Abstract

Background/purpose – This study aimed to reveal the relationship between power types used by school principals and teachers’ autonomy behaviors.

Materials/methods – The population of this descriptive study consisted of private and public school teachers employed in primary, secondary, and high schools in the center of İzmir, Turkey. This study was designed according to the survey model, with a sample consisting of 419 teachers. The Teacher Autonomy Scale developed by Çolak and Altınkurt (2017) and The Organizational Power Scale in Schools developed by Altınkurt and Yılmaz (2013) were used as data collection tools. Descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, and multivariate regression analysis were used in the analysis of the collected data. 

Results – According to the participant teachers, school principals mostly use legitimate power, then expert power, reward power, referent power, and coercive power, respectively. Teachers’ general autonomy behaviors were found to be at a high level. Among the autonomy dimensions, teachers mostly displayed teaching autonomy, followed by curriculum autonomy, communication autonomy, and professional development autonomy, respectively. The power types used by school principals explained 18% of teachers’ autonomy. Reward power was revealed as a significant predictor of teachers’ autonomy behaviors.

Conclusion – As seen in the study results, the school principals’ power preferences affect teachers’ autonomy behaviors. Therefore, it is important for school principals to use their power appropriately so as to create an open and healthy school climate where teachers can state their opinions easily and take part in decision making. However, leaving this situation to the discretion and initiative of the principals could result in other problems. For this reason, the most important step required would be to make structural arrangements for the empowerment of teachers.

Keywords: autonomy, teacher autonomy, power, school principals

Akgüngör, S., Kumral, N., & Çelik, N. (2017). Ekonomik ve demografik göstergelerle İzmir [İzmir with economic and demographic indicators]. https://www.egiad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/arastirma-raporlari/ekonomik-demografik-gostergelerle-izmir.pdf

Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2012a). Being a female school administrator in Turkey: Views of teachers and administrators. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 4(4), 2227-2238. https://www.academia.edu/3549062/

Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2012b). Relationship between school administrators’ organizational power sources and teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviors. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(3), 1833-1852. https://www.academia.edu/3549065/

Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2012c). Relationship between the school administrators’ power sources and teachers’ organizational trust levels in Turkey. Journal of Management Development, 31(1), 58-70. https://doi.org./10.1108/02621711211191005

Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2013). Development of organizational power scale at schools: A reliability and validity study. e-International Journal of Educational Research, 4(4), 1-17. http://www.e-ijer.com/tr/pub/issue/8024/105438

Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2021). Yönetim biçimleri ve yönetsel güç [Management types and managerial power]. In K. Yılmaz & K. Demir (Eds.), Eğitim Yönetimi: Kuram ve Uygulama [Educational Administration: Theory and Practice] (pp. 39-66). Pegem Akademi.

Arslantaş, H. İ., & Dayanan-Uğur, İ. (2018). The examination of level of organizational power sources owned by administrators according to perceptions of teachers. Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11, 46-63. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/501075

Aslanargun, E. (2009). The power sources that principals handle in Turkish public elementary and secondary school administration (Publication No. 324825) [Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=AGQkYstqIKtcWX2a647cCw&no=A2NfCf6YDDuErdxeGEAunw

Aydın, M. (2014). Eğitim yönetimi [Educational administration]. Gazi.

Aydoğan, İ. (2008). The effecting skills of school principals on teachers. Selçuk University Ahmet Keleşoglu Journal of Education Faculty, 25, 33-51. http://docplayer.biz.tr/29187366

Ayral, M., Özdemir, N., Türedi, A., Yılmaz-Fındık, L., Büyükgöze, H., Demirezen, S., Özarslan, H., & Tahirbegi, Y. (2014). The relationship between teacher autonomy and student achievement: PISA sample. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(1), 207-218. https://doi.org./10.12973/jesr.2014.4os12a

Bayrak, C., Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2014). The relationship between school principals’ power sources and school climate. Anthropologist, 17(1), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2014.11891417

Bluesyemre (2019, September 4). Türkiye’de illere göre eğitim durumu [Education status by province in Turkey]. https://bluesyemre.com/2019/09/04/turkiyede-illere-gore-egitim-durumu-2018-tuik-verileri/

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences]. Pegem Akademi.

Çolak, İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). The relationship between school climate and teacher autonomy behaviors. Educational Administration in Theory and Practice, 23(1), 33-71. https://www.doi.org./10.14527/kuey.2017.002

Çolak, İ., Altınkurt, Y., & Yılmaz, K. (2017). The relationship between teachers’ autonomy behaviors and job satisfaction. Black Sea Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 189-208. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ksbd/issue/34220/383408

Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2022). The mediating role of teachers’ critical thinking dispositions in the relationship between their organisational power distance perceptions and autonomy behaviors. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 90-107. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.1076433

Eurydice. (2007). School autonomy in Europe policies and measures. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/090EN.

Eurydice. (2008). Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/094EN.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). University of Michigan. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1960-06701-004

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

Garvin, N. M. (2007). Teacher autonomy: distinguishing perceptions by school cultural characteristics (UMI No. AAI3255863) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania). https://www.proquest.com/openview/72b9e302ed4d04b0ff8031f9cf93b2f7/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

Hargreaves, D. H. (1994). The new professionalism: The synthesis of professional and institutional development. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(4), 423-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(94)90023-X

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

Hoy, K. W., & Miskel, G. C. (2015). Eğitim yönetimi [Educational administration] (S. Turan, Trans.). Nobel.

Kalaycı, Ş. (2009). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik uygulamaları [SPSS applied multivariate statistics applications]. Asil.

Karaman, G. (2015). The relationship between power sources of school principals and organizational silence behavior of teachers (Publication No. 381241) [Master’s thesis, Dumlupınar University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=g5iG5RKS4r2JKWD-J0PoBw&no=NHQAHi6FKBCXADWxnT2nRA

Kılınç, A. Ç., Bozkurt, E., & İlhan, H. (2018). Examining teachers’ opinions on teacher autonomy. Journal of Education and Humanities, 9(18), 78-98. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/eibd/issue/43929/540868

Lamb, T., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). (2008). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and response (Vol. 1). Benjamins.

Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. University of California Press.

Oğuz, A. (2013). Teachers’ views about supporting learner autonomy. International Journal of Human Sciences, (10)1, 1273-1297. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs /index.php/IJHS/article/view/2569

OECD (2013a). Eğitim politikası genel görünümü: Türkiye [Education policy overview: Turkey]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264091450-en

OECD (2013b). PISA 2012 Results: What makes schools successful? Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264201156-en

OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en

OECD (2020). A Teachers’ guide to TALIS 2018 (Volume II). https://www.oecd.org/education /talis/TALIS-Teachers-Guide-to-TALIS-2018-Vol-I_ENG.pdf

Özaslan, G. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of the level of their professional autonomy. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 3(2), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.14689/ issn.2148-2624.1.3c2s2m

Öztürk, İ. H. (2011). A conceptual analysis on teacher autonomy. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(35), 82-99. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/esosder/issue/6149/82567

Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ718115

Pfeffer, J. (1987). Understanding the role of power in decision making. In J. M. Shafritz & J. S. Ott (Eds.), Classics of organisation theory (pp. 309-334). The Dorsey.

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

Sparks, D. (2012). The relationship between teacher perceptions of autonomy in the classroom and standards based accountability reform (Publication No. 3553482). [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/b0a3660840a17a747cc2cfb9510da1b1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

Spence, O. L. R. (2016). Teacher’s cultural competence and students’ perception of the social classroom climate in culturally different middle school classrooms (Publication No. 10162859). [Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/80ebb6b2bdeb8b0cb3b5d60f44e7d74f/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750

TEDMEM. (2019). TALIS 2018 sonuçları ve Türkiye üzerine değerlendirmeler [TALIS 2018 results and evaluations on Turkey] (TEDMEM analysis series 6). Türk Eğitim Derneği. https://tedmem.org/yayin/talis-2018-sonuclari-turkiye-uzerine-degerlendirmeler

Üzüm, P., & Karslı, M. D. (2013). Awareness levels of classroom teachers about teacher autonomy (An example of the province İzmir). İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(3), 79-94. http://abakus.inonu.edu.tr/xmlui/handle/11616/4497

Weber, M. (2005). Bürokrasi ve otorite [Bureaucracy and authority] (B. Akın, Trans.). Adres.

Weber, M. (2012). Ekonomi ve toplum [Economy and society] (L. Boyacı, Trans.). Yarın.

Yazıcı, A. Ş., & Akyol, B. (2017). The relationship between leadership behaviors of school principals and autonomous behaviours of teachers. The Journal of International Education Science, 10(4), 189-208 https://doi.org/10.16991/INESJOURNAL.1365

Yılmaz, K., & Altınkurt, Y. (2012). Relationship between school administrators’ power sources and teachers’ job satisfaction. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 20(2), 385-402. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefdergi/issue/48697/619533

Yılmaz, K., Oğuz, A., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). The relationship between leadership behaviors and learner autonomy support behaviors of teachers. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(3), 659-675. http://www.doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016016394

Yorulmaz, Y. İ., Çolak, İ., & Çiçek-Sağlam, A. (2018). The relationship between teachers’ structural and psychological empowerment and their autonomy. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 8(2), 81-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.22521/ jesr.2018.82.3