When the Office of Digital Learning transitioned out of the university and to a new nonprofit organization created to expand the reach of the University of Oklahoma’s online programs, we had an opportunity to rethink and expand our role under a new name. The decision to adopt the moniker Academic Innovation was more than a rebrand—it was a statement of purpose that reflects both our history and our aspirations.
A Personal Journey Through Changing Terminology
Over the past ten years, I’ve watched my own title alongside the changing landscape of teaching and learning. In 2013, I was hired as the Director of Digital Courses within the OU Center for Teaching Excellence. Our early work focused on launching a social LMS called Janux, an attempt to blend for-credit OU courses with public enrollment—an early experiment in the MOOC space. But our work quickly extended beyond platforms. We explored domains of one’s own, game-based learning, large-scale OER adoption, and one-to-one tablet initiatives.
As our scope expanded, so did our identity—first to the Digital Learning Team and then to the Office of Digital Learning (ODL) in 2017. ODL became well-known across campus for instructional design, educational technology, and online learning leadership.
Yet even then, I was reticent about continuing to frame our work as “digital” learning. While I appreciated centering our work and department title on learning (as opposed to teaching), the word “digital” felt increasingly unnecessary. Hadn’t all learning become somewhat digital? Laptops largely outnumbered notebooks, response systems engaged students in real-time, and assessments had moved almost entirely online. Today, learning is omnichannel, and the distinction between digital and non-digital learning has blurred to irrelevance.
But more importantly, this shift in terminology reflected a deeper challenge in higher education: learning innovation has outgrown its technology-first framing and requires a broader, more structural approach. Universities—including OU—have moved beyond treating digital tools as the primary driver of change. The real challenge is no longer about technology adoption but about embedding sustainable innovation into institutional culture.
As I reflected on what our name would be in the newly formed OU Education Services, I chose Academic Innovation—a term adopted by institutions such as the University of Michigan, but one that also acknowledges both our history of experimentation and our broader mission to integrate innovation into the university’s academic fabric.
This choice wasn’t made lightly, as I continue to recognize that “innovation” carries significant historical baggage. From the 15th through the 18th centuries, “innovator” functioned as a serious political and religious accusation, often leveled against those who threatened established doctrines and power structures. Only gradually did the term transform into a more positive connotation. Economist Joseph Schumpeter helped reframe our understanding when he distinguished between invention (the creation of something new) and innovation (the successful implementation and integration of new ideas within existing systems).
Yet more recently, the overuse of the term “innovation” has diluted its meaning—particularly in higher education. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the rise of Silicon Valley’s “disruptive innovation” narrative, which has often framed traditional institutions as outdated and inefficient while positioning market-driven models as the inevitable future of education.
First popularized by Clayton Christensen, the idea of disruptive innovation describes how new entrants can displace legacy industries by targeting underserved markets with cheaper, more scalable alternatives. While this framework has value in understanding certain technological and business shifts, the assumption that universities should be “reinvented” in the same way as retail, media, or transportation ignores the core purpose of education: fostering deep learning, intellectual growth, and human connection.
But learning isn’t a market disruption problem—it’s a human-centered challenge that requires thoughtful evolution, not just replacement. The most effective changes in higher education have not come from outsiders dismantling institutions, but from inside efforts to modernize and strengthen them.
Defining Academic Innovation Through Scholarship
As I searched for a way to articulate what I mean when I say “academic innovation,” I turned to a book by two authors whose work I’ve followed for some time—Joshua Kim and Edward Maloney. I’ve had the pleasure of knowing Josh and Eddie well for , and their thinking on learning innovation has deeply influenced my own. Much of their definition is the product of both research and their experiences leading organizations that have followed a similar path as OU, navigating the intersection of faculty development, digital learning, and institutional change.
Drawing from their book Learning Innovation and the Future of Higher Education, I’ve adopted their view of academic innovation as the interplay of pedagogical practices, educational technologies, and institutional strategies aimed at improving teaching and learning.
First, academic innovation is fundamentally multidisciplinary, bringing together:
-
Learning Science – Applying research-backed insights into how students learn best
-
Educational Technology – Using digital tools not as replacements, but as amplifiers of teaching and learning
-
Learning Analytics – Leveraging data to inform decisions and improve student outcomes
Second, learning innovation is deeply embedded within the institutional framework that supports it. This distinction highlights a crucial insight: innovation doesn’t thrive in isolation. Structures, policies, investments, and strategic leadership act as the foundation that allows innovation to take root and sustain meaningful change. Without these enablers, even the most promising innovations remain isolated and struggle to scale beyond individual classrooms.
Their definition of “innovation” also deeply resonated: intentional and aspirational investment in change to improve educational practices.
Finally, these practices are a continuum, often beginning with faculty-level transformations, which then accumulate to drive larger structural reforms. The shift from individual experimentation to systemic adoption is what leads to long-term institutional transformation.
How OUES Bridges the Faculty-Administration Divide
One of the biggest barriers to sustaining learning innovation, as Josh and Eddie identify, is the traditional divide between faculty and administration. In most universities, these groups exist in separate, sometimes adversarial, silos. Faculty drive teaching and research, while administration oversees policies and operations. This division can make sustained innovation difficult—faculty experiments often struggle to scale, while administrative initiatives can lack grassroots faculty buy-in.
This is where OU Education Services plays a unique role. As a separate not-for-profit entity, we are neither fully administrative nor purely academic. Instead, we act as a structural bridge, creating what Kim and Maloney describe as “liminal spaces”—collaborative zones where learning professionals, instructional designers, technologists, and faculty work together outside traditional hierarchies.
By working alongside faculty rather than operating as a top-down directive, our goal is to enable a model of learning innovation that is both pedagogically sound and institutionally sustainable.
The Spectrum and Framework of Academic Innovation
As mentioned, academic innovation operates along a continuum—from individual faculty transformations to institutional reform. At one end, individual faculty members experiment with new teaching methods and tools. At the other, we see large-scale institutional changes in credentialing models, cross-disciplinary collaborations, and strategic investments in student success.
A useful model for structuring this work comes from Boston University’s Digital Learning & Innovation unit, which categorizes efforts across three levels:
-
Operation – Supporting faculty in current teaching and EdTech needs, ensuring immediate impact in classrooms today
-
Transformation – Scaling effective instructional innovations across departments and colleges over a 1-5 year horizon
-
Innovation – Incubating and experimenting with new approaches that will prepare the institution for the future on a 3-10 year horizon
This tiered approach is directly drawn from Boston University’s experience with learning innovation. Much like how OUES has brought together personnel across multiple departments, colleges, and initiatives, and continues to partner that talent with experts joining us from industry, Boston University created Digital Learning & Innovation in 2016, consolidating their previously disconnected Center for Teaching & Learning, Educational Technology Group, and Digital Education Incubator into a single organization.
What makes Boston University’s model particularly effective is how it integrates immediate faculty support with longer-term strategic goals. Their Digital Education Incubator serves as the experimental arm, working on projects with potential transformative impact 3-10 years in the future.
As Romy Ruukel, who is now Executive Director, Academic Technology & Innovation, explained in the book:
There is value in these experiments for the sake of a potential big idea… If it is something with big potential, we are in a position to go further. If it is not, we’ve invested something in learning and discovering that it is not quite right.
This multi-horizon framework helps ensure that innovation isn’t just about adopting new tools—it’s about strategically aligning faculty-driven experimentation with institutional transformation. It addresses what Kim and Maloney call the “magical provost problem,” where innovations depend too heavily on particular leaders rather than becoming embedded in institutional structure.
From Implementation to Influence
Kim and Maloney also present a compelling vision in their book for what they call “a scholarship of learning innovation.” They argue that for learning innovation to have lasting impact, it must evolve beyond professional networks and social media conversations to become an interdisciplinary field of study with its own methods and literature.
This concept resonates with me as I consider our future direction. Beyond implementing practices, I’m interested in exploring how we might contribute to this emerging scholarly conversation. The opportunity to document experiences, study outcomes, and potentially share findings could create value beyond our immediate campus community. By creating spaces for sustained dialogue about what works, what doesn’t, and why, we could potentially contribute to a growing body of knowledge that helps institutions everywhere advance learning. This work doesn’t just represent implementation opportunities but opens doors for meaningful scholarship that begins with important questions such as:
-
How can virtual laboratory experiences transform STEM education in ways that increase access while maintaining or improving learning outcomes? What design principles make these environments most effective?
-
What would credential programs that students can build over time look like if designed with both quality and workforce relevance at their core? How might these affect student persistence and career readiness?
-
How could we better recognize knowledge students already possess, whether from work experience or industry certifications? What frameworks would allow us to thoughtfully translate this learning into academic progress?
-
In what ways might we reimagine the transition from high school to college to reduce barriers and increase success in challenging introductory courses? What support systems actually make a measurable difference?
Why Academic Innovation Matters
Higher education is at a crossroads. Changing workforce demands, shifting student expectations, and advancements in technology require institutions to be proactive, not reactive. The challenge isn’t just adopting new technologies or designing better courses—it’s structural. Without intentional strategies to support and scale innovation, even the most promising ideas remain isolated or fade when leadership changes.
This is exactly why our approach matters. Our structure allows us to bridge the gap between faculty and administration, ensuring that innovation is not just an initiative but a lasting part of OU’s academic culture. By approaching our work through both practical and scholarly lenses, we can create sustainable models that can evolve with the changing landscape of higher education.
Academic Innovation is not a fixed concept—it’s an evolving practice of continuously asking the right questions, challenging assumptions, and building a future where learning is enhanced by new ideas and approaches. The work isn’t just about implementing new ideas—it’s about ensuring that change is meaningful, sustainable, and transformative. We’re not just looking to shape learning at OU—we’re aiming to contribute to the broader conversation about the future of higher education.
