Change is coming, are we ready?

Figure 1. CSHL, double helix. From “CSHL, double helix” by J. Seita, 2008, https://flic.kr/p/4S14i4. CC BY-NC 2.0.

As I was reading through the Unit 3 required literature, I started with Gartner’s (2016) press release on emerging technologies, surprised by the amount of technology I had not heard of. I had to stop multiple times to look up the technology being discussed: smart dust, 4D printing, and neuromorphic hardware for example (Gartner, 2016).

I questioned my ability to accommodate these huge technological triumphs? Due to the fact that I don’t know what I am preparing for and that change is often not accepted quickly within K-12 education, the idea to prepare my classroom (an online learning environment) for the future seems impossible.

Moore’s (2016) TAPPA process, a design process made for the online learning environment, was able to help me begin to conceptualize how I might be able to work in these changes. TAPPA, an acronym for Target, Accomplishment, Past, Prototype, and Artifact, was illustrated with a double helix, having the ability to move back and forth between the different stages (Moore, 2016). The idea to continue to use the same target and assessment, but revisit the past, prototype, and artifact as technology changed seemed to provide an option. However, as much as I begin to understand and conceptualize the idea of the change that will be needed surrounding technology in the upcoming years, it still feels very daunting.

I am curious, within your context how you think change will be accepted, if at all? How do you think the invention and use of new disruptive technology such as smart dust will be taken? Or do you think new businesses or departments will be introduced to handle these new challenges/innovations?

 

References

Gartner. (2016, August 16). Gartner’s 2016 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies Identifies Three Key Trends that Organizations Must Track to Gain Competitive Advantage. [Press Release].

Moore, R. L. (2016). Developing distance education content using the TAPPA process. TechTrends, 60(5), 425–432.

 

Unit 2: Considering Innovation.

When I first started considering innovation, I wrote my initial thought down in my notes.

“Innovations to Me” by Amanda Dunn is licensed under CC by 2.0

Through some editing, I came to innovation being a change in processing, physically and/or intellectually, that allows a different approach, or a different positive outcome to a current situation.

With this definition I can divide innovation into two categories.

The first type of innovation is the way that a problem is approached intellectually, maybe with a different mindset, or with an out-of-the-box thinking method. This idea was further stimulated while reading Goldman et al’s (2012) article and their discussion on mindshifts: “the developmental journey towards mindsets” (p. 29). I originally was only thinking about the mindsets, and not the continuum between them when I considered my own explanation.

The second type of innovation is the physical one, often seen with technologies, allowing to reach a solution in a easier manner. Dron (2014) spoke about how technologies are leading to rapid change and “ [w]hen considering change and innovation in distance education, our focus will, inevitably, be on those technologies, their implementation, invention, meaning, diffusion, and acceptance” (p. 237). This resonated with me as a current DL teacher,  as he illustrated everything else that comes with new technology in the classroom.  Overall, Dron’s article really spoke to me.

He discusses how we cause change, and then that change ends up changing us. As a teacher, I think about my students and their futures. I am teaching them, potentially changing them, and hopefully facilitating learning, all of which may impact their future. As they become the future policy makers, tax payers, and parents to the next generation, their actions will impact me. As distance education is inevitably impacted with new technologies, I am curious to see what innovations will come out of them.

Looking back on my initial description of innovation, I am happy with it. However, I am left wondering if innovations have to have a positive outcome or be a benefit? Can you have an innovation, but still fail due to integration and acceptance as discussed by Dron? Let me know what you think.

References

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.