Content uploaded by Hongxin Wang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hongxin Wang on Feb 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The effect of social innovation
education on sustainability
learning outcomes: the roles of
intrinsic learning motivation and
prosocial motivation
Hongxin Wang
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
Xin Jiang
School of International Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
Wenqing Wu
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, and
Yuchen Tang
Xuanhuai College, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to reveal the influence mechanism of social innovation education
(SIE) on sustainability learning outcomes and analyze the roles of intrinsic learning motivation and prosocial
motivation.
Design/methodology/approach –A sample of 322 undergraduates from one higher education
institution in Tianjin was used to test the hypotheses.
Findings –This study found that SIE positively affected sustainability learning outcomes, and intrinsic
learning motivation mediated the relationship between them. The results showed that prosocial motivation
positively moderates the positive effect of SIE on intrinsic learning motivation and the overall mediation
model.
Practical implications –The findings have important practical implications for higher education
institutions to carry out SIE. Highereducation institutions should focus on integrating social innovation and
sustainability into top-level design. Furthermore, higher education institutions should focus on stimulating
students’intrinsic learning motivation and cultivating their prosocial motivation.
Originality/value –This study identified the relationship between SIE and sustainability learning
outcomes and clarified the influence mechanism of SIE on sustainability learning outcomes. Moreover, this
study emphasized the importance of prosocial motivation as a key boundary condition of SIE.
Keywords Social innovation education, Prosocial motivation, Intrinsic learning motivation,
Sustainability learning outcomes, Sustainability challenges
Paper type Research paper
The authors would like to thank the reviewers whose suggestions and comments greatly helped to
improve and clarify this manuscript. This work was supported by the National Social Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 21BGL061).
The effect of
social
innovation
education
Received 16 July2021
Revised 25 October2021
Accepted 18 November2021
International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1467-6370
DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0285
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1467-6370.htm
1. Introduction
Nowadays, the world is confronted with social sustainability challenges in many
dimensions, such as energy shortages, increased poverty, unequal food distribution and
frequent outbreaks of disease (Rampasso et al.,2021;C
ordoba-Pach
on et al., 2021). Previous
studies have shown that social innovation and its achievements play an important role in
solving complex social problems (Biljohn and Lues, 2019;Ndou and Schiuma, 2020). As a
result, social innovation is increasingly seen as an option for addressing sustainability
challenges (Avelino et al., 2019;McKelvey and Zaring, 2018).
Because of the important role of social innovation in addressing sustainability
challenges, higher education institutions have successively incorporated social innovation
into curricula and practical activities to actively conduct social innovation education (SIE;
Hill and Wang, 2018;Alden Rivers et al., 2015a,Mintz and Tal, 2018;Weber, 2012) and
cultivate social innovators (Wu et al., 2020b). SIE is put forward by higher education
institutions to solve new problems, deal with new challenges and adapt to new forms
according to the current new economic development situation and social development stage.
SIE, as an interdisciplinary and multidimensional emerging education approach, promotes
students’social/political activities, innovation and empowerment through experiential and
collaborative learning processes (Kalemaki et al.,2021). It aims to enable students to take
actions for a more sustainable and democratic society.
To be specific, SIE guides students to pay more attention to and creatively solve
sustainability problems. It cultivates students to better adapt to the future market changes
and social development with their due awareness of ideas, the quality of positive changes
and the ability to solve complex problems (Alden Rivers et al., 2015a). Unlike traditional
higher education, SIE emphasizes improving society through positive social change and
sustainable approaches and promoting learning at a more socially influential level. Existing
studies have described the important role of SIE in guiding students to pay attention to sustainable
development and cultivating students’ability to cope with sustainability challenges through its
definition, characteristics and attributes (Alden Rivers et al., 2015b,C
ordoba-Pach
on et al., 2021;
Alden Rivers et al., 2015a,Kalemaki et al., 2021). However, there is little empirical evidence to
support the relationship between SIE and these sustainability learning outcomes, and the influence
mechanism and boundary conditions of SIE on these sustainability learning outcomes have been
ignored.
With the increasing challenges of sustainability, SIE based on systematic thinking
orientation, transformative orientation, co-creation orientation and sustainability orientation
is committed to satisfying students’autonomy, belonging and ability needs by enhancing
their empowerment (C
ordoba-Pach
on et al., 2021;Otten et al.,2021). This further stimulates
their psychological motivation to pay attention to sustainable development and solve social
sustainability problems (Kalemaki et al., 2021). Therefore, this study would attempt to
uncover the black box between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes from the perspective
of psychological motivation (e.g. intrinsic learning motivation and prosocial motivation). We
predict that SIE affects sustainability learning outcomes by stimulating the individual’s
intrinsic learning motivation, and prosocial motivation enhances the relationship between SIE
and sustainability learning outcomes by providing more psychological support.
The main theoretical contributions of this study are reflected in the following three
aspects. First, this study empirically determines the relationship between SIE and
sustainability learning outcomes, which makes a useful exploration for promoting studies in
the field of SIE. Second, this study analyzes the mediating effect of intrinsic learning
motivation on the relationship between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes, which has
great value for adding to the literature on SIE. Finally, this study includes prosocial
IJSHE
motivation into the research field of SIE, highlighting the importance of prosocial
motivation as a key boundary condition of SIE.
2. Theoretical background and framework
2.1 Social innovation
Social innovation is a deliberative innovation that brings varying degrees of change and
helps solve social problems and improve social status through innovative services/activities
that meet social needs and sustainable projects (Phills et al., 2008;Mulgan, 2006;Nicholls et al.,
2015). In a broad sense, social innovation pursues a more just society by changing social
structure and empowering vulnerable groups (Moulaert et al., 2010). In a narrow sense, social
innovation improves the overall social situation by providing new solutions to sustainability
challenges, and these solutions are generally more efficient and equitable than existing
solutions (Phills et al., 2008).
Social innovation reconfigures existing resources and relationships by changing the
institutional logic and norms within the system. It is considered as a mechanism to design
new solutions to social problems (Ahmed et al.,2017;Manzini, 2015). Moreover, social
innovation characterized by openness and interconnectedness has flourished, greatly
improving the resilience of the system to meet sustainable challenges (Manzini and
M’Rithaa, 2016;Nicholls et al.,2015). With the continuous evolution of social innovation, the
level of social innovation has gradually become clear. Social innovation at different levels
provides a clear direction for solving corresponding problems: social innovation at the
incremental level focuses on products/services, aiming to meet social needs more effectively;
social innovation at the institutional level focuses on the market and aims to transform the
existing social structure to create new social value; and social innovation at the disruptive
level focuses on politics, aiming to alter social structures by changing the cognitive frame of
reference around social problems (Nicholls and Murdock, 2012).
2.2 Social innovation education
SIE was originally evolved from the social entrepreneurship programs of American
business schools (Brock and Steiner, 2009). SIE regards everyone as a changemaker and
aims to develop individual mindsets and skills to solve complex social challenges (Otten et al.,
2021). The existing literature rarely involves the definition of SIE and there is no specific
theoretical framework to consider the practical development of SIE, which makes it still
challenging to clearly define SIE. However, some studies try to clarify the connotation of SIE.
For example, after sorting out the relationship between current SIE and the essential qualities
of changers, Alden Rivers et al. (2015a) believe that SIE aims to cultivate students’attributes of
changers. From this perspective, SIE refers to the complex process of cultivating students who
aspire to change society and make it better.
With the rise of SIE, systematic thinking orientation, transformative orientation, co-
creation orientation and sustainability orientation have been gradually integrated into it.
Specifically, the systematic thinking orientation in SIE aims to enable students to
understand the interconnectedness of complex social problems and effectively address
sustainable challenges with an ecosystem approach to social innovation (Otten et al.,2021).
The transformative orientation in SIE focuses on cultivating students’ability to dialectically
analyze social phenomena and solve social problems, providing students with practical
opportunities and promoting participation (Wood et al.,2018). The co-creation orientation in
SIE aims to empower students to solve problems with equal participation and collaboration
(Kumari et al., 2020), thereby enhancing their commitment and engagement. The
sustainability orientation in SIE aims to demonstrate the practical value of sustainability to
The effect of
social
innovation
education
students and guide them to improve their sense of responsibility for the sustainable
development of organizations, communities and society through experiential learning
(C
ordoba-Pach
on et al.,2021). Overall, these orientations in SIE are committed to satisfying
students’needs for autonomy, sense of belonging and ability needs by enhancing their
empowerment, thereby stimulate their psychological motivation to pay attention to social
sustainable development and solve sustainability problems.
2.3 Intrinsic and prosocial motivation
Psychological motivation refers to the psychological processes that motivate, guide and
maintain actions (Latham and Pinder, 2005). Psychological motivation is what drives
behavior, and understanding it is crucial to explain individual behavior (Grant, 2008). From
the perspective of the influence process of SIE on sustainability learning outcomes, intrinsic
motivation may be an indispensable part. Intrinsic motivation refers to the tendency of
individuals to engage in activities they are interested in and to promote their learning and
develop their abilities in the process (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In essence, both students’
learning attitude and behavior and their final learning outcomes can be understood as the
product of students’intrinsic motivation (Goldman et al.,2017;Hsieh, 2014). When
individuals are intrinsically motivated, they will actively engage in activities that interest
them to help them learn and develop their abilities. However, it is not clear how SIE affects
sustainability learning outcomes via students’intrinsic motivation. Considering that
intrinsic motivation is specific to tasks or situations, this study aims to explore the role of
intrinsic learning motivation in the context of SIE.
In addition, from the perspective of the main purpose of SIE, it is mainly to cultivate
students to cope with the complex social challenges with creative and innovative measures
(Abid et al., 2020). To achieve this goal, it cannot be separated from the students’motivation
to benefit others and/or make social changes, that is, prosocial motivation. Prosocial
motivation refers to the desire to make efforts to benefit others (Hu and Liden, 2015;
McMullen and Bergman, 2017). According to existing research, prosocial motivation is
usually caused by the individual’s awareness of certain negative consequences and their
belief that they can reduce these negative consequences (De Groot and Steg, 2009).
Unfortunately, the important role of prosocial motivation has been largely ignored in the
field of SIE. Although prosocial motivation has an intuitive significance in influencing
intrinsic learning motivation, it is not clear how the interaction effect of SIE and prosocial
motivation affectsthis intrinsic learningmotivation. It is very important to clarify the role of
prosocial motivation in SIE, both to enrich the literature onSIE and to promote the practical
development of SIE.
Taken together, this study aims to explore the effect of SIE on sustainability learning
outcomes and analyze the roles of prosocial motivation and intrinsic learning motivation.
The theoretical framework is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
IJSHE
3. Hypotheses development
3.1 Social innovation education and sustainability learning outcomes
In recent years, SIE in higher education institutions has been aimed at actively guiding
students to focus on social sustainability challenges, including energy shortage, climate
change, social injustice and extreme poverty (Kalemaki et al.,2021;C
ordoba-Pach
on et al.,
2021). This emerging educational model has played an important role in promoting
sustainability learning outcomes. Sustainable learning outcomes refer to learning outcomes
related to sustainability in the sphere of psycho-social outcomes and the area of life (Mintz
and Tal, 2018). They are mainly embodied in the following aspects: theoretical knowledge
related to sustainability; professional skills needed to improve the social environment;
thinking skills to deal with complex sustainability problems;emotional awareness of caring
about the relationship between humans and society; and attitude toward sustainability
(Mintz and Tal, 2018).
From the perspective of the educational philosophy of SIE, the values and moral
considerations of sustainability are seen as an important component (Holdsworth and
Sandri, 2014). SIE can enable students to improve their theoretical knowledge, professional
skills and thinking skills about sustainability. More importantly, it can influence students’
emotional awareness of understanding sustainability and their attitude toward
sustainability issues (Kalemaki et al.,2021). Specifically, if students discuss values about
sustainability, they can develop a more rational understanding of the social norms and
behaviors that influence sustainability.When they are confronted with sustainability issues,
they can make decisions that are more efficient, effective or fair on specific issues.
From the perspective of teaching methods of SIE, on the one hand, experiential and
participatory learning are very necessary to promote students’in-depth and meaningful
learning in higher education institutions (Dori and Belcher, 2005). These practical teaching
methods can help students better connect their knowledge and skills with practical
problems. On the other hand, interactive and collaborative learning can help develop
students’values. These teaching methods can promote the transition of SIE from teaching
students knowledge and skills to influencing their thinking and consciousness (Mintz and
Tal, 2018). Finally, students’emotional awareness and attitude toward sustainability can be
improved.
H1. SIE positively affects sustainability learning outcomes.
3.2 Mediating effect of intrinsic learning motivation
In this study, intrinsic learning motivation refers to the desire of individuals to make efforts
based on their interest and enjoyment in sustainability learning. Intrinsic learning
motivation reflects the individual’s intrinsic tendency of actively learning knowledge,
expanding ability and exploring innovation when facing sustainability problems (Wang
et al.,2016). As an intrinsic tendency, it is usually only when an individual is under certain
supportive conditions that intrinsic motivation will be catalyzed and flourish (Ryan and
Deci, 2000). SIE may be a supportive condition to maintain and enhance intrinsic learning
motivation. Specifically, as a student-centered and interest-based learning style, SIE
encourages students to become active autonomous learners and knowledge producers
(Kalemaki et al., 2021). Existing research predicts that intrinsic motivation depends on three
basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness (Goldman et al.,2017).
Some studies have shown that meeting students’needs for autonomy, competence and
relatedness are more likely to improve their intrinsic learning motivation (Kusurkar et al.,
2012;Bolkan, 2015). For example, compared with control-dominated education mode, the
The effect of
social
innovation
education
education model that actively supports autonomous learning can promote students to have
greater intrinsic motivation, curiosity and desire for learning (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Therefore, we predict that student-centered SIE can promote students’intrinsic learning
motivation by meeting their psychological needs in class or practical activities.
For students with intrinsic learning motivation, learning sustainability knowledge and
ideas is based on interest. In general, students who are intrinsically motivated tend to
achieve higher academic performance and better development in different academic
environments than those who are extrinsically motivated (Goldman et al.,2017). To be
specific, first, when students have intrinsic learning motivation, they will actively learn
theoretical knowledge, professional skills and thinking skills about sustainability through
affective participation and cognitive participation. They tend to make efforts based on
personal interest and enjoyment (Bolkan, 2015). Second, when students are intrinsically
motivated to engage in sustainability learning, they will focus on the learning process about
sustainability learning, and regard learning itself as the goal rather than the final academic
record. Third, when students have intrinsic learning motivation, they will focus on specific
learning situations to strengthen their understanding of sustainability and their emotional
awareness of dealing with sustainability issues (Zs
oka et al., 2013).
Based on the above viewpoints, we expect that intrinsic learning motivation will mediate
the relationship between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes. In other words, SIE can
indirectly improve sustainability learning outcomes by promoting students’intrinsic
learning motivation. In terms of the educational philosophy of SIE, the values and moral
considerations of sustainability are regarded as a critical component of SIE(Holdsworth and
Sandri, 2014). This educational philosophy reflects the importance of engaging studentsin a
learning process that is intrinsically motivated rather than extrinsically motivated
(Kalemaki et al., 2021). Through this intrinsically motivated learning process, SIE can
encourage students to internalize the theoretical knowledge, professional skills and thinking
skills about sustainability into guiding their decision-makings and behaviors when dealing
with sustainability challenges, thus positively affecting sustainability learning outcomes. In
terms of teaching methods of SIE, SIE stimulates students’intrinsic learning motivation and
encourages them to actively participate in knowledge construction through a variety of
teaching methods, such as experiential, participatory, interactive and collaborative learning
(Gatti et al.,2019). The comprehensive application of various teaching methods is helpful to
improve students’learning of sustainability knowledge, professional skills and thinking
skills through stimulating students’intrinsic learning motivation. Most importantly, it can
improve students’emotional awareness and attitude toward sustainability.
H2. The positive effect of SIE on sustainability learning outcomes is mediated by
intrinsic learning motivation.
3.3 Moderated mediating effect of prosocial motivation
In the above argument, we have predicted the positive relationship between SIE and
intrinsic learning motivation. However, not every student who receives SIE has a high level
of intrinsic learning motivation. Therefore, we deem that the relationship between them may
be affected by other factors. According to existing research, prosocial motivation is usually
caused by the individual’s awareness of certain negative consequences and their belief that
they can reduce these negative consequences (De Groot and Steg, 2009). In this study, when
students are faced with some negative social consequences and believe that they can reduce
the impact of these negative consequences, their prosocial motivation may be triggered. As a
relatively persistent individual difference, prosocial motivation reflects the values of caring
IJSHE
for others and the tendency to help others (Grant, 2008;Kibler et al.,2019). Individuals with
prosocial motivation pay more attention to the welfare of others and show a cognitive
attitude of respecting others and an altruistic behavior tendency (Yang et al., 2019;Nguyen
et al., 2020). So far, we predict that prosocial motivation maybe an important factor affecting
the relationship between SIE and intrinsic learning motivation.
Specifically, when students’prosocial motivation level is high, the positive relationship
between SIE and intrinsic learning motivation may be strengthened. This is because
individuals with a high level of prosocial motivation achieve goals primarily based on
conscious self-control and self-regulation (Grant, 2008). Their intrinsic learning motivation
is not only catalyzed by SIE but also driven by values and established goals for benefiting
others (Ryan and Deci, 2000). On the contrary, when students’prosocial motivation level is
low, the positive relationship between SIE and intrinsic learning motivation may be
weakened. This is because students with a low level of prosocial motivation have a weak
tendency to care for others and help others and have a low empathy ability to solve social
challenges. As a result, the promotion effect of SIE on intrinsic learning motivation will be
correspondingly weakened.
Assuming that the relationship between SIE and intrinsic learning motivation was
moderated by prosocial motivation, it is expected that the intensity of indirect association
between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes will be conditionally manipulated by
prosocial motivation. Combined with the above content and our argument on the mediating
effect of intrinsic learning motivation, we believe that the mediating effect of intrinsic
learning motivation on SIE and for sustainability learning outcomes is moderated by
prosocial motivation. Specifically, when students’prosocial motivation level is high, the
indirect relationship between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes via intrinsic learning
motivation is significantly strengthened. In contrast, when students’prosocial motivation
level is low, the indirect relationship between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes via
intrinsic learning motivation is weakened. In short, SIE can influence sustainability learning
outcomes through intrinsic learning motivation, but the influence intensity is different under
different levels of prosocial motivation.
H3. Prosocial motivation moderates the relationship between SIE and sustainability
learning outcomes via intrinsic learning motivation, such that the mediation
relationship is stronger when prosocial motivation is high.
4. Methodology
4.1 Sample and data collection
The sample of this study was composed of undergraduates from one higher education
institution in Tianjin. To determine the impact of SIE on sustainability learning outcomes,
this survey mainly conducted a random sampling for the groups that had experienced SIE.
In this study, SIE mainly includes two types. One is the practical activities of social
innovation. For example, voluntary teaching, helping vulnerable groups (e.g. the poor,
lonely elderly, disabled people and autistic children), green environmental protection and
other voluntary services. The other is courses related to “social innovation.”Those who
have participated in at least one of the above activities or courses can be included in our
sampling scope.
To ensure that the questionnaire fits the Chinese context and is properly used, we
translated the existing mature scales published in English into Chinese and then back into
English. Before the formal investigation, we randomly selected 20 volunteers to participate
in a pre-test. According to their feedback, we revised the wording of individual items. To
The effect of
social
innovation
education
further ensure the content validity of the measurement, we invited two professors from the
professional field to evaluate the clarity of the items. To reduce the risk of common method
bias (CMB), we not only reordered the items to reduce the respondents’guess about the
purpose of the survey, but also informed the respondents that they were based on their
voluntary participation in the survey. The data collected in this study is anonymous and
confidential.
Because it is an important prerequisite for the respondents to have experienced SIE, two
questions were inserted into the questionnaire for the quality control test. “How many social
innovation activities have you participated in during your undergraduate study?”“How
many courses related to ‘social innovation’have you taken during your undergraduate
study?”Questionnaires that answered “0”to both questions were excluded. The data were
collected from April to May 2021. As of this period, there were 19,337 students enrolled at
the target university. After detailed communication with the teachers in charge of
undergraduate education in this university, we randomly selected 1,000 undergraduate
students as the respondents based on their student ID and invited them to complete the
online questionnaire. As an incentive, the respondents would be given a chance to enter a
raffle if their questionnaires passed the quality control test (Beasley, 2020). We collected 396
questionnaires with a recovery rate of 39.60%. After eliminating the questionnaires that
failed to pass the quality control test andthose with incomplete answers, we finally received
a total of 322 valid questionnaires with an effective rate of 81.31%. The age of the
respondents ranged from 18 to 24 years (Mean = 20.857, SD = 1.357). Among the
respondents, 150 (46.58%) were male.
4.2 Measures
4.2.1 Sustainability learning outcome. According to Mintz and Tal (2018), we asked the
respondents a question, “How do you think the social innovation education you have experienced
has affected your knowledge, skills, and attitudes?”The respondents were informed to choose the
appropriate number (1 = not impacted at all, 7 = impacted a lot) on a six-item scale.
4.2.2 Social innovation education. Based on Walter and Block (2016), we used a four-item
scale to measure SIE. We revised the items appropriately to fit our research context and
used a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The
measurement further advances this study by highlighting the extent to which SIE makes
individuals believe that social innovation is more feasible and desirable.
4.2.3 Intrinsic learning motivation. Following LePine et al. (2004), a seven-point Likert
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) consisting of three items was used to
measure intrinsic learning motivation. The scale evaluates the effort and energy spent by
individuals in learning sustainability-related content, as well as their motivation to learn.
4.2.4 Prosocial motivation. According to Grant (2008), the respondents were asked a
question, “Why are you motivated to take courses related to social innovation (or to
participate in the practical activities of social innovation)?”We used a four-item with a
seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to measure prosocial
motivation.
4.2.5 Control variables. This study controlled the personal information, including gender
(1 = male, 2 = female), age and major (1 = business, 2 = engineering, 3 = science, 4 = liberal
arts, 5 = medicine, 6 = agronomy, 7 = other). Previous studies have shown that personality
traits of individuals have different degrees of influence on their learning outcomes (Huang and
Bramble, 2016). Therefore, we controlled the Big Five personality dimensions (i.e. neuroticism,
extraversion, openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness). We used the 15-item scale
developed by Minkov et al. (2019) to measure the Big Five personality.
IJSHE
4.3 Reliability and validity
Table 1 presents the evaluation indexes of reliability and validity of this scale. Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient and composite reliability (CR) were used to evaluate the reliability. The
results showed that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of all constructs were greater than
0.70, indicating that the measurements used in this study met the requirements of reliable
internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). Moreover, the CR values of all constructs ranged from
0.832 to 0.862, which were higher than the minimum standard of 0.70 (Hair et al.,2010).
Therefore, the scale used in this study has good reliability.
In addition, we tested the validity of this scale. The factor loadings of the items were all
greater than 0.60, indicating that there was a closer relationship between constructs and the
corresponding measurement items. This is a sign of convergent validity (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) values of all constructs
ranged from 0.511 to 0.658, which were higher than the recommended minimum value of
0.50 (Götz et al., 2010). This means that the scale meets the requirement of convergent
validity. Moreover, the square root of the AVE for each construct was significantly larger
than the non-diagonal elements, that is, the Pearson correlations between the corresponding
constructs (see Table 2). This indicates that the scale meets the criterion for discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In conclusion, the reliability and validity of the whole
scale meet the requirements of further analysis.
4.4 Common method bias
The data in this study are self-reported from the same source, which may increase the
potential risk of CMB. In addition to taking some precautions, this study examined the risk
of CMB by Harman’s single-factor test. The results showed that the first factor accounted for
36.74% of the variance (less than 50%), indicating that there is no single factor with strong
explanatory power. Thus, CMB is not a serious problem.
5. Analysis and results
5.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 2 presents the mean and standard deviations of all variables and the Pearson
correlation between variables. The results showed that SIE was positively correlated with
intrinsic learning motivation (r= 0.550, p<0.01) and sustainability learning outcomes (r=0.597,
p<0.01). Moreover, intrinsic learning motivation was positively correlated with prosocial
motivation (r=0.466,p<0.01) and sustainability learning outcomes (r=0.497,p<0.01).
5.2 Hypotheses testing results
In this study, the hypotheses were tested by linear regression analysis, and the variance
inflation factor (VIF) values of all regression models were examined. The results showed
that the maximum value of VIF was 1.575, which was much lower than the threshold value
of 10 (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, the multicollinearity problem is not serious.
Table 3 presents the results of linear regression analysis. First, we tested the effect of SIE
on sustainability learning outcomes. Model 1 is a base model, containing only the dependent
variable and all control variables. Model 2 adds SIE based on Model 1. The results showed
that SIE positively affected sustainability learning outcomes (
b
= 0.495, p<0.001). Thus,
H1 was supported.
Next, we examined the mediating role of intrinsic learning motivation. Model 4 is a base
model, which only contains the mediating variable and all control variables. Model 5 adds
SIE based on Model 4. The results showed that SIE had a positive effect on intrinsic learning
motivation (
b
= 0.550, p<0.001). Model 3 adds intrinsic learning motivation based on
The effect of
social
innovation
education
Table 1.
Reliability and
validity of measures
Variables Items Factor loading
Cronbach’s
a
CR AVE
Social
innovation
education
The social innovation education in my
university cultivated my initiative to pay
attention to social problems
0.776 0.727 0.832 0.554
The social innovation education in my
university helped me better understand
the role of social innovation in society
0.674
The social innovation education in my
university made me interested in
becoming a social innovation worker
0.729
The social innovation education in my
university taught me skills and know-how
to carry out social innovation
0.792
Prosocial
motivation
Because I care about benefiting others by
taking courses (or participating in
practical activities)
0.747 0.753 0.845 0.577
Because I want to help others by taking
courses (or participating in practical
activities)
0.758
Because I want to make a positive impact
on others by taking courses (or
participating in practical activities)
0.786
Because it is important to me to do good
for others by taking courses (or
participating in practical activities)
0.746
Intrinsic
learning
motivation
In general, I put considerable effort into
learning courses (or participating in social
practice activities) related to social
innovation
0.804 0.740 0.853 0.658
In general, I am motivated to learn the
skills that are emphasized in courses (or
social practice activities) related to social
innovation
0.817
In general, I try to learn as much as I can
from courses (or social practice activities)
related to social innovation
0.813
Sustainability
learning
outcomes
Knowledge of the way humans affect the
social environment
0.777 0.807 0.862 0.511
Concern about the way the social
environment is affected by humans
0.711
Considering the social environment in
various decisions
0.684
Making professional decisions that
consider social factors
0.695
Having the professional knowledge to
make such decisions
0.748
Valuing the importance of civic and public
activity
0.670
Notes: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted
IJSHE
Table 2.
Mean, standard
deviations and
correlation
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Gender 1.534 0.500 n/a
2. Age 20.857 1.357 0.003 n/a
3. Major 2.891 1.387 0.210** 0.083 n/a
4. Neuroticism 3.597 1.386 0.169** 0.109 0.061 n/a
5. Extraversion 4.944 1.078 0.257** 0.175** 0.122* 0.326** n/a
6. Openness 4.907 1.007 0.027 0.115* 0.131* 0.166** 0.315**
7. Conscientiousness 5.968 0.702 0.008 0.003 0.019 0.151** 0.067
8. Agreeableness 4.122 1.125 0.076 0.094 0.125* 0.009 0.126*
9. Social innovation education 5.534 0.707 0.173** 0.109 0.013 0.295** 0.428**
10. Prosocial motivation 5.506 0.768 0.114* 0.100 0.009 0.285** 0.337**
11. Intrinsic learning motivation 5.225 0.870 0.069 0.205** 0.053 0.203** 0.405**
12. Sustainability learning outcomes 5.451 0.714 0.034 0.190** 0.064 0.236** 0.365**
Variables 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Major
4. Neuroticism
5. Extraversion
6. Openness n/a
7. Conscientiousness 0.092 n/a
8. Agreeableness 0.095 0.044 n/a
9. Social innovation education 0.277** 0.252** 0.129* 0.744
10. Prosocial motivation 0.300** 0.213** 0.213** 0.496** 0.759
11. Intrinsic learning motivation 0.313** 0.085 0.186** 0.550** 0.466** 0.811
12. Sustainability learning outcomes 0.277** 0.270** 0.128* 0.597** 0.541** 0.497** 0.715
Notes: n= 322; SD = standard deviation; the diagonal elements in bold are square roots of average
variance extracted; and the “n/a”refers to this item is not adaptive to analysis; *p<0.05; **p<0.01
Table 3.
Results for
hierarchical
regression analysis
Variables Sustainability learning outcomes Intrinsic learning motivation
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Gender 0.079 0.139* 0.067 0.041 0.109 0.113 0.097
Age 0.066* 0.055* 0.039 0.089** 0.078** 0.073* 0.071*
Major 0.021 0.039 0.019 0.008 0.028 0.031 0.038
Neuroticism 0.047þ0.013 0.035 0.040 0.003 0.013 0.021
Extraversion 0.166*** 0.068* 0.098** 0.232*** 0.123** 0.110* 0.087*
Openness 0.102** 0.060þ0.056 0.156** 0.109* 0.085* 0.094*
Conscientiousness 0.228*** 0.130** 0.215*** 0.042 0.067 0.088 0.090
Agreeableness 0.054þ0.030 0.021 0.112** 0.085* 0.061þ0.063þ
SIE 0.495*** 0.550*** 0.463*** 0.451***
Intrinsic learning motivation 0.296***
Prosocial motivation 0.232*** 0.249***
SIE prosocial motivation 0.153**
R
2
0.249 0.421 0.347 0.243 0.386 0.415 0.429
Adjusted R
2
0.230 0.405 0.328 0.224 0.369 0.396 0.408
F-value 12.970 25.236 18.428 12.581 21.839 22.033 21.135
VIF/Max 1.341 1.468 1.322 1.341 1.468 1.568 1.575
Notes: n= 322; SIE = social innovation education; VIF/Max = the maximum value of variance inflation
factor; þp<0.1; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
The effect of
social
innovation
education
Model 1. The results showed that intrinsic learning motivation positively affected
sustainability learning outcomes (
b
= 0.296, p<0.001). Further, we used the PROCESS
macro in SPSS to test the mediating effect of intrinsic learning motivation (Hayes, 2013). The
results showed that intrinsic learning motivation mediated the relationship between SIE and
sustainability learning outcomes (indirect effect = 0.085, 95%, confidence intervals (CIs) =
0.033–0.145). Therefore, H2 was supported.
Then, we tested the moderating role of prosocial motivation. Before creating the
interactive item, we standardized SIE and prosocial motivation (Cohen et al.,2003). Model 7
adds the interactive item of SIE and prosocial motivation based on Model 6. The results
showed that the coefficient of the interactive item was significantly positive (
b
= 0.153, p<
0.01). This indicates that prosocial motivation enhances the positive effect of SIE on intrinsic
learning motivation. Furthermore, the interaction graph of the moderating effect was plotted
based on Aiken et al. (1991). As shown in Figure 2, with the improvement of prosocial
motivation, the positive effect of SIE on intrinsic learning motivation is significantly
increased.
Finally, we examined the moderated mediation effect of prosocial motivation. Table 4
presents the regression results of the conditional indirect effect. Following Preacher et al.
(2007), the moderated mediation effect was tested by a bootstrap approach using 5,000
bootstrap samples with 95% CIs. The index of moderated mediation showed that the
indirect effect of SIE on sustainability learning outcomes was moderated by prosocial
motivation (indirect effect = 0.032, 95%, CIs = 0.011–0.068). The results showed that the
indirect effect of SIE on sustainability learning outcomes was stronger under the high level
of prosocial motivation (indirect effect = 0.096, 95%, CIs = 0.042–0.167) than at a low level
(indirect effect = 0.047, 95%, CIs = 0.014–0.100). Hence, H3 was supported.
6. Conclusions
6.1 Theoretical implications
This study adds to the literature on SIE and sustainability learning. First, this study
identifies the relationship between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes, highlighting
the important theoretical value of SIE in promoting sustainability learning. Previous studies
have analyzed the roles of SIE in sustainable development and coping with sustainability
challenges from the definition, characteristics and attributes of SIE (Alden Rivers et al.,
2015a,2015b;C
ordoba-Pach
on et al.,2021;Kalemaki et al.,2021), but ignored the impact of
Figure 2.
IJSHE
SIE on students’sustainability learning. Therefore, this study uses empirical research
methods to identify the link between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes. It
contributes to our understanding of the important value of SIE as an emerging educational
model for sustainability learning.
Second, this study analyzes the mediating role of intrinsic learning motivation and
clarifies the influence mechanism of SIE on sustainability learning outcomes. Intrinsic
learning motivation is a psychological state, which is higher than learning consciousness
and learning attitude in the emotional field (Mintz and Tal, 2014). This study found that SIE
improved intrinsic learning motivation. When students experienced the practice activities of
social innovation or participated in courses related to social innovation, their intrinsic
learning motivation may be catalyzed. Because the relevant practical activities and
curriculum learning experience will make them pay more attention to the existing social
problems, and urge them to learn more about sustainability and change their cognition of
sustainability. Furthermore, this intrinsic learning motivation will enable them to achieve
better outcomes in sustainability learning. In short, SIE indirectly affects sustainability
learning outcomes through intrinsic learning motivation. This finding is especially valuable
for higher education institutions to focus on the development of SIE in the future.
Finally, this study includes prosocial motivation into the research field of SIE, which
adds to the literature on SIE. On the one hand, this study found that prosocial motivation
moderated the relationship between SIE and intrinsic learning motivation. Under the
influence of prosocial motivation, students could be motivated to engage in sustainability
learning based on helping communities/countries solve social problems. Therefore, when
the level of prosocial motivation is high, the positive effect of SIE on intrinsic learning
motivation can be effectively enhanced. On the other hand, this study found that prosocial
motivation positively moderated the indirect effect of SIE on sustainability learning
outcomes through intrinsic learning motivation. When the level of prosocial motivation is
high, SIE can significantly enhance sustainability learning outcomesby catalyzing intrinsic
Table 4.
Regression results
for the conditional
indirect effect
Predictor
b
SE tp
Sustainability learning outcomes
Constant 0.075 0.614 0.122 0.903
Social innovation education 0.410 0.056 7.318 0.000
Intrinsic learning motivation 0.154 0.044 3.481 0.001
Intrinsic learning motivation
Constant 5.292 2.400 2.205 0.028
Social innovation education 0.686 0.424 1.617 0.107
Prosocial motivation 0.891 0.413 2.155 0.032
Social innovation education prosocial motivation 0.209 0.076 2.744 0.006
Prosocial motivation Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at range of values of moderator
1 SD (4.738) 0.047 0.021 0.014 0.100
M (5.506) 0.071 0.024 0.030 0.129
þ1 SD (6.274) 0.096 0.031 0.042 0.167
Mediator Index SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Index of moderated mediation
Intrinsic learning motivation 0.032 0.014 0.011 0.068
Notes: n= 322; Bootstrap sample size = 5,000; SE = standard error; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit;
CI = confidence interval
The effect of
social
innovation
education
learning motivation. The findings highlight the importance of prosocial motivation as a key
boundary condition of SIE and advance the existing understanding of SIE promoting
sustainability learning.
6.2 Practical implications
The findings have important practical implications for higher education institutions to carry
out SIE. First, higher education institutions should focus on integrating social innovation
and sustainability into the top-level design (e.g. educational philosophy, training system and
curriculum structure), and strengthen the importance of SIE in different disciplines through
a top-down approach. This study found that SIE had a positive effect on sustainability
learning outcomes. It is an important task for higher education institutions to advocate and
develop SIE. In practice, compared with integrating social innovation into the whole course,
it is usually easier for higher education institutions to provide a lesson/lecture that only
focuses on social innovation (Mintz and Tal, 2018). However, a single lesson/lecture may not
be enough to improve students’sustainability learning outcomes due to the lack of
professional background in different disciplines. Therefore, SIE with practical value should
be a process closely combined with the characteristics of different disciplines. Considering
that it is a very challenging task to integrate social innovation and sustainability into
various courses of different disciplines, we suggest that higher education institutions should
start with top-level design to carry out SIE. For example, higher education institutions can
promote SIE through top-down approaches such as vertical cultural change (Hegarty et al.,
2011), change of educational philosophy, optimization of the training system and
improvement of curriculum structure.
Second, higher education institutions should pay attention to stimulating students’
intrinsic learning motivation in specific teaching practices, deepening students’learning
effect by attracting their active attention to sustainability challenges. The findings confirm
the key role of SIE in stimulating students’intrinsic learning motivation. This shows that
SIE is not only an important carrier to promote and spread the spirit of social innovation,
but also an important platform to develop and explore the path of sustainability learning. As
diversified teaching methods and models provide a good way to improve students’
comprehensive cognitive ability of sustainability (Bielefeldt, 2013), higher education
institutions should focus on stimulating students’intrinsic learning motivation through
various practice activities and academic courses. For example, teachers can provide
students with abundant extracurricular practical activities to make them feel the social
problems and sustainability challenges in the real situation (Gatti et al., 2019;Birdman et al.,
2020). Teachers can integrate students’interests and needs into individualized curriculum
design to attract their participation and actively expand their cognitive boundaries (Bolkan,
2015;Wu and Chen, 2021). Teachers can also communicate with students appropriately and
effectively to design the teaching mode of SIE (Goldman et al., 2017). In short, higher
education institutions should be committed to developing SIE, so that students can
spontaneously shoulder the corresponding social responsibility from the bottom of their
hearts (Tiwari et al.,2020), and enable them to have a more sense of social belonging and
mission in their future work practice.
Third, higher education institutions should guide students to pay attention to the
negative consequences of social problems, and ultimately affect students’sustainability
learning outcomes by activating their moral norm and triggering their prosocial motivation.
The findings showed that prosocial motivation could promote the positive effect of SIE on
intrinsic learning motivation, and finally promote sustainability learning outcomes.
Therefore, the cultivation of individual prosocial motivation is extremely important.
IJSHE
Specifically, from the perspective of socialization, higher education institutions can cultivate
students’prosocial motivation by designing specific learning environments. For example, higher
education institutions can provide students with opportunities to care for vulnerable groups and
help others by organizing public service activities (Lee, 2017;García-Rico et al., 2021), which can
make them more socially responsible and help to enhance their prosocial motivation. Similarly,
when carrying out SIE, students should be guided to pay attention to the huge negative
consequences brought by resource shortage, climate change and biodiversity reduction to human
life and future development, thus activating students’moral norms and triggering their prosocial
motivation.
6.3 Limitations and suggestions for future studies
There are several limitations to this study. First, we need to be cautious about the
generalizability of the research results. Random sampling is used to select samples in this
study, which may lead to bias in sample representativeness. Moreover, this study only
focused on some undergraduates in China, it should be cautious to generalize the findings to
students at other educational levels and students from other countries. Considering that
students with different education levels may receive different SIE, future research can
compare the impact of SIE on sustainability learning among undergraduate and graduate
students through stratified sampling or systematic sampling. In addition, there are obvious
differences in the educational system, teaching style, school culture and SIE content of
higher education institutions in different countries (Kalemaki et al.,2021). Therefore, future
research can analyze the impact of SIE on sustainability learning through student samples
from different countries to provide a more reliable result.
Second, the data were collected through self-reported questionnaires from the same
source, which may cause a potential risk of CMB (Podsakoff et al.,2003). Although
preventive measures have been taken to minimize the risk of CMB in this study, it is still
necessary to consider causal relationships carefully. Future studies could use experimental
or longitudinal designs to verify causal relationships (Abid et al.,2020). For example, future
research can collect data at multiple time intervals to examine differences in intrinsic
learning motivation and sustainability learning outcomes of individuals before and after
receiving SIE.
Third, this study ignores the influence of students’dark personalities and learning styles.
On the one hand, this study considers the influence of the Big Five personality on intrinsic
learning motivation but ignores the dark personality, which may also have an impact on
learning motivation (Wu et al.,2019). On the other hand, when individuals’intrinsic learning
motivation is catalyzed, they may produce different learning styles, such as critical learning,
transformational learning (Alden Rivers et al., 2015a), exploitative learning and exploratory
learning (Wu et al., 2020a). Therefore, the variables of dark personality and learning style
could be included in the future research agenda.
References
Abid, G., Ahmed, S., Qazi, T.F. and Sarwar, K. (2020), “How managerial coaching enables thriving at
work. A sequential mediation”,Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 132-160.
Ahmed, J.U., Ashikuzzaman, N. and Mahmud, A.S.M. (2017), “Social innovation in education: BRAC
boat schools in Bangladesh”,Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage, New York, NY.
The effect of
social
innovation
education
Alden Rivers, B., Armellini, A., Maxwell, R., Allen, S. and Durkin, C. (2015a), “Social innovation
education: towards a framework for learning design”,Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based
Learning, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 383-400.
Alden Rivers, B., Nie, M. and Armellini, A. (2015b), “University teachers’conceptions of ‘changemaker’:
a starting point for embedding social innovation in learning and teaching”,Education þ
Training, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp.588-600.
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M.S.,
Bauler, T. and Ruijsink, S. (2019), “Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 145, pp. 195-206.
Beasley, S.T. (2020), “Student–faculty interactions and psychosociocultural influences as predictors of
engagement among black college students”,Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 240-251.
Bielefeldt, A.R. (2013), “Pedagogies to achieve sustainability learning outcomes in civil and
environmental engineering students”,Sustainability, Vol. 5No. 10, pp. 4479-4501.
Biljohn, M.I. and Lues, L. (2019), “Social innovation and service delivery in Belgium and South Africa”,
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 143-158.
Birdman, J., Redman, A. and Lang, D.J. (2020), “Pushing the boundaries: experience-based learning in
early phases of graduate sustainability curricula”,International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 237-253.
Bolkan, S. (2015), “Intellectually stimulating students’intrinsic motivation: the mediating influence of
affective learning and student engagement”,Communication Reports, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 80-91.
Brock, D.D. and Steiner, S. (2009), “Social entrepreneurship education: is it achieving the desired aims?”,
available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1344419 (accessed 16 February 2009).
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
C
ordoba-Pach
on, J.-R., Mapelli, F., Taji, F.N.A.A. and Donovan, D.M. (2021), “Systemic creativities in
sustainability and social innovation education”,Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 251-267.
De Groot, J.I. and Steg, L. (2009), “Morality and prosocial behavior: the role of awareness, responsibility,
and norms in the norm activation model”,The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 149 No. 4,
pp. 425-449.
Dori, Y.J. and Belcher, J. (2005), “How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate
students’understanding of electromagnetism concepts?”,Journal of the Learning Sciences,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 243-279.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 337-346.
García-Rico, L., Martínez-Muñoz, L.F., Santos-Pastor, M.L. and Chiva-Bartoll, O. (2021), “Service-
learning in physical education teacher education: a pedagogical model towards sustainable
development goals”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 747-765.
Gatti, L., Ulrich, M. and Seele, P. (2019), “Education for sustainable development through business
simulation games: an exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on
students’learning outcomes”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 207, pp. 667-678.
Goldman, Z.W., Goodboy, A.K. and Weber, K. (2017), “College students’psychological needs and
intrinsic motivation to learn: an examination of self-determination theory”,Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp.167-191.
Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Evaluation of structural equation models using the
partial least squares (PLS) approach”, in Esposito, V.V., Chin, W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H.
(Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 691-711.
IJSHE
Grant, A.M. (2008), “Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in
predicting persistence, performance, and productivity”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93
No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hayes, A. (2013), “Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis”,Journal of
Educational Measurement, Vol. 51 No. 3,pp. 335-337.
Hegarty, K., Thomas, I., Kriewaldt, C., Holdsworth, S. and Bekessy, S. (2011), “Insights into the value of
a‘stand-alone’course for sustainability education”,Environmental Education Research, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 451-469.
Hill, L.M. and Wang, D. (2018), “Integrating sustainability learning outcomes into a university
curriculum”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 699-720.
Holdsworth, S. and Sandri, O. (2014), “Sustainability education and the built environment: experiences
from the classroom”,Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 48-68.
Hsieh, T.-L. (2014), “Motivation matters? The relationship among different types of learning
motivation, engagement behaviors and learning outcomes of undergraduate students in
Taiwan”,Higher Education, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 417-433.
Hu, J. and Liden, R.C. (2015), “Making a difference in the teamwork: linking team prosocial motivation
to team processes and effectiveness”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 1102-1127.
Huang, J.L. and Bramble, R.J. (2016), “Trait, state, and task-contingent conscientiousness: influence on
learning and transfer”,Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 92, pp. 180-185.
Kalemaki, I., Garefi, I. and Protopsaltis, A. (2021), “Assessing the impact of social innovation education
on student’s engagement”,European Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 389-389.
Kibler, E., Wincent, J., Kautonen, T., Cacciotti, G. and Obschonka, M. (2019), “Can prosocial motivation
harm entrepreneurs’subjective well-being?”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 608-624.
Kumari, R., Kwon, K.-S., Lee, B.-H. and Choi, K. (2020), “Co-creation for social innovation in the
ecosystem context: the role of higher educational institutions”,Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 307-328.
Kusurkar, R.A., Croiset, G., Mann, K.V., Custers, E. and Ten Cate, O. (2012), “Have motivation theories
guided the development and reform of medical education curricula? A review of the literature”,
Academic Medicine, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 735-743.
Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C. (2005), “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-
first century”,Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 485-516.
LePine, J.A., LePine,M.A. and Jackson, C.L. (2004), “Challenge and hindrance stress: relationships with
exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 883-891.
Lee, Y.J. (2017), “Understanding higher education institutions’publicness: do public universities
produce more public outcomes than private universities?”,Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 71
No. 2, pp. 182-203.
McKelvey, M. and Zaring, O. (2018), “Co-delivery of social innovations: exploring the university’srole
in academic engagement with society”,Industry and Innovation, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 594-611.
McMullen, J.S. and Bergman, B.J. Jr. (2017), “Social entrepreneurship and the development paradox of
prosocial motivation: a cautionary tale”,Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 243-270.
The effect of
social
innovation
education
Manzini, E. (2015), Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Manzini, E. and M’Rithaa, M.K. (2016), “Distributed systems and cosmopolitan localism: an emerging
design scenario for resilient societies”,Sustainable Development, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 275-280.
Minkov, M., van de Vijver, F.J. and Schachner, M. (2019), “A test of a new short big-five tool in large
probabilistic samples from 19 countries”,Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 151,
p. 109519.
Mintz, K. and Tal, T. (2014), “Sustainability in higher education courses: multiple learning outcomes”,
Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 41, pp. 113-123.
Mintz, K. and Tal, T. (2018), “The place of content and pedagogy in shaping sustainability learning
outcomes in higher education”,Environmental Education Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 207-229.
Moulaert, F., Swyngedouw, E., Martinelli, F. and Gonzalez, S.(2010), Can Neighbourhoods save the City:
Community Development and Social Innovation, Routledge, London; New York, NY.
Mulgan, G. (2006), “The process of social innovation”,Innovations: Technology, Governance,
Globalization, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 145-162.
Ndou, V. and Schiuma, G. (2020), “The role of social innovation for a knowledge-based local
development: insights from the literature review”,International Journal of Knowledge-Based
Development, Vol. 11 No.1, pp. 6-25.
Nguyen, T., Nguyen, L., Bryant, S. and Nguyen, H. (2020), “What motivates scientists in emerging
economies to become entrepreneurs? Evidence from Vietnam”,Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 3,
p. 1196.
Nicholls, A. and Murdock, A. (2012), “The nature of social innovation”, in Nicholls, A. andMurdock, A.
(Eds), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, Palgrave Macmillan,
London, pp. 1-30.
Nicholls, A., Simon, J. and Gabriel, M. (2015), “Introduction: dimensions of social innovation”,in
Nicholls, A., Simon, J. and Gabriel, M. (Eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research,
Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 1-26.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychomtietric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Otten, R., Faughnan, M., Flattley, M. and Fleurinor, S. (2021), “Integrating equity, diversity, and
inclusion into social innovation education: a case study of critical service-learning”,Social
Enterprise Journal.
Phills, J.A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D.T. (2008), “Rediscovering social innovation”,Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 34-43.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”,Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 185-227.
Rampasso, I.S., Siqueira, R.G., Martins, V.W., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O.L.G., Leal Filho, W., Salvia, A.L.
and Santa-Eulalia, L.A. (2021), “Implementing social projects with undergraduate students: an
analysis of essential characteristics”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 198-214.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being”,American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Tiwari, P., Bhat, A.K. and Tikoria, J. (2020), “Mediating role of prosocial motivation in predicting social
entrepreneurial intentions”,Journal of Social Entrepreneurship.
Walter, S.G. and Block, J.H. (2016), “Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: an institutional
perspective”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 216-233.
IJSHE
Wang, Y.-Y., Lin, T.-C. and Tsay, C.H.-H. (2016), “Encouraging is developers to learn business skills: an
examination of the MARS model”,Information Technology and People, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 381-418.
Weber, J.M. (2012), “Social innovation and social enterprise in the classroom: frances Westley on
bringing clarity and rigor to program design”,Academy of Management Learning and
Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 409-418.
Wood, B.E., Taylor, R., Atkins, R. and Johnston, M. (2018), “Pedagogies for active citizenship: learning
through affective and cognitive domains for deeper democratic engagement”,Teaching and
Teacher Education, Vol. 75, pp. 259-267.
Wu, Y.J. and Chen, J.-C. (2021), “Stimulating innovation with an innovative curriculum: a curriculum
design for a course on new product development”,The International Journal of Management
Education, Vol. 19 No. 3, p. 100561.
Wu, W., Wang, H. and Wu, Y.J. (2020a), “Internal and external networks, and incubatees’performance
in dynamic environments: entrepreneurial learning’s mediating effect”,The Journal of
Technology Transfer, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1-27.
Wu, Y.J., Wu, T. and Sharpe, J. (2020b), “Consensus on the definition of social entrepreneurship: a
content analysis approach”,Management Decision, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 2593-2619.
Wu, W., Wang, H., Zheng, C. and Wu, Y.J. (2019), “Effect of narcissism, psychopathy, and
Machiavellianism on entrepreneurial intention –the mediating of entrepreneurial self-efficacy”,
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 360.
Yang, Z., Ye, L. and Guo, M. (2019), “Effect of workplace status on green creativity: an empirical study”,
Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 8763-8774.
Zs
oka, Á., Szerényi, Z.M., Széchy, A. and Kocsis, T. (2013), “Greening due to environmental education?
Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental
activities of Hungarian high school and university students”,Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 48, pp. 126-138.
Corresponding author
Wenqing Wu can be contacted at: wenqingw@tiu.edu.cn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The effect of
social
innovation
education
A preview of this full-text is provided by Emerald Publishing.
Content available from International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
