Description
During in this breakdown, concerning a literature review on roles and competences for the entrepreneurship teacher.
1
Practice what you preach?
A literature review on roles and competences for the entrepreneurship
teacher.
Jan Nab, Centre for Teaching and Learning, Utrecht University
Thomas Lans, Education and Competence Studies Group
Abstract
Teachers have a crucial role in entrepreneurship education, however, until now little is known
about their roles and competencies. In this review paper we describe the profile of the
entrepreneurship teacher in higher education. A literature search was conducted and policy
documents of Dutch universities and of the initial teacher-training program at Utrecht
University were studied, as were EU policy documents on entrepreneurship teacher education
programs. This review study resulted in a set of competencies and roles for entrepreneurship
teachers. Dilemmas were raised by these roles and competences: between the
entrepreneurial role of the teacher and his role as a coach, and between the entrepreneurial
attitude and venturing (starting a business), where boundary crossing makes the difference.
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship brings economic growth, innovations and creates new jobs (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000): therefore much emphasis is given to entrepreneurship education (EE)
as a mean to prepare a new generation for an entrepreneurial career. Historically, EE
teaching was the domain of management and business economics teachers. Increasingly
other study domains like life-sciences, engineering, IT, medicine and health acknowledge the
added value of fostering entrepreneurial competence among their students; in the light of new
career paradigms, lifelong learning, globalization, employability and a focus on innovation
(Defillippi & Arthur, 1994; Guo, 2009; Gur!u, 2006). While in education in general many
factors influence the quality of teaching, probably the most critical factor is the teacher (Hattie,
2009) and it can be assumed that the teacher has a crucial role in entrepreneurship
education. Most teachers in higher education have a disciplinary background (e.g. biology,
chemistry) with little prior knowledge in educational science and often no entrepreneurial
hands-on experience. Surveys show that European graduates have a poor opinion of higher
education as a contributor to their entrepreneurial skills (Allen & Van der Velden, 2009) and
research indicates that teachers are considered to be a weak link in effectively introducing
entrepreneurship education (McCoshan, 2010). However, until now little is known about the
roles and competencies of teachers in entrepreneurship education. Teachers in all domains
have to master several roles as illustrated in a vision documents of the initial teacher
education program at Utrecht University and the VSNU (Centrum voor Onderwijs en Leren,
2011; VSNU, 2007)). Six roles are defined: pedagogical expert, designer and coach of
learning, tutor in personal development, manager of classroom, teacher in a school and
society context, and managing personal development as a teacher. Qualifications for these
roles do not explicitly foresee in designing and implementing entrepreneurship education.
Research (EC, 2011) shows that core skills and values linked to entrepreneurship education
are seldom a priority in initial teacher education programs.
In this review paper we describe the profile of the entrepreneurship teacher in higher
education. The central research question of this study is: What are, from a theoretical
perspective, roles and competences necessary for a teacher in entrepreneurship education?
Answering this question from a scientific point of view is important, since work on
entrepreneurship teachers is scarce, fragmentized and not embedded in mainstream
literature on teaching and teacher education. From a practical point of view teachers as well
as teacher educators are searching for evidence-based stepping-stones for professionalizing
entrepreneurship education and the entrepreneurship teacher.
2. Theory
2.1 Framework
2
Several paradigms exist in entrepreneurship education. A classical distinction which is often
made is the difference between ‘entrepreneurial’ and ‘enterprising’ (Hannon, 2005; Blenker et
al, 2011), between internal entrepreneurship (e.g. attitude, intrapreneurship) and external
entrepreneurship (e.g. venturing) (Korhonen et al, 2012) and the difference between learning
about entrepreneurship versus learning for entrepreneurship (Gibb, 2002; Honig, 2004) At
least three approaches to entrepreneurship can be discerned which have a distinct influence
on the specific learning outcomes, didactics and the role of the teacher.
Firstly, education focused on entrepreneurship as subject matter encompassed learning
about entrepreneurship. It involves theory about entrepreneurship that has its roots in
economics, management or (personality) psychology. It include for instance the foundations
of entrepreneurial in early economic theory, traits and personality theory, network theory and
theory on opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship education in this fashion is taught in
many higher education institutes, mostly in the faculties of economies and
management as well as business schools.
Secondly, entrepreneurship education can also be seen as a matter of culture and state of
mind. This type of education typically includes on those aspects that focus on values, beliefs
and attitudes associated with entrepreneurship. Concepts such as an entrepreneurial mind-
set, entrepreneurialism, entrepreneurial spirit and attitude characterize the discourse around
this type of entrepreneurship education. More practical it means that one should have an eye
for opportunities, be proactive, creative and self-directed. This conception of EE has also
strong connection with modern views on work, employment and learning and is promoted in
key policy documents on life long-learning, innovation and the knowledge society. For
instance one of the eight key competencies promoted by the European Union as ‘being
fundamental for each individual in a knowledge-based society’ is ‘ sense of initiative and
entrepreneurship’.
Thirdly, entrepreneurship education is also about creating specific situations: venturing:
turning ideas into ‘gestation’ activities: firm formation processes. The fundamental outcome of
these processes is the new organization itself (Gartner, Carter, Reynolds, Acs, & Audretsch,
2010). Examples of such activities are saving money to invest in the startup, development of
business model, prototype of product, service, starting to talk to customers, defining a market
for product, service, organizing a start-up team (Gartner, et al., 2010). These activities are
typically laid down into a business plan. From a higher education perspective this approach to
EE also plays a key role in the ‘knowledge transfer agenda’ of higher education institutes.
Spin-off entrepreneurs act as valuable intermediaries in valorization (i.e. the access,
application and dissemination) of (scientific) knowledge produced by research institutes.
These three approaches to EE are not mutual exclusive. On the contrary, the three
dimensions can be seen as preceding phases in entrepreneurship education. Depending on
the student, the entrepreneurial climate as well as the direct social environment and networks
the student can move from a non-founder to a nascent entrepreneur to a firm founder.
2.2 What should students in entrepreneurship education learn?
Depending on the focus of EE, literature on EE different learning outcomes (i.e.
competencies) of students can be pursued. For instance from a venture creation perspective
Due to the diversity in type of studies and contexts the list of skills, attitudes and other
characteristics associated with entrepreneurship education is endless. Clustering such lists
into a larger set of competencies is helpful in this matter and is concurrent with modern views
on competence and competence-based education in Europe (Mulder, Gulikers, Biemans, &
Wesselink, 2009). Reviews by Man and colleagues (2002), Hayton and Kelley (2006),
Michelmore and Rowley (2010), as well as a few empirical studies have been conducted to
create more clarity in the larger domain of entrepreneurship competence. Although the exact
demarcation of entrepreneurial competence remains problematic due to mutual dependency
and context specificity, five mean areas of entrepreneurial competence are frequently
described in all these studies. These areas could be seen as the backbone of entrepreneurial
competence.
3
1. Opportunity competence. Entrepreneurship in its essence relates to the identification
of opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Opportunity competence is
more than just opportunity recognition; it focuses on the systematic development
of adequate solutions to complex problems, i.e. emphasizing a more constructed
view on opportunities, thus putting perception, interpretation and construction at
the heart of opportunity identification.
2. . Social competence. This set refers to interactions with others (Baron & Markman,
2003; Baron & Tang, 2009). Networks play an essential role in the
entrepreneurial process, fostering the generation and development of new ideas,
and in gaining resources and legitimacy. Since external contacts and
relationships are often established from scratch, the ability to build up and
maintain relationships, externally as well as internally seems to be important.
3. . Strategic business competence. The reviews of Michelmore and Rowley (2010)
as well as the Man et al. (2002) refer to the importance of business/management
competence which involve the ability to develop management systems and
organization and coordination competence. This competence involves the
organization of different internal, external, human, physical, financial and
technological resources as well as setting, evaluating and implementing the
strategies of the firm (i.e. planning and control).
4. . Industry-specific competence. The fourth area involves the technical knowledge
(know-how) and the know-what. The former is the technological knowledge
needed for a specific profession. The latter is the information of the specific
market. To be able to identify and exploit opportunities entrepreneurs need
knowledge of the market, of clients’ needs, of resources and competitors. Market
knowledge is constructed by participating in the market and in networks, and can
hardly be learned within a school system. There is an abundance of empirical
work, which shows the importance of industry-specific knowledge and experience
for entrepreneurial success (Baum & Locke, 2004; Colombo & Grilli, 2005;
Ucbasaran, Westhead, & Wright, 2008).
5. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The fifth area is a broad domain of meta-level
competencies: competencies which influence other competencies positively
(Deist & Winterton, 2005). This area comprises those constructs that have close
conceptual links with more classical entrepreneurial psychological constructs.
Recent meta-analyses show that entrepreneurial self –efficacy in particular (belief
in one’s own entrepreneurial competence, Bandura, 1982) is one of the most
strongest individual level predictors for entrepreneurial success (Rauch & Frese,
2007)
2.3 How can entrepreneurial competences be attained by students?
Although the type of learning activities clearly depends on the focus of EE and associated
learning outcomes, scholar agree upon the fact that entrepreneurship programs which move
towards ‘learning for entrepreneurship’ requires the use of active learning methods that
enables students to take responsibility for learning to experiment, push boundaries and learn
about them selves. Bagheri and Pihie (2011) proposed a framework that suggests four
ingredients of entrepreneurial learning, namely: experiential, social interactive, observational,
and reflective learning.
Entrepreneurial skills and attitudes require new pedagogies. i.e. experiential learning, such as
project-based activities, and active learning strategies. Reflection and generalizations stages
in this kind of education are especially important, because without insight in their experiences
students may not be able to draw lessons from their experiences (Cooper, Bottomly and
Gordon, 2004).
Nab, Bulte en Pilot (accepted) argued that students learn effectively from authentic, practical
experiences and realistic learning environments. Students should be brought in roles, work on
projects and tasks, work in teams, and be assessed as in entrepreneurship. Critical
experiences and failures have an influential role in entrepreneurial learning (Cope, 2003)
Gibb (1997, p.19) argued that the predominant contextual learning mode in the small
business environment is that of learning from peers; learning by doing; learning from
4
feedback from customers and suppliers; learning by copying; learning by experiment; learning
by problem solving and opportunity taking; and learning from making mistakes.
Entrepreneurship and the growth process are essentially non-linear and discontinuous.
Students acquire theoretical and domain knowledge mainly within the school system.
However, market knowledge is mainly obtained by participating in a market community and by
networking. Therefore students must take the step into a realistic and authentic market
environment, and cross the boundary of the relatively safe school system.
Altogether, entrepreneurial competencies can best be achieved by long-lasting, authentic
projects, on realistic and open-ended tasks that confront students with themselves, with the
market and with their talents, give the possibility to learn from failures and cross boundaries.
3. Methods
This study is a review of the competences and roles that entrepreneurship teachers must
have in order to provide students with the activities that foster entrepreneurship. A literature
search was conducted in Web of Science and Scopus with teacher and entrepren* as terms
used in all fields, with restriction to the year of reference. Only references from the last
decade (2002 and beyond) were selected. This resulted in an overall list of 29 unique hits.
From this list we selected items based on the rules a) that roles and competences of teachers
in entrepreneurship are used as a concept in theoretical or empirical analysis and b) that the
study focuses on fostering entrepreneurial competencies in students. Selection took place
based on abstracts and on full texts. References in the selected papers that suggested that
these would be interesting for our study were included. One of the selected references could
not be retrieved as full text, leading to a final number of 27 studies for review.
For the review, the full texts were first read and coded on paper according to theoretical
underpinning from in the domains of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship and
learning and teaching. Besides conceptual information was coded: definitions, concepts,
pedagogical models, claims of findings, etc.
Documents of the initial teacher-training program at Utrecht University were studied, as were
EU policy documents on entrepreneurship teacher education programs.
This study departs from the roles and competences that students must obtain to prepare them
for entrepreneurship. Subsequently the question is raised what pedagogies are suitable to
achieve these results. Accordingly, we will elaborate on the roles and competencies teachers
should have to enable these learning processes.
4. Results: What competencies and roles must the entrepreneurship teacher have,
according to the literature?
Table 1: Overview of selected papers on entrepreneurship teachers
Source Context Main findings
Adeyemo (2009) Conceptual paper in the context
of science teachers in Nigeria.
Pedagogic strategies and description of
process of acquiring entrepreneurial skills:
cooperation, classroom assessment, case
studies, conference learning style, dialogues
and ambiguity.
Five basis skills of teachers:
• Sales and marketing
• Financial know-how
• Self motivation skill
• Time management skill
• Administrative skills.
Teacher: more a coach and less information
transmission.
Ali, Topping & Tariq
(2009)
Empirical study in the context of
teacher education in Pakistan
The results of a survey among educational
science students show a positive attitude of
the future teachers towards
5
entrepreneurship (e.g. entrepreneurial
intentions). A significant predictor of this
positive attitude was the occupation
(working in the private sector) of the parents
Azarcher (2011) Empirical study in the context of
teacher education in Iran
One of the pillars of the Smart school
concept in Iran is having an entrepreneurial
spirit. The research is carried out to find out
whether teacher education prepares well for
the smart school concept. The results show
that the teachers-training curriculum is not
successful in creating an entrepreneurial
spirit among the students (thus the future
teachers)
Bagheri & Lope
Pihie (2011)
Conceptual paper in the context
of university students in
Malaysia.
Propose a model for entrepreneurial
leadership development, including:
experiential, social interactive, observational
and reflective learning.
Birdthistle, Hynes &
Fleming (2007).
Descriptive paper in the context
of stakeholders in Irish
secondary schools.
Use of questionnaire to measure
perception on EE
Tangible and intangible learning is obtained
from EE programs.
Create awareness of possibilities for self-
employment, encourage enterprising
behavior, and foster skill and competence
development.
Boyett & Finlay
(1993)
Conceptual paper about the
competencies of the head-
teacher
The focus is on the competencies of the
school head-teacher who should be able to
run his school as an entrepreneur.
Cheung (2008) Empirical and qualitative paper in
the context of secondary schools
pupils in Hong Kong.
Plea for informal – real world contexts (work
related aspects), which has a greater impact
on learning
Pupils improved in
• Taking responsibilities
• Work independently
• Perseverance
• Initiative and drive
Drent & Meelissen
(2008)
Empirical study on innovative
behavior of teachers
About the factors which stimulate innovative
use of ICT by teachers, to support the
knowledge society. Personal
entrepreneurship of teachers turns out to be
the key factor for the integration of the
innovative use of ICT into the learning
process. Personal entrepreneurship is
operationalized as the amount of contacts a
teacher educator keeps (both inside and
outside the school) for his own professional
development in the use of ICT. Thus
illustrating the importance of social capital
and social competence.
Fiet (2001) Conceptual paper. Not empirical. Plea for student approval of EE. Give
student more responsibility for education by
means of co-creation.
Teacher is more a coach and less focusing
on information transmission.
Combination of theory and practice.
Gibb (2002) Conceptual paper The importance of seeing entrepreneurship
as a way of life within entrepreneurship
education.
6
Haase &
Lautenschläger
(2011)
Conceptual paper from Germany
about the teachability of EE
Know what: easy to teach; know why more
difficult to teach. But know how is most
important but difficult to teach. It can be
achieved by experiential learning and
learning by doing.
Teacher must be promoter, facilitator or
manager instead of teacher.
Hamzah, Yusof &
Abdullah (2009)
Empirical study in the context of
headmasters in Malaysia,
measuring perception on self-
entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship characteristics within the
headmasters are average and poor in
initiative and information retrieval.
Heinonen (2006) Qualitative and descriptive
research in the context of
university level teaching in
Finland.
Focus on opportunity identification.
Entrepreneurial directed approach
encourages students to broaden their
perspectives, develop entrepreneurial skills
and behavior. Integration of knowledge,
experience and action. Reflection is seen as
most important learning activity.
Concludes with design principles for this
type of education.
Heinonen (2007) Qualitative study measuring
perception of learning outcomes
of economics students
entrepreneurship.
The entrepreneurial-directed approach
(experiential learning, ownership students,
fostering reflection) had the results:
• Students learned a lot about
• Step toward learning in
entrepreneurship
• Bridging theory and practice
Reflection most important
Recommend students from different
backgrounds.
Teacher as guide and helper.
Korhonen,
Komulainen & Räty,
(2012)
Qualitative, empirical research in
the context of comprehensive
school Finland
Teachers’ meaning/subjectivities about
entrepreneurship with special attention to
gender. Teachers make a clear distinction
between internal (attitude) and external
entrepreneurship (venturing). The former is
associated with diligence, motivation, self-
responsibility, perseverance and fits well
within a classic school discourse. The latter
emphasized good practical and social skills
and challenges traditional theoretical
abilities and the most valuable form of
intelligence in school. Male students seem
to fit better into this latter profile.
Lobler (2006)
Conceptual paper based on
constructive theories.
EE from a constructivist perspective.
Student in an active role and teacher as
facilitator, facilitating the autodidactic
abilities of the student. Support autonomy,
independent thinking and self-governing.
5 features of constructive learning
environment:
• Reality (authenticity, out of school)
• Knowledge
• Purpose of knowledge
• Role of teacher
• Role of student
7
Lope Pihie &
Bagheri (2011a)
Empirical study in the context of
teachers from technical and
vocational secondary schools in
Malaysia, to measure teachers’
entrepreneurial attitude and self-
efficacy.
Entrepreneurial attitude of teachers is
consistent with entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy of teachers is
high.
Lope Pihie &
Bagheri (2011b)
Empirical study on teachers’ and
students’ entrepreneurial self-
efficacy in vocational and
technical schools Malaysia
A difference in entrepreneurial self-efficacy
(ESE) was found between teachers and
students. ESE of teachers was high in all 6
dimensions, while students perceived their
ESE as moderate.
Some interventions are proposed to raise
ESE in students.
Peltonen (2008))
Qualitative research using
grounded theory methodology,
on teacher professionalization in
Finland.
Collaborative and entrepreneurial team
learning in an authentic and explorative
learning setting enhanced team members’
individual level entrepreneurial readiness
and thus increased competencies to act as
entrepreneurial teachers.
Purdy & Gibson
(2008).
Empirical study on teacher
education
Focus is on alternative 2-week placements
for teacher-students which aims to broaden
student teachers’ experience and develop
their transferable skills. Nonetheless the
alternative placements fostered typical
entrepreneurial skills only to limited extent
(e.g. innovation, leadership, customer
focus), probably due to the short timeframe
and the type of placements. The concept,
alternative placements, however, seems to
be valuable in relation to entrepreneurship
education and preparing teachers for that.
Seikkula-Leino
(2011)
Descriptive research in the
context of comprehensive
schools in Finland, measuring
perceptions on the process of
curriculum innovation
Teachers do not have the knowledge to
implement EE in practice. Plea for
partnership forms of curriculum reforms in
order to develop teachers’ learning
Seikkula-Leino,
Ruskovaara,
Ikavalko, Mattila,
Rytkola (2010)
Qualitative research among
teachers at the basic, upper
secondary and vocational
educational levels in Finland.
Teachers confuse between aims and
practices in EE.
Teachers should learn by reflection, in their
basic training, which is highly based on
Shulman and Shulman’s model: vision,
motivation, practice and understanding.
van Dam, Schipper
& Runhaar (2010).
Empirical study on teachers in
vocational education
Based on the literature and discussions in
the field, six competencies (entrepreneurial
knowledge, career adaptability, occupational
self-efficacy, creative thinking, networking
skill, teamwork skill) and entrepreneurial
climate were included in the research
model. A sample of 255 teachers from five
different vocational schools in the
Netherlands participated in the main study.
The findings supported most expectations;
only occupational self-efficacy was not
significantly related to entrepreneurial
behaviour.
8
van Gelderen
(2010)
Conceptual paper on autonomy
as a guiding aim for EE
Guidelines for autonomy supportive
teachers, based on theories of self-
determination and self-directed learning:
• co-creation with students
• free choices in learning
• student centered
• provide informational feedback
• find a balance e between guidance and
freedom
Schelfhout, Dochy
& Janssens (2004):
Empirical qualitative and
quantitative study at feedback.
Combination of self, peer and teacher
assessment in the teaching of cooperative
skills in EE is effective.
Advocates a balance between self-
regulation of students and steering/
structuring by the teacher. Teacher in role of
coach. Also advocates authentic learning
environment.
Presents a set of design principles for
powerful learning environment.
Woods (2011) Auto-ethnographic study on
course development on
entrepreneurship in New
Zealand.
Give students a role in the development of
entrepreneurship education for ethnic
minority (Maori’s).
Co-creation of teacher / developer and
students.
Zaleskiene &
Zadiekaite (2008)
Empirical study among
secondary school teachers in
Latvia.
Although teachers understand the
importance of integrating entrepreneurs’
ideas into subjects, they find it difficult to
practice what they preach.
4.1 Characterization of selected papers
Of the selected papers 19 were empirical and 8 were conceptual, and two of the empirical
studies were descriptive. Most studies (18) were performed in Europe and USA, and further
studies were carried out in Asia (7), Africa (1) and Australia (1). The studies aimed at various
research units: (science) teachers and teachers from vocational and technical schools (8),
head teachers (2), teacher education (4) university students (5), stakeholders from secondary
school (1) and pupils secondary school (1).
4.2 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy seems to be an important element in teaching entrepreneurship, because it is
crucial for the teacher’s role as an entrepreneur, for their role as a teacher, and as a role
model. As self-efficacy is context and domain specific (Lope Pihie & Bagheri, 2011),
entrepreneurial self-efficacy should not be confused with ‘educational’ self-efficacy.
Entrepreneurship teachers proved to have an entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and an
entrepreneurial attitude (EAO) comparable to that of entrepreneurs (Lope Pihie & Bagheri,
2011). Also the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of teachers in vocational and technical education
was measured as high. In another study of Lope Pihie and Bagheri (2011) a difference in ESE
was found between teachers and students. Where ESE of teachers was high, the ESE of
students was moderate or low. As ESE is an intermediate variable for opportunity recognition
(Orgen & Baron, 2007), which is one of the key competences for entrepreneurs, it can be
concluded, that one of the tasks of teachers is to raise ESE of students. In order to do so,
teachers self must have a high ESE themselves, and ESE can developed by entrepreneurial
real-life experiences, reflection and team learning (Peltonen, 2008).
Students learn from role models, which influence their motivation for entrepreneurship, and
therefore the role model must have a high ESE. Students in EE do not always see their
teacher as the role model (own observation), but they do see entrepreneurs as a role model.
Besides teachers must have self-efficacy in developing and coaching education. They should
be able to find the proper didactics for their specific education. Van Dam, Schipper en
Runhaar (2010) showed that occupational self-efficacy, as a teacher, was not significantly
9
related to entrepreneurial behavior. Educational SE has to be developed separately in an
educational context, and can be acquired by collaborative professionalization and
experiences in education (Seikkula et al, 201).
4.3 Authentic learning environment
The selected studies report that authentic elements of entrepreneurial reality were introduced
in their education, and proved effective. Such an authentic learning environment is
characterized by introducing, elements of the professional context that are characteristic for
the profession. Lobler (2006) advocates a constructivist perspective on EE, and brings
students in an entrepreneurial context where students can learn by collaboration. In Lobler’s
view constructivism and authentic learning environments coincide. Also Schelfhout, Dochy
and Janssens (2004) described a powerful learning environment in EE for the fostering
cooperative skills in students. Their powerful learning environment includes authentic
elements. Similarly, the effectiveness of an authentic and an explorative learning
environment was reported by Peltonen (2008). In this case team learning was used for
fostering ESE. Other authors that reported the implementation of authentic learning
environments are Heinonen (2006, 2007), Lope Pihie & Bagheri, (2011) and Cheung (2008).
It can be concluded that teachers in entrepreneurship must have the competences to design,
implement and guide an authentic learning environment.
4.4 Experiential learning
Experiential learning was advised or reported in several selected papers to be effective in
entrepreneurship education. Heinonen (2006, 2007) evaluated the entrepreneurial directed
approach and its main characteristics are experiential learning, ownership by students and
reflection. This author considers reflection on experiences as the most important for learning.
Bagheri & Lope Pihie (2011) described experiential learning and reflection as crucial elements
in their model for the development of entrepreneurial leadership. In another publication (Lope
Pihie & Bagheri; 2011) give recommendations for experiential learning and reflection in
entrepreneurship education. Haase and Lautenschläger (2011) focused on the ‘ know how’
part of EE, and propagate experiential learning, learning by doing and reflection to develop
entrepreneurial skills. Seikkula et al. (2010) reported on professionalization of
entrepreneurship teachers. They state that teachers must be member of a professional
community, where reflection is the key to learning and development.
As a conclusion, the entrepreneurship teacher must have the competence to develop,
implement and guide experiential learning and foster reflections on these experiences by
students.
4.5 Team learning and collaboration
The selected studies show that team learning and collaboration is widely used in
entrepreneurship education. Collaboration is argued for explicitly or implicitly.
Seikkula et al. (2010) argued that teachers should be member of a professional community,
and collaboration is seen as a consequence of experiential learning.
Van Dam, Schipper en Runhaar (2010) evaluated teamwork skills as one of six competences
of entrepreneurship teachers, and teamwork skills proved significantly related to
entrepreneurial behavior. Adeyamo (2009) pointed out cooperative learning as a pedagogic
strategy for the acquisition of entrepreneurial skills. Drenth and Meelissen (2008) related
social capital and the number of contacts of teachers inside and outside school, with
innovativeness of teachers. Bagheri & Lope Pihie (2011) proposed a model for the
development of entrepreneurial leadership, where social interactivity is part of the model.
Lope Pihie & Bagheri (2011) related the teacher’s role in collaboration with the fostering of
self-efficacy. These studies are all in line with the findings reported by Lobler (2006), who
presented a constructivist perspective on entrepreneurship education, and collaborative
construction is the crucial factor in this approach. Consequently, it means that
entrepreneurship teachers must have the competence to develop and guide collaborative
learning activities, complying with constructivist learning.
4.6 Co-creation
Several of the selected studies argue for the involvement of students in the design and
implementation of entrepreneurship education, as a way to involve students and give them
more ownership. One of the first recognizing co-creation as an effective approach in EE was
10
Fiet (2001), arguing that students should have more responsibility over the content and
approach of entrepreneurship education. Also Woods (2011) in an auto-ethnographic study
gave students a role in the development of entrepreneurship education for an ethnic minority
in Australia. Siekkula-Heino (2011) recommended co-creation in a community of practice in
teachers’ learning, where van Gelderen (2010) argues for co-creation as a way to support
autonomy in students. Heinonen (2006) advocates co-learning between teachers and
students in the entrepreneurial-directed approach in EE. Lobler (2006) and Schelfhout et al.
(2004) use the concepts of self-regulation and self-governing, that both imply the design and
creation of education by the student.
Therefore it can be concluded that entrepreneurship teachers must acquire the competence
of design, implementation and guidance of co-creation.
4.7 Autonomy
Autonomy for students in entrepreneurship education was found in various forms in the
selected studies, where different concepts to indicate ‘autonomy’ were used. Azarcher (2011)
used the concept of internal locus of control. Van Gelderen argued for autonomy to be a
guiding aim for EE, and he gives guidelines for entrepreneurship teachers that want to
support autonomy, such as free choices in learning, student centered education, and giving
informational feedback. This author argues for a balance between guidance and freedom for
students. Cheung (2008) reports on taking responsibilities and working independently by
students, which are closely related to autonomy. Autonomy is also a logical factor in
experiential learning where students have experiences and reflect upon them, and where the
role of the teacher is supportive. This is the case in studies of Heinonen (2006) and Haasse
and Lautenschläger (2011). Therefore, giving autonomy to students is considered as an
important competence of entrepreneurship teachers. Strongly related to autonomy is the role
of the teacher.
4. 8 Teacher’s pedagogical roles
The role of teachers is strongly complementary with the students’ role. Vermunt en Verloop
(1999) described the concept of constructive friction in regulation by student versus teachers.
If self-regulation or autonomy is expected and stimulated in students, the teacher should
exercise more restraint in guiding the students. However, the degree of guidance strongly is
inversely proportional to the autonomy of the student.
This was also found in several of the selected papers. Fiet (2001) gives arguments for the
teacher in entrepreneurship education to be more coaching and to give less emphasis on
information transmission. Van Gelderen (2010) states that teachers must find a balance in the
coaching of students between guidance and freedom. In this study student-centered
education proceeds from the aims, abilities and preferences of students, provide choice,
minimize control, and emphasize individual improvement by formative feedback. This is an
argument for restraint of the teacher. Haasse and Lautenschläger (2011) take a similar
position when they state that for the acquisition of entrepreneurial skills (know how) teachers
must take roles of promoter, facilitator or manager. Lobler (2006) brought in the same point in
his constructivist approach, where he considers the teacher as facilitator, and an assistant of
the learner. Also Schelfhout et al. (2004) argues for limited steering and structuring by the
teacher in harmonization with the self-regulation of students. And finally, Heinonen (2007)
argues for the teacher as a guide and helper of students.
In sum, it appears that the teacher should take a role in entrepreneurship education that is
characterized by a balance between guidance and freedom for students, and is geared to the
aim of making students more autonomous and self-regulating.
4.9 Teachers as an entrepreneurial role model
In order to be a role model in EE the teacher must have entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, a
mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. At first entrepreneurship teachers should have
knowledge of a specific domain and of markets, and have networks in these areas. Domain
knowledge is the technological knowledge needed for a specific field (see 2.2) where market
knowledge is about costumers’ needs, resources, and competitors. Domain knowledge is
acquired by education and work experience in the domain, while market knowledge can only
be obtained by participating in the market. It implies that teachers must have social capital
that was operationalized as the amount of contacts in and out school (Drent & Meelissen,
2008).
11
Several skills for entrepreneurship teachers have been reported in the selection of papers in
this study. Typical entrepreneurial skills for student-teachers are: innovation, leadership, and
costumer focus (Purdy & Gibson, 2008) and must be able to observe and seize opportunities.
Adeyemo (2008) lists typical entrepreneurial skills such as financial knowhow, self-motivation
skill, time management and administrative skills. Van Dam et al (2010) reported that teachers
must have entrepreneurial knowledge, career adaptability, creative thinking, networking skill,
and teamwork skill.
Next entrepreneurship teachers as role models need an entrepreneurial spirit as a pillar that
was characterized by Azarcher (2010) by independence, risk taking, success seeking,
creativity and internal locus of control. The need for an entrepreneurial mindset was also
suggested by Heinonen (2006): “Our starting point is that the teacher also has to act in an
entrepreneurial way in discovering opportunities and innovatively exploiting them’. Also
Kuratko (2005) stated: ‘Entrepreneurship educators should have the same innovative drive
that is expected from entrepreneurship students’.
Others reported that teachers and head teachers should have entrepreneurial leadership
competencies: experiential, social interactive, observational, and reflective learning (Bagheri
& Lope Pihie, 2011). Hamzah et al. (2009) reported a long list of competences for
headmasters that have many similarities of with the competences as reported for
entrepreneurs (e.g. Man et al, 2002), but demonstrated that headmasters are average and
poor in initiative and information retrieval.
Finally, based on entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and entrepreneurial spirit teachers
develop entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which was reported high in entrepreneurship teachers
(Lope Pihie & Bagheri, 2011). The need for entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, spirit and self-
efficacy, in order to be a role model in entrepreneurship, implies that teachers should have
some experience as an entrepreneur, and in an entrepreneurial context.
To sum up, typical entrepreneurial competencies encompass knowledge, analyzing ability
(e.g. opportunity identification), action competence (e.g. risk- taking and pro-activeness) and
social competence (networking and relationships). A shared concept in these competencies is
the fact that students must cross boundaries, as a person, and between disciplines and
professional contexts. It can be concluded, that in order to be a role model in
entrepreneurship education, teachers must have knowledge, skills, attitude and self-efficacy
on entrepreneurship. These competences are largely similar to the competences of
entrepreneurs, and experience and background in entrepreneurship helps to be a role model.
Table 2: Summarizing the competencies and roles for entrepreneurship teachers as found in
this survey
• Fostering students’ self-efficacy
• Create authentic learning environments
• Develop and coach experiential learning, and fostering reflection
• Create collaborative learning environments and team learning
• Giving students autonomy and self-regulation
• Involve students in co-creation of entrepreneurship education
• Take the role of promoter, facilitator, manager, coach
• Act in an entrepreneurial way, as a role model
5. Conclusions and Discussion
5.1 Competence profile
This study has resulted in a competence profile for teachers in entrepreneurship education.
Considering this profile (Table 2) specific different perspectives for entrepreneurial teachers
can be deducted.
A first perspective is that the teacher must be entrepreneurial in pedagogy, and be innovative
in designing and implementing education. The entrepreneurial teacher must be able to step
out of traditional forms of education (teaching the know what) and develop tasks,
assessments, etc., that comply with entrepreneurial learning strategies such as experiential
12
learning and reflection. Besides, the teacher must be willing to step out of his role of the
expert, and involve students in the design of education, and give students more autonomy
and self-regulation in the process of EE. Considering the competence profile for teacher
education in the Netherlands (VSNU, 2007) the specific pedagogy for EE cannot be found as
such, and the design of education is given in general terms.
Teachers are aware of the competencies that are needed to implement EE, but find it difficult
to practice what they preach (Zaleskiene & Zadiekaite, 2008) . Seikkula_Leino (2010) came to
the conclusion that teachers do not have an understanding of EE in broader contexts, such as
strategies and curricula, and this author argues for partnership forms of curriculum reforms.
They confuse aims and practices in EE. For teachers internal entrepreneurship, inside the
school system, seems to be their main goal (Korhonen, Komulainen & Räty, 2012). In other
studies entrepreurship teachers indicate that support is needed for their new tasks (Azacher,
2011) and teacher education programs do not fully foresee in this (EC, 2011).
The second perspective for an entrepreneurial teacher is that of a role model for students.
This perspective is closely related to the teacher’s competencies as an entrepreneur and on
his entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
And the third perspective is the teacher as headmaster or team leader who is responsible for
introducing EE in a school system.
In all perspectives, teachers must have domain knowledge and competencies, in this case of
entrepreneurship. As elaborated up on in the results section, knowledge in entrepreneurship
includes technical knowledge of the domain and market knowledge. This teacher must also
have specific entrepreneurial skills, because he must be able to guide students in developing
knowledge and skills. Entrepreneurial competencies can only be acquired by participating in
communities of entrepreneurs and the market, and by learning from experiences. It means
that the entrepreneurial teacher must have a background in entrepreneurship. However,
entrepreneurial experience and competencies is not enough to be an effective entrepreneurial
teacher, and this perspective has to be complemented.
Teachers see the relevance and importance of the entrepreneurial attitude as well as of
enterprising (Ali, Topping & Tariq, 2009). However, as entrepreneurship is not a subject in
secondary schools in the Netherlands, this domain is not part of the teacher education
programs at Dutch universities (VSNU , 2007b). The most related domains in teacher
education are General Economics, and Business Economics. In the description of
professional knowledge of these fields (VSNU, 2007b) entrepreneurial issues are absent. This
is another argument that for entrepreneurship teachers to have practical experience as an
entrepreneur.
5. 2 Crossing boundaries
It is interesting to consider the difference between being entrepreneurial and being
enterprising, where being entrepreneurial is seen more as a personal attitude, and being
enterprising is seen as venturing, or starting a new business.
Entrepreneurial behavior of students as well as of teachers fits better within the values of the
nowadays school systems. Pedagogies for making students more entrepreneurial (pro-
activeness, taking initiative, responsibility, decision making, organizing etc.) are closely
related to the pedagogies of project work (Van Woerden, Bertels & Blom, 1988) and of honors
programs. As long as entrepreneurial education complies with values of performing, hard
work, collaboration and autonomy, it is in general feasible to introduce, and implement and
specifically girls flourish in this learning environment. These work forms fit in the school
system and can be introduced in the system without disturbing it (McKenney, Nieveen & van
den Akker, 2006), and these incremental innovations do not cross the boundaries of the
system. Teachers can foster students to become more entrepreneurial by bringing in the
outer world into the school system, by introducing authentic elements in the learning
environment (Nab et al., accepted), such as involving entrepreneurs and stakeholders, but
still this is possible within the boundaries of the school system.
On the other side, if education aims at becoming enterprising, boundaries of the school
system have to be crossed. Markets, resources and competitors lie outside the boundaries of
school, where discovery and exploitation of opportunities, and social networking can only be
achieved by participating in the community of practice of entrepreneurs (Alvarez, 2005).
13
Introducing entrepreneurship education that aims at becoming enterprising makes it
necessary that boundaries of the system are crossed. Teachers that are able to in bring in the
environment into the classroom seem crucial. Also placements outside schools can make a
contribution to this (Purdy & Gibson, 2008). This argues for a new competence for
entrepreneurship teachers, and the concept of boundary crossing maybe helpful in defining
such a new role for entrepreneurship teachers. Akkerman & Bakker (2011) reviewed the
literature on boundary crossing and identified potential learning mechanisms that can take
place at boundaries: identification, coordination, reflection and transformation. The concept of
boundary crossing and boundary objects seems relevant for EE, as are the learning
mechanisms. Further investigations should be done to study the potential of boundary
crossing in teaching entrepreneurship. Besides, the background of teachers seems to be
relevant in this, and this might be an argument to involve teachers with experience in
entrepreneurship.
Teachers make a clear distinction between internal (attitude) and external entrepreneurship
(venturing). The former is associated with diligence, motivation, self-responsibility,
perseverance and fits well within a classic school discourse. The latter emphasized good
practical and social skills and challenges traditional theoretical abilities and the most valuable
form of intelligence in school. Male students seem to fit better into this latter profile.
5. 3 Dilemma in competence profile
Van Gelderen (2011) considers autonomy for students in entrepreneurship education is
considered as a basic element in EE, and this scholar argued for a balance between
guidance and freedom. The teacher should exercise restraint in the guidance of students.
The results of this study also suggest that entrepreneurship teachers must learn to guide
students in analyzing, action and social competence. This argues for a new teacher role
focused on the external school environment: a role in boundary crossing.
It is evident that the results raise a dilemma: should the teacher be entrepreneurial in order to
be a role model, and to be able to understand the process of becoming entrepreneurial? Or
should the teacher exercise more restraint with the aim to foster responsibility and autonomy
of students? Although Schelfhout, Dochy & Janssens (2004) gives some guidelines to keep
the balance between self-regulation by the student and steering and structuring by the
teacher, these authors do not elaborate on the role model perspective and the perspective of
boundary crossing, and the dilemma that is raised by these perspectives. Therefore this is an
important issue for future research.
6. References
Adeyemo, S.A. (2009), Understanding and acquisition of entrepreneurial skills: A pedagogical
Re-orientation for classroom teacher in science education, Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 6 (3), pp. 57-65.
Allen, J. & Van der Velden, R. (eds.) (2009), Competences and labour market careers of
higher education graduates, Maastricht: ROA.
Akkerman, S. & Bakker, A. (2011), Boundary crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of
Educational Research, 81 (2), 132-169
Ali, A., Topping, K.J., Tariq, R.H. (2009), Entrepreneurial inclinations of prospective teachers
[(Chinese Source)], (2009) New Horizons in Education, 57 (2), pp. 7-16.
Alvarez, S. A. (2005), “Theories of Entrepreneurship: Alternative Assumptions and the Study
of Entrepreneurial Action”, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 1(3): 105-
148.
Azarcher, S. (2011), Teacher training course and preparation smart teachers for schools
(2011) Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5 (11), pp. 1245-1250.
Bagheri, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2011), Entrepreneurial leadership: Towards a model for learning
and development, Human Resource Development International, 14(4), 447-463.
14
Bandura, A. (1982), Self-efficacy-mechanism in human agency, American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs'
social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41-
60.
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2009). Entrepreneurs' Social Skills and New Venture Performance:
Mediating Mechanisms and Cultural Generality. Journal of Management, 35(2), 282-
306.
Birdthistle, N., Hynes, B., Fleming, P. (2007), Enterprise education programmes in secondary
schools in Ireland: A multi-stakeholder perspective, Education + Training, 49 (4), pp.
265-276.
Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2011). The question we care about:
Paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education. Industry & Higher
Education, 25(6), 417-427.
Boyett, I.; Finlay, D. (1993), The emergence of the educational entrepreneur, Long Range
Planning, 26 (3), 114-122
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The Relationship of Entrepreneurial Traits, Skill, and
Motivation to Subsequent Venture Growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4),
587-598.
Centrum voor Onderwijs en Leren (2011), Het Portfolio. Een handleiding voor leraren-in-
opleiding aan de master-lerarenopleiding van de Universiteit Utrecht, Universiteit
Utrecht (Intern document)
Cheung, C.K. (2008), Practicing entrepreneurship education for secondary pupils through the
operation of a new year stall in Hong Kong, Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17
(1), pp. 15-31.
Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders' human capital and the growth of new
technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34(6), 795-816.
Cope, J. (2003), Entrepreneurial Learning and Critical Reflection. Discontinuous Events as
Triggers for Higher Level Learning, Management Learning, 34(4): 429-450.
Cooper, S.; Bottomly, C. & Gordon, J. (2004), Stepping out of the classroom and up the
ladder of learning. An experiental learning approach to entrepreneurship education,
Industry and Higher Education, 18 (1), 11-22
Dam, K. van, Schipper, M., Runhaar, P. (2010), Developing a competency-based framework
for teachers' entrepreneurial behaviour, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (4),
965-971.
Defillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based
perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 307-324.
Deist, F. o. D. L., & Winterton, J. (2005). What Is Competence? Human Resource
Development International, 8(1), 27 - 46.
Drent, M., Meelissen, M. (2008), Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use
ICT innovatively?, Computers & Education, 51(1), 187-199
European Commission (2011), Entrepreneurship Education: Enabling Teachers as a critical
success factor. (Online). Retrieved June 7 2012, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/education-
training-entrepreneurship/teacher-education-entrepreneurship/index_en.htm
15
Fiet, JO (2001), The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory, Journal of Business
Venturing, Volume: 16 (2), 101-117
Garavan, T.N. & O’Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship education and training
programmes. A review and evaluation, Part2. Journal of European Industrial Training,
18(11), 13-21.
Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M., Reynolds, P. D., Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010).
Entrepreneurial Behavior: Firm Organizing Processes Handbook of Entrepreneurship
Research (Vol. 5, pp. 99-127): Springer New York.
Gibb, A 1997, Small firms’ training and competitiveness. Building upon small business as a
learning organisation, International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 13-29.
Gibb, A. (2002). Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: living
with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity. Industry and
Higher Education, 16, 135-148.
Gelderen, M. van, (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education.
Education + Training, 52 (8/9), 710-721.
Guo, K. L. (2009). Core competencies of the entrepreneurial leader in health care
organizations. Health Care Manager, 28(1), 19-29.
Gur!u, C. (2006). Bio-entrepreneurship in different economic systems: A comparative
analysis of bio-entrepreneurs' profile in UK, France and Germany. International
Journal of Biotechnology, 8(3-4), 169-186.
Haase, H. & Lautenschläger, A., (2011), The ‘Teachability Dilemma’ of entrepreneurship, Int
Entrep Manag J (2011) 7:145–162
Hamzah, M.S.G., Yusof, B.H., Abdullah, S.K. (2009), Headmaster and entrepreneurship
criteria, European Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (4), 535-543.
Hayton, J.C. & Kelley, D.J. (2006), A competency-based framework for promoting corporate
entrepreneurship, Human Resource Management, 45(3), 407-427
Hannon, P. (2005), Philosophies and enterprise and entrepreneurship education and
challenges for higher education in the UK, International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Innovation, 6(2), 105-114
Hattie, J.A.C. (2009), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to
Achievement, Routledge, New York.
Heinonen, J. (2007), An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching corporate
entrepreneurship at university level, Education and Training, 49 (4), 310-324.
Heinonen, J. (2006), An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education:
mission impossible, Journal of Management Development, 25 (1), 2006.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: towards a model of contigency-based business
planning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 258-273.
Korhonen, M., Komulainen, K., Räty, H. (2012), "Not Everyone is Cut Out to be the
Entrepreneur Type": How Finnish School Teachers Construct the Meaning of
Entrepreneurship Education and the Related Abilities of the Pupils, (2012)
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56 (1), 1-19.
Krueger, N., and Dickson, P. (1994), How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Self-
efficacy and perceptions of opportunity and threat, Decision Sciences, 25:385–400.
16
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends,
and challenges, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-597.
Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. Learning apart together? Towards a validated, integrated
competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship education. Journal of
Cleaner Production.
Lobler, H. (2006), Learning Entrepreneurship from a Constructivist Perspective, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 18 (1), 19-38.
Lope Pihie, Z.A., Bagheri, A. (2011), Are teachers qualified to teach entrepreneurship?
Analysis of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy, Journal of Applied Sciences, 11
(18), 3308-3314.
Lope Pihie, Z.A.; Bagheri, A. (2011), Teachers’ and Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy:
Implication for effective Teaching practices, Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 29, 1071-1080
Man, T. W. A., Lau, T., & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competiveness of small and medium
enterprises. A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal
of Business Venturing, 17(2), 123-142.
McCoshan, Andrew et al. (2010). Towards greater cooperation and coherence in
entrepreneurship education: report and evaluation of the pilot action high level
reflection panels on entrepreneurship education initiated by DG Enterprise and
Industry and DG Education and Culture. Available from Internet:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-
entrepreneurship/education-training-entrepreneurship/reflection-
panels/files/entr_education_panel_en.pdf [cited 9.9.2010].
McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., and Akker, J. van den. (2006), Design Research from a
Curricular Perspective, in: J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijjer, S. McKenney, and N.
Nieveen (eds.), Educational Design Research, London and New York: Routledge, p.
67-90.
Mitchelmore, S., & Rowley, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and
development agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 16(2), 92-111.
Mulder, M., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Wesselink, R. (2009). The New Competence
Concept in Higher Education: Error or Enrichment? Journal of European Industrial
Training, 33(8/9), 755-770.
Nab, J., Pilot, A., Brinkkemper, S., & Ten Berge, H. (2010). Authentic competence-based
learning in university education in entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 9(1), 20-35.
Nab, J., Bulte, A.M.W. & Pilot, A. (accepted, planned for January 2013), Fostering the
competence of science students in identifying business opportunities: a design
approach, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing.
Ozgen, E. & Baron, R.A. (2007), Social sources of information in opportunity recognition:
Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums, Journal of Business
Venturing , 22, 174–192.
Peltonen, K. (2008), Can learning in teams help teachers to become more entrepreneurial?
The interplay between efficacy perceptions and team support, LTA, 3, 297-324
17
Purdy, N., Gibson, K. (2008) Alternative placements in initial teacher education: An
evaluation, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (8), pp. 2076-2086.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality
approach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The
psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 41-65). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F. & Janssens, S. (2004): The use of self, peer and teacher
assessment as a feedback system in a learning environment aimed at fostering skills
of cooperation in an entrepreneurial context, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 29:2, 177-201
Seikkula-Leino, J. , Ruskovaara, E. , Ikavalko, M. , Mattila, J. , Rytkola, T. (2010), Promoting
entrepreneurship education: The role of the teacher?, Education and Training, 52(2),
117-127.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2011), The implementation of entrepreneurship education through
curriculum reform in Finnish comprehensive schools, Journal of Curriculum Studies,
43 (1), 69-85.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Enterpreneurship as a Field of
Research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2008). Opportunity Identification and Pursuit:
Does an Entrepreneur’s Human Capital Matter? Small Business Economics, 30(2),
153-173.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching.
Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 257-280.
VSNU (2007), Competentieprofiel van leraren die aan een ULO zijn opgeleid, VSNU, Utrecht,
The Netherlands.
VSNU (2007), Vakinhoudelijk Masterniveau, VSNU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Woerden, W., van, Bertels. F., & Blom, Chr. (1988). Onderwijsproject / projectonderwijs
Structurering van onderwijs in projectvorm. Enschede: Universiteit Twente
Onderwijskundig Centrum
Woods, C. (2011), Reflections on pedagogy: A journey of collaboration, Journal of
Management Education, 35 (1), 154-167.
Zaleskiene, I., Zadiekaite, L. (2008), Attitudes of teachers towards assumptions of
enterpreneurship education, Pedagogika, 89, 99-106.
doc_280311550.pdf
During in this breakdown, concerning a literature review on roles and competences for the entrepreneurship teacher.
1
Practice what you preach?
A literature review on roles and competences for the entrepreneurship
teacher.
Jan Nab, Centre for Teaching and Learning, Utrecht University
Thomas Lans, Education and Competence Studies Group
Abstract
Teachers have a crucial role in entrepreneurship education, however, until now little is known
about their roles and competencies. In this review paper we describe the profile of the
entrepreneurship teacher in higher education. A literature search was conducted and policy
documents of Dutch universities and of the initial teacher-training program at Utrecht
University were studied, as were EU policy documents on entrepreneurship teacher education
programs. This review study resulted in a set of competencies and roles for entrepreneurship
teachers. Dilemmas were raised by these roles and competences: between the
entrepreneurial role of the teacher and his role as a coach, and between the entrepreneurial
attitude and venturing (starting a business), where boundary crossing makes the difference.
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship brings economic growth, innovations and creates new jobs (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000): therefore much emphasis is given to entrepreneurship education (EE)
as a mean to prepare a new generation for an entrepreneurial career. Historically, EE
teaching was the domain of management and business economics teachers. Increasingly
other study domains like life-sciences, engineering, IT, medicine and health acknowledge the
added value of fostering entrepreneurial competence among their students; in the light of new
career paradigms, lifelong learning, globalization, employability and a focus on innovation
(Defillippi & Arthur, 1994; Guo, 2009; Gur!u, 2006). While in education in general many
factors influence the quality of teaching, probably the most critical factor is the teacher (Hattie,
2009) and it can be assumed that the teacher has a crucial role in entrepreneurship
education. Most teachers in higher education have a disciplinary background (e.g. biology,
chemistry) with little prior knowledge in educational science and often no entrepreneurial
hands-on experience. Surveys show that European graduates have a poor opinion of higher
education as a contributor to their entrepreneurial skills (Allen & Van der Velden, 2009) and
research indicates that teachers are considered to be a weak link in effectively introducing
entrepreneurship education (McCoshan, 2010). However, until now little is known about the
roles and competencies of teachers in entrepreneurship education. Teachers in all domains
have to master several roles as illustrated in a vision documents of the initial teacher
education program at Utrecht University and the VSNU (Centrum voor Onderwijs en Leren,
2011; VSNU, 2007)). Six roles are defined: pedagogical expert, designer and coach of
learning, tutor in personal development, manager of classroom, teacher in a school and
society context, and managing personal development as a teacher. Qualifications for these
roles do not explicitly foresee in designing and implementing entrepreneurship education.
Research (EC, 2011) shows that core skills and values linked to entrepreneurship education
are seldom a priority in initial teacher education programs.
In this review paper we describe the profile of the entrepreneurship teacher in higher
education. The central research question of this study is: What are, from a theoretical
perspective, roles and competences necessary for a teacher in entrepreneurship education?
Answering this question from a scientific point of view is important, since work on
entrepreneurship teachers is scarce, fragmentized and not embedded in mainstream
literature on teaching and teacher education. From a practical point of view teachers as well
as teacher educators are searching for evidence-based stepping-stones for professionalizing
entrepreneurship education and the entrepreneurship teacher.
2. Theory
2.1 Framework
2
Several paradigms exist in entrepreneurship education. A classical distinction which is often
made is the difference between ‘entrepreneurial’ and ‘enterprising’ (Hannon, 2005; Blenker et
al, 2011), between internal entrepreneurship (e.g. attitude, intrapreneurship) and external
entrepreneurship (e.g. venturing) (Korhonen et al, 2012) and the difference between learning
about entrepreneurship versus learning for entrepreneurship (Gibb, 2002; Honig, 2004) At
least three approaches to entrepreneurship can be discerned which have a distinct influence
on the specific learning outcomes, didactics and the role of the teacher.
Firstly, education focused on entrepreneurship as subject matter encompassed learning
about entrepreneurship. It involves theory about entrepreneurship that has its roots in
economics, management or (personality) psychology. It include for instance the foundations
of entrepreneurial in early economic theory, traits and personality theory, network theory and
theory on opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship education in this fashion is taught in
many higher education institutes, mostly in the faculties of economies and
management as well as business schools.
Secondly, entrepreneurship education can also be seen as a matter of culture and state of
mind. This type of education typically includes on those aspects that focus on values, beliefs
and attitudes associated with entrepreneurship. Concepts such as an entrepreneurial mind-
set, entrepreneurialism, entrepreneurial spirit and attitude characterize the discourse around
this type of entrepreneurship education. More practical it means that one should have an eye
for opportunities, be proactive, creative and self-directed. This conception of EE has also
strong connection with modern views on work, employment and learning and is promoted in
key policy documents on life long-learning, innovation and the knowledge society. For
instance one of the eight key competencies promoted by the European Union as ‘being
fundamental for each individual in a knowledge-based society’ is ‘ sense of initiative and
entrepreneurship’.
Thirdly, entrepreneurship education is also about creating specific situations: venturing:
turning ideas into ‘gestation’ activities: firm formation processes. The fundamental outcome of
these processes is the new organization itself (Gartner, Carter, Reynolds, Acs, & Audretsch,
2010). Examples of such activities are saving money to invest in the startup, development of
business model, prototype of product, service, starting to talk to customers, defining a market
for product, service, organizing a start-up team (Gartner, et al., 2010). These activities are
typically laid down into a business plan. From a higher education perspective this approach to
EE also plays a key role in the ‘knowledge transfer agenda’ of higher education institutes.
Spin-off entrepreneurs act as valuable intermediaries in valorization (i.e. the access,
application and dissemination) of (scientific) knowledge produced by research institutes.
These three approaches to EE are not mutual exclusive. On the contrary, the three
dimensions can be seen as preceding phases in entrepreneurship education. Depending on
the student, the entrepreneurial climate as well as the direct social environment and networks
the student can move from a non-founder to a nascent entrepreneur to a firm founder.
2.2 What should students in entrepreneurship education learn?
Depending on the focus of EE, literature on EE different learning outcomes (i.e.
competencies) of students can be pursued. For instance from a venture creation perspective
Due to the diversity in type of studies and contexts the list of skills, attitudes and other
characteristics associated with entrepreneurship education is endless. Clustering such lists
into a larger set of competencies is helpful in this matter and is concurrent with modern views
on competence and competence-based education in Europe (Mulder, Gulikers, Biemans, &
Wesselink, 2009). Reviews by Man and colleagues (2002), Hayton and Kelley (2006),
Michelmore and Rowley (2010), as well as a few empirical studies have been conducted to
create more clarity in the larger domain of entrepreneurship competence. Although the exact
demarcation of entrepreneurial competence remains problematic due to mutual dependency
and context specificity, five mean areas of entrepreneurial competence are frequently
described in all these studies. These areas could be seen as the backbone of entrepreneurial
competence.
3
1. Opportunity competence. Entrepreneurship in its essence relates to the identification
of opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Opportunity competence is
more than just opportunity recognition; it focuses on the systematic development
of adequate solutions to complex problems, i.e. emphasizing a more constructed
view on opportunities, thus putting perception, interpretation and construction at
the heart of opportunity identification.
2. . Social competence. This set refers to interactions with others (Baron & Markman,
2003; Baron & Tang, 2009). Networks play an essential role in the
entrepreneurial process, fostering the generation and development of new ideas,
and in gaining resources and legitimacy. Since external contacts and
relationships are often established from scratch, the ability to build up and
maintain relationships, externally as well as internally seems to be important.
3. . Strategic business competence. The reviews of Michelmore and Rowley (2010)
as well as the Man et al. (2002) refer to the importance of business/management
competence which involve the ability to develop management systems and
organization and coordination competence. This competence involves the
organization of different internal, external, human, physical, financial and
technological resources as well as setting, evaluating and implementing the
strategies of the firm (i.e. planning and control).
4. . Industry-specific competence. The fourth area involves the technical knowledge
(know-how) and the know-what. The former is the technological knowledge
needed for a specific profession. The latter is the information of the specific
market. To be able to identify and exploit opportunities entrepreneurs need
knowledge of the market, of clients’ needs, of resources and competitors. Market
knowledge is constructed by participating in the market and in networks, and can
hardly be learned within a school system. There is an abundance of empirical
work, which shows the importance of industry-specific knowledge and experience
for entrepreneurial success (Baum & Locke, 2004; Colombo & Grilli, 2005;
Ucbasaran, Westhead, & Wright, 2008).
5. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The fifth area is a broad domain of meta-level
competencies: competencies which influence other competencies positively
(Deist & Winterton, 2005). This area comprises those constructs that have close
conceptual links with more classical entrepreneurial psychological constructs.
Recent meta-analyses show that entrepreneurial self –efficacy in particular (belief
in one’s own entrepreneurial competence, Bandura, 1982) is one of the most
strongest individual level predictors for entrepreneurial success (Rauch & Frese,
2007)
2.3 How can entrepreneurial competences be attained by students?
Although the type of learning activities clearly depends on the focus of EE and associated
learning outcomes, scholar agree upon the fact that entrepreneurship programs which move
towards ‘learning for entrepreneurship’ requires the use of active learning methods that
enables students to take responsibility for learning to experiment, push boundaries and learn
about them selves. Bagheri and Pihie (2011) proposed a framework that suggests four
ingredients of entrepreneurial learning, namely: experiential, social interactive, observational,
and reflective learning.
Entrepreneurial skills and attitudes require new pedagogies. i.e. experiential learning, such as
project-based activities, and active learning strategies. Reflection and generalizations stages
in this kind of education are especially important, because without insight in their experiences
students may not be able to draw lessons from their experiences (Cooper, Bottomly and
Gordon, 2004).
Nab, Bulte en Pilot (accepted) argued that students learn effectively from authentic, practical
experiences and realistic learning environments. Students should be brought in roles, work on
projects and tasks, work in teams, and be assessed as in entrepreneurship. Critical
experiences and failures have an influential role in entrepreneurial learning (Cope, 2003)
Gibb (1997, p.19) argued that the predominant contextual learning mode in the small
business environment is that of learning from peers; learning by doing; learning from
4
feedback from customers and suppliers; learning by copying; learning by experiment; learning
by problem solving and opportunity taking; and learning from making mistakes.
Entrepreneurship and the growth process are essentially non-linear and discontinuous.
Students acquire theoretical and domain knowledge mainly within the school system.
However, market knowledge is mainly obtained by participating in a market community and by
networking. Therefore students must take the step into a realistic and authentic market
environment, and cross the boundary of the relatively safe school system.
Altogether, entrepreneurial competencies can best be achieved by long-lasting, authentic
projects, on realistic and open-ended tasks that confront students with themselves, with the
market and with their talents, give the possibility to learn from failures and cross boundaries.
3. Methods
This study is a review of the competences and roles that entrepreneurship teachers must
have in order to provide students with the activities that foster entrepreneurship. A literature
search was conducted in Web of Science and Scopus with teacher and entrepren* as terms
used in all fields, with restriction to the year of reference. Only references from the last
decade (2002 and beyond) were selected. This resulted in an overall list of 29 unique hits.
From this list we selected items based on the rules a) that roles and competences of teachers
in entrepreneurship are used as a concept in theoretical or empirical analysis and b) that the
study focuses on fostering entrepreneurial competencies in students. Selection took place
based on abstracts and on full texts. References in the selected papers that suggested that
these would be interesting for our study were included. One of the selected references could
not be retrieved as full text, leading to a final number of 27 studies for review.
For the review, the full texts were first read and coded on paper according to theoretical
underpinning from in the domains of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship and
learning and teaching. Besides conceptual information was coded: definitions, concepts,
pedagogical models, claims of findings, etc.
Documents of the initial teacher-training program at Utrecht University were studied, as were
EU policy documents on entrepreneurship teacher education programs.
This study departs from the roles and competences that students must obtain to prepare them
for entrepreneurship. Subsequently the question is raised what pedagogies are suitable to
achieve these results. Accordingly, we will elaborate on the roles and competencies teachers
should have to enable these learning processes.
4. Results: What competencies and roles must the entrepreneurship teacher have,
according to the literature?
Table 1: Overview of selected papers on entrepreneurship teachers
Source Context Main findings
Adeyemo (2009) Conceptual paper in the context
of science teachers in Nigeria.
Pedagogic strategies and description of
process of acquiring entrepreneurial skills:
cooperation, classroom assessment, case
studies, conference learning style, dialogues
and ambiguity.
Five basis skills of teachers:
• Sales and marketing
• Financial know-how
• Self motivation skill
• Time management skill
• Administrative skills.
Teacher: more a coach and less information
transmission.
Ali, Topping & Tariq
(2009)
Empirical study in the context of
teacher education in Pakistan
The results of a survey among educational
science students show a positive attitude of
the future teachers towards
5
entrepreneurship (e.g. entrepreneurial
intentions). A significant predictor of this
positive attitude was the occupation
(working in the private sector) of the parents
Azarcher (2011) Empirical study in the context of
teacher education in Iran
One of the pillars of the Smart school
concept in Iran is having an entrepreneurial
spirit. The research is carried out to find out
whether teacher education prepares well for
the smart school concept. The results show
that the teachers-training curriculum is not
successful in creating an entrepreneurial
spirit among the students (thus the future
teachers)
Bagheri & Lope
Pihie (2011)
Conceptual paper in the context
of university students in
Malaysia.
Propose a model for entrepreneurial
leadership development, including:
experiential, social interactive, observational
and reflective learning.
Birdthistle, Hynes &
Fleming (2007).
Descriptive paper in the context
of stakeholders in Irish
secondary schools.
Use of questionnaire to measure
perception on EE
Tangible and intangible learning is obtained
from EE programs.
Create awareness of possibilities for self-
employment, encourage enterprising
behavior, and foster skill and competence
development.
Boyett & Finlay
(1993)
Conceptual paper about the
competencies of the head-
teacher
The focus is on the competencies of the
school head-teacher who should be able to
run his school as an entrepreneur.
Cheung (2008) Empirical and qualitative paper in
the context of secondary schools
pupils in Hong Kong.
Plea for informal – real world contexts (work
related aspects), which has a greater impact
on learning
Pupils improved in
• Taking responsibilities
• Work independently
• Perseverance
• Initiative and drive
Drent & Meelissen
(2008)
Empirical study on innovative
behavior of teachers
About the factors which stimulate innovative
use of ICT by teachers, to support the
knowledge society. Personal
entrepreneurship of teachers turns out to be
the key factor for the integration of the
innovative use of ICT into the learning
process. Personal entrepreneurship is
operationalized as the amount of contacts a
teacher educator keeps (both inside and
outside the school) for his own professional
development in the use of ICT. Thus
illustrating the importance of social capital
and social competence.
Fiet (2001) Conceptual paper. Not empirical. Plea for student approval of EE. Give
student more responsibility for education by
means of co-creation.
Teacher is more a coach and less focusing
on information transmission.
Combination of theory and practice.
Gibb (2002) Conceptual paper The importance of seeing entrepreneurship
as a way of life within entrepreneurship
education.
6
Haase &
Lautenschläger
(2011)
Conceptual paper from Germany
about the teachability of EE
Know what: easy to teach; know why more
difficult to teach. But know how is most
important but difficult to teach. It can be
achieved by experiential learning and
learning by doing.
Teacher must be promoter, facilitator or
manager instead of teacher.
Hamzah, Yusof &
Abdullah (2009)
Empirical study in the context of
headmasters in Malaysia,
measuring perception on self-
entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship characteristics within the
headmasters are average and poor in
initiative and information retrieval.
Heinonen (2006) Qualitative and descriptive
research in the context of
university level teaching in
Finland.
Focus on opportunity identification.
Entrepreneurial directed approach
encourages students to broaden their
perspectives, develop entrepreneurial skills
and behavior. Integration of knowledge,
experience and action. Reflection is seen as
most important learning activity.
Concludes with design principles for this
type of education.
Heinonen (2007) Qualitative study measuring
perception of learning outcomes
of economics students
entrepreneurship.
The entrepreneurial-directed approach
(experiential learning, ownership students,
fostering reflection) had the results:
• Students learned a lot about
• Step toward learning in
entrepreneurship
• Bridging theory and practice
Reflection most important
Recommend students from different
backgrounds.
Teacher as guide and helper.
Korhonen,
Komulainen & Räty,
(2012)
Qualitative, empirical research in
the context of comprehensive
school Finland
Teachers’ meaning/subjectivities about
entrepreneurship with special attention to
gender. Teachers make a clear distinction
between internal (attitude) and external
entrepreneurship (venturing). The former is
associated with diligence, motivation, self-
responsibility, perseverance and fits well
within a classic school discourse. The latter
emphasized good practical and social skills
and challenges traditional theoretical
abilities and the most valuable form of
intelligence in school. Male students seem
to fit better into this latter profile.
Lobler (2006)
Conceptual paper based on
constructive theories.
EE from a constructivist perspective.
Student in an active role and teacher as
facilitator, facilitating the autodidactic
abilities of the student. Support autonomy,
independent thinking and self-governing.
5 features of constructive learning
environment:
• Reality (authenticity, out of school)
• Knowledge
• Purpose of knowledge
• Role of teacher
• Role of student
7
Lope Pihie &
Bagheri (2011a)
Empirical study in the context of
teachers from technical and
vocational secondary schools in
Malaysia, to measure teachers’
entrepreneurial attitude and self-
efficacy.
Entrepreneurial attitude of teachers is
consistent with entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy of teachers is
high.
Lope Pihie &
Bagheri (2011b)
Empirical study on teachers’ and
students’ entrepreneurial self-
efficacy in vocational and
technical schools Malaysia
A difference in entrepreneurial self-efficacy
(ESE) was found between teachers and
students. ESE of teachers was high in all 6
dimensions, while students perceived their
ESE as moderate.
Some interventions are proposed to raise
ESE in students.
Peltonen (2008))
Qualitative research using
grounded theory methodology,
on teacher professionalization in
Finland.
Collaborative and entrepreneurial team
learning in an authentic and explorative
learning setting enhanced team members’
individual level entrepreneurial readiness
and thus increased competencies to act as
entrepreneurial teachers.
Purdy & Gibson
(2008).
Empirical study on teacher
education
Focus is on alternative 2-week placements
for teacher-students which aims to broaden
student teachers’ experience and develop
their transferable skills. Nonetheless the
alternative placements fostered typical
entrepreneurial skills only to limited extent
(e.g. innovation, leadership, customer
focus), probably due to the short timeframe
and the type of placements. The concept,
alternative placements, however, seems to
be valuable in relation to entrepreneurship
education and preparing teachers for that.
Seikkula-Leino
(2011)
Descriptive research in the
context of comprehensive
schools in Finland, measuring
perceptions on the process of
curriculum innovation
Teachers do not have the knowledge to
implement EE in practice. Plea for
partnership forms of curriculum reforms in
order to develop teachers’ learning
Seikkula-Leino,
Ruskovaara,
Ikavalko, Mattila,
Rytkola (2010)
Qualitative research among
teachers at the basic, upper
secondary and vocational
educational levels in Finland.
Teachers confuse between aims and
practices in EE.
Teachers should learn by reflection, in their
basic training, which is highly based on
Shulman and Shulman’s model: vision,
motivation, practice and understanding.
van Dam, Schipper
& Runhaar (2010).
Empirical study on teachers in
vocational education
Based on the literature and discussions in
the field, six competencies (entrepreneurial
knowledge, career adaptability, occupational
self-efficacy, creative thinking, networking
skill, teamwork skill) and entrepreneurial
climate were included in the research
model. A sample of 255 teachers from five
different vocational schools in the
Netherlands participated in the main study.
The findings supported most expectations;
only occupational self-efficacy was not
significantly related to entrepreneurial
behaviour.
8
van Gelderen
(2010)
Conceptual paper on autonomy
as a guiding aim for EE
Guidelines for autonomy supportive
teachers, based on theories of self-
determination and self-directed learning:
• co-creation with students
• free choices in learning
• student centered
• provide informational feedback
• find a balance e between guidance and
freedom
Schelfhout, Dochy
& Janssens (2004):
Empirical qualitative and
quantitative study at feedback.
Combination of self, peer and teacher
assessment in the teaching of cooperative
skills in EE is effective.
Advocates a balance between self-
regulation of students and steering/
structuring by the teacher. Teacher in role of
coach. Also advocates authentic learning
environment.
Presents a set of design principles for
powerful learning environment.
Woods (2011) Auto-ethnographic study on
course development on
entrepreneurship in New
Zealand.
Give students a role in the development of
entrepreneurship education for ethnic
minority (Maori’s).
Co-creation of teacher / developer and
students.
Zaleskiene &
Zadiekaite (2008)
Empirical study among
secondary school teachers in
Latvia.
Although teachers understand the
importance of integrating entrepreneurs’
ideas into subjects, they find it difficult to
practice what they preach.
4.1 Characterization of selected papers
Of the selected papers 19 were empirical and 8 were conceptual, and two of the empirical
studies were descriptive. Most studies (18) were performed in Europe and USA, and further
studies were carried out in Asia (7), Africa (1) and Australia (1). The studies aimed at various
research units: (science) teachers and teachers from vocational and technical schools (8),
head teachers (2), teacher education (4) university students (5), stakeholders from secondary
school (1) and pupils secondary school (1).
4.2 Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy seems to be an important element in teaching entrepreneurship, because it is
crucial for the teacher’s role as an entrepreneur, for their role as a teacher, and as a role
model. As self-efficacy is context and domain specific (Lope Pihie & Bagheri, 2011),
entrepreneurial self-efficacy should not be confused with ‘educational’ self-efficacy.
Entrepreneurship teachers proved to have an entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and an
entrepreneurial attitude (EAO) comparable to that of entrepreneurs (Lope Pihie & Bagheri,
2011). Also the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of teachers in vocational and technical education
was measured as high. In another study of Lope Pihie and Bagheri (2011) a difference in ESE
was found between teachers and students. Where ESE of teachers was high, the ESE of
students was moderate or low. As ESE is an intermediate variable for opportunity recognition
(Orgen & Baron, 2007), which is one of the key competences for entrepreneurs, it can be
concluded, that one of the tasks of teachers is to raise ESE of students. In order to do so,
teachers self must have a high ESE themselves, and ESE can developed by entrepreneurial
real-life experiences, reflection and team learning (Peltonen, 2008).
Students learn from role models, which influence their motivation for entrepreneurship, and
therefore the role model must have a high ESE. Students in EE do not always see their
teacher as the role model (own observation), but they do see entrepreneurs as a role model.
Besides teachers must have self-efficacy in developing and coaching education. They should
be able to find the proper didactics for their specific education. Van Dam, Schipper en
Runhaar (2010) showed that occupational self-efficacy, as a teacher, was not significantly
9
related to entrepreneurial behavior. Educational SE has to be developed separately in an
educational context, and can be acquired by collaborative professionalization and
experiences in education (Seikkula et al, 201).
4.3 Authentic learning environment
The selected studies report that authentic elements of entrepreneurial reality were introduced
in their education, and proved effective. Such an authentic learning environment is
characterized by introducing, elements of the professional context that are characteristic for
the profession. Lobler (2006) advocates a constructivist perspective on EE, and brings
students in an entrepreneurial context where students can learn by collaboration. In Lobler’s
view constructivism and authentic learning environments coincide. Also Schelfhout, Dochy
and Janssens (2004) described a powerful learning environment in EE for the fostering
cooperative skills in students. Their powerful learning environment includes authentic
elements. Similarly, the effectiveness of an authentic and an explorative learning
environment was reported by Peltonen (2008). In this case team learning was used for
fostering ESE. Other authors that reported the implementation of authentic learning
environments are Heinonen (2006, 2007), Lope Pihie & Bagheri, (2011) and Cheung (2008).
It can be concluded that teachers in entrepreneurship must have the competences to design,
implement and guide an authentic learning environment.
4.4 Experiential learning
Experiential learning was advised or reported in several selected papers to be effective in
entrepreneurship education. Heinonen (2006, 2007) evaluated the entrepreneurial directed
approach and its main characteristics are experiential learning, ownership by students and
reflection. This author considers reflection on experiences as the most important for learning.
Bagheri & Lope Pihie (2011) described experiential learning and reflection as crucial elements
in their model for the development of entrepreneurial leadership. In another publication (Lope
Pihie & Bagheri; 2011) give recommendations for experiential learning and reflection in
entrepreneurship education. Haase and Lautenschläger (2011) focused on the ‘ know how’
part of EE, and propagate experiential learning, learning by doing and reflection to develop
entrepreneurial skills. Seikkula et al. (2010) reported on professionalization of
entrepreneurship teachers. They state that teachers must be member of a professional
community, where reflection is the key to learning and development.
As a conclusion, the entrepreneurship teacher must have the competence to develop,
implement and guide experiential learning and foster reflections on these experiences by
students.
4.5 Team learning and collaboration
The selected studies show that team learning and collaboration is widely used in
entrepreneurship education. Collaboration is argued for explicitly or implicitly.
Seikkula et al. (2010) argued that teachers should be member of a professional community,
and collaboration is seen as a consequence of experiential learning.
Van Dam, Schipper en Runhaar (2010) evaluated teamwork skills as one of six competences
of entrepreneurship teachers, and teamwork skills proved significantly related to
entrepreneurial behavior. Adeyamo (2009) pointed out cooperative learning as a pedagogic
strategy for the acquisition of entrepreneurial skills. Drenth and Meelissen (2008) related
social capital and the number of contacts of teachers inside and outside school, with
innovativeness of teachers. Bagheri & Lope Pihie (2011) proposed a model for the
development of entrepreneurial leadership, where social interactivity is part of the model.
Lope Pihie & Bagheri (2011) related the teacher’s role in collaboration with the fostering of
self-efficacy. These studies are all in line with the findings reported by Lobler (2006), who
presented a constructivist perspective on entrepreneurship education, and collaborative
construction is the crucial factor in this approach. Consequently, it means that
entrepreneurship teachers must have the competence to develop and guide collaborative
learning activities, complying with constructivist learning.
4.6 Co-creation
Several of the selected studies argue for the involvement of students in the design and
implementation of entrepreneurship education, as a way to involve students and give them
more ownership. One of the first recognizing co-creation as an effective approach in EE was
10
Fiet (2001), arguing that students should have more responsibility over the content and
approach of entrepreneurship education. Also Woods (2011) in an auto-ethnographic study
gave students a role in the development of entrepreneurship education for an ethnic minority
in Australia. Siekkula-Heino (2011) recommended co-creation in a community of practice in
teachers’ learning, where van Gelderen (2010) argues for co-creation as a way to support
autonomy in students. Heinonen (2006) advocates co-learning between teachers and
students in the entrepreneurial-directed approach in EE. Lobler (2006) and Schelfhout et al.
(2004) use the concepts of self-regulation and self-governing, that both imply the design and
creation of education by the student.
Therefore it can be concluded that entrepreneurship teachers must acquire the competence
of design, implementation and guidance of co-creation.
4.7 Autonomy
Autonomy for students in entrepreneurship education was found in various forms in the
selected studies, where different concepts to indicate ‘autonomy’ were used. Azarcher (2011)
used the concept of internal locus of control. Van Gelderen argued for autonomy to be a
guiding aim for EE, and he gives guidelines for entrepreneurship teachers that want to
support autonomy, such as free choices in learning, student centered education, and giving
informational feedback. This author argues for a balance between guidance and freedom for
students. Cheung (2008) reports on taking responsibilities and working independently by
students, which are closely related to autonomy. Autonomy is also a logical factor in
experiential learning where students have experiences and reflect upon them, and where the
role of the teacher is supportive. This is the case in studies of Heinonen (2006) and Haasse
and Lautenschläger (2011). Therefore, giving autonomy to students is considered as an
important competence of entrepreneurship teachers. Strongly related to autonomy is the role
of the teacher.
4. 8 Teacher’s pedagogical roles
The role of teachers is strongly complementary with the students’ role. Vermunt en Verloop
(1999) described the concept of constructive friction in regulation by student versus teachers.
If self-regulation or autonomy is expected and stimulated in students, the teacher should
exercise more restraint in guiding the students. However, the degree of guidance strongly is
inversely proportional to the autonomy of the student.
This was also found in several of the selected papers. Fiet (2001) gives arguments for the
teacher in entrepreneurship education to be more coaching and to give less emphasis on
information transmission. Van Gelderen (2010) states that teachers must find a balance in the
coaching of students between guidance and freedom. In this study student-centered
education proceeds from the aims, abilities and preferences of students, provide choice,
minimize control, and emphasize individual improvement by formative feedback. This is an
argument for restraint of the teacher. Haasse and Lautenschläger (2011) take a similar
position when they state that for the acquisition of entrepreneurial skills (know how) teachers
must take roles of promoter, facilitator or manager. Lobler (2006) brought in the same point in
his constructivist approach, where he considers the teacher as facilitator, and an assistant of
the learner. Also Schelfhout et al. (2004) argues for limited steering and structuring by the
teacher in harmonization with the self-regulation of students. And finally, Heinonen (2007)
argues for the teacher as a guide and helper of students.
In sum, it appears that the teacher should take a role in entrepreneurship education that is
characterized by a balance between guidance and freedom for students, and is geared to the
aim of making students more autonomous and self-regulating.
4.9 Teachers as an entrepreneurial role model
In order to be a role model in EE the teacher must have entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, a
mindset and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. At first entrepreneurship teachers should have
knowledge of a specific domain and of markets, and have networks in these areas. Domain
knowledge is the technological knowledge needed for a specific field (see 2.2) where market
knowledge is about costumers’ needs, resources, and competitors. Domain knowledge is
acquired by education and work experience in the domain, while market knowledge can only
be obtained by participating in the market. It implies that teachers must have social capital
that was operationalized as the amount of contacts in and out school (Drent & Meelissen,
2008).
11
Several skills for entrepreneurship teachers have been reported in the selection of papers in
this study. Typical entrepreneurial skills for student-teachers are: innovation, leadership, and
costumer focus (Purdy & Gibson, 2008) and must be able to observe and seize opportunities.
Adeyemo (2008) lists typical entrepreneurial skills such as financial knowhow, self-motivation
skill, time management and administrative skills. Van Dam et al (2010) reported that teachers
must have entrepreneurial knowledge, career adaptability, creative thinking, networking skill,
and teamwork skill.
Next entrepreneurship teachers as role models need an entrepreneurial spirit as a pillar that
was characterized by Azarcher (2010) by independence, risk taking, success seeking,
creativity and internal locus of control. The need for an entrepreneurial mindset was also
suggested by Heinonen (2006): “Our starting point is that the teacher also has to act in an
entrepreneurial way in discovering opportunities and innovatively exploiting them’. Also
Kuratko (2005) stated: ‘Entrepreneurship educators should have the same innovative drive
that is expected from entrepreneurship students’.
Others reported that teachers and head teachers should have entrepreneurial leadership
competencies: experiential, social interactive, observational, and reflective learning (Bagheri
& Lope Pihie, 2011). Hamzah et al. (2009) reported a long list of competences for
headmasters that have many similarities of with the competences as reported for
entrepreneurs (e.g. Man et al, 2002), but demonstrated that headmasters are average and
poor in initiative and information retrieval.
Finally, based on entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and entrepreneurial spirit teachers
develop entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which was reported high in entrepreneurship teachers
(Lope Pihie & Bagheri, 2011). The need for entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, spirit and self-
efficacy, in order to be a role model in entrepreneurship, implies that teachers should have
some experience as an entrepreneur, and in an entrepreneurial context.
To sum up, typical entrepreneurial competencies encompass knowledge, analyzing ability
(e.g. opportunity identification), action competence (e.g. risk- taking and pro-activeness) and
social competence (networking and relationships). A shared concept in these competencies is
the fact that students must cross boundaries, as a person, and between disciplines and
professional contexts. It can be concluded, that in order to be a role model in
entrepreneurship education, teachers must have knowledge, skills, attitude and self-efficacy
on entrepreneurship. These competences are largely similar to the competences of
entrepreneurs, and experience and background in entrepreneurship helps to be a role model.
Table 2: Summarizing the competencies and roles for entrepreneurship teachers as found in
this survey
• Fostering students’ self-efficacy
• Create authentic learning environments
• Develop and coach experiential learning, and fostering reflection
• Create collaborative learning environments and team learning
• Giving students autonomy and self-regulation
• Involve students in co-creation of entrepreneurship education
• Take the role of promoter, facilitator, manager, coach
• Act in an entrepreneurial way, as a role model
5. Conclusions and Discussion
5.1 Competence profile
This study has resulted in a competence profile for teachers in entrepreneurship education.
Considering this profile (Table 2) specific different perspectives for entrepreneurial teachers
can be deducted.
A first perspective is that the teacher must be entrepreneurial in pedagogy, and be innovative
in designing and implementing education. The entrepreneurial teacher must be able to step
out of traditional forms of education (teaching the know what) and develop tasks,
assessments, etc., that comply with entrepreneurial learning strategies such as experiential
12
learning and reflection. Besides, the teacher must be willing to step out of his role of the
expert, and involve students in the design of education, and give students more autonomy
and self-regulation in the process of EE. Considering the competence profile for teacher
education in the Netherlands (VSNU, 2007) the specific pedagogy for EE cannot be found as
such, and the design of education is given in general terms.
Teachers are aware of the competencies that are needed to implement EE, but find it difficult
to practice what they preach (Zaleskiene & Zadiekaite, 2008) . Seikkula_Leino (2010) came to
the conclusion that teachers do not have an understanding of EE in broader contexts, such as
strategies and curricula, and this author argues for partnership forms of curriculum reforms.
They confuse aims and practices in EE. For teachers internal entrepreneurship, inside the
school system, seems to be their main goal (Korhonen, Komulainen & Räty, 2012). In other
studies entrepreurship teachers indicate that support is needed for their new tasks (Azacher,
2011) and teacher education programs do not fully foresee in this (EC, 2011).
The second perspective for an entrepreneurial teacher is that of a role model for students.
This perspective is closely related to the teacher’s competencies as an entrepreneur and on
his entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
And the third perspective is the teacher as headmaster or team leader who is responsible for
introducing EE in a school system.
In all perspectives, teachers must have domain knowledge and competencies, in this case of
entrepreneurship. As elaborated up on in the results section, knowledge in entrepreneurship
includes technical knowledge of the domain and market knowledge. This teacher must also
have specific entrepreneurial skills, because he must be able to guide students in developing
knowledge and skills. Entrepreneurial competencies can only be acquired by participating in
communities of entrepreneurs and the market, and by learning from experiences. It means
that the entrepreneurial teacher must have a background in entrepreneurship. However,
entrepreneurial experience and competencies is not enough to be an effective entrepreneurial
teacher, and this perspective has to be complemented.
Teachers see the relevance and importance of the entrepreneurial attitude as well as of
enterprising (Ali, Topping & Tariq, 2009). However, as entrepreneurship is not a subject in
secondary schools in the Netherlands, this domain is not part of the teacher education
programs at Dutch universities (VSNU , 2007b). The most related domains in teacher
education are General Economics, and Business Economics. In the description of
professional knowledge of these fields (VSNU, 2007b) entrepreneurial issues are absent. This
is another argument that for entrepreneurship teachers to have practical experience as an
entrepreneur.
5. 2 Crossing boundaries
It is interesting to consider the difference between being entrepreneurial and being
enterprising, where being entrepreneurial is seen more as a personal attitude, and being
enterprising is seen as venturing, or starting a new business.
Entrepreneurial behavior of students as well as of teachers fits better within the values of the
nowadays school systems. Pedagogies for making students more entrepreneurial (pro-
activeness, taking initiative, responsibility, decision making, organizing etc.) are closely
related to the pedagogies of project work (Van Woerden, Bertels & Blom, 1988) and of honors
programs. As long as entrepreneurial education complies with values of performing, hard
work, collaboration and autonomy, it is in general feasible to introduce, and implement and
specifically girls flourish in this learning environment. These work forms fit in the school
system and can be introduced in the system without disturbing it (McKenney, Nieveen & van
den Akker, 2006), and these incremental innovations do not cross the boundaries of the
system. Teachers can foster students to become more entrepreneurial by bringing in the
outer world into the school system, by introducing authentic elements in the learning
environment (Nab et al., accepted), such as involving entrepreneurs and stakeholders, but
still this is possible within the boundaries of the school system.
On the other side, if education aims at becoming enterprising, boundaries of the school
system have to be crossed. Markets, resources and competitors lie outside the boundaries of
school, where discovery and exploitation of opportunities, and social networking can only be
achieved by participating in the community of practice of entrepreneurs (Alvarez, 2005).
13
Introducing entrepreneurship education that aims at becoming enterprising makes it
necessary that boundaries of the system are crossed. Teachers that are able to in bring in the
environment into the classroom seem crucial. Also placements outside schools can make a
contribution to this (Purdy & Gibson, 2008). This argues for a new competence for
entrepreneurship teachers, and the concept of boundary crossing maybe helpful in defining
such a new role for entrepreneurship teachers. Akkerman & Bakker (2011) reviewed the
literature on boundary crossing and identified potential learning mechanisms that can take
place at boundaries: identification, coordination, reflection and transformation. The concept of
boundary crossing and boundary objects seems relevant for EE, as are the learning
mechanisms. Further investigations should be done to study the potential of boundary
crossing in teaching entrepreneurship. Besides, the background of teachers seems to be
relevant in this, and this might be an argument to involve teachers with experience in
entrepreneurship.
Teachers make a clear distinction between internal (attitude) and external entrepreneurship
(venturing). The former is associated with diligence, motivation, self-responsibility,
perseverance and fits well within a classic school discourse. The latter emphasized good
practical and social skills and challenges traditional theoretical abilities and the most valuable
form of intelligence in school. Male students seem to fit better into this latter profile.
5. 3 Dilemma in competence profile
Van Gelderen (2011) considers autonomy for students in entrepreneurship education is
considered as a basic element in EE, and this scholar argued for a balance between
guidance and freedom. The teacher should exercise restraint in the guidance of students.
The results of this study also suggest that entrepreneurship teachers must learn to guide
students in analyzing, action and social competence. This argues for a new teacher role
focused on the external school environment: a role in boundary crossing.
It is evident that the results raise a dilemma: should the teacher be entrepreneurial in order to
be a role model, and to be able to understand the process of becoming entrepreneurial? Or
should the teacher exercise more restraint with the aim to foster responsibility and autonomy
of students? Although Schelfhout, Dochy & Janssens (2004) gives some guidelines to keep
the balance between self-regulation by the student and steering and structuring by the
teacher, these authors do not elaborate on the role model perspective and the perspective of
boundary crossing, and the dilemma that is raised by these perspectives. Therefore this is an
important issue for future research.
6. References
Adeyemo, S.A. (2009), Understanding and acquisition of entrepreneurial skills: A pedagogical
Re-orientation for classroom teacher in science education, Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 6 (3), pp. 57-65.
Allen, J. & Van der Velden, R. (eds.) (2009), Competences and labour market careers of
higher education graduates, Maastricht: ROA.
Akkerman, S. & Bakker, A. (2011), Boundary crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of
Educational Research, 81 (2), 132-169
Ali, A., Topping, K.J., Tariq, R.H. (2009), Entrepreneurial inclinations of prospective teachers
[(Chinese Source)], (2009) New Horizons in Education, 57 (2), pp. 7-16.
Alvarez, S. A. (2005), “Theories of Entrepreneurship: Alternative Assumptions and the Study
of Entrepreneurial Action”, Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 1(3): 105-
148.
Azarcher, S. (2011), Teacher training course and preparation smart teachers for schools
(2011) Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5 (11), pp. 1245-1250.
Bagheri, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2011), Entrepreneurial leadership: Towards a model for learning
and development, Human Resource Development International, 14(4), 447-463.
14
Bandura, A. (1982), Self-efficacy-mechanism in human agency, American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs'
social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41-
60.
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2009). Entrepreneurs' Social Skills and New Venture Performance:
Mediating Mechanisms and Cultural Generality. Journal of Management, 35(2), 282-
306.
Birdthistle, N., Hynes, B., Fleming, P. (2007), Enterprise education programmes in secondary
schools in Ireland: A multi-stakeholder perspective, Education + Training, 49 (4), pp.
265-276.
Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2011). The question we care about:
Paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education. Industry & Higher
Education, 25(6), 417-427.
Boyett, I.; Finlay, D. (1993), The emergence of the educational entrepreneur, Long Range
Planning, 26 (3), 114-122
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The Relationship of Entrepreneurial Traits, Skill, and
Motivation to Subsequent Venture Growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4),
587-598.
Centrum voor Onderwijs en Leren (2011), Het Portfolio. Een handleiding voor leraren-in-
opleiding aan de master-lerarenopleiding van de Universiteit Utrecht, Universiteit
Utrecht (Intern document)
Cheung, C.K. (2008), Practicing entrepreneurship education for secondary pupils through the
operation of a new year stall in Hong Kong, Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17
(1), pp. 15-31.
Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders' human capital and the growth of new
technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34(6), 795-816.
Cope, J. (2003), Entrepreneurial Learning and Critical Reflection. Discontinuous Events as
Triggers for Higher Level Learning, Management Learning, 34(4): 429-450.
Cooper, S.; Bottomly, C. & Gordon, J. (2004), Stepping out of the classroom and up the
ladder of learning. An experiental learning approach to entrepreneurship education,
Industry and Higher Education, 18 (1), 11-22
Dam, K. van, Schipper, M., Runhaar, P. (2010), Developing a competency-based framework
for teachers' entrepreneurial behaviour, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (4),
965-971.
Defillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based
perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 307-324.
Deist, F. o. D. L., & Winterton, J. (2005). What Is Competence? Human Resource
Development International, 8(1), 27 - 46.
Drent, M., Meelissen, M. (2008), Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use
ICT innovatively?, Computers & Education, 51(1), 187-199
European Commission (2011), Entrepreneurship Education: Enabling Teachers as a critical
success factor. (Online). Retrieved June 7 2012, fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/education-
training-entrepreneurship/teacher-education-entrepreneurship/index_en.htm
15
Fiet, JO (2001), The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory, Journal of Business
Venturing, Volume: 16 (2), 101-117
Garavan, T.N. & O’Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship education and training
programmes. A review and evaluation, Part2. Journal of European Industrial Training,
18(11), 13-21.
Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M., Reynolds, P. D., Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010).
Entrepreneurial Behavior: Firm Organizing Processes Handbook of Entrepreneurship
Research (Vol. 5, pp. 99-127): Springer New York.
Gibb, A 1997, Small firms’ training and competitiveness. Building upon small business as a
learning organisation, International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 13-29.
Gibb, A. (2002). Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: living
with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity. Industry and
Higher Education, 16, 135-148.
Gelderen, M. van, (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education.
Education + Training, 52 (8/9), 710-721.
Guo, K. L. (2009). Core competencies of the entrepreneurial leader in health care
organizations. Health Care Manager, 28(1), 19-29.
Gur!u, C. (2006). Bio-entrepreneurship in different economic systems: A comparative
analysis of bio-entrepreneurs' profile in UK, France and Germany. International
Journal of Biotechnology, 8(3-4), 169-186.
Haase, H. & Lautenschläger, A., (2011), The ‘Teachability Dilemma’ of entrepreneurship, Int
Entrep Manag J (2011) 7:145–162
Hamzah, M.S.G., Yusof, B.H., Abdullah, S.K. (2009), Headmaster and entrepreneurship
criteria, European Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (4), 535-543.
Hayton, J.C. & Kelley, D.J. (2006), A competency-based framework for promoting corporate
entrepreneurship, Human Resource Management, 45(3), 407-427
Hannon, P. (2005), Philosophies and enterprise and entrepreneurship education and
challenges for higher education in the UK, International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Innovation, 6(2), 105-114
Hattie, J.A.C. (2009), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to
Achievement, Routledge, New York.
Heinonen, J. (2007), An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching corporate
entrepreneurship at university level, Education and Training, 49 (4), 310-324.
Heinonen, J. (2006), An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education:
mission impossible, Journal of Management Development, 25 (1), 2006.
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: towards a model of contigency-based business
planning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 258-273.
Korhonen, M., Komulainen, K., Räty, H. (2012), "Not Everyone is Cut Out to be the
Entrepreneur Type": How Finnish School Teachers Construct the Meaning of
Entrepreneurship Education and the Related Abilities of the Pupils, (2012)
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56 (1), 1-19.
Krueger, N., and Dickson, P. (1994), How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Self-
efficacy and perceptions of opportunity and threat, Decision Sciences, 25:385–400.
16
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends,
and challenges, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-597.
Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. Learning apart together? Towards a validated, integrated
competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship education. Journal of
Cleaner Production.
Lobler, H. (2006), Learning Entrepreneurship from a Constructivist Perspective, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 18 (1), 19-38.
Lope Pihie, Z.A., Bagheri, A. (2011), Are teachers qualified to teach entrepreneurship?
Analysis of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy, Journal of Applied Sciences, 11
(18), 3308-3314.
Lope Pihie, Z.A.; Bagheri, A. (2011), Teachers’ and Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy:
Implication for effective Teaching practices, Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 29, 1071-1080
Man, T. W. A., Lau, T., & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competiveness of small and medium
enterprises. A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal
of Business Venturing, 17(2), 123-142.
McCoshan, Andrew et al. (2010). Towards greater cooperation and coherence in
entrepreneurship education: report and evaluation of the pilot action high level
reflection panels on entrepreneurship education initiated by DG Enterprise and
Industry and DG Education and Culture. Available from Internet:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-
entrepreneurship/education-training-entrepreneurship/reflection-
panels/files/entr_education_panel_en.pdf [cited 9.9.2010].
McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., and Akker, J. van den. (2006), Design Research from a
Curricular Perspective, in: J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijjer, S. McKenney, and N.
Nieveen (eds.), Educational Design Research, London and New York: Routledge, p.
67-90.
Mitchelmore, S., & Rowley, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and
development agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 16(2), 92-111.
Mulder, M., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Wesselink, R. (2009). The New Competence
Concept in Higher Education: Error or Enrichment? Journal of European Industrial
Training, 33(8/9), 755-770.
Nab, J., Pilot, A., Brinkkemper, S., & Ten Berge, H. (2010). Authentic competence-based
learning in university education in entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 9(1), 20-35.
Nab, J., Bulte, A.M.W. & Pilot, A. (accepted, planned for January 2013), Fostering the
competence of science students in identifying business opportunities: a design
approach, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing.
Ozgen, E. & Baron, R.A. (2007), Social sources of information in opportunity recognition:
Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums, Journal of Business
Venturing , 22, 174–192.
Peltonen, K. (2008), Can learning in teams help teachers to become more entrepreneurial?
The interplay between efficacy perceptions and team support, LTA, 3, 297-324
17
Purdy, N., Gibson, K. (2008) Alternative placements in initial teacher education: An
evaluation, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (8), pp. 2076-2086.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Born to be an entrepreneur? Revisiting the personality
approach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The
psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 41-65). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F. & Janssens, S. (2004): The use of self, peer and teacher
assessment as a feedback system in a learning environment aimed at fostering skills
of cooperation in an entrepreneurial context, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 29:2, 177-201
Seikkula-Leino, J. , Ruskovaara, E. , Ikavalko, M. , Mattila, J. , Rytkola, T. (2010), Promoting
entrepreneurship education: The role of the teacher?, Education and Training, 52(2),
117-127.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2011), The implementation of entrepreneurship education through
curriculum reform in Finnish comprehensive schools, Journal of Curriculum Studies,
43 (1), 69-85.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Enterpreneurship as a Field of
Research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2008). Opportunity Identification and Pursuit:
Does an Entrepreneur’s Human Capital Matter? Small Business Economics, 30(2),
153-173.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching.
Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 257-280.
VSNU (2007), Competentieprofiel van leraren die aan een ULO zijn opgeleid, VSNU, Utrecht,
The Netherlands.
VSNU (2007), Vakinhoudelijk Masterniveau, VSNU, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Woerden, W., van, Bertels. F., & Blom, Chr. (1988). Onderwijsproject / projectonderwijs
Structurering van onderwijs in projectvorm. Enschede: Universiteit Twente
Onderwijskundig Centrum
Woods, C. (2011), Reflections on pedagogy: A journey of collaboration, Journal of
Management Education, 35 (1), 154-167.
Zaleskiene, I., Zadiekaite, L. (2008), Attitudes of teachers towards assumptions of
enterpreneurship education, Pedagogika, 89, 99-106.
doc_280311550.pdf