case studies in educational innovation

Center for Teaching Innovation

Teaching innovation case studies, creative responses to generative ai.

Since the release of new generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including ChatGPT, we’ve all been navigating both the landscape of AI in education and its implications for teaching. Over the past year, as we learned about these quickly evolving tools and observed how students are using them, many faculty have developed creative ways to respond to generative AI in a variety of learning environments.

In Spring 2024, with a goal of inspiring other instructors through the sharing of new ideas, methods, and strategies at Cornell, five faculty were recognized for their creative classroom experiences and teaching implementations using – or creatively precluding use of – generative AI.

The following case studies document their approaches and the results of their innovative work. They are downloadable and may be adapted for different courses and learning environments 

Exploring AI Image Generation for Landscape Architecture Designs   Jennifer Birkeland, Assistant Professor, Landscape Architecture, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Students used AI image generators to refine images through multiple assignments while discussing the efficacy of AI in creating these images.

AI Literacy Instruction in First-Year Writing Courses     Tracy Carrick, Senior Lecturer, John S. Knight Institute for Writing Disciplines, College of Arts and Sciences

First-year writing students engage in the creative, ethical, and pragmatic uses of generative AI as they learn critical academic literacy skills.

Building AI Literacy through Visualizing Innovative Textile Projects   Juan Hinestroza, Professor, Fiber Science and Apparel Design, College of Human Ecology

Students explore the advantages and limitations of AI image generation to visually communicate fiber science projects.

Writing about Controversies in American Politics:  Using AI to Examine Counterarguments and Definitions             Peter Katzenstein, Professor, Government, College of Arts and Sciences

Students refine their writing and critical thinking about controversial political debates by prompting generative AI for counterarguments and definitions of key concepts. 

Color-coding Strategy to Improve Student Written Argumentation   Amie Patchen, Lecturer, Public and Ecosystem Health, College of Veterinary Medicine

Students color-coding written argumentation supports the development of writing skills while also limiting opportunities for using generative AI.

Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

ISSN : 2397-7604

Article publication date: 3 April 2017

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Practical implications

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.

Social implications

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/value

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.

• Implementation
• Educational technology
• Time efficiency

Serdyukov, P. (2017), "Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Peter Serdyukov

Published in the Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning . This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Necessity is the mother of invention (Plato).

Introduction

Education, being a social institution serving the needs of society, is indispensable for society to survive and thrive. It should be not only comprehensive, sustainable, and superb, but must continuously evolve to meet the challenges of the fast-changing and unpredictable globalized world. This evolution must be systemic, consistent, and scalable; therefore, school teachers, college professors, administrators, researchers, and policy makers are expected to innovate the theory and practice of teaching and learning, as well as all other aspects of this complex organization to ensure quality preparation of all students to life and work.

Here we present a systemic discussion of educational innovations, identify the barriers to innovation, and outline potential directions for effective innovations. We discuss the current status of innovations in US education, what educational innovation is, how innovations are being integrated in schools and colleges, why innovations do not always produce the desired effect, and what should be done to increase the scale and rate of innovation-based transformations in our education system. We then offer recommendations for the growth of educational innovations. As examples of innovations in education, we will highlight online learning and time efficiency of learning using accelerated and intensive approaches.

Innovations in US education

For an individual, a nation, and humankind to survive and progress, innovation and evolution are essential. Innovations in education are of particular importance because education plays a crucial role in creating a sustainable future. “Innovation resembles mutation, the biological process that keeps species evolving so they can better compete for survival” ( Hoffman and Holzhuter, 2012 , p. 3). Innovation, therefore, is to be regarded as an instrument of necessary and positive change. Any human activity (e.g. industrial, business, or educational) needs constant innovation to remain sustainable.

The need for educational innovations has become acute. “It is widely believed that countries’ social and economic well-being will depend to an ever greater extent on the quality of their citizens’ education: the emergence of the so-called ‘knowledge society’, the transformation of information and the media, and increasing specialization on the part of organizations all call for high skill profiles and levels of knowledge. Today’s education systems are required to be both effective and efficient, or in other words, to reach the goals set for them while making the best use of available resources” ( Cornali, 2012 , p. 255). According to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report, “the pressure to increase equity and improve educational outcomes for students is growing around the world” ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 3). In the USA, underlying pressure to innovate comes from political, economic, demographic, and technological forces from both inside and outside the nation.

Many in the USA seem to recognize that education at all levels critically needs renewal: “Higher education has to change. It needs more innovation” ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 1). This message, however, is not new – in the foreword to the 1964 book entitled Innovation in Education, Arthur Foshay, Executive Officer of The Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation, wrote, “It has become platitudinous to speak of the winds of change in education, to remind those interested in the educational enterprise that a revolution is in progress. Trite or not, however, it is true to say that changes appear wherever one turns in education” ( Matthew, 1964 , p. v).

Yet, more than 50 years later, we realize that the actual pace of educational innovations and their implementation is too slow as shown by the learning outcomes of both school and college graduates, which are far from what is needed in today’s world. Jim Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Innovation and Improvement in the US Department of Education, writes, “Whether for reasons of economic growth, competitiveness, social justice or return on tax-payer investment, there is little rational argument over the need for significant improvement in US educational outcomes. Further, it is irrefutable that the country has made limited improvement on most educational outcomes over the last several decades, especially when considered in the context of the increased investment over the same period. In fact, the total cost of producing each successful high school and college graduate has increased substantially over time instead of decreasing – creating what some argue is an inverted learning curve […].”

“Education not only needs new ideas and inventions that shatter the performance expectations of today’s status quo; to make a meaningful impact, these new solutions must also “scale,” that is grow large enough, to serve millions of students and teachers or large portions of specific underserved populations” ( Shelton, 2011 ). Yet, something does not work here.

Lack of innovation can have profound economic and social repercussions. America’s last competitive advantage, warns Harvard Innovation Education Fellow Tony Wagner, its ability to innovate, is at risk as a result of the country’s lackluster education system ( Creating innovators, 2012 ). Derek Bok, a former Harvard University President, writes, “[…] neither American students nor our universities, nor the nation itself, can afford to take for granted the quality of higher education and the teaching and learning it provides” ( Bok, 2007 , p. 6). Hence it is central for us to make US education consistently innovative and focus educational innovations on raising the quality of learning at all levels. Yet, though there is a good deal of ongoing educational research and innovation, we have not actually seen discernable improvements in either school students’ or college graduates’ achievements to this day. Suffice it to mention a few facts. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) evaluations keep revealing disappointing results for our middle school ( Pew Research Center, 2015 ); a large number of high school graduates are not ready for college ( College preparedness, 2012 ); and employers, in turn, are often dissatisfied with college graduates ( Thomson, 2015 ; Jaschik, 2015 ). No one, be they students, parents, academia, business, or society as a whole, are pleased with these outcomes. Could it be that our education system is not sufficiently innovative?

Danny Crichton, an entrepreneur, in his blog The Next Wave of Education Innovation writes expressly, “Few areas have been as hopeful and as disappointing as innovation in education. Education is probably the single most important function in our society today, yet it remains one of the least understood, despite incredible levels of investment from venture capitalists and governments. Why do students continue to show up in a classroom or start an online course? How do we guide students to the right knowledge just as they need to learn it? We may have an empirical inkling and some hunches, but we still lack any fundamental insights. That is truly disappointing. With the rise of the internet, it seemed like education was on the cusp of a complete revolution. Today, though, you would be excused for not seeing much of a difference between the way we learn and how we did so twenty years ago” ( Crichton, 2015 ).

Editors of the book Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Ben Wildavsky, Andrew Kelly, and Kevin Carey write, “The higher education system also betrays an innovation deficit in another way: a steady decline in productivity driven by a combination of static or declining output paired with skyrocketing prices ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 3). This despairing mood is echoed by Groom and Lamb’s statement in EDUCAUSE Review, “Today, innovation is increasingly conflated with hype, disruption for disruption’s sake, and outsourcing laced with a dose of austerity-driven downsizing” ( Groom and Lamb, 2014 ).

USA success has always been driven by innovation and has a unique capacity for growth ( Zeihan, 2014 ). Nevertheless, it is indeed a paradox: while the USA produces more research, including in education, than any other country ( Science Watch, 2009 ), we do not see much improvement in the way our students are prepared for life and work. The USA can be proud of great scholars, such as John Dewey, B.F. Skinner, Abraham Maslow, Albert Bandura, Howard Gardner, Jerome Bruner, and many others who have contributed a great deal to the theory of education. Yet, has this theory yielded any innovative approaches for the teaching and learning practice that have increased learning productivity and improved the quality of the output?

The USA is the home of the computer and the internet, but has the information revolution helped to improve the quality of learning outcomes? Where and how, then, are all these educational innovations applied? It seems, write Spangehl and Hoffman, that “American education has taken little advantage of important innovations that would increase instructional capacity, effectiveness, and productivity” (2012 , p. 21). “The new ‘job factory’ role American universities have awkwardly stuffed themselves into may be killing the modern college student’s spirit and search for meaning” ( Mercurio, 2016 ).

What is interesting here is that while we are still undecided as to what to do with our struggling schools and universities and how to integrate into them our advanced inventions, other nations are already benefiting from our innovations and have in a short time successfully built world-class education systems. It is ironic that an admirable Finnish success was derived heavily from US educational research. Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish educator and author of a bestselling book, The Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change In Finland , said in an interview to the Huffington Post, “American scholars and their writings, like Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, have been influential in building the much-admired school system in Finland” ( Rubin, 2015 ); so wrote other authors ( Strauss, 2014 ). Singapore, South Korea, China, and other forward-looking countries also learned from great US educational ideas.

We cannot say that US educators and society are oblivious to the problems in education: on the contrary, a number of educational movements have taken place in recent US history (e.g. numerous educational reforms since 1957 to this day, including recent NCLB, Race to the Top, and the Common Core). Universities and research organizations opened centers and laboratories of innovation (Harvard Innovation Lab, Presidential Innovation Laboratory convened by American Council on Education, Center for Innovation in Education at the University of Kentucky, NASA STEM Innovation Lab, and recently created National University Center for Innovation in Learning). Some institutions introduced programs focusing on innovation (Master’s Program in Technology, Innovation, and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education; Master of Arts in Education and Innovation at the Webster University). New organizations have been set up (The International Centre for Innovation in Education, Innovative Schools Network, Center for Education Reform). Regular conferences on the topic are convened (AERA, ASU-GSV Summit, National Conference on Educational Innovation, The Nueva School for the Innovative Learning Conference). Excellent books have been written by outstanding innovators such as Andy Hargreaves (2003) , Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) , Hargreaves et al. (2010) , Michael Fullan (2007, 2010) , Yong Zhao (2012) , Pasi Sahlberg (2011) , Tony Wagner (2012) , Mihaliy Csikszentmihalyi (2013) , and Ken Robinson (2015) . There is even an Office of Innovation and Improvement in the US Department of Education, which is intended to “[…] drive education innovation by both seeding new strategies, and bringing proven approaches to scale” ( Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2016 ). And still, innovations do not take hold in American classrooms on a wide scale, which may leave the nation behind in global competition.

Society’s failure to anticipate the problems and their outcomes may have unpredictable consequences, as Pulitzer Prize winner and Professor Jared Diamond, University of California, Los Angeles, writes in his book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed ( Diamond, 2005 ). Yong Zhao interpreted Diamond’s findings as “[…] society’s inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept large and distant changes – and thus work to come up with the right response – is among one of the chief reasons that societies fail. This inability also leads human beings to look for short-term outcomes and seek immediate gratification” ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 162). It looks like the issue of educational innovation goes beyond the field itself and requires a strong societal response.

Three big questions arise from this discussion: why, having so many innovators and organizations concerned with innovations, does our education system not benefit from them? What interferes with creating and, especially, implementing transformative, life-changing, and much-needed innovations across schools and colleges in this country? How can we grow, support, and disseminate worthy innovations effectively so that our students succeed in both school and university and achieve the best learning outcomes that will adequately prepare them for life and work? Let us first take a look at what is an educational innovation.

What is educational innovation?

Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things (Theodore Levitt).

To innovate is to look beyond what we are currently doing and develop a novel idea that helps us to do our job in a new way. The purpose of any invention, therefore, is to create something different from what we have been doing, be it in quality or quantity or both. To produce a considerable, transformative effect, the innovation must be put to work, which requires prompt diffusion and large-scale implementation.

Innovation is generally understood as “[…] the successful introduction of a new thing or method” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15). In essence, “[…] innovation seems to have two subcomponents. First, there is the idea or item which is novel to a particular individual or group and, second, there is the change which results from the adoption of the object or idea” ( Evans, 1970 , p. 16). Thus, innovation requires three major steps: an idea, its implementation, and the outcome that results from the execution of the idea and produces a change. In education, innovation can appear as a new pedagogic theory, methodological approach, teaching technique, instructional tool, learning process, or institutional structure that, when implemented, produces a significant change in teaching and learning, which leads to better student learning. So, innovations in education are intended to raise productivity and efficiency of learning and/or improve learning quality. For example, Khan’s Academy and MOOCs have opened new, practically unlimited opportunities for massive, more efficient learning.

Efficiency is generally determined by the amount of time, money, and resources that are necessary to obtain certain results. In education, efficiency of learning is determined mainly by the invested time and cost. Learning is more efficient if we achieve the same results in less time and with less expense. Productivity is determined by estimating the outcomes obtained vs the invested effort in order to achieve the result. Thus, if we can achieve more with less effort, productivity increases. Hence, innovations in education should increase both productivity of learning and learning efficiency.

Educational innovations emerge in various areas and in many forms. According to the US Office of Education, “There are innovations in the way education systems are organized and managed, exemplified by charter schools or school accountability systems. There are innovations in instructional techniques or delivery systems, such as the use of new technologies in the classroom. There are innovations in the way teachers are recruited, and prepared, and compensated. The list goes on and on” ( US Department of Education, 2004 ).

Innovation can be directed toward progress in one, several, or all aspects of the educational system: theory and practice, curriculum, teaching and learning, policy, technology, institutions and administration, institutional culture, and teacher education. It can be applied in any aspect of education that can make a positive impact on learning and learners.

In a similar way, educational innovation concerns all stakeholders: the learner, parents, teacher, educational administrators, researchers, and policy makers and requires their active involvement and support. When considering the learners, we think of studying cognitive processes taking place in the the brain during learning – identifying and developing abilities, skills, and competencies. These include improving attitudes, dispositions, behaviors, motivation, self-assessment, self-efficacy, autonomy, as well as communication, collaboration, engagement, and learning productivity.

To raise the quality of teaching, we want to enhance teacher education, professional development, and life-long learning to include attitudes, dispositions, teaching style, motivation, skills, competencies, self-assessment, self-efficacy, creativity, responsibility, autonomy to teach, capacity to innovate, freedom from administrative pressure, best conditions of work, and public sustenance. As such, we expect educational institutions to provide an optimal academic environment, as well as materials and conditions for achieving excellence of the learning outcomes for every student (program content, course format, institutional culture, research, funding, resources, infrastructure, administration, and support).

Education is nourished by society and, in turn, nourishes society. The national educational system relies on the dedication and responsibility of all society for its effective functioning, thus parental involvement, together with strong community and society backing, are crucial for success.

political (NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act), Race to the Top);

social (Equal Opportunities Act, affirmative action policy, Indivuals with Disabilities Education Act);

philosophical (constructivism, objectivism);

cultural (moral education, multiculturalism, bilingual education);

pedagogical (competence-based education, STEM (curriculum choices in school: Science, Technology, English, and Mathematics);

psychological (cognitive science, multiple intelligencies theory, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, learning style theory); and

technological (computer-based learning, networked learning, e-learning).

Though these innovations left a significant mark on education, which of them helped improve productivity and quality of learning? Under NCLB, we placed too much focus on accountability and assessment and lost sight of many other critical aspects of education. In drawing too much attention to technology innovations, we may neglect teachers and learners in the process. Stressing the importance of STEM at the expense of music, arts and physical culture ignores young people’s personal, social, emotional, and moral development. Reforming higher education without reforming secondary education is futile. Trying to change education while leaving disfunctional societal and cultural mechanisms intact is doomed. It is crucial, therefore, when innovating to ask, “What is this innovation for?” “How will it work?” and “What effect will it produce?”

Many of us educators naively believe grand reforms or powerful technologies will transform our education system. Did we not expect NCLB to change our schools for the better? Did we not hope that new information technologies would make education more effective and relieve teachers from tedious labor? However, again and again we realize that neither loud reforms nor wondrous technology will do the hard work demanded of teachers and learners.

Innovations can be categorized as evolutionary or revolutionary ( Osolind, 2012 ), sustaining or disruptive ( Christensen and Overdorf, 2000 ; Yu and Hang, 2010 ). Evolutionary innovations lead to incremental improvement but require continuity; revolutionary innovations bring about a complete change, totally overhauling and/or replacing the old with the new, often in a short time period. Sustaining innovation perpetuates the current dimensions of performance (e.g. continuous improvement of the curriculum), while disrupting innovation, such as a national reform, radically changes the whole field. Innovations can also be tangible (e.g. technology tools) and intangible (e.g. methods, strategies, and techniques). Evolutionary and revolutionary innovations seem to have the same connotation as sustaining and disruptive innovations, respectively.

When various innovations are being introduced in the conventional course of study, for instance Universal Design of Learning ( Meyer et al. , 2014 ); or more expressive presentation of new material using multimedia; or more effective teaching methods; or new mnemonic techniques, students’ learning productivity may rise to some extent. This is an evolutionary change. It partially improves the existing instructional approach to result in better learning. Such learning methods as inquiry based, problem based, case study, and collaborative and small group are evolutionary innovations because they change the way students learn. Applying educational technology (ET) in a conventional classroom using an overhead projector, video, or iPad, are evolutionary, sustaining innovations because they change only certain aspects of learning. National educational reforms, however, are always intended to be revolutionary innovations as they are aimed at complete system renovation. This is also true for online learning because it produces a systemic change that drastically transforms the structure, format, and methods of teaching and learning. Some innovative approaches, like “extreme learning” ( Extreme Learning, 2012 ), which use technology for learning purposes in novel, unusual, or nontraditional ways, may potentially produce a disruptive, revolutionary effect.

Adjustment or upgrading of the process: innovation can occur in daily performance and be seen as a way to make our job easier, more effective, more appealing, or less stressful. This kind of innovation, however, should be considered an improvement rather than innovation because it does not produce a new method or tool. The term innovative, in keeping with the dictionary definition, applies only to something new and different, not just better, and it must be useful ( Okpara, 2007 ). Educators, incidentally, commonly apply the term “innovative” to almost any improvement in classroom practices; yet, to be consistent, not any improvement can be termed in this way. The distinction between innovation and improvement is in novelty and originality, as well as in the significance of impact and scale of change.

Modification of the process: innovation that significantly alters the process, performance, or quality of an existing product (e.g. accelerated learning (AL), charter school, home schooling, blended learning).

Transformation of the system: dramatic conversion (e.g. Bologna process; Common Core; fully automated educational systems; autonomous or self-directed learning; online, networked, and mobile learning).

First-level innovations (with a small i ) make reasonable improvements and are important ingredients of everyday life and work. They should be unequivocally enhanced, supported, and used. Second-level innovations either lead to a system’s evolutionary change or are a part of that change and, thus, can make a considerable contribution to educational quality. But we are more concerned with innovations of the third level (with a capital I), which are both breakthrough and disruptive and can potentially make a revolutionary, systemic change.

qualitative: better knowledge, more effective skills, important competencies, character development, values, dispositions, effective job placement, and job performance; and

quantitative: improved learning parameters such as test results, volume of information learned, amount of skills or competencies developed, college enrollment numbers, measured student performance, retention, attrition, graduation rate, number of students in class, cost, and time efficiency.

Innovation can be assessed by its novely, originality, and potential effect. As inventing is typically a time-consuming and cost-demanding experience, it is critical to calculate short-term and long-term expenses and consequences of an invention. They must demonstrate significant qualitative and/or quantitative benefits. As a psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi writes, “human well-being hinges on two factors: the ability to increase creativity and the ability to develop ways to evaluate the impact of new creative ideas” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013, p. 322).

In education, we can estimate the effect of innovation via learning outcomes or exam results, teacher formative and summative, formal and informal assessments, and student self-assessment. Innovation can also be computed using such factors as productivity (more learning outcomes in a given time), time efficiency (shorter time on studying the same material), or cost efficiency (less expense per student) data. Other evaluations can include the school academic data, college admissions and employment rate of school graduates, their work productivity and career growth.

singular/local/limited;

multiple/spread/significant; and

system-wide/total.

This gradation correlates with the three levels of innovation described above: adjustment, modification, and transformation. To make a marked difference, educational innovation must be scalable and spread across the system or wide territory. Prominent examples include Khan Academy in the USA, GEEKI Labs in Brazil (GEEKI), and BRIDGE International Academies in Kenya (BRIDGE). Along with scale, the speed of adoption or diffusion, and cost are critical for maximizing the effect of innovation.

Innovations are nowadays measured and compared internationally. According to the 2011 OECD report ( OECD, 2014 ), the USA was in 24th place in educational innovativeness in the world. This report singled out the use of student assessments for monitoring progress over time as the top organizational innovation, and the requirement that students were to explain and elaborate on their answers during science lessons as the top pedagogic innovation in the USA. Overall, the list of innovations selected by OECD was disappointingly unimpressive.

Innovations usually originate either from the bottom of the society (individual inventors or small teams) – bottom-up or grass root approach, or from the top (business or government) – top-down or administrative approach. Sometimes, innovations coming from the top get stalled on their way to the bottom if they do not accomplish their goal and are not appreciated or supported by the public. Should they rise from the bottom, they may get stuck on the road to the top if they are misunderstood or found impractical or unpopular. They can also stop in the middle if there is no public, political, or administrative or financial backing. Thus, innovations that start at the bottom, however good they are, may suffer too many roadblocks to be able to spread and be adopted on a large scale. Consequently, it is up to politicians, administrators, and society to drive or stifle the change. Education reforms have always been top-down and, as they near the bottom, typically become diverted, diluted, lose strength, or get rejected as ineffective or erroneous. As Michael Fullan writes in the Foreword to an exciting book, Good to Great to Innovate: Recalculating the Route to Career Readiness, K012+ , “[…] there is a good deal of reform going on in the education world, but much of it misses the point, or approaches it superficially” ( Sharratt and Harild, 2015 , p. xiii).

Innovations enriching education can be homegrown (come from within the system) or be imported (originate from outside education). Examples of imported innovations that result from revolution, trend, or new idea include the information technology revolution, social media, medical developments (MRI), and cognitive psychology. Innovations can also be borrowed from superior international theories and practices (see Globalization of Education chapter). National reform may also be a route to innovation, for instance when a government decides to completely revamp the system via a national reform, or when an entire society embarks on a new road, as has happened recently in Singapore, South Korea, and Finland.

Innovations may come as a result of inspiration, continuous creative mental activity, or “supply pushed” through the availability of new technological possibilities in production, or “demand led” based on market or societal needs ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15). In the first case, we can have a wide variety of ideas flowing around; in the second, we observe a ubiquitous spread of educational technologies across educational system at all levels; in the third, we witness a growth of non-public institutions, such as private and charter schools and private universities.

Innovation in any area or aspect can make a change in education in a variety of ways. Ultimately, however, innovations are about quality and productivity of learning (this does not mean we can forget about moral development, which prepares young people for life, work, and citizenship) ( Camins, 2015 ). Every innovation must be tested for its potential efficiency. The roots of learning efficiency lie, however, not only in innovative technologies or teaching alone but even more in uncovering potential capacities for learning in our students, their intellectual, emotional, and psychological spheres. Yet, while innovations in economics, business, technology, and engineering are always connected to the output of the process, innovation in education does not necessarily lead to improving the output (i.e. students’ readiness for future life and employment). Test results, degrees, and diplomas do not signify that a student is fully prepared for his or her career. Educational research is often disconnected from learning productivity and efficiency, school effectiveness, and quality output. Innovations in educational theories, textbooks, instructional tools, and teaching techniques do not always produce a desired change in the quality of teaching and learning. What, then, is the problem with our innovations? Why do not we get more concerned with learning productivity and efficiency? As an example, let us look at technology applications in teaching and learning.

Effects of technology innovations in education

A tool is just an opportunity with a handle (Kevin Kelly).

When analyzing innovations of our time, we cannot fail to see that an overwhelming majority of them are tangible, being either technology tools (laptops, iPads, smart phones) or technology-based learning systems and materials, e.g., learning management system (LMS), educational software, and web-based resources. Technology has always served as both a driving force and instrument of innovation in any area of human activity. It is then natural for us to expect that innovations based on ET applications can improve teaching and learning. Though technology is a great asset, nonetheless, is it the single or main source of today’s innovations, and is it wise to rely solely on technology?

The rich history of ET innovations is filled with optimism. Just remember when tape recorders, video recorders, TV, educational films, linguaphone classes, overhead projectors, and multimedia first appeared in school. They brought so much excitement and hope into our classrooms! New presentation formats catered to various learning styles. Visuals brought reality and liveliness into the classrooms. Information and computer technology (ICT) offered more ways to retrieve information and develop skills. With captivating communication tools (iPhones, iPads, Skype, FaceTime), we can communicate with anybody around the world in real time, visually, and on the go. Today we are excited about online learning, mobile learning, social networking learning, MOOCs, virtual reality, virtual and remote laboratories, 3D and 4D printing, and gamification. But can we say all this is helping to produce better learning? Are we actually using ET’s potential to make a difference in education and increase learning output?

Larry Cuban, an ET researcher and writer, penned the following: “Since 2010, laptops, tablets, interactive whiteboards, smart phones, and a cornucopia of software have become ubiquitous. We spent billions of dollars on computers. Yet has academic achievement improved as a consequence? Has teaching and learning changed? Has use of devices in schools led to better jobs? These are the basic questions that school boards, policy makers, and administrators ask. The answers to these questions are ‘no,’ ‘no,’ and ‘probably not.’” ( Cuban, 2015 ). This cautionary statement should make us all think hard about whether more technology means better learning.

Technology is used in manufacturing, business, and research primarily to increase labor productivity. Because integrating technology into education is in many ways like integrating technology into any business, it makes sense to evaluate technological applications by changes in learning productivity and quality. William Massy and Robert Zemsky wrote in their paper, “Using Information Technology to Enhance Academic Productivity,” that “[…] technology should be used to boost academic productivity” ( Massy and Zemsky, 1995 ). National Educational Technology Standards also addressed this issue by introducing a special rubric: “Apply technology to increase productivity” ( National Educational Technology Standards, 2004 ). Why then has technology not contributed much to the productivity of learning? It may be due to a so-called “productivity paradox” ( Brynjolfsson, 1993 ), which refers to the apparent contradiction between the remarkable advances in computer power and the relatively slow growth of productivity at the level of the whole economy, individual firms, and many specific applications. Evidently, this paradox relates to technology applications in education.

A conflict between public expectations of ET effectiveness and actual applications in teaching and learning can be rooted in educators’ attitudes toward technology. What some educational researchers write about technology in education helps to reveal the inherent issue. The pillars and building blocks of twenty-first century learning, according to Linda Baer and James McCormick (2012 , p. 168), are tools, programs, services, and policies such as web-enabled information storage and retrieval systems, digital resources, games, and simulations, eAdvising and eTutoring, online revenue sharing, which are all exclusively technological innovations. They are intended to integrate customized learning experiences, assessment-based learning outcomes, wikis, blogs, social networking, and mobile learning. The foundation of all this work, as these authors write, is built on the resources, infrastructure, quality standards, best practices, and innovation.

These are all useful, tangible things, but where are the intangible innovations, such as theoretical foundation, particularly pedagogy, psychology, and instructional methodology that are a true underpinning of teaching and learning? The emphasis on tools seems to be an effect of materialistic culture, which covets tangible, material assets or results. Similarly, today’s students worry more about grades, certificates, degrees, and diplomas (tangible assets) than about gaining knowledge, an intangible asset ( Business Dictionary, 2016 ). We may come to recognize that modern learning is driven more by technological tools than by sound theory, which is misleading.

According to the UNESCO Innovative Teaching and Learning (ITL) Research project conducted in several countries, “ICT has great potential for supporting innovative pedagogies, but it is not a magic ingredient.” The findings suggest that “[…] when considering ICT it is important to focus not on flash but on the student learning and 21st century skills that ICT can enable” ( UNESCO, 2013 ). As Zhao and Frank (2003) argue in their ecological model of technology integration in school, we should be interested in not only how much computers are used but also how computers are used. Evidently, before starting to use technology we have to ask first, “What technology tools will help our students to learn math, sciences, literature and languages better, and how to use them efficiently to improve the learning outcomes?”

Thus, the problem of ET innovations is twofold: any integration of technology in teaching and learning has to demonstrate an increased productivity of teaching and learning, but it can be achieved only when ET applications are based on an effective pedagogic theory. Technology innovation will eventually drive pedagogic innovations, without a doubt, however, this path is slower, more complicated, and leads to an enormous waste of financial, technical and human resources.

Technocentric syndrome

More disquieting than even the lack of pedagogical foundation for technology-enhanced education is the sincere belief of many educators that technology will fix all the problems they encounter in the classroom, be they live or virtual. Consequently, fewer university professors nowadays perceive the need for pedagogic mastery in online teaching in addition to content-area expertise as they reason technology will solve all instructional difficulties anyway. This belief is called “technocentrism” ( Pappert, 1990 ), which, according to Nickols (2011) , is common in higher education and e-learning discussions. It is probably common in secondary school as well. Unfortunately, educators often forget that the computer is only an extension of human abilities, not a replacement or substitute. We, as educators, must realize that for technology innovation to produce a positive effect in learning it must be preceded by pedagogic leadership, research, and sound theory; however, the reality is typically the reverse. We are excited to grab the new gadget and try to fit it into the classroom without preliminary assessment of its implementation challenges and potential effects, solid research, or laying out a theoretical foundation based on advanced pedagogic theory which will ensure its effective use. Former Kodak Chairman George Fisher described it this way, “Even good people get locked into processes that may be totally inappropriate to deal with a new technology attacking from underneath (Christensen and Eyring, 2011, p. 16).

Technology (as an entity) contains an inherent pedagogical value ( Accuosti, 2014 , p. 5). It pushes the limits of what educators can do but is not a magic wand; it is only a means, an instrument, a tool for an innovative teacher and learner. That we overestimate technology’s power in education has its roots in human anticipation of a miracle, or a hope of finding a quick fix. But “[…] we can’t just buy iPads (or any device), add water, and hope that strategy will usher schools to the leading edge of 21st century education. Technology, by itself, isn’t curative. Human agency shapes the path” ( Levasseur, 2012 ). We are all excited by the technology and information revolution and believe in its potential but “[…] perhaps the next important revolution isn’t technological, even as technology marches forward unabated. Perhaps the revolution that we need, the one we should aspire to, is societal. Indeed, the next revolution should be one of education, empathy, and a broader understanding of the world, and of its people and culture” ( Jiang, 2015 ).

One of my students wrote in a recent online class, “Students learn from their teachers, not from electronic gadgets.” Do we understand how students learn in a technology-based environment, one-on-one with the laptop or mobile phone? Can we estimate possible changes in the students’ cognition, learning style, behavior, attitudes, values, and social relationships under the influence of electronic devices? It is certainly true that live interaction between students and their teachers offers worthy examples and enlightening experiences for students and gratifying moments for teachers. Overestimating the power of technology, regrettably, leads to the deterioration of the “human element” ( Serdiukov, 2001 ) in technology-based and, particularly, online teaching and learning. It further underestimates the need for sound pedagogy and quality teacher preparation. It may also have a devastating impact on our ability to socialize, collaborate, and survive. George Friedman argues that computers have had “profoundly disruptive consequences on cultural live throughout the world” ( Friedman, 2012 , p. 25), which could not have left education unperturbed.

Neil Postman addressed another concern of overemphasizing the role of technology in education, cautioning against “[…] surrendering education to technology” ( Postman, 1993 ), which may have far-reaching social and cultural consequences ( Serdyukov, 2015b ). According to Sousa (2014) , the widespread use of technology is having both positive and negative effects on students’ attention and memory systems. A strong warning about the negative effects of the Web comes from Maurer et al. (2013) , who caution that modern media, particularly networked computers, are endangering our capacity to think, to remember clearly, and to read and write with concentration; they also imperil creativity. “New technologies, whether or not they succeed in solving the problem that they were designed to solve, regularly create unanticipated new problems” ( Diamond, 2005 , p. 505). There are numerous social, cultural and psychological side effects of technology-enhanced or technology-based education, among them placing unrealistic hopes on technology, which leads to weakening a student’s and teacher’s effort and eventually takes the teachers out of the equation. This in turn makes the outcomes of online learning overly dependent on the LMS platform, washing away human interaction and communication by industrializing and formalizing learning.

Christensen and Eyring (2011) , who wrote about disruptive innovations that force universities to change, predict that teaching in the future will be disruptable as technology improves and shifts the competitive focus from a teacher’s credentials or an institution’s prestige to what students actually learn. Their observations support the findings of other studies that indicate learning occurs best when it involves a blend of online and face-to-face learning, with the latter providing essential intangibles best obtained on a traditional college campus. From this statement, one can extrapolate that technology alone cannot ensure productive and enriched learning and, especially, personal and social development as students still need a human element in a technology-enhanced environment. Additionally, when planning to apply a new technology to education, we have to consider its potential pedagogic and psychological effects. Finally, we need a solid, innovative, theoretical foundation for online learning. This foundation would help teachers do a better job in both classroom and online environments than simply integrating computers and other gadgets into learning. It would help enrich students’ otherwise almost entirely independent online experiences using only LMS navigation as a GPS in the world of knowledge with inspiring interaction with a live instructor, peers, and real life.

As technology-based education is unquestionably going to grow, we need to make it pedagogically, psychologically, and socially meaningful and effective. At the same time, we want to minimize its negative short- and long-term consequences, which reaffirms the need for a comprehensive theory of technology-based education and serious research.

Online learning concerns

Demand for online learning is largely driven by working adult students (WALs) willing to have broad access to education and, at the same time, to accommodate learning to their busy lives, rather than by its effectiveness as a cognitive tool, which is determined by its most attractive feature – convenience ( Christensen and Eyring, 2011 ; Song et al. , 2004 ). In studies of student satisfaction, students commonly rate their online experiences as satisfactory, with convenience being the most cited reason ( Cole et al. , 2014 ). We observe students’ preference for convenience as a consumer strategy, and regrettably, not only in online higher education but across the whole educational system ( Kerby et al. , 2014 ). Convenience, along with comfort, helps reduce workload and complexity of learning, as well as the strain of face-to-face interaction with the class and instructor. It produces a sense of privacy and self-satisfaction. It also generates a false perception that online learning is easier than learning in the classroom ( Aaron, 2007 ; Westra, 2016 ), and often leads to online cheating ( Spalding, 2012 ). The convenience, like the happiness factor, however, means a less demanding and less rigorous school experience ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 137). Convenience can be a blessing for creative people, liberating them from the need to waste time and energy on trifles; however, it may also develop self-gratification and laziness instead of struggling with obstacles and doing the hard job of digging in the knowledge mine.

So, accessibility and, especially, convenience, enhanced by flexibility of the study schedule and comfortable learning environment of one’s office or bedroom are evidently the key factors of its popularity among students. The motto of online education, “Any time, any place, any pace” is extremely seductive. Yet, despite a number of studies showing that online learning is on a par with traditional, campus-based learning ( Ni, 2013 ; Wrenn, 2016 ), it is going to take more time and effort to really make online learning deliver outcomes comparable to the traditional classroom-based, face-to-face education. Mattan Griffel, Founder of “One Month,” an online education startup, rethinks online education in the aftermath of the MOOC explosion writing, “[Online education] has kind of overstepped its current effectiveness, and everyone is saying what is possible by painting this picture, but the tools haven’t reached that point yet” ( Crichton, 2015 ). We know very well online education suffers from restricted interaction among students and with the instructor, is deficient of live collaboration, and lacks opportunities for relationships that take form in a study group. These collective relationships are crucial for individual success. Productive online learning also depends on well-developed learning, technology, critical thinking, research, and even reading and writing skills, as well as strong intrinsic motivation, perseverance, and self-efficacy, which many students do not possess. Finally, substituting real-life objects and processes with virtual reality is not helpful in developing practical skills, which makes real-world laboratory and experimental work less effective in virtual online environments.

Still, the question remains whether online education has helped improve teaching and learning. With the popularity of online education and enormous investment, do online college programs now prepare better specialists? Have we achieved the result we had expected, besides widening access to education for working adult learners, formerly marginalized groups, such as disabled students and minorities, and people geographically separated from the learning centers, thus reaching multi-million enrollment in online programs by 2016 and making sure that students enjoy convenience in their studies?

Innovative technology may bring performance enhancement in some ways but does not necessarily produce a direct benefit to education expressed by increased learning productivity. Are the secondary benefits, like convenience or fun with technology, worthy of heavy investment? What, then, is needed to raise the quality of education? The real question here is, as always, do we control technology, or do we let ourselves be controlled by it and those who have created it? “Choose the former,” writes an innovative author Douglas Rushkoff, “and you gain access to the control panel of civilization. Choose the latter, and it could be the last real choice you get to make” ( Rushkoff, 2010 ). The raw powers of technology should be harnessed by sound pedagogy.

Pedagogy of online education is just being developed, after two decades of titanic effort ( Serdyukov, 2015a ). Online learning is a big business ( Stokes, 2012 ), which should be turned into a serious academic endeavor. When improving online learning, we should not narrow our innovative focus down to only technical solutions in all educational issues. We need to develop a broader look at all aspects of teaching and learning rather than trying to resolve problems and overcome barriers with technology alone.

Barriers to innovation

There are reasons for the discrepancy between the drive for educational innovation that we observe in some areas, great educational innovations of recent times, and the daily reality of the education system.

First of all, if we look at the education holistically, as a complete system in charge of sustaining the nation’s need for educating society members and building their knowledge and expertise throughout their active lifetime, we have to acknowledge that all educational levels are interrelated and interdependent. Moreover, education being a system itself is a component of a larger social supersystem, to which it links in many intricate and complicated ways. As a social institution, education reflects all the values, laws, principles, and traditions of the society to which it belongs. Therefore, we need to regard education as a vital, complete, social entity and address its problems, taking into account these relations and dependencies both within the educational system and society.

In turn, if the society supports innovations in education, then its educational system will continuously and effectively evolve and progress. If it does not, education will stagnate and produce mediocre outcomes. An example of negative socio-cultural impact on education is mercantilism, which is destroying the ultimate purpose of education, and consumerism which is degrading institutions of higher education ( Feeman and Thomas, 2005 ; Ng and Forbes, 2009 ; Abeyta, 2013 ). Other harmful social and cultural trends exert a powerful influence. These include monetization of education, entitlement, instant gratification, and egotism, which destroy education in general and the development of creativity and innovative spirit of students in particular ( Kerby et al. , 2014 ). Such grave societal issues must be dealt with forcefully.

Second, it is well known that higher education has been historically slow to adopt innovations for various reasons ( Hoffman and Holzhuter, 2012 ; Marcus, 2012 ; Evans, 1970 ). Because it is complex (due to cohesion and contuinuity of science) and labor intensive, higher education is particularly difficult to make more productive ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 ). Secondary school is even more conservative than universities because they cater more and more to students’ well-being and safety than to their preparation for real life and work ( Gibbons and Silva, 2011 ). Both secondary and higher education function as two separate and rather closed systems in their own rights. They are not only loosely connected to the wider world but also suffer from a wide disconnect between high school output measured in graduate learning outcomes and college entrance student expectations. It seems that “[…] the systems and values of industrial education were not designed with innovation and digital tools in mind. Innovation, whether it is with technology, assessment or instruction, requires time and space for experimentation and a high tolerance for uncertainty. Disruption of established patterns is the modus operandi of innovation. We like the fruits of innovation, but few of us have the mettle to run the gauntlet of innovation” ( Levasseur, 2012 ). It is paramount, nonetheless, to accept that “innovation is linked to creativity, risk taking, and experimentation” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 15), which must be a part of the education system.

Innovation is difficult to spread across school and academia because it disrupts the established routine and pushes implementers out of their comfort zone. Terry Heick writes that “[…] many K-12 schools give lip-service to the concept of innovation in mission statements, on websites, in PDs (professional development), and during committee, council, and board meetings, but lose their nerve when it’s time to make it happen. Supporting something seen as secondary (innovation) in the face of pressure, far-reaching programs, external standards ranging from Common Core to Literacy, Technology, and Career Readiness becomes a matter of priority and job security. While education begs for innovation, arguments against it often turn to tempting, straw man attacks” ( Heick, 2016 ). In many instances, innovation in educational institutions does not take priority over pressing routine issues – really, abiding by the state standards is more urgent.

Teachers and school administrators are commonly cautious about a threatening change and have little tolerance for the uncertainty that any major innovation causes. Of course there are schools and even districts that are unafraid to innovate and experiment but their success depends on individual leaders and communities of educators who are able to create an innovative professional culture. Pockets of innovation give hope but we need a total, massive support for innovations across society.

Third, one of the reasons for the slow pace of improvements in education is a sharp conflict between society’s welfare and political and business interests, as vividly illustrated when the NCLB took US education on the path of rigid accountability. It was used by standardized testing companies to reap huge profits (or, may be, vice versa, these companies influenced NCBL). The trend stifled true education and produced unsatisfactory learning outcomes that changed the nature of teaching, narrowing the curriculum and limiting student learning. ( National Council of Teachers of English, 2014 ; The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 2012 ).

Fourth, even when an innovation comes to life, it is of little worth without implementation (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). Innovation is not about talking the talk but walking the walk. Moreover, an innovation can make a significant difference only when it is used on a wide scale. To create innovations is not enough, they need to be spread and used across schools and universities, a more difficult task. For the innovation to make a sizable effect, we need an army of implementers together with favorable conditions for the invention to spread and produce a result. Implementers in turn have to be creative and motivated to do their job; they must also have freedom to innovate in the implementation, security on the job to take risks, and control of what they are doing. Ultimately, they need be trusted (as are teachers in Finland) to do their job right. In short, there must be an “innovation-receiving system” ( Evans, 1970 ), or a “change zone” ( Polka and Kardash, 2013 ). Is this where one of the main problems of innovating lies?

A growing trend in higher education is a market approach wherein the main goal is set for “meeting the demands of the student population that is learning – a life-long population of learners” ( Afshar, 2016 ). Universities today are busy innovating how to increase students’ satisfaction and create “exceptional,” “premier,” or “extraordinary” learning experiences rather than caring about their true knowledge and quality achievements. This is clearly an extension of the adaptive or differentiated approach to teaching and learning, thereby leading to customization of education ( Schuwer and Kusters, 2014 ). But this view raises a question: are students’ demands and satisfaction the proper indicators of quality learning? When we began to be more concerned about how students feel in the classroom, what bothers them, and how best to accommodate them to make their learning experiences superior and anxiety-free, we began to set aside the quality outcomes of the learning process.

Every cloud has a silver lining, fortunately. When market approach is applied to higher education, as it is in the current national and global competitive environment, the contest for enrollments increases and forces colleges to decrease attrition in all ways possible. This requires innovative approaches. The institutions that depend on enrollment for their revenue appear more willing to innovate than traditional, public universities that enjoy government support. “Hence, innovation is likely to vary by several characteristics, including type of institution, institution size, market niche, and resources” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 22). Clearly, private institutions are more adept at innovating than public ones. The market is a powerful factor, however, the changes it may bring have to be tackled cautiously.

The hurdles to technology integration are described by Peggy Ertmer (1999) as external (first-order) and internal (second-order) barriers. The first-order barriers are purely operational (technological), while the second-order barriers are applicational (pedagogical). The difference in approaches to applying technology to teaching and learning (overcoming technological vs pedagogical barriers) might explain why huge investments in ET have brought little if any effect to the quality of learning outcomes.

Last but not least, innovations grow in a favorable environment, which is cultivated by an educational system that promotes innovation at all levels and produces creative, critical thinking, self-sufficient, life-long learners, problem solvers, and workers. This system enjoys a stimulating research climate, encourages uplifting cultural attitudes toward education, and rallies massive societal support.

The ultimate question is, what innovations do we really need, and what innovations might we not need?

standardization of curriculum enforced by frequent external tests;

narrowing of the curriculum to basic skills in reading and mathematics;

reduced use of innovative teaching strategies;

adoption of educational ideas from external sources, rather than development of local internal capacity for innovation and problem-solving; and

adoption of high-stakes accountability policies, featuring rewards and sanctions for students, teachers, and schools ( Sahlberg, 2010 , p. 10).

Instead, the Finns went their own, the Finnish Way, so profoundly described by Pasi Sahlberg in his bestselling book ( Sahlberg, 2011 ). So would it be innovative not to adopt some reforms? A big question now arises, what is then the American way to build innovative education? And what would be the global way?

What to do? Possible solutions

To create innovations, we need innovators, and many of them. But though innovation is often a spark originated in the mind of a bright person, it needs an environment that can nourish the fire. This environment is formed and fed by educational institutions, societal culture, and advanced economy. Csikszentmihalyi underlines the importance of creating a stimulating macroenvironment, which integrates the social, cultural, and institutional context, and also microenvironment, the immediate setting in which a person works. “Successful environment […] provide(s) freedom of action and stimulation of ideas, coupled with a respectful and nurturant attitude toward potential geniuses” (2013, p. 140). Control over such an environment, he reasons, is in the educators’ hands.

Then, when the invention is created, it must fall into a fertile ground like a seed and be cultivated to grow and bring fruit. Csikszentmihalyi writes, “Creative ideas vanish unless there is a receptive audience to record and implement them […]. Edison’s or Einstein’s discoveries would be inconceivable without the prior knowledge, without the intellectual and social network that stimulated their thinking and without the social mechanisms that recognized and spread their innovations (2013, p. 6)”. The audience is not only the educators but also students, parents, policy makers, and all other members of society who act either as implementers or consumers of the innovation.

Coherent systemic support is essential for growing innovations. As the ITL Research project states, “Important school-level supports tend to be present in schools with higher concentrations of innovative teaching. Based on survey data, in schools where teachers reported higher average levels of innovative teaching practices, they also tended to report […] a professional culture aligned to support innovation, reflection, and meaningful discourse about new teaching practices” ( UNESCO, 2013 ). The OECD report on teaching practices and pedagogical innovation also argues that “Teaching practices […] are factors affecting student learning that are more readily modifiable. Moreover, additional professional practices have received attention, especially those that help transform the school into a professional learning community” ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 3).

Technology integration in education can be successful only when the human element is taken into consideration. This then integrates innovators, implementers, educational leadership, professional community and, certainly, the learners. Walter Polka and Joseph Kardash argue that the effectiveness of a computer innovation project they developed “[…] was facilitated by the school district leadership because of their focus on the ‘human side’ of change” ( Polka and Kardash, 2013 , p. 324). They found correlation between the implementation process employed in the district and the concepts associated with the three general need categories of innovation implementers: organizational needs, professional needs, and personal needs, which contributed to the innovation’s success. Long-lasting changes require “[…] a mixture of cultural and institutional changes, commitment from those within the program, and active and engaged leadership,” writes Leticia De Leόn, addressing technological innovations in higher education ( De Leόn, 2013 , p. 347).

When we try to innovate education, we often leave students out of the equation. We do not innovate in students’ learning, their mind, attitudes, behaviors, character, metacognition, and work ethics enough. Yet, we try everything we can to improve teaching (delivery), while what we actually need is to improve learning. In education, nothing works if the students do not. According to the famous Bulgarian scholar Georgi Lozanov (1988) , learning is a matter of attitude, not aptitude. This is where the greatest potential for improving education lies. As a renowned cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham writes, “[…] education makes better minds, and knowledge of the mind can make better education” ( Willingham, 2010 , p. 165). The most important goal, thus, should be not so much to learn STEM but to cultivate innovative people in K-12, grow their autonomy, self-efficiency, and foster an entrepreneurial mindset or “a critical mix of success-oriented attitudes of initiative, intelligent risk taking, collaboration and opportunity recognition” ( Zhao, 2012 , p. 5). To help develop new survival skills, effective communication and critical thinking skills, and nurture curious, creative, critical thinking, independent and self-directed entrepreneurs, we must disrupt the ways of our school system and the ways our teachers are prepared. It may be worthwhile to extend the commonly used term “career readiness” to “life readiness.”

Research of exemplary educational systems across the world vividly demonstrates that teacher quality is the fundamental element of educational success: “It is especially teachers who shape students’ learning environments and help them reach their intellectual potential”: ( Vieluf et al. , 2012 , p. 113). Teacher education and professional development are definitely one of the primary areas that call for innovative approaches: teachers must be taught to teach well ( Marcus, 2012 ). The “how” of the teaching (instructional methodology) is as important as the “what” (content) ( Morais et al. , 2004 ). A great resource for effective education is the instructional design and methodology used by teachers, as shown by the ITL Research project: “Across countries and classrooms, the characteristics of assigned classroom activities strongly predicted the 21st century skills that students exhibited in their work. Students are much more likely to learn to solve real-world problems and collaborate productively with their peers, for example, if their learning activities are carefully designed to offer opportunities for them to do these things. This finding suggests that professional development for innovative teaching might begin with lesson design” ( UNESCO, 2013 ).

Teacher social status is one of the determining factors of the teacher quality. Teachers’ status in the most advanced countries like Finland, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan is very high. It reflects the quality of teaching and learning and also the level of pedagogic innovations. In our drive to enhance educational innovation, empowering school teachers and college instructors may be the most important task. Mattan Griffel writes, “We need to change the role of teachers. What kind of people do we consider teachers? How do we elevate teachers in society?” ( Crichton, 2015 ). He believes we have to make them “rock stars” and bring new perspectives into the profession.

Eventually, the most recognized pathway to education innovation, writes Shelton, is “[…] basic and applied research […] with more and better leveraged resources, more focus, and more discipline, this pathway can accelerate our understanding of teaching and learning and production of performance enhancing practices and tools” ( Shelton, 2011 ). Research focusing on raising productivity and efficiency and improving the quality of learning has to increase in all critical areas of education. One crucial indicator of educational effectiveness is measuring the quality of learning that remains imperfect. “The lack of good measures has severely limited the degree to which market forces can discipline the provision of educational quality” ( Massy, 2012 ). Developing clear and effective measures of educational quality is an important venue for future innovative research.

Societal support for innovative education and building up a new culture of educational preeminence both inside the education system and around it is paramount for its success. Brunner (1996) suggests viewing education in a broader context of what society intends to accomplish through its educational investment in the young. The best way to achieve superior education is to shape a new educational culture. As Pasi Sahlberg explains, “We are creating a new culture of education, and there is no way back” (Sahlberg, 2011, p. 2).

Innovation can be presented as a model in the context of its effects on the quality of teaching and learning within an educational environment, which is permeated by professional and societal cultures ( Figure 1 ).

Americans’ love affair with the car extends to computers, iPhones, and the internet. Therefore, innovations in education focus primarily on technology and technology applications. Technocentrists want to see education more automated, more technology-enhanced, and more technology-controlled in the hope of making education more effective. The way of doing so would be through more sophisticated LMS’s, automated analytics, customization, or individualization of learning and developing the student as an avid consumer of digital information. While we realize there is no stopping the technological revolution, we educators must do all we can to preserve the primary mission of education, which is reflected in a humanistic approach that caters to the whole person wherein efforts are made to develop a free, independent, critical thinking, active, and effective thinker, doer, citizen, and worker. Educational innovations embrace both views, interacting and enriching each other for society’s common good.

Globalization in education

Along with developing our own innovations and creating a broad base for implementation, it might be useful to look outside the box. As the world becomes more and more globalized, national education systems are shedding their uniqueness and gaining a more universal, homogeneous look (e.g. the Bologna process, which has brought 50 national higher education systems to a common denominator in Europe and beyond) ( Bologna process, 2016 ). Scholars indicate there is “[…] the need for US universities to keep up with the rest of the world in today’s highly competitive educational marketplace” ( Wildavsky et al. , 2012 , p. 1). It is also economically and culturally beneficial to learn from each other in the spirit of global cooperation and share one’s achievements with others. While in the context of globalization it may be convenient to have a common education system across the world, however, to satisfy the needs and expectations of the nation-state it is necessary to continue innovating within one’s own system. The rich international educational palette offers unique solutions to many issues facing US schools and universities.

What attractive innovative approaches exist in the world that could be applied to the US education system? To mention just a few, the Confucian culture of appreciating education in China, Japan, South Korea, and other South-East Asian nations which brings students’ and parents’ positive and respectful societal attitudes toward education and educators; cultural transformation in education and quality teacher preparation in Finland, Singapore, and Shanghai; organizational innovations in schools of Ontario, Canada. In Finland, a new ecosystem for learning was created ( Niemi et al. , 2014 ). Singapore, for one, has become one of the top-scoring countries on the PISA tests by cultivating strong school leadership, committing to ongoing professional development, and exploring innovative models, like its tech-infused Future Schools ( EDUTOPIA, 2012b ). In Shanghai, China, every low-performing school is assigned a team of master teachers and administrators to provide weekly guidance and mentorship on everything from lesson plans to school culture ( EDITOPIA, 2012a ). The list of international innovations to cogitate is, fortunately, extensive. Is this what our educational innovators could do something about?

Daniel Willingham demonstrates a very interesting angle in international education that substantially differs from ours: “In China, Japan and other Eastern countries, intelligence is more often viewed as malleable. If students fail a test or don’t understand a concept, it’s not that they are stupid – they just haven’t worked hard enough yet. This attribution is helpful to students because it tells them that intelligence is under their control. If they are performing poorly, they can do something about it […] Children do differ in intelligence, but intelligence can be changed through sustained hard work” ( Willingham, 2010 , p. 131).

There are numerous exciting foreign examples for the US educators to learn from and innovate, implementing and adapting them to US schools.

Many US educators certainly learn from advanced nations’ educational experiences ( Darling-Hammond, 2010 ; Stewart, 2012 ), but these innovations find a hard way into the school system. A right step in this direction is to integrate global education ideas into teacher preparation programs. A worthy case of opening up a wide world of global education to US teachers and developing outside-the-box thinking is a new specialization in the Master of Arts in Teaching program, “U.S. Education in Global Context” which has been offered at National University since 2014. The principal focus of this specialization is on advanced, innovative, and effective international approaches, ideas, and strategies in teaching and learning that address the needs of the nation and create contemporary school environments to accommodate diverse student populations. Specialization’s goals and objectives are designed to help students develop the knowledge, competencies, skills, and dispositions required of a globally competent citizen and world-class educator. Focusing on the universal need for continuous improvement in teaching and learning, this specialization provides students with a balance of philosophy and theory, practice and application through collaborative research projects and field-based activities. The ultimate outcome of the four-course specialization is an innovative, practical implementation project to apply in the candidates’ schools.

The Finns, Singaporeans, South Koreans, Hong Kongers, and citizens of other nations consider education the best way to improve their country’s economy, and it has worked. An even more remarkable consequence has been a change to their national cultures. This provides a worthy example for other nations, including ours. To sum up, we need to create favorable conditions for growing our own innovations, while taking advantage of the best international theories and practices.

Learning faster, learning better, and at a lower cost?

You don’t have the time, you make the time (Thorin Klosowski).

Among many points for educational innovations time definitely deserves close attention. Time is a significant factor in education. Attempts to save time on learning and raise its productivity are well known to each of us. To increase learning efficiency using so-called accelerated and intensive approaches is a promising path for innovation. These two approaches demonstrate the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary disruptive approaches.

Innovation, as we know, can be called to life by social, political, or professional factors but the strongest is definitely economic. A flat world ( Friedman, 2005 ) means global competition, faster production cycles, and more to keep up with. Time is speeding up. Requirements for workers are rapidly mounting in industry and business due to swiftly changing technologies and fierce international competition. It is impractical to spend a third of one’s active lifetime attending secondary school and college learning in advance what may not be useful on the job in the next 10 to 15 years because manufacturing, technology, and business will completely change.

Additionally, the cost of a college education is rising faster than inflation, though the outcomes are disproportionate to this rise: “[…] tuition has increased faster than inflation, without a comparable increase in the quality or results” ( Brewer and Tierney, 2012 , p. 13). If you ask students what worries them most, it is the cost of the next course and its value for their future job. Education has become more expensive and less affordable for many people. This also creates a heavy burden on the state’s budget. Therefore, educators need to find ways to make education more time and cost efficient ( Hjeltnes and Hansson, 2005 ).

We can identify two possible roads to take. The first is to increase revenue, and this is what the majority of colleges and universities are doing. Raising tuition, however, has its limits; government support is drying out. Cutting costs, on the other hand, may undermine some essential aspects of higher education. The second road is to increase learning productivity defined as the output (learning outcomes measured in certain units) per dollar or per time unit (academic year, semester, month, week, day, or hour). The former can be used to compute cost efficiency, while the latter will help to define time efficiency. Time efficiency and cost efficiency of education are evidently interrelated. The most obvious source of enhancing educational productivity is integration of ICT; however, there are other ways.

Time is the most precious of commodities, especially for WALs. Our own survey of National University students who take accelerated programs, which allow them to graduate sooner than in conventional programs, shows that time is paramount when selecting their learning program ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ). When asked what is more important for them, the cost of the program or the time spent learning, 88 percent of surveyed WALs stated that time was more important, and they were willing to pay more for a shorter program of the same quality. So accelerated programs are often more competitive than the conventional extended ones. Serdyukov and Serdyukova (2012) posit that time efficiency of the learning process is a decisive factor in assessing a program or a course. In their opinion, colleges and universities, which are now evaluated based upon the quality of their education, will soon be selected and valued based on the time needed for the learning to take place.

In the same way, programs that cost less will be more competitive than those that cost more. With education budgets decreasing and numbers of learners taking part in education increasing, time and cost efficiency will play an increasing role in determining a program’s, and thus an institution’s, value.

When considering time investment, instructional activities are basically concerned with either learning more in the same time (i.e. growth in learning outcomes without increasing learning time) or learning the same amount of information in less time (decreasing learning time or compressing the course). As Serdyukov and Serdyukova (2006) write: “Can we, the educators, teach more effectively; can students learn more, better and in less time?” (p. 255). The answer to this question can have profound social, economic and personal significance as it may affect a learner’s career and lifestyle, societal attitude toward education, the rate of investment in education, and eventually the nation’s well-being ( Barbera et al. , 2015 ).

Consideration of time investment in learning coupled with recent innovations in cognitive psychology and ET is what brought to life accelerated and intensive programs. Various approaches and methodologies for providing faster and shorter education without compromising academic quality have been described in the literature ( Scott and Conrad, 1992 ; Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ; Bowling et al. , 2002 ; Serdyukov, 2008 ). They are grounded in the newest brain research in the cognitive and emotional potential of learners ( Lozanov, 1978, 1988 ; Kitaigorodskaya, 1995 ), innovative approaches to teaching and learning that use nontraditional organizational forms, techniques and processes ( Boyes et al. , 2004 ; Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ), ET applications, and even fancy programs of learning during sleep ( Ostrander and Schroeder, 2000 ). The most popular approaches are accelerated learning (AL) programs, which use a compressed, short-term course format, and intensive learning (IL) programs, which employ specially organized course structure, visuals, music, and suggestive techniques to open up students’ intellectual and sensitive capacities, thereby contributing to more effective learning.

Accelerated and intensive programs can significantly shorten the duration of the learning measured in class hours, days, weeks, or semesters. In some cases, they can also increase learning outcomes measured in the volume of knowledge constructed or skill sets learned in a given time. ( Serdyukov, 2008 ).

A conventional semester model of college education may not suit a new generation of WALs who take school part-time and need to speed up learning to obtain employable competencies and skills. The AL model delivers a semester program in a shorter period of time than the conventional program model but with the comparable results. National University, for example, offers undergraduate and graduate-level programs using a nontraditional, accelerated 1×1 model of instruction (one month long, one course at a time) for adult learners ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ). Onsite classes usually meet two evening sessions per week for four-and-a-half hour each; in some cases, there are two additional Saturday morning sessions of the same duration. Thus, each course runs for eight evenings with one Saturday morning final session for graduate programs (totaling 40.5 hours) or two Saturday sessions for undergraduate programs (totaling 45 hours). Similar models are used by such schools as Cornell College, Colorado College, DeVry University, Northeast University, Grand Canyon University, Tusculum University, and Colorado State University Global.

Online courses also run for four weeks but instead of face-to-face classroom sessions students participate in threaded discussions (one or two per week), view live videoconferencing sessions (one per week), carry out weekly written assignments, develop projects, and in some courses complete mandatory field activities (e.g. teacher preparation programs require school visits for observing and teaching lessons).

The sequential approach when students take one course after another allows for more accumulated and integrated learning experiences. Besides, according to the student survey ( Serdyukov et al. , 2003 ), this 1×1 format helps to unshackle students’ minds and focus their attention and energy on a single subject. It can also make it easier to adapt to the same teaching/learning style in this instructional model. The advantages observed for the sequential model appear to occur because the more intense, consecutive instruction reduces the number of distractions in the students’ lives, thus allowing for more focused attention and ultimately creating a more effective learning environment. Csikszentmihalyi’s (1982) research suggests that “deep concentration,” “immersion” in an activity, and “undivided intentionality” lead to increasingly rewarding “optimal experiences” which nourish and strengthen the self. He also comments that “optimal experience stands out against this background of humdrum everyday life by excluding the noise that interferes with it in normal existence” (p. 22). This becomes evident when we consider the working adult’s hectic life and complicated everyday experiences. Scott and Conrad (1992) state that “concentrated study may cultivate skills and understandings which will remain untapped and undeveloped under the traditional system” (p. 417). Therefore, learning only one content area at a time has become one of the crucial factors of AL.

The intensive approach, a superior level of AL, has been used in many countries primarily for foreign language education, probably the most time-consuming didactic endeavor. One indicator of how efficiently a student has learned a foreign language is the number of words learned, retained, and correctly used in communication, both in oral and written speech (reading and writing). According to research ( Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2007 ), a person needs to know and be able to use two to three thousand words in a foreign language for basic communication. These so-called communicative skills can be assessed by the ability of the learner to accomplish a communication task in certain communicative situations. Duration of the study course at this level in a conventional institution can reach 200-300 hours. At a rate of two hours a week, the course duration may extend to 100 or more weeks (two years).

When an innovative, intensive instructional methodology, such as suggestopedia ( Lozanov, 1978 ; Kitaigorodskaya, 1995 ; Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ), is used to teach a foreign language, the learning efficiency significantly rises, and the course duration with the same outcomes can be reduced by approximately 50 percent, as compared to a conventional college course. For instance, an initial intensive course can take up to 100 to 150 hours. The course is usually taught with higher frequency and longer lessons (usually four to five hours, two to three or more times a week). Thus, a complete course of study may be completed only in ten weeks (2.5 months). So time efficiency ( Et ) of an intensive foreign language course in the number of hours ( t ) is of the order of 2 (200 hours of a conventional course ( c ) divided by 100 hours of an intensive course ( i )): E t = t c t i ;

Time efficiency of the same intensive course in the number of weeks is of the order of 10: duration of a conventional course ( dc ) (100 weeks) divided by the duration of an intensive course ( di ) (ten weeks): E t = d c d i .

This is a case of disruptive, revolutionary innovation that produces a radical transformation in foreign language learning where learners achieve course goals and objectives in half the study hours and one-tenth of a typical course duration. This approach, which was extremely popular in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Soviet Union) in the 1980s and 1990s, was to a larger extent inspired by the rise of the Iron Curtain and prospective emigration to the west. Some variations or similar approaches emerged later in Germany, England, Japan, and the USA ( Rose and Nicholl, 1997 ). Why it was not recognized and did not spread throughout US schools and colleges may be partially due to a lack of need (English is spoken worldwide). In addition, it is labor intensive and demands high-level teacher qualifications (special preparation, dedication, excellent dispositions, inventiveness, and very hard work in the class). In addition, it must be taught in specially designed and equipped classrooms. Finally, it depends on students’ elevated intrinsic motivation, work ethic, trust and respect for the teacher, and perseverance, though for a limited time.

Both accelerated and intensive short-term courses demand highly efficient planning, organization, and management of the instructional process. Furthermore, to ensure efficient course delivery, innovative methods and technologies are required for effective presentation, processing, skill development, and real-life applications. Many accomplishments in AL and IL methodologies, incidentally, can be used to teach other than foreign language programs.

learner-centered approach;

specific structure and organization of the course and its content for consistent, “whole” student experience;

effective content presentation in various formats and modalities;

immediate application of new knowledge in authentic situations in the class and real life, and gaining practical outcomes of the course;

iterative process of knowledge construction and skill development ( Serdyukov and Ryan, 2008 );

situated learning ( Lave and Wenger, 1991 ) that uses real-life situations as the basis of learning activities and, especially, in developing professional competence;

continuous active communication, collaboration, and cooperation among students in various small- and big-group activities;

high level of intrinsic motivation developed and constantly supported through emotional involvement of each student in team work and learning process;

instructor’s suggestive, supportive, and efficient teaching style incorporating incessant involvement with the class; immediate, objective, and stimulating feedback; continuous student support;

systemic use of ET in classroom and homework both for content acquisition and skill development, for communication and collaboration, and for maintaining students’ high level of cognitive, physical, and emotional state;

application of suggestive techniques, such as relaxation, ritual structure of classroom activities, positive environment, emotional involvement, and music; and

combination of intensive work and total relaxation.

This approach is rooted in consistent, systemic application of all these principles.

The formula for IL is as follows: The more organized and efficient the instructional system, the more focused the student, the more effort is produced, the better the effect of learning, the faster the rate of learning, and the shorter the process duration ( Serdyukov and Serdyukova, 2006 ). This is why all accelerated and intensive courses are always short (two weeks to 1-2 months long). If no significant effort is applied to learning, then there is no effect, no increase in productivity, and consequently, no opportunity to shorten the duration of the course.

So, accelerated programs that speed up learning by compressing the course duration, while requiring the same number of hours for the same learning outcomes, are an evolutionary innovation. Intensive programs that provide better outcomes in a considerably shorter time are a revolutionary innovation. We can state now that when an innovation ensures significantly better outcomes and saves on cost or time by at least an order of 2 (100 percent) or more, we can call it a revolutionary innovation.

Measuring time in learning can be instrumental for increasing its productivity. Learning to manage time productively is especially acute for independent learners and online students for whom effective time management is a well-known issue. Therefore, teachers need be taught to use time effectively. In teacher preparation programs, for instance, we recommend that teachers use time estimates when planning lessons ( Serdyukov and Ryan, 2008 ; FEA, 2016 ). Thus, making learning more time and cost efficient offers a promising venue for further innovations.

US education desperately needs effective innovations of scale that can help produce high quality learning outcomes across the system and for all students. We can start by intensifying our integration of successful international learning models and creating conditions in our schools and colleges that foster and support innovators and educational entrepreneurs, or edupreneurs ( Tait and Faulkner, 2016 ). Moreover, these transformations should be varied, yet systematic, targeting different vital aspects of education. Deep, multifaceted, and comprehensive innovations, both tangible and intangible, have the capacity to quickly generate scalable effects.

Radically improving the efficiency and quality of teaching and learning theory and practice, as well as the roles of the learner, teacher, parents, community, society, and society’s culture should be the primary focus of these changes. Other promising approaches should seek to improve students’ work ethic and attitudes toward learning, their development of various learning skills, as well as making learning more productive. We also have to bring all grades, from preschool to higher and postgraduate levels, into one cohesive system.

As the price of education, especially at colleges and universities, continues to rise, cost and time efficiency of learning, effective instructional approaches, and methods and tools capable of fulfilling the primary mission of education all will become critical areas of research and inventive solutions. Colleges and universities must concentrate on expanding the value of education, maximizing the productivity of learning, correlating investments with projected outcomes, and improving cost and time efficiency.

Whatever technologies we devise for education, however much technology we integrate into learning, the human element, particularly the learner and teacher, remains problematic. So, while taking advantage of effective educational technologies, we must situate those modern tools within a wider context of human education in order to preserve its humanistic, developmental purpose and, thus, make more effective use of them.

Computers for schools are ready, but are we ready? Our understanding of how students learn and how teachers teach and craft their methodology in technology-based environments remains lacking. Questions to ask are whether current methods help increase learning productivity, and as a result, time and cost efficiency. All technology applications require a solid theoretical foundation based on purposeful, systemic research and sound pedagogy to increase efficiency and decrease possible side issues. When integrating novel technologies in teaching and learning, we must first consider their potential applicability, anticipated costs and benefits, and then develop successful educational practices.

Therefore, the key to a prosperous, inventive society is a multidimensional approach to revitalizing the educational system (structures, tools, and stake holders) so that it breeds learners’ autonomy, self-efficacy, critical thinking, creativity, and advances a common culture that supports innovative education. In order to succeed, innovative education must become a collective matter for all society for which we must generate universal public responsibility. Otherwise, all our efforts to build an effective educational system will fail.

Model of educational innovation

Aaron , S. ( 2007 ), “ An insider’s look at online learning ”, Teaching Community , available at: http://teaching.monster.com/education/articles/1599-an-insiders-look-at-online-learning?print=true (accessed September 3, 2016 ).

Abeyta , E. ( 2013 ), “ Lifelong customers: the response to student consumerism ”, The Evolllution , available at: http://evolllution.com/opinions/lifelong-customers-response-student-consumerism/ (accessed September 10, 2016 ).

Accuosti , J. ( 2014 ), “ Factors affecting education technology success ”, ASEE 2014 Zone I Conference , April 3-5 , available at: www.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2014/ Student/PDFs/112.pdf

Afshar , V. ( 2016 ), “ Disrupting higher education ”, a blog, The Huffington Post , August 5,available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/vala-afshar/disrupting-higher-educati_b_11341146.html?

Baer , L. and McCormick , J. ( 2012 ), “ Building the capacity for change through innovation ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman&Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 165 - 181 .

Barbera , E. , Gros , B. and Kirschner , P. ( 2015 ), “ Paradox of time in research on educational technology ”, Time & Society 2015 , Vol. 24 No. 1 , pp. 96 - 108 , available at: http://tas.sagepub.com/content/24/1/96.refs (accessed August 13, 2016 ).

Bok , D. ( 2007 ), Our Underachieving Colleges , Princeton University Press , Princeton, NJ , p. 6 .

Bologna Process ( 2016 ), “ European higher education area and Bologna process ”, available at: www.ehea.info/ (accessed May 28, 2016 ).

Bowling , N. , Ries , K. and Ivanitskaya , L. ( 2002 ), “ How effective are compressed courses? ”, On Target , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 3 - 7 , available at: www.cel.cmich.edu/ontarget/aug02/ (accessed April 1, 2012 ).

Boyes , L. , Reid , I. , Brain , K. and Wilson , J. ( 2004 ), Accelerated Learning: A Literature Survey , Unit for Educational Research & Evaluation, University of Bradford , Bradford , available at: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/giftedandtalented/downloads/word/accellearnreport.doc (accessed April 1, 2006 ).

Brewer , D. and Tierney , W. ( 2012 ), “ Barriers to innovation in the US education ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 11 - 40 .

Brunner , J. ( 1996 ), The Culture of Education , Harvard University Press , Cambridge, MA .

Brynjolfsson , E. ( 1993 ), “ The productivity paradox of information technology: review and assessment ”, Communications of the ACM , Vol. 36 No. 12 , pp. 67 - 77 .

Business Dictionary ( 2016 ), “ Definition of the term ‘intangible asset’ ”, available at: www.businessdictionary.com/definition/intangible-asset.html (accessed November 11, 2016 ).

Camins , A. ( 2015 ), “ What’s the purpose of education in the 21st century? ”, Washington Post’ education blog, The Answer Sheet, February 12, available at: www.arthurcamins.com/?p=319 (accessed October 14, 2016 ).

Christensen , C. and Eyring , H. ( 2011 ), The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside out , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Christensen , C. and Overdorf , M. ( 2000 ), “ Meeting the challenge of disruptive change ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 2 No. 78 , pp. 47 - 76 .

Cole , M. , Shelley , D. and Swartz , L. ( 2014 ), “ Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: a three year study ”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , Vol. 13 No. 6 , available at: www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1748/3123 (accessed July 22, 2016 ).

Cornali , F. ( 2012 ), “ Effectiveness and efficiency of educational measures ”, Evaluation Practices, Indicators and Rhetoric , Vol. 2 No. 3 , pp. 255 - 260 , available at: www.SciRP.org/journal/sm

Creating Innovators ( 2012 ), “ America’s last competitive advantage ”, available at: http://creatinginnovators.com/ (accessed September 28, 2016 ).

Crichton , D. ( 2015 ), “ Searching for the next wave of education innovation ”, TechCrunch , available at: https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/27/education-next-wave/ (accessed September 23, 2016 ).

Csikszentmihalyi , M. ( 1982 ), “ Toward a psychology of optimal experiences ”, Review of Personality and Social Psychology , No. 3 , pp. 13 - 36 .

Csikszentmihalyi , M. ( 2013 ), Creativity: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention , Harperperennial , New York, NY .

Cuban , L. ( 2015 ), “ Larry Cuban on school reform and classroom practice: the lack of evidence-based practice: the case of classroom technology ”, available at: https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/the-lack-of-evidence-based-practice-the-case-of-classroom-technology-part-1/ (accessed August 29, 2016 ).

Darling-Hammond , L. ( 2010 ), The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity will Determine Our Future , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

De Leόn , L. ( 2013 ), “ Managing technological innovation and issues of licensing in higher education ”, in Ran , B. (Ed.), The Dark Side of Technological Innovation , Information Age Publishing , Charlotte, NC , pp. 347 - 371 .

Diamond , J. ( 2005 ), Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , Penguin Book , New York, NY .

EDITOPIA ( 2012a ), “ Shanghai ”, George Lucas Educational Foundation , available at: www.edutopia.org/education-everywhere-international-shanghai-china-video

EDUTOPIA ( 2012b ), “ Singapore ”, George Lucas Educational Foundation , available at: www.edutopia.org/education-everywhere-international-singapore-video

Ertmer , P. ( 1999 ), “ Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: strategies for technology integration ”, Educational Technology Research and Development , Vol. 47 No. 4 , pp. 47 - 61 , available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02299597

Evans , R. and Leppmann , P. ( 1970 ), Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education , Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc. , San Francisco, CA .

Extreme Learning ( 2012 ), available at: www.extreme-learning.org/ (accessed September 22, 2016 ).

FEA ( 2016 ), “ Time-on-task: a strategy that accelerates learning ”, FEAWeb, available at: https://feaweb.org/time-on-task-a-teaching-strategy-that-accelerates-learning (accessed August 9, 2016 ).

Feeman , I. and Thomas , M. ( 2005 ), “ Consumerism in education: a comparison between Canada and the United Kingdom ”, International Journal of Educational Management , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 153 - 177 , available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/09513540510582444

Friedman , T. ( 2005 ), The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century , Farrar, Straus and Giroux , New York, NY .

Friedman , G. ( 2012 ), The Next Decade: Empire and Republic in a Changing World , Anchor Books , New York, NY .

Fullan , M. ( 2007 ), Leading in a Culture of Change , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Fullan , M. ( 2010 ), All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform , Corwin , Newbury Park, CA .

Gibbons , S. and Silva , O. ( 2011 ), “ School quality, child well-being and parents’ satisfaction ”, Economics of Education Review , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 312 - 331 .

Groom , J. and Lamb , B. ( 2014 ), “ Reclaiming innovation ”, EDUCAUSE Review , Vol. 49 No. 3 , available at: www.educause.edu/visuals/shared/er/extras/2014/ReclaimingInnovation/default.html

Hargreaves , A. ( 2003 ), Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

Hargreaves , A. and Shirley , D. ( 2009 ), The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future of Educational Change , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Hargreaves , A. , Lieberman , A. , Fullan , M. and Hopkins , D. (Eds) ( 2010 ), Second International Handbook of Educational Change , Springer , New York, NY .

Heick , T. ( 2016 ), “ 12 Barriers to innovation in education ”, TeachThought. available at: www.teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/disruption-innovation/12-barriers-innovation-education/ (accessed August 12, 2016 ).

Hjeltnes , T. and Hansson , B. ( 2005 ), “ Cost effectiveness and cost efficiency in e-learning ”, The TISIP Foundation, Trondheim, available at: www2.tisip.no/quis/public_files/wp7-cost-effectiveness-efficiency.pdf (accessed September 29, 2016 ).

Hoffman , A. and Holzhuter , J. ( 2012 ), “ The evolution of higher education: innovation as natural selection ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman & Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 3 - 15 .

Huffington Post ( 2012 ), “ College preparedness lacking, forcing students into developmental coursework, prompting some to drop out ”, Huffington Post , June 6, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2012/06/18/students-lacking-college-_n_1606201.html (accessed May 1, 2015 ).

Jaschik , S. ( 2015 ), “ Well-prepared in their own eyes ”, Inside Higher, available at: www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/20/study-finds-big-gaps-between-student-and-employer-perceptions (accessed August 25, 2016 ).

Jiang , L. ( 2015 ), “ Why education innovation is the most important thing you could pursue ”, Getting Smart, available at: http://gettingsmart.com/2015/04/why-education-innovation-is-the-most-important-thing-you-could-pursue/ (accessed July 18, 2016 ).

Kerby , M. , Branham , K. and Mallinger , G. ( 2014 ), “ Consumer-based higher education: the uncaring of learning ”, Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice , Vol. 14 No. 5 , pp. 42 - 54 , available at: www.na-businesspress.com/JHETP/KerbyMB_Web14_5_.pdf

Kitaigorodskaya , G. ( 1995 ), Intensive Foreign Language Teaching: History, Current Status and Future Trends , MGU , Moscow (in Russian) .

Lave , J. and Wenger , E. ( 1991 ), Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation , University of Cambridge Press , Cambridge .

Levasseur , A. ( 2012 ), “ Does our current education system support innovation? ”, MindShift, July 17, available at: ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/07/17/does-our-current-education-system-support-innovation/ (accessed September 21, 2016 ).

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English ( 2007 ), Longman Communication 3000 , Pearson Longman ELT , White Plains, NY .

Lozanov , G. ( 1978 ), Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy , Gordon and Breach Science Pub , New York, NY .

Lozanov , G. ( 1988 ), The Foreign Language Teacher’s Suggestopedic Manual , Routledge , London .

Marcus , J. ( 2012 ), “ Old school: four-hundred years of resistance to change ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 41 - 72 .

Massy , W. ( 2012 ), “ Creative paths to boosting academic productivity ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 73 - 100 .

Massy , W. and Zemsky , R. ( 1995 ), Using Information Technology to Enhance Academic Productivity , Educom , Washington, DC , available at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/html/nli0004.html (accessed September 24, 2016 ).

Matthew , M. (Ed.) ( 1964 ), Innovation in Education , Teachers College Press , New York, NY .

Maurer , H. , Mehmood , R. and Korica-Pehserl , P. ( 2013 ), “ How dangerous is the web for creative work? ”, Journal of Computing and Information Technology , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 59 - 69 .

Mercurio , Z. ( 2016 ), “ How college kills purpose ”, The Huffington Post , May 24, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-mercurio/how-college-kills-purpose_b_10013944.html

Meyer , A. , Rose , D. and Gordon , D. ( 2014 ), Universal Design of Learning: Theory and Practice , CAST Professional Publishing , Wakefield, MA .

Morais , A. , Neves , I. and Pires , D. ( 2004 ), “ The what and the how of teaching and learning: going deeper into sociological analysis and intervention ”, in Muller , J. , Davies , B. and Morais , A. (Eds), Thinking with Bernstein, Working with Bernstein , Routledge , London .

National Council of Teachers of English ( 2014 ), “ How standardized tests shape – and limit – student learning: a policy research brief produced by the National Council of Teachers of English ”, available at: www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CC/0242-nov2014/CC0242PolicyStandardized.pdf (accessed September 9, 2016 ).

National Educational Technology Standards ( 2004 ), ISTE, available at: http://ced.ncsu.edu/techcomps/unets5.html (accessed March 12, 2013 ).

Ni , A. ( 2013 ), “ Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: teaching research methods ”, Journal of Public Affairs Education , Vol. 1 No. 19 , pp. 199 - 215 .

Nickols , M. ( 2011 ), “ Articulating e-pedagogy for education. Open learning for an open world ”, in Barrett , J. (Ed.), Reflections on Open and Distance Learning and Teaching at the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand , Lower Hutt , pp. 321 - 336 .

Niemi , H. , Multisilta , J. , Lipponen , L. and Vivitsou , M. (Eds) ( 2014 ), Finnish Innovations and Technologies in Schools: A Guide Towards New Ecosystems of Learning , Sense Publishers, University of Helsinki , Rotterdam , available at: www.cicero.fi/files/Cicero/site/2121-finnish-innovations-and-technologies-in-schools_ToC.pdf (accessed October 2, 2016 ).

Ng , I. and Forbes , J. ( 2009 ), “ Education as service: the understanding of university experience through service logic ”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 1 , pp. 38 - 64 .

OECD ( 2014 ), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective , OECD Publishing , Paris , available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en (accessed August 30, 2016 ).

Office of Innovation and Improvement ( 2016 ), “ US Department of Education ”, available at: http://innovation.ed.gov/ (accessed September 1, 2016 ).

Okpara , F. ( 2007 ), “ The value of creativity and innovation in entrepreneurship ”, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability , Vol. III No. 2 , pp. 2 - 14 , available at: www.asiaentrepreneurshipjournal.com/ajesiii2okpara.pdf

Osolind , K. ( 2012 ), “ Revolutionary vs evolutionary innovation ”, Reinvention Consulting, available at: www.reinventioninc.com/revolutionvsevolution (accessed October 16, 2016 ).

Ostrander , S. and Schroeder , L. ( 2000 ), Superlearning: New Triple Fast Ways You Can Learn, Earn, and Succeed in the 21st Century , Delacorte Press , New York, NY .

Pappert , S. ( 1990 ), “ A Critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future ”, available at: www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html (accessed December 25, 2015 ).

Pew Research Center ( 2015 ), “ US students improving – slowly – in math and science, but still lagging internationally ”, Pew Research Center, February 2, available at: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/ (accessed July 27, 2016 ).

Polka , W. and Kardash , J. ( 2013 ), “ Managing in the effective change zone to implement a ‘1-to-1’ laptop program in a rural school district ”, in Ran , B. (Ed.), The Dark Side of Technological Innovation , Information Age Publishing , Charlotte, NC , pp. 323 - 346 .

Postman , N. ( 1993 ), Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology , Vintage Books , New York, NY .

Robinson , K. ( 2015 ), Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution that’s Transforming Education , Viking Press , New York, NY .

Rose , C. and Nicholl , M.J. ( 1997 ), Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century. The Six-step Plan to Unlock Your Master-Mind , Dell Publishing , New York, NY .

Rubin , C. ( 2015 ), “ The global search for education: United States and Finland – why are they so great? ”, The Huffington Post , February 6, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/c-m-rubin/the-global-search-for-edu_b_6992056.html (accessed July 19, 2016 ).

Rushkoff , D. ( 2010 ), Program or be Programmed. Ten Commands for a Digital Age , OR Books , New York, NY .

Sahlberg , P. ( 2010 ), “ Educational change in Finland ”, in Hargreaves , A. , Lieberman , A. , Fullan , M. and Hopkins , D. (Eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Change , Springer , New York, NY , pp. 323 - 348 .

Sahlberg , P. ( 2011 ), Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland , Teachers College, Columbia University , New York, NY .

Schuwer , B. and Kusters , B. ( 2014 ), “ Mass customization of education by an institution of HE: what can we learn from industry? ”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning , Vol. 12 No. 2 .

Science Watch ( 2009 ), “ Top 20 countries in all fields ”, Science Watch, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, available at: http://archive.sciencewatch.com/dr/cou/2009/09decALL/ (accessed August 6, 2016 ).

Scott , P. and Conrad , C. ( 1992 ), “ A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research ”, Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , Agathon Press , New York, NY , pp. 411 - 459 .

Serdiukov , P. ( 2001 ), “ Models of distance higher education: fully automated or partially human? ”, Educational Technology Review. International Journal on Educational Technology Issues & Applications , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 15 - 25 .

Serdyukov , P. ( 2008 ), “ Accelerated learning: what is it? ”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 36 - 59 .

Serdyukov , P. ( 2015a ), “ Does online education need a special pedagogy? ”, Journal of Computing and Information Technology , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 61 - 74 , available at: http://cit.srce.unizg.hr/index.php/CIT/article/view/2511

Serdyukov , P. ( 2015b ), “ Paradox of teacher and student in online education and societal culture ”, Proceedings of Global Learn 2015. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) , pp. 713 - 723 .

Serdyukov , P. and Ryan , M. ( 2008 ), Writing Effective Lesson Plans: The 5-Star Approach , Allyn&Bacon , Boston, MA .

Serdyukov , P. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2006 ), “ Innovative approaches in technology-based education: Accelerated and intensive learning ”, Proceedings of the Ninth IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, CATE 2006 , Lima , October 4-6 , pp. 45 - 50 .

Serdyukov , P. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2012 ), “ Time as factor of success in online learning ”, Journal of Information Technology and Application in Education , Vol. 1 No. 2 , pp. 40 - 46 , available at: www.jitae.org/paperInfo.aspx?ID=1203

Serdyukov , P. , Subbotin , I. and Serdyukova , N. ( 2003 ), “ Accessible, convenient and efficient education for working adults in a shorter time: is it possible? ”, CAEL Forum and News , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 24 - 28 .

Sharratt , L. and Harild , G. ( 2015 ), Good to Great to Innovate: Recalculating the Route to Career Readiness, K-12+ , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Shelton , J. ( 2011 ), “ Education innovation: what it is and why we need more of it ”, Education Week , Sputnik post, September 28, available at: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/sputnik/2011/09/education_innovation_what_it_is_and_why_we_need_more_of_it.html (accessed September 16, 2016 ).

Song , L.S. , Singleton , E. , Hill , J. and Koh , M. ( 2004 ), “ Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics ”, Internet and Higher Education , pp. 59 - 70 .

Sousa , D. ( 2014 ), How the Brain Learns Mathematics , Korwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Spalding , E. ( 2012 ), Claire Fox: Is Consumerism Bad for Education? Liberty World Press , available at: http://libertyuom.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/claire-fox-is-consumerism-bad-for-education/ (accessed September 12, 2016 ).

Spangehl , S. and Hoffman , A. ( 2012 ), “ Perspectives on innovation ”, in Hoffman , A. and Spangehl , S. (Eds), Innovation in Higher Education: Igniting the Spark for Success , American Council on Education , Rowman & Litttlefield Publishers Inc. , Lanham, MD , pp. 17 - 26 .

Stewart , V. ( 2012 ), A World-Class Education: Learning from International Models of Excellence and Innovation , ASCD , Alexandria, VA .

Stokes , P. ( 2012 ), “ What online learning can teach us about higher education? ”, in Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA , pp. 197 - 224 .

Strauss , V. ( 2014 ), “ Five US innovations that helped Finland’s schools improve but that American reformers now ignore ”, The Washington Post , July 25, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/07/25/five-u-s-innovations-that-helped-finlands-schools-improve-but-that-american-reformers-now-ignore/?utm_term=.cec08c870e6b (accessed October 4, 2016 ).

Tait , A. and Faulkner , D. ( 2016 ), Edupreneur: Unleashing Teacher Led Innovation in Schools , Wiley , Hoboken, NJ .

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing ( 2012 ), “ How standardized testing damages education ”, Fair test, The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, Jamaica Plain, MA, available at: http://fairtest.org/how-standardized-testing-damages-education-pdf (accessed August 20, 2016 ).

Thomson , J. ( 2015 ), “ Poor grades ”, Inside Higher Ed , July 9, available at: www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/09/national-poll-finds-overall-dissatisfaction-college-selection-process-while-parents (accessed August 20, 2016 ).

UNESCO ( 2013 ), “ ITL – Innovative teaching and learning research: a global look at pedagogies for 21st century skills ”, ICT in Education, UNESCO, Bangkok, available at: www.unescobkk.org/ education/ict/online-resources/databases/ict-in-education-database/item/article/innovative-teaching-and-learning-itl-research-a-global-look-at-pedagogies-for-21st-century-skills/ (accessed August 18, 2016 ).

US Department of Education ( 2004 ), “ What do we mean by ‘innovation’? ”, US Department of Education, available at: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/about/definition.html

Vieluf , S. , Kaplan , D. , Klieme , E. and Bayer , S. ( 2012 ), Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Innovation: Evidence from TALIS , OECD Publishing , Paris , available at: www.oecd.org/edu/school/TalisCeri%202012%20(tppi)–Ebook.pdf

Wagner , T. ( 2012 ), Creating Innovators: The Making of Young People who Will Change the World , Scribner , New York, NY .

Westra , K. ( 2016 ), “ Faculty and student perceptions of effective online learning environments ”, Paper No. 596, all theses, dissertations, and other capstone projects, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, available at: http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=etds (accessed August 25, 2016 ).

Wildavsky , B. , Kelly , A. and Carey , K. (Eds) ( 2012 ), Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation , Harvard Education Press , Cambridge, MA .

Willingham , D. ( 2010 ), “ Why don’t students like school? ”, A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions about How the Mind Works and What it Means for Your Classroom , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Wrenn , V. ( 2016 ), “ Effects of traditional and online instructional models on student achievement outcomes ”, Paper No. 1135, doctoral dissertations and projects, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, available at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1135 (accessed August 22, 2016 ).

Yu , D. and Hang , C.C. ( 2010 ), “ A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 12 No. 4 , pp. 435 - 452 , available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00272.x/full

Zeihan , P. ( 2014 ), The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disorder , Twelve Hachette Book Group , New York, NY .

Zhao , Y. ( 2012 ), World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students , Corwin , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Zhao , Y. and Frank , K. ( 2003 ), “ Factors affecting technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective ”, available at: https://msu.edu/~kenfrank/papers/Factors%20affecting%20technology%20uses%20in%20schools.pdf (accessed July 21, 2016 ).

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Drs Robyn Hill, Sara Kelly and Margot Kinberg for their help in preparing this paper for publication.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Publications

Innovation spotlights: Case studies in high school redesign

• Covid-19 , Equity in Education , Innovation and the Future of Learning
• September 2023

Educators nationwide are forging their way in a landscape rocked by pandemic-induced disruptions. Training resources designed to spark new thinking among school staff often feel outdated—especially if they were published before 2020. To address this need, the Center on Reinventing Public Education at Arizona State University and the Center for Public Research and Leadership (CPRL) at Columbia University have have crafted a set of dynamic new training materials. These teaching cases highlight high schools that have distinguished themselves  though boldly redesigning and improving the student experience.

Our case studies invite participants to consider authentic dilemmas at innovative high schools where we’ve conducted on-the-ground research and interviews. The narratives of each school and accompanying questions are designed to generate grounded, in-depth discussions of key issues related to innovation and equity in high school education. Each teaching case is intended for groups of leaders and design teams who are learning about or engaged in high school reinvention.

Teachers, school staff, and design teams can work through the following cases. Use the links to download each case, or click the button below to download all five.

• Grades as a lever to support student learning: One school’s attempt to rethink traditional grading . This case study describes East Hartford High School’s (Hartford, CT) Grading for Equity implementation, including educators’ focus on maintaining high standards and ensuring students graduate career- and college-ready. It concludes with important questions for those seeking to test out innovative approaches to grading.
• Should daily attendance be a measure of success? Prioritizing community building and student engagement . This case from  Nowell Academy in Providence, RI  prompts high school leaders to wrestle with how to balance working to boost students’ engagement and ownership of their educational journeys while also working to increase attendance.
• Different choices, equal chances: Helping high school students achieve success on their own terms . This case, from Nokomis Regional High School in rural Newport, ME, wrestles with how high schools can expand students’ postsecondary horizons while remaining responsive to their values and interests–especially if those values differ significantly from those of the adults who support them.
• From enrollment to completion: Supporting equitable outcomes in challenging coursework . This case describes Maloney High School’s (Meriden, CT) outreach and support strategies for increasing underrepresented students’ access to challenging courses, and concludes with important questions for those focused on ensuring that equitable access results in equitable outcomes.
• Is a diploma enough? Setting ambitious visions for success in high schools . This case from Opportunity Academy, which operates as a “school within a school” at Holyoke High School in Holyoke, MA, grapples with what’s needed to achieve a higher bar for students who often just want to get high school over with—but whose success beyond the K-12 system depends on life skills, supportive relationships, and concrete postsecondary plans in addition to a diploma.
• A new normal: Maintaining high expectations and flexibility for high school students .  KIPP Academy Lynn Collegiate has come a long way from its roots as a “no excuses” charter school by introducing more flexibility, relationship-rich support services, and opportunities for students to influence decisions at school and define postsecondary success for themselves. However, the pandemic and related challenges of recent years have caused KALC leadership to reexamine the optimal balance between holding students accountable to high expectations and allowing them flexibility in when and how to meet those expectations.

These case studies are part of  Think Forward   New England , a project launched in 2020 to study and support pandemic-era innovations that deliver what students and families need and want from high school. Look for three additional teaching cases coming later this year.

Chelsea Waite

Cara Pangelinan

Research analyst.

Center for Public Research and Leadership

Naureen Madhani

Director of research strategy and consulting, cprl.

Heather Casimere

Research assistant.

Julia Skwarczynski

Guest author.

Joanna Pisacone

Related publications, a “good life” after high school: how schools can help students prepare, a “good life” for every student: high schools embrace many pathways to success, for these six schools, pandemic-era innovation demanded “know thyself”, new england profiles of innovation | great oaks charter school bridgeport, emnet shibre, katrina woodworth, new england profiles of innovation | holyoke high school, new england profiles of innovation | margarita muñiz academy, caroline e. parker, new england profiles of innovation | nokomis regional high school, sarah mccann, new england profiles of innovation | map academy, new england profiles of innovation | common ground high school.

• ©2024 CRPE. All rights reserved.
• 600 First Avenue, Suite 206
• Seattle, WA 98104

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Get Involved
• Reading Materials
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study

Altius Education: Obstacles to Innovation in Higher Education

Learning objective.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

• © 1991

Educational Innovation in Developing Countries

Case-Studies of Changemakers

• Keith M. Lewin (Reader in Education) 0 ,
• Janet S. Stuart (Lecturer in Education) 1

University of Sussex, UK

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

328 Accesses

21 Citations

• Table of contents

About this book

Editors and affiliations, bibliographic information.

• Publish with us

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check for access.

Table of contents (11 chapters)

Front matter, introduction.

Keith M. Lewin, Janet S. Stuart

Changemakers and Change Models: Educational Innovation in Developing Countries

• Keith M. Lewin

Curriculum Innovations

Modernising the geography curriculum in post-1976 china.

• Julian Leung Yat-ming

Science Education as a Development Strategy in Nigeria: a Study of Kano State Science Secondary Schools

• Abdalla Uba Adamu

Teacher Development Projects

Inservice training in malaysia for the new primary curriculum (kbsr).

• Noor Azmi Ibrahim

Classroom Action Research in Africa: a Lesotho Case Study of Curriculum and Professional Development

• Janet S. Stuart

Institutional Contexts

Perception gaps in technical assistance projects: the sudanese case.

• Fiona Leach

School Climates in The Gambia

• Baboucarr Sarr, Keith Lewin

Systems Reforms

Vocationalising secondary education: a study of the junior secondary schooling innovation in nigeria.

• Florence Nwakoby, Keith Lewin

The National Youth Service in the Seychelles

• Ian G. Haffenden

Back Matter

• development aid
• development policy

Book Title : Educational Innovation in Developing Countries

Book Subtitle : Case-Studies of Changemakers

Editors : Keith M. Lewin, Janet S. Stuart

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13104-4

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan London

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection , Social Sciences (R0)

Copyright Information : Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1991

Softcover ISBN : 978-0-333-58663-1 Published: 18 June 1993

eBook ISBN : 978-1-349-13104-4 Published: 01 January 2016

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XII, 325

Topics : Development Policy , Ethnicity Studies , Development Studies , Administration, Organization and Leadership

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 16 April 2024

Designing a framework for entrepreneurship education in Chinese higher education: a theoretical exploration and empirical case study

• Luning Shao 1 ,
• Yuxin Miao 2 ,
• Shengce Ren 3 ,
• Sanfa Cai 4 &
• Fei Fan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8756-5140 5 , 6  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  519 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

542 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management

Entrepreneurship education (EE) has rapidly evolved within higher education and has emerged as a pivotal mechanism for cultivating innovative and entrepreneurial talent. In China, while EE has made positive strides, it still faces a series of practical challenges. These issues cannot be effectively addressed solely through the efforts of universities. Based on the triple helix (TH) theory, this study delves into the unified objectives and practical content of EE in Chinese higher education. Through a comprehensive literature review on EE, coupled with educational objectives, planned behavior, and entrepreneurship process theories, this study introduces the 4H objective model of EE. 4H stands for Head (mindset), Hand (skill), Heart (attitude), and Help (support). Additionally, the research extends to a corresponding content model that encompasses entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial practice, startup services, and the entrepreneurial climate as tools for achieving the objectives. Based on a single-case approach, this study empirically explores the application of the content model at T-University. Furthermore, this paper elucidates how the university plays a role through the comprehensive development of entrepreneurial learning, practices, services, and climate in nurturing numerous entrepreneurs and facilitating the flourishing of the regional entrepreneurial ecosystem. This paper provides important contributions in its application of TH theory to develop EE within the Chinese context, and it provides clear guidance by elucidating the core objectives and practical content of EE. The proposed conceptual framework serves not only as a guiding tool but also as a crucial conduit for fostering the collaborative development of the EE ecosystem. To enhance the robustness of the framework, this study advocates strengthening empirical research on TH theory through multiple and comparative case studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Extra-curricular support for entrepreneurship among engineering students: development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions

Deepa Subhadrammal, Martin Bliemel, … Helene de Burgh-Woodman

The mediating effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the relationship between entrepreneurship education and start-up readiness

Adeshina Olushola Adeniyi

Individual entrepreneurial orientation for entrepreneurial readiness

Adeshina Olushola Adeniyi, Vangeli Gamede & Evelyn Derera

Introduction

In the era of the knowledge economy, entrepreneurship has emerged as a fundamental driver of social and economic development. As early as 1911, Schumpeter proposed the well-known theory of economic development, wherein he first introduced the concepts of entrepreneurship and creative destruction as driving forces behind socioeconomic development. Numerous endogenous growth theories, such as the entrepreneurial ecosystem mechanism of Acs et al. ( 2018 ), which also underscores the pivotal role of entrepreneurship in economic development, are rooted in Schumpeter’s model. Recognized as a key means of cultivating entrepreneurs and enhancing their capabilities (Jin et al., 2023 ), entrepreneurship education (EE) has received widespread attention over the past few decades, especially in the context of higher education (Wong & Chan, 2022 ).

Driven by international trends and economic demands, China places significant emphasis on nurturing innovative talent and incorporating EE into the essential components of its national education system. The State Council’s “Implementation Opinions on Deepening the Reform of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education” (hereafter referred to as the report) underscores the urgent necessity for advancing reforms in innovation and EE in higher education institutions. This initiative aligns with the national strategy of promoting innovation-driven development and enhancing economic quality and efficiency. Furthermore, institutions at various levels are actively and eagerly engaging in EE.

Despite the positive strides made in EE in China, its development still faces a series of formidable practical challenges. As elucidated in the report, higher education institutions face challenges such as a delay in the conceptualization of EE, inadequate integration with specialized education, and a disconnect from practical applications. Furthermore, educators exhibit a deficiency in awareness and capabilities, which manifests in a singular and less effective teaching methodology. The shortage of practical platforms, guidance, and support emphasizes the pressing need for comprehensive innovation and EE systems. These issues necessitate collaborative efforts from universities, industry, and policymakers.

Internationally established solutions for the current challenges have substantially matured, providing invaluable insights and guidance for the development of EE in the Chinese context. In the late 20th century, the concept of the entrepreneurial university gained prominence (Etzkowitz et al., 2000 ). Then, entrepreneurial universities expanded their role from traditional research and teaching to embrace a “third mission” centered on economic development. This transformation entailed fostering student engagement in entrepreneurial initiatives by offering resources and guidance to facilitate the transition of ideas into viable entrepreneurial ventures. Additionally, these entrepreneurial universities played a pivotal role in advancing the triple helix (TH) model (Henry, 2009 ). The TH model establishes innovation systems that facilitate knowledge conversion into economic endeavors by coordinating the functions of universities, government entities, and industry. The robustness of this perspective has been substantiated through comprehensive theoretical and empirical investigations (Mandrup & Jensen, 2017 ).

Therefore, this study aims to explore how EE in Chinese universities can adapt to new societal trends and demands through the guidance of TH theory. This research involves two major themes: educational objectives and content. Educational objectives play a pivotal role in regulating the entire process of educational activities, ensuring alignment with the principles and norms of education (Whitehead, 1967 ), while content provides a practical pathway to achieving these objectives. Specifically, the study has three pivotal research questions:

RQ1: What is the present landscape of EE research?

RQ2: What unified macroscopic goals should be formulated to guide EE in Chinese higher education?

RQ3: What specific EE system should be implemented to realize the identified goals in Chinese higher education?

The structure of this paper is as follows: First, we conduct a comprehensive literature review on EE to answer RQ1 , thereby establishing a robust theoretical foundation. Second, we outline our research methodology, encompassing both framework construction and case studies and providing a clear and explicit approach to our research process. Third, we derive the objectives and content model of EE guided by educational objectives, entrepreneurial motivations, and entrepreneurial process theories. Fourth, focusing on a typical university in China as our research subject, we conduct a case study to demonstrate the practical application of our research framework. Finally, we end the paper with the findings for RQ2 and RQ3 , discussions on the framework, and conclusions.

Literature review

The notion of TH first appeared in the early 1980s, coinciding with the global transition from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020 ). At that time, the dramatic increase in productivity led to overproduction, and knowledge became a valuable mechanism for driving innovation and economic growth (Mandrup & Jensen, 2017 ). Recognizing the potential of incorporating cutting-edge university technologies into industry and facilitating technology transfer and innovation, the US government took proactive steps to enhance the international competitiveness of American industries. This initiative culminated in the enactment of relevant legislation in 1980, which triggered a surge in technology transfer, patent licensing, and the establishment of new enterprises within the United States. Subsequently, European and Asian nations adopted similar measures, promoting the transformation of universities’ identity (Grimaldi et al., 2011 ). Universities assumed a central role in technology transfer, the formation of businesses, and regional revitalization within the knowledge society rather than occupying a secondary position within the industrial community. The conventional one-to-one relationships between universities, companies, and the government evolved into a dynamic TH model (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020 ). Beyond their traditional roles in knowledge creation, wealth production, and policy coordination, these sectors began to engage in multifaceted interactions, effectively “playing the role of others” (Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013 ).

The TH model encompasses three fundamental elements: 1) In a knowledge-based society, universities assume a more prominent role in innovation than in industry; 2) The three entities engage in collaborative relationships, with innovation policies emerging as a result of their mutual interactions rather than being solely dictated by the government; and 3) Each entity, while fulfilling its traditional functions, also takes on the roles of the other two parties (Henry, 2009 ). This model is closely aligned with EE.

On the one hand, EE can enhance the effectiveness of TH theory by strengthening the links between universities, industry, and government. The TH concept was developed based on entrepreneurial universities. The emerging entrepreneurial university model integrates economic development as an additional function. Etzkowitz’s research on the entrepreneurial university identified a TH model of academia-industry-government relations implemented by universities in an increasingly knowledge-based society (Galvao et al., 2019 ). Alexander and Evgeniy ( 2012 ) articulated that entrepreneurial universities are crucial to the implementation of triple-helix arrangements and that by integrating EE into their curricula, universities have the potential to strengthen triple-helix partnerships and boost the effectiveness of the triple-helix model.

On the other hand, TH theory also drives EE to achieve high-quality development. Previously, universities were primarily seen as sources of knowledge and human resources. However, they are now also regarded as reservoirs of technology. Within EE and incubation programs, universities are expanding their educational capabilities beyond individual education to shaping organizations (Henry, 2009 ). Surpassing their role as sources of new ideas for existing companies, universities blend their research and teaching processes in a novel way, emerging as pivotal sources for the formation of new companies, particularly in high-tech domains. Furthermore, innovation within one field of the TH influences others (Piqué et al., 2020 ). An empirical study by Alexander and Evgeniy ( 2012 ) outlined how the government introduced a series of initiatives to develop entrepreneurial universities, construct innovation infrastructure, and foster EE growth.

Overview of EE

EE occupies a crucial position in driving economic advancement, and this domain has been the focal point of extensive research. Fellnhofer ( 2019 ) examined 1773 publications from 1975 to 2014, introducing a more closely aligned taxonomy of EE research. This taxonomy encompasses eight major clusters: social and policy-driven EE, human capital studies related to self-employment, organizational EE and TH, (Re)design and evaluation of EE initiatives, entrepreneurial learning, EE impact studies, and the EE opportunity-related environment at the organizational level. Furthermore, Mohamed and Sheikh Ali ( 2021 ) conducted a systematic literature review of 90 EE articles published from 2009 to 2019. The majority of these studies focused on the development of EE (32%), followed by its benefits (18%) and contributions (12%). The selected research also addressed themes such as the relationship between EE and entrepreneurial intent, the effectiveness of EE, and its assessment (each comprising 9% of the sample).

Spanning from 1975 to 2019, these two reviews offer a comprehensive landscape of EE research. The perspective on EE has evolved, extending into multiple dimensions (Zaring et al., 2021 ). However, EE does not always achieve the expected outcomes, as challenges such as limited student interest and engagement as well as persistent negative attitudes are often faced (Mohamed & Sheikh Ali, 2021 ). In fact, the challenges faced by EE in most countries may be similar. However, the solutions may vary due to contextual differences (Fred Awaah et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, due to this evolution, there is a need for a more comprehensive grasp of pedagogical concepts and the foundational elements of modern EE (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2020 ). Based on the objectives of this study, four specific themes were chosen for an in-depth literature review: the objectives, contents and methods, outcomes, and experiences of EE.

Objectives of EE

The objectives of EE may provide significant guidance for its implementation and the assessment of its effectiveness, and EE has evolved to form a diversified spectrum. Mwasalwiba ( 2010 ) presented a multifaceted phenomenon in which EE objectives are closely linked to entrepreneurial outcomes. These goals encompass nurturing entrepreneurial attitudes (34%), promoting new ventures (27%), contributing to local community development (24%), and imparting entrepreneurial skills (15%). Some current studies still emphasize particular dimensions of these goals, such as fostering new ventures or value creation (Jones et al., 2018 ; Ratten & Usmanij, 2021 ). These authors further stress the significance of incorporating practical considerations related to the business environment, which prompts learners to contemplate issues such as funding and resource procurement. This goal inherently underscores the importance of entrepreneurial thinking and encourages learners to transition from merely being students to developing entrepreneurial mindsets.

Additionally, Kuratko and Morris ( 2018 ) posit that the goal of EE should not be to produce entrepreneurs but to cultivate entrepreneurial mindsets in students, equipping them with methods for thinking and acting entrepreneurially and enabling them to perceive opportunities rapidly in uncertain conditions and harness resources as entrepreneurs would. While the objectives of EE may vary based on the context of the teaching institution, the fundamental goal is increasingly focused on conveying and nurturing an entrepreneurial mindset among diverse stakeholders. Hao’s ( 2017 ) research contends that EE forms a comprehensive system in which multidimensional educational objectives are established. These objectives primarily encompass cultivating students’ foundational qualities and innovative entrepreneurial personalities, equipping them with essential awareness of entrepreneurship, psychological qualities conducive to entrepreneurship, and a knowledge structure for entrepreneurship. Such a framework guides students towards independent entrepreneurship based on real entrepreneurial scenarios.

Various studies and practices also contain many statements about entrepreneurial goals. The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework, which was issued by the EU in 2016, delineates three competency domains: ideas and opportunities, resources and action. Additionally, the framework outlines 15 specific entrepreneurship competencies (Jun, 2017 ). Similarly, the National Content Standards for EE published by the US Consortium encompass three overarching strategies for articulating desired competencies for aspiring entrepreneurs: entrepreneurial skills, ready skills, and business functions (Canziani & Welsh, 2021 ). First, entrepreneurial skills are unique characteristics, behaviors, and experiences that distinguish entrepreneurs from ordinary employees or managers. Second, ready skills, which include business and entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, are prerequisites and auxiliary conditions for EE. Third, business functions help entrepreneurs create and operate business processes in business activities. These standards explain in the broadest terms what students need to be self-employed or to develop and grow a new venture. Although entrepreneurial skills may be addressed in particular courses offered by entrepreneurship faculties, it is evident that business readiness and functional skills significantly contribute to entrepreneurial success (Canziani & Welsh, 2021 ).

Contents and methods of EE

The content and methods employed in EE are pivotal factors for ensuring the delivery of high-quality entrepreneurial instruction, and they have significant practical implications for achieving educational objectives. The conventional model of EE, which is rooted in the classroom setting, typically features an instructor at the front of the room delivering concepts and theories through lectures and readings (Mwasalwiba, 2010 ). However, due to limited opportunities for student engagement in the learning process, lecture-based teaching methods prove less effective at capturing students’ attention and conveying new concepts (Rahman, 2020 ). In response, Okebukola ( 2020 ) introduced the Culturo-Techno-Contextual Approach (CTCA), which offers a hybrid teaching and learning method that integrates cultural, technological, and geographical contexts. Through a controlled experiment involving 400 entrepreneurship development students from Ghana, CTCA has been demonstrated to be a model for enhancing students’ comprehension of complex concepts (Awaah, 2023 ). Furthermore, learners heavily draw upon their cultural influences to shape their understanding of EE, emphasizing the need for educators to approach the curriculum from a cultural perspective to guide students in comprehending entrepreneurship effectively.

In addition to traditional classroom approaches, research has highlighted innovative methods for instilling entrepreneurial spirit among students. For instance, students may learn from specific university experiences or even engage in creating and running a company (Kolb & Kolb, 2011 ). Some scholars have developed an educational portfolio that encompasses various activities, such as simulations, games, and real company creation, to foster reflective practice (Neck & Greene, 2011 ). However, some studies have indicated that EE, when excessively focused on applied and practical content, yields less favorable outcomes for students aspiring to engage in successful entrepreneurship (Martin et al., 2013 ). In contrast, students involved in more academically oriented courses tend to demonstrate improved intellectual skills and often achieve greater success as entrepreneurs (Zaring et al., 2021 ). As previously discussed, due to the lack of a coherent theoretical framework in EE, there is a lack of uniformity and consistency in course content and methods (Ribeiro et al., 2018 ).

Outcomes of EE

Research on the outcomes of EE is a broad and continually evolving field, with most related research focusing on immediate or short-term impact factors. For example, Anosike ( 2019 ) demonstrated the positive effect of EE on human capital, and Chen et al. ( 2022 ) proposed that EE significantly moderates the impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial competencies in higher education students through an innovative learning environment. In particular, in the comprehensive review by Kim et al. ( 2020 ), six key EE outcomes were identified: entrepreneurial creation, entrepreneurial intent, opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and orientation, need for achievement and locus of control, and other entrepreneurial knowledge. One of the more popular directions is the examination of the impact of EE on entrepreneurial intentions. Bae et al. ( 2014 ) conducted a meta-analysis of 73 studies to examine the relationship between EE and entrepreneurial intention and revealed little correlation. However, a meta-analysis of 389 studies from 2010 to 2020 by Zhang et al. ( 2022 ) revealed a positive association between the two variables.

Nabi et al. ( 2017 ) conducted a systematic review to determine the impact of EE in higher education. Their findings highlight that studies exploring the outcomes of EE have primarily concentrated on short-term and subjective assessments, with insufficient consideration of longer-term effects spanning five or even ten years. These longer-term impacts encompass factors such as the nature and quantity of startups, startup survival rates, and contributions to society and the economy. As noted in the Eurydice report, a significant impediment to advancing EE is the lack of comprehensive delineation concerning education outcomes (Bourgeois et al., 2016 ).

Experiences in the EE system

With the deepening exploration of EE, researchers have turned to studying university-centered entrepreneurship ecosystems (Allahar and Sookram, 2019 ). Such ecosystems are adopted to fill gaps in “educational and economic development resources”, such as entrepreneurship curricula. A growing number of universities have evolved an increasingly complex innovation system that extends from technology transfer offices, incubators, and technology parks to translational research and the promotion of EE across campuses (Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020 ). In the university context, the entrepreneurial ecosystem aligns with TH theory, in which academia, government, and industry create a trilateral network and hybrid organization (Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013 ).

The EE system is also a popular topic in China. Several researchers have summarized the Chinese experience in EE, including case studies and overall experience, such as the summary of the progress and system development of EE in Chinese universities over the last decade by Weiming et al. ( 2013 ) and the summary of the Chinese experience in innovation and EE by Maoxin ( 2017 ). Other researchers take an in-depth look at the international knowledge of EE, such as discussions on the EE system of Denmark by Yuanyuan ( 2015 ), analyzes of the ecological system of EE at the Technical University of Munich by Yubing and Ziyan ( 2015 ), and comparisons of international innovation and EE by Ke ( 2017 ).

In general, although there has been considerable discussion on EE, the existing body of work has not properly addressed the practical challenges faced by EE in China. On the one hand, the literature is fragmented and has not yet formed a unified and mature theoretical framework. Regarding what should be taught and how it can be taught and assessed, the answers in related research are ambiguous (Hoppe, 2016 ; Wong & Chan, 2022 ). On the other hand, current research lacks empirical evidence in the context of China, and guidance on how to put the concept of EE into practice is relatively limited. These dual deficiencies impede the effective and in-depth development of EE in China. Consequently, it is imperative to comprehensively redefine the objectives and contents of EE to provide clear developmental guidance for Chinese higher education institutions.

Research methodology

To answer the research questions, this study employed a comprehensive approach by integrating both literature-based and empirical research methods. The initial phase focused on systematically reviewing the literature related to entrepreneurial education, aiming to construct a clear set of frameworks for the objectives and content of EE in higher education institutions. The second phase involved conducting a case study at T-University, in which the theoretical frameworks were applied to a real-world context. This case not only contributed to validating the theoretical constructs established through the literature review but also provided valuable insights into the practical operational dynamics of entrepreneurial education within the specific university setting.

Conceptual framework stage

This paper aims to conceptualize the objective and content frameworks for EE. The methodology sequence is as follows: First, we examine the relevant EE literature to gain insights into existing research themes. Subsequently, we identify specific research articles based on these themes, such as “entrepreneurial intention”, “entrepreneurial self-efficacy”, and “entrepreneurial approach”, among others. Third, we synthesize the shared objectives of EE across diverse research perspectives through an analysis of the selected literature. Fourth, we construct an objective model for EE within higher education by integrating Bloom’s educational objectives ( 1956 ) and Gagne’s five learning outcomes ( 1984 ), complemented by entrepreneurship motivation and process considerations. Finally, we discuss the corresponding content framework.

Case study stage

To further elucidate the conceptual framework, this paper delves into the methods for the optimization of EE in China through a case analysis. Specifically, this paper employs a single-case approach. While a single case study may have limited external validity (Onjewu et al., 2021 ), if a case study informs current theory and conceptualizes the explored issues, it can still provide valuable insights from its internal findings (Buchanan, 1999 ).

T-University, which is a comprehensive university in China, is chosen as the subject of the case study for the following reasons. First, T-University is located in Shanghai, which is a Chinese international technological innovation center approved by the State Council. Shanghai’s “14th Five-Year Plan” proposes the establishment of a multichannel international innovation collaboration platform and a global innovation cooperation network. Second, T-University has initiated curriculum reforms and established a regional knowledge economy ecosystem by utilizing EE as a guiding principle, which aligns with the characteristics of its geographical location, history, culture, and disciplinary settings. This case study will showcase T-University’s experiences in entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial practice, startup services, and the entrepreneurial climate, elucidating the positive outcomes of this triangular interaction and offering practical insights for EE in other contexts.

The data collection process of this study was divided into two main stages: field research and archival research. The obtained data included interview transcripts, field notes, photos, internal documents, websites, reports, promotional materials, and published articles. In the initial stage, we conducted a 7-day field trip, including visits to the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Institute, the Career Development Centre, the Academic Affairs Office, and the Graduate School. Moreover, we conducted semistructured interviews with several faculty members and students involved in entrepreneurship education at the university to understand the overall state of implementation of entrepreneurship education at the university. In the second stage, we contacted the Academic Affairs Office and the Student Affairs Office at the university and obtained internal materials related to entrepreneurship education. Additionally, we conducted a comprehensive collection and created a summary of publicly available documents, official school websites, public accounts, and other electronic files. To verify the validity of the multisource data, we conducted triangulation and ultimately used consistent information as the basis for the data analysis.

For the purpose of our study, thematic analysis was employed to delve deeply into the TH factors, the objective and content frameworks, and their interrelationships. Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within data. This approach emphasizes a comprehensive interpretation of the data, as it extracts information from multiple perspectives and derives valuable conclusions through summary and induction (Onjewu et al., 2021 ). Therefore, thematic analysis likely serves as the foundation for most other qualitative data analysis methods (Willig, 2013 ). In this study, three researchers individually conducted rigorous analyses and comprehensive reviews to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data. Subsequently, they engaged in collaborative discussions to explore their differences and ultimately reach a consensus.

Framework construction

Theoretical basis of ee in universities.

The study is grounded in the theories of educational objectives, planned behavior, and the entrepreneurial process. Planned behavior theory can serve to elucidate the emergence of entrepreneurial activity, while entrepreneurial process theory can be used to delineate the essential elements of successful entrepreneurship.

Theory of educational objectives. The primary goal of education is to assist students in shaping their future. Furthermore, education should directly influence students and facilitate their future development. Education can significantly enhance students’ prospects by imparting specific skills and fundamental principles and cultivating the correct attitudes and mindsets (Bruner, 2009 ). According to “The Aims of Education” by Whitehead, the objective of education is to stimulate creativity and vitality. Gagne identifies five learning outcomes that enable teachers to design optimal learning conditions based on the presentation of these outcomes, encompassing “attitude,” “motor skills,” “verbal information,” “intellectual skills,” and “cognitive strategies”. Bloom et al. ( 1956 ) argue that education has three aims, which concern the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Gedeon ( 2017 ) posits that EE involves critical input and output elements. The key objectives encompass mindset (Head), skill (hand), attitude (heart), and support (help). The input objectives include EE teachers, resources, facilities, courses, and teaching methods. The output objectives encompass the impacts of the input factors, such as the number of students, the number of awards, and the establishment of new companies. The primary aims of Gedeon ( 2017 ) correspond to those of Bloom et al. ( 1956 ).

Theory of planned behavior. The theory of planned behavior argues that human behavior is the outcome of well-thought-out planning (Ajzen, 1991 ). Human behavior depends on behavioral intentions, which are affected by three main factors. The first is derived from the individual’s “attitude” towards taking a particular action; the second is derived from the influence of “subjective norms” from society; and the third is derived from “perceived behavioral control” (Ajzen, 1991 ). Researchers have adopted this theory to study entrepreneurial behavior and EE.

Theory of the entrepreneurship process. Researchers have proposed several entrepreneurial models, most of which are processes (Baoshan & Baobao, 2008 ). The theory of the entrepreneurship process focuses on the critical determinants of entrepreneurial success. The essential variables of the entrepreneurial process model significantly impact entrepreneurial performance. Timmons et al. ( 2004 ) argue that successful entrepreneurial activities require an appropriate match among opportunities, entrepreneurial teams, resources, and a dynamic balance as the business develops. Their model emphasizes flexibility and equilibrium, and it is believed that entrepreneurial activities change with time and space. As a result, opportunities, teams, and resources will be unbalanced and need timely adjustment.

4H objective model of EE

Guided by TH theory, the objectives of EE should consider universities’ transformational identity in the knowledge era and promote collaboration among students, faculty, researchers, and external players (Mandrup & Jensen, 2017 ). Furthermore, through a comprehensive analysis of the literature and pertinent theoretical underpinnings, the article introduces the 4H model for the EE objectives, as depicted in Fig. 1 .

The 4H objective model of entrepreneurship education.

The model comprises two levels. The first level pertains to outcomes at the entrepreneurial behavior level, encompassing entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial performance. These two factors support universities’ endeavors to nurture individuals with an entrepreneurial mindset and potential and contribute to the region’s growth of innovation and entrepreneurship. The second level pertains to fundamentals, which form the foundation of the first level. The article defines these as the 4H model, representing mindset (Head), skill (Hand), attitude (Heart), and support (Help). This model integrates key theories, including educational objectives, the entrepreneurship process, and planned behavior.

First, according to the theory of educational objectives, the cognitive, emotional, and skill objectives proposed by Bloom et al. ( 1956 ) correspond to the key goals of education offered by Gedeon ( 2017 ), namely, Head, Hand, and Heart; thus, going forward, in this study, these three objectives are adopted. Second, according to the theory of planned behavior, for the promotion of entrepreneurial intention, reflection on the control of beliefs, social norms, and perceptual behaviors must be included. EE’s impact on the Head, Hand, and Heart will promote the power of entrepreneurs’ thoughts and perceptual actions. Therefore, this approach is beneficial for enhancing entrepreneurial intentions. Third, according to entrepreneurship process theory, entrepreneurial performance is affected by various factors, including entrepreneurial opportunities, teams, and resources. Consideration of the concepts of Head, Hand, and Heart can enhance entrepreneurial opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial team capabilities. However, as the primary means of obtaining external resources, social networks play an essential role in improving the performance of innovation and entrepreneurship companies (Gao et al., 2023 ). Therefore, an effective EE program should tell students how to take action, connect them with those who can help them succeed (Ronstadt, 1985 ), and help them access the necessary resources. If EE institutions can provide relevant help, they will consolidate entrepreneurial intentions and improve entrepreneurial performance, enabling the EE’s objective to better support the Head, Hand, and Heart.

Content model of EE

EE necessitates establishing a systematic implementation framework to achieve the 4H objectives. Current research on EE predominantly focuses on two facets: one focuses on EE methods to improve students’ skills, and the other focuses on EE outcome measurements, which consider the impact of EE on different stakeholders. Based on this, to foster innovation in EE approaches and enable long-term sustainable EE outcomes, the 4H Model of EE objectives mandates that pertinent institutions provide entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial practice, startup services, and a suitable entrepreneurial climate. These components constitute the four integral facets of the content model for EE, as depicted in Fig. 2 .

The content model of entrepreneurship education.

Entrepreneurial learning

Entrepreneurial learning mainly refers to the learning of innovative entrepreneurial knowledge and theory. This factor represents the core of EE and can contribute significantly to the Head component. It can also improve the entrepreneurial thinking ability of academic subjects through classroom teaching, lectures, information reading and analysis, discussion, debates, etc. Additionally, it can positively affect the Hand and Heart elements of EE.

Entrepreneurial practice

Entrepreneurial practice mainly refers to academic subjects comprehensively enhancing their cognition and ability by participating in entrepreneurial activities. This element is also a key component of EE and plays a significant role in the cultivation of the Hand element. Entrepreneurial practice is characterized by participation in planning and implementing entrepreneurial programs, competitions, and simulation activities. Furthermore, it positively impacts EE’s Head, Heart, and Help factors.

Startup services

Startup services mainly refer to entrepreneurial-related support services provided by EE institutions, which include investment and financing, project declaration, financial and legal support, human resources, marketing, and intermediary services. These services can improve the success of entrepreneurship projects. Therefore, they can reinforce the expectations of entrepreneurs’ success and positively impact the Heart, Hand, and Head objectives of EE.

Entrepreneurial climate

The entrepreneurial climate refers to the entrepreneurial environment created by EE institutions and their community and is embodied mainly in the educational institutions’ external and internal entrepreneurial culture and ecology. The environment can impact the entrepreneurial attitude of educated individuals and the Heart objective of EE. Additionally, it is beneficial for realizing EE’s Head, Hand, and Help goals.

Case study: EE practice of T-University

Overview of ee at t-university.

T-University is one of the first in China to promote innovation and EE. Since the 1990s, a series of policies have been introduced, and different platforms have been set up. After more than 20 years of teaching, research, and practice, an innovation and entrepreneurship education system with unique characteristics has gradually evolved. The overall goal of this system is to ensure that 100% of students receive such education, with 10% of students completing the program and 1% achieving entrepreneurship with a high-quality standard. The overall employment rate of 2020 graduates reached 97.49%. In recent years, the proportion of those pursuing entrepreneurship has been more than 1% almost every year. The T-Rim Knowledge-Based Economic Circle, an industrial cluster formed around knowledge spillover from T-University’s dominant disciplines, employs more than 400 T-University graduates annually.

In 2016, T-University established the School of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, with the president serving as its dean. This school focuses on talent development and is pivotal in advancing innovation-driven development strategies. It coordinates efforts across various departments and colleges to ensure comprehensive coverage of innovation and EE, the integration of diverse academic disciplines, and the transformation of interdisciplinary scientific and technological advancements (see Fig. 3 ).

T-University innovation and entrepreneurship education map.

T-University is dedicated to integrating innovation and EE into every stage of talent development. As the guiding framework for EE, the university has established the Innovation and EE sequence featuring “three-dimensional, linked, and cross-university cooperation” with seven educational elements. These elements include the core curriculum system of innovation and entrepreneurship, the “one top-notch and three excellences” and experimental zones of innovation and entrepreneurship talent cultivation model, the four-level “China-Shanghai-University-School” training programs for innovation and entrepreneurship, four-level “International-National-Municipal-University” science and technology competitions, four-level “National-Municipal-University-School” innovation and entrepreneurship practice bases, three-level “Venture Valley-Entrepreneurship Fund-Industry Incubation” startup services and a high-level teaching team with both full-time and part-time personnel.

T-University has implemented several initiatives. First, the university has implemented 100% student innovation and EE through reforming the credit setting and curriculum system. Through the Venture Valley class, mobile class, and “joint summer school”, more than 10% of the students completed the Innovation and EE program. Moreover, through the professional reform pilot and eight professional incubation platforms in the National Science and Technology Park of T-University and other measures, 1% of the students established high-quality entrepreneurial enterprises. Second, the university is committed to promoting the integration of innovation and entrepreneurship and training programs, exploring and practising a variety of innovative talent cultivation models, and adding undergraduate innovation ability development as a mandatory component of the training program. In addition, pilot reforms have been conducted in engineering, medicine, and law majors, focusing on integrating research and education.

T-University has constructed a high-level integrated innovation and entrepreneurship practice platform by combining internal and external resources. This platform serves as the central component in Fig. 3 , forming a sequence of innovation and entrepreneurship practice opportunities, including 1) the On-and-off Campus Basic Practice Platform, 2) the Entrepreneurship Practice Platform with the Integration of Production, Learning, and Research, 3) the Transformation Platform of Major Scientific Research Facilities and Achievements, and 4) the Strategic Platform of the T-Rim Knowledge-Based Economic Circle. All these platforms are accessible to students based on their specific tasks and objectives.

Moreover, the university has reinforced its support for entrepreneurship and collaborated with local governments in Sichuan, Dalian, and Shenzhen to establish off-campus bases jointly. In 2016, in partnership with other top universities in China, the university launched the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Alliance of Universities in the Yangtze River Delta. This alliance effectively brings together government bodies, businesses, social communities, universities, and funding resources in the Yangtze River Delta, harnessing the synergistic advantages of these institutions. In 2018, the university assumed the director role for the Ministry of Education’s Steering Committee for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Through collaborations with relevant government agencies and enterprises, T-University has continued its efforts to reform and advance innovation and EE, establishing multiple joint laboratories to put theory into practice.

Startup service

In terms of entrepreneurial services, T-University has focused on the employment guidance center and the science and technology Park, working closely with the local industrial and commercial bureaus in the campus area to provide centralized entrepreneurial services. Through entities such as the Shanghai Municipal College Entrepreneurship Guidance Station, entrepreneurship seedling gardens, the science and technology park, and off-campus bases such as the entrepreneurship valley, the university has established a full-cycle service system that is tailored to students’ innovative and entrepreneurial activities, providing continuous professional guidance and support from the early startup stage to maturity.

Notably, the T-University Science and Technology Park has set up nine professional incubation service platforms that cover investment and financing, human resources, entrepreneurship training, project declaration, financial services, professional intermediaries, market promotion, advanced assessment, and the labor union. Moreover, the Technology Park has established a corporate service mechanism for liaison officers, counselors, and entrepreneurship mentors to ensure that enterprises receive comprehensive support and guidance. Through these services, T-University has successfully cultivated numerous high-tech backbone enterprises, such as New Vision Healthcare, Zhong Hui Ecology, Tongjie Technology, Tonglei Civil Engineering, and Tongchen Environmental Protection, which indicates the positive effect of these entrepreneurial services.

T-University places significant emphasis on fostering the entrepreneurial climate, which is effectively nurtured through the T-Rim Knowledge-Based Economic Circle and on-campus entrepreneurship activities. Moreover, T-University is dedicated to establishing and cultivating a dynamic T-Rim Knowledge-Based Economic Circle in strategic alignment with the district government and key agencies. This innovative ecosystem strategically centers around three prominent industrial clusters: the creative and design industry, the international engineering consulting services industry, and the new energy/materials and environmental technology industry. These industrial clusters provide fertile ground for graduates’ employment and entrepreneurial pursuits and have yielded remarkable economic outputs. In 2020, the combined value of these clusters surged to a staggering RMB 50 billion, with 80% of entrepreneurs being teachers, students, or alumni from T-University.

This commitment has led to the establishment of an intricate design industry chain featuring architectural design and urban planning design; it also supports services in automobile design, landscape design, software design, environmental engineering design, art media design, and associated services such as graphic production, architectural modeling, and engineering consulting.

The EE system at T-University

T-University has undertaken a comprehensive series of initiatives to promote EE, focusing on four key aspects: entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial practice, startup service, and the entrepreneurial climate. As of the end of 2021, the National Technology Park at T-University has cumulatively supported more than 3000 enterprises. Notably, the park has played a pivotal role in assisting more than 300 enterprises established by college students.

In its commitment to EE, the university maintains an open approach to engaging with society. Simultaneously, it integrates innovative elements such as technology, information, and talent to facilitate students’ entrepreneurial endeavors. Through the synergy between the university, government entities, and the market, EE cultivates a cadre of entrepreneurial talent. The convergence of these talents culminates in the formation of an innovative and creative industry cluster within the region, representing the tangible outcome of the university’s “disciplinary chain—technology chain—industry chain” approach to EE. This approach has gradually evolved into the innovative ecosystem of the T-Rim Knowledge-Based Economic Circle.

Findings and discussion

Unified macroscopic objectives of ee.

To date, a widespread consensus on defining EE in practical terms has yet to be achieved (Mwasalwiba, 2010 ; Nabi et al., 2017 ). Entrepreneurial education should strive towards a common direction, which is reflected in the agreement on educational objectives and recommended teaching methods(Aparicio et al., 2019 ). Mason and Arshed ( 2013 ) criticized that entrepreneurial education should teach about entrepreneurship rather than for entrepreneurship. Therefore, EE should not only focus on singular outcome-oriented aspects but also emphasize the cultivation of fundamental aspects such as cognition, abilities, attitudes, and skills.

This study embarks on a synthesis of the EE-related literature, integrating educational objective theory, planned behavior theory, and entrepreneurial process theory. The 4H model of EE objectives, which consists of basic and outcome levels, is proposed. This model aims to comprehensively capture the core elements of EE, addressing both students’ performance in entrepreneurial outcomes and their development of various aspects of foundational cognitive attributes and skills.

The basic level of the EE objective model includes the 4Hs, namely Head (mindset), Hand (skill), Heart (attitude), and Help (support). First, Head has stood out as a prominent learning outcome within EE over the past decade (Fretschner & Lampe, 2019 ). Attention given to the “Head” aspect not only highlights the development of individuals recognized as “entrepreneurs” (Mitra, 2017 ) but also underscores its role in complementing the acquisition of skills and practical knowledge necessary for initiating new ventures and leading more productive lives (Neck & Corbett, 2018 ).

Second, the Hand aspect also constitutes a significant developmental goal and learning outcome of EE. The trajectory of EE is evolving towards a focus on entrepreneurial aspects, and the learning outcomes equip students with skills relevant to entrepreneurship (Wong & Chan, 2022 ). Higher education institutions should go beyond fundamental principles associated with knowledge and actively cultivate students’ entrepreneurial skills and spirit.

Third, Heart represents EE objectives that are related to students’ psychological aspects, as students’ emotions, attitudes, and other affective factors impact their perception of entrepreneurship (Cao, 2021 ). Moreover, the ultimate goal of EE is to instill an entrepreneurial attitude and pave the way for future success as entrepreneurs in establishing new businesses and fostering job creation (Kusumojanto et al., 2021 ). Thus, the cultivation of this mindset is not only linked to the understanding of entrepreneurship but also intricately tied to the aspiration for personal fulfillment (Yang, 2013 ).

Fourth, entrepreneurship support (Help) embodies the goal of providing essential resource support to students to establish a robust foundation for their entrepreneurial endeavors. The establishment of a comprehensive support system is paramount for EE in universities. This establishment encompasses the meticulous design of the curriculum, the development of training bases, and the cultivation of teacher resources (Xu, 2017 ). A well-structured support system is crucial for equipping students with the necessary knowledge and skills to successfully navigate the complexities of entrepreneurship (Greene & Saridakis, 2008 ).

The outcome level of the EE objective model encompasses entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial performance, topics that have been extensively discussed in the previous literature. Entrepreneurial intention refers to individuals’ subjective willingness and plans for entrepreneurial behavior (Wong & Chan, 2022 ) and represents the starting point of the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurial performance refers to individuals’ actual behaviors and achievements in entrepreneurial activities (Wang et al., 2021 ) and represents the ultimate manifestation of entrepreneurial goals. In summary, the proposed 4H model of the EE objectives covers fundamental attitudes, cognition, skills, support, and ultimate outcomes, thus answering the question of what EE should teach.

Specific implementable system of EE

To facilitate the realization of EE goals, this study developed a corresponding content model as an implementable system and conducted empirical research through a case university. Guided by the 4H objectives, the content model also encompasses four dimensions: entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial practice, startup service, and entrepreneurial climate. Through a detailed exposition of the practical methods at T-university, this study provides support for addressing the question of how to teach EE.

In the traditional EE paradigm, there is often an overreliance on the transmission of theoretical knowledge, which leads to a deficiency in students’ practical experience and capabilities (Kremel and Wetter-Edman, 2019 ). Moreover, due to the rapidly changing and dynamic nature of the environment, traditional educational methods frequently become disconnected from real-world demands. In response to these issues, the approach of “learning by doing” has emerged as a complementary and improved alternative to traditional methods (Colombelli et al., 2022 ).

The proposed content model applies the “learning by doing” approach to the construction of the EE system. For entrepreneurial learning, the university has constructed a comprehensive innovation and EE chain that encompasses courses, experimental areas, projects, competitions, practice bases, and teaching teams. For entrepreneurial practice, the university has built a high-level, integrated innovation and entrepreneurship practice platform that provides students with the opportunity to turn their ideas into actual projects. For startup services, the university has established close collaborative relationships with local governments and enterprises and has set up nine professional incubation service platforms. For the entrepreneurial climate, the university cultivated a symbiotic innovation and EE ecosystem by promoting the construction of the T-Rim Knowledge-Based Economic Circle. Through the joint efforts of multiple parties, the entrepreneurial activities of teachers, students, and alumni have become vibrant and have formed a complete design industry chain and an enterprise ecosystem that coexists with numerous SMEs.

Development of a framework based on the TH theory

Through the exploration of the interactive relationships among universities, governments, and industries, TH theory points out a development direction for solving the dilemma of EE. Through the lens of TH theory, this study developed a comprehensive framework delineating the macroscopic objectives and practical methods of EE, as depicted in Fig. 4 . In this context, EE has become a common undertaking for multiple participants. Therefore, universities can effectively leverage the featured external and internal resources, facilitating the organic integration of entrepreneurial learning, practice, services, and climate. This, in turn, will lead to better achievement of the unified goals of EE.

Practical contents and objectives based on the triple helix theory.

Numerous scholars have explored the correlation between EE and the TH theory. Zhou and Peng ( 2008 ) articulated the concept of an entrepreneurial university as “the university that strongly influences the regional development of industries as well as economic growth through high-tech entrepreneurship based on strong research, technology transfer, and entrepreneurship capability.” Moreover, Tianhao et al. ( 2020 ) emphasized the significance of fostering collaboration among industry, academia, and research as the optimal approach to enhancing the efficacy of EE. Additionally, Ribeiro et al. ( 2018 ) underscored the pivotal role of MIT’s entrepreneurial ecosystem in facilitating startup launches. They called upon educators, university administrators, and policymakers to allocate increased attention to how university ecosystems can cultivate students’ knowledge, skills, and entrepreneurial mindsets. Rather than viewing EE within the confines of universities in isolation, we advocate for establishing an integrated system that encompasses universities, government bodies, and businesses. Such a system would streamline their respective roles and ultimately bolster regional innovation and entrepreneurship efforts.

Jones et al. ( 2021 ) reported that with the widespread embrace of EE by numerous countries, the boundaries between universities and external ecosystems are becoming increasingly blurred. This convergence not only fosters a stronger entrepreneurial culture within universities but also encourages students to actively establish startups. However, these startups often face challenges related to limited value and long-term sustainability. From the perspective of TH theory, each university can cultivate an ecosystem conducive to specialized entrepreneurial activities based on its unique resources and advantages. To do so, universities should actively collaborate with local governments and industries, leveraging shared resources and support to create a more open, inclusive, and innovation-supporting ecosystem that promotes lasting reform and sustainability.

There are two main ways in which this paper contributes to the literature. First, this study applies TH theory to both theoretical and empirical research on EE in China, presenting a novel framework for the operation of EE. Previous research has applied TH theory in contexts such as India, Finland, and Russia, showcasing the unique contributions of TH in driving social innovation. This paper introduces the TH model to the Chinese context, illustrating collaborative efforts and support for EE from universities, industries, and governments through the construction of EE objectives and content models. Therefore, this paper not only extends the applicability of the TH theory globally but also provides valuable insights for EE in the Chinese context.

Second, the proposed conceptual framework clarifies the core goals and practical content of EE. By emphasizing the comprehensive cultivation of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and resources, this framework provides a concrete reference for designing EE courses, activities, and support services. Moreover, the framework underscores the importance of collaborative efforts among stakeholders, facilitating resource integration to enhance the quality and impact of EE. Overall, the conceptual framework presented in this paper serves not only as a guiding tool but also as a crucial bridge for fostering the collaborative development of the EE ecosystem.

While EE has widespread global recognition, many regions still face similar developmental challenges, such as a lack of organized objectives and content delivery methods. This article, grounded in the context of EE in Chinese higher education institutions, seeks to address the current challenges guided by TH theory. By aligning EE with socioeconomic demands and leveraging TH theory, this study offers insights into the overall goals and practical content of EE.

This study presents a 4H objective model of EE comprising two levels. The first level focuses on outcomes related to entrepreneurial behavior, including entrepreneurial intentions and performance, which highlight the practical effects of EE. The second level is built as the foundation of the outcomes and encompasses the four elements of mindset, skill, attitude, and support. This multilayered structure provides a more systematic and multidimensional consideration for the cultivation of entrepreneurial talent. The framework offers robust support for practical instructional design and goal setting. Additionally, the research extends to the corresponding content model, incorporating four elements: entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial practice, startup services, and the entrepreneurial climate. This content model serves as a practical instructional means to achieve EE goals, enhancing the feasibility of implementing these objectives in practice.

Moreover, this study focused on a representative Chinese university, T-University, to showcase the successful implementation of the 4H and content models. Through this case, we may observe how the university, through comprehensive development in entrepreneurial learning, practice, services, and climate, nurtured many entrepreneurs and facilitated the formation of the innovation and entrepreneurship industry cluster. This approach not only contributes to the university’s reputation and regional economic growth but also offers valuable insights for other regions seeking to advance EE.

This study has several limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, the framework proposed is still preliminary. While its application has been validated through a case study, further exploration is required to determine the detailed classification and elaboration of its constituent elements to deepen the understanding of the EE system. Second, the context of this study is specific to China, and the findings may not be directly generalizable to other regions. Future research should investigate the adaptability of the framework in various cultural and educational contexts from a broader international perspective. Finally, the use of a single-case approach limits the generalizability of the research conclusions. Subsequent studies can enhance comprehensiveness by employing a comparative or multiple-case approach to assess the framework’s reliability and robustness.

In conclusion, this study emphasizes the need to strengthen the application of TH theory in EE and advocates for the enhancement of framework robustness through multiple and comparative case studies. An increase in the quantity of evidence will not only generate greater public interest but also deepen the dynamic interactions among universities, industries, and the nation. This, in turn, may expedite the development of EE in China and foster the optimization of the national economy and the overall employment environment.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available. Making the full data set publicly available could potentially breach the privacy that was promised to participants when they agreed to take part, in particular for the individual informants who come from a small, specific population, and may breach the ethics approval for the study. The data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acs ZJ, Estrin S, Mickiewicz T et al. (2018) Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective. Small Bus Econ 51(2):501–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0013-9

Article   Google Scholar  

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

Alexander U, Evgeniy P (2012) The entrepreneurial university in Russia: from idea to reality. Paper presented at the 10TH triple helix conference 2012

Allahar H, Sookram R (2019) Emergence of university-centred entrepreneurial ecosystems in the Caribbean. Ind Higher Educ 33(4):246–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219838220

Anosike P (2019) Entrepreneurship education as human capital: Implications for youth self-employment and conflict mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ind Higher Educ 33(1):42–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218812631

Aparicio G, Iturralde T, Maseda A (2019) Conceptual structure and perspectives on entrepreneurship education research: A bibliometric review. Eur res on manage and bus econ 25(3):105–113

Awaah F, Okebukola P, Shabani J et al. (2023) Students’ career interests and entrepreneurship education in a developing country. High Educ Skills Work-Based Learn 13(1):148–160

Awaah F (2023) In the classroom I enhance students understanding of entrepreneurship development—the culturo–techno-contextual approach. J Res Innov Teach Learn https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-08-2022-0047

Bae TJ, Qian S, Miao C et al. (2014) The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: a meta–analytic review. Entrep Theory Pract 38(2):217–254

Baoshan G, Baobao D (2008) 创业模型比较研究 [A comparative retrospective study of classic entrepreneurial models]. Foreign Econ Manag. 3:19–28

Google Scholar  

Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. David McKay, New York

Bourgeois A, Balcon M-P & Riiheläinen JM (2016) Entrepreneurship education at school in Europe. Eurydice Report. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission

Bruner JS (2009) The process of education. Harvard University Press

Buchanan DA (1999) The Logic of Political Action: an experiment with the epistemology of the particular. Br J Manag 10(s1):73–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.10.s1.7

Cai Y, Etzkowitz H (2020) Theorizing the triple helix model: past, present, and future. Triple Helix J 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10003

Canziani BF, Welsh DHB (2021) How entrepreneurship influences other disciplines: an examination of learning goals. Int J Manag Educ 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.01.003

Cao Q (2021) Entrepreneurial psychological quality and quality cultivation of college students in the higher education and moral education perspectives. Front Psychol 12:700334

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen H, Tang Y, Han J (2022) Building students’ entrepreneurial competencies in Chinese universities: diverse learning environment, knowledge transfer, and entrepreneurship education. Sustainability 14(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159105

Colombelli A, Panelli A, Serraino F (2022) A learning-by-doing approach to entrepreneurship education: evidence from a short intensive online international program. Admin Sci 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010016

Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C et al. (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res Policy 29(2):313–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4

Fellnhofer K (2019) Toward a taxonomy of entrepreneurship education research literature: a bibliometric mapping and visualization. Educ Res Rev 27:28–55

Fretschner M, Lampe HW (2019) Detecting hidden sorting and alignment effects of entrepreneurship education. J Small Bus Manage 57(4):1712–1737

Gagne RM (1984) Learning outcomes and their effects: useful categories of human performance. Am Psychol 39(4):377

Galvao A, Mascarenhas C, Marques C et al. (2019) Triple helix and its evolution: a systematic literature review. J Sci Technol Policy Manag 10(3):812–833. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-10-2018-0103

Gao J, Cheng Y, He H et al. (2023) The mechanism of entrepreneurs’ Social Networks on Innovative Startups’ innovation performance considering the moderating effect of the entrepreneurial competence and motivation. Entrep Res J 13(1):31–69. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2020-0541

Gedeon SA (2017) Measuring student transformation in entrepreneurship education programs. Educ Res Int 2017:8475460. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8475460

Greene FJ, Saridakis G (2008) The role of higher education skills and support in graduate self-employment. Stud High Educ 33(6):653–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802457082

Grimaldi R, Kenney M, Siegel DS et al. (2011) 30 years after Bayh–Dole: reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Res Policy 40(8):1045–1057

Hägg G, Gabrielsson J (2020) A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in EE research. Int J Entrep Behav Res 26(5):829–861

Hao Y (2017) Research on building curriculum system of entrepreneurship education for college students in China. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th international conference on education, management, computer and medicine (EMCM 2016)

Henry E (2009) The entrepreneurial university and the triple helix model of innovation. Stud Sci Sci 27(4):481–488

Hoppe M (2016) Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Bus Econ. 46(1):13–29

Jin D, Liu X, Zhang F et al. (2023) Entrepreneurial role models and college students’ entrepreneurial calling: a moderated mediation model. Front Psychol 14:1129495

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jones C, Penaluna K, Penaluna A et al. (2018) The changing nature of enterprise: addressing the challenge of Vesper and Gartner. Ind High Educ 32(6):430–437

Jones P, Maas G, Kraus S et al. (2021) An exploration of the role and contribution of entrepreneurship centres in UK higher education institutions. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 28(2):205–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-08-2018-0244

Jun C (2017) 欧盟创业能力框架: 创业教育行动新指南 [EU’s entrepreneurship competence framework: a new guide to entrepreneurship education]. Int Comp Educ 1:45–51

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Ke L (2017) 创新创业教育的国际比较与借鉴 [International comparison and reference of innovation and entrepreneurship education]. Stud Dialect Nat 9:73–78

Kim G, Kim D, Lee WJ, et al (2020) The effect of youth entrepreneurship education programs: two large-scale experimental studies. Sage Open 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020956976

Kolb A, Kolb D (2011) Experiential learning theory: a dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In Armstrong SJ, Fukami C (Eds) Handbook of management learning, education and development. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021038.n3

Kremel A, Wetter-Edman K (2019) Implementing design thinking as didactic method in entrepreneurship education, the importance of through. Des J 22:163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1595855

Kuratko DF, Morris MH (2018) Examining the future trajectory of entrepreneurship. J Small Bus Manag 56(1):11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12364

Kusumojanto DD, Wibowo A, Kustiandi J, et al (2021) Do entrepreneurship education and environment promote students’ entrepreneurial intention? The role of entrepreneurial attitude. Cogent Educ 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1948660

Mandrup M, Jensen TL (2017) Educational Action Research and Triple Helix principles in entrepreneurship education: introducing the EARTH design to explore individuals in Triple Helix collaboration. Triple Helix 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-017-0048-y

Maoxin Y (2017) 创业教育的中国经验 [“China’s experiences” of entrepreneurship education]. Educ Res 38(9):70–75

Martin BC, McNally JJ, Kay MJ (2013) Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: a meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. J Bus Ventur 28(2):211–224

Mason C, Arshed N (2013) Teaching entrepreneurship to university students through experiential Learning: a case study. Ind High Educ 27(6):449–463

Mitra J (2017) Holistic experimentation for emergence: a creative approach to postgraduate entrepreneurship education and training. Ind High Educ 31(1):34–50

Mohamed NA, Sheikh Ali AY (2021) Entrepreneurship education: systematic literature review and future research directions. World J Entrep Manag Sustain Dev 17(4):644–661

Mwasalwiba ES (2010) Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Educ+ Train 52(1):20–47

Nabi G, Liñán F, Fayolle A et al. (2017) The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: a systematic review and research agenda. Acad Manag Learn Educ 16(2):277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026

Neck HM, Greene PG (2011) Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. J Small Bus Manag 49(1):55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x

Neck HM, Corbett AC (2018) The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrep Educ Pedagog 1(1):8–41

Okebukola P (2020) Breaking barriers to learning: the culture techno-contextual approach (CTCA). Sterling Publishers, Slough

Onjewu AKE, Sukumar A, Prakash KVD et al (2021) The triple helix: a case study of Centurion University of Technology and Management. In Jones P, Apostolopoulos N, Kakouris A, Moon C, Ratten V & Walmsley A (Eds), Universities and entrepreneurship: meeting the educational and social challenges (Vol 11, pp 199–218)

Piqué JM, Berbegal-Mirabent J, Etzkowitz H (2020) The role of universities in shaping the evolution of Silicon Valley’s ecosystem of innovation. Triple Helix J 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10009

Rahman S (2020) Improving the power of lecture method in higher education. In Teaching learning and new technologies in higher education (pp 135–147)

Ranga M, Etzkowitz H (2013) Triple helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Ind. High Educ. 27(4):237–262. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165

Ratten V, Usmanij P (2021) Entrepreneurship education: time for a change in research direction? Int J Manag Educ 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100367

Ribeiro ATVB, Uechi JN, Plonski GA (2018) Building builders: entrepreneurship education from an ecosystem perspective at MIT. Triple Helix 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0051-y

Ronstadt R (1985) The educated entrepreneurs: a new era of EE is beginning. Am J Small Bus 10(1):7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878501000102

Tianhao L, Beiwei L, Yang L (2020) 国外创新创业教育发展述评与启示 [The development of innovation and entrepreneurship education in foreign countries: review and enlightenment]. Manag Innov Entrep 1:23–36

Timmons JA, Spinelli S, Tan Y (2004) New venture creation: entrepreneurship for the 21st century (Vol 6). McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York

Wang SY, Wu XL, Xu M et al. (2021) The evaluation of synergy between university entrepreneurship education ecosystem and university students’ entrepreneurship performance. Math Probl Eng, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3878378

Weiming L, Chunyan L, Xiaohua D (2013) 我国高校创业教育十年: 演进, 问题与体系建设 [Research on ten-year entrepreneurship education in Chinese universities: evolution, problems and system construction]. Educ Res 6:42–51

Whitehead AN (1967) Aims of education: Simon and Schuster

Willig C (2013) EBOOK: introducing qualitative research in psychology. McGraw-Hill Education, UK

Wong HY, Chan CK (2022) A systematic review on the learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education within higher education settings. Assess Eval High Educ 47(8):1213–1230

Xu Y (2017) Research on the Construction of Support System of University Students’ Entrepreneurship Education under the Background of the New Normal [Proceedings Paper]. 2017 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FRONTIERS IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES (FETMS 2017)

Yang J (2013) The theory of planned behavior and prediction of entrepreneurial intention among Chinese undergraduates. Soc Behav Personal Int J 41(3):367–376

Yuanyuan C (2015) 从 ABC 到 PhD: 丹麦创业教育体系的框架设计与特点 [From ABC to PhD: the guiding ideas and development framework of Danish EE (Entrepreneurship Education) system]. Int Comp Educ 8:7–13

Yubing H, Ziyan G (2015) 慕尼黑工业大学创业教育生态系统建设及启示 [The EE ecosystem of TUM and some recommendations to China]. Sci Sci Manag 10:41–49

Zaring O, Gifford E, McKelvey M (2021) Strategic choices in the design of entrepreneurship education: an explorative study of Swedish higher education institutions. Stud High Educ 46(2):343–358

Zhang W, Li Y, Zeng Q, et al. (2022) Relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention among college students: a meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19(19) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912158

Zhou C, Peng X-M (2008) The entrepreneurial university in China: nonlinear paths. Sci Public Policy 35(9):637–646

Download references

Acknowledgements

We express our sincere gratitude to all individuals who contributed to the data collection process. Furthermore, we extend our appreciation to Linlin Yang and Jinxiao Chen from Tongji University for their invaluable suggestions on the initial draft. Special thanks are also due to Prof. Yuzhuo Cai from Tampere University for his insightful contributions to this paper. Funding for this study was provided by the Chinese National Social Science Funds [BIA190205] and the Shanghai Educational Science Research General Project [C2023033].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Luning Shao

Shanghai International College of Design & Innovation, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Shanghai International College of Intellectual Property, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Shengce Ren

Institute of Higher Education, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

Shanghai Industrial Innovation Ecosystem Research Center, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Luning Shao, Yuxin Miao, Sanfa Cai and Fei Fan. The first Chinese outline and draft were written by Luning Shao, Yuxin Miao, and Shengce Ren. The English draft of the manuscript was prepared by Fei Fan. All the authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fei Fan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This research was approved by the Tongji University Ethics Committee for Human Research (No. tjdxsr079). The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shao, L., Miao, Y., Ren, S. et al. Designing a framework for entrepreneurship education in Chinese higher education: a theoretical exploration and empirical case study. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 519 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03024-2

Download citation

Received : 22 May 2023

Accepted : 03 April 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03024-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

IOE - Faculty of Education and Society

• Departments and centres
• Innovation and enterprise
• Teacher Education College

Crisis of the private? Digital technology, raising children, and the bypassing of speech

01 May 2024, 5:30 pm–7:15 pm

Join this event to hear Stefan Ramaekers investigate how the invasion of the other's (inner) life by devices constitutes the bypassing of speech in the parent-child relationship.

This event is free.

Event Information

Availability.

In the Black Mirror episode “Arkangel,” an implant in a girl’s temple provides a visual feed and real-time physiological information to her mother. Affordances of contemporary devices illustrate that this is not far from reality.

Drawing on Cavell’s conception of “speech”, what it means to share language and to accept “the human body as the best picture of the human soul” draws out the relevance of the private (as otherness) in the parent-child relationship.

This in-person event will be particularly useful for those interested in Cavell and Wittgenstein's philosophy, parenting, and the role technology can play in child raising and education more generally.

PESGB seminar series

This event is part of the  Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain  (PESGB) seminar series. PESGB is a learned society that promotes the study, teaching and application of philosophy of education. Its London Branch hosts seminars every Wednesday in conjunction with the  Centre for Philosophy of Education . These seminars are led by national and international scholars in the field, covering a wide range of issues of educational and philosophical concern.

All are welcome to attend.

Related links

• Department of Education, Practice and Society
• Centre for Philosophy of Education

About the Speaker

Professor stefan ramaekers.

Professor at the Laboratory for Education and Society

His research is situated in the field of educational philosophy, at the intersection of the Anglo-Saxon and Continental philosophical traditions, and finds inspiration in the work of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Cavell, and Berardi.

His main focus is a critical investigation of the contemporary discourse of parenting, specifically: the instrumentalisation, scientisation, and (neuro)psychologisation of upbringing; the pedagogical role of parents; the meaning of digital technologies (e.g. parenting apps) in raising children.

He has written also about the pedagogical stakes of film, postmodernism and skepticism, and the nature of educational research.

Related News

Related events, related case studies, related research projects, press and media enquiries.

UCL Media Relations +44 (0)7747 565 056

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article

This article is part of the research topic.

Using Case Study and Narrative Pedagogy to Guide Students Through the Process of Science

Molecular Storytelling: A Conceptual Framework for Teaching and Learning with Molecular Case Studies Provisionally Accepted

• 1 School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington Bothell, United States
• 2 Institute for Quantitative Biomedicine, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, United States
• 3 Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics Protein Data Bank, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Molecular case studies (MCSs) provide educational opportunities to explore biomolecular structure and function using data from public bioinformatics resources. The conceptual basis for the design of MCSs has yet to be fully discussed in the literature, so we present molecular storytelling as a conceptual framework for teaching with case studies. Whether the case study aims to understand the biology of a specific disease and design its treatments or track the evolution of a biosynthetic pathway, vast amounts of structural and functional data, freely available in public bioinformatics resources, can facilitate rich explorations in atomic detail. To help biology and chemistry educators use these resources for instruction, a community of scholars collaborated to create the Molecular CaseNet. This community uses storytelling to explore biomolecular structure and function while teaching biology and chemistry. In this article, we define the structure of an MCS and present an example. Then, we articulate the evolution of a conceptual framework for developing and using MCSs. Finally, we related our framework to the development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPCK) for educators in the Molecular CaseNet. The report conceptualizes an interdisciplinary framework for teaching about the molecular world and informs lesson design and education research.

Keywords: Molecular education, Case studies, Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPCK), Molecular structure and function, molecular visualization, Bioinformatics education, conceptual modeling

Received: 31 Jan 2024; Accepted: 23 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Trujillo and Dutta. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. Caleb M. Trujillo, University of Washington Bothell, School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, Bothell, United States

People also looked at

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Case Study: How Aggressively Should a Bank Pursue AI?

• Thomas H. Davenport
• George Westerman

A Malaysia-based CEO weighs the risks and potential benefits of turning a traditional bank into an AI-first institution.

Siti Rahman, the CEO of Malaysia-based NVF Bank, faces a pivotal decision. Her head of AI innovation, a recent recruit from Google, has a bold plan. It requires a substantial investment but aims to transform the traditional bank into an AI-first institution, substantially reducing head count and the number of branches. The bank’s CFO worries they are chasing the next hype cycle and cautions against valuing efficiency above all else. Siti must weigh the bank’s mixed history with AI, the resistance to losing the human touch in banking services, and the risks of falling behind in technology against the need for a prudent, incremental approach to innovation.

Two experts offer advice: Noemie Ellezam-Danielo, the chief digital and AI strategy at Société Générale, and Sastry Durvasula, the chief information and client services officer at TIAA.

Siti Rahman, the CEO of Malaysia-headquartered NVF Bank, hurried through the corridors of the university’s computer engineering department. She had directed her driver to the wrong building—thinking of her usual talent-recruitment appearances in the finance department—and now she was running late. As she approached the room, she could hear her head of AI innovation, Michael Lim, who had joined NVF from Google 18 months earlier, breaking the ice with the students. “You know, NVF used to stand for Never Very Fast,” he said to a few giggles. “But the bank is crawling into the 21st century.”

• Thomas H. Davenport is the President’s Distinguished Professor of Information Technology and Management at Babson College, a visiting scholar at the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, and a senior adviser to Deloitte’s AI practice. He is a coauthor of All-in on AI: How Smart Companies Win Big with Artificial Intelligence (Harvard Business Review Press, 2023).
• George Westerman is a senior lecturer at MIT Sloan School of Management and a coauthor of Leading Digital (HBR Press, 2014).

Partner Center

A popular YouTuber's negative video of Humane's AI Pin raises questions about critical reviews in the age of innovation

• This post originally appeared in the Insider Today newsletter.
• You can sign up for Business Insider's daily newsletter here .

Hello there! If you're struggling to decide the foods worth buying organic, best-selling author Michael Pollan has some suggestions for the ones worth splurging on to avoid harmful chemicals .  

In today's big story, we're looking at a critical tech review that caused a bit of a stir on social media .

What's on deck:

Markets: Goldman Sachs quiets the haters with a monster earnings report .

Tech: Leaked docs show one of Prime Video's biggest issues, forcing customers to abandon shows .

Business: The best bet in business these days? Targeting young men who like to gamble .

But first, the review is in!

If this was forwarded to you, sign up here.

The big story

Up for review.

"The Worst Product I've Ever Reviewed… For Now"

Marques Brownlee, the YouTuber better known as MKBHD, didn't mince words with the title of his review of Humane's AI Pin .

In a 25-minute video , Brownlee details all the issues he encountered using the AI device. (Spoiler alert: There were a lot.)

Brownlee's review aligns with other criticisms of the device . But not all of those came from someone with as much sway. His YouTube channel has more than 18 million subscribers.

One user on X pointed that out , calling the review "almost unethical" for "potentially killing someone else's nascent project" in a post reposted over 2,000 times. 

Most of the internet disagreed, and a Humane exec even thanked Brownlee on X for the "fair and valid critiques." 

But it highlights the power of Brownlee's reviews. Earlier this year, a negative video of Fisker's Ocean SUV by Brownlee also made waves on social media . 

Critical reviews in the age of innovation raise some interesting questions.

To be clear, there was nothing wrong with Brownlee's review. Humane's AI Pin costs $700. Watering down his review to ease the blow would be a disservice to the millions of fans relying on his perspective before making such a significant purchase.

Too often, companies view potential customers as an extension of their research and development. They are happy to sell a product that is still a work in progress on the promise they'll fix it on the fly. ("Updates are coming!")

But in a world of instant gratification, it can be hard to appreciate that innovation takes time. 

Even Apple can run into this conundrum. Take the Apple Vision Pro. Reviewers are impressed with the technology behind the much-anticipated gadget — but are still struggling to figure out what they can do with it . Maybe, over time, that will get sorted out. It's also worth remembering how cool tech can be, as Business Insider's Peter Kafka wrote following a bunch of trips in Waymo's software-powered taxis in San Francisco . Sure, robotaxis have their issues, Peter said, but they also elicit that "golly-gee-can-you-believe-it" sense.

As for Humane, America loves a comeback story. Just look at "Cyberpunk 2077." The highly anticipated video game had a disastrous launch in 2020 , but redeemed itself three years later, ultimately winning a major award .

Still, Humane shouldn't get a pass for releasing a product that didn't seem ready for primetime, according to the reviews. 

And its issue could be bigger than glitchy tech. Humane's broader thesis about reducing screen time might not be as applicable. As BI's Katie Notopolous put it: " I love staring at my iPhone ."

3 things in markets

1. Goldman finally strikes gold. After a rough stretch, the vaunted investment bank crushed earnings expectations , sending its stock soaring. A big tailwind, according to CEO David Solomon, is AI spawning " enormous opportunities " for the bank. 

2. Buy the dip, Wedbush says. Last week's drop among tech stocks shouldn't scare away investors , according to Wedbush. A strong earnings report, buoyed by the ongoing AI craze, should keep them soaring, strategists said. But JPMorgan doesn't see it that way, saying prices are already stretched .   

3. China's economy beat analysts' expectations. The country's GDP grew 5.3% in the first quarter of 2024, according to data published by the National Bureau of Statistics on Tuesday. It's a welcome return to form for the world's second-largest economy, although below-par new home and retail sales remain a cause for concern .

3 things in tech

1. Amazon Prime Video viewers are giving up on its shows. Leaked documents show viewers are fed up with the streamer's error-ridden catalog system , which often has incomplete titles and missing episodes. In 2021, 60% of all content-related complaints were about Prime Video's catalog.

2. Eric Newcomer is bringing his Cerebral Valley AI Summit to New York. The conference, originally held in San Francisco, is famous for producing one of the largest generative AI acquisitions ever. Now, it's coming to New York in June .

3. OpenAI is plotting an expansion to NYC. Two people familiar with the plans told BI that the ChatGPT developer is looking to open a New York office next year. That would be the company's fifth office, alongside its current headquarters in San Francisco, a just-opened site in Tokyo, and spots in London and Dublin.

3 things in business

1. America's young men are spending their money like never before. From sports betting to meme coins, young men are more willing than ever to blow money in the hopes of making a fortune .

2. Investors are getting into women's sports. With women like Caitlin Clark dominating March Madness headlines, investors see a big opportunity. BI compiled a list of 13 investors and fund managers pouring money into the next big thing in sports.

3. Bad news for Live Nation. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Justice Department could hit the concert giant with an antitrust lawsuit as soon as next month. Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, has long faced criticism over its high fees.

In other news

Blackstone hires Walmart AI whiz to supercharge its portfolio companies .

Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Blackpink's Lisa: Celebrities spotted at Coachella 2024 . 

NYC's rat czar says stop feeding the pigeons if you want the vermin gone .

A major Tesla executive left after 18 years at the company amid mass layoffs .

Some Tesla factory workers realized they were laid off when security scanned their badges and sent them back on shuttles, sources say .

New York is in, San Francisco is very much out for tech workers relocating .

AI could split workers into 2: The ones whose jobs get better and the ones who lose them completely .

Oh look at that! Now Google is using AI to answer search queries .

A longtime banker gives a rare inside look at how he is thinking about his next career move, from compensation to WFH .

Clarence Thomas didn't show up for work today .

What's happening today

Today's earnings: United Airlines, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, and others are reporting . 

It's Free Cone Day at participating Ben & Jerry's stores. 

The Insider Today team: Dan DeFrancesco , deputy editor and anchor, in New York. Jordan Parker Erb , editor, in New York. Hallam Bullock , senior editor, in London. George Glover , reporter, in London.

Watch: Nearly 50,000 tech workers have been laid off — but there's a hack to avoid layoffs

• Main content