Martine van der Pluijm

163 General discussion The teacher professionalization activities, which reflected a similar adaptive approach, may have stimulated changes in teacher behavior. Our professionalization strategy was based on the theory about the professional development of teachers (e.g., Ericson, 2006; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, & Reed, 2002; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005; Kessels, 1993; Kolb, 2014; Korthagen, 2010; Van Veen, Zwart, & Meirink; 2012; Walker & Dodger, 2012). We experienced how our partnerships with teachers based on autonomy (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000), collaborative learning (e.g., Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 2002), reciprocity between perspectives of stakeholders, and joint inquiry (e.g., Van Veen et al., 2012) fostered a change of behavior in teachers (see Chapters 3 and 4). Teachers reported that they were inspired by examples that were shared during network sessions with the research community of teachers and researchers and were stimulated to face new challenges. In addition, we believe that coaches were meaningful role models, illustrating the adaptive approach (e.g., an open attitude, investigating perspectives and abilities) inspiring teachers to be role models for parents, who in turn can be models for their children (cf., Wasik & Sparling, 2012). Our professionalization strategy respecting teachers’ basic psychological needs of autonomy, relation, and competency may have contributed to the intrinsic motivation of teachers to develop their abilities to work with parents. This interpretation corroborates findings of recent studies examining how motivational processes built upon psychological need satisfaction contribute to the professional development of teachers (De Brabander & Martens, 2018; Klaeijssen, Vermeulen, & Martens, 2018). This adaptive approach created a safe environment for professional development by situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), such as simulations during network sessions and experiments in practice. Teachers were challenged to develop their behavior by acting and reflecting (e.g., Walker & Dodger, 2012; Walker & Leg, 2018). Coaches reinforced teachers’ attempts to find new solutions and experiment with new behavior (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). This process stimulated teachers to adhere to the program principles and increased satisfaction of their roles as teachers. Teachers found ways to customize the AHL program to their classroom. This change of teacher behavior is an important finding in the light of research that shows how teachers might struggle with applying strategies to engage lower-educated parents’ in children’s language development (e.g., De la Rie, 2018; Teepe, 2018). The adaptive approach also has disadvantages. The seven theoretical steps of AHL required teachers to explore how to implement these steps in their context and within their abilities. However, before participating in this research, many teachers had used scripted (ECEC) methods and were not familiar with the flexible nature of our professionalization program. Some teachers expected coaches to provide them with a new scripted method and the assurance that it would work (cf., Epstein, Jung, & Sheldon, 2019; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002). This clash of expectations was challenging for the coaches. Teachers needed more coaching for this new