Search results

In the era of the digital economy, higher demands are placed on versatile talents, and the cultivation of students with innovative and entrepreneurial abilities has become an important issue for the further development of higher education, thus leading to extensive and in-depth research by many scholars. The study summarizes the characteristics and patterns of dual-innovation education at different stages of development, hoping to provide a systematic model for the development of dual-innovation education in China and make up for the shortcomings.

This paper uses Citespace software to visualize and analyze the relevant literature in CNKI and Web of Science databases from a bibliometric perspective, focusing on quantitative analysis in terms of article trends, topic clustering, keyword co-linear networks and topic time evolution, etc., to summarize and sort out the development of innovation and entrepreneurship education research at home and abroad.

The study found that the external characteristics of the literature published in the field of bi-innovation education in China and abroad are slightly different, mainly in that foreign publishers are more closely connected and have formed a more stable ecosystem. In terms of research hotspots, China is still in a critical period of reforming its curriculum and teaching model, and research on the integration of specialization and creative education is in full swing, while foreign countries focus more on the cultivation of students' entrepreneurial awareness and the enhancement of individual effectiveness. In terms of cutting-edge analysis, the main research directions in China are “creative education”, “new engineering”, “integration of industry and education” and “rural revitalization”.

Innovation and entrepreneurship education in China is still in its infancy, and most of the studies lack an overall overview and comparison of foreign studies. Based on the econometric analysis of domestic and foreign literature, this paper proposes a path for domestic innovation and entrepreneurship education reform that can make China's future education reform more effective.

The purpose of this study is to determine the differences and similarities between the terms entrepreneurship and innovation when they are implemented in teaching–learning processes involved in the education field and the main characteristics of entrepreneurial and innovative individuals.

A qualitative methodology was used. A total of 21 Spanish experts in entrepreneurship and/or innovation in education at different levels participated in in-depth structured interviews.

There seems to be some connection between entrepreneurship and innovation, as there are cases in which one involves the other. Although innovation is more related to the improvement of processes, products and services, entrepreneurship is linked to the creation and setting up of businesses. Educational entrepreneurship and innovation could be defined in the same way. Entrepreneurship education, in contrast to innovation education, encompasses innovation but goes beyond it. It includes curricula and long-lasting educational changes that are part of a more comprehensive organisational approach and educational plan, oriented to the accomplishment of teaching–learning outcomes. More characteristics were mentioned for entrepreneurs than for innovators.

This study is an initial attempt to explore ideas from experts in education that could facilitate the work of teachers and educational stakeholders in a crucial area, entrepreneurial and/or innovative education. Having an entrepreneurial attitude is essential for individuals in a globalised society to successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The purpose of this paper is to present an analytical review of the educational innovation field in the USA. It outlines classification of innovations, discusses the hurdles to innovation, and offers ways to increase the scale and rate of innovation-based transformations in the education system.

The paper is based on a literature survey and author research.

US education badly needs effective innovations of scale that can help produce the needed high-quality learning outcomes across the system. The primary focus of educational innovations should be on teaching and learning theory and practice, as well as on the learner, parents, community, society, and its culture. Technology applications need a solid theoretical foundation based on purposeful, systemic research, and a sound pedagogy. One of the critical areas of research and innovation can be cost and time efficiency of the learning.

Several practical recommendations stem out of this paper: how to create a base for large-scale innovations and their implementation; how to increase effectiveness of technology innovations in education, particularly online learning; how to raise time and cost efficiency of education.

Innovations in education are regarded, along with the education system, within the context of a societal supersystem demonstrating their interrelations and interdependencies at all levels. Raising the quality and scale of innovations in education will positively affect education itself and benefit the whole society.

Originality is in the systemic approach to education and educational innovations, in offering a comprehensive classification of innovations; in exposing the hurdles to innovations, in new arguments about effectiveness of technology applications, and in time efficiency of education.

The capability to create and manage innovations is recognized as an important skill not only for entrepreneurial activities but also for the survival of organizations. The last few decades have seen a noticeable growth in innovation education programs across the world. Innovation education is on the cusp of moving from being an optional subject to becoming a part of the core curricula. Given these recent developments, it is timely to review scholarship on innovation education carried out to date. The purpose of this paper is to present a review of the literature on innovation education programs.

This article employs a systematic and reproducible thematic analysis of the literature.

The review finds innovation education to be an emerging field with multiple concepts and frameworks in need of consolidation. Additionally, there is a marked dominance of this subject in traditional domains such as engineering, business, medicine and little or no presence in nontraditional domains such as humanities or social sciences. Challenges remain in the field for the development of standardized effectiveness measurement techniques.

This article puts forward a case for considering scholarship on innovation education as a unique field on its own and examines previous work in this domain to understand the emerging frameworks, pedagogy, evaluations and definitions. By doing so, the article aims to offer guidance for the adoption of innovation education, as well as creating a foundation for further research in this area by highlighting the gaps in the existing literature.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize the trends for educational innovation in higher education in Brazil, constructing a conceptual model of innovation trends in the sector.

A preliminary profile online was done with 76 experts in university education, and 17 were contacted for in-depth perceptions. The analysis of the content was made of all material and, as a result, the critical analysis of the results, which culminated in the development of a conceptual model and characterization of trends, dimensions and subdimensions to innovation in higher education.

The dimension universal design of accessibility and learning had major considerations, contributing to implementation of new innovative practices for higher education. Some subdimensions emerged, namely, governance, risk management, curricular extension and affirmative policies.

The difficulty in performing the deepening of all dimensions involved in terms of plurality of specialties involved.

The use of the model and characterization of trends could serve as tools to support the strategic planning of HEI, and the trends allow planning innovation practices, favoring improvements of higher education institutions (HEI), students, employees and community to learning organization.

The identification of trends for higher education, highlighting innovation indicators or successful practices, and the characterization of the dimensions and subdimensions trends, and undeniable contribution to measure the educational innovation in higher education.

Encourages researchers, in partnership with institutions, to develop scientific projects with other institutions and researchers, to meet interests not only of HEI as a whole but also of countries that prioritize education with quality, to reach the real educational objectives.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the synergies, similarities and differences between entrepreneurship and innovation education and training programs, with the aim of challenging the context of such programs.

This study utilises an extensive review of extant literature in the fields of innovation, entrepreneurship and education. The literature, propositions and discussion are intended to provide a bridge between entrepreneurship and innovation education and training programs and seek to address the scientific legitimacy of these education and training disciplines as separate, yet integrated disciplines.

Identifies a need to reconsider the diversity and relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship education and training, primarily from contextual, theoretical, measurement, distinctiveness, content, pedagogical and typology points of view. The range of multiple teaching models and learning processes to embrace in various contexts.

The propositions allow for the combination of teaching initiatives in a theory-driven framework and their applicability to specific entrepreneurship and innovation education and training situations.

The authors’ contribution identifies the synergies and differences between entrepreneurship education and training programs. The propositions highlight areas of contextualisation and practice-based view application, to adopt specific learning initiatives between constructs.

The authors address a gap in the literature regarding the delineation of entrepreneurship and innovation education and training, which has thus far remained sparsely addressed in the education and training literature. The authors provide a practice-based view of propositions, developed for future testing.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether female workers’ years of education do mediate the influence of gender diversity on innovative capability of enterprises in Nigeria.

The study uses three waves Nigeria Enterprise Surveys panel dataset collected in 2007, 2009 and 2014, for a sample of 1,566 enterprises to circumvent the problems associated with application of cross-sectional designs in mediation studies. The study applies Hicks and Tingley’s (2011) two equations mediation analysis approach with robust standard error.

The results of the inferential analysis indicate that female workers’ years of education mediate fully and positively the effect of gender diversity on innovative capability of enterprises in Nigeria.

For gender diversity to enhance the innovative capability of an enterprise, female workers must be empowered with higher levels of formal education.

Female workers should be empowered with formal education in order to enhance the ability of firms to innovate. Gender diversity alone does not enhance the innovative capability of an enterprise without empowering female workers with formal education.

Although past studies do provide substantial evidence on the positive relationship between gender diversity and the innovative capability of enterprises, the mediating effect of education on this relationship has been ignored. This is particularly relevant in a country such as Nigeria with low levels of innovation. Furthermore, despite the presumed positive effect of gender diversity on innovative capability, existing empirical research does not yield consistent findings to clearly resolve how or why gender diversity does affect the innovative capability of enterprises. This paper tests whether it could be the result of a mediating (intervening) variable.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a theoretical framework to support the embedding of social innovation education in existing academic programmes.

By adopting Conole et al.’s (2004) methodological approach to reviewing, mapping and modelling learning theory, this study addresses four research questions: how can social innovation education be defined? Which learning theories best support social innovation education? How do such learning theories relate to existing models of learning in higher education? What implications does a social innovation pedagogy have for learning design?

Findings suggest that social innovation education is supported by a praxis that is grounded in critical learning theory, transformational learning theory and epistemological development. By extending Conole et al.’s (2004) model of learning theory, the present study proposes a “zone of pedagogical praxis for social innovation education” that supports learning design on a more critical plane.

The proposed model of learning may be of interest to other universities as they work towards stronger thinkers and stronger communities.

Using a theory-informed model for learning design nurtures a pedagogical praxis and underpins the development of a practical toolkit for designing social innovation education.

The findings of this study will provide a point of reference for other higher education institutions as they look for guidance on embedding principles of social innovation into their curricula.

Much justification for third sector involvement in education advances from the notion that attributes from business and non-profit fields could benefit state-run public schools. The purpose of this paper is to explore this issue by examining theoretical underpinnings and expectations for third sector participation in public education systems, particularly with respect to educational innovations and improvements, and the structural opportunities, incentives, and impediments for such innovation.

The question is how third sector participation shapes the rate, nature, and types of innovations in education as schools interact in response to competitive pressures. This conceptual analysis of the third sector examines the political-economic features and structures of the sector in fostering innovation, with reference to the US sector that was specifically positioned to enhance the innovative capacity of publicly funded education.

The analysis indicates that educational innovations are not necessarily more prevalent in or because of the third sector, and that there are obstacles to their creation and diffusion. Moreover, schools often respond to competitive incentives in ways unanticipated by policymakers, such as school marketing rather than instructional improvement, sometimes in ways detrimental to goals set out for public education, such as social sorting. In fact, instead of the third sector simply developing or incentivizing innovations, there is evidence that this sector has adopted innovations developed in the state sector.

The analysis suggests that a third sector based more on a professional, as opposed to a competitive, model may better facilitate the development of innovative capacity in education.