importance of strategic thinking and innovation in education

REVIEW article

Strategy and strategic leadership in education: a scoping review.

• 1 Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Research Centre for Human Development, Porto, Portugal
• 2 Universidade de Évora, Évora, Portugal

Strategy and strategic leadership are critical issues for school leaders. However, strategy as a field of research has largely been overlooked within the educational leadership literature. Most of the theoretical and empirical work on strategy and strategic leadership over the past decades has been related to non-educational settings, and scholarship devoted to these issues in education is still minimal. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide a comprehensive overview of relevant research regarding strategy and strategic leadership, identifying any gaps in the literature that could inform future research agendas and evidence for practice. The scoping review is underpinned by the five-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley . The results indicate that there is scarce literature about strategy and that timid steps have been made toward a more integrated and comprehensive model of strategic leadership. It is necessary to expand research into more complex, longitudinal, and explanatory ways due to a better understanding of these constructs.

Introduction

Strategy and strategic leadership are critical issues for school leaders ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2011 ). However, strategy as a field of research has largely been overlooked in educational leadership literature ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). Most of the theoretical and empirical work on strategy and strategic leadership over the past decades has been related to non-educational settings, and scholarship devoted to these issues in education is still very limited ( Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ).

The concept of strategy appeared in educational management literature in the 1980s; however, little research was produced until the 1990s (cf. Eacott, 2008b ). Specific educational reforms led to large amounts of international literature mostly devoted to strategic planning ( Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Eacott, 2011 ). For a long period, the concept of strategy was incomplete and confusing. The word “strategy” was often used to characterize different kinds of actions, namely, to weight management activities, to describe a high range of leadership activities, to define planning, or to report to individual actions within an organization ( Eacott, 2008a ).

Strategy and strategic planning became synonymous ( Eacott, 2008b ). However, strategy and planning are different concepts, with the strategy being more than the pursuit of a plan ( Davies, 2003 , Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Both phases of plans’ design and plans’ implementation are related, and the quality of this second phase highly depends on planning’ quality ( Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Eacott, 2011 ; Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019 ). Planning and acting are related and must emerge from the strategy. As stated by Bell (2004) .

Planning based on a coherent strategy demands that the aims of the school are challenged, that both present and future environmental influences inform the development of the strategy, that there should be a clear and well-articulated vision of what the school should be like in the future and that planning should be long-term and holistic (p. 453).

Therefore, it is necessary to adopt a comprehensive and holistic framework of strategy, considering it as a way of intentionally thinking and acting by giving sense to a specific school vision or mission ( Davies, 2003 , 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ).

The works of Davies and colleagues ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and Eacott (2008a , 2008b) , Eacott (2010a , 2011) were essential and contributed to a shift in the rationale regarding strategy by highlighting a more integrative and alternate view. Davies and colleagues ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) developed a comprehensive framework for strategically focused schools , comprising strategic processes, approaches, and leadership. In this model, the strategy is conceptualized as a framework for present and future actions, sustained by strategic thinking about medium to long term goals, and aligned to school vision or direction.

Strategic leadership assumes necessarily a relevant role in strategically focused schools. Eacott (2006) defines strategic leadership as “leadership strategies and behaviors relating to the initiation, development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of strategic actions within an educational institution, taking into consideration the unique context (past, present, and future) and availability of resources, physical, financial and human” (p. 1). Thereby, key elements of strategic leadership can be identified as one that: 1) acts in a proactive way to contextual changes; 2) leads school analysis and response to changing environment; 3) leads planning and action for school effectiveness and improvement in face of contextual challenges and; 4) leads monitoring and evaluation processes to inform decision making strategically ( Cheng, 2010 ). This brings to the arena a complex and dynamic view of strategic leadership as it is a complex social activity that considers important historical, economic, technological, cultural, social, and political influences and challenges ( Eacott, 2011 ).

Along with these authors, this paper advocates a more comprehensive and contextualized view of strategy and strategic leadership, where strategy is the core element of any leadership action in schools ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). Here, strategic leadership is not seen as a new theory, but an element of all educational leadership and management theories ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ). Even so, these concepts can inform and be informed by diverse leadership theories, a strategy-specific framework is needed in the educational field.

Considering all the above, strategy can be identified as a topic that is being researched in education, in the recent decades. Nonetheless, there is still scarce educational literature about this issue ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ). After 10 years of Eacott’s analysis of literature on strategy in education, it seems that this educational construct is being overlooked as there is still no consensual definition of strategy, different studies are supported in diverse conceptual frameworks and empirical studies about this topic are scarce ( Cheng, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Chan, 2018 ). Moreover, despite the interest of a multidisciplinary vision of strategy and strategic leadership, we agree with Eacott (2008b) about the need for a meaningful definition of strategy and strategic leadership in education, as it is a field with its specifications. Hence, research is needed for a clear definition of strategy, an integrated and complete framework for strategic action, a better identification of multiple dimensions of strategy and a comprehensive model of strategic leadership that has strategic thinking and action as core elements for schools improvement (e.g., Eacott, 2010a ; Hopkins et al., 2014 ; Reynolds et al., 2014 ; Harris et al., 2015 ; Bellei et al., 2016 ). This paper aims to contribute to the field offering a scoping review on strategy and strategic leadership in the educational field.

A clear idea of what strategy and strategic leadership mean and what theory or theories support it are of great importance for research and practice. This scoping review is an attempt to contribute to a strategy-specific theory by continuing to focus on ways to appropriately develop specific theories about strategy and strategic leadership in the educational field, particularly focusing on school contexts.

This study is a scoping review of the literature related to strategy and strategic leadership, which aims to map its specific aspects as considered in educational literature. Scoping reviews are used to present a broad overview of the evidence about a topic, irrespective of study quality, and are useful when examining emergent areas, to clarify key concepts or to identify gaps in research (e.g., Arksey and O’Malley, 2005 ; Peters et al., 2015 ; Tricco et al., 2016 ). Since in the current study we wanted to explore and categorize, but not evaluate, information available concerning specific aspects of strategy in educational literature, we recognize that scoping review methodology serves well this purpose.

In this study, Arksey and O’Malley (2005) five-stage framework for scoping reviews, complemented by the guidelines of other authors ( Levac et al., 2010 ; Colquhoun et al., 2014 ; Peters et al., 2015 ; Khalil et al., 2016 ), was employed. The five stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework are 1) identifying the initial research questions, 2) identifying relevant studies, 3) study selection, 4) charting the data, and 5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results. In the sections below, the process of this scoping review is presented.

Identifying the Initial Research Questions

The focus of this review was to explore key aspects of strategy and strategic leadership in educational literature. The primary question that guided this research was: What is known about strategy and strategic leadership in schools? This question was subdivided into the following questions: How should strategy and strategic leadership in schools be defined? What are the main characteristics of strategic leadership in schools? What key variables are related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools?

Identifying Relevant Studies

As suggested by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) , keywords for the search were defined, and databases were selected. Key concepts and search terms were developed to capture literature related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools, considering international perspectives. The linked descriptive key search algorithm that was developed to guide the search is outlined in Table 1 .

TABLE 1 . Key search algorithm.

Considering scoping review characteristics, time and resources available, inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed. Papers related to strategy and strategic leadership, published between 1990 and 2019, were included. Educational literature has reported the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership since the 1980s ( Eacott, 2008a ; 2008b ). However, it gained expansion between 1990 and 2000 with studies flourishing mostly about strategic planning ( Eacott, 2008b ). Previous research argues that strategy is more than planning, taking note of the need to distinguish the concepts. Considering our focus on strategy and strategic leadership, studies about strategic planning were excluded as well as papers specifically related to other theories of leadership than strategic leadership. A full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria is outlined in Table 2 .

TABLE 2 . Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The following six electronic databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed literature: ERIC, Education Source, Academic Search Complete, Science Direct, Emerland, and Web of Science. Additionally, a manual search of the reference lists of identified articles was undertaken, and Google Scholar was utilized to identify any other primary sources. The review of the literature was completed over 2 months, ending in August 2019.

Study Selection

The process of studies’ selection followed the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement ( Moher et al., 2009 ). Figure 1 illustrates the process of article selection.

FIGURE 1 . PRISMA chart outlining the study selection process.

With the key search descriptors, 1,193 articles were identified. A further number of articles were identified using Google Scholar. However, a large number of articles were removed from the search, as they were duplicated in databases, and 231 studies were identified as being relevant.

The next phases of studies’ selection were guided by the inclusion and exclusion criteria presented above. A screening of the titles, keywords, and abstracts revealed a large number of irrelevant articles, particularly those related to strategic planning (e.g., Agi, 2017 ) and with general ideas about leadership (e.g., Corral and Gámez, 2010 ). Only 67 studies were selected for full-text access and analyses.

Full-text versions of the 67 articles were obtained, with each article being reviewed and confirmed as appropriate. This process provided an opportunity to identify any further additional relevant literature from a review of the reference lists of each article (backward reference search; n = 2). Ultimately, both with database search and backward reference search, a total of 29 articles were included to be analyzed in the scoping review, considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. During this process of study selection, several studies were excluded. As in the previous phase, examples of excluded papers include studies related to strategic planning where the focus is on the planning processes (e.g., Bennett et al., 2000 ; Al-Zboon and Hasan, 2012 ; Schlebusch and Mokhatle, 2016 ) or with general ideas about leadership (e.g., FitzGerald and Quiñones, 2018 ). Additionally, articles that were primarily associated with other topics or related to specific leadership theories (e.g., instructional leadership, transformational leadership) and that only referred briefly to strategic leadership were excluded (e.g., Bandur, 2012 ; Malin and Hackmann, 2017 ). Despite the interest of all these topics for strategic action, we were interested specifically in the concepts of strategy, strategic leadership, and its specifications in educational literature.

Data Charting and Collation

The fourth stage of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping review framework consists of charting the selected articles. Summaries were developed for each article related to the author, year, location of the study, participants, study methods, and a brief synthesis of study results related to our research questions. Details of included studies are provided in the table available in Supplementary Appendix S1 .

Summarising and Reporting Findings

The fifth and final stage of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping review framework summarises and reports findings as presented in the next section. All the 29 articles were studied carefully and a content analysis was taken to answer research questions. Research questions guided summaries and synthesis of literature content.

In this section, results are presented first with a brief description of the origin and nature of the studies, and then as answering research questions previously defined.

This scoping review yielded 29 articles, specifically devoted to strategy and strategic leadership in education, from eleven different countries (cf. Figure 2 ). The United Kingdom and Australia have the highest numbers of papers. There is a notable dispersion of literature in terms of geographical distribution.

FIGURE 2 . Number of papers per country.

A large number of these articles were published by Brent Davies and colleagues ( N = 9) and Scott Eacott ( N = 6). Without question, these authors have influenced and shaped the theoretical grounding about strategy and strategic leadership in educational literature. While Davies and colleagues have contributed to design a framework of strategy and strategic leadership, influencing the emergence of other studies related to these topics, Eacott provided an essential contribution by exploring, systematizing, and problematizing the existing literature about these same issues. The other authors have published between one and two papers about these topics.

Seventeen papers are of conceptual or theoretical nature, and twelve are empirical research papers (quantitative methods–7; qualitative methods–4; mixed methods–1). The conceptual/theoretical papers analyze the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership, present a framework for strategic leadership, and discuss implications for leaders’ actions. The majority of empirical studies are related to the skills, characteristics, and actions of strategic leaders. Other empirical studies explore relations between strategic leadership and other variables, such as collaboration, culture of teaching, organizational learning, and school effectiveness.

How should Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools be Defined?

The concept of strategy is relatively new in educational literature and, in great part, related to school planning. In this scoping review, a more integrated and comprehensive view is adopted ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Davies (2003) defined strategy as a specific pattern of decisions and actions taken to achieve an organization’s goals (p. 295). This concept of strategy entails some specific aspects, mainly that strategy implies a broader view incorporating data about a specific situation or context ( Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). It is a broad organizational-wide perspective , supported by a vision and direction setting , that conceals longer-term views with short ones ( Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). It can be seen as a template for short-term action . However, it deals mostly with medium-and longer-term views of three-to 5-year perspectives ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ). In this sense, a strategy is much more a perspective or a way of thinking that frames strategically successful schools ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies and Davies, 2005 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ).

Eacott (2008a) has argued that strategy in the educational leadership context is a field of practice and application that is of a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary nature. More than a single definition of strategy, what is needed is a conceptual understanding and articulation of its fundamental features, which removes the need to answer, “what is a strategy?” Understanding strategy as choosing a direction within a given context, through leadership, and articulating that direction through management practices ( Eacott, 2008a , p. 356) brings to the arena diverse elements of strategy from both leadership and management. From this alternative point of view, a strategy may be seen as leadership ( Eacott, 2010a ). More than an answer to “what is a strategy?”, it is crucial to understand “when and how does the strategy exist?” ( Eacott, 2010a ), removing the focus on leaders’ behaviors and actions per se to cultural, social, and political relationships ( Eacott, 2011 ). Hence, research strategy and strategic leadership oblige by acknowledging the broader educational, societal, and political contexts ( Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ).

Strategic leadership is a critical component of school development ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ). However, to define leadership is challenging considering the amount of extensive, diverse literature about this issue. Instead of presenting a new categorization about leadership, the authors most devoted to strategic leadership consider it as a key dimension of any activity of leadership ( Davies and Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ). Barron et al. (1995) stressed the idea of change. As mentioned by the authors, implementation of strategic leadership means change: change in thinking, change in the way schools are organized, change in management styles, change in the distribution of power, change in teacher education programs, and change in roles of all participants ( Barron et al., 1995 , p. 180). Strategic leadership is about creating a vision, setting the direction of the school over the medium-to longer-term and translating it into action ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ). In that sense, strategic leadership is a new way of thinking ( Barron et al., 1995 ) that determines a dynamic and iterative process of functioning in schools ( Eacott, 2008b ).

In their model of strategic leadership, Davies and Davies (2006) consider that leadership must be based on strategic intelligence, summarised as three types of wisdom: 1) people wisdom, which includes participation and sharing information with others, developing creative thinking and motivation, and developing capabilities and competencies within the school; 2) contextual wisdom, which comprises understanding and developing school culture, sharing values and beliefs, developing networks, and understanding external environment; and 3) procedural wisdom, which consists of the continuous cycle of learning, aligning, timing and acting. This model also includes strategic processes and strategic approaches that authors define as the centre of this cycle ( Davies and Davies, 2006 , p. 136).

To deeply understand strategic leadership, it is necessary to explore strategic processes and approaches that leaders take ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ). In this sense, strategic leadership, strategic processes, and strategic approaches are key elements for sustainable and successful schools, which are found to be strategically focused. Davies (2006) designed a model for a strategically focused school that may be defined as one that is educationally effective in the short-term but also has a clear framework and processes to translate core moral purpose and vision into an excellent educational provision that is challenging and sustainable in the medium-to long-term (p.11). This model incorporates 1) strategic processes (conceptualization, engagement, articulation, and implementation), 2) strategic approaches (strategic planning, emergent strategy, decentralized strategy, and strategic intent), and 3) strategic leadership (organizational abilities and personal characteristics). Based on these different dimensions, strategically focused schools have built-in sustainability, develop set strategic measures to assess their success, are restless, are networked, use multi-approach planning processes, build the strategic architecture of the school, are strategically opportunistic, deploy strategy in timing and abandonment and sustain strategic leadership ( Davies, 2004 , pp.22–26).

What Are the Main Characteristics of Strategic Leadership in Schools?

Davies (2003) , Davies and Davies (2005) , Davies and Davies (2006) , Davies and Davies (2010) discuss what strategic leaders do (organizational abilities) and what characteristics strategic leaders display (personal characteristics). The key activities of strategic leaders, or organizational abilities, are 1) create a vision and setting a direction, 2) translate strategy into action, 3) influence and develop staff to deliver the strategy, 4) balance the strategic and the operational, 5) determine effective intervention points ( what, how, when, what not to do and what to give up ), 6) develop strategic capabilities, and 7) define measures of success ( Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ). The main characteristics that strategic leaders display, or their characteristics, are 1) dissatisfaction or restlessness with the present, 2) absorptive capacity, 3) adaptive capacity, and 4) wisdom.

Two specific studies explored the strategic leadership characteristics of Malaysian leaders ( Ali, 2012 ; Ali, 2018 ), considering the above-mentioned model as a framework. For Malaysian Quality National Primary School Leaders, the results supported three organizational capabilities (strategic orientation, translation, and alignment) and three individual characteristics of strategic leadership (dissatisfaction or restlessness with the present, absorptive capacity, and adaptive capacity). For Malaysian vocational college educational leaders, the results were consistent with seven distinct practices of strategic leadership, such as strategic orientation, strategic alignment, strategic intervention, restlessness, absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity, and leadership wisdom.

Other studies were also focused on the characteristics of strategic leadership with different populations and countries. Chatchawaphun et al. (2016) identified the principles, attributes, and skills of the strategic leadership of secondary school administrators from Thailand. The principles identified within the sample of principals included appropriate values, modern visionary, future focusing strategy, empirical evidence focus, intention toward accomplishment, decency, and making relationships. The attributes found were strategic learning, strategic thinking, and value push up. The skills were learning, interpretation, forecasting, planning, challenge, and decision making. Chan (2018) explored strategic leadership practices performed by Hong Kong school leaders of early childhood education and identified effective planning and management, reflective and flexible thinking, and networking and professional development as variables. Eacott (2010c) investigated the strategic role of Australian public primary school principals concerning the leader characteristics of tenure (referring to the time in years in their current substantive position) and functional track (referring to the time in years spent at different levels of the organizational hierarchy). These demographic variables have moderating effects on the strategic leadership and management of participants. These five studies seem to be outstanding contributions to solidify a framework of strategic leadership and to test it with different populations in different countries.

Additionally, Quong and Walker (2010) present seven principles for effective and successful strategic leaders. Strategic leaders are future-oriented and have a future strategy, their practices are evidence-based and research-led, they get things done, open new horizons, are fit to lead, make good partners and do the “next” right thing—these seven principles of action seem related to the proposal of Davies and colleagues. Both authors highlighted visions for the future, future long-term plans, and plans’ translation into action as important characteristics of strategic leaders.

One other dimension that is being explored in research relates to ethics. Several authors assert that insufficient attention and research have been given to aspects related to moral or ethical leadership among school leaders ( Glanz, 2010 ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ; Kangaslahti, 2012 ). The seventh principle of the Quong and Walker (2010) model of strategic leadership is that leaders do the “next” right thing. This relates to the ethical dimension of leadership, meaning that strategic leaders recognize the importance of ethical behaviors and act accordingly. For some authors, ethics in strategic leadership is a critical issue for researchers and practitioners that needs to be taken into consideration ( Glanz, 2010 ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). Glanz (2010) underlined social justice and caring perspectives as required to frame strategic initiatives. Kangaslahti (2012) analyzed the strategic dilemmas that leaders face in educational settings (e.g., top-down strategy vs. bottom-up strategy process; leadership by authority vs. staff empowerment; focus on administration vs. focus on pedagogy; secret planning and decision making vs. open, transparent organization; the well-being of pupils vs. well-being of staff) and how they can be tackled by dilemma reconciliation. Chen (2008) , in case study research, explored the conflicts that school administrators have confronted in facilitating school reform in Taiwan. The author identified four themes related to strategic leadership in coping with the conflicts accompanying this school reform: 1) educational values, 2) timeframe for change, 3) capacity building, and 4) community involvement. These studies reinforce the idea that school improvement and success seem to be influenced by the way leaders think strategically and deal with conflicts or dilemmas. Researchers need to design ethical frameworks or models from which practitioners can think ethically about their strategic initiatives and their dilemmas or conflicts ( Chen, 2008 ; Glanz, 2010 ; Kangaslahti, 2012 ).

Despite the critical contribution of Davies’ models ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and subsequent works, Eacott (2010a) questions the production of lists of behaviors and traits. This is likely one of the main differences between Davies’ and Eacott’s contributions in this field. While Davies and colleagues include organizational abilities and personal characteristics in their model of strategic leadership, Eacott (2010a , 2010b) emphasizes the broader context where strategy occurs. These ideas, however, are not contradictory but complementary in the comprehension of strategy as leadership in education since both authors present a comprehensive and integrated model of strategic leadership. Even though Davies and colleagues present some specific characteristics of leaders, these characteristics are incorporated into a large model for strategy in schools.

What Are Other Key Variables Related to Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools?

Other studies investigated the relationship between strategic leadership and other key variables, such as collaboration ( Ismail et al., 2018 ), the culture of teaching ( Khumalo, 2018 ), organizational learning ( Aydin et al., 2015 ) and school effectiveness ( Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ).

One descriptive survey study presented teacher collaboration as a mediator of strategic leadership and teaching quality ( Ismail et al., 2018 ). The authors argue that school leaders who demonstrate strategic leadership practices can lead to the creation of collaborative practices among teachers and thus help to improve the professional standards among them, namely, teaching quality ( Ismail et al., 2018 ). One cross-sectional study identified positive and significant relations among the variables of strategic leadership actions and organizational learning. Transforming, political, and ethical leadership actions were identified as significant predictors of organizational learning. However, managing actions were not found to be a significant predictor ( Aydin et al., 2015 ). One other study establishes that strategic leadership practices promote a teaching culture defined as the commitment through quality teaching for learning outcomes ( Khumalo, 2018 ). These three studies provide essential highlights of the relevance of strategic leadership for school improvement and quality. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that in a research survey that examined the effect of leadership factors of administrators on school effectiveness, the authors concluded that the direct, indirect, and overall effects of the administrators’ strategic leadership had no significant impact on school effectiveness ( Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ). These studies introduce important questions that need to be explored both related to strategy and strategic leadership features and its relations and impacts on relevant school variables. Such studies stimulate researchers to explore these and other factors that relate to strategic leadership.

The knowledge about strategy and strategic leadership is still incomplete and confusing ( Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ). From the 29 studies selected, divergent data and multiple concepts of strategy can be identified which reinforces the confusion about these issues. Some integrative clarification is still needed about the concepts of strategy and strategic leadership as about its core features. In this section, it is intended to contribute to the clarification and integration of the concepts considering the studies selected.

The emergence of politics and reforms related to school autonomy and responsibility in terms of efficacy and accountability brings the concept of strategy to the educational literature ( Eacott, 2008b ; Cheng, 2010 ). It first appeared in the 1980s but gained momentum between 1990 and 2000. However, the main focus of the literature was on strategic planning based upon mechanistic or technical-rational models of strategy. Authors have criticized the conceptualization of strategy as a way for elaborating a specific plan of action for schools ( Davies, 2003 ; Davies, 2006 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2008b ; Quong and Walker, 2010 ). These same authors adopted a more comprehensive and holistic model of strategy. The concepts have been developed from a more rational and mechanistic view related to planning processes to a more comprehensive and complex view of strategy and leadership that take into consideration a situated and contextual framework. Considering the contribution of these studies, strategy incorporates three core dimensions, articulated with a schoolwide perspective 1) Vision, mission and direction (e.g., Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ) 2) Intentional thinking (e.g., Barron et al., 1995 ; Davies, 2003 ; Davies and Davies, 2005 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ): and; 3) Articulated decision-making and action (e.g., Davies, 2003 ; Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Davies and Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2006 ; Davies, 2007 ; Eacott, 2008a ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ).

Strategic leaders have an important role in strategy but, even considering this comprehensive and holistic concept of strategy, research poses the question of what are the main characteristics of strategic leaders in schools? From the literature reviewed, specific abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics may be identified. Looking for an integrated picture of strategic leadership, Table 3 represents the main contributions of the studies selected.

TABLE 3 . Strategic leadership: Main features.

Despite the contribution of these studies to deep knowledge about strategic leadership, the discussion here considers whether it is worthwhile to produce lists of behaviors and traits for strategic leaders in the absence of an integrated model that acknowledges the broader educational, societal and political context ( Dimmock and Walker, 2004 ; Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Eacott, 2011 ). Eacott (2011) argues that strategy, as constructed through analysis, is decontextualized and dehumanized and essentially a vacuous concept with limited utility to the practice that it seeks to explain (p. 426). Without a comprehensive and contextual model of strategy and strategic leadership, supported by research, the topics may still be overlooked and misunderstood. With this in mind, Figure 3 attempts to represent the core dimensions of strategy from a comprehensive perspective.

FIGURE 3 . Strategy and core dimensions from a comprehensive perspective.

As this is a scoping review, we tried to display a general view of the literature that can serve as a basis for a specific strategy theory in education and to more in-depth studies related to strategy and strategic leadership in schools. Nevertheless, we need to identify some methodological limitations of this study. As a scoping review, methods and reporting need improvement ( Tricco et al., 2018 ) and we are aware of this circumstance. Also, our search strategy may have overlooked some existing studies, since grey documents (e.g., reports) and studies from diverse languages than English were not included, that can misrepresent important data. Besides, inclusion criteria focused only on studies specifically devoted to strategy (not strategic planning) and strategic leadership (no other theories of leadership), but we acknowledge important contributions from this specific literature that were excluded. Finally, in our study there is no comparative analysis between the western and eastern/oriental contexts. However, we are aware that these contexts really differ and a context-specific reflection on strategy and strategic leadership in education would be useful. More research is needed to overcome the limitations mentioned.

Besides, the pandemic COVID19 brought new challenges in education, and particularly, to leaders. This study occurred before the pandemic and this condition was not acknowledged. However, much has changed in education as a consequence of the pandemic control measures, these changes vary from country to country, and schools’ strategies have changed for sure. Future research needs to explore strategy and strategic leadership in education considering a new era post pandemic.

With this scoping review, the authors aimed to contribute to enduring theories about strategy and strategic leadership in education. From our findings, it appears that this issue is being little explored. Despite the important contributions of authors cited in this scoping review ( Aydin et al., 2015 ; Chatchawaphun et al., 2016 ; Prasertcharoensuk and Tang, 2017 ; Ali, 2018 ; Chan, 2018 ; Ismail et al., 2018 ; Khumalo, 2018 ), minor advances seem to have been made after 2010. This is intriguing taking into account the leaders’ role in the third wave of educational reform, where strategic leadership pursues a new vision and new aims for education due to maximizing learning opportunities for students through “ triplisation in education’ (i.e., as an integrative process of globalization, localization and individualization in education)” ( Cheng, 2010 , p. 48). It was expected that research moved from rational planning models towards a more complex view of strategy in education ( Eacott, 2011 ). This review brings the idea that some timid and situated steps have been made.

Since the important review by Eacott, published in 2008, a step forward was made in the distinction between strategy and planning. Despite the significant number of papers about planning that were found during this review, the majority were published before 2008 (e.g., Nebgen, 1990 ; Broadhead et al., 1998 ; Bennett et al., 2000 ; Beach and Lindahl, 2004 ; Bell, 2004 ). Also, most of the papers selected adopt a more integrative, comprehensive, and complex view of strategy and strategic leadership (e.g., Eacott, 2010a ; Eacott, 2010b ; Davies and Davies, 2010 ; Eacott, 2011 ; Ali, 2012 ; Ali, 2018 ; Chan, 2018 ). More than identifying the “best of” strategy and strategic leadership, alternative models understand strategy as a way of thinking ( Davies and Davies, 2010 ) and a work in progress ( Eacott, 2011 ).

This also resonates with the educational literature about loosely coupled systems . There is evidence that loosely coupled educational organizations continue to exist and that resistance to change is a characteristic of school organizations ( Hautala et al., 2018 ). Strategic leadership gains relevance since leaders need to consider how to manage their loose and tight configurations and, hence, reinforce simultaneous personal and organizational dimensions related to school improvement. It is time to expand the research into more complex, longitudinal, and explanatory ways due to a better understanding of the constructs. This scoping review was an attempt to contribute to this endeavor by integrating and systematizing educational literature about strategy and strategic leadership.

Author Contributions

MC-collected and analyzed data, write the paper IC, JV, and JA-guided the research process and reviewed the paper.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) for the support to this publication (Ref. UIDB/04872/2020).

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.706608/full#supplementary-material

Agi, U. (2017). School Development Planning: A Strategic Tool for Secondary School Improvement in Rivers State, Nigeria. J. Int. Soc. Teach. Educ. 21 (1), 88–99.

Google Scholar

Al-Zboon, W., and Hasan, M. (2012). Strategic School Planning in Jordan. Education 132 (4), 809–825.

Arksey, H., and O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (1), 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aydin, M., Guclu, N., and Pisapia, J. (2015). The Relationship between School Principals’ Strategic Leadership Actions and Organizational Learning. Am. J. Educ. Stud. 7 (1), 5–25.

Bandur, A. (2012). School‐based Management Developments: Challenges and Impacts. J. Educ. Admin 50 (6), 845–873. doi:10.1108/09578231211264711

Barron, B., Henderson, M., and Newman, P. (1995). Strategic Leadership: A Theoretical and Operational Definition. J. Instructional Psychol. 22, 178–181.

Beach, R. H., and Lindahl, R. (2004). A Critical Review of Strategic Planning: Panacea for Public Education?. J. Sch. Leadersh. 14 (2), 211–234. doi:10.1177/105268460401400205

Bell, L. (2004). Strategic Planning in Primary Schools. Manag. Educ. 18 (4), 33–36. doi:10.1177/08920206040180040701

Bellei, C., Vanni, X., Valenzuela, J. P., and Contreras, D. (2016). School Improvement Trajectories: An Empirical Typology. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement 27 (3), 275–292. doi:10.1080/09243453.2015.1083038

Bennett, Megan Crawford, Rosalind L, N., Crawford, M., Levačić, R., Glover, D., and Earley, P. (2000). The Reality of School Development Planning in the Effective Primary School: Technicist or Guiding Plan? Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 20 (3), 333–351. doi:10.1080/13632430050128354

Broadhead, P., Hodgson, J., Cuckle, P., and Dunford, J. (1998). School Development Planning: Moving from the Amorphous to the Dimensional and Making it Your Own. Res. Pap. Educ. 13 (1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/0267152980130102

Chan, C. W. (2018). Leading Today's Kindergartens. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 46 (4), 679–691. doi:10.1177/1741143217694892

Chatchawaphun, P., Julsuwan, S., and Srisa-ard, B. (2016). Development of Program to Enhance Strategic Leadership of Secondary School Administrators. Ies 9 (10), 34–46. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n10p34

Chen, P. (2008). Strategic Leadership and School Reform in Taiwan. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement 19 (3), 293–318. doi:10.1080/09243450802332119

Cheng, Y. (2010). A Topology of Three-Wave Models of Strategic Leadership in Education. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. 38 (1), 35–54.

Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., et al. (2014). Scoping Reviews: Time for Clarity in Definition, Methods, and Reporting. J. Clin. Epidemiol. , 67(12), 1291–1294. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013

Corral Granados, A., and Granados Gámez, G. (2010). Sustainability and Triple Bottom Line: Key Issues for Successful Spanish School Principals. Intl Jnl Educ. Mgt. , 24(6), 467–477.doi:10.1108/09513541011067656

Davies, B. (2004), Developing the Strategically Focused School, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 11–27. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172796

Davies, B., and Davies, B. J. (2005). Strategic Leadership Reconsidered. Leadersh. Pol. Schools , 4(3), 241–260. doi:10.1080/15700760500244819

Davies, B., and Davies, B. (2010). The Nature and Dimensions of Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 5–21.

Davies, B. (2007). Developing Sustainable Leadership. Manag. Educ. , 21(3), 4–9. doi:10.1177/0892020607079984

Davies, B. J., and Davies, B.(2004), Strategic Leadership, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 29–38. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172804

Davies, B. J., and Davies, B. (2006). Developing a Model for Strategic Leadership in Schools. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. , 34(1), 121–139. doi:10.1177/1741143206059542

Davies, B. (2006). Processes Not Plans Are the Key to Strategic Development. Manag. Educ. , 20(2), 11–15. doi:10.1177/089202060602000204

Davies, B. (2003). Rethinking Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Schools. Educ. Manag. Adm. , 31(3), 295–312. doi:10.1177/0263211x03031003006

Dimmock, C., and Walker, A. (2004). A New Approach to Strategic Leadership: Learning‐centredness, Connectivity and Cultural Context in School Design, Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 24(1), 39–56. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172813

Eacott, S. (2006). Strategy: An Educational Leadership Imperative, Perspect. Educ. Leadersh. , 16(6), 1–12.

Eacott, S. (2008b). An Analysis of Contemporary Literature on Strategy in Education. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. , 11(3), 257–280. doi:10.1080/13603120701462111

Eacott, S. (2010b). Lacking a Shared Vision: Practitioners and the Literature on the Topic of Strategy. J. Sch. Leadersh. , 20, 425–444. doi:10.1177/105268461002000403

Eacott, S. (2011) Leadership Strategies: Re-conceptualising Strategy for Educational Leadership. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. , 31 (1), 35–46. doi:10.1080/13632434.2010.540559

Eacott, S. (2010a). Strategy as Leadership: an Alternate Perspective to the Construct of Strategy. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 55–65.

Eacott, S. (2008a). Strategy in Educational Leadership: In Search of unity, J. Educ. Admin. , 46(3), 353–375. doi:10.1108/09578230810869284

Eacott, S. (2010c). Tenure, Functional Track and Strategic Leadership. Intl Jnl Educ. Mg.t , 24(5), 448–458. doi:10.1108/09513541011056009

FitzGerald, A. M., and Quiñones, S. (2018). The Community School Coordinator: Leader and Professional Capital Builder. Jpcc , 3(4), 272–286. doi:10.1108/JPCC-02-2018-0008

Glanz, J. (2010). Justice and Caring: Power, Politics, and Ethics in Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 66–86.

Harris, A., Adams, D., Jones, M. S., and Muniandy, V. (2015). System Effectiveness and Improvement: The Importance of Theory and Context. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 26(1), 1–3. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.987980

Hautala, T., Helander, J., and Korhonen, V. (2018). Loose and Tight Coupling in Educational Organizations - an Integrative Literature Review. Jea , 56(2), 236–255. doi:10.1108/JEA-03-2017-0027

Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., and Mackay, T. (2014). School and System Improvement: A Narrative State-Of-The-Art Review. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 25(2), 257–281. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885452

Ismail, S. N., Kanesan, A., Kanesan, A. G., and Muhammad, F. 2018). Teacher Collaboration as a Mediator for Strategic Leadership and Teaching Quality. Int. J. Instruction , 11(4), 485–498. doi:10.12973/iji.2018.11430a

Kangaslahti, J. (2012). Mapping the Strategic Leadership Practices and Dilemmas of a Municipal Educational Organization. Euromentor J. - Stud. about Educ. , 4, 9–17.

Khalil, H., Peters, M., Godfrey, C. M., McInerney, P., Soares, C. B., and Parker, D., (2016). An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. , 13(2), 118–123. doi:10.1111/wvn.12144

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Khumalo, S. (2018). Promoting Teacher Commitment through the Culture of Teaching through Strategic Leadership Practices. Gend. Behav. , 16(3), 12167 -12177.

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., and O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping Studies: Advancing the Methodology. Implement Sci. , 5(1), 69–9. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1748-5908-5-69.pdf . doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Malin, J. R., and Hackmann, D. (2017). Urban High School Principals' Promotion of College-And-Career Readiness. Jea , 55(6), 606–623. doi:10.1108/JEA-05-2016-0054

Meyers, C. V., and VanGronigen, B. A. (2019). A Lack of Authentic School Improvement Plan Development, J. Educ. Admin , 57(3), 261–278. doi:10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0154

Mohd Ali, H. b., and Zulkipli, I. B. (2019). Validating a Model of Strategic Leadership Practices for Malaysian Vocational College Educational Leaders. Ejtd 43, 21–38. doi:10.1108/EJTD-03-2017-0022

Mohd Ali, H. (2012). The Quest for Strategic Malaysian Quality National Primary School Leaders. Intl Jnl Educ. Mgt. , 26 (1), 83–98. doi:10.1108/09513541211194392

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. BMJ , 339, b2535–269. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535

Nebgen, M. K. (1990). Strategic Planning: Achieving the Goals of Organization Development. J. Staff Dev. , 11(1), 28–31.doi:10.1108/eum0000000001151

Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Soares, C., Khalil, H., and Parker, D., (2015). Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews . The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual . Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute .

Prasertcharoensuk, T., and Tang, K. N. (2017). The Effect of Strategic Leadership Factors of Administrators on School Effectiveness under the Office of Maha Sarakham Primary Educational Service Area 3. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. , 38(3), 316–323. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2016.09.001

Quong, T., and Walker, A. (2010). Seven Principles of Strategic Leadership. Int. Stud. Educ. Adm. , 38(1), 22–34.

Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T., Teddlie, C., et al. (2014). Educational Effectiveness Research (EER): A State-Of-The-Art Review. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement , 25(2), 197–230. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885450

Schlebusch, G., and Mokhatle, M. (2016) Strategic Planning as a Management Tool for School Principals in Rural Schools in the Motheo District. Int. J. Educ. Sci. , 13(3), 342–348. doi:10.1080/09751122.2016.11890470

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., et al. (2016). A Scoping Review on the Conduct and Reporting of Scoping Reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. , 16(15), 15–10. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. 2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. , 169(7), 467–473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850

Keywords: strategy, strategic leadership, school leadership, scoping review, education

Citation: Carvalho M, Cabral I, Verdasca JL and Alves JM (2021) Strategy and Strategic Leadership in Education: A Scoping Review. Front. Educ. 6:706608. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.706608

Received: 07 May 2021; Accepted: 23 September 2021; Published: 15 October 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Carvalho, Cabral, Verdasca and Alves. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Marisa Carvalho, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Demonstrate Your Strategic Thinking Skills

• Nina A. Bowman

Don’t be shy about bringing your ideas to the table.

Developing your strategic thinking skills isn’t enough to get you promoted. In order to advance in your career, you need to demonstrate them. Leaders want to know what you think, and they view your worthiness for promotion through the lens of how ready you are to make bigger decisions. Ask yourself: “Do people know where I stand?” If not, what do you need to do to bring your perspective to the table? It’s also important to demonstrate that you can put new ideas into action. Take the initiative on new projects that show how your understanding extends beyond your current function.

We all know that developing strategic thinking skills is important , but many don’t realize how critical it is to your career advancement to show these skills to your boss and other senior leaders. Showing strategic thinking skills tells your bosses that you’re able to think for yourself and make decisions that position the organization for the future. It assures them that you aren’t making decisions in a vacuum but are considering how other departments might be affected or how the outside world will respond.

• NB Nina A. Bowman is a Managing Partner at Paravis Partners, an executive coaching and leadership development firm. Previously, she held various advisory and leadership roles in strategy. She is an executive coach and speaker on issues of strategic leadership, leadership presence, and interpersonal effectiveness. She is also a contributing author to the HBR Guide to Coaching Employees and HBR Guide to Thinking Strategically .

Partner Center

• Virtual Classroom

Boost your reach, engagement, qualified leads, and pipeline with the help of AI, to create webinars that attract, engage, educate, and resonate

Make your VOD content accessible anytime, anywhere, with secure, flexible, vastly scalable video hubs

Create, manage, monitor, measure and repurpose with AI all your events in one place, and make each one an affair to remember

Keep employees upskilled, uplifted, and up to date with tools that help improve focus, engagement, and outcomes

Education suite

Media & telecom suite, developer suite.

Propel your marketing programs forward with Kaltura’s AI-infused webinars, events and community hubs

Elevate your corporate narrative with impactful events, interactive workshops, and dedicated video portals, easily managed with the help of AI

Keep customers & partners informed and upskilled with webinars, virtual & hybrid events, and knowledge hubs

Open up a world of content for your employees with always-on training sessions, events and company video portals

Keep students switched on and educators tuned in with LMS video, virtual classrooms and campus events

Wow viewers with top video quality, multi-device support, and endlessly scalable streaming platforms

The results are in! The top 8 internal events and communications trends of 2024

Learn how to implement our proven strategies for engaging digital experiences that shine.

Need help? Have questions? Want to know more? It’s all in here

We partner with the best to give you even more!

Teradata turns webinar MQLs into opportunities

Learn how to reverse engineer your webinar program to turn MQLs into opportunities, and promote webinars effectively with limited resources.

Explore our library of useful assets and get your hands on anything you can read, watch, and listen to.

Find all your answers here. From top tips to strategies and tools, and complete guides about all things digital experiences.

Check out our upcoming webinars or catch them on-demand. Get expert takes and hot topics every month!

See first-hand how our amazing customers are skyrocketing engagement & boosting ROI with dazzling digital experiences.

W ho we are, what drives us, and our vision for the future of digital engagement

We’re proud to be this year’s MarTech Breakthrough award winner!

See why Kaltura was voted best event management platform of 2024!

• Get free trial

What is innovation in education and why it’s important?

Let’s talk about innovation in education, discuss a few examples, and find out why this focus on innovation education is important..

In a recent post, we explored  innovative teaching strategies  and how educators can deploy these strategies in the classroom. Let’s talk a bit more about innovation such as what it is and more specifically innovation in education. Why this focus on innovation education? Skill gaps.

As teachers, our goal is to educate students. Educated students are then able to advance their education further – to get whatever degree or certification they need – to eventually succeed in a career that they find rewarding and give back to their community.

One of the key challenges employers face today is that their employees are struggling to meet the challenges of ever-changing skills requirements. In fact, a Gartner  skills gaps analysis  found that 64% of managers don’t believe their employees can keep pace with the evolving skills needed while 70% of employees don’t believe they have mastered the skills needed for the job they have.

What does the skills gap have to do with innovation in education? Well, let’s first unpack what innovation in education even means.  

What is Innovation in Education? 

Innovation is one of those words we like to throw around whenever possible. To  innovate means  to make changes or do something a new way. To innovate does not require you to invent. Baked into innovation are creativity and adaptability.

Innovation in education isn’t a specific term with fixed definitions. The spirit of innovation education is an openness to looking with fresh eyes at problems and to address them in different, new ways. It is a recognition that we don’t have all the answers and are open to new approaches to improve such as methods of knowledge transfer with innovative teaching strategies.

Innovation in education can be:

• Recognizing that students are better served by a  flipped classroom  where they watch lectures at home and complete assignments in the classroom.
• Introducing more technology in the classroom to create a  blended classroom  where students experience technology as they would in the real world.
• Providing greater ways to facilitate clearer and  better communication  between school districts’ parents with powerful video tools.

Innovation in education comes from identifying problems, watching and learning from others, to develop new methods to address these problems, and iterating on them when these experiments don’t necessarily give the results you need.

Why is Innovation Important in Education? 

Charles Darwin never said , “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.” Regardless, let’s consider that a moment.

It is nearly impossible to predict or keep pace with the rate of change in today’s workplace. Accepting that, we can then agree that perhaps more important than the knowledge we have is the ability to adapt and evolve.

How can we teach a student to adapt? Well, in most industries, the catalyst of change is innovation. There are always improvements to be made. Innovation education helps prepare students for a dynamic workplace by providing them opportunities to develop skills such as creativity, adaptability, and resilience.

As educators, we can leverage innovation in education to improve student outcomes from a purely academic standpoint as well as to develop those  soft skills  that students need to succeed in life. We can also introduce more and more technology that students will need to be comfortable with overtime.

What are Examples of Innovation in Education? 

As we’ve already started to see, innovation in education can come in many forms. Remember, it is not just introducing new technology into the classroom. It can be a new method of teaching for a specific project or topic.

• Project-Based Learning  (PBL)  – Help students identify a real-world problem and develop a solution for it. Introduce a PBL-unit as part of a larger lesson where students can exercise their creative thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration with other students.
• Blended Learning –  Blending learning  combines online learning with traditional classroom learning. Students must become comfortable with online tools and using the internet to contribute to their learning. A blended learning approach gives students the ability to discover how best to use tools that they will rely heavily on in their professional lives.
• EdTech – Educational technology (edtech) typically refers to any software, application or service developed to enhance education. We must be careful not to go too far into the deep-end but introducing technology in the classroom is important. Innovative classroom technologies often mirror the innovations outside of education. So, the more students engage with technologies in the classroom, the better prepared they will be to engage with and through technology in the workplace.

How to Adopt Innovation with EdTech Platforms?

As we mentioned above, innovation education does not have to mean introducing technology into the classroom. However, educational technology certainly has its role in innovation in education. Sometimes edtech facilitates innovation in education by making possible what wasn’t possible before. Think about how schools were able to maintain any sort of continuity during the pandemic. Schools and teachers innovated by offering new methods of knowledge transfer.

Most of us will first mention  learning management systems  (LMS’s) when we think of educational technology. Learning management systems are often the centerpiece of a school’s educational technology. But, let’s face it, unless you are an IT Administrator or tasked specifically with onboarding a new LMS, you’re not going to be introducing a learning management system into your classroom (TBH, you wouldn’t need to).

So, let’s consider some innovative educational technology that you could introduce into the classroom:

• Feedback assessment tools  – Feedback is critical both for students to receive and to give. It can help teachers gauge understanding in real time and get a pulse check of the class. Feedback assessment tools (polling, surveys, forms, knowledge check) are also incredibly easy to bring into the class. We even use them today by having students raise their hands and count their responses. Feedback assessment tools provide a fun way for students to leverage technology in the class. Additionally, it can save teachers time by aggregating the data and saving responses to review later.
• Video conferencing and virtual classrooms – Though millions of teachers and students have become newly minted  virtual classroom  professionals over the last couple of years,  virtual schools and virtual academies  have utilized powerful virtual classroom platforms as their primary point of face-to-face instruction for years. Virtual classrooms are video conferencing platforms built with specific tools for learning. Conduct virtual classes or provide options for students to collaborate virtually. Students and teachers alike need to become more comfortable on video.
• Video projects – Our students are digital natives. They are also video creators. Whether they are on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, or Snap you can be sure that students know their way around video. Leverage their passion by bringing video into their projects. Assign projects for student collaborators to create a video around specific topics. Not only will they exercise their creativity, but they’ll also sharpen their communication skills as they work together.

There are many angles to look at so don’t limit yourself. Search online or just ask what your fellow teachers are doing.

Kaltura Virtual Classroom as an Example to Education Innovation 

Kaltura virtual classroom  has been designed and built for education and training. Teachers can conduct interactive, face-to-face classes that actively engage remote students. Teachers are not simply connecting face-to-face to lecture passive students. The platform provides tools that allow teachers to introduce innovation in education.

• Real-time polling – Teachers can use a live polling tool to pulse check students. Of course, they can ask students on video to raise their hands or click a hand raise button, but even better is a polling tool to gauge measurable feedback. With preset polling options, teachers can launch a poll with a click. Students then select their reply and teachers see real time aggregate results as well as what each student replied.
• Quizzing – Sometimes polling isn’t enough. We need to gauge a deeper understanding in real time and use that information to inform the rest of the lesson. Create quizzes with different question types for students to complete in the class. Teachers can give the quiz and see real-time results. The results are also available to review after class. With this information, teachers can be more confident that students are understanding the material presented or move to reinforce items now – in class – rather than finding out later.
• Interactive whiteboards and file annotations – We want students actively participating in their learning. What better way to encourage that than with an interactive whiteboard. A whiteboard is a great space for students to share their ideas, collaborate, and brainstorm.
• Video in the classroom – Video is incredibly powerful at explaining complex topics in digestible ways. Kaltura virtual classroom provides opportunities for teachers to leverage their own video library as well as video sources like YouTube in the class to drive home their lesson plan. When teaching, we have to make things dynamic and interesting. We cannot shy away from producing multimedia experiences such as utilizing presentations, images, whiteboards, and, of course, video.
• Breakout rooms – Remote and distance education typically ignored peer engagement, but as educators, we know that peer engagement is critical to any student’s success in the classroom. Kaltura virtual classroom breakout rooms provide awesome ways for teachers to host directed breakout room experiences. Students can engage one another safely around content provided directly by the teacher with a single click of a button. Encourage branching scenarios, role play, and group projects in breakout rooms.

The future of education innovation 

Very often we find ourselves in a time and place where the status quo is the goal. We may be coasting with enough success in the classroom that there isn’t much appetite to shake things up. For better or worse, that isn’t the current landscape and not one we can expect to return to anytime soon.

Innovation in the classroom has been unleashed. School districts have quickly realized that they’re behind and will look to not only catch up but surpass their innovation deficits. Innovation in education  trends of 2022  are going to continue and accelerate what we’ve already seen throughout 2020 and 2021.

We can expect to see much more investments in personalized learning, greater acceptance of blended and  hybrid learning , a build-up of asynchronous learning modules to promote independent study, and more brave innovators embracing artificial intelligence,  augmented and virtual reality in the classroom .

Embracing innovation in education promotes critical thinking, a sense of adventure, and an openness to adapt that will serve our students in the classroom. It will provide them with the necessary tools to tackle the challenges of their future workplace and give them the confidence and skills to continue to adapt.

Ready to infuse innovation into your classroom? Try Kaltura Virtual Classroom for free today!

• Start Your Free Trial
• educational technology
• virtual classroom
• Innovation in Education
• hybrid learning

Was this post useful?

• Yes, thank you!
• Not so much

Thank you for your feedback!

Sam Thompson

• Utility Menu

6699567738c80f2efcd242e7f2410e84

Certificate in School Management and Leadership (CSML)

• Learning Experience
• Leading Change

Leading School Strategy & Innovation

• Leading People
• Leading Learning
• Faculty Co-Chairs
• Payment & Enrollment
• Eligibility Policies
• Group Enrollment

Leading School Strategy and Innovation

School leaders are responsible for setting the vision and goals and aligning strategy and resources to drive improvement in their schools, while navigating an increasingly challenging school environment.

Offered as a course within the  Certificate in School Management and Leadership (CSML) , Leading School Strategy and Innovation is designed to equip school leaders with the skills they need to identify existing challenges, incorporate and support innovation, and take a strategic problem-solving approach to planning and driving school improvement.

Leading School Strategy and Innovation participants will: 

• Define school goals, identify gaps between current and desired performance, and diagnose root causes of those gaps.
• Learn how to refine the school vision and goals to engage teachers and staff and guide the implementation of changes to improve performance.
• Explore the organizational building blocks of schools and understand how they work together as an inter-related system.
• Drive improvement by generating greater alignment between the school’s strategy, its organizational building blocks, and its resources.
• Distinguish between continuous improvement and innovation, identify when innovation is needed and how to create a safe space for innovation to take place.
• Develop, implement, and sustain a strategic school transformation process 

Course Syllabus & Calendar

View modules and deadlines for upcoming editions of this course. The syllabus and calendars are downloadable. 

• Leading School Strategy and Innovation Course Syllabus
• October 2024 Course Calendar
• February 2025 Course Calendar

Mary Grassa O'Neill , CSML Faculty Co-Chair, Senior Lecturer on Education; Faculty Director, School Leadership, HGSE

Monique Burns Thompson , CSML Faculty Co-Chair, Senior Lecturer of Business Administration, HBS

Allen Grossman , CSML Faculty Co-Chair (Emeritus), Senior Fellow, HBS

Pamela Mason , Senior Lecturer on Education, Faculty Director, Language and Literacy, HGSE

Mike Tushman , Baker Foundation Professor, Paul R. Lawrence MBA Class of 1942 Professor of Business Administration, Emeritus, Charles B. (Tex) Thornton Chair of the Advanced Management Program, HBS

The course also features engaging case studies of the following practitioners:

• Aisha Thomas, Principal, Zach Elementary School, Fort Collins, CO 
• Brendan Kennealey, President, Salesianum School, Wilmington, DE
• Melissa Pizano-Grunnet, Principal, Martin Van Buren Elementary School, Indio, CA 
• Janet Moss, Principal, Coulwood STEM Academy, Charlotte, NC 
• Tomer Zvulun, CEO, The Atlanta Opera, Atlanta, GA

Course Details

Learn more about our transformative learning experience for PreK-12 school leaders.

What is the Importance of Innovation in Education?

Innovation in education is changing the way students learn, encouraging problem-solving and creativity. It is not limited to technology or invention, but rather a shift in thinking, benefiting both students and educators. It entails introducing new products, procedures, and strategies that result in positive progress for a school, classroom, district or college. Innovative teaching concepts encourage exploration, risk-taking, and inquiry, with some instructors combining technology with traditional textbook study. Design thinking is a comprehensive approach to improve pedagogy, involving identification of problems, data gathering, generating potential solutions, refining ideas, and testing proposed solutions.

More Innovation Resources:

Innovation, Invention and Entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurship, innovation, and invention are related concepts but differ in their needs and purposes. This article explores the distinctions between them and why it's important to understand their meanings for successful policy-making.

As long as my failing project keeps going, I won't be a failure

Knowing when to quit a failing innovation project is important, but many people find it difficult due to the fear of failure.

Examples of Technological Innovation with Potential Impact on Business

Innovation is crucial for business growth. Technological innovations like AI, 5G internet, Blockchain, edge computing, and the connected industrial workforce have made an impact in the business world.

Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

ISSN : 2397-7604

Article publication date: 3 April 2017

The purpose of this paper is to present an analytical review of the educational innovation field in the USA. It outlines classification of innovations, discusses the hurdles to innovation, and offers ways to increase the scale and rate of innovation-based transformations in the education system.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper is based on a literature survey and author research.

US education badly needs effective innovations of scale that can help produce the needed high-quality learning outcomes across the system. The primary focus of educational innovations should be on teaching and learning theory and practice, as well as on the learner, parents, community, society, and its culture. Technology applications need a solid theoretical foundation based on purposeful, systemic research, and a sound pedagogy. One of the critical areas of research and innovation can be cost and time efficiency of the learning.

Practical implications

Several practical recommendations stem out of this paper: how to create a base for large-scale innovations and their implementation; how to increase effectiveness of technology innovations in education, particularly online learning; how to raise time and cost efficiency of education.

Social implications

Innovations in education are regarded, along with the education system, within the context of a societal supersystem demonstrating their interrelations and interdependencies at all levels. Raising the quality and scale of innovations in education will positively affect education itself and benefit the whole society.

Originality/value

Originality is in the systemic approach to education and educational innovations, in offering a comprehensive classification of innovations; in exposing the hurdles to innovations, in new arguments about effectiveness of technology applications, and in time efficiency of education.

• Implementation
• Educational technology
• Time efficiency

Serdyukov, P. (2017), "Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Peter Serdyukov

Published in the Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning . This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Necessity is the mother of invention (Plato).

Introduction

Education, being a social institution serving the needs of society, is indispensable for society to survive and thrive. It should be not only comprehensive, sustainable, and superb, but must continuously evolve to meet the challenges of the fast-changing and unpredictable globalized world. This evolution must be systemic, consistent, and scalable; therefore, school teachers, college professors, administrators, researchers, and policy makers are expected to innovate the theory and practice of teaching and learning, as well as all other aspects of this complex organization to ensure quality preparation of all students to life and work.

Here we present a systemic discussion of educational innovations, identify the barriers to innovation, and outline potential directions for effective innovations. We discuss the current status of innovations in US education, what educational innovation is, how innovations are being integrated in schools and colleges, why innovations do not always produce the desired effect, and what should be done to increase the scale and rate of innovation-based transformations in our education system. We then offer recommendations for the growth of educational innovations. As examples of innovations in education, we will highlight online learning and time efficiency of learning using accelerated and intensive approaches.

Innovations in US education

For an individual, a nation, and humankind to survive and progress, innovation and evolution are essential. Innovations in education are of particular importance because education plays a crucial role in creating a sustainable future. “Innovation resembles mutation, the biological process that keeps species evolving so they can better compete for survival” ( Hoffman and Holzhuter, 2012 , p. 3). Innovation, therefore, is to be regarded as an instrument of necessary and positive change. Any human activity (e.g. industrial, business, or educational) needs constant innovation to remain sustainable.

The need for educational innovations has become acute. “It is widely believed that countries’ social and economic well-being will depend to an ever greater extent on the quality of their citizens’ education: the emergence of the so-called ‘knowledge society’, the transformation of information and the media, and increasing specialization on the part of organizations all call for high skill profiles and levels of knowledge. Today’s education systems are required to be both effective and efficient, or in other words, to reach the goals set for them while making the best use of available resources” ( Cornali, 2012 , p. 255). According to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, “the pressure to increase equity and improve educational outcomes for students is growing around the world” ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 3). In the USA, underlying pressure to innovate comes from political, economic, demographic, and technological forces from both inside and outside the nation.

Many in the USA seem to recognize that education at all levels critically needs renewal: “Higher education has to change. It needs more innovation” ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 1). This message, however, is not new – in the foreword to the 1964 book entitled Innovation in Education, Arthur Foshay, Executive Officer of The Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation, wrote, “It has become platitudinous to speak of the winds of change in education, to remind those interested in the educational enterprise that a revolution is in progress. Trite or not, however, it is true to say that changes appear wherever one turns in education” ( Matthew, 1964 , p. v).

Yet, more than 50 years later, we realize that the actual pace of educational innovations and their implementation is too slow as shown by the learning outcomes of both school and college graduates, which are far from what is needed in today’s world. Jim Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Innovation and Improvement in the US Department of Education, writes, “Whether for reasons of economic growth, competitiveness, social justice or return on tax-payer investment, there is little rational argument over the need for significant improvement in US educational outcomes. Further, it is irrefutable that the country has made limited improvement on most educational outcomes over the last several decades, especially when considered in the context of the increased investment over the same period. In fact, the total cost of producing each successful high school and college graduate has increased substantially over time instead of decreasing – creating what some argue is an inverted learning curve […].”

“Education not only needs new ideas and inventions that shatter the performance expectations of today’s status quo; to make a meaningful impact, these new solutions must also “scale,” that is grow large enough, to serve millions of students and teachers or large portions of specific underserved populations” ( Shelton, 2011 ). Yet, something does not work here.

Lack of innovation can have profound economic and social repercussions. America’s last competitive advantage, warns Harvard Innovation Education Fellow Tony Wagner, its ability to innovate, is at risk as a result of the country’s lackluster education system ( Creating innovators, 2012 ). Derek Bok, a former Harvard University President, writes, “[…] neither American students nor our universities, nor the nation itself, can afford to take for granted the quality of higher education and the teaching and learning it provides” ( Bok, 2007 , p. 6). Hence it is central for us to make US education consistently innovative and focus educational innovations on raising the quality of learning at all levels. Yet, though there is a good deal of ongoing educational research and innovation, we have not actually seen discernable improvements in either school students’ or college graduates’ achievements to this day. Suffice it to mention a few facts. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) evaluations keep revealing disappointing results for our middle school ( Pew Research Center, 2015 ); a large number of high school graduates are not ready for college ( College preparedness, 2012 ); and employers, in turn, are often dissatisfied with college graduates ( Thomson, 2015 ; Jaschik, 2015 ). No one, be they students, parents, academia, business, or society as a whole, are pleased with these outcomes. Could it be that our education system is not sufficiently innovative?

Danny Crichton, an entrepreneur, in his blog The Next Wave of Education Innovation writes expressly, “Few areas have been as hopeful and as disappointing as innovation in education. Education is probably the single most important function in our society today, yet it remains one of the least understood, despite incredible levels of investment from venture capitalists and governments. Why do students continue to show up in a classroom or start an online course? How do we guide students to the right knowledge just as they need to learn it? We may have an empirical inkling and some hunches, but we still lack any fundamental insights. That is truly disappointing. With the rise of the internet, it seemed like education was on the cusp of a complete revolution. Today, though, you would be excused for not seeing much of a difference between the way we learn and how we did so twenty years ago” ( Crichton, 2015 ).

Editors of the book Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Ben Wildavsky, Andrew Kelly, and Kevin Carey write, “The higher education system also betrays an innovation deficit in another way: a steady decline in productivity driven by a combination of static or declining output paired with skyrocketing prices ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 3). This despairing mood is echoed by Groom and Lamb’s statement in EDUCAUSE Review, “Today, innovation is increasingly conflated with hype, disruption for disruption’s sake, and outsourcing laced with a dose of austerity-driven downsizing” ( Groom and Lamb, 2014 ).

USA success has always been driven by innovation and has a unique capacity for growth ( Zeihan, 2014 ). Nevertheless, it is indeed a paradox: while the USA produces more research, including in education, than any other country ( Science Watch, 2009 ), we do not see much improvement in the way our students are prepared for life and work. The USA can be proud of great scholars, such as John Dewey, B.F. Skinner, Abraham Maslow, Albert Bandura, Howard Gardner, Jerome Bruner, and many others who have contributed a great deal to the theory of education. Yet, has this theory yielded any innovative approaches for the teaching and learning practice that have increased learning productivity and improved the quality of the output?

The USA is the home of the computer and the internet, but has the information revolution helped to improve the quality of learning outcomes? Where and how, then, are all these educational innovations applied? It seems, write Spangehl and Hoffman, that “American education has taken little advantage of important innovations that would increase instructional capacity, effectiveness, and productivity” (2012 , p. 21). “The new ‘job factory’ role American universities have awkwardly stuffed themselves into may be killing the modern college student’s spirit and search for meaning” ( Mercurio, 2016 ).

What is interesting here is that while we are still undecided as to what to do with our struggling schools and universities and how to integrate into them our advanced inventions, other nations are already benefiting from our innovations and have in a short time successfully built world-class education systems. It is ironic that an admirable Finnish success was derived heavily from US educational research. Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator and author of a bestselling book, The Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change In Finland , said in an interview to the Huffington Post, “American scholars and their writings, like Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, have been influential in building the much-admired school system in Finland” ( Rubin, 2015 ); so wrote other authors ( Strauss, 2014 ). Singapore, South Korea, China, and other forward-looking countries also learned from great US educational ideas.

We cannot say that US educators and society are oblivious to the problems in education: on the contrary, a number of educational movements have taken place in recent US history (e.g. numerous educational reforms since 1957 to this day, including recent NCLB, Race to the Top, and the Common Core). Universities and research organizations opened centers and laboratories of innovation (Harvard Innovation Lab, Presidential Innovation Laboratory convened by American Council on Education, Center for Innovation in Education at the University of Kentucky, NASA STEM Innovation Lab, and recently created National University Center for Innovation in Learning). Some institutions introduced programs focusing on innovation (Master’s Program in Technology, Innovation, and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education; Master of Arts in Education and Innovation at the Webster University). New organizations have been set up (The International Centre for Innovation in Education, Innovative Schools Network, Center for Education Reform). Regular conferences on the topic are convened (AERA, ASU-GSV Summit, National Conference on Educational Innovation, The Nueva School for the Innovative Learning Conference). Excellent books have been written by outstanding innovators such as Andy Hargreaves (2003) , Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) , Hargreaves et al. (2010) , Michael Fullan (2007, 2010) , Yong Zhao (2012) , Pasi Sahlberg (2011) , Tony Wagner (2012) , Mihaliy Csikszentmihalyi (2013) , and Ken Robinson (2015) . There is even an Office of Innovation and Improvement in the US Department of Education, which is intended to “[…] drive education innovation by both seeding new strategies, and bringing proven approaches to scale” ( Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2016 ). And still, innovations do not take hold in American classrooms on a wide scale, which may leave the nation behind in global competition.

Society’s failure to anticipate the problems and their outcomes may have unpredictable consequences, as Pulitzer Prize winner and Professor Jared Diamond, University of California, Los Angeles, writes in his book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed ( Diamond, 2005 ). Yong Zhao interpreted Diamond’s findings as “[…] society’s inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept large and distant changes – and thus work to come up with the right response – is among one of the chief reasons that societies fail. This inability also leads human beings to look for short-term outcomes and seek immediate gratification” ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 162). It looks like the issue of educational innovation goes beyond the field itself and requires a strong societal response.

Three big questions arise from this discussion: why, having so many innovators and organizations concerned with innovations, does our education system not benefit from them? What interferes with creating and, especially, implementing transformative, life-changing, and much-needed innovations across schools and colleges in this country? How can we grow, support, and disseminate worthy innovations effectively so that our students succeed in both school and university and achieve the best learning outcomes that will adequately prepare them for life and work? Let us first take a look at what is an educational innovation.

What is educational innovation?

Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things (Theodore Levitt).

To innovate is to look beyond what we are currently doing and develop a novel idea that helps us to do our job in a new way. The purpose of any invention, therefore, is to create something different from what we have been doing, be it in quality or quantity or both. To produce a considerable, transformative effect, the innovation must be put to work, which requires prompt diffusion and large-scale implementation.

Innovation is generally understood as “[…] the successful introduction of a new thing or method” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15). In essence, “[…] innovation seems to have two subcomponents. First, there is the idea or item which is novel to a particular individual or group and, second, there is the change which results from the adoption of the object or idea” ( Evans, 1970 , p. 16). Thus, innovation requires three major steps: an idea, its implementation, and the outcome that results from the execution of the idea and produces a change. In education, innovation can appear as a new pedagogic theory, methodological approach, teaching technique, instructional tool, learning process, or institutional structure that, when implemented, produces a significant change in teaching and learning, which leads to better student learning. So, innovations in education are intended to raise productivity and efficiency of learning and/or improve learning quality. For example, Khan’s Academy and MOOCs have opened new, practically unlimited opportunities for massive, more efficient learning.

Efficiency is generally determined by the amount of time, money, and resources that are necessary to obtain certain results. In education, efficiency of learning is determined mainly by the invested time and cost. Learning is more efficient if we achieve the same results in less time and with less expense. Productivity is determined by estimating the outcomes obtained vs the invested effort in order to achieve the result. Thus, if we can achieve more with less effort, productivity increases. Hence, innovations in education should increase both productivity of learning and learning efficiency.

Educational innovations emerge in various areas and in many forms. According to the US Office of Education, “There are innovations in the way education systems are organized and managed, exemplified by charter schools or school accountability systems. There are innovations in instructional techniques or delivery systems, such as the use of new technologies in the classroom. There are innovations in the way teachers are recruited, and prepared, and compensated. The list goes on and on” ( US Department of Education, 2004 ).

Innovation can be directed toward progress in one, several, or all aspects of the educational system: theory and practice, curriculum, teaching and learning, policy, technology, institutions and administration, institutional culture, and teacher education. It can be applied in any aspect of education that can make a positive impact on learning and learners.

In a similar way, educational innovation concerns all stakeholders: the learner, parents, teacher, educational administrators, researchers, and policy makers and requires their active involvement and support. When considering the learners, we think of studying cognitive processes taking place in the the brain during learning – identifying and developing abilities, skills, and competencies. These include improving attitudes, dispositions, behaviors, motivation, self-assessment, self-efficacy, autonomy, as well as communication, collaboration, engagement, and learning productivity.

To raise the quality of teaching, we want to enhance teacher education, professional development, and life-long learning to include attitudes, dispositions, teaching style, motivation, skills, competencies, self-assessment, self-efficacy, creativity, responsibility, autonomy to teach, capacity to innovate, freedom from administrative pressure, best conditions of work, and public sustenance. As such, we expect educational institutions to provide an optimal academic environment, as well as materials and conditions for achieving excellence of the learning outcomes for every student (program content, course format, institutional culture, research, funding, resources, infrastructure, administration, and support).

Education is nourished by society and, in turn, nourishes society. The national educational system relies on the dedication and responsibility of all society for its effective functioning, thus parental involvement, together with strong community and society backing, are crucial for success.

political (NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act), Race to the Top);

social (Equal Opportunities Act, affirmative action policy, Indivuals with Disabilities Education Act);

philosophical (constructivism, objectivism);

cultural (moral education, multiculturalism, bilingual education);

pedagogical (competence-based education, STEM (curriculum choices in school: Science, Technology, English, and Mathematics);

psychological (cognitive science, multiple intelligencies theory, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, learning style theory); and

technological (computer-based learning, networked learning, e-learning).

Though these innovations left a significant mark on education, which of them helped improve productivity and quality of learning? Under NCLB, we placed too much focus on accountability and assessment and lost sight of many other critical aspects of education. In drawing too much attention to technology innovations, we may neglect teachers and learners in the process. Stressing the importance of STEM at the expense of music, arts and physical culture ignores young people’s personal, social, emotional, and moral development. Reforming higher education without reforming secondary education is futile. Trying to change education while leaving disfunctional societal and cultural mechanisms intact is doomed. It is crucial, therefore, when innovating to ask, “What is this innovation for?” “How will it work?” and “What effect will it produce?”

Many of us educators naively believe grand reforms or powerful technologies will transform our education system. Did we not expect NCLB to change our schools for the better? Did we not hope that new information technologies would make education more effective and relieve teachers from tedious labor? However, again and again we realize that neither loud reforms nor wondrous technology will do the hard work demanded of teachers and learners.

Innovations can be categorized as evolutionary or revolutionary ( Osolind, 2012 ), sustaining or disruptive ( Christensen and Overdorf, 2000 ; Yu and Hang, 2010 ). Evolutionary innovations lead to incremental improvement but require continuity; revolutionary innovations bring about a complete change, totally overhauling and/or replacing the old with the new, often in a short time period. Sustaining innovation perpetuates the current dimensions of performance (e.g. continuous improvement of the curriculum), while disrupting innovation, such as a national reform, radically changes the whole field. Innovations can also be tangible (e.g. technology tools) and intangible (e.g. methods, strategies, and techniques). Evolutionary and revolutionary innovations seem to have the same connotation as sustaining and disruptive innovations, respectively.

When various innovations are being introduced in the conventional course of study, for instance Universal Design of Learning ( Meyer et al. , 2014 ); or more expressive presentation of new material using multimedia; or more effective teaching methods; or new mnemonic techniques, students’ learning productivity may rise to some extent. This is an evolutionary change. It partially improves the existing instructional approach to result in better learning. Such learning methods as inquiry based, problem based, case study, and collaborative and small group are evolutionary innovations because they change the way students learn. Applying educational technology (ET) in a conventional classroom using an overhead projector, video, or iPad, are evolutionary, sustaining innovations because they change only certain aspects of learning. National educational reforms, however, are always intended to be revolutionary innovations as they are aimed at complete system renovation. This is also true for online learning because it produces a systemic change that drastically transforms the structure, format, and methods of teaching and learning. Some innovative approaches, like “extreme learning” ( Extreme Learning, 2012 ), which use technology for learning purposes in novel, unusual, or nontraditional ways, may potentially produce a disruptive, revolutionary effect.

Adjustment or upgrading of the process: innovation can occur in daily performance and be seen as a way to make our job easier, more effective, more appealing, or less stressful. This kind of innovation, however, should be considered an improvement rather than innovation because it does not produce a new method or tool. The term innovative, in keeping with the dictionary definition, applies only to something new and different, not just better, and it must be useful ( Okpara, 2007 ). Educators, incidentally, commonly apply the term “innovative” to almost any improvement in classroom practices; yet, to be consistent, not any improvement can be termed in this way. The distinction between innovation and improvement is in novelty and originality, as well as in the significance of impact and scale of change.

Modification of the process: innovation that significantly alters the process, performance, or quality of an existing product (e.g. accelerated learning (AL), charter school, home schooling, blended learning).

Transformation of the system: dramatic conversion (e.g. Bologna process; Common Core; fully automated educational systems; autonomous or self-directed learning; online, networked, and mobile learning).

First-level innovations (with a small i ) make reasonable improvements and are important ingredients of everyday life and work. They should be unequivocally enhanced, supported, and used. Second-level innovations either lead to a system’s evolutionary change or are a part of that change and, thus, can make a considerable contribution to educational quality. But we are more concerned with innovations of the third level (with a capital I), which are both breakthrough and disruptive and can potentially make a revolutionary, systemic change.

qualitative: better knowledge, more effective skills, important competencies, character development, values, dispositions, effective job placement, and job performance; and

quantitative: improved learning parameters such as test results, volume of information learned, amount of skills or competencies developed, college enrollment numbers, measured student performance, retention, attrition, graduation rate, number of students in class, cost, and time efficiency.

Innovation can be assessed by its novely, originality, and potential effect. As inventing is typically a time-consuming and cost-demanding experience, it is critical to calculate short-term and long-term expenses and consequences of an invention. They must demonstrate significant qualitative and/or quantitative benefits. As a psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi writes, “human well-being hinges on two factors: the ability to increase creativity and the ability to develop ways to evaluate the impact of new creative ideas” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013, p. 322).

In education, we can estimate the effect of innovation via learning outcomes or exam results, teacher formative and summative, formal and informal assessments, and student self-assessment. Innovation can also be computed using such factors as productivity (more learning outcomes in a given time), time efficiency (shorter time on studying the same material), or cost efficiency (less expense per student) data. Other evaluations can include the school academic data, college admissions and employment rate of school graduates, their work productivity and career growth.

singular/local/limited;

multiple/spread/significant; and

system-wide/total.

This gradation correlates with the three levels of innovation described above: adjustment, modification, and transformation. To make a marked difference, educational innovation must be scalable and spread across the system or wide territory. Prominent examples include Khan Academy in the USA, GEEKI Labs in Brazil (GEEKI), and BRIDGE International Academies in Kenya (BRIDGE). Along with scale, the speed of adoption or diffusion, and cost are critical for maximizing the effect of innovation.

Innovations are nowadays measured and compared internationally. According to the 2011 OECD report ( OECD, 2014 ), the USA was in 24th place in educational innovativeness in the world. This report singled out the use of student assessments for monitoring progress over time as the top organizational innovation, and the requirement that students were to explain and elaborate on their answers during science lessons as the top pedagogic innovation in the USA. Overall, the list of innovations selected by OECD was disappointingly unimpressive.

Innovations usually originate either from the bottom of the society (individual inventors or small teams) – bottom-up or grass root approach, or from the top (business or government) – top-down or administrative approach. Sometimes, innovations coming from the top get stalled on their way to the bottom if they do not accomplish their goal and are not appreciated or supported by the public. Should they rise from the bottom, they may get stuck on the road to the top if they are misunderstood or found impractical or unpopular. They can also stop in the middle if there is no public, political, or administrative or financial backing. Thus, innovations that start at the bottom, however good they are, may suffer too many roadblocks to be able to spread and be adopted on a large scale. Consequently, it is up to politicians, administrators, and society to drive or stifle the change. Education reforms have always been top-down and, as they near the bottom, typically become diverted, diluted, lose strength, or get rejected as ineffective or erroneous. As Michael Fullan writes in the Foreword to an exciting book, Good to Great to Innovate: Recalculating the Route to Career Readiness, K012+ , “[…] there is a good deal of reform going on in the education world, but much of it misses the point, or approaches it superficially” ( Sharratt and Harild, 2015 , p. xiii).

Innovations enriching education can be homegrown (come from within the system) or be imported (originate from outside education). Examples of imported innovations that result from revolution, trend, or new idea include the information technology revolution, social media, medical developments (MRI), and cognitive psychology. Innovations can also be borrowed from superior international theories and practices (see Globalization of Education chapter). National reform may also be a route to innovation, for instance when a government decides to completely revamp the system via a national reform, or when an entire society embarks on a new road, as has happened recently in Singapore, South Korea, and Finland.

Innovations may come as a result of inspiration, continuous creative mental activity, or “supply pushed” through the availability of new technological possibilities in production, or “demand led” based on market or societal needs ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15). In the first case, we can have a wide variety of ideas flowing around; in the second, we observe a ubiquitous spread of educational technologies across educational system at all levels; in the third, we witness a growth of non-public institutions, such as private and charter schools and private universities.

Innovation in any area or aspect can make a change in education in a variety of ways. Ultimately, however, innovations are about quality and productivity of learning (this does not mean we can forget about moral development, which prepares young people for life, work, and citizenship) ( Camins, 2015 ). Every innovation must be tested for its potential efficiency. The roots of learning efficiency lie, however, not only in innovative technologies or teaching alone but even more in uncovering potential capacities for learning in our students, their intellectual, emotional, and psychological spheres. Yet, while innovations in economics, business, technology, and engineering are always connected to the output of the process, innovation in education does not necessarily lead to improving the output (i.e. students’ readiness for future life and employment). Test results, degrees, and diplomas do not signify that a student is fully prepared for his or her career. Educational research is often disconnected from learning productivity and efficiency, school effectiveness, and quality output. Innovations in educational theories, textbooks, instructional tools, and teaching techniques do not always produce a desired change in the quality of teaching and learning. What, then, is the problem with our innovations? Why do not we get more concerned with learning productivity and efficiency? As an example, let us look at technology applications in teaching and learning.

Effects of technology innovations in education

A tool is just an opportunity with a handle (Kevin Kelly).

When analyzing innovations of our time, we cannot fail to see that an overwhelming majority of them are tangible, being either technology tools (laptops, iPads, smart phones) or technology-based learning systems and materials, e.g., learning management system (LMS), educational software, and web-based resources. Technology has always served as both a driving force and instrument of innovation in any area of human activity. It is then natural for us to expect that innovations based on ET applications can improve teaching and learning. Though technology is a great asset, nonetheless, is it the single or main source of today’s innovations, and is it wise to rely solely on technology?

The rich history of ET innovations is filled with optimism. Just remember when tape recorders, video recorders, TV, educational films, linguaphone classes, overhead projectors, and multimedia first appeared in school. They brought so much excitement and hope into our classrooms! New presentation formats catered to various learning styles. Visuals brought reality and liveliness into the classrooms. Information and computer technology (ICT) offered more ways to retrieve information and develop skills. With captivating communication tools (iPhones, iPads, Skype, FaceTime), we can communicate with anybody around the world in real time, visually, and on the go. Today we are excited about online learning, mobile learning, social networking learning, MOOCs, virtual reality, virtual and remote laboratories, 3D and 4D printing, and gamification. But can we say all this is helping to produce better learning? Are we actually using ET’s potential to make a difference in education and increase learning output?

Larry Cuban, an ET researcher and writer, penned the following: “Since 2010, laptops, tablets, interactive whiteboards, smart phones, and a cornucopia of software have become ubiquitous. We spent billions of dollars on computers. Yet has academic achievement improved as a consequence? Has teaching and learning changed? Has use of devices in schools led to better jobs? These are the basic questions that school boards, policy makers, and administrators ask. The answers to these questions are ‘no,’ ‘no,’ and ‘probably not.’” ( Cuban, 2015 ). This cautionary statement should make us all think hard about whether more technology means better learning.

Technology is used in manufacturing, business, and research primarily to increase labor productivity. Because integrating technology into education is in many ways like integrating technology into any business, it makes sense to evaluate technological applications by changes in learning productivity and quality. William Massy and Robert Zemsky wrote in their paper, “Using Information Technology to Enhance Academic Productivity,” that “[…] technology should be used to boost academic productivity” ( Massy and Zemsky, 1995 ). National Educational Technology Standards also addressed this issue by introducing a special rubric: “Apply technology to increase productivity” ( National Educational Technology Standards, 2004 ). Why then has technology not contributed much to the productivity of learning? It may be due to a so-called “productivity paradox” ( Brynjolfsson, 1993 ), which refers to the apparent contradiction between the remarkable advances in computer power and the relatively slow growth of productivity at the level of the whole economy, individual firms, and many specific applications. Evidently, this paradox relates to technology applications in education.

A conflict between public expectations of ET effectiveness and actual applications in teaching and learning can be rooted in educators’ attitudes toward technology. What some educational researchers write about technology in education helps to reveal the inherent issue. The pillars and building blocks of twenty-first century learning, according to Linda Baer and James McCormick (2012 , p. 168), are tools, programs, services, and policies such as web-enabled information storage and retrieval systems, digital resources, games, and simulations, eAdvising and eTutoring, online revenue sharing, which are all exclusively technological innovations. They are intended to integrate customized learning experiences, assessment-based learning outcomes, wikis, blogs, social networking, and mobile learning. The foundation of all this work, as these authors write, is built on the resources, infrastructure, quality standards, best practices, and innovation.

These are all useful, tangible things, but where are the intangible innovations, such as theoretical foundation, particularly pedagogy, psychology, and instructional methodology that are a true underpinning of teaching and learning? The emphasis on tools seems to be an effect of materialistic culture, which covets tangible, material assets or results. Similarly, today’s students worry more about grades, certificates, degrees, and diplomas (tangible assets) than about gaining knowledge, an intangible asset ( Business Dictionary, 2016 ). We may come to recognize that modern learning is driven more by technological tools than by sound theory, which is misleading.

According to the UNESCO Innovative Teaching and Learning (ITL) Research project conducted in several countries, “ICT has great potential for supporting innovative pedagogies, but it is not a magic ingredient.” The findings suggest that “[…] when considering ICT it is important to focus not on flash but on the student learning and 21st century skills that ICT can enable” ( UNESCO, 2013 ). As Zhao and Frank (2003) argue in their ecological model of technology integration in school, we should be interested in not only how much computers are used but also how computers are used. Evidently, before starting to use technology we have to ask first, “What technology tools will help our students to learn math, sciences, literature and languages better, and how to use them efficiently to improve the learning outcomes?”

Thus, the problem of ET innovations is twofold: any integration of technology in teaching and learning has to demonstrate an increased productivity of teaching and learning, but it can be achieved only when ET applications are based on an effective pedagogic theory. Technology innovation will eventually drive pedagogic innovations, without a doubt, however, this path is slower, more complicated, and leads to an enormous waste of financial, technical and human resources.

Technocentric syndrome

More disquieting than even the lack of pedagogical foundation for technology-enhanced education is the sincere belief of many educators that technology will fix all the problems they encounter in the classroom, be they live or virtual. Consequently, fewer university professors nowadays perceive the need for pedagogic mastery in online teaching in addition to content-area expertise as they reason technology will solve all instructional difficulties anyway. This belief is called “technocentrism” ( Pappert, 1990 ), which, according to Nickols (2011) , is common in higher education and e-learning discussions. It is probably common in secondary school as well. Unfortunately, educators often forget that the computer is only an extension of human abilities, not a replacement or substitute. We, as educators, must realize that for technology innovation to produce a positive effect in learning it must be preceded by pedagogic leadership, research, and sound theory; however, the reality is typically the reverse. We are excited to grab the new gadget and try to fit it into the classroom without preliminary assessment of its implementation challenges and potential effects, solid research, or laying out a theoretical foundation based on advanced pedagogic theory which will ensure its effective use. Former Kodak Chairman George Fisher described it this way, “Even good people get locked into processes that may be totally inappropriate to deal with a new technology attacking from underneath (Christensen and Eyring, 2011, p. 16).

Technology (as an entity) contains an inherent pedagogical value ( Accuosti, 2014 , p. 5). It pushes the limits of what educators can do but is not a magic wand; it is only a means, an instrument, a tool for an innovative teacher and learner. That we overestimate technology’s power in education has its roots in human anticipation of a miracle, or a hope of finding a quick fix. But “[…] we can’t just buy iPads (or any device), add water, and hope that strategy will usher schools to the leading edge of 21st century education. Technology, by itself, isn’t curative. Human agency shapes the path” ( Levasseur, 2012 ). We are all excited by the technology and information revolution and believe in its potential but “[…] perhaps the next important revolution isn’t technological, even as technology marches forward unabated. Perhaps the revolution that we need, the one we should aspire to, is societal. Indeed, the next revolution should be one of education, empathy, and a broader understanding of the world, and of its people and culture” ( Jiang, 2015 ).

One of my students wrote in a recent online class, “Students learn from their teachers, not from electronic gadgets.” Do we understand how students learn in a technology-based environment, one-on-one with the laptop or mobile phone? Can we estimate possible changes in the students’ cognition, learning style, behavior, attitudes, values, and social relationships under the influence of electronic devices? It is certainly true that live interaction between students and their teachers offers worthy examples and enlightening experiences for students and gratifying moments for teachers. Overestimating the power of technology, regrettably, leads to the deterioration of the “human element” ( Serdiukov, 2001 ) in technology-based and, particularly, online teaching and learning. It further underestimates the need for sound pedagogy and quality teacher preparation. It may also have a devastating impact on our ability to socialize, collaborate, and survive. George Friedman argues that computers have had “profoundly disruptive consequences on cultural live throughout the world” ( Friedman, 2012 , p. 25), which could not have left education unperturbed.

Neil Postman addressed another concern of overemphasizing the role of technology in education, cautioning against “[…] surrendering education to technology” ( Postman, 1993 ), which may have far-reaching social and cultural consequences ( Serdyukov, 2015b ). According to Sousa (2014) , the widespread use of technology is having both positive and negative effects on students’ attention and memory systems. A strong warning about the negative effects of the Web comes from Maurer et al. (2013) , who caution that modern media, particularly networked computers, are endangering our capacity to think, to remember clearly, and to read and write with concentration; they also imperil creativity. “New technologies, whether or not they succeed in solving the problem that they were designed to solve, regularly create unanticipated new problems” ( Diamond, 2005 , p. 505). There are numerous social, cultural and psychological side effects of technology-enhanced or technology-based education, among them placing unrealistic hopes on technology, which leads to weakening a student’s and teacher’s effort and eventually takes the teachers out of the equation. This in turn makes the outcomes of online learning overly dependent on the LMS platform, washing away human interaction and communication by industrializing and formalizing learning.

Christensen and Eyring (2011) , who wrote about disruptive innovations that force universities to change, predict that teaching in the future will be disruptable as technology improves and shifts the competitive focus from a teacher’s credentials or an institution’s prestige to what students actually learn. Their observations support the findings of other studies that indicate learning occurs best when it involves a blend of online and face-to-face learning, with the latter providing essential intangibles best obtained on a traditional college campus. From this statement, one can extrapolate that technology alone cannot ensure productive and enriched learning and, especially, personal and social development as students still need a human element in a technology-enhanced environment. Additionally, when planning to apply a new technology to education, we have to consider its potential pedagogic and psychological effects. Finally, we need a solid, innovative, theoretical foundation for online learning. This foundation would help teachers do a better job in both classroom and online environments than simply integrating computers and other gadgets into learning. It would help enrich students’ otherwise almost entirely independent online experiences using only LMS navigation as a GPS in the world of knowledge with inspiring interaction with a live instructor, peers, and real life.

As technology-based education is unquestionably going to grow, we need to make it pedagogically, psychologically, and socially meaningful and effective. At the same time, we want to minimize its negative short- and long-term consequences, which reaffirms the need for a comprehensive theory of technology-based education and serious research.

Online learning concerns

Demand for online learning is largely driven by working adult students (WALs) willing to have broad access to education and, at the same time, to accommodate learning to their busy lives, rather than by its effectiveness as a cognitive tool, which is determined by its most attractive feature – convenience ( Christensen and Eyring, 2011 ; Song et al. , 2004 ). In studies of student satisfaction, students commonly rate their online experiences as satisfactory, with convenience being the most cited reason ( Cole et al. , 2014 ). We observe students’ preference for convenience as a consumer strategy, and regrettably, not only in online higher education but across the whole educational system ( Kerby et al. , 2014 ). Convenience, along with comfort, helps reduce workload and complexity of learning, as well as the strain of face-to-face interaction with the class and instructor. It produces a sense of privacy and self-satisfaction. It also generates a false perception that online learning is easier than learning in the classroom ( Aaron, 2007 ; Westra, 2016 ), and often leads to online cheating ( Spalding, 2012 ). The convenience, like the happiness factor, however, means a less demanding and less rigorous school experience ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 137). Convenience can be a blessing for creative people, liberating them from the need to waste time and energy on trifles; however, it may also develop self-gratification and laziness instead of struggling with obstacles and doing the hard job of digging in the knowledge mine.

So, accessibility and, especially, convenience, enhanced by flexibility of the study schedule and comfortable learning environment of one’s office or bedroom are evidently the key factors of its popularity among students. The motto of online education, “Any time, any place, any pace” is extremely seductive. Yet, despite a number of studies showing that online learning is on a par with traditional, campus-based learning ( Ni, 2013 ; Wrenn, 2016 ), it is going to take more time and effort to really make online learning deliver outcomes comparable to the traditional classroom-based, face-to-face education. Mattan Griffel, Founder of “One Month,” an online education startup, rethinks online education in the aftermath of the MOOC explosion writing, “[Online education] has kind of overstepped its current effectiveness, and everyone is saying what is possible by painting this picture, but the tools haven’t reached that point yet” ( Crichton, 2015 ). We know very well online education suffers from restricted interaction among students and with the instructor, is deficient of live collaboration, and lacks opportunities for relationships that take form in a study group. These collective relationships are crucial for individual success. Productive online learning also depends on well-developed learning, technology, critical thinking, research, and even reading and writing skills, as well as strong intrinsic motivation, perseverance, and self-efficacy, which many students do not possess. Finally, substituting real-life objects and processes with virtual reality is not helpful in developing practical skills, which makes real-world laboratory and experimental work less effective in virtual online environments.

Still, the question remains whether online education has helped improve teaching and learning. With the popularity of online education and enormous investment, do online college programs now prepare better specialists? Have we achieved the result we had expected, besides widening access to education for working adult learners, formerly marginalized groups, such as disabled students and minorities, and people geographically separated from the learning centers, thus reaching multi-million enrollment in online programs by 2016 and making sure that students enjoy convenience in their studies?

Innovative technology may bring performance enhancement in some ways but does not necessarily produce a direct benefit to education expressed by increased learning productivity. Are the secondary benefits, like convenience or fun with technology, worthy of heavy investment? What, then, is needed to raise the quality of education? The real question here is, as always, do we control technology, or do we let ourselves be controlled by it and those who have created it? “Choose the former,” writes an innovative author Douglas Rushkoff, “and you gain access to the control panel of civilization. Choose the latter, and it could be the last real choice you get to make” ( Rushkoff, 2010 ). The raw powers of technology should be harnessed by sound pedagogy.

Pedagogy of online education is just being developed, after two decades of titanic effort ( Serdyukov, 2015a ). Online learning is a big business ( Stokes, 2012 ), which should be turned into a serious academic endeavor. When improving online learning, we should not narrow our innovative focus down to only technical solutions in all educational issues. We need to develop a broader look at all aspects of teaching and learning rather than trying to resolve problems and overcome barriers with technology alone.

Barriers to innovation

There are reasons for the discrepancy between the drive for educational innovation that we observe in some areas, great educational innovations of recent times, and the daily reality of the education system.

First of all, if we look at the education holistically, as a complete system in charge of sustaining the nation’s need for educating society members and building their knowledge and expertise throughout their active lifetime, we have to acknowledge that all educational levels are interrelated and interdependent. Moreover, education being a system itself is a component of a larger social supersystem, to which it links in many intricate and complicated ways. As a social institution, education reflects all the values, laws, principles, and traditions of the society to which it belongs. Therefore, we need to regard education as a vital, complete, social entity and address its problems, taking into account these relations and dependencies both within the educational system and society.

In turn, if the society supports innovations in education, then its educational system will continuously and effectively evolve and progress. If it does not, education will stagnate and produce mediocre outcomes. An example of negative socio-cultural impact on education is mercantilism, which is destroying the ultimate purpose of education, and consumerism which is degrading institutions of higher education ( Feeman and Thomas, 2005 ; Ng and Forbes, 2009 ; Abeyta, 2013 ). Other harmful social and cultural trends exert a powerful influence. These include monetization of education, entitlement, instant gratification, and egotism, which destroy education in general and the development of creativity and innovative spirit of students in particular ( Kerby et al. , 2014 ). Such grave societal issues must be dealt with forcefully.

Second, it is well known that higher education has been historically slow to adopt innovations for various reasons ( Hoffman and Holzhuter, 2012 ; Marcus, 2012 ; Evans, 1970 ). Because it is complex (due to cohesion and contuinuity of science) and labor intensive, higher education is particularly difficult to make more productive ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 ). Secondary school is even more conservative than universities because they cater more and more to students’ well-being and safety than to their preparation for real life and work ( Gibbons and Silva, 2011 ). Both secondary and higher education function as two separate and rather closed systems in their own rights. They are not only loosely connected to the wider world but also suffer from a wide disconnect between high school output measured in graduate learning outcomes and college entrance student expectations. It seems that “[…] the systems and values of industrial education were not designed with innovation and digital tools in mind. Innovation, whether it is with technology, assessment or instruction, requires time and space for experimentation and a high tolerance for uncertainty. Disruption of established patterns is the modus operandi of innovation. We like the fruits of innovation, but few of us have the mettle to run the gauntlet of innovation” ( Levasseur, 2012 ). It is paramount, nonetheless, to accept that “innovation is linked to creativity, risk taking, and experimentation” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15), which must be a part of the education system.

Innovation is difficult to spread across school and academia because it disrupts the established routine and pushes implementers out of their comfort zone. Terry Heick writes that “[…] many K-12 schools give lip-service to the concept of innovation in mission statements, on websites, in PDs (professional development), and during committee, council, and board meetings, but lose their nerve when it’s time to make it happen. Supporting something seen as secondary (innovation) in the face of pressure, far-reaching programs, external standards ranging from Common Core to Literacy, Technology, and Career Readiness becomes a matter of priority and job security. While education begs for innovation, arguments against it often turn to tempting, straw man attacks” ( Heick, 2016 ). In many instances, innovation in educational institutions does not take priority over pressing routine issues – really, abiding by the state standards is more urgent.

Teachers and school administrators are commonly cautious about a threatening change and have little tolerance for the uncertainty that any major innovation causes. Of course there are schools and even districts that are unafraid to innovate and experiment but their success depends on individual leaders and communities of educators who are able to create an innovative professional culture. Pockets of innovation give hope but we need a total, massive support for innovations across society.

Third, one of the reasons for the slow pace of improvements in education is a sharp conflict between society’s welfare and political and business interests, as vividly illustrated when the NCLB took US education on the path of rigid accountability. It was used by standardized testing companies to reap huge profits (or, may be, vice versa, these companies influenced NCBL). The trend stifled true education and produced unsatisfactory learning outcomes that changed the nature of teaching, narrowing the curriculum and limiting student learning. ( National Council of Teachers of English, 2014 ; The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 2012 ).

Fourth, even when an innovation comes to life, it is of little worth without implementation (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). Innovation is not about talking the talk but walking the walk. Moreover, an innovation can make a significant difference only when it is used on a wide scale. To create innovations is not enough, they need to be spread and used across schools and universities, a more difficult task. For the innovation to make a sizable effect, we need an army of implementers together with favorable conditions for the invention to spread and produce a result. Implementers in turn have to be creative and motivated to do their job; they must also have freedom to innovate in the implementation, security on the job to take risks, and control of what they are doing. Ultimately, they need be trusted (as are teachers in Finland) to do their job right. In short, there must be an “innovation-receiving system” ( Evans, 1970 ), or a “change zone” ( Polka and Kardash, 2013 ). Is this where one of the main problems of innovating lies?

A growing trend in higher education is a market approach wherein the main goal is set for “meeting the demands of the student population that is learning – a life-long population of learners” ( Afshar, 2016 ). Universities today are busy innovating how to increase students’ satisfaction and create “exceptional,” “premier,” or “extraordinary” learning experiences rather than caring about their true knowledge and quality achievements. This is clearly an extension of the adaptive or differentiated approach to teaching and learning, thereby leading to customization of education ( Schuwer and Kusters, 2014 ). But this view raises a question: are students’ demands and satisfaction the proper indicators of quality learning? When we began to be more concerned about how students feel in the classroom, what bothers them, and how best to accommodate them to make their learning experiences superior and anxiety-free, we began to set aside the quality outcomes of the learning process.

Every cloud has a silver lining, fortunately. When market approach is applied to higher education, as it is in the current national and global competitive environment, the contest for enrollments increases and forces colleges to decrease attrition in all ways possible. This requires innovative approaches. The institutions that depend on enrollment for their revenue appear more willing to innovate than traditional, public universities that enjoy government support. “Hence, innovation is likely to vary by several characteristics, including type of institution, institution size, market niche, and resources” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 22). Clearly, private institutions are more adept at innovating than public ones. The market is a powerful factor, however, the changes it may bring have to be tackled cautiously.

The hurdles to technology integration are described by Peggy Ertmer (1999) as external (first-order) and internal (second-order) barriers. The first-order barriers are purely operational (technological), while the second-order barriers are applicational (pedagogical). The difference in approaches to applying technology to teaching and learning (overcoming technological vs pedagogical barriers) might explain why huge investments in ET have brought little if any effect to the quality of learning outcomes.

Last but not least, innovations grow in a favorable environment, which is cultivated by an educational system that promotes innovation at all levels and produces creative, critical thinking, self-sufficient, life-long learners, problem solvers, and workers. This system enjoys a stimulating research climate, encourages uplifting cultural attitudes toward education, and rallies massive societal support.

The ultimate question is, what innovations do we really need, and what innovations might we not need?

standardization of curriculum enforced by frequent external tests;

narrowing of the curriculum to basic skills in reading and mathematics;

reduced use of innovative teaching strategies;

adoption of educational ideas from external sources, rather than development of local internal capacity for innovation and problem-solving; and

adoption of high-stakes accountability policies, featuring rewards and sanctions for students, teachers, and schools ( Sahlberg, 2010 , p. 10).

Instead, the Finns went their own, the Finnish Way, so profoundly described by Pasi Sahlberg in his bestselling book ( Sahlberg, 2011 ). So would it be innovative not to adopt some reforms? A big question now arises, what is then the American way to build innovative education? And what would be the global way?

What to do? Possible solutions

To create innovations, we need innovators, and many of them. But though innovation is often a spark originated in the mind of a bright person, it needs an environment that can nourish the fire. This environment is formed and fed by educational institutions, societal culture, and advanced economy. Csikszentmihalyi underlines the importance of creating a stimulating macroenvironment, which integrates the social, cultural, and institutional context, and also microenvironment, the immediate setting in which a person works. “Successful environment […] provide(s) freedom of action and stimulation of ideas, coupled with a respectful and nurturant attitude toward potential geniuses” (2013, p. 140). Control over such an environment, he reasons, is in the educators’ hands.

Then, when the invention is created, it must fall into a fertile ground like a seed and be cultivated to grow and bring fruit. Csikszentmihalyi writes, “Creative ideas vanish unless there is a receptive audience to record and implement them […]. Edison’s or Einstein’s discoveries would be inconceivable without the prior knowledge, without the intellectual and social network that stimulated their thinking and without the social mechanisms that recognized and spread their innovations (2013, p. 6)”. The audience is not only the educators but also students, parents, policy makers, and all other members of society who act either as implementers or consumers of the innovation.

Coherent systemic support is essential for growing innovations. As the ITL Research project states, “Important school-level supports tend to be present in schools with higher concentrations of innovative teaching. Based on survey data, in schools where teachers reported higher average levels of innovative teaching practices, they also tended to report […] a professional culture aligned to support innovation, reflection, and meaningful discourse about new teaching practices” ( UNESCO, 2013 ). The OECD report on teaching practices and pedagogical innovation also argues that “Teaching practices […] are factors affecting student learning that are more readily modifiable. Moreover, additional professional practices have received attention, especially those that help transform the school into a professional learning community” ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 3).

Technology integration in education can be successful only when the human element is taken into consideration. This then integrates innovators, implementers, educational leadership, professional community and, certainly, the learners. Walter Polka and Joseph Kardash argue that the effectiveness of a computer innovation project they developed “[…] was facilitated by the school district leadership because of their focus on the ‘human side’ of change” ( Polka and Kardash, 2013 , p. 324). They found correlation between the implementation process employed in the district and the concepts associated with the three general need categories of innovation implementers: organizational needs, professional needs, and personal needs, which contributed to the innovation’s success. Long-lasting changes require “[…] a mixture of cultural and institutional changes, commitment from those within the program, and active and engaged leadership,” writes Leticia De Leόn, addressing technological innovations in higher education ( De Leόn, 2013 , p. 347).

When we try to innovate education, we often leave students out of the equation. We do not innovate in students’ learning, their mind, attitudes, behaviors, character, metacognition, and work ethics enough. Yet, we try everything we can to improve teaching (delivery), while what we actually need is to improve learning. In education, nothing works if the students do not. According to the famous Bulgarian scholar Georgi Lozanov (1988) , learning is a matter of attitude, not aptitude. This is where the greatest potential for improving education lies. As a renowned cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham writes, “[…] education makes better minds, and knowledge of the mind can make better education” ( Willingham, 2010 , p. 165). The most important goal, thus, should be not so much to learn STEM but to cultivate innovative people in K-12, grow their autonomy, self-efficiency, and foster an entrepreneurial mindset or “a critical mix of success-oriented attitudes of initiative, intelligent risk taking, collaboration and opportunity recognition” ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 5). To help develop new survival skills, effective communication and critical thinking skills, and nurture curious, creative, critical thinking, independent and self-directed entrepreneurs, we must disrupt the ways of our school system and the ways our teachers are prepared. It may be worthwhile to extend the commonly used term “career readiness” to “life readiness.”

Research of exemplary educational systems across the world vividly demonstrates that teacher quality is the fundamental element of educational success: “It is especially teachers who shape students’ learning environments and help them reach their intellectual potential”: ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 113). Teacher education and professional development are definitely one of the primary areas that call for innovative approaches: teachers must be taught to teach well ( Marcus, 2012 ). The “how” of the teaching (instructional methodology) is as important as the “what” (content) ( Morais et al. , 2004 ). A great resource for effective education is the instructional design and methodology used by teachers, as shown by the ITL Research project: “Across countries and classrooms, the characteristics of assigned classroom activities strongly predicted the 21st century skills that students exhibited in their work. Students are much more likely to learn to solve real-world problems and collaborate productively with their peers, for example, if their learning activities are carefully designed to offer opportunities for them to do these things. This finding suggests that professional development for innovative teaching might begin with lesson design” ( UNESCO, 2013 ).

Teacher social status is one of the determining factors of the teacher quality. Teachers’ status in the most advanced countries like Finland, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan is very high. It reflects the quality of teaching and learning and also the level of pedagogic innovations. In our drive to enhance educational innovation, empowering school teachers and college instructors may be the most important task. Mattan Griffel writes, “We need to change the role of teachers. What kind of people do we consider teachers? How do we elevate teachers in society?” ( Crichton, 2015 ). He believes we have to make them “rock stars” and bring new perspectives into the profession.

Eventually, the most recognized pathway to education innovation, writes Shelton, is “[…] basic and applied research […] with more and better leveraged resources, more focus, and more discipline, this pathway can accelerate our understanding of teaching and learning and production of performance enhancing practices and tools” ( Shelton, 2011 ). Research focusing on raising productivity and efficiency and improving the quality of learning has to increase in all critical areas of education. One crucial indicator of educational effectiveness is measuring the quality of learning that remains imperfect. “The lack of good measures has severely limited the degree to which market forces can discipline the provision of educational quality” ( Massy, 2012 ). Developing clear and effective measures of educational quality is an important venue for future innovative research.

Societal support for innovative education and building up a new culture of educational preeminence both inside the education system and around it is paramount for its success. Brunner (1996) suggests viewing education in a broader context of what society intends to accomplish through its educational investment in the young. The best way to achieve superior education is to shape a new educational culture. As Pasi Sahlberg explains, “We are creating a new culture of education, and there is no way back” (Sahlberg, 2011, p. 2).

Innovation can be presented as a model in the context of its effects on the quality of teaching and learning within an educational environment, which is permeated by professional and societal cultures ( Figure 1 ).

Americans’ love affair with the car extends to computers, iPhones, and the internet. Therefore, innovations in education focus primarily on technology and technology applications. Technocentrists want to see education more automated, more technology-enhanced, and more technology-controlled in the hope of making education more effective. The way of doing so would be through more sophisticated LMS’s, automated analytics, customization, or individualization of learning and developing the student as an avid consumer of digital information. While we realize there is no stopping the technological revolution, we educators must do all we can to preserve the primary mission of education, which is reflected in a humanistic approach that caters to the whole person wherein efforts are made to develop a free, independent, critical thinking, active, and effective thinker, doer, citizen, and worker. Educational innovations embrace both views, interacting and enriching each other for society’s common good.

Globalization in education

Along with developing our own innovations and creating a broad base for implementation, it might be useful to look outside the box. As the world becomes more and more globalized, national education systems are shedding their uniqueness and gaining a more universal, homogeneous look (e.g. the Bologna process, which has brought 50 national higher education systems to a common denominator in Europe and beyond) ( Bologna process, 2016 ). Scholars indicate there is “[…] the need for US universities to keep up with the rest of the world in today’s highly competitive educational marketplace” ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 1). It is also economically and culturally beneficial to learn from each other in the spirit of global cooperation and share one’s achievements with others. While in the context of globalization it may be convenient to have a common education system across the world, however, to satisfy the needs and expectations of the nation-state it is necessary to continue innovating within one’s own system. The rich international educational palette offers unique solutions to many issues facing US schools and universities.

What attractive innovative approaches exist in the world that could be applied to the US education system? To mention just a few, the Confucian culture of appreciating education in China, Japan, South Korea, and other South-East Asian nations which brings students’ and parents’ positive and respectful societal attitudes toward education and educators; cultural transformation in education and quality teacher preparation in Finland, Singapore, and Shanghai; organizational innovations in schools of Ontario, Canada. In Finland, a new ecosystem for learning was created ( Niemi et al. , 2014 ). Singapore, for one, has become one of the top-scoring countries on the PISA tests by cultivating strong school leadership, committing to ongoing professional development, and exploring innovative models, like its tech-infused Future Schools ( EDUTOPIA, 2012b ). In Shanghai, China, every low-performing school is assigned a team of master teachers and administrators to provide weekly guidance and mentorship on everything from lesson plans to school culture ( EDITOPIA, 2012a ). The list of international innovations to cogitate is, fortunately, extensive. Is this what our educational innovators could do something about?

Daniel Willingham demonstrates a very interesting angle in international education that substantially differs from ours: “In China, Japan and other Eastern countries, intelligence is more often viewed as malleable. If students fail a test or don’t understand a concept, it’s not that they are stupid – they just haven’t worked hard enough yet. This attribution is helpful to students because it tells them that intelligence is under their control. If they are performing poorly, they can do something about it […] Children do differ in intelligence, but intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work” ( Willingham, 2010 , p. 131).

There are numerous exciting foreign examples for the US educators to learn from and innovate, implementing and adapting them to US schools.

Many US educators certainly learn from advanced nations’ educational experiences ( Darling-Hammond, 2010 ; Stewart, 2012 ), but these innovations find a hard way into the school system. A right step in this direction is to integrate global education ideas into teacher preparation programs. A worthy case of opening up a wide world of global education to US teachers and developing outside-the-box thinking is a new specialization in the Master of Arts in Teaching program, “U.S. Education in Global Context” which has been offered at National University since 2014. The principal focus of this specialization is on advanced, innovative, and effective international approaches, ideas, and strategies in teaching and learning that address the needs of the nation and create contemporary school environments to accommodate diverse student populations. Specialization’s goals and objectives are designed to help students develop the knowledge, competencies, skills, and dispositions required of a globally competent citizen and world-class educator. Focusing on the universal need for continuous improvement in teaching and learning, this specialization provides students with a balance of philosophy and theory, practice and application through collaborative research projects and field-based activities. The ultimate outcome of the four-course specialization is an innovative, practical implementation project to apply in the candidates’ schools.

The Finns, Singaporeans, South Koreans, Hong Kongers, and citizens of other nations consider education the best way to improve their country’s economy, and it has worked. An even more remarkable consequence has been a change to their national cultures. This provides a worthy example for other nations, including ours. To sum up, we need to create favorable conditions for growing our own innovations, while taking advantage of the best international theories and practices.

Learning faster, learning better, and at a lower cost?

You don’t have the time, you make the time (Thorin Klosowski).

Among many points for educational innovations time definitely deserves close attention. Time is a significant factor in education. Attempts to save time on learning and raise its productivity are well known to each of us. To increase learning efficiency using so-called accelerated and intensive approaches is a promising path for innovation. These two approaches demonstrate the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary disruptive approaches.

Innovation, as we know, can be called to life by social, political, or professional factors but the strongest is definitely economic. A flat world ( Friedman, 2005 ) means global competition, faster production cycles, and more to keep up with. Time is speeding up. Requirements for workers are rapidly mounting in industry and business due to swiftly changing technologies and fierce international competition. It is impractical to spend a third of one’s active lifetime attending secondary school and college learning in advance what may not be useful on the job in the next 10 to 15 years because manufacturing, technology, and business will completely change.

Additionally, the cost of a college education is rising faster than inflation, though the outcomes are disproportionate to this rise: “[…] tuition has increased faster than inflation, without a comparable increase in the quality or results” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 13). If you ask students what worries them most, it is the cost of the next course and its value for their future job. Education has become more expensive and less affordable for many people. This also creates a heavy burden on the state’s budget. Therefore, educators need to find ways to make education more time and cost efficient ( Hjeltnes and Hansson, 2005 ).

We can identify two possible roads to take. The first is to increase revenue, and this is what the majority of colleges and universities are doing. Raising tuition, however, has its limits; government support is drying out. Cutting costs, on the other hand, may undermine some essential aspects of higher education. The second road is to increase learning productivity defined as the output (learning outcomes measured in certain units) per dollar or per time unit (academic year, semester, month, week, day, or hour). The former can be used to compute cost efficiency, while the latter will help to define time efficiency. Time efficiency and cost efficiency of education are evidently interrelated. The most obvious source of enhancing educational productivity is integration of ICT; however, there are other ways.

Time is the most precious of commodities, especially for WALs. Our own survey of National University students who take accelerated programs, which allow them to graduate sooner than in conventional programs, shows that time is paramount when selecting their learning program ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ). When asked what is more important for them, the cost of the program or the time spent learning, 88 percent of surveyed WALs stated that time was more important, and they were willing to pay more for a shorter program of the same quality. So accelerated programs are often more competitive than the conventional extended ones. Serdyukov and Serdyukova (2012) posit that time efficiency of the learning process is a decisive factor in assessing a program or a course. In their opinion, colleges and universities, which are now evaluated based upon the quality of their education, will soon be selected and valued based on the time needed for the learning to take place.

In the same way, programs that cost less will be more competitive than those that cost more. With education budgets decreasing and numbers of learners taking part in education increasing, time and cost efficiency will play an increasing role in determining a program’s, and thus an institution’s, value.

When considering time investment, instructional activities are basically concerned with either learning more in the same time (i.e. growth in learning outcomes without increasing learning time) or learning the same amount of information in less time (decreasing learning time or compressing the course). As Serdyukov and Serdyukova (2006) write: “Can we, the educators, teach more effectively; can students learn more, better and in less time?” (p. 255). The answer to this question can have profound social, economic and personal significance as it may affect a learner’s career and lifestyle, societal attitude toward education, the rate of investment in education, and eventually the nation’s well-being ( Barbera et al. , 2015 ).

Consideration of time investment in learning coupled with recent innovations in cognitive psychology and ET is what brought to life accelerated and intensive programs. Various approaches and methodologies for providing faster and shorter education without compromising academic quality have been described in the literature ( Scott and Conrad, 1992 ; Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ; Bowling et al. , 2002 ; Serdyukov, 2008 ). They are grounded in the newest brain research in the cognitive and emotional potential of learners ( Lozanov, 1978, 1988 ; Kitaigorodskaya, 1995 ), innovative approaches to teaching and learning that use nontraditional organizational forms, techniques and processes ( Boyes et al. , 2004 ; Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ), ET applications, and even fancy programs of learning during sleep ( Ostrander and Schroeder, 2000 ). The most popular approaches are accelerated learning (AL) programs, which use a compressed, short-term course format, and intensive learning (IL) programs, which employ specially organized course structure, visuals, music, and suggestive techniques to open up students’ intellectual and sensitive capacities, thereby contributing to more effective learning.

Accelerated and intensive programs can significantly shorten the duration of the learning measured in class hours, days, weeks, or semesters. In some cases, they can also increase learning outcomes measured in the volume of knowledge constructed or skill sets learned in a given time. ( Serdyukov, 2008 ).

A conventional semester model of college education may not suit a new generation of WALs who take school part-time and need to speed up learning to obtain employable competencies and skills. The AL model delivers a semester program in a shorter period of time than the conventional program model but with the comparable results. National University, for example, offers undergraduate and graduate-level programs using a nontraditional, accelerated 1×1 model of instruction (one month long, one course at a time) for adult learners ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ). Onsite classes usually meet two evening sessions per week for four-and-a-half hour each; in some cases, there are two additional Saturday morning sessions of the same duration. Thus, each course runs for eight evenings with one Saturday morning final session for graduate programs (totaling 40.5 hours) or two Saturday sessions for undergraduate programs (totaling 45 hours). Similar models are used by such schools as Cornell College, Colorado College, DeVry University, Northeast University, Grand Canyon University, Tusculum University, and Colorado State University Global.

Online courses also run for four weeks but instead of face-to-face classroom sessions students participate in threaded discussions (one or two per week), view live videoconferencing sessions (one per week), carry out weekly written assignments, develop projects, and in some courses complete mandatory field activities (e.g. teacher preparation programs require school visits for observing and teaching lessons).

The sequential approach when students take one course after another allows for more accumulated and integrated learning experiences. Besides, according to the student survey ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ), this 1×1 format helps to unshackle students’ minds and focus their attention and energy on a single subject. It can also make it easier to adapt to the same teaching/learning style in this instructional model. The advantages observed for the sequential model appear to occur because the more intense, consecutive instruction reduces the number of distractions in the students’ lives, thus allowing for more focused attention and ultimately creating a more effective learning environment. Csikszentmihalyi’s (1982) research suggests that “deep concentration,” “immersion” in an activity, and “undivided intentionality” lead to increasingly rewarding “optimal experiences” which nourish and strengthen the self. He also comments that “optimal experience stands out against this background of humdrum everyday life by excluding the noise that interferes with it in normal existence” (p. 22). This becomes evident when we consider the working adult’s hectic life and complicated everyday experiences. Scott and Conrad (1992) state that “concentrated study may cultivate skills and understandings which will remain untapped and undeveloped under the traditional system” (p. 417). Therefore, learning only one content area at a time has become one of the crucial factors of AL.

The intensive approach, a superior level of AL, has been used in many countries primarily for foreign language education, probably the most time-consuming didactic endeavor. One indicator of how efficiently a student has learned a foreign language is the number of words learned, retained, and correctly used in communication, both in oral and written speech (reading and writing). According to research ( Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2007 ), a person needs to know and be able to use two to three thousand words in a foreign language for basic communication. These so-called communicative skills can be assessed by the ability of the learner to accomplish a communication task in certain communicative situations. Duration of the study course at this level in a conventional institution can reach 200-300 hours. At a rate of two hours a week, the course duration may extend to 100 or more weeks (two years).

When an innovative, intensive instructional methodology, such as suggestopedia ( Lozanov, 1978 ; Kitaigorodskaya, 1995 ; Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ), is used to teach a foreign language, the learning efficiency significantly rises, and the course duration with the same outcomes can be reduced by approximately 50 percent, as compared to a conventional college course. For instance, an initial intensive course can take up to 100 to 150 hours. The course is usually taught with higher frequency and longer lessons (usually four to five hours, two to three or more times a week). Thus, a complete course of study may be completed only in ten weeks (2.5 months). So time efficiency ( Et ) of an intensive foreign language course in the number of hours ( t ) is of the order of 2 (200 hours of a conventional course ( c ) divided by 100 hours of an intensive course ( i )): E t = t c t i ;

Time efficiency of the same intensive course in the number of weeks is of the order of 10: duration of a conventional course ( dc ) (100 weeks) divided by the duration of an intensive course ( di ) (ten weeks): E t = d c d i .

This is a case of disruptive, revolutionary innovation that produces a radical transformation in foreign language learning where learners achieve course goals and objectives in half the study hours and one-tenth of a typical course duration. This approach, which was extremely popular in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Soviet Union) in the 1980s and 1990s, was to a larger extent inspired by the rise of the Iron Curtain and prospective emigration to the west. Some variations or similar approaches emerged later in Germany, England, Japan, and the USA ( Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ). Why it was not recognized and did not spread throughout US schools and colleges may be partially due to a lack of need (English is spoken worldwide). In addition, it is labor intensive and demands high-level teacher qualifications (special preparation, dedication, excellent dispositions, inventiveness, and very hard work in the class). In addition, it must be taught in specially designed and equipped classrooms. Finally, it depends on students’ elevated intrinsic motivation, work ethic, trust and respect for the teacher, and perseverance, though for a limited time.

Both accelerated and intensive short-term courses demand highly efficient planning, organization, and management of the instructional process. Furthermore, to ensure efficient course delivery, innovative methods and technologies are required for effective presentation, processing, skill development, and real-life applications. Many accomplishments in AL and IL methodologies, incidentally, can be used to teach other than foreign language programs.

learner-centered approach;

specific structure and organization of the course and its content for consistent, “whole” student experience;

effective content presentation in various formats and modalities;

immediate application of new knowledge in authentic situations in the class and real life, and gaining practical outcomes of the course;

iterative process of knowledge construction and skill development ( Serdyukov and Ryan, 2008 );

situated learning ( Lave and Wenger, 1991 ) that uses real-life situations as the basis of learning activities and, especially, in developing professional competence;

continuous active communication, collaboration, and cooperation among students in various small- and big-group activities;

high level of intrinsic motivation developed and constantly supported through emotional involvement of each student in team work and learning process;

instructor’s suggestive, supportive, and efficient teaching style incorporating incessant involvement with the class; immediate, objective, and stimulating feedback; continuous student support;

systemic use of ET in classroom and homework both for content acquisition and skill development, for communication and collaboration, and for maintaining students’ high level of cognitive, physical, and emotional state;

application of suggestive techniques, such as relaxation, ritual structure of classroom activities, positive environment, emotional involvement, and music; and

combination of intensive work and total relaxation.

This approach is rooted in consistent, systemic application of all these principles.

The formula for IL is as follows: The more organized and efficient the instructional system, the more focused the student, the more effort is produced, the better the effect of learning, the faster the rate of learning, and the shorter the process duration ( Serdyukov and Serdyukova, 2006 ). This is why all accelerated and intensive courses are always short (two weeks to 1-2 months long). If no significant effort is applied to learning, then there is no effect, no increase in productivity, and consequently, no opportunity to shorten the duration of the course.

So, accelerated programs that speed up learning by compressing the course duration, while requiring the same number of hours for the same learning outcomes, are an evolutionary innovation. Intensive programs that provide better outcomes in a considerably shorter time are a revolutionary innovation. We can state now that when an innovation ensures significantly better outcomes and saves on cost or time by at least an order of 2 (100 percent) or more, we can call it a revolutionary innovation.

Measuring time in learning can be instrumental for increasing its productivity. Learning to manage time productively is especially acute for independent learners and online students for whom effective time management is a well-known issue. Therefore, teachers need be taught to use time effectively. In teacher preparation programs, for instance, we recommend that teachers use time estimates when planning lessons ( Serdyukov and Ryan, 2008 ; FEA, 2016 ). Thus, making learning more time and cost efficient offers a promising venue for further innovations.

US education desperately needs effective innovations of scale that can help produce high quality learning outcomes across the system and for all students. We can start by intensifying our integration of successful international learning models and creating conditions in our schools and colleges that foster and support innovators and educational entrepreneurs, or edupreneurs ( Tait and Faulkner, 2016 ). Moreover, these transformations should be varied, yet systematic, targeting different vital aspects of education. Deep, multifaceted, and comprehensive innovations, both tangible and intangible, have the capacity to quickly generate scalable effects.

Radically improving the efficiency and quality of teaching and learning theory and practice, as well as the roles of the learner, teacher, parents, community, society, and society’s culture should be the primary focus of these changes. Other promising approaches should seek to improve students’ work ethic and attitudes toward learning, their development of various learning skills, as well as making learning more productive. We also have to bring all grades, from preschool to higher and postgraduate levels, into one cohesive system.

As the price of education, especially at colleges and universities, continues to rise, cost and time efficiency of learning, effective instructional approaches, and methods and tools capable of fulfilling the primary mission of education all will become critical areas of research and inventive solutions. Colleges and universities must concentrate on expanding the value of education, maximizing the productivity of learning, correlating investments with projected outcomes, and improving cost and time efficiency.

Whatever technologies we devise for education, however much technology we integrate into learning, the human element, particularly the learner and teacher, remains problematic. So, while taking advantage of effective educational technologies, we must situate those modern tools within a wider context of human education in order to preserve its humanistic, developmental purpose and, thus, make more effective use of them.

Computers for schools are ready, but are we ready? Our understanding of how students learn and how teachers teach and craft their methodology in technology-based environments remains lacking. Questions to ask are whether current methods help increase learning productivity, and as a result, time and cost efficiency. All technology applications require a solid theoretical foundation based on purposeful, systemic research and sound pedagogy to increase efficiency and decrease possible side issues. When integrating novel technologies in teaching and learning, we must first consider their potential applicability, anticipated costs and benefits, and then develop successful educational practices.

Therefore, the key to a prosperous, inventive society is a multidimensional approach to revitalizing the educational system (structures, tools, and stake holders) so that it breeds learners’ autonomy, self-efficacy, critical thinking, creativity, and advances a common culture that supports innovative education. In order to succeed, innovative education must become a collective matter for all society for which we must generate universal public responsibility. Otherwise, all our efforts to build an effective educational system will fail.

Model of educational innovation

Aaron , S. ( 2007 ), “ An insider’s look at online learning ”, Teaching Community , available at: http://teaching.monster.com/education/articles/1599-an-insiders-look-at-online-learning?print=true (accessed September 3, 2016 ).

Abeyta , E. ( 2013 ), “ Lifelong customers: the response to student consumerism ”, The Evolllution , available at: http://evolllution.com/opinions/lifelong-customers-response-student-consumerism/ (accessed September 10, 2016 ).

Accuosti , J. ( 2014 ), “ Factors affecting education technology success ”, ASEE 2014 Zone I Conference , April 3-5 , available at: www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2014/ Student/PDFs/112.pdf

Afshar , V. ( 2016 ), “ Disrupting higher education ”, a blog, The Huffington Post , August 5,available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/vala-afshar/disrupting-higher-educati_b_11341146.html?

Baer , L. and McCormick , J. ( 2012 ), “ Building the capacity for change through innovation ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman&Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 165 - 181 .

Barbera , E. , Gros , B. and Kirschner , P. ( 2015 ), “ Paradox of time in research on educational technology ”, Time & Society 2015 , Vol. 24 No. 1 , pp. 96 - 108 , available at: http://tas.sagepub.com/content/24/1/96.refs (accessed August 13, 2016 ).

Bok , D. ( 2007 ), Our Underachieving Colleges , Princeton University Press , Princeton, NJ , p. 6 .

Bologna Process ( 2016 ), “ European higher education area and Bologna process ”, available at: www.ehea.info/ (accessed May 28, 2016 ).

Bowling , N. , Ries , K. and Ivanitskaya , L. ( 2002 ), “ How effective are compressed courses? ”, On Target , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 3 - 7 , available at: www.cel.cmich.edu/ontarget/aug02/ (accessed April 1, 2012 ).

Boyes , L. , Reid , I. , Brain , K. and Wilson , J. ( 2004 ), Accelerated Learning: A Literature Survey , Unit for Educational Research & Evaluation, University of Bradford , Bradford , available at: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/giftedandtalented/downloads/word/accellearnreport.doc (accessed April 1, 2006 ).

Brewer , D. and Tierney , W. ( 2012 ), “ Barriers to innovation in the US education ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 11 - 40 .

Brunner , J. ( 1996 ), The Culture of Education , Harvard University Press , Cambridge, MA .

Brynjolfsson , E. ( 1993 ), “ The productivity paradox of information technology: review and assessment ”, Communications of the ACM , Vol. 36 No. 12 , pp. 67 - 77 .

Business Dictionary ( 2016 ), “ Definition of the term ‘intangible asset’ ”, available at: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/intangible-asset.html (accessed November 11, 2016 ).

Camins , A. ( 2015 ), “ What’s the purpose of education in the 21st century? ”, Washington Post’ education blog, The Answer Sheet, February 12, available at: www.arthurcamins.com/?p=319 (accessed October 14, 2016 ).

Christensen , C. and Eyring , H. ( 2011 ), The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside out , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Christensen , C. and Overdorf , M. ( 2000 ), “ Meeting the challenge of disruptive change ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 2 No. 78 , pp. 47 - 76 .

Cole , M. , Shelley , D. and Swartz , L. ( 2014 ), “ Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: a three year study ”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , Vol. 13 No. 6 , available at: www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1748/3123 (accessed July 22, 2016 ).

Cornali , F. ( 2012 ), “ Effectiveness and efficiency of educational measures ”, Evaluation Practices, Indicators and Rhetoric , Vol. 2 No. 3 , pp. 255 - 260 , available at: www.SciRP.org/journal/sm

Creating Innovators ( 2012 ), “ America’s last competitive advantage ”, available at: http://creatinginnovators.com/ (accessed September 28, 2016 ).

Crichton , D. ( 2015 ), “ Searching for the next wave of education innovation ”, TechCrunch , available at: https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/27/education-next-wave/ (accessed September 23, 2016 ).

Csikszentmihalyi , M. ( 1982 ), “ Toward a psychology of optimal experiences ”, Review of Personality and Social Psychology , No. 3 , pp. 13 - 36 .

Csikszentmihalyi , M. ( 2013 ), Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention , Harperperennial , New York, NY .

Cuban , L. ( 2015 ), “ Larry Cuban on school reform and classroom practice: the lack of evidence-based practice: the case of classroom technology ”, available at: https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/the-lack-of-evidence-based-practice-the-case-of-classroom-technology-part-1/ (accessed August 29, 2016 ).

Darling-Hammond , L. ( 2010 ), The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity will Determine Our Future , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

De Leόn , L. ( 2013 ), “ Managing technological innovation and issues of licensing in higher education ”, in Ran , B. (Ed.), The Dark Side of Technological Innovation , Information Age Publishing , Charlotte, NC , pp. 347 - 371 .

Diamond , J. ( 2005 ), Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , Penguin Book , New York, NY .

EDITOPIA ( 2012a ), “ Shanghai ”, George Lucas Educational Foundation , available at: www.edutopia.org/education-everywhere-international-shanghai-china-video

EDUTOPIA ( 2012b ), “ Singapore ”, George Lucas Educational Foundation , available at: www.edutopia.org/education-everywhere-international-singapore-video

Ertmer , P. ( 1999 ), “ Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration ”, Educational Technology Research and Development , Vol. 47 No. 4 , pp. 47 - 61 , available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02299597

Evans , R. and Leppmann , P. ( 1970 ), Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education , Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc. , San Francisco, CA .

Extreme Learning ( 2012 ), available at: www.extreme-learning.org/ (accessed September 22, 2016 ).

FEA ( 2016 ), “ Time-on-task: a strategy that accelerates learning ”, FEAWeb, available at: https://feaweb.org/time-on-task-a-teaching-strategy-that-accelerates-learning (accessed August 9, 2016 ).

Feeman , I. and Thomas , M. ( 2005 ), “ Consumerism in education: a comparison between Canada and the United Kingdom ”, International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 153 - 177 , available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09513540510582444

Friedman , T. ( 2005 ), The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century , Farrar, Straus and Giroux , New York, NY .

Friedman , G. ( 2012 ), The Next Decade: Empire and Republic in a Changing World , Anchor Books , New York, NY .

Fullan , M. ( 2007 ), Leading in a Culture of Change , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Fullan , M. ( 2010 ), All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform , Corwin , Newbury Park, CA .

Gibbons , S. and Silva , O. ( 2011 ), “ School quality, child well-being and parents’ satisfaction ”, Economics of Education Review , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 312 - 331 .

Groom , J. and Lamb , B. ( 2014 ), “ Reclaiming innovation ”, EDUCAUSE Review , Vol. 49 No. 3 , available at: www.educause.edu/visuals/shared/er/extras/2014/ReclaimingInnovation/default.html

Hargreaves , A. ( 2003 ), Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

Hargreaves , A. and Shirley , D. ( 2009 ), The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future of Educational Change , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Hargreaves , A. , Lieberman , A. , Fullan , M. and Hopkins , D. (Eds) ( 2010 ), Second International Handbook of Educational Change , Springer , New York, NY .

Heick , T. ( 2016 ), “ 12 Barriers to innovation in education ”, TeachThought. available at: www.teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/disruption-innovation/12-barriers-innovation-education/ (accessed August 12, 2016 ).

Hjeltnes , T. and Hansson , B. ( 2005 ), “ Cost effectiveness and cost efficiency in e-learning ”, The TISIP Foundation, Trondheim, available at: www2.tisip.no/quis/public_files/wp7-cost-effectiveness-efficiency.pdf (accessed September 29, 2016 ).

Hoffman , A. and Holzhuter , J. ( 2012 ), “ The evolution of higher education: innovation as natural selection ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman & Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 3 - 15 .

Huffington Post ( 2012 ), “ College preparedness lacking, forcing students into developmental coursework, prompting some to drop out ”, Huffington Post , June 6, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2012/06/18/students-lacking-college-_n_1606201.html (accessed May 1, 2015 ).

Jaschik , S. ( 2015 ), “ Well-prepared in their own eyes ”, Inside Higher, available at: www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/20/study-finds-big-gaps-between-student-and-employer-perceptions (accessed August 25, 2016 ).

Jiang , L. ( 2015 ), “ Why education innovation is the most important thing you could pursue ”, Getting Smart, available at: http://gettingsmart.com/2015/04/why-education-innovation-is-the-most-important-thing-you-could-pursue/ (accessed July 18, 2016 ).

Kerby , M. , Branham , K. and Mallinger , G. ( 2014 ), “ Consumer-based higher education: the uncaring of learning ”, Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice , Vol. 14 No. 5 , pp. 42 - 54 , available at: www.na-businesspress.com/JHETP/KerbyMB_Web14_5_.pdf

Kitaigorodskaya , G. ( 1995 ), Intensive Foreign Language Teaching: History, Current Status and Future Trends , MGU , Moscow (in Russian) .

Lave , J. and Wenger , E. ( 1991 ), Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation , University of Cambridge Press , Cambridge .

Levasseur , A. ( 2012 ), “ Does our current education system support innovation? ”, MindShift, July 17, available at: ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/07/17/does-our-current-education-system-support-innovation/ (accessed September 21, 2016 ).

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English ( 2007 ), Longman Communication 3000 , Pearson Longman ELT , White Plains, NY .

Lozanov , G. ( 1978 ), Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy , Gordon and Breach Science Pub , New York, NY .

Lozanov , G. ( 1988 ), The Foreign Language Teacher’s Suggestopedic Manual , Routledge , London .

Marcus , J. ( 2012 ), “ Old school: four-hundred years of resistance to change ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 41 - 72 .

Massy , W. ( 2012 ), “ Creative paths to boosting academic productivity ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 73 - 100 .

Massy , W. and Zemsky , R. ( 1995 ), Using Information Technology to Enhance Academic Productivity , Educom , Washington, DC , available at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/html/nli0004.html (accessed September 24, 2016 ).

Matthew , M. (Ed.) ( 1964 ), Innovation in Education , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

Maurer , H. , Mehmood , R. and Korica-Pehserl , P. ( 2013 ), “ How dangerous is the web for creative work? ”, Journal of Computing and Information Technology , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 59 - 69 .

Mercurio , Z. ( 2016 ), “ How college kills purpose ”, The Huffington Post , May 24, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-mercurio/how-college-kills-purpose_b_10013944.html

Meyer , A. , Rose , D. and Gordon , D. ( 2014 ), Universal Design of Learning: Theory and Practice , CAST Professional Publishing , Wakefield, MA .

Morais , A. , Neves , I. and Pires , D. ( 2004 ), “ The what and the how of teaching and learning: going deeper into sociological analysis and intervention ”, in Muller , J. , Davies , B. and Morais , A. (Eds), Thinking with Bernstein, Working with Bernstein , Routledge , London .

National Council of Teachers of English ( 2014 ), “ How standardized tests shape – and limit – student learning: a policy research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English ”, available at: www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CC/0242-nov2014/CC0242PolicyStandardized.pdf (accessed September 9, 2016 ).

National Educational Technology Standards ( 2004 ), ISTE, available at: http://ced.ncsu.edu/techcomps/unets5.html (accessed March 12, 2013 ).

Ni , A. ( 2013 ), “ Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: teaching research methods ”, Journal of Public Affairs Education , Vol. 1 No. 19 , pp. 199 - 215 .

Nickols , M. ( 2011 ), “ Articulating e-pedagogy for education. Open learning for an open world ”, in Barrett , J. (Ed.), Reflections on Open and Distance Learning and Teaching at the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand , Lower Hutt , pp. 321 - 336 .

Niemi , H. , Multisilta , J. , Lipponen , L. and Vivitsou , M. (Eds) ( 2014 ), Finnish Innovations and Technologies in Schools: A Guide Towards New Ecosystems of Learning , Sense Publishers, University of Helsinki , Rotterdam , available at: www.cicero.fi/files/Cicero/site/2121-finnish-innovations-and-technologies-in-schools_ToC.pdf (accessed October 2, 2016 ).

Ng , I. and Forbes , J. ( 2009 ), “ Education as service: the understanding of university experience through service logic ”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 1 , pp. 38 - 64 .

OECD ( 2014 ), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective , OECD Publishing , Paris , available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en (accessed August 30, 2016 ).

Office of Innovation and Improvement ( 2016 ), “ US Department of Education ”, available at: http://innovation.ed.gov/ (accessed September 1, 2016 ).

Okpara , F. ( 2007 ), “ The value of creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability , Vol. III No. 2 , pp. 2 - 14 , available at: www.asiaentrepreneurshipjournal.com/ajesiii2okpara.pdf

Osolind , K. ( 2012 ), “ Revolutionary vs evolutionary innovation ”, Reinvention Consulting, available at: www.reinventioninc.com/revolutionvsevolution (accessed October 16, 2016 ).

Ostrander , S. and Schroeder , L. ( 2000 ), Superlearning: New Triple Fast Ways You Can Learn, Earn, and Succeed in the 21st Century , Delacorte Press , New York, NY .

Pappert , S. ( 1990 ), “ A Critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future ”, available at: www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html (accessed December 25, 2015 ).

Pew Research Center ( 2015 ), “ US students improving – slowly – in math and science, but still lagging internationally ”, Pew Research Center, February 2, available at: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/ (accessed July 27, 2016 ).

Polka , W. and Kardash , J. ( 2013 ), “ Managing in the effective change zone to implement a ‘1-to-1’ laptop program in a rural school district ”, in Ran , B. (Ed.), The Dark Side of Technological Innovation , Information Age Publishing , Charlotte, NC , pp. 323 - 346 .

Postman , N. ( 1993 ), Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology , Vintage Books , New York, NY .

Robinson , K. ( 2015 ), Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution that’s Transforming Education , Viking Press , New York, NY .

Rose , C. and Nicholl , M.J. ( 1997 ), Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century. The Six-step Plan to Unlock Your Master-Mind , Dell Publishing , New York, NY .

Rubin , C. ( 2015 ), “ The global search for education: United States and Finland – why are they so great? ”, The Huffington Post , February 6, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/c-m-rubin/the-global-search-for-edu_b_6992056.html (accessed July 19, 2016 ).

Rushkoff , D. ( 2010 ), Program or be Programmed. Ten Commands for a Digital Age , OR Books , New York, NY .

Sahlberg , P. ( 2010 ), “ Educational change in Finland ”, in Hargreaves , A. , Lieberman , A. , Fullan , M. and Hopkins , D. (Eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Change , Springer , New York, NY , pp. 323 - 348 .

Sahlberg , P. ( 2011 ), Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland , Teachers College, Columbia University , New York, NY .

Schuwer , B. and Kusters , B. ( 2014 ), “ Mass customization of education by an institution of HE: what can we learn from industry? ”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , Vol. 12 No. 2 .

Science Watch ( 2009 ), “ Top 20 countries in all fields ”, Science Watch, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, available at: http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2009/09decALL/ (accessed August 6, 2016 ).

Scott , P. and Conrad , C. ( 1992 ), “ A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research ”, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , Agathon Press , New York, NY , pp. 411 - 459 .

Serdiukov , P. ( 2001 ), “ Models of distance higher education: fully automated or partially human? ”, Educational Technology Review. International Journal on Educational Technology Issues & Applications , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 15 - 25 .

Serdyukov , P. ( 2008 ), “ Accelerated learning: what is it? ”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 36 - 59 .

Serdyukov , P. ( 2015a ), “ Does online education need a special pedagogy? ”, Journal of Computing and Information Technology , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 61 - 74 , available at: http://cit.srce.unizg.hr/index.php/CIT/article/view/2511

Serdyukov , P. ( 2015b ), “ Paradox of teacher and student in online education and societal culture ”, Proceedings of Global Learn 2015. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) , pp. 713 - 723 .

Serdyukov , P. and Ryan , M. ( 2008 ), Writing Effective Lesson Plans: The 5-Star Approach , Allyn&Bacon , Boston, MA .

Serdyukov , P. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2006 ), “ Innovative approaches in technology-based education: Accelerated and intensive learning ”, Proceedings of the Ninth IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, CATE 2006 , Lima , October 4-6 , pp. 45 - 50 .

Serdyukov , P. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2012 ), “ Time as factor of success in online learning ”, Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education , Vol. 1 No. 2 , pp. 40 - 46 , available at: www.jitae.org/paperInfo.aspx?ID=1203

Serdyukov , P. , Subbotin , I. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2003 ), “ Accessible, convenient and efficient education for working adults in a shorter time: is it possible? ”, CAEL Forum and News , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 24 - 28 .

Sharratt , L. and Harild , G. ( 2015 ), Good to Great to Innovate: Recalculating the Route to Career Readiness, K-12+ , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Shelton , J. ( 2011 ), “ Education innovation: what it is and why we need more of it ”, Education Week , Sputnik post, September 28, available at: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/sputnik/2011/09/education_innovation_what_it_is_and_why_we_need_more_of_it.html (accessed September 16, 2016 ).

Song , L.S. , Singleton , E. , Hill , J. and Koh , M. ( 2004 ), “ Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics ”, Internet and Higher Education , pp. 59 - 70 .

Sousa , D. ( 2014 ), How the Brain Learns Mathematics , Korwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Spalding , E. ( 2012 ), Claire Fox: Is Consumerism Bad for Education? Liberty World Press , available at: http://libertyuom.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/claire-fox-is-consumerism-bad-for-education/ (accessed September 12, 2016 ).

Spangehl , S. and Hoffman , A. ( 2012 ), “ Perspectives on innovation ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman & Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 17 - 26 .

Stewart , V. ( 2012 ), A World-Class Education: Learning from International Models of Excellence and Innovation , ASCD , Alexandria, VA .

Stokes , P. ( 2012 ), “ What online learning can teach us about higher education? ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 197 - 224 .

Strauss , V. ( 2014 ), “ Five US innovations that helped Finland’s schools improve but that American reformers now ignore ”, The Washington Post , July 25, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/07/25/five-u-s-innovations-that-helped-finlands-schools-improve-but-that-american-reformers-now-ignore/?utm_term=.cec08c870e6b (accessed October 4, 2016 ).

Tait , A. and Faulkner , D. ( 2016 ), Edupreneur: Unleashing Teacher Led Innovation in Schools , Wiley , Hoboken, NJ .

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing ( 2012 ), “ How standardized testing damages education ”, Fair test, The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, Jamaica Plain, MA, available at: http://fairtest.org/how-standardized-testing-damages-education-pdf (accessed August 20, 2016 ).

Thomson , J. ( 2015 ), “ Poor grades ”, Inside Higher Ed , July 9, available at: www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/09/national-poll-finds-overall-dissatisfaction-college-selection-process-while-parents (accessed August 20, 2016 ).

UNESCO ( 2013 ), “ ITL – Innovative teaching and learning research: a global look at pedagogies for 21st century skills ”, ICT in Education, UNESCO, Bangkok, available at: www.unescobkk.org/ education/ict/online-resources/databases/ict-in-education-database/item/article/innovative-teaching-and-learning-itl-research-a-global-look-at-pedagogies-for-21st-century-skills/ (accessed August 18, 2016 ).

US Department of Education ( 2004 ), “ What do we mean by ‘innovation’? ”, US Department of 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. ( 2012 ), Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People who Will Change the World , Scribner , New York, NY .

Westra , K. ( 2016 ), “ Faculty and student perceptions of effective online learning environments ”, Paper No. 596, all theses, dissertations, and other capstone projects, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, available at: http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=etds (accessed August 25, 2016 ).

Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds) ( 2012 ), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA .

Willingham , D. ( 2010 ), “ Why don’t students like school? ”, A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions about How the Mind Works and What it Means for Your Classroom , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Wrenn , V. ( 2016 ), “ Effects of traditional and online instructional models on student achievement outcomes ”, Paper No. 1135, doctoral dissertations and projects, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, available at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1135 (accessed August 22, 2016 ).

Yu , D. and Hang , C.C. ( 2010 ), “ A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 12 No. 4 , pp. 435 - 452 , available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x/full

Zeihan , P. ( 2014 ), The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disorder , Twelve Hachette Book Group , New York, NY .

Zhao , Y. ( 2012 ), World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Zhao , Y. and Frank , K. ( 2003 ), “ Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective ”, available at: https://msu.edu/~kenfrank/papers/Factors%20affecting%20technology%20uses%20in%20schools.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016 ).

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Drs Robyn Hill, Sara Kelly and Margot Kinberg for their help in preparing this paper for publication.

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

‘Find yourself a teacher. Win yourself a friend’

How to make the most of your first year at Harvard

Welcome, Class of 2028. Don’t get too comfortable.

Taking best of innovations, lessons of pandemic education.

Task force releases report on how University can create more engaging, equitable learning experiences

Nate Herpich

Harvard Correspondent

Widener Library in Harvard Yard.

Rose Lincoln/Harvard Staff Photographer

The  Future of Teaching and Learning Task Force convened at the request of President Larry Bacow and Provost Alan M. Garber starting in the spring of 2021, and on Wednesday the group released its report . The initiative brought together faculty and staff from across Harvard’s Schools and units to explore the innovations and lessons that emerged from pandemic-era teaching and imagine how the University might create more engaging and equitable learning opportunities in the future. The Gazette spoke with lead task force members Bharat Anand, vice provost for advances in learning; Bridget Long, dean of the Graduate School of Education; and Mike Smith, the John H. Finley Jr. Professor of Engineering and Applied Sciences and a Distinguished Service Professor, to learn more about the task force’s recommendations.

Bharat Anand, Bridget Long, and Mike Smith

GAZETTE:  Can you provide some context for the work of the task force and for what lies ahead in teaching and learning?

BHARAT ANAND:  First and foremost, the last two years were an incredibly difficult period for so many. There has been a great deal of hardship and loss for many members of our community and elsewhere. Yet here at Harvard, we were also reminded of everything special about the campus experience that we missed — and it’s been a joy to return to our classrooms and campus.

Even as we do so now, the question many faculty, staff, and academic leaders asked as early as last year, and in anticipation of our return to in-person teaching, was: What have we learned from our teaching and learning experiences during this period and, indeed, from the last decade of digital investments that might inform how we educate our students going forward? Are there new opportunities to advance learning and new approaches to making it more accessible, rather than relegating the experiences of the last two years entirely to the rearview mirror? Are there new things that we want to embrace without being forced to do so? These were the key questions that the task force tackled.

GAZETTE:  We’ve discussed in this space before just how innovative faculty members, staffers, and students alike were during the pandemic, finding new and creative ways to continue to support Harvard’s commitment to teaching and learning, even when they were unable to do so on campus. With two years now behind us, in what ways did this period impact pedagogy?

BRIDGET LONG:  While the teaching and learning experience was challenging, some pretty remarkable things also happened that otherwise would not have happened so quickly. Faculty were forced to think differently, to rethink certain assumptions about how we teach, and to be deliberate in creating connection with students. Remote teaching provided an opportunity to increase educational access for learners who might otherwise never come to our campus. In so many ways, a great deal of creative energy went into re-envisioning teaching and learning.

GAZETTE:  What are some examples?

ANAND:  We saw new possibilities arise when our classrooms were no longer bound by constraints on time and location. Faculty embraced simple features of digital technology like chat and breakout rooms that enabled simultaneous multiperson conversation and more interactive learning. Guest experts and speakers could join from anywhere. Virtual tours allowed students to visit locations they otherwise could not have. New video and audio asynchronous materials enabled the flipping of classrooms, which allowed for richer and deeper synchronous class discussion. Approaches to assessments were in certain cases productively rethought. Alumni were drawn into some of our classrooms to teach and learn. Programs were restructured to create more time for reflection between classes. And being “one click away” increased educational opportunity for learners around the world, and diversity in our virtual classrooms.

The key question going forward is how to take advantage of some of these beneficial features now that we’ve gone back to classroom teaching — and some of this is already starting to happen. How do we preserve and sustain a culture of innovation in teaching? And how do we also take advantage of the prior decade’s investments in asynchronous digital learning when we had figured out ways to create online experiences that were immersive and relational and more than just a “Zoom university.”

GAZETTE:  Bridget, you led various efforts at the Harvard Graduate School of Education that leaned into some of these opportunities. What were some of the most important lessons from your vantage point?

LONG:  Talent resides everywhere. When the HGSE one-year master’s program was forced to go fully online during the pandemic, we decided to open a new round of admissions, and the response was incredible. Within five weeks we received 1.5 times the applications we would in a typical year — drawing a more diverse set of learners into our classrooms who might otherwise have never come to Harvard. We increased access for them, and they enriched our classroom conversations with new perspectives and experiences grounded in communities around the world.

GAZETTE:  Tell us about the major recommendations emerging from the work of the task force.

MIKE SMITH:  The task force was charged with taking some of these learnings from the pandemic, along with perspectives that were already in place during the pre-COVID era, to think about a couple of main ideas. One, how can Harvard enrich and enhance the in-person learning experiences for those who reside on our physical campus, and two, how can we enrich and expand the online experiences for learners who are located in different parts of the world and are unable or unlikely to physically come to the Harvard campus?

A range of opportunities present themselves, some of which involve deepening and amplifying existing practices, processes, and programs.

In the report, the task force also proposes three new strategic directions for Harvard’s Schools and for the University more broadly: reimagining student learning through blended experiences that combine the best of in-person with the best of digital; creating a new, coherent Harvard strategy for short-form digital content and learning experiences; and — this is more exploratory — building out a new virtual Harvard campus that reflects in its own unique way the richness of the Cambridge/Boston-based campus experience.

GAZETTE:  Bridget, you led the working group of the task force that focused on blended experiences. What can you tell us about the takeaways from this group?

LONG:  We have seen how digital technologies can enhance what we do in our classrooms and how they can expand opportunities for students everywhere. We encourage, and foresee, a shift in mindset beyond the current alternatives of entirely in-person or entirely online offerings to incorporate a range of experiences across all of Harvard’s offerings, including degree and non-degree programs.

Learning does not have to be confined in a traditional residential classroom. We’ve seen the value of community and meaningful connections. We witnessed the power of giving students multiple ways to connect with their instructors and peers and to contribute their ideas — whether that be verbally or in written form, synchronous and asynchronous, and in a large group or smaller breakouts made possible with the touch of a keyboard. Interventions typically used for accessibility accommodations, like the use of captions and classroom recording transcripts, supported the advancement of all students’ learning. Overall, we saw a heightened commitment to meeting students where they are and incorporating technologies that make learning more flexible.

GAZETTE:  Bharat, you led the working group that identified opportunities around short-form digital learning experiences. What were some of the specifics to come out of this group?

ANAND:  Historically, the unit of analysis for almost every Harvard program or offering, whether a residential degree program or online certificate offering, has been a roughly 12-week-long “course.” But that’s just an artifact of the semester structure. When we consider opportunities in digital learning, we can think more flexibly about the length of a learning experience and not just limit ourselves to the residential format of a course. So much of what we might call “short-form content” is regularly created at Harvard, and it represents an exciting opportunity to build out a repertoire of flexible learning experiences. They will be a complement to our traditional courses and expand the scope and impact of the learning Harvard enables for individuals everywhere.

But more than that, shorter-form digital learning experiences can also meaningfully enhance residential learning. Forced by the pandemic, many of our faculty created mini-lecture recordings, short lessons with digital content, podcasts, and other learning formats for students, which, in turn, opened up time in live sessions for more substantive discussion. Putting this together, we foresee the need — and a big opportunity — for a technology and support infrastructure that allows faculty to more easily create such impactful, short-form learning experiences that can complement residential learning and expand digital learning, as and when they choose.

GAZETTE:  And Mike, you led the working group on creating impactful experiences for students from around the globe in a way that’s quite different from the efforts that Harvard and other universities have been engaged in for the last decade, some of which you participated in and led.

SMITH:  That’s right. For much of the past decade, since Harvard and other universities got into the online learning space, we primarily focused on the content of online courses. Which courses did we want to create? How could we bring the diverse subject matter taught by our experts to the world?

But one of the most powerful lessons of the pandemic was the importance of community and the relationships that bind us together. It is community that enriches our courses and ultimately makes memorable our content. This led the task force to imagine what might be possible if we could use technology to create a virtual Harvard campus experience. What would attract people to this virtual space? What elements of our Cambridge/Boston-based campus experience would we want replicated in this new virtual space, and what new experiences could we build virtually that we cannot easily do with our physical campus? This represents a fundamental shift in emphasis from content, courses, and catalogs alone, to include connections, community, and relationships that enhance these experiences.

GAZETTE:  Could you explain more about how these three strategic directions are meant to work, in concert?

ANAND: Indeed, they are closely intertwined in many ways. Content, classrooms, and campus all reinforce each other for impact — for example, blended experiences can be created by leveraging short-form digital content, which in turn can also anchor a virtual campus. A common priority across all our working group discussions was how to continue to meaningfully expand diversity and access. And beyond specific examples of new opportunities in each category, we also considered common design principles that we should aspire to follow, regardless of the particular strategic recommendation. These principles are informed both by Harvard’s centuries-long experience in residential teaching and by the experience of remote teaching and learning in the last decade.

GAZETTE:  What are some of the design principles?

SMITH:  To begin with, Harvard will continue to seek to offer teaching and learning experiences that are “uniquely Harvard.” There is real history here with regard to the quality of the education we provide, and we of course don’t want to forget that. We should also aim to creatively incorporate technology into our teaching and learning activities when it helps us to meet students where they are — whether in Cambridge, Boston, or elsewhere.

LONG:  Diversity, equity, and inclusion must also be our guiding tenets in the work we do. Although our various learner experiences won’t be identical, we should always seek to deliver excellent outcomes. What we have seen the past two years is that we have many more tools to accomplish this goal than ever before. And we must recognize that innovations will need to occur at multiple levels: by individual faculty and through support at the program, School, and University levels — through leveraging shared insights, dedicating resources, and making investments across Harvard. These are just a few of the principles.

GAZETTE:  The work to implement the task force’s recommendations is already in motion. Can you tell us about some of the initiatives that are already taking place?

LONG:  Many deans, including myself, are examining how to lean into the teaching and learning innovations that were especially beneficial the last two years, and we are giving serious thought to how to increase opportunity and access. We are taking the lessons learned to digitally transform our Schools and expand our aspirations.

ANAND: We’re currently exploring an initiative that would expand the work of the Office of the Vice Provost for Advances in Learning, thanks to a generous gift from Rita Hauser in honor of her late husband, Gus. This initiative would support pedagogical innovations by faculty for in-person, blended, and online experiences on a University-wide level. In addition, there is also exploratory work underway on an exciting new learning experience platform for the University that VPAL, Harvard Business School, Harvard University Information Technology, and other partners are collaborating on.

GAZETTE:  What other considerations were discussed by the task force?

LONG:  Although we learned to manage the external factors caused by COVID-19 and even as innovations across the University were happening, the inequities in access to education for our students also quickly became apparent. While some issues were resolved as students returned to campus, now is the time for us to consider how students everywhere access our educational resources and infrastructure. We have an opportunity to double down on being intentional in our thinking about the ways in which we level the playing field to ensure equitable access for all students.

SMITH:  And access isn’t only restricted to financial or technological access. It includes support, participation, and inclusive relationships, as we outline in the report.

GAZETTE:  What are some next steps we can take as soon as today versus others that may require additional resources?

SMITH:  The recommendations section of the report touches on immediate, one- to three-year, and longer-term next steps for the University. Some innovations can be more seamlessly incorporated or transferred and others require some rethinking in terms of physical infrastructure.

Tomorrow, an instructor could decide to prioritize an activity that allowed students to experience a meaningful interaction — with them or their peers. But upgrading technology in residential classrooms requires more time and investment, not to mention collaborative work across Schools, departments, and relevant units.

GAZETTE:  Anything else you’d like to add?

ANAND:  One of the things that we repeatedly came back to in the task force discussions is what makes Harvard special — what is it about the “Harvard experience” that we ought to aspire to preserve in any educational experience, whether this involves 30 learners engaged in in-person classroom discussions, 3,000 learners in an online course, or 30 million learners in a virtual campus community.

Harvard has, historically and for generations, signified inspiring ideas, personal transformation, a network of relationships, and a commitment to the truth. These attributes, and the principles that Bridget and Mike delineated, ought to continue to anchor any Harvard offering going forward, whether residential or virtual, whether long-form or short-form.

LONG:  I’m excited about the opportunities in front of us to expand upon what it means to be a part of such an experience. The task force discussions have shown that there is a strong desire within all of Harvard’s Schools to build upon our already meaningful and impactful educational experience for our students, and to improve the core residential educational experience itself in lasting ways.

SMITH:  We owe it to our learners everywhere to do whatever we can to deliver an experience they will value and appreciate. After all, this is why we do what we do.

Share this article

You might like.

Garber says key to greater unity is to learn from one another, make all feel part of community at Morning Prayers talk

Shop classes, avoid echo chambers, embrace the Red Line — and other faculty tips for new students

Garber to students at Convocation: ‘You will learn more from difficult moments of tension than from easy moments of understanding.’

You want to be boss. You probably won’t be good at it.

Study pinpoints two measures that predict effective managers

Your kid can’t name three branches of government? He’s not alone. 

Efforts launched to turn around plummeting student scores in U.S. history, civics, amid declining citizen engagement across nation

Good genes are nice, but joy is better

Harvard study, almost 80 years old, has proved that embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier

Your Guide to Organizational Leadership Degrees with a Focus in Strategic Thinking and Innovation

Written by Scott Wilson

On the long list of things a leader must be, you’ll often find that being an innovator and strategic thinker are at the top.

Strategy is the art of defining objectives and creating plans to meet those objectives. Clearly, that’s a job for the people at the top of the ladder in any organization—they get the big bucks for charting a course and sticking to it.

Strategy doesn’t have to be innovative. Historically, even conservative strategies have paid off for leaders with a clear view of their positioning and strengths. Think Toyota, sticking with conventional production line techniques honed to the highest level of efficiency, maintaining cost leadership while competitors investing in flashy new automated assembly lines watched their stock prices tumble.

But in the modern arena of business and society, change happens fast. It’s hard to get ahead of the curve with a wait-and-see approach. Defensive strategies will often just leave your organization in the dust of competitors who risked more and forged ahead with new ideas and fresh perspectives.

So leaders who cultivate innovative strategic thinking in their organizations are going to be the ones who get ahead. And earning an organizational leadership degree in strategic thinking and innovation will jump start your own ideas toward that goal.

What Is Strategic Thinking and Innovation?

Strategic thinking and innovation is a mash-up of two different concepts:

• Strategic Thinking - The thought process that can incorporate long-term trends and developments with the resources and courses of action available to create objectives and achievable plans to meet those objectives.
• Innovation - The process or ability to envision new methods, techniques, or concepts to apply toward an existing goal or with available tools and resources

Together, they represent that formidable combination of organizational leadership skills that every organization is hungry for. The ability to take creative approaches to long-term strategic goals breaks new ground in every industry. It’s the history of progress, written in a hundred decisions taken by leaders at every level. And it can accelerate any organization’s performance and accomplishments to the next level of growth and success.

Strategy is Deciding When Innovation Hurts More Than it Helps

Ramrodded by Steve Jobs, the small computer was revolutionary in both design and capabilities. With a graphical interface, sound, and a tiny form factor, it was a game-changer in the personal computer market.

But it wasn’t really Apple’s idea.

Many of the most innovative elements of the Mac were invented by an older and larger corporation: Xerox. Well-known for their copiers and office equipment, Xerox also funded a think-tank specifically to innovate in new technology, the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC).

PARC developed a computer called the Alto that was a proto-Mac… but Xerox executives balked at producing it, worried it would cut into their core copier business. Instead, Jobs wrangled a demo, walked away with the inspiration, and founded an empire.

It’s the classic story of how innovation is worthless—or even a gift to your competitors—without a strategy behind it.

Innovation is a hard lift for many organizations, however, because it involves a quality that every social group is allergic to by nature: change. Doing things in new ways means leaving behind the old ways. But both individuals and cultures are resistant to changes, even when they are for the better.

That’s where leadership comes in. A leader who has the vision and perspective to come up with innovative strategies and the communication, execution, and motivational skills to bring their organization along with them is what every corporate board, government agency, and non-profit in the world today is searching for.

Degrees and Certificates Designed To Elevate Your Strategic Thinking and Innovation Leadership Skills

So how do you become a leader with strategic thinking and innovation skills all wrapped up in a bow to take your industry by storm?

Advanced studies in organizational leadership that specialize in those concepts are the clearest path.

Organizational leadership is a field of study that has emerged at the crossroads of historical research into effective leadership and modern study of group behaviors and psychological trends. It has identified the key elements that give individuals the ability to step up, find a path to success, and support and encourage groups to work together to achieve that success.

Organizational leadership degrees bring together a big basket of leadership skills that are key to supporting and motivating teams to succeed. They incorporate everything from the behavioral psychology of groups to keystone project management tools and processes.

It also relies heavily on strategic thinking concepts right out of the box. Strategic thinking is always a leadership function. Throw some innovation training into the mix, and you have a potent and visionary blend of skills to bring back to your organization and your career.

Advanced Degrees and Certificate Programs Offer the Training Senior Executives Need To Polish Strategic Skills

That’s not to say you can’t find the occasional bachelor’s degree program covering these concepts. There are options such as a Bachelor of Arts/Sciences (BAOL/BSOL) in Organizational Leadership with concentrations in innovation or strategy , or degrees with slightly different titles, such as a Bachelor of Science in Innovation and Leadership . But your most likely course to expert skills in strategic thinking and innovation come in more depth through these paths:

Master’s Degrees in Organizational Leadership Strategic Thinking and Innovation

Master’s programs are graduate-level degrees that typically take between one and two years to complete in leadership studies. But that doesn’t make them any easier to get through—with advanced studies that really focus on the latest concepts and studies in strategic thought and innovating as a leader, your skills will be pushed to the max. Coursework is far more participatory in master’s studies, with small classes and group projects the norm. You will also typically have a capstone or master’s thesis that will require your own research efforts and original thoughts on innovation and strategy.

These programs come with titles such as:

• Master of Science in Organizational Leadership and Innovation
• Master’s in Strategic Management and Executive Leadership
• Strategic Innovation
• Strategic Innovation and Change
• Strategic Thinking and Innovation

Certificate Programs in Organizational Leadership Strategic Thinking and Innovation

In an area of expertise as tightly focused as strategic thinking and innovation, many current executives and leaders opt for fast-paced, laser-focused education options like a certificate program. These don’t carry the scope of a full degree, but they are generally available at all the different levels that degrees are: undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate. And with fast-pace comes low cost, both in purely financial terms and in your time commitment.

If it’s really just strategic thinking and innovation that you need to brush up on, then a certificate program in Strategic Organizational Leadership or an Executive Certificate in Strategy and Innovation can give you what you need without putting a big dent in your bank account or in time taken away from your current job.

Online Studies Are an Innovation That Will Benefit Your Own Career Strategy

Organizational leadership studies are particularly well-suited for online studies because leaders are people without a lot of spare time on their hands. You’re either in a job that is taking you to bigger things, or you’re impatient to get started on one.

Either way, things like asynchronous classes, where you can complete your coursework any time of day or night, or streaming lectures, or online chat rooms for group projects, get you through your classes around all the other obligations you have in life.

Just as important is the option you have to apply to and attend programs at colleges half the country away, without having to move an inch outside your regular job or family life. Not only can you keep your costs down, and avoid disruption in your current position, but you also have a much larger menu to choose from. Finding the perfect fit for your career gets a lot easier when online programs enter the chat.

A Unique Course of Study Fuels Strategic Thinking and Innovation Degree and Certificate Programs

You’ll get that through additional classes in topics such as:

Technology and Innovation – Technology and innovation are irreversibly woven together today, and have been, well, since the invention of the Jacquard loom upended the world of weaving. So innovative leaders have to be well-versed in both the latest technological breakthroughs in their industry and the effects and uses of technology in production and management… exactly the subject these courses will cover.

Patented in 1804, the Jacquard loom allowed complicated clothing patterns to be woven through the use of punched cards, creating easily mass-produced but stylish clothing for market. The punched card itself, taken from Jacquard’s concept, then lead to early electrical tabulating machines that eventually became the digital computers we use today.

Design and Creative Thinking – Creativity is a kind of magic that is hard to create from whole cloth. But techniques that lead to creative problem solving and the iterative design process can be taught and will unlock the imagination that leads to genuinely innovative breakthroughs. These classes teach design thinking processes and how to seek out the creative inspiration to come up with unique and effective new concepts.

Strategic Development – Creativity and spit-balling ideas is the fun part of innovation. Sitting down and drawing up actual plans is where it gets hard. These courses walk you through the tough parts of turning innovative ideas into actionable strategies, and developing the overall strategic plans needed to guide your organization through those changes.

Strategic Imperatives for Innovation – Innovation alone is never sufficient for success, even in today’s markets. The bankruptcy courts are littered with companies whose executives got so busy spinning the wheels of creativity that they didn’t stop to see if it was worth the risk. These classes teach you how to weigh the need for innovation against overall strategic concepts, and when to stand pat rather than unleashing risky new ideas or methods.

Put together with your experience in your own field, and the other essential studies that come with organizational leadership degrees, these classes hone your ability to think strategically and creatively. With a new perspective on how your organization can succeed in a tough marketplace brimming with new ideas, these leadership skills can rocket you right to the top.

Everything you need to deliver your plans, manage strategy and report progress.

• Customizable plan structure
• Automated and on-demand progress reports
• Save time with AI features

Centralize, analyze and visualize your performance data. Align performance measures with plans.

• Centralized performance data
• Scorecards and interactive dashboards
• Slice and dice for new insights

Manage, deliver, and communicate projects. Align projects with plans for end-to-end visibility and reporting.

• Gantt view of projects, tasks and dependencies
• Interactive maps and dashboards
• Plan alignment and reporting

Share your strategy story with external stakeholders via customizable public dashboards.

• Progress dashboards with roll-up reporting
• Matched to your branding
• Fully ADA Compliant

Strategy and Performance Management Integrations Learn More

Strategic Planning

7 reasons why schools need strategic planning.

By Mary King

20 march 2023.

• 1 1. A strategic plan articulates a shared vision, mission and values
• 2 2. A strategic plan effectively organizes schools, staff, and time
• 3 3. A strategic plan defines how success is measured
• 4 4. A strategic plan helps with decision-making, responsiveness, and innovation
• 5 5. A strategic plan increases communication and engagement
• 6 6. A strategic plan keeps everyone in a school—from teachers to administrators—connected
• 7 7. The best reason of all for strategic planning comes back to every great school’s number one priority: students
• 8 Download the guide ↓

The past three years have been disruptive for every sector. For educational institutions, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted everyone–from staff and teachers, to the students who had to switch to a new modality of learning, to the parents supporting them. Strategic planning in education has revealed itself to be a very important part of recovering. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the COVID-19 pandemic forced nearly 55 million children home in the US alone—and at least 1.4 billion children out of school or child care across the globe. Higher education institutions have been profoundly financially impacted , and both the learning experience and mental wellbeing of the students has been negatively affected.

While every educational institution was impacted by this, some schools were more prepared than others to face the unique challenges COVID-19 posed–those schools who had previously established strategic plans were better prepared to navigate the pandemic than those without.

It’s clear to us: Schools that embrace a great strategic plan, and commit to strategic planning in education, have clear advantages over schools that don’t.

We’re going to talk about some of those advantages now, look at some examples of strategic planning in education, and give 7 reasons for why every school with a vision of excellence for their students should embrace a strategic planning process for schools. Whether it’s getting back on track after a hugely disruptive, global event like COVID-19, identifying the most important strategies to improve student outcomes, or increasing staff engagement, all schools benefit from strategic planning and strategic plan implementation.

1. A strategic plan articulates a shared vision, mission and values

The ability for schools to collaborate, share, and communicate short and long term goals is a critical part of moving plans forward in line with a vision, mission, and values. Schools benefit from a well communicated and executed strategic plan that keeps everyone informed of their strategic goals, and how their actions are contributing to the achievement of these goals. This enables parents, staff, community members, and stakeholders to work towards a common vision.

A major additional benefit of strategic planning in education is that it provides an opportunity for active employee engagement across an organization. When it comes to strategic planning for educational institutions, that benefit remains present. Research suggests that a leading cause for employee discontent (in general, but especially in the public sector) is that employees don’t understand how the work they’re doing helps their greater organization.

If the school is able to clearly define and remind employees and stakeholders of the shared vision, employees are more likely to feel connected to the work they are doing within that organization. Whether that work is educating students, organizing reports, performing critical administrative duties, or coordinating the process of standardized testing, everyone plays a part in a student’s success.

2. A strategic plan effectively organizes schools, staff, and time

We understand that schools–whether they are elementary schools, high schools, or higher education institutions– are complex institutions, with boards, committees, districts, unions, and many different types of stakeholders involved. Because the organizations themselves are so large, and plans are often multi-year, complex entities built up by multiple stakeholders and workers, struggles with organization and effective time management are common.

Envisio provides strategic planning software for educational institutions , and because Envisio works exclusively with the public sector, we understand the unique, complex, and often large scale planning needs of public sector organizations.

“I see Envisio very much as a focusing tool as I work with my team. If you’ve got great people, your primary job is not to get in their way […] I can stay on top of performance in a way that is really unobtrusive, and I don’t have to necessarily interact directly with an individual to get a sense of what’s going on. I can stay abreast of the action plans in the communications department or the action plans in a particular school. If we’re missing the mark on a key performance measure, I can focus more time on having the right conversations.” – Peter Hilts, Chief Education Officer for District 49

3. A strategic plan defines how success is measured

In order to achieve success, it’s important to know what success means, and where to take action first. It is difficult to get a strategic action plan underway without a firm understanding of what problems you’re wanting to solve. When it comes to strategic planning in the public sector, determining clear benchmarks for success is especially important, because the goals are often a combination of abstract, impact-based metrics, and concrete, output-based goals.

Different types of educational institutions are going to have different challenges, and different metrics of success: the educational strategic plans of a public school board district are going to look a lot different from a college or university! The shared reality is that every school with a strategy is better able to monitor its progress toward key outcomes and evaluate where and how it may have gotten off track. Using a strategy implementation software like Envisio can help with measuring success.

At Northeast Ohio Medical University (NEOMED), in Portage County, Ohio, they are measuring success across six pillars, with forty two strategic initiatives . Many of their strategic plan elements (goals, strategies, and actions) include promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion for their students, staff, and employees. Being a major medical research university that is training future medical professionals, diversity, equity, and inclusivity is a critical—and practical—metric! Some of the performance measures that NEOMED tracks include gender demographics, and actionable items towards decreasing disability stigma as part of their Strategic Plan: Creating Transformational Leaders Dashboard .

No matter what your benchmark for “success” is—be it a more impact-focused concept such as “be more welcoming” or more concretely articulated in output terms such as “create a low-cost tutoring center using the library after school”, your strategic plan will provide you with the steps to make get that success underway, and stay on track.

4. A strategic plan helps with decision-making, responsiveness, and innovation

A strategic plan helps educational institutions remain agile during times of change, and also helps them better define what they intend to achieve when it comes to their student success objectives and their greater organizational goals. With a strategic plan in place, educational institutions have a roadmap which they can use to track, evaluate, and modify plans to facilitate better governance decisions and provide clearer direction for the future of the school. This helps a school maintain a steady rhythm of progress towards their goals, and remain ahead of the curve–both in terms of educational innovation, and when (not if) a disruptive change occurs.

“It’s difficult, because you’re trying to help students prepare for the future – to prepare for jobs that might not exist yet. You’re trying to develop educators and an education that gives them the skills to think critically.” – Dr. Alison Gillespie, the Assistant Superintendent for Teaching and Learning with White Bear Lake Area School District (WBLAS) in Ramsey County, Minnesota

White Bear Lake Area School District (WBLAS), MN, was able to leverage their strategic plan as a way to embrace change and turn obstacles (like COVID-19) into opportunities for success. They embraced active learning techniques and, through their strategic plan, were able to think ahead to turn disruptions into teachable moments that engaged students and staff alike.

5. A strategic plan increases communication and engagement

A strategic plan ( and particularly, one that is publicly communicated on a dashboard ) helps with overall communication and engagement. For a school board, communicating that your plans and your metrics for success are part of a larger, holistic plan, is critical to building trust with stakeholders and maintaining effective engagement—both internally, and externally.

Strategic planning in education is critical in settings where trust is paramount. Educational institutions—at all levels—work on the understanding that one group (the educators) has knowledge they can impart, share, or coax out in another group (the students). The need for a trusting relationship with the students and everyone involved in that student’s success needs to be central to a positive educational environment.

A strategic plan that can be easily found, referenced, and understood helps assure everyone involved that the school in question is aware of their plans, has them in focus, and has a plan for their shortcomings. Educational strategic planning also has the additional benefit of keeping stakeholders—such as donors—excited about the school’s vision. When it comes to fundraising, donors are more likely to support a school that has a clear vision and a strategy to make it happen.

6. A strategic plan keeps everyone in a school—from teachers to administrators—connected

A well implemented and communicated strategic plan holds all staff accountable for their actions and encourages collaboration. In educational settings, this circle of responsibility is extended out towards the community; providing excellent and accessible education is an effort that requires all hands on deck. Being able to simplify the strategic planning process and make it visible and easy to use is one way to ensure everyone stays connected.

One of the benefits of using a strategic planning software partner like Envisio is that individual action plans (from individual schools or departments) can be aligned, all the way up to a greater strategic objective. For multi-year, complex plans, such as setting a national standard of excellence, or incorporating culturally significant teachings—it’s important that teachers and staff are able to understand who is working on what, and where it fits into the greater whole.

7. The best reason of all for strategic planning comes back to every great school’s number one priority: students

Best of all, strategic planning in education provides a framework so that the most important priority of the school – students’ educational achievement – is taken care of. Having a sturdy educational strategic plan helps keep issues like digital equity , accessibility , literacy , preparation for an ever changing workforce , and social and environmental enrichment , front of mind. When the experience of the student is the priority for the school, the strategic plan becomes a collaborative effort to figure out how best to set students up for success.

Being on the same page for these goals is extremely important for schools: sound planning and communication helps ensure that stakeholders, including parents, teachers, administrators, principals, board members, and the greater community, are all striving for the same overall vision. And, when it comes to putting those plans into action, schools especially benefit from the habit of consistent performance measurement, which is something a strategic plan can help in ingraining.

For complex, multi-layered institutions such as an educational institute to successfully reach their goals—particularly after being so dramatically impacted by COVID-19—it requires not only proper management of human, budgetary, and time resources, but the creation of high-output teams, engaged and effective staff and teachers, and the consistent monitoring of progress. For schools, a strategic plan provides a north star for deepening a sense of community and knowledge, and breaks down the actionable steps to reach critical goals.

Download the guide ↓

Mary King is a professional writer and researcher based in Toronto. She comes to Envisio with a Masters Degree, where she researched the relationship between the disappearance of urban public spaces, and high level decision-making processes in local governments. For nearly a decade, Mary has worked as a community organizer, promoter, and supportive researcher in a variety of nonprofits and think-tanks, and her favorite area of focus was in connecting local artists with marginalized youth. Since 2017, her writings and research on policy, local governance, and its relationship to public art and public space has been presented at conferences internationally. She has also served as both a conference chair and lead facilitator on professional and academic conferences across Canada on how to better bridge academic research with local change-agents, policy makers, artists, and community members. Envisio’s mission of excellence and trust in the public sector maps onto Mary's interest in local government and community mobilization. She loves working at Envisio because she cares about having well organized, strategic, and transparent public organizations and local governments. Mary is also a creative writer and musician and has been supported in her practice by the Canada Council for the Arts. Her stories can be found in literary journals across Canada.

KEEP READING

Related articles you might like.

February 22, 2024

Measure What Matters: Examples of University KPIs and Performance Measures

The most commonly used university performance measures, based on our database of over 10,000 public sector KPIs. See real KPIs in action, along with descriptions and dashboards.

February 24, 2023

Secrets of Successful Strategy Implementation

Having a strategic plan is not the same as implementing one. We’re here to provide you with the secrets of successful strategy implementation, and to give you the tools necessary to move from planning to action.

December 21, 2022

A 2022 Celebration of our Envisionaries

We wanted to take a moment to celebrate the successes of our customers–from those that launched their first ever Envisio-powered public dashboards, to those that have received awards, and the people who made it all come together.

Psst! Join 10,000+ of your peers and get the best from our blog direct to your inbox.

Roughly once a week, we’ll send you the very best from our blog and other Envisio resources. We’ll be respectful of your inbox and you can unsubscribe anytime.

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Build plans, manage results, & achieve more

Learn about the AchieveIt Difference vs other similar tools

We're more than just a software, we're a true partner

• Strategic Planning
• Business Transformation
• Enterprise PMO
• Project + Program Management
• Operational Planning + Execution
• Integrated Plan Management
• Federal Government
• State + Local Government
• Banks + Credit Unions
• Manufacturing

Best practices on strategy, planning, & execution

Real-world examples of organizations that have trusted AchieveIt

Ready-to-use templates to take planning to the next level

Research-driven guides to help your strategy excel

Pre-recorded & upcoming webinars on everything strategy & planning

• *NEW!* Podcast 🎙️

The Importance of Strategic Planning in Education

RELATED TAGS:

Strategic planning is a method used in various industries to deliberately guide decision-making. In education, strategic planning provides leaders with guidance to keep the institution operating, carry out its missions and comply with regulations. Educational strategic planning focuses on the future of a college or university, providing an intentional way to reflect on performance and determine where to implement initiatives to make positive changes for the future.

To create effective university strategic plans, administrators and stakeholders must understand the ins and outs of how they work and how they can apply them.

In This Article

• Lack of Ownership
• Poor Strategic Alignment
• Poor Communication
• Slow Plan Adoption
• Improve Efficiency
• Engage Stakeholders and the Community
• Form a Focus
• Plan a Future
• Test Your Hypotheses
• Use Specific Language
• Make Implementation a Priority
• Hold Team Members Accountable

Transform Strategic Planning and Execution Within Your Education Institution With AchieveIt

The challenges of strategic planning in education.

Universities and colleges face several pressures and challenges that can complicate strategic planning in educational environments. Understanding some of these challenges can help you overcome them to create an impactful approach.

1. Lack of Ownership

While strategic plans involve feedback and participation from all of your institution’s departments and entities, you should limit ownership of the plan and documentation to one person. Without explicit ownership over the strategic plan, initiatives are more likely to be lost, forgotten or overlooked. With one person in charge, your school is more likely to achieve success.

2. Poor Strategic Alignment

Alignment and representation across your university are crucial to success. Universities and colleges often experience a lack of strategic alignment because the church and state divisions typically have different goals for schools. These clashing perspectives lead to poor strategic alignment and a stand-still in decision-making.

3. Poor Communication

Many educational institutions also struggle with strategic planning due to poor organizational communication. Effectively implementing a strategic plan requires institutional-wide teamwork. Poor communication significantly increases the difficulty of agreeing upon and executing effective solutions and setting attainable goals.

4. Slow Plan Adoption

With a significant focus on innovation and growth, universities may make numerous changes in a year. Constant changes often lead to low motivation to adopt new plans. The longer your teams take to implement a strategic plan, the more likely it is to become outdated. When this situation happens, the plan becomes irrelevant to your current processes.

Why Education Institutions Need Strategic Planning

Despite the inherent challenges, educational strategic planning is necessary for a successful institution operation. A strategic plan can help you improve several aspects of your educational institution through intentional goal-setting and initiative implementation. Strategic planning for colleges and universities helps students, staff and the community progress toward a better future.

Here are a few reasons you should use strategic planning in education:

1. Improve Efficiency

One of the biggest reasons to begin strategic planning is the opportunity for improved efficiency in numerous areas of your organization. The challenges of educational planning often lead to a lack of efficiency. Strategic planning for schools allows leaders to determine more effective ways to streamline processes.

For example, your decision-making teams may take significant time to agree on new policies or procedures. Strategic planning helps your institution use time more efficiently because it allows you to form decision-making strategies.

Improved efficiency also results in better cost-effectiveness. The less time is wasted, the more money you’ll save, especially over time.

2. Engage Stakeholders and the Community

Strategic planning involves more people than only the primary decision-makers — your planning should involve your community and stakeholders. Feedback from these entities can help you develop a more beneficial and strategically targeted plan based on what these entities want or need from you. Engaging the stakeholders and community also shows you value their input and want to create an environment where they want to be.

3. Form a Focus

Determining a focus for the school year ahead can be challenging without clear objectives. Without focus, your institution will struggle to grow and attract students and staff. For example, you may have vague expectations for the upcoming school year, which prevents decisions and progress from being made. A strategic plan allows you to determine your goals and focus for the upcoming year and beyond while also helping you track your progress.

4. Plan a Future

Strategic planning is ideal for planning a successful future for your institution. Developing a plan for your future helps ensure your school can grow and continue benefiting from its offerings. Rather than being unprepared for the next year and future school years, you can effectively strategize to make the most of your school year.

Strategic Planning Tips for Education Institutions

While every school’s strategic plan will look different depending on its goals and resources, the strategic planning process is often similar for colleges and universities. Explore a few tips for educational strategic planning to help you get started:

1. Test Your Hypotheses

You’re ultimately hypothesizing the outcome when you set initiatives in your strategic plan. These hypotheses are often based on assumptions, though it’s typically best to experiment to determine what would work and what may not. For example, if you ask your faculty to begin submitting weekly reports, conduct a quick test to ensure they can do so and have time to do so.

2. Use Specific Language

Using vague or wordy language increases the risk of confusion and the possibility of initiatives being misunderstood and ignored. Swapping out complicated words for simpler, more specific words can help ensure everyone understands your plan. It can help to have someone review the language you use to ensure nothing is confusing and everyone is on the same page.

3. Make Implementation a Priority

Because schools involve numerous departments and divisions, implementing a plan can be difficult without prioritization . Make your plan a priority to ensure it’s properly implemented. Doing so is often easiest when leaders promote and require implementation.

4. Hold Team Members Accountable

Another way to make university strategic plans stick is by holding team members accountable. School performance management software allows you to track reports and other strategy-related information to determine who’s completing their duties so you can keep them accountable.

Educational institutions require significant planning to ensure a successful school year. Strategic planning software for higher education can help you focus your strategy despite your institution’s challenges. Software like AchieveIt has features that help your team turn ideas into actions.

A few things you can do with our software include:

• Solve common implementation challenges: AchieveIt makes connecting members of your team and various initiatives easy. You can track projects, keep everyone on the same page and quickly send updates.
• Gain comprehensive visibility: Our platform lets you see every initiative in real time, providing comprehensive visibility over progress.
• Consult with our experts: Our strategic plan experts help you execute your plan effectively. Draw on our expertise for inspiration or customize one of our templates to create your plan.

Let’s actually do this. Request a demo of AchieveIt to see what we can do for you today.

Meet the Author   Chelsea Damon

Chelsea Damon is the Content Strategist at AchieveIt. When she's not publishing content about strategy execution, you'll likely find her outside or baking bread.

Related Posts

How to Evaluate Your Strategic Plan Properly

Balanced Strategy: Mastering the Art of Zooming In and Out

Storm-Proof Strategy: Navigating Uncertainty and Times of Change

Hear directly from our awesome customers

See first-hand why the world's best leaders use AchieveIt

See AchieveIt in action 

Stay in the know. Join our community of subscribers.

Subscribe for plan execution content sent directly to your inbox.

• Scroll to top
•   / Sign Up

Strategic Thinking Definition, Skills, Examples, and Steps

Published: 29 January, 2024

Social Share:

Welcome to Digital Leadership, where we are committed to harnessing emerging technologies and innovative business models to better serve customers. As experts in innovation and digital transformation, our mission is to guide organizations in creating value for all stakeholders, supporting them from strategic conceptualization to effective execution. The ability to think strategically is a cornerstone for success, strategic thinking centres on discovering and cultivating distinctive opportunities to enhance organizational value.

Digital Leadership’s expertise in strategy and execution, invites business entrepreneurs to delve deeper into the realms of strategic thinking for enduring success. We provide Strategic Management Consulting services to empower businesses to elevate their strategic acumen and navigate the complex landscape of value creation . Through collaborative initiatives, we guide organizations in unlocking unique opportunities and ensuring enduring success in today’s dynamic business environment.

Find out how we can help you

Corporate training, innovation consulting and much more.

This article delves into the intricacies of strategic thinking , outlining its definition, key characteristics, and its vital role in both leadership and business. We will explore the steps to develop strategic thinking skills and provide real-life examples to illustrate its application. As we navigate through this exploration, we will differentiate strategic thinking from strategic planning and highlight its significance in digital transformation strategy.

What is Strategic Thinking?

Strategic thinking is centred on identifying and cultivating distinctive opportunities that can generate value for your organization. It asserts that even non-statistically significant data in various forms deserves thorough consideration to inform decisions about the future. It is a multifaceted concept that goes beyond mere planning. It involves the ability to analyze situations, anticipate future trends, and make informed decisions that contribute to an organization’s long-term success.

Your download is now available!

You can now access the complete Business Model Canvas Package, including a full presentation, related models and instructions for use.

The UNITE Perspectives On Strategy – A Framework For Strategic Thinking

Strategic thinking is a crucial element of effective leadership, involving the ability to envision and plan for the future while navigating the complexities of the present. It goes beyond day-to-day tasks, focusing on long-term business goals and adapting to dynamic environments. Strategic thinking and strategic planning, while interconnected, serve distinct roles in organizational development and decision-making. Strategic thinking is a continuous and dynamic mental activity that envisions the future, identifies opportunities, and fosters innovation. It emphasizes creativity, adaptability, and a proactive mindset, laying the conceptual foundation for an organization’s direction.

Strategic planning is a systematic process that translates strategic thinking into actionable plans. It involves setting specific goals, defining measurable objectives, and outlining the steps and resources needed for implementation. While strategic thinking explores possibilities and challenges assumptions, strategic planning focuses on specific actions, resource allocation, and timelines. Strategic thinking is future-oriented and adaptable, providing the vision upon which strategic planning builds the roadmap for organizational development. Both are essential components, working collaboratively to navigate the complexities of the business landscape.

At Digital Leadership, strategic thinking is perceived as the art of proactively shaping an organization’s future. This involves anticipating challenges, recognizing opportunities, and aligning resources effectively. To delve deeper into the intricacies of strategic thinking and its role in crafting innovative business strategies , explore the insights provided in our book, “How to Create Innovation.” It serves as a comprehensive guide, offering valuable perspectives on navigating the dynamic landscape of strategic decision-making and fostering a culture of innovation within your organization.

The Only Book On Innovation You’ll Ever Need

+FREE access to 50+ complimentary download packages covering the details with plenty of helpful background information

Strategic Thinking Skills

Enhancing strategic thinking skills is crucial for effective decision-making and leadership. Here are key skills compiled from various sources:

• Active Listening: Engage attentively to comprehend diverse perspectives.
• Analytical Skills: Utilize data and insights to make informed decisions.
• Implement the Plan: Execute strategies efficiently to achieve business goals.
• Observing and Seeking Trends: Stay vigilant to identify emerging patterns and trends.
• Question Everything: Foster a questioning mindset to challenge assumptions.
• Strategic Thinking: Cultivate the ability to envision and plan for the future.
• Understand the Consequences: Evaluate potential outcomes and impacts.
• Articulate Your Goals Clearly: Clearly express your objectives for better alignment.
• Being Creative: Embrace creativity to generate innovative solutions.
• Communicate Clearly: Convey ideas and strategies with clarity.
• Consider Opposing Ideas: Encourage diverse viewpoints for comprehensive decision-making.
• Critical Thinking: Assess information objectively to make well-founded decisions.
• Get Other Perspectives: Seek input from different sources to broaden your understanding.
• Learn and Improve: Embrace a continuous learning mindset for personal and professional growth.
• Vision and Purpose: Align decisions with a clear vision and overarching purpose.
• Prioritization: Effectively prioritize tasks and goals based on strategic importance.
• Adaptability: Be flexible and adapt strategies to changing circumstances.
• Ask Strategic Questions: Pose insightful questions to deepen strategic insights.
• Be Aware of Bias: Recognize and mitigate personal biases in decision-making.
• Analysis: Break down complex situations into manageable components for analysis.
• Scenario Planning: Anticipate potential scenarios and plan accordingly.

These skills collectively contribute to developing a robust strategic thinking mindset, essential for navigating complex business landscapes.

How to Develop Strategic Thinking Skills

Acquiring the art of strategic thinking is a developed skill, not an innate talent. This section outlines practical steps to guide individuals in enhancing their strategic thinking skills . Tailored for aspiring strategic thinkers and leaders, these steps offer valuable insights to successfully navigate the complexities of the business landscape.

(1) Pose Thoughtful Queries for Strategic Insights

Challenge conventional wisdom by formulating insightful questions that stimulate critical thinking, fostering a deeper understanding of issues and encouraging innovative solutions.

(2) Observe, Reflect, and Stay Informed

Allocate time to observe industry trends and changes, reflecting on these observations to gain valuable insights that inform strategic decisions.

(3) Embrace Diverse Perspectives Through Opposing Ideas

Foster a culture that values diverse viewpoints, actively seeking and considering opposing ideas to formulate well-rounded and robust strategic plans.

(4) Invest in Continuous Learning and Professional Development

Systematically refine strategic thinking skills through continuous learning. Enroll in courses, workshops, or programs dedicated to enhancing strategic thinking.

(5) Master Your Organization and Industry Dynamics

Acquire in-depth knowledge of your organization, industry, and market sector to make informed strategic decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of internal and external factors.

(6) Prioritize Strategic Thinking with Dedicated Time

Schedule specific time slots for focused strategic thinking in your routine. Utilize this time to address fundamental questions about your organization’s direction, challenges, and opportunities.

(7) Effectively Communicate Strategic Insights to Influence

Cultivate strong communication skills to articulate strategic insights clearly. Effective communication is pivotal for gaining support and buy-in for proposed strategic initiatives.

By systematically incorporating these steps into your professional journey, you actively develop and refine your strategic thinking skills. This intentional approach empowers you to confidently navigate the complexities of strategic decision-making.

Strategic Thinking Examples

Strategic thinking manifests in various scenarios, demonstrating its impact on organizational success. Below are real-life examples showcasing how strategic thinking has influenced key decisions and outcomes:

• Distinguish between urgent and important tasks to allocate resources efficiently and achieve optimal outcomes.
• Strategically allocate resources based on the prioritization of tasks, ensuring maximum efficiency and effectiveness.
• Systematically analyze customer feedback to identify trends and insights, informing strategic decisions for product enhancements and customer satisfaction.
• Develop a strategic roadmap by setting both long-term and short-term business goals aligned with the organization’s overarching vision.
• Utilize past sales data to derive insights, identify patterns, and inform strategic decisions for future product development and market positioning.
• Conduct thorough market analysis to identify gaps and opportunities, allowing for strategic entry or expansion into specific market segments.
• Evaluate the alignment between products and market demands, ensuring a strategic fit that resonates with the target audience.
• Develop and implement a deliberate brand positioning strategy that aligns with market trends, consumer preferences, and organizational values.

These examples showcase how strategic thinking is applied across various facets of business operations. By integrating these practices, organizations can foster a strategic mindset, leading to informed decision-making and sustainable success.

In a real-world scenario, imagine a tech company facing fierce market competition and disruptive technological shifts. A strategic thinker in the managerial role would first pinpoint the challenges: intense competition and the impact of tech disruptions. By actively analyzing industry trends and asking crucial questions, such as how to stand out in a crowded market, strategic thinking takes shape.

Encouraging team discussions to gather diverse perspectives ensures a comprehensive understanding of potential strategies. Crafting innovative solutions collaboratively, like exploring unique product features or strategic partnerships, follows. Proactively anticipating future challenges and formulating contingency plans showcase the hands-on nature of strategic thinking.

Effective communication of the strategic vision is crucial. Aligning stakeholders, fostering commitment to the plan, and conveying a well-defined vision are integral. This example highlights that strategic thinking is not just theory; it’s a practical skill with tangible outcomes in navigating complex business landscapes.

What is Strategic Thinking in Leadership

Strategic thinking in leadership goes beyond day-to-day decision-making; it involves a comprehensive approach to envisioning and navigating an organization’s future. It’s the capability of leaders to analyze the current landscape, anticipate future challenges and opportunities, and formulate innovative strategies to drive the organization toward success. Here’s a deeper exploration of what strategic thinking entails in leadership:

• Visionary Leadership: Strategic thinking leaders possess a visionary outlook, setting a clear and inspiring direction for the organization’s future.
• Long-Term Planning: Instead of focusing solely on immediate concerns, strategic leaders plan for the long term, considering sustainable growth and evolution.
• Adaptability: Leaders who think strategically are adaptable, and ready to adjust strategies in response to changing circumstances and market dynamics.
• Risk Management: They evaluate risks meticulously, making calculated decisions that balance potential rewards with potential pitfalls.
• Innovation Advocacy: Encouraging innovation is a key aspect. Strategic leaders foster a culture where novel ideas are valued, leading to continuous improvement.
• Decision-Making: Strategic thinking leaders make decisions based on a holistic understanding of the organization’s goals, industry trends, and competitive landscape.
• Collaborative Approach: They understand the importance of collaboration, seeking input from diverse teams to enhance the quality of strategic decisions.
• Communication Skills: Effective communication is paramount. Leaders articulate the strategic vision in a way that inspires and aligns the entire organization.
• Alignment with Values: Strategic leaders ensure that strategic initiatives align with the organization’s core values and mission.
• Continuous Learning: Leaders committed to strategic thinking engage in continuous learning, staying informed about industry advancements and emerging trends.

In essence, strategic thinking in leadership is about proactively shaping the organization’s future, and making informed choices that lead to sustained success and relevance in a dynamic business environment.

Key Characteristics of Strategic Thinking

Strategic thinking is a multifaceted skill encompassing various key characteristics that contribute to its effectiveness. These attributes set strategic thinkers apart and form the foundation for navigating complex business landscapes. Here are the key characteristics of strategic thinking:

• Forward-Thinking: Strategic thinkers have a future-oriented mindset, anticipating trends, challenges, and opportunities to proactively shape the organization’s destiny.
• Analytical Acumen: The ability to analyze vast amounts of information, discern patterns, and derive meaningful insights is crucial for strategic thinking.
• Innovative Vision: Strategic thinkers embrace innovation, seeking novel solutions and envisioning possibilities that disrupt conventional norms.
• Adaptability: Recognizing the dynamic nature of the business environment, strategic thinkers are adaptable and agile in responding to changes and uncertainties.
• Holistic Perspective: They consider the bigger picture, understanding the interconnectedness of various elements within and outside the organization.
• Risk Assessment: Strategic thinkers evaluate risks objectively, weighing potential rewards against potential drawbacks and making informed decisions.
• Long-Term Orientation: Rather than focusing solely on short-term gains, strategic thinkers prioritize long-term objectives and sustainable growth.
• Open-Mindedness: Embracing diverse perspectives and being receptive to new ideas fosters a climate of creativity and robust strategic planning.
• Effective Communication: Strategic thinkers communicate their vision and plans clearly, ensuring alignment and understanding throughout the organization.
• Results-Driven: Ultimately, strategic thinkers are driven by results, aiming to create lasting value and impact for the organization’s stakeholders.

These key characteristics collectively empower individuals to think strategically, guiding organizations toward success in today’s dynamic and competitive business landscape.

Strategic Thinking in Business

Strategic thinking in the realm of business is a dynamic and critical process that involves the exploration and refinement of existing business models . This approach entails a comprehensive evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the current model. By strategically thinking, businesses can foster innovation, identify new revenue streams , optimise operational processes, and adjust to the evolving demands of the market. This strategic perspective is essential for staying competitive and ensuring long-term success in the business landscape.

Applying Strategic Thinking to Business Models

Strategic thinking serves as a catalyst for transforming and optimizing traditional business models. This process entails a meticulous examination of the current model, pinpointing both its strengths and weaknesses. Through strategic thinking, businesses can unleash innovation by exploring novel revenue streams, refining operational processes, and adapting to the ever-changing landscape of market demands. This application of strategic thinking is instrumental in steering businesses towards resilience, growth, and sustained success.

The Business Model Canvas becomes a crucial tool in the strategic thinking process. It provides a visual framework for understanding, designing, and reinventing business models. By leveraging the canvas, organizations gain insights into key components such as value proposition , customer segments, channels , and cost structures. This clarity enhances strategic decision-making and fosters a more agile and adaptive business model.

The UNITE Business Model Canvas

The significance of strategic thinking in digital transformation.

In digital transformation, strategic thinking holds immense significance. It serves as the guiding force that shapes and directs the course of digital initiatives. It ensures a holistic approach, considering not only technological aspects but also the broader implications on business models, processes, and customer experiences. By strategically navigating the complexities of the digital transformation strategy , organizations can leverage emerging technologies effectively, enhance operational efficiency, and stay ahead in the competitive digital landscape. The application of strategic thinking becomes a linchpin for organizations aiming to achieve meaningful and sustainable digital transformation outcomes.

Real-Life Examples of Strategic Thinking in Business

To illustrate the tangible impact of strategic thinking, let’s delve into real-life examples where organizations successfully applied this approach to achieve remarkable outcomes.

• Apple Inc.: Apple’s strategic thinking is evident in its continuous innovation and product development. The introduction of the iPod, iPhone, and iPad showcased a forward-thinking approach that revolutionized the consumer electronics industry.
• Amazon: Amazon’s strategic thinking is exemplified in its customer-centric model and diversification. The company started as an online bookstore and strategically expanded into diverse product categories, cloud services (AWS), and even original content creation.
• Tesla: Tesla’s strategic thinking is embodied in its pursuit of sustainable energy solutions. The decision to focus on electric vehicles, solar energy, and energy storage reflects a long-term vision that goes beyond automotive manufacturing.
• Netflix: Netflix’s strategic thinking is evident in its shift from a DVD rental service to a global streaming platform. Embracing digital disruption, Netflix strategically invested in original content creation, transforming the entertainment industry.
• Google: Google’s strategic thinking is showcased in its commitment to innovation. From dominating the search engine market, Google expanded into diverse areas such as online advertising, mobile operating systems (Android), and artificial intelligence.

Differentiating Strategic Thinking from Other Types of Thinking

Thinking is a multifaceted cognitive process that varies across different contexts and objectives. Let’s delve into the distinctions between strategic thinking and other types of thinking:

• Strategic Thinking: Involves envisioning the future, identifying opportunities, and devising plans to achieve long-term goals.
• Critical Thinking: Focuses on analyzing, evaluating, and forming judgments about information or situations, emphasizing logical reasoning.
• Strategic Thinking: Emphasizes planning and decision-making for achieving organizational objectives, often involving a systematic approach.
• Creative Thinking: Involves generating novel ideas, solutions, or approaches, fostering innovation and unconventional thoughts.
• Strategic Thinking: Encompasses a holistic view, considering the overall direction and positioning of the organization.
• Analytical Thinking: Concentrates on breaking down complex problems into smaller components for in-depth examination and understanding.
• Strategic Thinking: Primarily concerned with defining goals, formulating plans, and aligning resources to achieve a predefined vision.
• Design Thinking: Centers around a human-centric approach, empathizing with end-users, and iteratively prototyping solutions for complex problems.
• Strategic Thinking: Focuses on organizational strategy, often involving hierarchical planning and coordination.
• Systems Thinking: Considers the interrelated components and relationships within a system, emphasizing holistic understanding and feedback loops.
• Strategic Thinking: Involves dynamic, adaptive, and non-linear planning, considering various scenarios and external influences.
• Linear Thinking: Follows a sequential and step-by-step approach to problem-solving without necessarily accounting for broader systemic factors.
• Strategic Thinking: Concentrates on forward-looking planning, often in a structured manner, to gain a competitive advantage.
• Lateral Thinking: Encourages unconventional and creative approaches to problem-solving, challenging traditional thought patterns.

Understanding these differences is crucial as it highlights the versatility of thinking processes and underscores the need for a well-rounded cognitive toolkit, incorporating strategic thinking when long-term planning and vision are paramount.

In conclusion, strategic thinking is the compass that guides businesses through the complexities of today’s ever-evolving landscape. By developing and nurturing strategic thinking skills , organizations can pave the way for sustained success and create value for everyone they serve. At Digital Leadership, we are passionate about empowering organizations to embrace strategic thinking. If you’re ready to elevate your strategic approach, contact us today for a transformative journey from strategy to execution.

Related Posts

Continuous improvement steps for enhancing digital leadership.

In digital leadership, organizations must not only keep up with industry trends1

Recent Posts

Examples and Types of Effective Functional Level Strategy for Business Support

A key objective of any business strategy is to improve operational efficiencies...

The Three Levels of Strategy: Corporate Strategy, Business Strategy, and Functional Strategy

Understanding the intricate levels of strategy is crucial for any organization aiming...

Register For Your FREE 
Innovation WorkShop Seat Now!

Learn how to overcome the 90% failure rate in innovation from a master innovator and best-selling author.

Expert tactics to boost your innovation odds.

Insights on capturing customer needs for innovation.

Tools that turn your ideas into triumphs.

First name *

Last name *

Professional E-mail *

I want to be kept up-to-date and accept the privacy statement *

By signing up, you agree to receive news and accept the privacy statement (mandatory)

Verify your e-mail address now by entering the 6-digit code we’ve just sent to your inbox

Don't receive Code? Resend code

Last one step

Help us better understand our innovation Show members

Country * Please Select Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin (Dahomey) Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Brunswick and Lüneburg Bulgaria Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Central African Republic Central American Federation Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Free State Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czechia Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Grand Duchy of Tuscany Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nassau Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papal States Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Piedmont-Sardinia Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Congo Republic of Korea (South Korea) Republic of the Congo Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Schaumburg-Lippe Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Württemberg Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Industry * Please Select Automotive, mobilty & transport Financial Services Chemical & agriculture Construction & Real Estate Consulting Education Energy Banking, insurance & FS FMCG Food Gov / Public Industry Health & lifestyle Logistics, Aero & Shipping Media & Entertainment Natural resources & mining Pharma & Biotech Retail & trade Tech & E-Commerce Telco Tourism design Information technology & services Management consulting Retail Pharmaceuticals International trade & development Professional training & coaching luxury goods & jewelry Automotive Insurance Mechanical or industrial engineering Company Size * XS - 1-10 S - 10-100 M - 100-1000 L - 1000-5000 XL - > 5000

Seniority * Please Select Junior Consultant Senior Consultant Manager Senior Manager Director VP SVP Partner CXO Board Member

Areas of interest * Innovation Digital Transformation Culture & Organization IT Strategy & Bus. Alignment Customer Experience

Discover the largest library of innovation & transformation tools on the entire Internet!

LOG IN VIA E-MAIL

Forgot password?

New to Digital Leadership? Create your account

Thanks, We’ve Received Your Updated Details

Learn how to overcome the 90% failure rate in innovation from a master innovator & bestselling author!

Your e-mail address: * Your first name: *

One Last Step..

Help us better understand the UNITE community

Free guide to improve your innovation success rate*

Our 35-page comprehensive innovation guide covers the key areas why innovation fails. While it cannot cover all the solutions (that would take books to fill), it provides you with a convenient starting point for your analysis and provides further resources and links to the corresponding UNITE models, ultimately allowing you to work towards a doubling and tripling your chances of success.

Get access to the UNITE Models now!

Discover the largest library of innovation & transformation tools on the internet!

Choose Your Password *

Confirm Your Password *

Already have an account? Log in

Country * Please Select Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin (Dahomey) Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Brunswick and Lüneburg Bhutan Bulgaria Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Central African Republic Central American Federation Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Free State Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czechia Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Grand Duchy of Tuscany Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nassau Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papal States Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Piedmont-Sardinia Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Congo Republic of Korea (South Korea) Republic of the Congo Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Schaumburg-Lippe Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland State of Palestine Syria Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United States United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Württemberg Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Industry * Please Select Automotive, mobilty & transport Financial Services Chemical & agriculture Construction & Real Estate Consulting Education Energy Banking, insurance & FS FMCG Food Gov / Public Industry Health & lifestyle Logistics, Aero & Shipping Media & Entertainment Natural resources & mining Pharma & Biotech Retail & trade Tech & E-Commerce Telco Tourism design Information technology & services Management consulting Retail Pharmaceuticals International trade & development Professional training & coaching luxury goods & jewelry Automotive Insurance Mechanical or industrial engineering Company Size * XS - 1-10 S - 10-100 M - 100-1000 L - 1000-5000 XL - > 5000

Editable UNITE models (PowerPoint) included

Most of our models and canvases are designed to be applied! 


To help you personalize them to your exact business requirements, you can download fully editable versions of the UNITE models available (PowerPoint format)!

They are straightforward to work with, and you can directly incorporate them into your presentations as you need…thus saving countless hours of replication!

PS: did you know that you are also getting hi-res print-ready versions for your workshops?

Monthly live webinars

Each month we host our exclusive, invitation-only webinar series where one of our industry-leading experts updates our members on the latest news, progress and concepts around business strategy, innovation and digital transformation, as well as other related topics. 



You will receive the book in PDF and EPUB formats, ideal for your computer, Kindle, Tablet or other eReading device.

Bi-weekly live group Q&A sessions

These sessions are your opportunity to bring any questions or challenges you’re facing and receive expert guidance on the spot. 


Come and be a part of engaging discussions where your unique concerns are heard and addressed.

1x personal coaching session / month

If you are occasionally looking for a sparring partner or you need limited support, then this option will be ideal for you. Coaching sessions are 1-2 hours where we can discuss any challenge or opportunity you are currently facing.

If you need a few more hours outside of this provision, then these could be billed transparently.

Unlimited video call support! – it’s like always making the right decision!

We believe support shouldn’t be limited. Because we typically find that the occasional hour just doesn’t cut it – particularly if you and your team are in the midst of a large and complex project.

Your time with Stefan is therefore unlimited (fair usage applies) – in his function as coach and sparring partner. That does mean that you will still have to do the work – we cannot take that off you, unless you hire us as consultants. But you will get valuable strategic insight and direction to make sure you are always focusing your efforts where they will lead to the best results.

One personal coaching session / month 
+ unlimited support via e-mail & WhatsApp

We believe support shouldn’t be limited. If you generally know what you are doing but want a sparring partner to frequently raise questions to, this is the perfect choice!

In addition to your monthly 1-1 live coaching sessions with Stefan, you will also get unlimited support from him via email and WhatsApp messaging (fair usage applies). This not only allows you to get valuable strategic direction in your calls, but also gives you instant access to expert help as you work through your plans each month.



The fact that support is text-based means that we can speed up our responses to you while keeping the overall cost of support down.

Welcome gift of our book 
 “How to Create Innovation” 
 (digital + physical editions)*

As a welcome gift, you will receive the both the digital and physical version of our book “How to Create Innovation”, which covers numerous relevant resources and provides additional deep dives into our UNITE models and concepts.


The print version will be shipped out to you on sign-up. The digital version will be emailed to you, and comes in PDF and EPUB formats, ideal for your computer, Kindle, Tablet or other eReading device.

1x major workshop or 2x smaller workshops / month

1x major or 2x smaller workshops based on the UNITE models.

• Topics covered: almost any challenge under the header of #strategy, #innovation or #transformation, leveraging the UNITE models.
• Hands-On Learning: solve your challenges while learning the practical application of the UNITE models and walk away with concrete plans and tools to take your next steps.
• Industry thought leadership: facilitated by Stefan, the founder of Digital Leadership and the main author of the UNITE models, ensuring top-tier guidance and knowledge sharing.
• Collaborative approach: engage in interactive sessions that foster collaboration, idea exchange, and real-time problem-solving among peers and industry leaders.
• Continuous Improvement: Regular workshops ensure ongoing development in your organization staying ahead of industry trends and customer needs.

Access all of our UNITE models, 
 (incl. editable & print versions)

All of our Professional plans offer full access to the following:

• 6x UNITE model package downloads are included per month, if you need something in addition to these however, please let us know!
• Hi-res, print-ready versions you can use in your workshops
• Fully editable PowerPoint versions where applicable – personalize to your needs.
• Exclusive access to our vault of never-before-published strategic materials. We have much more to share – a lot of our concepts have never been published!

Exclusive access to our private UNITE community (upcoming)

We are currently in the process of launching our brand new community., we are designing our community to specifically help you:.

• Get answers to questions (“How do I …”)
• Share leading practices & knowledge
• Jointly develop new models
• Network amongst a highly qualified group of peers

Please, select the reason

Cancelling your plan will deactivate your plan after the current billing period ends. You will not be charged further, but also won’t be able to access [exclusive features/services].

• Cost-related issues
• Unsatisfied with the service
• Features I need are missing
• Switching to a different service
• Other (Please specify)

Book Your Initial Blueprint Session Now

Simply fill out the below form and book in a time for our initial session that works for you. This initial session is free, no strings attached, and is where we can discuss your Blueprint needs more in-depth before moving forward.

Stefan F. Dieffenbacher

Founder of digital leadership.

Adam D. Wisniewski

Partner for it strategy & business alignment.

Get in touch with Digital Leadership

Speak to our team today to find the best solution for your business to grow and scale.

We are here to support you across the entire lifecycle in all topics related to #digital, #innovation, #transformation and #marketing!

Stefan F. Dieffenbacher Founder of Digital Leadership

Contact Us!

Contact form, contact details, book a call.

Title, first name & last name * Email address * Phone number Please let us know how we can best support you! *

By clicking “Send”, I agree to Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Let’s have a conversation!

“Please be invited to reach out! We are happy to help and look forward to a first meeting!”

+41 (0) 44 562 42 24

[email protected]

Schedule Your Call With Our Team

Find a time on our calender that best suits you !

Founder and CEO of Digital Leadership

SCHEDULE YOUR INITIAL CALL

A Quick Survey!

What is the main challenge you're currently facing in your business?

You Want To Drive Change?

Let’s find the best solution for your business to grow and scale sustainably!

Let’s kick start it!

We will uncover your current business situation and goals and provide you with a bespoke solution that helps you drastically grow your business working with us.

Stefan F. Dieffenbacher, M.B.A.

Feedback about our consulting that we are proud of

Read the reviews and make sure that this is not a waste of time, but a super effective tool.

You want to drive change?

Schedule your free business assessment call with our founder.

On this call, we will uncover your current business situation and goals and talk about how to drive change and solve your need.

Choose the meeting type that applies to your needs and schedule a time to meet with someone from our team. We look forward to speaking with you soon!

Schedule Your Free Business Assessment

Schedule Your Free Business Assessment Call With Adam D. Wisniewski

Welcome to our scheduling page.

Let’s Design your Customer Experience Blueprint !

In a uniquely designed 60 or 90 minute session* , we will …

• > identify where to start with near-certainty
• > define what approach it takes to create success in your organization

Based on the Blueprinting session, you will receive a tailored blueprint that aligns with your objectives, vision and goals, ensuring that your initiative is a success from start to finish.

In this session, you will be working together with Patrick Zimmermann, Associate Partner for Customer Experience

Let’s Design your Culture & Org-Change Blueprint !

In this session, you will be working together with Dr. Andreas Rein, Partner at Digital Leadership for Culture & Org Change

Let’s Design your Innovation Blueprint !

In this session, you will be working together with Sascha Martini, Partner at Digital Leadership for Innovation and Digital Transformation

Let’s Design your Transformation Blueprint !

In this session, you will be working together with Stefan F. Dieffenbacher, Founder of Digital Leadership Stefan is a global thought leader in the innovation space

Let’s Design your IT Strategy & Business Alignment Blueprint !

In this session, you will be working together with Adam D. Wisniewski, Partner for IT Strategy & Business Alignment

Patrick Zimmermann

Sascha Martini

Dr. Andreas Rein

Write a personalized review! Log in

Create Review

Ensure your strategic plan succeeds with your educational partners’ input

September 29, 2023

Sarah Mathias

Strategic planning in education – 3 keys to success.

Effective strategic planning is critical for creating positive change in your district. Among the many benefits, strategic plans align educational partners with a shared vision, mission, and values; promote productive decision-making; and help students reach their full potential.

While having a plan in place will usually improve results, strategic planning can present challenges—resulting in endless meetings, countless goal and tactic revisions, and plans that are never fully realized.

In this post, we explore strategic planning in education, touch on some K-12 planning tips, and share three best practices for making strategic planning successful in your school district. With your community’s insights and the right tools, you can win at strategic planning. Here’s how.

In this Article

• What is Strategic Planning in Education?

Strategic planning tips for K12

See thoughtexchange in action — explore the product tour, what is strategic planning in education.

Strategic planning is the process of setting goals, deciding on actions to achieve those goals, and mobilizing the resources needed to take those actions. A strategic plan describes how goals will be achieved using available resources.

While the concept initially stemmed from business practices due to people moving from the private sector into educational leadership positions, many strategic planning tools and paradigms have been adapted to focus on engagement and consensus.

This is because effective strategic planning requires community support at the school district level, both functionally and legislatively. School districts of all sizes use strategic planning to improve student outcomes and respond to changing demographics while staying within the given funding box.

In top-performing schools, leaders have proactively shifted their strategic planning process to include their educational partners. They know that their strategic plans are more likely to succeed with community support and the insights that come with community engagement.

Strategic planning is key to setting students up for success in K-12 and beyond. A solid strategic plan articulates a shared vision, mission, and values, increasing engagement while providing a framework to ensure students’ needs are met so they can reach their full potential.

Your strategic plan will benefit from your district’s input. Here are a few effective ways to engage your district in K-12 strategic planning.

Tap into your educational partners’ wisdom

Your educational partners have valuable insights. Consult teachers, staff, students , parents, and community members throughout the planning process, so your strategy aligns with their perspectives.

Whether you’re setting strategy at the district, school, or department level, consulting diverse participants will uncover unbiased insights, enhance trust and buy-in, and ensure greater success with new strategic directions.

Using ThoughtExchange , leaders can scale their engagement to efficiently and effectively include their community in their district strategic plans.

Use climate surveys

Completed by all students, parents/guardians, and staff, school climate surveys allow leaders to collect participants’ perceptions about issues like school safety, bullying, and mental health and well-being, as well as the general school environment.

ThoughtExchange Surveys get you both nuanced qualitative and robust quantitative data with instant in-depth analysis, ensuring your district understands all angles of school climate. Run surveys independently or combine them with Exchanges for faster, more accurate results.

• Collect benchmark comparisons while tracking and measuring improvements over time
• Gather quality quantitative data for reporting to state agencies or funders
• Identify outliers and trends across demographic groups

Put in some face time with town halls, meetings, or listening tours

In-person gatherings like town halls, meetings, and listening tours are effective ways to understand your educational partners’ wants and needs to ensure they line up with your strategic priorities.

When managed effectively, they give staff and other educational partners the chance to closely interact. In-person gatherings can build trust and morale, promote transparency, and help create a sense of purpose.

Leverage community engagement platforms

Community engagement software lets you streamline your community engagement initiatives. It allows education leaders to gather feedback and get tens, hundreds, or even thousands of people on the same page in just days. It also facilitates candid, collaborative community conversations that help districts realize their goals.

A comprehensive community engagement platform like ThoughtExchange allows you to integrate your strategy with your community and take decisive, supported action in less time. It provides planning, scheduling, and analysis tools to help you quickly set strategy and monitor execution.

3 keys to strategic planning success

1. get everyone on the same page.

Make sure your educational partners are on the same page by allowing them to contribute to and shape your strategy from the start. Lack of alignment about what strategy involves can hinder even the best plans. So the first step in creating a successful strategic plan is getting everyone involved to provide their insights and opinions.

Letting your people know you’re listening and that their insights affect decisions, builds trust and buy-in. Your community will be much more likely to support—not sabotage—a strategy or decision.

2. Be a collaborative leader

According to ThinkStrategic , creating a school strategic plan should always be a collaborative process. Avoiding a top-down approach and getting input from educational partners will help minimize blind spots and unlock collective intelligence. It will also ensure everyone is committed to the plan. Get all community members involved in how to make the most of the school’s possibilities.

Commit to becoming a collaborative leader and put a plan in place to ensure you can achieve that goal. That may include implementing technology that can support scaled, real-time discussion safely and inclusively for students, teachers, and other educational partners.

3. Get a holistic view of your district

Getting a holistic view of your educational partners’ wants and needs helps you build more inclusive, supported strategic plans.

Depend on a platform that meets all your engagement needs in one place—from surveys to Exchanges—and allows you to consult more people in an inclusive, anti-biased environment. You’ll reduce the time and resources spent on town halls and meetings, and reach your district’s goals more efficiently and effectively.

Engagement and survey software has been proven to contribute to more effective strategic planning in education. It empowers leaders to run and scale unbiased engagement initiatives where they can learn what the people who matter really think— explore ThoughtExchange success stories to learn more .

More from the Archives

Responsible ai integration: 4 steps for education leaders.

Insights for Leaders: Harnessing the Power of Responsible AI in Education

Unlocking the Power of Employee Voice: 3 Strategies for Optimizing AI in HR

Gain clarity, not clutter. Turn insights into action today.

Ready to see how the platform works?

• Deeper Engagement

Integrated AI-Analysis

• Instant Actions
• Events & Webinars
• Customer Stories

Great! Before we connect you with a member of our team, tell us a bit about you!

• Product Tour
• Integrated AI Analysis
• Responsible AI & Trust
• Brand Guidelines
• Leadership Team
• Careers & Culture
• Get Started

Webinar: Bond & Levy Planning Essentials: Your Best Chance of YES

Raising World Children

Strategic Thinking In Education: Building Effective Learning Strategies For Students

• December 14, 2023
• Featured Guest
• No Comments

Strategic Thinking In Education Leads to  Building Effective Learning Strategies For Students – Within education, there is a pressing need to ensure everyone has the opportunity to succeed. The modern classroom requires teachers and administrators who understand what strategies will best help each student reach their full potential. Strategic thinking in education is essential for discovering effective learning tools and approaches tailored to each student’s needs. It all starts with creative thought and problem-solving, from innovative new technology to more traditional methods. Stuart Robinson NYU education activist, explores how strategic thinking can shape our classrooms into dynamic learning centers and propel students toward success on multiple levels.

What Is Strategic Thinking?

Strategic thinking is analyzing, planning, and making decisions to achieve long-term goals. It involves thinking ahead and anticipating the possible outcomes of different actions. In education, strategic thinking is essential. Educators must identify students’ needs, plan appropriate learning activities, and create effective assessments to measure student progress. Furthermore, strategic thinking helps teachers stay ahead of the curve in an ever-changing education landscape. It is understanding the importance of strategic thinking in and out of the classroom. Developing strategic thinking skills early in life can significantly impact students’ future success and help them become critical thinkers and effective decision-makers.

How To Develop Strategic Thinking Skills In Students

Developing strategic thinking skills in students has become increasingly important in today’s complex world. These skills can help students analyze situations, solve problems, and make informed decisions. So, how can we develop these skills in students? Firstly, educators should encourage students to ask questions and think critically. Teachers can also engage students in decision-making, problem-solving, and brainstorming activities. Additionally, students can benefit from exposure to real-world scenarios, such as case studies, which can help them understand how to apply strategic thinking skills in practical situations. By providing opportunities for students to develop strategic thinking skills, we can equip them with the tools they need to succeed.

Strategies For Encouraging Innovation And Critical Thinking In The Learning Environment

As educators, we constantly strive to provide a learning environment that encourages innovation and critical thinking. But how do we achieve this goal? According to Stuart Robinson NYU education activist, there are several effective strategies to promote innovation and critical thinking in the classroom. One such strategy is to provide students with hands-on learning experiences. Another effective approach is encouraging open-ended discussions that challenge students to think critically and analyze information from multiple perspectives. By implementing these and other strategies, we can help our students develop the skills and mindset necessary to succeed in today’s constantly evolving world.

Tips On Creating An Environment That Cultivates Creative Problem-Solving

Are you seeking ways to promote creative problem-solving in your workplace or personal life? Creating an environment that cultivates creativity takes a conscious effort and some changes in your daily routine. One way to foster creativity is to allow experimentation and mistakes without harsh consequences. Encouraging diverse perspectives and open communication can also lead to innovative solutions. In addition, taking time to step away from work and engage in activities that spark joy and curiosity can stimulate creative thoughts. By implementing these tips, you can establish a creative problem-solving environment that allows for growth and success.

Ways To Incorporate Technology Into Learning Strategies

Stuart Robinson NYU education activist, stresses the importance of incorporating technology into learning strategies to stay competitive in today’s fast-paced world. Traditional teaching methods may not be enough to meet the needs of modern learners. Digital tools like educational apps, interactive whiteboards, and online resources provide students personalized learning experiences and instant feedback. Technology can also enhance collaboration and communication among students and teachers. By embracing technology, educators can create engaging and interactive lessons and unleash the full potential of their students.

Benefits Of Teaching Strategic Thinking In Education

Teaching strategic thinking in education can open many doors for students in the classroom and their future careers. It’s no secret that the world is rapidly changing, and the ability to think strategically has become more important than ever. Instead of memorizing facts and figures, strategic thinkers analyze information and make informed decisions. This skill set allows them to approach problems comprehensively and develop creative solutions. It also helps students become flexible thinkers, adept at navigating the complex world of academia and the workplace. By honing their strategic thinking skills, students will be better equipped to take on any challenge that comes their way.

Final Thoughts

In conclusion, strategic thinking is a skill that allows students to think differently and explore endless possibilities in generating meaningful solutions. It encourages creative problem-solving, critical thinking, and innovation. Educators have an important role in fostering the development of strategic thinking skills in their students. By utilizing effective strategies for teaching this concept, such as incorporating technology into lessons, implementing activities that encourage creativity, designing learning environments that promote collaboration, and introducing students to various problem-solving tactics, educators can inject an exciting level of engaging learning experiences into classrooms. Developing strategic thinking skills can provide students with the necessary cognitive tools to excel in today’s world. To take the next step towards promoting these higher-order skills and preparing the next generation for success, incorporate approaches that emphasize creative analysis into lesson plans or create opportunities for students to put their critical thinking abilities into practice today.

More articles here – RaisingWorldChildren.com/magazine

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

© 2020 Raising World Children. All rights reserved.Website Designed & Developed by DevGraphix

Navigating the Educational Landscape: The Transformative Power of Smart Classroom Technology

• Published: 02 September 2024

Cite this article

In the rapidly evolving landscape of education, integrating smart classroom technology (SCT) is a transformative force, reshaping traditional paradigms and redefining the dynamics of teaching and learning. The study aims to investigate the transformative impact of SCT on educational practices, focusing on its effectiveness in enhancing student engagement, learning outcomes, and overall educational experience. The study analyzes the implementation of a smart classroom (SMR) system to enhance overall satisfaction and foster positive perceptions among students and faculty concerning the learning environment. The study employed a quantitative methodology and utilized the random sampling technique. The data were collected from 420 college students at different levels from junior level to senior category who received SMR education. The collected data were analyzed by using SPSS software. The findings indicate that incorporation of SCT systems positively impacts student engagement and participation levels in academic activities. The result underscores the role of SCT in fostering a dynamic learning environment that promotes active learning and knowledge retention among students, highlighting its outstanding academic significance in transforming traditional educational practices. The study contributes by examining the transformative potential of SMR systems in education, focusing on enhanced student engagement, collaboration, and digital literacy. Its novelty lies in revealing the positive impact on satisfaction and perceptions, heralding a new era of personalized learning experiences. Practical values of SMR technology include providing data for tailored instruction and enabling personalized learning through interactive whiteboards and digital textbooks. Academically, it enhances understanding and retention with multimedia resources that cater to diverse learning styles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Study on the Development of the Smart Classroom Scale

How are we doing with student-centered learning facilitated by educational technologies? A systematic review of literature reviews

Benefits, Challenges and Opportunities of Using Computer-Assisted Instruction in Mathematics Education

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Trade Union, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lu Xu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Human and animal rights.

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A.) Sample of Questionnaire Distributed to College Students

Section 1: demographic information:.

Name (Optional):

18—20 years

21—22 years

23 and above

College Year:

Others (please specify)

College/University:

Nankai University

Yangzhou University

Shihezi University

Nanchang University

Chongqing Technology and Business University

Section 2: SMR Perception:

How familiar are you with the concept of an SMR system?

Very familiar

Somewhat familiar

Somewhat unfamiliar

Very unfamiliar

To what extent do you believe the implementation of an SMR system can positively impact AP?

Strong Disagree

Do you think utilizing advanced technology in classrooms will enhance students’ EP in academic activities?

In your opinion, will the integration of SMR tools lead to improved CC among students and faculty members?

Probably not

Do you believe students exposed to an SMR environment will demonstrate increased proficiency in DLS compared to those in traditional classrooms?

Strongly Believe

Do Not Believe

Strongly Do Not Believe

To what extent do you agree that the adoption of an SMR system will contribute to a more PAL experience for students, catering to diverse learning?

How do you think the implementation of an SMR system will impact overall satisfaction and perceptions among students and faculty regarding the learning environment?

Very positively

Very Negatively

How often do you engage in the SMR learning activity?

Do you think the use of SMR increased your AP?

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Do you believe SMR-based learning will help prepare you for future job opportunities?

Does SMR-based learning develop collaboration between students and teachers?

SMR education stimulates students to actively engage and participate in academic activities. Do you agree with this statement?

Is the SMR helpful for collecting worldwide data apart from your curriculum?

Does visualized learning develop your memory retention and develop your classroom discussion?

Does the SMR environment stimulate students to engage in the learning activities effectively?

SMR learning stimulated diverse learning styles among students. Do you agree with this statement?

Does SMR learning bring satisfaction to your learning experiences?

Do you think SMR has the potential to improve the academic outcomes of slow-learning students?

Does SMR develop communication among teachers and students?

Do you believe SMR is useful for accessing various resources for gathering details apart from the textbook content?

Which one would you feel is better for the learning process: traditional classroom or SMR learning?

Traditional class

Smart class

Please provide any additional comments or feedback regarding the implementation of an SMR system or any other factors you think are relevant to this study.

Thank you for participating in this survey! Your input is valuable for this research.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Xu, L. Navigating the Educational Landscape: The Transformative Power of Smart Classroom Technology. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02233-z

Download citation

Received : 30 January 2024

Accepted : 24 July 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02233-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Smart classroom education
• Advanced technology
• Academic performances
• Learning experiences
• Digital literacy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Edvocate

• Lynch Educational Consulting
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• Write For Us
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Assistive Technology
• Best PreK-12 Schools in America
• Child Development
• Classroom Management
• Early Childhood
• EdTech & Innovation
• Education Leadership
• First Year Teachers
• Gifted and Talented Education
• Special Education
• Parental Involvement
• Policy & Reform
• Best Colleges and Universities
• Best College and University Programs
• HBCU’s
• Higher Education EdTech
• Higher Education
• International Education
• The Awards Process
• Finalists and Winners of The 2023 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Award Seals
• GPA Calculator for College
• GPA Calculator for High School
• Cumulative GPA Calculator
• Grade Calculator
• Weighted Grade Calculator
• Final Grade Calculator
• The Tech Edvocate
• AI Powered Personal Tutor

Teaching Students About Naturalism

Teaching students about heartwood, true leadership is in short supply on modern college campuses, university of richmond expands richmond’s promise to virginia, china reshaping higher education with focus on quantum, deep tech workforce, anti-dei law shuts university of alabama black student union office, queer resource center, leadership models in higher education: insights from 2 arab university leaders, ai upskilling: future-proofing careers and bridging the skills gap, opinion | the roots of stem excellence, opinion: how innovative higher education models can benefit students, 34 points on strategic leadership in schools.

Modern educational leadership is complex and demanding. Challenges include reestablishing novel national visions, crafting new educational aims for schools, restructuring education systems at different levels, privatization, and diversifying school education, all at the macro-level, and being proactive in facing up to these contextual challenges using various strategies. Strategic leadership is strongly linked to the organization’s vision. Here are 34 points about strategic leadership in the school environment to prompt school administrators to action.

Vision is an essential part of strategic leadership. Without it, school staff and personnel aren’t working towards the same goal and therefore will find themselves at odds, slowing progress and impeding success. The following four points are essential for incorporating leadership vision in the school environment.

• Outstanding leaders must have a vision for their organizations.
• A school’s vision should be communicated in a way that secures commitment from other members of the organization.
• Communication of the vision requires communication of its meaning.
• Focus should be given to the institutionalizing of the vision if leadership is to be successful.

The development of strategic direction involves a process in which we don’t just look forward from the present, but we also establish a picture of what we want the school to look like in the future and set guidelines and frameworks on how to move forward to that position. As we have seen above, from the conversations with strategic leaders, there must a clear understanding of the direction the school is headed in. What strategic leaders need to do can be summarized by the strategic leadership points 5-8.

• Strategic leaders set the direction of the school.
• Strategic leaders challenge and question – they are dissatisfied with the present.
• Strategic leaders translate strategy into action.
• Strategic leaders prioritize their own strategic thinking and learning by building new mental models to frame their understanding and that of others.

One key characteristic of strategic leaders is their ability to envision the different ways their organization might perform in future. They always have a desire to challenge the status quo and improve for the future. This means that strategic leaders have to deal constantly with their dissatisfaction with present arrangements, while facing the challenge that they are not able to change things as quickly as they might want. Leaders, as change agents in their organizations, constantly ask questions such as:

• What are the things taught that have been clearly successful or unsuccessful in the past?
• What accounted for the success or failure?
• What do we need to do differently in the future?
• Which relationships between the school and students, parents, or the wider community have been successful or unsuccessful, and why?
• What can be done to change things for the better?
• How can we assess what we do to challenge the current understanding and operations?
• As a school, are we cruising and strolling or are we challenging and creating?

Wisdom in the context of strategic leadership is defined as the ability to take the right action at the right time. Strategic leaders need this kind of wisdom to successful foster school growth. Here are ten abilities that are central to using wisdom in strategic leadership.

• Creative ability to come up with ideas
• Analytical ability to decide whether the ideas are good.
• Practical ability to make their ideas functional and convince their followers that their ideas are valuable.
• To balance the impact of the ideas on themselves, others, and their institutions in the short and long run.
• Successful intelligence to adapt to varying situations and challenges.
• To balance the interests of various stakeholders in the school setting.
• To balance timeframes in a way that allows for optimal work to get done.
• To infuse values in a mindful way throughout the school environment.
• To align responses to the environment appropriately.
• To apply knowledge for the common good.

Strategic leadership is a powerful tool for school reform. These final nine points regarding strategic leadership deal with school reform, and specifically how administrators can create meaningful change within their school environment.

• Strategic leaders have a vision of the reformed system and how to achieve it.
• Strategic leaders create a broad understanding and support for the reform vision at the highest levels.
• Strategic leaders bring commitment of school and district leadership to the reform vision and its implementation.
• Strategic leaders rely on the use of interventions to translate the reform vision into practice.
• Strategic leaders recognize that, for reform to be achieved, one has to start small, refine activities as needed, and provide evidence that interventions lead to desired outcomes.
• Strategic leaders develop system capability and capacity to scale up reform with quality.
• Strategic leaders enhance and facilitate development of formal policies that provide guidance and incentives for reform.
• Strategic leaders avoid controversy.
• Strategic leaders develop capabilities for the next generation of reform leaders.

Strategic leadership consists not only of the vision element in leadership ability, but also encompasses other wide-ranging factors. The question thus remains how we can develop a coherent model that informs us about what strategic leadership truly entails. These 34 points offer administrators a powerful place to start exploring strategic leadership, or to deepen their practice of it in an effort to continue to improve their school’s ability to success.

How to Save Time Lesson Planning, Grading ...

Traditional or alternate: what teacher preparation program ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author, the seven principles of sustainable leadership.

Why K-12 Education Still Needs Federal Oversight

Time to Learn: Revisiting the School Calendar Debate

More children are reading for pleasure than ever, National Literacy Trust finds

Keeping Public School Libraries Relevant

Parental involvement in early childhood learning: a stitch in time saves nine.

Why Critical Thinking Should Be a Core Component of Education

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill that enables individuals to navigate the complexities of the modern world effectively. It is a disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information gathered from various sources. As such, critical thinking should be a core component of education at all levels, as it equips students with the necessary tools to succeed academically, professionally, and personally.

Enhancing Academic Performance

Critical thinking is essential for academic success. It allows students to break down complex problems, evaluate evidence, and draw well-reasoned conclusions. A study conducted by the University of Louisville found that students who received explicit instruction in critical thinking skills demonstrated significant improvements in their overall academic performance.

Fostering Innovation and Problem-Solving

In today’s rapidly changing world, the ability to think critically is crucial for generating innovative solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking enables individuals to question assumptions, consider alternative perspectives, and think outside the box. A survey by the American Management Association revealed that 77% of employers consider critical thinking a crucial skill for their employees.

Promoting Lifelong Learning

Critical thinking is not just a skill but a mindset that can be applied throughout one’s life. By cultivating critical thinking abilities, students develop a love for learning and the confidence to tackle new challenges. A longitudinal study by the University of Michigan found that students who engaged in critical thinking activities in college were more likely to continue learning and adapting to new situations in their careers.

Developing Ethical Decision-Making

Critical thinking is essential for making ethical decisions in complex situations. It allows individuals to consider multiple perspectives, weigh the consequences of their actions, and make informed choices. A study by the Josephson Institute of Ethics revealed that 59% of high school students admitted to cheating on an exam in the past year, highlighting the need for stronger ethical reasoning skills.

Enhancing Civic Engagement

Critical thinking is crucial for active and informed citizenship. It enables individuals to critically evaluate information, identify biases, and make well-reasoned decisions on important issues. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that only 26% of Americans could correctly answer a set of questions testing their civic knowledge.

In conclusion, critical thinking should be a core component of education because it enhances academic performance, fosters innovation and problem-solving, promotes lifelong learning, develops ethical decision-making, and enhances civic engagement. By prioritizing critical thinking in the classroom, educators can empower students to become independent, adaptable, and responsible citizens who are equipped to navigate the challenges of the 21st century.

Insights Success is an archway that caters to Entrepreneurs’ quench of technology and business updates which are currently ruling the business world.

We are ceaselessly proving the best platform for leading companies, which aids indefinite progress while creating meaningful learning experiences for the visitors and invaluable brand awareness for the clients.

Quick Links

• Advertise With Us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

What Is Spatial Thinking? And Why Does It Matter For Students In Schools?

MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA - 2022/08/20: A girl plays with Lego blocks at R City mall in Mumbai. ... [+] Lego group marked 90 years of play by introducing Lego playground at the mall where children used their ideas to create objects using Lego blocks. (Photo by Ashish Vaishnav/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

A recent special issue in the journal Gifted Child Today brought together experts to address the importance of spatial thinking in both research and practice. Here we get the perspectives of these experts on spatial skills across four main areas: What is spatial thinking and why does it matter? Why is it important to adequately measure spatial skills? Why does spatial reasoning matter for policy and practice? and Why do spatial skills matter for helping talented kids?

What is spatial thinking and why does it matter?

Danielle Rothschild, Kiley McKee , and David Uttal : Imagine that you are moving across the country and are packing all your belongings in a single truck. Each item varies wildly in both shape and size. To optimize the space that you have, you think about placement of each suitcase, piece of furniture and assorted lamps and how each item will fit together. This mental calculation of how objects fit together in a space is an example of spatial thinking. Spatial thinking broadly involves visualizing the locations of shapes and objects, and how they move and relate to each other ( Newcombe, 2010 ). Spatial thinking is important for a variety of other everyday tasks as well, such as navigating and using a map, assembling furniture, completing a puzzle, or even thinking about how you want to decorate a space.

Spatial thinking is an area of intelligence that many are not aware of, which is distinct from verbal and quantitative intelligence ( Atit et al., 2021 ; Shea et al., 2001 ). Additionally, spatial skills are often not highlighted in school curricula ( Lakin et al., 2024 ). Decades of research have shown that spatial ability is essential for the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Students with higher spatial ability tend to perform better in STEM fields and are more likely to go on to pursue careers in these fields ( Uttal & Cohen, 2012 ; Wai et al., 2009 ). This association between STEM and spatial thinking is particularly true for novice STEM learners ( Uttal & Cohen, 2012 ). For example, a chemistry teacher can rely on their years of expertise when discussing the structure of a water molecule, but a high school student taking their first chemistry class will likely have to heavily rely on their own spatial visualization capabilities to picture and understand the molecule and how the hydrogen and oxygen atoms interact with each other. The good news is that research has also shown that spatial skills are malleable , meaning they can be trained and improved ( Uttal et al., 2013 ). Increasing student’s spatial skills, particularly young student’s spatial skills, can open doors to a variety of different STEM-related fields.

Why is it important to adequately measure spatial skills?

Joni Lakin : Sometimes it's okay to recognize talent based on intuition or informal observation. Parents and family members often notice the strengths that their children demonstrate as they build complex designs from blocks, speak precociously to others, or demonstrate leadership on their sports team. In schools and formal education spaces, it’s harder to recognize talents because there are more students to focus on, more types of talents that may be demonstrated, and cultural differences that may mask talents to an observer from another culture. With spatial reasoning, recognizing talent is even more complex because it is not widely discussed or recognized, and the observers may not have that type of strength or noticed that talent area before.

In these cases, systematic and evidence-based talent identification is essential. Assessments provide more consistent and actionable information about students’ talents that can then inform how we shape these skills in students either through differentiation of instruction, special programs, or opportunities for independent projects.

Assessment doesn’t have to be a multiple-choice test. For spatial thinking, structured observations may work, such as assigning students to design 3D models and observing the variations in their designs. However, any assessment needs to consider the role of experience in performance. Spatial training is often self-selected, such as the types of video games a child prefers or how much time they spend building with blocks. Therefore, some children may not demonstrate a particular strength on an assessment due to lack of experience with the tasks rather than lack of ability. This is why it’s so important to provide exposure to spatial thinking to all students as well as to use evidence-based assessments to recognize spatial talents in schools.

Why does spatial reasoning matter for policy and practice?

Emily K. Farran : One of the top five most in-demand soft skills for technology employers is problem solving . Could training children to use spatial thinking reap long-term gains in problem solving skills and address the STEM workforce shortage? Drawing on research from my group and others, one promising avenue for increasing STEM competence is to focus on spatial training for young children. Children who learn to think spatially will reap the benefits in their STEM learning and problem solving. Yet many government policies designed to target STEM skills shortages focus on adolescents and young adults, ignoring the known benefits of targeting the early years.

What do I mean by spatial reasoning? Spatial reasoning is the ability to understand spatial relationships, and the spatial properties of objects such as their size and location, as well as the ability to visualise objects and problems in the mind. We use spatial reasoning everyday—you used it to navigate to where you are now, and to pack your bag this morning. Children are using it all the time when they hide objects in the sand, take their position on the carpet and during block play.

For mathematics specifically, there is compelling evidence that children with good spatial reasoning skills are also better at number and maths, and that spatial training leads not only to improved spatial reasoning, but to improved mathematics competence. For example, recent research has shown that teaching children to think spatially can increase their achievement in mathematics by the equivalent of half the annual gain in mathematics. Spatial training is particularly helpful in closing attainment gaps. This is likely because children from disadvantaged backgrounds typically have lower spatial skills and lower spatial language—they have the biggest room for growth. Including spatial reasoning in the curriculum has the potential to reinvigorate the way we teach children. What’s more—and particularly important for maths’ sometimes dull image—spatial activities are enjoyable and can improve attitudes to maths.

With the exception of some countries (e.g., Australia, parts of Canada, Finland), the school curriculum makes little reference to spatial reasoning. This limits practitioners’ freedom to include spatial activities in their teaching and curbs opportunities for professional learning on the importance of spatial thinking. Our work with nursery practitioners and early years teachers confirms that, due to this lack of emphasis, practitioners have low confidence in what spatial reasoning is and have limited training or subject knowledge in spatial thinking. We need curriculum reform, to include more explicit reference to spatial thinking in mathematics curriculum, with associated goals. For example, in England, I recommend bringing back the early learning goal of shape, space and measure. Furthermore, aligned with the curriculum, practitioners need professional development to be confident in teaching children to think and work spatially.

Even if curricula change, the question remains as to how practitioners can embed spatial reasoning into educational practice. It is widely recognized that the translation of research to practice is challenging in education. Research papers are not always accessible to practitioners, and practitioners do not always have the time to reflect on research findings. Similarly, researchers face difficulties in translating lab-based training to the classroom whilst maintaining effectiveness. Bi-directional communication between researchers and practitioners is needed to maximise the impact and utility of research findings for practical use in the classroom. Contributing to this conversation, we have produced the Spatial Reasoning Toolkit (SRT). The SRT is a set of resources for practitioners with the goal of ensuring that practitioners are equipped to spatialise their curricula, and that children are taught spatial abilities as a route to improving their mathematical skills. The SRT includes videos, keyrings, book lists, posters, a summary of research evidence and a developmental trajectory of spatial abilities. To-date there have been over 35,000 views of the SRT resources online and practitioners rate the SRT as very useful. Teachers say: “I have found your trajectories really specific and easy to use.” and “I think [my pupils are] coming out with better spatial reasoning than [the cohort] two years ago.” The SRT is just one effort to remove barriers to embedding spatial thinking into curricula. We hope that this is the beginning of a long and fruitful dialogue between researchers, policymakers and practitioners on the importance of spatial thinking.

Why do spatial skills matter for helping talented kids?

Paula Olszewski-Kubilius and Susan Corwith : Spatial thinking frequently shows up in daily life, is an asset to problem solving, and is important to many fields—including surgery, dentistry, physics, geology, and engineering—as documented by researchers. Schools, however, focus primarily on developing mathematical reasoning skills and verbal skills important for writing, reading, and communicating effectively.

While schools regularly assess skills in verbal and quantitative areas, they do not regularly assess spatial skills or spatial reasoning. This is unfortunate because there are many students with spatial reasoning strengths who do not have commensurate verbal or math reasoning strengths. Paying more deliberate attention to students' spatial ability can have a significant impact on individual talent development and help society benefit from more students' creativity and innovation. Because spatial reasoning is less correlated with family income than math and verbal reasoning, identifying spatial talent offers the opportunity to find talented children from low-income backgrounds.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

The good news is that research also demonstrates that spatial skills are malleable and can be developed with inexpensive and easy to implement activities. By infusing opportunities such as block play and construction activities, design and maker activities, more use of graphs and visuals, or the use of spatial language, teachers can both support the development of basic spatial skills and highlight spatial strengths as students demonstrate them. Spatial ability can be developed through informal play and with intention in many types of courses as well (e.g., mathematics, architecture, engineering).

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 August 2024

Understanding the influence of business innovation context on intentions of enrolment in master education of STEM students: a multi-level choice model

• Ana-Maria Zamfir 1 ,
• Adriana AnaMaria Davidescu 1 , 2 &
• Cristina Mocanu 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1087 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

71 Accesses

Metrics details

This article studies educational decisions, focusing on intentions of enrolment in master’s education of STEM bachelor students. Integrating human capital theory with concepts of cultural and social capital, we propose a two-level model for the choice of pursuing master’s degrees. First level (individual) includes factors covering individual habitus and organisational habitus (higher education institutions of bachelor students), while the second level (local) reflects the local business innovation environment. The proposed model was empirically tested on data collected from a sample of STEM and non-STEM bachelor students enroled in 10 public universities located in Romania. The results show that STEM students display a higher propensity to enrol in master's education, and the gap between STEM and non-STEM majors varies across regions. We find that educational decisions related to master’s degrees are shaped by local circumstances reflecting the business innovation intensity as more innovative business contexts are less conducive for enrolment of students in master programmes. In addition, the findings of the study show that local circumstances are not independent of the field of study when shaping students’ educational choices, highlighting the complex way in which individual and local levels factors interplay and shape educational decisions. STEM students’ propensity to enrol in master’s degrees is more influenced by the innovative business environment than other students. This study has implications for higher education policy and practice aiming to support longer educational careers in STEM.

Similar content being viewed by others

Designing a framework for entrepreneurship education in Chinese higher education: a theoretical exploration and empirical case study

Extra-curricular support for entrepreneurship among engineering students: development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions

Individual entrepreneurial orientation for entrepreneurial readiness

Introduction.

While there is a rich literature on the decision to enrol in higher education, lesser attention has been given to the transition from bachelor’s to master’s programmes (Mullen et al., 2003 ; English and Umbach, 2016 ), including in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education. This paper contributes to the study of educational decisions, analysing the intentions of enrolment in master’s education of STEM bachelor students. The study is focused on the students’ decision of pursuing a master-level degree right after graduating bachelor’s studies. Master’s degrees offer graduates of undergraduate education the possibility to acquire deeper or additional skills and knowledge. Master-level programmes engage students in more advanced research methods and independent study while focusing on a narrower specialisation. It is believed that attaining master’s degrees brings significant individual and social benefits (English and Umbach, 2016 ) and supports scientific and technological advancement (Committee on Enhancing the Master’s degree in the Natural Sciences, 2008 ). Master’s degree attainment is consistently rising and understanding factors that shape the transition from bachelor’s to master’s is becoming increasingly important (English and Umbach, 2016 ). A better knowledge of the mechanisms behind this process is of interest to education researchers and practitioners.

According to Hossler and Gallagher’ ( 1987 ) 3-phase college-going model, the first stage of the educational choice is the predisposition phase in which students decide on pursuing or not a higher-level education programme. Following theoretical models developed for undergraduate enrolment, this paper is focused on the factors influencing the predisposition to pursue master’s degrees among final-year bachelor students in STEM and non-STEM fields. Early studies on graduate education relied on the idea of persistence or retention of students in the education system (Tinto, 1975 ; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1980 ). Developing theoretical models based on the literature on undergraduate college choice, more recent works understand students’ process of choosing to pursue a master’s degree as a new and distinct choice among possible post-graduation alternative options (English and Umbach, 2016 ).

Education decisions are shaped by a dense mix of mechanisms, including what individuals can do, what they want and conditions that shape individual preferences and intentions (Gambetta, 1987 ). Such mechanisms embed a wide range of individual, institutional and economic factors (Table 1 ).

Previous studies found significant heterogeneity among master’s degree students (O’Donnell et al., 2009 ; Jung and Li, 2021 ). On the one hand, demographic and background characteristics such as gender, race and age of the students, as well as their area of residence, influence their enrolment in master’s degrees (Perna, 2004 ; Schapiro et al., 1991 ; Xu, 2014 ; Allison and Ralston, 2018 ; Jung and Lee, 2019 ). For instance, the underrepresentation of women, as well as racial and ethnic minorities in STEM education has been analysed by numerous studies (Espinosa, 2011 ; Batsheva and Boards, 2019 ; McKinney et al., 2021 ). On the other hand, education decisions on whether or not to continue education are influenced by the expectations regarding academic success. Individuals with higher academic performances tend to take greater risks in this matter and enrol in higher levels of education (Latiesa, 1989 ; Mullen et al., 2003 ; Zamfir et al., 2021 ). According to Bourdieu ( 1977 ) theory on the role of cultural and social capital in education, parents’ education influences educational transitions as students with parents having a higher level of education are more likely to graduate at a higher education level (Jiménez and Salas-Velasco, 2000 ; Mullen et al., 2003 ; Zamfir et al., 2021 ). Family income is another factor of influence for educational careers. Students with better economic circumstances are more likely to enrol in higher-level courses (González and Dávila, 1998 ; DeBacker and Routon, 2021 ), including master’s degrees (Schapiro et al., 1991 ). Studies exploring the influence of the level of educational debt on decisions to attend graduate degrees have found mixed results (Schapiro et al., 1991 ; Weiler, 1994 ).

Other factors that shape educational choices are related to educational institutions. Quality and other characteristics of the academic environment influence educational choices and decisions in higher education (Kallio, 1995 ; Zhang, 2005 ; Zamfir et al., 2021 ). Educational careers are also shaped by the satisfaction of students with education. In general, the satisfaction of students with higher education is determined both by the perceived institutional performance and the perceived outcomes of institutional performance (Hartman and Schmidt, 1995 ). Moreover, it has been found that the type of university influences the transition from bachelor’s to master’s as students from research universities are more likely to pursue master’s degrees than those from teaching-oriented universities (Jung and Lee, 2019 ).

Previous research indicates a significant relationship between the field of study and the decision to pursue a master's education. It has been found that students from the arts stream are less predisposed to enrol in postgraduate studies compared to science stream students (Kong et al., 2015 ; Jung and Lee, 2019 ; Zamfir et al., 2021 ). Considering this difference between STEM and non-STEM students, it would be very important to better understand the variation between the two fields of study.

We know that investing in education fosters the accumulation of knowledge and skills, allowing individuals to have access to better job prospects and higher wages (Becker, 1962 , 1990 ; Thomas and Perna, 2004 ; Paulsen and Toutkoushian, 2008 ). According to the economics of education, investing in human capital is motivated by expected economic returns (Becker, 1962 , 1990 ; Thomas and Perna, 2004 ; Paulsen and Toutkoushian, 2008 ; Menon et al., 2017 ). Considering the human capital theory, the demand for higher education has been studied in relation to labour market factors such as the level of unemployment (Becker, 1964 ; Ashenfelter and Ham, 1979 ; Jiménez and Salas-Velasco, 2000 ) and expected earnings upon completion of a degree (Kodde, 1986 ). Expectations regarding monetary and non-monetary returns of education are relevant for educational choices (Altonji et al., 2015 ). Increased expected earnings have been found to positively influence the enrolment demand, particularly for post-graduate education (Handa and Skolnik, 1975 ). Jiménez and Salas-Velasco ( 2000 ) propose a model of factors determining educational choice, which includes objective and subjective determinants related to the current situation of the students, but also to the future, such as employment prospects and expected income. Additionally, students’ participation in the labour market influences their enrolment in master’s degrees (Zamfir et al., 2021 ).

Moreover, differences in pursuing master’s degrees in relation to students’ majors are mainly determined by differences in the expected benefits (English and Umbach, 2016 ; Zamfir et al., 2021 ). In general, STEM degrees bring higher returns (Burgess, 2016 ), encouraging individuals to pursue more education in related fields.

Returns to education are influenced by local conditions of the economic environment. Our previous results showed that local labour markets characterised by higher employment in science and technology increase the probability of bachelor students to enrol in master education. In addition, more dynamic local contexts with respect to earnings level, business demography, and business innovation discourage students from prolonging their education career, probably due to higher forgone earnings (Zamfir et al., 2021 ). From this point of view, it is possible that differences between the intentions of STEM and non-STEM students vary in relation to the local context.

In addition, the theory of skilled-biased technological change (Machin and Van Reenan, 1998 ) highlights the rising demand for higher skills in more technologically advanced contexts. Previous studies linked various proxies of technological change and innovation with a higher demand for skilled workers (Toner, 2011 ). Evidence suggests a virtuous circle between the education and skills of the workforce and business innovation capacity, as enterprises with a higher proportion of more skilled workers have a higher probability of introducing new products (Toner, 2011 ). From this point of view, one could expect contextual factors reflecting the business innovation environment to influence returns to education for STEM and non-STEM students in a different way. Thus, we draw on human capital theory while taking into consideration the business innovation environment for exploring the factors shaping the decision of enrolment in master’s degrees of STEM vs. non-STEM students. Detecting the factors that influence different educational choices of STEM and non-STEM students is useful for identifying effective measures for increasing participation in STEM master education. Promoting STEM education is considered a key element for driving innovation and economic growth worldwide.

Research questions and objective

Integrating human capital theory with concepts of cultural and social capital, Perna ( 2006 ) developed a model of college choice based on four layers: individual habitus, community and school context (organisational habitus), higher education context and socio-economic and policy context. Studying transition from undergraduate to graduate education, English and Umbach ( 2016 ) revise the approach of Perna ( 2006 ) and propose a two layers conceptual model integrating individual and institutional factors that influence students’ decision to pursue graduate education. The individual layer (habitus) includes demographic characteristics, cultural and social capital, academic achievement, supply of resources and expected benefits. The second layer covers features of the undergraduate institution context.

Building on the previous work of Perna ( 2006 ) and English and Umbach ( 2016 ) regarding the multiple layers of factors that influence educational choices, we take into account individual characteristics, as well as features of institutional and business innovation contexts that shape educational choices. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to propose and test a two-level model for the choice of pursuing a master’s degree that integrates individual and institutional factors with circumstances in the local business innovation environment. First level (individual) includes individual habitus and organisational habitus (higher education institutions of bachelor students, including enrolment in STEM vs. non-STEM fields). The second level (local) reflects local conditions concerning the business innovation environment. The second level recognises that the choice of pursuing master’s degree is influenced by wider forces and conditions that interplay with individual factors and shape individual preferences and intentions. The conceptual model of the current study is presented in Fig. 1 .

This figure illustrates the two-level model that integrates individual and institutional factors (level 1) with circumstances related to the local business innovation environment (level 2) influencing the choice of pursuing a master’s degree.

As has been shown before (Zamfir et al., 2021 ), STEM bachelor students display a higher propensity to enrol in master’s degrees than other students. In addition, previous results indicate that a more dynamic business innovation local context discourages students to pursue graduate education. By developing the two-level model for the choice of pursuing a master’s degree, this paper is focused on addressing the following research questions:

RQ1: Do STEM vs. non-STEM majors have different effects on intentions of pursuing master education in different local contexts?

RQ2: Does and how does the business innovation context interplay with STEM vs. non-STEM majors in shaping the predisposition of enrolment in master education?

Data and methods

In order to empirically test the proposed model, we integrated data from various administrative and statistical sources for a sample of students enroled in ten public universities located in Romania (out of a total of 54 public universities). In 2019, intentions of pursuing a master’s degree in the next school year (2020/2021) were collected via a questionnaire-based survey from 502 students enroled in their final year of bachelor studies (age M  = 22.08, SD = 1.185; 273 (54.4%) men, 229 (45.6%) women) in various fields of education (medical studies, sports, military and defence have not been covered). Fields of study have been registered for each bachelor student, and two categories have been constructed: STEM and non-STEM fields. The final sample included 250 STEM students and 252 non-STEM students. For university quality, performance scores of higher education institutions have been retrieved from the national university ranking for 2019 (Guo et al., 2023 ). Also, individual and background characteristics (academic performance, parents’ education, subjective family income, gender, age, area of residence, employment status, working experience), as well as subjective expectations regarding economic benefits anticipated upon the completion of a master’s degree have been collected from students.

The second level of the indicators includes data on the economic context at local level, more specifically on the business innovation environment. Regional-level data on enterprises introducing product and/or process innovations have been retrieved from statistical sources (Romanian National Institute for Statistics). List and description of indicators and data sources are presented in the appendix.

Aiming to identify the main determinants of students’ intention in pursuing a master’s degree in the next year, we used a multilevel logistic regression analysis based on the hierarchical nature of the data (individuals from different universities that are placed in different regions), which includes the individual-level variables, and then explores whether university-level factors together with regional level indicators are significantly associated with the intention of pursuing a master programme.

In order to analyse the between-region variation while taking into account the influence of individual characteristics in the overall intention to enrol to a master programme, different types of two-level models were used. The general approach of constructing the models is presented in Fig. 2 . The first stage was to estimate a baseline random intercept model with no explanatory variables. This step is needed for establishing whether a multi-level approach is appropriate. The null or empty two-level model with only an intercept and region effects has the following form:

This figure presents the step-by-step approach of the statistical analysis, outlining different types of the estimated two-level models.

The intercept \({\beta }_{0}\) is shared by all regions, while the random effect \({u}_{0j}\) is specific to region j . The random effect is assumed to follow a normal distribution with variance \({\sigma }_{{uo}}^{2}\) . The baseline random intercept model with no explanatory variables was estimated using maximum likelihood estimation using adaptive quadrature. The log odds are the logarithm of the odds (i.e. the ratio between a probability value (Phi) and its complementary).

The second stage was to develop a model with first-level variables (i.e. individual-level) in order to test the impact of individual characteristics:

β 0 is interpreted as the log-odds that y  = 1 when x  = 0 and u  = 0 and is referred to as the overall intercept in the linear relationship between the log-odds and x . If we take the exponential of β 0 , exp( β 0 ), we obtain the odds that y  = 1 for x  = 0 and u  = 0. As in the single-level model, β 1 is the effect of a 1-unit change in x on the log-odds that y  = 1, but it is now the effect of x after adjusting for (or holding constant) the group effect u . If we are holding u constant, then we are looking at the effect of x for individuals within the same group, so β 1 is usually referred to as a cluster-specific effect. Exp( β 1 ) can be interpreted as an odds ratio, comparing the odds that y  = 1 for two individuals (in the same group) with x -values spaced 1 unit apart.

While β 0 is the overall intercept in the linear relationship between the log-odds and x , the intercept for a given group j is ( β 1  +  u j ), which will be higher or lower than the overall intercept depending on whether u j is greater or less than zero. Therefore, u j is the group (random) effect, group residual, or level 2 residual. The response probabilities \({\pi }_{{ij}}\) can be expressed as follows:

At the second level, there will be added contextual factors to the model. In the third step, the logit random intercept model specification, including both individual-level explanatory variables, as well as region-level explanatory variables, is the following:

where: \({\beta }_{0}\) is the overall intercept, \({\beta }_{1}\) is the cluster-specific effect, \({\beta }_{2}\) is the contextual effect, X ij is the vector containing individual-level explanatory variables, X j is the vector containing region-level explanatory variables, and u j is the group (random) effect. The log odds are the logarithm of the odds (i.e. the ratio between a probability value (Phi) and its complementary).

Additionally, we test interaction effects exploring the possibility of the effect of one independent variable on the outcome to vary with the value of another explanatory variable. An interaction between a level 1 variable and a level 2 variable is called a ‘cross-level interaction’. Furthermore, it was worth to test if the effect of contextual regional factors on the decision of applying to a master programme depends on level 1 characteristics. Therefore, in the fourth step, we have estimated random intercept models with cross-level interactions.

In the random intercept models, the model intercept varies randomly across regions and the main assumption was that the coefficients of all explanatory variables are fixed across regions.

In the last stage, assuming that the decision of applying for a master's degree could vary across regions depending on the field of study—STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) and non-STEM, random slope models have been estimated, allowing for both the intercept and the coefficient of field of study to vary randomly across regions, also including cross-level interactions.

In a random slope model, a group-level random term u j has been included as a linear predictor of the model.

\({X}_{{ij}}\cdot {u}_{1j}\) is a new term to the model, 0 is the subscript for the intercept residual, random effects \({u}_{1j},\,{u}_{0j}\) are normally distributed with the variances \({\sigma }_{u1}^{2},\) \({\sigma }_{u0}^{2}\) and the covariance \({\sigma }_{u01}\) .

The extension from random intercepts to random slopes has introduced two new parameters to the model— \({\sigma }_{u1}^{2}\) and \({\sigma }_{u01}\) carrying out a test of the null hypothesis that both are equal to zero.

Also, regions showing an above-average positive relationship between the field of study and master enrolment intention will have \({u}_{1j}\, > \,0\) , while regions with a below-average positive (or possibly negative) relationship between the field of study and master enrolment intention will have \({u}_{1j}\, < \,0\) .

In order to test whether the effect of STEM compared with non-STEM fields varies across regions, a likelihood ratio test was applied, taking into account the difference in the log-likelihood values between the model with and without the random slope on STEM.

Empirical results and discussion

Results of the estimated models.

Concerning the predisposition phase in which students decide on pursuing a higher-level education programme, 53.6% of the total students report that they have the intention to enrol in a master's programme in the next year. Such intentions are more prevalent among STEM students (62%) than non-STEM students (45.2%). On the other hand, the Kruskal–Wallis test indicates statistically significant differences in this intention among students from different regions or universities. The empirical results indicate that students from the Bucharest region display the highest propensity to enrol in master's education.

The two-level model was used to allow for correlation between master enrolment intentions of individuals in the same region and to explore the extent of between-regions variation. The empirical results of the random intercept model with no explanatory variables revealed that the multilevel approach is suitable and estimated the log-odds of enrolment for an ‘average’ region to the value of 0.145. With a standard error of 0.086, we estimate the between-region variation of the log-odds of enrolment in a master programme at 0.094%. Also, the empirical results of the Wald test proved that there is a statistically significant variation between regions regarding the share of those applying for a master's programme. Based on the value of the between-regions variance (0.094), the variance partition coefficient (VPC) highlighted that 2.77% of the residual variation in the propensity of enrolment in a master programme is attributable to unobserved regional characteristics, indicating that almost 3% of the variance in applying to a master programme can be attributed to differences between regions. When exploring the university characteristics, the empirical results revealed the between-university variance of the log-odds of enrolment in a master programme estimated as 0.81 with a standard error of 0.50, and the Wald test pointed out a significant variation between universities in the proportion of those applying for a master programme. Based on the value of the between-university variance (0.81), the variance partition coefficient (VPC = 19.75%) indicated that almost 20% of the variance in applying to a master programme can be attributed to differences between universities. Thus, we have developed a two-step iterative procedure, building firstly a model only with individual level characteristics and then incorporating both level 1 and level 2 indicators, as well as interaction effects.

Table 2 reports the results of the random intercept models that only include the individual level variables , namely student-level predictors for model I, as well as university-level predictors for model II. The empirical results for the individual level variables pointed out the lack of significance for the association between gender, age, subjective income, expected full-time wage for a person who graduated a master degree or perceived share of unemployed with master’s degree. On the other hand, variables such as average grade, higher education of the father, seniority, or the type of working contract significantly influence the decision of applying to a master programme. Those with higher grades are significantly more inclined to apply for a master's degree, and so are students whose fathers graduated from higher education and students who work on a full-time contract. Additionally, students from rural areas and those with longer working experience have a lower propensity for enroling in master’s degrees. Perceived benefits associated with the graduation of a master's education in terms of wages and employment have no significant influence on the intention of enrolment.

Considering the variation induced by university-level factors, Model II shows that students enroled in non-STEM fields are less inclined to apply for a master's programme compared with those studying STEM disciplines, but the coefficient suffers from a lack of statistical significance at this point. Also, in the case of this model, the empirical results did not support the hypothesis that students decide to enroll in a master's program influenced by university performance.

Table 3 reports the results of the random intercept models that include the individual level variables (students and university characteristics) for model I and also region-level predictors for models II and III, together with the cross-level interaction terms. The findings of the random intercept model incorporating the individual level characteristics revealed that STEM students have a significantly higher predisposition to enrol to master education than non-STEM students. Also, the empirical findings indicate the positive influence of the university performance on the decision of students to enrol in master programmes. With respect to the individual factors introduced in the model, the results confirm that students with higher grades, those working full time and those whose fathers graduated higher education are more likely to apply for a master’s degree. On the other hand, students who have been employed for a longer period are less likely to pursue a graduate degree. The statistical significance of the above-mentioned individual variables preserved in all models. On the other hand, the intention to apply to a master’s programme remains unaffected by gender, age, residence area, subjective income, perceptions of the full-time wage of people with a master’s degree, or the percentage of unemployed people with a master’s degree.

Analysis of residual level-2 region effects (with only the individual characteristics-model I) supports the hypothesis that there are important differences among regions. North-West and Soth-West are the regions with the lowest probability of applying to a master programme (largest negative values of uj ) for which the confidence intervals do not overlap with 0, indicating that they have a significantly lower probability of enrolment than the average region. At the upper end, Bucharest-Ilfov and Centre are the regions with intervals that do not overlap with 0 with the highest response probability (largest positive values of uj), indicating a significantly higher probability of applying to a master programme compared with the region average.

Considering the regional context, model II indicates that the percentage of businesses that introduce product innovations has a detrimental effect on the choice to apply to a master programme. It appears that a more innovative corporate environment might provide alternative incentives for students making them less likely to enrol in master’s programmes.

In addition, model III analyses cross-level interactions between the field of study and the intensity of business innovation. Results show that STEM students are more impacted by the share of enterprises introducing product innovations than non-STEM students when deciding whether or not to apply to graduate school. On the other hand, the percentage of enterprises that introduce process innovations and enterprises that introduce product and process innovations exhibit no influence on the intention to pursue a master’s program.

Until now, we have found that the intention of enrolment in a master programme depends on several student, university, and regional innovation characteristics and this was achieved by allowing the models intercept to vary randomly across communities in random intercept models. We have assumed that the effects of individual characteristics are the same in each region, i.e. the coefficients of explanatory variables are fixed across regions.

In this stage, we extend the random intercept model, allowing both the intercept and the coefficient of one of the explanatory variables to vary randomly across regions, making the assumption that the probability to apply to a master programme could vary from region to region depending on STEM vs. non-STEM majors. Random slope models with both individual variables and regional level variables together with cross-level interaction have been estimated and the empirical results are presented in Table 4 .

Thus, the model of master’s programme enrolment intentions was updated to compensate for variances in STEM vs. non-STEM disparities among regions. It is assumed that the only variation in the association between the field of study and region is in the difference between STEM and non-STEM in this model, which allows for various probabilities of master enrolment for different fields of study (as in the random intercept model above). It is calculated for Model I with just level 1 individual variables that the coefficient of the field of education (the difference between STEM and non-STEM) is 0.835 +  u 1 j in the corresponding region j . STEM field has a random coefficient, which suggests that the variance between regions relies on the field of education (STEM vs. non-STEM). Master programme enrolment chances differ between STEM and non-STEM fields by 0.062 and 1.29, with the intercept variance interpreted as the between-region variation in log-odds, respectively. As a result of the negative intercept-slope covariance estimate, it may be concluded that regions with an above-average likelihood of master’s degree enrolment (intercept residual u 1 j  > 0, slope residual u 1 j < 0) are likely to have lower-than-average impact on STEM field. Based on the LR test, where the null hypothesis of no region variation in the difference between STEM and non-STEM students was tested, we may infer that the gap between the two educational fields does indeed change between regions. The difference between communities is now calculated as follows:

=0.062–0.215 \({x}_{{ij}}\)  + 1.29 \({x}_{{ij}}^{2}\) which because STEM students ( x ij ) can only take values of 0 and 1, simplifies to: 0.062 for STEM = 0 and 1.137 for STEM = 1. Therefore, between-region differences in the intention of applying to a masters' programme are greater for STEM students, while regional variation for non-STEM students is lower.

As in the case of random intercept models, STEM students have higher propensity for enroling in masters' education. Also, the intention of applying to a master's program is influenced by academic performance, the higher education of the father, work seniority, and a full-time working contract (Model I), and the significance of these variables is preserved in all models.

Adding and testing the region variables show that the share of enterprises introducing product innovations negatively impacts the decision of applying to a master programme (Model II). Thus, regions with higher shares of innovative enterprises are characterised by a lower propensity of students to enrol in masters' education. A more innovative business sector discourages Romanian students to prolong their educational careers, offering attractive incentives to enter labour market after bachelor’s degree.

Moreover, the effect of the proportion of enterprises introducing product innovations affects the decision of applying for a masters' programme more effectively for STEM students compared with non-STEM students (Model II). For an increase in the proportion of enterprises with product innovation, the effect positively depends on the field of education and the effect will be higher for STEM students. So, the influence of a more innovative business context is higher among STEM students than non-STEM students. This cross-level interaction between the major of the students and the innovation intensity from the regional level indicates why and how the differences between STEM and non-STEM students in terms of master enrolment are not similar across regions.

Discussion of the results

Choice of enrolment in master education.

This study supports recent educational choice models that include along with the insights from the human capital theory, cultural and social capital embedded in individual characteristics and background (Perna, 2006 ; English and Umbach, 2016 ). Thus, our results confirm the influence of various individual-level factors shaping the decision of prolonging the educational career. Similar to the findings of other scholars (Latiesa, 1989 ; Mullen et al., 2003 ; English and Umbach, 2016 ; Zamfir et al., 2021 ), we found that students with higher academic performances are more interested to continue their education with a master degree, suggesting that the grades’ level influences perceived academic self-efficacy and expectations regarding future academic success, encouraging or discouraging students to continue their education. With respect to cultural capital, our results point out that higher education attainment of the father is associated with a higher propensity of enrolment in a master's programme. This is according to the theory of Bourdieu ( 1977 ) linking educational success to the possession of embodied cultural capital, which determines cultural and social reproduction across generations. With respect to institutional factors, we found that the performance of universities influences the intentions of students to pursue master programmes. It seems that students in universities with higher performance are more satisfied and more inclined to enrol in master programmes.

Furthermore, our results provide evidence supporting the influence of predictors derived from the human capital theory, with some particular aspects that appear in relation to master education. First, our expectations concerning the influence of traditional predictors, such as the perceived benefits upon completion of the education programme were not confirmed. Instead, variables related to the individual demand for specialised skills were found to significantly influence the predisposition of bachelor students to enrol in master education. We found that students working full-time are more inclined to apply for a master's programme than those not working. As attending master programmes is a way of acquiring specialised skills, those working are those who can use such skills and benefit from them. The demand for specialised skills is higher among those who work full time, suggesting that students who work expect higher returns from pursuing a master’s degree than those not working. The latter are less likely to take the risk of accumulating more education for future gains than those who are full-time employed. Master programmes are seen to bring higher returns for insiders on the labour market, rather than for outsiders. This is consistent with the theory that “insiders” often enjoy better employment opportunities than the “outsiders” (Lindbeck and Snower, 2001 ), allowing them to benefit more from continuing their education at master-level. On the other hand, seniority is associated with a decrease in the predisposition of applying to a master programme. As individuals accumulate experience in the workplace, they are no longer in demand for acquiring specialised skills. So, we can consider that master programmes are seen as providing specialised skills required on the labour market, necessary for those who didn’t acquire such skills by longer working experience.

Regional variation in the influence of STEM and non-STEM majors on the choice of enrolment in master education

First, the current study confirms that predisposition for pursuing master’s degrees is influenced by the field of education. We found that, generally, STEM students are more interested in master’s degrees than non-STEM students. It suggests that both the demand for highly specialised skills and advantages obtained by master graduates vary in relation to STEM vs. non-STEM fields (Lee et al., 2020 ).

On the other hand, we find evidence indicating significant regional variability in the intentions of enroling in master programmes. This is in line with the idea that returns to education vary across regions within a country (Backman, 2013 ) as the gains from education are determined by the local labour market (Combes et al., 2008 ). According to the new economic geography theory (Krugman, 1991 ), core regions provide higher returns than other regions. Our results confirm this perspective and show that intentions of enrolment in master education are higher in large regions with intensive economic activity, such as the Bucharest-Ilfov region, which includes the capital of the country.

More importantly, our results show that the local context is not independent of the field of education when shaping students’ educational choices. There is a significant regional variation in the difference between STEM and non-STEM students. According to our findings, between-region differences in the intention of applying to a master programme vary in relation with the field of education, showing the complex way in which local conditions interplay with graduating STEM vs. non-STEM fields. So, differences between the propensity of STEM and non-STEM students to enrol in master education varies across local contexts.

More exactly, between-region differences in the intention of applying to a master's programme are greater for STEM students than for non-STEM students. This is consistent with the concept of constrained choice, reflecting the way structural factors interplay with individual decision-making and influence the educational pathways of students (Kurlaender and Hibel, 2018 ). So, our results suggest that decisions of STEM students in relation to master education are more sensible to the local context factors, while choices of non-STEM students are more invariant across regions. As a result, the difference between the intentions of STEM and non-STEM students varies in relation to the local context, further confirming the theory that core regions provide higher returns to the accumulation of master education than other regions.

The role of the business innovation context in shaping predisposition for master education of STEM and non-STEM students

The empirical results confirmed the influence of local-level factors and showed that the intensity of the business innovation is of relevance. We found evidence that more innovative business contexts are less conducive to the enrolment of students in master programmes. Our results suggest that students living in regions with more developed business innovation display a lower propensity to pursue master programmes, probably due to higher foregone earnings. From this point of view, more innovative economic environments act as a pull mechanism for bachelor graduates, preventing them to prolong their educational careers.

Moreover, innovative business environments discourage more STEM students from further continuing their education. These students are probably those who expect higher immediate earnings in enterprises introducing product innovations, preventing them from further enrol in master education. On the other hand, non-STEM students are less influenced by the regional innovation conditions and their intentions to pursue master education are more invariant across regions. Our findings suggest that forgone and future earnings of non-STEM students are more similar across regions with different levels of business innovation intensity. This suggests that immediate earnings available to non-STEM graduates are less fuelled by the local innovation ecosystem.

So, in general, after controlling for various individual and institutional factors, STEM students are more interested in pursuing master's education than non-STEM students, suggesting that they anticipate higher returns when accumulating master-level education. However, STEM students’ intentions are more influenced by the regional innovation conditions as they are more discouraged to enrol in master education than other students by more innovative business contexts. It seems that such contexts provide immediate attractive incentives for STEM bachelor graduates, preventing them from further investing in master's education. Individuals decide to further accumulate human capital as long as they anticipate that future additional earnings are higher than the direct and indirect costs of continuing education. From this point of view, our results suggest that STEM bachelor graduates in innovative business contexts are discouraged from continuing formal education due to higher immediate earnings. On the other hand, enterprises with a higher propensity to innovation are also the ones providing more employer-funded training (Toner et al., 2004 ). This could represent an alternative way to acquire specialised skills, replacing the demand for master's education.

The proposed model should be further tested on more comprehensive sets of data, covering more variate educational and economic contexts. Regarding the relevance of our findings to other contexts, one has to consider the economic, cultural, and educational diversity of different regions. For instance, countries with more developed innovative ecosystems and strong links between education and industry may display a more positive influence of business innovation on participation in master education. On the other hand, the influence could differ in regions where the innovation ecosystem is developing or educational systems are less connected with the industry. Acknowledging the study’s geographic limitation is important. While the results provide valuable insights into the relationship between master education and regional innovation conditions in Romania, these findings may not be relevant to other contexts without considering differences in education and economic systems. This limitation points to the need for localised studies or comparative research addressing similar research questions. Future research that can address such limitations and explore the model’s relevance in varied contexts can include cross-country comparative studies.

Final reflections and policy implications

Educational decisions are an important topic of study for education research. The results of this study are in line with recent educational choice models that include individual, institutional and economic characteristics among factors shaping decisions of enrolment in master education (Perna, 2006 ; English and Umbach, 2016 ). Consistent with Bourdieu's ( 1977 ) theory, we found that parent education and academic performances predict the propensity towards master education, confirming the results of previous studies (González and Dávila, 1998 ; Latiesa, 1989 ; Jiménez and Salas-Velasco, 2000 ; Mullen et al., 2003 ; Perna, 2004 ; Xu, 2014 ). Also, according to our results, university performances shape the intentions of students to pursue master’s degrees, supporting conclusions of other studies (Schapiro et al., 1991 ; Hartman and Schmidt, 1995 ; Kallio, 1995 ; Zhang, 2005 ). In addition, we provide evidence that the expected benefits of a master's education are higher among full-time workers, especially at the beginning of their careers.

On the other hand, our study complements the literature in the field of master’s degree attainment in STEM education. With respect to differences across fields of study, we show that STEM students are more interested in master’s degrees than non-STEM students. This research covers a knowledge gap related to the extent to which differences between STEM and non-STEM majors are influenced by local contexts and economic conditions. More exactly, the proposed model and our empirical results provide a better understanding of the local context's influence on the educational choices of STEM and non-STEM bachelor students. By employing a multi-level model, we confirm that educational choices are shaped by a dense combination of factors, including individual, university and local level factors. Moreover, we show that the influence of local circumstances depends on the individual-level factors. Local conditions regarding business innovation influence educational choices differently in relation to the field of education. STEM students’ propensity to enrol in master’s degrees is more influenced by the innovation environment than other students.

Understanding how individual, institutional, and contextual factors influence the intention to pursue master’s degrees can be beneficial for improving STEM master’s level programmes efficacy. Our study allows the formulation of several recommendations and implications for STEM higher education policy and practice, including for the widening participation agenda.

First, our study confirms that, in general, the propensity to a linear transition from bachelor to master’s degrees is higher for specific groups of students, such as students with better academic performances, those from families with higher educational attainment, students working full time and those at the beginning of their working history. From this perspective, universities need to find mechanisms for enhancing the access of students with lower grades or from less educated families to master-level education and to adapt the way such programmes are delivered to the needs of working students in early career stages. In particular, financial support schemes could be beneficial for students interested to pursue master's education but are discouraged by the opportunity cost of not entering the labour market immediately. Such support schemes would include scholarships and special loan conditions available for students from less advantaged backgrounds. Moreover, master programmes are expected to provide specialised skills that are used in the workplace. Thus, universities need to enhance their link with the world of work and design master programmes that are closer to the skills demands of the companies. Educational institutions should revise curricula to increase their relevance and strengthen partnerships with the industry to provide flexible, relevant learning opportunities and practical work experience for students, matching education with the demands of business environments. For instance, collaborative programmes between businesses and universities could provide opportunities for students to acquire practical experience through work-based learning while still enabling students to pursue master-level education. Such an approach combines the benefits of immediate job placement with ongoing education. Also, by improving the overall quality of their educational process, universities can expect to retain more bachelor graduates in their master's programmes.

Second, our results show that STEM bachelor graduates anticipate unattractive net benefits from pursuing master's education in more innovative business contexts, probably due to higher forgone earnings. This conclusion is consistent with the idea that highly innovative local contexts attract highly skilled people and talents to a greater extent (Toner, 2011 ). In such dynamic innovation landscapes, STEM educational institutions need to strengthen their synergy with the local business sector and improve opportunities for master students to work while studying. Thus, providing incentives and developing collaborative structures between universities and the business environment could balance immediate job opportunities with increased long-term returns of continued education for STEM graduates in innovative regional contexts. For instance, tax incentives granted to enterprises that stimulate employees to pursue master's education through funding or paid leave could help mitigate the trade-off STEM graduates face between full-time immediate employment in innovative enterprises and continuing education. In addition, more flexible learning pathways would allow STEM students to engage with the industry while pursuing master's studies. This could include part-time study options, industry placements as part of the learning programmes, or projects in collaboration with local businesses. In particular, expanding dual education within STEM master programmes would be beneficial for retaining bachelor graduates and improving the capacity of STEM education to respond to local skills demand. In addition, career guidance services should be enhanced to better inform undergraduate students about the long-term returns of master's education versus the immediate benefits of entering employment. This guidance should be tailored to the specific context of the students’ major and regional innovation environment.

We conclude that human capital theory continues to provide a valuable framework for understanding educational choices, especially in the case of STEM fields. Future research will focus on longitudinal studies to track STEM and non-STEM graduates’ long-term career outcomes. This would offer insights into the relevance of masters' education for the skills demands of local industries. Comparative studies across different regional innovation ecosystems can also shed light on how specific local conditions allow graduates of various fields of education to benefit from pursuing masters' education. From the methodological perspective, this study highlights the importance of robust approaches to understand the complex dynamics between education, career choices and local economic contexts. Future research should consider mixed methods designs that combine quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from students, educational institutions and industry stakeholders. This would offer an in-depth understanding of graduates’ motivations, barriers, and opportunities.

Data availability

The survey dataset analysed during the current study is available as a supplementary file.

Allison R, Ralston M (2018) Gender, anticipated family formation, and graduate school expectations among undergraduates. Sociol Forum 33:95–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12400

Article   Google Scholar  

Altonji, J, Arcidiacono P, Maurel A (2015) The analysis of field choice in college and graduate school: determinants and wage effects. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA

Ashenfelter O, Ham J (1979) Education, unemployment, and earnings. J Political Econ 87(5):S99–S116. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1829910

Zamfir AM, Mocanu C, Davidescu AA (2021) What encourages longer educational careers in tertiary education? A three-level approach for the case of Romanian universities. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(23):12864

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Backman M (2013) Regional variation of returns to education. Working paper series in economics and institutions of innovation 300. Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS—Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies

Batsheva G, Boards A (2019) A seat at the table: exploring the experiences of underrepresented minority women in STEM graduate programs. J Prev Interv Community 47(4):354–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1617383

Becker GS (1962) Investment in human capital: a theoretical analysis. J Political Econ 70(5):9–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1829103

Becker GS (1964) Human capital theory. Columbia, New York, 1964

Becker WE (1990) The demand for higher education. In Hoenack SA, Collins EL (eds.) The economics of American Universities. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 155–188

Bourdieu P (1977) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Karabel J, Halsey A (eds.) Power and ideology in education. Oxford University Press, New York

Burgess S (2016) Human capital and education: the state of the art in the economics of education. IZA DP No. 9885. https://repec.iza.org/dp9885.pdf

Combes P, Duranton G, Gobillon L (2008) Spatial wage disparities: sorting matters! J Urban Econ 63:723–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2007.04.004

Committee on Enhancing the Master’s degree in the Natural Sciences (2008) Science professionals: master’s education for a competitive world. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

DeBacker JM, Routon PW (2021) A culture of despair? Inequality and expectations of educational success. Contemp Econ Policy 39:573–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12528

English D, Umbach PD (2016) Graduate school choice: an examination of individual and institutional effects. Rev High Educ 39(2):173–211. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2016.0001

Espinosa LL (2011) Pipelines and pathways: women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harv Educ Rev 81(2):209–240. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Gambetta D (1987) Were they pushed or did they jump? Individual decision mechanisms in education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

González B, Dávila D (1998) Economic and cultural impediments to university education in Spain. Econ Educ Rev 17:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(97)00010-1

Guo C, Hao X, Wu J et al. (2023) The effect of national higher education initiatives on university rankings. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:527. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02034-w

Handa ML, Skolnik ML (1975) Unemployment, expected returns, and the demand for university education in Ontario: some empirical results. High Educ 4:27–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01569100

Hartman DE, Schmidt SL (1995) Understanding student/alumni satisfaction from a consumer’s perspective: the effects of institutional performance and program outcomes. Res High Educ 36(2):197–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207788

Hossler D, Gallagher K (1987) Studying student college choice: a three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. Coll Univ 62(3):207–221

Google Scholar  

Jiménez JDD, Salas-Velasco M (2000) Modeling educational choices. A binomial logit model applied to the demand for higher education. High Educ 40:293–311. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004098300436

Jung J, Li X (2021) Exploring motivations of a master’s degree pursuit in Hong Kong. High Educ Q 75:321–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12276

Jung J, Lee SJ (2019) Exploring the factors of pursuing a master’s degree in South Korea. High Educ 78:855–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00374-8

Kallio RE (1995) Factors influencing the college choice decisions of graduate students. Res High Educ 36(1):109–124. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40196181

Kodde DA (1986) Uncertainty and the demand for education. Rev Econ Stat 68(3):460–467. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926023

Kong KC, Kok LH, Fernandez JL (2015) Factors that influence the decision to pursue studies or work after graduation: a study among final year undergraduates in Universiti Sains Malaysia. In: Conference proceedings of Social Sciences Postgraduate International Seminar (SSPIS), School of Social Sciences, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, pp. 250–260

Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Pol Econ 99(3):483–499

Kurlaender M, Hibel J (2018) Students’ educational pathways: aspirations, decisions, and constrained choices along the education lifecourse. In: Schneider (ed) Handbook of the sociology of education in the 21st century. Springer, pp. 361–385

Latiesa M (1989) Demanda de educación superior: evaluaciones y condicionamientos de los estudiantes en la elección de carrera. REIS 46:101–139

Lee SJ, Kim S, Jung J (2020) The effects of a master’s degree on wage and job satisfaction in massified higher education: the case of South Korea. High Educ Policy 33:637–665. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00200-2

Lindbeck A, Snower DJ (2001) Insiders versus outsiders. J Econ Perspect 15(1):165–188. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696546

Machin S, Van Reenan J (1998) Technology and changes in skill structure: evidence from seven OECD countries. Q J Econom 113(4):1215–1244

McKinney J, Chang ML, Glassmeyer D (2021) Why females choose STEM majors: understanding the relationships between major, personality, interests, self-efficacy, and anxiety. J STEM Educ Res 4:278–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-021-00050-6

Menon ME, Markadjis E, Theodoropoulos N, Socratous M (2017) Influences on the intention to enter higher education: the importance of expected returns. J Furth High Educ 41(6):831–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1188897

Mullen AL, Goyette KA, Soares JA (2003) Who goes to graduate school? Social and academic correlates of educational continuation after college. Sociol Educ 76(2):143–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090274

O’Donnell VL, Tobbell J, Lawthom R, Zammit M (2009) Transition to postgraduate study: practice, participation and the widening participation agenda. Act Learn High Educ 10(1):26–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787408100193

Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT (1980) Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. J High Educ 51(1):60–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/1981125

Paulsen MB, Toutkoushian RK (2008) Economic models and policy analysis in higher education: a diagrammatic exposition. In: Smart JC (ed.) Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol. XXIII. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–48

Perna LW (2004) Understanding the decision to enroll in graduate school: sex and racial/ethnic group differences. J High Educ 75(5):487–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772335

Perna LW (2006) Studying college access and choice: a proposed conceptual model. In: Smart JC (ed.) Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol XX. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. I99–I157

Schapiro MO, O’Malley MP, Litten LH (1991) Progression to graduate school from the “Elite” colleges and universities. Econ Educ Rev 10(3):227–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(91)90046-R

Thomas SL, Perna LW (2004) The opportunity agenda: a reexamination of postsecondary reward opportunity. In: Smart JC, Paulsen MB (eds.) Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol XIX. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 43–84

Tinto V (1975) Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research. Rev Educ Res 45(1):89–125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089

Toner P (2011) Workforce skills and innovation: an overview of major themes in the literature. OECD education working papers, no. 55. OECD Publishing, Paris

Toner P, Marceau J, Hall R, Considine G (2004) Innovation agents: vocational education and training skills and innovation in australian industries and firms. Volume I. National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd., Australia

Weiler WC (1994) Expectations, undergraduate debt and the decision to attend graduate school: a simultaneous model of student choice. Econ Educ Rev 13(1):29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(94)90021-3

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Xu YJ (2014) Advance to and persistence in graduate school: identifying the influential factors and major-based differences. J Coll Stud Retent: Res Theory Pract 16(3):391–417. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.16.3.e

Zhang L (2005) Advance to graduate education: the effect of college quality and undergraduate majors. Rev High Educ 28(3):313–338. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2005.0030

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Ministry of Research, Innovation, and Digitalisation of Romania under NUCLEU Programme PN 22100102. The funding body was not involved in the design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection (Department of Education, Training and Labour Market), Bucharest, Romania

Ana-Maria Zamfir, Adriana AnaMaria Davidescu & Cristina Mocanu

Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania

Adriana AnaMaria Davidescu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Statistical analysis was performed by AAMD and all the authors participated to the preparation of the first and improved versions of the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana-Maria Zamfir .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Internal Approval Commission of the Scientific Board of the National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection (No. 1337/09.12.2019).

Informed consent

All students answering the questionnaire were of adult age (18 years old in Romania). Informed consent was requested and obtained from each participant before their involvement in the study. The process included providing participants with a detailed consent form, which they read and signed prior to participation.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zamfir, AM., Davidescu, A.A. & Mocanu, C. Understanding the influence of business innovation context on intentions of enrolment in master education of STEM students: a multi-level choice model. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1087 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03601-5

Download citation

Received : 08 September 2023

Accepted : 14 August 2024

Published : 26 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03601-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

HR Professional Development: Defining the Path for Career Success

The business world is constantly changing. From my own experience, I've learned that to succeed today, you need to be adaptable and committed to continuous learning. As an HR professional, I've seen firsthand how vital our role is in this dynamic environment. HR isn't just about recruiting or managing employee relations; it's about shaping an organization's culture, supporting employee growth, and driving the strategies that lead to success.

Throughout my career, I've encountered various challenges and opportunities that have reinforced the importance of ongoing professional development. Staying current, keeping up with industry trends, and continuously enhancing our skills aren't just things we do to check a box—they are essential for moving forward in our careers and making a meaningful impact on our organizations.

The Evolving Role of HR

Over the years, I've seen the role of HR evolve significantly. What started as a focus on payroll and employee relations has expanded into a strategic role that requires managing a diverse workforce, fostering a culture that can adapt to change, and providing valuable insights that help steer the organization in the right direction. I've had to familiarize myself with new concepts and practices, like integrating technology into HR functions, prioritizing employee wellness, and promoting inclusivity in the workplace.

The shift to remote work, for example, was a huge adjustment. Managing teams that aren't physically present required me to think creatively about maintaining engagement, accurately assessing performance, and keeping the company culture alive. I remember how focusing on employee wellness became more critical than ever before and how diversity and inclusion initiatives became significant as we realized that a diverse team could bring richer perspectives and solutions.

I recall working with a global technology firm that quickly had to adapt to remote work. We implemented digital collaboration tools, launched virtual wellness programs, and conducted inclusion training for all employees. The results were precise—higher employee engagement and better teamwork. This experience showed me just how crucial it is to have an HR strategy that can adapt to the changing landscape.

The Importance of Ongoing Professional Development in HR

In my experience, professional development is not just an option—it's necessary for anyone in HR. Staying informed about legal and ethical standards is critical to protecting our organizations from risks. Understanding labor laws, workplace ethics, and data protection regulations has been a crucial part of my job, and it needs constant attention as these areas evolve.

The talent market is incredibly competitive, and refining recruitment and retention strategies are crucial. I've had to learn how to identify top talent better and develop ways to keep them engaged, which has been essential in reducing turnover and building solid teams. Strong communication and interpersonal skills have also been invaluable, especially when navigating conflicts, negotiating, and supporting employees.

I've also seen how continuous learning directly impacts career progression. Colleagues who invest in their professional growth tend to move up faster and take on more strategic roles. This not only improves their career prospects but also enhances the overall performance of their HR departments, contributing to the success of their organizations.

Professional Development Strategies for HR Professionals

There are many ways to approach professional development in HR. Over the years, I've found that attending specialized training and workshops tailored to specific HR skills has provided me with practical knowledge to apply directly to my work. Attending HR conferences and networking events has also been valuable, as it's allowed me to learn about the latest practices and connect with other professionals in the field.

Pursuing advanced degrees or certifications, like SHRM-CP or PHR, has significantly invested in my career. These credentials have boosted my credibility and opened up new opportunities for advancement. They reflect a deep commitment to the HR profession and signal to employers that you're serious about staying at the forefront of the industry.

In addition to formal education, I've found self-directed learning incredibly effective. Online courses, webinars, podcasts, and industry-specific books contributed to my professional development. These resources allow me to tailor my education to my specific needs and schedule, which has been particularly helpful when balancing work and personal life.

Overcoming Barriers to Professional Development

Of course, there are challenges when it comes to professional development. I've experienced difficulty finding time to learn new skills or the financial burden of paying for courses. However, I've learned to seek out microlearning opportunities—short, focused sessions that fit a busy schedule. I've also taken advantage of employer-sponsored training programs and free online resources whenever possible.

Convincing organizations to support professional development can sometimes take time and effort. In those cases, I've found that presenting clear evidence—such as case studies or data showing the return on investment—can help make the case. Demonstrating how professional development programs can improve performance and drive business outcomes often helps get the necessary support.

The HR field constantly changes, and staying committed to professional growth is essential. From my journey, dedicating yourself to continuous learning is the surest way to advance your career and make a lasting impact in your organization. By embracing the opportunities for professional development and overcoming the obstacles that come with it, HR professionals can strengthen their role as critical strategic partners within their organizations. So, take the leap—invest in your growth and enjoy the journey of learning and discovery at the heart of the HR profession.

15 Key Considerations for Success Before Launching Your Business - LIFE THEORY 46 Skyboy46. https://www.skyboy46.com/post/15-key-considerations-for-success-before-launching-your-business-life-theory-46

What are the key skills and competences required for successful career advancement in HR?

Essential skills for career advancement in hr.

Advancing in human resources (HR) requires specific skills. Professionals must develop these to succeed. They comprise a blend of soft and hard competencies. Understanding these skills can aid career progression.

Strong Communication Abilities

Effective communication lies at HR's core. Professionals articulate policies clearly. They navigate sensitive conversations with tact. If you wish to excel, refine your communication skills.

Expertise in Employee Relations

Building trust is crucial in HR roles. Employee relations expertise helps. It ensures fair treatment. It promotes a healthy work environment. This skill involves conflict resolution and negotiation prowess.

Knowledge of HR Laws and Regulations

HR professionals must grasp legal guidelines. It includes knowledge of labor laws and workplace regulations. Mastery in these areas is non-negotiable. It helps to avoid costly legal issues.

Strategic Thinking

HR operates at a strategic level. Successful professionals contribute to business planning. They align HR strategies with organizational goals. Think strategically to add value.

Technological Proficiency

Technology underpins modern HR functions. Familiarity with HR Information Systems (HRIS) is beneficial. It streamlines processes like payroll and benefits administration. Be tech-savvy to advance.

Talent Management and Acquisition

Acquiring and retaining top talent is key. Knowing how to identify, attract, and keep talent matters. This skill set drives organizational success.

Leadership and Management Skills

Managing teams requires leadership qualities. HR professionals often lead initiatives. They influence culture change. Effective leaders inspire others. Assure your leadership skills are up to par.

Cultural Competency

A global workforce needs cultural awareness. HR must navigate cultural complexities. Competency in this area fosters inclusivity. It also drives engagement.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data informs HR decisions. Understanding metrics and analytics is important. It enables evidence-based decision making. If you can analyze data, you will thrive.

Change Management

Organizations constantly evolve. HR leads change management efforts. You must guide through transitions smoothly. Addressing employee concerns is a part of this.

Continuing Education and Learning Agility

The HR landscape changes fast. Professionals stay updated with continued learning. This commitment demonstrates learning agility. Always be willing to learn.

Developing these competencies can be a career game-changer. They make HR professionals invaluable. Aim to cultivate these skills for success in HR.

How does the strategic alignment of HR practices contribute to overall organizational success?

Strategic alignment of hr practices.

Human resources (HR) strategies ensure corporate objectives are met. Strategies aligned with organizational goals enhance success. They provide a roadmap for HR activities. HR becomes a strategic partner, not just an administrative function.

Contributing to Organizational Goals

HR strategies drive business outcomes. Clear goals aid HR in contributing effectively. Practices tailored to organization needs foster this alignment. Let's discuss how strategic HR enhances success.

- Recruitment and Selection

Aligned HR hires individuals who fit the organization's culture. These individuals help achieve strategic objectives. By focusing on strategic needs, HR ensures the workforce complements business goals.

- Training and Development

HR must develop staff to meet current and future needs. Effective training programs boost efficiency and innovation. Employees gain relevant skills to help achieve business strategies.

- Performance Management

Systematic performance management aligns employee actions with goals. Feedback and appraisals direct efforts toward corporate objectives. Employees understand their role in achieving success.

- Compensation and Benefits

Reward strategies entice desirable behaviors. Pay structures aligned with business goals motivate staff. An incentivized workforce strives for organizational targets.

- Labor Relations

Positive labor relations are crucial for success. HR policies fostering good relations reduce conflicts. A peaceful work environment supports stable operations.

- Compliance and Risk Management

Adherence to laws and regulations is fundamental. HR minimizes legal risks by ensuring compliance. This protects the organization from potential lawsuits and fines.

Empowering Employees and Fostering Innovation

Employee empowerment incites engagement. Engaged employees display high productivity. They possess a strong connection to their work and their company. Innovation flourishes in such an environment.

Innovation is key for competitive advantage. HR can cultivate a culture of innovation. Training programs encouraging creativity play a role here. HR practices that respect and reward innovative contributions make a difference.

Engagement and innovation lead to higher performance. Thus, strategic HR alignment aids in retaining a competitive edge.

Ensuring Adaptability and Sustainability

Organizations must adapt to survive. HR practices responsive to change secure this adaptability. Training for new skills prepares for market shifts. Succession planning ensures leadership continuity.

Sustainability of the workforce is a modern HR focus. Strategies for employee well-being and career development are vital. A sustainable workforce is productive over time.

Measuring HR Effectiveness

Quantifiable metrics indicate HR's alignment with strategy. These metrics measure HR's contribution to success. Examples include turnover rates, employee satisfaction, and training ROI.

Analyzing metrics allows for strategy refinement. HR thus continuously contributes to organizational success.

Strategic alignment of HR practices is vital for success. Recruitment, training, and engagement are key components. A comprehensive approach ensures a competitive and sustainable workforce. This strategic partnership between HR and the organization fosters success.

How does understanding the broader business landscape influence the role and impact of an HR professional in organisational growth and development?

Understanding the broader business landscape is imperative for HR professionals. It helps them align their strategies with organizational goals and respond effectively to changes in the market. When HR professionals grasp the whole business picture, they contribute significantly to organizational growth and development.

The Role of HR in Business Strategy

HR professionals shape the workforce to meet business objectives. They identify skills necessary for future success. These professionals ensure that the right people fill the right roles at the right time. Understanding the market equips HR with knowledge to forecast staffing needs. They thus become strategic partners in the business.

Talent Acquisition and Retention

A savvy HR professional knows market trends affect talent acquisition. They use industry insights to attract and retain top talent. Competitive compensation and benefits stem from this knowledge. A solid grasp of the broader economic environment informs these decisions. Employees feel valued. They tend to stay longer.

Workforce Development and Training

Training and development align with industry demands. HR professionals foresee the skills employees will need. They craft training programs accordingly. Workers stay competent and effective. Career progression structures stem from such understanding. They help in retaining high-performing staff.

Organizations constantly face change. HR plays a key role in managing this change. Knowledge of economic and market dynamics informs change management strategies. HR ensures staff understand and accept changes. They alleviate fears and resistance. This eases transitions and maintains productivity.

Organizational Culture

HR shapes and maintains organizational culture. Knowledge of business landscapes guides these practices. HR fosters a culture responsive to market changes. They build cultures of innovation and adaptability. Employees feel prepared for shifts in the business environment.

Impact on Organizational Growth and Development

Strategic planning.

HR contributes to strategic planning . They provide insights on workforce capabilities. This helps in crafting achievable business strategies.

Risk Management

Risk management is crucial for business continuity. HR identifies risks from shifts in the workforce. They plan for labour shortages or regulatory changes. This preparation reduces potential negative impacts on the organization.

Competitive Advantage

HR can establish a competitive advantage. They benchmark company practices against industry standards. This ensures the organization leads in best practices. Employees feel proud. They provide better service. The company stands out in the market.

A well-informed HR department encourages innovation. They push for policies that support creativity. This stems from their understanding of market needs. Employees innovate. The organization stays ahead of competitors.

HR professionals impact organizational growth when they understand the business environment. They become strategic partners. They attract the best talent. They plan for future needs. HR shapes the workforce for optimal performance. This leads to organizational success. An informed HR department is a powerful tool in business development.

Pia Prebensen is a personal growth expert who helps people identify and overcome their limiting beliefs. She has been featured in various online and print publications, including Elite Daily and The Huffington Post.

Born and raised in Denmark, Pia has always been fascinated by human behavior and the inner workings of the mind.

Exploring the Benefits of Human Resources Management Training & Development

How Much Does Human Resources Management Make

Employee Performance Tracking: Benefits, Challenges & Best Practices

Why HR is the Most Important Resource for Your Business