Fostering student’s innovative capacity in undergraduate
Building Technology Education (BTE).
Ir. Robert Ovbiagbonhia
Promotor: prof. dr. P. den Brok (Tue)Co-promotor: dr. B. Kollöffel (Ut)
dr. M. Wolfensberger (lector Hanze)
1
Research Context & Relevance
• Critical to economic and societal success (McAloone, 2007)
• Innovate capacity is a competence (Coakes & Smith, 2007)
• End qualification (HOG, 2015)
2
But no clear instructional programs…
3
Research question
The research aim - to develop teaching-for-learning interventions that foster
undergraduate students’ innovative capacity.
Overall research question- what teaching-for-learning intervention(s) can improve students’
innovative capacity in undergraduate Building Technology Education?
4
Pastactivities
Phase 1Problem
establishment
Phase 2&3Intervention design
Experiment
End Phase Dissertation
Nov. ‘16 – Sep. ‘18
-Developing & testing-Max. 3 design iterations-Experimental test of effects
Sep. ’18 - Sep. ‘19
-Writing the dissertation-PhD defence-Dissemination
Sep.’14 – Dec. ’15
-Theoret. framework -EBTE Profile research-Focus group & Delphi
Sep.‘15 – Sep. ’16
-Needs analysis-Context analysis
Work plan
5
Main outcomes
• Better prepare students for careers
• Contribute to teachers’ professional development
• Provide empirical link between TL innovative capacity
6
The INNOVATION process includes:
All of which entailsIDEA GENERATION
which involves:
CREATIVITY
DESIGN activities
INVENTION activities which are also:
PROBLEM SOLVING activities
Related Concepts
7
Innovation Process
8
Innovation = Creativity + Implementation.
Creativity Implementation
1. Idea FINDING
2. Idea SHAPING
3. IdeaPLAYING
4. IdeaREFINING
5. IdeaSHARING
Innovative problem-solving process. Skaggs, West, & Wright, 2013).
CPS Process
9
Creativity Implementation
1. Problem
Definition
2. Idea Generation
3. IdeaEvaluation
4. IdeaJudgment
5. SolutionImplementation
Creative problem-solving process. (Lumsdaine, 1999)
JUDGE DETECTIVE EXPLORER ARTIST
ENGINEER
PRODUCER
Analytical, Factual, logical, critical
Holistic, Imaginative, contextual, Visual
Planned, controlled, Administrative, Detailed
Value-based, intuitive, Interpersonal Emotional
B C
A D3. Creative Idea Evaluation
1. Problem Definition
5. Solution Implementation
4. Idea Judgment
3. Idea Generation
IPSF & MM
Creative problem solving framework and metaphorical mindsets superimposed on the Herrmann brain dominance instrument (HBDI) four-quadrant model (after Lumsdaine et al. 1999). 10
Teaching Innovation4 major instructional strategies:
• User-centred approach
• Trans/multidisciplinary teams
• Project-based learning
• A practice supportive climate
11
Measuring Innovative Capacity
Our research will use 3 instruments:
• The youth innovation skills measurement tool (YISMT)
• Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
• The Ideas Generation Implementation (IGI)
12
Great impact on linksbetween components
Little impact on linksbetween components
Little impact oncomponents
Great impact oncomponents
ArchitecturalInnovation
RadicalInnovation
IncrementalInnovation
ModularInnovation
The Architectural Innovation Model (AIM) (Henderson and Clark 1990).
Levels of Innovation
13
Students’ Learning Activities
Teachers’ instructions Students’ Assessment Task
Student
Innovative Capacity
Innovative Process Verb Taxonomy
Teachers’ Goal (Innovative Process)
Instruction Design
Task Design
Feedback Design
Real world Problem Based
Inter-disciplinary Collaboration
Reflective Practice
Expert comparative Judgement
Standardized Test
Survey
Students’ Innovative Capacity AssessmentTechniques
CAM Redesign IC
14
Teaching/learning activities
Idea finding objectives
Idea shaping objectives
Idea playing objectives
Idea refining objectives
Idea sharing objectives
Curriculum objectives
Observe Experience Inquire
Organize Simplify Clarify
Combine (connect)
Associate Reframe
(restructure) Widen
Visualize Validate Iterate
Show Demonstrate Describe
Assessments task
References:(Biggs, 2003)
(Amabile, 1996; Lumsdaine, 1999; Skaggs, West, & Wright, 2013).
(Amabile, 1996; Lumsdaine, 1999; Skaggs, West, & Wright, 2013).
(Antonietti, Colombo & Pizzingrilli, 2011; Skaggs, West, & Wright, 2013)
(Amabile, 1996; Lumsdaine, 1999; Skaggs, West, & Wright, 2013).
(Amabile, 1996; Lumsdaine, 1999; Skaggs, West, & Wright, 2013).
Curriculum objectives, aligning teaching/leaning activities (TLAs) and assessment tasks
TL Activities & AT
15
Overall setup Phase Research Question (RQ) Studies
1. Problemestablishment
RQ1. What aspects of innovativeness do Building Technology (BT) professionals consider relevant for the future BT engineering students?
RQ2. To what degree are these aspects present in the curricula of the built environment education?
Needs analysis (4 UAS) - Focus group & Delphi- Questionnaires survey studyErrors analysis (4 UAS) - TTCT (standardized test)- IGI (Assignment). - YISMT (questionnaire)- 2 Articles
2.Intervention design study
RQ3. What design criteria can be formulated for a teaching-for-learning intervention that stimulates students’ innovative capacity in BTE and how can this intervention be successfully implemented in practice?
Developing & testing; design principles (needs & errors analysis = learning goals)
- Max. 3 Iterations- 1 Article
3. Experimental study
RQ4. What is the effect of the proposed teaching-for-learning intervention on students’ innovative capacity?
- Preparing experimental setup- 1 Article
EDR intervention design guideline
Figure 4. Generic model for conducting educational design research (McKenney & Reeves, 2012)
Analysis
Exploration
Design
Construction
Evaluation
Reflection
Maturing intervention
TheoreticalUnderstanding
Implementation & spread