Innovation learning in comprehensive education?

Abstract The goal of this article is to clarify the concept of innovation and by presenting a research on the basic education outcome assessment data from an innovation learning perspective, answer to a question: Do students learn innovation in comprehensive education? The empirical information in this research is based on data collected in the national assessment of the subject craft, design and technology education (CDT) in Finland in 2010. The comprehensive education in Finland, the basic education, means grades 1–9 in comprehensive schools from age 7 to 16. This assessment included a design task, a test of knowledge and skills and an attitude test in CDT. This research focuses on two central concepts: (1) innovation is defined as a novel, inventive and usable solution, in either material or immaterial space: an end-product, process or method related to people’s practical needs and purposes and (2) innovation learning is defined as a problem based and creative process of using and implementing knowledge and skills in iterative and critical manner in designing and making a novel and practical solution with high usability. The assessment data was marked off to tasks which indicated the innovation learning (n = 661 out of the sample n = 4792). Brim quartiles were used as a methodological solution; the brim quartiles of usability formed the sample of this research. The statistical differences were tested using the Kruskal–Wallis test and the Pearson Chi Square test. Innovation learning includes the process of designing, planning, making and the practical solution itself. The national data allow general conclusions according to the level of innovation learning in comprehensive education. The central observation is that students learn innovation in comprehensive education varying from good to moderate levels. However, if students have not studied design and technology since 7th grade, they are twice as likely to be negative underachievers as to be either positive achievers or positive underachievers. This is useful for governments to know when trying to increase innovation on a national level, as well as when considering the well-being of people and society.

[1]  R. Keith Sawyer,et al.  Group genius : the creative power of collaboration , 2007 .

[2]  Howard A. Smith,et al.  Research in Purpose and Value for the Study of Technology in Secondary Schools: A Theory of Authentic Learning , 2005 .

[3]  Ann Marie Hill,et al.  Problem Solving in Real-Life Contexts: An Alternative for Design in Technology Education , 1998 .

[4]  H. Salavou,et al.  The concept of innovativeness: should we need to focus? , 2004 .

[5]  Ove K. Pedersen,et al.  Kreativitet, innovasjon og entreprenørskap i utdanningssystemene i Norden , 2011 .

[6]  Ossi Autio,et al.  Taking part in technology education: elements in students’ motivation , 2011 .

[7]  Kenneth Scott Volk,et al.  Hong Kong pupils’ attitudes toward technology: The impact of design and technology programs , 2003 .

[8]  Marc J. de Vries,et al.  Teaching and learning the nature of technical artifacts , 2011 .

[9]  Huang-Yao Hong,et al.  Sustaining Knowledge Building as a Principle-Based Innovation at an Elementary School , 2011 .

[10]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[11]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process. , 1941 .

[12]  Moshe Barak.  Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education , 2010 .

[13]  David H. Cropley,et al.  Measuring Creativity for Innovation Management , 2011 .

[14]  Gudrun Svedberg.  Kreativitet, innovation och entreprenörskap i det svenska utbildningssystemet. , 2011 .

[15]  Bev France,et al.  Taking part in the dance: technology teachers interacting with communities of practice , 2011 .

[16]  Alin Croitoru,et al.  Schumpeter, Joseph Alois, 1939, “Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process“, New York and London, McGraw – Hill Book Company Inc. , 2017 .

[17]  M. Porter.  The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[18]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process , 1940 .

[19]  Bill Nicholl,et al.  “If I was going to design a chair, the last thing I would look at is a chair”: product analysis and the causes of fixation in students’ design work 11–16 years , 2011 .

[20]  M. Csíkszentmihályi.  Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention , 1996 .

[21]  Eva Björkholm.  Exploring the capability of evaluating technical solutions: a collaborative study into the primary technology classroom , 2014 .

[22]  David H. Cropley,et al.  Recognizing and fostering creativity in technological design education , 2010 .

[23]  Esa-Matti Jarvinen,et al.  Children as Innovators in Action--A Study of Microcontrollers in Finnish Comprehensive Schools. , 2007 .

[24]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[25]  Todd R. Kelley.  Cognitive Processes of Students Participating in Engineering-focused Design Instruction , 2008 .

[26]  Gisli Thorsteinsson,et al.  The Development of Innovation Education in Iceland: a Pathway to Modern Pedagogy and Potential Value in the UK , 2003 .

[27]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. , 1988 .

[28]  J. Bencze,et al.  Promoting student-led science and technology projects in elementary teacher education: entry into core pedagogical practices through technological design , 2010 .

[29]  Brent Mawson,et al.  Children’s developing understanding of technology , 2010 .

[30]  R. Sternberg.  Handbook of Creativity: Subject Index , 1998 .

[31]  T. Lewis.  Creativity in technology education: providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential , 2009 .

[32]  E. Heiskanen,et al.  User involvement in radical innovation: are consumers conservative? , 2007 .

[33]  Howard Eric Middleton,et al.  Problem-solving in technology education as an approach to education for sustainable development , 2009 .

[34]  Ammeret Rossouw,et al.  Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: an international and interdisciplinary Delphi study , 2011 .

[35]  R. K. Elliott.  The Concept of Creativity , 1971 .

[36]  T. Lewis.  Creativity: A Framework for the Design/Problem Solving Discourse in Technology Education , 2005 .

[37]  M. Assink.  Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model , 2006 .

[38]  David H. Cropley,et al.  Engineering Creativity: A Systems Concept of Functional Creativity , 2005 .

[39]  Dean Bruton,et al.  Learning creativity and design for innovation , 2011 .

[40]  R. McAdam.  Knowledge Management as a Catalyst for Innovation within Organizations: A Qualitative Study , 2000 .

[41]  R. Sternberg,et al.  The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. , 1998 .

[42]  Jaana Lepistö,et al.  Teacher students as future entrepreneurship educators and learning facilitators , 2013 .

[43]  Harry Nyström,et al.  Creativity and Innovation , 1979 .