The purpose of the research presented in this chapter was to focus on the individual and contextual antecedents of innovative behavior (IB) via the mediating effects of knowledge sharing behavior (KSB). It proposed a conceptual model and hypothesized that course design characteristics (CDCs), self-regulated learning (SRL), and KSB positively promoted individual innovative behavior (IIB) among technology students. Knowledge sharing behavior, subsequently and concurrently, promoted individual innovative behavior. The research studied students undertaking technology computer-related programs so as to generate empirical data for use in structural equation modelling (SEM). Through a literature review and theoretical deduction, the research excavated the driver practices among CDC, SRL, KSB, and IIB in depth.
TopIntroduction
Pedagogical practices that promote innovative behavior for technology students are a widely discussed area in the field of education. Much debate exists over the instruction required to meet the unique learning needs of such students. Along with the editors of the publication, the authors of this chapter believe that a distinction must be made between strategies and pivotal practices. These two terms are often used interchangeably but differ greatly in application and transferability. A strategy is finite and encompasses a specific set of steps or processes that teachers embed into a learning experience to promote the transfer of knowledge, skills, and/or values within a content area. Although strategies are important for creating learning experiences in classrooms and are well-documented in the literature (Manzone & Nyberg, 2022b), these lack generalizability across educational contexts and content areas. A pivotal practice is not a strategy. A pivotal practice is sustained over time by emphasizing pedagogical knowledge across disciplines and instructional contexts. Towards smart innovation for Technology students, pivotal practices e.g., model motivation, metacognition and affective aspects of the learning experience (Ngugi & Goosen, 2019) to incorporate these with students’ stores of knowledge, as well as social and emotional development, as contributions (Manzone, 2020). This shifts the balance of power in the classroom from strategies that use teacher-centered differentiation to practices that promote personalization for, as well as individuality and agency in, students (Nyberg & Manzone, 2022). The purpose of this chapter within the publication is to curate cutting-edge, driver practices that promote Individual Innovative Behavior (IIB) among Technology students. This chapter will demonstrate such driver practices in the areas of problem-solving, inquiry, critical thinking, and creative thinking.
Like for the book as a whole, the driver practices described in this chapter will apply to multiple educational contexts:
- (a)
higher education faculty in student preparation programs, where students want access to e-learning, as suggested by Goosen (2016),
- (b)
state department personnel in charge of large-scale curriculum and instruction,
- (c)
district administrators tasked with providing professional training for their faculty, and
- (d)
classroom teachers in all grade levels and disciplines at the basic education (school) level.
This chapter within the publication directly responds to those needs by providing a repository of driver practices that any educator can use to promote innovative behavior in the classroom.
As recommended for the book as a whole, this chapter will discuss driver practices that promote problem-solving, inquiry, critical thinking, and creative thinking in Technology students.