Advertisement

The teacher as an island? A mixed method study on the relationship between autonomy and collaboration

  • Katrien VangriekenEmail author
  • Eva Kyndt
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

This study assessed how teachers understand and value autonomy, collaboration and the relationship between both. Quantitative analyses (N1 = 1610, N2 = 1408) included a multilevel SEM model and identifying teacher profiles based upon perceived autonomy (curricular, didactical-pedagogical) and autonomy attitude (individualistic/reactive, collaborative/reflective). Interviews (N = 17) were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Three teacher profiles were identified: autonomous collaborative, autonomous individualistic and low curricular autonomy collaborative. Teachers in the first profile reported most collaboration. Results demonstrate the need to take the interaction between autonomy and attitude into account. However, small effect sizes and qualitative results indicate that other factors play an important role. Didactical-pedagogical autonomy should be split up into content-related and classroom teaching–related aspects (demonstrating higher sensitivity to external influences). Moreover, while quantitative results demonstrate a unified collaborative attitude, qualitative findings indicate that openness towards deep-level collaboration differs depending on the domain of autonomy. Finally, besides individual autonomy, autonomy at the level of collaboration is influential.

Keywords

Teacher autonomy Collaboration Reactive attitude Reflective attitude 

Notes

References

  1. Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: the micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 421–455.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), The school as a formal organization. Rand McNally: Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). California: Sage Publications Inc..Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, L. P., & Ko, H. (2009). Teacher-team development in a school-based professional development program. Mathematical Education, 19, 8–17 Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ867894.
  5. Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: a self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97–110.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professional development: a solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00051-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 12, 147–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9154-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Vries, S., Jansen, E. P. W. A., & van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2013). Profiling teachers’ continuing professional development and the relation with their beliefs about learning and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 78–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Why we do what we do: the dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  10. DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: the internal affective determinants of behaviour. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Desurmont, A., Forsthuber, B., & Oberheidt, S. (2008). Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice.Google Scholar
  12. Doppenberg, J. J., den Brok, P. J., & Bakx, A. W. E. A. (2012). Collaborative teacher learning across foci of collaboration: perceived activities and outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 899–910.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Firestone, W. A., & Herriott, R. E. (1982). Two images of schools as organizations: an explication and illustrative empirical test. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 39–59.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X82018002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63, 489–525.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063004489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: the concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 58–76.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164499591005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration: a field-tested framework for secondary school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92, 133–153.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636508320990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gavrilyuk, O. A., Lakhno, A. V., Lebedeva, T. P., Zotin, A. G., Karelina, N. A., & Kuzina, E. N. (2014). Autonomy in teaching: escaping control or taking control? International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(10), 135–142. Retrieved, April 17, 2015, from https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijhsse/v1-i10/18.pdfGoogle Scholar
  18. Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109, 877-896. Retrieved form http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=12871
  19. Gore, J., Lloyd, A., Smith, M, Bowe, J., Ellis, H., & Lubans, D. (2017). Effects of professional development on the quality of teaching: results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 99-113. doi:10/1016/j.tate.2017.08.007Google Scholar
  20. Hargreaves, A. (1993). Individualism and individuality: reinterpreting the teacher culture. International Journal of Educational Research, 19, 227–246.Google Scholar
  21. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. Teachers’ work and culture in the Postmodern Age. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A. (2010). Presentism, individualism, and conservatism: the legacy of Dan Lortie’s Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Curriculum Inquiry, 40, 143–154.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.200900472.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargreaves, A., & Dawe, R. (1990). Paths of professional development: contrived collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 227–241.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0742_051X(90)90015-W.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henry, K. L., & Muthén, B. (2010). Multilevel latent class analysis: an application of adolescent smoking typologies with individual and contextual predictors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17, 193–215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511003659342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227–237.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horn, I. S., Garner, B., Delinger Kane, B., & Brasel, J. (2017). A taxonomy of instructional learning opportunities in teachers’ workgroup conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 41–54.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116676315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Husband, R. E., & Short, P. M. (1994). Interdisciplinary teams lead to greater teacher empowerment. Middle Sch J, 26, 58–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.1994.11494412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods, 18, 3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: good for some, not so good for others. Educational Studies, 29, 337–350.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569032000159651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions: a review. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52, 220–237 Retrieved, March 24, 2015, from https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2011/4454/pdf/ZfPaed_2006_2_Kelchtermans_Teacher_collaboration_collegiality_D_A.pdf
  32. Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 149–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lavié, J. M. (2006). Academic discourses on school-based teacher collaboration: revisiting the arguments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 773–805.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06290647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43, 265–275.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leonard, L. J., & Leonard, P. E. (1999). Reculturing for collaboration and leadership. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 237–242.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levine, A. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher collaboration: facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 116–138.  https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levine, A. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 389–398.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 509-536. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id = EJ412496
  39. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychol Methods, 10, 21–39.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moolenaar, N. M. (2010). Ties with potential: nature, antecedents, and consequences of social networks in school teams (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.374804
  42. Moomaw, W. E. (2005). Teacher-perceived autonomy: a construct validation of the teacher autonomy scale (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved, November 17, 2014, from http://etd.fcla.edu/WF/WFE0000027/Moomaw_William_Edward_200512_EdD.pdf.
  43. O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. The Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256404.Google Scholar
  44. Ohlsson, J. (2013). Team learning: collective reflection processes in teacher teams. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25, 296–309.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-Feb-2012-0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parish, R., & Arends, R. (1983). Why innovative programs are discontinued. Educational Leadership, 40, 62–65 Retrieved, February 26, 2018, from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198301_parish.pdf.
  46. Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly., 29, 38-54. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id = EJ718115
  47. Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., Pearlman, L., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. A. (2010). The alignment of informal and formal organizational supports for reform: implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 57–95.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plauborg, H. (2009). Opportunities and limitations of learning within teachers’ collaboration in teams: Perspectives from action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 6, 25–34.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14767330902731293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roller, M. R., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2015). Chapter six: qualitative content analysis. In M. R. Roller & P. J. Lavrakas (Eds.), Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total Quality Framework Approach (pp. 230–283). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sehgal, P., Nambudiri, R., & Kumar Mishra, S. (2017). Teacher effectiveness through self-efficacy, collaboration and principal leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 31, 505–517.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2016-0090.Google Scholar
  51. Siciliano, M. D. (2016). It’s the quality not the quantity of ties that matters: social networks and self-efficacy beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 227–262.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216629207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simbula, S., Guglielmi, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011). A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian schoolteachers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 285–304.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903513916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Street, M. S., & Licata, J. W. (1989). Supervisor expertise: resolving the dilemma between bureaucratic control and teacher autonomy. Planning and Changing. 20, 97-107. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ ?id = EJ403762
  54. Strong, L. E. G., & Yoshida, R. K. (2014). Teachers’ autonomy in today’s educational climate: current perceptions from an acceptable instrument. Educational Studies, 50, 123–145.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.880922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tjosvold D, & Yu Z (2007) Group risk taking: the constructive role of controversy in China. Group Organization Management and Administration, 34, 47-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106287110
  56. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002Google Scholar
  57. Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017a). 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.2017.06.021Google Scholar
  58. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017b). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001Google Scholar
  59. Visscher, A. J., & Witziers, B. (2004). Subject departments as professional communities? British Educational Research Journal, 30, 785–800.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000279503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yasumoto, J. Y., Uekawa, K., & Bidwell, C. E. (2001). The collegial focus and high school students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 74, 181–209.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2673274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yu-Hong, J., & Ting, M. (2012). A review of the research on language teacher autonomy, Sino-US English Teaching, 9, 1045-1055. doi:2012060381977777Google Scholar
  62. Wall, M. M., Guo, J., & Amemiya, Y. (2012). Mixture factor analysis for approximating a nonnormaly distributed continuous latent factor with continuous and dichotomous observed variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 276–313.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.658339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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, 58–80.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.812681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Westheimer, J. (2008). Learning among colleagues: teacher community and the shared enterprise of education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 756–782). Reston, VA and Lanham: Association of Teacher Educators and Rowman.Google Scholar
  65. Wilches, J. (2007). Teacher Autonomy: a critical review of the research and concept beyond applied linguistics. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 12(18), 245–275 Retrieved, March 17, 2017, from http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/ikala/article/view/2720.
  66. Willner, R. G. (1990). Images of the future now: autonomy, professionalism, and efficacy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI9123118/

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa and Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Occupational & Organisational Psychology and Professional LearningKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Training and Education Sciences, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations