teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in american high schools
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 17 October 2014, At: 07:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Research and Evaluation:An International Journal on Theory andPracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nere20
Teacher commitment and its effects onstudent achievement in American highschoolsInsim Park aa The University of Iowa , USAPublished online: 15 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Insim Park (2005) Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievementin American high schools, Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theoryand Practice, 11:5, 461-485, DOI: 10.1080/13803610500146269
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803610500146269
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Teacher Commitment and its Effects
on Student Achievement in
American High Schools
Insim Park�
The University of Iowa, USA
(Received 1 June 2004; accepted 24 March 2005)
This study explored the effects of teacher commitment on student achievement. Three teacher
commitment dimensions of organizational, professional, and student commitment were derived.
The three-dimensional teacher commitment measurement model was tested by a confirmatory
factor analysis. Then, the relationships among individual and organizational variables, teacher
commitment, and student achievement were analyzed by a 2-level hierarchical linear modeling
method. As the results, the greater portions of teacher commitment and student achievement
variances were within schools. The individual and organizational variables had differential impacts
on each teacher commitment dimension. Finally, while teacher commitment effects on student
achievement were differentially found depending on teacher commitment dimensions at the
individual level, there was no evidence to support significant impacts of teacher commitment on
student achievement at the organizational level.
Introduction
Commitment is a psychological bond or identification with an object that takes on a
special meaning (Buchanan, 1974; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). A committed
employee is more likely to believe in the object’s values and goals, desire to be
affiliated with the object, and exert effort beyond minimal expectations for the object
(Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Kanter, 1968).
Teacher commitment has been gradually recognized as the most effective route to
school success by the leadership literature (Fink, 1992). There are two reasons to
emphasize teacher commitment. First, it is an internal force coming from teachers
�Corresponding author. The University of Iowa, 2266 10th Street APT # 4, Coralville, IA 52241,
USA. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Educational Research and EvaluationVol. 11, No. 5, October 2005, pp. 461 – 485
ISSN 1380-3611 (print)/ISSN 1744-4187 (online)/05/050461–25
� 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13803610500146269
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
themselves who have needs for greater responsibility, variety, and challenge in their
work as their educational levels have grown. Second, it is an external force coming
from the reform movement seeking high standards and accountability, which are
dependent upon teachers’ voluntary commitment. Research studies have claimed that
teacher commitment is a critical predictor of teacher’s job performance and the
quality of education (Tsui & Cheng, 1999).
There is a need to recognize teacher commitment in a multidimensional sense.
Most employee commitment definitions have pertained largely to the organization as
a whole. Yet, in reality teachers have strong bonds to various objects such as the
teaching profession, colleagues, students, professional associations, and schools. As
Firestone and Pennell (1993) maintained, some mixes of commitment to the
organization, profession, and students are necessary to enhance teachers’ profession-
alism and to pursue changes in teaching practice.
To increase teachers’ engagement in their work, school improvement strategies
have stressed creating innovative working conditions such as participation in
decision-making and continuous learning (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990; Rowan,
1990). However, there is little stable empirical evidence on the determinants of
teacher commitment. Moreover, it is questionable whether a given working condition
affects all dimensions of teacher commitment identically.
Research findings of teacher commitment effects on school performance are mixed.
One of the main reasons for the mixed findings is a methodological weakness. The
traditional methods to investigate the teacher commitment have ignored the different
impacts of individual-level and organizational-level variables. In addition, the
outcomes of teacher commitment have focused largely on teachers’ behavior rather
than on students’ behavior and performance. In spite of the general assumption that
teachers who are willing to invest more time and energy in classroom activities will
perform better, direct evidence on the consequences of teacher commitment on
teaching effectiveness is very weak. In particular, the effects of teacher commitment
on student achievement have been rarely investigated.
The purpose of the present study is to explore the effects of teacher commitment on
student achievement. This study develops a teacher commitment measurement
model consisting of three dimensions. Then, this study examines the relationships of
individual- and organizational-level predictors to teacher commitment. Finally, this
study analyzes the effects of teacher commitment on student achievement.
Theoretical Framework
Teacher Commitment and its Three Dimensions
Commitment has been defined in various ways. Commitment is an involvement or
behavioral intentions to exert effort (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979); a function of a
cognitive evaluation of the costs and benefits of investment in a specific target
(Becker, 1960; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972); a central process by which the personality
system and the social system become articulated (Kanter, 1968). This study takes a
462 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
view of commitment as a psychological linkage of an individual to an object that takes
on a special meaning. The objects of commitment vary widely. Workers’ behavior or
performance is influenced by what they are committed to. Therefore, it is
fundamental to identify and understand what the objects of commitment are.
Literature on commitment has primarily focused on a given organization or
occupation as the object of commitment. At the same time, the teaching profession is
unique in a sense that it involves a complex combination of working relationships with
not only the school but with various stakeholders including students (Elliott &
Crosswell, 2002). By interviewing urban school teachers, Firestone and Rosenblum
(1988) identified three dimensions of teacher commitment according to its objects,
such as commitment to the specific place, commitment to teaching, and commitment
to students. Considering that both the primary study trend and the uniqueness of
teaching profession, the objects of teacher commitment can be categorized into three
dimensions: school organization, teaching profession, and students (Elliot &
Crosswell, 2002; Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Firestone & Rosenblum, 1988). These
three dimensions resulting from those objects reflect different meanings and
conditions of commitment and different kinds of teacher behavior.
In the first place, teacher commitment to school organization like an organizational
commitment refers to agreed-on organizational values or goals and building a strong
staff unity (Mowday et al., 1979). Organizational teacher commitment has three
major components: a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and
values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a
strong intent or desire to remain with the organization (Mowday et al., 1979). In this
study, teacher commitment to school means teacher’s considerable loyalty to the
specific school. Agreement on the missions, the working environments, and social
relationships among members develop a special loyalty of individual teachers to the
school. Thus, teachers who are committed to their school are willing to exert
considerable effort for the school and are more likely to remain in that school.
Next, teacher commitment to the teaching profession as an occupational
commitment is a positive affective attachment to one’s occupation (Somech &
Bogler, 2002). This indicates the extent to which one is engaged in carrying out the
specific tasks in the workplace or the degree of importance that work plays in one’s life
(Brown & Leigh, 1996). In the present study, this commitment is personal
identification and satisfaction as a teacher. Commitment to the teaching profession
becomes one of the most important policy concerns, especially, in urban high schools
where teacher turnover rate is high (Bredson, Fruth, & Kasten, 1983). According to
the loosely coupled system perspective on schools, since it is hard to observe teachers,
to assess teacher performance, and to mandate specific practices, this commitment
has been a crucial standard and criterion for assessing and accomplishing a good
instruction (Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Somech & Bogler, 2002). Also, this
commitment leads to an interest in student achievement as well as strong concerns
with the craft aspects of the teacher’s job (Firestone & Rosenblum, 1988). Thus,
teachers committed to the teaching profession are thought to be more satisfied with
the job and are likely to identify themselves as teachers.
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 463
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Finally, teacher commitment to students like a client commitment represents
teacher devotion to their student behavior and learning (Dannetta, 2002; Elliott &
Crosswell, 2002; Nias, 1981). Teacher commitment to students includes teachers’
willingness to help students and take responsibility for student learning and school
life. Kushman (1992) argues that teacher dedication to helping student learning
increases student engagement in learning and academic achievement, particularly for
students who are academically at risk. This commitment also seems to be related to
emotional bonds with students such as personal caring. In this research, teacher
commitment to students is defined as teacher devotion to and responsibility for
student learning and behavior. This definition assumes that teachers who are
committed to students will have strong interests in student learning and school life.
The three teacher commitment dimensions are necessary to accomplish school goals,
to improve teacher professionalism, and to foster client-oriented teaching and learning
environment. However, they can also be in conflict (Bredson et al., 1983) when they
are pursued at the same time. For instance, teachers who are more committed to the
profession are less likely to be committed to school (Wallace, 1993). Also, commitment
to students may lead teachers to invest their efforts mostly in building relationships with
students, independently of the needs of the school organization as a whole.
Antecedents of Teacher Commitment
Much of the research on commitment has indicated that personal characteristics of
individual teachers are correlated with their commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;
Park, 1998; Reyes, 1990). For instance, female teachers are more likely to remain in
their schools than male teachers. More experienced and fulltime employed teachers
are more committed, but white teachers tend to be less committed. Educational level
seems to be inversely related to commitment. Teachers with higher educational levels
are less committed than those having less education.
Student background variables also affect teacher commitment. Students’ academic
levels influence teacher commitment to student learning (Dannetta, 2002). Academi-
cally advanced students are more likely to challenge teacher’s teaching practice and
commitment to student achievement. The socioeconomic status of students is strongly
associated with teacher’s job commitment (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990). Gender and
ethnicity are correlated with teacher’s attitude toward teaching and students.
Besides, school background variables, such as sector (public vs. private), urbanicity,
size and socioeconomic status are related to teacher commitment. In general, private
school teachers are more committed than public school teachers because private
schools stress a normative work orientation more than public schools do (Reyes,
1990). Teachers who are working at the urban and low socioeconomic status schools
are more likely to leave the school and even the teaching profession (Firestone &
Rosenblum, 1988). School size as a work group scale influences teacher commitment.
Larger schools or districts would have less committed teachers (Reyes, 1989).
Teacher commitment is also affected by varying workplace conditions. Most
frequently included variables in the literature on teacher commitment and school
464 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
innovation are principal leadership, teacher influence on decision-making, and
professional development (Firestone & Pennell, 1993; Geijsel, Sleegers, Berg, &
Kelchtermans, 2001). Principal leadership affects teachers’ willingness and attitude
toward organizational and occupational commitment. Prior studies documented that
there was a positive correlation between principal leadership and teacher commit-
ment (Billingsley & Cross, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1989). In particular, a principal’s ability
to keep teachers from intrusive extraneous forces has a great impact on teachers
(Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990).
In addition, while not all of the influence on school policies is rooted in teacher
commitment, teachers want to be heard and respected with regard to school decisions
(Maeroff, 1988) and they will become more committed to specific decisions and to
the organization by exercising their decision-making power in schools (Kushman,
1992; Smylie, 1992). When they feel excluded from the decision-making process,
teachers become less committed to the school and student learning.
Furthermore, professional development by expanding teachers’ learning opportu-
nities can contribute to their commitment. When teachers experience inability to
continue their professional learning and growth, they tend to have low self-efficacy
and thus decrease their commitment (Joffres & Haughey, 2001). Rosenholtz (1989)
found that learning opportunities are among the very few variables predicting
commitment directly.
Student Achievement as an Outcome of Teacher Commitment
Teacher commitment has been suggested as one critical element to the success of
school education (Nias, 1981). It is associated with teachers’ work performance,
absenteeism, turnover, and attitude toward school as well as students’ academic
achievement (Elliott & Crosswell, 2001). Research studies have closely linked teacher
commitment to the organizational effectiveness factors such as staff cohesiveness,
attitude toward innovation, and school norms of collegiality and continuous
improvement (Hoy & Ferguson, 1985; Little, 1982).
Student achievement is related to a wide range of variables including student’s
academic ability, home environments, and socioeconomic status that are hard to
change, as well as school and teacher factors. In addition, it is an old wisdom that
student achievement is an invisible and long-term outcome, and it is hard to identify
the teacher effects on student achievement in a direct and immediate way. For these
reasons, there are few studies to explore the linkage of teacher commitment to student
academic achievement. If any, the findings about the linkage are partial and
inconclusive (Firestone & Rosenblum, 1988; Kushman, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1989).
Rosenholtz (1989) correlated math and reading achievement with teacher
commitment, and she found that teacher commitment was a predictor of both
student reading and math achievement. Rosenholtz’s study, however, focused only on
organizational teacher commitment and targeted reading and language arts subject
matters which are more strongly associated with the student’s socioeconomic
characteristics (Hoy, Smith, & Sweetland, 2002).
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 465
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Kushman (1992) studied two types of teacher commitment–organizational commit-
ment and commitment to student learning–and their relationships with student
achievement. He found that organizational commitment was positively related to
student achievement but that there was only a weak relationship between commitment
to student learning and student achievement gains. Yet, Kushman analyzed those
relationships at the school level by using the mean commitment score of all teachers in a
school. The analyzing method, in his study, would ignore the teacher commitment
variations among teachers and thus make it difficult to examine the associations between
teacher commitment and student achievement at the teacher level.
This study assumes that changes in student learning and behavior are more likely to
occur when teachers agree and share the school’s goals with other school members,
are satisfied with the teaching profession, and are willing to take responsibility for
students.
Under these assumptions, this study aims to look into the relationships between the
extended teacher commitment with three dimensions and student achievement
through the multilevel analysis method. Also, this study targets math test scores as the
dependent variable of teacher commitment because math scores are relatively less
influenced by such a variable as the socioeconomic status.
Methodology
Data Source and Sample
The source of data for this study was the National Education Longitudinal Study of
1988 (NELS:88), which is one of the largest and longitudinal data bases (Ingels,
Scott, Rock, Pollack, & Rasinski, 1994). The NELS:88 contains the 1988 base year
survey and its follow-up surveys in 2-year intervals. This study used the first follow-up
surveys in 1990 and the second follow-up student math scores in 1992. Base year data
were collected from eighth-grade students, and their school administrators, teachers,
and parents. The first follow-up in 1990 and second follow-up in 1992 ensured
longitudinal student data in 10th and 12th grades by including the base year samples
and freshening the data base.
Despite the fact that the NELS:88 first and second follow-ups are quite out of date,
this study employed them for several reasons. First of all, unlike other employees, in the
case of teachers, the questionnaire instruments for commitment have been rarely
developed. In particular, there are few instruments designed and tested for various
teacher commitment objects. Fortunately, the NELS:88 teacher surveys include a large
number of question items that are to be constructed for measuring the three teacher
commitment dimensions. Also, the NELS:88 datasets make it possible to link the
educational processes and the outcomes by providing student academic test scores.
Furthermore, because the data were collected over time, the reliability of studies
investigating the teacher commitment effects on student achievement would be higher.
From the first follow-up surveys, 1,296 schools, 9,987 teachers, and 20,840 10th-
grade students participated in the surveys. Among data from all of the participants,
466 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
after deleting the missing data in a list-wise method, this study used the responses of
7,198 teachers in order to test the teacher commitment measurement model. Then,
for the analysis of the teacher commitment and student achievement relationship, the
following observations were considered: Teachers who were responsible for math
subjects and responded to all the question items for teacher commitment, schools
having at least five students sampled, and students who attended the same school from
10th to 12th grade and had both 10th- and 12th-grade math test scores. Consequently,
281 high schools, 1,006 math teachers, and 2,738 students were used for the analyses
of teacher commitment effects on student achievement.
Almost half of the teachers were female (50.3%) and held a master’s degree (49.3%).
Most teachers (13.6%) had 16 to 18 years of teaching experience at both elementary and
secondary schools. A majority of teachers (93.1%) were white, and 97.8% of the
respondents worked fulltime. For the students sampled, 49.6% were female, and 77.4%
were white. Most schools were public (86.8%), and 23.8% were located in urban
settings. About 50% of the schools had 1,000 or less enrolled students.
Measures
Three dimensions of teacher commitment, individual and school background
variables, organizational factors, and student achievement were taken into account
in this study.
Teacher commitment. Teacher commitment was constructed with three dimension
measures as follows: teacher commitment to school organization (TCO), teacher
commitment to teaching profession (TCP), and teacher commitment to students
(TCS).
TCO was the sum of three questions with a 6-point response scale to indicate their
agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Its Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient was .78. Question items used are:
. There is a great deal of cooperative effort among staff members.
. There is broad agreement among the entire school faculty about the central
mission of the school.
. This school seems like a big family; everyone is so close and cordial.
TCP was the sum of four question items with different response scales. The first
two items were measured on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly
agree), the third item was on a 4-point scale (1 = almost never, 4 = all of the time), and
the last item was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = certainly would not become a
teacher, 5 = certainly would become a teacher). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient was .72. Items used include:
. I usually look forward to each working day at this school.
. I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do my best as a teacher (reverse).
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 467
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
. How often do you feel satisfied with your teaching job?
. Suppose you could go back to college and start over again. In view of your
knowledge, would you become a teacher?
TCS was measured by the sum of four questions with a 6-point response scale to
indicate their agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Its Cronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficient was .69. Question items used are:
. If I try really hard, I can get through even to the most difficult or unmotivated
students.
. I feel that it’s part of my responsibility to keep students from dropping out of
school.
. If some students in my class are not doing well, I feel that I should change my
approach to the subject.
. By trying a different teaching method, I can significantly affect a student’s
achievement.
Background variables. Teacher, student, and school background variables that may
affect differences in teacher commitment and student achievement across teachers
and schools were taken into account. Teacher background variables were recoded as
follows: gender (1 = female, and 0 = male), teaching experience (sum of elementary
and secondary teaching years), race (1 = white, and 0 = others), employment status
(1 = fulltime, and 0 = others), and educational level (1 = holding Master’s degree, and
0 = not holding). Student variables were measured like these: gender (1 = female, and
0 = male), race (1 = white, and 0 = others), socioeconomic status (a composite
estimated from 12th-grader data), and previous learning ability (the 10th-grade math
IRT-estimated number right scores). School background variables were recoded as
follows: sector (1 = public, and 0 = others), urbanicity (1 = urban, and 0 = others), size
(a composite) and average SES (a composite).
Workplace condition factors. First, principal leadership was measured with the mean
score of four question items with a 6-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree,
6 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .79. Question
items used are:
. The principal does a poor job of getting resources for this school (Reverse).
. The principal deals effectively with pressures from outside the school that might
interfere with my teaching.
. The principal is interested in innovation and new ideas.
. The principal usually consults with staff members before he/she makes decisions
that affect us.
Second, teachers’ influence on school policies was the mean of four questions
responded on a 5-point scale (1 = no influence, 5 = a great deal of influence). The
468 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .73. Question items used to measure
teacher influence are:
At this school, how much actual influence do you think teachers have over school
policy in each of the areas below?
. Determining discipline policy
. Determining the content of in-service programs
. Setting policy on grouping students in classes by ability
. Establishing curriculum
Third, professional development was measured with the sum of two questions as
to: whether teachers have received supports for in-service education in their teaching
subjects and to what extent they have participated in activities for professional
development. It ranged from ‘‘0’’ ( = have not received any support and not
participated in any professional growth activity) to ‘‘2’’ (= have received support for
in-service education and participated in professional growth activities). Question
items used are:
. Have you received support for in-service education since the last 12 months in the
subject you teach the majority of the time?
. How much have you participated in professional growth activities?
Student achievement. As the dependent variable of teacher commitment, student
academic achievement was measured by IRT-estimated number right scores in
mathematics of 12th graders. The reliability of the math test score was evaluated
based on a large sample (N = 13,671), and its standard error calculated under
assumption of simple random sampling was .0125 (Rock, Pollack, & Quinn, 1995).
All the measures for those variables are described in Table 1.
Analytical Methods and Models
This study addressed how and to what extent teacher commitment affects student
achievement. Two types of analytical methods were used. First, a confirmatory factor
analysis was conducted to test the goodness of fit of the teacher commitment
measurement model to the data. Second, a 2-level hierarchical linear model method
was used to examine the relationships among individual and organizational variables
as predictors, teacher commitment, and student achievement.
Confirmatory factor analysis. The confirmatory factor analysis makes it possible to
determine the extent of the data confirming the model of concern. To examine
whether teacher commitment was evident in three distinctive dimensions of school,
profession, and students, and how well those dimensions were identified by their
observed variables, the confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the
computer program LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993).
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 469
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hierarchical linear modeling. To analyze the teacher commitment effects on student
achievement at both within-school and between-school levels, the 2-level hierarchical
linear modeling (HLM) method was used. HLM analyses were performed in two
parts. One part was to analyze the effects of individual and organizational variables on
teacher commitment. The other was to investigate the effects of teacher commitment
on student achievement. In those analyses, this study transformed the measures from
different Likert scale into the standardized Z-scores.
For each part, an unconditional model was formulated first. The unconditional
model gives information about how much variation in the dependent variable lies
within and between schools and about the reliability of each school’s sample mean
(Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). This study formulated three unconditional (ANOVA)
models when teacher commitment was a dependent variable and one unconditional
Table 1. Descriptions of variables
Variables Description
Teacher Commitment
TCO Sum of 3 items
TCP Sum of 4 items
TCS Sum of 4 items
Background
Teacher
Gender Dummy variable (1 = female, 0 = male)
Teaching experience Sum of elementary and secondary teaching years
Race Dummy variable (1 = white, 0 = others)
Employment status Dummy variable (1 = full time, 0 = others)
Educational level Dummy variable (1 = master degree, 0 = no
master degree)
Student
Gender Dummy variable (1 = female, 0 = male)
Race Dummy variable (1 = white, 0 = others)
Socioeconomic status Composite from grade 12th student data
Previous learning ability 10th Grade Math IRT-estimated number right
School
Sector Dummy variable (1 = public, 0 = others)
Urbanicity Dummy variable (1 = urban, 0 = others)
Size Composite data
Mean SES Composite student data
Organizational Factors
Principal leadership Mean of 4 items
Teacher influence Mean of 4 items
Professional development Sum of 2 items
Student achievement 12th Grade Math IRT-estimated number right
470 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
model when student achievement was a dependent variable. Then, 2-level final
models were formulated by adding variables to the unconditional models.
The teacher and student background variables were put into the level-1, and school
background variables and three workplace condition factors were put into the level-2.
In the final model for the effects of teacher commitment on student achievement,
teacher commitment was added to both the level-1 and the level-2 because one main
purpose of this study was to examine the within- and between-school teacher
commitment variations. However, the three teacher commitment dimensions in the
level-2 were the mean scores of each teacher commitment dimension.
The ANOVA and final models are described as below.
ANOVA Models:
Antecedents of teacher commitment
TCO! Level-1: TCO ¼ b0 þ R
Level-2: b0 ¼ G00 þU0
TCP! Level-1: TCP ¼ b0 þ R
Level-2: b0 ¼ G00 þU0
TCS! Level-1: TCS ¼ b0 þ R
Level-2: b0 ¼ G00 þU0
Teacher commitment effects on student achievement
Student Achievement ð¼ G12 MathÞ! Level-1: G12 Math ¼ b0 þ R
Level-2: b0 ¼ G00 þU0
Final Models:
Antecedents of teacher commitment
Level-1: TCO ¼ b0 þ b1(Gender)þ b2(Teaching experience)
þ b3(White)þ b4(Full time)þ b5(Master degree)
þ b6(G10 Math)þ b7(Student gender)
þ b8(Student race)þ b9(Student SES)þ R
Level-2: b0 ¼ G00 þG01(Public)þG02(Urban)þG03(School Size)
þG04(Mean SES)þG05(Principal leadership)
þG06(Teacher influence)
þG07(Professional Development)þU0
The models for TCP and TCS are similar to TCO model.
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 471
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teacher commitment effects on student achievement
Level-1: G12 Math Score ¼ b0 þ b1(Gender)þ b2(Teaching experience)
þ b3(White)þ b4(Full time)þ b5(Master degree)
þ b6(G10 Math)þ b7(Student gender)
þ b8(Student race)þ b9(Student SES)þ b10(TCO)
þ b11(TCP)þ b12(TCS)þ R
Level-2 : b0 ¼ G00 þG01(Public)þG02(Urban)þG03(School Size)
þG04(Mean SES)þG05(Principal leadership)
þG06(Teacher influence)þG07(Professional Development)
þG08(Mean TCO)þG09(Mean TCP)þG010(Mean TCS)þU0
Results
The results of this study are presented in three parts of the teacher commitment
measurement model, antecedents of teacher commitment, and teacher commitment
effects on student achievement.
Teacher Commitment Measurement Model
Teacher commitment was measured in terms of three dimensions of TCO, TCP, and
TCS. Since all 11 indicators of three teacher commitment dimensions were ordinal
variables scored on 4-, 5-, or 6-point Likert scales, the PRELIS 2.12a version
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) was used to produce the matrix of polychoric correlation
and asymptotic covariance matrices. The measurement model for teacher commit-
ment is presented in Figure 1. The teacher commitment model was estimated with
the weighted least square (WLS) method because it has been reported that the WLS
method is superior to the maximum likelihood (ML) method to estimate ordinal
variables (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988). Tables 2 and 3 show the correlation matrix of
observed teacher commitment variables and the confirmatory factor analysis
estimates of the teacher commitment measurement, respectively.
An examination of the standardized slopes and the squared multiple correlations of
the observed variables in Table 3 shows that the three dimensions seem to be well
representative of the construct, teacher commitment. The standardized slopes are the
values of loading obtained when all of the variables including the factors are
standardized to have unit variance. The factor loadings of 11 indicators ranged from
.609 to .873. The weakest loading value was for the ‘‘TCP2’’ indicator, which had a
standardized slope of .609 and a squared multiple correlation of .370. The squared
multiple correlation coefficients can be interpreted as reliability indices. The
strongest indicator was ‘‘TCP1’’, which had a standardized slope of .873 and a
472 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
squared multiple correlation of .762. Overall, the three dimensions (factors) of the
teacher commitment construct appeared to predict well their own indicators.
Table 4 presents the estimated correlation coefficients among three construct
factors. TCO was most highly correlated with TCP (r = .64). The lowest correlation
coefficient (r = .38) was found between TCO and TCS.
Table 5 contains the goodness of fit statistics for the measurement model. It is
known that the chi-square statistic provides a global test of a model’s ability to
reproduce the sample variance/covariance matrix, but its significance level is sensitive
to sample size and departures from multivariate normality. Because of this weakness,
multiple measures of fit should be reported (Bollen, 1990). This study reported
several additional statistics such as the goodness of fit index (GFI), the adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI), the root mean square effort of approximation
(RMSEA), the root mean square residual (RMR), and the normed and non-normed
fit index (NFI; NNFI).
Although none of the indices have clear-cut criteria for evaluating the goodness of
fit, the following rule of thumb is generally used for each index. Both GFI and AGFI
should exceed .90; the closer to ‘‘1’’, the better. RMSEA ranges from ‘‘0’’ to ‘‘1’’; the
smaller is the better. The RMR value should be less than .05; the closer to ‘‘0’’, the
better. The NFI values between .90 and .95 are acceptable. Based on the rule of
Fig. 1. Teacher commitment measurement model
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 473
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Tab
le2
.C
orr
elat
ion
mat
rix
of
teac
her
com
mit
men
t(N
=7
,19
8)
TC
O1
TC
O2
TC
O3
TC
P1
TC
P2
TC
P3
TC
P4
TC
S1
TC
S2
TC
S3
TC
S4
TC
O1
1.0
00
TC
O2
0.6
56
1.0
00
TC
O3
0.6
42
0.5
88
1.0
00
TC
P1
0.3
86
0.4
10
0.5
18
1.0
00
TC
P2
0.1
72
0.1
71
0.2
57
0.5
24
1.0
00
TC
P3
0.2
53
0.2
67
0.3
29
0.6
51
0.5
12
1.0
00
TC
P4
0.3
25
0.3
56
0.3
85
0.5
50
0.3
91
0.4
71
1.0
00
TC
S1
0.1
63
0.1
98
0.2
15
0.3
41
0.2
26
0.2
82
0.3
12
1.0
00
TC
S2
0.1
97
0.2
41
0.2
23
0.3
18
0.1
92
0.2
00
0.2
88
0.4
69
1.0
00
TC
S3
0.1
55
0.1
59
0.1
45
0.2
09
0.1
25
0.1
11
0.1
93
0.3
78
0.4
60
1.0
00
TC
S4
0.1
77
0.1
89
0.1
80
0.2
87
0.1
93
0.1
96
0.2
45
0.4
58
0.4
38
0.6
28
1.0
00
474 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Tab
le3
.P
aram
eter
esti
mat
eso
fte
ach
erco
mm
itm
ent
mea
sure
men
t
TC
O1
TC
O2
TC
O3
TC
P1
TC
P2
TC
P3
TC
P4
TC
S1
TC
S2
TC
S3
TC
S4
SS�
0.8
05
0.7
57
0.8
04
0.8
73
0.6
09
0.7
30
0.6
58
0.6
61
0.6
71
0.7
31
0.7
79
SM
C��
0.6
49
0.5
74
0.6
47
0.7
62
0.3
70
0.5
33
0.4
33
0.4
36
0.4
51
0.5
34
0.6
06
� Sta
nd
ard
ized
Slo
pe;��
Sq
uar
edM
ult
iple
Co
rrel
atio
n.
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 475
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
thumb, the measurement model for the three dimensions of teacher commitment was
confirmed by data to a satisfactory degree.
Antecedents of Teacher Commitment
Descriptive statistics of the individual- and organizational-level variables are pre-
sented in Table 6. At the level-1, the mean scores of TCO, TCP, and TCS were
Table 4. Correlations of standardized teacher commitment dimensions (N = 7,198)
TCO (�1) TCP (�2) TCS (�3)
TCO (�1) 1.000
TCP (�2) 0.635 1.000
TCS (�3) 0.378 0.529 1.000
Table 5. Goodness of fit statistics
Statistics for Goodness of Fit
Chi-square (w2) with 41 degree of freedom 958.002 (p = 0.0)
Root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA)
0.056
Root mean square residual (RMR) 0.059
Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.982
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) 0.972
Normed fit index (NFI) 0.936
Non-normed fit index (NNFI) 0.918
Table 6. Descriptive statistics of level-1 and level-2 interested variables
Variable Number Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Level-1 1006
TCO 12.08 2.86 3.00 18.00
TCP 15.56 3.21 5.00 21.00
TCS 16.46 3.08 4.00 24.00
G12 Math 50.38 12.95 17.49 78.28
Level-2 281
Principal leadership 4.22 0.77 1.65 6.00
Teacher influence 2.86 0.61 1.15 4.50
Professional development 0.79 0.38 0.09 1.53
Mean TCO 12.18 2.14 5.27 1.49
Mean TCP 15.64 2.19 9.63 1.00
Mean TCS 16.47 1.93 10.60 1.00
476 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
12.08, 15.56, and 16.46 respectively. This indicates that teachers were most highly
committed to their students rather than to schools or to the profession. TCO ranged
from 3 to 18, TCP ranged from 5 to 21, and TCS from 4 to 24. The mean score of
12th-grade student math was 50.38. At the level-2, the mean scores of principal
leadership, teacher influence, and professional development were 4.22, 2.86, and
0.79. The standard deviations showed that TCO, TCP, and TCS at the individual
level were more varying than those at the organizational level.
The unconditional model analyses in Table 7 indicate that the greater portions of
three commitment variances were due to within-school variance. Intraclass correlation
coefficients ranged from .22 (TCO) to .01 (TCS). These values mean that 22% of the
total variance in TCO and only 1% of TCS were explained by school differences.
The final model of teacher commitment is the one that added the level-1 and the level-
2 variables to the unconditional model. The variables and their coefficients and standard
errors are presented in Table 8. Fulltime teachers were positively significant to TCO
(b = 1.409, p5.05), female teachers were highly significant to TCS (b = .789, p5.001),
and white teachers were negatively related to TCS (b =71.760, p5.001). Public
(b =71.366, p5.01) and urban (b =7.841, p5.01) schools were negatively associated
with TCS. Students’ gender was negatively associated with TCO (b =7.555, p5.05)
and TCP (b =7.627, p5.05). Principal leadership was significantly related to TCO
(b = 1.164, p5.001) and TCP (b = .471, p5.01). Teachers’ influence on school
policies had statistically significant relationships with TCO (b = .396, p5.05) and TCP
(b = .826, p5.001). Professional development was highly significant to TCS (b = 1.113,
p5.001) while it was negatively associated with TCO (b =7.780, p5.01).
However, within-school residual variances were bigger than between-school resi-
dual variances at all three teacher commitment dimensions. Moreover, the variance
explained by the school difference was 5.1% only in the TCO dimension, but no
variances were accounted for by schools in both TCP and TCS dimensions.
In sum, the findings indicated that the individual and school background and
organizational characteristic variables had differential associations with teacher
commitment across its dimensions.
Teacher Commitment Effects on Student Achievement
An unconditional analysis of the teacher commitment effects in Table 9 shows that a
greater portion of student math achievement variance was due to within-school
Table 7. Results of ANOVA for teacher commitment
TCO TCP TCS
Within-school variance 6.403 9.053 9.383
Between-school variance 1.814 1.267 .051
Intraclass correlation .22 .12 .01
Reliability .477 .319 .019
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 477
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
variance. Intraclass correlation was .111. This means that only 11% of the student
math achievement variance was due to between-school variance.
According to Table 10, student math achievement was significantly affected by
teachers’ master’s degree (b = .842, p5.05), prior math score (b = 1.082, p5.001),
Table 9. Results of ANOVA for student achievement
Student Achievement (Math)
Within-school variance 149.016
Between-school variance 18.558
Intraclass correlation .111
Reliability .295
Table 8. Properties of teacher commitment predictors
TCO TCP TCS
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Level-1
Gender .174 (.199) .225 (.237) .789 (.234)���
Teaching experience .068 (.036) 7.027 (.043) 7.073 (.043)
White 7.048 (.404) 7.009 (.482) 71.760 (.476)���
Fulltime 1.409 (.671)� .835 (.800) .255 (.789)
Master degree 7.310 (.214) 7.349 (.254) 7.037 (.251)
G10 Math score 7.005 (.010) 7.001 (.012) 7.019 (.012)
Student gender 7.555 (.241)� 7.627 (.287)� .203 (.283)
Student race 7.172 (.329) 7.086 (.393) .267 (.387)
Student SES 7.027 (.191) .417 (.228) .320 (.225)
Level-2
Intercept 12.112 (.101)��� 15.598 (.108)��� 16.483 (.100)���
Principal leadership 1.164 (.153)��� .471 (.165)�� .098 (.153)
Teacher influence .396 (.191)� .826 (.204)��� .170 (.189)
Professional development 7.780 (.297)�� .257 (.319) 1.113 (.297)���
Mean SES .229 (.237) .196 (.252) 7.365 (.231)
Public 7.330 (.449) 71.157 (.484)� 71.366 (.450)��
Urban .155 (.278) 7.036 (.294) 7.841 (.269)��
Size 7.037 (.050) .023 (.053) .034 (.049)
Residual variance
Within 6.370 9.062 8.809
Between .849 .496 .150
Percent of variance explained
Within 53.2 60.9 6.1
Between 5.1 – –
�p5.05; ��p5.01; ���p5.001.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.
478 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
and student gender (b =71.187, p5.01). Teachers who were holding a master’s
degree in the subject matter contributed more to student math scores and female
students had lower math scores than male students. The finding of male students’
advantage in math achievement is consistent with a previous study (Park, 1998)
which reported that boys had more growth in math during the high school years. In
particular, prior student achievement measured by 10th-grade math scores had strong
positive impacts on 12th-grade math scores.
Table 10. Teacher commitment effects on student achievement
Student Achievement (G12 Math)
Variables Coefficient (Standard errors)
Level-1
Teacher gender 7.230 (.349)
Teaching experience .045 (.064)
White 7.861 (.711)
Fulltime 7.194 (1.172)
Master’s degree 842 (.373) �
TCO 7.044 (.071)
TCP .123 (.060)�
TCS 7.123 (.059)�
G10 Math 1.082 (.017)���
Student gender 71.187 (.422)��
Student race 7.074 (.574)
Student SES .517 (.334)
Level-2
Intercept 50.569 (.340)���
Principal leadership 7.256 (.555)
Teacher influence 1.359 (.665)�
Professional development 1.167 (1.004)
Mean TCO .106 (.192)
Mean TCP .067 (.185)
Mean TCS .106 (.188)
Mean SES 9.963 (.827) ���
Public 71.533 (1.489)
Urban .770 (.995)
Size .053 (.171)
Residual variance
Within 19.301
Between 1.020
Percent of variance explained
Within 87.0%
Between 94.5%
�p5.05; ��p5.01; ���p5.001.
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 479
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Teacher commitment to the teaching profession (b = .123, p5.05) and teacher
commitment to students (b =7.123, p5.05) were significantly associated with
student math achievement. However, teacher commitment to school organization
had no impact on math achievement. Interestingly, teachers who were more
committed to the teaching profession had a positive relationship with student test
scores in math while those who were more committed to students had a negative
relationship with student achievement.
School mean of socioeconomic status (b = 9.963, p5.001) greatly affected math
scores. Teacher influence on school policies had a positive effect on math
achievement (b = 1.359, p5.05). Teachers with actual influence on discipline policy,
the content of in-service program, student grouping, and curriculum were associated
with higher math scores. This result supports the prior study of Rowan, Chiang, and
Miller (1997) reporting the positive effect of teacher control on 10th-grade math
achievement.
The final model adding school-level variables to the unconditional model explained
more between-school variance than within-school variance. The percentage of
between-school variance accounted for by the model was 94.5% for math
achievement. It can be said that between-school variations in student achievement
were accounted for by school-level variables. The proportion of within-school
variance explained was 87%. Overall, the direct effects of school-level variables on
student math achievement were not as much as the individual-level variable effects.
Summary and Discussion
In this study, a three-dimensional teacher commitment measurement model of
TCO, TCP, and TCS was constructed and its goodness of fit was examined by the
confirmatory factor analysis. The goodness indices, as a result, demonstrated that the
teacher commitment measurement model was satisfactorily constructed, and thus
the three dimensions were used as meaningful variables for the teacher commitment
and student achievement investigation.
Despite the expectation that some negative correlations would come out due to
conflicting relations among the three teacher commitment dimensions (Bredson
et al., 1983), all the correlations among them were positive. This result means that an
increase in the levels of one teacher commitment dimension does not necessarily
cause a decrease in the levels of the other two commitment dimensions. The highest
correlation was found in the relation between TCO and TCP. This result can be one
explanation for the reason that previous teacher commitment research studies have
mainly focused on the organizational commitment. Nevertheless, it would be better
to distinguish TCO from TCP in a sense that the attachment of a teacher to a given
school is not exactly the same as the teacher’s attachment to the teaching profession.
The lowest correlation was found in the TCO and TCS relation. This result implies
that teachers, in general, are likely to be committed to students regardless of TCO or
TCP, along with the finding that the TCS mean score was highest among the three
commitment dimensions.
480 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
One finding from the predictor effect analyses was that a great portion of teacher
commitment was explained by within-school variables. Like the previous research
studies on the associations between personal characteristics and teacher commitment
(Angle & Perry, 1981; Park, 1998; Reyes, 1990), this study found that female and
non-white teachers were more committed, especially, to students than male teachers.
Teachers with more stable employment status had a positive impact on commitment
to school.
As for the student background effects, gender affected teacher commitment to both
the school and the teaching profession. Teachers who had more female students had a
lower commitment to the schools and the teaching profession than those who had
more male students. This result seems to support the argument that the student
composition of schools influences not only organizational operation but also teacher
behavior (Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993).
School background effects were found on both school sector and urbanicity.
Similar to prior studies (Firestone & Rosenblum, 1988; Reyes, 1990), public and
urban school teachers were less committed than private and non-urban school
teachers. An interesting point was that private school teachers were more committed
to both the profession and the students while non-urban school teachers were more
committed only to the students.
It was noteworthy that private school was a significant predictor of both TCP and
TCS, but not of TCO. In spite of the explanation that private school teachers are
more committed to the school (Reyes, 1990), because private schools tend to
emphasize more of a normative work orientation, this study found no effects of
private schools on teacher commitment to the school organization. This finding
seems possibly to be explained by the claim that the personal value systems of
teachers are more significant to teacher commitment (Elliott & Crosswell, 2002).
In relation with the three teacher commitment dimensions, the workplace condition
factors had differential impacts. As the previous studies documented (Billingsley &
Cross, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1989), supportive principals had a great impact on teacher
commitment to the school and to the teaching profession. The extent to which
teachers influence school decision-making also affected teacher commitment to both
the school and the profession. Professional development opportunity affected teacher
commitment to students. However, professional development had an inverse relation
with teacher commitment to the school. In other words, unlike Rosenholtz’s (1989)
finding that teachers with more professional development opportunities were more
committed to their schools, this study showed that teachers who had more
opportunities for professional development were less committed to their schools.
The biggest teacher commitment variations among schools were found in TCO.
This implies that TCO, out of the three teacher commitment dimensions, can
represent a school best. In other words, teacher commitment to school organization is
most likely to be varied by certain school organizational characteristics including
workplace condition factors. For example, school administration may concentrate on
supportive school leadership and on facilitating teachers’ participation in school
decision-making. However, the TCS variations among schools were relatively small.
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 481
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
This implies that most teachers, regardless of their schools, are committed to their
students in a similar manner. Nevertheless, it should be noted that all the three teacher
commitment dimensions were not responsive to each variable in the same way.
At the individual level, regarding the teacher commitment effect on student
achievement, TCP and TCS affected students’ math achievement. While TCP had a
positive impact on student achievement, TCS had a negative relationship with it.
These results indicate that teachers with higher math score students were more
committed to the teaching profession while those who had lower math score students
were more committed to students. This result of the TCP and student achievement
relationship confirms the argument that academically advanced students challenge
teachers’ teaching ability and commitment to student learning (Dannetta, 2002).
Also, the negative relationship between TCS and student achievement can be
explained by Kushman’s (1992) interpretation that schools high in teacher
commitment to student learning tend to serve educationally disadvantaged students.
For a better understanding of this negative relationship of TCS to student academic
achievement, however, it should be noted that TCS was measured with the items
related to both the academic and the non-academic aspects of students in this study.
As a matter of fact, teachers who work with academically low-level students tend to
emphasize more the aspects of moral or emotional behavior than the cognitive or
academic aspects of students. It was interesting that no TCO effects were found in
this study unlike previous studies (Kushman, 1992; Rosenholtz, 1989) reporting that
organizational teacher commitment contributed to student academic achievement.
Taken together, the findings that teachers’ influence on school policies had impacts
on TCP, and TCP affected significantly student math achievement, teacher influence
on school decision-making is the most important workplace condition factor to trigger
both teacher commitment and student academic performance. In order to reinforce
TCP, teachers should have competent and influential feelings at workplaces. However,
some teachers may perceive opportunities to participate in decision-making to be an
excessive burden (White, 1992). Moreover, there are some decision-making areas in
which most teachers are unwilling to take part. Therefore, opportunities to participate in
school policies should be given in accordance with teacher’s needs and choice.
At the school level, teacher commitment did not have significant impacts on
student math achievement. Surprisingly, even TCP or TCS did not have influences
on student achievement. This result could be produced owing to the fact that the
cause-effect relationship between teacher commitment and student academic
performance is to be in a two-way fashion. This finding is also consistent with the
loose coupling perspective on the teaching and learning relationship and implies that
high demands for teacher effectiveness evaluation based on student test scores should
be satisfied with a careful approach.
Conclusion
As a crucial mechanism to improve the quality of education, teacher commitment
should be recognized well and reinforced in a positive way. While research studies on
482 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
teacher commitment have focused on the organizational commitment, teachers in a
real world are committed to various objects. Also, considering the organizational
commitment alone might ignore many fundamental factors integrated in the teaching
profession. Thus, this study employed the three-dimensional teacher commitment
approach as a way to appreciate the concept of teacher commitment in a broader
perspective.
There was no evidence to support the effects of teacher commitment on student
academic achievement in this study. However, a noteworthy point is that this result
did not mean that teacher commitment has no impacts on student achievement.
Rather, teacher commitment effects could be found through an investigation under a
two-way causal relationship assumption because teacher commitment can be both a
cause and an effect of student achievement (Kushman, 1992). Besides, a study to
uncover the teacher commitment effects needs to analyze the interactive and cyclical
relationships between teacher commitment and student performance.
Teacher commitment is expected to achieve school goals, improve teacher
professionalism, and foster client-oriented instruction. In addition, teacher commit-
ment is assumed as a key to solving the teacher turnover problem, which is not limited
to a school or a district but it occurs even in the profession. These considerations
provide a strong necessity to reinforce teacher commitment in a systemic way.
According to the results from this study, teacher commitment dimensions had
distinctive predictors. TCO was predicted by employment status and TCS was
affected by teacher’s race and urbanicity. While there was no single predictor to be
associated with all the three teacher commitment dimensions, there were some
predictors to be related with two dimensions simultaneously. For example, principal
leadership had associations with TCO and TCP, professional development was
associated with TCO and TCS, and teacher influence on school policies was a
predictor of both TCO and TCP. These findings suggest that it is necessary to
recognize the nature of associations between predictors and each teacher commit-
ment in order to enhance teacher commitment.
Future research should be conducted with the understanding that this study has the
following limitations. First, this study used math test scores as the dependent variable
of teacher commitment because math is relatively less affected by other variables hard
to change. Yet, if other subject matters are used, different results might be yielded
since teachers’ responses and perceptions are likely to vary across subject matters
taught (Rowan, Raudenbush, & Cheong, 1993). Second, the present study
considered only students’ cognitive learning as an outcome of teacher commitment.
A further study on the teacher commitment effects needs to take into account the
non-academic aspects of students as dependent variables.
References
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1 – 14.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66,
32 – 40.
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 483
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1992). Predictors of commitment, job satisfaction, and intent to
stay in teaching: A comparison of general and special educators. Journal of Special Education,
25, 453 – 471.
Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit of covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects.
Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256 – 259.
Bredson, P. V., Fruth, M. J., & Kasten, K. L. (1983). Organizational incentives and secondary
school teaching. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 16, 52 – 58.
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A look at psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358 – 368.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and data analysis
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533 – 546.
Dannetta, V. (2002). What factors influence a teacher’s commitment to student learning?
Leadership and Policy in School, 1(2), 144 – 171.
Elliott, B., & Crosswell, L. (2002). Teacher commitment and engagement: The dimensions of ideology
and practice associated with teacher commitment and engagement within an Australian perspective
[On-line]. Available: http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/cro02522.htm.
Fink, S. L. (1992). High commitment workplaces. New York: Quorum Books.
Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and
differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63, 489 – 525.
Firestone, W. A., & Rosenblum, S. (1988). Building commitment in urban high schools.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 285 – 299.
Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the
implementation of large-scale innovation programs in schools: Teachers’ perspectives.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 130 – 166.
Hoy, W. K., & Ferguson, J. (1985, Spring). A theoretical framework and exploration of
organizational effectiveness of schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 117 – 134.
Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A., & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). A test of a model of school achievement in
rural schools: The significance of collective efficacy. In W. K. Hoy & C. G. Miske (Eds.),
Theory and research in educational administration (Vol. 1, pp. 185 – 202). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of
organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 555 – 573.
Ingels, S. J., Scott, L. A., Rock, D. A., Pollack, J. M., & Rasinski, K. A. (1994). National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988 First follow-up final technical report: Base year to first follow-up.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Joffres, C., & Haughey, M. (2001). Elementary teachers’ commitment declines: Antecedents,
processes, and outcomes. The Qualitative Report, 6(1) [On-line]. Available: http://www.
nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-1/joffres.html.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago:
SPSS.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS
Command Language. London: LEA.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: Study of commitment mechanisms in
utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499 – 517.
Kushman, J. W. (1992). The organizational dynamics of teacher workplace commitment: A study
of urban elementary and middle schools, Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(1), 5 – 42.
Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools.
Review of Research in Education, 19, 171 – 267.
484 I. Park
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school
success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325 – 340.
Maeroff, G. I. (1988). The empowerment of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171 – 194.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224 – 247.
Nias, J. (1981). Commitment and motivation in primary school teachers. Educational Review, 33(3),
181 – 190.
Park, B. J. (1998). Teacher empowerment and its effects on teachers’ lives and student achievement in U.S.
high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI.
Reyes, P. (1989). Organizational incentives, teacher commitment, morale, and job satisfaction: Is the
program achieving its goals? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education
Research Association, San Francisco.
Reyes, P. (1990). Organizational commitment of teachers. In P. Reyes (Ed.), Teachers and their
workplace: Commitment, performance, and productivity (pp. 143 – 162). San Francisco: Sage.
Rock, D. A., Pollack, J. M., & Quinn, P. (1995). Psychological report for the NELS:88 base year
through second follow-up. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES 95-382).
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teacher
commitment. Sociology of Education, 63(4), 241 – 257.
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of
school. Review of Research in Education, 16, 353 – 389.
Rowan, B., Chiang, F., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employee’s performance to study
the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 256 – 284.
Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S. W., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Teaching as a nonroutine task:
Implications for the management of schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 479 –
500.
Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision making: Assessing willingness to
participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 53 – 67.
Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and
professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 555 – 577.
Tsui, K. T., & Cheng Y. C. (1999). School organizational health and teacher commitment: A
contingency study with multi-level analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5, 249 – 268.
Wallace, J. E. (1993). Professional and organizational commitment: Compatible or incompatible?
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 333 – 349.
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under ‘‘ideal’’ school-site autonomy. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69 – 82.
Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement 485
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McM
aste
r U
nive
rsity
] at
07:
25 1
7 O
ctob
er 2
014