Towards Sustainability: A Quantitative Inquiry into Chinese University Students’ Perceived Learner Empowerment and Innovative Behaviour

Abstract

Innovation is universally acclaimed as the crux of organisational sustainability in the current dynamic and competitive market and knowledge economy, and psychological empowerment provides a more comprehensive pathway to human creative performance. However, the pivotal role of students’ innovation in driving sustainability has been largely overlooked within the context of higher education for sustainable development (HESD). This study investigated the relationship between university students’ perceived learner empowerment and their innovative behaviour from a multistage perspective. An online survey was conducted among 868 Chinese university students from 21 institutions. The results indicated that Chinese students’ self-perceived level of empowerment and innovative behaviour was relatively high, but that they viewed themselves as less competent in generating innovation outputs. The results of structural equation modelling revealed that competence was positively related to all factors of innovative behaviour, the impact was positively associated with six factors of innovative behaviour, and meaningfulness was positively related solely to involving others. The findings have significant implications for stimulating students’ innovative behaviour towards sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Innovation is indispensable in the current globalised knowledge economy, and it matters to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals proposed by the United Nations [1,2], and higher education institutions (HEIs) play a vital role in cultivating innovative talents and delivering them to society [3,4]. Characterised by substantial resources and support from governments and societies [5], HEIs offer a good environment for cultivating innovators capable of solving the common challenges faced by global society [6]. Previous research has indicated that in addition to practitioners and researchers in HEIs, students also play a significant role in the generation and implementation of innovative ideas [7]. However, the pivotal contribution of students to innovation has largely been neglected in HESD [7] and effectively nurturing students’ innovative talents within HEIs is far from satisfactory currently [8]. Graduates from HEIs are criticised for lacking innovative ability [5,9] and a few students and teachers are even sceptical that creativity can be taught or acquired [10]. Accordingly, colleges and universities are denounced as a threat to innovation [9,11]. Considering the incompatibility between the present state of affairs and the pressing needs of our society for sustainable development of higher education, more efforts should be made to foster innovative talents in HESD [12,13].

As an increasing amount of attention has been paid to cultivating innovators in the context of HESD, students’ innovative ability has come to be viewed as a crucial learning and graduate outcome. Most research has centred on innovation intention [9], yet research into student innovation should be expanded to innovative behaviour that promotes students’ ability to innovate [12]. Irrespective of the limited amount of empirical research identifying the factors that facilitate students’ innovative behaviour, for example, autonomy in learning [12], assessment practices such as e-portfolios [14], and the university ecosystem [15], empirical studies, by and large, remain scarce and more are needed to understand students’ innovative behaviour. Meanwhile, just as innovative behaviour in marketing and management research has generally been perceived as a multistage construct [16], a multistage perspective of university students’ innovative behaviour provides insights into the nurturing of sustainable innovators in HESD.

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) calls for students with innovative ideas in HESD [7]. University students’ innovation is generally non-profit oriented, and students are apt to participate in innovation thanks to an internal drive [3]. Of the various individual internal factors, psychological empowerment was evidenced empirically to be a determinant of individual innovative behaviour in the business and management academia [17,18]. Considering that students’ job is studying, and their workplace is the educational institutions [19], learner empowerment has been proposed and studied in educational academia as a predictor of outcomes such as autonomy [20], self-regulated learning [21], and learning engagement [22]. Nevertheless, the literature examining the relationship between learner empowerment and students’ innovative behaviour is scarce. Although it is acknowledged that students’ innovation plays a crucial role in addressing sustainable problems, investigation into their innovation has been largely overlooked in the context of ESD [7,23]. This gap has to be filled due to the increasingly crucial role of students’ ability to innovate and the need to achieve higher education’s sustainability. Thus, this study seeks to address the above questions from a multistage perspective by offering theoretical and empirical supplements for research into learner empowerment and innovative behaviour.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Learner Empowerment

Empowerment has been defined as “a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organisational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organisational practices [structural empowerment] and informal techniques of providing efficacy information” [24]. Research into empowerment started in the management field in the 1960s and has since been broadly sorted into two types: structural (or relational) empowerment and psychological (or motivational) empowerment. The former concerns interventions in the organisational context to encourage employees’ innovative capability and their spirit of risk-taking, while the latter refers to employees’ perceptions of these contextual interventions [25]. In light of its significance in gaining a competitive advantage for organisations, paramount importance has been attached to empowerment both by scholars and practitioners [24,26]. A multitude of relational factors such as leadership, manager-employee relationships, and organisational culture [27,28,29], as well as psychological factors such as employee engagement and self-esteem [25], have been found to influence empowerment. As learning exerts an increasingly vital role in organisational development and success, empowerment has also been applied to the educational academia [30].

Learner empowerment is generally framed as a type of psychological empowerment [26,31] and it was defined as “a student’s feeling of competence to perform a task that is meaningful and has an impact on the situation” [32]. Learner empowerment was comprehended from three dimensions: meaningfulness, competence, and impact. Meaningfulness refers to a student’s evaluation of a task as per his or her own beliefs and standards. Competence concerns whether a student believes in his or her ability to achieve a certain goal. Impact relates to students’ faith that the achievement of a task can exert an influence on the state of affairs [26,31].

Empowering students is honoured to be effective in rejuvenating the educational system and in cultivating intellectuals who not only have confidence and control over their own learning but are equipped with the knowledge and skills to confront the current unfair social power relations [33]. The bulk of the literature has reviewed the learning environment created by teachers and administrators. This environment, including the curriculum designed by teachers [34], assessment strategies selected by teachers [35], and the teacher-student relationship [32], affects learner empowerment. Learner empowerment has also been proven to be a significant determinant of students’ learning performance and outcomes [21,22] such as learning autonomy [20], engagement [22], and innovative work behaviour [36].

2.2. Innovative Behaviour in Education for Sustainable Development and Its Relationship with Learner Empowerment

Innovation serves as an effective solution for addressing the complex problems arising from sustainability concerns [37]. Within the educational context, the purpose of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is to cultivate students to become crucial contributors in tackling sustainability challenges and engaging in decision-making processes related to sustainable development [7]. Consequently, fostering students’ innovation becomes indispensable and warrants attention within ESD. However, previous research has highlighted a lack of knowledge regarding students’ innovative capacity or innovative behaviour in ESD [23]. Against this backdrop, this study endeavours to investigate the characteristics of innovation of university students and identify potential factors that can foster their innovation and stimulate their innovative behaviour within the ESD context.

Innovation differs from creativity in that the former constitutes both the development and implementation of novel ideas while the latter merely refers to the generation of creative ideas [38,39]. The scientific community commonly frames innovative behaviour as a multistage construct comprising at least the generation, promotion, and realisation of ideas [38], while a recent study identified the following seven stages: idea generation, idea search, idea communication, implementation starting activities, involving others, overcoming obstacles and innovation outputs [16]. Accordingly, individual innovative behaviour has been defined as “behaviours through which employees generate or adopt new ideas and make subsequent efforts to implement them” [16].

Psychological empowerment is argued to provide a more comprehensive pathway to creative performance, and its relationship with employees’ innovative behaviour has been established [40]. Indeed, psychologically empowered employees are likely to perceive a sense of autonomy and control over their work, which may facilitate them to take a strong interest in their role and the content of their work [41]. Thus, as a type of work content, innovative behaviour is more likely to occur when employees are actively engaged in their work and seeking alternative methods of working [39]. Meanwhile, empowered employees would evade the rules and regulations that circumscribe innovation and adopt more innovative working methods [42]. They are more apt to make sustained efforts when they fail to communicate or implement their innovative ideas [43].

Considering that one of the most crucial roles of educational institutions is to provide human resources for organisations [44], it has been proposed that innovative behaviour should be more carefully studied in fields such as educational academia [45]. Indeed, there is an increasing need to prepare students for a much more competitive labour market via education and training in innovation [46], particularly in the ESD context. Empirical studies have identified a wealth of determinants of innovative behaviour in education such as the learning climate [3,46], curiosity and self-efficacy [47], and information-seeking ability [48]. However, as the majority of the existing literature targets teacher empowerment [18,49], very little is known about students’ learning empowerment and its relationship with innovative behaviour.

Based on the above literature, it was assumed that learner empowerment is positively associated with students’ innovative behaviour, and that the three factors of learner empowerment contribute differentially to the seven factors of innovative behaviour in the specific context of Chinese HESD. Specifically, this study addressed the following two research questions: (1) What are the statistical characteristics of Chinese university students’ perceived learner empowerment and innovative behaviour? (2) How are learner empowerment associated with innovative behaviour?

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Human Participants Ethics Committee of the authors’ university. An online survey was administered in June 2021 on an anonymised and voluntary basis to appraise university students’ perceptions of learning empowerment and innovative behaviour and informed consent was obtained from all participants. In total, 983 questionnaires were collected and 868 were identified as valid, giving a response rate of 88.3%. The invalid responses refer to those incomplete copies or randomly answered copies characterised by less reaction time than the minimum required three minutes. The sample, from 21 universities (excluding an unidentified one) in 8 provinces in mainland China, consisted of 381 (43.9%) freshmen, 304 (35%) sophomores, 155 (17.9%) juniors, 28 (3.2%) seniors of whom 223 (25.7%) were males and 645 (74.3%) females. In terms of academic discipline, 438 (50.4%) were liberal arts, 99 (11.4%) in social science, 71 (8.2%) in science, 175 (20.2%) in engineering, 83 (9.6%) in medicine, and 2 (0.2%) in agriculture.

3.2. Instruments

The online questionnaire (see Appendix A) consisted of a set of demographic questions and two sets of scales designed to measure the students’ perceived level of learning empowerment and innovative behaviour. Both scales were translated, back-translated, and cross-checked by a professor in English and a Ph.D. student in Education to confirm the Chinese translation conveyed the exact meaning of the original scales.

3.2.1. The Learner Empowerment Scale (LES)

The 27-item Chinese version of LES [31] was developed to measure the participants’ perceptions of learner empowerment in three dimensions: meaningfulness (9 items, e.g., “The tasks required of me in this class are personally meaningful”), competence (9 items, e.g., “I feel confident that I can adequately perform my duties”), and impact (9 items, e.g., “I have the power to make a difference in how things are done in this class”). All the items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (very often).

3.2.2. The Innovative Behaviour Inventory (IBI)

University students’ perceived innovative behaviour was measured by the revised IBI [16], a scale that was originally developed to assess employees’ innovative behaviour. The original version had 23 items in seven sub-scales: idea generation (3 items, e.g., “I try new ways of doing things at work”), idea search (3 items, e.g., “I search for new ideas of other people in order to try to implement the best ones”), idea communication (4 items, e.g., “When I have a new idea, I try to involve people who are able to collaborate on it”), implementation starting activities (3 items, e.g., “I develop suitable plans and schedules for the implementation of new ideas”), involving others (3 items, e.g., “I try to involve key decision makers in the implementation of an idea”), overcoming obstacles (4 items, e.g., “I am able to persistently overcome obstacles when implementing an idea”), and innovation outputs (3 items, e.g., “Many things I came up with are used in our organization”).

The original IBI was slightly adapted to be more suitable for university students. For example, the item “I try to get new ideas from colleagues or business partners” was revised to “I try to get new ideas from others”. The items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (fully disagree) to 5 (fully agree).

3.3. Data Analyses

First, the collected data were scanned to calculate the amount of missing data and less than 5% was found to be missing. SPSS 25.0 was utilised to verify the reliability of the two scales and the inter-correlations of the items. The correlation matrix and descriptive statistics (M and SD) were computed. AMOS 24.0 was first used to investigate the construct validity of the two scales. The goodness-of-fit indices such as χ² statistics, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tracker-Lewis index (TLI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were reported. According to the literature, the CFI and TLI values should be no less than 0.90, and an acceptable RMSEA value is less than 0.10 [50]. AMOS 24.0 was also used to formulate a structural equation model to explore the relationship between the two variables. The correlative values and R² values were reported. Considering the large sample size, this paper interpreted the research results in terms of effect size, in addition to relative values or correlative values. The suggested guidelines for effect size were small = 0.10–0.20, medium = 0.20–0.30, and large ≥ 0.30 [51].

4. Results

4.1. Construct Validity and Reliability

To examine the construct validity of the two scales, a maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 24.0. The CFA results indicated that the three factors in the LES fit the new data well (χ² = 2430.94, df = 317, χ²/df = 7.67, p < 0.001, TLI = 0.90, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.088, LO 90 = 0.08, HI 90 = 0.09). The Cronbach’s α and McDonald ω, reported in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, Pearson Correlations, and reliability analysis (N = 868).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1 meaningfulness	-
2 competence	0.80 **	-
3 impact	0.60 **	0.59 **	-
4 idea generation	0.60 **	0.70 **	0.55 **	-
5 idea search	0.59 **	0.70 **	0.47 **	0.80 **	-
6 idea communication	0.58 **	0.65 **	0.56 **	0.79 **	0.76 **	-
7 idea implementation starting activities	0.61 **	0.69 **	0.52 **	0.79 **	0.78 **	0.83 **	-
8 involving others	0.62 **	0.68 **	0.53 **	0.79 **	0.81 **	0.82 **	0.87 **	-
9 overcoming obstacles	0.61 **	0.69 **	0.54 **	0.78 **	0.74 **	0.78 **	0.79 **	0.82 **	-
10 innovation outputs	0.54 **	0.62 **	0.56 **	0.75 **	0.65 **	0.77 **	0.75 **	0.73 **	0.84 **	-
M	3.64	3.74	3.05	3.74	3.85	3.69	3.77	3.78	3.73	3.61
SD	0.71	0.69	0.74	0.66	0.63	0.67	0.66	0.64	0.64	0.69
Cronbach α	0.95	0.96	0.94	0.89	0.89	0.91	0.93	0.90	0.93	0.90
McDonald ω	0.95	0.96	0.94	0.89	0.89	0.92	0.93	0.91	0.93	0.90
Factor loadings	0.66–0.79	0.69–0.85	0.52–0.77	0.65–0.73	0.71–0.75	0.63–0.72	0.75–0.76	0.71–0.77	0.74–0.78	0.74–0.79

Note. ** p < 0.01.

, suggested that each sub-scale had good internal consistency. The results above confirm the [31] three-factor model of LES.

The IBI was validated as a good instrument for the present study (χ² = 1182.57, df = 209, χ²/df = 5.66, p < 0.001, TLI = 0.95, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.073, LO 90 = 0.07, HI 90 = 0.08). The factor loading of the 23 items of the IBI ranged from 0.52 to 0.79. Its reliability coefficients were reported in Table 1 and ranged from 0.89 (idea generation and idea search) to 0.93 (implementation starting activities and overcoming obstacles).

4.2. Correlations between Learner Empowerment and Innovative Behaviour

The descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients of the variables are summarised in Table 1. Generally, the mean scores of all involved factors were higher than the median value of 3, indicating a relatively high level of perception of learner empowerment and innovative behaviour. Of the three factors of LES, the mean scores of meaningfulness (M = 3.64, SD = 0.71) and competence (M = 3.74, SD = 0.69) were higher than that of impact (M = 3.05, SD = 0.74). In IBI, the seven factors also had high mean scores ranging from 3.61 to 3.85. Idea search had the highest mean score (M = 3.85, SD = 0.63) and innovation outputs had the lowest (M = 3.61, SD = 0.69). As for the correlation matrix, all of the factors were positively correlated to each other with large effect sizes (≥|0.30|).

4.3. Regression Analysis between Learner Empowerment and Innovative Behaviour

To examine the relationship between learner empowerment and innovative behaviour, a structural equation model (SEM) was framed using AMOS 24.0. The SEM results, shown in Figure 1, demonstrated that the overall model fit was good (χ² = 4722.57, df = 1126, χ²/df = 4.19, p < 0.001, TLI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.061, LO 90 = 0.06, HI 90 = 0.06). The SEM results indicated that competence was positively related to all the seven factors of innovative behaviour with large effect sizes (β ≥ |0.30|). The impact was positively related to six factors of innovative behaviour. It was positively related to idea generation (β = 0.20, p < 0.001), idea communication (β = 0.27, p < 0.001), overcoming obstacles (β = 0.20, p < 0.001), and innovation outputs (β = 0.33, p < 0.001) with medium or large effect sizes, and positively related to implementation starting activities (β = 0.17, p < 0.001) and involving others (β = 0.16, p < 0.001) with small effect sizes. The impact was positively related to idea search with a small effect size (β < |0.10|), suggesting no practical meaning. As for meaningfulness, it was merely positively related to involving others (β = 0.16, p < 0.001) with a small effect size and was not significantly related to the remaining six factors.

5. Discussion

This study addresses the question of how the different stages of university students’ innovative behaviour are related to the students’ self-perceived level of empowerment in the ESD context. It contributes to the literature by highlighting certain characteristics of empowerment and innovative behaviour in Chinese university students, and by providing some significant insights into the relationship between the two variables for fostering and stimulating students’ innovation in the context of ESD. It also enriches and expands the literature by testing the validity and applicability of two multidimensional instruments for measuring students’ perceived learner empowerment and innovative behaviour in higher education for sustainable development.

5.1. Characteristics of Chinese University Students’ Learner Empowerment and Innovative Behaviour

The mean scores of factors of learner empowerment, ranging from 3.05 to 3.74, suggested that the Chinese university students in this study generally experienced a high level of empowerment in learning and that they were willing and able to engage in learning. Moreover, they were committed to the assigned learning tasks and reported positive experiences while finishing them. Explicitly, the high level of perceived meaningfulness indicated that the student participants had internalised a commitment to their learning tasks and believed that the tasks were helpful and matched their beliefs, ideals, and standards, which motivated them to generate high-quality work. This finding echoes [52] study, which showed greater concentration on self-improvement and active engagement in learning tasks among intrinsically motivated students. The high level of competence suggested that the student participants believed that they were qualified and able to perform the learning activities and achieve their goals. This result is consistent with many studies that found that Chinese university students are characterised by high academic self-efficacy [53,54,55]. Meanwhile, the high level of impact revealed that the students were highly motivated. They maintained that accomplishing the learning tasks would help with quality learning and perceived their participation in the classroom as exerting a positive influence on the teachers and the other students. Previous studies have shown that teachers influence students’ perceived empowerment [31], especially when teachers build a democratic and collaborative learning environment [56], develop a favourable relationship with students [57], adopt flexible assessment methods [58] and accept information and communication technology [59]. Thus, it stands to reason that the students had favourable views of the learning environments created by their teachers and experienced a high level of empowerment in their learning.

The high mean scores—these ranged from 3.61 to 3.85—of the seven aspects of innovative behaviour also indicated that generally the students were active learners and were capable of providing novel ideas, theories, methods, and inventions in the learning process as well as in other practical activities in the ESD context. This result agreed with multiple previous studies which have presented that Chinese students are exceptionally proficient in finding and solving problems [60], know how to seek out the information they require [48], and perform well in technology transfer, patenting, and licensing activities [61]. Idea search had the highest mean score of the seven factors of IBI, indicating that the students are skilled at searching for new ideas from existing sources of knowledge. This may benefit from the learning environment in which the students are allowed to communicate and interact with their teachers, peers, and faculty [62]. Meanwhile, in light of the rapid development of information and computer science, smartphones, and the Internet have become common sources of innovative ideas for university students [63]. It should be noted that, as idea search has largely been under-researched and under-tested as a valid path in previous studies [63] and opportunity search activities (except for idea generation), are vital for innovation [64,65], this study provides significant evidence supporting the need to distinguish idea search from the multistage perspective of innovative behaviour. Innovation outputs scored the lowest of the seven factors, indicating that to some extent Chinese students perceive themselves to be less competent at putting their innovative ideas into practice compared to the other six dimensions of innovative behaviour. This can be explained by the assumption that the overloaded curriculum, long teaching hours, and inadequate educational resources are adverse to stimulating university students’ creative learning and innovative consciousness [66].

5.2. The Relationship between Chinese University Students’ Learner Empowerment and Innovative Behaviour

Of the seven innovation variables, meaningfulness was positively related only to involving others, with a small effect size, indicating that the students who acknowledged the congruence between the learning tasks and their beliefs and standards tended to cooperate with and sought help from peers and teachers to implement their innovative ideas while carrying out their duties. This finding agreed with studies that have suggested that emphasis on the meaningfulness of learning would foster a positive attitude towards cooperative learning and peer interaction in students and it was achieved through increased engagement in personal achievement and improvement, rather than through competition with peers [67]. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, despite its high mean score, meaningfulness was significantly related only to involving others, and not to the other dimensions of innovative behaviour. That is, from a multistage perspective, students’ perception of the meaningfulness of learning tasks was only marginally related to innovative behaviour. Given that many studies have reported that the perceived meaningful learning activities were significantly predictive of innovative behaviour [41], our result indicates that although the meaningfulness of learning activities has gained recognition by Chinese university students, their experience of frequent examinations [68] and difficult teaching content [69] may allow only limited time and energy for innovative behaviour.

Competence was positively associated with all seven factors of innovative behaviour with large effect sizes, suggesting that the students who perceived the learning tasks and goals as attainable and showed sufficient confidence in their skills to fulfil the necessary learning activities tended to offer innovative ideas and implement them during the learning process. Specifically, they were willing and able to search, communicate, sketch out novel ideas, ask for help, and overcome difficulties while conducting innovative learning behaviour. As competence is perceived as self-efficacy in Bandura’s social cognitive theory [26], our result is consistent with the findings of the multiple studies that have shown that creative self-efficacy is positively related to creative performance [70]. Empirical studies have revealed that individuals with high creative self-efficacy are active in generating ideas and developing unconventional methods [71]. Meanwhile, creative self-efficacy has been found to be beneficial in addressing negative events and withstanding pressure [72] and then persisting in their creative endeavours [73]. Individuals provided with role models and encouragement have also been found to exhibit higher levels of creative self-efficacy, generating innovative behaviour. Within educational settings, students with high creative self-efficacy can overcome uncertainty and failures when solving problems and make a greater effort to generate the new ideas needed for the following stages (i.e., setting out and implementing ideas) [36]. Students are more inclined to participate in cooperative learning activities when they evaluate the task at hand as being doable [74], which boosts their innovative behaviour [75].

Impact was positively associated with six factors of innovative behaviour, with idea search being the exception. This indicated that the students who were aware of the importance of personal involvement in classes and understood the positive influence of the learning tasks on classes were more likely to generate, communicate, plan, and implement their innovative ideas. The positive relationship between impact and innovative behaviour was also reported in a study of Indonesian university students who took innovative approaches to challenges and problems when lecturers, students, and university culture formed a supportive environment [36]. Meanwhile, student-based learning approaches such as flipped classes hand students varied responsibilities that conversely spur them to adopt innovative means of meeting challenges and solving problems [76]. Moreover, the finding is supported by research into the relationship between open innovation and the employee involvement climate, which found that individuals’ participation in decision-making facilitated their innovation [77]. Likewise, student involvement is a prerequisite for innovative behaviour. When students realise that completing learning tasks will bring feelings of satisfaction and have a positive effect on the class learning environment, they strive to adopt new approaches and methods to improve the process [78].

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This study was conducted to provide insights into the relationship between learner empowerment and university students’ innovative behaviour. Important to note is that there are several limitations to this study and future studies may improve on it. First, its cross-sectional design can merely exhibit correlations between variables, so a longitudinal study is needed to explore the causal relationships. Second, the self-reported measurements may have some source bias. Multi-channel evaluation, teacher evaluation, and objective questions, for example, are suggested in any subsequent research. Third, as this study did not address the influence of students’ background such as age, gender, grade, and discipline on their perceptions of and relationships between the constructs, future research is expected to provide more insights into this aspect. Fourth, it should be noted that, though meaningfulness was highly correlated with factors of innovative behaviour, it was only significantly related to involving others, indicating that the relationship may go in another direction.

6. Conclusions and Implications

This study explored the characteristics of and relationships between university students’ perceived learner empowerment and innovative behaviour from a multistage perspective in the context of ESD. Based on an anonymous online survey, Chinese university students reported high levels of empowerment and innovative behaviour in general, though they perceived themselves as less competent in generating innovation outputs. Competence was positively related to all factors of innovative behaviour, impact was positively associated with six factors of innovative behaviour, and meaningfulness was positively related solely to involving others. These findings have significant implications for stimulating students’ innovative behaviour towards sustainable development in HEIs.

First, of the seven factors involved in innovative behaviour, the fact that innovation outputs achieved the lowest score implies that students should be helped to transform their innovative ideas and behaviours into innovative outputs. Thus, rather than merely emphasising awareness of innovation, the nurturing of innovators should be product-oriented. For instance, more disciplinary competitions and practice activities should be designed based on the principle of product orientation to encourage more innovative products.

Second, the positive relationship between meaningfulness and involving others highlights the need for educators to design tasks and assignments that can match the beliefs and practical needs of students and abandon those learning activities that are detached both from students’ real lives and future needs. For example, teachers may consider promoting their interactions with students in completing learning activities, thus fostering their ability to communicate and collaborate with others. Subsequently, students may have a greater propensity to take their learning and courses seriously and actively seek out new ways of doing things.

Third, in light of the positive relationship between competence and innovative behaviour, students can facilitate their own innovative behaviour by increasing self-efficacy and confidence. Students are expected to participate in various disciplinary competitions, as well as scientific and technological innovation and social activities, and should be given feedback and encouragement from peers and teachers to sustain their attempts at innovation. In addition, HEIs could offer students direct guidance by providing innovation tutors, while teachers could give students more opportunities to voice their opinions and to find and solve problems in learning.

Last but not least, the positive relationship between impact and innovative behaviour indicates that university students need to be motivated to participate in class activities and in this way find chances to instigate innovative behaviour. Thus, teachers are advised to set specific and explicit goals for classes to make students’ membership distinct and ensure that their efforts converge. They might also increase their interactions with students and give more feedback to help them better understand the teaching content and sustain their efforts. Teachers may also make the teaching content more relevant to the real world and students’ real needs to arouse more interest, and increase students’ participation in classes by establishing peer models to boost benign competition between students.