Learning Climate for Enhancing Innovative Behavior in Thai Higher Education

Main Article Content

Chaiyut Kleebbua
Kanchana Lindratanasirikul

Abstract

Developing innovative behavior among students is one of the approaches employed to produce quality human resources who could function well in the labor market. This research aimed to study the relationship between learning climate and innovative behavior of undergraduate students. A sequential explanatory mixed methods study was conducted in two phases. Quantitative data were collected from 609 students in a public university, Thailand, and qualitative data were collected from 15 student focus group who were categorized by the students’ varying innovative behavior scores. The results from the quantitative phase revealed that the learning climate had both significant direct (β = .34, p < .05), and indirect effects on the students’ innovative behavior through cognitive flexibility (β = .44, p < .05). In the qualitative phase, the reason why the learning climate had affected innovative behavior was explained. The results were categorized into three themes: learning climate support; motivation and interest; and adjustment in the work process. The quantitative and qualitative findings from the two phases indicated that the suitable management of learning climate caused the students to demonstrate innovative behavior both directly through climate for learning, and indirectly through their interest in the assignments. This resulted in the students’ intention to adapt their work methods to render the most valuable outcomes. The cognitive flexibility of the thinking process also enabled work behaviors that were more innovation driven. These research results could be used by institutes as a framework to design training, particularly in subjects with a primary focus innovation development.

Article Details

How to Cite
Kleebbua, C., & Lindratanasirikul, K. (2021). Learning Climate for Enhancing Innovative Behavior in Thai Higher Education. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 16(1), 45-57. Retrieved from https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/IJBS/article/view/234673
Section
Research Articles

References

Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). Guilford Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bernardo, A. B. I., & Presbitero, A. (2018). Cognitive flexibility and cultural intelligence: Exploring the cognitive aspects of effective functioning in culturally diverse contexts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 66, 12-21. https://doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.06.001
Chaimongkhol, N., Vongkiatkajorn, S., & Kleebbua, C. (2018). Nǣonōm læ khwām thāthāi kānphatthanā thun manut nai prathēt Thai [Trends and challenges of human capital in Thailand]. Journal of Social Science Research, 2018, 1-12.
Chang, J. C., & Yang, Y. L. (2012). The effect of organization’s innovational climate on student’s creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior. Business & Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1), 75-100.
Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Design, learning networks and service innovation. Design Studies, 55, 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.003
Chen, I. S., & Chen, J. K. (2012). Creativity strategy selection for the higher education system. Quality & Quantity, 46(3), 739-750. https://doi: 10.1007/s11135-010-9411-z
Chumkesornkulkit, P., & Na Wichian, S. (2018). Phrưttikam sāng nawattakam nai kān thāngān: Nǣokhit patčhai chœ̄ng sāhēt khwām thāthāi [Innovative work Behavior: Concept, antecedents and challenges]. Journal of Behavioral Science for Development, 10(1), 25-41.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Curran, T. (2018). An actor-partner interdependence analysis of cognitive flexibility and indicators of social adjustment among mother-child dyads. Personality and Individual Differences, 126, 99-103. https://doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.025
Curran, T., & Andersen, K. K. (2017). Intergenerational patterns of cognitive flexibility through expressions of maternal care. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 32-34. https://doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.001
De Jong, J., & De Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36. https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241-253. https://doi:10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
De Souza Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148-153. https://doi: org/10.1080/02783190009554022
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Baas, M. (2011). Behavioral activation links to creativity because of increased cognitive flexibility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 72-80. https://doi:10.1177/1948550610381789
Genn J. M. (2001). AMEE medical education guide No. 23 (Part 1): Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education-a unifying perspective. Medical teacher, 23(4), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.108 0/01421590120063330
Goodyear, P. (2001). Effective networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines (Deliverable 9). Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82-101. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1344.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data Analysis. Prentice Hall.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for Creativity: A Quantitative Review, Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90. https://doi:10.1080/104004107093368 83
Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 190-200. https://doi:10.1016/j.newide
apsych.2011.11.001
Irby, D. M. (2018). Proceedings of a conference improving environments for learning in the health professions. Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation. https://macyfoundation.org/assets/reports/publications/macy_monograph_2018_webfile.pdf
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287-302. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038
Jeong, I. S. (2016). Implicit Person Theory, Cognitive Flexibility, and Innovative Behavior: Does Empowering Leadership Matter? [Master’s thesis, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology]. HKUST SPD The institutional repository. https://hdl.handle.net/1783.1/87042
Kleebbua, C., & Siriparp, T. (2016). Effects of education and attitude on essential learning outcomes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 941-949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.061
Li, C. H., & Wu, J. J. (2011). The structural relationships between optimism and innovative behavior: Understanding potential antecedents and mediating effects. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 119-128. https://doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.571184
Li, L., Worch, E., Zhou, Y., & Aguiton, R. (2015). How and why digital generation teachers use technology in the classroom: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 1-9. https://doi: org/10.20429/ijsotl.2015.090209
Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological reports, 76(2), 623-626. https://doi.org/10.2466 /pr0.1995.76.2.623
Meksuwan, W. (2016). Rūpbǣp banyākāt thī sanapsanun nawattakam kānrīanrū nai chan rīan khō̜ng naksưksā radap parinyā trī Mahāwitthayālai Rāmkhamhǣng [Model of supportive atmosphere for learning innovation of undergraduate students Ramkhamhaeng university] (Research report). Ramkhamhaeng University. http://digital.lib.ru.ac.th/m/b12028915/WattanasomMeksuwan.pdf
Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human Resource Development International, 15(1), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.646894
Nabavi, R. T. (2012). Bandura’s social learning theory & social cognitive learning theory, Theory of Developmental Psychology. ACADEMIA. https://www.academia.edu/3762
7563/BandurasTheory.pdf
Rongmuang, D. (2019). Banyākāt kānrīanrū khwāmphưngphō̜čhai tō̜ kānčhatkān rīanrū nai satawat thī yīsipʻet læ phon samrit thāngkān rīanrū khō̜ng naksưksā laksūt phayābān sāttra bandit [Learning Atmosphere, Satisfaction with Learning Management in 21st Century and Academic Achievement among Bachelor in Nursing Science Students]. The Southern College Network Journal of Nursing and Public Health, 6(1), 167-177.
Sangsuk, P. (2014). Patčhai chœ̄ng sāhēt læ phon khō̜ng khwām chư̄a prasitthiphāp nai ton chœ̄ng sāngsan khō̜ng nisit naksưksā radap parinyā bandit [Causes and effects of creative self-efficacy in undergraduate students]. (Master's thesis). Chulalongkorn University. http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/45809
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580-607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., van der Heijden, B. I., & Farrell, M. (2017). Organizational climate for innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of innovative work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.02.004
Slegers, K., van Boxtel, M., & Jolles, J. (2009). Effects of computer training and internet usage on cognitive abilities in older adults: A randomized controlled study. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 21(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324898
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982 (pp.290-312). Jossey-Bass.
Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. Sage Publications.
World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf