D2.1 Innovation Management 2017-09-01 v09 · 2017-11-02 · Deliverable D2.1 Enabling maker ... Average student – teacher ratios ... (‘Analysing Interviews’)

1

DigitalFabricationandMakerMovementinEducation MakingComputer–supportedArtefactsfromScratch

DeliverableD2.1

Enablingmakerinnovationsineducation:Barriersanddrivers

ThisprojecthasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanUnion’sHorizon2020ResearchandInnovationPro-grammeunderGrantAgreementNo731345.

Page2

©2017eCraft2Learn|Horizon2020|731345

PROJECTDESCRIPTION

Acronym: eCraft2Learn

Title: DigitalFabricationandMakerMovementinEducation:MakingComputer-supported

ArtefactsfromScratch

Coordinator: UniversityofEasternFinland

Reference: 731345

Type: RIA

Program: HORIZON2020

Theme: TechnologiesforLearningandSkills

Start: 01.January2017

Duration: 24months

Website: http://www.project.ecraft2learn.eu/

E-Mail: [email protected]

Consortium: UniversityofEasternFinland,Finland,(UEF),Coordinator

Edumotiva,Greece(EDUMOTIVA)

MälardalenUniversityofSweden,Sweden(MDH)

ZentrumfürSozialeInnovation,Austria,(ZSI)

TheUniversityofOxford,UnitedKingdom,(UOXF)

SYNYOGmbH,Austria,(SYNYO)

Linnéuniversitetet,Sweden,(LNU)

UniversityofPadua,Italy,(UNIPD)

TechnopolisCityofAthens,Greece(TECHNOPOLIS)

Evothings,Sweden(EVOTHINGS)

Arduino,Sweden(ARD)

Ultimaker,UnitedKingdom(ULTIMAKER)

Page3


DELIVERABLEDESCRIPTIONNumber: D2.1Title: Enablingmakerinnovationsineducation:BarriersanddriversLeadbeneficiary: ZentrumfürSozialeInnovation(ZSI)Workpackage: WP2Disseminationlevel: Public(PU)Type Report(R)Duedate: August2017Submissiondate: September2017Authors: ChristianVoigt,MargitHofer,JohannesSimon,ZSIContributors: allPartnersReviewers: SYNYOandLNU VersionControlVersion Date Personincharge(Organiza-

tion)Changes

1 March2017 Voigt,SimonandHofer(ZSI)

FirstDraft

2 June–August2017

Allpartners Contributionsinformofcommentsorin-terviews

3 September VoigtandHofer(ZSI) FinalDraft

Acknowledgement:ThisprojecthasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanUnion’sHorizon2020ResearchandInnovationActionunderGrantAgreementNo731345.

Disclaimer:Thecontentofthispublicationisthesoleresponsibilityoftheauthors,anddoesnotinanywayrepresenttheviewoftheEuropeanCommissionoritsservices.

Page4


TABLEOFCONTENT

1 EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................6

2 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................7

3 INNOVATIONMANAGEMENTINEDUCATION..........................................................................73.1. TYPESOFINNOVATION.................................................................................................................93.2. INNOVATIONSINEDUCATIONALQUASI-MARKETS............................................................................10

4 INNOVATIONMANAGEMENTMETHODS:FROMIDEASTOIMPLEMENTATIONS...................104.1. IDENTIFYINGIDEAS....................................................................................................................114.2. EVALUATINGANDSELECTINGIDEAS..............................................................................................124.3. IMPLEMENTINGANDSCALINGIDEAS.............................................................................................13

5 ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................................155.1. INTERVIEWPARTICIPANTS..........................................................................................................155.2. DEFININGINNOVATIONINSCHOOLSANDINDUSTRY........................................................................18

5.2.1. Innovationcomponents,needsandoutcomes.............................................................185.2.2. Concreteexamples.......................................................................................................205.2.3. Howinnovationisunderstoodoutsideschools............................................................22

5.3. BARRIERS................................................................................................................................245.3.1. Knowledgegaps...........................................................................................................255.3.2. Markets........................................................................................................................275.3.3. Funding.........................................................................................................................28

5.4. ENABLERSANDCOMPETENCIES....................................................................................................285.5. EXISTINGINNOVATIONMANAGEMENTPRACTICESINSCHOOLS..........................................................30

6 CONCLUDINGRECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................316.1. ASTRATEGICAPPROACHTOOPENINNOVATION..............................................................................316.2. DESIGNPATTERNSANDPRINCIPLES..............................................................................................326.3. PLATFORMINNOVATION............................................................................................................33

7 ANNEX–INTERVIEWQUESTIONS..........................................................................................35

8 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................42

Page5


TABLEOFFIGURESFigure1:Balancescorecard(Source:Kaplan&Norton,1996)...........................................................12 Figure2:Theinnovationchasm...........................................................................................................13 Figure3:Stagemodelofparticipation(VonUnger,2012)...................................................................14 Figure4:Interviewees’nationalityandprofessionalbackground.......................................................16 Figure5:Interviewees’ageandgenderdistribution...........................................................................16 Figure6:Numberofinterviewspercountry........................................................................................17 Figure7:Averagestudent–teacherratios..........................................................................................17 Figure8:Collaborationwithinthetripleandquadruplehelix.............................................................22 Figure9:Innovationmanagementtoolsinschools.............................................................................31 Figure10:Degreesofuserinvolvement(Source:Arnkiletal.,2010)..................................................32 Figure11:Arduinoonlineprogramming..............................................................................................34 Figure12:Arduinoplatformfeatures..................................................................................................34 Figure13:TinkercadBrowser-based3Ddesignplatform....................................................................35

Page6


1 EXECUTIVESUMMARYThisdeliverableexplorespedagogicalinnovationsasembeddedactionsinawiderecosystem.Inno-vations are generally described as the exploitationof new ideas; hence innovations imply noveltyanduse(i.e.theadoptionofthesolutionbyarelevantusergroup)(H.W.Chesbrough,2003).Thedeliverablediscussestheroleofappropriatefunding,nationalregulations,curricularflexibility,tech-nologiesreadytouseandadequatetrainingopportunitiesforteachers,onthebasisof25interviewsfrom9Europeancountries.Thedeliverablestartswithaconceptualoverviewofinnovationtypes(disruptive,radicalandincre-mental) and highlights the special situation of educational quasi-markets,where innovationman-agementcannotfollowthesamerulesasinnovationmanagementinfullycompetitivemarkets,suchasinthehardwareandsoftwareindustry.Abriefoverviewofselectedinnovationmanagementtoolsintroduces main innovation management stages such as ‘identifying, ‘evaluating’, ‘selecting’ and‘scaling’ideas.Barriers and drivers of educational innovations, together with an overview of existing innovationmanagement tools are at the core of the deliverable. Barriers are discussed in terms of ‘lack oftime’,‘lackofasupportiveculture’,‘lackofunderstandingmarketconditions’and‘lackoffunding’.Enablers of innovation were discussed in terms of technical competences, organisational compe-tencesandhumanresourcescompetences(e.g.hiringprocesses,incentivesandprofessionaldevel-opmentopportunities). Lookingatexisting innovationmanagementactivitieswithin the interview-ees’schools,wefoundthetopfivetoolsfocusingonteachers’networkingcapabilities.We conclude the deliverable with three strategic recommendations: (a) the strategic planning ofopen innovations; (b) theuseof designprinciples to capture and transfer knowledge related to aproject-driven,crafts-basedlearningmethodologyand(c)thecriticalexaminationofplatformsinno-vations sharing development costs and possible leveragingmajor benefits through the analysis ofvastcollectionsofindividualprojectsincentralrepositories.

Page7


2 INTRODUCTION

"Oldversusnew.Thatbattleisnothingnew.AsMachiavelliwroteinThePrince:Innovationmakes enemies of all thosewho prospered under the old regime,andonly lukewarmsupport isforthcomingfromthosewhowouldprosperun-der the new. Their support is indifferent partly from fear and partly becausethey are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless theyhavetestedthembyexperience."

(Lessig,2002,p.6)

The objective of this deliverable is to analysepedagogical innovations as embedded actions in awiderecosystem.Innovationsaregenerallydescribedastheexploitationofnewideas;henceinno-vations imply novelty and use (i.e. the adoptionof the solutionby a relevant user group) (H.W.Chesbrough,2003).Towhatdegreetheinnovatingorganisationisenabledorsupportedbyitssur-roundingsispartofthefollowingdiscussion.Aswillbediscussed,suchsupportformtheoutsidecanrelatetoappropriatefunding,regulations,curricularflexibility,technologiesreadytouse,adequatetrainingopportunitiesforteachersaswellaspeoplewithrelevantrolesoutsideformaleducationalinstitutions(e.g.scienceshops,librariesormakerspaces).Thisdeliverablewilladopttwoperspectives(a)outsideconditionsasmentionedaboveand(b)con-ditionsinsidetheorganisationsuchasbarriersanddriversincludingaplace'sculture(e.g.freedomtoexperiment,embracingfailureaslearningopportunitiesetc.),strategicdecisions(e.g.theteach-ingofinnovationandentrepreneurshipcompetencies)orevaluationstandards.Evaluationandfor-malacknowledgementofteachingpracticesarecriticalelements.Ifthesignificantlearningthatcanbeenabledthrough'making'istobecomeasustainablecomponentofourlearninglandscape,with-outdependingtoomuchoftheoften-volunteeredenthusiasmofteachers,teacherevaluationhastochangeaccordingly.Thedeliverableisstructuredintothefollowingsections:

• section3(‘InnovationManagementinEducation’)establishessomeconceptualfoundation,zoominginoninnovationsinaneducationalcontext;

• section4(‘InnovationManagementTools)reflectsstateoftheartresearchininnovationmanagement;

• section5(‘AnalysingInterviews’)presentsthediscussionof25interviews,analysingre-spondentsviewsonbarrier,enablersandsupportofinnovationmanagement;

• section6(‘Recommendationsforthefuture’)concludeswiththree,strategicfinalrecom-mendationsinsupportofaninnovative,crafts-basedlearningframework.

3 INNOVATIONMANAGEMENTINEDUCATIONEnrichingtheeducationallandscapebynewtechnologieshasalongtraditionanddiscussionsabouttechnologicalfeaturesfrequentlydominatethedebate.Eventoday,whentechnologyandtheuseofsoftware iscommonplace inmany ifnotmostareasof life,theroleofpedagogyhasgained in im-

Page8


portance,buttheembeddednatureofeducationaltechnologyisstillneglected.Changesineduca-tional systems are always ‘changes of a running system', hence the management of innovationsseemsamuch-neededingredienttoensuretheefficientusageofthealreadyscarcetimeresourcesofteachersandlearnersalike.More than 10 years ago, Watson (2006) analysed educational research and its relationship withtechnology,listinganumberofenduringissues:

- Should it be 'learning with' or 'learning about' technology?Sincewecancertainlysustainthat itshouldbeboth,therealquestion isoneofresourcesand the need to prioritize learning objectives and learning strategies.Watson observes atendency that ICT isprimarilyused for 'lowerorder thinking', and 'how to' tasks;whereascontext-drivenproblemsolvingincludingsimulationsect.areonthedecline.

- Are teacher innovators or conservators of the status quo?Thisplaysintoteachereducationaswellason-goingprofessionaldevelopmentforteachers.Achallengehereisthelackof'proof'thatagiventechnology'paysoff',i.e.isworththeup-frontinvestmentintimeandmotivationalenergy.Anopenapproachtoorganisationalbar-riers ismentioned as paramount if teachers are expected to change their practices, fine-tunedwiththeliabilitiesofthecurrentsystem.Atypicalroadblock,manyICTprojectsruninto are old forms of assessment applied to new styles of learning (Meek, Blakemore, &Marks,2016).

- CanwebalancetechnocentricenthusiasmandreflectiveimplementationsofICTineduca-tion?Asinotherareas,theremightbeatendencytotechno-solutionism(Morozov,2013).Thatis,thebelievethatunprecedentednetworkingeffects(e.g.Facebook)orthespreadingofgen-erative software ormaker technology is changing societies for the better. Arguably, largescale effects canbe seenby 'disruptive innovations' (e.g.mobile, ubiquitousdevices), yet,whether thesechangesare for thebetterorworse isnotcentrallycontrolledand likely todifferdependingonthetargetgroupobserved.

That these issues are still partially true is accounted for by Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013): “Thetinkering approach is characterized by a playful, experimental, iterative style of engagement, inwhichmakersarecontinuallyreassessingtheirgoals,exploringnewpaths,andimaginingnewpossi-bilities.Tinkeringisundervalued(andevendiscouraged)inmanyeducationalsettingstoday,butitiswellalignedwiththegoalsandspiritoftheprogressive-constructionisttradition—and,inourview,itisexactlywhatisneededtohelpyoungpeopleprepareforlifeintoday’ssociety”.Thequoteshowshowexistingpreferencesintheeducationalsystem,e.g.emphasizingcontentdeliveryandquantita-tiveassessment,runcountertoapluralismoflearningpathsincludingthebottomupexperiencesofcreatingtangibleobjects,thenotionofadaptingsolutionstochangingconditionsandanessentiallydifferentwayofaccessingSTEMproblems.ResnickandRosenbaum(ibid)highlightthatmakingandtinkering requires not only a rethinking of students’ interactionswith specific topics but also therethinkingofSTEMcurriculaandassessmentmethods.

Page9


3.1. TYPESOFINNOVATION

Theareaofinnovationresearchisverybroad.Innovationresearchcanbeconductedconcerning(a)the diffusion of innovation, (b) the adoption1of innovation or (c) the innovativeness of organisa-tions.Fittingwith thewide rangeof scenarioswhere innovations canbe researched, a suitableworkingdefinitionis“Aninnovationcanbeanewproductorservice,anewproductionprocesstechnology,anew structure or administrative system, or a new plan or program pertaining to organizationalmembers.…Innovationisameansofchanginganorganization,whetherasaresponsetochangesin its internal or external environment or as a pre-emptive action taken to influence an environ-ment.”(Damanpour,1991).Differentprinciplesfororganizinginnovationsaresuggestedby(Granig&Perusch,2012):Differentiationelement... CharacteristicsAreaofInnovation § product

§ process§ cultural/socialinnovation§ organizational/structuralinnovation

TriggerofInnovation § pull(innovationasameanstoanend)§ push(innovationasaconsequenceofanewmeans)

Domainofinnovation § manufacturingvs.serviceindustries§ privatevs.publicsector

DegreeofInnovation § incrementalvs.radical§ sustainingvs.disruptive

Whereas all dimension of the above structuration of innovations seem applicable to educationalinnovations, ‘degree of innovations’ is of salient importance, ifwe consider the size of educationsystems with thousands of schools involved. The ‘degree of innovation’ refers to the amount ofchange required (Tidd, 2001). Tidd (2001) suggests the following categorization in order todistin-guishbetweendifferentaspectssuchas‘Whatischanging?’andalso‘Howfastisitchanging?’.

• DisruptiveInnovations:re-writingtherules,reframingtheproblem• RadicalInnovations:novel,uniqueservice/product• IncrementalInnovations:day-to-dayinnovations,sustainingexistingservices

Wewill revisit thedegreeof innovationsduringthediscussion insection5,whenweaskteachersabouttheirdefinitionsofinnovations.Disruptiveinnovationsweregenerallyseenmorecritical,duetodifficultiesaroundestimating thebenefits theywouldbring to learning (implying thataneffectwould need to appear on standard evaluation instruments) as well as the effort the innovationwouldrequirefromtheteacher.

1'Adoption'referstothestageinwhichatechnologyisselectedforusebyanindividualoranorganization.'Diffusion'referstothestageinwhichthetechnologyspreadstogeneraluseandapplication.

Page10


3.2. INNOVATIONSINEDUCATIONALQUASI-MARKETS

Callingforinnovationmanagementinschoolsisoftenrelatedtoaperceivedinabilityoftheeduca-tionalsectorto innovateeffectively.Lubienski (2009)showsthatsimplyofferingstudentsandpar-entsthechoiceofwhichschoolstheywanttojoin,doesnotyetcreateamarketwhereinnovationisadifferentiatorandwhereforeinnovationsbecomedesirableperse.Lubienskimakestheargumentthateducationalsystemsarequasi-markets2:"schoolsareinanambiguouspositionforsensingandrespondingtomarket-stylesignals.Particularlywhenboundbyobligationssuchasopenaccess,eq-uity,etc.,schoolsoftendoapoorjobofactinglikeprivateproviders"(ibid).Putdifferently,schoolsdon'tshowthebusiness-likeapproachtoinnovationwhereprofitableinnovationsareextendedandlessprofitablepracticesareabandoned;andgiventheirmissiontoprovideaservicetoawidersoci-etythatisdesirable.Hence,quasi-marketsaredifferentinthat(Lubienski,2003):

• providersarenotnecessarilyprofit-maximisingfirms(theymaybestate-ownedorcharitableorganisations);

• choicemaybeexercisedonbehalfoftheuser;• users‘spendingpower’isdeterminedbythevalueofavoucherorearmarkedbudget,rather

thantheirwealth.Still,providingproperincentivestructuresforteachersremainsacriticalpointinscalinginnovativepractices. Moreover, even though the eCraft2learn project is primarily involved with developingcrafts-basedlearningmethodsandtechnologies,innovativepracticescanbeasbroadas:introducingan arts focus, having non-graded classes, using portfolios in formative assessments, supportingsmallerclasssize,emphasizingacademicrigour,multi-agegrouping,offeringafter-school-programs,introducingaschool-to-workfocus,establishingcommunityserviceprojects,initiatingteamteachingandmultidisciplinarylearning(Lubienski,2003).

4 INNOVATIONMANAGEMENTMETHODS:FROMIDEASTOIMPLEMENTATIONS

Thefollowingthreesectionsarederivedfromtheclassicalinnovationdevelopmentmodel(Oke,2004):

1) Strategydevelopment:identifyrequirements2) ideageneration:whatmeetstherequirements3) Screeningandevaluation4) Businesscheck:economicviability5) Actualproductdevelopment6) Testing,commercialexperiments7) Commercialisation

However,thelistaboverequiresanoteofcaution.Serviceorganisationssuchasschoolsoftenuseless formal processes for innovating and therefore screening, testing and commercialisation tech-niquesmaybelessknownand/orused(MartinJr&Horne,1993).

2Thetermquasi-marketwascoinedbyLeGrandtodescribepublicservicereformsintroducedinthelate1980s.There-sulting servicesweremarket-likebecause they split purchaser andprovidersofpublic services, andbecause they intro-ducedcompetitionbetweenproviders.However, theyarenot likeconventionalmarkets,hence ‘quasi’becausetheyarenotnecessarilyprofit-maximisingfirms.(Source:http://go.shr.lc/2waAuML)

Page11


4.1. IDENTIFYINGIDEAS

Innovationmethod(s):Visionworkshops,Creativityworkshops,Lead-userworkshopsInnovationstartswithavision,wrappedinastrategydetailinghowthevisioncanbeachievedoverthe next years. Although the information management vocabulary has emerged from a businesscontext,theinterviewsanalysedinchapter5demonstratethataprincipal’svisionforthefutureoftheschoolplaysanimportantpartinhowteachersunderstandandprioritizetheirwork.Ratherthanfollowingmainstreamdevelopments,asharedvisionwithintheschoolhasthepoten-tialtoimplementanambitiousunderstandingofhow21stcenturyshouldlooklike.Moreover,withnational policies shifting more and more decision-making powers to local school management,schoolshavemorepossibilitiestoshapetheirownuniqueprofile.Forexample,althoughmanyschoolsuseroboticsorothermakertechnologieslike3Dscanningandprinting, it’snotalwaysclearwhattheoverallstrategybehindhavingthesetechnologiesatschoolcould be. This seems like a missed opportunity, as Chu et al. (Chu, Quek, Bhangaonkar, Ging, &Sridharamurthy,2015)argue,whensayingthatmakingactivitiesinschoolscanachievemuchmorethanjustsupportingtheunderstandingofspecificSTEMconcepts.Theauthorspointoutthatmak-ingshouldleadtoa‘makermindset’,aframeofthinkingaboutthemselvesas“technology-andsci-ence-capable”(ibid).Insuchascenario,makingbecomesameans-to-an-endsapproach,wheretheendsaredrivenbystudents’interests.Developinganinterest,then,becomesmoreimportantthancoveringamaximumnumberoftopicsforeseeninthecurriculum.Aswecansee,thesameeduca-tionalinnovation(e.g.makinginschools)takesondifferentcharacteristics,dependingonthevisionofthepeoplebehindtheinnovation.

Examplemethod:VisionWorkshopVisionsneedtobuilduponthebestinanorganisation,setadirectionandprovideafirmgroundforthetransformationtheorganisationshouldgothrough:“Trulygreatcompaniesunderstandthedif-ferencebetweenwhatshouldneverchangeandwhatshouldbeopenforchange,betweenwhatisgenuinelysacredandwhatisnot.Thisrareabilitytomanagecontinuityandchange–requiringaconsciouslypracticeddiscipline–iscloselylinkedtotheabilitytodevelopavision.Visionprovidesguidanceaboutwhatcoretopreserveandwhatfu-turetostimulateprogresstoward.”(Collins&Porras,1996)Somestandardactivitiestobeusedinavisionworkshop3:SettingthestageWhoisthebeneficiaryofthevision?Howwillitbeused?Avisionstatementisoftenaone-ortwo-pagewordpictureofwhatyouwanttocreate.Itisastorywritteninthepresenttenseasifthatenvisionedrealitywerealreadyoccurring.Thereisnofixedformulaforwritingvisionstatements.Imagining

3https://www.rickmaurer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CreatingVision.pdf

Page12


Createsomeidealpictureofthefuture.Exploretheseimagesindetail.Whoappearsintheseimag-es,whataretheydoingandsaying.Lettheimagegoandimagineanewone.PairdiscussionPairsdiscusstheirvisionswithapair.Theotherpersonasksquestionstoclarifythevisionwithoutevaluatingthevision.

4.2. EVALUATINGANDSELECTINGIDEAS

Innovationmethod(s):BalanceScoreCard,evaluation&selectioncriteria(userdemand,costesti-mate,skillsrequired),selectionmatrix,benchmarkingOnceavisionhasbeenformulatedandfirstideasaboutnoveltechnologiesandmethodsemerge,itmightbenecessarytoselectandprioritizeideassinceitisunlikelythattherearesufficientfinancialandpersonnelresourcestoimplementthemall.Criteriadrivenscoringimplythateveryvisionrepre-sentsatargetsystem(wheretheorganisationdesirestobein3-5years)(Gassmann&Granig,2013).Howmuchanorganisationhasprogressedtowardsthattargetsystemisthenmeasuredby indica-tors (e.g. number of students in projects, participation in STEM competitions or public relationsevents,promotingstudentsSTEMachievements).

Examplemethod:BalanceScoreCard

AsystemicscoringmethodistheBalanceScoreCard(BSC)approachdevelopedbyNortonandKaplan(1995).Theapproachiscentredaroundanorganisation’sabilitytolearn,includingallaspectsofthevaluechain(innovationsincombinationwithfinance,clientengagementandinternalopera-tionalexcellence)(Figure1).

Figure1:Balancescorecard(Source:Kaplan&Norton,1996)

Page13


Atthecoreofthescoringprocessareroot-causeanalyses,sheddinglightonissuessuchas‘thebestinnovationmightfailtobecomesustainableiftheyarenotcommunicatedtomanagementandpar-ents’likewiseisitimportanttocomparethepriceofaninnovationandmakesurethatalternativeshavebeentested,inordertoidentifymorecost-efficientsolutionswhereneeded.

4.3. IMPLEMENTINGANDSCALINGIDEAS

Innovationmethod(s):Participatorydesign,knowledgemanagement,networking,businessdevel-opment,prototyping,observingbeta-users,iterationsEarlyon,Rogers(2003)establishedfourelementsdeterminingthedisseminationcapacityofanin-novation:

§ characteristicsoftheinnovationitself,§ communicationchannelsused,§ timespentand§ socialsystemsinvolved.

Again,innovationsinschoolsmayhappeninlessstrategicwaysrelyingmoreonthereflectivenatureof teachers thanoncentralizedactions,hence forsustainablechange– innovationneedsasmuchbottomupcreativityasitneedstopdownmanagement(Schön,1995).Thefigurebelowisacombi-nationofRogers’(2003)adoptercategories(i.e.innovators,earlyadopters,earlymajorityetc.)andMoore’s et al. (1999) model of adoption of innovations (inflated expectations, enlightenment,productivity).

Figure2:Theinnovationchasm4

Figure2 shows the importanceofmanaging teachers’ expectationsaboutwhatan innovation canachieveandwhatnot,aswellaswhatsortofeffortneedstobemadeinordertogettheinnovationworking.Atypicalapproachhereistoinvolvethemoreexperiencedteachers(i.e.theearlyadopters)whichcanhelptowinoverthemajorityofteachersmoreeasily,mostlybecausetheycandothatexpecta-4http://weblog.tetradian.com/2015/09/16/big-consultancies-and-bridging-the-chasm/

Page14


tionmanagementverywellsincetheyknowthelocalconditionunderwhichinnovationsaremeanttofunction.Suchconditionsneedtobeaddressedfirst,iftheyareasfundamentalaslackofprepa-rationtime,insufficientnumberofdevicesperclassordedicatedphysicalspacesforprojectwork.Oneoftheunderlyingmotivationsforparticipatorydesign(PD)istheneedtoalignthedesignofICTapplicationswiththeskillsandconceptualmodelsofthepeoplewhoshouldnotonlyusethembutbeeffectivelysupportedintheiractivities.

Example:Theparticipatoryresearchanddesignmindset WhenparticipatoryresearchoriginatedinScandinaviainthe1970s,itemphasizedtheneedofusers'perspectives,notonlytoincreasetheefficiencyofsystems5butalsotomakethesoftware'work'inpeople'soveralllifecontext(Kensing&Blomberg,1998).Participatorydesignwastoovercometheefficiencyparadigmandincludefactorssuchaspeople'smotivations,theircarrierplansortheiride-alsofteamwork.Thesegoalswerenewintimeswhenworkershadlittleinfluenceonthetechnolo-giestheyshoulduseafterwards.Paternalisticattitudestowardsusersoftechnologywhoweredeemedunfittounderstandtheworkingsoftechnologycharacterizedtheintroductionprocessofnewtechnologies(Spinuzzi,2005).Recognizingthecrucialimportanceofusers'practice-basedknowledge,PDputforwardtheargumentthatinvolvingteachersearlyon,infacttakingteachers’interestsasstartingpoints,wasgooddesignpracticeifchangesweretobesustainable.Thestagemodelofparticipation(VonUnger,2012)defineslevelsofparticipationonthebasisofdecisionmakingauthoritywiththehighestlevelofempowermentasoneofself-organisation,wheretheindividualorcommunityareabletoactautonomously(Figurebelow).

Figure3:Stagemodelofparticipation(VonUnger,2012)

5Theparticipatoryresearchmethodologywasdevelopedasworkplaceinnovation,meanttoempoweremployees.

Page15


5 ANALYSISThemainpurposeofthisfirstdeliverableistheanalysisofthecurrentsituationinschoolsandbusi-nessesrelatedtoeducationaltechnologythroughqualitativeinterviews.Twodifferentinterviewguidelinesweredevelopedforthetwogroups:oneforteachersandoneforbusinesses.Criteriaforthedevelopmentofthequestionswerethefollowing(c.f.Hussy,Schreier,&Echterhoff,2013):

• Simple: The questions should be formulated in a simplemanner avoiding technical terms(whereitcouldnotbeavoidedtheyneededtobeexplained).Theinterpretationoftheques-tionsshouldbethesameforallinterviewees.

• Shortquestions:Questionsshouldhaveanappropriatelengthinordernottooverstraintheperceptioncapacityoftheinterviewee.

• Noredundantquestions:Avoidoverlapsofquestions.• Avoidleadingquestions:Questionsthatareleadingtoananswerarenotvaluablefromada-

tainformationperspective.• Openquestionsarefavoured:Questionsthatcanbeansweredwithasimple‘yes’or‘no’do

notcontainalotofinformation.

Thequestionsweredevelopedaspartofthetwoseparateguidelinesforthesemi-structuredinter-views(seeAnnex7).Semi-structuredinterviewsallowformoreflexibilityincontrasttofullystand-ardisedinterviewmethods(Froschauer&Lueger,2003).Whileallthequestionsoftheguidelinearemandatory, the sequenceof thequestions canbechanged.Also,ad-hocquestionsarepossible incaseitisreasonabletoexploreanissueinmoredetails.Inshort,theinterviewsaddressed5topics:

- defininginnovations(Questions:2-5)- innovationbarriers,incl.knowledge,markets,costs(Questions:6-14,22)- innovationenablers(Questions:15-17)- existinginnovationmanagementactivities(Questions:18)- innovationmeasurement(Questions:19-21)

The following sections introduce the interviewees first, and discuss subsequently the topicsmen-tionedabove. Interviewresponsesarereferencedascloselyaspossibletotheoriginalanswer,alt-houghwerefrainedfromverbatimquotes,withfewexceptions.Thesourceoftheanswerisindicat-edinbracketswithacountryacronymandanumber,e.g.SI4wouldstandforinterviewnumber4ofaSlovenianteacher.

5.1. INTERVIEWPARTICIPANTS

Interviewswereorganizedandimplementedin9countries(seeFigure3).Interviewsweredoneoverskypeor face to face. All interviews took place in themonths between June andAugust 2017. Insome instances, intervieweesdecided to fill in answers inwriting, so that therewas an individualreflection phases prior to the interview. Selection criteria for interviewees included a focus on

Page16


teachers in schools, primarily schoolswhich could benefit fromeCraft2learn innovations later on,secondlywewereaimingtoincludeR&DcompaniesaswellasuniversitydepartmentsparticipatinginthedevelopmentofeCraft2learninnovations.However,wealsoopeneduptheinterviewingpro-cesstoorganisationsoutsidethenetworkofeCraft2learnpartners,inordertoreflectthediversityofstakeholders intheeducationalsector.Thehighpercentageofteachersis justifiedbythefactthatmosteducationalsystemsshownational idiosyncrasiesandevenwithinacountry, thereareoftensubstantialdifferencesamongschoolsaccordingtotypeandgeographicallocationoftheschool(i.e.ruralversuscityschools).

Figure4:Interviewees’nationalityandprofessionalbackground

Intermsofage,44%ofintervieweeswerebetween31and40yearsandconcerningintervieweesgender,weachievedafairbalancebetweenmaleandfemalerespondents(seeFigure4).

Figure5:Interviewees’ageandgenderdistribution

Thediscussionofbarriersandenablersofinnovationismostlybasedonteacherinterviews(n=15),withacountrydistributionasindicatedinfigure5.

Page17


Figure6:Numberofinterviewspercountry

Lastly,teacher–studentratioswerealsoseenasadeterminingfactor,inthatalowratioindicatedeitherahighernumberofparttimeteachers,agreatervarietyofchoicesubjectsorastrategicdeci-sionforteam-teaching.6Asshowninfigure6,thehighestaveragestudent–teacherratiowasre-portedbyourUKinterviewees(with13.6–15.5students).

Figure7:Averagestudent–teacherratios

6Amorepreciseindicatorwouldhavebeenaverageteachingload,normalizedbyweeklyworkinghours.

Page18


Ratiosbelow9,however,weretheresultofcurricularinnovationssuchasthe‘newmiddleschools’inAustria,ortherecentintroductionofa‘project-driven,cross-disciplinary,newcurriculum’inFin-land.Inbothcases,thenewpedagogyfeaturedteamteaching(e.g.2teachersperclass)inordertoallowforamoreresponsiveandindividualizedteachingstyle.

5.2. DEFININGINNOVATIONINSCHOOLSANDINDUSTRY

Afirstquestionwhenresearching the innovationcapacityof theeducational sector is 'howdowedefine innovation?'. Innovations are generally described as the exploitation of new ideas; henceinnovationsimplynoveltyandusage(i.e.theadoptionofthesolutionbyarelevantusergroup)(H.W.Chesbrough,2003).Ashighlightedinsection3.1,innovationscanbeincrementalorradical.However,acommondenom-inatorofinnovationsistheirrelianceonsystematicchange.Lubienski(2003)notesthreedifferentnotionsofhowinnovationinschoolscanbeunderstood:

• Practicesareinnovativeiftheyarenewwithintheir localcontext.Thisinterpretationgoescountertotheideathatinnovationhastobe'new'ingeneral.Thisisanimportantdistinc-tion,since,aspreviouslydiscussed,adefiningcharacteristicofinnovationisacceptanceanduptakeof 'newpractices'byrelevantgroups(Rogers,2003). InthecontextofeCraft2Learnthismeansthataninnovationseenlocallycouldconsistofasmoothprocessdescriptionformanagingaclassusingraspberrypi,whereasa'generalinnovation'inthatareawouldbealearninganalyticsinfrastructure,capturingandanalysingpupilsinteractionswiththeRPis.

• A second interpretation of 'innovation in schools' refers to 'novel combinations of ap-proachesand/ortechnologies'.Thismeansthatnoapproachortechnologyisnovelperse,butthatnoveltyemergeswhenthingsarecombinedandappliedinaspecificcontextwheretheycancreateapositiveimpact.So,evenforlearninganalyticsappliedtoRPis,wemayfindmultipletoolsandprocesses,whichthenrequireadaptationbutnotnecessarilynewdevel-opmentsofcorefunctionalities.

• Lastly,athirdperspective,sees innovationmaterializedasasetofchoices.That is,pupilscan choose toengage indifferent learning formats, usingadiverse rangeof technologies.Thismightbeaproblematicinterpretationinsofarasitstrainstheresourcesoftheeduca-tionalproviderandtheremightbejustifiedcasesforofferingchoiceonlyafterlearnershavedemonstratedthattheyunderstandthevariousoptions.

5.2.1. INNOVATIONCOMPONENTS,NEEDSANDOUTCOMESThissectionprovidesanoverviewofrespondents’definitionsofinnovationsaswellastheirpercep-tionsohwhytheirschoolsshouldinnovateandwhattheywouldexpectfromaninnovationasout-come.

ID DefiningInnovation Innovationneeds,InnovationoutcomesAT1 Project-drivenclasses,useof

newmedia,relatedprofessionaldevelopment

Thereisaneedtobeontopofcurrentdevelop-ments.Thisisalsoanexpectationsocietyandminis-tryhavetowardsschools.However,thereisadi-

Page19


ID DefiningInnovation Innovationneeds,Innovationoutcomeslemmainthatweneedtoexperimentwithinnova-tiveproductsbutalsodemonstrateevidenceforimprovedlearning.

AT2 Thereareprojectsinphysicclas-ses,butallinallnoclearspecifi-cationsofwhatisconsideredaninnovation.

Ismainlyteacherdriven,thoughthereislittletimeforinnovationsincemanytopicsneedtobecovered.Forteachers,outcomesofinnovationshouldn’tim-plymajordisruptionsbutthereshouldbeawaytoconnectwithexistingpractices.

AT3 Innovationshaveastrongtech-nologyfocus(e.g.Smartboards,documentcameras).

Innovationisanimportantfactortobedifferent,especiallysincethereareschoolscompetingforthesamestudentsinthearea.Onceyouhavetoofewstudentsthereisarisktobecombinedwithanotherschoolinwhichcaseyoulosesovereigntyaboutthewayyoustructureyourteaching.Allinall,innova-tionshouldmakethingseasier.

SI4 Project-drivenclassesinvolvingmorethanonesubject(e.g.combiningchemistry,biologyandcomputerscience).UsingelectronicssuchasArduinosorRaspberryPi.

Innovationisamajorattractor.Studentsfromothercitiesapplytotheschool.However,fundingislargelydependingonexternaldonorsandparentscouncil.Themajoroutcomeisthatstudentcantrythingsinordertounderstandthembetter.

AT5 GoodInformationTechnology(IT)aswellascoursesthatteachprogrammingandrobotics,butnotyetconnectedwithothersciencesubjects.

Schoolsshouldconcentrateonapplying‘innovativemethods’.Schoolsarenottheplacetoinventinno-vations.

GR6 Innovationshouldinspirestu-dentstobecreativeandtocre-atenewthings.

Innovation,asoneoftheoutcomes,shouldraisestudents’interestsinSTEMandmakethemmoreopenmindedaboutthepotentialusesofcomputersandsmartphones.

GR7 Innovationsareexpressionsofopen-mindedteachersandstu-dents.

Innovationsimplychange,whichinturncanleadtostress.Sowhatevertheinnovation,it’simportanttoincludeteachersandstudentsearlyon.

UK11 Innovationsshouldhelptogetthebestoutofstudentsandteachers.

Innovationsareanecessitytosparkstudentsinter-estinthesubject.Innovationsshouldleadtoques-tionsandtheurgetoexperiment,makemistakesandthereforelearn.

UK12 Innovationmeansaddressingnewchallengesthroughnewsubjectsandnewtechnologies.

Innovationkeepslearningfreshandrelevant.Shouldbemeaningfultofutureworkplaces.

IT15 Innovationsinvolveamandatetofocusactivities,newtechnol-ogiesandnewdidacticmethods.

Sinceweareatechnicalschool,innovationisinher-enttoteachers’individualpreparation.Forexample,recentlywestartedteachingaboutIndustry4.0.

Page20


ID DefiningInnovation Innovationneeds,InnovationoutcomesIT16 Innovationismainlyaboutnew

pedagogicalmethods.Schoolsneedtoinvolvestudentsinshapingtheireducation,usingthetoolstypicalforagivengenera-tion.

CZ18 Innovationismainlypresentedbynewtechnologiesusedinteaching.Butnetworkingwithotherschools(e.g.forlanguageteaching)isalsoaninnovation.

Innovativeteachinghelpstoattractmorestudents.Innovationshouldbedefinedbyitsobjectivesandnotbytools.So,theInternetwouldbeonlyatool,buttheoverallobjectivemustbetolearnhowtouseavarietyofinformationsources.

FI23 Innovationsaretoreformtheideaofteachingandlearning.

Weneedinnovationsasmotivatorsforstudents.Theexpectedoutcomeisstill‘learning’.Whatdidthestudentachieve.

FI24 Innovationisaboutopennessanddiversity.

Innovationisalreadytriggeredbythenewcurricu-lumweareimplementing.Innovationshouldestab-lishacertainstate-of-mind:seeinghowthingsareconnected.

Fi25 Innovationscanbechangingthingswedoallthetime,ifsomeonefindsawaytodoitbetter.

Innovationscouldbeprimarilyforthosewhoarenotmotivatedorinterested.Ortheoneswithbadgrades.

Fi26 Innovationisnotexplicitlyde-finedbutappearsinmanycon-textsofthenewcurriculum.

Teachersneedtoseetheusefulnessofaninnovationinordertoadoptit.Studentneedtohaveamoresatisfactorylearningexperience.

However, therewerealso voicesof concern: “The term innovation is scary formany teachersbe-causeitisthetermthatisconstantlybeingtalkedaboutandteachersintheCzechRepublicareof-tenpushedintoit,whateveritmeans.Itisoftenunderstoodnegatively.Formanyteachers,innova-tionsmeanonlywatchingmoviesorvisitingexhibitions,usingcomputersandaprojector.…Iwouldnotdefine‘innovation’inteachingasanecessitytochangethewayofteachingorthenecessitytousenewaidsorplaygames,butasanopportunitytoincludecooperationwithspecializedworkplac-esorusingtheInternetasasearchtool.”(SI4)

5.2.2. CONCRETEEXAMPLESLast in this section of the interview we asked teachers about concrete examples of innovations,whichtheyeitherexperiencedorparticipatedin.Incasetheyhaddifficultiesinidentifyingsuchex-amples,wehighlightedagainthatinnovationscanhappeninverydifferentareas:

§ Products(e.g.adaptingavideosharingplatformforaschool)§ Processes(e.g.anewteachingmethod,peerlearning,useoflearninganalytics)§ Cultural/socialinnovations(e.g.democraticdecisionmaking,ideacrowdsourcing)§ Organisational/structuralinnovations(e.g.anewemployeeevaluationscheme,anew

budgetcategory)AT1:

Page21


• Learningspaces/schoolsmadeofwood.Studieshaveshownthatthepotentialforin-classconflictsislowercomparedtotraditionalbuildingsusingconcrete7.

• Amobilelaboratorywithequipmentandsmartphoneswherestudentscouldexploretheba-sicsofprogramming,usingtheirownideas.

AT2:• Studentsneedtodevelop,marketandsellaproduct.Thisexerciseispartofabusiness

courseatschool.• Theschoolaimsforteachersofferingdevelopmentopportunitiesforotherteachers(similar

tohavingchampionspertopic).AT3:

• Developmentofnewcurriculatoimplementanewschooltype(NMS–NeueMittel-Schule)8.Thenoveltiescharacterizingthisnewschooltypeincludeteamteaching(2teachers),afocusonindividualneeds,theavoidanceofunder-orover-challengingstudents.Thishasanim-portantconsequenceforstudentswhoseeducationalpathswasoftenalreadydefinedatage10,nowtheyobtainthe‘MittlereReife’9andcancontinuewithanotherschoolallowingthemtomatriculateatauniversity.

SI4:• Twostudentsinventedachipforawashingmachineandarenowcollaboratingwiththe

GermancompanyBosch,integratingthechipintoactualproducts.• Anotherstudentinventedamechanismtosafethecoldwaterintheshowerthatiswasted

untiltherighttemperatureisreached.AT5:

- Ourstudentsrepairedadonatedcartogetherwithamechanic.Thestudentscouldseethepartsandmakevideoclipsexplainingcertainparts.Therepairedcarwasthensoldandthemoneywenttotheschool’sgarden.

GR6:- Studentsrevisedexperimentsinphysics,exploringdifferentwaysofmeasuringthingslike

volumeandtemperature.Therebywediscussedtheneedforcalibrationandhowdifferentmeasurementconditionsimpacttheaccuracyofthevaluesobtained.

UK12:- Weuse3Dprintingandmicrocontrollerstoteachhighlevelengineering.

IT15:- Asaninstitutionalresponsetopromotinginnovationsinschool,weintroducedtheroleof

'digitalanimationteachers’.Theirroleistoinvolveotherteacherswiththeconceptsof3Dprintingorcoding.

IT16:- Iorganizearoboticsclub.Tomeit’simportantthatstudents’attitudetowardsscience

changesandthattheycanshowcasewhattheydo(scratchdays,exhibitionsforparents)FI23:

- Fromatechnologicalpointofview,weintroducediPadsandLaptopstotheclassroom.

7http://www.proholz-kaernten.at/fileadmin/user_upload/download/Unterlage_SOS_Studie.pdf8https://www.bmb.gv.at/schulen/bw/nms/index.html9https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittlere_Reife

Page22


- Insecondaryschool,wealsostarted‘digi-tutoring’,i.e.twoteachershavebeennominatedtoguideotherswiththeirdigitalisationefforts.

FI25:- Forexample,leavingthedeskwasinnovativeandmotivatedthestudents.Changingtheen-

vironmentmadethemmorereceptive.FI26:

- Wehadaprojectaroundcleaningpollutednatureandbuildingtherequiredinfrastructureforthat.

5.2.3. HOWINNOVATIONISUNDERSTOODOUTSIDESCHOOLSFollowingthenotionofatripleorquadruplehelix(Leydesdorff,2000),thissectionwilllinkschools’notions of innovation to what universities, businesses and civil society organisations think aboutinnovation.Tobetterunderstandthehelixprinciple, it isgoodtorememberthatearlyresearchoninnovationstartedwithalinearnotionoftheinnovationprocess,wherescienceenablesnewtech-nologieswhicharetransferredintomarkets(Arnkil,Järvensivu,Koski,&Piirainen,2010).Theideaofmarketsorend-usersinformingresearchwasnotpartofthelinearmodel.Indeed,earlyon,thefactthatfurtherinnovationmightbeneededuponmarketintroductionwasnotaccountedfor.Asare-sult,innovationresearchshiftedtowardsinteractive,non-linearinnovationprocessesinmulti-actorinnovationnetworks.Thefigurebelowillustratestheresultingparticipationspace,hereinthecon-textofdesigninga‘smartcity’(Figure8).Nosingleacademicdisciplinewouldsufficetoofferacom-pletepictureofwhatthefuturesmartcityshouldentail.Thefigureshowstheemergenceofapartic-ipatory space, including all stakeholders in order to cover the various dimension of innovationsneeded (social, organisational, technological and sometimes even political and regulatory innova-tions).Eventually,aworkingnetworkofinteractinginnovationsatasystemiclevelisemerging.

Figure8:Collaborationwithinthetripleandquadruplehelix10

Translatingfigure8intothestakeholdergroupsineCraft2Learn,- schoolsaspublicorganisationsrepresentthegovernment,

10(VanWaart,Mulder,&DeBont,2015)

Page23


- companiessuchasUltimakerandArduino,whichhavelong-standingeducationalprogramsrunning,suchas‘createeducation’11or‘creativetechnologiesintheclassroom’12representbusiness,

- teachersfromuniversitiessuchasCambridge(UK)orMälardalenUniversityrepresentaca-demia,

- placesforinformallearning(TheIndustrialGasMuseum13),sinceout-of-schoollearningbe-comesanevermoreimportantpartofthestudents’individuallearningecologies–repre-sentedtheviewofacivilsocietyorganisation.Thelatterwasenrichedbyaninterviewofaparentplanningtostartaparent-organizededucationalinitiative.

Afterthediscussionofteachers’viewsoninnovationinsection5.2,followingasummaryofcom-mentsfromcompanies(includingcivilsocietieswhichinourcontextwerenon-profitcompanies)anduniversities.Companies’viewsoninnovation

A. A state-owned, consulting company facilitating networking among different organisationswhomight not have the full research capacity needed to address a specific problem. Forthem,innovationcoverstheentirechainfromideatomarketintroduction.Theirspecialfo-cusisonNeedsAnalysis“wherewetodayoftenjumpthegunbystartingsolvingidentifiedproblemsdirectly,implementingsolutionsbecausewehavesuchgreattoolsfordoingso,ra-ther than looking at the needs and allowing the corresponding questions to be properlyformed.We'dalsolikemoreoftoolsdevelopedpurposelyforstructured,inventiveproblemsolving(e.g.likeTRIZ,www.triz.co.uk).”(SE22)

B. Afor-profit,opensourcehardwarecompanyseesinnovationasparamounttotheirsurvival.Theideaisthatahugeupfrontinvestmentleadstoaninnovation,which,ifrepeatedmoreoftenrendersaprofit.ThecompanyhaswontheinnovationradarinthepastyearInthear-eaofIoT(aInternetofThingsplatform).However,thecompanyisalsoveryactiveintheed-ucational sector, using creative technologies. Their programs have demonstrable success,with the latestofferingbeingattendedby4,500children learning thebasicsofelectronicsandprogramming.

C. Anotherfor-profitorganisation,developingandselling3d-printingsolutionsemphasizestheimportanceof‘openinnovation’(UK14).Similartothepreviousinterviewee,innovationisallabouttranslatingideasintooutcomes,butmarketfeedbackmakesallthedifference.Whatsortofinnovationisneededisbestdecideduponreceivingcommentsfromthosewhouseyourproduct.Evenbetterisitifyoumakeyourcomponentsopensourceanduserscanpro-totypetheirownsolutionsbecausetheycanplugintotheexistingsystemswhosespecifica-tionsareknown.Soabigpartofthecompany’s innovationcultureistheirsupportiveusercommunity.Wherebytheusercommunityservesadoublepurpose,notonlyistheproductitself improved but also new application scenarios are discovered, such as scanning andprintinganarthritickneewhichisthenusedfordoctors–patientcommunicationaswellasmedicaleducationorexploringvarioustreatmentoptionsbyagroupofexperts.

11https://www.createeducation.com/12http://verkstad.cc/ctc/13https://www.athens-museums.com/guide/science-nature/223-industrial-gas-museum

Page24


Universities’viewsoninnovation

A. Theintervieweeworksatatechnologyinstitute,beingpartofauniversity.Forhim,innova-tioniswhatcomesafteraproof-of-conceptstage(SE21).Howeversincetheuniversityisac-tiveintwoareas:teachingandresearch,heisalsoawarethattherearedifferentareasforinnovation.Sothateducationaltechnologyseemstobethemostagilearea,whereasinno-vationsintheadministrationisvery‘playitsafe’,andtheintroductionofnewideasisevenfrowneduponattimes.

B. Alsoworking at a technical university, the interviewee sees innovation as anomnipresentthemeattheuniversitywhichstrivestoconstantlyimproveteachingandlearningmethods(SE20). He is frequently inquiring his students about their use of TV or landline phones,which is declining year by year. He then raises the question of how universities’ ways ofteaching and assessing students have changed and argues that innovations in educationneedtobeintunewiththelife-worldsofthosebeingeducated.Anotherareathatcallshisattention is the lackofopen-source technologiesused foreducational innovations:“Sadly,I'vefoundthatthey[externalproviders]don'talwayshavethestudentsbestinterestinmind,astheyprimarilyneedtomakemoneyforshareholdersandowners.Openness,ease-of-use,interoperability with other systems, importing learning objects and exporting data to andfromvariousplatformsarelackingasabitoflock-inoftenispreferred.”(SE20)

C. An interviewee from a manufacturing department, emphasizes the importance of under-standing ‘howsomething isused’andnotonly ‘howsomethingcanbedonebetter in theabstract’(UK13).

5.3. BARRIERS

Thereisrarelyanorganisationthatwouldsayinnovationisnotimportanttothem,still,manyorgan-isationsdonotconsiderthemselveseffectiveinnovators(Loewe&Dominiquini,2006).Thebarriersbrought forward frequently include ‘perceived riskiness’ or ‘short term objectives such as savingcosts’; which stop organisations following through with their innovations strategies. Loewe &Dominiquini list the top six barriers to innovation based on a survey of 550 large companies.However as the ensuing discussionwill show, in one form or another, these barriers can also befoundinschools.Thesearethetopsixobstacles(ibid):

1.Short-termfocus.2.Lackoftime,resourcesorstaff.3.Leadershipexpectspayoffsoonerthanisrealistic.4.Managementincentivesarenotstructuredtorewardinnovation.5.Lackofasystematicinnovationprocess.6.Beliefthatinnovationisinherentlyrisky.

Oneofthekeyenablersofeffectiveinnovationsaccordingtotheauthorsisvisionaryleadershipbe-haviour,whichinturnrequiresacommondefinitionorasharedunderstandingofwhatinnovationisorwhy itmatters to theorganisation.Oneof the reasonswe included this point in the interviewguideanddiscusseditintheprevioussection.

Page25


Talkingabout ‘barriersto innovation’ isnotaneasytaskfororganisations.Notonlybecause it im-plies to engage in critical self-reflection14, but also because organisations’ perception of barriersstronglydependsontheirpropensitytoinnovative.ThisisdescribedbyD’Esteandcolleaguesasthedifferencebetweenrevealedanddeterringbarriers(D’Este,Iammarino,Savona,&vonTunzelmann,2012).Revealedbarriersarethose,organisationsencounterwhentheyactuallyengageininnovationprocessesandneedtoovercomethesebarriers,meaningthatorganisationswhoinnovateless,like-wiseseelessproblemsintheirinnovationprocesses.Deterringbarriers,areadistinctsetofbarriersexperiencedbyless-innovativeorganisationsandincludethingslikepathdependencies,marketreg-ulationsorcosts,etc.Thisisalsocloselyrelatedtotheimportanceattachedtoeachbarrier–aper-spective not discussed in this report – but essentially there is also a difference between the per-ceived importance of barriers and the actual impact these barriers can have (Iammarino, Sanna-Randaccio,&Savona,2009).Theinterviewguideaddressedthreedifferentareasofbarriers:

1. Knowledge/Skills:Knowingaboutlatestinnovationsinthefield,havingtheskillstoprese-lectpotentiallyapplicabletechnologies(Chase,1997);

2. Markets: Knowingwhichproducts /marketsare relevant,dependenciesonmarket condi-tions(offerings,educationalfocus)(D’Esteetal.,2012);

3. Funding:Anorganisation’sabilitytomakethenecessaryinvestments,includingfinancialandmanpowerresources.

5.3.1. KNOWLEDGEGAPSIn this sectionweasked teachers about theirways to keepupwith thegrowingamountof infor-mationrelatedtoinnovativetechnologiesrelevanttotheirrespectivesubjects.Wealsoaskedthemwhattheyfoundparticularlyimportanttoboostinnovationsintheirschools.Teachersattempttobeontopoftheirsubjectsaswellasrelatededucationaltechnologiesby

- AccessingtheInternet(SI4,GR6)- Readingrelevantjournalandmagazines(AT1,GR7)- Attendingopendays,fairsandexhibitions(AT2,GR6,CZ18)- Havinglocalinterestgroupsforexchangingexperiences(AT2,GR6,Fi23)- Using informationchannelsprovidedby theeducationministries,e.g. ‘ITat school inAus-

tria’.Unfortunately,filteringandkeepinganoverviewofwhatisofferedaspartoftheinitia-tiveisachallenge(AT3)

- Exploitingpersonalcontacttothecomputerdepartmentofthelocaluniversity(SI4,UK11)- Followinge-learningclasses(GR7).- Organizingprofessionaldevelopmentsessionsattheschool(UK11)- JoiningFacebookgroups(Fi23,FI25)- Makingane-Book(FI26)

Anopenquestionattheendofthe interviewsectionabouttheroleofknowledge,askedwhetherthere are other factors they consider important to support innovations at their schools. For thisquestionwegotmostlyanswersthathintedattheculturaldimensionofanorganisation,including

14Oneintervieweeaddressedthisbysaying„Ifyouaskourprincipleshewouldsayeverybodyisinnovative,butthereisabigmassofteachersthatdon’thavealotmotivation,theyarenotreallybraveenoughtogototallyadifferentway,theyalsohavechildrenoftheirown,butinnovationcomeswithextratimeandextrameetings.”(AT5)

Page26


notonlywhat is communicated,butalsohow it is communicated (e.g.passionateandcompellingchampions).After readingthroughall theanswerswecouldseetwomainareasemerging: (a) theimportance of freeing up / being granted enough time to explore innovations and (b) – probablyrelated–gettingsupportfromtheschool’smanagementandprincipal.Time

- Therewerealsosomereferencestokeepingparticularlifephasesinmind,e.g.teacherswithyoungkidscannotspendasmuchoftheirfree-timeonextracurricularinnovationsasteach-erswhose childrenarealreadygrownups (SI4).Or the fact that senior teachershave lessfoundationalskillstheycanbuilduponasyoungerteachers,whogrewupwithtabletsandsmartphones,henceaonesizefitsalltrainingisnotadequate.Timeneededtobecomeac-quaintedandfluentwitheducationalinnovationsneedstobeaddressedopenly,afirststepneedstobetheintegrationofprojectworkandtheuseofinnovativetechnologiesintotheofficialstatecurricula(SI4).

- Thereisnoshortageofresources(mainlycommercialsupportmaterialssuppliedbypublish-ingcompanies),butwealsoneedthetimetoreviewthesematerials(AT1)

- Given the shortage of time for exploring innovative products, teachers stressed the im-portance of ‘ready-to-use’ products,where own developments areminimal (AT2). On theother side, even ‘ready-to-use’ products require experience in order to apply themunderdifferentconditions(e.g.decidingaboutthemostappropriatesizeofagroup,whenworkingonarobotsexperiment)(IT15).

- Insomeinstances,obtainingtheknowledgeisthesmallerproblem,acquiringthetechnologycan bemore time consuming aswe experienced this when searching for some particularsensors(SI4).

- Manyteachersthinktheyhavetosticktothecurriculum,nomatterwhat.HoweverIthinktheyshouldcut-offsometopicsandbemoreflexibleinthewaytheyimplementitandallo-catemoreor less time to topics if theyuse innovativemethodswhich requiremore time.(AT5)

Supportive,collaborativeculture:

- Openmindedcolleagues(AT1,GR6)- Thinking about incentives is extremely important. There is no performance or innovation

bonustoteachers’payments(AT3).Hence,it’saboutpersonalinterests.- Themanagementof schoolsneeds tobewonover (IT17).This requiresgoodpresentation

skills(AT3),itshouldbetheotherwayaround–managementshouldpresentinnovationstoteachers(GR7).Principalsneedtoprovideresourcesandsupport,theyneedtobepositiveaboutit(FI24).

- We also have to think about sharing good examples, for teachers and students alike.Wecouldalsohaveprizesorcompetitionsatschoolforinnovativepractices(GR6).Weneedef-fectivewaysofsharing,iftimeforreadinguponatopicislimitedwecoulduseFridayMorn-ingsessions,duringwhichoneteacherpresentstotheotherswhatheorsheiscurrentlyfo-cusingon(UK11).Equallywecoulduseinformaltalksduringcoffeebreakstotalkaboutourinnovations(FI25).

Page27


5.3.2. MARKETSIn this section,weaimed toexplore the relationshipbetween teachers,planning innovations, andschools’decisionmakingprocesses,givena ‘marketofopportunities’.Firstly,wewanted toknow,whether teachers felt like theywereup todatewithwhat themarkethad tooffer. Secondly,wewanted to know how decisions about acquiring novel technologies aremade and whether somelimitingfactorswereatplay(e.g.proprietarysystems,maintenancecontractsorhardwaredepend-encies).However,withhindsightwecansaythatthesequestionsseemedtooremovedfromteach-ersdailyexperience.Marketofferings

- Wedon’thavealotofcontactinthatarea.Someofthetechnologiesreallyneedtobepre-sented,sothatwecangetabetterimpressionofwhattheinnovationisallabout(AT1).Sim-ilarlyanotherteachercommented,thatyesthe information isthere,butonceaproduct ispurchased, it’s quite cumbersome to get it running. The latter involves a lot of Googlesearches(AT2)

- Mostteachersunderstoodthequestionintermsofwhethertheyknewaboutspecifictech-nologiessuchas3D-printing,virtualrealityandmicrocontrollersingeneral.

Decisionmaking

- Ononesidewehavesomequiterigidstructuresandontheothersidethereareno‘extra’financialresources.Soschoolsneedtocollectmoneyfromparents,donorsordothingslike‘SponsorRuns’–basicallyrunningformoney(AT2).

- It’snotonlyaboutthedecisiontodosomethingdifferent, it’sequally important to fityouplans intoexisting structures,which imposea lotof limitations (lessonplans,bus time ta-bles).

- If innovative technologies are used in the classroom, it is important to have a sufficientquantityofthose.Afterall,mostgroupsareheterogeneousandifallstudentsneedtopar-ticipate in theactivity Ineedenoughdevices toallowforgroups thatadvanceatdifferentspeeds(AT3).Weonlyhaveonelabfor1,300studentswherewecanuse3Dprinter,LegoroboticsorArduinos(AT5).

- OurdecisionmakingisconstrainedbytheMinistryofEducation.Iftheyarenotinterestedinaparticular innovation, itcannotbecomepartof theformalcurriculum.Alsoononeocca-sionwegotanationalproduct,even if thiswas far removed fromthecurrent stateofart(SI4).Thekindof innovations thata teacher isallowed to introduce is limited towhat thegovernmentproposes,sincethat'sthereasonwhythefundswereassignedtotheschoolinthefirstplace.Ifateacherhasagoodidea,he'snotallowedtoputitintopracticebecausehedoesnothaveenoughfunds.(IT15)

- Forme,thedecisivethingsaretomakestudentsawareofthesocialimplicationsoftheirac-tions.FromaPSHEperspective15,gettingchildrentohavemorecompassionwitheachoth-erandabetterunderstandingofwhethertheycanstartthinkingabouthow3DPrintingcanimprovesocietyandhelpothers.(UK11)

15Personal,social,healthandeconomic(PSHE)education

Page28


5.3.3. FUNDINGIn thissection,wewereprimarily interested in findingouthowteachersperceivedthe levelof in-vestment theirschoolsput into learningandtechnological infrastructures. Intervieweesassociatedcostsmostlywiththeacquisitionoftechnologies,whereforewehadsomeoverlapwiththepreviousquestion,whichincludedanswersabouttheapprovaloffundingforinnovations.

Thereweretwomainargumentsdrivingthediscussionaboutfunding:

(a) Typeofschool:privateorpublic,orinFinlandwehadaresearch-orientedschool,orinAus-tria we had the ‘new middle schools’ which had a somewhat better funding than otherschooltypes.

(b) Sourceoffunding:therewillbenationaldifferences,butsomepartsoftheschool’scostarecoveredbyanationalbudget,othercostsarecoveredbythelocalcommunity(municipality)andthenthereissomeextramoneycominginfromparentsordonors.Althoughthelatterdepends on the network the school has as well as the general socio-economic situationwheretheschoolislocated.

But even if different sources can be combined, it seems like the teacher needs to develop quitesomefund-raisingqualitiesifheorshewantstogetaprojectoftheground:“Fundingisabsolutelyabigproblem,theschoolbudgedsoundsquitebig,buttherearelotsofbigcosts.Theprimarycostisthe teachers, the building and then very little is left. About 30.000 is like nothing for a school ofaround1300studying.Thewholebudgethasbeen frozen for3yearsnowandno inflationadjust-mentsweremade.Youalwayshavetopaytheteachersandthebuildingfirst,anditalwaysgetlessandlessleft.It’sisreallyhardtogeteven100EURforsomething,youhavetoaskfor10-20€things,anddon’tgetanymoney. Inour school,parentshavea strongorganisationany theycontinuouslycontribute, but not all teachers want to go to ask parents. You need to have a budget from theschool.”(AT5)Then there is the economic situation of a country, which determines howmuch budget ismadeavailableforeducation:“Fundingisverylow.OurMinistryofEducationisnotfundingneitherschoolsnorresearchersintheacademia.Andthisisthemajorobstacle.Almostallwedoisthroughexternalcontributions.”(SI4)OrsimilarlyGreece:“Finally,innovationistraditionallyrelatedwithpayingextraforacquiringthenecessarynewequipmentandthatisarealbarrierinacountryunderfinancialcri-sis likeGreece. But, judging bymy experience, innovation is not an expensive thing and people inchargeshouldknowaboutit.”(GR6)Interestingaboutthelastcommentisthestatementthatinno-vationdoesn’thave tocostmuch.Ofcourse, there isadifference inwanting touseArduinosandsteppermotorsofabout50€oraLegoMindstormRobotthatcancostanythingbetween200€and500€.Incontrasttothesestatements,wealsohaveschoolswhicharefacingnodifficultiesinget-tingthenecessaryresources–atleastasfarasthetechnologyisconcerned:“Wehaveaprettygoodsituationwiththetechnology.Ourhighschoolisapilotschoolintechnologyareaandinoursecond-aryschoolwegetquitegoodsupport for investing innewtechnology(forexampleDronesandtheequipmentforprogramming).”(FI23)

5.4. ENABLERSANDCOMPETENCIES

Whereas the previous section discussed impediments of innovations, this section is focusing oncompetenciesandskillsneededtocreateandsustaininnovations.Giventheimportanceofinnova-

Page29


tioninallsectors(publicorprivate),havingabetterunderstandingofthosefactorsisofgreatvalueto academics and practitioners alike. On the one side competencies can be real competitive ad-vantages and on the other side they can lead to path dependencies (organisations dowhat theyhavealwaysdone,becausethisiswheretheyhavethebestprovisions).Onahigher levelthere isaquasi-consensusonfourareas,whichorganisationsneedtomanageinordertobecomemoreinnovative(Souitaris,2002):

• technicalcompetence• marketcompetence• humanresourcescompetence• organisationalcompetence

In the interview,we operationalised these areas by asking about how schools obtain informationabouteducational innovations (fromatechnicalaswellasmarketperspective).Theorganisationaldimensionwillbecoveredbydiscussing‘existinginnovationmanagement’activitiesinthenextsec-tion. Lastly, themain focusof this section ison the ‘human resources’dimensionandheremorespecificallyon‘professionaldevelopmentopportunities’and‘hiringforinnovationpractices’.Professionaldevelopmentopportunities

- Wehaveonedayperyear,wherewecanchoosetrainingsandthenwehaveseminarsdur-ingholidays.Occasionallytherearealsomandatorytrainings,howeverIdon’tthinkit’sap-preciateda lot. (AT2)The latterwasseendifferentlybyan intervieweewhoreported thatschoolmanagementlikestoseeteacherstakingadvantagesofprofessionaldevelopmentof-ferings(AT1).Soitseemsthatheretheindividualattitudeofaschool’smanagementplaysanimportantrole.

- Professional development depends a lot of teacher’s individual decisions. Apart from thetimeitcanalsobeageographicalproblem,ifyourschoolisinaruralareaandallcoursesareinthemajorcities.(AT1,AT3)

- Therearecoursesthatteachhowtoassiststudentswithdisabilities,bitnotrainingisavaila-bleforteachingcomputerskills,etc.(SI4)

- Therearedevelopmentsessionsintheafternoon,butfundingisalwaysanissuebecausetheschoolisverysmall(UK11).

- Wehavealocalinnovationgroup,with6weeklymeetings,exchangingideasandlisteningtoeachother(UK12).ApartfromthatwecanattendtrainingdaysatManchesterUniversity.

- Therearen’tmanyoptions.Mostdevelopmentopportunitiesareorganisedinternally(IT16)- We have tutor teachers, who go to trainings and share what they learnt with their col-

leagues(i.e.train-the-trainersystem).Wealsohave2hrsaweeksupportfromtwoteachersshowinghowtousetablets inclass (FI25).Thereareplentyofofferingsbut itdependsonteachers’ownwillandactivity(FI24).

Hiringpractices

- Inthepast,teachersappliedforaregionandweresendtowhateverschoolhadtheneed.However,thishaschangedoverthelastyearsandnowmanyteachercandidatesintroducethemselvesdirectlytotheprincipal(AT2).However,themainselectioncriteriaarethesub-

Page30


jectsand less teacher’s innovative ideas (AT1).Thefirstselectioncriteriaarethecombina-tionofsubjectsateacheroffers,then,whatcountsistheoverallpersonality(AT5).

- Teachers’innovationcapacitiesusuallydon’tplayaroleforhiring,whichisapity.Thiswayweruntheriskofhiringblinkeredspecialist(SI4)

- Therearestatelawsthatregulatethehiringofteachers,e.g.yearsofservice,age,familyetc.sothat‘innovationcapacity’doesn’tplayahugerole,thoughitwouldbewelcome(GR6)

- In my case I could see that the school was dilapidated [interviewee just started workingthere],soIwaspartlyhiredtomakeadifferencethere,improvingteachingquality(UK11)

- Hiringhappensthroughacentralizedprocess,sothelocalneedsofaschoolcan’tbetakenintoaccount(IT15,FI25).Inthepast,myschoolcouldhireteachersabletodevelopinnova-tivewaysofteaching(IT16).

- Hiringhappens through themunicipality, so I don’t know if innovationplays a role (FI25).Withthenewcurriculum,IdothinkthatICTcompetencesandtheabilitytointegratediffer-entsubjectsandhavepeerteachinginfluencesthehiringofnewpeople(FI23)

5.5. EXISTINGINNOVATIONMANAGEMENTPRACTICESINSCHOOLS

Typical innovation management methods include establishing a personal responsibility forknowledge,knowledgemanagementasbusinessstrategy,assessingexternalknowledge,knowledgemanagement trainings, reward systems for knowledge sharing and establishing best practices(Chase,1997).However,currentconceptionsofinnovationshavechangedfromaproductoroutcomeperspectivetoaprocessornetworkperspective.Bynow, innovationmanagementstandardapplications(Tidd,2001)emphasizestheimportanceofnetworksfor

- sharinginformation,- sharinginfrastructuresand- co-specialization.

The toolsandmethodsneededtoeffectivelymanage innovationareasvariedas intranetapplica-tions, groupware, conferencing tools, internal experts list, CRM, ect.Nonetheless, the networkingaspectofinnovationmanagementhaspushedafew‘unusualsuspects’totheforefrontsuchasFa-cebook Groups orWhatsUp Groups. The figure below lists tools and organisational arrangementintervieweesmentionedinthecontextoftheirschools.Insomeinstancenetworkingplatformswerenotconfinedtothe limitsoftheschoolbutconnectedteachersataregionalornational level, liketheuseofpeda.net16inFinlandorbildung.at17inAustria.

16Peda.netisasocialnetworkingplatformwithpersonalprofilesanddiscussionforums.Therearedifferentwaysofusingitandteachers,studentsandparentscansigninandcheckorcommentwhathasbeendoneattheschoolorattheday-care.However,itisprimarilytheschoolsandteachers,whodecidehowtheyareusingit.17Bildungt.atisasharingplatformforservices,contentandinitiatives,includingonlinematerialssupplementingschoolbooksorspecificationsofandrecommendationsforlearningmanagementsystems(LMS).(Source:https://www.bildung.at/index.php?id=10)

Page31


Figure9:Innovationmanagementtoolsinschools

Knowledge-basedinnovationmanagementrequirestwotypesoftools(Hidalgo&Albors,2008):a) technicaltoolsrelatedtotheacquisitionanduseofnewinformationandb) relationaltoolsrelatedtotheexchangeofknowledge,internallyaswellasexternally.

Althoughthedifferentiation isnotalwaysclearcutanddependsonhowa technology isused,wecanseethatthetop5tools includesomenetworkingcapabilityandthe last threetoolsrepresentmainlyknowledge-pushstrategies.However,thereisnotechnologicaldeterminismininnovationmanagement,whichleadsTidd(Tidd,2001)toremarkthatseveraldecadesofresearchoninnovationmanagementhavefailedtocreateacomprehensiveframeworktoguideinnovationmanagement.Theauthor’smainargumentisrelatedtoresearchers’neglectofenvironmentalcontingencies:speedofchangeoftechnologies,changingdemandsforservicesandinnovationsingeneraloraccesstorelevantresearchcommunities(sincenotallchangescanbecoveredin-house).Insomeinstancesomeveryfine-grainedfactorsmightalsoplayaroleaswecouldseethatthesametechnology(Moodleinthiscase)wasusedwithgreaten-thusiasm for a variety of innovationmanagement tasks (SI4)whereas another organisationmadelesspositiveexperiences,sothatthetoolwasn’tusedmuch(AT5).

6 CONCLUDINGRECOMMENDATIONSTaking intoconsiderationbarriersandenablersdiscussed intheprevioussection,wearenowsug-gesting some possible supportive actions which are meant to support the implementation ofeCraft2learnpilots.

6.1. ASTRATEGICAPPROACHTOOPENINNOVATION

Open innovation implies that it isnotdedicatedR&Ddepartments,operatingbehindcloseddoorsandreleasinginnovationsfromtimetotime,thatdeterminetheinnovationcapacityofanorganisa-tion.Rather,it’steacherinternalnetworkandtheirlinkswithexternalknowledgeorganisationsthatmakeforinnovativepracticesinaschool(H.Chesbrough,Vanhaverbeke,&West,2006).Openinno-vationstronglyalignswiththenetworkdefinitionof innovationputforward insection5.2.3and isalsoreflectedinthestrongpresenceofnetworkingplatformsamongtheinterviewedteachers(seeFigure8).

34%

38%

47%

47%

50%

56%

63%

72%

PLATFORMSFORSHARINGGOODPRACTICES,SUCCESSSTORIES

KNOWLEDGECHAMPIONS/INTERNALEXPERTS

PROJECTORPRODUCTCHAMPIONS

PLATFORMSFORNETWORKING/FINDINGLIKEMINDEDPEERS

SPECIFICTOOLS:INTRANET,GROUPWARE,CONFERENCINGTOOLS

INTERDEPARTMENTALWORK

SPECIALINTERESTGROUPSFORKNOWLEDGEEXCHANGE

PLATFORMSFORSHARINGINFORMATION(WIKIS,FORUM,GITHUB)

Innovationmanagementactivitiesinschools(n=16)

Page32


However,atthemomentitseemsthatnetworkedinnovationsareprimarilypushedbyenthusiasticteachersworkingmoreorlessinisolation.Commentsinthebarriersaswellasintheenablerssec-tion(5.3and5.4)suggestthataschoolwidestrategyforhowtopromoteinnovations,tomakethemmorepervasiveandensuringthatmorestudentsgettheirbenefits,suchstrategiesarelargelymiss-ing.Astrategicapproachcouldhelptoclearlycommunicatehowemergingtrendsarescreenedandtest-ed,which collaboration opportunities are pursued, howpromising ideas are piloted at the schoolandfinally,what financialandprofessionaldevelopmentresourcesareneeded inordertoachievelargescaleuptakeoftheinnovation(Igartua,Garrig,&Hervas-Oliver,2010)withinaschool.However, open innovation goes beyond working with other teachers and schools and suggest astronger focus on involving the actual end-user of the innovation, the students. In this respect, adifferentiationbetweenuser-centred innovation(lower involvementofuser)anduser-driven inno-vation(higherinvolvementofuser)isputforwardby(Arnkiletal.,2010).

Figure10:Degreesofuserinvolvement(Source:Arnkiletal.,2010)

TheparticipatoryapproachalreadyfiguresstronglyintheeCraft2learnproject,howeveraconsciouschoiceofwhat level of teacher involvement ismost adequategiven thebarriers andenablerswehaveseeninthevariousschoolsseemsrecommendable.

6.2. DESIGNRECOMMENDATIONS

Observinginnovationorstartingcollaborationstoimproveaninnovation,e.g.makingitmorerobusttoworkwith increasinglyheterogeneousgroups,soundsstraight forward inprinciple.However, inpracticeitisoftentacitknowledge18whichdetermineswhetherandhowgoodaninnovationworksoutontheground:“Unlikeatheoreticalstatement,whichstrivestobecomeascontext-independentaspossible,thestrengthofadesignpatternliesinitscombinationofabstractdesignideaselucidat-edbyconcreteexamples.Thelatterallowtheuserofapatterntoreconstructthecomplexrelation-

18Fromabusinesspointofview,tacitknowledgeisalsoacompetitiveadvantage,‘protecting’openinnovationsfromcopycats: “Your competitors will have a harder time copying your innovations. Because they are based in part on tacitknowledge,theyarehardtocopy.Becauseyouhaveincludedyourcustomersdirectlyinyourinnovation,thesecustomerswillhaveinvestedtheirowntimeandself-generatedcontent,makingthemlesslikelytoabandonyouatamoment’sno-ticeshouldanothercompanytrytolurethemaway.”(H.Chesbrough,2010)

Page33


ships inherent to educational designs.” (Voigt, 2010). A number of design recommendations havebeensuggestedfortheareaofcrafts-basededucationsuchasenvisionedineCraft2learn.Emphasizingthe importanceofstudent-driven,experiential learning,designprinciples for tinkera-bilityineducationhavebeensuggestedby(Resnick&Rosenbaum,2013):

• immediatefeedback,• fluidexperimentationand• openexplorationoppirtunities.

Similarly,butshiftingthefocustolearnersdevelopingtheirdo-it-yourselfidentity,principlestode-velopa‘makermindset’havebeensuggestedbyKatterfeldt,Dittert,&Schelhowe(2015):

• Be-greifbarkeit,i.e.being‘graspable’andconnectingthevirtualandthephysicalworld;• Imagineering,inventingandimaginingadifferentfuture;• Self-efficacy,beingconfidentofones’ownmasteryoftools,methodsandmaterials.

6.3. PLATFORMINNOVATION

OpenInnovationcanhavemanybenefits,suchasacceleratingunderlyingprocesses,improvingsur-roundingservices,andreducingcostsandrisksofinnovations.Platforminnovationsareonecatego-ry of such services,which share the benefits (and possibly costs) of one innovation amongmanyusers.Oneofthemostwell-knownplatformsistheApple’siPhone,hundredsofthousandsofdevel-operscreate ‘Apps’ forSmartphones, increasingthesmartphone’svalueandhavingan incomeforthemselves:“AppStorecustomershavenowdownloadedmorethan180billionappsandApplehaspaidoutover$70billiontodeveloperssincethestorelaunchedin2008,makingitthemostvibrantsoftwaremarketplaceintheworld.”19

19https://www.apple.com/ne/newsroom/2017/06/apple-unveils-all-new-app-store/

Page34


Educationalinnovationsareunlikelytoenterthesedimensionsanytimesoon,nonetheless,theideaofplatformscanalsobefoundintheDIYsector,includingspecialisedoffersforeducationproviders.For example, ‘Create Arduino’20is an online platform, that allows user to program online, havingtheirprograms,theirlibrariesandthemostup-to-dateIDEavailablefromanycomputertheywish.

Figure11:Arduinoonlineprogramming

However,theonlineprogrammingisonlyonefeatureoftheentireplatform.Otherfeaturesinclude,amongmanythings,introductionstoprogramming,tutorials,supportdiscussiongroupsandastoreforArduinohardwareproducts.

Figure12:Arduinoplatformfeatures21

20https://create.arduino.cc21https://create.arduino.cc/

Page35


Asimilarmodelcanbefoundfor3D-PrintingwithTinkerCad22,whichoffersanonlineversiononly,forthosewhowanttouseits3D-Modellingandcircuitry-testingcapabilities.

Figure13:TinkercadBrowser-based3Ddesignplatform

Again,wecanfinddesignandmodellingfeatures,togetherwithsupportoptionsandaleadtocom-mercialservices,integratingtheplatformwith“leadingthirdpartyprintingservices”23

7 ANNEX–INTERVIEWQUESTIONSFollowingthetextoftheinterviewguideforteachers,interviewguidesfornon-schoolorganisations(e.g.companies,makerspaces,museums)wereslightlyadaptedinthewordingbutcontainedessen-tiallythesamequestions.Theinterviewstartedwithsomebackgroundinformationaboutthepro-jectandwhatcanbeexpectedduringtheinterview.Insteadofusinganemptysurveyguide,wedecidedtoincludeaversionwheresomeoftheanswerswerealreadycaptured,includingsomefollowupquestionsoftheinterviewer(highlightedinitalics),inordertoillustratetheconversationalnatureoftheinterview.

INFORMATIONFORTHEINTERVIEWEEOurprojectplansaseriesofinterviewstobetterunderstandwaysinwhichinnovativepracticesaroundlearningtechnologiesaredeveloped,implementedandscaled.Weinterviewteachers,tu-tors,managers,techdevelopers,organizersofworkshopsetc.andarefullyawarethatsomeofthefollowingquestionsmightbemoreorlessrelevantinyourcontextdependingonyourrole.Fivebroadtopicswillbeaddressed:

- innovationbarriers

22https://www.tinkercad.com/23https://www.tinkercad.com/about/features

Page36


- innovationenablers- existinginnovationmgmt.activities- innovationmeasurement- desiredinputfromoureCarft2learnproject

Towhatdegreeindividualinnovatorsareenabledbytheirschools,orrespectivelytowhatdegreetheinnovatingschoolisenabledbyitsownecosystemarethecorequestionstobeaddressedinthisinterview.Moreconcretely,thingslikeappropriatefunding,regulations,curricularflexibility,technologiesreadytouseortechnologieslikelytoemerge,adequatetrainingopportunitiesetc.canandshouldbepartoftheinterviewconversation.

Theinterviewsfollowasemi-structuredformat,henceitistotallyOKtoelaborateonpoints,includequestionsnotmentionedinthisguideorprovideexplanations.Inthisregard,it’squitedifferenttoasurvey.

INFORMATIONFORTHEINTERVIEWEEOurprojectplansaseriesofinterviewstobetterunderstandwaysinwhichinnovativepracticesaroundlearningtechnologiesaredeveloped,implementedandscaled.Weinterviewteachers,tu-tors,managers,techdevelopers,organizersofworkshopsetc.andarefullyawarethatsomeofthefollowingquestionsmightbemoreorlessrelevantinyourcontextdependingonyourrole.Fivebroadtopicswillbeaddressed:

- innovationbarriers- innovationenablers- existinginnovationmgmt.activities- innovationmeasurement- desiredinputfromoureCarft2learnproject

Towhatdegreeindividualinnovatorsareenabledbytheirschools,orrespectivelytowhatdegreetheinnovatingschoolisenabledbyitsownecosystemarethecorequestionstobeaddressedinthisinterview.Moreconcretely,thingslikeappropriatefunding,regulations,curricularflexibility,tech-nologiesreadytouseortechnologieslikelytoemerge,adequatetrainingopportunitiesetc.canandshouldbepartoftheinterviewconversation.Theinterviewsfollowasemi-structuredformat,henceitistotallyOKtoelaborateonpoints,includequestionsnotmentionedinthisguideorprovideexplanations.Inthisregard,it’squitedifferenttoasurvey.

QUESTIONSRELATEDTOTHEINTERVIEWEE’SCONTEXTANDUNDERSTANDINGOFINNOVAITON

1. Pleasetelluswhereyouworkplace,yourpositionandyourtypicaltasks(teaching,managing,IT

support,etc.).

Page37


I’mworkingasateacherofcomputerscience(mathsandtechnologyaswell)tostudentsagingfrom13to17inaschoolin..deleted…Howwouldyoudescribeyourteachingversusresearchinprojectsactivities?About70%Teachingand30%research.Additionally,I’msupportingthecomputers’labofmyschoolandIalsoperformvarioustechrelatedtasksinthisschool,wheneverneeded.Isthatinformally?…noit’saformalpartofthejobApartfromteaching,I’mworkingasseniorresearcherintechnology&educationrelatedprojects.Whatareyourbackgroundstudies?Computing&engineering,additionalseminarsineducation…2. Whatisyourschool’sdefinitionofinnovation(ifapplicable)?

Assistingtheyoungstudentsdiscovernewthings,beinspiredandcreate.Isthatofficiallycommunicated?…yesthereisalotoftalk,buttherecouldbemoreaction..3. Inwhatwaysareinnovationsimportanttoyourschool?

Inmyschool,specialtimeandresourcesareallocated(duringtheweeklyschedule)foractionsofinnovation.But,asthingsarenotideal,nottheperfectarrangementofresourcesisachieved.Couldyoubespecific?Isitonehouraweek–e.g.theinnovationhour?…formallywecantake2-3hrsperweekforinnovativepractices,butthatneedsaformalapplicationatthebeginningoftheyear,includinginformationsuchasWhatshouldbedoneand4. Howwouldyoudescribetheterm‘innovation’?Whatoutcomesdoyouexpectfromaninno-

vation?

Inmyopinion,innovationistothink/design/createsomethingthatneverexistedbeforeorcom-binethings/ideas(notnecessarilynew)togetherawaythatneverexistedbeforeormaketheoth-erstodoso.5. Canyoutalkabouttwoorthreeexamplesofinnovationswithinyourschool?Pleaseletus

knowifyouwereinvolvedyourself.Andinwhatwaysdidyourschoolbenefitfromtheinno-vations.

Withagroupofstudentswecreatedmobilephonedrivenrobotsandartefactsrespondingtolightandsoundchanges.WealsoreformedaseriesofconventionalexperimentsofPhysicsusingarduinounoboards.Whatwasthelinktotheactualcurriculum(age/topic)?Pleasegive2or3examples?…agewasbetween14-16,i.e.howtoaccuratelymeasuretheamountofwaterinabottle..wealsodidmeasuringtemperature,e.g.andwerelookingattraditionalwaysvsdigitaltools.Thisleadstodiscussingmeasurementerrorsandtheneedforcalibrationsofmeasurementinstrumentsingeneral...oneobjectiveistoformanunderstandingtheimportanceofmeasurementconditions(e.g.someelectronicscannotmeasuretemperaturesabove60degreesotherwisethecomponentsgetdam-aged)Actionslikethismademore(andyounger)studentstobeinterestedforSTEAMprojectsandmadethemmoreopenmindedwhenaboutcomputers/networks/mobilephones.Students–creators

Page38


becamemoreself-confidentandsociableandmoreparentsagreedtoassistinbuyingextraequip-mentfortheschoollabs.Anestimatewouldbeenough,whatsortofcontributionfromparentsarewetalkingabout?..itwasvoluntaryandmainlytheinitiativeoftheparentsthemselves,about5€forelectronicsandsensors

INNOVATIONBARRIERS

Knowledge 6. Howmanypeoplehavethenecessaryskillstosupporttheinnovationsyouwouldliketo

seewithinyourschool?(youcanalsoprovidepercentages)

Ithinkatabout3over30(10%)Whichskillsdidyouhaveinmindwhenestimating10%?..mainlyskillsrelatedtotechnologicalinnovations,e.g.computerskills,robotics,connectingthings..teachersformotherdisciplines(art,language)mightnothavetheseskills

7. Howmanypeopleinyourschoolpushandsupportinnovativeideas?(youcanalsoprovidepercentages)

Ithinkatabout3over30(10%)Howdoyounoticetheirsupport?..e.g.proactivesuggestionssuchas‘let’sorganiseanexhibition’..againIwasthinkingoftechnologyrelatededucationalinnovations.IfIapplyabroaderdefinitionIgetupto25%.

8. Towhatdegreeareyouawareofongoingtechnologicaldevelopmentsinyourfield?Howdoyoukeepup?

Ifahavetoquantifyit,Iwouldsayabout80%.FortherestI’mnotreallyinterestedorIcan’tcatchupwith.ImanagetokeeppacewiththetechnologicaldevelopmentsbyusingtheInternettofindanswers,byparticipatinginconferences/seminarsorbydiscussingwithotherteachers/students.

9. Arethereotherthingsbesideskills,supportivepeopleandawarenessofopportunities,youfindimportanttoboostinnovationsinyourschool?

Peoplehavetobeopen-mindedatnewthings,practicesandpersons.Toboostinnovationbothstu-dentsandteachersshouldbeinformedaboutsuccessfulexamplesorpracticesofotherpersons/schoolsandestablishamechanismofgivingprizesforanygoodpractice/artefactbeingdone.

Markets

10. Towhatdegreeareyoufamiliarwiththepossibilitiestoincludeeducationaltechnologiesrelatedtomakinginyourteaching?(e.g.VirtualReality,3DPrinting,MicroControllers)

Ifahavetoquantifyit,Iwouldsayabout90%.Whatmakesatechnology(e.g.VR)toaneducationaltechnology?

Page39


..thedifficultyistheprocessofadaptingthetechnologytostudentsinterestsandcurrentskills(it’snottheknowledgeaboutthetechnologyitself)..intheclassroom,youdefinitelyneedanapproachthatdeliversquickresultsCanstudentshandletheArduinoscriptsiftheyare14yrsold?Yes,oftentheyhadcourseinprogrammingalreadyAndthenwetakeexistingexampleswhichareadapted,readingdatafromaphotoresistors/tem-peratureviaanArduinocantakelessthan10lines.

11. Inyouropinion,aretherepracticesinyourschoolthatmakeinnovationsmoredifficult?(e.g.byavoidingchoiceandvarietyofeducationaltechnologies)

Inpublicschools,peoplethatareworkingasteachersarepublicemployeesandpublicemployeesoftendon’tlikechanges.Sometimessomecolleaguesaresomehowbeingsuspiciousofanyonewhowantstodosomethingnew,tostopsayingthathedoesittogetapromotion,tosatisfyitsbigegoortooffendanybodyelsewhodoesn’tdoso.Apartfromtheabovementionedreason,theweeklyscheduleisquite“heavy”and“inelastic”forbothteachersandstudentsandthusitisverydifficultthenecessarytimeandhumanresourcestobefound.Finally,innovationistraditionallyrelatedwithpayingextraforacquiringthenecessarynewequip-mentandthatisarealbarrierinacountry…deleted…Youmadeapositivecommentaboutthefinancialimplicationsofinnovation.Howaboutthecul-turalaspectofinnovations?Howcouldwescaletheacceptanceofmoreinnovativepractices?..it’simportanttonotkeepitprivate..thebestisifyoucanaskcolleaguestohelpandparticipate

Costs

12. Howwouldyoudescribethelevelofinvestmentyourschoolputsintotechnologicalandlearninginfrastructures?

Iwouldsayishighlydependentongovernmentaldecisionsandfunding.Additionalhelpisofferedbyparentsofstudents,formerstudentsandtheheadmaster.Whatwasthelastinnovationthathasbeenfunded–givenyoupastexperiences?(couldbetech-nologyoraprofessionaldevelopmentcourse)....officiallythereisateamofparentsinchargeforsomeinvestments.Othersyouneedtoapplyforwiththeministry.

13. Howdoesyourschooldealwiththeeconomicriskofinvestinginthe‘wrong’innovation?‘Wrong’inthesensethatitdoesn’tproducethedesiredimpacteitherintermsoflearnerssuccessoracompany’sturnover.

Thereusabilityofequipment,theuseofrecycledmaterialsforartefactcreationandkeepinglowtheinitialamountofinvestmentaregoodpractices.Thegoodthingaboutfailuresisthatyougetin-formedaboutwhatnottodointhefuture.Reply:Yesreusabilityisagoodaspect,avoidingthatthingsbecomeobsoletetooquickly..

Regulations

Page40


14. Inyouropinion,whichEuropean,nationalorlocalregulationscouldconflictwithsomeoftheinnovativepracticesyouwouldliketosee?

Specificcareshouldbetakenwhilecreatingvideo/photomaterialinvolvingstudentsinordernottopublishsensitivepersonalinformation.

• Licencesyes!

FurthermoretheuseofsmartphonesandtheInternetitselfundercarriessimilarrisks.Whichrisksdoyouseehere?..postingharmfulphotosduringclass,acceptingcallsduringclass..actuallytabletswithout3Gconnectionsareabettersolution,thiswaywecancontrolaccesstotheInternetduringclasstimeFinally,whiledoingthingslikeconnectingelectricalwiresorcuttingpartsthereisapotentialdangerofgettinginjured.

• Healthissues

Itisdifficulttotakeallthenecessaryfortheaboveprecautions/measuresandthuswehavetoleaveapartsome“ambitious”but“morerisky”projects.Doyoufeelyouaretakingatoobigriskhereasanindividualteacher?..Itrytofindatrade-offbetweenacceptingaslightrisk(thatcanneverberuledout)anddoingthingsthatwouldbetoosimpleifImaximizesafety

INNOVATIONENABLERS

15. Howdoesyourschoolcollectinformationaboutlatesteducationaltechnologies/innova-tions?Isthisinformationregularlyofferedtoallinterestedmembersoftheschool?

Emailscomingfromcentraleducationalbureausorotherschoolsarethemainsourceofinformation.Additionally,ithappencolleaguestoannounceimportantthingsatmonthlyprolongedschoolmeet-ings.

16. Whatsortofdevelopmentoptionsareavailabletotheworkforceatyourschool?

Wehavesomearduinos/raspberrypiunitsandsimilarequipment,conventionalcomputers,tradi-tionalhardwaretoolsandanactivelaboratoryofPhysicsandChemistry.Wealsohaveapiano,atheatrescene,andrelevantaudiovisualequipment.So,wecanrunSTEM/STEAMprojects.No3Dprinterisavailableatthemoment.Howaboutcoursesforteachersandteachingmaterials?..thereisn’tthatmuch..someinternalmeetingstakeplace..andtherearesomerelevantseminars,butthesearenotmandatory

17. Towhatextenddotheinnovationneedsofyourschoolinfluencethehiringofnewteach-ers?(e.g.apersonwitheCraftexperiencebringsabenefittotheplace)

Suchanoptionwouldbeverywelcomebuthiringteachersinschoolsissomethingthatrarelyhap-pensduetofinancialcrisisreasons.Accordingtostate’slawothercriteriaareveryimportantaswellliketheyearsofteachingexperienceorthenumberofmembersinteacher’sfamilyandsoon.

Page41


Reply:Yesit’samulti-criteriaprocess…

EXISTINGINNOVATIONMANAGEMENTACTIVITIES

18. Howisyourschoolpromotinginnovationsatanorganisationallevel?Ifoneofthefollow-ingapplies,pleaseelaboratebrieflyinwhatwaysthissupportsinnovations!

a) specialinterestgroupsforknowledgeexchange,b) interdepartmentalwork,c) projectorproductchampions,d) knowledgechampions/internalexperts,e) platformsforsharinginformation(wikis,forum,github),f) platformsforsharinggoodpractices,successstories,g) platformsfornetworking/findinglikemindedpeersh) specifictools:intranet,groupware,conferencingtoolsi) other:pleasespecify..

[highlightedthemethodsappliedintheschool]

INNOVATIONMEASUREMENT19. Howdoesyourschoolcapturethenumberofinnovationsintotalaswellashowmanyof

thesebecomeasuccess?

Theyorganiseexhibitionsandspecialdaysforpromotinginnovationbeingachievedandtheypartic-ipatetosimilareventsorconferences.Canyoudescribeoneofthoseexhibitions/events?..attheendoftheschoolyear,objectsandactivitiesaredisplayedorderedbymultidisciplinarycat-egoriesTheborderbetweensomethingsuccessfulorunsuccessfulisdifficulttotellwhentalkingaboutyoungstudents.Differentstudentstendtolikedifferentthingsingeneral.

20. Howdoesyourschoolcapturetheeffortneededtomakeaninnovationasuccess?

Difficulttotellwhatissuccessfulornotinaschoolproject,inanycase,questionnairesarefilledbythestudentsparticipatingtoinnovativeactivitiesandthepatternoftheiranswersistakenintoac-counttocapturetheeffortneededforthesuccess.

21. Andifso,whatwouldbethecriteriatodecidewhethertheinnovationissuccessfulornot?

Asmentionedabove,theborderbetweensomethingsuccessfulorunsuccessfulisdifficulttotellwhentalkingaboutyoungstudents.Differentstudentstendtolikedifferentthingsingeneral.Butifweseemorestudentstobeinterestedinaspecifictopicorifpeopleinvolvedinatopicgetbettermarksthenthistopiccanbeclassifiedasasuccess.

SUPPPORTFORTHEINTERVIEWEDPERSON’SSCHOOL

22. Whatdoyouthinkshouldchangefirst,tomakeyourschoolmoreinnovativethanitisto-day?

Page42


Betterfunding,betterattitudebetweencolleagues/teachers,strongerandbiggerteamtopublishworkbeingdonetotheInternetcommunity.

8 REFERENCESArnkil,R.,Järvensivu,A.,Koski,P.,&Piirainen,T.(2010).Exploringquadruplehelixoutlininguser-

orientedinnovationmodels.

Chase,R.L.(1997).Theknowledge-basedorganization:aninternationalsurvey.JournalofKnowledgeManagement,1(1),38–49.

Chesbrough,H.(2010).Openservicesinnovation:Rethinkingyourbusinesstogrowandcompeteinanewera.JohnWiley&Sons.

Chesbrough,H.,Vanhaverbeke,W.,&West,J.(2006).Openinnovation:Researchinganewpara-digm.OUPOxford.

Chesbrough,H.W.(2003).TheEraofOpenInnovation.MITSloanManagementReview,44(3),35.

Chu,S.L.,Quek,F.,Bhangaonkar,S.,Ging,A.B.,&Sridharamurthy,K.(2015).MakingtheMaker:AMeans-to-an-EndsapproachtonurturingtheMakermindsetinelementary-agedchildren.In-ternationalJournalofChild-ComputerInteraction,5,11–19.

Collins,J.C.,&Porras,J.I.(1996).Buildingyourcompany’svision.HarvardBusinessReview,74(5),65-.

Damanpour,F.(1991).Organizationalinnovation:Ameta-analysisofeffectsofdeterminantsandmoderators.AcademyofManagementJournal,34(3),555–590.

D’Este,P.,Iammarino,S.,Savona,M.,&vonTunzelmann,N.(2012).Whathampersinnovation?Re-vealedbarriersversusdeterringbarriers.ResearchPolicy,41(2),482–488.

Froschauer,U.,&Lueger,M.(2003).DasqualitativeInterview:ZurPraxisinterpretativerAnalysesozialerSysteme(Vol.2418).UTB.

Gassmann,O.,&Granig,P.(2013).Innovationsmanagement–12ErfolgsstrategienfürKMU.CarlHanserVerlagGmbHCoKG.

Granig,P.,&Perusch,S.(2012).InnovationsrisikomanagementimKrankenhaus:Identifikation,Bew-ertungundStrategien.Springer-Verlag.

Hidalgo,A.,&Albors,J.(2008).Innovationmanagementtechniquesandtools:areviewfromtheoryandpractice.R&DManagement,38,113–127.

Hussy,W.,Schreier,M.,&Echterhoff,G.(2013).ForschungsmethodeninPsychologieundSozialwis-senschaftenfürBachelor.Springer-Verlag.

Iammarino,S.,Sanna-Randaccio,F.,&Savona,M.(2009).Theperceptionofobstaclestoinnovation.ForeignmultinationalsanddomesticfirmsinItaly.Revued’économieIndustrielle,(125),75–104.

Igartua,J.I.,Garrig,J.A.,&Hervas-Oliver,J.L.(2010).HowInnovationManagementTechniquesSupportanOpenInnovationStrategy.Research-TechnologyManagement,53,41–52.

Page43


Kaplan,R.S.,&Norton,D.P.(1995).Puttingthebalancedscorecardtowork.PerformanceMeas-urement,Management,andAppraisalSourcebook,66,17511.

Kaplan,R.S.,&Norton,D.P.(1996).Usingthebalancedscorecardasastrategicmanagementsys-tem.HarvardbusinessreviewBoston.

Katterfeldt,E.-S.,Dittert,N.,&Schelhowe,H.(2015).Designingdigitalfabricationlearningenviron-mentsforBildung:Implicationsfromtenyearsofphysicalcomputingworkshops.InternationalJournalofChild-ComputerInteraction,5,3–10.

Kensing,F.,&Blomberg,J.(1998).Participatorydesign:Issuesandconcerns.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),7(3–4),167–185.

Lessig,L.(2002).Thefutureofideas:Thefateofthecommonsinaconnectedworld.Vintage.

Leydesdorff,L.(2000).Thetriplehelix:anevolutionarymodelofinnovations.ResearchPolicy,29,243–255.

Loewe,P.,&Dominiquini,J.(2006).Overcomingthebarrierstoeffectiveinnovation.Strategy&Leadership,34(1),24–31.

Lubienski,C.(2003).Innovationineducationmarkets:Theoryandevidenceontheimpactofcompe-titionandchoiceincharterschools.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,40(2),395–443.

Lubienski,C.(2009).Doquasi-marketsfosterinnovationineducation?Acomparativeperspective.OECDEducationWorkingPapers,(25),0_1.

MartinJr,C.R.,&Horne,D.A.(1993).Servicesinnovation:successfulversusunsuccessfulfirms.In-ternationalJournalofServiceIndustryManagement,4(1),49–65.

Meek,S.E.,Blakemore,L.,&Marks,L.(2016).IspeerreviewanappropriateformofassessmentinaMOOC?Studentparticipationandperformanceinformativepeerreview.Assessment&Evalua-tioninHigherEducation,1–14.

Moore,G.A.,&McKenna,R.(1999).CrossingtheChasm:Marketingandsellinghigh-techproductstomainstreamcustomers.

Morozov,E.(2013).ToSaveEverything,ClickHere:Technology,Solutionism,andtheUrgetoFixProblemsthatDon’tExist.PenguinUK.

Oke,A.(2004).Barrierstoinnovationmanagementinservicecompanies.JournalofChangeMan-agement,4(1),31–44.

Resnick,M.,&Rosenbaum,E.(2013).Designingfortinkerability.Design,Make,Play:GrowingthenextGenerationofSTEMInnovators,163–181.

Rogers,E.M.(2003).Diffusionofinnovations(5thed.).NewYork:FreePress.

Schön,D.A.(1995).Thereflectivepractitioner :howprofessionalsthinkinaction.Aldershot,Eng-land:Arena.

Souitaris,V.(2002).Firm–specificcompetenciesdeterminingtechnologicalinnovation:AsurveyinGreece.R&DManagement,32(1),61–77.

Spinuzzi,C.(2005).Themethodologyofparticipatorydesign.TechnicalCommunication,52(2),163–174.

Page44


Tidd,J.(2001).Innovationmanagementincontext:environment,organizationandperformance.InternationalJournalofManagementReviews,3(3),169–183.

VanWaart,P.,Mulder,I.J.,&DeBont,C.(2015).Participatoryprototypingforfuturecities.InPIN-C2015:Proceedingsofthe4thParticipatoryInnovationConference2015:Reframingdesign,TheHague,TheNetherlands,18-20May,2015.Eds.:RianneValkenburg,CoenDekkersandJannekeSluijs.TheHagueUniversityofAppliedSciences.

Voigt,C.(2010).APatterninthemaking:Thecontextualanalysisofelectroniccase-basedlearning.InP.Goodyear&S.Retalis(Eds.),Technology-enhancedlearning:DesignPatternsandPatternLanguages(pp.107–122).Rotterdam:SensePublishers.

VonUnger,H.(2012).PartizipativeGesundheitsforschung:Werpartizipiertworan.InForumQualita-tiveSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch(Vol.13).

Watson,D.(2006).UnderstandingtherelationshipbetweenICTandeducationmeansexploringin-novationandchange.EducationandInformationTechnologies,11(3–4),199–216.

Documents

D2.1 Innovation Management 2017-09-01 v09 · 2017-11-02 · Deliverable D2.1 Enabling maker ... Average student – teacher ratios ... (‘Analysing Interviews’)