When I first started considering innovation, I wrote my initial thought down in my notes.
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). . In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (eds). Design thinking research: Understanding innovation. (pp. 13-33). Berlin: Springer.
Thank you for sharing your personal definition of innovation, Amanda. You have brought up an interesting question on innovation, can it be considered innovation if it is not necessarily a positive or benefit? Your questions left me searching for a technology flop that was not a benefit was challenging as Dron (2014) suggests that most of these new developments have evolved from a previous form (p. 241). It appears that innovation, regardless of what degree of change this means in the individual’s eye, it probably requires a great amount of patience. It is possible that what may not be considered a benefit now may be life-changing in a few years. Your post reminded me of an earlier quote by Weller (2018) “Nothing Changes while, simultaneously, everything changes” (p. 44). This perhaps summarizes your question, that innovation in education and technology should be a fluid concept, not a positive or negative as you never know the impact it may have one day.
For interest sake, I found a walk down memory lane of technology with The 20 Most Successful Technology Failures of All Time. ( http://time.com/4704250/most-successful-technology-tech-failures-gadgets-flops-bombs-fails/ )
Danielle
References
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2014). Teaching Crowds: Learning and Social Media. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781927356807.01
Weller, M. (2018). Twenty years of EdTech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4).
Hi Danielle,
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog post and respond. I agree that the idea of it being finite is not the best way to view innovation.
I enjoyed looking through the Times article that you posted, and found it interesting that the #1 spot was TiVo (Eadicicco, Peckham, Pullen, & Fitzpatrick, 2017). After looking at Simon Sinek’s (2009) Ted Talk on the golden circle and how to promote, market, and sell products, he also talked about TiVo. TiVo’s inability to lead with the why, and promote and sell their product to the masses, ended with them being less successful (Sineck, 2009). However, I would completely agree that TiVo is a complete innovation- and one I am thankful for. I do not think it was the product that flopped or wasn’t innovated, but their delivery of it. Now this has lead me to the philosophical query, if a innovated prototype is created, can it still be considered innovative if it lacks proper delivery?
References
Eadicicco, L., Peckham, M., Pullen, J. P., & Fitzpatrick, A. (2017). The 20 Most Successful Technology Failures of All Time. Retrieved from
http://time.com/4704250/most-successful-technology-tech-failures-gadgets-flops-bombs-fails/
Sinek, S. (2009, September) How great leaders inspire action? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action?language=en
Hi Amanda, in response to your question “do innovations have to have a positive outcome or be a benefit?”
I will use my own location as an educator and define benefit or positive outcome as student success. Cuseo (2007) identifies student success as “personal validation, self-efficacy, sense of purpose, active involvement, reflective thinking, social integration and self-awareness” (p. 3-4). Dron (2014) includes pedagogies as technologies, which allows the examination of affordances different educational models bring to Cuseo’s ideas of student success. As an educator I can choose a pedagogy that allows me to include Cuseo’s identified learning outcomes, but this view may not be the only measurement applied to student success. Dron addresses this uncertainty with the many outside factors influencing innovation when he writes about the determinants of applied technologies, such as ethics and legislation (p. 260). Both of which may have student success as their intention, yet both may define success in a different way. In answer to your question then, I believe the intent for an innovation is to bring about positive change.
However, I stipulate, different perspectives will bring about different outcomes. Do you think positive outcome and benefit of an innovation may ‘lie in the eye of the beholder’ ?
References
Cuseo, J. (2007). The Big Picture. ESource for College Transition, 4(6) p. 3-4. Retrieved from https://www.sc.edu/nrc/system/pub_files/ES_4-6_Jul07.pdf
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.
Hey Amanda!
First off, I loved how you started your post off with a photo of your written reflection. It reminded me of Sandra Hill’s invitation to pay attention to our first thoughts on a topic, preferably on paper, with a pen (2010). Hill says “writing this way helps us bypass the clever, safe or expected answers – the answers we think others want to hear. It helps us to go behind the ‘correct,’ ‘polite’ or ‘public’ version to find our own voice and our own authority on the matter ” (p. 3). Your reflective practice seems to act out what Goldman et al. (2014) describe as the metacognitive mindshift or an awareness of one own awareness. It was a cool ‘meta’ way to begin!
Now to your questions. Newton taught us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example, splitting the atom was a ‘disruptive technology’ in a very literal sense.
The systems theory perspective Dron (2014) touches on in some ways was created to mitigate the unintended consequences of good intentions and ‘progress’ (Senge, 1990). From an educational perspective, critical pedagogies in the style of Freire, hooks, and Spivak go as far as questioning normative post-enlightenment values that associate technology with progress in the first place.
That’s something I’m still grappling with as I grow as a distance learning designer: How to resist relying on technology for technology’s sake, and not unconsciously privileging “new” ways of thinking.
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.
Hill, S.A. (2010). Writing to learn. Learning to write. Cape Town, South Africa: Community Development Resource Association. Retrieved from http://www.cdra.org.za/uploads/1/1/1/6/111664/writing_to_learn_sandra_hill_2011.pdf
Senge, P., M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY :Doubleday/Currency.