Enterprising Education in UK Higher Education: Challenges for Theory and Practice 9781138698765, 9781315518138

Citation preview

Enterprising Education in UK Higher Education

The UK may be ranked as one of the best countries in the world to start a business, but evidence from growing skills gaps, and the decline in graduates’ entrepreneurial aspirations suggest that higher education may not be contributing as it should to the enterprise environment. Enterprising Education in UK Higher Education brings together the challenges of embedding enterprise education in universities and colleges, identifies current debates around their roles and explores research, theory and practice to deliver roadmaps for innovative enterprise education. This book provides solid and clear guidance to practitioners and academics who are starting their journey into enterprising education, as well as those who are more experienced, but understand that the traditional approaches limit the options of future graduates. It collates the theory and practice of enterprise education in the UK higher education sector and business engagement with wider stakeholders. Drawing on theory and best practice, and illustrated with a wide range of the examples and cases, it will provide invaluable guidance to researchers, educators, practitioners and policy makers. Gary Mulholland is newly appointed to AFG College (with University of  Aberdeen) Qatar. Following 20 years of management experience from industry, he now has over 17 years’ experience in business and enterprise  education. He researches and publishes in enterprise education,  leadership and innovation, with recent articles in the Journal of Management Development. Jason Turner is Head of Department in Postgraduate Business at Taylor’s University, Malaysia. For over 16 years, he has published, edited and reviewed international journals and written for practitioner publications. His research area is predominantly enterprise education and preparing learners for employment through experiential learning and enterprise activities.

Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship Edited by Susan Marlow and Janine Swail University of Nottingham, UK

This series extends the meaning and scope of entrepreneurship by capturing new research and enquiry on economic, social, cultural and personal value creation. Entrepreneurship as value creation represents the endeavours of innovative people and organisations in creative environments that open up opportunities for developing new products, new services, new firms and new forms of policy making in different environments seeking sustainable economic growth and social development. In setting this objective the series includes books which cover a diverse range of conceptual, empirical and scholarly topics that both inform the field and push the boundaries of entrepreneurship. 13 Entrepreneurship in the Informal Sector An Institutional Perspective Colin C. Williams 14 Cultural Entrepreneurship The Cultural Worker’s Experience of Entrepreneurship Annette Naudin 15 International Enterprise Education Perspectives on Theory and Practice Edited by Jason J. Turner and Gary Mulholland 16 Enterprising Education in UK Higher Education Challenges for Theory and Practice Edited by Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner 17 Social Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics Understanding the Contribution and Normative Ambivalence of Purpose-­driven Venturing Anica Zeyen and Markus Beckmann For more information about this series please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Studies-in-Entrepreneurship/book-series/RSE

Enterprising Education in UK Higher Education Challenges for Theory and Practice

Edited by Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 selection and editorial matter, Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner to be identified as the authors of the editorial matter, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-­in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-69876-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-51813-8 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Contents



List of figures List of tables Notes on contributors

  1 Enterprise education in the twenty-­first century

vii viii ix 1

G ary  M ulholland and J ason  T urner

  2 Expanding entrepreneurship education and engagement with entrepreneurial ecosystems

17

D avid  A udretsch and M aksim  B elitski

  3 Are the dominant teaching theories in higher education adequate to underpin teaching practices in enterprise and entrepreneurship context?

27

C hinthaka  A luthgama - ­B aduge and G ary  M ulholland

  4 Coaching as an entrepreneurship learning and development tool

51

D uminda  R ajasinghe and H ala f .   M ansour

  5 Global Board Games Project: a cross-border entrepreneurship experiential learning initiative

70

NUNO ARROTEIA, ROSS CURRAN, ANDREU BLESA, M ar í a  R ipoll é s and M artina  M usteen

  6 A Business Simulation Game (BSG) and its ability to enhance learning: an evaluation of student perspectives JASON TURNER, GOH SEE KWONG, COLIN BEARD AND GARY MULHOLLAND

92

vi   Contents   7 Embedding high-impact enterprise and entrepreneurship education in higher education: getting to obvious

114

A nn  D avidson and D awn  S hand

  8 Sports entrepreneurship and the sporting chance initiative

137

R yan  C arenduff , G ary  M ulholland and J ason  T urner

  9 Placements and EE among engineering students

150

E dward  S impson , D aniel  G ilmour and GARY MULHOLLAND

10 Educating the enterprise: SME learning in collaboration

165

MILAN GYANWALI

11 ‘Before university’ provision: enterprise education through the school curriculum

180

CATHERINE BRENTNALL AND NIGEL CULKIN

12 Making enterprise education more relevant through mission creep

199

M artin L ack é us



Index

215

Figures

  1.1   1.2   3.1   3.2   3.3   3.4   3.5   5.1   7.1   7.2   7.3   7.4   8.1   8.2   8.3   9.1 10.1 12.1 12.2

Regional entrepreneurship activity – adapted from World Economic Forum data  Four domains of entrepreneurship education The relationship between conceptions of teaching, teaching approaches and learning outcomes Established links between teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, and students’ learning outcomes Aluthgama-­Baduge model of teaching in HE School education provided enabling skills and know-­how to start and run a business (UK) Destination of university graduates in the UK (six months after graduation) Global Board Game Project Process design The Human-­Centered Design Toolkit Characteristic features of the so-called high functioning classroom Innovator’s DNA Employer’s DNA The relationship between sports participation, followers and entrepreneurs Elements of Sporting Chance Initiative Timeline MSc Construction Management The collaborative approach of knowledge creation A precarious situation for enterprise education in the 1990s due to definitional dilution Reconnecting enterprise education to the overarching societal purposes of entrepreneurship and education

6 8 30 31 32 40 41 80 120 123 128 129 139 140 141 157 176 203 208

Tables

  1.1   3.1   4.1   5.1   5.2   5.3   5.4   6.1   6.2   6.3   6.4   8.1   9.1 11.1 11.2 11.3 12.1 12.2

Key pillars and principles of entrepreneurial ecosystems Experiential learning portfolio Andragogy and coaching Milestones of the Global Board Game Project Sources of feedback Modes of assessment Aim fulfilment and action points Statistics relating to the BSG and the role they play in student understanding Statistics relating to the role the BSG plays in developing subject knowledge Statistics relating to the hard skills engendered by the BSG Statistics relating to the BSG being more effective than traditional assessments The Sports Hive Benefits MSc project subjects 2016 and 2017 Enterprise Education in Policy since 2002 Practices to develop careers and enterprise through the curriculum Critical themes expressed by educators The definitional dilution syndrome of enterprise education A journey towards increasing relevance for entrepreneurial education through mission creep

7 38 61 78 81 82 88 99 101 103 105 144 158 183 190 193 202 209

Contributors

Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge, PhD, is working as a lecturer in Business, Enterprise and Entrepreneurship at Derby Business School, University of Derby, UK. His PhD and current key research interest area is enterprise and entrepreneurship education. Design thinking and entrepreneurship, particularly social entrepreneurship and innovation, are his other research interest areas. Nuno Arroteia is a lecturer in emerging markets in the School of Strategy and Leadership at Coventry University, UK. He has prior industry experience in managerial roles at multinational companies such as Arthur Andersen, Deloitte, UEFA and Carglass, and angel investing experience in the creative industries, life sciences and information technologies. His primary teaching and research interests are in the areas of international entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial finance. David Audretsch is a Distinguished Professor and the Ameritech Chair of Economic Development at Indiana University, USA, where he also serves as Director of the Institute for Development Strategies. His research has focused on the links between entrepreneurship, government policy, innovation, economic development and global competitiveness. Colin Beard is a Professor of Experiential Learning and a National Teaching Fellow. His current research interest lies in learning experience design. His roles have included External Advisor to the Open University Postgraduate Business School, Visiting Professor at two leading universities in Beijing, China and Derby University, UK. He has worked with many organisations on learning and development work, including global corporates, universities, UK government departments, the US government (the Foreign Service Institute) and the Singapore governments (Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Youth & Culture). He has delivered over 60 global keynotes, written 6 books, 18 book chapters and over 40 refereed articles. His fourth edition book on experiential learning was published in 2018. Maksim Belitski is an Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Henley Business School, University of Reading, UK. His

x   Contributors research interests lie in the areas of entrepreneurship, innovation and regional economics. He is an Editor of the journal Small Business Economics. Andreu Blesa, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the Department of Business Administration and Marketing at Universitat Jaume I, Spain. His research interests include networking, international marketing and the marketing/entrepreneurship interface. He has published articles in journals such as Journal of World Business, International Business Review, International Marketing Review, Annals of Tourism Research, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, European Journal of International Management and Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Catherine Brentnall is a PhD candidate at Sheffield Hallam University, UK, after winning a scholarship to pursue her own research programme into competitive enterprise education in schools. In her professional life she runs a social business, Ready Unlimited, which works with teachers (mostly from primary and secondary education) to develop enterprise and social innovation through the curriculum. She works with individual schools, partnerships of schools, teacher educator organisations including colleges and universities, regional and national governments at home and abroad and organisations including the EU and OECD. Ryan Carenduff is the former Programme Manager of Sports Chance Initiative and is now Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Turtle Pack, one of the successful business start-ups grown out of the Sports Hive, Scotland’s first sports business incubator. Nigel Culkin is a Professor of Enterprise and Entrepreneurial Development at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. He has published widely on small business leadership, entrepreneurial universities, graduate enterprise and digitalisation, as well as completing projects for UK and overseas government agencies, large multinational organisations and research councils. He was awarded the title of Enterprise Educator at the UK National Enterprise Educator Awards in 2012; elected to the post of President at the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) in 2014; and in 2015 joined the prestigious Peer Review College at the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Ross Curran is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Sciences at Heriot-Watt University in Dubai. His primary research interests focus on non-profit marketing and volunteer management practices, as well as on areas of authenticity and heritage in tourist consumption. His recent work is published in Tourism Management, Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Administrative Sciences and The Service Industries Journal.

Contributors   xi Ann Davidson is the Enterprise Programme Director, Scottish Institute for Enterprise (SIE), responsible for SIE’s training activities and delivering a coordinated programme of activities to support students interested in entrepreneurship. Before joining SIE in January 2011, Ann successfully developed training initiatives with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland and the WS Society, where she was Course Director for three years. Daniel Gilmour is a senior lecturer at Abertay University, UK. A Chartered Water and Environmental Manager, experienced researcher and senior lecturer, Daniel is also a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy with over ten years’ experience in lecturing. His research focuses on the enhancement of sustainability in the built environment with interests in the fields of sustainability assessment, decision support and public participation in decision-making, in particular sustainable service provision. Milan Gyanwali is a lecturer in the School of Business, Law and Communications at Solent University, UK. He teaches Human Resource Management, Business/Management Strategy, Organisational Change and Business Start-Up. Goh See Kwong is currently the Head of Department – Marketing & Management and Associate Professor at Taylor’s Business School, Taylor’s University, Malaysia. He introduces innovative pedagogy in his classes where some of his notable innovations include business simulation games, X-culture, industry immersion and the boardroom. His teaching philosophy is to facilitate learning in a fun and mind-stimulating manner by focusing on developing the skills set required by industry for business school graduates. Martin Lackéus is a researcher in entrepreneurial education at the division of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden. He is also a teacher at Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship. Martin’s research focuses on how individuals develop entrepreneurial competencies in education through value creation processes, and how such processes can be assessed. In 2016 Martin defended his PhD thesis on value creation as a new educational philosophy. Martin also works part-time as an entrepreneur with two IT companies he co-founded – Vehco and Me Analytics. Me Analytics develops the research tool LoopMe. Hala F. Mansour is an Associate Professor in Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour; Deputy Leader Doctor of the Business Administration (DBA) Programme at the Faculty of Business and Law, University of Northampton, UK. Dr Mansour’s research focuses on the ways in which organisations lead and manage change. Key

xii   Contributors themes include: change and organisational culture, organisational effectiveness, emotions and leadership, and managing public sector Gary Mulholland is newly appointed to AFG College (with the University of Aberdeen), Qatar. Following 20 years of management experience from industry, he now has over 17 years’ experience in business and enterprise education. He researches and publishes in enterprise education, leadership and innovation, with recent articles in the Journal of Management Development. Martina Musteen is the Charles Hostler Professor of Global Business in the Fowler College of Business at San Diego State University (SDSU), USA, Faculty Director of SDSU CIBER and a Senior Editor for Journal of World Business. Her primary teaching and research activities are in the area of international entrepreneurship. She has published a number of articles in journals including the Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice and Journal of World Business. Duminda Rajasinghe is Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour at the University of Northampton, UK. He is an experienced academic with industry experience in human resource management. Duminda’s research interests lie in coaching, entrepreneurship, adult learning and leadership. He is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy (FHEA). María Ripollés is an Associate Professor of Management in the Department of Business Administration and Marketing at Universitat Jaume I, Spain. Her research interests include networking, international new ventures and entrepreneurial education. She has published articles in journals such as Journal of World Business, International Business Review, International Marketing Review, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, European Journal of International Management and Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Dawn Shand is Senior Business and Innovation Advisor at the Scottish Institute for Enterprise (SIE). Dawn has over 25 years’ experience in business and ran her own marketing, PR and business development consultancy for 10 years. A Chartered Marketer, Dawn has also worked as an Account Director in a design and advertising agency and as a Marketing Manager for a large commercial law firm. Dawn also worked with the Centre for Design and Innovation at Robert Gordon University on a project to encourage more innovative thinking in businesses in Scotland. Edward Simpson, lecturer, Abertay University, UK, is a Chartered Construction Manager, Chartered Environmentalist and Chartered Building Engineer with over 20 years’ experience as a lecturer. Eddie leads the

Contributors   xiii MSc in Construction Management using an innovative learning by doing methodology, and is a Scottish Qualifications Authority External Verifier, Internal Verifier and SQA Qualification Development Specialist. Jason Turner is Head of Department in Postgraduate Business at Taylor’s University, Malaysia. For over 16 years, he has published, edited and reviewed international journals and written for practitioner publications. His research area is predominantly enterprise education and preparing learners for employment through experiential learning and enterprise activities.

1 Enterprise education in the twenty-­first century Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner

Introduction Rather than slowing down, the rate of innovation and growth in the twenty-­first century is accelerating. Some are now referring to a new age of growth – the fourth industrial revolution, or 4i (KPMG, 2017; Schwab, 2017). In this new environment it is the application of new ideas and creation of novel solutions which are converting technologically driven infrastructure platforms into practical and socially useful offerings. Examples such as Facebook, Google, eBay and Amazon illustrate how the enterprising application of technology platforms into business and customer-­ focused products and services, has led to transformations in society. These technology firms are leading examples of how an enterprising individual and idea can become a global success. As educators we must ask ourselves: How can we prepare more of our learners to be capable of delivering similar, more, or even better, innovations through enterprise? Are we delivering the right experience, and enabling enterprise, or not? The concept of enterprise and the education of enterprise – enterprise education – is complex. There are many interacting and contradictory elements, and not just a well-­structured education system that can generate entrepreneurs and enterprise activity. There are many paradoxes, for example, there is clear evidence that some of the most deprived nations, and least educated in the world are very high in entrepreneurial intention (ILO, 2013); highly developed countries’ entrepreneurial ecosystems are often less productive than much simpler and poorly funded systems (GEDI, 2017); and highly educated nations are not always the more enterprising (Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger, 2016). So how does education contribute to entrepreneurial intention and activity? How should educators be designing programmes of learning to reflect the unique nature of enterprise? Across the globe, there has been debate questioning the value of universities to society, their respective business communities, the growing graduate skills gaps, and the argument that universities and colleges could do more to assist entrepreneurship attributes among graduates (Birch et al.,

2   Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner 2017; Dearing, 1997; Leitch, 2006; Wilson, 2012). Conversely, in China, the Central Government has formulated a number of innovation strategies that have transformed the Chinese Higher Education system. Anderson and Zhang note: ‘The Knowledge Innovation Program, promoted by the prestigious Chinese Academy of Science in 1998 redirected resources to create a handful of world-­class institutes’. The consequence of this new political and economic approach is many world-­class Chinese universities, and also a significant rise in entrepreneurs in Chinese society. In the USA entrepreneurship is part of the national culture and educational institutions embed the skills, attitudes and aspirations of the entrepreneur into everything they do. Using case studies from universities across the globe, this edited book brings together leading authors with knowledge, and/or experience, of the challenges of embedding enterprise education in university and college programmes. This text identifies and presents the current debates around the future role of universities and colleges in providing ‘fit for workplace’ graduates and offer insight into the challenges and practices involved in delivering innovative enterprise education. Our own experience of higher education (HE) and the value of a more creative and applied approach is part of the rationale for this text. We know, and have benefitted from an excellent education, but recognise the limitations of traditional approaches, and ‘ready for employment’ options offered to today’s graduates. The language and focus of traditional education reflect more typically didactic knowledge transfer, with the teacher ‘downloading’ the body of knowledge, in their given specialism, and developing the cognitive skills leading to employment, rather than creative and application-­based skills which can lead to enterprise, self-­determination, and new ways of behaving. What are we doing wrong? How can higher education deliver a more complete learning experience for students? Who is doing something special and already having success in this area?

Entrepreneurship and enterprise education: what is it? In some nations of the world entrepreneurship is a recognised and highly respected career choice. Global entrepreneur indices (GEDI, 2017; GEM, 2016; GUESSS, 2016) consistently demonstrate nations that can deliver new and creative solutions and support and encourage enterprise development. The USA typically leads the world in this and it is maybe a coincidence that Babson, Harvard, Princeton, and others are recognised as leading the world ranking in Enterprise Education. So, what is entrepreneurship and enterprise education in the context of this text? Martin Lackéus (2015) suggests that it is common for authors to use two terms interchangeably when discussing this field: He notes: enterprise education is primarily used in United Kingdom, and has been defined as focusing more broadly on personal development,

Twenty-first-century enterprise education   3 mindset, skills and abilities, whereas the term entrepreneurship education has been defined to focus more on the specific context of setting up a venture and becoming self-­employed. (7) This differentiation implies that in the UK higher education continues to view its contribution in terms of knowledge and skills, and thereby maintain the status quo, of educated graduates ready for employment. Many in the UK would disagree! In fact, there is no real agreement of what each term means, and often there is regional variation. Erkkilä (2000) notes that in North America, a more common term is ‘entrepreneurship education’, but Erkkilä also suggests a holistic term – ‘entrepreneurial education’ – which combines ‘enterprise and entrepreneurship’ into a single construct. In the UK, higher education typically defines enterprise education as: ‘the process of equipping students (or graduates) with an enhanced capacity to generate ideas and the skills to make them happen’ as opposed to entrepreneurship education, which ‘equips students with the additional knowledge, attributes and capabilities required to apply these abilities in the context of setting up a new venture or business’ (QAA, 2012, 2). More recently (QAA, 2018), the focus has changed from enterprise development and new venture to reflect the nature of learning and implications for the learner: ‘Entrepreneurship Education and the development of entrepreneurial capacity is not simply linked to employment. It provides competencies to lead a rewarding, self-­determined professional life’. Consequently, the term Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education (EEE) is often applied. The World Bank’s significant research establishes some useful differences between Entrepreneurship Education (EE) programmes, which ‘tend to focus on building knowledge and skills about, or for the purpose of entrepreneurship’ and Entrepreneurship Training (ET) programmes, which ‘tend to focus on building knowledge and skills, explicitly in preparation for starting or operating an enterprise’. (Valerio, Parton and Robb, 2014, 2). Combining this in their study they suggest Entrepreneurship Education and Training (EET) can be defined as: ‘academic education or formal training interventions that share the broad objective of providing individuals with the entrepreneurial mindsets and skills to support participation and performance in a range of entrepreneurial activities’ (Valerio, Parton and Robb, 2014, 21). The evidence for enterprise education programmes has been growing for many years, but there is doubt whether the advancement is meeting demand. Key governments around the world are developing policy and infrastructure to enable integration of education and entrepreneurial development. The EU Commission (2006) has stated: Universities and technical institutes should integrate entrepreneurship as an important part of the curriculum, spread across different

4   Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner s­ ubjects, and require or encourage students to take entrepreneurship courses. Combining entrepreneurial mindsets and competence with excellence in scientific and technical studies should enable students and researchers to better commercialize their ideas and new technologies developed. How to educate entrepreneurs has long been debated at all levels of education, including higher education, without common agreement to date (Kirby, 2007; Powell, 2013; Neck, Greene and Brush, 2014). However, have the educators responded adequately in order to meet this need to develop more entrepreneurs? Interestingly, Neck, Greene and Brush (2014) conclude, entrepreneurship education has not changed substantially in at least two decades, with educators actually lagging behind stakeholder expectations. Traditional approaches to education have adapted less quickly than society and businesses demand, and while there is awareness that enterprise education is unique and relevant, there has been slow progress. Now, governments around the world are targeting policy and resources at young people specifically through their national education systems, and this has led to most education systems embedding enterprise education at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. It is now widely recognised that entrepreneurship and enterprise education have established their place within higher education around the globe (Hamidi, Wennberg and Berglund, 2008; Jones, Matlay and Maritz, 2012). A good example is the UK, where ‘currently enterprise and entrepreneurship education is present in all UK Higher Education Institutions’ (Rae et al., 2014, 390). Dreisler (2008) discusses entrepreneurship education in Denmark and argues that entrepreneurship has gained popularity in many ways; however, it is still an extracurricular activity rather than a regular educational activity at HE institutions. As educators we should be asking, how can enterprise education become mainstream and not just an ‘add on’ extracurricular activity? How can content, delivery, and assessment be better informed through an enterprise education teaching and learning mentality?

Education in the entrepreneurial ecosystem The nature of entrepreneurship and enterprise is complicated. Clearly there are a number of factors that determine the enterprising outputs or culture of any nation. Such things as education itself – function and objective; structure and content; and business orientation, among others, are important. Equally, the attitudes and enablers of many other stakeholders, including banks and investors, government policy and regulation; social and personal attitudes; and, individual ambitions too, can enhance or deter successful enterprise. This implies a dynamic interaction between many

Twenty-first-century enterprise education   5 e­ lements acting in a complex and interdependent form – what Moore (1993) originally termed the ‘entrepreneurial ecosystem’. So, what do effective entrepreneurial ecosystems look like? How does education contribute to enhancing the pipeline of entrepreneurs and enterprises? Researchers have noted a shift in government and social policy over recent years as industry focused growth has been augmented by entrepreneurial growth policy (Mason and Brown, 2014). This means more emphasis is being placed on creating new start-­ups and innovation-­led firms, than improving the efficiency or effectiveness of already well-­established ones. Growing existing SMEs in size has a more significant impact on GDP and employment, rather than the profits of a few large and global forms, as these have often invisible consequences. Initial financial support and incentive-­driven attempts to support start­up development have been less effective, and Mason and Brown (2014) have argued that an entrepreneurial ecosystem will require a sophisticated system of supporting drivers, enablers and enhancers, defining this ‘ecosystem’ as: a set of interconnected entrepreneurial actors (both potential and existing), entrepreneurial organisations (e.g. firms, venture capitalists, business angels, banks), institutions (universities, public sector agencies, financial bodies) and entrepreneurial processes (e.g. the business birth rate, numbers of high growth firms, levels of ‘blockbuster entrepreneurship’, number of serial entrepreneurs, degree of sellout mentality within firms and levels of entrepreneurial ambition) which formally and informally coalesce to connect, mediate and govern the performance within the local entrepreneurial environment. (5) Increasingly, it is recognised that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach and numerous interpretations of ecosystems have developed (GEDI, 2017; GEM, 2016; Mason and Brown, 2014). Auerswald (2015) comments that the very existence of a structured framework for entrepreneurship contradicts the essence of creativity and innovation itself, noting that entrepreneurs ‘see bridges where others see holes’, and that many entrepreneurs emerge out of failure and inefficiency, rather than planned discovery and strategy. Auerswald states:  An entrepreneurial ecosystem implies cooperative and productive relationships among different organizations. In many countries, these relationships are between startups, established companies, universities, and research institutions. In a vibrant ecosystem, people and ideas flow between these organizations, starting new ventures, joining existing ones, and linking innovations together. (2015, 10)

6   Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner Leading Entrepreneurial ecosystem frameworks all include education as an important contributor to enterprise activity: World Economic Forum (2013) identifies eight pillars or components of an effective entrepreneurial ecosystem; Global Entrepreneurship Monitor suggest nine elements; Global Entrepreneurship Development Index offer 14 components; and Babson indicate six. This is broadly summarised (Table 1.1). The World Economic Forum has applied the pillars of entrepreneurship to regions of the world and countries and created a chart of entrepreneurial activity (Figure 1.1). In all cases, either directly or indirectly, education in the form of talent creation, new knowledge creation, or systems in education that connect talented people to resources, indicate a central role for higher education in entrepreneurship. Education connects, and sometimes disconnects, people from creativity and risk taking; education can extend our knowledge and advance our imagination; education can provide the understanding of behaviours in ecosystems, and resultant policy decisions. These models could be simplified to four domains: people and talent; infrastructure and policy; finance and resources; and education and knowledge (see Figure 1.2). In this simplified model we suggest entrepreneurship can emerge from intersections and combinations of each element, for example, entrepreneurship might develop when talented people receive mentoring or funding to try something new; or they learn something new; or they react to a change in the law; or a combination of these things. It is the multi-­faceted interactions

90

Average score

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 US Silicon US Other Valley Cities

North America

Europe

Aus/NZ

Asia

MEA

Figure 1.1 Regional entrepreneurship activity – adapted from World Economic Forum data.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

Entrepreneurial finance Government policy Government entrepreneurship programs Entrepreneurship education R&D transfer Commercial and legal infrastructure Entry regulation Physical infrastructure Cultural and social norms

World Economic Forum

Accessible markets Funding and finance Regulatory framework Human capital/workforce University catalysts Training and education Support and mentoring Culture

Table 1.1 Key pillars and principles of entrepreneurial ecosystems

Opportunity perception Startup skills Risk acceptance Networking Cultural support Opportunity startup Technology absorption Human capital Competition Product innovation Process innovation High growth Internationalisation Risk capital

Global Entrepreneurship Development Index

Culture Policies and leadership Finance Human capital Venture-friendly markets Institutional and infrastructural supports

Babson

8   Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner

People and Talent

Finance and Resources

Education and Knowledge

Infrastructure and Policy

Figure 1.2 Four domains of entrepreneurship education. Source: adapted from World Economic Forum (2013).

between existing and new that create the innovations and distortions in marketplaces, knowledge bases, and personal perceptions that lead to entrepreneurial outcomes. Churchill once said: ‘Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened’. So how should educators be preparing learners differently? To be ready for the new opportunities, or just better at doing the same thing? Should higher education be focusing on employability or self-­ employment? How can teachers in HE create the awareness that enables some to see the bridges while others see the holes?

From business and management education to enterprise education The importance of education to both the individual and society has long been established, with a clear connection between industrial development and educational infrastructure, and educational opportunity and personal development. Yet in today’s global marketplace, the simple connection

Twenty-first-century enterprise education   9 between educational and economic development is becoming diffuse. University ranking and league tables note the transformation of formally developing economies into educational superpowers, and other more established nations losing their status. Schwab (2017) notes: We are at the beginning of a global transformation that is characterized by the convergence of digital, physical, and biological technologies in ways that are changing both the world around us and our very idea of what it means to be human. The changes are historic in terms of their size, speed, and scope. Education plays a central role in many aspects of our lives, impacting on individuals, businesses and nations. The success of global economies map closely to the educational attainment and sophistication of their corresponding education systems, yet there is a transformation occurring in this global education system, in which the developing and less educationally sophisticated nations of the world are challenging and replacing those incumbent traditionalist economies. Many now recognise the importance of entrepreneurship in economic development and research appears to indicate a growing gap between traditional education, ­existing business needs and new business growth (entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship). The World Bank identifies the importance of entrepreneurship, noting the ‘role that entrepreneurship can play as a catalyst to achieve economic and social development objectives, including growth, innovation, employment, and equity’ (Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger, 2016, 21). Before the 1950s, business education was seen as vocational training and irrelevant to students, employers and society, and in some nations there existed two or even three-­tier education systems in which universities focused on recruiting strong academic individuals, researching, creating and disseminating the science of business (management science), while second-­tier institutions such as polytechnics, technical colleges and technical institutions recruited more vocational and less academic students and delivered industry-­oriented programmes of learning. Following research commissioned by the Ford and Carnegie Foundations, there was a call for a more research-­based, scientific approach to business education (Blaylock et al., 2009), ‘based on the methodologies that became dominant in social sciences, particularly in economics, in the 1950s’ (Clark, 2014, 208). This approach (the ‘scientific’ perspective) used the hard sciences as the model it sought to emulate, especially with regard to the use of mathematical formalism and highly abstract models, all in an effort to discover patterns that exposed universal laws. (Clark, 2014, 208)

10   Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner The contribution of business educators to encourage entrepreneurship, particularly how entrepreneurship is taught in business schools, is critically questioned by many scholars, including Gibb (2002), Kirby (2007), Matlay (2005), Sardeshmukh and Smith-­Nelson (2011) and Thorpe and Rawlinson, (2013). At the same time, the researchers such as Botham and Mason (2007), European Commission Enterprise and Industry (2013) and Thorpe and Rawlinson (2013) have highlighted the role of business schools in the provision of entrepreneurship education. As Morris and Kuratko (2014), and Kretz and Sa (2015) point out, most of the entrepreneurship centres in universities are housed within business schools. In fact, entrepreneurship is seen as a business-­related subject matter and most of the entrepreneurship teaching and courses are designed, accredited and resident in the domain of business schools (Gibb, 2015; Matlay, 2008; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2011). But why? Many of the leading technology giants were started in natural and computer science disciplines, many new inventions are developed by engineers, and most new patents are technology and science based, not new business models! Research has started to recognise that non-­business disciplines are often more enterprising than business subjects (Birch et al., 2017), and it is widely appreciated that business schools are charged with producing professional managers, with functional expertise, ready to fill posts as employees in firms – accountants, marketers, HR specialists, etc. EU Commission (2008) research is very critical of the progress of enterprise education in higher education and questions also whether business schools are the best place to focus resources. Equally, the report questions the methods that are traditionally used, noting: ‘Using experience-­based teaching methods is crucial to developing entrepreneurial skills and abilities. Traditional educational methods (like lectures) do not correlate well with the development of entrepreneurial thinking’. Hence, in many ways, enterprise education fits more naturally in disciplines that involve experimentation, learning by doing and practical problem solving. This trend has been demonstrated through more recent research establishing that entrepreneurship education is regularly delivered in different education contexts and as part of diverse disciplines such as business, engineering, health sciences and design (Vanevenhoven and Drago, 2015). The purpose of business education is often cited as ‘prepare professionals who can successfully lead and manage tomorrow’s businesses’ (McHann, 2012, 120). As Bennis and O’Toole (2005) and Thomas and Peters (2012) point out, business education, particularly most business schools, claim dual purpose – knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination – or, in other words, producing knowledge while educating students (Thomas and Peters, 2012). Knowledge creation and dissemination actually are the two core activities of the university education in general (Calum, Roncevic and Ledic, 2013; Gulbrandsen and Slipersater, 2007). In the HE sector, knowledge

Twenty-first-century enterprise education   11 dissemination is primarily accomplished through the mechanism of transmitting knowledge, which is associated with didactic forms of teaching (Freeman, 2016), and these didactic education practices are still prevalent in higher education in general (Kember, 2009; Price, Kirkwood and Richardson, 2016; Ramsden, 2003). Teaching enterprise education requires knowledge exchange and experimentation, or experience-­based teaching, but didactic approaches inhibit effective knowledge transfer. The presence of didactic approaches to education in business schools is indicated by Collet (2011). Put simply, the traditional methods of teaching business subjects stifles innovation and creativity in the classroom. Based on these, it can be further argued that the business education still adopts dominant forms of teaching that are common in higher education, and consequently, can fit into the general higher education models such as Kember (2009) and Kember and Kwan (2000). In the provision of business and management education at higher education (HE) level, business schools today play a predominant role in many parts of the world, and are considered as one of the greatest educational success stories of the last century (Hay, 2008; Pfeffer and Fong, 2002). In more recent times, political and economic forces have increased the focus of universities on employment and employability, emphasizing the importance of a ‘ready for employment’ mentality. It is therefore challenging for the HE sector cash cow to change itself and adapt when both government and industry are demanding more compliance and more excellence in existing provision – an Icharus Paradox (Miller, 1992). While this approach can still deliver significant output in terms of research and learning, increasingly in some school/industry sectors this traditional model is opening a gap between what business needs and what HE is delivering. Employer organizations are reporting skills gaps in key areas of growth (CIPD, 2011; Hayes, 2016; Manpower Group, 2017; OECD, 2013; UKCES, 2012), Unquestionably the present-­day graduates are expected to apply the knowledge they gather to solve the complex issues in the world; which is why now experts such as Birch et al. (2017) and Manpower Group (2017) have started emphasising the importance of application of knowledge as a distinct purpose of universities, which is relevant to business schools perhaps more than any other school or department within universities. Birch et al. (2017) emphasises that the concept ‘knowledge application’ here denotes applying knowledge for entrepreneurial initiatives, teaching and learning which applies knowledge, and different ways to assess ‘graduateness’. Manpower Group (2017) suggest that in the future an imbalance between increasing technological solutions, faster moving marketplaces, and challenges to traditional skills will make matching skills to employer needs an impossible task. Graduates and workers will need to skill themselves ready for the changes that even the business or schools they attend struggle to anticipate and respond to. In the future, learners will have to learn for themselves, develop their own competencies,

12   Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner and in some cases start their own businesses rather than join an existing one;. This is the root of enterprise education – part self-­development, part a new form of education to encourage new routes into society and income generation.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems: linking education, innovation and enterprise In our experiences, in the UK HE system, trialling a range of teaching and learning strategies, we have seen extraordinary results from ‘mixing things up’, varying the content, the content provider and styles of assessment. If you’ve ever tried teaching an undergraduate about ‘sales and sales management’, you’ll understand how much meeting a salesperson, or hearing a typical day from a sales manager can transform the learning process and change perceptions! A critical essay about the role of sales is challenging, but asking a learner to develop a sales pitch for themselves, then produce a sales proposal for a real company is transformational. So, what are the best practices around the world? How might different methods make a real difference and how might these new methodologies of learning fit with others? Enterprise education is revolutionizing university education, and this raises a significant challenge for UK higher education institutions (HEIs). The theory of what we teach and how we teach is being questioned; the practice of teaching, learning and assessing students is transforming; and therefore the policy, benchmarks and standards we set are being redesigned. Effectively everything we know about traditional roles of HEIs and what they do is being tested to the limits.

References Anderson, A. R. and Zhang, X. (2015) ‘Enterprise Education with Chinese Characteristics: Policy, practices and uneven development in PRC’, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 276–292. Auerswald, P. (2015) ‘Enabling Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Insights from Ecology  to Inform Effective Entrepreneurship Policy’, Kauffman Foundation. Available from www.kauffman.org/-/media/…/research…/enabling_entrepreneurial_­ ecosystems.pdf. Bennis, W. G. and O’Toole, J. (2005) ‘How Business Schools Lost Their Way’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 96–104. Birch, C., Mulholland, G., Lichy, J. and Kachour, M. (2017) ‘An Enquiry into Potential Graduate Entrepreneurship: Is higher education turning off the pipeline of graduate entrepreneurs?’, Journal of Management Development, Vol.  36, No. 6, pp. 743–760. Blaylock, B. K., McDaniel, J. L., Falk, C.  F., Hollandsworth, R. and Kopf, J.  M. (2009) ‘A Borrowed Approach for a More Effective Business Education’, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 33, No. 05, pp. 577–595.

Twenty-first-century enterprise education   13 Calum, B., Roncevic, N. and Ledic, J. (2013) ‘Facing New Expectations – Integrating Third Mission Activities into the University’, In: B.  M. Kehm and U. Teichler (eds), The Academic Profession in Europe: New Tasks and New Challenges, London: Springer, pp. 163–196. CIPD (2012) Labour Market Outlook 2011–2012, The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/labour­market-outlook_2011-12-winter.pdf. Clark, C. M. A. (2014) ‘History Versus Equilibrium Revisited: Rethinking Neoclassical Economics as the Foundation of Business Education’, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 89, pp. 207–212. Collet, C. (2011) Entrepreneurship Education in Non-­business Schools: Best practice for Australian contexts of knowledge and innovation communities, Queensland University of Technology, [online], Available from: http://eprints.qut.edu. au/51466/1/51466P.pdf. Dearing, R. (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: The National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education. https://bei.leeds.ac.uk/Partners/NCIHE/. Dreisler, P. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action: The Entrepreneurial Process’, In: van der Sijde, P., Ridder, A., Blaauw, G. and Diensberg, C. (eds), Teaching Entrepreneurship: Cases for Education and Training, Heidelberg: Physica-­Velrag, pp. 5–13. Erkkilä, K. (2000) Entrepreneurial Education: Mapping the debates in the United States, the United Kingdom and Finland, Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. EU Commission Communication (2006) Commission Communication ‘Fostering Entrepreneurial Mindsets through Education and Learning’ COM 33 final. EU Commission Communication (2008) Best Procedure Project: ‘Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Especially in Non-­Business Studies’, Directorate-­General for Enterprise and Industry. Available: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/ entrepreneurship/support_measures/index.htm. European Commission, Enterprise and Industry (2013) Entrepreneurship Education: A Guide for Educators (Bruxelles, June), [online], Available: ec.europa. eu/…/native&usg=AFQjCNEAZENuwg06uXIDQR_CK8zmSko5Lw&sig2=…. Freeman, D. (2016) Educating Second Language Teachers, Oxford: Oxford University Press. GEDI (2017) Global Entrepreneurship & Development Index [online]. Available: https://thegedi.org/2017-global-­entrepreneurship-index/. GEM (2016) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2016/2017. Available: http://gemconsortium.org/report/49812. Gibb, 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, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 233–269. Gibb, A. (2015) ‘Creating Conducive Environments for Learning and Entrepreneurship: Living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity’, In: J. Mitra and J. Edmondson (eds), Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Exchange, New York: Routledge, pp. 173–196. Gulbrandsen, M. and Slipersater, S. (2007) ‘The Third Mission and the Entrepreneurial University Model’, In: A. Bonaccorsi and C. Daraio (eds), Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation: Specialisation and performance in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 112–143.

14   Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K. and Berglund, H. (2008) ‘Creativity in Entrepreneurship Education’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15, No. 02, pp. 304–320. Hay, M. (2008) ‘Business Schools: A new sense of purpose’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 371–378. Hays (2016) The Global Skills Landscape: A complex puzzle. Global Skills Index. Available: www.hays-­index.com/wp-­content/uploads/2016/09/Hays-­GSI-Report-­ 2016.pdf. ILO (2013) Global Employment Trends for Youth 2013 Report [online]. Available: www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-dgreports/-dcomm/documents/publication/ wcms_212423.pdf. Jones, C., Matlay, H. and Maritz, A. (2012) ‘Enterprise Education: For all or just some?’, Education + Training, Vol. 54, No. 8/9, pp. 813–824. Kember, D. (2009) ‘Promoting Student-­centred Forms of Learning across an Entire University’, Higher Education, Vol. 58, No. 01, pp. 1–13. Kember, D. and Kwan, K. (2000) ‘Lecturers’ Approaches to Teaching and their Relationship to Conceptions of Good Teaching’, Instructional Science, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 469–490. Kirby, D. (2007) ‘Changing the Entrepreneurship Education Paradigm’, In: A. Fayolle (ed.) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 1: A General Perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 21–45. KPMG (2015) ‘A Call to Action’, KPMG International. Available: https://assets. kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2016/12/disruptive-­technologies-barometer-­ media-report.pdf. Kretz, A. and Sa, C. M. (2015) ‘Students and Start-­ups: How new forms of entrepreneurial learning and practice redraw university boundaries’, In: E. Reale and E. Primeri (eds), The Transformation of University Institutional and Organisational Boundaries, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 83–106. Lackeus, M. (2015) Entrepreneurship: What, Why, When, How?, Entrepreneurship 360 background paper. Available: www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship­in-Education.pdf. Leitch, S. (2006) Leitch Review of Skills: Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills – Final Report. HM Treasury. December Available: http:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070701082906/www.hm-­treasury.gov. uk/media/6/4/leitch_finalreport051206.pdf. McHann, J. (2012) ‘Changed Learning Needs: Some radical reflections on B-­school education’, In: J. Marques, S. Dhiman and S. Holt (eds), Business Administration Education: Changes in Management and Leadership Strategies, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 105–128. Manpower Group (2017) Employment Outlook Survey (Global). Available: www. manpowergroup.com/wps/wcm/connect/4fd95eb3-567e-44b8-bd82-b3cffb4f429b/ Global_2Col_USLetter_Q317.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=4fd95eb3-567e44b8-bd82-b3cffb4f429b. Matlay, H. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship Education in UK Business Schools: Conceptual, contextual, and policy considerations’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 627–643. Matlay, H. (2008) ‘The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Outcomes’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol.  15, No. 02, pp. 382–396.

Twenty-first-century enterprise education   15 Mason, C. and Brown, R. (2014) Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship. OECD. Available: www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/entrepreneurial-­ ecosystems.pdf. Miller, D. (1992) ‘The Icarus Paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall’. Business Horizons Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 24–36. Moore, J. (1993) ‘Predators and Prey: A new ecology of competition’, Harvard Business Review. May. Morris, M. H. and Kuratko, D. (2014) ‘Building University 21st Century Entrepreneurship Programs that Empower and Transform’, In: S. Hoskinson and D.  F. Kuratko (eds), Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century, Bingley: Emerald Group, pp. 1–24. Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G. and Brush, C. G. (2014) ‘The Practice of Experimentation’, In: H. M. Neck, Greene, P. G. and Brush, C. G. (eds), Teaching Entrepreneurship: A practice-­based approach, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 70–83. OECD (2013) OECD Skills Outlook 2013 First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. Available at: http://skills.oecd.org/OECD_Skills_Outlook_2013.pdf. Penaluna, A. and Penaluna, K. (2011) ‘The Evidence So Far: Calling for creative industries engagement with entrepreneurship education policy and development’, In: C. Henry and A. de Bruin (eds), Entrepreneurship and the Creative Economy: Process, practice and policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 50–78. Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. T. (2002) ‘The End of Business Schools? Less success than meets the eye’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 78–95. Powell, B. C. (2013) ‘Dilemmas in Entrepreneurship Pedagogy’, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 16, pp. 99–112. Price, L., Kirkwood, A. and Richardson, J. T. E. (2016) ‘Mind the Gap: The chasm between research and practice in teaching and learning with technology’, In: J. M. Case and J. Huisman (eds), Researching in Higher Education: International perspectives on theory, policy and practice, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 227–246. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2012) Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK higher education providers, (September) [online] Available: www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/enterprise-­entrepreneurship-guidance. pdf. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2018) Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK higher education providers. www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/ about-­us/enterprise-­and-entrpreneurship-­education-2018.pdf. Rae, D., Martin, L., Antcliff, V. and Hannon, P. (2014) ‘Freedom or Prescription: The case for curriculum guidance in enterprise and entrepreneurship education’, Industry & Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 387–398. Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd edn, London: Routledge. Sardeshmukh, S. R. and Smith-­Nelson, R. M. (2011) ‘Educating for an Entrepreneurial Career: Developing opportunity-­recognition ability’, Australian Journal of Career Development, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 47–55. Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U. and Zellweger, T. (2016) Student Entrepreneurship 2016: Insights From 50 Countries, St. Gallen/Bern: KMU-­HSG/IMU. Schwab, K. (2017) The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Geneva: World Economic Forum. Thomas, H. and Peters, K. (2012) ‘A Sustainable Model for Business Schools’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 377–385.

16   Gary Mulholland and Jason Turner Thorpe, R. and Rawlinson, R. (2013) The Role of UK Business Schools in Driving Innovation and Growth in the Domestic Economy, The Association of Business Schools, [online], Available from: www.associationofbusinessschools.org/sites/ default/files/130516_absinnovation_web.pdf. UKCES (2012) The Youth Employment Challenge 2012. Available at: www.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/305736/the-­youthemployment-­challenge.pdf. Valerio, A., Parton, B. and Robb, A. (2014) Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the World. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/9781-4648-0202-7. Vanevenhoven, J. and Drago, W. A. (2015) ‘The Structure and Scope of Entrepreneurship Programs in Higher Education around the World’, In: D. Rae and C. L. Wang (eds), Entrepreneurial Learning: New perspectives in research, education and practice, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 117–133. Wilson, T. (2012) A Review of University-­Business Collaboration. Available: https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/32383/12-610-wilson-­review-business-­university-collaboration.pdf. World Economic Forum (2013) Entrepreneurial Ecosystems around the Globe and Company Growth Dynamics. Available: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_­ EntrepreneurialEcosystems_Report_2013.pdf.

2 Expanding entrepreneurship education and engagement with entrepreneurial ecosystems David Audretsch and Maksim Belitski

Introduction Over the last two decades the field of entrepreneurship has expanded from the study of entrepreneurs and the economics of entrepreneurship into a much broader subject, incorporating the promotion of entrepreneurial behavioural patterns for individuals, regions and institutions, leading to the development of an environment conducive to recognize opportunities, assimilate and adopt new knowledge and finally commercialize opportunities. There has been a strong focus in policy and academia on the creation of entrepreneurship ecosystems and the role of education in it (Fetters, Greene, Rice and Butler 2010). Entrepreneurship education facilitates academic spin-­offs and improves the institutional setting in the process of spin-­off creation (Caiazza, Audretsch, Volpe and Singer 2014). It also facilitates graduate employability and drives innovation and the direct commercialization of research knowledge (Wright et al. 2006). The emergence of the university as a key component in the entrepreneurial ecosystem reflects the central role played by start-­ups using knowledge provided by universities (Acosta et al., 2011; Audretsch, Lehmann and Warning, 2005) and other non-­commercial research institutions (Cappelli et al., 2014), which has been identified as an important source of knowledge spillovers and regional economic development (Audretsch et al., 2006; Caiazza et al., 2014). At the same time there has been a lack of systematic critique of the studies’ research methods found a variety of methodological weaknesses and the belief that entrepreneurship education can contribute to the ecosystem and produce entrepreneurship (Rideout and Gray 2013). In particular the ability of entrepreneurial education programmes to facilitate spin-­offs and contribute to entrepreneurial ecosystem with a new to market knowledge has been emphasized as a major challenge (Duval-­Couetil 2013). The commercialization of knowledge poses new challenges to entrepreneurship ecosystem stakeholders and leaders (Fernald, Solomon and El Tarabishy 2005) as well as scientists and faculty in universities demanding a stronger link between, teaching, research, co-­curriculum activities and

18   David Audretsch and Maksim Belitski commercialization of scientific knowledge and ideas. Stronger entrepreneurial universities will lead to stronger communities of entrepreneurs in regions, supporting the entrepreneurship ecosystems broadly (Audretsch and Belitski, 2016; Autio et al. 2015). The support mechanisms for knowledge commercialization are multi-­ level: macro level (the local and national policies towards entrepreneurship, the economic incentives), meso level (mechanisms of knowledge transfer, technology transfer (TT) offices at universities, spin-­offs, business incubators, etc.) and micro level (human interactions, teams) (Chatterjee and Sankaran 2015). The idea of universities contributing to the entrepreneurial ecosystem is emerging as a popular topic around the world, as entrepreneurship is perceived as a solution for poverty alleviation, economic growth and prosperity (Acs et al. 2013; Kelley, Bosman and Amoros 2011). Entrepreneurship ecosystem embraces diverse stakeholders and the interactions between them – universities, finance and SMEs community, service providers, scientists, local and national authorities, not-­for-profit and entrepreneurs that help to support economic development and innovation locally (Audretsch and Belitski 2016; Tether and Tajar 2008). This is directly associated with the idea that universities need to become more ‘entrepreneurial’ and therefore need to play a greater role in local entrepreneurial communities and create a conducive entrepreneurial environment for scientists, students and faculty to generate and take advantage of opportunities and knowledge. Despite the growing interest demonstrated in recent years in commercialization of entrepreneurial ideas in universities and the emergence of entrepreneurial education, there is no perfect agreement on the role that universities play in regional economic development and commercialization of knowledge. There is also no agreement on conditions that enable creation of instruments and mechanisms internally at the university to support entrepreneurial activity and knowledge diffusion (Algieri et al. 2013; Clarysse and Moray 2004; Pirnay et al. 2003). Much of the uncertainty while creating spin-­offs and start-­ups at universities is still related to a fear of failure, rigid internal regulation, property rights, and disagreement about the relationship between the university and the new venture, especially in reference to ‘sharing a pie’. The theoretical foundation of entrepreneurial education and the entrepreneurial ecosystem along with empirical evidence is both recent and scant (Fetters, Rice, Greene and Butler 2010). One common theme in the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems places the university at the hub of regional economic development around the world (Audretsch et al. 2012), providing infrastructure, resources and networks to develop entrepreneurial communities locally and nationally. The purpose of this chapter is to argue that entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial ecosystems may co-­evolve as the hub of regional economic development and that entrepreneurship fosters stronger and faster commercialization of knowledge. We

Expanding entrepreneurship education   19 also provide a roadmap of policy for both the private and public sectors to follow in order to expand entrepreneurial education in universities with a greater degree of knowledge and innovation-­based market entry.

Role models of knowledge commercialization and best practices in the UK Neck and Greene’s (2011) famous paper provides a detailed summary of role models related to entrepreneurial education with process and cognition and has become a part of entrepreneurship-­based education. They suggest that teaching entrepreneurship in a class as a method enables a high theory–high action approach to knowledge discovery and commercialization (Neck, Greene and Brush 2014). The approach is easier to implement when universities and spin-­offs are located in the middle of industrial clusters and in a close proximity to large universities focused on research and commercialization. Co-­location of universities and specialized industrial clusters with developed systems of transport and financial support such as Boom Towns or Industrial Metropolises may provide an extraordinary opportunity for the universities to build on existing industry knowledge and utilize the entrepreneurial ecosystem in a region as a testing platform for university spin-­offs (Audretsch, Volpe and Singer 2014). Greater engagement between university, spin-­offs and incumbent firms will enrich entrepreneurship education and promote identifying opportunities. Entrepreneurial universities’ aim at championing innovation and graduate employability with the business environment rich in knowledge does not always help. Taking advantage of the co-­location of thriving universities (e.g. Boston, London, Paris) and industrial clusters and then combining these strengths with building an ecosystem of entrepreneurship can become conducive to spin-­offs. Caiazza and Audretsch (2013) argue a lack of developmental support of the ecosystems is the main challenge while spin-­offs created outside of high-­tech clusters tend to remain small and do not become world leaders. In their study they introduce a general framework for classifying spin-­offs according to three main dimensions: internal, relational and external, and draw on the various theoretical perspectives to explicitly distinguish conditions conducive to spin-­off growth within a geographical space. It has been also mentioned that in a highly competitive environment it is not the location that matters but creation of entrepreneurial mindset when students, tutors and scientists may experiment with knowledge, enjoying greater support of TT offices and centres for entrepreneurship to further commercialize and test it. The performance can be enhanced by exploiting the reputation of famous business schools – such as Bocconi in Milan, MIT and Harvard in Boston, University of California, Berkeley, George Washington University in Washington, DC and the University of Indiana in Bloomington; Imperial,

20   David Audretsch and Maksim Belitski Strathclyde and Henley in the UK; Aalto University in Finland; ETH Zurich in Switzerland; IE in Madrid; INSEAD in Paris to name a few – by building on the significant foundation that has already been laid by those schools. Following their best practices, we propose to not just embrace entrepreneurship on the surface, but to create a highly attractive campus experience to all stakeholders of entrepreneurial ecosystems, including students, scientists and entrepreneurs. Expanding the footprint of entrepreneurial education across the university To make entrepreneurial education serve and create market opportunities, we propose that it be made mandatory that every single undergraduate program at the university have an entrepreneurship stream made available. This could be through increasing access to the existing university-­wide general modules in entrepreneurship or by creating more subject-­specific modules to be included as core within established programs (e.g. entrepreneurial management for chemical engineering, entrepreneurial management for creative artists, enterprise education for biosciences and others). This would not necessarily need to reallocate resources from across the university to business schools but may be introduced through theory-­practice mixed learning in the respective departments. We believe this may implicitly introduce students to entrepreneurship education and skills, enhance graduate employability across the university but avoid threatening students with non-­business backgrounds to study and practice entrepreneurship. It is important that the major stakeholders remain involved in the entrepreneurial education footprint activities: corporates, policy-­makers and government officials, investors, faculty, business communities and entrepreneurs and students. Action learning and scientists’ engagement in entrepreneurial modules We propose that the teaching experience of entrepreneurship begin to move from being overwhelmingly lecture based to increasingly practice based with a greater engagement of scientists, where students pursue projects jointly with scientists on campus or in incumbent forms or in spin-­ offs contributing to spin-­off legacy. Evidence of the advantage of active learning is in the ‘Entrepreneurship Theory and Action’ approach positioned at Babson College in Boston where students follow four major principles of learning: action trumps everything, start with your means, build partnerships, do not be the best, be the only. Since 1982 this method has helped thousands of entrepreneurial educators and scientists to look differently at the role of entrepreneurial education and engage in action rather

Expanding entrepreneurship education   21 than theorization of knowledge (Neck and Greene 2011; Neck, Greene and Brush 2014). The superiority of practice-­based pedagogies over lecture-­based ones has overwhelming evidence (Alto and Farny 2016). This would not only significantly improve the campus-­based experience of students but engage them with scientists to advance and promote scientific discoveries in the universities to better knowledge commercialization. This would, first, contribute to entrepreneurship ecosystems and make it easier to academic spin-­offs to enter the market while passing the validation test with the help of students, saving previous time for market validation experiment; second, entrepreneurship ecosystems will further improve graduate employability of students once they were involved in an applied commercialization of knowledge (Times Higher Education 2015a). Providing facilities for engagement with entrepreneurial community Opening the centres for entrepreneurship networks and courses to the local entrepreneurship community will facilitate the knowledge exchange and research translation initiatives from the university to incumbents and would improve research commercialization outcomes and improve matches between students, scientists and business. These are all non-­degree activities which enrich the student learning experience through engagement with scientists and entrepreneurial community. These include and are not limited to programs, entrepreneurship clubs, workshops, guest speakers, forums, business plan competitions, networking and other programs. These activities reflect the extent to which entrepreneurship is supported by university and school leaders (Fernald, Solomon and El Tarabishy 2005) and requires significant allocation of resources to incentivize faculty and staff to engage students and faculty in the entrepreneurial community. Investment in creating facilities for engagement with an entrepreneurial community is booming in the UK and United States universities with a recent example of an investment being made by the University of East Anglia, which invested £15 million into new entrepreneurial facilities including teaching rooms with adaptable furniture and writable walls that can flip between ‘lecture mode’ and ‘workshop mode’; a 300-seat lecture theatre; a careers office specifically for students who want to start their own businesses, as well as office space for entrepreneurs and a collaborative lab for university staff and local enterprises to brainstorm ideas (Times Higher Education 2015b). Kelley School of Business in Indiana invested in the entrepreneurial education and engagement efforts and supports the Venture Club’s ongoing series of luncheons, workshops and other events designed to bring entrepreneurs, investors and the professional community together; it also organizes the annual innovation showcase along with ­business partners offering insights on market opportunities to students.

22   David Audretsch and Maksim Belitski Entrepreneurship education at George Mason University invests in empowering entrepreneurs by integrating academic knowledge of students and scientists throughout local business communities, in particular the focus is on scholarly activities that make significant contributions within a set of priority fields of the ecosystem (e.g. entrepreneurship education, leadership, women’s entrepreneurship, venture development). Collaborating with research councils National research councils, such as Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Higher Education Funding council for England in the UK and National Bureau of Economic Research in the UK aim at conducting socio-­ economic research, engaging scholars and business communities and disseminating research findings among all entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders such as academics, public policy makers, business professionals, entrepreneurs, spin-­offs and spinouts. Collaboration with Research Councils does not only bring funding, ensure quality of entrepreneurial education and research but generate new ideas together with universities and business contributing to university ranking and legacy. Interestingly, one of the events promoted by ESRC is the annual Festival of Social Science which offers an insight into some of the leading social science research by universities and how it influences social, economic and political lives in regions and countries and how it develops and changes (ESRC 2016). Universities which present their research on entrepreneurship theory and practice discover how it shapes entrepreneurship and public policy and contributes to making the entrepreneurial ecosystem more competitive, as well as giving people a better understanding of twenty-­first-century entrepreneurial society and ambition. The events like this both in the UK and the US bring an opportunity for business owners, scientists and university spin-­offs to share big ideas with the most detailed observations, and how social science affects business everyday within communities and universities. The engagement should take place via extensive public debates between all stakeholders, conferences, workshops, interactive seminars, film screenings, virtual exhibitions and more. The events organized by universities in collaboration with councils include a strategic blend of education, consulting and research and featured action-­based learning to better understand challenges and responses to entrepreneurial opportunities. Council events are often built on national and international projects sponsored by the EU Commission in Europe and the Department of State in the US, engaging academics and business communities across the world. In addition, the contribution to the social sciences and entrepreneurial ecosystem is enhanced through understanding and discussing the role stakeholders in the process of opportunity commercialization by university scientists and entrepreneurs, conceptualizing pillars of entrepreneurial growth across organizations of different size, age, location and property.

Expanding entrepreneurship education   23 Financing entrepreneurship start-­ups and academic spin-­offs Financing for entrepreneurship activity could be raised from various sources including internal university entrepreneurship and product commercialization resources, from sponsorships from key university stakeholders, such as angel investors and VCs and from donations from university alumni. Universities usually hold free spaces and facilities available to rent to businesses with the twofold success: first, because the incubator and other buildings generate a rental income from business; second, they create a platform for engagement with business and universities. Many universities have gone the route of incubators but few managed to utilize them for product validation experiments and networking spaces to raise funding, including external sources. We also propose that universities’ strategy and finance committees need to invite both informal and formal proposals from students, scientists and faculty as well as other stakeholders in regards to entrepreneurship education support and alumni team development. University alumni should be welcomed and encouraged to actively give back to the university, including inviting a university to seek alumni interest and support them in their businesses.

Conclusion This research started by looking at different frameworks for the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Isenberg 2010; Mason and Brown 2012) and identified the university as a hub of knowledge creation and commercialization by entrepreneurs, students and scientists. The university centres for entrepreneurship and excellence support interactions among all stakeholders. This study reveals the importance of entrepreneurial education which facilitates academic spin-­offs, graduate employability and the commercialization of knowledge for major stakeholders of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Fini et al. 2009). We provided important evidence and voiced best practices of entrepreneurial education development in the leading business schools and research institutions in Europe and the United States, aiming to synthesize the tools and mechanisms available to stakeholders within the entrepreneurial ecosystem to further develop and facilitate entrepreneurial thinking and action. We highlighted the important dimensions of entrepreneurship education, such as stakeholders engaged in entrepreneurship, and region, resources available, formal and informal infrastructure, such as networks, co-­curriculum activity and financing entrepreneurship, and most importantly culture of entrepreneurial education in schools, which takes a long time to nurture. In particular, we emphasize the importance of including all stakeholders in the discussion of all dimensions of the entrepreneurship education which col-­evolves with the entrepreneurial ecosystem, and in particular business

24   David Audretsch and Maksim Belitski communities, which can be large and small, but are crucial for the dynamics and exchange of knowledge and collaboration with a university. Entrepreneurship education may have several additional dimensions that support entrepreneurial development at a university to apply it in teaching, research and knowledge commercialization through spin-­offs and new ventures. These are mindset, ideas, knowledge and relationships that are being changed, to name a few. The major resources to support the entrepreneurial ecosystem through development of entrepreneurship education include capital (e.g. social and networks, financial, human), facilities, infrastructure, mentors, culture, time, and technology. First, the challenge within the process of changing the entrepreneurial ecosystem and the way business schools see their contribution may take a long time; new courses and new ways to fund them and overcome the ‘red tape’, will require risk and uncertainty. Second, all business schools have different visions in regard to the role they play in a local and national entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial education. A starting point is how educators and scientists personally influence how entrepreneurship education is embedded in schools. Then factors that affect universities’ ability to generate spin-­offs and graduate start-­ups while commercializing the knowledge need to be identified. Third, it must be decided how the entrepreneurial ecosystem will support start-­ups and spin-­off activity within the business school and across the university, and a roadmap developed for action and allocating resources, usually a mix of internal and private funding for entrepreneurial activities. Wherever we start, entrepreneurship education has to be viewed in a context of a specific school, university and entrepreneurial ecosystem regionally and nationally. This is to identify and meet opportunities, create shared leadership of the entrepreneurial ecosystem enabling scientists and entrepreneurs to create the economic and social value and the impact.

References Acosta, M., Coronado, D. and Flores, E. (2011). ‘University spillovers and new business location in high-­technology sectors: Spanish evidence’. Small Business Economics, 36(3), 365–376. Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. and Lehmann, E.E. (2013). ‘The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship’. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 757–774. Algieri, B., Aquino, A. and Succurro, M. (2013). ‘Technology transfer offices and academic spin-­off creation: the case of Italy’. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400. Alto, P. and Farny, S. (2016). ‘Entrepreneurial Aalto: Where science and art meet technology and business’, in The Entrepreneurial University: Context and Institutional Change. Ed. Lene Foss and David V. Gibson: Routledge, 150–166. Audretsch, D.B., Lehmann, E.E. and Warning, S. (2005). ‘University spillovers and new firm location’. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.

Expanding entrepreneurship education   25 Audretsch, D.B., Keilbach, M.C. and Lehmann, E.E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Audretsch, D.B., Hülsbeck, M. and Lehmann, E.E. (2012). ‘Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity’. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 587–601. Audretsch, D.B. and Belitski, M. (2013). ‘The missing pillar: The creativity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship’. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 819–836. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D. and Wright, M. (2014). ‘Entrepreneurial innovation ecosystems and context’. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108. BIS (2014). Funding per Student in Higher Education. Available at: www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318628/BIS_performance_indicators_Funding_per_student_in_HE.pdf. BIS (2015). Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice, November 2015. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/474227/BIS-­15-623-fulfilling-­ourpotential-­teaching-excellence-­social-mobility-­and-student-­choice.pdf. Caiazza, R. and Audretsch, D. (2013). ‘A general framework for classifying spin-­ offs’. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 15–30. Caiazza, R., Audretsch, D., Volpe, T. and Debra Singer, J. (2014). ‘Policy and institutions facilitating entrepreneurial spin-­offs: USA, Asia and Europe’. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 3(2), 186–196. Cappelli, R., Czarnitzki, D. and Kraft, K. (2014). ‘Sources of spillovers for imitation and innovation’. Research Policy, 43(1), 115–120. Chatterjee, D. and Sankaran, B. (2015). ‘Commercializing academic research in emerging economies: Do organizational identities matter?’ Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 599–613. Clarysse, B. and Moray, N. (2004). ‘A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-­based spin-­off ’. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55–79. Duval-­Couetil, N. (2013). ‘Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programs: Challenges and approaches’. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 394–409. ESRC (2016). Economic and Social Research Council. Festival of Social Science. Available at: www.esrc.ac.uk/public-­engagement/festival-­of-social-­science/about-­ the-festival. Accessed 08 July 2016. Fernald, L., Solomon, G. and El Tarabishy, A. (2005). ‘A new paradigm: Entrepreneurial leadership’. Southern Business Review, 30(2), 1–10. Fetters, M., Greene, P., Rice, M. and Butler, J. (2010). The Development of University-­Based Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: Global Practices. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Financial Times (2016). ‘University of Oxford receives backing for £300m science venture’. Available at: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b93fe688-f971-11e4-ae65-00144 feab7de.html#axzz46SivBuVZ. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni S. and Sobrero, M. (2011). ‘Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-­offs’. Research Policy, 40(8), 1113–1127. Isenberg. D.J. (2010). ‘How to start an entrepreneurial revolution’. Harvard Business Review, 88, 41–49.

26   David Audretsch and Maksim Belitski Kenney, M. and Patton, D. (2009). ‘Reconsidering the Bayh-­Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model’. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422. Kenney, M. and Patton, D. (2011). ‘Does inventor ownership encourage university research-­derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison’. Research Policy, 40(8), 1100–1112. Kelley, D., Bosman, N. and Amoros, J. (2011). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2010 Global Report. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Mason, C. and Brown, R. (2014). ‘Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship’. OECD LEED Programme and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. Available at: www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Entrepreneurial-­ecosystems.pdf. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M.G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A. Wright, M., Clarysse, B. and Moray, N. (2006). ‘Conceptualizing the heterogeneity of research-­based spin-­offs: A multi-­dimensional taxonomy’. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308. Neck, H.M. and Greene, P.G. (2011). ‘Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers’. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G. and Brush, C.G. (2014). Teaching Entrepreneurship: A Practice-­Based Approach. Edward Elgar Publishing. Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B. and Nlemvo, F. (2003). ‘Toward a typology of university spin-­offs’. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369. Rideout, E.C. and Gray, D.O. (2013). ‘Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-­based entrepreneurship education’. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351. Tether, B.S. and Tajar, A. (2008). ‘Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-­base’. Research Policy 37(6–7), 1079–1095. Times Higher Education (2015a). ‘Let students build tech products, UK sector told’. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/news/let-­students-build-­techproducts-­uk-sector-­told. Times Higher Education (2015b). ‘UEA launches green space for entrepreneurial students and businesses to collide’. Available at: www.timeshighereducation. com/news/uea-­launches-green-­space-entrepreneurial-­students-and-­businessescollide. Times Higher Education (2016). ‘The world’s top universities for attracting industry funding’. Available at: www.timeshighereducation.com/world-­universityrankings/funding-­for-innovation-­ranking-2016. Universities UK (2010). Changes in Student Choices and Graduate Employment. Report. Available at: www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-­and-analysis/reports/ Pages/changes-­in-student-­choices-and-­graduate-employment.aspx. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A. and Binks, M. (2006). ‘Venture capital and university spin-­outs’. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

3 Are the dominant teaching theories in higher education adequate to underpin teaching practices in enterprise and entrepreneurship context? Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland

It can be comprehended that the models and theories which are currently used to reinforce teaching depict the education practices of transmitting knowledge from teacher to students, which is the more traditional, linear, input-­output construction of teaching that has dominated adult education for decades. As numerous studies (e.g. QAA, 2018) emphasise, both the needs of learner and learning in Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education (EEE) contexts are different from other disciplines and mainstream Higher Education (HE). This requires further development of teaching methods and practices that can encourage the aspirations of the learner in this particular education setting. When investigating the theories and approaches that are used to examine teaching in HE, the relevance and adequacy of them to review teaching practices in this twenty-­first century and EEE context is a question. Thus, the need of new theoretical models and frameworks can be clearly observed. For example, to investigate teachers’ role in EEE settings, there is a need for adopting more context-­specific, individual-­focused research methods. When the recent outcomes associated with the UK higher education are taken into account, the question arises: are universities actually turning off potential entrepreneurs? Whether these outcomes are due to teaching, learning environment or other activities within universities, is still largely a question, hence requires further research to find answers.

Introduction There is a rapidly increasing emphasis on the necessity and influence of entrepreneurship (Kuratko and Morris, 2018). This has led to a vigorous, continuing debate among enterprise and entrepreneurship education (EEE) scholars such as Birch et al. (2017); Gibb (2008); Kirby (2007); Liguori et al. (2018); and Turner and Mulholland (2017) about how to develop and educate entrepreneurs. The history of entrepreneurship education in higher

28   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland education institutions (HEIs) goes back more than seven decades, with some of the first entrepreneurship courses being offered in the 1940s (Katz, 2003), however, do the educators today know how to teach entrepreneurship? Is there an agreed approach to teaching entrepreneurship? If the educators know it, why are only 1.0 per cent of students starting up a business six months after their graduation in UK (see Figure 3.5), when actually every university in the UK has allocated substantial resources to nurture entrepreneurs? Can the needs of entrepreneurship education be underpinned by general teaching/learning theories in higher education? As Hurney (2012) and Hattie (2003) posit, teaching can actually have a significant impact on students’ development and positively affect their achievements in general; conversely, can teaching have such positive influence on an individual’s entrepreneurial development? The study of Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017) finds out that there is still a dearth of knowledge in the area of influence of teaching in the development of one’s entrepreneurial skills and attributes. Additionally, a knowledge gap can be noticed in theories and models that underpin the EEE teaching practices at HE level, particularly teaching styles, methods and the teachers’ role during the education process (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017). This study critically examines the current dominant HE teaching theories and approaches and their implications to comprehend and underpin the teaching practices in EEE context. The study investigates HE theories and practices primarily via the perspective of teaching. The review begins with an analysis of dominant, general HE theories, particularly styles, methods and conceptions of teaching. It will also discuss the types of learning environment and other activities that support learning. The study will then move on to examine the teaching theories and practices within EEE context (HE level) in relation to the above theoretical constructs, i.e. styles, methods and conceptions of teaching, and learning environment and other activities that support learning. UK’s HE environment will be utilised to critically evaluate the current teaching practices within EEE context.

Teaching in higher education – a synthesis and analysis of dominant concepts and practices The analysis here will concentrate on three key concepts within HE pedagogy literature: styles, methods and conceptions of teaching. Teaching is a central activity of the most educators in higher education (Li, 2015; Marriss, 2011; Teichler, 2009), and one of their major sources of personal satisfaction (O’Brien, 2009), which can have a significant impact on students’ development and positively affect their achievements in general (Hattie, 2003; Hurney, 2012).

Teaching theories in practice   29 Styles of teaching Gray (1988, 7) writes, ‘teaching style can be defined as a relatively consistent pattern of behaviour or preferred approach, which colours one’s stance towards subject, students, colleagues, methods, media, etc.’. Heimlich and Norland (2002, 23) define teaching style as ‘the study of matching teaching beliefs and values – the philosophy of the individual – with the behaviours used in the teaching-­learning exchange’. According to Conti (1985; 2004), teaching style is the distinct qualities exhibited by a teacher, which are consistent from one situation to another even though the content being taught may vary. Jarvis (1995) and Banning (2005) identify three key teaching styles employed by instructors in higher education, which are: didactic, facilitative and Socratic. In universities, the content-­oriented didactic style, or in other words lecturing, still remains the predominant form of teaching (Jarvis, 2006b; Kember, 2009). Facilitative style is a more informal approach to teaching which is learning-­oriented or focuses on learning skills rather than delivering the subject matter (Brain, 2002). ‘Facilitation means easing: helping learners realise their capacity to learn is the hallmark of the facilitator, moving education from a delivery of static knowledge to a dialogical relationship where knowledge is co-­created’ (Gregory, 2002, 80). The foundation for Socratic teaching style (or Dialectic or Maieutic) is questioning (Banning, 2005; Tokuhama-­Espinosa, 2014), and it is often used in law schools around the world (Sorvatzioti, 2012, 61). Methods of teaching Weston and Cranton (1986, 260) define teaching method ‘as the vehicle or technique for instructor-­student communication’. Grasha (2002) finds that the teaching methods employed are a key element of teaching style, which can help enhance understanding of approach to teaching of a lecturer. Some of the popular methods of teaching in the HE context include content delivery, case-­based teaching, problem-­based teaching and project-­ based teaching (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017), and of these, content delivery is still considered to be the most used (Griffin, 2006). Conceptions of teaching Conceptions of teaching can be identified as one of the signature concepts in higher education teaching and learning literature (Kandlbinder, 2013). With respect to teaching, conceptions of teaching may be envisioned as ‘being the lens through which the process of teaching and learning is viewed and shaped’ (Apedoe, Holschuh and Reeves, 2009, p. 157). Devlin (2006) defines conceptions of university teaching as ‘specific meanings attached to university teaching and learning phenomena, which are claimed

30   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland to then mediate a teacher’s view of, and responses to, their teaching context’ (p.  112). Teachers at all levels have their own conceptions of teaching which they gradually develop with their classroom experience as students and later as teachers (Ramsden, 1992). Teaching in the university context is traditionally dominated by the conception of conveying information and knowledge from the teacher to the learner (Blenker et al., 2006; Heimlich and Norland, 2002). In other words, teaching has conventionally been associated with the notion that there is a truth proposition (knowledge) or an established theory that can be disseminated via the agency of the teacher (Jarvis, 2006b). Not only the conceptions but also the dominant teaching practices in universities continue to portray this transmittive, didactic, teacher-­centred traditional lecturing approach or its remnants (Goedhart, 2015; Jarvis, 2006a; Kember, 2009; Ramsden, 2003), where the students passively accept the information given by the instructor (Jarvis, 1995; McComas, 2013). When considering the key theories that underpin teaching practices in HE, Kember (1997) and Kember and Kwan (2000) developed the following model (see Figure 3.1), which Kember reproduced later in 2009 with some changes. The model suggests that the conceptions of teaching have influence on approaches to teaching which then have impact on students’ approaches to learning, and subsequently learning outcomes. Trigwell, Prosser and Waterhouse (1999, 60) also developed a similar model (Figure 3.2) to the model of Kember (1997, 2009) and Kember and Kwan (2000), depicting the relationship between teaching and learning; however, it does not show a clear link between approach to teaching and approach to learning.

Institutional Influence Conceptions of Teaching Teaching Approaches Curriculum Design

Student Learning Approaches

Learning Outcomes

Figure 3.1 The relationship between conceptions of teaching, teaching approaches and learning outcomes. Source: authors simplified model. Adapted from: Kember (1997, p. 269, Fig. 3); Kember and Kwan (2000, p. 471, Fig. 1).

Teaching theories in practice   31

Student perception of learning environment

Teacher conceptions of teaching and learning Teacher approach to learning

??????????????

Student approach to learning Student conceptions of teaching and learning

Teacher perception of teaching environment Student learning outcomes

Figure 3.2 Established links between teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, and students’ learning outcomes. Sources: authors simplified interpretation; Trigwell, Prosser and Waterhouse (1999, p. 60, Fig. 2).

Towards a new model to underpin and generate deeper understanding of teaching practices in HE The models proposed by Kember (1997, 2009), Kember and Kwan (2000) and Trigwell, Prosser and Waterhouse (1999) provide insights into understanding the dominant input (teaching)-output (learning outcomes) conception of higher education. These models depict the education practices of transmitting knowledge from teacher to students, which is traditional, linear, input-­output construction of teaching that has dominated adult education for decades. Does this still apply today, and in particular in relation to EEE is there a difference? On the one hand, the less reference made to style of teaching can be noticed within general HE teaching and learning literature, which has been acknowledged by a number of researchers such as Trigwell and Prosser (2004); Jarvis (2006b), Shaari et al. (2014) and Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017). Does this not mean there are even fewer studies that have made reference to styles of teaching within EEE? On the other hand, there is a tendency to examine teaching style as if it is synonymous with method, or technique of teaching (Heimlich and Norland, 2002; Jarvis, 2006b). The difference between teaching style and method as Jarvis (2006b, 29) claims, is that ‘methods focus on the techniques that teachers employ; they are ways of doing it – process, technique’. To explain further, ‘teaching methods are

32   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland about the technical processes of teaching whilst teaching styles are more about the teachers and the way that they conduct themselves during the teaching session’ (Jarvis, 2006b, 30). As Salama (2015) argues, it is the adopted style and method of teaching that create the learning environment that can be either active or passive, which also has a significant influence on students’ learning approaches (Cambaliza, Mazzolini and Alarcon, 2004), and subsequently learning outcomes (Noroozi and Haghi, 2013). In an active learning environment, the student’s role goes beyond simply listening and watching: they are encouraged to argue, question, do discussions and brainstorming, and engage in active experimentation and reflective observation (Huang and Hang, 2011). In contrast, the focus in the passive learning environment is on learning facts and information with no or minimal discussions, questioning and collaboration with peers, which results in students not being able to think outside the regurgitation of book information (Magnan, 2013). Arasti, Falavarjani and Imanipour (2012) posit that, the instructors who use a facilitative, student-­centred teaching approach tend to utilise various other activities such as workshops, project works, industry visits, competitions or guest speakers which help making the learning environment more active. Based on the above critical review of key theoretical constructs, Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017) developed a model to generate a deeper understanding of teaching in HE (see Figure 3.3). When considering the theories that are used to investigate teaching in HE, are they adequate to teaching approaches and practices in this twenty-­ first century? One good example is the use of Lippitt and White’s (1958)

Conceptions of teaching

Teaching Style

Student activities that support learning

Teaching methods

Student approach to learning

Learning environment

Figure 3.3 Aluthgama-Badage model of teaching in HE. Source: Aluthgama-Baduge (2017).

Student learning outcomes

Teaching theories in practice   33 leadership styles theory to examine teaching, which classifies styles of teaching to three categories: authoritarian, democratic and laissez-­faire. This 1950s framework has been continually utilised to investigate teaching styles by numerous researchers including Jarvis (2006b, 2012) and Frunza (2014). Given the fact that every teacher has a unique style (Aluthgama-­ Baduge, 2017; Dean, 2005), can three or four styles of teaching be generalised to all the lecturers in HE?

Enterprise and entrepreneurship education in HE EEE has established its place within HE around the globe (Jones, Matlay and Maritz, 2012), and is now delivered in various education contexts and as part of diverse disciplines such as business, engineering, health sciences and design (Vanevenhoven and Drago, 2015). Nevertheless, how to educate entrepreneurs is still vigorously debated at all levels of education without common consensus to date (Kirby, 2007; Neck, Greene and Brush, 2014). On the contrary, worldwide, there is a rapidly increasing emphasis on the necessity and influence of entrepreneurship (Thompson, Mawson and Martin, 2017). Meantime, the rapid growth of EEE has actually outpaced the understanding of what to teach, how to teach it, and how entrepreneurial learning is best evaluated (Morris and Liguori, 2016). When considering how to teach entrepreneurship in particular, there may be suitable education contexts to adopt such a teacher-­centred approach, however, is it adequate to develop one’s entrepreneurial skills and attributes? What teaching methods and approaches are actually used in EEE context in HEIs? EEE is different from other disciplines (Beugre, 2017). The QAA (2012, 2018) guidance for EEE in HE is a good example that emphasises this uniqueness. The guidance highlights the need for more active education environment and approaches. A number of experts (Alalwany and Saad, 2015; Arasti, Falavarjani and Imanipour, 2012) argue that facilitative, student-­centred, action-­based teaching styles and approaches are appropriate. Kirby (2004, 2007) requires HEIs to not only teach about enterprise and entrepreneurship, but also to educate for entrepreneurship.

Teaching entrepreneurship in HE context – a synthesis and analysis of dominant concepts and practices When examining the teaching practices and theories in EEE context, numerous research studies with individual cases of diverse courses, curriculums and teaching practices can be noticed. The collections of studies of Crittenden et al. (2015), Jones, Maas and Pittaway (2017), Neck, Greene and Brush (2014); Turner and Mulholland (2018) and Volkmann and Audretsch (2017) are good examples.

34   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland

Styles of teaching Interestingly, fewer references made to styles of teaching within EEE literature is clearly evident, apart from the attempts of a small number of researchers such as Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017), Bechard and Gregoire (2005, 2007) and Kozlinska (2016). Due to the multifaceted roles (e.g. coach, consultant, storyteller) a lecturer may play in EEE context (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017; Tavangar, 2016), the styles of teaching in EEE are significantly different from one teacher to another (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017). Thus, to generate a deeper understanding of teaching styles and approaches in EEE, there is a need of adopting context specific, individual focused research methods (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017). Kozlinska’s (2016) work applies and highlights the study carried out by Bechard and Gregoire (2005, 2007) on teaching in EEE. Bechard and Gregoire (2005, 2007) examine three teaching archetypes or models in higher education based on existing literature, and go on to propose the concept of teaching models in entrepreneurship at the higher education level. However, the ‘framework has been unfairly neglected in the empirical entrepreneurship education literature despite being comprehensive and simple to use’ (Kozlinska, 2016, 290). The important point about teaching models here is that ‘teaching model[s] form a bridge between educators’ knowledge, conceptions and beliefs about teaching, and their teaching behaviour per se’ (Bechard and Gregoire, 2007, 264): it ‘is centred on the link that unites the conceptions that scholars and educators have about teaching, and their actual teaching behaviour’ (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005, 105). A teaching model is ‘an instructional design which describes the process of specifying and producing particular environmental situations which cause the students to interact in such a way that a specific change occurs in their behaviour’ (Mohan, 2007, 79; Singh, Sharma and Upadhya, 2008, 219). Joyce and Weil (1985) define model of teaching as ‘a plan or pattern that can be used to shape curriculum (long-­term courses of studies), to design instructional materials, and to guide instruction in the classroom and other settings’. Bechard and Gregoire (2005) first examine three teaching models in higher education, which are: the supply model, the demand model and the competence model. The supply model of teaching focuses on imparting knowledge and information from the educator to the learner, which makes the learner a passive receiver of that information (Bechard and Gregoire, 2007). This teaching model corresponds to Ramsden’s (2003) ‘teaching as telling or transmission’. When the supply teaching model is investigated within entrepreneurship education context, it is entirely teaching-­centred and related to education about entrepreneurship; the focus is on transmission of information and knowledge, particularly theoretical study of entrepreneurship rather than entrepreneurial training (Kozlinska, 2016); thus, it

Teaching theories in practice   35 can be less interesting, and also less effective for students to develop their entrepreneurial thinking and behaviour (Fiet, 2000). The demand model of teaching ‘focuses on answering the learning goals, motives and needs of the students’ (Bechard and Gregoire, 2007, 264), and it stands on the principles of constructivist learning paradigm (Kozlinska, 2016). Ramsden’s (2003) ‘teaching as organising student activity’ corresponds to this model of teaching. The demand teaching model in entrepreneurship is related to education through entrepreneurship as it focuses on developing entrepreneurial personalities; the approach to teaching is both content and process-­driven: educators let and make students experience the elements of entrepreneurial process both inside and outside the classroom. Teaching is conceived in terms of developing and supporting the environment that enables the appropriation of knowledge, while the curricular focus rests with entrepreneurial personality development, facilitation of self-­discovery and self-­appropriation in students (Kozlinska, 2016, 68–69). The competence model ‘focuses neither on the supply nor on the demand of education, but on the interaction between the two’ (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005, 111) or, in other words, an interactive process between the learner and teacher (Kember, 1997). The aim of teaching here is to develop students’ competences that include the knowledge of how to solve complex problems using relevant knowledge (Bechard and Gregoire, 2007). Bechard and Gregoire (2005) posit that this model corresponds to Ramsden’s (2003) concept – ‘teaching as making learning possible’. Teaching is more about coaching and acting as developers, and the students are seen as ‘individuals who actively construct their knowledge through their interaction with their educator(s) and peers’ (Bechard and Gregoire, 2007, 265). The competence teaching model in entrepreneurship is linked to educating for entrepreneurship as the focus there is on coaching and training entrepreneurs (Kozlinska, 2016). In the competence model of teaching in entrepreneurship, one of the characteristics of the students is their active participation in the co-­construction of their knowledge (Bird, 2002). Bechard and Gregoire (2005) apply the three teaching models – supply, demand and competence – in the context of entrepreneurship education, and go on to propose two more teaching models by combining the elements of the three teaching models. One hybrid model combines elements from the supply and demand models (supply-­demand model); the other combines elements from demand and competence models (demand-­ competence model) (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005). The first hybrid model – supply-­demand model – contains the characteristic from both supply and demand models, but is closer to the demand model than to the supply model since this conception of education begins from the needs of the students (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005). However, the educator is still the one who defines the essence of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial experience (Benson, 1992). In other words, it is one of the key tasks of the educator to impart the essence of entrepreneurship to

36   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland the learners, although his or her ‘primary role is to be a facilitator, a coach and a cheerleader in helping students to go through a process of self-­ discovery and self-­appropriation with regard to entrepreneurship as a field of study and a career path’ (Benson, 1992, 137). According to Kozlinska (2016), traditional entrepreneurship education falls under supply and supply-­demand models. The second hybrid model – the demand-­competence model – comprises the characteristics of both demand and competence teaching models (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005). ‘More open, simple, supportive, equal and interactive relationships are a sign of demand-­competence models’ (Kozlinska, 2016, 169–170). Adopting a highly experiential teaching, this model of education creates space for more entrepreneurial activity, and these educators develop friendly and supportive relationships with students (Kozlinska, 2016). Here the ‘content is primarily defined by students’ needs vis-­a-vis entrepreneurship, and by problems to be solved by competent actors in real-­life situations’ (Bechard and Gregoire, 2007, 269). Teaching goals include: ‘helping students develop basic learning skills; fostering student development and personal growth; helping students develop higher order thinking skills and preparing students for jobs/careers’ (Bechard and Gregoire, 2007, 269–270).

Methods of teaching As Cieslik (2011) and Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017) argue, there is no single recipe for teaching used in EEE context. ‘It is difficult to point out methods that are universally effective; instead, mixed methods and tools for teaching entrepreneurship have proven to be most effective’ (Cieslik, 2011, 108). However, there are some popular, dominantly used methods (e.g. case-­based teaching, content delivery, project-­based and problem-­based teaching/learning) can be noted (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017). Gibb (1994, quoted in Gibb, 2007, 73) asserts that the use of traditional case-­based teaching can actually turn into an anti-­entrepreneurial approach to teaching ‘if its emphasis is upon rationale analytical analysis rather than intuitive decision-­making and creative experiment’. Traditional case method means here the ‘in-­class discussions of cases of five to twenty pages in length, which students prepare in advance and where the instructor’s role is that of the sole moderator of the case’ (Maiksteniene, 2013, 61). As Venesaar (2008) and Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017) find out, there are cases when teachers tend to use content delivery methods to raise awareness of entrepreneurship and the theoretical constructs underpin the phenomenon. Nonetheless, when considering entrepreneurship which requires incorporating both practical experience and personal practice, adopting content delivery methods are a mismatch in EEE context (Zunfeng and Chunling, 2011). Project based education where the learning is not linear matches the non-­linear process of entrepreneurship, thus, projects are used as a

Teaching theories in practice   37 dominant teaching method in EEE context (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017; Kennedy, 2016). Despite these commonalities, ‘projects can certainly be pursued in a way that is not at all entrepreneurial’ (Gibb, 2002, 239). Therefore, using projects in a way that supports and sparks entrepreneurial attributes (e.g. creativity, problem solving and critical thinking) is important. The skill of problem solving is essential in the entrepreneurship journey since entrepreneurs usually tend to evaluate a problem by looking at it from every possible angle (Kuratko, 2009). San Tan and Ng (2006) find that learning through solving ‘real-­world’ problems, particularly the ones that simulate entrepreneurial circumstances, are effective in enhancing ‘students’ ability to think and respond strategically towards new venture creation; students’ appreciation and capacity for entrepreneurship’ (416).

Conceptions of teaching For a deeper investigation of teaching in EEE, developing a deeper understanding of teachers’ beliefs and conceptions of teaching is significant (Brown, 2003; Kember, 2009). When examining the conceptions of lecturers in EEE, Aluthgama-­Baduge’s (2017) study finds that EE educators hold conceptions about students (e.g. students who just want to pass) and conceptions of entrepreneurship process (e.g. learn via making mistakes), which have significant impact on conceptions of teaching (e.g. whether entrepreneurship can be taught or not). However, the dearth of knowledge of conceptions of teaching in EEE context can be noted within HE teaching and learning literature, thus, there is a need of further research to understand both conceptions and if the conceptions of effective teaching are translated into practice (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017).

Learning environment Both the teacher’s role and teaching/learning environment are of great importance in EEE context (Jones and Iredale, 2010). The attempt of entrepreneurship educators to make the learning environment active (Engel et al., 2016), and stimulating to make sure all can contribute, develop and enjoy the learning experience, can clearly be noticed in EEE setting (Bouchard, 2007). The study of Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017) finds out that the lecturers in EE are in fact active, key contributors in designing and developing the learning environment needed for entrepreneurship in the education establishments they are part of. EEE is still a growing and relatively new discipline (Solomon and Matthews, 2014), thus, the lecturers in EE are in a distinctive position to be able to design the learning environment and curriculum in a way that suits the journey of entrepreneurs (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017; O’Connor, 2015), however, are these educators capitalising on this unmatchable opportunity is still a question.

38   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland

Other activities that support learning Alexander and Hjortso (2013) assert that business plan writing activities are actually one of the key instruments utilised by entrepreneurship educators. The main reason for this is that business plan writing and competitions are considered as a convenient method to assess student progress and performance (Collet and O’Cinneide, 2010). Business plans are undoubtedly important (Blundel and Lockett, 2011); nonetheless, the researchers, practitioner and policy makers (Gibb, 2008; Weber and Funke, 2014) critique the education approach of ‘only writing business plans’ by stating that it is insufficient, as it is possible for an individual to go through an entrepreneurship/new venture creation program and end up with a business plan without ever experiencing the ‘feel’ of what it is like to be an entrepreneur. Schindehutte and Morris (2016) suggest an experiential learning portfolio that can be used to enrich student experience in EEE context. Table 3.1 Experiential learning portfolio Course-based

Co-curricular

Idea diaries Business models

Idea jams Internships at local ventures and incubators Entrepreneurial mentors for students Entrepreneurship study abroad programs Elevator pitch competitions Pitching to a banker Campus business plan competitions Students competing in regional or national competitions Student venture hatcheries Campus-based business run by students Prototype development/fab labs Website development Start-up weekends Shadowing entrepreneurs Student venture fairs Speaker series Community outreach initiatives (e.g. bootcamps, women’s symposia) Technology commercialization projects Students mentoring high school or disadvantaged students

Business plans Feasibility studies Written or video case studies Mini-and full case studies Live cases Interviews of entrepreneurs YouTube videos of entrepreneurs Hollywood movies Entrepreneurial audits Marketing inventions Small business consulting projects In-class games or exercises Simulations Adopting a family firm Role plays Negotiations Guest lectures by entrepreneurs Lean start-up methodologies Experiential exams

Source: Schindehutte and Morris (2016, p. 167, Table 8.1).

Teaching theories in practice   39 Out of these suggested activities, Aluthgama-­Baduge’s (2017) study finds five activities that are frequently used and more popular among current EE lecturers in the UK, which are: business plan writing, bring in guest lecturers, elevator pitch competitions, interviewing an entrepreneur and business clinics. However, research (Collet, 2011; Gibb, 2008; Pittaway and Edwards, 2012) indicates that the current EEE environment is heavily influenced by the more traditional, passive, mainstream HE teaching styles, methods and conceptions, which are learning about entrepreneurship delivery rather than more active, experiential, learning for approach. Andrijevskaja and Mets (2008) point out that, even in a country such as the UK, which is known for its business-­supportive environment, is critiqued for its entrepreneurship teaching practices. Studies of Birch et al. (2017), Kirby (2004, 2007) and Matlay (2008) are good examples that have questioned the EE teaching practices in UK HEIs. As Andrijevskaja and Mets (2008) point out in their critique, numerous entrepreneurship programs in the UK are delivered with no clear structure and objectives, and focus on promoting the innovative curriculums rather than the quality of the education experience. Isn’t this still a valid argument when considering the following outcomes of UK HEIs?

Entrepreneurship education practices in UK and graduate entrepreneurship In the UK, the recommendation from higher education stakeholders such as educators and researchers (Kirby, 2004; Matlay, 2005; Wilson, 2012), and policy makers (Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2015; Lord Young, 2014; QAA, 2018) for higher education institutions to concentrate more on nurturing entrepreneurs is distinctly evident. Studies of Birch et al. (2017); Hanage, Scott and Davies, (2016); Matlay (2008); Nabi, Walmsley and Holden (2015) have emphasised the need of graduate entrepreneurs in the UK. In fact, enterprise and entrepreneurship education is present in almost all the UK HEIs (Rae et al., 2014), with a considerable amount of dedicated resources to stimulate entrepreneurial activities among students, scholars, policy makers and professionals. The constantly updating policy initiatives such as QAA (2018; 2012) policy documents (i.e. EEE guidance for UK HEIs), entrepreneurship centres (Jones and Maas, 2017), entrepreneurs in residence (Lloyd-­Reason, 2016), are some good example for such dedicated resources. However, has this ambition been embraced by the existing, dominant teaching practices within higher education institutions? Despite these evidences of reorientation of UK universities towards preparing students for enterprise initiatives, the figures actually are still unconvincing, even though the recent reports (e.g. Higher Education Business and Community Interaction survey published by the Higher Education

40   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland Funding Council for England/HEFCE, 2016), indicate substantial gains of existing university spin-­offs, in terms of employment and turnover growth. Studies such as Blackburn and Iskandarova (2014) reveal that the entrepreneurial intentions of UK graduates are actually declining. ‘In England the percentage of students who would like to pursue an entrepreneurial career (potential founders and successors) right after finishing their studies dropped significantly – from 19.7% in 2011 to 8.8% in 2013/2014’ (Blackburn and Iskandarova, 2014, 29). Also, the percentage of students who would like to pursue an entrepreneurial career five years after their studies, has declined from 49 per cent in 2011 to 37.9 per cent in 2013/2014 (Blackburn and Iskandarova, 2014) in England. Saridakis, Iskandarova and Blackburn’s (2016, 11) report finds that, in the UK only 7.17 per cent intend to pursue an entrepreneurial career (6.52 per cent founders and 0.65 per cent successors) straight after their studies and, 33.36 per cent (28.98 per cent founders and 4.38 per cent successors) after five years. In fact, 81.73 per cent of the students in the UK prefer to work as employees immediately after their studies (Saridakis, Iskandarova and Blackburn, 2016). More interestingly, a study carried out in 2012 by the OECD (2013, 83) found that about 35 per cent of the people in the UK consider that the school education provided them with the required ‘sense of initiative and a sort of entrepreneurial attitude’, and that nearly 30 per cent considered that they were provided with enabling skills and know-­how to start and run a business (see Figure 3.4). Nonetheless, after entering and going

School education start-up skills provision?

30% Start-up skills provided (by schools) No start-up skills provided (by schools) 70%

Figure 3.4 School education provided enabling skills and know-how to start and run a business (UK).

Teaching theories in practice   41

Entrepreneurs Students with enterprise intention/skills UNIVERSITY EDUCATION DEGREE PROGRAMME

Only 1.0% graduates start-up own business within first 6 months of graduation (HESA 2016)

Students with academic intention/skills Employment (for others)

Figure 3.5 Destination of university graduates in the UK (six months after graduation). Source: adapted from: Jayananda and Mulholland (2014).

through the university education process, only 1.0 per cent of the students started up a business six months after graduation (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2016). This in a way implies that there is a higher proportion of individuals with appropriate attitude, skills and know-­how to start-­up a business entering the university, than the only 1 per cent of them that start up an own business after six months of graduation (see Figure 3.5). In other words, does this not indicate that there are individuals with entrepreneurial intentions and skills to start up a business, yet they become less likely to choose entrepreneurship as a career option after going through the university process? Only 3,890 students left university to start up their own businesses in 2015/2016 in the UK (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2017). Equally, the universities that top the start-­up leagues are not those with the highest profile or university ranking. On the one hand, this portrays the complex relationship between the aspirations of young people entering tertiary education, the experiences they receive while in that education and the resultant intentions of graduates upon graduation. On the other hand, these results revealed by the various studies lead to a critique of the UK higher education system including the business educators therein. For example, questions come about such as why only a small percentage of graduates consider entrepreneurship as a viable career option; whether it has to do with the way students are taught in the universities and business schools?

Conclusion and recommendations The analysis suggests that dominant higher education theories – the input-­ output, didactic teaching/education approaches depicted in the more

42   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland widely recognised and cited academic theories and models – are not sufficient to underpin and develop a deeper understanding of teaching practices in EEE, and twenty-­first-century HE teaching practices in general. Therefore, the need of new frameworks and theories can be clearly observed. When the teacher’s role in EEE context is investigated, there is a need of adopting context-­specific, individual-­focused research methods to comprehend teaching in EEE (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017). Much research on individual cases of diverse courses, curriculums and teaching practices can be found within EEE literature. Bechard and Gregoire’s (2005, 2007) work is a notable start for research to focus on styles of teaching in EEE; however, as Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017) concludes, there is a dearth of knowledge in HE literature about styles of teaching in this specific context of education. Entrepreneurship education is different from teaching in other disciplines in HE (Beugre, 2017). The QAA (2012, 2018) guidance for EEE providers in HE is a good example that indicates this uniqueness within the sector. Nonetheless, the research (Collet, 2011; Gibb, 2008; Pittaway and Edwards, 2012) portrays that the existing EEE environment is heavily influenced by the more traditional, passive, mainstream HE teaching styles, methods and conceptions, which are learning about entrepreneurship delivery rather than more active, experiential, learning for approach despite the continuing critiques against these education methods. Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017) finds out that the lecturers in EE are in fact active, key contributors in designing and developing the learning environment needed for entrepreneurship in the education establishments they are part of. EEE is a growing and relatively new discipline (Solomon and Matthews, 2014), thus, the EE educators are in a distinctive position to be able to design the learning environment and curriculum in a way that suits the journey of entrepreneurs (Aluthgama-­Baduge, 2017; O’Connor, 2015). Areas for further research include: How can educators tailor teaching and learning to individual ‘entrepreneurial’ journeys? What are the institutional limitations of Enterprise Education – is the classroom the right setting? When considering the other activities that support learning, Schindehutte and Morris (2016) suggest an experiential learning portfolio to be used in the EEE context; however, Aluthgama-­Baduge (2017) concludes that the educators tend to use certain activities (e.g. business plan and elevator pitch competitions) frequently and predominantly. Making use of these experiential learning portfolios can enrich student experience in EEE setting. Is HE turning off potential graduate entrepreneurs (Birch et al., 2017), an argument that is becoming increasingly persuasive, particularly when the recent outcomes associated with the UK higher education are taken into account. Aluthgama-­Baduge’s (2017) study indicates that there is something happening within UK HEIs contributing to lessen the entrepreneurial intentions and behaviours of students. Whether this ‘something’ is teaching, learning environment or other activities within the universities,

Teaching theories in practice   43 is an area for further research. When the recent outcomes of UK HEIs are carefully considered, Kirby’s (2004, p.  517) recommendation for UK EE educators and practitioners to bring about ‘significant changes in not only what is taught but how it is taught’, contains a valid argument that needs to be revisited. As Birch et al. (2017) argue, the university students have been educated to be employees for far too long, not entrepreneurs. Additionally, the pedagogical practices have not been corresponding with the aspiration of the students who wish to develop entrepreneurial skills (Birch et al., 2017), which hints the need of significant changes to current EEE practices and theories that underpin teaching within the discipline.

References Alalwany, H. and Saad, F. (2015), Entrepreneurial education programmes and their impact on entrepreneurs’ attributes, In: R.  P. Dameri and L. Beltrametti (eds), Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Reading: Academic Publishing Limited, pp. 15–24. Alexander, I. K. and Hjortso, C. N. (2013), ‘Cultural considerations when designing entrepreneurial pedagogies’, Proceedings of Education and Learning Issues in Entrepreneurship Workshop, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 4–5 July 2013, pp. 17–36. Aluthgama-­Baduge, C. J. (2017), Educating for Enterprise: Exploring the Role of the Teacher. An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, PhD Thesis, Abertay University, UK. Andrijevskaja, J. and Mets, T. (2008), Master Program in Entrepreneurship and Technology Management in Estonia, In: P.  V.  D. Sijde et al. (eds), Teaching Entrepreneurship: Cases for Education and Training, Heidelberg, Physica-­ Velrag, pp. 99–107. Apedoe, X. S., Holschuh, D. R. and Reeves, T. C. (2009), The interplay of teaching conceptions and a course management system among award-­winning university professors, In: M. Orey, V. J. McClendon and R. M. Branch (eds), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, Vol. 34, New York, Springer, pp. 155–170. Arasti, Z., Falavarjani, M. K. and Imanipour, N. (2012), ‘A study of teaching methods in entrepreneurship education for graduate students’, Higher Education Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 2–10. Banning, M. (2005), ‘Approaches to teaching: Current opinions and related research’, Nurse Education Today, Vol. 25, pp. 502–508. Bechard, J. P. and Gregoire, D. (2005), Understanding teaching models in entrepreneurship for higher education, In: P. Kÿro and C. Carrier (eds), The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-­cultural University Context, Faculty of Education, Tampere, University of Tampere, pp. 104–134. Bechard, J. P. and Gregoire, D. (2007), Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for entrepreneurship education: model and illustrations, In: A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 261–284. Benson, G. L. (1992), ‘Teaching entrepreneurship through the classics’, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 135–141.

44   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland Beugre, C. D. (2017), Building Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Sub-­Saharan Africa: A Quintuple Helix Model, New York, Springer Nature. Birch, C., Lichy, J., Mulholland, G. and Majer, K. (2017), ‘An enquiry into potential graduate entrepreneurship: Is higher education turning off the pipeline of graduate entrepreneurs?’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 743–760. Bird, B. J. (2002), ‘Learning entrepreneurship competencies: the self-­directed learning approach’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 203–227. Blackburn, R. and Iskandarova, M. (2014), Student Entrepreneurship Across the Globe: Intentions and Activities: Report for England 2013/2014, Small Business Research Centre, Kingston University, UK. Blenker, P., Dreisler, P. and Kjeldsen, J. I. (2006), Learning and teaching entrepreneurship: dilemmas, reflections and strategies, In: A. Fayolle and H. Klandt, (eds) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 21–34. Blundel, R. and Lockett, N. (2011), Exploring Entrepreneurship: Practices and perspectives, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bouchard, V. (2007), Teaching corporate entrepreneurship the experimental way, In. A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: Volume 2: Contextual Perspectives, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 84–98. Brain, C. (2002), Advanced Psychology: Applications, issues and perspectives, Cheltenham, Nelson Thomas. Brown, N. L. (2003), How Lecturers Experience Student-­Centred Teaching, PhD thesis, Lancaster University. Cambaliza, O. L., Mazzolini, A. P. and Alarcon, M. C. (2004), Adapting active learning approaches in physics education to local Asian environment, In: Y. Park (ed.), Teaching and Learning of Physics in Cultural Contexts, Hackensack, NJ, World Scientific, pp. 89–97. Cieslik, J. (2011), University-­level entrepreneurship education in Poland, In: F. Welter and D. Smallbone (eds), Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policies in Central and Eastern Europe, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 102–119. Collet, C. (2011), ‘Entrepreneurship education in non-­business schools: Best practice for Australian contexts of knowledge and innovation communities’, Queensland University of Technology, [online], Available from: http://eprints.qut.edu. au/51466/1/51466P.pdf [accessed: 23/12/2016]. Collet, C. and O’Cinneide, B. (2010), Entrepreneurship educators need to be enterprising, In: F. Kiesner (ed.), Creating Entrepreneurs: Making miracles happen, Singapore, World Scientific, 2010, pp. 169–194. Conti, G. J. (1985), ‘Assessing teaching style in adult education: How and why’, Lifelong Learning, Vol. 8 No. 08, pp. 7–28. Conti, G. J. (2004), Identifying your teaching style, In: M.  W. Galbraith (ed.), Adult Learning Methods: A guide for effective instruction, 3rd edn, Malabar, FL: Krieger, pp. 76–91. Crittenden, V. L., Esper, K., Karst, N. and Slegers, R. (2015), Evolving Entrepreneurial Education: Innovation in the Babson Classroom, Bingley, Emerald Group. Dean, J. (2005), The Effective Primary School Classroom: The essential guide for new teachers, Abingdon, RoutledgeFalmer.

Teaching theories in practice   45 Department for Business Innovation & Skills, UK, (2015), Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice (November), [online], Available from: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/474266/BIS-­15-623-fulfilling-­our-potential-­teaching-excellence-­socialmobility-­and-student-­choice-accessible.pdf [accessed: 06/11/2015]. Devlin, M. (2006), ‘Challenging accepted wisdom about the place of conceptions of teaching in university teaching improvement’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 02, pp. 112–119. Engel, J., Schindehutte, M., Neck, H., Smilor, R. and Rossi, B. (2016), What I have learned about teaching entrepreneurship: perspectives of five master educators, In: M. H. Morris and E. Liguori (eds), Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy – 2016, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 3–25. Fiet, J. O. (2000), ‘The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16, pp. 1–24. Frunza, V. (2014), ‘Implications of teaching styles on learning efficiency’, Precedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 127, pp. 342–346. Gibb, A. A. (1994), ‘The case method in entrepreneurship teaching – a background paper to an EFMD debate’, unpublished paper, Sheffield. 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, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 233–269. Gibb, A. A. (2007), Creating the entrepreneurial university: do we need a wholly different model of entrepreneurship, In: A. Fayolle (eds), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: Volume 1: A General Perspective, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 67–103. Gibb, A. A. (2008), ‘Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in schools and colleges: insights from UK practice’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 101–144. Goedhart, M. J. (2015), Changing perspectives on the undergraduate chemistry curriculum, In: J. Garcia-­Martinez and E. Serrano-­Torregrosa (eds), Chemistry Education: Best Practices, Opportunities and Trends, Weinheim, Wiley-­VCH, pp. 73–98. Grasha, A. F. (2002), Teaching with Style: A Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by Understanding Teaching and Learning Styles, CA, Alliance Publishers. Gray, C. (1988), Teaching Styles in Higher Art Education, PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen. Gregory, J. (2002), Facilitation and facilitator style. In: P. Jarvis, (ed.) The Theory and Practice of Teaching, London, Kogan Page, pp. 79–93. Griffin, C. (2006), Didacticism: lectures and lecturing, In: P. Jarvis, (ed.) The Theory and Practice of Teaching, 2nd edn, New York, Routledge, pp. 73–89. Hanage, R., Scott, J. M. and Davies, A. P. (2016), ‘From “great expectations” to “hard times”: a longitudinal study of creative graduate new ventures’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 17–38. Hattie, J. (2003), ‘Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence?’, October, Australian Council for Education Research. Heimlich, J. E. and Norland, E. (2002), ‘Teaching style: Where are we now?’, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 2002 No. 93, pp. 17–26.

46   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (2016), Higher Education – Business and Community Interaction survey 2014–2015, [online], Available from: www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/2016/201619/ HEFCE2016_19.pdf [accessed 25/02/2017]. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (2016), Destination of Leavers from Higher Education in the United Kingdom for the Academic Year 2014/15, [online], Available from: www.hesa.ac.uk/news/21-07-2016/graduate-­destinations [accessed: 06/11/2016]. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (2017), 3890 New Graduate Start-­ups in 2015/16: Results of 2015/16 HE Business and Community Interaction Survey Released, [online], Available from: www.hesa.ac.uk/news/06-04-2017/HEBCI-­ graduate-start-­ups-201516 [accessed: 06/04/2018]. Huang, J. and Hang, L. (2011), A comprehensive approach for improving Chinese computing undergraduates’ entrepreneurial spirits, In: M. Zhu (ed.), Information and Management Engineering: International Conference, Proceedings Part 5, Heidelberg, Springer-­Verlag, pp. 268–274. Hurney, C. A. (2012), ‘Learner-­centred teaching in nonmajors introductory biology: the impact of giving students choices’, Journal of Microbiology & Biological Education, Vol 13 No. 2, pp. 133–141. Jarvis, P. (1995), Adult and Continuing Education: Theory and practice, 2nd edn, London, Routledge. Jarvis, P. (2006a), Teaching in a changing world, In: P. Jarvis, (ed.) The Theory and Practice of Teaching, 2nd edn, New York, Routledge, pp. 3–15. Jarvis, P. (2006b), Teaching styles and teaching methods, In: P. Jarvis, (ed.) The Theory and Practice of Teaching, 2nd edn, New York, Routledge, pp. 28–38. Jarvis, P. (2012), Paradoxes of Learning: On becoming an individual in society, London, Routledge. Jayananda, A. B. C. and Mulholland, G. (2014), ‘Developing entrepreneurs: can British business schools adapt their teaching model to meet the challenge?’, Paper presented at: 3rd ISMO Conference, University of Greenwich, 8–9 December. Jones, B. and Iredale, N. (2010), ‘Enterprise education as pedagogy’, Education + Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 7–19. Jones, C., Matlay, H. and Maritz, A. (2012), ‘Enterprise education: for all or just some?’, Education+Training, Vol. 54 No. 8/9, pp. 813–824. Jones, P. and Maas, G. (2017), The tole of entrepreneurship centres, In: G. Maas and P. Jones (eds), Entrepreneurship Centres: Global Perspectives on their Contributions to Higher Education Institutions, London, Palgrave, pp. 11–18. Jones, P., Maas, G. and Pittaway, L. (2017), Entrepreneurship Education: New perspectives on entrepreneurship education, Bingley, Emerald. Joyce, B. and Weil, M. (1985), Models of Teaching, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Kandlbinder, P. (2013), ‘Signature concepts of key researchers in higher education teaching and learning’, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1–12. Katz, J. A. (2003), ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of Amer­ican entrepreneurship education 1876–1999’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 283–300. Kember, D. (1997), ‘A reconceptualization of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching’, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 255–275.

Teaching theories in practice   47 Kember, D. (2009), ‘Promoting student-­centred forms of learning across an entire university’, Higher Education, Vol. 58 No. 01, pp. 1–13. Kember, D. and Kwan, K. (2000), ‘Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching’, Instructional Science, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 469–490. Kennedy, K. (2016), ‘A case study of college/rural community collaboration for project-­based learning entrepreneurship education’, In: K.  A. Grant and S. Wise (eds), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Reading, Academic Conferences and Publishing, pp. 122–130. Kirby, D. (2004), ‘Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge?’ Education + Training, Vol. 46 No. 8/9, pp. 510–519. Kirby, D. (2007), Changing the entrepreneurship education paradigm, In: A. Fayolle. (eds) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume 1: A General Perspective, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 21–45. Kozlinska, I. (2016), Evaluation of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education Revisited: Evidence from Estonia and Latvia, PhD thesis, University of Turku. Kuratko, D. F. (2009), Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice, 8th edn, Mason, OH, Cengage Learning. Kuratko, D. F. and Morris, M. H. (2018), ‘Corporate entrepreneurship: a critical challenge for educators and researchers’, Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 42–60. Li, M. (2015), Preface, In: M. Li and Y. Zhao (eds), Exploring Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Heidelberg, Springer, pp. v–xii. Liguori, E., Winkler, C., Winkel, D., Marvel, M., Keels, J.  K., van Gelderen, M. and Noyes, E. (2018), ‘The entrepreneurship education imperative: introducing EE&P’, Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5–7. Lippitt, R. and R. K. White (1958), An experimental study of leadership and group life, In: E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley (eds), Reading in Social Psychology, 3rd edn, New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston, pp. 496–511. Lloyd-­Reason, L. (2016), Preparing our students for an entrepreneurial life: are universities part of the solution or part of the problem, In: O. Nicolescu and L. Lloyd-­Reason (eds), Challenges, Performances and Tendencies in Organizational Management, Singapore, World Scientific, pp. 185–193. Lord Young (2014), Enterprise for All: The Relevance of Enterprise in Education, [online], Available from: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach ment_data/file/338749/EnterpriseforAll-­lowres-200614.pdf [accessed: 28/09/2014]. McComas, W. F. (2013), The Language of Science Education: An expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in science teaching and learning, Rotterdam, Sense. Magnan, R. A. (2013), Discover Design Pattern Thinking: Applying new design techniques to improve our mental operacy, Bloomington, IN, Xlibris. Maiksteniene, K. (2013), Encouraging enquiry-­based learning: a ten-­sentence case that expands itself, In: E. Doyle, P. Buckley and C. Carroll (eds), Innovative Business School Teaching: Engaging the millennial generation, New York, Routledge, pp. 59–69. Marriss, D. (2011), Academic staff development, In: A. Mcintosh, J. Gidman and E. M. Whitehead (eds), Key Concepts in Healthcare Education, London, Sage, pp. 1–5. Matlay, H. (2005), ‘Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual, and policy considerations’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 627–643.

48   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland Matlay, H. (2008), ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 382–396. Mohan, R. (2007), Innovative Science Teaching: For physical science teachers, 3rd edn, New Delhi, PHI Learning. Morris, M. H. and Liguori, E. W. (2016), Preface: Teaching reason and the unreasonable, In. M. H. Morris and E. W. Liguori (eds), Annals of Entre­preneurship Education and Pedagogy (Vol. 2), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. xiv–xxii. Nabi, G., Walmsley, A. and Holden, R. (2015), ‘Pushed or pulled? Exploring the factors underpinning graduate start-­ups and non-­start-ups,’ Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 481–506. Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G. and Brush, C. G. (eds) (2014), Teaching Entrepreneurship: A practice-­based approach, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Noroozi, B. and Haghi, A. K. (2013), Distance learning, virtual classroom, and teaching pedagogy in the internet environment, In: R. Luppicini and A. K. Haghi (eds), Education for a Digital World: Present realities and future possibilities, Oakville, ON, Apple Academic Press, pp. 119–132. O’Brian, S. (2009), Classes – preparation and participation, In: M. Abbott (ed.), History Skills: A student’s handbook, 2nd edn, London, Routledge, pp. 51–72. O’Connor, A. (2015), Questioning the ethics of university entrepreneurship curriculum, In: S. Hoskinson and D. F. Kuratko (eds), The Challenges of Ethics and Entrepreneurship in the Global Environment, Bingley, Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 79–108. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-­operation and Development) (2013), Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2013, [online], Available from: www.oecd-­ilibrary.org/ docserver/download/3013011e.pdf?expires=1415200951&id=id&accname=guest &checksum=8EDFFABEB90A5B15285EA3A0FD8CD900 [accessed: 14/06/2014]. Pittaway, L. and Edwards, C. (2012), ‘Assessment: examining practice in entrepreneurship education’, Education & Training, Vol. 54 No. 8/9, pp. 778–800. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2012), Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK higher education providers, (September) [online], Available from: www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/enterprise-­entrepreneurshipguidance.pdf [accessed 15/05/2014]. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2018), Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers (January), [online], Available from: www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Enterprise-­and-entrpreneurship-­ education-2018.pdf [accessed: 20/02/2018]. Rae, D., Matlay, H., McGowan, P. and Penaluna, A. (2014), ‘Freedom or prescription: the case for curriculum guidance in enterprise and entrepreneurship education’, Industry & Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 387–398. Ramsden, P. (2003), Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd edn, London, Routledge. Salama, A. M. (2015), Spatial Design Education: New directions for pedagogy in architecture and beyond, Farnham, Ashgate Publishing. San Tan, S. and Ng, C. F. (2006), ‘A problem-­based learning approach to entrepreneurship education’, Education + Training, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 416–428. Saridakis, G., Iskandarova, M. and Blackburn, R. (2016), Student Entrepreneurship in Great Britain: Intentions and Activities, The British Report of the 2016 GUESSS Project, Small Business Research Centre, Kingston University, UK.

Teaching theories in practice   49 Schindehutte, M. and Morris, M. H. (2016), The experiential learning portfolio and entrepreneurship education, In: M. H. Morris and E. Liguori (eds), Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy – 2016, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 161–175. Shaari, A. S., Yusoff, N. M., Ghazali, I. M., Osman, R. H., Fatirah, N. and Dzahir, M. (2014), ‘The relationship between lecturer’s teaching style and students’ academic engagement’, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, No. 118, pp. 10–20. Singh, Y. K., Sharma, T. K. and Upadhya, B. (2008), Educational Technology: Teaching and learning, New Delhi, APH Publishing. Solomon, G. and Matthews, C. (2014), ‘The curricular confusion between entrepreneurship education and small business management: a qualitative analysis’, In: M. H. Morris (ed.), Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy – 2014, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 91–115. Sorvatzioti, D. F. (2012), ‘The Socratic method of teaching in a multidisciplinary educational setting’, International Journal of Arts and Science, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 61–71. Tavangar, H. (2016), Mentoring and guidance the role of adults, In: Y. Zhao, H. Tavangar, E. Mccarren, G.  F. Rshaid and K. Tucker (eds), The Take-­action Guide to World-­class Learners: Personalised education for autonomous learning and student-­driven curriculum, Thousand Oaks, Corwin, pp. 105–128. Teichler, U. (2009), ‘Types, ranks and profiles: the patterns and causes of diversity in higher education’, Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, Vol. 91, pp. 115–132. Thompson, M., Mawson, S. and Martin. F. (2017), Social Entrepreneurs: Can They Change the World?: High-­Impact Social Ventures, 2nd edn, London, Palgrave. Tokuhama-­Espinosa, T. (2014), Making Classrooms Better: 50 practical applications of mind, brain, and education science, New York, W. W. Norton. Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (2004), ‘Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory’, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 409–424. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. (1999), ‘Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning’, Higher Education, Vol. 37, pp. 57–70. Turner, J. and Mulholland, G. (2017), ‘Enterprise education: Towards a framework for effective engagement with the learner of today’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 801–816. Turner, J. J. and Mulholland, G. (2018), International Enterprise Education: Perspectives on theory and practice, Oxon, Routledge. Vanevenhoven, J. and Drago, W. A. (2015), The structure and scope of entrepreneurship programs in higher education around the world, In: D. Rae and C. L. Wang (eds), Entrepreneurial Learning: New perspectives in research, education and practice, Oxon, Routledge, pp. 117–133. Venesaar, V. (2008), Teaching entrepreneurship and business planning at Tallinn University of Technology, In: P. V. D. Sijde, A. Ridder, G. Blaauw and C. Diensberg (eds), Teaching Entrepreneurship: Cases for Education and Training, ­Heidelberg, Physica-­Velrag, pp. 15–21. Volkmann, C. K. and Audretsch, D. B. (2017), Entrepreneurship Education at Universities: Learning from twenty European cases, Cham, Springer.

50   Chinthaka Aluthgama-Baduge and Gary Mulholland Weber, S. and Funke, S. (2014), A research- and evidence-­based entrepreneurship education program at Ludwig-­Maximilians University (LMU), Munich, In: S. Weber, F. Oser, F. Achtenhagen, M. Fretschner and S. Trost (eds), Becoming an Entrepreneur, Rotterdam, Sense Publishers, pp. 177–196. Weston, C. and Cranton, P. A. (1986), ‘Selecting instructional strategies’, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 57 No. 03, pp. 259–288. Wilson, T. (2012), A Review of Business-­University Collaboration [Online], Available from: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/32383/12-610-wilson-­review-business-­university-collaboration.pdf [accessed 12/03/18]. Zunfeng, L. and Chunling, Z. (2011), Research on entrepreneurship education based on E-­Commerce, In: M. Zhu (ed.), Information and Management Engineering: International Conference, Proceedings Part 5, Heidelberg, Springer­Verlag, pp. 381–388.

4

Coaching as an entrepreneurship learning and development tool Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour

Introduction The growing body of literature discusses coaching as a learning and developmental tool (see for example, Bennett and Campone, 2017; Du Toit, 2014; Gray et al., 2016). There is evidence that coaching differentiates itself from traditional learning and developmental interventions which are structured, reductionist and dominant (Garvey, 2011). This dominance in traditional learning is partly due to the positivistic or modernist view of education that has been influenced by psychology (Bachkirova and Kaufman, 2008; Garvey, 2017). In addition, despite demands to seek effective ways of developing adults in their entrepreneurial abilities, the responsible institutes and individuals (e.g. business schools) have been accommodating techniques that are more conversant with the positivistic instance and early adult learning theories. One possible reason for this is to cater to the societal demands to develop measurable programmes with a distinct start and an end which follow the linear model of learning (Garvey, 2011). The trend of creating measurable programmes has also been growing in business organisations (public, private, social, non-­profit, etc.) which are generally believers in ‘objectivity’ in most of their business activities (see Garvey et al., 2017). It has been argued that this logic helps institutes to set measurable objectives and learning outcomes that are easy to follow and evaluate. Therefore, with following these traditional leaning interventions, it may be easier ‘to judge success in teaching and learning’ than using, for example, coaching as an entrepreneurship development tool (Garvey et al., 2017: 110). However, it is important to continue questioning the reasons of why some practitioners and decision-­makers believe that the traditional learning interventions are the best way for learning. The debate around this point to develop a deeper understanding of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship learning is a current need within the industry (Blundel et al., 2017). In this chapter, we suggest coaching as an appropriate entrepreneurship learning and development tool and an alternative to the dominant

52   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour r­ eductionist way of learning and development. However, we acknowledge that there are different ways of entrepreneurship learning and development which may appear equally relevant and valid. We do not discard any of them and their abilities and relevance but aim to develop a conceptual rationale on how coaching may link to entrepreneurship learning.

Entrepreneurship We believe that entrepreneurship is subjected to multiple interpretations (Blundel et al., 2017). The contributors to this textbook have already discussed this in detail so we do not aim to repeat those discussions here. The aim here is to set the context for this chapter discussing our position on entrepreneurship. This in return helps to justify coaching as a potential tool for entrepreneurship learning and development. There appears no consensus about what entrepreneurship is or what skills and abilities an individual should have to become an entrepreneur (Blundel et al., 2017). The concept of ‘the entrepreneur’ is generally interpreted as an innovator who takes risks of investing assets (both physical and intellectual) to address a social need ensuring the sustainability both for the organisation and for wider stakeholders. It does not appear to be necessary that an entrepreneur always is a person who creates a new venture. However, what is clear is that to become an entrepreneur, an individual should be innovative and creative and have the attitude and commitment to contribute and motivation to continue while addressing issues effectively. It is also recognised that openness and risk taking, and continuous learning are some necessary elements of entrepreneurial abilities/skills. The list is not conclusive. However, it is understandable as entrepreneurship is situated in context (Brannback and Carsrud, 2016), and socially constructed (Anderson, 2016; Pittaway, 2000). So, we see it as a complex non­linear social process. Therefore, skills, abilities and even the way entrepreneurship is viewed can be changed depending on the context (Blundel et al., 2017). If entrepreneurship is viewed, interpreted and ­practiced differently in different contexts, the entrepreneurship learning and teaching should take these contextual and subjective elements into consideration. We, therefore, see a possibility of more effective outcomes if we are to tailor entrepreneurship learning and development. Coaching appears as a potential tool for the purpose. It is also important to note that scholars and practitioners continue to argue whether entrepreneurship can be learned and developed. This is similar to the argument in leadership development which to date has no consensus (Northouse, 2016). These different constructs are part of the lived world as actors continue to engage in activities they also create meaning for them. The chapter, therefore, accepts the possibilities of

Coaching as a learning and development tool   53 different constructs within a contextual and subjective phenomenon like entrepreneurship. The beauty that implants the phenomenon due to its subjective nature inspires to explore coaching as a potential intervention to learn and develop entrepreneurship. Therefore, this chapter is more interested in developmental discourse rather than the born or heredity concepts within it. Thus, it takes the developmental view forward and attempts to justify how coaching fits for the purpose.

Adult learning theories and entrepreneurship learning and development The above discussion sets the foundation for this chapter. Entrepreneurs as adults can be considered as more responsible, dedicated and self-­driven. They choose to learn and develop themselves as future entrepreneurs. This view encourages us to explore how adults learn and relevance of them to entrepreneurship learning and development. However, this chapter does not aim to develop a comprehensive discussion on existing adult learning theories but the ones that appear more relevant to the context of this chapter. Theories of adult learning and entrepreneurship learning and development The earliest theories of adult learning were based on behaviourist approaches (Pavlov, 1927; Skinner, 1976). These were highly fitting to the context of the time as they appeared scientific and functional. The belief within this school was that learning creates behavioural changes (Jarvis et al., 1998). Focusing on objectively observable behaviours, these theorists discounted independence that individuals have in their activities of the mind. This mode of learning for the current business entrepreneurial learning and development is questionable. There appears a high demand for creativity, innovation and adaptability from the emerging entrepreneurial leaders in the context of business in twenty-­ first century. A controlled and structured way of learning does not appear to facilitate those skills and attributes that are in demand (see Garvey et al., 2017). The behaviourist theorists were followed by cognitive theorists where learning was considered as a mental process. For example, Piaget (1929) developed his stages theory and Vygotsky (1978) established the idea of a proximal development zone and contributed to the evolutionary thinking of adult learning. This is where the idea of ‘scaffolding’ (see Wood et al., 1976) to indicate the importance of someone’s (a learned) support to facilitate learning. The idea of ‘scaffolding’ may also mean the temporary nature of the support recognising the responsibility and commitment that learners should be developing to be independent. On the other hand, it is also an

54   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour acceptance of the value of social learning and collaboration (Gray et al., 2016). These apparently linked with the concepts of coaching and entrepreneurship learning and development (see Pittaway and Thorpe, 2012). These theories are criticised for having their focus on child learning and development and most early theories appear to suggest a liner, controlled and closed approach to learning (Garvey, 2011). Recognising that adults learn differently compared to children, Knowles (1975) introduced the idea of ‘andragogy’. This theory invites educators and the researchers to look at adults as responsible, committed and self-­motivated individuals who learn and develop themselves for a reason (Knowles et al., 2015). Knowles (1984) describes early pedagogical models of learning as traditional modes of learning. He notes that this was the only way of learning that the whole world knew since the beginning of school systems in the seventh century. The model was teacher centred and the learner was a dependant. The authority lies within the so-­called expert teacher and the readiness to learn was considered a function of age (Knowles, 1984). This dominant model of learning according to Garvey (1994) appears to enforce pressure for improved performance, linear and controlled development. This idea is in line with Garvey’s (2011) ‘mass societal construction of learning’ (p. 57) which positions learning in stages or phases. In his view, this linear view of learning is appealing to educators and to educational institutes. These stages and phases of learning do not seem to have, at least, considered the individual differences, contextual and subjective implications of learning in theorising these concepts. However, if we are to take our view of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship learning, it is important that we consider these implications and question the existing practices. Yet, it has become difficult to challenge these views as ‘we have become so used to this approach that we no longer notice it’ (Garvey, 2017: 685). The difficulties of going against such dominance also appear to hinder researchers and practitioners from exploring innovative ways of learning (Gray et al., 2016). This dominance is partly due to early influences and reliance of education in psychology and educational psychology (Merriam, 2001). According to Merriam (2001) educators until the mid-­twentieth century relied on psychology and educational psychology research to understand adult learning. Therefore, the positivist tendency of early adult learning theories is understandable (Bachkirova, 2017). However, Knowles’ (1984) contribution of andragogy develops ­constructive thinking and approaches to adult learning. Knowles (1984) highlighted the notion of self-­directed learning. He emphasises this by saying ‘an adult is one who has arrived at a self-­concept of being responsible for one’s own life, of being self-­directing’ (9). So, people have a desire to learn from each other as they act as rich resources to one another to develop their knowledge, skills and to enhance performance (Garvey et al., 2014; Knowles, 1984). The andragogy model also assumes that the

Coaching as a learning and development tool   55 r­ eadiness to learn occurs with a ‘need to know or do something in order to perform more effectively’ (Knowles, 1984: 11). Further, adults having that need enter into learning with life, task, problem, and experience-­centred learning. These also appear as primary ways of entrepreneurship learning and development. For example, learning on the job or experiential learning has been considered as a primal in entrepreneurship learning (Jones, Macpherson and Woolland, 2008; Rae, 2002; Rae and Carswell, 2000). The contextual nature of entrepreneurial learning also requires entrepreneurs to change their behaviours, approaches, business strategies (Deakins and Freel, 1998). Therefore, entrepreneurial learning should be a continuous social process rather than an activity that has a definite start and an end. Literature also discusses that reflection is also relevant to entrepreneurial learning. The widely accepted experiential learning may not be of any use if entrepreneurs do not engage in a critical and analytical debate to enhance their practice and learn from their experience. In doing so, critical reflection on their experience, despite it being a positive or a negative experience appears to help entrepreneurs to learn and develop (Cope, 2003; Gibb, 1997). Cope (2010) also identifies learning from failure as a key aspect of learning. Therefore, experience does not have to be positive at all times. Literature supports this view further by highlighting the importance of having some space to make mistakes (see Johnston, Hamilton and Zhang, 2008). In addition, the eternal caption, ‘Know thyself ’, appears throughout the past and in the temple of Apollo at Delphi dating 2000 years ago (Cairns-­ Lee, 2015) continues to appear as relevant to entrepreneurial learning (Tseng, 2013). This does not mean the relevance of learning about the organisation, the industry; developing relationships and actively engaging in these relationships to create mutual improvements are neglected in entrepreneurship learning and development. This shows the dynamic nature of the phenomenon. Entrepreneurial engagement appears as a temporal and context-­specific activity (Cope, 2010). Pittaway et al. (2015) also agree that the nature of entrepreneurship learning is both contextual and situational. This relates to social and situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991) and appears relevant in the context of entrepreneurship learning. Therefore, agreeing on a way of learning for entrepreneurship learning is beyond the realities that may exist. However, Cope (2005) suggests some relevant and appropriate common grounds of entrepreneurial development. According to Cope (2005), transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991), situated learning (Bandura, 1977; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Reynolds and Mason, 2002), adaptive learning (Deakins and Freel, 1998; Watts, Cope and Hulme, 1998) and reflective learning (Argyris, 1960; Argyris and Schön, 1996; Brockbank and McGill, 2012). These appear to link well with the concepts of coaching.

56   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour Adults (entrepreneurs) learn not for the sake of learning (Knowles et al., 2015) but for a purpose. The discussion within this chapter continues to place its focus on this and believe that the entrepreneurs or the potential entrepreneurs aim to learn for a purpose. However, we acknowledge that the meaning of ‘adult’ and the parameters that define ‘adulthood’ may also vary according to the context (for example legally or socially accepted adulthood, biological adulthood). It is also questionable if someone has to be an adult to become an entrepreneur. We leave some of these questions to the readers to explore. Despite the above possibilities of different interpretations, there is sufficient evidence to argue that there is no one universal way of learning entrepreneurship (Blundel et al., 2017). This also links well with our position of entrepreneurship for this chapter. The traditional model of learning can be labelled as a ‘content model’ whereas andragogy focuses on the process (Garvey, 2011). Knowles et al. (2015) distinguish the process from the content, saying that ‘the process model is concerned with providing procedures and resources for helping learners to acquire information and skills’ (51). Knowles et al. (2015) argue that despite all these developments, there is a great deal that is unknown in how humans learn and develop. The diversity among individual learners, contexts that learners are in and their interpretation of learning appears to create difficulties of understanding how entrepreneurs learn. To accommodate these difficulties, it can be argued that coaching can be a fruitful approach to learning and development. The acceptance of the above diversity also helps to understand the divisions of theories from content to process, modern to traditional and child development to adult. It was however clear that andragogy, experiential learning and transformative learning theories ‘are the heart of all adult learning and development and consequently are the heart of coaching practice’ (Bachkirova et al., 2014: 8). Bachkirova and colleagues further argue that andragogy (Knowles, 1984), experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) and transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991) represent the very nature of coaching. This links with Cope’s (2005) identification of common grounds of entrepreneurial learning. To develop further understanding of how coaching supports entrepreneurship learning and development consider the theories of coaching discussed below. First, the next section discusses the origin of coaching to highlight the developmental links that it has since its inception.

Coaching Coaching, defined as ‘a support structure based on a close interpersonal relationship leading to learning and the development of potential, often within a context of change’ (Audet and Couteret, 2012: 516). Therefore, coaching does not seek to provide managers with specific skills to address specific

Coaching as a learning and development tool   57 needs, but it helps entrepreneurs to ‘grow as people’ so they can widen their personal horizon (Thompson and Downing, 2007). Therefore, there is learning attached to coaching. Commitment to the relationship is one of the main success factors that affect coaching (Auddet and Couteret, 2012). This is also an important factor to be considered for entrepreneurship education and the level of commitment influence directly the outputs of the learning. The origin of coaching is surrounded in speculation (Gray et al., 2016). Zeus and Skiffington (2000) argue that few writers link coaching to the prehistoric era citing that it has been used to improve hunting skills. De Haan (2008) noted that some relate coaching to Socratic teachings and another discourse is that coaching originates from the practice of coaching people in sports to improve their performance (Whitmore, 2012; Wilson, 2007; Witherspoon and White, 1996; Starr, 2003). However, Garvey (2011) highlights a broader perspective of the initial uses of coaching. He emphasises that coaching has been used in tutoring for academic performance, performance improvements in boating and rowing, teaching the defence of the wicket in cricket and developing subject matter expertise. Therefore, there are diverse arguments about the inception of coaching, where it started, when and in what field. This diversity is also apparent within the word ‘coach’. For example, Gray (2006) argues that the term coach was first used in the sixteenth century to describe a carriage that conveys people to the desired destination. In a similar vein, some (Stern, 2004; Underhill et al., 2007; Witherspoon and White, 1996), believe that the word originates from a Hungarian village called Kocs where passenger wagons were first developed to carry people to their desired destinations. This notion is challenged by Athanasopoulou and Dopson (2015) highlighting the possibility that this idea is a myth. However, they agree that myths are part of a phenomenon worth mentioning. Integrating the coach (wagon, the noun) and also the coach (the verb), some (Garvey, 2011; Gray et al., 2016) claim that the word’s origin (in the English language) is in William Thackeray’s novel, Pendennis published in 1849. This meant ‘both moving from A to B in a coach and to coach for academic attainment at Oxford University’ (Garvey, 2011: 12). However, Maltbia et al. (2014) believe that the origin of the word coaching in the English language goes back to the 1500s. Therefore, it is clear that there are different arguments about the origin of the word, where it was first used and why. Despite these contradictory arguments of the origin of coaching (noun) and the coaching practice, there is an apparent ‘performative’ and ‘developmental’ link attributed to it since its inception (Garvey, 2011; Garvey et al., 2014). This developmental link is also evident through the earliest publication on coaching (Gorby, 1937) that coaching scholars (Grant et al., 2009; Passmore and Fillery-­Travis, 2011) traced back to. Gorby’s study explored the implications of coaching in a manufacturing industry. This research was criticised for its limitation of methods but it ‘signals the potential of

58   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour coaching as a force for good in organisations’ (Passmore Fillery-­Travis, 2011: 70). However, the growth of coaching as a commercial activity (Garvey, 2011; Garvey et al., 2014; Wilson, 2007) has generated diverse modes of coaching (life coaching, business coaching, executive/leadership coaching, developmental coaching, team coaching, transformational coaching and the list is not conclusive) into this relatively new profession (Wilson, 2007). Confusions around the profession may be due to its diverse uses, evident popularity (Passmore, 2007; Western, 2012) and commercialisation of the activity (Garvey et al., 2014). However, ‘a central discourse of more modern developments in coaching continues to be performance improvement’ (Gray et al., 2016: 15) and development. One of the popular uses of coaching is for leadership development (De Haan et al., 2013; Ely et al., 2010; Korotov, 2017) this is also considered as one of the main reasons for the increasing popularity of coaching (De Villiers, 2012; Segers et al., 2011). These suggest the possibilities lie within coaching to operate as an entrepreneurship learning and development practice. There are some attempts to incorporate coaching for entrepreneurship learning and development; however, the potential within the tool for the purpose appears high. Therefore, there is space for scholars, practitioners and policymakers to explore the possibilities of coaching further. The unique nature of coaching as a development intervention compared to conventional interventions seems to make coaching more attractive for learning and development. The below section discusses the uniqueness of coaching. Coaching is a unique developmental intervention Coaching appears to offer a different approach to learning and development with a strong focus on individual development needs (Kilburg, 1996; Passmore and Fillery-­Travis, 2011). It most often happens in their natural environment. Coaching is more person-­centred (De Haan et al., 2013; Grant, 2014; Theeboom et al., 2014) and holistic than traditional training and development (Abbott et al., 2006; King and Eaton, 1999). Additionally, the coachee (entrepreneur in this context) within the coaching engagement has a much greater say about his/her development which in turn makes coaching more relevant for their development (Giglio et al., 1998; Tobias, 1996). The idea of having authority and responsibility within the learning links well with andragogy and transformational learning. This also appears to suit entrepreneurs as there is space for them to keep their confidence and authority within the process. Moreover, the contextually embedded nature of entrepreneurship learning and development influences the development intervention to consider culture, operating environment, technology and their wider implications for entrepreneurship learning. This hints at the possibilities of different

Coaching as a learning and development tool   59 styles of learning by different individuals. The learning styles and the critiques of them is a separate topic (see Coffield et al., 2004; Honey and Mumford, 1982; Kolb and Fry, 1975) which we do not intend to go into detail here. However, coaching appears to accommodate different styles of learning (Bowerman and Collins, 1999). Another unique feature of executive coaching is tailoring development for individual coachees through empowering them and providing authority to draft their own development plans, so it encourages learner-­centred development (De Haan et al., 2013; Garvey, 2011). This also appears to address some of the issues related to the responsibility for learning and development and to the issues of ‘mass societal learning’. Moreover, coaching is said to explore ways of helping and facilitating their learning and development by engaging in a genuine developmental relationship that is non-­judgemental and supportive (Giglio et al., 1998; Hudson, 1999; Kilburg, 1996; Ladegard and Gjerde, 2014; Wang, 2012). This developmental relationship also appears as a unique feature that distinguishes it from conventional training and development (Giglio et al., 1998; Hamlin et al., 2016; Hudson, 1999; Kilburg, 1996) because it encourages individuals to be confident and act on their development (Baron et al., 2011; Hudson, 1999; Wang, 2012). Narayanasamy and Penney (2014) supported by MacKie (2016), Grant (2014), De Haan et al. (2013), Batson and Yoder (2012), King and Eaton (1999), Gigilo et al. (1998) acknowledge the role of coaching in motivating individuals to reach their potentials. Coaching appears to tap into intrinsic motivation to encourage learning and development. We believe that these aspects of coaching have more potential to encourage entrepreneurs to continue to learn. The non-­judgemental relationship developed with the coach is also considered as space for coachees to explore possibilities to develop their own critiques of the plans/actions etc. that they are to work on. Critical questions and challenges from the coach apparently help coachees to critically reflect on what they do and on their predispositions (Brockbank and McGill, 2012; Mezirow, 1991). The gradually developed trust enhances the relationship with the coach, and the coachee is said to be more open to discuss things and for the challenges that comes on his way. The relationship itself, the mutual understanding, the support from the coach, and the trust seems to motivate the coachee to continue to work on the developmental gaps that agreed to work on. Is that not something entrepreneurs can benefit from? For an entrepreneur to find himself, understand his/her strengths and weakness, etc. it is important that he engage with an open discussion with someone who is trained to facilitate such conversation (Brockbank and McGill, 2012). The trust developed and the non-­judgemental nature of the relationship seems to facilitate conversational learning. Coaching also has a built-­in evaluation which appears to contribute to the social capital development of the individual coachees (Saunders, 2006).

60   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour Thus ‘the evaluator works more as a partner, generating supplementary perspectives, enabling conversations, introducing new ideas about the evaluation logic and facilitating the examination and critique’ (Schwandt, 1997: 79). This links with the idea of reflective practices for development (see Ling, 2012). The challenging questions-­based conversation apparently helps learners (coachees) to change their predispositions (Mezirow, 1991) which results in positive behavioural changes. Therefore, it becomes a participatory and inclusive method of evaluation (Garvey, 2017; Saunders, 2006) which is developmental. This, then, is more appropriate for entrepreneurship learning and development assessments. It becomes more relevant if we are to assume that the main purpose of the learners who enrol for entrepreneurship development programmes is to learn and develop their skills and experience. A summary of how coaching may link with the concepts of andragogy is in the below table. The table (4.1) supports Knowles’ (1975) notion that people learn best when the learning environment is trusting, and informal. The concept of andragogy also believes the ability of learners and acknowledges the importance of creating space for individuals to plan and work on their development. The traditional and closed approaches to learning do not appear to take these into account (Garvey, 2011) and aim to create development through ‘one-­size-fit for all’ type of modes of learning and teaching. This also contradicts diversity presents within entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship learning (see Blundel et al., 2017). Such programmes also appear to ignore diversity within learners, different abilities and purpose of learning. Mezirow (1991) emphasises the importance of a perceptual change and sense of possibilities to facilitate learning. Therefore, the importance of challenging one’s own meaning schemas to create deeper learning is highlighted. However, the difficulties in changing deep-­rooted meaning perspectives are acknowledged (Askew and Carnell, 2011; Bachkirova et al., 2014; Du Toit, 2014). In transformative learning, critical reflection ‘necessitates the suspension of judgment about the truth or falsity of ideas, until a better determination can be made’ (Mezirow, 2000: 13). Through analysing ‘self ’ during the transformative process, it is believed that there is a reorientation that ‘results [in] deep learning and revised action’ (Bachkirova et al., 2014: 8). The possibility of facilitating these through traditional modes of learning with content or stage focus seems difficult. Therefore, andragogy informed open curriculum appears relevant to entrepreneurship learning and development. Coaching as discussed above seems to facilitate such an approach in an informal learning environment (Audet and Couteret, 2012; Hunt and Fielden, 2016).

Provide information, prepare for participation, help develop realistic expectations, begging thinking about the content Relaxed, trusting, mutual respect, informal, warm, collaborative, supportive, openness and authenticity, humanness Mechanism for mutual planning by learners and facilitator By mutual assessment

Preparing learners

Mutual re-diagnosis of needs Mutual measurement of program

Evaluation

Source: adapted from Knowles et al. (2015).

Learning activities

By mutual negotiation Sequence by readiness Problem units Experiential techniques (inquiry)

Setting of objectives Designing learning plans

Diagnosis of needs

Planning

Climate

Andragogy approach

Element

Table 4.1 Andragogy and coaching

Through a conversation, it prepares learners to set their own expectations, what they would like to achieve, how they are planning to achieve them. Non-directive, non-judgmental nature of coaching appears to support all these elements in andragogy approach. Mutual agreement of the expectations and how to go about achieving what is agreed. Through conversation, mutual agreement and analysis. Mutual analysis and understanding but coachee-led. Coachee readiness, willingness, ability, contextual support and importance would be considered. Socially and contextually embedded. The learners stay and continue to be in his/her operating environment. Thus complies with the experiential techniques of andragogy. Evaluation is on-going, conversational, formative and developmental. Both coachee and the coach are part of the assessment.

Coaching

62   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour Issues that one may encounter Coaching is an expensive intervention. Therefore, funding to implement coaching schemes in higher education would be challenging. This applies to early entrepreneurs who seek support from professional coaches. The tailored nature of it also brings challenges in practical application, especially in higher education. First, the majority of the educators have been part of mass societal learning (Garvey, 2011) and are reluctant to change their way of teaching delivery. The administration of individualised activities like coaching adds more costs in terms of resource requirements. Subjective nature of coaching and apparent andragogy led open curriculum within it may be a challenge for an established mode of learning and development in institutions. Therefore, working against the dominant view of learning and development will bring institutional policies and procedures into the context. So, introducing coaching for the purpose may also require policy changes and attitudinal changes of the established institutes towards learning and development. In addition, return on investment (ROI) in monetary terms will be a demand as the initiative is costly. However, it is arguable that attempting to narrow people development into financial return on investment as mechanistic (see Grant, 2012). Despite the available theoretical support for the argument, the idea will be contested in the practice. Entrepreneurs’ readiness to engage with an outsider (a coach) should also be taken into consideration. For example, ego issues, financial affordability, etc. are likely to play a role in employing coaching. On the positive side, there are concepts like peer coaching, and team coaching that are possibly more practical in UK higher education compared to one-­to-one coaching at least to start with. Peer coaching and team coaching may also be helpful for entrepreneurs to develop their professional network which in the current context of the business appears mandatory for success. The future of coaching and entrepreneurship education will focus on creating an organisational culture to support creativity, active understanding and emotional involvement. This will have many connections with learning as an active process and how to develop the identity of learners. Therefore, coaching could help to support entrepreneurial learning ‘to recognise and act on opportunities and be interacting socially to initiate, organise and manage ventures’ (Rae, 2002). Research in coaching for entrepreneurship development Coaching and entrepreneurship coaching research have been growing since its first publication in 1937. However, it still appears as a relatively new concept (Grief, 2017). Yet, there appears sufficient evidence within coaching that any interested parties now can rely on. The debates and dilemmas

Coaching as a learning and development tool   63 around the subject continue to appear so there is a demand for further empirical evidence to resolve such issues. Coaching, therefore, is in need of more research and there are positive signs of growth (Bachkirova, 2017). There are also positive signs of research growth within entrepreneurship research (Blundel et al., 2017) and promising research trends in entrepreneurship education and development which are moving towards a wider-­ range of study subjects and programmes by creating multidisciplinary links (Wilson, 2008). However, coaching as an entrepreneurship development intervention appears to be under-­researched and discussed. The relevance of coaching as an entrepreneurship learning and development tool needs further justification and research-­informed rationale (Audet and Couteret, 2012). The issues that are raised above in terms of practical application of coaching seem to have implications for entrepreneurship educators to not consider coaching as a potential intervention. On the positive note, there is some attention on coaching as an entrepreneurship learning and development tool (see Audet and Couteret, 2012; Gracia, 2015; Hunt and Fielden, 2016) that needs further strengthening in the near future. The scholarly evidence appears important for the growth of the industry and to make it more innovative and creative. This chapter will also be a valuable addition to the rising discussions within the field. There is also the possibility that the existing support for coaching as a leadership development intervention (De Haan et al., 2013; Ely et al., 2010; Korotov, 2017) is used to make sense of the prospect of coaching as an ‘entrepreneurship learning and development tool’ at least until a sufficient research-­based is developed. This may lay a sound foundation for open innovation in entrepreneurship learning and teaching.

Conclusion This chapter explored coaching as an entrepreneurship developmental tool. The discussions demonstrate some evidence and critical analysis for scholars and practitioners to develop the idea further. It is also realised that there is a scarcity of research within the field of entrepreneurship coaching and this chapter appears as one of the early conceptual suggestions to further investigate the potential through empirical studies. The chapter may appear biased towards the social constructionist view of research. However, there is no attempt to discard other potential worldviews here. In addition, the acceptance of social construction may be considered as an indirect acceptance of other realities that may exist. Therefore, this chapter encourages researchers to construct knowledge and enhanced understanding using diverse methodologies and methods. It also encourages practitioners in the field to explore possibilities of coaching as a learning and development tool for entrepreneurship. The established arguments may also help students, researchers, entrepreneurs, business schools and wider entrepreneurial community to

64   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour develop their understanding. It also encourages them to look at entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education differently, understanding the subjective and contextual nature of the phenomenon. The chapter provides a discussion about coaching as a tool to develop the skills of entrepreneurs rather than the traditional tools that often focus on the tangible and assessable outcome of a business plan. This requires considering interdisciplinary connections among subjects and departments and adopting new teaching and learning philosophy and practices mainly based on achieving social interacting and building an active learning environment.

References Abbott, G. N., Stening, B. W., Atkins, P. W. B. and Grant, A. M. (2006), Coaching expatriate managers for success: adding value beyond training and mentoring, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 44(3), pp. 295–317. Anderson, A. R. (2016), The economic reification of entrepreneurship: re-­engaging with the social. In: Fayolle, A. and Riot, P. (eds), Rethinking Entrepreneurship: Debating research orientations, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 44–56. Argyris, C. (1960), Understanding Organizational Behaviour, Homewood: Dorsey. Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996), Organisational Learning II: Theory, method and practice, Wokingham: Addison-­Wesley. Askew, S. and Carnell, E. (2011), Transformative Coaching: A learning theory for practice, London: Institute of Education, University of London. Athanasopoulou, A. and Dopson, S. (2015), Developing Leaders by Executive Coaching: Practice and evidence, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Audet, J. and Couteret, P. (2012), Coaching the entrepreneur: features and success factors, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(3), pp. 515–531. Bachkirova, T. (2017), Developing a knowledge base of coaching: questions to explore. In: Bachkirova, T., Spence, G. and Drake, D. (eds), Sage Handbook of Coaching, London: Sage, pp. 23–41. Bachkirova, T. and Kauffman, C. (2008), Many ways of knowing: How to make sense of different research perspectives in studies of coaching, Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(2), pp. 107–113. Bachkirova, T., Cox, E. and Clutterbuck, D. (2014), Introduction, In: Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. and Clutterbuck, D. (eds), The Complete Handbook of Coaching, 2nd edn. London: Sage, pp. 1–18. Bandura, A. (1977), Self-­efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change, Psychological Review, 84(2), pp. 191–215. Baron, L., Morin, L. and Morin, D. (2011), Executive coaching: the effect of working alliance discrepancy on the development of coachees’ self-­efficacy, Journal of Management Development, 30(9), pp. 847–864. Batson, V. D. and Yoder, L. H. (2012), Managerial coaching: a concept analysis, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(7), pp. 1658–1669. Bennett, J. L. and Campone, F. (2017), Coaching and theories of learning. In: Bachkirova, T., Spence, G. and Drake, D. (eds), Sage Handbook of Coaching, London: Sage, pp. 102–120.

Coaching as a learning and development tool   65 Bowerman, J. and Collins, G. (1999), The coaching network: a program for individual and organizational development, Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(8), pp. 291–297. Brannback, M. and Carsrud, A. L. (2016), Understanding entrepreneurial cognitions through the lenses of context, In: Welter, F. and Gartner, W.  B. (eds), A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 16–27. Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (2012), Facilitating Reflective Learning: Coaching, mentoring and supervision, 2nd edn, London: Kogan Page Publishers. Blundel, R., Lockett, N. and Wang, C. (2017), Exploring Entrepreneurship, 2nd edn, London: Sage. Cairns-­Lee, H. (2015), Images of leadership development from the inside out, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(3), pp. 321–336. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. and Ecclestone, K. (2004), Learning styles and pedagogy in post-­16 learning: a systematic and critical review. Trowbridge, Learning Skills Research Centre. [Internet] available at: www.voced.edu.au/ content/ngv%3A13692 [accessed 9th March 2018]. Cope, J. (2010), Entrepreneurial learning from failure: an interpretative phenomenological analysis, Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), pp. 604–623. Cope, J. (2005), Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), pp. 429–450. Cope, J. (2003), Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: discontinuous events as triggers for ‘higher-­level’ learning, Management Learning, 34(4), pp. 441–450. Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (1998), Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs, The Learning Organisation, 5(3), pp. 144–155. De Haan, E. (2008), I doubt therefore I coach: critical moments in coaching practice, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), pp. 91–105. De Haan, E. and Duckworth, A. (2013), Signalling a new trend in executive coaching outcome research, International Coaching Psychology Review, 8(1), pp. 6–19. De Haan, E., Duckworth, A., Birch, D. and Jones, C. (2013), Executive coaching outcome research: the contribution of common factors such as relationship, personality match and self-­efficacy, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 65(1), pp. 40–57. De Villiers, R. (2012), Optimising corporate control through executive coaching development: the role of coaching, Corporate Ownership and Control, 10(1) pp. 559–572. Du Toit, A. (2014), Making Sense of Coaching, London: Sage. Ely, K., Boyce, L. A., Nelson, J. K., Zaccaro, S.  J., Hernez-­Broome, G. and Whyman, W. (2010), Evaluating leadership coaching: a review and integrated framework, The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 585–599. Garvey, R. (2017), Issues of assessment and accreditation of coaches. In: Bachkirova, T., Spence, G. and Drake, D. (eds), Sage Handbook of Coaching, London: Sage, pp. 680–895. Garvey, B. (2011), A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Coaching and Mentoring, London: Sage. Garvey, B. (1994), A dose of mentoring, Education + Training, 36(4), pp. 18–26. Garvey, R., Stokes, P. and Megginson, D. (2017), Coaching and Mentoring: Theory and Practice, 3rd edn. London, Sage Publication Ltd.

66   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour Gibb, A. (1997), Small firms’ training and competitiveness: building upon the small business as a learning organisation, International Small Business Journal, 15(3), pp. 13–29. Gibb, 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), pp. 233–269. Giglio, L., Diamante, T. and Urban, J. M. (1998), Coaching a leader: leveraging change at the top, Journal of Management Development and Learning in Organizations, 17(2), pp. 93–105. Grant, A. M. (2014), The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organisational change, Journal of Change Management, 14(2), pp. 258–280. Grant, A. M. (2012), ROI is a poor measure of coaching success: towards a more holistic approach using a well-­being and engagement framework, Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2), pp. 74–85. Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L. and Burton, G. (2009), Executive coaching enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-­being: a randomised controlled study, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(5), pp. 396–407. Gray, D. E. (2006), Executive coaching: towards a dynamic alliance of psychotherapy and transformative learning processes, Management Learning, 37(4), pp. 475–497. Gray, D. E., Garvey, B. and Lane, D. A. (2016), A Critical Introduction to Coaching and Mentoring: Debates, dialogues and discourses, London: Sage. Grief, S. (2017), Researching outcomes of coaching. In: Bachkirova, T., Spence, G. and Drake, D. (eds), Sage Handbook of Coaching, London: Sage, pp. 570–588. Hamlin, R. G., Kim, S., Chai, D. S., Kim, J. and Jeong, S. (2016), Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within South Korean and British private companies: a derived etic comparative study, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 27(2), pp. 237–269. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1982), The Manual of Learning Styles, Maidenhead: Peter Honey. Hudson, F. M. (1999), The Handbook of Coaching: A comprehensive resource guide for managers, executives, consultants, and human resource professionals, San Francisco: Jossey-­Bass. Hunt, C. M. and Fielden, S. L. (2016), Coaching for Women Entrepreneurs, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Jarvis, P., Holford, J. and Griffin, C. (1998), The Theory and Practice of Learning, London: Kogan Page. Johnston, L., Hamilton, E. and Zhang, J. (2008), Learning through engaging with higher education institutions: a small business perspective, International Small Business Journal, 26(6), pp. 651–660. Jones, O., Macpherson, A. and Woollard, D. (2008), Entrepreneurial ventures in higher education: analysing organisational growth, International Small Business Journal, 26(6), pp. 683–708. Kilburg, R. R. (1996), Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), pp. 134–144. King, P. and Eaton, J. (1999), Coaching for results, Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(4), pp. 145–151.

Coaching as a learning and development tool   67 Knowles, M. S. (1984), Andragogy in Action: Applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Knowles, M. (1975), Self-­directed Learning: A guide for learners and teachers, New York: Associated Press. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F. and Swanson, R. A. (2015), The Adult Learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development, 8th edn, Oxon: Routledge. Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning, Hackensack, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kolb, D. A. and Fry, R. (1975), Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In: Cooper, C. L. (ed.) Theories of Group Processes, London: John Wiley. Korotov, K. (2017), Coaching for leadership development, In: Bachkirova, T., Spence, G. and Drake, D. (eds) Sage Handbook of Coaching, London: Sage, pp. 139–158. Ladegard, G. and Gjerde, S. (2014), Leadership coaching, leader role-­efficacy, and trust in subordinates: a mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool, The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), pp. 631–646. Lave J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ling, T. (2012), Evaluating complex and unfolding interventions in real time, Evaluation, 18(1), pp. 79–91. MacKie, D. (2016), Strength-­based Leadership Coaching in Organisations, London: Kogan Page Limited. Maltbia, T. E., Marsick, V. J. and Ghosh, R. (2014), Executive and organizational coaching a review of insights drawn from literature to inform HRD practice, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), pp. 161–183. Merriam, S. B. (2001), Andragogy and self-­directed learning: pillars of adult learning theory. In: Merriam, S. B. (ed.) The New Update on Adult Learning Theory: New directions for adult and continuing education, San Francisco: Jossey-­Bass, pp. 3–13. Mezirow, J. (2000), Learning as Transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, San Francisco: Jossey-­Bass. Mezirow, J. (1991), Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning, San Francisco: Jossey-­Bass. Narayanasamy, A. and Penney, V. (2014), Coaching to promote professional development in nursing practice, British Journal of Nursing, 23(11), pp. 569–573. Northouse, P. G. (2016), Leadership: Theory and practice, 7th edn, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Passmore, J. (2007), An integrative model for executive coaching, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(1), pp. 68–78. Passmore, J. and Fillery-­Travis, A. (2011), A critical review of executive coaching research: a decade of progress and what’s to come, Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 4(2), pp. 70–88. Pavlov, I. P. (1927), Conditioned Reflexes, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Penaluna, A. and Penaluna, K. (2008), Entrepreneurial Capacity? Entrepreneurial Intent? Assessing creativity: drawing from the experience of the UK’s creative industries. Paper presented at IntEnt 2008, Miami University, Ohio. Piaget, J. (1929), The Child’s Conception of the World, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pittaway, L. (2000), The Social Construction of Entrepreneurial Behaviour, PhD Thesis, The University of Newcastle-­upon-Tyne, UK.

68   Duminda Rajasinghe and Hala F. Mansour Pittaway, L. and Thorpe, R. (2012), A framework for entrepreneurial learning: a tribute to Jason Cope, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(9/10), pp. 837–859. Pittaway, L., Gazzard, J., Shore, A. and Williamson, T. (2015), Student clubs: experiences in entrepreneurial learning, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(3–4), pp. 127–153. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2018), Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers (January), [online], Available at: www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Enterprise-­and-entrepreneurship-­ education-2018.pdf [accessed 20th February 2018]. Rae, D. (2002), Entrepreneurial emergence: a narrative study of entrepreneurial learning in independently owned media business, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3(1), pp. 53–59. Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2000), Using a life story approach to researching entrepreneurial learning: the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences, Education and Training, 42(4/5), pp. 220–227. Reynolds, J. and Mason, R. (2002), How Do People Learn? London: CIPD. Saunders, M. (2006), The ‘presence’ of evaluation theory and practice in educational and social development: toward an inclusive approach, London Review of Education, 4(2), pp. 197–215. Schwandt, T. A. (1997), Evaluation as practical hermeneutics, Evaluation, 3(1), pp. 69–83. Segers, J., Vloeberghs, D., Henderickx, E. and Inceoglu, I. (2011), Structuring and understanding the coaching industry: the coaching cube, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), pp. 204–221. Skinner, B. F. (1976), About Behaviourism, New York: Random House. Starr, J. (2003), The Coaching Manual: The definitive guide to the process, principles and skills of personal coaching, London: Prentice Hall Business. Stern, L. R. (2004), Executive coaching: a working definition, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), pp. 154–162. Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. and Van Vianen, A. E. (2014), Does coaching work? A meta-­analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), pp. 1–18. Thompson, J. and Downing, R. (2007), The entrepreneur enabler: identifying and supporting those with potential, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3), 528–544. Tobias, L. L. (1996), Coaching executives, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), pp. 87–95. Tseng, C. (2013), Connecting self-­directed learning with entrepreneurial learning to entrepreneurial performance, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour Research, 19(4), pp. 425–446. Underhill, B. O., McAnally, K. and Koriath, J. J. (2007), Executive Coaching for Results: The definitive guide to developing organizational leaders, San Francisco: Berrett-­Koehler. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological process, Cole, M., John-­Steiner, V., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E. (eds) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wang, Q. (2012), Coaching for learning: exploring coaching psychology in enquiry-­based learning and development of learning power in secondary education, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 69, pp. 177–186.

Coaching as a learning and development tool   69 Watts, G., Cope, J. and Hulme, M. (1998), Pain and gain: growth strategies and adaptive learning among small food producers, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research, 4(2), pp. 101–111. Western, S. (2012), Coaching and Mentoring: A critical text, London: Sage. Whitmore, J. (2012), Coaching for Performance: GROWing human potential and purpose – The principles and practice of coaching and leadership, London: Nicholas Brealey. Wilson, C. (2007), Best Practice in Performance Coaching: A handbook for leaders, coaches, HR professionals and organizations, London: Kogan. Wilson, K. (2008), Entrepreneurship education in Europe, Entrepreneurship and Higher Education. Retrieved 29 March 2018, from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/13/42961567.pdf. Witherspoon, R. and White, R. P. (1996), Executive coaching: a continuum of roles, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), pp. 124–133. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. and Ross, G. (1976), The role of tutoring in problem-­ solving, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), pp. 89–100. Zeus, P. and Skiffington, S. (2000), The Complete Guide to Coaching at Work, North Ryde: McGraw Hill Australia.

5

Global Board Games Project A cross-border entrepreneurship experiential learning initiative Nuno Arroteia,1 Ross Curran,2 Andreu Blesa,3 María Ripollés4 and Martina Musteen5

Entrepreneurial social skills development through business simulation Entrepreneurship training and development in the context of higher education has grown tremendously over the past four decades. What began as offerings of a handful of courses aimed primarily at business planning and small business management has evolved into over 3,000 higher education institutions around the world offering degree programs and concentrations in entrepreneurship at both undergraduate and graduate levels (Morris, Kuratko and Cornwall, 2013). Universities – particularly in the USA, UK and EU – have invested into developing entrepreneurship curricula but also extra-­curricular programs and infrastructure aimed at supporting enterprise development. It is the consensus among educators that entrepreneurship can be taught (Kuratko, 2005). Indeed, entrepreneurship education research has become a field in its own right (Fayolle, Gailly and Lassas-­Clerc, 2006; Pittaway and Cope, 2007; Penaluna, Penaluna and Jones, 2012; Fayolle, 2013; Fayolle and Gailly, 2015; Pittaway et al., 2015; Nabi et al., 2017). As literature indicates, entrepreneurship education can have an important impact on a variety of outcomes, including entrepreneurial intentions and behaviours. Intentions are a motivation to engage in certain behaviour that is geared towards venture creation (Gibb, 2008, 2011) as well as recognition and exploitation of opportunities (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Moreover, research has also identified the impact of entrepreneurship education on more subjective indicators such as attitudes (Boukamcha, 2015), perceived feasibility (Rauch and Hulsink, 2015), and skills and knowledge (Greene and Saridakis, 2008). Recently, the literature on the best practices in entrepreneurship education has centred on the importance of experiential learning, allowing students to create knowledge from their interactions with the environment (Kolb, 1984). The key to effective experiential learning is engaging students individually and socially in a situation that enables them to interact with elements of the entrepreneurial context thus moving them away from text-­driven to action-­driven learning mode (Morris, Kuratko

Global Board Games Project   71 and Cornwall, 2013). Increasingly, digital technologies have been leveraged to create a learning environment that provides opportunities for experiential learning (Onyema and Daniil, 2017). This chapter provides findings of a study related to the development and implementation of a collaborative, digitally supported simulation project aimed at enhancing entrepreneurial social skills in an international context. Supply, demand, and competence models One important distinction exists between education about entrepreneurship and education for entrepreneurship. Education about entrepreneurship focuses primarily on raising awareness about entrepreneurship and various aspects of starting and running a business (Rauch and Hulsink, 2015). These programs can be framed within the behaviourist approach which assumes learning is primarily the passive transfer (supply side) of knowledge from the teacher to the students (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005). In terms of impact, supply-­side pedagogy is positively related to self-­ efficacy (Sánchez, 2011) and entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud, 2000; Liñán and Chen, 2009). The second category (demand side), education for entrepreneurship, emphasises a practice and action-­oriented learning approach (Rauch and Hulsink, 2015). Courses in this tradition emphasise skills, capability development, and personal development, through experimentation, aiming at preparing a business plan, funding a company, and developing the business. Therefore, students are constructive agents that accrue meaning and build knowledge as they apply it to solve problems and learn from that process, and not being mere passive receivers of information (Coleman, Perry and Schwen, 1997; Jonassen, Peck and Wilson, 1999). The demand model of entrepreneurship education focuses on pedagogical methods that include an important element of realism such as real-­life problems to be solved, thus making the process of acquiring knowledge more contextualised and aligned with how it would be used in real-­world circumstances, thus easier to transfer (Nabi et al., 2017). Students make meaning from direct experiences (Mughal and Zafar, 2011). Knowledge is created through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984). Students accrue personalised meaning through exploration, discussion, and experimentation, such as by adopting realistic entrepreneurial exercises (e.g. board games, computer simulations) (Kuratko, 2005; Breckwoldt, Gruber and Wittmann, 2014), experience-­based learning (Fayolle, Gailly and Lassas-­Clerc, 2006; McGoldrick and Ziegert, 2011), problem-­based learning (Kirkwood, Dwyer and Gray, 2014), collaborative projects (Souitaris, Zerbinati and Al-­Laham, 2007), and gaining awareness from role models (Pittaway et al., 2011; Chang and Rieple, 2013). The competency model emphasises communication, discussion and knowledge production (Nabi et al., 2017), through supporting students to

72   Nuno Arroteia et al. organise the resources at their disposal into capabilities that can be mobilised for action (Bechard and Gregoire, 2005). Such pedagogical methods require students who are starting up businesses to consult external experts typically for legal, accounting and sales support (Vincett and Farlow, 2008) or deal with real-­world problems or opportunities in industry-­ engaged environments (Gilbert, 2012). Both demand- and competency-­based approaches embed pedagogic practices that support learning through experience (Wurdinger, 2005; McGoldrick and Ziegert, 2011; Mughal and Zafar, 2011). Nabi et al. (2017) identified that demand- and competence-­based pedagogic approaches positively affect entrepreneurial intention (Fayolle, Gailly and Lassas-­Clerc, 2006; Souitaris, Zerbinati and Al-­Laham, 2007), or other personal change, such as satisfaction with the course or participation (Pittaway et al., 2011). In addition, both demand- and competence-­based models are positively related to entrepreneurial skills development (Gilbert, 2012; Nabi et al., 2017), such as entrepreneurial social skills which are the focus of this book chapter. In this project, entrepreneurial social skills are the ability to manage social relationships in order to build valuable social networks (Gedajlovic et al., 2013). Therefore, this research studies social skills in the context of networks and not as skills to effectively interact with others as, for example, in the work of Baron and Markman (2003). In order to enhance entrepreneurial social skills, a project based on designing a board game with a global focus was developed using a combination of methods from these different approaches: demand-­competencebased and enhancing online communication through digital technologies. Digital technologies and entrepreneurial learning Digital technologies applied to teaching and learning encompass all the four contributions that social software brings to educational domain, as identified by McLoughlin and Lee (2010) as: build connectivity and social relationships; facilitate collective discovery and information sharing; support content construction; knowledge and information accumulation and modification. However, in order to achieve meaningful technology integration, learning must be designed to encourage students to learn in a social context and help them to ‘develop an ability to readily create new knowledge, solve new problems and employ creativity and critical thinking’ (Sadik, 2008, 488). This means that these technologies have the ability to support content generation by seamlessly capturing different inputs such as suggestions, ideas and opinions from individuals who are focused on the same topic or project, therefore contributing to establishing communities of practice (Cochrane, 2014). Communities of practice allow students with different skills and backgrounds to collaborate in evaluating different courses of action and contribute to a dynamic decision-­making process. This detaches the decision

Global Board Games Project   73 making from the individual level and strengthens the multidisciplinary perspective. Furthermore, it establishes the grounds for developing networks among peers that will undoubtedly benefit their future roles and career progression. The project and the methodology used are now presented.

Global Board Games Project Concept and objectives The concept of the project arose from the debate among scholars in the field of international entrepreneurship on how to create cross-­border experiential exercises and projects that would expose students to the concept of international entrepreneurship and early international market entry. One of the venues for such a debate is the annual California Entrepreneurship Educators conference hosted by San Diego State University and digitally through ie-­scholar.net, an online community of over 600 international entrepreneurship scholars and educators from around the world. One of such ideas gave rise to a semester-­long experiential simulation project dubbed Global Board Game Project (GBGP). The key drivers of the project were the desire to instil global entrepreneurial mind-­sets, engage students in hands-­on activities including ideation and development of a tangible minimum viable product (a board game). The choice of board games as a focal point of the methodology was justified through their return to mainstream entertainment among families, children and young adults, not only at home but also in cafes and social spaces. Global sales of games and puzzles have grown from $9.3 billion in 2013 to $9.6 billion in 2016, according to Euromonitor International, with an expected year-­on-year growth of more than 1 per cent each year. Furthermore, board games offered a creative canvas for students, through which they can attune their game designs to demonstrate the understanding of cultural contexts. A large number of variables in designing a board game was also an opportunity for communication, discussion and debate among students. The project had five objectives: 1 Inspire students to use theoretical concepts in practice. 2 Identify a real problem in a real-­world environment to be addressed with the development of a product. 3 Foster internationalisation, and encourage students to learn how to market a product in a foreign country. 4 Enable knowledge creation among students to solve problems. 5 Enhance the social skills necessary to manage actor networks. Representatives of three universities in three countries expressed interest and became active in designing the project’s methodology – San Diego

74   Nuno Arroteia et al. State University (USA), Abertay University (UK) and University Jaume I (Spain). Methodology To ensure meeting the objectives while bringing together students and educators from different countries, the following methodology was defined. In each university, the students were placed in groups of four to six each and paired with one partner group from a different country (foreign partner team). This led students to engage in a social network of peers in which to become involved in a discursive process leading to reflection through action learning. Each group was tasked with creating a product (board game) to be sold in California (USA), Scotland (UK) or Spain, according to the location of the partner group to which they had been assigned. Each participating team on the project, therefore, had a dual role. On one hand, they were entrepreneurs tasked with creating a board game according to a problem/need identified in the foreign market in which it would be marketed and sold. For that, they had to establish multicultural negotiations with a foreign partner team (FPT) and were expected to provide feedback about domestic market characteristics, product viability, price decisions, channels availability and communication to their partners. On the other hand, each team was to consider marketing a board game created by their FPT according to a problem/need identified in their own country with the information that they had provided. Specifically, each team’s responsibility would be to provide support to the other team and help marketing the product (board game) locally in their home market. To facilitate interaction between students within their team, between teams and between students and the instructors, each group created a profile on Ideator.com, an online platform designed specifically for entrepreneur teams. It enabled easy communication and served as a repository for all project-­related documents. Creating an Ideator.com profile prompted students to act as ‘real’ entrepreneurs by creating a home page, logo and verbiage that would normally be expected from a team of individuals seeking to bring a product/service to market. Students were asked to identify a real problem in the assigned international market to be addressed by the board game. For that, each team had to conduct an in-­depth assessment of the foreign market using secondary research to evaluate the trends occurring in the macro environment, identify the issues of particular challenge and consider the feasibility of these to the development of their board game by relating the issues to themes/elements of the game. While doing that they were expected to engage with their FPT in order to validate their understanding of the issues found, as well as the extent that the board game that was being envisaged would contribute to solving

Global Board Games Project   75 the problems, and potentially be accepted by the customers in the foreign market. Each group was asked to create a prototype of the board game to be sold in the foreign market. This included knowledge about both foreign and local competitors. They had to think about the product idea and to develop a description of the product, which should include its tentative name and instructions for use. They also had to articulate a brief description of the ‘problem’ it sought to solve and the ‘solution’ to that problem. The prototype should be physical and instructions to play should also be available. The physical prototype would be sent to the partner group. To facilitate the development of the prototype and to simulate the process of minimum viable product development, the student teams used Boardgamesmaker.com, an online custom board and card game manufacturer. Using this platform forced students not only to create a technologically feasible prototype but also to take into account issues such as the cost associated with various features and shipping options, volume discounts and the time lag between making an order and the arrival of the product to an international location. In parallel to this process, each group was expected to elaborate a market entry plan addressing actions to be implemented towards marketing and selling their board game in the foreign market. Aspects such as customer segmentation, pricing, distribution and communication strategies were expected to be given in-­depth consideration. Additionally, they had to collect intelligence on foreign competitors in that market. Finally, they had to provide a brief assessment of their competitive positioning, including a note on the information they would like to obtain to make a better decision about their intended strategy. The market entry plan would be sent to the partner team. Each team was expected to have the prototype of the game and a lean market entry plan sent to their counterpart. Conversely, each team would receive from their partner team these two outputs. Each team would conduct a product test of their FPT’s board game and provide feedback on the product as well as on the market entry plan. Finally, each group had to assess their FPT and each student individually had to elaborate a personal reflection about how, through participating in the GBGP, their understanding of international entrepreneurship, product development and foreign market entry had been enhanced through the challenges their group faced and overcame. Implementation The project was implemented during 2017/2018 (September–December) and included the three participating institutions. As Gibb (2011) posited, an important competence for entrepreneurial educators is the capacity to build networks of support, internally and externally, what requires

76   Nuno Arroteia et al. ­ nowledge of other programmes and policies and the opportunities that k arise from them. Overall, 109 students participated in the project: 47 from the International Entrepreneurship course from the bachelor’s degree (various business majors) programme at San Diego State University; 24 from the course Creativity, Innovation and Marketing from the Marketing degree of Abertay University; 25 from the course Business Creation; and 13 from the course International Marketing from the bachelor’s degree in Business Administration of Universitat Jaume I. Twenty-­two teams were created – ten in San Diego State University, six in Abertay University and six Jaume I; these latter teams were formed with students from Business Creation and International Marketing courses. The teams were coupled so that each university had at least a FPT from one of the other two participating countries. The final distribution was five San Diego State University teams coupled with five Abertay University teams, the other five San Diego State University teams coupled with five Universitat Jaume I UJI teams and one Abertay University team coupled with one Universitat Jaume I team. The successful implementation of this methodology, across three cohorts of students in three nation-­states raised several challenges for the delivery team. The specificities of the implementation process adopted are now discussed. When the learning project involves students from different countries, the challenge for the entrepreneurial educators is not only to find international partners to coordinate the learning activities but to adapt their own programme to them. From April to August 2017, the educators of the three universities made the required adaptations of content, assignments and calendar to coordinate the activities of the participating student teams. One of the first tasks was organising team formation. This was conducted early in the semester to enable students to immediately begin the team-­working project and to capitalise on the buzz generated from introducing students to the module. Students self-­selected teams of between four and five members, exchanged contact details, and were tasked with creating their online network platform profiles (specifically using Ideator.com). Teams were encouraged to maintain team-­meeting logbooks, the purpose of which was twofold; first, the logbooks facilitated team meeting scheduling, and second, they encouraged productivity during team meetings as attendees were required to reflect on meeting outputs. Several options to communicate were offered to the student: online network platforms, email, telephone, instant message applications, video chat, etc. Online network platforms were used for generating and sharing the minimum viable product (the first version of the board game). They also used these platforms to share information and documents, such as worksheets. Each group shared their ideas with professors, which allowed team outputs to be monitored and checked in advance for appropriateness.

Global Board Games Project   77 The size of the modules at the three GBGP partners influenced the number of students per group, and therefore the number of teams formed at each partner institution. In practice, this process was complicated by the unsettled early weeks of the semester. To combat this challenge, the delivery team maintained close oversight of local team compositions, to ensure the capacity to offer corresponding overseas partners was maintained. Students worked in the same groups for both the GBGP outputs and for local assessment (e.g. group presentation). Regular VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and email communication between the GBGP delivery team was crucial to this stage. Milestones Variation in the academic calendars across partner institutions raised coordination challenges for the implementation of the project. In response to this, an agreed series of inter-­institution milestones, overlaid against the demands of local delivery calendars (including local assessment requirements) was generated. The GBGP milestones were again agreed through communication across the delivery team, to ensure student partner teams progressed at similar stages, and could, therefore, cooperate effectively with one another during the project. The use of global milestones mitigated the impact of variation in the academic focus of the modules being delivered (e.g. entrepreneurship, marketing) as the milestones agreed made allowances for local academic focus, and were designed to stimulate student cross-­cultural interaction (see Table 5.1). Of the agreed milestones, the following could be considered highly critical, therefore, requiring prioritisation by the delivery team: • • •

Allocation and establishing of contact with foreign partner team Ordering board games (taking into account production and delivery times) Offering feedback to partner teams on the received board game

To contribute to meeting the project’s objectives, eight worksheets that stimulated incremental understanding among students were developed (see Table 5.1). The aim of the first worksheet was to develop a portrayal of the foreign market. The students had to develop foreign market indicators to be used to assess the partner country’s market attractiveness. Then they had to determine the source of information for each indicator and collect data of the most recent year available. This involved establishing weights that reflected the importance of each indicator in predicting foreign market potential. Using the data collected, they had to determine the relative attractiveness of their market (UK, USA or Spain). Finally, using the market assessment tool they developed, they had to comment on the

Creation of teams in the USA, UK and Spain, and pairing with FPT Creation of a team’s profile and project/board game brief using Ideator.com platform Pre-qualification of the board game idea by the lecturers – Go or No Go decision Foreign market assessment

Ideation and creation of prototypes/mock-ups of the board game

Competitive positioning Competitive positioning Business model canvas Lean market entry action plan Lean market entry action plan Product test and feedback to FPT Feedback to FPT

Peer assessment Final presentation

Reflective summary

18/09

13/10

19/10 20/10 27/10

29/11 14/12

21/12

30/10 03/11 10/11

06/10

25/09

18/09

Topic/brief description

Milestone day/month

Table 5.1 Milestones of the Global Board Game Project

To send Worksheet IV to FPT Worksheets V and VI Send and receive feedback from partner team on product and Lean Market Entry Action Plan – Worksheet VI Peer assessment – Worksheet VII Final presentation Global Board Game Project to lecturers and colleagues Submission of short personal reflection of the experiences of the GBGP – Worksheet VIII

Desk research exercise into the board games market, globally, in USA, UK and Spain Worksheet I Elaboration of physical version of the prototype and/ or submit order for production to be sent to FPT Elaboration of game instructions to be sent to FPT Worksheet II To upload Worksheet I and II to virtual classroom Presentation of Worksheet I and II Worksheet III and IV

Ideator.com profile per group and invitation of partner team to join in

Pairing with FPT

Students’ outputs

Global Board Games Project   79 ­ ndings in light of other information they may be able to source (this could fi include informal personal insights, special circumstances, etc.). The aim of the second worksheet was to develop a preliminary idea about the positioning of the board game product in the target market. This included knowledge about both foreign competitors. They had to think about the product idea and to develop a description of the product, which should include its tentative name, and instructions for use. They also had to articulate a brief description of the ‘problem’ it sought to solve and the ‘solution’ to that problem. Additionally, they had to describe the target market for their product in the country they were assigned and collect intelligence on both foreign and local competitors in that market. Finally, they had to provide a brief assessment of their competitive positioning, including a note on the information they would like to obtain in-­order-to make a better decision about their intended strategy. The objective of the third worksheet was to develop the business model canvas for board game product they developed. The students were advised to be prepared to iterate their thinking about the business model as they engaged with their FPT as well as in gathering primary data on their customers. The fourth worksheet task consisted of developing a lean market entry plan for their global board game product into the assigned foreign market. This action plan had to be informed by the work presented in previous worksheets and supplemented by independent research. This plan had to be sent to their FPT for feedback. The aim of the fifth, sixth and seventh worksheets was to provide valuable feedback to FPTs. Respectively, based on the findings related to testing the FPT’s product, the consideration of their lean foreign market action plan, and the efforts of the FPT during the process which involved each team providing information to its partner. Finally, each student provided a personal reflection on their experiences developing an idea, designing a product, and developing a marketing plan in this module (by filling in worksheet eight). They could focus on one particular theoretical aspect of the course (e.g. an aspect of marketing, sales, international cultural business issues, distribution issues, etc.) and reflect on how through participating in the process their understanding had been enhanced through the challenges their group faced and overcame. A visual representation of the GBGP flow is detailed in Figure 5.1. As well as developing an understanding of the student partner team’s business contexts, the GBGP also highlighted cultural issues relevant to the educational contexts it spanned. This was most apparent in relation to managing and accounting for the costs of the board games that would be produced. In Scotland and Spain, where higher education is publicly funded, requiring students to cover additional costs to participate in the GBGP would have potentially resulted in low participation rates. This contrasted with the situation in the USA, where student contributions were deemed to have no adverse effect on student participation attitudes.

80   Nuno Arroteia et al.

Foreign market assessment

Creation of prototypes

Sharing lean market entry action plan

Lean market entry action plan

Business model canvas

Sharing feedback

Peer assessment

Product test

Competitive positioning

Reflective summary

Figure 5.1 Global Board Game Project Process design.

Responding to this, the teams in Scotland and Spain sought, and received, additional financial support from their respective departments with a cap on the cost of game production and shipping of approximately 30 pounds. While this limited the game options and features available to students, it also ensured that game design required thorough consideration and encouraged close team-­working to successfully calibrate the product offering for their partner team’s market, while also discouraging ‘overloading’ the board game prototypes. Incorporating feedback The real-­world simulation approach used in the project was conducive to a continual learning process. Hence, provision for feedback to students was embedded at three levels outlined in Table 5.2. Incorporating the process into assessments Formal assessment was handled locally at each partner team institution. This allowed each institution to participate in the GBGP while also adhering to the assessment requirements mandated by each participating institution. A breakdown of the local assessments is offered in Table 5.3.

Partner Team – Partner Team

Peer-to-Peer

Students received regular feedback from educators Educators were required to plan schedules carefully to through workshop sessions and via the Ideator.com allow feedback to be incorporated in developing game platform ‘comments’ feature in relation worksheets, ideas. Particularly, it required written formative and formative feedback in relation to local assessment and summative feedback to be scheduled to carefully in formal, summative feedback through grading of local order to complement GBGP milestones. assessments. Students offer feedback to each other’s ideas and Encouraging students to undertake peer-to-peer feedback contributions developmentally in their local groups. in a constructive fashion can be challenging. Feedback is also encouraged between student groups Incorporating the process into local assessments is one (locally) and via the Ideator.com platform. approach to encourage it. Teams were encouraged to communicate regularly with In practice, stimulating meaningful foreign-partner team their FPT culminating in a ‘product testing’ session of working was found to be challenging for some the physical board game produced. Feedback from this participant groups. Language, cultural, and time-zone was sent to their FPT. barriers are required to be overcome. Some groups Teams were required to submit formal feedback on their succeeded in overcoming these issues more successfully experience of working with their FPT. than others, however, the worksheets ensured a minimum level of feedback was generated.

Educator-student

Challenges for implementation

Description

Feedback

Table 5.2 Sources of feedback

Universitat Jaume I

Personal reflection (5%)

Quality of the final report (50%)

Peer evaluation (10%)

Resourcefulness and flexibility in meeting unexpected challenges (5%) FPT Assessment (10%)

Adherence to guidelines/timeliness (5%)

FPT assessment in International Marketing course (50%)/FPT assessment (10%) in Business Creation course Peer assessment of group presentation (30%) Teacher assessment of worksheets (50%) in Business Creation course

Presentation discussions (10%) in Business Creation course/(20%) in International Marketing course

Engagement (class exercises, communication Participation in presentation discussions with FPT) (10%) (10%) in International Marketing course

Assigned tasks and worksheets (5%)

San Diego State University

Table 5.3 Modes of assessment

Presentation of board game idea and explanation of its appropriateness to the partner team market (40%) Presentation of board game idea and explanation of its appropriateness to the partner team market (40%)

Abertay University

Global Board Games Project   83 At both San Diego State University and Universitat Jaume I the assessment credited participation in the GBGP more strongly than at Abertay University. While an appeal of the GBGP for educators is its ability to be mapped against existing module requirements, the variation in grade allocations influenced what aspects of the project were prioritised by students. In some cases, the disconnect between FPT priorities may have influenced the quality of communication and interaction that took place. The methodology of the process is now evaluated. Evaluating the project Students’ feedback The reflective essays submitted by students served to encourage self-­ reflection, but also offered an opportunity for the delivery team to gain a deeper insight into participants’ experiences from a student perspective. Students were overall positive about the process, and identified several challenges related to working across borders that they identified and overcame, thus illustrating how the process required students to overcome numerous ‘problems’ throughout the project. The student reflective essays again identified some issues relating to FPT team-­working and communication issues, which had a more urgent impact on project partners where FPT team-­working represented a graded element of the module. Student FPT feedback was recorded via the project worksheets seven and eight which were set as aligned milestones for the project. The FPT  feedback identified several positive, but also negative experiences of cross-­border working. For example, several students on the GBGP explain how FPT working raised issues they had not previously considered: The team gave constructive feedback on the features of the game, stating that some of the cards were misspelled however this could be more to the cultural difference of spelling certain words than them being spelled wrong. (Abertay Student) We were unsure as to how our Foreign Partner team, or Scottish people in general, would react to the game. Based upon our research, it seemed as if individuals in this country viewed the outgoing trait as a positive. We were happy to hear the basis of our game would blend well within the UK, according to our Foreign Partner Team. (San Diego State University student)

84   Nuno Arroteia et al. Since we had a partner team in Spain with which we had to communicate to exchange products and feedback, we experienced what it’s like to have a network that extends in an unknown market. Since it was not always easy to communicate effectively with them, it made me understand that it’s fundamental to have a good relationship with your network and work towards understanding each other. (San Diego State University student) My favorite part was working with the team in Spain in order to translate and conform to the partner country’s culture. It really shows that you may think you know a culture just by researching online and implementing it into a project. But, in fact it takes people living in another country to help you integrate your project. (San Diego State University student) I was really impressed with the depth of feedback and analysis that our foreign partner team provided our group with. They made some really good comments and suggestions on thing that we should change or add, so that we could ensure better success when we finally take our product to market. They ultimately gave us the insights and local knowledge we’d need to successfully take our game and sell it in Spain. (San Diego State University student) However, this was contrasted by other participants’ experience which identified issues around communication and interaction with the FPT: I have seen little involvement on the part of the [group name] towards our project, because before sending the game to the United States, I sent the characteristics of our game and the phrases that make up our game to be able to send it in the best possible conditions both in translation and in model. The answer by them was very late, so we had to send the game as we had developed it without improving aspects that in this work are scored. (Universitat Jaume I student) The communicative challenges we faced were caused by misunderstandings and poor communication that led to a general confusion between us and our partners. Eventually, one of the other team’s members reached out to me privately and we tried to clarify the situation. (San Diego State University student) Despite having a good work effort in our own team, we experienced quite a lot of problems with our foreign partners. We have yet not seen their product, and have therefore not been able to give them feedback.

Global Board Games Project   85 We have learnt that communication through time zones can be quite challenging and that personal interaction in many cases would be a better solution then email. (San Diego State University student) The contact with students from other countries allowed the project participants to deepen their understanding of other cultures. Through the GBGP process, they came to understand that the most important aspect of the process was not the physical product they developed, but their understanding of the whole world behind it. Thus, the experience of working with people from abroad encouraged participants to adapt and enhance early ideas iteratively as knowledge of their partner team’s culture improved. Consequently, students’ cultural understanding manifested through an articulation of rules, appropriate game themes, colour and punctuation, demonstrated awareness of specific market trends and challenges. Students at Universitat Jaume I positively assessed the project, and highlighted how it had allowed them to interact with people from other cultures but with the same goals, regardless of distance and differences. The project also contributed to deepening understanding of cultures and beliefs in other countries, as students reported feeling better equipped to navigate these issues in the future and aware of the critical role of communication. For example, one student commented: Working on GBGP helped me facing various issues never confronted before. Firstly, I learnt how to work on the launch of a new product and how to communicate with a wide team of students from all over the world. Hence, it gave me the chance to engage with different cultures, unknown for me before. Overall, this project helped me in realising that even simple board games vary from country to country as each one of them has a different identity and specific needs to take into account. I learnt that culture essentially influences a marketing research. Hence, to sell a product, it is fundamental to examine and anticipate the contextual needs and preferences of the specific consumers. (Universitat Jaume I student) Furthermore, relating to the iterative, developmental nature of the methodology, a student highlighted: I understood what was all right and which parts our marketing team had to modify and vice versa, our marketing team provided helpful feedback on the game of our Foreign Partner Team, based on our experience in playing with their game, adopting the point of view of the game target market and considering their Lean Foreign Market Action Plan. (Universitat Jaume I student)

86   Nuno Arroteia et al. Feedback from students was overall positive of the methodology. At Abertay University, one student articulates how involvement in the project generated excitement in relation to the project: From the moment I understood the content of the module, I couldn’t wait to get started. I thought the idea of creating your own product, marketing it, and physically selling it, was very exciting. Through the process, myself and my team members experienced some tasks that went smoothly, but also some issues that we had to resolve, all made for a riveting few months. (Abertay University student) Of particular note is this students’ acknowledgement that the process did not run entirely as expected. Unforeseen issues arose, which demanded their team devise appropriate responses. This dynamic aspect of the process represents one of the advantages of simulation-­based learning (Breckwoldt et al., 2014), and contributes to the engagement of students while developing problem-­solving, team-­working, and communication skills invaluable in the workplace (Andrews and Higson, 2008). Overall, students felt the GBGP was an effective learning tool providing them with valuable insights and enhanced understanding of bringing the product to a foreign market. Participating in the Global Board Game Project was a unique experience I had not encountered and I can confidently say I enjoyed it! (San Diego State University student) Working on the GBGP with our foreign partner team really enhanced my understanding of the important of local partners when doing business internationally … our FPT was a key resource to have in ‘testing’ our assumptions. Their suggestions in regards to sales channels were key as well because we ended up pivoting in that segment of our business plan. (San Diego State University student) Lessons learned At the conclusion of the process, a debrief session was held by the GBGP delivery team in which the effectiveness of the methodology was considered. This was informed by information from several sources: • • • • •

Student coursework grades Student submitted reflective essays Student FPT feedback Formal student module feedback The delivery team’s debrief discussion

Global Board Games Project   87 The spread of student grades fell within normal parameters for all partner teams, thus suggesting the GBGP was successful in developing student understanding in the various module focus areas and meeting the student learning outcomes set for the respective courses. Reflecting on the implementation of the GBGP, the debrief session allowed the delivery team to identify action points derived from the module feedback, resulting in identification of the following areas: • •

FPT communication/co-­operation was not consistent across all pairings. There was homogeneity of board game designs/themes.

In response to FPT communication problems, the delivery team agreed that allocating a percentage of the module-­grade to FPT interaction would benefit the project for all participants. Furthermore, the student’s use of the online communication platforms varied between teams. To stimulate their use (and subsequent FPT interaction), the delivery team plan on further emphasising this aspect of the project, and making the use of such platforms mandatory. Responding to the homogeneity of board game designs, several student teams produced card-­based drinking/dare games, which demonstrated limited variety in the ways the games had been culturally calibrated. Through discussion in the debrief session, it was suggested that additional worksheets be generated which require student board game ideas to be more creative and problem-­oriented and to address a greater variety of issues. For example, students would be encouraged to develop a board game that contributes to solving political, economic, social or cultural issues they identify in their FPT’s local market. Through these adjustments, it is hoped the GBGP can stimulate greater creativity and increased levels of cross-­border student engagement and team working. Table 5.4 represents the extent to which the methodology developed fulfilled its aims and areas identified for attention in future iterations of the project.

Conclusion In this chapter, we reported on the development and implementation of an innovative and collaborative simulation project, Global Board Game Project, which was designed to enhance entrepreneurial social skills in an international context. The cross-­border initiative was driven by the desire to incorporate an experiential component into courses with a global entrepreneurship focus. Specifically, the GBGP was intended to follow the demand- and competence-­model pedagogical approach (Nabi et al., 2017) with several objectives. These included enhancement of students’ social entrepreneurial skills through interaction with a ‘real’ environment and engaging – via digital technology – in cross-­border communication to market a product in a foreign market.

Evidenced by the feedback, however, there was variation among the students. Student feedback attested to the positive impact of the ‘real world’ aspect of the project. Evidenced through student’s written outputs. Evidenced through student feedback.

Enhance social skills for managing actor networks Develop a methodology centred around the identification of real problem’s in a real environment Inspire students to use theoretical concepts in practice

Foster internationalisation, and encourage students to learn how to market a product in a foreign country Enable knowledge creation among students to solve problems Evidenced through observation of the problems solved and the student feedback.

Fulfilment

GBGP aims

Table 5.4 Aim fulfilment and action points

Consider closer integration of module content across partners to stimulate more FPT, theoretical interaction. Continue to maintain the ‘international’ element in future iterations and grow the international footprint of the project. Stimulate this more through incorporating new, effective online communication platforms.

Harmonisation of assessment approaches to specifically credit such development. Re-run the project with new cohorts, and refined methodology.

Action points

Global Board Games Project   89 While not without challenges, the project was generally successful in meeting the objectives based on the student feedback as well as the formal assessment of the student learning outcomes. In particular, students appreciated the opportunity to develop a product concept and receive feedback from their counterparts in another university in another country. The experience of creating a ‘real’ prototype and interacting with students challenged the students cognitively and demanded they recognise and respond to the challenges of bringing a product into a foreign market in an action-­driven process. In that sense, the simulation, as a pedagogical tool, allowed the students to grasp international entrepreneurship concepts in a way that included multiple perspectives, is more imaginative, emotional and people-­oriented (Morris, Kuratko and Cornwall, 2013). The use of digital technologies – in particular, the Ideator.com and the Boardgamesmaker.com platforms – proved to be helpful in making the simulation feasible despite the dispersion of actors across different countries. From the perspective of the delivery team, the initial findings regarding the GBGP point to areas that can be modified and, ultimately, improved. It is hoped that the project can serve as an inspiration for entrepreneurship educators from around the world to further enhance the quality of educational programs and enrich the discussion on the theory and practice of innovative enterprise education.

Notes 1 Lecturer at Coventry University, UK. Email: [email protected]. 2 Assistant Professor at Heriot-Watt University, UK. Email: [email protected]. 3 Associate Professor, Universitat Jaume I, Spain. Email: [email protected]. 4 Associate Professor, Universitat Jaume I, Spain. Email: [email protected]. 5 Charles Hostler, Professor of Global Business, San Diego State University, USA. Email: [email protected].

References Baron, R. A. and Markman, G. D. (2003) ‘Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), pp. 41–60. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00069-0. Bechard, J. P. and Gregoire, D. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship education research revisited: the case of higher education’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), pp. 22–43. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2005.16132536. Boukamcha, F. (2015) ‘Impact of training on entrepreneurial intention: an interactive cognitive perspective’, European Business Review, 27(6), pp.  593–616. doi: 10.1108/EBR-­12-2014-0090. Breckwoldt, J., Gruber, H. and Wittmann, A. (2014) ‘Simulation learning’, in Billett, S., Harteis, C. and Gruber, H. (eds) International Handbook of Research in Professional and Practice-­based Learning, Heidelberg, Springer, pp. 673–698. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-8902-8_25.

90   Nuno Arroteia et al. Chang, J. and Rieple, A. (2013) ‘Assessing students’ entrepreneurial skills development in live projects’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(1), pp. 225–241. doi: 10.1108/14626001311298501. Coleman, S., Perry, J. and Schwen, T. (1997) ‘Constructivist instructional development: reflecting on practice from an alternative paradigm’, in Dills, C. and Romiszowski, A. (eds) Instructional Development Paradigms. Educational Technology, p. 269/282. Fayolle, A. (2013) ‘Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7–8), pp. 692–701. doi: 10.1080/ 08985626.2013.821318. Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2015) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: hysteresis and persistence’, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), pp. 75–93. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12065. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-­Clerc, N. (2006) ‘Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), pp. 701–720. doi: 10.1108/03090590610715022. Gedajlovic, E., Honig, B., Moore, C.  B., Payne, G.  T. and Wright, M. (2013) ‘Social capital and entrepreneurship: a schema and research agenda’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), pp.  455–478. doi: 10.1111/etap. 12042. Gibb, A. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in schools and colleges: insights from UK practice’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 6(2), p. 48. Gibb, A. (2011) ‘Concepts into practice: meeting the challenge of development of entrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Edited by E. Ramsey, 17(2), pp. 146–165. doi: 10.1108/13552551111114914. Gilbert, D. H. (2012) ‘From chalk and talk to walking the walk’, Education + Training, 54(2/3), pp. 152–166. doi: 10.1108/00400911211210260. Greene, F. J. and Saridakis, G. (2008) ‘The role of higher education skills and support in graduate self-­employment’, Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), pp. 653–672. doi: 10.1080/03075070802457082. Jonassen, D., Peck, K. and Wilson, B. (1999) Learning with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective, Princeton, NC: Merrill. Kirkwood, J., Dwyer, K. and Gray, B. (2014) ‘Students’ reflections on the value of an entrepreneurship education’, The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3), pp. 307–316. doi: 10.1016/J.IJME.2014.07.005. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning as the Science of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D. and Carsrud, A.  L. (2000) ‘Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5–6), pp. 411–432. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0. Kuratko, D. F. (2005) ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and challenges’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), pp. 577–598. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x. Liñán, F. and Chen, Y.-W. (2009) ‘Development and cross-­cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), pp. 593–617. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x. McGoldrick, K. and Ziegert, A. L. (2011) Let Experience Be the Guide: Experiential Education in Economics. London: Edward Elgar.

Global Board Games Project   91 McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. J. W. (2010) ‘Personalised and self-­regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: international exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software’, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1). doi: 10.14742/ajet.1100. Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D. F. and Cornwall, J. R. (2013) Entrepreneurship Programs and the Modern University. London: Edward Elgar. Mughal, F. and Zafar, A. (2011) ‘Experiential learning from a constructivist perspective: reconceptualizing the Kolbian Cycle’, International Journal of Learning and Development, 1(2), pp. 27–37. doi: 10.5296/ijld.v1i2.1179. Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N. and Walmsley, A. (2017) ‘The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: a systematic review and research agenda’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), pp. 277–299. doi: 10.5465/amle.2015.0026. Onyema, O. G. and Daniil, P. (2017) ‘Educating the 21st century learners: are educators using appropriate learning models for honoring skills in the mobile age?’, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(2), pp. 1–15. Penaluna, K., Penaluna, A. and Jones, C. (2012) ‘The context of enterprise education: insights into current practices’, Industry and Higher Education, 26(3), pp. 163–175. doi: 10.5367/ihe.2012.0098. Pittaway, L., Gazzard, J., Shore, A. and Williamson, T. (2015) ‘Student clubs: experiences in entrepreneurial learning’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(3–4), pp. 127–153. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2015.1014865. Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007) ‘Simulating entrepreneurial learning: integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning’, Management Learning, 38(2), pp. 211–233. doi: 10.1177/1350507607075776. Pittaway, L., Rodriguez-­Falcon, E., Aiyegbayo, O. and King, A. (2011) ‘The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning’, International Small Business Journal, 29(1), pp. 37–57. doi: 10.1177/0266242610369876. Rauch, A. and Hulsink, W. (2015) ‘Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: an investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), pp. 187–204. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0293. Sadik, A. (2008) ‘Digital storytelling: a meaningful technology-­integrated approach for engaged student learning’, Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), pp. 487–506. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9091-8. Sánchez, J. C. (2011) ‘University training for entrepreneurial competencies: its impact on intention of venture creation’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), pp. 239–254. doi: 10.1007/s11365-010-0156-x. Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy of Management Review, 25(1), pp.  217–226. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2000.2791611. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Al-­Laham, A. (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), pp. 566–591. doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2006.05.002. Vincett, P. S. and Farlow, S. (2008) ‘ “Start-­a-Business”: an experiment in education through entrepreneurship’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), pp. 274–288. doi: 10.1108/14626000810871673. Wurdinger, S. D. (2005) Using Experiential Learning in the Classroom: Practical ideas for all educators. Oxford: R&L Education.

6

A Business Simulation Game (BSG) and its ability to enhance learning An evaluation of student perspectives Jason Turner, Goh See Kwong, Colin Beard and Gary Mulholland

Introduction How students learn, what students learn and whether these approaches to learning are suitably preparing graduates for the employment market is an often-­debated topic (Turner and Mulholland, 2017; Wright, 2013; Avramenko, 2012; Bennis and O’Toole, 2005). Despite these academic discussions, there is a lack of agreement regarding the most effective approach for institutions to take in order to enhance a graduate’s employability and employment skills set. Much of the literature is couched in experiential learning, or learning by doing (Svitak, 2015; Strauss, 2014; Young, 2002; Beard and Wilson, 2006; Kolb, 1984) and cites a number of activities, which encourage real-­world student engagement and problem solving (Barisic and Provic, 2014; Wagner, 1993). The use of simulations and games are examples of such activities and arguably prepare the graduate for the employment market and develop those hard and soft skills required to succeed in business. Simulations and games also ‘fit’ in with the background and lifestyle of today’s student and the way in which they learn (Tunstall and Lynch, 2010; Cross, 2009). Although such methods are by no means universally accepted as the de facto answer to preparing graduates for the employment market, they are seen as an integral part of the answer, able to deepen a graduate’s subject knowledge and teach them the skills necessary for life and employment (Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Pongpanich, Krabuanrat and Tan, 2009; Reese and Wells, 2007; Tan, Muyldermans and Sithole, 2006; Faria and Dickson, 1994; Wolfe and Roberts, 1993; Keys and Wolfe, 1990). This research will explore the themes to emerge from the literature around how students currently learn and provide some insight into the role simulations and games play in enhancing learning. Supported by quantitative analysis, the research will address the question ‘what is the impact of the Business Simulation Games (BSG) on student learning?’ through two aims. First, to examine learner

A Business Simulation Game   93 attitudes towards Business Simulation Games (BSG) and second, to evaluate the capacity of the BSG to engender a deeper understanding of business and develop their own particular skills set.

Literature review There are a number of challenges facing primary, secondary, further and higher education institutions around the world, including how students are taught, how they learn and how they are assessed (Draycott and Rae, 2011; Draycott, Rae and Vause, 2011; Birdthistle, Hynes and Fleming, 2007). The length of time students spend in the traditional classroom ‘space’ (Tait, 2016; OECD, 2014, 2013; Van Damme, 2014; Burgess, 2013) and the teaching approach to learning and its relevance to a student’s employability are also much discussed (Tait, 2016; Thompson, 2016, 2014; Svitak, 2015; Parinduri, 2014; Roberts, 2014; Wright, 2013), as is the level of enjoyment and engagement students have with the ­curriculum and learning pedagogy (Taylor, 2013; Jones and Iredale, 2010; Fripp, 1997). The traditional approach to teaching and learning is being disrupted (Tunstall and Lynch, 2010; Cross, 2009; Ruben, 1999) but it cannot be changed simply by individual staff or subject teams including a ‘real-­world’ assessment(s) into modules and/or programmes; engaging with technology in terms of blended learning or the actual learning ‘space’; and/ or repositioning the teaching and learning strategy to reflect a contemporary teaching pedagogy, change has be part of a coherent institutional learning strategy. This learning strategy has to be appropriate, measureable, challenging (Boyer and Blazy, 2014) and capable of sustained stimulation of a learner’s creativity and problem-­solving skills and attitudes to risk and failure (Barisic and Provic, 2014; Taylor, 2013; Wright, 2013; Long, Mawdesley and Scott, 2009; Wagner, 1993) within the parameters of a safe educational learning space (Ulrich, 1997). Employability skills How best to furnish graduates with the necessary employability skills has been the focus of many internal and external academic and practitioner conversations over many years. These conversations cover issues such as the appropriateness of the learning space (Daly and Sequeira, 2018; Kolb and Kolb, 2010, 2005), the curriculum design (Hallinger and Bridges, 2007; Kloppenborg and Baucus, 2003) and the assessment instrument(s) used (Turner and Mulholland, 2017; Kassean, et al., 2015; Draycott, Rae, and Vause, 2011; Ehiyazaryan and Barraclough, 2009; Bennis and O’Toole, 2005). The rationale behind focusing on graduate employability is neither new nor simply confined to getting students more engaged with business. Rather, it is part of a more holistic approach to also positively impact on the social aspects of a student’s (while studying) and graduate’s life

94   Jason Turner et al. (Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Pongpanich, Krabuanrat and Tan, 2009; Reese and Wells, 2007; Tan, Muyldermans and Sithole, 2006; Faria and Dickson, 1994; Keys and Wolfe, 1990), developing the ability to create and maintain relationships, interact with others and, combined with business engagement, make them more desirable in an increasingly competitive employment market (Jones and Iredale, 2014; Wilson and Mariotti, 2009; Galloway, et al., 2005). The employability skills to which we are referring are hard skills (project management, communication, creative thinking, problem solving and leadership) and soft skills (confidence, communication and reflection), (Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2015; Barbar, 2014; Fiala, Gertler and Carney, 2014; Barisic and Provic, 2014; Draycott and Rae, 2011; Devadason, Subramaniam and Daniel, 2010; Jones and Iredale, 2010). Moving the learning approach away from information-­led to practice-­ driven learning, known as experiential learning or learning by doing, is usually couched in terms of the learning experience (Beard and Wilson, 2006; Kolb, 1984) and how student learning is assessed, which is why this research focuses on simulation games as these instruments can be used to enhance the classroom learning experience and as an assessment instrument (Kolb, 1984). Simulation games for business have been used for over 50 years (Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Wells, 1999) and like other forms of real-­world engagement allow the student to ‘exchange, experiment, positive mistake-­making, calculated risk-­taking, creative problem-­solving and interaction with the outside world’ (Jones and Iredale, 2010, 12). Such simulation games should better prepare students for business when they graduate (Kassean, et al., 2015; Avramenko, 2012; Ehiyazaryan and Barraclough, 2009; Pongpanich, Krabuanrat and Tan, 2009; Wood, Beckmann and Birney, 2009; Wolfe and Roberts, 1993). However one has to be careful and not overemphasise the value of simulation games, there are some games which have little educational value (Kapralos, et al., 2015; Gosen and Washbush, 2004) hence it is important for institutions to have a coherent learning strategy and not simply add activities and pedagogies in an ad-­hoc manner; the measures have to be appropriate to the existing infrastructure and student cohort. Business simulation games The value of simulation games, particularly business simulation games, to student learning and a graduate’s employability skills set is generally considered to be positive as it replicates situations which could occur in business (Vlachopoulos and Makri, 2017; Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Pongpanich, Krabuanrat and Tan, 2009; Tan, Muyldermans and Sithole, 2006; Faria and Dickson, 1994; Wolfe and Roberts, 1993; Keys and Wolfe, 1990; Faria, 1987; Tansey and Unwin, 1968). During the simulation game participants develop learning across the discipline of business

A Business Simulation Game   95 (Faria and Dickson, 1994), understanding the relationship between cause and effect (Liu, Ho and Tan, 2009; Sandford and Williamson, 2005), problem solving and decision making skills (Lu, Hallinger and Showanasai, 2014; Barisic and Provic, 2014; Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Zantow, Knowlton and Sharp, 2005; Wagner, 1993; Keys and Wolfe, 1990), team working and active rather than passive participation in their learning (Vos and Brenan, 2010; King and Newman, 2009; Faria and Dickson, 1994). However, perhaps because of the generic term ‘game’ and the wide variety of business activities which are labelled ‘games’, various stakeholders (academics, practitioners, students, and the general public) perceive simulation games as less meaningful and more about fun with little learning potential (Wells, 1999; Fripp, 1984). This perception is arguably not helped by the limited successes of the earlier versions of business games (Fripp, 1984). A further negative aspect of simulation games is the argument that they can cause anxiety and frustration particularly when students are in large groups, feeling a loss of control when there are administrative issues associated to the module (Vos and Brennan, 2010; Doyle and Brown, 2000). This anxiety could increase particularly if students do not have the appropriate learning and knowledge provided by lectures and tutorials (Laverie, 2006). Another negative issue associated to simulation games is that the reality of business is difficult to replicate in a game; if deep learning and understanding is to take place, the simulation game has to be realistic and appropriately complex (Wells, 1999; Fripp, 1984) as Fripp (1984, 27) put it ‘experience takes time, and sometimes ten years’ experience [in a game] is merely one year repeated ten times over’. However, according to Wolfe (1978), although complex games create the most factual and conceptual learning, they also create the most amount of student ‘drop-­outs’. In contrast the simplest game created the second most factual and conceptual learning but with far fewer student ‘drop-­outs’. In other words, the potential positive impact of a simulation game on student learning has to be carefully considered and appropriately embedded in the module. If the simulation game is simply added on without the appropriate learning support and clear linkage to the module content and aims, it may fail to suitably engage learners (Ahmed and Sutton, 2017; Laverie, 2006). With a number of caveats in the successful implementation of simulation games, it is perhaps more to do with the specifics of the game and its implementation rather than simulation games in general, which could affect its success in student learning. The BSG The business strategy game used in this research, called the BSG (Thompson, et al., 2015), was developed by Thompson and Miller and GLO-­BUS software and marketed by McGraw-­Hill. The BSG operates online and involves the sale of athletic footwear across four geographic regions,

96   Jason Turner et al. Europe-­Africa, North America, Asia-­Pacific, and Latin America (Thompson, et al., 2015). Students in their self-­selected groups appointed a project manager and assigned managerial positions among their group, constituting no more than five members. Competing against other teams in their respective tutorials and with 1,234 other groups from 91 universities and colleges across the world (BSG, 2017); each team had to take the business forward from its tenth year of trading for a further five years. In order to successfully navigate through the next five years the groups had to develop a competitive business strategy and make one decision every three to four days, where one decision was equal to one year in the business. The decisions each team made related to production operations (relating to branded and private label footwear), upgrading plants and increasing or decreasing capacity, workforce compensation and training, shipping and inventory management, pricing and celebrity endorsement, social responsibility and citizenship, and the financing of company operations (Thompson, et al., 2015). Each team had to be aware of their earnings per share; return on equity investment; stock price; credit rating; and image rating, conducting forecasting, competitor analysis, an internal and external audit as well positioning strategies every decision year. Student groups had access to a range of industry and company reports to enable understanding of the market, comparison with competitor prices, footwear styling and quality, product lines and advertising, across 11 competitive features that determined sales and market share (Thompson, et al., 2015). Although replicating real-­world decisions, there was a balance between reality and providing a supportive learning environment with lectures, tutorials, the opportunity for debriefing and to reflect and discuss on the game mechanics and decisions so students ‘buy in’ to the game and understand the relationship between module content, learning outcomes and the experience of the game (Lu, Hallinger and Showanasai, 2014; Laverie, 2006; Peters and Vissers, 2004; Young, 2002). Teams received two practice sessions to familiarise themselves with the game prior to beginning the five assessed decision rounds, and additional one-­to-one consultation hours every week to ensure understanding of the game’s mechanics and to allow the teams to articulate their decisions and reflect on those decisions. There was also a vast array of learning support materials, which included videos and explanatory notes. These support sessions as well as the lectures and tutorials blended theory with practice and allowed teams to reflect to deepen learning (Lean, Moizer and Newbery, 2014; Chen, Kinshuk and Liu, 2011). Following the five decision rounds, students were prompted to complete a questionnaire and provide feedback on their learning experience in terms of the BSG’s ability to develop a deeper understanding of business and their employability skills, the results of which form the basis of this research. Building on current literature in the research area of business simulation games (Ahmed and Sutton, 2017; Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Pongpanich,

A Business Simulation Game   97 Krabuanrat and Tan, 2009; Reese and Wells, 2007; Tan, Muyldermans and Sithole, 2006; Faria and Dickson, 1994; Wolfe and Roberts, 1993) this research will examine learner attitudes towards the BSG and evaluate the capacity of business simulation games to engender a deeper understanding of business and of their own particular skills set. Using the BSG, the research will assess participant perspectives and thus contribute to an identified gap in the literature, specifically learners perspectives of such business simulation games, complementing the work of Avramenko (2012), Vos and Brenan (2010), Gonan, Brill and Frank (2009) and Faria (1987).

Methodology In November 2016, the research used face-­to-face self-­completed questionnaires with 145 business school students in their final or penultimate year of study at a university in Selangor, Malaysia. The research used convenience sampling as this approach allowed the research access to a wide range of students who were broadly representative of the university population in general and the business school specifically (Easterby-­Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2010). It is acknowledged that this approach only questioned those students who attended the final session of the module (Collis and Hussey, 2014) however; this was only considered a minor limitation as 145 respondents constituted 90 per cent of the module cohort and therefore was considered representative. Nevertheless, the issue of sample size is an important consideration as although this research revealed a maximum of 10 per cent disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with statements, which constitutes around 14 respondents, a larger study of 1,000 revealing a similar level of disagreement and strong disagreement would present a figure, which would represent a less positive perspective on simulation games. This limitation of sample size is however being addressed in a larger, comparative study which intends to develop the themes to emerge from this study to consolidate and take research forward in the area of business simulation games and the role of games in developing deeper subject knowledge and understanding of business. To ensure the research was understandable, a pilot study was conducted with 15 business school students, which confirmed that respondents understood the questions and thought them appropriate, with no missing questions or repetition (Zikmund, 2003). In order to measure the internal consistency of the self-­completed questionnaire a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was used, which revealed a figure of 0.962, which represents a good scale and valid test model (Malhotra and Birks, 2006).

Analysis and discussion In terms of respondents’ demographics, the students were aged between 18 and 24 with the majority being female and Malaysian Chinese. With

98   Jason Turner et al. regard to the respondent’s programmes of study, 97 studied International Business and Marketing, 18 studied Finance and Economics, 16 studied Business Administration, and 14 studied Accounting and Finance. Attitudes towards the BSG To investigate attitudes towards the BSG, respondents were asked, through a mixture of quantitative and qualitative questions, their perceptions of the BSG and the role they play in a student’s understanding of business and developing their own skills set and applying their learning (see Table 6.1). The variables of gender and programme of study were tested for significance using multiple regression, neither of the variables proved significant. The sample also tested for variance between groups, but the variance was not significant perhaps as a result of the proportion of students from the International Business and Marketing programme but more likely, because the majority of students regardless of their position in the industry, their gender, or programme of study, genuinely appeared to enjoy the simulation game. Respondents had a high level of agreement to statements, with 84.1 per cent agreeing and strongly agreeing that they enjoyed the BSG. In terms of the BSG, allowing a deeper understanding of business 80 per cent agreed and strongly agreed, with 78.6 per cent agreeing and strongly agreeing that the BSG allowed them a deeper understanding of their own skills set and 76.6 per cent agreed and strongly agreed that the BSG allowed them to apply their business learning. It should be noted however that around 14 respondents felt that the BSG was not enjoyable and did not allow them to get a deeper understanding of business or their skill set which is an issue, which requires further investigation in a subsequent study. The fact that the majority of respondents enjoyed and learned from the BSG experience is supported by the literature, with previous research arguing that games are usually enjoyed and associated with fun (Lu, Hallinger and Showanasai, 2014; Cross, 2009; Zantow, Knowlton and Sharp, 2005). The fun aspect could also be perceived as a negative of the simulation game with students not taking the game seriously; however, it should be noted that the majority of students were particularly competitive and wished to be first in their respective industry; as one student put it, ‘the thing I enjoyed the most about the game was guessing the competitors strategy and outsmarting them’. With regards to the BSG’s ability to develop respondents’ understanding of business and of their own skills, being able to apply their knowledge, it was no surprise that there were high levels of agreement. Previous research also reveals business simulation games’ positive role in learning (Faria and Dickson, 1994) because they allow respondents to apply and transfer their learning (Wagner, 1993), with consequences and risks associated with their actions replicating real life, in other words, preparing students for the employment market

10.3 10.3 11.7 14.5

84.1 80.0 78.6 76.6

I enjoyed playing the BSG The BSG allowed me a deeper understanding of business The BSG allowed me a deeper understanding of my own skills set The BSG allowed me to apply what I’ve learned in my business related programme of study

Percentage of those who were neutral

Percentage of those who strongly agreed/agreed

Question

Table 6.1 Statistics relating to the BSG and the role they play in student understanding

8.9

9.6

5.6 9.6

Percentage of those who strongly disagreed/disagreed

100   Jason Turner et al. (Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Liu, Ho and Tan, 2009; Sandford and Williamson, 2005; Wolfe and Roberts, 1993; Keys and Wolfe, 1990). One must remember however that respondents may be reacting to the uniqueness of the assessment, exhibiting to a degree the ‘Hawthorne effect’, where they were demonstrating positive behaviour because of being both observed and assessed. This argument is probably not applicable in the case of this research given the sustained enthusiasm, competitiveness and interest from the majority of students over the course of the simulation game with the results from many of the groups consistently in the top 100 performers out of 1,234 groups worldwide. Another partial explanation for the comparatively high level of agreement can be found in the qualitative component of the research, where the majority of respondents who provided a comment indicated that the BSG developed their understanding as it replicated real life, with a typical response being ‘learning how to operate a business based on capacity and demand is just like a real life situation’. A minority of respondents referred to the applied knowledge with a typical response being ‘the BSG allowed us to apply knowledge learned in our studies, learning by doing through the BSG’. All respondents, who expressed an opinion thought the BSG helped them understand more about business and were better able to understand the lectures because they were actually practicing what had been taught and they themselves were doing business strategy rather than being told about business strategy. To a degree, giving students ownership of their learning makes them more able to understand as it is learning on their terms. The BSG’s ability to develop subject knowledge Concerning BSG’s ability to develop subject knowledge, the majority of respondents agreed and strongly agreed with statements (see Table 6.2). The majority of respondents (88 per cent) agreed and strongly agreed that the BSG gave them experience and practice in assessing risk, the majority (85.5 per cent) also agreed and strongly agreed that the BSG consolidated their knowledge about different aspects of running a company. Eighty-­four per cent of respondents agreed and strongly agreed that the BSG allowed them to think strategically about a company’s market position, with 84.1 per cent agreeing and strongly agreeing that the BSG sharpened their business judgement. The majority of respondents (83.4 per cent also agreed and strongly agreed) that the BSG allowed them to develop and revise strategies in light of changing market conditions and 83.4 per cent of respondents agreed and strongly agreed that the BSG helped them understand how the functional aspects of a business fit together. These results clearly show students developed their strategic thinking and learned about risk, making judgements and revising decisions based on an understanding of the market and how aspects of a business not only link

7.6 0.7 8.3 6.2 4.8 9.0

84.1 88.0 83.4 84.2 85.5 83.4

The BSG sharpened my business judgement The BSG gave me experience and practice in assessing business risk The BSG allowed me to develop and revise strategies in light of changing conditions The BSG allowed me to think strategically about a company’s market position The BSG consolidated my knowledge about different aspects of running a company The BSG helped me understand how the functional aspects of a business fit together

Percentage of those who were neutral

Percentage of those who strongly agreed/agreed

Question

Table 6.2 Statistics relating to the role the BSG plays in developing subject knowledge

7.6

9.6

9.6

8.2

8.2 10.3

Percentage of those who strongly disagreed/disagreed

102   Jason Turner et al. together but also are interdependent. Of the�������������������������� variables gender and programme of study, which were tested for significance using multiple regression, none proved significant. The sample also tested for variance between groups, but the variance was not significant probably as a result of the majority of students regardless of their position in the industry, their gender, or programme of study appreciating the practical nature of the simulation game which developed their ability to understand theories and academic reasoning and apply them to a simulated business context. When the research considers the responses collectively, the levels of agreement to questions relating to the BSG and its developing subject knowledge are high. These particularly positive quantitative results are broadly supported by the qualitative component of the research, with the majority of respondents indicating that they thought the BSG developed their knowledge of business, with a typical response being ‘the BSG was a real life experience where I was able to apply theories I learned to playing the BSG’. The finding in the quantitative research that the BSG helped students understand how the aspects of business fitted together and to think strategically about market position in relation to the competition was also supported by the qualitative research where the majority ‘enjoyed assessing strategies of our industry’s competitors and adapting our strategies according to the internal and external environmental conditions’. A majority of respondents also explicitly mentioned revising of and reflecting on their strategies with a typical response being ‘the BSG allows us to adapt our strategies and reflect before the next decision’. A minority of respondents also explicitly mention how the BSG helped them assess business risk with a typical response being ‘the game helped us understand the risks that come with your decision, you had to think about the consequences of every decision you made’. These responses from both the quantitative and qualitative research reflect the literature and the rationale for the game from the authors (Thompson, et al., 2015). Much of the literature has focused on the benefits of a simulation game given the fact that it �������������������������������������������������������������������� replicates situations which could occur in business, albeit not completely realistic given the game operates in an academic environment and to a limited timeframe (Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Pongpanich, Krabuanrat and Tan, 2009; Tan, Muyldermans and Sithole, 2006; Faria and Dickson, 1994; Wolfe and Roberts, 1993). The literature further supports the findings that respondents clearly acknowledged that they developed learning across the discipline of business (Faria and Dickson, 1994), and their understanding of the relationship between cause and effect (Liu, Ho and Tan, 2009; Sandford and Williamson, 2005), solving problems and making strategic decisions, which are considered important skills for the employment market (Lu, Hallinger and Showanasai, 2014; Barisic and Provic, 2014; Gonen, Brill and Frank, 2009; Zantow, Knowlton and Sharp, 2005; Wagner, 1993; Keys and Wolfe, 1990).

A Business Simulation Game   103 The BSG’s ability to enhance a student’s hard skills In terms of the so-­called hard skills the BSG developed, the majority of respondents agreed and strongly agreed (see Table 6.3) that the simulation game improved their team building skills (83.4 per cent agreeing and strongly agreeing), their ability to reflect on decisions (73.8 per cent in agreement and strong agreement) and improved their communication skills (64.2 per cent agreeing and strongly agreeing). Of the variables gender and programme of study, which were tested for significance using multiple regression, again no variables proved significant. The sample also tested for variance between groups, but the variance was not significant even for responses to the BSG’s ability to improve communication skills probably because opinion on the ability of the BSG to engender hard skills was not based on a student’s position in the industry, their gender, or programme of study, but rather on individual preference. When the research considers the responses collectively, with the exception of communication skills, the levels of agreement with questions relating to the BSG’s capacity to improve a student’s hard skills are moderately high. One of the reasons for this lower rate of agreement towards the BSG improving respondents’ communication skills could be linked to the literature discussion that some simulation games have the negative aspect of causing anxiety because of the administration involved (Doyle and Brown, 2000). By administration we are referring to the administration involved in the communication process as there was a lot of information to process both in terms of the online help explaining the decision screens and the decisions themselves. This observation is supported by the majority of respondents (68.2 per cent agreeing and strongly agreeing) that there was enough online help but when this was investigated further, using qualitative research, we found that respondents thought there was ‘too much help, it took a lot of time to read the material and communicate among the group’. When we further investigate the qualitative research, it is revealed that the majority indicated that group Table 6.3 Statistics relating to the hard skills engendered by the BSG Question

Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of those those who those who were who strongly strongly agreed/ neutral disagreed/disagreed agreed

The BSG encouraged me to reflect The BSG improved my communication skills The BSG improved my team working skills

73.8

17.2

8.9

64.2

28.3

7.6

83.4

  6.9

9.6

104   Jason Turner et al. discussions and communications were made more complicated because of the relative complex administration involved in organising team discussions, a typical response was ‘although we enjoyed the decision making, getting together to discuss decisions for 3–4 hours was difficult’. Equally, the reason for a lower level of agreement among respondents could be that they had not experienced or been exposed to situations during their time on the simulation game, where they had the opportunity to improve their communication skills. Similarly, perhaps respondents simply did not think the BSG developed their communication skills. From the qualitative research, we can observe that the majority of respondents enjoyed the discussions, reflected in the typical response ‘I enjoyed discussing in my team and working together to look at our past performance and then making decisions to do better the next year’. However, they perhaps did not think that the BSG improved their communication skills, as it did not stretch them beyond normal group discussions unlike their team working and reflection skills, which were clearly improved, an observation supported by the literature (Vos and Brenan, 2010; King and Newman, 2009; Faria and Dickson, 1994). The quantitative results are broadly supported by the qualitative research, with the majority of respondents indicating that they thought the BSG improved their reflection and team working skills. The phrases were used in combination by a number of respondents with typical responses being ‘I enjoyed working with the team to see where we went right and wrong with previous decisions’. A minority of respondents mentioned that they learned from their reflection with a typical response being ‘when we looked back at our previous decisions we understood where we went wrong and how to improve, we learned how important it is to reflect on decisions’. The findings from the quantitative and qualitative research demonstrates the importance of the BSG in developing subject knowledge and specific skills necessary for the employment market. The students learned from the experience and enjoyed the challenge of competing with others, ‘putting into practice our ideas to challenge the competition’ as one respondent put it. So as a learning tool the BSG is clearly effective but how does it compare to more traditional approaches to learning? In the next section, we examine respondent perceptions of the BSG in the context of business thinking and skills when compared to case studies, exams and/or coursework’s. The ability of the BSG to be more effective than traditional assessment methods In terms of the BSG’s effectiveness in developing business thinking and business skills when compared to the more traditional approaches to assessment, the majority of respondents agreed and strongly agreed (see Table 6.4) that the simulation game improved their thinking about

  8.3

10.3

85.5

81.3

The BSG encouraged me to think more about business compared to other assessments like a case study, exam or coursework The BSG improved my business skills better than traditional methods like teaching or reading

Percentage of those who were neutral

Percentage of those who strongly agreed/agreed

Question

Table 6.4 Statistics relating to the BSG being more effective than traditional assessments

8.3

6.2

Percentage of those who strongly disagreed/disagreed

106   Jason Turner et al. business (85.5 per cent agreeing and strongly agreeing), and their business skills (81.3 per cent in agreement and strong agreement). Of the variables gender and programme of study, which were tested for significance using multiple regression, once again neither gender nor programme of study proved significant. The sample also tested for variance between groups, but the variance was not significant probably because students genuinely enjoyed the assessment when compared to other more traditional assessments and that enjoyment or non-­enjoyment was not based on a student’s position in the industry, their gender, or programme of study, but rather on individual preference. The findings demonstrate that students felt they learned more about business from the BSG compared to other more traditional assessment approaches. This argument is supported by the literature on experiential learning, or learning by doing (Svitak, 2015; Strauss, 2014; Edwards and Muir, 2012; Beard and Wilson, 2006; Kolb, 1984), Bennis and O’Toole, (2005) who argue that the traditional approach to teaching and assessing students is outdated. The research finding is also supported by the 85.9 per cent of respondents who agreed and strongly agreed that the BSG encouraged them to learn by doing. Learning by doing is a recurring theme in the literature in relation to enhancing the employability skills of students and as illustrated earlier in the paper, simulation games like the BSG clearly allow students to apply their learning and develop their business (Kassean, et al., 2015; Avramenko, 2012; Ehiyazaryan and Barraclough, 2009; Pongpanich, Krabuanrat and Tan, 2009; Wood, Beckmann and Birney, 2009; Wolfe and Roberts, 1993) and hard employability skills (Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2015; Barbar, 2014; Fiala, Gertler and Carney, 2014; Barisic and Provic, 2014; Draycott and Rae, 2011; Jones and Iredale, 2010) which will hopefully make them more employable. The qualitative research also supports the findings from the quantitative research with common themes to emerge with regards the BSG centring on ‘able to apply my learning’; ‘a real-­life practical’; ‘able to see how things link together in business’. Representative quotes from respondents include, ‘I learned more doing the BSG than exams or coursework’s as I got to apply what I learned to practical situations’; ‘I feel I really learned from doing the BSG, it was practical and gave me real life experience which I wouldn’t have got from other assessments’ and ‘it’s different from other assessments as it allows me to link aspects of business together to make a strategy’. The fact that respondents felt they learned from the BSG is a recurring theme throughout this research, with the ‘applied’ nature of the assessment appearing to be a reason for student enjoyment and positive sentiment when judged in isolation and in comparison with other forms of assessment. A series of correlations were conducted using Spearman’s Rho, to compare the various skills developed through the BSG and levels of student enjoyment. All correlations were statistically significant and positive with the

A Business Simulation Game   107 strongest correlation between enjoyment and the BSG providing students with experience and practice, with r = 0.653, p