Explanatory variables of educational innovationA model based on personality traits

  1. Monge López, Carlos 1
  2. Montalvo Saborido, David 2
  3. Torrego Seijo, Juan Carlos 2
  4. Fernández Batanero, José María 3
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

  2. 2 Universidad de Alcalá

    Universidad de Alcalá

    Alcalá de Henares, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04pmn0e78

  3. 3 Universidad de Sevilla

    Universidad de Sevilla

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03yxnpp24

Electronic journal of research in educational psychology

ISSN: 1696-2095

Year of publication: 2023

Issue Title: 1 de septiembre de 2023

Volume: 21

Issue: 60

Pages: 349-372

Type: Article

DOI: 10.25115/EJREP.V21I60.5538 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Electronic journal of research in educational psychology


Introduction. Innovation is a relevant concept in the field of education inasmuch as it refers to planned processes aimed at improving school organization, teachers’ professional development, student learning, and more. However, it is an element that is influenced by a wide variety of variables. Teachers’ personality traits are those elements that are capable of describing, explaining, and predicting their behaviour. Method. The objective of this study is to offer a statistical model that explains teaching innovation factors based on teachers’ personality factors. A survey was carried out with 1,040 Spanish teachers in basic education. They were given the Teaching Innovation Factors Questionnaire and the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire. Results. The multiple linear regression analysis resulted in significant models to predict Institutional Participation (R2 = .16), Psychopedagogical Openness (R2 = .18), and Didactic Planning (R2 = .11). The first of these factors can be predicted based on the following personality traits: self-reliance, liveliness, openness to change, affability, social boldness, and perfectionism. The regression model for the second factor consists of openness to change, affability, dominance, liveliness, self-reliance, and stability. The third factor can be predicted based on openness to change, sensitivity, perfectionism, rule-consciousness, dominance, social daring, liveliness, and vigilance. Discussion and Conclusion. In conclusion, some personality factors are part of models that can predict teaching innovation, especially the opening.

Bibliographic References

  • Avakyan, I.B. (2018). To the question of the relationship of teachers’ commitment to innova-tions and socio-psychological climate in universities. Education and Science, 20(4), 114-131. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-4-114-131
  • Avsec, S., & Savec, V.F. (2021). Predictive modelling of pre-service Science and Technology teachers’ innovative behaviour. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(2), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.171
  • Barraza, A. (2005). Una conceptualización comprehensiva de la innovación educativa. Inno-vación Educativa, 5(28), 19-32.
  • Cakir, R. (2021). Investigating the relationship between innovation competencies of school prin-cipals and innovation level of schools. Educational Research and Reviews, 16(4), 136-150. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2021.4130
  • Campbell, K., & Lawson, H.A. (2018). Teachers’ agency, efficacy, engagement, and emotional resilience during policy innovation implementation. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 181-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9313-0
  • Carbonell, J. (2001). La aventura de innovar. El cambio en la escuela. Morata.
  • Chand, V.S., Kuril, S., Deshmukh, K.S., & Avadhanam, R.M. (2020). Assessing teacher innova-tions: Expert versus peer ratings. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(2), 467-482. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2020-0185
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
  • Ee, J., Seng, T.O., & Kwang, N.A. (2007). Styles of creativity: Adaptors and innovators in a Singapore context. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 8(3), 364-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026466
  • Ellis, V., Souto-Manning, M., & Turvey, K. (2019). Innovation in teacher education: Towards a critical re-examination. Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2019.1550602
  • Emo, W. (2015). Teachers’ motivations for initiating innovations. Journal of Educational Change, 16(2), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9243-7
  • Fix, G.M., Rikkerink, M., Ritzen, H.T.M., Pieters, J.M., & Kuiper, W.A.J.M. (2021). Learning within sustainable educational innovation: An analysis of teachers’ perceptions and lead-ership practice. Journal of Educational Change, 22, 131-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09410-2
  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Routledge.
  • Herrán, A. (2009). Técnicas de enseñanza basadas en la exposición y la participación. In J. Pa-redes & A. Herrán (Coords.), La práctica de la innovación educativa (pp. 251-278). Sín-tesis.
  • Huberman, A.M. (1973). Cómo se realizan los cambios en educación: una contribución al estu-dio de la innovación. UNESCO.
  • Incik, E.Y. (2020). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ individual innovativeness characteris-tics and learning styles according to various variables. International Journal of Progres-sive Education, 16(1), 152-167. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.12
  • Ismail, A., Belli, R., Sohn, W., & Toussaint, L. (2002). Internal consistency and reliability of a questionnaire assessing organizational innovation in two schools of Dentistry. Journal of Dental Education, 66(4), 469-477.
  • Jaskyte, K., Taylor, H., & Smariga, R. (2009). Student and faculty perceptions of innovative teaching. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 111-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633673
  • Jurgena, I., Cedere, D., & Kevisa, I. (2015). Innovative and traditional elements in the work of academic staff: The views of pre-service teachers. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 17(2), 74-90. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2015-0012
  • Kelley, K., & Holden, J. (2013). Multiple regression. In T. Teo (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research (pp. 71-102). Sense.
  • Kong, Y., & Li, M. (2018). Proactive personality and innovative behavior: The mediating roles of job-related affect and work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(3), 431-446. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6618
  • Lambriex-Schmitz, P., Klink, M.R., Beausaert, S., Bijker, M., & Segers, M. (2020). Towards successful innovations in education: Development and validation of a multi-dimensional Innovative Work Behaviour Instrument. Vocations and Learning, 13, 313-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09242-4
  • Lee, E.S., Park, M.J., & Chae, J.H. (2012). Home economics teachers’ concern on creativity and personality education in home economics classes: Based on the concerns based adoption model. Journal of Korean Home Economics Education Association, 24(2), 117-134.
  • Lin, I.M. (2002). Innovative teaching-starting from the professional ethics of teachers. Second-ary Education, 4, 36-49.
  • Loogma, K., Kruusvall, J., & Umarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring innova-tiveness of the VET teachers’ community in Estonia. Computers & Education, 58(2), 808-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.005
  • Marcelo, C., Aramendi, P., Arencibia, S., Armengol, C., Ayala, C., Cotillas, C., ..., & Torrego, J.C. (2011). Estudio de campo sobre la innovación educativa en los centros escolares. In Ministery of Education, Culture and Sport of Spain, Estudio sobre la innovación educa-tiva en España (pp. 735-957). MECD.
  • Mathews, G., & Djawoto, O. (in press). Innovative assessment methods as a pathway to public engagement: A case study of Literature & Medicine. Pedagogies: An International Jour-nal. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2020.1860061
  • Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (2019). Datos y cifras escolares (2019-2020). MECD.
  • Monge, C. (2018). Factores de personalidad e innovación docente durante un proceso de ase-soramiento colaborativo. University of Alcalá.
  • Monge, C., Alcoforado, F.L.M., Montalvo, D. y Torrego, J.C. (2022). Fatores de inovação do-cente em Portugal segundo os professores. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 27, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-24782022270015
  • Monge, C., & Gómez, P. (2022). Factores de personalidad e innovación docente en España: aproximación desde distintos enfoques. Revista Complutense de Educación, 33(1), 153-165. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.73875
  • Monge, C., Montalvo, D., & Gómez, P. (2015). Los conocimientos sobre rasgos de personalidad del profesorado como facilitadores de la innovación educativa: estado del arte. Fuentes. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, 16, 173-198.
  • Monge, C., Montalvo, D., & Torrego, J.C. (2016). Los rasgos de personalidad del profesorado innovador: un estudio piloto. In T. Ramiro-Sánchez, M.T. Ramiro & M.P. Bermúdez (Coords.), IV Congreso Internacional de Ciencias de la Educación y del Desarrollo (p. 139). University of Granada.
  • Monge, C., Torrego, J.C., & Montalvo, D. (2018). Asesoramiento colaborativo y rasgos del pro-fesorado: una propuesta metodológica. In C. Monge & P. Gómez (Eds.), Innovando la docencia desde la formación del profesorado (pp. 319-339). Editorial Síntesis.
  • Moore, M., Schermer, J., Paunonen, S., & Vernon, P. (2010). Genetic and environmental influ-ences on verbal and nonverbal measures of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 48, 884-888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.015
  • Nemerzitski, S., Loogma, K., Heinla, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2013). Constructing model of teachers’ innovative behavior in school environment. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(4), 398-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.770230
  • Othman, N. (2016). Exploring the innovative personality characteristics among teachers. Inter-national Education Studies, 9(4), 1-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n4p1
  • Park, Y.S., Jung, H.E., & Hwang, E.H. (2018). A study of innovation tasks of teacher training curriculum according to educational environment. Journal of Korean Teacher Educa-tion, 35(1), 165-188.
  • Parlar, H., & Cansoy, R. (2017). Examining the relationship between teachers’ individual inno-vativeness and professionalism. International Education Studies, 10(8), 1-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n8p1
  • Pérez, R. (2009). Análisis de las instituciones educativas y técnicas para la transformación con-tinua. Estudio de casos de escuelas y prácticas innovadoras. In A. Medina (Coord.), In-novación de la educación y de la docencia (pp. 81- 120). National University of Dis-tance Education.
  • Renes, P., Echeverry, L.M., Chiang, M.T., Rangel, L., & Geijo, P.M. (2013). Estilos de enseñan-za: un paso adelante en su conceptualización y diagnóstico. Revista de Estilos de Apren-dizaje, 11(1), 4-18.
  • Ríos, D. (2004). Rasgos de personalidad de profesores innovadores: autonomía, persistencia y orden. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 34(2), 95-112.
  • Ríos, D. (2006). Tipos psicológicos de profesores primarios innovadores: extroversión, sensa-ción, pensamiento y juicio. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 36(3), 103-128.
  • Ríos, D. (2009). Características personales y profesionales de profesores innovadores. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, 39(2), 153-169.
  • Rivas, M. (2000). Innovación educativa. Teoría, procesos y estrategias. Síntesis.
  • Ruiz, J.A. (2006). Psicología de la personalidad para psicopedagogos (3rd ed.). Sanz y Torres.
  • Rushton, S., Morgan, J., & Richard, M. (2007). Teachers’ Myers-Briggs personality profiles: Identifying effective teacher personality traits. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 432-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.011
  • Russell, M.T., & Karol, D.L. (2005). 16PF-5. Manual (8th ed.). TEA.
  • Shin, S.B., & Myong-Sook, H. (2017). Developing strategies of the innovative curriculum in the teachers college. Korean Journal of Elementary Education, 28(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.20972/Kjee.28.3.201709.1
  • Stefani, M. (2014). Challening traditions: Constructing an identity through innovative teaching practices. In P. Breen (Ed.), Cases on teacher identity, diversity and cognition in higher education (pp. 258-286). IGI-Global.
  • Tateo, L. (2012). What do you mean by “teacher”? Psychological research on teacher profes-sional identity. Psicologia e Sociedade, 24(2), 344-353.
  • Terracciano, A., Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (2006). Personality plasticity after age 30. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 999-1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288599
  • Terracciano, A., McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (2010). Intra-individual change in personality sta-bility and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.006
  • Torrego, J.C. (2008). El profesor como gestor del aula. En A. Herrán & J. Paredes (Coords.), Didáctica general: la práctica de la enseñanza en Educación Infantil, Primaria y Se-cundaria (pp. 197-213). McGraw-Hill.
  • Vicent-Lancrin, S., Kärkkäinen, K., Pfotenhauer, S., Atkinson, A., Jacotin, G., & Rimini, M. (2014). Measuring innovation in education. A new perspective. OECD.
  • Williams, B., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2008). Individual differences, intelligence, and behavior analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90(2), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008.90-219
  • Yilmaz, F.G. (2021). Innovative practices in Turkish education system according to teacher per-ceptions. Anatolian Journal of Education, 6(1), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.29333/aje.2021.6115a
  • Zhu, C., & Wang, D. (2014). Key competencies and characteristics for innovative teaching among secondary school teachers: A mixed-methods research. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 15(2), 299-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-014-9329-6