Principal Instructional Leadership and Teaching for Learner Autonomy: A Multilevel Analysis of the Case of South Korea

• Authors: Seung-Hwan Ham , Sung-Ho G. Ahn , Yun-Kyung Cha , Mi-Kyung Ju , Sunah Kim , Hara Ku , Sun-Kyung Lee , Young Serk Park

Abstracts

EN

This study aims to explore how teachers’ use of instructional strategies to foster learner autonomy varies depending on principal instructional leadership. Based on a nationally representative sample of approximately 2,200 teachers in 131 middle schools in South Korea, a series of hierarchical generalized linear modeling analyses has been conducted. The main findings from this study lend credence to the idea that teachers whose school principals provide greater instructional leadership are significantly more likely to integrate instructional strategies to advance learner autonomy into their classroom teaching. This result appears very robust even after a range of variables pertaining to school and teacher characteristics is simultaneously taken into account.

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: The New Educational Review
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 33
• Pages: 247-260

Dates

published

2013

Contributors

author

Seung-Hwan Ham

• Hanyang University

author

Sung-Ho G. Ahn

• Hanyang University

author

Yun-Kyung Cha

• Hanyang University

author

Mi-Kyung Ju

• Hanyang University

author

Sunah Kim

• Hanyang University

author

Hara Ku

• Hanyang University

author

Sun-Kyung Lee

• Cheongju National University of Education

author

Young Serk Park

• Gyeongin National University of Education

References

• Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2010). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261–278.
• Aviram, A. (1993). Personal autonomy and the flexible school. International Review of Education, 39(5), 419–433.
• Black, A.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A selfdetermination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756.
• Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349–378.
• Cha, Y.-K., & Ham, S.-H. (2012). Constructivist teaching and intra-school collaboration among teachers in South Korea: An uncertainty management perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(4), 635–647.
• Daniels, D.H., & Perry, K. E. (2003). “Learner-centered” according to children. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 102–108.
• DiPaola, M.E., & Hoy, W.K. (2007). Principals improving instruction: Supervision, evaluation, and professional development. Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Heaton, R.M. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Kennedy, M.M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Little , D. (1994). Learner autonomy: A theoretical construct and its practical application. Die Neueren Sprachen, 93(5), 430–442.
• Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–181.
• Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In R. S. Lotto & P. W. Thurston (Eds.), Advances in educational administration: Changing perspectives on the school (pp. 163–200). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
• Nucci, L., Killen, M., & Smetana, J. (1996). Autonomy and the personal: Negotiation and social reciprocity in adult-child social exchanges. In M. Killen (Ed.), Children’s autonomy, social competence, and interactions with adults and other children: Exploring connections and consequences (pp. 7–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• O’Connell, A.A., Goldstein, J., Rogers, H.J., & Peng, C.Y.J. (2008). Multilevel logistic models for dichotomous and ordinal data. In A. A. O’Connell & D.B. McCoach (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 199–242). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• OECD. (2010). TALIS 2008 technical report. Paris, France: OECD.
• Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2ⁿd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225–236.
• Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.
• Reitzug, U.C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 283–307.
• Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R.J. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Supovitz, J.A., & Poglinco, S.M. (2001). Instructional leadership in standards-based reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
• Thomas, A.J. (1992). Individualised teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 18(1), 59–74.
• Vallerand, R.J., Fortier, M.S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1161–1176.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/tner.13.33.3.21

Biblioteka Nauki

18104543