Academy of Romanian Scientists

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

The Classroom as a Dynamic System: The Role of Adaptive

Leadership in Shaping Habituation

Corina VEDEANU¹, Ion STEGĂROIU²

¹Valahia University of Târgovişte, Aleea Sinaia Street, 130004, Târgovişte, Romania;

ORCID No.

0009-0009-5228-714X; vedeanucorina@yahoo.com (corresponding author)

2

Valahia University of Târgovişte, Aleea Sinaia Street, 130004, Târgovişte, Romania; Academy of

Romanian Scientists, Ilfov Street 3, 050094 Bucharest, Romania; ORCID No. 0009-0008-5946-2601 ;

stegaroiuion@yahoo.com

Received: April 6, 2026

Revised: May 13, 2026

Accepted: May 25, 2026

Published: June 30, 2026

Abstract: In classroom environments, learning is not merely an individual cognitive process, but

it emerges from complex interactions within dynamic social systems. This paper conceptualizes

the classroom as a self-organizing system in which adaptive leadership plays a central role in

shaping patterns of interaction, stability, and learning. Drawing inspiration from natural systems,

the paper argues that order in the classroom emerges through guided regulation rather than

imposed control. Adaptive leadership contributes to the reduction of entropy by structuring

interactions, modeling appropriate responses, and creating conditions for collective habituation.

Emotional, social, and metaphorical intelligence influences how students act, react, and interact

to classroom experiences. The central concept introduced is classroom habituation, defined as a

collective process through which repeated interactions gradually stabilize into shared patterns

of behavior, emotion, and meaning. Habituation is thus understood as a key mechanism for

transforming classroom variability into functional order. By integrating entropy, habituation, and

adaptive leadership, the study proposes a conceptual framework that explains how distinct

classroom climates and learning conditions emerge over time. To explore these relationships, the

study employs a quantitative design based on parallel questionnaires distributed to teachers and

students, in order to examine leadership practices, classroom entropy, habituation processes,

and learning outcomes.

Keywords: Adaptive Leadership, Classroom Habituation, Classroom Entropy, Emotional and

Social Intelligence.

Introduction

“Learning occurs between a fear and a need.” (Kofman & Senge, 1993, p. 14). And the most

important learning in contemporary organizations is to gain shared insight into

complexity in order to shape change (Senge, 1999), since change and innovation are non-

linear (Knight, 2021). Challenges force organizations to clarify their values, to develop

new strategies, and to learn new ways of operating (Heifetz et Laurie, 1997). It is not easy

to lead an organization to adapt to changes (Heifetz et al., 2009), hence leaders have the

responsibility to overcome challenges and to implement change (Issah, 2018). In this

context, learning and leadership become connected, especially in environments

characterized by uncertainty, adaption, and continuous transformation. Schools are

among such environments exposed to change. In school, students learn that “the name of

the game is not learning, but performing” (Senge, 1999, p. 39). Since learning is a

consequence of teaching (Knight, 2021), a teacher leader must create an environment

based on commitment, care, and innovation. Within these dynamic systems, the role of the

teacher goes beyond instruction, involving continuous regulation of interactions and

responses. Leadership has to take place every day (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997), and teachers

are the most suited to assume leadership roles because they interact with students daily

(Soares, 2020).

How to cite

Stegăroiu, I., Nistorescu, G.G., & Nistorescu, M.A. (2026). Management in Atypical Organizations:

Differences Between Military-type and Classical Management Models. Journal of Knowledge

Dynamics, Vol. 3. No. 1 pp.78-90. https://doi.org/10.56082/jkd.2026.1.78 ISSN ONLINE 3061-

2640

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 79

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 78-90

In educational settings, there is still a traditional perspective of learning as being linear,

although adaptive problems are often systemic and have no ready answers (Heifetz &

Laurie, 1997). There is a tendency to fragment problems into isolated parts, although

many of the challenges we face are systemic in nature (Kofman & Senge, 1993). However,

when classrooms are examined from the perspective of complex adaptive systems,

teachers gain valuable insights about learning (Knight, 2021). Schools are neither linear

nor closed systems. As complex learning systems, they are far more organic and dynamic

than traditional models suggest (Marshall, 1996). Adaptive leadership provides a

framework for understanding how teachers respond to classroom variability, while

shaping patterns of engagement, behavior, and learning. Adaptive leaders hold a holistic

vision, being able to see the various possibilities in order to make appropriate choices

(Bratianu & Lefter, 2001; Glover et al., 2002).

Heifetz and Laurie argue that leaders should give a voice to everybody (Heifetz & Laurie,

1997). This principle becomes particularly relevant in classrooms, where multiple

individuals continuously influence one another. Classrooms display many characteristics

associated with complex adaptive systems, and when organized according to similar

principles, they could maximize knowledge sharing and collective learning among

students. Complex adaptive systems contain multiple agents and cannot be explained

using traditional scientific methods. They adapt through complex processes of emergence

(Knight, 2021), become communities of inquiry, as their components are engaged in

making new meaning together (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2010; Ahmad et al., 2021).

Learning within such systems is not only about instructional practices. It also depends on

emotional climate, social interaction, and the meaning that students construct around

their experiences. Without interaction, a classroom would be a lifeless system (Vetromille-

Castro, 2013). The network of interactions results in an extremely complex system

(Mallows, 2002), and experienced teachers have implicit knowledge of the classroom’s

demands, tailoring activities that involve students (Doyle, 1986). Besides logical

reasoning, learning also requires a combination of affective climate, social interaction, and

symbolic dimensions. As shown by Vedeanu and Stegăroiu (2025), emotional intelligence

(EI), social intelligence (SI), and metaphorical intelligence (MI) can be understood as

pillars that support human cognition and development. EI allows teachers to recognize

and regulate emotional fluctuations, SI enables them to navigate relationships and group

dynamics, while MI can bring meaning and understanding to learning experiences

(Vedeanu & Stegăroiu, 2025).

Within classroom environments understood as dynamic systems, teachers play a vital role

in guiding interaction patterns. They adjust their practices to the needs of the group, going

beyond instruction or management and continuously shaping classroom dynamics

(Kennedy & Kennedy, 2010). By reducing variability and managing interaction patterns,

adaptive teachers contribute to the stabilization of the classroom, creating conditions for

both habituation and learning. Adaptive leadership does not explain what a teacher does,

but mostly how a classroom interacts, regulates, and stabilizes, in order to foster learning.

Classrooms do not evolve toward uniformity. Their climate is a multidimensional

construct (Wang et al., 2020) and their interactions form a complex system (Mallows,

2002), so even under similar structural conditions, identical curricula, and the same

teachers, each classroom develops distinct configuration shaped by ongoing interactions

and habituation processes. Classroom entropy refers to the degree of variability,

unpredictability, and instability in the patterns within the classroom. The habituation

processes transform fluctuating classroom dynamics into relatively stable configurations,

through the guidance of adaptive leadership. As a result, each classroom becomes unique,

an adaptive system characterized by its own entropic signature.

Previous studies (Hawkins & Kandel, 1984; Rankin et al., 2009; Typlt, 2013; Schmid et al.,

2015) have shown that habituation is traditionally studied at the individual level,

particularly in simple organisms, being considered the simplest form of learning.

80 | Corina VEDEANU, Ion STEGĂROIU

The Classroom as a Dynamic System: The Role of Adaptive Leadership in Shaping Habituation

Nevertheless, similar patterns of response can be observed in classroom settings. Unlike

biological systems, classroom habituation emerges through social interaction and it is

shaped by adaptive leadership. This paper extends the concept of habituation by

metaphorically proposing it as a collective process occurring within the classroom. In the

natural world, habituation is a passive reduction of responses to repeated stimuli

(Hawkins & Kandel, 1984; Rankin et al., 2009; Typlt, 2013). In the classroom, it can

become a pedagogical mechanism shaped by adaptive leadership, allowing entropy to

stabilize and creating conditions that foster learning.

Literature Review

Education and the classroom as a complex adaptive system

According to Knight, education is not a morally neutral activity, but a purposeful one. It

exists so that people learn something, not anything, as one of the educational aims is to

make a difference (Knight, 2021). There is a lack of vision regarding what is truly needed

in the classroom (Senge, 1999). As complex learning systems, schools are far more organic

and dynamic than linear (Marshall, 1996). Unpredictability, non-linearity, and self-

organization add to the classroom’s features, since there are random behaviors that

cannot be foreseen and these systems are constantly struggling to absorb new behavior

and elements (Vetromille-Castro, 2013). Groups of individuals in learning contexts can be

seen as complex adaptive systems (CAS), where interaction is essential for knowledge

construction (Grisogono

&

Radenovic, 2011; Vetromille-Castro, 2013). Without

interaction, a classroom would be a lifeless system (Vetromille-Castro, 2013). Since

classrooms function as CAS, inter-relationships create networked and non-linear

behaviors from which change, meaning learning, emerges at different levels. Despite this,

teachers still exercise control, instead of becoming more attuned to the collective (Knight,

2021).

Previous studies (Vetromille-Castro, 2013) have shown that a classroom becomes a living

organism, trying to harmonize diversity and to adapt to external changes. Classroom

climate is a complex multidimensional construct (Wang et al., 2020) and classroom life

has an intrinsic rhythm (Doyle, 1986). In addition, classroom management has the most

direct impact on students’ achievement, as it creates a safe and stimulating learning

environment (Djigic & Stojiljković, 2011). When their needs are met, students are more

likely to engage in learning and to develop academic skills (Wang et al., 2020). Efficient

lesson planning and effective classroom management are both necessary in order for

learning to take place (Martin & Baldwin, 1993). Students’ achievements improve when

teachers practice the interactionist style and decrease when teachers are interventionists

(Djigic & Stojiljković, 2011). The presence of the teacher improves learning by

mechanisms of relational dynamics (De Felice et al., 2022), since teachers build the

school’s capacity to improve (Chan, 2019). Teacher leadership is a sleeping giant that can

become a catalyst for implementing changes to improve learning (Katzenmeyer & Moller,

2011). With the teacher as a facilitator of the educational environment, the classroom

becomes an open system, where individuals strive to construct knowledge together

(Ahmad et al., 2021).

According to Doyle (as cited in Djigic & Stojiljković, 2011), the classroom is a complex

environment, where events happen fast, in an unpredictable way, and the teacher is

always on stage. Classrooms can be defined as communities of inquiry since they are open

systems, whose components are engaged in making new meaning together (Kennedy &

Kennedy, 2010; Ahmad et al., 2021). As a result, classrooms cannot be understood or

classified as static structures, but rather as evolving systems in which order and disorder

coexist, along with variability and invariability. “Context plays a pivotal role in shaping the

leadership practices that contribute to school efficiency.” (Dagala et al., 2024, p. 365).

Likewise, effective leaders respond to the changing needs of the context (Hallinger, 2003,

p. 346). In contexts characterized by unpredictability, adaptive leadership contributes to

the reduction of entropy by structuring interactions and guiding students toward more

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 81

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 78-90

stable patterns of response. Thus, it facilitates habituation processes, enabling students to

filter irrelevant stimuli and regulate their emotional and behavioral responses.

Adaptive leadership in educational systems

Because schools operate as dynamic systems, leadership becomes essential for

responding to complexity and change. Principals need to create a purposeful community,

in order to respond to the demands for change (Squires, 2015). School should nurture and

deepen the love for learning. Also, school should help students develop new skills of

systemic thinking, teaching them how to learn, especially together (Senge, 1999). Systems

thinking is essential for change, although it can also be uncomfortable (Senge et al., 2007).

We resist change and keep the belief that only the top can initiate significant change,

because we don’t want to give up a familiar mental model (Senge, 1996). Furthermore,

change creates a situation filled with anxiety and uncertainty (Issah, 2018), whereas

adaptive change is distressing for those going through it (Heifetz et Laurie, 1997).

Mujari, Astuti, and Surya (2026) argue that the key elements of adaptive leadership, such

as the holding environment, the disciplined attention or emotional intelligence are closely

related to teachers’ pedagogical competence and performance (Mujari et al., 2026). Its

goal is to energize and motivate through shared values and purposes (Squires, 2015).

Adaptive leadership is about change (Heifetz et al., 2009) and adaptive approaches are

needed as a response to uncertainty (Dunn, 2020). Today’s most pressing societal issues

will not be solved through hierarchical authority (Senge, 1996). Community builders are

predisposed to creating change and significant change requires imagination, dialogue and

deep caring (Senge, 1996). An organization doesn’t need change because it is broken

(Heifetz et al., 2009a). It is challenging to determine it to adapt to changes and approaches

that worked in the past may no longer be appropriate (Heifetz et al., 2009b). As humans,

we have always faced challenges, although we are often our worst enemies regarding

change (Helterbran, 2016). Adapting to challenges involves creative problem solving and

it goes beyond learning, requiring a holistic perspective (Glover et al., 2002). Adaptive

leaders have this holistic vision, being able to see the various possibilities in order to make

the best choices (Glover et al., 2002). Adaptive leadership emphasizes flexibility and

innovation, continuous learning and collaboration (Squires, 2015; Mujari et al., 2026). It

involves changing behavior in appropriate ways as the situation changes (Yukl & Mahsud,

2010). Adaptive leaders think globally, but act locally (Glover et al., 2002), they mobilize

people to cope with challenges and to thrive (Heifetz et al., 2009b; Good et al., 2021).

Vetromille-Castro (2013) stated that the classroom’s non-linearity is a conflict between

teaching and learning. According to Piaget (as cited in Glover et al., 2002), learning by

assimilation is an additive process, while learning by accommodation is an experiential

one, allowing the learner to adapt to a changing world. Thus, adaptive leadership requires

organizations to use assimilation and to be willing to accommodate. Openness to learning

means accepting the possibility of being wrong and letting go of having to be right

(Grisogono & Radenovic, 2011). The quality of learning depends on the condition of

infrastructure, human and material resources (Valerio, 2012; Ahmad et al., 2021), since

learning is based on social interactions (De Felice et al., 2022). Complex systems are

adaptive, non-linear, and interactive, their behavior emerging from the interaction of its

components (Larsen-Freeman, 1997; Mallows, 2002; Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007).

Any complex system embraces change and focuses on it (Cameron & Larsen-Freeman,

2007). In an educational setting, leadership at its best is perceived in the interactions

between people and the situations they face (Helterbran, 2016). In order to achieve

academic performance, school leaders may need to develop an adaptive approach,

experiencing what solutions work within their unique school context (Dunn, 2020).

Vedeanu and Stegăroiu (2025) showed that there are three dimensions playing a

significant role in how classroom interactions are regulated and transformed into

meaningful experiences. They are integrated into the triad of intelligences consisting of

emotional intelligence (EI), social intelligence (SI), and metaphorical intelligence (MI).

They provide mechanisms through which adaptive leadership may influence classroom

82 | Corina VEDEANU, Ion STEGĂROIU

The Classroom as a Dynamic System: The Role of Adaptive Leadership in Shaping Habituation

dynamics. EI contributes to emotional safety and students’ ability to engage in learning

processes, SI supports collaboration and group interaction, while MI allows both learners

and teachers to organize complex experiences into shared interpretations (Vedeanu and

Stegăroiu, 2025).

CAS are based on an intertwined network of constant interactions, generating patterns

that are often unpredictable and difficult to control (Knight, 2021). As interactions

multiply, variability naturally emerges within the system. This variability can be

understood through the concept of entropy. According to Bratianu and Bejinaru (2019),

entropy was originally associated with thermodynamics and it refers to the tendency of

the systems to move toward increasing disorder (Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019). In

educational environments, entropy would rather reflect the degrees of variability and

unpredictability present within interactions, as classrooms consist of multiple individuals

influencing one another. Within open systems, external energy is constantly integrated,

slowing entropy down (Vetromille-Castro, 2013).

Classroom entropy and classroom order

The term entropy was coined in 1865 by the German mathematician and physicist Rudolf

Claudius (Vetromille-Castro, 2013; Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019). Originally related to

energy dissipated in the process (Vetromille-Castro, 2013), entropy has since been

applied to social and organizational systems. Bratianu and Bejinaru (2009) argue that the

main attribute of energy is the fact that it is a field, “a continuum of forces” within a social

context (Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019, p. 3). Entropy is also present in CAS (Vetromille-

Castro, 2013). Organizations create both order and disorder, they produce both entropy,

seen as the degradation of the system and of itself, and negentropy, the regeneration and

renewal (Morin, 1992).

In educational settings, entropy has been explored as a means of understanding the

dynamics of pedagogical systems (Dunn, 2020). Students learn more when there is less

confusion and misbehavior and more productive work (Doyle, 1986). When entropy is

low, the realization of potential is high (Ahmad et al., 2021), while a high level of disorder

implies a high level of entropy (Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019). Disorder is distractive

(Csíkszentmihályi, 1990), which explains why teachers often rely on routines to reduce

confusion in the classroom, since classroom order rests fundamentally on familiar

activities that ensure stability and continuity (Doyle, 1986). Thus, as shown by Bratianu &

Bejinaru, knowledge sharing can reduce entropy, because energy is distributed efficiently,

rather than equally, fostering innovation and learning (Bratianu & Bejinaru, 2019).

Learning itself can be viewed as a local anti-entropic process (Ahmad et al., 2021), since

open systems evolve and increase in order and complexity by absorbing energy from the

environment (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). According to Norbert Wiener (as cited in Ahmad et

al., 2021) social systems create local order in a universe that naturally tends toward

disorder. Flow, also known as negentropy, represents a source of energy that educators

seek to harness in order to foster learning (Csíkszentmihályi, 2014).

Habituation as a mechanism of classroom stabilization and learning

The concept of habituation originates from the work of Eric Kandel and his studies on the

marine snail Aplysia (Hawkins & Kandel, 1984; Kandel & Hawkins, 1992; Kapoukranidou

et al., 2009). With approximately 20.000 nerves cells, Aplysa provided a model through

which habituation was identified as one of the simplest forms of leaning (Hawkins &

Kandel, 1984; Rankin et al., 2009; Typlt, 2013; Schmid et al., 2015). Habituation occurs

when an organism learns to ignore a weak stimulus that is repeatedly present and neither

dangerous nor rewarding (Hawkins & Kandel, 1984; Rankin et al., 2009; Typlt, 2013).

Learning involves the acquisition of knowledge and skills, while memory refers to the

ability to store and maintain them (Kandel & Hawkins, 1992; Kapoukranidou et al., 2009).

Learning changes both the function and the structure of the central nervous system

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 83

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 78-90

(Hawkins & Kandel, 1984; Kandel & Hawkins, 1992; Kapoukranidou et al., 2009). In

educational environments, learning is a form of social progress (Kandel & Hawkins, 1992)

and it can be understood as a process of establishing connections and acquiring

information from the networks (Shi & Liu, 2025) where teacher leaders serve as

facilitators of learning and teaching (Issah, 2018).

Although habituation has traditionally been studied at an individual level, its logic can be

extended to classroom settings. Through repeated interactions, students learn to filter

irrelevant stimuli, adapt to routines, regulate emotional responses, and focus attention on

learning tasks. Repetition gradually transforms uncertainty into familiarity, allowing

classroom interactions to stabilize into patterns of behavior and participation. The

relationship between learning, emotion and body is connected to the notion of learning

itself (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007). Sometimes, learning is not about what teachers

do. It is filtered through a range of networked factors (Knight, 2021) where each structure

evolves through interactions (Kofman & Senge, 1993). In a classroom, learning takes place

not only as intended by the structures of the organized schooling, the curricula or the

teachers, but it becomes behavioral, relational, and environmental (Knight, 2021), so that

students learn within a space of active learning and meaning (Daniels, 2010). From this

perspective, classroom habituation can be understood as a collective process through

which teachers transform variability into functional order.

Learning is fundamentally embedded in social interactions (De Felice et al., 2022). It is a

process of acquiring information and constructing connections within networks (Shi &

Liu, 2025), where teacher leaders serve as facilitators of learning and teaching (Issah,

2018). The quality of learning depends on infrastructure, human resources, and material

conditions (Valerio, 2012; Ahmad et al., 2021), but also on the social interactions that

occur within educational environments (De Felice et al., 2022). Efficient lesson planning

and effective classroom management are necessary for learning to take place (Martin &

Baldwin, 1993). When students’ needs are met, they are more likely to engage in learning

and develop academic skills (Wang et al., 2020). Research suggests that achievement

improves when teachers adopt interactionist approaches and declines when teaching

becomes mainly interventionist (Djigic & Stojiljković, 2011). When the challenge is higher

than the skills, anxiety results (Csíkszentmihályi, 1990; Csíkszentmihályi, 2014).

Adaptation implies a fundamental change in how we see the world, forcing us to rethink

the very notions of leadership and organizations (Glover et al., 2002). It is a natural

process for dealing with complex situations (Grisogono & Radenovic, 2011), taking time

and relying on diversity (Heifetz et al., 2009b). Many forms of learning are associative in

nature, as individuals learn to connect different stimuli and experiences over time

(Kapoukranidou et al., 2009).

As noted by Lieberman, 2013, “When people feel better, they perform better.” (Lieberman,

2013, p. 3). Learning organizations are generally more adaptive than traditional

organizations, they cultivate empathy, compassion, and the capacity to function as

systems (Kofman & Senge, 1993). Individual minds become interconnected within larger

social systems, and effective leaders understand how to improve interconnectedness

(Lieberman, 2013). In education, the teacher’s presence enhances learning through

relational dynamics (De Felice et al., 2022). Teachers build the school’s capacity for

improvement (Chan, 2019) and teacher leadership has been described as a sleeping giant

capable of catalysing meaningful educational change (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2011). As

facilitators of the educational environment and managers of learning, teachers contribute

to the creation of open learning systems in which knowledge is constructed collectively

(Ahmad et al., 2021).

Classrooms are not static. They should be understood as dynamic social systems, in which

learning depends on the ongoing interactions that occur within educational environments

(De Felice et al., 2022). Entropy could represent the natural variability and

unpredictability of the classroom life, since it is used as a means of understanding the

dynamics of pedagogical systems (Dunn, 2020). There is an invisible thread connecting

entropy, habituation, and learning within the classroom environment, represented by

84 | Corina VEDEANU, Ion STEGĂROIU

The Classroom as a Dynamic System: The Role of Adaptive Leadership in Shaping Habituation

adaptive leadership, an educational tool that does not eliminate variability, but channels

it into repeated and meaningful interactions.

Methodology

This study employed a quantitative questionnaire to explore the relationships among

adaptive leadership, classroom entropy, classroom habituation, and learning outcomes.

Participants consisted of 42 teachers and 68 students from Romania lower-secondary and

upper-secondary education. Among the teachers, 66,7% taught at the lower-secondary

level and 33,3% at the upper-secondary level. The student sample included 70,6% lower-

secondary students (grades V-VIII) and 29,4% upper-secondary students (grades IX-XII)

with a gender distribution of 41 females and 27 males.

Data were collected using two parallel questionnaires designed in a mirror structure, one

addressed to teachers and one to students. Both questionnaires contained 16 items on a

five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The

items were organized into four conceptual dimensions: adaptive leadership (items 1-4),

classroom entropy (items 5-8), classroom habituation (items 9-12), and learning

outcomes (items 13-16).

Adaptive leadership referred to teachers’ perceived capacity to adjust instructional and

pedagogical strategies, communication, and feedback according to situations in the

classroom and to students’ needs. Classroom entropy described fluctuations in attention,

behavioral responses, and interaction patterns. In the Results section, it is used the term

classroom dynamics, in order to capture the ongoing interactions among students.

Classroom habituation represented the gradual formation of stable routines and

behavioral expectations through repeated classroom experiences. Learning outcomes

referred to students’ understanding, participation, and sense of educational safety.

Results and Discussions

The aim of this article was to examine how adaptive leadership, classroom entropy,

classroom habituation, and learning outcomes are perceived by teachers and students. It

was assumed that learning emerges through the interaction of all these elements, since

classrooms operate as dynamic open systems, characterized by ongoing interactions,

feedback, and adaptation. From this perspective, classroom stability is not viewed as a

fixed condition but as an emergent property that develops gradually through repeated

social and instructional interactions. Adaptive teachers are supposed to regulate

classroom dynamics, in order to stabilize entropy, metaphorically seen as the natural

variability inherent in classroom life. It reflects fluctuations in students’ participation,

attention, and social interactions. From this perspective, entropy requires continuous

regulation through adaptive leadership and collective habituation.

Table 1. Students’ Descriptive Statistics by Dimension (N-68)

Dimension

Mean

3.83

3.38

3.61

3.93

Adaptive Leadership

Classroom Dynamics

Habituation

Learning Outcomes

Source: authors’ research

The findings suggest that students generally perceive their teachers as adaptive and

responsive to the classroom’s needs. The highest scores obtained for learning outcomes

indicate that students experience positive effects in terms of participation, understanding,

and safety. The lower scores for classroom dynamics reflect the presence of variability and

fluctuations within classroom interactions. The highest mean scores were obtained from

the items related to adaptation and repetitive activities (4.25), safety when learning

(4.09), and the teacher’s communication depending on the situation (4.07). Together,

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 85

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 78-90

these findings suggest that adaptive leadership may contribute to the development of

stable and supportive learning environments, guiding both interaction and learning in the

classroom.

Table 2. Gender differences

Dimension

Female Students

Male Students

4.09

3.66

Adaptive Leadership

Classroom Dynamics

Habituation

3.51

3.53

3.77

3.18

3.72

4.17

Learning Outcomes

Source: authors’ research

Male students reported higher perception of adaptive leadership, habituation, and

learning outcomes than female students. In contrast, female students perceived a higher

degree of classroom variability and fluctuations. These differences could indicate distinct

ways of interpreting classroom experiences and suggest that gender-related factors may

influence perceptions of classroom functioning.

Table 3. Differences by Educational Level

Dimension

Grades V-VIII

Grades IX-XII

3.96

Adaptive Leadership

Classroom Dynamics

Habituation

3.78

3.42

3.49

3.92

3.28

3.89

3.95

Learning Outcomes

Source: authors’ research

Students from upper secondary education reported higher levels of adaptive leadership

and habituation than students from lower secondary education. This finding may suggest

that repeated interactions over time contribute to the stabilization of classroom routines

and behavioral patterns. Also, older students internalize differently pedagogical practices.

Learning outcomes remained relatively high across both educational levels, indicating

that students generally perceive the classroom as supportive of learning.

Overall, the results support the view of the classroom as a dynamic system in which

adaptive teacher behaviors contribute to the emergence of stable interaction patterns and

positive learning experiences. Students generally perceived their teachers as adaptive and

responsive, suggesting that leadership in the classroom settings may function as a

regulatory mechanism that helps manage interactions and reduce uncertainty. Repeated

classroom experiences stabilize into patterns of behavior and participation, as students

become more involved in the activities proposed by the teachers. Habituation appears to

function as a bridge between classroom variability and academic outcomes, transforming

repeated experiences into a mechanism that stabilizes entropy in order to facilitate

learning. At the same time, the scores obtained for learning outcomes and psychological

safety suggest that adaptive leadership can contribute not only to instructional

effectiveness but also to the emotional climate of the classroom.

Table 4. Teachers’ Descriptive Statistics (N= 42)

Dimension

Mean

4.48

3.85

3.44

3.76

Adaptive Leadership

Classroom Dynamics

Habituation

Learning Outcomes

Source: authors’ research

86 | Corina VEDEANU, Ion STEGĂROIU

The Classroom as a Dynamic System: The Role of Adaptive Leadership in Shaping Habituation

Teachers reported very high levels of adaptive leadership, suggesting they perceive

themselves as highly responsive to students’ needs and classroom dynamics. They

frequently experience variability, fluctuations in attention, and diverse student responses.

Habituation obtained a moderate score, while learning outcomes remained relatively high,

suggesting that despite classroom variability, teachers perceive learning processes as

generally effective, despite the interruptions in students’ attention.

Table 5. Comparison between Teachers and Students

Dimension

Teachers

4.48

3.85

Students

3.83

3.38

Adaptive Leadership

Classroom Dynamics

Habituation

3.44

3.61

Learning Outcomes

3.76

3.93

Source: authors’ research

Teachers evaluate their adaptive leadership more positively than students, which

suggests that teachers perceive themselves as highly adaptive, while students recognize

this adaptability to a lesser degree. Also, teachers report higher levels of classroom

dynamics and variability. This finding is important because it indicates that teachers are

more aware of the complexity, unpredictability, and fluctuating nature of classroom

interactions. One possible explanation is that students may become habituated to the

everyday variability of classroom life and therefore perceive certain fluctuations as

normal. As a result, teachers may be more sensitive to these changes in attention,

participation and organization than students themselves. Finally, students report slightly

higher learning outcomes, indicating that the educational environment may have a

stronger positive impact on learners than teachers estimate.

Table 6. Teachers’ Comparison by Educational Level

Dimension

Lower Secondary

Upper Secondary

Adaptive Leadership

Classroom Dynamics

Habituation

4.55

3.90

3.50

3.82

4.32

3.75

3.32

3.62

Learning Outcomes

Source: authors’ research

Lower secondary education teachers reported higher scores across all four dimensions.

This may reflect the greater need for continuous adaptation and relationship-building

during early adolescence. Repeated routines and teacher guidance may play a particularly

important role in supporting student behavior and learning during this developmental

stage.

The combined perspectives of teachers and students provide support for the view of the

classroom as a dynamic and self-organizing system. Teachers perceive high levels of

adaptive leadership and recognize great variability within classroom interactions, while

students report relatively stable learning experiences and positive educational outcomes.

This difference suggests that teachers need to continuously manage classroom complexity

that students aren’t fully aware of.

The findings support the theoretical role of habituation as a bridge between classroom

variability and learning. Although teachers perceive considerable fluctuation in student

behavior and attention, students report positively stable routines, increased participation,

and a strong sense of safety during learning. This pattern is consistent with the

perspective that adaptive leadership doesn’t eliminate entropy, but it stabilizes it, so that

classroom interaction promotes cooperation and interaction.

From a dynamic systems perspective, classroom order appears to emerge through

continuous adaptation rather than through rigid control (De Felice et al., 2022). Teachers

adjust communication, feedback, and pedagogical strategies in order to respond to

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 87

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 78-90

changing classroom conditions. At the same time, students gradually develop stable

routines and learning behaviors. Therefore, the classroom can be understood as a living

social system, where learning emerges from repeated interactions, adaptive regulation,

and the gradual construction of patterns of behavior and meaning (Helterbran, 2016).

Adaptive leadership contributes to the regulation of classroom dynamics, facilitating

habituation and fostering learning outcomes.

Conclusions

This article examined the relationships between adaptive leadership, classroom entropy,

classroom habituation, and learning outcomes from the teachers’ and students’

perspectives. Classrooms function as dynamic and adaptive social systems rather than as

static instructional environments (Mallows, 2002; Cameron & Larsen-Freeman, 2007).

Learning appears to emerge through ongoing interactions, feedback processes, and

collective adaptation, confirming that educational mechanisms are relational and

systemic (Grisogono & Radenovic, 2011; Vetromille-Castro, 2013). The results indicate

that adaptive leadership is present in both teacher and student perceptions, and that it

appears to operate through flexibility, responsiveness, and emotional awareness. Rather

than functioning as a mechanism of control, adaptive leadership seems to facilitate the

regulation of the classroom dynamics, helping teachers to respond to complexity and

uncertainty (Heifetz et Laurie, 1997; Grisogono & Radenovic, 2011; Dunn, 2020).

Variability is a normal characteristic of classroom life, expressed through fluctuations,

interruptions, and organizational challenges that characterize everyday classroom

interactions. From a complexity perspective, entropy should not be seen just as disorder

but as an inherent feature of open systems that continuously interact with their

environment. As suggested by previous studies (Doyle, 1986; Csíkszentmihályi, 1990;

Ahmad et al., 2021), learning environments require a balance between stability and

change, since excessive disorder may reduce attention, participation, and engagement.

Classroom order rests mainly on activities (Doyle, 1986) and repeated interactions,

routines, expectations, and feedback gradually stabilize into patterns that foster learning.

Classroom habituation may be understood as a collective adaptation process through

which variability is transformed into order. The concept extends the original

understanding of habituation as a reduction to repeated stimuli (Hawkins & Kandel, 1984;

Rankin et al., 2009; Typlt, 2013;) and applies it to the social and relational dynamics of

classroom life.

Adaptive leadership may be viewed as the invisible thread that connects entropy,

habituation, and learning within an open system where individual minds fuse into a single

system (Lieberman, 2013), so that diversity and complexity may be directed toward

productive forms of organization. Classroom climate is a complex multidimensional

construct (Wang et al., 2020) and it creates local order through ongoing adaptation in

order to facilitate learning. Future research could further investigate how adaptive

classroom processes evolve over time, studying the emergence of learning in

unpredictable educational environments that mirror social ecosystems constantly

challenged to adapt, reorganize and reinvent themselves.

References

Articles

Ahmad, M.I., Khan, I., Ahmad, M., Husain, A., & Jamaludin, R. (2021). Entropy in education

system: Transformation of an individual through meaningful interactions in a

community of inquiry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 35, 591-606.

https://doi.org/10.100 7/s11213-021-09585-6

Biesta, G. (2010). Why ‘What Works’ still won’t work: From evidence-based education to

value-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29, 491-503.

https://doi.org/10.100 7/s11217-010-9191-x

88 | Corina VEDEANU, Ion STEGĂROIU

The Classroom as a Dynamic System: The Role of Adaptive Leadership in Shaping Habituation

Bratianu, C., & Bejinaru, R. (2019). The theory of knowledge fields: A thermodynamics

approach. Systems, 7(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems7020020

Bratianu, C., & Lefter, V. (2001). Management strategic universitar. Editura RAO,

Bucharest.

Cameron, L.,

&

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied

linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 226–240.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00148.x

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (2014). Applications of flow in human development and education.

In

The

Collected

Works

of

Mihaly

Csikszentmihalyi,

Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9094-9 .

Chan, J.W. (2019). Role of teacher leadership in school development. Research Journal of

Education and Review, 7(6), 074-076. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3255017

Daniels, E. (2010). Creating motivating learning environments: What we can learn from

research

and

students.

The

English

Journal,

100(1),

25-29.

https://doi.org/10.230 7/20787687

De Felice, S., de C. Hamilton, A.F., Ponari, M., & Vigliocco G. (2022). Learning from others is

good, with others is better: the role of social interaction in human acquisition of

new knowledge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 378, 1-12.

http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0357

Djigic, G., & Stojiljković, S. (2011). Classroom management styles, classroom climate and

school achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 819-828.

https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.sbspro.2011.11.310

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of

instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,

33(3), 329-352. http://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005

Hawkins, R.D., & Kandel, E.R. (1984). Is there a cell-biological alphabet for simple forms of

learning? Psychological Review, 91(3), 375-391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

295X.91.3.375

Immordino-Yang, M.A., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance

of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind Brain and Education, 1(1),

3-10. https://doi.org/1 0.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x

Issah, M. (2018). Change leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. SAGE Open, 8(3),

1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018800910

Kandel, E.R.,

individuality. Scientific

https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0992-78

&

Hawkins, R.D. (1992). The biological basis of learning and

American, 267(3), 78–86.

Knight, B. (2021). Classroom as complex adaptive system and the emergence of learning.

In book: Pedagogy - Challenges, Recent Advances, New Perspectives, and

Applications [Working Title], 1-23. https://doi.org/10.57 72/intechopen.101699

Kofman, F., & Senge, P.M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning

organizations.

Organizational

Dynamics,

22

(2),

5-23.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(93)90050-B

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language Acquisition.

Applied Linguistics, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141

Mallows, D. (2002). Non-linearity and the observed lesson. ELT Journal , 56(1), 3-10.

https://doi.org/10.109 3/elt/56.1.3

Wang, M.T., Degol, J.L., Amemiya, J., Parr, A., & Guo, J. (2020). Classroom climate and

children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-

analysis.

Developmental

Review,

57,

1-21.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.10091 .

Morin, E. (1992). From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity. Journal of

Social and Evolutionary Systems, 15(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/1061-

7361(92)90024-8

Mujari, M., Astuti, Y., & Surya, P. (2026). Adaptive leadership research trends in education.

Curricula:

Journal

of

Curriculum

Development,

5(1),

133-

148. https://doi.org/10.17509/curricula.v5i1.93452

Rankin, C.H., Abrams, T., Barry, R.J., Bhatnagar, S., Clayton, D.F., Colombo, J., Coppola, G.,

Geyer, M.A., Glanzman, D.L., Marsland, S., McSweeney, FK, Wilson, D.A., Wu C.F., &

Academy of Romanian Scientists | 89

Journal of Knowledge Dynamics

Vol. 3 (2026) No.1, pp. 78-90

Thompson, R.F. (2009). Habituation revisited: an updated and revised

description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem,

92(2), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2008.09.012

Schmid, S., Wilson, D. A., & Rankin, C. H. (2015). Habituation mechanisms and their

importance for cognitive function. Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 8(97), 1-

2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2014.00097

Shi, P., & Liu, W. (2025). Adaptive learning oriented higher educational classroom teaching

strategies. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-

00536-y .

Soares, L. (2020). Awakening teacher leaders: A new paradigm in education for school and

student success. PUPIL: International Journal of Teaching, Education and Learning,

4(2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijtel.2020.42.96106

Kennedy, N.S., & Kennedy, D. (2010). Between chaos and entropy: Community of inquiry

from a systems perspective. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and

Education, 7 (2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10 .29173/cmplct8917

Typlt, M., Mirkowski, M., Azzopardi, E., Ruth, P., Pilz, P.K., & Schmid, S. (2013). Habituation

of reflexive and motivated behavior in mice with deficient BK channel function.

Front Integr Neurosci, 7(79), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00079

Vetromille-Castro, R. (2013). Social Interactive Entropy and Interaction in the Language

Teacher Education Classroom. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 13(2),

625-641. https://doi.org/10 .1590/S1984-63982013000200012

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting

Psychology

Journal:

Practice

and

Research,

62(2),

81-93.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019835

Online articles

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. Public

Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40862298

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. HarperConnins.

https://files.blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/wp-

content/blogs.dir/2418/files/2013/04/Mihaly-Csikszentmihalyi-Flow.pdf

Dagala, F.G., Kilag, O.K.T., Unuabia, R.P., & Arcillo, M.T. (2024). The Crucial Role of Educational

Leaders in Optimizing School Efficiency. International Multidisciplinary Journal of

Research

for

Innovation,

Sustainability,

and

Excellence,1(2),

368-374.

https://risejournals.org/index.php/imjrise/article/view/357

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom Management Techniques and Student Discipline, 1-42.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED315883

Dunn, R. (2020). Adaptive Leadership: Leading Through Complexity. In International Studies in

Educational Administration, 48, (1), 31-38.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342902908_Adaptive_Leadership_Leading_Throu

gh_Complexity

Glover, J.M.,Friedman, H.L.,& Jones,G.(2002).AdaptiveLeadership:WhenChangeIsNotEnough

(Part One). Organization Development Journal, 20, 15.

https://www.indigenouspsych.org/Interest%20Group/Glover/2002AdaptiveLeaderODJ.pdf

Grint,

K.

(2005).

Leadership:

Limits

and

Possibilities.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Leadership%3A-Limits-and-Possibilities-

Grint/41552b76a90a927ce6759c2e3a2f88c4ec9e3411 .

Grisogono, A.M., & Radenovic, V. (2011). The Adaptive Stance - steps towards teaching more

effective complex decision-making.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275342327_The_Adaptive_Stance_-

_steps_towards_teaching_more_effective_complex_decision-making

Goode, H., McGennisken, R., & Rutherford, E. (2021). An Adaptive Leadership Response to

Unprecedented Change. In International Studies in Educational Administration

(Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)),

49(1),

36 .

https://bildungsmanagement.net/wp-

90 | Corina VEDEANU, Ion STEGĂROIU

The Classroom as a Dynamic System: The Role of Adaptive Leadership in Shaping Habituation

content/uploads/sites/4/2021/03/Huber-2021-

SchoolingAndEducationInTimesOfTheCOVID-19Pandemic.pdf

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work ofleadership. Harvard business review, 75(1), 124–

134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10174450/

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. & Linsky, M. (2009a). The Theory Behind the Practice: A Brief

Introduction

to

the

Adaptive

Leadership

Framework.

https://www.giarts.org/sites/default/files/workshop/ch-2-theory-behind-the-

practice.pdf

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A. & Linsky, M. (2009b). Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis. Harvard

business

review,

87,

1-9.

https://center-for-leadership.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/08/Leadership_in_Permanent_Crisis-copy-2.pdf

Helterbran, V.R. (2016). CHAPTER 12: Teacher Leadership: Overcoming “I am just a teacher”

Syndrome. In Counterpoints. Teacher Leadership: The “New” Foundation of Teacher

Education: A Reader: Revised Edition, 466, 114-120. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ930607

Kapoukranidou, D., Papachristou, P., & Gousopoulos, G. (2009). Molecular mechanisms of

memory

and

learning.

Aristotle

University

Medical

Journal,

36(1).

https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/aumj/article/view/4721/4822

Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2011). CHAPTER ONE: Understanding Teacher Leadership.

Counterpoints, Teacher Leadership: The “New” Foundation of Teacher Education – A

READER, 408, 3-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42981262

Martin, N.K., & Baldwin, B. (1993). Validation of an Inventory of Classroom Management Style:

Differences

between

Novice

and

Experienced

Teachers.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Validation-of-an-Inventory-of-Classroom-

Management-Martin-

Baldwin/b52841db3a63809348b6dcfbf0d9ed05d88d7365#citing-papers

Senge, P. M. (1999). It's the learning: The real lesson of the quality movement. The Journal for

Quality and Participation, 22(6), 34-40.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/219178396/fulltextPDF/DD00929C63584C56PQ/1?a

ccountid=10286

Senge, P.M. (1996) Leading Learning Organizations: The Bold, the Powerful, and the Invisible,

publishedbyJosseyBass,Inc.,asubsidiaryofJohnWiley&SonsCompany,inTheLeader

of the Future, Goldsmith and F. Hesselbein, Eds. The Peter F. Drucker Foundation

https://solonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Leading-Learning-Organizations-The-

Bold-the-Powerful-and-the-Invisible-Senge.pdf

Senge, P., Lichtenstein, B., Käufer, K., & Bradbury, H. (2007). Collaborating For Systemic Change.

Sloan Management Review, 48, 44-53.

https://stsroundtable.com/wp-content/uploads/Senges-Collaborating-for-Systemic-Change-

2007.pdf

Marshall, S.P. (1996). Chaos, complexity, and flocking behavior: metaphors for

learning.https://www.education.sa.gov.au/docs/curriculum/tfel/chaos_complexity_a

nd_flocking_behaviour_metaphors_for_learning.pdf

Squires, V. L. (2015). Tackling Complex Educational Challenges Through Adaptive

Leadership. Antistasis, 5(1).

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/antistasis/article/view/22855/26615

Valerio, K.M.V. (2012). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. Journal of Student Engagement:

Education matters, 2(1), 30-35. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uow.27688173.v1

Books

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology ofOptimal Experience. HarperConnins e-book.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press.

Lieberman, M.D. (2013). Social. Why our brains are wired to connect. Oxford University Press.

Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: leadership and school reform. Boston,

MA: Pearson Education.