Key competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching among secondary school teachers: a mixed-methods research

1 23

Asia Pacific Education Review ISSN 1598-1037Volume 15Number 2 Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2014) 15:299-311DOI 10.1007/s12564-014-9329-6

Key competencies and characteristics forinnovative teaching among secondaryschool teachers: a mixed-methods research

Chang Zhu & Di Wang

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Education

Research Institute, Seoul National University,

Seoul, Korea. This e-offprint is for personal

use only and shall not be self-archived

in electronic repositories. If you wish to

self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Key competencies and characteristics for innovative teachingamong secondary school teachers: a mixed-methods research

Chang Zhu • Di Wang

Received: 29 July 2013 / Revised: 21 April 2014 / Accepted: 25 April 2014 / Published online: 6 May 2014

� Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2014

Abstract This research aims to understand the key

competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching as

perceived by Chinese secondary teachers. A mixed-meth-

ods research was used to investigate secondary teachers’

views. First, a qualitative study was conducted with inter-

views of teachers to understand the perceived key com-

petencies and characteristics for innovative teaching

among Chinese secondary teachers. Seventeen character-

istics were identified underlying four key competencies

that were perceived critical for innovative teaching. Sec-

ondly, an instrument was developed in order to validate the

identified key competencies and characteristics and to

measure teachers’ perceived importance of the key com-

petencies and characteristics for innovative teaching. A

total of 325 secondary teachers participated in the survey.

The results show that the four-factor model of key com-

petencies for innovative teaching was validated and the

importance level of the perceived characteristics was also

identified. This research has theoretical and practical sig-

nificance with regard to the development of competence-

based teacher education programs.

Keywords Teacher perceptions � Characteristics �Competencies � Innovative teaching � Secondary teachers

Introduction

Innovation and creativity research in education burgeoned

in the later part of the twentieth century. Educating for

student creativity and innovation has become an indis-

pensable task of educational institutions (Kilicer 2009).

This development is also causing changes to the structure

of education institutions and the qualities and profiles of

students (Ambrose 2005; Craft 2008; Kilicer 2009).

Teachers play a crucial role in teaching creatively and

innovatively to the next generation for the changing soci-

ety. The changing society calls for a multidimensional role

for today’s teachers, such as teaching, demonstrating,

guiding, facilitating, answering questions, managing clas-

ses, and initiating learning communities (Ambrose 2005;

Harber 2002). In order to be innovative in teaching, it is

imperative for teachers to continuously diversify their

knowledge base, thinking patterns, and evaluation systems

(Darling-Hammond and Snyder 2000). Teachers are the

ultimate source of creativity and innovation: No matter

how good policies are, they rely on teachers to implement

them in classes (Ng and Smith 2004). Teachers need to be

able to promote student learning by innovative teaching

approaches. However, the implementation of innovative

teaching and learning is a complex process. Some teachers

apply teaching innovations with great enthusiasm and

persist in doing it until it becomes fully integrated into their

teaching practices (Jeffrey and Craft 2006). Others never

try new teaching methods and strategies, or return to their

traditional teaching repertoire after only a few initial

attempts (Abrami et al. 2004).

Previous research points out that many teachers lack

competencies for innovative teaching (Lin 2009). How-

ever, in the literature, there is a lack of general framework

of teacher competencies for innovative teaching. Compe-

tency is generally defined as the level of integration of

knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Stoof et al. 2002; Tigelaar

et al. 2004). With regard to innovative competencies, it is

often related to the ability of the organization or individual

C. Zhu (&) � D. Wang

Department of Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel,

Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2014) 15:299–311

DOI 10.1007/s12564-014-9329-6

Author's personal copy

to adopt or implement new ideas, processes, or products

successfully (Rogers 1995). Educational actors need to

have a clear vision, awareness, and understanding of what

key competencies and characteristics can entail innovative

teaching. However, in the related literature, there is scarce

research examining teachers’ key competencies for inno-

vative teaching. Although some previous studies have

examined the features or qualities of innovative teachers

(Chen 2002; Jin 2001; Rogers 1995; Sahin and Thompson

2006), the theoretical and empirical bases are not suffi-

ciently developed to be able to define the key competencies

and the desired qualities or characteristics for innovative

teaching. Under this background, understanding what tea-

cher competencies and characteristics are needed for

innovative teaching becomes a critical issue.

Theoretical background

Innovative teaching

Recent literature stresses that the innovation economy

requires that schools facilitate deep learning and student

creativity rather than mastering lower-order facts (Be-

reiter 2002). Innovation and creativity are seen as a

core of human competency (Kampylis et al. 2009).

Education plays a crucial role in this process to nurture

student competencies to construct and create knowledge

(Sawyer 2006). Innovative teaching is also necessary to

meet the educational needs of diverse student popula-

tions and the changing needs of the modern society

(Hargreaves 2003).

People tend to have their own views of the meaning of

innovative teaching (Ferrari et al. 2009; Slabbert 1994).

Some of them emphasize the development of cognitive

abilities or emotional aspects of students, while others

stress the innovative aspects brought by teachers, either

by the use of new methods and techniques or by man-

aging the classroom environment (Amabile 1989; Ferrari

et al. 2009; Slabbert 1994). For example, student-centered

teaching and problem-based learning are viewed as

innovative teaching and learning format, which stresses

teaching students to use strategies for representing and

processing new information in ways that lead to active

learning and problem-solving (O’Sullivan 2007; Whitman

1983). Young and Shaw (1999) pointed out teaching

should be sensitive to the individual student’s conception

of himself/herself and his/her role in the classroom.

Innovative teaching is the process leading to creative

learning by implementing new ideas, methods, tools, and

contents, which can benefit learners and facilitate active

learning and the creative potential of students (Ferrari

et al. 2009; Zhu et al. 2013).

Teacher perceptions of key competencies

and characteristics for innovative teaching

Competencies can be used in human resource systems to

identify actions that need to be taken to do a job well

(Green 1999). Competencies can be defined as an inte-

grated set of personal characteristics, knowledge, skills,

and attitudes that needed for effective performance in

various teaching contexts (Stoof et al. 2002; Tigelaar et al.

2004). Koster et al. (2005) divided teacher competency into

five categories: domain-specific knowledge, communica-

tion, organization, pedagogy, and attitude. Each compe-

tency can have several behavioral indicators. They are

manifested through teachers’ teaching activities and

behaviors (Luo and Li 1997). Some categories of individ-

ual characteristics are considered to underlie specific

competencies and contribute to effective performance.

Specific sets of characteristics are needed for performance

in a specific domain such as innovative teaching.

Teachers’ innovative teaching practices are related to

their perceptions of teaching and learning (Martin and

Ramsden 1994; Trigwell et al. 1994). Teachers’ percep-

tions of innovative teaching often guide their decisions in

the classroom and influence many facets of classrooms,

including the degree of student autonomy, interaction, and

forms of assessment in the classroom (Stipek et al. 2001).

Several emerging trends entail an alteration in the way

young people learn and understand (Redecker 2008), such

as student-centered learning and constructivist-oriented

learning. Teachers play an important role in stimulating

students’ interests in new ways. For example, teachers

integrate information coming from multiple sources and

effectively use this information to solve teaching problems

for current learners who are surrounded by Internet, video

games, mobile phones, and other digital media (Segers and

Verhoeven 2009). Teachers apply cooperative learning,

inquiry learning, and independent study to help students

think actively and construct knowledge by themselves.

Longitudinal studies suggest that teaching perceptions and

practices are connected and can change together (Timper-

ley 2008). However, little is known about teachers’

perceptions of key competencies for innovative teaching

and the specific characteristics underlying the key

competencies.

Previous studies have attempted to look at innovation in

teaching and tried to identify some prerequisites or features

of teachers that may be related to innovative teaching.

Some studies suggest that domain-specific knowledge is

important for innovative teaching (Lin 2009). Other

authors pointed out that the wealth of subject knowledge,

pedagogy, and learning psychology knowledge are crucial

for innovative teaching (Cowen 2002). Teachers’ willing-

ness to learn and the ability to learn continuously are also

300 C. Zhu, D. Wang

123


regarded as crucial factors for implementing educational

innovations (Konings et al. 2007; Zhu et al. 2010). Koster

et al. (2005) point out that communication skills are

important for innovative teaching. They need to be able to

build positive human relationships and be dedicated to the

profession and their students (Pantic and Wubbels 2010).

Chen (2002) identified some personality and psychological

quality for innovative teaching, which refers to openness,

passion, interests, perseveration, and courage. Other per-

sonal qualities, such as empathy, being democratic and

having an equal spirit, being able to fight for the esteem of

the teaching profession, awareness of the profession’s

importance, and responsibility were also mentioned by

Pantic and Wubbels (2010). Recent studies have stressed

that using educational technology is an important aspect of

educational innovations and teaching practices (Hannon

2008). Technological innovation is essential to the eco-

nomic prosperity and quality of life. To live, learn, and

work successfully in an increasingly complex, information-

rich, and knowledge-based society, students and teachers

must utilize technology effectively.

Although existing research has identified a number of

different characteristics and competences of innovative

teachers, most of these studies have not examined in a

systematic manner the key competences and specific

characteristics of teachers that are important for innovative

teaching. Therefore, the general research question of the

present study is ‘‘what are the key competencies and

characteristics for innovative teaching as perceived by

secondary teachers?’’

Methods

In order to understand secondary teachers’ views about key

competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching, a

mixed-methods approach was used. Mixed-methods

research is considered a powerful research method to

provide both qualitative and quantitative evidences (John-

son and Onwuegbuzie 2004). During the first phase, qual-

itative interview data were collected from a number of

secondary teachers to identify the main themes related to

teacher competencies and characteristics for innovative

teaching. During the second phase, based on a compre-

hensive literature review and the results from the qualita-

tive study, an instrument was developed to investigate the

competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching as

perceived by secondary teachers. The two phases of

research address the following specific research questions:

(RQ1) What key competencies and characteristics can be

identified from Chinese secondary teachers? (RQ2) Can the

developed competency model be validated among Chinese

secondary teachers? (RQ3) To what extent do the teachers

perceive the key competencies and specific characteristics

to be important for innovative teaching? The qualitative

research (research phase 1) addresses the first research

question, and the quantitative research (research phase 2)

addresses the second and third research questions.

Research phase 1: The qualitative research

Participants

Interviews were conducted with secondary school teachers

in Beijing, China, to examine their views about teacher

competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching.

Purposive sampling was used for this qualitative study, in

which the subjects were selected as good informants for

this research theme. Purposive sampling is useful when

certain features or characteristics of participants are desired

(Patton 1990). In this study, it is desirable that the partic-

ipants have some of the features for innovative teaching as

identified in the literature or have been recognized as being

innovative in teaching, e.g., by their school or the Beijing

Municipal Education Committee. The teacher participants

in this study were recommended by the teacher profes-

sional development institutions in Beijing and the Muni-

cipal Education Committee as innovative teachers from

Beijing key secondary schools. Most of them obtained

awards for innovative teaching during 2009–2011 either at

the Municipal level, district level, or the school level. The

teachers were contacted during a workshop organized by

the Beijing Municipal Education Committee, and the

informed consent was obtained from the teachers who

participated in the interviews. Participation in the inter-

views was voluntary. In total, 21 teachers (16 female and 5

male) participated in the interviews. The teachers were

from 12 public schools in different districts of Beijing. All

teachers have either a master degree or a bachelor degree.

They teach different subjects, covering almost all subject

areas in secondary education, including mathematics,

Chinese language, English, physics, chemistry, politics,

geography, and biology. All teachers had at least 3 years of

teaching experience and an average of 11 years of teaching

experience.

Procedure

The interviews with teachers were organized during

2 weeks in Beijing. All interview questions were semi-

structured around a set of main questions that encouraged

the teachers to talk about their views about innovative

teaching competencies and teacher characteristics. The

main questions include, for example, ‘‘How do you think

about innovative teaching?’’ ‘‘In your view, what compe-

tencies should teachers have to be innovative in teaching?

Characteristics for innovative teaching 301

123


Please describe the competencies in detail’’ ‘‘Why do you

think this competency is important for innovating teach-

ing?’’ ‘‘Are there specific characteristics of innovative

teachers? Which characteristics?’’ ‘‘Please tell some suc-

cessful examples of innovating teaching, from the original

design to the class practices.’’ The interview questions

were evaluated by four experts in the field of educational

research and secondary education for content validity.

When a certain question was not well understood by the

interviewee, brief clarification or explanation was given by

the interviewer. All teachers were interviewed individually.

Each interview lasted for about 40–70 min. Often, addi-

tional questions were asked to clarify related issues or to

explore the unique experience of the interviewees.

Informed consent was obtained from the participants to

audio record the interviews. All teachers were asked to

answer the questions while building on their experiences of

their daily teaching practices.

Coding and analysis

All interviews were transcribed from audio recording, and

the analysis was based on the transcripts. The content

analysis approach was adopted to analyze the responses to

the open-end questions in the semi-structured interviews.

Data were coded to identify ‘‘themes’’ that represent the

central ideas of the teachers’ views. The unit of analysis

was based on units of meaning. First, open coding was used

to conceptualize and classify the phenomenon by word for

word analysis. The themes were defined based on the major

concepts mentioned by the teachers. Based on the major

themes, a code was given to an analyzing unit (often a

sentence or an extended sentence). For example, ‘‘to learn

actively is very important for innovative teaching’’ was

coded as leaning actively (LAC), ‘‘broad knowledge is

necessary’’ was coded as Knowledgeable (KNO), and

‘‘innovative teaching needs cooperation’’ was coded as

Cooperative (COO). Coding continued until a saturated list

of themes was attained. Secondly, axial coding was used to

connect the concepts and named by a concept of a higher

level. For example, code LAC (leaning actively) and LRE

(learn reflectively) were categorized as a higher-level code

‘‘learning competency.’’ Thirdly, the frequencies of the

elements of competencies and characteristics described by

the teachers were calculated. Two coders (one researcher

involved in the interview process and another independent

researcher who did not involve in the interview process)

did the coding of the transcripts and generated the codes

and categories based on the data. The two coders coded all

the transcripts, and the results were compared afterward.

Cohen’s Kappa coefficients were calculated regarding the

interrater reliability, and the interrater agreement (0.89)

was satisfactory for all major themes. The level of agree-

ment suggests that the coding procedure was reliable. All

the remaining inconsistent codes were discussed, and a

consensus was agreed upon.

Results

Key competencies and characteristics identified from Chi-

nese secondary teachers (RQ1) The teachers revealed

many views about competencies and characteristics for

innovative teaching during the interviews. The frequencies

of features and characteristics that were mentioned by

teachers both per time and per teacher were calculated. As

the aim of the analysis was to identify common views of

competencies and characteristics as perceived by teachers,

coded features and characteristics that were mentioned by

\4 teachers out of the 21 interviewed teachers were not

considered as key characteristics for innovative teaching.

In total, 17 key characteristics were identified as they were

commonly mentioned by at least four different teachers.

These codes were further analyzed and categorized into

four main themes of key competencies: namely, learning,

educational, social, and technological competencies. The

coded themes of the 17 characteristics and the four key

competencies are presented in Table 1. Below, we report

the main findings in relation to the key competencies and

specific characteristics generated from the interview data.

Figure 1 presents the structure of the key competences and

characteristics that are identified as important for innova-

tive teaching.

Learning competency The first key competency that is

generalized from the codes is ‘‘learning competency.’’

Most of the teachers view learning competency as a pre-

requisite for innovative teaching, as one teacher pointed

out, ‘‘First, the teacher needs to have the ability to learn.’’

Four specific characteristics were identified in relation to

learning competency, namely Learn actively (the ability to

utilize learning resources and opportunities in an active

manner); Learn with open mind (be open to accept new

concepts, new things, and keep up with the time); Learn

from reflection (the ability to reflect their own teaching

problems and learn from practices and experiences); Learn

with independent thinking (the ability to think indepen-

dently and do not blindly believe in authorities and books).

The frequencies of the coded characteristics as reported by

teachers were presented in Table 1.

The results show that all teachers mentioned that an

innovative teacher needs to have the motivation and ini-

tiatives to learn (learn actively, mentioned by 100 % of the

respondents). Many (18 out of 21) teachers stated explicitly

and strongly that teachers should be responsible for their

own lifelong learning and learn actively for their profes-

sional development. For example, one teacher noted: ‘‘A

302 C. Zhu, D. Wang

123


teacher needs to learn continuously; when a teacher meets

problems in the classroom, he or she needs to learn and find

out solutions for the problems. A teacher should learn

actively at any time.’’ Twelve out of the 21 teachers (57 %)

stated that an innovative teacher needs to learn with an

open mind. For example, one teacher said that ‘‘If a teacher

wants to be innovative, he or she should be good at

accepting new concepts and ideas. They need to have an

open mind and diverse thinking.’’ Seven out of the 21

teachers (33 %) mentioned that reflective thinking was

important for innovative teaching. They stated that reflec-

tion was a good method for learning and innovation could

be generated from continuous reflection and practices. Nine

out of the 21 teachers (43 %) said that learning (from

others or books) with an independent thinking was

important. As one teacher said, ‘‘If you want to be an

innovative teacher, you cannot just copy ideas from others

and books. You need to think independently…consider the

actual situation and the conditions of the teaching envi-

ronment and create your own ideas.’’

Social competency The second key competency that is

categorized from the codes is ‘‘social competency.’’ A

common idea that was mentioned by the teachers was that

an innovative teacher needed to be able to get along with

others. The following coded characteristics were identified

from the interviews: Communicative (the ability to

exchange opinions and suggestions with others effectively

and build good interaction with students with good

communication skills), Cooperative (the ability to coop-

erate with others and participate in teamwork); Courageous

(have the courage to try new things on teaching and the

ability to work under pressure); Persistent (the ability to

persist in certain interests and engage in certain teaching

activities for a long term); Democratic (the ability to

respect students’ ideas, understand them from their views,

and give students opportunities to express themselves).

Eighteen of the 21 teachers (86 %) mentioned the

importance of communication skills for innovative teach-

ing. One teacher said in this way, ‘‘Good communication is

beneficial for a sound student–teacher relationship, and this

relationship is a critical component for innovative teach-

ing.’’ Nine of the teachers (43 %) stressed the importance

of cooperation ability for innovative teaching, as one tea-

cher said: ‘‘Innovative teaching can be transient and

intermittent if you do it alone…If the teachers want to keep

being innovative, they need to cooperate with others.’’ Four

of the 21 teachers (19 %) mentioned the importance of

being courageous for innovation. As a female teacher said,

‘‘Innovation means doing something for the first time.

Teachers need lots of courage for innovation in teaching.’’

Six of the teachers (29 %) talked about the importance of

persistence for innovation. These teachers stressed that

persistence was a very important element. For example, a

teacher said, ‘‘If you want to be innovative, first you need

to go beyond the immediate results such as scores. The

effectiveness of a new teaching method may take a long

Table 1 Coded themes and categorization of codes regarding competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching as perceived by teachers

Competencies Characteristics Total frequency

mentioned by

all teachers

Frequency by

teacher (%)

Learning competency Learn actively (LAC) 45 21 (100)

Learn with open mind (LOP) 19 12 (57)

Learn with independent thinking (LID) 23 9 (43)

Learn from reflection (LRE) 35 7 (33)

Social competency Communicative (COM) 41 18 (86)

Cooperative (COO) 33 9 (43)

Courageous (COU) 22 4 (19)

Persistent (PER) 10 6 (29)

Democratic (DEM) 15 9 (43)

Educational competency Love for teaching (LOT) 28 9 (43)

Responsible (RES) 31 5 (24)

Knowledgeable (KNO) 40 10 (48)

Problem sensitivity (PRS) 26 9 (43)

Quick response (QUR) 11 9 (43)

Educational research ability (EDR) 29 17 (81)

Technological competency Use Internet to search and extract information

effectively (TIN)

7 5 (24)

Use ICT and multimedia in education (TUT) 12 6 (29)


123


time to be realized. You have to be persistent.’’ Nine of the

21 teachers (43 %) said that an innovative teacher needs to

have a democratic mind. According to these teachers, being

democratic means ‘‘respect students,’’ ‘‘give the rights to

students in the class,’’ and ‘‘treat the students equally.’’ The

teachers viewed that democratic spirit could support the

goal of innovative teaching. As a male teacher said,

‘‘Democratic teachers create a democratic climate in the

class… Students are easy to be involved and engaged in

learning in such a learning environment.’’

Educational competency The third identified key element

is ‘‘educational competency.’’ Six characteristics were

stressed with regard to educational competency. The six

characteristics included the following: Love for teaching

(enjoy teaching and would love to invest more time and effort

in it); Responsible (the ability to focus the teaching goals on

the development of students); Knowledgeable (have

knowledge in the teaching subjects and other related areas

and disciplines); Problem sensitivity (be glad to ponder, be

good at discovering problems, and grasping the nature and

key point of the problems); Quick response (the ability to

generate good ideas immediately and adjust teaching

thought based on the actual conditions of the class); and

Educational research ability (the ability to utilize scientific

methods to analyze and solve educational problems).

Nine of the 21 teachers (43 %) believed teachers’

devotion to the teaching was a key component for teachers

to teach innovatively. These teachers thought that teachers’

devotion to the teaching was a prerequisite for teachers’

innovative teaching. For example, one teacher mentioned it

in this way: ‘‘Teaching innovation requires more time and

effort. Only a teacher who loves teaching and has the

passion for it will take the initiative to reflect on their

teaching and change; otherwise the teacher won’t take any

action to innovate.’’ Twenty-four percentage of the teach-

ers said that an innovative teacher should be responsible for

students. As one teacher said, ‘‘For innovative teachers, the

responsibility means that they do not just teach students

knowledge, but also develop students’ comprehensive

abilities for their lifelong development including their

attitudes and values.’’ Ten of the teachers (48 %) argued

that innovative teachers should have a wealth of knowledge

for innovative teaching. They referred to teachers’ subject

knowledge, pedagogy and psychology knowledge, and

knowledge related to the society and life. Nine of the 21

teachers (43 %) valued problem sensitivity and viewed it

as a typical quality for an innovative teacher. One teacher

explained the relationship between problem sensitivity and

innovative teaching as following: ‘‘If you want to have an

effective innovation in teaching, you should first realize

what problems are there in the current teaching practices or

what needs to be innovated, and then make the changes.’’

Seventeen teachers (81 %) talked about the significance of

research ability for innovative teaching, especially action

research ability. For example, one female teacher highly

stressed ‘‘research ability, research ability, research ability

is important.’’ She continued to explain her viewpoint

‘‘You cannot always find the answers from books for the

teaching problems…You have to solve it with research

methods by yourself.’’

Technological competency The fourth important ele-

ment identified in the interview data is ‘‘technological

competency.’’ From the interviews, we generated two

themes that were related to teachers’ technological com-

petency: Use the Internet to search and extract information

effectively (the ability to get needed information from the

Internet and multimedia); Use ICT and multimedia in

education (the ability to mobilize student interests and

enhance their learning via the use of ICT and multimedia in

the teaching and learning processes).

Twenty-four percentage of the teachers stressed the

ability to search and sort information using computer and

Use internet to search and extract informationUse ICT and multimedia in education

Innovative

teaching

competencies

Learning activelyLearn with an open mindLearn from reflectionLearn with independent thinking

Love for teaching Responsible Knowledgeable Problem sensitivity Quick response Educational research ability

Communicative Cooperative Courageous Persistent Democratic

Fig. 1 The framework of core competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching

304 C. Zhu, D. Wang

123


Internet. They viewed this ability as a foundation for

innovative teaching. For example, one teacher said:

‘‘Timely access to information is the basis for innovation.

Internet has become the most popular channel to get

information. An innovative teacher needs to have the

ability to extract and sort information from Internet sour-

ces.’’ Twenty-nine percentage of the teachers mentioned

that the ability of utilizing ICT and multimedia effectively

was important for innovative teaching. Moreover, it was

regarded as an effective way to engage students in learning.

As one male teacher said, ‘‘Teachers can provide a new

teaching method by using technology and multimedia. It

makes learning visual and vivid, which can help students

understand better and provoke deeper learning.’’

Research phase 2: The quantitative research

Based on the results of research phase 1, four key compe-

tencies and 17 specific characteristics were identified to be

important for innovative teaching. During research phase 1, a

comprehensive literature review has also been conducted to

identify the main themes and concepts that have been

reported in the literature regarding teachers’ competencies

and characteristics for innovative teaching. Based on the

comprehensive literature review and the results from the

qualitative study in research phase 1, a survey instrument

was designed to measure teachers’ perceived competencies

and characteristics relevant for innovative teaching. In

addition, during the interviews, the teachers emphasized that

each competency can contribute differently to the overall

competencies for innovative teaching. Therefore, during

research phase 2, the quantitative study has two objectives: a)

validate the scales to measure key competencies and char-

acteristics for innovative teaching, and b) measure the per-

ceived level of importance of each specific characteristic for

innovative teaching.

Instrument

In order to test the identified competency model and the

perceived importance level of each competency and char-

acteristics as perceived by secondary teachers, we devel-

oped an instrument questionnaire on Competencies and

Characteristics for Innovative Teaching (CCIT). The CCIT

questionnaire has 56 items, reflecting four main scales

(four key competencies) and 17 subscales (17 specific

characteristics). Based on the principles of instrument

development, a minimum of 3 items was included for each

subscale. The instrument was reviewed by four experts in

the field of educational sciences to check the content

validity. After minor changes, the instrument was pilot-

tested with a participation of 150 teachers. The samples for

the pilot study were teachers from two schools in Beijing.

The teachers were asked to respond on a five-point Likert

scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to what

extent they agree to a certain statement. In addition,

teachers’ demographic and background information was

inquired, including teaching grade, gender, years of

teaching, educational level, and teaching subjects.

Participants and procedure

The main survey was conducted in five public secondary

schools in Beijing and Liaoning province of China. Both

cluster sampling and convenience sampling were used.

With regard to cluster sampling, the main purpose was to

include (a) both key secondary schools (high-quality

schools in China) and the ordinary secondary schools (not

considered key schools, but ordinary public schools); and

(b) schools in the capital city and outside the capital city.

The teachers were invited to respond to a paper-based

survey. From each school, a coordinator was contacted to

help to distribute the questionnaire during staff meetings in

the selected schools. Each administration took approxi-

mately 20–30 min to complete. In total, 345 questionnaires

were collected. After an initial screening, 325 question-

naires (no missing data) were kept for analysis. Among the

participants, 19.4 % were male teachers and 80.6 % were

female. With regard to the teaching grade of the teachers,

61.6 % were junior middle (1–3 year) school teachers and

38.4 % were senior middle (4–6 year) school teachers. In

total, 12.1 % of the teachers had 1–5-year teaching expe-

rience, 24.7 % teachers had 6–10-year teaching experience,

20 % teachers had 11–15-year teaching experience, 16.3 %

teachers had 16–20-year teaching experience, and 26.9 %

had more than 20-year teaching experience. The teaching

subjects of the teachers include the following: English

(30.8 %), mathematics (13.3 %), Chinese language

(11.1 %), and other subjects (44.8 %, including physics,

chemistry, politics, geography, biology and science and

technology, art and music). The composition of the sam-

ples is presented in Table 2.

Data analysis

First, the reliability and validity of the instrument were

analyzed. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted

with the pilot data. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was

conducted with the data from the main survey to validate

the factor structure. The software package AMOS 20.0 was

used for CFA. Descriptive analysis and weights of each

characteristic were calculated. The plot figure was applied

to explain the perceived importance of teachers’ charac-

teristics for innovative teaching. Using box plots, we

observed no univariate or multivariate outliers, and the

analyses showed that our data were normally distributed.


123


Results

The validation of the developed competency model

(RQ2) First of all, data from the pilot test were used for

the EFA with maximum likelihood extraction and oblique

rotation. Both Kaiser Criterion and scree test were used to

decide on the number of factors extracted. The results show

that four main factors can be extracted, each reflecting the

four main components of the instrument (learning, social,

educational, and technological competencies). The factor

loadings within each main factor were from 0.35 to 0.86.

But two items that were designed in ‘‘educational compe-

tency’’ and ‘‘social competency’’ respectively had similar

factor loading on both factors. We decided to conduct the

CFA to further validate the factor structure and detect the

relationships between these items.

As a second step, the CFA was conducted with the data

from the main survey. The initial analysis showed that our

data were not very satisfactorily fit to the model

(GFI = 0.893, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07). The modi-

fication indexes were looked into and used as guidance to

improve the model. Based on the standardized regression

weights, two items in ‘‘social competency’’ and two items

in ‘‘educational competency’’ had either low loading on its

own factor or higher loadings on other factors. After sev-

eral modification rounds, the results show that removing

four items significantly improved the model fit, and it was

also concluded that reducing these items did not harm the

theoretical structure of the constructed competency model.

As a result, 52 items of the key competency scales

remained (learning competency, 12 items; educational

competency, 20 items; social competency, 14 items; tech-

nological competency, 6 items). The final model was

assessed through the adequacy of goodness-of-fit indexes

(v2/df, GFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA). The results demon-

strated that the modified four-factor model fit the data

reasonably well, with the model fit indexes in a satisfactory

range (i.e., v2/df = 2.31, GFI = 0.919, CFI = 0.96,

TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.066).

As a third step, the reliability of each scale was analyzed

using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The reliabilities of the

four competency scales were between 0.80 and 0.94 and

regarded as very good.

The extent teachers perceive the key competencies and

characteristics to be important for innovative teaching (RQ3).

The means, standard deviations, and normalized

importance level of each characteristic and competency are

presented in Table 3. The results show that learning com-

petency was perceived the most important by the teachers

(mean = 4.54, SD = 0.45), followed by educational

competency (mean = 4.45, SD = 0.53), social compe-

tency (mean = 4.44, SD = 0.54), and technological com-

petency (mean = 4.17, SD = 0.79).

Table 2 Composition and

background variables of sample

teachers of the survey

Characteristics/

categories

%

Teaching grade

Junior middle school 61.6

Senior high school 38.4

Gender

Male 19.4

Female 80.6

Years of teaching

1–5 years 12.1

6–10 years 24.7

11–15 years 20.0

16–20 years 16.3

More than 20 years 26.9

Educational level

Bachelor 94.0

Master 6.0

Teaching subjects

Mathematics 13.3

Language 11.1

English 30.8

Other 44.8

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, rank orderings, and importance

of the 17 characteristics and the four core competencies

Characteristics/

competencies

Mean SD Rank Importance (%)

LAC 4.69 0.53 1 9.15

RES 4.67 0.66 2 7.78

LRE 4.65 0.57 3 7.88

LOT 4.63 0.62 4 7.76

PER 4.56 0.71 5 6.00

COM 4.51 0.71 6 5.33

COO 4.51 0.72 6 4.91

EDR 4.51 0.69 6 5.47

LOP 4.46 0.62 9 6.47

DEM 4.35 0.79 10 6.70

LID 4.34 0.79 11 6.62

QUR 4.31 0.85 12 3.36

PRS 4.30 0.80 13 4.17

TIN 4.28 0.80 14 3.85

KNO 4.27 0.79 15 6.22

COU 4.21 0.86 16 5.77

TUT 4.05 0.93 17 2.58

Learning competency 4.54 0.45 1 30.12

Educational competency 4.45 0.53 2 34.76

Social competency 4.44 0.54 3 28.71

Technological competency 4.17 0.79 4 6.43

Names of the abbreviations can be found in Table 1

306 C. Zhu, D. Wang

123


Based on the mean score of each characteristic, a rank

order was given to each characteristic. For example, the

scale with the highest mean was ranked 1, and the scale

with the lowest mean was ranked 17. Based on the ranking

results, the importance coefficients (Lin 2009) of the 17

characteristics were calculated. A score was given to each

characteristic by reversing its ranked order. For example,

the characteristic that was ranked first got a score of 17 and

the characteristic that was ranked the last got a score of 1.

The importance coefficients were calculated by using the

score of each characteristic to be divided by the sum of

sequence numbers of each characteristic. The same process

was used to calculate the importance coefficients of the

four core competencies.

The results show that ‘‘learn actively’’ was ranked the first

important scale based on its mean score (4.69), followed by

‘‘be responsible (4.67),’’ ‘‘Learn from reflection (4.65),’’

‘‘Love for teaching (4.63),’’ ‘‘Persistent (4.56),’’ ‘‘Commu-

nicative (4.51),’’ ‘‘Cooperative (4.51),’’ ‘‘Educational

research ability (4.51),’’ ‘‘Learn with open mind (4.46),’’ etc.

The mean scores and the ranking are presented in Table 3.

Combining the results of mean scores and the normal-

ized importance level of each characteristic perceived by

teachers, we used the plot figure to present teachers’ per-

ceptions of key characteristics for innovative teaching

(Fig. 2). Figure 2 presents a correspondence analysis plot

to reflect the relationship among the weight and teachers’

perceived important characteristics for innovative teaching.

The vertical dimension reflects the normalized importance

level of each characteristic, and the horizontal dimension

represents the mean score of teachers’ perceptions of

characteristics for innovative teaching. The results show

that the identified characteristics are predominantly located

in the top half of the plot. This suggests that most of these

characteristics were identified as very crucial for innova-

tive teaching. Only four subscales (TUT, TIN, QUR, and

PRS) were below the average level of importance. This

figure can be used to show teachers’ perceived importance

of characteristics for innovative teaching and identify

teachers’ characteristics in a visual way.

Discussion

In this research, three research questions were addressed.

Four key competencies were validated, and 17 character-

istics were identified underlying the four competencies for

innovative teaching. A framework was developed to depict

the model of key competencies and characteristics for

innovative teaching. An instrument was constructed and

used to test the model. The instrument development

included a rigorous process of testing and validation. The

results of the present study show that the instrument was

reliable and valid. The results also demonstrated the per-

ceived importance of the characteristics of secondary

teachers in relation to innovative teaching. We discuss the

findings in the following three aspects.

Teacher views of key characteristics and competencies

for innovative teaching

Our research identified four key competencies based on the

interview data, namely learning, educational, social, and

technological competencies, and the results were verified

by the quantitative study. These findings can provide

insights about teachers’ perceptions of the competencies

that are critical for innovative teaching. These are also in

line with arguments in previous studies. Mackinnon (1978)

and Chen (2002) proposed that learning competency is

very important for innovation. New educational beliefs,

subject knowledge, and comprehensive and new educa-

tional knowledge are believed as important for innovative

teaching (Chen 2002; Jin 2001). Some characteristics of

social competency for innovative teaching are also men-

tioned in previous studies (Koster et al. 2005; Pantic and

Wubbels 2010). In addition, more and more attention has

been paid to the relations between innovative teaching and

technological competency (Segers and Verhoeven 2009).

In this study, teachers emphasized the importance of

active learning, which is consistent with the previous

findings that teachers’ willingness to learn is a crucial

factor for implementing educational innovations (Konings

et al. 2007; Zhu et al. 2010). The teacher participants in this

study stated that an innovative teacher needs to have the

ability to communicate with students from different back-

grounds and cooperate with other colleagues. These abili-

ties are emphasized in building positive human

relationships and getting support from others for innovative

teaching (Pantic and Wubbels 2010). The ability to tolerate

confusion and frustration, to relish a challenge, and not to

Fig. 2 Perceived importance of teachers’ characteristics for innova-

tive teaching


123


give up prematurely is also needed for innovative teaching

(Jin 2001). These findings were confirmed in this study.

Our findings also support that teachers having the passion

for the education career is important for innovative

teaching (Bi 2003; Hannon 2008).

Some of the ideas revealed in this research have not

been reported previously. These findings provide new

insights and raise new questions about competencies for

innovative teaching. For example, teachers especially

stressed the importance of problem sensitivity and quick

response for innovative teaching. The teachers also stated

that educational research ability is very important for

innovative teaching. This dimension needs more attention

as Lovat et al. (1995) put forth that the development of

research skills should be integrated in teacher education as

teacher educators need to constantly reflect on their

teaching practices or new phenomena in modern times. In

this way, teachers can be more responsive to new things or

emerging issues. The research ability of teachers is highly

relevant for teacher development as critically reflective

teachers have higher potential to improve their teaching

and are more able to solve complex problems (Yaxley

1993). In addition, responsibility of teachers is also con-

sidered important. Teachers in this study stressed that

responsible teachers should bear in mind the development

of students’ ability and follow student-centered learning

approaches. Responsible teachers aim for students’ lifelong

development, not just high scores of students. This is in

line with the aim of innovative teaching, as indicated by the

teachers. Furthermore, persistence, courage, and democ-

racy are elements that have been less discussed in the

current literature, but are gaining attention from research-

ers (such as Robertson-Kraft and Duckworth 2013).

Overall, this research contributes to our understanding of

key characteristics that are important for innovative

teaching as perceived by secondary teachers.

The developed competency model for innovative

teaching

This research developed a theoretical competency model

composing four key competencies that are critical for

innovative teaching. This model builds on available liter-

ature and empirical research, and contributes significantly

to the current knowledge community as it investigates in a

systematic way both qualitatively and quantitatively the

issue of concern. It provides a more comprehensive

framework for investigating and understanding teacher

competencies for innovative teaching. It resonates with

previous research that indicates learning is very important

for innovation (Chen 2002). The competency model can be

useful for teacher professional development and can pro-

vide additional framework and insights for teacher

professional development. For example, Pantic and Wub-

bels (2010) stated that teachers need to be able to critically

reflect upon their educational practices and value system,

and be ready to take initiatives and responsibility for their

professional development. Koster et al. (2005) stressed that

it is desirable that teachers have the ability to communicate

with students and other stakeholders of schools. Other

researchers pointed out that educational concepts and

passion for education are important (Bi 2003). Integrating

modern educational technology in teaching and learning

has also become crucial for successful innovative perfor-

mance (Segers and Verhoeven 2009). The results of this

study indicate that technological competency seems to be

less important than the other key competencies. This seems

to be not in line with other recent studies that have stressed

the importance of technological innovations. However,

extensive studies have also pointed out teachers’ use of

technologies are closely linked to their educational beliefs

and attitudes toward technology (Sang, et al. 2012; Zhu

et al. 2013). Teachers’ educational beliefs seem to play a

very important role regarding the integration of ICT and

how teachers use ICT for teaching and learning. Other

research also points out that the use of ICT does not nec-

essarily lead to innovative teaching (Volman 2005; Zhu

2013). The way how teachers integrate ICT in teaching and

learning is closely related to their pedagogical competences

and their readiness and reaction to new technologies (Sang

et al. 2012). The results suggest it may be that the use of

ICT plays an ‘‘instrumental’’ role in teaching innovations,

while educational and learning competencies of teachers

play a more ‘‘fundamental’’ role in facilitating innovations.

This actually resonates with the call for the internal quality

of teachers in addition to the technological competencies

(Christensen et al. 2011; Leadbeater and Wong 2010). The

developed competency model from this research fills the

gap in the literature by providing both theoretical and

empirical basis for defining teachers’ key competencies

and characteristics for innovative teaching.

The perceived importance level of characteristics

for innovative teaching

The importance level of each characteristic and compe-

tency that are critical for innovative teaching was identi-

fied. The results of the means of each characteristic

indicated that all these factors were considered as very

important for teachers to be innovative in teaching.

This research adds to our understanding of this issue by

providing empirical results with regard to the differentia-

tion of the perceived importance of different dimensions

and aspects of characteristics and competencies of inno-

vative teachers. The results of this study show that the

weight coefficients of the 17 characteristics for innovative

308 C. Zhu, D. Wang

123


teaching were diverse. The most influential indicator was to

learn actively. Use of ICT and multimedia in education,

although also perceived important, was considered as a less

influential indicator than the other key characteristics.

These results are helpful for educators, schools, and teacher

professional development organizations to pay attention to

the more ‘‘fundamental’’ features of teachers, e.g., teach-

ers’ educational and learning competencies, while provid-

ing training for specific skills, such as technological skills.

Teachers’ learning motivation, openness, and ability to

learn are also crucial elements to be looked into in teacher

professional development programs.

Based on the perceived importance level of competen-

cies and characteristics, attention can be paid with regard to

each competency and characteristic in future teacher edu-

cation programs. For example, teachers’ independent

thinking, persistence, courage, and sensitivity to problems

are elements that should be tackled in teacher education

programs. The results of this research provide compre-

hensive insights regarding Chinese secondary school

teachers’ views on innovative teaching. On the one hand, it

deepens our understanding of educational innovations in

the Chinese educational system. On the other hand, it

addresses many global issues that can be useful and rele-

vant for educators and policy-makers in many other inter-

national settings. These competencies and characteristics

need to be enhanced when designing teacher training or

teacher professional development programs.

Implications, limitations, and future research

In summary, this research has important theoretical con-

tribution to innovative teaching, educational innovations,

and teacher professional development. In order to maxi-

mize the implementation of teaching innovation, our find-

ings suggest that special attention can be paid to the four

key competencies of teachers: learning, social, educational,

and technological.

In order to maximize the implementation of teaching

innovation, our findings suggest that professional devel-

opment programs need to aim to enhance teachers’ key

competencies. The findings of this research can provide

insights for teacher educators when designing curriculum

to help in-service and prospective teachers develop com-

petencies related to innovative teaching. Considerations

can be made with regard to the four key competencies that

are conducive to innovative teaching. The present research

contributes to the existing knowledge community by

involving teachers directly in developing the necessary

competencies and characteristics.

In addition, this study examined the perceived impor-

tance degrees of different competencies and characteristics,

which were not examined before. The identified different

importance degrees of competencies depicted a picture of

the perceived critical factors for innovative teaching and

the perceptions of teachers’ competencies for innovative

teaching among secondary teachers in the Chinese educa-

tional context. Although the findings are identified from a

specific context, it can have theoretical and practical

meaning for other international contexts (Wu and Albanese

2010). These findings can provide insights about teachers’

perceptions of innovative teaching and the competencies

that are critical for innovative teaching. Practically, the

framework of this study can also be useful to identify

which teachers are more likely to be innovative in teaching.

A couple of limitations need to be noted for the study.

This study focused on teachers’ views based on interviews

and questionnaires without the observation of actual

teaching behaviors in the classrooms. The findings are

related to perceived requirements and do not derive from a

‘‘one-fit-for-all’’ definition for ‘‘teaching innovations.’’ In

addition, the views are associated with particularly inno-

vative teachers (sample interview participants). Some

identified competences are also interrelated to the compe-

tences needed for ‘‘good teaching’’ and not necessarily

directly related to ‘‘innovative teaching.’’ However, as

stressed by the teacher participants, being a ‘‘good’’ teacher

or ‘‘responsible’’ teacher is important for being an ‘‘inno-

vative’’ teacher. Although it is natural that overlap exists

among competencies, future research may attempt to study

further the relevant competences and to identify, when

possible, qualities unique to innovative teaching. In addi-

tion, future in-depth studies using observations and biog-

raphies can further confirm or extend our understanding

about the key characteristics and competencies for inno-

vative teaching. Secondly, the samples in this study were

limited. Findings in this research were generated from

teacher samples from two cities in China. The sample may

not be representative enough for a broader generalization.

Therefore, future research can be applied in larger sample

groups, and research in other cultural and educational

contexts can be useful to further examine teachers’ views

about competencies for innovative teaching. Thirdly, the

scales of the quantitative research were largely based on

the factors identified in the qualitative study. This mixed-

methods research design may have its own strength and

weaknesses. It could be possible that other key compe-

tencies and characteristics that were also important were

not included in the model. Therefore, future research can

be conducted in a larger scale involving more teachers

from diverse backgrounds and contexts in order to better

understand teachers’ views and further validate the theo-

retical framework of teachers’ competencies for innovative

teaching.


123


References

Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher

motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors

differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning.

Educational Psychology, 24(2), 201–217.

Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative. New York: Crown.

Ambrose, D. (2005). Creativity in teaching: Essential knowledge,

skills, and dispositions. In J. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity

across domains (pp. 281–298). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bi, Y. X. (2003). Innovative teaching ability. Jinan: Shandong

Educational Press.

Chen, X. Y. (2002). On the development of innovative teacher and

innovative quality. Aspect South-East Asia, 10, 55–59.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011).

Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the

way the world learns (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Cowen, R. (2002). Socrates was right? Teacher education systems and

the state. In T. Elwyn (Ed.), Teacher education: Dilemmas and

prospects (pp. 3–12). London: Kogan.

Craft, A. (2008). Creativity and early years settings. In A. Paige-

Smith & A. Craft (Eds.), Developing reflective practice in the

early years (pp. 93–107). New York: Open University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of

teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16,

523–545.

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and creativity

in education and training in the EU member states: Fostering

creative learning and supporting innovative teaching. Literature

review on innovation and creativity in E&T in the EU Member

States (ICEAC). JRC Technical Note, JRC 52374. European

Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Prospective

Technological Studies. Available at: http://jrc.es/EURdoc/

JRC52374_TN.pdf.

Green, P. (1999). Building robust competencies. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Hannon, J. (2008). Breaking down online teaching: Innovation and

resistance. In Ascilite Melbourne 2008 (pp. 389–399). Mel-

bourne, Australia..

Harber, C. (2002). Not quite the revolution: Citizenship education in

England. In M. Schweisfurth, L. Davies, & C. Harber (Eds.),

Learning democracy and citizenship: International experiences.

Oxford: Symposium Books.

Hargreaves, A. (2003) Teaching in the knowledge society: Education

in the age of insecurity. NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2006). Creative learning and possibility

thinking. In B. Jeffrey (Ed.), Creative learning practices (pp.

47–62). London: Tufnell Press.

Jin, F. H. (2001). Innovating education and training of innovative

teachers. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from Outstanding Master of

Education Library.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods

research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educa-

tional Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Kampylis, P., Berki, E., & Saariluoma, P. (2009). In-service and

prospective teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills

and Creativity, 4(1), 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.10.001.

Kilicer, K. (2009). Position of twenty-first century teachers: Evalu-

ation in terms of innovation and technology. Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1479–1484.

Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwela, S., & van Merrienboer, J. (2007).

Teachers’ perspectives on innovations: Implications for educa-

tional 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.

Leadbeater, C., & Wong, A. (2010). Learning from the extremes.

Cisco Systems. Retrieved from http://www.cisco.com/web/

about/citizenship/socio-economic/docs/LearningfromExtremes_

WhitePaper.pdf.

Lin, C. D. (2009). Researches into creative talents and creative

education. Economic Science. Beijing, China

Lovat, T., Davies, M., & Plotnikoff, R. (1995). Integrating research

skills development in teacher education. Australian Journal of

Teacher Education, 20(1), 30–35.

Luo, S. H., & Li, H. Z. (1997). Teachers’ competency theory. Jinan:

Shandong Educational Press.

Mackinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness:

Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.

Martin, E., & Ramsden, P. (1994). Evaluation of the performance of

courses in teaching methods for recently appointed academic

staff. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Ng, A.-K., & Smith, I. (2004). Why is there a paradox in promoting

creativity in the Asian classroom? In S. Lau, A. N. N. Hui, & G.

Y. C. Ng (Eds.), Creativity: When east meets west (pp. 87–112).

Singapore: World Scientific.

O’Sullivan, M. (2007). The reconceptualisation of learner-centred

approaches: A Nambian case study. International Journal of

Educational Development, 21(3), 173–193.

Pantic, N., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher competencies as a basis for

teacher education-views of Serbian teachers and teacher educa-

tors. Teaching, 26(3), 694–703.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods

(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Redecker, C. (2008). Review of learning 2.0 practices: JRC-IPTS. Retrieved

August 10, 2012 from: http://jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC49108.pdf.

Robertson-Kraft, C., & Duckworth, A. L. (2013). True grit: Trait-level

perseverance and passion for long-term goals predicts effectiveness

and retention among novice teachers. Teachers College Record.

Retrieved from https://upenn.box.com/RobertsonKraftDuckworth.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free

Press.

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.

Sang, G., Valcke, M., Tondeur, J., Zhu, C., & van Braak, J. (2012).

Exploring the educational beliefs of primary education student

teachers in the Chinese context. Asia Pacific Education Review,

13(3), 417–425.

Sawyer, K. (Ed.). (2006). Cambridge handbook of the learning

sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Learning in a sheltered internet

environment: The use of web quests. Learning and Instruction,

19, 423–432.

Slabbert, J. A. (1994). Creativity and education revisited: Reflection

in aid of progression. Journal of Creative Behavior, 28, 61–69.

Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L.

(2001). Teacher’s beliefs and practices related to mathematics

instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213–226.

Stoof, A., Martens, R., van Merrienboer, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2002).

The boundary approach of competence: A constructivist aid for

understanding and using the concept of competence. Human

Resource Development Review, 1, 345–365.

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: The International Journal of

Higher Education and Educational Planning, 48(2), 253–268.

310 C. Zhu, D. Wang

123


http://jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf

http://jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.10.001

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socio-economic/docs/LearningfromExtremes_WhitePaper.pdf



http://jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC49108.pdf

https://upenn.box.com/RobertsonKraftDuckworth

Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and develop-

ment. Brussels: International Academy of Education (IAE).

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences

in approaches to teaching first year science courses. Higher

Education, 27, 75–84.

Volman, M. (2005). A variety of roles for a new type of teacher,

educational technology and the teaching profession. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 21(1), 15–31.

Whitman, N. (1983). Teaching problem solving and creativity in

college courses. AAHE -ERIC/Higher Education Research

Currents, 2–7.

Wu, J.-J., & Albanese, D. L. (2010). Asian creativity, chapter one:

Creativity across three Chinese societies. Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 5(3). doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.10.002.

Yaxley, B. (1993). Critically reflective teachers in a devolving

educational context: Implications of Schon’s proposals for the

teacher as a critically reflective practitioner. South Pacific

Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 23–32.

Young, S., & Shaw, D. (1999). Profiles of effective college and

university teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 670–686.

Zhu, C. (2013). How innovative are schools in teaching and learning?

A case study in Beijing and Hong Kong. The Asia-Pacific

Education Researcher, 22(2), 137–145.

Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross-cultural study of

teacher perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online

collaborative learning in higher education. European Journal of


Zhu, C., Wang, D., & Engels, N. (2013). What core competencies are

related to teachers’ innovative teaching? Asia-Pacific Journal of



123


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.10.002

Key competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching among secondary school teachers: a mixed-methods research

Documents