Search results

As a sector, higher education is at the low end of innovation rankings. The challenges we face – demographic, technological, political, and pedagogical – will require sustained innovation at a strategic level. Recent research with mature companies has identified exemplars in strategic innovation (e.g., O’Connor, Corbett, & Peters, 2018). This work explores whether – and how – higher education institutions might adapt insights from the corporate sector for strategic innovation in teaching and learning.

The introductory section provides an overview of the nature of strategic innovation (and why it is hard to sustain), strategic issues facing higher education, and the status and challenges of sustaining strategic innovation for teaching. The next two sections describe insights from research with corporate exemplars of sustaining strategic innovation. Each section uses a scenario from higher education as a proof-of-concept test to explore the application of the corporate sector insights for strategic innovation in higher education teaching and learning.

The final section of the chapter discusses the planned next steps to prototype and test adaptation of these corporate sector insights with institutional innovation leaders in higher education, as well as additional potential sources of insights (from other research in the corporate sector and from strategic innovation in the public sector).

The aim of this chapter is to shed light on the perspectives of organizational innovation in higher education in light of socio-economic transformations as articulated in Vision 2030 for Saudi Arabia. A case study evaluating strategic innovation at the Arabian Gulf University (AGU) in Bahrain was conducted using Balanced Score Cards. A questionnaire was designed to capture enablers and barriers in organizational innovation in higher education. The chapter concluded that institutional inertia, limited implementation and evaluation processes are the key impediments for organizational learning and knowledge management. The study recommends to incorporate organizational innovation to foster entrepreneurship, strategic innovation and learning at higher education institutions (HEI).

Active and transformative learning (ATL) challenges the new era of teaching and learning in higher education. In this chapter a systematic approach to ATL theories and methodologies is provided. Authors provide a unique methodological framework for the integration of active learning practices in modern higher education curricula. This chapter also provides an integrated context for the overall discussion of the phenomenon in the volume. The recent arrivals of new disruptive artificial intelligence-enabled technologies such as OpenAI, ChatGPT, DeepAI and others are only few aspects of a new challenging era for the teaching, learning, innovation and sustainability in the higher education.

The universal “promise of entrepreneurship” has gone far beyond the borders of countries where it emerged. Education systems might play an important role in this process by legitimizing entrepreneurship related myths, principles, and social hierarchies. Surprisingly, against the literature on the role of education in producing and allocating human capital, entrepreneurship education development on organizational, national, and global scale is only emerging as a theme of mainstream academic discussions. This paper applies multi-level approach to get insights on what role might higher education have in promoting global “entrepreneurial culture,” with a focus on post-Soviet countries. We analyze supra-national initiatives, national policies, leading universities’ practices, and the actual characteristics of entrepreneurship education programs in these universities. Our results suggest that drivers of entrepreneurship education development in national higher education systems of post-Soviet countries are not only the “concrete” and “technical” institutional factors on the national level, but also the broader cultural environment. Though institutional environment in post-Soviet countries does not always objectively meet high international standards we found many cases when official policy documents state goals related to teaching entrepreneurship in higher education and there are concrete programs devoted to entrepreneurship education sharing largely similar “entrepreneurial” worldviews. We also found that the actual perceptions and strategies of the actors directly involved in entrepreneurship education practices demonstrate much higher similarity than formally declared education policies in the related countries.

This chapter proposes a reconceptualization of undergraduate education to support the development of students as agents of positive social change. Social innovation education is put forward as a new pedagogy for the twenty-first century.

The chapter outlines a series of studies carried out at the University of Northampton between 2014 and 2015 to investigate social innovation education as a pedagogical design and practice for undergraduate curricula. Drawing on phenomenography, systematic literature review, and theory building, this chapter sets out conceptual, theoretical, and practical frameworks for designing and facilitating social innovation education.

Research findings include an ontology for understanding the concept of social innovation education, as well as a set of graduate attributes for designing learning for social change. A model of pedagogical praxis is proposed that supports the development of teaching and learning toward a more critical and socially impactful approach.

Despite some similarities to entrepreneurship and enterprise education, social innovation education is distinctive in its focus on social change-making with or without financial gain. Not only does this chapter present a set of abstract and practical tools for embedding social innovation in an undergraduate program, but also it provides a possible methodology for institutions who wish to embody particular principles within their curricular offerings.

This chapter is influenced by the globally renowned pillars of good governance which are independence, transparency, accountability, fairness and responsibility. Even, with a plethora of literature on these five pillars, little has been published with regards to how these conform or contradict with the upsurge of virtualised teaching and learning. Current developments in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are supporting application of educational technologies as a trajectory into the Zimbabwean Education 5.0 (teaching, research, community service, industrialisation and innovation) accompanied by the COVID-19 pandemic. There is an increasing use of e-learning platforms for individual and collaborated learning which are both synchronous and asynchronous. It gave path to the adoption of e-learning systems which includes ZOOM, Google Class, Microsoft Teams and many others. The challenge with these learning platforms is that they reduce or totally eliminate physical and human interaction in higher education. Though there is little evidence, it has become a cause of concern that through virtualised learning, there is an increase in unethical classroom practices. In the interest of the aforementioned, this book chapter interrogated literature on e-learning resources in line with the needed governing ethics influenced by COVID-19 pandemic.

This chapter provides a critical discussion of challenge-based learning (CBL) within future trends in higher education (HE). It explores how CBL may address challenges facing higher education institutions (HEIs) in response to these future trends by using a framework of common CBL characteristics. Clear recommendations for CBL practitioners to succeed in CBL implementation within the ever-changing HE landscape are presented. It complements previous chapters on CBL case studies by situating CBL in the broader HE space. A discussion on the interrelationships between these characteristics and predictions on the future integration of CBL in HE concludes this chapter. These macrolevel discussions of CBL will be of interest to government officials, managers, business stakeholders, teachers, policy advisors, and academic teachers. Insights on the future institutional impact of CBL, how it may improve business and academic collaborations, how it aligns with sustainability and transversal skills policies, and where CBL is situated in the post-COVID-19 landscape are discussed. Ultimately, it argues that CBL is part of a pedagogical toolkit to meet future trends in HE.

This research paper aims to better understand the network structure of higher education in North America. It draws on a relationally networked dataset of 1,292 degree-granting colleges and universities in North America to develop a modularity class approach to categorizing colleges and universities based on their own self-defined peer networks and assesses the utility of the modularity class approach as well as several measures of network centrality for predicting offerings of new curricular fields. Results show that not all measures of network centrality equally predict organizational change outcomes, with hub/authority position being most important. Additionally, results show that an empirically derived modularity class approach to categorizing organizations has important strengths in relation to more typical approaches based on prestige or perceived organizational characteristics. The approaches detailed in this paper will be useful for future analysts seeking to explain the spread of innovations and behavior across the higher education institutional field, as well as those seeking to understand clustering and organizational divergence.