Description
With this particular detailed file about entrepreneurship as an element of academic education international experiences and lessons.
Agnieszka Kurczewska
Entrepreneurship as an Element of
Academic Education - International
Experiences and Lessons for Poland
International Journal of Management and Economics 30, 217-233
2011
Agnieszka Kurczewska
University of Lodz
Entrepreneurship as an Element
of Academic Education – International Experiences
and Lessons for Poland
1
Introduction
Te debate on the contents, methodology, and efectiveness of entrepreneurship ed-
ucation is still open. As an academic feld, entrepreneurship is diversifed, multidiscipli-
nary, multi-contextual, and without one theoretical rigor. Education in entrepreneurship
has a mirror image. Tere is a huge diversifcation in curricula and many borrowings
from other disciplines, such as small business management, economics, fnance, or psy-
chology (Fiet 2000). Terefore, one of the frst and basic questions in entrepreneurship
was: what to teach? Te concepts varied from creativity workshops, through business
planning sessions, to courses of entrepreneurship as a scientifc feld. No ultimate answer
on the contents of entrepreneurship courses was related to the fact that entrepreneurship
education was not regarded as a separate concept or a noteworthy issue among some
academic communities. However, the perception of entrepreneurship education has re-
cently changed, especially in highly developed countries. Many researchers in the feld
agree that next step forward has to be taken. According to Fiet (2000), the eclecticism
was acceptable when entrepreneurship education was a new discipline, but now, when
it leaves its childhood phase, there is a need for more coherent and common approach.
Tere are already some achievements. Researchers and educators admit that entrepre-
neurship may be learned and taught. Te most advanced forms of entrepreneurship edu-
cation have emerged at the tertiary education level. Tere is a multitude of courses, spe-
cializations, and even degrees in entrepreneurship worldwide. As Kyrö (2008) noticed,
we may already experience shif from contents focus into the process of learning and
teaching. Te shif provokes more challenging question: how to teach? Entrepreneurship
education may be understood both as learning about the phenomena and learning some
essential skills enabling being an entrepreneur (Rasmussen et Sorheim 2006). Both are
valuable but imply diferent contents and methodology of teaching. A diferent approach
is needed when we learn to understand entrepreneurship, learn to become more entre-
preneurial and learn to become an entrepreneur (Hytti 2002).
Tere are three actors involved in efective entrepreneurship education: an educator
(an academic teacher), a student, and an institutional framework (university or other
Agnieszka Kurczewska 218
higher education institution). In a contemporary paradigm, the role of a teacher is to
design the most efective learning opportunities for students; while the role of a student
is to get involved in the process of learning and proft from that process. Institutional
framework should enable a fruitful execution of both roles, that is create the most fa-
vourable conditions for entrepreneurship courses development and make the students’
learning and educators‘ teaching possible. Te active approach from all three actors is
expected. However, the challenging issue remains the problem of types of teaching in-
terventions to be implemented in order to make learning of entrepreneurship most ef-
fcient, or in other words – how to be efective?
Te aim of the paper is to present the dynamics between entrepreneurship and edu-
cation, and review main pedagogic and methodological problems occurring during
organizing and conducting entrepreneurship courses. Te ambition of the paper is to
launch a discussion on entrepreneurship education in Poland and to create an arena for
exchange of views on the issues regarding teaching interventions. Tere is a strong need
for comprehensive entrepreneurship education in the Polish higher education system.
Tat education should not only concentrate on technical skills of business plan writing
or small business management but should refer to the phases preceding the physical
creation of a frm (like entrepreneurial intentions), which in turn demands knowledge of
the students’ values, beliefs and emotions. Contemporary social and economic environ-
ment requires entrepreneurial society. What should not be ignored is that education in
entrepreneurship plays an important role not only in fghting unemployment (by creat-
ing more jobs as a result) but also in increasing human intellectual potential: creativity,
innovativeness and talent. Courses and trainings in entrepreneurship serve an impor-
tant social role. However, at frst, it has to become clear for educators and authorities of
higher education institution that, as Cie?lik (2008) claims: “Launching a new business is
a much broader concept than merely the registration of a new business establishment. It
starts with identifcation and evaluation of business opportunities, the most promising
ones are developed in the form of business plans and fnally implemented”.
Terefore, the paper is an appeal to implement more courses, training and other
relevant activities in entrepreneurship (on bachelor, master and doctorate level), that
correspond to more advanced understanding of entrepreneurship phenomena and proft
from current research fndings in entrepreneurship education.
Maturity and status of the discipline
Entrepreneurship education as an academic discipline does not have long traditions.
Te frst entrepreneurship course in the United States was held by Myles Mace at Har-
vard’s Business School in February 1947 and attracted 188 out of 600 second-year MBA
students (Katz 2003). Although at Harvard University frst programmes in entrepreneur-
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 219
ship were designed in the nineteen forties, their real expansion started in the nineteen
eighties, frstly in USA, later in West European countries. In 1994, more than 120,000
students in USA were taking entrepreneurship or small business courses (Katz 1994).
Te more interest in educating how to be entrepreneurial came together with a public
attention on small business and knowledge-based economy idea in general. In the nine-
teen eighties, business schools in USA and Europe were still concentrated on preparing
students to become part of top management in large or even global corporations. As
Klapper and Tegtmeier (2010) notice one of the earliest research on entrepreneurship
education appeared at the beginning of the eighties and resulted in proceedings of the
conference at Baylor University (Entrepreneurship Education, 1981). Te next important
step was the conference held at Harvard University (Entrepre neurship: What It Is and
How to Teach it, 1985). Te real take-of in entrepreneurship took place in the nineties
of the twentieth century.
At present, when entrepreneurship seems to be already a well-developed and well-
established discipline, it is easier for entrepreneurship education to expand. In the USA
entrepreneurship education means more than 2,200 courses at over 1,600 schools, 44
refereed academic journals, mainstream management journals devoting more issues to
entrepreneurship, and over 100 established and funded centres (Kuratko 2003). From the
beginning, an experimental approach to entrepreneurship education has been popular-
ised. Case studies, feasibility plans and project simulations have become basic elements of
teaching programmes. Usually entrepreneurship education takes form of non-traditional
teaching. Tere is a shared understanding between educators to seek for innovative and
creative forms of education, including both individual and collaborative learning.
Entrepreneurship education as a separate concept has experienced a long way of
recognition. Venkataraman (1997) observes that the development of entrepreneurship
in tertiary education results from the increased interest in entrepreneurship among stu-
dents. An intensive students-driven demand for entrepreneurship education, especially
on American universities, attracted the attention of scientists and educators, treating it
frstly as a new intellectual challenge and then as a separate academic discipline. Leitch
and Harrison (1999) distinguish the three-stage chronological model of the evolution
of entrepreneurship education. In the frst one, entrepreneurship education was un-
derstood as part of general management education. Te second one was a reaction to
a growing role of entrepreneurship as an academic feld and was supposed to difer
from the big companies’ management education. Te last stage means a re-conceptu-
alisation of the feld and a reintegration of management education and entrepreneur-
ship education.
Te situation difers in the Central and East European countries. In those countries
entrepreneurship as an economic and social process shortly became a keyword, but as
a discipline still has not received an adequate attention. Te feld of entrepreneurship
education is young and still unstructured there. However, lack of structure may be taken
Agnieszka Kurczewska 220
as an advantage. Youth and freshness of the discipline makes it attractive to educators,
as a country or region context is still not sufciently developed. Even if recognition of
entrepreneurship as an academic discipline is still not strong enough, the world “en-
trepreneurship” gains in popularity. Unfortunately, this popularity has ofen a negative
character in Poland. An overuse of a term entrepreneurship, for example by meaning-
less act of adding it to the names of faculties or courses, may lead to a wrong perception
of the phenomenon. Another problem is an attitude of other scholars and even institu-
tions towards entrepreneurship. Te status of entrepreneurship in economic and man-
agement departments remains under appreciated, while in other ones is ofen nonexist-
ent. It happens to be perceived as less scientifc and too general. In some environments,
there is still a belief that entrepreneurship may be taught only at business/economics
schools and consists only of business planning classes. However, it is stressed that it
should be a part of programmes in almost all academic felds, including technical and
art sciences.
Tere are some good practices. Dynamic Entrepreneurship platform or SEIPA –
a network of academic educators of entrepreneurship (Sie? Edukacyjna Innowacyjnej
Przedsi?biorczo?ci Akademickiej) - is one of a few excellent examples of the activity of
Polish entrepreneurship educators.
New role of educator and new approaches
to entrepreneurship education
Education means both learning and teaching. Te efort should be taken both by
an educator (through the process of teaching), a student (through the process of learn-
ing), and a higher education institution. Te role of an institution is to promote en-
trepreneurship and entrepreneurial ventures (Heinonen et Poikkijoki 2006). Te role
of an educator might be to teach fundamentals of entrepreneurship as a science and
enhance entrepreneurial skills and competencies among students. Te difculty lies in
fnding appropriate proportions between providing knowledge to students and develop-
ing their entrepreneurial competences. Klofsten (2000) distinguishes static and dynamic
components of entrepreneurship education. Static one means providing theory, whereas
a dynamic one- more practical approach and rather applied knowledge. However, en-
trepreneurship courses seem to be more focused on skills developing than knowledge
advancing. What should be noted is that education in entrepreneurship serves a pre-
paratory function. It prepares students to behave in an entrepreneurial way, preferably
starting their own frms, and realizing their passions and ideas. Tat general mission is
to develop some entrepreneurial competences, which are verifed by market and life.
Tis makes entrepreneurship a unique discipline. Usually, disciplines (especially tra-
ditional ones) pay more stress on knowledge contents. Courses are not only means of
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 221
learning entrepreneurship. Centres and networks for entrepreneurship education, like
academic incubators, business accelerators, graduates’ business clubs may take a role of
further educating instance or supporters.
Entrepreneurship education is quite broad, as it comprises learning to understand
entrepreneurship, to become entrepreneurial, and to become an entrepreneur (Heinonen
et Poikkijoki 2006). Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) propose an interesting model of educa-
tion (Table 1), describing diferent roles of enterprise education. Teir conceptual sche-
ma is based on three interdependent mindsets that focus on:
• ‘learning about’- to increase understanding of what entrepreneurship is about and its
role in economy and society,
• ‘to become entrepreneurial’- to make individuals responsible about their learning, ca-
reers and lives, and
• ‘to become an entrepreneur’- to act as an entrepreneur and to manage to start up new
business.
TABLE 1. Model of education
Learn to Understand
Entrepreneurship
Learn to Become More
Entrepreneurial
Learn to Become an
Entrepreneur
What do entrepreneurs do?
What is entrepreneurship?
Why are entrepreneurs needed?
How many entrepreneurs do we have?
I need to take responsibility
of my learning, career and life
How do I take responsibility?
Can I become an entrepreneur?
How to become entrepreneur?
How to manage the business?
Source: Hytti and O’Gorman (2004).
In the discussion on entrepreneurship education, there are usually references to
knowledge, skills, and competences of students. Entrepreneurial competences are usu-
ally understood as “combination of skills, knowledge and resources that distinguish an
entrepreneur from his or her competitors” (Fiet 2000b, p.107). However, regardless of
the aspects that are brought into focus, the expected result is that more students will get
involved in venture creation during and afer their studies.
Before designing curricula, the selection of an approach is encouraged. Te develop-
ment of idea of entrepreneurship education came together with popularization of action
learning concept. When transmitting that concept into the feld, as Leitch and Harrison
(1999, p. 92) noted, action learning is learning “by refecting on the actions being taken
in solving a real organizational problem with managers of similar position also expe-
riencing challenging situations”. So, it simply means learning by doing. Learning proc-
ess is associated with “doing“ (Fiet 2000), entrepreneurship means putting ventures into
life, so educators through their courses or trainings should stimulate students actions
Agnieszka Kurczewska 222
(Rasmussen et Sorheim 2006). Te idea is to give students tasks leading them to discover
knowledge, instead of passively receiving the information (Ewell 1997) and to induce en-
trepreneurial intentions. Tus, the concept of student-centred education is highlighted,
and there appears the idea of improving the number and quality of opportunities among
students. As Kyrö (2008, p. 42) writes: “Proactive behaviour in complexity assumes that
learning is simultaneously individual and social, relating to the dynamics between in-
dividual and collective human processes”. She continues by mentioning two basic ele-
ments of entrepreneurial learning: “an action-oriented proactive holistic attitude to-
wards a complex and changing world and a holistic view of the human individual and
social processes”. An action-oriented approach involves experiential learning, problem
solving, project-based learning, and creativity (Jones et English 2004). Béchard and Gré-
goire (2007) distinguish three models of teaching entrepreneurship:
• A supply model, in which transmission of knowledge, skills and abilities takes place
from an educator to a learner; teachers play role of presenters of information where
as students its recipients.
• A demand model, which is aimed at fulflling learning goals and needs of students;
teachers construct environment for appropriation of the knowledge.
• A competence model, which is aimed at enhancing students’ competences in solving
problems by using knowledge and abilities; teaching is regarded as an interactive
process between teachers and students.
Very closely related to active learning, is experiential learning, which characteristics
may be found in the paper of Cooper et al. (2004): “Stepping out of the classroom and
up the ladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship edu-
cation”. Te authors assume that better results in entrepreneurship education may be
obtained outside the classroom as it enables students to work with an entrepreneur on
a business development project.
Problem of contents – how to develop a curriculum?
Hill (1988), afer surveying ffeen top-quality entrepreneurship educators, concludes
that main educational objective of entrepreneurship education is to increase students’
awareness and understanding of the new venture initiation process. Jones and English
(2004, p. 416), referring to defnitions of entrepreneurship through opportunity concept
lenses, understand entrepreneurship education as the “process of providing individu-
als with the ability to recognize commercial opportunities and the insight, self-esteem,
knowledge and skills to act on them”. Te aims of entrepreneurship programmes at uni-
versity level embrace: “increasing the knowledge base of participants, improving their
entrepreneurial skills and behaviour in life, and fnally providing participants with rel-
evant set of skills and competences for establishing a new start-up or managing existing
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 223
frm” (Heinonen and Hytti 2008, p.328). Te aim of entrepreneurship education is ofen
understood also as enhancing entrepreneurial intention to create a venture in future.
Liñán (2004) presents classifcations of educational activities by diferentiating their
aims. He distinguishes four types of entrepreneurship education:
• Entrepreneurial awareness education, aimed at increasing the number of individuals
having basic knowledge about small business, self-employment and entrepreneur-
ship.
• Education for start-up, aimed at preparing participants to be owners of a small co-
nventional business, focusing on practical issues.
• Education for entrepreneurial dynamism, aimed at promoting dynamic entrepre-
neurial behaviours afer the start-up phase.
• Continuing education for entrepreneurs, aimed at improving and progressing entre-
preneur’s abilities.
In practice, courses in entrepreneurship cover a whole range of business related sub-
jects, so they ofen resemble business and management courses or small and medium
sized enterprises’ economy courses. Tere are many misunderstandings around entre-
preneurship courses at university. However, business entry difers from managing a busi-
ness. To understand the diference between entrepreneurship courses and small business
courses, a distinction made by Gibb (1987) might be helpful. He defnes an entrepreneur
in terms of attributes and a small-business person in terms of tasks. Gibb considers that
the role for small business in entrepreneurial education is to enhance enterprise crea-
tion by managing the entrepreneurial attributes of young people. Business courses may
support this process by providing role models, exposure, networks, and insight into the
business process. According to McMullen and Long (1987), Vesper and McMullen (1988)
entrepreneurial education should include skill building courses in negotiation, leadership,
new product development, creative thinking and exposure to technological innovation. It
seems to be appropriate to identify diferences between entrepreneurs and (small) busi-
ness managers. Te key feature distinguishing these two groups is a motivation to start up
a frm or venture. Managers think mostly about direct fnancial profts, whereas entrepre-
neurs pay attention to the increase in growth and profts of a frm (Carland et al. 1984).
For Liñán (2004) management training does not focus on traits, skills, attitudes, or inten-
tions of the participant, but more on technical knowledge for business administration.
Tere are two concepts of education: teacher-centred orientation and student-centred
one. In the frst one contents seem to matter, where in the second one the learning pro-
cess is essential. Taking the contents into considerations the most obvious way of deliver-
ing it are theory courses. However, too much theory is not in line with the philosophy of
teaching entrepreneurship. What is an ideal proportion between theory and practice in
this case? Should entrepreneurship courses be only pragmatic? Looking at Edgar Dale’s
cone of learning (Figure 1) the efectiveness of learning depends on the media involved
in learning. His famous learning pyramid teaches that efectiveness of lectures is poor.
Agnieszka Kurczewska 224
FIGURE 1. Dale’s cone of learning
Te teachers’ experience usually proves that is highly more difcult to get students
interested in lecture than during more practice-oriented classes (for example project
based). Perhaps entrepreneurship courses should not be the ones done separately for
theory and for practice. In this form, theory would be “smuggled” during one type of
classes (either via introduction to classes or as their summaries). Terefore, entrepre-
neurship courses would be more of a student-oriented type.
It has to be stressed also that there is little consistency among the programmes in
entrepreneurship. Some countries still lack formal teaching programmes. Fiet (2000)
analyses eighteen various syllabuses in entrepreneurship and found six main thematic
areas, which are: strategy/competitive analysis, managing growth, discovery/idea gene-
ration, risk and rationality, fnancing and creative. However, as he concludes, only dis-
covery/idea generation is not deriving from other disciplines.
Tere are many examples of courses in entrepreneurship education available in lite-
rature; even more may be accessed easily through the Internet. Some examples are pro-
vided in the following papers:
• Dreisler, P. (2008), Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action: the Entrepre-
neurial Process, teaching Entrepreneurship – a description of a course in entrepre-
neurship,
• Tegtmeier. S. et al. (2009), Increasing Entrepreneurial Intentions through Innova-
tions in Pedagogy: European Approaches, Programmes, and Tools – a comparison
of diferent approaches to entrepreneurship education in Europe (Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece and Sweden, and in Poland),
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 225
• Klapper et Tegtmeier (2010) – two examples of innovative pedagogy in entrepre-
neurship teaching, in two diferent cross-cultural contexts: Germany and France.
Good practice in entrepreneurship education in Poland may be found in works of
Prof. Cie?lik and his Dynamic Entrepreneurship course, as well at the Cracow University
of Economics. However, as Kyrö (2008) and Carrier (2005) noticed we may now expe-
rience a shif from contents focus into the process of learning and teaching.
Problem of audience and timing – when and who to teach?
Te next problem is an appropriate time (degree level) to teach entrepreneurship.
Should courses in entrepreneurship be a part of undergraduate or postgraduate pro-
grammes? Should they constitute major or minor? How many hours should be devoted
to “pure” entrepreneurship?
Te problem of timing relates to the profle of a department that is responsible for
conducting courses in entrepreneurship and integration with other courses. In last years
in many Western European countries a spate of master degrees in entrepreneurship
started to appear. In Poland, where the Master in Entrepreneurship is not popular yet,
three situations are possible:
1. Entrepreneurship is taught as a part of entrepreneurship specialization programme
– students chose the specialization so probably they consider starting up a company.
Strong integration with other courses like: venture creation, creativity, negotiating,
business plan writing, and business management is recommended. Educators should
enhance personal development and broadening the students’ perspectives, and provi-
de knowledge about entrepreneurship as the process. Entrepreneurship course at this
level should advance entrepreneurial thinking and competences among participants.
2. Entrepreneurship is taught as a part of general economics or management program-
mes - students have some general knowledge in business but usually do not show any
special interest in entrepreneurship. Te aim of the course in that context is more to
introduce an entrepreneurship as a broad concept not only related to small business,
to encourage participants to launch ventures and to provide basics on entrepreneur-
ship as a feld of science.
3. Entrepreneurship is taught as a single course at non-business departments (at tech-
nical universities, medical schools, art schools). Te students there are usually in-
terested in a very practical aspect of entrepreneurship. Tey treat sessions more as
a source of guidelines how to become an entrepreneur than a way of developing
a new mode of thinking. However, innovativeness and creativity workshops are par-
ticularly welcomed for those groups of participants.
Te problematic issue is also who should teach entrepreneurship. Should it be entre-
preneurs, educators in management or economics, self-development coaches? Not many
Agnieszka Kurczewska 226
educators have degree in entrepreneurship because these types of master or doctoral de-
gree have been available for a short time. Moreover, the idea of reciprocal learning gains
in popularity – students may learn a lot by interacting.
Methodology and pedagogy problems – how to learn?
Ronstadt (1987) concludes that an efective programme should show students “how”
to behave entrepreneurially and should introduce them to the people who might be able
to facilitate their success. However, the question is how to encourage students and en-
hance entrepreneurial spirit among them? Literature review brings some answers. Te
most popular tools used in teaching entrepreneurship include: business plans, student
business start-ups, consultation with practicing entrepreneurs, behavioural simulations,
interviews with entrepreneurs, “live” cases, feld trips, and the use of video and flms
(Kuratko 2003). Te catalogue of teaching interventions proposed in entrepreneurship
education is very diverse. Apart from the classical one, Pittaway and Cope (2007) using
the systematic literature review method, distinguish the following methods of teaching
entrepreneurship: action learning, new venture simulations, technology based simula-
tions, the development of actual ventures, skills based sources, video role plays, expe-
riential learning, mentoring. Te choice of a method depends on the approach to entre-
preneurship education.
Te next problem concerning entrepreneurship methodology is a choice of an ap-
propriate teaching model. What is more appropriate – one project during one semester
or a few shorter projects? Both choices have some merits. One project-based course
teaches logics, consequence, and planning, whereas diversity is more attractive and
many shorter projects may teach solving more specifc problems, while the students’
roles in projects may change. At the Babson College, for example, learning resembles the
business cycle: creativity, opportunity recognition, the invention or discovery of a prod-
uct or service, assessment of the business opportunity, building the market and delivery
system, and growth and renewal (Kuratko 2003).
Te review of strategies for teaching entrepreneurship is provided by Carrier (2007).
She describes various simulations and games (computer-based simulations and beha-
vioural simulations), as well as original educational proposals (teaching through classics,
videos, life stories, use of a new venture expert script).
Tere are plenty of teaching methods, classifed in diferent groups (Table 2). How-
ever, in the practice of entrepreneurship education, teaching by the mix of methods
would be advised. Only diversity gives the chance to all aspects of entrepreneurship to be
included and enriches diverse entrepreneurial competences. Activating methods (seeking
method and cooperation method) that stimulate thinking by involving students in learn-
ing and interacting seem to gain in popularity during last years.
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 227
TABLE 2. Variety of teaching methods
Name of a method Aim of a model Tools
Delivery method to provide knowledge by facts and rules descriptions, lectures, manuals,
educational programmes
Teaching by doing to teach experiments, experience-based
activities
Direct method to present procedural knowledge explanations, labo classes
Seeking method to teach solving problems, seeking the
solutions, logics of thinking
problem exposing lectures and
cases
Cooperation method to teach a cooperation and team working projects, activating methods
Source: own proposition of classifcation by the author.
Te choice of the teaching method is related to the choice of attributes or compe-
tences the course is supposed to develop. Among the most popular are those leading to
comprehension and advancement of the entrepreneurial process:
• A habit of permanent seeking of opportunities in business and their evaluation,
• An ability to observe the business world and discover new possibilities between
unrelated issues,
• An ability to search for information
• Self-efcacy
• Self-confdence;
Taking into considerations the above competences, the following teaching activities
may be proposed: an exercise of venture creation (preferably team based), an exercise
of interviewing the entrepreneur from the students’ close environment, an exercise of
identifying global and regional trends, based on case studies, or an exercise of search-
ing information about a particular market or sector, the competitiveness, competitors
profle, contacts, networks.
As it was already mentioned, usually entrepreneurship education implements non-
traditional teaching methods. One of the most ofen practiced ways of supporting new
venture creations is however teaching business planning. Business planning provokes
many controversies nowadays. For Delmar and Shane (2003) it is a valuable and efective
activity helping to make decisions and attain goals, whereas for example Baron (1998)
accuses fallacy planning for entrepreneurs’ failures, while Carter et al. (1996) associate
success with action and doing rather than planning and thinking. Usually students ap-
preciate all “real world” practice and actuality of business problems. But what should be
taken into account is the fact that if we decide to include business planning as a part of
entrepreneurship education, then, not only writing but also discussing it in front of oth-
ers should be a part of a course.
Agnieszka Kurczewska 228
Te use of technology can be helpful in a process of teaching entrepreneurship. Edu-
cational technology may be based on computer and the Internet use or video making.
Regardless fnancial side of this kind of activities, the right proportion between “only fun”
and full commitment learning should also be kept. Technology should serve as a tool
only. For example, some scholars ask students to keep digital journals or blogs as an as-
signment. Tis kind of task gives a valuable possibility to follow students’ refections on
the learning process, however, only if students concentrate on the contents not on a form.
Students should be aware of some aspects of entrepreneurship even during the frst
session of the course. A good idea might be to discuss the following, to some extent
controversial, points:
• Starting up a frm is an act of courage and very ofen a critical moment of human life.
It usually requires a resignation from the hitherto life style, change of priorities, con-
frontation with unknown and uncertain (Cie?lik 2008). However, in the meantime,
it is a great challenge and adventure, and very ofen the only way to realize own am-
bitions and stay in line with own beliefs and values.
• Te chances to become successful in starting up a frm do not only have in-born en-
trepreneurs. Te formal education and knowledge in entrepreneurship increase sub-
stantially the probability of success.
• Starting up a business may happen during whole lifetime, not necessarily immedia-
tely afer studies.
• It is not crucial to have an extraordinary, exceptional, very innovative idea to start up
a business. A research conducted by Bhide (2000) shows that among 100 American
frms from “Inc. 500” list only 6% were delivering unique products, process, or servi-
ce. Tere is also the group of replicate entrepreneurs (Baumol 2004) who are persons
taking up a business initiative based on existing ideas. Tey do not ofer very innova-
tive products or service and their business concept is only a little bit better than com-
petitors’ ones.
• An idea is very important but a complete business concept even more (Cie?lik 2008).
And how to be efective?
Monitoring the result of teaching entrepreneurship is difcult. How to determine the
impact of entrepreneurship education on the decision to start a new venture? One way
seems to be monitoring of graduates. However, it is time consuming and does never give
an answer of the real impact, as we are never sure whether other factor did not infuence
the graduate’s decisions.
Te popular method is to check the changes in attitudes and intentionality of stu-
dents before and afer their participation in a course. Lena and Wong (2003) searched
for the relation between new venture creation and attitudes towards education in en-
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 229
trepreneurship. Afer surveying 1500 students, they discovered a positive correlation.
Similarly, the results of Rasheed (2000) indicate that students receiving entrepreneurial
training have higher motivation to achieve. Te results make a strong link between new
venture creation and entrepreneurial attitudes: motivation to achieve, a sense of per-
sonal control and self-esteem. Kolvereid and Moen (1997) indicate positive relationship
between education in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour, both for actual
behaviour and for behavioural intentions, by examining Norwegian business school
students. Similar fndings might be found in the papers of Clark et al. (1984). A posi-
tive relation between entrepreneurship education and students intentions for venture
creation seems to dominate in literature. However, for example, Oosterbeek et al. (2008)
prove a negative impact of entrepreneurship programmes on entrepreneurial compe-
tencies and intentions.
Te question that educators still pose is whether the teaching to identify entrepre-
neurial opportunities is possible. For example, De Tienne and Chandler (2004) admit
that it is possible to teach opportunity recognition, but for instance Saks and Gaglio’s
(2002) exploratory research provides contradictory results. In-depth interviews of 14
well-known entrepreneurship teachers led to the conclusion that teaching opportunity
evaluation is possible, whereas teaching opportunity recognition, or creation, is rather
difcult, if not impossible. However, nearly three quarters of the respondents hoped that
the students would in fact be able to learn to identify potential business ideas. Carrier
(2005) argues that we should be more creative and put more emphasis on creating the
business idea, not to evaluate imitated ideas.
One of other basic question posed by the scholars is: does a course or programme
in entrepreneurship help or facilitate new venture creation? Te dominant stress on ef-
fectiveness sometimes covers such important issues as the students’ understanding of
venture creation (opportunity identifcation and development). Structure of the courses
refects the educators’ approach to venture creation. Most of the research on entrepre-
neurship education seeks to pursuit the efectiveness of the education, but as Fiet (2000)
explains, teaching entrepreneurship needs frst an assumption on the exis-tence of the
process that can be explained theoretically. What is more, the question how to teach
should be preceded by the question: who is taught. Better understanding of students’
perception of venture creation and entrepreneurial process is necessary.
Challenges for the future
Constructing the bridge between education and entrepreneurship is not an easy task.
However, we may experience nowadays a growing interest in entrepreneurship educa-
tion all over the world. Entrepreneurship education is a promising feld. It is challenging
for teachers, as it demands crossing the borders between disciplines, and it is demand-
Agnieszka Kurczewska 230
ing for students, as it requires active learning and engagement. It is also challenging for
institutions (like universities) as it requires acceptance of non-conventional teaching in-
terventions and innovative methods. Entrepreneurship education has expanded during
the last three decades. A contemporary paradigm of entrepreneurship learning suggests
that educators create learning experiences for students while they create the content that
educates. To achieve that, entrepreneurship educators should have the same innovative
drive that is expected from their students (Kuratko 2003). Teaching entrepreneurship
becomes a challenge as it means developing and enhancing entrepreneurial skills and
competences.
Another important challenge is to overcome a popular belief that entrepreneurship
is only an innate feature, therefore if a person is entrepreneurial, regardless of the educa-
tion, she or he will start a business, so the learning aspect is abandoned. It is a belief com-
pletely not understandable and not justifed. In Poland, the myth of a poorly educated
and sometimes unethical entrepreneur still poses a challenge to fght against.
However, foremost the challenge remains to improve the quality of entrepreneur-
ship courses. One of the ways to achieve better quality in teaching is to search what
students’ intentions are. As a result, many intention models were constructed (in par-
ticular based on the works of Shapero and Sokol 1982, or Ajzen 1991). Tey are aimed at
seeking determinants of human entrepreneurial intentions, apart in background factors,
in perceived feasibility and perceived desirability of being an entrepreneur. By knowing
the factors infuencing the students’ entrepreneurial intention (their antecedents) educa-
tors are able to design programmes that are more accurate and chose more appropriate
teaching methods. Another way to improve the quality of teaching is to recognize and
study how students identify, evaluate, and fnally exploit opportunities. Te nature and
dynamics of the process from idea generation to venture creation determines the charac-
ter of teaching interventions.
Entrepreneurship education is not a fad or one season fashion; it is a reality and
requirement of modern world. We have to implement quickly more advanced entre-
preneurship courses in Poland in order to stay competitive, at the university, regional
and national level, as well in order to become more entrepreneurial society, to increase
employment and to encourage innovation and induce knowledge-based economy. En-
trepreneurial competences are desirable in all environments.
Notes
1
A part of the paper was presented during European Summer University, Entrepreneurship in Europe –
Innovations in Pedagogy, at Dauphine University in Paris, September 2008.
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 231
References
Ajzen I. (1991), Te theory of planned behavior, “Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes”,
vol. 50, 1991
Alvarez S.A., Barney J.B. (2007), Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action, “Stra-
tegic Entrepreneurship Journal” No 1, pp. 11–26
Béchard J.P., Grégoire D., (2007), Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for entrepreneurship education: mo-
del and illustrations, Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 1. (Fayolle A., ed.), Chetel-
ham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing
Baron R. (1998), Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs think diferently
than other people, “Journal of Business Venturing” No 13, 275–294
Baumol W.J. (2004), Entrepreneurship and small Business; Towards a program of Research, FSF, Stockholm
Bhide A.V. (2000), Te Origin and Evolution of New Business, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Carland J.W., Hoy F., Boulton W.R. Carland J.A.C. (1984), Diferentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business
Owners: A Conceptualization, “Academy of Management Review” No 9
Carter N.M., Gartner W.B., Reynolds P.D. (1996), Exploring start-up event sequences. “Journal of Business
Venturing” No 11, pp. 151–166
Carrier C. (2005), Pedagogical challenges in entrepreneurship education, [in:] P. Kyrö & C. Carrier (eds.), Te
dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context (pp. 136–158), Hämmeenlinna:
University of Tampere
Carrier C. (2007), Strategies for teaching entrepreneurship: what else beyond lectures, case studies and busi-
ness plans? [in:] A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (vol. 1, pp. 143–172),
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Charney A., Libecap G.D., (2000), Te Impact of Entrepreneurship Education: An Evaluation of the Berger
Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona 1985–1999, Te Kaufman Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership, Final report, May 23
Cie?lik J. (2008), Przedsi?biorczo?? dla ambitnych. Jak uruchomi? w?asny biznes, Wydawnictwa Akademickie
i Profesjonalne, Warszawa
Cie?lik J. (2008), University-level entrepreneurship education in Poland, Proceedings of ICELM-3, Tîrgu Mu-
re?, Romaniahttp://www.upm.ro/proiecte/EEE/Conferences/papers/S604.pdf
Clark B.W., Davis C.H., Harnish V.C. (1984), Do courses in entrepreneurship aid in new venture creation?
“Journal of Small Business Management”
Cooper S., Bottomley C., Gordon J. (2004), Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: An
experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education, “Industry and Higher Education”, vol. 18 No 1,
pp. 11–22
Delmar F., and Shane S. (2003), Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? “Strategic
Management Journal”, No 24(12), pp. 1165–1185
DeTienne D.R., Chandler G.N. (2004), Opportunity identifcation and its role in the entrepreneurial classro-
om: a pedagogical approach and empirical test, “Academy of Management Learning and Education”, No 3(3),
pp. 242–257
Dreisler P. (2008), Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action: the Entrepreneurial Process, Teaching En-
trepreneurship
Fayolle A., Gailly B., Lassas-Clerc N. (2007), Towards a new methodology to assess the entrepreneurship te-
aching programmes, [in] A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (vol. 1, pp.
187–197), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Agnieszka Kurczewska 232
Fiet J. (2000a), Te theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship, “Journal of Business Venturing” No 16, pp. 1–24
Fiet J. (2000b), Te pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory, “Journal of Business Venturing” No 16, pp.
101–117
Gibb A. (1987), Education for Enterprise: Training for Small Business Initiation - Some Contrasts, “Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship”, No 4(3)
Gorman G., Hanlon D., King W. (1997), Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise
education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review, “International Small
Business Journal”, vol. 15 No 3
Heinonen J., Hytti U. (2008), Enterprising individuals from an entrepreneurial university: entrepreneurship
programmes in non-business and business schools, “Te Finnish Journal of Business Economic”, No 3
Heinonen J., Poikkijoki S.A. (2006), An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education:
mission impossible? “Journal of Management Development”, Vol. 25 No 1, pp. 80–94
Hill G.E. (1988), Variations in university entrepreneurship education: an empirical study of an evolving feld,
“Journal of Business Venturing” No 3, pp. 109–122
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, Vol. 46 Iss: 1, pp.
11–23
Jones C., English J. (2004), A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education, “Education and Tra-
ining”, Vol. 46, No 8/9, pp. 416–423
Kirby D. (2007), Changing the entrepreneurship education paradigm. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of rese-
arch in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 21–45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Kolvereid L., Moen Ø. (1997), Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship
make a diference?, “Journal of European Industrial Training”, Vol. 21 No 4, pp. 154–160
Kuratko D. (2003), Entrepreneurship education: emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century, 2003
Coleman Foundation White Paper Series for the U.S. Association of Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Kyrö P. (2008), A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship, “International Journal of
Business and Globalisation”, Vol. 2, No 1
Klapper R., Tegtmeier S. (2010), Innovating entrepreneurial pedagogy - examples from France and Germany,
“Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, Vol. 17, No 4
Klofsten M., J.-E. Dylan (2000), Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe – Te Case of Sweden and
Ireland, Small Business Economics, 14(4), June, pp. 299–309
Leitch C., Harrison R.T. (1999), A process model for entrepreneurship education and development Internatio-
nal Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, 1999, pp. 83–109
Lena L. and Wong P.-K. (2003), Attitude towards entrepreneurship education and new venture creation, Jour-
nal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 2003, pp. 339–357
Liñán, F. (2004): “Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education”, Piccolla Impresa / Small Business,
Iss. 3, pp. 11–35
Liñán, F. (2007). Te role of entrepreneurship education in the entrepreneurial process. In A. Fayolle (Ed.),
Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 230–247). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C., Rueda-Cantuche J.M. (2010). Factors afecting entrepreneurial intention
levels: a role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, March 2010
McMullen C., Long M.B. (1988), Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges, Journal of Manage-
ment, 1988, 14(2), pp. 139–161
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 233
Oosterbeek H., van Praag M., Jsselstein A., (2008), Te Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepre-
neurship Competencies and Intentions: An Evaluation of the Junior Achievement Student Mini-Company
Program, Discussion Paper Series, IZA DP No. 3641, August 2008, pp. 1–24
Pittaway and Cope (2007), Entrepreneurship Education. A Systematic Review of the Evidence, International
Small Business Journal 2007; 25; 479–510
Rasheed H.S. (2000) Developing Entrepreneurial Potential in Youth: Te Efects of Entrepreneurial Educa-
tion and Venture Creation,http://usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/proceedingsDocs/USASBE2001proce-
edings-063.PDF
Rasmussen E., R. Sørheim (2006), Action-based entrepreneurship education, Technovation 26(2), pp. 185–194
Reitan, B. (1997). Where do we learn that entrepreneurship is feasible, desirable and/or proftable? - a look at
the processes leading to entrepreneurial potential. San Francisco, CA., paper presented to the International
Council for Small Business
Ronstadt R. (1987), Te Educated Entrepreneurs: A New Era of Entrepreneurial Education is Beginning.,
American Journal of Small Business, 11(4)
Saks N. T., Gaglio C.M. (2002), Can opportunity identifcation be taught?, Journal of Enterprising Culture,
Vo. 10, no. 4., December 2002, pp. 313-347
Sánchez, J.C. (2010). University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention of venture
creation, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 2010
Tegtmeier, S., Asplund, C., Bengtsson, L., Klapper, R., Kurczewska, A., Kyrö, P., Leger-Jarniou, C., Pruvli,
E., Tzeremes, N.G. and Vliamos, S.J. (2009), Increasing Entrepreneurial Intentions through Innovations in Pe-
dagogy: European Approaches, Programmes, and Tools, 2009 ICSB World Conference, Te Dynamism of Small
Business: Teory, Practice, and Policy, 21-24 June, Seoul, Korea
Venkataraman, S. (1997). Te Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor’s Perspective. Ad-
vances in Entrepreneurship. J. Katz and R. Brockhaus. Greenwich, JAI Press. 3:119-138
Vesper, K.H. and McMullen, W.E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow degrees? Entrepreneur-
ship Teory and Practice, 13(1), pp. 7-13
doc_132739547.pdf
With this particular detailed file about entrepreneurship as an element of academic education international experiences and lessons.
Agnieszka Kurczewska
Entrepreneurship as an Element of
Academic Education - International
Experiences and Lessons for Poland
International Journal of Management and Economics 30, 217-233
2011
Agnieszka Kurczewska
University of Lodz
Entrepreneurship as an Element
of Academic Education – International Experiences
and Lessons for Poland
1
Introduction
Te debate on the contents, methodology, and efectiveness of entrepreneurship ed-
ucation is still open. As an academic feld, entrepreneurship is diversifed, multidiscipli-
nary, multi-contextual, and without one theoretical rigor. Education in entrepreneurship
has a mirror image. Tere is a huge diversifcation in curricula and many borrowings
from other disciplines, such as small business management, economics, fnance, or psy-
chology (Fiet 2000). Terefore, one of the frst and basic questions in entrepreneurship
was: what to teach? Te concepts varied from creativity workshops, through business
planning sessions, to courses of entrepreneurship as a scientifc feld. No ultimate answer
on the contents of entrepreneurship courses was related to the fact that entrepreneurship
education was not regarded as a separate concept or a noteworthy issue among some
academic communities. However, the perception of entrepreneurship education has re-
cently changed, especially in highly developed countries. Many researchers in the feld
agree that next step forward has to be taken. According to Fiet (2000), the eclecticism
was acceptable when entrepreneurship education was a new discipline, but now, when
it leaves its childhood phase, there is a need for more coherent and common approach.
Tere are already some achievements. Researchers and educators admit that entrepre-
neurship may be learned and taught. Te most advanced forms of entrepreneurship edu-
cation have emerged at the tertiary education level. Tere is a multitude of courses, spe-
cializations, and even degrees in entrepreneurship worldwide. As Kyrö (2008) noticed,
we may already experience shif from contents focus into the process of learning and
teaching. Te shif provokes more challenging question: how to teach? Entrepreneurship
education may be understood both as learning about the phenomena and learning some
essential skills enabling being an entrepreneur (Rasmussen et Sorheim 2006). Both are
valuable but imply diferent contents and methodology of teaching. A diferent approach
is needed when we learn to understand entrepreneurship, learn to become more entre-
preneurial and learn to become an entrepreneur (Hytti 2002).
Tere are three actors involved in efective entrepreneurship education: an educator
(an academic teacher), a student, and an institutional framework (university or other
Agnieszka Kurczewska 218
higher education institution). In a contemporary paradigm, the role of a teacher is to
design the most efective learning opportunities for students; while the role of a student
is to get involved in the process of learning and proft from that process. Institutional
framework should enable a fruitful execution of both roles, that is create the most fa-
vourable conditions for entrepreneurship courses development and make the students’
learning and educators‘ teaching possible. Te active approach from all three actors is
expected. However, the challenging issue remains the problem of types of teaching in-
terventions to be implemented in order to make learning of entrepreneurship most ef-
fcient, or in other words – how to be efective?
Te aim of the paper is to present the dynamics between entrepreneurship and edu-
cation, and review main pedagogic and methodological problems occurring during
organizing and conducting entrepreneurship courses. Te ambition of the paper is to
launch a discussion on entrepreneurship education in Poland and to create an arena for
exchange of views on the issues regarding teaching interventions. Tere is a strong need
for comprehensive entrepreneurship education in the Polish higher education system.
Tat education should not only concentrate on technical skills of business plan writing
or small business management but should refer to the phases preceding the physical
creation of a frm (like entrepreneurial intentions), which in turn demands knowledge of
the students’ values, beliefs and emotions. Contemporary social and economic environ-
ment requires entrepreneurial society. What should not be ignored is that education in
entrepreneurship plays an important role not only in fghting unemployment (by creat-
ing more jobs as a result) but also in increasing human intellectual potential: creativity,
innovativeness and talent. Courses and trainings in entrepreneurship serve an impor-
tant social role. However, at frst, it has to become clear for educators and authorities of
higher education institution that, as Cie?lik (2008) claims: “Launching a new business is
a much broader concept than merely the registration of a new business establishment. It
starts with identifcation and evaluation of business opportunities, the most promising
ones are developed in the form of business plans and fnally implemented”.
Terefore, the paper is an appeal to implement more courses, training and other
relevant activities in entrepreneurship (on bachelor, master and doctorate level), that
correspond to more advanced understanding of entrepreneurship phenomena and proft
from current research fndings in entrepreneurship education.
Maturity and status of the discipline
Entrepreneurship education as an academic discipline does not have long traditions.
Te frst entrepreneurship course in the United States was held by Myles Mace at Har-
vard’s Business School in February 1947 and attracted 188 out of 600 second-year MBA
students (Katz 2003). Although at Harvard University frst programmes in entrepreneur-
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 219
ship were designed in the nineteen forties, their real expansion started in the nineteen
eighties, frstly in USA, later in West European countries. In 1994, more than 120,000
students in USA were taking entrepreneurship or small business courses (Katz 1994).
Te more interest in educating how to be entrepreneurial came together with a public
attention on small business and knowledge-based economy idea in general. In the nine-
teen eighties, business schools in USA and Europe were still concentrated on preparing
students to become part of top management in large or even global corporations. As
Klapper and Tegtmeier (2010) notice one of the earliest research on entrepreneurship
education appeared at the beginning of the eighties and resulted in proceedings of the
conference at Baylor University (Entrepreneurship Education, 1981). Te next important
step was the conference held at Harvard University (Entrepre neurship: What It Is and
How to Teach it, 1985). Te real take-of in entrepreneurship took place in the nineties
of the twentieth century.
At present, when entrepreneurship seems to be already a well-developed and well-
established discipline, it is easier for entrepreneurship education to expand. In the USA
entrepreneurship education means more than 2,200 courses at over 1,600 schools, 44
refereed academic journals, mainstream management journals devoting more issues to
entrepreneurship, and over 100 established and funded centres (Kuratko 2003). From the
beginning, an experimental approach to entrepreneurship education has been popular-
ised. Case studies, feasibility plans and project simulations have become basic elements of
teaching programmes. Usually entrepreneurship education takes form of non-traditional
teaching. Tere is a shared understanding between educators to seek for innovative and
creative forms of education, including both individual and collaborative learning.
Entrepreneurship education as a separate concept has experienced a long way of
recognition. Venkataraman (1997) observes that the development of entrepreneurship
in tertiary education results from the increased interest in entrepreneurship among stu-
dents. An intensive students-driven demand for entrepreneurship education, especially
on American universities, attracted the attention of scientists and educators, treating it
frstly as a new intellectual challenge and then as a separate academic discipline. Leitch
and Harrison (1999) distinguish the three-stage chronological model of the evolution
of entrepreneurship education. In the frst one, entrepreneurship education was un-
derstood as part of general management education. Te second one was a reaction to
a growing role of entrepreneurship as an academic feld and was supposed to difer
from the big companies’ management education. Te last stage means a re-conceptu-
alisation of the feld and a reintegration of management education and entrepreneur-
ship education.
Te situation difers in the Central and East European countries. In those countries
entrepreneurship as an economic and social process shortly became a keyword, but as
a discipline still has not received an adequate attention. Te feld of entrepreneurship
education is young and still unstructured there. However, lack of structure may be taken
Agnieszka Kurczewska 220
as an advantage. Youth and freshness of the discipline makes it attractive to educators,
as a country or region context is still not sufciently developed. Even if recognition of
entrepreneurship as an academic discipline is still not strong enough, the world “en-
trepreneurship” gains in popularity. Unfortunately, this popularity has ofen a negative
character in Poland. An overuse of a term entrepreneurship, for example by meaning-
less act of adding it to the names of faculties or courses, may lead to a wrong perception
of the phenomenon. Another problem is an attitude of other scholars and even institu-
tions towards entrepreneurship. Te status of entrepreneurship in economic and man-
agement departments remains under appreciated, while in other ones is ofen nonexist-
ent. It happens to be perceived as less scientifc and too general. In some environments,
there is still a belief that entrepreneurship may be taught only at business/economics
schools and consists only of business planning classes. However, it is stressed that it
should be a part of programmes in almost all academic felds, including technical and
art sciences.
Tere are some good practices. Dynamic Entrepreneurship platform or SEIPA –
a network of academic educators of entrepreneurship (Sie? Edukacyjna Innowacyjnej
Przedsi?biorczo?ci Akademickiej) - is one of a few excellent examples of the activity of
Polish entrepreneurship educators.
New role of educator and new approaches
to entrepreneurship education
Education means both learning and teaching. Te efort should be taken both by
an educator (through the process of teaching), a student (through the process of learn-
ing), and a higher education institution. Te role of an institution is to promote en-
trepreneurship and entrepreneurial ventures (Heinonen et Poikkijoki 2006). Te role
of an educator might be to teach fundamentals of entrepreneurship as a science and
enhance entrepreneurial skills and competencies among students. Te difculty lies in
fnding appropriate proportions between providing knowledge to students and develop-
ing their entrepreneurial competences. Klofsten (2000) distinguishes static and dynamic
components of entrepreneurship education. Static one means providing theory, whereas
a dynamic one- more practical approach and rather applied knowledge. However, en-
trepreneurship courses seem to be more focused on skills developing than knowledge
advancing. What should be noted is that education in entrepreneurship serves a pre-
paratory function. It prepares students to behave in an entrepreneurial way, preferably
starting their own frms, and realizing their passions and ideas. Tat general mission is
to develop some entrepreneurial competences, which are verifed by market and life.
Tis makes entrepreneurship a unique discipline. Usually, disciplines (especially tra-
ditional ones) pay more stress on knowledge contents. Courses are not only means of
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 221
learning entrepreneurship. Centres and networks for entrepreneurship education, like
academic incubators, business accelerators, graduates’ business clubs may take a role of
further educating instance or supporters.
Entrepreneurship education is quite broad, as it comprises learning to understand
entrepreneurship, to become entrepreneurial, and to become an entrepreneur (Heinonen
et Poikkijoki 2006). Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) propose an interesting model of educa-
tion (Table 1), describing diferent roles of enterprise education. Teir conceptual sche-
ma is based on three interdependent mindsets that focus on:
• ‘learning about’- to increase understanding of what entrepreneurship is about and its
role in economy and society,
• ‘to become entrepreneurial’- to make individuals responsible about their learning, ca-
reers and lives, and
• ‘to become an entrepreneur’- to act as an entrepreneur and to manage to start up new
business.
TABLE 1. Model of education
Learn to Understand
Entrepreneurship
Learn to Become More
Entrepreneurial
Learn to Become an
Entrepreneur
What do entrepreneurs do?
What is entrepreneurship?
Why are entrepreneurs needed?
How many entrepreneurs do we have?
I need to take responsibility
of my learning, career and life
How do I take responsibility?
Can I become an entrepreneur?
How to become entrepreneur?
How to manage the business?
Source: Hytti and O’Gorman (2004).
In the discussion on entrepreneurship education, there are usually references to
knowledge, skills, and competences of students. Entrepreneurial competences are usu-
ally understood as “combination of skills, knowledge and resources that distinguish an
entrepreneur from his or her competitors” (Fiet 2000b, p.107). However, regardless of
the aspects that are brought into focus, the expected result is that more students will get
involved in venture creation during and afer their studies.
Before designing curricula, the selection of an approach is encouraged. Te develop-
ment of idea of entrepreneurship education came together with popularization of action
learning concept. When transmitting that concept into the feld, as Leitch and Harrison
(1999, p. 92) noted, action learning is learning “by refecting on the actions being taken
in solving a real organizational problem with managers of similar position also expe-
riencing challenging situations”. So, it simply means learning by doing. Learning proc-
ess is associated with “doing“ (Fiet 2000), entrepreneurship means putting ventures into
life, so educators through their courses or trainings should stimulate students actions
Agnieszka Kurczewska 222
(Rasmussen et Sorheim 2006). Te idea is to give students tasks leading them to discover
knowledge, instead of passively receiving the information (Ewell 1997) and to induce en-
trepreneurial intentions. Tus, the concept of student-centred education is highlighted,
and there appears the idea of improving the number and quality of opportunities among
students. As Kyrö (2008, p. 42) writes: “Proactive behaviour in complexity assumes that
learning is simultaneously individual and social, relating to the dynamics between in-
dividual and collective human processes”. She continues by mentioning two basic ele-
ments of entrepreneurial learning: “an action-oriented proactive holistic attitude to-
wards a complex and changing world and a holistic view of the human individual and
social processes”. An action-oriented approach involves experiential learning, problem
solving, project-based learning, and creativity (Jones et English 2004). Béchard and Gré-
goire (2007) distinguish three models of teaching entrepreneurship:
• A supply model, in which transmission of knowledge, skills and abilities takes place
from an educator to a learner; teachers play role of presenters of information where
as students its recipients.
• A demand model, which is aimed at fulflling learning goals and needs of students;
teachers construct environment for appropriation of the knowledge.
• A competence model, which is aimed at enhancing students’ competences in solving
problems by using knowledge and abilities; teaching is regarded as an interactive
process between teachers and students.
Very closely related to active learning, is experiential learning, which characteristics
may be found in the paper of Cooper et al. (2004): “Stepping out of the classroom and
up the ladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship edu-
cation”. Te authors assume that better results in entrepreneurship education may be
obtained outside the classroom as it enables students to work with an entrepreneur on
a business development project.
Problem of contents – how to develop a curriculum?
Hill (1988), afer surveying ffeen top-quality entrepreneurship educators, concludes
that main educational objective of entrepreneurship education is to increase students’
awareness and understanding of the new venture initiation process. Jones and English
(2004, p. 416), referring to defnitions of entrepreneurship through opportunity concept
lenses, understand entrepreneurship education as the “process of providing individu-
als with the ability to recognize commercial opportunities and the insight, self-esteem,
knowledge and skills to act on them”. Te aims of entrepreneurship programmes at uni-
versity level embrace: “increasing the knowledge base of participants, improving their
entrepreneurial skills and behaviour in life, and fnally providing participants with rel-
evant set of skills and competences for establishing a new start-up or managing existing
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 223
frm” (Heinonen and Hytti 2008, p.328). Te aim of entrepreneurship education is ofen
understood also as enhancing entrepreneurial intention to create a venture in future.
Liñán (2004) presents classifcations of educational activities by diferentiating their
aims. He distinguishes four types of entrepreneurship education:
• Entrepreneurial awareness education, aimed at increasing the number of individuals
having basic knowledge about small business, self-employment and entrepreneur-
ship.
• Education for start-up, aimed at preparing participants to be owners of a small co-
nventional business, focusing on practical issues.
• Education for entrepreneurial dynamism, aimed at promoting dynamic entrepre-
neurial behaviours afer the start-up phase.
• Continuing education for entrepreneurs, aimed at improving and progressing entre-
preneur’s abilities.
In practice, courses in entrepreneurship cover a whole range of business related sub-
jects, so they ofen resemble business and management courses or small and medium
sized enterprises’ economy courses. Tere are many misunderstandings around entre-
preneurship courses at university. However, business entry difers from managing a busi-
ness. To understand the diference between entrepreneurship courses and small business
courses, a distinction made by Gibb (1987) might be helpful. He defnes an entrepreneur
in terms of attributes and a small-business person in terms of tasks. Gibb considers that
the role for small business in entrepreneurial education is to enhance enterprise crea-
tion by managing the entrepreneurial attributes of young people. Business courses may
support this process by providing role models, exposure, networks, and insight into the
business process. According to McMullen and Long (1987), Vesper and McMullen (1988)
entrepreneurial education should include skill building courses in negotiation, leadership,
new product development, creative thinking and exposure to technological innovation. It
seems to be appropriate to identify diferences between entrepreneurs and (small) busi-
ness managers. Te key feature distinguishing these two groups is a motivation to start up
a frm or venture. Managers think mostly about direct fnancial profts, whereas entrepre-
neurs pay attention to the increase in growth and profts of a frm (Carland et al. 1984).
For Liñán (2004) management training does not focus on traits, skills, attitudes, or inten-
tions of the participant, but more on technical knowledge for business administration.
Tere are two concepts of education: teacher-centred orientation and student-centred
one. In the frst one contents seem to matter, where in the second one the learning pro-
cess is essential. Taking the contents into considerations the most obvious way of deliver-
ing it are theory courses. However, too much theory is not in line with the philosophy of
teaching entrepreneurship. What is an ideal proportion between theory and practice in
this case? Should entrepreneurship courses be only pragmatic? Looking at Edgar Dale’s
cone of learning (Figure 1) the efectiveness of learning depends on the media involved
in learning. His famous learning pyramid teaches that efectiveness of lectures is poor.
Agnieszka Kurczewska 224
FIGURE 1. Dale’s cone of learning
Te teachers’ experience usually proves that is highly more difcult to get students
interested in lecture than during more practice-oriented classes (for example project
based). Perhaps entrepreneurship courses should not be the ones done separately for
theory and for practice. In this form, theory would be “smuggled” during one type of
classes (either via introduction to classes or as their summaries). Terefore, entrepre-
neurship courses would be more of a student-oriented type.
It has to be stressed also that there is little consistency among the programmes in
entrepreneurship. Some countries still lack formal teaching programmes. Fiet (2000)
analyses eighteen various syllabuses in entrepreneurship and found six main thematic
areas, which are: strategy/competitive analysis, managing growth, discovery/idea gene-
ration, risk and rationality, fnancing and creative. However, as he concludes, only dis-
covery/idea generation is not deriving from other disciplines.
Tere are many examples of courses in entrepreneurship education available in lite-
rature; even more may be accessed easily through the Internet. Some examples are pro-
vided in the following papers:
• Dreisler, P. (2008), Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action: the Entrepre-
neurial Process, teaching Entrepreneurship – a description of a course in entrepre-
neurship,
• Tegtmeier. S. et al. (2009), Increasing Entrepreneurial Intentions through Innova-
tions in Pedagogy: European Approaches, Programmes, and Tools – a comparison
of diferent approaches to entrepreneurship education in Europe (Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece and Sweden, and in Poland),
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 225
• Klapper et Tegtmeier (2010) – two examples of innovative pedagogy in entrepre-
neurship teaching, in two diferent cross-cultural contexts: Germany and France.
Good practice in entrepreneurship education in Poland may be found in works of
Prof. Cie?lik and his Dynamic Entrepreneurship course, as well at the Cracow University
of Economics. However, as Kyrö (2008) and Carrier (2005) noticed we may now expe-
rience a shif from contents focus into the process of learning and teaching.
Problem of audience and timing – when and who to teach?
Te next problem is an appropriate time (degree level) to teach entrepreneurship.
Should courses in entrepreneurship be a part of undergraduate or postgraduate pro-
grammes? Should they constitute major or minor? How many hours should be devoted
to “pure” entrepreneurship?
Te problem of timing relates to the profle of a department that is responsible for
conducting courses in entrepreneurship and integration with other courses. In last years
in many Western European countries a spate of master degrees in entrepreneurship
started to appear. In Poland, where the Master in Entrepreneurship is not popular yet,
three situations are possible:
1. Entrepreneurship is taught as a part of entrepreneurship specialization programme
– students chose the specialization so probably they consider starting up a company.
Strong integration with other courses like: venture creation, creativity, negotiating,
business plan writing, and business management is recommended. Educators should
enhance personal development and broadening the students’ perspectives, and provi-
de knowledge about entrepreneurship as the process. Entrepreneurship course at this
level should advance entrepreneurial thinking and competences among participants.
2. Entrepreneurship is taught as a part of general economics or management program-
mes - students have some general knowledge in business but usually do not show any
special interest in entrepreneurship. Te aim of the course in that context is more to
introduce an entrepreneurship as a broad concept not only related to small business,
to encourage participants to launch ventures and to provide basics on entrepreneur-
ship as a feld of science.
3. Entrepreneurship is taught as a single course at non-business departments (at tech-
nical universities, medical schools, art schools). Te students there are usually in-
terested in a very practical aspect of entrepreneurship. Tey treat sessions more as
a source of guidelines how to become an entrepreneur than a way of developing
a new mode of thinking. However, innovativeness and creativity workshops are par-
ticularly welcomed for those groups of participants.
Te problematic issue is also who should teach entrepreneurship. Should it be entre-
preneurs, educators in management or economics, self-development coaches? Not many
Agnieszka Kurczewska 226
educators have degree in entrepreneurship because these types of master or doctoral de-
gree have been available for a short time. Moreover, the idea of reciprocal learning gains
in popularity – students may learn a lot by interacting.
Methodology and pedagogy problems – how to learn?
Ronstadt (1987) concludes that an efective programme should show students “how”
to behave entrepreneurially and should introduce them to the people who might be able
to facilitate their success. However, the question is how to encourage students and en-
hance entrepreneurial spirit among them? Literature review brings some answers. Te
most popular tools used in teaching entrepreneurship include: business plans, student
business start-ups, consultation with practicing entrepreneurs, behavioural simulations,
interviews with entrepreneurs, “live” cases, feld trips, and the use of video and flms
(Kuratko 2003). Te catalogue of teaching interventions proposed in entrepreneurship
education is very diverse. Apart from the classical one, Pittaway and Cope (2007) using
the systematic literature review method, distinguish the following methods of teaching
entrepreneurship: action learning, new venture simulations, technology based simula-
tions, the development of actual ventures, skills based sources, video role plays, expe-
riential learning, mentoring. Te choice of a method depends on the approach to entre-
preneurship education.
Te next problem concerning entrepreneurship methodology is a choice of an ap-
propriate teaching model. What is more appropriate – one project during one semester
or a few shorter projects? Both choices have some merits. One project-based course
teaches logics, consequence, and planning, whereas diversity is more attractive and
many shorter projects may teach solving more specifc problems, while the students’
roles in projects may change. At the Babson College, for example, learning resembles the
business cycle: creativity, opportunity recognition, the invention or discovery of a prod-
uct or service, assessment of the business opportunity, building the market and delivery
system, and growth and renewal (Kuratko 2003).
Te review of strategies for teaching entrepreneurship is provided by Carrier (2007).
She describes various simulations and games (computer-based simulations and beha-
vioural simulations), as well as original educational proposals (teaching through classics,
videos, life stories, use of a new venture expert script).
Tere are plenty of teaching methods, classifed in diferent groups (Table 2). How-
ever, in the practice of entrepreneurship education, teaching by the mix of methods
would be advised. Only diversity gives the chance to all aspects of entrepreneurship to be
included and enriches diverse entrepreneurial competences. Activating methods (seeking
method and cooperation method) that stimulate thinking by involving students in learn-
ing and interacting seem to gain in popularity during last years.
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 227
TABLE 2. Variety of teaching methods
Name of a method Aim of a model Tools
Delivery method to provide knowledge by facts and rules descriptions, lectures, manuals,
educational programmes
Teaching by doing to teach experiments, experience-based
activities
Direct method to present procedural knowledge explanations, labo classes
Seeking method to teach solving problems, seeking the
solutions, logics of thinking
problem exposing lectures and
cases
Cooperation method to teach a cooperation and team working projects, activating methods
Source: own proposition of classifcation by the author.
Te choice of the teaching method is related to the choice of attributes or compe-
tences the course is supposed to develop. Among the most popular are those leading to
comprehension and advancement of the entrepreneurial process:
• A habit of permanent seeking of opportunities in business and their evaluation,
• An ability to observe the business world and discover new possibilities between
unrelated issues,
• An ability to search for information
• Self-efcacy
• Self-confdence;
Taking into considerations the above competences, the following teaching activities
may be proposed: an exercise of venture creation (preferably team based), an exercise
of interviewing the entrepreneur from the students’ close environment, an exercise of
identifying global and regional trends, based on case studies, or an exercise of search-
ing information about a particular market or sector, the competitiveness, competitors
profle, contacts, networks.
As it was already mentioned, usually entrepreneurship education implements non-
traditional teaching methods. One of the most ofen practiced ways of supporting new
venture creations is however teaching business planning. Business planning provokes
many controversies nowadays. For Delmar and Shane (2003) it is a valuable and efective
activity helping to make decisions and attain goals, whereas for example Baron (1998)
accuses fallacy planning for entrepreneurs’ failures, while Carter et al. (1996) associate
success with action and doing rather than planning and thinking. Usually students ap-
preciate all “real world” practice and actuality of business problems. But what should be
taken into account is the fact that if we decide to include business planning as a part of
entrepreneurship education, then, not only writing but also discussing it in front of oth-
ers should be a part of a course.
Agnieszka Kurczewska 228
Te use of technology can be helpful in a process of teaching entrepreneurship. Edu-
cational technology may be based on computer and the Internet use or video making.
Regardless fnancial side of this kind of activities, the right proportion between “only fun”
and full commitment learning should also be kept. Technology should serve as a tool
only. For example, some scholars ask students to keep digital journals or blogs as an as-
signment. Tis kind of task gives a valuable possibility to follow students’ refections on
the learning process, however, only if students concentrate on the contents not on a form.
Students should be aware of some aspects of entrepreneurship even during the frst
session of the course. A good idea might be to discuss the following, to some extent
controversial, points:
• Starting up a frm is an act of courage and very ofen a critical moment of human life.
It usually requires a resignation from the hitherto life style, change of priorities, con-
frontation with unknown and uncertain (Cie?lik 2008). However, in the meantime,
it is a great challenge and adventure, and very ofen the only way to realize own am-
bitions and stay in line with own beliefs and values.
• Te chances to become successful in starting up a frm do not only have in-born en-
trepreneurs. Te formal education and knowledge in entrepreneurship increase sub-
stantially the probability of success.
• Starting up a business may happen during whole lifetime, not necessarily immedia-
tely afer studies.
• It is not crucial to have an extraordinary, exceptional, very innovative idea to start up
a business. A research conducted by Bhide (2000) shows that among 100 American
frms from “Inc. 500” list only 6% were delivering unique products, process, or servi-
ce. Tere is also the group of replicate entrepreneurs (Baumol 2004) who are persons
taking up a business initiative based on existing ideas. Tey do not ofer very innova-
tive products or service and their business concept is only a little bit better than com-
petitors’ ones.
• An idea is very important but a complete business concept even more (Cie?lik 2008).
And how to be efective?
Monitoring the result of teaching entrepreneurship is difcult. How to determine the
impact of entrepreneurship education on the decision to start a new venture? One way
seems to be monitoring of graduates. However, it is time consuming and does never give
an answer of the real impact, as we are never sure whether other factor did not infuence
the graduate’s decisions.
Te popular method is to check the changes in attitudes and intentionality of stu-
dents before and afer their participation in a course. Lena and Wong (2003) searched
for the relation between new venture creation and attitudes towards education in en-
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 229
trepreneurship. Afer surveying 1500 students, they discovered a positive correlation.
Similarly, the results of Rasheed (2000) indicate that students receiving entrepreneurial
training have higher motivation to achieve. Te results make a strong link between new
venture creation and entrepreneurial attitudes: motivation to achieve, a sense of per-
sonal control and self-esteem. Kolvereid and Moen (1997) indicate positive relationship
between education in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour, both for actual
behaviour and for behavioural intentions, by examining Norwegian business school
students. Similar fndings might be found in the papers of Clark et al. (1984). A posi-
tive relation between entrepreneurship education and students intentions for venture
creation seems to dominate in literature. However, for example, Oosterbeek et al. (2008)
prove a negative impact of entrepreneurship programmes on entrepreneurial compe-
tencies and intentions.
Te question that educators still pose is whether the teaching to identify entrepre-
neurial opportunities is possible. For example, De Tienne and Chandler (2004) admit
that it is possible to teach opportunity recognition, but for instance Saks and Gaglio’s
(2002) exploratory research provides contradictory results. In-depth interviews of 14
well-known entrepreneurship teachers led to the conclusion that teaching opportunity
evaluation is possible, whereas teaching opportunity recognition, or creation, is rather
difcult, if not impossible. However, nearly three quarters of the respondents hoped that
the students would in fact be able to learn to identify potential business ideas. Carrier
(2005) argues that we should be more creative and put more emphasis on creating the
business idea, not to evaluate imitated ideas.
One of other basic question posed by the scholars is: does a course or programme
in entrepreneurship help or facilitate new venture creation? Te dominant stress on ef-
fectiveness sometimes covers such important issues as the students’ understanding of
venture creation (opportunity identifcation and development). Structure of the courses
refects the educators’ approach to venture creation. Most of the research on entrepre-
neurship education seeks to pursuit the efectiveness of the education, but as Fiet (2000)
explains, teaching entrepreneurship needs frst an assumption on the exis-tence of the
process that can be explained theoretically. What is more, the question how to teach
should be preceded by the question: who is taught. Better understanding of students’
perception of venture creation and entrepreneurial process is necessary.
Challenges for the future
Constructing the bridge between education and entrepreneurship is not an easy task.
However, we may experience nowadays a growing interest in entrepreneurship educa-
tion all over the world. Entrepreneurship education is a promising feld. It is challenging
for teachers, as it demands crossing the borders between disciplines, and it is demand-
Agnieszka Kurczewska 230
ing for students, as it requires active learning and engagement. It is also challenging for
institutions (like universities) as it requires acceptance of non-conventional teaching in-
terventions and innovative methods. Entrepreneurship education has expanded during
the last three decades. A contemporary paradigm of entrepreneurship learning suggests
that educators create learning experiences for students while they create the content that
educates. To achieve that, entrepreneurship educators should have the same innovative
drive that is expected from their students (Kuratko 2003). Teaching entrepreneurship
becomes a challenge as it means developing and enhancing entrepreneurial skills and
competences.
Another important challenge is to overcome a popular belief that entrepreneurship
is only an innate feature, therefore if a person is entrepreneurial, regardless of the educa-
tion, she or he will start a business, so the learning aspect is abandoned. It is a belief com-
pletely not understandable and not justifed. In Poland, the myth of a poorly educated
and sometimes unethical entrepreneur still poses a challenge to fght against.
However, foremost the challenge remains to improve the quality of entrepreneur-
ship courses. One of the ways to achieve better quality in teaching is to search what
students’ intentions are. As a result, many intention models were constructed (in par-
ticular based on the works of Shapero and Sokol 1982, or Ajzen 1991). Tey are aimed at
seeking determinants of human entrepreneurial intentions, apart in background factors,
in perceived feasibility and perceived desirability of being an entrepreneur. By knowing
the factors infuencing the students’ entrepreneurial intention (their antecedents) educa-
tors are able to design programmes that are more accurate and chose more appropriate
teaching methods. Another way to improve the quality of teaching is to recognize and
study how students identify, evaluate, and fnally exploit opportunities. Te nature and
dynamics of the process from idea generation to venture creation determines the charac-
ter of teaching interventions.
Entrepreneurship education is not a fad or one season fashion; it is a reality and
requirement of modern world. We have to implement quickly more advanced entre-
preneurship courses in Poland in order to stay competitive, at the university, regional
and national level, as well in order to become more entrepreneurial society, to increase
employment and to encourage innovation and induce knowledge-based economy. En-
trepreneurial competences are desirable in all environments.
Notes
1
A part of the paper was presented during European Summer University, Entrepreneurship in Europe –
Innovations in Pedagogy, at Dauphine University in Paris, September 2008.
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 231
References
Ajzen I. (1991), Te theory of planned behavior, “Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes”,
vol. 50, 1991
Alvarez S.A., Barney J.B. (2007), Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action, “Stra-
tegic Entrepreneurship Journal” No 1, pp. 11–26
Béchard J.P., Grégoire D., (2007), Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for entrepreneurship education: mo-
del and illustrations, Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 1. (Fayolle A., ed.), Chetel-
ham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing
Baron R. (1998), Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs think diferently
than other people, “Journal of Business Venturing” No 13, 275–294
Baumol W.J. (2004), Entrepreneurship and small Business; Towards a program of Research, FSF, Stockholm
Bhide A.V. (2000), Te Origin and Evolution of New Business, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Carland J.W., Hoy F., Boulton W.R. Carland J.A.C. (1984), Diferentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business
Owners: A Conceptualization, “Academy of Management Review” No 9
Carter N.M., Gartner W.B., Reynolds P.D. (1996), Exploring start-up event sequences. “Journal of Business
Venturing” No 11, pp. 151–166
Carrier C. (2005), Pedagogical challenges in entrepreneurship education, [in:] P. Kyrö & C. Carrier (eds.), Te
dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context (pp. 136–158), Hämmeenlinna:
University of Tampere
Carrier C. (2007), Strategies for teaching entrepreneurship: what else beyond lectures, case studies and busi-
ness plans? [in:] A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (vol. 1, pp. 143–172),
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Charney A., Libecap G.D., (2000), Te Impact of Entrepreneurship Education: An Evaluation of the Berger
Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona 1985–1999, Te Kaufman Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership, Final report, May 23
Cie?lik J. (2008), Przedsi?biorczo?? dla ambitnych. Jak uruchomi? w?asny biznes, Wydawnictwa Akademickie
i Profesjonalne, Warszawa
Cie?lik J. (2008), University-level entrepreneurship education in Poland, Proceedings of ICELM-3, Tîrgu Mu-
re?, Romaniahttp://www.upm.ro/proiecte/EEE/Conferences/papers/S604.pdf
Clark B.W., Davis C.H., Harnish V.C. (1984), Do courses in entrepreneurship aid in new venture creation?
“Journal of Small Business Management”
Cooper S., Bottomley C., Gordon J. (2004), Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: An
experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education, “Industry and Higher Education”, vol. 18 No 1,
pp. 11–22
Delmar F., and Shane S. (2003), Does business planning facilitate the development of new ventures? “Strategic
Management Journal”, No 24(12), pp. 1165–1185
DeTienne D.R., Chandler G.N. (2004), Opportunity identifcation and its role in the entrepreneurial classro-
om: a pedagogical approach and empirical test, “Academy of Management Learning and Education”, No 3(3),
pp. 242–257
Dreisler P. (2008), Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action: the Entrepreneurial Process, Teaching En-
trepreneurship
Fayolle A., Gailly B., Lassas-Clerc N. (2007), Towards a new methodology to assess the entrepreneurship te-
aching programmes, [in] A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (vol. 1, pp.
187–197), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Agnieszka Kurczewska 232
Fiet J. (2000a), Te theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship, “Journal of Business Venturing” No 16, pp. 1–24
Fiet J. (2000b), Te pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory, “Journal of Business Venturing” No 16, pp.
101–117
Gibb A. (1987), Education for Enterprise: Training for Small Business Initiation - Some Contrasts, “Journal of
Small Business and Entrepreneurship”, No 4(3)
Gorman G., Hanlon D., King W. (1997), Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise
education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review, “International Small
Business Journal”, vol. 15 No 3
Heinonen J., Hytti U. (2008), Enterprising individuals from an entrepreneurial university: entrepreneurship
programmes in non-business and business schools, “Te Finnish Journal of Business Economic”, No 3
Heinonen J., Poikkijoki S.A. (2006), An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education:
mission impossible? “Journal of Management Development”, Vol. 25 No 1, pp. 80–94
Hill G.E. (1988), Variations in university entrepreneurship education: an empirical study of an evolving feld,
“Journal of Business Venturing” No 3, pp. 109–122
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, Vol. 46 Iss: 1, pp.
11–23
Jones C., English J. (2004), A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education, “Education and Tra-
ining”, Vol. 46, No 8/9, pp. 416–423
Kirby D. (2007), Changing the entrepreneurship education paradigm. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of rese-
arch in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 21–45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Kolvereid L., Moen Ø. (1997), Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship
make a diference?, “Journal of European Industrial Training”, Vol. 21 No 4, pp. 154–160
Kuratko D. (2003), Entrepreneurship education: emerging trends and challenges for the 21st century, 2003
Coleman Foundation White Paper Series for the U.S. Association of Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Kyrö P. (2008), A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship, “International Journal of
Business and Globalisation”, Vol. 2, No 1
Klapper R., Tegtmeier S. (2010), Innovating entrepreneurial pedagogy - examples from France and Germany,
“Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, Vol. 17, No 4
Klofsten M., J.-E. Dylan (2000), Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe – Te Case of Sweden and
Ireland, Small Business Economics, 14(4), June, pp. 299–309
Leitch C., Harrison R.T. (1999), A process model for entrepreneurship education and development Internatio-
nal Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, 1999, pp. 83–109
Lena L. and Wong P.-K. (2003), Attitude towards entrepreneurship education and new venture creation, Jour-
nal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 2003, pp. 339–357
Liñán, F. (2004): “Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education”, Piccolla Impresa / Small Business,
Iss. 3, pp. 11–35
Liñán, F. (2007). Te role of entrepreneurship education in the entrepreneurial process. In A. Fayolle (Ed.),
Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 230–247). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C., Rueda-Cantuche J.M. (2010). Factors afecting entrepreneurial intention
levels: a role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, March 2010
McMullen C., Long M.B. (1988), Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges, Journal of Manage-
ment, 1988, 14(2), pp. 139–161
Entrepreneurship as an Element of Academic Education – International Experiences... 233
Oosterbeek H., van Praag M., Jsselstein A., (2008), Te Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepre-
neurship Competencies and Intentions: An Evaluation of the Junior Achievement Student Mini-Company
Program, Discussion Paper Series, IZA DP No. 3641, August 2008, pp. 1–24
Pittaway and Cope (2007), Entrepreneurship Education. A Systematic Review of the Evidence, International
Small Business Journal 2007; 25; 479–510
Rasheed H.S. (2000) Developing Entrepreneurial Potential in Youth: Te Efects of Entrepreneurial Educa-
tion and Venture Creation,http://usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/proceedingsDocs/USASBE2001proce-
edings-063.PDF
Rasmussen E., R. Sørheim (2006), Action-based entrepreneurship education, Technovation 26(2), pp. 185–194
Reitan, B. (1997). Where do we learn that entrepreneurship is feasible, desirable and/or proftable? - a look at
the processes leading to entrepreneurial potential. San Francisco, CA., paper presented to the International
Council for Small Business
Ronstadt R. (1987), Te Educated Entrepreneurs: A New Era of Entrepreneurial Education is Beginning.,
American Journal of Small Business, 11(4)
Saks N. T., Gaglio C.M. (2002), Can opportunity identifcation be taught?, Journal of Enterprising Culture,
Vo. 10, no. 4., December 2002, pp. 313-347
Sánchez, J.C. (2010). University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention of venture
creation, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 2010
Tegtmeier, S., Asplund, C., Bengtsson, L., Klapper, R., Kurczewska, A., Kyrö, P., Leger-Jarniou, C., Pruvli,
E., Tzeremes, N.G. and Vliamos, S.J. (2009), Increasing Entrepreneurial Intentions through Innovations in Pe-
dagogy: European Approaches, Programmes, and Tools, 2009 ICSB World Conference, Te Dynamism of Small
Business: Teory, Practice, and Policy, 21-24 June, Seoul, Korea
Venkataraman, S. (1997). Te Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor’s Perspective. Ad-
vances in Entrepreneurship. J. Katz and R. Brockhaus. Greenwich, JAI Press. 3:119-138
Vesper, K.H. and McMullen, W.E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow degrees? Entrepreneur-
ship Teory and Practice, 13(1), pp. 7-13
doc_132739547.pdf