Currently reading: Thirkell (2026) on “Frugal pedagogical innovation: reframing creativity in higher education teaching”
Innovation seems to still be one of the favourite buzzwords around, and in teaching, it often means fancier technology, larger group sizes that purportedly have even better learning outcomes, and all of that, of course, based in evidence showing typically large numbers of some sort. In this framing, Thirkell (2026) writes, “[p]edagogical innovation risks becoming measurable rather than meaningful, privileging visibility and novelty while obscuring the relational, ethical and contextually grounded work that sustains teaching quality.” So now what?
Thirkell (2026) presents the concept of “frugal pedagogical innovation“, which “reframes innovation as contextual, relational practice rather than technological disruption or visible reform“. They explore accounts of teachers work to improve teaching within the tight constraints of budgets, reusing tools they already have, optimizing for their specific context.
To explain what motivates teachers to keep tweaking their teaching, they combine Frugal Innovation Theory and Self-Determination Theory: “FIT contributes affordability, simplicity, and contextual relevance; SDT adds autonomy, competence, relatedness, and intrinsic motivation. […] Their integration links structural conditions with motivational dynamics, reframing pedagogical innovation as contextual, relational, and ethical practice rather than visible reform.” Pedagogical innovation, in that framework, then becomes “incremental, contextual, and relational: adaptions that remain largely invisible in institutional narratives yet constituting a distinct and under-recognised mode of educational creativity through everyday adaptions“.
Changes that lead to real innovations are described by teachers as tweaking what already existed, and as accumulating in effect over time, which — even though effects eventually can feel like breakthroughs — are not recognized as such from the outside, since what becomes visible is only the “tweaking”. Constraints (at least when it comes to students’ access to technology) seem to provoke action to find good solutions for them anyway, against all odds, and inspire creativity. But of course not always; constraints can also feel exhausting and overwhelming when there is no wriggle-room, and institutional policies can make certain types of innovations impossible, as can a lack of time and personnel.
Teachers in the study also clearly distinguished between the kinds of innovations that actually contributed to improved student experience and learning, and the ones they knew counted for the institutions’ success metrics and might be rewarded, and were strategic in their framing to secure support (but also in when to change things, so that bad student feedback wouldn’t come right before when it would be counted against the teachers). Leaders similarly recognized that “visible innovation is not always valuable, and valuable innovation is not always visible“, and that seems to also be the case with technology-enhanced learning staff, who are seen to just provide support, when in reality a lot of their work is innovative and creative.
Teachers also described the importance of innovating together with other teachers and with students, to have their support and buffer the risks. Technology-enhanced learning staff describe that teachers lack safe spaces to try (and potentially fail, and learn from that) using new(-to-them) technology.
Thirkell (2026) thus describe a new narrative in which “[p]edagogical change is shaped less by strategy than by negotiation, improvisation, and care“. I really like the focus on care, and I would even expand on their discussion: Large and/or fast changes are not a sign of innovation in themselves, only the longer-term effects will show if they worked out, and if they fail, they might fail spectacularly and with high costs for students and teachers (and potentially the institution and beyond). Incremental changes, however, account for unforseeable consequences of innovations by minimizing risks and feeling the way forward, and they give everybody involved time to adapt to new methods or tools or whatever. If we think about pedagogical innovations as wicked problems (as other authors do, which I summarize here and here), the only way forward is through iteration of small step, evaluation, readjustment.
Lastly, Thirkell (2026) raises the “tension between innovation as excellence marker and professional practice, questioning whether it should be celebrated as exceptional or recognised as integral work“, which I think is super important. It’s like with sustainability — if you don’t want to teach FOR sustainability, does it mean you want to teach AGAINST sustainability? If some teaching is cellebrated as excellent, what does that say about the teaching that isn’t in the spotlight, and what does it say about what we consider should be a natural part of teaching practice?
Thirkell, E. (2026). Frugal pedagogical innovation: reframing creativity in higher education teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-21.
Featured image from the first dip in a while!
This almost looks like spring?
