Blog Archives
How Teachers’ Commitment and Leadership Behavior Influence Students’ Academic Performance
The intersection where teachers’ commitment, school administrators’ leadership behavior, and student academic performance converge is frequently explored and investigated in academic studies. Doing so is necessary in order to improve the quality of education. We must find ways to make teaching and learning more effective and efficient.
In my paper published recently, I revisited that intersection. I examined the relationships between the said variables. In the said study, I hypothesized that a correlation exists between teachers’ commitment and leadership behavior, teachers’ commitment and academic performance of students, and leadership behavior and academic performance of students.
Studies conducted on students’ performance in the classroom examined or evaluated how certain factors or variables related to school, teachers, school administrators, or students and their environment affect academic achievement. Some studies focus only on one variable, and some combine two or more. While numerous variables could potentially affect students’ academic performance as presented in various studies, mine focused only on constructs that are perceived to affect students’ academic performance directly, namely, teachers’ commitment (to their work and organization) and the leadership behavior of school administrators.
In the investigation I conducted, the aforementioned constructs were defined or referred to as follows: academic performance as the results of standardized tests students took in the following subject areas: math, science, and English; teachers’ commitment as their dedication and attachment to their profession and their loyalty to their school as an organization; leadership as a process in which an individual influences a group to achieve and commit to a common goal. Teachers’ commitment is categorized into commitment to job and commitment to organization and leadership behavior into consideration (people-oriented) and initiating structure (task-oriented).
We say that teachers play the most crucial role in student achievement, and it is unfortunate that teachers usually take the blame when students fail to meet academic expectations. It is almost impossible for teachers to escape from the notion that “when students did not learn, the teacher did not teach.” But if teachers are held responsible when students are not performing well, should somebody take responsibility when teachers are not teaching the way they should, thus resulting in poor academic performance on the part of the students? This is where leadership behavior comes into focus. School leaders’ primary duty is to inspire and motivate teachers to work towards improving students’ academic performance.
Academic performance is the result of learning produced by the student and prompted by the activities of teachers. How well the students perform academically depends on how committed the teachers are to their chosen profession. On the other hand, whatever activities teachers do in a school are supposedly imposed and overseen by the school administrator. Thus, the level of commitment to job and organization the teachers manifest hinges on their supervisors’ leadership behavior. Student learning is affected by teaching and teaching by management and supervision performed by school leaders.
My study yielded some surprising results.
The overall computed mean for teachers’ commitment indicates that the teachers who participated in my study are committed to both their jobs and organization, although their commitment to their jobs is higher than their commitment to their organizations. As regards leadership behavior, most of the school administrators, as perceived by the teacher-respondents, exhibit behaviors attributed to structured leadership. This implies that the leaders supervising them are high in initiating structure but low in consideration. The results divulge that the correlation between both aspects of teachers’ commitment and the initiating structure dimension of leadership behavior is positive. With the consideration dimension, the correlation is negative. This inverse relationship implies that the less committed teachers to their job and organization become when the heads of their schools manifest a more people-oriented behavior than task-oriented.
We expect that teachers will be more committed to their job and organization if they are supervised by people-oriented leaders and less inspired when they are led by task-oriented school administrators. One probable reason for teachers becoming more committed to their job and organization when the school leader is task-oriented is clarity. Leaders who are strong in initiating structure are arguably more precise and specific with their expectations and goals than their people-oriented counterparts. In this study, the teacher-respondents may happen to prefer leaders who are task-oriented more than those who are people-oriented. The teachers respond more positively to a structured style of leadership.
However, as previously articulated, being task-oriented does not necessarily mean that the leaders are not concerned about the well-being of those they lead. As the findings of this study have shown, the teachers perceive the school managers as “dynamic,” which means that they scored above average in both dimensions of leadership behavior only that they manifest more strongly in the leadership behavior initiating structure. Scoring above average in both dimensions indicates flexibility for the school leaders. They were able to adapt their strategies and approaches based on the needs and circumstances, which is crucial in helping maintain or enhance teacher commitment. Thus, in this study, teachers were found to be committed to both their job and organization.
The correlation analysis for the students’ academic performance was also unexpected. It is only with the student’s performance in math, not in science and in English, that teachers’ commitment is correlated. And the correlation is negative. Most similar studies’ findings show a positive correlation between students’ academic performance and teachers’ commitment. Rarely was in studies that a negative correlation between teachers’ commitment and student performance was shown. That negative relationship was established in this study. However, the size of the (negative) correlation coefficient between the abovementioned variables is considered negligible.
Despite the rarity of seeing a negative correlation between teacher commitment and students’ academic performance, its occurrence is still disconcerting. It is counterintuitive to find that when teachers show commitment to their job, students’ academic performance suffers. What could be the reason?
Certain circumstances or strategies committed teachers apply could negatively impact students’ academic performance. Teachers could overly commit to academic undertakings and high standards that inadvertently create excessive pressure and stress for students, possibly leading to burnout and anxiety. Such could result in reduced performance on the part of the students. Additionally, when teachers become overly committed, they may fail to strike a balance between work and life. Such may lead to them experiencing burnout, consequently diminishing their ability to deliver quality instruction and engage students more productively.
The next set of findings may also be considered surprising.
Students’ performance in all subject areas is negatively correlated with leadership behavior-initiating structure and has no significant relationship with leadership behavior consideration. A negative correlation exists between students’ academic performance in math, science, and English and school administrators’ initiating structure leadership behavior. Although the size of the (negative) correlation coefficient is considered negligible also, it is interesting to note that while the initiating structure dimension of leadership behavior is positively correlated to teacher commitment, it is the other way around with the academic performance of students and not only in one subject area but all. One possible reason for such an inverse relationship is that the task-oriented approach of school leaders can indirectly put too much burden on students, thus negatively impacting their performance. They can overly emphasize strict academic goals that could create high-stress environments in the schools they supervise. It may have positively impacted teacher commitment but negatively affected the students’ performance. The academic pressure created when students are forced to adhere to the strict standards that task-oriented heads of schools set could negatively impact their well-being. They may experience burnout, which could affect their academic performance.
Additionally, when school heads are task-oriented, they tend to focus more on curricular activities and less on non-academic ones. Extracurricular activities are known to benefit students. They can positively impact the students’ academic performance, mental health, and well-being. The “all work and no (or less) play” that task-oriented heads of schools tend to implement may not be helping students perform better academically.
Measuring School Effectiveness
The main subject of the dissertation I wrote for my doctorate was “school effectiveness.” Choosing this subject was driven by a personal belief that the school contributes the most in the development of an individual. It is in school where an individual acquires and develops formally most of the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values they need and they ought to have.
I put emphasis on the word formally in the preceding paragraph for it could be argued that the home and the church contribute also to the formation of an individual.
It is true, but not all parents are trained educators. Teachers (presumably) are. And not all families are functional. The dysfunctional ones may not help in the proper development of an individual. A school (presumably also) is always functional. This is not saying that the home does not contribute to the development of an individual. It does, but not as comprehensively as…
View original post 926 more words
GRADING GRADES
We label students as pesky when they keep pestering us with questions about their scores in quizzes and exercises. We find them annoying when near the end of a semester or shortly after final exams they send emails or call to inquire about their grades.
We say they are desperate when after knowing their grades they move heaven and earth to make us reconsider it and give them higher marks citing 101 reasons we need to do so, some of which are valid, some pure antics.
There are times when some teachers drop the correction fluid unto the grades they have given because they get moved either by the appeal of the students or by pressure from upstairs.
We often criticize students for being so grade-conscious.
But is it their fault?
NO!
Students are grade-conscious not because they want to but standards of society force them to be. The policies and procedures in the academe framed that kind of mind-set in the consciousness of students. They are seemingly programmed to become grade-conscious.
It all begins at home. Parents keep reminding their children to study hard and get good grades. When the children get to school, the indoctrination goes full steam. Teachers give a battery of tests and exercises telling the students to perform well if they want to pass the subject. And that if they want to be part of the honor roll then they need to have high scores.
Parents tell students to study hard, the teachers tell them to study harder. Day and night students are told that they must get good grades. After school, parents would even acquire the services of a tutor to further improve the academic performance of their children.
That’s how the “getting-good-grades-is-a-must” mentality gets ingrained in the consciousness of the poor little kids.
Companies and corporations deliver the coup de grace by frequently advertising that they hire only the best and brightest. And what’s the tangible measurement of these superlatives (best and brightest)? GRADES…A+, or 1 or 5 or what-have-you.
Society have assigned GRADES as proof of excellence. Academic performance of students is measured through their grades. The higher the grades the more excellent is the student. That’s how it goes.
RESULT? The students become grade-conscious. The grades they receive is a microscope and they are the specimen in the slide. Their academic marks are like scalpels used to dissect the contents of the shell between their ears.
The parents want them to work hard for their grades. Yes, perhaps for the children’s sake but the grades they receive is an instrument used by the parents in monitoring their investment. They want to make sure that
their children are not wasting the money they are spending for their education.
Parents become so mad when their children present to them unsatisfactory academic marks. And of course, when their children perform well academically, they are elated no end. It is a boost to their pride, a feather in their caps.
The schools in any country stretch their students to the limits of academic achievement because when students pass standardized examinations given by their governments it redounds to their benefit. It’s good for ranking and accreditation purposes. It’s a boost to their reputation. It’s good for marketing.
The parents and the teachers keep telling the kids that good grades is a prerequisite to success, the only way to get a good job. Thus the students think that the purpose of education is purely economic, to prepare them for a job. And if they fail to get good marks their future is doomed. They will not succeed.
This is the way the students are brainwashed into getting the highest marks possible. This is what developed among students a tunnel vision about education, that it’s all about getting good grades in order to be among the best and the brightest to who the big companies and corporations would give a chance to get a high-paying job.
The grades have seemingly become a curse. The grades take joy off learning. They make students prisoners in the classrooms and the teachers the unforgiving and unrelenting prison guards.
The grades put blinders on the students preventing them from seeing the bigger picture, that education is more than getting good grades and that the purpose of education goes beyond getting a job.
It’s sad that both the parents and the educators themselves are the ones putting the blinders on the students. They are the ones who put enormous pressure on the students to get good grades.
There’s nothing wrong if we help students to excel and to get the highest marks possible but we must not forget to tell them at the same time that grades are not the be-all and end-all of schooling. The students need to be told that the world doesn’t end if they don’t receive A+.
Schools must not forget that they exist to prepare the students, not only to find a job after graduation, but to live life and be a productive member of society and humanity.
M.A.D. LIGAYA
M.A.D. L I G A Y A 