Variables Influencing Teacher Autonomy A

For Peer Review

Variables Influencing Teacher Autonomy, Administrative

Coordination, and Collaboration

Journal: Journal of Educational Administration

Manuscript ID JEA-09-2014-0113.R2

Manuscript Type: Research Paper (Quantitative)

Keywords: Autonomy, Co-ordination, Leadership

Journal of Educational Administration

For Peer Review

Variables Influencing Teacher Autonomy, Administrative Coordination, and

Collaboration

Organizations often struggle to find an appropriate balance between top-down

administrative control and individual autonomy (Thomas et al., 2005; Veugelers, 2004),

and in education the tension between standardization and teacher autonomy (TA) has

intensified over the past two decades (English, 2010; Ingersoll, 2003). Sociopolitical

pressures are leading to increasing demands for accountability and standardization

(Gonzalez and Firestone, 2013; Ylimaki, 2012) during a time of increasing diversity and

growing appreciation of learner autonomy, which both necessitate significant TA to

adapt to varying student needs (Desurmont et al., 2008; Veugelers, 2004).

While it is often advised that institutions balance both top-down controls and

individual autonomy (March, 1999; Pettigrew and Fenton, 2000), schools differ greatly

in their management style based on the organizational climate (Dondero,1997; Pang,

1996) and the administrators’ personal philosophy and attitudes (Gonzalez and

Firestone, 2013; Mayer et al., 2013). Rather than depending largely on such

administrator variables, research suggests that there may be several context-specific

factors, such as the experience of the faculty and the diversity of student needs, which

could affect how programs share decision-making responsibilities (Kerr and Jermier,

1978; Mayer et al., 2013; Woods, 2012). However, there has been little if any explicit

focus on the potential influence of context variables on the levels of TA and

administrative coordination in school programs.

English as a second or other language (ESOL) programs provide a good subject

for an analysis of context-specific variables. ESOL programs for college-aged students

and other adults have many administrative challenges; the student bodies are diverse

Page 1 of 32 Journal of Educational Administration

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

and highly susceptible to political-economic changes, yet these programs are

increasingly pressured to standardize (CEA, 2014; Kaplan, 2000). Previous research by

the authors (Prichard and Moore, in press) revealed that ESOL programs strive to

coordinate their programs while allowing for TA, but there was significant variation

between programs. This study examines quantitative survey data from 130 ESOL

programs in the United States to determine the potential influence of program-specific

factors on this variation.

Literature Review

While research on TA and administrative control often addresses only one

perspective, both sides need to be considered together since they are not mutually

exclusive and identifying “an appropriate balance… is a primary factor in system

survival and prosperity” (March, 1999, p. 71). This section overviews research and

theory on both top-down control and TA, as well as other management models, before

discussing potential variables that could be influential.

Administrative control

Demands for accountability often come from politico-economic pressures, which

have been increasing in the West since the 1980s (Gonzalez and Firestone, 2013;

Willmott, 1995; Ylimaki, 2012). While the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 signalled

this movement in American public schools, ESOL programs for adults in the US have

been greatly influenced by the 2010 Accreditation Act, which has led to more

coordination and standardization (CEA, 2014).

In addition to politico-economic influences, administrators may feel a variety of

other pressures to increase accountability. This may include influence from stakeholders

Page 2 of 32Journal of Educational Administration

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

(Lepine, 2007) and one’s own sense of professionalism (Gonzalez and Firestone, 2013).

In the latter study of principals in the US, a personal sense of duty to improve the school

and maximize student learning tended to outweigh external pressures. Administrators

often feel top-down supervision and oversight can improve education by adding global

perspective, order, and efficiency (English, 2010). To ensure policies are enforced and

standards are reached, some administrators use transactional leadership, which aims to

control followers’ behavior through reward or punishment (Bass and Riggio, 2005). An

example of this in education is basing promotion or remuneration on student test scores

or their evaluation of teachers, which has been increasing (Feldman, 2007).

Teacher autonomy

While many Western societies have experienced a growth in hierarchical

management models, there has been a recent movement which encourages the

autonomy of organizations and individuals, including teachers (Desurmont et al., 2008;

Dondero, 1997). Teacher autonomy has been broken down to curricular and general

autonomy (Pearson and Hall, 1993); curricular autonomy revolves around being able to

decide what is taught, while general autonomy refers to teachers’ right to make

decisions related to pedagogy and classroom management. While some administrators

may allow autonomy because of their laissez-faire leadership style (Bass and Riggio,

2005), others may actively and consciously encourage TA because they think it can

benefit both the workplace environment and student learning.

TA is strongly related to feelings of professionalism (Pearson and Moomaw,

2005), and it is a key factor in influencing teachers to stay in education (Brunetti, 2001).

Teachers often feel compelled to mediate or maneuver around restraints on their


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

autonomy (Benson, 2000; Lamb, 2000), especially concerning curricular guidelines,

materials selection, and classroom policies (Lepine, 2007; McGrath, 2000). ESOL

programs, in particular, are increasingly forced to teach around entrance exams and

standardized tests, which limit TA (Crookes, 2007). This can create feelings of

powerlessness, anxiety, and resentment (Mayer et al., 2013).

More importantly, TA may enhance student learning. Teacher efficacy, like TA

(Cotton, 2003), has been shown to be a key predictor of learning outcomes (Caprara et

al., 2006; Moore and Esselman, 1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy has been shown to

be dependent on their autonomy likely because effective instruction requires that

teachers have “a strong sense of personal responsibility for their teaching” and maintain

“continuous reflection and analysis” of cognitive and affective factors related to student

learning (Little, 1995, p. 179). An empowered teacher can adapt and enhance instruction

based on their teaching style and the needs of the class. Furthermore, learner autonomy,

which has been increasingly valued in education, necessitates that teachers are free to

allow students to shape their education based on their own specific needs and interests

(Little, 1995).

“Finding the balance” and other management models

Considering the significant benefits of both TA and top-down control outlined

above, there will always be a “state of tension” between them (English, 2010, p. 34).

Questions that need to be answered include “what means of direction and control should

be preserved?” and “how extensive is the autonomy?” (Veugelers, 2004, p. 141).

Examples of balancing administrative control and TA include having teachers choose

from a list of pre-approved texts (Desurmont et al., 2008) or making program policies


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

and curricula as flexible as possible (Aoki, 2002; English, 2010). To reliably identify

the level of autonomy teachers perceive, the Teacher Autonomy Scale (Pearson and

Hall, 1993) has been frequently utilized. However, empirical research identifying the

“ideal balance” between TA and top-down control to enhance student learning is

lacking.

Moreover, research suggests that administration is more complicated than merely

considering it as an autonomy-control dichotomy. Coordination with aspects of

transformational leadership and administration-staff collaboration are two models in

which administrative efforts to coordinate the program do not necessarily diminish

teachers’ perceptions of autonomy.

Top-down coordination and guidance. There has been increasing attention on

proactive management models, which inspire and guide colleagues without explicitly

controlling them (Thoonen et al., 2011). Transformational leadership involves building

vision, acting as a role model, and motivating others (Bass and Riggio, 2005; Menon,

2014). Another key aspect is social sense-making, which includes building trust and

discussing the interpretation of policies (Brezicha et al., 2014). While coordination

through transformational leadership offers top-down vision and oversight, it also allows

for creativity and individual autonomy (Bass and Riggio, 2005; Menon, 2014).

Therefore, to accurately determine the balance of decision making, top-down efforts to

coordinate a program and guide teachers (e.g., in-service training and mentoring

teachers) need to be considered along with the Teacher Autonomy Scale.

Administration-staff collaboration. Another key way programs may avoid

excessive top-down control or TA is by involving teachers in decision making. The

cooperation between administration and staff in forming program policies and curricula


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

has been discussed as an aspect of teacher leadership (York-Barr and Duke, 2004),

participatory management (Dondero, 1997), or distributed leadership (Brezicha et al.,

2014). Like TA, these models allow teachers great influence in decision making, and in

extreme cases, there may be no hierarchy at all. However, unlike TA, each teacher may

not be able to make such decisions for his/her own class.

Collaboration is strongly related to feelings of teacher efficacy (Crookes, 1997;

Moore and Esselman, 1992), and it may keep teachers motivated and satisfied (Pang,

1996; Thoonen et al., 2011). Moreover, teacher involvement in program administration

can enhance student learning (Goddard et al., 2007), as it often improves teachers’

commitment and expertise (Marks and Louis, 1999) and because teachers have

first-hand experience with students in class (York-Barr and Duke, 2004).

Summary of TA and program coordination

Research suggests that both TA and coordination are beneficial, and programs

should likely offer significant levels of each. However, the issue is too complicated to

consider as an autonomy-control dichotomy because both collaboration and

transformational leadership can lead to a highly coordinated program without

necessarily reducing teachers’ sense of autonomy. In this study, the following were

measured to determine how programs share decision making:

� Teacher autonomy (general and curricular)

� Administration-staff collaboration

� Top-down coordination and guidance

Context-specific variables affecting management and TA


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

The middle balance between top-down control and TA (or pursing other

models, such as collaboration) may not be appropriate for all programs, as certain

context-specific variables may influence the feasibility and efficacy of various

management styles (Kerr and Jermier, 1978; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Shamir and Howell,

1999). However, these studies focused specifically on leadership styles, and empirical

research on how context variables affect the balance in decision making has been

lacking. Potentially relevant variables, especially those that may influence ESOL

program administration, will be described below.

External pressure. One variable that may affect the levels of TA and top-down

coordination is the purpose of the program and the sociopolitical climate surrounding it

(Lynch, 1995; Stoller, 2012). As suggested above, institutions face varying demands for

accountability from stakeholders, and this likely affects the level of TA. Lepine (2007)

showed that teachers in low-achieving schools face demands to improve while schools

with a good reputation may face pressure to maintain high standards. Schools also feel

varying degrees of market accountability (Gonzalez and Firestone, 2013). For example,

private educational institutes may more strongly consider students as customers, which

could lead them to increase coordination.

Campus-level circumstances, including the institution’s governance and

organization, are also influential on the management of programs (Lepine, 2007).

Programs with high visibility in the institution may be particularly influenced;

Stodolsky and Grossman (1995) noted that required school subjects may allow less TA

than electives.

Program complexity. The number of courses, class sections, and levels may

influence the level of curricular autonomy in programs. Connecting the content across


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

different sections of the same course (coordination) leads to consistency, while

connecting the content to different levels over multiple terms or semesters (articulation)

leads to continuity (English, 2010). Coordination is especially common in subjects that

are considered sequential, like mathematics and second language education, in which it

is believed that certain content must precede other content (Stodolsky and Grossman,

1995). However, not all programs have numerous class sections and levels, and these

programs may not need to be as coordinated or articulated. This variable has not been

researched explicitly.

The variation of student needs. How diverse and dynamic the student population

is may also affect the level of TA. In business management, it has been suggested that

routine situations allow for more top-down control (Shamir and Howell, 1999), while

dynamic, unstable contexts require more local autonomy (Kerr and Jermier, 1978;

Thomas et al., 2005).

In education, Stodolsky and Grossman (1995) found that how dynamic a school

subject was predicted more TA, and how defined it was predicted more coordination.

While this research compared subjects, not programs, the variation of student needs

may be a significant factor in determining how coordinated a program can be. For

example, compared to ESOL students with specific needs, such as pre-nursing students,

learners with varying needs may require more autonomy. Similarly, it could also be

hypothesized that programs with a continuously fluctuating student population require

more autonomy. Programs with small classes may be considered more dynamic, as

there is more variation between small groups than big groups. Moreover, teachers can

more easily identify and adapt to students’ diverse needs in smaller classes (Nye et al.,

2004).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Staff qualifications. The qualifications and experience of the teaching staff is a

significant variable in language programs (Lynch, 1995), and this may affect the level

of TA. Specialists tend to have more autonomy partly because administrators may feel

less qualified to supervise them (Lepine, 2007; Stodolsky and Grossman, 1995). If an

ESOL program is part of a literature or linguistics program and there are no program

administrators with a degree in second language acquisition (which is sometimes the

case), teachers may have more autonomy. On the other hand, if ESOL instructors in

higher education do not have an advanced degree and/or if they do not stay active in

research and professional development, they are rarely given as much TA as other

faculty (Kaplan, 2000).

Richardson (1998) suggested that autonomy is not a right for teachers and that it

must be earned. Indeed, experience is another related variable that affects how much

autonomy teachers reportedly have (Lepine, 2007). Novice teachers, even if highly

educated and qualified, may welcome more supervision and guidance. In a comparison

of the self-efficacy beliefs of beginning and experienced teachers, novice teachers more

clearly identified interpersonal support as influential (Hoy and Spero, 2005). Therefore,

it stands to reason that programs with fewer experienced teachers will have less

autonomy.

Feasibility to coordinate. Another factor influencing management roles may be

how feasible it is to coordinate the program (Howell and Avolio, 1993). Curricular

coordination can increase administrative workloads since it requires extensive planning,

preparation, training, and evaluation (Lynch, 1995; White, 1998). Programs may avoid

coordination and innovation if there are not enough administrators or core faculty


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

members, or if they are busy with other duties, such as a demanding class load, research

expectations, or other administrative roles.

Teachers, of course, also require time for training, planning, and/or discussing

new standards and guidelines (Brezicha et al., 2014; Thoonen et al., 2011). In one study

of curricular reform, most English teachers interviewed chose not to follow policy

proposals because there were not enough opportunities to discuss the schemes or to

prepare (Choi and Andon, 2014). In addition, many ESOL programs rely heavily on

part-time instructors who may teach at various buildings on campus and then rush off to

other schools after class (Eskey, 1997). Administrators in such contexts may face

difficulties in coordinating their programs. Finally, coordination is a challenge in

schools with “an egg-crate-type physical environment” that leads to “teacher

individuality, isolation, and idiosyncratic responses” (English, 2010, p. 14).

Teachers’ attitudes and philosophies may be another factor affecting the

feasibility to coordinate the program. If the faculty tends to have diverging ideas about

pedagogy, it is likely much harder to reach consensus and coordinate the curriculum

(Stodolsky and Grossman, 1995), especially if many teachers lack open-mindedness

(Lynch, 1995; Mayer et al., 2013). Lepine (2007) found that teachers respond to

administrative controls in differing ways, showing forms of complacency at times and

actively opposing limits to their autonomy at other times. If the staff tends to lack trust

in the administration or if there is not a supportive community of practitioners, program

leaders may hesitate to tightly manage their program (Brezicha et al., 2014; Mayer et al.,

2013).

Summary of potentially influential program variables


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

The ideal mix of TA, administrative coordination, and administration-staff

collaboration is unclear and may depend on the context. A review of related research

suggests that the following variables would have a positive correlation with top-down

coordination and administration-staff collaboration:

� External pressure (i.e. programs with demanding stakeholders)

� Complexity (programs with many courses, class sections, and levels)

� Less variation in student needs (programs in which students’ needs vary less)

� Lower staff qualifications (programs in which core faculty are more qualified

and experienced than the rest of the staff)

� Feasibility to coordinate (programs with contexts conducive to coordination)

It is also hypothesized that these variables would have a negative correlation with

general and curricular autonomy. In other words, programs where these factors are

lacking would have more TA.

Methods

This study aims to determine the level of influence that the five hypothesized

program-specific variables have on teacher autonomy, top-down coordination, and

teacher-administration collaboration. Participants from 130 ESOL programs in the US

agreed to take a survey designed to measure these constructs. The programs included 84

four-year higher education institutions, 30 two-year colleges, and 16 private language

schools.

Procedures

ESOL program leaders (N=246) were contacted individually by email and

informed about the opportunity to take the survey (described below) online. The survey

was completed by 130 respondents, including fifty-two program directors (who may or


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

may not have teaching responsibilities) and seventy-eight core faculty with

administrative duties. The average program had seventeen teachers (including 8.6

part-time teachers) and 176 students, but there was significant variation in the student

population size (Range = 6–1,200).

One month after the survey deadline, twenty voluntary participants from the

survey were sent an additional open-ended questionnaire asking them to describe in

detail the following: (1) why the program leaders allow as much TA as they do, and (2)

why they control the program as much as they do. Responses were coded based on the

five hypothesized program variables and other emerging themes (Creswell, 2009).

Instrument

The survey (see Appendix) consisted of four constructs for the dependent

variables (DVs) concerning program decision-making: curricular autonomy (CA),

general autonomy (GA), top-down coordination and guidance, and administration-staff

collaboration. It also contained five constructs for the context-specific factors, the

independent variables (IVs): external pressure, program complexity, the variation of

student needs, staff qualifications, and feasibility to coordinate. Each construct

consisted of five six-point Likert scale items (45 items in total).

The items concerning the level of autonomy program teaching staff have were

based on the Teacher Autonomy Scale (Pearson and Hall, 1993), which was further

validated by Pearson and Moomaw (2006). As the literature review suggested that the

Teacher Autonomy Scale does not fully reflect all aspects of program decision-making

(specifically, top-down coordination and collaboration), items were created to form

these constructs, and to form the five IV constructs. Items were drafted based on ideas


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

in the literature review and then piloted among 26 ESOL program administrators. Rasch

analysis through Winsteps (Linacre, 2012) was used to determine dimensionality of the

items, with problematic items deleted or revised.

Analysis and Results

A multiple linear regression was used on SPSS Version 22 to determine which of

the program management variables (CA, GA, top-down coordination, and

administration-staff collaboration) were predicted by the context-specific variables in

the 130 programs. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations

for all variables.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

Overall, the hypothesized context-specific variables had a significant influence on

the DVs. However, the effect was small suggesting that other factors, such as those

related to the administrators’ personal philosophies, were bigger factors on the variation.

The results of the multiple linear regression for CA were significant (R2 = .108, p

= .013), but the predictors explained only 11% of this variable. The regression for GA

was not significant (R2 = .036, p = .472).

The analysis for top-down coordination was significant (R2 = .275, p = .000), with

all the predictors except for the variation of student needs significantly correlated to this

variable (see Table 1) and predicting this model (see Table 2). The multiple regression

for administration-staff collaboration was also significant (R2 = .188, p = .000).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

The effect of each context-specific variable

As is shown in Table 2, program complexity (the number of courses, levels, etc.)

was a significant predictor of the level of curricular autonomy (B = -.61, p = .001). The

relationship was negative as hypothesized, suggesting that the less complex a program

is considered to be, the more CA there is. Complexity was also significantly negatively

correlated with the GA model. This IV positively influenced the level of top-down

coordination (B = .38, p = .032) as hypothesized, but it was not a factor on the level of

collaboration.

Feasibility for coordination was a significant predictor of administration-staff

collaboration (B = .74, p = .000). The high beta value suggests a strong positive

relationship between the feasibility of programs to coordinate with teachers and whether

the program had a considerable amount of collaboration. Feasibility also predicted the

level of top-down coordination (B = .40, p = .002). However, this IV did not

significantly affect the two TA constructs.

External pressure was the best contributor to top-down program coordination (B

= .60, p = .000), suggesting that leaders aim to coordinate and guide teachers more as

outside pressure for results and accountability increases. This construct did not have a

significant effect on the other DVs.

While staff qualifications did not influence the TA constructs, having a less

qualified staff did predict the level of top-down coordination (B = .38, p = .007). In

other words, programs in which the administration and core faculty were more qualified

and experienced than the rest of the staff reported more top-down coordination, as


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

hypothesized. This IV also correlated with the level of administrator-staff collaboration

(R2 = .153, p < .05), but it was not a significant predictor (B = .21, p = .203).

The variation of student needs did not significantly correlate with or predict any

of the DVs.

Discussion

The results suggest that many of the hypothesized context-specific variables

were somewhat influential in predicting the level of teacher autonomy, top-down

coordination, and administration-staff collaboration in the 130 ESOL programs. The

context-specific variables more strongly predicted the level of collaboration and

coordination, rather than TA. How cognizant the program leaders were about the

influence of these variables is unclear from the survey results alone, so the open-ended

responses submitted by twenty participants were utilized. These responses and a

discussion of the survey results will be synthesized below.

Program complexity

Program complexity, including the number of courses, classes, and levels, was the

most influential variable in the survey data. It was the only statistically significant factor

(negative) affecting both TA constructs. The data also suggested that programs with

more students, which tended to have more classes, had less CA than smaller programs.

Put in different terms, teachers in programs with fewer students and classes reportedly

had more autonomy to decide what was taught for each class. Nevertheless, a lack of

program complexity was the only variable not mentioned by the 20 administrators in

explaining why they offered as much autonomy as they do.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Complexity also strongly predicted the degree of top-down coordination in place.

This was the most frequently mentioned variable in the open-ended responses, with

seven administrators noting the need to have students progress smoothly through the

levels and six mentioning having to unify instruction across multiple classes.

Complexity was also hypothesized to influence the amount of administration-staff

collaboration, but this was not a significant factor in the survey. In programs with many

courses and levels, the decisions were more often made by the administrators and core

faculty (these programs reported more top-down coordination and less TA). Complex

programs tended to be larger, and it may be difficult to collaborate with a large number

of teachers.

Staff qualifications

As hypothesized, the relative qualifications of the core faculty compared to the

rest of the staff significantly influenced the level of top-down coordination in the survey

data. The most influential items involved the number of years the teachers had taught in

the program (predicting less coordination) and how active the core faculty were in the

field (predicting more coordination). A lack of experience and/or qualifications was also

mentioned by several administrators in the open-ended questionnaire, with many noting

the need to mentor new teachers and part-timers. One also explained that top-down

coordination was needed to “offset bad teachers.”

Nevertheless, this construct was not a significant factor affecting TA, though this

was hypothesized based on the literature (e.g., Richardson, 1998). However, eight

administrators mentioned this in the open-ended questionnaires. One wrote, “We are

careful when we hire and expect that the teachers are skilled and will be able to adapt


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

their materials to meet the outcomes.” He continued that they did not do much planning

at the program level since they had a low turnover rate among staff.

Feasibility for Coordination

Feasibility for coordination was also the most significant IV related to

administration-staff collaboration, which was expected based on the literature (e.g.,

English, 2010). The most influential survey items in this construct related to the

willingness of teachers to share ideas and the availability of a faculty room where

teachers could meet. This could suggest that some programs desired collaborative

decision making but that there were factors hindering them. However, it is also possible

that programs without a faculty room or collaborative teachers lacked transformational

leadership to foster such a working environment.

Feasibility also strongly predicted the level of top-down coordination. Related to

this was the ratio of administrators and core faculty compared to adjunct instructors;

programs with a high ratio of core faculty reported more coordination. One

administrator mentioned in the questionnaire that it was easy to guide part-timers

because their program consisted largely of full-timers. This may highlight the need for

institutions to adequately staff programs to ensure more direction and leadership in

them.

In contrast, feasibility was not an influence on TA, although a quarter of the

administrators mentioned this in the open-ended responses. One mentioned a lack of

resources to coordinate teachers and two noted that the culture of autonomy in the

institution was a key influence in allowing TA. Three respondents suggested that

reducing TA would not work in their contexts, but differing reasons were given; one


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

mentioned a lack of teaching candidates who fit the ethos of the program while two

others implied that their faculty was so qualified that they would be insulted if their TA

was lessened.

External pressure

External pressure was the most influential IV for top-down coordination.

Especially significant were items concerning campus-level expectations and

accreditation. In the open-ended questionnaires, seven administrators specifically

mentioned factors related to their high-stakes environment, and they described the need

to increase accountability and the efficacy of instruction. Several administrators

explained that this was necessary because the students would enter other programs

within the institution, and one mentioned that the college “kept tabs” on the program.

Three noted that getting or maintaining accreditation was motivation to coordinate the

program.

While external pressure influenced the amount of coordination, it reportedly did

not lead the programs to significantly lessen TA. However, the data did show that

programs not associated with higher education had significantly less TA than programs

based in colleges. This could be because they felt high levels of market accountability

(Gonzalez and Firestone, 2013), considering students more as customers who should be

guaranteed a quality product.

The variation of student needs

The variation of student needs was the only IV that did not significantly predict

any of the DVs. However, in the open-ended responses, having a learning environment

where teachers can (e.g., small classes) or should (e.g., a shifting student population)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

adapt to student needs was mentioned three times as an impetus for allowing TA. One

administrator explained that the program’s population had gradually changed “from

predominantly Japanese, to Korean, and now Saudi Arabian, with Chinese coming more

often” and that teachers best knew how to adapt to these students’ differing needs.

However, it is unclear why this variable was not statistically significant in the survey

data.

Administrator beliefs and leadership style

As the context-specific variables did not explain a majority of the variation in the

program management constructs, the personal beliefs and leadership styles of the

administration may have been a more significant variable. While the survey did not

analyze administrator variables directly, the open-ended responses reflected how

program leaders often hold diverging beliefs and attitudes, as in previous research (e.g.,

Gonzalez and Firestone, 2013). One administrator discussed how her management style

drastically differed from her predecessor’s:

Before I was the program leader, our program had existed for 6 years with no

accountability… and no end result of students being able to pass standard language

proficiency exams… In order to ensure our students progress, guidelines had to be

put in place so that each level instructor knew what their students needed to

'know'.… It was imperative that strict guidelines for instruction and curriculum

usage were implemented.

Here, it is clear that the program context did not lead to the change, but rather it was the

change in leadership.

Other administrators also reported varying leadership styles and attitudes towards

TA. On one hand, some described a management style that suggested transactional

leadership. One mentioned not rehiring teachers after disagreements concerning the


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

curriculum, and another added that part-time instructors had no choice but to follow

program policies. In contrast, many programs reported utilizing top-down coordination

but that they still allowed TA, which suggests transformational leadership. Nine

participants in the open-ended responses explained that they believed autonomy

enhanced instruction, but they did not mention other context-specific factors. The

interplay between program decision making (TA, coordination, and collaboration) and

one’s leadership style should be further explored.

It is also interesting to point out that the survey results did not always match the

respondents’ open-ended responses. Since the reasons given for allowing autonomy

sometimes contradicted the survey data, perhaps administrators are not always

cognizant of the context-specific factors that may be influencing the way they manage

their program. Moreover, context variables likely shape an administrator’s philosophy

over time, and the philosophy and style of an administrator may influence contextual

factors, such as the attitudes of teachers. This warrants further research.

Limitations

There are two primary limitations to this research: the sampling population and

the constructs. Program leaders answered the survey on behalf of the staff, while

teachers without management duties were not included in this stage of the research.

Considering the literature shows that teachers strongly value TA and collaboration, it is

likely that the inclusion of teachers would have provided a differing viewpoint on the

amount of TA in the program, especially compared to the participants who were

full-time administrators. Follow-up studies are planned to address teachers' perspective.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

In addition, some programs chose not to participate in the survey. While

university programs and large two-year college programs were well represented,

programs without full-time administrators (N = 9) and private language schools (N =14)

participated less frequently. It is easy to see how the inclusion of such programs may

have influenced the results of the study. Moreover, underrepresented programs may be

those in which the leaders lacked time or confidence to respond, and such programs

may have reported less feasibility for coordination.

The second limitation pertains to the survey items. Although all survey data went

through two rounds of piloting in attempt to ensure high correlation of the individual

items with the proposed construct, there were still a few items that did not correlate

highly with the construct in the final survey. This may have somewhat affected the

results, and once again these items need to be investigated.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of context-specific variables on the

level of teacher autonomy, top-down coordination, and administration-staff

collaboration in ESOL programs in the US. The results from 130 programs showed that

many of these variables were influential. Program complexity was the only significant

variable negatively predicting the two TA constructs, and it also predicted the level of

coordination. Having a less qualified staff and having more feasibility for coordination

both significantly correlated with the levels of coordination and collaboration, but not

TA. Finally, external pressures only influenced the level of coordination, while defined

student needs did not significantly influence any of the DVs.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

It is unclear if the findings from this study are fully relevant to other subject areas

and contexts. As mentioned in the literature review, ESOL programs for college-aged

and adult learners are unique in many ways. Language learning is considered relatively

sequential and defined, and this has been shown to affect the level of TA (Stodolsky and

Grossman, 1995). Moreover, while demands for accountability are increasing in

language programs in the US, historically these programs have lacked such demands. In

K-12 contexts or in other subject areas, each of the examined context-specific variables

may be much stronger or weaker, and there may be more or less variation between

programs.

Nevertheless, while further research is needed in various contexts, the findings of

this study may suggest effective context-dependent practices in program administration.

For example, since program complexity was shown to predict less TA, perhaps this

suggests that programs growing in size may need to prepare for more coordination or

collaboration. On the other hand, an administrator newly hired to lead a small program

may need to allow for somewhat more TA than he/she did in the past. The significance

of the IVs concerning staff qualifications and feasibility could also suggest that

institutions aiming to increase the accountability in their programs may need to first

address personnel issues and/or contextual factors related to time and space (e.g.,

working hours and a space for collaboration).

However, not all of the hypothesized variables were significantly influential, and

it is unclear if these variables really were not important or if administrators were not

considering them enough. For example, though the variation of student needs had no

significant effect, is this really not a factor to consider? Theoretically, programs with


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

more variation need more autonomy to adapt to student needs, and several

administrators mentioned this in their open-ended responses.

Other research has suggested that administrators’ leadership style can trump other

factors in determining how they manage the school and share decision-making (Mayer

et al., 2013). It is possible that certain context-variables were not statistically significant

in this study because of administrator variables. While the main focus of this study was

on context-specific factors program leaders should consider, the influence of

administrators’ personal leadership style and philosophy should not be ignored in future

studies.

Nevertheless, it could be concluded that administrators may benefit from

reflecting more about how they coordinate their program and whether there are

influential program-specific variables they should consider. Being cognizant of such

matters could possibly help them coordinate their programs more effectively by

potentially adjusting the level of autonomy, collaboration, and/or top-down coordination.

However, more research is needed in various contexts on how program coordination

may depend on context-specific variables to possibly enhance student learning and

provide a better working environment.

References

Aoki, N. (2002), “Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom, and responsibility”,

in Benson P. and Toogood S. (Eds.), Learner Autonomy 7: Challenges to

Research and Practice. Authentik, Dublin, pp. 110-124.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Bass, B.M., and Riggio, R.E. (2005), Transformational Leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum,

Mahwah, New Jersey.

Benson, P. (2000), “Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right”, in Sinclair, B.

McGrath, I. and Lamb, T. (Eds.), Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy:

Future Directions, Longman, London, pp. 111–117.

Brezicha, K., Bergmark, U., and Mitra, D.L. (2015), “One size does not fit all:

Differentiating leadership to support teachers in school reform”, Educational

Administration Quarterl, Vol. 51 No.1, pp. 96-132.

Brunetti, G.J. (2001), “Why do they teach? A study of job satisfaction among long-term

high school teachers”, Teacher Education Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 49-74.

Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., and 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, Vol.

44 No. 6, pp. 473-490.

CEA (2014), CEA Standards for English Language Programs and Institutions.

Alexandria, VA: Commission on English Language Program Accreditation.

Choi, T.H. and Andon, N. (2014), “Can a teacher certification scheme change ELT

classroom practice? ”, ELT Journal, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 12-21.

Cotton, K. (2003), Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Creswell, J. (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Crookes, G. (1997), “What influences what and how second and foreign language

teachers teach? ”, The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 67-79.

Desurmont, A., Forsthuber, B., and Oberheidt, S. (2008), “Levels of autonomy and

responsibilities of teachers in Europe”, Eurydice.

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice./documents/thematic_reports/094E

N.pdf

Dondero, G.M. (1997), "Organizational climate and teacher autonomy: implications for

educational reform", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol.

11 No. 5, pp. 218-221.

English, F.W. (2010), Deciding What to Teach and Test: Developing, Aligning, and

Leading the Curriculum, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Eskey, D. (1997), “The IEP as a nontraditional entity”, in Christison, M.A. and Stoller,

F. (Eds.), A Handbook for Language Program Administrators, Alta Book

Center, Burlingame, CA, pp. 21-30.

Feldman, K.A. (2007), “Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from

student ratings”, In The scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher

Education: An Evidence-based Perspective (pp. 93-143). Springer Netherlands.

Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007), “A theoretical and

empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and

student achievement in public elementary schools”, The Teachers College

Record, Vol. 109 No, 4, pp. 877-896.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Gonzalez, R.A. and Firestone, W.A. (2013), "Educational tug-of-war: internal and

external accountability of principals in varied contexts", Journal of Educational

Administration, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 383-406.

Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional

leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of

consolidated-business-unit performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

78 No. 6, pp. 891-902.

Hoy, A.W. and Spero, R.B. (2005), “Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years

of teaching: A comparison of four measures”, Teaching and Teacher

Education, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 343-356.

Ingersoll, R.M. (2003), Who Controls Teachers' Work? Power and Accountability in

America's Schools. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kaplan, R. (2000), “Forward”, in Hall, J.K. and Eggington, W. (Eds.), The Sociopolitics

of English Language Teaching, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. vii-xiv.

Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M. (1978), “Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and

measurement”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22 No.

3, pp. 375-403.

Lamb, T.E. (2000), “Finding a voice: Learner autonomy and teacher education in an

urban context”, in Sinclair, B. McGrath, I. and Lamb, T. (Eds.), Learner

Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, Pearson Education, Harlow,

pp. 118-27.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Lepine, S.A. (2007), The Ruler and the Ruled: Complicating a Theory of Teaching

Autonomy. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses. (Accession Order No. 3291145)

Linacre, J.M. (2012), Winsteps® (Version 3.75.0) [Computer Software]. Beaverton,

Oregon: Winsteps.com. Retrieved January 1, 2012. Available

from http://www.winsteps.com/

Little, D. (1995), “Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on

teacher autonomy”, System, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 175-182.

Lynch, B.K. (1995), Language Program Evaluation: Theory and practice.

Cambridge University Press.

March, J.G. (1999), The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence, Blackwell, Malden,

MA.

Marks, H.M. and Louis, K.S. (1999), “Teacher empowerment and the capacity for

organizational learning”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 5,

pp. 707-750.

Mayer, A.P., Donaldson, M.L., LeChasseur, K., Welton, A.D., and Cobb, C.D. (2013),

“Negotiating site-based management and expanded teacher decision making: A

case study of six urban schools”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 49

No. 5, pp. 695-731.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Menon, M.E. (2014), "The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived

leader effectiveness and teachers' job satisfaction", Journal of Educational

Administration, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 509-528.

McGrath, I. (2000), “Teacher autonomy”, In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb

(Eds.). Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions (pp.

100-110). Harlow, Pearson Education, England.

Moore, W.P. and Esselman, M.E. (1992), “Teacher efficacy, empowerment, and a

focused instructional climate: Does student achievement benefit?”, paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA.

Nye, B., Hedges, L.V., and Konstantopoulos, S. (2004), “Do minorities experience

larger lasting benefits from small classes?”, The Journal of Educational

Research, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 94-100.

Pang, N.S.K. (1996), "School values and teachers’ feelings: A LISREL model", Journal

of Educational Administration, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 64-83.

Pearson, L.C. and Hall, B.C. (1993), “Initial construct validation of the teaching

autonomy scale”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 172-177.

Pearson, L.C. and Moomaw, W. (2005), “The relationship between teacher autonomy

and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism”, Education

Research Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-53.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Pearson, L.C. and Moomaw, W. (2006), “Continuing validation of the teaching

autonomy scale”, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp.

44-51.

Pettigrew, A.M. and Fenton, E.M. (Eds.) (2000), The Innovating Organization, Sage,

London.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Bommer, W. H. (1996), “Meta-analysis of the

relationships between Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and

employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 380-399.

Prichard, C. and Moore, J. (in press), "The Balance of Teacher Autonomy and

Top-down Coordination in ESOL Programs", TESOL Quarterly.

Richardson, V. (1998), “How teachers change”, Focus on Basics, Vol. 2 No. C, pp.

1-10.

Shamir, B. and Howell, J.M. (1999), “Organizational and contextual influences on the

emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership”, The Leadership

Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 257-283.

Stodolsky, S.S. and Grossman, P.L. (1995), “The impact of subject matter on curricular

activity: An analysis of five academic subjects”, American Educational

Research Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 227-249.

Stoller, F.L. (2012), “The catalyst for change”, in Christison, M.A. and Stoller, F.L.

(Eds.), A Handbook for Language Program Administrators, 2nd

edition, Alta

Book Center, Miami Beach, FL, pp. 37-55.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Thomas, C., Kaminska-Labbé, R., and McKelvey, B. (2005), “Managing the

control/autonomy dilemma”, working paper, University of Nice, Sophia

Antipolis, France.

Thoonen, E.E.J., Sleegers, P.J.C., Oort, F.J., Peetsma, T.T.D., and Geijsel, F.P.

(2011), “How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation,

organizational factors, and leadership practices”, Educational Administration

Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 496-536.

Veugelers, W. (2004), “Between control and autonomy: Restructuring secondary

education in The Netherlands”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 5 No. 2,

pp. 141-160.

White, R. (1998), The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Willmott, H. (1995), “Managing the academics: Commodification and control in the

development of university education in the UK”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No.

9, pp. 993-1027.

Woods, P. (2012), “A summary of key lesson in the case studies”, In Tribble C. (Ed.)

Change in English Language Teaching: Lesson from Experience, The British

Council, London.

Ylimaki, R.M. (2012), “Curriculum leadership in a conservative era”, Educational

Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 304-346.

York-Barr J. and Duke, K. (2004), “What do we know about teacher leadership?

Findings from two decades of scholarship”, Review of Educational

Research, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 255-316.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Table 1 Logit-scale Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for the Variables

Management Variable Program Variable Logit SD 1 2 3 4 5

Curricular Autonomy .32 1.3 -.036 -.305$ -.067 -.091 -.003 General Autonomy 1.20 1.5 -.089 -.152* .101 .003 .008 Top-down Coordination .91 1.3 .364$ .201* -.105 .199* .276#

Collaboration 1.82 1.5 .051 -.070 -.075 .153* .414$

1. External Pressure .03 .8 - .04 .04 .04 .34 2. Complex Program -.33 .6 - .43 .42 .19 3. (defined) Student Needs -.08 1.1 - .47 .33 4. (less) Staff Qualifications .63 .7 - .06 5. Feasibility .91 .8 -

Notes. * = p < .05, # = p < .01, $ = p <.000 Table 2 Regression Analysis Summary for Program-Specific Variables Predicting Management Variables

Management Variable

Program Variable B SE B β t p

Curricular Autonomy (TA)

External pressure -.03 .14 -.02 -.18 .861

Complex program -.67 .19 -.31 -3.56 .001

(defined) Student Needs -.09 .10 -.08 -.89 .377

(less) Staff Qualifications -.17 .15 -.10 -1.12 .264

Feasibility -.03 .14 -.02 -.20 .848

General Autonomy (TA)

External pressure -.11 .18 -.06 -.60 .553

Complex program -.38 .24 -.14 -1.59 .115

(defined) Student Needs .13 .13 .09 1.01 .313

(less) Qualified staff -.02 .19 -.01 -.09 .927

Feasibility .01 .17 .00 .04 .971

Top-down Coordination

External pressure .60 .13 .36 4.48 .000

Complex program .38 .18 .17 2.17 .032


(less) Staff Qualifications .38 .14 .21 2.72 .007

Feasibility .40 .13 .25 3.16 .002

Admin-staff Collaboration

External pressure .10 .16 .05 .62 .536

Complex program -.12 .21 -.05 -.57 .572


(less) Staff Qualifications .21 .17 .11 1.28 .203

Feasibility .74 .16 .39 4.77 .000


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

Appendix: Survey Constructs and Sample Items

Dependent Variables

Curricular Autonomy

� The instructors do not write their own syllabus for their classes.*

� Each class focuses on the goals/objectives determined by the instructor.

General Autonomy

� Each instructor selects the teaching methods and strategies used for his/her own class.

� Lesson planning is under each instructor’s control.

Coordination/Guidance

� Instructors are observed by program administrators/core faculty.

� Instructors receive a program handbook which describes, in detail, the courses and/or teaching

approaches.

Administration-Staff Collaboration

� Each instructor helps form the curriculum by working together with program administrators/core

faculty.

� Each instructor is encouraged to share ideas about the program.

Independent Variables

Feasibility to Coordinate

� There is a faculty room where all instructors meet before or after classes.

� Instructors not involved in planning the program are willing to share their ideas about the program.

(Less) Teacher Qualifications

� Instructors not involved in planning the program have more qualifications in second language

education than program administrators/core faculty.*

� Program administrators/core faculty members are more active in the field than other instructors in the

program.

Defined/stable student needs

� The students in the program all have the same specific goal for learning English.

� In terms of their language level, the student population at my institution is changeable year to year.*

External Pressure

� My program is assessed by an outside source.

� Campus-wide administrators at my institution have made it clear that they have high expectations for

the program.

Program Complexity

� Teachers are often asked to teach a variety of different courses.

� The program has so many courses that clear course guidelines are needed to prevent overlap.

* = Reverse scaled


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Variables Influencing Teacher Autonomy A

Documents

Transcript of Variables Influencing Teacher Autonomy A