Idea Transcript
European Journal of Engineering Education
ISSN: 0304-3797 (Print) 1469-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20
About, for, in or through entrepreneurship in engineering education Soili Mäkimurto-Koivumaa & Pekka Belt To cite this article: Soili Mäkimurto-Koivumaa & Pekka Belt (2015): About, for, in or through entrepreneurship in engineering education, European Journal of Engineering Education, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2015.1095163 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1095163
Published online: 23 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 5
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceee20 Download by: [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto]
Date: 28 October 2015, At: 23:14
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1095163
About, for, in or through entrepreneurship in engineering education Soili Mäkimurto-Koivumaaa and Pekka Beltb Lapland University of Applied Sciences, Rovaniemi, Finland; bUniversity of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
a
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Engineering competences form a potential basis for entrepreneurship. There are pressures to find new approaches to entrepreneurship education (EE) in engineering education, as the traditional analytical logic of engineering does not match the modern view of entrepreneurship. Since the previous models do not give tangible enough tools on how to organise EE in practice, this article aims to develop a new framework for EE at the university level. We approach this aim by analysing existing scientific literature complemented by long-term practical observations, enabling a fruitful interplay between theory and practice. The developed framework recommends aspects in EE to be emphasised during each year of the study process. Actionbased learning methods are highlighted in the beginning of studies to support students’ personal growth. Explicit business knowledge is to be gradually increased only when professional, field-specific knowledge has been adequately accumulated.
Received 2 April 2015 Accepted 19 August 2015 Keywords
Engineering education; entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurial mindset; entrepreneurial behaviour
1. Introduction Entrepreneurship is globally considered to be an important source for economic development and prosperity (e.g. Schumpeter 1989; Fayolle and Gailly 2008). Engineering science and technology development have had a central role in enhancing economies (Romer 1990; Jones 2002), and it can be assumed that the same influence continues in the future. An entrepreneurial mindset is therefore important for engineering graduates (Commission of the European Communities 2006). When setting objectives for engineering education to meet the requirements of modern workinglife, there is a tension between two conflicting needs: increased technical knowledge and broad general competences (de Graaff and Ravesteijn 2001). The CDIO (conceive, design, implement and operate) framework was developed to address these outcome-based requirements for engineering education by aiming to define the skills and competences for graduating engineers (Crawley et al. 2007, 2011). Another way to approach this challenge is to view it from the teaching method perspective, specifically by applying problem- and project-based methods to engineering education (de Graaff and Kolmos 2003; Edström and Kolmos 2014). In traditional engineering education, theoretical understanding is required prior to practical experimentation. As a consequence, one has to have engineering competences before one can be creative and innovative (MacLeod 2009). However, entrepreneurship in the modern turbulent world often means simultaneously creating and learning new knowledge; therefore, traditional analytic and systematic approaches may not be adequate (Engeström 2001; Sarasvathy 2001). Thus, it is interesting to discuss how to promote entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours within engineering education. In CONTACT Soili Mäkimurto-Koivumaa Email: © 2015 SEFI
soili.makimurto@lapinamk.fi
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
2
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
addition, engineering graduates need to be able to collaborate and work in teams, utilise creativity and have adequate self-confidence (Gibb 2005). Entrepreneurship is not only a question of cognitive information processing, but also a question of emotions, feelings and motivations, which should be acknowledged in entrepreneurship education (EE) (Ruohotie and Koiranen 2000; Kyrö 2008). Traditionally, entrepreneurship literature has emphasised the individual and behavioural attributes (Venkataraman 1997) that are difficult to be taught (Henry, Hill, and Leitch 2005). More recent literature highlights entrepreneurship as an episodic and situational phenomenon and argues that entrepreneurship should be seen as a process (Shane and Venkataraman 2000), leaving more room for education. Earlier, some researchers defined entrepreneurship as alert people discovering existing opportunities (e.g. Kirzner 1978). Today, entrepreneurship is more commonly explained through the opportunity creation theory (Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray 2003; Alvarez and Barney 2007). The creation theory may better fit today’s continuously changing and turbulent operational environment, where entrepreneurship is seen to require active and creative individuals that are able to flexibly utilise their available means (Sarasvathy 2001). The general challenge for EE is how to support opportunity creation and the development of the entrepreneurial mindset instead of simply delivering explicit knowledge of entrepreneurship (Rae 2000, 2010). According to Hjorth and Johannisson (2007), the focus of EE should be in developing an ability to see life as a creation process. Research on EE has concentrated on understanding entrepreneurial intentions and the impact of EE (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007; Hytti et al. 2010; Oosterbeek, van Praag, and Ijsselstein 2010; Seikkula-Leino et al. 2010; Sánchez 2013). Some research has analysed the contents and structures of separate EE programmes (e.g. Hytti and O’Gorman 2004) or developing different approaches for actualising EE (Rae 2000; Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006). The focus of past research has been either on business students or on secondary level education (e.g. Seikkula-Leino et al. 2010; Johansen and Schanke 2013). Scientific literature seems to lack descriptions on how to integrate EE into nonbusiness school curricula and therefore higher education institutions (HEIs) have difficulties in the practical realisation of effective EE. Also, Matlay and Carey (2007), and Fretschner and Weber (2013), realised the absence of design instructions for curricula and course development. The aim of this paper is to study how engineering education, or other non-business school education at the university level, could be renewed to enhance students’ entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours in their future professional practice. Specifically, this study analyses how EE could be pedagogically organised for meeting the competence requirements of the modern engineering profession. We conducted a literature analysis to clarify the important aspects to be included in EE. The theoretical analysis is then complemented with observations during practical EE development enabling a fruitful interplay between theory and practice. We aim to introduce a framework to clarify what teaching methods could be optimal and what aspects we recommend to be emphasised during each year of the study process.
2. Literature analysis 2.1. Entrepreneurship in a modern, turbulent environment In entrepreneurship literature, there is paradigm shift taking place describing the very nature of entrepreneurship. Some researchers describe this shift as a move from opportunity discovery to opportunity creation (Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray 2003; Alvarez and Barney 2007), while others call this phenomenon a shift from causation to effectuation (Sarasvathy 2001; Dew et al. 2008). Turbulent changes that are constantly taking place in modern business environments significantly contribute to this change. Causation refers to traditional systematic decision-making processes where the entrepreneur first defines the goal and thereafter chooses the means of how to get there. Success in a causation process requires the entrepreneur to collect pre-information for planning and predicting future events and for minimising risks (Read and
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
3
Sarasvathy 2005; Sanz-Velasco 2006; Dew et al. 2008). The logic of causation matches well with the logic dominant in engineering. According to recent studies, successful entrepreneurs typically use effectuation instead of causation in turbulent operational environments (Read and Sarasvathy 2005; Sanz-Velasco 2006; Dew et al. 2008). Effectuation is typical especially for expert entrepreneurs. In effectuation, entrepreneurs do not start with a given goal; they start by thinking of who they are, what they know and whom they know (Sarasvathy 2001). Effectual logic is thus based on the awareness of available means and resources including personal competences and skills as well as networks of partners. Instead of pre-set goals, effectuation starts with given means and allows goals to develop over time from the imagination and aspirations of involved people. In effectuation, an entrepreneur does not aim to calculate possible profits, but only assesses affordable losses (Read and Sarasvathy 2005; Dew et al. 2008). Because the logic of effectuation does not fit well with the traditional logic of engineering it is challenging for educators to promote entrepreneurship within engineering education. Teaching students how to write business plans is not enough for developing an entrepreneurial mindset because collecting facts and planning systematically are not in the core of entrepreneurship (Gibb 1996; Honig 2004). On the contrary, it is crucial to have a positive attitude and self-efficacy, to believe in one’s capabilities and to see rather possibilities than obstacles. Consequently, entrepreneurship education ought to aim for increasing optimism and self-confidence. However, exaggeration and consequent over-confidence should be avoided as the failure rates of newly established firms are already high (Block and Koellinger 2009; Hmieleski and Baron 2009). Kyrö (2008) approaches entrepreneurial learning from a holistic human viewpoint by taking into account emotions, values and interests instead of seeing human beings purely as objective and rational decision-makers. In addition, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour is, to a great extent, a social phenomenon (Görling and Rehn 2008; Dew 2009). Previous studies have pointed out that social networks, including those with weak ties, are crucial in entrepreneurship (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1992). When discussing entrepreneurship, the scientific literature separates entrepreneurial behaviours from entrepreneurial mindsets. According to the literature, entrepreneurial behaviours include seeking, identifying, grasping or creating opportunities, taking initiatives, solving problems, breaking patterns creatively, organising and coordinating resources, taking responsibility for and ownership of things, networking effectively, combining things innovatively, taking calculated risks and acting proactively in complex situations (Gibb 1993; Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006; Haynie et al. 2010). An entrepreneurial mindset includes an individual’s ability to be dynamic, flexible and self-regulating in his or her cognitions in an uncertain environment (Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006; Haynie et al. 2010). An entrepreneurial mindset thus refers to the abilities and general attitude of an individual, while entrepreneurial behaviour appears through the individual’s actions. Entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours are valid concepts not only when dealing with business, but also in all human activities. Therefore, EE should define entrepreneurship broadly and include enterprising behaviours even outside the business context (Gibb 1993; Rae 2000; Kirby 2004a; Seikkula-Leino 2008). In business, there is a need for both managerial and entrepreneurial competences. Traditionally, it has been viewed that, first and foremost, entrepreneurship requires systematic managerial competences. More recently, it has been realised that the turbulent and constantly changing world and business environment require innovative, entrepreneurial competences. Entrepreneurship education has typically emphasised knowledge and managerial competences. However, distributing knowledge does not adequately promote entrepreneurial mindset and behaviour, and therefore, new approaches are needed to cover the broader definition of entrepreneurship (Bennett 2006).
2.2. Education for turbulent environment According to Engeström (2001), traditional teaching methods aim to facilitate the learning of stable knowledge. There is a presupposition that the skill or knowledge to be learned is well defined and
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
4
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
stable. In addition, it is self-evidently believed that there needs to be a proficient teacher who masters the subject. However, in modern societies, organisations and individuals need to continuously learn something new that is neither defined nor stable. There cannot be competent teachers because forms of activities are created and learned at the same time (Engeström 2001). Action-based learning methods may help in enhancing this type of learning. EE needs to acknowledge the competences required in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship in the modern, uncertain world highlights the importance of courageous experimenting and a reliance on one’s own competences and on those of personal networks (Sarasvathy 2001). In addition, entrepreneurial learning may require personal self-regulation (Zimmerman 2008), reflection and assessment (Schön 1983) of the learning process. This type of learning is in line with the objectives of actionbased learning methods, which may help in acquiring these entrepreneurial qualifications. Learning often takes place in social interactions with co-students. In addition to the core substance, tacit knowledge, which includes learning from others’ working methods and experiences, is transferred. This breadth and versatility in learning is important for entrepreneurial behaviour (Gibb 2002). The constructivist learning theory forms the basis for the present understanding of the learning process in action-based learning. Knowledge construction means that learners develop their cognitive knowledge structures or revise their current concepts to incorporate new information (Piaget 1977). Dewey (“1974” 1974) emphasises the learner’s own active role, over being a passive spectator. Socio-constructivism that is to a great extent based on the ideas of Vygotsky (1978), emphasises the social, interactive and collaborative aspects of learning. Individual learning thus depends not only on the actions of that individual but also on the interactions that take place in a group. Following the views of Kincheloe (1991) and Thayer-Bacon (1999), Gordon (2009) describes his views of constructivism, saying that ‘knowledge about the world does not simply exist out there, waiting to be discovered but is rather constructed by human beings in their interaction with the world’. This view is in line with the modern understanding of entrepreneurship, emphasising the opportunity creation view over opportunity discovery (Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray 2003). Opportunities are endogenously created due to the actions of the entrepreneur in his/her interaction with the surrounding world. Entrepreneurial behaviour does not only mean cognitive fact processing but is, to a large extent, connected to emotions and passion. Education that offers chances for experiences promotes the development of positive feelings (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). According to Souitaris, teachers should ‘receive training not only on how to teach entrepreneurship, but also on how to change “hearts and minds”’. Knowledge and resources may increase the likelihood of successful venture creation (Gorman, Hanlon, and King 1997), but it is the inspiration that raises attitude and intention. EE should enhance these soft aspects within students. According to Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000), entrepreneurial learning and the process of becoming entrepreneurial contain cognitive, conative and affective aspects (see also Kyrö 2008). The cognitive aspect includes an individual’s ability to process information, the conative aspect includes intrinsic motivation and volition to strive for an objective and the affective aspect refers to the individual’s feelings on reaching a goal or taking an action (Ruohotie and Koiranen 2000; Kyrö 2008). One of the objectives of learning events should be that students experience autonomy, competence and relatedness that constitute the three innate human psychological needs described in the self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000). When students participate in decision-making, they have a sense of autonomy. Students experience having competencies when they feel that they have the skills to solve tasks. Students experience relatedness if they consider themselves as independent, important and beneficial members at the study community that acknowledges their contribution. Students appreciate humane teachers that really care about their students as human beings (Økland 2012). Learning is more motivating and efficient when education is realised using varying working modes, such as lectures, action-based learning methods, role playing and project work. According to Økland (2012), autonomy experienced by the students is increased if decisions are decentralised from the teacher to the students.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
5
We conclude that successful learning requires an active information construction by the student supported by teacher’s professional expertise. Team-based learning is suitable when a subject or a problem is hard to understand because interaction with co-students supports learning. Peer feedback also supports the learning of both the feedback provider and the receiver.
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
2.3. Action-based learning methods for engineering education The aim of EE is to train students for the continuously changing working-life. Entrepreneurship is not only about knowing facts, it is a way of thinking and acting (Gibb 1993). Therefore, it is necessary that the learning process enhances the development of skills and abilities needed in different situations and environments. Knowledge is often created and learned simultaneously, in which case there are no competent teachers and therefore learners need to participate in and take responsibility for the learning process. Expansive learning theory by Engeström (2001) emphasises that learning in organisations takes place both vertically (top-down) and horizontally (between teams and individuals). We argue that the action-based learning methods permit the same kind of process when students study together in teams. Thus, students’ learning process is supported by the teachers (top-down) and by their fellow students (learning from co-students). This type of learning process enables the transfer of both explicit and implicit knowledge. When action-based learning methods are used, students learn not only during the actual learning event, but also afterwards when learning is reflected and self-evaluated. This is phrased by Schön (1983) as in and on action. Reflection in action, the way we evaluate, think and describe our actions for developing understanding (see Schön 1983), is a focal element in action-based learning. Reflection on action supports the development process of an individual and his/her construction of knowledge. Action-based learning methods utilise the possibilities for learning experiences, continuous reflection, teamwork co-operation and collaborative learning (see Zuber-Skerrit 2002). Lack of reflection hinders learning. The teacher’s or instructor’s role is to support the process and to create the context and learning environment to enable learning. Action-based learning methods enhance deeper learning and understanding compared to cramming and learning by heart (Arvaja et al. 2002). The main idea of action-based learning methods is to enhance students’ active participation in the learning process and to enable inspiring learning experiences following Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle. In experiential learning, the student builds his/her own understanding based on concrete experiences and reflective observations. According to previous research on EE, students should have varying learning experiences in a versatile manner during their study paths (see Rae 2000; Hytti and O’Gorman 2004; Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006; O’Connor and Ramos 2006; Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007; Fayolle and Gailly 2008). In action-based learning, the learner is expected to actively take responsibility for processing information and knowledge to develop new understanding on the basis of the learner’s existing knowledge base. However, it is crucial not to leave the student alone, on the contrary, the teacher should intensively support the learning process (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn 2007; see also Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006). Action-based learning methods include, for example, problem-based learning (PBL), project-based learning, enquiry-based learning, case studies and collaborative learning methods (see Appendix for detailed information on action-based learning methods). The roots of action-based learning methods are in PBL and medical education in the 1960s (Barrows and Tamblyn 1980; de Graaff and Kolmos 2003). For action-based learning methods to be effective, the learning environment should allow students to act differently than in a traditional classroom setting (Arvaja et al. 2002; Bennett 2006). In addition, the teacher’s way of teaching and his/her personal characteristics are of great importance for students (Sánchez 2013). Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits (2000) prefer project-based learning over PBL in engineering education as project tasks are closer to professional reality. Project work is more directed to the application of knowledge, while PBL is more suitable for the acquisition of knowledge. In addition,
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
6
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
project work groups tend to be smaller than PBL groups and project tasks typically result in concrete outputs. Moreover, self-direction is more intensive in project-based learning than in PBL, since the learning process is less structured and less directed by the problem (Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits 2000). As a consequence, project-based learning follows the teamwork arrangements typical of modern working environments. The CDIO framework emphasises that learning by action and consequent experiences can support students’ comprehension of their future professions and develop engineering competences. According to Økland (2012), project-based learning enables the integration of new information into larger and more tangible entities to be utilised easier in practice. Putting concepts and theories into practice automatically forces the student to compare the new information against prior personal experience (Økland 2012). In action-based learning, emotions are also important; that is, besides cognitive learning, even affective and conative aspects need to be taken into account (Snow, Corno, and Jackson 1996; Ruohotie and Koiranen 2000; Kyrö 2008). Hjorth (2004) uses the expression ‘space for play and invention’ when describing an environment suitable for entrepreneurship. Learning entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours is thus possible if the learning environment allows, and even promotes, creativity. Willingness to learn, that is, motivation, is a prerequisite for learning. Moreover, motivation to learn entrepreneurship can be assumed to be high in a ‘space for play and invention’ (Hjorth 2004). Therefore, the learning environment in EE should provide possibilities for such experiences. If action-based learning events are designed carefully, then they can create a state of flow as described by Csíkszentmihályi (1988, 2009). In practice, the flow state can be reached when the student experiences that he/she has the confidence and skills to solve challenging problems. In order to reach their full creative potential, students should be fully focused on the task in question and enjoy performing it for purely intrinsic purposes rather than for some external goal (Hennessey 2003). Immediate and clear feedback supports achieving a flow state (Csíkszentmihályi 1988, 2009). Scientific literature tends to see flow as an individual phenomenon. We believe that students may experience similar positive states if they feel that team-learning is both efficient and inspiring. Therefore, team-learning is potentially applicable for entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurial behaviours have often been analysed using Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour. According to the theory, the behaviour of an individual can be predicted through his/ her intentions. In the model, intention is the result of three conceptual determinants: attitude towards the behaviour, perceived subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud (2000) state that perceived behavioural control overlaps Bandura’s (1986) view of perceived self-efficacy, which is the perceived ability to execute a target behaviour. In EE, students’ efficacy perceptions may be promoted by hands-on experiences, emotional arousals and vicarious learning (Bandura 1986). Action-based learning methods enable positive experiences that can be expected to support the development of self-efficacy and entrepreneurial mindsets. People who believe they can perform well, that is, those with high self-efficacy, are more likely to see possibilities than obstacles (Bandura 1986). In order to develop self-efficacy in EE, students need experiences in a versatile manner to enhance self-perception.
2.4. Entrepreneurship education in literature Entrepreneurship education in higher education is typically run by business schools and the target group is mainly business students (Matlay and Carey 2007). Successful entrepreneurship may require competences in a special area, such as engineering, and therefore EE should also include students outside business schools. According to Hjorth (2003), the mainstream EE aims to develop students’ competences as managerial entrepreneurs. However, post-industrial entrepreneurial actions require the entrepreneur to have creative and playful characteristics (Hjorth 2004; Steyaert and Katz 2004). Earlier literature states that in order to enhance students’ self-confidence, EE pedagogy should activate students and favour learning-by-doing instead of passive reading or lectures (Gibb 1993).
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
7
The learning environment should enable experimenting with entrepreneurial behaviour. This type of entrepreneurship-promoting environment can either mean a physical space or pedagogic choices of the teacher. Because earlier literature has highlighted the importance of social networks for entrepreneurship, and in order to support network building, students should not only learn about entrepreneurship but also get to know co-students and acting entrepreneurs (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1992). Personal networks that are built during EE may prove useful years after graduation. For example, the student may contact former co-students or the companies they visited during their entrepreneurship courses. Project-based learning may provide positive experiences through using social networks. Research in EE has about 30 years of history. The focus of EE has traditionally been on the knowledge issues, emphasising mainly business aspects (Garavan and Cinneide 1994; Hytti and O’Gorman 2004). However, some researchers have later shown interest in expanding EE from purely considering cognitive knowledge processing to include even conative and affective aspects. Jamieson (1984) and Henry, Hill, and Leitch (2005) identify a three-category framework when organising EE: about enterprise, for enterprise and in enterprise. Jack and Anderson (1999) and Jamieson (1984) view that students need theories and knowledge about entrepreneurship for developing their management skills; however, they need to become reflective practitioners and be able to combine theories with practice when acting entrepreneurially. Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006) have specified three aims of entrepreneurship education: (1) learn to understand entrepreneurship; (2) learn to become entrepreneurial; and (3) learn to become an entrepreneur. The scientific literature gives some information on what these three prepositions (about, for and in) could mean within the context of EE. Learning about enterprise is needed for making students aware of the importance of entrepreneurship and for building the knowledge base about entrepreneurship. This knowledge is required for understanding business operations (Henry, Hill, and Leitch 2005). The purpose of for enterprise is to prepare students to be self-employed, to act as entrepreneurs or to create new business ventures (Kirby 2004b; Johansen and Schanke 2013). Most researchers emphasise the for enterprise aspect – educating new entrepreneurs – in order to support economic growth (Garavan and O’Cinneide 1994). Learning in enterprise is crucial for established entrepreneurs when developing the skills needed in business growth and development (Henry, Hill, and Leitch 2005; Taatila 2010). According to Kirby (2004a), EE should aim to develop in students the aptitudes and capabilities of an entrepreneurial person. However, a significant transformation is needed in the way entrepreneurship is taught and, instead of the traditional classroom setting, enterprising environments and approaches to learning should be adopted. Even though most researchers agree on the three aspects defined by the three prepositions introduced above, they seem not to cover entrepreneurial behaviour. Consequently, some researchers have added pedagogical methods used to teach entrepreneurship. For instance, Fayolle and Gailly (2008) emphasise the importance of entrepreneurial environment, and Kyrö (2008) emphasises the importance of pedagogical methods. Therefore, we argue that an understanding of the ways for learning and teaching entrepreneurship has evolved during the last few years. The understanding of EE has gradually expanded from about entrepreneurship to include new aspects as described in Figure 1. EE researchers seem to have a common perception of about and for. However, EE researchers seem to use either in or through as the third preposition. In addition, there seems to be at least two different types of interpretations concerning the preposition through. Through entrepreneurship seems to relate to a business context, for example, in articles by Kirby (2004b) and Johansen and Schanke (2013). On the other hand, Kyrö (2008), Gibb (2005) and Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006) highlight the importance of pedagogical approaches. It is noteworthy that the researchers tend to explain various aspects of EE using only three prepositions, while we view that there are four different aspects that the organisers of EE should take into account. According to our understanding, the research using the preposition in as the third preposition and the research using through in a business context can be combined as shown in Figure 1.
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
8
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
Figure 1. Aspects to be acknowledged by EE.
When discussing through business context, Kirby (2004b) emphasises that the utilisation of the new venture creation process helps students gain both business understanding and transferable enterprise skills or competences. At a practical level, this could mean conducting projects for businesses in pre-incubators, incubators and science parks. Kirby (2004b) uses the term through enterprise for this aspect. Also, Johansen and Schanke (2013) seem to use the preposition through in business context as they describe through entrepreneurship using the entrepreneurial process aimed at developing an enterprise or projects based on collaboration between schools and local businesses. Kyrö interprets through entrepreneurship as pedagogical methods. She further describes the roles of students and teachers: ‘The students are the ones who look after and take responsibility for acquiring the knowledge they need, and in teaching the focus is on supporting the pedagogical process.’ (Kyrö 2008). Also, Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006) and Hytti et al. (2010) include pedagogical methods as an important aspect in EE. In addition, the recent development seems to support the views introduced by Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000), that learning entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour is interlinked with cognitive, conative and affective factors. The development of an entrepreneurial mindset is influenced not only by cognition but also by emotions, feelings and the motivation of the learner (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007; Kyrö 2008). Pedagogical choices influence these soft aspects, which are important for entrepreneurship.
3. Developing a framework The aim of this study was to find a model for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of EE for engineering students at the university level. We approached this aim mainly through theoretical analysis of existing scientific literature combined with hands-on observations during practical work in EE in HEIs giving engineering education. We analysed the literature to clarify how other researchers understand EE. The areas covered included entrepreneurship in a modern environment, education for a turbulent environment and action-based learning methods. Based on our literature analysis, we conclude that the scientific literature on EE has gradually expanded by including new aspects to EE that can now be seen to include the four key areas of about entrepreneurship, for entrepreneurship, in business context and through pedagogy.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
9
Our goal was to develop a framework to clarify important aspects of EE, including what is potentially beneficial to teach, what teaching methods could be effective and what aspects we recommend to be emphasised during each year of the study process.
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
3.1. Study-year dependent emphasis variation in EE As reported by Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000) and Kyrö (2008), pure cognitive knowledge processing is not enough for developing entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours. Also conative and affective aspects are necessary. We thus conclude that, in the beginning of engineering studies, conative and affective aspects should be emphasised more than they are in the current traditional engineering education. Systematic business knowledge may be optimal to offer at the end of the studies when the students potentially have developed competences and consequent self-confidence. Field-specific professional competences, such as engineering competences, form a potential basis for entrepreneurship; however, according to our experiences, entrepreneurial competences typically require a long time to develop. According to Sarasvathy (2001), expert entrepreneurs use effectuation, which requires experience. Consequently, a starting engineering student may not have the self-confidence needed for recognising or creating business opportunities. In the beginning of the studies it is therefore important to support the development of students’ self-confidence. Young students live in uncertainty and typically think about their future roles; however, they are often unaware of their potential capabilities. Emphasising business knowledge too early in EE may therefore not be optimal since entrepreneurial self-confidence and emotion may not yet be established. When organising education, not only EE, but also when teaching professional field-specific competences, it may be reasonable to utilise experiential learning (Kolb 1984) methods as they enable entrepreneurial behaviour by emphasising students’ practical experimentation and observations over a theory-driven approach. There should be possibilities to train entrepreneurial behaviour before one must seriously consider one’s own business cases. A space for play and invention (Hjorth 2003) should thus be strived for even when learning basic topics such as physics or basic engineering. An optimal timing for systematic business knowledge is only when there is already a demand for such information. Entrepreneurship is a complicated phenomenon and certain personal growth is needed before an individual has the potential competences and the personal maturity to act entrepreneurially. Engineering education typically takes four or five years. This relatively long time-frame enables a variation in teaching methods and in the topics to be taught. Therefore, different viewpoints may be emphasised in the beginning, middle and end of the studies. Figure 2 illustrates our view for scheduling EE within the curriculum for university students outside business schools. This type of study-year dependent emphasis variation in EE seems to be a new thought for the scientific literature. We see the development of an entrepreneurial mindset and competence as a process requiring time to mature as shown in the upper part of Figure 2. Seamless integration of professional (engineering) and business knowledge is the fundamental philosophy behind the lower part of the figure. In addition, it is crucial to acknowledge the importance of conative and affective aspects of learning and not to solely rely on the pure cognitive information processing. Therefore, in the beginning of the studies, the aim is to support the development of personal growth, that is, the entrepreneurial mindset and behaviour. Systematic business knowledge is emphasised only in the latter part of the studies when there may be a stronger desire for such information. This arrangement also supports the optimal learning of those committed to entrepreneurship.
3.1.1. Year 1: Through Utilisation of action-based learning methods to boost the entrepreneurial mindset: In the beginning, the aim is to encourage the students to become curious, self-confident, active, and to tolerate uncertainty. Using multiple action-based learning methods in a versatile manner instead of relying on a
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
10
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
Figure 2. Emphasis of EE during different study years.
single teaching approach may support these objectives. This arrangement pushes students to take responsibility for their own learning and motivates their learning as it allows them influence the practical learning arrangements. A key aim in the beginning of the studies is thus to create a space for play and invention, which, according to Hjorth (2004), is a requirement to learn entrepreneurship. PBL is potentially effective as it emphasises students’ participation and involvement in the learning process. However, being a structured method, it may not be the optimal solution for building a space for play and invention. Project-based learning may be more appropriate for EE as it allows more flexibility for the realisation of actual learning situations. The practical arrangements should emphasise teamwork, which enables learning from others, and helps the students realise that there are multiple ways of thinking. In addition, projects typically aim to create concrete artefacts that are easier to comprehend. Projects should be organised so that they are experienced as students’ own, that is, are associated with ownership. Project-based methods may also include typical activities for real-life projects, such as project planning, goal setting, reporting, making presentations, meetings and negotiations. Other action-based learning methods potential for EE may include case studies, laboratory exercises, collaborative learning methods and enquiry-based learning.
3.1.2. Year 2: Through & about Developing the knowledge base about entrepreneurship: During the second year, the use of actionbased learning methods will continue, but will be complemented by gradually including information about entrepreneurship. The students are expected to learn about entrepreneurship as a phenomenon, that is, about the economic and societal meaning of business life and entrepreneurship in general, especially in contexts strongly connected to their discipline. The possible learning arrangements may be, for example, traditional lectures, expert lectures, visits and exercises in teams. Additional knowledge-base building may be arranged through study projects including aspects of business and entrepreneurship. The main objective is to integrate business aspects into substance teaching rather than teaching business as a separate topic.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
11
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
3.1.3. Year 3: through, about & in Practicing and expanding the knowledge base on entrepreneurship: During the third year, the study methods of the first two years will continue, however, they will be complemented by experiences students gain when training in existing companies. HEIs should encourage students to maximally utilise opportunities to learn both technical and business aspects if and when they work in companies outside the study year or parallel to their studies. Engineers often operate in business environments and therefore it is logical to integrate engineering education and EE. On the other hand, entrepreneurship competences are a crucial part of engineering competences. Therefore, the training periods could be utilised to support the development of both engineering and entrepreneurship competences through assignments. These assignments should include both technical and business aspects. In addition, knowledge about business can be expanded by organising separate courses on some business aspects, such as accounting, marketing and/or management. Alternatively, these issues can be included in education through study projects. Working in a pre-incubator or a training camp may also be an appropriate environment for learning entrepreneurship.
3.1.4. Year 4: through, about, in & for Learning to be entrepreneurial and an entrepreneur: The purpose of the fourth year is to strengthen students’ entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours, and to give tangible tools for those who want to become entrepreneurs. During the fourth year, the students will gain systematic business knowledge in an integrated manner using real-life cases. The business knowledge to be adopted may include strategic planning, marketing, leadership and management, venture financing and management accounting. When learning tools for business planning, divergent thinking should be emphasised, as recommended by Honig (2004) rather than by teaching traditional convergent thinking based on causation. This is because there are multiple potential paths in entrepreneurship. Additionally, the final thesis can be utilised for meeting the needs of this stage. Enquiry-based learning methods may be appropriate to obtain the objective of the fourth year.
3.2. Organisational aspects in curriculum development Based on the feedback we have obtained through multiple workshops, interviews and cooperation projects, it is a common view that HEIs and their top management should see EE as a strategic issue that affects the entire organisation. However, teachers play important roles and pure top-down decisions are not effective, and therefore HEIs should pay significant attention to teacher commitment. The commitment of top management is also in the scientific literature seen crucial for any change processes both in private and public organisations (see e.g. Sirkin, Keenan, and Jackson 2005). The same view is valid for universities aiming to enhance entrepreneurship (Gibb, Haskins, and Robertson 2013). According to Kelchtermans (2009), a teacher’s identity or self-understanding consists of two components; the personal theoretical perception of learning/teaching and how the teacher views her/ himself as a teacher. A teacher’s perceptions develop in an interaction with the cultural, social and structural environment (Kelchtermans 2009). Therefore, changes in teaching may take a long time. Furthermore, in order to make changes in educational practice one must change teachers’ beliefs (Quinlan 2002). Horizontal cooperation between teachers, for example, co-teaching, may prove successful. This is in line with Engeström’s (2001) views on organisational learning. Teachers’ backgrounds, including their own field of expertise, may impact the way they teach the subject matter and how they view the learning process (Prosser et al. 2005). According to Prosser et al. (2005), teachers with a background in science and engineering tend to prefer teacher-focused approaches and aim to transfer information to their students. Paloniemi and Belt (2015) have discovered that teachers’ ontological perceptions of both education and entrepreneurship are interlinked. They found that teachers with a background in engineering tend to view entrepreneurship according
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
12
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
to causation/discovery theory. Changing this view towards effectuation and creation theory might be challenging. Curriculum development is a central tool for HEIs to boost EE and to realise the pedagogical objectives defined in the HEI-level strategy. It would be beneficial if each HEI had a general frame for teachers to follow in their teaching. This article aims to develop such a frame for EE for engineering, or other non-business, students in universities. Entrepreneurship is a complicated phenomenon and therefore there should be a versatile range of measures for learning it (Hytti and O’Gorman 2004). Engineering education curricula should be able to acknowledge a large number of abilities and skills needed for entrepreneurial behaviours and mindsets. EE should, however, not be seen as a separate subject. It is more beneficial to integrate substance teaching, such as engineering education, and EE. Developing curricula that effectively address the diverse requirements of EE is a demanding task. Therefore, it may require building multi-skilled teams by connecting teachers of engineering substance, experts on pedagogy and external experts on entrepreneurship. This arrangement is also supported by the fact that people with different backgrounds and different working environments tend to understand entrepreneurship differently. Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits (2000) favour project-based learning in engineering education. According to the feedback from our workshops, interviews and our practical experience from our HEIs, there is a need to develop larger educational themes that aim to solve real-life challenges. Study projects based on industrial assignments may be a functional solution for engineering students as these assignments are typically relatively large and versatile, often containing both technical and business aspects. Networking is crucial for entrepreneurship (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1992; Sarasvathy 2001). EE should also enable creating functional networks and learning how to network in general. Training periods in companies and industrial assignments support this objective. Action-based learning methods and teamwork help individual students learn collaboration and networking. During their studies, students may be able to build personal relationships with other students, university staff and companies. According to the literature and our own experience, complementary teacher education is needed for efficient EE as teachers tend to have a narrow view on entrepreneurship and EE. In addition, modern teaching methods are often relatively poorly managed, especially by teachers of engineering with a technical background. This viewpoint is also supported by the feedback from our workshops revealing that teachers’ background has a strong impact how entrepreneurship is understood. Teachers with technical education tend to emphasise an entrepreneur’s personal characteristics, implying that entrepreneurship cannot be learned. Teaching entrepreneurship within engineering education requires mastery of technology, business, entrepreneurship and pedagogy – a fact that needs to be acknowledged in actual teaching.
4. Discussion The results of this paper have significant implications for both the theory and practice of EE.
4.1. Theoretical implications Most researchers emphasise the business aspects and see that the purpose of EE is to create new ventures and the aim of education is to deliver explicit knowledge. Researchers tend to use different prepositions for describing the focus of EE. Jamieson (1984) uses about enterprise, for enterprise and in enterprise in his framework. Jack and Anderson (1999), on the other hand, use only two prepositions for enterprise and in enterprise. Johanson and Schanke (2013) clarify the aim of entrepreneurship education using three prepositions (about, for and through), where new venture creation is
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
13
described by the preposition through. In addition, Kirby (2004b) sees that an understanding of entrepreneurship can further be developed in the context of incubations (in enterprise). In this paper, we expand and clarify the theoretical discussion and develop a new illustrative framework for EE by using four prepositions: about entrepreneurship, for entrepreneurship, in business context and through pedagogy. The meanings of prepositions about and for are the same as defined in the earlier literature. When using the preposition in (in a business context) we emphasise the need to understand entrepreneurship in practice. The fourth aspect, through pedagogy, highlights the importance of pedagogic aspects and the need to boost students’ entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours. Kyrö (2008) shares this view on the meaning of through. Our reasoning for expanding the previous theoretical discussions is based on the views of Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000; see also Gibb 1993; Kyrö 2008), who state that developing an entrepreneurial mindset also requires conative and affective aspects and cannot only be based on cognitive aspects. The development of students’ entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours is a long process, which should be acknowledged in EE throughout the study years. When the education process is organised well and is effective, students’ self-confidence can be expected to strengthen. Self-confidence is needed in turbulent environments that require students to be creative and capable of using effectuation in their decision-making. Our framework includes pedagogic aspects in supporting the development of an entrepreneurial mindset and is therefore in line with the modern scientific view on entrepreneurship as a creation process (Sarasvathy 2001; Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray 2003). Our framework includes a study-year dependent emphasis variation in EE, which is new to the literature of EE. The framework acknowledges the fact that developing entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours is a long process that is connected to personal growth. In the beginning of students’ studies, action-based learning methods are to be emphasised in order to support the development of personal growth. The amount of explicit business knowledge is to be gradually increased when professional, field-specific knowledge has adequately accumulated. In other words, different aspects, described by the prepositions through, about, in and for, are to be emphasised during different study years. Traditional EE solutions tend to emphasise the about and especially the for viewpoints. However, according to our understanding, one should understand entrepreneurial behaviour and mindsets broadly and act in an enterprising way in one’s different life domains. We understand that the bottleneck typically is a student’s attitude and mindset rather than knowledge. Therefore, we emphasise the through aspect in our model. In addition, the for aspect is relevant only when one has committed to entrepreneurship. The CDIO framework seems to follow a traditional view on entrepreneurship by concentrating purely on the about and for aspects (Crawley et al. 2011). As a consequence, entrepreneurial mindset and behaviour are not mentioned as objectives. In addition, CDIO seems to view entrepreneurship as causation rather than effectuation. Even though de Graaff and Kolmos (2003) do not specifically discuss entrepreneurship education, they emphasise the importance of activating learning methods to support the students’ personal development in the learning process. This view is in line with our emphasis on the through aspect.
4.2. Practical implications We see that our results can be primarily used in EE for engineering students at the university level. National as well as international policy-makers may utilise the framework when planning and executing teacher education. We recommend that each university defines a university-level pedagogic strategy that supports the objectives of EE. The pedagogic strategy may be used as a guideline for designing and implementing curricula. Teachers working in technical universities would especially benefit from being aware that engineers may need to utilise entrepreneurial effectuation together with causation, which is typical of engineering logic. In practical realisation of the curriculum design, the varying
14
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
roles of the prepositions through, about, in, and for are to be recognised. In the beginning of students’ studies, action-based learning methods should be emphasised while knowledge about entrepreneurship is to gradually increase by acknowledging the development of students’ abilities. From the students’ viewpoint, our framework aims, from the very beginning, to develop entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours. In the beginning of students’ studies, action-based learning methods are emphasised, giving students more possibilities to influence learning events and to gain various experiences supporting the development of self-confidence. Explicit knowledge about entrepreneurship will be emphasised during the latter part of studies when the professional competence, and related self-confidence, has hopefully developed. In addition, the student can decide how, when and if this entrepreneurship knowledge will be used. Students can expect to benefit from their enhanced entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours when they enter the labour-market either as employees or as entrepreneurs.
4.3. Generalisability of the findings and recommendations for further research We developed a new model for EE at the university level because the previous models did not give tangible enough tools on how to organise EE in practice and because the impact of EE has not been satisfactory for enhancing entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours among students. We believe the new model will give practical tools for realising EE. The research method used in this study can, however, be criticised. In our literature analysis, we have tried to include different relevant aspects of EE in a comprehensive manner. Our action research includes subjective thinking and an ample amount of tacit knowledge that we as researchers have not been able to fully document. Therefore, our conclusions can be criticised. However, the results of numerous EE development projects we have participated in have been adequately documented. The main findings of this study have already been applied in engineering curricula in our HEIs, but the impact of renewed EE on students’ entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours is yet to be evaluated. The conclusions of this study raise needs for further research, including systematic quantitative assessment of the impact of the proposed model on entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours. Research outside the engineering discipline and in other countries and cultures could also be beneficial.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Dr Mirja Väänänen for her valuable insight and constructive discussions.
Notes on contributors Dr Soili Mäkimurto-Koivumaa has over 20 years’ experience in engineering education. She is currently Principal Lecturer and responsible for Master’s Degree Programmes at Lapland University of Applied Sciences in engineering education. She has taken her Master’s degree in Economics at the University of Oulu in 1985 and her PhD in Entrepreneurship at the same university in 2012. Her main research interests are entrepreneurship education and action-based learning methods. Dr Pekka Belt obtained his PhD in industrial engineering and management from the University of Oulu, Finland. Dr Belt has extensive industrial experience from several electronics enterprises, covering company functions from technology development to international marketing. Dr Belt’s key research interests include entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, technology development, product development, and internationalisation of small high-tech companies.
References Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179–211.
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
15
Alvarez, S. A., and J. B. Barney. 2007. “Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (1–2): 11–26. doi: 10.1002/sej.4 Ardichvili, A., R. Cardozo, and S. Ray. 2003. “A Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification and Development.” Journal of Business Venturing 18 (1): 105–123. Arvaja, M., P. Häkkinen, H. Rasku-Puttonen, and A. Pelto. 2002. “Social Processes and Knowledge Building During Small Group Interaction in a School Science Project.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 46 (2): 161–179. Bandura, A. 1986. The Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Barrows, H. S., and R. Tamblyn. 1980. Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York, NY: Springer. Bennett, M. 2006. “Business Lecturers’ Perception of the Nature of Entrepreneurship.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 12 (3): 165–188. Block, J., and P. Koellinger. 2009. “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction – Necessity Entrepreneurship and Procedural Utility.” Kyklos 62 (4): 191–209. Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Fostering Entrepreneurial Mindsets through Education and Learning. European Commission. Accessed July 2. http://europa.eu/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0033:FIN:EN:PDF Crawley, E. F., J. Malmqvist, W. A. Lucas, and D. R. Brodeur. 2011. “The CDIO Syllabus v2.0 An Updated Statement of Goals for Engineering Education.” Accessed July 2. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/local_143186.pdf Crawley, E., J. Malmqvist, S. Östlund, and D. Brodeur. 2007. Rethinking Engineering Education, The CDIO Approach. New York, NY: Springer. Csíkszentmihályi, M. 1988. “The Flow Experience and its Significance for Human Psychology.” In Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, edited by M. Csíkszentmihályi and I. Selega, 15–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csíkszentmihályi, M. 2009. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Deignan, T. 2009. “Enquiry-based Learning: Perspectives on Practice.” Teaching in Higher Education 14 (1): 13–28. Dew, N. 2009. “Serendipity in Entrepreneurship.” Organization Studies 30: 735–753. doi:10.1177/0170840609104815 Dew, D., S. Read, S. D. Sarasvathy, and R. Wiltbank. 2008. “Effectual Versus Predictive Logics in Entrepreneurial Decisionmaking: Differences Between Expert and Novices.” Journal of Business Venturing 24: 287–309. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent. 2008.02.002 Dewey, J. “1974” 1974. “The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education.” In John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings, edited by R. Archambault, 315–338. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dillenbourg, P. 1999. “What Do You Mean by Collaborative Learning?.” In Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, edited by P. Dillenbourg, 1–19. Oxford: Elsevier. Edström, K., and A. Kolmos. 2014. “PBL and CDIO: Complementary Models for Engineering Education Development.” European Journal of Engineering Education 39 (5): 539–555. Engeström, Y. 2001. “Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization.” Journal of Education and Work 14 (1): 133–156. Fayolle, A., and B. Gailly. 2008. “From Craft to Science. Teaching Models and Learning Processes in Entrepreneurship Education.” Journal of European Industrial Training 32 (7): 569–593. Fretschner, M., and S. Weber. 2013. “Measuring and Understanding the Effects of Entrepreneurial Awareness Education.” Journal of Small Business Management 51 (3): 410–428. Garavan, T., and B. O’Cinneide. 1994. “Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A Review and Evaluation.” Journal of European Industrial Training 18 (8): 3–12. Gibb, A. A. 1993. “The Enterprise Culture and Education: Understanding Enterprise Education and its Links with Small Business, Entrepreneurship and Wider Educational Goals.” International Small Business Journal 11 (3): 11–34. Gibb, A. A. 1996. “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management: Can We Afford to Neglect Them in the Twenty-first Century Business School?.” British Journal of Management 7 (4): 309–321. Gibb, A. A. 2002. “In Pursuit of a New ‘Enterprise’ and ‘Entrepreneurship’ Paradigm for Learning: Creative Destruction, New Values, New Ways of Doing Things and New Combinations of Knowledge.” International Journal of Management Reviews 4 (3): 233–269. Gibb, A. A. 2005. “The Future of Entrepreneurship Education and Culture – Determining the Coherent Policy and Practice.” In The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-cultural University Context, edited by P. Kyrö and C. Carriér, 44– 66. Tampere: University of Tampere, Faculty of Education. Gibb, A., G. Haskins, and I. Robertson. 2013. “Leading the Entrepreneurial University: Meeting the Entrepreneurial Development Needs of Higher Education Institutions.” In Universities in Change, Managing Higher Education Institutions in the Age of Globalization, edited by A. Altmann and B. Ebersberger, 9–45. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media. Gordon, M. 2009. “Toward a Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism: Reflections on Lessons from Practice.” Educational Studies 45 (1): 39–58. Görling, S., and A. Rehn. 2008. “Accidental Ventures – A Materialist Reading of Opportunity and Entrepreneurial Potential.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 24 (2): 94–102.
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
16
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
Gorman, G., D. Hanlon, and W. King. 1997. “Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education, Enterprise Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten-year Literature Review.” International Small Business Journal 15 (3): 56–77. de Graaff, E., and A. Kolmos. 2003. “Characteristics of Problem-based Learning.” International Journal of Engineering Education 19 (5): 657–662. de Graaff, E., and W. Ravesteijn. 2001. “Training Complete Engineers: Global Enterprise and Engineering Education.” European Journal of Engineering Education 26 (4): 419–427. Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The Strength of the Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360–1380. Haynie, J. M., D. Shepherd, E. Mosakowski, and C. Earley. 2010. “A Situated Metacognitive Model of the Entrepreneurial Mindset.” Journal of Business Venturing 25 (2): 217–229. Heinonen, J., and S. Poikkijoki. 2006. “An Entrepreneurial-directed Approach to Entrepreneurship Education: Mission Impossible?.” Journal of Management Development 25 (1): 88–94. Helle, L., P. Tynjälä, and E. Olkinuora. 2006. “Project-based Learning in Post-secondary Education – Theory, Practice and Rubber Sling Shots.” Higher Education 51 (2): 287–314. Hennessey, B. 2003. “The Social Psychology of Creativity.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47 (3): 253–271. Henry, C., F. Hill, and C. Leitch. 2005. “Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Part I.” Education + Training 47 (2): 98–111. Hjorth, D. 2003. Rewriting Entrepreneurship – For a New Perspective on Organisational Creativity. Lund: Wallin and Dalholm Boktryckeri AB. Hjorth, D. 2004. “Creating Space for Play/Invention – Concepts of Space and Organizational Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 16 (5): 413–432. Hjorth, D., and B. Johannisson. 2007. “Learning as an Entrepreneurial Process.” In Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education. Vol. 1, edited by A. Fayolle, 46–66. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., R. G. Duncan, and C. A. Chinn. 2007. “Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).” Educational Psychologist 42 (2): 99–107. Hmieleski, K., and R. Baron. 2009. “Entrepreneurs’ Optimism and New Venture Performance: A Social Cognitive Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (3): 473–488. Honig, B. 2004. “Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency-based Business Planning.” Academy of Management Learning and Education 3 (3): 258–273. Hytti, U., and C. O’Gorman. 2004. “What is “Enterprise Education”? An Analysis of the Objectives and Methods of Enterprise Education Programmes in Four European Countries.” Education + Training 46 (1): 11–23. Hytti, U., P. Stenholm, J. Heinonen, and J. Seikkula-Leino. 2010. “Perceived Learning Outcomes in Entrepreneurship Education: The Impact of Student Motivation and Team Behavior.” Education + Training 52 (8/9): 587–606. Jack, S. L., and A. R. Anderson. 1999. “Entrepreneurship Education Within the Enterprise Culture: Producing Reflective Practitioners.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 5 (3): 110–125. Jamieson, I. 1984. “Education for Enterprise.” In Education for Enterprise, edited by A. G. Watts and P. Moran, 19–27. Cambridge, MA: CRAC, Ballinger. Johansen, V., and Schanke, T. 2013. “Entrepreneurship Education in Secondary Education and Training.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 57 (4): 357–368. Jones, C. 2002. “Sources of U.S. Economic Growth in a World of Idea.” The American Economic Review 92 (1): 220–239. Kahn, P., and K. O’Rourke. 2005. “Understanding Enquiry-based Learning.” In Handbook of Enquiry & Problem Based Learning, edited by T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn, and H. Fallon, 1–11. Galway: CELT. Kelchtermans, G. 2009. “Who I am in How I Teach is the Message: Self-understanding, Vulnerability and Reflection.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 15 (2): 257–272. Kincheloe, J. L. 1991. Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Kirby, D. A. 2004a. “Entrepreneurship Education: Can Business Schools Meet the Challenge?.” Education + Training 46 (8/ 9): 510–519. Kirby, D. A. 2004b. “Entrepreneurship Education and Incubators: Pre-incubators, Incubators and Science Parks as Enterprise Laboratories.” Paper presented at 14th annual international ENT conference, University of Napoli Federico II Naples, Italy, July 4–7. Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and J. E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 42 (2): 75–86. Kirzner, I. 1978. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Krueger, N. F. Jr., M. D. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud. 2000. “Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions.” Journal of Business Venturing 15 (5–6): 411–432. Kyrö, P. 2008. “A Theoretical Framework for Teaching and Learning Entrepreneurship.” International Journal of Business and Globalisation 2 (1): 39–55.
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION
17
MacLeod, I. 2009. “The Education of Innovative Engineers.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 17 (1): 21–34. Matlay, H., and C. Carey. 2007. “Entrepreneurship Education in the UK: A Longitudinal Perspective.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14 (82): 252–263. O’Connor, A., and J. M. Ramos. 2006. “Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Empowerment in Enterprise Programs.” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 11 (3): 207–232. Økland, J. M. 2012. “Determinants of Learning Outcome for Students at High School in Norway: A Constructivist Approach.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 56 (82): 119–138. Oosterbeek, H., M. van Praag, and A. Ijsselstein. 2010. “The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurship Skills and Motivation.” European Economic Review 54 (3): 442–454. Paloniemi, K., and P. Belt. 2015. “Mismatch in Teachers’ Ontological Conception of Entrepreneurship Education.” In Entrepreneurship Education and Training, edited by J. C. Sánchez. InTech. http://www.intechopen.com/books/ entrepreneurship-education-and-training/mismatch-in-teachers-ontological-conception-of-entrepreneurshipeducation Perrenet, J. C., P. A. J. Bouhuijs, and J. G. M. M. Smits. 2000. “The Suitability of Problem-based Learning for Engineering Education: Theory and Practice.” Teaching in Higher Education 5 (3): 345–358. Piaget, J. 1977. The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. Translated by A. Rosin. Oxford: Blackwell. Plowright, D., and M. Watkins. 2004. “There are No Problems to Be Solved, Only Inquiries to Be Made, in Social Work Education.” Innovation in Education and Teaching International 41 (2): 185–206. Prosser, M., E. Martin, K. Trigwell, P. Ramsden, and G. Lueckenhausen. 2005. “Academics’ Experiences of Understanding of Their Subject Matter and the Relationship of this to their Experiences of Teaching and Learning.” Instructional Science 33: 137–157. doi 10.1007/s11251-004-7687-x Quinlan, K. M. 2002. “Scholarly Dimensions of Academics’ Beliefs about Engineering Education.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 8 (1): 41–64. Rae, D. 2000. “Understanding Entrepreneurial Learning: A Question of How?.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 6 (3): 145–159. Rae, D. 2010. “Universities and Entrepreneurship Education: Responding to the Challenges of the New Era.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 17 (4): 591–606. Read, S., and S. D. Sarasvathy. 2005. “Knowing What to Do and Doing What You Know: Effectuation as a Form of Entrepreneurial Expertise.” The Journal of Private Equity 9 (81): 45–61. Romer, P. 1990. “Endogenous Technological Change.” The Journal of Political Economy 98: 71–102. Ruohotie, P., and M. Koiranen. 2000. “In the Pursuit of Conative Constructs into Entrepreneurship Education.” Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 3: 9–22. Ryan, R., and E. Deci. 2000. “Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-being.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78. Sánchez, J. C. 2013. “The Impact of an Entrepreneurship Education Program on Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intention.” Journal of Small Business Management 51 (3): 447–465. Sanz-Velasco, S. A. 2006. “Opportunity Development as a Learning Process for Entrepreneurs.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 12 (5): 251–271. Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001. “Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency.” The Academy of Management Review 26 (2): 243–263. Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Schumpeter, J. 1989. “Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History. Reprinted from Change and the Entrepreneur. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949.” In Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of Capitalism, edited by R. Clémence, 253–231. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Seikkula-Leino, J. 2008. “Implementing Entrepreneurship Education Through Curriculum Reform.” Paper presented at the international Council for Small Business world conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, June 22–25. Seikkula-Leino, J., E. Ruskovaara, M. Ikävalko, J. Mattila, and T. Rytkölä. 2010. “Promoting Entrepreneurship Education: The Role of the Teacher?.” Education + Training 52 (2): 117–127. Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.” The Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 217–226. Sirkin, H. L., P. Keenan, and A. Jackson. 2005. “The Hard Side of Change Management.” Harvard Business Review 83 (10): 108–118. Snow, R. E., I. Corno, and D. Jackson. 1996. “Individual Differences in Affective and Conative Functions.” In Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee, 243–310. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Souitaris, S., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham. 2007. “Do Entrepreneurship Programmes Raise Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning, Inspiration and Resources.” Journal of Business Venturing 22 (4): 566–591. Steyaert, C., and J. Katz. 2004. “Reclaiming the Space of Entrepreneurship in Society: Geographical, Discursive and Social Dimensions.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 16 (3): 179–196.
18
S. MÄKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT
Taatila, V. 2010. “Learning Entrepreneurship in Higher Education.” Education + Training 52 (1): 48–61. Thayer-Bacon, B. 1999. “The Thinker Versus a Quilting Bee: Contrasting Images.” Educational Foundations 13 (4): 47–65. Venkataraman, S. 1997. “The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research.” In Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. 3 Vols., edited by J. Katz, 119–138. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zimmerman, B. J. 2008. “Investigating Self-regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological Developments and Future Prospects.” American Educational Research Journal 45 (1): 166–183. Zuber-Skerrit, O. 2002. “The Concept of Action Learning.” The Learning Organization 9 (3): 114–124.
Appendix
Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015
Some action-based learning methods, their main features and practical examples. Method Problem-based learning
Project-based learning
Enquiry-based learning
Collaborative learning
Case studies
Main features
Examples and techniques
• Learning is based on students solving predefined (reallife) problems • Student-centred learning in groups of 8–12 • Teachers operate as facilitators during learning process • Systematic process that follows a fixed procedure (de Graaff and Kolmos 2003; Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits 2000) • Learning process is based on real-world tasks resulting in concrete output/end product • Students-centred learning in small teams of 5–7 • Teachers as advisors and creators of learning environments • Resembles real-life project work (Helle, Tynjälä, and Olkinuora 2006) • Student-directed and research-oriented
• Studying phenomenon of physics or chemistry
• Promotes active and deep learning • Emphasises students’ existing knowledge • Teachers as supporters/facilitators • Often includes peer teaching • Emphasises reflection and collaboration • Can utilise activities of other methods (PBL, study projects, cases) (Plowright and Watkins 2004; Kahn and O’Rourke 2005; Deignan 2009) • Students at various performance levels work together in small groups towards a common goal • Participants not only deliver existing knowledge but also create new knowledge through social interaction • Students are responsible for one another’s learning besides their own. • Working in small groups increases interest among the participants and also promotes critical thinking. • Teachers as organisers of the learning event (Dillenbourg 1999) • Students use descriptions of real-life cases during the learning process • A new problem is solved by adapting an old solution or merging pieces of several old solutions. • Teachers control the process (Henry, Hill, and Leitch 2005)
• Building an amplifier (Analogue Electronics), • Designing a vehicle (Mechanical Engineering), • Building Christmas-lights (Basics of Electrical Engineering) • Final thesis • Product development process • Field-work
• Principles of b-to-b marketing • Technique examples: Jigsaw, Round table, Think-Pair-Share, Three-Step Interview, Focused listing
• Strategic management