Search

Higher Education Institutions are expected to stimulate the innovation system and to contribute to the development of societies in a global perspective. Within this context, there is an increasing focus on internationalization. HEIs are developing institutional mechanisms to support internationalization while academics are expected to carry specific practices that allow them to improve the internationalization of knowledge production. At the same time, they are encouraged to engage with non-academic partners to co-produce and transfer knowledge, contributing, in this way, to economic and social development. Although there is some research on the impact of internationalization on academic entrepreneurship, studies on the effects in other dimensions of academic engagement with society are almost absent. This paper aims to fill this gap by analyzing the relationship between academics' internationalization practices and perceptions and the development of different types of academic engagement. Our analysis draws on quantitative analysis with data provided by an international survey (APIKS) and explores the Portuguese context. Findings show that the different practices and perspectives on internationalization impact differently on the way scientists engage. While there are positive effects of internationalization of research on engagement, the time academics stay abroad and the high focus on publishing in internationally high-rated journals may negatively affect academics' orientation towards the local community. This paper contributes to the debate on the role of the internationalization in the context of a knowledge-based society, considering different dimensions and a broad spectrum of knowledge-based engagement activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, there has been a notable upswing in the realm of innovation and entrepreneurship education for Chinese students, leading to remarkable advancements. However, students' initiatives in this field fall short of the desired standards. The current evaluation index system is insufficient for meeting the developmental needs of colleges and universities. Therefore, exploring innovative approaches and implementing a comprehensive evaluation framework become crucial. This research analyzes the limitations of the current evaluation system, which focuses on curriculum, teaching materials, management, research output, student employment, entrepreneurship awareness, and participation. Unfortunately, this narrow approach has a significant impact on the quality of education in this field. To address this issue, this paper proposes a novel evaluation system for assessing students' innovation and entrepreneurship education by utilizing the capabilities of backpropagation (BP) neural network. We researched the conceptual framework, components, and learning process of BP neural network. Additionally, we provide a thorough description of the calculation process and structure of the BP neural network algorithm by facilitating stakeholders' understanding. Our study aims to strengthen the landscape of education by developing a culture of excellence. We developed a robust evaluation system with well-defined indexes calibrated to capture the essence of this education. Through precise training and analysis, we achieved remarkable results, with a maximum difference of 1.6% between the anticipated and actual output. This highlights the accuracy of our model in assessing teaching quality. We also thoroughly compared several kinds of assessment methods for the growth of students' entrepreneurial and innovative skills that have been presented in the literature. Based on the simulation results, we discovered that our model performs better as compared to the existing model. Based on the evidence, innovation and entrepreneurship education in Chinese institutions can be characterized as moderate. This finding lays the foundation for further advancements, fostering a future where educational excellence and entrepreneurial spirit thrive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While much work has focused on pedagogical innovation processes within universities, less has been said of the processes and cultures which foster and give rise to creativity within higher education and the ways in which faculty members are encouraged to develop their pedagogy across disciplines and within their departments. This paper examines the ways campus spaces at a UK university are utilised by staff for peer learning and the barriers and affordances for innovation and creativity in educational practice. Utilising an interdisciplinary design, this paper suggests that the various spaces available to university teaching staff are able to be further utilised to support creative practice and peer learning, presented as four design principles: innovation happens in everyday spaces, communal spaces need social functions, forums have different scales, and collaborative spaces require a collective culture. The normalising of a culture of innovation requires both physical and behavioural adjustments to the use of space, suggesting that both faculty and institutions need to work together to reimagine spaces for faculty peer learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improving the governance is one of the priorities of the reforms in the area of higher education in Russia. Radical reforms and massive democratisation of the sector in the last 25 years resulted in accumulation of many development issues: the quality of public services, the efficiency of public spending and the modes of interaction between state, society and institutions. Supervisory boards are the latest addition to the landscape of the university governance. The paper discusses the legal framework of the supervisory boards in Russia, analyses how it relates to the best world practices in the sector and how it reflects in the actual composition of the boards and affects the roles they accomplish at the universities. The paper concludes with the discussion of the areas of concern in the current boards’ practices and suggests how they can be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As higher education institutions seek to prepare an increasingly diverse population of students for a rapidly changing future, makerspaces offer a pedagogical approach for engaging all learners in active thinking and hands-on learning while promoting creativity, problem solving, and collaboration skills. In this paper, we discuss ways to integrate makerspaces and maker-centered learning within undergraduate and graduate college courses that reach students from majors ranging across the college and university curriculum. We highlight four courses, each taken by students at different points within their academic programs of study: a) digital media production & 3D modeling in a first-year seminar, b) poetry writing and 3D modeling and printing in a flipped learning course, c) wiki page building workshops for future teachers, and d) learning, media, and technology undergraduate/graduate courses. Makerspace experiences are ongoing features of each course, but not in the same ways, offering models that faculty can use in adapting their courses to include more active and applied learning for students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interest in how to support the design work of university teachers has led to research and development initiatives that include technology-based design-support tools, online repositories, and technical specifications. Despite these initiatives, remarkably little is known about the design work that university teachers actually do. This paper presents findings from a qualitative study that investigated the design processes of 30 teachers from 16 Australian universities. The results show design as a top-down iterative process, beginning with a broad framework to which detail is added through cycles of elaboration. Design extends over the period before, while, and after a unit is taught, demonstrating the dynamic nature of design and highlighting the importance of reflection in teachers' design practice. We present a descriptive model of the design process, which we relate to conceptualizations of higher education teaching and learning, and compare with the characteristics of general design and instructional design. We also suggest directions for future research and development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]