Search

Taking an active and experiential approach to teaching is often assumed to be the best way to promote learning. However, the empirical evidence to support this assertion in entrepreneurship education is inconclusive, and current practice suggests that delivery in higher education is still quite passive and traditional. This 6-year, mixed method study sets out to demonstrate that, in a final-year International Entrepreneurship module at a UK university mapped through the lens of 'about', 'for' and 'through' entrepreneurship, a more innovative, active, experiential and constructively aligned approach to teaching, learning and assessment impacts positively on students' deep and surface approaches to learning. Students viewed the module as significantly more active than passive and the level of deep learning was significantly greater than the level of surface learning. Additionally, the more active approach was significantly correlated to increased deep learning and reduced surface learning. Students highlighted the active teaching approach and the creation of videos for a local company as part of the authentic assessment as catalysts for deeper learning approaches. The study provides empirical evidence that active entrepreneurship education has a positive impact on student approaches to learning.

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.

During the course of the past 30 years, a challenge made to entrepreneurship educators has gone unaddressed. While acknowledging that there has never been a more exciting time to be an enterprise educator, we suggest that there has also never been a more challenging time. On the one hand, the changing nature of employment landscapes globally is forcing a freelancer world on us all. In this new world, our students must increasingly be capable of developing an enterprising career, regardless of any additional start-up aspirations. Conversely, the legitimacy of our teaching practice remains challenged at a level slightly above the student-educator interface. These concerns tend to question our collective purpose and relevance. This article seeks to offer a holistic framework through which enterprise and entrepreneurship educators can act in greater unison. In doing so, it also aims to move us collectively on from the current focus of our scholarly writings to analyse more deeply how we promote and define our purpose and relevance as enterprise and entrepreneurship educators. Our observations inform us that the greater challenge lies not in finding a starting point for new ideas in enterprise education, but rather in engaging all key stakeholders and developing an inclusive scholarship of teaching. At a time when higher education stands accused of failing graduates, we offer leadership on addressing long-running challenges in our field of education.

Despite the considerable political and academic interest in concepts such as the triple helix of government, business and higher education as well as entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial universities, relatively little has been written about the role of the university in developing entrepreneurship. More specifically, the questions of how the university can contribute through education, entrepreneurial support and network functions and be entrepreneurial in its endeavours have lacked academic focus and rigour, particularly in relation to fostering entrepreneurial mindsets. This introductory article therefore provides a thorough discussion of the role of the university in entrepreneurship and then summarizes the contribution to that debate of the articles in this special issue of "Industry and Higher Education."

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.

This article offers a critical discussion of the role of the business plan in current enterprise educational practice. In addition to reviewing recent work that considers the "for" and "against" arguments about the use of business plans in higher education, the authors suggest that the context of student learning is largely omitted from these discussions. As such, they contextualize the debate so that the purpose of the business plan can be better appreciated. They build on recent work that offers alternatives to the business plan--approaches directly focused on customer discovery and explicit testing of assumptions. In doing so, recent concerns about the value of business plans and, conversely, the views of those who argue in favour of the role of business plans in enterprise education, are noted. The article provides insights into emerging alternative practices in the field of enterprise education, practices based on students' use of such education as a vehicle for skills and knowledge development and/or wealth creation. It is acknowledged that various biases are present in the current debate, including those of the present authors: whilst it is accepted that these biases are unlikely to disappear, the article contextualizes their origins. (Contains 1 figure and 1 note.)

This paper presents the results of an investigation into contextual differences in the development and delivery of enterprise education in higher education globally. Using information gathered from an online survey distributed to enterprise educators, distinct differences in the provision of enterprise education are identified, as are differences of opinion among enterprise educators. The findings demonstrate that although enterprise education is highly diversified in terms of presentation, content and style, there are clear commonalities with regard to expected student outcomes. The respondents reported low levels of business start-up activity among students during enterprise education and/or within one year of graduation. Over 75% of the educators surveyed had personal start-up experience, and there was limited reliance on academic literature, with a preference for referencing broader stakeholder perspectives. With regard to the practical implications of this research, the international metric of enterprise education appears to be a broad set of enterprising skills that equip and enable students to recognize and exploit opportunities in order to navigate future unknowns. The commonly employed metric of business start-up appears less valid in light of this investigation. (Contains 1 note and 1 table.)

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.)

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-à-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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editors discuss reports within the issue on topics including the role of the state and policies in Israel in promoting entrepreneurship education, the entrepreneurial society in Israel, and the historical and cultural context of entrepreneurship in France.