Thursday, August 10, 2006
The innovation cycle: From idea to market
The introduction of any innovation is subject to a number of stages. Aldrich (2005) identifies a six step process.
1. “Theory: Wouldn’t it be great?” (Aldrich 2005:xxxiv) is associated with the development of ideas. It involves people who are enthusiastic about the possibilities that technology provides but vague in describing the form that the solution might take.
2. The initial stage is followed by the “Innovator: Imagine this were everywhere!” (Aldrich 2005:xxxv) stage that involves Rogers’ innovator type (Rogers 1995:263). People who are obsessive about the development and use of innovations work tirelessly, and on some occasions ideas are turned into outcomes that can be used by others, at this point, the innovators frequently become bored with this project and move onto something else.
3. The innovation phase is followed by the “Magic bullet: Look! A paradigm shift” (Aldrich 2005:xxxv) stage. This phase is characterised by substantial levels of enthusiasm about the innovation. Development companies and vendors are ‘glowing’ about the new developments. Marketing and advertising groups promote the new solution that supercedes everything that has gone before. Negative commentary is seen as negative, obstructive and characteristic of those who are nervous about progress.
4. This initial enthusiasm is often followed by “Confusion: Why did we think this would work? (Aldrich 2005:xxxvi). Early and often over-inflated promises and expectations are not met and disenchantment rises. Progress of the innovation falls into a ‘pit of despair’. It is only a few years ago that the promise of ‘online technology’ in revolutionizing education was being heralded (see for example ). Despite the fact that digital and online technology is used, and has resulted in changes in education a recent study by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005) show that these changes relate more to increases in the efficiency and effectiveness of student support and administration than resulting in systemic changes in the design of teaching programs or learning practices.
Aldrich (2005) says that “The story should end here. The technology should just die. But then something happens. Just what is hard to say … the technology comes back from the dead” (Aldrich 2005:xxxvii).
5. We move the “Strategic advantage: Here is the business case and ROI” (Aldrich 2005:xxxxvii) stage. Here, what has been learnt in earlier stages collides with the interests of business which is more conservative, more measured and evaluates possibilities in terms of business cases and return on investment. Those innovations that pass the business process tests proceed to become part of institutionalised infrastructure.
6. The final stage of the innovation development process “Infrastructure: Turn it on, would you?” (Aldrich 2005:xxxvii). The innovation becomes widely available, reliable, and commercially viable.
Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing. A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco, Pfeiffer.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). E-learning in tertiary education. Where do we stand? Paris, OECD.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, The Free Press.
1. “Theory: Wouldn’t it be great?” (Aldrich 2005:xxxiv) is associated with the development of ideas. It involves people who are enthusiastic about the possibilities that technology provides but vague in describing the form that the solution might take.
2. The initial stage is followed by the “Innovator: Imagine this were everywhere!” (Aldrich 2005:xxxv) stage that involves Rogers’ innovator type (Rogers 1995:263). People who are obsessive about the development and use of innovations work tirelessly, and on some occasions ideas are turned into outcomes that can be used by others, at this point, the innovators frequently become bored with this project and move onto something else.
3. The innovation phase is followed by the “Magic bullet: Look! A paradigm shift” (Aldrich 2005:xxxv) stage. This phase is characterised by substantial levels of enthusiasm about the innovation. Development companies and vendors are ‘glowing’ about the new developments. Marketing and advertising groups promote the new solution that supercedes everything that has gone before. Negative commentary is seen as negative, obstructive and characteristic of those who are nervous about progress.
4. This initial enthusiasm is often followed by “Confusion: Why did we think this would work? (Aldrich 2005:xxxvi). Early and often over-inflated promises and expectations are not met and disenchantment rises. Progress of the innovation falls into a ‘pit of despair’. It is only a few years ago that the promise of ‘online technology’ in revolutionizing education was being heralded (see for example ). Despite the fact that digital and online technology is used, and has resulted in changes in education a recent study by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005) show that these changes relate more to increases in the efficiency and effectiveness of student support and administration than resulting in systemic changes in the design of teaching programs or learning practices.
… after the hype of the new economy, growing disenchantment with e-learning has replaced over-enthusiasm. Failures of e-learning operations have, at least temporarily, overshadowed the prospects of widened and flexible access to tertiary education, pedagogic innovation, decreased cost etc., that e-learning once embodied. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005:11)
Aldrich (2005) says that “The story should end here. The technology should just die. But then something happens. Just what is hard to say … the technology comes back from the dead” (Aldrich 2005:xxxvii).
5. We move the “Strategic advantage: Here is the business case and ROI” (Aldrich 2005:xxxxvii) stage. Here, what has been learnt in earlier stages collides with the interests of business which is more conservative, more measured and evaluates possibilities in terms of business cases and return on investment. Those innovations that pass the business process tests proceed to become part of institutionalised infrastructure.
6. The final stage of the innovation development process “Infrastructure: Turn it on, would you?” (Aldrich 2005:xxxvii). The innovation becomes widely available, reliable, and commercially viable.
Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing. A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco, Pfeiffer.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). E-learning in tertiary education. Where do we stand? Paris, OECD.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York, The Free Press.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Review of Mobile learning. A handbook for educators and trainers (Kulkulska-Hume and Traxler, 2005)
Mobile learning can be spontaneous, portable, personal, situated; it can be informal, unobtrusive, ubiquitous and disruptive. It takes us much nearer to ‘anytime, anywhere’ learning but it is still too early to predict how our understandings of learning and teaching will evolve as a consequence (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005, p.42)
If mobile learning is defined as learning that is not restricted to a particular location and which can occur whilst ‘on the move’ then mobile learning is not a new phenomenon. For example print based technologies and audiotapes have been used is both campus-based and distance learning for many years. These mobile technologies can be used beyond the classroom and whilst in transit whether that be on a bus, train or aircraft.
In a contemporary sense, the use of the term mobile learning is being applied to ‘the possibilities opened up by portable, lightweight devices that are sometimes small enough to fit in a pocket or in the palm of one’s hand’(Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005, p.1). Examples of technologies that fall within the scope of mobile learning include mobile phones, smartphones, palmtops, and handheld computers (Personal Digital Assistants or PDAs); Tablet PCs, laptop computers and personal media players (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005). These devices provide facilities that include:
1. Communication (e.g. voice phone, short messaging service (SMS),
multimedia messaging serve (MMS))
2. Capturing and playing e-books, sound, still and video images, animations
3. Organising capabilities (e.g. clock, alarm, GPS, diary, contact details)
4. Access to the www
5. Word-processing, spreadsheet and database capabilities
Data can be entered through: keypad; graffiti facility; audio capture; still and video photography; download of files.
Two characteristics distinguish this modern version of digital mobile learning with previous analog versions:
1. The capacity of devices to capture, store and share large volumes of data.
2. The convergence of previously separate facilities.
So what are the implications of mobile learning for teaching practices? What are the possibilities, problems, barriers and institutional issues?
Mobile learning. A handbook for educators and trainers (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005) provide a useful introductory text that considers a range of technical and pedagogic issues associated with contemporary mobile learning. They also consider accessibility issues. The text provides 12 case studies that involve the use of a range of mobile devices in the fields of learning Italian, delivering a virtual learning environment, medical studies, music composition and student organisation across a range of contexts.
Reasons offered for using mobile devices relate to improved access, evaluation and enhancement of learning and teaching, exploration of learners’ requirements and behaviours and alignment with institutional or business aims (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005). These reasons are remarkably similar to those that have been used to promote flexible learning, workplace learning, online learning and e-learning in earlier years. One might ask if these reasons have been justified by evaluation? Certainly the research is, at best, ambiguous about such claims in respect to increased access, improved learning and reduced costs (see for example, Guthrie, 2003).
The authors claim that ‘Mobile devices open up new opportunities for independent investigations, practical fieldwork, professional updating and on-the-spot knowledge. They can also provide opportunities for improved learner support and guidance, and for more efficient course administration and management’ (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005, p.26). These claims relate to the perspectives of learning, student support and administration. If the experience of non-mobile technology reported by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2005) is repeated then we may find that the benefits of mobile technologies relate more increases in the efficiency and effectiveness of student support and administration than resulting in systemic changes in the design of teaching programs or learning practices.
In respect to teaching practices, Kulkulsa-Hulme and Traxler (2005) emphasise the need to consider teacher’s conception of good teaching and learning if practices are to change. Whilst acknowledging that teacher’s are influenced by organisational arrangements, this proposition is consistent with others who also conclude that teacher’s values and beliefs are fundamental in shaping their teaching practices (see for example, Errington, 2004).
At the beginning of the final chapter, the authors ask the following questions.
The paradox facing mobile learning today is that devices that were not designed for learning are being used for learning. How successful is this undertaking? How far can one ‘bend’ the features of existing mobile devices and services to fit educational goals? And do planned learning activities have to be revised sop that they fit with mobile technologies?(Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005, p.189)
They provide a partial answer as follows.
The success of mobile learning may well depend on the pedagogical tasks that the devices are used for, and on the integration of tasks within a well defined pedagogical approach. (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005, p.192)
Errington, E. (2004). The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: Some practices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in education and teaching international, 41(1), 39-47.
Guthrie, H. (Ed.). (2003). Online learning. Research findings. Leabrook: National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (Eds.). (2005). Mobile learning. A handbook for educators and trainers. London: Routledge.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). E-learning in tertiary education. Where do we stand? Paris: OECD.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Mobile learning and the workplace
Thanks to the Australian Flexible Learning Community Network for raising discussion about the use of mobile learning and providing links to some very useful audiovisual presentations.
Of particular interest are presentations by Charles Jennings 'From training for skills to learning for performance' and Allison Rossett 'Integration, tailoring and pizza delivery' both are about 15 minutes long and raise questions about the nature of workplace education.
Of particular interest are presentations by Charles Jennings 'From training for skills to learning for performance' and Allison Rossett 'Integration, tailoring and pizza delivery' both are about 15 minutes long and raise questions about the nature of workplace education.
