Abstract
To help higher education instructors, academic support personnel, and institutional leadership better identify, encourage, incentivize, fund, support and assess pedagogical innovation, we describe herein a valid taxonomy capable of precisely characterizing the range of pedagogical innovations in higher education. The Taxonomy of Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education probes the Focus of Innovation, Degree of Innovation, Intended Outcomes, Barriers to Adoption, Risks of Adoption, and direct and indirect Costs. Using two scenarios, we illustrate how to apply the taxonomy to a pedagogical innovation with different sets of contextual factors. We conclude by discussing how the taxonomy might help provide a shared vocabulary for and understanding of pedagogical innovation, align pedagogical innovation to priorities, inform investment strategy, characterize an institution’s innovation culture, and help to guide efforts to assess the impact of pedagogical innovations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abla, C., & Fraumeni, B. R. (2019). Student engagement: Evidence-based strategies to boost academic and social-emotional results. McREL International.
Blumenstyk, G., & Gardner, L. (2019, October 13). Innovation imperative: The buzz, the barriers, and what real change looks like. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-real-change-looks-like/?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in.
Brewer, D. J., & Tierney, W. G. (2011). Barriers to innovation in U.S. higher education. In B. Wildavsky, A. P. Kelly, & K. Carey (Eds.), Reinventing higher education: The promise of innovation (pp. 11–40). Harvard Education Press.
Cardona, M. (2022, August 11). A new vision for college excellence. Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-new-vision-for-college-excellence.
Cauthen, L. (n.d.). What’s wrong with SAMR in education? The Learning Council. https://thelearningcounsel.com/article/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-samr-education-0.
Christensen, C., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 2(78), 47–76.
Evans, R., & Leppmann, P. (1968). Resistance to innovation in higher education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.
Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. M. (2013). Review of flipped learning. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338804273_Review_of_Flipped_Learning.
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.
Harapnuik, D. (2017, December 4). Reconsider the use of SAMR model. It’s About Learning. https://www.harapnuik.org/?p=7235.
Hughes, J. E. (2000). Teaching English with technology: Exploring teacher learning and practice (Publication No. 9985399) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Jakovljevic, M. (2018). A model for innovation in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(4), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.20853/32-4-2432.
Kezar, A. (2011). What is the best way to achieve broader reach of improved practices in higher education? Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9174-z.
Livy, S., Muir, T., Murphy, C., & Trimble, A. (2022). Creative approaches to teaching mathematics education with online tools during COVID-19. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 53(3), 573–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1988742.
Love, C. (2015, July 23). SAMR: A model without evidence. Learning, Coding, G Suite, Admin, Digital Transformation. https://charlielove.org/2015/07/23/samr-modern-day-educational-snake-oil/.
Mintz, S. (2022, August 11). The next iterations of disruptive innovation. Higher Ed Gamma, Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/next-iterations-disruptive-innovation.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Osolind, K. (2012). August 29). Revolutionary vs evolutionary innovation. Reinvention Consulting. www.reinventioninc.com/revolutionvsevolution.
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Hippasus. http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/.
Puentedura, R. R. (2013). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation. Hippasus. http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html.
Romell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 18(2), https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i2.435.
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.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Sturtevant, H., & Wheeler, L. (2019). The STEM Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS): Development and exploratory results. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(35), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0185-0.
Tierney, W. G., & Lanford, M. (2016). Conceptualizing innovation in higher education. In M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 1–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26829-3_1.
Tolman, A. O., & Kremling, J. (2017). Why students resist learning: A practical model for understanding and hel** students. Stylus Publishing.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.
Wingard, J. (2022, August 16). Higher ed must change or die. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2022/08/16/higher-ed-must-change-or-die-opinion.
Yu, D., & Hang, C. C. (2010). A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 435–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x/full. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following University of Virginia colleagues for their help revising and refine the initial draft of the taxonomy: David Leblang, Lysandra Cook, Sarah Craig, Paul Freedman, Alicia Frantz, Brian Helmke, Melissa Levy, Akema Ohira, and Josipa Roksa. They also thank colleagues scattered across the US and Canada for their feedback and work to improve the face and content validity of the taxonomy: Donna Ellis, Peter Felten, Kevin Gannon, and Matthew Ouellett.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
This study describes a conceptual framework and does not require ethical approval or informed consent.
All materials used in the development of this manuscript are available on request by contacting the corresponding author.
All authors made substantial contributions to the conception of the work and its drafting, and they provided critical feedback to the overall direction. All approved the final manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Palmer, M.S., Giering, J.A. Characterizing Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education. Innov High Educ 49, 453–473 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09681-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09681-6