In iteration 3, when student teams partnered with start-up entrepreneurs, industry partners rated student conduct highest of the three iterations on 7 of 10 items, but innovation usefulness highest on only 3 of 10¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-28 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In iteration 3, when teams partnered with start-up-phase entrepreneurs, industry partners' percentage ratings of student conduct were the highest of the three iterations on 7 of 10 items (lower on consulting about the business model, knowledge of customers and explaining customer-analysis techniques), while innovation-usefulness ratings were highest on only 3 of 10 items; the authors say it is difficult to tell whether outcomes came from the interventions or external factors. → van den Berg 2024
Evidence¶
van den Berg 2024¶
van den Berg, C., & Bozalek, V. (2024). Design principles to develop digital innovation skills: a design-based research approach. Education Tech Research Dev, 72, 947–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10308-y
q2 · i? · design · r3
Post-test industry survey (30 questions, six-point Likert) in iteration 3 with teams working with entrepreneurs including a hair salon, fashion designer, recruitment agency, guest house, quantity surveyor and winemaker; Table 9 gives percentages by iteration, with no statistical test: iteration 3 is highest on 7 of the 10 conduct items (e.g. teamwork to implement a solution 83% vs 58% and 69%) but lower than an earlier iteration on three (e.g. consulting on the business model 78% vs 81%), and highest on only 3 of the 10 usefulness items (e.g. "It helps me be more effective" 78% vs 86% in iteration 2). The authors note "it is difficult to gauge whether the positive and negative outcomes were a result of the interventions, or other, external factors."
"There was an overall improvement in the results obtained from the industry in the third iteration on the conduct of teams. In their engagement with entrepreneurs, the teams were better able to sell the benefits of the digital economy, according to the findings from the last section."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Students reported insufficient engagement with industry partners and projects not real enough in iteration 2 — related
- Lasting pedagogical change is more likely when teachers try out strategies, receive feedback, and iteratively improve across multiple workshops — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
industry-feedback-improved-iteration3 |
title |
In iteration 3, when student teams partnered with start-up entrepreneurs, industry partners rated student conduct highest of the three iterations on 7 of 10 items, but innovation usefulness highest on only 3 of 10 |
description |
In iteration 3, when student teams partnered with start-up entrepreneurs, industry partners rated student conduct highest of the three iterations on 7 of 10 items, but innovation usefulness highest on only 3 of 10 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
source_checked |
2026-10-28 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — van-den-berg-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.