Search results

Following the imperative for human-centric digital innovation brought by the paradigm of Industry 5.0, the article aims to integrate the dispersed and multi-disciplinary literature on individual risks for workers to define, explain and predict individual risks related to Industry 4.0 technologies.

The paper follows the question, “What is the current knowledge and evidence base concerning risks related to Industry 4.0 technologies, and how can this inform digital innovation management in the manufacturing sector through the lens of the Industry 5.0 paradigm?” and uses the method of systematic literature review to identify and discuss potential risks for individuals associated with digital innovation. N = 51 contributions met the inclusion criteria.

The literature review indicates dominant trends and significant gaps in understanding risks from a human-centric perspective. The paper identifies individual risks, their interplay with different technologies and their antecedents at the social, organizational and individual levels. Despite this, the paper shows how the literature concentrates in studying risks on only a limited number of categories and/or concepts. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus in the theoretical and conceptual frameworks. The paper concludes by illustrating an initial understanding of digital innovation via a human-centered perspective on psychological risks.

Findings yield practical implications. In investing in the adoption, generation or recombination of new digital technologies in organizations, the paper recommends managers ensure to prevent risks at the individual level. Accordingly, the study’s findings can be used as a common starting point for extending the repertoire of managerial practices and interventions and realizing human-centric innovation.

Following the paradigm of Industry 5.0, the paper offers a holistic view of risks that incorporates the central role of the worker as crucial to the success of digital innovation. This human-centric perspective serves to inform the managerial field about important factors in risk management that can result in more effective targeted interventions in risk mitigation approaches. Lastly, it can serve to reinterpret digital innovation management and propose future avenues of research on risk.

This case study sought to investigate the relationship between pre-service teachers’ participation in designing and delivering one-on-one literacy intervention lessons to beginning readers and their own evolving self-efficacy in literacy instruction.

The study was embedded within a 4000-level course in the elementary education major where pre-service teachers learn to administer, analyze and interpret a variety of literacy assessments. Based on the results of these assessments, pre-service teachers designed and implemented literacy lessons (twice a week, 30-min sessions) that addressed the beginning readers' specific instructional needs. Through collecting pre/post data with their first-grade intervention students, and participating in reflective “check-ins” (surveys, a focus group and end-of-course written reflection), a portrait of increased pre-service teacher self-efficacy in literacy instruction comes into focus.

The data showed, primarily through the thematic analysis of qualitative data, that the experience of conducting a one-on-one intervention with a striving reader impacted pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy positively.

The methodology of this study was limited by the small sample size and the low participant response rate on the quantitative survey measure.

This paper highlights one aspect in which clinically-rich field experiences can make a difference in the literacy instruction self-efficacy of pre-service teachers.

This study adds to the support for authentic instructional applications of course content in educator preparation programs, specifically in Professional Development School (partner school system) contexts. The aspect of observing and measuring intervention student progress was one lens through which pre-service teachers viewed their efficacy. Further investigations focusing on other assessment-instruction cycles could provide additional insights.