Description
During on this brief data explicate comparing learning process in the field of entrepreneurship education target groups.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
59
ISSN 1822-7864
Rest, J. R., Narváez, D., Bebeau, M., Thoma, S. (1999b). Postconventional moral thinking: A Neo-
Kohlbergian Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roegiers, X. (2006). Approche par compétences dans l’enseignement supérieur et cadre européen de
qualifications: opportunités, enjeux et dérives. Conférence introductive du colloque La logique Conférence introductive du colloque La logique
des compétences: chance ou danger? [Competence Approach in Higher Education and the
European Qualification Framework: Opportunities, Challenges and Diversions. Introductory
lecture of the discussion on the logic of competences: opportunity or threat?], Paris, October
17, 2006. Retrieved 25/09/2008, from:http://www.bief.be:80/index.php?s=4&rs=22&uid=34&
found=1&lg=fr
Schaffer, H. R. (2000). Desarrollo social. [Social development]. México: Siglo XXI Editores.
Trianes, M. V., Fernández, C. (2001). Aprender a ser personas y a convivir. Un programa para secundaria.
[Learning to be people and live together. A program for high school]. Bilbao: Desclée de
Brouwer.
Trianes, M. V. (2002). Cuestionario sobre Valores y Actitudes en Temas Morales. [Values and Attitudes
Questionnaire on Moral Issues]. Retrieved 10/07/2002, from notes on Educational Psychology
and practices from the UMA e-platform.
Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vilanou, C., Colleldemont, E. (2000). Historia de la educación en valores. [History of education in [History of education in
values]. Bilbao: Desclée De Brouwer.
Advised by Laima Railien?, University of Siauliai, Lithuania
Received: September 23, 2012 Accepted: November 20, 2012
Francisco Manuel Morales
Rodríguez
PhD in Psychology and Bachelor of Labour, Associate Professor (Doctor),
Department of Psychology and Education, School of Psychology, University
of Malaga, Campus de Teatinos s / n, 29071, Malaga, Spain. 29071, Malaga, Spain.
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:http://webdeptos.uma.es/psicoev/
COMPARING LEARNING PROCESS IN THE
FIELD OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION: TARGET GROUPS
REVISING LIFELONG EXPERIENCE IN
TEACHING PROCESS
Mervi Raudsaar, Merike Kaseorg
University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
This article presents the results of a pilot research how the entrepreneurship is perceived by the
participants of entrepreneurship courses. Also we have researched their previous (entrepreneurial)
background and its relevance on enabling market entrance. We had two target groups: self financed
students of Open University and participants in entrepreneurship course financed by European Social
Foundation. Lifelong learning is a socio-personal process as we associate our thoughts and actions to
our earlier experiences but on the same time revising that experience. The aim of this article is to explore
how to teach entrepreneurship in lifelong learning process and to explore it in participants’ perspective.
In empirical part authors used questionnaire with 77 statements with persons being admitted to some
entrepreneurship courses. The respondents were asked to express their opinion on a five-point Likert
scale. The data has been discussed in the context of the related literature. We discuss what learning
methods are most effective - to learn about, for or through/within entrepreneurship (Hyrsky & Kyrö,
2005; Gibb, 1999; Hytti & O’Corman, 2004, Rae, 2004).
Key words: lifelong learning, education, entrepreneurship teaching, possibilities of starting entreprise,
limitations of starting enterprise.
Introduction
The entrepreneurial activity of Estonians is low. The percentage of people who have personally
established a company or who are already active entrepreneurs is only 5% of labour force. But the
percentage of people who consider establishment of a company yet or becoming entrepreneurs is only
9%. It means that the entrepreneurial attitude and activity of Estonians is relatively low – there are only
33 enterprises per 1,000 people (Estonian Enterprise Policy, 2006). The entrepreneurial attitude of people
is influenced by their previously existing knowledge about entrepreneurship.
The global economic crises have had a serious effect on the economic and enterprise environment
of Estonia. One of the most direct outputs of the crisis is reflected in the Estonian labour market situation
– first and foremost in the intensive growth of unemployment indicators. According to Estonian Statistical
Bureau, in the year of 2011, the unemployed persons numbered 86,800 and the unemployment rate was
12.5% of the labour force.
The provision of national labour market services and the payment of labour market benefits in
Estonia is organised by the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund through its regional departments,
which are located in every county. The provision and payment of such services and benefits is regulated
by the Labour Market Services and Benefits Act. The labour market services (for example labour market
training, work practce, business start-up subsidy etc), which are suitable for clients who are selected
in accordance with their individual needs. Education has long been regarded as one of the primary
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
60
ISSN 1822-7864
components of poverty reduction efforts and overall social development. Lifelong education is a key
factor for increasing the level of knowledge and competence, but also to improve the quality of life. We
can meet the integration of lifelong learning and creating new ventures in Labour Market Services.
The article explores following research questions:
1) What does entrepreneurship education mean in the context of lifelong learning education?
2) What is the background/previous entrepreneurial activities or knowledge of the participant of
entrepreneurship courses?
3) What are the main limitations and possibilities for creating new venture?
Theoretical Framework
Entrepreneurship Education and Lifelong Learning
Entrepreneurship is identified in the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme as
one of the key competencies of lifelong learning, it is perhaps pertinent to note however, that
formal education in Europe is not considered to be conducive to enterprise and promoting
entrepreneurship (European Commission, 2007). Teaching of entrepreneurship for non-
business industries is not yet sufficiently integrated in higher education institutions’ curricula;
education provides very little training in entrepreneurship etc. (Varblane & Mets, 2010; Kyrö
& Carrier, 2005). The explanation might be that these institutions are more flexible and smaller
and therefore it’s easier to carry out needed changes.
Entrepreneurship education can be said to include, but not exclusively so (European
Commission, 2008):
• developing personal attributes and skills that form the basis of an entrepreneurial
mindset and behaviour (creativity, sense of initiative, risk-taking, autonomy, self-
confidence, leadership, team spirit, etc.);
• raising the awareness of students about self-employment and entrepreneurship as
possible career options;
• working on concrete enterprise projects and activities;
• providing specific business skills and knowledge of how to start a company and run
it successfully.
Entrepreneurship education has been defined in many ways (see Table 1).
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
61
ISSN 1822-7864
Table 1. Entrepreneurship education key ideas.
Name (date) Entrepreneurship education concept
Fiet (2000)
Entrepreneurship education needs to engage with theory to develop students’ cognitive
skills to make better decisions.
Sjøvoll & Skåland (2002)
Entrepreneurship education is the process of providing individuals with the concepts,
creativity and skills to recognise opportunities that others have overlooked, and to have
the insight, self-esteem and knowledge to act were others have hesitated. Fostering
entrepreneurship also means having a vision of a future with a lot of possibilities.
Hytti & O’Cinnede (2004)
Entrepreneurship education, on the other hand, has been effective in producing and
delivering knowledge through various teaching methods (lectures, business plans,
exercises, case studies, guest lecturers) – the content and about entrepreneurship has
been well covered.
Matlay (2006)
Entrepreneurship education is believed to have invariable result in a comparable growth
in the quantity and quality of entrepreneurial activity.
Florin et al (2007)
Research evidence shows that entrepreneurial skills can be learned and the attitudes of
students towards entrepreneurship can be infuenced through entrepreneurship educa-
tion.
Jones (2007)
Entrepreneurship education is the process of providing individuals with the ability to rec-
ognise opportunities and the insight, self-esteem, knowledge and skills to act on them.
Hynes & Ricardson (2007)
Entrepreneurship education is not just about educating people to start a business, rather
effective entrepreneurship education programmes equip graduates with the knowledge,
skills and competencies to engage in a more enterprising, innovative and fexible man-
ner in a changing workplace environment. In particular, this change is evident in the
composition, profle and size of frm.
Cheung (2008)
Entrepreneurship education is signifcant in many aspects. It can provide students with
an understanding of business – its purposes, its structure, its interrelationship with other
segments of the economy and society.
Wilson (2008)
Entrepreneurship education may be defned as being about the development of at-
titudes, behaviours and capacities that can be applied during an individual’s career as
an entrepreneur.
Timmons et al (2011)
By its nature, entrepreneurship or the process of starting a new venture is a complex
feld of practice, as it requires decision making across all aspects of business activity in
situations where there are high levels of uncertainty in a global and dynamic socio-tech-
nical context.
There is increasing interest in attempting to teach not only about entrepreneurship,
nor even for entrepreneurship, but also through entrepreneurship (Kirby, 2006; Gibb, 1999;
Hytti & O’Corman, 2004, Rae, 2004, Hyrsky & Kyrö, 2005), using new education programs
to help students to obtain a range of both business understanding and transferable skills and
competences (see Figure 1).
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
62
ISSN 1822-7864
Figure 1: Entrepreneurial learning: conceptual model (Hyrsky & Kyrö, 2005;
Rae, 2004; Gibb, 1999; authors modifcation).
Essentially, there is considerable scope for the educational system to foster a culture that
is open to and encourages entrepreneurial activity by its staff which is reflected on to students
and to encourage the inclusion of owner/managers in the design and learning process. The role
it can play ranges from instilling a positive attitude to entrepreneurship among graduates, via
the promotion of positive role models and presenting failure as a prerequisite for success, to
providing the enabling or prerequisite skills needed by the owner/manager in key functional areas
of the small business. These enabling skills range from an understanding of business, financial
marketing and legal issues, to generic or soft skills such as team-working, communication and
inter-personal skills, all of which are viewed as necessary to start and grow the business (Hynes
& Ricardson, 2007).
According to Eurostat, Estonia ranks 12
th
according to lifelong learning indicators
among 33 European countries; a few years ago Estonia’s rating was 20
th
. It appears from
Eurostat information published 2010 that 9.3% of Estonians aged 25 to 64 supplemented their
education last year; in Europe the figure was 10.6% of aged 25 to 64 years. In 2007 there
were considerably fewer Estonians involved in lifelong learning than the average for Europe
(Estonian Life, 2012).
Possibilities and Limitations
The creation of new enterprises requires individuals’ desire for self-actualization
through business and it needs also suitable environment. Economic environment which
appraises entrepreneurial activity encourages more individuals to implement their ideas
through entrepreneurship and establish presumptions to find more effective measures. Lee and
Peterson (2000) point up that even in supportive environments a national culture that supports
and encourages entrepreneurial activities is necessary. The prior research on entrepreneurship
education and its outcomes has highlighted the role of entrepreneurship education in affecting
the students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship, their motivation and intentions in engaging in
new ventures (Klapper, 2004; Fayolle, 2005).
If the entrepreneurship education has the vital role in mobilizing individuals, it is
necessary to take a closer look to competencies which should be the output of modern
(entrepreneurial) educational system. What kind of elements should be exploited, elaborated,
developed or provided by educational system? We can mention the broader categories as
motivation, experience, knowledge, different capabilities. The motivation, which importance is
not stressed very often by educational system, is still the bases for pursuing further competences.
According to Driessen and Zwart (2007), it can be either internally driven (desire for autonomy,
achievement, power) or externally driven (chance like market gap or certainty of clients, external
pressure like unemployment or emergence of interesting subjects).
Next comes element of knowledge, most frequent objective of business curriculum. It
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
63
ISSN 1822-7864
will gain real importance and impact being combined with experience (both by actualization of
earlier experience and achieving new knowledge through experiences a’la learning by doing).
Experience can involve environment, clients and partners, production and cash flows – all
elements of economic cycle. Capabilities would be practical skills of managing company at
different phases of life cycle: at the phase of growth is needed creativity and flexibility, at
the phase of maturing rather organising, planning, as well skills of financial administrating
(Driessen & Zwart, 2007).
In this context is obvious that any entrepreneurial competency is highly dependent on
ongoing (or lifelong) learning and experience, being largely acquired on an individual basis.
For students pursuing these competences in the classroom is necessary to be engaged actively
in learning process on all possible ways (Fiet, 2000). The approach of “learning by doing” is
the best practice, offering not just theoretical sill of writing a business plan, but also personal
responses to different situations (negotiations with investors, reacting to changing environment
etc.). The most important result would understand that the true entrepreneurial competence is
about tracing opportunities and exploiting them within their context (Lans et al, 2008).
After the question of competencies, another important question will arise in the context
of entrepreneurial education, namely the question about barriers to enterprise. The EU
Green Paper of Entrepreneurship (2003) is counting three major types of barriers, limiting
entrepreneurial activities throughout the EU member states. These barriers are 1) regulatory
barriers (administrative barriers), 2) cultural and social barriers (e. g. fear of failure), 3)
financial and economic barriers (lack of capital). Regulatory barriers include all kind of lacking
supportive fiscal and monetary policies. As well there is need for structural policies, determining
the particular economic framework within entrepreneur has to operate (it may include taxation
and competition issues, bankruptcy laws etc.). Cultural and social barriers are including the lack
of information about legislation and overall entrepreneurial environment, as well understanding
“how things are going” at particular society – which makes it sometimes very complicated to
enter the foreign market.
But even domestically we can consider entering the business culture for “a greenhorn”
like trip to abroad, if he/she is lacking information about the role, services and mission of
institutions, linked to business sector. As for economic and financial barriers, newcomers and
smaller growth forms are depending additional financing and investments, they may discover
harder to access, compared to larger companies. It can be difficult especially for innovative
high-technology small firms and companies from peripheral areas (Martins et al, 2004). The
lack of financial capital is one of the important actors, avoiding people starting their enterprises
(Evans & Jovanovic, 1989). Considering barriers, the liberalisation of market and lifting
national barriers (like in the EU case) is not enough to encourage entrepreneurial activities.
Rajan and Zingales (2003) noted that the regulation protecting investors can be fruitful measure
to encourage creation of new companies.
Gacomin et al (2011) survey consists of students from five universities in five nations
including the United States, China, India, Spain and Belgium. This sample includes 2093 students
from various fields of study. In section “Motivations for start-up business” respondents pointed
following motivation factors: the chance to implement my own ideas, creating something of my
own, personal independence, being at the head of an organization and others. Importance was
measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1” (very unimportant) to “5” (very important).
In section “Barriers to creation” students brought out – excessively risky, lack of initial capital,
current economic situation, fear of failure, fiscal charges (taxes, legal fees, etc.), lack of legal
assistance or counselling, lack of formal help to start a business and others.
In order to analyse attractiveness of entrepreneurship further, the final questions of the
survey “Perceptions of entrepreneurship among future creative professionals” addressed the
students’ (475 students from Estonia, Latvia and Finland) views about motivational factors
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
64
ISSN 1822-7864
and barriers for entrepreneurial career. Students were asked to assess a number of pre-defined
factors, which might increase or decrease their desire to become an entrepreneur. Assessment
scale reached from 5 (very strongly) to 1 (not at all). For the motivational factors, the opinions
of Estonian respondents were relatively close to each other. For the Estonian students the most
important motivational factors were related to the nature of work as an entrepreneur - interesting
tasks and duties (mean 4.3), and entrepreneur’s extensive liberty with the management of one’s
own work and working hours (mean 4.3). Income-related factors or the opportunity to work as
superior (mean 2.4) were perceived not particularly important. Also barriers for entrepreneurship
were surveyed. For the Estonian respondents the two most important barriers are related to
financial insecurity of entrepreneurship (mean 3.6) and the high costs of financing an enterprise
(mean 3.4). The Estonians are concerned about the lack of their own skills to run a business
(mean 3.3) too (Karhunen et al, 2011).
Methodology of Research
General Background of Research
The central objective of this article is to have empirical comparative analyzis of different
approaches to entrepreneurial learning process. Currently there are significant ressources
allocated to this area by the EU but different background of different learning groups (for
example, students at the age of 18-20 and students at the age of 30+) should justify different
methodological approaches to the learning process.
The researchers designing the questionnaire about entrepreneurship education, via review
by colleagues and pilot testing in 2009. This type of survey enables to reach more people and to
make more meaningful conclusions
Sample of Research
In 2009?2012, a special questionnaire was sent by e-mail to the 54 participants and
to 313 participants in person of different entrepreneurship courses. The return rate by e-mail
and in person together was 64% or 236 questionnaires. This article explores only the findings
related to the two target groups (155 respondents from 236): self-financed students of Open
University (A group) and participants in entrepreneurship course financed by European Social
Foundation (B group). It is important to mention that target group of n=155 respondents had
more women (111 of them). Following groups of birth were composed: 1955-1964, 1965-1974,
1975-1984, 1985-1994.
Table 2. Respondents profle.
Birth year
Type of study
Total
A Group B Group
women men women men
Total 51 42 60 2 155
1955-1964 5 1 15 1 22
1965-1974 7 5 21 0 33
1975-1984 15 9 19 1 44
1985-1994 24 27 5 0 56
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
65
ISSN 1822-7864
Instrument and Procedures
The questionnaire with 77 statements was compiled and a study carried out. In the survey,
the participants were asked about the need of support in various ares of entrepreneurship;
statements about the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship and SMEs; limitations and possibilities
of starting enterprise and participants previous experiences. The questionnaire also included 3
social demographic questions (type of study, gender and birth year). The respondents were asked
to express their opinion on a Likert 5-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 5 (dispose very strongly).
Researchers contacting the respondents by e-mail or in person an obligatory basic-level
university course in entrepreneurship in 2009-2012.
Data Analysis
The analysis was conducted in October 2012. Statistical analysis of data was carring out
by using programs SPSS and MS Excel. The analysis was carried out in different stages - in
addition to Spearman’s correlation coefficient, percents, means and standard deviations were
calculated.
The correlation coefficient, denoted by r, is a measure of the strength of the straight-line
or linear relationship between two variables. Values between 0 and 0.3 (0 and -0.3) indicate
a weak positive (negative) linear relationship via a shaky linear rule. Values between 0.3 and
0.7 (0.3 and -0.7) indicate a moderate positive (negative) linear relationship via a fuzzy-firm
linear rule. Values between 0.7 and 1.0 (-0.7 and -1.0) indicate a strong positive (negative)
linear relationship via a firm linear rule (Ratner, 2012). Correlations starting from r = 0.40
(p < 0.01) were selected. While the findings cannot be generalized to the entire population,
they are illustrative of the views held, and so, can be considered “to provide a limited level of
generalisation for the results” (Blackburn & Stokes, 2000). Standardized correlation figures in
this survey ranged from 0.40 to 0.74.
The standard deviation is a measure of the spread of scores within a set of data. (Laerd
Statistics, 2012)
Results of Research
Most of respondents were lacking any earlier experience of creating different
entrepreneurial ventures or managing those ventures, as well they have had no earlier experience
of composing projects (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Background/previous entrepreneurial activities of participants.
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
66
ISSN 1822-7864
The article will pay more attention only biggest correlations between statements and
respondents type of study and gender.
Examining the results of the study in the context of gender, it became obvious that women
consider very important engage their potential fully and freedom to choose their time of work;
while for men is most important the freedom to be superior of oneself and training about composing
the business plan (see Figure 3).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
engage their potential
fully
freedom to choose
their time of work
freedom to be
superior of oneself
training about
composing the
business plan
women men
Figure 3: The motivators for enterpreneurial activities the lifelong learning proc-
ess should take into consideration as competences.
Examining results in the context of study levels, the variable of training about composing
the business plan was most preferred as well (62% of A group respondents and even 89% B
group respondents). It was followed by mentioning advice of mentors/coachers (44% of A group
respondents and 82% of B group respondents). As well students of A group desired to engage their
potential fully and the freedom to be superior of oneself (both equally 54% of them) and students of
B group practical information about establishing enterprise (81% of them) and information about
financial possibilities (74% of them). The desire to engage their potential fully followed equally
with freedom to be superior of oneself (69% B group respondents).
Five of the strongest correlations are presented next:
• (r=0.74) correlation in between statements of “starting entrepreneurship is
bureaucratic” and “maintaining an enterprise is too complicated due to the
bureaucracy”;
• (r=0.68) correlation in between statements of “financial instability related to
entrepreneurship” and “possibility to fail with entrepreneurship”;
• (r=0.60) correlation in between statements of “financing of an enterprise is
too expensive” and “maintaining an enterprise is too complicated due to the
bureaucracy”;
• (r=0.58) correlation in between statements of “state support to starting entrepreneur
is insufficient” and “starting entrepreneurship is bureaucratic”;
• (r=0.57) correlation in between statements of “financing an enterprise is too
expensive” and “entrepreneurs have too heavy taxation”.
The statement “starting entrepreneurship is bureaucratic” was answered “not influencing
at all” or “not influencing noteworthy” by 60% of 155 respondents and the statement “maintaining
an enterprise is too complicated due to the bureaucracy” was answered “not influencing at all”
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
67
ISSN 1822-7864
or “not influencing noteworthy” by 66% of 155 respondents. The statement “state support to
starting entrepreneur is insufficient” displays numbers as following: “not influencing at all” or
“not influencing noteworthy” 59% of 155 respondents. Analysing answers to those statements
in the context of gender, type of study, mean and standard deviation is shown in the Table 3.
Table 3. These statements were answered “not infuencing at all” or “not infu-
encing noteworthy”.
Statement
Gender (%) Type of study (%)
Mean
Standard
deviation
Women Men A group B group
Starting entrepreneurship is bureaucratic 54 75 72 40 2.3 0.86
Maintaining an enterprise is too compli-
cated due to the bureaucracy
59 84 80 47 2.3 0.81
State support to starting entrepreneur is
insuffcient
54 73 64 51 2.3 0.84
The answers to the statements “financial instability related to entrepreneurship” and
“possibility to fail with entrepreneurship” had no significant difference among the gender
and type of study: all respondents answered dominantly “influencing very strongly” or
“influencing strongly”. Still, women were more influenced and respondents of B group as
well. The statement “financing an enterprise is too expensive” was answered similarly rather
“influencing very strongly” or “influencing strongly”: among all respondents 57%. The last
statement “entrepreneurs have too heavy taxation” has presumably results vice versa: majority
of respondents answered “influencing very strongly” or “influencing strongly”, namely 56% of
155 respondents. Analysing answers to those statements in the context of gender, type of study,
mean and standard deviation is shown in the Table 4.
Table 4. These statements were answered “infuencing very strongly” or “infu-
encing strongly”.
Statement
Gender (%) Type of study (%)
Mean
Standard
deviation
Women Men A group B group
Financial instability related to entrepreneur-
ship
68 52 59 71 2.7 0.84
Possibility to fail with entrepreneurship 68 52 59 71 2.7 0.84
Financing an enterprise is too expensive 61 46 59 66 2.6 0.81
Entrepreneurs have too heavy taxation 60 41 43 73 2.6 0.81
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
68
ISSN 1822-7864
Discussion
Most of the participants (74% of 155 respondents) in lifelong entrepreneurship courses
were lacking earlier experience of creating kind of entrepreneurial ventures or managing
these, as well they have had no earlier experience of composing projects nor establishing
civil organisations. Usually they have acquired speciality from some educational institution
and through the entrepreneurship courses they want to use these competencies to create
enterprises.
The study found that factors of motivation of entrepreneurial education has key importance
both desire to engage one’s potential fully and due to the establishing own enterprise, the freedom
of choosing the working time and possibility to become one’s own superior. The key word
“freedom” has been mentioned by some other researches (see Karhunen et al, 2011; Gacomin
et al, 2011; Driessen & Zwart, 2007; European Commission, 2008). Independence also appears
to be a similar motivator for men and women in becoming an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship
is seen as a possibility for freedom and independence. The objectives associated to personality
would also assist achieving entrepreneurial competencies.
The majority of respondents of this survey wish to be trained about composing the
business plan, advice from mentors and coachers, information about financial possibilities and
practical information about establishing enterprise – these are important part of competences,
necessary for an entrepreneur (see Driessen & Zwart, 2007; Lans et al 2008). It’s told in
entrepreneurial courses that the business plan is required for investment. Though the business
planning process is an attractive and powerful learning process, a disproportionate amount of
time is spent honing secondary research skills than actually taking smart action in the real world
(Hytti & O’Cinnede, 2004; Neck & Greene, 2011). It is in actuality a human capital investment
to prepare a student to start a new venture through the integration of experience, skills and
knowledge important to develop and expand a business (Hynes & Richardson, 2007), to make
better decisions (Fiet, 2000) and having a vision of a future with a lot of possibilities (Sjøvoll
& Skåland, 2002). The courses in lifelong learning are more successful for the participants with
real entreprise ideas, so the learning process goes through the entrepreneurship.
The need for training and practical information about establishing enterprise is stressed
as well by the European Commission (2002; 2007; 2008). Entrepreneurs seemed to value the
opportunity of having mentor, to support them with their problem solving needs and assist
them to start their own business. As it point out forward – its important to teach about, for and
through (Florin et al, 2007) entrepreneurship (see Kirby 2006; Gibb, 1999; Hytti & O’Corman,
2004; Rae, 2005).
According to the results of this research, the main limitations for entrepreneurship
coming from the business high taxation, high costs of funding an enterprise, and complicated
bureaucracy related to running an enterprise. Another result of this research was the fact, that
taxation level has noteworthy influence on entrepreneurial activity (by 56% of 155 respondents).
A bit surprising was the result that women were more influenced (60% of female respondents)
then men (41% of male respondents). Probably this has connection to the different level or risk
tolerance by different gender. As well women are more influenced by the fact that starting costs
of any enterprise are too high. Few prior studies have focused on understanding whether gender
differences exist in the push and pull motivations for becoming an entrepreneur, but some
researchers had suggested that women and men have similar motivations for entrepreneurship.
In this research were found some gender differences in possibility factors and limitations.
In the context of type of study B group is most influenced. This can be presumed as the
establishment of an enterprise would demand starting capital and it would be complicated to
meet the needs for starting support by the state or different funds. The fact is supported by B
group respondents answer to the statement “establishment of an enterprise is bureaucratic” –
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
69
ISSN 1822-7864
only 40% are stating there is no influence on them. The high establishment costs were mentioned
by the research of Karhunen et al (2011), as well they are mentioned by the EU’s Green Paper
of Entrepreneurship (2003).
Estonia has worked quite well to eliminate these regulatory limitations. The minimum
share capital required to establish a limited liability company is EUR 2,500 which shall be paid
by shareholders with monetary or non-monetary contribution before a company registration
with the Commercial register when the company bank account is opened. From January 1st,
2011 it is possible to establish a company without contribution. State fee for registering Ltd
(private limited liability company) is EUR 140. State fee does not include notary fee, which
approximately is 40 EUR. There is no state fee for registering as VAT payers in Estonia. In
case if company is incorporated by legal person (company) there might be additional costs
for translation services (approx 16 EUR/page). General Corporate Income Tax is 0%, 27%
is applicable only in profit distributions. Lee and Peterson (2000) argue too that supports and
encourages entrepreneurial activities is necessary. Estonian Enterprise Policy for 2007-2013
has set objectives like: strong entrepreneurship culture, enterprising and entrepreneurship-
friendly legislation, SME’s access to capital. Achievement of the goals requires increase of
entrepreneurship awareness and competence. The investment into development entrepreneurs’
knowledge and skills is crucial – in order to concentrate more on value added processes. As well
investments into new technologies and R&D are necessary. These investments can be financed
only if enterprises have gained access to crediting or should welcome risk ventures outside,
bringing not only new capital but more know-how and entrepreneurial experience (Estonian
Enterprise Policy, 2006).
Several respondents mentioned as one limitation the possibility of entrepreneurial failure.
Entrepreneur takes the financial, commercial and social risks associated with the company’s
ownership and management and can directly benefit from the potential of the business. Being
an entrepreneur is reviewed as a career choice (Wilson, 2008) that is filled with more insecurity,
obstacles, failures and frustrations, which are related to business creation, but also the freedom,
opportunities and challenges associated with being self-employed.
Finally, every study has limitations. First of all, the limited number of respondents (155)
was not sufficient basis for further in-depth-analysis because of the possible margin of error.
However, as has been mentioned before, this research will be first among similar studies in the
future, enabling to follow some trends. To assess the external validity, future research should
accordingly aim at replicating a similar methodology in other more competitive empirical
contexts.
Conclusions
Education has been identified as a critical factor in preventing future of long-term
unemployment. The increased interest in entrepreneurship education, training and lifelong
learning can also be attributed to the changing structure of the each state economy.
The paper showed that different target groups can conceive different entrepreneurial
possibilities: students target group (see Karhunen et al, 2011) value most entrepreneurs’
interesting tasks and duties but in lifelong learning target group value most possibility for freedom
and independence. The second difference in between target groups was about limitations for
entrepreneurship. Therefore, as target groups consider different aspects important both in the
context of possibilities and limitations, the learning process should have flexible and different
design, meeting the needs of target groups on the best way.
If there is process of moving towards knowledge-based society, the most crucial is take
entrepreneurs access to information and updated knowledge as granted. As well entrepreneurs
should have access to educated and skillful labor, as well innovations, generated by scientific and
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
70
ISSN 1822-7864
research and development kind of activities. In addition to importance of knowledge and skills,
the creativity, innovative and entrepreneurial mindset have utmost importance, as they enable
to generate new approaches and exploit them on the most fruitful way. Of course, investing in
knowledge and skills demands plenty of resources from enterprise and it is simultaneously a
risky investment because knowledge and skills are not a liquid property which can be sold as
soon as wish may arise (Estonian Enterprise Policy, 2006).
In lifelong learning it is still important to provide learners possibility to implement
theoretical knowledge in practice and encourage their motivation and intentions in engaging in
new ventures. Adult learners also need secure learning and testing environment to overcome the
limitations and get coaching from mentors and feedback from peers.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support offered by the Estonian Ministry of Education’s
project SF 0180037s08.
References
Blackburn, R., & Stokes, D. (2000). Breaking down the barriers: using focus groups to research small and
medium sized enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 19 (1), 44-67.
Cheung, C. K. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Hong Kong’s secondary curriculum: Possibilities
and limitations. Education + Training, 50 (6), 500-515.
Driessen, M. P., & Zwart, P. S. (2007). The entrepreneur scan measuring characteristics and traits of
entrepreneurs. Retrieved 18/10/2012 fromhttp://www.entrepreneurscan.co.uk/2010/wp-content/
uploads/2010/10/E-Scan-MAB-Article-UK.pdf
European Commission (2008). Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business.
Final Report of the Expert Group, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General Report, Brussels,
March.
European Commission (2007). Education and Training 2010 – Diverse Systems, Shared Goals – the
Education and Training Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy. Retrieved 29/09/2012 from http://
ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html
Estonian Enterprise Policy 2007-2013 (2006). Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications.
Retrieved 22/09/2012, from www.mkm.ee/failid/Poliitika_201006.pdf
Estonian Life. Retrieved 29/09/2012, fromhttp://www.eesti.ca/?op=article&articleid=29083
Estonian Statistical Bureau. Retrieved 29/09/2012, fromhttp://www.stat.ee/en
Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity
constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 808-827.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education
programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30 (9), 701-720.
Fiet, J. (2000). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 107-
117.
Florin, J., Karri, R., & Rossiter, N. (2007). Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: an
attitudinal approach. Journal of Management Education, 31 (1), 17-42.
Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Pruett, M., Shinnar, R. S, Llopis, F., & Toney, B. (2011). Entrepreneurial
intentions, motivations and barriers: Differences among American, Asian and European students.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 219-238.
Gibb, A. (1999). Can we build effective entrepreneurship through, management development? Journal of
General Management, 24 (4), 1-21.
Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe (2003). European Commission. DG Enterprise: Brussels.
Hynes, B., & Richardson, I. (2007). Entrepreneurship education. A mechanism for engaging and
exchanging with the small business sector. Education + Training, 49 (8/9), 732-744.
Hyrsky, K. & Kyrö, P. (2005). Women entrepreneurship programme breaks Government’s gender
neutrality. Esitys Nordic Conference on Adult Education, Adult Education – Liberty, Fraternity,
Equality-konferenssissa, 13-14/5/2005, Turun yliopisto.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
71
ISSN 1822-7864
Hytti, U., & O’Gorman, C. (2004). What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and
methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Education + Training,
46 (1), 11-23.
Jones, C. (2007). Developing enterprise curriculum – building on rock, not sand. Industry & Higher
Education, 21 (6), 405-413.
Karhunen, P., Arvola, K., Küttim, M., Venesaar, U., Mets, T., Raudsaar, M., & Uba, L. (2011). Creative
entrepreneurs’ perceptions about entrepreneurial education. [Espoo]: Aalto University, School of
Economics, Small Business Centre.
Kirby, D. (2006). Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge? In A. Fayolle,
& H. Klandt (Eds), International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Klapper, R. (2004). Government goals and entrepreneurship education – an investigation at a Grande
Ecole in France. Education + Training, 46 (3), 127-137.
Kyrö, P., & Carrier, C. (Eds), The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university
context, University of Tampere, Hämeenlinna, pp. 17-24.
Laerd Statistics. The Standard Deviation definition. Retrieved 29/11/2012 fromhttps://statistics.laerd.
com/statistical-guides/measures-of-spread-standard-deviation.php
Lans, T., Hulsink, W., & Baert. H. (2008). Entrepreneurship education and training in a small business
context: Insights from the competence-based approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16 (4),
363-383.
Lee, S. M., & Peterson, S. J. (2000). Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness.
Journal of World Business, 35 (4), 401-416.
Martins, S., Couchi, C., Parat, L., Federico, C., & Doneddu, R. (2004). Barriers to entrepreneurship and
business creation. European Entrepreneurship Cooperation, European Social Fund, 1-49.
Matlay, H. (2006). Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers? Education + Training, 48
(5), 293-295.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers.
Journal of Small Business Management, 49 (1), 55-70.
Rae, D. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: a practical model from the creative industries. Education +
Training, 46 (8/9), 492-500.
Rajan, R., & Zingales, L. (2003). The great reversal: The politics of financial development in the 20
th
century. Journal of Financial Economics, 69 (1), 5-50.
Ratner, B. The Correlation Coefficient: Definition. Retrieved 29/09/2012 fromhttp://www.dmstat1.com/
res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html
Sjøvoll, J., & Skåland, B. (2002). Endlig! lærning med mening: læring av entreprenørskap i skole og
bedrift. Bodø: Høgskolen i Bodø.
Timmons, J. A., Gillin, L. M., Burshtein, S. L. & Spinelli, S. (2011). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship
for the 21
st
Century: A Pacific Rim Perspective. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Varblane, U., & Mets, T. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education in the Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s)
of Post-Communist European Countries. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places
in the Global Economy, 4 (3), 204-219.
Wilson, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Europe. In J. Potter (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and Higher
Education, OECD & LEED, Paris, pp. 119-138.
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
72
ISSN 1822-7864
Advised by Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia by Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia by Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia
Received: September 27, 2012 Accepted: December 02, 2012
Mervi Raudsaar PhD Student, MA, Assistant, University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration, Centre for Entrepreneurship, Narva Road 4, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:http://www.mtk.ut.ee/?set_lang_id=2
Merike Kaseorg MBA, Lecturer, University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and Business Administra-
tion, Institute of Business Administration, Narva Road 4, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:http://www.mtk.ut.ee/?set_lang_id=2
doc_786426994.pdf
During on this brief data explicate comparing learning process in the field of entrepreneurship education target groups.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
59
ISSN 1822-7864
Rest, J. R., Narváez, D., Bebeau, M., Thoma, S. (1999b). Postconventional moral thinking: A Neo-
Kohlbergian Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roegiers, X. (2006). Approche par compétences dans l’enseignement supérieur et cadre européen de
qualifications: opportunités, enjeux et dérives. Conférence introductive du colloque La logique Conférence introductive du colloque La logique
des compétences: chance ou danger? [Competence Approach in Higher Education and the
European Qualification Framework: Opportunities, Challenges and Diversions. Introductory
lecture of the discussion on the logic of competences: opportunity or threat?], Paris, October
17, 2006. Retrieved 25/09/2008, from:http://www.bief.be:80/index.php?s=4&rs=22&uid=34&
found=1&lg=fr
Schaffer, H. R. (2000). Desarrollo social. [Social development]. México: Siglo XXI Editores.
Trianes, M. V., Fernández, C. (2001). Aprender a ser personas y a convivir. Un programa para secundaria.
[Learning to be people and live together. A program for high school]. Bilbao: Desclée de
Brouwer.
Trianes, M. V. (2002). Cuestionario sobre Valores y Actitudes en Temas Morales. [Values and Attitudes
Questionnaire on Moral Issues]. Retrieved 10/07/2002, from notes on Educational Psychology
and practices from the UMA e-platform.
Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vilanou, C., Colleldemont, E. (2000). Historia de la educación en valores. [History of education in [History of education in
values]. Bilbao: Desclée De Brouwer.
Advised by Laima Railien?, University of Siauliai, Lithuania
Received: September 23, 2012 Accepted: November 20, 2012
Francisco Manuel Morales
Rodríguez
PhD in Psychology and Bachelor of Labour, Associate Professor (Doctor),
Department of Psychology and Education, School of Psychology, University
of Malaga, Campus de Teatinos s / n, 29071, Malaga, Spain. 29071, Malaga, Spain.
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:http://webdeptos.uma.es/psicoev/
COMPARING LEARNING PROCESS IN THE
FIELD OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
EDUCATION: TARGET GROUPS
REVISING LIFELONG EXPERIENCE IN
TEACHING PROCESS
Mervi Raudsaar, Merike Kaseorg
University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
This article presents the results of a pilot research how the entrepreneurship is perceived by the
participants of entrepreneurship courses. Also we have researched their previous (entrepreneurial)
background and its relevance on enabling market entrance. We had two target groups: self financed
students of Open University and participants in entrepreneurship course financed by European Social
Foundation. Lifelong learning is a socio-personal process as we associate our thoughts and actions to
our earlier experiences but on the same time revising that experience. The aim of this article is to explore
how to teach entrepreneurship in lifelong learning process and to explore it in participants’ perspective.
In empirical part authors used questionnaire with 77 statements with persons being admitted to some
entrepreneurship courses. The respondents were asked to express their opinion on a five-point Likert
scale. The data has been discussed in the context of the related literature. We discuss what learning
methods are most effective - to learn about, for or through/within entrepreneurship (Hyrsky & Kyrö,
2005; Gibb, 1999; Hytti & O’Corman, 2004, Rae, 2004).
Key words: lifelong learning, education, entrepreneurship teaching, possibilities of starting entreprise,
limitations of starting enterprise.
Introduction
The entrepreneurial activity of Estonians is low. The percentage of people who have personally
established a company or who are already active entrepreneurs is only 5% of labour force. But the
percentage of people who consider establishment of a company yet or becoming entrepreneurs is only
9%. It means that the entrepreneurial attitude and activity of Estonians is relatively low – there are only
33 enterprises per 1,000 people (Estonian Enterprise Policy, 2006). The entrepreneurial attitude of people
is influenced by their previously existing knowledge about entrepreneurship.
The global economic crises have had a serious effect on the economic and enterprise environment
of Estonia. One of the most direct outputs of the crisis is reflected in the Estonian labour market situation
– first and foremost in the intensive growth of unemployment indicators. According to Estonian Statistical
Bureau, in the year of 2011, the unemployed persons numbered 86,800 and the unemployment rate was
12.5% of the labour force.
The provision of national labour market services and the payment of labour market benefits in
Estonia is organised by the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund through its regional departments,
which are located in every county. The provision and payment of such services and benefits is regulated
by the Labour Market Services and Benefits Act. The labour market services (for example labour market
training, work practce, business start-up subsidy etc), which are suitable for clients who are selected
in accordance with their individual needs. Education has long been regarded as one of the primary
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
60
ISSN 1822-7864
components of poverty reduction efforts and overall social development. Lifelong education is a key
factor for increasing the level of knowledge and competence, but also to improve the quality of life. We
can meet the integration of lifelong learning and creating new ventures in Labour Market Services.
The article explores following research questions:
1) What does entrepreneurship education mean in the context of lifelong learning education?
2) What is the background/previous entrepreneurial activities or knowledge of the participant of
entrepreneurship courses?
3) What are the main limitations and possibilities for creating new venture?
Theoretical Framework
Entrepreneurship Education and Lifelong Learning
Entrepreneurship is identified in the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme as
one of the key competencies of lifelong learning, it is perhaps pertinent to note however, that
formal education in Europe is not considered to be conducive to enterprise and promoting
entrepreneurship (European Commission, 2007). Teaching of entrepreneurship for non-
business industries is not yet sufficiently integrated in higher education institutions’ curricula;
education provides very little training in entrepreneurship etc. (Varblane & Mets, 2010; Kyrö
& Carrier, 2005). The explanation might be that these institutions are more flexible and smaller
and therefore it’s easier to carry out needed changes.
Entrepreneurship education can be said to include, but not exclusively so (European
Commission, 2008):
• developing personal attributes and skills that form the basis of an entrepreneurial
mindset and behaviour (creativity, sense of initiative, risk-taking, autonomy, self-
confidence, leadership, team spirit, etc.);
• raising the awareness of students about self-employment and entrepreneurship as
possible career options;
• working on concrete enterprise projects and activities;
• providing specific business skills and knowledge of how to start a company and run
it successfully.
Entrepreneurship education has been defined in many ways (see Table 1).
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
61
ISSN 1822-7864
Table 1. Entrepreneurship education key ideas.
Name (date) Entrepreneurship education concept
Fiet (2000)
Entrepreneurship education needs to engage with theory to develop students’ cognitive
skills to make better decisions.
Sjøvoll & Skåland (2002)
Entrepreneurship education is the process of providing individuals with the concepts,
creativity and skills to recognise opportunities that others have overlooked, and to have
the insight, self-esteem and knowledge to act were others have hesitated. Fostering
entrepreneurship also means having a vision of a future with a lot of possibilities.
Hytti & O’Cinnede (2004)
Entrepreneurship education, on the other hand, has been effective in producing and
delivering knowledge through various teaching methods (lectures, business plans,
exercises, case studies, guest lecturers) – the content and about entrepreneurship has
been well covered.
Matlay (2006)
Entrepreneurship education is believed to have invariable result in a comparable growth
in the quantity and quality of entrepreneurial activity.
Florin et al (2007)
Research evidence shows that entrepreneurial skills can be learned and the attitudes of
students towards entrepreneurship can be infuenced through entrepreneurship educa-
tion.
Jones (2007)
Entrepreneurship education is the process of providing individuals with the ability to rec-
ognise opportunities and the insight, self-esteem, knowledge and skills to act on them.
Hynes & Ricardson (2007)
Entrepreneurship education is not just about educating people to start a business, rather
effective entrepreneurship education programmes equip graduates with the knowledge,
skills and competencies to engage in a more enterprising, innovative and fexible man-
ner in a changing workplace environment. In particular, this change is evident in the
composition, profle and size of frm.
Cheung (2008)
Entrepreneurship education is signifcant in many aspects. It can provide students with
an understanding of business – its purposes, its structure, its interrelationship with other
segments of the economy and society.
Wilson (2008)
Entrepreneurship education may be defned as being about the development of at-
titudes, behaviours and capacities that can be applied during an individual’s career as
an entrepreneur.
Timmons et al (2011)
By its nature, entrepreneurship or the process of starting a new venture is a complex
feld of practice, as it requires decision making across all aspects of business activity in
situations where there are high levels of uncertainty in a global and dynamic socio-tech-
nical context.
There is increasing interest in attempting to teach not only about entrepreneurship,
nor even for entrepreneurship, but also through entrepreneurship (Kirby, 2006; Gibb, 1999;
Hytti & O’Corman, 2004, Rae, 2004, Hyrsky & Kyrö, 2005), using new education programs
to help students to obtain a range of both business understanding and transferable skills and
competences (see Figure 1).
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
62
ISSN 1822-7864
Figure 1: Entrepreneurial learning: conceptual model (Hyrsky & Kyrö, 2005;
Rae, 2004; Gibb, 1999; authors modifcation).
Essentially, there is considerable scope for the educational system to foster a culture that
is open to and encourages entrepreneurial activity by its staff which is reflected on to students
and to encourage the inclusion of owner/managers in the design and learning process. The role
it can play ranges from instilling a positive attitude to entrepreneurship among graduates, via
the promotion of positive role models and presenting failure as a prerequisite for success, to
providing the enabling or prerequisite skills needed by the owner/manager in key functional areas
of the small business. These enabling skills range from an understanding of business, financial
marketing and legal issues, to generic or soft skills such as team-working, communication and
inter-personal skills, all of which are viewed as necessary to start and grow the business (Hynes
& Ricardson, 2007).
According to Eurostat, Estonia ranks 12
th
according to lifelong learning indicators
among 33 European countries; a few years ago Estonia’s rating was 20
th
. It appears from
Eurostat information published 2010 that 9.3% of Estonians aged 25 to 64 supplemented their
education last year; in Europe the figure was 10.6% of aged 25 to 64 years. In 2007 there
were considerably fewer Estonians involved in lifelong learning than the average for Europe
(Estonian Life, 2012).
Possibilities and Limitations
The creation of new enterprises requires individuals’ desire for self-actualization
through business and it needs also suitable environment. Economic environment which
appraises entrepreneurial activity encourages more individuals to implement their ideas
through entrepreneurship and establish presumptions to find more effective measures. Lee and
Peterson (2000) point up that even in supportive environments a national culture that supports
and encourages entrepreneurial activities is necessary. The prior research on entrepreneurship
education and its outcomes has highlighted the role of entrepreneurship education in affecting
the students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship, their motivation and intentions in engaging in
new ventures (Klapper, 2004; Fayolle, 2005).
If the entrepreneurship education has the vital role in mobilizing individuals, it is
necessary to take a closer look to competencies which should be the output of modern
(entrepreneurial) educational system. What kind of elements should be exploited, elaborated,
developed or provided by educational system? We can mention the broader categories as
motivation, experience, knowledge, different capabilities. The motivation, which importance is
not stressed very often by educational system, is still the bases for pursuing further competences.
According to Driessen and Zwart (2007), it can be either internally driven (desire for autonomy,
achievement, power) or externally driven (chance like market gap or certainty of clients, external
pressure like unemployment or emergence of interesting subjects).
Next comes element of knowledge, most frequent objective of business curriculum. It
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
63
ISSN 1822-7864
will gain real importance and impact being combined with experience (both by actualization of
earlier experience and achieving new knowledge through experiences a’la learning by doing).
Experience can involve environment, clients and partners, production and cash flows – all
elements of economic cycle. Capabilities would be practical skills of managing company at
different phases of life cycle: at the phase of growth is needed creativity and flexibility, at
the phase of maturing rather organising, planning, as well skills of financial administrating
(Driessen & Zwart, 2007).
In this context is obvious that any entrepreneurial competency is highly dependent on
ongoing (or lifelong) learning and experience, being largely acquired on an individual basis.
For students pursuing these competences in the classroom is necessary to be engaged actively
in learning process on all possible ways (Fiet, 2000). The approach of “learning by doing” is
the best practice, offering not just theoretical sill of writing a business plan, but also personal
responses to different situations (negotiations with investors, reacting to changing environment
etc.). The most important result would understand that the true entrepreneurial competence is
about tracing opportunities and exploiting them within their context (Lans et al, 2008).
After the question of competencies, another important question will arise in the context
of entrepreneurial education, namely the question about barriers to enterprise. The EU
Green Paper of Entrepreneurship (2003) is counting three major types of barriers, limiting
entrepreneurial activities throughout the EU member states. These barriers are 1) regulatory
barriers (administrative barriers), 2) cultural and social barriers (e. g. fear of failure), 3)
financial and economic barriers (lack of capital). Regulatory barriers include all kind of lacking
supportive fiscal and monetary policies. As well there is need for structural policies, determining
the particular economic framework within entrepreneur has to operate (it may include taxation
and competition issues, bankruptcy laws etc.). Cultural and social barriers are including the lack
of information about legislation and overall entrepreneurial environment, as well understanding
“how things are going” at particular society – which makes it sometimes very complicated to
enter the foreign market.
But even domestically we can consider entering the business culture for “a greenhorn”
like trip to abroad, if he/she is lacking information about the role, services and mission of
institutions, linked to business sector. As for economic and financial barriers, newcomers and
smaller growth forms are depending additional financing and investments, they may discover
harder to access, compared to larger companies. It can be difficult especially for innovative
high-technology small firms and companies from peripheral areas (Martins et al, 2004). The
lack of financial capital is one of the important actors, avoiding people starting their enterprises
(Evans & Jovanovic, 1989). Considering barriers, the liberalisation of market and lifting
national barriers (like in the EU case) is not enough to encourage entrepreneurial activities.
Rajan and Zingales (2003) noted that the regulation protecting investors can be fruitful measure
to encourage creation of new companies.
Gacomin et al (2011) survey consists of students from five universities in five nations
including the United States, China, India, Spain and Belgium. This sample includes 2093 students
from various fields of study. In section “Motivations for start-up business” respondents pointed
following motivation factors: the chance to implement my own ideas, creating something of my
own, personal independence, being at the head of an organization and others. Importance was
measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1” (very unimportant) to “5” (very important).
In section “Barriers to creation” students brought out – excessively risky, lack of initial capital,
current economic situation, fear of failure, fiscal charges (taxes, legal fees, etc.), lack of legal
assistance or counselling, lack of formal help to start a business and others.
In order to analyse attractiveness of entrepreneurship further, the final questions of the
survey “Perceptions of entrepreneurship among future creative professionals” addressed the
students’ (475 students from Estonia, Latvia and Finland) views about motivational factors
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
64
ISSN 1822-7864
and barriers for entrepreneurial career. Students were asked to assess a number of pre-defined
factors, which might increase or decrease their desire to become an entrepreneur. Assessment
scale reached from 5 (very strongly) to 1 (not at all). For the motivational factors, the opinions
of Estonian respondents were relatively close to each other. For the Estonian students the most
important motivational factors were related to the nature of work as an entrepreneur - interesting
tasks and duties (mean 4.3), and entrepreneur’s extensive liberty with the management of one’s
own work and working hours (mean 4.3). Income-related factors or the opportunity to work as
superior (mean 2.4) were perceived not particularly important. Also barriers for entrepreneurship
were surveyed. For the Estonian respondents the two most important barriers are related to
financial insecurity of entrepreneurship (mean 3.6) and the high costs of financing an enterprise
(mean 3.4). The Estonians are concerned about the lack of their own skills to run a business
(mean 3.3) too (Karhunen et al, 2011).
Methodology of Research
General Background of Research
The central objective of this article is to have empirical comparative analyzis of different
approaches to entrepreneurial learning process. Currently there are significant ressources
allocated to this area by the EU but different background of different learning groups (for
example, students at the age of 18-20 and students at the age of 30+) should justify different
methodological approaches to the learning process.
The researchers designing the questionnaire about entrepreneurship education, via review
by colleagues and pilot testing in 2009. This type of survey enables to reach more people and to
make more meaningful conclusions
Sample of Research
In 2009?2012, a special questionnaire was sent by e-mail to the 54 participants and
to 313 participants in person of different entrepreneurship courses. The return rate by e-mail
and in person together was 64% or 236 questionnaires. This article explores only the findings
related to the two target groups (155 respondents from 236): self-financed students of Open
University (A group) and participants in entrepreneurship course financed by European Social
Foundation (B group). It is important to mention that target group of n=155 respondents had
more women (111 of them). Following groups of birth were composed: 1955-1964, 1965-1974,
1975-1984, 1985-1994.
Table 2. Respondents profle.
Birth year
Type of study
Total
A Group B Group
women men women men
Total 51 42 60 2 155
1955-1964 5 1 15 1 22
1965-1974 7 5 21 0 33
1975-1984 15 9 19 1 44
1985-1994 24 27 5 0 56
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
65
ISSN 1822-7864
Instrument and Procedures
The questionnaire with 77 statements was compiled and a study carried out. In the survey,
the participants were asked about the need of support in various ares of entrepreneurship;
statements about the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship and SMEs; limitations and possibilities
of starting enterprise and participants previous experiences. The questionnaire also included 3
social demographic questions (type of study, gender and birth year). The respondents were asked
to express their opinion on a Likert 5-point scale: 1 (not at all) to 5 (dispose very strongly).
Researchers contacting the respondents by e-mail or in person an obligatory basic-level
university course in entrepreneurship in 2009-2012.
Data Analysis
The analysis was conducted in October 2012. Statistical analysis of data was carring out
by using programs SPSS and MS Excel. The analysis was carried out in different stages - in
addition to Spearman’s correlation coefficient, percents, means and standard deviations were
calculated.
The correlation coefficient, denoted by r, is a measure of the strength of the straight-line
or linear relationship between two variables. Values between 0 and 0.3 (0 and -0.3) indicate
a weak positive (negative) linear relationship via a shaky linear rule. Values between 0.3 and
0.7 (0.3 and -0.7) indicate a moderate positive (negative) linear relationship via a fuzzy-firm
linear rule. Values between 0.7 and 1.0 (-0.7 and -1.0) indicate a strong positive (negative)
linear relationship via a firm linear rule (Ratner, 2012). Correlations starting from r = 0.40
(p < 0.01) were selected. While the findings cannot be generalized to the entire population,
they are illustrative of the views held, and so, can be considered “to provide a limited level of
generalisation for the results” (Blackburn & Stokes, 2000). Standardized correlation figures in
this survey ranged from 0.40 to 0.74.
The standard deviation is a measure of the spread of scores within a set of data. (Laerd
Statistics, 2012)
Results of Research
Most of respondents were lacking any earlier experience of creating different
entrepreneurial ventures or managing those ventures, as well they have had no earlier experience
of composing projects (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Background/previous entrepreneurial activities of participants.
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
66
ISSN 1822-7864
The article will pay more attention only biggest correlations between statements and
respondents type of study and gender.
Examining the results of the study in the context of gender, it became obvious that women
consider very important engage their potential fully and freedom to choose their time of work;
while for men is most important the freedom to be superior of oneself and training about composing
the business plan (see Figure 3).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
engage their potential
fully
freedom to choose
their time of work
freedom to be
superior of oneself
training about
composing the
business plan
women men
Figure 3: The motivators for enterpreneurial activities the lifelong learning proc-
ess should take into consideration as competences.
Examining results in the context of study levels, the variable of training about composing
the business plan was most preferred as well (62% of A group respondents and even 89% B
group respondents). It was followed by mentioning advice of mentors/coachers (44% of A group
respondents and 82% of B group respondents). As well students of A group desired to engage their
potential fully and the freedom to be superior of oneself (both equally 54% of them) and students of
B group practical information about establishing enterprise (81% of them) and information about
financial possibilities (74% of them). The desire to engage their potential fully followed equally
with freedom to be superior of oneself (69% B group respondents).
Five of the strongest correlations are presented next:
• (r=0.74) correlation in between statements of “starting entrepreneurship is
bureaucratic” and “maintaining an enterprise is too complicated due to the
bureaucracy”;
• (r=0.68) correlation in between statements of “financial instability related to
entrepreneurship” and “possibility to fail with entrepreneurship”;
• (r=0.60) correlation in between statements of “financing of an enterprise is
too expensive” and “maintaining an enterprise is too complicated due to the
bureaucracy”;
• (r=0.58) correlation in between statements of “state support to starting entrepreneur
is insufficient” and “starting entrepreneurship is bureaucratic”;
• (r=0.57) correlation in between statements of “financing an enterprise is too
expensive” and “entrepreneurs have too heavy taxation”.
The statement “starting entrepreneurship is bureaucratic” was answered “not influencing
at all” or “not influencing noteworthy” by 60% of 155 respondents and the statement “maintaining
an enterprise is too complicated due to the bureaucracy” was answered “not influencing at all”
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
67
ISSN 1822-7864
or “not influencing noteworthy” by 66% of 155 respondents. The statement “state support to
starting entrepreneur is insufficient” displays numbers as following: “not influencing at all” or
“not influencing noteworthy” 59% of 155 respondents. Analysing answers to those statements
in the context of gender, type of study, mean and standard deviation is shown in the Table 3.
Table 3. These statements were answered “not infuencing at all” or “not infu-
encing noteworthy”.
Statement
Gender (%) Type of study (%)
Mean
Standard
deviation
Women Men A group B group
Starting entrepreneurship is bureaucratic 54 75 72 40 2.3 0.86
Maintaining an enterprise is too compli-
cated due to the bureaucracy
59 84 80 47 2.3 0.81
State support to starting entrepreneur is
insuffcient
54 73 64 51 2.3 0.84
The answers to the statements “financial instability related to entrepreneurship” and
“possibility to fail with entrepreneurship” had no significant difference among the gender
and type of study: all respondents answered dominantly “influencing very strongly” or
“influencing strongly”. Still, women were more influenced and respondents of B group as
well. The statement “financing an enterprise is too expensive” was answered similarly rather
“influencing very strongly” or “influencing strongly”: among all respondents 57%. The last
statement “entrepreneurs have too heavy taxation” has presumably results vice versa: majority
of respondents answered “influencing very strongly” or “influencing strongly”, namely 56% of
155 respondents. Analysing answers to those statements in the context of gender, type of study,
mean and standard deviation is shown in the Table 4.
Table 4. These statements were answered “infuencing very strongly” or “infu-
encing strongly”.
Statement
Gender (%) Type of study (%)
Mean
Standard
deviation
Women Men A group B group
Financial instability related to entrepreneur-
ship
68 52 59 71 2.7 0.84
Possibility to fail with entrepreneurship 68 52 59 71 2.7 0.84
Financing an enterprise is too expensive 61 46 59 66 2.6 0.81
Entrepreneurs have too heavy taxation 60 41 43 73 2.6 0.81
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
68
ISSN 1822-7864
Discussion
Most of the participants (74% of 155 respondents) in lifelong entrepreneurship courses
were lacking earlier experience of creating kind of entrepreneurial ventures or managing
these, as well they have had no earlier experience of composing projects nor establishing
civil organisations. Usually they have acquired speciality from some educational institution
and through the entrepreneurship courses they want to use these competencies to create
enterprises.
The study found that factors of motivation of entrepreneurial education has key importance
both desire to engage one’s potential fully and due to the establishing own enterprise, the freedom
of choosing the working time and possibility to become one’s own superior. The key word
“freedom” has been mentioned by some other researches (see Karhunen et al, 2011; Gacomin
et al, 2011; Driessen & Zwart, 2007; European Commission, 2008). Independence also appears
to be a similar motivator for men and women in becoming an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship
is seen as a possibility for freedom and independence. The objectives associated to personality
would also assist achieving entrepreneurial competencies.
The majority of respondents of this survey wish to be trained about composing the
business plan, advice from mentors and coachers, information about financial possibilities and
practical information about establishing enterprise – these are important part of competences,
necessary for an entrepreneur (see Driessen & Zwart, 2007; Lans et al 2008). It’s told in
entrepreneurial courses that the business plan is required for investment. Though the business
planning process is an attractive and powerful learning process, a disproportionate amount of
time is spent honing secondary research skills than actually taking smart action in the real world
(Hytti & O’Cinnede, 2004; Neck & Greene, 2011). It is in actuality a human capital investment
to prepare a student to start a new venture through the integration of experience, skills and
knowledge important to develop and expand a business (Hynes & Richardson, 2007), to make
better decisions (Fiet, 2000) and having a vision of a future with a lot of possibilities (Sjøvoll
& Skåland, 2002). The courses in lifelong learning are more successful for the participants with
real entreprise ideas, so the learning process goes through the entrepreneurship.
The need for training and practical information about establishing enterprise is stressed
as well by the European Commission (2002; 2007; 2008). Entrepreneurs seemed to value the
opportunity of having mentor, to support them with their problem solving needs and assist
them to start their own business. As it point out forward – its important to teach about, for and
through (Florin et al, 2007) entrepreneurship (see Kirby 2006; Gibb, 1999; Hytti & O’Corman,
2004; Rae, 2005).
According to the results of this research, the main limitations for entrepreneurship
coming from the business high taxation, high costs of funding an enterprise, and complicated
bureaucracy related to running an enterprise. Another result of this research was the fact, that
taxation level has noteworthy influence on entrepreneurial activity (by 56% of 155 respondents).
A bit surprising was the result that women were more influenced (60% of female respondents)
then men (41% of male respondents). Probably this has connection to the different level or risk
tolerance by different gender. As well women are more influenced by the fact that starting costs
of any enterprise are too high. Few prior studies have focused on understanding whether gender
differences exist in the push and pull motivations for becoming an entrepreneur, but some
researchers had suggested that women and men have similar motivations for entrepreneurship.
In this research were found some gender differences in possibility factors and limitations.
In the context of type of study B group is most influenced. This can be presumed as the
establishment of an enterprise would demand starting capital and it would be complicated to
meet the needs for starting support by the state or different funds. The fact is supported by B
group respondents answer to the statement “establishment of an enterprise is bureaucratic” –
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
69
ISSN 1822-7864
only 40% are stating there is no influence on them. The high establishment costs were mentioned
by the research of Karhunen et al (2011), as well they are mentioned by the EU’s Green Paper
of Entrepreneurship (2003).
Estonia has worked quite well to eliminate these regulatory limitations. The minimum
share capital required to establish a limited liability company is EUR 2,500 which shall be paid
by shareholders with monetary or non-monetary contribution before a company registration
with the Commercial register when the company bank account is opened. From January 1st,
2011 it is possible to establish a company without contribution. State fee for registering Ltd
(private limited liability company) is EUR 140. State fee does not include notary fee, which
approximately is 40 EUR. There is no state fee for registering as VAT payers in Estonia. In
case if company is incorporated by legal person (company) there might be additional costs
for translation services (approx 16 EUR/page). General Corporate Income Tax is 0%, 27%
is applicable only in profit distributions. Lee and Peterson (2000) argue too that supports and
encourages entrepreneurial activities is necessary. Estonian Enterprise Policy for 2007-2013
has set objectives like: strong entrepreneurship culture, enterprising and entrepreneurship-
friendly legislation, SME’s access to capital. Achievement of the goals requires increase of
entrepreneurship awareness and competence. The investment into development entrepreneurs’
knowledge and skills is crucial – in order to concentrate more on value added processes. As well
investments into new technologies and R&D are necessary. These investments can be financed
only if enterprises have gained access to crediting or should welcome risk ventures outside,
bringing not only new capital but more know-how and entrepreneurial experience (Estonian
Enterprise Policy, 2006).
Several respondents mentioned as one limitation the possibility of entrepreneurial failure.
Entrepreneur takes the financial, commercial and social risks associated with the company’s
ownership and management and can directly benefit from the potential of the business. Being
an entrepreneur is reviewed as a career choice (Wilson, 2008) that is filled with more insecurity,
obstacles, failures and frustrations, which are related to business creation, but also the freedom,
opportunities and challenges associated with being self-employed.
Finally, every study has limitations. First of all, the limited number of respondents (155)
was not sufficient basis for further in-depth-analysis because of the possible margin of error.
However, as has been mentioned before, this research will be first among similar studies in the
future, enabling to follow some trends. To assess the external validity, future research should
accordingly aim at replicating a similar methodology in other more competitive empirical
contexts.
Conclusions
Education has been identified as a critical factor in preventing future of long-term
unemployment. The increased interest in entrepreneurship education, training and lifelong
learning can also be attributed to the changing structure of the each state economy.
The paper showed that different target groups can conceive different entrepreneurial
possibilities: students target group (see Karhunen et al, 2011) value most entrepreneurs’
interesting tasks and duties but in lifelong learning target group value most possibility for freedom
and independence. The second difference in between target groups was about limitations for
entrepreneurship. Therefore, as target groups consider different aspects important both in the
context of possibilities and limitations, the learning process should have flexible and different
design, meeting the needs of target groups on the best way.
If there is process of moving towards knowledge-based society, the most crucial is take
entrepreneurs access to information and updated knowledge as granted. As well entrepreneurs
should have access to educated and skillful labor, as well innovations, generated by scientific and
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
70
ISSN 1822-7864
research and development kind of activities. In addition to importance of knowledge and skills,
the creativity, innovative and entrepreneurial mindset have utmost importance, as they enable
to generate new approaches and exploit them on the most fruitful way. Of course, investing in
knowledge and skills demands plenty of resources from enterprise and it is simultaneously a
risky investment because knowledge and skills are not a liquid property which can be sold as
soon as wish may arise (Estonian Enterprise Policy, 2006).
In lifelong learning it is still important to provide learners possibility to implement
theoretical knowledge in practice and encourage their motivation and intentions in engaging in
new ventures. Adult learners also need secure learning and testing environment to overcome the
limitations and get coaching from mentors and feedback from peers.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support offered by the Estonian Ministry of Education’s
project SF 0180037s08.
References
Blackburn, R., & Stokes, D. (2000). Breaking down the barriers: using focus groups to research small and
medium sized enterprises. International Small Business Journal, 19 (1), 44-67.
Cheung, C. K. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Hong Kong’s secondary curriculum: Possibilities
and limitations. Education + Training, 50 (6), 500-515.
Driessen, M. P., & Zwart, P. S. (2007). The entrepreneur scan measuring characteristics and traits of
entrepreneurs. Retrieved 18/10/2012 fromhttp://www.entrepreneurscan.co.uk/2010/wp-content/
uploads/2010/10/E-Scan-MAB-Article-UK.pdf
European Commission (2008). Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business.
Final Report of the Expert Group, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General Report, Brussels,
March.
European Commission (2007). Education and Training 2010 – Diverse Systems, Shared Goals – the
Education and Training Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy. Retrieved 29/09/2012 from http://
ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html
Estonian Enterprise Policy 2007-2013 (2006). Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications.
Retrieved 22/09/2012, from www.mkm.ee/failid/Poliitika_201006.pdf
Estonian Life. Retrieved 29/09/2012, fromhttp://www.eesti.ca/?op=article&articleid=29083
Estonian Statistical Bureau. Retrieved 29/09/2012, fromhttp://www.stat.ee/en
Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity
constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 808-827.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education
programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30 (9), 701-720.
Fiet, J. (2000). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 107-
117.
Florin, J., Karri, R., & Rossiter, N. (2007). Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: an
attitudinal approach. Journal of Management Education, 31 (1), 17-42.
Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Pruett, M., Shinnar, R. S, Llopis, F., & Toney, B. (2011). Entrepreneurial
intentions, motivations and barriers: Differences among American, Asian and European students.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 219-238.
Gibb, A. (1999). Can we build effective entrepreneurship through, management development? Journal of
General Management, 24 (4), 1-21.
Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe (2003). European Commission. DG Enterprise: Brussels.
Hynes, B., & Richardson, I. (2007). Entrepreneurship education. A mechanism for engaging and
exchanging with the small business sector. Education + Training, 49 (8/9), 732-744.
Hyrsky, K. & Kyrö, P. (2005). Women entrepreneurship programme breaks Government’s gender
neutrality. Esitys Nordic Conference on Adult Education, Adult Education – Liberty, Fraternity,
Equality-konferenssissa, 13-14/5/2005, Turun yliopisto.
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
71
ISSN 1822-7864
Hytti, U., & O’Gorman, C. (2004). What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and
methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Education + Training,
46 (1), 11-23.
Jones, C. (2007). Developing enterprise curriculum – building on rock, not sand. Industry & Higher
Education, 21 (6), 405-413.
Karhunen, P., Arvola, K., Küttim, M., Venesaar, U., Mets, T., Raudsaar, M., & Uba, L. (2011). Creative
entrepreneurs’ perceptions about entrepreneurial education. [Espoo]: Aalto University, School of
Economics, Small Business Centre.
Kirby, D. (2006). Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge? In A. Fayolle,
& H. Klandt (Eds), International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Klapper, R. (2004). Government goals and entrepreneurship education – an investigation at a Grande
Ecole in France. Education + Training, 46 (3), 127-137.
Kyrö, P., & Carrier, C. (Eds), The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university
context, University of Tampere, Hämeenlinna, pp. 17-24.
Laerd Statistics. The Standard Deviation definition. Retrieved 29/11/2012 fromhttps://statistics.laerd.
com/statistical-guides/measures-of-spread-standard-deviation.php
Lans, T., Hulsink, W., & Baert. H. (2008). Entrepreneurship education and training in a small business
context: Insights from the competence-based approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16 (4),
363-383.
Lee, S. M., & Peterson, S. J. (2000). Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness.
Journal of World Business, 35 (4), 401-416.
Martins, S., Couchi, C., Parat, L., Federico, C., & Doneddu, R. (2004). Barriers to entrepreneurship and
business creation. European Entrepreneurship Cooperation, European Social Fund, 1-49.
Matlay, H. (2006). Entrepreneurship education: more questions than answers? Education + Training, 48
(5), 293-295.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers.
Journal of Small Business Management, 49 (1), 55-70.
Rae, D. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: a practical model from the creative industries. Education +
Training, 46 (8/9), 492-500.
Rajan, R., & Zingales, L. (2003). The great reversal: The politics of financial development in the 20
th
century. Journal of Financial Economics, 69 (1), 5-50.
Ratner, B. The Correlation Coefficient: Definition. Retrieved 29/09/2012 fromhttp://www.dmstat1.com/
res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html
Sjøvoll, J., & Skåland, B. (2002). Endlig! lærning med mening: læring av entreprenørskap i skole og
bedrift. Bodø: Høgskolen i Bodø.
Timmons, J. A., Gillin, L. M., Burshtein, S. L. & Spinelli, S. (2011). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship
for the 21
st
Century: A Pacific Rim Perspective. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Varblane, U., & Mets, T. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education in the Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s)
of Post-Communist European Countries. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places
in the Global Economy, 4 (3), 204-219.
Wilson, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Europe. In J. Potter (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and Higher
Education, OECD & LEED, Paris, pp. 119-138.
Mervi RAUDSAAR, Merike KASEORG. Comparing Learning Process in the Field of Entrepreneurship Education: Target Groups Revis-
ing Lifelong Experience in Teaching Process
PROBLEMS
OF EDUCATION
IN THE 21
st
CENTURY
Volume 49, 2012
72
ISSN 1822-7864
Advised by Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia by Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia by Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia Martin Bilek, University of Hradec Kralove, Czechia
Received: September 27, 2012 Accepted: December 02, 2012
Mervi Raudsaar PhD Student, MA, Assistant, University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration, Centre for Entrepreneurship, Narva Road 4, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:http://www.mtk.ut.ee/?set_lang_id=2
Merike Kaseorg MBA, Lecturer, University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and Business Administra-
tion, Institute of Business Administration, Narva Road 4, Tartu, Estonia.
E-mail: [email protected]
Website:http://www.mtk.ut.ee/?set_lang_id=2
doc_786426994.pdf