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.

Individual Innovation Competence: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda

“…The studies with no risk of bias included the large-scale quantitative studies in an educational context in which the minimum requirement was < 200 informants (Avvisati et al, 2013;Lindfors & Hilmola, 2015;Vila, Pé rez, & Morillas, 2012) and in an organisational context in which the minimum requirement was < 200 informants (Bjornali & Støren, 2012;Keller, 2012;Montani, Odoardi, & Battistelli, 2014;Vila et al, 2014;Waychal et al, 2011) as well as the qualitative studies with no risk of bias (Chatenier, Verstegen, Biemans, Mulder & Omta, 2010;Chell & Athayde, 2011;Nielsen, 2015).…”

“…Inventiveness is defined as the ability to seek novelties, take risks and experiment while remaining pragmatic and sensitive to the environment and market (Chatenier et al, 2010). Based on the sample of this study, creativity cannot be solely defined as generating imaginative, original and novel ideas since it plays a significant role in problem-solving activities to evaluate and assess knowledge and skills to reach a novel and practical solution (Lindfors & Hilmola, 2015). Problem solving is defined as a generic skill that is key to innovation and synonymous with the creative process (Edwards-Schachter et al, 2015;Jack, Anderson, & Connolly, 2014).…”

“…According to Treffinger, Young, Selby and Shepardson (2002), cognitive skills refer to convergent or critical thinking and are defined in the data as analytical thinking skills (Bjornali & Støren, 2012;Cobo, 2013;Jack et al, 2014;Lindfors & Hilmola, 2015), general thinking skills (Avvisati et al, 2013;Lindfors & Hilmola, 2015), the willingness to question ideas (Bjornali & Støren, 2012;Vila et al, 2012) and the ability to acquire and interpret new knowledge (Chatenier et al, 2010). Learning skills are defined as theNetworking skills refer to the ability to develop, maintain and use networks effectively to forge beneficial alliances and coalitions that are critical to innovation (Avvisati et al, 2013;Chatenier et al, 2010).…”

“…Learning skills are defined as theNetworking skills refer to the ability to develop, maintain and use networks effectively to forge beneficial alliances and coalitions that are critical to innovation (Avvisati et al, 2013;Chatenier et al, 2010). Communication skills are well supported in the research articles; the most supported communication skills are presentation skills (Bjornali & Støren, 2012;Jack et al, 2014;Lindfors & Hilmola, 2015;Tsai et al, 2010;Vila et al, 2014). Brokering skills are defined as information exchange skills in which participating people link information and knowledge from various internal and external sources, which leads to new opportunities (Bjornali & Støren, 2012).…”

“…Content knowledge is mentioned as an innovation competency factor in only five studies (Avvisati et al, 2013;Bjornali & Støren, 2012;Jack et al, 2014;Kasule, Wesselink, Noroozi, & Mulder, 2015;Lindfors & Hilmola, 2015). Avvisati et al (2013) used the term subject knowledge, which is understood as a synonym for content knowledge.…”