Fear of Innovation: Resistance to Curriculum Re-design in Western Canada

The following is a somewhat ranty review of secondary education in Alberta and British Colombia, as I try and bend my views to the field of educational innovation and change.

Human centred design puts humans at the centre of mindset shift. They are able to relate and empathise with others and seek solutions to problems that might meet the needs of others (Goldman, 2012). Systems theory views both human and non-human elements equally, as actors within a learning network (Dron, 2014). By ignoring the latter, and fearing the former, secondary education in western Canada is lagging behind some of its global counterparts.

“As Brand (1997) observes, slower moving, larger scale agents play a more important role in determining the shape of a system than smaller, faster changing technologies. This means that the path dependencies of history that have led to large-scale structures, such as universities, schools, classrooms, libraries, and so on, will tend to force smaller innovations and changes into a mould that may be a poor fit, and thus such technologies may fail to gain a significant foothold or be mutated so that their usefulness is considerably diminished (Dron, 2014, p.246).

A complete systems view suggests that to make big changes, the chan­ges should therefore be made across the system, concentrating on the larger slow-moving parts (Dron, 2014, p.247). Dron suggests that the fact this rarely happens is a good thing. However, it is clear that the pace of innovation and change in the 21^st century is not likely to slow, and because these “large slow-moving parts”, have been notorious in their resistance to change, in particular when it comes to instructional design and curriculum development, any minor to moderate change made now will not be enough to keep up with the perpetually shifting 21^st century knowledge economy. In instances where whole scale adjustment to the larger agents have taken place, these institutions have become the hallmark of 21^st century learning.

As an example of this, Finland gradually shifted major elements of its secondary education system starting in the 1970s, and culminating with the comprehensive school model that puts emphasis on collaborative learning and the development of skills as the primary focus on education. The success of this model extends beyond the education sector, as emphasised by this statement from a Nokia manager who was interviewed as Finland was redeveloping its science curriculum in the 1990s: “If I hire a youngster who doesn’t know all the mathematics or physics that is needed to work here, I have colleagues here who can easily teach those things. But if I get somebody who doesn’t know how to work with other people, how to think differently or how to create original ideas and somebody who is afraid of making a mistake, there is nothing we can do here” (O.E.C.D., 2010). The skills highlighted in this statement are all key skills in that are emphasised in the design thinking process (Goldman, 2012). What Finland has successfully done is to make gradual, but meaningful change to major actors within its educational systems with a mind to develop the necessary skills for the 21st century economy. This was done in conjunction with a similar shift to economic policy.  The change in Finland can also be viewed as the success of human centred design, by placing the needs of the learners at the centre of systemic change skill development rather than content knowledge is allowed to flourish.

As a way of contrast, Alberta and British Colombia are both in the midst of major curricular change. BC is already underway, and Alberta is back to the drawing board yet again, timid in the face government change and mis-informed public backlash. Alberta though, to its credit, in the last round of curriculum redesign had already incorporated a focus on skill development and collaborative learning. However, where they failed and where BC will potentially fail (if a clear assessment protocol ever emerges) is in the assessment of this new path forward. Until recently, grade 12 students in both Alberta and BC had to sit high stakes standardised multiple choice tests that determined a student’s content knowledge of a course. The removal of written portions in Alberta for math and science, made this even more content focussed. So while there are definite skills required to completing these tasks, this is not what is being assessed. Add to this, a time constraint of 2.5 – 3 hours during which time the student is to demonstrate understanding of an entire course, and the assessment ventures further from the collaborative skill focussed needs of the 21^st century economy.

These comments are my primary observations as a cog in both machines. How can you quantify essay writing? How do you know 78% of an essay? Can you really quantify content in general? Who would you trust more, the surgeon who got 98% on a standardised medical exam of some sort, or the one who demonstrated a high degree of manual dexterity, had good hand-eye co-ordination, excellent vision and visuo-spatial awareness, and also possessed organisational ability and effective decision-making skills? Perhaps this person has a lower quantitative score on a similar exam, but the 98% student breaks out into a cold sweat every time he touches a scalpel. In such circumstances the choice seems easy, but this is not how learning is presently assessed. Skill development is not the focus, quantifiable content knowledge is.

As Goldman (2012) notes: “It is critical that students master both the knowledge of core subjects and the critical skills necessary for readiness in the innovation economy of the twenty-first century” (p. 17). This is where current pedagogy butts heads with burgeoning theory, and progressive 21^st century society comes up short. New pedagogy places equal instructional value on skills and processes, and content, but traditional assessment method still favour content knowledge. Until this changes, we are not really a 21^st century society

Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.

Goldman, S. et al. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (eds). Design thinking research: Understanding innovation. (pp. 13-33). Berlin: Springer.

46581035. E. C. D. (2010). Slow and Steady Reform for Consistently High Results. In Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46581035.pdf