Motivation for Innovation in Education

Motivation for innovation in education
Research paper
MGT-321

Instructor - NiazPatwary (NZP)

Section – 2

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
Prepared by: 1.) -------------------------------------------------
Abdullah Al Rafi- 1110129530 2.) -------------------------------------------------
MofizulHaqueChowdhury – 1030697030 3.) -------------------------------------------------
Faiyaz Mahmud – 1110191030 4.) -------------------------------------------------
JuventusChakma – 1110121030 5.) -------------------------------------------------
MinazUddin Ahmed – 1030296530 6.) -------------------------------------------------
Shafi Mohammed Nahiyan - 1030264530

Abstract
This research paper discusses the different innovations to increase motivation in learning. The use of E-learning and also the use of Consortium are described here. Other types of learning like the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can be also used to increase motivation. The Baldrige Award also offers learning opportunities for those seeking to develop new curricula and programs. These efforts can be supported by the inclusion of pedagogical reform to address universal accessibility. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors for both teachers and students play vital roles in innovation of the educational scenario all over the world. Other techniques for innovation like Web-LE and co-operative learning and factor of their uses are described in this paper. It also explains experiments to determine why co-operative learning is not a commonplace in educational environments nowadays. Motivation for teachers is also important in the innovation of education and it involves both intrinsic motivations like self-determination, enjoyment and increased individual skills and extrinsic motivations like payments, recognition in the job sector, etc. It also explains the variations and innovations in undergrad education and help needed from Open University material to implement in the other schools and universities because their material is considered to be standard.
Introduction

In a world where everything has become so advanced in so many ways, knowledge is the main weapon to remain alive among these advancements and education is thus a primary source to gain knowledge. Education has provided us with almost everything we have learned up to now in our lives. But it has to be kept in mind that no human minds like to work under stress or boredom. So in order to make this learning process more interesting and useful, innovative ways are needed to motivate the students.

In the twenty first century, globalization is playing an important role. Globalization is “the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people,values and ideas [. . .] across border” (Richard Li Hua, 2011). It is helping all the developed and as well as developing countries to cope up with the increasing innovations in technology, ideas, change in mentalities of people and organizations, etc. “The two main bases of globalization are information and innovation” (Richard Li Hua,2011). Thus the educational institutes all over the world have to undergo changes. Every institution has to be capable to face the ongoing challenges and create such an environment that will help the students to acquire knowledge in a useful, creative and fun manner.

In our country it is often a common scenario that the students are not willing to go to schools or universities or are sometimes afraid to talk to their teachers about educational difficulties that they are facing. But in fact the environment of these institutions should be such that it will attract the students to learn and to present whatever problems or whatever they need. It can be sometimes seen that when a student fails, he/she is penalized for that. But in fact the teachers should encourage that student and bring up the belief that failure is the pillar to success. The learning environment is also important and if the students are kept in constant pressure and made to work hard without enough enjoyment in the learning then that is not going to give a desirable result. “According to Silver, the complexity of the problem is directly concerned with innovation in teaching and learning which is a study of interactions, attitudes, institutional policies and practices, national context, and the consensual and confrontational characteristics of all of them” (Borat Licur, 2006). Thus, a student cannot be working in an innovative environment if the teacher does not help in the process.

Different techniques in teaching, encouraging students to participate, motivating them in case they face any difficulties, supporting new ideas of the students,taking extra care for the weak ones, etc. can be only some ways to help the students gain motivation. And thus “we can realize that the successful innovation performance strongly correlates to the quality of teacher, schools and the educational system” (Borat Licur, 2006). But “studies of innovation decision-making have been limited in their ability to understand the adoption of innovations by three factors: (1) they often lack the perspective of the potential adopter, (2) they lack a recognition of social and contextual structures inherent in the environment, and (3) they do not address the possibility that the adoption of one innovation can be contingent upon its relationship to another innovation” (Russel DL, 2005). Thus the teacher’s requirements of their goals need to be understood too and is very important in structuring an analysis to innovate the learning environment in a school or a university. Researchers have initially thought of innovation as a single attribute but as soon as “they enter the classroom, the innovations become part of a complex system of social and pedagogical interactions” (Borat Licur, 2006).

Literature review
In education market we need some innovation too. This innovation has some impact on schools, competing and applying some theories over the process. In education market, the mechanisms are intending to challenge some standardized practices which are associated with the district administration. Drawing on some educational theory this innovation forces some shaping in the market oriented reforms. (Christopher Lubienski, 2003). Some reformers assume that competitions necessarily lead to some innovations within schools. Bureaucratic regulations, inhibiting innovation and enforcing uniformity all these are some way of educating children in schools. Reformers sometimes argue about some topics such as ‘’ one size fits all’’ model for education and believes that market mechanisms of consumer choice between autonomous schools will diverse for increasing achievement (e.g. Anderson,1997; Bennett et al., 1998; Caudell, 1997; Finn &Gau, 1998; Leonardi, 1998;Nathan, 1996a). Competition sometimes can lead to organizational behaviours, whereas classrooms practices are relatively familiar and often revert to traditional modes of curriculum and instructions (Gauri, 1998; Lauder et al., 1999; Lubienski, 2001c; Whitty, Power, &Halpin, 1998; Woods, Bagley, &Glatter, 1998). Innovation and diversification are primary goals for those reformers who seeks ways of engaging children and communities traditionally marginalized by the ‘’one size fits all’’ (Bosetti, 2001; Flaherty, 1995; Fulford, Raack, &Sunderman, 1997; Lane, 1999; Nathan & Power, 1996). Although it should not be overstated, the significance of encouraging innovative approaches to education should not be slighted because it is always central to argument for and expectations. We can put innovation as a policy goal too. We should put some assumption in this innovation in education markets. Reformers, consistent with assumptions of market theory, expected that changes in school administrative structures would lead to "different and innovative" classroom practices. Teachers should be interested in establishing some innovative methods in pursuing their philosophy through classrooms practices (Arizona Education Association, 1998; Clayton Foundation, 1998, 1999; Fuller, 2000a; Miron& Nelson, 2000; New Jersey Department of Education, 2001; Vanourek, Manno, Finn, &Bierlein, 1998). The frequency with which the policy makers ,analysts endorse the expectation of educational innovations has been notably consistent overtime and as a whole it is overwhelming (e.g., Allen, 2001; Anthes&Ziebarth, 2001; Bierlein& Mulholland, 1994; Brandl, 1998; Education Com-mission of the States & National Conference of State Legislatures, 1998; Finn &Manno, 1998a; Flake, 1999; Halpern & Culbertson, 1994; Hassel, 1999b; Hill, 1996; Kolderie, 1993, 1994, 1995; Lane, 1999; Little Hoover Commission, 1996; Manno, Finn, Bierlein, &Vanourek, 1998a; Manno et al., 1998b; Nathan, 1996a, 1996b; Nathan & Power, 1996; National Governors' Association, 1986, 1998; Rofes, 1996; Vanourek et al., 1997). Teachers try to bring out some innovative ideas with optimistic expectations for educational innovation. Teachers can really motivate and they really have the potential to motivate children in many ways. It is important to understand the record of Innovation in Education Markets these dynamics in encouraging innovations in schools, where they were specifically intended to do so. Innovative educational programming is also a prominent theme in the No child left behind act in 2002. Various observers advance competing conceptions of innovation intended in and through charter schools. Some predict the invention of new approaches that will "break the mold" of school practices; others focus on increasing options for local consumers (e.g., Bosetti, 1998; Halpern & Culbertson, 1994; Hassel, 1999b; Mintrom, 2000b). For example, evaluators in Pennsylvania judged charter schools to be innovative insofar as the prac-tices in a charter school are different from the practices currently offered by the other schools in the host district (Miron& Nelson, 2000). While some argue that innovation can mean providing parents with a range of options (even familiar ones), others assess innovation in charter schools "as conventionally understood (e.g., something new)" (Good & Braden, 2000, p. 145; Stout & Garn, 1999). The relation between working memory and motivation is explored in the context of the interactive compensatory model of learning (ICML) in which learning is considered to result from the interaction of ability, motivation, and prior learning. The ICML is recast in light of the revised definition of motivation offered here. This paper goes on to suggest ways in which a range of teaching and learning issues and activities may be re-conceptualized in the context of a model emphasizing a learner's working memory that makes use of chunks of previously acquired knowledge (David W. Brooks and Duane F. Shell). Innovation should include teachers’ motivation. We can examine teachers’ motivation and their supporting if we do some school innovation projects. Self-determination is very much essential in this type of program. Teachers should take some initiative and should show interest in this type of program (Judith Schellenbach-Zell & Cornelia Gräsel). On the basis of the self-determination theory, we distinguish between different types of motivation that depend on the perceived autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1993): self-determined motivation and controlled motivation (Gagné& Deci, 2005; Schellenbach-Zell, 2009). The person-object-theory of interest (Krapp, 1992a) states that the significance a person attaches to an object represents an essential factor for intrinsic motivation. The results obtained in this investigation are able to confirm this assumption; significance was the most important predictor of self-determined motivation, but not, however, for controlled motivation. The self-determination theory assumes that there are three basic needs that have a positive effect on self-determined motivation: the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Methodologies

Initiatives for innovation in education
The need for innovation in education has become an imperative issue recently. The pre-requisite requirement to avoid creating an un-lettered citizenry leads the aficionados of innovation to think of better ways of teaching our off springs. It is fairly important to fathom that better teaching entails interactive lessons with visuals, audios and other appealing variables.
In order to find out how effective or detrimental interactive education can become, a study was conducted on some 10th grade science students on a certain topic. As was suggested by Melone and Lepper (1987), intrinsic motivation depends on 4 factors: challenge, control, curiosity and fantasy. People are more intrinsically motivated when the problem is matched with their skills and prowess. If the problem is too difficult, frustration ensues and if the problem is too easy, monotony is ubiquitous. Curiosity, if infused, can render proper engagement and give a sense of discovery. Tools that are used to maintain curiosity are simulations, incompleteness and possibilities of uncertain outcomes. By changing the modus operandi, sensory curiosity can be triggered whereas by increasing the difficulty level, cognitive curiosity can be stimulated. Control ensures high level of engagement if the students can control the material they are given if they become more engaged and consequently more intrinsically motivated. Lastly, if the students can wield fantasies, their level of engagement increases and thus motivation also increases. Thus the involvement of these 4 elements ought to ensure an intrinsic motivation, and thus the Web-LE, the web-based learning environment the students were exposed to, involve the 4 intrinsic motivational factors.
Working with an experienced teacher, the Wed-LE included specific goal selection which identified challenge, interactive animation, which is ought to evoke curiosity, interactive tools through which the students can wield control and graphic simulations to enhance fantasy. The students were given 3 days to solve an assignment regarding a certain topic.
Observations were made through questioners, interviews of teachers and students, and classroom observations. “While implementing the Web-LE in the science classrooms, all learning sessions were documented, including student learning behaviors, indicators of engagement, science of cognitive engagement and expressions of student interest” (Wang and Reeves,2006).The interviews and motivation theme questioners were all used to garner the relevant information.
The reliability of the research was ensured by carrying out the study for a prolonged period and employing multiple observers. It was observed that the students became more engaged with the task at hand and interested to learn the other subjects using the same method. It was also observed that almost every student exercised the autonomy they were offered (control), and thus became more concentrated, interested, and engaged with the study work they were given.
With this nascent innovation proving to be greatly efficacious, one might mull over the effectiveness of our existing educational system. Yet, from an opposing perspective, it could be deduced that the method was effective only because it was novelty and that it would cease to be productive once the originality wears off. Either way, it can be fairly concluded that the current educational system might not be the best one.
Innovations in classrooms, such as co-operative learning, where the students divide into small groups and work in a group so that all the members learn simultaneously, has been all the rage recently. But recent studies have shown that the use of co-operative learning (CL) is almost unheard of in some classrooms. To find out more about this, the Co-operative Learning Implementation Questioner (CLIQ) was devised.
Some prime questions that instigated the initiative were why, despite being highly effective for learning, has CL not been introduced to the class rooms, or if introduced, was not sustained. It was found that most of the factors regarding the implementation of CL were related to the teachers. In a process of answering those queries, a theory or model was constructed. According to the theory, 3 pre-requisite factors that ensured the use of CL were expectancy, cost and value. Expectancy gave the teachers the motivation required by promising an auspicious outcome, value meant how the CL method of teaching improved both the teachers’ and the students’ skills, and cost entailed the requirements to undertake the CL method. If all 3 of these criteria were met, CL was feasible and applicable, otherwise not.
The method of constructing the CLIQ involved pooling the factors that affect the implementation and use of CL and other innovations in class rooms. It also involved questioning CL trainers and teachers about factor such as age, gender, costs and opinions. Once the pooling of information was done, the data were categorized in the probable variables that affect each of the 3 pre-requisite factors. “Expectancy sub-divisions included the nature of the CL training received, support for implementation, physical constrains, and appropriateness of CL (Abrami Poulsen, Chambers, 2004). The garnered information was then reduced, only the most frequent and highest rated responses were chosen, along with some other information regarding teacher demographics and practices. The aforementioned information were then assessed and used to create a questioner that most accurately pinpoints the problems behind the aversion of using CL in classrooms. The questioners were distributed among almost thousand teachers. The responses were collected. A small number of responses were neglected because of more than 10% missing data and failure to respond. Of the selected ones, the main of the responses were calculated. The results revealed that only 11% of the teachers were not undertaking CL at all in their classrooms. However, they should not be interpreted as good news because 61% percent of the teachers claim that the implementation of CL in their classrooms was either moderate or low. In fact only 15% of the teachers greatly implemented the CL to improve their teaching methods.
It was thusly concluded that refinements and motivation were musts for the full-fledged application of CL. With this and any other innovation to improve the learning and teaching processes, certain risks were always associated, as each and every endeavor was potent to backfire. It was found that the users of CL regarded themselves as the ultimate aficionado about the subject, which might have lead to some errors in their judgment. “In brief, teachers’ confidence, CL skill and student compliance form the trinity the teacher success expectations” (Abrami Poulsen, Chambers, 2004).
Factors and problems
According to Cremole’s article (2011), effective learning requires autonomy, competence, involvement and regulation. These factors contribute greatly to effective learning.
“Introducing innovative strategies in like assisting the subjects in their endeavor to discover new tastes when already known or new ingredients are combined differently” (Cremole, 2011). Some innovation tactics involve changing the activities for a whole group, for example, changing the sequence in which a particular topic is taught.
In reality, the scope for innovation in education is almost negligible. This is because currently in schools things are taught in an autocratic manner without any compliance with the factor of tactics of innovation.
A new world of learning

“The shrinking world in which we live” which journalist Thomas Friedman (2006) refers to as the flat and highly interconnected world of the twenty-first century must bring new insight and urgency to bring motivation in innovation for education.

This new era demands innovation & flexibility. We have examined some ways in which innovation in education can be bought. These include closer examination of quality, novel uses of technology, ways to reach learners with disabilities, and curricular innovations.

In Addition, one of the proven successful ways of motivation for innovation in education includes the Universal Design For learning (UDL).It offers a road map for implementing new technologies, coupled with innovations in the ways in which content is constructed, presented, and delivered UDL principles are meant to be accessible and available to a broad and diverse audience. It comes with a very low price tag.

Another is the Baldrige National Quality Program which provides both incentives and a basic framework for examining the procedures in place in higher education institutions to support quality in every section. Moreover, The Baldrige Award also offers learning opportunities for those seeking to develop new curricula and programs. These efforts can be supported by the inclusion of pedagogical reform to address universal accessibility.

As per the Baldrige Award few simple steps can bring innovation in education. They are as follows:
(1) Examine a key process carefully and thoughtfully.
(2) Document the process to ensure that all parties have the same understanding of its operation and goals.
(3) Develop meaningful metrics to measure process outcomes in relation to its goals, and determine baseline measures.
(4) Look for ways to improve the process.
(5) Implement selected improvements.
(6)Compare measurements after the improvements with the baseline measures.
(7) If the process shows improvement, document the changes.
(8) Repeat the process.

Programs such as the Baldrige Award and initiatives like UDL offer systematic ways to foster and encourage the development of new processes and programs which will lead to a motivation for innovation in higher education

Universities continuously seek ways to innovate higher education thereby delivering increased productivity through gains in operating efficiencies .Faculties may make the most effective use of available technologies. Faculty can use technology to receive immediate feedback during class hours, this feedback will allow the faculty member to focus on areas in which the students have the least understanding and not spend too much time or energy on topics where students demonstrate a greater depth of knowledge.

In recent years, more extensive use of technology in classrooms has risen. It resulted in the integration of bring your own device (BYOD) schemes, equipping students with net books and tablet computers, and lessons that use social media & online services.Although technologies can be initially expensive, they’ll bring a long-term cost benefit. The conventional chalk and black boards can be replaced. The introduction of personal Laptop computers, multimedia projectors, Ipads & kindles in classrooms has proved to create quality education for all. Laptops, kindles and Ipads are portable, which means they can be taken everywhere—even into the mud and the rain. They substitute the burden of carrying heavy books. According to the latest NMC Horizon Report, e-learning will be more readily used as a method of learning within the next few years.
Moreover it is also seen that “Programmed Learning” can be a useful method of learning. Programmed learning refers to the use of audio-visual aids and educational technology and experiment of teaching strategies of much kind. The Hale committee on University Teaching Methods in 1964, found a very spotty use of audio-visual aids, 'a small minority' of staff using sound-recorded material 'a few' references to closed-circuit television, and two universities where research was taking place on the possible use of programmed learning.

Innovation in education can also be achieved in the following ways: * Direct response to student needs and concerns i.e. student-led seminars, laboratory simulations * Taking disciplinary initiatives * Acquiring or developing associated materials like software, e-mail, open or resource-based learning materials * Taking Systematic Initiatives which involves government creation of various ways and different kinds of institution (Open University, the 'green fields' universities), the funding of system-wide change (Enterprise in Higher Education, work- and skills-related developments); national agency schemes to extend the use of computers and educational technology; national pressure groups (Royal Society, Higher Education for Capability, Open Learning Foundation). "
Motivation in education can also be achieved through extrinsic and intrinsic motivating factors. Extrinsic Motivation refers to the motivation gained from a good payoff such as good grades, recognition or gold stars. On the other hand, intrinsic motivation is when individual engage in activities for their own sake. Intrinsically based learning is better, more efficient learning. For example intrinsically engaged students are more likely than extrinsically driven students to employ deep level, sophisticated study strategies in their work (Ames & Archer, 1988).
Also, innovation in education can be achieved through the introduction of Consortia. It is a means by which institutions of higher learning can outsource courses and degree programs. In locations where universities are geographically located very close to each other, schools may choose to focus on a specific academic discipline. If the institutions work together in a consortium it will help students in many ways. All the schools working together would mean, students may enroll in one institution and take the classes needed to fulfill academic requirements. In addition, they can make personal inquiry from all the schools in a consortium. A consortium allows schools to maintain a high quality education as well as giving away students a more universal offering. Lately, modern technology has helped Consortia to extend its wings and operate beyond the traditional geographic boundaries. Also, with proper use of technological innovations institutions can become more efficient and effective.

Lastly, an innovative teaching style & material play a big role in the motivation for students to learn. Innovative teaching style refers to the use of technology, video feeds, practical experiments & sharing of course materials through an online database which is easily accessible from anywhere.
Teacher motivation as a factor for innovation in School Education
A lot of research is being carried out about improving the quality of the educational systems all around the globe. There are various factors that are coming up in almost every research that can be added as potentially important contributors to the educational systems. From among these, one of the most prominent factors regarding the innovation in education for school sectors is the motivation of teachers for participation in innovation projects in schools. There’s less doubt that if teachers are motivated they’ll work for innovations to spread out, but it is important to look into the factors on which the motivation of teachers depend when it comes to participating in school innovation projects.
Teachers deciding willingly and on their own authority to participate in school innovations is what our main questions wonder about. Why would they do that? What are the major reasons behind to carry out such acts? One of the massive portions of the answer is intrinsic motivation. For this to be elaborated much clearly, we’ll consider looking into an article by Judith Schellenbach Zell and Cornel Grasel on this topic of teacher motivation which includes two integral theories to describe the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational issues. The theories are: a) Deci and Ryan’s Self-determination theory. b) Krapp and Prenzel’s person object theory of interest. Self-determination theory depends on three factors. First, the perceived autonomy a teacher has i.e. his/her control and commanding ability in her job. Then comes self-determined motivation. It is the motivation that has a high emotional state and causes someone to carry out activities out of own interest and pleasure. In this state working innovatively in quite pleasant and fills up one’s own time without boredom. For e.g.: To develop the personality a teacher with self-determination motivation may organize lessons in a more varies and interesting pattern. This theory also refers to three basic needs for the sort of motivation to develop:
1) Autonomy – People want to have autonomy in a workplace, i.e. they need the freedom and to carry out one’s own actions with responsibility.
2) Competence – People want to cope up successfully with everything that is around in a workplace.
3) Relatedness – People have a natural tendency of belongingness to other people mainly whom they take as important part of their lives.
So, with these needs fulfilled, teachers in their workplaces can feel eased while working. The person object theory of interest highlights three different types of incentives that can be potential reasons for teachers to be motivated to join in innovative projects. Material incentives like bonus payments, social incentives like having good recognition in the workplace and project specific incentives of for e.g.: having a well-designed project done or a clear central concept related to high quality materials.
Findings and approaches
In our insights to the finding and approaches from the article we first find two types of theories that show intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and with other than these, the construction of self-efficacy. The theories are: 1) Learning goal orientation 2) Achievement goal orientation
The learning goal tells us about the motivation that is directed to increasing the skills, knowledge and ability of one’s own self which implies a sort of intrinsic motivation when this type of orientation is found to be prominent in someone. On the other hand, the achievement goal orientation attributes to the tendency of portraying one’s capabilities somewhere in a superior manner and hiding the short fallings of that very person. So, this shows a type of extrinsic motivation associated with it. As an addition to these researches, self-efficacy is also taken into account which showed that the tendency to easily become fatigued is inversely related to a teacher’s self-efficacy and rather when a teacher is imposed to a restrictive set of rules and requirements, there’s negative effect in teacher’s determination.
Now, from the article we look into the methods and results obtained about the reasons for teacher motivation through two projects that were implemented in two schools in 2006. We’ll mainly emphasize into the project “Chemistry in Context” as a suitable alliance in our discussions.
In this project, people with different level of expertise and worked together in groups with goals of innovating in chemistry teaching and improve the quality and performance of chemistry education. So, two scales of measurement were used as the basic method of this project. The “self-determined motivation scale” showed how much a teacher enjoys the project they have been put into and what reasons they have to actively participate in the project works linking it with their personality development and improvement in teaching planning. The “controlled motivation” emphasized on the participation reasons due to expected improvement in career prospects or fulfilling the expectation of upper level commanding bodies.
The results obtained from these projects showed that teachers are more self-determined to cooperate in projects when they have high levels of autonomy and strong sense of relatedness within the project’s working groups. On the other hand, the three needs had a collective effect on controlled motivation even thought their individual effects weren’t so noticeable. The effect of the three incentives, i.e. material, social and project did not show much of an effect in self-determined motivation but had a collective effect on controlled motivation. From here it can be declared that self-determination motivation does not need any external reinforcement by incentives or other means, in this case, the necessary things needed is the freedom given to teachers to choose their subjects in accordance to their perception to help their long term motivation sustain. They should be clarified and kept in remembrance about the relevance of the project content they are working in and its link with their professional and personal attainments. Friendly and cooperative environment with the project group where there is less working pressure can turn out to be a motivational booster for them.

Results on controlled motivation indicate the influence of some of the incentives. So, the educational system may try to keep if not everyone, but at least the teachers who have shown great sincerity and quality in their work quite consistently by providing them with financial incentives even though it may be a bit difficult for the system to do so. The clarification of the exact goal and purpose of the project work that they have been put into can contribute to the teacher’s motivation stimulus. High quality support materials provided available for the project can also bring a good amount of help to it.

A second type of project similar to it called “Transfer-21” that was carried out in another school showed a bit different for different conditions though. From “Chemistry in Context” we can figure out that for self-determined motivation, personal and professional significance had a good impact as the participation in the project is entertaining and it enriches the personality development of teachers and improves class performance. So, it’s also reasonable to say that the factors that trigger motivation investigated in these projects include interest, basic needs and specific incentives. Ultimately, both these projects give us some similar messages about a teacher’s motivation in his/her participation in innovative works to improve the quality of an education system. It is important for teachers to recognize the significance of the content being imparted to them and the connection it has to their personal and professional aspects of life. The environment that the teachers are working in should consider their basic needs. A competent environment for the teachers is also an integral motivating factor for teachers to work. In work groups autonomy and relatedness would increase self-determined motivation. Independence and freedom in project structures should be given to teachers if superior outcome is expected of them with the project leaders having autonomy to make higher decision regarding the topic, methodology and approach to the work. After all as a conclusion it can be stated that teachers should be given more room for innovation and should be inspired to make them feel important in their working vicinity. For this they should be assisted with proper materials and access to information and evaluation after completion of tasks will let them have an idea of their quality and capability so that they can figure out all types of motivation necessary for them to remain active in the innovation in education process.

Innovation in higher education assisted by the Open University

For the improvement of the quality of education in higher education, innovative steps are very necessary. New and intriguing methods of teaching and working can add favorable twists to the education system. But to get this done, the dissemination of information and ideas is a very important and the source that is filled with the best amount and quality information and innovative ideas is, the Open University. This is what some organizations have been working on time to time to figure out how much other universities have collaboration with each other and how much they’re familiar and easy to use materials from the Open University as the ideas aren’t accessible in general and not formally distributed.

For our convenience in this research, we’re using the information collected from an article by G.D Moss and A. Brew on the relevant topic. This article tells us about a survey in three universities that were carried out in 1978. The questionnaire used tried to determine the following factors as presented by the article have been put directly below:

a) The extent to which teaching to which teaching staff in these institutions were familiar with Open University textual and broadcast materials. b) The extent to which they used such materials in their own courses. c) The extent to which they used Open University teaching ideas and strategies in their own courses. d) The relative importance of Open University materials and strategies in differing subject areas. e) The comparative influence of Open University ideas and strategies on Open University part time stuff lecturing in other institutions and on non-open university staff.

Findings from the survey give us results obtained from respondents that consist of around 50% of the number of people to whom the questionnaire were sent to. The responses indicate that most of the teachers in non-open universities are familiar with Open University materials but their use is not very remarkable in other universities. So, the extent to which these materials are used is important to know for new ideas and strategies to be implemented in the teaching process. Acts of carrying out higher level techniques were found among instructors who were somehow connected to Open University more than those who have no connection with it. They showed a higher level of success in their works than other the staffs by the implementation of those techniques and materials in their own courses.

As stated in the article, the Open University materials basically include: continuous tutor market and computer market assessment, use of radio and TV programs, design of self-instructional text, etc. But the problem faced in the implementation of these materials is that they are not as appropriately adopted in other institutions as it should be which is mainly due to the barriers in organizations. Substantial amount of change was not made in other institutions to comply with the Open University system of innovation and ideas for educational improvement.

From the matters discussed above we can put our conclusion with along some probable solutions to the problems that are standing as a noise between the effective communications with the technical information of the Open University with others. The attempts of future staff development programs should include training the teachers of the conventional universities and polytechnics about the vital role of the teaching methods, strategies, materials, ideas and information of the Open University or other organizations producing similar materials to the contribution in the educational methodology of other universities. They should be given an elaborate idea in their training about how the implementation of these materials and strategies put impact on student learning and performance and to evaluate the ultimate effectiveness and organizational implications of all these innovations.

Reference
The following articles have been chosen for the topic: 1) Christopher Lubienski (2003). Innovation in Education Markets: Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Competition and Choice in Charter Schools. 2) Harold Silver (1999). Managing to Innovate in Higher Education. 3) Martin V. Covington (2000). Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation in Schools: Reconciliation. 4) Shiang-Kwei Wang and Thomas C. Reeves (2006). The Effects of a Web-Based Learning Environment on Student Motivation in a High School Earth Science Course. 5) David W. Brooks and Duane F. Shell (2006). Working Memory, Motivation, and Teacher-Initiated Learning 6) Susan C. White, Theodore S. Glickman. Innovation in Higher Education: Implications for the Future 7) Richard Li Hua, John Wilson, GhassanAouad, Xiand Li (2011). Strategic aspects of innovation and internationalization in higher education. 8) BorutLikar, MirnaMacur, Nada Trunk-irca (2006). Systematic approach for innovative education process. 9) G.D. Moss, A. Brew (1981). The contribution of the Open University to Innovation in Higher Education. 10) Russell, D. L., &Schneiderheinze, A. (2005). Understanding
Innovation in Education Using Activity Theory. Educational
Technology & Science. 11) Judith Schellenbach-Zell & Cornelia. (2010) Gräsel. Teacher Motivation for participating in school innovations.

12) Everard M. Williams. February 24. 1967. Innovation in Undergraduate Teaching.

13) Andrew Hannan and Harold Silver (1999). Innovation motivation

14) Philip C Abrami, Catherine Poulsen, Bette Chambers (2004). Teacher Motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning.

15) IrmgardDemirol and Franjo Steiner, Petra Beck and Margit Kreikenbom, Alessandro Melillo and Marie Marzloff, Maria Kovacs, Simona-Elena Bernat, IngunaIrbite and Sandra Kalnina, DaivaPenkauskienë, AzucenaMartínezAsenjo, AlicaPetrasova and Marcela Maslova (2009). Innovative ways for motivating adults for learning.