International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1308-951X

Original article | International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 2020, Vol. 11(1) 1-17

Freedom to choose within limits: Teacher Autonomy from the Perspectives of Basic School Teachers in the Central Region of Ghana

Stephen Kwakye Apau & Dandy George Dampson

pp. 1 - 17   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1904-26-0001

Published online: March 30, 2020  |   Number of Views: 165  |  Number of Download: 560


The study examined the level of autonomy among basic school teachers in the Central Region of Ghana as well as the effect of teacher demographic characteristics (gender, age and teaching experience) on the level of teacher autonomy. The study used the explanatory sequential (Quan-qual) design where different but complementary data were collected. Through the systematic sampling technique, a total of 315 basic school teachers were involved in the quantitative phase whilst 12 teachers (who were previously surveyed at the quantitative phase) were purposely sampled for the qualitative phase of the study. A continuous validated Likert-scale questionnaire comprising 18 items was adapted from Pearson and Hall (1993) and used for the quantitative phase. Using findings from the quantitative phase as basis, a semi-structured interview guide was designed to collect data to further elaborate the study’s key findings. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data whilst the interview was analysed thematically. The study revealed that teachers in the Central Region of Ghana hold positive perceptions about their autonomy with the level of autonomy being moderate. Positively, the study revealed that teacher autonomy is affected by gender whilst age and teaching experience affects their level of autonomy negatively. Based on the findings, it is recommended that the Ghana Education Service (GES) and school heads should periodically organize programmes that target conscientising the basic school teachers about the extent of autonomy that they have in the process of implementing the curriculum. With regard to the demographic characteristics of the teachers, school activities should be planned in a manner that encourage full exercise of autonomy irrespective of one’s gender, age or teaching experience.

Keywords: Autonomy, Curriculum, teaching experience

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Apau, S.K. & Dampson, D.G. (2020). Freedom to choose within limits: Teacher Autonomy from the Perspectives of Basic School Teachers in the Central Region of Ghana . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 11(1), 1-17.

Apau, S. and Dampson, D. (2020). Freedom to choose within limits: Teacher Autonomy from the Perspectives of Basic School Teachers in the Central Region of Ghana . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 11(1), pp. 1-17.

Chicago 16th edition
Apau, Stephen Kwakye and Dandy George Dampson (2020). "Freedom to choose within limits: Teacher Autonomy from the Perspectives of Basic School Teachers in the Central Region of Ghana ". International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 11 (1):1-17.

  1. Adu-Agyem, J., & Osei-Poku, P. (2012). Quality education in Ghana: The way forward. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 1(9), 164-177. [Google Scholar]
  2. Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. R. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 34(1), 92. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, L. W. (1984). The decline of teacher autonomy: Tears and cheers? International Review Education, 375-373.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, L. W. (1987). The decline of teacher autonomy: Tears or cheers? International Review of Education, 33(3), 357-373. [Google Scholar]
  5. Archbald, D. A., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Curriculum control and teachers' perceptions of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(1), 21-39. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chapman, D., Barcikowski, E., Sowah, M. & Gyamera, E. (2002). Do communities know best? Testing a premise of educational decentralisation: community members’ perception of their local schools in Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development, 22(2), 181–189. [Google Scholar]
  7. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105. [Google Scholar]
  8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85-107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  9. Errs, M. (2018). Complete freedom to choose within limits: Teachers views of curricular autonomy, autonomy, agency and control in Estonia, Finland and Germany. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 238-256. [Google Scholar]
  10. Erss, M., Kalmus, V., & Autio, T. H. (2016). ‘Walking a fine line’: Teachers’ perception of curricular autonomy in Estonia, Finland and Germany. Journal of curriculum studies, 48(5), 589-609. [Google Scholar]
  11. Erss, M., Kalmus, V., & Aution, H. (2016). ‘Walking a fine line’: Teachers’ perception of curricular autonomy in Estonia, Finland and Germany. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(5), 589-609. [Google Scholar]
  12. Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76. [Google Scholar]
  13. Genc, Z. S. (2010). Teacher autonomy through reflective journals among teachers of English as a foreign language in Turkey. Teacher Development, 14(3), 397-409. [Google Scholar]
  14. Government of Ghana (GOG) (1986). Committee report on junior secondary school education. Accra: Government Printing Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hong, W., & Youngs, P. (2016). Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(S1), 20-33.  [Google Scholar]
  16. Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Sears, A. M. (2010). Enhancing teacher performance: The role of professional autonomy. Interchange, 41(1), 1-15. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ingersoll, R. M. (1997). The status of teaching as a profession: 1990–1991 (NCES 97–104). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Centre for Education Statistics. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  20. Juntunen, M. L. (2017). National assessment meets teacher autonomy: national assessment of learning outcomes in music in Finnish basic education. Music Education Research, 19(1), 1-16. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kauffman, D. (2005). Curriculum prescription and curriculum constraint: Second-year teachers ’perceptions. P NGT Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Retrieved from,ngt. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537–60. [Google Scholar]
  23. LaCoe, C. S. (2006). Decomposing teacher autonomy: A study investigating types of teacher autonomy and how current public-school climate affects teacher autonomy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). PA: University of Pennsylvania. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lundström, U. (2015). Teacher autonomy in the era of New Public Management. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1, 73-82. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mankoe, J. O. (1992). Perceived problems and benefits of a decentralised elementary educational system in Ghana. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Educational Administration, University of Alberta. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mfum-Mensah, O. (2004). Empowerment or impairment? Involving traditional communities in school management. International Review of Education, 50(2), 141–155.4 [Google Scholar]
  27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  28. Osei, G. M. & Brock, C. (2006). Decentralisation in education, institutional culture and teacher autonomy in Ghana. Journal of Education Policy, 21(4), 437-458 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pearson, L. C., & Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-178. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational research quarterly, 29(1), 38-54. [Google Scholar]
  31. Perryman, J., Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). Life in the pressure cooker-school league tables and English and mathematics teachers’ responses to accountability in a results-driven era. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 179–195. [Google Scholar]
  32. Prichard, C., & Moore, J. E. (2016). Variables influencing teacher autonomy, administrative coordination, and collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(1), 58-74. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ramatlapana, K., & Makonye, J. P. (2012). From too much freedom to too much restriction: The case of teacher autonomy from National Curriculum Statement (NCS) to Curriculum and Assessment Statement (CAPS). Africa Education Review, 9(sup1), S7-S25. [Google Scholar]
  34. Robertson, L., & Jones, M. G. (2013). Chinese and US middle-school science teachers’ autonomy, motivation, and instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 35(9), 1454–1489. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  37. Salokangas, M., & Wermke, W. (2016). What do we know about teacher autonomy? A review of international literature. In Leading Education: The Distinct Contributions of Educational Research and Researchers. Proceedings from ECER 2016. Berlin: EERA. [Google Scholar]
  38. Skilbeck, M. (2005). School-based curriculum development. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The roots of educational change (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  39. Skinner, R. (2008). Autonomy, working conditions, and teacher satisfaction: Does the public charter school bargain make a difference? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Washington, DC: The George Washington University. [Google Scholar]
  40. Steh, B., & Pozarnik B. M. (2005). Teachers’ perception of their professional autonomy in the environment of systemic change. In Beijaard, Douwe, ed. (2005) Teacher professional development in changing conditions. Dordrecht: Springer, 349-363. [Google Scholar]
  41. Strong, L. E. G., & Yoshida, R. K. (2014). Teachers’ autonomy in today’s educational climate: Current perceptions from an acceptable instrument. Educational Studies, 50(2), 123-145.  [Google Scholar]
  42. Tuul, M., Mikser, R., Neudorf, E., & Ugaste, A. (2015). Estonian preschool teachers’ aspirations for curricular autonomy – the gap between an ideal and professional practice. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11-12), 1845-1861.  [Google Scholar]
  43. Vieira, F. (2007). Teacher autonomy: Why should we care? Independence, 41, 20-28. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wright, J. L. (2018). A multiple-case study on the perceptions of teacher autonomy in a traditionally structured and a teacher powered school. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Liberty University).  [Google Scholar]
  45. Noormohammadi, S. (2014). Teacher reflection and its relation to teacher efficacy and autonomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1380-1389. [Google Scholar]