Creativity, innovation and innovation competence
While
creativity is the generation of novel, unique and useful creative ideas,
innovation involves the successful implementation of creative ideas, products, services, procedures, theories and strategies (West and Farr
1990). This implies that, before people can become innovative, they need to be skilled in identifying performance gaps where innovative solutions are needed, in generating creative ideas and in transforming these creative ideas into realistic, practical and marketable solutions (Bel
2010). Innovation competence is, therefore, the capacity to develop creative ideas that can be implemented successfully as products, services, procedures, theories and strategies that are useful or meaningful to the intended audience (Tidd and Bessant
2009). Innovation competence, like any competence, involves the integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Innovative individuals have been reported as having a high level of creative and leadership abilities, persistence and task motivation, creative self-efficacy, propensity to take calculated risks and liking for working on ambiguous and complex problems (Chell and Athayde
2009; Hurt et al.
1977; Tierney and Farmer
2002).
The literature is quite elaborate about the components of innovation competence that should be developed, and several conceptual descriptions of innovation competence exist, which vary tremendously (Chell and Athayde
2009; Dyer et al.
2009; Hurt et al.
1977; Tierney and Farmer
2002). Similarly, many studies have been devoted to different groups or contexts for innovation, such as firms and organisations, (Scott and Bruce
1994) or consumers (Hurt et al.
1977; Price and Ridgeway
1983). These studies were sometimes very generic (Hunter et al.
2012; Jackson and Messick
1967) and sometimes very specific to designated domains, such as engineering (Dyeret et al.
2009; Fisher et al.
2011; Keller
2012; Ragusa
2011), or types of education, such as secondary education (Chell and Athayde
2009). From the literature, six interrelated components of innovation competence come to the fore:
creativity, leadership, creative self-
efficacy, energy, risk propensity and
ambiguous problem-
solving. For the purposes of clarity, we discuss the elements individually, but in practice they are interconnected.
Creativity
Researchers regard creativity as a strong component of innovation competence (Chell and Athayde
2009; Hurt et al.
1977). According to Antonietti et al. (
2011), after the recognition of a problem or an area where an innovative solution is needed, that idea needs to be further developed by the integrated processes of widening, connecting and restructuring. Widening means: keeping an open mind; being aware of the great number of elements that can be identified in a given situation; recognising possible, not obvious, meanings; discovering hidden aspects; and overcoming apparent constraints. Connecting entails the capacity to establish reciprocal relationships among different elements, such as by thinking in scenarios, drawing analogies between remote things, combining ideas in odd ways and synthesising a multiplicity of disparate elements into an overall structure. Restructuring involves looking at problems or solutions from different perspectives, which can include seeing things differently by inverting relationships between their elements, asking original questions and imagining what should happen if unusual conditions occurr.
Leadership
Innovation competence is highly dependent on leadership skills because no innovation takes place in isolation (Chell and Athayde
2009; Hurt et al.
1977). Leadership involves having a clear vision of the end goal, networking, collaborating, mobilising, organisational ability and convincing other experts in order to actualise the goal (Dyer et al.
2009).
Creative self-efficacy
The concept of creative self-efficacy is supported by Bandura’s (
1997) self-efficacy theory, which describes self-confidence and beliefs about the self in terms of having the required knowledge, skill and ability to perform a specific task. Creative self-efficacy, therefore, is the degree to which a person displays confidence in solving problems creatively (Tierney and Farmer
2002). Previous studies have linked self-efficacy to creative behaviour in individuals (Tierney and Farmer
2011; Wang et al.
2013).
Energy
Persistence, proactive behaviour and drive have been associated with innovation competence in different studies (Chell and Athayde
2009). To fully develop an innovative idea requires having a clear vision of the end destination which, in turn, requires vigour, commitment, disposition and motivation (Hunter et al.
2012).
Risk propensity
Real-life problems are often ambiguous, complex and devoid of clear answers. Risk avoidance can result in a person being reluctant to innovate (West
2002). Conversely, people willing to take risk are more likely to be innovative (Tabak and Barr
1999). It takes confidence and risk-taking on the part of the innovator to get a creative idea to mature to the implementation or innovation stage (Campbell et al.
2004).
Ambiguous problem-solving
This concept describes a person’s willingness to change and to innovate within a complex and ambiguous network of problems (Hurt et al.
1977; Keller
2012). Consequently, innovation competence could be expressed in one’s inclination to be challenged by unanswered questions, ambiguities and unresolved problems (Keller
2012).
The capacity to innovate can be cultivated. However, the role and relevance of a supportive learning environment in this respect must be spelled out. In the next section, we describe what makes such an environment.
Components of learning environments that foster the development of innovation competence
The context or specific setting (social and cultural) that is intentionally created to support learning is often referred to as an environment, milieu or climate (Fraser
2012). This includes the psychological factors, the classroom teaching, and the physical factors of any place where learning occurs, including virtual and non-traditional spaces (Fraser
2012).
Learning environments that focus on the development of innovation competence start with the recognition of this competence as a key educational goal and an essential 21st century skill that should be supported in schools (Chan and Yuen
2014; Robinson
2011; Wagner
2010). In creating such an environment, a constructivist approach is generally suggested (Ertmer and Newby
1993). In constructivist learning environments, learners are encouraged to actively construct their understanding and make their own representations, instead of receiving information from a teacher. According to Jonassen (
1999), in a constructivist learning environment, learners are given tools that enable them to engage in discussion, collaboration and reflection. Constructivist learning environments engage the learner in solving authentic tasks. Because authentic tasks are ‘real world’ or contextualised tasks that are personally relevant or interesting to the learner (Brookes et al.
2012; Jonassen
1999), they are considered particularly suitable for effective innovation competence development (Li et al.
2012).
Several characteristics of constructivist learning environments that are relevant for promoting innovation competence have been identified. Below, we discuss briefly some relevant characteristics of constructivist learning environments that were emphasised in this study. Subsequently, we discuss some prior research on learning environments in which constructivist learning environments were investigated using the same instrument as in the present study, the Constructivist Learning Environments Survey (CLES; Taylor et al.
1995). The CLES has been used by several researchers, especially in the domain of primary and secondary education, to map students’ perceptions of dimensions that constitute a constructivist learning environment, such as uncertainty, student negotiation and personal relevance. The CLES enables educators and researchers to measure students’ perceptions of the extent to which constructivist approaches are present in classrooms (Taylor et al.
1997). We selected the CLES for this study because of its proven ability to capture specific dimensions of a constructivist learning environment and because of its demonstrated and strong factorial validity and reliability in numerous countries (Fraser
2012). Before discussing the empirical findings and insights that have been obtained using this instrument, we first briefly introduce the specific dimensions it addresses, followed by a discussion of relevant past research.
Personal Relevance is the extent to which the content used in the constructivist learning environment is relevant to students’ everyday out-of-school experiences. To foster innovation competence in students, relevance can be promoted through connecting teaching with students’ everyday experiences through user-centred design learning and engaging in authentic activities, open-ended tasks and real-world problems (Jonassen
1994; Lim and Sato
2006). It is important that students have the opportunity to engage with real-world problems in the field of study in order to have a rich and meaningful learning experience (Fasko
2001, p. 322).
Uncertainty is the extent to which students are provided the opportunity to experience that innovative knowledge is evolving and that it is culturally and socially determined. This involves teaching students how to explore, collect, analyse and use data to ignite innovation (Dyer et al.
2009; Honebein
1996). Students are made to understand that the process of knowledge creation occurs not only in individual contexts, but also through the interactions involved in social negotiations, collaborations and experiences (Dyer et al.
2009; Jonassen
1994). The literature provides strong evidence that students’ innovation competence is enhanced when they are provided opportunities to work collaboratively with each other (Burgess and Addison
2007; Dillon et al.
2007; Halsey et al.
2006; Rutland and Barlex
2008; Wood and Ashfield
2008). Group work and working in teams have been demonstrated to be a relevant feature of innovation-supportive learning environments (Burgess and Addison
2007; Rutland and Barlex
2008).
Student negotiation is the extent to which students and the teacher share control of the design and management of learning activities, assessment criteria and social norms of the classroom. By negotiating the instructional goal and objectives with students, the teacher acknowledges the relevance of students’ involvement in learning. Teachers can use students’ reflections to design learning activities for innovation competence and create environments that encourage metacognition, self-analysis, regulation, reflection and self-awareness (Ernest
1995). In such environments, the teacher is seen by the students as a co-learner, co-researcher and explorer as they engage in the tasks, and the teacher is resourceful and supportive of students’ learning needs (Burgess and Addison
2007; Rutland and Barlex
2008). In this way, a safe and collaborative atmosphere is created where different students’ learning approaches are valued.
In this current study, the CLES was adopted to evaluate students’ perceptions of their classroom environments with respect to innovation competence using selected scales from the CLES (Taylor et al.
1995,
1997), namely, personal relevance, uncertainty and student negotiation. Below, we review relevant past studies on students’ perception of their existing learning environments using the CLES. In order to compare perceptions, a 5-point scale has been interpreted as follows: scores between 1 and 2.4 were regarded as indicating a low perceived level of a constructivist approach, from 2.5 to 3.4 as a medium perceived level, and scores above 3.5 as a high perceived level. For a 7-point scale, scores between 1 and 3.4 were considered to indicate a low perceived level, between 3.5 and 4.4 as a medium perceived level, and scores above 4.5 as a high perceived level.
Research on constructivist learning environments has confirmed the factorial validity and reliability of the CLES in various contexts and countries (Aldridge et al.
2000; Beck et al.
2000; Kim et al.
1999; Kwan and Wong
2014; Lee and Taylor
2001; Ozkal et al.
2009; Taylor et al.
1997). For instance, the factorial validity and reliability of the CLES were established by Taylor et al. (
1997) in Western Australia, with a sample of 494 13-year-old students in 41 science classes in 13 schools. Similarly, Aldridge et al. (
2000) cross-validated the CLES also in Australia with a sample of 1081 science students in 50 classes. The CLES was validated as well in Korea (Kim et al.
1999; Lee and Taylor
2001) and Taiwan (Aldridge et al.
2000), and its cultural adaptability was shown by Lee and Taylor (
2001) in their cross-national and longitudinal study in Korea. In the study by Aldridge et al. (
2000), the original English version of the CLES was administered to 1081 science students in 50 classes in Australia, while a translated Chinese version was administered to 1879 science students in 50 classes in Taiwan. In both countries, the same factorial structure for the CLES and reasonable scale reliabilities were observed. In Singapore, Koh and Fraser (
2014) used a modified version of the CLES and found good factorial validity and internal consistency reliability for both the actual and preferred learning environment were found.
Topolovčan et al. (
2016) examined the perceptions of eighth-grade students (
N = 1026) in primary and lower-secondary education in the Republic of Croatia regarding the characteristics and frequency of constructivist learning. On a five-point scale, Personal Relevance (
M = 3.26), Uncertainty (
M = 3.29) and Student Negotiation (
M = 3.05) were perceived as present at around a medium level by the students.
Nix et al. (
2005) used a modified version of the CLES to evaluate the impact of an innovative teacher development program called the Integrated Science Learning Environment model (ISLE) in high-school classrooms. They compared the perceptions of 445 students taught by 5 ISLE teachers in 25 classes and 328 students from 19 classes taught by 5 non-ISLE science teachers in north Texas. On a five-point scale, the results showed a medium level of perceived Personal Relevance (
M = 3.21), Uncertainty (
M = 2.61) and Student Negotiation (
M = 2.86).
Koh and Fraser (
2014) studied 2216 secondary school students in Singapore in 82 business classes taught by preservice teachers regarding the constructive nature of their classroom environments. These teachers receive special training in how to create constructivist learning environments. The perceptions of the students taught by these trained teachers were compared with the perceptions of 991 secondary-school students in 32 business classes taught by traditional teachers. The perceptions of students about the constructivist nature of their actual classroom environments revealed a perceived medium level of both Personal Relevance (
M = 3.23) and Student Negotiation (
M = 3.33) medium scores, while Uncertainty (
M = 3.48) was slightly above a medium level.
Kwan and Wong (
2014) investigated secondary school students’ perceptions of the constructivist nature of their learning environment in liberal studies (
N = 967) in Hong Kong, and whether their perceptions were related to their critical thinking ability. The results showed high scores (on a 5-point scale) for Personal Relevance (
M = 3.44), Uncertainty (
M = 3.66) and Student Negotiation (
M = 3.41). In general, students perceived their learning environments positively for the three variables.
Spinner and Fraser (
2005), using a between-groups pretest–posttest design, analysed students’ responses to their classroom environment, their attitudes and their conceptual development as related to mathematics education. The students in the experimental group scored Personal Relevance (
M = 3.82) and Uncertainty (
M = 3.55) highly, whereas Student Negotiation (
M = 3.23) received a medium score. For the control group students, medium scores were reported for Personal Relevance (
M = 3.81), Uncertainty (
M = 3.05) and Student Negotiation (
M = 2.55). The results showed an increment in scores for the experimental group relative to the control group, thereby supporting the effectiveness of the intervention.
Overall, the different studies using the CLES show that students typically perceive their environments to be moderately constructivist in nature (e.g. around or slightly above the neutral score). Student Negotiation was rated the lowest by the students in most studies, whereas Uncertainty received the highest scores. The intervention studies showed an increment in scores for all variables for the treatment group. However, because most of these studies were conducted in primary and secondary education, little is known about perceptions of these elements in higher education. Similarly, there has been no research that has examined relationships between scores on CLES scales and (self-) perceptions of innovation competence specifically. This study therefore investigated associations between constructivist learning environments as measured by CLES and innovation competence in the context of higher education.