Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296695064

TeacherRole-IdentityandMotivationasaDynamicSystem

ConferencePaper·April2015

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.1382.5684

CITATIONS

5

READS

359

3authors,including:

Someoftheauthorsofthispublicationarealsoworkingontheserelatedprojects:

VisitorIdentificationandEngagementwithSTEMViewproject

BootstrappingAchievementandMotivationinSTEM:AnIntegratedCognitive-MotivationalIntervention

toImproveBiologyGradesViewproject

AviKaplan

TempleUniversity

74PUBLICATIONS4,758CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

JoannaGarner

OldDominionUniversity

34PUBLICATIONS415CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyAviKaplanon03March2016.

Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinblueareaddedtotheoriginaldocument

andarelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Teacher Role-Identity and Motivation as a Dynamic System

Avi Kaplan

Temple University

Joanna Garner Old Dominion University

Sarit Semo

Semo Engineering

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 2015 American Educational Research Association,

Chicago, IL.

Please address correspondence about this paper to Avi Kaplan, Educational Psychology, College

of Education, Temple University, Philadelphia PA 19122; akaplan@temple.edu

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

2  

Teacher Role-Identity and Motivation as a Dynamic System

Abstract

This paper describes a conceptualization of role-identity and motivation as a complex dynamic

system and its application to teachers’ professional role-identity and motivation. The Dynamic

Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI) conceptualizes role identity as a dynamic system

comprised of four components that are continuously emerging to inform motivated action

through processes that follow complexity assumptions: interdependence of components, non-

reductionism, non-linearity, non-determinism, and contextualism. The paper presents the

assumptions and characteristics of the DSMRI and its use in a case study analysis of the role

identity and motivational change of a teacher who participated in a science teacher PD. The

paper also presents a dynamic system simulation of the model and describes its potential use to

inform theory building, research, interventions, and evaluations in teachers role-identity and

motivation that conceptualize these phenomena as complex dynamic systems.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

3  

Teacher Role-Identity and Motivation as a Dynamic System

Successful, long-term, and motivated teaching requires persistent desire for excellence, a

commitment to life-long learning, and access to high quality professional development. Teacher

education programs and in-service teacher professional development (PD) are universally

employed to prepare teachers for a motivated career, to mitigate attrition, and to improve teacher

quality (Loucks-Horsley et al., 2010). However, despite major efforts, teachers’ turnover in low-

income schools is very high (Ingersoll & Pedra, 2010), and close to 50% of all teachers leave the

profession within five years of certification (Ingersoll, 2012). This situation illustrates a disparity

between theory and research on what makes for effective teacher education and PD, and the

practical realities of teachers’ professional learning and motivation. Not only is the full

application of research-derived best practices rarely possible due to lack of time, inadequate

funding, competing tasks, and variability in participant characteristics and organizational

constraints, but these practices focus almost exclusively on promoting learning of content

knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), paying little or no attention to a core

developmental-motivational process in teachers’ professional learning and retention—teachers’

professional role identity. For a teacher to apply innovative practices despite pressures to do

otherwise, and to persist in the vocation despite unfavorable conditions, these actions must

cohere with their core beliefs, values, self-perceptions, self-definitions, and goals for teaching

(Richardson et al., 2014). To be successful, teacher education and PD programs must address not

only content and pedagogy but also the complex processes that promote the professional role

identity development that drives teachers to learn, develop, and sustain strong commitments to

new practices and to the profession. However, the literature on teacher professional identities

currently lacks a coherent model that can capture the complexity and richness of the teacher

identity while providing sound conceptual tools for investigating, intervening and evaluating

teachers’ professional identity. In the current paper, we describe an emerging model of teacher

role identity and motivation that synthesizes theory and empirical research from the domains of

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

4  

identity and motivation, and that is based on assumptions of complex dynamic systems, to bridge

the gap between theory, research and practice, and to guide theory-building, research,

interventions, and evaluations in teacher preparation and PD.

Teachers’ professional role identity

In its most basic sense, teachers’ professional role identity (RI) refers to the person’s self-

description as a teacher; that is, the extent to which the person has established a personal

commitment to the teaching profession and considers being a teacher an important aspect of who

he or she is (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004). In addition to the level of commitment to the

profession, RI also refers to the content and structure of that identity—a network of self-

perceptions, beliefs, values, goals, emotions, and actions that are held as central to the role of

being a teacher (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004; Bullough,

1997; Sachs, 2005; Woodbury & Gess-Newsome, 2002). Two teachers may have similar levels

of commitment to being a teacher but hold quite different values, goals, and perceptions about

teaching that are more or less aligned with each other, resulting in the enactment of different

instructional strategies. RI provides teachers with a framework that implicitly guides them in

interpreting and evaluating experiences and events related to teaching, and in making decisions

about action (Bullough, 1997; Horn, Nolen, Ward & Campbell, 2008). The central role of

teachers’ professional identities in their learning, motivation, and retention has been the subject

of increasing scholarly attention in the past decade (Avraamidou, 2014; Jenlink, 2014).

Moreover, Lack of change in RI constitutes a significant barrier to teachers’ learning, motivation,

and change of practice (Gunersel, Kaplan, Barnett, Etienne & Ponnock, 2014; Hathcock, Garner

& Kaplan, 2014).

Whereas theory and research on self and identity is very broad and diverse (Erikson,

1968; Gee, 2000; Holland et al., 1998; Wenger, 1998), current theory and research on teacher

identity and motivation can be generally characterized by two complementary approaches. One

approach includes research that focuses on distinct self-related constructs such as task-values,

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

5  

teaching efficacy, achievement goals, and possible selves, and involves primarily quantitative

measurements of these variables to predict the teachers’ instructional decision-making and well-

being (Butler, 2007; Richardson & Watt, 2010; Roth, 2014). The second approach includes

research that focuses on the holistic subjective meanings of teaching in particular social-cultural

contexts (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Horn et al., 2008). This approach involves primarily

qualitative descriptive inquiry that integrates the cultural meanings of teaching in the particular

social-organizational setting with the teachers’ personal histories and characteristics. Both

approaches have strengths, but also limitations. The construct-based approach provides empirical

findings and conceptual anchors for PD interventions in specific processes such as teachers’ self-

efficacy beliefs or goals in order to promote adoption of certain actions. However, this approach

is limited by its reduction of the complexity of teacher identity to simple, linear, and

deterministic relations among few specific variables. It fails to capture the rich, contextualized,

diverse and dynamic nature of the individual teacher’s RI, and the complexity and variability of

an individual teacher’s reactions and actions within a particular PD setting or classroom (Kaplan,

2014a). In comparison, the social-cultural approach provides a holistic, in-depth, and complex

description of the teachers’ lived experiences and action in the particular setting, which captures

the contextualized, dynamic, and social nature of RI and the individual teachers’ decision-

making. However, because it does not focus on particular constructs or result in replicable and

generalizable findings, the approach fails to provide guides and tools for measuring and

intervening in teachers’ RI across groups of teachers and multiple, diverse contexts.

Based on theory and research in the domains of motivation and identity (Kaplan & Flum,

2009; 2010; 2012; Kaplan, Sinai & Flum, 2014), our design and evaluation work in the area of

science teacher PD (Garner et al., 2012, 2013, 2014), we have built on recent applications of

complexity science assumptions to psychological phenomena (Guastello, Koopmans & Pincus,

2009; Kunnen, 2012a) to developed a model of science teacher professional RI that integrates the

strengths and compensates for the limitations of these two approaches. The model—the Dynamic

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

6  

Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI)—provides a framework for conceptualizing teachers’

learning, motivation, and role identity development, and for guiding the design of teacher

education and PD that aims to intervene in these processes and to promote teachers’ identity

development and instructional change.

The Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI). The DSMRI involves four

primary contextually constructed and interdependent components that underlie teacher action

(see Figure 1): (1) ontological and epistemological

beliefs; (2) purpose and goals; (3) self-perceptions and

self-definitions; and (4) perceived action possibilities.

All these factors were identified as paramount to

people’s action in previous distinct literatures (Kaplan,

2014b).

The role of ontological and epistemological

beliefs in action manifests, for example, in research on

people’s attributions of causality for events of success

and failure (Weiner, 2011), research on the role of people’ assumptions about the stability versus

malleability of intelligence (Dweck, 1999), and in the broader literature on epistemic beliefs

(Hofer & Pintrich, 2002) and teacher beliefs (Fives & Buehl, 2012). The importance of purpose

and goals in action has been demonstrated extensively in the motivational literature through

research on constructs such as life goals (Cantor et al., 2002), career goals (Gati & Asher, 2001),

purpose (Damon, 2008), achievement goal orientations (Butler, 2007), social goals (Wentzel,

1996), and content goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). The centrality of self-perceptions and self-

definitions in action has been supported by a large body of literature spanning constructs such as

self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Klassen, Durksen & Tze, 2014), self-concept (Hattie, 2014), and

social identity and self-categorization (Turner & Reynolds, 2011). Finally, perceived action

possibilities—a person’s perceptions of the available options for action in a particular situation—

Figure 1. The Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI)  

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

7  

has been highlighted in research concerning people’s strategic knowledge (e.g., learning or

instructional strategies), behavioral intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011), and self-regulation

(Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000).

Whereas several frameworks have postulated the interaction of two or even three

variables representing these different components (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Dweck, 2006;

Zimmerman, 2008), the DSMRI makes a unique contribution in three ways. First, it incorporates

all four components into a single, coherent, systemic, meta-theoretical model (Overton, 2013).

Second, it conceptualizes each component as a category of constructs rather than as a single

variable. Third, it applies assumptions of complexity science for conceptualizing these four

components as constituting a complex dynamic system (van Geert, 2003); specifically, the

interdependence of the four components, and hence the irreducibility of teacher identity and

motivation to any distinct component; the continuous, non-linear, simultaneous, reciprocal, and

indeterminate relations among the components, and hence the dynamic, non-linear, and at time

chaotic nature of teacher identity and motivation; and finally, the reciprocal contextual-

components relations that render the continuous emergence of the teacher role identity and

motivation system highly contextualized.

Figure 1 presents a schematic of the DSMRI that reflects the complex dynamic nature of

the RI through the reciprocal interrelations among the four components (depicted by reciprocal

arrows between each pair of components) and the central location of teacher action, which

conveys that the relations of each component to teacher motivated action cannot be considered

independently of other system components. Figure 1 also presents the assumptions that the RI

system is domain-specific (e.g., science), and that it is constructed within a socio-cultural context

but also influenced by the teacher’s personal dispositions.

The DSMRI highlights three aspects of the teacher’s RI: content, structure, and process

of formation. Any one of these three aspects of RI can vary between teachers and within a

teacher over time. Variation in the content means that teachers differ in the amount, kind, and

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

8  

complexity of the knowledge, beliefs, goals, emotions, self-perceptions, and action possibilities

they hold for teaching. For example, teachers’ RI may reflect a more teacher-centered than

student-centered configuration. A teacher with a teacher-centered RI may hold the

epistemological belief that students learn knowledge best when it is presented to them, or that

students are not capable of directing their own learning. She may adopt the goal of having

students memorize information, and experience positive emotions of satisfaction and pride when

she is able to cover all the material and when students do well on multiple-choice tests. She may

construct the self-perception that she is very knowledgeable in the subject matter, and hence, she

may value lecturing as the most appropriate pedagogical action for achieving her goal. In light of

her beliefs, goals, and self-perceptions, she may not consider student-driven inquiry an action

possibility. By contrast, a teacher with a student-centered RI may hold the epistemological belief

that students learn knowledge by constructing it themselves. She may adopt the goal of having

students engage actively in constructing such knowledge, and she may experience positive

emotions of satisfaction and pride when students engage in and produce meaningful personal

projects. She may construct the self-perception that she is attentive to students’ interests and

needs, and hence, she may value problem-based inquiry as the most appropriate pedagogical

action in light of her goals, beliefs and self-perceptions.

Importantly, variability in the content of RI manifests not only in differences in a

particular construct (e.g., teachers being high versus low on beliefs about the malleability of

students’ intelligence; high versus low on teaching self-efficacy), but also in the salience of

different constructs in the components (e.g., teachers experiencing salience of assumptions about

the malleability of students’ intelligence versus about the characteristics of knowledge in the

subject matter; salience of self-perceptions of efficacy versus self-perceptions of personal

interests). Thus, the DSMRI conceptualizes each component as harboring multiple constructs

and dimensions, the salience of which may be different for different teachers at different times

and in response to different situations. Such variation in the content of teachers’ RI can explain

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

9  

why teachers evaluate PD subject area content as more or less relevant and compatible with who

they are as teachers, and why they may be more or less motivated to integrate this content into

their practice. For example, teachers are more likely to endorse a new practice as a viable action

possibility and enact it in their practice when they have knowledge of it and perceive it to

correspond with their unique system of beliefs, purpose and goals, self-perceptions and self-

definitions, and other actions they consider central to who they are as teachers.

Variation in the RI structure means that teachers differ in the degree of harmony within

the content of each component, the degree of alignment between the components, and the degree

of integration between the teacher RI and other central RIs of the person. For example, whereas

one teacher may construe various goals associated with student learning, classroom assessment,

and standardized testing to complement each other, another teacher may find them to be in

conflict and feel tension because of their association with different beliefs about learning, self-

perceived values, or incompatible strategies (Boekaerts, 2010). Whereas one teacher may feel

alignment between his beliefs about the role of students’ active engagement in their learning,

goals of developing students’ interest in science, and self-efficacy for inquiry instruction, another

teacher with similar beliefs and goals but with low self-efficacy for inquiry instruction may sense

misalignment between the components and experience tension within her RI. Finally, whereas

one teacher may experience integration and supportive concordance between the various RI

components in teaching and the parallel components in parenting, another teacher may

experience components in these two RIs to be unrelated (e.g., goals for students’ learning as

unrelated to goals of learning for the teacher’s own children), or even to contradict each other

(e.g., perceiving oneself as committed to fairness at home but as negligent about fairness at

school).

Thus, structural differences in teachers’ RI may manifest in variability in the sense of

coherence and commitment that the teachers feel towards their vocation, predisposing them to

remain in or leave the profession to a lesser or greater degree. A teacher with a more aligned and

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

10  

integrated RI structure would experience a sense of identification with the vocation and clarity

with regard to goals and courses of action. In comparison, a teacher with more fragmented or

conflicted RI structure would experience uncertainty, ambiguity, or tension with regard to certain

goals and practices and would be motivated to resolve these tensions. Thus, variation in the

structure of teachers’ RI would predispose them to exhibit more or less contextual and

pedagogical discontentment (Southerland et al., 2011), be more or less open to change promoted

by a PD program, or achieve change through different sequences of events (Clarke &

Hollingsworth, 2002). Science teachers with a RI structure that is aligned and integrated would

be more committed to their current practice and more resistant to change messages than would

science teachers whose RI structure is more fragmented or conflicted. However, when the more

aligned teacher’s RI system is perturbed through a challenge to one of its structural elements

(e.g., creating misalignment between beliefs, goals, and practices through challenging the

validity of a certain belief), a transformation is more likely to reverberate throughout the RI

system and lead to sustainable change in action than would occur in a more fragmented teacher’s

RI.

Variation in the process of RI formation means that teachers may differ in the breadth

(number of RI components), depth (magnitude of deliberation within a component), affective

intensity, and method of their identity construction process. Following assumptions of complex

dynamic systems (CDS), the DSMRI conceptualizes the foundational process of RI formation—

i.e., change in content of the four RI components, the nature of their structural interrelations, and

the relations of the teacher RI with other central RIs (e.g., parent, employee)—as continuously

emerging while being framed and shaped by the socio-cultural context (i.e., the particular

subject-matter, cultural norms, values, practices, and social interactions) (Kaplan, 2014a).

Whereas the diversity of teachers’ personal histories results in an infinite number of

idiosyncratic teacher RIs, the processes of emergence do seem to lead to the formation of certain

general types of RIs—higher order profiles of relatively aligned beliefs, goals, self-perceptions,

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

11  

and perceived action possibilities—within which, despite noteworthy differences, the individual

RIs nevertheless share much content and structure (e.g., different permutations of student-

centered RIs). Drawing from CDS, the DSMRI aspires to self-organization (Kunnen & van

Geert, 2012)—that is, to a state of increased harmony, alignment, and integration—in the

prevalence of cultural constellations of beliefs, goals, self-perceptions, and actions (e.g., a

student-centered RI profile, a teacher-centered RI profile) that constitute “attractors” and

“repellors” towards which, and away from, the RI is moving (Kunnen & van Geert, 2012). In the

RI’s non-linear, dynamic trajectory towards increased harmony and alignment, logical

connections between components within these cultural constellations (e.g., connections between

the belief that students learn through active engagement, the goal of students’ active engagement,

and the instructional strategy of student inquiry) provide positive feedback loops, meaning that

activation of one component triggers the others and attracts the RI system towards a particular

category of RIs (e.g., a student-centered RI). In turn, culturally-illogical connections (e.g., a

connection between the belief that students’ learn through active engagement and the

instructional practice of lecturing) provide negative feedback loops, with activation of one

component (e.g. the beliefs) deactivating others (e.g. suppressing the practices) and repelling the

RI system away from a particular category of RIs (e.g., a teacher-centered RI). Variation in RI

formation across socio-cultural contexts may be based, in part, in the relative prevalence of such

attractors and repellors as well as the weighting or salience of each component.

However, variation in RI formation processes also manifests differences between

individuals within the same socio-cultural context—for example, in the initial state of the content

and structure of the RI systems and in personal dispositions (e.g., open-mindedness, need for

cognition, self-worth concerns, creativity, achievement orientation, future orientation). Different

initial RI states and personal dispositions could lead to more or less resistance to change, in

general or in a particular direction. Moreover, depending on the initial state of the system (e.g.,

fragmented RI versus strongly aligned teacher-centered RI), a strong environmental event (e.g.,

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

12  

demonstration of effective self-directed inquiry) may promote an RI change process towards

increased organization (i.e., fragmentation towards increased alignment of student-centered RI)

or towards entropy (i.e., initial teacher-centered RI alignment towards misalignment) (Kunnen &

van Geert, 2012).

Furthermore, our research on the identity formation of students and teachers highlights

the contribution of individuals’ deliberate engagement in reflections on and exploration of

identity-relevant questions to their sense of self and decision-making about action (Kaplan et al.,

2014). In the DSMRI, such individual’s volitional identity exploration is integrated with the

social-cultural context through the understanding that any identity exploration is inevitably

shaped and mediated by social-cultural meanings and practices (Penuel & Wertch, 1995).

However, the DSMRI assigns an important role to the teacher’s agency in initiating and guiding

the RI formation process through the volitional engagement in identity exploration (Flum &

Kaplan, 2006). Accordingly, variability in the process of RI formation also involves differences

in the level of the individual teacher’s agency in identity formation, with some individuals

engaging in active exploration of beliefs, goals, self-perceptions and definitions, and action

possibilities, other individuals constructing these components and their interrelations primarily

through adopting those that are emphasized in the environment or through following the

normative example of significant others, and still others avoiding engaging in identity

construction altogether (Berzonsky, 2011). Thus, variation in identity processes can manifest in

differences in the breadth, specificity, and depth of the identity exploration. Some individuals

may focus on exploring a particular component (e.g., contemplating a certain belief, or reflecting

on the adequacy of a particular goal, or on a particular relation of a goal and action possibilities)

and others may engage in a more comprehensive identity exploration process (e.g., an overall

exploration of the four components and their relations, or of components across central RIs

around a central personal dilemma) (Luyckx, Goossens, Soenens & Beyers, 2006). These

processes may be cognitively and emotionally intense or conducted in a more cursory or

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

13  

superficial manner. Finally, variation in the identity construction process can manifest in

different modes of exploration and construction, with individuals engaging in some or many of a

variety of actions, including personal reflection through writing or meditation, social

conversations, and experimentation (Vangrik, Kaplan & Flum, 2011).

Conceptualizing the RI as a complex dynamic system allows the integration of the

strengths of the current approaches to teacher RI while compensating for their limitations. The

DSMRI reflects the holistic, contextualized, dynamic, varied, and rich nature of RI, and at the

same time, anchors it in central constructs from the established motivational and self literatures.

The DSMRI is a meta-theoretical framework: it specifies a set of conceptual anchors and

principles of operation that provide guides for systematic measurement, investigation, and

intervention in teachers’ RI (Kaplan, 2014a). It does not a priori specify the particular content,

structure, or process that would manifest in the RIs of particular individuals in a particular group

of teachers in a particular setting. However, researchers can utilize the DSMRI to develop and

test theories concerned with such specifics of content, structure, and process among individuals

or groups of teachers of different characteristics and in different contexts. The model offers

tremendous potential for prompting role identity exploration during teacher education and

professional development. PD designers can utilize the DSMRI to evaluate the specific content

and structure of the participating teachers, design activities that aim to facilitate particular

identity formation processes perceived to be conducive to the goals of the PD, and measure and

evaluate the effectiveness of these activities in achieving these goals.

The DSMRI holds that change in RI manifests patterns of complex dynamic systems: it is

non-linear, non-deterministic, highly contextualized, and can exhibit chaotic characteristics such

as sudden increases or decreases in order and complexity (van Geert, 2003). This stands in

contrast to the prevalent linear and deterministic assumptions regarding teacher motivation and

change that guide the current approach to PD design (Garner & Kaplan, 2013). In a well-cited

critique, Guskey (2002) characterized the prevalent assumption about teacher change in the

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

14  

context of PD as a linear progression from change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs to specific

changes in classroom behavior and practices to improved student learning. Guskey countered

that teachers’ change follows their experience of success in the classroom rather than the other

way around, and proposed an alternative sequence, leading from change in teachers’ classroom

practice to change in student learning outcomes to change in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. In

contrast to both, the DSMRI guides PD designers to anticipate the process of teacher change on

the basis of the initial content and structure of the teachers’ RIs, the circumstances of their work

environment, and the experiences in the PD that may trigger identity exploration and

construction processes. When conceptualized as a complex dynamic system, change in the RI

can be initiated by triggering any component that is salient to the participating teachers. For

example, novice teachers might be more concerned with learning science content in relation to

pedagogical action possibilities, whereas expert teachers may be more concerned with their

purpose and goals for teaching (Birenbaum & Rosenau, 2006). Teachers who work with students

with disabilities may be sensitive to ontological and epistemological beliefs about students’

ability to learn (Jordan & Stanovich, 2003), whereas teachers from minority background may be

concerned with self-perceptions and self-definitions (Clark & Flores, 2001).

Knowledge of the teachers’ RI and its characteristics is of utmost importance to the

teacher educator, PD designer and facilitator. Evaluating the content and structure of the

participating teachers’ RI on the basis of the DSMRI assumptions would allow the designers and

educators evidence-based insight into possible effective strategies for making the program

relevant to teachers’ identities and for triggering identity processes that may promote

constructive teacher change. Importantly, anticipating non-linearity, non-determinism, and

chaotic changes in the RIs should guide educators, designers, facilitators, and evaluators to adopt

dynamic formative assessments that continuously evaluate as well as inform the program design

and adapt it to the changing developmental characteristics of the participating teachers (Garner &

Kaplan, 2013). Knowledge of the DSMRI is also important for teachers themselves. The DSMRI

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

15  

provides a powerful conceptual tool for promoting the teachers’ agency in developing their own

professional RIs. For example, guiding teachers in mapping their own RI and considering the

interrelations among its components in relation to a new practice can provide the teachers with a

powerful scaffold for a systematic identity exploration process (e.g., “What are your goals for

your students? How do your current practices promote your goals? Why do you believe that such

practices promote these goals? How might the new practice relate to your goals?”). In our

experience in designing, facilitating, and evaluating science teacher PD, we have found the

DSMRI to be particularly effective for promoting constructive identity exploration processes

around teacher-generated professional dilemmas. The systematic exploration of RI content and

structure (i.e., reflecting on the content and the harmony or conflict between beliefs, goals, self-

perceptions and definitions, and action possibilities, the alignment and misalignment of the

components, and the integration of the RI with other RIs) has been generative of self-

understandings and decision-making. Project deliverables will include examples of such insights

and breakthroughs.

An illustrative brief case study

As an illustration of how the DSMRI can be used to investigate and guide interventions

and evaluation of teacher PD, we present here a shortened case study of one participating

teacher, Patrick (a pseudonym), a 48 year old veteran high school physics teacher, who was

interviewed prior to, during, and after participating in an eight day intensive summer PD institute

(Hathcock, Kaplan, Garner & Davidson, 2013). The research questions that guided the interview

protocol and the DSMRI-based analysis were: (1) How has the participant’s incoming RI frame

his motivation for the PD, and his response to particular PD design features? And (2) What

changes did the PD experiences spur in his RI? The case study illustrates how a PD approach

that aims at RI transformation through focusing on the participants’ reflection on their PD

experiences promotes the dynamic change of the RI. Upon beginning the PD, Patrick’s teacher

RI reflected relative alignment between self-perceptions and epistemological beliefs. Patrick held

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

16  

strong commitment to teaching physics with self-definitions of science teaching as his “destiny,”

which also aligned with his overall perceived career goals and action possibilities: “I’m not

coming out of that classroom…I am today where I will be when I retire.” This self-definition was

aligned with his epistemological belief that “physics is all around us” and his self-perceptions as

someone fascinated by physics and interested in understanding how things work. As often is the

case, Patrick’s epistemological beliefs about student learning were integrated with his own self-

perceptions as a former physics student (a past RI) for who physics did not come easy: “I’m not

one of those students, physics majors, where physics came easy…for me to get a B or a C I had

to work real hard.” Accordingly, his epistemological beliefs about students’ learning physics

were that: “…anybody can learn anything if they want to, if they’re interested and they stick with

it. You don’t have to be intellectually gifted, you have to be curious, you’ve got to be open-

minded and willing to apply yourself and not quit.” However, Patrick’s incoming RI also

manifested misalignment between these epistemological beliefs, self-perceptions, and his goals

for his students and instructional action possibilities that involved much work for him in creating

teacher-centered assignments rather than engaging his students’ curiosity and effort: “[I do] a lot

of work outside the classroom and at home [to] create an activity that will pull in the concepts.

What kind of worksheet can I give them…I am constantly trying to create in-class activities on

paper that will help them make connections.”

In his mid-PD interview, Patrick’s participant RI reflected a strong salience of the

experience of the PD’s problem-based scientific inquiry. On the one hand, his experience of

“information overload” during the interdisciplinary field scientific inquiry triggered exploration

of self-definition as a science teacher versus a scientist; but on the other hand, his self-definition

as a curious scientifically-minded person aligned with his enthusiastic embrace and positive

emotions during this inquiry: “I really enjoyed looking at the wells…I find that very

fascinating…it’s amazing how you can go from one layer to the next and easily see it and

identify how you describe it…What the different colors mean.” Again, as commonly happens,

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

17  

positive emotions ensue from insights about integration of different RIs, in this case between the

participant’s RI and a former child RI: “…as a kid where I grew up, I was always playing in red

dirt, and I never understood what the red meant versus the clay and so, I’ve really enjoyed the

geological stuff.” Importantly, Patrick’s attempt at integrating his participant RI and science

teacher RI did not occur immediately. Only a couple of days after the field inquiry, when

experiencing frustration with the PD instructor’s instructions about analyzing the data, he began

to explore his epistemological beliefs about his own students: “It was fascinating that I wanted to

start here, which seemed more logical to me, and [the instructor] wanted to start over here,

which seemed more logical for him… And, um, while all this was going on, I’m asking myself,

how often does this happen to my students? You know, how often am I saying things to them and

it’s just blah, blah, blah, thinking I’ll figure it out once he’s through blah blahing.” This

exploration of epistemological beliefs aligned with exploration of perceived action possibilities:

“How often is it that I may give them a data table and it not work for them because it’s not their

data table?…I need to let them do it all from the ground up, maybe.” In this mid-PD interview,

Patrick reported on change from certain teacher-centered epistemological beliefs to more

student-centered beliefs, which provided a positive feedback loop to change in perceived action

possibilities: “I’ve always kind of looked at my students and…my attitude is, OK, you’re a clean

slate…we’re just going to start from the beginning and I’m going to introduce everything to you

as though it’s the first time you’ve ever really heard it… I think I need to get away from that and

I think my pre-assessments need to be real world questions. I think, you know, describe, or try to

explain what’s happening here, and see how they respond to those types of questions…I haven’t

normally thought that way.”

This process of exploration and move towards more aligned student-centered teacher RI

manifested in Patrick’s post-PD interview, in which he aligned these epistemological beliefs with

goals that included students developing their own problem solving strategies and working on

more authentic, real world experiences: “Using their knowledge for them to begin to make

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

18  

decisions…they need to build on what experiences they have. They need to be able to, I think,

synthesize… using their experiences, background knowledge, to complete a task or assignment

or something in my class.” These goals manifest as a negative feedback loop to his previous

teacher-centered action possibilities: “I’m not interested in really repeating lock-step what I did

last year. I refer back to what I did last year, modify, bring in something new…I want to be more

of a risk taker now. Try new things...I ask myself, how can I model or actually…practice NOS

[Nature of Science] in the classroom….from the very beginning.”

A Dynamic Systems Simulation of the DSMRI

The application of the DSMRI as a guide for PD design, facilitation, and evaluation and

as a framework for researching teacher RI requires comprehension and endorsement of teacher

RI as a complex dynamic system (CDS). Such application also requires the utilization of

innovative modeling and analytical methods that are different from the traditional quantitative

techniques that rely on assumptions of linearity and stability of relations among constructs (e.g.,

Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Structural Equation Modeling). Traditional analytical techniques

are limited in their ability to capture, demonstrate, and test the complex dynamic phenomena

resulting from multiple interdependent system elements (Axelrod & Tesfatsion, 2005).

Moreover, most often, traditional quantitative techniques aggregate individuals’ phenomena to

group-based variance analyses and make assumptions about identity of processes at the group

and individual units-of-analysis that may not be warranted (Hamaker, 2012). In comparison, the

DSMRI highlights the individual teacher unit-of-analysis, and emphasizes attention both to

individuals’ RI trajectories as well as to the collective patterns of RI change, not losing sight of

the individuals within the pattern.

In order to promote comprehension of the conception of teacher RI as complex and

dynamic we developed a simulation that demonstrates its CDS characteristics. Furthermore, the

simulation affords experimenting and testing hypotheses about the teacher’s RI complex

characteristics and mechanisms of change. For developing the simulation tool, we turn to

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

19  

quantitative dynamic modeling techniques that have become the viable and appropriate strategy

for simulating complex phenomena (Guastello & Gregson, 2011). Quantitative dynamic systems

modeling is an algorithm-based representation of a system and its components. It depicts change

in the values of and coupling among components as these reciprocally and dynamically influence

each other over time. Such modeling has been deemed particularly appropriate for representing

and studying psychological and socially-situated psychological systems that are composed of

interacting elements and that exhibit emergent properties—that is, when the system’s output

cannot be reduced to the simple aggregate of its components (Axelrod & Tesfatsion, 2005).

Dynamic systems modeling involves translating the conceptual model into equations and

formulas, calibrating the values of interrelations among elements to simulate conceptually viable

cases, and validating the model (Kunnen, 2012b). Our (still developing) simulation tool of the

meta-theoretical DSMRI can be used by researchers, teacher educators, and PD designers and

evaluators for experimenting and investigating the RI phenomena most relevant in their unique

contexts. The interface translates the DSMRI assumptions into equations, but allows calibration

and validation of the particular content, structure, and process of participants’ RIs to be guided

by the interests of the researchers, PD designers or evaluators, characteristics of the participating

teachers, and the PD circumstances. Thus, the simulation is a tool for simulating the RI system

formation and change as well as the effect and duration of interventions in one or more model

components.

The simulation of the DSMRI provides a simplified quantitative demonstration of the

dynamic, non-reducible, and non-linear nature of RI change that also reveals aspects of its

regularities and laws of operation (e.g., self-organization; positive and negative feedback loops).

The simulation allows modeling of a four-variable dynamic system representing each of the four

components in the DSMRI, and the investigation of theoretical hypotheses about the effect of

different types of interventions aiming at RI change (e.g., interjecting a certain degree of change

in the beliefs component) at different phases of PD among teachers with different RI

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

20  

characteristics. For example, the simulation allows the user to compare simulations of the effect

of different interventions (e.g., intervening in beliefs versus in self-perceptions) on the change of

the RI, and the effect of manipulating assumptions about the stability of the components

depending on the participating teachers’ characteristics (e.g., when working with pre-service

teachers versus veteran teachers) and on the PD context (e.g., when policy is changing versus

remains stable). The simulation also allows the user to modify the direction and magnitude of

reciprocal influences among components in the model to allow for the inclusion of variables of

interest presumed to provide positive and negative feedback loops. The user is able to simulate

hypotheses concerning strength of different relations between components, such as simulating

the hypothesis that action possibilities have a stronger influence on beliefs than vice versa (cf.

Guskey, 2002). Such modifications allow researchers and PD designers and evaluators to

simulate anticipated change of RI among different types of teachers and under different PD

circumstances.

Figure 2(a)-(d) presents screen shots of the current version of the DSMRI dynamic

simulation model (code written in MATLAB). Contextual effects and an intervention are not

presented in the Figure. Figure 2(a) presents the Graphical User Interface (GUI) that includes the

scheme of the four components in the DSMRI. This GUI provides the opportunity to modify

parameters that characterize the components and their interrelations, which can be derived from

theoretical assumptions and from relations found within existing empirical research on the

relations of the different constructs of interest to the researchers or PD designers or evaluators

(e.g., research findings about the relations of teacher achievement goals, teaching self-efficacy,

and use of inquiry-based instructional strategies). The GUI also allows modifying assumptions

about the components’ stability (reflected in the Figure in the percentage within each

component) and the magnitudes of the reciprocal influences among the components (reflected in

the Figure in the colored arrows between components).

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

21  

Figure 2(b) presents the dynamic change in the four model components across 20

longitudinal measurements in one simulated teacher. For the purposes of this presentation, the

four components were represented by four variables with values ranging from 1-5. The initial

values in the simulation (represented for this teacher on the left-side Y-axis) were random. For

this demonstration, arbitrary specifications of stability of the components were set at 80% for

beliefs, 60% for goals, 50% for self-perceptions, and 40% for action possibilities. Reciprocal

interrelations of all components were set at +.05. As the RI system progressed through time, the

mutual positive influences and relative stability of the components resulted with different change

trajectories of the components, manifesting slow convergence to lower levels. The simulation

demonstrates the dynamic systems principles of component interdependence and positive

feedback loops, non-linear change, and self-organization. When performed for several simulated

teachers with different initial values of the components, the simulation demonstrates how the

same PD environment could lead to very different RI developmental trajectories. In this way the

Note: Belf=Ontological and epistemological beliefs; Goal=Purpose and goals; Self=Self-perceptions and self-definitions; Act=Perceived action possibilities  

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

22  

simulation challenges the linear and deterministic assumptions about teacher change and

elegantly illustrates an alternative approach.

Figure 2(c) presents the line trajectories of 100 simulated teachers across the 20

iterations, with the top graph presenting the trajectories of the sum of the four variables, and the

four graphs below presenting the trajectories of the self-perceptions, goals, beliefs, and action

possibilities variables, respectively. This Figure demonstrates the diversity in the trajectories of

both the distinct components and their overall sum, allowing an insight into the nature of the

relations between change in individual components and the dynamic system as a whole. For

example, this Figure demonstrates a large variability in the trajectories of the individual

components, with trajectories that begin in different initial values ending in any of the end

values. In comparison, the trajectories of the sum of the components are more predictable, with

trajectories that begin with low initial values end in similarly low or lower values, and

trajectories that begin in high initial values end in similarly high or higher values, demonstrating

the positive feedback loops among the parameters (clear converging patterns would indicate

attractors). The simulation also allows the user to select one line of interest (e.g., an outlier) in

this graph for more detailed examination of an individual case (showing the trajectories of its

four components as appearing in Figure 2(b)).

Finally, Figure 2(d) presents the aggregated results of the 100 simulated teachers. The top

graph presents a plot of the initial sums by the end sums of the four RI components, and depicts a

non-linear curve of relations between initial and end states of the RI. This graph demonstrates

how the change in RI may be different for teachers with different initial RI states. In addition, the

graph suggests that different initial RI states are predictive of different dispersions of end-states,

illustrating more indeterminate change in some initial values of the RI system. The bottom

graphs in the Figure represent the distribution of initial and end sums of the components across

the 100 simulated cases (left two graphs), the distribution line of the end states of each of the

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

23  

four components across the 100 simulated cases (second to right graph), and the rate of change

of each component across the 100 simulated cases (far right graph).

This simulation provides a tool for experimenting with the effects of different influences

on the magnitude and patterns of RI change of simulated teachers with different initial RI values

(e.g., the effect of changing the magnitude of the relation between goals and action possibilities

through a PD activity that asks teachers to explain how their practices promote their goals). It

also allows simulation of interventions into each of the components and their relations. Future

developments will allow manipulation of multiple inner-elements in the components, and

modification of extra-system characteristics reflecting different contexts and teacher

characteristics. Output of these simulations could be compared with researchers’ and evaluators’

data from existing PD and research projects for calibration, validation, and theory building, and

for informing PD design.

Conclusion

Any teacher education and PD program (or any other educational program for that

matter), explicitly or implicitly, concerns two RIs: the participant RI and the

professional/practitioner RI. Whether the educational program aims at pre-service or veteran

teachers, is conducted in school or off-site, and employs lectures, modeling, or collaborative

inquiry, the goal is to instigate processes of change in the participant RI that can be transferred to

(or, integrated with) the professional teacher RI. When PD is conducted in out-of-class settings,

transfer between the two RIs requires scaffolding. The DSMRI provides a conceptual tool for

measuring the two RIs and their change in the context of teacher PD, investigating processes

underlying successful and unsuccessful change and transfer between the two RIs, and

intervening to promote such transfer through dynamic formative evaluation that focuses on the

particular components and on specific interrelations that are salient to the participating teachers

at particular phases of the PD. The DSMRI provides an example of the theoretical, empirical,

and practical merits of conceptualizing teachers’ role-identity and motivation as a dynamic

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

24  

system over perspectives that view and operationalize motivational processes as comprised of

distinct variables that are related in linear ways.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

25  

References

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over

ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.

Avraamidou, L. (2014). Studying science teacher identity: Current insights and future research

directions. Studies in Science Education. DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2014.937171

Axelrod, R. & Tesfatsion, L. (2006). A guide for newcomers to agent-based modeling. Appendix

A. In L. Tesfatsion & K.L. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Computational Economics, Vol. 2:

Agent-Based Computational Economics (pp.1647-1659)Amsterdam, the Netherlands:

Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/abmread.htm.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in

the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education,

39(2), 175-189.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P.C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’

professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 107-128.

Berzonsky, M. D. (2011). A social-cognitive perspective on identity construction. In S. J.

Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research

(pp. 55-76). New York: Springer.

Birenbaum, M., & Rosenau, S. (2006). Assessment preferences, learning orientations, and

learning strategies of pre‐service and in‐service teachers. Journal of Education for

Teaching, 32(2), 213-225.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

26  

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional

development. In E. Baker, B. McGaw & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of

education (3rd ed., pp. 548–555). Oxford: Elsevier.

Bullough, R. V. (1997). Practicing theory and theorizing practice. In J. Loughran, & T. Russell

(Eds.), Purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education (pp. 13–31). London:

Falmer Press.

Butler, R. (2007). Teachers' achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers' help

seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 99(2), 241.

Cantor, N., Kemmelmeier, M., Basten, J., & Prentice, D. A. (2002). Life task pursuit in social

groups: Balancing self-exploration and social integration. Self and identity, 1(2), 177-184.

Christensen, C. R. (1981). Teaching by the case method. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Clark, E. R., & Flores, B. B. (2001). Who am I? The social construction of ethnic identity and

self-perceptions in Latino preservice teachers. The Urban Review,33(2), 69-86.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967.

Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose: Helping our children find their calling in life. New

York: Free Press.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–

199.

Dweck, C.S. (1999) Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.

Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

27  

Eilam, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). The significance of visual representations in the teaching of

science. In B. Eilam, & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual

representations (pp. 3-28). Springer International Publishing.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action

approach. Taylor & Francis.

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs:

What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S.

Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol. 2: Individual

differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471-499). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Flum, H., & Kaplan, A. (2006). Exploratory orientation as an educational goal. Educational

Psychologist, 41, 99-110.

Garner, J. K., & Kaplan, A. (2013, March). Designing and implementing teacher professional

development using principles of complexity science. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, NY, USA.

Garner, J.K., Whittecar, R., Dickerson, D., Grant, L., Loney, M., & Frank, G., et al (2013).

Learning Enhanced Through the Nature of Science (LENS) 2.0: An interdisciplinary

Sustainable Professional Development Model. Awarded $239,174. Virginia Department

of Education Math Science Partnership Program.

Garner, J.K., Whittecar, R., Dickerson, D., Loney, M., Grant, L., & Frank, G., et al (2012).

Learning Enhanced Through the Nature of Science (LENS): An interdisciplinary

Sustainable Professional Development Model. Award $249,050. Virginia Department of

Education Math Science Partnership Program.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

28  

Garner, J.K., Whittecar, R., Loney, M., Nelson, Dickerson, D. & Frank, G., et al (2014). Project

Discourse and Argumentation (D’n’A): Building Block for Middle School Science

Literacy. Awarded $203,516. Virginia Department of Education Math Science

Partnership program.

Gati, I., & Asher, I. (2001). Prescreening, in-depth exploration, and choice: From decision theory

to career counseling practice. Career Development Quarterly, 50, 140-157.

Gee, J. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in

Education, 25, 99-125.

Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the

2012–13 Teacher Follow-up Survey (NCES 2014-077). U.S. Department of Education.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [10.31.14] from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of adolescent

research, 2(3), 203-222.

Guastello, S. J., Koopmans, M., & Pincus, D. (Eds.). (2009). Chaos and complexity in

psychology: The theory of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

Guastello, S., & Gregson, R. A. (Eds.) (2011). Nonlinear dynamical systems analysis for the

behavioral sciences using real data. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Gunersel, A. B., Kaplan, A., Barnett, P., Etienne, M., & Ponnock, A. R. (2014, April). Profiles of

change in conceptions and motivation regarding teaching in higher education within

professional development. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American

Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

29  

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:

Theory and practice, 8(3), 381-391.

Hamaker, E. L. (2012). Why researchers should think "within-person": A paradigmatic rationale.

In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of researcher methods for studying

everyday life (Ch. 3, pp. 43-61). New York: Guilford.

Hathcock, S. J., Garner, J. K., Kaplan, A., (2014, Jan.). Using professional identity to examine

impacts of professional development. Paper presented at Association of Science Teacher

Education (ASTE) International Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA.

Hathcock, S. J., Garner, J. K., Kaplan, A., & Davidson, Y. (March, 2013). Investigating the

impacts of teachers’ professional development through change in professional identity.

Presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychology Association, New York, NY.

Hathcock, S., Garner, J.K, Kaplan, A., & Davidson, Y. (2013, March). Negotiating science

teacher professional identity within an intensive, inquiry-based summer institute. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York,

NY.

Hattie, J. (2014). Self-concept. NY: Psychology Press.

Hoffer, B., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.) (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs

about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum.

Holland, D., & Lachicotte, Jr., W., Skinner, D., & Caine, C. (1998). Identity and agency in

cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Horn, I. S., Nolen, S. B., Ward, C., & Campbell, S. S. (2008). Developing practices in multiple

worlds: The role of identity in learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 61-72.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction: What the data tell us. Phi Delta

Kappan, 93(8), 47-51.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

30  

Ingersoll, R. M., & Perda, D. (2010). Is the supply of mathematics and science teachers

sufficient? American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 563-594.

Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and

educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.

Jenlink, P. M. (2014). Teacher identity and the struggle for recognition: Meeting the challenges

of a diverse society. Lanham, MD: Rowman &Litlefield Education.

Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers’ personal epistemological beliefs about students

with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in

Special Educational Needs, 3(1), doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2003.00184.x

Kaplan, A, & Flum, H. (Guest Eds.) (2012). Special Issue: Identity formation in educational

settings. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(3).

Kaplan, A. (2014a, Aug.). A complex dynamic systems model of teachers’ professional identity

and motivation. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological

Association, Washington DC, USA.

Kaplan, A. (2014b). Theory and research on teachers’ motivation: Mapping an emerging

conceptual terrain. In P. W. Richardson, S. Karabenick & H. M. G. Watt (Eds.), Teacher

motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 52-66). NY: Routledge.

Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2010). Achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles.

Education Research Review, 5, 50-67.

Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (Guest Eds.) (2009). Special issue: Motivation and identity. Educational

Psychologist, 44(2).

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

31  

Kaplan, A., Sinai, M., & Flum, H. (2014). Design-based interventions for promoting students’

identity exploration within the school curriculum. In S. Karabenick & T. Urdan (Eds.)

Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 18), (pp. 247-295). Emerald Group.

Klassen, R. M., Durksen, T. L., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs: Ready

to move from theory to practice? In P. W. Richardson, S. A. Karabenick, & H. M. G.

Watt (Eds.) Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 100-115). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Kunnen, S. E. (2012b). The art of building dynamic systems models. In S. E. Kunnen (Ed.). A

dynamic systems approach to adolescent development. (pp. 98-116). Psychology Press.

Kunnen, S. E. (Ed.). (2012a). A dynamic systems approach to adolescent development.

Psychology Press.

Kunnen, S., & van Geert, P. (2012). General characteristics of a dynamic systems approach. In S.

E. Kunnen (Ed.). A dynamic systems approach to adolescent development. (pp. 15-34).

Psychology Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and

task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57(9), 705.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Love, N. & Hewson, P.W. (2010). Designing

professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Luehmann, A. L. (2007). Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Science

Education, 91(5), 822-839.

Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2006). Unpacking commitment and

exploration: Preliminary validation of an integrative model of late adolescent identity

formation. Journal of adolescence, 29(3), 361-378.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

32  

Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of

Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407.

Overton, W. F. (2013). Relationism and relational developmental systems: A paradigm for

developmental science in the post-Cartesian era. Advances in Child Development and

Behavior, 44, 21-64.

Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural

approach. Educational psychologist, 30(2), 83-92.

Resnick, M. (1996). Beyond the centralized mindset. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1),

1–22.

Richardson, P. W. Karabenick, S. & Watt, H. M. G. (Eds.) Teacher motivation: Theory and

practice. NY: Routledge.

Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. (2010). Current and future directions in teacher motivation

research. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 16, 139-173.

Rogers, E.M. (1962). The diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Roth, G. (2014). Antecedents and outcomes of teachers’ autonomous motivation: A self-

determination theory perspective. In P. W. Richardson, S. Karabenick & H. M. G. Watt

(Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 36-51). NY: Routledge.

Sachs, J. (2005). Teacher education and the development of professional identity: Learning to be

a teacher. In P. Denicolo & M. Kompf (Eds.), Connecting policy and practice:

Challenges for teaching and learning in schools and universities (p. 5-21). Oxford, UK:

Routledge.

Silverman, S. (2014, October). A presentation by the Program Director Advisor to the National

Governors Association. Advanced Educational Psychology Conference (AEPC), Fairfax,

VA.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

33  

Southerland, S. A., Sowell, S. Blanchard, M. & Granger, D.E. (2011). Exploring the construct of

pedagogical discontentment: A tool to understand science teachers’ openness to reform.

Research in Science Education (41), 299-317.

Southerland, S.A., Nadelson, L., Sowell, S., Saka, Y., Kahveci, M. & Granger, E. (2012).

Measuring one aspect of teachers’ affective states: Development of the Science Teachers’

Pedagogical Discontentment Scale. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 483-494.

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings

Institution Press.

Stroup, W. M., & Wilensky, U. (2014). On the embedded complementarity of agent-based and

aggregate reasoning in students’ developing understanding of dynamic

systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19 (1-2), 19-52.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). Self-categorization theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A.

W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.) Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp.

399-417). Sage.

van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., Van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing

links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: a review of

design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 129-160.

van Geert, P. (2003). Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental processes. In

J. Valsiner, & K. J. Connolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 640-

672). London, UK: Sage.

van Veen, K., Zwart, R., & Meirink, J. (2012). What makes teacher professional development

effective? A literature review. In M. Kooy & K. van Veen (Eds.), Teacher learning that

matters: International perspectives (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

34  

Vangrik, R., Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2010, March). Adolescents’ self-exploration in the school

context. Poster presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research on

Adolescence, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Vorndran, P., Kaplan, A., & Barnett, P. (2014, April). Motivation for teaching in higher

education: A qualitative study with graduate student instructors. Poster presented at the

annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA,

USA.

Waldrop, M. M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New

York, NY: Touchstone.

Weiner, B. (2011). An attribution theory of motivation. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W.

Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.) Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 135-

155). Sage.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press

Wentzel, K. (1996). Social goals and social relationships as motivators of school adjustment. In

J. Juvonen, & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation, children's school adjustment (pp.

227-247).

Woodbury, S., & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without

difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational

Policy, 16(5), 763-782.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Kaplan Garner & Semo AERA  2015 The Dynamic Systems Model of Teacher Role Identity  

35  

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background,

methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research

Journal, 45(1), 166-183.

View publication statsView publication stats