Utrecht University

Master thesis Educational Design and Consultancy

Does teacher commitment make sense? Teacher commitment as a

Name: Kees de Jong

Summary

Dutch elementary schools are pressurized by the government to improve their results.

Teachers in elementary education need tools that can help them responding to this governmental

demand. Previous studies have pointed out teacher self-efficacy as an important factor contributing to

student achievement. More knowledge about this concept may help teachers with finding the tools

they need. Teacher self-efficacy received much attention during the last few decades and has been

investigated in relation to teacher behavior, including teacher collaboration, which becomes visible in

teachers’ social networks. The relation between teacher collaboration and teacher self-efficacy has

been researched and this relation is possibly direct. However, despite the extensive research interest in

teacher commitment, the possibility of teacher commitment as a mediator has never been investigated.

That is why this study is aimed at answering the following question: To what extent does teacher

commitment have a mediating role in the relationship between teachers’ social networks and teacher

self-efficacy? Teachers’ social networks are determined by calculating every individual’s degree

centrality and closeness centrality. Teacher commitment and teacher self-efficacy are assessed through

a questionnaire. Data were collected from eight elementary schools in the Netherlands (N=114).

Findings indicated positive relations between teachers’ social networks and teacher self-efficacy as

well as teacher commitment and teacher self-efficacy. No significant results were found for the

relationship between teachers’ social networks and teacher commitment. The mediating effect of

teacher commitment could not be evidenced. One of the possible explanations for this result is that

social relations are based on exchanging mutual support, which was not noticed in this research

design. However, findings indicate relationships between teachers’ social networks and teacher self-

efficacy as well as teacher commitment and teacher self-efficacy.

Keywords: social networks, teacher commitment, teacher self-efficacy, teacher interaction,

student achievement

1
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Introduction

Recently, Dutch elementary schools are experiencing a great amount of pressure from the

government to improve (Rijksoverheid, 2014). According to the Dutch government, The Netherlands

should be at the global forefront of education. Teachers are crucial for the quality of education, which

is why the government focuses on professionalization of teachers by making money available for

study grants (Rijksoverheid, 2011). However, improving student results cannot be realized by just

increasing teachers’ level of education. Teachers need tools to improve student learning, which is why

schools have an interest in knowing the factors that affect student achievement. An important factor

that contributes to student achievement significantly is teacher self-efficacy (Caprara, Barbaranelli,

Steca, & Malone, 2006).

Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, and Malone (2006) pointed out that teacher self-efficacy is a key

element for schools that want to carry out interventions with the aim to promote student’s learning.

Teacher self-efficacy is actually an important factor when it comes to creating an effective learning

environment and keeping it effective. Various studies that have linked teacher self-efficacy to teacher

collaboration found that collegial relationships are beneficial to teacher’s sense of efficacy

(Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1992; Shachar & Shmuelevitz, 1997). This link between teacher

collaboration and teacher self-efficacy deserves extra attention, since elementary teachers in The

Netherlands are expected to collaborate more and more aiming to learn with each other

(Rijksoverheid, 2013). Investigating their social networks can give us an insight into their

collaboration pattern.

Teachers’ social networks consist of interactions between teachers. When individuals interact

with each other, learning in organizations occurs (Pritchard, 2009). Through interaction teachers learn

to deal with difficulties and therefore increase their sense of efficacy (Raudenbush, Rowan, and

Cheong, 1992).

Teacher interaction seems not only beneficial to teacher’s sense of self-efficacy, it also has

been pointed out as a factor contributing to teacher commitment (Reyes, 1990), because it breaks the

isolation of teachers (Little, 1990). Moreover, previous research also indicated that teachers with a

strong sense of self-efficacy seem more committed (Ross, 1998). Because teacher interaction may

2
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

influence both commitment and self-efficacy and commitment is also related to self-efficacy, this

study raises the suggestion that teacher commitment could be a mechanism that explains the

relationship between teachers’ social networks and teacher self-efficacy. The importance of teacher

commitment for schools has been stressed by research findings demonstrating that teacher

commitment positively affects teachers’ job performance and quality of education (Tsui & Cheng,

1999), one of the key features of the Dutch governmental agenda.

The purpose of this study is to examine teacher commitment as a mechanism that explains the

relationship between teachers’ social networks and teacher self-efficacy. The concepts are presented in

Figure 1. This article is an important contribution to the literature base around social networks in

education, because the mediating effect of teacher commitment has not been researched yet while

teacher commitment is considered as a very effective route to school success (Fink in Park, 1992). The

next section will describe the different concepts that have been mentioned in this introduction.

Figure 1. Path diagram of hypothesized relations

Teacher self-efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy has a significant influence on student achievement, which is why we should give

more importance to the investigation of this construct. Self-efficacy was introduced by Bandura in

1977 as part of his social-cognitive theory. This theory poses that an individual’s development is

characterized by reciprocal interactions between the individual’s behavior and characteristics and the

individual’s environment (Magee, Zachazewski, & Quillen, 2008). For example, if a student does not

understand a teacher’s explanation (behavior), the teacher may give an extra instruction

(environment). These interactions are important for self-efficacy as well, which will become clear later

on in this section. Self-efficacy is about someone’s judgment about one’s own capacities to act

3
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

successfully in a specific situation (Caprara, Alessandri, & Eisenberg, 2012). During the past few

decades self-efficacy was researched in relation to very diverse subjects such as health (O’Leary,

1985), people’s well-being (Magalett & Oliver, 1999) and job performance (Judge, Jackson, Shaw,

Scott, & Rich, 2002). The concept of self-efficacy has been investigated in the context of education as

well. Scholars use the term teacher self-efficacy when self-efficacy relates to teachers.

Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010, p. 1059) conceptualized teacher self-efficacy as ‘individual

teachers’ beliefs in their own ability to plan, organize, and carry out activities that are required to

attain given educational goals’. According to Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007), teachers with a low

sense of self-efficacy are likely to put less effort in preparation and delivery of instruction and give up

more easily when difficulties arise. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) speak of self-fulfilling

prophesies. Teachers who do not believe that they can be successful give up and that is how they

confirm their own beliefs of incapability.

Bandura (1997) distinguished four major antecedents of self-efficacy: mastery experiences,

verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, and psychological arousal. These antecedents, which seem to

cover most of the antecedents mentioned before, are defined in the next two paragraphs.

Mastery experiences is the most important antecedent. Teachers get a higher sense of efficacy

when their teaching performance turns out to be a success. Their belief that they will be able to

succeed again in the future will rise. Several studies showed that the relationship between teacher self-

efficacy and student achievement is reciprocal, for teacher self-efficacy is especially high in schools

where students perform and behave well (Raudenbush, Rowan & Cheong, 1992; Ross, 1998).

Verbal persuasion is about feedback teachers receive about their performance. The effect of

verbal persuasion grows when the feedback is given by someone important in the teaching context,

such as colleagues or parents. The effect of verbal persuasion can be positive as well as negative. For

example, a pep talk by a colleague can be helpful to overcome a setback (Schunk, 1989), while a

warning by the principal to work harder can lower a teacher’s sense of efficacy (Gist & Mitchell,

1992). Vicarious experience has to do with someone else being successful. The more the observer

identifies with this model, the more influence it has on the observer’s self-efficacy. Finally,

psychological arousal is the joy or pleasure teachers experience when they are teaching successfully.

4
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

This joy or pleasure positively influences their self-efficacy, while stress or anxiety affects self-

efficacy negatively (Bandura, 1997).

Another antecedent of teachers’ sense of efficacy is teacher collaboration. Shachar and

Shmuelevitz (1997, p. 69) found that teacher collaboration ‘accounts for a substantial portion of the

variance in teachers’ sense of efficacy’. Teacher collaboration becomes visible in their social network.

Analyzing these networks makes it possible to examine teacher collaboration in all aspects. It may

provide a more detailed indication of the relationship between teacher collaboration and teacher self-

efficacy. Before this relation is described, I will make clear what social networks look like and what

earlier research has demonstrated.

Teachers’ social networks

Social networks comprise social relationships that make interactions between individuals possible.

Through these so-called ties team members can share information with each other (Jack, 2005).

Network ties have a certain structure that can help or constrain the exchange of information in teams

(Brass, 1984). Individuals in social networks are often referred to as nodes (Nadel in Balkundi &

Harrison, 2006). Their social network can reveal how information flows to all team members

(Haythornthwaite, 1996). However, network ties are not always equally shared between all team

members. Several network characteristics give us an indication of the pattern of network ties (Borgatti,

Everett, & Freeman, 2002). In this study, two characteristics of teachers’ advice networks are

examined: degree centrality and closeness centrality. A methodological explanation will be followed

by a description of their implications.

Centrality is a network measure that gives an indication of where a node is positioned in

relation to others in a network. All nodes have a certain amount of ties. If someone has a relatively

higher amount of ties compared to other team members, this person is said to be central in a social

network. Freeman (1979) described a measure of centrality that is based on the degree of a node. The

degree of a node is the number of ties someone has. This number indicates with how many individuals

this person is in direct contact. Friedkin and Slater (1994) distinguished two types of degree centrality:

indegree and outdegree centrality. Indegree centrality is referred to as the number of ties incoming to a

person, while outdegree centrality is the number of ties outgoing from a person. For example, in an

5
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

advice network all team members designate who they ask for advice which results in a score on

indegree and outdegree centrality. A teacher’s indegree score is the amount of people that asks him for

advice. His outdegree score is the amount of people that he goes to for advice.

Another measure of a node’s centrality described by Freeman (1979) is based on its closeness

to other nodes. Closeness centrality indicates how far an individual is located relatively to the others.

The smaller the distance to the other teachers, the higher someone’s closeness centrality is. Being

centrally located means that the information a teacher dispenses reaches the rest of the team more

easily. Closeness centrality not only includes direct relationships, but also indirect relationships to all

other team members (Moolenaar, Daly, & Sleegers, 2010).

Being centrally located in a network has several implications for a teacher. According to

Freeman (1979), central actors can have much influence on the team by hiding or altering information.

They have greater access to information. Because of their network position they have informal power,

for they can regulate the information flow (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006). In this study a distinction is

made between in- and outdegree centrality as well as in- and outcloseness centrality. In other words,

the direction of the information flow is also taken into account. If a team member is asked for advice

by relatively many colleagues, indicating a high indegree score, this individual has much influence

since he can decide which information he passes on. Yet, if a team member receives advice from many

teachers it does not necessarily mean he has control over the information flow. If the same teacher

does not give any advice, meaning he does not have any outgoing ties, he has not got any control over

the information flow.

The same conclusion can be drawn about closeness centrality. Closeness centrality also gives

an indication about opportunities for getting to and passing on information. According to

Haythornthwaite (1996), acting on information is more likely when that information comes from a

close colleague. Actually, team members are mostly influenced by colleagues with whom they have a

direct tie. High scores on incloseness centrality could therefore imply that a teacher is influenced by

others, while high scores on outcloseness centrality could indicate that a teacher has much influence

on other team members. In the next paragraphs the relationship between teachers’ social networks and

teacher self-efficacy is argued.

6
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Teachers’ social networks and teacher self-efficacy. Several researches pointed out that

teacher collaboration positively affects teacher self-efficacy (Duyar, Gumus, & Bellibas, 2013;

Schachar and Schmuelevitz, 1997). Collaboration between teachers helps them to talk about theories,

methods, and processes of teaching and learning and increases their sense of efficacy (Duyar, Gumus,

& Bellibas, 2013). Guskey (1988) pointed out that teacher collaboration stimulates teachers to

implement new teaching methods that may contribute to teachers’ sense of efficacy. According to

Macinko and Starfield (2001) teacher collaboration networks not only give teachers the possibility to

share their knowledge and information but also to support each other socially. This social support may

positively influence teacher self-efficacy, because it is considered as verbal persuasion that Bandura

(1977) distinguished as one of the four antecedents of self-efficacy.

Moolenaar, Sleegers, and Daly (2012) mentioned that giving advice allows the advice-giver to

show his skills which may give his self-efficacy beliefs a boost by sharing his knowledge and guiding

his colleague. An advice-giver being a model for his colleagues could be advantageous for this

teacher’ sense of efficacy if his observers experience the same success (Schunk, 1987). Moreover,

getting observed by colleagues because of you being successful can be seen as the mastery experience

which Bandura stipulated as one of the antecedents of teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). After all,

the fact that team members observe a colleague with the aim to learn shows that this teacher is

successful. It is therefore expected that both indegree centrality and incloseness centrality have a

positive influence on teacher self-efficacy.

A positive relationship between asking for advice and teacher self-efficacy is supported by the

idea that teacher interaction offers vicarious experiences and verbal persuasion which can both

enhance teachers’ sense of efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Teachers in an advice network exchange work-

related information, like handling with unmotivated students. Asking colleagues for advice about

unmotivated students may give a teacher the vicarious experience he is looking for. When a teacher

sees a colleague being successful and a teacher identifies with this model it increases his sense of

efficacy. Teacher interaction also provides feedback for the advice-seeker, which stimulates the

advice-seeker’s sense of efficacy – on condition that this feedback is positive. Also, through observing

colleagues teachers acquire knowledge and strategies that they can later apply in their own classroom.

7
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Watching a model shows to the observers that they can be successful as well if they handle the same

as their model (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997).

Based on the findings listed above, the first two hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 1: In- and outdegree centrality have a positive effect on teacher self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 2: In- and outcloseness centrality have a positive effect on teacher self-efficacy

Teacher commitment

Organizational commitment is ‘ the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and

involvement in a particular organization’ (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p. 72). Commitment to an

organization is about believing in the organization’s goals and values and having the intention to exert

considerable effort for the organization (Firestone & Pennell, 1993).

In the context of education we speak of teacher commitment which has been pointed out as an

important element affecting job performance and the quality of education (Tsui & Cheng, 1999).

Three dimensions of teacher commitment can be distinguished: commitment to the school

organization, commitment to the teaching profession, and commitment to students (Dannetta, 2002;

Firestone & Rosenblum, 1988).

Teacher commitment to the organization, also referred to as organizational commitment, is

about organizational goals or values and forming a staff unity (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979).

Organizational commitment has three components: believing and accepting the organizational goals

and values, being ready to put a significant amount of effort into the organization, and willing and

desiring to stay with the organization (Mowday et al., 1979). Teacher commitment to the teaching

profession, the second dimension of teacher commitment, refers to someone’s devotion for his

occupation (Somech & Bogler, 2002). This occupational commitment shows to what degree

employees are engaged in the jobs they perform in the workplace and the importance of work in life.

(Brown & Leigh, 1996). Occupational commitment results in showing interest in their teacher skills

and in student achievement (Firestone & Rosenblum, 1988). According to Park (2007), this dimension

is about job satisfaction and identifying oneself as a teacher. The final dimension, teacher commitment

8
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

to students, is about being devoted to student behavior and learning (Dannetta, 2002; Elliott &

Croswell, 2002; Nias, 1981). This final dimension is like a commitment to clients and includes being

ready to help students and feeling responsible for students’ learning processes and school life (Park,

2007). Teachers who are committed to students do not discriminate based on academic difficulties or

social background (Dannetta, 2002). The main element of teacher commitment to students is about the

teacher feeling devoted and responsible for student learning and their behavior (Park, 2007). In the

next paragraphs the three dimensions of teacher commitment are linked to both degree centrality and

closeness centrality.

Teacher commitment to the organization may be positively influenced by both degree

centrality and closeness centrality. Reyes (1990) posed that social relationships and interactions are

beneficial to increasing teachers’ attachment to the organization. If teachers have a large number of

network ties it benefits their organizational commitment. Brookhart and Loadman (1990) endorsed

this standpoint stating that relationships between colleagues have the benefit of an evolving focus on

collaborative effort. Through these relationships shared goals and objectives develop. The focus on

collaborative effort is therefore expected to positively change teacher commitment to the school

organization.

However, this study distinguishes between giving advice and receiving advice (i.e. in- and

outdegree centrality). Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) studied organizational citizenship behavior

which is about employees performing behavior that surpasses job descriptions. Organizational

citizenship behavior includes helping team members by giving them advice. The act of giving advice

is an organizational citizenship behavior that an employee performs to help the organization to do

well. This willingness to put extra effort in the organization is part of organizational commitment,

which is why it is expected that advice-givers are committed to the organization. By helping other

team members they actually help the organization indirectly. Having a high score on outdegree

centrality may lead to committed employees as well. Zagenczyk and Murrell (2009) studied work-unit

commitment, which is conceptually slightly different from commitment to the organization, but is

considered as an aspect of organizational commitment. They stated that receiving advice can help

employees to learn work-unit behaviors and norms which results in being more committed to the

9
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

work-unit. Based on this argument, it is expected that outdegree centrality positively affects

organizational commitment as well.

Both in- and outcloseness centrality seem to have an influence on teacher’s commitment to the

organization. Teachers whose closeness centrality is high are expected to be more committed to the

organization’s goals, because they can reach other team members easily and they can easily reach the

teacher. They are integrated in the communication network and therefore report higher levels of

commitment to the organization (Scott et al., 1999). Kushman (1992) points out that teachers become

more committed to specific decisions and to the organization when they participate in decision-

making.

Occupational commitment, the second dimension of teacher commitment, includes feeling

satisfied. According to Dinham and Scott (2000), being part of a collegial, supportive environment has

a powerful influence on the satisfaction of teachers. Roberts and O’Reilly (1979) found that the more

central individuals are located in the network, the higher their satisfaction is. That means that centrally

located team members are more satisfied than their colleagues who are less central. Teachers who

have many ties to their colleagues have access to support (Moolenaar et al., 2012) and are therefore

expected to be more committed to the teaching profession. Outdegree centrality and outcloseness

centrality are both about having access to other team members’ information. Both network measures

are therefore expected to positively affect commitment to the teaching profession. Because teachers

who give advice are part of a supportive environment as well, it is expected that indegree centrality

and incloseness centrality have a positive effect too. Team members who are centrally located in the

network take more active part in group discussions which results in more job satisfaction and

commitment (Kameda, Othsubo, & Takezawa, 1997; Scott-Ladd, Travaglione, & Marshall, 2006.

Teachers in a dense network ‘voice a shared sense of responsibility between team members’

(Daly, Moolenaar, Bolivar, & Burke, 2010, p. 380). This feeling of responsibility is one of the

elements belonging to the third dimension of teacher commitment which is about taking responsibility

for student learning and school life. Dense networks are characterized by many relationships between

teachers, which indicates that teachers in dense networks have high scores on all network

characteristics that this study takes into account.

10
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Based on the information above it is expected that all network characteristics have a positive

influence on all three commitment dimensions. That is why the third and fourth hypotheses are as

follows:

Hypothesis 3: In- and outdegree centrality and closeness centrality positively affect teacher

commitment.

Hypothesis 4: In- and outcloseness centrality and closeness centrality positively affect teacher

commitment.

The mediating effect of teacher commitment. This study suggests that teacher commitment

mediates the relationship between teachers’ social networks and teacher self-efficacy. The influence of

network measures on teacher commitment has been argued. The following paragraphs will explain

how teacher commitment affects teachers’ sense of efficacy.

Several aspects of commitment to the organization are positively related to teacher self-

efficacy. Pajares (1997) stated that teachers with a strong sense of efficacy have more perseverance

when they are confronted with obstacles and nothing seems to go smoothly. They are willing to invest

more time to succeed. A strong sense of teacher self-efficacy is also related to the amount of effort

teachers invest in teaching and the targets they set themselves (Allinder, 1994). Because the

willingness to put considerably more effort in a job is part of teacher’s organizational commitment,

this first dimension of commitment seems to be positively related to teacher self-efficacy.

Previous studies also found positive correlations between the second dimension of teacher

commitment, commitment to the teaching profession, and teacher self-efficacy. (Coladarci, 1992;

Evans & Tribble, 1986). Positive correlations have been found between teacher self-efficacy and

enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994; Hall, Burleym, Villeme & Brockmeier, 1992), indicating that

teachers with a strong sense of efficacy enjoy their job. Teacher self-efficay also correlates with the

likeliness that teachers keep working as teachers (Burley, Hall, Villeme, & Brockmeier, 1991;

Glickman & Tamashiro, 1982). This study follows Coladarci (1992) who identified teacher attrition,

11
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

teachers leaving the profession, as an important aspect of teacher commitment. That is why in this

study it is expected that commitment to the teaching profession positively affects teacher self-efficacy.

Commitment to students also seems positively related to teacher self-efficacy. Caprara et al.

(2006) pointed out a correlation between teacher self-efficacy and teachers pursuing optimal results

for students. The pursuit for optimal results can be seen as a devotion to student learning which is

considered as commitment to students. Another correlation has been found between teacher self-

efficacy and the openness to new ideas and the willingness to try these ideas out aiming to meet the

needs of the students better (Guskey, 1988). Caring about student needs is one of the aspects of

commitment to students. Because self-efficacy positively correlates with teachers caring for and

feeling responsible for their students, it is expected that commitment to the student positively

influences teacher self-efficacy.

Based on the findings listed above, the fifth hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 5: All three dimensions of teacher commitment have a positive influence on teacher self-

efficacy.

This study argues that the relationship between teacher’s network characteristics and teacher self-

effiacy is mediated by teacher commitment. In the previous sections several hypothesized

relationships were argued. Teachers’ social network characteristics seem to positively influence both

teacher commitment and teacher self-efficacy. Moreover, there may be a relation between teacher

commitment and teacher self-efficacy. Therefore, the final hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 6: Teacher commitment has a positive mediating effect on the relationship between

teachers’ social networks and student achievement.

12
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Method

Context

This study was carried out using data from eight Dutch elementary schools. Dutch elementary schools

are dealing with a huge amount of governmental pressure in a world that is rapidly changing.

Elementary teachers are confronted with developments and innovations constantly. According to the

Dutch government, education should be directed at the future, because we are living in a changing

society and children must be prepared for their future (Rijksoverheid, 2014). There is a chance that

teachers do not feel comfortable with these (technological) developments, which can have its

repercussions on their sense of efficacy. Through teacher interaction colleagues can help each other

out when they face problems because of these rapid changes.

Sample

The participating schools were selected using a convenience sample. From January till March 2015

schools were asked if they were willing to participate in this study. Twenty Dutch elementary schools

had been approached with a total number of more than 400 teachers. Eight schools wanted to

participate. Three elementary schools were located in the Veluwe and belonged to the same school

organization. The other five schools were located in the Groene Hart region. These schools were not

all part of an organization. Only two of them belonged to a larger school organization. The other three

schools were independent organizations. All eight school had a Protestant signature.

Questionnaires which assessed teachers’ social networks, teacher commitment, and student

achievement were distributed online to all 131 teachers. Data collection took place from January to

April 2015 and eventually 114 teachers filled out the questionnaire, which gives a response rate of 87

%. Descriptive statistics of the sample are shown in Table 1.

13
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Table 1.

Sample demographics

Variable Frequency

Sex

Male 19

Female 95

Years of employment

Less than 1 year 11

1 year 4

2 years 3

3 years 4

4 years 5

5 years 11

6 years 4

7 years 3

8 years 9

9 years 2

More than 9 years 56

Years of experience

0 to 2 years 7

2 to 5 years 17

5 to 10 years 10

10 to 15 years 20

More than 15 years 58

14
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Procedure

Schools were approached over the phone. If schools were willing to participate an arrangement was

made to talk in person. The goal of this conversation was to get acquainted and to give the principal

some extra information about learning in social networks. Data were collected from January till April

2015 and eventually eight schools participated. The questionnaire was filled out online.

Two schools participated in a pilot study. This pilot group consisted of 25 elementary school

teachers. A reliability analysis showed that the reliability of the questionnaire was sufficient and no

changes were made in the questionnaire.

When collecting social network data researchers face the problem that these data cannot be

collected anonymously, because researchers need all names of the team members to provide a network

(Daly, 2010). In this study, data were anonymized directly after data collection by taking out all

personal information. Team members were represented by characters and the participating schools

were referred to as ‘school A’, ‘school B’, and so on.

Instruments

Characteristics of teachers’ networks. One network question was aimed at examining

teachers’ social networks. To assess the advice network ties respondents were asked to answer the

following question: ‘Whom do you approach for advice on a work-related problem?’ This question

was used to establish the teachers’ advice networks of the schools that participated in this study

(Ibarra, 1993).

Teacher commitment. Three dimensions of teacher commitment were assessed. For

organizational commitment the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was used (Mowday et al.,

1979). Occupational commitment was assessed using an instrument developed by Park (2007).

Finally, commitment to students was measured using an instrument from Lee, Zhang, and Yin (2011).

All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging van strongly disagree to strongly agree.

All items were submitted to a factor analysis using principal component method with varimax

rotation. Items 5 (I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of

work was similar) and 10 (Often I find it difficult to agree with this organization’s policies on

important matters relating to its employees) had high loadings on more than one factor. After these

15
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

items were removed the same analysis was executed and the results showed that three components had

an eigenvalue higher than 1.00. Item 6 (It is my responsibility to advance all my students for high

academic achievements) was also removed to improve the scale’s reliability. Factor loadings of the

remaining eleven items are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings for Principal Component Analysis With Varimax Rotation of Commitment Scales

Component Factor Loading

I II III

1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally .55

expected in order to help this

organization be successful.

2. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R) .64

3. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep .79

working for this organization.

4. I find that my values and the organization’s values are very .71

similar.

7. I usually look forward to each working day at this school. .59 .34

8. I often feel satisfied with my teaching job. .79

9. If I could go back to college and start over again, I would still .86

choose to become a teacher.

11. All students can succeed and it is my mission to ensure their .56

success

12. It is my responsibility to ensure good social relations among my .77

students

13. I believe that being an educator makes me responsible for my .70

students’ integration in the classroom

16
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

14. I have to be aware of the social relations among students in my .68

class and assist whenever needed to

improve them

Note. Only factor loadings higher than .3 are included.

Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for these three factors. Tabel 3 shows the values which are all lower

than .70. This could be a consequence of the fact that each factor only consisted of a small amount of

items. The 14 remaining items seemed to cover the three dimensions of teacher commitment very

well. For example, commitment to the organization has three components: believing in organizational

goals and values, putting effort into the organization, and wanting to stay with the organization. The

four items from the questionnaire that measure organizational commitment covered all three

components. For that reason this study stuck to the three factors that the factor analysis distinguished.

Table 3

Cronbach’s alphas

Factors Cronbach’s alpha

Commitment to the school organization .63

Commitment to the teaching profession .67

Commitment to students .62

Teacher Self-efficacy. The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer, Schmitz, & Daytner,

1999) was used to assess teacher self-efficacy. All items of this questionnaire were measured on a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The items are listed in Table 4.

Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .77.

17
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Table 4

Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

1. I am convinced that I am able to teach successfully all relevant subject content to even the

most difficult students.

2. I know that I can maintain a positive relationship with parents, even

when tensions arise.

3. When I try really hard, I am able to reach even the most difficult

students.

4. I am convinced that, as time goes by, I will continue to become more

and more capable of helping to address my students’ needs.

5. Even if I am disrupted while teaching, I am confident that I can

maintain my composure and continue to teach well.

6. I am confident in my ability to be responsive to my students’ needs,

even if I am having a bad day.

7. If I try hard enough, I know that I can exert a positive influence on

both the personal and academic development of my students.

8. I know that I can motivate my students to participate in innovative

projects.

9. I know that I can carry out innovative projects, even when I am

opposed by skeptical colleagues.

All scales had been translated to Dutch and back-translation was done by an English teacher.

The purpose of this back-translation was to make sure the translations were done correctly. Back-

translation did not lead to any changes in the questionnaire.

Analysis

Teachers’ advice networks were studied using social network analysis. Teachers’ degree centrality and

closeness centrality were calculated using UCINET. A distinction is made between indegree and

outdegree centrality to distinguish between giving advice and receiving advice. For both types of

18
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

degree centrality normalized scores were used, because normalized scores can be compared to each

other. Normalized indegree centrality is calculated as the amount of incoming ties divided by the

maximum number of ties. Normalized outdegree centrality is calculated as the number of outgoing ties

divided by the maximum amount of ties. Both normalized scores vary from 0 to 1 where 0 means a

teacher does not have any ties while 1 means a teacher has all the possible ties. The higher this

number, the more a teacher is asked for advice or asks a colleague for advice. Indegree and outdegree

centrality were put together in one hypothesis, since the expectations for both measures were equal.

This study also distinguishes between outcloseness and incloseness centrality. Both centrality

measures are about how far a teacher is positioned from other team members in the network. The

higher a team member’s outcloseness the faster the teacher can get in contact with other teachers. A

high score on incloseness means that other team members can get in contact with this teacher easily.

Closeness centrality is calculated as 1 minus the sum of the shortest paths between a teacher and his

colleagues (Moolenaar et al., 2010). Closeness centrality measures were normalized resulting in scores

between 0 and 1. Incloseness and outcloseness centrality were combined in one hypothesis, because

the predictions for both measures were the same.

To test the hypotheses the following steps were followed. First, descriptive statistics were

calculated. Second, correlation analyses were executed to examine the relationships between teachers’

social networks, teacher commitment, and student achievement. Third, a factor analysis determined if

underlying factors explained the data. Then, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine

the relationship between teachers’ social networks and student achievement and the relationship

between teacher commitment and student achievement. Lastly, the mediating role of teacher

commitment was tested.

Results

A total of 114 elementary school teachers completed the survey. Descriptive statistics were

calculated for teacher commitment, teacher self-efficacy and social network characteristics (see Table

5).

19
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics

M SD Min Max

Network characteristics

Indegree centrality .21 .20 .00 .83

Outdegree centrality .22 .12 .04 .67

Incloseness centrality .32 .14 .11 .86

Outcloseness centrality .33 .08 .19 .58

Teacher commitment

Commitment to the organization 4.39 .41 3.33 5.00

Commitment to the teaching profession 4.08 .62 2.33 5.00

Commitment to students 4.57 .36 3.80 5.00

Teacher self-efficacy 4.15 .37 3.11 5.00

Descriptive statistics show that there is some variation between the three dimensions of

teacher commitment. Teachers are mostly committed to students (M=.4.57, SD=.36), followed by

commitment to the organization (M=4.39, SD=.41) and commitment to the teaching profession

(M=4.08, SD=.62). The average score on occupational commitment is the lowest of all dimensions of

commitment, but with scores ranging from 2.33 to 5.00 this dimension has the largest range. Keeping

in mind that teacher commitment was measured on a 5-point Likert scale there can be stated that

teachers have relatively high scores on all dimensions of teacher commitment.

Another variable of which descriptive statistics are shown in Table 5 is teacher self-efficacy.

Descriptive statistics show that teachers have a strong sense of efficacy (M=4.15, SD=.37), indicating

that they believe in their ability to carry out the actions that are needed to reach educational goals

(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). The minimum score is 3.11 which means that even teachers with the

lowest scores of the sample have a moderate sense of efficacy.

20
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Descriptive statistics of social network characteristics are also presented in Table 5. Only

small differences exist between indegree (M=.21, SD=.20) and outdegree centrality (M=.22, SD=.12).

This is also the case for incloseness (M=.32, SD=.14) and outcloseness centrality (M=.33, SD=.08).

Correlation analyses

Correlation analyses were executed to determine the interrelationships of all variables. Because data

were not normally distributed Spearman’s correlation was used. All correlations are shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Correlation Analysis

1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 3

1. Network characteristics

a. Indegree centrality 1.00 -.14 .87** -.25** .05 .18 .16 .23*

b. Outdegree centrality 1.00 -.15 .71** .14 .12 .15 .07

c. Incloseness centrality 1.00 -.23* .04 .13 .16 .24*

d. Outcloseness centrality 1.00 .11 .04 .17 .07

2. Teacher commitment

a. Commitment to organization 1.00 .30** .21* .13

b. Commitment to profession 1.00 .30** .20*

c. Commitment to students 1.00 .49**

3. Teacher self-efficacy 1.00

Note. ** p<.01, ** p<.05

Correlations were found between several network measures. Indegree centrality is related to

both measures of closeness centrality. Indegree centrality strongly correlates with incloseness

centrality (rs=.87, p<.01), indicating that teachers who are asked for advice by many colleagues are

also relatively easy to reach. A weak, negative correlation is found between indegree centrality and

outcloseness centrality (rs=-.25, p<.01). This correlation points out that giving advice does not imply

21
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

that other team members are easy to reach. Another negative correlation is found between incloseness

centrality and outcloseness centrality (sr=-.23, p<.05).

Correlation analyses indicate that some dimensions of teacher commitment have a weak

interrelationship. Commitment to the organization correlates with teacher’s commitment to the

profession (rs=.30, p<.01), indicating that teachers who like to keep working at the same school also

want to stay being a teacher. Commitment to the organization also correlates with teacher’s

commitment to the students (rs=.21, p<.05), which indicates that teachers who believe in the goals and

values of the school feel responsible for student learning as well. Finally, correlation between

commitment to the profession and commitment to students (rs=.30, p<.01) shows that teachers who are

satisfied with their job feel devoted to student learning too. Because all three dimensions of teacher

commitment only show weak correlations, the dimensions are considers as three different factors.

Correlations also indicate that social network characteristics are related to teacher self-

efficacy. Incloseness centrality appears to be positively related to teacher self-efficacy (rs=.27, p<.01).

This means that teachers have a higher sense of self-efficacy if they are easy to reach by their

colleagues. The results also point out a weak, positive relation between indegree centrality and teacher

self-efficacy (rs=.23, p<.05). The more a teacher is asked for advice, the stronger his sense of efficacy

is.

Other findings indicate weak correlations between social network characteristics and teacher

commitment. Teacher commitment to the organization is positively related to outcloseness centrality

(rs=.19, p<.05). In other words, teachers who can easily reach other team members tend to be more

committed to the school organization. Another positive relation exists between commitment to the

students and incloseness centrality (rs=.23, p<.05). This means that teachers who are easily reachable

by other team members seem to be more committed to their students.

Finally, correlation analyses pointed out a relation between teacher commitment and teacher

self-efficacy. Teacher commitment to the profession appears to be positively related to teacher self-

efficacy (rs=.22, p<.05). A stronger correlation could be found between teacher commitment to the

students and teacher self-efficacy (rs=.49, p<.01).

22
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Regression analyses

Correlations that were found earlier were tested conducting multiple regression analyses. First, the

influence of incloseness centrality and indegree centrality on teacher self-efficacy was tested. These

analyses gave significant results for both incloseness centrality (β=.24, p<.05) and indegree centrality

(β=.23, p<.05). Teachers who are asked for advice by many colleagues and teachers who are easily

reachable have a stronger sense of efficacy. Effect sizes of these results are shown in Table 6. A

second multiple regression analysis examined the influence of social network characteristics on

teacher commitment, but these results were insignificant for both incloseness centrality (β=.16, p>.05)

and outcloseness centrality (β=.11, p>.05). Finally, the influence of teacher commitment on teacher

self-efficacy was tested and this analysis generated two significant results. A positive effect was found

for the influence of commitment to students on teacher self-efficacy (β=.49, p<.01). Teachers who are

more committed to their students have a stronger sense of efficacy. Another positive effect was found

for the influence of teacher’s commitment to the profession on teacher self-efficacy (β=.20, p<.05).

All results are presented in Table 7 and Table 8.

Table 7

Regression analyses for variables predicting teacher self-efficacy

B SE B R2 β

Network characteristics .67 .26 .06 .24*

Incloseness

Indegree .46 .18 .05 .23*

Teacher commitment

Commitment to the profession .12 .05 .04 .20*

Commitment to students .51 .09 .24 .49**

Note: *p<.05, **p<.01

23
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Table 8

Regression analyses for variables predicting teacher commitment

B SE B R2 β

Network characteristics

Outcloseness .56 .48 .01 .11

Incloseness .43 .26 .03 .16

Mediating role of teacher commitment

Three hypothesized relationships could be evidenced by regression analyses partially. Hypothesis 1

stated that in- and outdegree centrality affect teacher self-efficacy directly. However, regression

analyses could only prove the influence of indegree centrality on teacher self-efficacy. Hypothesis 2

was about the impact of in- and outcloseness centrality on teacher self-efficacy, but regression

analyses only showed significant results for the effect of incloseness centrality. Hypotheses 3 and 4

suggested relationships between teachers’ social networks and teacher commitment. Both hypotheses

could not be evidenced by regression analyses. Finally, hypothesis 5 could be evidenced partially.

Commitment to the profession and commitment to the students affect teacher self-efficacy.

The lack of significant relations between teachers’ social networks and teacher commitment

(H3 and H4) has its consequences for a possible mediating effect of teacher commitment. Because no

indirect relationship between teachers’ social network exists, there is a direct-only nonmediation

pattern. This pattern indicates that there is a direct effect but no indirect effect (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen,

2010). The sixth hypothesis about the mediating effect of teacher commitment could therefore not be

evidenced.

Figure 2. Path diagram of hypothesized relations

24
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Findings can also be presented graphically. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the advice network of

one of the participating schools. Team members are represented by squares. Lines that connect these

squares represent teachers’ network ties. In Figure 3 three shades of blue represent teachers’ sense of

efficacy. The darker the shade of blue, the stronger the teacher’s sense of efficacy is (light blue: <4.00,

blue: 4.00-4.50, dark blue: >4.50). For instance, teacher G has zero incoming ties which indicates that

this teacher is never asked for advice. The light shade of blue of the square indicates that this teacher

has a relatively low sense of efficacy. This combination of low indegree centrality and low sense of

efficacy correspond to the results of the regression analyses which pointed out a relation between

indegree centrality and teacher self-efficacy. The same relation goes for teacher F, who also has zero

incoming ties plus a relatively low sense of efficacy. However, this tendency is not shown by all team

members. Teacher J, for instance, has zero incoming ties as well but still has a relatively strong sense

of efficacy.

Figure 3. Example of teacher self-efficacy in a school’s advice network

Figure 4 indicates team member’s commitment to the organization. In this figure, three shades

of blue represent the extent to which team members are committed to the organization. The darker the

shade of blue, the more committed to the organization a team member is (light blue: 4.00-4.33, blue:

25
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

4.33-4.65, dark blue: 4.66-5.00). The most central actor, teacher A, is very committed to the

organization. Actors who are not centrally located, like teacher J, are less committed compared to

other team members. However, no correlations were found between in- and outdegree centrality and

teachers’ commitment to the organization.

Figure 4. Example of teacher commitment in a school’s advice network

Discussion

Based on literature about teacher self-efficacy this study argued that social networks can affect teacher

commitment, which in turn enhances teacher self-efficacy. Studying the antecedents of teachers’ sense

of efficacy can expand our understanding of this construct which may help us to strengthen teachers’

sense of efficacy. A stronger sense of efficacy has multiple benefits including greater teacher

motivation and greater student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007).

Several hypotheses were posited about the relations between teachers’ social networks, teacher

commitment and teacher self-efficacy. These hypotheses were tested conducting a survey study in 8

Dutch elementary schools. Findings could not confirm all hypotheses. No significant effects were

found between teachers’ social networks and teacher commitment. Both degree centrality and

closeness centrality – in and out – were not found to affect either dimension of teacher commitment.

26
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

However, the results of this study could evidence some of the other hypothesized relationships. Two

dimensions of teacher commitment appeared to influence teacher self-efficacy. Two network

characteristics, indegree centrality and incloseness centrality also affect teacher self-efficacy. In the

next paragraphs three themes that arise from the findings of this study will be discussed. Practical

implications for elementary schools and suggestions for future research are done as well.

Social networks and teacher self-efficacy

Scholars have pointed out the relationship between teachers’ social networks and teacher self-efficacy

(Shachar & Shmuelevitz, 1997). Findings of this study endorse this relationship. Incloseness centrality

positively influences teacher self-efficacy, meaning that teachers who can be reached by their team

members easily have a stronger sense of efficacy. Indegree centrality also has a positive effect on

teacher self-efficacy. This relationship implies that teachers who are asked for advice by many team

members have a strong sense of efficacy. These findings are a contribution to the existing literature

base about antecedents of teacher self-efficacy, because the influence of social network characteristics

has been researched in more detail. While previous studies found teacher collaboration as an

antecedent of teacher self-efficacy (Shachar & Shmuelevitz, 1997; Lee, Dedrick, & Smith, 1991), the

results of this study indicate that in an advice network only advice-givers strengthen their sense of

efficacy. No significant relation was found between advice-receiving and self-efficacy. Asking many

colleagues for advice may indicate that an advice-receiver is insecure about his capabilities as a

teacher and is constantly looking for confirmation from his team members.

Findings showed that advice-givers have a stronger sense of efficacy. This result supports the

statement of Moolenaar et al. (2012) that advice-givers increase their sense of efficacy when they

demonstrate their skills to other team members. Advice-givers share their skills and knowledge and

give personal guidance. Knowledge sharing contributes to teachers’ sense of efficacy because it shows

that they are able to provide useful information to their team members (Lin, 2007). However, Lin

(2007) suggests that this relation is reciprocal, because feeling competent and having a strong sense of

efficacy can motivate teachers to share knowledge with their colleagues. The reciprocity of this

relationship was not considered in this research and should be taken into account in further research.

This study emphasized the benefits of teacher collaboration, but Johnson (2003) also pointed out the

27
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

disadvantages it may have for teachers. Negative effects of teacher collaboration include loss of

autonomy and interpersonal conflict. Future studies must pay attention to these disadvantages by

investigating their impact on teacher self-efficacy.

Teacher commitment and teacher self-efficacy

Findings indicated several relations between teacher commitment and teacher self-efficacy. Teachers

who are devoted to their job believe in their own ability to reach educational goals. These findings

contradict the results of Coladarci’s (1992) study a little, because his results indicated that the

relationship between these constructs is the other way around. He found teacher self-efficacy as a

strong predictor of occupational commitment. Further research should indicate if this relationship is

indeed reciprocal.

Teachers who are committed to their students and feel responsible for student learning show a strong

sense of efficacy. This result matches earlier findings from previous researches. Ramey-Gassert,

Shroyer, and Staver (1996) pointed out that a teacher’s desire to help his students and work for the

benefit of his students is essential for developing a strong sense of efficacy.

Teacher commitment as a mediator

Findings could not indicate the mediating effect of teacher commitment. No significant relations were

found between teachers’ social networks and teacher commitment. The literature base can give several

explanations why this relation could not be evidenced. First of all, some scholars emphasize the

disadvantages of giving advice. Cross and Prusak (2002) point out that giving advice is quite a time-

consuming activity. They argue that teachers who are centrally located in the advice network are too

busy giving advice that they do not have time to finish their own work. According to Bolino and

Turnley (2005), this may result in work stress. Zagenczyk and Murrel (2009) pose that there must be

some sort of balance between giving and receiving. They state that commitment will decrease if a

teacher gives his time to an organization without getting something in return. This brings us to the

second possible reason why no significant relations were found between social networks and teacher

commitment.

According to Gouldner (1960), mutual support is an important aspect of relationships. Team

members often help those colleagues who help them. He emphasizes the value of reciprocated

28
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

relationships. In advice networks that implies that teachers give advice to those team members who

gave advice in the past. Perhaps degree centrality and closeness centrality only affect teacher

commitment if in- and outscores are the same. Based on this reasoning future studies should also

consider including reciprocity as a network measure.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be mentioned. Because the context of Dutch elementary

schools may not be like other countries, it is questionable if the results of this study are generalizable.

Dutch elementary schools are characterized by relatively small class sizes in comparison to other

countries around the world like France or the United Kingdom (World Bank, 2015). Research has

pointed out the relationship between class size and teacher self-efficacy (Klassen & Chiu, 2010).

Future studies must indicate if the same results can be found in other coutnries.

Another limitation of this study is the relatively low reliability of the used measurement

scales. While Cronbach’s alpha was sufficient for the Teacher Self-efficacy Scale, the values of the

three factors from the commitment scales were insufficient. This could be the reason why no

significant relations were found between teachers’ social networks and teacher commitment.

According to Bacon (2004), values of Cronbach’s alpha lower than .7 decreases statistical power in a

research design.

Teacher self-efficacy is worth researching, because of its direct relationship with student

achievement. If we are able to expand our knowledge about this concept, we will be able to optimize

teachers’ sense of self-efficacy which will have its effect on student achievement. This study is a

contribution to the literature base about teacher self-efficacy, since it specifies which characteristics of

an individual’s network position affect teacher self-efficacy. While this study could not evidence the

mediating effect of teacher commitment, it has shown that teacher commitment matters for teacher

self-efficacy.

29
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

References

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of

special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education:

The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional

Children, 17(2), 86-95.10.1177/088840649401700203

Bacon, D. (2004). The contributions of reliability and pretests to effective assessment.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(3). Retrieved June 10, 2015 from

[Link]

Balkundi, P. & Harrison, D. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: strong inferences about

network structures effects on team viability and performance. Academy of

Management Journal, 49, 49-68. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785500

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for

Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA; Analytic Technologies

Brass, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in

an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518-539. doi:10.2307/2392937

Brookhart, S.M., & Loadman, W.E. (1990). School-university collaboration: different

workplace cultures. Contemporary Education, 61, 125-128

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.

Burley, W. W., Hall, B. W., Villeme, M. G., & Brockmeier, L. L. (1991, April) A path

analysis of the mediating role of efficacy in first-year teachers’ experiences, reactions,

and plans. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Chicago

30
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Prosociality: the contribution of traits,

values, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(6),

1289-1303. doi:10.1037/a0025626

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy

beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A

study at the school level. Journal of school psychology, 44, 473-490.

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. The Journal of

experimental education, 60(4), 323-337. doi:10.1080/00220973.1992.9943869

Daly, A.J. (2010). Social Network Theory and Educational Change. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Daly, A.J., Moolenaar, N.M., Bolivar, J.M., & Burke, P. (2010). Relationships in reform; The

role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48, 39-79.

doi:10.1108/09578231011041062

Dannetta, V. (2002). What factors influence a teacher’s commitment to student learning?

Leadership and Policy in School, 1, 144-171. doi:10.1076/lpos.1.2.144.5398

Dinham, S. & Scott, C. (2000). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction.

Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 379-396.

doi:10.1108/09578230010373633

Duyar, I., Gumus, S., & Sukru Bellibas, M. (2013). Multilevel analysis of teacher work

attitudes: The influence of principal leadership and teacher collaboration. International

Journal of Educational Management, 27(7), 700-719. doi:10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-

0107

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. Retrieved from [Link]

31
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and

commitment to teaching among preservice teachers. The Journal of Educational

Research, 80(2), 81-85. doi:10.1080/00220671.1986.10885728

Firestone, W.A., & Pennell, J.R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and

differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63, 489-525.

doi:10.3102/00346543063004489

Firestone, W.A., & Rosenblum, S. (1988). Building commitment in urban high schools.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 285-299.

doi:10.3102/01623737010004285

Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social

Networks, 1, 215-239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

Friedkin, N.E., & Slater, M.R. (1994). Social Leadership and Performance: A Social Network

Approach. Sociology of Education, 67, 139-157. doi:10.2307/2112701

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A Theoretical analysis of its determinants

and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 77, 183-211.

Glickman, C. D. & Tamashiro, R. T. (1982). A comparison of first-year, fifth-year, and

former teachers on efficacy, ego development, and problem solving. Psychology in the

Schools, 19(4), 558-562. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(198210)19:4<558::AID-

PITS2310190426>[Link];2-F

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation

of instructional innovation. Teaching and teacher education,4(1), 63-69.

Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the

study of information exchange. Library & information science research, 18(4), 323-

342. doi:10.1016/S0740-8188(96)90003-1

32
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Hall, B. W., Burley, W. W., Villeme, M. G. & Brockmeir, L. (1992, April). An attempt to

explicate teacher efficacy beliefs among first-year teachers. American Educational

Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Power, Social-Influence, and Sense Making: Effect of network centrality

and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277-

303. doi:10.2307/2393414

Jack, S. L. (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: a qualitative

analysis. Journal of management studies, 42(6), 1233-1259. doi:0.1111/j.1467-

6486.2005.00540.x

Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: Good for some, not so good for others.

Educational Studies, 29(4), 337-350. doi:10.1080/0305569032000159651

Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and

work-related performance: the integral role of individual differences. Journal of

applied psychology, 92, 107.

Kameda, T., Ohtsubo,Y., & Takezawa, M. (1997). Centrality in socio-cognitive network and

social influence: An illustration in a group decision-making context. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 296-309. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.296

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D.

Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–

265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction:

Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of educational

Psychology, 102(3), 741. doi:10.1037/a0019237

Kushman, J.W. (1992). The organizational dynamics of teacher workplace commitment: A

study of urban elementary and middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,

28, 5-42. doi:10.1177/0013161X92028001002

33
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., & Smith, J. B. (1991). The effect of the social organization of

schools on teachers' efficacy and satisfaction. Sociology of Education, 64, 190-208.

doi:10.2307/2112851

Lee, J. C. K., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a

professional learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on

teacher commitment to students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 820-830.

doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.01.006

Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge

sharing intentions. Journal of information science, 33, 135-149.

doi:10.1177/0165551506068174

Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional

relations. The Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.

Macinko, J., & Starfield, B. (2001). The utility of social capital in research on health

determinants. Milbank Quarterly, 79(3), 387-427. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00213

Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their relations

with self ‐ efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of clinical

psychology, 55, 539-551.

Magee, D.J., Zachazewski, J.E., & W.S. Quillen (2008). Pathology and Intervention in

Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders

Moolenaar, N.M. (2010). Ties with potential: Nature, antecedents, and consequences of

social networks in school teams (PhD thesis, UvA). Retrieved from

[Link]

Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. (2010). Occupying the principal position:

Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position,

and schools’ innovative climate. Educational administration quarterly, 46(5), 623-

670.

34
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Moolenaar, N.M., Sleegers, P.J.C., & Daly, A.J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration

networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 28, 251-262. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.10.001

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The

psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Orlando: Academic Press.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. doi:10.1016/0001-

8791(79)90072-1

Nias, J. (1981). Commitment and motivation in primary school teachers. Educational Review,

33, 181-190. doi:10.1080/0013191810330302

O'Leary, A. (1985). Self-efficacy and health. Behaviour research and therapy, 23, 437-451.

Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Volume 10, (pp. 1-49). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Park, I. (2007). Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American high

schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 461-485.

doi:10.1080/13803610500146269

Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of learning. Learning theories and learning styles in the

classroom. London, New York: Routledge

Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of factors

influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science

Education, 80(3), 283-315. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199606)80:3<283::AID-

SCE2>[Link];2-A

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.

35
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Rijksoverheid (2011). Actieplan leraar 2020, Retrieved from

[Link]

publicaties/kamerstukken/2011/05/23/[Link]

Rijksoverheid (2013). Eindrapport Peer review in de praktijk. Retrieved from

[Link]

[Link]

Rijksoverheid (2014). Kamerbrief over de onderwijsakkoorden: samen werken aan het

onderwijs van morgen, Retrieved from [Link]

publicaties/kamerstukken/2014/08/27/kamerbrief-over-de-onderwijsakkoorden-samen-

[Link]

Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1992). Contextual effects on the self-

perceived efficacy of high school teachers. Sociology of Education, 150-167.

Roberts, K.H., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1979). Some correlations of communication roles in

organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 42-57. doi:10.2307/255477

Ross, J.A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.),

Advances in Research on Teaching (Vol. 7, pp. 49–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Scott, C. R., Connaughton, S. L., Diaz-Saenz, H. R., Maguire, K., Ramirez, R., Richardson,

B., ... & Morgan, D. (1999). The Impacts of Communication and Multiple

Identifications on Intent to Leave A Multimethodological Exploration. Management

Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 400-435.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R. Ames

(Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp. 13-44)

San Diego, CA: Academic.

Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G.S., & Daytner, G.T. (1999). The Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

[Online publication]. Retrieved from [Link]

images/31%20Teacher%20Self-Efficacy_Schwarzer%20el%[Link]

36
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Scott-Ladd, B., Travaglione, A., & Marshall, V. (2006). Casual inferences between

participation in decision making, task attributes, work effort, rewards, job satisfaction

and commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 399-414.

doi:10.1108/01437730610677990

Shachar, H., & Shmuelevitz, H. (1997). Implementing cooperative learning, teacher

collaboration and teachers’ sense of efficacy in heterogeneous junior high schools.

Contemporary educational psychology, 22, 53-72.

Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of educational

research, 57(2), 149-174. doi:10.3102/00346543057002149

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence.

Educational psychologist, 32(4), 195-208. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3204_1

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of

relations. Teaching and teacher education, 26(4), 1059-1069.

doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.11.001

Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational

and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 555-577.

doi:10.1177/001316102237672

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy

beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and teacher Education, 23(6),

944-956. doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.05.003

Tsui, K.T., & Cheng, Y.C. (1991). School organizational health and teacher commitment: A

contingency study with multi-level analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5,

249-268. doi:10.1076/edre.5.3.249.3883

World Bank. (2015). Pupil-teacher ratio, primary. Retrieved from

[Link]

37
DOES TEACHER COMMITMENT MAKE SENSE?

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and

truths about mediation analysis. Journal of consumer research,37(2), 197-206.

38