4 Skills Great Innovators Share (by Greg Satell)

If creativity is about having unique ideas and new ways to do things, innovation is all about making those ideas happen.

In that sense, the bridge between creativity and innovation is made from the bricks of execution. That is when the rubber meets the road.

One of the key characteristics of someone who innovates is that they run small pilots to test their hypothesis. When they encounter ideas (or interesting intersections of already existing ideas), they tinker with the idea, execute in small chunks and learn along the way to adapt. They understand that to make a few things work, they have to try, fail and learn from many other things. They have to collaborate and network with others. They have to be comfortable with ambiguity and chaos when they experiment.

In this context, I read a brilliant post (with some great examples) from Greg Satell about 4 skills that all great innovators share. I highly recommend you read the full post in which Greg supports these skills with excellent examples to make sense of it all.

Classroom Observation

Classroom observation

The observation is structured around the seven principles that new observations should be based upon proposed by Williams (1989, pp.86-87), in contrast to traditional observations during which the observed teacher had no responsibility about the aim and content of the observation. These principles are:

  1. Development
  2. Limited and focused content
  3. Course-link
  4. Teacher-centredness
  5. Future development
  6. Positiveness
  7. Flexibility

Peer Observation

Peer-observation

Freeman (1982) suggests that the observation approach to be adopted largely depends on which part of the training-development continuum the observed teacher belongs to. Taking into consideration the observed teacher’s teaching profile as presented above, the type of observation to be used is for professional development (Malderez, 2003). To that end peer observation will be applied in this particular context.

The observed teacher has asked a fellow EFL teacher to undertake the role of the observer. The latter is a woman with 20 years of teaching experience. Both teachers have known each other for a long time and have collaborated on a professional level. In addition, the observed teacher has observed the class of her colleague, as well.

Peer-observation is beneficial for the reason that it is teacher-centred (Williams, 1989). That means that the observed teacher is the one who decides on the process of observation and on how to use the observer (Freeman, 1982· Malderez, 2003). Also, in this approach to observation the observed teacher is equal to the observer, in contrast to the authoritative style of traditional observations (Kennedy, 1993) and the focus is on teacher development rather than on evaluation (Sheal, 1989).

KPG exam battery

 The KPG within the Greek public school context.

Of the six main kinds of language test the KPG is categorized as a proficiency test. It is a formal type of testing outside the formal education setting. Its purpose is neither summative assessment, that is to test how much of the syllabus has been learnt, as it is the case with achievement tests, nor to assist learning as a formative assessment tool (KPG Handbook, 2013· West, 2004). As West (2004) mentions, proficiency tests have a washforward effect, meaning they try “to establish whether the students have the necessary level and type of language to undertake a task in the future” (p.24). As such the KPG is mainly used by its holders as a credential for employment (KPG Handbook, 2013).

In the public school context the KPG test – Level B (B1&B2) – will be used by the English language teacher as a formative type of assessment, to assess 1st grade High school students’ abilities in the target language. The objective is to diagnose students’ strengths and weaknesses and accordingly plan a syllabus for the whole school year. The choice of using this specific test was made due to the fact that it is addressed to “Greek users of the foreign language and takes into account the social circumstances for its use” (KPG Handbook, 2013, p.20). That is, language is not disembodied but it is used for social purposes.

Δείτε το στο slideshare.net

 

Traditional vs alternative assessment

eportfolio

Paper-and-pencil tests have been until these days the primary means to test students’ proficiency in the foreign language. This type of assessment is mainly summative and is usually related to high stakes exams. According to West (2004a), this approach to foreign language testing overemphasizes the grading function, while students confine themselves to passive recipients of knowledge whose needs are not taken into consideration.

paper-and-pencil test

In a learner-centred approach to foreign language teaching students are expected to assume a more active role. Nunan states that “learners who are able to play the kind of active role in their own learning (…) could be said to be autonomous” (p. 193).

Hughes (1989) mentions that criterion-referenced testing not only provides information about what students can actually do with language but “students are encouraged to measure their progress in relation to meaningful criteria” (p. 21).

ePortfolio, as an alternative method of assessment, demands more active participation on behalf of the students (Yastibas, 2013) and promotes learning independency (Alawdat, 2014). In addition it focuses both on the process and product of learning (Genc & Tinmaz, 2010).

e-portfolios as a pedagogical device in primary education

Paper-based portfolio vs Eportfolio

Paper-based portfolios as well as ePortfolios:

have a positive impact on improving students’ writing skills (Aygun & Aydin, 2016· Barabouti, 2012· Caner, 2010· Erdogan & Yurdabakan, 2011· Jee, 2008· Kalra et al., 2017· Khodashenas & Rakhshi, 2017· Mtawaa, 2017· Taki & Heidari, 2010· Tezci & Dikici, 2006). Nevertheless, research has shown that ePortfolio is more preferable than paper-based portfolio, since students believe it demonstrates their true capabilities more than a paper portfolio does (JISC, 2008). Also, students prefer submitting their papers online (Alawdat, 2014).

Apart from the above mentioned differences, ePortfolio is superior to paper portfolio for various other reasons.

  1. Challis (2005) mentions that using ePortfolio makes it easier to handle material digitally as well as give feedback, since it takes less time.
  2. Also, storage is easier and ePortfolios can be carried everywhere.
  3. Moreover, a great audience can easily have access to it by the web. At the same time, students can prove their IT skills.

However, the use of ePortfolio has been found to be a source of anxiety for some learners who cannot cope with technology or the presence of audience (Alawdat, 2014· Hung, 2012).