Written by Both Chanicka et. al. (2018) and Bourn (2021) position education as a transformative practice, albeit through slightly different lenses. The former explores the notion of “participatory democracy” and inclusive design, while the latter examines hope in framing global citizenship. Read together, these articles articulate challenges to contemporary pedagogical practices and can be used to redefine innovation, creativity, teaching, and learning.
Chanicka et al. (2018) align closely with my working definition of innovation as the intentional adaptation of teaching practices to meet students’ evolving needs in a responsive manner. Their case study illustrates innovation not as the introduction of novelty, but as a structural change that centers student agency and social justice. Through participatory practices, such as student-led “town halls,” innovation is a deliberate response to inequity. Similarly, Bourn (2021) frames innovation as a necessity in times of global uncertainty, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. His emphasis on “educated hope” and learning through global engagement are innovations in how pedagogy can impact self-worth and one’s view of their role in international issues. In both cases, innovation is underpinned by intentionality and responsiveness to student needs.
Both authors also conceptualize creativity through socially dependent contexts. Chanicka et al. (2018), for instance, demonstrate creativity through the reimagining of school environments as a “third teacher.” Meanwhile, Bourn (2021) frames creativity through hope, specifically that of “imagining future possibilities.” When considered alongside my working definition of creativity as a developmental capacity that demands risk-taking, both texts underscore that sustaining creativity in educational contexts requires an openness to critical and imaginative thinking that remains responsive to cultural and contextual realities.
In relation to teaching, which I defined as an intentional, relational practice that is responsive to learners’ needs, both articles reject traditional models of education. Chanicka et al. (2018) position teachers as “co-learners and facilitators” who design learning environments that allow students to“ think critically on their own… to resist injustice.” Likewise, Bourn (2021) critiques the “banking model” of education and suggests that teachers should be “encouraging a constant process of questioning” so that students do not remain passive receivers of information. Teaching, in both cases, demands a high degree of intentionality and requires that learners are actively engaged with knowledge in socially meaningful ways.
The articles similarly frame learning as an ongoing, metacognitive process. Chanicka et al. (2018) illustrate learning as reflective and socially embedded, which involves “be[ing] aware of…privilege” and developing “global citizen[ship].” Bourn (2021) emphasizes learning through reflective practices, such as “decolonizing” perspectives and finding a “sense of hope within real-world scenarios.” For the authors, learning is fundamentally about making meaning of the world and equipping students with the global competencies and capacities necessary for critical engagement.
Despite their strengths, both articles raise questions about feasibility and impact. In the case of Chanicka et al. (2018), how can participatory democratic practices be sustained in schools with limited resources or rigid institutional structures? Do these practices risk being perceived as performative? For Bourn (2021), how can a pedagogy grounded in hope move beyond mere aspiration and lead to genuine change in educational systems? How can educators ensure that students actively see the impact of their hope on their communities?
References
Bourn, D. (2021). Pedagogy of hope: global learning and the future of education. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 13(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.14324/IJDEGL.13.2.01
Chanicka, J., de Silva, R. M., & Merkley, K. (2018). An inclusive design vision for Canada – schooling as a process for participatory democracy and responsible citizenship. Intercultural Education, 29(5-6), 632-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1508620