrieved from http://ressat.org/index.php/ressat/article/view/373 Matteucci, M.C., Guglielmi, D. & Lauermann, F. (2017). Teachers’ sense of responsibility for educational outcomes and its associations with teachers’ instructional approaches and professional wellbeing. Social Psychologyof Education, 20(2), 275–298, Retrieved https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11218-017-9369-y Moore, C.M. (2012). The Role of School Environment in Teacher Dissatisfaction Among U. S Public School Teachers. SAGE Open, 2(1), 1–16, Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244012438888# Neves, C. P., Paixao. R, Alarcao. M. & Gomes, A.D. (2014). Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Schools : Validation of a Questionnaire. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17(E17), 1-8,Retrieved from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/spanish-journal-of- psychology/article/organizational-citizenship-behavior-in-schools-validation-of-a- questionnaire/AE4FE0E4AF65997787F1286569D0186B Okeke, F.N. (2013). Management of Facilities in the Classroom. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Researchand Policy Studies4(1), 100–104, Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.301.7759&rep=rep1&type=pdf Paillé, P., Raineri, N. & Boiral, O. (2017). Environmental Behavior On and Off the Job : A Configurational Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 1-16. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-017-3758-1#citeas Pawar, B.S. (2015). Some features of organizational behavior knowledge and the resulting issues in teaching organizational behavior. The International Journal Management of Education, 13(3), 289–301, Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1472811715000373?via%3Dihub Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors : A critical review of the theoretical and future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563, Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.7073&rep=rep1&type=pdf Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. & Blume, B.D. (2009). Individual- and Organizational-Level Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta- Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141, Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-00697-003 Priyankara. H.P.R., Luo. F., Saeed. A., Nubuor. S.A., Jayasuria. M.P.F., (2018). How Does Leader’s Support for Environment PromNubuorote Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for Environment ? A Multi-Theory Perspective. Sustainability, 10(1), 1-20, Retrieved from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/271/htm Rahayu, S.M. (2013). Meeting the Rights of Children with Special Needs for Early Childhood Through Inclusive Education. Journal Educators Child, 2(1). 355–363, Retrieved from: https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jpa/article/view/3048. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82225116.pdf http://ressat.org/index.php/ressat/article/view/373 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11218-017-9369-y https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244012438888 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/spanish-journal-of-psychology/article/organizational-citizenship-behavior-in-schools-validation-of-a-questionnaire/AE4FE0E4AF65997787F1286569D0186B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/spanish-journal-of-psychology/article/organizational-citizenship-behavior-in-schools-validation-of-a-questionnaire/AE4FE0E4AF65997787F1286569D0186B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/spanish-journal-of-psychology/article/organizational-citizenship-behavior-in-schools-validation-of-a-questionnaire/AE4FE0E4AF65997787F1286569D0186B http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.301.7759&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.7073&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-00697-003 https://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jpa/article/view/3048 Sari et al. Rahayu, S., Ulfatin, N., Wiyono, B.B., Imron, A. & Wajdi, M.B.N. (2018). The Professional Competency Teachers Mediate the Influence of Teacher Innovation and Emotional Intelligence on School Security. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(2), 210- 227, Retrieved from: http://www.jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/266/259 Rea, D. C., Carter, C. F., Parfitt, C. M., Wilkerson, J. R., & Valesky, T. C. (2017). Using Dispositional Surveys to Improve Individual and Program Quality in Educational Leadership. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 4(2), 81-87. Sak, R. (2018). Gender Differences in Turkish Early Childhood Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Job Burnout and Organizational Cynicism. Early Chilhood Education Journal, 46(6). 643–653, Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0895-9. Sari. E., (2016). Information System In Educational Environments Management Influences Against The Student Motivation On Public Universities In Jakarta, Indonesia. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 5(9), 93-98, Retrieved from: http://www.ijstr.org/paper-references.php?ref=IJSTR-0916-15284 Selamat, N., Samsu, N.Z. & Kamalu, N.S.M. (2013). The impact of organizational climate on teachers’ job performance. Educational Research,2(1). 71–82, Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271049648_The_impact_of_organizational_clim ate_on_teachers'_job_performance. Skaalvik, E.M. & Skaalvik, S. (2013). Teachers ’ perceptions of the school goal structure : Relations with teachers’ goal orientations, work engagement, and job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 62(3), 199–209, Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/international-journal-of-educational-research Skaalvik, E.M. & Skaalvik, S. (2018). Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Social Psychology of Education, 21(5). 1251–1275, Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11218-018-9464-8. Sun, L-Y., Aryee, S. & Law, K.S. (2007). High-Performance Human Resource Practices, Citizenship Behavior, and Organizational Performance : A Relational Perspective. Academyof Management Journal,50(2). 558–577, Retrieved from: https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2007.25525821?journalCode=amj Supriyanto, A. (2013). Role of Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction on job Performance: The Mediating Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(15), 57–67, Retrieved from: http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/26939. Suriansyah, A. & Aslamiah. (2018). Teacher’s Job Satisfaction on Elementary School: Relation To Learning Environment. Open Psychology Journal, 11, 123–130, Retrieved from: http://benthamopen.com/Fulltext/Topsyj-11-123. Testa, F., Corsini, F., Gusmerotti, N.M. & Iraldo, F. (2018). Predictors of organizational citizenship behavior in relation to environmental and health & safety issues. International Journalof Human Resource Management, 3(1), 1–34, Retrieved from: https://www.iris.sssup.it/handle/11382/520474?_ Tian, G., Cai, H. & Jiang, Y. (2018). A Study of the Effects of Organizational Support on Organizational Learning based on Knowledge Management. Eurasia Journal Mathematics, Science Technology Education, 14(5), 1979–1986, Retrieved from: http://www.ejmste.com/A-Study-of-the-Effects-of-Organizational-Support-on- Organizational-Learning-based,83652,0,2.html Tosti-kharas, J., Lamm, E. & Thomas, T.E. (2016). Organization OR Environment? Disentangling Employees ’ Rationales Behind Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the http://www.jsser.org/index.php/jsser/article/view/266/259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0895-9 http://www.ijstr.org/paper-references.php?ref=IJSTR-0916-15284 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271049648_The_impact_of_organizational_climate_on_teachers'_job_performance https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271049648_The_impact_of_organizational_climate_on_teachers'_job_performance https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11218-018-9464-8 https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2007.25525821?journalCode=amj http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/26939 http://benthamopen.com/Fulltext/Topsyj-11-123 https://www.iris.sssup.it/handle/11382/520474?_ga=2.63274543.1676641038.1551271560-876650091.1551271560#.XHaHvNAa_IU Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2019: 10 (2), 46-73 Environment. Organization &Environment, 30(3) 187–210, Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1086026616668381?journalCode=oaec Tuan, L.T. (2018). Activating tourists’ citizenship behavior for the environment: the roles of CSR and frontline employees’ citizenship behavior for the environment. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(7), 1178–1203, Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669582.2017.1330337 Wang, G., He, Q., Xia, B., Meng, X. & Wu, P. (2018).Impact of Institutional Pressures on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors for the Environment : Evidence from Megaprojects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(5), 1–11, Retrieved from: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000628. Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D.&Chen, Z. X.(2005). Leader-Member Exchange as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Followers' Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior, The Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420–432, Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159668. Wang, M.T. & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ Perceptions of School Environment, Engagement, and Academic Achievement in Middle School, American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 633–662, Retrieved from:http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0002831209361209. Watt, H.M.G., Carmichael, C. & Callingham, R. (2017). Students’ engagement profiles in mathematics according to learning environment dimensions: Developing an evidence base for best practice in mathematics education. School Psychology International, 38(2), 166– 183, Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143034316688373. Yang, G., Badri, M., Rashedi, A.A., Almazroui, K., Qalyaubi, R. & Nai, P. (2016). The effects of classroom and school environments on student engagement : the case of high school students in Abu Dhabi public schools. Comparative: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(2), 223–239, Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057925.2016.1230833 Yusof, N. (2012). School Climate and Teachers’ Commitment: A Case Study of Malaysia. International Journal of Economics Business and Management Studies, 1(2), 65-75, Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151470 Zeinabadi, H. & Salehi, K. (2011). Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OC ) of teachers : Proposing a modified social exchange model. Procedia - Social Behavioral Sciences, 29(1), 1472-1481, Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.38729. Zellars, K.L. & Tepper, B.J. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076, Retrieved from: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl-8761068.pdf Zembylas, M. & Papanastasiou, E. (2004). Job satisfaction among school teachers in Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 357–374, Retrieved from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/09578230410534676.. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1086026616668381?journalCode=oaec https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09669582.2017.1330337 https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000628 http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159668 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0002831209361209 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0143034316688373 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057925.2016.1230833 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1901624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.38729. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/09578230410534676