Research Of Student’s Innovative Behavior

Abstract

Transformations in society need to raise the level of their economic consciousness. The problem is that the level of innovation remains low. The article presents the description of the innovative economic behaviour study. A survey was done on students from different courses. The experiment was aimed at studying the group interaction factors in the formation of innovative behaviour. We proceeded from the proposition that innovativeness is a derivative of individual creativity and external factors, in particular, the factor of group interaction. We assume that factors of group interaction are more important for the development of innovative economic behavior. The case study have a several stages. First, the level of individual creativity and innovativeness was studied. Then the subjects received a task during the week. To successfully solve the problem in the group, both cognitive and social processes must simultaneously develop. The results show that, for the group to be successful, the participants should not only formulate problems and suggest ideas for its solution, but also pay attention to converting understanding into concrete actions to achieve results. The results showed that the level of individual creativity is not a sufficient condition for the manifestation of innovative behaviour. Group factors play an important role in it as well. More importantly for team work is intra-group cognitive and social processes. In addition, the results of the case study, suggest that innovation is a skill that can be developed.

Keywords: Innovative economic behaviourcreativityinnovativenessstudents

Introduction

Transformation of the Russian economy, its transition to an innovative way of development cannot be carried out without human resources capable of implementing an innovative breakthrough, with the necessary professional and personal qualities, and economic behaviour should be characterized by activity, readiness for innovation.

Economic behaviour is a subject of study of several sciences: economics, sociology, psychology. The psychological approach, unlike the economic one, presupposes limited rational choice. Specificity of the subject of psychology is to study such aspects of a person's economic behaviour that go beyond rational choice. It is known that the creative person has the consciousness and the abilities to address crisis in transformative ways (O’Hara, 2017).

Problem Statement

At the moment, we can identify several research areas performed by the Russian psychologists. The general methodological bases of economic consciousness and innovativeness are developed by A.L. Zhuravlev & A.B Kupreychenko, A.D. Karnyshev, V.E. Klochko E.V. Galazhinsky, A.N. Neverov, L.S. Yagolkovsky etc. The economic consciousness is a private form of consciousness that is found in different forms of knowledge about various economic facilities (Pozniakov, 2007). By the economic consciousness we mean "social representations, attitudes, relationships, evaluations, opinions of a person on the economic content of the various phenomena (economic objects)" (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2007). The economic consciousness is a result of the interaction between an individual and the socio-economic environment (Yagolkovsky, 2010). The economic consciousness formation is a result of socialization and the process of integration of an individual into the system of economic relations and self-awareness of an individual as an economic relations subject (Karnyshev, 2011).

In this paper, by innovative economic behaviour, we understand creative forms of human behaviour under the influence of economic alternatives, which contribute to economic efficiency improvement. In other words, an innovative behaviour is held to imply the originality of the way of implementing the economic behaviour in the situation of profit extraction. The main characteristics of such behaviour are 1) creativity or originality of the way the idea is realized; 2) fluency (number of ideas) and flexibility (versatility of ideas); 3) economic efficiency.

In the history of the study of innovative processes, one can observe a change in several paradigms of understanding their essence. The originally developed model of innovation processes has undergone significant changes, became more complex, and branched. Modern models resemble interworking systems that operate on the principle of networks, which are characterized by the intensification of both internal and external links. Accordingly, their tasks and problems are of an interdisciplinary character and a cohesive teamwork is needed to solve them. Communicative skills, skills of teamwork and cooperation become key competencies. “Creativity alone does not necessarily generate innovation and may assume, in part, responsibility for its promotion or being one of the sources of innovation” (Bogel & Upham, 2018).

Analyzing the team's collaborative work we can be premised on a collaborative problem-solving (CPS) method, which represents a complex process when two or more people try to solve a problem by sharing their understanding and efforts needed to do so by combining knowledge, skills and efforts to reach decision (Chang et al., 2017). The method assumes three main competencies: establishing and maintaining a common understanding; taking appropriate measures to solve the problem; creation and maintenance of the team.

These competencies arise from a combination of two interrelated processes: social and cognitive. That is, to understand and solve a problem, students should have the skills of interaction, communication as well as the skills to regulate actions in order to solve the problem (Hesse, Care, Buder, Sassenberg, & Griffin, 2015). The cognitive process (the ability to solve problems) implies studying and understanding of the content of the problem, the presentation and formulation of the hypothesis, the planning of a strategy for solving the problem, monitoring results and reflection. Social processes are aimed at establishing mutual understanding, taking appropriate measures to solve the problem (coordination), as well as the formation of a team and supporting it. The method of joint problem solving facilitates the integration of these two processes.

Research Questions

What is the role of group problem-solving process in the development of innovative behavior? We assume that the quality of group processes (emotions, problems definition and problems solving) determines the success of the group.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of the experiment was to identify factors that affect the innovative economic behaviour of team members. The sum and substance of the experiment were that students had to earn some money in one week, having 100 rubles as initial capital. In order to successfully solve this problem, students needed to demonstrate the ability to see and articulate the need, unconventional thinking, entrepreneurial attitude and the ability to work in teams

Research Methods

Findings

We analyzed test methods, results of the assignment, protocols for monitoring the discussion of the problem in the group and video materials.

Conclusion

Summarizing the results of the experiment, it can be noted that the participants showed entrepreneurial behaviour. Taking into account that innovative behaviour is a certain process, which includes several stages, it can be assumed that when performing the assignment, participants could show innovativeness at different stages. So, for example, it could be an original idea or an original way of implementing a template idea. Analyzing the ideas suggested by the participants, we see that already at the stage of generating ideas there are some limitations that make it difficult to look at the problem from the other side, with other eyes.

Thus, to successfully solve the problem in the group, both cognitive and social processes must simultaneously develop. Social processes should be aimed at supporting, encouraging, understanding, which contributes to the establishment of a favourable socio-psychological climate, the creation of an "environmentally friendly", safe atmosphere in the group. The results show that, for the group to be successful, the participants should not only formulate problems and suggest ideas for its solution, but also pay attention to converting understanding into concrete actions to achieve results.

We found that in our case, more important was not the experiment itself, but its aftereffect, the processes that were launched. The feedback received from the participants showed that the experiment aroused great interest among students and most importantly, the participants noted an increase in motivation, activation of thinking aimed at searching. Already after the experiment, new ideas for implementation emerged; there were a desire and interest in trying and mastering new forms of behaviour. That is, the experiment itself as a form of teaching innovative behaviour gave its results. Thus, innovation is most likely a skill, an ability that can be developed.

Acknowledgments

The article prepared by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), Project № 17-16-14006-ОГН/18.

References

1. Bogel, P. M., & Upham, P. (2018). Role of psychology in sociotechnical transitions studies: Review in relation to consumption and technology acceptance. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 28, 122-136. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.01.002
2. Chang, C.J., Chang, M.H., Chiu, B.H., Liu, C.C., Fan Chiang, S.H. (…) Chen, W. (2017). An analysis of student collaborative problem solving activities mediated by collaborative simulations. Computers & Education, 114, 222-235.
3. Dougherty, I., & Clarke, A. (2018). Wired for Innovation: Valuing the Unique Innovation Abilities of Emerging Adults. Emerging Adulthood, 6(5), 358-365. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167696817739393
4. Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and Approach. New York, NY: Springer, 2015, 37-56.
5. Karnyshev A.D. (2011). Social and economic psychology. Irkutsk: Publishing House of Belarusian State University of Economics.
6. Lebedeva, N.M, Tatarko, A.N. (2010). Social capital: theory and psychological research. Moscow: RUDN.
7. O’Hara, M. (2017). Rising to the occasion: New persons for new times. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 34(4), 454-466. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/198202752017000400002
8. Pozniakov V. P., Psikhologiia ekonomicheskogo soznaniia. Sootnoshenie osnovnykh fenomenov I poniatii, Psikhologiiasoznaniia: sovremennoe sostoianie i perspektivy, Russia, pp.537-539, 2007.
9. Wechsler, S. M., Saiz, C., Rivas, S. F., Vendramini, C. M. M., Almeida, L. S., Mundin, M. C., & Franco, A. (2018). Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27(1), 114-122. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.003
10. Yagolkovsky, L.S. (2010). Psychology of innovation: approaches, models, processes. Moscow: NIU-VSHEH
11. Zagashev, I.O. (2010). Psychological readiness for innovation as a condition for the effectiveness of the introduction of a quality management system. Izvestiya Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 12, 5(2), 418 – 420.
12. Zhuravlev, A.L, Kupreychenko, A.B. (2007). Economic self-determination: Theory and empirical research. Moscow: Publishing house “Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences”.