Pages

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Innovation Is Not An Empty Term

And it's essay week! Writing one essay critiquing the dissenting research on video games in formal education (arguing that the majority of arguments are actually critiques of the education system rather than of video games) and the other on a historical comparison of research on informal learning pre- and post-Internet (amazing how much the conversation hasn't changed).

Which means dissertation analysis is in the back seat, so to speak. Yet, I thought I'd share particular point I've been contemplating lately from the research.

Lately I've been examining what's not in responses as to how to conceptualize innovation. And one thing almost all answers are not missing is confidence that innovation is something in particular.

Of all of the scoping respondents - some of the most prominant thinkers and practitioners in U.K. Educational Technology - only one person wholeheartedly answered that he was not sure what innovation is.

“I've been asked lots of times what innovation is and I'm not sure that I know. Not for certain. I'm sure that it means new things, useful things, exciting things? But what is the purpose of innovation? Is it simply to exhibit new, useful and shiny things or is it to see these through to mainstream acceptance and understanding? I suspect that the latter is right but that innovators get bored once mainstream gets ahold and they move on. In that case I'm not really an innovator. I see the point and given the opportunity will try to mainstream that point.”

Every other respondent listed with some level of confidence some conception of what characteristics of innovation are and what are seen as innovative projects.

Worth thinking about. There is a conception out there among individuals of what innovation means when applied to technology programs, what it entails.  It is not an empty term; it has weight in our minds.  However, as results will show, this conception is not universally shared nor definitively defined in the collective mindset (see previous posts).  What does it mean? How is this conception formed if not collectively?

I have a preliminary theory on this last question, but not for today. Just a grain of food for thought.

IF YOU ARE OR YOUR KNOW AN innovative teacher in educational technology, I'd love to hear from you! The more analysis I do, the more crucial I think the teacher's perspectives are.  Fill out the survey at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dENtTTJvN243NHo0enZKU0JsMGlhU0E6MQ#gid=0

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

The Black Hole of Innovation

So, what do we have? We have disparate views on what programs or approaches are innovative, and disparate views on what characteristics are innovative. Yet the data tells us more than merely this; how can we (using the royal we, I mean I) make sense of all of these insights into how we conceptualize innovation?  My developing thoughts on this will be the subject of the next couple of blog posts.

The programs or approaches named tend to be able to be grouped in some major categories.  I've made this preliminary image of the various facets of formal education that are challenged by "innovative" programs:
Almost all of the programs/approaches named can be grouped into one or more of these categories; but some categories are more heavy-hit than others.

For instance, educational content seems to be so far the black hole of "innovative" programs in educational technology. Several approaches at altering curricula were named, but most of these made sure to explicitly maintain that they were still teaching the national curriculum; these were more geared at altering how we teach it than the content of what we actually teach.  Others have named the knowledge-sharing websites that link individuals up with anything they want to learn; but I view this as not an attack on formal education  content, persay, but rather as an addendum to it (no one is telling anyone on these sites to not practice their math tables).

There may be a couple of programs that fit into the category of content-altering; I'm still investigating the different facets of some programs.

But is content the one area that policy makers retain a monopoly on in educational innovation? In essence, I can make sense of this black hole of innovation in my head.  No matter what innovative methods or approaches a school does...

  • the school still has to abide by the national standards of assessment (GSCEs, etc) and therefore teach the content that is being assessed. It is the measure of success for a school; and probably particularly important for innovative programs that are trying to 'prove' their methods. 
  • the content purported by the national curricula is still valued by all in education, including by students. I think I would be hard-pressed to find an innovator advocating that students don't need to learn basic math skills, or literacy, etc. 

Yet this black hole casts some interesting reflections on the constraints of innovation.  Is it that content shouldn't be touched in educational innovation, or that most programs would not dare to touch content given how well it is entrenched in the minds of policy makers and (essentially) the funders of formal education?

Can you think of any programs that explicitly and successfully challenge content? If not, why?  I'm contemplating the UnSchooling movement in the U.S...
Am I missing a facet of formal education that can be challenged in my graph? If so, what?