Campus Review Volume 27. Issue 07 | July 17 | Seite 27

on campus
campusreview.com.au
Looking into learning innovation
Education innovation and
learning innovation are not the
same thing, and it’s important
to know the difference when
evaluating strategies.
By Dror Ben-Naim
W
ords matter. Yet the words we use to describe the
transformation of education aren’t always sufficiently
specific. For example, we tend to lump institutions into
categories based on historical contexts that don’t always reflect
their current role or vision and don’t do justice to a growing and
highly variable array of new programs.
When we discuss innovation in higher ed, we often
hear ‘education innovation’ and ‘learning innovation’ used
interchangeably. These two terms contain seemingly minute
differences, but there’s a critical — and growing — distinction. And
it’s due to this distinction, and the lack of mutually understood
language, that I would like to propose new working definitions that
delineate these two types of innovation and give decision-makers
the tools to evaluate their strategies.
We can consider ‘education innovation’ to be innovation that
relates broadly to the provision of services that are extrinsic to the
learning experience. Think of it as the sum total of what it takes to
operate an institute of education. Examples include using a smarter
learning management system to improve how we enrol students
and input grades; building new collaborative spaces; and new ways
to manage and provision scholarships. While these are fantastic
examples of innovation, they often won’t directly impact how
much and how well students learn.
The term ‘learning innovation’ should narrow our focus to those
practices that directly improve student learning. And by ‘learning’,
I mean the mental process required to deepen our understanding
of information. My experience suggests that learning innovation is
what educators often seek but have a difficult time pinpointing (due
to lack of clear terminology) when they want to move away from
the lecture toward more active or personalised pedagogy.
When evaluating innovation strategies, think of learning as
the rewiring of the brain. Then ask yourself: is your innovation
impacting that?
Here’s what learning innovation isn’t: moving assigned reading
from a textbook to a screen. In this case, you haven’t changed
the modality of learning to deepen the way students understand
the subject matter, nor their ability to recall, use and apply the
information. The student has learned the same information in
nearly the same way, but on pixels instead of dead wood.
What about a video lecture? Students can pause and rewatch
a section they don’t understand, and that’s valuable. But will it
dramatically enhance how they learn something? Not likely.
Virtual reality is one hot topic in learning innovation that can
completely transform the way we learn something. Using VR, it is
possible to provide more impactful, sensory experiences. Instead of
just reading about something, you can ‘be’ somewhere.
It’s learning-by-doing that instructors may enable to help
students understand difficult concepts or experience physically
impossible situations. Two cases in point: the Stanford Virtual
Heart, wherein students study anatomy by interacting with the
heart, rotating it, opening it, and inspecting its different pieces,
including heart defects; and the ‘Into the Cell’ VR experience,
wherein students learn by going on a field trip to the inside of
an animal cell, then taking over and directing the necessary
functions for life.
Why do we think these experiences are better for learning?
They materially change the way students comprehend and
empathise with the information. More sensory neurones are
activated, hopefully leading to a more meaningful, deeper
encoding of the information. In short, you’ve shifted from abstract
and passive to concrete and active learning experiences.
As education institutions move forward with their innovation
strategies, it would be wise to differentiate between types of
innovation. Better definitions help structure the right programs,
allocate the right personnel, effort and time, and attain holistically
better outcomes. A better taxonomy gives us the tools to more
accurately diagnose old problems and present fresh solutions.
For the record, I would argue that if you are only going to focus
on one type of innovation, choose learning innovation — it brings
the real change we need: well educated, informed students for a
smarter world. ■
Dr Dror Ben-Naim is the founder and CEO of Smart Sparrow,
and an adjunct lecturer at the UNSW School of Computer
Science and Engineering.
25