See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263142974

What core competencies are related to teachers' innovative teaching?

Article  in  Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education · February 2013

DOI: 10.1080/1359866X.2012.753984

CITATIONS READS
38 4,067

4 authors, including:

Chang Zhu Yonghong Cai

Vrije Universiteit Brussel Beijing Normal University
216 PUBLICATIONS   1,452 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD assessing the effectivenes of Audio media in Distance and Community Education in Uganda View project

LEAD2 Project on University Governance and Academic Leadership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chang Zhu on 28 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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 sub-

dimensions, 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 sub-

dimensions (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/cgi-

bin/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/cgi-

bin/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 education-

views 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/cgi-

bin/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. AAHB-

ERIC/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 Underlying Related to the
framework competency proposed core
competency in
this study
Koster (2005) domain-specific knowledge, Teacher Pedagogical/ EC
organization, pedagogy competency educational
attitude, communication Social SC
understanding the culture
Jon-Chao Hong management ability, professional Teacher Pedagogical/ EC
et al. (2008) capability competency educational
interpersonal skills, value systems Social SC
mental capability, personality traits Thinking, General LC
Rogers, 1995; Ha communication skills Technology Social SC
& Stoel, 2004; high imagination, enjoy trying innovation Thinking LC
Sahin & innovations, inventive personality
Thompson, 2006
Kuang, 2004 social attributes Innovative Social SC
potential
Simplicio, 2000 innovation can be acquired and Innovation Learning LC
nurtured
Karwowski & stimulate students’ creativity Innovative Pedagogical/ EC
Gralewski, 2007 teachers educational
dynamic, open Social SC
competent General
Chen, 2002 advanced ideas of education, high Innovative Pedagogical/ EC
professional level and teaching ability teachers educational
quick thinking, and imaginative Learning LC
good moral character, personality General
Jin, 2008 lofty professional spirit, Innovative Pedagogical/ EC
new educational belief, teaching educational
complete knowledge structure,
superb teaching art
skillful modern educational Technological TC
technology
Zhang, 2000 study ability Educational Learning LC
social communication ability innovation Social SC
Cohen & technological competencies Innovative Technological TC
Levinthal, 1990 performance
Hannon, 2008 able to use educational technology Innovation and Technological TC
change
Struyven & De responsibility for the learner Teacher Pedagogical/ EC
Meyst, 2010 education educational
responsibility for the school and Social SC
educational community,
responsibility for society
UNESCO, 2008 aware of and be able to apply the ICT competency Technological TC
basic and complex tools (e.g. for teachers
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
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 Sample Items

(No. of items) (No. of items)

Learning Attitude (4) I actively learn new things related to new teaching
Competency 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.

Social Attitude (4) I am willing to share teaching problems with others.

Competency
Knowledge (4) I have the knowledge on how to cooperate with others.
(16)
Skill (8) I am capable of maintaining a dynamic interaction with
my students.

Technological Attitude (4) I am willing to integrate modern multimedia technology

into the teaching practice.
Competency
Knowledge (4) I know the recent development of teaching technology.
(14)
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.

30
Table 4. Sample items of innovative teaching performance reported by teachers

Innovative teaching performance Sample items

(No. of items)

Application of innovative I solve teaching problems from divergent thinking and do

thoughts in teaching (4) not limit myself to fixed and existing models.

Teaching methods and teaching In my class, I organize learning activities that are based
strategies innovation (7) 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
(6) content.

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 1.762 0.931 0.979 0.065

competencies

31
Table 6. Means, standard deviations and reliability coefficients of the scales

Scale M SD Cronbach’s
Alpha

Core Learning competency 5.10 0.57 0.867

Competency
Educational competency 4.50 0.63 0.936

Social competency 5.07 0.61 0.910

Technological competency 4.82 0.70 0.897

Innovative Application of innovative 3.97 0.62 0.766

Teaching thought
Performance
Teaching methods and 3.89 0.61 0.843
teaching strategies innovation

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

School Leadership support 4.11 0.89 0.655

Environment
Factors School material and 4.26 1.12 0.821
administrative support

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 0.56** 0.59** 0.51** 0.61** 0.53** 0.62**

Competency

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 TM TC

M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3

β β β

Learning 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.08 -0.08 -0.09

Competency

Educational 0.44*** 0.39*** 0.37*** 0.48*** 0.47*** 0.40*** 0.58*** 0.58*** 0.53***
Competency

Social Competency 0.25** 0.25** 0.28** 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.18

Technological 0.15* 0.15* 0.09 0.30*** 0.31*** 0.25*** 0.10 0.12 0.07
Competency

Years of Teaching 0.01 -0.00 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03

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 TE SUM

M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3

β β β

Learning -0.05 -0.05 -0.06 -0.02 0.02 0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05

Competency

Educational 0.33*** 0.31*** 0.23* 0.52*** 0.50*** 0.48*** 0.51*** 0.49*** 0.43***
Competency

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***

Competency

Years of Teaching 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05

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