The Relationship between the Factors and Conditions of the Autonomy of Preschool Teachers and Fostering the Autonomy of Preschool Children in Kindergarten
Abstract
In the paper, we argue that fostering the autonomy of children in kindergarten contributes to the positive effects of the individual’s autonomy later in life. Various sources substantiate the assumption that there is a relationship between the child’s autonomy and the autonomy of educators. In the paper, we identify and investigate how preschool teachers evaluate the factors of their own professional autonomy, we determine the factors and conditions that, in their opinion, foster the autonomy of preschool children, and we verify whether the assessment of both factors and conditions affects the actual state of the stimulation of the autonomy of children in kindergarten. With regard to fostering the autonomy of children, we have in mind the participation of children, enabling them to play and learn and to manipulate materials and teaching aids in their own way, so that preschool teachers can offer them a choice, take into account their feelings and perspectives, and provide them with rational feedback. The results of the research show that an evaluation of the factors and conditions for fostering the autonomy of children by preschool teachers (N = 524) has a beneficial effect on fostering the autonomy of the children, but it is not crucial. The most important factors in fostering the autonomy of children are the preschool teacher as a person and the participation of children.
Downloads
References
Aoki, N. (2002). Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom, and responsibility. In P. Benson & S. Toogood (Eds.), Learner Autonomy 7: Challenges to research and practice. Authentik.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). 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.
Barfield, A., Ashwell, T., Carroll, M., Collins, K., Cowie, N., Critchley, M., Head, E., Nix, M. … Robertson, M. C. (2001). “Exploring and defining teacher autonomyâ€, presented at the Developing Autonomy, Proceedings of the College and University Educators, Conference, Shizuoka, Japan.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman.
Castle, K. (2004). The meaning of autonomy in early childhood teacher education. The Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 25(1), 3–10.
Castle, K. (2006). Autonomy through pedagogical research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1094–1103.
Chang, L. Y. H. (2007). The influence of group processes on learners’ autonomous beliefs and behaviors. System, 35(3), 322–337.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(3), 165–183.
Downie, M., Koestner, R., El Geledi, S., & Cree, K. (2004). The impact of cultural internalization and integration on well-being among tricultural individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 305–314.
Dweck, C. S, Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgements and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285.
Eurydice (2008). Å olska avtonomija v Evropi: Politike in ukrepi [School autonomy in Europe: Policies and measures]. Ministry of Education and Sport.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grolnick, W. S. (2001). Discussant’s comments: Symposium on influences on children’s motivation: New concepts and new findings. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Minneapolis, MN.
Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 347–356.
Iftene, C. (2014). Educational systems’ autonomy. Facts and analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 47–53.
Iordăchescu, G. D. (2013). Socio-pedagogical Paradigm of teachers’ educational autonomy competence (EAC). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 398–402.
Kalin, J. (2002). Ravnatelj in razrednik pred ogledalom novega profesionalizma [The head teacher and the class teacher in the mirror of new professionalism]. Sodobna pedagogika, 53(1), 150–166.
Kim, Y. H., Stormont, M., & Espinosa, L. (2009). Contributing factors to South Korean early childhood educators’ strategies for addressing children’s challenging behaviors. Journal of Early Intervention, 31(3), 227–249.
Koren, A. (2002). Pomen avtonomije v Å¡olskem sistemu [The concept of autonomy in the school system]. Å ola za ravnatelje. http://www.fm-kp.si/zalozba/ISBN/961-6268-83-x/135-144.pdf
Koren, A. (2006). Avtonomija in decentralizacija v izobraževanju: študija vidljivosti v slovenskem šolskem sistemu [Autonomy and decentralisation in education: A study of visibility in the Slovenian school system]. Faculty of Management.
Krek, J., & Metljak, M. (eds.) (2011). Bela knjiga o vzgoji in izobraževanju v Republiki Sloveniji 2011 [White paper on education in the Republic of Slovenia]. Pedagoški inštitut.
KrofliÄ, B., BatistiÄ Zorec, M., CemiÄ, A., Plestenjak, M., TurnÅ¡ek, N., & ViliÄ, I. (2002). StaliÅ¡Äa vzgojiteljic in vzgojiteljev predÅ¡olskih otrok do kurikuluma za vrtce ter njihova usposobljenost za uvajanje sprememb. Raziskovalno poroÄilo – rezultati evalvacijske Å¡tudije [Attitudes of preschool teachers towards the kindergarten curriculum and their competence to introduce change. Research report – results of an evaluation study]. Faculty of Education. http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/razvoj_solstva/evalvacija/2000_I/Kroflic_Breda.pdf
KrofliÄ, R. (1997). Med posluÅ¡nostjo in odgovornostjo (Procesno-razvojni model moralne vzgoje) [Between obedience and responsibility (the process-developmental model of moral education)]. VIJA.
KrofliÄ, R. (2001). Avtonomija ravnatelja in pedagoÅ¡ko vodenje institucije. Ravnatelj in Å¡olska avtonomija: znanstveno – strokovni posvet [The autonomy of the head teacher and the pedagogical management of the institution. The autonomy of the head teacher and school: Scientific-professional consultation] (pp. 21–22).
slovenistika.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/avtonomija-ravnatelja2.doc
Kurikulum za vrtce [Kindergarten curriculum]. (1999). Ministrstvo za Å¡olstvo in Å¡port, Urad Republike Slovenije za Å¡olstvo.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–181.
Little, D. (2002). The European language portfolio: Structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching, 35(3), 182–189.
Logaj, V. (2012). Å olske politike in prerazporejanje moÄi pri medsebojnem povezovanju srednjih Å¡ol [School policies and the redistribution of power in the interconnection of secondary schools] (Doctoral dissertation). Fakulteta za management Koper.
Manzi, C., Regalia, C., Pelucchi, S., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Documenting different domains of promotion of autonomy in families. Journal of Adolescence, 35(2), 289–298.
MarentiÄ Požarnik, B., Kalin, J., Å teh, B., & ValenÄiÄ Zuljan, M. (2005). UÄitelji v prenovi – njihova strokovna avtonomija in odgovornost [Teachers in renewal – their professional autonomy and responsibility]. Znanstveni inÅ¡titut Filozofske fakultete.
MarjanoviÄ Umek, L., Fekonja, U., KavÄiÄ, T., & PoljanÅ¡ek, A. (Eds.) (2002). Kakovost v vrtcih [Quality in Kindergartens]. Znanstveni inÅ¡titut Filozofske fakultete.
Masouleh, N. S., & Jooneghani, R. B. (2012). Autonomous learning: A teacher-less learning! Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 835–842.
Meng, L., & Ma, Q. (2015). Live as we choose: The role of autonomy support in facilitating intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 98(3), 441–447.
Mooney, A., & Blackburn, T. (2002). Children’s views on childcare quality. Institute of Education, for DfES.
Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with children: An overview. Children and Society, 10(2), 90–105.
Nakata, Y. (2009). Towards learner autonomy and teacher autonomy in the Japanese school context. In F. Kajik, P. Voller, N. Aoki, & Y. Nakata (Eds.), Mapping the terrain of learner autonomy: Learning environments, learning communities and identities (pp. 190–213). Tampere University Press.
Nakata, Y. (2011). Teacher’s readiness for fostering learner autonomy: A study of Japanese EFL high school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 900–910.
Noormohammadi, S. (2014). Teacher reflection and its relation to teacher efficacy and autonomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(1), 1380–1389.
Öztürk, I. H. (2012). Teacher’s role and autonomy in instructional planning: The case of secondary school history teachers with regard to the preparation and implementation of annual instructional plans. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 295–299.
Palmer, P. J. (1997). The heart of a teacher. Identity and integrity in teaching. Change, 29(6), 14–22.
Parrott, M. Y., & Da Ros - Voseles, D. A. (2013). A picturesque view of dispositions, autonomy, and efficacy during the educational preparation of early childhood educators. Northeastern State University. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED540356.pdf
Pelletier, L. G., Sequine-Levesque, C. S., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers motivation and teaching behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186–196.
Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivating style: Is it teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 312–330.
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. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175.
Reeve, J. (2015). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In J. C. K. Wang, W. C. Liu & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Motivation in educational research: Translating theory into classroom practice, (pp. 129 – 152). Springer.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.
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.
Reinders, H., & Balcikanli, C. (2011). Learning to foster autonomy: The role of teacher education materials. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(1), 15-25.
Roth, G., & Weinstock, M. (2013). Teachers’ epistemological beliefs as an antecedent of autonomy-supportive teaching. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 402–412.
Rudy, D., Sheldon, K. M., Awong, T., & Tan, H. H. (2007). Autonomy, culture, and well-being: The benefits of inclusive autonomy. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(5), 983–1007.
Rutar Ilc, Z. (1999). Avtonomija in ideologija [Autonomy and ideology]. Vzgoja in izobraževanje, 30(5), 16–17.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
Smith, R. C. & Barfield, A. (2001). Interconnections: Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy. Learning, 8(1) 5–6.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245–266.
StatistiÄni urad RS [Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia]. http://www.stat.si/StatWeb/News/Index/5916
Su, Y., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159–188.
TaÅ¡ner, V., ŽvegliÄ MiheliÄ, M., & Mencin ÄŒeplak, M. (2017). Gender in the teaching profession: University students views of teaching as a career. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(2), 47–69.
Taylor, I. M, Ntoumanis, N., & Smith, B. (2009). The social context as a determinant of teacher motivational strategies in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(2) 235–243.
Thavenius, C. (1999). Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In S. Cotterall, D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Chang (pp. 159–163). Peter Lang.
Tehrani, I. A., & Mansor, W. F. A. W. (2012). The influence of ‘teacher autonomy in obtaining knowledge’ on ‘class practice’. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 544–554.
TrnavÄeviÄ, A., & Zupanc Grom, R. (2000). Marketing v izobraževanju [Marketing in education]. School for Head Teachers.
Tucker, C. M., Zayco, R. A., Herman, K. C., Reinke, W. M., & Trujillo, M. (2002). Teacher and child variables as predictors of academic engagement among low-income African American children. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4), 477–488.
Turnšek, N. (2013). Subjektivne teorije o otroštvu in vzgoji [Subjective theories of childhood and education]. Pedagoška fakulteta UL.
Usma Wilches, J. (2009). Teacher autonomy: A critical review of the research and concept beyond applied linguistics. Ãkala, 12(1), 245–275.
Van den Berghe, L., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Cardon, G., Tallir, I. B., & Haerens, L. (2013). Observed need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior in physical education: Do teachers’ motivational orientations matter? Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 14(5), 650–661.
Van Gelderen, M. (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 52(8), 710–721.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis, A., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Beyers, W. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 431–439.
Vula, E., Berisha, F., & Saqipi, B. (2015). Introducing teacher mentoring in Kosovo schools – Potential and challenges for sustainability. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5(4), 109–124.
Vuk, S., Tacol, T., & Vogrinc, J. (2015). Adoption of the creative process according to the immersive method. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5(3), 51–71.
Walsh, G., & Gardner, J. (2006). Teachers’ readiness to embrace change in the early years of schooling: A Northern Ireland perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 14(2), 127–140.
Wellborn, J., Connell, J., Skinner, E., & Pierson, L. (1992). Teacher as social context (TASC). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/questionnaires/10-questionnaires/82
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91.
Zakon o organizaciji in financiranju vzgoje in izobraževanja /ZOFVI/ [Organisation and Financing of Education Act] (1996, 2007). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 12/96, 16/2007.
Zakon o vrtcih /Zvrt/ [Kindergartens Act]. (1996, 2005). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 12/96, 100/2005, 62/2010-ZUPJS.
Zgaga, P. (1990). Razkroj 'Vodilne Ideologije' in rekompozicija teorije šole [The decomposition of ‘leading ideologies’ and the recomposition of the theory of school]. In D. E. Bahovec, Z. Kodelja & P. Zgaga (Eds.), Teorija vzgoje: moderna ali postmoderna? Šolsko polje 3 (pp. 78–88). Univerza v Ljubljani.
ZupanÄiÄ, J. (2013). Razmislek o razsežnostih avtonomije ravnateljev v slovenski osnovni Å¡oli [Reflection on the dimensions of the head teacher’s autonomy in the Slovenian primary school]. Vodenje v vzgoji in izobraževanju, 11(1), 117–131.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
