Search

Purpose: This paper aims to propose a unified framework for understanding the development and distribution of value within and from enterprise and entrepreneurship education. In doing so, the authors trace the origins of value creation pedagogy back 100 years and reconnect this lost literature to contemporary thinking as to what constitutes value creation pedagogy. Design/methodology/approach: This conceptual paper identifies specific temporal-specific problems with current thinking in enterprise and entrepreneurship education vis-a-vis who gains the value from value creation pedagogies. To address this identified anomaly, the authors seek to develop a spectrum of value-creating activities/processes applicable to enterprise and entrepreneurship education. The underlying aim of this approach is to provide clarity around who specifically benefits from value creation pedagogies, how and when. Findings: In developing a spectrum of value-creating activities/processes applicable to enterprise and entrepreneurship education, the authors have successfully located all major forms of value creation pedagogies in an iterative manner that caters to the authentic development of value for oneself and others. The proposed model assumes that the creation of authentic value for others should be preceded by the development of specific capabilities in the value creators. Practical implications: There are important implications that arise for all enterprise and entrepreneurship educators in the discussions presented here. Most importantly, value creation pedagogies should be fueled by the ongoing development of purpose, agency and capability via cultivated reflection. Originality/value: This paper broadens the notion of what constitutes value creation pedagogy in enterprise and entrepreneurship education. In doing so, the authors elevate the importance of student creative competency development over value creation.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to address the recent development of heutagogy in the domain of enterprise and entrepreneurship education (EE). Responding to recent thinking within our domain of education, this paper discusses the origins of heutagogy, its adoption within enterprise and EE and offers suggestions as to the further development of such thinking in this domain. Design/methodology/approach: This conceptual paper revisits the original thinking that developed the process of heutagogy, or self-determined learning. Revisiting the conceptual foundations of heutagogy, comparing it to andragogy and to the idea of academagogy enables the process of academagogical process knowledge (APK) to be outlined. Through this process, the authors argue it is possible to envisage the real potential value of heutagogy to enterprise and EE. Findings: In advocating for the development of APK, the authors highlight the importance of six specific knowledge bases; knowledge of self, knowledge of entrepreneurship theories, knowledge of transformational learning approaches, knowledge of authentic assessment processes, knowledge of student engagement and knowledge of how to scholarly lead. The authors argue that the development of scholarship of teaching and learning for enterprise and EE can be advanced through these six knowledge bases. Practical implications: There are important implications that arise for all enterprise and entrepreneurship educators in the discussions presented here, especially if we consider entrepreneurial approaches within disciplines and interests that anchor the studies, as opposed to more generic approaches found in entrepreneurship courses. Most importantly, that heutagogy must be evaluated alongside the blended contributions of pedagogy, andragogy and academagogy. Originality/value: This paper advances the readers' understanding of the potential role of heutagogy in enterprise and EE. In doing so, differing opinions related to the use of heutagogy in the domain have been addressed, and a developmental pathway outlined.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to conduct a critical appraisal of how experiential approaches can more effectively enhance the achievement of desired learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education. In particular, the authors critique whether actual learning outcomes can be profitably used to measure effectiveness; and consider how student performance can be evaluated through the twin lenses of implementation or innovation. Design/methodology/approach: The authors undertook a review of both traditional and experiential approaches to entrepreneurship education. In addition to comparing these approaches, the authors critiqued a number of "taken for granted" assumptions regarding the effectiveness of experiential approaches to entrepreneurship education and made recommendations. Findings: Although there is a large body of research on experiential approaches towards entrepreneurship education, the authors know little about how these approaches contribute towards the effective achievement of desired learning outcomes. Whilst many authors claim that such approaches are effective, such assertions are not supported by sufficient robust evidence. Hence the authors need to establish more effective student performance evaluation metrics. In particular: first, whether actual learning outcomes are appropriate measures of effectiveness; and second, the authors should evaluate student performance through the lenses of the two "Is"--implementation or innovation. Practical implications: Whether actual learning outcomes are used as a measure of effectiveness at all needs to be critiqued further. Implementation involves doing things that are determined by others and matching against their expectations, whereas innovation comprises producing multiple and varied solutions that respond to change and often surprise. Originality/value: Through revisiting the discussions on the art and the science of entrepreneurship education, this paper represents an initial critical attempt--as part of an ongoing study--to fill a gap in entrepreneurship education research. The paper, therefore, has significant value for students, entrepreneurship educators and policy-makers.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the process that underpinned and informed the development and delivery of a "creativity-led" credit-bearing teacher training provision and to illuminate key factors of influence for the approaches to teaching and learning. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the assumption that sustaining enterprise education involves developing educator capacity, networks of collaborating educators from different institutions and subject disciplines developed transdisciplinary pedagogical strategies. These were delivered to two pilot programmes, with a cohort of 18 in each. Findings: Feedback from the pilots suggest that creativity-based pedagogies are effective triggers. They motivate educators and enable specialists to develop subject-related content. Practical implications: The paper highlights the need for a more developed understanding of creativity, innovation and opportunity recognition, so that enterprise education starts with ideas generation, not merely ideas evaluation. Originality/value: Understanding creativity and innovation is emergent and there is a dearth of understanding, especially in teaching and learning for enterprise. The paper illuminates a developmental process that has responded to this shortfall.

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to respond to the acknowledged dearth of academic discourse on assessment strategies for entrepreneurship education. Using established approaches from design education as its fulcrum, it proposes a generic framework for assessment of "creativity" in an entrepreneurial context. Design/methodology/approach: This primarily constructivist investigation is considered in the context of recent UK discussions, empirical evidence, literature reviews and government policies. It includes the UK's Quality Assurance Agency--"Benchmark Statement" for the UK's creative industries and maps the approaches onto entrepreneurship education. Findings: As assessment of ideas generation, innovation and opportunity recognition are, "Central to developing and learning entrepreneurial behaviors". There are clear parallels between the pedagogic approaches from "design" disciplines and the learning outcomes advocated in generic curriculum development "for" entrepreneurship. Research limitations/implications: Business school approaches and their associated challenges dominate the entrepreneurship research agenda. Interdisciplinary research, in particular collaborations between the Business and the Creative disciplines, offers opportunities for constructive alignment. Practical implications: With no intention of "reinventing the wheel", more adapting and refining it, the paper's primary intention is to offer a springboard of thought from which creative capacity in enterprise education might be enhanced and assessed. Originality/value: This paper contributes to the ongoing debate surrounding issues of assessment and offers insights into established approaches that have evolved beyond the traditional enterprise education environment, one where credit-bearing curricula have managed and assessed the creative process effectively. (Contains 1 figure.)