The 2nd OLC Innovate conference is now over. I am sure there will be many reflections out there on various aspects of the conference. I hope to get to reflect on my presentation on learning pathways and some of the ideas that attendees shared. But I wanted to first dig into one of the more problematic aspects of the conferee: the place and role of students.
The biggest problem related to students at the conference was how they were framed as cheaters at every turn. Chris Gilliard wrote a blog post that explores this aspect in depth. I was able to finally meet and hang out with Chris and many others at Innovate. Those of us that got to hang out with Chris got to hear him pondering these issues, and his blog post makes a great summary of those ponderings.
The other student issue I wanted to reflect was also part of what Chris pondered at the conference as well:
Excellent point by @hypervisible on the limited input of students at #OLCInnovate. Where are the student scholarships to attend?
— Rage Against the AI Cyberocracy (@grandeped) April 5, 2017
Of course, as soon as I tweeted that, we found there were a few sessions that had students there. But for the most part, the student voice was missing at OLC Innovate (like most conferences).
At some levels, I know how difficult it is to get students at conferences. Even giving them a discounted or free registration doesn’t help them with expensive hotel or travel costs. Sponsoring those costs doesn’t help them get a week off from class or work or both to attend. Its a daunting thing to coordinate. But considering the thousands of attendees at OLC Innovate representing tens or hundreds of thousands of learners out there, surely some effort to find the money would have brought in a good number if the effort had been there.
But beyond that, it seemed that in many places the whole idea of students even being able to “innovate” was left out of some definitions of innovation. Not all, of course. Rolin Moe brought his Innovation Installation back to OLC Innovate, which served as a welcome space to explore and ponder the difficulties in defining “innovation” (those pesky-post modernists always wanting us to “deconstruct” everything….) Rolin did an excellent job of looking at situating the definition of innovation as an open dialogue – a model I wish more would follow:
Taking the people of #OLCInnovate installation on the road through the Sheraton to talk about situating definition. We hope to talk to you!
— Rolin Moe (@RMoeJo) April 6, 2017
The definitions of innovation became problematic in the sessions and keynotes. The one that really became the most problematic was this quote from one keynote:
https://twitter.com/mrkampmann/statuses/850107391387611136
(I am also not a fan of the term “wicked problems”)
While I like "design thinking," I hate the term "wicked problem." Problems can be good. Why the negative context? #OLCInnovate
— Rage Against the AI Cyberocracy (@grandeped) April 6, 2017
The context for this definition was the idea that innovation is a capability that is developed, and really only happens after a certain level of ability is obtained (illustrated by a pianist that has to develop complex technical skill before they can make meaningful innovative music). The idea that some creativity/innovation isn’t “good” was highlighted throughout the same keynote:
Humans are creative by definition however the fruits of that creativity aren't always valuable @johnkao #OLCInnovate
— Mark E Deschaine,PhD (@MarkEDeschaine) April 7, 2017
For context, here is the list of “Innovation Capabilities” that were shared:
Examples of innovation capabilities @johnkao #OLCInnovate pic.twitter.com/R9j4IBM7aI
— Txell Llorach (@txellllorach) April 6, 2017
There was also various other forms of context, all of which I thought were good angles to look at, but still very top-down:
https://twitter.com/Samantha_Duque/status/850104262998863874
https://twitter.com/alanweskinsey/status/850104110535905280
This was capped off by the idea that there are “good kinds” of innovation and “bad kinds” of innovation, and we should avoid the bad innovations:
Problem is that everyone thinks they do the "good kind" of innovation. Who determines which kind is good or bad? #OLCInnovate
— Rage Against the AI Cyberocracy (@grandeped) April 6, 2017
Of course, the master of all meme media Tom Evans made a tool to help us make these decisions:
Behold the Innovation Wheel of Value https://t.co/q4VQaZhI98 #OLCInnovateSnark
— Tom Evans (@taevans) April 6, 2017
What one person sees as a “bad” innovation might be a “good” innovation to another. Not sure how to make the determination in such an absolute sense.
There was also an interesting terms of “innovation activist” that was thrown in there that many questioned:
I think I have a different definition of activist that is being used right now at #olcinnovate
— Sundi Richard (@sundilu) April 6, 2017
https://twitter.com/amichaelberman/statuses/850100192070250496
I am going for "Disruption Conformist" myself… :) #OLCInnovate https://t.co/vt4f1b1dcY
— Rage Against the AI Cyberocracy (@grandeped) April 6, 2017
I get that many want a concrete definition of innovation. But I think there are nuances that get left out when we push too strongly in any one direction for our definitions. For example, I agree that innovation is a capability that can be trained and expanded in individuals. But it is also something that just happens when a new voice looks at a problem and comes up with a random “out of the blue” idea. My 6 year old can look at some situation for the first time and blurt out innovative ideas that I had never heard of. Of course, he will also blurt out many ideas that are innovative to him, but that I am already aware of. And there lies the difficulty of defining “innovation”….
Whatever innovation is, there is a relative element to it where certain ideas are innovative to some but not to others. Then there is the relative element that recognizes that innovation is a capability that can be cultivated, but cultivation of that capability is not necessarily a prerequisite to doing something “innovative.”
In other words, any definition of innovation needs to include the space for students to participate, even if they are new to the field that is “being innovated.” The list of Educational Capabilities pictured above is very instructor/administrator/leader centric. Some of those items could be student-centered, but the vocabulary on the slide seems to indicate otherwise. But ultimately I guess it goes back to whether one sees innovation as absolute or relative to begin with. If Innovation (with a capital “I”) is absolute, then there are definitely some things that are innovative at all times in all contexts and some things that aren’t, and therefore Innovation is a capability that has to be developed and studied in order to be understood before participating. But if innovation (with a lower case “i”) is relative, then anyone that is willing to can participate. Including students. But you rarely (at any conference) see the student voice represented in the vendor hall. And as with any conference, how goes the vendor hall, so goes the conference….
Matt is currently an Instructional Designer II at Orbis Education and a Part-Time Instructor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Previously he worked as a Learning Innovation Researcher with the UT Arlington LINK Research Lab. His work focuses on learning theory, Heutagogy, and learner agency. Matt holds a Ph.D. in Learning Technologies from the University of North Texas, a Master of Education in Educational Technology from UT Brownsville, and a Bachelors of Science in Education from Baylor University. His research interests include instructional design, learning pathways, sociocultural theory, heutagogy, virtual reality, and open networked learning. He has a background in instructional design and teaching at both the secondary and university levels and has been an active blogger and conference presenter. He also enjoys networking and collaborative efforts involving faculty, students, administration, and anyone involved in the education process.
One thought on “Can the Student Innovate? An #OLCInnovate Reflection”