Nowadays innovativeness appears more and more in the media and every day life. People seek for innovativeness and innovative people are admired. While all this is taking place, we do not know exactly what is actually meant by innovativeness. We know that terms have the meanings that people give to them (Harman, 1987). There is no one “correct” meaning for a term, as the content changes continually (see Wittgenstein 1953). In this research we aim to see what kinds of functional meanings the term innovativeness has in educational professionals thinking.

The birth of an innovation is now more often seen as a result of shared expertise (Thagard 1993). It is fruitful to consider the meanings of the concepts from the point of view of the conceptual role semantics introduced by Harman (1987). In role semantics, the meaning of concepts is examined on the basis of what kind of a functional role they receive in thinking or in a research process. Thus, concepts are such as they are thought to be, and function as thinking aids.

Innovativity is essential for the success of a developing company (Hamel & Prahalad 1994; Quinn, Baruch & Zien 1997). Also in educational field we all have had to face that fact, if aim is to develop education. Traditionally, educational innovativity has understood as some technical “gizmos” or strongly method-oriented: (1) experiencal learning (2) role playing, (3) competitions and games, (4) stimulate materials, (5) braingstormings and (6) many kind of group methods (Brown 2006; Handfield-Jones & Nashmith 1993). Also Ellis (2005) descripes large things like team learning and multicultural education as educational innovations.

In this research, the educational professionals (n=485) were mainly primary and secondary school teachers, university teachers, polytechnic teachers, educational researchers and educational students. The participating professionals were chosen primarly from random but still sample was deliberating sample. In the inquiry form there were 66 questions about innovative teaching and also there were two open questions. The data was gathered in Finland, bigger cities and also smaller countryside villages. The material was analyzed quantitatively by SPSS -program.

Answerers emphasize mainly innovative teachers’ expertise, method diversity and renewal ability. Uninnovative teacher is descriped as a classical-style authority and this kind of teacher also focuses just one or few teaching methods.


References:

- Brown, J. S. 2006. New Learning Environments for the 21st Century. Exploring the Edge. Change. September/October 2006. 18-24.
- Ellis, A. K. 2005. Research on Educational Innovations, 4th Edition. Larchmont NY: Eye on Education.
- Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. K. 1994. Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
- Handfielsd-Jones, R. & Nasmith, L. 1993. Creativity in Medical Education: The Use of Innovative Techniques in Clinical Teaching.
- Harman, G. 1987. Non-Solipstic Conceptual Role Semantics. In Lepore, E. (eds.) New Directions in Semantics, London: Academic Press.
- Quinn, J., Baruch, J. & Zien, K. 1997. Innovation Explosion. Using Intellect and Software to Revolutionize Growth Strategies. Free Press, New York.
- Thagard, P. 1997. Collaborative knowledge. Nous 31, pp. 242-261.
- Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell