Innovation in successful school environments

Innovation in Successful School Environments Abstract The school reform agenda has amplified over the past decade as the democratisation of learning and knowledge simultaneously creates opportunity and challenge. The role of formal places of learning is being critically re-examined.

The inertia of an education system built on foundations of information scarcity has resulted in a high level of resistance to wide-scale innovative change. However in spite of this inertia examples exist of people innovating within the current system of school. What is it that enables these individuals and organisations to work around the pressures and confines of the school system and innovate?

Innovation as a strategy for continued organisational relevance is vital, but is in itself problematic, particularly as we grapple to understand what we mean by innovation (Blackmore et. al, 2011). We are seeing policy makers, practitioners and progressive advocates for change beginning to act. The Australian Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda (Australian Government, 2015) positions innovation as the key to progress, growth and a strong economy, and has implications for education. But what exactly is innovation in an educational context?

This paper explores a philosophy and approach to the often cited but misunderstood concept of innovation by exploring its development at The Geelong College.

Authors

Adrian Camm Head of Teaching and Learning, The Geelong College Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

Christine Shannon Director of Professional Learning and Research, The Geelong College Director, Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

1

Our Context The Geelong College is an Independent, co-educational day and boarding school established in 1861.

For over one hundred and fifty years it has provided outstanding academic and co-curricular opportunities for students. With an enrolment of thirteen hundred students spread across three schools, the College prides itself on a Reggio Emilia-inspired Junior School and the immersive and experiential learning programs offered throughout the Middle School. With grand buildings and immaculate grounds, the Senior School offers a deep and diverse range of extra-curricular opportunities for students, and has a focus on providing a well-rounded education that produces excellent results.

The Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation (CLRI) was created in 2014, led by the Director of Professional Learning at the College and supported by the Head of Teaching and Learning. Embedded within the College, the Centre aims to understand the science of learning and the art of teaching by positioning teaching staff at the College as action researchers and providing the wider community with regular learning opportunities, workshops and events.

Advances in technology and new models of education are challenging the fundamental assumptions of our notion of school. The inertia of the traditional education system, built on foundations of information scarcity, makes the system incredibly resistant to wide-scale innovative change. Buscher (2006) notes that "attempts to restructure schools radically undermine established social structures and so challenge every participant’s assumption about themselves (p.30).” Barth states further “the problem with schools is not that they are no longer what they once were; the problem is that they are precisely what they once were (2004, p. 28).”

Changing the status quo is difficult in any environment, and perhaps more so in environments that have previously been successful. Schools with a long history of tradition and high academic achievement often have no imperative to change. Success in this context can breed complacency and reinforce the traditional paradigm of school. Even so, examples exist of people innovating within the current system. What is it that enables these individuals and organisations to work around the pressures and confines of an established system and innovate?

The amplified voice of the school reform agenda is driving many schools to include within their vision statement mention of wanting to be “innovative.” When questioned, few are able to articulate what that actually means. The tension between what school used to be, what it is and what it should be is increasingly palpable.

So, what exactly is innovation?

In the current climate of globalisation and the transition to a knowledge-based economy, few would argue against the need for innovation, but what represents innovative thought for one person may not necessarily be innovative for another. Buscher (2006) states that any innovation "will be filtered through personal lenses of interests and values and those of the networks and pressure groups of which they have membership (p.27).” Innovation then can be seen as contextual, personal and socially constructed.

Schumpeter (1923) describes the contextual nature of innovation as relative, in the sense that something is innovative only when compared to something that is not. The esoteric nature of innovation has prompted attempts to describe its nature by applying an adjective in front of the word.

The terms ‘radical’, ‘incremental’, ‘disruptive’, ‘breakthrough’, ‘frugal’ or even ‘adjacent’ have been used to clarify or distinguish what innovation means in a particular context.

Regardless of the type of adjective used, innovation can usually be taken to refer to changing or creating more effective processes, products or ideas that have value. Perhaps even more simply, Sweezy (1943) in his analysis of Schumpeter (1923) posits innovation as ‘doing things differently.’

Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

2

If innovation is simply ‘doing things differently’, educational innovation can then be considered by examining: 1. What students do differently 2. What teachers do differently Doing things differently means looking at the past and building on the best of existing practice and process, but it can also require taking a leap, as Jobs describes: “You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.” (Jobs, 2011) A level of adaption and insight is needed for any new innovation to be successful and often this is the leap into the unknown. This metaphor can be misleading however as innovation has less to do with flashes of insight and ‘eureka’ moments and more to do with a unique process of thinking, association and pattern recognition over a period of time. Poincare (1913) describes this process in his work on the genesis of mathematical creation. He summarises the process as working consciously on a problem, leaving the problem behind and allowing for unconscious incubation, and experiencing illumination, “a manifest sign of long, unconscious prior work (pg.390).”

It could be argued that Poincare is incomplete in his analysis of this process. Testing the illumination, examining the results, and then iterating to improve the innovation could be seen as important additions when considering the value of any educational innovation.

What personal characteristics contribute to an individual developing a predisposition to innovate?

Schumpeter (1923) posits that an individual with a predisposition to being innovative is a particular sociological type. He describes these individuals as entrepreneurs with certain characteristics, including the ability to appreciate the possibilities of an innovation and the ability to overcome the psychological and social resistances which stand in the way of doing new things.

A widely recognised definition of an entrepreneur is a person who sets up a business and takes on financial risks in the hope of profit. Today the term entrepreneur is as multi-layered as the term innovation, and implies qualities of vision, insight, leadership and initiative.

Wagner (2014) elaborates: "Innovators do not necessarily have to be entrepreneurs - on their own initially creating a business; or bigger-than-life roguish personas (like a Jobs, Einstein or Richard Branson); but they can be those people who can be innovative even working within organisations, corporations, and non-profits. They are imbued with a purpose, style of behaviour and attitude that allows them to create something original of value, make a difference, or change a process, service, system or way of thinking (pg.39)."

Innovation may indeed be “the activity or function of a particular set of individuals called entrepreneurs (Sweezy, 1943, pg.93)” but we are suggesting that school leaders can create the environmental, social and cultural conditions for innovation to become the domain of all teachers.

Creating sub-cultures of innovation A culture of innovation is an environment that trusts, values and supports its members to be creative, take risks and challenge the status quo. This is achieved by developing a collaboratively created, shared set of values and beliefs that act as the foundation of all activities. Even though a perfect culture of innovation can never be obtained, as this would require all members of that culture to act Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

3

with similar behaviours and ideals, creating sub-cultures of innovation can give teachers agency and reposition them as entrepreneurs of their learning environments.

Traditional hierarchies are often too slow to change direction and unintentionally (or intentionally?) squash enthusiasm and new ideas. Kotter (2010) advocates an escape from the traditional hierarchy by introducing a new system. He describes a second, more agile, network-like structure that operates in concert with the hierarchy to create what he calls a ‘dual operating system.’ This system allows organisations to capitalise on rapid-fire strategic challenges and new directions. The hierarchy and the network coexist to drive efficiency and innovation.

Whilst traditional hierarchies are built to minimise risk, ‘accelerator networks’ are free to take risks and innovate. The hierarchy doesn’t manage the network, rather they work in synergy. Essentially leaders create structures that short circuit the way things have always been done.

This second network requires people to opt in. Leaders don’t try to get ‘buy in’. They start small and build momentum with those who are interested in a particular idea. This causes a shift to immediate action by creating a distributed leadership platform for discussion and implementation of organisational change in synergy with the traditional hierarchical model.

If innovation is about doing things differently, members of these new networks become at once entrepreneurs and researchers, as there can be no innovation without trial and error and trial and error are central to research and discovery.

Adopting this approach has proven to be successful in our context. Some recent innovations are described below.

Creating a Shared Vision A diverse group of staff at The Geelong College concluded that to continue to be effective they needed to collectively design a more connected learning system, driven by a shared language of what they valued. With the current Strategic Education Plan drawing to a close, they had an opportunity to create a vision for learning that would affirm their unique identity and draw on the knowledge and expertise that existed in their own community.

Guided by national and international research, many different curricula frameworks, and with a future focus that embraced aspects of experiential and constructivist learning philosophies, The Geelong College designed a Vision for Learning1 (The Geelong College, 2015). This broad framework defined learning not in terms of discreet subjects, specifics or narrow measures, but in terms of seven conceptual dimensions: Identity, Creativity, Thinking, Communicating, Contributing, Creating and Enterprising (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

1

https://issuu.com/geelongcollege/docs/visionforlearning_final/1?e=11369011/12871654

Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

4

By increasingly organising learning around interdisciplinary problems, projects, passions and driving questions, rather than discreet facts, skills and separate disciplines, the aim is for students to develop the independence and critical and adaptive thinking skills required to thrive in a time where constant change demands comfort with uncertainty. It also serves to provide teachers “ideas to think with” (Hipkins, 2015).

Developing this shared vision for the future of learning at The Geelong College ensures alignment in purpose and language, and changes the paradigm of curriculum work from a cycle of documentation to a process of collaborative review and improvement. Most importantly, and supporting the shift towards an empowered and innovative learning culture, it brings teachers and students together around a focal point for collaboration.

Permission to Innovate Within complex relational systems like schools, negative connotations are sometimes associated with the term innovation, but innovation isn’t about devaluating anyone’s work, and it doesn’t have to be a deficit statement.

The contextual, personal and social construction of innovation requires an individual or organisation to step outside the norm and suspend their biases. Suspending bias enables individuals and organisations to develop the capacity to disassociate from the way things have always been done. By developing this capacity we give ourselves permission to innovate.

‘Permission’ is one of the primary drivers behind creating the cultural conditions for innovation to flourish. Each staff member received a ‘permission to innovate’ card (see Figure 2) with their copy of the Vision for Learning. The card read, “This card entitles me to try something new. If it doesn’t work as well as I wanted I will be free of criticism for my efforts. I’ll continue to pursue new ways to help my students be successful.”

Figure 2

With ‘Permission’ being a key driver, the leader’s role is about supporting the exploration of all ideas – even the bad ones. This invites momentum to build and creates the right environment for people to turn their ideas into reality. Something as simple as providing permission has seen a number of innovations flourish in curriculum and pedagogy.

What students do differently Guided by a shared vision for the future of learning, and teachers with permission to innovate, students experience a multitude of innovative, immersive learning opportunities at The Geelong College that include: •

In our Junior School a host of materials were placed in the playground that included bits of timber, pine cones, old tyres, sticks, hessian bags and pieces of rope. Students started building cubbies that became everything from Cleopatra’s Tomb to farms and shops. Students

Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

5

developed their own financial and bartering systems, developed skills in engineering and diplomacy and dealt with conflict resolution on a daily basis.2 •

In Year 4 students spend every day in an expansive garden where they grow and cook food and learn important life lessons about sustainability, the environment and good health.3

•

In Year 5 students experience an immersion that has a focus on design. This project-based approach sees 12 hours a week devoted to students exploring interdisciplinary projects, individually and in teams, combining new technologies with timeless craft traditions. Using everything from simple materials to technological game-changers like 3D printing, robotics and computer science, a maker ethos is adopted encouraging students to become independent thinkers who work in teams, take responsibility for their own learning, solve real problems and develop important habits of mind through tinkering, invention and complex open-ended project work.

•

In Year 6 students learn in an open environment where Media is the central theme. They develop skills to make and understand media, ranging from traditional forms such as film, photography, websites, newspapers, magazines, comics, radio and television to new and emerging multimedia technologies like games, apps, multicasting and social media. They consider how people, events and issues are represented and create, produce and present their own works in a format of their choice to express their ideas

•

In Year 7 a two day break from timetabled classes engages students in a Boat Building challenge. This program sees all students in Year 7 working in small teams, with limited materials, designing and constructing a boat that needs to transport them across a body of water. 4

•

In Year 8 the Cre8 Independent Project is a significant interdisciplinary project designed to take at least 20 hours of student time. It encourages students to follow their passions and: • • • •

initiate a project that encourages self-directed learning reflect on their learning along the way by keeping a journal, diary, blog or video log connect with an adult who will act in a mentoring capacity practise persistence, resiliency, problem solving, time management and creativity

At the conclusion of the project students present what they have learned and created at an exhibition evening open to the wider community.

•

In Year 10, a two day immersion challenges students to form political parties and experience what it is like to be in politics as they campaign, vote, engage in media duties, delegate, make speeches, engage in social media and gain election.

What do students do differently in these innovations? They work on interesting and meaningful projects for an extended period of time. These projects don’t have a clearly defined answer or end point. They are driven in response to the emergence of interests, ideas and real world events. Students are independent, work creatively, have choice, flexibility and work with teachers as co-learners.

In addition to looking at what students do, the Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation is also committed to advancing the professional learning of teachers, especially their active engagement with investigations of learning that inform what they teach, and how and why they teach it.

2

http://www.clri.com.au/article/play-and-building-cubbies/learning

3

http://www.clri.com.au/article/how-do-we-create-a-good-tomorrow/learning

4

http://www.clri.com.au/article/boat-building-in-year-7/learning

Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

6

What teachers do differently The concept of the Learning Project is to move Professional Learning in a direction that is relevant to teachers’ individual interests, contexts and passions. Similar in concept to Google’s 20% time, each Tuesday afternoon, instead of traditional meetings, priority is given to Professional Learning and Learning Projects. Each week during this time a series of short workshops on a range of topics is offered by our staff, and teachers from the region are invited to attend. These sessions are opt-in and complement engagement in either an individual or collaborative learning project.

Learning Projects in our context are defined as an embedded form of action research where staff strive to learn something new, deepen their knowledge base, stay current with new developments in learning or experiment with an innovation that aims to improve student learning. All Learning Projects are underpinned by a big idea or driving question that is relevant to the individual. Some examples from last year include: • • • • • • •

How does a Reggio Emilia approach influence a teacher’s perception of “best practice?”

How do I make the library a more creative learning space?

What are the effects on learning of regular mindfulness practice?

What is 21st century assessment and how do we encourage a more diverse assessment portfolio?

Working mathematically – moving beyond calculations?

Is storytelling a new literacy?

What methods are there for enhancing formative feedback?

The big idea or driving question is explored over the course of the year. This extended period of time is key as it allows for both the conscious and ‘unconscious incubation’ as described by Poincare.

Documentation collected as part of a teacher’s Learning Project varies in form from a research paper, a short video, a unit of work, data analysis that yields an interesting or unexpected result, or it could be as simple as the sharing of a powerful “light bulb” moment. Staff present their progress at the beginning of Term 4 each year. Progress is the key point here - there are no hard deliverables and trust in the process is as important as the end result.

Sharing learning projects builds capacity and gives colleagues a chance to see the expertise and insight that others possess. Staff become active participants in their own learning by becoming action researchers and entrepreneurs in their learning environments.

Where to next?

Through critical examination of the status quo and facilitation of broad input from staff, CLRI is developing an organisational model that provides key stakeholders with the ability to effect beneficial change within their schools. The Centre is implementing strategies that encourage agency and innovation in individuals, and ultimately in organisations.

As evidenced by a number of initiatives developed by teachers at The Geelong College, our motto of Permission to Innovate encourages all staff to take hands-on responsibility for their ideas, and experience taking ownership that ultimately sees ideas through to fruition. We strive to provide a balance between structure and process that gives people the freedom to disrupt and reinvent. We recognise that there are many intangible factors linked to innovation, and that what works in one context may not work in another. However innovation is possible within the existing confines of the current system and we believe that leaders can create the environmental conditions necessary for it to flourish.

This paper has attempted to define innovation and share examples of innovation in terms of what students and teachers do differently at one school. Our next challenge is to attempt to measure innovation and increase the amount of pedagogical innovation in traditional classroom environments.

Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

7

David Perkins (2014) in Future Wise describes the concept of a ‘rabbit hole.’ Rabbit holes are deep dives or lines of inquiry that invite students to consider big understandings from the perspective of those who’s discipline they are studying. He argues convincingly that having a sense of comfort in ways of thinking about a discipline enables deeper learning to take place. He asks, “How can building an understanding of a discipline’s way of knowing figure centrally in teaching the discipline? (pg.

170)” This is a worthy challenge, and one to which our attention now shifts.

Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

8

References Barth, R. (2004). Learning By Heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Blackmore, J. et al. (2011). Innovative Learning Environments Research Study. Melbourne : OECD/ DEECD www.learningspaces.edu.au Buscher, H. (2006). Understanding Educational Leadership: People, power and culture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Commonwealth of Australia (2015). Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, National Innovation and Science Agenda.

Hipkins, R. (2015). "Session F: Should generic curriculum capabilities be assessed?" 2009 - 2015 ACER Research Conferences. Paper 7. [Accessed from http://research.acer.edu.au/ research_conference/RC2015/17august/7 ] Jobs, S. (2005). Commencement Address, June 12th, 2005. Stanford University.

Kotter, J. (2014). Accelerate: Building Strategic Agility for a Faster-Moving World. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing Perkins, D. (2014). Future Wise: Educating Our Children for a Changing World. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Poincare, H. (1913). The Foundations of Science: Science and Hypothesis, The Value of Science, Science and Method. New York, NY: The Science Press. [Accessed from: http://www.gutenberg.org/ files/39713/39713-h/39713-h.htm ] Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.

Sweezy, P. (1943). Professor Schumpeter's Theory of Innovation. The Review of Economic Statistics, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Feb., 1943), 93-96.

Wagner, T. (2012). Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People Who Will Change the World.

New York, NY: Scribner

Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation

9