As innovation is the source of competitiveness (Meyer-Stamer, 2002), innovation remains a hot topic for scientific discussions in many research fields. Many researchers agree that innovation is promoted by diversity, synergy and creativity (Lifelong Learning for Creativity and Innovation, 2008).

In education, the leading role in promotion of innovation by diversity, synergy and creativity is given to curriculum innovation as curriculum represents the teaching strategy. Moreover, the term curriculum, approach, plan (often in Germany and Russia), design, way of thinking as well as strategy and programme (Bassus, Zaščerinska, Ahrens, 2011) are used synonymously in the present research.

Such a curriculum innovation in higher education, namely “two degreesfor theprice of one”, has been introduced. The curriculum innovation “two degreesfor theprice of one” provides diversity, synergy and creativity for promotion of students’ intellectual flexibility, a certain amount of adventurousness and plain hard work (German Academic Exchange Service, 2012).  By “two degreesfor theprice of one” two national (for example, German and French Degree in Engineering) degrees are meant. The “two degreesfor theprice of one” approach demands on partner universities’ internalization, intensive international cooperation and staff mobility.

Against this background, the authors of the present contribution suggest another approach, namely acquiring two professions (for example, engineer’s and entrepreneur’s professions) within one curriculum or bi-professional curriculum.

The research question is as follows: what curriculum promotes students’ innovativeness?

The aim of the research is to analyse theoretically psychological and pedagogical findings on the promotion of students’ innovativeness in higher education underpinning elaboration of a theoretical framework of bi-professional curriculum in engineering education for promotion of students’ innovativeness.

The theoretical framework of the present research is represented by

-          the System-Constructivist Theory introduced as New or Social Constructivism Pedagogical Theory. The System-Constructivist Theory, on the one hand, implies the dialectical principle of the unity of opposites and, on the other hand, proposes that reality is socially constructed. Constructing is the creative process based on knowledge variety. Constructive process is always situation-related (L. Ose, S. Surikova, A. Fernāte, L. Daniela, D. Kalniņa, I. Maslo, 2008). The System-Constructivist approach to learning, introduced by Reich ( Reich, 2005), emphasize that

• human being’s point of view depends on the subjective aspect: everyone has his/her own system of external and internal perspectives that is a complex open system and
• experience plays the central role in the knowledge construction process (E. Maslo, 2007).

-          the Leonti’ev theory of the psychological system defined as the change in the relationship between functions for the individual development, and not the development of each function (Леонтьев, 1982),

-          bi-professional curricula (linguistic (Latvian, English, German, etc) and pedagogical curriculum) implemented at the University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.

1. Lifelong Learning for Creativity and Innovation, (2008). Lifelong Learning for Creativity and Innovation. A Background Paper. February 2008. 2. Meyer-Stamer, J., (2002). Clustering and the Creation of an Innovation-Oriented Environment for Industrial Competitiveness: Beware of Overly Optimistic Expectations. Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg, Germany, and Fundação Empreender, Joinville, Brazil. Revised Version of Paper prepared for International High-Level Seminar on Technological Innovation, sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and United Nations University, Beijing, September 5-7, 2000 Duisburg February 2002. 3. German Academic Exchange Service, (2012). Letter 03|2012.Frankfurter Societats-Medien GmbH. 4. Леонтьев, А. Н. 1982. Вступительная статья. [Introduction]. [Vstupiteljnaja statja]. In: Выготский Л. Собрание сочинений. Проблемы развития психики -- 4. тoм, pp. 3-41. . Москва “Педагогика”. [in Russian]. 560 p. 5. Bassus, O., Zaščerinska, J., Ahrens, A. (2011). From Enterprise 2.0 to 3.0: Challenges in Engineering and Business Education. In Bassus, O.; Ahrens, A.; Lange, C. (Ed.), Information and Communication Technologies in Engineering and Business (pp. 79-96). Berlin, Germany: Mensch & Buch. 6. Maslo, E. 2007. Transformative Learning Space for Life-Long Foreign Languages Learning. In: D.Cunningham, D.Markus, J.Valdmanis ... [u.c.] (Eds). International Nordic-Baltic Region Conference of FIPLV Innovations in Language Teaching and Learning in the Multicultural Context 15-16 June, 2007, Riga, Latvia, pp. 38-46. - Rīga: SIA "Izglītības soļi", 2007. CD-ROM. 416 p. 7. Ose, L., Surikova, S., Fernāte, A., Daniela, L., Kalniņa, D., Maslo, I. 2008. Jaunās paaudzes mācīšanās pamatskolā: mācīšanās panākumi kā kvalitatīvās pamatizglītības likumsakarības. ATEE Spring University Conference Teacher of the 21st Century: Quality Education for Quality Teaching University of Latvia, May 2-3, 2008, pp. 442-449. Riga, Latvia. 829 p.. 8. Reich, K. 2005. Systemisch-konstruktivistische Pädagogik. Weinheim u.a. (Beltz), 2005. 299 p. 9. Phillips, D., (2006). Comparative Education: method. Research in Comparative and International Education, Volume 1, Number 4, 2006, 304-319