Does Our Current Education System Support Innovation?

Innovation is the currency of progress. Inour world of seismic changes, innovation has become a holy grail that promisesto shepherd us through these uncertain and challenging times. And there isn’t amore visible symbol of innovation than the iPad. It’s captured the hearts andminds of disparate subcultures and organizations.

In education it’s been widely hailed as arevolutionary device, promising to transform education as we know it.Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as bulk purchasing iPads and deploying theminto the wilds of education. Innovation can’t be installed. It has to be grown— and generally from the margins.

The profusion of digital technology atwork, home and everywhere in between is evident to even the most causalobserver. In this climate, it’s understandable why many schools are interestedin technological integration and innovation. While it seems clear that studentswill increasingly be expected to be adept at using digital tools in theirprofessional and personal lives, there isn’t great clarity on how exactly thesetools should be used. Often visions and goals are nebulous — if they exist atall. We can’t just buy iPads (or any device), add water, and hope that strategywill usher schools to the leading edge of 21st century education. Technology,by itself, isn’t curative. Human agency shapes the path.

In light of this dynamic, two criticalquestions need to be asked and provisionally answered when integratingtechnology into education. The first question, while obvious at first glance,isn’t always fully articulated: “What are the educational goals of technologyintegration?”

The second question is equally importantand often more elusive: “Do the current systems and processes support theintegrative and innovative goals?”

AdaptingTeaching To Technology

The answer to the first question — aboutthe goals of technology integration — often orbits around 21st century skills.The problem is that most of the curriculum within schools today is distinctlytied to the 20th century. The first phase of technology integration usuallyfocuses on the transition from an analog to a digital environment, but afterthat happens, the use of technology raises deeper pedagogical questions.

The best schools throughout historyprepared their students for the social and economic realities of their time.Our system of universal education was designed to meet the social and economicneeds of the industrial revolution, which was defined by a world ofstandardization. While the industrial revolution has been added to the annalsof history, our system of education has not.

The social and economic world of today andtomorrow require people who can critically and creatively work in teams tosolve problems. Technology widens the spectrum of how individuals and teams canaccess, construct and communicate knowledge. Education, for the most part,isn’t creating learners along these lines. Meanwhile, computers are challengingthe legitimacy of expert-driven knowledge, i.e., of the teacher at the front ofthe classroom being the authority. All computing devices — from laptops totablets to smartphones — are dismantling knowledge silos and are thereforetransforming the role of a teacher into something that is more of a facilitatorand coach.

This isn’t to say that teachers arebecoming obsolete. Great teachers are needed now more than ever. But what itmeans to be a teacher and student is changing — as it has throughout history.The main point is that technology is helping to drive a pedagogical change, andschools need to be mindful of this influence and thoughtful of how they’d liketo facilitate this transition. This is why linking technology to learningobjectives is so important. Otherwise, schools could find themselves in aposition where the cart (technology) is before the horse (pedagogy).

DoesOur Current System Support Innovation?

Answers to the second question (Do thecurrent systems and processes support the integrative and innovative goals?)are rarely offered because the question is seldom asked.

The organization of schools — theirsystems, processes and values — were deliberately designed to accomplishspecific objectives. Departments, 50-minute classes, bells, rows of desks,lectures, textbooks, standardized tests, and grades are all aspects of schools’organizational structure that were conceived to train students in the image ofindustrial society. Within this model, standardization and mass production rulesupreme.

The systems and values of industrialeducation were not designed with innovation and digital tools in mind.Innovation, whether it’s with technology, assessment or instruction, requirestime and space for experimentation and a high tolerance for uncertainty.Disruption of established patterns is the modus operandi of innovation. We likethe fruits of innovation, but few of us have the mettle to run the gauntlet ofinnovation.

Innovationfrom the Margins

Because integration and innovation withtechnology can be so disruptive to established systems, innovation is morelikely to take root if it is grown on the margins. The margin can be a smallpercentage of class time that’s carved out each week for experimentation, or itcan be a technology incubator designed to function beyond the conventionalboundaries of school systems.

Wherever the appropriate margin isidentified for technological innovation, the climate within the margin needs tobe such that teachers and students are supported in exploring the edges ofuncertainty. This is critical because uncertainty and experimentation areperceived as a waste of time within the current model because there iscurriculum that needs to be covered and tests that need to be taken within aprescribed schedule. One can’t begin to have more time and space for innovatingin class unless one loosens the reigns on traditional objectives and createsmore flexibility and leverage within classrooms and schools.

This is easier said than done. To varyingdegrees we’ve all come through the traditional model of education that hastrained us to seek certainty. Combine that with the fact that we are wired tolook for negative information — and uncertainty would definitely fit into thenegative category for most of us — and we have a compound society that isincreasingly risk averse. Yet without taking risks, we can’t havebreakthroughs.

Learning environments of the future are inincubation. And therein lies the challenge: Learning environments that don’texist can’t be analyzed. Moving into the unknown requires a pioneering spirit.Helen Keller reminds us that is the truth of not only our age, but of all ages:“Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do thechildren of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in thelong run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, ornothing.”