Abstract
Adaptability is an important disposition for teachers as response to change, novelty and uncertainty is central to their daily work. Teacher adaptability is an emerging construct in research on teacher classroom behaviours with evidence of correlation to improved outcomes for both teachers and students. Teacher adaptive practices were conceptualised in this study as the classroom behavioural expression of teacher adaptability. The data from 278 classroom observations of 71 teachers were analysed for its relationship to the teacher self-report constructs of teacher adaptability, teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy support. The study found that only teacher adaptability could predict a sub-scale of adaptive practices that potentially promote student critical and creative thinking. This finding signals an important relationship between teacher adaptability and adaptive teaching given that student critical and creative thinking is a valued outcome of schooling.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
AERA, APA, & NCME. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: AERA.
AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington D.C.: AERA.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and weil-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5–13.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Graduate Education School: Harvard Education Press.
Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Adaptability: An important capacity for effective teachers. Educational Practice and Theory, 38(1), 27–39.
Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2017). Teachers’ sense of adaptability: Examining links with perceived autonomy support, teachers’ psychological functioning, and students’ numeracy achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.03.003.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., Perry, N. E., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Teachers’ psychological functioning in the workplace: Exploring the roles of contextual beliefs, need satisfaction, and personal characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 788–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000088.
Curry School of Education University of Virginia. (2018). My teaching partner. Retrieved from https://curry.virginia.edu/myteachingpartner.
Danielson, C. (2012). Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 32–37.
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teacher evaluation instrument (2013th ed.). Princeton, NJ: The Danileson Group.
Durksen, T. L., Klassen, R. M., & Daniels, L. M. (2017). Motivation and collaboration: The keys to a developmental framework for teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.011.
Gitomer, D. H., & Bell, C. A. (2016). Introduction. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: AERA.
Harris, D. N. (2012). How do value-added indicators compare to other measures of teacher effectiveness. Carnegie Knowledge Network Brief, (5).
Kane, M. T., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching. Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Retrieved from Seattle, WA: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540960.
Klassen, R. M., Bong, M., Usher, E. L., Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Wong, I. Y. F., et al. (2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.08.001.
Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers’ relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers’ basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026253.
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Loughland, T., & Vlies, P. (2016). The validation of a classroom observation instrument based on the construct of teacher adaptive practice. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 33(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2016.18.
Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2013). Progression in student creativity in schools: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments. OECD: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4dp59msdwk-en.
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2012). Adaptability: Conceptual and empirical perspectives on responses to change, novelty and uncertainty. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 22(01), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2012.8.
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H., Colmar, S., Liem, G. A. D., & Collie, R. J. (2015). The role of adaptability in promoting control and reducing failure dynamics: A mediation model. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 36–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.004.
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2013). Adaptability: How students’ responses to uncertainty and novelty predict their academic and non-academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 728–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032794.
McKenzie, P., Weldon, P., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in Australian Schools 2013: Main report on the survey. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf.
MET Project. (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study—Policy and practitioner brief. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Parsons, S. A., & Vaughn, M. (2016). Toward adaptability: Where to from here? Theory Into Practice, 55(3), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1173998.
Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., …, Allen, M. (2017). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 0(0), 0034654317743198. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198.
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized Observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09332374.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Mintz, S. (2012). Classroom assessment scoring system: Secondary manual. Curry School of Education University of Virginia: Teachstone.
Sorensen, N. (2016). Improvisation and teacher expertise: implications for the professional development of outstanding teachers. Professional Development in Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1127854.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Vaughn, M., Parsons, S. A., Burrowbridge, S. C., Weesner, J., & Taylor, L. (2016). In their own words: teachers’ reflections on adaptability. Theory Into Practice, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1173993.
Victoria State Government. (2018). Education state ambition: Learning for life. Melbourne: Victoria Government. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/educationstate/EducationState_LearningForLife.pdf.
Willett, M., Segal, D., & Walford, W. (2014). National teaching workforce dataset data analysis report 2014. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/ntwd_data_analysis_report.pdf.
Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Teacher Adaptive Practices Coding Guide
Appendix 1: Teacher Adaptive Practices Coding Guide
Indicator | Low | High | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | The teacher modifies learning goals in response to formative assessment | Teacher did not undertake any formative assessment | Teacher checks for student understanding and makes changes to the lesson in response |
2 | The teacher modifies their instructions during the lesson to increase learning opportunities | Instructions given once and in one modality to the whole class | The teacher did an impromptu demonstration to a small group using the classroom globe in response to student questions about international time zones |
3 | The teacher uses formative assessment to differentiate their responses to individual students | The teacher asks students to move to the true or false side of the room but does not follow up with why questions | Teacher sets Do Now task at the beginning of the lesson, helps students with the task and asks questions about the task when all students have attempted it |
4 | The teacher negotiates learning activities with students, ensuring these are aligned with learning goals | All students completed the same activity at the same time | The teacher used students’ misconceptions as a guide to the learning activity that was chosen |
5 | The teacher prompted students to discover key concepts through responsive open-ended questions | Teacher used shallow questions that did not require deep conceptual responses from the students | “Why is it expensive to make things in Australia?” “How has technology changed religion?” “In which direction does the water flow into the drain in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere?” |
6 | The teacher prompted students to express their thinking and used this as a springboard for learning activities | The teacher used “guess what is in my head” questions; “It starts with…?” | The teacher asked the students to annotate their notes with an “E” if they required more evidence |
7 | The teacher uses a thinking routine to prompt deeper exploration of concepts or skills | “The steps I would like you to take are decode, position, read the poem, write your response” | Teacher used a “See, Think, Wonder” to prompt students to think metaphorically on a concept |
8 | The teacher prompted students to demonstrate open-mindedness and tolerance of uncertainty | Teacher answered big science questions directly instead of asking them why | The teacher explored the different definitions of a concept evident across different sources to demonstrate the contested and uncertain nature of it |
9 | The teacher provided a synthesis of class generated ideas | Teacher uses initiate, response, evaluate to individual student answers | “I feel if we joined these last three responses, we should have a good answer on identity” |
10 | The teacher links, when appropriate, lesson concepts to larger disciplinary ideas | Teacher talk focused on the execution of the learning activity rather than the underlying big idea | The teacher linked the preservation of vegetables by bottling to the chemical processes |
11 | The teacher provided analogies and metaphors to increase learning opportunities | Teacher does not use analogy and metaphor when the opportunity arises | The teacher used an image of a waterfall to assist student understanding of the life cycle of a business The teacher roleplayed a character in the text to expand understanding |
12 | The teacher demonstrated flexible pacing of lesson in response to student learning needs | Teacher adheres to their script without checking-in with students to see if they understood the concept | The duration of each learning activity is contingent on student understanding |
13 | The teacher demonstrated responsive use of literacy/numeracy interventions | No dynamic literacy/numeracy interventions evident | Teacher identified the word “essential” as expressing high modality Teacher used a think-aloud process to identity story retelling in literary analysis as a practice to be avoided |
14 | The teacher creates groups of students based on formative assessment | Students not grouped or are in previously assigned table groups | Students moved into groups based on a self-rating of their knowledge |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Loughland, T. (2019). The Relationship of Teacher Adaptability, Self-efficacy and Autonomy to Their Adaptive Practices. In: Teacher Adaptive Practices. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6858-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6858-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6857-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6858-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)