Reframing innovative teaching

Interactive Learning Environments ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20 Reframing innovative teaching Sue Greener To cite this article: Sue Greener (2018) Reframing innovative teaching, Interactive Learning Environments, 26:4, 425-426, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1457135 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1457135 Published online: 26 Mar 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 344 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS, 2018 VOL. 26, NO. 4, 425–426 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1457135 EDITORIAL Reframing innovative teaching Thirty years ago, Chickering and Gamson (1987) identified seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. They focused on interaction: between faculty and students, between students, between knowledge content and action, between task and feedback. Their principles have been restated and refined through pedagogical practice and technological possibility. Information technology has allowed teachers to re-imagine interaction, both asynchronous and synchronous, across geographical distance and time. These authors also suggested some qualities required of learning environments to support this good practice: a strong sense of shared purposes, concrete support from administrators and faculty leaders for those purposes, adequate funding appropriate for the purposes, policies and procedures consistent with the purposes and a continuing examination of how well the purposes are being achieved. (p. 5). Today’s innovative teaching regularly involves the use of information technology, sometimes in the background, sometimes the foreground of innovative practice. Yet the learning environments in which innovation tries to thrive are not always so supportive. Administrative and commercial imperatives have influenced the potential for standardisation and mass production of learning objects and resources. It is easy to see that treating learning as a product which can be mass-produced and distributed like ready-meals is likely to stifle innovation. Coupled with shorter attention spans from the learner, fostered by online notifications from social media, the chances of constructing learning with today’s students can be somewhat constrained. The innovative teacher must not only find time to develop their scholarly understanding and disciplinary expertise, but also keep pace with new learning management systems and presentation media, doing so with increasing student numbers and a 24/7 demand for response, while also imagining and designing new experiences and interactive encounters between learners, their knowledge requirements and themselves. Educational institutions contribute ever tighter constraints on budget and procedural quality assessment which are far from a “strong sense of shared purposes”. Far from being learning organisations, with the associated commitment of individuals to the process of learning (personal mastery) and an open culture which promotes inquiry and trust, decentralised structures sharing common values and open communication and dialogue (Senge, 1990), educational institutions may seem to be losing the knack of learning. If we review the situation of the innovative teacher (who could exist at any level of education or relate to organisational learning and development as trainer or practitioner) from the perspective of Bolman and Deal’s reflective frames (1984), we may find some constructive ways to reframe and support innovation in teaching. The structural frame looks to the social architecture required to enable an effective fit between an organisation and its environment. In formal educational institutions we find increasingly centralised structures which seek economies of scale, particularly from online learning, rather than decentralised structures which can facilitate autonomy and innovation. This could be seen as a strategic management problem, but technological responses such as MOOCs and increasingly available web conferencing and e-learning tools can be used to work across or outside the monumental structures. The human resources frame looks to the juxtaposition of organisations and human needs. Our innovative teacher needs a responsive and trusting response from colleagues and management in order to develop what may be risky or untried approaches to learning. Risk-averse bureaucratic policies are likely to hinder this innovation. How are we to address © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 426 EDITORIAL this constructively? The development of alliances across institutions to build evidence and test pilot learning practices may be one answer. The political frame focusses on power, conflict, competition. How does this look to the innovative teacher? Often, she or he will have invested long hours of personal time in building their new approaches, perhaps preparing a flipped or problem-based course, adaptive learning technologies, or visual simulations, only to find serious opposition from colleagues or managers who discount this extra contribution as unnecessary and find ways to undermine the innovative approach. Politics too is about alliances, and gaining power through research and peer review, through evidence of improved outcomes, including learner satisfaction ratings which have credibility with colleagues and senior managers. The last frame is the symbolic frame, paying attention to meaning and metaphor, story and ritual. From this perspective our innovative teacher will need to build bridges with teachers who prefer to reproduce and deliver information rather than facilitate and inspire learners. Understanding the stories these latter teachers tell, of failed technologies and humiliating downtimes, can help our innovative teacher to replace these with stories which make sense to colleagues; using their language and difficulties to explain solutions assisted by technological innovation. Whether we can reframe it or not, innovative teaching has never been more important. Our technology tools offer increasing opportunities for positive learning interactions and experiences if we can just find ways to nurture and grow them in the prevailing environments. This issue offers a mix of articles discussing innovative ways to focus on learner attention and activity through reading speeds, smartboards and e-textbooks, modelling high and low attention, and innovative environments for learning including simulations and visualisations. In all these examples, interaction remains at the core of innovative learning and teaching practice. References Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3–7. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Century Business. Sue Greener University of Brighton, Brighton, England S.L.Greener@brighton.ac.uk