Implications of teacher freedom for classroom practice and student achievement: Unpacking the control dimension of autonomy

• In Event: Improving Teacher, Improving Teaching: Lessons from Practice

Proposal

Context

In response to national and global trends, primarily associated with neo-liberal reforms, autonomy is emerging as a key variable when examining educational reform initiatives. There is no agreement among researchers about how autonomy affects teachers, students and the educational systems. On the one hand, autonomy empowers teachers and, as a source of teacher professionalism, has the potential to improve student outcomes (Biesta, 2015; Freidson, 2001; Gorman & Sandefur, 2011; Webb, 2002). It also creates opportunities for individualized instruction (LaCoe, 2008; Olivant, 2015), student autonomy (Benson, 2010; Lawson, 2004; Leroy et al., 2007; Sinclair, 2009), experimentation and creativity (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2017; Moomaw, 2005), and improved standards (Ingersoll, 1997; Porter, 1989). Most importantly, it is argued that autonomy significantly increases equity in student achievement via person-specific judgment and tailored instruction (Prichard & Moore, 2016; Salokangas & Ainscow, 2017; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009).

On the other hand, we cannot overlook the risks associated with autonomy, such as maintaining the status quo (Erss, 2018; Johnson, 2016) and the potential for teachers’ opportunistic behavior (Woessmann, 2005). Moreover, potential equity risks are seen as one of the threats teacher autonomy creates for the educational system (Boote, 2006; LaCoe, 2008; Murphy et al., 1986). Finally, researchers express concerns about the suitability of autonomy for all types of teachers and their ability to exercise it as intended for the best interests of students (Boote, 2006; Fox, 2012; Grant et al., 2020; Gwaltney, 2012; Ronnberg, 2007).

Research Questions

In this study, I explore the role of autonomy in shaping teacher practices in the classrooms that have been shown to improve student outcomes. I conceptualize teacher autonomy as a decision-making space and “freedom from external interference, pressure and control” (Charters, 1976, as cited in Strong & Yoshida, 2014, p. 127). More specifically, I look at two types of control: input control, which targets resources for instruction, and output control, focused on performance measurement (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007; Helgoy & Homme, 2007). The main research question guiding this study is: “How do different forms of the control dimension of autonomy, freedom from input and output control, manifest in teachers’ classroom behavior and, ultimately, in student achievement and equity in outcomes?”. I also investigate how teacher competence moderates the relationship between teacher autonomy and teachers’ classroom behavior.

Data and Methods

The study draws upon the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), a large-scale assessment conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in 2016. The PIRLS nationally representative database contains information on 346 852 students, 337 332 parents, 16 476 teachers, and 12 124 school principals from 50 countries (Foy, 2018).
I model the relationship between teachers’ freedom from input and output control, a key predictor variable, and student achievement and equity using a multiple regression framework. To understand how teachers’ classroom behavior mediates this relationship, I use the structural equation approach. Based on the existing literature, I identified the following meaningful types of teacher behavior that could explain how and why teacher autonomy and student achievement are related: (a) rigorous instruction, (b) differentiated instruction, (c) individualized support to students, (d) opportunities for student autonomy. Finally, I explore how teacher competence moderates the relationship between teacher autonomy and classroom behavior.

Preliminary Findings

Preliminary results demonstrate that teachers’ freedom from input and output control are associated with different student outcomes and equity and this relationship is mediated by teacher classroom practices. A combination of weak input and weak output control is associated with higher student outcomes and equity. A combination of strong input and weak output control is found to be the least favorable condition for student achievement and teachers’ effective classroom behaviors. In addition, these relationships vary across countries with different socio-economic contexts. Also, analysis of the PIRLS data confirmed the claims of several empirical and conceptual studies that freedom from control leads to richer opportunities for rigorous instruction, student autonomy, individualized support, and differentiated instruction only in the hands of experienced and highly competent teachers.


Contribution

These empirical findings have both scholarly and practical significance. Despite an ample interest in teacher autonomy, cross-sectional research on the implications of the control dimension of teacher autonomy for teacher classroom performance and student outcomes is quite limited. In addition to unpacking the implications of the control dimension of teacher autonomy, my findings contribute to a body of knowledge regarding how teachers with different levels of competence use autonomy to improve their classroom practices and, consequently, student achievement and equity. From the policy perspective, highlighting the controversies on the benefits and risks associated with different dimensions of autonomy, creates research-based evidence for policy-makers to consider in their decisions on teacher-autonomy-related policies.

Author

• Ketevan Chachkhiani, Arizona State University