The Influence of the educational Methods on the Employees Innovation power
Submitted to
Prof. Anil K. Gupta
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for
CINE
By
Martin Hauler
On
February10, 2008
Indian Institute of Management
Ahmedabad
Table of content
1.Abstract
2.Requirements from innovative companies to their employees and how the German educational system satisfies this demand.
3.A new approach to match the abilities of the German students with the needs of the German industry
4.Own thoughts about the approach “self organized learning”.
5.How can companies encourage their employees ability to think creative?
1.Abstract
The overwhelming majority of the companies (estimated 90%)don’t reach a level of innovation above continuous improvements and imitations. Only approximately 10% of the companies produce non-linear improvements. The following consideration is particular addressed to this 10%.Because especially for these companies is the ability to be creative and respectively to think lateral very important.Otherwise they are not able to develop linear and especially non-linear innovations.
In Germany we have at the moment a political debate about the teaching methods at secondary schoolsand apprenticeship. Many scientists in the field of vocational education think that the teaching methods nowadays can’tsatisfy the needs of the German industry, especially the needs of these10% of companies which is mentioned above.
In the following paper I try to expose theoretically how the teaching methods in Germany affect the creativity and the lateral thinking power of the employees. After the description of the current situation in Germany, I present an alternative model, which should beable to satisfy the needs of the innovative companies.At the end I want to set up how companies can deal with this existing problem.To supplement my theoretical paper I’m going to use some empirical studies from a German scientist (Prof. D. Sembill) who is acknowledged in the area of vocational education[1].
2.Requirements of innovative companies to their employees and how the German educational system satisfies these demands
Because of the globalization among the companies the competition has increased.An impact of thisis increased specializationand raised innovation pressure. Especially for companies, which are embedded in a volatile and innovative environment it is very important to have employees which force product and process innovations. Otherwise they will stuck in the mean.
Academic and vocational apprenticeship aren’t able to satisfy the needs of the German industry (Sembill, 2004). Particular the demands of innovative companiesaren’t satisfied, becauseteachers in Germany still focus on out-dated teaching methods (ex-cathedra-teaching). These methods train students to think linear and monocausal. Additional to that, the examinations and tests are only checking the reproduction of factual knowledge (Sembill, 2000).
In school, apprenticeship and higher education the teachers operate predominant with well structured problems and exercises. Further more teachersprovide the students methods, how they should solve problems.In contrast to these teaching methods, in the real occupational life the problems are in the most situations badly defined or the employees first have to find the problem. That implies, that students or respectively future employees have to be trained in the whole process of problem solving: From the problem identification over problem structuring until problem solving. Educational requests like “self organized” learning” of Prof. Dr. Sembill, which encourage flexibility, interdisciplinary thinking, self organized information research and information appliance are until now only rarely implemented.(Bellmann, et. al 2002)
3.A new approach to match the abilities of the German students with the needs of the Germanindustry
In this chapter I’d like to present a short description of the concept “self organized learning“ of Prof. Sembill. He did a lot of empirical studies (always with one control group) about this learning concept.These studies have the following results:
- In the “self organized” classstudent produced 95% of the active communication. In the control class the students produced only 50% of the communication.
- In the “self organized” classstudent asked 18 times more deep reasoning questions (questions which take long to answer)
- Only 6% of the problem solving impulse came from the students in the control class. In the “self organized” class 43% of the problem solving impulse came from the students.
- Traditional teaching methods do not challenge the students enough.
- The factual knowledge is almost the same in both groups
- The motivation is in the “self organized” class during the whole classes higher.
- The ability to solve problems is in the “self organized” class much higher after the course.
- The ability to think in a logical way and the ability to connect different types of knowledge is in the “self organized” class significant higher.
- The students in the “self organized” class have to organize and convert their task by their own. Thus they learn how to analyze, to plan, to convert and to control the problem solving process. Students get used to work by their own and bring their results together.
- The existential orientation was in the “self organized” class in average significant higher, than in the “normal” class.
- The students in the “self organized” class learn additional how to use Computer programs, because they were free to use all the provided learning material.
The model of Sembill has the following design:
The Range of key (RoK) can be divided into tow or respectively three parts. See the following synopsis:
The basic of the configuration concerningto the learning environment are the nine RoKs.That means that the teacher has to provide an environment, which allows the students, to get in touch with a complex problem. The students than has to:
- Face the problem,
- Define their aims
- Steer their learning process and
- Control their learning process.
If the teachers consider these 9 Roks, the students will generate knowledge which should enable them to deal with the industry needs.
In the horizontal structure are three meta-levels:
- Aim and plan area: RoK1, RoK2, Rok3
- Realization area: RoK4, RoK5, RoK6
- Control area: RoK7, RoK8, RoK9
Additional to these meta-levels, thereare four dimensions:
- Learn with others
- Learn for yourself
- Learn for others
- Learn with risk
In the middle of these kind of learning environment is always Rok 5, learning as planned realization.
From the teachers point of view are the following points very important for preparing the courses:
- Students must been taken seriously and the teachers have to provide them decision- and freedom of action.
- Allow questions of the sense of a course and answers these kind of questions seriously
- Teachers have to see students questions and students failure as a central didactical part
- Teachers have to give the students accountability of their own learning process
- Teachers must involve the students in the aim development process and evaluation process
- To force and call for presentations and project reports
The model of Sembill is now almost 6 years old. He did a lot of empirical research and confirmedthe value added for the students always in an impressive way. The industry can profit from this additional competences.
But until now, this teaching method is not implemented in our schools. One basic problem of the implementation is the lack of needed resources. As mentioned one basic aspect of this model is to create an environment, in which students have to organize solutions by their selves. That means they have to be free in their decisions:E.g. with which method they want to search the informations and with which method they want to solve the problems. That’s the crux: Students can only be free if teachers and schools provide them all material and resources they need.Many German schools don’thave enough computers and books and so forth to encourage this teaching method.
A second reason, why this model stucks is: If teachers want to consider this model within their teaching methods, they will have much more effort for preparing a class, or several of classes.
4.Own thoughts about the approach “self organized learning” in contrast to the traditional teaching methods
After the introduction of the model of Sembill I try to figure out if it is really as he beliefs, that the traditional teaching method are in general bad and his approach is in general good.
In my opinion it is not possible to see such a complex task as teaching in this black and white way. Each class is different, each topic has different aspects and each teacher different abilities and attitudes. In my opinion it is not possible to say in general that one teaching method is the best method and every teacher should use this method every time. The best way of teaching is to mix up the methods and use the best suitable method considering to students and topic. But I also agree with Sembill that it is very important to force the studentsautonomy. Becauseafter the school,students don’t have a teacher at their side who forces them to learn. It is very important, that the students are able to see the importance of constantly and voluntarily learning. In general I think the teaching methods should force students to work on their own and to discover the topics by their own. But that does not mean that every teacher has to use every time the same teaching method.
5.How can companies encourage their employees ability to think creative?
Because of the not acting educational policy, the companies have to solve this problem unit nowthemselves. They have to encourage the employees lateral and systemic thinking abilities.
Therefore the companies have to establish goal orientated trainings and a workplace environment which force this kind of thinking.
Because of the globalization and as a result of this the increasing obsolescence rate, the employees have to be trained to learn continuously and independently.
Some employees, especially experienced employees are able to solve complex problems with the right tools. It is important for companies, to know which employee has which competences and knowledge. Only if companies know the knowledge- and competence profile of their employees, they can employ them in the area in which the value of the employees is at the maximum. This especially in a project based organization structure important.
To get the maximum value out of the employees, the delegation rate should be as high as possible. A positive effect of delegation is that the satisfaction and integration of the employees with their work is much higher compare to a low level of delegation (See Job Diagnostic Survey of Hackman and Oldman).
Another key role of supplementing the motivation and the ability to strength innovation of employees is the kind of leadership culture. To force the motivation and innovation ability the leadership should consider about the following principles:
- Principle of meaning and vision
- Principle of transparency
- Principle of goal setting and goal arrangement
- Principle of autonomy and participation
- Principle of constructive feedback
- Principle of positive appreciation
- Principle of personal trend of growth
- Principle of social and professional involvement
- Principle of fit and qualification
- Principle of flexible and adaptive leadership
- Principle of good paragon of the leader
- Principle of fairness
Only if the leaders in a company possess an adequate competence of leadership, a company will be able to use the full innovation power of their employees. Of course, as mentioned above the workforce has to have the abilities to think lateral. If this is not given, they first haveto be trained, on or of the job, to get a basic lateral thinking ability.
5.References
Sembill D., (2004), Final Report "Teaching and Learning processesat the commercial apprenticeship",
Bellmann H. (2002) Praxishandbuch Wissensmanagement
[1]Self-Organized Learning in Vocational Education - Foundation, Implementation,
and Evaluation. (With Karsten WOLF, Eveline WUTTKE and Lutz SCHUMACHER.) In:
BECK, K. (Ed.): Teaching-Learning Processes in Vocational Education. Frankfurt
a.M., Berlin,Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang, S. 267-295.