Defining Innovation in Education: Challenges in Recognition and Implementation

Innovation in education is a complex topic, and education practitioners often become confused about what constitutes innovation and struggle to identify it when they see it. For example, a program manager or fellow may observe that a teacher has innovated to solve problems that arise in their classroom, but they are uncertain about sharing this knowledge with others by categorizing it as "innovation."

Questions arise such as: Does a parent-run or parent-led program, or enabling the functioning of school processes like Bal Sansad (Children's Parliament) and School Management Committees (SMCs), constitute innovation? Does the use of technology-based systemic teaching-learning applications and portals by civil society organizations (CSOs) to rapidly advance their functionality in any program delivery count as innovation?

Can the valuable insights gained through "professional wisdom" and "know-how-through-experience" accumulated by teachers over years of teaching be treated as a vital source of innovation, or should they be set aside in favor of a purely scientific approach? Is innovation the opposite of being traditional? Is introducing something new inherently considered innovation? Can the use of established pedagogies like Inquiry-Based Learning, Project-Based Learning, or Learning Through Discovery now fall outside the scope of innovation?

Clapham (2003) emphasizes the etymological root of "innovate" as the Latin innovare, meaning "to renew, to make new." This suggests that innovation can encompass both entirely original concepts and adaptations or reinterpretations of existing ones.

Building on this idea of newness, Goldsmith and Foxall (2003) propose three key aspects: recency, originality, and similarity. Originality aligns with the notion of completely new creations, while similarity acknowledges the adaptation and refinement of existing practices. Recency highlights the temporal dimension of innovation, suggesting that an innovative practice is one that has emerged relatively recently.

However, Kostoff (2003) stresses that innovation must go beyond mere novelty and represent a shift toward a "better" practice. This implies an improvement or advancement upon existing methods, achieved through the "metamorphosis from present practice to some new" approach.

This emphasis on value is further echoed by Bailey and Ford (2003), who state that for innovation to occur, individuals must not only generate "novel solutions" but also gain acceptance from the relevant community who recognize their value as "valuable variations of current practice." This underscores the importance of social validation in establishing an idea or practice as truly innovative.

Rogers (1995) asserts that innovation hinges on the perception of something as "new or novel" by either an individual or an external entity. Importantly, he argues that the actual chronological novelty is less relevant than whether it is perceived as new by those adopting it.

Thus, innovation is a dynamic and continuous process, progressing through various stages and involving multiple stakeholders. Goldsmith and Foxall (2003) describe innovation as an "innovative process by which new things, ideas, and practices are created." This highlights the ongoing and evolving nature of innovation, encompassing various steps from ideation to implementation.

Expanding on this, Gassmann and von Zedtwitz (2003) identify two key phases: a pre-project phase dedicated to conceptualization and exploration, and a discipline-focused phase, signifying a more focused development and testing phase.

Carayannis, Gonzalez, and Wetter (2003) offer a more elaborate framework, proposing four interconnected dimensions: process, content, context, and impact. These dimensions underscore the multifaceted nature of innovation, encompassing not only the "what" but also the "how," "where," and "why."

Innovation in education involves rethinking and enhancing teaching methods, learning processes, and educational systems to better meet the needs of students in a rapidly changing world. While scientific research has driven innovation in many sectors, in education it has had a limited impact. One reason is that education is not easily suited to scientific experimentation. However, Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are being used to generate evidence to guide policy and practice.

Just as computers are made up of smaller components that can be designed, improved, and innovated separately but still need to work together, our education system is also built in parts. Teachers, schools, and higher education departments represent different levels in this system. To improve education effectively, we need to balance allowing new ideas and experiments at the local level with ensuring coordination and unity across the whole system.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has the potential to be a powerful driver of innovation in education, but only if it is used not just as a tool within existing systems but to fundamentally change teaching practices. One challenge in using ICT to drive educational innovation is overcoming the tendency to integrate new technologies into old ways of teaching, limiting their potential to transform education systems.

To make innovation more visible, two key factors are essential: having strong incentives so that those who innovate are motivated to share their knowledge with others, and, more importantly, determining whether the innovation is scalable.

References

Bailey, J., & Ford, C. (2003). Innovation and knowledge management in professional services firms: A critique and research agenda. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 247–259). London, UK: Pergamon.

Carayannis, E. G., Gonzalez-Romero, A., & Wetter, J. (2003). The nature and dynamics of discontinuous and disruptive innovations from a learning and knowledge measurement perspective. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 115–138). London, UK: Pergamon.

Clapham, M. M. (2003). The development of innovative ideas through creativity training. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 366–376). London, UK: Pergamon.

Gassmann, O., & von Zedtwitz, M. (2003). Innovation processes in transnational corporations. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 702–714). London, UK: Pergamon.

Goldsmith, R. E., & Foxall, G. R. (2003). The measurement of innovativeness. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 321–330). London, UK: Pergamon.

Kostoff, R. N. (2003). Stimulating innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 388–400). London, UK: Pergamon.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.