1. bookVolume 17 (2014): Issue 2 (December 2014)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Learning Innovation: A Framework for Transformation

Published Online: 03 Mar 2015
Volume & Issue: Volume 17 (2014) - Issue 2 (December 2014)
Page range: 220 - 236
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Learning with and through technological enhancements operates in a landscape unrecognisable only a few years ago. Focussing on Higher Education, this article shows how to capture and model complex strategic processes that will move the potential of online and blended learning in universities to new stages of development. It offers the example of a four quadrant model created as a framework for an online and blended learning innovation strategy, and its successful implementation in practice.

Keywords

1. Allen, E.; Seaman, J.; Lederman, D.; Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and online education, 2012. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/IHE-BSRG-Conflict.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

2. Allen, I.E. and Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group & Quahog Research Group, LLC. San Francisco. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

3. Armellini, A.; Salmon, G.; Hawkridge, D. (2009). The Carpe Diem journey: Designing for learning and transformation. In T. Mayes, D. Morrison, H. Mellar, P. Bullen & M. Oliver (eds.), Transforming Higher Education through technology-enhanced learning. The Higher Education Academy, York.Search in Google Scholar

4. Bady, A. (2013). The MOOC moment and the end of reform. In Association of American Colleges and Universities, 99(4).Search in Google Scholar

5. Barber, M. and Rizvi, S. (2013). Asking more: The path to efficacy. Pearson, London, England. http://efficacy.pearson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Asking-More-The-Path-to- Efficacy-high-res1.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

6. Barber, M.; Donnelly, K.; Rizvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead. Institute for Public Policy Research, London, England. http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/10432/an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-andthe- revolution-ahead (accessed 21.1214).Search in Google Scholar

7. Basir, H.M.; Ahmad, A.; Noor, N.L.M. (2010). Institutional strategy for effective blended elearning: HCI perspective of sustainable embedding. In the Proceedings of User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), 2010 International Conference, IEEE, (pp. 71-76).10.1109/IUSER.2010.5716726Search in Google Scholar

8. Bates, A.W. and Sangra, A. (2013). Managing technology in Higher education: strategies for transforming. Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

9. Beaudoin, M.F.; Kurtz, G.; Eden, S. (2009). Experiences and opinions of e-learners: What works, what are the challenges, and what competencies ensure successful online learning. In Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), (pp. 275-289).10.28945/78Search in Google Scholar

10. Bell, M. and Bell, W. (2005). It’s installed … now get on with it! Looking beyond the software to the cultural change. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), (pp. 643-656).10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00541.xSearch in Google Scholar

11. Bokor, J. (ed.) (2012). University of the Future: A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound change. Ernst & Young. http://www.ey.com/AU/en/Industries/Government---Public- Sector/UOF_University-of-the-future (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

12. Bonaccorsi, A.; Daraio, C.; Geuna, A. (2010). Universities in the new knowledge landscape: Tensions, challenges, Change - An introduction. In Minerva, 48(1), (pp. 1-4). doi:10.1007/s11024-010-9144-010.1007/s11024-010-9144-0Search in Google Scholar

13. Brown, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: The implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. In Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), (pp. 1-10). doi:10.1080/1049482080215898310.1080/10494820802158983Search in Google Scholar

14. Calvert, J. (2005). Distance education at the crossroad. In Distance Education, 26(2), (pp. 227-238).10.1080/01587910500168876Search in Google Scholar

15. Carey, T. and Trick, D. (2013). How online learning affects productivity, cost and quality in higher education: An environmental scan and review of the literature. Toronto, Canada: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/How_Online_Learning_Affects_Productivi ty-ENG.pdf (accessed 21.12. 14).Search in Google Scholar

16. Chow, B. (2013). Deeper learning. . In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 11-16). Pearson, London, England.Search in Google Scholar

17. Christensen, C.M. and Horn, M.B. (2013). How disruption can help colleges thrive. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B30).Search in Google Scholar

18. Christensen, C.M.; Horn, M.B.; Caldera, L.; Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting College: How Disruptive Innovation Can Deliver Quality and Affordability to Postsecondary Education. Center for American Progress, Innosight Institute. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535182.Search in Google Scholar

19. Christensen, C.M. and Raynor, M.E. (2013). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar

20. Colbert, V. (2013). Improving quality and equity in education. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 37-42). Pearson, London.Search in Google Scholar

21. Crow, M.M. (2013). The new American university. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 49-53). Pearson: London.Search in Google Scholar

22. Cruz, J.L. (2013). What are the barriers to innovation? In Forum discussion paper, The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B43).Search in Google Scholar

23. Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. In Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (pp. 1-20). 10.5334/2012-18Search in Google Scholar

24. Dutton, W.H.; Blank, G.; Groselj, D. (2013). Cultures of the internet: The internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2013. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.Search in Google Scholar

25. Edgecombe, N.; Cormier, M.; Bickerstaff, S.; Barragan, N. (2013). Strengthening developmental education reforms: Evidence on Implementation efforts from the Scaling Innovation Project. CRCC Working Paper No. 61. http://www.scalinginnovation.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2013/06/strengthening-developmental-education-reforms.pdf (accessed 21.12 .14).Search in Google Scholar

26. Fallon, J. (2013). Preface. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 2-5). Pearson, London, England.Search in Google Scholar

27. Ferrão, S.; Galván, R.; Rodrigues, S. (2009). E-knowledge, e-learning towards e-competence: The development of a model that illustrates the acquisition of competences on virtual learning environments. In the Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital, (pp. 200-209).Search in Google Scholar

28. Garcia, B.C. (2004). Digitally enhanced learning in a knowledge capital: the Manchester universities experience. In the Proceedings of the Online Educa Conference, Berlin (Berlin, ICWE), (pp. 426-431).Search in Google Scholar

29. Gardner, L. (2013). Colleges adapt (slowly) to classrooms 2.0. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B22).Search in Google Scholar

30. Goolnik, G. (2012). Change management strategies when undertaking elearning initiatives in higher education. In E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 10(2), (pp. 16-28).Search in Google Scholar

31. Gregory, J. and Salmon, G. (2013). Professional development for online university teaching. In Distance Education, 34, (pp. 256-270).10.1080/01587919.2013.835771Search in Google Scholar

32. Grimmelmann, J. (2014). The Merchants of MOOCs. In Seton Hall Law Review, 44, University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358253 (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

33. Guri-Rosenbilt, S. (2013). Open/distance teaching universities worldwide: Current challenges and future prospects. In EDUAKCJA, 2(4), (pp. 4-13). http://wyrwidab.come.uw.edu.pl/ojs/index.php/eduakcja/article/view/80/50 (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

34. Hamel, G. and Valikangas, L. (2003). The quest for resilience. In Harvard Business Review, 81(9), (pp. 52-63).Search in Google Scholar

35. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A Review of the literature. In Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), (pp. 19-42).Search in Google Scholar

36. Harvard Magazine (2012). Classroom in the Cloud. In John Harvard’s Journal, November- December, 2012. http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/11/classroom-in-the-cloud (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

37. Herbst, S. (2013). What are the barriers to innovation? Forum discussion paper. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B45).Search in Google Scholar

38. Hixon, E.; Buckenmeyer, J.; Barczyk, C.; Feldman, L.; Zamojski, H. (2012). Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. In Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), (pp. 102-107).10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.005Search in Google Scholar

39. Hopkins, R. (2009). Resilience thinking. Resurgence, London Search in Google Scholar

40. Hrabowski, F.A. (2011). Institutional change in higher education: Innovation and collaboration. Policy paper: Strategies to increase STEM achievement in higher education. McGraw-Hill Research Foundation. https://www.mheonline.com/assets/pdf/STEM/WhitePapers/institutional_change_in_high er_education_white_paper.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

41. Iwata, J. (2013). A new era of learning efficacy on a planet of smarter systems. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 23-27). Pearson, London, England.Search in Google Scholar

42. Jaggars, S.S. (2011). Online learning: Does it help low-income and underprepared students. CCRC Working Paper No. 26. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/online-learninghelp- students.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

43. Jaipal Jamani, K. and Figg, C. (2013). The TPACK-in-practice workshop approach: A shift from learning the tool to learning about technology-enhanced teaching. In the Proceedings of The International Conference on E-Learning, (pp. 215-223).Search in Google Scholar

44. Johnson, L.; Adams Becker, S.; Cummins, M.; Freeman, A.; Ifenthaler, D.; Vardaxis, N. (2013). Technology outlook for Australian tertiary education 2013-2018: An NMC Horizon Project regional analysis. The New Media Consortium, Austin, TX.Search in Google Scholar

45. Johnston, R.; Fitzgerald, L.; Markous, E.; Brignall, S. (2001). Target setting for evolutionary and revolutionary process change. In International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(11), (pp. 1387-1403).10.1108/01443570110407409Search in Google Scholar

46. Keohane, N.O. (2013). Higher education in the Twenty-First Century: Innovation, adaptation, preservation. In PS: Political Science and Politics, 46(1), (pp. 102-105).Search in Google Scholar

47. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York and London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

48. Lipson, K. (2013). Dealing with megaclasses in an online environment. Paper presented at the 59th ISI World Statistics, Hong Kong, China. http://www.statistics.gov.hk/wsc/IPS040-P3-S.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

49. Liyanagunawardena, T.; Adams, A.; Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. In International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 14(3), (pp. 202-227).10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455Search in Google Scholar

50. Mackenzie, B. (2013). Critical success factors for public-private partnerships in entirely digital higher education. Paper presented at the Online Educa Berlin, December 4-6, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

51. Mangan, K. (2013). Inside the flipped classroom. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B18).Search in Google Scholar

52. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin Group, New York.Search in Google Scholar

53. Miller, G.; Benke, M.; Chaloux, B.; Ragan, L.C.; Schroeder, R.; Smutz, W.; Swan, K. (2014). Leading the e-learning transformation of Higher Education: Meeting the challenges of technology and distance education. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.Search in Google Scholar

54. Morgan, J. (2013). Universities challenged: The impact of digital technology on teaching and learning. Universitas 21, An Educational Innovation Position Paper. http://www.universitas21.com/RelatedFile/Download/494 (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

55. Mulgan, G. (2013). Reality checks. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 17-22). Pearson, London. Search in Google Scholar

56. New Media Consortium (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Preview. http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2014-horizon-he-preview.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

57. Norman, D.A. and Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. In Design Issues, 30(1), (pp. 78-96). doi:10.1162/DESI_a_0025010.1162/DESI_a_00250Search in Google Scholar

58. Olivier, B.; Yuan, L.; Millwood, R.; Kamtsiou, V. (2013). Adaptive Roadmapping. In F. Wild, P. Lefrere & P. Scott (eds.), Advances in Technology Enhanced Learning. The Open University.Search in Google Scholar

59. Pertusa-Ortega, E.M.; Molina-Azorín, J.F.; Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance: A comparison of the resource-based view and the contingency approach. In Management Decision, 48(8), (pp. 1282-1303).10.1108/00251741011076799Search in Google Scholar

60. Pittard, V. (2004). Evidence for digitally enhanced learning policy. In Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(2), (pp. 181-193).10.1080/14759390400200179Search in Google Scholar

61. Richards, R.; O’Shea, J.; Connolly, M. (2004). Managing the concept of strategic change within a higher education institution: the role of strategic and scenario planning techniques. In Strategic Change, 13, (pp. 345-359).10.1002/jsc.690Search in Google Scholar

62. Ritala, P. and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and Radical Innovation in Competition: The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability. In Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), (pp. 154-169). doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00956.x10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00956.xSearch in Google Scholar

63. Salaman, G. and Asch, D. (2003). Strategy and capability: Sustaining organizational change. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Search in Google Scholar

64. Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. In ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 13(3), (pp. 201-218).Search in Google Scholar

65. Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, third ed. Routledge, New York.Search in Google Scholar

66. Salmon, G. (2013a). E-tivities: The key to active online learning, second ed. Routledge, New York.10.4324/9780203074640Search in Google Scholar

67. Salmon, G. (2013b). Public meets private. Online Educa Berlin. http://www.onlineeduca. com/OEB_Newsportal/public-meets-private/ (accessed 23.01.14).Search in Google Scholar

68. Salmon, G. and Angood, R. (2013). Sleeping with the enemy. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, (pp. 916-925).10.1111/bjet.12097Search in Google Scholar

69. Salmon, G. and Wright, P. (2014). Transforming future teaching through ‘Carpe Diem’ learning design. In Education Sciences, 4(1), (pp. 52-63). Retrieved 14 January, 2014, from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/36775110.3390/educsci4010052Search in Google Scholar

70. Salmon, G.; Gregory, J.; Lokuge Dona, K.; Ross, B. (in press). Experiential online development for educators: The example of the Carpe Diem MOOC. In British Journal of Educational Technology.Search in Google Scholar

71. Scharmer, O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco: Berrett- Kochler.Search in Google Scholar

72. Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Understanding the Real Barriers to Technology-Enhanced Innovation in Higher Education. In Educational Research, 51(4), (pp. 411-424).10.1080/00131880903354741Search in Google Scholar

73. Selingo, J. (2013). Presidents and professors largely agree on who should lead innovation. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B15). Search in Google Scholar

74. Simpson, O. (2012). Supporting students for success in online and distance education, third ed. Routledge: New York & London.Search in Google Scholar

75. Swinburne Online (2014). About us. http://www.swinburneonline.edu.au/about-us (accessed 21.12.14).Search in Google Scholar

76. Tamim, R.M.; Bernard, R.M.; Borokhovski, E.; Abrami, P.C.; Schmid, R.F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order metaanalysis and validation study. In Review of Educational Research, 81(1), (pp. 4-28). doi:10.3102/003465431039336110.3102/0034654310393361Search in Google Scholar

77. Tham, C.M. and Werner, J.M. (2005). Designing and evaluating digitally enhanced learning in higher education: a review and recommendations. In Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, (p. 15).Search in Google Scholar

78. Watson, W.R.; Watson, S.L.; Reigeluthb, C.M. (2013). Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. In Interactive Learning Environments, 21. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.76432210.1080/10494820.2013.764322Search in Google Scholar

79. Weller, M. and Anderson, T. (2013). Digital resilience in Higher Education. In European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 16(1). http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2013&halfyear=1&abstract=559 (accessed 15.01.14).Search in Google Scholar

80. Westera, W. (2004). On strategies of educational innovation: between substitution and transformation. In Higher Education, 47, (pp. 501-517).10.1023/B:HIGH.0000020875.72943.a7Search in Google Scholar

81. Wheeler, M. (2009). Developing the Media Zoo in second life. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), (pp. 427-443). doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00942.x10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00942.xSearch in Google Scholar

82. Whitworth, A. (2012). Invisible Success: Problems with the grand technological innovation in higher education. In Computers & Education, 59(1), (pp. 145-155).10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.023Search in Google Scholar

83. Winslett, G. (2012). Resisting innovation talk in higher education teaching and learning. In Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(3), (pp. 163-176). doi:10.1080/01596306.2012.74572810.1080/01596306.2012.745728Search in Google Scholar

84. Zemsky, R. (2013). Checklist for change: Making American Higher Education a sustainable enterprise. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.10.36019/9780813561356Search in Google Scholar

85. Zemsky, R. and Massy, W.F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: what happened to digitally enhanced learning and why. Final report for the weatherstation project of the Learning Alliance, University of Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar

86. Zentel, P.; Bett, K.; Meiter, D.M.; Rinn, U.; Wedekind, J. (2004). A changing process at German universities-innovation through information and communication technologies? In Electronic Journal on digitally enhanced learning, 2(1), (pp. 237-246). Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo