Tools for Education Innovation

Innovation in Education
Tools and methods for success
Session 2: Tools and techniques
8 de abril de 2014
Porto, Portugal.
Kelwyn Looi
Office of the Chief Education Advisor, Pearson PLC.
A measurable impact on improving
someone’s life through learning

Agenda
1. An introduction to Efficacy at Pearson
2. Efficacy in Practice
3. What is the measurable impact on learning
outcomes (efficacy) of your case?
4. Q&A
2 Sessão 2: Ferramentas e técnicas l April 2014

What we aim to achieve
• An understanding of Efficacy at Pearson, and the evolution
of its implementation in the company
• Introducing the Efficacy Framework as a tool to support
innovation in education
• Going through some examples of applying the Efficacy
Framework to in a generic case
• Applying efficacy to your innovations and identifying where
efficacy can be embedded
1
2
3
4
Watch out for this icon – it signals an activity!

An Introduction to the session…
This session will look at tools and techniques that can support the development
and structuring of an innovation, taking into account the context in which it
operates, objectives, expected results, likely indicators of success and the
expected impact
Pearson‟s Efficacy Framework will be tested as a [e.g. stand-alone]
means to support the stakeholders to innovate in TEL / education
Key objectives
For attendees the learnshop would provide the opportunity:
1. To acquaint yourself with the efficacy framework as a tool to
engender learning-focused discussions when assessing and
evaluating prospective innovations
2. To examine a specific case through the lens of a rigorous and
structured framework, providing key takeaways at both the
transversal and individual innovation level

Efficacy at Pearson
Efficacy in Practice
Exercise
Key takeaways and useful resources

The path to Efficacy: why?
• As the world‟s leading learning company, we
feel we have a responsibility and an
opportunity to help people make progress in
their lives through learning
• We have aligned our activities around the
principle of Efficacy to achieve this

Pearson’s definition of efficacy
efficacy
(dictionary definition)
• ability to produce the intended
result
efficiency
(dictionary definition)
• achieve maximum productivity
with minimum wasted effort
7
Put simply…
it’s all about products that improve results and measurable
outcomes for learners.
Efficacy
(Pearson‟s definition)
• a measureable impact on improving someone’s
life through learning
Sessão 2: Ferramentas e técnicas l April 2014

Why now?
• There is a shared understanding that
high-quality education drives
personal, economic and societal
growth
• Governments, individuals, employers
and institutions recognise the need to
deliver high-quality learning
• New technology makes it increasingly
possible to see what works and what
doesn‟t in helping learners to achieve
their goals

Strategic accomplishments
• Launched publicly, generating commentary from media and influential
education leaders around the world
• Made efficacy and learner outcomes central to Pearson‟s global education
strategy and organizational design
Product and service accomplishments
• Rigorous process in place for conducting efficacy reviews with a variety of
depth
• 123 efficacy reviews completed to date
Progress to December 2013
In the past year, we’ve taken major steps towards
putting efficacy at the heart of Pearson’s work

Our previous business map…
•Inputs
•Inputs
•Products
Existing
Offerings
New
NewExisting Pearson Impact

Our new business map…
Existing
• Inputs
• Products
• Outcomes
• Services
Offerings
New
Program
Solutions
New digital
content
Offerings
New
Existing
Offerings
New
NewExisting Pearson Impact

Our commitment to reporting our impact on
learner outcomes
“Pearson‟s purpose is to help people make
progress in their lives through learning. So, we
better be sure that we can demonstrate [our
products deliver a] measurable impact on
learning outcomes.
“[By 2018] we will, in a rigorous and externally
audited way…[publicly] report on [how our
products and services improve] learner
outcomes.”
John Fallon
Nov 15, 2013
How are we helping millions to improve their lives through learning?

The response to the external communication of efficacy
has been largely positive
“That‟s an enormous
commitment and if
they really follow
through, it gives me
some confidence that
this is not merely a
marketing ploy.”
Feedback from education leaders
“Pearson‟s brightest possible future
is not as a company that designs
educationally effective products,
but as one that facilitates
conversation and research about
efficacy within the broader
academic community.”
“At face value, it‟s a bold move
because it moves the content of
education from being critically
reviewed by experts to an
empirical review,…. It‟s the
transition from, 'This is a great
book‟ to „This material really
works.‟ ”
To report audited learning outcomes measures and targets alongside financial
accounts, covering the whole business by 2018.
Our commitment
Daniel Willingham Michael Feldstein

The Efficacy Framework has already been
examined as a tool to support innovation
• At Online Educa Berlin last year
(OEB), Pearson partnered with
the European Learning Industry
Group (ELIG), to deliver an
interactive learnshop
• This involved applying the
efficacy framework to selected
case studies that demonstrated
innovations to support
technology-enhanced
learning (TEL)
• Opening up the conversation to
external input is vital to the
success of efficacy
Excerpt from Online Educa Berlin

Efficacy goals: does what it says on the label
A 3-step process
1.
1.
1. Ensure our products and services
deliver the best learner outcomes:
Efficacy Reviews
2. Build comprehensive and rigorous
evidence to support our claims:
Efficacy Studies / Selling
3. Continually learn from learners to
innovate and improve our products
and services:
Efficacy Analytics

educational
research /
market
analysis
product/servi
ce design
product/servi
ce
development
product/servi
ce marketing
product/servi
ce
deployment
and sales
product/servi
ce customer
use
1. Efficacy Reviews
pre-launch: use evidence
2a. Efficacy Studies
post-launch: generate leads,
build evidence
3. Efficacy Analytics on-
going: analyze evidence
2b. Efficacy Selling
use evidence to sell & support
best customer experience
Our path to efficacy: three complementary
activities for improving learner outcomes

An Efficacy Framework: predicting the likelihood
of impacting learner outcomes
Four criteria:
1. What learner outcomes are we trying to achieve?
2. What evidence do we have to believe it is possible to
achieve these outcomes?
3. What plans are in place to build and deploy a solution that
will impact these outcomes?
4. What capacity exists to achieve these outcomes?

The Efficacy Framework
Criteria area Rating Rationale summary
• Action plan
• Governance
• Monitoring and reporting
• Internal capacity and culture
• User capacity and culture
• Stakeholder relationships
Outcomes
• Intended outcomes
• Overall design
• Value for money
• Comprehensiveness of evidence
• Quality of evidence
• Application of evidence
Evidence
Planning and implementation
Capacity to deliver
Efficacy
Key
Green: Requires small number of minor actions.
Amber/green: Requires some actions (some urgent and some-non urgent).
Amber/red: Requires large number of urgent actions.
Red: Highly problematic requiring substantial number of urgent actions.

An Efficacy Framework: an explanation of ratings
Good – requires slight refinement, but on track
Mixed – some aspects require attention, some solid
Problematic – requires substantial attention, some require
urgent rectification
Off-track – requires urgent action and problem solving
Ratings are not grades on performance
Ratings prompt discussions that lead to actions
Ratings prioritise and suggest timeline

Efficacy Framework: Evidence - Why should
anyone believe us?
Framework
Section
Evidence
Comprehensiveness of evidence
Ask yourself ∙ How well do we understand what our user needs and values?
∙ Is the vision for the innovation supported by research (internal or
external)?
∙ Are we leveraging proven approaches from other innovations?
Quality of evidence
Ask yourself ∙ How rigorous is our evidence?
Is the rigour appropriate for the innovation?
∙ How recent and relevant is the research?
Application of evidence
Ask yourself ∙ How evidence-based is the innovation design?
∙ Has the design been tested?
∙ Does evidence demonstrate that the innovation can be replicated
globally?

Rating Rationale
?
Project 1
• Strong set of academic evidence and expertise underpinning the innovation.
• Comprehensive teacher focus groups across markets and regions, focusing on the right questions (usability,
price point etc); some concerns about scope of potential customers canvassed (see below).
• Traditional competitors are tracked, but not non-traditional competitors who offer tests.
Quality of evidence
?
Project 2
• There is a good mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence as well as unbiased samples from the survey.
Nonetheless, a large amount of the available evidence is based on the previous innovation (before Sept 2012
enhancement) and, therefore, is not fully applicable to the current innovation. Also, there is little
documented evidence coming from the students as to date there has been more focus on teacher rather
than student outcomes.
Effective use of evidence
?
Project 3
• The external evidence that has been collated is not known or accessible to all members of the team. There
may be additional evidence within the business that could be exploited. The use of [this capability] in
innovation design is not yet articulated and it is essential that any major decisions should be underpinned by
research. Pilot innovations must be timed so information can feed back into the design [of this capability)
Warm-up (5 mins):
Rate the evidence for Projects 1-3
Exercise: Evidence
• Good -- requires small number of minor actions
• Mixed – requires some actions (some urgent and some non-urgent)
• Problematic -- requires large number of urgent actions
• Off track – Highly problematic requiring substantial number of urgent actions
Key

Rating Rationale
Project 1
• Strong set of academic evidence and expertise underpinning the innovation.
• Comprehensive teacher focus groups across markets and regions, focusing on the right questions
(usability, price point etc); some concerns about scope of potential customers canvassed (see below).
• Traditional competitors are tracked, but not non-traditional competitors who offer tests.
Quality of evidence
Project 2
• There is a good mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence as well as unbiased samples from the survey.
Nonetheless, a large amount of the available evidence is based on the previous innovation (before Sept 2012
enhancement) and, therefore, is not fully applicable to the current innovation. Also, there is little
documented evidence coming from the students as to date there has been more focus on teacher rather
than student outcomes.
Project 3
• The external evidence that has been collated is not known or accessible to all members of the team. There
may be additional evidence within the business that could be exploited. The use of [this capability] in
innovation design is not yet articulated and it is essential that any major decisions should be underpinned by
research. Pilot innovations must be timed so information can feed back into the design [of this capability)
How did you do?
• Good -- requires small number of minor actions
• Mixed – requires some actions (some urgent and some non-urgent)
• Problematic -- requires large number of urgent actions
• Off track – Highly problematic requiring substantial number of urgent actions
Key
Solutions: Evidence

Framework area Initial
review
3- month
estimate
6-month
estimate
Comment
Outcomes
Intended outcomes After 6 months, outcomes and
metrics will be clear and will
influence design. Value for money
intelligence will be drawn from
pilots.
Overall design
Value for money
Strength of evidence base
Comprehensiveness of evidence After 6 months, the plan to develop
the forward evidence base will be
finalised and initiated.Quality of evidence
Quality of planning and implementation
Action plan After 6 months, long-term plans and
reporting structures will be in place
and governance agreed. Reporting
will be at an early stage.
Governance
Monitoring and reporting
Capacity to deliver
Pearson capacity and culture After 6 months, Capacity issues will
be clear, pilots delivered and lessons
learned and applied. Stakeholder
relationships plans will be launched
and gathering feedback.
Customer capacity and culture
Stakeholder relationships
An Efficacy Framework: driving improvement

Efficacy Studies: holistic, long-term studies with
specific learners, teachers, and institutions

MyEnglishLab Efficacy study
• MyEnglishLab makes a difference
• The Efficacy study illustrated
real-world situations in which
MEL is positively impacting
classrooms
• Studies uncover proven best
practices from customers who are
USING MEL in their own classroom
This means a long term customer!

Identify common
learner difficulties
Personalise learning
(by L1)
Optimise learning by L1
Research learner behaviours
that lead to success
(machine learning)
Improve learner
engagement
(activity design)
Predict learners who will fail
for early intervention
(predictive algorithms)
Efficacy Analytics and insights from Big Data

both students
have the same
net score
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
NetScore
Responses Submitted by Student
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Student 57
Fractal D = 1.60
NetScore
Responses Submitted by Student
fractal alert: alert
teacher and learner
to intervene
responses submitted over course
student who will
succeed - smooth
Fractal = 1.60
student who will fail
or not complete – noisey
Fractal = 1.94
Identifying learners at risk:
ignoring assessment and taking a (random) walk
Patent awarded 2013

User stories: our end goals for efficacy
“As a…, I want to…, so that I can…”
- as a learner, I want to…
EXAMPLE: “As a potential learner of an English Language
course, I want
evidence of how the course will help me improve my English so
that I can make an informed decision about which provider to
choose.”
Fill out the table. Many answers are possible.

As a…. I want to… so that I can…
As a
student
As a
parent
As a
teacher
As a
school
As a
… (you)
Activity 1: User Stories – for an ELT course
(10 min)

As a…. I want to… so that I can…
As a
student
I want to know the course
method works for real students
like me
so that I can reach my exam
(educational) goals
As a
parent
I want to know the course is
improving my child‟s English
so that I can feel comfortable
my child is getting the right
level of education
As a
teacher
I want to use data to
understand my students‟
preparedness
so that our classes are
productive
As a
school
I want to know that this is the
most appropriate course on the
market
so that I can best serve my
students
As a
… (you)
I want to demonstrate to
potential clients that the ELT
course method works
so that I can address their
learning and financial concerns
Activity 1: User Stories – for an ELT course
(10 min)

How can efficacy be applied to your work?
What outcomes are you trying to achieve?
• Set clear efficacy goals
• Give your people the incentive to focus on outcomes
What’s the evidence?
• Develop innovations underpinned by research
• Build and use effective data systems
What’s the plan?
• Make delivering outcomes a core part of your strategy
• Take an open approach
• Employ iterative and agile processes
What’s the capacity to deliver?
• Talk to your users and understand their students‟ needs
• Train your students, teachers or others to use your innovation effectively
• Shape the debate with influential stakeholders

Global Efficacy Strategy
Efficacy in Practice
Exercise
Key takeaways and useful resources

1 hour
• Think through the four
areas that we talk about
when we measure efficacy
– outcomes, evidence,
planning, and capacity
• Consider the question:
What is the measurable
impact on learning
outcomes (efficacy) of the
case?
• We will go through
Outcomes and Capacity
today
You can apply the Efficacy Framework to
support innovation in education…

Exercise
• Spend some time reading the case that you have in front
of you (15 mins)
• Rate for the Outcomes part of the framework and discuss
rationale in the group (20 mins)
• Rate for the Capacity part of the framework and discuss
rationale in the group (15 mins)
• Discussion on the results and the usefulness of the
exercise (10 mins)
1
2
3
4

On November 15th, Pearson
launched a dedicated
website:
http://efficacy.pearson.com
outlining the company‟s focus
on efficacy and commitment
to put the learner at the
heart of the global strategy.
An interactive version of the
efficacy framework also
features on the website.
Reference material: Efficacy website

What is
efficacy?
Pearson as
the efficacy
company
Efficacy
Activities
Tools/ What
you can do?
• Definition: A measurable impact on improving
someone‟s life through learning
• We want to be able to prove that our products and
services have a measurable impact
• By 2018 we are committed to demonstrating the
progress we have made in improving people‟s lives
though learning.
• Efficacy Studies
• Efficacy Reviews
• Efficacy Analytics
• Join the debate on the website
• Blog about improving learning outcomes
• Complete the Survey Monkey
Recap

Identifying dialogue and collaboration with the wider education community as crucial to
accelerate progress, Pearson has also published two reports:
• The first, Asking More: The Path to Efficacy, sets out the imperative for measuring
and improving learning outcomes worldwide
• The second, The Incomplete Guide to Delivering Learning Outcomes, shares in detail
our new approach to contributing to that goal and the progress it has made so far
Reference material: Efficacy publications

“The future will belong not
to those who focus on the
technology alone but to
those who place it in this
wider context and see it as
one element of a wider
system transformation.”
Reference material: Alive in the Swamp
Quote is from Michael Barber, Chief Academic Advisor, Pearson

You can visit efficacy.pearson.com to:
• Find more information about our approach
• Use the online interactive efficacy tool
• Read up on the role of efficacy in education in
two publications: Asking More, and The
Incomplete Guide
• Find out more on LinkedIn (Open for Learning)
and Twitter (@PearsonPLC)
• Contact: efficacy.global@pearson.com if
interested parties want to collaborate with us
• Contact:
• kelwyn.looi@pearson.com
How can I find out more?

Efficacy Framework: Outcomes
Overall design
• Is the innovation designed in a way that will most
effectively help your target group reach their goals?
• Does the design allow you to automatically collect
evidence of your progress?
• Have you adapted the design based on feedback
from users?
• Could the design be used by others?
Value for money
• Do you understand the benefits of your innovation
to your target group, relative to other options?
• Is the cost of the innovation competitive,
considering the benefits it would deliver?
Intended outcomes
• Have you identified specific outcomes for your target
group?
• Do you have a way to measure the intended
outcomes?
• Do you have ambitious and measurable targets in
place, and deadlines for achieving them?
• Are your intended outcomes clearly documented and
understood by the relevant people within and
outside your innovation?
Example of green rating Example of red rating
• All outcomes are specific and
clearly documented.
• People within and outside my
innovation understand the
intended outcomes and are
able to communicate them
clearly.
• Future targets are ambitious
and achievable.
• Outcomes can be regularly
measured against set targets.
• Design is superior to other
options/competitors with
features focused on
delivering outcomes.
• Real-time evidence is
generated.
• The design can be adapted
and developed.
• Others could use this design,
and it has been shared with
them.
• Feedback/research has
allowed me to identify what
benefits the innovation needs
to deliver to users.
• Feedback and return-on-
investment research shows
that the cost of the innovation
reflects the benefits
delivered.
• Outcomes are not documented
or specific.
• People within and outside my
innovation do not understand
the intended outcomes or
communicate them in the
same way.
• Targets do not exist to
measure outcomes against.
• Outcomes are only defined at
a high level.
• No feedback from users
exists (either formal or
informal), and the benefits of
using this innovation are
unclear to our team and our
users.
• Perceptions of value for
money and user experience
are poor.
• The design does not meet
target group expectations
and is difficult to use.
• The design does not reflect
intended outcomes.
• The design does not allow
for the collection of
feedback.
• The design is specific to a
local situation and cannot be
replicated.

Quality of evidence
• Does the evidence you have collected link directly to
what you are trying to achieve?
• Is the evidence you have collected unbiased;
applicable to your innovation; recent; and does it
measure success over a period of time?
• Is the evidence you have collected relevant,
representative and where possible at an individual
level?
• Is the evidence stored and accessible to relevant
people? Is it available in an electronic and searchable
format?
• Has the evidence you have collected been analysed
to help inform the design of your innovation?
• Has the evidence you have collected been analysed
to help inform other decisions about your
innovation?
• Do you collect evidence using a range of methods
(quantitative, qualitative, internal and external for
example)?
• Do you collect evidence for all stages of your
innovation (from early conception to design and then
to implementation)?
• Do you have evidence from all users of your
innovation?
• A wide range of evidence has
been collected via
internal/external, and
quantitative/qualitative
methods.
• Evidence relates to all stages
of my innovation.
• Evidence exists from all users.
• Evidence collected effectively
proves how well we are
meeting our objectives.
• Rigorous research methods
have been used.
• Evidence relates to the
specific and relevant use of
the innovation.
• Evidence was gathered over
a period of time.
• Of the evidence that does
exist it is not linked directly to
what I am trying to achieve.
• The evidence that exists is:
biased; not from a relevant
use of the innovation; out of
date.
• The evidence is not
representative of how a
learner would use this
innovation.
• All evidence is readily
accessible and searchable.
• The evidence is used
regularly to inform the design
of my innovation.
• Collected evidence is also
used to inform non-design
decisions.
• The evidence that exists
cannot be accessed quickly
via electronic means.
• The design of my innovation
has not been changed as the
result of evidence.
• Major decisions about my
innovation are not
underpinned by evidence.
• Evidence is collected via a
limited range of methods and
does not balance qualitative
and quantitative sources.
• Evidence is mainly anecdotal
and patchy, and does not take
into account the innovation‟s
lifecycle, features, or users.
Efficacy Framework: Evidence

• Our action plan has not been
updated and adapted.
• Where feedback exists, it is
delayed.
• Our team is are unaware of
issues or fails to act on them.
• Team routines are informal
and not focused on
monitoring progress.
• Team-members do not know
who makes key decisions.
• Roles for people outside the
core team are poorly defined.
• New team members are
unclear of key processes and
do not have documentation to
refer to.
• Do you update your plan based on progress, adapt it
where necessary and communicate this with your
stakeholders?
• Do you get/have access to real-time feedback from
your users?
• Do you identify issues early, discuss these honestly
and find solutions?
• Do you have tools and routines in place to monitor
progress (such as emails, calls, document-sharing)?
Governance
• Do people within and outside your team understand
who is responsible for decision-making regarding
your innovation?
• Have you documented who is responsible for the
work, and who should be consulted and informed?
Do the relevant people understand this?
• Have you identified the key processes required to
implement your innovation and are these clearly
documented?
Action plan
• Do you have a plan in place to achieve your
outcomes, including milestones, actions,
responsibilities and timelines?
• Does your plan include short- and long-term
priorities.
• Have you identified any potential risks and included
actions to mitigate these in your plan?
• Do you regularly update your plan and communicate
changes to relevant people/institutions?
• Electronic plan exists with
clearly identified steps,
responsibilities and
deadlines.
• The plan includes short and
long-term priorities.
• The plan is regularly updated
and all relevant parties are
aware of the changes.
• Team-members know who
makes decisions, and each
member of the team (within
and outside my innovation)
is clear about their role.
• The processes we have in
place are documented and
well understood, and new
members are fully briefed.
• Data is collected in real-time
and analysed to provide
feedback.
• Monitoring of the innovation
alerts me to issues in real
time.
• Tools and routines are in
place to identify and solve
problems.
• No electronic plan exists.
• Plan is informal with actions,
responsibilities and timelines
unclear.
• Milestones lack clarity and
are either too ambitious or
not stretching enough.
• Potential risks have not been
formally identified or planned
for.
Efficacy Framework: Planning & Implementation

• Our team lacks the
appropriate skills and
resources to deliver the
desired outcomes.
• Our culture feels negative,
traditional and not focused on
outcomes.
Stakeholder relationships
• Have you identified who your key stakeholders are
and do you understand their needs and concerns?
• Do you regularly communicate with your
stakeholders?
• Is there a culture of partnership and collaboration
between your innovation and your stakeholders?
User capacity and culture
• Do the target group understand the objectives and
their roles in achieving them?
• Does the innovation reflect the user‟s skillset and
available resources?
• Do users have the people, skills, time, or resources
to achieve their goals?
• Have you put measures in place to build users‟
skills?
Internal capacity and culture
• Does your innovation have the right number of
people, and people with the right skillsets to enable
you to deliver your desired outcomes?
• Does your innovation have a culture focused on
delivering outcomes, and is it collaborative and
innovative?
• Do leaders within your innovation support your
work and are there opportunities to work with
others across the innovation?
• Team has right number of
people with appropriate
skillset and experience.
• Culture is focused on
delivering outcomes and is
collaborative and innovative.
• Team has appropriate
budget.
• The target group understand
the objectives and their
roles.
• The innovation takes the
user‟s skillset into account
and there are mechanisms in
place to build skills.
• Users have the appropriate
resources to achieve their
goals.
• We meet with stakeholders
frequently, and have formal
and informal conversations.
• Conversations with
stakeholders have led to a
culture of trust and
partnership over a sustained
period of time.
• The target group and existing
users are not aware of what
the innovation should help
them to achieve and what
they need to do to get there.
• The innovation is ill-suited to
the user and attempts to
build users‟ skills are
ineffective.
• Users do not have the
resources and skills to meet
their goals.
• The team and stakeholders
have uncertain relationships.
• Miscommunication occurs
frequently and solving
problems in a joint fashion is
difficult.
Efficacy Framework: Capacity to deliver

Contact: kelwyn.looi@pearson.com
Muito obrigado pela sua atenção!

In small groups of 2-3, evaluate the following
matrices aligned to your innovations, and discuss
where and how efficacy can be embedded?
• What are the advantages of embedding
efficacy into the common innovation design
processes?
• What are the challenges of embedding
efficacy into the common innovation design
processes?
• What questions do you have about the
integration of the two?
Self-evaluation exercise:

The Efficacy Framework
Criteria area Rating Rationale Summary Actions
• Action plan
• Governance
• Monitoring and reporting
• Internal capacity and culture
• User capacity and culture
• Stakeholder relationships
Outcomes
• Intended outcomes
• Overall design
• Value for money
• Comprehensiveness of evidence
• Quality of evidence
• Application of evidence
Evidence
Planning and implementation
Capacity to deliver

Self-evaluation: Outcomes
Outcomes
Does the design of the innovation fit
their culture in a way that will
eventually impact student
achievement?
Can the user achieve the same goals
by investing in alternative innovation
for lesser investment?
What are we trying to achieve?
What is the vision for the outcomes
the user of the innovation wants to
see?
What is the end impact on learning
from the innovation?
Intended Outcomes
Overall Design
Value for Money

Self-evaluation: Evidence
Evidence
What is different about the proposed
innovation than an existing or
competing innovation?
Do we have a case study of another
innovation with similar characteristics
to highlight the evidence of our
innovation?
Why do we believe we can achieve?
How consistent is the evidence and is it
quantitatively validated?
Comprehensiveness of Evidence
Quality of Evidence
Application of Evidence

Self-evaluation: Planning
Planning
Who are the individuals responsible
for guiding, monitoring and revising
implementation once adopted?
What routines or protocols will be used
to gather feedback, ensure quality of
implementation, and report on success
as well as areas of need?
How would we achieve it?
Who is responsible for running point on
the implementation, creating the roll-
out plan (including timeline and metrics
for success)?
Action Plan
Governance

Self-evaluation: Capacity
Capacity
What have we communicated to the
user of the innovation regarding what
resources are needed and what has the
user agreed to allocate?
What are the potential risks, the
commonly agreed upon plans to
mitigate, and our mutual willingness
and trust to re-evaluate what actions
are necessary to achieve the desire
outcomes?
Do we have the capacity to deliver?
Do I have the right people, resources,
and teams to fit and fully support the
innovation?
Internal capacity and culture
User capacity and culture
Relationships with other
stakeholders

Tools for Education Innovation

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Tools for Education Innovation

Similar a Tools for Education Innovation (20)

Más de Andreas Meiszner

Más de Andreas Meiszner (20)

Último

Último (20)

Tools for Education Innovation

Notas del editor