The Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0022-0671 (Print) 1940-0675 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Continuing Validation of the Teaching Autonomy

Scale

L. Carolyn Pearson & William Moomaw

To cite this article: L. Carolyn Pearson & William Moomaw (2006) Continuing Validation of the
Teaching Autonomy Scale, The Journal of Educational Research, 100:1, 44-51, DOI: 10.3200/
JOER.100.1.44-51

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.44-51

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 628

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20
 Continuing Validation of the Teaching
Autonomy Scale
L. CAROLYN PEARSON
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
ABSTRACT Although researchers have demonstrated a link
between teacher autonomy and teacher motivation, job satis-
faction, stress (burnout), professionalism, and empowerment,
the task of identifying the underlying theoretical dimensions
of teacher autonomy has met with varied results. The authors
verified the existing 2-factor structure of the Teaching Auton-
omy Scale (TAS) derived from a previous study (Pearson &
Hall, 1993) and analyzed the data with confirmatory factor
analysis (LISREL). The results of the replication of the earli-
er study of the TAS supported the internal consistency relia-
bility of the scores and the original factors of general teaching
autonomy and curriculum autonomy.
Key words: confirmatory factor analysis, curriculum and
teaching autonomy, Teaching Autonomy Scale
T eacher autonomy is a common link that appears
when examining teacher motivation, job satis-
faction, stress (burnout), professionalism, and
empowerment (Brunetti, 2001; Kim & Loadman, 1994;
Klecker & Loadman, 1996; Ulriksen, 1996). Many
researchers who examined these constructs and their rela-
tionships revealed that teachers need to have autonomy
(Erpelding, 1999; Jones, 2000; Wilson, 1993). Autonomy
also emerges as a key variable when education reform ini-
tiatives are examined. Some researchers argued that grant-
ing autonomy and empowering teachers is an appropriate
starting point for education experts to solve current school
problems (Melenyzer, 1990; Short, 1994).
Educators believe that recognizing teaching as a profes-
sion and developing professional teachers is a possible solu-
tion to teachers’ lack of motivation and satisfaction, pro-
fessionalism, and empowerment, as well as teacher stress. If
teachers are to be empowered and regarded as professionals,
then, like other professionals, they must have the freedom
to prescribe the best treatment for their students (as doctors
and lawyers do for their patients and clients). Experts have
defined that freedom as teacher autonomy. Although a link
to the aforementioned constructs has been demonstrated
repeatedly, identifying the underlying theoretical dimen-
sions of teacher autonomy has met with varied results
because few studies pertain directly to teacher autonomy,
44
WILLIAM MOOMAW
University of West Florida
particularly when they focus on appropriate measures, as
autonomy is difficult to isolate (e.g., Pearson & Hall,
1993).
Constructs Related to Teacher Autonomy
In a myriad of studies, researchers have examined teach-
ers’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic factors for
teachers include (a) desire to help students achieve, (b)
desire to make a difference in society, and (c) sense of
accomplishment when students learn. Extrinsic factors for
teachers include (a) pay, (b) nonmonetary fringe benefits,
and (c) recognition of performance (Ashbaugh, 1982;
DeJesus, 1991; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Farrar, 1981; Fire-
stone & Pennell, 1993; Picard, 1986; Porter, 1993; Swan-
son & Koonce, 1986). Overall, “intrinsic rewards are much
more powerful for motivating teachers than are extrinsic
rewards, such as merit pay” (National Institute of Educa-
tion, 1981, p. 2). The body of teacher research also supports
that notion because intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in the
teaching profession have received considerable attention;
yet, few researchers have examined the effects of these
rewards (Frase, 1989).
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation may be defined in terms
of Herzberg’s (as cited in Frase, 1989) motivation–hygiene
theory, in which motivators (e.g., recognition, advancement,
responsibility) contribute to satisfaction if present, yet, will
not detract from satisfaction if not present. In addition,
hygiene factors (e.g., salary, working conditions) lead to dis-
satisfaction if not present, but do not lead to motivation if
present. Motivation–hygiene theory is consistent with
teacher research conducted by Oxman and Michelli (1980),
who found that intrinsic factors affect job satisfaction and
extrinsic factors result in job dissatisfaction. Frase demon-
strated the theory explicitly in a study involving job-enrich-
ment opportunities.
Address correspondence to Carolyn Pearson, University of
Arkansas at Little Rock, College of Education, 2801 South Universi-
ty Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72204. (E-mail: lcpearson@ualr.edu)
Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications
September/October 2006 [Vol. 100(No. 1)]
Brown (1996) reported three major intrinsic reasons why
teachers leave the profession: (a) need for personal growth,
(b) desire for a philosophy of education, and (c) lack of
respect and recognition for their efforts. In contrast,
Sarafoglu (1997) revealed intrinsic reasons why teachers
remain in the profession: (a) love of learning, (b) love of
children, (c) resilience, (d) collegiality, and (e) reflectivity.
Although the majority of researchers support the use of
intrinsic rewards to motivate teachers, principals and
teachers believe that their greatest needs in their profession
are security and autonomy (Nero, 1985).
Since autonomy is one facet of teacher motivation
(Khmelkov, 2000; Losos, 2000; White, 1992), an analysis of
motivational factors on teacher job satisfaction and dissatis-
fation is essential. The results of a study by the National
Center for Education Statistics (Perie & Baker, 1997), as
well as several other studies (Charters, 1976; Franklin,
1988; Gnecco, 1983; Hall, Villeme, & Phillippy, 1989;
Pearson & Hall, 1993), have demonstrated that the degree
of autonomy perceived by teachers is indicative of their cur-
rent job satisfaction. A majority of researchers supported
that ideology in more recent literature (Brunetti, 2001; Kim
& Loadman, 1994; Klecker & Loadman, 1996; Ulriksen,
1996). Also, in a report on job satisfaction among U.S.
teachers, Perie and Baker (1997) identified administrative
support and leadership, good student behavior, positive
school climate, and teacher autonomy as working condi-
tions associated with higher teacher satisfaction. Perie and
Baker added that working conditions are related to satisfac-
tion more than are background variables, such as gender,
age, and years of experience. In an examination of partici-
patory management, Frase and Sorenson (1992) indicated
that teachers differ in their desire to participate in school
management. However, Brunetti found that retaining
autonomy in the classroom highly influences the decision of
a majority of teachers to remain in the teaching profession.
Job dissatisfaction leads to stress and, ultimately, to
burnout if allowed to continue unabated. According to
Kyriacou (1989),
Teacher stress refers to the experience by teachers of
unpleasant emotions such as anger, tension, frustration, anx-
iety, depression, and nervousness, resulting from the aspect
of their work as teachers . . . . Teacher burnout refers to a
state of mental, emotional and attitudinal exhaustion in
teachers that results from a prolonged experience of stress.
(p. 27)
Researchers have acknowledged that teacher motivation
and autonomy are related to job satisfaction and stress
(Davis & Wilson, 2000; Pearson & Hall, 1993); the more
intrinsically motivated teachers are, the more motivated
and satisfied they are with their jobs and the less stress they
experience (Davis & Wilson). Subsequently, other
researchers found that constraints on autonomy, such as
perceived lack of control and sense of powerlessness, are
related to tension, frustration, and anxiety among teachers
(Bacharach, Bauer, & Conley, 1986; Blasé & Matthews,
45
1984; Cedoline, 1982; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Dworkin,
Haney, Dworkin, & Telschow, 1990; Evers, 1987; Lortie,
1975; Natale, 1993; Woods, 1989; Yee, 1991).
Some researchers have tried to determine how autonomy
is incorporated into professionalism. Part of the findings on
teachers in “A Nation at Risk” (National Commission on
Excellence in Education, 1983) revealed that the profes-
sional working life of teachers is, on the whole, unaccept-
able; this finding began a long-standing argument on
teaching as a profession. Seven recommendations have
originated from “A Nation at Risk” to improve the prepa-
ration of teachers or to make teaching a more rewarding
and respected profession. Teacher professionalism—a move-
ment to upgrade the status, training, and working condi-
tions of teachers—has received a great deal of interest since
“A Nation at Risk” was published (Ingersoll & Alsalam,
1997). Ingersoll (1997) included teacher authority as one
of the traditional characteristics used to distinguish profes-
sional teachers from those in other types of occupations.
Whether one agrees that teaching is a profession, there is
little argument that autonomy is a key element of any true
profession (Blasé & Kirby, 2000; Ingersoll, 1997; Ingersoll
& Alsalam, 1997; Khmelkov, 2000). Ingersoll defined
authority as “the extents to which teachers influence school
decisions concerned with key educational issues” (p. x); the
definition was later broadened to include “the degree of
individual autonomy exercised by teachers over planning
and teaching within the classroom” (Ingersoll & Alsalam,
1997, p. vii). The emphasis on addressing both aspects of
teacher authority is summarized best as follows:
Advocates of increases in faculty influence and increases in
teacher autonomy argue that teachers will not only make
better informed decisions about educational issues than dis-
trict or state officials, but that top-down decision making
often fails precisely because it lacks the support of those who
are responsible for the implementation and success of the
decision. (Ingersoll & Alsalam, p. 7)
Others agree that teachers and principals must have the
authority to make key decisions about the services they
render, and any top-down imposition of change is counter
to the development of professionalism (Firestone & Bader,
1992). Teacher authority has been linked to teacher com-
mitment and teacher professionalism (Ingersoll & Alsalam,
1997), and autonomy is a key factor in novice teachers’ use
of professional practices (Khmelkov, 2000).
Teacher empowerment is another panacea that many edu-
cation reformers consider essential for school restructuring
and optimum teacher development. Teacher autonomy has
been empirically derived as one dimension of teacher
empowerment (Klecker & Loadman, 1996; Short & Rine-
hart, 1992); yet, empowered teachers are not generally found
in American public schools (Corwin & Borman, 1988; Han-
son 1991). That observation is still valid, despite research
reflecting the importance of teacher empowerment and
autonomy (Fay, 1990; Klecker, 1998). In a survey conducted
by the National Center for Education Statistics, in which a
46
nationally representative sample of teachers was asked to
rate their influence on a variety of classroom and schoolwide
issues, the teachers indicated that they perceived their own
influence to have remained stable over the past few years
(Shen, 1998). Teachers perceived that their influence was
confined primarily to the classroom on issues like textbook
selection and teaching strategies. However, one can easily
observe collaborative autonomy in schools in which teachers
work with administrators to make decisions pertaining to
curriculum, instruction, and scheduling (Willner, 1990).
Teacher Autonomy
The definition of teacher autonomy is ambiguous in the lit-
erature, but it has been defined in the past as teachers’ feel-
ings of whether they control themselves and their work envi-
ronments (Pearson & Hall, 1993). What seems like
autonomy to one teacher may seem like isolation to anoth-
er. One teacher may view autonomy as a means to gain sub-
stantial freedom from interference or supervision, while
another teacher may view it as the freedom to develop col-
legial relationships and accomplish tasks that extend beyond
the classroom. Some teachers thrive on autonomy, whereas
others perceive it as a means for principals to avoid their
duties (Frase & Sorenson, 1992). However, throughout the
literature on teachers and autonomy, considerable evidence
supports the concept that teacher autonomy has changed
considerably over the years and continues to evolve.
Willner (1990) identified an older concept of teacher
autonomy based on independence through isolation and
alienation, and a newer concept of teacher autonomy based
on collaborative decision making and freedom to make pre-
scriptive professional choices concerning services rendered
to students. Other researchers concurred with Willner’s
notion of a new sense of teacher autonomy that “alienation
is not autonomy” (Franklin, 1988, p. 13) and that “to be iso-
lated in a classroom without collegial interaction or mean-
ingful feedback is not the intended spirit of autonomy”
(Frase & Sorenson, 1992, p. 40). Many educators agree that
for teachers to realize a new sense of professional autonomy,
traditional bureaucratic governance models can no longer
exist, and teachers must have authority to make decisions
regarding matters such as school policy (Fay, 1990). The
most significant demonstration of authority is the manner
in which instruction is manifested and viewed by teachers
(Franklin; Hanson, 1991). Teachers believe that (a) they
are qualified authorities in the instructional process because
they have considerable expertise in specialized fields, (b)
they have a right to organize the learning process according
to their own choosing, and (c) the network of impersonal
school rules stops at the classroom door because teachers
formulate personalized flexible rules, which allow them to
operate within their classrooms as they see fit.
Although teachers have various reasons for leaving the
teaching profession, they most often leave the classroom
because of lack of professionalism, recognition, or autonomy
The Journal of Educational Research
(Natale, 1993; Pearson & Hall, 1993). Teacher autonomy,
or lack thereof, seems to be a critical component in teach-
ers’ motivation to stay or leave the teaching profession. The
degree of autonomy perceived by new teachers is indicative
of current job satisfaction and a positive reaction to teach-
ing; teachers who had high autonomy scores expressed a
willingness to enter teaching again if faced with such a deci-
sion (Pearson & Hall). Pearson and Hall also found that
perceptions of autonomy are related to various factors with-
in the work environment, but not factors such as academic
ability, quality of prior training, or years of experience.
Purpose
Although the link between teacher autonomy and sev-
eral related constructs is well established, one must devel-
op a stable and well-defined measure of teacher autonomy
to help researchers examine various school-reform initia-
tives and teacher attitudes and perceptions. Pearson and
Hall (1993) developed a reliable and valid measure that
yielded curriculum autonomy and general teaching auton-
omy dimensions underlying theoretical aspects of teacher
autonomy that are supported by the literature. Because
instrument validation is a continuing process, the
researchers wanted to determine whether prior factors
derived from exploratory factor analysis would replicate,
thus demonstrating a stable factor structure.
Participants and Procedure
The target population for this study consisted of 300
teachers who worked in three neighboring school districts
in three counties in Florida. To ensure full geographic and
grade-level representation, we selected one elementary
school, one middle school, and one high school from each
of the three counties (n = 67, n = 52, and n = 52 teachers
at each level, respectively). We sent a cover letter explain-
ing the study and the instruments to the random sample of
teachers. Of the 300 teachers sampled, we obtained com-
plete data from 171 (57%). Of the 171 respondents, 37
(21%) were elementary teachers, 88 (52%) were middle
school teachers, and 46 (27%) were high school teachers.
Their mean years of teaching experience was 14 years,
ranging from 1 to 37 years. The majority of teachers held a
bachelor’s degree (n =111), but there were 58 who had
master’s degrees, 1 who had a specialist degree and 1 who
had a doctoral degree, and all teachers represented a vari-
ety of academic and nonacademic subjects.
Instrumentation
To adequately describe the sample, we included demo-
graphic variables of interest on the cover sheet of the
Teaching Autonomy Scale (TAS; Pearson & Hall, 1993).
Pearson and Hall originally designed the 18 scale items to
elicit the degree to which teachers perceive that they have
September/October 2006 [Vol. 100(No. 1)]
autonomy in the following areas: (a) selection of activities
and materials, (b) classroom standards of conduct, (c)
instructional planning and sequencing, and (d) personal
on-the-job decision making. Eleven of the items reflect
high autonomy (e.g., I am free to be creative in my teach-
ing approach), and the remainder reflects low autonomy
(e.g., In my situation, I have little say over the content and
skills that are selected for teaching). We used a 4-point,
Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 4 (defi-
nitely true) to eliminate a neutral response. We recoded
items that were stated positively to reflect high scores on
the attribute.
Pearson and Hall (1993) used exploratory factor analysis
with oblique rotation, which yielded an instrument with
good internal consistency reliability (α = .80) with two
items—curriculum autonomy and general teaching auton-
omy. We defined curriculum autonomy by the items that
measured selection of activities and materials and instruc-
tional planning and sequencing. Also, we defined general
teaching autonomy by the items that measured classroom
standards of conduct and personal on-the-job decision
making. Both dimensions were internally consistent (α =
.81 and .85, respectively), well defined by the items, and
correlated (r = .28).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Because our primary purpose in this study was to verify an
existing factor structure derived from a previous study, we
analyzed the data by using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA; LISREL). CFA is used when there is a strong theo-
retical or empirical base that allows the researcher to specify
an exact factor model in advance (Stevens, 2002; Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 2001). We used CFA to replicate the two-fac-
tor structure originally derived for the TAS; therefore, the
model tested was a measurement model. We hypothesized
that the measurement model would be reproduced and that
we would find a fit between the data and the model, without
projecting any higher order factors. We again examined reli-
ability of the subscales and total instrument by using Cron-
bach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient.
Results
Internal consistency reliability was determined on the
scales and was estimated to be α = .83 for the 18-item total.
Reliability of the curriculum autonomy and general teach-
ing autonomy subscales was α = .80 for both subscales, and
the correlation between the subscales was r = .49. Correct-
ed item-total correlations for the total scale are contained
in Table 1 and indicate that items with low correlations
were associated primarily with the general teaching auton-
omy dimension.
We used PRELIS to process the raw data, prepare the
covariance matrix, and conduct assumption examinations
(e.g., linearity and normality, outliers, and multicolineari-
47
ty). Bivariate scatterplots between several of the autonomy
items revealed linear relationships; none of the items were
significantly skewed or highly kurtotic. Moreover, we found
no univariate outliers. We did not assume that multicolin-
earity was a threat because the item-total correlations were
moderate and the solution converged in LISREL.
Using maximum-likelihood estimation with LISREL, we
estimated an initial model to examine the independence
model, which tested the hypothesis that all of the items
were uncorrelated, and the model was easily rejected,
χ2(153, N = 171) = 965.94, p < .01. We next tested the
hypothesized model, and it was supported, χ2(134, N =
171) = 280.88, p = .01, comparative fit index (CFI) = .82.
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
also indicated a reasonable fit of the data to the model
(RMSEA = .08). We found a significant improvement in
the model between the independence model and the
hypothesized model by using a chi-square difference test.
We performed post-hoc model modifications to develop
a better fitting, and possibly more parsimonious, model.
Using the modification indexes (reduction in chi-square),
we added a path from the “I follow my own guidelines on
instruction” item to curriculum autonomy and from the “In
my teaching, I use my own guidelines and procedures” item
to general teaching autonomy. The modified model result-
ed in a significant reduction of chi-square and indicated a
better fit of the data to the model, χ2(129, N = 171) =
195.38, p = .01, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .05, adjusted good-
ness of fit index = .85, normed fit index = .80, expected
cross-validation index (ECVI) = 1.64, 90% confidence
interval for ECVI = 1.44 to 1.88. Adding the indicated
paths made conceptual sense because “I follow my own
guidelines on instruction” logically related to the curricu-
lum factor. “In my teaching, I use my own guidelines and
procedures” logically related to the general teaching auton-
omy factor. We did not make additional modifications to
the model because the reduction in the chi-square value
was minimal and no additional paths were indicated, fur-
ther evidence that the original model determined with
exploratory factor analysis was replicated.
Table 1 contains the corrected item-total correlations
(reliability), the unstandardized coefficients that represent
the paths from the factors to the items (loadings), the
errors of the loadings, and their corresponding t values (sig-
nificance tests of the strength of the loadings). All of the
items loaded significantly on the factors (t values > 2),
although several of the loadings were relatively small. The
unstandardized solution is reported in Table 1 because the
scale did not change across the items. Figure 1 represents
the final measurement model with the observed variables
(items) indicated by the boxes on the left with their asso-
ciated errors (δ). The paths from the two factors to the
observed variables with their loading coefficients (λ) are
represented with black arrows that designate the original
hypothesized model that we tested (the two paths that were
added in the modified model are indicated with a dashed
48 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 1. Item-Total Correlations, LISREL Estimates, Standard Errors, and t Values

of Teaching Autonomy

Item r la db t

Curriculum autonomy
In my teaching, I use my own guidelines and procedures. .53 .30 .07 4.24
In my situation, I have little say over the content and
skills that are selected for teaching. .37 .38 .08 4.92
My teaching focuses on those goals and objectives I
select myself. .48 .68 .06 10.91
What I teach in my class is determined for the most part
by myself. .62 .80 .06 13.01
The materials I use in my class are chosen for the most
part by me. .29 .27 .07 4.19
The content and skills taught in my class are those I
select. .55 .75 .07 11.48
General teaching autonomy
I am free to be creative in my teaching approach. .50 .35 .04 7.97
The selection of student-learning activities in my class
is under my control. .58 .43 .04 10.00
Standards of behavior in my classroom are set primarily
by me. .33 .24 .04 5.55
My job does not allow for much discretion on my part. .48 .37 .06 6.17
The scheduling of use of time in my classroom is under
my control. .44 .36 .06 6.43
I seldom use alternative procedures in my teaching. .29 .26 .06 4.14
I follow my own guidelines on instruction. .55 .32 .06 4.83
In my situation, I have only limited latitude in how
major problems are solved. .28 .33 .07 4.73
In my class, I have little control over how classroom
space is used. .20 .23 .07 3.50
The evaluation and assessment activities used in my
class are selected by others. .34 .33 .07 4.81
I select the teaching methods and strategies I use with
my students. .51 .38 .05 8.32
I have little say over the scheduling of use of time in
my classroom. .37 .31 .05 5.76

a
loadings. berror.

line). The two factors are represented with circles; the cor-
relation between them is indicated by ϕ (r = .49).
Discussion and Conclusion
The results of the present replication of the earlier study
containing the TAS model (Pearson & Hall, 1993) sup-
ported the original derived factors of general teaching
autonomy and curriculum autonomy, as indicated by the
good fit of the data to the model in which we used CFA. As
in the previous study, items that related to the general
autonomy item dealt with issues concerning classroom
standards of conduct and personal on-the-job discretion;
items that related to the curriculum autonomy item dealt
with issues concerning selection of activities and materials
and instructional planning and sequencing. Reliability of
the TAS and subscales scores also was consistent with those
obtained in the original study, and the correlation between
the subscales supported their relationship.
Researchers have demonstrated a link between several
constructs and teacher autonomy (e.g., motivation, job sat-
isfaction, stress or burnout, professionalism, and empower-
ment; Brunetti, 2001; Kim & Loadman, 1994; Klecker &
Loadman, 1996; Ulriksen, 1996), and autonomy seems to
have emerged as a critical factor for teachers to remain com-
mitted to the teaching profession (Brunetti). Teacher
autonomy is one of the working conditions associated with
high teacher satisfaction (Perie & Baker 1997), rather than
background variables, like sex, age, and years of experience.
Although not the focus of this study, reexamination of the
relationships from the original study between autonomy and
years of experience, highest degree held, and grade level
most often taught revealed the same results and supports the
conclusions of Perie and Baker. The general teaching auton-
omy factor is logically consistent with the need for teachers
to (a) have control over their work environment, (b)
remain satisfied with their jobs, and (c) stay committed to
the profession. A measure of teacher autonomy could help
September/October 2006 [Vol. 100(No. 1)] 49

Loading Coefficients
Associated Errors (δ) Correlation (ϕ)
(γ)

.04 Teaching Guidelines

.08 Contents and Skills .30

.38
.06 Goals and Objectives .68
.80 Curriculum
.06 What I Teach .27
.75
.07 Material Selection

.07 Content and Skills

.29

.04 Creative Approach

.32 .49
.04 Student Learning

.04 Behavior Standards

.35
.06 Discretion .43
.24
.06 Class time Scheduling
.37
.36
.06 Alternative Procedures
.26

.32 General
.06 Own Guidelines
.33
.23
.07 Limited Latitude
.33
.38
.07 Space Control
.31

.07 Evaluation & Assessment

.05 Teaching Methods

.05 Time Scheduling

FIGURE 1. Final confirmatory factor analysis model of the Teaching Autonomy Scale.

those who hire teachers to identify persons who are satisfied
with their jobs and professional identities and who will
remain in their jobs.
The curriculum autonomy factor also is logically consis-
tent with teachers identifying themselves with the profession
(Blasé & Kirby, 2000; Ingersoll, 1997; Ingersoll & Alsalam,
1997; Khmelkov, 2000), particularly when they make
instruction-related decisions. Teacher flexibility in selecting
activities and materials and instructional planning and
sequencing is critical when elevating teaching to professional
50
status; autonomy is a determinant of novice teachers’ use of
such practices (Khmelkov). Curriculum autonomy also is
logically consistent with the examination of education
reform initiatives (Melenyzer, 1990; Short, 1994), especially
because many persons argue that the autonomy of teachers,
a dimension of empowerment (Klecker & Loadman, 1996;
Short & Rinehart, 1992), is critical to the implementation
and success of any initiative (Ingersoll).
One limitation of this study is the response rate and sam-
ple size. Although the response rate was slightly higher in
this study than in Pearson and Hall (1993; 57% and 55%,
respectively), the sample was smaller (204 and 171, respec-
tively). The factor structure remained stable over the two
studies. However, in future research, we will use the TAS to
try to obtain much larger samples to enhance external
validity. Although few specific instruments adequately
investigate autonomy, our findings support the need for
creation of a theoretically based instrument that delves
into this specific construct. Also, we will examine the rela-
tionships between autonomy and its related constructs to
better define the nomological network, as further evidence
of construct validity.
In addition, researchers should explore autonomy and its
related constructs in the context of schools as a social sys-
tem. For teachers to realize a new sense of professional
autonomy, traditional bureaucratic governance models
would need to change so that teachers could have authori-
ty over the “substance” of schools (Fay, 1990). As those
models change, perceptions on their constructs also should
change. Identifying systemic factors that are essential for
interpreting teachers’ perceptions of autonomy is impor-
tant and, of particular interest, is the context of expanding
school reform and statewide standardized testing initia-
tives. We plan to examine the perceptions of autonomy as
they relate to attitudes toward high-stakes or low-stakes
statewide testing.
The structure of the TAS is psychometrically sound
because the items are internally consistent and well defined
by the 18 items derived from earlier work (Pearson & Hall,
1993). The items also are logically consistent with the lit-
erature; researchers therefore might use it in future studies
of the autonomy construct. Research in the area of auton-
omy is still in the early stages, especially as it relates to
many of the constructs referred to in this study. Researchers
should examine the relationships with the TAS, now that
its structure is stable and will help investigators explore the
success of reform initiatives.
REFERENCES
Ashbaugh, C. R. (1982). What is job satisfaction? Planning & Changing:
A Journal for School Administrators, 14, 195–203.
Bacharach, S. B., Bauer, S. C., & Conley, S. (1986). Organizational analy-
sis of stress: The case of elementary and secondary schools. Work and
Occupations, 13, 7–32.
Blasé, J. J., & Kirby, P. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in teachers: What
effective principals do (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blasé, J. J., & Matthews, K. (1984). How principals stress teachers. The
Canadian School Executive, 4, 8–11.
The Journal of Educational Research
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.
Cedoline, A. J. (1982). Job burnout in public education: Symptoms, causes,
and survival skills. New York: Teachers College Press.
Charters, W. W. (1976). Sense of teacher work autonomy: Measurement &
findings. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED66840)
Corwin, R. G., & Borman, K. M. (1998). School as workplace: Structural
constraints on administration. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research
on educational administration (pp. 209–234). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Davis, J., & Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ efforts to empower teachers:
Effects on teacher motivation and job satisfaction and stress. The Clear-
ing House, 73, 349–357.
DeJesus, S. N. (1991, October). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational objects in
teachers and future teachers. Paper presented at the International School
of Psychology Colloquium, Braga, Portugal. Availability: Microfiche,
ED 400 233.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1996, April). Teacher satisfaction, motivation and
health: Phase one of the Teacher 2000 project. Presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York.
Dworkin, A. G., Haney, C. A., Dworkin, R. J., & Telschow, R. L. (1990).
Stress and illness behavior among urban public school teachers. Educa-
tional Administration Quarterly, 26, 60–72.
Erpelding, C. J. (1999). School vision, teacher autonomy, school climate,
and student achievement in elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 60 (05A), 1405.
Evers, T. B. (1987, April). Factors affecting teacher job satisfaction in a num-
ber of high schools in Michigan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.
Farrar, S. M. (1981, April). Teacher performance. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Research Association, Los Angeles,
CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED275677)
Fay, C. (1990, April). Teaching and leading: The teacher’s voice. Boston:
Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED206096)
Firestone, W. A., & Bader, B. D. (1992). Redesigning teaching: Professional-
ism or bureaucracy? Albany: State University of New York Press.
Firestone, W. A., & Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working
conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational
Research, 63, 489–525.
Franklin, H. L. (1988). Principal consideration and its relationship to teacher
sense of autonomy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Oregon, Eugene).
Frase, L. E. (1989). Effects of teacher rewards on recognition and job
enrichment. The Journal of Educational Research, 83, 52–57.
Frase, L. E., & Sorenson, L. (1992). Teacher motivation and satisfaction:
Impact on participatory management. NASSP Bulletin, 76(540), 37–43.
Gnecco, D. R. (1983). The perception of autonomy and job satisfaction
among elementary teachers in southern Maine. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Dissertations
Abstracts International, 44 (04A), 0931.
Hall, B. W., Villeme, M. G., & Phillippy, S. W. (1989, February). Percep-
tions of autonomy within the beginning teacher’s work environment. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educa-
tion, St. Louis, MO.
Hanson, E. M. (1991). Educational administration and organizational behav-
ior (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1997). The status of teaching as a profession: 1990-91,
National Center for Education Statistics, 97-104. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Ingersoll, R., & Alsalam, N. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher
commitment: A multilevel analysis. National Center for Education Statis-
tics, 97-069. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Jones, L. (2000). Supervisory beliefs and behaviors associated with veteran
teacher motivation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma,
2000). Dissertation Abstracts International 61, 441. (UMI Microform
AAT 9962960)
Khmelkov, V. T. (2000). Developing professionalism: Effects of school
workplace organization on novice teachers’ sense of responsibility and
efficacy (Doctoral dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2000). Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 61, 1639. (UMI Microform AAT
9967316)
September/October 2006 [Vol. 100(No. 1)]
Kim, I., & Loadman, W. (1994). Predicting teacher job satisfaction. Colum-
bus: Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED383707)
Klecker, B. J. (1998). Defining and measuring the dimensions of teacher
empowerment in restructuring public schools. Education, 118(3),
358–370.
Klecker, B. J., & Loadman, W. (1996). Exploring the relationship between
teacher empowerment and teacher job satisfaction. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Association, Chicago,
IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED400254)
Kyriacou, C. (1989). The nature and prevalence of teacher stress. In M.
Cole & S. Walker (Eds.), Teaching and stress (pp. 27–33). Philadelphia,
PA: Open University Press.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Losos, L. W. (2000). Comparing the motivation levels of public, private
and parochial high school teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis
University, 2000). UMI Microform 9973372, Dissertations Abstracts
International, 61 (05A), 1742.
Melenyzer, B. J. (1990, November). Teacher empowerment: The discourse,
meaning, and social actions of teachers. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Council on States on Inservice Education,
Orlando, Florida.
Natale, J. A. (1993, July). Why teachers leave. The Executive Educator,
14–18.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at
risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Institute of Education. (1981). Education, productivity and the
national economy. Washington DC: Author. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. ED229513)
Nero, A. B., (1985). Intrinsic/extrinsic motivational factors and perceived
need deficiencies as a function of job level in an urban school district.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University, TN. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 46 (10 A), 2880.
Oxman, W .B., & Michelli, N. M. (1980). Teacher stress in an urban cen-
ter. Analysis of a survey of morale among Newark teachers. National Insti-
tute of Education Report (Contract No. 400-79-0054). Montclair, NJ:
Montclair State College.
Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. C., (1993). Initial construct validation of the
teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 86,
172–177.
Perie, M., & Baker. D. P. (1997). Job satisfaction among America’s teachers:
Effects of workplace conditions, background characteristics, and teacher com-
51
pensation. National Center for Education Statistics, 97-XXX. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Picard, B. H. (1986). Teacher motivation: Perceptions of teachers and
school officials (satisfaction, intrinsic considerations, financial, merit,
recognition). (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lin-
coln, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47-04.
Porter, J. E. (1993). An investigation of secondary teachers’ motivation
orientation and their attitudes about extrinsic incentives. (Doctoral
dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1993). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 54-12, AAI9412210.
Sarafoglu, M. K. (1997). A study of teachers: Their commitment and
motivation to remain in the profession. (Doctoral dissertation, Ford-
ham University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58-04,
ADG9729608.
Shen, J. (1998, April). Do teachers feel empowered? Educational Leader-
ship, 55(7), 35–36.
Short, P. M. (1994). Defining teacher empowerment. Education, 114(4),
488–493.
Short, P. M., & Rinehart, J. S. (1992). School participant empowerment
scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environ-
ment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 951–961.
Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swanson, B. B., & Koonce, P. M. (1986). Teacher incentives: Is merit pay
enough? Action in Teacher Education, 8, 87–90.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th
ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ulriksen, J. J. (1996). Perceptions of secondary school teachers and prin-
cipals concerning factors related to job satisfaction and job dissatisfac-
tion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED424684) (Doc-
toral Dissertation, University of Southern California, CA). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 58(01A), 0127.
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site
autonomy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 69–82.
Willner, R. G. (1990). Images of the future now: Autonomy, professional-
ism, and efficacy. (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1990).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (03A), 0776.
Wilson, S. M. (1993). The self-empowerment index: A measure of inter-
nally and externally expressed teacher autonomy. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 53, 727–737.
Woods, P. (1989). Stress and the teacher role. In M. Cole & S. Walker
(Eds.), Teaching and stress. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Yee, S. M. (1991). Careers in the classroom: When teaching is more than a job.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.