Towards Smart Innovation for Information Systems and Technology Students: Modelling Motivation, Metacognition and Affective Aspects of Learning

  • James Ngugi
  • Leila GoosenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 111)


Literature identified multiple factors, which promote Innovative Behavior (IB) among employees. The problem stated is that facilitating the development of IB among undergraduate Information Technology (IT) Higher Education Institution (HEI) learners is, however, not well understood. The proposed scheme or solution included addressing this literature gap through an examination of how motivation, metacognition and affective aspects of learning, as components of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies (CMSs), act as antecedents of IB, via the action of Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB). Models of teaching and learning, as well as aspects related to motivational diagnosis and feedback that promote metacognition, motivation and affect, were considered. The research employed a quantitative cross-sectional survey, with the subjects being 268 learners enrolled in IT programs, from seven Kenyan public HEIs. Data collected using a questionnaire, together with a 2,000-bootstrap sample generated, tested standardized total, direct and indirect effects. Major findings are summated in a structural equation model for learners in an educational context, which largely supported all hypotheses. Findings also revealed that CMSs acted as a significant driver of KS and IB among undergraduate IT learners. The conclusions include recommendations, which enable HEI managers to leverage attributes of IB antecedents, including tasks and problem-solving processes, in learning contexts.


Innovation Information systems and technology students Motivation Metacognition Affective aspects of learning 


  1. 1.
    Al-Husseini, S., Elbeltagi, I.: Transformational leadership and innovation: a comparison study between Iraq’s public and private university education. Stud. Univ. Educ. 41(1), 159–181 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ngugi, J., Goosen, L.: Modelling course-design characteristics, self-regulated learning and the mediating effect of knowledge-sharing behavior as drivers of individual innovative behavior. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 14(8), 1–18 (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Annosi, M., Magnusson, M., Martini, A., Appio, F.: Social conduct, learning and innovation: an abductive study of the dark side of agile software development. Creativity Innov. Manage. 25, 515–535, (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morgeson, F.P., Humphrey, S.E.: The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J. Appl. Psychol. 91(6), 1321–1339 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hart, J.: How digital equity and workplace learning influence acceptance of a knowledge sharing behaviour technology in the higher education workplace. Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stenius, M., Hankonen, N., Haukkala, A., Ravaja, N.: Understanding knowledge sharing behaviour in the work context by applying a belief elicitation study. J. Knowl. Manag. 19(3), 497–513 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gross, N., Kluge, A.: Predictors of knowledge-sharing behavior for teams in extreme environments: an example from the steel industry. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 8(4), 352–373 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edú-Valsania, S., Moriano, J.A., Molero, F.: Authentic leadership and employee knowledge sharing behaviour: mediation of the innovation climate and workgroup identification. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 37(4), 487–506 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gomes, C., Curral, L., Caetano, A., Marques-Quinteiro, P.: Better off together: a cluster analysis of self-leadership and its relationship to individual innovation in hospital nurses. Psicologia 29(1), 45–58 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gurtner, S., Reinhardt, R.: Ambidextrous idea generation-antecedents and outcomes. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 33(S1), 34–54 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Disrupt Africa: Africa Tech Startups Funding Report 2016 (2016).
  12. 12.
    Technoran: Mark Zuckerberg in Nairobi to meet with entrepreneurs and developers (2016). Accessed 22 Mar 2017
  13. 13.
    Commission for University Education (CUE): Statistics on University Education in Kenya. CUE, Nairobi (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., McKeachie, W.J.: A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Technical report 91-B-004, The Regents of the University of Michigan, Michigan (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pintrich, P.R.: Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 92(3), 544–555 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yi, J.: A measure of knowledge sharing behavior: scale development and validation. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 7(1), 65–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McKibben, W.B., Silvia, P.J.: Inattentive and socially desirable responding: addressing subtle threats to validity in quantitative counseling research. Couns. Outcome Res. Eval. 7(1), 53–64 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hartjes, B.J.G.: Aligning employee competences with organizational innovation strategy: a case study at B.V. Twentsche Kabelfabriek. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kleysen, R.F., Street, C.T.: Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. J. Intellect. Cap. 2(3), 284–296 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cimenler, O., Reeves, K.A., Skvoretz, J., Oztekin, A.: A causal analytic model to evaluate the impact of researchers’ individual innovativeness on their collaborative outputs. J. Model. Manag. 11(2), 585–611 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wojtczuk-Turek, A., Turek, D.: The significance of perceived social-organization climate for creating employees’ innovativeness: the mediating role of person-organization fit. Manag. Res. Rev. 39(2), 167–195 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arpaci, I., Baloğlu, M.: The impact of cultural collectivism on knowledge sharing among information technology majoring undergraduates. Comput. Hum. Behav. 56, 65–71 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wipawayangkool, K., Teng, J.T.: Assessing tacit knowledge and sharing intention: a knowledge internalization perspective. Knowl. Process. Manag. 23(3), 194–206 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garcia-Perez-de-Lema, D., Madrid-Guijarro, A., Martin, D.P.: Influence of university–firm governance on SMEs innovation and performance levels. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 123, 250–261 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dhar, R.L.: Ethical leadership and its impact on service innovative behavior: The role of LMX and job autonomy. Tour. Manag. 57, 139–148 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kiratli, N., Rozemeijer, F., Hilken, T., De Ruyter, K., De Jong, A.: Climate setting in sourcing teams: developing a measurement scale for team creativity climate. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 22(3), 196–204 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., Van Hootegem, G.: Not all autonomy is the same. Different dimensions of job autonomy and their relation to work engagement & innovative work behavior. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 26(4), 515–527 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Enders, C.K.: A review of handbook of missing data methodology. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 41(5), 554–556 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mamun, A.S.M.A., Zubairi, Y.Z., Hussin, A.G., Rana, S.: A comparison of missing data handling methods in linear structural relationship model: evidence from BDHS2007 data. Electron. J. Appl. Stat. Anal. 9(1), 122–133 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Falk, C.F., Biesanz, J.C.: Two cross-platform programs for inferences and interval estimation about indirect effects in mediational models. SAGE Open 6(1), 1–13 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim, J.H.: Bias-correction and endogenous lag order algorithm for bootstrap prediction intervals. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 177, 41–44 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nguyen, H.-O., Nguyen, H.-V., Chang, Y.-T., Chin, A.J., Tongzon, J.: Measuring port efficiency using bootstrapped DEA: the case of Vietnamese ports. Marit. Policy & Manag. 43(5), 644–659 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shintani, M., Guo, Z.: Improving the finite sample performance of autoregression estimators in dynamic factor models: a bootstrap approach. Econ. Rev. 37(4), 360–379 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Giebels, E., De Reuver, R.S., Rispens, S., Ufkes, E.G.: The critical roles of task conflict and job autonomy in the relationship between proactive personalities and innovative employee behavior. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 52(3), 320–341 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gkorezis, P.: Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovative behaviour: a moderated mediation model. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 30(6), 1030–1044 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zheng, W., Skelton, G., Shih, H., Leggette, E., Pei, T.: Nurture motivated, confident, and strategic learners in engineering through cognitive and psychological instructions for an entry-level course. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations