Under the hood of Adaptive Expertise

When you hear the phrase adaptive expertise, you might picture a maverick teacher, throwing the lesson plan out the window, improvising wildly, chasing novelty for novelty’s sake. But that’s not what the term means.

In reality, adaptive expertise rests on a backbone of efficiency. Teachers with adaptive expertise rely on well-practised routines for most of what they do: giving clear instructions, checking for understanding, circulating during practice, using pre-emptive techniques to manage behaviour… These efficient routines enable adaptiveness.

Why? Because efficiency frees up cognitive capacity. When the basics run on autopilot, teachers have the mental bandwidth to notice subtle cues in the room, interpret what’s happening for learning, and decide whether to stay the course or adjust: “go off plan but stay with intent” (Ward et al., 2018). Schwartz, Bransford & Sears (2005) called efficiency “an important ingredient” for innovation. Without it, you’re too overloaded to adapt. This might be why rehearsing techniques also appears to support teachers to adapt them too (Mancenido et al., 2025): rehearsal makes the technique more fluent freeing up cognitive capacity to adapt appropriately.

Then there is conceptual understanding. Routine experts can “do” the procedures, but adaptive experts also understand why they work, and under what conditions (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986) In teaching, that means having mental models of how learning works, not just how teaching techniques work.

When looking at the research, we might be forgiven for thinking that adaptive expertise is just about solving grand novel problems. While this might sometimes be the case, adaptive expertise can also be seen as the ability to make appropriate micro-adaptions whilst carrying out routines (think of the teacher whose countdown changes ever so slightly depending on the task students are doing and their reaction to the start of her signal) (Hu, 2024). When looked at in this way, it’s unlikely any teacher will be ‘a routine expert’ who never adapts appropriately. It’s probably better to see this element of adaptive expertise as a continuum with greater or lesser ability to adapt in different domains.

So adaptive expertise isn’t about being a maverick and isn’t just the ability to adapt to solve grand novel problems. It’s about having a secure, efficient base of routines and the conceptual grasp to flex them appropriately. The term “adaptive expertise” on its own seems only to emphasise the flexibility aspect, so perhaps it’s better to think of it as “anchored adaptability”: routines hold things steady and free up capacity; understanding helps teachers adapt appropriately.

But of course the ‘adaptive’ part of adaptive expertise is very interesting. What is it that means some experts can innovate and adapt and others don’t do so very well? Simply describing the characteristics of those with adaptive expertise doesn’t really get us very far. It’s more fruitful to look at what might underpin and drive adaptive expertise.

Underpinning adaptive expertise

In our upcoming book, Coaching for Adaptive Expertise, Haili Hughes, Adam Kohlbeck and I propose that there are four facets to adaptive expertise that we encapsulate in the Adaptive Expertise Framework.

Teachers need to be able to understand, do, decide and improve:

(Image from ‘Coaching for Adaptive Expertise’ - out 2026)

Understand

Teachers need conceptual knowledge in a lot of different areas including knowledge of their students, context, pedagogy, subject(s), and these domains need to link together. Those with adaptive expertise don’t necessarily have a greater amount of knowledge than routine experts, indeed, having more prior knowledge may sometimes hinder the development of adaptive expertise if it’s been developed in a rigid way (Rayne et al., 2006).

So it seems that those with adaptive expertise do not necessarily know more, yet they appear to know better (Borko & Livingston, 1989). What does this mean?

It means that their knowledge is better organised than those who struggle to adapt. Think about it: to use prior knowledge in new situations and innovate appropriately, you have to recognise that it applies to the new situation in the first place. If you have knowledge that’s organised around useful principles, it’ll be more readily accessible when you need it.

This suggests we need to think carefully about how we organise teacher’s knowledge when supporting them to build it. Are we doing so in a rigid way: for example, “I expect to see this technique at this time” or are we helping them build their knowledge of the purpose of techniques and how to make decisions in different situations to apply them well?

Developing teacher’s knowledge around common problems teachers face seems like a good way of achieving this ‘organisation by purpose’ (Goodrich, 2024; Kennedy, 2016). For example, Goodrich suggests these universal teaching problems as a way of organising knowledge and practice:

· Select curriculum

· Secure attention

· Optimise communication

· Drive thought

· Gather and give feedback

· Ensure consolidation

So when planning and engaging in professional development, we need to think, what problem are we helping teachers to solve? How can we develop their knowledge of this problem to support them to adopt the best possible solutions?

Do

But knowing what to do and why isn’t the same as being able to do it.

"What is tactically desirable must be technically possible." (Launder and Piltz, 2013, p.59).

This means teachers need a repertoire of teaching techniques. They should be able to deploy them efficiently, i.e., without too much thought, so their cognitive capacity is free to notice cues that might indicate that they need to adapt.

Decide

What underpins good judgement and therefore the ability to make appropriate decisions? We think it is teacher’s mental models, i.e. how they understand different situations to work. The best mental models are fuelled by well-organised knowledge and are sensitive to contextual cues, what we call situation sensitive mental models. For example, instead of being trained to always use mini whiteboards to check for understanding, teachers are helped to see them as one way of gathering feedback. That way, they use other techniques strategically depending on the contextual details of the situation such as the depth of answer they need.

Great mental models allow teachers to –

Notice: spot important cues that might suggest a course of action (or inaction!).

Interpret: simultaneously with noticing, great mental models are fuelled by relevant, well-organised knowledge that allow teachers to see the significance of classroom cues for their teaching goals.

Predict: great mental models allow for accurate predictions. Predictions are powerful path weavers. Teachers who can accurately predict in real time what might be about to happen in their lessons can adjust course to put the lesson on the optimal path.

Decide: ultimately, great mental models allow for appropriate decisions that best support student learning.

Cumulatively, great mental models allow teachers to do the right thing, at the right time for the right reasons.

Improve

Knowledge, actions and decisions… all key ingredients but there also must be something else. We know this because the research indicates those with adaptive expertise appear to take a different stance on problems they encounter but also because there has to be something that prevents efficiency becoming stagnation.

Those with adaptive expertise seem to think differently about their domains. It’s like they have seen under the hood and understand how it all operates. Understanding how something works is the definition of a mental model, so we could say teachers with adaptive expertise have better mental models about how teaching works. Together, these mental models create a mindset – a teacher’s way of viewing their role.

Those with adaptive expertise have an adaptive mindset. They see their role as one that requires continuous improvement (Timperley, 2013). This is because they understand that the environment they work in is complex and there are no silver bullets that guarantee all students will learn optimally. Plus, because things change in teaching all the time (e.g. context, curricula, students…), they’ll never be done improving.

‘Improving’ also takes on a particular meaning to teachers with adaptive expertise. In complex systems, improving can’t just be about transplanting techniques into their lessons. It means they need to master how and when to apply them. To do this involves navigating (not ignoring) complexity. We think teachers with adaptive expertise will have –

1. Cognitive flexibility: they know it’s difficult to predict cause and effect in teaching: students can’t complete the independent task – is it because the instructions weren’t clear? They lacked sufficient knowledge? They lack accountability or motivation? A mix of all three? This uncertainty means they need to hold their problem framing lightly, form multiple hypotheses, look for evidence and be prepared to reformulate (Crawford et al., 2005). These teachers are open to a credible coach’s perspective.

2. Best thing not best fit: teachers with adaptive expertise will continue to work on a problem, reformulating it and refining their response (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1993). It’s like solving a Rubik’s cube (so I’m told): with every attempt to solve it, the problem keeps reshaping itself and so we make our next move.

When I read over the points above, I recognise that these aren’t personal traits of teachers. The environment needs to enable and encourage an adaptive mindset. A good way to think about how to build the adaptive mindset is to consider the actions, decisions and priorities of school leaders as communication to teachers about their role. Everything said and done affects the mental models and mindset of teachers.

Compare these schools:[1]

School A: Secret standards

Teachers are observed once or twice a year. Teachers tailor their teaching to the observer. Professional development jumps from topic to topic each half term depending on the expertise or interests of the leadership team or what matches the time of year. Professional development is delivered to all staff: sometimes it isn’t really applicable to most of them and sometimes it leaves them feeling inspired to try new things but not equipped with the time or tools to enact them. Teachers who are regarded highly are usually those who manage a class well and get good results, although it is never made clear what it is they are doing to achieve this or how others can rise to this standard. The message is that some teachers are good at teaching and others need to improve… if they can work out how.

School B: Simple solutions

Professional development comes as a download: a training day with the “five best strategies” and an expectation to adopt them. Learning walks are clipboard checks: are you cold-calling? Did you start the lesson with the script? Policies prescribe exact moves: always do X, then Y. Staff meetings reinforce the same message: here’s what research says works, try it. Teachers are celebrated for fidelity, not for thought. The message is that teaching is a simple system and problems can be solved by certain techniques.

School C: Situation sensitive

Professional development focuses on building a common understanding of learning and teaching so there are no secret standards. Teachers learn core techniques through practice, rehearsal, and coaching until they’re second nature. Professional development is a cycle: try a step, test it in your class, refine it with feedback. Teachers expect and are supported to be able to articulate the reasons for their decisions. The message is that research gives us powerful principles, techniques give us a useful playbook, but the real work is problem-solving in context.

Communication that feeds a mindset of complex contextualisation really does pay off. Listen to this coaching exchange between coach Caroline and coachee Cat. Notice how many things Cat has put in place over time to make pair talk work in her lessons.

This is clearly an environment where Cat is supported (through coaching and other means) to work on her practice. She does not see teaching as silver bullets (although she clearly recognises the importance of techniques used strategically); she combines different methods to refine and refine her practice, continually representing the problem differently and reaching for another solution.

Developing Adaptive Expertise

It’s tempting to imagine a two-step pathway:

1. First, train teachers in routine expertise – simple efficiency.

2. Then, once that’s secure, help them develop adaptive expertise.

But this is misleading. Adaptive expertise is not just routine expertise plus a bit of improvisation. To be adaptive involves developing situation-sensitive mental models and it’s a qualitatively different mindset (as just described). We can begin to foster this from the get go in schools with all teachers through the communication of leaders and the expectations of teachers.

So, taking the four areas of the Adaptive Expertise Framework, how do we develop teacher adaptive expertise?

In the book we look at this in detail through the lens of teacher coaching. Broadly speaking, we think –

Understand: we need a shared knowledge base across the school of how learning happens and a shared understanding of the conceptual knowledge necessary to teach subjects and support the culture we want in our contexts. Defining the key problems you are, as a staff body, trying to solve and developing teachers’ knowledge of them will help them to form rich knowledge that is well organised.

Do: remember that adaptive expertise is built on a backbone of efficiency. Focus on developing teachers’ repertoire of techniques to drive the efficiency necessary to adapt and innovate. Define these techniques, model and rehearse them but don’t teach them out of context – make sure they are linked to the when and why, which links to our next facet…

Decide: crucial but often neglected is teacher decision-making. Cast teaching techniques into situations and support teachers to consider when it’s appropriate to use techniques, how to tweak them and when to do something different. Hearing from great teachers who make effective decisions is a powerful way to do this. Emphasise and incentivise using techniques at the right time for the right reasons.

Improve: communicate through all interactions that expertise is a process of continuous improvement. The expectation is to keep learning not to adopt certain ‘silver bullet’ techniques or transplant research into practice. Talk about and respect the complexity of teaching. Showcase decision-making and reflection on decision-making rather than simply the actions a teacher took.

For more on adaptive expertise…

1. Join Margaret Mulholland Amelie Thompson and me from 18 September for three twilight, online sessions designed to delve deep into training teachers for adaptive expertise and how this relates to teaching students with SEND.

The sessions are:

Session 1: The goal: adaptive expertise
Session 2: Developing teachers' adaptive expertise
Session 3: SEND and adaptive expertise

Find out more and book your place at https://lnkd.in/ekGNsBpg

Unanswered questions

There are problems with the concept of adaptive expertise though. For one thing, how novel is novel in terms of the problems people need to be able to solve if they are to be considered to have adaptive expertise? If a teacher is very experienced, most problems won’t be novel. Are they not adaptive experts then? There are also problems with how you measure adaptive expertise too. We think the answer is to continue researching and exploring this potentially fruitful concept, which may have a great deal to add to our understanding of developing the expertise of those who work in complex fields like teaching.

I am currently working with schools to rework and implement effective professional development – get in touch if you’d like to work together! sarahcottinghatt@outlook.com

References

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves. An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court.

Borko, H. and Livingston, C. (1989) 'Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers', American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), pp. 473–498.

Crawford, V.M., Schlager, M., Toyama, Y., Riel, M. and Vahey, P. (2005) 'Characterizing adaptive expertise in science teaching', Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 1–26.

Goodrich, J. (2024). Responsive Coaching: Evidence-informed instructional coaching that works for every teacher in your school. John Catt.

Gube, M., & Lajoie, S. (2020). Adaptive expertise and creative thinking: A synthetic review and implications for practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100630.

Hatano, G., Inagaki, K. (1986) ‘Two courses of expertise.’ In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, K. Hakuta (Eds.), Children development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.

Hu, Y. (2024) ‘Reconceptualizing teacher adaptability: the teacher adaptive-cognition theory’, Doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University.

Kennedy, M. (2016). Parsing the practice of teaching. Journal of teacher education, 67(1), 6-17.

Launder, A.G. and Piltz, W. (2013) Play practice: Engaging and developing skilled players from beginner to elite. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, p. 59.

Mancenido, Z., Hill, H. C., Garcia Coppersmith, J., Carter, H., Pollard, C., & Monschauer, C. (2025). Practice-based teacher education pedagogies improve responsiveness: Evidence from a lab experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1-25.

Rayne, K., Martin, T., Brophy, S., Kemp, N. J., Hart, J., & Diller, K. R. (2006). The development of adaptive expertise in biomedical engineering ethics. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 165–173.

Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D. and Sears, D. (2005) 'Efficiency and innovation in transfer', in Mestre, J.P. (ed.) Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 1–51.

Timperley, H. (2013) Learning to practise: A paper for discussion. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ward, P., Gore, J., Hutton, R., Conway, G. and Hoffman, R. (2018) 'Adaptive skill as the conditio sine qua non of expertise', Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(1), pp. 35–50.

---

[1] Note: these are not based on specific schools but each has elements of schools I have worked in or with (and for school A and school B), who often, to their credit, want to make changes.