• Users Online: 865
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 33-41

Effects of entrepreneurial characteristic of school principals on evaluation of educational innovation


Department of Educational Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Date of Web Publication3-Apr-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohammadreza Nlil
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jepr.jepr_40_16

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


AIM: The Ministry of Education has started extensive efforts to enhance innovation in schools so that staff structure and planning as well as management and scheduling of cultural and educational capacity of schools are better aligned with the aforementioned objective. The goal of the present study is to investigate the entrepreneurial characteristics of educational managers and its effects on the educational innovation. In this study, pragmatism, creativity, risk, challenge seeking, and ambiguity tolerance are considered as characteristics of entrepreneurial characteristics of school principals.
METHODS: The research is of applied type, and qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to carry out the research. Our research methodology is causal-comparative and the population includes 100 Isfahan school principals during the educational year of 2014–2015. This study investigates one main hypothesis and four subhypotheses, and other characteristics such as gender, educational background of school principals, and ownership status of schools (being private or state owned) are also examined. For data collection purposes, Characteristics of Iranian Entrepreneurs Questionnaire with a reliability score of 0.94 and a questionnaire for measuring innovation are utilized. Our data analysis phase makes use of the independent samples t-test as well as Pearson's correlation coefficient.
RESULT: Our findings indicate that factors such as ownership status of schools and challenge-seeking traits are significantly related to the educational innovation of school organizations.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, it is recommended to take steps toward increased decentralization of the educational system and greater consideration of organizational entrepreneurship in the body of education and training organization. Also, it is suggested that having more flexible and dynamic planning allows for better capitalization on personal entrepreneurial characteristics of educational managers.

Keywords: Educational innovation, entrepreneurial characteristics, school principals


How to cite this article:
Mousavi S, Nlil M, Nasr A. Effects of entrepreneurial characteristic of school principals on evaluation of educational innovation. Int J Educ Psychol Res 2018;4:33-41

How to cite this URL:
Mousavi S, Nlil M, Nasr A. Effects of entrepreneurial characteristic of school principals on evaluation of educational innovation. Int J Educ Psychol Res [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 4];4:33-41. Available from: http://www.ijeprjournal.org/text.asp?2018/4/1/33/229135




  Introduction Top


The last decade witnessed a powerful emergence of entrepreneurship research worldwide.[1] Entrepreneurship is regarded as one of the best economic development strategies to develop a country's economic growth and sustain the country's competitiveness in facing the increasing trends of globalization.[2],[3] Hisrich et al. note that entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic, and social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction and independence.[4] This, in turn, has increasingly made entrepreneurship to emerge as one of the most popular research domains in academic circles.[5]

Extensive and ongoing changes in the environment cause organizations to face new challenges. These challenges are so vast that even organizations with technologies, products, and services cannot success in a competitive global market.[6] Moreover, old approaches and solutions have lost their potential to deal with organizational challenges and current external environment, and they should be replaced with new approaches and perspectives.[7] This has led many organization stores consider that their strategic priorities and business should focus on adaptability to rapid response to changing market and students' needs through new methods of collaboration. One of the ways of responding to the educational change factors and success in this environment is “innovation”. Universities and educational systems must try to have trained and motivated personnel with a set of skills, experience, and knowledge. This is an essential and inseparable part of such a strategy that should be considered. Information and knowledge in the universities rest with labor force and in such organizations knowledge is power.[7]

While everything is rapidly changing and schools are seeking competitive advantages, focusing on innovation is a solution to enhance the competitive advantage in Iran's training educational dynamic environment. Innovation is a process by which a receiving unit adopts a better or different option other than what is already in place and tries to realize it in a manner to mitigate or resolve shortcomings that may reside in a product or a process.

Cris Beswick defines innovation as: The successful exploitation of an idea that adds value to the customer and commercial return for the creator.[8]

Innovation may be as a result of internal research and development initiatives or it may be suggested by managers or other employees who think of ways to improve the operations and activities of an organization. Innovation may also come about as the result of external factors such as changes in the nature of competition in the market. Nayak believes that most of the good ideas are offered by customers rather than marketing and sales divisions or competitors.[9]

Weisberg argued, by contrast, that creativity only involves ordinary cognitive processes yielding extraordinary results.[10]

Since schools are considered as the main facilitators to train society's workforce, they play a key role in economic development of country. Therefore, in this research, we assess and compare high schools' principals' entrepreneurial characteristics with their educational innovation.

We can introduce innovation as a new combination of essential factors for the production system. Innovation is a process of acquisition and sharing which aims at creating a new knowledge that leads to new products and services.[11]

As Rosenberg put it, innovation is often developed through science-push models to more sophisticated ones which require the interaction of key players.[12]

This process or innovation model which needs an interaction and cooperation between the key players is often referred to as the National Innovation System (NIS). Wessner (2005) argues that an NIS takes shape by social norms and value systems comprised of attitudes toward failure, social mobility, and entrepreneurship, where most of them cannot change quickly or easily.[13]

The general policy about the needs of a NIS consolidates the internal system bonds by matching the actions of key players such as universities, laboratories, and grand corporations with the personal gain of venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. As Nobela points it out, education and training play an important role in national innovation and educational innovation. Therefore, it is the responsibility of schools to use creative and innovative principals to facilitate innovations by teachers and subsequently by students. This can shift school climate into a more creative, original, and effective one. Drucker argues that although innovation opportunities can be ignited by instantaneous genius, most innovations are in fact the result of a goal-oriented and conscious search inside and outside an organization. Four opportunity types can be attributed to the inside of an organization or industry:

  1. Unexpected incidents
  2. Incongruity in process rates
  3. Requirements of work processes
  4. Changes induced by industry or market. Demographic changes can affect it from outside.[14]


In terms of internal structural changes in education and training system, one can point out the active presence of private schools that result in an increased competition in education market and in terms of extra organizational factors, the reductive trend in population growth has led to a reduced demand in this market. All these add to the significance of innovation as a factor that can help in attraction and retention of students. There are many sources for organizational innovation, yet one of the most important factors is organizational structure. Organizations that benefit from organic structures have greater innovativeness which is due to the increased interactions between expert teams.

King, Anderson refers to four characteristics of organic organizations:

  1. Flat organizational structure
  2. High lateral communication
  3. Flexible definition of jobs
  4. Authority and responsibility based on personal abilities.


Since schools have many supervisory bodies and bureaucratic organizations, it is difficult to go for radical innovations. Thus, they may try ordinary educational innovations. Ordinary educational innovation is a change in education which is pretty much similar to the past.

There are many definitions proposed for entrepreneurship. Gartner suggests that to prevent confusion, it is better to define entrepreneurship simply as the enterprise of “creating an organization;” however after referring to the article by Shane and Venkartarama, it was decided to adopt their definition. During the 1950s and 1960s with the works done by David McClelland and especially with the publication of his book, The Achieving Society in 1961, entrepreneurship studies gained popularity in psychology. We had summarized some of the classical entrepreneurial traits as follows. Richard Contilon put emphasis on future awareness and risk tolerance. Jem Baptiste emphasized factors such as credit stance, risk tolerance, patience, and judgment. AlfradMarchall emphasized skill and knowledge, leadership, and risk tolerance. Joseph Schumpeter regarded ambition, leadership, and innovation as key factors while Israel Kirznell referred to creativity and awareness for exploiting opportunities as the nature of entrepreneurship. It can be noted that personality traits of entrepreneurs were examined to single out entrepreneurial characteristics. For sure, school principals can play an important role in success and innovation or failure of their schools. Therefore, in this study, we will try to examine the relationship between entrepreneurial personality characteristics of school principals and the respective organizational innovation in their schools.[15]

Concerning the concept of innovation, the basis for our work is the studies done by Harley who characterized innovation with three factors of search of new ideas for products and services, encouraging innovation in organization, and not blaming or punishing employees for the failure of their new ideas.[16]

The literature on university entrepreneurship is rapidly expanding, throughout the world. Universities in developed countries have become increasingly entrepreneurial.[17],[18] Riel et al. presents the Europe-wide-certified Education and Training Programs, Idea2Enterprise and ResEUr, two successive European projects that have conceived and implemented a unique e-Learning-enabled training and EU-wide certification program to sensitize young researchers and creative minds for innovation and entrepreneurship in our modern environment.[19]

Tiago et al. showed that, despite its relevance, there is no empirical evidence on the enabling factors of entrepreneurship and their contribution to the development of a marketing innovation-centered culture. Our model therefore identifies these enabling factors. The data gathered cover four countries: names. I- test the framework, keeping in mind that each country has its own national education policies. The findings indicate that entrepreneurship education is common in three of the four countries and therefore is a main contributor to entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, there was no distinction in propensity regarding age and gender, but the combination of country and education affects entrepreneurship propensity.[20]

In this article, the authors had presented the results of a survey conducted at national level regarding the needs of developing entrepreneurship competences of students from educational sciences' field. After the needs analysis, a curriculum of entrepreneurship education was developed which was tested during an experiment with students from the same specialization. The conclusions, limits, and opportunities for teaching entrepreneurship education for educational sciences domain are presented at the end.

Researches [21] summarize the best papers of the Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy conference, which took place in July 2012 in Valencia, Spain. The Journal of Business Research hereby publishes a special issue entitled, “Innovation and entrepreneurship in knowledge industries.” This special issue includes 22 papers and the editorial. All of them went through double-blind reviews and revisions. These articles contribute to various perspectives of innovation and entrepreneurship in different countries. Innovation is considered a specific instrument of entrepreneurship. The articles in this special issue cover a variety of topics in the area of innovation and entrepreneurship. The growing literature on university entrepreneurship has not yet been reviewed in a systematic and comprehensive fashion, it is difficult to assess what is known to date; consequently, scholars have little guidance on how to fruitfully focus their attention in the future. This gap calls for a detailed review and in-depth analysis of the existing literature, to better understand the current state of the field and to provide some guidance for future research.[22] Hisrich RD, Peters MP (2005) admit that entrepreneurs are seen differently by the likes of economists, psychologists, business persons, and politicians.[23] Thus, university entrepreneurship is best describable with these approaches.[23] Yadollahi Farsi believes that university entrepreneurship is creating and developing innovation among faculty members, commercialization of research results, and innovating in human knowledge boundary development.[24] Clark (1989) has identified five common elements of successful universities: (1) strengthened core steering; (2) enhanced developmental periphery; (3) diversified base funding; (4) stimulated academic; and (5) integrated entrepreneurial culture. However, it must be taken into consideration that universities which have so far acted in a bureaucratic and defensive manner may not easily become entrepreneurial.[25] As Shattock states, universities will not become entrepreneurial if they do not impose their own internal criteria for the allocation of resources, if they do not use a creatively diversified income base, where the department is developing culture “rich” and “poor” earnings as a result of foreign income, or if the institution climate will not turn into one with a tendency to risk.[26]


  Methods Top


The population for this study is comprised of principals and teachers of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts of Isfahan who are formally or contractually employed. At the beginning of the study, 100 school principals of Isfahan and county schools were asked to fill the entrepreneurial characteristics measurement questionnaires. Then, after finding 40 principals who belonged to the 1st and 5th quintiles, 6 teachers in each of their schools were asked to fill the educational innovation measurement questionnaire. Thus, the sample size for school principals was 40. The instruments used in this study consisted of an educational innovation questionnaire with 10 questions and an entrepreneurial characteristics' assessment questionnaire for Iranians with 45 questions. These questionnaires were to be filled out based on Likert scale. The validity of questionnaires was tested using content method. The reliability of questionnaire of entrepreneurial characteristic was 0.94. The questionnaires were validated by several professors and researchers. Educational innovation: A self-made questionnaire based on theories of educational innovation was used in this research to measure educational innovation that included 25 items and tested four dimensions of aims (6 items), content (7 items), teaching method (8 items), and evaluation (4 item). Responding scale of this questionnaire was a 5-point Likert scale (1 - totally disagree, 5 - totally agree). Content and construct validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by experts, and reliability coefficients of the questionnaire were obtained in terms of Cronbach's alpha (0.92).

Data analysis was performed using software SPSS version 21 of IBM Corporation. To analyze data in descriptive statistics level, frequency distribution, mean, and standard deviation were applied. To analyze data in the level of inferential statistics, ANOVA and MANOVA test were employed.

Entrepreneurial characteristics and educational innovation

The worldwide experiences show that educational innovations in the field of educational innovation have taken place. For this reason, without doubt, it is essential to be aware of such developments and try to investigate the possibility to expand and deepen them, and to make these methods native across Iran.[27]

The concept of innovation has served as a basis for policy on higher education funding in a number of countries. A link between innovation, research, and higher education is implied in a number of funding and grant allocations at national level. The first round of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE 2006) in 2001–05 and the 1999 Knowledge and Innovation reforms in Australia (DEST 2004) are examples of such a link. Following this trend, innovation in higher education teaching has benefited from national grants in countries such as the US, the UK, and Australia. In terms of such funding, South Africa has a long way to go.[28]

The results of these studies showed that organizations with a competitive advantage in the new environment and responding quickly according to customers' needs are innovative and progressive. Agility and creativeness require the existence of flexible manufacturing educational systems, having knowledge of the work force and management structure that encourages team innovations.[29] According to the new definition of agility, there are characteristics such as the ability for quick reaction to sudden and unpredictable changes [30],[31] and the ability to survive and thrive in an environment of continuous and unpredictable changes.[32],[33],[34],[35]

The universities in the survey had different reasons for making changes to educational innovation. However, they all started with the assumption that, through Educational innovation, pupils and faculty members could enjoy learning and achieve more. There was, therefore, a common focus on finding ways to:

  1. Improve pupils' and faculty members' motivation and engagement
  2. Develop their resilience, independence, and ability to work in teams
  3. Raise their attainment.


In the universities which had a history of success and high achievement, the innovations often arose from a concern that performance might have peaked. Given the definitions of the concept on innovation available in literature, the differentiations (product, process, routine, radical, and incremental) and associations (newness and change) of the concept, and trends that have been set on how to support innovation in learning and teaching internationally, this should usher in an era in South African higher education where national funding is made available to support innovation.[36] Siemens provides another angle to the differentiations of the concept of innovation as far as technology and information and communication technology (ICT) in learning and teaching are concerned. He speaks of a differentiation between what he calls “two parallel trends:” social/conceptual innovation and tool-based innovation, examples of which include wikis and blogs. It should then become easier to identify what should go as innovation, even where ICT is concerned as. On its own, the use of new technological tools in learning and teaching should not be confused with innovation.[37]

Conceptual framework of research

A holistic model is inherently complex but is promising from a conceptual construct. [Figure 1] shows the conceptual model of this study. The model proposes a holistic concept of impact of organizational learning key capabilities on educational innovation. To pay attention to objects' and hypothesis' investigation, to have planning primary significance model for this research that, in fact is a kind of innovation model. In this model to be paid to research of link and effect fields of establishing organizational learning on educational innovation appearance possibility. Base of this model shows the direct movement of researcher.
Figure 1: Preliminary model of research

Click here to view


Hypothesis

Main hypothesis: The entrepreneurial characteristic specification score of school principals who have highly innovative educations is more than the entrepreneurial specifications of school principals with lower innovative educations.

To answer this question, we used the t-test for two independent populations and the descriptive results are summarized in [Table 1] along with a comparison of the two groups. According to the significant level (0.99) and with the assumption of equal variances, the t-statistic amount is 1.86 and the significant level of the equal means is 0.945. Therefore, there is no meaningful difference among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative schools.
Table 1: Comparing among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative schools by considering total score of entrepreneurial characteristic of principals

Click here to view


Subsidiary hypothesis

  1. The challenge score of school principals who have highly innovative educations is more than the challenge score of school principals with lower innovative educations.


  2. To answer this question, we used the t-test for two independent populations and the descriptive results are included in [Table 2] along with a comparison of the two groups. According to the significant level (0.95) and with the assumption of equal variances, the t-statistic amount is 1.07 and the significant level of the equal means is 0.476. Therefore, there is no meaningful difference among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of the principals of low innovative schools (P > 0.05).

  3. The risk score of school principals who have highly innovative educations is more than the risk score of school principals with lower innovative educations.


  4. To answer this question, we used the t-test for two independent populations and the descriptive results are included in [Table 3] along with a comparison of the two groups. According to the significant level (0.95) and with the assumption of equal variances, the t-statistic amount is 1.01 and the significant level of the equal means is 0.887. Therefore, there is no meaningful difference among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of the principals of the low innovative schools.

  5. The pragmatism score of school principals who have highly innovative educations is more than the pragmatism score of school principals with lower innovative educations.


  6. To answer this question, we used the t-test for two independent populations and the descriptive results are included in [Table 4] along with a comparison of the two groups. According to the significant level (0.95) and with the assumption of equal variances, the t-statistic amount is 0.700 and the significant level of the equal means is 0.692. Therefore, there is no meaningful difference among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of the principals of low innovative schools (P > 0.05).

  7. The creativity score of school principals who have highly innovative educations is more than the creativity score of school principals with lower innovative educations.


  8. To answer this question, we used the t-test for two independent populations and the descriptive results are included in [Table 5] along with a comparison of the two groups. According to the significant level (0.95) and with the assumption of equal variances, the t-statistic amount is 0.657 and the significant level of the equal means is 0.252. Therefore, there is no meaningful difference among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of the principals of low innovative schools.
Table 2: Comparing among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative by considering challenge score of principals

Click here to view
Table 3: Comparing among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative by considering risk score of principals

Click here to view
Table 4: Comparing among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative by considering pragmatism score of principals

Click here to view
Table 5: Comparing among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative by considering creativity score of principals

Click here to view


Subsidiary question

  1. Is there any relation between gender of the principles and their innovative educations.


  2. The gender of school principals who have highly innovative educations is different from gender of school principals with lower innovative organizations.

    To answer this question, we used the t-test for two independent populations and the descriptive results are included in [Table 6] along with a comparison of the two groups. According to the significant level (0.95) and with the assumption of equal variances, the t statistic amount is 1.389 and the significant level of the equal means is 0.023. Therefore, there is meaningful difference among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative schools.
    Table 6: Comparing among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative by considering Gender of principals

    Click here to view


  3. Is there any relation between ownership of the principles and their innovative educations?


  4. The Creativity score of school principals who have highly innovative educations is more than the Risk score of school principals with lower innovative educations.

    To answer this question, we used the t test for two independent populations and the descriptive results. According to the significant level (0.95) and with the assumption of equal variances, the t statistic amount is 3.852 and the significant level of the equal means is 0.000. Therefore, there is meaningful difference among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative schools. (In terms of expert opinion and the avoidance of numerous tables the table of this question are not presented).

  5. Is there any relation between gender of the principles and their innovative educations?


  6. The Creativity score of school principals who have highly innovative educations is more than the Risk score of school principals with lower innovative educations.

    To answer this question, we used the t test for two independent populations and the descriptive results. According to the significant level (0.95) and with the assumption of equal variances, the t statistic amount is 0.745 and the significant level of the equal means is 0.099. Therefore, there is no meaningful difference among the scores of the principals of highly innovative schools and the scores of low innovative schools. (In terms of expert opinion and the avoidance of numerous tables the table of this question are not presented).



  Conclusion Top


One of the most important and new issues in the field of higher education is educational innovation.

University entrepreneurship can play an important role in this regard. Entrepreneurship is a way of thinking that emphasizes opportunities in relation to threats. The identification of opportunities is itself a process based on intentions, hence a study of determinants of propensity for entrepreneurship is of great interest for both academia and decision-makers. Considering the impacts of entrepreneurship on innovation, productivity and competitiveness of organizations and individuals, already established and widely referenced in the literature and the emphasis is placed in the contents that should be or not transmitted and how it stimulate the entrepreneurial process of the students. The analysis of the main axes of research around the concept of entrepreneurship and educational innovation at university-level studies seem to have the best results, so the remainder of the work will pertain to university students.

This research study the effect of entrepreneurial intent on educational innovation among schools by administering questionnaire. This research considers educational innovation as resulting from the entrepreneurial characters (creativity, risk) as determined by personal contacts and networks variables models of perceived performance. These characters have an indirect effect on educational innovation (through entrepreneurial characters), in addition to a direct effect.

The authors concluded that the variables that made the greatest contribution to educational innovation were entrepreneurial intention, the kind of research done at the university, the perceived models, the number of years at the university and the number of patents registered, regardless of cultural context. But how long can we ignore the cultural effects on innovation and entrepreneurship? Does a country's educational policy affect entrepreneurship propensity in its population and among its university students?

The entrepreneurial profile assumes a leading role in the entrepreneurial inclination. However, there are questions concerning the role of personal characteristics in entrepreneurial propensity, since that have been underestimated in previous research due to methodological limitations, such as sample size. The characteristics that make up the profile of the entrepreneur from an early age are assumed to be a preponderant factor in the evaluation of the entrepreneurial propensity, taken as a differentiating condition.

The findings indicate that except entrepreneurial characteristics do not have significant relationships with school innovations. The results are in line with those presented by Normi and Paasio whose findings indicated relationships between entrepreneurial characteristic of Isfahan school principals and educational innovation.[38] Examining. Yadollahi Farsi believes that university entrepreneurship is the creating and developing innovation among faculty members, commercialization of research results and innovating in human knowledge boundary development.[24] As Shattock states universities will not become entrepreneurial if they do not impose their own internal criteria for the allocation of resources, if they do not use creatively a diversified income base, where the Department is developing culture “rich” and “poor” earnings as a result of foreign income, or if the institution climate will not turn into one with a tendency to risk.[26] Our study suggests that it is better to look for policies and methods employed by entrepreneurs rather than their personality traits. In other words, it is better to focus more closely on entrepreneurs' thinking and decision making than their personality and attitudes.

We believe that this work provides a contribution to the educational innovation and entrepreneurial characters in a sense that it shows how entrepreneurial characters and its values can be taught and explained without the immediate necessity to teach the method as such in detail.

We will therefore further reinforce the teaching of teachers, manager, educational planner based on entrepreneurial characters. The best way to motivate educational experts to learn entrepreneurship is by presenting examples from the field. The emphasis should be placed on essential connections and practicalities, given the target group represented by educational experts.

According to the finding the benefits of entrepreneurship education are not limited to start-ups, innovative associations and new jobs. The main purpose of entrepreneurship education should be the development of entrepreneurial skills and attitudes. In this context, entrepreneurship education programs may have different objectives, such as: (a) awareness and motivation, (b) training students in terms of starting and running a business, (c) developing entrepreneurial skills to identify and exploit opportunities.

The entrepreneurial characters provided the conceptual framework for the entire educational innovation process. It enabled the educational experts to approach the educational innovation in a structured and coherent manner, and facilitated the writing up and dissemination of the educational innovation findings and conclusions. It also provided a space, early on in the educational innovation process, for reflection on the macro issues impacting on the performance. This reflection provided insights that informed the direction of the educational innovation.

Our findings also confirm which suggest that innovative educations are not necessarily due to the presence of a single person. On the contrary for entrepreneurship to succeed, expert teams are required. Entrepreneurial background exists in an organization that considers sophisticated technologies and systems under innovative conditions. Widespread innovation needs various specialties to work toward a common goal. Such a team is often led by a champion or a small group of committed people. So Teaching entrepreneurship is a challenge for most of the professors from non-business faculties, where the development of soft skills.[39]

Overall, the world' top universities with their successful experiences in the field has shown that the development of science, technology development, product development and commercialization and success in the market through entrepreneurship lead to success in the age of competition. Hence successful universities must adopt educational innovation.

Based on the findings of this study the following suggestions can be made:

  1. Encouragement and application of the achievements by innovative principals that can lead to increased risk taking and innovation in other schools
  2. As it was observed, private schools show a greater degree of innovativeness. Therefore moving toward greater decentralization can pave the way for emergence of initiatives. In this way school principals can shift their attention away from circulars and instructions and try to solve educational problems with their own initiatives and use new methods in order to improve the quality of education
  3. Consulting school principals and seeking their participation in decision making about general educational issues
  4. Encouraging school principals to read managerial publications and books in order to try to make their organizations more organic and to have greater communication and interaction with university experts
  5. Concerning the manifestation of challenge-seeking personality of school principals in innovativeness of their schools, advocating team work and employment of techniques such as Team Kawakita Jiro proposed by Kobayashi and Kawakita can be useful.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Arasti Z, Kiani Falavarjani M, Imanipour N. A study of teaching methods in entrepreneurship education for graduate students. J High Educ Stud 2012;2:2-10.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Schaper M, Volery T. Entrepreneurship and Small Business: A Pacific Rim Perspective. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd.; 2004.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Venkatachalam VB, Waqif AA. Outlook on integrating entrepreneurship in management education in India. Decision 2005;32:57-71.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Idogho PO, Augustine EB. Entrepreneurship education and small-scale business management skill development among students of Auchi Polytechnic Auchi, Edo State, Nigeria. Int J Bus Manage 2011;6:284-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Lee S.M, Chang D, Lim S.B. Impact of entrepreneurship education: A comparative study of the U.S. and Korea. Int Entrep Manage J 2005;1:27-43.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Azmi FT. Mapping the learn-unlearn-relearn model imperatives for strategic management. Indian J Train Dev 2005;20:4-14.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Jafarnejad A, Shahay B. Introduction to Organizational Agility and Agile Manufacturing. Tehran: Mehraban Publication; 2010.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Beswick CG. The Road to Innovation. UK: LTB Publishing; 2010.p. 10.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Deschamps P, Nayak, RN, editors. Product Juggernauts: How Companies Mobilize to Generate a Stream of Market. B.A. Economies. 107th ed Harvard Business Press; 1995.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Weisberg RW. Creativity: Beyond the Myth of Genius. New York: Freeman; 1993.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Corwin RG. Innovation in organizations: The case of schools. Am Sociol Assoc 1975; Vol. 48, No. 1 (Winter, 1975), pp. 1-37.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Rosenberg RL. The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth National. New York: Academy Press; 1986.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Wessner C. Entrepreneurship and the Innovation Ecosystem Policy Lessons from the United StateCambridge University Press: Springer 2005.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Drucker LE. The discipline of innovation. Harv Bus Rev 2002;76:149-57.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Lam A. Innovation organization. Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press; 2004.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Hult H, Hurley R, Knight G. Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Ind Mark Manage 2004; 33(10):429-438.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation. Stanford Business Books; 2004.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Siegel DS. Quantitative, and qualitative studies of university technology transfer: Synthesis and policy recommendations. In: Audretsch D, Grilo I, Thurik R, editors. Handbook of Entrepreneurship Policy. Britain: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Riel A, Tichkiewitch S, Paris H. Preparing researchers for entrepreneurship based on systematic innovation training. Procedia Eng 2015;131:933-40.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Tiago T, Faria S, Pedro Couto J, Tiago F. Fostering innovation by promoting entrepreneurship: From education to intention. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014;175:154-61.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Ribeiro Soriano D, Huarng KH. Innovation and entrepreneurship in knowledge industries. J Bus Res 2013;66:1964-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Rothaermel F, Agung SD, Jiang L. University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. University-Industry Technology Transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 2007.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Hisrich RD, Peters MP, Sheperd, D,. Entrepreneurship. NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Irwin; 2005. Farasatkhah M. University and Higher Education: Global Perspectives and Iranian Problems. Tehran: Ney; 2009.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Yadollahi Farsi J. New Role of University: Developing Entrepreneurship Capacities, First Conference Employment and Education Higher. Tehran: Published University Jahad Organization, Modarres Tarbiyat Unit; 2007.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Clark BR. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.; 1989.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Shattock M. Managing Successful Universities, Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University; 2003.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Mantegi M. Investigating educational innovations in Iranian schools. Q J Educ Innov 2008;24:57-64.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Department of Education, Science and Training. Evaluation of Knowledge and Innovation Reforms Consultation Report, Prepared by the External Reference Group. Australian Government; 2004.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Shahaei B. Human dimension of organizational agility. Tadbir Mag 2007;17:24-1.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Goldman SL, Negel RN, Preiss K. Agile Competitors and Virtual Organization: Strategy for Enriching the Customer. USA: Van Nostrand, Reinhold; 1995.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Van Assen MF, Hans EW, de Velde V. An agile planning and control framework for customer-order driven discrete parts manufactoring environments. Int J Agile Manage Syst 2001;2:16-23.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Maskell B. The age of agile manufacturing. Supply Chain Manage Int J 2001;6:5-11.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Rigby C, Day M, Forrester P, Burnett J. Agile supply: Rethinking systems, systems thinking, systems practice. Int J Agile Manage Syst 2001;2:178-86.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Richards CW. Agile manufacturing: Beyond lean? Prod Inventory Manage J 1996;37:60-4.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Dove R. Response Ability: The Language, Structure, and Culture of the Agile Enterprise. New York: Wiley; 2001.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Ofsted. Curriculum Innovation in Schools. Alexandra House; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Siemens G. ELearning Resources and News: Learning, Networks, Knowledge, Technology, Trends. Blog Summary; 2007.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Normi P, Paasio K. Entrepreneurship in Finish University. Educ Train 2007;49:56-65.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Martin C, Iucu RB. Teaching entrepreneurship to educational sciences students. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014;116:4397-400.  Back to cited text no. 39
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1266    
    Printed78    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded177    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]