Abstract
This study adds that:•Innovators vs. Adaptors: Innovators displayed higher Failure Tolerance in terms of Affect subscale but lower in Action-oriented responses compared to Adaptors. This study validates the usefulness of the KAI scale to measure individual students’ Innovation Tendencies.•Changes in Innovative Tendencies: Adaptors became more innovative, while Innovators adopted more adaptive traits over the DBL course, demonstrating the dynamic nature of these tendencies in a DBL environment. This has implications for DBL design in terms of the DBL implementation to develop Adaptive/Innovative Tendencies. This finding also raises two important questions on whether (i) we should also embrace Adaptive skills and (ii) consider team creativity and innovation as a result of the composition of Adaptors and Innovators in a team.•Impact of DBL on Failure Tolerance: The DBL course increased students' overall Failure Tolerance, particularly in their willingness to tackle challenging problems (Preferred Difficulty subscale). The findings from this study show that while Innovation Tendencies are associated with Failure Tolerance, an increase in Failure Tolerance is associated with both Innovativeness and Adaptiveness and not just Innovativeness as we first postulated. This suggests that we need to reexamine the role of Failure Tolerance in developing creativity and innovation.•These insights contribute to the understanding of how educational strategies can be tailored to enhance creativity and innovation among students with different cognitive styles. The study emphasizes the importance of creating learning environments that encourage risk-taking and resilience, which are critical for fostering innovation.
Creativity and innovation are essential skills for navigating today's volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world. This study examines students’ Innovative Tendencies and Failure Tolerance in a Design-Based Learning (DBL) course at a Singaporean university. Grounded in the premise that DBL fosters both traits and that Failure Tolerance underpins Innovativeness, we administered the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) and the School Failure Tolerance (SFT) scale to 240 students at the start and end of the course. Post-data collection, students were categorized as Adaptors and Innovators based on their overall KAI score. Results indicate that Adaptors and Innovators differed in their Failure Tolerance. Innovators have higher Affect (emotional resilience) but lower Action (structured problem-solving response) than Adaptors. While overall KAI scores remain unchanged after DBL, deeper analysis revealed a shift: Adaptors’ Innovative Tendencies increased, while Innovators’ Innovative Tendencies decreased. Additionally, students became more Failure-tolerant over the DBL course, particularly in terms of Preferred Difficulty. These results suggest that DBL fosters the development of both traits, and that Failure Tolerance alone does not fully account for Innovativeness. By disentangling dimensions of Failure Tolerance and linking them to Innovative Tendencies, this study adds granularity to existing models of innovation development in educational settings.