VIII Forum on Education (IV). Innovation in times of change of era

Notes from the Forum on Education. Innovation and networking, organized by the Institute of Education Sciences (ICE-UAB) and the Institute of Government and Public Policies (IGOP), and held in Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain, in January 10 and 11, 2014. More notes on this event: forumedu2014.

Round table: Innovation in times of change of era
Chairs: Enric Roca, professor of the Department of Systematic and Social Pedagogy, UAB.

What values and what frameworks promote innovation? Which ones are a barrier to it? What characterizes innovative schools and innovative projects?

Joaquim Brugué, director of the Institute of Government and Public Policies (IGOP), UAB.

As these are times of change, it seems common sense that institutions should change too. Thus, innovation look like the best means to drive this change. But change makes change more complex. Problems become wicked, problems that cannot be simplified or reduced to simpler components. There is no simple answer or, simply, not just one single answer.

BUT: instead of trying to approach wicked problems in different and many ways, what institutions are doing is to specialize put all their effort in being more efficient and effective in their field of specialization… leaving wicked problems unsolved or, at least, providing wicked problems with one single perfect solution that actually does not solve all the complexity of the given issue.

This is the approach of a technocratic society or a technocratic organization that creates no externalities, no networks, no lateral vision.

Màrius Martínez, professor of the Departament of Applied Pedagogy, UAB.

We heavily rely on our own mindsets and mental frameworks, which drag us and stop us from looking at problems from different points of view.

Only dialogue can make these mindsets emerge, ideas be exchanged, and mindsets be changed, or adapted to others’.

There is a need to have a culture of transformation, of “why not?”, to give a chance to change, to transformation.

Once there is such a culture, innovation becomes explicit — not tacit — and can be transferred, replicated.

We have to have a systemic point of view, to look at the whole so that we can clearly frame the problems, the resources, the possibilities.

Trust and accountability, not suspicion and control.

Leadership has to be strong, but distributed, leaving room for collaboration and participation.

Provide resources, especially time, but with some planning, with deadlines, so that accountability can happen.

Emphasis on learning, on development. Innovation has to target learning, learning of the students or of the teaching stuff, but innovation has to lead to learn more and better things. And innovation has to be also an acknowledgement. The acknowledgement that (1) something is wrong and (2) it is wrong that something it is wrong. And, thus, it has to be fixed. Learning and equity are linked to innovation.

Martínez: innovation requires a shared project. And this shared project, or vision, is usually illustrated with a motto. The shared project and motto helps in building a story, a tale, a dialogue.

Discussion

Enric Roca: Does everyone has to be an innovator in their same role? Can we specialize? Should we not?

Quim Brugué: there should not be such a role as “the innovator”. Instead, conditions have to be created where innovation can happen. These conditions include, most of the times, dialogue and the hybridization of approaches.

Màrius Martínez: in an innovative environment, people feel like agents, agents of change. So, yes there is a need to find agents of change. Distributed leadership is about identifying the existing talent and putting it to work. In this train of thought, maybe the term “good practices” is not as good as “practices of reference”.

Quim Brugué: we have to be aware that what we take for learning is not sheer imitation. This is the risk of having “practices of reference” which, in the end, evolve into bad copies.

Màrius Martinez: the currículum should be put in crisis and, in this exercise, the student should have a leading role.

Q: why most institutions and people deny complexity? Màrius Martinez: sometimes it is a matter of perception, that is, of not perceiving complexity. Quim Brugué: sometimes because complexity is a blocking scenario and, thus, decision-makers rather approach not complexity but simplicity, where traditional rules and tools used to work.

Share:

IX Fòrum Educació (2014)

VIII Forum on Education (III). Building innovative learning environments

Notes from the Forum on Education. Innovation and networking, organized by the Institute of Education Sciences (ICE-UAB) and the Institute of Government and Public Policies (IGOP), and held in Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain, in January 10 and 11, 2014. More notes on this event: 9forumice.

Round table: Building innovative learning environments.
Chairs: M. Carme Armengol, professor, Departament of Applied Pedagogy, UAB.

How are these innovative learning environments? What needs do they fill? Why are they innovative? What can be learnt from them?

Ramon Barlam, coordinator of Projecte Espurna, ICE-UAB

4 dimensions of educational innovation:

  • Person: projects addressed to the individual.
  • Group: projects addressed to groupbuilding.
  • Centre: projects designed at the educational centre level.
  • Network:

When working in a network:

  • it is mandatory to adapt the activities to the needs of everyone;
  • sometimes adding is better than multiplying;
  • consider new tools; consider emergent methodologies;
  • vindicate the professionalization of innovation.
  • consider innovation that is sustainable, and not necessarily state-of-the-art.

Roser Argemí, coordinator of the Magnet Programme, Alliances for educational success, Fundació Jaume Bofill.

The Magnet Programme is aimed at fighting imbalances within the educational system, identifying school segregation and, thus, improve its its quality and the success of schooling.

In the Magnet Programme, an educational centre partners with a referent organization to transform the centre and improve the perception of quality and approval of the centre so that families increase their attachment to it.

One of the main assets of the programme is that it gathers different types of people so that they can work together.

The programme heavily relies on a strong leader, but also on an engaged team, aware of the big challenges that their (“segregated”) centre faces, but positive on the possibilities of change. The key to success in innovation is collaborative work, communities of practice, engagement in everyone’s work.

Another requisite for such a project to have success is a certain degree of stability, especially stability of the components of the team, as its results only come in the medium term.

A (still) open question is whether quality and equity can happen together and not as a trade-off.

Carme Oriol, head of studies of Joan Maragall School from the Schools that Learn Network, ICE-UAB.

Did we innovate? If yes, why did we do that? We surely innovate to survive: standing still, sitting on a fence was not an option in a changing world. The school has always felt isolated: it lies 4km away from the urban area; it belongs to a marginalized quarter from the city; it has little relationship with parents, as students take the bus to the centre [note: not usual for urban schools in Spain]. The group of students is highly heterogeneous, with many different origins and mother languages. In his scenario, the traditional way of teaching just did not work.

So, what comes first is reflecting about the issues and getting some (or a lot of) training, to find out new ways to face the new challenges. Then comes imagining what tools will be required to go on with actual action. But how to maintain continuity and coherence of the actions undertaken? Or, on the contrary, how to prevent accelerated activism? There is a need for creating a trust chain and to organize environments that enable reflection, sharing knowledge, training.

Discussion

Q: how should organizational structures of the organizations be like to be able to implement such innovation projects. Carme Oriol: maybe the newest factor is creating environments where information flows in, reflection and learning happens, and decisions and priorities are made based on evidence. More than focussing on hierarchies and making direct decisions, the organization should aim at making debate happen so that everyone can make their own decisions.

Q: in the Magnet Project, what happens after the 4 years that the project usually lasts? Roser Argemí: it is obvious that after 4 years the centres and their environment will not be radically transformed. The focus of the project is changing the inner structure of the centre so that, when the project is officially over, it actually lasts grounded on the organizational change that the centre underwent.

Q: will the “normal” school ever innovate and transform itself? Ramon Barlam: the most difficult thing is maintaining the pace of innovation. And the problem is not usually the inner structure, but the educational, social and regulatory environment. This is especially relevant in secondary education. The dimension of the centre is, nowadays, the one that causes most failures.

More information

Share:

IX Fòrum Educació (2014)

VIII Forum on Education (II). Seminar on innovation in education: making up a hypothetical case of educational innovation

Notes from the Forum on Education. Innovation and networking, organized by the Institute of Education Sciences (ICE-UAB) and the Institute of Government and Public Policies (IGOP), and held in Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain, in January 10 and 11, 2014. More notes on this event: 9forumice.

Seminar on innovation in education: making up a hypothetical case of educational innovation
Chairs: Quim Brugué, UAB-IGOP.

In groups of 4-5 people make up a hypothetical case of educational innovation. This is what happened in my group.

Needs

  • Autonomy.
  • Collaboration.

Deficits, challenges

  • Compartmentalization of learning.
  • Compartmentalization of the curriculum.
  • No work for competences, focus on certification. Assessing content vs. skill-centred processes (not skills).
  • Teaching skills, professional identity. Specialization vs. pedagogical skills.
  • Excessive focus of the educational system towards the university. Academicist vision.
  • Lack of answers for diversity, for flexibility.
  • The system focuses on providing answers, not on putting good questions.
  • Censorship to critical thinking, servitude to the authority.
  • Passiveness, inertia, comfortability.

Conceptual turn

  • Lay out questions instead of providing answers.
  • Projects instead of subjects. Multidisciplinarity.
  • Work teams instead of class groups.
  • Oral exposition.
  • That the students prepare topics and share what they know. That students can bring in their own knowledge. Learning with a purpose.
  • Cotutoring.

Proposals for intervention

  • Importance of the role of student. Empowering the student.
  • Change of roles of teachers.
  • E.g. students leading their own assessment meetings with teaching staff and parents.

Operational turn, organizational changes.

  • Changes in the learning environments, that not everything “happens in presence of” the teacher.
  • Shift towards personal learning environments (PLEs).
  • Spark learning through questions (the teacher puts questions, instead of providing answers).
  • Be able to welcome questions (the teacher is able to manage the questions of the students).
  • Transform assessment centred in learning (of skills).
  • Change schedules to generate a reflective practice of the teaching staff upon what they are doing.

Share:

IX Fòrum Educació (2014)

VIII Forum on Education (I). Seminar on innovation in education: defining innovation

Notes from the Forum on Education. Innovation and networking, organized by the Institute of Education Sciences (ICE-UAB) and the Institute of Government and Public Policies (IGOP), and held in Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain, in January 10 and 11, 2014. More notes on this event: 9forumice.

Seminar on innovation in education: defining innovation
Chairs: Quim Brugué, UAB-IGOP.

A group of 40-50 professionals in the field of education, innovation and research reflect on innovation.

Why is there a need for innovation? What is innovation?

  • To improve, there are things that just do not work.
  • The world changes, and improving is the answer.
  • Changes in the context, thus aiming for efficacy.
  • Changes in technology, thus aiming for efficiency.
  • Adapt to the environment.

 

  • Innovate… or rethink, reflect.
  • Explore, find out where are we heading to and where do we want to go.
  • Intrinsic to education, it is a part of it, it is part of learning. Fostering change guarantees learning.

 

  • With a goal.
  • We need to improve because there’s a need for it, especially when many structures do not innovate.
  • BUT, does everyone have to innovate?

 

  • Innovation depends on the context within which it is applied. What we understand by innovation changes depending on the environment.

 

  • Innovation… or improvement? Innovate or review what is being done? Break inertias.
  • Product vs. process.
  • Creativity.

 

  • Value-centered.
  • Generate better learning.
  • Learn with emotion.
  • Innovate cannot be without equity.

 

  • Improvement vs. change.
  • Improvement vs. revolution.

 

  • Why do we have problems?
  • Because we fail in solving specific issues.

 

  • A conceptual turn, a substantial turn: not doing things better, but approach them from another point of view.
  • A methodological turn, an instrumental turn: be able to provide an answer to the questions that arise from the conceptual turn.

 

  • Science ⇨ Technology ⇨ Application.
  • Empowerment vs. governance; products vs. processes; evolution vs. revolution; improvement vs. transformation.

How should we innovate?

 

  • A cartesian approach to everything: questioning everything.
  • Be aware of the advancements of science (context) and technology (instruments).
  • Open new ways + underpin the new paths.

 

Innovation should have:

  • Environments: hybridization, different approaches within the same space; creative inaccuracy; tolerance to error; role of leadership.
  • Engines: superior engine to boost change; lateral engines that help; an inner engine that acknowledges the capital of organizations; and an external engine for collaboration and partnerships.

 

  • Sustainability, innovation has to be maintained.
  • Sustainable change vs. the sustainability of change.
  • Human resources policies vs. humans policies with resources.
  • How innovation happens will depend on the “demand” of the students.

 

  • Trust and accountability.
  • Distributed leadership and collaboration.

 

  • Training for innovation.
  • Innovation and research should go in parallel.

Share:

IX Fòrum Educació (2014)