Pages

Thursday, April 26, 2012

What Isn't Innovation?

The most obvious and most striking finding from the 30+ questionnaires I've received, from professors, practitioners, consultants, educationalists, etc. has to do with what programs are designated as truly innovative.

Question 2 was set up to get at what respondents thought were programs that challenge educational norms in the U.K.; truly "rebellious" approaches.  I had originally thought that surveying those within the Learning and Technology sector would be the best way to elucidate a handful of programs that most agreed were definitely thinking "outside the box."

I'm still working on analyzing the most recent data coming in, but as of Tuesday, of the 25 responses I've analyzed, 61 different programs/schools/innovators were named.  Even more striking, not one of these programs/schools/innovators received more than three votes.

This result is particularly thought-provoking because of the snowballing sampling strategy I've been using to generate participants. I ask questionnaire respondents to name other people to include in the scoping process, meaning that many participants are fairly connected professionally.  And yet there seems to be very little agreement even between those who work together and know each other as to what are innovative, structure-challenging approaches to Educational Technology.

I am working on closer analysis of themes from the answers; the values and characteristics ascribed to why these innovations were mentioned, etc...I'll share at a later point in time.

Yet the basic question that keeps floating back into my mind is: what isn't innovation in Learning and Technology?  Given the spread of programs/schools/innovators of all 'shapes and sizes' named, it seems that everything is innovative to someone in Educational Technology, based on their experiences and their position in the field. Yet, it is clear that by designating something "innovative" (particularly in this questionnaire based on how the question is framed), we are ascribing some sort of valuation to these programs mentioned; a positive value judgment that distinguishes these programs from other approaches.  But what are the values we are ascribing when we call something innovative?

What isn't an innovative approach in a field that is essentially evolving and changing all the time, with new technologies and new approaches?

Does the disagreement on what is innovative diminish the value of the word itself?  Or do we not need to decide on a shared conception of innovation?

SHAMELESS PLUG: Fill out the questionnaire here! I want to hear from you!

No comments:

Post a Comment