http://tes.sagepub.

com/
Exceptional Children
Education Division of the Council for
Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Teacher Education and Special
http://tes.sagepub.com/content/36/3/217
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0888406413489578
2013 36: 217 originally published online 21 June 2013 Council for Exceptional Children
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the
Serra T. De Arment, Evelyn Reed and Angela P. Wetzel
Preparation
Promoting Adaptive Expertise: A Conceptual Framework for Special Educator

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

Teacher Education Division of the Council of Exceptional Children

can be found at: Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Additional services and information for

http://tes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://tes.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://tes.sagepub.com/content/36/3/217.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Jun 21, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jul 29, 2013 Version of Record >>

by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from by Dalila Vicente on October 15, 2013 tes.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Teacher Education and Special Education
36(3) 217 230
2013 Teacher Education Division of the
Council for Exceptional Children
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0888406413489578
tese.sagepub.com
Article
Introduction
Leaders in the field of special educator prepa-
ration identify the need for improved con-
ceptions of teacher quality and theoretical
frameworks to guide the study of SET [special
education teacher] development (Sindelar,
Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010, p. 9). Specifi-
cally, Sindelar and colleagues (2010) high-
lighted the need for teacher preparation
models built on theories of change that guide
evaluation of teacher candidates knowledge
and performance, and overall program effec-
tiveness. In the broader field of teacher educa-
tion, similar concerns focus on the changing
realities of practice for new and continuing
teachers, and the need for a conceptual frame-
work that embraces those realities as the impe-
tus for deepening knowledge, developing
adaptive expertise, and sustaining commit-
ment to the profession (Darling-Hammond &
Bransford, 2005). Adaptive expertise, or the
interaction of efficient and innovative uses of
knowledge, is described as the gold standard
for becoming a professional (Hammerness,
Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005, p.
360). While the development of routine exper-
tise is valuable for standard situations, inno-
vative problem solving based on novel aspects
of the learning context and learners charac-
teristics is essential for effective instruction.
As innovation and problem solving about
individualenvironment interactions is a hall-
mark of special education, the development of
adaptive expertise is an important concept to
understand and incorporate in the design of
special education teacher (SET) preparation
programs.
To promote the development of adaptive
expertise within novice SET, it is necessary to
consider what is known about learning and
489578TESXXX10.1177/0888406413489578<italic>Teacher Education and Special Education</italic>De Arment et al.
research-article2013
1
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA
Corresponding Author:
Serra T. De Arment, Department of Special Education
and Disability Policy, School of Education, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Oliver Hall, 1015 West
Main Street, P.O. Box 842020, Richmond, VA 23284-
2020, USA.
Email: dearmentst@vcu.edu
Promoting Adaptive Expertise:
A Conceptual Framework for
Special Educator Preparation
Serra T. De Arment
1
, Evelyn Reed
1
and Angela P. Wetzel
1
Abstract
Special educators face numerous challenges as their roles change, evidence-based practices
increase, educational priorities shift, and accountability grows. How can teacher education for
special educators prepare candidates for the realities of practice and promote professional
commitment to continuous learning? This article reviews the literature on adaptive expertise,
proposes a conceptual framework, and presents implications for special educator preparation
to promote cognitive and metacognitve skills and adaptive dispositions that are critical to
professional growth and effectiveness.
Keywords
adaptive expertise, special education, teacher preparation
218 Teacher Education and Special Education 36(3)
teaching. Building on 30 years of learning sci-
ence, the How People Learn (HPL) frame-
work lays the foundation for effective
teaching, with relevant applications to teacher
development (National Research Council
[NRC], 2000). Key components of the frame-
work focus on the characteristics of learners,
the acquisition and transfer of knowledge, the
critical role of environments, and the role of
assessment in guiding learning. Understand-
ing this complex process is a challenge for all
developing teachers, especially as they con-
front three major problems in learning to
teach: (a) the tendency to assume that they
know how to teach based on their experience
as learners, (b) the difficulty of using their
content knowledge and acting on their peda-
gogical knowledge, and (c) the problem of
thinking about the complexities of teaching to
improve practice (Hammerness et al., 2005).
Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005)
pointed to the importance of coherent pro-
gram design that helps teacher candidates
develop cognitive maps of content and peda-
gogical knowledge linked to their students
learning and that challenges and builds on
their understanding of the teaching and learn-
ing process while helping them acquire the
tools of practice. Furthermore, program
design should provide a context for learning
to teach that promotes the development of
adaptive expertise through interaction with
practitioners about actual teaching, beliefs,
and knowledge (Darling-Hammond & Brans-
ford, 2005).
Relevance of Adaptive Expertise to
Special Educators
While the primary tenet of special education
is individualizing educational plans based on
the learner in context, changes in the field
have also increased the need for SET to build
their content knowledge, apply pedagogical
knowledge in varied situations, and increase
their collaboration with general education
teachers and administrators. As the emphasis
on evidence-based practices has increased,
special educators need to learn and stay
abreast of current research and understand
how to incorporate new methods and concep-
tual tools into their teaching repertoires
(Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson,
2010). Thus, SET need to understand peda-
gogical routines that promote learning in the
general curriculum and under typical situa-
tions; however, their expertise in adapting
environments, instruction, and support also
requires them to problem solve, experiment,
analyze results, and reflect on those adapta-
tions with colleagues and families.
Billingsley, Griffin, Smith, Kamman, and
Israel (2009) reviewed the challenges that
new special educators face, and the primary
concerns include the traditional pedagogical
roles of special educators as well as the
expanded roles of collaborative teaching.
Specific challenges are as follows: (a) col-
laboration with teachers, parents, paraprofes-
sionals, and administrators in inclusive
educational settings; (b) teaching in multiple
content areas, accessing instructional materi-
als, conducting appropriate assessments; (c)
addressing student behavior; and (d) under-
standing and managing their complex roles
that require legal and procedural knowledge,
time management, and flexibility. Given the
high expectations for novice SET, teacher
preparation programs need to reexamine
their primary goals, pedagogical content, and
processes, as well as formative and summa-
tive assessments to ensure that SET candi-
dates are prepared to begin their practice
with a coherent framework that incorporates
the routine expertise of teaching as well as
the adaptive expertise that is needed to match
the complexity of their roles.
The purpose of this article is to review the
literature about adaptive expertise develop-
ment to explore the conceptual landscape
and operational definitions and to summarize
applications to professional preparation
across diverse fields. Given that context,
implications for designing SET preparation
to promote adaptive expertise are discussed
to establish a common conceptual frame-
work for SET preparation programs and their
evaluation.
De Arment et al. 219
Review of Adaptive
Expertise Literature
What Is Adaptive Expertise?
First conceptualized in 1986, Hatano and
Inagaki (1986) distinguished adaptive exper-
tise from routine expertise. Routine experts
are lifelong learners who increasingly become
adept at performing a specific set of skills in
response to familiar challenges (Bransford,
Derry, Berliner, & Hammerness, 2005; Hat-
ano & Inagaki, 1986; Inagaki & Miyake,
2007). Efficiency, made possible by situa-
tional characteristics with little to no variabil-
ity, allows routine experts to function at a
high level in a stable environment (Bransford,
2004); however, routine experts can be lim-
ited by inflexibility, overconfidence, bias,
and the context of their particular domains
(Crawford & Brophy, 2006).
In contrast to routine expertise, individuals
with adaptive expertise can not only work
efficiently but also demonstrate the ability to
be flexible and innovative in their application
of procedural knowledge (Hatano & Inagaki,
1986). The NRC (2000) explained, Experts
have varying levels of flexibility in their
approach to new situations (p. 31). An adap-
tive expert presents a more flexible orienta-
tion to problem solving and knowledge
construction; whereas, a routine expert tends
toward familiar approaches to new situations.
Oft cited across the literature, Bransford,
Derry, et al., (2005) framed adaptive expertise
as a balance between the efficiency and inno-
vation (Schwartz, Bransford, & Sears, 2005).
Depicted graphically with efficiency along
the x-axis and innovation along the y-axis (see
Figure 1), the trajectory toward becoming an
adaptive expert lies within the optimal adapt-
ability corridor whereby innovation and effi-
ciency have a positive relationship and
roughly an equally important presence in
learning. In this view, a routine expert is high
Figure 1. The trajectory toward adaptive expertise balances efficiency and innovation via the optimal
adaptability corridor.
Source. Reprinted from Bransford, Derry, Berliner, and Hammerness (2005, p. 49) with permission.
220 Teacher Education and Special Education 36(3)
in the efficiency dimension but low in the
innovation dimension, and an adaptive expert
is high in both dimensions, able to select
between routine and adaptive approaches, and
explain and justify those decisions (Brans-
ford, 2004; Crawford, Schlager, Toyama,
Riel, & Vahey, 2005; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986;
Inagaki & Miyake, 2007).
In addition to the balancing act between
efficiency and innovation, adaptive expertise
entails critical cognitive skills. Recently, Bell,
Horton, Blashki, and Seidel (2012), citing the
work of Lin, Schwartz, & Hatano (2005),
described adaptive expertise as higher order
problem-solving involving knowledge trans-
fer across the disciplines (p. 217). More spe-
cifically, by responding flexibly to variable
contexts, adaptive experts know how to con-
structively consider and account for multiple
perspectives and potential solutions and mod-
ify their existing procedural skills or invent
new procedures (Goodnow, Peterson, & Law-
rence, 2007; Hatano & Oura, 2003) to meet
challenges or problems of practice. Yet, adap-
tive experts may tend to miss details (Craw-
ford & Brophy, 2006).
Metacognitive awareness is another impor-
tant dimension of adaptive expertise whereby
individuals actively consider the benefits and
drawbacks of efficiency and innovation for a
given situation (Bransford, Derry, et al.,
2005). Lin, Schwartz, and Hatano (2005) dis-
cussed the importance of adaptive metacog-
nition in teachers who can respond flexibly
to the ever-present variability they encounter
in the classroom. For adaptive experts, meta-
cognition plays a role in their ability to self-
assess and judge when their current levels of
understanding are not adequate (NRC, 2000)
and in their ability to know when to select
an efficient procedure or an innovative one
(Crawford & Brophy, 2006). Metacognitive
practice also allows for learning to occur dur-
ing the process of problem solving (Crawford
& Brophy, 2006) as learners actively engage
with and assess their own thinking and
comprehension.
Finally, dispositional characteristics are
thought to play a role in adaptive expertise as
well. Adaptive experts understand that
knowledge can be messy and irregular
(Crawford et al., 2005) and that discomfort
may arise through the course of problem solv-
ing, due to having to abandon previously held
understandings (Bransford, Derry, et al.,
2005). Accordingly, adaptive experts hold
[their] theories lightly (Crawford & Brophy,
2006, p. 14) and ask questions as they seek
new information with a willingness to replace
prior assumptions if necessary (Schwartz et
al., 2005). Hatano believed certain individual
characteristics, such as curiosity, may influ-
ence the development of adaptive expertise
(Crawford & Brophy, 2006). Bell et al. (2012)
echoed this stating that students who are to
become adaptive experts must possess innate
motivation to solve problems through innova-
tive means. Bransford (2004) explained that
adaptive experts enjoy challenges and have a
systematic understanding of themselves as
learners and problem solvers (p. 6). Other
dispositional features of adaptive expertise
are thought to be a willingness to think things
through and change, a degree of comfort with
taking managed risks that may result in mis-
takes, and the tendency to seek out feedback
from others who may not share similar views
(Crawford & Brophy, 2006). Some have
described adaptive experts as being more
prepared to learn from new situations (Lin,
Schwartz, & Bransford, 2007, p. 62) than
routine experts and as being willing to ask
questions to increase their understanding
(Bransford, 2004; Schwartz et al., 2005). Like
routine experts, adaptive experts are lifelong
learners, but unlike routine experts, adaptive
experts are never satisfied with their current
levels of understanding and strive not only to
work more efficiently but also to work better
(Bransford, Derry, et al., 2005; Crawford et al.,
2005; NRC, 2000).
Adaptive expertise has relevance across a
variety of disciplines, including medicine,
engineering, business, and education (e.g.,
Bell et al., 2012; Bransford, 2007). Adaptive
expertise is of particular importance to the
development of teaching professionals who
face unpredictable and varied circumstances
in their daily work with students (Lin et al.,
2005). As noted by the NRC (2000), Teachers
De Arment et al. 221
are learners and the principles of learning and
transfer for student learners apply to teachers
(p. 242). Adaptive expert teachers improve in
teaching by adapting their known routines to
find better solutions to problems of practice
(Hammerness et al., 2005). Teachers also need
to capitalize on metacognitive strategies to
help them cope with the ongoing variability
they encounter in their work with students
(Lin et al., 2005). Adaptability is thus a sur-
vival skill for teachers who know there is no
one right way to approach all of the challenges
each instructional day.
Crawford et al. (2005) considered the
implications of adaptive expertise for teachers
and teaching, conceptualizing adaptive exper-
tise in terms of adaptive practice:
Instructional practice that is a site of knowledge
construction . . . characterized by a stance
toward knowledge-building rather that
maximizing efficiency in such a way that
productive problems and opportunities for
knowledge construction are overlooked,
removed, or avoided. (p. 4)
Crawford et al. (2005) described a theoreti-
cal framework for adaptive expertise com-
prised of dispositional characteristics (i.e.,
understanding the teachers epistemic orienta-
tion and disposition) and cognitive/metacog-
nitive skills (i.e., understanding the teachers
cognitive and metacognitive processes in
dealing with problems associated with teach-
ing). Specifically, adaptive dispositions entail
keeping an epistemic distance between prior
knowledge and a current problem of practice,
understanding the world as complex without
tidy procedures and conclusions, feeling com-
fortable acknowledging limits of ones knowl-
edge, and wanting to learn, not just apply,
knowledge. From a cognitive/metacognitive
perspective, Crawford et al. explained adap-
tive expertise involves the processes of data-
driven forward reasoning, causal reasoning,
cognitive flexibility, and self-regulation.
To construct operational definitions and
assessment of adaptive expertise in SET prep-
aration, we built on the framework of Craw-
ford et al. (2005) by parsing out adaptive
dispositions, cognitive, and metacognitive
skills. Table 1 summarizes the adaptive
expertise literature related to these three
dimensions.
How Does Adaptive
Expertise Develop?
Understanding how to foster development of
adaptive expertise is important to the con-
structs value as a tool for promoting growth
in learners. Researchers do not yet know for
certain when the optimal time is to begin fos-
tering adaptive expertise within a learner.
Although some consider adaptive expertise as
a step after mastery of content knowledge
associated with routine expertise, most
researchers in the field think adaptive exper-
tise can and should develop alongside routine
expertise (Crawford & Brophy, 2006). Thus,
while learners master content information,
they can, and arguably should, develop the
dispositions, cognitive, and metacognitive
skills that accompany adaptive expertise.
Within the context of SET preparation, for
example, teacher educators can engage in a
deliberate process of scaffolding SET reflec-
tive practice while providing instruction that
addresses the how-to of routine practice.
Thus, faculty create space for novice SET to
develop adaptive expertise alongside their
acquisition of routine expertise. Bransford
(2004), noting that developing adaptive exper-
tise is not a quick process, suggested it might
be more difficult to teach a routine expert who
is set in his ways how to be adaptive than to
foster adaptive expertise from the outset of
learning within a domain. His advice was to
help learners understand themselves as think-
ers, problem solvers, and lifelong learners.
Teacher educators have the opportunity to set
aspiring SET along the trajectory toward
adaptive expertise early in their practice by
promoting these adaptive habits of mind.
Previous cross-sectional research in medi-
cine, education, business, and engineering
supports a model for the potential develop-
ment of adaptive expertise along the trajec-
tory from novice to expert (Barnett &
222 Teacher Education and Special Education 36(3)
Koslawski, 2002; Crawford, 2007; Fisher &
Peterson, 2001; Varpio, Schryer, & Lingard,
2009); yet, we lack longitudinal empirical
studies to demonstrate the process of develop-
ment along this trajectory from routine to
adaptive expert behaviors (Martin, Petrosino,
Rivale, & Diller, 2006). An exception includes
Martin and colleagues (2006) longitudinal
development model for adaptive expertise
with undergraduate biomedical engineering
students (n = 54). Martin and colleagues
(2006) examined change in pre- or post-data
on an adaptive beliefs survey in relation to
performance on adaptive expertise exam out-
comes. Each of three course exams included
knowledge, innovation, and adaptive expertise
items, where adaptive expertise items required
students to transfer existing knowledge to a
Table 1. Adaptive Dispositions, Metacognitive Skills, and Cognitive Skills of Adaptive Expertise Derived
From the Literature.
Ability to explain decisions and justify outcomes of these processes
a,b,c,d
Adaptive dispositions Metacognitive skills Cognitive skills
Maintain an epistemic distance between
prior knowledge and model of a case
or problem at hand
b
Willing to abandon previously held
understandings
e
Willing to replace prior assumptions
f
Holding theories lightly
g
Resisting initial ideas about a problem
f
Plasticity of thinking
k
Questioning current levels of expertise
j
Cognitive flexibility
b
Respond to variability in classroom
h
Accounts for multiple perspectives
n
Invent new procedures
m
Balance of efficiency and innovation
e,f

An epistemic stance that views the
world as complex, messy, irregular,
dynamic, and so on.
b
Comfort or willingness to reveal and
work at the limits of ones knowledge
and skill
b
Monitoring own learning
b
Monitor own comprehension
g
Self-assess
j
Systematic understanding of the self
as a learner
a
Assessing own knowledge states
b
Self-assess thinking
g
Assessing adequacy of current
knowledge for solving case at hand
b,j

Willing to ask questions
f
Willing to take managed risks that
may result in mistakes
g
Seeking out feedback from others
(different others)
g






An inclination toward learning rather
than merely applying knowledge
b
Never satisfied with current levels of
understanding
b,e,i
Opportunistic
g
Motivation to problem solve
j
Curiosity
g
Enjoy challenge
a
Prepared to learn from new
situations
f,k
Seeking and analyzing feedback about
problem-solving processes and
outcomes
b
Higher order problem solving
k
Systematic understanding of the self
as a problem solver and learner
a
Monitoring results and performance
b
Modify existing procedural skills
l,m
Invent new procedures
m
Causal reasoning (develop underlying
model or set of contributing factors)
b


Data-driven forward reasoning
(hypothesis-based reasoning)
b
Higher order problem solving
k
Select routine or adaptive approach
based on data & hypothesis
g

a
Bransford (2004).
b
Crawford, Schlager, Toyama, Riel, and Vahey (2005).
c
Hatano and Inagaki (1986).
d
Inagaki and Miyake (2007).
e
Bransford, Derry, Berliner, and Hammerness (2005).
f
Schwartz, Bransford, and Sears (2005).
g
Crawford and Brophy (2006, September).
h
Lin, Schwartz, and Hatano (2005).
i
National Research Council (2000).
j
Bell, Horton, Blashki, and Seidel (2012).
k
Lin, Schwartz, and Bransford (2007).
l
Goodnow, Peterson, and Lawrence (2007).
m
Hatano and Oura (2003).
n
Fisher and Peterson (2001).
De Arment et al. 223
novel problem that was not directly taught in
the course. The adaptive beliefs survey items
relate to four constructs of adaptive expertise
(i.e., multiple perspectives, metacognition,
goals and beliefs, and epistemology) derived
from a review of the literature (Fisher &
Peterson, 2001). Results of repeated measures
ANOVA indicate knowledge, innovation, and
adaptive expertise improved from Exam 1 to
Exam 3, and gains in adaptive expertise were
preceded by gains in knowledge and innova-
tion. Adaptive beliefs survey scores remained
stable across the course, and higher pre-survey
scores were related to higher adaptive exper-
tise performance on Exam 1. Yet, those stu-
dents with lower scores on the adaptive beliefs
pre-survey demonstrated the greatest improve-
ment on the adaptive expertise items from
Exam 1 to Exam 3 emphasizing the potential
for development of adaptiveness. Further
investigations to understand how to promote
and assess for routine and adaptive expertise
synchronously throughout a program are
needed.
Role of the learning environment for promoting
adaptive expertise. Cited and elaborated upon
by others, Hatano and Inagaki (1986) first
proposed three learning environment factors
that contribute to the development of adaptive
expertise. First, learners must encounter vari-
ability (i.e., applying a procedure repeatedly
with variations, building in randomness that
prompts variations, having to meet changing
demands, and applying knowledge flexibly
across varied contexts; Bell et al., 2012;
Goodnow et al., 2007; Hatano & Inagaki,
1986; Hatano & Oura, 2003). The remaining
two factors highlight the importance of con-
sidering the influence of the sociocultural
context of learning environments, specifically
the culture and context in which learners
work. Learners will risk applying adaptive
strategies rather than a safe strategy when
the context does not exert pressure for speedy
and correct performance (Hatano & Inagaki,
1986). Furthermore, in a culture that values
understanding over performance, learners are
more likely to vary their procedures because
active experimentation, explanation, and
elaboration are encouraged (Lin et al., 2007).
Within this type of learning community, learn-
ers may collaborate, learn from one another,
and discover innovative approaches that
would not otherwise be considered, what
Bransford (2004) discussed as distributed
expertise.
Lin et al. (2007) reframed Hatano and
Inagakis three variability factors as tiers of
variability. In the first tier, learners must
encounter variability in their environments
and be guided to identify the variations. The
second tier of variability is related to how the
learner applies a procedure with variation.
Through exposure to an initial problem fol-
lowed by various what if scenarios, Lin et al.
(2007) suggested learners can develop smart
tools they can then use to generalize across
situations. Finally, in the third tier, learners
encounter variability of explanation by par-
ticipating in the sharing of varied peer and
expert perspectives.
Investigations comparing novices and
experts do indicate key differences in the vari-
ability of professional experience and thought
processes that differentiate between not only
novices and experts but also routine and adap-
tive experts (Barnett & Koslawski, 2002;
Crawford, 2007). For example, using a think-
aloud interview approach, business consultant
experts (n = 12), restaurant managers/owners
(n = 12), and undergraduate, nonbusiness stu-
dents (n = 12) provided plans of action to
address a novel problem scenario. Despite no
restaurant experience, business consultants
produced significantly more optimal answers
for each question, demonstrated more theory-
based reasoning, and more often considered
multiple perspectives compared with the res-
taurant managers and students, who did not
differ significantly. Using a similar think-
aloud approach, Crawford (2007) investigated
the task orientation, efficiency orientation, or
innovation orientation, applied by veteran and
novice high school biology teachers (n = 13)
when presented a hypothetical instructional
problem-solving task. Mean percentages of
innovation orientation and efficiency orienta-
tion codes were compared across veteran
teachers with routine expertise, veteran teachers
224 Teacher Education and Special Education 36(3)
with adaptive expertise (i.e., previous educa-
tion or experience with educational theory
and/or research methods and instructional
leadership experience), and novice teachers
with two to three years teaching experience.
Trends in the data indicate routine and adap-
tive expert veteran teachers demonstrated a
similar percentage of efficiency, or routine,
oriented comments; however, adaptive expert
teachers expressed more innovation task ori-
entation, including high-level analysis and
deeper consideration of the provided student
data. Evidence suggests the skills learned in
the varied professional experience of the con-
sultants and veteran adaptive expert teachers
may explain these group differences (Barnett
& Koslawski, 2002; Crawford, 2007).
Within thoughtfully designed learning
environments, teachers can implement
instructional techniques to foster adaptive
expertise. Schwartz et al. (2005) discussed
implications for instruction that leads to adap-
tive expertise through the lens of three types
of knowing (Broudy, 1977). They explained
that replicative and applicative types of know-
ing contribute to the development of routine
expertise as learners are assessed based on
their ability to transfer knowledge through
recall of facts and application of knowledge to
familiar circumstances. Through instructor
emphasis on interpretive knowing, however,
learners are oriented toward preparation for
future learning (Schwartz et al., 2005, p. 11).
Furthermore, learners need to engage in activ-
ities that promote reflection and metacogni-
tive thinking (Bransford, 2007), and by
emphasizing theory and concepts over spe-
cific procedures, instructors can promote
innovation backed by justification (Bransford,
2004; Bransford, Derry, et al., 2005). Not only
do learners need to be innovative but they also
need to understand the reasons behind and cir-
cumstances for their innovation.
Complementary to the Hatano-based fac-
tors and tiers discussed above, the HPL
framework describes the design of learning
Figure 2. The How People Learn framework.
Source. Reprinted from Bransford, Darling-Hammond, and LePage (2005, p. 32) with permission.
De Arment et al. 225
environments to promote adaptive expertise
(Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage,
2005; NRC, 2000). As illustrated in Figure 2,
this framework situates learning as taking
place within a system of four overlapping
environments. The learner-centered environ-
ment focuses on what learners bring to the
educational setting from their past experience
and existing knowledge. Within the knowl-
edge-centered environment, learners work to
develop new knowledge within a domain
through sense-making activities that lead to
understanding and future transfer. The assess-
ment-centered environment gives learners
opportunities for feedback and revision in
their learning development. Finally, the com-
munity-centered environment provides a
foundation for understanding and learning
from the perspectives of others. Taken
together, these learning environment design
considerations help ensure learners capitalize
on learning that leads to innovative practice
beyond the routine.
Research in undergraduate engineering
programs supports the application of the HPL
framework to create for students critical learn-
ing experiences that target the development of
adaptive expertise skills and behaviors during
the educational program (Martin et al., 2006;
Martin, Rayne, Kemp, Hart, & Diller, 2005;
Pandy, Petrosino, Austin, & Barr, 2004). Com-
mon to these studies is use of the Star Legacy
Cycle (Schwartz, Brophy, Lin, & Bransford,
1999) that involves an engaging challenge-
based approach requiring students to (a)
review their existing knowledge and generate
their own ideas; (b) consider multiple perspec-
tives of experts in the relevant field; (c) consult
resources, incorporate new knowledge, and
revise initial ideas; (d) incorporate formative
feedback from peers and instructors; and (e)
present the final product. Pandy and colleagues
(2004), seeking to increase senior undergradu-
ate engineering student (n = 25) adaptive
expertise, applied a pretestposttest experi-
mental design and compared students factual,
conceptual, and transfer of knowledge out-
comes and adaptive expertise scores. Students
randomly assigned to an HPL group experi-
enced a multimedia-based learning module on
biomechanics using the Star Legacy Cycle
were compared with those students assigned
to the standard lecture group. A calculation
of the sum of weighted scores for transfer
of knowledge (50%), conceptual knowledge
(40%), and factual knowledge (10%) served
as the operational definition for adaptive
expertise. Similarly, Martin and colleagues
(2005) applied an HPL approach using the
Star Legacy Cycle to teach and assess one
tenet of adaptive expertisethe practice of
consulting and evaluating multiple expert
viewpointsfor undergraduate bioengineer-
ing students (n = 30). In this experimental
design, the pretest and posttest included fac-
tual knowledge items, assessment of ethical
decision making, and an item to measure
adaptive expertise where students created and
justified a plan of action to address a problem
within a novel situation. For both studies,
standard lecture students and HPL students
demonstrated a similar increase in factual/
conceptual knowledge; however, students
participating in the HPL learning module sig-
nificantly increased on measures of adaptive
expertise compared with those in the tradi-
tional lecture model (Martin et al., 2005;
Pandy et al., 2004). Similarly, findings from
Martin and colleagues (2006) longitudinal
study of an HPL-based course using Star Leg-
acy Cycle modules indicated improvement on
adaptive expertise learning outcomes.
Promotion of adaptive expertise in teacher edu-
cation. The IRIS (IDEA and Research for
Inclusive Settings) Center for Faculty
Enhancement provides publicly available
IRIS modules (http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt
.edu), based on the Star Legacy Cycle, to help
prepare general and special educators and
other school personnel for practice with stu-
dents with disabilities (Smith, et al., 2005).
Yet, limited empirical evidence in the litera-
ture examines the promotion of adaptive
expertise specifically in teacher education
(Janssen, de Hullu, & Tigelaar, 2008; Soslau,
2012). Janssen et al. (2008) compared the out-
comes from interviews of 16 biology student
teachers reflections on positive and negative
teaching experiences, including (a) the
226 Teacher Education and Special Education 36(3)
content of action plans derived from the
reflection, (b) teacher motivation to imple-
ment the action plan, and (c) teacher emotions
occurring during the reflection. Self-selected
positive experiences for reflection more often
involved innovative instructional methods,
which led to more innovative plans of action
when compared with reflection on negative
experiences. Furthermore, positive reflections
led to greater self-reported motivation to
implement action plans and more overall pos-
itive emotions. These results support the use
of reflective prompts on positive teaching
experiences to promote adaptive expertise as
innovation seems to lead to further innovation
with teachers motivated to act. Soslau (2012)
conducted a multiple case study exploring
opportunities to promote adaptive teaching
expertise through discourse and supervisory
styles during conferences following student
teaching field experiences. Participants
included three undergraduate elementary
teacher education students and three univer-
sity supervisors each with varied supervision
styles based on preassessment inventories.
During each of two 8-week field experience
placements, the researcher observed two stu-
dentsupervisor conferences for each student
participant, totaling to 12 conferences. Fol-
low-up one-on-one interviews were con-
ducted with the student and supervisor after
each conference. Results of qualitative analy-
sis of interview data suggest a guiding and
reflecting supervision style, when compared
with a telling supervision style, elicit more
discussions of novice problems (i.e., unques-
tioned familiarity, dual purpose, context) that
hinder the development of adaptive teaching
expertise. Yet, supervisors missed 11 of 31
opportunities to use these discussions to pro-
mote adaptive expertise by requiring students
to discuss and justify the routine elements of
teaching practice. These findings have impli-
cations for the design and content of reflection
and feedback in SET education.
In summary, these investigations suggest
educators can help students improve their
adaptiveness by providing learning experi-
ences that require students to practice the cog-
nitive and metacognitive skills and dispositions
for adaptive expertise (Janssen et al., 2008;
Martin et al., 2005; Martin et al., 2006; Pandy
et al., 2004; Soslau, 2012), even when initial
adaptive beliefs are low (Martin et al., 2006).
Specifically, the HPL-based Star Legacy Cycle
includes opportunities for students to innovate
and be efficient. For example, generating ideas
based on prior knowledge requires a self-
assessment of current understanding of a topic
and innovative problem solving; refining ini-
tial ideas based on a review of multiple per-
spectives and resources allows students to be
more efficient in the final outcome. Further-
more, reflection on positive teaching experi-
ences promotes adaptive dispositions, such as
motivation and the cognitive and metacogni-
tive skills required to develop innovative new
procedures (Janssen et al., 2008). Finally, edu-
cators can use feedback structures as opportu-
nities for students to become more adept in the
cognitive and metacognitive skills of adaptive
expertise through discourse and reflection on
the routine and variable, contextual aspects of
the teaching field experience (Soslau, 2012).
Implications for SET
Education
We propose several steps in the application of
this conceptual framework to the design and
evaluation of SET preparation programs. First,
adaptive expertise constructs can be used to
examine the congruence, gaps, and relation-
ships among the knowledge, skills, and dispo-
sitions within professional standards. For
example, to what extent does a Council for
Exceptional Children (CEC, 2008) knowledge
standard provide the critical foundation for
related skills and dispositions that are congru-
ent with adaptive expertise? Next, we need to
identify instructional opportunities throughout
SET programs for scaffolding adaptive exper-
tise. As we teach core knowledge, do we use
the Star Legacy model to ensure engagement,
assessment, reflection, and deep understand-
ing? Within traditional classroom and field-
work experiences, how well do we emphasize
the variability in students learning, families
priorities, instructional settings, and team
functioning? Do we provide a safe learning
De Arment et al. 227
environment for experimenting with new
methods and examining their effectiveness?
When we teach evidence-based practices, how
are we emphasizing context, decision making,
and understanding as well as technical perfor-
mance? Do we provide effective structures for
SET candidates to appraise and reflect on the
relationships between program standards and
their learning experiences? Are we promoting
collaboration through direct and supported
team learning activities? A final critical step is
developing measures of adaptive expertise to
support feedback to candidates and faculty and
to inform overall program evaluation. To date,
the impact of curricular interventions on adap-
tive expertise has been isolated to the unit or
course level; longitudinal program-level
effects on adaptive expertise have not yet been
reported. Particularly important in an era of
increasing teacher accountability, assessment
for longitudinal growth must be carefully scaf-
folded for learners at different stages of a pro-
gram of study.
Hammerness and colleagues (2005)
described adaptive expertise in teaching as
creating a balance between efficient use of
specific classroom techniques and innovative
approaches to instruction. A solid base of effi-
cient teaching practices allows teachers to
enact innovative approaches that more effec-
tively respond to unexpected classroom cir-
cumstances or to the unique needs of students
who do not respond to routine instruction.
Striking a balance between these two dimen-
sions has the potential to improve teacher
effectiveness and, in turn, student learning
outcomes as teachers find successful ways to
address day-to-day challenges they encounter.
Learning the efficiencyinnovation balanc-
ing act of an effective teacher is no simple task,
however. As teacher educators, we must be
deliberate in planning for the promotion of
adaptive expertise. Prospective teachers need
guidance in evaluating their preconceptions
about teaching in light of the pedagogical
knowledge and skills imparted by their teacher
education programs (Hammerness et al., 2005).
Experiences embedded in frequent, authentic
teaching contexts and opportunities to collabo-
rate with and seek feedback from others can
help novice teachers reconcile these competing
notions (Darling-Hammond & Hammerness,
2005). Field experiences should be extensive,
present throughout coursework, and carefully
selected based on relationships developed with
schools that share the programs vision of good
teaching (Hammerness et al., 2005). Despite
acquiring the requisite knowledge, learners do
not consistently apply that existing knowledge
in novel practice-based situations (Atman,
Kilgore, & McKenna, 2008; Greer, De Bock,
& Van Dooren, 2009). Beginning teachers must
learn how to overcome familiar tendencies and
put new knowledge and skills into action in
their teaching practice (Hammerness et al.,
2005). Furthermore, they need to develop a
deep understanding of the complexity and non-
routine nature of teaching, and with that, a
commitment to self-assessment through meta-
cognitive reflection (Hammerness et al., 2005).
Case study methods and the development of
teaching portfolios can facilitate critical con-
nections between theory and practice and help
aspiring teachers gain a strong sense of them-
selves as learners and problem solvers. In par-
ticular, case studies provide preservice SET
with the opportunity to assess variability across
instructional contexts and seek the perspectives
of others in a way that allows them to test ideas
and evaluate response in a risk-free, supportive
environment. Furthermore, portfolios give
teacher candidates structure and space for criti-
cal reflection, justification, and evaluation
across the preservice program. As teacher edu-
cators, we must be accountable for instruction
and assessment that emphasize knowledge/
efficiency and innovation throughout the edu-
cational program and challenge students to
reflect on and justify their routine knowledge
and practice (Atman et al., 2008; Greer et al.,
2009; Mylopoulos & Regehr, 2009). Teacher
preparation rooted in these principles of learn-
ing can pave the way for the development of
adaptive expertise and thus instill the critical
skills and dispositions novice SET need to
address the inevitable challenges of their future
teaching practice.
Heeding the call of Darling-Hammond and
Hammerness (2005) for coherence within
teacher education programs, we argue that a
228 Teacher Education and Special Education 36(3)
conceptual framework of adaptive expertise
should be the backbone that undergirds and uni-
fies all aspects of the design, delivery, and study
of teacher preparation in special education.
Whereas the CEC (2008) standards guide the
knowledge and skills special educators should
possess, adaptive expertise can, and should, be
the common thread woven throughout teacher
preparation across the coursework and clinical
experiences that target particular knowledge
and skills. Teacher educators can create this
coherence by making the conceptual frame-
work explicit to all teacher candidates within
the program (Darling-Hammond & Hammer-
ness, 2005). In so doing, novice teachers can
gain a clear understanding of the broader pur-
pose of the preparation program that links their
programwide learning experiences beyond the
mere acquisition of knowledge and skills.
Through consistent, thoughtfully planned activ-
ities targeting the development of adaptive
expertise such as those outlined above, teacher
educators may cultivate within preservice spe-
cial educators the adaptive dispositions and
metacognitive and cognitive skills that lead to
successful teaching. Moreover, the value of
developing a teaching practice that successfully
balances efficiency and innovation will be made
salient for novice special educators. With cohe-
sion and salience, we can avoid sending begin-
ning SETs into the field who feel only
comfortable with the routine and are unprepared
for the realities and challenges of practice.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Atman, C. J., Kilgore, D., & McKenna, A. (2008).
Characterizing design learning: A mixed-
methods study of engineering designers use of
language. Journal of Engineering Education,
97, 309-326.
Barnett, S., & Koslowski, B. (2002). Adaptive
expertise: Effects of type of experience and the
level of theoretical understanding it generates.
Thinking & Reasoning, 8, 237-267.
Bell, E., Horton, G., Blashki, G., & Seidel, B. M.
(2012). Climate change: Could it help develop
adaptive expertise? Advances in Health
Science Education, 17, 211-224.
Billingsley, B. S., Griffin, C. C., Smith, S. J.,
Kamman, M., & Israel, M. (2009). A review
of teacher induction in special education:
Research, practice, and technology solutions
(NCIPP Doc. No. RS-1). University of Florida.
Retrieved from http://ncipp.org/reports/rs_1.pdf
Bransford, J. (2004). Thoughts on adaptive exper-
tise. Unpublished manuscript.
Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing people for rap-
idly changing environments. Journal of
Engineering Education, 96, 1-3.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P.
(2005). Introduction In L. Darling-Hammond
& J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for
a changing world: What teachers should learn
and be able to do (pp. 1-39). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., &
Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learn-
ing and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-
Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing
teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 40-87). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Broudy, H. S. (1977). Types of knowledge and pur-
poses of education. In R. Anderson, R. Spiro,
& W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the
acquisition of knowledge (pp. 1-17). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., &
Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education
teacher quality and preparation: Exposing
foundations, constructing a new model.
Exceptional Children, 76, 357-377.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). What
every special educator must know: Ethics,
standards, and guidelines for special educa-
tion (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Crawford, V. M. (2007, May). Adaptive exper-
tise as knowledge building in science teacher
problem solving. Paper presented at the Second
European Cognitive Science Conference,
Delphi, Greece.
Crawford, V. M., & Brophy, S. (2006, September).
Adaptive expertise: Theory, methods, find-
ings, and emerging issues. In V. Crawford, &
De Arment et al. 229
S. Brophy (Chairs), The Adaptive Expertise
Symposium. Symposium conducted at the
meeting of SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Crawford, V. M., Schlager, M., Toyama, Y.,
Riel, M., & Vahey, P. (2005, April).
Characterizing adaptive expertise in science
teaching. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005).
Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hammerness, K. (2005).
The design of teacher education programs. In
L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to
do (pp. 390-441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Fisher, F. T., & Peterson, P. L. (2001, June). A tool
to measure adaptive expertise in biomedical
engineering students. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Society for
Engineering Education, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Goodnow, J. J., Peterson, C., & Lawrence, J. A.
(2007). Culture and cognitive development:
Giyoo Hatanos insights and the questions
they open. Human Development, 50, 16-22.
Greer, B., De Bock, D., & Van Dooren, W. (2009).
The Isis problem as an experimental probe and
teaching resource. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 28, 237-246.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., &
Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn
and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond &
J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn
and be able to do (pp. 358-389). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses
of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, &
K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and edu-
cation in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York, NY:
Freeman.
Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary:
Reconceptualizing school learning using
insight from expertise research. Educational
Researcher, 32(8), 26-29.
Inagaki, K., & Miyake, N. (2007). Perspectives on
the research history of Giyoo Hatano. Human
Development, 50, 7-15.
Janssen, F., de Hullu, E., & Tigelaar, D. (2008).
Positive experiences as input for reflection
by student teachers. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 14(2), 115-127.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. (2007).
Intercultural adaptive expertise: Explicit and
implicit lessons from Dr. Hatano. Human
Development, 50, 65-72.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005).
Toward teachers adaptive metacognition.
Educational Psychologist, 40, 245-255.
Martin, T., Petrosino, A. J., Rivale, S., & Diller, K. R.
(2006). The development of adaptive expertise
in biotransport. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 2006(108), 35-47.
Martin, T., Rayne, K., Kemp, N. J., Hart, J., &
Diller, K. R. (2005). Teaching for adaptive
expertise in biomedical engineering ethics.
Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 257-276.
Mylopoulos, M., & Regehr, G. (2009). How stu-
dent models of expertise and innovation
impact the development of adaptive expertise
in medicine. Medical Education, 43, 127-132.
National Research Council. (2000). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school
(Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Pandy, M. G., Petrosino, A. J., Austin, B. A., &
Barr, R. E. (2004). Assessing adaptive exper-
tise in undergraduate biomechanics. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93, 211-222.
Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D.
(2005). Efficiency and innovation in trans-
fer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning
(pp. 1-51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D.
(1999). Toward the development of flexibly
adaptive designs. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A
new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol.
II, pp. 183-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Sindelar, P. T., Brownell, M. T., & Billingsley, B.
(2010). Special education teacher education
research: Current status and future directions.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 33,
8-24.
Smith, D. D., Pion, G., Skow, K., Tyler, N.,
Yzquierdo, Z., & Brown, J. (2005). The IRIS
Center for Faculty Enhancement: Online course
enhancement modules and materials for use
in the preparation of education professionals.
230 Teacher Education and Special Education 36(3)
New Horizons for Learning Online Journal,
11(3). Retrieved from http://iris.peabody.
vanderbilt.edu/about_papers_reports/IRIS_
Enhancements.pdf
Soslau, E. (2012). Opportunities to develop adap-
tive teaching expertise during supervisory con-
ferences. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28, 768-779.
Varpio, L., Schryer, C., & Lingard, L. (2009).
Routine and adaptive expert strategies for
resolving ICT medicated communication prob-
lems in the team setting. Medical Education,
43, 680-687.
Author Biographies
Serra T. De Arment is a doctoral student at Virginia
Commonwealth University (VCU) whose research
interests include teacher preparation, teacher quality,
collaborative teaching, and teacher retention in spe-
cial education.
Evelyn Reed, chair and associate professor of the
Department of Special Education and Disability
Policy at VCU, focuses on special education
teacher (SET) development research. She has been
the principal investigator for personnel preparation
projects emphasizing interdisciplinary collabora-
tion, community-engagement, and high-needs
environments.
Angela P. Wetzel is director of assessment,
Department of Foundations of Education, at VCU
School of Education. Her research interests include
instrument development, student assessment, and
program evaluation as scholarship.