Exploring Teacher Autonomy Through Teachers’ Perspectives: A Qualitative Case Study

Abstract

This study aims to explore teacher autonomy from the perspective of teachers. The study has been designed as a case study and carried out using qualitative research approach. The participants consist of 10 teachers in elementary, lower secondary, and upper secondary schools in Milas county of Muğla province in Turkey. The study employed a maximum variation sampling technique to select study participants. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview form developed by the authors. Content analysis technique was utilised in the analysis of the data. The results reveal that teachers have autonomy in teaching process and in professional communication with students and parents, but they lack autonomy in curriculum design, professional development, and professional communication with administrators. Teachers' autonomy is hindered by the centralised curriculum, centralised educational policy, and school administration. Enhancing teacher autonomy requires a flexible curriculum, an autonomy supportive environment, participatory decision-making processes, the empowerment of school administrators, and professional development opportunities for teachers. The results also reveal that increasing teacher autonomy will not only enhance teachers' self-confidence, performance, motivation, and sense of responsibility but also support students' achievements and their learner autonomy.

Keywords

• Autonomy
• Teacher autonomy
• Teacher
• Turkish teachers

References

1. Ayral, M., Özdemir, N., Türedi, A., Yılmaz-Fındık, L., Büyükgöze, H., Demirezen, S., Özarslan, H., & Tahirbegi, Y. (2014). Öğretmen özerkliği ile öğrenci başarısı arasındaki ilişki: PISA örneği [The relationship between teacher autonomy and student achievement: PISA sample]. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi [Journal of Educational Sciences Research], 4(Special Edition 1), 207-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2014.4os12a
2. Buyruk, H., & Akbaş, A. (2021). An analysis on the relationship between teachers’ occupational professionalism and their autonomy. Education and Science, 46(208), 431-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.9996
3. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
4. Çolak, İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Okul iklimi ile öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between school climate and teacher autonomy behaviors]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi [Educational Administration: Theory and Practice], 23(1), 33-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2017.002
5. Çolak, İ., Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2017). Öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları ile iş doyumları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between teachers' autonomy behaviors and job satisfaction]. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [The Black Sea Journal of Social Sciences], 9(2), 189-208. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ksbd/issue/34220/383408
6. Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2022). The mediating role of teachers’ critical thinking dispositions in the relationship between their organisational power distance perceptions and autonomy behaviors. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 90-107. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1076433
7. Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. İ., Sever, Y., & Altınkurt, Y. (2023). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel güvenleri ile özerklikleri arasındaki ilişkide örgütsel güç mesafesi algısının aracı rolü [The mediating role of organizational power distance perception in the relationship between teachers’ organizational trust and teacher autonomy]. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi [MANAS Journal of Social Studies], 12(2), 488-501.https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1210467
8. Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, A. L., Hammerness, K., Low, E. L., McIntyre, A., Sato, M., & Zeichner, K. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality around the world. John Wiley & Sons.

9. Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2010). Defining “teacher professionalism” from different perspectives. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 2047-2051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.444
10. Ertürk, R. (2023). The effect of teacher autonomy on teachers' professional dedication. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 10(2), 494-507. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2023.10.2.1048
11. Eurydice. (2008). Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe. https://doi.org/10.2766/35479
12. Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00392.x
13. Evetts, J. (2009). The management of professionalism: A contemporary paradox. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism (pp. 19-30). Routledge.
14. Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59(4), 406-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111402585
15. Fradkin-Hayslip, A. (2021). Teacher autonomy, motivation, and job satisfaction: Perceptions of elementary school teachers according to self-determination theory. Elementary Education Online, 20(2), 198-205. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.02.25
16. Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164499591005
17. Garvin, N. M. (2007). Teacher autonomy: distinguishing perceptions by school cultural characteristics (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. AAI3255863).
18. Gwaltney, K. D. (2012). Teacher autonomy in the United States: Establishing a standard definition, validation of a nationally representative construct and an investigation of policy affected teacher groups (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3537897).
19. Haapaniemi, J., Venäläinen, S., Malin, A., & Palojoki, P. (2021). Teacher autonomy and collaboration as part of integrative teaching - Reflections on the curriculum approach in Finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(4), 546-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1759145
20. Helgøy, I., & Homme, A. (2007). Towards a new professionalism in school? A comparative study of teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 232-249. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.232
21. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
22. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill.
23. Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). Short on power long on responsibility. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 20-25. https://repository.upenn.edu/handle/20.500.14332/34871
24. Ingersoll, R., Alsalam, N., Quinn, P., & Bobbitt, S. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: A multilevel analysis. National Center for Education Statistics. https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/548
25. Kılınç, A. Ç., Bozkurt, E., & İlhan, H. (2018). Öğretmen özerkliğine ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Examining teachers’ opinions on teacher authonomy]. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama [Journal of Education and Humanities], 9(18), 77-98. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/eibd/issue/43929/540868
26. Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00006-6
27. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed). Sage.
28. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices, Volume IV. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091559-en
29. OECD (2014). Lessons from PISA for Korea, strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190672-en
30. OECD (2015). OECD, PISA 2015 Database, Table II.4.5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933435854
31. OECD (2016). Supporting teacher professionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264248601-en
32. OECD (2020a). A teachers' guide to TALIS 2018. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS-Teachers-Guide-to-TALIS-2018-Vol-II_ENG.pdf
33. OECD. (2020b). Education policy outlook: Turkey. https://www.oecd.org/education/policy-outlook/country-profile-Turkey-2020.pdf
34. Özaslan, G. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of the level of their professional autonomy. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 3(2), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s2m
35. Özten, İ. (2023). Okul müdürlerinin karanlık liderlik davranışları ile öğretmenlerin örgütsel güç mesafesi algıları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between the dark leadership behaviours of school principals and organizational power distance perception of teachers] (Thesis No. 790170) [Doctoral dissertation, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Turkey]. YÖK National Thesis Database. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
36. Öztürk, İ. H. (2011). Öğretmen özerkliği üzerine kuramsal bir inceleme [A conceptual analysis on teacher autonomy]. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Electronic Journal of Social Sciences], 10(35), 82-99. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/esosder/issue/6149/82567
37. Öztürk, İ. H. (2012). Öğretimin planlanmasında öğretmenin rolü ve özerkliği: Ortaöğretim tarih öğretmenlerinin yıllık plan hazırlama ve uygulama örneği [Teacher’s role and autonomy in instructional planning: The case of secondary school history teachers with regard to the preparation and implementation of annual instructional plans]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri [Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice], 12(1), 271-299. https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/127566/
38. Paradis, A., Lutovac, S., Jokikokko, K., & Kaasila, R. (2019). Towards a relational understanding of teacher autonomy: The role of trust for Canadian and Finnish teachers. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(3), 394-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919864252
39. Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-177. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27541859
40. Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 37-53. https://erquarterly.org/
41. Robertson, S. L. (1996). Teachers’ work, restructuring and postfordism: Constructing the new ‘professionalism’. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 28-55). Falmer.
42. Robertson S. L. (2010). Teachers matter… Don’t they? Placing teachers and their work in the global knowledge economy. In S. Macrine, P. McLaren, & D. Hill (Eds.), Revolutionizing pedagogy: Education for social justice within and beyond global neo-liberalism (pp. 235-255). Palgrave Macmillan.
43. Schleicher, A (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system, Strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4789264300002-en
44. Schleicher, A. (2020). Teaching and learning international survey - TALIS 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS2018_insights_and_interpretations.pdf
45. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 68-77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
46. Strong L. E. G., & Yoshida, R. K. (2014). Teachers’ autonomy in today's educational climate: current perceptions from an acceptable instrument. Educational Studies, 50(2), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.880922
47. Tokgöz Can, M., & Bümen, N. (2021). Turkish teachers’ autonomy in using and adapting curriculum: A mixed methods study. Issues in Educational Research, 31(4), 1270-1292. http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/tokgoz-can.pdf
48. Valckx, J., Vanderlinde, R., & Devos, G. (2020). Departmental PLCs in secondary schools: the importance of transformational leadership, teacher autonomy, and teachers’ self-efficacy. Educational Studies, 46(3), 282-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1584851
49. Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers' autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 302-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021
50. Wermke, W. & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.812681
51. Wilkins, C. (2011). Professionalism and the post-performative teacher: New teachers reflect on autonomy and accountability in the English school system. Professional Development in Education, 37(3), 389-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.514204
52. Willner, R. G. (1990). Images of the future now: Autonomy, professionalism, and efficacy (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 9123118).
53. Wu, S. (2015). Development and application of the measures of school value, teacher autonomy, and teacher motivation. The New Educational Review, 39(1), 240-250. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2015.39.1.20
54. Xu, H. (2015). The development of teacher autonomy in collaborative lesson preparation: A multiple-case study of EFL teachers in China. System, 52, 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.007
55. Yazıcı, A. Ş. (2016). The relationship between the teacher autonomy and learner autonomy support behaviors. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 6(2), 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2016.62.1
56. Yazıcı, A. Ş., & Akyol, B. (2017). Okul müdürlerinin liderlik davranışları ile öğretmen özerkliği arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between leadership behaviors of school principals and autonomous behaviors of teachers]. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi [The Journal of International Education Science], 4(10), 189-208. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/inesj/issue/40034/476080
57. Yazıcılar, Ü., & Bümen, N. T. (2019). Crossing over the brick wall: Adapting the curriculum as a way out. Issues in Educational Research, 29(2), 503-609. http://www.iier.org.au/iier29/yazicilar.pdf
58. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (12th ed). Seçkin.
59. Yılmaz, K., & Altınkurt, Y. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının Türk eğitim sisteminin sorunlarına ilişkin görüşleri [Prospective teachers’ views about the problems of Turkish educational system]. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi [International Journal of Human Sciences], 8(1), 942-973. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/1503
60. Yolcu, H., & Kartal, S. (2017). Evaluating of in-service training activities for teachers in Turkey: A critical analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(6), 918-926. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050602
61. Yorulmaz, Y. İ. (2021). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel güç mesafesi algılarının eğitim örgütlerine yansımaları, yapısal nedenleri ve yapılaşması [Organizational power distance perception of teachers and its reflections on educational organizations, structural reasons, and structuration] (Thesis No. 689683) [Doctoral dissertation, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Turkey]. YÖK National Thesis Database. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
62. Yorulmaz, Y. İ., Çolak, İ., & Çiçek Sağlam, A. (2018). The relationship between teachers’ structural and psychological empowerment and their autonomy. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 8(2), 81-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.22521/jesr.2018.82.3
63. Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organisations. Prentice-Hall.