Towards A Model of Explaining Teachers Innovative Behavior

Review of Educational
Research http://rer.aera.net
Toward a Model of Explaining Teachers' Innovative Behavior: A Literature

Review
Marieke Thurlings, Arnoud T. Evers and Marjan Vermeulen
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH published online 12 November 2014
DOI: 10.3102/0034654314557949
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/21/0034654314557949
Published on behalf of
American Educational Research Association
and
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Review of Educational Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts
Subscriptions: http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.aera.net/reprints
Permissions: http://www.aera.net/permissions
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 21, 2014
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 12, 2014

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on December 2, 2014
What is This?
557949
research-article2014
RERXXX10.3102/0034654314557949Thurlings et al.Explaining Teachers’ Innovative Behavior
Review of Educational Research

Month 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. 1–42
DOI: 10.3102/0034654314557949
© 2014 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
Toward a Model of Explaining Teachers’

Innovative Behavior: A Literature Review
Marieke Thurlings
Eindhoven School of Education
Arnoud T. Evers
Marjan Vermeulen
Open University of the Netherlands
Innovative behavior can be described as a process in which new ideas are

generated, created, developed, applied, promoted, realized, and modified by
employees to benefit role performance. Various reasons, such as rapid tech-
nological and social changes in society, underline the necessity for innova-
tive behavior of employees and certainly of teachers. However, little research
has been conducted that explores teacher innovative behavior and which
factors influence this behavior or what effects can be achieved through such
behavior. In this systematic literature review, we develop a preliminary model
of factors that enhance innovative behavior in educational organizations.
Similar to findings of studies in other human behavior fields, self-efficacy
plays an important role as well as a variety of individual and environmental
factors. Based on this review, we urge for more systematic research on
teacher innovative behavior to enhance the future quality of education.
Keywords: teachers, innovative behavior, education, systematic literature

review
In knowledge-based societies where competition is intense, innovation is

regarded as critical for the sustainability and success of organizations (Amabile,
1988; Kontoghiorghes, Awbrey, & Feurig, 2005; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; van
de Ven, 1986; West & Farr, 1990). Innovation in such organizations depends on
people’s behavior. Therefore, innovative employee behavior is crucial for organi-
zational success and survival. Innovative behavior was, for example, described by
de Jong and den Hartog (2005) and Konermann (2012) as self-initiated innovative
behavior, which is a process in which new ideas are generated, created, devel-
oped, applied, promoted, realized, and modified by employees in order to benefit
role performance.
Organizations and employees in highly competitive markets have to behave in
an innovative manner for the sake of survival of these organizations. Not only do
organizations in highly competitive markets need to innovate, so do nonprofit
organizations, such as educational institutes. Likewise, the environment in which
1
Thurlings et al.
schools operate changes rapidly because of more varied student populations,
expanding knowledge fields, new responsibilities, and higher social expectations
of schools (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005).
There are three main reasons why innovative teacher behavior in schools is
needed. First, innovative behavior is important in order to keep up to date with a
rapidly changing society. The demands in our knowledge society are indeed
increasing both for students and their teachers (Brandsford, Derry, Berliner, &
Hammerness, 2005). Second, upcoming new technologies and new insights about
teaching require innovative behavior. Third, schools should set a good example
and act as a starting point for more innovative behavior of our citizens so that
society can stay competitive. After all, education is crucial to promote students’
creative and innovative thinking (Andiliou & Murphy, 2010).
In other words, teacher innovative behavior is highly important for the further
development of educational professions as well as school organizations and for
our development as a knowledge society. Therefore, innovative behavior should
be central to the teaching profession. Moreover, in order to enhance teacher inno-
vative behavior, it is important to know which factors affect innovative behavior
in schools. For example, Kontoghiorghes et al. (2005) suggested that organiza-
tional conditions like connectivity and self-organization facilitate innovation and
change adaptation in organizations.
The main research goal of this article is to reveal which factors affect innova-
tive behavior of teachers in their work and to analyze which effects can be attained
through such behavior. An overview on the status of this research field is provided
and the findings are used to develop a preliminary conceptual model. The follow-
ing research questions were addressed: (a) How is innovative behavior defined?
(b) Which demographic characteristics affect innovative behavior of teachers in
their work? (c) Which individual factors affect innovative behavior of teachers in
their work? (d) Which organizational factors affect innovative behavior of teach-
ers in their work? (e) What are the effects of teacher innovative behavior?
Method
Search and Selection Process
A systematic literature review (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) was conducted. To
find relevant articles, we used the following search engines: Science Direct,
PiCarta, and EBSCO host. Within EBSCO host, Academic Search Elite, Business
Source Premier, Ejournals, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Regional Business News were
searched. The search engines were divided among three researchers. Each of them
used the search terms innovative behavior, idea generalization, idea implementa-
tion, idea creation, idea promotion, idea realization, opportunity exploration, cre-
ative teaching, and change agent with both British and American English spellings.
These search terms were chosen by the researchers after a first scan of the literature
on innovative behavior. Each term was combined once with teacher and once with
education to limit the search to teachers. The search covered literature published
between January 1990 and April 2013. Each researcher judged the title and abstract
as depicted by the search engines against the criteria for inclusion and exclusion
and selected possible relevant publications. As a result, 396 publications, including
journal articles and dissertations, were retrieved and discussed. The researchers
2
Explaining Teachers’ Innovative Behavior
had several meetings to decide which of these publications would be included in
the review. In case of disagreement, the researchers discussed the article until
100% agreement was reached.
These 396 publications were judged against the criteria for inclusion. The
number of articles that were excluded on each criterion is shown in parentheses
after the criterion: (a) the article or dissertation had to be published before April
1, 2013 (72), (b) the article or dissertation was peer reviewed (39), (c) the article
or dissertation reported on an empirical study (22), (d) the article or dissertation
focused on individual innovative behavior of organizations or other persons than
teachers (144), (e) teachers participated voluntarily (17), (f) the study focused on
self-initiated innovative behavior (64), and (g) the study provided insights into the
definition of innovative behavior, factors that influenced this behavior, or effects
of this behavior (1).
Studies that incorporated large reforms or evaluated national programs that
aimed to enhance teacher innovative behavior were not included, because of the
nature of these studies. Reform studies mostly checked whether the prescribed
innovation was executed, and therefore, this behavior was not self-initiated (e.g.,
Hertzog, 2007). Self-initiated innovative behavior has more potential to succeed
(Fullan, 2001) and is important for our knowledge economy. Moreover, in large
reforms, teachers are merely executing the reform rather than initiating the
change. However, studies were included in which teachers received external sup-
port to initiate changes in their classrooms (e.g., Pugh & Zhao, 2003). Information
and communication technology (ICT) related articles were included if there was
an explicit link to innovation and an explicit or implicit link to (one of the) three
stages proposed by Janssen (2003), which are described later on in the section
“Defining Innovative Behavior.” Using these criteria, 36 articles and one disserta-
tion of the 396 were included in the review. An overview of the included studies
is provided in Table 1.
Summarizing the Studies
Following suggestions put forward by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), a table
summarizing each study was created. This table included the title and authors of
the study, the theoretical framework the authors used, the research questions and
hypotheses of the studies, information about the participants, instruments, and the
data analysis, results, and conclusions. This table also included definitions of
teacher innovative behavior, which the authors used or cited as well as factors that
may influence teacher innovative behavior. Distinctions were made among (a)
factors that positively affect teacher innovative behavior, (b) factors that nega-
tively affect teacher innovative behavior, (c) factors that mediate or moderate
teacher innovative behavior, and (d) factors that do not affect teacher innovative
behavior. Finally, the table allowed for a critical appraisal of the study’s quality by
including answers to questions about the clarity of the methodology, the replica-
bility of the study, and the appropriateness of the analyses conducted.
Data Analysis
First, we searched for a common definition of teacher innovative behavior in
the articles. Second, the factors that could influence innovative behavior were
3
4
Table 1
Overview of the included studies
Quantitative/ Quality of the
Study Sample Country Data qualitative studies
Binnewies and Gromer 89 teachers Germany Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative High
(2012) •• Creative requirement
•• Job control
•• Coworker and supervisor support for creativity
•• Personal initiative
•• Idea generation, idea promotion, and idea imple-
mentation (Holman, Totterdell, Axtell, Stride, &
Port, 2005)
Borasi and Finnigan 6 educational United States of Interviews Qualitative Low
(2010) entrepreneurs, 1 America Relevant artifacts
teacher
Bourgonjon et al. (2013) 505 secondary school Belgium Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative Intermediate
teachers •• General experience with games and game learn-
ing opportunities
•• Subjective norm and personal innovativeness in
the domain of information technology
•• Usefulness
•• Complexity
•• Critical mass
Carmeli, Meitar, and 175 employees public Israel Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative High
Weisberg (2006) (a.o. teachers) and •• Innovative work behavior scale (Scott & Bruce,
profit sector 1994)
•• Self-leadership skills

Chang, Chuang, and 651 teachers Taiwan Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative Intermediate
Bennington (2011) •• Creative teaching behaviors
•• Organizational innovation climate
Donnelly, McGarr, and 5 teachers Republic of Ireland Interviews Qualitative Intermediate
O’Reilly (2011)
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)

Eisenman, Chamberlin, 22 secondary United States of A variety of artifacts, including written feedback, Qualitative Intermediate
and McGahee-Kovac education teachers America lesson plans and curriculum, notes of informal
(2005) conversations
Eteokleous (2008) 293 and 12 elementary Cyprus Questionnaire with scales: Mixed-methods High
teachers •• Teachers and school demographics
•• Teachers’ computer use for different purposes
•• Students’ computer use in their classroom
•• Factors that influence teachers in integrating
computers in their classrooms
•• An open-ended question for more comments
Interviews
Horng, Hong, Chanlin, 3 teachers Taiwan Focus group interviews Qualitative Low
Chang, and Chu (2005) In-depth interviews
Classroom observation
Janssen (2003) 76 secondary school The Netherlands Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative Intermediate
teachers •• Innovative work behavior scale (Janssen, 2000)
•• Job involvement
•• Conflict with coworkers
•• Satisfaction with coworkers relations
Kimonen and Nevalainen 1 teacher Finland Interviews Qualitative Low
(2005) Observations
Document analysis
Kleysen and Street 225 employees in nine Unclear Development of questionnaire: Quantitative Intermediate

(2001) organizations (a.o. •• Measure of individual innovative behavior (Kley-
teachers) sen & Street, 2001)
Lilly and Bramwell- 1 teacher United States of Interviews Qualitative Low
Rejskind (2004) America Classroom observations
Personal memos
Course materials
5
(continued)
6
Table 1 (continued)

Loogma, Kruusvall, and 273 VET teachers Estonia Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative Intermediate
Ümarik (2012) •• The actual use of ICT, use of ICT for pedagogi-
cal goals, use of e-learning environments and
methods of e-learning
•• ICT competence and competence in the use of
e-learning tools for pedagogical purposes
•• Pedagogical competence
•• Access to ICT hardware and software and other
tools, availability of support structures
•• Motivation and attitudes toward e-learning
•• Challenges and barriers
•• Individual characteristics of teachers
McDougall (2010) 26 primary school Australia Interviews Qualitative Intermediate
teachers
Messmann and Mulder 9 VET teachers Germany Interviews Qualitative Low
(2011)
Messmann and Mulder 335 employees Germany Development of questionnaire: Quantitative Intermediate
(2012) automotive industry Measure of individual innovative behavior
(Study 1) and 293 (Messmann & Mulder, 2012)
VET teachers
(Study 2)
Mohammad and 3 teachers Pakistan Conversations Qualitative Low
Harlech-Jones (2008) Field notes
Written comments

Morais and Azevedo 236 primary and 340 Portugal Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative High
(2011) secondary education •• Self-assessment as a creative teacher
teachers •• Presence of creativity in their students, col-
leagues, the curriculum and school
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)

Mueller, Wood, 185 elementary and Canada Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative High
Willoughby, Ross, and 204 secondary •• Comfort with computers
Specht (2008) teachers •• Computer use
•• Computer training

•• Attitudes toward computers
•• Experiences with computer technology
•• Teacher efficacy
•• Teaching philosophy
•• Attitudes toward work
Mushayikwa and Lubben 55 teachers Zimbabwe Interviews Qualitative Intermediate
(2009)
Nakata (2011) 74 secondary school Japan Questionnaire with scales: Mixed-methods Intermediate
teachers •• Perceived importance of strategies for promoting
learner autonomy
•• Perceived strategies for promoting their own
professional autonomy and how frequently they
actually made use of these strategies in their
practice
Focus group interview
Noefer, Stegmaier, 81 employees (16 Germany Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative Intermediate
Molter, and Sonntag teachers) •• Idea generation (George & Zhous, 2001)
(2009) •• Idea implementation (George & Zhous, 2001)

•• Skill variety
•• Time pressure
Opfer, Pedder, and 1,126 teachers United Kingdom Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative High
Lavicza (2011) in primary and •• Teachers professional learning practices
secondary education •• Value beliefs
(continued)
7
8
Table 1 (continued)

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 8 teachers United States of Interviews Qualitative Intermediate

Glazewski, Newby, and America Observations
Ertmer (2010)
Pugh and Zhao (2003) 1 secondary and 3 United States of Interviews Qualitative Intermediate
primary school America Observations
teachers Field notes
Ross and Bruce (2007) 1 secondary education Canada Interviews Qualitative Intermediate
teacher Observations
Field notes
Runhaar (2008) 456 secondary VET The Netherlands Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative Intermediate
teachers •• Innovative behavior (de Jong & den Hartog,
2005)
•• Knowledge sharing
•• Perception of task and goal interdependence
•• Self-efficacy
•• Learning goal orientation
Schussler, Poole, 3 secondary education United States of Vignettes Qualitative Low
Whitlock, and Evertson teachers America
(2007)
Sellars (2012) 1 teacher Australia Not specified Qualitative Low
So (2013) 3 primary school South Korea Observations Qualitative Low
teachers Reflective diaries
Interviews
Stylianidou, Boohan, and 8 secondary education United Kingdom Interviews Qualitative Low
Ogborn (2005) teachers

Observations
Tomic and Brouwers 146 secondary The Netherlands Open-ended questionnaire Mixed-methods High
(1999) education teachers
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)

Tondeur, Hermans, van 574 primary school Belgium Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative High
Braak, and Valcke teachers •• Teachers’ educational beliefs
(2008) •• Different types of computer use in the classroom
Voogt (1990) 28 secondary The Netherlands Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative Intermediate
education teachers •• Characteristics of software packages that influ-
ence teachers’ decision making
•• Necessary conditions for the use of the software
Yang and Huang (2008) 332 primary and Taiwan Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative High
secondary education •• School environment scale
teachers •• Innovative teaching behavior scale
•• Integrating technology into English instruction
belief scale (Based on Hurt, Joseph, & Cook,
1977)
•• The Stages of Concern questionnaire
•• Technology-mediated English instruction
behavior scale
Yu, Wu, Chen, and Lin 1,493 employees Taiwan Questionnaire with scales: Quantitative Intermediate
(2007) (521 elementary and •• Adult playfulness
junior high school •• Job satisfaction
teachers) •• Organizational playfulness climate

•• Innovative work behavior (Scott & Bruce, 1994,
adapted)
•• Job performance
9
Thurlings et al.
divided into three main factors: demographic, individual, and organizational.
Within each main factor, several categories were formed, combining former lit-
erature and a meta-ethnographic approach, wherein commonalities and differ-
ences among individual study findings were explored and the extent to which
these findings represented overarching themes was determined (Petticrew &
Roberts, 2006). The factors within each category had to be complementary to
each other and at the same time the categories had to be different from each other.
Demographic factors such as age and gender were retrieved from the studies.
Individual factors included personality, trait, and competence (Messmann, Mulder,
& Gruber, 2010; Studulski & van der Vegt, 2007; Yu et al., 2007) and organiza-
tional factors included (a) actors and/or relations with other people such as col-
leagues and manager, (b) facilities and resources, (c) culture, (d) task factors, (e)
physical characteristics of the organization, and (f) external factors (derived from
Evers, Kreijns, van der Heijden, & Gerrichhauzen, 2011, and Tennekes, 1995). To
determine which factor belonged to which category, the researchers checked the
authors’ original operationalizations and descriptions and discussed these until
100% agreement was reached. In addition, some of these categories were further
divided into subcategories, applying a meta-ethnographic approach.
To further examine the factors that may influence teacher innovative behavior,
we indicated what the effect of each factor in the study was. Did it promote or
hamper innovative behavior or did the factor mediate or moderate a process or did
it have no effect? As a consequence, it could be determined which factors in which
subcategories had an effect on teachers’ innovative behavior. In addition, the (sta-
tistical) measure by which the effect was demonstrated was included. The proce-
dure for analyzing the effects of innovative behavior was as follows. Because we
only found four articles that included effects of innovative behavior, forming sub-
categories was neither possible nor necessary. To further examine the effects of
teacher innovative behavior, we indicated for each effect whether it was positive
or negative, or whether a mediation or moderation process was present. Finally,
based on these findings, we constructed a preliminary conceptual model that
shows how the factors influenced innovative behavior. The model encompasses
total constructs only (i.e., it leaves out subscales) and, to reduce its complexity, is
limited to the factors that have a positive effect on innovative behavior. In report-
ing the regression analyses, only the final models were included. In the Discussion
section, we elaborate on this preliminary model.
Appraising the Studies
Of the 37 studies retained, 2 studies were published between 1990 and 2000,
20 studies between 2000 and 2010, and 15 studies were published between 2011
and the end of April 2013. The pattern indicates that research on teachers’ innova-
tive behavior has recently received much attention. The studies were conducted
throughout the world and most continents were well represented. Eight studies
were from the United States and Canada, 17 were from Europe (4 in Germany, 4
in The Netherlands, 3 in the United Kingdom, 2 in Belgium, and 1 each in Estonia,
Finland, Portugal, and Cyprus), 8 were from Asia (4 in Taiwan and 1 each in
Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, and Israel), 2 were from Australia/New Zealand,
10
and 1 was from Africa (i.e., Zimbabwe). In one article, it was unclear from which
country the participants originated.
The number of quantitative and qualitative studies was almost equal: 18 stud-
ies used a quantitative approach and 16 a qualitative approach. In addition, 3 stud-
ies applied mixed-methods. We also mapped which and how many studies would
help us address the research questions. All studies were used to develop the defi-
nition of teacher innovative behavior. Twenty-nine articles focused on factors that
affect innovative behavior, and four studies addressed the effects of innovative
behavior. Four studies did not focus on either factors or effects but were helpful in
defining innovative behavior, and were therefore still included.
Three main issues arose with regard to the quality of the reviewed studies.
First, the methodology was not always clearly described. For example, Horng
et al. (2005), Stylianidou et al. (2005), and So (2013) did not elaborate on the
procedures of their studies. The second issue concerned the generalization of the
articles’ conclusions. For instance, four studies included teachers among other
participants (i.e., Carmeli et al., 2006; Kleysen & Street, 2001; Noefer et al.,
2009; Yu et al., 2007), but these authors did not report findings separately for each
group. In addition, Messmann and Mulder (2012) validated their questionnaire
within two studies, only one of which included teachers. They did, however,
report their results separately for each group. In some studies, teachers were
selected to participate because they had received a grant (e.g., Pugh & Zhao,
2003) or had won an award (e.g., Horng et al., 2005; Lilly & Bramwell-Rejskind,
2004) and thus were considered to be an example of innovative behavior.
The third issue dealt with the strengths of the claims made in the articles.
Several studies used self-reported questionnaires that were administrated at one
point in time. In other words, these studies were cross-sectional and causal rela-
tionships between the factors and innovative behavior can only be inferred based
on theory. These quality issues (i.e., clear methodology, generalizations of results,
and strength of claims) were mapped for each article. A rating ranging from low
to intermediate to high was given to the studies on each issue. Table 1 presents
these results in the final column. Thus, we could give extra weight in interpreting
the findings to studies that did not have these issues and less weight to the studies
that had these issues.
Results
Defining Innovative Behavior
More than one third of the reviewed articles (14 out of 37; Binnewies &
Gromer, 2012; Borasi & Finnigan, 2010; Carmeli et al., 2006; Eisenman et al.,
2005; Janssen, 2003; Kleysen & Street, 2001; Messmann & Mulder, 2011,
2012; Mohammad & Harlech-Jones, 2008; Nakata, 2011; Noefer et al., 2009;
Runhaar, 2008; So, 2013; Yang & Huang, 2008) followed the definition of
innovative behavior described by Janssen (2003). Moreover, in all other arti-
cles, the definition used was strongly related to this definition. Based on sev-
eral sources (Kanter, 1988; Scott & Bruce, 1994; West, 1989; West & Farr,
1990; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), Janssen (2003) described innova-
tive behavior as a three-stage process: (a) intentional idea generation, (b) idea
11
Thurlings et al.
promotion, and (c) idea realization, within a work role, work group, or organi-
zation, in order to benefit role performance, the group, or the organization.
Most authors who followed the definition of Janssen (2003) adjusted this defi-
nition to fit their research. For example, Carmeli et al. (2006) defined innovative
behavior as
a multiple-stage process in which an individual recognizes a problem for which she

or he generates new (novel or adopted) ideas and solutions, works to promote and
build support for them, and produces an applicable prototype or model for the use
and benefit of the organization or parts within it. (p. 78)
Messmann and Mulder (2011) described innovative teacher behavior as perform-

ing the innovation and further elaborated that innovative behavior encompasses
observing, listening to, and adapting ideas, building a strategy of action, assessing
through reflection and evaluation, adjusting the innovation, and finding allies.
Messmann and Mulder (2012) developed a questionnaire for innovative work
behavior and defined innovative behavior as opportunity exploration, idea gen-
eration, idea promotion, idea realization, and reflection. Only idea realization
could not be cross-validated by confirmatory factor analysis. The role of reflec-
tion as part of innovative behavior was also mentioned by Mohammad and
Harlech-Jones (2008).
Some authors did not explore all of Janssen’s (2003) stages. Moreover,
although the order of Janssen’s (2003) stages was followed most of the time, this
was not always and necessarily the case. For example, Noefer et al. (2009) did not
distinguish the second stage of idea promotion. Likewise, Borasi and Finnigin
(2010) focused on the first and third stage, in terms of “educators who consis-
tently transform ideas into initiatives that generate value for their organization and
the clients they serve” (p. 7). Another author (So, 2013) only focused on the first
stage (idea generation), in terms of knowledge generation within a community
that was based on the concept of inquiry as stance (i.e., teachers took a critical and
dynamic way of knowing and being in the educational practice).
About one third of the articles (12 of 37; Bourgonjon et al., 2013; Donnelly
et al., 2011; Eteokleous, 2008; Loogma et al., 2012; Mueller et al., 2008;
Mushayikwa & Lubben, 2009; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010; Pugh & Zhao,
2003; Schussler et al., 2007; Stylianidou et al., 2005; Tondeur et al., 2008; Voogt,
1990) focused on a specific type of innovative behavior: ICT integration behav-
ior in the classroom or curriculum. An important condition for us to include these
articles in our review was an explicit link to innovation. Such explicit links were
terms like computer innovations (Eteokleous, 2008), integration as a major inno-
vation for most teachers (Voogt, 1990), and ICT innovations in schools (Donnelly
et al., 2011).
Additionally, in many of these ICT-related articles, certain stages of innovative
behavior were discussed that had parallels with the three stages of Janssen (2003).
For example, Voogt (1990) described three stages: adoption, implementation, and
incorporation. Similarly, Schussler et al. (2007) distinguished the stages of think-
ing (related to idea generation), practice, and development (related to idea
12
promotion and idea realization). Likewise, Stylianidou et al. (2005) investigated
the take-up of innovative computer tools in science classes and distinguished the
stages of teachers’ relevant experience, changing external goals, actual practice,
realizing goals, and the effects of existing practices (idea realization).
Six articles (Chang et al., 2011; Horng et al., 2005; Lilly & Bramwell-Rejskind,
2004; Morais & Azevedo, 2011; Tomic & Brouwers, 1999; Yu et al., 2007)
focused on creativity, a term that has been often used interchangeably with indi-
vidual innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994). For example, Chang et al. (2011) defined
creative teaching as “the invention and use of novelty, originality or invention of
a teaching method to reach a goal of teaching or education” (p. 936). The use of
novelty, originality, or invention is related to Janssen’s (2003) idea generation
stage. The second part of Chang et al.’s definition, the invention of a teaching
method to reach a goal of teaching or education, is related to Janssen’s (2003) idea
promotion and realization stages. Likewise, innovative behavior “is viewed as an
interaction between the person and situation that is influenced by past as well as
current events and leads to an outcome that can be judged to be creative” (Kin &
Pope, 1999, as cited in Yu et al., 2007, p. 419). Tomic and Brouwers (1999)
described creativity as encompassing the process of generating new ideas and in
this way focused only on the first stage of Janssen (2003).
The last set of articles (Kimonen & Nevalainen, 2005; McDougall, 2010;
Opfer et al., 2011; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Sellars, 2012) centered on innovative
behavior as teacher professional change. Here, teachers decide to change their
professional practice with a deliberate focus on professional development (Sellars,
2012). Reflection on experience is an important part of teacher change (Ross &
Bruce, 2007). Again, parallels were seen with the three stages defined by Janssen
(2003). An important element in teacher change as addressed in these articles is
reflection, which could be part of idea generation. Moreover, critical reflection of
practices led to the innovative development of school work (Kimonen &
Nevalainen, 2005). The innovative development of school work could be per-
ceived as a stage of idea realization.
To sum up, innovative behavior in this article is defined as a self-initiated,
three-stage process: (a) intentional idea generation, (b) idea promotion, and (c)
idea realization (Janssen, 2003). Often, reflection in practice is considered an
important part of the generation of new ideas and teacher change. In addition, in
accordance with Scott and Bruce (1994), we consider creative behavior as a term
that can be used interchangeably with innovative behavior. Finally, ICT integra-
tion behavior in the classroom, which is seen as a specific type of innovative
behavior, is also included in this review.
Methods Used to Map Innovative Behavior
Of the nine studies that used a questionnaire to map teacher innovative behav-
ior, eight used a similar questionnaire. Carmeli et al. (2006) and Yu et al. (2007)
applied Scott and Bruce’s (1994) questionnaire, and Runhaar (2008) and Janssen
(2003) used Janssen’s (2001, 2004) questionnaire, which was based on Scott and
Bruce’s (1994). Binnewies and Gromer (2012) used a different questionnaire;
however, this questionnaire was based on the same subscales. Two sets of
researchers (Messmann & Mulder, 2012; Kleysen & Street, 2001) validated their
13
Table 2
Overview of the demographic factors and their effect on innovative behavior
Demographic factor Effect Measure Study

Gender n.s. c, r, p Carmeli et al. (2006),
Runhaar (2008)
v Mueller et al. (2008)
Age + c, r Runhaar (2008)
− r Yang and Huang (2008)
Income + c Carmeli et al. (2006)
Tenure n.s. r, c Runhaar (2008)
Upbringing + i Horng et al. (2005)
Less than 5 years teaching experience + r Loogma et al. (2012)
Years of teaching experience − r Yang and Huang (2008)
Years of education + r, c Runhaar (2008)
Level of education n.s. r Yang and Huang (2008)
Function/task within the teacher job + r Runhaar (2008)
Note. n.s. = not significant; c = correlation; i = interviews; p = path models; r = regression; v =

variance analyses.
own questionnaires. Although Yang and Huang (2008) used the same definition,
it was unclear if they also made explicit use of these stages. These findings indi-
cate that that agreement exists among researchers about how to describe innova-
tive behavior.
Demographic Factors
Table 2 presents an overview of the demographic factors, of which all except
one were found in quantitative research. The demographic variables that were
explored in the quantitative studies were gender (one study), age (two), income
(one), teaching experience (two), years of education (one), level of education
(one), tenure (one), and other functions (e.g., ICT coordinator, literacy coach) or
other tasks within the teaching profession (one). Only the variables, income,
years of education, and having other functions had a significant positive effect on
innovative behavior. These variables, investigated in four different studies, are
related (Carmeli et al., 2006; Loogma et al., 2012; Runhaar, 2008; Yang &
Huang, 2008). More specifically, in the countries where the studies took place
(i.e., The Netherlands, Estonia, Taiwan, and Israel), generally, it can be expected
that the combination of a higher educational degree needed for other functions
and more years of experience leads to a higher income. However, in addition to
the direct relationships between these variables and innovative behavior, regres-
sion analyses in two of these studies (Runhaar, 2008; Yang & Huang, 2008)
showed that these direct relationships disappeared when self-efficacy was
included as a mediator. A higher level of education, more income, and other
functions were related to higher levels of self-efficacy (Runhaar, 2008), as was
age (Runhaar, 2008), which had a very small effect on innovative behavior.
14
However, when self-efficacy was included as a mediator, the direct effect
between age and innovative behavior disappeared.
Loogma et al. (2012) found that teachers who had less than 5 years teaching
experience innovated more often by implementing e-learning. E-learning was
broadly defined as different combinations of classroom and web-based learning
practices. These practices included the use of some ICT tools to support class-
room teaching or a dominant use of online learning. On the other hand, in another
study, years of teaching experience were negatively related to innovative behavior
(Yang & Huang, 2008). Loogma et al. focused specifically on implementing ICT
whereas the other researchers considered innovative behavior more generally.
In a qualitative study, upbringing was found to have a positive effect on creative
teaching strategies. Horng et al. (2005) found that parents’ support and the freedom
they gave to children to explore themselves made childhood a critical period for
creative future teaching. Additionally, during adolescence, these future teachers’
creative power was nourished by learning experiences and school education.
Individual Factors
As explained in the data analysis section, we distinguished the individual fac-
tors of (a) personality, (b) trait, and (c) competence. Table 3 shows the main
results for these categories. In what follows, more researched subcategories and
accompanying factors are addressed before those that were researched less. In
addition, the quality of the studies was taken into account. Those studies we deter-
mined to be of better quality were given more weight. This approach is used in
this section and the section on organizational factors.
Personality
Because the focus in this study is on innovative behavior within a job context,
we did not choose a strict psychological interpretation of the term, personality, but
described it as one’s own orientations toward work. Examples of personality
included orientations toward instructional matters and setting goals (Studulski &
van der Vegt, 2007). Based on a meta-ethnographic procedure, two subcategories
were formed for personality (see also Messmann & Mulder, 2011): (a) curiosity
and (b) openness. Messmann and Mulder (2011), in a study comprising structured
interviews with vocational teachers, found that the curiosity of teachers was key
to becoming active in innovation development and in overcoming difficulties
arising in innovation processes. As one teacher in their study indicated, “basically
it is also a form of curiosity that fosters the development of innovations”
(Messmann & Mulder, 2011, p. 79). Similarly, Horng et al. (2005), based on inter-
views and observations, concluded that teachers who were curious showed more
creative teaching behavior (and thus, according to this literature review’s defini-
tion, more innovative behavior).
Openness was required for innovative work behavior because “it makes teach-
ers sensitive for exploring opportunities and for allowing conditions and proce-
dures to change” (Messmann & Mulder, 2011, p. 78). In that study, openness had
a positive effect on innovative behavior. To sum up, with regard to personality,
curiosity affects innovative behavior and creative teaching strategies. In addition,
openness also seems to play a role.
15
Table 3
Overview of the individual factors and their effect on innovative behavior
Individual factor Effect Measure Study

Personality
Curiosity
Curiosity + i Messmann and Mulder (2011)
Curiosity + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
Openness + i Messmann and Mulder (2011)
Trait
Attitudes and beliefs
Work beliefs challenge subscale + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Teacher belief constructivist scale + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Work beliefs + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Teacher beliefs + i, o Stylianidou et al. (2005)
Educational beliefs: Traditional − v Tondeur et al. (2008)
Educational beliefs: Constructivist + v Tondeur et al. (2008)
Positive beliefs toward ICT + r Yang and Huang (2008)
Attitudes toward ICT as an + v Mueller et al. (2008)
instructional tool
Preference for traditional teaching − i McDougall (2010)
Perception of problem + i Messmann and Mulder (2011)
Professional attitude and norms + i Sellars (2012)
Challenging attitude toward work + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Vision + i Borasi and Finnigan (2010)
Recognition of changing priorities + i McDougall (2010)
Professional identity + i Mushayikwa and Lubben
(2009)
Benefits for teacher and students + i Mushayikwa and Lubben
(2009)
Modifying definition of teaching + i, o Ross and Bruce (2007)
excellence
Habitual thinking − i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
Jones (2008)
Motivation
Motivation + r Loogma et al. (2012)
+ i Messmann and Mulder (2011)
Intrinsic motivation + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
Enjoyment and outward motivation n.s. v Mueller et al. (2008)
work
Learning goal orientation
Desire to learn and absorb new + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
experiences
(continued)
16
Table 3 (continued)

Strong desires to acquire new + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
knowledge
Learning goal orientation + r Runhaar (2008)
Teacher orientations to learning + p Opfer et al. (2011)
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy + r Runhaar (2008)
Self-confidence + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
Teacher efficacy n.s. v Mueller et al. (2008)
Self-efficacy + i, o Stylianidou et al. (2005)
Persistence
Persistence + i, o Borasi and Finnigan (2010)
Perseverance in dealing with + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
difficulties
Other
Humor + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
Adult playfulness trait + r Yu et al. (2007)
Goal interdependence + r Runhaar (2008)
Job satisfaction + i Messmann and Mulder 2011)
Habit of thinking + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
Need for self-preservation − i McDougall (2010)
Competence
Developing specific competences
Self-actualization + i Messmann and Mulder (2011)
Learning to develop their creativity + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
Need for career development + i Mushayikwa and Lubben
(2009)
Self-leadership skills (total + p Carmeli et al. (2006)
construct)
Skill variety + c, r Noefer et al. (2009)
Using activating methods + r Loogma et al. (2012)
Dedication to their students + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
Teaching experience with a multi- + r Loogma et al. (2012)
cultural group
Quick decision making + i, o Borasi and Finnigan (2010)
Understanding how computers + r Loogma et al. (2012)
work
Uploading skills + r Loogma et al. (2012)
Comfort with computers + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Computer literacy + r Yang and Huang (2008)
Positive experiences with ICT + v Mueller et al. (2008)
ICT use + v Mueller et al. (2008)
(continued)
17
Table 3 (continued)

Teacher’s use of ICT at home and + v Mueller et al. (2008)
school
Comfort with ICT + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Positive outcomes of ICT + v Mueller et al. (2008)
integration
Knowledge about students + i, o Schussler et al. (2007)
(familiarity) and technology
(facility)
Problem solving
Creative problem solving + i, o Borasi and Finnigan (2010)
Capitalizing on crisis and + i, o Borasi and Finnigan (2010)
dysfunction
Think things over/ think of other + d, v Tomic and Brouwers (1999)
things (when stuck in the
process)
Recognizing and evaluating opportunities
Recognizing and seizing + i, o Borasi and Finnigan (2010)
opportunities
Evaluating opportunities; gut + i, o Borasi and Finnigan (2010)
feeling; confident risk taking
Content knowledge of teaching
Subject content knowledge + i Mushayikwa and Lubben
(2009)
Pedagogical content knowledge + i Mushayikwa and Lubben
(2009)
Practical knowledge and + i Mushayikwa and Lubben
professional skills (2009)
Note. n.s. = not significant; c = correlation; i = interviews; o = observations; p = path models; r =

regression; v = variance analyses.
Trait
Trait was defined as a relatively constant personality disposition (Yu et al.,
2007). Six subcategories were distinguished within the category trait: (a) attitudes
and beliefs, (b) motivation, (c) learning goal orientation, (d) self-efficacy, (e) per-
sistence, and (f) other. With respect to the first subcategory, attitudes and beliefs,
beliefs about a certain object are formed by associating it with certain attributes;
attitudes develop from the beliefs people hold (see Ajzen, 1991). This subcate-
gory was addressed in 12 studies. Four studies (Mueller et al., 2008; Stylianidou
et al., 2005; Tondeur et al., 2008; Yang & Huang, 2008) demonstrated that teach-
ers’ educational and ICT beliefs were an important condition for innovative
behavior, especially as it pertains to ICT integration behavior in the classroom.
All these studies, except Stylianidou et al. (2005), were of high quality.
18
Eight studies investigated other diverse attitudes and beliefs held by teachers
(including Mueller et al., in which factors other than educational and ICT beliefs
were discussed). Mueller et al. (2008) found that a challenging attitude toward
work benefited computer integration in the classroom. They also revealed that
attitudes toward computer technology as an instructional tool had a positive
effect on computer integration in the classroom. Another attitude discussed was
preference for traditional teaching priorities (McDougall, 2010), which had a
negative impact on teacher professional change (and innovative behavior; as
included in the definition section, we argued that teacher change has strong par-
allels with innovative behavior). McDougall (2010), on the other hand, also sug-
gested that recognition of changing priorities of teaching media was a positive
trigger for teacher professional change. In a similar way, Ross and Bruce (2007)
found in their case study of one teacher that modifying the definition of teaching
excellence promoted the recognition of success, and by this, teacher change.
Mushayikwa and Lubben (2009) showed that if teachers perceived and believed
that ICT had benefits for teachers and students and if teachers had a strong profes-
sional identity, the self-directed use of ICT in the classroom was enhanced.
Similarly, Sellars (2012) indicated that professional attitude and norms were nec-
essary for teacher professional change. On the other hand, Messmann and Mulder
(2011) showed that perception of a problem could also be beneficial for innova-
tive behavior. They indicated that thinking about a new approach to problems
could lead to innovative behavior. Another attitude was found by Borasi and
Finnigan (2010), who illustrated that teachers needed a vision in order to success-
fully employ diverse innovations. Finally, an attitude of habitual thinking (i.e., to
think in routine habits instead of “outside the box”) negatively affected innovative
behavior (Mohammad & Harlech-Jones, 2008). The second subcategory within
the trait category was motivation. Mueller et al. (2008) did not find a relationship
between enjoyment and motivation of teachers for their work and teachers’ ICT
integration in their classroom. Loogma et al. (2012), Messmann and Mulder
(2011), and Horng et al. (2005), however, found a positive relationship between
intrinsic motivation and innovative behavior.
Learning goal orientation, the third subcategory, is defined as the intention to
advance one’s competencies through learning new skills and through learning to
complete new and more complex tasks (Runhaar, 2008). Three studies focused on
learning goal orientation. Opfer et al. (2011) found teacher orientations to learn-
ing had a positive effect on teacher learning change. Similarly, Runhaar (2008)
demonstrated a positive effect of learning goal orientation on innovative behavior.
Finally, Horng et al. (2005) indicated that the desire to learn and absorb new expe-
riences and to acquire new knowledge was a positive stimulus for innovative
behavior. The fourth subcategory, self-efficacy, concerns confidence in one’s
capability to activate resources to meet situational demands (Bandura, 1977).
Four articles explored this factor (Horng et al., 2005; Mueller et al., 2008; Runhaar,
2008; Stylianidou et al., 2005). Mueller et al. (2008) found no effect of teacher
efficacy on teachers’ ICT integration in their classroom. However, the other stud-
ies revealed a positive effect of self-efficacy on innovative behavior. For example,
Runhaar (2008) found a positive correlation between teacher self-efficacy and
their innovative behavior in vocational education.
19
Thurlings et al.
Two studies addressed the fifth subcategory, persistence: Borasi and Finnigan
(2010) and Horng et al. (2005). Persistence was integrally linked to teachers’
underlying goals and philosophy and found to be a stimulus for innovative
behavior (Borasi & Finnigan, 2010). Likewise, Horng et al. (2005) found that
perseverance in dealing with difficulties positively influenced innovative behav-
ior. The final subcategory was termed “other” and represented several traits.
First, goal interdependence played a role in innovative behavior. Goal interde-
pendence was defined as the extent to which team members believe they could
achieve their own goals only when the goals of other team members are achieved
(Weldon & Weingart, 1993). Goal interdependence had a positive effect on inno-
vative behavior, in combination with self-efficacy, and a negative effect in com-
bination with learning goal orientation (Runhaar, 2008). Goal interdependence
and self-efficacy strengthened each other in their effect on innovative behavior,
whereas the opposite held for learning goal orientation: The more a teacher was
learning goal oriented, the less goal interdependence was needed to enhance
innovative behavior and vice versa. Self-efficacy was necessary to depend on
each other’s goals, and only in this way did it enhance innovative behavior. On
the other hand, teachers who were highly learning goal oriented were motivated
to engage in these behaviors, which then limited the significance of situational
factors. McDougall (2010) found the need for self-preservation was a negative
trigger for teacher professional change.
Horng et al. (2005) showed that humor supported teachers in creative instruc-
tions, encouraging them to learn and innovate. According to Yu et al. (2007), adult
playfulness also had a positive effect on innovative behavior. Horng et al. (2005)
indicated that the habit of thinking, another trait, was a process of combining
information and stimulated creative behavior. Finally, Messmann and Mulder
(2011) demonstrated that teachers identified job satisfaction as a trigger for inno-
vative behavior. In summary, attitudes and beliefs is the most investigated subcat-
egory. Teachers’ educational and ICT beliefs are a particularly important condition
for innovative behavior, especially as it pertains to ICT integration behavior in the
classroom. Learning goal orientation and motivation and self-efficacy all show a
positive effect on innovative behavior. Persistence in teachers’ work is also a posi-
tive stimulus for innovative behavior, although this was shown in two studies that
were not of superior quality.
Competence
Competence is defined as the personal qualities and capabilities needed at
work in a contemporary setting (van der Heijden, 1998; van der Heijde & van der
Heijden, 2006). Here, applying a meta-ethnographic approach, we distinguished
four subcategories: (a) developing specific competences, (b) problem solving, (c)
recognizing and evaluating opportunities, and (d) content knowledge of teaching.
Several types of competence belonged in the subcategory developing specific
competences. The most common types involved understanding how computers
work, computer use, and expecting positive outcomes from computer integration
(which is different than actual ICT integration behavior in the classroom as a spe-
cific type of innovative behavior). We found nine factors (i.e., understanding how
computers work, uploading skills, comfort with computers [two times], computer
20
literacy, positive experiences with computers, computer use, teacher’s own use of
computers at home and school, positive outcomes of computer integration) in
three studies with high to intermediate quality, dealing with this kind of compe-
tence (Loogma et al., 2012; Mueller et al., 2008; Yang & Huang, 2008).
We further found other factors not specifically related to computer understand-
ing and use. Two studies investigated skills and found it to be a positive factor for
innovative behavior. Carmeli et al. (2006) demonstrated a positive relationship
between self-leadership skills and innovative behavior in a path model. Self-
leadership skills as a construct consisted of three dimensions: (a) behavior focused
strategies, (b) natural reward strategies, and (c) constructive thought patterns.
Noefer et al. (2009) examined skill variety, that is, the number of diverse activi-
ties, work procedures, and processes needed to accomplish a task that involves
talents and skills on the part of the employee (Dodd & Ganster, 1996). Skill vari-
ety was positively related to employees’ innovative behavior. Apart from skills,
Loogma et al. (2012) found a positive effect from using activating methods and a
positive effect from teaching experience with a multicultural group on teachers’
innovative behavior.
Other specific competences included the need for career development
(Mushayikwa & Lubben, 2009) and learning to develop creativity (Horng et al.,
2005), which addressed aspects of self-actualization. Messman and Mulder (2011)
also found that self-actualization was a factor that triggered innovative work
behavior. Aiming to improve work processes and developing new things was also
important for innovative behavior. Horng et al. (2005) discovered that the dedica-
tion of teachers to their students led to the adoption of lesson plans that promoted
creativity, and thus, innovative behavior. Borasi and Finnigan (2010) revealed
that quick decision making, which can be perceived as a specific competence, was
also a stimulus for innovative behavior. Finally, Schussler et al. (2007) indicated
that knowledge about students and technology positively enhanced technology
integration in the classroom.
The second subcategory was problem solving. Tomic and Brouwers (1999) con-
cluded that when teachers thought things over and thought of other things, they
often generated new ideas (the first stage of innovative behavior). Borasi and
Finnigan (2010) found creative problem solving, capitalizing on a crisis, and dys-
function were important for innovative behavior. Creative problem solving meant
finding ways to work around problems and identifying alternative strategies or
approaches. Successful teachers took advantage of crisis or disorganization in their
institution as a way of moving their own entrepreneurial initiatives forward.
The third subcategory was recognizing and evaluating opportunities. The first
factor addressed recognizing and seizing opportunities. The teacher studied in
Borasi and Finnigan (2010) was exceptional in this competence area. The teacher
was aware of her environment and continually scanned it to identify new ideas.
Other factors they found included evaluating opportunities, gut feeling, and con-
fident risk taking. Evaluating whether an opportunity was worth pursuing—or
not—was very important. Ultimately, gut instinct was important in making any
final decision. A related aspect was teacher confidence in risk taking (Borasi &
Finnigan, 2010). All of these aspects were found to be important conditions for
21
Thurlings et al.
The final subcategory in the competence area was the content knowledge of
teaching, as investigated by Mushayikwa and Lubben (2009). We categorized this
study as intermediate in quality, and therefore, one needs to be careful in general-
izing the results to a larger population. In the study, subject and pedagogical con-
tent knowledge promoted self-directed use of ICT in the classroom. Practical
knowledge and professional skills also positively influenced self-directed use of
ICT in the classroom. With respect to competence, developing specific compe-
tences like computer use and understanding how computers work is key to ICT
integration behavior in the classroom. Furthermore, developing skills and self-
actualization are specific competences that are important to innovative behavior.
In addition, general competences, such as problem solving and content knowl-
edge, are also important for innovative behavior.
Organizational Factors
Table 4 displays the organizational factors shown to influence teachers’ inno-
vative behavior. As indicated in the methodology section, six categories of orga-
nizational factors were distinguished: (a) actors and/or relations with other people,
(b) facilities and resources, (c) culture, (d) task factors, (e) physical characteristics
of the organization, and (f) external factors. Here, we address these findings.
Actors and/or Relations With Other People

Here, we distinguish four subcategories applying a meta-ethnographic proce-
dure: (a) interactions; (b) support, guidance, and feedback; (c) collegiality; and
(d) interactions with external actors. In the first subcategory, Tomic and Brouwer
(1999), Ross and Bruce (2007), and Messmann and Mulder (2011) suggested that
positive communication with others affected innovative behavior. Tomic and
Brouwer (1999) specifically indicated that talking to colleagues promoted idea
generation. In addition, Mushayikwa and Lubben (2009) found teachers felt they
need to network as a strategy to innovate in deprived environments. Similarly,
Eisenman et al. (2005), Horng et al. (2005), and Mohammad and Harlech-Jones
(2008) all indicated that small groups should be formed where teachers can self-
express, share ideas, discuss, and reflect on the implementation process. Finally,
Borasi and Finnigan (2010) suggested that sharing and communicating visions
and networking supported teachers in the innovation process. The findings of
these eight studies, of which some were unclear about their methodology or find-
ings, point to the conclusion that interactions between teachers and their col-
leagues were necessary for teachers to innovate.
The second subcategory, support, guidance, and feedback, was different from
the first subcategory in that the first subcategory dealt with interactions with col-
leagues and supervisors and this second subcategory addressed the nature of that
interaction. Nine of the 10 studies demonstrated that guidance, support, and feed-
back from colleagues, managers, and others positively influenced teachers’ inno-
vative behavior (Binnewies & Gromer, 2012; Eteokleous, 2008; Kimonen &
Nevalainen, 2005; Loogma et al., 2012; Mohammad & Harlech-Jones, 2008;
Mueller et al., 2008; Noefer et al., 2009; Schussler et al., 2007; Yang & Huang,
2008). Eteokleous (2008) and Mohammad and Harlech-Jones (2008) found a lack
of guidance and support hindered teachers with respect to innovation.
22
Table 4
Overview of the organizational factors and their effect on innovative behavior
Organizational factor Effect Measure Study

Actors and/or relations with other people
Interactions
Small group interaction with + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
colleagues
Sharing experiences of developing + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
ideas and reflecting on their
performance and the students’
feedback
Sharing and communicating visions + i, o Borasi and Finnigan
(2010)
Self-expression, sharing and + i, o Horng et al. (2005)
communicating
Need for peer networking + i Mushayikwa and Lubben
(2009)
Networking + i, o Borasi and Finnigan
(2010)
Talking with colleagues + v Tomic and Brouwers
(1999)
Professional partnerships + i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
Jones (2008)
Inquiry group + i, o Eisenman et al. (2005)
Communicating with colleagues, + i Messmann and Mulder
school leaders, and students (2011)
Communication + i, o Ross and Bruce (2007)
Support, guidance and feedback
Coworker and supervisor support + r Binnewies and Gromer
(2012)
Support of management + r Loogma et al. (2012)
Peer and administrative support + r Yang and Huang (2008)
Assistance from others + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Supervisor feedback + c, r Noefer et al. (2009)
Critical mass + p Bourgonjon et al. (2013)
Promotion by the head teacher + i, o Kimonen and Nevalainen
(2005)
Administrative support + i, o Schussler et al. (2007)
Support of colleagues and students + i, o Schussler et al. (2007)
Support and guidance from the + i Eteokleous (2008)
district coordinator
Lack of guidance, support − i Eteokleous (2008)
Lack of support − i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
Jones (2008)
(continued)
23
Table 4 (continued)

Support by technology team + i Eteokleous (2008)
Collegiality
Collegiality + i, o Schussler et al. (2007)
Teacher isolation and the lack of − i Nakata (2011)
collegiality
Interactions external actors
Collaboration with researcher + i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
Jones (2008)
Increased influence of external + i, o Ross and Bruce (2007)
change agents
Facilities and resources
Learning facilities
Learning opportunity + p Bourgonjon et al. (2013)
Training (more than 40 hours) + r Yang and Huang (2008)
Training + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Number of workshops attended + v Mueller et al. (2008)
Professional development + i Donnelly et al. (2011)
Self-assessment tool to select + i, o Ross and Bruce (2007)
improvement goals
Teachers actively participated in + i, o Kimonen and Nevalainen
in-service training (2005)
Teacher computer literacy and + i Eteokleous (2008)
training
Environmental characteristics
Teaching and professional − i Nakata (2011)
autonomy
School renovation + i, o Kimonen and Nevalainen
(2005)
Relaxing environment (for idea + d, v Tomic and Brouwers
generation) (1999)
School context + i, o Stylianidou et al. (2005)
Restrictive working conditions in − i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
the school Jones (2008)
Constraints on the development of − i Nakata (2011)
professional autonomy
Support structures + i, o Eisenman et al. (2005)
Equipment and technology
Technical problems n.s. v Mueller et al. (2008)
ICT settings + r Yang and Huang (2008)
Obtaining materials + i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
Jones (2008)
(continued)
24
Table 4 (continued)

Space + i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
Jones (2008)
Need for lab, classroom computers + i Eteokleous (2008)
and equipment
Resources general
Activating resources + i Messmann and Mulder
(2011)
Resources + i, o Stylianidou et al. (2005)
Lack of resources − i Eteokleous (2008)
Culture
Organizational playfulness climate + r Yu et al. (2007)
(total construct)
•• Humorous/intimate interaction n.s. r Yu et al. (2007)
•• Liberal/supportive leadership + r Yu et al. (2007)
•• Play together + r Yu et al. (2007)
•• Fewer organizational hindrances + r Yu et al. (2007)
•• Pressure release opportunity + r Yu et al. (2007)
Organizational innovation climate + r Chang et al. (2011)
(total construct)
•• Working conditions and learning + r Chang et al. (2011)
and growing
•• Organizational leadership and sup- + r Chang et al. (2011)
port from colleagues
•• Education policy and work envi- + r Chang et al. (2011)
ronment
•• Equipment resources and educa- + r Chang et al. (2011)
tional opportunities
•• Low organizational barriers n.s. r Chang et al. (2011)
•• Overall organizational climate for + r Chang et al. (2011)
innovation
School climate − r Eteokleous (2008)
Creating transparency + i Messmann and Mulder
(2011)
Absence of learning culture − i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
Jones (2008)
Institutional constraints − i Nakata (2011)
Changing philosophy of computer + i Eteokleous (2008)
technology integration
Task factors
Job control + r Binnewies and Gromer
(2012)
Task interdependency + c, r Runhaar (2008)
(continued)
25
Table 4 (continued)

Creative requirement + r Binnewies and Gromer
(2012)
Usefulness of video games + p Bourgonjon et al. (2013)
Time pressure + c, r Noefer et al. (2009)
Critical reflection, analysis of + i, o Kimonen and Nevalainen
problems that arose from the (2005)
practices of action
Working under pressure (for idea n.s. d, v Tomic and Brouwers
generation) (1999)
Physical characteristics of the organization
School location n.s. v Chang et al. (2011)
School size n.s. v Chang et al. (2011)
Organization of classes + i Messmann and Mulder
(2011)
Characteristics of students + i Messmann and Mulder
(2011)
School’s scope of action + i Messmann and Mulder
(2011)
External factors
The new national educational policy + i, o Kimonen and Nevalainen
provided favorable starting (2005)
Environmental factors like assessment + i, o Donnelly et al. (2011)
or other mandated changes
Tyranny of the curriculum − i Eteokleous (2008)
The forthcoming examinations − i, o Mohammad and Harlech-
Jones (2008)
Entrance exam constraints − i Nakata (2011)
Note. n.s. = not significant; c = correlation; d = descriptive; i = interviews; o = observations; p = path

models; r = regression; v = variance analyses.
Three studies (of high and intermediate quality) explored support, guidance,
and feedback in more detail. Binnewies and Gromer (2012) specifically explored
whether coworker and supervisor support affected idea generation, idea promo-
tion, and idea implementation. Coworker and supervisor support related signifi-
cantly to idea generation and promotion but not to implementation. Noefer et al.
(2009) examined the interplay of supervisor feedback, skill variety, time pressure,
and innovative behavior. Supervisor feedback dealt with the recognition and
appraisal of work efforts that supervisors provide to employees. Skill variety con-
cerned the number of different activities and processes that employees need to
perform in their job (Dodd & Ganster, 1996). Supervisor feedback positively
affected idea generation, yet supervisor feedback did not moderate between skill
26
variety and idea generation. Supervisor feedback, however, moderated between
time pressure and idea implementation and between skill variety and idea imple-
mentation. Teachers under high pressure who received positive feedback imple-
mented more ideas and teachers who experienced more skill variety in their jobs
reported greater effects of supervisor feedback on their idea implementation.
Finally, Bourgonjon et al. (2013) demonstrated that a critical mass positively
influenced innovative behavior, meaning if a large group of people in the same
organization, or even in society, used ICT, teachers were more inclined to use ICT
in their own classes. In addition, they found an indirect effect from beliefs of use-
fulness on integrating ICT. In other words, if a critical mass was perceived, teach-
ers’ beliefs about the usefulness of ICT were also positively influenced.
Nakata (2011) revealed that the lack of collegiality, the third subcategory, and
teacher isolation prevented teachers from innovating, and Schussler et al. (2007)
indicated that collegiality positively influenced teachers’ innovative behavior.
Both studies thus pointed toward the tentative conclusion that collegiality was
necessary for innovation. With respect to interaction with external actors (the
fourth subcategory), increased influence of external agents (Ross & Bruce, 2007)
and collaboration with the researcher (Mohammad & Harlech-Jones, 2008) were
both suggested as positively affecting teachers’ innovative behavior. To sum up,
teachers need to interact with others and be supported and guided by these others
if they wish to innovate. “Others” can be broadly interpreted within this context:
colleagues, managers, administrators, students, technology staff, and researchers
all could be, and should be, involved in the innovation process.
Facilities and Resources

Within this category, we distinguish four subcategories applying a meta-ethno-
graphic approach: (a) learning facilities, (b) environmental characteristics, (c)
equipment and technology, and (d) resources in general. In the first subcategory,
learning facilities, Eteokleous (2008) found that training and teacher computer
literacy related positively to the implementation of ICT. More specifically, Yang
and Huang (2008) and Mueller et al. (2008) revealed that training consisting of
over 40 hours and participation in workshops positively influenced the implemen-
tation of ICT in the classroom. Additionally, Bourgonjon et al. (2013) revealed
teachers needed to have an opportunity to learn to implement ICT before actually
doing so. Similarly, Donnelly et al. (2011) showed professional development rein-
forced the implementation of ICT. Thus, these findings all suggest that if innova-
tions were aimed at implementing ICT in the classroom, teachers needed to be
trained, and this training should include sufficient workshops and hours. However,
it remains unclear how many workshops and hours are truly needed. Furthermore,
Kimonen and Nevalainen (2005) showed that active participation in training pro-
grams positively affected teachers’ in implementing active learning in classrooms.
The final study indicated that a self-assessment tool can support teachers in select-
ing improvement goals that provide a direction for their learning processes (Ross
& Bruce, 2007).
With respect to environmental characteristics, Tomic and Brouwers (1999)
suggested that a relaxing environment supported teachers in generating ideas.
Such a place provided an atmosphere where teachers stepped out of their busy
27
Thurlings et al.
daily tasks and pondered ideas. Renovating a school helped teachers to implement
an innovation (Kimonen & Nevalainen, 2005), because classrooms were literally
redesigned. In addition, Eisenman et al. (2005) revealed that schools needed sup-
port structures that help teachers. Such structures built on lesson plans that teach-
ers have implemented. Two other studies showed that constraints on professional
autonomy, which were partly caused by the nature of school teaching assignments
(Nakata, 2011) and restricted working conditions (Mohammad & Harlech-Jones,
2008), hindered teachers from innovating. A more general factor was school con-
text (Stylianidou et al., 2005). Teachers needed to know what was going on in the
school and how everyone involved thought about the ICT implementation pro-
cess, such that it positively influenced their own implementation. These findings
pointed to the tentative conclusion that the environment needs to facilitate teach-
ers’ innovative behavior.
The third subcategory was named equipment and technology. Mueller et al.
(2008) demonstrated that technical problems did not hinder teachers’ implementa-
tion of ICT. Yang and Huang (2008) and Eteokleous (2008) revealed the appropri-
ate ICT settings, such as computers, positively influenced the integration of ICT.
A study by Mohammad and Harlech-Jones (2008) indicated that teachers needed
the appropriate materials and space to implement their innovations. We termed
our fourth subcategory resources general. Eteokleous (2008) revealed that a gen-
eral lack of resources prevented teachers’ innovative behavior. Similarly,
Stylianidou et al. (2005) indicated that “resources” are needed, and Messmann
and Mulder (2011) suggested that teachers needed to activate those resources. In
general, teachers need the appropriate resources and facilities to demonstrate
innovative behavior. This is especially true in the case of ICT implementation.
School context, equipment, and technology should be facilitative as well.
Culture
Six studies provided insight into how culture influenced teachers’ innovative
behavior. Eteokleous (2008) demonstrated that school climate (not defined) could
prevent teachers from implementing ICT in their classrooms. Conversely, the
study showed changing the philosophy toward integrating ICT in the school posi-
tively affected innovative behavior. These findings suggest teachers must per-
ceive the appropriate culture and hold an appropriate philosophy to actually
implement ICT into their lessons. Likewise, both Yu et al. (2007) and Chang et al.
(2011) revealed school climate (which can be understood as a direct expression of
an organizational culture [Schein, 1985]) positively influenced innovative behav-
ior when this climate was characterized by supportive leadership, working condi-
tions, and appropriate resources. They both showed that hindrances and barriers
from within the organization prevented teachers from innovating.
The findings of Nakata (2011) and Mohammad and Harlech-Jones (2008) con-
curred with the findings of Yu et al. (2007) and Chang et al. (2011). The absence
of a learning culture and cultural constraints hindered teachers in demonstrating
innovative behaviors. To sum up, culture should be supportive of teachers’ inno-
vative behavior. It should provide support, resources, and other working condi-
tions such as communication and a learning climate and not hinder teachers by a
lack of these, because such a lack prevents teachers from innovating.
28
Task Factors
Six studies provided insight into how task factors were related to teachers’
innovative behavior. Binnewies and Gromer (2012) concluded that idea genera-
tion was positively influenced by job control and creative requirements: teachers
should feel they have control over their jobs, and at the same time, they need to be
challenged to be creative. Based on interview findings, Tomic and Brouwers
(1999) indicated working under pressure was not related to idea generation.
Conversely, they found a relaxing environment promoted idea generation (see
section, Environmental Characteristics). Runhaar (2008) focused on task interde-
pendency, meaning colleagues depended on one another to accomplish a certain
task. She found the effect of task interdependency on innovative behavior is mod-
erated by goal interdependency (i.e., people are dependent of each other to accom-
plish certain goals). However, this moderation effect disappeared when controlled
for self-efficacy and learning goal orientation.
Another mediating effect was revealed by Noefer et al. (2009). They explored
how time pressure affected innovative behavior and showed that time pressure
was positively related to innovative behavior. More specifically, although time
pressure did not have an effect on idea generation, it did have a positive effect on
idea implementation. In addition, the influence of time pressure on innovative
behavior was moderated by supervisor feedback (see also, the section on actors
and/or relations with other people). Bourgonjon et al. (2013) examined why
teachers implement ICT in their classroom and found that the usefulness of video
games (i.e., a specific way of implementing ICT) positively affected this process.
Kimonen and Nevalainen (2005) showed critical reflection and analysis of the
problems arising from the practices of action led teachers toward searching for
new solutions, and thus, new ideas for innovations. These factors are divergent,
making it difficult to formulate even a tentative conclusion.
Physical Characteristics of the Organization

Two studies focused on how physical characteristics of the organization
affected innovative behavior. Chang et al. (2011) explored whether school size
(the number of classes) and school location (remote, urban, and city) influenced
innovative behavior. School size and school location appeared to have no influ-
ence on innovative behavior. On the other hand, school size had an effect on
organizational leadership and support from colleagues. Teachers in larger schools
perceived leadership and support from colleagues to positively affect their inno-
vative behavior; teachers in smaller schools did not.
In Messmann and Mulder’s (2011) study, teachers perceived the organization
of classes, characteristics of students, and the school’s scope of action as triggers
for their innovative behavior. The way classes were organized—for instance, if
there was no time for apprentice training of their students—could motivate teach-
ers to innovate. If teachers perceived disorganized classes, they indicated they
would improvise to adapt their lessons, which was considered the operationaliza-
tion of innovative behavior. Characteristics of students, such as the needs and
problems of the students, had a similar effect. Both a large and a small scope of
action of the whole school encouraged teachers to innovative: they argued they
would adapt their teaching in both situations. Physical characteristics of the school
29
Thurlings et al.
seemed to have an effect on the climate, which expresses the school culture for
innovative behavior, but do not influence innovative behavior directly. Larger
schools in suburban and urban areas might have a more conducive culture for
innovative behavior, which in turn was shown to positively affect this behavior.
External Factors
Five studies provided insight into how external factors influenced teachers’
innovative behavior. Tyranny of the curriculum (Eteokleous, 2008) and examina-
tions (Mohammad & Harlech-Jones, 2008; Nakata, 2011) prevented teachers
from innovating. On the other hand, Donnelly et al. (2011) and Kimonen and
Nevalainen (2005) suggested that policies can help teachers innovate. Such poli-
cies should, however, point in the right direction (Kimonen & Nevalainen, 2005)
and might convince teachers to take the steps toward innovations. These findings
point to the tentative conclusion that external actors should take into account what
teachers want and should refrain from hindering them in their innovative
behavior.
We synthesized all of these findings in Figure 1. This preliminary model shows
how the factors influence innovative behavior. The model encompasses global
constructs only. For a more detailed description, we refer to the individual sec-
tions above. In the discussion section, we come back to this preliminary model in
more detail.
Effects of Innovative Behavior
Four articles, all of intermediate quality, included effects of innovative behav-
ior. One article, that is, Janssen (2003), focused on the effects of innovative
behavior on conflict with coworkers and satisfaction with coworker relations.
Moreover, Janssen (2003) focused on the role of job involvement in these rela-
tionships. Job involvement is defined as the degree to which a job is essential to
an individual’s self-concept (Frone & Major, 1988). Janssen (2003) also revealed
that innovative behavior in interaction with higher job involvement was positively
related to conflict with coworkers and negatively related to satisfaction with
coworker relations. Innovative behavior of teachers who were less job involved
was not significantly related to conflict with coworkers and satisfaction with
coworker relations. He concluded that teachers with an innovative approach may
have to pay a price for this behavior.
Second, using a case study approach, Pugh and Zhao (2003) examined the
consequences of teacher-initiated innovation supported by a grant program (i.e., a
state program in the United States that provided teachers with a grant of up to
$10,000 to implement a technology innovation). They found two negative effects:
(a) resources (material and human) acquired by teachers through the grant, made
visible by the technology innovation project, disrupted the egalitarian teacher cul-
ture and (b) teacher-initiated innovation supported by the grant led to the escala-
tion of existing conflicts. The second finding concurs with Janssen (2003).
Ross and Bruce (2007) conducted an explanatory case study of one eighth-
grade teacher, in which a colearning partnership played a role. The use of a self-
assessment tool, in combination with the influence of peers and change agents,
contributed to innovative behavior and to changes in the teacher’s instructional
30
Organizational factor Demographic factor
Actors and/or relations with other people Income
Interactions Upbringing
Support, guidance, and feedback Years of education
Collegiality Less than five years teaching
Interaction external actors experience
Facilities and resources Years of teaching experience
Learning facilities Function within the teacher job
Environmental characteristics
Equipment and technology
Resources general Individual factor
Culture Personality
Playfulness climate Openness
Innovation climate Curiosity
School climate Trait
Creating transparency Attitudes and beliefs
Learning culture Motivation
Institutional constrains Learning goal orientation
Changing philosophy of ICT integration Self-efficacy
Task factors Persistence
INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
Job control Other: humor, job satisfaction, etc.

Time pressure Competence
Task interdependency Developing specific competences (self, skills,
Requiring creativity computer use, etc.)
Critical reflection Recognizing and evaluating opportunities
Physical characteristics of the organization Problem-solving
Organization of classes Content knowledge of teaching
Characteristics of students

School’s scope of action
External factors
Rules, regulations, policy
Figure 1. Preliminary conceptual model: Overview of the relationship between demographic, individual, and organizational factors and
31
Note. Italicized terms indicate relationships identified only in qualitative studies.
Thurlings et al.
practice. This teacher identified evidence of the effects of his change on students,
including outcomes indicating that “individual student results in problem solving
increased from the previous unit, students were faster getting on task [times were
recorded]” and “student write-ups [written responses to problem] were more elab-
orate” (Ross & Bruce, 2007, p. 152). In another study, Eisenman et al. (2005)
investigated the processes in a teacher inquiry group, in which teachers shared
ideas, implemented activities, and promoted their ideas. Effects were found on a
shifting relationship with students. They explained this shifting relationship by
suggesting that students previously seen as passive were observed to be active,
thoughtful members of the team.
In summary, two articles found negative effects of innovative behavior. Both arti-
cles indicated conflict with coworkers as a potential negative effect of innovative
behavior (Janssen, 2003; Pugh & Zhao, 2003). Colleagues can greatly constrain inno-
vative behavior by not supporting the innovation, for example, when an egalitarian
teacher culture exists. However, positive consequences of innovative behavior on stu-
dents were found in two other studies (Eisenman et al., 2005; Ross & Bruce, 2007).
Discussion
In this article, we explored which factors influence teacher innovative behavior
and what effects can be achieved by this behavior. A systematic literature review
(Petticrew & Roberts, 2006) was conducted and yielded 37 publications that met
our criteria for inclusion. These publications were analyzed in order to develop
the definition that was used in our article. We found a variety of definitions of
innovative behavior, some clearer than others. We recommend that future studies
use clear and more precise definitions. Essentially, innovative behavior is defined
in this article as a self-initiated, three-stage process: (a) intentional idea genera-
tion, (b) idea promotion, and (c) idea realization (Janssen, 2003). All 37 studies
had an implicit or explicit link with parts of this definition. A more specific form
of innovative behavior is the integration or implementation of ICT in teachers’
classroom practices. The extensive literature search yielded several articles that
explored ICT integration. These were included on the condition that the authors
made the link to at least one of the stages of innovative behavior.
Subsequently, we analyzed the factors and effects using a meta-ethnographic
approach. Factors are listed in Tables 2, 3, and 4. In the Results section, a prelimi-
nary conceptual model (Figure 1) was briefly introduced. This preliminary con-
ceptual model summarizes visually the findings of this contemporary research
field. The model shows individual factors are more closely related to innovative
behavior than environmental factors. This resonates with Fishbein and Ajzen’s
(2010) theory of planned behavior that describes how behavior is influenced. The
authors made a distinction between proximal and distal factors. Proximal factors,
such as traits and motivation, are more closely related to behavior. Distal factors,
such as environmental and organizational factors, act from a longer distance to
behavior and are mediated by proximal variables.
Key Variables Related to Innovative Teacher Behavior
In reviewing the findings, several key factors that fell into two main categories
were distinguished: (a) within the individual (self-efficacy and attitudes and
32
beliefs) and (b) support from the environment (colleagues, managers, organiza-
tional culture, and facilities and resources). One of the key factors within the
individual is self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), which was shown to have a positive
influence on innovative behavior. This finding aligns with Bandura’s notions, as
well as with many studies showing that self-efficacy is an excellent predictor of
different kinds of human behavior (see, e.g., van Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2009).
Curiosity, attitudes, and beliefs positively influence teacher innovative behavior
as well. Such beliefs are also generally considered to influence other types of
behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Key factors within the environment are the
role of other actors and facilities and resources. These findings point to the con-
clusion that in order to innovate, teachers need support, guidance, and feedback
from others and need to share and talk with these others. Colleagues seem to be
the greatest influence; however, managers, school leaders, students, and external
agents also need to provide support by sharing and talking with teachers.
These findings support Granovetter’s (1973) theory of the strength of weak
ties. He argued that weak ties between actors were related to innovation, new
ideas, and innovative behavior, and strong ties were related to the status quo. This
claim suggests that although relationships with others are important for knowl-
edge sharing and generating new ideas, strong community ties or strong social
relations hinder innovative behavior. Recently, Baer (2010) linked this concept to
creativity and confirmed some aspects of Granovetter’s theory. Baer’s (2010)
research demonstrated that weaker ties were related to more creativity. However,
the relationship was not a linear one, and his research also suggested an optimum
number of weak ties in combination with individual characteristics, such as
openness.
In addition to support from other people, the appropriate facilities and resources
should be put in place. These findings resonate with results reported by
Kontoghiorghes et al.’s (2005) study, who examined the relationship between
organizational climate and innovation in profit organizations; Reilly, Lilly,
Bramwell, and Kronish (2011), who reviewed research on creativity in Canadian
schools; and Andiliou and Murphy (2010), who explored beliefs about teacher
creativity. Furthermore, we found that culture also influenced innovative behavior
(see also Andiliou & Murphy, 2010). A climate that fosters innovative behavior
holds a promising incentive for teachers to innovative. Similar findings were also
reported by Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, and Zhao (2011), who conducted a
meta-analysis on innovative behavior in different kinds of professions. They con-
cluded that their results (a) “support the notion that individuals need some driving
force to help them overcome challenges associated with creative and innovative
work,” (b) “highlight the importance of contextual and leadership influences in
the creativity process,” and “suggest that jobs may be redesigned to facilitate
creativity and innovation at work by increasing complexity and autonomy, as well
as by clearly requiring (and encouraging) creativity and innovation on the job”
(Hammond et al., 2011, pp. 99, 101).
These key factors—facilities and support from others—also emerge when the
innovative behavior concerns the use of new technology, as we found in the 12
articles with ICT integration behavior in the classroom as a specific type of inno-
vative behavior. These articles show that facilities need to be in place, such as
33
Thurlings et al.
training and support from technologists, and also that teachers should be familiar
with working on computers, should develop technological pedagogical content
knowledge, should be motivated, and should have self-efficacy. Finally, teachers
need to be supported by colleagues and school leaders. These findings also point
to the need for a more general theoretical model that explains the innovative
behavior of teachers.
Such a general model emerged from organizational psychology, namely, the
ability, motivation, and opportunity model (AMO; see, e.g., Appelbaum, Bailey,
Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000) emerged from organizational psychology. The AMO
model is quite similar to the key findings from our review and is used to explain
employee behavior. AMO is visualized as a triangle. Ability comprises the skills
and competences of employees (see the individual factors in Figure 1). Motivation
consists of attitudes and beliefs (see again the individual factors in Figure 1), and
opportunity refers to the complex combination of different environmental factors
that support or hinder behavior (see the organizational factors in Figure 1). The
AMO model suggests that if the three factors interact well together, employee
performance will improve. In other words, employees who are in the right circum-
stances are willing to exert additional effort (i.e., be more creative, helpful, paying
extra attention) for the organization (Appelbaum et al., 2000).
The studies included in this review mostly focused on limited aspects of the
process, and none has attempted to examine the whole process, including the
interaction among the different kinds of variables. Moreover, factors were mostly
studied separately and were, in most cases, not connected to one another by means
of statistical analysis. As a consequence, the relative weight of each study could
not be determined in the whole picture. No attempt thus far has been made to
conduct a study on a generalizable group of teachers taking into account a variety
of demographic, individual, and organizational factors in order to establish the
direct and indirect relationships in the different stages of innovative behavior
based on theories such as Fishbein and Ajzen’s (2010), Appelbaum et al.’s (2000),
and Granovetter’s (1973). Therefore, the findings from this review, despite the
consensus on the definition of innovative behavior, are hard to integrate.
Effects of Innovative Behavior
We conclude this section by discussing the findings of the effects of innovative
behavior. Four studies focused on the effects of innovative behavior, and two of
these revealed a negative effect of innovative behavior: they can lead to tensions
in relationships between colleagues. Although support of teachers positively
influences innovative behavior, this behavior in itself could also put collegial rela-
tionships under pressure. The question remains whether tensions always nega-
tively affect innovative behavior. This question can be addressed in part through
Granovetter’s (1973) theory of strong and weak ties, since ties are necessary for
innovative behavior (receiving new input and new ideas), but at the same time,
those ties should not be too strong, as weak ties are more related to innovation and
strong ties to the status quo (Baer, 2010). The influence of innovative behavior on
the ties between colleagues can lead to tensions, which can reduce the intensity
and, perhaps, the number of interactions. This reduction could free the way for
more innovative behavior.
34
As stated in the introduction section, assumptions about the effects of innova-
tive behavior are formulated in terms of more competitiveness and their impor-
tance for the development of a knowledge society. However, only a few significant
positive effects were found in our review. More specifically, two studies found
positive results of innovative behavior on the students. Therefore, we recommend
further investigations of this outcome of innovative behavior, based on theories
about employee or teacher innovative behavior.
Future Research
There are several avenues for future research. First, the conceptual model
shows that scarcely any study thus far has explored the relationship between
factors or the indirect and mediating relationships of innovative behavior. To do
this, it is important to develop a sound and precise measurement instrument for
innovative behavior to fully grasp its complex and nuanced nature, as one teach-
er’s innovation may be another teacher’s daily practice. An example of the lim-
ited exploration of relations between factors is that, although much research was
done on interaction with and support feedback from others, none of the research
applied theory or searched for more insight on interaction between the individu-
als’ characteristics and their environmental support in relation to innovative
behavior. Consequently, we recommend researchers broaden their studies and
explore relationships between factors, as well as mediating effects and indirect
relations.
In addition, school contexts and differences between school systems should be
taken into account. Are there differences, for instance, between primary education
and vocational education with regard to teachers’ innovative behavior? If so, is
this difference because of the different environments or differences in education
and training? Furthermore, the research design could be linked to theories from
other disciplines (e.g., Appelbaum, et al., 2000; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010;
Granovetter, 1973). Examples of a more theory-driven research question could
be, “What is the effect on innovative behavior on the strength of the ties within a
professional learning community of teachers” (Granovetter, 1973) or, using the
theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), “What are the interaction
effects between the proximal and the distal variables on the intention to perform
innovative behavior?”
Second, more longitudinal and advanced quantitative research is necessary to
test the relationships described in the conceptual model (see Figure 1). All quan-
titative studies included in the review were cross-sectional. As a consequence, no
real evidence about causality is provided. Longitudinal research is necessary to
address issues of causality. Research using multiwave designs can provide more
specific insights into the stability of the variables and about relationships over
time, compared to a cross-sectional approach (de Lange et al., 2006). It would
also be valuable to use more advanced quantitative research techniques, such as
structural equation modeling or other path analysis approaches.
Third, an interesting avenue for research would be to explore the effects of
innovative behavior on teachers and schools. The research question, “What are
the effects of innovative behavior on organizations and their employees,” is still
35
Thurlings et al.
unanswered. Even though a small number of studies did made an effort to mea-
sure some of these effects, a more systematic approach is needed. Claims made in
the reviewed studies about the avenues and necessities of innovative behavior in
the educational field are not yet empirically verified. Fourth, future research could
focus on actors that can have both a supporting and hindering role and on the
conditions under which they are supportive or hindering. For instance, collegial
support influences learning behavior (Evers, 2012) and learning behavior is, in
some ways, related to innovative behavior. Finally, there is an urgent need for
more research and more systematic descriptions of research. In some of the stud-
ies, there was no distinction between the different professions in the sample, nor
were insights provided on the selection procedure of the research population. The
same can be concluded for the transparency of the methods, data-analyses, and the
items used in the questionnaires. Transparency is needed to allow for meaningful
comparisons among studies.
Implications for Practice
Our review has several implications for the promotion of innovative behavior
of teachers. First, teacher innovative behavior is not enhanced by only one factor.
As with other human behavior, innovative behavior is affected by multiple vari-
ables. Practitioners should therefore combine different techniques to enhance
innovative behavior. These techniques should focus on a combination of organi-
zational and individual factors. Organizational factors, such as culture, organiza-
tional climate, leadership, communication among all stakeholders, and organizing
feedback within the organization can create an environment that fosters innova-
tive behavior. The individual factors found in this review, such as self-efficacy,
motivation, variety of skills, job satisfaction, and perception of a problem are
factors that affect innovative behavior, as well as all kinds of human behaviors.
Curiosity is perhaps one individual factor that is more specific for innovative
behavior than for human behavior in general.
Another implication for practice focuses on teachers themselves. This review
shows that teachers need support and guidance from their colleagues to succeed
in innovating. At the same time, conflicts can emerge or further develop when
teachers are involved in innovation. Thus, it is important for those teachers who
are innovating to respect their colleagues, and for teachers whose colleagues are
innovating to respect their innovating colleagues for having the courage to change
their lessons and behaviors. All teachers should acknowledge they need each
other and ask for each other’s support, and acknowledge that conflicts can some-
times be beneficial to innovative behavior.
Third, educational organizations that want to increase innovative behavior can
select or create human resource management instruments intended to identify
teachers with the personal qualities that lead to more innovative behavior. Giving
each other feedback, developing a learning climate, and facilitating autonomy and
task interdependency promote innovative behavior. Finally, the development of a
leadership style (e.g., transformational leadership) that supports instead of con-
trols the behavior of teachers can promote teacher innovative behavior that is
suitable in the knowledge society as we know it today.
36
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M.
Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 187–209).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Andiliou, A., & Murphy, P. K. (2010). Examining variations among researchers’ and
teachers’ conceptualizations of creativity: A review and synthesis of contemporary
research. Educational Research Review, 5, 201–219. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2010.07.003
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing advantage:
Why high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: A comprehensive
examination and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 592–601.
doi:10.1037/a0018761
*Binnewies, C., & Gromer, M. (2012). Creativity and innovation at work: The role of
work characteristics and personal initiative. Psicothema, 24, 100–105. Retrieved
from http://www.psicothema.com/PDF/3985.pdf
*Borasi, R., & Finnigan, K. (2010). Entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors that can
help prepare successful change-agents in education. New Educator, 6, 1–29. doi:
10.1080/1547688X.2010.10399586
*Bourgonjon, J., de Grove, F., de Smet, C., van Looy, J., Soetaert, R., & Valcke, M.
(2013). Acceptance of game-based learning by secondary school teachers. Computers
& Education, 67, 21–35. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.010
Brandsford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learning
and their role in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing
teachers for a changing world (pp. 40–87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
*Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self-leadership skills and innovative
behavior at work. International Journal of Manpower, 27, 75–90.
doi:10.1108/01437720610652853
*Chang, C. P., Chuang, H. W., & Bennington, L. (2011). Organizational climate for
innovation and creative teaching in urban and rural schools. Quality and Quantity:
International Journal of Methodology, 45, 935–951. doi:10.1007/s11135-010-9405-x
de Jong, J. P. J., & den Hartog, D. N. (2005). Determinanten van innovatief gedrag:
Een onderzoek onder kenniswerkers in het MKB [Determinants of innovative behav-
ior: Research on knowledge workers in SME]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 18, 235–259.
de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Jansen, P. G. W., Smulders, P., Houtmans, I. L. D., &
Kompier, M. A. J. (2006). Age as a factor in the relation between work and mental
health: Results from the longitudinal TAS survey. In J. Houdmont & S. McIntyre
(Eds.), Occupational health psychology: European perspectives on research, educa-
tion and practice (pp. 21–45). Nottingham, England: Nottingham University Press.
Dodd, N. G., & Ganster, D. C. (1996). The interactive effects of variety, autonomy and
feedback on attitudes and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17,
329–347. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199607)17:4<329::AID-JOB754>3.0.
CO;2-B
37
Thurlings et al.
*Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integra-
tion of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57, 1469–1483.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.014
*Eisenman, L., Chamberlin, M., & McGahee-Kovac, M. (2005). A teacher inquiry
group on student-led IEPs: Starting small to make a difference. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 28, 195–206. doi:10.1177/088840640502800406
*Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluating computer technology integration in a centralized
school system. Computers & Education, 51, 669–686. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2007.07.004
Evers, A. T. (2012). Teachers professional development at work and occupational out-
comes. An organizational and task perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Netherlands.
Evers, A. T., Kreijns, C., van der Heijden, B. J. J. M., & Gerrichhauzen, J. T. G. (2011).
An organizational and task perspective model aimed at enhancing teachers’ profes-
sional development and occupational expertise. Human Resource Development
Review, 10, 151–179. doi:10.1177/1534484310397852
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behaviour: The reasoned
action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Frone, M. R., & Major, B. (1988). Communication quality and job satisfaction among
managerial nurses: The moderating influence of job involvement. Group and
Organization Management, 13, 332–347. doi:10.1177/105960118801300306
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78, 1360–1380. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors
of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 90–105. doi:10.1037/a0018556
Hertzog, N. B. (2007). Transporting pedagogy: Implementing the project approach in
two first-grade classrooms. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 530–564.
doi:10.4219/jaa-2007-559
*Horng, J., Hong, J., Chanlin, L., Chang, S., & Chu, H. (2005). Creative teachers and
creative teaching strategies. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29, 352–
358. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00445.x
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships
between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 1039–1050. doi:10.2307/3069447
*Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict
and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 76, 347–364. doi:10.1348/096317903769647210
Janssen, O. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less
stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 201–215. doi:10.1002/job.238
Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social
conditions for innovation in organisations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behaviour (pp. 169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
*Kimonen, E., & Nevalainen, R. (2005). Active learning in the process of educational
change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 623–635. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2005.05.003
38
*Kleysen, R. F., & Street, C. T. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of indi-
vidual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 284–296. doi:10.1108/
EUM0000000005660
Konermann, J. (2012). Teachers’ work engagement: A deeper understanding of the role
of job and personal resources in relationship to work engagement, its antecedents,
and its outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiteit Twente, Enschede,
Netherlands.
Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005). Examining the relationship
between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation,
and organizational performance. Human Research Development Quarterly, 16,
185–211. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1133
*Lilly, F., & Bramwell-Rejskind, G. F. (2004). The dynamics of creative teaching.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 102–124. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.
tb01235.x
*Loogma, K., Kruusvall, J., & Ümarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring
innovativeness of the VET teachers’ community in Estonia. Computers & Education,
58, 808–817. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.005
*McDougall, J. (2010). A crisis of professional identity: How primary teachers are
coming to terms with changing views of literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26, 679–687. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.003
*Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2011). Innovative work behaviour in vocational
colleges: Understanding how and why innovations are developed. Vocations and
Learning, 4, 63–84. doi:10.1007/s12186-010-9049-y
*Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument
for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human
Resource Development International, 15, 43–59. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.
646894
Messmann, G., Mulder, R. H., & Gruber, H. (2010). Relations between vocational
teachers’ characteristics of professionalism and their innovative work behavior.
Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 2, 21–40.
*Mohammad, R. F., & Harlech-Jones, B. (2008). Working as partners for classroom
reform. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 534–545.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.01.006
*Morais, M. F., & Azevedo, I. (2011). What is a creative teacher and what is a creative
pupil? Perceptions of teachers. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 330–
339. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.042
*Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying dis-
criminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers
with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51, 1523–1537. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2008.02.003
*Mushayikwa, E., & Lubben, F. (2009). Self-directed professional development: Hope
for teachers working in deprived environments? Teaching and Teacher Education,
25, 375–382. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.003
*Nakata, Y. (2011). Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study of
Japanese EFL high school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 900–910.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.001
*Noefer, K., Stegmaier, R., Molter, B., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Great many things to do
and not a minute to spare: Can feedback from supervisors moderate the relationship
39
Thurlings et al.
between skill variety, time pressure, and employees’ innovative behavior? Creativity
Research Journal, 21, 384–393. doi:10.1080/10400410903297964
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
*Opfer, V. D., Pedder, D. G., & Lavicza, Z. (2011). The role of teachers’ orientation to
learning in professional development and change: A national study of teachers in
England. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 443–453. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2010.09.014
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Teachers matter:
Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Paris, France: Author.
*Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010).
Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and
student needs. Computers & Education, 55, 1321–1335. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.06.002
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A prac-
tical guide. Malden, England: Blackwell.
*Pugh, K. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Stories of teacher alienation: A look at the unintended
consequences of efforts to empower teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19,
187–201. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00103-8
Reilly, R. C., Lilly, F., Bramwell, G., & Kronish, N. (2011). A synthesis of research
concerning creative teachers in a Canadian context. Teaching and Teacher Education,
27, 533–542. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.10.007
*Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facili-
tating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 146–159.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.035
*Runhaar, P. (2008). Promoting teachers’ professional development (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). Universiteit Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
*Schussler, D. L., Poole, I. R., Whitlock, T. W., & Evertson, C. M. (2007). Layers and
links: Learning to juggle “one more thing” in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 572–585. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.016
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model
of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
580–607. doi:10.2307/256701
*Sellars, M. (2012). Teachers and change: The role of reflective practice. Procedia:
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 461–469. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.525
*So, K. (2013). Knowledge construction among teachers within a community based on
inquiry as stance. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 188–196. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2012.10.005
Studulski, F., & van der Vegt, A. L. (2007). De innoverende leraar [The innovating
teacher]. MESO Magazine, 27(157), 11–14.
*Stylianidou, F., Boohan, R., & Ogborn, J. (2005). Science teachers’ transformations
of the use of computer modeling in the classroom: Using research to inform training.
Science Education, 89, 56–70. doi:10.1002/sce.20043
Tennekes, J. (1995). Organisatiecultuur: Een antropologische visie [Organizational
culture: An anthropological vision]. Apeldoorn, Netherlands: Garant.
40
*Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (1999). Where do teachers get their ideas from? Creativity
and Innovation Management, 8, 262–268. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00145
*Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link
between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in
the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2541–2553. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2008.02.020
van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science, 32, 590–607. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
van der Heijde, C. M., & van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006). A competence-based and
multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human
Resource Management, 45, 449–476. doi:10.1002/hrm.20119
van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (1998). The measurement and development of occupational
expertise throughout the career. A retrospective study among higher level Dutch
professionals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede,
Netherlands.
van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. S. R. (2009). Factors affecting students’ self-
efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6, 95–108. doi:10.1016/j.
edurev.2010.10.003
*Voogt, J. (1990). Courseware evaluation by teachers: An implementation perspective.
Computers & Education, 14, 299–307. doi:10.1016/0360-1315(90)90041-5
Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307–334. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.
tb01003.x
West, M. A. (1989). Innovation among health care professionals. Social Behavior, 4,
173–184.
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.),
Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 1–13). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organiza-
tional creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321. doi:10.5465/
AMR.1993.3997517
*Yang, S. C., & Huang, Y.-F. (2008). A study of high school English teachers’ behavior,
concerns and beliefs in integrating information technology into English instruction.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1085–1103. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.03.009
*Yu, P., Wu, J. J., Chen, I.-H., & Lin, Y.-T. (2007). Is playfulness a benefit to work?
Empirical evidence of professionals in Taiwan. International Journal of Technology
Management, 39, 412–429. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2007.013503
Authors
MARIEKE THURLINGS is a postdoctoral researcher at the Eindhoven School of
Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, 5612 AZ Eindhoven,
Netherlands; e-mail: M.C.G.Thurlings@tue.nl. She is a former PhD student at the
Welten Institute of the Open University of the Netherlands. Her main research interests
are teacher professional development, feedback and coaching, and how learning can be
enhanced. She has published articles in the Journal of Education for Teaching and
Educational Research Review, among others.
ARNOUD T. EVERS is assistant professor at the Welten Institute of the Open University,
Valkenburgerweg 177, Heerlen 6401 DL, Netherlands; e-mail: Arnoud.Evers@ou.nl.
He is currently research program leader of Teachers’ Professional Space and project
41
Thurlings et al.
leader of several research projects. His main research areas are human resource develop-
ment, in particular learning at work; human resource management; the organization and
the professional development of employees, in particular teachers; organizational
behavior; and the economics of education. He has published articles in Human Resource
Development Review and the European Journal of Industrial Training, among others.
MARJAN VERMEULEN is an associate professor at the Welten Institute of the Open
University, Heerlen, Netherlands; e-mail: Marjan.Vermeulen@ou.nl. She is also
employed as a knowledge manager and researcher at the KPC Group, which is an edu-
cational consultancy organization. Her expertise lies in supporting educational practice
as well as educational research in the field of professional development of teachers, the
teacher as a professional, the school as the teachers’ work environment, school leader-
ship, educational development, and innovation.
42

Towards A Model of Explaining Teachers Innovative Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards A Model of Explaining Teachers Innovative Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Educational

Toward a Model of Explaining Teachers' Innovative Behavior: A Literature

The online version of this article can be found at:

American Educational Research Association

Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 21, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 12, 2014

Review of Educational Research

Toward a Model of Explaining Teachers’

Innovative behavior can be described as a process in which new ideas are

Keywords: teachers, innovative behavior, education, systematic literature

In knowledge-based societies where competition is intense, innovation is

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on December 2, 2014

Quantitative/ Quality of the

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on December 2, 2014

Quantitative/ Quality of the

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on December 2, 2014

Quantitative/ Quality of the

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on December 2, 2014

Quantitative/ Quality of the

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 8 teachers United States of Interviews Qualitative Intermediate

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on December 2, 2014

Quantitative/ Quality of the

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on December 2, 2014

a multiple-stage process in which an individual recognizes a problem for which she

Messmann and Mulder (2011) described innovative teacher behavior as perform-

Demographic factor Effect Measure Study

Note. n.s. = not significant; c = correlation; i = interviews; p = path models; r = regression; v =

Individual factor Effect Measure Study

Individual factor Effect Measure Study

Individual factor Effect Measure Study

Note. n.s. = not significant; c = correlation; i = interviews; o = observations; p = path models; r =

Actors and/or Relations With Other People

Organizational factor Effect Measure Study

Organizational factor Effect Measure Study

Organizational factor Effect Measure Study

Organizational factor Effect Measure Study

Note. n.s. = not significant; c = correlation; d = descriptive; i = interviews; o = observations; p = path

Facilities and Resources

Physical Characteristics of the Organization

Job control Other: humor, job satisfaction, etc.

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on December 2, 2014

You might also like