Home

Welcome to the EDUC639_Culture-of-Innovation Wiki!

The Role of Educational Technology in Advancing Cultures of Innovation

☀ Community Founders

• Travis Fannon
• Kyle Hardenbrook
• Cynthia Johnson
• Adrienne Phelps
• Jacqueline Phelps

We are a team in Liberty University's EDUC 639 - Trends & Issues in Educational Technology course. This wiki is a multimedia version of a literature review exploring The Role of Educational Technology in Advancing Cultures of Innovation. Advancing Cultures of Innovation is a topic highlighted in the 2017 Horizon Reports for K-12 and Higher Education, published by the new Media Consortium and the Consortium of School Networking (Adams Becker, et a, 2017)

Overview

Advancing Cultures of Innovation Overview -2

Abstract

Despite the overwhelming amount of research in business and marketing concerning the role of technology in advancing the culture of innovation, integration into academia has been slow at best.  Current literature highlights significant limitations and gaps concerning the integration of this information across industries.  The purpose of this study was to define, explore, and identify these discovered areas in order to qualitatively analyze the role of educational technology in advancing the culture of innovations.  The aims were to provide a thorough examination of current literature to demonstrate and establish connections between measurement, leadership, and educational technology best practices in order to contribute to technology integration process involved in the cultivation of innovative, creative, and transformative environments in education.

Keywords: educational technology, culture of innovation, culture innovation, creativity, effective communications, self-efficacy, innovation competencies, innovative teaching, mastery, education innovation, innovation in education, technology in education

Introduction

The role of education today is to meet the ever-changing global needs to form an effective and cohesive society that is able to grow and thrive.  It must continuously meet the challenges faced in the fast-paced and unpredictable globalized world (English, 2016; Khan & Umair, 2018; Serdyukov, 2017).  Technology is the fastest changing format in not only education but also the globalized job market.  According to Qian and Huang (2019), collaborative efforts within organizational cultures such as; business, schools and universities will need to come together in order to meet the demands of our next generation of learners.  In order to meet these needs and demands, research within educational technology platforms will have to expand and explore approaches to include all stakeholders.  When evaluating and exploring the role of educational technology it is important to address the world of business.  The current paper examines different platforms of innovation, such as Google, IBM, and High Tech High Charter School in an attempt to understand the multifaceted factors contributing to across-industry integration of educational technology.  These technology integration processes are critical as schools are moving from traditional education practices toward more multi-disciplinary approaches within information and communication technology (Stošić & Stošić, 2015).  All stakeholders must learn to be innovative in the way they teach and implement the technology across all platforms of education.

Through research and analysis of literature, this paper will offer information regarding the role of educational technology in advancing the culture of innovation.  Different forms of research have been assessed to develop a deeper understanding of the research implications while also evaluating gaps for future research.

Discussion of Key Terms

Key terms are the words and phrases that were used in the search for literature concerning cultures of innovation and the role of educational technology in creating and advancing cultures of innovation.  The literature reviewed consists of books, journal articles, reputable websites and web pages, scholarly theses and other dependable sources of information.  The definitions and applications of the keywords and key terms used are supported by authoritative sources.

Educational Technology

While both educational and technology have commonly understood definitions, the phrase educational technology is more than just education and technology and has multiple interpretations and applications (Miyazoe, 2008).  For the sake of this literature review, the most recent definition provided by the Association for Educational Communication & Technology (AECT), published in 2008, will be used.  The summary of that definition is “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski, Molenda, & Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 2008, p. 1).

Organizational Culture

Culture is traditionally a sociological term that describes a shared set of values, rules for behavior and expectations and activities that are also learned and shared through activity within the culture (Dubina, 2016).  An organizational culture is a subset of the larger social culture that exists within an organization such as an educational institution, and describes what is expected from the members of the organization as well as what the members can expect from the leadership of that organization (Dombrowski et al., 2007; Gonzales & Storti, 2019; Kunnari & Ilomäki, 2016; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015; Zhu, 2015).

Innovation

Innovation is commonly defined as an idea, solution, methodology, or technology that is new, or is perceived to be new (Kunnari & Ilomäki, 2016).  Innovation is often used interchangeably with invention, but this muddling of terminology weakens the importance of innovation.  An invention is the “identification and documentation of an idea that has the potential for commercialization” (Dombrowski et al., 2007, p. 28) whereas an innovation is a tangible product that offers an entirely new way of analyzing a problem, or resolving a concern, or offering new abilities previously not possible (Lai-DuMone, 2018; Marshall, 2013; Naiman, 2014; Serdyukov, 2017).

Innovators

In the context of this paper, innovators are described as individuals operating within a culture of innovation, whether as students in a classroom or individuals in a collaborative group, skilled in their areas of exploration, creative problem-solvers,  and respond well to the accountability of a group and of leadership  (Beghetto, 2005; Chen, Huang, Liu, Min, & Zhou, 2018; Dombrowski et al., 2007; Dubina, 2016; Heinis, Goller, & Meboldt, 2016; Keinänen, Ursin, & Nissinen, 2018; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015; Zhu, 2015).

Culture of Innovation

A culture of innovation is an environment where the innovators, members of that culture, are expected to think freely and with imagination, to use their skills and expertise to address an issue or goal without preconceived notions of what can or should be done, and willing to take risks of failure and make the decision to move forward with a plan (Beghetto, 2005; Dubina, 2016; Kim, 2018; Lai-DuMone, 2018; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015; Naiman, 2014).  The environment is full of resources, educational technologies and the free use of the tools required to take member creativity and turn it into innovative reality (Gonzales & Storti, 2019; Heinis, Goller, & Meboldt, 2016; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015).  Also required in a culture of innovation is leadership that rewards the innovative process, ensures that tools and resources are available, and also holds the innovators accountable for the use of their time and resources (Dubina, 2016; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015).

Elements of a Culture of Innovation

In an educational culture of innovation there is academic leadership, from educators and administration, and group members, such as students or professional collaborators, the future innovators.  Strong leadership and advocacy are necessary to create, support and hold accountable the innovative culture, and members of that culture require various environmental elements and characteristics to achieve success.  That success is a tangible result of the innovative process and may be expressed as educational innovations.

Leadership for Innovators and Building a Culture of Innovation

Strong and supportive leadership, or servant leadership (Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015), is critical for a culture of innovation.  A clear mission and vision are also essential for a successful culture of innovation.  Developing and casting this direction in a strong and confident manner falls directly upon leadership and the leadership style of the innovative leader must support and provide a culture that tolerates risk and rewards creativity (Chou, Shen, Hsiao, & Shen, 2019; Kunnari & Ilomäki, 2016; Serdyukov, 2017; Zhu, 2015).  The leader must also create a safe space for the members of the culture, which includes the cultural value of experimentation and exploration over success, supporting the would-be innovators in risk-taking and allowing them the opportunity to stretch the limits of current processes (Chen, Huang, Liu, Min, & Zhou, 2018; Dombrowski et al., 2007; Dubina, 2016; Heinis, Goller, & Meboldt, 2016; Kim, 2018; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015).  Leadership must also provide ample resources and educational technologies to support all areas of competency (Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015) needed for future innovators to master their tools as a step toward innovation.  However, perhaps the most critical characteristic of leadership that leads to innovation is a determined philosophy that looks toward long-range development rather than submitting to short-term stakeholder demands for immediate results (Dombrowski et al., 2007; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015; Serdyukov, 2017).

Building a Culture of Innovation Don Buckley at TEDxNYED

Innovators and Innovation Competencies

A culture of innovation does not happen by chance and must be systematically crafted.  Successful leaders of innovators must simultaneously provide extreme freedoms in experimentation while holding their innovators accountable for their activity. Failure is not punished, but is examined for clues for future success.(Dombrowski et al., 2007; Gonzales & Storti, 2019; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015; McCarthy, 2017).

Creativity, Educational Technologies, and Innovative Teachers

Significant to this discussion is the integral relationship between creativity and innovation, with creativity being the precursor to innovation (Lai-DuMone, 2018; Marshall, 2013; Naiman, 2014; Serdyukov, 2017; 2019). Creativity is the intersection of individual aptitude, process and environment, by individual or groups, leading to a tangible product or result that is new, useful, and pleasing in the estimation of the cultural context (Beghetto, 2005; Kim, 2018; Shao, Zhang, Zhou, Gu, & Yuan, 2019).  Creative potential is part of the human condition and is molded by the culture in which is exists (2005; Dubina, 2016; 2019).  

Despite the emphasis on the learner and student-centric education and learning, the instructor remains a driving force in building and sustaining a culture of innovation.  Literature shows a positive connection between innovative teaching strategies and effective learning system with increased creativity and innovation in the classroom (Adams Becker et al., 2017; Dombrowski et al., 2007; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015; Zhu, 2015).  Educational technology and instructor leadership is important to stimulate student creativity and encourage full exploration of their environments (Beghetto, 2005; Chou, Shen, Hsiao, & Shen, 2019; Gonzales & Storti, 2019; McCarthy, 2017; Serdyukov, 2017). Innovators and Innovation Competencies

Innovators and Innovation Competencies

An innovator’s competence is a multi-dimensional concept referring to one’s ability to succeed or manage a task or situation successfully.  Innovation is supported by competencies such as the ability to think creatively in solving problems, working effectively toward goals, strong collaboration and teamwork and effective networking with other teams (Keinänen, Ursin, & Nissinen, 2018).  Successful innovators are fully trained and are competent in the tools and the field of exploration, work well in groups, are driven to test and push the design to extremes, and are willing to take risks by making the decision to move forward with the innovation (Beghetto, 2005; Dombrowski et al., 2007; Heinis, Goller, & Meboldt, 2016; Keinänen, Ursin, & Nissinen, 2018; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015).  Innovators also employ systems thinking, have a goal orientation, utilize networking competencies with other groups while engaging in creative problem-solving (Keinänen, Ursin, & Nissinen, 2018).

Challenges and Barriers

Literature suggests challenges and barriers associated with the role of educational technology in advancing the culture of innovation are applicable to any environment.  These same findings have identified a complex network of unique and multifaceted issues within the formation and normalization in educational technology advancement in the cultures of innovation.  For example, Lanford, Corwin, Maruco, and Ochsner (2019) address the complexity of educational institutions, which include multiple departments and groups of people, many of which are often siloed.  Euchner (2017) identifies multiple challenges that organizations can experience in adopting innovative approaches.  The dominant challenges are lack of objective measurement, resistance to change, support from leadership, and time and resources.

Leadership Resistance to Change and Innovation

Research suggests one major challenge in the role of educational technology is related to existing organizational cultures (Euchner, 2017).  Euchner (2017) states that failure to recognize a need for change by leaders, or denial of the need for change, are dominant barriers for cultural innovation in organizations.  Organizational leaders may view current successes as equating to appropriate operations, thus not considering innovative changes that could propel or better the organization (Euchner, 2017).  Roffeei, Farrah, and Kamarulzaman (2018) found willingness to change (or innovate) contributes to positive innovative behaviors and innovative culture.

Related to resistance and denial is lack of support from leaders for innovative change.  Leaders may have established work cultures lacking motivation and effective communication for an innovative culture.  Lanford et al. (2019) researched game adoption as an innovative technology in education.  The researchers collected questionnaires about the technology adoption and culture of innovation.  The responses revealed intrinsic motivation is a barrier to forming innovative cultures and in implementing innovative approaches (Lanford et al., 2019).  According to Lanford et al. (2019), “when incentivizing innovation, organizations… focus too heavily on external rewards, such as cash prizes” (p. 205), “… intrinsic motivation of employees must be stimulated for an innovative work environment to take root” (Lanford et al., 2019, p. 205).  Alsbury, Blanchard, Gutierrez, Allred, and Tolin (2018) measured innovation and change perceptions among educational leadership and administrators and found that employees place value in collaborative work and environments that positively influence innovation and the ability to change.  Roffeei et al. (2018) found ineffective communication channels as barriers to forming and norming innovative cultures.  These channels may be supported (or unsupported) by administration and leaders in educational organizations.  Specifically, communication was found to be of issue among the following groups in education: parents and institutions; teachers and students; administrators, advisors, and teachers (Roffeei, et al., 2018).  Toytok (2016) further addresses the influence of leaders in innovative cultures.  Research suggests effective innovation management encourages strong school performance.  Educational leaders need to provide safe, just, organized, and innovative environments to reduce stress in education systems (Toytok, 2016).  In doing so, the organizations “… provide a significant contribution to the path of creating a sustainable effectiveness” (Toytok, 2016, p. 178).

Time and Resources

A lack of time and resources is another barrier to forming and norming innovative cultures in education.  Lanford et al. (2019) note that time and scheduling may be limited among organizations and impede consideration and implementation of innovations.  Euchner (2017) suggests organizational leaders must understand the challenges, options, and paths for sustaining innovative cultures.  As with any innovation, a structure for support and implementation needs to be determined.  Not only do organizations need leadership direction, they need employee input.  Lanford et al. (2019) indicate that teachers need administrative support, such as motivation and support to suggest and implement innovation for student success.  Through their study, Lanford et al. (2019) discovered educational stakeholders need to understand the value of innovation as well as the time and resources needed for the success of innovation (Lanford et al., 2019).  Alsbury et a. (2018) echo this need and states “… school administrators need to understand more definitively how organizational structures must be compatible with an ever-changing, often complexifying environments and how promoting innovation is necessary to create and manage organizational changes” (p. 165).

Financial resources are yet another challenge to forming and norming cultures of innovation in education.  Collins and Halverson (2009) note innovation is inclining, but many regions, both nationally and internationally, are still behind and lack resources, mainly financial, to keep up with the ever-changing technological advances.  Through a study of cultures of innovation in higher education and barriers of adoption and sustainment of such cultures, Lanford et al. (2019) also identified financial resources as issues of concern when forming innovative cultures.

Description of Sustained Culture of Innovation

To examine examples of sustained cultures of innovation, one turns naturally to business and industry as the leaders in this endeavor, providing wisdom for the implementation of innovation in other contexts, such as in education.  Innovation, in the world of business, is paramount among characteristics and qualities necessary for a thriving, successful organization, especially in the area of technology.  Two companies stand out in their consistency in innovation as models of sustained cultures of innovation, applicable to the field of educational technology.  Google and IBM have paved the way for innovative technologies that impact education on a level far above many other companies.

Google is well known as a company that not only embraces innovative culture when it comes to educational technology, but even more so as one of the parent companies pressing forward a new culture in education (Singer, 2017).  From the introduction of the Chromebook, a device that ushered in the 1-to-1 boom, to GSuite, Google Classroom, and a myriad of cloud-based apps, extensions and add-ons, Google has single-handedly revolutionized education (Collins and Halverson, 2018).  Within its own walls, Google exemplifies the innovation it has pushed onto the education community.  As a model, Google has employed 20% time and Google Labs combined with a mindset that not only supports innovative thinking, but demands it (Kurkoski, 2017).  This craving and thrust for innovation has led Google to become the fastest-growing company in history, revolutionizing educational technology and pressing the educational community into the 21st century (Singer, 2017).

Like Google, IBM has been an innovative force in education.  It has also provided a model of embracing a culture of innovation through which it too has moved education into the 21st century.  Through education centered innovation such as ICE (Innovation Center for Education), Technology for Education (Research Lab), and Education Industry Solutions (products and solutions for education) IBM has supported the shift toward technology infused education (IBM ICE, n.d.; Technology for Education Innovations, n.d.).  Research performed by Vey, Fandel-Meyer, Zipp and Schneider in 2017, found several specific ways IBM-Zurich is embracing innovation applicable to education and educational technology.  These actions include strategic hiring, crowdsourcing ideas, and work time specific to innovation (Vey, Fandel-Meyer, Zipp and Schneider, 2017).

Ultimately, Google and IBM serve as strong examples of cultures of innovation from the business world with application and investment in the world of education.  There are also examples of sustained cultures of innovation in education as well.  Models such as High Tech High in San Diego, California (Schwartz, 2018) and education theories such as Mass Customized Learning from Schwahn and McGarvey (2012) provide direct application for education and innovation.

High Tech High is a charter school founded on the principle of innovation and project-based learning (Schwartz, 2018).  There are no grades (age or assessment), no tests, and most of the classes are not limited to a single subject area (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2016).  Students learn 21st century skills such as communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity through authentic project-based learning opportunities.  Students and teachers alike are looked upon as innovators and capable thinkers (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2016), thus producing a culture of innovation.

Similarly, Schwahn and McGarvey (2012) call for a complete overhaul of the established education system.  In their 2012 book, the authors indicate a need to shift education from content memorization to an innovation and creative/critical thinking context.  They build a model system that has been adopted and adapted by many schools and districts throughout the United States wherein technology is leveraged for more menial teaching tasks allowing teachers to be more innovative in instruction of smaller, more focused student groups (Schwahn and McGarvey 2012).  This is yet another example of a sustained culture of innovation.

Implications for Education

Alsbury et al. (2018) note that effective leaders in educational organizations should be motivators of teacher involvement for innovative cultures.  The article continues to give note that effective leaders in education must be capable of recognizing that innovation can transform cultures, and provide resources that support innovation.  Noting findings from previous studies, Alsbury et al. (2019) assert that effective leadership leverages teacher influence in organizational processes and improves student learning.  Innovations allow for customization which may also improve student learning.  As suggested by Collins and Halverson (2009) the customization of learning tools in virtual spaces is an advantage of innovative learning environments.  Customization can assist students with varying learning abilities and challenges (Collins and Halverson, 2009).

Roffeei et al. (2018) address innovation culture models as recruiting tools and positive influences on student behavior.  According to Roffeei et al. (2018), “innovation is the introduction of something new, or changes of doing or seeing things” (p. 37).  Researchers identified application and implementation of cultures of innovations in varying fields, including education.  Thus, Roffeei et al. (2018) designed a study to develop a model to assess innovation culture from a student perspective.  The research model identifies five components: effective communication, climate for innovation, self-efficacy, innovation culture, and innovative behavior.  The researchers proposed that 1.  Effective communication contributes to positive innovative behaviors and innovative culture, 2.  Climates that nurture students and are well-structured contribute to positive innovative behaviors and innovative culture, 3.  Students’ perception of ability contributes to positive innovative behaviors and innovative culture, 4.  Educational stories of values, strengths, and beliefs contribute to positive innovative behaviors and innovative culture, and the 5.  Willingness to change (or innovate) contributes to positive innovative behaviors and innovative culture (Roffeei et al., 2018).  Through questionnaires, Roffeei et al. (2018) assert that all hypotheses were supported, with the exception that “climate for innovation is positively related to innovative behavior in students” (p. 46), suggesting would-be student innovators require more than just an innovative environment to unleash their creative potential.

Roffeei et al. (2018) provide student perspectives on cultures of innovation, which may help higher education and K-12 organizations develop and implement strategies for forming cultures of innovation.  Overall, the study suggests individuals desire to feel empowered and self-sufficient to contribute to innovative idea sharing and building.  As a result, institutions should encourage and reward expression and input among employees and other stakeholders (Roffeei et al., 2018).

According to Toytok (2016), innovation is becoming crucial in people’s daily lives, organizations, and most of all, in this ever-changing society.  How change and innovation evolve depends on how well society recognizes the benefits and purposes of innovation (Toytok, 2016).  As stated by Toytok (2016), “The important thing is to be able to know how to benefit from this change and innovation phenomena in accordance to our individual or organizational purposes, because an uncontrolled innovation or power of change may give serious and permanent damage to the existing structure” (p. 173).

Toytok (2016) developed a research effort to learn if there are meaningful relationships between school leaders’ innovation management behaviors and organizational stress.  Through surveys administered to varying educational audiences, Toytok (2016) determined “an increase of the innovation level in an organization has an impact on a significant structure contributing to the reduction of stress within the organization” (p. 177).  Toytok (2016) thus suggests innovative organizations may create uncertainty but in doing so are thus acting to reduce organizational problems.  While many factors affect school stress, identifying and forming effective innovation cultures may reduce stress.

McAlister (2016) identified themes for creating meaningful learning, collaboration and innovation via observations from a dialogue study inclusive of higher education administrators and teachers.  The themes are: provocative dialogue, dissonance and resonance as sources of knowledge, awareness to bridge differences, and vulnerability as leading to curiosity.  From those themes, McAlister (2016) suggested ways to construct innovative, creative, and transformative environments in education.  These suggestions are: to practice mindfulness, be aware of power imbalances among individuals, strengthen resonance, and balance support, challenge, and emergence in dialogue (McAlister, 2016).

Limitations and Gaps in Current Literature

Limitations

Review of the literature has revealed the role of educational technology in advancing the culture of innovation has one clearly defined, multifaceted limitation..  The findings indicate significant limitations within the integration and exploration of research across organizational platforms (i.e.  business to education).  Although the majority of current research flows primarily from manufacturing and business organizational cultures, it is important to explore commonalities that can be universally applied across sectors (Esina & Agafonova, 2015; Serdyukov, 2017).  These trends are being propelled by pressures to increase educational equity and improve educational outcomes by the implementation of more multi-disciplinary approaches.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, cultures must begin to expand our current mindsets toward the integration of resources, information, and approaches from one organizational culture to another (Vieluf, et al., 2012, p. 3).

Current research supports the need of cross-industry integration, stating “it just makes sense” based on the commonalities associated between changes in learning productivity and quality in the evaluation of technological applications (Serdyukov, 2017).  Furthermore, modern global processes identified education, human capital, and science as determinants of innovation development and advancement within their investigation of economic growth and effective interactions between organizational cultures (business to education).  This same study found limitations within existing business, science, and educational cultures in regards to the development and processes associated with successful integration practices (Esina & Agafonova, 2015).  Based on these findings new research and practice should emphasize  contributions to technology integration involved in the cultivation of innovative, creative, and transformative environments in education.

Gaps

Three potential literature gaps concerning the role of educational technology in the advancement of culture of innovation clearly emerged throughout this review.  First there is  a need to investigate teacher attitudes, compliance, and implementation.  Second, there is a gap in the application of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivators within the classroom.  Finally, the technology implementation plan of bring your own device (BYOD) in the classroom showed need for significant research.  This study’s examination of all three gaps provides clear and concise direction for future research and exploration.

Literature agrees that the 21st century goal of a global society of savvy digital citizens is best accomplished through education (Serdyukov, 2017).  It also agrees that the educational theory and educational technology must be capable of meeting the needs and continuous challenges of a fast-paced and unpredictable globalized world (Serdyukov, 2017).  According to Thurlings and Vermeulen, (2015), little research has been conducted that explores teacher innovative behaviors in determining factors which might influence certain behaviors or what effects can be achieved through such behaviors.  The article continues, suggesting a more systematic research on teacher innovative behavior is needed to enhance the future quality of education (Serdyukov, 2017).

The next gap identified involves the application of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations demonstrated across all sectors of innovation.  According to current literature, professionals are finding it more difficult to motivate learners to reach their full academic potential (Danish Ministry of Education, 2014; De Boer et al., 2013; Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland, 2014).  Gaps related to learner motivational trends are being seen more and more within the culture of innovation as learners are doing what is required, such as succeeding on standardized tests, instead of exploring their own creativity and full potential (Danish Ministry of Education, 2014; De Boer et al., 2013; Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland, 2014).  This recent trend is being referred to as a culture of C’s, that is, the cultural goal of homogeneity, where no one excels and “there is no place for those who stand out” (De Boer et al., 2013, p. 134).  This culture of C’s has been identified in several countries, as education systems and school policies are attempting to find innovative methods to tackle the need to stimulate a more ambitious learning culture (Danish Ministry of Education, 2014; De Boer et al., 2013; Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland, 2014).  Further exploration of these findings, in collaboration with those intrinsic and extrinsic motivational barriers previously discussed found employees value collaborative work and collaborative environments that positively influenced and encouraged innovation and the ability to change (Lanford et al., 2019, p. 205; Alsbury, Blanchard, Gutierrez, Allred, and Tolin, 2018).

The third gap revealed a lack of research concerning teacher acceptance of bring your own device (BYOD) in educational cultures (Gillies, 2016; Grant et al., 2015).  A review of the literature has shown insufficient quantities of studies that have explored the multifaceted factors affecting teacher attitudes, perception, and effectiveness of this trend within classrooms, with even less research exploring the ubiquitous presence and varied array of personal devices (Gillies, 2016).  Research further suggests the approaching giant wave of BYOD to be a movement which threatens to overwhelm researchers and education practitioners as they attempt to replicate current practice based on student mobile device preference (Gillies, 2016).  More well-developed theoretical frameworks are needed for supporting creative pedagogies via BYOD (Gillies, 2016; Grant et al., 2015).  Based on these findings, there is a need for clarity and direction in the role of educational technology in advancing the culture of innovation through the investigation of all three discovered gaps.

Conclusion

The review of the literature has provided various discussions in regards to the role of educational technology in advancing the culture of innovation.  Guided by a list of key terms that were applied to all searches, the current paper explores cultures of innovation from an across-organizational perspective.  The exploration uncovered what works within successful technology platforms that might be integrated into academia.   Theories, methods, and suggestions for future research concerning the role of educational technology were found to be intricately interwoven, especially in terms of creativity and imagination in the process of becoming innovators.  Schools are moving from traditional education practices toward more multi-disciplinary approaches within information and communication technology (Stošić & Stošić, 2015).  All stakeholders to learn to be innovative in the ways they teach and implement the technology across all platforms of education.  It also requires the unified efforts of strong leadership (Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015) and a clear vision and mission from educational organization leadership.  These changes are not easy, but the very definition of innovation affirms that tolerance of failure, risk-taking, skills mastery, and creativity are essential (Kim, 2018; Matthews & Brueggemann, 2015).

Research clearly has shown significant relationships between the culture of innovation in the world of business and the role of educational technology in advancing the culture of innovation in education.  Limitations within the role of educational technology in advancing the culture of innovation were found to be related to lack of integration and exploration of research across organizational platforms (Esina & Agafonova, 2015; Serdyukov, 2017).  Nevertheless, examples of sustained cultures of innovation including Google and IBM, exist and provide concrete evidence of this cross-organizational link..  Additionally, three potential gaps emerged that require further analysis; teacher attitudes, compliance, and implementation (Thurlings & Vermeulen, 2015), intrinsic versus extrinsic motivations within the classroom (Danish Ministry of Education, 2014; De Boer et al., 2013; Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland, 2014), and implementation of BYOD (Gillies, 2016).  Examination of current literature has demonstrated and established connections between measurement, leadership, and educational technology best practices across multiple organizational structures.  These connections contribute to the technology integration process involved in the cultivation of innovative, creative, and transformative environments in education.

References

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Glesinger,

C., Ananthanarayanan, V., & New Media Consortium.  (2017). NMC Horizon report: 2017 Higher education edition.

Beghetto, R.  A.  (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum, 69(3), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984694

Chen, Z., Huang, S., Liu, C., Min, M., & Zhou, L.  (2018). Fit between organizational culture and innovation strategy: Implications for innovation performance.  Sustainability, 10(10), 3378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103378

Chou, C.-M., Shen, C.-H., Hsiao, H.-C., & Shen, T.-C.  (2019). Factors influencing teachers’ innovative teaching behaviour with information and communication technology (ICT): The mediator role of organisational innovation climate.  Educational Psychology, 39(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1520201

Collins, A.  and Halverson, R.  (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America.  New York: Teachers College Press.

Danish Ministry of Education.  (2014). Improving the public school: Overview of reform of standards in the Danish public school (primary and lower secondary education). Retrieved from Kopenhagen, Denmark: http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/planipolis/files/ressourc

De Boer, G.  C., Minnaert, A.  E.  M.  G., & Kamphof, G.  (2013). Gifted education in the Netherlands.  Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 133–150.

Dombrowski, C., Kim, J.  Y., Desouza, K.  C., Braganza, A., Papagari, S., Baloh, P., & Jha, S.  (2007). Elements of innovative cultures.  Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.279

Dubina, I.  N.  (Ed.). (2016). Creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship across cultures: Theory and practices.  New York: Springer.

English, L.  D.  (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-8.  doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

Esina, Y.  L., & Agafonova, E.  E.  (2015). Integration of the business community and education as a factor of innovation development of the region's economy (on the example of the Lipetsk region). Vestnik Voronežskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta Inženernyh Tehnologij, (3), 247-252.  doi:10.20914/2310-1202-2015-3-247-252

Euchner, J. (2017). Creating a culture of innovation. Business Insights Global. Doi:10.1080/08956308.2017.1373043

Gillies, C. G. M. (2016). To BYOD or not to BYOD: Factors affecting academic acceptance of student mobile devices in the classroom. Research in Learning Technology, 24(1), 30357. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v24.30357

Grant, M.  M., Tamim, S., Brown, D.  B., Sweeney, J.  P., Ferguson, F.  K., & Jones, L.  B.  (2015). Teaching and learning with mobile computing devices: Case study in K-12 classrooms.  Techtrends, 59(4), 32-45.  doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0869-3

Gonzales, M.  M., & Storti, R.  (2019). Fostering a culture of innovation: A case study of elementary school principals in Costa Rica.  International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 15(6). https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2019v15n6a821

Heinis, T.  B., Goller, I., & Meboldt, M.  (2016). Multilevel design education for innovation competencies.  Procedia CIRP, 50, 759–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.120

IBM ICE (Innovation Center for Education). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/services/lab-services/education

Januszewski, A., Molenda, M., & Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary.  New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keinänen, M., Ursin, J., & Nissinen, K.  (2018). How to measure students’ innovation competences in higher education: Evaluation of an assessment tool in authentic learning environments.  Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.05.007

Khan, A., & Umair, S. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of research on mobile devices and smart gadgets in K-12 education.  Hershey PA: IGI Global Information Science Reference.

Kim, K.  (2018). How can parents and teachers cultivate creative climates to help children become innovators? Childhood Education, 94(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2018.1451685

Kunnari, I., & Ilomäki, L.  (2016). Reframing teachers’ work for educational innovation.  Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.978351

Kurkoski, Jennifer.  Applied R & D in HR: Google’s People Innovation Lab.  Oxon: Routledge, 2017.  Web.

Lai-DuMone, V.  (2018). Creativity is the way, innovation is the result [Human Potential].  Retrieved July 8, 2019, from Thrive Global website: https://thriveglobal.com/stories/creativity-is-the-way-innovation-is-the-result/

Lanford, M., Corwin, Z.  B., Maruco, T., & Ochsner, A.  (2019). Institutional barriers to innovation: Lessons from a digital intervention for underrepresented students applying to college.  Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 203-216.  https://doi:10.1080/15391523.2019.1576558

Marshall, A.  C.  (2013). Difference between creativity and innovation [Business and Management].  Retrieved July 8, 2019, from Business Insider website: https://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-creativity-and-innovation-2013-4

Matthews, C.  H., & Brueggemann, R.  (2015). Innovation and entrepreneurship: A competency framework (First Edition). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

McCarthy, D.  P.  (2017). Fostering a culture of innovation in academic surgery.  Surgery, 161(4), 892–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.035

Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland.  (2014). ET2020 National report of Finland.  Retrieved from Helsinki, Finland: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/doc/et2020-national-report-fi_en.pdf.

Miyazoe, T.  (2008). Educational technology ー An overview of the field and current issues.  The Journal of Social Science, 64, 39–65.

Naiman, A.  (2014). What is creativity? (And why is it a crucial factor for business success?) [Creativity, Innovation, and Leadership].  Retrieved July 8, 2019, from Creativity at Work website: https://www.creativityatwork.com/2014/02/17/what-is-creativity/

Qian, Y., & Huang, G. (Eds.). (2019). Technology leadership for innovation in higher education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Roffeei, S.  H.  M., Farrah, D.  Y., and Kamarulzaman, Y.  (2018). Determinants of innovation culture amongst higher education students.  The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 37-50.  Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2025351972?pq-origsite=summon.

Schwahn, C., & McGarvey, B.  (2012). Inevitable: Mass customized learning; learning in the age of empowerment.  Schwahn and McGarvey.

Schwartz, K.  (2018). What's so different about High Tech High anyway?  Retrieved from https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/50443/whats-so-different-about-high-tech-high-anyway

Serdyukov, P.  (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007

Shao, Y., Zhang, C., Zhou, J., Gu, T., & Yuan, Y.  (2019). How does culture shape creativity? A mini-review.  Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1219. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01219

Singer, N.  (2017, May 13). How Google took over the classroom.  Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-chromebooks-schools.html

Stošić, L., & Stošić, I.  (2015). Perceptions of teachers regarding the implementation of the internet in education.  Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 462-468.  doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.027

Technology for Education Innovations.  (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ibm.com/industries/education/solutions/research

Thurlings, M., Evers, A.  T., & Vermeulen, M.  (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers' innovative behavior: A literature review.  Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430-471.  doi:10.3102/0034654314557949

Toytok, E.  H.  (2016). School leaders’ innovation management and organization stress: A relational model study.  Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(12A), 173-179.  https://doi:10.13189/ujer.2016.041322

Vey, K., Fandel-Meyer, T., Zipp, J., and Schneider, C.  (2017). Learning and development in times of digital transformation: Facilitating a culture of change and innovation.  International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning.  10(1). Education, available at: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/about/definition.html

Vieluf, S., Kaplan, D., Klieme, E.  and Bayer, S.  (2012), Teaching practices and pedagogical innovation: Evidence from TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/edu/school/TalisCeri%202012%20(tppi)–Ebook.pdf

Wagner, T., & Dintersmith, T.  (2016). Most likely to succeed: Preparing our kids for the innovation era.  Scribner.

Zhu, C.  (2015). Organisational culture and technology-Enhanced innovation in higher education.  Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.822414

Wiki Exam

After reading through the information in this wiki, please read and answer the following questions. All questions and answers should be considered within the context of what is contained in this Wiki Literature Review.

Question 1: What is/are traits of a student innovator? Student innovators are...

1. highly skilled in their field(s) of exploration
2. creative thinkers who can work independently
3. team-players who do not mind accountability
4. all of the above

Question 2: What is/are description(s) of an innovative culture? Choose all Correct Answers.

1. A well-balanced and stable environment with clear rules and expectations
2. An environment where creativity and mastery are required and rewarded
3. An often chaotic environment where members are working together or independently
4. A well-respected environment producing dependable products of quality

Question 3: Communication is a potential barrier for forming and norming a culture of innovation. In educational organizations, which audiences need to be considered for effective communication strategies? Choose the best answer.

1. Administrators and teachers
2. Administrators and students
3. Parents and students
4. Administrators, teachers, parents, and students

Question 4: True or False. Teachers value monetary rewards as motivators for innovative idea input more so than a safe, just, and encouraging environment. 

1. True
2. False

Question 5: True or False. Innovative environments may contribute to reduced stress in educational organizations. 

1. True
2. False