Skip to Content
  • Article
  • Open Access

15 July 2025

Multidimensional Significance Analysis of Factors Influencing College Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the New Era

and
1
School of Architecture, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710061, China
2
School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710061, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Section Social Ecology and Sustainability

Abstract

Against the backdrop of evolving innovation and entrepreneurship education, this study investigates the multifaceted factors influencing college students’ innovation and entrepreneurship in China. By analyzing 98 cases of student-led ventures and applying principal component analysis (PCA) via SPSS 19.0, the research identifies key determinants across individual, institutional, and societal dimensions. The empirical results reveal strong correlations between entrepreneurial risk levels and practical experience (r = 0.82), pre-market research (r = 0.84), participation in entrepreneurship courses (r = 0.72), university innovation platform utilization (r = 0.75), social financing intensity (r = 0.68), and regional economic development (r = 0.53). Individual-level factors demonstrate the most profound influence, with institutional and societal resources providing complementary support. Based on these findings, the study proposes targeted recommendations to enhance student engagement in practical training, optimize university–platform integration, and improve policy-backed financing ecosystems, thereby fostering the sustainable development of college students’ innovation and entrepreneurship capabilities.

1. Introduction

Innovation-driven entrepreneurship, defined as entrepreneurial activities rooted in technological, product, brand, managerial, or channel innovations [1], has emerged as a global priority in higher education. Internationally, institutions like Stanford University and MIT have pioneered ecosystems integrating academic research with entrepreneurial practice, fostering iconic startups such as Google and Dropbox. In the EU, the “Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan” emphasizes cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets by linking curricula to real-world innovation needs for societal and economic transformation [2]. These initiatives reflect a shared recognition: student entrepreneurship is critical for driving innovation, job creation, and national competitiveness in an interconnected world.
Against this backdrop, China has accelerated higher education reforms to align with global trends. The Ministry of Education identified “practical and innovative abilities” as core student development components in 2016, emphasizing their role in nurturing well-rounded individuals (Figure 1) [3]. However, while international models prioritize experiential learning and industry–university collaboration, China’s entrepreneurship education faces unique challenges—e.g., bridging policy ambition with on-the-ground implementation and addressing student readiness gaps. Existing research highlights multiple pain points. Bandera [4] cross-culturally compared French and American students, proposing that entrepreneurship education must balance global commonalities with local characteristics—a methodological reference for China’s internationalization. Yang [5] noted that 65% of Chinese graduates have entrepreneurial intentions, yet the actual rate remains at 2%, constrained by an imperfect practical education system, project monotony, and pandemic-disrupted offline guidance. Wei [6] identified four core challenges: weak entrepreneurial awareness, knowledge gaps, lack of business acumen, and capital shortages, attributing failures to insufficient time investment, psychological unpreparedness, and unstable policy support. Yu [7], analyzing 29 finance colleges, found that entrepreneurial willingness declined (2017–2019) due to social cognition convergence (e.g., postgraduate exams), with research participation correlating positively with intent. Peng [8] and the Sichuan Provincial Government [9] further emphasized barriers like social experience deficits, funding shortages, and low risk tolerance.
Figure 1. Core qualities of Chinese students’ development.
Notably, while Yong et al. [10] and Zheng et al. [11] explored employment pressure and learning models, Xu et al. [12] called for integrating functional–personality–behavioral perspectives into entrepreneurship education. Collectively, these studies reveal a critical gap: most research relies on single-dimensional analysis, lacking exploration of how policy goals translate into enhanced student capabilities, especially under China’s “dual circulation” strategy, where systematic integration of individual, institutional, and macro-environmental factors remains underexplored.
Against this context, developing talent with robust innovation–entrepreneurship capabilities is pivotal for national soft power and higher education reform. College students, as future societal leaders, represent a vital reserve for national competitiveness, and strengthening their skills unlocks innovation-driven growth [13]. Yet, Chinese universities face challenges like weak student initiative, suboptimal training models, and fragmented global best-practice integration.
To address these gaps, this study collects and analyzes cases of Chinese college student ventures, establishing an influencing-factor system across “individual, school, and society” dimensions. Using SPSS-based principal component analysis (PCA), it distills key determinants from complex factors, clarifies risk-influencing weights across dimensions, and identifies inter-dimensional factor interactions.

2. Analysis of the Current Status and Challenges in College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship

2.1. Landscape of College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship

The available data indicate a sustained expansion of China’s higher education system, driven by continuous enrollment growth [14]. In 2000, 949,800 undergraduates graduated, a figure that rose to 1,036,000 by 2001, marking the first time the annual graduate count exceeded one million. By 2022, this number surged to 10.76 million, representing a year-on-year increase of 1.67 million and setting a new record for graduate output (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Statistics on the number of college graduates from 2000 to 2021.
The exponential growth in undergraduate enrollment has created a severe employment landscape for graduates, characterized by intensifying competition. Facing this pressure, students are increasingly urged to shift traditional employment mindsets and develop innovation-driven entrepreneurial capabilities to carve out new career paths. Despite this imperative, empirical evidence shows that entrepreneurial participation remains limited; only 1.3% of 2020 graduates launched startups, which is a figure further constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 3, Table 1).
Figure 3. The destination distribution of 2020 undergraduate graduates after half a year.
Table 1. The destination distribution of undergraduate graduates from 2015 to 2020 after half a year.
China’s policy framework has prioritized supporting graduate entrepreneurship, with the Ministry of Education mandating universities to cultivate students’ comprehensive competencies, including learning, practical, and innovative abilities, to enhance societal adaptability [15]. This directive, embedded in the National Medium- and Long-Term Education Reform and Development Plan (2010–2020), reflects a strategic shift toward aligning higher education with national innovation goals. Subsequent initiatives, such as tax incentives and incubator programs, have enhanced student awareness of entrepreneurship and mitigated early-stage operational challenges [16,17,18]. However, the gap between policy ambition and grassroots implementation persists, underscoring the need for nuanced interventions to bridge structural and attitudinal barriers.

2.2. Challenges in Advancing Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education for College Students

Research by the Mycos Institute highlights a stark reality: fewer than 1% of college students engaged in entrepreneurship programs achieve sustainable success, underscoring systemic challenges across individual, institutional, and societal levels. These challenges can be categorized into three distinct dimensions:
  • Individual-level barriers: At the individual level, inadequate practical experience, limited social capital, and disciplinary knowledge gaps emerge as critical risk factors in entrepreneurial endeavors [19,20]. Many students exhibit low engagement in innovation activities, treating entrepreneurship courses merely as a means to earn course credits rather than recognizing their role in cultivating core competencies like problem-solving and risk management. Additionally, insufficient pre-venture market research and a failure to navigate the “student-to-entrepreneur” identity transition often lead to operational inefficiencies and eventual business collapse. These deficits reflect a broader gap between academic learning and the pragmatic skills required for startup sustainability;
  • Institutional-level deficiencies: China’s entrepreneurship education, though nascent, struggles with structural weaknesses. Most universities offer fragmented, lecture-based programs lacking integrated curricula, thereby failing to foster a culture of innovation. A key misalignment lies in viewing “starting a business” as the sole metric of educational success, rather than prioritizing mindset development and skill-building as foundational goals. The scarcity of specialized faculty—many instructors lack real-world entrepreneurial experience—and inadequate access to resources like makerspaces and incubators further limit students’ ability to translate ideas into viable ventures. This institutional inertia hinders the formation of a supportive ecosystem for iterative learning and risk-taking;
  • Societal-level frictions. While national policies such as the Guiding Opinions on Deepening Entrepreneurship Education Reform (2019) provide strategic support [21,22,23], implementation challenges persist. Venture capitalists often shy away from student-led startups, citing concerns about inexperience and high failure rates, creating a funding gap in early-stage development [24,25]. Moreover, regional policy inconsistencies—characterized by overlapping regulations and unclear support mechanisms—introduce administrative hurdles, particularly in lower-tier cities. These frictions undermine the scalability of innovative projects, highlighting the need for harmonized policies that bridge policy intent with on-the-ground execution.

3. Investigation of Actual Cases of College Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Through literature research and empirical investigation, some cases of innovation and entrepreneurship of college students are investigated, and the specific situation is shown in Table A1. The samples were selected through multi-dimensional stratified screening. The inclusion criteria are students who are currently enrolled or have graduated within the past 5 years, have substantive entrepreneurial activities, and have traceable information. Non-student groups and vague cases are excluded. The samples cover multiple disciplines such as science and engineering, economics and management, etc., in 30 provincial administrative regions across the country, include high-growth, stable-operation, and failed cases, and take into account both “Double First-Class” universities and vocational colleges, demonstrating diverse representativeness in disciplines, regions, and outcomes.

4. Significance Analysis of Influencing Factors of College Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship

4.1. Development of the Influencing Factors Framework

The landscape of college student innovation and entrepreneurship is shaped by a multifaceted array of determinants, necessitating a systematic approach to risk assessment. Drawing on theoretical insights from the literature [26,27,28] and empirical evidence from case analyses (Table A1), this study synthesizes the key factors influencing entrepreneurial risk. Aligned with the “five core competencies” emphasized in national innovation policies—sustainable development capacity, critical thinking, innovative problem-solving, analytical reasoning, and interpersonal communication [29]—a three-tiered framework is constructed across individual, institutional, and societal dimensions (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Influencing-factor system of college students’ innovation and entrepreneurship.
  • Personal factors: The success of innovation and entrepreneurship projects depends on the efforts of individuals and teams, as well as accurate timing. Before launching the project, whether the students have firm personal goals and a hard-working spirit, whether they can complete the role transformation in the entrepreneurial process, whether the market research is detailed, whether the business plan is professional, etc., will determine whether they can quickly turn the business opportunities into advantages in the future, so as to establish the enterprise management mode with great vitality and seize the market opportunities, laying a solid foundation for the success of entrepreneurship;
  • School factor: Colleges and universities play an important role in the process of college students carrying out mass innovation and entrepreneurship projects. As an important front for the construction of innovation and entrepreneurship culture, the development of mass innovation and entrepreneurship courses in colleges and universities will determine the degree of college students’ understanding of the meaning of innovation and entrepreneurship, the professional courses and professional tutors set up, and the establishment of mass innovation and entrepreneurship platforms, such as makerspaces and entrepreneurship incubation bases closely connected with the society. It will promote the transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship education from the classroom to practice and improve the feasibility of college students to convert theory into practice;
  • Social factors. National and regional policy support can help college students to their own direction, which is the first guarantee for college students to carry out innovation and entrepreneurship projects. Savings and financing by college students’ entrepreneurial team members and their friends and relatives alone may not be able to support the expansion of the project scale, which reduces the sustainable development ability of college students’ entrepreneurship. However, the input of social resources is a major boost to the process of college students’ innovation and entrepreneurship. These resources not only include human, material, and financial resources, but also include the potential resource pool formed by the surrounding resources with utilization value.

4.2. Mechanism for Evaluating Influencing Factor Significance

Using the framework in Figure 4, a cross-case analysis of the 98 cases in Table A1 was conducted to identify recurring factor patterns (Table A2). This involved coding the cases for the presence/absence of individual, institutional, and societal factors, followed by a quantitative correlation analysis to measure their association with entrepreneurial risk levels. By operationalizing each factor dimension, the study systematically evaluates how these determinants interact to shape outcomes, providing a basis for prioritizing intervention strategies.

4.3. SPSS-Based Model Construction for Significance Analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA), a multivariate statistical technique, was employed to reduce dimensionality and identify underlying structures within the dataset [30]. The methodology involved the following:
  • Data standardization: Using the correlation coefficient matrix to normalize variables across different scales, addressing the heteroscedasticity in factor measurements;
  • Eigenvalue extraction: Identifying principal components with eigenvalues > 1 to ensure the retention of factors explaining significant variance. The analysis yielded a KMO value of 0.78 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.001), confirming the suitability of PCA. Three principal components were extracted, explaining 78.5% of the total variance, including 42.3% for individual factors (Y1), 23.1% for institutional factors (Y2), and 13.1% for societal factors (Y3);
  • Factor-loading interpretation: Assessing the strength of variable relationships with extracted components, enabling categorization into composite indices (e.g., Individual Factor Y1, Institutional Factor Y2, Societal Factor Y3).
The analytical workflow (Figure 5) integrated expert scoring and case data to quantify the factor impacts, yielding a parsimonious model that prioritizes determinants by their relative significance. This approach ensures objectivity in measuring how individual, institutional, and societal factors collectively influence the risk–reward profile of college student entrepreneurship. Among them, the expert scores were given by five experts with dual backgrounds in entrepreneurship education and practice. A five-point scale was used for scoring, and consistency was ensured through cross-validation. Prior to the PCA, multicollinearity was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF) values. All variables exhibited a VIF < 3, indicating no severe collinearity, justifying the use of PCA for dimensionality reduction.
Figure 5. Flow chart of principal component analysis.
Table 2 and Figure 6 present the correlation coefficients between the influencing factors and the risk level of college student innovation and entrepreneurship in China. Notably, practical internship experience, personal goal clarity, pre-market research, participation in entrepreneurship courses, university platform utilization, social financing intensity, and regional economic development exhibit strong associations with entrepreneurial risk outcomes. The three-dimensional framework—individual, institutional, and societal—operates through its impact on students’ five core competencies, with institutional resources and societal policies ultimately shaping individual capabilities. The empirical results confirm that individual factors exert a more profound influence on entrepreneurial risk than institutional or societal factors, often serving as a determinant of success or failure.
Table 2. Principal component loadings matrix.
Figure 6. Correlation index between different influencing factors and the degree of innovation and entrepreneurship risk of Chinese college students.
  • Individual factors (Y1): Among individual-level determinants, practical internship experience (r = 0.82), personal goal planning (r = 0.80), and pre-market research (r = 0.84) emerge as the strongest predictors of risk mitigation. These factors enhance students’ critical thinking and analytical skills, enabling them to identify market gaps, develop viable business models, and navigate operational challenges. In contrast, disciplinary alignment (r = 0.69) demonstrates a moderate association, indicating that, while domain knowledge is valuable, it is overshadowed by proactive preparatory actions in reducing risk;
  • Institutional factors (Y2): Institutional inputs such as entrepreneurship course participation (r = 0.72) and university platform utilization (r = 0.75) significantly correlate with lower risk levels, reflecting their role in fostering innovation capabilities and interpersonal networks. Conversely, faculty mentorship (r = 0.46) and institutional prestige (r = 0.59) show weaker effects, suggesting that experiential learning opportunities are more impactful than symbolic resources like university reputation. Active engagement with campus innovation ecosystems directly enhances students’ ability to translate academic knowledge into practical ventures;
  • Societal factors (Y3): At the societal level, social financing intensity (r = 0.68) emerges as the primary driver of risk reduction, providing essential capital for scaling operations and sustaining momentum. While local policy support (r = 0.44) and economic development level (r = 0.53) exhibit weaker correlations, they still contribute by creating enabling environments for startups. Increased access to external funding directly improves venture sustainability, addressing a common bottleneck in student-led enterprises.

5. Conclusions and Prospect

In summary, in today’s society with increasingly fierce competition, both the enhancement of national cultural soft power and the development of the national economy are inseparable from talents with strong innovation and entrepreneurship capabilities. Therefore, implementing innovation and entrepreneurship education is an inevitable trend in the reform of higher education and a necessity for societal progress. When carrying out innovation and entrepreneurship education, universities must adopt a student-centered approach, aiming to improve students’ comprehensive quality and cultivate their awareness of innovation and entrepreneurship. Starting from students’ real needs, universities should understand their concerns, provide targeted guidance, and address negative attitudes, while closely aligning with national innovation strategies and learning from advanced international and domestic educational models. Creating a proactive atmosphere for innovation and entrepreneurship can deliver tangible improvements for students, contributing to the construction of an innovative nation.
(1) For students, actively engage in mass innovation and entrepreneurship practices and refine pre-market research.
Detailed market research is a key means for college students to mitigate risks in innovation and entrepreneurship. Students should participate in social practices, accumulate internship experience, and enhance practical abilities to lay a foundation for entrepreneurial ventures. Thoroughly analyzing market demands and aligning project objectives with national development and societal needs, while integrating professional knowledge to transform ideas into real productivity, can attract investment and address early-stage funding shortages and financing difficulties.
(2) For universities, optimize the mass innovation and entrepreneurship education mechanism and build practical platforms.
Universities need to shift their educational approaches by prioritizing the cultivation of innovative mindsets and entrepreneurial awareness. This involves developing systematic curricula, increasing the full-time faculty dedicated to innovation and entrepreneurship, and coordinating resources to meet student needs. Activities such as entrepreneurship competitions, policy lectures, startup salons, and club practices can enhance engagement, while university–enterprise partnerships and work–study programs provide practical platforms for students to translate knowledge into actionable outcomes.
(3) For society, improve the mass innovation and entrepreneurship environment and promote regional economic development.
Beyond university education and faculty guidance, student entrepreneurship requires institutional support from governments. Local authorities should boost regional economic development to create a conducive environment, implement tax reduction policies, relax registration and loan requirements for graduate entrepreneurs, and strengthen support for private and micro-small enterprises, thereby facilitating student-led innovation and entrepreneurship initiatives.
However, the limitations of this study include an insufficient regional focus of the sample and institutional diversity, which may limit global universality. Future research can be extended to underrepresented regions and professional institutions, and a longitudinal design can be adopted to explore the causal mechanisms. Among the 98 cases in this study, the cases related to Chang’an University accounted for 31.6%. This was mainly due to the convenient access to resources by the institutions to which the researchers belonged. For example, cases 50 to 56 in Appendix A all came from the projects in the “Maker Space” of this university, which might lead to the local amplification of the effect of “utilization rate of university platforms”.

Author Contributions

Writing—review and editing, P.L.; supervision, X.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Central University basic Fee Project—Poverty alleviation through science and technology, grant number 30012509201; the new engineering major reform project, grant number E-TMJZSLHY20202152; and the postgraduate education and teaching reform funding project, grant number 300103131029.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Cases of college students’ innovation and entrepreneurship.
Table A2. Overview of influencing factors in different cases.

References

  1. Li, K.Q. Speech at the Opening Ceremony of the 12th Summer Davos Forum. Pract. Foreign Econ. Relat. Trade 2018, 358, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kakouris, A.; Dermatis, Z.; Liargovas, P. Educating potential entrepreneurs under the perspective of Europe 2020 plan. Bus. Entrep. J. 2016, 5, 7–24. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Weng, Z.; Wei, Y.; Han, D.; Gong, C. Implementation Path Exploration of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Reform under the Background of “New Engineering”. Adv. Appl. Sociol. 2022, 12, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bandera, C.; Eminen, A.; Passerini, K.; Pon, K. Cross-Cultural Entrepreneurship Education: Localization Amidst Globalization. In Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018; pp. 99–122. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yang, J. Current Situation, Problems and Countermeasures of College Graduates’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship Under the COVID-19 Epidemic. Available online: https://dxs.moe.gov.cn/zx/a/fdy_bjtj_yrjy/220112/1738278.shtml (accessed on 21 March 2025).
  6. Wei, M.Y. Analysis of Current Situation and Influencing Factors of College Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Available online: http://m.xuexila.com/chuangyee/c225938.html (accessed on 21 March 2025).
  7. Yu, P. The evolution trend, driving factors and effectiveness impact of college students’ entrepreneurial willingness. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2023, 45, 38–52. [Google Scholar]
  8. Peng, Z.X.; Lu, G.S.; Kang, F. The influence of individual and social environment factors on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Res. High. Educ. Eng. 2012, 4, 75–82. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sichuan Provincial People’s Government. The Entrepreneurship of Sichuan College Students Is Mainly Restricted by Five Factors. Available online: https://www.sc.gov.cn/10462/10464/10465/10574/2015/7/16/10343781.shtml (accessed on 21 March 2025).
  10. Yong, Z.; Renlian, L.; Saragih, M.Y. The current situation, hot spot, and frontier of the research on the employment pressure of college students in China (quantitative visualization analysis based on CNKI core literature library in 2002–2019). Br. Int. Linguist. Arts Educ. (BIoLAE) J. 2020, 2, 738–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zheng, X.; Xiao, B.; Ma, H. Research on the impact mechanism of opportunity resource integration on enterprise performance. Chin. J. Manag. 2022, 19, 1608–1616. [Google Scholar]
  12. Xu, N.; Huo, K. Analysis and enlightenment research on the educational experience of innovation and entrepreneurship in universities in developed countries. Theory Pract. Innov. Entrep. 2022, 5, 91–94. [Google Scholar]
  13. Knowles Training Institute. Entrepreneurship Education in Singapore: Curriculum Design and Industry Integration. Available online: https://knowlesti.sg/entrepreneur-courses-in-singapore/ (accessed on 21 March 2025).
  14. Ju, Y.P.; Chen, Y.Y. The Proportion of College Students’ Entrepreneurship Rose Steadily in 5 Years. People’s Daily, 22 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  15. Max Research Institute; Wang, B.Q.; Wu, Y.L.; Wang, M.P. Chinese 4-Year College Graduates’ Employment Annual Report (2021); Social Sciences Academic Press (CHINA): Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  16. Office of the Working Group on the Outline of the National Medium and Long-Term Education Reform and Development Plan. National Medium and Long Term Education Reform and Development Plan (2010–2020); Central Government of China: Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. General Office of the State Council. Circular on Disseminating the Third Batch of Reform Measures for Supporting Innovation; Gazette of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2020; pp. 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  18. State Council. Opinions on Promoting High-Quality Development of Innovation and Entrepreneurship and Creating an Upgraded Version of “Mass Entrepreneurship and Innovation”. In China Enterprise Reform and Development 2018 Blue Book; China Enterprise Reform and Development Research Association: Beijing, China, 2019; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  19. General Office of the State Council. Notice on Promoting and Supporting Innovation-Related Reform Measures; State Council Bulletin of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 16–18. [Google Scholar]
  20. Li, J.P. Analysis on the Status and Countermeasures of College and University Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship in China. Innov. Sci. Technol. 2018, 18, 61–63. [Google Scholar]
  21. An, Y. Four Major Problems of College Students’ Entrepreneurship to Be Solved. People’s Daily, 8 January 2018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wang, Y.H. Synergetic Strategies in College Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship: A Case Study of Nanjing University. Master’s Thesis, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  23. Xu, J.Y. Research on Government Service Measures for University Students’ Entrepreneurship. Master’s Thesis, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, G. Research on the Effectiveness Evaluation of College Students’ Entrepreneurship Policy. Ph.D. Dissertation, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang, L.; Wang, L.X. An Empirical Study on the Current Employment and Entrepreneurship of College Students. Educ. Res. Mon. 2011, 11, 48–51. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhu, F.F.; You, Y.; Ding, X.H. Investigation and Analysis of College Students’ Self-Employment and Practical Work in Colleges and Universities. Educ. Res. Mon. 2017, 1, 76–83. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sheng, H.M. Research on the Values of Innovation and Entrepreneurship of College Students in the New Era. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, X.G. Research on Mechanism and Path of the Impact of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education on College Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hu, B. Report on College Students Entrepreneurship Education and Practice in China; China Renmin University Press: Beijing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, H. Research on the Training Strategy of “One Core and Five Abilities” for College Students under the Background of Double-Creation Education. Way Success 2021, 34, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.