As digital transformation accelerates, understanding how pedagogical innovation is framed and enacted is critical in shaping the future of education, ensuring that technology integration aligns with meaningful learning experiences and equitable access. In Brazil, recent national policies, such as the National Digital Education Policy (Brasil, 2023a) and the National Strategy for Connected Schools (Brasil, 2023b), aim to promote digital transformation in schools. However, the ways in which educational leaders interpret and operationalize innovation vary widely across states due to socio-economic, infrastructural, and cultural differences.
Past research on pedagogical innovation with technologies in Brazil reveals a predominance of traditional teaching practices, with limited instances of approaches that position students as protagonists, teachers as mediators, and learning as a collaborative process (Silva et al., 2019). Additionally, analyses of previous Brazilian policies indicate that while some references acknowledge socio-cultural perspectives on technology in education, the prevailing discourse tends to conceptualize technology primarily as a technical artifact rather than as a socially and culturally embedded tool (Heinsfeld & Pischetola, 2019). This instrumental view is also reflected in classroom practices, where the mere introduction of digital devices, such as tablets, is often assumed to be inherently innovative, even when they are used to replicate traditional activities, such as replacing notebooks for writing exercises (Silva et al., 2019). Despite concerns about incorporating digital technologies into pedagogical practices, policies continue to favor a utilitarian approach, prioritizing access and infrastructure over deeper pedagogical transformation (Heinsfeld & Silva, 2018). As a result, a gap persists between the aspirations of educational technology policies and the reality of classroom implementation, where digital technologies frequently fail to foster truly innovative learning experiences aligned with contemporary theoretical perspectives on digital education.
Building on these findings, this study investigates how representatives from eight diverse Brazilian states conceptualize pedagogical innovation and its implications for digital education. While national policies outline broad frameworks for technology integration, their implementation is shaped by regional variations in infrastructure, teacher training, and local educational priorities. This research is guided by the question: How do state education representatives in Brazil conceptualize pedagogical innovation in the context of digital education, and how do these conceptualizations differ across regional contexts? By examining these perspectives, the study challenges the assumption that national policies translate uniformly across different educational landscapes, highlighting the complexities of localized interpretations and applications of educational technology.
This study employs a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach, based on Fairclough’s three-dimensional model (2013, 2015), to examine the dominant narratives surrounding pedagogical innovation among representatives of state education. CDA is used to unpack the underlying assumptions and sociocultural influences that shape these discourses. By exploring regional variations and policy alignment, this research provides insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with integrating technology into K-12 education.
The dataset originates from a broader initiative in Brazil: a national network for pedagogical innovation, launched in 2024 and extended into 2025, to support state education departments in integrating digital technologies into teaching practices, in partnership with the Secretariat for Basic Education of the Brazilian Ministry of Education. Data collection took place in the second semester of 2024 and involved structured interviews with 114 representatives from 23 Brazilian states. This study narrows the focus from 23 states to 8, enabling more in-depth qualitative engagement with regional narratives while preserving the broader patterns identified in the original dataset. The selection process ensures representation of different socio-economic contexts, making the study relevant for comparative and international discussions and enhancing its capacity to identify region-specific barriers and opportunities, offering a robust comparative perspective on how pedagogical innovation is understood and enacted across diverse contexts.
Drawing from interviews with representatives from eight Brazilian state education systems, identified throughout the analysis through regionalized alphanumeric codes (e.g., N-1, NE-1, S-1, SE-1, CW-1) to preserve participants’ and institutions’ anonymity, pedagogical innovation emerges as a situated, contested, and multi-dimensional construct. Rather than a neutral or self-evident concept, it functions as a discursive arena in which meanings are negotiated and redefined across different territorial and institutional contexts. The analysis identifies three dominant framings:
Innovation as Contextual and Transformative Practice: understood as the re-signification of teaching within local realities and pedagogical challenges.
Innovation as Pedagogical Authorship and Collective Agency: centered on teachers’ and communities’ capacity to create, adapt, and co-design learning processes.
Innovation through Curriculum and Competencies: linking innovation to curricular reforms and the development of transversal competencies aligned with policy agendas.
Together, these framings indicate that innovation is not a uniform policy ideal but a discourse shaped by local histories, socio-economic contexts, and collective efforts to redefine educational change.
Across the states, innovation is framed not as a product or technological advancement but as a process of re-signifying pedagogical practices within local contexts. In NE-2, it means “answering old questions in new ways,” grounding learning in students’ lived experiences. NE-5 and S-2 emphasize their transformative role for both teachers and learners, while S-3 warns against the empty use of the term, arguing that innovation only occurs when students become active participants in learning. As one representative noted, “It’s about seeing the old through new lenses… and recognizing its transformative potential.” (NE-5). This statement encapsulates a shared understanding of innovation as a reflexive and situated practice, an act of transforming meaning rather than merely adopting new tools.
Innovation is also described as an expression of pedagogical authorship and collective agency. In NE-2, it is associated with encouraging students to question, explore, and co-construct knowledge alongside their communities, emphasizing education as a shared and transformative endeavor. S-1 similarly highlights collaboration and professional dialogue among teachers as forms of innovation, even when not mediated by technology. As one participant stated, “Innovation is about critical appropriation and generating knowledge that transforms reality.” (NE-2). This perspective redefines innovation as a collective practice rooted in critical engagement and authorship rather than in adopting external models or tools.
In several states, particularly SE-2 and S-2, innovation is linked to curricular reform and the integration of so-called 21st-century competencies. SE-2 highlights new high school pathways incorporating entrepreneurship, digital media, artificial intelligence, and data science, while S-2 connects innovation to the development of computational and socio-emotional skills that support students’ holistic growth. As one participant noted, “Innovation means bringing what’s out in the world into the classroom in meaningful ways.” (SE-2). This framing positions innovation within broader policy agendas of modernization and skills alignment, suggesting how curricular discourses mediate global educational trends through locally adapted interpretations.
Across states, pedagogical innovation appears as a socially and politically situated construct shaped by local contexts, traditions, and systemic constraints. Five overlapping discursive clusters emerge: (1) innovation as contextual transformation, (2) innovation distinct from technology, (3) innovation as authorship and agency, (4) innovation through curricular relevance, and (5) innovation as systemic struggle. The analysis suggests that innovation functions as an empty signifier (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985), with its meaning negotiated among actors and across regions. Rather than a unified vision, it represents a discursive field in flux, connected to ideals of equity, relevance, and transformation. A recurrent theme is the explicit separation between innovation and technology: NE-2, CW-1, CW-4, and S-1 emphasize that devices alone do not define innovation; it depends instead on pedagogical intent. As one participant stated, “Innovation is one thing, technology is another” (CW-1). Participants also highlight structural barriers, limited guidance, resources, and legal frameworks that make innovation a slow and uneven process. Teachers are described as overburdened and operating through trial and error, “building a proposal around a concept that’s still under construction” (CW-1). Overall, pedagogical innovation in Brazil emerges less as digital transformation and more as a context-sensitive practice centered on human development and educational purpose.
This analysis advances discussions on education and technology by revealing tensions between national policy narratives and local interpretations of innovation. The findings show that while national agendas often frame innovation through techno-deterministic and efficiency-oriented logics, local actors redefine it as a relational and context-driven process. Three main implications emerge: (1) the need to challenge techno-determinism by recognizing grounded, human-centered pedagogies that resist instrumentalist views of technology; (2) the importance of policy co-construction that values regional epistemologies and vernacular understandings of innovation; and (3) the recognition of innovation as an empty signifier, continually reshaped by political and educational contestation. Future research will expand the scope of analysis to all 23 Brazilian states, comparing how different contexts conceptualize and operationalize pedagogical innovation. This next phase aims to deepen understanding of national trends and regional disparities, providing evidence to inform more equitable and contextually responsive educational policies.
This study is part of the research project “Digital Education: Teacher Development and Curriculum Innovation”, conducted by the Research Lab Education, Digital Technologies, and Teacher Training (EduTec) at the Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS, Brazil). It was developed with the support of the RedeInova (Brazilian National Network for Pedagogical Innovation) group, coordinated by UFMS in collaboration with the Secretariat for K-12 Education of the Brazilian Ministry of Education (MEC). The authors of this paper were among the researchers selected to carry out this project in partnership with UFMS and the Secretariat. This study received ethics approval from the Ethics Committee of UFMS, under reference number 7.317.243, as part of the larger research program. All interviews were conducted with the full knowledge and authorization of the project leadership and funding body. The authors have explicit permission to use the dataset for this publication. While data collection was a collaborative effort, the analysis and writing presented in this article reflect the authors’ independent interpretation and contribution to the field.
EdTech Archives