Paper Presented at ICEL 2013 – Cape Town, South Africa

1.1 Abstract

At a time of substantial change, globalization, and ubiquitous access to information, educators struggle to change even the most basic aspects of their classrooms.  This is especially true for those in challenging contexts where many continue to perpetuate the “mind numbing” practice of rote instruction. This paper describes an ongoing, collaborative partnership among academics as they develop Innovative Learning Centres (ILC) in their respective institutions to leapfrog pedagogy in imaginative ways.

1.2 Keywords

Transformative pedagogy, appropriate technology, design thinking, learning environments, challenging contexts

1.3 Background

While educators have always worked in challenging times and varied contexts, it is acknowledged that currently society is in an unprecedented time of substantial change due to a variety of circumstances including globalization and ubiquitous access to information.  As other sectors seem to adopt innovative practices and embrace change, educators tend to struggle to change even the most basic aspects of classroom practice, and it is well recognized that teachers typically teach in the ways in which they themselves were taught (Britzman, 1991).  As Dewey noted “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob our children of tomorrow.”

Teachers working in challenging contexts face even a more daunting task.  Crichton and Onguko (2013) define challenging contexts as settings in which individuals, due to a variety of circumstances, conditions or environmental constraints, do not have

• Access to consistently available and affordable electricity
• Access to reliable, unfiltered or uncensored Internet
• Access to previous formal learning and / or opportunities for ongoing formal learning that support individual learning needs
• Access to non-formal, yet appropriate learning opportunities
• Access to or participation in learning activities due to cultural or religious reasons
• Access to transportation and mobility
• Access to prior learning
• Other access situations linked directly to poverty (health, fees, low wages, inappropriate clothing, etc.).

That list is not exhaustive, and thanks to the contribution of educators in Mombasa, Kenya[1], additions have been made, including

• Access to clean water and adequate sanitation
• Access to fair and just leadership
• Access to adequate nutrition and safe food supply
• Access to a safe environment free from hostilities and violence
• Access to support for the disabled.

The conditions identified above are, unfortunately, all too commonly experienced in many parts of the world today.  They require initiatives that first recognize the constraints and then attempt to ameliorate them by providing simple solutions that minimally disrupt the learners’ lives. 

1.4 Introduction

Sir John Daniel (2010) explains that education in the 21st century should lead to the “nurturing of human capabilities that allow [students] the freedoms to lead worthwhile lives” (p. 6).  It should not merely train individuals to become the human capital required for economic production.  Further, contemporary education must address the issue of school retention and quality by fostering student engagement and making classwork more relevant and interactive.

The overarching question guiding the work shared in this paper is how might the development of an Innovative Learning Centre (ILC) in an Institute of Educational Development, or a Faculty of Education, help educators in challenging contexts improve pedagogy and encourage teachers and their students to escape from the “deadening tradition of rote learning” (p. 31).  A related question is how might a change in pedagogy help educators imagine contextually and culturally relevant innovations that might improve classroom practice?

This paper describes an ongoing, collaborative partnership among academics as they develop Innovative Learning Centres (ILC) in their two institutions.  The author designed the initial ILC at the University of British Columbia and is currently working with her former doctoral student to develop an ILC in his institution within the Institute of Educational Development – East Africa, which is part of the Aga Khan University.

Crichton (2012) explains the role of an ILC is to bring academics, educators, and industry together to imagine and create transformative pedagogical practices, using appropriate technologies in a design based, research informed, studio based learning environment.  She suggests the ILC can be used to leapfrog existing paradigms constraining innovative practice.  Leapfrogging, in the context of sustainable development, is a term used to describe the accelerated development of an intervention by “leaping over” conventional approaches and/or technologies and moving directly to a more appropriate, and often more advanced, one.  An often-cited example is found when regions skip over the installation of landline telephony and move directly to mobile phone connectivity, leapfrogging the lack of phone access by embracing the newer, more appropriate mobile phone solution.

A pedagogical example of leapfrogging in challenging contexts would be the adoption of an inquiry approach to teaching and the authentic use of the environment as a teaching resource.  Rather than spending time and money trying to catch up by equipping schools in configurations favouring a teacher-centric delivery, the ILC suggests finding regional partners and developing resources, tools and strategies that address contextual issues with local solutions.  This approach would help leapfrog traditional classroom practices, both the pedagogy and physical design of the actual learning environment, allowing educators to embrace the change suggested in the literature, including UNICEF’s Child-Friendly School (CFS) standards (Irvine & Harvey, 2010).

CFS is one example of an educational reform initiative developed for challenging contexts, and while there are many others, its standards provide a valuable framework for the development of an ILC in East Africa.  The CFS standards were developed to offer specific ways to accomplish the inter-related six Education For All dimensions expressed in the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2010):

1. Expanded early childhood care and development (ECCD) provisions;
2. Universal access to and completion of primary or basic education;
3. Improved levels of learning achievement;
4. Reduction of adult illiteracy;
5. Expanded basic education and training for youth and adults; and
6. Enhanced life‐skills for sustainable development through traditional and modern communication (p. 3).

Child-Friendly Schools encourage a strong connection between schools and the communities they support by providing greater access to an inclusive learning environment.  They provide a “child‐centred pedagogy fostering more independent thinking, entrepreneurial skills, and professionalism among teachers and attention to the all‐round development and welfare of individual children” (p. 4).

The United Nations recognizes that achieving the CFS standards of practice will not be easy, and more tacit agreement in principle rather than meaningful actual practice will probably happen.  However, universities must play a major role in championing these standards by acknowledging them in their curricula and developing innovative learning centres where faculty, students, and other participants could come and imagine, develop, test, and try new ideas, tools and approaches.  Interestingly, the seven quality areas identified by the CFS initiative create a structure for thinking about ILC projects by questioning how educators might:

1. Create friendly, rewarding and supportive learning atmospheres in their schools
2. Support cooperation and active learning as an integral approach to teaching and learning activities
3. Ban physical punishment and violence and institute positive ways of interacting
4. Stop bullying, harassment and discrimination
5. Develop creative activities and imaginative learning opportunities
6. Connect school and home life by involving parents in school activities
7. Promote equal opportunities and participation in decision making for all members of the school community – school leaders, teachers, students and parents (p. 5).

Developing answers to these areas will take creative thinking and imagination.  Educators know there is no shortage of policy documents, initiatives, and good idea about education reform; what is in short supply is innovative practice that is sustainable, scalable and relevant to educators in challenging contexts.  The innovation behind the ILC rests in the collaborative partnership of academics, educators, and industry in a reciprocal and iterative approach to the design and development of educational tools, software and interventions.  It moved policy into practice by situating the work within the post secondary institutions with Faculties of Education.

1.5 Thinking Behind the ILC Design

In Fall 2011, the initial ILC, located at the University of British Columbia Okanagan campus (https://blogs.ubc.ca/centre/) was designed.  The university granted it centre status so it would be eligible for external funding and a director could be appointed and an advisory committee formed. The model was built on the principles generally guiding the popularized notion of 21st century learning as well as Dewey’s original work describing experiential learning (Dewey, 1938).

Dewey argues for “the importance of the social and interactive processes of learning,” noting the challenge is to create learning experiences that are “fruitful” organized in a progression that guide students’ learning.  He states “Educators must think about the experiential continuum—[a] continuity of experiences” (p. 32).  Dewey goes on to critique traditional school structures, suggesting they are “insular environments” that rarely interact with the world and therefore lack the potential for an understanding of the world and a context for richer learning opportunities, noting that everything must have a context in order to be an educational experience.

Setting the stage for our contemporary thinking about authentic learning and active engagement, 75 years ago Dewey suggested students must feel a sense of purpose in their learning to avoid mental slavery, explaining there “no defect in traditional education greater than its failure to secure the active cooperation of the pupil in construction of the purposes involved in his studying” (p. 28).  Dewey was particularly concerned with the role of the educator in providing the continuity of experiences required for a thoughtful education and felt the difficulty in doing so would rest with the educator’s ability to continually adapt subject matter to the growing sphere of individual experiences as students progress.  Of course, this concern is addressed beautifully by Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development (1978).

Contemporary writers such as Trilling and Fadel (2009) suggest learners need opportunities to learn in authentic and social settings; create mental models, work with their multiple intelligences, and develop internal motivation.  They draw on brain research, suggesting it offers an important revolution in our understanding of how people learn” (p. 30).  They describe authentic learning as the context or the condition in which students learn, noting “the people, objects, symbols, and environment, and how they all work together to support are much more influential than previously thought” (p. 31).  They suggest students need “more real-world problem solving, internships or apprenticeships in real work settings, and other authentic learning experiences that make learning last and be useful” (p. 31).

The creation of mental models allows learners to evolve their thinking over time.  While initially a child might consider the boundaries of their world to be their own neighborhoods, in time, through the use of tools like Google Earth, maps on school walls, or globes, they can begin to understand their place in a larger global community.  It is through the creation of these models that we use our learning to shift our thinking and expand our understanding through both virtual and physical representations.  Using visualization software (i.e. Google Earth, Gephi – https://gephi.org), emerging multimedia tools, and physical models made from found objects in the natural environment, we support the development of our multiple intelligences when we personalize representations of our individually constructed learning.  Gardner’s work (1983), while continually mis-referenced to suggest that we have one dominant intelligence, explains the need to hone our multiple and varied intelligences to support our diverse learning styles and learning activities.  Use of Universal Design for Learning approaches to support students as they develop their own knowledge are added by the thoughtful and appropriate uses of technologies (Rose, Meyer, Strangman, & Rappolt, 2002).

Trilling and Fadel (2009) note internal motivation is critical for active and engaged learning, suggesting it is fostered when people, “have an emotional connection to what is being learned – a personal experience or question” (p. 33).  Increasingly we are seeing emotional connections being supported through online social interaction, but we need to remember that in-class conversations, discussion groups with community experts and elders, promote active, engaged learning, both informally and formally.

As stated earlier, the ILC is built on the principles of experiential learning and brain based research.  The ILC is a studio based learning environment that encourages experimentation, engagement with materials and resources to make personal meaning.  By including academics, educators, and industry into the learning space, the authentic, contextual learning that Dewey, Papert, Trilling and Fadel and others describe is possible.  Those working in the ILC are encouraged to tinker and explore together and design new ways of knowledge building. John Seely Brown describes tinkering as constructing / playing / wrestling with objects by appropriating, transforming and personalizing them for one’s own learning and practice (Brown & Duguid, 2000). Inherent in the ILC design is a space to construct – build, collaborate, modify, and test ideas.  It is designed to draw on the best of Papert’s notions of constructionism (Resnick, 2012).  “In Papert’s view, children should be able to design, create, and express themselves with new technologies” (p. 42).  Inexpensive alternatives to computers, such as Cambridge’s recent development – Raspberry Pi (Mullins, 2012) allows children to do more ‘than just interacting with animations, games, and simulations, children should learn to program their own animations, games, and simulations— and, in the process, learn important problem-solving skills and project-design strategies” (Resnick, 2012, p. 42).  The ILC also incorporate ideas from the Reggio Children’s Network that offer ways of thinking about oneself in terms of authentic questioning, documentation and exploration of the local environment. (Reggio Children, n.d.).  The Reggio approach does use digital tools to support children’s work, but fundamentally it provides support for using one’s environment as an additional teacher and rich resource for teaching and learning.

1.6 One Design – Two Contexts

Imagining a studio based design space within a Faculty of Education is a lovely challenge.  To get it right, one must consider the types of environments in which creativity and imagination might be fostered while considering the types of pedagogical approaches that might enable learners from various contexts and backgrounds to come together and collaborate.  Since the very beginning of the design process for the ILC at UBC O, I have seen the space as a learning lab – a place for people from a variety of ages and stages and a range of professions, vocations, avocations and experiences to come together and form a knowledge building collective for innovative thinking.  In conversations with my very supportive dean, Professor Lynn Bosetti, we agreed that in a time of substantial change, globalization, and ubiquitous access to information Faculties of Education needed to step up and lead pedagogy and the creation of learning environments.  Our views parallel those of Thomas and Seely Brown (2011a,b), who call for a new culture of learning based on the following assumptions:

• The world is changing faster than ever and our skill sets have a shorter life
• Understanding play is critical to understanding learning
• The world is getting more connected that ever before – can that be a resource?
• In this connected world, mentorship takes on new importance and meaning
• Challenges we face are multi-faceted requiring systems thinking and socio-technical sensibilities
• Skills are important but so are mind sets and dispositions
• Innovation is more important than ever – but turns on our ability to cultivate imagination
• A new culture of learning needs to leverage social and technical infrastructures in new ways
• Play is the basis for cultivating imagination and innovation.

Play and tinkering are the core business of the Innovative Learning Centre.  If academics, both faculty and graduate students; educators, both preservice and K-20, working in both formal and informal settings; and industry are to thrive, they must be together.  To quote Einstein, “We can’t solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  Using the Child-Friendly School’s seven quality areas as a starting point for design thinking, those working in the ILC can begin to create tangible options to move beyond rote teaching and begin to support inspired and engaged thinking and learning.

The ILC contains spaces to support the creative design cycle – imagining, creating, playing, sharing, and reflecting … an iterative, Möbius strip of design thinking (see Appendix 1).  The ILC has both a physical and virtual space. The virtual space will continue to morph and grow, and currently exists as a blog (https://blogs.ubc.ca/centre/).  Apart from the learning studio, there is a breakout room, accommodating eight people that can be used to host meetings and collaborative sessions with industry and education colleagues.  Space is required for storage of IT equipment as the success of the ILC is its ability to be “off the grid” of the university’s network regulations and standardized software and hardware requirements.

In December 2012, the design for a second ILC, situated in Aga Khan University – Institute of Education Development (AKU,IED) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, was proposed (see Appendix 2). This paper reports on the design and development of the two ILC spaces, focusing on the Tanzanian model and will share initial thoughts as to how the ILC might support academic, education, and industry partners leapfrogging current practices and develop learning innovations to encourage pedagogical change in challenging contexts.

1.6.1 Work Space Layout for Learning Studio

While the learning studio incorporates spaces to support the design cycle (see Figure 1), it is recognized that users of this space will work where they feel most comfortable and the most appropriate tools are available.  To paraphrase Sullivan’s notion form follows function, the design of the ILC suggests physical spaces invite creativity and imagination.  Until people start working in the spaces, we will not know how fluid the design is and how effective the areas will be in fostering innovation.  What is assumed is an entirely different pedagogical approach and design will be developed to attract people and encourage risk taking and creativity.

Figure. 1 Creative Design Cycle – ILC

The area to encourage Imagination occupies about a quarter of the room.  It is furnished with soft seating to support informal conversations.  The furniture should be locally sourced, wooden sofas and tables than can be easily moved to accommodate different activities and groupings.  Cushions should be comfortable and made from local kitenge fabric to set a regional tone for the room.  This area is designed for approximately eight people at a time.  Writeable black walls surround it so people can use colored chalk to brainstorm and image their ideas.  People can use their cell phone cameras to capture / document their ideas.

The Collaboration area utilizes the majority of the Learning Studio.  There are seven wooden tables that match the wood in the soft seating.  Stools will be used to encourage people to get up and move around – the seating should not be too comfortable or too fixed.  The tables can be pulled together for large collaborative activities or kept separate, seating groups of three people.  Total seating in this area is 21.  The white wall in this area serves as the projection screen.  The bulk of the wall area surrounding this area will be painted black so people can write on it with coloured chalk.

The area for Creating occupies one wall of the studio space.  There will be four wall mounted computer stations (iMacs or large screen displays for Windows or Linux machines). The counter surface should be continuous so it is also a workspace.  Wireless mice and keyboards are required.

Tinkering / testing can be done on the iClass table (https://www.cushing.org/iclass).  This interactive table runs on open source software and can be easily made with inexpensive components.  It is a horizontal version of an interactive whiteboard.  Four people can sit around the table to tinker and test their ideas and work.

Of course, Play will take place throughout the room.  It is assumed that people will move from location to location depending on the aspect of a task on which they are grappling.  Obviously, faculty using this studio space will need to change their pedagogy to embrace the notion of knowledge building and creative design for learning.  The room is design to accommodate forty people which is consistent with the stated class size of many K – 12 classrooms.  While it is well known that many classrooms in challenging contexts may have upwards to 60 or 70 students, the ILC is designed to accommodate 40 people with the potential to have small stools and floor seating on mats to accommodate more.  The learning studio is to be used to imagine innovations in pedagogy and model changed practice.  It is designed with the belief that members of AKU, IED community can transfer best practices from the ILC into their work with teachers and educators in the field.

1.7 Next Step – How Will We Know If the ILC Design Has Made a Difference?

It is still early days for both the ILC designs.  The ILC at UBC is underway.  Five industry partners are currently working with academics and educators to design apps and web resources for Math, Physics, and holistic assessment.  By the time of the ICEL conference in Cape Town in June, the ILC at UBC will have been in use for a full academic semester.  Users of the UBC ILC will sign ethical consent forms so their activities, challenges and approaches can be studied.  The basic design of the ILC has been discussed with innovative academics within East Africa, and a report on progress in its development will be shared at the conference.  A grant supporting Citizen Science is being drafted, and both ILCs would be involved in the development and testing of kits for elementary schools in Tanzania.

Research into the efficacy of the ILC design will follow an iterative design research approach.  Ideas informing the ILCL design were gained from a review of the literature, visits to sites recognized for supporting innovation, creative and / or knowledge-building, online collaboration with colleagues, and field notes.  Argyris and Schön’s (1978) gap analysis approach was used to analyze the evidence and inform the design.

1.8 Conclusion – The Start of the Beginning

This paper shares the thinking behind the ILC concept and the value placed on the cultivation of partnerships among institutions in order to build models of practice and create places for pedagogical exploration and educational change.  The interactions and knowledge sharing among faculty at Aga Khan University, Institute of Educational Development and the University of British Columbia Okanagan has been essential, and it has been both collaborative and collegial.

Faculty members have had much to share from their lived experiences, research, understanding context and sharing of networks.  What brought the colleagues together four years ago was an understanding of the potential and promise of appropriate technologies to support learning; what keeps them together is a belief that “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand” (Einstein, 1931).

The Innovative Learning Centre is designed to foster change and leapfrog the existing practices found in so many schools.  The one planned for East Africa will do the same, drawing heavily from UNESCO’s Child-Friendly School initiative as well as other projects and ideas relevant to its context. 

1.9 References

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice:  A critical study of learning to teach, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (2000).  The social life of information, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge MA.

Crichton, S. (2012).  The centre: a very innovative learning centre.  Retrieved from https://blogs.ubc.ca/centre/

Crichton, S. & Onguko, B. (2013).  Appropriate technologies for challenging contexts.  In S. Marshall & W. Kinuthia (Eds.), Educational design and technology in the knowledge society, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.

Daniel, J. (2010).  Mega-schools, technology, and teachers: Achieving education for all, Routledge, New York.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education, Kappa Delta Pi, New York.

Einstein, A. (1931). Cosmic religion: With other opinions and aphorisms, Covici-Freide, New York.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, Basic Books, New York.

Irvine, J. & Harvey, C. (September 2010).  Final draft set of child friendly schools standards and indicators for teacher education: A synthesis and self-evaluation tool.  Prepared for the Commonwealth of Learning to support the UNICEF/COL Child Friendly Schools Project.  Retrieved from http://www.col.org/progServ/programmes/education/teachEd/Pages/cfs.aspx

Mullins, R. (2012).  Raspberry pi.  Retrieved from http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/projects/raspberrypi/

Reggio Children. (n.d.).  Reggio children research.  Retrieved from http://www.reggiochildren.it/activities/ricerca/?lang=en

Resnick, M. (2012).  Reviving Papert’s dream.  Educational Technology. 52:4, p. 42 – 46.

Rose, D., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G.  (2002).  Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning, ASCD Alexandria, VA.

Thomas, D. & Brown, J.S. (2011a).  A New culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change, CreateSpace, Lexington, KY.

Thomas, D. & Brown, J.S.  (2011b) A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change.  Retrieved from http://www.newcultureoflearning.com/newcultureoflearning.html.

Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009).  21^st century skills: Learning for life in our times, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., San Francisco, CA.

United Nations. (2010). Millennium development goals. UN Web Services Section – Department of Public Information.  Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/index.shtml

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.