A scale development study on measuring science teachers' autonomy on curriculum
The purpose of this study is to develop a Teachers' Autonomy on Curriculum Scale. For this aim, an item pool consisted of 50-item was prepared for the study. These scale items were reduced to 29 items after expert review and pilot implementation. This preliminary form was applied to 178 science teachers working in secondary schools in Izmir, Turkey. Validity and reliability studies have been done and Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency coefficient was calculated as .82. The scale is four-dimensional and reveals 67.4% of the total variance. The scale has four sub-scales (Professional Autonomy, Process Autonomy, Assessment Autonomy, and Planning Autonomy). Confirmatory factor analysis results support that the scale consisted of four subscales (RMSEA= .05, CFI= .98, AGFI= .89, RMR= .05, GFI= .93, SRMR= .06).
Arıkan, R. (2013). Anketler ve anket soruları. Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık.
Benson, P. (2010). Teacher education and teacher autonomy: Creating spaces for experimentation in secondary school English language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 259-275.
Benson, P. & Huang, J. (2008). Autonomy in the transition from foreign language learning to foreign language teaching. D.E.L.T.A., 24, 421-439.
Blumberg, A., Wayson, W., & Weber, W. (1969). The elementary school cabinet: Report of an experience in participative decision-making. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5(3), 39-52. Retrieved from http://eaq.sagepub.com
Brunetti, G. J. (2001). Why do they teach? A study of job satisfaction among long-term high school teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(3), 49–74.
Burkert, A. & Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Focus on the student teacher: The European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL) as a tool to develop teacher autonomy. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 238-252.
Bustingorry, S. O. (2008). Towards teachers’ professional autonomy through action research. Educational Action Research, 16(3), 407-420.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2011). Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: what do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 505-508.
Çakır, A., & Balçıkanlı, C. (2012). The use of the EPOSTL to foster teacher autonomy: ELT student teachers’ and teacher trainers’ views. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 1-16.
Çeçen, A. R. (2006). Duyguları yönetme becerileri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(26), 101–113.
Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, S. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (3.baskı). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
Çolak, İ. & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Okul iklimi ile öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(1), 33-71.
Demirel, Ö. (2004). Eğitimde Program Geliştirme (6. Baskı). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
Ding, A. (2009). Tensions and struggles in fostering collaborative teacher autonomy online. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 65-81.
Dymoke, S. & Harrison, J. K. (2006). Professional development and the beginning teacher: Issues of teacher autonomy and institutional conformity in the performance review process, Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(1), 71-92.
Edgar, D. E. & Warren R. L. (1969). Power and autonomy in teacher socialization. Sociology of Education, 42(4), 386-399.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: The Falmer Press.
Eurydice. (2008). Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe. Brussels: Puclication Office of the European. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice
Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20-38.
Franklin, H. L. (1988). Principal consideration and its relationship to teacher sense of autonomy. (Doctora’s thesis, University of Oregon, USA).
Friedman, A. I. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76.
Garcia, T. & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy motivation and performance in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 477-486.
Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th Edition). London: Pearson Higher Education.
Hmel, B. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2002). The meaning of autonomy: On and beyond the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of Personality, 70(3), 277-310.
Hong, W. P. & Youngs, P. (2016). Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 20-33.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). Short on power long on responsibility. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 20- 25.
Jöreskog, K. & G. Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the simples command language. Lilncolnwood: II. Scientific Software International, Inc.
Karasar, N. (2003). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
Koustelios, A. D., Karabatzaki, D., & Kousteliou, I. (2004). Autonomy and job satisfaction for a sample of Greek teachers. Psychological Reports, 95(3), 883-886.
Kuku, S. M., & J. W. Taylor. (2002). Teachers’ participating in decision making: A comparative study of school leader and teacher perceptions in north Philippine academies. International Forum Journal, 5(1), 19-46.
LaCoe, C. S. (2006). Decomposing teacher autonomy: A study investigating types of teacher autonomy and how current public school climate affects teacher autonomy. (Doctora’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania, USA).
Little, D. (1995). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentic Ltd.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.
MoNE [Ministry of National Education]. (2005). Science curriculum (6th-8th grades). Ankara: Board of Education. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
MoNE [Ministry of National Education]. (2013). Science curriculum (3th-8th grades). Ankara: Board of Education. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
MoNE [Ministry of National Education]. (2017). Science curriculum (3th-8th grades). Ankara: Board of Education. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
Moomaw, W. E. (2005). Teacher-perceived autonomy: A construct validation of the teacher autonomy scale. (Master’s thesis, University of West Florida, USA).
Oğuzkan, A. F. (1974). Eğitim terimleri sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
Oshana, M. (2003). How much should we value autonomy? In E.F. Paul, F.D. Miller & J. Paul (Eds.). Autonomy (pp. 99-126). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (2. Baskı). Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
Öztürk, İ. H. (2011). Öğretmen özerkliği üzerine kuramsal bir inceleme. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 35, 82-99.
Pearson, L. C. & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-177.
Pearson, L.C. & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment and professionalism. Education Research Quarterly, 29(1), 37–53.
Pitt, A. (2010). On having one’s chance: Autonomy as education’s limit. Educational Theory, 60(1), 1-18.
Sachs, G. T. (2000). Teacher and researcher autonomy in action research. Research Online, 15(3), 35-51.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Muller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Anı yayıncılık.
Sönmez, V. (2008). Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri (2.Baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Tan, Ş. (2008). Öğretimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (1. Baskı). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
TED [Türk Eğitim Derneği]. (2014). Öğretmen gözüyle öğretmenlik mesleği. Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları. Retrieved from http://www.turkegitimdernegi.org.tr
Thompson, B. (2005). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Ulaş, J. & Aksu, M. (2015). Development of teacher autonomy scale for Turkish teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 344 – 349.
Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F. & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers' autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 302-315.