Search

While much work has focused on pedagogical innovation processes within universities, less has been said of the processes and cultures which foster and give rise to creativity within higher education and the ways in which faculty members are encouraged to develop their pedagogy across disciplines and within their departments. This paper examines the ways campus spaces at a UK university are utilised by staff for peer learning and the barriers and affordances for innovation and creativity in educational practice. Utilising an interdisciplinary design, this paper suggests that the various spaces available to university teaching staff are able to be further utilised to support creative practice and peer learning, presented as four design principles: innovation happens in everyday spaces, communal spaces need social functions, forums have different scales, and collaborative spaces require a collective culture. The normalising of a culture of innovation requires both physical and behavioural adjustments to the use of space, suggesting that both faculty and institutions need to work together to reimagine spaces for faculty peer learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper identifies what can be called the 'paradox of interdisciplinarity' (Weingart ) in Australian higher education research governance and explores some of its constitutive dimensions. In the Australian context, the paradox of interdisciplinarity primarily concerns the proliferation of a programmatic discourse of interdisciplinarity in government reports and government policy and strategy documents, often tied to notions of innovation and applicability, parallel to the persistence or even reinforcement of modes of governance and associated mechanisms that almost exclusively rely on rigid discipline-based classification systems to evaluate and fund research. Two interrelated dimensions of this apparent paradox are discussed. First, the conceptions of knowledge that underpin the use of notions of disciplinarity as well as interdisciplinarity in Australian government reports and policy and strategy papers are analysed. Second, an analysis of the Australian research governance system and its underlying mechanisms is presented, as they pertain to interdisciplinary forms of research. On the basis of these analyses, it is concluded that there is a significant mismatch between the discourse of interdisciplinarity and associated conceptions of knowledge on the one hand, and current, relatively inflexible governmental research funding and evaluation practices on the other. It is finally proposed that the occurrence and perpetuation of such a mismatch in the Australian context can only be understood properly if placed in the context of a more general paradox of research governance, where a politically charged rhetoric of innovation conflicts with the actual trend toward an increasingly diminishing scope for the self-organisation of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While it is common to claim that university reforms are based on universal and standardised ideas about 'modernising' the university, few studies have examined in a more coherent way how the combined external pressure for change with respect to the areas of education, research and innovation has affected the university. In this paper it is argued that one can identify three different sets of logics concerning the current external reform agenda, and that these logics together create new challenges as to how knowledge is created, diffused and governed by the university. In the conclusion, it is discussed whether the current pressure for reform might change the university as we know it, or whether new institutional translations might emerge from the process renewing the university while maintaining its identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International research findings and country experiences prove that, in coping with the tension between the global and the local in education, three major forces contribute to the success of international reform: firstly, the national public authorities in protecting education as a common good through political commitment and policy actions; secondly, the local community, in responding to the diversifying educational needs through active participation and initiatives for innovation; and thirdly, the international community, through technical, professional as well as financial assistance to member countries for desired systemic changes. This paper examines the roles of international education in facilitating systemic reforms, and explores strategies in promoting international education for educational change, citing evidence-based cases to examine the interaction between international education and systemic educational reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analyze innovation in university strategic plans to assess whether innovation is a stated priority, to what end innovation is sought, and whether innovation is a comprehensive strategy or more carefully bounded, excluding innovation opportunities. Our analysis utilized Atlas.ti software to quantify word usage and to extract and classify sentences that state innovation intentions. Innovation, entrepreneurship and transformation are mentioned often in university strategic plans, conveying aspirations to change, both inside the university (to improve the institution) and outside (for the benefit of society at large). In recent years (especially since 2015), these terms have become unifying themes of many plans aiming to modernize, improve and become more responsive to societal needs, spanning multiple mission areas. Moreover, the terminology has been adopted by a broad range of American universities, though less often by those that have the highest rankings for their undergraduate education and research programs. Though innovation strategies nudge universities toward change by promoting adoption of technology, service to diverse students, and creation of buildings and spaces for collaboration, strategic plans do not express aspirations for disruptive forms of innovation that alter the direction of higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an innovative educative experience in higher education in Spain that combines methodology, content and new technologies in a multilingual environment. It presents an experience of implementing a subject called International Perspectives on Social Innovation in Social Work and Social Education degrees. By using the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) model, the subject aimed to promote problem-solving and creative thinking among students. To this end, students developed a project using Appreciative Inquiry (AI), a tool used to promote change and innovation in organizations. The objective was to provide a broader outlook on social intervention or social action and to enhance student's knowledge and their willingness to build society and shape key values. In order to accomplish its goals, the subject fostered the use of innovative ideas and technologies and offered a multilingual working environment. Results have shown a predisposition to adopt new technologies in their professional life as the final products reflected a very positive image of the perspectives of innovations in the social sector as well as their willingness to innovate as future professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the reasons why teachers introduce innovations into their teaching. Interviews were conducted with thirty teachers in primary, secondary, and university settings in one Midwestern USA community. All participants said they innovated due to a desire to improve student learning; other frequently mentioned reasons were professional development experiences of their own choosing and a desire to avoid personal boredom. Less frequently stated reasons to innovate included the failure of textbooks and experiences with another teacher or the participants' own children. Implications for professional development include encouraging teachers to discover innovations applicable to their own classrooms through providing them with time and autonomy to develop alternative approaches to teaching curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]