TEL innovation: A framework

It seems TEL and innovation are terms eternally linked. While much of actual TEL practice is rather predictable (not in the sense of it somehow being disappointing), TEL practitioners themselves are often driven by a desire to be more innovative, to always stretch the limits of what is done. Stakeholders and institution leaders are likewise interested in TEL innovation. But what exactly constitutes innovation?

The term innovation is a much-used, yet seldom-explored term. Only somewhat helpfully, innovation is defined as "something new or different introduced" and as "a new idea, more effective device or process". Innovation is most certainly perspectival, in that what one person would describe as innovative may not be considered innovative by another. Innovations might justifiably be at either extreme of tiny ("that's nice") or incredibly significant ("that changes my understanding of what can be done!"), just as they might be either incremental or epochal in scope. For innovation to be a useful objective for TEL it is helpful to discriminate across different levels of innovation, as they might apply to the education endeavour.

Here's a proposed framework:

Levels of TEL innovation
Description	Context	Core	Custom
Stakeholder	University	Qualification	Module
Scope	Fundamental	Transferable	Self-contained
Framework	Systematic	Consistent	Creative
Reference point	Boundary	Sector	Instance
Metaphor	Continent	Country	City
Typical TEL influence	By consultation	By invitation	By budget

The long-term and large-scale benefits from TEL are the result of context innovation, though this is the most difficult and complex to bring about and requires involvement from a whole-of-institution series of stakeholders. Core innovation consists of those innovative decisions that apply across an entire series of modules (or courses, depending on your institution's nomenclature) with the same qualification (or programme, again nomenclature), ensuring both scalability and consistency from the perspective of students. Core innovation requires the involvement of stakeholders associated with the learning design of an entire qualification, including TEL. Finally, custom innovations are those that apply within a particular module, involving the immediate module team and TEL/IT as stakeholders.

By way of example:

• Which VLE and which settings do we use? Context.
• How do we best apply discussion forums in ways that will meet learning objectives? Core.
• How do we best display this interactive graphic/encourage the sort of dialogue we want in this particular forum? Custom.

Core decisions are usually made by the owning Faculty, at the level of the curriculum. These decisions require TEL involvement just as much as do the in-module activities. In my experience over the years I've noted that core conversations are usually lacking, yet it is the core conversations that ensure a valuable consistency across modules - and consistency is one of the under-exposed, universal truths of student success in online education.*

But it is at the level of context that TEL stands to make its most significant impact. The decision of which VLE to use is really only one component. How that VLE is applied, the rules surrounding courseware development institutionally, the systematisation of all analytics (or not) and administrative expectations are all set at this level. Whether students can start and finish courses at any time; whether courses are online-only or print-assisted; where course authors develop directly into the system or through some intermediary; even the role of academic staff as teachers are all determined at this level. For the most part TEL practitioners are recipients of context.

I wonder what we would change, should we have the opportunity to influence context...? I know it would vary by institution, but how ambitious would we be?

---
* At Open Polytechnic I introduced the concept of a PD3 (Programme Design and Delivery Document) to get core conversations legitimised and documented, across learning designers and academic staff. While still in their early days PD3s are invaluable in setting expectations for design, and aligning courseware development with the teacher's function in a way that all agree to up front.