Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Makes New Technology Sustainable in the Classroom: Two Innovation Models Considered

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Ludic, Co-design and Tools Supporting Smart Learning Ecosystems and Smart Education

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 197))

Abstract

Sustaining technology-enhanced learning (TEL) in the classroom and the necessary teaching practices after initial research funding ends is often perceived to be a challenge. This paper examines whether using the flexible process user innovation (FPUI) model in implementing a new TEL method would increase the likelihood of sustainability compared to using the linear process closed innovation (LPCI) model. We evaluate teachers’ knowledge appropriation as an important proxy for sustainability of a TEL method called Robomath in two different implementation cases that are based on different innovation models. The first case followed the LPCI model: 42 basic school teachers applied the Robomath method during a school year in their math lessons while using ready-made learning designs. The second case followed the FPUI model: 25 basic school teachers applied the Robomath method in their math lessons while they simultaneously participated in a ten-month teacher professional development program and together with university researchers co-created learning designs for the method. We used the Knowledge Appropriation Model for analyzing the potential sustainability of the Robomath method in both cases. Our study indicated that intended adoption and knowledge appropriation are significantly higher when using the FPUI model compared to using the LPCI model. Using a similar approach for improving the adoption of innovative methods in other TEL learning settings and STEAM disciplines is a subject for further studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://edidaktikum.ee/en/home.

References

  1. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Loveless, T.: 20 Years of TIMSS: International Trends in Mathematics and Science Achievement, Curriculum, and Instruction. Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  2. UNESCO: School and Teaching Practices for Twenty-First Century Challenges. Lessons from the Asia-Pacific Region—Regional Synthesis Report. UNESCO Bangkok (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Trentin, G., Alvino, S.: Faculty training as a key factor for Web Enhanced Learning sustainability. In: Repetto M., Trentin, G. (eds.) Faculty Training for Web-Enhanced Learning. Nova Science Publishers Inc., Hauppauge, NY, USA (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  4. McGill, T., Klobas, J.E., Renzi, S.: Critical success factors for the continuation of e-learning initiatives. Internet High. Educ. 22, 24–36 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Khurana, V.K.: Management of Technology and Innovation. Ane Books India (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tidd, J.: A Review of Innovation Models. Imperial College London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Joly, P.B.: Beyond the competitiveness framework? Models of innovation revisited. J. Innov. Econ. Manage. 1(22), 79–96 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Pinchot, G., Pellman, R.: Intrapreneuring in Action: A Handbook for Business Innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chesbrough, H.: Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting, from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schuurman, D.: Bridging the gap between Open and User Innovation? Exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation. Ghent University and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jorgenson, D.W., Vu, K.M.: The ICT revolution, world economic growth, and policy issues. Telecommun. Policy 40(5), 383–397 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sousa, M.: Open Innovation Models and the Role of Knowledge Brokers. Inside Knowledge (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Von Hippel, E.: The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Von Hippel, E.: The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Res. Policy 5(3), 212–239 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Almirall, E., Casadesus-Masanell, R.: Open versus closed innovation: a model of discovery and divergence. Acad. Manage. Rev. 35(1), 24–47 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Greenstein, S.: Invisible hands versus invisible advisors: Coordination mechanisms in economic networks. In: Noam, E., Nishuilleabhain, A. (eds.) Public Networks, Public Objectives, pp. 135–160. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gabison, G., Pesole, A.: An Overview of Models of Distributed Innovation. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Metz, A., Boaz, A., Robert, G.: Co-creative approaches to knowledge production: what next for bridging the research to practice gap? Evid. Policy J. Res. Debate Pract. 15(3), 331–337 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Könings, K., Seidel, T., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G.: Participatory design of learning environments: integrating perspectives of students, teachers, and designers. Instr. Sci. 42(1) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Prieto-Alvarez, C.G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Dirndorfer Anderson, T.: Co-designing learning analytics tools with learners. In: Lodge, J.M., Cooney Horvath, J., Corrin, L. (eds.) Learning Analytics in the Classroom. Translating Learning Analytics Research for Teachers. Routledge (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sherry, L.: Sustainability of Innovations. JILR. 13(3), 209–236 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fullen, M., Donnelly, K.: Alive in the swamp: assessing digital innovations in education. NESTA (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Niederhauser, D.S., Howard, S.K., Voogt, J., Agyei, D.D., Laferriere, T., Tondeur, J., Cox, M.J.: Sustainability and scalability in educational technology initiatives: research-informed practice. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 23, 507–523 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Batiibwe, M.S.K., Bakkabulindi, F.E.K.: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a theory on factors of the use of ICT in pedagogy: a review of literature. Int. J. Educ. Res. 4(11), 123–138 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tornatzky, L., Fleischer, M.: The process of technology innovation. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hall, G.E., Hord, S.M.: Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. State University of New York Press, New York (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P.: What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 32(2), 131–152 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Leoste, J., Tammets, K., Ley, T.: Co-creating learning designs in professional teacher education: knowledge appropriation in the teacher’s innovation laboratory. Interact. Des. Architect. 42, 131–163 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., Piirainen, T.: Exploring quadruple helix outlining user-oriented innovation models. University of Tampere (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ley, T., Maier, R., Thalmann, S., Waizenegger, L., Pata, K., Ruiz-Calleja, A.: A knowledge appropriation model to connect scaffolded learning and knowledge maturation in workplace learning settings. Vocat. Learn. 13, 91–112 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ley, T., Poom-Valickis, K., Eisenschmidt, E., Tammets, K., Hallik, M., Leoste, J., Sarmiento, M., Rodriguez-Triana, M.: Research Model: Co-creation and Innovation Adoption. Tallinn University (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: The impact of educational robots as learning tools on mathematics learning outcomes in basic education. In: Väljataga, T., Laanpere, M. (eds.) Digital Turn in Schools—Research, Policy, Practice: ICEM2018; Tallinn; 5–7 Sept 2019, pp. 203–217. Springer Nature, Singapore (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leoste, J., Heidmets, M.: Factors influencing the sustainability of robot supported math learning in basic school. In: Silva M., Luís Lima J., Reis L., Sanfeliu A., Tardioli D. (eds.) Robot 2019: Fourth Iberian Robotics Conference. ROBOT 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1092. Springer, Cham (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Botha, A., Herselman, M.: Teachers become co-creators through participation in a teacher professional development (TPD) course in a resource constraint environment in South Africa. Electr. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Countries 84, e12007 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R.C., Hickey, D.T., McKenney, S.: Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instr. Sci. 43(2), 259–282 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rodriques-Triana, M.J., Prieto, L.P., Ley, T., De Jong, T., Gillet, D.: Tracing teacher collaborative learning and innovation adoption: a case study in an inquiry learning platform. In: International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Proceedings (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gunn, C.: Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J. 18(2), 89–103 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Michos, K., Hernández-Leo, D., Albó, L.: Teacher-led inquiry in technology-supported school communities. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 49(6) (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Aga, D.A., Noorderhaven, N., Vallejo, B.: Project beneficiary participation and behavioural intentions promoting project sustainability: the mediating role of psychological ownership. Dev. Policy Rev. 2018(36), 527–546 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Han, T.S., Chiang, H.H., Chang, A.: Employee participation in decision making, psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. Int. J. Hum. Resour Manage. 21(12), 2218–2233 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yim, J.S., Moses, P., Azalea, A.: Effects of psychological ownership on teachers’ beliefs about a cloud-based virtual learning environment. Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanced Learn. 13, 13 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Project “TU TEE—Tallinn University as a promoter of intelligent lifestyle” (nr 2014-2020.4.01.16-0033) under activity A5 in the Tallinn University Center of Excellence in Educational Innovation.

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 669074.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn University, Tallinn, 10120, Estonia

    Janika Leoste, Mati Heidmets & Tobias Ley

Authors
  1. Janika Leoste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mati Heidmets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tobias Ley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janika Leoste .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication and Art, Digital Media and Interaction Research Center, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Óscar Mealha

  2. Department of Architecture, Design, and Media Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Matthias Rehm

  3. Department of Computer Science, University Politehnica of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Traian Rebedea

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Leoste, J., Heidmets, M., Ley, T. (2021). What Makes New Technology Sustainable in the Classroom: Two Innovation Models Considered. In: Mealha, Ó., Rehm, M., Rebedea, T. (eds) Ludic, Co-design and Tools Supporting Smart Learning Ecosystems and Smart Education. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 197. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7383-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation