Innovation learning in comprehensive education?

The goal of this article is to clarify the concept of innovation and by presenting a research on the basic education outcome assessment data from an innovation learning perspective, answer to a question: Do students learn innovation in comprehensive education? The empirical information in this research is based on data collected in the national assessment of the subject craft, design and technology education (CDT) in Finland in 2010. The comprehensive education in Finland, the basic education, means grades 1–9 in comprehensive schools from age 7 to 16. This assessment included a design task, a test of knowledge and skills and an attitude test in CDT. This research focuses on two central concepts: (1) innovation is defined as a novel, inventive and usable solution, in either material or immaterial space: an end-product, process or method related to people’s practical needs and purposes and (2) innovation learning is defined as a problem based and creative process of using and implementing knowledge and skills in iterative and critical manner in designing and making a novel and practical solution with high usability. The assessment data was marked off to tasks which indicated the innovation learning (n = 661 out of the sample n = 4792). Brim quartiles were used as a methodological solution; the brim quartiles of usability formed the sample of this research. The statistical differences were tested using the Kruskal–Wallis test and the Pearson Chi Square test. Innovation learning includes the process of designing, planning, making and the practical solution itself. The national data allow general conclusions according to the level of innovation learning in comprehensive education. The central observation is that students learn innovation in comprehensive education varying from good to moderate levels. However, if students have not studied design and technology since 7th grade, they are twice as likely to be negative underachievers as to be either positive achievers or positive underachievers. This is useful for governments to know when trying to increase innovation on a national level, as well as when considering the well-being of people and society.