CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF INNOVATION

Few literature review articles endeavor to provide even minimal indications of what their authors, or the authors they review, understand by the term innovation. Among the 66 studies analyzed, only nine (approximately 13.6%) included excerpts clarifying its definition. There is no consensus among the highlighted definitions, which range from broad generalizations of innovation (e.g., ^{Morel et al., 2019}; ^{Moirano, Sánchez and Štěpánek, 2020}) to specific ones, such as behavioral innovation (^{Carr, Kendal and Flynn, 2016}), continuous, systematic, disruptive, or open innovation (^{Castillo-Martínez and Ramírez-Montoya, 2021}), and educational innovation (^{Gresnigt et al., 2014}; ^{Rodríguez-Jiménez, Pérez-Ochoa and Ulloa-Guerra, 2021}). In addition to the variety of definitions employed, the approaches authors take to organize their conceptualizations also differ. These include explicit declarative definitions (e.g., ^{López, Aroca and Abellán, 2020}; ^{Rodríguez-Jiménez, Pérez-Ochoa and Ulloa-Guerra, 2021}), sequences of characteristics (^{Gresnigt et al., 2014}; ^{Carr, Kendal and Flynn, 2016}), and conceptual models (^{Morad, Ragonis and Barak, 2021}). Finally, regarding the origin of these definitions, seven studies adopted definitions from external sources, often in the form of theoretical frameworks. Only the definitions proposed by ^{Carr, Kendal, and Flynn (2016)} and ^{Morad, Ragonis, and Barak (2021)} emerged as a direct result of the review process undertaken.

Regarding the nature of conceptualizations, the authors of the reviews converge on a processual notion of innovation, portraying it as a series of actions unfolding over time — a process. However, while some explicitly articulate this idea (^{Carr, Kendal and Flynn, 2016}; ^{Morad, Ragonis and Barak, 2021}), others imply it more subtly. In terms of the depth of the changes involved, the conceptualizations diverge: some authors highlight gradual or continuous changes (^{Carr, Kendal and Flynn, 2016}; ^{Castillo-Martínez and Ramírez-Montoya, 2021}), whereas others emphasize the significance of disruption in the innovation process (^{López, Aroca and Abellán, 2020}; ^{Castillo-Martínez and Ramírez-Montoya, 2021}).

Among the analyzed works, the study by ^{Morad, Ragonis, and Barak (2021)} stands out for its effort to establish a definition of innovation through an integrative review of explicit propositions from studies in various research fields. Their comprehensive model highlights five key elements: i. identifying a need or problem; ii. generating new or modified ideas; iii. developing an alternative based on these new ideas; iv. implementing a new or modified idea for a target audience; and v. adopting an innovation with recognized value.

The authors note that definitions originating from the field of education stand out from others due to their emphasis on identified needs and problems, established objectives, and the value attributed to innovation in light of its implementation outcomes. They observe a "high importance attributed in education to defining educational goals, as they enable to plan means and strategies for achieving educational goals [to achieve them]" (^{Morad, Ragonis and Barak, 2021}, p. 11), as well as the significance of the value placed on "contribution to society by developing and improving learners’ knowledge, to the pedagogy of teaching, or to the education system in general" (^{Morad, Ragonis and Barak, 2021}, p. 11). While they recognize the importance of the value assigned to the outcomes of innovation, there is a notable lack of emphasis on the adoption component itself within definitions related to education.

We also consider it important to understand the terms related to innovation used in the reviewed articles, even when the concept itself is not explicitly defined. Of the 66 literature reviews analyzed, 57 (approximately 86.3%) do not clarify their understanding of innovation or related terminology. These terms are associated with the following themes: i. innovation in education in general, as exemplified by the phrase "educational innovation" (e.g., ^{Carrete-Marín and Domingo-Peñafiel, 2021}); ii. innovation in teaching methodologies and strategies, involving the creation or modification of teaching and learning methods, as in "innovative pedagogical strategy" (e.g., ^{Gikandi, Morrow and Davis, 2011}); iii. curricular innovation, reflected in expressions like "innovative curricula" (e.g., ^{Pepin, Biehler and Gueudet, 2021}); iv. innovation in technological resources, concerning the use of innovative technologies, such as "emerging technologies" (e.g., ^{Neira, Salinas and Benito, 2017}); and v. aspects of innovation, encompassing various elements of the innovation process, illustrated by terms like "innovativeness" (e.g., ^{Menold et al., 2016}). It is important to note that our research highlights the expressions selected by the authors of the analyzed reviews, without delving into potential definitions ascribed by the primary sources of these reviews.

The conceptualizations identified enable a dialogue with the research by ^{Tavares (2019)}, who conducted a study on explicit definitions of innovation in 23 scientific articles in the field of education, published between 1974 and 2017. The author proposed four categories to classify the innovation process based on its focus and attributed significance: 1. innovation as something inherently positive; 2. innovation as a synonym for educational change and reform; 3. innovation as the modification of curricular proposals; and 4. innovation as the alteration of customary educational practices within a social group (^{Tavares, 2019}, p. 6).

Although our study focuses on a different level of analysis (literature reviews), we identified types of innovation that align with themes of curriculum and educational reform (e.g., ^{Gresnigt et al., 2014}; ^{Aleixo, Silva and Silva Ramos, 2021}), as well as the transformation of teaching practices (e.g., ^{Cheng, Hwang and Lai, 2020}; ^{Lencastre et al., 2020}; ^{Rodríguez-Jiménez, Pérez-Ochoa and Ulloa-Guerra, 2021}). Conversely, the types of innovation identified through the (non-elaborated) expressions of innovation revealed a strong emphasis on technological resources, diverging from the framework proposed by ^{Tavares (2019)}. In another point of convergence, we observed an a priori positive bias in some of the definitions identified in the sample. For ^{Carr, Kendal, and Flynn (2016)}, behavioral innovations are defined as inherently useful; for ^{Sharif (2019)}, ^{López, Aroca, and Abellán (2020)}, and ^{Rodríguez-Jiménez, Pérez-Ochoa, and Ulloa-Guerra (2021)}, innovation is consistently aimed at improving educational contexts. However, some definitions incorporate the process of evaluating innovation (^{Gresnigt et al., 2014}; ^{Morad, Ragonis and Barak, 2021}), or omit any indication of an inherently positive value attributed to it (^{Morel et al., 2019}; ^{Moirano, Sánchez and Štěpánek, 2020}; ^{Castillo-Martínez and Ramírez-Montoya, 2021}).

In alignment with the discussions presented in this section, we highlight two articles that offer theoretical and methodological insights, even though they do not provide a defined concept of innovation. ^{Henderson and Corry (2021)} explore the contributions of integrated technological innovation in the classroom to anxiety, introducing the term technostress. ^{Menold et al. (2016)}, in turn, examined evaluation tools for innovativeness within the context of engineering, identifying 20 key characteristics related to individuals’ propensity to adopt or resist innovations. While neither ^{Menold et al. (2016)} nor ^{Henderson and Corry (2021)} present an explicit definition of innovation, their approaches align with a broad notion of change within educational contexts and the derivative concept of innovativeness.

TYPES OF INNOVATION REVIEWED

The second step in understanding the innovations was to classify the types investigated in the reviewed studies. Of the total 66 articles, seven (approximately 10.6% of the total) do not focus on any specific innovation type and are categorized as theoretical-methodological discussions, and thus were included in the analysis of the previous section. The remaining 59 articles (approximately 89.3%) center on one or more specific innovation types within their review process, and these will be discussed below.

The majority of the corpus in our analysis consists of literature reviews on specific innovations. We determined that, of the 59 articles: 21 emphasize teaching and assessment strategies, considered innovative themselves; 17 focus on educational technologies, regarded as innovations on their own; 17 highlight teaching and assessment strategies in conjunction with the use of technologies, considered innovative as a collective set; and, finally, four articles with diverse innovations were grouped into another category, as they address types of innovation distinct from the previous ones. The elements discussed in these categorizations are summarized in Figure 2.

Source: the authors (2022).

Figure 2 Summary of the types of educational innovation identified in the scope of the analysis conducted. 

Approximately 31.8% (21 out of 66) of the selected works consider teaching and assessment strategies as central innovations in their reviews. For the authors, changes in strategies that characterize teaching or assessment are considered innovations themselves. Among the types of innovation addressed by the authors are: general teaching practices in undergraduate engineering (^{Pepin, Biehler and Gueudet, 2021}) and social education (^{López, Aroca and Abellán, 2020}). Authors also highlight student-centered teaching approaches (^{Santos, Figueiredo and Vieira, 2018}), academic reading and writing practices (^{Castillo-Martínez and Ramírez-Montoya, 2021}), and strategies to foster participation in Open Science (^{Ramírez-Montoya and García-Peñalvo, 2018}). In addition to these strategies, specific active teaching methodologies were identified, such as: flipped classroom (^{Cheng, Hwang and Lai, 2020}; ^{Lencastre et al., 2020}; ^{Rodríguez-Jiménez, Pérez-Ochoa and Ulloa-Guerra, 2021}); project-based learning (^{Puente, Eijck and Jochems, 2013}; ^{Hasni et al., 2016}) or problem-based learning (^{Hallinger and Bridges, 2017}; ^{Acton, 2019}). Integrated content and language learning strategies (^{Goris, Denessen and Verhoeven, 2019}), exploratory teaching practices (^{Hanks, 2019}), and gamification of educational processes (^{Bozkurt and Durak, 2018}; ^{Palomino, 2021}) are also highlighted. Additionally, some authors point to the mobilization of teaching through grand challenges (^{Nowell et al., 2020}). Finally, competency assessment strategies (^{Cruz; Saunders-Smits and Groen, 2020}; ^{Markelz et al., 2020}), self-assessment (^{Kambourova, González-Agudelo and Grisales-Franco, 2021}), and educational coaching motivation methodologies (^{Loredo, Sierra-Arizmendiarrieta and Montero, 2019}) were also identified.

Another 17 out of the 66 (25.8%) selected studies understand innovations as educational technologies themselves. These studies consider, in their investigations, educational resources of a technological nature or digital technologies in their aspects related to education as innovations. Some studies that are categorized as educational technologies (general) discuss: emerging technologies (^{Neira, Salinas and Benito, 2017}); information and communication technologies (^{Colás Bravo, Pablos Pons and Ballesta Pagán, 2018}); digital resources (^{Liu, Geertshuis and Grainger, 2020}); and software technologies used in educational psychology research (^{Hadwin, Winne and Nesbit, 2005}). On the other hand, there are authors who emphasize specific digital and hardware technologies in their research: videoconferencing resources (^{Lawson et al., 2010}); clickers or instant response systems (^{Liu et al., 2017}); 3D printing (^{Novak et al., 2021}); digital whiteboards (^{Segovia and Romero-Varela, 2019}); social robotics and robots for social interaction assistance (^{Papadopoulos et al., 2020}; ^{Perez, Burgos and Rodríguez, 2021}); mixed reality environments and resources, including augmented or immersive virtual reality (^{Goff et al., 2018}; ^{Pellas, Dengel and Christopoulos, 2020}; ^{Pellas, Kazanidis and Palaigeorgiou, 2020}); educational digital games and simulations (^{Sánchez-Mena and Martí-Parreño, 2017}; ^{Vlachopoulos and Makri, 2017}), among which serious games stand out (whose purpose is not limited to entertainment but aims to promote interactivity and digital competencies in educators) (^{Sandi Delgado and Sanz, 2019}). Finally, one article emphasized the role of big data in education (^{Baig, Shuib and Yadegaridehkordi, 2020}).

A third set of articles, consisting of 17 reviews (25.8%), is related to technologies embedded in educational practices and contexts. Unlike the previous ones, the authors consider technological resources as innovations only when they are integrated into pedagogical practices within educational contexts. Some authors investigate research that associates general teaching strategies (^{Lee, 2017}; ^{Davis et al., 2018}; ^{Sykes, 2018}; ^{Valverde and Navarro, 2018}; ^{Burden et al., 2019}) and formative assessment (^{Gikandi, Morrow and Davis, 2011}) that utilize digital tools and aspects in their execution. Similarly, some authors address the promotion of learning with the help of digital learning environments (^{Anthony et al., 2020}; ^{Whalley and Barbour, 2020}; ^{Alfoudari, Durugbo and Aldhmour, 2021}; ^{Chen et al., 2021}) or digital games and remote labs for teaching science (^{Tho et al., 2017}; ^{Herrero Vázquez, Torralba-Burrial and Del Moral Pérez, 2020}). Regarding collaborative learning, the use of social networks (^{Krouska; Troussas and Virvou, 2019}) and massive open online courses (MOOCs) (^{Nortvig and Christiansen, 2017}) has caught researchers’ attention. Other innovative approaches using digital resources have been studied in rural school contexts (^{Carrete-Marin and Domingo-Peñafiel, 2021}). Finally, specific strategies directed to students with autism spectrum disorder were also identified (^{Wainer and Ingersoll, 2011}; ^{Saladino, Marín Suelves and San Martín, 2019}).

The remaining articles (6.1%) presented types of innovation related to curriculum issues and discussions on concepts and notions in education. These included the diffusion of concepts such as learning ecologies (^{Sangrá, Raffaghelli and Guitert-Catasús, 2019}) and learning spaces (^{Durak and Cankaya, 2018}). Curriculum issues were identified concerning topics such as innovation in disciplinary integration in science education (^{Gresnigt et al., 2014}) and the incorporation of maker culture in teaching (^{Aleixo, Silva and Silva Ramos, 2021}).

The themes of the articles reviewed allow us to make some relevant considerations to understand what is considered innovation in the corpus of literature reviews analyzed. First, we developed a characterization of the innovation process based on the elements presented in the conceptualizations found in the reviewed articles. In this process, we highlight the importance of the convergence between perceived problems and needs within educational institutions, the educational objectives of pedagogical practice, and the planning for an intervention capable of generating transformations in the specific context. The teacher is considered important in the process but needs institutional support to innovate and to be on a professional development path.

Secondly, there is a predominance of research focused on one or more specific innovations, with a priority on conceptual and methodological aspects related to the theme of innovation. This seems to align with the predominant function of the literature review process in research: identifying works on a specific research topic and exploring research possibilities related to it. A notable absence is the use of conceptualizations of the innovation process that guide the development of literature reviews specifically focused on one or more innovations. It can be considered a rule that label expressions are used, especially in terms of innovations related to teaching practices and technological resources.

Aligned with this point, the conception that both technologies and pedagogical practices are themselves considered innovations stands out. These, therefore, offer two popular categories for understanding types of innovation in education, corroborating part of the innovation types resulting from the analysis of conceptualizations of the term, especially around practices, approaches, interventions, products, and tools. The result is consistent with the analysis of non-deepened expressions related to innovation, where innovation in technological resources and innovation in teaching methodologies and strategies are notably prominent. Beyond our corpus of analysis, this result aligns, in part, with the category of educational innovation as an alteration of teaching practices proposed by ^{Tavares (2019)}, since technologies themselves are highlighted as innovations. The two categories point to a centrality in the teaching-learning processes in the classroom and, above all, in the role of teachers. This position carries the risk that the innovation process in educational contexts may be reduced to the simple transmission of technological resources or the organization of teaching and assessment strategies, and, further, that it may be understood as the sole responsibility of teachers.

In contrast, we highlight the presence of conceptions of technologies as innovation only when they are integrated into educational practices and contexts. Although less prominent than the items highlighted earlier, the identification of these elements suggests a contextual understanding of innovation. The reviews indicate that innovation involves teaching planning within a specific educational institution. In this way, they corroborate the notions present in our analysis of conceptualizations, particularly regarding the need to integrate innovation with educational objectives and overall pedagogical planning.

Finally, our analysis was characterized by the low number of discussions centered on curricular innovations, with only two articles focusing on the introduction of integration into the curricula of Natural Science Education (^{Gresnigt et al., 2014}) and the maker culture in the school environment (^{Aleixo, Silva and Silva Ramos, 2021}). Our data and analyses do not support the emphasis on curricular change categories proposed by ^{Tavares (2019)}. Despite the increasing focus on articles addressing technological resources and teaching and evaluation strategies as innovations, we find research in other areas related to the use of innovation in education to be highly relevant. Additionally, there are studies published between 2020 and 2021 that reference the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential impact on educational practices, driven by the abrupt transformations in social dynamics during this period. However, the review process in these works does not have the pandemic as its primary motivation.

IMPACT OF THE ADOPTION OF EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS

Approximately 45.4% (30 out of 66) of the literature reviews analyzed highlight the main consequences of implementing innovations. Most authors report positive impacts, particularly related to student learning. This may indicate a possible pro-innovation bias (^{Rogers, 2003}) toward the adoption of innovations in the classroom, similar to what was identified by ^{Tavares (2019)}, although it is not the aim of this work to determine whether this bias originates from the authors of the reviews or from the studies they reviewed.

The positive impacts of adopting an innovation, as pointed out in the publications, were grouped into eight categories, as follows: i. benefits for pedagogical practice (n=9); ii. facilitation of assessment strategies for teachers and students (n=3); iii. openness to women and expansion of areas in scientific research (n=2); iv. improvement in the teacher-student relationship (n=8); (v) gains in student learning (n=21); vi. cultivation of perceptions and feelings of students (n=16); vii. development of student dispositions (n=14); viii. beneficial work experiences for students (n=7).

Regarding the benefits for pedagogical practice, the authors highlight that the implementation of innovations fosters: the development of positive teaching and learning beliefs (^{Colás Bravo, Pablos Pons and Ballesta Pagán, 2018}); the formation of digital skills (^{Sandi Delgado and Sanz, 2019}); greater contextualization of teaching (^{Hasni et al., 2016}); and inclusion (^{Lencastre et al., 2020}). In terms of positive assessment strategies for teachers and students, the authors emphasize the effectiveness (^{Sykes, 2018}) and personalization (^{Gikandi, Morrow and Davis, 2011}) of feedbacks and the development of self-assessment of learning (^{Colás Bravo, Pablos Pons and Ballesta Pagán, 2018}; ^{Gikandi, Morrow and Davis, 2011}). For ^{Hadwin, Winne, and Nesbit (2005)} and ^{Goff et al. (2018)}, in relation to category iii., the authors refer to the opening up of opportunities for women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research and the expansion of areas in scientific research, respectively. Among the aspects pointed out by the authors that improve the teacher-student relationship, we identify: trust between students and teachers (^{Loredo, Sierra-Arizmendiarrieta and Montero, 2019}; ^{Pepin, Biehler and Gueudet, 2021}); student involvement in the learning process (^{Kambourova, González-Agudelo and Grisales-Franco, 2021}); encouragement of student-teacher dialogue (^{Gikandi, Morrow and Davis, 2011}); and the transformation of the roles assumed by teachers and students (^{Colás Bravo, Pablos Pons and Ballesta Pagán, 2018}).

In categories v. to viii., the positive impact is linked to students and relates to the possibility of different and better learning experiences, work experiences, the cultivation of perceptions, beliefs, and feelings, or the development of their actions and dispositions. For example, ^{Hasni et al. (2016)} justify the adoption of science and technology teaching and learning based on projects as fostering the acquisition of knowledge and competencies, as well as increasing student motivation and interest. Regarding these categories of positive student impact, we identified the development of skills such as: communicative (e.g., ^{Nowell et al., 2020}); problem-solving (^{Hasni et al., 2016}); interpersonal (e.g., ^{Vlachopoulos and Makri, 2017}); and professional (^{Palomino, 2021}). Additionally, students show an improvement in classroom performance (e.g., ^{Goff et al., 2018}), self-efficacy (e.g., ^{Novak et al., 2021}), creativity (^{Santos, Figueiredo and Vieira, 2018}), motivation and interest in studies (e.g., ^{Wainer and Ingersoll, 2011}), satisfaction (e.g., ^{Papadopoulos et al., 2020}), and collective work (e.g., ^{Liu et al., 2017}).

Of the 30 articles reporting impacts, only two have a negative nature. ^{Pellas, Dengel, and Christopoulos (2020)} highlight an unwanted effect: the distraction caused by technologies, while ^{Wainer and Ingersoll (2011)} mention the difficulty of generalizing the expected learning outcomes and the ineffectiveness of the reviewed innovation. However, even when pointing out these issues, the authors remain supportive of the use of their respective innovations, encouraging further research to address the problems mentioned.

^{Davis et al. (2018)}, ^{Goris, Denessen, and Verhoeven (2019)}, and ^{Pellas, Dengel, and Christopoulos (2020)} point out that some of the studies they reviewed did not identify learning gains when comparing the results of a control group with an experimental group, concerning 2D educational resources, integrated content and language learning, and MOOCs, respectively. ^{Wainer and Ingersoll (2011)} and ^{Goris, Denessen, and Verhoeven (2019)} highlight that the learning outcomes of an innovation vary across different fields and educational levels. While not indicating negative impacts, ^{Carrete-Marín and Domingo-Peñafiel (2021)} also argue that the benefits are not guaranteed for those adopting an innovation; the results depend on the implementation and context.

In summary, the reviews generally highlight the positive impacts of adopting educational innovations, with a greater emphasis on the perceived outcomes in student relationships, emotions, and learning. The low number of null or negative impacts may represent a pro-innovation bias among the authors, similar to what ^{Tavares (2019)} pointed out. The authors of the reviewed works do not problematize the causes of these effects, so we cannot argue about this issue.

RELEVANT FACTORS FOR ADOPTING AN EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION

Through the qualitative analysis of the literature reviews conducted, we identified that 27 out of the 66 publications address challenges, conditions, or enablers for the adoption of an innovation. These elements, scattered throughout the texts of the documents, were organized into categories presented in Tables 1 to 5. Each figure represents an analyzed dimension, linking it to the relevant factors and the references citing each element. It is worth noting that each article may include one or more excerpts, thereby contributing to multiple relevant factors listed in the tables. A considerable variation in factors influencing the adoption of an innovation — either positively or negatively — was observed, amounting to a total of 38 factors.

When analyzing the factors within the dimension of the educational institution (Table 1), the prominence of authors citing the lack of infrastructure and financial support as barriers is striking. This outcome may be directly linked to the type of innovation investigated in the reviews, which predominantly relied on digital resources. Pedagogical management was identified both as an obstacle and as a facilitator — indicating that the more support institutions provide to teachers, the greater the likelihood of innovation. Although no barriers related to teacher autonomy or the alignment of institutional rules and objectives were identified, these aspects were highlighted as facilitators for the adoption of innovation.

Regarding the external dimensions involved in the adoption of innovations within institutions (Table 2), we emphasize the need for changes in school culture and public policies, particularly reducing the focus on standardized testing and the pressure to cover the entire curriculum, which often faces spatial and temporal constraints. Additionally, it is crucial to develop strategies for evaluating innovations to better support teachers in this endeavor.

The availability of technologies and support materials, along with teacher training and collaboration, are key facilitators for adopting innovations. Although interconnected, we have separated teacher training programs and teacher development in Table 2, as the former refers to the technical training and testing of an innovation, while the latter focuses on professional development and peer support for innovation. Facilitating factors for innovation also include aspirations for career advancement and external collaborations, such as partnerships between innovative educational institutions, community organizations, and governments.

Table 3 focuses on factors closely linked to teachers. In terms of teachers’ beliefs and feelings, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and the satisfaction and desire for using innovation are viewed as facilitators, while anxiety presents a challenge. Motivation, creativity, and openness to innovation, along with perceptions, perspectives, and teaching practices aligned with innovations are also key factors that facilitate their implementation. These results agree with ^{Gresnigt et al. (2014)}, who highlight that the process of innovation depends on the teacher's motivation to innovate and the sense of ownership of the innovation — that is, its appropriation by the adopting teachers. It is also important to consider the challenges of using the same materials across different classes and developing tasks that engage students in their learning process.

Regarding the factors that are closely linked to the teachers — such as their characteristics, attitudes, and professional relationships — we understand that establishing connections with academic researchers or innovative colleagues can be beneficial. These relationships can support both the preparation of activities and the classroom work, as well as foster new research conducted in various contexts, considering technological advancements and adopting a more neutral stance.

Regarding students (Table 4), three factors affecting the implementation of an innovation were identified related to student profiles, such as elements of student engagement and collaboration: the time and effort dedicated to the learning process; distractions caused by the innovation; and interest and motivation for study. Additionally, a negative perception of the innovation among students can serve as a barrier, and previous experience with innovative technologies is a crucial condition.

In the final category (Table 5), factors related to the interaction dimension emphasize the need for adjustments in the teacher-student and student-student dynamics within the classroom, placing the student at the center of the teaching and learning process. Additionally, strategies for innovation include teacher participation in teaching-focused communities and closer engagement between researchers, the institution, and the teacher.

In summary, the external dimensions related to those involved in the adoption of innovations within institutions and the educational institution itself garnered the most citations from the authors of the reviewed analyses. There is a clear need to invest efforts in adapting public policies and school culture, including in terms of institutional pedagogical management, to enable greater teacher flexibility for innovation in the classroom. We also recognize a need for new research in various fields of knowledge and teacher training program for utilizing innovations developed in academic settings (external to the innovating institution). Lastly, infrastructural and financial issues within educational institutions were identified as key factors for changing teaching practices. Technological and financial concerns will be more critical for those teachers opting for a digital technological innovation in a less economically privileged context than for another choosing an active teaching strategy, for example.