IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v50y2016i2p491-507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of open innovative teaching approach toward student satisfaction: a case of Si-Men Primary School

Author

Listed:
  • Ping-Chang Lee
  • Cheng-Ta Lin
  • Hsin-Hong Kang

Abstract

This study intends to explore the influence of innovative teaching approach toward attitude, knowledge acquisition, intention, and learning satisfaction. The innovative teaching approach combines external resources to design interesting and interactive curriculums for stimulating students’ imagination, cultivating the ability of problem solving, and facilitating independent thinking. We adopted the concepts of open innovation and technology acceptance model to develop our framework. A total of 109 questionnaires were filled out by sixth grade students, who have complete the curriculum, in Si-Men Primary school, with 109 valid responses returned. At first, we found that the open innovative teaching approach appeared to have a positive influence on students’ learning attitude and knowledge acquisition. Second, better learning attitudes and knowledge acquisition had positive influence on learning intention. Third, learning intention increased student satisfaction of learning. In addition, we also verified the attitude and knowledge acquisition played as mediator between open innovative teaching approach and learning intention. Therefore, we believe that interesting and interactive approaches may foster a stronger motivation to learn new skills, acquire knowledge and increase student learning satisfaction. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Ping-Chang Lee & Cheng-Ta Lin & Hsin-Hong Kang, 2016. "The influence of open innovative teaching approach toward student satisfaction: a case of Si-Men Primary School," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 491-507, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:50:y:2016:i:2:p:491-507
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-015-0160-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11135-015-0160-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-015-0160-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    3. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    4. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1993. "Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 24(4), pages 625-645, December.
    5. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    6. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    7. Marios Koufaris, 2002. "Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to Online Consumer Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 205-223, June.
    8. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    9. Shirley Taylor & Peter A. Todd, 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 144-176, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peijie Jiang & Tommy Tanu Wijaya & Mailizar Mailizar & Zulfah Zulfah & Astuti Astuti, 2022. "How Micro-Lectures Improve Learning Satisfaction and Achievement: A Combination of ECM and Extension of TAM Models," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Cheng-Ta Lin, 2022. "The key elements for being excellent teachers: a case study of Her-Herng Primary School," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 2265-2279, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    2. Ye Jin Lee & Kwangsoo Shin & Eungdo Kim, 2019. "The Influence of a Firm’s Capability and Dyadic Relationship of the Knowledge Base on Ambidextrous Innovation in Biopharmaceutical M&As," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Sabyasachi Sinha, 2015. "The Exploration–Exploitation Dilemma: A Review in the Context of Managing Growth of New Ventures," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(3), pages 313-323, September.
    4. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    5. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    6. José Andrade & Mário Franco & Luis Mendes, 2021. "Technological capacity and organisational ambidexterity: the moderating role of environmental dynamism on Portuguese technological SMEs," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 2111-2136, October.
    7. Mihalache, Mashiho & Mihalache, Oli R., 2016. "Organizational ambidexterity and sustained performance in the tourism industry," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 142-144.
    8. Yasser Alizadeh & Antonie J. Jetter, 2019. "Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-33, August.
    9. Xiao, Fenglong & Shen, Yinjie, 2024. "Wolves at the door to the unknown: Innovation search and hedge fund activism," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    10. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    11. Katou, Anastasia A. & Budhwar, Pawan S. & Patel, Charmi, 2021. "A trilogy of organizational ambidexterity: Leader’s social intelligence, employee work engagement and environmental changes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 688-700.
    12. Sebastian Raisch & Michael L. Tushman, 2016. "Growing New Corporate Businesses: From Initiation to Graduation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1237-1257, October.
    13. Jensen, Are & Clausen, Tommy H., 2017. "Origins and emergence of exploration and exploitation capabilities in new technology-based firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 163-175.
    14. François Constant & Richard Calvi & Thomas Johnsen, 2020. "Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing function ambidexterity Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing functio," Post-Print hal-02891790, HAL.
    15. Mirta Díaz & Susana Pasamar & Ramón Valle, 2012. "Are Ambidextrous Intellectual Capital and HRM Needed for an Ambidextrous Learning?," Working Papers 12.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Business Organization and Marketing (former Department of Business Administration).
    16. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.
    17. YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou & Nilesh Saraf, 2020. "Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1376-1397, December.
    18. Khan, Zaheer & Lew, Yong Kyu & Marinova, Svetla, 2019. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in emerging economies: The role of realized absorptive capacity and learning intent," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 499-512.
    19. Fourné, Sebastian P.L. & Rosenbusch, Nina & Heyden, Mariano L.M. & Jansen, Justin J.P., 2019. "Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 564-576.
    20. McCarthy, Killian J & Aalbers, Hendrik Leendert, 2022. "Alliance-to-acquisition transitions: The technological performance implications of acquiring one's alliance partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:50:y:2016:i:2:p:491-507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.