In today's rapidly evolving digital education landscape, higher education institutions must adapt their pedagogical practices to enhance interactivity. This presentation shares a strategy for fostering innovation and cultivating an institutional culture that supports continuous educational improvement.

1. SESSION TOPIC AND ITS RELEVANCE
The session will focus on sharing strategies for embedding innovation in institutional teaching practices in higher education.

Why is this relevant?

CONTEXT

Updating pedagogical practices is now not an option, but a necessity to meet the demands of contemporary education. Institutions must innovate to remain relevant and effective (OECD, 2020; World Economic Forum, 2021).

Hodges et al. (2020) highlight that distance learning is not simply about moving face-to-face content to a digital format. The quality of online education depends on innovative design, interactivity, and the effective use of technology.

Emerging disruptive technologies like virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence provide new teaching opportunities but require a shift in the educator's role.

THE PROBLEM

Despite the recognition of the need for innovation, many educators still rely on traditional methods.

A 2024 study reveals that teacher-centered instruction remains the dominant approach worldwide. Active and collaborative learning methods are increasingly promoted in educational policies, but traditional approaches continue to dominate (Falasi, 2024).

Educators often face institutional inertia or lack resources, leading them to rely on conservative teaching styles, even when they are aware of more effective student-centered methodologies (Herodotou et al., 2019).

Thus, innovation in education requires not only improved teaching methodologies but also strategies for ensuring widespread, sustainable adoption at an institutional level.

OUR APPROACH

Our university has declared the Active Blended Learning (ABL) methodology as part of its Education Model. ABL encourages active student participation through discussion, experimentation, and teamwork, with constant feedback.

To achieve this, we developed the Pedagogical Script (PSCRIPT) instrument, which plans learning activities to not only deliver knowledge but also foster skills like collaboration and experimentation through innovative methodologies. Integrating technological tools enhances student interactivity and active learning, embedding educational technologies into the learning process.

The PSCRIPT formulation ensures that innovation is replicable and sustainable at an institutional level.

The PSCRIPT process involves two key aspects:

The Process

The Pedagogical Script is developed collaboratively between a teacher and an instructional designer through group workshops and one-on-one sessions. It follows Wiggins and McTighe’s backward design model (2005), ensuring that learning outcomes guide assessments and teaching strategies. The process includes: (1) analyzing student characteristics and taxonomic levels; (2) identifying and analyzing learning outcomes; (3) selecting evaluation strategies and active learning methodologies (4) designing a sequence of instruction that includes activation, foundations, application, and evaluation. This structure fosters meaningful learning, optimizing both theory and practice.

The Product

The PSCRIPT process not only drives course-level innovation but also fosters a broader culture of digital education. The widespread use of these workshops engages many educators, turning them into advocates for reflective and innovative methodologies. Cross-institutional involvement also raises awareness of the need for innovation while providing real implementation experience.

2. SESSION DESCRIPTION

This session addresses the challenges of resistance and limited adoption of innovative methodologies. To tackle this, we will present the PSCRIPT as an effective solution used by our university to foster methodological innovation. Through practical exercises, attendees will simulate the PSCRIPT process, gaining insight into how this tool facilitates the transition from traditional methods to more active, collaborative approaches. Participants will reflect on common obstacles and explore practical solutions for overcoming institutional inertia and resource barriers. The goal is to equip attendees with strategies they can apply in their institutions, promoting sustainable pedagogical innovation and driving systemic cultural change.

3. INTERACTIVITY PLAN

1. Initial Activity – Personal Reflection (5 minutes)

Participants will reflect individually on the institutional challenges they face when promoting innovation among educators. Key reflection questions:

• What teaching-learning methods dominate in your institution?
• What challenges have you faced when implementing new methodologies?
• How have you addressed resistance from educators?

Responses will be collected via word clouds or shared boards, leading to a group discussion. This activity will help participants identify specific challenges, preparing them to explore potential solutions.

2. Institutional Context Presentation (10 minutes)

We will present how our university faced similar challenges. This will include a "before and after" view, showing how we previously replicated traditional face-to-face methods in online courses and how we shifted to a reflective process using the PSCRIPT.

We will demonstrate how the PSCRIPT was implemented at the institutional level, providing a replicable model for promoting innovation.

3. Practical Experience (20 minutes)

Participants will work in pairs, with the person sitting next to them, to engage in a hands-on activity:

• Step 1: Defining a Strategy to Verify Learning Outcomes (LOs). Participants will be presented with three transversal skills-based LOs (e.g., communication, critical thinking) and asked to define strategies for verifying achievement.

• How would you assess the level of achievement of these LOs?

Responses will be collected using tools like Padlet or Miro.

This step ensures that participants focus on the learning outcomes, following the principle of backward design by first defining the assessment strategies before selecting the teaching methodologies and activities.

• Step 2: Selecting a Teaching-Learning Methodology. Based on the LOs and verification methods, participants will choose an appropriate methodology (e.g., project-based learning, flipped classroom, gamification).

• What pedagogical method would you select and why?

Responses will be shared via collaborative digital tools.

This step ensures that the methodology aligns with both the LO and the assessment strategy.

• Step 3: Planning a Sequence of Activities. Participants will then develop a sequence of learning activities that implement the chosen methodology, completing the backward design process. By linking activities to LOs and assessment methods, participants will ensure that the teaching process is aligned with the objectives.

4. Reflection on the Process (10 minutes)

Participants will complete an online survey to share their perceptions of the process and its applicability in their institutions. Survey questions will include:

• Which part of the process was most useful or applicable?
• What obstacles might you face in implementing this at an institutional level?

This final reflection allows participants to evaluate the process and consider its potential for use in their institutions, helping to facilitate the transfer of knowledge.

4. KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Participants will gain practical insights into how our university implemented strategies to address challenges like resistance to change, the need for teacher training, and large-scale adoption of new methods.
• Through hands-on experience, participants will acquire strategies for creating and sustaining a culture of innovation in their institutions, engaging educators in reflective and collaborative processes to promote active methodologies.
• The final reflection will help participants evaluate the feasibility of applying these strategies in their institutions, gaining a deeper understanding of the resources needed to replicate these innovations.

REFERENCES
1. Falasi, M. (2024). Innovative pedagogies: A comparative analysis of traditional and modern teaching methods. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 28(S1), 1-2. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/innovative-pedagogies-a-comparative-analysis-of-traditional-and-modern-teaching-methods.pdf

2. Herodotou, C., Sharples, M., & Ferguson, R. (2019). Innovative pedagogies of the future: An evidence-based selection. Frontiers in Education. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00113/full

3. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

4. OECD. (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org

5. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

6. World Economic Forum. (2021). How has COVID-19 changed education? https://www.weforum.org