SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 2

The Examination of the Relationship Between Teacher Autonomy and Teacher Leadership through Structural Equation Modeling

Mevlüt Kara(GAZIANTEP UNIVERSITY, NİZİP FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-6381-5288
Bayram Bozkurt(GAZIANTEP UNIVERSITY, NİZİP FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-9184-0878
Pages
—
Publication Date
2022-06-03
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, it can be alleged that teacher autonomy should be promoted to reveal the leadership skills of teachers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to examine the relationship between teacher autonomy and teacher leadership.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was carried out with 571 teachers who were determined through a simple random sampling technique among those working in Turkey during the 2020-2021 academic year.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, it can be alleged that teacher autonomy should be promoted to reveal the leadership skills of teachers.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2020-2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Teacher autonomy · Teacher leadership · Structural equation modelling

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the relationship between teacher autonomy and teacher leadership. With this purpose in mind, a predictive correlational research method, was adopted. The study was carried out with 571 teachers who were determined through a simple random sampling technique among those working in Turkey during the 2020-2021 academic year. The Teacher Autonomy Scale developed by Çolak & Altınkurt (2017) was used to determine teachers’ perception of teacher autonomy, and the Teacher Leadership Scale developed by Beycioğlu & Aslan (2010) was exploited for their perception of teacher leadership. Descriptive analyses such as mean and standard deviation were estimated to determine teachers’ perceptions of autonomy and leadership. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and structural equation modeling (SEM) were employed to control the relationship between teacher autonomy and teacher leadership. As a result of the study, the participants’ teacher autonomy and teacher leadership perceptions were found to be at higher levels. Moreover, it was established that there was a positive and significant relationship between teacher autonomy and teacher leadership, and teacher autonomy was found to be among the factors explaining teacher leadership. Therefore, it can be alleged that teacher autonomy should be promoted to reveal the leadership skills of teachers.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kara, M., Bozkurt, B. (2022). The Examination of the Relationship Between Teacher Autonomy and Teacher Leadership through Structural Equation Modeling. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, Volume: 9 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1037128

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (83)

  1. Anderson, K. D. (2004). The nature of teacher leadership in schools as reciprocal influences between teacher leaders and principals. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.15.1.97.27489
  2. Andrew, M. D. (1974). Teacher leadership: A model for change. Washington: Bulletin 37.
  3. Araşkal, S., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2019). Investigating the factors affecting teacher leadership: A qualitative study. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 25(3), 419-468. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2019.011
  4. Archbald, D., & Porter, A. (1994). Curriculum control and teachers' perceptions of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 21-39. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1164381.pdf
  5. Aslan, H., Çalık, T., & Er, E. (2019). İlkokul öğretmenlerinin öğretmen liderliği ve politik beceri algılarının incelenmesi [Examining the primary school teachers views on teacher leadership and political skills]. Elementary Education Online, 18(3), 1087-1098. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.610689
  6. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within. Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference. CA: Jossey-Bass.
  7. Bellibaş, M. Ş., Gümüş, S., & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2020). Principals supporting teacher leadership: The effects of learning‐centred leadership on teacher leadership practices with the mediating role of teacher agency. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 200-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12387
  8. Beycioğlu, K., & Aslan, B. (2012). Öğretmen ve yöneticilerin öğretmen liderliğine ilişkin görüşleri: Bir Karma Yöntem Çalışması [Teachers and administrators’ views on teacher leadership: A mixed methods study]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice,18(2), 191-223. Bishop, H. L., Tinley, A., and Berman, B. T. (1997). A contemporary leadership model to promote teacher leadership. Action in Teacher Education, 19(3), 77-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1997.10462880
  9. Blanchard, K. (2007). Leading at a higher level. NJ: Prentice Hall.
  10. Bredeson, P. V. (2000). The school principal’s role in teacher professional development. Journal of In-Service Education, 26(2), 385-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580000200114
  11. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2005). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 12 and 13. A Guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge.
  12. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  13. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı[Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences] (16th Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  14. Can, N. (2009). The leadership behaviours of teachers in primary schools in Turkey. Education, 129(3), 436-447. Retrieved from https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=c7db301f-d0f2-433e-88e0-b257e8e501b2%40redis
  15. Cansoy, R., & Parlar, H. (2018). Okul etkililiğinin bir yordayıcısı olarak öğretmen liderliği [Teacher leadership as a predictor of school effectiveness]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(3), 925-934. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.346648
  16. Castle, K. (2004). The meaning of autonomy in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood, Teacher Education, 25(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1090102040250103
  17. Childs-Bowen, D. Moller, G., & Scrivner, J. (2000). Principals: Leaders of leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650008461606
  18. Çolak, İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Okul iklimi ile öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between school climate and teacher autonomy behaviors].Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 23(1), 33-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2017.002
  19. Dampson, D. G., Apau, S. K., & Amuah, U. (2019). Freedom to choose within limits: Teacher autonomy from the perspectives of basic school teachers in Ghana. European Journal of Educational Management, 2(1), 35-44. http://dx.doi.org/1012973/eujem.2135
  20. Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership: That strengthens professional practice. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  21. Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 87-106. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/461816
  22. Demir, K. (2020). Öğretmen liderliği[Teacher leadership]. In K. Yılmaz (Eds.) Liderlik: Kuram, araştırma ve uygulama[Leadership: Theory, research and practice] (pp. 557-570). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  23. Emira, M. (2010). Leading to decide or deciding to lead? Understanding the relationship between teacher leadership and decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(5), 591-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143210373738
  24. Einolf, A. (2002). A study of teacher autonomy in charter school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University.
  25. Eurydice (2008). Avrupa'daki öğretmenlerin sorumluluk ve özerklik düzeyleri[Levels of responsibility and autonomy of teachers in Europe]. Brussels: Puclication Office of the European.
  26. Frankel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Int. Ed.
  27. 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
  28. Frost, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Towards a research agenda. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122078
  29. Garvin, N. M. (2007). Teacher autonomy: Distinguishing perceptions by school cultural characteristics. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
  30. Gül, F. Ö. (2017). Öğretmen liderliği [Teacher leadership]. In M. Çetin (Eds.), Güncel liderlik kuramları[Current leadership theories] (pp. 65-87). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  31. Harris, A., & Lambert, L. (2003). Building leadership capacity for school improvement. United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education.
  32. Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. London: Open University Press.
  33. Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility?. School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000112801
  34. Harris, A. (2005). Teacher leadership: More than just a feel-good factor?. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244777
  35. Harris, A.,, & Muijs, D. (2003). Teacher leadership: Principles and practice. United Kingdom: National College for School Leadership.
  36. Huang, J. (2007). Teacher autonomy in second language education. CELEA Journal. 30(1), 30-42.
  37. Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). Short on power, long on responsibility. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 20-25. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=gse_pubs
  38. Ingersoll, R.M., & Collins, G.J (2017). Accountability and control in American schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1205142
  39. Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership. Educational leadership, 65(1), 8-13.
  40. Jumani N.B., & Malik S. (2017) Promoting teachers’ leadership through autonomy and accountability. In: Amzat I., and Valdez N. (Eds.) Teacher Empowerment Toward Professional Development and Practices. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4151-8_2
  41. Kardos, S., & Johnson, S. M. (2007). On their own and presumed expert: New teachers’ experience with their colleagues. Teachers College Record, 109(12), 2016–2083. Retrieved from https://www.tcrecord.org/books/Content.asp?ContentID=12812
  42. Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping teachers develop as leaders (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
  43. Kılınç, A. Ç., Cemaloğlu, N., & Savaş, G. (2015). The relationship between teacher leadership, teacher professionalism, and perceived stress. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 58, 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.58.5
  44. Kılınç, A. Ç., & Recepoğlu, E. (2013). Ortaöğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin öğretmen liderliğine ilişkin algı ve beklentileri [High school teachers' perceptions on and expectations from teacher leadership]. International Journal of Educational and Human Sciences, 3(2), 175-215. Retrieved from http://kalemacademy.com/Cms_Data/Sites/KalemAcademy/Files/KalemAcademyRepository/sayilar/Sayi5_05OrtaogretimOkuluOgretmenlerinini.pdf
  45. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  46. LaCoe, C. S. (2006). Decomposing teacher autonomy: A study investigating types of teacher autonomy and how current public school climate affects teacher autonomy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
  47. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: An evocative context for teacher leadership. School Leadership & Management, 23(4), 421-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000150953
  48. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A replication. School Leadership & Management, 20(4), 415-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/713696963
  49. Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D., & Genge, M. (1996) ‘Transformational school leadership’, In K. Leithwood et al. (Eds), International handbook on educational leadership and administration,(pp.785–840). Kluwer Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143210373738
  50. Mayo, K. E. (2002). Teacher leadership: The master teacher model. Management in Education, 16(3), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206020160030701
  51. Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi, Amos uygulamaları[Structual equation modeling, AMOS practices]. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  52. Miles, M. B., Saxl, E. R., & Lieberman, A. (1988). What skills do educational “change agents” need? An empirical view. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(2), 157-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1988.11076034
  53. Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership: Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational Management & Administration, 31(4), 437-448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211X030314007
  54. Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 961-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.010
  55. Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Teacher leadership in (In) action: Three case studies of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 111-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207071387
  56. Nguyen, D., Harris, A., & Ng, D. (2019). A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017). Journal of Educational Administration, 58(1), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2018-0023
  57. Odell, S. J. (1997). Preparing teachers for teacher leadership. Action In Teacher Education, 19(3), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1997.10462884
  58. OECD (2016). Supporting teacher professionalism: Insights from TALIS 2013. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264248601-en.
  59. Osgood, J. (2006). Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood education: Resisting the regulatory. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2006.7.1.5
  60. Özaslan, G. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of the level of their professional autonomy. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 3(2), 25-39. http://dx.doi.org/10,14689/issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s2m
  61. Öntaş, T., & Okut, L. (2017). The relationship between private elementary and middle school teachers’ leadership behaviors and classroom management tendencies, Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18(1), 98-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.296131
  62. Öztürk, İ. H. (2011). Öğretmen özerkliği üzerine kuramsal bir inceleme[A conceptual analysıs on teacher autonomy]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(35), 82-99. Öztürk, N., & Şahin, S. (2017). Eğitim örgütlerinde örgüt kültürü ve öğretmen liderliği: lider-üye etkileşiminin aracılık rolü[Organizational Culture and Teacher Leadership in Educational Organizations: Mediation Role of Leader-Member Exchange]. Elementary Education Online 16(4), 1451- 1468. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2017.342967
  63. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. London: Routledge.
  64. Paulu, N., & Winters, K. (1998). Teachers leading the way: Voices from the national teacher forum. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
  65. Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155
  66. Prichard, C., & Moore, J.E. (2016). Variables influencing teacher autonomy, administrative coordination, and collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(1), 58- 74. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0113
  67. Ramos, R. C. (2006). Considerations on the role of teacher autonomy. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, 183-202. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.10510
  68. Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 227-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01191.x
  69. Rudolph, L. (2006). Decomposing teacher autonomy: A study investigating types of teacher autonomy and how it relates to job satisfaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania.
  70. Sawalhi, R., & Chaaban, Y. (2019). Student teachers’ perspectives towards teacher leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1666430
  71. Sawalhi, R., & Sellami A. (2021). Factors influencing teacher leadership: Voices of public school teachers in Qatar, International Journal of Leadership in Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.1913238
  72. Scribner, S. M. P., & Bradley-Levine, J. (2010). The meaning (s) of teacher leadership in an urban high school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 491-522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10383831
  73. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (2001). Supervision: A redefinition (7th Ed.). United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education.
  74. Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 779-804. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00077
  75. Smylie, M. A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 3-7. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/461811
  76. Ward, L., & Parr, J. (2006). Authority, volunteerism, and sustainability: Creating and sustaining an online community through teacher leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(2), 109-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760600586366
  77. Wasley, P. A. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and realities of practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  78. Webb, P. T. (2002) Teacher power: the exercise of professional autonomy in an era of strict accountability. Teacher Development, 6(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530200200156
  79. Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A Review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 134-171. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316653478
  80. 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
  81. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003255
  82. Beycioğlu, K., & Aslan, B. (2012). Öğretmen ve yöneticilerin öğretmen liderliğine ilişkin görüşleri: Bir Karma Yöntem Çalışması [Teachers and administrators’ views on teacher leadership: A mixed methods study]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice,18(2), 191-223.
  83. Öztürk, İ. H. (2011). Öğretmen özerkliği üzerine kuramsal bir inceleme[A conceptual analysıs on teacher autonomy]. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(35), 82-99.