Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘innovation

I listen to several podcasts. One I meander to frequently is the Pessimists Archive. (Yes, I have mentioned it before. No, I am not sponsored to do this.)

I listened to the episode on The Waltz. I did not realise that one objection to the dance was that women would get dizzy and then lose themselves to lust. Never mind that the restrictive clothing and poor ventilation were more likely culprits.

Another objection to the waltz was that women had moves equal to those of men. So men, concerned more about ego and place, sought to protect the fairer sex from such perceived evil.

Doing the waltz is a non-issue today. So how did such a change take place?

One contributor to change was the polka, which came after the waltz. It was similar to the waltz except that it was “the happy, bouncy version”. The polka allowed people to see the waltz as safe because nothing bad happened after people spun around a room in both cases.

This led the narrator to reveal a change principle:

If something seems threatening, find a safer way to express that same thing. It’s like innovation inoculation, a vaccine for new things.

Change agents with serious agendas can relate. The changes that they see are urgent and important, but they face the inertia of entire organisations or societies. Trying to ring change in its immediate and pure form is likely to be stopped dead in its tracks. They might try the sneaky but possibly more effective inoculation method instead.

This tweet claims that the person in the photo is futuristic. He is not.

Some might say that he is innovative. He might be if you consider “being innovative” to be “creativity in action”.

If necessity is the mother of invention, then creativity is the father.
I have a simpler notion. The “innovation” was born of necessity and required a bit of creative thinking.

The “innovator” simply used what he literally had on hand: His cap, his phone, and the handrail on the seat of the bus. The person had a first world problem and he used is old noggin to devise a solution.

How to you teach this type of thinking?

You do not. You provide time and space for it.

You let students learn by play.

You help students catch this learning with challenging projects, nurtured passion, and meaningful peer-based collaboration. All these happen with difficult play or “hard fun”.


Video source

Teachers can relearn how to do this by empathising with their students. Teachers need to play games to see why and how unstructured fun can lead to powerful learning opportunities.

How to see possibilities Open your eyes to read. Open your hands to try. Open your mind to new ideas. Open your heart to being a kid again.

Recently I tweeted this blog post from George Couros.

Couros outlined three misconceptions about innovation in education. Briefly the misconceptions he mentioned are:

  1. Innovation is about how you use technology.
  2. Innovation is reserved for the few.
  3. Innovation is solely a “product”.

There are even more misconceptions. I suggest that people make at least three more mistakes about innovation in education.

Innovation — and its precursor, creativity — can somehow be taught or transmitted. It must be modelled and caught.

Creativity cannot be taught as a skill, but it can be killed -- Yong Zhao.

Innovation is not about having plenty of resources. You need to be at your most creative (thought) and innovative (action) when times are bad and resources are thin.

If necessity is the mother of invention, then creativity is the father.

Innovation is not doing the same things differently. If the same things are being done, how exactly is that being innovative?

Doing things differently does not always mean doing things better. But doing things better always means doing things differently. -- Hank McKinnell (Former CEO of Pfizer)

When I find a juicy quote like this, I do at least three things:

  1. Try to verify that is was actually said and why.
  2. Find out more about the person who said it.
  3. Create an image quote of it.

Edison's electric light did not come about from the continuous improvement of candles. ~ Oren Harari

A quick search revealed Oren Harari to be a business and management professor. The context of the quote seems to be that of encouraging startups to think and act differently.

The quote seems to have made its way into educational circles as thought leaders seek to challenge outdated teaching practices or correct misplaced notions of “innovative” teaching.

I would have liked to have reused the candle bulbs image, but it was not CC-licensed. So I found an alternative.
 

Experts from several fields weighed in on what it means to be “innovative”. According to a news article, this was part of forum organised by the NUS Business School.

I liked the response by Professor Michael Frese. He indicated that whether something was innovative or not needed to be judged in hindsight and that creativity often stems from a poverty of resources.

He also described how leaders were critical in implementing innovation. They had to combine contradictory processes: Open ones like risk-taking and failing, and closed ones like routines and deadlines.

I would be stumped to define innovation succinctly. I was schooled longer than I have educated myself. As a teacher I even helped schooling cement its place until I decided that it was better to be an educator.

I find it easier to describe what innovation in education (not schooling) is NOT than to say what it is.

Show and tell through the ages.

A while ago, I gave a keynote during which I shared how humans have relied on show-and-tell over the ages. Doing the same thing differently is not innovative despite the changes in technology. We can — and we have — conducted show-and-tell on cave walls, blackboards, overhead projectors, white boards, “interactive” white boards, and now, mobile screens.
 

If one is to be truly innovative, then one might focus on the learner and learning, and then consider how not to rely just on show-and-tell. It might be about showing learners where to look without telling them what to see.

Singapore’s mrbrown shared his snapshot of a presentation.

The statement — we cannot allow regulation to catch up with innovation — is not restricted to business or change management. It extends to education as well, but this is not the mindset of most teachers or leaders in this field.

People involved in schooling were themselves schooled to be compliant and are self-selecting because they tend to be cooperative and nurturing. They toe the line and do not question policies and practices even though they might stifle innovation.

So how do schools innovate? They need to let in people who have this mindset: Change is not about asking for permission first. It is about asking for forgiveness later.

Change is not about asking for permission first. It is about asking for forgiveness later.

Innovation in schooling is almost an oxymoron. It does happen, but very slowly. The catalysts are mavericks and trouble-makers who have good intent.

There is more than one way to innovate. The fastest is not to ask for permission first.

Poll ten people on what “innovation” means and you will likely get ten different answers. You might also see some patterns emerge.

Here are two common responses to what innovation is: 1) doing things differently, and 2) doing the same things differently.

I agree with the first notion, but I think that the second is flawed. If you are doing the same things, how can you call it different?

In a few seminars, I have showcased examples of how people have used the show-and-tell method over time: Cavemen drawing on cave walls, lecturers on blackboards, instructors with overhead projectors, teachers with PowerPoint and “interactive” white boards.

Is doing the same thing differently all that innovative? How can it be when the medium has changed and the method has not?
 

 
Consider another example.

My son’s school has a “no homework on Mondays” policy. There are caveats in this practice, but I shall not waste words on them.

By force of habit, I asked my son on a Monday if he had homework. Before I could take my question back, my son replied that he had. A teacher gave the class homework on Monday and told students that it was due on Wednesday.

Technically a child could wait till Tuesday to do the homework. But even a child knows that Tuesday will bring even more homework that they will have to add to an already full plate.

Doing the same thing (dishing out homework) differently (giving it a different due date) is not innovative. It is a creative response to staying ahead in the curricular race, but it is a selfish one. It does not benefit the child, it does not change practice, and it works against the movement to try something new.

Part of the Twitterverse seems to have fallen in love with the fixed vs growth mindset debate. @gcouros suggests we adopt an innovator’s mindset. I agree. But only if innovation is about doing things differently, not doing the same things differently.


http://edublogawards.com/files/2012/11/finalistlifetime-1lds82x.png
http://edublogawards.com/2010awards/best-elearning-corporate-education-edublog-2010/

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code


Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

Archives

Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: