| Peer-Reviewed

The Concept of Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education

Received: 1 May 2014     Accepted: 20 May 2014     Published: 30 May 2014
Views:       Downloads:
Abstract

The valorization of university teaching is of key concern to this institution’s academic and political actors and is a foundation of pedagogical innovation. In this qualitative research I explored how thirty-two professors, recipients of the Université de Montréal excellence in teaching award, define their conception of pedagogical innovation. An analysis of the data allowed me to identify seven distinct notions of the concept of pedagogical innovation, to construct an updated definition and to propose a pedagogical innovation conception cycle.

Published in Education Journal (Volume 3, Issue 3)
DOI 10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22
Page(s) 195-202
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Pedagogical Innovation, Higher Education, Innovation Concept, Valorizing Teaching, Educational Innovation

References
[1] Albero, B., Linard, M. & Robin, J. (2008). Petite fabrique de l’innovation à l’université. Quatre parcours de pion-niers. Logiques sociales. Paris: L’Harmattan.
[2] Béchard, J-P. (2001), L’enseignement supérieur et les innovations pédagogi-ques: une recension des écrits. Revue des Sciences de l’Éducation, XXVII (2), 257-281.
[3] Béchard, J-P. (2000). Apprendre à enseigner au supérieur: l’exemple des innovateurs pédagogiques. Cahier de recherche OIPG n°2000-001, Septembre, 6.
[4] Béchard, J-P. & Pelletier, P. (2001). Développement des innovations pédagogiques en milieu universitaire : cas d’apprentissage organisationnel. In Nouveaux espaces de développement professionnel et organisationnel. Sherbrooke: Edition du CRP, University of Sherbrooke, 133, 131-149.
[5] Bédard, D. & Béchard, J-P. (2009). Innover dans l’enseignement supérieur. Paris: PUF.
[6] Charlier, B. & Peraya, D. (2003). Nouveaux dispositifs de formation pour l'enseignement supérieur, allier technologie et innovation. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
[7] Commission de l’éducation (2004). Con-sultation générale sur les enjeux entourant la qualité, l’accessibilité et le financement des universités au Québec. Rapport final. Assemblée Nationale Québec, juin.
[8] Cros, F. (2007). L’agir innovationnel: entre créativité et formation. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
[9] Cros, F. (2002-2). L’innovation en éduca-tion aurait-elle un avenir? In certainties and paradoxes of innovation. Paris : INRP, 221-229.
[10] Cros, F. (2001). L’innovation scolaire (Enseignants et Chercheurs – Synthèse et mise en débat). Paris: INRP.
[11] Cros, F. & Adamczewski, G. (1996). L'innovation en éducation et en formation. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
[12] Falchikov, N. (1993). Attitudes and Values of Lecturing Staff: Tradition, Innovation and change. Higher Education, 25, 487-510.
[13] Fourez, G. (1988). Formation éthique et enseignement des sciences. Ethica, 5(1), 45-66.
[14] Ganesan, R., Edmonds, G. & Spector, M. (2002). The changing nature of instructional design for networked learning. In Steeples, C. & Jones, C. (Eds). Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues. London: Springer-Verlag.
[15] Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategy for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine, 61-71, 67.
[16] Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological founda-tions for networked learning. In Steeples, C. et Jones, C. (Eds). Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues, London: Springer-Verlag.
[17] Guyot, J-L. & Bonami, M. (2000). Modes de structuration du travail professoral et logiques disciplinaires à l’université. Cahier de re-cherche du GIRSEF, Louvain-la-Neuve, 9.
[18] Hannan, A. (2005). Innovating in higher edu-cation: contexts for change in learning technology. Brit-ish Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (6), 975-985.
[19] Hannan, A & Silver, H. (2000). Inno-vating in Higher Education: teaching, learning, and in-stitutional culture. Buckgham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.
[20] Hérbert, D. (2003). Description et évolu-tion du processus de valorisation de l’enseignement un-iversitaire en termes d’activités de soutien à l’enseignement dans les universités québécoises. Re-trieved from Gatineau : University of Quebec, 136.
[21] Higher Education Academy, 2012. The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning.
[22] Huberman, A. M. (1973). Comment s'opèrent les changements en éducation: contribution à l'étude de l'innovation. Série: Expériences et innovations en éducation, 2, Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture, Paris.
[23] Knight, P. & Trowler, P.R. (2001). Depart-mental Leadership in Higher Education. Buckingham : SRHE and Open University Press.
[24] Laperrière, A. (1997). Convergences et divergences entre la théorisa-tion ancrée et d’autres approches, L’ethnographie. In Poupart, J. & al.. La recherche qualitative, Enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques, Montreal: Gaëtan Morin.
[25] Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie (MESRST). 2013. Sommet sur l’enseignement supérieur. 25-26 février, Montreal.
[26] Paillé, P. (1994). L’analyse par théorisation ancrée. Cahier de recherche sociologique, 23, 147-181.
[27] Parents, J. & Lessard, M. (1979). Divers moyens de valorisation des professeurs reconnus pour la qualité de leur enseignement. Québec: SPU, Un-iversité de Laval.
[28] Pelletier, P. (2009). L'en-seignement supérieur : un milieu sous influences? In Bédard, D. & Béchard, J-P., Innovating in Higher educa-tion, Paris: PUF.
[29] Picard, J. & Torkia, M. (2007). La valorisation de l’enseignement à l’Université Laval. In Langevin, L., Formation et soutien à l’enseignement un-iversitaire. Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
[30] Rogers, E. & Schoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press.
[31] Stoller, F. (1995). Innovation in a Non-Traditional Academic Unit: The In-tensive English Program. Innovative Higher Education, 19 (3), 177.
Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Anne Mai Walder. (2014). The Concept of Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education. Education Journal, 3(3), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Anne Mai Walder. The Concept of Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education. Educ. J. 2014, 3(3), 195-202. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Anne Mai Walder. The Concept of Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education. Educ J. 2014;3(3):195-202. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22,
      author = {Anne Mai Walder},
      title = {The Concept of Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education},
      journal = {Education Journal},
      volume = {3},
      number = {3},
      pages = {195-202},
      doi = {10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22},
      eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.edu.20140303.22},
      abstract = {The valorization of university teaching is of key concern to this institution’s academic and political actors and is a foundation of pedagogical innovation. In this qualitative research I explored how thirty-two professors, recipients of the Université de Montréal excellence in teaching award, define their conception of pedagogical innovation. An analysis of the data allowed me to identify seven distinct notions of the concept of pedagogical innovation, to construct an updated definition and to propose a pedagogical innovation conception cycle.},
     year = {2014}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - The Concept of Pedagogical Innovation in Higher Education
    AU  - Anne Mai Walder
    Y1  - 2014/05/30
    PY  - 2014
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22
    DO  - 10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22
    T2  - Education Journal
    JF  - Education Journal
    JO  - Education Journal
    SP  - 195
    EP  - 202
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2327-2619
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22
    AB  - The valorization of university teaching is of key concern to this institution’s academic and political actors and is a foundation of pedagogical innovation. In this qualitative research I explored how thirty-two professors, recipients of the Université de Montréal excellence in teaching award, define their conception of pedagogical innovation. An analysis of the data allowed me to identify seven distinct notions of the concept of pedagogical innovation, to construct an updated definition and to propose a pedagogical innovation conception cycle.
    VL  - 3
    IS  - 3
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

Author Information
  • Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, United States

  • Sections