Teacher Autonomy: A Multifaceted Approach for the New Millennium ...

Teachers have the autonomy to control OTL as Murphy et al. defined it. Since teachers have control over when they start and end class, how they deal with student interruptions, and how they interact with students in terms of lesson structure, they clearly have the autonomy to choose the type of environment and the level of expectations they have for children. As Murphy et al. indicated, teachers can choose to exercise their autonomy in a negative way.

In terms of curriculum content, the authors noted that social goals often took precedence over academic goals for lower ability groups and that lower ability groups were asked to do less homework and fewer projects and reports (Murphy et al., 1986). Also, course tracks for those defined as low ability tended to show less cross-disciplinary integration. Furthermore, the authors found that it was difficult for students placed in low-ability groups to move into another track. Again, teachers determined the level of competence they expected students to achieve and controlled whether students of perceived lower ability were challenged. This is yet another unfortunate example of how teachers can exercise their autonomy in a negative way.

Students in lower ability groups also experienced less success than their counterparts in higher ability groups. Although the evidence concerning grade distribution does not support this statement, the authors cited high levels of off-task behaviors as support that students do not feel successful in the classroom (Murphy et al., 1986).

Finally, the research on instruction indicated that teachers report being less comfortable and less enthusiastic with lower ability groups. They prepared less for lower ability groups and held lower standards for their own instruction of these students.