What core competencies are related to teachers' innovative teaching?

To cite this article: Zhu C., Wang D,, Cai Y. H. & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are related to teachers' innovative teaching? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 9-27. To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.753984 What core competencies are related to teachers’ innovative teaching? Chang Zhu , Di Wang , Yonghong Cai & Nadine Engels Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate teachers’ core competencies in relation to their innovative teaching performance. Based on the literature and previous studies in this field, four competencies (learning competency, educational competency, social competency and technological competency) are theorized as core competencies for teachers’ innovative teaching. A questionnaire on teachers’ core competencies and innovative teaching performance was developed and tested. The findings indicate that teachers’ educational competency, social competency and technological competency were positively related to their innovative teaching performance. The study also shows that a supportive colleague relationship is important for teachers’ innovative teaching performance. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Keywords: Competency; Core competency; Innovative teaching; Performance 1 Introduction In the knowledge society, several emerging trends entail an alteration in the way young people learn and understand (Redecker, 2008). It seems nonrealistic to expect that several generations of students would benefit from the same teaching and learning approach and content. Teachers have to attract student interests and attention in new ways, and as a result the development of innovative approaches is called for (Simplicio, 2000). It seems that innovative teaching is necessary for the present and future of education to help students reach their full potential (Ferrari, Cachia & Punie, 2009). Innovative teaching is a necessity for all teachers in order to meet the educational needs of the new generations. From the last decade of the twentieth century onward, there have been an increasing number of policy statements and government-funded development projects established within education designed to nurture teachers’ competencies for innovative teaching, for example in the EU, America, Japan and China (e.g. Craft, 2003). Innovative teaching competencies can be nurtured and should be developed in teacher education (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Jin, 2001). Teachers’ competency for innovative teaching is a key factor influencing innovative teaching performance. Some research points out that many teachers lack competencies for innovative teaching in general (Lin et al. 2009). Existing literature mainly described innovative teachers through trait-based approach (Vandam et al, 2010), investigating their personality characteristics from a theoretical perspective (Chen, 2002; Jin, 2001; Rogers, 1995; Hannon, 2008; Zhang, 2000). There is a lack of competency-based perspective focusing on innovative teaching competencies of teachers that are relevant for the successful innovative teaching performance. Review of related literature shows that both the theoretical and the empirical base are not sufficiently developed to be able to define the core competencies for innovative teaching. External factors such as the school environment are also relevant (Ha & Stoel, 2004). Therefore, the objective 2 of the present study is to investigate the relationship between teachers’ core competencies and their innovative teaching performance. Insights into these competencies will add to the theories and models of educational innovation, and can be helpful for curriculum design in teacher education and for schools with their efforts to enhance teachers’ development of innovative teaching performance. Core competencies for innovative teaching A general definition on competency is that the level of integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Tigelaar et al., 2004). In the literature, some of teachers’ generic competencies or competencies for teacher professional development are put forth, such as “Pedagogical skills”, “Knowing the Student”, “Monitoring and Evaluation of Learning and Development”, “School-Family and Society Relationships”, “Knowledge of Curriculum and Content”, “Teamwork”, “Communication”, “Problem solving”, and “Understanding the culture” (e.g. Koster, 2005; Runco, 2003). Some other research proposed teachers’ field competence, research competence, curriculum competence, lifelong learning competence, social-cultural competence, emotional competence, communication competence, information and communication technologies competencies (ICT) and environmental competencies as general teacher competencies (Hannon, 2008; Karwowski & Gralewski, 2007; Sahin & Thompson, 2006). However, there is very limited research trying to investigate the core competencies underlying teachers’ innovative teaching. By reviewing related literature and integrating the main findings and results from previous research, we postulate that four core competencies are considered important to underline teachers’ innovative teaching: learning competency, social competency, educational competency and technological competency (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Cairney, 2000; Robison, 2001; Runco, 2007; Chen, 2009; Ferrari, Cachia & Punie, 2009; Lin, 2009; Pantic & 3 Wubbels, 2010). The related literature review and their relationship to the proposed four core competencies are presented in Table 1. Below we present the concept and main arguments related to these four competencies. <Table 1 about here> Learning competency Research results indicate that learning competency is very important for innovation (Chen, 2002；Konings et al, 2007). Learning competency refers to that teachers are willing to learn for innovating teaching and improving the teaching effectiveness (Chen, 2009). And the most important is they know how to learn. They know how to meet their studying needs, how to get the learning materials and how to solve teaching problems through study, self-reflection and research. They include teachers’ ability to critically reflect upon their educational impact and value system, as well as a readiness to take the initiative and responsibility for their professional development (Pantic & Wubbels, 2010). Social competency Social competency refers to that an innovative teacher should have the ability to communicate with students from different backgrounds (Koster et al., 2005). They also need to be able to cooperate with others and build positive human relationships (Pantic & Wubbels, 2010). Innovation is not just fun but requires hard work (Ferrari, Cachia & Punie 2009; Runco, 2007). They should also have the ability to tolerate confusion and frustration, to relish a challenge, and not to give up prematurely (Claxton et al, 2006; Runco, 2007). Educational competency In order to make education more effective with the integration of every kind of elements, educational competencies of teachers are required (Sahin-Izmirli & Kurt, 2009). An 4 innovative teacher is well aware of the innovative educational concepts and can guide students learning innovatively based on innovative teaching and learning principles. They have the passion for the education career (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Bi, 2003). And they should have a wealth of subject knowledge, pedagogy, learning psychology knowledge, and the ability of integrating them into the teaching practices effectively and to promote student development (Cowen, 2002). Technological competency Technological competency is crucial for successful innovative performance (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Technology could act as platforms that help teachers to act as mentors and to build new and innovative ways of teaching (Ferrari, Cachia & Punie 2009). An innovative teacher is aware of how to integrate modern educational technologies to enhance reasoning, provoke critical thinking, and deepen student understanding. It fits very well with modern instructional theories that focus on the implementation of real-life tasks as the driving force for learning (Van Merrienboer et al, 2005). In the current society, it is also critical for teachers to be able to find the necessary information among the vast amount of information available on the internet, to integrate information coming from multiple sources, and to effectively use this information to solve teaching problems (Segers & Verhoeven, 2009). Innovative teaching Teachers’ competencies for innovative teaching are presented in actual teaching practices. In the literature, many researchers focus on innovative teaching behaviours, approaches or strategies. There is a lack of specific definition about innovative teaching. Some researchers emphasize the outcomes of innovative teaching, such as the development of cognitive abilities or emotional aspects of students, while others stress the innovative aspects of the teaching processes, such as the use of new methods and techniques or by managing the classroom 5 environment. For example, Whitman (1983) viewed student-centered teaching as an innovative format, which stresses teaching students to use strategies for representing and processing new information in ways that lead to problem solving. Slabbert (1994) viewed innovative teaching from the student development perspective, and pointed out teaching should be sensitive to the individual student’s conception of himself and his role in the classroom. Other researchers point out what is expected from teachers. The concept of innovative teaching is not equivalent to “new” teaching. Innovative teaching is often associated with a “new” method or strategy, but not all new methods and strategies are necessarily innovative. For example, Ferrari et al. (2009) said that innovative teaching is the process of leading to creative learning, by implementing new methods, tools and contents that can benefit learners and their creative potential. Amabile (1989) stresses the importance of a nurturing environment where students feel rewarded, become active learners, have a sense of ownership, and can freely discuss their problems; and where teachers are coaches and promote cooperative learning methods, and kindle the creative spark of students. Recent trends on innovative teaching have been focused on constructivist and social-constructivist learning theories and student-centered learning (Brandon, 2004). Instead of passively “absorbing” the knowledge, students should be actively involved in the learning processes, and participate and collaborate in real learning situations, and work on authentic learning tasks. In this sense, innovative teaching should be ‘student-centred’, aimed at improving the learning environment and the learning processes. In summary, although expressed in different ways, we find some consensus in the meaning of innovative teaching, which refers to the use of new and diversified ideas, methods or strategies and activities by teachers to understand the individual differences of students, facilitate active learning and the development of creative potential of students, stimulate their learning interests and improve learning effectiveness in the teaching and learning processes. 6 Innovative teaching performance More specifically, innovative teaching can be displayed in the following five aspects according to the teaching processes: application of innovative thoughts in teaching, the use of innovative teaching methods and teaching strategies, the innovative use of teaching content, the innovative use of teaching resources, and innovative evaluation (Chen, 2009; Ma, 2007; Tan, 2010). Application of innovative thoughts in teaching Application of innovative thoughts refers to the performance of divergent thinking, the tendency to practice with alternative solutions, and the sensitivity to problems (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). The teacher integrates the trends of teaching and curriculum development into the teaching practices with an open mind (Lin, 2009). In addition, they apply the new innovative learning theories, such as social-constructivist learning and student-centered learning in their actual teaching practices. The innovative use of teaching content When planning for innovative teaching, there is a need to tailor the content and method based on students' interests, their prior knowledge and current level of abilities (Tan, 2010; Russ, 2003). The innovative use of teaching content refers to that the teacher adds, adapts, integrates, enriches and innovates on teaching content according to the needs of students and the learning tasks rather than being restricted to the specific and pre-set content materials in the class (Chen, 2009). In addition, materials in daily life can be incorporated into the course content innovatively to develop more suitable teaching content to the teaching context and student learning. Innovative teachers choose the content that is beneficial for students’ creative thinking, imagination, and can improve students’ learning interests. 7 The use of innovative teaching methods and teaching strategies The use of innovative teaching methods and strategies refers to the need of a learner-centred pedagogy, personalisation and individualisation of learning, allowing pupils to have a say in the planning and implementation of the tasks (Craft, 2005; Williamson, 2009). The teacher breaks through the teaching inertia and uses cooperative learning, inquiry learning, and independent study to help students think actively and construct knowledge by themselves through learning activities. Applying these innovative teaching strategies can enhance students’ innovative competency and improve their academic achievement (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1980). The innovative use of teaching resources The innovative use of teaching resources refers to that the teacher transfers the library, internet, school and social resources into teaching resources innovatively (Chen, 2009). So the teacher provides teaching aids and equipments from a variety of types for learning. Students can learn best when they see the relevance of what they are doing and when they are intrinsically interested in the activity or task (Williamson & Payton, 2009). The teacher collects teaching resources from a variety of channels and uses them in the classroom properly to enhance student’ interests in learning, stimulate students to think innovatively and encourage divergent learning activities (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1980). Innovative evaluation Innovative evaluation refers to that the teacher uses a variety of evaluation methods and assessment, not to judge the students but to help them to understand better (Beghetto, 2005). A safe climate should be established in the classroom in which the students feel free to explore their innovative potential (Ellis & Barr, 2008). With regard to student evaluation, teachers should reward curiosity and exploration (Beghetto, 2005; Runco, 2003), handle 8 failure or mistakes in a positive manner to help students realize errors and meet acceptable standards in a supportive atmosphere. Supportive teaching environment Although individual competencies are essential for innovative teaching, the mere presence of these competencies might not suffice. Innovation performances are stimulated by the environmental context (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). A supportive organisational environment can contribute to teaching innovations by strengthening and encouraging the development of individual competencies (Zhu & Engels, in press). Bharadwaj (2000) also stresses that the organizational environment for innovation is established through providing correct methods, tools and resources to encourage innovative behavior. School environment factors such as leadership support and collegial relationship are important factors that influence teachers’ attitudes and implementation of educational innovations (Ngan, 2003; Harris, 2002, Zhu, 2012). Based on the theoretical and empirical evidence, we expect that a supportive and innovative school environment will be positively related to teachers’ innovative teaching performance. Research problem and objectives of this research Despite the importance of teachers’ innovative teaching strategies and performance, little is known about what innovative teaching competencies are critical underlying teachers’ innovative teaching. In available research there is a lack of general framework about core competencies for innovative teaching. Based on the available research and the arguments presented above, the main objectives of this research are 1) to develop and test an instrument to examine teachers’ core competencies that are related to teachers’ innovative teaching, 2) to investigate the relationship between the core competencies and teachers’ innovative teaching performance, 3) to examine the relationship between factors of the school environment and 9 teachers’ innovative teaching performance. We hypothesize that teachers’ innovative teaching performance can be predicted and related to the four core competencies. Building on the theoretical base, we predict that the four core competencies are critical for teachers’ innovative teaching, with higher scores of the four competencies associated with a higher level of innovative teaching performance. We also hypothesize that a supportive school environment can be positively related to teachers’ innovative teaching performance. The theoretical model of this research is present in Figure 1. <Figure 1 about here> Method Participants Participants of the study were 200 teachers from six secondary schools from Beijing, China. The teaching subjects of the teachers included mathematics, language, English, physics, chemistry, politics, geography, and biology. The nature and composition of the samples are presented in Table 2. <Table 2 about here> Development of the instrument Process The development and validation of the instrument had four phases. Phase 1: Based on literature review and extensive discussions with experts in the field of education and teacher education, we developed an instrument of Core Competencies for Innovative Teaching (CCIT) measuring teachers’ four core competencies from the sub-dimensions of attitudes, knowledge, and skills and an instrument of Innovative Teaching Performance (ITP) to measure teachers’ 10 reported actual performance in innovative teaching. In addition, relevant school environment factors and teacher individual factors were measured. All items were self-compiled based on the understanding of the concepts and references from related literature (eg. Burt et al., 2008; Lin, 2009). Phase 2: In order to check its content validity and the consistency with the theoretical framework, consultations were conducted with 10 teachers and educational researchers. Based on their suggestions, some items were modified to be more theoretically sound and suitable for the real situation of teaching and learning in secondary school settings. Phase 3: A small-scale pilot test was conducted to check the understanding of the instrument by secondary teachers. Small adjustments of language and wording were made based on the feedback and suggestions of these secondary teachers. Phase 4: The validation study was conducted to test the reliability and validity of the instrument. Measures Four parts of questions were included in the instrument. All respondents were asked to complete these four parts of questions. The Likert-type scale was used to collect responses of teachers to the items. The Core Competencies for Innovative Teaching. The first part measures teacher’s perceptions of the four core competencies. Each competency is composed of three subdimensions, namely knowledge, attitude and skills. For example, the scale of learning competency is composed of three sub-scales: knowledge about how to learn, attitudes towards learning and the skills or capabilities of learning. The number of items and sample items of the scales are presented in Table 3. <Table 3 about here> The Innovative Teaching Performance Scales. The second part includes the performances of innovative teaching in five educational aspects. Each item referred to teacher performance 11 exhibited in the daily teaching activities. Teachers were asked to rate their own teaching behavior or practices on a five-point Likert scale. The number of items and sample items are presented in Table 4. <Table 4 about here> School environment factors. The third part inquires about relevant school factors, including leadership support (5 items), colleague support (7 items), and school material and administrative support (8 items). The scales are partly based on the School Culture Scales (Zhu et al., 2011). Background characteristics of teachers. In the fourth part of the instrument, demographic factors were measured. It included teaching subject, teaching grade, gender, educational level and years of teaching. Data analyses In order to test the factor structure of the set of observed variables based on our theoretical hypothesis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted. A two step CFA was conducted. First, the confirmatory factor analysis for each competency as reflected by the three sub-dimensions was conducted. After the verification of the factor structure of each competency, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the factor structure of the four competencies. The reliability of the scales was also analyzed. To test the relationship between teachers’ core competencies, school environment, teachers’ background variables and the teachers’ reported performance of innovative teaching, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. Results Validity and reliability analysis 12 Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to test whether the factor constructs fitted with our sample. First, the factor structure of each scale was tested separately: learning competency (LC), educational competency (EC), social competency (SC) and technological competency (TC). The initial factor models for the four competencies were not very satisfactory. The modification indexes indicated that three items were problematic either for too low factor loadings or relatively high factor loadings on two factors. Therefore, these three items were removed and the factor structures were re-tested. As a result, 57 items of the core competency scales remained (learning competency, 15 items; educational competency, 16 items; social competency, 13 items; technological competency, 13 items). Table 5 presents the final model fit of each scale, which was assessed through the adequacy of goodness-of-fit indicators (X2/df ratio, GFI, CFI and RMSEA). The factor model with the three subdimensions (attitude, knowledge and skill) for each competency fitted the data reasonably well, with the group invariance fit statistics in acceptance range (i.e., X2/df<3; GFI>0.90; CFI>0.90; RMSEA<0.08). After the confirmation of the factor structure of each competency, the means of the three components (attitude, knowledge and skill) of each scale were calculated. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for the whole model with the four factors: LC, EC, SC and TC; Correlation between the four factors was allowed. The CFA results show that the fit of the whole model of the four competencies for innovative teaching was acceptable (X2/df=1.762, GFI=.931, CFI=.979, RMSEA=.065) (Table 5). <Table 5 about here> Reliability of each scale was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (see table 6). The reliabilities of the four core competencies were all greater than 0.80 and regarded as very good. The alpha coefficients for the scales of innovative teaching performance were greater than 0.70, which were regarded as adequate (Netemeyer et al., 2003). The reliability of the school environment factors were acceptable with alpha coefficients greater than 0.65. 13 Means, standard deviations, correlation and regression analysis Table 6 presents the means, standard deviations of the variables. In order to examine the relationship between the core competencies for innovative teaching, teacher background variables, school environment factors and teachers’ innovative teaching performance, correlation and regression analyses were conducted. The correlation analyses show that all four core competencies were significantly correlated to the five innovative teaching performance scales, as well as the overall mean score of the innovative teaching performance (Table 6). Among the teacher background and school environment variables, the results revealed that years of teaching and colleague support were significantly positively related to the five scales of innovative teaching performance, including the overall performance score. This implies that teachers who had more years of teaching showed somewhat higher innovative teaching performance and teachers who got more support from colleagues also showed somewhat higher innovative teaching performance. Therefore, in the following regression analyses, the core competencies, years of teaching and colleague support were included as independent variables, and the innovative teaching performance as dependent variables. The other demographic characteristics and school environment factors were not significantly related to innovative teaching performance and therefore were not included in the regression analyses. In this regression model, the independent variables explained 63 percent of the variances in the whole innovative teaching performance, which was highly significant (F=51.08, p < .001). <Table 6 about here> <Table 7 about here> The hierarchical regression analysis results predicting teachers’ innovative teaching performance are presented in Table 8. Three regression models were analyzed. In Model 1, the four core competencies were considered as predictors. In Model 2, the four core 14 competencies and teacher background variables were considered as predictors. In Model 3, the four core competencies, teacher background variables and school environment factors were considered as predictors. The results show that Educational Competency was strongly related to the five aspects of teachers’ innovative teaching performance. This implies that teachers showed more innovative teaching behaviors when they had innovative educational beliefs, a wealth of subject knowledge, pedagogy and learning psychology knowledge, and could be able to integrate them into the teaching practices effectively. Social Competency showed a significant positive relationship with “Application of innovative thoughts”. It indicates that teachers were more inclined to take new perspectives on problems and apply persistence to the exploration of new pathways to solve problems in teaching when they had a good communication skill as well as the persistence in solving teaching problems. Additionally, Technological Competency was significantly related to four aspects of innovative teaching performance in Model 1, and three aspects of innovative teaching performance in Model 2. In Model 3, Technological Competency was significantly related to “Teaching methods and teaching strategies innovation” and “Teaching resources innovation”. This indicates that teachers who were technologically competent were more capable to find the desired information among the vast amount of information available on the internet, integrate the information coming from multiple sources, effectively use this information to solve teaching problems, and apply educational technology in teaching practices would have better innovative performance in innovating teaching methods and strategies. Although among the teacher background variables, years of teaching was significantly related to the innovative teaching, when considering all the factors together in Model 2 and 3, it did not have a significant contribution to the innovative teaching performance. With regard to colleague support, it was significantly related to “Application of innovative thoughts”, “Teaching methods and teaching strategies innovation”, “Teaching resources innovation”. 15 This implies that when teachers got more support from colleagues, they could be more inclined to have innovative thoughts, teaching methods and strategies, and use of resources. Although Learning Competency was significantly correlated with the innovative teaching behaviours (see Table 7), in the regression models, it was not a significant predictor for the innovative teaching performance. The results show that Social Competency, Educational Competency, Technological Competency and colleague support were significant predictors for the overall innovative teaching performance as reported by the teachers. Furthermore, the hierarchical regression analysis models show that Model 3 had the most contribution to the innovative teaching performance of teachers (R2adjusted from .51 to .63). However, considering the small differences of contributions between Model 1 and Model 3, we can well conclude that the four core competencies had a great contribution to teachers’ innovative teaching performance (R2adjusted from .47 to .61) <Table 8 about here> Discussion Significance of the four core competencies The findings support our research model to a large extent, showing that three of the four core competencies identified in the theoretical model were significant predictors for teachers’ innovative teaching performance. Especially educational competency and technological competency were strongly related to innovative teaching performance. This research has important theoretical contribution to innovative teaching, educational innovations and teacher professional development. First, a new instrument was constructed and tested. The instrument development included a rigorous process of testing and validation, 16 and the present study suggests that the postulated theoretical structure was sound and the instrument was reliable and valid. The findings indicate that educational competency is one of the key predictors for innovative teaching. This is in line with the argument that new educational beliefs, subject knowledge and comprehensive and new educational knowledge are critical for innovative teaching (Chen, 2002; Jin, 2008). A deep understanding and knowledge base of the discipline should be emphasized for innovation (Sternberg, 1997). The present study provides empirical evidence that in order to enhance teachers’ performance in innovative teaching, teachers’ educational, social and technological competencies need to be stressed. Teachers’ innovative teaching performance can be predicted and explained by these competences. Teachers' technological competency contributed to the prediction of “Teaching methods and teaching strategies innovation” and “Teaching resources innovation”. Several studies have shown that the term ‘innovation’ is mainly associated with changes in practices using educational technologies (Hannon, 2008). Teachers with high technological competency can effectively find the desired information and teaching resources in the current technologically advanced society and solve problems. Modern educational technology can also help the teachers achieve many new teaching methods and strategies. Social competency showed a positive and significant relationship with “Application of innovative thought”. The innovative inspiration and passion is activated during communication. Multi-cultural thinking, teaching ideas and some innovative elements in teaching processes are learned during communication and exchange. Teachers who are more capable of social communication and have the courage to face challenges tend to have better performance in applying the innovative thoughts in teaching practices. Therefore, supporting 17 teachers to work in teams, sharing knowledge and insights can be conducive for teachers’ development of innovative teaching. In addition to the importance of teachers’ core competencies, this study also shows the importance of a supportive school environment, especially the support from colleagues. Teachers could be encouraged to engage in innovative teaching when they perceive an environment that stimulate and support innovation. This direct effect was uniform for all teachers, independent of their competencies. Therefore, the construction of a supportive organization culture is very important for schools to encourage innovative teaching. Although previous research suggests that learning competency is very important for innovation (Chen, 2002), the current results indicate that Learning Competency was not a significant predictor for innovative teaching performance. This seems to be not consistent with previous argument that teachers’ willingness to learn is a crucial factor for implementing educational innovations (Konings et al, 2007). It might be possible that although teachers’ willingness and capability to learn is very important, the time they could actually be able to invest in learning and whether the school and external environment could be supportive for their learning could have played a role in their actual performance in innovative teaching. This study provides teachers’ perspectives of competencies that are relevant for successful innovative teaching performance. Some of the competencies, such as educational competency and social competency are fundamental or basic competencies for teachers. Yet they also play a core role when teachers need to be involved in innovative teaching activities. The validated four-factor model of core competencies for innovating teaching can be used as an important framework for future research in this filed. This research made great contribution in building such a framework as previous studies only examined the features or qualities of innovative teachers. The tested model can provide a sound basis for future studies 18 and add to the theories and models of educational innovations. The results can provide insights for curriculum development in teacher education, for example, by developing the relevant competencies as suggested in this research. The findings of this study also suggest that innovative competencies are not born, but can be developed. Teachers’ competency for innovative teaching is an important and basic issue in educational innovations. Methodological remarks and limitations Our theoretical framework is based on a large number of international literature. The findings of this research demonstrate that the theoretical framework about the core competencies for innovative teaching building on international literature is applicable for Chinese teachers. Although this theoretical framework is only tested in the Chinese context in this study, we believe that these four competencies are critical for teachers’ innovative teaching across different cultural contexts. However, further empirical research applying the theoretical model developed in this study in other contexts would be very useful to test the validity and applicability of this model. Nevertheless a couple of limitations need to be noted for the study. First, the sample size was relatively small in this study. Follow-up research is needed to confirm the construct validity of the instrument with an increased sample size. A larger sample size with a greater number of participants per group (e.g. teaching subject, teaching grade, gender, educational level, schools type and school region) will give opportunity to measure the stability of the instrument. Secondly, we are aware that the four core competencies are considered to be very important factors, but may not be able to explain all of teachers’ innovative teaching performance. There might be other factors affecting teachers’ actual performance. Future research can try to examine other relevant factors. Thirdly, the variables were measured only with one method and only from the teachers’ perspectives and self-reported results. In future 19 research, other research methods such as qualitative method and evaluation by other actors (colleague-evaluation, student-evaluation and school leaders) should be used to examine the importance of key competencies and the display of innovative teaching performance in an objective and deep manner. In-depth studies using qualitative research methods (e.g. interview and observation) can further confirm or extend our understanding about the core competencies for innovative teaching and provide deeper insights about the possible predictors for teachers’ innovative teaching performance regarding teachers’ individual variables and the school environment factors. In addition, cross-validation of the instrument in different countries or cultures would also be an essential next step. Theoretical and practical implications In conclusion, this study has contributed to the theoretical construction of a competency-based approach for teachers’ innovative teaching performance. The study also proves that an empirical investigation on teaching innovation is a valuable way to understand the real situation and perspectives about innovative teaching and learning of teachers in schools. The identified four core competencies provide a sound basis for future studies and can offer some guidelines for teacher education and for schools with their efforts to develop and enhance teachers’ relevant competencies and foster their innovative teaching practices. The findings of this research can also provide insights for curriculum design of teacher education to encompass these four core competencies that are necessary for teachers to be innovative in their educational activities. Based on the competencies that are found to be related to innovative teaching performance, teachers can be stimulated, trained, evaluated, and possibly rewarded by their advancement in some of the core competencies. 20 References Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing Up Creative. New York: Crown Publishing Group, Inc. Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does Assessment Kill Student Creativity? The Educational Forum, 69, 254–263. Bi ,Y. X. (2003). Innovative Teaching Ability. Jinan: Shandong Educational Press. Burt, K. B., Obradovic, J., Long, J. D., & Masten, A. S. (2008). The interplay of social competence and psychopathology over 20 years: Testing transactional and cascade models. Child Development, 79, 359-374. Bharadwaj, S. & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: individual creativity mechanisms, organization creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Production Innovation Management, 17, 424-434. Brandon, B. (2004). Applying instructional systems processes to constructivist learning environments. The e-Learning Developers' Journal. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/062904DES.pdf. Brouwer, N. & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? .American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153-224. Cairney, T. (2000) .The knowledge based economy: implications for vocational education and training. Sydney: Centre for Regional Research and Innovation, University of Western Sydney. Chen, X.Y. (2002). On the development of innovative teacher and innovative quality. Aspect South-East Asia. 10, 55-59. Chen, S.C. (2009). A study of the Relations between Innovative Teaching Capacity and Teaching Effectiveness of Teachers in Elementary and Junior High Schools in Penghu County. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgibin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dwebmge&cache=1283038497890. 21 Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128–152. Cowen, R. (2002). Socrates was right? Teacher education systems and the state. In T. Elwyn (Ed.), Teacher education: Dilemmas and prospects, 3-12. Craft, A. (2003) .The Limits To Creativity In Education: Dilemmas For The Educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113 — 127. Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins. Ellis, S. & Barrs, M. (2008). The Assessment of Creative Learning, London: Creative Partnerships. Feldhusen, J. F., & Kolloff, M. B. (1980). A three-stage model for gifted education. In R. E. Clasen, B. Robinson, D. R. Clasen, &G. Libsten (Eds.), Programming for the gifted, talented and creative: Models and methods. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Extension. Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E&T in the EU Member States. Retrieved January, 23, 2012, from http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/. Ha, Y. and Stoel, L. (2004). Internet apparel shopping behaviors: the influence of general innovativeness. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 32(8/9),377-386. Hannon, J. (2008). Breaking down online teaching: Innovation and resistance. Ascilite 2008 Melbourne, 389-399. Harris, A. (2002). School improvement: What’s in it for schools? .New York: Routledge Falmer. 22 Jin, F.H. (2001). Innovating Education and Training of Innovative Teachers. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from Outstanding Master of Education Library. Jon-Chao,Hong, Jeou-Shyan., Lin, Chan-Li., & ChanLin, Lih-Juan. (2008).Competency disparity between pre-service teacher education and in-service teaching requirements in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 28,4-20. Karwowski, M., Gralewski, J. Lebuda, I & Wisniewska, E. (2007). Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2, 57-61. Könings, K.D., Brand-Gruwela, S. & van Merriënboer, J. (2007). Teachers’ perspectives on innovations: Implications for educational design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 (6), 985-997. Koster, B., Brekelmans, M., Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (2005). Quality requirements for teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 157–176. Kuang, C.F. (2004). Innovation Theory and Apply. Capital University of Economics and Business Press. Lin, C.D. (2009). Researches into Creative Talents and Creative Education. Economic Science. Ma, S. H. (2007). The situation of innovative teaching implementation in elementary school of Taipei City. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgibin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dwebmge&cache=1283038497890. Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden,W.O., & Sharma,S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ngan, M. Y. (2003). A study of teacher receptivity to change and school culture. Unpublished doctorial dissertation. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Pantic, N. & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher competencies as a basis for teacher educationviews of Serbian teachers and teacher educators. Teaching, 26(3), 694-703. 23 Redecker, C. (2008). Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: JRC-IPTS. Retrieved March 2010 from: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC49108.pdf. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (Fifth edition). New York: Free Press. Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone. Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for Creative Potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317-324. Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: theories and themes: research, development, and practice. London: Elsevier Academic Press. Russ, S. (2003). Play and Creativity: developmental issues. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 291 – 303. Sahin-Izmirli, O. & Kurt, A.A. (2009). Basic competencies of instructional techologists. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1 (1), 998-1002. Sahin, I. & Thompson, A. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret instructional computer use by COE faculty. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39 (1), 81-104. Segers, E. & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Learning in a sheltered Internet environment: The use of Web Quests. Learning and Instruction, 19, 423-432. Sharan, S., Shahar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Slabbert, J. A. (1994).Creativity and education revisited: Reflection in aid of progression. Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 61-69. Simplicio, J. S. C. (2000). Teaching classroom educators how to be more effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4), 675-680. Sternberg, R.J. (1997). The Concept of Intelligence and Its Role in Lifelong Learning and Success. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1030-1037. 24 Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Struyven, K, & De Meyst, M. (2010). Competence-based teacher education: Illusion or reality? An assessment of the implementation status in Flanders from teachers’ and students’ points of view. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1495-1510. Tigelaar, D. E. H., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2004). The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education. Higher Education, 48, 253–268. Tan, X.W. (2010). Study on cognition and behavior toward creative teaching shown on teachers involved in teacher appraisal system. Retrieved March 20, 2011from:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgibin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/login?o=dwebmge&cache=1283038497890. UNESCO (2008). ICT Competency Standards for Teachers. Retrieved March 10, 2011, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001562/156210e.pdf. Vandam, K., Schipper, M., & Runhaar, P. (2010). Developing a competency- based framework for teachers’ entrepreneurial behaviors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 965-971. Van Merriënboer, J. & Brand-Gruwela, S. (2005). The pedagogical use of information and communication technology in education: a Dutch perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 407–415. Whitman, N. (1983). Teaching problem solving and creativity in college courses. AAHBERIC/Higher Education Research Currents, 2-7. Williamson, B., & Payton, S. (2009). Curriculum and teaching innovation. Retrieved March 20, 2012 25 from:http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/handbooks/curriculum_and_teac hing_innovation2.pdf. Zhang, C.S. (2000). Educational Innovation. Xingtai Vocational and Technical Journal, 3, 29. Zhu, C. (2012). The effect of cultural and school factors on the implementation of CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01333.x. Zhu, C. Devos, G. & Li, Y. (2011). Teacher perceptions of school culture and their organizational commitment and well-being in a Chinese school. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12 (2), 319-328. Zhu, C. & Engels, N. (in press). Organizational culture and instructional innovations in higher education: perceptions and reactions of teachers and students. Educational Management Administration & leadership. 26 Fig.1. Theoretical framework of this research 27 Table 1. Related competencies in the literature and the proposed underlying core competencies in this study Literature Specific competencies put forth Theories or framework Underlying competency Koster (2005) domain-specific knowledge, organization, pedagogy attitude, communication understanding the culture management ability, professional capability interpersonal skills, value systems mental capability, personality traits communication skills high imagination, enjoy trying innovations, inventive personality Teacher competency Pedagogical/ educational Social social attributes Jon-Chao Hong et al. (2008) Rogers, 1995; Ha & Stoel, 2004; Sahin & Thompson, 2006 Kuang, 2004 Simplicio, 2000 Karwowski & Gralewski, 2007 Chen, 2002 Jin, 2008 Zhang, 2000 Cohen & Levinthal, 1990 Hannon, 2008 Struyven & De Meyst, 2010 UNESCO, 2008 innovation can be acquired and nurtured stimulate students’ creativity dynamic, open competent advanced ideas of education, high professional level and teaching ability quick thinking, and imaginative good moral character, personality lofty professional spirit, new educational belief, complete knowledge structure, superb teaching art skillful modern educational technology study ability social communication ability technological competencies able to use educational technology responsibility for the learner responsibility for the school and educational community, responsibility for society aware of and be able to apply the basic and complex tools (e.g. computer, software, and network resources) to help students collaborate, access information, communicate, and create information; be able to design ICT-based knowledge communities and use ICT to support the development of students’ knowledge and skills Teacher competency Related to the proposed core competency in this study EC SC Pedagogical/ educational Social Thinking, General Social Thinking EC Innovative potential Innovation Social SC Learning LC Innovative teachers Pedagogical/ educational Social General Pedagogical/ educational Learning General Pedagogical/ educational EC Technology innovation Innovative teachers Innovative teaching Educational innovation Innovative performance Innovation and change Teacher education ICT competency for teachers SC LC SC LC SC EC LC EC Technological TC Learning Social Technological LC SC TC Technological TC Pedagogical/ educational Social EC Technological TC SC LC=Learning competency, EC=Educational Competency, SC=Social Competency, TC=Technological Competency 28 Table 2. Composition and background variables of sample teachers Characteristics /Categories % Gender Male 40.9 Female 59.1 Years of Teaching 0-5 years 54.8 6-10 years 15.8 11-15 years 7.9 16-20 years 9.0 More than 20 years 12.4 Educational Level Associate degree 9.7 Bachelor 68.8 Master 21.6 Teaching Subject Mathematics 28.6 Language 24.7 English 17.6 Other 29.1 Note: Missing values are excluded in percentage calculations. 29 Table 3. Sample items of teacher perceptions of core competencies for innovative teaching Competencies Sub-scales (No. of items) (No. of items) Learning Competency Attitude (4) I actively learn new things related to new teaching concepts, new methods, etc. (15) Knowledge (4) As a teacher, I know how to learn to improve my teaching. Skill (7) I am capable of learning independently. Attitude (4) I am willing to share teaching problems with others. Knowledge (4) I have the knowledge on how to cooperate with others. Skill (8) I am capable of maintaining a dynamic interaction with my students. Attitude (4) I am willing to integrate modern multimedia technology into the teaching practice. Knowledge (4) I know the recent development of teaching technology. Skill (6) I am proficient in using modern multimedia teaching technologies. Educational Attitude (4) I am willing to spend more time on teaching issues. Competency Knowledge (4) I have sufficient knowledge about the subjects that I teach. (15) Skill (7) I am capable of mobilizing students’ learning enthusiasm and interests in the class. Social Competency Sample Items (16) Technological Competency (14) 30 Table 4. Sample items of innovative teaching performance reported by teachers Innovative teaching performance Sample items (No. of items) Application of innovative thoughts in teaching (4) I solve teaching problems from divergent thinking and do not limit myself to fixed and existing models. Teaching methods and teaching strategies innovation (7) In my class, I organize learning activities that are based on students’ inquiry and exploration of solutions. Teaching content innovation I adjust teaching content according to the learning tasks in my class and do not restrict to the pre-set teaching content. (6) Teaching resource innovation In my class, I use various resources to stimulate students’ innovative thinking. (7) Evaluation innovation (5) I use open questions in order to evaluate my students’ progress in this course. Table 5. CFA (asymptotically distribution free): Model of fit parameters X2/df GFI CFI RMSEA Learning Competency 1.669 0.904 0.938 0.061 Educational Competency 1.674 0.905 0.961 0.062 Social Competency 1.953 0.911 0.945 0.073 Technological Competency 2.032 0.909 0.938 0.076 Model four core competencies 1.762 0.931 0.979 0.065 31 Table 6. Means, standard deviations and reliability coefficients of the scales Core Competency Innovative Teaching Performance School Environment Factors Scale M SD Cronbach’s Alpha Learning competency 5.10 0.57 0.867 Educational competency 4.50 0.63 0.936 Social competency 5.07 0.61 0.910 Technological competency 4.82 0.70 0.897 Application of innovative thought 3.97 0.62 0.766 Teaching methods and teaching strategies innovation 3.89 0.61 0.843 Teaching content innovation 3.94 0.54 0.834 Teaching resources innovation 3.83 0.67 0.864 Evaluation innovation 3.93 0.59 0.761 Leadership support 4.11 0.89 0.655 School material and administrative support 4.26 1.12 0.821 Colleague support 4.64 0.86 0.900 32 Table 7. Pearson’s Correlation between variables Variables TT TM TC TR TE SUM Learning Competency 0.52** 0.42** 0.44** 0.40** 0.52** 0.49** Educational Competency 0.73** 0.67** 0.72** 0.62** 0.74** 0.75** Social Competency 0.69** 0.57** 0.62** 0.57** 0.52** 0.67** Technological Competency 0.56** 0.59** 0.51** 0.61** 0.53** 0.62** Years of Teaching 0.16* 0.18* 0.18* 0.20** 0.21** 0.21** Colleague Support 0.51** 0.51** 0.44** 0.52** 0.42** 0.53** Note:*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001. TT= Application of innovative thoughts; TM= Teaching methods and teaching strategies innovation; TC= Teaching content innovation; TR= Teaching resources innovation; TE= Evaluation innovation; SUM=overall mean of innovative teaching performance. 33 Table 8. Hierarchical regression analysis on innovative teaching performance TT M1 M2 TM M3 M1 β Learning M2 TC M3 M1 β M2 M3 β 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.08 -0.08 -0.09 Educational Competency 0.44*** 0.39*** 0.37*** 0.48*** 0.47*** 0.40*** 0.58*** 0.58*** 0.53*** Social Competency 0.25** 0.25** 0.28** 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.18 Technological Competency 0.15* 0.15* 0.09 0.30*** 0.31*** 0.25*** 0.10 0.12 0.07 0.01 -0.00 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 Competency Years of Teaching Colleague Support 0.19*** 0.18** 0.11 R2adjusted 0.56 0.56 0.59 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.53 F 65.89*** 46.07*** 42.39*** 43.15*** 34.89*** 31.86 *** 48.91*** 39.16*** 33.69*** 34 Table 8.- continued. TR M1 M2 TE M3 M1 β Learning M2 SUM M3 M1 β M2 M3 β -0.05 -0.05 -0.06 -0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 Educational Competency 0.33*** 0.31*** 0.23* 0.52*** 0.50*** 0.48*** 0.51*** 0.49*** 0.43*** Social Competency 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.18* Technological 0.35*** 0.36*** 0.30*** 0.12 0.13* 0.11 0.25*** 0.25*** 0.20*** 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05 Competency Competency Years of Teaching Colleague Support 0.22*** 0.06 0.18*** R2adjusted 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.63 F 39.93*** 32.96*** 31.44*** 55.69*** 45.01*** 37.72*** 69.08*** 55.97*** 51.08*** 35 View publication stats