Responsible innovation and education: integrating values and technology in the classroom

ABSTRACT

Educational systems in the US are varied and undergoing constant change, with new values and methods infusing iterations of education development over time. This essay argues that by explicitly acknowledging and incorporating responsible innovation (RI) into educational policies as well as into the classroom, RI can guide a new era of innovations in and for education.

KEYWORDS:

• Reliable research and innovation
• education
• values
• sustainability

Introduction: changing contexts and values in education in the US

The cultural landscape of education has changed dramatically over the last few decades in the United States (US). To a large extent, educational shifts mirrored demographic shifts, as the national population became more suburbanized and urban post-World War II. Attendant focus on developing an educated workforce became a guiding policy initiative. In 1958, during the Cold War, the United States Department of Education (ED) established a National Defense Education Act, ‘to help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields’ (U.S. Department of Education 2017a). By the 1960s, the Civil Rights Act also informed Department of Education principles, as equal and fair access for all students, regardless of race, sex, or background, became a principal goal of education-oriented amendments (U.S. Department of Education 2003). Today, two main goals of US education policy are to focus national attention on key educational issues and to prohibit discrimination to ensure equal access to education (U.S. Department of Education 2017b). Increased attention to science and technology education with an emphasis on imparting information about emerging technological innovations, as well as access and assistance for any and all students, are now national goals that are compatible with, and would benefit from, incorporation of responsible innovation (RI) principles.

RI is a framework developed to acknowledge and act on the ways in which the production of scientific knowledge and technological developments are influenced by social and cultural values. In order to address the unpredictable effects of the applications of science and technology on society, RI proponents argue that new forms of governance are needed. These governance models should be geared toward including more stakeholders in dialogues on the development and applications of scientific and technological innovations. Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013, 3) state that: ‘Responsible innovation means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present.’ They further articulate four dimensions of RI, including anticipation, which ‘involves systematic thinking aimed at increasing resilience, while revealing new opportunities for innovation and the shaping of agendas for socially-robust research’ (2013, 3). The second is reflexivity, ‘in which the value systems and theories that shape science, innovations and their governance are themselves scrutinized’ (2013, 4). The third argues for greater inclusion of diverse stakeholder groups and the public, in order ‘to question the framing assumptions not just of particular policy issues but also of participation processes themselves’ (2013, 4). Finally, responsiveness is a critical dimension, as ‘[r]esponsible innovation requires a capacity to change shape or direction in response to stakeholder and public values and changing circumstances’ (2013, 4). The ability to be both reflexive and futures-oriented is an important aspect of education that will allow students to take part in an increasingly fast-paced and interconnected world, where technological access and comprehension are integral to innovative pathways for employment and positive social and political change. In this essay, we argue that by explicitly acknowledging and incorporating responsible innovation (RI) into educational policies as well as into the classroom, RI can guide a new era of innovations in and for education.

Integrating RI principles across the educational spectrum

RI principles provide a critical framework for educators to explicitly discuss values that drive knowledge production in a variety of contexts, and to bring important ideas to the forefront, including ethics, integrity, and ideals when it comes to the development of new innovations in society (Shimray 2017). In a world of scientific and technological breakthroughs that seem to occur on a daily basis, RI provides a framework for educators to discuss how or why technological innovations might be controversial or worthy of debate. Technological innovations such as renewable energies, and genetically modified foods (GMOs) are positioned as transformative technologies that will disrupt societal and Earth system relationships. Macnaghten (2016, 285) argues that applying RI principles and frameworks to scientific debates would open up a much richer avenue of discussion. It would provide space for asking questions that explore what types of institutional capacities are required to vision different futures, drive richer inclusive discussions, and open up ‘reflexive scientific cultures,’ fostering authentic governance systems that are responsive and proactive in process. This discussion should be initiated between educators and students so that students have the opportunity to consider not only the long-reaching effects of new technologies on different social groups and the environment, but also the processes by which decisions are made about technological innovations, and by whom.

One positive example of RI that encompasses elements of the above considerations in a higher education (HE) setting can be seen in the formation of new courses that emphasize values-centered learning and new methods of delivery to students. By combining traditional face-to-face learning with online delivery of lessons and instructional materials, we have created a hybrid model at Arizona State University that leverages multimedia opportunities, and paves new ground in the RI space relating to issues of science and sustainability, while also addressing the issues of access to STEM educational materials at multiple levels. We have pioneered two new courses in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College: (1) ‘Sustainability Science for Teachers’ (SSfT), which launched in 2012 and is required for elementary preservice teachers who are training to teach kindergarten through 8th (K-8th) grade, and (2) ‘Sustainability Science, Technology and Society’ (SSTS), which launched in 2015 and is required for educational studies majors who plan to go into educational positions that do not require teacher certification. We see these as key populations to target when it comes to integrating sustainability education into curricula. As part of our central mission, we believe that ‘educators share a responsibility in addressing sustainability topics with the next generation of scientists, politicians, inventors, citizens, and leaders – those who will be faced with solving sustainability challenges as they become increasingly complex and urgent’ (SSE 2017). These goals map well onto RI principles of reflexivity and public engagement across the educational spectrum.

These courses were created and continue to be updated by a diverse team of researchers and designers at the Biodesign Pathfinder Center’s Sustainability Science Education (SSE) Project. Each course explicitly fuses concepts from the field of sustainability with four ‘ways of thinking’ that students engage with over the course of a semester: Futures, Values, Systems, and Strategic Thinking (Warren, Archambault, and Foley 2015). The main goal of these courses is to empower future educators to incorporate sustainability principles and these ways of thinking within their daily activities to engender a more informed and responsive citizenry. SSfT and SSTS explore sustainability concepts that emphasize RI principles such as governance, social and environmental systems, and innovative and disruptive technologies. These categories embody RI principles, as Futures Thinking relates to anticipating how new developments will affect present and future stakeholders, while Values Thinking relates to having educators and students become more reflexive in their own role in shaping and participating in these systems of innovation, which connects to Systems Thinking. Finally, inclusion and responsiveness are taught under the concept of Strategic Thinking, which emphasizes planning and participation to include more diverse groups in decision-making processes.

Both courses leverage hybrid and fully online delivery systems to convey complex topics through highly curated digital stories, online discussions, and creative assignments that highlight different sustainability foci through local, national, and international standpoints. In a descriptive case study of the course format, SSfT students (n = 15) described that they appreciated being able to go at their own pace through the complex content, replaying portions of the digital stories as needed and instructors (n = 8) were favorable about the format and course cadence from a personal and pedagogical standpoint (Archambault and Warren 2015). One instructor noted that, ‘the hybrid format capitalizes on the existing knowledge of other experts and conveys complex information on sustainability in an engaging way’ (160), increasing accessibility for well-sourced, up-to-date, and curated information on a variety of science and technology topics, while also modeling methods for discussing complex ideas in the classroom and beyond to our future educators.

Delivery of information and modeling effective discussions

Instructors in the SSfT and SSTS courses create spaces for productive discussions with students regarding what they think the appropriate use of technology in society should look like, creating a space to bring in concepts like anticipation, inclusion, exclusion, responsiveness, values, and reflexivity, while modeling avenues for students to have difficult discussions about new innovations. Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013, 6) argue that, ‘[r]esponsible innovation should not just welcome diversity; it should nurture it.’ The courses use novel activities that students can apply in a variety of education spaces, from the formal K-8th grade classroom to informal education settings. The activities spark conversations about different educational uses of multimedia sources, including limitations to access of information that might affect applicability in the classroom setting, and the challenges of various information streams.

SSfT and SSTS incorporate the goals of RI by using digital storytelling to enable future educators to grapple with changing societal values and concerns, allowing them to be responsive and inclusive to their future students’ needs, concerns, and ideas, while also asking them to be reflexive about their roles in existing systems and how they would like to see those systems change in the future. Digital storytelling is a multimedia modality that shows great promise for introducing multifaceted topics, such as those illuminated by RI principles, plans, and goals to general audiences. Digital storytelling aims to invoke a particular feeling, capture that which is not best shared in print, and challenge preconceived notions with visual impact (Robin 2008). Digital stories invite the viewer to explore the topic in both a narrative and visual fashion which often renders accessible more obtuse or intricate topics like climate change or global food chains, showing how systems were developed in response to societal values, and how those values are now changing to respond to new needs, creating new innovations like water management technologies and global food chains. For instance, in both courses, students are asked to use the lenses of reflexivity, inclusion, and values to examine complex issues like water management in deserts and urban centers, by looking at where water comes from, the distance it travels to get to urban centers, and who has access to inexpensive, potable water. Another activity examines global food chains by looking into a single meal from several viewpoints, helping students in the courses gain a greater understanding of who benefits and who absorbs risk in globalized food production from seeds to table. Using RI principles to focus discussions around technological innovations allows students to go beyond overly simplistic and reductionist assumptions that suggest there are technological solutions for deeply social and political issues such as access and distributions of risk from innovations. Instead, students and educators can build the capacity to better understand institutional barriers and governance challenges of technological innovations in society.

Recent survey-based research (n = 223) on our SSfT course indicates that students believe interactive digital stories – those videos in our course with a simple learning check quiz embedded – supported better engagement, scaffolded learning, and increased learning gains (Shelton, Warren, and Archambault 2016). Increasing student awareness of the ethical and moral implications of decision-making, as well as those associated with the development and implementation of technological innovations, brings together RI and education. This aligns with the larger goals of the Department of Education regarding science and technology, in addition to bringing attention to issues of access. The ultimate goal is to create citizens who are well-informed about the social and political implications of new technological innovations to ensure that they are beneficial to many. By having discussions about systems of governance, students can become more aware of the larger forces, both historically and in the present, that shape the development, implementation, and potential effects of new technologies on different stakeholder groups. Addressing RI through sustainability education presents educators and students the opportunity to practice visioning for plausible futures. In addition, it increases both groups’ abilities to incorporate this type of thought process into other curricular endeavors. It also creates a space where students can be more reflexive about their own role in those systems, including limitations related to existing democratic decision-making processes and mechanisms for inclusion.

Conclusion

While the context for RI is generally institutional settings for governing scientific inquiry and applications, it has many positive and critical implications for educational settings. RI can guide educators, students, administrators, and technological developers into and through a new era of innovations in education, especially in higher education settings. Educators are the frontline for instructing and preparing students when it comes to learning with, about, and through new technologies (Schrader and McCreery 2008), and should take that opportunity to engage students in thinking about the impacts and implications of new technological innovations. RI principles and frameworks have the potential to play a key role in future innovations in pedagogical strategies, as evinced in courses like SSfT and SSTS, which engage future educators in thinking about global issues in a more holistic and systems-based manner. While there is much to be done on assessing the impacts of RI in educational settings (Heras and Ruiz-Mallén 2017), there are also many potential benefits in bringing RI principles into wider educational settings.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Jennifer Richter is an assistant professor in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and School of Social Transformation at Arizona State University. Her research interests are on energy justice, specifically in relation to nuclear waste, renewable energy production, and the cultural, political, and environmental issues that come with energy transitions, and how to communicate these issues with the public.

Annie Hale is the Director, Research & Development for the Sustainability Science Education Project housed in the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. She directs a variety of educational programs that target sustainability science and 21st-century learning that aim to inspire, engage, and empower a variety of publics, from teachers to community leaders, with an enhanced understanding of the social dimensions of science and technology.

Leanna Archambault, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. Her research areas include increasing sustainability literacy among pre-service and in-service teachers, teacher preparation for online and blended classrooms, the use of innovative technologies to improve learning outcomes, and the nature of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Archambault currently serves as the program coordinator for the Educational Technology Masters in Education program and is the Co-Editor of the Journal of Online Learning Research. In addition, she works with the International Leaders in Education Program funded by the U.S. Department of State, to provide technology-related professional development to international teachers during their semester-long residency at ASU.

ORCID

Leanna M. Archambault http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1652-4680