Constructing Model of Teachers’ Innovative Behavior in School Environment: Secondary data analysis from TALIS survey.

Author(s):

Stanislav Nemeržitski(presenting / submitting)Krista Loogma(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance

Format:

Paper

Session Information

11 SES 05 B, Quality of Secondary Education

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-11

11:00-12:30

Room:

D-309

Chair:

Jan Van Damme

Contribution

The influencing role of teachers’ innovative behavior is twofold: it is both shaping teaching practices and professional habits of teachers themselves, and also having a strong impact on students’ ability to produce and express novel, original ideas. Innovative behavior is usually seen as crucial for competitiveness (e.g. Cropley & Cropley, 2009), and in teachers’ work it can mean ability to provide students with new and unfamiliar views on the same problem, thus fostering creativity and generation of unconventional ideas and solutions. Despite of the obvious advantages, innovativeness of teachers is often inhibited by several factors, such as standardized educational system, promoting universal right-wrong solutions and ready-made approaches to problem-solving; also less tolerance for mistakes in highly competitive school environment (Sahlberg, 2009).

The Estonian results from TALIS (OECD, 2009) indicate that teachers in Estonian schools are not using innovative teaching practices often, although State Curricula for High School and Gymnasium (2010) emphasizes importance of “innovation and creativity supportive” objectives of education. Therefore a need arises to understand innovative behavior/innovativeness of teachers by constructing a quantitative model, that could describe factors, influencing on and even predict innovative behavior of teachers.

Taking into account the theoretical framework and previous findings (Cropley & Cropley, 2009; Mumford, 2002; Mumford & Moertl, 2003; Piirto, 2004; Hämäläinen, 2007; Sternberg, 2003/2007, etc.), and also TALIS survey (OECD, 2009) results, a model is proposed, where the innovative behavior of teachers is defined as a combination of the following components: (a) self-efficacy of teachers, as personal trait, (b) use of innovative and students’ creativity supportive teaching practices, and (c) use of student-oriented teaching practices. These components form dependent variables in the proposed model. Independent variables in the current model are the factors of school environment, that influence emergence of innovative behavior. These are: (a) need for innovative behavior (with sub-factors: professional self-development of teachers, and appraisal and evaluation of teachers’ innovativeness and professional development), (b) teachers’ cooperation and involvement (with two sub-divisions: interaction of teachers and cooperation for professional development, and involvement of teachers for school development), and (c) teachers’ freedom/ autonomy.

Based on the theoretical model of teachers’ innovative behavior, the following hypotheses are proposed:

(a) teachers' innovative behavior can be described as a complex phenomenon, which is a combination of three interrelated components: self-efficacy, innovation-supporting teaching practice and student-oriented teaching practice, and (b) teachers' innovative behavior is positively correlated with the following school environment factors: cooperation and involvement of the teacher, need for innovative behavior, and freedom/ autonomy.

Method

Current research is based on TALIS databases of teachers and school principals (OECD, 2009), however for the purposes of the current study only teachers’ responses were used as data. The teachers’ questionnaire consists of 43 questions, and additional questions for Estonian teachers, regarding social status of teachers in Estonian society. The questionnaire is divided into four parts: background information, teachers’ professional development, feedback to teachers and evaluation of their work, and teaching of a particular subject in one particular class (OECD, 2009; Loogma et al., 2009). The Estonian sample of TALIS consisted of total 3,321 teachers from 198 schools, with 83% (n = 2,768) of respondents teaching in Estonian-speaking schools, and 17% in Russian-speaking schools. Data was processed in 3 stages, with factor and regression analysis being used to compose components of teachers’ innovative behavior, to describe school environmental factors, and to test the model of teachers’ innovativeness.

Expected Outcomes

Although both hypotheses were only partially proven (self-efficacy and two different teaching practices are correlated, but do not constitute a complex phenomenon of innovative behavior; and cooperation of teachers and need for innovative behavior correlated positively with teachers’ innovative behavior, however freedom factor did not correlate with teachers’ innovative behavior), it is possible to conclude that instead of conflicting with up-to-date data on innovativeness, it rather adds several different aspects – (a) self-efficacy can be viewed as fundamental layer for teachers’ innovative behavior, (b) freedom as such is a lot disseminated among other school environmental factors, therefore it did not emerge on its own, and (c) innovative behavior is highly specific to the culture, society, and context, in which it is pursued and evaluated. The need of unifying curricula in one post-Soviet cultural room, in combination with bridging the gap between different cultures, can enable all participants of educational system to experience and further develop their innovative behavior and potential.

References

Cropley, A. J., & Cropley, D. H. (2009). Fostering Creativity: A Diagnostic Approach for Higher Education and Organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. Hämäläinen, T. (2007). Social innovation, structural adjustment and economic performance. In T. J. Hämäläinen & R. Heiskala (Eds.), Social innovations, institutional change, and economic performance: making sense of structural adjustment processes in industrial sectors, regions and societies (pp. 11–51).Cheltenham, UA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Loogma, K., Ruus, V.-R., Talts, L., & Poom-Valickis, K. (2009). Õpetaja professionaalsus ning tõhusama õpetamis- ja õppimiskeskkonna loomine. OECD rahvusvahelise õpetamise ja õppimise uuringu TALIS tulemused. [Teacher´s Professionalism and Development of Effective Teaching and Learning Environment]. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli haridusuuringute keskus, web publication: http://www.hm.ee/index.php?048181 Mumford, M. D. (2002). “Social Innovation: Ten Cases From Benjamin Franklin”. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253–266. Mumford, M. D., & Moertl, P. (2003).Cases of social innovation: Lessons from two innovations in the 20th Century. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 261 –266. OECD (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. Teaching and Learning International Survey. OECD. Retrieved September 25th, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/edu/talis/firstresults. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do. Student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Volume I. OECD. Retrieved September 25th, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/61/48852548.pdf. Ruus, V.-R., Henno, I., Eisenschmidt, E., Loogma, K., Noorväli, H., Reiska, P., & Rekkor, S. (2008). Reforms, developments and trends in Estonian education during recent decades. In J. Mikk, M. Veisson, & P. Luik (Eds.), Reforms and Innovations in Estonian Education (pp. 11–26). Frankfurt am Main, et al: Peter Lang Publishers House. Sahlberg, P. (2009). The role of education in promoting creativity: potential bariers and enabling factors. In E. Villalba (Ed.), Measuring creativity: Proceedings for the conference, “Can creativity be measured?”Brussels, May 28-29, 2009. Luxembourg: EU Publications

Author Information

Stanislav Nemeržitski (presenting / submitting)

Tallinn University, Estonia

Krista Loogma (presenting)