A Data-Driven Model of Language Teacher Autonomy in Iran's Public Schools

Nasimeh Nouhi, Seyyed Ayatollah Razmjoo

Abstract


The present article tries to come up with a model of teacher autonomy in Iran. The study uses grounded theory approach to develop a model out of the data collected. The participants of this study are 20 experienced language teachers who in Iran public schools. Purposive sampling procedure has been used to select those teachers who are as representative of the population as possible and serve our purpose well. The participants were interviewed using two procedures. One was focus group and the other was individual interview. Their interviews were recorded and then transcribed. The codification phases of grounded theory including open, axial and selective codlings were applied. Each phase led to some categories which then were subsumed under bigger categories in later phases. In the last phase the model developed. “Tradition” and “regulation” were two main components of the model which affect language teacher autonomy in Iran. “Personal features” was another component of the model which acts as a mediator meaning that it can affect the way the two other components mentioned. This model is a context-sensitive one and can be applied in different setting to identify factors that hinder or facilitate language teacher autonomy.

 


Keywords


Language teacher autonomy, grounded theory, Iran

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akbarpour-Tehrani, I. &WanMansor, WFA. (2012). The Influence of Teacher’s Autonomy in Obtaining Knowledge on Class Practice. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. V66: 544-554. Elsevier.ISSN 1877-0428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.299

Allwright, D. (1990). Autonomy in language pedagogy.CRILE Working Paper 6. University of Lancaster: Centre for Research in Language Education.

Wolff, R. (1970). In defense of anarchism.New York: Harper and Row.

Arkott, A. (1968). Adjustment and mental health.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A.& Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research education(7th ed.). California: Thomson.

Batey, M. V., & Lewis, F. M. (1982).Clarifying autonomy and accountability in nursingservices: Part 1.Journal of Nursing Administration, 12(9), 13-18.

Benson, P. (2000). Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In Sinclair, McGrath & Lamb (eds.), 111–117.

Brown, J. R. (1996). Why do teachers leave? (Master’s thesis, University of Toronto.Masters Abstracts International, 35 (01), 20.

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.

Deci, E. L. & R. Flaste (1995).Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: Grosset/Putnam.

Einolf, A.N. (2002). A study of teacher autonomy in charter school.Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University.

Friedman, R. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76.

Fraser, L. E., & Sorenson, L. (1992). Teacher motivation and satisfaction: Impact on participatory management. NASSP Bulletin, 76, 37-43.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss (1967).The discovery of grounded theory, Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

Gonzalez, L. W. (1989). Professional women’s perceived autonomy related to autonomous behavior among nurses and teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman’s University, 1989).Dissertations Abstracts International, 50 (11A),3767.

Hughes, M. (Ed.). (1975). Administering education: International challenge. London: Athlone.

Kim, I., &Loadman, W. (1994).Predicting teacher job satisfaction.Columbus: Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED383707)

Klecker, B. J., &Loadman, W. E. (1996a, February 23). A study of teacher empowerment in 180 restructuring schools: Leadership implications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago.

Klecker, B. J., &Loadman, W. E. (1996b).Exploring the relationship between teacher empowerment and teacher job satisfaction.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED400254)

Lamb, T.E., and Reinders, H. (2008). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23.2, 175–182.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality.New York: Harper and Row.

Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: A philosophical and practical guide. London:

The Falmer Press.

Perason, L.C. & Moonmaw, W. (2005).The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment and professionalism. Education Research Quarterly, 29(1): 37-53.

Myers, D. A. (1973).Teacher power: Professionalism and collective bargaining.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Parr, K.M. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ interests and pedagogical judgments.Master’sThesis, University of Florida.

Ramos, R.S. (2006).Considerations on the role of teacher autonomy.Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal,8: 184-202.

Rosenbaum, A. S. (1986). Coercion and autonomy.New York: Greenwood.

Seidman, I. E. (1991).Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in educationand the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 52, 951-961.

Smith, R.C. (2003). Teacher education of teacher-learner autonomy. In J. Gollin et al. (Eds.),Symposium for language teacher educators: Papers from three IALS symposia (pp. 1-13).

Edinburgh: IALS, University of Edinburgh. Available at: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf

Smith, R.C. (2006). Developing teacher-learner autonomy: Constraints and opportunities in pre-service training. In Proceedings of the Canarian Conference on Developing Autonomy in the FL Classroom, ed. Bobb-Wolff, L., and Vera Batista, J.L.La Laguna, Spain: University ofLa Laguna.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thu,P. (2011). Effectiveness of student teachers’ autonomy in “tutoring program in 2010”. Retrieved from: www.scribd.com

Ulriksen, J. J. (1996). Perceptions of secondary school teachers and principals concerning factors related to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1996). Dissertations Abstracts International, 58 (01A), 0127.

Willner, R. G. (1990). Images of the future now: Autonomy, professionalism, and efficacy (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (03A), 0776.Wilson, 1993).

Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. Needham Heights, MA:A Pearson.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.3p.159

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.