Evaluation of Entrepreneurial-Innovative University Conditions and Activities from Students’ Point of View in the Context of Industry 4.0

  • Mahmut Tekin
  • Özdal KoyuncuoğluEmail author
  • Tahsin Geçkil
  • Deniz Baş
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


One of the issues frequently encountered in the digitalization of higher education is the transformation of universities to the University 4.0 with the Industry 4.0. University 4.0 refers to the characteristics that universities must have in the Industry 4.0 era. The adaptation of the workforce that will be most affected by the Industry 4.0 process and training it for the new competency needs will be carried out by universities and research centers to a great extent. The evaluation of the studies to be carried out within this framework in a wide range, not only in the fields of engineering but also in the fields of social sciences, medicine and even law, will accelerate the integration process of the Industry 4.0 at universities. In this way, with the change of the objectives and learning outcomes of the academic programs developed based on competency, it is naturally expected that the industry will have an impact on the educational programs and techniques. As a requirement of competition, state authorities care about the role of universities in entrepreneurship and have serious expectations. Public authorities support and promote universities in this area significantly. It is observed that universities have recently put forward their entrepreneurial and innovative university feature in marketing activities. However, how much are the students who are the real target group of the universities taken into consideration in the university entrepreneurship ecosystem? The questions such as “How can a university be measured and assessed as an entrepreneurial-innovative university?” have become a subject to be studied in the field of higher education. While looking for answers to these questions, evaluation of entrepreneurial-innovative university conditions and activities from the university students’ point of view in the context of Industry 4.0 and University 4.0 emerged as an important requirement. The aim of this methodological study is to develop a tool to measure the internal environmental conditions and activities of the university students and entrepreneurial-innovative university based on Koyuncuoglu and Tekin (2019)’s Entrepreneurial University Model. For the study, a sample was used consisting of 528 students from Selçuk University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences and Konya Technical University Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, in Konya Province in Turkey. Content validity, construct validity and reliability studies were conducted at the stage of development of the Entrepreneurial-Innovative University Conditions Scale. Data were analyzed on the computer using SPSS and LISREL package programs. According to the results of the explanatory factor analysis (EFA), 31-item and three-dimensional Entrepreneurial-Innovative University Conditions Scale was developed. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as .95 and the explanatory percentage was calculated as 51.29%. As a result of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), it was seen that the scale had good fit values (X2/df: 2.47, RMSEA: .075, CFI: .96, NNFI: .96).

It was concluded that the scale developed in this research is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used to measure the internal environmental conditions and activities of the Entrepreneurial-Innovative universities. It can be said that the entrepreneurial-innovative university conditions scale will be important for the universities which want to improve their student-oriented entrepreneurial-innovative features, public authorities and for the entire economy in macro level.


Industry 4.0 Higher eduction Entrepreneurial-innovative universities Scale development study Entrepreneurial-innovative university conditions scale 


  1. 1.
    Aybek, Y.: Üniversite 4.0’a geçiş süreci: kavramsal bir yaklaşım. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi 3(2), 164–176 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. Accessed 30 Apr 2019
  5. 5.
    Gomaratat, S.: Subject: learning productivity. In: Sinlarat, P. (ed.) 10 Ways of Progressive Learning Encouraging/Facilitating the Ability of the Learner of 21st Century. Education Science, Dhurakit Bandit University, Bangkok (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nedeva, V., Dineva, S.: New learning innovations with web 4.0. In: Proceedings 7th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL, pp. 316–321Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koyuncuoğlu, Ö., Tekin, M.: Türkiye’de Girişimci Ve Yenilikçi Üniversitelerin Gömülü Teoriye Göre Değerlendirmesi ve Bir Model Önerisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitü Dergisi 41, 16–31 (2019)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tekin, M., Geçkil, T., Koyuncuoğlu, Ö.: Entrepreneurial universities index: a scale development study. Macrothink Inst. Bus. Econ. Res. 7(2), 70–81 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tekin, M., Geçkil, T., Koyuncuoğlu, Ö., Tekin, E.: Girişimci Dostu Üniversiteler İndeksi ve Bir Model Geliştirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 39, 138–150 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Şeşen, H.: Ölçek Geliştirme, Lefke Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F. Kıbrıs. Accessed 03 May 2019
  11. 11.
    Özcan, K., Balyer, A.: Liderlik Oryantasyon Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 9(1), 136–150 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geçkil, T., Tikici, M.: Örgütsel Demokrasi Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması. Amme İdaresi Dergisi 48(4), 41–78 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., Büyüköztürk, Ş.: Sosyal Bilimler İçin Çok Değişkenli İstatistik SPSS ve Lisrel Uygulamaları, 3. Baskı, Pegem Akademi, Ankara (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lawshe, C.H.: A quantitative approach content validity. Pers. Psychol. 28, 563–575 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gözüm, S., Aksayan, S.: Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için Rehber II: Psikometrik özellikler ve kültürlerarası Karşılaştırma. Hemşirelik Araştırma Dergisi 1(5), 3–14 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T.: The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health 29, 489–497 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tezbaşaran, A.: Likert Tipi Ölçek Geliştirme Kılavuzu1, pp. 27–36. Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları, Ankara (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurnaz, M.A., Yiğit, N.: Fizik Tutum Ölçeği: Geliştirilmesi, Geçerliği ve güvenirliği. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi 4(1), 29–49 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Akgül, A.: Tıbbi Araştırmalarda İstatistiksel Analiz Teknikleri – SPSS Uygulamaları, 3. Baskı, Ankara (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Şimşek, Ö.F.: Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş Temel İlkeler ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Cem web Ofset, Ankara (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harrington, D.: Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahmut Tekin
    • 1
  • Özdal Koyuncuoğlu
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tahsin Geçkil
    • 2
  • Deniz Baş
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Economic and Administrative SciencesSelçuk UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Applied SciencesNecmettin Erbakan UniversityKonyaTurkey
  3. 3.Vocational School of Health ServicesKırklareli UniversityKırklareliTurkey

Personalised recommendations