Innovation Level Amongst Engineering And Non-Engineering Undergraduate Students In One Of The University In Malaysia


Engineers of the future must be capable of working successfully in multidisciplinary teams. Consequently, to advance innovative endeavours, engineering education and training should be considered in economic policies. The purpose of this study was to determine the significance of differences in innovation capabilities between engineering and non-engineering students. The research design is quantitative, using a questionnaire as the research instrument. The population were undergraduate students at a Malaysian university. Only 223 out of 370 respondents provided feedback within two weeks of data collection. 117 were non-engineering students, and the other 106 were engineering students. To measure the differences between the two groups of students, an inferential t-test was used. The Rasch analysis approach was applied to analyse the profiles of the students. The results showed that the innovation level of engineering students was greater than that of non-engineering students. Nonengineering students demonstrate marginally more (n=105, 47.09%) than engineering students (n=99, 44.39%) in “Very High Levels” of innovation. As a result, engineering education has grown and increased demand to efficiently train a diverse group of engineers for these challenges.

Keywords: innovation; independent sample t test; engineering students;nonengineering students; Rasch analysis; profile

[1] Abdullah I, Omar R, Panatik SA. A literature review on personality, creativity and innovative behavior. International Review of Management and Marketing. 2016;6:177–182.

[2] Ahmad Z, Abdullah S. Pembudayaan inovasi di politeknik dan kolej komuniti. 2015.

[3] Amabile TM. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior. 1988;10:123–167.

[4] Dakhli M, De Clercq D. Human capital, social capital, and innovation: A multi-country study. Entrepreneurship & regional development. 2004;16:107–128.

[5] Dobni CB. Measuring innovation culture in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2008;11:539–559.

[6] Duderstadt JJ. Holistic engineering education. Germany: Springer; 2010. Engineering for a changing world. p. 17–35.

[7] Ferguson Daniel M, Ohland Matthew W. What is engineering innovativeness? International Journal of Engineering Education. 2011;28.

[8] Ferguson DM, Jablokow KW, Ohland MW, Purzer Ş. Identifying the characteristics of engineering innovativeness. Engineering Studies. 2017;9:45–73.

[9] Fonseca T, de Faria P, Lima F. Human capital and innovation: The importance of the optimal organizational task structure. Research Policy. 2019;48:616–627.

[10] Genco N, Hölttä Otto K, Seepersad CC. An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education. 2012;101:60–81.

[11] Gliner JA, Morgan GA, Leech NL. Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. London, UK: Routledge; 2011.

[12] Hurt HT, Joseph K, Cook CD. Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research. 1977;4:58–65.

[13] Jakovljevic M. A model for innovation in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education. 2018;32:109–131.

[14] Jamieson LH, Lohmann JR. Innovation with impact: Creating a culture for scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education. Washington: American Society for Engineering Education; 2012. p. 77.

[15] Kanter RM. Change masters. New York, USA: Simon and Schuster; 1984.

[16] Kessler A, Pachucki C, Stummer K, Mair M, Binder P. Types of organizational innovativeness and success in Austrian hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2015;27:1707–1727.

[17] Law KM, Breznik K. Impacts of innovativeness and attitude on entrepreneurial intention: Among engineering and non-engineering students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2017;27:683–700.

[18] Manzini E. Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press; 2015.

[19] McKenzie LJ, Trevisan MS, Davis DC, Beyerlein SW. Capstone design courses and assessment: A national study. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. 2004.

[20] Menold J, Jablokow KW, Ferguson DM, Purzer S, Ohland MW. The characteristics of engineering innovativeness: A cognitive mapping and review of instruments. International Journal of Engineering Education; 2016;32:64–83.

[21] Millet C, Oget D, Cavallucci D. Open the ‘black box‘creativity and innovation: A study of activities in R&D departments. Some prospects for engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education. 2017;42:1000–1024.

[22] Mulder M. Conceptions of professional competence. International handbook of research in professional and practice-based learning.Germany: Springer; 2014. p. 107–137.

[23] Oehlberg L, Leighton I, Agogino A, Hartmann B. Teaching human-centered design innovation across engineering, humanities and social sciences. International Journal of Engineering Education. 2012;28:484.

[24] Omar MZ, Rodzo’An N, Saidfudin M, Zaharim A, Basri H. Easier analysis and better reporting using Rasch model to handle rank data in engineering education research. RCEE & RHEd. 2010.

[25] Passig D, Cohen L. Measuring the style of innovative thinking among engineering students. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2014;32:56–77.

[26] Popescu C, Diaconu L. Human capital and innovation. Romania: Analele Universitatii din Oradea, Forthcoming; 2008. Available from:

[27] Rashid RA, Abdullah R, Ghulman HA, Masodi MS. Application of Rasch-based ESPEGS model in measuring generic skills of engineering students: A new paradigm. Engineering Education. 2008;5:591–602.

[28] Schar M, Gilmartin S, Harris A, Rieken B, Sheppard S. Innovation self-efficacy: A very brief measure for engineering students. Paper presented at the Proceedings for the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 25–28. Columbus, OH. 2017.

[29] Sommer LP, Heidenreich S, Handrich M. War for talents—How perceived organizational innovativeness affects employer attractiveness. R&D Management. 2017;47:299–310.

[30] Sullivan A, Sheffrin S. Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2003.

[31] Urabe K. Innovation and Management International Comparisons. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1988. Urabe K, Child J, Kagono T, editors. Innovation and the Japanese management system. Available from PA3&dq=Innovation+and+the+Japanese+management+system&source= bl&ots=ErwUjfxUMt&sig=ad_ob5g1yikUlXoqHCUjrUEEz6k&hl=en&sa=X&ei= wIq0VPXvHZG3uQSV9IGwBQ&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Innovation% 20and%20the%20Japanese%20management%20system&f=false

[32] Van der Panne G, Van Beers C, Kleinknecht A. Success and failure of innovation: A literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management. 2003;7:309–338.

[33] Wang H, Begley T, Hui C, Lee C. Are the effects of conscientiousness on contextual and innovative performance context specific? Organizational culture as a moderator. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2012;23:174–189.

[34] West MA. A measure of role innovation at work. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2987;26:83–85.

[35] West MA. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology. 2002;51:355– 387.

[36] Wright PM, Dunford BB, Snell SA. Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management. 2001;27:701–721.

[37] Zaini U. Budaya inovasi prasyarat model baru ekonomi. Johor: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Press; 2010.

[38] Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia O, Pant HA, Lautenbach C, Molerov D, Toepper M, Brückner S. Modeling and measuring competencies in higher education. Germany: Springer; 2017