innovative teaching methods essay

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

Pedagogy of the Twenty-First Century: Innovative Teaching Methods

Submitted: 20 November 2016 Reviewed: 09 November 2017 Published: 20 December 2017

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.72341

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

Edited by Olga Bernad Cavero and Núria Llevot-Calvet

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

9,740 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Overall attention for this chapters

In the twenty-first century, significant changes are occurring related to new scientific discoveries, informatization, globalization, the development of astronautics, robotics, and artificial intelligence. This century is called the age of digital technologies and knowledge. How is the school changing in the new century? How does learning theory change? Currently, you can hear a lot of criticism that the classroom has not changed significantly compared to the last century or even like two centuries ago. Do the teachers succeed in modern changes? The purpose of the chapter is to summarize the current changes in didactics for the use of innovative teaching methods and study the understanding of changes by teachers. In this chapter, we consider four areas: the expansion of the subject of pedagogy, environmental approach to teaching, the digital generation and the changes taking place, and innovation in teaching. The theory of education, figuratively speaking, has two levels. At the macro-level, in the “education-society” relationship, decentralization and diversification, internationalization of education, and the introduction of digital technologies occur. At the micro-level in the “teacher-learner” relationship, there is an active mix of traditional and innovative methods, combination of an activity approach with an energy-informational environment approach, cognition with constructivism and connectivism.

• digital generation
• innovative teaching methods
• environmental approach to teaching

Author Information

Aigerim mynbayeva *.

• Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Kazakhstan

Zukhra Sadvakassova

Bakhytkul akshalova.

• International Education Corporation, Kazakh leading Academy of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Kazakhstan

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

The new century introduced significant changes in didactics and teaching methods. Pedagogy of the twentieth century differs from the pedagogy of the twenty-first century. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, there have been many changes in the development of national and world education. The most observable phenomenon is now the Internetization of society and the penetration of digital technologies into learning. The modern generation of schoolboys is known by the name digital, socially digital [ 1 ], and generation Z [ 2 ]. Knowledge is the transition from acquiring knowledge through reading, from the teacher’s monolog to visual perception, or discussion in the classroom.

Digital technologies change our way of life, ways of communication, way of thinking, feelings, channels of influence on other people, social skills, and social behavior. As Myamesheva states, “the high-tech environment - computers, smart phones, video games, Internet search engines - reshape the human brain” [ 3 ].

The theoretical changes in didactics and pedagogy lie behind the most obvious tendency. Pedagogy in the domestic science was redefined from the “science of upbringing, teaching and learning” to the “science of upbringing and education.” The subject of the twentieth century pedagogy was “upbringing” [ 4 ] (in Kazakh—tarbie, in Russian—vospitanie, in Deutsch—Bildung). Tagunova et al. writes: “Upbringing in the broad pedagogical sense is a purposeful influence of the society to prepare the younger generation for life. Upbringing in the narrow pedagogical sense is a purposeful influence on the development of specific personal qualities…” [ 5 ]. The subject of the twenty-first century pedagogy—the category “education”—has expanded the scope of meaning and understanding. Competence and personal-oriented approaches have been introduced.

Here is how the post-Soviet tendencies of reforming education in the studies of Silova, Yakavets are generalized. There are some commonalities between countries in terms of the “post-socialist education reform package” [ 6 , 7 , 8 ], “a set of policy reforms symbolizing the adoption of Western educational values and including such ‘travelling policies’ as student-centred learning, the introduction of curriculum standards, decentralization of educational finance and governance, privatisation of higher education, standardisation of student assessment, and liberalisation of textbook publishing” [ 7 - 8 ]. This interpretation coincides with the assessment of the Russian researcher Romanenchuk “in the 2004 concept of the development of education ‘westernization’ of education (the transfer of the Western model of education to Kazakhstan soil) is embodied in full” [ 9 ]. On the one hand, one can agree with such assessments, and on the other hand, it is necessary to take into account the powerful tendency of the revival of Kazakh schools and the ethno-pedagogical foundations of education. Kazakhstani scientist Akhmetova defines the six reasons for modernizing education somewhat different: the quality of education, globalization and internationalization, politicization and the creation of a knowledge society, new teaching technologies, marketing and financing [ 10 ]. Kazakhstan is a young independent state that turned 25 years old. Therefore, the reforms of Kazakhstani education in the early twenty-first century were aimed at building a national education system as an attribute of independence. At present, Kazakhstan occupies leading positions on the dynamics of educational reforms in the post-Soviet space.

In this chapter, we consider four areas: (1) the expansion of the subject of pedagogy, (2) environmental approach to teaching, (3) the digital generation and the changes taking place, and (4) innovation in teaching. These changes lead to the renewal of teaching methods.

The purpose of the chapter is to summarize the current changes in didactics for the use of innovative teaching methods and study the understanding of changes by teachers.

2. Material and research methods

The sources of research were the works of Kazakhstani, Russian and foreign scholars on didactics, textbooks on Pedagogy of the twentieth century, UNESCO recommendations on the development of teaching strategies.

On the one hand, the section overviews, and on the other hand, the results of a practical study on the use of innovative teaching methods by teachers, and understanding of their strengths and weaknesses are presented.

the features of the expansion of the subject of pedagogy—“education” have been analyzed;

approaches in modern foreign didactics on teaching the digital generation of students have been analyzed and generalized, taking into account their specific features;

attention is focused on pedagogical innovation as a direction for the development of didactics;

a survey of teachers on the using of traditional and innovative teaching methods has been conducted.

Therefore, in the first part of the chapter, the analytical and system approaches were used, and the theoretical changes of modern pedagogy were generalized. Another question is, how much do teachers take a positive attitude to innovation, accept them, and improve their skills? To answer this question, a questionnaire was compiled, and a survey was conducted among teachers who had been trained in the Republican Institute for Advanced Training of Teachers and Educators. The selection of respondents was carried out by random sampling. The survey was conducted in May–June 2016. The survey was conducted jointly with Esenova. The following questions were asked in the questionnaire:

(R1) Do teachers use innovative teaching methods?

(R2) What, in the opinion of teachers, are the advantages of innovative teaching methods, what are their shortcomings?

(R3) Why, for what purpose do teachers use innovative teaching methods?

(R4) Did the teachers learn how to use ITM? How did they learn (options: through qualification improvement courses with state payment, independently or at their own expense)?

(R5) According to teachers what is the parity of applying traditional and innovative teaching methods? Has the teacher formed a meaningful structure for updating teaching methods-an innovative culture of the teacher?

The results of the survey help to understand: first, how dynamic is the improvement of teachers’ pedagogical skills and mastering of innovations in teaching. Second, is the upgrade process systemic? And are the conditions created for this by the state? Or do the teachers update the pedagogical skills of the ITM independently?

3. Literature review

3.1. traditional didactics.

Modern pedagogy from the “science of upbringing and training” has become a “science of upbringing and education.” The category “education” for the twentieth century has been transformed and expanded. Didactics since the days of Jan Amos Komensky has been understood as a theory of learning. In Soviet didactics, education was understood as a “learning outcome” [ 11 ], “the process and result of mastering the system of scientific knowledge and cognitive skills …” [ 4 ]. That is, obtaining an education had an expression in obtaining a certificate of education or a university diploma.

In modern textbooks on pedagogy, for example by Bordovskaya and Rean, education is understood broader [ 12 ]: (1) as a process and result of learning, (2) as a society value, because society spent more than 8 millennia to build a cumbersome educational system; (3) the value of the individual, since modern man spends more than 15 years of his life on education and profession; (4) a social institution with its own powerful infrastructure, economy, educational programs, management bodies, didactic systems, and so on.

Theories of education consider the interaction not only of the pupil and the teacher (the micro level of interaction) but also of the interaction of the state and the education system, the social groups of pupils and teachers, parents and pupils, parents and school, schools and public organizations, schools and religions, schools and economic, social development of society. This is the level of macro influence of education on society and society on education. That is why didactic theories and problems are considered not only from the point of view of the internal relations of the teacher and the student, but as a didactic and at the same time social environment, open to innovations and interference, dynamic changes. Therefore, forming subject competencies, we simultaneously design the formation of social, communicative competences, life competencies.

3.2. Environmental approach to teaching

In the 1970–1980s of the twentieth century in the USSR, the process of teaching began to be stated from the point of view of the activity approach in the domestic textbooks on pedagogy. The learning process as teaching and learning has components: purpose and objectives, content, methods, teaching tools, learning forms and results. When planning the lesson, we design these components. This theory is connected with the L. Vygotsky’s theory of educational activity, the theory of developmental learning of L. Zankov, V. Davydov, I. Lerner, M. Skatkin, Z. Kalmykova and others [ 13 , 14 ].

Since the twenty-first century, the environmental approach to learning has been actively used. According to Manuilov [ 15 ], we define the functional environment as something, among which the subject resides, whereby his way of life is formed, which mediates his development and averages the personality.

In the 1990s of the twentieth century, the Italian scientist Rizolatti discovered mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are neurons of the brain that are excited both when performing a certain action, and when observing the performance of this action by another person. Such neurons were reliably detected in primates, their presence in humans, and some birds, is confirmed. These neurons play a key role in the processes of imitation, empathy, imitation and language learning [ 16 ].

According to the Albert Bandura’s theory of social learning, human behavior is not so consistent. Prior to the theory of A. Bandura, according to the theories of J. Piaget and others, it was believed that abilities and attitudes were formed as they grew up [ 17 ]. Therefore, as we are accustomed to believe, some consistency is inherent in actions. A. Bandura believes that human behavior is not so consistent. Rather, it depends on the circumstances. Human behavior is more determined by the existing situation and its interpretation by a person than by the stage of his development, character traits or personality types. From A. Bandura’s theory of social learning, one can conclude that education is figurative, discrete, can be carried out eventually, situationally.

In the environmental approach, information and energy become important categories. During the lesson, there is a dynamic exchange of information, knowledge, and energy between the teacher and the student. In our opinion, the basis of the synergetic approach in pedagogy is manifested here. According to the theory of self-cognition, according to Mukazhanova, the value of “love” is understood as the energy exchanged between people [ 18 ], for example, mother and her child. Positive attitudes in study and occupation, the positive energy generated by the teacher, set a special positive spiritual atmosphere. It is interesting that here one can turn around to the Academy of Plato history. As you know, the word “platonic love” comes from “spiritual communication between teacher and student.” Therefore, in didactics, it is better to use more developing, positively motivating methods and technologies of education, which will create a development environment that is positive for development. The teacher becomes the facilitator of the child development. Therefore, art-pedagogical, creative methods of teaching are recommended.

Moreover, the environment must be saturated with both information and positive energy. The teacher himself plays a big role if he is a significant personality for the student.

This scientific direction in pedagogy connected with the social environment and the socialization of the individual has resulted in a new disciplinary science—social pedagogy. It deals with other mechanisms of socialization—imprinting, imitation, identification. Thanks to the development of psychology, the theory of upbringing develops coping strategies, coping behavior, and the concept of a lifestyle.

3.3. Digital generation

In the modern school, we observe serious changes related to informatics and the introduction of multimedia in the educational environment. Modern scientists—teachers, sociologists, futurists also reflecting—speak about a new generation of students, that is, schoolchildren of the twenty-first century. This generation is “Next”, generation Z (theory of generations developed by Neil Hove and William Strauss), the digital generation, the social-digital generation (developed by L. Hietajärvi, K. Lonka).

Let us consider the foreign studies of scientists who demonstrate modern changes and new approaches in the development of didactics. Scientists D. Tapscott, D. Oblinger, B. Brdička [ 19 ] note serious changes in perception and learning process ( Table 1 ).

Table 1.

Generation development [ 19 ].

Hietajärvi et al. [ 1 ] echoes it and so articulates changes in the new generation, called the “social-digital generation” ( Table 2 ).

Table 2.

Differences between the modern practice of teaching at school and the new “social-digital generation” [ 1 ].

Note the importance of all the changes. Let us dwell on the fact that “The educational space is expanding beyond the classroom” [ 20 ]. At present, having agreed in advance with the students, we can use the Internet video resources during the explanation and during the group work assignments, and we can allow students to use smart phones and phones when preparing a group solution.

Hietajärvi et al. call the modern generation as a generation with “social and digital participation” and write that “social and digital technologies are integrated systems of technology, social media and the Internet that provide a constant and intensive online interaction with information, people, and artifacts”; Social and digital participation is “a new concept of the practice of informal, socially-digital mediated participation” [ 1 ].

According to Soldatova’s and Zotova’s research, changes occur in the memory, attention and thinking of the digital generation. “The accessibility of almost any information at any time from an early age changes the structure of mnemonic processes. First of all, it is not the content of any information source in the network that is remembered, but the place where this information is located, and more precisely the ‘way’, method how to get to it. The average concentration duration of attention compared to that which was 10-15 years ago, decreased ten times. A new phenomenon is clip thinking. It is based on fragments processing of visual images, rather than “on logic and text associations” [ 20 ].

Teachers have diametrically opposed opinions on how to respond to changes: from conservative (leaving everything as it is, schoolchildren need to be taught as in the last century) until the need for a complete restructuring of the education system. Our position is based on the principle of ambivalence, the continuity of “tradition → innovation,” the need for active research of the phenomenon of electronic and visual culture, and the study of the influence of visual culture on the personality of a schoolboy. Digital technologies change our way of life, ways of communication, way of thinking, feelings, channels of influence on other people, social skills, and social behavior [ 21 ].

Schoolchildren and students have more short-term memory; therefore, new methods of fixing knowledge in long-term memory and development of competencies are needed. Educators are aware of the problem of forming school children’s cogency of thinking. It is interesting to understand the “superficial” and “deep”/“deep” approach in obtaining knowledge. “Learning the text by heart, ignoring the meaning, understanding - is known as a superficial approach, and an integral and critical assessment, the study of the material is known as a deep approach.” “Superficial learning is a superficial approach; it is the reproduction of knowledge, the teacher-regulated training, passive epistemology, dual vision, and the consumption of knowledge. Deep approach, knowledge transformation, self-regulatory learning, active epistemology, relativistic views, and knowledge building approach can lead to deeper levels of learning” [ 1 ].

These issues put forward new requirements for the teacher and his professional activities. Teachers need to learn new information and digital technologies more actively. In addition, new research is needed in the field of the psychology of perception and thinking with the active use of e-learning. Practical training of teachers for the use of ICT and digital resources, the formation of digital literacy, the inclusion of such courses in educational programs for teachers is necessary nowadays.

When formulating courses, it is possible to demonstrate the continuity of the development of didactics on the concepts “behaviorism → cognitivism → constructivism → connectivism.” Brdička systematized the development of didactic bases of the twentieth century in 2011 ( Table 3 ) [ 19 ].

Table 3.

Connectivism as a new didactic basis in the foreign theory of education [ 19 , 22 ].

As is known, the theory of behaviorism as a behavioral approach appeared in the 1920s. It has been used in education for a long time. Schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries relied on the foundations of a behavioral approach (although the theory of behaviorism has not existed yet). In the 30s of the twentieth century, the formation of the cognitivism process began in Soviet education. The Soviet didactic system was mainly built on the use of both theories. Further in the second half of the twentieth century, the theory of constructivism (social constructionism) was formulated. Social reality has a dual nature. On the one hand, it has objective meanings, while on the other hand, it has subjective meanings. Each person builds a social reality around himself. An important tool of social reality is language. Through language and communication, a person builds for himself a field of knowledge and understanding. The processes of socio-psychological construction of the society through personal activity and activity are considered.

In education, the course of social constructivism is associated with the socialization of the individual in society, the formation of socialization skills in each person, and the learning of self-structuring of knowledge by students. The approach is connected both with the construction of the learning environment, including communicative and construction of knowledge through it. Currently, the theory is actualized by the use of active and innovative teaching methods in education (brainstorming, case study, group teaching methods, etc.). We emphasize that the sequence of the appearance of theories, in principle, does not disprove the previous one, but complements, as it were, built on the previous ones, then penetrates into the previous ones and partially changes their use. This understanding is illustrated by the modern methodological principle of the science—the principle of addition and complementation. As in school, at the university, we use these trends when building the learning process. Note that the course of social constructivism echoes the environmental approach in pedagogy.

A new direction for the emerging theory was put forward by Siemens and Downes in connection with the development of communication network and new opportunities for their use in teaching [ 22 ]. Knowledge is obtained through interaction with the network community. Of course, such a process of obtaining knowledge, on the one hand, can be characteristic of an already prepared or adult person who is able to critically evaluate, analyze, choose, and construct knowledge [ 21 ]. That is, it has some foundation of knowledge. At the same time, the students of secondary schools themselves demonstrate active assimilation of knowledge and skills in this way—through networks. Therefore, in our opinion, we predict that there will be a penetration of this theory gradually into lower-level classes (even initial ones). For junior high school students and teenagers, networks have become commonplace, so their networking skills are much better developed than those of educators.

In Kazakhstan, which has Soviet traditions in didactics, the content of education was built on the basis of theories of encyclopedism, formalism, copyism (in Russian—ekzemplyarizm), and others. They are described in the textbook of didactics [ 23 ]. In the Western science of education, the transition from behaviorism to cognitivism and constructivism is considered. The transition to the dominance of theories of constructivism requires the active use of innovative teaching methods. It is clear that changes in reality dictate the need to move away from encyclopedism and cognitivism in learning.

In education, the understanding of learning outcomes has shifted from knowledge, or knowledge and skills, to the formation of competencies. If knowledge is formed consistently, then competencies develop in a complex manner. Competencies are difficult to form in one lesson, so we can talk about “learning strategies” implemented for a certain length of time. The learning strategy integrates both approaches and principles, the direction of development, and the methods and types of instruction. Training strategies are aimed at competence—the expected results of education. Strategies for active, innovative teaching, project-oriented, and playful learning can realize the concepts of constructivism and connectivism.

3.4. Innovation in training

According to Volov, “In the Middle Ages in educational institutions the ratio of the number of pupils to the holders of knowledge was about ten (I ≈ 10); With the introduction of the pedagogical system Ya.A. Comensky, the ratio of the number of pupils to the teacher reaches hundreds (I ≈ 100); modern innovative technologies increase the factor of educational technologies in tens of thousand times (I ≈100,000)” [ 24 ]. The development of innovations in education is served by the scientific discipline “Pedagogical innovation.” It helps in the development, implementation and dissemination of innovations in teaching practice. We give several of its provisions.

Innovation is a phenomenon that carries in itself the essence, methods, techniques, technologies, and content of the new. Innovations (from Latin in - in, nove - new) - the introduction of a new, the introduction of novelty. According to Taubaeva and Laktionova: “The innovative process is a complex activity in the formation and development of the content of education and the organization of a new” [ 25 ].

Innovative methods of teaching are methods of teaching that involve new ways of interaction between “teacher-student”, “teacher-student”, a certain innovation in practical activity in the process of mastering educational material.

an absolute innovation (absolutely new technology);

a modernized innovation (significantly improved technology);

a modified innovation (slightly improved technology);

an innovation, technology introduced to a new territory (e.g., trainings for the RK, credit technology of training for Kazakhstan);

an innovative technology of a new field of application [ 26 ].

Features of innovative training: (1) work on anticipation, anticipation of development; (2) openness to the future; (3) constant inconsistency, in other words, the non-equilibrium of the system, in particular the person himself; (4) focus on the personality, his development; (5) the obligatory presence of creativity elements; and (6) partnership type of relations: cooperation, co-creation, mutual assistance, and so on.

the belief that the human potential is unlimited;

the pedagogical approach is aimed at mastering reality in the system;

stimulation of nonlinear thinking;

they are based on the hedonistic principle that is, based on the enjoyment of learning, the joy of achievement, the pedagogy of success.

the mobile role-playing field of the teacher—the teacher simultaneously teaches and learns from the student [ 27 ].

Firstly, the very methodology of innovative learning is built on a personal-oriented approach. In the Western literature, it is called student-centered learning. Secondly, it synthesizes synergistic, systemic, competence, dialogical and activity-oriented, culturological, information and technological, environmental, and other approaches. Third, it is possible to determine the laws and principles of the innovation process in education and the basis of the innovative culture of the teacher. The methodology of innovative teaching is reflected in the training manual.

According to Podlasy “The teaching methods set the pace of development of the didactic system - the training progresses as quickly as the methods used allow it to move forward” [ 11 ]. In practice, there is a transition from reproductive methods of teaching to innovative ones.

We have collected more than 300 innovative teaching methods and technologies for more than 20 years of experience [ 26 , 28 ]. Traditionally, ITM (according to M. Novak) is divided into nonimitative (brainstorming, pedagogical exercises, and discussions) and imitative (nongame, e.g., case study, training, etc., and gaming—business role-playing, blitz games). The collection includes a didactic description of the algorithms for applying the methods and the most interesting examples of student fulfillment [ 29 ]. They include: brainstorming, training, role-playing and business games, blitz games, various methods such as “Puzzles”, then “Domino”, “Historical picture”, “Fish bone”, “Spider online”, “Car”,” Basalt Columns “, “University - 2050″, “School-2030 “,” School - 2050 “, lessons “Сreativity hour”,” Talk show “,” TV digest “, in the” Walt Disney Circle “, “Walt Disney’s Three Stools”; On “soap bubbles,” “Conceptual fan,” “Collective record”, “Palm,” “Train,” “My Constellation,” “I - it me,” critical thinking techniques, “Six pairs of action shoes” and “Six hats of thinking” by Edward de Bono, an educational project, a fairy tale creation, etc.

For example, the method “Historical picture” was born after a trip to Dresden and acquaintance with the famous wall tile panel “Procession of the Princes”, created in 1904–1907. It depicts 35 Margraves and Kings of Saxony, who lived from the twelfth century to the beginning of the twentieth century and in the procession they are presented consistently. Students are invited to study the historical information about this panel and to come up with their own version of the historical picture of the collection of the procession, for example, the scientific school of the theory of behaviorism with brief “reference signals” about the positions of scientists. The student does not need to possess special artistic skills; he is allowed to use any improvised material such as copies of biographical references with photos, glue, paper, markers, etc. The work can be performed in groups, as an independent work, or at a seminar (with a given homework to study the theory of behaviorism). In conclusion, presentations are made. Students not only learn the sources as much as possible but also learn to generalize, logically and artistically, visually, creatively represent solutions, present their decisions, work in a team.

In 2010, UNESCO recommended the following teaching strategies for the twenty-first century: experiential learning, storytelling, values education, enquiry learning, appropriate assessment, future problem solving, outside classroom learning, and community problem solving [ 30 ].

The active use of innovative teaching methods by teachers is a necessity nowadays. The greater the strategies and methods of teaching the teacher has, the more interesting, diverse it conducts classes, better motivates the student’s cognitive activity, shapes the experience of solving nonstandard problems, promotes in-depth training and the steady assimilation of technology of practical activity.

A good teacher constantly improves his didactic skills, selects, and develops new methods and technologies of teaching.

A change in the teaching of pedagogy can be observed in the gradual addition of subsections of textbooks on the pedagogy topics on innovative methods of teaching (comparative Table 4 ).

Table 4.

Comparative table of the section “didactics” of textbooks on “pedagogy” for pedagogical universities.

These textbooks were used in universities to train teachers on the territory of the USSR and post-Soviet countries, recommended by the Ministry of that time. The analysis of the content was carried out on the basis of comparing the names of topics in the section “Didactics” of textbooks on pedagogy of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (textbooks representing the decade). It shows the relative stability of the subjects of the section “Didactics” by keywords: “the process of learning,” “the content of education,” “methods and means of teaching,” and “forms of education.” Textbooks include the topic “Innovative Learning Technologies” in the 21st century. Thus, modern students are studying innovative methods and technologies of teaching.

For teachers of the older generation who have graduated earlier from universities, advanced training is carried out (according to the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “About Education” at least once in 5 years) [ 33 ].

Currently, most schools in Kazakhstan are actively pursuing reforms, including the active use of innovative teaching methods by teachers. Next, we turn to the consideration of the results of the questionnaire of teachers on the use of innovative teaching methods.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. survey of teachers on the use of innovative teaching methods.

Many scientists study the active implementation of innovations in training. According to Isayev, only 14% of teachers have an actively positive attitude to innovation, they initiate the introduction of new technologies in the educational process and promote them. Twenty-three percent are positively attuned and 9% have an emotionally positive attitude to pedagogical innovations [ 34 ]. While 18% of teachers have frustration-negative, 26%—passive-negative, and 10% actively negative attitude toward innovation. T.I. Shamova divides teachers in terms of the degree of motivation for innovation in the school into leaders from 1 to 3%, positivists from 50 to 60%, neutrals—30%, and negativists from 10 to 20% [ 35 ]. The introduction of innovative teaching methods is actively conducted in Kazakhstan. Let us conduct a survey among teachers—whether they use innovative teaching methods, which see the strengths and weaknesses of ITM application.

In the joint questionnaire held by K. Esenova, 66 teachers participated in the qualification improvement institute, and up to three priority answers were allowed.

(R1) Do teachers apply ITM? 92.42% of the teachers admit that they use innovative teaching methods. In our opinion, this is a high figure. At the same time, it can be assumed that since teachers came to improve their qualifications from different regions of Kazakhstan, they were a priori motivated to update the teaching methods, to apply ITM, and have some experience in applying them. In addition, the promotion of the ITM application is widely conducted in the Kazakhstani education system. Therefore, we can assume that this result is in part similar to Shamova’s data on the existence of teachers due to various reasons that are negatively related to innovations in training.

(R2) Advantages and disadvantages of ITM . Teachers recognize the strengths of teachers recognize the strengths of the application of innovative teaching methods (ITM): the activity of students in cognition and activity (51.52%), students’ interest and practical orientation (39.93%), meaningfulness and strength of the acquired knowledge and competences (36.36%), the feasibility of fulfilling the tasks of the students (33.33%), development of creativity (30.30%), support of interest and direction in depth for strong students (15.15%).

The risk zones indicated by teachers: a reduction in the amount of knowledge for a limited time of the lesson (54.55%), training and material support/equipment, markers, stickers …/(48, 48), class noise, reduced discipline (42.42%), and labor time of training (36.36%). Note that in urban schools, the usual class consists of 25–33 schoolchildren, and the teacher does not have an assistant.

These indicators are a good illustration of the teachers’ understanding of the sampling of existing difficulties in the application of ITM.

( R3) The purpose of ITM application. The main goal of the ITM application, according to the teachers’ evaluation, is to increase the interest of students—92.42%, active involvement of students in educational work—69.7%, development of the creativity of the student 60.61% ( Figure 1 ). As a result of ITM application, the students develop personality qualities—activity, communicativeness, competence, oratorical ability, democracy. The constant use of innovative teaching methods develop in pupils, according to teachers’ assessments, activity (78.79%), communicative (69.7%), competence (66.67%), oratory (30.3%), and democracy (15.15%).

Figure 1.

Why, for what purpose do teachers use innovative teaching methods?.

(R4) Training of IMT teachers . Most teachers were trained in innovative teaching methods (81.82%). Methodical updating took place through qualification improvement courses (78.79%) and special courses at universities (54.55%). Besides, teachers attend training at their own expense (45.4%) and are engaged in self-education (30.3%). Indirectly, these results show the systematic nature of the state’s work on updating the methods of teaching. At the same time, 30–45% of the selected teachers independently update innovative methodological competence, which also shows the active position of teachers in improving the skills in this sample. The results are in accordance with the data on the studies of Isaev and Shamova (46% positively related and 50–60% positivists enter the data area).

( R5) The parity of applying traditional and innovative teaching methods . On the question of determining the parity of accepting traditional (reproductive) and innovative methods of teaching, teachers responded as follows ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 2.

Determining the parity of applying traditional and innovative teaching methods.

It is gratifying to note that there has been a turn to the need for more innovative methods of teaching to be used by 90.91% of teachers. This is the result of reforming the system of Kazakhstani education as well as the work of courses for improving the qualifications of teachers.

To the last question: “Did you have a meaningful structure for updating the methods of teaching-an innovative teacher culture?” 45.5% of teachers answered “Yes”, 39.4% in part, and 15.1% answered “No” ( Figure 3 ). This system includes both participation in advanced training courses, participation in ITM training, self-education—reading books, attending classes of innovative teachers.

Figure 3.

Teachers answer.

In our opinion, it is the innovative culture with the motive and the ability to update the pedagogical tools, competences, knowledge, and values that should become the component of the skill of the modern teacher. Such a system can be multicomponent, as teachers themselves point out, associated with the reflexive methodological competence of teachers.

5. Conclusion

Changes in didactics and pedagogy of Kazakhstan and post-Soviet countries have two major directions. The first is associated with a change in ideology and the acquisition of independence by countries. The second is connected with the world trends in the development of education: the introduction of a competence approach, informatization, internetization, globalization, and diversification of education.

Teacher, on the one hand, subjectively decides on the design of the content, methods, strategies, and technologies of education, but the implementation of educational reforms depends on him. On the other hand, the state and society broadcast the pedagogical culture, the value aspects of teachers’ thoughts through professional, vocational training, and the system of raising teachers’ qualifications.

The subjectivity of consciousness and professional activity is one of the principles of modern pedagogical science. That is, the application or nonuse of innovative methods depends on the personality of the teacher, his methodological competence, pedagogical skills. The task of the teacher training system is to actualize such a need, to form methodological competence. The task of the school and universities is to encourage and stimulate the development of teachers’ and students’ creativity. An important task of the teacher is to constantly reflect and develop his pedagogical potential; then the student influenced by the example of the teacher will be an active and competent person.

Continue reading from the same book

New pedagogical challenges in the 21st century.

Edited by Olga Bernad-Cavero

Published: 04 July 2018

By Ajitha Nayar Krishnakumaryamma and Srikirupa Venka...

1382 downloads

By Lindy Abawi, Susan Carter, Dorothy Andrews and Joa...

1450 downloads

By Ewa Ogrodzka-Mazur

1221 downloads

Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

ISSN : 2397-7604

Article publication date: 3 April 2017

The purpose of this paper is to present an analytical review of the educational innovation field in the USA. It outlines classification of innovations, discusses the hurdles to innovation, and offers ways to increase the scale and rate of innovation-based transformations in the education system.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper is based on a literature survey and author research.

US education badly needs effective innovations of scale that can help produce the needed high-quality learning outcomes across the system. The primary focus of educational innovations should be on teaching and learning theory and practice, as well as on the learner, parents, community, society, and its culture. Technology applications need a solid theoretical foundation based on purposeful, systemic research, and a sound pedagogy. One of the critical areas of research and innovation can be cost and time efficiency of the learning.

Practical implications

Several practical recommendations stem out of this paper: how to create a base for large-scale innovations and their implementation; how to increase effectiveness of technology innovations in education, particularly online learning; how to raise time and cost efficiency of education.

Social implications

Innovations in education are regarded, along with the education system, within the context of a societal supersystem demonstrating their interrelations and interdependencies at all levels. Raising the quality and scale of innovations in education will positively affect education itself and benefit the whole society.

Originality/value

Originality is in the systemic approach to education and educational innovations, in offering a comprehensive classification of innovations; in exposing the hurdles to innovations, in new arguments about effectiveness of technology applications, and in time efficiency of education.

• Implementation
• Educational technology
• Time efficiency

Serdyukov, P. (2017), "Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Peter Serdyukov

Published in the Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning . This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Necessity is the mother of invention (Plato).

Introduction

Education, being a social institution serving the needs of society, is indispensable for society to survive and thrive. It should be not only comprehensive, sustainable, and superb, but must continuously evolve to meet the challenges of the fast-changing and unpredictable globalized world. This evolution must be systemic, consistent, and scalable; therefore, school teachers, college professors, administrators, researchers, and policy makers are expected to innovate the theory and practice of teaching and learning, as well as all other aspects of this complex organization to ensure quality preparation of all students to life and work.

Here we present a systemic discussion of educational innovations, identify the barriers to innovation, and outline potential directions for effective innovations. We discuss the current status of innovations in US education, what educational innovation is, how innovations are being integrated in schools and colleges, why innovations do not always produce the desired effect, and what should be done to increase the scale and rate of innovation-based transformations in our education system. We then offer recommendations for the growth of educational innovations. As examples of innovations in education, we will highlight online learning and time efficiency of learning using accelerated and intensive approaches.

Innovations in US education

For an individual, a nation, and humankind to survive and progress, innovation and evolution are essential. Innovations in education are of particular importance because education plays a crucial role in creating a sustainable future. “Innovation resembles mutation, the biological process that keeps species evolving so they can better compete for survival” ( Hoffman and Holzhuter, 2012 , p. 3). Innovation, therefore, is to be regarded as an instrument of necessary and positive change. Any human activity (e.g. industrial, business, or educational) needs constant innovation to remain sustainable.

The need for educational innovations has become acute. “It is widely believed that countries’ social and economic well-being will depend to an ever greater extent on the quality of their citizens’ education: the emergence of the so-called ‘knowledge society’, the transformation of information and the media, and increasing specialization on the part of organizations all call for high skill profiles and levels of knowledge. Today’s education systems are required to be both effective and efficient, or in other words, to reach the goals set for them while making the best use of available resources” ( Cornali, 2012 , p. 255). According to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, “the pressure to increase equity and improve educational outcomes for students is growing around the world” ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 3). In the USA, underlying pressure to innovate comes from political, economic, demographic, and technological forces from both inside and outside the nation.

Many in the USA seem to recognize that education at all levels critically needs renewal: “Higher education has to change. It needs more innovation” ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 1). This message, however, is not new – in the foreword to the 1964 book entitled Innovation in Education, Arthur Foshay, Executive Officer of The Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation, wrote, “It has become platitudinous to speak of the winds of change in education, to remind those interested in the educational enterprise that a revolution is in progress. Trite or not, however, it is true to say that changes appear wherever one turns in education” ( Matthew, 1964 , p. v).

Yet, more than 50 years later, we realize that the actual pace of educational innovations and their implementation is too slow as shown by the learning outcomes of both school and college graduates, which are far from what is needed in today’s world. Jim Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Innovation and Improvement in the US Department of Education, writes, “Whether for reasons of economic growth, competitiveness, social justice or return on tax-payer investment, there is little rational argument over the need for significant improvement in US educational outcomes. Further, it is irrefutable that the country has made limited improvement on most educational outcomes over the last several decades, especially when considered in the context of the increased investment over the same period. In fact, the total cost of producing each successful high school and college graduate has increased substantially over time instead of decreasing – creating what some argue is an inverted learning curve […].”

“Education not only needs new ideas and inventions that shatter the performance expectations of today’s status quo; to make a meaningful impact, these new solutions must also “scale,” that is grow large enough, to serve millions of students and teachers or large portions of specific underserved populations” ( Shelton, 2011 ). Yet, something does not work here.

Lack of innovation can have profound economic and social repercussions. America’s last competitive advantage, warns Harvard Innovation Education Fellow Tony Wagner, its ability to innovate, is at risk as a result of the country’s lackluster education system ( Creating innovators, 2012 ). Derek Bok, a former Harvard University President, writes, “[…] neither American students nor our universities, nor the nation itself, can afford to take for granted the quality of higher education and the teaching and learning it provides” ( Bok, 2007 , p. 6). Hence it is central for us to make US education consistently innovative and focus educational innovations on raising the quality of learning at all levels. Yet, though there is a good deal of ongoing educational research and innovation, we have not actually seen discernable improvements in either school students’ or college graduates’ achievements to this day. Suffice it to mention a few facts. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) evaluations keep revealing disappointing results for our middle school ( Pew Research Center, 2015 ); a large number of high school graduates are not ready for college ( College preparedness, 2012 ); and employers, in turn, are often dissatisfied with college graduates ( Thomson, 2015 ; Jaschik, 2015 ). No one, be they students, parents, academia, business, or society as a whole, are pleased with these outcomes. Could it be that our education system is not sufficiently innovative?

Danny Crichton, an entrepreneur, in his blog The Next Wave of Education Innovation writes expressly, “Few areas have been as hopeful and as disappointing as innovation in education. Education is probably the single most important function in our society today, yet it remains one of the least understood, despite incredible levels of investment from venture capitalists and governments. Why do students continue to show up in a classroom or start an online course? How do we guide students to the right knowledge just as they need to learn it? We may have an empirical inkling and some hunches, but we still lack any fundamental insights. That is truly disappointing. With the rise of the internet, it seemed like education was on the cusp of a complete revolution. Today, though, you would be excused for not seeing much of a difference between the way we learn and how we did so twenty years ago” ( Crichton, 2015 ).

Editors of the book Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Ben Wildavsky, Andrew Kelly, and Kevin Carey write, “The higher education system also betrays an innovation deficit in another way: a steady decline in productivity driven by a combination of static or declining output paired with skyrocketing prices ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 3). This despairing mood is echoed by Groom and Lamb’s statement in EDUCAUSE Review, “Today, innovation is increasingly conflated with hype, disruption for disruption’s sake, and outsourcing laced with a dose of austerity-driven downsizing” ( Groom and Lamb, 2014 ).

USA success has always been driven by innovation and has a unique capacity for growth ( Zeihan, 2014 ). Nevertheless, it is indeed a paradox: while the USA produces more research, including in education, than any other country ( Science Watch, 2009 ), we do not see much improvement in the way our students are prepared for life and work. The USA can be proud of great scholars, such as John Dewey, B.F. Skinner, Abraham Maslow, Albert Bandura, Howard Gardner, Jerome Bruner, and many others who have contributed a great deal to the theory of education. Yet, has this theory yielded any innovative approaches for the teaching and learning practice that have increased learning productivity and improved the quality of the output?

The USA is the home of the computer and the internet, but has the information revolution helped to improve the quality of learning outcomes? Where and how, then, are all these educational innovations applied? It seems, write Spangehl and Hoffman, that “American education has taken little advantage of important innovations that would increase instructional capacity, effectiveness, and productivity” (2012 , p. 21). “The new ‘job factory’ role American universities have awkwardly stuffed themselves into may be killing the modern college student’s spirit and search for meaning” ( Mercurio, 2016 ).

What is interesting here is that while we are still undecided as to what to do with our struggling schools and universities and how to integrate into them our advanced inventions, other nations are already benefiting from our innovations and have in a short time successfully built world-class education systems. It is ironic that an admirable Finnish success was derived heavily from US educational research. Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator and author of a bestselling book, The Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change In Finland , said in an interview to the Huffington Post, “American scholars and their writings, like Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, have been influential in building the much-admired school system in Finland” ( Rubin, 2015 ); so wrote other authors ( Strauss, 2014 ). Singapore, South Korea, China, and other forward-looking countries also learned from great US educational ideas.

We cannot say that US educators and society are oblivious to the problems in education: on the contrary, a number of educational movements have taken place in recent US history (e.g. numerous educational reforms since 1957 to this day, including recent NCLB, Race to the Top, and the Common Core). Universities and research organizations opened centers and laboratories of innovation (Harvard Innovation Lab, Presidential Innovation Laboratory convened by American Council on Education, Center for Innovation in Education at the University of Kentucky, NASA STEM Innovation Lab, and recently created National University Center for Innovation in Learning). Some institutions introduced programs focusing on innovation (Master’s Program in Technology, Innovation, and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education; Master of Arts in Education and Innovation at the Webster University). New organizations have been set up (The International Centre for Innovation in Education, Innovative Schools Network, Center for Education Reform). Regular conferences on the topic are convened (AERA, ASU-GSV Summit, National Conference on Educational Innovation, The Nueva School for the Innovative Learning Conference). Excellent books have been written by outstanding innovators such as Andy Hargreaves (2003) , Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) , Hargreaves et al. (2010) , Michael Fullan (2007, 2010) , Yong Zhao (2012) , Pasi Sahlberg (2011) , Tony Wagner (2012) , Mihaliy Csikszentmihalyi (2013) , and Ken Robinson (2015) . There is even an Office of Innovation and Improvement in the US Department of Education, which is intended to “[…] drive education innovation by both seeding new strategies, and bringing proven approaches to scale” ( Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2016 ). And still, innovations do not take hold in American classrooms on a wide scale, which may leave the nation behind in global competition.

Society’s failure to anticipate the problems and their outcomes may have unpredictable consequences, as Pulitzer Prize winner and Professor Jared Diamond, University of California, Los Angeles, writes in his book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed ( Diamond, 2005 ). Yong Zhao interpreted Diamond’s findings as “[…] society’s inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept large and distant changes – and thus work to come up with the right response – is among one of the chief reasons that societies fail. This inability also leads human beings to look for short-term outcomes and seek immediate gratification” ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 162). It looks like the issue of educational innovation goes beyond the field itself and requires a strong societal response.

Three big questions arise from this discussion: why, having so many innovators and organizations concerned with innovations, does our education system not benefit from them? What interferes with creating and, especially, implementing transformative, life-changing, and much-needed innovations across schools and colleges in this country? How can we grow, support, and disseminate worthy innovations effectively so that our students succeed in both school and university and achieve the best learning outcomes that will adequately prepare them for life and work? Let us first take a look at what is an educational innovation.

What is educational innovation?

Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things (Theodore Levitt).

To innovate is to look beyond what we are currently doing and develop a novel idea that helps us to do our job in a new way. The purpose of any invention, therefore, is to create something different from what we have been doing, be it in quality or quantity or both. To produce a considerable, transformative effect, the innovation must be put to work, which requires prompt diffusion and large-scale implementation.

Innovation is generally understood as “[…] the successful introduction of a new thing or method” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15). In essence, “[…] innovation seems to have two subcomponents. First, there is the idea or item which is novel to a particular individual or group and, second, there is the change which results from the adoption of the object or idea” ( Evans, 1970 , p. 16). Thus, innovation requires three major steps: an idea, its implementation, and the outcome that results from the execution of the idea and produces a change. In education, innovation can appear as a new pedagogic theory, methodological approach, teaching technique, instructional tool, learning process, or institutional structure that, when implemented, produces a significant change in teaching and learning, which leads to better student learning. So, innovations in education are intended to raise productivity and efficiency of learning and/or improve learning quality. For example, Khan’s Academy and MOOCs have opened new, practically unlimited opportunities for massive, more efficient learning.

Efficiency is generally determined by the amount of time, money, and resources that are necessary to obtain certain results. In education, efficiency of learning is determined mainly by the invested time and cost. Learning is more efficient if we achieve the same results in less time and with less expense. Productivity is determined by estimating the outcomes obtained vs the invested effort in order to achieve the result. Thus, if we can achieve more with less effort, productivity increases. Hence, innovations in education should increase both productivity of learning and learning efficiency.

Educational innovations emerge in various areas and in many forms. According to the US Office of Education, “There are innovations in the way education systems are organized and managed, exemplified by charter schools or school accountability systems. There are innovations in instructional techniques or delivery systems, such as the use of new technologies in the classroom. There are innovations in the way teachers are recruited, and prepared, and compensated. The list goes on and on” ( US Department of Education, 2004 ).

Innovation can be directed toward progress in one, several, or all aspects of the educational system: theory and practice, curriculum, teaching and learning, policy, technology, institutions and administration, institutional culture, and teacher education. It can be applied in any aspect of education that can make a positive impact on learning and learners.

In a similar way, educational innovation concerns all stakeholders: the learner, parents, teacher, educational administrators, researchers, and policy makers and requires their active involvement and support. When considering the learners, we think of studying cognitive processes taking place in the the brain during learning – identifying and developing abilities, skills, and competencies. These include improving attitudes, dispositions, behaviors, motivation, self-assessment, self-efficacy, autonomy, as well as communication, collaboration, engagement, and learning productivity.

To raise the quality of teaching, we want to enhance teacher education, professional development, and life-long learning to include attitudes, dispositions, teaching style, motivation, skills, competencies, self-assessment, self-efficacy, creativity, responsibility, autonomy to teach, capacity to innovate, freedom from administrative pressure, best conditions of work, and public sustenance. As such, we expect educational institutions to provide an optimal academic environment, as well as materials and conditions for achieving excellence of the learning outcomes for every student (program content, course format, institutional culture, research, funding, resources, infrastructure, administration, and support).

Education is nourished by society and, in turn, nourishes society. The national educational system relies on the dedication and responsibility of all society for its effective functioning, thus parental involvement, together with strong community and society backing, are crucial for success.

political (NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act), Race to the Top);

social (Equal Opportunities Act, affirmative action policy, Indivuals with Disabilities Education Act);

philosophical (constructivism, objectivism);

cultural (moral education, multiculturalism, bilingual education);

pedagogical (competence-based education, STEM (curriculum choices in school: Science, Technology, English, and Mathematics);

psychological (cognitive science, multiple intelligencies theory, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, learning style theory); and

technological (computer-based learning, networked learning, e-learning).

Though these innovations left a significant mark on education, which of them helped improve productivity and quality of learning? Under NCLB, we placed too much focus on accountability and assessment and lost sight of many other critical aspects of education. In drawing too much attention to technology innovations, we may neglect teachers and learners in the process. Stressing the importance of STEM at the expense of music, arts and physical culture ignores young people’s personal, social, emotional, and moral development. Reforming higher education without reforming secondary education is futile. Trying to change education while leaving disfunctional societal and cultural mechanisms intact is doomed. It is crucial, therefore, when innovating to ask, “What is this innovation for?” “How will it work?” and “What effect will it produce?”

Many of us educators naively believe grand reforms or powerful technologies will transform our education system. Did we not expect NCLB to change our schools for the better? Did we not hope that new information technologies would make education more effective and relieve teachers from tedious labor? However, again and again we realize that neither loud reforms nor wondrous technology will do the hard work demanded of teachers and learners.

Innovations can be categorized as evolutionary or revolutionary ( Osolind, 2012 ), sustaining or disruptive ( Christensen and Overdorf, 2000 ; Yu and Hang, 2010 ). Evolutionary innovations lead to incremental improvement but require continuity; revolutionary innovations bring about a complete change, totally overhauling and/or replacing the old with the new, often in a short time period. Sustaining innovation perpetuates the current dimensions of performance (e.g. continuous improvement of the curriculum), while disrupting innovation, such as a national reform, radically changes the whole field. Innovations can also be tangible (e.g. technology tools) and intangible (e.g. methods, strategies, and techniques). Evolutionary and revolutionary innovations seem to have the same connotation as sustaining and disruptive innovations, respectively.

When various innovations are being introduced in the conventional course of study, for instance Universal Design of Learning ( Meyer et al. , 2014 ); or more expressive presentation of new material using multimedia; or more effective teaching methods; or new mnemonic techniques, students’ learning productivity may rise to some extent. This is an evolutionary change. It partially improves the existing instructional approach to result in better learning. Such learning methods as inquiry based, problem based, case study, and collaborative and small group are evolutionary innovations because they change the way students learn. Applying educational technology (ET) in a conventional classroom using an overhead projector, video, or iPad, are evolutionary, sustaining innovations because they change only certain aspects of learning. National educational reforms, however, are always intended to be revolutionary innovations as they are aimed at complete system renovation. This is also true for online learning because it produces a systemic change that drastically transforms the structure, format, and methods of teaching and learning. Some innovative approaches, like “extreme learning” ( Extreme Learning, 2012 ), which use technology for learning purposes in novel, unusual, or nontraditional ways, may potentially produce a disruptive, revolutionary effect.

Adjustment or upgrading of the process: innovation can occur in daily performance and be seen as a way to make our job easier, more effective, more appealing, or less stressful. This kind of innovation, however, should be considered an improvement rather than innovation because it does not produce a new method or tool. The term innovative, in keeping with the dictionary definition, applies only to something new and different, not just better, and it must be useful ( Okpara, 2007 ). Educators, incidentally, commonly apply the term “innovative” to almost any improvement in classroom practices; yet, to be consistent, not any improvement can be termed in this way. The distinction between innovation and improvement is in novelty and originality, as well as in the significance of impact and scale of change.

Modification of the process: innovation that significantly alters the process, performance, or quality of an existing product (e.g. accelerated learning (AL), charter school, home schooling, blended learning).

Transformation of the system: dramatic conversion (e.g. Bologna process; Common Core; fully automated educational systems; autonomous or self-directed learning; online, networked, and mobile learning).

First-level innovations (with a small i ) make reasonable improvements and are important ingredients of everyday life and work. They should be unequivocally enhanced, supported, and used. Second-level innovations either lead to a system’s evolutionary change or are a part of that change and, thus, can make a considerable contribution to educational quality. But we are more concerned with innovations of the third level (with a capital I), which are both breakthrough and disruptive and can potentially make a revolutionary, systemic change.

qualitative: better knowledge, more effective skills, important competencies, character development, values, dispositions, effective job placement, and job performance; and

quantitative: improved learning parameters such as test results, volume of information learned, amount of skills or competencies developed, college enrollment numbers, measured student performance, retention, attrition, graduation rate, number of students in class, cost, and time efficiency.

Innovation can be assessed by its novely, originality, and potential effect. As inventing is typically a time-consuming and cost-demanding experience, it is critical to calculate short-term and long-term expenses and consequences of an invention. They must demonstrate significant qualitative and/or quantitative benefits. As a psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi writes, “human well-being hinges on two factors: the ability to increase creativity and the ability to develop ways to evaluate the impact of new creative ideas” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013, p. 322).

In education, we can estimate the effect of innovation via learning outcomes or exam results, teacher formative and summative, formal and informal assessments, and student self-assessment. Innovation can also be computed using such factors as productivity (more learning outcomes in a given time), time efficiency (shorter time on studying the same material), or cost efficiency (less expense per student) data. Other evaluations can include the school academic data, college admissions and employment rate of school graduates, their work productivity and career growth.

singular/local/limited;

multiple/spread/significant; and

system-wide/total.

This gradation correlates with the three levels of innovation described above: adjustment, modification, and transformation. To make a marked difference, educational innovation must be scalable and spread across the system or wide territory. Prominent examples include Khan Academy in the USA, GEEKI Labs in Brazil (GEEKI), and BRIDGE International Academies in Kenya (BRIDGE). Along with scale, the speed of adoption or diffusion, and cost are critical for maximizing the effect of innovation.

Innovations are nowadays measured and compared internationally. According to the 2011 OECD report ( OECD, 2014 ), the USA was in 24th place in educational innovativeness in the world. This report singled out the use of student assessments for monitoring progress over time as the top organizational innovation, and the requirement that students were to explain and elaborate on their answers during science lessons as the top pedagogic innovation in the USA. Overall, the list of innovations selected by OECD was disappointingly unimpressive.

Innovations usually originate either from the bottom of the society (individual inventors or small teams) – bottom-up or grass root approach, or from the top (business or government) – top-down or administrative approach. Sometimes, innovations coming from the top get stalled on their way to the bottom if they do not accomplish their goal and are not appreciated or supported by the public. Should they rise from the bottom, they may get stuck on the road to the top if they are misunderstood or found impractical or unpopular. They can also stop in the middle if there is no public, political, or administrative or financial backing. Thus, innovations that start at the bottom, however good they are, may suffer too many roadblocks to be able to spread and be adopted on a large scale. Consequently, it is up to politicians, administrators, and society to drive or stifle the change. Education reforms have always been top-down and, as they near the bottom, typically become diverted, diluted, lose strength, or get rejected as ineffective or erroneous. As Michael Fullan writes in the Foreword to an exciting book, Good to Great to Innovate: Recalculating the Route to Career Readiness, K012+ , “[…] there is a good deal of reform going on in the education world, but much of it misses the point, or approaches it superficially” ( Sharratt and Harild, 2015 , p. xiii).

Innovations enriching education can be homegrown (come from within the system) or be imported (originate from outside education). Examples of imported innovations that result from revolution, trend, or new idea include the information technology revolution, social media, medical developments (MRI), and cognitive psychology. Innovations can also be borrowed from superior international theories and practices (see Globalization of Education chapter). National reform may also be a route to innovation, for instance when a government decides to completely revamp the system via a national reform, or when an entire society embarks on a new road, as has happened recently in Singapore, South Korea, and Finland.

Innovations may come as a result of inspiration, continuous creative mental activity, or “supply pushed” through the availability of new technological possibilities in production, or “demand led” based on market or societal needs ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15). In the first case, we can have a wide variety of ideas flowing around; in the second, we observe a ubiquitous spread of educational technologies across educational system at all levels; in the third, we witness a growth of non-public institutions, such as private and charter schools and private universities.

Innovation in any area or aspect can make a change in education in a variety of ways. Ultimately, however, innovations are about quality and productivity of learning (this does not mean we can forget about moral development, which prepares young people for life, work, and citizenship) ( Camins, 2015 ). Every innovation must be tested for its potential efficiency. The roots of learning efficiency lie, however, not only in innovative technologies or teaching alone but even more in uncovering potential capacities for learning in our students, their intellectual, emotional, and psychological spheres. Yet, while innovations in economics, business, technology, and engineering are always connected to the output of the process, innovation in education does not necessarily lead to improving the output (i.e. students’ readiness for future life and employment). Test results, degrees, and diplomas do not signify that a student is fully prepared for his or her career. Educational research is often disconnected from learning productivity and efficiency, school effectiveness, and quality output. Innovations in educational theories, textbooks, instructional tools, and teaching techniques do not always produce a desired change in the quality of teaching and learning. What, then, is the problem with our innovations? Why do not we get more concerned with learning productivity and efficiency? As an example, let us look at technology applications in teaching and learning.

Effects of technology innovations in education

A tool is just an opportunity with a handle (Kevin Kelly).

When analyzing innovations of our time, we cannot fail to see that an overwhelming majority of them are tangible, being either technology tools (laptops, iPads, smart phones) or technology-based learning systems and materials, e.g., learning management system (LMS), educational software, and web-based resources. Technology has always served as both a driving force and instrument of innovation in any area of human activity. It is then natural for us to expect that innovations based on ET applications can improve teaching and learning. Though technology is a great asset, nonetheless, is it the single or main source of today’s innovations, and is it wise to rely solely on technology?

The rich history of ET innovations is filled with optimism. Just remember when tape recorders, video recorders, TV, educational films, linguaphone classes, overhead projectors, and multimedia first appeared in school. They brought so much excitement and hope into our classrooms! New presentation formats catered to various learning styles. Visuals brought reality and liveliness into the classrooms. Information and computer technology (ICT) offered more ways to retrieve information and develop skills. With captivating communication tools (iPhones, iPads, Skype, FaceTime), we can communicate with anybody around the world in real time, visually, and on the go. Today we are excited about online learning, mobile learning, social networking learning, MOOCs, virtual reality, virtual and remote laboratories, 3D and 4D printing, and gamification. But can we say all this is helping to produce better learning? Are we actually using ET’s potential to make a difference in education and increase learning output?

Larry Cuban, an ET researcher and writer, penned the following: “Since 2010, laptops, tablets, interactive whiteboards, smart phones, and a cornucopia of software have become ubiquitous. We spent billions of dollars on computers. Yet has academic achievement improved as a consequence? Has teaching and learning changed? Has use of devices in schools led to better jobs? These are the basic questions that school boards, policy makers, and administrators ask. The answers to these questions are ‘no,’ ‘no,’ and ‘probably not.’” ( Cuban, 2015 ). This cautionary statement should make us all think hard about whether more technology means better learning.

Technology is used in manufacturing, business, and research primarily to increase labor productivity. Because integrating technology into education is in many ways like integrating technology into any business, it makes sense to evaluate technological applications by changes in learning productivity and quality. William Massy and Robert Zemsky wrote in their paper, “Using Information Technology to Enhance Academic Productivity,” that “[…] technology should be used to boost academic productivity” ( Massy and Zemsky, 1995 ). National Educational Technology Standards also addressed this issue by introducing a special rubric: “Apply technology to increase productivity” ( National Educational Technology Standards, 2004 ). Why then has technology not contributed much to the productivity of learning? It may be due to a so-called “productivity paradox” ( Brynjolfsson, 1993 ), which refers to the apparent contradiction between the remarkable advances in computer power and the relatively slow growth of productivity at the level of the whole economy, individual firms, and many specific applications. Evidently, this paradox relates to technology applications in education.

A conflict between public expectations of ET effectiveness and actual applications in teaching and learning can be rooted in educators’ attitudes toward technology. What some educational researchers write about technology in education helps to reveal the inherent issue. The pillars and building blocks of twenty-first century learning, according to Linda Baer and James McCormick (2012 , p. 168), are tools, programs, services, and policies such as web-enabled information storage and retrieval systems, digital resources, games, and simulations, eAdvising and eTutoring, online revenue sharing, which are all exclusively technological innovations. They are intended to integrate customized learning experiences, assessment-based learning outcomes, wikis, blogs, social networking, and mobile learning. The foundation of all this work, as these authors write, is built on the resources, infrastructure, quality standards, best practices, and innovation.

These are all useful, tangible things, but where are the intangible innovations, such as theoretical foundation, particularly pedagogy, psychology, and instructional methodology that are a true underpinning of teaching and learning? The emphasis on tools seems to be an effect of materialistic culture, which covets tangible, material assets or results. Similarly, today’s students worry more about grades, certificates, degrees, and diplomas (tangible assets) than about gaining knowledge, an intangible asset ( Business Dictionary, 2016 ). We may come to recognize that modern learning is driven more by technological tools than by sound theory, which is misleading.

According to the UNESCO Innovative Teaching and Learning (ITL) Research project conducted in several countries, “ICT has great potential for supporting innovative pedagogies, but it is not a magic ingredient.” The findings suggest that “[…] when considering ICT it is important to focus not on flash but on the student learning and 21st century skills that ICT can enable” ( UNESCO, 2013 ). As Zhao and Frank (2003) argue in their ecological model of technology integration in school, we should be interested in not only how much computers are used but also how computers are used. Evidently, before starting to use technology we have to ask first, “What technology tools will help our students to learn math, sciences, literature and languages better, and how to use them efficiently to improve the learning outcomes?”

Thus, the problem of ET innovations is twofold: any integration of technology in teaching and learning has to demonstrate an increased productivity of teaching and learning, but it can be achieved only when ET applications are based on an effective pedagogic theory. Technology innovation will eventually drive pedagogic innovations, without a doubt, however, this path is slower, more complicated, and leads to an enormous waste of financial, technical and human resources.

Technocentric syndrome

More disquieting than even the lack of pedagogical foundation for technology-enhanced education is the sincere belief of many educators that technology will fix all the problems they encounter in the classroom, be they live or virtual. Consequently, fewer university professors nowadays perceive the need for pedagogic mastery in online teaching in addition to content-area expertise as they reason technology will solve all instructional difficulties anyway. This belief is called “technocentrism” ( Pappert, 1990 ), which, according to Nickols (2011) , is common in higher education and e-learning discussions. It is probably common in secondary school as well. Unfortunately, educators often forget that the computer is only an extension of human abilities, not a replacement or substitute. We, as educators, must realize that for technology innovation to produce a positive effect in learning it must be preceded by pedagogic leadership, research, and sound theory; however, the reality is typically the reverse. We are excited to grab the new gadget and try to fit it into the classroom without preliminary assessment of its implementation challenges and potential effects, solid research, or laying out a theoretical foundation based on advanced pedagogic theory which will ensure its effective use. Former Kodak Chairman George Fisher described it this way, “Even good people get locked into processes that may be totally inappropriate to deal with a new technology attacking from underneath (Christensen and Eyring, 2011, p. 16).

Technology (as an entity) contains an inherent pedagogical value ( Accuosti, 2014 , p. 5). It pushes the limits of what educators can do but is not a magic wand; it is only a means, an instrument, a tool for an innovative teacher and learner. That we overestimate technology’s power in education has its roots in human anticipation of a miracle, or a hope of finding a quick fix. But “[…] we can’t just buy iPads (or any device), add water, and hope that strategy will usher schools to the leading edge of 21st century education. Technology, by itself, isn’t curative. Human agency shapes the path” ( Levasseur, 2012 ). We are all excited by the technology and information revolution and believe in its potential but “[…] perhaps the next important revolution isn’t technological, even as technology marches forward unabated. Perhaps the revolution that we need, the one we should aspire to, is societal. Indeed, the next revolution should be one of education, empathy, and a broader understanding of the world, and of its people and culture” ( Jiang, 2015 ).

One of my students wrote in a recent online class, “Students learn from their teachers, not from electronic gadgets.” Do we understand how students learn in a technology-based environment, one-on-one with the laptop or mobile phone? Can we estimate possible changes in the students’ cognition, learning style, behavior, attitudes, values, and social relationships under the influence of electronic devices? It is certainly true that live interaction between students and their teachers offers worthy examples and enlightening experiences for students and gratifying moments for teachers. Overestimating the power of technology, regrettably, leads to the deterioration of the “human element” ( Serdiukov, 2001 ) in technology-based and, particularly, online teaching and learning. It further underestimates the need for sound pedagogy and quality teacher preparation. It may also have a devastating impact on our ability to socialize, collaborate, and survive. George Friedman argues that computers have had “profoundly disruptive consequences on cultural live throughout the world” ( Friedman, 2012 , p. 25), which could not have left education unperturbed.

Neil Postman addressed another concern of overemphasizing the role of technology in education, cautioning against “[…] surrendering education to technology” ( Postman, 1993 ), which may have far-reaching social and cultural consequences ( Serdyukov, 2015b ). According to Sousa (2014) , the widespread use of technology is having both positive and negative effects on students’ attention and memory systems. A strong warning about the negative effects of the Web comes from Maurer et al. (2013) , who caution that modern media, particularly networked computers, are endangering our capacity to think, to remember clearly, and to read and write with concentration; they also imperil creativity. “New technologies, whether or not they succeed in solving the problem that they were designed to solve, regularly create unanticipated new problems” ( Diamond, 2005 , p. 505). There are numerous social, cultural and psychological side effects of technology-enhanced or technology-based education, among them placing unrealistic hopes on technology, which leads to weakening a student’s and teacher’s effort and eventually takes the teachers out of the equation. This in turn makes the outcomes of online learning overly dependent on the LMS platform, washing away human interaction and communication by industrializing and formalizing learning.

Christensen and Eyring (2011) , who wrote about disruptive innovations that force universities to change, predict that teaching in the future will be disruptable as technology improves and shifts the competitive focus from a teacher’s credentials or an institution’s prestige to what students actually learn. Their observations support the findings of other studies that indicate learning occurs best when it involves a blend of online and face-to-face learning, with the latter providing essential intangibles best obtained on a traditional college campus. From this statement, one can extrapolate that technology alone cannot ensure productive and enriched learning and, especially, personal and social development as students still need a human element in a technology-enhanced environment. Additionally, when planning to apply a new technology to education, we have to consider its potential pedagogic and psychological effects. Finally, we need a solid, innovative, theoretical foundation for online learning. This foundation would help teachers do a better job in both classroom and online environments than simply integrating computers and other gadgets into learning. It would help enrich students’ otherwise almost entirely independent online experiences using only LMS navigation as a GPS in the world of knowledge with inspiring interaction with a live instructor, peers, and real life.

As technology-based education is unquestionably going to grow, we need to make it pedagogically, psychologically, and socially meaningful and effective. At the same time, we want to minimize its negative short- and long-term consequences, which reaffirms the need for a comprehensive theory of technology-based education and serious research.

Online learning concerns

Demand for online learning is largely driven by working adult students (WALs) willing to have broad access to education and, at the same time, to accommodate learning to their busy lives, rather than by its effectiveness as a cognitive tool, which is determined by its most attractive feature – convenience ( Christensen and Eyring, 2011 ; Song et al. , 2004 ). In studies of student satisfaction, students commonly rate their online experiences as satisfactory, with convenience being the most cited reason ( Cole et al. , 2014 ). We observe students’ preference for convenience as a consumer strategy, and regrettably, not only in online higher education but across the whole educational system ( Kerby et al. , 2014 ). Convenience, along with comfort, helps reduce workload and complexity of learning, as well as the strain of face-to-face interaction with the class and instructor. It produces a sense of privacy and self-satisfaction. It also generates a false perception that online learning is easier than learning in the classroom ( Aaron, 2007 ; Westra, 2016 ), and often leads to online cheating ( Spalding, 2012 ). The convenience, like the happiness factor, however, means a less demanding and less rigorous school experience ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 137). Convenience can be a blessing for creative people, liberating them from the need to waste time and energy on trifles; however, it may also develop self-gratification and laziness instead of struggling with obstacles and doing the hard job of digging in the knowledge mine.

So, accessibility and, especially, convenience, enhanced by flexibility of the study schedule and comfortable learning environment of one’s office or bedroom are evidently the key factors of its popularity among students. The motto of online education, “Any time, any place, any pace” is extremely seductive. Yet, despite a number of studies showing that online learning is on a par with traditional, campus-based learning ( Ni, 2013 ; Wrenn, 2016 ), it is going to take more time and effort to really make online learning deliver outcomes comparable to the traditional classroom-based, face-to-face education. Mattan Griffel, Founder of “One Month,” an online education startup, rethinks online education in the aftermath of the MOOC explosion writing, “[Online education] has kind of overstepped its current effectiveness, and everyone is saying what is possible by painting this picture, but the tools haven’t reached that point yet” ( Crichton, 2015 ). We know very well online education suffers from restricted interaction among students and with the instructor, is deficient of live collaboration, and lacks opportunities for relationships that take form in a study group. These collective relationships are crucial for individual success. Productive online learning also depends on well-developed learning, technology, critical thinking, research, and even reading and writing skills, as well as strong intrinsic motivation, perseverance, and self-efficacy, which many students do not possess. Finally, substituting real-life objects and processes with virtual reality is not helpful in developing practical skills, which makes real-world laboratory and experimental work less effective in virtual online environments.

Still, the question remains whether online education has helped improve teaching and learning. With the popularity of online education and enormous investment, do online college programs now prepare better specialists? Have we achieved the result we had expected, besides widening access to education for working adult learners, formerly marginalized groups, such as disabled students and minorities, and people geographically separated from the learning centers, thus reaching multi-million enrollment in online programs by 2016 and making sure that students enjoy convenience in their studies?

Innovative technology may bring performance enhancement in some ways but does not necessarily produce a direct benefit to education expressed by increased learning productivity. Are the secondary benefits, like convenience or fun with technology, worthy of heavy investment? What, then, is needed to raise the quality of education? The real question here is, as always, do we control technology, or do we let ourselves be controlled by it and those who have created it? “Choose the former,” writes an innovative author Douglas Rushkoff, “and you gain access to the control panel of civilization. Choose the latter, and it could be the last real choice you get to make” ( Rushkoff, 2010 ). The raw powers of technology should be harnessed by sound pedagogy.

Pedagogy of online education is just being developed, after two decades of titanic effort ( Serdyukov, 2015a ). Online learning is a big business ( Stokes, 2012 ), which should be turned into a serious academic endeavor. When improving online learning, we should not narrow our innovative focus down to only technical solutions in all educational issues. We need to develop a broader look at all aspects of teaching and learning rather than trying to resolve problems and overcome barriers with technology alone.

Barriers to innovation

There are reasons for the discrepancy between the drive for educational innovation that we observe in some areas, great educational innovations of recent times, and the daily reality of the education system.

First of all, if we look at the education holistically, as a complete system in charge of sustaining the nation’s need for educating society members and building their knowledge and expertise throughout their active lifetime, we have to acknowledge that all educational levels are interrelated and interdependent. Moreover, education being a system itself is a component of a larger social supersystem, to which it links in many intricate and complicated ways. As a social institution, education reflects all the values, laws, principles, and traditions of the society to which it belongs. Therefore, we need to regard education as a vital, complete, social entity and address its problems, taking into account these relations and dependencies both within the educational system and society.

In turn, if the society supports innovations in education, then its educational system will continuously and effectively evolve and progress. If it does not, education will stagnate and produce mediocre outcomes. An example of negative socio-cultural impact on education is mercantilism, which is destroying the ultimate purpose of education, and consumerism which is degrading institutions of higher education ( Feeman and Thomas, 2005 ; Ng and Forbes, 2009 ; Abeyta, 2013 ). Other harmful social and cultural trends exert a powerful influence. These include monetization of education, entitlement, instant gratification, and egotism, which destroy education in general and the development of creativity and innovative spirit of students in particular ( Kerby et al. , 2014 ). Such grave societal issues must be dealt with forcefully.

Second, it is well known that higher education has been historically slow to adopt innovations for various reasons ( Hoffman and Holzhuter, 2012 ; Marcus, 2012 ; Evans, 1970 ). Because it is complex (due to cohesion and contuinuity of science) and labor intensive, higher education is particularly difficult to make more productive ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 ). Secondary school is even more conservative than universities because they cater more and more to students’ well-being and safety than to their preparation for real life and work ( Gibbons and Silva, 2011 ). Both secondary and higher education function as two separate and rather closed systems in their own rights. They are not only loosely connected to the wider world but also suffer from a wide disconnect between high school output measured in graduate learning outcomes and college entrance student expectations. It seems that “[…] the systems and values of industrial education were not designed with innovation and digital tools in mind. Innovation, whether it is with technology, assessment or instruction, requires time and space for experimentation and a high tolerance for uncertainty. Disruption of established patterns is the modus operandi of innovation. We like the fruits of innovation, but few of us have the mettle to run the gauntlet of innovation” ( Levasseur, 2012 ). It is paramount, nonetheless, to accept that “innovation is linked to creativity, risk taking, and experimentation” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15), which must be a part of the education system.

Innovation is difficult to spread across school and academia because it disrupts the established routine and pushes implementers out of their comfort zone. Terry Heick writes that “[…] many K-12 schools give lip-service to the concept of innovation in mission statements, on websites, in PDs (professional development), and during committee, council, and board meetings, but lose their nerve when it’s time to make it happen. Supporting something seen as secondary (innovation) in the face of pressure, far-reaching programs, external standards ranging from Common Core to Literacy, Technology, and Career Readiness becomes a matter of priority and job security. While education begs for innovation, arguments against it often turn to tempting, straw man attacks” ( Heick, 2016 ). In many instances, innovation in educational institutions does not take priority over pressing routine issues – really, abiding by the state standards is more urgent.

Teachers and school administrators are commonly cautious about a threatening change and have little tolerance for the uncertainty that any major innovation causes. Of course there are schools and even districts that are unafraid to innovate and experiment but their success depends on individual leaders and communities of educators who are able to create an innovative professional culture. Pockets of innovation give hope but we need a total, massive support for innovations across society.

Third, one of the reasons for the slow pace of improvements in education is a sharp conflict between society’s welfare and political and business interests, as vividly illustrated when the NCLB took US education on the path of rigid accountability. It was used by standardized testing companies to reap huge profits (or, may be, vice versa, these companies influenced NCBL). The trend stifled true education and produced unsatisfactory learning outcomes that changed the nature of teaching, narrowing the curriculum and limiting student learning. ( National Council of Teachers of English, 2014 ; The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 2012 ).

Fourth, even when an innovation comes to life, it is of little worth without implementation (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). Innovation is not about talking the talk but walking the walk. Moreover, an innovation can make a significant difference only when it is used on a wide scale. To create innovations is not enough, they need to be spread and used across schools and universities, a more difficult task. For the innovation to make a sizable effect, we need an army of implementers together with favorable conditions for the invention to spread and produce a result. Implementers in turn have to be creative and motivated to do their job; they must also have freedom to innovate in the implementation, security on the job to take risks, and control of what they are doing. Ultimately, they need be trusted (as are teachers in Finland) to do their job right. In short, there must be an “innovation-receiving system” ( Evans, 1970 ), or a “change zone” ( Polka and Kardash, 2013 ). Is this where one of the main problems of innovating lies?

A growing trend in higher education is a market approach wherein the main goal is set for “meeting the demands of the student population that is learning – a life-long population of learners” ( Afshar, 2016 ). Universities today are busy innovating how to increase students’ satisfaction and create “exceptional,” “premier,” or “extraordinary” learning experiences rather than caring about their true knowledge and quality achievements. This is clearly an extension of the adaptive or differentiated approach to teaching and learning, thereby leading to customization of education ( Schuwer and Kusters, 2014 ). But this view raises a question: are students’ demands and satisfaction the proper indicators of quality learning? When we began to be more concerned about how students feel in the classroom, what bothers them, and how best to accommodate them to make their learning experiences superior and anxiety-free, we began to set aside the quality outcomes of the learning process.

Every cloud has a silver lining, fortunately. When market approach is applied to higher education, as it is in the current national and global competitive environment, the contest for enrollments increases and forces colleges to decrease attrition in all ways possible. This requires innovative approaches. The institutions that depend on enrollment for their revenue appear more willing to innovate than traditional, public universities that enjoy government support. “Hence, innovation is likely to vary by several characteristics, including type of institution, institution size, market niche, and resources” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 22). Clearly, private institutions are more adept at innovating than public ones. The market is a powerful factor, however, the changes it may bring have to be tackled cautiously.

The hurdles to technology integration are described by Peggy Ertmer (1999) as external (first-order) and internal (second-order) barriers. The first-order barriers are purely operational (technological), while the second-order barriers are applicational (pedagogical). The difference in approaches to applying technology to teaching and learning (overcoming technological vs pedagogical barriers) might explain why huge investments in ET have brought little if any effect to the quality of learning outcomes.

Last but not least, innovations grow in a favorable environment, which is cultivated by an educational system that promotes innovation at all levels and produces creative, critical thinking, self-sufficient, life-long learners, problem solvers, and workers. This system enjoys a stimulating research climate, encourages uplifting cultural attitudes toward education, and rallies massive societal support.

The ultimate question is, what innovations do we really need, and what innovations might we not need?

standardization of curriculum enforced by frequent external tests;

narrowing of the curriculum to basic skills in reading and mathematics;

reduced use of innovative teaching strategies;

adoption of educational ideas from external sources, rather than development of local internal capacity for innovation and problem-solving; and

adoption of high-stakes accountability policies, featuring rewards and sanctions for students, teachers, and schools ( Sahlberg, 2010 , p. 10).

Instead, the Finns went their own, the Finnish Way, so profoundly described by Pasi Sahlberg in his bestselling book ( Sahlberg, 2011 ). So would it be innovative not to adopt some reforms? A big question now arises, what is then the American way to build innovative education? And what would be the global way?

What to do? Possible solutions

To create innovations, we need innovators, and many of them. But though innovation is often a spark originated in the mind of a bright person, it needs an environment that can nourish the fire. This environment is formed and fed by educational institutions, societal culture, and advanced economy. Csikszentmihalyi underlines the importance of creating a stimulating macroenvironment, which integrates the social, cultural, and institutional context, and also microenvironment, the immediate setting in which a person works. “Successful environment […] provide(s) freedom of action and stimulation of ideas, coupled with a respectful and nurturant attitude toward potential geniuses” (2013, p. 140). Control over such an environment, he reasons, is in the educators’ hands.

Then, when the invention is created, it must fall into a fertile ground like a seed and be cultivated to grow and bring fruit. Csikszentmihalyi writes, “Creative ideas vanish unless there is a receptive audience to record and implement them […]. Edison’s or Einstein’s discoveries would be inconceivable without the prior knowledge, without the intellectual and social network that stimulated their thinking and without the social mechanisms that recognized and spread their innovations (2013, p. 6)”. The audience is not only the educators but also students, parents, policy makers, and all other members of society who act either as implementers or consumers of the innovation.

Coherent systemic support is essential for growing innovations. As the ITL Research project states, “Important school-level supports tend to be present in schools with higher concentrations of innovative teaching. Based on survey data, in schools where teachers reported higher average levels of innovative teaching practices, they also tended to report […] a professional culture aligned to support innovation, reflection, and meaningful discourse about new teaching practices” ( UNESCO, 2013 ). The OECD report on teaching practices and pedagogical innovation also argues that “Teaching practices […] are factors affecting student learning that are more readily modifiable. Moreover, additional professional practices have received attention, especially those that help transform the school into a professional learning community” ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 3).

Technology integration in education can be successful only when the human element is taken into consideration. This then integrates innovators, implementers, educational leadership, professional community and, certainly, the learners. Walter Polka and Joseph Kardash argue that the effectiveness of a computer innovation project they developed “[…] was facilitated by the school district leadership because of their focus on the ‘human side’ of change” ( Polka and Kardash, 2013 , p. 324). They found correlation between the implementation process employed in the district and the concepts associated with the three general need categories of innovation implementers: organizational needs, professional needs, and personal needs, which contributed to the innovation’s success. Long-lasting changes require “[…] a mixture of cultural and institutional changes, commitment from those within the program, and active and engaged leadership,” writes Leticia De Leόn, addressing technological innovations in higher education ( De Leόn, 2013 , p. 347).

When we try to innovate education, we often leave students out of the equation. We do not innovate in students’ learning, their mind, attitudes, behaviors, character, metacognition, and work ethics enough. Yet, we try everything we can to improve teaching (delivery), while what we actually need is to improve learning. In education, nothing works if the students do not. According to the famous Bulgarian scholar Georgi Lozanov (1988) , learning is a matter of attitude, not aptitude. This is where the greatest potential for improving education lies. As a renowned cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham writes, “[…] education makes better minds, and knowledge of the mind can make better education” ( Willingham, 2010 , p. 165). The most important goal, thus, should be not so much to learn STEM but to cultivate innovative people in K-12, grow their autonomy, self-efficiency, and foster an entrepreneurial mindset or “a critical mix of success-oriented attitudes of initiative, intelligent risk taking, collaboration and opportunity recognition” ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 5). To help develop new survival skills, effective communication and critical thinking skills, and nurture curious, creative, critical thinking, independent and self-directed entrepreneurs, we must disrupt the ways of our school system and the ways our teachers are prepared. It may be worthwhile to extend the commonly used term “career readiness” to “life readiness.”

Research of exemplary educational systems across the world vividly demonstrates that teacher quality is the fundamental element of educational success: “It is especially teachers who shape students’ learning environments and help them reach their intellectual potential”: ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 113). Teacher education and professional development are definitely one of the primary areas that call for innovative approaches: teachers must be taught to teach well ( Marcus, 2012 ). The “how” of the teaching (instructional methodology) is as important as the “what” (content) ( Morais et al. , 2004 ). A great resource for effective education is the instructional design and methodology used by teachers, as shown by the ITL Research project: “Across countries and classrooms, the characteristics of assigned classroom activities strongly predicted the 21st century skills that students exhibited in their work. Students are much more likely to learn to solve real-world problems and collaborate productively with their peers, for example, if their learning activities are carefully designed to offer opportunities for them to do these things. This finding suggests that professional development for innovative teaching might begin with lesson design” ( UNESCO, 2013 ).

Teacher social status is one of the determining factors of the teacher quality. Teachers’ status in the most advanced countries like Finland, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan is very high. It reflects the quality of teaching and learning and also the level of pedagogic innovations. In our drive to enhance educational innovation, empowering school teachers and college instructors may be the most important task. Mattan Griffel writes, “We need to change the role of teachers. What kind of people do we consider teachers? How do we elevate teachers in society?” ( Crichton, 2015 ). He believes we have to make them “rock stars” and bring new perspectives into the profession.

Eventually, the most recognized pathway to education innovation, writes Shelton, is “[…] basic and applied research […] with more and better leveraged resources, more focus, and more discipline, this pathway can accelerate our understanding of teaching and learning and production of performance enhancing practices and tools” ( Shelton, 2011 ). Research focusing on raising productivity and efficiency and improving the quality of learning has to increase in all critical areas of education. One crucial indicator of educational effectiveness is measuring the quality of learning that remains imperfect. “The lack of good measures has severely limited the degree to which market forces can discipline the provision of educational quality” ( Massy, 2012 ). Developing clear and effective measures of educational quality is an important venue for future innovative research.

Societal support for innovative education and building up a new culture of educational preeminence both inside the education system and around it is paramount for its success. Brunner (1996) suggests viewing education in a broader context of what society intends to accomplish through its educational investment in the young. The best way to achieve superior education is to shape a new educational culture. As Pasi Sahlberg explains, “We are creating a new culture of education, and there is no way back” (Sahlberg, 2011, p. 2).

Innovation can be presented as a model in the context of its effects on the quality of teaching and learning within an educational environment, which is permeated by professional and societal cultures ( Figure 1 ).

Americans’ love affair with the car extends to computers, iPhones, and the internet. Therefore, innovations in education focus primarily on technology and technology applications. Technocentrists want to see education more automated, more technology-enhanced, and more technology-controlled in the hope of making education more effective. The way of doing so would be through more sophisticated LMS’s, automated analytics, customization, or individualization of learning and developing the student as an avid consumer of digital information. While we realize there is no stopping the technological revolution, we educators must do all we can to preserve the primary mission of education, which is reflected in a humanistic approach that caters to the whole person wherein efforts are made to develop a free, independent, critical thinking, active, and effective thinker, doer, citizen, and worker. Educational innovations embrace both views, interacting and enriching each other for society’s common good.

Globalization in education

Along with developing our own innovations and creating a broad base for implementation, it might be useful to look outside the box. As the world becomes more and more globalized, national education systems are shedding their uniqueness and gaining a more universal, homogeneous look (e.g. the Bologna process, which has brought 50 national higher education systems to a common denominator in Europe and beyond) ( Bologna process, 2016 ). Scholars indicate there is “[…] the need for US universities to keep up with the rest of the world in today’s highly competitive educational marketplace” ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 1). It is also economically and culturally beneficial to learn from each other in the spirit of global cooperation and share one’s achievements with others. While in the context of globalization it may be convenient to have a common education system across the world, however, to satisfy the needs and expectations of the nation-state it is necessary to continue innovating within one’s own system. The rich international educational palette offers unique solutions to many issues facing US schools and universities.

What attractive innovative approaches exist in the world that could be applied to the US education system? To mention just a few, the Confucian culture of appreciating education in China, Japan, South Korea, and other South-East Asian nations which brings students’ and parents’ positive and respectful societal attitudes toward education and educators; cultural transformation in education and quality teacher preparation in Finland, Singapore, and Shanghai; organizational innovations in schools of Ontario, Canada. In Finland, a new ecosystem for learning was created ( Niemi et al. , 2014 ). Singapore, for one, has become one of the top-scoring countries on the PISA tests by cultivating strong school leadership, committing to ongoing professional development, and exploring innovative models, like its tech-infused Future Schools ( EDUTOPIA, 2012b ). In Shanghai, China, every low-performing school is assigned a team of master teachers and administrators to provide weekly guidance and mentorship on everything from lesson plans to school culture ( EDITOPIA, 2012a ). The list of international innovations to cogitate is, fortunately, extensive. Is this what our educational innovators could do something about?

Daniel Willingham demonstrates a very interesting angle in international education that substantially differs from ours: “In China, Japan and other Eastern countries, intelligence is more often viewed as malleable. If students fail a test or don’t understand a concept, it’s not that they are stupid – they just haven’t worked hard enough yet. This attribution is helpful to students because it tells them that intelligence is under their control. If they are performing poorly, they can do something about it […] Children do differ in intelligence, but intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work” ( Willingham, 2010 , p. 131).

There are numerous exciting foreign examples for the US educators to learn from and innovate, implementing and adapting them to US schools.

Many US educators certainly learn from advanced nations’ educational experiences ( Darling-Hammond, 2010 ; Stewart, 2012 ), but these innovations find a hard way into the school system. A right step in this direction is to integrate global education ideas into teacher preparation programs. A worthy case of opening up a wide world of global education to US teachers and developing outside-the-box thinking is a new specialization in the Master of Arts in Teaching program, “U.S. Education in Global Context” which has been offered at National University since 2014. The principal focus of this specialization is on advanced, innovative, and effective international approaches, ideas, and strategies in teaching and learning that address the needs of the nation and create contemporary school environments to accommodate diverse student populations. Specialization’s goals and objectives are designed to help students develop the knowledge, competencies, skills, and dispositions required of a globally competent citizen and world-class educator. Focusing on the universal need for continuous improvement in teaching and learning, this specialization provides students with a balance of philosophy and theory, practice and application through collaborative research projects and field-based activities. The ultimate outcome of the four-course specialization is an innovative, practical implementation project to apply in the candidates’ schools.

The Finns, Singaporeans, South Koreans, Hong Kongers, and citizens of other nations consider education the best way to improve their country’s economy, and it has worked. An even more remarkable consequence has been a change to their national cultures. This provides a worthy example for other nations, including ours. To sum up, we need to create favorable conditions for growing our own innovations, while taking advantage of the best international theories and practices.

Learning faster, learning better, and at a lower cost?

You don’t have the time, you make the time (Thorin Klosowski).

Among many points for educational innovations time definitely deserves close attention. Time is a significant factor in education. Attempts to save time on learning and raise its productivity are well known to each of us. To increase learning efficiency using so-called accelerated and intensive approaches is a promising path for innovation. These two approaches demonstrate the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary disruptive approaches.

Innovation, as we know, can be called to life by social, political, or professional factors but the strongest is definitely economic. A flat world ( Friedman, 2005 ) means global competition, faster production cycles, and more to keep up with. Time is speeding up. Requirements for workers are rapidly mounting in industry and business due to swiftly changing technologies and fierce international competition. It is impractical to spend a third of one’s active lifetime attending secondary school and college learning in advance what may not be useful on the job in the next 10 to 15 years because manufacturing, technology, and business will completely change.

Additionally, the cost of a college education is rising faster than inflation, though the outcomes are disproportionate to this rise: “[…] tuition has increased faster than inflation, without a comparable increase in the quality or results” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 13). If you ask students what worries them most, it is the cost of the next course and its value for their future job. Education has become more expensive and less affordable for many people. This also creates a heavy burden on the state’s budget. Therefore, educators need to find ways to make education more time and cost efficient ( Hjeltnes and Hansson, 2005 ).

We can identify two possible roads to take. The first is to increase revenue, and this is what the majority of colleges and universities are doing. Raising tuition, however, has its limits; government support is drying out. Cutting costs, on the other hand, may undermine some essential aspects of higher education. The second road is to increase learning productivity defined as the output (learning outcomes measured in certain units) per dollar or per time unit (academic year, semester, month, week, day, or hour). The former can be used to compute cost efficiency, while the latter will help to define time efficiency. Time efficiency and cost efficiency of education are evidently interrelated. The most obvious source of enhancing educational productivity is integration of ICT; however, there are other ways.

Time is the most precious of commodities, especially for WALs. Our own survey of National University students who take accelerated programs, which allow them to graduate sooner than in conventional programs, shows that time is paramount when selecting their learning program ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ). When asked what is more important for them, the cost of the program or the time spent learning, 88 percent of surveyed WALs stated that time was more important, and they were willing to pay more for a shorter program of the same quality. So accelerated programs are often more competitive than the conventional extended ones. Serdyukov and Serdyukova (2012) posit that time efficiency of the learning process is a decisive factor in assessing a program or a course. In their opinion, colleges and universities, which are now evaluated based upon the quality of their education, will soon be selected and valued based on the time needed for the learning to take place.

In the same way, programs that cost less will be more competitive than those that cost more. With education budgets decreasing and numbers of learners taking part in education increasing, time and cost efficiency will play an increasing role in determining a program’s, and thus an institution’s, value.

When considering time investment, instructional activities are basically concerned with either learning more in the same time (i.e. growth in learning outcomes without increasing learning time) or learning the same amount of information in less time (decreasing learning time or compressing the course). As Serdyukov and Serdyukova (2006) write: “Can we, the educators, teach more effectively; can students learn more, better and in less time?” (p. 255). The answer to this question can have profound social, economic and personal significance as it may affect a learner’s career and lifestyle, societal attitude toward education, the rate of investment in education, and eventually the nation’s well-being ( Barbera et al. , 2015 ).

Consideration of time investment in learning coupled with recent innovations in cognitive psychology and ET is what brought to life accelerated and intensive programs. Various approaches and methodologies for providing faster and shorter education without compromising academic quality have been described in the literature ( Scott and Conrad, 1992 ; Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ; Bowling et al. , 2002 ; Serdyukov, 2008 ). They are grounded in the newest brain research in the cognitive and emotional potential of learners ( Lozanov, 1978, 1988 ; Kitaigorodskaya, 1995 ), innovative approaches to teaching and learning that use nontraditional organizational forms, techniques and processes ( Boyes et al. , 2004 ; Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ), ET applications, and even fancy programs of learning during sleep ( Ostrander and Schroeder, 2000 ). The most popular approaches are accelerated learning (AL) programs, which use a compressed, short-term course format, and intensive learning (IL) programs, which employ specially organized course structure, visuals, music, and suggestive techniques to open up students’ intellectual and sensitive capacities, thereby contributing to more effective learning.

Accelerated and intensive programs can significantly shorten the duration of the learning measured in class hours, days, weeks, or semesters. In some cases, they can also increase learning outcomes measured in the volume of knowledge constructed or skill sets learned in a given time. ( Serdyukov, 2008 ).

A conventional semester model of college education may not suit a new generation of WALs who take school part-time and need to speed up learning to obtain employable competencies and skills. The AL model delivers a semester program in a shorter period of time than the conventional program model but with the comparable results. National University, for example, offers undergraduate and graduate-level programs using a nontraditional, accelerated 1×1 model of instruction (one month long, one course at a time) for adult learners ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ). Onsite classes usually meet two evening sessions per week for four-and-a-half hour each; in some cases, there are two additional Saturday morning sessions of the same duration. Thus, each course runs for eight evenings with one Saturday morning final session for graduate programs (totaling 40.5 hours) or two Saturday sessions for undergraduate programs (totaling 45 hours). Similar models are used by such schools as Cornell College, Colorado College, DeVry University, Northeast University, Grand Canyon University, Tusculum University, and Colorado State University Global.

Online courses also run for four weeks but instead of face-to-face classroom sessions students participate in threaded discussions (one or two per week), view live videoconferencing sessions (one per week), carry out weekly written assignments, develop projects, and in some courses complete mandatory field activities (e.g. teacher preparation programs require school visits for observing and teaching lessons).

The sequential approach when students take one course after another allows for more accumulated and integrated learning experiences. Besides, according to the student survey ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ), this 1×1 format helps to unshackle students’ minds and focus their attention and energy on a single subject. It can also make it easier to adapt to the same teaching/learning style in this instructional model. The advantages observed for the sequential model appear to occur because the more intense, consecutive instruction reduces the number of distractions in the students’ lives, thus allowing for more focused attention and ultimately creating a more effective learning environment. Csikszentmihalyi’s (1982) research suggests that “deep concentration,” “immersion” in an activity, and “undivided intentionality” lead to increasingly rewarding “optimal experiences” which nourish and strengthen the self. He also comments that “optimal experience stands out against this background of humdrum everyday life by excluding the noise that interferes with it in normal existence” (p. 22). This becomes evident when we consider the working adult’s hectic life and complicated everyday experiences. Scott and Conrad (1992) state that “concentrated study may cultivate skills and understandings which will remain untapped and undeveloped under the traditional system” (p. 417). Therefore, learning only one content area at a time has become one of the crucial factors of AL.

The intensive approach, a superior level of AL, has been used in many countries primarily for foreign language education, probably the most time-consuming didactic endeavor. One indicator of how efficiently a student has learned a foreign language is the number of words learned, retained, and correctly used in communication, both in oral and written speech (reading and writing). According to research ( Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2007 ), a person needs to know and be able to use two to three thousand words in a foreign language for basic communication. These so-called communicative skills can be assessed by the ability of the learner to accomplish a communication task in certain communicative situations. Duration of the study course at this level in a conventional institution can reach 200-300 hours. At a rate of two hours a week, the course duration may extend to 100 or more weeks (two years).

When an innovative, intensive instructional methodology, such as suggestopedia ( Lozanov, 1978 ; Kitaigorodskaya, 1995 ; Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ), is used to teach a foreign language, the learning efficiency significantly rises, and the course duration with the same outcomes can be reduced by approximately 50 percent, as compared to a conventional college course. For instance, an initial intensive course can take up to 100 to 150 hours. The course is usually taught with higher frequency and longer lessons (usually four to five hours, two to three or more times a week). Thus, a complete course of study may be completed only in ten weeks (2.5 months). So time efficiency ( Et ) of an intensive foreign language course in the number of hours ( t ) is of the order of 2 (200 hours of a conventional course ( c ) divided by 100 hours of an intensive course ( i )): E t = t c t i ;

Time efficiency of the same intensive course in the number of weeks is of the order of 10: duration of a conventional course ( dc ) (100 weeks) divided by the duration of an intensive course ( di ) (ten weeks): E t = d c d i .

This is a case of disruptive, revolutionary innovation that produces a radical transformation in foreign language learning where learners achieve course goals and objectives in half the study hours and one-tenth of a typical course duration. This approach, which was extremely popular in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Soviet Union) in the 1980s and 1990s, was to a larger extent inspired by the rise of the Iron Curtain and prospective emigration to the west. Some variations or similar approaches emerged later in Germany, England, Japan, and the USA ( Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ). Why it was not recognized and did not spread throughout US schools and colleges may be partially due to a lack of need (English is spoken worldwide). In addition, it is labor intensive and demands high-level teacher qualifications (special preparation, dedication, excellent dispositions, inventiveness, and very hard work in the class). In addition, it must be taught in specially designed and equipped classrooms. Finally, it depends on students’ elevated intrinsic motivation, work ethic, trust and respect for the teacher, and perseverance, though for a limited time.

Both accelerated and intensive short-term courses demand highly efficient planning, organization, and management of the instructional process. Furthermore, to ensure efficient course delivery, innovative methods and technologies are required for effective presentation, processing, skill development, and real-life applications. Many accomplishments in AL and IL methodologies, incidentally, can be used to teach other than foreign language programs.

learner-centered approach;

specific structure and organization of the course and its content for consistent, “whole” student experience;

effective content presentation in various formats and modalities;

immediate application of new knowledge in authentic situations in the class and real life, and gaining practical outcomes of the course;

iterative process of knowledge construction and skill development ( Serdyukov and Ryan, 2008 );

situated learning ( Lave and Wenger, 1991 ) that uses real-life situations as the basis of learning activities and, especially, in developing professional competence;

continuous active communication, collaboration, and cooperation among students in various small- and big-group activities;

high level of intrinsic motivation developed and constantly supported through emotional involvement of each student in team work and learning process;

instructor’s suggestive, supportive, and efficient teaching style incorporating incessant involvement with the class; immediate, objective, and stimulating feedback; continuous student support;

systemic use of ET in classroom and homework both for content acquisition and skill development, for communication and collaboration, and for maintaining students’ high level of cognitive, physical, and emotional state;

application of suggestive techniques, such as relaxation, ritual structure of classroom activities, positive environment, emotional involvement, and music; and

combination of intensive work and total relaxation.

This approach is rooted in consistent, systemic application of all these principles.

The formula for IL is as follows: The more organized and efficient the instructional system, the more focused the student, the more effort is produced, the better the effect of learning, the faster the rate of learning, and the shorter the process duration ( Serdyukov and Serdyukova, 2006 ). This is why all accelerated and intensive courses are always short (two weeks to 1-2 months long). If no significant effort is applied to learning, then there is no effect, no increase in productivity, and consequently, no opportunity to shorten the duration of the course.

So, accelerated programs that speed up learning by compressing the course duration, while requiring the same number of hours for the same learning outcomes, are an evolutionary innovation. Intensive programs that provide better outcomes in a considerably shorter time are a revolutionary innovation. We can state now that when an innovation ensures significantly better outcomes and saves on cost or time by at least an order of 2 (100 percent) or more, we can call it a revolutionary innovation.

Measuring time in learning can be instrumental for increasing its productivity. Learning to manage time productively is especially acute for independent learners and online students for whom effective time management is a well-known issue. Therefore, teachers need be taught to use time effectively. In teacher preparation programs, for instance, we recommend that teachers use time estimates when planning lessons ( Serdyukov and Ryan, 2008 ; FEA, 2016 ). Thus, making learning more time and cost efficient offers a promising venue for further innovations.

US education desperately needs effective innovations of scale that can help produce high quality learning outcomes across the system and for all students. We can start by intensifying our integration of successful international learning models and creating conditions in our schools and colleges that foster and support innovators and educational entrepreneurs, or edupreneurs ( Tait and Faulkner, 2016 ). Moreover, these transformations should be varied, yet systematic, targeting different vital aspects of education. Deep, multifaceted, and comprehensive innovations, both tangible and intangible, have the capacity to quickly generate scalable effects.

Radically improving the efficiency and quality of teaching and learning theory and practice, as well as the roles of the learner, teacher, parents, community, society, and society’s culture should be the primary focus of these changes. Other promising approaches should seek to improve students’ work ethic and attitudes toward learning, their development of various learning skills, as well as making learning more productive. We also have to bring all grades, from preschool to higher and postgraduate levels, into one cohesive system.

As the price of education, especially at colleges and universities, continues to rise, cost and time efficiency of learning, effective instructional approaches, and methods and tools capable of fulfilling the primary mission of education all will become critical areas of research and inventive solutions. Colleges and universities must concentrate on expanding the value of education, maximizing the productivity of learning, correlating investments with projected outcomes, and improving cost and time efficiency.

Whatever technologies we devise for education, however much technology we integrate into learning, the human element, particularly the learner and teacher, remains problematic. So, while taking advantage of effective educational technologies, we must situate those modern tools within a wider context of human education in order to preserve its humanistic, developmental purpose and, thus, make more effective use of them.

Computers for schools are ready, but are we ready? Our understanding of how students learn and how teachers teach and craft their methodology in technology-based environments remains lacking. Questions to ask are whether current methods help increase learning productivity, and as a result, time and cost efficiency. All technology applications require a solid theoretical foundation based on purposeful, systemic research and sound pedagogy to increase efficiency and decrease possible side issues. When integrating novel technologies in teaching and learning, we must first consider their potential applicability, anticipated costs and benefits, and then develop successful educational practices.

Therefore, the key to a prosperous, inventive society is a multidimensional approach to revitalizing the educational system (structures, tools, and stake holders) so that it breeds learners’ autonomy, self-efficacy, critical thinking, creativity, and advances a common culture that supports innovative education. In order to succeed, innovative education must become a collective matter for all society for which we must generate universal public responsibility. Otherwise, all our efforts to build an effective educational system will fail.

Model of educational innovation

Aaron , S. ( 2007 ), “ An insider’s look at online learning ”, Teaching Community , available at: http://teaching.monster.com/education/articles/1599-an-insiders-look-at-online-learning?print=true (accessed September 3, 2016 ).

Abeyta , E. ( 2013 ), “ Lifelong customers: the response to student consumerism ”, The Evolllution , available at: http://evolllution.com/opinions/lifelong-customers-response-student-consumerism/ (accessed September 10, 2016 ).

Accuosti , J. ( 2014 ), “ Factors affecting education technology success ”, ASEE 2014 Zone I Conference , April 3-5 , available at: www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2014/ Student/PDFs/112.pdf

Afshar , V. ( 2016 ), “ Disrupting higher education ”, a blog, The Huffington Post , August 5,available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/vala-afshar/disrupting-higher-educati_b_11341146.html?

Baer , L. and McCormick , J. ( 2012 ), “ Building the capacity for change through innovation ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman&Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 165 - 181 .

Barbera , E. , Gros , B. and Kirschner , P. ( 2015 ), “ Paradox of time in research on educational technology ”, Time & Society 2015 , Vol. 24 No. 1 , pp. 96 - 108 , available at: http://tas.sagepub.com/content/24/1/96.refs (accessed August 13, 2016 ).

Bok , D. ( 2007 ), Our Underachieving Colleges , Princeton University Press , Princeton, NJ , p. 6 .

Bologna Process ( 2016 ), “ European higher education area and Bologna process ”, available at: www.ehea.info/ (accessed May 28, 2016 ).

Bowling , N. , Ries , K. and Ivanitskaya , L. ( 2002 ), “ How effective are compressed courses? ”, On Target , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 3 - 7 , available at: www.cel.cmich.edu/ontarget/aug02/ (accessed April 1, 2012 ).

Boyes , L. , Reid , I. , Brain , K. and Wilson , J. ( 2004 ), Accelerated Learning: A Literature Survey , Unit for Educational Research & Evaluation, University of Bradford , Bradford , available at: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/giftedandtalented/downloads/word/accellearnreport.doc (accessed April 1, 2006 ).

Brewer , D. and Tierney , W. ( 2012 ), “ Barriers to innovation in the US education ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 11 - 40 .

Brunner , J. ( 1996 ), The Culture of Education , Harvard University Press , Cambridge, MA .

Brynjolfsson , E. ( 1993 ), “ The productivity paradox of information technology: review and assessment ”, Communications of the ACM , Vol. 36 No. 12 , pp. 67 - 77 .

Business Dictionary ( 2016 ), “ Definition of the term ‘intangible asset’ ”, available at: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/intangible-asset.html (accessed November 11, 2016 ).

Camins , A. ( 2015 ), “ What’s the purpose of education in the 21st century? ”, Washington Post’ education blog, The Answer Sheet, February 12, available at: www.arthurcamins.com/?p=319 (accessed October 14, 2016 ).

Christensen , C. and Eyring , H. ( 2011 ), The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside out , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Christensen , C. and Overdorf , M. ( 2000 ), “ Meeting the challenge of disruptive change ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 2 No. 78 , pp. 47 - 76 .

Cole , M. , Shelley , D. and Swartz , L. ( 2014 ), “ Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: a three year study ”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , Vol. 13 No. 6 , available at: www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1748/3123 (accessed July 22, 2016 ).

Cornali , F. ( 2012 ), “ Effectiveness and efficiency of educational measures ”, Evaluation Practices, Indicators and Rhetoric , Vol. 2 No. 3 , pp. 255 - 260 , available at: www.SciRP.org/journal/sm

Creating Innovators ( 2012 ), “ America’s last competitive advantage ”, available at: http://creatinginnovators.com/ (accessed September 28, 2016 ).

Crichton , D. ( 2015 ), “ Searching for the next wave of education innovation ”, TechCrunch , available at: https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/27/education-next-wave/ (accessed September 23, 2016 ).

Csikszentmihalyi , M. ( 1982 ), “ Toward a psychology of optimal experiences ”, Review of Personality and Social Psychology , No. 3 , pp. 13 - 36 .

Csikszentmihalyi , M. ( 2013 ), Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention , Harperperennial , New York, NY .

Cuban , L. ( 2015 ), “ Larry Cuban on school reform and classroom practice: the lack of evidence-based practice: the case of classroom technology ”, available at: https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/the-lack-of-evidence-based-practice-the-case-of-classroom-technology-part-1/ (accessed August 29, 2016 ).

Darling-Hammond , L. ( 2010 ), The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity will Determine Our Future , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

De Leόn , L. ( 2013 ), “ Managing technological innovation and issues of licensing in higher education ”, in Ran , B. (Ed.), The Dark Side of Technological Innovation , Information Age Publishing , Charlotte, NC , pp. 347 - 371 .

Diamond , J. ( 2005 ), Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , Penguin Book , New York, NY .

EDITOPIA ( 2012a ), “ Shanghai ”, George Lucas Educational Foundation , available at: www.edutopia.org/education-everywhere-international-shanghai-china-video

EDUTOPIA ( 2012b ), “ Singapore ”, George Lucas Educational Foundation , available at: www.edutopia.org/education-everywhere-international-singapore-video

Ertmer , P. ( 1999 ), “ Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration ”, Educational Technology Research and Development , Vol. 47 No. 4 , pp. 47 - 61 , available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02299597

Evans , R. and Leppmann , P. ( 1970 ), Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education , Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc. , San Francisco, CA .

Extreme Learning ( 2012 ), available at: www.extreme-learning.org/ (accessed September 22, 2016 ).

FEA ( 2016 ), “ Time-on-task: a strategy that accelerates learning ”, FEAWeb, available at: https://feaweb.org/time-on-task-a-teaching-strategy-that-accelerates-learning (accessed August 9, 2016 ).

Feeman , I. and Thomas , M. ( 2005 ), “ Consumerism in education: a comparison between Canada and the United Kingdom ”, International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 153 - 177 , available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09513540510582444

Friedman , T. ( 2005 ), The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century , Farrar, Straus and Giroux , New York, NY .

Friedman , G. ( 2012 ), The Next Decade: Empire and Republic in a Changing World , Anchor Books , New York, NY .

Fullan , M. ( 2007 ), Leading in a Culture of Change , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Fullan , M. ( 2010 ), All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform , Corwin , Newbury Park, CA .

Gibbons , S. and Silva , O. ( 2011 ), “ School quality, child well-being and parents’ satisfaction ”, Economics of Education Review , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 312 - 331 .

Groom , J. and Lamb , B. ( 2014 ), “ Reclaiming innovation ”, EDUCAUSE Review , Vol. 49 No. 3 , available at: www.educause.edu/visuals/shared/er/extras/2014/ReclaimingInnovation/default.html

Hargreaves , A. ( 2003 ), Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

Hargreaves , A. and Shirley , D. ( 2009 ), The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future of Educational Change , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Hargreaves , A. , Lieberman , A. , Fullan , M. and Hopkins , D. (Eds) ( 2010 ), Second International Handbook of Educational Change , Springer , New York, NY .

Heick , T. ( 2016 ), “ 12 Barriers to innovation in education ”, TeachThought. available at: www.teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/disruption-innovation/12-barriers-innovation-education/ (accessed August 12, 2016 ).

Hjeltnes , T. and Hansson , B. ( 2005 ), “ Cost effectiveness and cost efficiency in e-learning ”, The TISIP Foundation, Trondheim, available at: www2.tisip.no/quis/public_files/wp7-cost-effectiveness-efficiency.pdf (accessed September 29, 2016 ).

Hoffman , A. and Holzhuter , J. ( 2012 ), “ The evolution of higher education: innovation as natural selection ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman & Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 3 - 15 .

Huffington Post ( 2012 ), “ College preparedness lacking, forcing students into developmental coursework, prompting some to drop out ”, Huffington Post , June 6, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2012/06/18/students-lacking-college-_n_1606201.html (accessed May 1, 2015 ).

Jaschik , S. ( 2015 ), “ Well-prepared in their own eyes ”, Inside Higher, available at: www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/20/study-finds-big-gaps-between-student-and-employer-perceptions (accessed August 25, 2016 ).

Jiang , L. ( 2015 ), “ Why education innovation is the most important thing you could pursue ”, Getting Smart, available at: http://gettingsmart.com/2015/04/why-education-innovation-is-the-most-important-thing-you-could-pursue/ (accessed July 18, 2016 ).

Kerby , M. , Branham , K. and Mallinger , G. ( 2014 ), “ Consumer-based higher education: the uncaring of learning ”, Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice , Vol. 14 No. 5 , pp. 42 - 54 , available at: www.na-businesspress.com/JHETP/KerbyMB_Web14_5_.pdf

Kitaigorodskaya , G. ( 1995 ), Intensive Foreign Language Teaching: History, Current Status and Future Trends , MGU , Moscow (in Russian) .

Lave , J. and Wenger , E. ( 1991 ), Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation , University of Cambridge Press , Cambridge .

Levasseur , A. ( 2012 ), “ Does our current education system support innovation? ”, MindShift, July 17, available at: ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/07/17/does-our-current-education-system-support-innovation/ (accessed September 21, 2016 ).

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English ( 2007 ), Longman Communication 3000 , Pearson Longman ELT , White Plains, NY .

Lozanov , G. ( 1978 ), Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy , Gordon and Breach Science Pub , New York, NY .

Lozanov , G. ( 1988 ), The Foreign Language Teacher’s Suggestopedic Manual , Routledge , London .

Marcus , J. ( 2012 ), “ Old school: four-hundred years of resistance to change ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 41 - 72 .

Massy , W. ( 2012 ), “ Creative paths to boosting academic productivity ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 73 - 100 .

Massy , W. and Zemsky , R. ( 1995 ), Using Information Technology to Enhance Academic Productivity , Educom , Washington, DC , available at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/html/nli0004.html (accessed September 24, 2016 ).

Matthew , M. (Ed.) ( 1964 ), Innovation in Education , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

Maurer , H. , Mehmood , R. and Korica-Pehserl , P. ( 2013 ), “ How dangerous is the web for creative work? ”, Journal of Computing and Information Technology , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 59 - 69 .

Mercurio , Z. ( 2016 ), “ How college kills purpose ”, The Huffington Post , May 24, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-mercurio/how-college-kills-purpose_b_10013944.html

Meyer , A. , Rose , D. and Gordon , D. ( 2014 ), Universal Design of Learning: Theory and Practice , CAST Professional Publishing , Wakefield, MA .

Morais , A. , Neves , I. and Pires , D. ( 2004 ), “ The what and the how of teaching and learning: going deeper into sociological analysis and intervention ”, in Muller , J. , Davies , B. and Morais , A. (Eds), Thinking with Bernstein, Working with Bernstein , Routledge , London .

National Council of Teachers of English ( 2014 ), “ How standardized tests shape – and limit – student learning: a policy research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English ”, available at: www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CC/0242-nov2014/CC0242PolicyStandardized.pdf (accessed September 9, 2016 ).

National Educational Technology Standards ( 2004 ), ISTE, available at: http://ced.ncsu.edu/techcomps/unets5.html (accessed March 12, 2013 ).

Ni , A. ( 2013 ), “ Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: teaching research methods ”, Journal of Public Affairs Education , Vol. 1 No. 19 , pp. 199 - 215 .

Nickols , M. ( 2011 ), “ Articulating e-pedagogy for education. Open learning for an open world ”, in Barrett , J. (Ed.), Reflections on Open and Distance Learning and Teaching at the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand , Lower Hutt , pp. 321 - 336 .

Niemi , H. , Multisilta , J. , Lipponen , L. and Vivitsou , M. (Eds) ( 2014 ), Finnish Innovations and Technologies in Schools: A Guide Towards New Ecosystems of Learning , Sense Publishers, University of Helsinki , Rotterdam , available at: www.cicero.fi/files/Cicero/site/2121-finnish-innovations-and-technologies-in-schools_ToC.pdf (accessed October 2, 2016 ).

Ng , I. and Forbes , J. ( 2009 ), “ Education as service: the understanding of university experience through service logic ”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 1 , pp. 38 - 64 .

OECD ( 2014 ), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective , OECD Publishing , Paris , available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en (accessed August 30, 2016 ).

Office of Innovation and Improvement ( 2016 ), “ US Department of Education ”, available at: http://innovation.ed.gov/ (accessed September 1, 2016 ).

Okpara , F. ( 2007 ), “ The value of creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability , Vol. III No. 2 , pp. 2 - 14 , available at: www.asiaentrepreneurshipjournal.com/ajesiii2okpara.pdf

Osolind , K. ( 2012 ), “ Revolutionary vs evolutionary innovation ”, Reinvention Consulting, available at: www.reinventioninc.com/revolutionvsevolution (accessed October 16, 2016 ).

Ostrander , S. and Schroeder , L. ( 2000 ), Superlearning: New Triple Fast Ways You Can Learn, Earn, and Succeed in the 21st Century , Delacorte Press , New York, NY .

Pappert , S. ( 1990 ), “ A Critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future ”, available at: www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html (accessed December 25, 2015 ).

Pew Research Center ( 2015 ), “ US students improving – slowly – in math and science, but still lagging internationally ”, Pew Research Center, February 2, available at: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/ (accessed July 27, 2016 ).

Polka , W. and Kardash , J. ( 2013 ), “ Managing in the effective change zone to implement a ‘1-to-1’ laptop program in a rural school district ”, in Ran , B. (Ed.), The Dark Side of Technological Innovation , Information Age Publishing , Charlotte, NC , pp. 323 - 346 .

Postman , N. ( 1993 ), Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology , Vintage Books , New York, NY .

Robinson , K. ( 2015 ), Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution that’s Transforming Education , Viking Press , New York, NY .

Rose , C. and Nicholl , M.J. ( 1997 ), Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century. The Six-step Plan to Unlock Your Master-Mind , Dell Publishing , New York, NY .

Rubin , C. ( 2015 ), “ The global search for education: United States and Finland – why are they so great? ”, The Huffington Post , February 6, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/c-m-rubin/the-global-search-for-edu_b_6992056.html (accessed July 19, 2016 ).

Rushkoff , D. ( 2010 ), Program or be Programmed. Ten Commands for a Digital Age , OR Books , New York, NY .

Sahlberg , P. ( 2010 ), “ Educational change in Finland ”, in Hargreaves , A. , Lieberman , A. , Fullan , M. and Hopkins , D. (Eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Change , Springer , New York, NY , pp. 323 - 348 .

Sahlberg , P. ( 2011 ), Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland , Teachers College, Columbia University , New York, NY .

Schuwer , B. and Kusters , B. ( 2014 ), “ Mass customization of education by an institution of HE: what can we learn from industry? ”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , Vol. 12 No. 2 .

Science Watch ( 2009 ), “ Top 20 countries in all fields ”, Science Watch, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, available at: http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2009/09decALL/ (accessed August 6, 2016 ).

Scott , P. and Conrad , C. ( 1992 ), “ A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research ”, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , Agathon Press , New York, NY , pp. 411 - 459 .

Serdiukov , P. ( 2001 ), “ Models of distance higher education: fully automated or partially human? ”, Educational Technology Review. International Journal on Educational Technology Issues & Applications , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 15 - 25 .

Serdyukov , P. ( 2008 ), “ Accelerated learning: what is it? ”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 36 - 59 .

Serdyukov , P. ( 2015a ), “ Does online education need a special pedagogy? ”, Journal of Computing and Information Technology , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 61 - 74 , available at: http://cit.srce.unizg.hr/index.php/CIT/article/view/2511

Serdyukov , P. ( 2015b ), “ Paradox of teacher and student in online education and societal culture ”, Proceedings of Global Learn 2015. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) , pp. 713 - 723 .

Serdyukov , P. and Ryan , M. ( 2008 ), Writing Effective Lesson Plans: The 5-Star Approach , Allyn&Bacon , Boston, MA .

Serdyukov , P. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2006 ), “ Innovative approaches in technology-based education: Accelerated and intensive learning ”, Proceedings of the Ninth IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, CATE 2006 , Lima , October 4-6 , pp. 45 - 50 .

Serdyukov , P. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2012 ), “ Time as factor of success in online learning ”, Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education , Vol. 1 No. 2 , pp. 40 - 46 , available at: www.jitae.org/paperInfo.aspx?ID=1203

Serdyukov , P. , Subbotin , I. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2003 ), “ Accessible, convenient and efficient education for working adults in a shorter time: is it possible? ”, CAEL Forum and News , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 24 - 28 .

Sharratt , L. and Harild , G. ( 2015 ), Good to Great to Innovate: Recalculating the Route to Career Readiness, K-12+ , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Shelton , J. ( 2011 ), “ Education innovation: what it is and why we need more of it ”, Education Week , Sputnik post, September 28, available at: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/sputnik/2011/09/education_innovation_what_it_is_and_why_we_need_more_of_it.html (accessed September 16, 2016 ).

Song , L.S. , Singleton , E. , Hill , J. and Koh , M. ( 2004 ), “ Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics ”, Internet and Higher Education , pp. 59 - 70 .

Sousa , D. ( 2014 ), How the Brain Learns Mathematics , Korwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Spalding , E. ( 2012 ), Claire Fox: Is Consumerism Bad for Education? Liberty World Press , available at: http://libertyuom.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/claire-fox-is-consumerism-bad-for-education/ (accessed September 12, 2016 ).

Spangehl , S. and Hoffman , A. ( 2012 ), “ Perspectives on innovation ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman & Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 17 - 26 .

Stewart , V. ( 2012 ), A World-Class Education: Learning from International Models of Excellence and Innovation , ASCD , Alexandria, VA .

Stokes , P. ( 2012 ), “ What online learning can teach us about higher education? ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 197 - 224 .

Strauss , V. ( 2014 ), “ Five US innovations that helped Finland’s schools improve but that American reformers now ignore ”, The Washington Post , July 25, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/07/25/five-u-s-innovations-that-helped-finlands-schools-improve-but-that-american-reformers-now-ignore/?utm_term=.cec08c870e6b (accessed October 4, 2016 ).

Tait , A. and Faulkner , D. ( 2016 ), Edupreneur: Unleashing Teacher Led Innovation in Schools , Wiley , Hoboken, NJ .

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing ( 2012 ), “ How standardized testing damages education ”, Fair test, The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, Jamaica Plain, MA, available at: http://fairtest.org/how-standardized-testing-damages-education-pdf (accessed August 20, 2016 ).

Thomson , J. ( 2015 ), “ Poor grades ”, Inside Higher Ed , July 9, available at: www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/09/national-poll-finds-overall-dissatisfaction-college-selection-process-while-parents (accessed August 20, 2016 ).

UNESCO ( 2013 ), “ ITL – Innovative teaching and learning research: a global look at pedagogies for 21st century skills ”, ICT in Education, UNESCO, Bangkok, available at: www.unescobkk.org/ education/ict/online-resources/databases/ict-in-education-database/item/article/innovative-teaching-and-learning-itl-research-a-global-look-at-pedagogies-for-21st-century-skills/ (accessed August 18, 2016 ).

US Department of Education ( 2004 ), “ What do we mean by ‘innovation’? ”, US Department of Education, available at: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/about/definition.html

Vieluf , S. , Kaplan , D. , Klieme , E. and Bayer , S. ( 2012 ), Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Innovation: Evidence from TALIS , OECD Publishing , Paris , available at: www.oecd.org/edu/school/TalisCeri%202012%20(tppi)–Ebook.pdf

Wagner , T. ( 2012 ), Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People who Will Change the World , Scribner , New York, NY .

Westra , K. ( 2016 ), “ Faculty and student perceptions of effective online learning environments ”, Paper No. 596, all theses, dissertations, and other capstone projects, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, available at: http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=etds (accessed August 25, 2016 ).

Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds) ( 2012 ), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA .

Willingham , D. ( 2010 ), “ Why don’t students like school? ”, A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions about How the Mind Works and What it Means for Your Classroom , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Wrenn , V. ( 2016 ), “ Effects of traditional and online instructional models on student achievement outcomes ”, Paper No. 1135, doctoral dissertations and projects, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, available at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1135 (accessed August 22, 2016 ).

Yu , D. and Hang , C.C. ( 2010 ), “ A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 12 No. 4 , pp. 435 - 452 , available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x/full

Zeihan , P. ( 2014 ), The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disorder , Twelve Hachette Book Group , New York, NY .

Zhao , Y. ( 2012 ), World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Zhao , Y. and Frank , K. ( 2003 ), “ Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective ”, available at: https://msu.edu/~kenfrank/papers/Factors%20affecting%20technology%20uses%20in%20schools.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016 ).

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Drs Robyn Hill, Sara Kelly and Margot Kinberg for their help in preparing this paper for publication.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Different ways to implement innovative teaching approaches at scale

• Published: 21 November 2019
• Volume 102 , pages 303–318, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Katja Maass   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5696-5114 1 ,
• Paul Cobb 2 ,
• Konrad Krainer 3 &
• Despina Potari 4  

16k Accesses

40 Citations

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Research and experience reveal that innovative teaching approaches promoted by mathematics education researchers differ significantly from the day-to-day practices of teachers in many countries (Van den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKeeney, & Nieveen, 2006 ; Boaler, 2008 ; Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2003 ; Krainer, 2011 ; Burkhardt, 2018 ; Cobb & Jackson, 2015 ). As Boaler ( 2008 ) puts it: “An elusive and persistent gulf exists between research in mathematics education and the practices of mathematics classrooms, in many countries in the world.” (p. 91) This clearly implies that research on implementing teaching approaches effectively is essential if this gulf is to be bridged. These investigations of scaling up should be broad in scope and attend not only to the practices of teachers and researchers, but also to the practices of other important stakeholders including school principals, teacher educators, educational administrators, and policymakers. Furthermore, because teaching contexts differ significantly both within and between regions and countries, it will be important to understand how innovative teaching approaches can be adapted to the local conditions of implementation while preserving their underlying core principles.

In the following paragraphs, we first clarify our understanding of the notion of innovation . Our reading of Fullan’s ( 2001 , 2006 ) analyses and our own work lead us to a view that is both optimistic and cautious about addressing the challenges inherent in supporting teachers’ development of innovative teaching approaches on a large scale. Innovative teaching approaches are usually introduced in the context of a new curriculum, a teacher education and professional development program, or a combination of the two. However, it is important to stress that innovation is not good for its own sake—not all teaching innovations are improvements. First, in order to distinguish between changes and improvements in teaching, it is essential to explicate what is worth knowing and doing mathematically, in the process delineating mathematical learning goals. A teaching innovation is then an improvement if there is evidence (broadly defined) that it can support students’ progress towards the identified learning goals more effectively than the typical forms of instruction in a country or region. We acknowledge that this perspective on instructional improvement has a political dimension as there are often conflicts between mathematics education researchers’ and policy makers’ views about what is worth knowing and doing mathematically. As a consequence, the learning goals on which innovative teaching approaches focus are frequently at odds with national assessments that prioritize procedural competences at the expense of conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, problem solving, and mathematical communication. Second, we also acknowledge that what is clearly an improvement in one context (school, country, etc.) might not be an improvement in another context as the cultural and national priorities in mathematics education may differ, for example, from an emphasis on applications and modeling or on formalization and theory. Third, innovation is not a single act in the sense that you do it and then it is done, but is instead better viewed as a process of supporting teachers’ learning that needs to be monitored, analyzed, and revised (perhaps resulting in a preference for the status quo). Fourth, the innovation is necessarily adapted to the local school and classroom context in the process of implementation (Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977 ). In this regard, researchers in educational policy view implementation as involving a mutual adaptation between an innovation and the local context (McLaughlin, 1987 ). Fifth, given that our focus in this special issue is on teaching innovations that have the potential to improve the quality of students’ mathematical learning, we are following Elmore ( 2000 ) in foregrounding the rationales of innovative teaching approaches, the assessment of feasibility of implementation, evidence of improvement in teaching practices, and attention to contexts of implementation. We aim to promote an orientation to innovation that is open for new possibilities but also emphasizes analysis and a concern for evidence.

Implementing innovative teaching approaches at scale , as an instance of instructional improvement, does not work when it is framed in terms of the transmission of knowledge from researchers or policymakers to teachers (so-called “top-down” approach, see, e.g., Altrichter, Feldman, Posch, & Somekh, 2008 ; Ponte, Matos, Guimaraes, Leal, & Canavarro, 1994 ; Tirosh & Graeber, 2003 ). Teachers clearly need to be seen as crucial agents of change and critical implementers of innovative teaching approaches. If we regard students as inquiry-based learners, then teachers who have the appropriate academic background and practical experience also need to be seen as such (see, e.g., Krainer & Zehetmeier, 2013 ). However, improving teaching at scale does not work as sporadic efforts by teachers to improve their teaching entirely on their own in isolation from other stakeholders (so-called “bottom-up” approach). Instructional improvement involves substantial teacher learning and requires systematic support, based on clear goals, scientific knowledge, and the monitoring and analysis of progress based on evidence.

Implementing innovations in one classroom can be a challenging endeavor, and it is even more demanding across a whole school. However, it becomes exponentially more challenging when scaling up an innovation aims to reach many schools, a district, or even a state or nation. It is therefore understandable that scaling up has become a concern for mathematics education research during the last 10 years (e.g., Adler, Ball, Krainer, Lin, & Novotna, 2005 ). This focus on scaling up is, in part, an effort to address results of international studies like PISA, TIMSS, TALIS or TEDS-M, or of national testing (see, e.g., Krainer, 2015 ).

An important dimension of variation concerns the level of scaling up. This can be at a micro-level with a few teachers (e.g., from one school), at a meso-level with tens of teachers (e.g., from different schools in a region), or at a macro-level with hundreds (or even thousands) of teachers (e.g., supporting a reform effort in a district, state, or nation). There is not a strict linearity of these levels: a professional development activity at the micro-level might have a broader influence in the macro-level if the participating teachers shared what they have learned with colleagues. At each of these levels, it is important to take account of different relevant aspects of the context of implementation. These might include students and parents at the micro-level, principals and teacher leaders at the meso-level, and superintendents and policymakers at the macro-level (see, e.g., Krainer, 2015 ). In addition, relevant aspects of context when scaling up at the national level include to the size of the country. Scaling up, for example, in Spain means something very different to scaling up in Malta. Furthermore, relevant aspects at all three levels include whether there is a national curriculum (as in the UK) or not (as in Germany), the content of the curriculum, the availability of teachers (a surplus or a lack of teachers), and the current types of support on which teachers can draw to improve their teaching.

Against the background of this discussion of innovation and scaling up, we now consider the reasons for the above-mentioned gap between mathematics education research and practice . We will first look at reasons on the side of practice and then take a more critical stand and look at research and the relation between research and practice.

On the side of educational practice, it is challenging for mathematics teachers to change their classroom practice from being an instructor who attempts to directly teach procedures for solving specific, narrowly defined types of tasks, to being a facilitator who aims to support students’ development of both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency, their use of multiple representations, their ability to develop and critique mathematical arguments, and so forth (Swan, 2005 , 2007 ). Research-based explanations for the persistence of procedural instruction focus on mathematics teachers’ knowledge and beliefs related in particular to the nature of mathematics (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008 ; Wilson & Cooney, 2002 ). These explanations highlight that many teachers view mathematics as an exact, abstract, deductive discipline with unambiguous solutions (Grigutsch, Raatz, & Törner, 1998 ; Maass, 2009 ). Other explanations focus on the classroom and the existing norms (e.g., students are not used to inquiry-oriented teaching approaches), teachers’ community (e.g., limited collaboration with colleagues), school development and leadership (e.g., limited support by the head of school), or the district, national educational, or political context (e.g., mathematics assessments that emphasize procedural competencies over conceptual understanding), the instructional materials available to teachers, and the nature and quality of the supports for teachers’ learning (such as professional development, teachers’ collaborative meetings) (Cobb, Jackson, Henrick, & Smith, 2018 ; Krainer & Wood, 2008 ; Skott, 2013 ; Valero, 2010 ; Maass, 2009 , 2011 ). Taken together, these various explanations further clarify the challenge of implementing innovating teaching approaches at scale.

Turning now to consider the side of research, we first note that, for various reasons, there is a significant lack of research that can inform practice. Often, research is narrowly focused and gives only limited attention to the complexity of mathematics education in specific contexts (Begg, Davis, & Bramald, 2003 ; Boaler, 2008 ). Further, there is a lack of research that focuses on recurrent problems of practice that are relevant to practitioners. For example, Cobb, Jackson, Henrick, and Smith ( 2018 ) point out that there is still little research that can inform school and district leaders’ decisions about supplemental supports that enable currently struggling students to participate fully in and learn from mainstream instruction that aims at rigorous learning goals. Similarly, research on what specifically school and district leaders might do to support the development of school and district capacity for instructional improvement remains thin (Cobb et al., 2018 ).

Another important limitation stems from a frequently assumed linear Research–Development–Dissemination model, in which different groups of experts take responsibility for each of these stages with limited communication between them (Begg et al., 2003 ). Relatedly, the value of Research-Practice Partnerships in which researchers establish genuine partnerships with practitioners and do research with them rather than on them is often underappreciated (Coburn, Penuel, & Gell, 2013 ).

Cobb et al. ( 2018 ) argue that educational research needs to be at the service of practitioners’ instructional improvement efforts if it is to provide much needed empirically grounded guidance. In their view, this requires a change of perspective concerning the relation between research and practice. They discuss and illustrate the value of researchers working with practitioners in ways that prioritize the development of trust, take schools’ and districts’ current improvement goals, and strategies as a primary point of reference and are sensitive to schools’ and districts’ capacities and constraints. Collaborating with practitioners in this manner requires researchers to see things from their practitioner colleagues’ points of view (Cobb et al., 2018 ). From this perspective, the reasons for the theory-practice gap on the side of practice that we discussed above are challenges that research needs to address.

2 Instructional improvement at scale

2.1 current initiatives.

Although the gulf between research and practice is a pressing concern, there are a number of initiatives underway that give rise to optimism. Boaler ( 2008 ), for example, describes seven international research studies for which there is evidence of success in influencing mathematics teaching practice on a large scale. Also, building on the recommendation of the Rocard Report (Rocard et al., 2007 ) and its successor, “Science education for responsible citizenship” (Hazelkorn et al., 2015 ), the European Commission has funded several dissemination and research projects that aim to support the widespread implementation of inquiry-based learning in STEM education, including Primas (Promoting Inquiry in Mathematics and Science Education Across Europe, 2010–2013), Mascil (“Mathematics and Science for Life”, 2013–2016), and Fibonacci (2010–2013). There has also been an increase in the number of large-scale regional and national projects aiming at an improvement of mathematics education, including IMST (Innovations Make School Top, since 1998) and Sinus and Sinus-Transfer (1998–2008) in Europe, MIST (Middle School Mathematics and the Institutional Setting of Teaching, 2006–2017), and PMRR (Practical Measures, Representations, and Routines, 2015–2021) in the US, ETMST (Enhancing the Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers) (2013–2017) in Australia which emphasized cooperation between different stakeholders, the WMCS (Wits Maths Connect Secondary Project, 2010–2014) in South Africa that offers professional development support to the teachers, and the EPMT (Enhancing the Pedagogy of Mathematics Teachers) (2007–2008) professional development project in Singapore that focused on scaling up school-based communities of practice. In addition, the International Centre for STEM Education (ICSE, icse.eu) in Freiburg and its consortium were founded in 2017. This large network consists of 14 universities from across Europe that aims to bridge the gulf between research and practice. These initiatives necessarily have to deal with the characteristics of mathematics teaching in specific contexts (e.g., the quality of current student assessments).

Several of these initiatives focus solely on mathematics teaching, whereas others combine several subjects, for example mathematics with science and technology (STEM teaching). There are also instructional improvement projects that have focused on teaching in all subjects. Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages. For example, a focus on one single subject (in our case, mathematics) makes it possible to go deep with regard to content (eventually covering several topics such as algebra, calculus, or probability and statistics), but leaves open how the improvement of mathematics teaching might influence all classrooms and school-level developments (where teachers from different disciplines learn from each other). In contrast, initiatives that involve teachers of all subjects open up the possibility of creating joint activities designed to foster the development of a shared vision and of identity at the school level but do not necessarily address content-specific challenges in improving mathematics teaching. Furthermore, both approaches to large-scale implementation leave it to teachers to further develop and integrate the ideas they have learned in professional development settings into their classroom practice in their specific school context.

Although the initiatives mentioned above have made significant contributions, we still have much to learn about how to support the implementation of innovative, research-based approaches to teaching mathematics on a large scale. It is not only that this kind of work is often seen as peripheral to the concerns of mathematics education research, but also that it is very costly in terms of both time and money to conduct large-scale implementation projects, let alone investigate their impact. For example, Maass, Doorman, Jonker, and Wijers ( 2019 ) demonstrate how many cycles of design and analysis were required to create innovative classroom and PD materials. Furthermore, there are currently few commonly accepted approaches for designing and for evaluating projects that focus on the large-scale implementation of innovative teaching practices in mathematics (recent approaches are reported, e.g., in Rösken-Winter, Hoyles, & Blömeke, 2015 ).

2.2 Strategies for implementing instructional improvement at scale

As we have outlined in Sect. 1 , supporting improvements in the quality of instruction at scale is very challenging. Concrete strategies that are taken for instructional improvement typically involve some combination of instructional resources, assessment resources, and the provision of support for teachers’ learning (e.g., by providing PD courses, PD resources). Several questions arise given the challenges we have discussed.

To what extent can resources for mathematics classroom teaching, assessment, and professional development lead to changes in day-to-day classroom teaching?

What are the key characteristics of high-quality supports for teachers’ learning, such as professional development courses, teacher collaborative meetings, and coaching?

How can professional development support be scaled up effectively (e.g., Cobb & Smith, 2008 ; Maass & Artigue, 2013 ; Rösken-Winter et al., 2015 )?

What are the critical aspects of school- and system-level contexts that influence the large-scale implementation of innovative teaching approaches, and what are the key characteristics of contexts that support teachers’ ongoing improvement of their instructional practice (Cobb & Smith, 2008 )? What forms of collaboration are important, when aiming at large scale instructional improvement and how can they be fostered (e.g., Gräsel, Fußangel, & Pröbstel, 2006 ; Henrick, Cobb, Penuel, Jackson, & Clark, 2017 ; Spieß, 2004 )?

How can researchers communicate strategies of instructional improvement (e.g., type of resources used, kind of support offered for teachers) to various stakeholders and to the wider public (and discuss with them), so as to foster broad support for the instructional improvement effort and to win more schools and stakeholders for cooperation (European Commission, 2014 ; European IPR Helpdesk, 2015 )?

With reference to question 1 , a growing body of research indicates that curricular materials can influence instructional practice and student learning (Ross, McDougall, Hogaboam-Gray, & LeSage, 2003 ; Schoen, Cegulla, Finn, & Fi, 2003 ; Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000 ; Tarr et al., 2008 ; Henrick, Appelgate, & Nazemi, 2018 ). However, the findings of these studies also indicate that teaching and learning are determined also by a range of other factors in addition to instructional materials. For example, Mischo and Maass ( 2013 ) address factors such as teachers’ beliefs and personal backgrounds, and their professional development experiences while Ball et al. ( 2008 ) and Jackson, Wilhem, and Munter ( 2018 ) clarify the relations between teachers’ knowledge and perspective, and their classroom practices. Andrews ( 2013 ), for his part, identifies national and cultural factors that frame didactic strategies and learning goals in mathematics teaching across four European countries. Thus, although instructional materials are an essential component of effective implementation, they are by no means sufficient.

Turning to question 2 , several general features of successful professional development activities are already known. These include direct relevance to teachers’ day-to-day classroom practices, the opportunity to discuss problems of practice with colleagues, attention to teachers’ beliefs about the nature of mathematics and mathematics teaching, long-term support, and a clear focus on a specific aspect of teaching (Lipowsky & Rzejak, 2012 ). But designing professional development courses with these features does not necessarily lead to instructional improvement. There is evidence that teachers do not necessarily implement what they learn in professional development activity in their classrooms (e.g., Maass, 2011 ; Maass, Swan, & Aldorf, 2017 ). Consequently, we need to understand why seemingly high-quality PD is not as effective as we would like. There are a number of findings that demonstrate the influence of teachers’ view of what counts as high-quality mathematics teaching, of their view of their students’ current mathematical capabilities (Dunlap, 2016 ), and of aspects of school and school system context including the availability and quality of supports for teachers’ learning and of school and system instructional leadership (Cobb et al., 2018 ).

Turning to question 3 , the question of how large numbers of teachers can be supported to improve their instruction is a pressing issue (e.g., Maass & Artigue, 2013 ; Rösken-Winter et al., 2015 ). For example, what are the strengths and weaknesses of so-called “cascade” approaches where course leaders/advisers/coaches or facilitators are educated, and then in turn educate other teachers? It is clear that such approaches require intensive efforts in educating course leaders, and we are still learning what qualifies someone to be an effective course leaders (Ball & Even, 2009 ; Robert, 2009 ; Krainer, Chapman, & Zaslavsky, 2014 ), although significant progress has been made in clarifying this issue in recent years (Jackson et al., 2015 ). A related question concerns the extent to which so-called teacher learning communities are effective in supporting teachers’ improvement of their instructional practices. Matos, Powell, and Sztajn ( 2009 ) link mathematics teachers’ learning to school-level communities of practice that are characterized by mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a repertoire of knowledge and skills. However, there is strong evidence that, in the US context, such communities are ineffective in supporting the participating teachers in making significant improvements in their classroom practices unless they connect student learning goals, students’ thinking, and instruction (Horn, Kane, & Garner, 2018 ). As a consequence, effective teacher learning communities are typically led by an accomplished facilitator.

Turning to question 4 , we need to acknowledge that regardless of the approach taken, the focus should not only be on providing support for teachers’ learning, but also on being responsive to the contexts in which they work (see Sect. 1 ) For example, Cobb and colleagues (Henrick, Cobb, & Jackson, 2015 ) emphasized the importance of relevant stakeholders’ active involvement in their large-scale instructional improvement project. Their approach builds on work in educational policy that emphasizes that policy implementation involves active sense making by teachers and school leaders, thereby implicating their understanding of mathematics, teaching, students, and learning. Furthermore, the IMST project in Austria (Krainer & Zehetmeier, 2013 ) is investigating the establishment of so-called regional or national centers, networks, or thematic programs in which advisors provide guidance to different stakeholders about a range of dissemination strategies that are both top-down and bottom-up. However, fostering the involvement of school administrators and stakeholders from educational authorities can be very challenging as research and practice are typically separate in these areas (Maass, Wernisch, & Schäfer, 2015 ).

Turning to question 5 , we have to acknowledge, that though necessary, cooperation (e.g., Spieß, 2004 ) between different stakeholders (e.g., between teachers, school principals, researchers, and representatives from school authorities and future employers of students) is currently not a reality. For example, although businesses look for employees who can apply mathematics in the context of their work, mathematics education at school is often quite abstract and detached from real life. Cooperation between school practitioners and employers might help resolve this problem. School classes occasionally visit non-formal learning organizations (e.g., museums), but often these remain isolated events that are not connected to either class or students’ private lives. A sustainable cooperation between non-formal learning organizations and schools can contribute to the resolution of this issue by addressing their currently conflicting agendas and aims. Cooperation between different stakeholders in mathematics education (schools, educational research, businesses, policymakers, and families) is unlikely to be productive unless their aims for students’ learning are aligned (cf. e.g., Spieß, 2004 ; Gräsel et al., 2006 , Dalton, Elias, & Wandersman, 2007 ; Nastasi et al., 1998 ).

A first step in establishing productive collaborations involves developing relations of trust and mutual respect between all partners (cf. e.g., Gräsel et al., 2006 ; Nastasi et al., 1998 ). Second, the cooperation needs to be tailored to the needs of the different collaboration partners (European Commission, 2014 ), as different stakeholders have different foci in their work, operate on different schedules and timelines, and may also have different views on the aims and extent of the cooperation, and on how to cooperate (e.g., Maass et al., 2015 ). Third, the partners should jointly design cooperation processes that serve all their goals. Last but not least, sustainable cooperation structures that can support the cooperation are also essential. These may include specific conferences designed to foster cooperation (e.g., https://icse.eu/educating-the-educators-iii/ ), the establishment of regional centers for STEM–education (e.g., within IMST, Krainer, Rauch, & Senger, 2017 ), or the setting up of networks (e.g., the STEM PD Network, https://icse.eu/international-projects/stem-pd-net/ ).

We now turn to question 6. Communication refers to the steps taken to spread research findings to a large number of partners (e.g., academic community, teachers, students, and policy-makers). This includes planning how to encourage partners to use research findings in a way it makes sense for them and is appropriate for their local contexts (so-called exploitation and multiplication of research results in additional schools, communities and countries). It also means promoting results of research projects to a wide (possibly non-scientific) audience to raise awareness and demonstrate the benefit of the work for teachers and the wider society (European Commission, 2014 ; European IPR Helpdesk, 2015 ). In this regard, the European Commission considers this aspect to be extremely important and evaluates all projects in terms of their dissemination, communication, and exploitation plans (e.g., in H2020, Erasmus+) and has highlighted this issue by providing explicit guidelines (e.g., European Commission, 2014 ; European IPR Helpdesk, 2015 ). Dissemination and communication strategies include websites targeted to various stakeholder groups, newsletters, using social media, talks and conferences (for different target groups), face-to-face communication, designing and publicizing materials for teachers, articles in journals for different target groups, and so on. In this respect, using target-oriented language is of utmost importance.

2.3 A framework for large-scale instructional improvement

In order to provide an overview of possible approaches to large-scale instructional improvement and to structure further research, the development of a conceptual framework is useful. Maass and Artigue ( 2013 ) developed such a framework by analyzing existing projects aimed at overcoming the gulf between research and practice. They distinguish three main categories of approaches to (large scale) implementation: (I) resources, (II) professional development activities, and (III) attending to contexts of implementation. Within each category, they list different aspects that need to be considered. For example, in the case of resources, they distinguish between resources for classroom instruction and for professional development, identify different target groups, and consider key features of particular resources (such as focused on inquiry in mathematics, focused on real-life applications, and so on).

We extend the framework of Maass and Artigue ( 2013 ) to summarize the issues that we have discussed in the previous sections. The framework therefore provides an overview of the aspects that might be considered for instructional improvement at scale. We illustrate the relevance of the framework by using it as a tool to discuss the articles in this special issue.

The framework directly relates to the research questions that we raised in Sect. 2.2 . The category of resources relates to research question 1, the category of professional development relates to questions 2 and 3, the category of context relates to question 4, and the categories of cooperation and communication to questions 5 and 6. Additionally, we have added a category of research based on what we have said in Sect. 1 to emphasize the importance of investigations that focus on problems of practice (see Fig. 1 ).

Updated framework for instructional improvement at scale

All six categories in this framework are connected to each other and are interdependent . For example, professional development initiatives and the professional development resources used in initiatives are obviously interrelated. Similarly, the approach taken to classroom teaching, the PD designed to support it, and the accompanying classroom materials are interdependent (e.g., Prediger, Rösken-Winter, & Leuders, 2019 ). Further, research that is at the service of practice and both classroom materials and professional development designed on the basis of such research are interlinked. Also, it is important that researchers who organize professional development courses that aim to support teachers in improving their classroom practices establish genuine partnerships with the practitioners (i.e., do research with them rather than on them) (Tseng & Nutley, 2014 ). Partnerships of this type are grounded in trust and mutual respect, and aim to address agreed-upon problems of practice by conducting methodologically rigorous investigations that are relevant and timely for the participating practitioners, and support them in achieving their goals (Henrick et al., 2017 ). Last but not least, if a researcher aims at cooperation with policymakers, the communication with them should be target-group oriented, thereby linking these aspects as well.

The framework is open to revision, elaboration, extension, and improvement, while it also gives insight into currently relevant aspects of instructional improvement. Although not every category is relevant in every context, the framework gives an idea of the categories that might be potentially relevant in different contexts.

3 The contributions of this volume

3.1 professional development.

Three of the papers aim at scaling up by focusing on professional development (category II).

The paper by Heck, Plumley, Stylianou, Smith, and Moffett, “Scaling Innovative Learning in Mathematics: Exploring the effect of different professional development approaches on teacher knowledge, beliefs, and instructional practice”, addresses the category of professional development in our framework, and more concretely professional learning experiences (PLEs). The purpose of the study focuses on early algebra knowledge and classroom practice and investigates the extent to which three different approaches for engaging teachers in PLEs might enable the field to scale up innovative instructional approaches in a sustainable manner. The three PLE formats are (1) a facilitated summer workshop, (2) a multimedia course completed on teachers’ own time, and (3) learning resources provided in the algebra curriculum unit that teachers used individually. The findings indicate that all three PLE formats had a positive impact on teachers’ professional learning in relation to the development of their knowledge and instructional practices.

The paper by Clark-Wilson and Hoyles, “A research-informed web-based professional development toolkit to support technology-enhanced mathematics teaching at scale”, reports on new technology-enhanced curriculum units for lower secondary mathematics that embed dynamic mathematical technology (DMT). These units combine web-based DMT, student and teacher materials, and professional development that focused on developing teachers’ mathematical knowledge and pedagogy for teaching with technology. Thus, the study addresses the categories professional development and resources (Fig. 1 ). As part of their work, the authors developed a professional development toolkit that includes a lesson planning template and links to a teacher online-community, videos outlining highlighting the important mathematical ideas in students’ tasks, video clips of teachers’ mediation of the dynamic mathematics technology, and examples of typical students’ written work. The results of the piloting of the toolkit indicate that it has the potential to overcome teacher-reported barriers to their use of dynamic mathematical technology.

The contribution of these two studies to knowledge about scaling up professional development is to demonstrate that there is not a single effective approach to professional development. Heck et al. show that flexibility in terms of the available resources and the context is an important feature of professional development programs. Clark-Wilson and Hoyles also enrich their program with resources including a lesson planning template, videos, and pupils’ written work and take into account the context by setting up an online-community.

Prediger, Fischer, Selter, and Schöber also combine the aspects professional development and resources, and attended to the context of implementation in their paper “Combining material- and community-based implementation strategies for scaling up: The case of supporting low-achieving middle school students”. Their community-based strategy emphasizes the value of professional learning communities that are embedded in school and district settings. Their strategy includes well-designed teaching materials, which they view as catalysts for implementing innovative teaching approaches in many classrooms. Their implementation project combines both categories of the framework and also takes account of the school and district levels of the school system. The goal of the project is to help teachers better support currently low-achieving students at the beginning of German secondary school (Grades 5 and 6). The results of the quasi-experimental study that they report in this article again show that such a combination of strategies can be effective: the participating students had higher learning gains than the control group. A follow-up analysis provides insights into the interplay of community aspects, institutional backgrounds, and the teaching materials.

In summary, all three papers provide evidence that focusing on one category of the framework (resources, professional development, or involving the context) is not sufficient and that it is necessary to also provide resources and take into account the context.

3.2 Implementation

In two other papers, the primary focus is on attending to the context of implementation (category III):

In their paper “Educational policy to improve mathematics instruction at scale: Conceptualizing contextual factors turns”, Ryve and Hemmi draw on data collected during a large-scale project carried out during 2012–2017. They analyze Swedish educational contexts and conceptualize contextual factors based on the approach of Cobb and Jackson ( 2012 ). In addition to acknowledging explicit contextual factors such as ongoing policies and practices, they analyze underlying, more implicit contextual factors of (1) the positioning of teachers within the educational system, (2) the positioning of teachers in the classroom, and (3) traditions of visible and invisible pedagogy. The authors examine how these three contextual factors influenced the participating teachers’ use of curriculum materials. Ryve and Hemmi make us aware that for large-scale implementation efforts to have a positive impact on mathematics teaching and learning, curriculum designers, mathematics teacher educators and researchers need to attend to these contextual factors, thereby emphasizing the relevance of the context as well as the value of cooperation between different stakeholders.

The paper by Krainer, Zehetmeier, Hanfstingl, Rauch, and Tscheinig, “Insights into scaling up a nationwide learning and teaching initiative on various levels”, reports a meta-study of a nationwide scaling-up initiative in Austria in which teachers were treated as autonomous professionals. The study uses diffusion of innovation theory and self-determination theory as lenses to explore scaling up processes at the teacher, school, regional, and the national levels. Krainer et al. aimed to identify both the factors that fostered effective scaling up and the challenges that arose in the course of their initiative. The study shows, among other things, that (a) resources are not only relevant for teachers (external support by teacher educators), but also for the researchers (lack of resources in teacher education and research, in particular in primary education); (b) professional development across levels of the system is important (teacher, schools, regional, and the national levels, and to some extent also the international level); (c) the value of balancing bottom-up and top-down approaches; and (d) the interplay between these levels is important, in particular an interconnection between individual and organizational learning that balances the interests of practice, educational policy, and teacher education and research.

From these two papers, we learn details about what it means to attend to the context of implementation by looking beyond curricula and assessments by, for example, attending to the positioning of teachers within the educational systems and the classroom. Krainer et al. demonstrate the importance of attending to multiple levels of the education system (from the classroom to the system level) and of ensuring that the improvement initiative is coordinated across the various levels.

3.3 Cooperation and communication

Cooperation is the main focus of the paper by Potari, Psycharis, Sakonidis, and Zachariades “Collaborative design of a reform-oriented mathematics curriculum: contradictions and boundaries across teaching, research and policy”. The paper uses Activity Theory to analyze the process of designing a national mathematics curriculum and employs the constructs of boundary crossing and boundary object to study the interaction of three activity systems: mathematics teaching, mathematics education research, and educational policy. The focus is on the collaboration of members of the design team from each of these areas and highlights (a) the contradictions that emerged during interactions between members of the design team and how these contradictions were related to the elements of the three activity systems and (b) how the team members dealt with these contradictions between the three activity systems. The study contributes to our understanding of the process of mathematics curriculum development and of the conditions that may support or hinder the development of mathematics teaching that involves facilitating students’ mathematical understanding. In terms of the collaboration between educational policy, research, and teaching, the study illustrates that there are likely to be tensions and that the process of resolving them involves both dialogic negotiation among the participants and the contributions of brokers who move between policy, research, and teaching.

The paper by Drijvers, Kodde-Buitenhuis, and Doorman, “Assessing mathematical thinking as part of curriculum reform in the Netherlands”, focuses on the category of resources , more specifically assessment resources. Assessment is a crucial factor in the implementation of curriculum reform initiatives. However, we have much to learn about how curriculum changes can be reflected adequately in assessment, particularly if the reform concerns process skills. Drijvers et al. investigated this issue in the case of assessing mathematical thinking in a mathematics curriculum reform effort for 15–18-year-old students in the Netherlands. These reform curricula were field tested in pilot schools for 6 years (2011–2017) while other schools used their regular curricula. The research question addressed was whether and how this reform was reflected in national examination papers, and in student performance on the corresponding assignments. The primary contribution of the paper is its analysis of the relations between national curricula, assessments, and students’ mathematical thinking. It indicates the impact of top-down educational innovations on assessment resources and day-to-day teaching and learning.

The category of communication is apparent in many of the papers. Prediger et al. provide insight into the value of collaboration between teachers in their community-based work and also illustrate the importance of cooperation and communication with school principals and school district leaders. For their part, Clark-Wilson and Hoyles highlight the importance of communicating with school leadership and departmental colleagues, as well as with teachers in order to recruit additional teachers to participate in the project. Ryve and Hemmi refer to the necessity to communicate with policymakers, municipality leaders, principals, and teachers, and Krainer et al. emphasize that communication needs to target different stakeholders and should be tailored to their different interests and needs. For their part, Potari et al. illustrate the types of contradictions that can emerge when educational policymakers, teachers, and mathematics education researchers collaborate, and the importance of boundary crossings in resolving these contradictions.

Overall, this special issue provides valuable insights into important aspects of the process of scaling-up innovative teaching approaches. School and system level context emerges as an important factor that needs to be considered when attempting to scale up teaching approaches. For example, the contextual factors are crucial in the way that professional development works in Sweden, in the process of developing the new national curriculum in Greece, in the PD activities and resources in the US and in the UK, in the links between assessment procedures and curriculum resources in the Netherlands, and in scaling up processes in Austria and Germany. Collaboration and communication between stakeholders appear to be important in addressing contextual factors as well as in making the innovative teaching approaches relevant to classroom teachers. Although a range of different resources is described in the studies reported in this special issue, taken together, the findings indicate that the transformation of resources from the design to the actual implementation in professional development and in the classroom is a complex process. The findings also indicate that context is an important factor that influences the effectiveness of professional development initiatives. Finally, the studies illustrate that research questions salient to large-scale implementation efforts are of a more systemic character and require complex methodological approaches to address them adequately.

In considering the relevance of the studies of this special issue to different stakeholders, we note that the findings may make policymakers coming to appreciate the way that research, resources, professional development, communication, and collaboration are interrelated. In addition, the studies in this special issue challenge researchers to make the improvement of teaching and learning at scale an explicit focus of investigation and to develop theoretical and analytical frameworks that will enable them to investigate the complex, multi-level processes involved. The studies also illustrate how this challenge might begin to be addressed, in the process-making research more relevant to practitioners.

Adler, J., Ball, D., Krainer, K., Lin, F. L., & Novotna, J. (2005). Reflections on an emerging field: Researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 61 (3), 359–381.

Google Scholar  

Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions (2nd ed.). London, New York: Routledge.

Andrews, P. (2013). Comparative studies of mathematics teaching: Does the means of analysis determine the outcome? ZDM Mathematics Education , 45 , 133–144.

Ball, D. L., & Even, R. (2009). Strengthening practice in and research on the professional education. In R. Even & D. Loewenberg Ball (Eds.), The professional education and development of teachers of mathematics – the 15th ICMI Study (pp. 255–260). New York, NY: Springer.

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education , 59 , 389–407.

Begg, A., Davis, B., & Bramald, R. (2003). Obstacles to the dissemination of mathematics education research. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 593–634). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Boaler, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between research and practice: International examples of success. In M. Menghini, F. Furinghetti, L. Giarcardi, & F. Arzarella (Eds.), The first century of the international commission on mathematics instruction (1908–2008): Reflecting and shaping the world of mathematics education . Instituto della Enciclopedia Italiana foundata da Giovanni Treccani: Rome, Italy.

Burkhardt, H. (2018). Towards research-based education . Retrieved from https://www.mathshell.com/papers/pdf/hb_2018_research_based_education.pdf .

Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Towards a more useful influential and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher , 32 (9), 3–14.

Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2012). Analyzing educational policies: A learning design perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21 (4), 487–521.

Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2015). Supporting teachers’ use of research-based instructional sequences. ZDM Mathematics Education , 47 , 1027–1038.

Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Henrick, E., & Smith, T. M. (2018). Putting the pieces together. In P. Cobb, K. Jackson, E. Henrick, T. M. Smith, & the MIST Team (Eds.), Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district central office (pp. 221–240). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2008). District development as a means of improving mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education: Vol. 3. Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities and networks (pp. 231–254). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.

Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Gell, K. E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: Strategies for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts . New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.

Dalton, J. H., Elias, M. J., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Community psychology: Linking individuals and communities . Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.

Dunlap, C. J. (2016). Examining how school settings support teachers’ improvement of their classroom instruction. (Doctoral dissertation), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership . Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

European Commission. (2014). Communicating EU research and innovation guidance for project participants . http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/gm/h2020-guide-comm_en.pdf. Accessed April 2019 .

European IPR Helpdesk. (2015). The Plan for the exploitation and dissemination of results in Horizon 2020 . https://www.iprhelpdesk.eu/sites/default/files/newsdocuments/Fact-Sheet-Plan-for-the-Exploitation-and-Dissemination-of-Results-H2020.pdf . Accessed April 2019.

Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change , 7 , 113–122.

Gräsel, C., Fußangel, K., & Pröbstel, C. (2006). Lehrkräfte zur Kooperation anregen – eine Aufgabe für Sisyphos? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik , 52 (2), 205–219.

Grigutsch, S., Raatz, U., & Törner, G. (1998). Einstellung gegenüber Mathematik bei Mathematiklehrern. JMD , 19 (1), 3–45.

Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, C., Beernaert, Y., Constantinou, C., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R., & Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_science_education/KI-NA-26-893-EN-N.pdf on 09 September 2015.

Henrick, E. C., Appelgate, M., & Nazemi, M. (2018). Instructional materials as tools for instructional improvement. In P. Cobb, K. Jackson, E. Henrick, T. Smith, & the MIST team (Eds.), Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district central office (pp. 149–158). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Henrick, E. C., Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2015). Educational design to support dystem-wide instructional improvement. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. H. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education. examples of methodology and methods (pp. 497–530). (Springer Series: Advances in Mathematics Education)). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Henrick, E. C., Cobb, P., Penuel, W., Jackson, K., & Clark, T. (2017). Assessing research-practice partnerships: Five dimensions of effectiveness . New York, NY: W. T. Grant Foundation.

Horn, I. S., Kane, B. D., & Garner, B. (2018). Teacher collaborative time: Helping teachers make sense of ambitious teaching in the context of their schools. In P. Cobb, K. Jackson, E. Henrick, T. M. Smith, & the MIST Team (Eds.), Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district central office (pp. 93–112). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Jackson, K., Cobb, P., Wilson, J., Webster, M., Dunlap, C., & Appelgate, M. (2015). Investigating the development of mathematics leaders' capacity to support teachers' learning on a large scale. ZDM , 47 , 93–104.

Jackson, K., Wilhem, A. G., & Munter, C. (2018). Specifying goals for students’ mathematical learning and the development of teachers’ knowledge, perspective, and practices. In P. Cobb, K. Jackson, E. Henrick, T. M. Smith, & the MIST Team (Eds.), Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district central office (pp. 43–64). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Krainer, K. (2011). Teachers as stakeholders in mathematics education research. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (vol. 1, pp. 47–62). Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University.

Krainer, K. (2015). Reflections on the increasing relevance of large-scale professional development. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education , 47 (1), 143–151.

Krainer, K., Chapman, O., & Zaslavsky, O. (2014). Mathematics teacher educator as learner. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 431–434). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York & London: Springer Online: http://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8

Krainer, K., Rauch, F., & Senger, H. (2017). The IMST project: Reflections on a nation-wide initiative fostering educational innovation. In B. Hanfstingl & P. Ramalingam (Eds.), Educational action research. Austrian model to India (pp. 16–34). I.K. International Publishing House Pvt. Ltd..

Krainer, K., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2008). International handbook of mathematics teacher education , Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities and networks (vol. 3). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Krainer, K., & Zehetmeier, S. (2013). Inquiry-based learning for students, teachers, researchers, and representatives of educational administration and policy: Reflections on a nation-wide initiative fostering educational innovations. ZDM Mathematics Education , 45 (6), 875–886.

Lipowsky, F., & Rzejak, D. (2012). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer als Lerner – Wann gelingt der Rollentausch? Merkmale und Wirkungen wirksamer Lehrerfortbildungen. Schulpädagogik heute , 3 (5), 1–17.

Maass, K. (2009). What are teachers’ beliefs about effective mathematics teaching? In J. Cai, G. Kaiser, B. Perry, & N.-Y. Wong (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching from teachers’ perspectives: National and cross-national studies (pp. 141–162). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Maass, K. (2011). How can teachers’ beliefs affect their professional development? ZDM Mathematics Education, 43 (4), 573–586.

Maass, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: A synthesis. ZDM Mathematics Education , 45 (6), 779–795.

Maass, K., Doorman, M., Jonker, V., & Wijers, M. (2019). Promoting active citizenship in mathematics teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education , 51 (7), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01048-6

Article   Google Scholar  

Maass, K., Swan, M., & Aldorf, A. (2017). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based learning after a professional development course – An International Study. Journal of Education and Training Studies , 5 (9), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i9.2556

Maass, K., Wernisch, D., & Schäfer, E. (2015). Conference outcomes and conclusions. In K. Maass, G. Törner, D. Wernisch, E. Schäfer, & K. Reitz-Koncebovski (Eds.), Educating the educators: International approaches to scaling up professional development in mathematics and science education . Verlag für wissenschaftliche Texte und Medien: Münster, Germany.

Matos, J. F., Powell, A., & Sztajn, P. (2009). Mathematics teachers' professional development: Processes of learning in and from practice. In R. Even & D. Loewenberg Ball (Eds.), The professional education and development of teachers of mathematics (pp. 167–184). New York, NY: Springer.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 9 , 171–178.

Mischo, C., & Maass, K. (2013). The effect of teacher beliefs on student competence in mathematical modeling – An intervention study. Journal of Education and Training Studies , 1 (1), 19–38.

Nastasi, B. K., Varjas, K., Schensul, S. L., Silva, K. T., Schensul, J. J., & Ratnayake, P. (1998). The participatory intervention model: A framework for conceptualizing and promoting intervention acceptability. School Psychology Quarterly , 15 (2), 207–232.

Ponte, J., Matos, J., Guimaraes, H., Leal, L., & Canavarro, A. (1994). Teachers’ and students’ views and attitudes towards a new mathematics curriculum: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 26 (4), 347–365.

Prediger, S., Rösken-Winter, B., & Leuders, T. (2019). Which research can support PD facilitators? Strategies for content-related PD research in the Three-Tetrahedron Model. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education , 22 , 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09434-3

Robert, A. (2009). Learning in and from practice: Comments and reflections. In R. Even & D. Loewenberg Ball (Eds.), The professional education and development of teachers of mathematics (pp. 227–230). New York, NY: Springer.

Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe . Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

Rösken-Winter, B., Hoyles, C., & Blömeke, S. (2015). Evidence based CPD: Scaling up sustainable interventions. ZMD Mathematics Education , 47 (1), 1–12.

Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & LeSage, A. (2003). A survey measuring elementary teachers’ implementation of standards-based mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 34 (4), 344–363.

Schoen, H., Cegulla, K., Finn, K., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 34 (3), 228–259.

Skott, J. (2013). Understanding the role of the teacher in emerging classroom practices: Searching for patterns of participation. ZDM Mathematics Education , 45 , 547–599.

Spieß, E. (2004). Kooperation und Konflikt. In H. Schuler (Ed.), Organisationspsychologie – Gruppe und Organisation (pp. 193–250). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Stein, M., Smith, M., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Swan, M. (2005). Improving Learning in Mathematics: Challenges and Strategies . Sheffield, UK: Teaching and Learning Division, Department for Education and Skills Standards Unit.

Swan, M. (2007). The impact of task-based professional development on teachers' practices and beliefs: A design research study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education , 10 (4-6), 217–237.

Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 39 , 247–280.

Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. O. (2003). Challenging and changing mathematics teaching practises. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 643–688). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tseng, V., & Nutley, S. (2014). Building the infrastructure to improve the use and usefulness of research in education. In K. Finnigan & A. Daly (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. Policy implications of research in education (pp. 163–175). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Valero, P. (2010). Mathematics education as a network of social practices. In V. Durand-Guerrier et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. LIV–LXXX). Lyon, France: Institut National de Récherche Pédagogique.

Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K. P. E., McKeeney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introducing educational design. In J. V. D. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. M. Keeney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). Routledge Chapman & Hall: Oxford, UK.

Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureauctrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review , 47 , 171–197.

Wilson, M., & Cooney, T. J. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development. The role of beliefs. In G. C. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 127–148). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Education Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Katja Maass

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

Alpen-Adria University, Klagenfurth, Austria

Konrad Krainer

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Despina Potari

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katja Maass .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Maass, K., Cobb, P., Krainer, K. et al. Different ways to implement innovative teaching approaches at scale. Educ Stud Math 102 , 303–318 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09920-8

Download citation

Published : 21 November 2019

Issue Date : November 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09920-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, innovative pedagogies of the future: an evidence-based selection.

• Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

There is a widespread notion that educational systems should empower learners with skills and competences to cope with a constantly changing landscape. Reference is often made to skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaborative skills, innovation, digital literacy, and adaptability. What is negotiable is how best to achieve the development of those skills, in particular which teaching and learning approaches are suitable for facilitating or enabling complex skills development. In this paper, we build on our previous work of exploring new forms of pedagogy for an interactive world, as documented in our Innovating Pedagogy report series. We present a set of innovative pedagogical approaches that have the potential to guide teaching and transform learning. An integrated framework has been developed to select pedagogies for inclusion in this paper, consisting of the following five dimensions: (a) relevance to effective educational theories, (b) research evidence about the effectiveness of the proposed pedagogies, (c) relation to the development of twenty-first century skills, (d) innovative aspects of pedagogy, and (e) level of adoption in educational practice. The selected pedagogies, namely formative analytics, teachback, place-based learning, learning with drones, learning with robots, and citizen inquiry are either attached to specific technological developments, or they have emerged due to an advanced understanding of the science of learning. Each one is presented in terms of the five dimensions of the framework.

Introduction

In its vision for the future of education in 2030, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD, 2018 ) views essential learner qualities as the acquisition of skills to embrace complex challenges and the development of the person as a whole, valuing common prosperity, sustainability and wellbeing. Wellbeing is perceived as “inclusive growth” related to equitable access to “ quality of life, including health, civic engagement, social connections, education, security, life satisfaction and the environment” (p. 4). To achieve this vision, a varied set of skills and competences is needed, that would allow learners to act as “change agents” who can achieve positive impact on their surroundings by developing empathy and anticipating the consequences of their actions.

Several frameworks have been produced over the years detailing specific skills and competences for the citizens of the future (e.g., Trilling and Fadel, 2009 ; OECD, 2015 , 2018 ; Council of the European Union, 2018 ). These frameworks refer to skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, team work, communication and negotiation skills; and competences related to literacy, multilingualism, STEM, digital, personal, social, and “learning to learn” competences, citizenship, entrepreneurship, and cultural awareness ( Trilling and Fadel, 2009 ; Council of the European Union, 2018 ). In a similar line of thinking, in the OECD Learning Framework 2030 ( OECD, 2018 ) cognitive, health and socio-emotional foundations are stressed, including literacy, numeracy, digital literacy and data numeracy, physical and mental health, morals, and ethics.

The question we are asked to answer is whether the education vision of the future, or the development of the skills needed to cope with an ever-changing society, has been met, or can be met. The short answer is not yet. For example, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has been ranking educational systems based on 15-year-old students' performance on tests about reading, mathematics and science every 3 years in more than 90 countries. In the latest published report ( OECD, 2015 ), Japan, Estonia, Finland, and Canada are the four highest performing OECD countries in science. This means that students from these countries on average can “ creatively and autonomously apply their knowledge and skills to a wide variety of situations, including unfamiliar ones” ( OECD, 2016a , p.2). Yet about 20% of students across participating countries are shown to perform below the baseline in science and proficiency in reading ( OECD, 2016b ). Those most at risk are socio-economically disadvantaged students, who are almost three times more likely than their peers not to meet the given baselines. These outcomes are quite alarming; they stress the need for evidence-based, effective, and innovative teaching and learning approaches that can result in not only improved learning outcomes but also greater student wellbeing. Overall, an increasing focus on memorization and testing has been observed in education, including early years, that leaves no space for active exploration and playful learning ( Mitchell, 2018 ), and threatens the wellbeing and socioemotional growth of learners. There is an increased evidence-base that shows that although teachers would like to implement more active, innovative forms of education to meet the diverse learning needs of their students, due to a myriad of constraints teachers often resort to more traditional, conservative approaches to teaching and learning ( Ebert-May et al., 2011 ; Herodotou et al., 2019 ).

In this paper, we propose that the distance between educational vision and current teaching practice can be bridged through the adoption and use of appropriate pedagogy that has been tested and proven to contribute to the development of the person as a whole. Evidence of impact becomes a central component of the teaching practice; what works and for whom in terms of learning and development can provide guidelines to teaching practitioners as to how to modify or update their teaching in order to achieve desirable learning outcomes. Educational institutions may have already adopted innovations in educational technology equipment (such as mobile devices), yet this change has not necessarily been accompanied by respective changes in the practice of teaching and learning. Enduring transformations can be brought about through “pedagogy,” that is improvements in “the theory and practice of teaching, learning, and assessment” and not the mere introduction of technology in classrooms ( Sharples, 2019 ). PISA analysis of the impact of Information Communication Technology (ICT) on reading, mathematics, and science in countries heavily invested in educational technology showed mixed effects and “no appreciable improvements” ( OECD, 2015 , p.3).

The aim of this study is to review and present a set of innovative, evidence-based pedagogical approaches that have the potential to guide teaching practitioners and transform learning processes and outcomes. The selected pedagogies draw from the successful Innovating Pedagogy report series ( https://iet.open.ac.uk/innovating-pedagogy ), produced by The Open University UK (OU) in collaboration with other centers of research in teaching and learning, that explore innovative forms of teaching, learning and assessment. Since 2012, the OU has produced seven Innovating Pedagogy reports with SRI international (USA), National Institute of Education (Singapore), Learning In a NetworKed Society (Israel), and the Center for the Science of Learning & Technology (Norway). For each report, teams of researchers shared ideas, proposed innovations, read research papers and blogs, and commented on each other's draft contributions in an organic manner ( Sharples et al., 2012 , 2013 , 2014 , 2015 , 2016 ; Ferguson et al., 2017 , 2019 ). Starting from an initial list of potential promising educational innovations that may already be in currency but not yet reached a critical mass of influence on education, these lists were critically and collaboratively examined, and reduced to 9–11 main topics identified as having the potential to provoke major shifts in educational practice.

After seven years of gathering a total of 70 innovative pedagogies, in this paper seven academics from the OU, authors of the various Innovating Pedagogy reports, critically reflected on which of these approaches have the strongest evidence and/or potential to transform learning processes and outcomes to meet the future educational skills and competences described by OECD and others. Based upon five criteria and extensive discussions, we selected six approaches that we believe have the most evidence and/or potential for future education:

• Formative analytics,

• Teachback,

• Place-based learning,

• Learning with robots,

• Learning with drones,

• Citizen inquiry.

Formative analytics is defined as “supporting the learner to reflect on what is learned, what can be improved, which goals can be achieved, and how to move forward” ( Sharples et al., 2016 , p.32). Teachback is a means for two or more people to demonstrate that they are progressing toward a shared understanding of a complex topic. Place-based learning derives learning opportunities from local community settings, which help students connect abstract concepts from the classroom and textbooks with practical challenges encountered in their own localities. Learning with robots could help teachers to free up time on simple, repetitive tasks, and provide scaffolding to learners. Learning with drones is being used to support fieldwork by enhancing students' capability to explore outdoor physical environments. Finally, citizen inquiry describes ways that members of the public can learn by initiating or joining shared inquiry-led scientific investigations.

Devising a Framework for Selection: The Role of Evidence

Building on previous work ( Puttick and Ludlow, 2012 ; Ferguson and Clow, 2017 ; Herodotou et al., 2017a ; John and McNeal, 2017 ; Batty et al., 2019 ), we propose an integrated framework for how to select pedagogies. The framework resulted from ongoing discussions amongst the seven authors of this paper as to how educational practitioners should identify and use certain ways of teaching and learning, while avoiding others. The five components of the model are presented below:

• Relevance to effective educational theories: the first criterion refers to whether the proposed pedagogy relates to specific educational theories that have shown to be effective in terms of improving learning.

• Research evidence about the effectiveness of the proposed pedagogies: the second criterion refers to actual studies testing the proposed pedagogy and their outcomes.

• Relation to the development of twenty-first century skills: the third criterion refers to whether the pedagogy can contribute to the development of the twenty-first century skills or the education vision of 2030 (as described in the introduction section).

• Innovative aspects of pedagogy: the fourth criterion details what is innovative or new in relation to the proposed pedagogy.

• Level of adoption in educational practice: the last criterion brings in evidence about the current level of adoption in education, in an effort to identify gaps in our knowledge and propose future directions of research.

A major component of the proposed framework is effectiveness , or the generation of evidence of impact . The definition of what constitutes evidence varies ( Ferguson and Clow, 2017 ; Batty et al., 2019 ), and this often relates to the quality or strength of evidence presented. The Strength of Evidence pyramid by John and McNeal (2017) (see Figure 1 ) categorizes different types of evidence based on their strength, ranging from expert opinions as the least strong type of evidence to meta-analysis or synthesis as the strongest or most reliable form of evidence. While the bottom of the pyramid refers to “practitioners' wisdom about teaching and learning,” the next two levels refer to peer-reviewed and published primary sources of evidence, both qualitative and quantitative. They are mostly case-studies, based on either the example of a single institution, or a cross-institutional analysis involving multiple courses or institutions. The top two levels involve careful consideration of existing resources of evidence and inclusion in a synthesis or meta-analysis. For example, variations of this pyramid in medical studies present Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) at the second top level of the pyramid, indicating the value of this approach for gaining less biased quality evidence.

Figure 1 . The strength of evidence pyramid ( John and McNeal, 2017 ).

Another approach proposed by the innovation foundation Nesta presents evidence on a scale of 1 to 5, showcasing the level of confidence with the impact of an intervention ( Puttick and Ludlow, 2012 ). Level 1 studies describe logically, coherently and convincingly what has been done and why it matters, while level 5 studies produce manuals ensuring consistent replication of a study. The evidence becomes stronger when studies prove causality (e.g., through experimental approaches) and can be replicated successfully. While these frameworks are useful for assessing the quality or strength of evidence, they do not make any reference to how the purpose of a study can define which type of evidence to collect. Different types of evidence could effectively address different purposes; depending on the objective of a given study a different type of evidence could be used ( Batty et al., 2019 ). For example, the UK government-funded research work by the Educational Endowment Foundation (EEF) is using RCTs, instead of for example expert opinions, as the purpose of their studies is to capture the impact of certain interventions nationally across schools in the UK.

Education, as opposed to other disciplines such as medicine and agriculture, has been less concerned with evaluating different pedagogical approaches and determining their impact on learning outcomes. The argument often made is the difficulty in evaluating learning processes, especially through experimental methodologies, due to variability in teaching conditions across classrooms and between different practitioners, that may inhibit any comparisons and valid conclusions. In particular, RCTs have been sparse and often criticized as not explaining any impact (or absence of impact) on learning, a limitation that could be overcome by combining RCT outcomes with qualitative methodologies ( Herodotou et al., 2017a ). Mixed-methods evaluations could identify how faithfully an intervention is applied to different learning contexts or for example, the degree to which teachers have been engaged with it. An alternative approach is Design-Based Research (DBR); this is a form of action-based research where a problem in the educational process is identified, solutions informed by existing literature are proposed, and iterative cycles of testing and refinement take place in order to identify what works in practice in order to improve the solution. DBR often results in guidelines or theory development (e.g., Anderson and Shattuck, 2012 ).

An evidence-based mindset in education has been recently popularized through the EEF. Their development of the teaching and learning toolkit provides an overview of existing evidence about certain approaches to improving teaching and learning, summarized in terms of impact on attainment, cost and the supporting strength of evidence. Amongst the most effective teaching approaches are the provision of feedback, development of metacognition and self-regulation, homework for secondary students, and mastery learning ( https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk ). Similarly, the National Center for Education and Evaluation (NCEE) in the US conducts large-scale evaluations of education programs with funds from the government. Amongst the interventions with the highest effectiveness ratings are phonological awareness training, reading recovery, and dialogic reading ( https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ ).

The importance of evidence generation is also evident in the explicit focus of Higher Education institutions in understanding and increasing educational effectiveness as a means to: tackle inequalities and promote educational justice (see Durham University Evidence Center for Education; DECE), provide high quality education for independent and lifelong learners (Learning and Teaching strategy, Imperial College London), develop criticality and deepen learning (London Center for Leadership in Learning, UCL Institute of Education), and improve student retention and performance in online and distance settings [Institute of Educational Technology (IET) OU].

The generation of evidence can help identify or debunk possible myths in education and distinguish between practitioners' beliefs about what works in their practice as opposed to research evidence emerging from systematically assessing a specific teaching approach. A characteristic example is the “Learning Styles” myth and the assumption that teachers should identify and accommodate each learner's special way of learning such as visual, auditory and kinesthetic. While there is no consistent evidence that considering learning styles can improve learning outcomes (e.g., Rohrer and Pashler, 2010 ; Kirschner and van Merriënboer, 2013 ; Newton and Miah, 2017 ), many teachers believe in learning styles and make efforts in organizing their teaching around them ( Newton and Miah, 2017 ). In the same study, one third of participants stated that they would continue to use learning styles in their practice despite being presented with negative evidence. This suggests that we are rather in the early days of transforming the practice of education and in particular, developing a shared evidence-based mindset across researchers and practitioners.

In order to critically review the 70 innovative pedagogies from the seven Innovating Pedagogy reports, over a period of 2 months the seven authors critically evaluated academic and gray literature that was published after the respective reports were launched. In line with the five criteria defined above, each author contributed in a dynamic Google sheet what evidence was available for promising approaches. Based upon the initial list of 70, a short-list of 10 approaches was pre-selected. These were further fine-tuned to the final six approaches identified for this study based upon the emerging evidence of impact available as well as potential opportunity for future educational innovation. The emerging evidence and impact of the six approaches were peer-reviewed by the authoring team after contributions had been anonymized, and the lead author assigned the final categorizations.

In the next section, we present each of the proposed pedagogies in relation to how they meet the framework criteria, in an effort to understand what we know about their effectiveness, what evidence exist showcasing impact on learning, how each pedagogy accommodates the vision of the twenty-first century skills development, innovation aspects and current levels of adoption in educational practice.

Selected Pedagogies

Formative analytics, relevance to effective educational theories.

As indicated by the Innovating Pedagogy 2016 report ( Sharples et al., 2016 , p.32), “formative analytics are focused on supporting the learner to reflect on what is learned, what can be improved, which goals can be achieved, and how to move forward.” In contrast to most analytics approaches that focus on analytics of learning, formative analytics aims to support analytics for learning, for a learner to reach his or her goals through “smart” analytics, such as visualizations of potential learning paths or personalized feedback. For example, these formative analytics might help learners to effectively self-regulate their learning. Zimmerman (2000) defined self-regulation as “self-generated thoughts, feelings and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal learning goals.” Students have a range of choices and options when they are learning in blended or online environments as to when, what, how, and with whom to study, with minimal guidance from teachers. Therefore, “appropriate” Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) strategies are needed for achieving individual learning goals ( Hadwin et al., 2011 ; Trevors et al., 2016 ).

With the arrival of fine-grained log-data and the emergence of learning analytics there are potentially more, and perhaps new, opportunities to map how to support students with different SRL ( Winne, 2017 ). With trace data on students' affect (e.g., emotional expression in text, self-reported dispositions), behavior (e.g., engagement, time on task, clicks), and cognition (e.g., how to work through a task, mastery of task, problem-solving techniques), researchers and teachers are able to potentially test and critically examine pedagogical theories like SRL theories on a micro as well as macro-level ( Panadero et al., 2016 ; D'Mello et al., 2017 ).

Research Evidence About the Effectiveness of the Proposed Pedagogies

There is an emergence of literature that uses formative analytics to support SRL and to understand how students are setting goals and solve computer-based tasks ( Azevedo et al., 2013 ; Winne, 2017 ). For example, using the software tool nStudy ( Winne, 2017 ) recently showed that trace data from students in forms of notes, bookmarks, or quotes can be used to understand the cycles of self-regulation. In a study of 285 students learning French in a business context, using log-file data ( Gelan et al., 2018 ) found that engaged and self-regulated students outperformed students who were “behind” in their study. In an introductory mathematics course amongst 922 students, Tempelaar et al. (2015) showed that a combination of self-reported learning dispositions from students in conjunction with log-data of actual engagement in mathematics tasks provide effective formative analytics feedback to students. Recently, Fincham et al. (2018) found that formative analytics could actively encourage 1,138 engineering learners to critically reflect upon one of their eight adopted learning strategies, and where needed adjust it.

Relation to the Development of Twenty-First Century Skills

Beyond providing markers for formative feedback on cognitive skills (e.g., mastery of mathematics, critical thinking), formative analytics tools have also been used for more twenty-first century affective (e.g., anxiety, self-efficacy) and behavioral (e.g., group working) skills. For example, a group widget developed by Scheffel et al. (2017) showed that group members were more aware of their online peers and their contributions. Similarly, providing automatic computer-based assessment feedback on mastery of mathematics exercises but also providing different options to work-out the next task allowed students with math anxiety to develop more self-efficacy over time when they actively engaged with formative analytics ( Tempelaar et al., 2018 ). Although implementing automated formative analytics is relatively easier with structured cognitive tasks (e.g., multiple choice questions, calculations), there is an emerging body of research that focuses on using more complex and unstructured data, such as text as well as emotion data ( Azevedo et al., 2013 ; Panadero et al., 2016 ; Trevors et al., 2016 ), that can effectively provide formative analytics beyond cognition.

Innovative Aspects of Pedagogy

By using fine-grained data and reporting this directly back to students in the form of feedback or dashboards, the educational practice is substantially influenced, and subsequently innovated. In particular, instead of waiting for feedback from a teacher at the end of an assessment task, students can receive formative analytics on demand (when they want to), or ask for the formative analytics that link to their own self-regulation strategies. This is a radical departure from more traditional pedagogies that either place the teacher at the center, or expect students to be fully responsible for their SRL.

Level of Adoption in Educational Practice

Beyond the widespread practice of formative analytics in computer-based assessment ( Scherer et al., 2017 ), there is an emerging field of practice whereby institutions are providing analytics dashboards directly to students. For example, in a recent review on the use of learning analytics dashboards, Bodily et al. (2018) conclude that many dashboards use principles and conceptualizations of SRL, which could be used to support teachers and students, assuming they have the capability to use these tools. However, substantial challenges remain as to how to effectively provide these formative analytics to teachers ( Herodotou et al., 2019 ) and students ( Scherer et al., 2017 ; Tempelaar et al., 2018 ), and how to make sure positive SRL strategies nested within students are encouraged and not hampered by overly prescriptive and simplistic formative analytics solutions.

The method of Teachback, and the name, were originally devised by the educational technologist Gordon Pask (1976) , as a means for two or more people to demonstrate that they are progressing toward a shared understanding of a complex topic. It starts with an expert, teacher, or more knowledgeable student explaining their knowledge of a topic to another person who has less understanding. Next, the less knowledgeable student attempts to teach back what they have learned to the more knowledgeable person. If that is successful, the one with more knowledge might then explain the topic in more detail. If the less knowledgeable person has difficulty in teaching back, the person with more expertise tries to explain in a clearer or different way. The less knowledgeable person teaches it again until they both agree.

A classroom teachback session could consist of pairs of students taking turns to teach back to each other a series of topics set by the teacher. For example, a science class might be learning the topic of “eclipses.” The teacher splits the class into pairs and asks one student in each pair to explain to the other what they know about “eclipse of the sun.” Next, the class receives instruction about eclipses from the teacher, or a video explanation. Then, the second student in the pair teaches back what they have just learned. The first student asks questions to clarify such as, “What do you mean by that?” If either student is unsure, or the two disagree, then they can ask the teacher. The students may also jointly write a short explanation, or draw a diagram of the eclipse, to explain what they have learned.

The method is based on the educational theory of “radical constructivism” (e.g., von Glaserfeld, 1987 ) which sees knowledge as an adaptive process, allowing people to cope in the world of experience by building consensus through mutually understood language. It is a cybernetic theory, not a cognitive one, in which structured conversation and feedback among individuals create a system that “comes to know” by creating areas of mutual understanding.

Some doctors and healthcare professionals have adopted teachback in their conversations with patients to make sure they understand instructions on how to take medication and manage their care. In a study by Negarandeh et al. (2013) with 43 diabetic patients, a nurse conducted one 20-min teachback session for each patient, each week over 3 weeks. A control group ( N = 40) spent similar times with the nurse, but received standard consultations. The nurse asked questions such as “When you get home, your partner will ask you what the nurse said. What will you tell them?” Six weeks after the last session, those patients who learned through teachback knew significantly more about how to care for their diabetes than the control group patients. Indeed, a systematic review study of 12 published articles covering teachback for patients showed positive outcomes on a variety of measures, though not all were statistically significant ( Ha Dinh et al., 2016 ).

Teachback has strong relevance in a world of social and conversational media, with “fake news” competing for attention alongside verified facts and robust knowledge. How can a student “come to know” a new topic, especially one that is controversial. Teachback can be a means to develop the skills of questioning knowledge, seeking understanding, and striving for agreement.

The conversational partner in Teachback could be an online tutor or fellow student, or an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system that provides a “teachable agent”. With a teachable agent, the student attempts to teach a recently-learned topic to the computer and can see a dynamic map of the concepts that the computer agent has “learned” ( www.teachableagents.org/ ). The computer could then attempt to teachback the knowledge. Alternatively, AI techniques can enhance human teachback by offering support and resources for a productive conversation, for example to search for information or clarify the meaning of a term.

Rudman (2002) demonstrated a computer-based variation on teachback. In this study, one person learned the topic of herbal remedies from a book and became the teacher. A second person then attempted to learn about the same topic by holding a phone conversation with the more-knowledgeable teacher. The phone conversation between the two people was continually monitored by an AI program that detected keywords in the spoken dialogue. Whenever the AI program recognized a keyword or phrase in the conversation (such as the name of a medicinal herb, or its properties), it displayed useful information on the screen of the learner, but not the teacher. Giving helpful feedback to the learner balanced the conversation, so that both could hold a more constructive discussion.

The method has seen some adoption into medical practice ( https://bit.ly/2Xr9qY5 ). It has also been tested at small scale for science education ( Gutierrez, 2003 ). Reciprocal teaching has been adopted in some schools for teaching of reading comprehension ( Oczuks, 2003 ).

Placed-Based Learning

Place-based learning derives learning opportunities from local community settings. These help students to connect abstract concepts from the classroom and textbooks with practical challenges encountered in their own localities. “Place” can refer to learning about physical localities, but also the social and cultural layers embedded within neighborhoods; and engaging with communities and environments as well as observing them. It can be applied as much to arts and humanities focused learning as science-based learning. Place-based learning can encompass service learning, where students, and teachers solve local community problems, and through place-based learning acquire and learn a range of skills ( Sobel, 2004 ). Mobile and networked technologies have opened up new possibilities for constructing and sharing knowledge, and reaching out to different stakeholders. Learning can take place while mobile, enabling communication across students and teachers, and beyond the field site. The physical and social aspects of the environment can be enhanced or augmented by digital layers to enable a richer experience, and greater access to resources and expertise.

Place-based learning draws upon experiential models of learning (e.g., Kolb, 1984 ), where active engagement with a situation and resulting experiences are reflected upon to help conceptualize learning, which in turn may trigger further explorations or experimentation. It may be structured as problem-based learning. Unplanned or unintentional learning outcomes may occur as a result of engagements, so place-based learning also draws on incidental learning (e.g., Kerka, 2000 ). Place-based learning declares that a more “authentic” and meaningful learning experience can happen in relevant environments, aligning with situated cognition, that states that knowledge is situated within physical, social and cultural contexts ( Brown et al., 1989 ). Learning episodes are often encountered with and through other people, a form of socio-cultural learning (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978 ). Networked technologies can enhance what experiences may be possible, and through the connections that might be made, recently articulated as connectivism (e.g., Siemens, 2005 ; Ito et al., 2013 ).

Place-based learning draws on a range of pedagogies, and in part derives its authority from research into their efficacy (e.g., experiential learning, situated learning, problem-based learning). For example, in a study of 400 US high school students Ernst and Monroe (2004) found that environment-based teaching both significantly improved students' critical thinking skills, and also their disposition toward critical thinking. Research has shown that learning is very effective if carried out in “contexts familiar to students' everyday lives” ( Bretz, 2001 , p.1112). In another study, Linnemanstons and Jordan (2017) found that educators perceived students to display greater engagement and understanding of concepts when learning through experiential approaches in a specific place. Semken and Freeman (2008) trialed a method to test whether “sense of place” could be measured as learning outcome when students are taught through place-based science activities. Using a set of psychometric surveys tested on a cohort of 31 students, they “observed significant gains in student place attachment and place meaning” (p.1042). In an analysis of 23 studies exploring indigenous education in Canada, Madden (2015) showed that place-based education can play an effective role in decolonizing curriculum, fostering understandings of shared histories between indigenous and non-indigenous learners in Canada. Context-aware systems that are triggered by place can provide location relevant learning resources ( Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2015 ), enhancing the ecology of tools available for place-based learning. However, prompts to action from digital devices might also be seen as culturally inappropriate in informal, community based learning where educational activities and their deployment needs to be considered with sensitivity ( Gaved and Peasgood, 2017 ).

Critical thinking and problem solving are central to this experiential-based approach to learning. Contextually based, place-based learning requires creativity and innovation by participants to manage and respond to often unexpected circumstances with unexpected learning opportunities and outcomes likely to arise. As an often social form of learning, communication and collaboration are key skills developed, with a need to show sensitivity to local circumstances. An ability to learn the skills to manage social and cross-cultural interactivity will be central for a range of subject areas taught through place-based learning, such as language learning or human geography. Increasingly, place-based learning is enhanced or augmented by mobile and networked technologies, so digital literacy skills need to be acquired to take full advantage of the tools now available.

Place-based learning re-associates learning with local contexts, at a time when educators are under pressure to fit into national curricula and a globalized world. It seeks to re-establish students with a sense of place, and recognize the opportunities of learning in and from local community settings, using neighborhoods as the specific context for experiential and problem-based learning. It can provide a mechanism for decolonializing curriculum, recognizing that specific spaces can be understood to have different meanings to different groups of people, and allowing diverse voices to be represented. Digital and networked technologies extend the potential for group and individual learning, reaching out and sharing knowledge with a wider range of stakeholders, enabling flexibility in learning, and a greater scale of interactions. Networked tools enable access to global resources, and learning beyond the internet, with smartphones and tablets (increasingly owned by the learners themselves) as well as other digital tools linked together for gathering, analyzing and reflection on data and interactions. Context and location aware technologies can trigger learning resources on personal devices, and augment physical spaces: augmented reality tools can dynamically overlay data layers and context sensitive virtual information ( Klopfer and Squire, 2008 ; Wu et al., 2013 ).

Place-based learning could be said to pre-date formal classroom based learning in the traditional sense of work based learning (e.g., apprenticeships), or informal learning (e.g., informal language learning). Aspects of place-based learning have a long heritage, such as environmental education and learning though overcoming neighborhood challenge, with the focus on taking account of learning opportunities “beyond the schoolhouse gate” ( Theobald and Curtiss, 2000 ). Place-based learning aligns with current pedagogical interests in education that is “multidisciplinary, experiential, and aligned with cultural and ecological sustainability” ( Webber and Miller, 2016 , p.1067).

Learning With Robots

Learning through interaction and then reflecting upon the outcomes of these interactions prompted Papert (1980) to develop the Logo Turtles. It can be argued that these turtles were one of the first robots to be used in schools whose theoretical premises were grounded within a Constructivist approach to learning. Constructivism translates into a pedagogy where students actively engage in experimental endeavors often based within real–world problem solving undertakings. This was how the first turtles were used to assist children to understand basic mathematical concepts. Logo turtles have morphed into wheeled robots in current Japanese classrooms where 11- and 12-year olds learn how to program them and then compete in teams to create the code needed to guide their robots safely through an obstacle course. This latter approach encourages children to “Think and Learn Together with Information and Communication Technology” as discussed by Dawes and Wegerif (2004) . Vygotsky's theoretical influence is then foregrounded in this particular pedagogical context, where his sociocultural theory recognizes and emphasizes the role of language within any social interaction to prompt cognitive development.

The early work of Papert has been well documented but more recently Benitti (2012) reviewed the literature about the use of robotics in schools. The conclusions reached from this meta-analysis, where the purpose of each study was taken into account, together with the type of robot used and the demographics of the children who took party in the studies suggested that the use of robots in classrooms can enhance learning. This was found particularly with the practical teaching in STEM subjects, although some studies did not reveal improvements in learning. Further work by Ospennikova et al. (2015) showed how this technology can be applied to teaching physics in Russian secondary schools and supports the use of learning with robots in STEM subjects. Social robots for early language learning have been explored by Kanero et al. (2018) ; this has proved to be positive for story telling skills ( Westlund and Breazeal, 2015 ). Kim et al. (2013) have illustrated that social robots can assist with the production of more speech utterances for young children with ASD. However, none of the above studies illustrate that robots are more effective than human teachers, but this pedagogy is ripe for more research findings.

Teaching a robot to undertake a task through specific instructions mimics the way human teachers behave with pupils when they impart a rule set or heuristics to the pupils using a variety of rhetoric techniques in reaction to the learner's latest attempt at completing a given task. This modus operandi has been well documented by Jerome Bruner and colleagues and has been termed as “scaffolding” ( Wood et al., 1979 ). This latter example illustrates a growing recognition of the expanding communicative and expressive potential found through working with robots and encouraging teamwork and collaboration.

The robot can undertake a number of roles, with different levels of involvement in the learning task. Some of the examples mentioned above demonstrate the robot taking on a more passive role ( Mubin et al., 2013 ). This is when it can be used to teach programming, such as moving the robot on a physical route with many obstacles. Robots can also act as peers and learn together with the student or act as a teacher itself. The “interactive cat” (iCat) developed by Philips Research is an example of a robotic teacher helping language learning. It has a mechanical rendered cat face and can express emotion. This was an important feature with respect to social supportiveness, an important attribute belonging to human tutors. Research showed that social supportive behavior exhibited by the robot tutor had a positive effect on students' learning. The supportive behaviors exhibited by iCat tutor were non-verbal behavior, such as smiling, attention building, empathy, and communicativeness.

Interest in learning with robots in the classroom and beyond is growing but purchasing expensive equipment which will require technical support can prevent adoption. There are also ethical issues that need to be addressed since “conversations” with embodied robots that can support both learning and new forms of assessment must all sustain equity within an ethical framework. As yet these have not been agreed within the AI community.

Learning With Drones

Outdoor fieldwork is a long-standing student-centered pedagogy across a range of disciplines, which is increasingly supported by information technology ( Thomas and Munge, 2015 , 2017 ). Within this tradition, drone-based learning, a recent innovation, is being used to support fieldwork by enhancing students' capability to explore outdoor physical environments. When students engage in outdoor learning experiences, reflect on those experiences, conceptualize their learning and experiment with new actions, they are engaging in experiential learning ( Kolb, 1984 ). The combination of human senses with the multimedia capabilities of a drone (image and video capture) means that the learning experience can be rich and multimodal. Another key aspect is that learning takes place through research, scientific data collection and analysis; drones are typically used to assist with data collection from different perspectives and in places that can be difficult to access. In the sphere of informal and leisure learning in places such as nature reserves and cultural heritage sites ( Staiff, 2016 ), drone-based exploration is based on discovery and is a way to make the visitor experience more attractive.

There is not yet much research evidence on drone-based learning, but there are some case studies, teachers' accounts based on observations of their students, and pedagogically-informed suggestions for how drones may be applied to educational problems and the development of students' knowledge and practical skills. For example, a case study conducted in Malaysia with postgraduate students taking a MOOC ( Zakaria et al., 2018 ) was concerned with students working on a video creation task using drones, in the context of problem-based learning about local issues. The data analysis showed how active the students had been during a task which involved video shooting and editing/production. In the US, it was reported that a teacher introduced drones to a class of elementary students with autism in order to enhance their engagement and according to the teacher the results were “encouraging” since the students stayed on task better and were more involved with learning ( Joch, 2018 ). In the context of education in Australia, Sattar et al. (2017) give suggestions for using drones to develop many kinds of skills, competences and understanding in various disciplines, also emphasizing the learners' active engagement.

Sattar et al. (2017) argue that using drone technology will prepare and equip students with the technical skills and expertise which will be in demand in future, enhance their problem-solving skills and help them cope with future technical and professional requirements; students can be challenged to develop skills in problem-solving, analysis, creativity and critical thinking. Other ideas put forward in the literature suggest that drone-based learning can stimulate curiosity to see things that are hidden from view, give experience in learning through research and analyzing data, and it can help with visual literacies including collecting visual data and interpreting visual clues. Another observation is that drone-based learning can raise issues of privacy and ethics, stimulating discussion of how such technologies should be used responsibly when learning outside the classroom.

Drones enable learners to undertake previously impossible actions on field trips, such as looking inside inaccessible places or inspecting a landscape from several different perspectives. There is opportunity for rich exploration of physical objects and spaces. Drone-based learning can be a way to integrate skills and literacies, particularly orientation and motor skills with digital literacy. It is also a new way to integrate studies with real world experiences, showing students how professionals including land surveyors, news reporters, police officers and many others use drones in their work. Furthermore, it has been proposed as an assistive technology, enabling learners who are not mobile to gain remote access to sites they would not be able to visit ( Mangina et al., 2016 ).

Accounts of adoption into educational practice suggest that early adopters with an interest in technology have been the first to experiment with drones. There are more accounts of adoption in community settings, professional practice settings and informal learning than in formal education at present. For example, Hodgson et al. (2018) describe how ecologists use drones to monitor wildlife populations and changes in vegetation. Drones can be used to capture images of an area from different angles, enabling communities to collect evidence of environmental problems such as pollution and deforestation. They are used after earthquakes and hurricanes, to assess the damage caused by these disasters, to locate victims, to help deliver aid, and to enhance understanding of assistance needs ( Sandvik and Lohne, 2014 ). They also enable remote monitoring of illegal trade without having to confront criminals.

Citizen Inquiry

Citizen science is an increasingly popular activity that has the potential to support growth and development in learning science. Active participation by the public in scientific research encourages this. This is due to its potential to educate the public—including young people—and to support the development of skills needed for the workplace, and contribute to findings of real science research. An experience that allows people to become familiar with the work of scientists and learn to make their own science has potential for learning. Citizen science activities can take place online on platforms such as Zooniverse, which hosts some of the largest internet-based citizen science projects or nQuire ( nQuire.org.uk ), which scaffolds a wide range of inquiries, or can be offline in a local area (e.g., a bioblitz). In addition, mobile and networked technologies have opened up new possibilities for these investigations (see e.g., Curtis, 2018 ).

Most current citizen science initiatives engage the general public in some way. For example, they may be in the role of volunteers, often non-expert individuals, in projects generated by scientists such as species recognition and counting. In these types of collaboration the public contributes to data collection and analysis tasks such as observation and measurement. The key theory which underpins this work is that of inquiry learning. “ Inquiry-based learning is a powerful generalized method for coming to understand the natural and social world through a process of guided investigation ” ( Sharples et al., 2013 , p.38). It has been described as a powerful way to encourage learning by encouraging learners to use higher-order thinking skills during the conduct of inquiries and to make connections with their world knowledge.

Inquiry learning is a pedagogy with a long pedigree. First proposed by Dewey as learning through experience it came to the fore in the discovery learning movement of the sixties. Indeed, the term citizen inquiry has been coined which “ fuses the creative knowledge building of inquiry learning with the mass collaborative participation exemplified by citizen science, changing the consumer relationship that most people have with research to one of active engagement ” ( Sharples et al., 2013 , p.38).

Researchers using this citizen inquiry paradigm have described how it “ shifts the emphasis of scientific inquiry from scientists to the general public, by having non-professionals (of any age and level of experience) determine their own research agenda and devise their own science investigations underpinned by a model of scientific inquiry. It makes extensive use of web 2.0 and mobile technologies to facilitate massive participation of the public of any age, including youngsters, in collective, online inquiry-based activities” ( Herodotou et al., 2017b ). This shift offers more opportunities for learning in these settings.

Research has shown that learning can be developed in citizen science projects. Herodotou et al. (2018) citing a review by Bonney et al. (2009) have found that systematic involvement in citizen science projects produces learning outcomes in a number of ways, including increasing accuracy and degree of self-correction of observations. A number of studies have examined the learning which takes place during the use of iSpot (see Scanlon et al., 2014 ; Silvertown et al., 2015 ). Preliminary results showed that novice users can reach a fairly sophisticated understanding of identification over time ( Scanlon et al., 2014 ). Also, Aristeidou et al. (2017 , p 252) examined citizen science activities on nQuire, and reported that some participants perceived learning as a reason for feeling satisfied with their engagement, with comments such as “insight into some topics” and “new information.”

Through an online survey, Edwards et al. (2017) reported that citizen science participants of the UK Wetland Bird Survey and the Nest Record Scheme had learned on various dimensions. This was found to be related in part to their prior levels of education. Overall, there is a growing number of studies investigating the relationship between citizen science and learning with some positive indications that projects can be designed to encourage learning (Further studies on learning from citizen science are also discussed by Ballard et al., 2017 , and Boakes et al., 2016 ).

The skills required by citizens in the twenty-first century are those derived from citizen science projects. They “ need the skills and knowledge to solve problems, evaluate evidence, and make sense of complex information from various sources .” ( Ferguson et al., 2017 , p.12). As noted by OECD (2015) a significant skill students need to develop is learn to “ think like a scientist .” This is perceived as an essential skill across professions and not only the science-related ones. In particular, STEM education and jobs are no longer viewed as options for the few or for the “gifted.” “ Engagement with STEM can develop critical thinking, teamwork skills, and civic engagement. It can also help people cope with the demands of daily life. Enabling learners to experience how science is made can enhance their content knowledge in science, develop scientific skills and contribute to their personal growth. It can also increase their understanding of what it means to be a scientist ” ( Ferguson et al., 2017 , p.12).

One of the innovations of this approach is that it enables potentially any citizen to engage and understand scientific activities that are often locked behind the walls of experimental laboratories. Thinking scientifically should not be restricted to scientists; it should be a competency that citizens develop in order to engage critically and reflect on their surroundings. Such skills will enable critical understanding of public debates such as fake news and more active citizenship. Technologically, the development of these skills can be supported by platforms such as nQuire, the vision of which is to scaffold the process of scientific research and facilitate development of relevant skills amongst citizens.

Citizen science activities are mainly found in informal learning settings, with rather limited adoption to formal education. “ For example, the Natural History Museum in London offers citizen science projects that anyone can join as an enjoyable way to interact with nature. Earthworm Watch is one such project that runs every spring and autumn in the UK. It is an outdoor activity that asks people to measure soil properties and record earthworms in their garden or in a local green space. Access to museums such as the Natural History Museum is free of charge allowing all people, no matter what their background, to interact with such activities and meet others with similar interests .” ( Ferguson et al., 2017 , p.13) At the moment, adoption is dependent on individual educators rather than a policy. Two Open University examples are the incorporation of the iSpot platform into a range of courses from short courses such as Neighborhood Nature to MOOCs such as An introduction to Ecology on the FutureLearn platform. In recent years there are more accounts of citizen science projects within school settings (see e.g., Doyle et al., 2018 ; Saunders et al., 2018 ; Schuttler et al., 2018 ).

In this paper, we discussed six innovative approaches to teaching and learning that originated from seven Innovating Pedagogy reports ( Sharples et al., 2012 , 2013 , 2014 , 2015 , 2016 ; Ferguson et al., 2017 , 2019 ), drafted between 2012 and 2019 by leading academics in Educational Technology at the OU and institutions in the US, Singapore, Israel, and Norway. Based upon an extensive peer-review by seven OU authors, evidence and impact of six promising innovative approaches were gathered, namely formative analytics, teachback, place-based learning, learning with robots, learning with drones, and citizen inquiry. For these six approaches there is strong or emerging evidence that they can effectively contribute to the development of skills and competences such as critical thinking, problem-solving, digital literacy, thinking like a scientist, group work, and affective development.

The maturity of each pedagogy in terms of evidence generation varies with some pedagogies such as learning with drones being less mature and others such as formative analytics being more advanced. In Table 1 , we used the evidence classifications in Figures 1 , 2 to provide our own assessment of the overall quality of evidence (strength of evidence and level of confidence (scale 1–5) based on NESTA's standards of evidence shown in Figure 2 ) for each pedagogy, as a means to identify gaps in current knowledge and direct future research efforts.

Table 1 . Future directions of selected pedagogies.

Figure 2 . Standards of evidence by Nesta.

The proposed pedagogies have great potential in terms of reducing the distance between aspirations or vision for the future of education and current educational practice. This is evident in their relevance to effective educational theories including experiential learning, inquiry learning, discovery learning, and self-regulated learning, all of which are interactive and engaging ways of learning. Also, the review of existing evidence showcases their potential to support learning processes and desirable learning outcomes in both the cognitive and emotional domain. Yet, this list of pedagogies is not exhaustive; additional pedagogies that could potentially meet the selection criteria—and which can be found in the Innovating Pedagogy report series—are for example, playful learning emphasizing the need for play, exploration and learning through failure, virtual studios stressing learning flexibility through arts and design, and dynamic assessment during which assessors support learners in identifying and overcoming learning difficulties.

Conclusions

In this paper we presented six approaches to teaching and learning and stressed the importance of evidence in transforming the educational practice. We devised and applied an integrated framework for selection that could be used by both researchers and educators (teachers, pre-service teachers, educational policy makers etc.) as an assessment tool for reflecting on and assessing specific pedagogical approaches, either currently in practice or intended to be used in education in the future. Our framework goes beyond existing frameworks that focus primarily on the development of skills and competences for the future, by situating such development within the context of effective educational theories, evidence from research studies, innovative aspects of the pedagogy, and its adoption in educational practice. We made the case that learning is a science and that the testing of learning interventions and teaching approaches before applying these to practice should be a requirement for improving learning outcomes and meeting the expectations of an ever-changing society. We wish this work to spark further dialogue between researchers and practitioners and signal the necessity for evidence-based professional development that will inform and enhance the teaching practice.

Author Contributions

CH: introduction, discussion, confusion sections, revision of manuscript. MS: teachback. MG: place-based learning. BR: formative analytics. ES: citizen inquiry. AK-H: learning with drones. DW: learning with robots.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Anderson, T., and Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educ. Res. 41, 16–25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aristeidou, M., Scanlon, E., and Sharples, M. (2017). “Design processes of a citizen inquiry community,” in Citizen Inquiry: Synthesising Science and Inquiry Learning , eds C. Herodotou, M. Sharples, and E. Scanlon (Abingdon: Routledge), 210–229. doi: 10.4324/9781315458618-12

Azevedo, R., Harley, J., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Bouchet, F., et al. (2013). “Using trace data to examine the complex roles of cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional self-regulatory processes during learning with multi-agent systems,” in International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies , eds R. Azevedo and V. Aleven (New York, NY: Springer New York), 427–449. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_28

Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G. H., and Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science: examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 208, 65–75. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.024

Batty, R., Wong, A., Florescu, A., and Sharples, M. (2019). Driving EdTech Futures: Testbed Models for Better Evidence . London: Nesta.

Google Scholar

Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 58, 978–988. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006

Boakes, E. H., Gliozzo, G., Seymour, V., Harvey, M., Smith, C., Roy, D. B., et al. (2016). Patterns of contribution to citizen science biodiversity projects increase understanding of volunteers' recording behaviour. Sci. Rep. 6:33051. doi: 10.1038/srep33051

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bodily, R., Kay, J., Aleven, V., Jivet, I., Davis, D., Xhakaj, F., et al. (2018). “Open learner models and learning analytics dashboards: a systematic review,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (Sydney, NSW: ACM), 41–50.

Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., et al. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59, 977–984. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9

Bretz, S. L. (2001). Novak's theory of education: human constructivism and meaningful learning. J. Chem. Educ. 78:1107. doi: 10.1021/ed078p1107.6

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. Res. 18, 32–42. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018001032

Council of the European Union (2018). Council Recommendations of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning . Brussel: Council of the European Union.

Curtis, V. (2018). “Online citizen science and the widening of academia: distributed engagement with research and knowledge production,” in Palgrave Studies in Alternative Education (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77664-4

Dawes, L., and Wegerif, R. (2004). Thinking and Learning With ICT: Raising Achievement in Primary Classrooms . London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203506448

D'Mello, S., Dieterle, E., and Duckworth, A. (2017). Advanced, analytic, automated (AAA) measurement of engagement during learning. Educ. Psychol. 52, 104–123. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2017.1281747

Doyle, C., Li, Y., Luczak-Roesch, M., Anderson, D., Glasson, B., Boucher, M., et al. (2018). What is Online Citizen Science Anyway? An Educational Perspective. arXiv [Preprint]. arXiv:1805.00441.

Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., and Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience 61, 550–558. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9

Edwards, R., McDonnell, D., Simpson, I., and Wilson, A. (2017). “Educational backgrounds, project design and inquiry learning in citizen science,” in Citizen Inquiry: Synthesising Science and Inquiry Learning , eds C. Herodotou, M. Sharples, and E. Scanlon (Abingdon: Routledge), 195–209. doi: 10.4324/9781315458618-11

Ernst, J., and Monroe, M. (2004). The effects of environment-based education on students' critical thinking skills and disposition toward critical thinking. Environ. Educ. Res. 10, 507–522. doi: 10.1080/1350462042000291038

Ferguson, R., Barzilai, S., Ben-Zvi, D., Chinn, C. A., Herodotou, C., Hod, Y., et al. (2017). Innovating Pedagogy 2017: Open University Innovation Report 6 . Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Ferguson, R., and Clow, D. (2017). “Where is the evidence? A call to action for learning analytics,” in Proceedings of the 6th Learning Analytics Knowledge Conference (Vancouver, BC: ACM), 56–65.

Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., et al. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7 . Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Fincham, O. E., Gasevic, D., Jovanovic, J. M., and Pardo, A. (2018). From study tactics to learning strategies: an analytical method for extracting interpretable representations. IEEE Trans. Lear. Technol. 12, 59–72. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2018.2823317

Gaved, M., and Peasgood, A. (2017). Fitting in versus learning: a challenge for migrants learning languages using smartphones. J. Interact. Media Educ. 2017:1. doi: 10.5334/jime.436

Gelan, A., Fastré, G., Verjans, M., Martin, N., Janssenswillen, G., Creemers, M., et al. (2018). Affordances and limitations of learning analytics for computer-assisted language learning: a case study of the VITAL project. Comp. Assist. Lang. Learn. 31, 294–319. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1418382

Gutierrez, R. (2003). “Conversation theory and self-learning,” in Science Education Research in the Knowledge-Based Society , eds D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos, and M. Kallery (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 43–49.

Ha Dinh, T. T., Bonner, A., Clark, R., Ramsbotham, J., and Hines, S. (2016). The effectiveness of the teach-back method on adherence and self-management in health education for people with chronic disease: a systematic review. JBI Database Syst. Rev. Implement. Rep. 14, 210–247. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2296

Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., and Miller, M. (2011). “Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance , eds B. Zimmerman and D. Schunk (New York, NY: Routledge), 65–84.

Herodotou, C., Aristeidou, M., Sharples, M., and Scanlon, E. (2018). Designing citizen science tools for learning: lessons learnt from the iterative development of nQuire. Res Pract. Technol. Enhanced Lear. 13:4. doi: 10.1186/s41039-018-0072-1

Herodotou, C., Heiser, S., and Rienties, B. (2017a). Implementing randomised control trials in open and distance learning: a feasibility study. Open Learn. 32, 147–162. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2017.1316188

Herodotou, C., Rienties, B., Verdin, B., and Boroowa, A. (2019). Predictive learning analytics ‘at scale’: guidelines to successful implementation in higher education. J. Learn. Anal. 6, 85–95. doi: 10.18608/jla.2019.61.5

Herodotou, C., Sharples, M., and Scanlon, E. (2017b). “Introducing citizen inquiry,” in Citizen Inquiry: Synthesising Science and Inquiry Learning , eds C. Herodotou, M. Sharples, E. Scanlon (Routledge).

Hodgson, J., Terauds, A., and Pin Koh, L. (2018). ‘ Epic Duck Challenge’ Shows Drones Can Outdo People at Surveying Wildlife [Online]. The Conversation . Available online at: https://theconversation.com/epic-duck-challenge-shows-drones-can-outdo-people-at-surveying-wildlife-90018 (accessed May 23, 2019).

Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., et al. (2013). Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design . Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

Joch, A. (2018, March 27). With drones, students tackle complex topics. EdTech Magazine , Online article.

John, K. S., and McNeal, K. (2017). The Strength of Evidence Pyramid [Online]. National Association of Geoscience Teachers . Available online at: https://nagt.org/nagt/profdev/workshops/geoed_research/pyramid.html (accessed May 23, 2019).

Kanero, J., Geçkin, V., Oranç, C., Mamus, E., Küntay, A. C., and Göksun, T. (2018). Social robots for early language learning: current evidence and future directions. Child Dev. Perspect. 12, 146–151. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12277

Kerka, S. (2000). “Incidental learning,” in Trends and Issues Alert (Columbus, OH: Center on Education and Training for Employment, Ohio State University).

Kim, E. S., Berkovits, L. D., Bernier, E. P., Leyzberg, D., Shic, F., Paul, R., et al. (2013). Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 43, 1038–1049. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1645-2

Kirschner, P. A., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? urban legends in education. Educ. Psychol. 48, 169–183. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.804395

Klopfer, E., and Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives—the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 56, 203–228. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning as the Science of Learning and Development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Gaved, M., Paletta, L., Scanlon, E., Jones, A., and Brasher, A. (2015). Mobile incidental learning to support the inclusion of recent immigrants. Ubiquitous Learn. 7, 9–21. doi: 10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v07i02/58070

Linnemanstons, K. A., and Jordan, C. M. (2017). Learning through place: evaluation of a professional development program for understanding the impact of place-based education and teacher continuing education needs. J. Sustain. Educ. 12, 1–25. Retrieved from: http://www.susted.com/wordpress/content/learning-through-place-evaluation-of-a-professional-development-program-for-understanding-the-impact-of-place-based-education-and-teacher-continuing-education-needs_2017_02/

Madden, B. (2015). Pedagogical pathways for Indigenous education with/in teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 51, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.05.005

Mangina, E., O' Keeffe, E., Eyerman, J., and Goodman, L. (2016). “Drones for live streaming of visuals for people with limited mobility,” in 2016 22nd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM) , 1–6. doi: 10.1109/VSMM.2016.7863162

Mitchell, R. (2018). Experts Warn Play Time is ‘Disappearing’ as Emphasis is Placed on Performance and Tests [Online]. The West Australian . Available online at: http://bit.ly/2FTIVGh (accessed June 27, 2018).

Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., and Dong, J.-J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. J. Technol. Educ. Learn. 1, 209–216. doi: 10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015

Negarandeh, R., Mahmoodi, H., Noktehdan, H., Heshmat, R., and Shakibazadeh, E. (2013). Teach back and pictorial image educational strategies on knowledge about diabetes and medication/dietary adherence among low health literate patients with type 2 diabetes. Prim. Care Diabetes 7, 111–118. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2012.11.001

Newton, P. M., and Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-based higher education – Is the learning styles ‘myth’ important? Front. Psychol. 8:444. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444

Oczuks, L. (2003). Reciprocal Teaching at Work: Strategies for Improving Reading Comprehension . Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

OECD (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA . Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264239555-en

OECD (2016a). United Kingdom Country Note. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) – Results from PISA 2015 . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2016b) PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2018). The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030 . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Ospennikova, E., Ershov, M., and Iljin, I. (2015). Educational robotics as an inovative educational technology. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 214, 18–26. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.588

Panadero, E., Klug, J., and Järvelä, S. (2016). Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated learning field: when measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 60, 723–735. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2015.1066436

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Pask, G. (1976). Conversation Theory, Applications in Education and Epistemology . Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Puttick, R., and Ludlow, J. (2012). Standards of Evidence for Impact Investing . London: Nesta.

Rohrer, D., and Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educ. Res. 39, 406–412. doi: 10.3102/0013189X10374770

Rudman, P. (2002). Investigating domain information as dynamic support for the learner during spoken conversations (Unpublished Ph.D thesis). University of Birmingham, Birmingham.

Sandvik, K. B., and Lohne, K. (2014). The rise of the humanitarian drone: giving content to an emerging concept. Millennium 43, 145–164. doi: 10.1177/0305829814529470

Sattar, F., Tamatea, L., and Nawaz, M. (2017). Droning the pedagogy: future prospect of teaching and learning. Int. J. Educ. Pedagog. Sci . 11, 1622–1627.

Saunders, M. E., Roger, E., Geary, W. L., Meredith, F., Welbourne, D. J., Bako, A., et al. (2018). Citizen science in schools: engaging students in research on urban habitat for pollinators. Austral Ecol. 43, 635–642. doi: 10.1111/aec.12608

Scanlon, E., Woods, W., and Clow, D. (2014). Informal participation in science in the UK: identification, location and mobility with iSpot. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17, 58–71.

Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., de Kraker, J., Kreijns, K., Slootmaker, A., and Specht, M. (2017). Widget, widget on the wall, am I performing well at all? IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 10, 42–52. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2016.2622268

Scherer, R., Greiff, S., and Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Editorial to the special issue: current innovations in computer-based assessments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 76, 604–606. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.020

Schuttler, S. G., Sears, R. S., Orendain, I., Khot, R., Rubenstein, D., Rubenstein, N., et al. (2018). Citizen science in schools: students collect valuable mammal data for science, conservation, and community engagement. Bioscience 69, 69–79. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy141

Semken, S., and Freeman, C. B. (2008). Sense of place in the practice and assessment of place-based science teaching. Sci. Educ. 92, 1042–1057. doi: 10.1002/sce.20279

Sharples, M. (2019). Practical Pedagogy: 40 Ways to Teach and Learn . London: Rutledge.

Sharples, M., Adams, A., Alozie, N., Ferguson, F., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., et al. (2015). Innovating Pedagogy 2015 . Milton Keynes: Open University.

Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., et al. (2014). Innovating Pedagogy 2014 . Milton Keynes: Open University.

Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., et al. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5 . Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., et al. (2012). Innovating Pedagogy 2012 . Milton Keynes: Open University.

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., et al. (2013). Innovating Pedagogy 2013 . Milton Keynes: Open University.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. Int. J. Instr. Technol. Distance Learn 2, 3–10. Available online at: https://web.archive.org/web/20190612101622/http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

Silvertown, J., Harvey, M., Greenwood, R., Dodd, M., Rosewell, J., Rebelo, T., et al. (2015). Crowdsourcing the identification of organisms: a case-study of iSpot. ZooKeys 480, 125–146. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.480.8803

Sobel, D. (2004). Place-Based Education: Connecting Classrooms and Communities . Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society.

Staiff, R. (2016). Re-imagining Heritage Interpretation: Enchanting the Past-Future . London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315604558

Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., and Giesbers, B. (2015). In search for the most informative data for feedback generation: learning analytics in a data-rich context. Comput. Hum. Behav. 47, 157–167. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.038

Tempelaar, D. T., Rienties, B., Mittelmeier, J., and Nguyen, Q. (2018). Student profiling in a dispositional learning analytics application using formative assessment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 78, 408–420. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.010

Theobald, P., and Curtiss, J. (2000). Communities as curricula. Forum Appl. Res. Public Policy 15, 106–111.

Thomas, G., and Munge, B. (2015). “Best practice in outdoor environmental education fieldwork: pedagogies to improve student learning,” in Experiencing the Outdoors , eds M. Robertson, G. Heath, and R. Lawrence (Brill Sense), 165–176. doi: 10.1007/978-94-6209-944-9_14

Thomas, G., and Munge, B. (2017). Innovative outdoor fieldwork pedagogies in the higher education sector: optimising the use of technology. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 20, 7–13. doi: 10.1007/BF03400998

Trevors, G., Feyzi-Behnagh, R., Azevedo, R., and Bouchet, F. (2016). Self-regulated learning processes vary as a function of epistemic beliefs and contexts: mixed method evidence from eye tracking and concurrent and retrospective reports. Learn. Instr. 42, 31–46. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.11.003

Trilling, B., and Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

von Glaserfeld, E. (1987). “Einführung in den radikalen Konstruktivismus,” in Wissen, Sprache und Wirklichkeit. Wissenschaftstheorie Wissenschaft und Philosophie , Vol. 24 (Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Webber, G., and Miller, D. (2016). Progressive pedagogies and teacher education: a review of the literature. McGill J. Educ. 51, 1061–1079. doi: 10.7202/1039628ar

Westlund, J. K., and Breazeal, C. (2015). “The interplay of robot language level with children's language learning during storytelling,” in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (Portland, OR: ACM). doi: 10.1145/2701973.2701989

Winne, P. H. (2017). Leveraging big data to help each learner upgrade learning and accelerate learning science. Teach. Coll. Rec. 119, 1–24.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., and Ross, G. (1979). The role of tutoring in problem solving. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 17, 89–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., and Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Comp. Educ. 62, 41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

Zakaria, N. Y. K., Zaini, H., Hamdan, F., and Norman, H. (2018). Mobile game-based learning for online assessment in collaborative learning. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7, 80–85. doi: 10.14419/ijet.v7i4.21.21620.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). “Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation , eds M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (San Diego, CA: Elsevier), 13–39. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

Keywords: evidence-based practice, educational innovation, pedagogy, teaching and learning, educational effectiveness, educational theories, 21st century skills

Citation: Herodotou C, Sharples M, Gaved M, Kukulska-Hulme A, Rienties B, Scanlon E and Whitelock D (2019) Innovative Pedagogies of the Future: An Evidence-Based Selection. Front. Educ. 4:113. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00113

Received: 01 June 2019; Accepted: 30 September 2019; Published: 11 October 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Herodotou, Sharples, Gaved, Kukulska-Hulme, Rienties, Scanlon and Whitelock. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Christothea Herodotou, christothea.herodotou@open.ac.uk

Search engage2Learn

Innovative teaching methods: thinking outside the box for student success.

Educators today recognize the evolving needs of students and the importance of preparing them for the future. While traditional teaching methods have served as a foundation, there is a growing understanding that innovative approaches are necessary to meet the diverse needs of students effectively. By embracing new teaching methods, teachers can tap into the power of creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, offering engaging learning experiences that inspire students to reach their full potential.

As a trusted partner for public school districts nationwide, we're passionate about designing customized support systems that fit each school or district's local context and providing valuable insights and resources to help you continually streamline support systems, enhance instructional practices, and improve the learner experience.

Innovative Teaching Methods for Revolutionizing the Classroom and Enhancing Student Success

Innovation in teaching can capture students' attention and foster a genuine love for learning. By incorporating interactive elements such as technology, multimedia resources, and real-world examples, teachers can create a dynamic and engaging classroom environment. Some of the teaching methods that have been proven effective include:

Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning emphasizes teamwork and cooperation among students. This approach encourages active participation, social interaction, and peer-to-peer learning. Through group projects, team-based learning discussions, and problem-solving activities, students develop vital skills such as communication, collaboration, and negotiation, while also building a supportive community with their classmates to inspire each other.

Project-Based Learning

Project-based learning is an effective teaching method that encourages students to actively engage in real-world problem-solving. Through hands-on projects, students can apply their knowledge, collaborate with peers, and develop essential skills like teamwork, communication, and critical thinking. This approach not only enhances student motivation but also promotes a deeper understanding of the subject matter as students connect theoretical concepts with practical applications.

Technology Integration

In today's digital age, technology is an indispensable tool in education. Integrating technology into teaching methods can enhance student engagement, facilitate personalized learning, and provide access to a wealth of educational resources. From interactive whiteboards and educational apps to online platforms and virtual reality, technology offers countless opportunities for innovative teaching. Teachers can leverage multimedia resources, simulations, and interactive exercises to create immersive learning experiences that cater to different learning styles and interests.

RELATED: Why Even the Best Teachers Need Coaches

Coach Teachers to Effectively Utilize Innovative Teaching Methods

Public school districts often partner with a talent development or education strategic planning vendor like engage2learn (e2L) to provide their teachers and school leaders – such as principals and assistant principals – with relevant professional development and personalized coaching that increases their effectiveness without adding more to their plate. This is done through:

01: Fostering a culture of innovation within the public school system. 

Begin with cultivating a growth mindset among teachers. Encourage educators to question conventional teaching practices and seek new approaches. Provide opportunities for collaborative learning, where teachers can share their experiences, ideas, and innovative strategies.

02: Employing professional development programs.

Equip teachers with the knowledge and skills required to embrace innovative teaching methods. These programs should focus on such topics as design thinking, project-based learning, technology integration, and small group instruction. Encourage educators to utilize a job-embedded platform such as GroweLab for professional development for teachers to stay up to date with instructional best practices and pedagogical trends.

03: Promoting collaboration and networking among teachers.

Encourage them to form professional learning communities where they can exchange ideas, share resources, and engage in collaborative lesson planning, both within and across educational institutions. Online platforms and social media can serve as powerful tools for fostering connections and accessing a global community of educators.

04: Encouraging innovation.

Innovation often involves stepping out of one's comfort zone. Teachers should be encouraged to innovate with new teaching methods, which could involve gamified learning, flipped classrooms, or incorporating digital tools and resources. Create a supportive environment that values experimentation, embraces failures as opportunities for growth, and celebrates successes with badges and microcredentials.

05: Providing teachers with easy access to innovative teaching resources.

Get to Know GroweLab, the All-In-One Talent Development and Instructional Coaching Platform

Intended specifically for instructional coaches, teachers, and district and school leaders, GroweLab helps users maximize their time, work autonomously and collaboratively, increase capacity, and provide individualized, differentiated support relative to each coachee’s needs. Paired with e2L’s evidence-based, research-backed coaching methodology that aligns to the science of coaching , GroweLab is designed to:

• Enable instructional coaches to manage, document, and monitor all coaching activity with ease, no matter how large their roster.
• Connect educator growth and student achievement data to show the ROI and impact of coaching through an advanced, user-friendly education analytics dashboard.
• Incentivize educator and staff growth through a microcredentialing and recognition system.
• Grow school and district staff in differentiated, research-based, role-specific professional learning competencies.
• Support 100% of instructional and non-instructional staff at a fraction of the cost.
• Provide 24/7 access to asynchronous learning on competencies, a robust library of resources and courses, and real-time coaching interactions and feedback.

Instructional Coaching in GroweLab

Coaching is the most effective tool for improving the daily practice of teachers. With GroweLab, leaders can streamline and scale their instructional coaching efforts by providing targeted support to more teachers and staff, while ensuring the visibility and effectiveness of their coaching program. By leveraging GroweLab , leaders are able to extend more coaching support to more educators, track progress, and make data-informed decisions to drive continuous improvement – ultimately enhancing the overall effectiveness of instructional coaching, increasing teacher retention, and improving student outcomes. Integrating a collaborative tool that allows coaches to easily communicate with, monitor, analyze, and celebrate the progress of every educator on their roster enables them to keep things organized, focused on relevant topics, and efficient – especially one that’s designed with the needs of educators in mind. As instructional coaches observe and monitor the progress of educators, they need a single, user-friendly tool for ongoing documentation and real-time coaching – one that allows for open communication between coach and coachee, maximizes everyone’s time, and provides educators with clear, actionable next steps.

RELATED: Instructional Coaches Need These 4 Things

Having a tool that transforms all evidence of educator growth from instructional coaching into data is important for quantifying the efficacy of coaching, identifying areas that require more attention and improvement, and connecting educator growth to improved student achievement.  GroweLab is built on a model of support that is proven to provide teachers and any coachee with relevant professional development and individualized instructional coaching focused on high-impact competencies proven to:

• Accelerate student learning and achievement
• Improve job satisfaction
• Reduce teacher burnout
• Decrease attrition

By leveraging personalized learning strategies, adaptive technology, and differentiated instruction, teachers develop the skills and acquire the necessary tools to provide targeted support that ensures every student gets what they need. Empowering teachers to think innovatively and leverage cutting-edge teaching methods is pivotal for improving student success. With GroweLab, your teachers will have the resources, training, and support they need to grow in their skills, effectively support their students, and make a lasting impact. When you're ready to grow your talent, we're ready to support you! Learn more about GroweLab and get a demo here .

3 Reasons School Improvement Efforts Fail & How to Avoid Them

Infographic: 3 Essential Teacher Retention Strategies

Infographic: 5 Benefits of Growth-Focused Teacher Evaluations

Innovative Teaching Methods and Learning Programs Research Paper

Introduction, definition of the research problem, literature review, purpose of the research, ethical issues, significance of the research, reference list.

This paper will discuss the goals and benefits of innovative teaching methods in primary schools. This topic is an essential one in modern society because children have to develop along with the world’s newest technologies. Also, learning programs and psychological approaches must be considered in this discussion, as the use of multimedia without a proper understanding of it is pointless for young people who cannot appropriately analyze what they see. Moreover, this paper will analyze innovative schools as potential business projects, as this type of education still must be popularized in various countries. The final results of the research that will be presented in this proposal will show whether the model of Finnish education is beneficial only for local children or it can be successfully adopted by teachers from other parts of the world. Since the ideology of primary schools in Finland is different from that of many other countries, some strategies implemented in the Scandinavian country might be inefficient for representatives of other nations.

As in every other sphere, education is developing rapidly and opening new opportunities for schoolchildren. Nowadays, many European educational institutions (to be specific, the school of Lauttasaari in Helsinki, Finland will be discussed in the given proposal as its workers implement all of the innovations described below) are using unique methods and learning programs in their daily activities. With the help of various multimedia resources, there are more possibilities to make students interested in a certain subject or demonstrate aspects of it to them in more detail. Innovative teaching methods do not only refer to the technological part used in class. A psychological approach and an analysis of children’s behavior and perception of the information they receive are also important for discussing this work. It appears that some educational methodologies have a tremendous impact on the development of students. The following text is intended to present a research proposal with information about new methods, and learning programs that teachers use in Lauttasaari to understand whether the considered system can be implemented in schools all over the world or it is centered specifically on children in Finland.

In this paper, innovative teaching methods imply both digital devices used in Finnish schools to help children grasp all the information presented during their lessons better and various pedagogical or even psychological techniques that local educators use to make children interested in the process of studying. This paper will combine a discussion of these innovations to provide a better understanding of the environment that is necessary for the model of ideal education that is now practiced in Finland. The primary problem of this research project is the fact that teachers from the Lauttasaari School use innovative methods in their work with children, while other institutions all over the world cannot adopt the same educational models due to teachers’ unawareness of their efficiency in their regions. Indeed, there are many advantages to the new techniques and models (using interactive blackboards, setting computers for every learner, and creating digital presentations for every lesson) of work with children in the class. However, the drawbacks of these methodologies need to be identified and addressed in the future as well.

The use of multimedia remains one of the most popular innovative teaching methods and tools used in the Lauttasaari primary school at the moment. When children interact with computers, electronic gadgets, and other technologies, they can gain a better experience with subjects that are described in books (Aris, Putri, and Susanti, 2016). Such materials as video, audio, and text files become available for teachers who use them throughout the learning course, as well as for children who have a better perception of the provided information through all the visual aids mentioned above (Aris, Putri, and Susanti, 2016). Moreover, it is necessary to develop learning courses with the integration of such pedagogical approaches as phenomenon-based learning, co-teaching, portfolio creation, mind maps, Z-A approach, and others.

Unfortunately, there is a tremendous number of schools around the world that still use outdated educational techniques to teach their students. However, older methods (acquiring necessary information from books, using physical objects to create pieces of art, and listening to opinions of only one teacher) are known to be inefficient for young people in the twenty-first century. Therefore it is essential to understand what knowledge is given to children at the moment and what the industry needs (Clark and Mayer, 2016, p. 35). To analyze whether interactive work is more effective than regular communication between teachers and their students, it is necessary to list some advantages of the first method and compare it with older learning techniques.

The first advantage of using multimedia resources is their value for teaching children to think analytically and solve problems effectively. In comparison, older methods that were used in school programs could not develop these abilities in learners who only listened to their teachers’ ideas (Tay, 2017). Educators in the Lauttasaari School want children to assess various situations on their own. It not only makes them intellectually dexterous, but it also prepares them for their future lives where they will have to make wise decisions regularly (Tay, 2017).

Another important advantage of using computers and computer programs in schools is letting children gain experience working with a wide range of graphic and text editing software (Meeusen et al. 2018, p. 48). Not only do they train and improve their skills in activities that are common and necessary in the modern world, but they also work in pairs, which makes their collaboration even more interesting and productive (Niemi, Toom, and Kallioniemi, 2016, p. 93). Unfortunately, many teachers in some Asian countries and the United States of America do not let their students create material for upcoming classes. However, when learners work with information that they will study later, they also obtain the necessary background that prepares them for their classes.

It would be appropriate to mention that educators make children work in groups in the Lauttasaari school. (O’Hanlon, 2017, p. 136). When students collaborate on a project together, everyone has a chance to contribute to its planning and implementation. Young boys and girls communicate with one another and develop a mutual understanding of each team member’s opinion concerning the task. Credible research shows that projects are accomplished better and more professional when they are created by several people (Saloviita and Schaffus, 2016).

The main factor that differentiates, for example, a Finnish primary school Lauttasaari situated in Helsinki from other educational institutions in the rest of the world is the method of communication with teachers (Domingo and Garganté, 2016). Traditionally, teachers deliver certain pieces of important information to students. Children then have to write everything down to remember all the data that was presented during their lessons. In comparison, when people work with multimedia, the relationships between students, teachers, and additional materials are more equal (Saloviita and Schaffus, 2016). This model makes it possible for every person in the class to grasp and share information with others.

It should be stated that the multimedia methodology described in previous paragraphs is not popular all over the world. Moreover, people do not even know about all the advantages of learning by using digital materials in classes. Therefore this is a promising idea for a business project. The market is not crowded in the majority of developing countries and other nations that do not invest significantly in education (Aris, Putri, and Susanti, 2016). According to an initial analysis of the market, it is clear that parents are ready to pay additional money to allow their children to develop using the latest methods, which appear to be more efficient than the methodologies used in public schools (Aris, Putri, and Susanti, 2016). However, the establishment of an educational institution requires much more investment than other similar businesses because all the necessary electronic equipment is currently quite expensive.

The following section is intended to provide an overview of other innovative learning methods used in the Lauttasaari School that have had good results in engaging children and making them more interested in what they learn. To obtain a better understanding of the entire leaning process in the Finnish school, it would be proper to overview some learning tools that assist children during their lessons and world with digital devices. The first tool is called a mind map (Tay, 2017). The first iteration of this approach was developed by Tony Buzan in the previous century. According to it, students were required to take notes using only keywords from their lectures to recall the material they studied without having to extensively reread or analyze it again (Domingo and Garganté, 2016). Nowadays, this strategy has been changed, and teachers in Lauttasaari are required to build these mind maps for children who attend their classes. However, children are allowed to contribute to the creation of different mind maps that they will be using during their lessons (Tay, 2017). For instance, a teacher might ask them to prepare little pieces of material that will be integrated into the presentation later, which makes the learners develop a sense of responsibility and their labor’s importance for their classmates (Tay, 2017). This method seems to take less time than its previous form, while students can understand what knowledge is central, and what information is presented as background context.

Mind maps are effective because they are made in the form of pictures (or sometimes audio or video files) (Aris, Putri, and Susanti, 2016). However, each of the approaches mentioned above effectively influences a person’s brain so that information is retained almost permanently. The text is always the same and it does not differ in various sources. In contrast, multimedia materials are more colorful and unique, which makes students remember the particular presentation of the information that was taught (Stokhof et al. 2018). According to several research projects conducted to test the theory described in this paragraph, approximately ninety percent of all information acquired through reading was hard to recall for the sampled participants (Niemi, Toom, and Kallioniemi, 2016, p. 79). In comparison, they could remember seventy percent of the same material presented in the form of video.

As to the concept of video lessons, teachers who work for the Lauttasaari School collaborate with YouTube bloggers to conduct research and make popular presentations about literature, history, and other educational topics (O’Hanlon, 2017, p. 158). Therefore children are sometimes assigned to review these bloggers’ channels or other videos as homework. It appears that when children see a young person talking about a certain subject, they become more interested in it, as it gives them an ability to discuss the knowledge they have gained with their peers (Lahtero and Risku, 2014). From a business perspective, this model of education is difficult to implement, but it provides many more benefits than regular educational approaches. Moreover, if children do not have a device to explore the Internet, they are allowed to use school computers, which makes teachers more responsible for what their students learn online.

Another innovative technique that is implemented in the Lauttasaari educational institution is the requirement to teach people using humorous elements. Several surveys show that students are more attracted to the lectures of teachers who have both charisma and a sense of humor (Clark and Mayer, 2016, p. 89). It is a challenge for learners to spend hours studying the theoretical aspects of their subjects. Children have a lot of energy that they strive to expand during the day. Therefore it is more efficient to present lectures with jokes and entertaining stories, which students are more likely to recall in the future. The process of learning can be a tremendous challenge, and people sometimes want to relax.

It should be mentioned that this method of teaching was adopted by teachers from the school in Helsinki mentioned above from their colleagues in the United States of America (Lahtero and Risku, 2014). People in Western European countries are known to have some challenges with feeling free in front of an audience. In comparison, the American mentality was not as limited in the previous century. Humorous and friendly forms of communication between teachers and students make their collaboration less tense and much more productive. When each participant in a lesson feels free to ask questions, make remarks, and express their opinion, the process of education becomes reasonable for everyone in the school (Lahtero and Risku, 2014). In Finland, teachers do not hesitate to admit that they do not know everything about their professional subjects, which makes schools beneficial for their development as well (O’Hanlon, 2017, p. 158). The concept of educational institutions in Germany, France, and England is aimed at mutual development and the discussion of various topics between classmates and teachers. This model gives everyone a chance to be involved in interesting conversations and gain useful knowledge by grasping other people’s arguments.

The next learning method to be reviewed in this paper is called the Z to A approach. This model refers to the explanation of general concepts concerning any topic or professional sphere. When students are unfamiliar with terms or phenomena mentioned during the lecture, they ask their teachers to explain what one phrase or another means and how it is related to what they are studying (Clark and Mayer, 2016, p. 90). This approach helps students develop an interest in the material they learn, and children must be the initiators of descriptive explanations given by their educators. Hence the students always know details of their subjects that are somehow connected to the primary material planned for the lecture (Clark and Mayer, 2016, p. 89). Nevertheless, there are several drawbacks to this system. Once the audience is interested in something, it may take hours for a teacher to explain some topics tangentially related to it. Moreover, the main concept of the lecture might be lost if a professor begins to explain every minor point to his or her students.

The practice described above is common in the Lauttasaari School because politicians think that children have a right to understand everything that is being said during lectures (Tay, 2017). Moreover, local ethical norms and moral considerations do not allow other participants of the learning process to blame or laugh at their classmates for not knowing some general information. The main purpose of the Z-A approach is to make children interested in something by showing them the results of particular calculations or actions (Domingo and Garganté, 2016). When they understand that a method demonstrated by their teacher is efficient in particular instances, they strive to understand how they can repeat the same actions. Hence a teacher is obliged to explain to them what it takes to reach a certain point.

Another concept that is widely practiced in Lauttasaari School is the explanation of various concepts through the use of mnemonics and different words instead of descriptive sentences (Tay, 2017). Once students reach the point where they understand the topic presented during the lesson, their educator begins to conclude by summarizing everything that has been said in detail. However, the children are given a chance to develop a general understanding of the studied subject before the teacher’s explanation becomes too obvious.

The last learning method that is widely used in the Lauttasaari School in Helsinki, Finland is role-playing. Children are encouraged to analyze the scenarios they are given to work with ahead of time (Tay, 2017). When students are obliged to make wise choices based on their theoretical knowledge, they are more likely to understand what their future work may be like. Moreover, this approach is beneficial for learners who have problems understanding the materials presented during lectures. Unfortunately, some people cannot grasp information without having a chance to practice it under realistic conditions. As the system of Finnish education remains one of the most highly developed in the world, teachers pay attention to the abilities of every class member (Hyry-Beihammer and Hascher, 2015). Hence children are not limited in their ideas or desires to try something in real life. This methodology was intended to address the problem that people tend to give up doing something because of a lack of appropriate support and involvement.

It should be stated that the Lauttasaari School has the goal to help children identify what they like and what they want to do in life (Tay, 2017). All this psychological work is done beginning in childhood. It has been estimated that adults have more passion for activities that they were interested in as children (Clark and Mayer, 2016, p. 178). Therefore local educational institutions provide learners with a wide range of hobbies and give them opportunities to develop in something besides school. For instance, Finnish primary school students do not have any homework, as all the material is learned in class until the afternoon (Tay, 2017). With this system, children have enough time to relax and be engaged in their hobbies. Unfortunately, not all countries take into account their citizens’ preferences regarding their favorite activities that could help them earn a living and become much happier.

The Finnish education system has been claimed to be the best in the world for the last fifteen years. Although Finnish children are not obliged to read classic literature or write poems, they do these activities of their own will (Hyry-Beihammer and Hascher, 2015). Teachers do not tell their students that some author was great. Instead, they tell them facts about an admirable person so that they arrive at the appropriate conclusion about the individual at the end of their courses. The most significant difference between this methodology and other models used in other parts of the world is that knowledge is not imposed. However, if children are paying particular attention to a different topic, teachers are glad to help them to learn more about their interests at any moment. Such a free system makes children want to know more, while in other countries students want to be done with their homework as soon as possible.

The example of Finnish schools can serve as a business project in other developed countries as well. While many parents might consider such a system inappropriate for a child’s development, other citizens will be glad to know that their children are taught to do what they want, as this is the main component of their happiness in the future. Unfortunately, similar educational services might not be available for people of low social statuses. Nevertheless, the promotion of free education might be supported by the government, as politicians want younger generations to be educated in innovative sciences and other spheres because this would be beneficial for their countries’ statuses in the future.

The main element of the Lauttasaari School that makes the process of education more pleasant is its innovative equipment and approach towards children (Tay, 2017). Students have access to the newest technical inventions and computers so that they can accomplish any of their tasks with the help of these machines (Hyry-Beihammer and Hascher, 2015). Also, classrooms are equipped with elements that are necessary to educate children at a high level. For instance, rooms organized for chemistry classes have the materials that are encountered in books for demonstrating reactions and making observations (Hujala et al. 2016). In turn, classes for learning music have a wide range of modern and classical instruments for students to choose from.

In conclusion, it can be stated that another element that differentiates Lauttasaari from other educational institutions around the world is that teachers treat their students as if they were adults (Tay, 2017). They can discuss any topic with them and share their thoughts concerning various observations made during the learning process. Unfortunately, this behavior could be considered unacceptable among some societies or nations.

Gaps in the Existing Literature

Fortunately, there were not many gaps in the literature reviewed in the previous section. Nevertheless, several issues were noted during the review process. To begin with, it should be stated that many authors do not explain how such teaching methods as mind maps or the Z-A approach are used in real conditions. Some teachers from other regions do not have enough experience to identify which strategies must be used in different cases. Therefore, it would be beneficial for them to have a rating or a list of the best pedagogical models for working with children. (Hyry-Beihammer and Hascher, 2015). It is advantageous to make a specifically structured outline of a lesson that provides the use of engaging information and theoretical data in percentages. Everything depends on the time given to teachers to explain a particular topic.

Justification of the Research Interest

It is important to carry out this research project because understanding the best educational systems in the world and how they compare might have a positive impact on the development of national primary school systems and their employees’ approaches to their work. Borrowing the ideas of the Lauttasaari School might make students happier and let them have more passion for learning different disciplines. Modern children are not interested in completing school programs (Niemi, Toom, and Kallioniemi, 2016, p. 128). Instead, they strive to become the best in their outside hobbies. The integration of these activities into the process of education will show children that their interests are important to society. Hence they will be encouraged to study and pay more attention to what can give them more opportunities to advance professionally in various industries in the future.

This proposal contributes to this topic by considering certain business ideas that can help children from all over the world to gain more experience and knowledge that is interesting to them. By creating more liberal and free educational institutions, it is possible to promote equality among children from different states in their professional activities as they grow up (Saloviita and Schaffus, 2016). Moreover, the author is responsible for the appropriate evaluation of the theories and statements presented in the proposal. In turn, the empirical knowledge developed in this paper is the result of the author’s research and conclusions made after the evaluation of multiple research and materials in the discussed topic. Therefore, the information presented in this work can be considered reliable and evidence-based.

Operationalization of Variables

To identify and operationalize variables properly, it must be stated that the primary purpose of the research discussed in this proposal is to understand whether the model of education practiced by teachers in the Lauttasaari School is effective for students in other countries or not. The observation will be conducted with the help of teachers who are ready to make the students from their classes prove or refute the main question of the research.

As it is mentioned previously, all the variables will be measured with the help of interviews and observations. Every participant of the experiment will be asked to answer several questions as to their experience with innovative teaching methods borrowed from the Lauttasaari School and local teachers. Also, variables will be measured with the help of the children’s reactions analysis. It is necessary to understand whether all the changes in their educations programs will have a positive impact on their moods or not. In the end, every student’s impressions will be considered after the experiment. If they are not satisfied with various innovative learning methodologies used by educators from the Lauttasaari School in Helsinki, their courses are unlikely to change in the future. It is essential to remember that students must be interested and enjoy the process of learning (Niemi, Toom, and Kallioniemi, 2016, p. 129). Therefore, the adoption of the lesson structures practices in Lauttasaari might adversely impact children’s desire to study as they are not used. To acquire accurate results of the observation, it would be proper to implement the innovative teaching methodologies in classes with the first year inexperienced students. Perhaps, this observation will give results in the measurement of variables.

The variables measurement methods described above suggest that the test can be regarded as fair and that there is little chance for mistakes in the study’s final results. The most essential element of any research project is for all participants of its sampling to be subject to similar conditions. Otherwise, some methodologies discussed in the literature review section might not give the expected results.

As was mentioned above, the main purpose of the research is to identify whether or not the methodologies that are used by school teachers in the Finnish school called Lauttasaari can be effective for other educational institutions in separate parts of the world. Unfortunately, various models of primary education might have different impacts on learners from different societies. Although Finnish schools are often considered the best on the planet because they focus on students’ desires to advance professionally in particular spheres, this method might not work as well among children raised in other communities. There is always a chance that some things concerning education are effective only for a certain group of children. Therefore not every country in the world uses the same system of education that is common in the Lauttasaari primary school.

If the goal is reached and the study’s aim is accomplished, the model of the Lauttasaari Primary School might be considered a profitable business project for people who do not know much about all the benefits of this education system or do not have access to other institutions that already use these methods regularly to help their children become both wise and happy at the same time (Saloviita and Schaffus, 2016). Also, it is necessary to observe students’ reactions to the improved program, as they might not be used to such a learning methodology. This is also an essential factor in designing an educational process because the children must be interested in it. Otherwise learning might become a daily routine for them, which hurts a person’s motivation to reach new heights and be active in various activities related to school. The aim of this study is intended to define whether children of various national and cultural backgrounds can learn according to the educational model of the Lauttasaari School or not. Can the model development and used by educators in the Finnish school be effective for students in other parts of the world, or it is dependent on the cultural factor of the northern country’s population?

The development of this research is important for business-like purposes because the investments required to establish a professional educational institution that meets all the standards of the Finnish school mentioned above are tremendous. Therefore, it is necessary to assess children’s abilities in different countries to choose the most beneficial location to start the business project realization. If the factor of students’ abilities to learn according to the Finnish educational model with the use of various digital devices and pedagogical tools, the new school might not bring any profit. Moreover, parents have to be persuaded that the methodologies described above are efficient. Evidence-based research is one of the most credible sources that can be trusted in this instance.

Research Design

The type of research described in this proposal is qualitative as it implies both the assessment and comparison of the educational system in the school of Lauttasaari in Helsinki, Finland, and other institutions all over the world. Also, the behavior of students and their attitudes towards the improved system will be recorded and compared to that of their peers in Lauttasaari. In general, the research is qualitative because the majority of information used in it helps understand the major differences between educational institutions in the Lauttasaari School and some educational institutions in other parts of the world. It is necessary to state that the main problem of the given research is the tremendous gap between the studying processes common in different nations and the world’s most developed Finnish model of education.

Unit of Analysis

As was mentioned in the previous sections of the proposal, the objects of this research are children of different ethnic backgrounds who have to demonstrate their attitudes and readiness to follow a Lauttasaari educational program. Students are unlikely to give false information about their attitudes toward things relevant to this research. Therefore, the acquired data will likely be accurate. The age of participants will vary from nine to ten years old. However, every participant in the experiment also has to be a fourth-year student in a primary school. There are no considerations as to the gender of sampling, as both males and females have the same cognitive abilities. As the research question requires the initiators of this study to evaluate how students from different societies will react to the new rules in their educational institutions, it would be appropriate to have several experiments in various states (excluding Finland).

Sampling Method

The model of stratified sampling was chosen for this research. This strategy is beneficial for the types of studies mentioned above because scholars need to work with a certain group of people that have particular characteristics. In this case, the experiment is focused on children aged from nine to eight. Therefore, it is necessary to visit schools and have their principals’ permissions to work with the students. One group of sampling will consist of approximately twenty to thirty children (depending on the number of students in the class). In turn, there will be at least ten groups that will undergo the test in various regions of the world.

The participant of the research will be chosen with the help of the World Wide Web. It is necessary to collaborate with ten schools in different countries that would represent various cultures (China, Germany, the United States of America, the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of South Africa, Russia, Brazil, India, Israel, and Italy). The groups of children from the countries mentioned above will be found with the help of their teachers. The contacts of these educators will be found on the websites of schools situated in capitals of every listed region. I would choose participants from these states because their inhabitants will make a general impression of how the educational model would be perceived in many other countries with similar cultures and mentalities. The schools must be private as governmental institutions might not want to participate in the research due to their set schedules. To contact teachers who work in the most suitable schools for the study in the countries listed above, it is necessary to organize Skype conferences with interpreters and discuss all the aspects of the observation. If the representatives of the desired schools will not agree to contribute to this research, they will be asked to recommend schools that would gladly do this.

It would be enough to organize only one lesson with the use of innovative learning methodologies in each school that will participate in the study. The observation of the students’ reactions and attitudes towards the model of education developed by workers of the Lauttasaari School will be going on for only one academic hour. The interviews will be completed on the next day after the experimental lesson (it will take approximately twenty days to complete all the work with the children).

Data Collection Methods

There are only two data collection methods that will be used during this study – interview and observation. With the help of multiple interviews with each member of the research sampling, students’ expectations and attitudes towards the changes in their educational systems will be acquired. In turn, observations made by researchers during the learning process will show how young people react to the changed structure of their lessons. All the observations and interviews that will be made during the study will be helpful to answer the proposal’s main research question by providing the results of educational experiments with children from different countries. All the acquired information will show whether the discussed model of education is efficient in other countries (outside of Finland).

As was stated above, each student will be asked to answer several questions after the conclusion of the work with the study’s sampling. All the results of this data collection method will be relevant because each answer will be supported by the controllers who will record their observations during the lessons involving innovative techniques. Conclusions based on observation can also be considered relevant sources of information, as professional psychologists and teachers will be asked to evaluate the situation in classrooms full of children.

Data Analysis Techniques

As in other qualitative studies, the process of data analysis will be based on the evaluation of categorical variables (Stokhof et al. 2018). Also, data acquired from observations conducted in various parts of the world will be compared to understand how cultures and social environments influence students’ reactions to the learning methods described in the literature review. Moreover, the data gathered with the help of interviews will be important for determining children’s attitudes towards an improved system of primary education in their schools.

All participants in the study must remain anonymous. In professional practice, people who read or provide references to the academic writings they review also have a right to keep their data confidential. All children and their parents will be informed that the research results will be published without mentioning their names or other information they have a right to keep private. Moreover, the final report is recommended to be made available with limited online access. Therefore every individual who might want to make use of its results must either pay for the material or contact the authors of the project. It should be mentioned that there will be no conflicts of personal interests, as all the participants and observers will be independent of other people and their prejudices as to the main questions of the study.

Education is the most significant aspect of people’s lives because it gives individuals the knowledge that will help them become properly socialized and make wise decisions throughout their lives. It is necessary to make children think critically and objectively beginning in childhood, as it becomes more difficult to grasp some theoretical knowledge in adolescence and maturity (O’Hanlon, 2017, p. 164). Considering different models and innovative methods in primary education is crucial in today’s world. Technology is developing rapidly. Therefore modern children need to understand much more than people did in earlier times. To conclude, it is important to state that this project may provide the key to spreading high-quality methods of learning around the globe. People need to know about various techniques that have a positive impact on the progress of their children in different spheres of their interests and activities.

Aris, R.M., Putri, R.I. and Susanti, E. (2016) ‘Design study: integer subtraction operation teaching learning using multimedia in primary school’, Journal on Mathematics Education , 8(1), pp. 95–102. Web.

Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2016) E-Learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning . 4 th ed. Hoboken: Wiley.

Domingo, M.G. and Garganté, A.B. (2016) ‘Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: teachers perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications use in the classroom’, Computers in Human Behavior , 56(1), pp. 21–28.

Hujala, E. et al. (2016) ‘Leadership tasks in early childhood education in Finland, Japan, and Singapore’ Journal of Research in Childhood Education , 30(3), pp. 406–421. Web.

Hyry-Beihammer, E.K. and Hascher, T. (2015) ‘Multi-grade teaching practices in Austrian and Finnish primary schools’, International Journal of Educational Research , 74(1), pp. 104–113. Web.

Lahtero, T. J. and Risku, M. (2014) ‘Symbolic leadership culture and its subcultures in one unified comprehensive school in Finland’ International Journal of Educational Management , 28(5), pp. 560–577. Web.

Meeusen, R. et al. (2018). Physical activity and educational achievement: insights from exercise neuroscience. Abingdon: Routledge.

Niemi, H., Toom, A. and Kallioniemi, A. (2016). Miracle of education: the principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

O’Hanlon, C. (2017) Inclusive education in Europe . Saint Louis: Routledge.

Saloviita, T. and Schaffus, T. (2016) ‘Teacher attitudes towards inclusive education in Finland and Brandenburg, Germany and the issue of extra work’ European Journal of Special Needs Education , 31(4), pp. 458–471. Web.

Stokhof, H. et al., (2018) ‘Using mind maps to make student questioning effective: learning outcomes of a principle-based scenario for teacher guidance’, Research in Science Education , 1(3), pp. 1–23. Web.

Tay, D. (2017) ‘Finn and fun: lessons from Finland’s new school curriculum’ , The Straits Times , Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 7). Innovative Teaching Methods and Learning Programs. https://ivypanda.com/essays/innovative-teaching-methods-and-learning-programs/

"Innovative Teaching Methods and Learning Programs." IvyPanda , 7 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/innovative-teaching-methods-and-learning-programs/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Innovative Teaching Methods and Learning Programs'. 7 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Innovative Teaching Methods and Learning Programs." February 7, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/innovative-teaching-methods-and-learning-programs/.

1. IvyPanda . "Innovative Teaching Methods and Learning Programs." February 7, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/innovative-teaching-methods-and-learning-programs/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Innovative Teaching Methods and Learning Programs." February 7, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/innovative-teaching-methods-and-learning-programs/.

• Finnish Bookstore: Increasing Sales Team Efficiency
• Transportation Mode: Four Finnish Industry Sectors
• Finance Strategies of Rapidly-Growing Finnish SMEs
• Haier’s Expansion to North European Markets
• The Effects of Finnish Sauna on the Circulatory System
• Finnish and South Korean systems of education
• Finland's and South Korea's Education Systems
• Analysis of Finland as an Export Market
• Experiential Expertise in Recovery from Intimate Partner Violence
• Finland Market Overview and Analysis
• American Military Early Childhood Care System
• Wesgreen International School: Entrepreneurialism in Education
• Al-Safoa K-6 Elementary School: Leadership and Program
• Impact of Emiratisation on Knowledge Transfer
• Learning Management System Analysis

REALIZING THE PROMISE:

Leading up to the 75th anniversary of the UN General Assembly, this “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?” publication kicks off the Center for Universal Education’s first playbook in a series to help improve education around the world.

It is intended as an evidence-based tool for ministries of education, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, to adopt and more successfully invest in education technology.

While there is no single education initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere—as school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies—an important first step is understanding how technology is used given specific local contexts and needs.

The surveys in this playbook are designed to be adapted to collect this information from educators, learners, and school leaders and guide decisionmakers in expanding the use of technology.  

Introduction

While technology has disrupted most sectors of the economy and changed how we communicate, access information, work, and even play, its impact on schools, teaching, and learning has been much more limited. We believe that this limited impact is primarily due to technology being been used to replace analog tools, without much consideration given to playing to technology’s comparative advantages. These comparative advantages, relative to traditional “chalk-and-talk” classroom instruction, include helping to scale up standardized instruction, facilitate differentiated instruction, expand opportunities for practice, and increase student engagement. When schools use technology to enhance the work of educators and to improve the quality and quantity of educational content, learners will thrive.

Further, COVID-19 has laid bare that, in today’s environment where pandemics and the effects of climate change are likely to occur, schools cannot always provide in-person education—making the case for investing in education technology.

Here we argue for a simple yet surprisingly rare approach to education technology that seeks to:

• Understand the needs, infrastructure, and capacity of a school system—the diagnosis;
• Survey the best available evidence on interventions that match those conditions—the evidence; and
• Closely monitor the results of innovations before they are scaled up—the prognosis.

RELATED CONTENT

Podcast: How education technology can improve learning for all students

To make ed tech work, set clear goals, review the evidence, and pilot before you scale

The framework.

Our approach builds on a simple yet intuitive theoretical framework created two decades ago by two of the most prominent education researchers in the United States, David K. Cohen and Deborah Loewenberg Ball. They argue that what matters most to improve learning is the interactions among educators and learners around educational materials. We believe that the failed school-improvement efforts in the U.S. that motivated Cohen and Ball’s framework resemble the ed-tech reforms in much of the developing world to date in the lack of clarity improving the interactions between educators, learners, and the educational material. We build on their framework by adding parents as key agents that mediate the relationships between learners and educators and the material (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The instructional core

Adapted from Cohen and Ball (1999)

As the figure above suggests, ed-tech interventions can affect the instructional core in a myriad of ways. Yet, just because technology can do something, it does not mean it should. School systems in developing countries differ along many dimensions and each system is likely to have different needs for ed-tech interventions, as well as different infrastructure and capacity to enact such interventions.

The diagnosis:

How can school systems assess their needs and preparedness.

A useful first step for any school system to determine whether it should invest in education technology is to diagnose its:

• Specific needs to improve student learning (e.g., raising the average level of achievement, remediating gaps among low performers, and challenging high performers to develop higher-order skills);
• Infrastructure to adopt technology-enabled solutions (e.g., electricity connection, availability of space and outlets, stock of computers, and Internet connectivity at school and at learners’ homes); and
• Capacity to integrate technology in the instructional process (e.g., learners’ and educators’ level of familiarity and comfort with hardware and software, their beliefs about the level of usefulness of technology for learning purposes, and their current uses of such technology).

Before engaging in any new data collection exercise, school systems should take full advantage of existing administrative data that could shed light on these three main questions. This could be in the form of internal evaluations but also international learner assessments, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and/or the Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS). But if school systems lack information on their preparedness for ed-tech reforms or if they seek to complement existing data with a richer set of indicators, we developed a set of surveys for learners, educators, and school leaders. Download the full report to see how we map out the main aspects covered by these surveys, in hopes of highlighting how they could be used to inform decisions around the adoption of ed-tech interventions.

The evidence:

How can school systems identify promising ed-tech interventions.

There is no single “ed-tech” initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere, simply because school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies. Instead, to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning, decisionmakers should focus on four potential uses of technology that play to its comparative advantages and complement the work of educators to accelerate student learning (Figure 2). These comparative advantages include:

• Scaling up quality instruction, such as through prerecorded quality lessons.
• Facilitating differentiated instruction, through, for example, computer-adaptive learning and live one-on-one tutoring.
• Expanding opportunities to practice.
• Increasing learner engagement through videos and games.

Figure 2: Comparative advantages of technology

Here we review the evidence on ed-tech interventions from 37 studies in 20 countries*, organizing them by comparative advantage. It’s important to note that ours is not the only way to classify these interventions (e.g., video tutorials could be considered as a strategy to scale up instruction or increase learner engagement), but we believe it may be useful to highlight the needs that they could address and why technology is well positioned to do so.

When discussing specific studies, we report the magnitude of the effects of interventions using standard deviations (SDs). SDs are a widely used metric in research to express the effect of a program or policy with respect to a business-as-usual condition (e.g., test scores). There are several ways to make sense of them. One is to categorize the magnitude of the effects based on the results of impact evaluations. In developing countries, effects below 0.1 SDs are considered to be small, effects between 0.1 and 0.2 SDs are medium, and those above 0.2 SDs are large (for reviews that estimate the average effect of groups of interventions, called “meta analyses,” see e.g., Conn, 2017; Kremer, Brannen, & Glennerster, 2013; McEwan, 2014; Snilstveit et al., 2015; Evans & Yuan, 2020.)

*In surveying the evidence, we began by compiling studies from prior general and ed-tech specific evidence reviews that some of us have written and from ed-tech reviews conducted by others. Then, we tracked the studies cited by the ones we had previously read and reviewed those, as well. In identifying studies for inclusion, we focused on experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of education technology interventions from pre-school to secondary school in low- and middle-income countries that were released between 2000 and 2020. We only included interventions that sought to improve student learning directly (i.e., students’ interaction with the material), as opposed to interventions that have impacted achievement indirectly, by reducing teacher absence or increasing parental engagement. This process yielded 37 studies in 20 countries (see the full list of studies in Appendix B).

Scaling up standardized instruction

One of the ways in which technology may improve the quality of education is through its capacity to deliver standardized quality content at scale. This feature of technology may be particularly useful in three types of settings: (a) those in “hard-to-staff” schools (i.e., schools that struggle to recruit educators with the requisite training and experience—typically, in rural and/or remote areas) (see, e.g., Urquiola & Vegas, 2005); (b) those in which many educators are frequently absent from school (e.g., Chaudhury, Hammer, Kremer, Muralidharan, & Rogers, 2006; Muralidharan, Das, Holla, & Mohpal, 2017); and/or (c) those in which educators have low levels of pedagogical and subject matter expertise (e.g., Bietenbeck, Piopiunik, & Wiederhold, 2018; Bold et al., 2017; Metzler & Woessmann, 2012; Santibañez, 2006) and do not have opportunities to observe and receive feedback (e.g., Bruns, Costa, & Cunha, 2018; Cilliers, Fleisch, Prinsloo, & Taylor, 2018). Technology could address this problem by: (a) disseminating lessons delivered by qualified educators to a large number of learners (e.g., through prerecorded or live lessons); (b) enabling distance education (e.g., for learners in remote areas and/or during periods of school closures); and (c) distributing hardware preloaded with educational materials.

Prerecorded lessons

Technology seems to be well placed to amplify the impact of effective educators by disseminating their lessons. Evidence on the impact of prerecorded lessons is encouraging, but not conclusive. Some initiatives that have used short instructional videos to complement regular instruction, in conjunction with other learning materials, have raised student learning on independent assessments. For example, Beg et al. (2020) evaluated an initiative in Punjab, Pakistan in which grade 8 classrooms received an intervention that included short videos to substitute live instruction, quizzes for learners to practice the material from every lesson, tablets for educators to learn the material and follow the lesson, and LED screens to project the videos onto a classroom screen. After six months, the intervention improved the performance of learners on independent tests of math and science by 0.19 and 0.24 SDs, respectively but had no discernible effect on the math and science section of Punjab’s high-stakes exams.

One study suggests that approaches that are far less technologically sophisticated can also improve learning outcomes—especially, if the business-as-usual instruction is of low quality. For example, Naslund-Hadley, Parker, and Hernandez-Agramonte (2014) evaluated a preschool math program in Cordillera, Paraguay that used audio segments and written materials four days per week for an hour per day during the school day. After five months, the intervention improved math scores by 0.16 SDs, narrowing gaps between low- and high-achieving learners, and between those with and without educators with formal training in early childhood education.

Yet, the integration of prerecorded material into regular instruction has not always been successful. For example, de Barros (2020) evaluated an intervention that combined instructional videos for math and science with infrastructure upgrades (e.g., two “smart” classrooms, two TVs, and two tablets), printed workbooks for students, and in-service training for educators of learners in grades 9 and 10 in Haryana, India (all materials were mapped onto the official curriculum). After 11 months, the intervention negatively impacted math achievement (by 0.08 SDs) and had no effect on science (with respect to business as usual classes). It reduced the share of lesson time that educators devoted to instruction and negatively impacted an index of instructional quality. Likewise, Seo (2017) evaluated several combinations of infrastructure (solar lights and TVs) and prerecorded videos (in English and/or bilingual) for grade 11 students in northern Tanzania and found that none of the variants improved student learning, even when the videos were used. The study reports effects from the infrastructure component across variants, but as others have noted (Muralidharan, Romero, & Wüthrich, 2019), this approach to estimating impact is problematic.

A very similar intervention delivered after school hours, however, had sizeable effects on learners’ basic skills. Chiplunkar, Dhar, and Nagesh (2020) evaluated an initiative in Chennai (the capital city of the state of Tamil Nadu, India) delivered by the same organization as above that combined short videos that explained key concepts in math and science with worksheets, facilitator-led instruction, small groups for peer-to-peer learning, and occasional career counseling and guidance for grade 9 students. These lessons took place after school for one hour, five times a week. After 10 months, it had large effects on learners’ achievement as measured by tests of basic skills in math and reading, but no effect on a standardized high-stakes test in grade 10 or socio-emotional skills (e.g., teamwork, decisionmaking, and communication).

Drawing general lessons from this body of research is challenging for at least two reasons. First, all of the studies above have evaluated the impact of prerecorded lessons combined with several other components (e.g., hardware, print materials, or other activities). Therefore, it is possible that the effects found are due to these additional components, rather than to the recordings themselves, or to the interaction between the two (see Muralidharan, 2017 for a discussion of the challenges of interpreting “bundled” interventions). Second, while these studies evaluate some type of prerecorded lessons, none examines the content of such lessons. Thus, it seems entirely plausible that the direction and magnitude of the effects depends largely on the quality of the recordings (e.g., the expertise of the educator recording it, the amount of preparation that went into planning the recording, and its alignment with best teaching practices).

These studies also raise three important questions worth exploring in future research. One of them is why none of the interventions discussed above had effects on high-stakes exams, even if their materials are typically mapped onto the official curriculum. It is possible that the official curricula are simply too challenging for learners in these settings, who are several grade levels behind expectations and who often need to reinforce basic skills (see Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Another question is whether these interventions have long-term effects on teaching practices. It seems plausible that, if these interventions are deployed in contexts with low teaching quality, educators may learn something from watching the videos or listening to the recordings with learners. Yet another question is whether these interventions make it easier for schools to deliver instruction to learners whose native language is other than the official medium of instruction.

Distance education

Technology can also allow learners living in remote areas to access education. The evidence on these initiatives is encouraging. For example, Johnston and Ksoll (2017) evaluated a program that broadcasted live instruction via satellite to rural primary school students in the Volta and Greater Accra regions of Ghana. For this purpose, the program also equipped classrooms with the technology needed to connect to a studio in Accra, including solar panels, a satellite modem, a projector, a webcam, microphones, and a computer with interactive software. After two years, the intervention improved the numeracy scores of students in grades 2 through 4, and some foundational literacy tasks, but it had no effect on attendance or classroom time devoted to instruction, as captured by school visits. The authors interpreted these results as suggesting that the gains in achievement may be due to improving the quality of instruction that children received (as opposed to increased instructional time). Naik, Chitre, Bhalla, and Rajan (2019) evaluated a similar program in the Indian state of Karnataka and also found positive effects on learning outcomes, but it is not clear whether those effects are due to the program or due to differences in the groups of students they compared to estimate the impact of the initiative.

In one context (Mexico), this type of distance education had positive long-term effects. Navarro-Sola (2019) took advantage of the staggered rollout of the telesecundarias (i.e., middle schools with lessons broadcasted through satellite TV) in 1968 to estimate its impact. The policy had short-term effects on students’ enrollment in school: For every telesecundaria per 50 children, 10 students enrolled in middle school and two pursued further education. It also had a long-term influence on the educational and employment trajectory of its graduates. Each additional year of education induced by the policy increased average income by nearly 18 percent. This effect was attributable to more graduates entering the labor force and shifting from agriculture and the informal sector. Similarly, Fabregas (2019) leveraged a later expansion of this policy in 1993 and found that each additional telesecundaria per 1,000 adolescents led to an average increase of 0.2 years of education, and a decline in fertility for women, but no conclusive evidence of long-term effects on labor market outcomes.

It is crucial to interpret these results keeping in mind the settings where the interventions were implemented. As we mention above, part of the reason why they have proven effective is that the “counterfactual” conditions for learning (i.e., what would have happened to learners in the absence of such programs) was either to not have access to schooling or to be exposed to low-quality instruction. School systems interested in taking up similar interventions should assess the extent to which their learners (or parts of their learner population) find themselves in similar conditions to the subjects of the studies above. This illustrates the importance of assessing the needs of a system before reviewing the evidence.

Preloaded hardware

Technology also seems well positioned to disseminate educational materials. Specifically, hardware (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, or tablets) could also help deliver educational software (e.g., word processing, reference texts, and/or games). In theory, these materials could not only undergo a quality assurance review (e.g., by curriculum specialists and educators), but also draw on the interactions with learners for adjustments (e.g., identifying areas needing reinforcement) and enable interactions between learners and educators.

In practice, however, most initiatives that have provided learners with free computers, laptops, and netbooks do not leverage any of the opportunities mentioned above. Instead, they install a standard set of educational materials and hope that learners find them helpful enough to take them up on their own. Students rarely do so, and instead use the laptops for recreational purposes—often, to the detriment of their learning (see, e.g., Malamud & Pop-Eleches, 2011). In fact, free netbook initiatives have not only consistently failed to improve academic achievement in math or language (e.g., Cristia et al., 2017), but they have had no impact on learners’ general computer skills (e.g., Beuermann et al., 2015). Some of these initiatives have had small impacts on cognitive skills, but the mechanisms through which those effects occurred remains unclear.

To our knowledge, the only successful deployment of a free laptop initiative was one in which a team of researchers equipped the computers with remedial software. Mo et al. (2013) evaluated a version of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program for grade 3 students in migrant schools in Beijing, China in which the laptops were loaded with a remedial software mapped onto the national curriculum for math (similar to the software products that we discuss under “practice exercises” below). After nine months, the program improved math achievement by 0.17 SDs and computer skills by 0.33 SDs. If a school system decides to invest in free laptops, this study suggests that the quality of the software on the laptops is crucial.

To date, however, the evidence suggests that children do not learn more from interacting with laptops than they do from textbooks. For example, Bando, Gallego, Gertler, and Romero (2016) compared the effect of free laptop and textbook provision in 271 elementary schools in disadvantaged areas of Honduras. After seven months, students in grades 3 and 6 who had received the laptops performed on par with those who had received the textbooks in math and language. Further, even if textbooks essentially become obsolete at the end of each school year, whereas laptops can be reloaded with new materials for each year, the costs of laptop provision (not just the hardware, but also the technical assistance, Internet, and training associated with it) are not yet low enough to make them a more cost-effective way of delivering content to learners.

Evidence on the provision of tablets equipped with software is encouraging but limited. For example, de Hoop et al. (2020) evaluated a composite intervention for first grade students in Zambia’s Eastern Province that combined infrastructure (electricity via solar power), hardware (projectors and tablets), and educational materials (lesson plans for educators and interactive lessons for learners, both loaded onto the tablets and mapped onto the official Zambian curriculum). After 14 months, the intervention had improved student early-grade reading by 0.4 SDs, oral vocabulary scores by 0.25 SDs, and early-grade math by 0.22 SDs. It also improved students’ achievement by 0.16 on a locally developed assessment. The multifaceted nature of the program, however, makes it challenging to identify the components that are driving the positive effects. Pitchford (2015) evaluated an intervention that provided tablets equipped with educational “apps,” to be used for 30 minutes per day for two months to develop early math skills among students in grades 1 through 3 in Lilongwe, Malawi. The evaluation found positive impacts in math achievement, but the main study limitation is that it was conducted in a single school.

Facilitating differentiated instruction

Another way in which technology may improve educational outcomes is by facilitating the delivery of differentiated or individualized instruction. Most developing countries massively expanded access to schooling in recent decades by building new schools and making education more affordable, both by defraying direct costs, as well as compensating for opportunity costs (Duflo, 2001; World Bank, 2018). These initiatives have not only rapidly increased the number of learners enrolled in school, but have also increased the variability in learner’ preparation for schooling. Consequently, a large number of learners perform well below grade-based curricular expectations (see, e.g., Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2011; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). These learners are unlikely to get much from “one-size-fits-all” instruction, in which a single educator delivers instruction deemed appropriate for the middle (or top) of the achievement distribution (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). Technology could potentially help these learners by providing them with: (a) instruction and opportunities for practice that adjust to the level and pace of preparation of each individual (known as “computer-adaptive learning” (CAL)); or (b) live, one-on-one tutoring.

Computer-adaptive learning

One of the main comparative advantages of technology is its ability to diagnose students’ initial learning levels and assign students to instruction and exercises of appropriate difficulty. No individual educator—no matter how talented—can be expected to provide individualized instruction to all learners in his/her class simultaneously . In this respect, technology is uniquely positioned to complement traditional teaching. This use of technology could help learners master basic skills and help them get more out of schooling.

Although many software products evaluated in recent years have been categorized as CAL, many rely on a relatively coarse level of differentiation at an initial stage (e.g., a diagnostic test) without further differentiation. We discuss these initiatives under the category of “increasing opportunities for practice” below. CAL initiatives complement an initial diagnostic with dynamic adaptation (i.e., at each response or set of responses from learners) to adjust both the initial level of difficulty and rate at which it increases or decreases, depending on whether learners’ responses are correct or incorrect.

Existing evidence on this specific type of programs is highly promising. Most famously, Banerjee et al. (2007) evaluated CAL software in Vadodara, in the Indian state of Gujarat, in which grade 4 students were offered two hours of shared computer time per week before and after school, during which they played games that involved solving math problems. The level of difficulty of such problems adjusted based on students’ answers. This program improved math achievement by 0.35 and 0.47 SDs after one and two years of implementation, respectively. Consistent with the promise of personalized learning, the software improved achievement for all students. In fact, one year after the end of the program, students assigned to the program still performed 0.1 SDs better than those assigned to a business as usual condition. More recently, Muralidharan, et al. (2019) evaluated a “blended learning” initiative in which students in grades 4 through 9 in Delhi, India received 45 minutes of interaction with CAL software for math and language, and 45 minutes of small group instruction before or after going to school. After only 4.5 months, the program improved achievement by 0.37 SDs in math and 0.23 SDs in Hindi. While all learners benefited from the program in absolute terms, the lowest performing learners benefited the most in relative terms, since they were learning very little in school.

We see two important limitations from this body of research. First, to our knowledge, none of these initiatives has been evaluated when implemented during the school day. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish the effect of the adaptive software from that of additional instructional time. Second, given that most of these programs were facilitated by local instructors, attempts to distinguish the effect of the software from that of the instructors has been mostly based on noncausal evidence. A frontier challenge in this body of research is to understand whether CAL software can increase the effectiveness of school-based instruction by substituting part of the regularly scheduled time for math and language instruction.

Live one-on-one tutoring

Recent improvements in the speed and quality of videoconferencing, as well as in the connectivity of remote areas, have enabled yet another way in which technology can help personalization: live (i.e., real-time) one-on-one tutoring. While the evidence on in-person tutoring is scarce in developing countries, existing studies suggest that this approach works best when it is used to personalize instruction (see, e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Banerji, Berry, & Shotland, 2015; Cabezas, Cuesta, & Gallego, 2011).

There are almost no studies on the impact of online tutoring—possibly, due to the lack of hardware and Internet connectivity in low- and middle-income countries. One exception is Chemin and Oledan (2020)’s recent evaluation of an online tutoring program for grade 6 students in Kianyaga, Kenya to learn English from volunteers from a Canadian university via Skype ( videoconferencing software) for one hour per week after school. After 10 months, program beneficiaries performed 0.22 SDs better in a test of oral comprehension, improved their comfort using technology for learning, and became more willing to engage in cross-cultural communication. Importantly, while the tutoring sessions used the official English textbooks and sought in part to help learners with their homework, tutors were trained on several strategies to teach to each learner’s individual level of preparation, focusing on basic skills if necessary. To our knowledge, similar initiatives within a country have not yet been rigorously evaluated.

Expanding opportunities for practice

A third way in which technology may improve the quality of education is by providing learners with additional opportunities for practice. In many developing countries, lesson time is primarily devoted to lectures, in which the educator explains the topic and the learners passively copy explanations from the blackboard. This setup leaves little time for in-class practice. Consequently, learners who did not understand the explanation of the material during lecture struggle when they have to solve homework assignments on their own. Technology could potentially address this problem by allowing learners to review topics at their own pace.

Practice exercises

Technology can help learners get more out of traditional instruction by providing them with opportunities to implement what they learn in class. This approach could, in theory, allow some learners to anchor their understanding of the material through trial and error (i.e., by realizing what they may not have understood correctly during lecture and by getting better acquainted with special cases not covered in-depth in class).

Existing evidence on practice exercises reflects both the promise and the limitations of this use of technology in developing countries. For example, Lai et al. (2013) evaluated a program in Shaanxi, China where students in grades 3 and 5 were required to attend two 40-minute remedial sessions per week in which they first watched videos that reviewed the material that had been introduced in their math lessons that week and then played games to practice the skills introduced in the video. After four months, the intervention improved math achievement by 0.12 SDs. Many other evaluations of comparable interventions have found similar small-to-moderate results (see, e.g., Lai, Luo, Zhang, Huang, & Rozelle, 2015; Lai et al., 2012; Mo et al., 2015; Pitchford, 2015). These effects, however, have been consistently smaller than those of initiatives that adjust the difficulty of the material based on students’ performance (e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Muralidharan, et al., 2019). We hypothesize that these programs do little for learners who perform several grade levels behind curricular expectations, and who would benefit more from a review of foundational concepts from earlier grades.

We see two important limitations from this research. First, most initiatives that have been evaluated thus far combine instructional videos with practice exercises, so it is hard to know whether their effects are driven by the former or the latter. In fact, the program in China described above allowed learners to ask their peers whenever they did not understand a difficult concept, so it potentially also captured the effect of peer-to-peer collaboration. To our knowledge, no studies have addressed this gap in the evidence.

Second, most of these programs are implemented before or after school, so we cannot distinguish the effect of additional instructional time from that of the actual opportunity for practice. The importance of this question was first highlighted by Linden (2008), who compared two delivery mechanisms for game-based remedial math software for students in grades 2 and 3 in a network of schools run by a nonprofit organization in Gujarat, India: one in which students interacted with the software during the school day and another one in which students interacted with the software before or after school (in both cases, for three hours per day). After a year, the first version of the program had negatively impacted students’ math achievement by 0.57 SDs and the second one had a null effect. This study suggested that computer-assisted learning is a poor substitute for regular instruction when it is of high quality, as was the case in this well-functioning private network of schools.

In recent years, several studies have sought to remedy this shortcoming. Mo et al. (2014) were among the first to evaluate practice exercises delivered during the school day. They evaluated an initiative in Shaanxi, China in which students in grades 3 and 5 were required to interact with the software similar to the one in Lai et al. (2013) for two 40-minute sessions per week. The main limitation of this study, however, is that the program was delivered during regularly scheduled computer lessons, so it could not determine the impact of substituting regular math instruction. Similarly, Mo et al. (2020) evaluated a self-paced and a teacher-directed version of a similar program for English for grade 5 students in Qinghai, China. Yet, the key shortcoming of this study is that the teacher-directed version added several components that may also influence achievement, such as increased opportunities for teachers to provide students with personalized assistance when they struggled with the material. Ma, Fairlie, Loyalka, and Rozelle (2020) compared the effectiveness of additional time-delivered remedial instruction for students in grades 4 to 6 in Shaanxi, China through either computer-assisted software or using workbooks. This study indicates whether additional instructional time is more effective when using technology, but it does not address the question of whether school systems may improve the productivity of instructional time during the school day by substituting educator-led with computer-assisted instruction.

Increasing learner engagement

Another way in which technology may improve education is by increasing learners’ engagement with the material. In many school systems, regular “chalk and talk” instruction prioritizes time for educators’ exposition over opportunities for learners to ask clarifying questions and/or contribute to class discussions. This, combined with the fact that many developing-country classrooms include a very large number of learners (see, e.g., Angrist & Lavy, 1999; Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2015), may partially explain why the majority of those students are several grade levels behind curricular expectations (e.g., Muralidharan, et al., 2019; Muralidharan & Zieleniak, 2014; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Technology could potentially address these challenges by: (a) using video tutorials for self-paced learning and (b) presenting exercises as games and/or gamifying practice.

Video tutorials

Technology can potentially increase learner effort and understanding of the material by finding new and more engaging ways to deliver it. Video tutorials designed for self-paced learning—as opposed to videos for whole class instruction, which we discuss under the category of “prerecorded lessons” above—can increase learner effort in multiple ways, including: allowing learners to focus on topics with which they need more help, letting them correct errors and misconceptions on their own, and making the material appealing through visual aids. They can increase understanding by breaking the material into smaller units and tackling common misconceptions.

In spite of the popularity of instructional videos, there is relatively little evidence on their effectiveness. Yet, two recent evaluations of different versions of the Khan Academy portal, which mainly relies on instructional videos, offer some insight into their impact. First, Ferman, Finamor, and Lima (2019) evaluated an initiative in 157 public primary and middle schools in five cities in Brazil in which the teachers of students in grades 5 and 9 were taken to the computer lab to learn math from the platform for 50 minutes per week. The authors found that, while the intervention slightly improved learners’ attitudes toward math, these changes did not translate into better performance in this subject. The authors hypothesized that this could be due to the reduction of teacher-led math instruction.

More recently, Büchel, Jakob, Kühnhanss, Steffen, and Brunetti (2020) evaluated an after-school, offline delivery of the Khan Academy portal in grades 3 through 6 in 302 primary schools in Morazán, El Salvador. Students in this study received 90 minutes per week of additional math instruction (effectively nearly doubling total math instruction per week) through teacher-led regular lessons, teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons, or similar lessons assisted by technical supervisors with no content expertise. (Importantly, the first group provided differentiated instruction, which is not the norm in Salvadorian schools). All three groups outperformed both schools without any additional lessons and classrooms without additional lessons in the same schools as the program. The teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons performed 0.24 SDs better, the supervisor-led lessons 0.22 SDs better, and the teacher-led regular lessons 0.15 SDs better, but the authors could not determine whether the effects across versions were different.

Together, these studies suggest that instructional videos work best when provided as a complement to, rather than as a substitute for, regular instruction. Yet, the main limitation of these studies is the multifaceted nature of the Khan Academy portal, which also includes other components found to positively improve learner achievement, such as differentiated instruction by students’ learning levels. While the software does not provide the type of personalization discussed above, learners are asked to take a placement test and, based on their score, educators assign them different work. Therefore, it is not clear from these studies whether the effects from Khan Academy are driven by its instructional videos or to the software’s ability to provide differentiated activities when combined with placement tests.

Games and gamification

Technology can also increase learner engagement by presenting exercises as games and/or by encouraging learner to play and compete with others (e.g., using leaderboards and rewards)—an approach known as “gamification.” Both approaches can increase learner motivation and effort by presenting learners with entertaining opportunities for practice and by leveraging peers as commitment devices.

There are very few studies on the effects of games and gamification in low- and middle-income countries. Recently, Araya, Arias Ortiz, Bottan, and Cristia (2019) evaluated an initiative in which grade 4 students in Santiago, Chile were required to participate in two 90-minute sessions per week during the school day with instructional math software featuring individual and group competitions (e.g., tracking each learner’s standing in his/her class and tournaments between sections). After nine months, the program led to improvements of 0.27 SDs in the national student assessment in math (it had no spillover effects on reading). However, it had mixed effects on non-academic outcomes. Specifically, the program increased learners’ willingness to use computers to learn math, but, at the same time, increased their anxiety toward math and negatively impacted learners’ willingness to collaborate with peers. Finally, given that one of the weekly sessions replaced regular math instruction and the other one represented additional math instructional time, it is not clear whether the academic effects of the program are driven by the software or the additional time devoted to learning math.

The prognosis:

How can school systems adopt interventions that match their needs.

Here are five specific and sequential guidelines for decisionmakers to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning.

1. Take stock of how your current schools, educators, and learners are engaging with technology .

Carry out a short in-school survey to understand the current practices and potential barriers to adoption of technology (we have included suggested survey instruments in the Appendices); use this information in your decisionmaking process. For example, we learned from conversations with current and former ministers of education from various developing regions that a common limitation to technology use is regulations that hold school leaders accountable for damages to or losses of devices. Another common barrier is lack of access to electricity and Internet, or even the availability of sufficient outlets for charging devices in classrooms. Understanding basic infrastructure and regulatory limitations to the use of education technology is a first necessary step. But addressing these limitations will not guarantee that introducing or expanding technology use will accelerate learning. The next steps are thus necessary.

“In Africa, the biggest limit is connectivity. Fiber is expensive, and we don’t have it everywhere. The continent is creating a digital divide between cities, where there is fiber, and the rural areas.  The [Ghanaian] administration put in schools offline/online technologies with books, assessment tools, and open source materials. In deploying this, we are finding that again, teachers are unfamiliar with it. And existing policies prohibit students to bring their own tablets or cell phones. The easiest way to do it would have been to let everyone bring their own device. But policies are against it.” H.E. Matthew Prempeh, Minister of Education of Ghana, on the need to understand the local context.

2. Consider how the introduction of technology may affect the interactions among learners, educators, and content .

Our review of the evidence indicates that technology may accelerate student learning when it is used to scale up access to quality content, facilitate differentiated instruction, increase opportunities for practice, or when it increases learner engagement. For example, will adding electronic whiteboards to classrooms facilitate access to more quality content or differentiated instruction? Or will these expensive boards be used in the same way as the old chalkboards? Will providing one device (laptop or tablet) to each learner facilitate access to more and better content, or offer students more opportunities to practice and learn? Solely introducing technology in classrooms without additional changes is unlikely to lead to improved learning and may be quite costly. If you cannot clearly identify how the interactions among the three key components of the instructional core (educators, learners, and content) may change after the introduction of technology, then it is probably not a good idea to make the investment. See Appendix A for guidance on the types of questions to ask.

3. Once decisionmakers have a clear idea of how education technology can help accelerate student learning in a specific context, it is important to define clear objectives and goals and establish ways to regularly assess progress and make course corrections in a timely manner .

For instance, is the education technology expected to ensure that learners in early grades excel in foundational skills—basic literacy and numeracy—by age 10? If so, will the technology provide quality reading and math materials, ample opportunities to practice, and engaging materials such as videos or games? Will educators be empowered to use these materials in new ways? And how will progress be measured and adjusted?

4. How this kind of reform is approached can matter immensely for its success.

It is easy to nod to issues of “implementation,” but that needs to be more than rhetorical. Keep in mind that good use of education technology requires thinking about how it will affect learners, educators, and parents. After all, giving learners digital devices will make no difference if they get broken, are stolen, or go unused. Classroom technologies only matter if educators feel comfortable putting them to work. Since good technology is generally about complementing or amplifying what educators and learners already do, it is almost always a mistake to mandate programs from on high. It is vital that technology be adopted with the input of educators and families and with attention to how it will be used. If technology goes unused or if educators use it ineffectually, the results will disappoint—no matter the virtuosity of the technology. Indeed, unused education technology can be an unnecessary expenditure for cash-strapped education systems. This is why surveying context, listening to voices in the field, examining how technology is used, and planning for course correction is essential.

5. It is essential to communicate with a range of stakeholders, including educators, school leaders, parents, and learners .

Technology can feel alien in schools, confuse parents and (especially) older educators, or become an alluring distraction. Good communication can help address all of these risks. Taking care to listen to educators and families can help ensure that programs are informed by their needs and concerns. At the same time, deliberately and consistently explaining what technology is and is not supposed to do, how it can be most effectively used, and the ways in which it can make it more likely that programs work as intended. For instance, if teachers fear that technology is intended to reduce the need for educators, they will tend to be hostile; if they believe that it is intended to assist them in their work, they will be more receptive. Absent effective communication, it is easy for programs to “fail” not because of the technology but because of how it was used. In short, past experience in rolling out education programs indicates that it is as important to have a strong intervention design as it is to have a solid plan to socialize it among stakeholders.

Beyond reopening: A leapfrog moment to transform education?

On September 14, the Center for Universal Education (CUE) will host a webinar to discuss strategies, including around the effective use of education technology, for ensuring resilient schools in the long term and to launch a new education technology playbook “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?”

file-pdf Full Playbook – Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all? file-pdf References file-pdf Appendix A – Instruments to assess availability and use of technology file-pdf Appendix B – List of reviewed studies file-pdf Appendix C – How may technology affect interactions among students, teachers, and content?

About the Authors

Alejandro j. ganimian, emiliana vegas, frederick m. hess.

• Media Relations
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

15 Innovative Teaching Methods with Guide and Examples | Best in 2024

Ellie Tran • 04 Mar 2024 • 14 min read

Imagine staying in a boring class with the voice of the teach’ echoing in your ears, trying to lift your eyelids to pay attention to what they are saying. Not the best scenario for any class, right? Top 15 best Innovative Teaching Methods !

Simply put, these are different methods of teaching! Nowadays, many teachers are trying to keep their classes as far as possible from that scenario and let their students get more involved in learning by finding different approaches to teaching them.

The education field is changing so fast that you need to keep up and adapt to the more modern strategies. Otherwise, it may be hard for you to fit in.

Table of Contents

• What are they?
• Why Innovative Teaching Methods?

7 Benefits of Innovative Teaching Methods

• #1: Interactive lessons
• #2: Using virtual reality technology
• #3: Using AI in education
• #4: Blended learning
• #5: 3D printing
• #6: Use the design-thinking process
• #7: Project-based learning
• #8: Inquiry-based learning
• #10: Cloud computing teaching
• #11: Flipped Classroom
• #12: Peer teaching
• #13: Peer feedback
• #14: Crossover teaching
• #15: Personalised teaching

Frequently Asked Questions

More innovative teaching tips.

• Classroom Management Strategies
• Student Classroom Engagement Strategies
• Flipped Classroom

Start in seconds.

Get free education templates for your ultimate innovative teaching methods!. Sign up for free and take what you want from the template library!

What are Innovative Teaching Methods?

Innovative teaching methods aren’t just about using the most cutting-edge technology in class or constantly catching up with the latest education trends, these are the teaching-learning methods!

They’re all about using new teaching strategies that focus more on students. These innovative ones encourage students to join proactively and interact with their classmates and you – the teacher – during lessons. Students will have to work more, but in a way that meets their needs better and can help them grow faster.

Unlike traditional teaching, which mainly focuses on how much knowledge you can pass on to your students, innovative ways of teaching dig deep into what students truly take away from what you’re teaching during lectures.

Why Innovative Teaching Methods ?

The world has seen a shift from brick-and-mortar classrooms to online ones and hybrid learning. However, staring at laptop screens means it’s easier for students to be lost and do something else (maybe chasing sweet dreams in their beds) while honing nothing but their skills in pretending to concentrate.

We can’t blame it all on those students for not studying hard; it’s also the teacher’s responsibility not to give dull and dry lessons that make students fed up.

Many schools, teachers and trainers have been trying innovative teaching strategies in the new normal to keep students interested and engaged more. And digital programs have helped them reach out to students’ minds and give students better access to classes.

Still sceptical?… Well, check these stats out…

• 57% of all US students had their digital tools.
• 75% of US schools had the plan to go virtual entirely.
• Education platforms took up 40% of student device usage.
• The use of remote management apps for educational purposes increased by 87% .
• There is an increase of 141% in the use of collaboration apps.
• 80% of schools and universities in the US had bought or tended to buy additional technology tools for students.

By the end of 2020:

• 98% of universities had their classes taught online.

Source: Think Impact

These stats show a massive change in the way people teach and learn. Best heed them – you don’t want to be an old hat and fall behind with your teaching methods, right?

So, it’s time to re-evaluate learning methods in education!

Here are 7 of what these innovations can do good for students and why they’re worth a try.

• Encourage research – Innovative approaches to learning encourage students to explore and discover new things and tools to broaden their minds.
• 9 Creative Problem Solving Examples to Solve Real Interview Questions
• Avoid receiving a lot of knowledge at once – Teachers using new approaches still give students information, but they tend to split it into smaller parts. Digesting info can now be more accessible, and keeping things short helps students get the basics faster.
• How To Host A Soft Skills Training Session At Work?
• Check students’ understanding – Grades and exams can say something, but not everything about a student’s learning capacity and knowledge (especially if there are sneaky peeks during tests!). Innovative teaching ideas let teachers monitor classes and better know what their students struggle with to find the most suitable solutions.
• Improve self-evaluation – With great methods from teachers, students can understand what they’ve learned and what they’re missing. By discovering what they still need to know, they can understand why to learn particular things and become more eager to do it.
• Enliven classrooms – Don’t let your classrooms be full of your voice or awkward silence. Innovative teaching methods give students something different to get excited about, encouraging them to speak up and interact more.

15 Innovative Teaching Methods

1. interactive lessons.

Students are your innovative learners! One-way lessons are very traditional and sometimes exhausting for you and your students, so create an environment where students feel encouraged to speak up and express their ideas.

Students can join in-class activities in many ways, not just by raising their hands or being called out to answer. These days, you can find online platforms that help you make interactive classroom activities to save heaps of time and get all students to join instead of just two or three.

🌟 Interactive lesson example – Innovative Teaching Method s

Get all your class pumped up by playing live quizzes and games with spinner wheels or even through word clouds, polls or brainstorming together. You can have all your students participate in those exciting activities with the help of some online platforms.

Not only that, but students can type or choose answers anonymously instead of raising their hands. This makes them more confident to get involved, express their opinions and no longer worry about being ‘wrong’ or judged.

Looking to try interaction? AhaSlides has all these features in store for you and your students!

2. Using virtual reality technology

Enter a whole new world right inside your classroom with virtual reality technology. Like sitting in a 3D cinema or playing VR games, your students can immerse themselves in different spaces and interact with ‘real’ objects instead of seeing things on flat screens.

Now your class can travel to another country in seconds, go outer space to explore our Milky Way, or learn about the Jurassic era with dinosaurs standing just meters away.

VR technology may be costly, but the way it can turn any of your lessons into a blast and wow all students makes it worth the price.

🌟 Teaching with Virtual Reality Technology – Innovative Teaching Method s Example

It looks fun, but how do teachers teach with VR technology for real? Watch this video of a VR session by Tablet Academy.

3. Using AI in education

AI assists us in doing so much of our work, so who says we can’t use it in education? This method is surprisingly widespread these days.

Using AI doesn’t mean it does everything and replaces you. It’s not like in the sci-fi movies where computers and robots move around and teach our students (or brainwash them).

It helps lecturers like you reduce their workload, personalise courses and instruct students more efficiently. You probably probably use many familiar things, such as LMS, plagiarism detection, automatic scoring and assessment, all AI products.

So far, AI has proved it brings about many benefits for teachers , and the scenarios of it invading the education field or Earth are the stuff of movies only.

🌟 Fun AI Tips From AhaSlides

• 7+ Slides AI Platforms Suited Your Needs in 2024
• 4+ AI Presentation Makers To Elevate Your Presentation Performance in 2024
• Creating AI PowerPoint In 4 Simple Ways in 2024

🌟 Using AI in education example – Innovative Teaching Method s

• Course management
• Adaptive learning
• Parent-Teacher communication
• Audio/visual aids

Read over 40 more examples here .

4. Blended learning

Blended learning is a method that combines both traditional in-class training and high-tech online teaching. It gives you and your students more flexibility to create effective studying environments and customise learning experiences.

In the technology-driven world we live in, it’s hard to neglect powerful tools like the internet or e-learning software. Things like video meetings for teachers and students, LMS to manage courses, online sites to interact and play, and many apps serving studying purposes have taken the world.

🌟 Blended learning example – Innovative Teaching Method

When schools reopened and students got to join offline classes, it was still great to have some help from digital tools to make the lessons more engaging.

AhaSlides is a great tool for blended learning that engages students in face-to-face and virtual classrooms. Your students can join quizzes, games, brainstorming and many class activities on this platform.

Check out: Examples of Blended Learning – Innovative Way to Absorb Knowledge in 2024

5. 3D Printing

3D printing makes your lessons more fun and gives students hands-on experience to learn new things better. This method takes classroom engagement to a new level that textbooks can’t ever compare.

3D printing gives your students real-world understanding and ignites their imaginations. Studying is much easier when students can hold organ models in their hands to learn about the human body or see models of famous buildings and explore their structures.

🌟 3D printing example

Below are many more ideas for using 3D printing in many subjects to excite your curious students.

6. Use the design-thinking process

This one is a solution-based strategy to solve problems, collaborate and spark students’ creativity. There are five stages, but it’s different from other methods because you don’t have to follow a step-by-step guide or any order. It’s a non-linear process, so you can customise it based on your lectures and activities.

• Check out: Top 5 Idea Generation Processes in 2024
• Complete Guide to Six Thinking Hats Techniques For Beginners in 2024

The five stages are:

• Empathise – Develop empathy, and find out the needs for the solutions.
• Define – Define issues and the potential of addressing them.
• Ideate – Think and generate new, creative ideas.
• Prototype – Make a draft or sample of the solutions to explore the ideas further.
• Test – Test the solutions, evaluate and gather feedback.

🌟 Design-thinking process – Innovative Teaching Method s Example

Want to see how it goes in a real class? Here’s how K-8 students at Design 39 Campus work with this framework.

7. Project-based learning

All students work on projects at the end of a unit. Project-based learning also revolves around projects, but it allows students to solve real-world issues and come up with new solutions over a more extended period.

PBL makes classes more fun and engaging while students learn new content and develop skills like researching, working independently and with others, critical thinking, etc.

In this active learning method, you work as a guide, and your students take charge of their learning journey. Studying this way can lead to better engagement and understanding, spark their creativity and promote lifelong learning.

Check out: Project-Based Learning – Examples And Ideas Revealed in 2024

🌟 Project-based learning examples – Innovative Teaching Method s

Check out the list of ideas below for more inspiration!

• Film a documentary on a social issue in your community.
• Plan/organise a school party or activity.
• Create and manage a social media account for a specific purpose.
• Artfully illustrate and analyse the cause-effect-solution of a social problem (i.e. overpopulation and the housing shortage in big cities).
• Help local fashion brands go carbon neutral.

Find more ideas here .

8. Inquiry-based learning

Inquiry-based learning is also a kind of active learning. Instead of giving a lecture, you start the lesson by providing questions, problems or scenarios. It also includes problem-based learning and doesn’t rely much on you; in this case, you’re more likely to be a facilitator rather than a lecturer.

Students need to research the topic independently or with a group (it’s up to you) to find an answer. This method helps them develop problem-solving and research skills a lot.

🌟 Inquiry-based learning examples

Try challenging students to…

• Find solutions to air/water/noise/light pollution in a particular area.
• Grow a plant (mung beans are the easiest) and find the best-growing conditions.
• Investigate/confirm a provided answer to a question (for example, a policy/rule already applied in your school to prevent bullying).
• From their questions, find methods to solve and work on addressing those issues.

The jigsaw puzzle is an ordinary game that we bet each of us has played at least once in our lifetime. Similar things happen in class if you try the jigsaw technique.

Here’s how:

• Divide your students into small groups.
• Give each group a subtopic or subcategory of the main topic.
• Instruct them to explore the given ones and develop their ideas.
• Each group shares their findings to form a big picture, which is all knowledge on the topic that they need to know.
• (Optional) Host a feedback session for your students to evaluate and comment on other groups’ work.

If your class has experienced enough teamwork, break down the topic into smaller pieces of information. This way, you can assign each piece to a student and let them work individually before teaching their classmates what they’ve found.

🌟 Jigsaw examples

• ESL jigsaw activity – Give your class a concept like ‘weather’. The groups need to find a set of adjectives to talk about seasons, collocation to describe nice/bad weather or how the weather improves, and sentences written about the weather in some books.
• Biography jigsaw activity – Choose a public figure or a fictional character in a particular field and ask your students to find more info about that one. For example, they can research Isaac Newton to unearth his basic information, notable events in his childhood and middle years (including the famous apple incident) and his legacy.
• History jigsaw activity – Students read texts about a historical event, i.e. World War II and gather information to understand more about it. Subtopics can be prominent political figures, main combatants, causes, timelines, pre-war events or declaration of war, the course of the war, etc.

10. Cloud computing teaching

The term can be strange, but the method itself is familiar to most teachers. It’s a way to connect teachers and students and allow them to access classes and materials from thousands of miles away.

It has a lot of potential for all institutions and educators. This method is easy to use and cost-saving, secures your data, allows students to learn distance, and more.

It’s a little different from online learning in that it requires no interaction between lecturers and learners, which means that your students can learn anytime and anywhere they want to finish the courses.

🌟 Cloud computing example

Here’s the Cloud Computing Fundamentals Training Library from Cloud Academy to let you know what a cloud-based platform looks like and how it can facilitate your teaching.

11. F lipped classroom

Flip the process a little bit for a more exciting and effective learning experience. Before classes, students need to watch videos, read materials or research to have some basic understanding and knowledge. Class time is devoted to doing the so-called ‘homework’ typically done after class, as well as group discussions, debates or other student-led activities.

This strategy centres around students and can help teachers better plan personalised learning and evaluate students’ performance.

🌟 Flipped classroom example

Check out these 7 unique flipped classroom examples .

Wanna know how a flipped classroom looks and takes place in real life ? Check out this video by McGraw Hill about their flipped class.

12. Peer Teaching

This one’s similar to what we’ve discussed in the jigsaw technique. Students understand and master knowledge better when they can explain it clearly. When presenting, they might learn by heart beforehand and speak aloud what they remember, but to teach their peers, they must understand the problem thoroughly.

Students can take the lead in this activity by choosing their area of interest within the subject. Giving students this kind of autonomy helps them to develop a feeling of ownership of the subject and the responsibility to teach it right.

You’ll also find that giving students the chance to teach their classmates boosts their confidence, encourages independent study, and improves presentation skills.

🧑‍💻 Check out:

• A Simple Guide With 5+ Peer Instruction To Engaging Education
• 8 Best Peer Assessment Examples, updated in 2024

🌟 Peer Teaching Examples – Innovative Teaching Method s

Watch this video of a natural, dynamic maths lesson taught by a young student at Dulwich High School of Visual Arts and Design!

13. Peer Feedback

Innovative teaching approaches are much more than teaching or learning within the class. You can apply them in many other areas, such as peer feedback time after a lesson.

Providing and receiving constructive feedback with an open mind and appropriate manners are essential skills students need to learn. Help your class by teaching them how to give their classmates more meaningful comments (like using a feedback rubric ) and make it a routine.

Interactive polling tools, especially those with live word cloud , make it easy to do a quick peer feedback session. After that, you can also ask students to explain their comments or respond to the feedback they receive.

🌟 Peer feedback example

Use short, simple questions and let your students freely say what’s on their minds in sentences, a few words or even emojis.

14. Crossover teaching

Do you remember how excited you were when your class went to a museum, exhibition, or field trip? It’s always a blast to go outside and do something different from looking at the board in a classroom.

Crossover teaching combines the experience of learning in both the classroom and a place outside. Explore concepts in school together, then arrange a visit to a particular place where you can demonstrate how that concept works in a real setting.

It would be even more effective to further develop the lesson by hosting discussions or assigning group work in class after the trip.

🌟 Virtual crossover teaching example

Sometimes, going outside isn’t always possible, but there are ways around that. Check out the virtual Museum of Modern Art tour with Mrs Gauthier from Southfield School Art.

15. Personalised learning

While a strategy works for some students, it may not be that effective for another group. For example, group activities are great for extroverted ones but can be nightmares for super introverted students.

This method tailors the learning process of every student. However taking more time to plan and prepare helps students learn based on their interests, needs, strengths and weaknesses to achieve better results.

Each student’s learning journey can be different, but the ultimate goal remains the same; to acquire knowledge that equips that student for their future life.

🌟 Personalised learning example

Some digital tools help you plan faster and more conveniently; try BookWidgets to facilitate your teaching for your innovative classroom ideas!

It’s time to get innovative! These 15 innovative teaching methods will make your lessons more enjoyable and appealing for everyone. Check those and let’s create interactive slides based on those, to make your classroom performance even better!

What are innovative teaching pedagogies?

Innovative teaching pedagogies refer to modern and creative approaches to teaching and learning that go beyond traditional methods. Some examples include: – Project-based learning: Students gain knowledge and skills by working for an extended period of time to investigate and respond to an engaging and complex question, problem, or challenge. – Problem-based learning: Similar to project-based learning but focuses on a complex problem that allows for some student choice and ownership of the learning process. – Inquiry-based learning: Students learn through the process of questioning assumptions and posing questions to investigate. The teacher facilitates rather than teaches directly.

What is an example of innovation in teaching and learning?

A high school science teacher was trying to help students better understand complex cell biology concepts so she designed an immersive simulation using virtual reality technology. Students were able to “shrink down” using VR headsets to explore a 3D interactive model of a cell. They could float around various organelles like mitochondria, chloroplasts and the nucleus to observe their structures and functions up close. Pop-up information windows provided details on demand. Students could also conduct virtual experiments, for example observing how molecules move across membranes through diffusion or active transport. They recorded scientific drawings and notes of their explorations.

What are top innovative project ideas for school students?

Here are some top innovation examples for students, categorized by different areas of interest: – Build a weather station – Design and build a sustainable energy solution – Develop a mobile app to address a specific problem – Program a robot to perform a task – Conduct an experiment to test a hypothesis – Create a virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) experience – Compose a piece of music that reflects a social issue – Write and perform a play or short film that explores a complex theme – Design a piece of public art that interacts with its environment – Research and present on a historical figure or event from a new perspective – Develop a business plan for a socially responsible enterprise – Conduct a study on the impact of social media on a particular group – Organize a community service project to address a local need – Research and present on the ethical implications of new technologies – Conduct a mock trial or debate on a controversial issue These are just a few education innovation ideas to spark your creativity. Remember, the best project is one that you are passionate about and that allows you to learn, grow, and contribute positively to your community or the world.

A lifelong learner, a traveller and content creator eager to explore the best of both worlds: the real and virtual one full of interactive activities with AhaSlides.

More from AhaSlides

20 Innovative Teaching Methods With Examples: How to Implement in Education Process

Picture yourself enduring a tedious class, the drone of teachers' voices echoing in your ears, struggling to keep your eyelids from drooping as you attempt to focus on the lesson. Not an ideal classroom scenario, right? Discover the 20 most effective innovative teaching methods!

Anastasiia Dyshkant

Content Marketing Manager

In essence, these are diverse teaching approaches! In the present day, numerous educators are actively steering their classes away from such scenarios, aiming to engage students more deeply in the learning process by exploring modern teaching methods.

The educational landscape is evolving rapidly, demanding that you stay abreast of and adapt to more contemporary strategies. Failing to do so might make it challenging for you to integrate seamlessly into the evolving educational landscape.

What are Innovative Teaching Methods?

Innovative teaching methods extend beyond the mere incorporation of cutting-edge teaching methods or a constant pursuit of the latest educational trends—they embody distinctive approaches to the teaching and learning process.

These modern methods of teaching prioritize students, emphasizing classroom engagement and interaction. Innovative strategies encourage proactive participation and collaboration among students and the teacher. While this demands increased effort from students, the approach is tailored to better meet their individual needs, fostering accelerated growth.

In contrast to conventional teaching practices, which primarily measures student success by the amount of knowledge transferred to students, innovative teaching methods delve into the nuanced understanding and retention of the material. It's not just about what is taught but how effectively students internalize and apply the knowledge imparted during lectures.

Why Innovative Teaching Matters

The educational landscape has undergone a transformation, transitioning from traditional classrooms to virtual and hybrid learning environments. However, the prevalence of staring at laptop screens introduces the risk of students becoming easily distracted or disengaged, perhaps even succumbing to the allure of sweet dreams in the comfort of their beds, all while feigning concentration.

It's unfair to solely attribute this challenge to students' lack of diligence; teachers share the responsibility of avoiding tedious and monotonous lessons that can lead to student disinterest.

Amid this new normal, many educational institutions, educators, and trainers are exploring innovative teaching strategies to enhance student interest and involvement. Leveraging digital programs has proven instrumental in captivating students' attention, providing them with improved access to classes and expanding the avenues through which their minds can be reached.

Key Characteristics of Innovative Teaching Strategies

Student-Centric Focus

Innovative teaching strategies prioritize the needs and engagement of students, fostering active participation in the learning process.

Active Learning

Encourages hands-on and participatory activities, moving away from passive learning to promote deeper understanding and retention.

Flexibility and Adaptability

Adapts to the diverse learning styles and needs of students, offering flexibility in content delivery and new teaching methods.

Technology Integration

Utilizes technology creatively to enhance effective learning experiences, incorporating digital tools and resources for effective and interactive instruction.

Collaborative Learning

Emphasizes group work, collaboration, and peer learning to enhance social and communication skills among students.

Problem-Solving Emphasis

Focuses on developing critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills, challenging students to apply knowledge in real-world scenarios.

Continuous Assessment

Moves beyond traditional exams and grades by implementing continuous assessment methods, providing ongoing feedback for improvement.

Creativity Encouragement

Cultivates a learning environment that stimulates creativity and innovation, allowing students to express themselves and explore new ideas.

Individualized Learning Paths

Recognizes and accommodates the diverse learning preferences and paces of individual students, promoting personalized learning experiences.

Real-World Relevance

Connects classroom concepts to real-world applications, demonstrating the practical relevance of what students are learning.

Feedback-Oriented Approach

Prioritizes constructive feedback to guide students' progress, facilitating a continuous cycle of improvement and reflection.

Cultivation of Soft Skills

Integrates the development of soft skills, such as communication, collaboration, and time management, essential for success in various contexts.

Benefits of Innovative Teaching Methods

Explore the positive benefits for teachers of these seven innovations on students and why they merit consideration.

Encourage Research:

Innovative approaches to education motivate students to delve into new things, utilizing various tools to broaden their horizons and foster a spirit of exploration.

Enhance Problem-Solving and Critical Thinking:

Creative and effective teaching methods empower students to learn at their own pace, challenging them to brainstorm novel solutions rather than relying on pre-existing answers in textbooks.

Facilitate Incremental Learning:

New teaching approaches involve breaking down information into smaller, more digestible parts, making it easier for students to grasp fundamentals while avoiding overwhelming them with a deluge of knowledge.

Cultivate Soft Skills:

Integrating complex tools into classwork enables students to acquire advanced skills. Engaging in individual or group projects teaches time management, task prioritization, effective communication, collaboration, and other vital soft skills.

Assess Understanding Beyond Grades:

Innovation method of teaching enables educators to monitor classes actively, gaining deeper insights into students' challenges and learning capacities beyond what traditional grades and exams may reveal.

Promote Self-Evaluation:

Innovation teaching methods provided by teachers empower student learning to assess their own learning. Understanding what they have mastered and identifying areas for improvement enhances their motivation to learn specific topics.

Create Vibrant Classrooms:

Innovation of teaching methods in education inject excitement into classrooms, preventing monotony. This dynamic approach encourages students to actively participate, speak up, and foster increased interaction.

20 Innovative Teaching Strategies for Better Student Engagement

1. Interactive Lessons

Interactive lessons involve innovation methods in teaching that actively engage students in the learning process. Instead of passively receiving information, students participate in activities, discussions, and exercises that require their input and involvement. This approach aims to foster a more dynamic and engaging classroom environment. Interactive lessons can take various forms, including group discussions, hands-on activities, simulations, case studies, and collaborative projects. Teachers may use technology tools, interactive whiteboards, or other resources to facilitate participation and feedback, encouraging students to take an active role in their own learning.

Example of Interactive Lesson

Imagine a biology lesson where students use a virtual dissecting table. Through a touch-sensitive screen, students can virtually dissect a frog. They can drag and drop tools, zoom in for a closer look, and receive real-time feedback on their technique. This interactive approach engages students actively in the learning process, making it more memorable and enjoyable.

2. Using Virtual Reality Technology

Virtual Reality (VR) technology creates a simulated environment that users can interact with, providing a unique and immersive learning experience. In education, VR can be used to transport students to virtual worlds that simulate historical events, scientific phenomena, or complex concepts. For example, students studying history might virtually explore ancient civilizations, while science students could conduct virtual experiments in an engaging learning environment. This technology enhances experiential learning, allowing students to visualize abstract concepts and engage with subject matter in a new way of teaching. It can be particularly beneficial in fields where hands-on experience is challenging to provide in a traditional classroom setting.

Example of Teaching with VR Technology

In a history class, students can put on VR headsets and be transported to historical events. For instance, they could experience the signing of the Declaration of Independence or walk through ancient civilizations. This immersive experience allows students to better understand historical contexts, fostering a deeper connection to the subject matter.

3. Using AI in Education

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education involves the integration of AI technologies to enhance the learning experience for students and support educators. AI can be applied in various ways, such as:

Personalized learning

Automated assessment

Adaptive learning platforms

Virtual assistants

Data analysis

Integrating AI into education aims to make learning more efficient, personalized, and adaptive to the needs of each student, ultimately enhancing the overall educational experience.

Example of Using AI in Education

An AI-powered adaptive learning platform can be employed in mathematics. The system assesses each student's strengths and weaknesses, tailoring lessons to their individual needs. If a student struggles with a specific concept, the AI provides additional exercises and resources to reinforce understanding. Conversely, if a student excels, the AI advances them to more challenging material, ensuring personalized and efficient learning experiences.

4. Blended Learning

Blended learning is an educational approach that combines traditional face-to-face instruction with online learning components. It seeks to leverage the strengths of both in-person and digital learning to create more flexible and personalized learning strategies and  experience. An example of blended learning might involve students attending in-person classes for lectures and discussions while also completing online modules, interactive simulations, or collaborative projects outside of the classroom. This approach allows for a mix of teacher-led instruction, self-paced online learning, and interactive activities, catering to different learning styles and promoting student engagement.

Example of Blended Learning

In a blended learning scenario, a history class might have students attend traditional lectures and participate in classroom discussions. Additionally, the teacher could integrate online modules featuring interactive timelines, virtual tours of historical sites, and collaborative research projects. Students might use online discussion forums to share their insights and engage with peers beyond the physical classroom. The blend of in-person and online activities aims to enhance the overall learning experience and provide students with more flexibility in how they access and interact with course content.

5. 3D Printing

3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, involves creating physical objects layer by layer based on a digital model. In education, 3D printing is utilized to bring concepts to life in a tangible and visual way. Teachers and students can design and print three-dimensional models that represent scientific structures, historical artifacts, mathematical concepts, or prototypes. This hands-on approach enhances understanding by allowing students to interact with physical representations of abstract ideas.

Example of 3D Printing

In a science class studying the solar system, students could use 3D printing to create accurate models of planets, moons, and other celestial bodies. By designing and printing these objects, students not only gain a deeper understanding of the spatial relationships within the solar system but also develop skills in design and technology. The tactile experience of holding and examining 3D-printed models can significantly enhance the learning process and make complex topics more accessible.

6. Use the Design-thinking Process

The design-thinking process is a problem-solving approach that emphasizes empathy, ideation, prototyping, and testing. It encourages a creative and collaborative mindset to address complex challenges. In education, the design-thinking process can be applied to foster critical thinking, innovation, and real-world problem-solving skills among students.

Example of Design-thinking Process

Let's consider a design-thinking project in a high school setting. Students might be tasked with addressing a local environmental issue, such as waste reduction. The process would start with empathizing, where students research and understand the perspectives of different stakeholders affected by the problem. Next, they would ideate, generating creative solutions to address the issue. In the prototyping phase, students might create physical or digital prototypes of their proposed solutions. Finally, they would test and refine their prototypes based on feedback and real-world observations. This design-thinking approach integrates various skills, including research, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving, providing students with a holistic learning experience.

7. Project-based Learning (PBL)

Project-Based Learning is an instructional methodology that centers around students completing projects that require them to apply their knowledge and skills to real-world challenges. PBL emphasizes hands-on, collaborative learning, fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Example of Project-based Learning

In a biology class, students could engage in a PBL project focused on environmental conservation. The project might involve researching local ecosystems, identifying environmental issues, proposing solutions, and implementing a community awareness campaign. Throughout the project, students would not only deepen their understanding of biology but also develop research, communication, and teamwork skills as they work towards a tangible goal.

8. Inquiry-based Learning

Inquiry-Based Learning is an approach where students actively explore and investigate topics, posing questions and conducting research to construct their understanding. This method encourages curiosity, critical thinking, and a deeper engagement with the subject matter.

Example of Inquiry-based Learning

In a physics class, students could engage in an inquiry-based project to explore the principles of motion. They might formulate questions about the factors affecting the speed of an object and design experiments to test their hypotheses. Through hands-on exploration and data analysis, students would develop a conceptual understanding of physics principles while honing their research and analytical skills.

The Jigsaw technique is a cooperative learning strategy where students work collaboratively to become experts on specific topics and then share their knowledge with their peers. This promotes teamwork, communication, and a sense of shared responsibility for active learning method.

Example of Jigsaw

In a history class studying a particular time period, each student could be assigned to become an "expert" on a different aspect, such as political, economic, social, or cultural elements of that era. After researching and becoming knowledgeable in their area, students would then form new groups with members who have expertise in different aspects. In these new groups, students share their knowledge, creating a comprehensive understanding of the historical period through collaborative learning.

10. Cloud Computing Teaching

Cloud computing teaching involves leveraging cloud-based technologies to enhance the learning experience. This includes storing and accessing data, collaborating on projects, and utilizing online tools and resources for teaching and learning.

Example of Cloud Computing

In an IT class, students might use cloud computing platforms to collaborate on coding projects. They could use cloud-based development environments to write and test code, store project files on cloud storage, and collaborate in real-time using cloud-based collaboration tools. This approach allows for seamless collaboration, easy access to resources, and the flexibility to work on projects from different locations, promoting a more modern and connected learning experience.

11. Flipped Classroom

The flipped classroom model reverses the traditional teaching approach by delivering instructional content, such as lectures, through digital media outside of the classroom. Class time is then used for interactive activities, discussions, and application of knowledge.

Example of Flipped Classroom

In a math class, instead of the teacher delivering a lecture on a new concept during class time, students might watch a pre-recorded video lecture at home. Class time would then be dedicated to working on math problems, engaging in group discussions, and receiving personalized assistance from the teacher. This allows students to learn at their own pace, receive more individualized support, and actively apply what they've learned in a collaborative setting.

12. Peer Teaching

Peer teaching involves students taking on the role of the teacher to explain concepts or assist their classmates in understanding specific topics. This approach reinforces understanding through teaching and encourages collaboration.

Example of Peer Teaching

In a language class, students could pair up to practice conversational skills. Each pair is responsible for teaching and correcting each other's pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary usage. This not only provides additional practice for the students but also promotes a supportive learning community where students take an active role in each other's learning.

13. Peer Feedback

Peer feedback involves students providing constructive feedback to their peers on their work, presentations, or projects. This encourages a culture of collaboration, communication, and continuous improvement.

Example of Peer Feedback

In a writing class, students could exchange drafts of their essays with a peer. The peers would then provide feedback on the structure, clarity, and overall effectiveness of the writing. This process not only helps students improve their writing skills but also enhances their ability to critically evaluate and provide constructive feedback.

14. Crossover Teaching

Crossover teaching involves educators from different subjects collaborating to integrate content from multiple disciplines. This interdisciplinary approach aims to show the interconnectedness of different subjects and enhance the relevance of learning.

Example of Crossover Teaching

In a high school setting, a history teacher and a literature teacher might collaborate on a unit exploring a specific historical period. Students could read literature from that era, analyze historical documents, and discuss the cultural and social context. This crossover teaching approach helps students see how knowledge from different subjects can complement and enrich their understanding of a particular topic.

15. Personalized Learning

Personalized learning tailors the educational experience to the individual needs, preferences, and pace of each student. This can involve adapting content, pacing, and innovative methods of teaching to align with the unique learning styles and strengths of each learner.

Example of Personalized Learning

In a science class, students might engage in personalized learning through adaptive online platforms. The educator support platform assesses each student's strengths and weaknesses and provides customized learning paths, offering additional resources or challenges based on individual progress. This approach allows students to move at their own pace, reinforcing concepts they find challenging and advancing more quickly through material they grasp easily.

16. Active Learning

Active learning involves strategies that engage students in the learning process through activities, discussions, and participation, rather than passive listening. It encourages students to think critically and apply their knowledge actively.

Example of Active Learning

In a biology class, instead of a traditional lecture format, students might participate in a hands-on lab where they conduct experiments to understand cellular processes. The teacher facilitates discussions, and students actively work together to analyze results and draw conclusions. This hands-on approach not only reinforces theoretical knowledge but also enhances critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

17. Gamification

Gamification integrates game elements into non-game contexts, such as education, to enhance engagement and motivation. Points, levels, challenges, and rewards are used to make learning more enjoyable.

Example of Gamification

In a language learning app, students earn points for completing lessons, quizzes, and interactive exercises. As they accumulate points, they unlock new levels and earn virtual rewards. This gamified learning approach incentivizes consistent learning, provides a sense of achievement, and makes the language learning process more enjoyable and interactive.

18. Problem-Based Learning

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional method where students learn through solving real-world problems. It promotes critical thinking, collaboration, and the application of knowledge to practical situations.

Example of Problem-Based Learning

In a physics class, students might be presented with a real-world problem, such as designing a sustainable energy solution for a community. Working in groups, students would need to research, analyze, and propose a solution that considers the principles of physics, environmental impact, and cost-effectiveness. This approach not only deepens their understanding of physics but also develops problem-solving skills in a practical context.

19. Mistake-Led Teaching

Mistake-led teaching emphasizes the value of mistakes as opportunities for learning and growth. Instead of penalizing mistakes, this approach encourages reflection, analysis, and understanding through the process of making and correcting errors.

Example of Mistake-Led Teaching

In a mathematics class, when students make mistakes in problem-solving, the teacher could use those mistakes as teaching moments. Instead of providing the correct answer immediately, the teacher facilitates a discussion where students analyze the errors, identify misconceptions, and collectively work towards the correct solution. This fosters a positive learning environment where mistakes are viewed as a natural part of the learning process.

20. Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning involves students working together in groups to achieve shared learning goals. It promotes communication, teamwork, and the exchange of innovative ideas in education.

Example of Collaborative Learning

In a history class, students could be assigned a research project on a specific historical event. Each group member is responsible for investigating different aspects of the event, such as political, social, and economic impacts. The group collaborates to synthesize information and create a comprehensive presentation. This collaborative approach not only deepens individual understanding but also enhances teamwork and communication skills.

Tips for Implementing Innovative Teaching Strategies

Implementing innovative teaching strategies can be a transformative experience for both educators and students. Here are some tips to help facilitate the successful integration of innovating teaching strategies in the classroom:

• Start with Clear Learning Objectives:

Clearly define the learning objectives and goals you want to achieve with the innovation teaching strategy. Ensure that the chosen strategy aligns with the curriculum and educational outcomes.

• Understand Your Students:

Consider the needs, learning styles, and interests of your students. Tailor the innovative strategy in teaching to match the characteristics of your classroom, fostering a more personalized and engaging learning experience.

• Create a Supportive Environment:

Foster a positive and supportive classroom culture that encourages experimentation, creativity, and risk-taking. Establish an atmosphere where students feel comfortable exploring new concepts and expressing their ideas.

• Provide Adequate Resources:

Ensure that teachers and students have access to the necessary resources, including technology, materials, and training materials. Adequate resources facilitate a smooth implementation of innovating teaching strategies.

• Encourage Collaboration:

Promote collaboration among educators by creating opportunities for sharing insights, experiences, and best practices. Collaborative environments foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

• Seek Student Feedback:

Regularly gather feedback from students to understand their experiences with the innovative teaching strategies. This input helps educators make necessary adjustments and tailor the strategies to better suit student needs.

• Celebrate Successes:

Acknowledge and celebrate the successes achieved through the implementation of innovative teaching strategies. Recognizing achievements reinforces the value of experimentation and encourages a positive attitude towards innovation.

• Stay Informed and Updated:

Stay informed about emerging education trends, technologies, and pedagogical approaches. Continuous learning and staying updated ensure that educators remain at the forefront of innovative teaching practices.

• Flexibility and Adaptability:

Be flexible and willing to adapt. Different strategies may work for different students or in varying contexts. Flexibility allows for adjustments based on ongoing assessments and feedback.

• Encourage Continuous Professional Development:

Support ongoing professional development for teachers, including attending workshops, conferences, and participating in online communities. Continuous learning ensures that teachers stay inspired and well-equipped to implement innovative strategy in teaching effectively.

Remember that the successful implementation of innovative teaching strategies requires a combination of planning, collaboration, and a commitment to ongoing improvement. By creating a supportive and dynamic learning environment, educators can enhance student engagement and foster a love for learning.

What Teaching Strategies Should One Avoid?

Long lectures without interaction can lead to disinterest. Include discussions and activities for engagement.

Adapt teaching to diverse needs, learning styles, and backgrounds for an inclusive environment.

Balance worksheets with hands-on activities and real-world applications to avoid passive learning.

Balance standardized testing with other assessments like projects and presentations.

Thoughtfully integrate technology to prepare students for the digital age.

Clearly state learning outcomes to provide direction and purpose for lessons.

Involve students in decision-making processes and incorporate their interests.

Supplement textbooks with real-world examples, multimedia, and interactive activities. 

Incorporate SEL activities for a positive and supportive learning environment.

Collaborate with colleagues and involve students in collaborative learning experiences.

Embrace mistakes as learning opportunities and encourage a growth mindset.

Use a variety of assessments to capture a comprehensive view of student understanding.

The Future of Innovative Teaching

Over the past few years, the transition from traditional brick-and-mortar learning to digital education has accelerated a pre-existing trend. Virtual academy enrollments had been steadily increasing well before the pandemic, catering to hundreds of thousands of students annually in the US. The provision of digital programs offers students enhanced flexibility, granting them greater access to teachers and classes while empowering them to take more control over their learning experiences.

Quoting Plato's timeless wisdom, "our need will be the real creator," or in modern terms, "necessity is the mother of invention." While innovative teaching strategies were once considered a niche practice by a select few educators, they are now becoming commonplace as schools seek to address learning gaps and adapt to our evolving reality.

Anticipate witnessing a surge in blended learning, hybrid learning, and ambitious initiatives aimed at tackling the challenges confronting schools and students today. This trend extends beyond the classroom, impacting the workplace as well, as organizations grapple with how to navigate their own hybrid learning landscapes.

Crucial for fostering a dynamic and successful learning atmosphere, inventive teaching techniques play a pivotal role in empowering both educators and students. They enable teachers to cultivate imaginative approaches to instruction while fostering the development of independent learning skills among students.

Through the provision of diverse instructional strategies and materials, educators can elevate both student engagement and achievement within the classroom setting.

At PioGroup, we firmly believe in the transformative impact of innovative teaching strategies on learning outcomes. Our extensive array of resources is tailored to assist teachers in seamlessly integrating innovative techniques into their classrooms.

Feel free to reach out today to discover more about how you can unlock the advantages of incorporating innovative teaching strategies into your educational environment!

Related articles

What is Customer Training? (and How an LMS Can Help)

Whether you're embarking on your journey in customer training or aiming to enhance your existing approach, this article is tailored for you. We'll delve into the significance of training customers, explore various delivery methods, and guide your business in crafting a customer training strategy that's both efficient and impactful, ultimately driving your customers' success.

eLearning Content Development: Process, Trends, Things to Consider

Every institution familiar with education and growth acknowledges that one of the greatest hurdles in establishing a thriving Learning Management System (LMS) is filling it with pertinent, captivating, and beneficial material.

Must-Have E-learning App Features

While many educational institutions recognize the significance of integrating a mobile e-learning app, others are reluctant for various reasons. Issues such as limited resources, the intricacies of app development and maintenance, and associated costs serve as barriers preventing some educational institutions from venturing into app creation. Despite these challenges, it is important not to be discouraged from pursuing the development of an educational mobile app.

• Stand With Ukraine: Your Help Is Crucial

Online Storytelling in Distance Learning: Stories That Stick

• Improvements to Paper Checking: Fresh Updates Educators Will Love
• How UoPeople Solved Academic Integrity Challenges with Unicheck in its Moodle LMS

What is Similarity Percentage All About and How Much is Allowed for Academic Papers?

• 5 Tips on Choosing an Effective Plagiarism Checker Software for Students
• How ITESM, a Mexican Legendary Institution, Teams Up with Unicheck to Automate Paper Checks
• Dr. Tricia Bertram Gallant On Academic Honesty in Remote-First Instruction

Traditional Vs. Innovative Teaching Methods

Constant changes in the educational system and other areas related to education always cause discussions around this topic. It is obvious, that changes turn positive only if they lead to development and improvement in the educational environment while other changes don’t bring any benefit. That’s why, when speaking about teaching methods , we can hear a lot of critical comments about variations in types of teaching. Nevertheless, we may also hear some supporting arguments. So, what arguments seem to be stronger – about traditional or innovative methods of teaching?

Traditional and Innovative Teaching – What’s the Difference?

What is the difference between the traditional lecture and the innovative one? New approaches to teaching are supposed to change the specifics of students’ involvement in the learning process from passive to active type. Surprisingly, this difference is not the only one. For example, before, lectures were formalized – professors used to deliver a lecture and students used to write down the most important things from what they’ve heart. Recently some innovations came through, lectures became more interactive, so that students and professors organized their work via cooperation in the learning process.

Game-based learning – fact or fiction?

One of the most famous for using up-to-date approaches to arranging educational process is Q2L (Quest to learn) school in NY. Its curriculum is based on game-based learning – it’s very outstanding and productive way of organizing studying process. That’s why students in this school show significant results in their learning activities. Children always study better if they have an interest in the subject.

New vision of lectures and professors’ creativity

Today we live in the media age and this markedly affects us and our lifestyle. It also makes a great impact on teaching process as well. Students take a new look at lectures as the optional way to expand informational basis and gain some new knowledge, but not as the general one. However, students need professors to teach them how to interpret what they have already learned and explain how to gain new knowledge. In traditional teaching professors usually were spending most of their time and efforts for delivering information to students instead of using their creativity, which is more efficient way of cooperation.

Top-3 Innovations in Teaching Process

Of course, professors do their work and share information with students, but professors’ guidance is not the only way to find the most relevant information and get knowledge nowadays, as there are some innovations in the teaching process:

• Educational Video Influences Better Memorizing. Educational video stimulates students to pay more attention during classes and enhance their learning abilities. Besides that, some lectures in Universities and Colleges contain learning games (not only computer games) which are much more interesting than listening to the professor. This style of learning successfully enhances students’ motivation due to the strong connection between visual contact and better memorizing. Furthermore, watching videos helps students to create associations that help them remember learning material.
• Social Media Simplify Cooperation with Educators. With appearance of the Internet and media age, most schools, colleges, and universities started to renew teaching methods. Social media allow students, parents, and teachers keep in touch and inform each other about assignments or events. Using such technologies, students can do more exercises for self-learning and save their time;
• Computer-Assisted Instruction Makes Individual Study Possible. This technology allows teachers to help individual students who have some difficulties during their study. This can be a great extension for the traditional schoolhouse. Using computer-assisted instruction helps improve students’ skills and solve study-related problems in a group. This is a convenient tool for individual study. Besides that, computer-assisted instruction includes some programs for writing and studying certain subjects.

Innovative Vs. Traditional Teaching: who wins?

Some would say that any innovations in traditional teaching system are unnecessary as they may distract students from what they really should do during their studies. Surely, this thesis can be considered as a truth. But still, we live in a world of rapidly growing technologies and constant changes, so why the educational process should remain unchangeable, with no opportunity of self-education, game-based learning and all of those new arrangements? The answer is obvious. The modern educational system needs renewing in methods, usage and understanding the concept of up-to-date education, that should always correspond to the needs of our generation.

Meet the team of passionate edtech creators, advocating original ideas and critical thinking. We seek to discuss any burning issues in education, inspiring readers to take action and join a conversation.

Related Posts

Get Students More Involved with Online Discussion Boards

• Go To Unicheck.com
• Try Unicheck

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Machine Learning

Title: galore: memory-efficient llm training by gradient low-rank projection.

Abstract: Training Large Language Models (LLMs) presents significant memory challenges, predominantly due to the growing size of weights and optimizer states. Common memory-reduction approaches, such as low-rank adaptation (LoRA), add a trainable low-rank matrix to the frozen pre-trained weight in each layer, reducing trainable parameters and optimizer states. However, such approaches typically underperform training with full-rank weights in both pre-training and fine-tuning stages since they limit the parameter search to a low-rank subspace and alter the training dynamics, and further, may require full-rank warm start. In this work, we propose Gradient Low-Rank Projection (GaLore), a training strategy that allows full-parameter learning but is more memory-efficient than common low-rank adaptation methods such as LoRA. Our approach reduces memory usage by up to 65.5% in optimizer states while maintaining both efficiency and performance for pre-training on LLaMA 1B and 7B architectures with C4 dataset with up to 19.7B tokens, and on fine-tuning RoBERTa on GLUE tasks. Our 8-bit GaLore further reduces optimizer memory by up to 82.5% and total training memory by 63.3%, compared to a BF16 baseline. Notably, we demonstrate, for the first time, the feasibility of pre-training a 7B model on consumer GPUs with 24GB memory (e.g., NVIDIA RTX 4090) without model parallel, checkpointing, or offloading strategies.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Download PDF
• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .