An instrument for
evaluating the innovation of an educational platform:
Reliability piloting
Abel García-González Escuela de Humanidades y
Educación Tecnológico de Monterrey Monterrey México
María Soledad Ramírez Montoya Escuela de Humanidades y Educación
Tecnológico de Monterrey Monterrey México [email protected]
OUTLINE
• Introduction
• Conceptual framework
• Method
• Results
• Conclusions
INTRODUCTION
• Innovation for the stability of organizations.
• Conception of innovation:
*as an introduction of new combinations.
*somenthing perceived as a novelty by an individual and another unit of adoption.
*adaptation that enhances or improves learning.
• Objective: the reliability piloting of an instrument to identify the degree of innovation.
• Context: Educational Platform in a Teacher Training School.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Educational innovation
Educational platforms Measuring
instruments for
innovation in education
• Designed to
measure specific innovation objects.
• Change/novelty:
original implemented ideas that cause an incremental or
disruptive modification.
• Added value: Changes which must represent improvements,
benefits or increase of quality to a process
• The economy has become a digital economy.
• The success of a digital platform applied in
pedagogical processes is due to the
participation, attitudes, and knowledge of
teachers.
*Incremental
*Systematic
*Disruptive
*Open.
METHOD
Linkert scale (4-1): 28 items that integrate
the innovation
construct and types of innovation in
education.
Quantitative research method, with a
non-
experimental, exploratory
design.
Three
dimensions and 28 items.
Reliability:
Cronbach’s alpha Validity: experts in
educational innovation and feedback received
by students.
Instrument:
convenience sample of 22 students from a
pre-school teacher training.
RESULTS
Psychometric information (Cronbach’s alpha) Statistical
information Chang
e/novel ty
Added value Added
value
Chang e/novel
ty
The range of the means is
between 3.1 and
2.0.
The range of the means is from 3.4 to
2.7
0.62 0.76
Type of innovatio
n
0.59
0.83
open continuo
us systemat
ic disruptiv
3.1 e
2.7 2.4 2.5
CONCLUSIONS
• The instrument helped to define the degree of innovation perceived by the participants of the object (2.78).
• Students did not consider the object with a high degree of innovation.
• Maintains an orientation towards disruptive innovation, but it does not discriminate the others.
• It is worth noting that the participants made their assessment thinking about their context.
• **The platform is the first technological resource integrated into their institution.
• It is convenient to calculate the (statistical) validity.
THANK YOU
• Abel García-González
• Escuela de Humanidades y Educación Tecnológico de
Monterrey
• Monterrey México
María Soledad Ramírez Montoya Escuela de Humanidades y Educación
Tecnológico de Monterrey Monterrey México [email protected]
