Description
Outline interpret fundamental view of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education inna kozlinska.
University of Tartu
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
FUNDAMENTAL VIEW OF THE OUTCOMES
OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Inna Kozlinska
Tartu 2012
ISSN-L 1406-5967
ISSN 1736-8995
ISBN 978-9985-4-0729-5
The University of Tartu FEBA
www.mtk.ut.ee/research/workingpapers
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 3
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education
Inna Kozlinska
1
Abstract
The research paper presents a holistic framework of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education
(EE) at educational and socio-economic levels. Employing the general scientific research methods,
monograph and logical construction, the author investigates the fundamental origins of the
European Competence Framework for entrepreneurial learning and identifies a scientific
justification for its implementation. This work is also the first to exploit an integral view of
entrepreneurship as a combination of employability, intrapreneurship and venture creation – for
measuring the impact of entrepreneurship education, and to set linkages between learning outcomes
in real life and educational settings. The target audiences for this paper include entrepreneurship
educators, researchers and EE decision-makers.
JEL Classification: I21, I25, M13, M53
Keywords: entrepreneurship education, training/learning outcomes, European Competence
Framework, intrapreneurship, fundamental research.
1
Inna Kozlinska ([email protected]) is a project researcher in the Centre for Entrepreneurship, Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, Estonia; ([email protected]) and PhD student in
BA School of Business and Finance, Riga, Latvia.
The author acknowledges financial support of the European Social Fund provided by BA School of Business and
Finance (project No. 2009/0164/1DP/1.1.2.1.2/09/IPIA/VIAA/012) for doctoral students in cooperation with the
Investment and Development Agency of Latvia. She is also grateful to the Archimedes Foundation and Estonian
Ministry of Education and Research for the scholarship programme open to researchers and PhD students from the
Republic of Latvia.
4 Inna Kozlinska
1. INTRODUCTION
By far, the majority of researchers, practitioners and policy makers admit that entrepreneurship
education (EE) produces measurable outcomes (Charney & Libecap, 2008; EC, 2012a; Harrison
& Leitch, 2008; Martinez et al., 2010; Müller & Diensberg, 2011; OECD, 2009), which vary
across countries and institutions, study programmes and participants (Fayolle, 2007; Fayolle &
Klandt, 2006; Fayolle & Kyrö, 2008; Kyrö & Carrier, 2005; OECD, 2009). In practice,
formulations can be divided into two groups or levels: educational and socio-economic.
Educational or learning outcomes are scattered throughout the European Competence Framework
(hereinafter – “ECF”), which puts forward knowledge, attitude and skills as learning outcomes
(EC, 2004; EC, 2012a; EC, 2012b; ECOTEC, 2010; EU, 2006; Heder et al., 2011), as well as
similar “triadic concepts”. EE outcomes can also be grouped by learning types: cognitive,
affective and skill-based, business-specific and interpersonal (Fisher et al., 2008; in Harrison &
Leitch, 2008); other views consider: behaviours, attributes and skills (Gibb, 2005); knowledge,
skills, behaviour (Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2006); attitudes, capabilities and skills (Hytti, 2002), to
mention a few.
Some sources refer to the “impact” and/or “effect” and broaden our understanding of EE
outcomes from the purely educational to the socio-economic level, entailing employability,
intrapreneurship and new venture creation (Blenker et al., 2006; Bridge et al., 2010; EC, 2012a;
Martinez et al., 2010; OECD, 2009). In effect, these are real-life outcomes pursuing the ultimate
aim of higher education – preparing students for an economically viable working life (Gibb et al.,
2009). Still, a number of variations using these terms can be found in the thematic literature; for
instance, the “impact of training on entrepreneurial outcomes” (Matlay, 2008), the “impact of
EE” (Charney & Libecap, 2008), meaning the measurable influence of EE. This article relies on
the sources that use the terms “impact” and/or “effect” in relation to the socio-economic aspect
and treats them synonymously with “outcomes”.
However, the learning outcomes of EE remain largely detached from real-life outcomes, and the
interrelations among these have not been researched extensively. As entrepreneurship itself is a
result of many influences, different views on EE outcomes exist, and therefore, a single model
cannot meet the requirements of a wide stakeholder group. Along with the need for understanding
paradigms and models of learning and teaching entrepreneurship (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005;
Kyrö, 2005; in Kyrö & Carrier), there is a need to establish a systemic view of EE outcomes,
since, in line with the continental approach to education (Fayolle & Kyrö, 2008), models and
paradigms precede actions (Choi, 1993).
This research paper presents a holistic framework of the outcomes of EE at both educational and
socio-economic levels (Mets, 2006) for application in further empirical studies within a related
doctoral project – formulating hypotheses based on inter-linkages among the outcomes,
elaborating a questionnaire and measuring the results. The paper employs general scientific
research methods – logical construction, and monographic and graphic tools. The main research
tasks are:
- to investigate the scientific origins of the ECF for entrepreneurial learning and identify a
scientific justification for its existence/implementation
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 5
- to compare the ECF with other views of EE outcomes, and evaluate them from the
perspective of the latest developments in entrepreneurship research (including those in
psychology and education)
- to integrate the socio-economic and learning outcomes of EE.
First of all, when determining the learning outcomes of EE, we have to distinguish between the
learning outcomes of general education and EE, as well as justify bringing models from education
and psychology to EE (i.e. general training outcomes described by Kraiger et al. (1993) reflected
in Fisher et al. (2008) or Snow & Jackson’s (1997) constructs transferred to EE by Rouhotie &
Koiranen (2000; cited in Kyrö, 2008)) – to what extent they are relevant and what
entrepreneurship-specific elements are considered. Secondly, it is necessary to align the
objectives and outcomes, since the aims
2
of EE programmes and the means for achieving them
determine the outcomes being sought (Gibb, 2005; OECD, 2009). Thirdly, once fundamental
arguments for existing views have been found, the assertion is that the socio-economic and
learning outcomes will be interconnected, but real life truly differentiates EE from other
disciplines in higher education.
The following section provides insights into writing the ECF-based learning outcomes in general
education and attempts to explain why the ECF is broadly used in EE. In addition, it contains a
discussion of alternative approaches to outcomes at the educational level, and some aspects of
aligning the teaching modes, aims and outcomes of EE. As a result, the next section introduces
the first part of the target framework that addresses the learning outcomes of EE. The third
section focuses on the socio-economic outcomes of EE, and offers arguments for a broader view
of entrepreneurship, beyond the common idea of “venture creation”, to bring in core measures of
EE for the second part of the framework this paper introduces. The final section, preceding the
conclusion, combines and expands the results of the analytical overview from the previous
sections to construct the holistic framework of EE outcomes.
2. FIRST PART OF THE FRAMEWORK: LEARNING OUTCOMES
OF EE
2.1 ECF approach to writing learning outcomes
The European Competence Framework (ECF), as a key competence-based approach to learning
outcomes, is widely accepted in Europe (especially, for higher education and lifelong learning) –
it is used in reports and documents for the European Commission (EC, 2012a,b; EC, 2007; EU,
2006, etc.), in research by European organisations; for example, the South-East European Centre
for Entrepreneurial Learning (Heder et al., 2011), the Stationery Office of the UK (Davies, 2002)
and in publications and works by individual authors (Gibb, 1993; Matlay, 2008; Mets, 2010). In
order to go into the details of the application of the ECF in EE, it is necessary to first answer
some questions that relate to general education: what are competences and what is the theoretical
foundation of the ECF.
2
In this paper, “aims” are synonymous with “objectives” and “goals”.
6 Inna Kozlinska
Within the ECF, competences are the combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and at the
same time, learning outcomes (e.g., EU, 2006; Heder et al., 2011), but this is not the only
accepted interpretation, even among official European sources. For example, the European
Qualifications Framework (EQF) interprets “competences” in a more narrow sense and sets them
together with knowledge and skills jointly referred to as “learning outcomes” – what a learner
knows, understands and is able to do on completion of a study process (EU, 2008; Grün et al.,
2009; Helgoy & Homme, 2011). In contrast, a broader meaning based on Hannula and Pajari-
Stylman (2008) incorporates action management, especially, social interaction, flexibility, coping
with uncertainty and a willingness to change. This leads to the issue of constituents, since, for
instance, the ability to interact socially is a skill, and the willingness to change is an attitude. In
case the ECF allows classification of diverse educational outcomes into its three major categories,
then there should be no conflicting arguments in defining competences, with an exception for
hybrid outcomes, such as creativity, which can represent both a skill and an attitude.
Irrespective of the fact that both the ECF and EQF are purely educational frameworks (i.e. they
carry a broad meaning and can be applied to any study programme), only the former is widely
used in EE. Why is that? Up until now, practically no other source, apart from Fisher et al. (in
Harrison & Leitch, 2008), supplied, or even attempted to supply, enough theoretical reasoning for
the application of the ECF in EE. This paper will reveal the theoretical foundation of this
framework dating back to the 1950s.
A retrospective analysis of literature sources revealed that the ECF has fundamental grounds in
the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Originated by the American educational psychologist
Benjamin Bloom (1956), its current version consists of three domains of learning: cognitive
(dealing with knowledge, comprehension and critical thinking), affective (concerning attitudes,
emotions and feelings) and psycho-motor (focusing on change/development in behaviour/skills)
(Churches, 2008; Kennedy et al., 2006; Krathwohl, 2002). All three domains are hierarchical,
where the essentials exist at earlier levels, and each level assumes mastery at lower levels. For
example, cognitive outcomes evolve from knowledge (the ability to recall or remember facts) to
evaluation (the ability to judge the value of material). The taxonomy also features an ascending
order of complexity within the outcomes components.
In the 1950s cognitive learning paradigm, where the idea of knowledge served as an
epistemological basis with no relation to the environment, was still relevant (Kyrö, 2005).
Notwithstanding the constructivist paradigm brought into play during the postmodern transition
in the 1970s, Kraiger et al. offered three-dimensional constructs for general education and
training in 1993, featuring many similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy, in effect being derived
from it. However, Kraiger et al. (1993) suggest a slightly different order, still starting the ladder
from cognitive, proceeding to skills-based (or psycho-motor) and ending with affective outcomes.
Otherwise, every dimension replicates Bloom’s Taxonomy very closely in terms of content,
mentioning abilities, values, behaviour and skills (e.g. naturalisation vs. automaticity,
characterisation vs. motivational disposition, etc.). Table 1 shows the composition of these
learning outcomes.
It is quite evident that those constituents of general educational outcomes in Table 1 (except
“imitation”) focus on the individual isolated from other people and mainly his/her cognitive,
analytical abilities, which is natural for a supply teaching model in higher education (Béchard &
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 7
Grégoire, 2005). Even in skills-based outcomes, Kraiger et al. (1993) mentions procedural
knowledge, and both sources tend to highlight precision and accuracy – in a sense, error-
avoidance.
Table 1. General education and training outcomes featuring an ascending order of complexity
B. Bloom (1956) K. Kraiger (1993)
1. Cognitive outcome 1. Cognitive outcomes
Knowledge
The ability to recall or remember
facts without necessarily
understanding them.
Declarative
knowledge
Information about what:
verbally-based, task-relevant
knowledge.
Comprehension
The ability to understand and
interpret learned information.
Mental models
Cognitive maps developed by
trainees to organise and integrate
received knowledge.
Application
The ability to use learned material
in new situations
Meta-cognitive
skills, self-insight
Knowledge of one’s own
cognition: planning, monitoring
and revising goal-appropriate
behaviour; self-regulation, self-
control and self-assessment.
Analysis
The ability to break down
information into its components.
Synthesis
The ability to put parts together.
Evaluation
The ability to judge the value of
material for a given purpose.
2. Affective outcomes 2. Skill-based outcomes
Receiving A willingness to receive
information.
Composition Mental grouping of steps by
linking earlier learned
procedures into a more complex
production.
Responding Active participating in own
learning.
Valuing
Acceptance and commitment to
chosen values.
Proceduralisation Building discrete behaviour into
a routine; procedural knowledge.
Organisation
Refers to the process that
individuals go through as they
bring together different values.
Automatic
processing, tuning
A shift from controlled to
automatic processing; enables
task accomplishment without
verbalisation; improved
accuracy, generalised
applicability.
Characterisation
The individual has a value system
in terms of beliefs, ideas and
attitudes that control behaviour in
a consistent manner.
3. Psycho-motor outcomes 3. Affective outcomes
Imitation
Observing the behaviour of
another person and copying this
behaviour.
Targeted object,
attitude strength
Organisational commitment,
creative individualism, tolerance
of diversity, inner growth, self-
awareness, changing values,
behavioural modelling.
Manipulation
Ability to perform certain actions
by following instructions and
practicing skills.
Precision
The ability to carry out a task with
few errors.
Motivational
disposition, self-
efficacy, goal
setting
Mastery and performance
orientation, perception of own
capabilities to perform
endeavours; motivated
behaviour, expertise.
Articulation
Ability to co-ordinate a series of
actions by combining two or more
skills.
Naturalisation A high level of performance
naturally (“without thinking”).
Sources: Kennedy et al. (2006); Kraiger et al. (1993)
8 Inna Kozlinska
However, if we think of an individual as a purely social being, mistakes are very natural and part
of his/her learning process. A willingness to receive information might not appear at all in the
context of emotional discouragement from the constant transmission and memorising of
information. On the contrary, when placed in a context necessitating interaction with the external
environment, the individual obtains affective knowledge, which is easier to memorise and
reproduce; authentic social settings imply the development of social competences especially
relevant for EE. For this reason the composition of the learning outcomes in Table 1 are rather
out-dated not only for EE, but also for general education. The question remains, whether the
general structure of the ECF can be used in EE – is the application of this framework justified?
2.2 ECF-based learning outcomes of EE
The authors and sources that deal with EE and research particularly represent two groups: those
following the ECF and those using other frameworks or schemes of learning outcomes for EE.
This subsection sheds light on the ECF-based learning outcomes of EE.
Along with the shift in the learning paradigm towards constructivism, teaching in higher
education also developed towards competence-based approaches, broadening within EE to meet
real-life demands (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005; Braun, 2011). Within the European Framework for
Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (EC, 2007; EU, 2006), entrepreneurship is defined as
one of eight basic competences (together with mathematical, linguistic, digital and others) and the
foundation for all developments required to contribute to social or commercial activity, where the
basis for entrepreneurship lies in educational sciences and theories. Hence, it is not surprising
that in order to define the learning outcomes, the model from education was also adopted in
entrepreneurship programmes, being the most influential channel for making a societal change.
Still, proof of its applicability lies in components of entrepreneurship-specific outcomes coupled
with empirical factors that are no less relevant.
The European Commission has recently published results of an empirical study, where
researchers assessed every EE learning outcome, measuring its constituents (as per Table 2) and
found that EE had a positive impact on the key competences of individuals (EC, 2012a:8). In fact,
the study proved that the ECF matches entrepreneurial key competence
3
education (Braun, 2011).
The ECOTEC report “Towards Greater Cooperation and Coherence in EE” (2010:10) refers to
knowledge, skills and attitudes as “the desired outcomes of EE”. Generally, attitudes refers to
taking responsibility for one’s own learning and career (i.e. the set of skills needed to turn ideas
into actions and knowledge), and having a broad understanding and knowledge of
entrepreneurship including the role entrepreneurs play in modern economies and societies (ibid,
2010).
The overview shows that interpretations of ECF-related learning outcomes within EE differ (see
Table 2). Once again, the issue of prioritisation emerges. For instance, the EC (2012a) prioritises
outcomes starting from attitudes to skills and knowledge, while EC (2012b) – from knowledge to
skills and attitudes. Heder et al. (2011) and Fisher et al. (2008), in turn, use the same order as in
the ECF for general education, or as in Kraiger et al. (1993), from knowledge to skills and
attitudes. In these cases, the learning outcomes are hierarchical; similar to the earlier constructs of
learning outcomes in general education. There is no clear theoretical explanation, however, for
why motivation is a part of “skills” in EC (2012a), while in EC (2012b) and ECOTEC (2010) it is
3
A composition of an entrepreneurial attitude, skills and knowledge of entrepreneurship (EC, 2012a).
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 9
an attitudinal component; the position of “creativity” likewise differs; we can also regard
“opportunity recognition” as the “skills” component, and “commitment” as “attitude”.
Table 2. Constituents of the ECF
EC (2012a)
1. Attitude 2. Skills 3. Knowledge
Risk propensity
Need for achievement
Self-efficacy
Structural behaviour
Creativity
Analysis
Motivation
Networking
Adaptability
Understanding of
entrepreneurship theory and
the phenomenon per se
EC (2012b) &
ECOTEC (2010)
1. Knowledge 2. Skills 3. Attitudes
Opportunity recognition
Understanding the broad picture
and context of work life and
economy
Understanding of business start-
ups and procedures
Innovation and creativity pro-
cesses
Entrepreneurial process
Ethics of enterprises
Planning
Organisation
Management
Leadership
Team and individual
work
Negotiation
Risk-taking
Lateral thinking
Commitment
Independence and inno-
vation
Social confidence
Motivation
Determination to meet
objectives
Creativity and imagination
Curiosity
Ambition and drive
Initiative
Tolerance to failure
Self-belief
The most important elements in the new composition shown in Table 2 are the presence of such
constituents as “team work”, “negotiation”, “lateral thinking”, “creativity”, “ethics” and so on, as
well as a number of affective aspects (like “tolerance of failure” and “social confidence”), crucial
in effect in the life of any individual, not only entrepreneurs. These constituents evidently form a
different meaning here than in Bloom’s original Taxonomy.
Fisher et al. (2008) provide another solid example based on over 25 prominent experts in
entrepreneurship research and EE that supports ECF (e.g. Baron, 2000; Baron & Locke, 2003;
Gibb, 1993; Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994; Timmons, 1995; Rae, 2000; etc.), although the three-
dimensional approach is anchored in Kraiger et al. (1993). This time, the social element is not
transparent in the “affective” outcomes, though it appears in the “skills-based” outcomes. As
Table 3 shows, the outcomes are divided into business-specific (related to business concepts and
actions) and interpersonal (social, psychological) aspects. This classification envisages more
skill-based components to measure than outlined in Table 2. Indeed, commenting on the
prioritisation of domains, the authors admit that “the framework’s explicit recognition of
cognitive learning may provide a necessary counterweight to the emphasis on skill-based learning
of entrepreneurs” (Fisher et al., 2008:319). However, since the adaptation of Bloom’s Taxonomy,
it is the cognitive aspect that has been overemphasised as fundamental. Once again the attitudinal
component remains rather underestimated, although Fisher et al. also provide empirical evidence
for this approach.
Given the competence-based model in contemporary education and the justified applicability of
the ECF in EE, it is more important to propose developing and measuring those constituents,
which are inherent to enterprising and entrepreneurial personalities. Once they repeat or open
10 Inna Kozlinska
different angles in various entrepreneurship (and EE) research sources, we can select or omit
particular constituents for further measurement purposes.
Table 3. EE learning outcomes according to Fisher et al. (2008)
Business-specific content Interpersonal content
Cognitive
Basics of accounting, finance, technology,
marketing
Knowledge of how to get things done without
resources
Understanding risk
Knowledge of personal fit with entrepreneurship
career
Skill-based
Conducting market research, assessing the
marketplace
Marketing products and services
Recognising and acting on business
opportunities
Creating a business plan, incl. financials
Obtaining financing
Developing a strategy
Identifying strategic partners
Risk management
Persuasion, getting people excited about your ideas
Listening
Setting priorities and focusing on goals
Defining and communicating the vision
Leadership, motivating others
Active learning
Dealing with customers
Managing people
Resolving conflict
Adapting to new situations, coping with uncertainty
Affective
Entrepreneurial spirit
Passion for entrepreneurship
Self-efficacy for entrepreneurship
Commitment to business venture
Self-confidence, self-esteem
Need for achievement, motivation to excel
Source: Fisher et al. (2008)
In addition to the ECF-based approaches there are other prominent views of the learning
outcomes in EE (e.g. Alan Gibb and Paula Kyrö). One more relevant topic in this discussion is
teaching aims in entrepreneurship pedagogy and how they relate to the learning outcomes.
2.3 Other views of learning outcomes in EE and their alignment with
teaching aims
Despite the ECF being widespread, no universally accepted approach to writing learning
outcomes for EE exists even in entrepreneurship research. Moreover, not only do developments
in education and entrepreneurship influence approaches to EE learning outcomes, but so do
developments in the field of psychology. This subsection highlights alternatives to the ECF that
offer relevant comparisons and draw out implications for the target framework. Furthermore, this
necessitates the discussion of matching learning outcomes with modes of teaching and the aims
of entrepreneurship study programmes, which has a direct influence on the concluding arguments
in this article.
In the latest call for proposals in EE, the European Commission (EC, 2012b) elaborates the
approach to writing learning outcomes from Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006), who state that the
objectives of the EE programme are “to increase understanding and knowledge of
entrepreneurship, thus, infusing entrepreneurial skills and behaviour” (p.81) for the
entrepreneurial process, which can be attributed to outcomes for the purposes of this discussion.
However, an investigation of this approach uncovered that behaviours, skills and attributes were
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 11
transformed into attitudes, skills and knowledge, and the subsequent entrepreneurial process and
behaviour in the EC’s sources (2012a; 2012b).
Gibb (2005), in turn, sets the triadic variation of behaviours, attributes and skills as EE outcomes
too. Table 4 demonstrates that the constituents mostly coincide with the ECF, though less its
cognitive dimension. “Attributes” here resemble “attitudes”, and “behaviours” – “skills” in the
ECF. The presence of creativity is apparent in every outcome: “creative problem solving” in
“skills”, “creativity” as an attribute; “putting things together creatively” and “solving problems
creatively”, but in “behaviours”. Since the beginning of the 19
th
century, when J.-B. Say (1803)
coined the term “entrepreneur”, he also emphasised vital and creative roles of entrepreneurs in the
economy. A century later, J. Schumpeter (1934) connected the term closely with innovation and
creative destruction. Most probably, Gibb, the bright representative of entrepreneurship research,
avoids the cognitive aspect on purpose as overemphasised in other sources, and underlines the
intrinsic components, such as creativity, independence/autonomy, intuition, etc. What is also
important, he underlines “preference for learning-by-doing” as a typically entrepreneurial
attribute.
Table 4. EE learning outcomes according to Gibb (2005)
Behaviours • opportunity seeking and grasping
• taking the initiative to make things happen
• solving problems creatively
• managing autonomously
• taking responsibility for/ownership of things
• seeing things through
• networking effectively to manage
interdependence
• putting things together creatively
• using judgment to take calculated risks
Attributes - achievement orientation and ambition
- self-confidence and self-belief
- perseverance
- high internal locus of control (autonomy)
- action orientation
- preference for learning-by-doing
- hard-working
- determination
- creativity
Skills creative problem solving
persuading
negotiating
selling
proposing
holistically managing business/
projects/situations
strategic thinking
intuitive decision-making in the context of
uncertainty
networking
Source: Gibb (2005)
Apart from strong educational input, EE outcomes are seriously affected by psychological
influences (especially Social Cognitive Theory and Behaviourism) that are indeed very natural in
any attempt to decode entrepreneurial personalities, their motivation, behaviour, self-esteem etc.
These influences are particularly salient in the theoretical framework for teaching and learning
entrepreneurship introduced by Kyrö (2008) based on Rouhotie and Koiranen’s (2000)
Personality and Intelligence Constructs (PIC), which is particularly relevant to the current
discussion. The framework also suggests three constructs or domains emerging in the process of
the interaction between personality and intelligence, which differ slightly from the ECF –
affection (temperament and emotions, incl. attitudes), conation (volition and motivation, incl.
self-efficacy) and cognition (declarative and procedural knowledge, incl. skills), where affection
is the basis of further developments. From this viewpoint, the ECF lacks the conative construct,
12 Inna Kozlinska
since motivation, need for achievement, behaviour and self-efficacy cannot be attributed to the
attitudinal component, and attitudes belong to affection.
However, there are a number of comments to make. Firstly, Gibb (2011:155) views self-efficacy
based on Bandura’s theory (1977) as an “emphasis on self-action, role model coding leading to
attitude development”. Self-efficacy is defined as the conviction that one can successfully execute
the behaviour required to produce outcomes (Bandura, 1994). Ajzen’s Theory of Planned
Behaviour (1985), in turn, states that attitudes form behaviours through entrepreneurial intentions
as predictors of the latter (Fayolle et al., 2006). Hence, attitude as part of affection in the PIC
does not necessarily precede self-efficacy; or, along with entrepreneurial behaviour and
intentions, self-efficacy can be attributed to attitudes in the ECF. Secondly, affection, conation
and cognition are known in psychology as the three parts of the human mind (Hilgard, 1980),
where conation “seems to include aspects of both “personality” and “intelligence”, but these
concepts are “cloudy, too molar and vague” (Snow and Jackson, 1997:3). Therefore, the PIC and
ECF do not contradict each other, and the most crucial implication from the PIC framework is its
consistency with the constructivist learning paradigm as it starts with an affective/attitudinal
component.
Gibb (2005) stresses the importance of aligning the aims of EE programmes with the outcomes
sought. From first sight, the common feature of the existing frameworks is a widespread
admittance of the general aims of EE and corresponding teaching modes. Table 5 illustrates these
aims: teach/learn to understand entrepreneurship, to become entrepreneurial, and teach/learn to
become an entrepreneur – aligned with the teaching modes – education about, through and for
entrepreneurship.
Table 5. Core aims of EE aligned with teaching modes and learning outcomes
Aim Explanation Mode Explicit learning outcome
To understand
entrepreneurship
The study of entrepreneurship as a phenomenon
and academic subject
ABOUT Knowledge
To become
entrepreneurial/
enterprising
Focusing on the entrepreneurial process:
enterprising/entrepreneurial individuals
discovering, evaluating and exploiting
opportunities
THROUGH Attitude, “enterprising”
skills
To become an
entrepreneur
The knowledge base and the skills needed to
start, develop and grow businesses
FOR “Entrepreneurial” skills
Sources: Blenker et al. (2006); EU (2006); Gibb (2005); Heinonen & Poikkijoki (2006); Hytti et al. (2010; 2004)
According to Hytti et al. (2010), the ?rst aim and mode (about) emphasises the study of
entrepreneurship as a phenomenon and academic subject, which actually matches the
“knowledge” outcome in the ECF. The second aim and mode (through) implies a process
approach to EE, where entrepreneurial and innovative individuals discover, evaluate and exploit
opportunities, develop enterprising skills, and this coincides with the “attitude” outcome and
“skills” in the meaning of a general readiness for entrepreneurship. The third goal (for)
emphasises both the knowledge base and entrepreneurial skills needed to start, develop and grow
businesses. However, one can hardly find a study programme that sets only the first aim – it is
rather a combination of two–three aims. Thus, Table 5 emphasises the explicit, or salient,
learning outcomes of the given aim-mode combinations.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 13
This subsection has shown how alternative views of the outcomes of EE grounded in
entrepreneurship research (A.Gibb) and psychology (P. Kyrö) differ from the education-grounded
ECF. This analysis underlined the particular importance of the attitudinal or ultimately the
behavioural component that can also be freely used in the ECF. As every aim and mode of EE
features the corresponding explicit outcome at the educational level, it can be argued that
teaching/learning to become enterprising and educating through entrepreneurship should be set at
the core of educational practices. The preceding subsection, therefore, provided a fundamental
explanation for the use of the ECF in EE, and set the scene for its further application, given some
hierarchical refinements.
Despite the theoretical discoveries concerning learning outcomes in general education and EE,
they represent only one aspect of the outcomes that EE produces. The next section entirely
focuses on the socio-economic outcomes that truly differentiate entrepreneurship from other
disciplines in higher education. Moreover, it is further hypothesised that these two groups of EE
outcomes are interconnected.
3. SECOND PART OF THE FRAMEWORK: SOCIO-ECONOMIC
OUTCOMES OF EE
The results of EE are typically measured on the basis of the number of start-ups generated, which
is explicable given the “tangibility” and ease of this measure. Another less tangible but quite
popular approach is to measure them in terms of entrepreneurial intentions (Mwasalwiba, 2010).
When indicating the outcomes of EE at educational and socio-economic levels respectively, both
measures encounter the problem of narrowness. Firstly, on the one hand, intentions to start an
enterprise evolve over time, and on the other hand, they do not always result in action. Secondly,
as far as EE is concerned, it does not set out to make every student an entrepreneur; therefore, the
question is how to measure the impact of EE among students that do not start up enterprises or
start them up much later. It has been admitted that along with a broader view of the objectives of
EE, the rate of new venture creation is not the only indicator for evaluating the results of
entrepreneurship programmes (Kozlinska, 2011), especially if a longitudinal study is not feasible
to accomplish. This section suggests two further important indicators to take into account in the
socio-economic part of the holistic framework.
Gibb (1996) states that there are three reasons for contemporary interest in entrepreneurship and
the education of new entrepreneurs: job creation and economic development, strategic
adjustment/realignment and deregulation of public utilities and state-owned enterprises.
According to Kirby (2006), competences developed as a result of EE should lead to self-
employment, economic self-sufficiency or employment generation, business survival or growth.
Moreover, entrepreneurship is an economic process that also organises social processes, but at
present society has to rely upon itself and develop a greater sense of enterprise and self-help
(Fayolle & Klandt, 2006), where the challenge is to develop entrepreneurial personalities going
beyond the commercial and apart from pure venture creation (Hytti, 2008; Kirby, 2006). This
position accords with the European socio-economic goals of EE programmes – to enhance the
attractiveness of graduates for employers, improve their role in society and economy and
encourage innovative business start-ups (EC, 2012a).
14 Inna Kozlinska
Based on Blenker et al. (2006), Braun (2011), Bridge et al. (2010), EC (2012a), Kirby (2006),
OECD (2009), OFEM (2008) and Martinez et al. (2010), employability and intrapreneurship are
distinguished as the main socio-economic outcomes of EE in addition to the common venture
creation.
Employability means being prepared to work for other people, equipped to obtain existing jobs –
by “selling” oneself to employers and by making progress over time (Bridge et al., 2010). The EC
(2012a) includes attempts to transit into self-employment in this category. These attempts can be
regarded as the highest level of employability, when a person feels ready to employ
himself/herself, which is hardly possible without him/her being enterprising. The concept of
intrapreneurship was introduced by Pinchot in 1976 and characterises entrepreneurial/enterprising
employees that are able to identify and exploit lucrative opportunities within a company (OFEM,
2008). Its tangible form can be a spin-out, the company’s new subsidiary or the launch of a new
product line – as a result of the implementation of an entrepreneurial initiative, which is usually
innovation-based, by an employee (ibid, 2008). Given that this is not a regular accomplishment, if
we limit ourselves to the “classical” meaning of intrapreneurship (OFEM, 2008), and not all
companies might explicitly support spin-outs or innovative activities, an intrapreneur is also
someone able to take on leading managerial positions within the company, thus acquiring
authority and a certain degree of independence for implementing his or her own ideas and
managing other people by behaving in an enterprising way (Hytti, 2008; Kirby, 2006) with the
difference that he/she takes less risks and, possibly, benefits financially in the long-term
compared to an entrepreneur. Finally, new venture creation is commonly tied to the establishment
of a new company, whether before or after graduation and its level of innovativeness (ibid, 2010;
EC, 2012a).
Employability, intrapreneurship and venture creation can also be regarded as second-level
outcomes of EE since they become salient as a result of learning outcomes. Contribution to
employment is predicated by understanding what the job requires appropriate knowledge and
skills (Bridge et al., 2010). Intrapreneurship is a wider concept of entrepreneurial behaviour, also
called “corporate entrepreneurship” or “intra-corporate venturing”, closely linked with creativity,
innovation, risk-taking, new learning, redistribution of resources and featuring a lot of similarities
with “attitude” as a learning outcome (Hytti, 2008; OFEM, 2008). New venture creation assumes
concrete entrepreneurial activity backed up by relevant knowledge (most often – business
planning), awareness, attitude, intentions and behaviour (Martinez et al., 2010). Whilst attitude,
knowledge and skills are the learning outcome categories generally attributable to any discipline
in higher education, the combination of employability, intrapreneurship and venture creation is
the distinct real-life combination of outcomes from EE specifically. In sum, learning and socio-
economic outcomes together result in augmented entrepreneurship, and in more innovative
enterprises, increased economic activity and job creation (Blenker et al., 2006).
In line with the OECD (2009) approach, three broad categories of EE programmes can be
subsumed: learning entrepreneurial skills and attitudes, enhancing business start-up and
entrepreneurial behaviour, which corresponds to the “through” and “about” teaching modes; the
development of business start-ups and entrepreneurial skills, or the “for” mode aiming at new
business creation. Indeed, the latter may not always be appropriate even for those pre-motivated
to start businesses, but this approach clearly omits explicitly using the “about” mode as a separate
line of teaching. Nonetheless, the OECD categories correspond with employability and/or
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 15
intrapreneurship and venture creation outcomes, while the ability of the “for”, “through” or
“about” entrepreneurship programmes to elicit positive outcomes is highly dependent on the
quality and appropriateness of the programme delivered (OECD, 2009). Therefore, the teaching
methods applied might have a direct influence on how well the socio-economic outcomes are
achieved. These methods also distinguish one teaching mode from another.
As in the learning outcomes, “real-life” outcomes also consist of numerous components. Table 6
summarises these constituents, which also serve as measures of employability and venture
creation. Braun (2011) regards them as the “macro-level effects of entrepreneurship training
programmes”. Here venture creation is associated with the number of new enterprises, additional
taxes and foreign currency generated by start-up companies, survival rates, effects on female
entrepreneurship, turnover and profit, level of innovation and so on. Employability covers
entering employment, number of creative and innovative positions, job satisfaction, annual
income, attempts to transit into self-employment, effects on employment rates and so on, as per
the table.
Table 6. Socio-economic outcomes of EE: employability and new venture creation
Details
Employability How quickly students can find their first job, whether local or abroad
How long they stay in employment
How often they change jobs, the number of employment periods
How they progress over time
Self-development
Innovative and creative positions
Job satisfaction
Annual income (capability of getting better paid positions or growing salaries)
Attempts to transit into self-employment
Involvement in self-employment as freelancers or liberal professionals
Planning a start-up and the likeliness of starting an enterprise
Participation in voluntary work
Participation in non-commercial work (e.g. charities or hobby clubs)
New venture creation The number of new enterprises
The number of new innovative enterprises
Survival and discontinuation rates
Start-up before graduation
Taxes and foreign currency generated by start-up companies
The number of jobs created
Annual growth rates in terms of turnover and employees
Helping others to start an enterprise
Female entrepreneurship
The number of years between graduation and first enterprise
The number of years in business and in current business
Improved processes
Improved goods/services
Improved forms of organisation, business structures or practices
Ambition for business growth: future business size
Net annual income
Turnover growth
Sources: Blenker et al. (2006), Braun (2011), EC (2012a), Martinez et al. (2010), OECD (2009)
16 Inna Kozlinska
Although study programmes usually undermine intrapreneurship, it is tied to the following
results:
- Generation of new revenues owing to the development of new markets, products and
activities
- Reduction of costs and improvement of practices, internal processes and the
organisation as a whole
- Encouragement of novel behaviour and attitudes of other employees, development of
internal culture (OFEM, 2008).
Consistent with Bridge et al. (2010), “enterprise for life” in the project by the Northern Ireland
Centre for Entrepreneurship (NICENT) is somewhat similar to intrapreneurship, representing a
broader approach to EE, which encourages the development of enterprising competences rather
than focusing on business start-ups, and opposing the widespread view of a narrow focus on
business creation. NICENT’s Enterprise for Life:
is a foundation for subsequent “enterprise for new venture creation”
supports subsequent idea spin-out and business creation
enhances employability through “intrapreneurship”
is a foundation for social entrepreneurship
is an essential approach for careers in various areas, where project management,
finances, administration and so on, are important
develops the capacity to respond positively to change.
Therefore, similar sub-measures can be used to express intrapreneurship as a whole, when
assessing the impact of EE among students. This wider understanding of intrapreneurship helps
focus on certain constituents that can be measured directly upon completion of the EE study
programme/course or within the short term.
The real-life outcomes of EE put forward in this section – employability, intrapreneurship and
venture creation – comprise a broad range of components. However, in order to use them in
further measurements and to create linkages with the learning outcomes in the final framework
and model, it is necessary to prioritise them.
In terms of OECD (2009) methodology, the socio-economic outcomes primarily concern the
entrepreneurial or enterprising performance of graduates as expressed in firms, employment and
private wealth rather than through a measurement of the economic impact – economic growth and
poverty reduction. Therefore, to reduce the number of measures to a relevant minimum, the
model will not consider such components as “taxes and foreign currency generated”, “annual
growth rates” and in fact most indicators related to the future success of a start-up. This is due to
the fact that most companies undergo a survival period within the first 2 years of existence, and
irrespective of the fact that most (90%) start-ups fail (Marmer et al., 2012).
The success measures are viable for use in a longitudinal study, which is not possible to
accomplish in a 2-year time frame. For this reason, the model will focus on the performance
measurement of EE students, limited to the period from the 1st year in higher education to 2 years
after graduation (Bachelor or Master). The proposed linkages between education and real life are
new and challenging enough to prove even provided that delimitation. Moreover, the longitudinal
research can be carried out at a later stage as an extra replication study. The following section
elaborates on the issue of prioritising the outcome components and builds the resulting
framework.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 17
4. HOLISTIC FRAMEWORK OF EE OUTCOMES AND
DISCUSSION
Since both parts of the target framework – outcomes of EE at educational and socio-economic
levels – are introduced, the present task is to integrate the identified categories and the
constituents. The selection of constituents should be a careful and critical process, since so many
linkages appear at present that it is obligatory to prioritise. This section combines and expands on
the results of the analytical overview from previous sections to construct the holistic framework
of EE outcomes.
Based on early Gibb (1993), Fisher et al. (2008), Kraiger et al. (1993) and Krathwohl (2002) or
Kennedy et al. (2006), the current form of the ECF is theoretically justified using both
educational and entrepreneurship-related sources as containing both generic and
entrepreneurship-specific components. The generic components are those that come from
education theory (as per Table 1) and the entrepreneurship-specific are derived from
entrepreneurship research and practice (as per Tables 2–4). Such components as “creativity”,
“analysis”, “motivation” and “planning” are also general but applicable to the business context,
while “risk propensity”, “managing people” and “opportunity recognition” clearly belong to the
entrepreneurship context. Other “triadic concepts” – more recent Gibb (2005), Heinonen and
Poikkijoki (2006) – do not contradict the ECF either but their deeper exploration is beyond the
core tasks of this paper.
When compared with the PIC having a strong background in psychology, the ECF also proves to
be consistent, with slight hierarchical (relating to “attitude”) and content (relating to the
standardisation of components) refinements. Furthermore, to make direct comparisons between
the PIC and the ECF, a common denominator of competences should be used, and both
frameworks have to be for teaching/learning or writing outcomes. In their present form, the ECF
and PIC are self-sufficient frameworks that can be applied to any discipline, while empirical
studies (EC, 2012a; Fisher et al., 2008; Kyrö et al., 2008) verify they can also be used for EE.
What truly differentiates the outcomes in EE from other disciplines in higher education is the
socio-economic, or real-life, aspect. Drawing upon Blenker et al. (2006), Braun (2011), Bridge et
al. (2010), EC (2012a), Kirby (2006), OECD (2009), OFEM (2008) and Martinez et al. (2010),
the assertion is that employability, intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship and the real-life
outcomes of EE are inter-linked with education – attitude, knowledge and skills – to form an
integrated framework. The research of Rideout (2011) revealed that EE produces measurable
outcomes only through mediating mechanisms, such as personal characteristics, networks, self-
efficacy and so on. Put another way, learning outcomes condition the achievement of the socio-
economic outcomes. Furthermore, socio-economic outcomes provide “hard” evidence that is
easier to track and measure (e.g. the number of start-ups or positions in employment) as opposed
to “soft” evidence (e.g. changes in attitude) that is difficult to ascribe quantifiable measures for
(OECD, 2009). Braun (2011) notices that difficulties may also arise when measuring socio-
economic outcomes due to the crowd-out effects of start-up programmes and limited coverage of
potential entrepreneurs by these programmes. Nonetheless, the necessity of this “hard” group of
outcomes in the target framework becomes even more evident given the subjectivity of the “self-
efficacy” measure for “soft” outcomes widely used in EE. Figure 1 visualises the proposed
framework.
18
Figure 1. Integrated educational and socio
The question remains open, which learning outcomes have more influence on
production of employability, intrapreneurship and new ventures. Following the logic of Table 5,
coupled with the discussion of the
outcomes in subsection 2.3, one can make
stronger influence on intrapreneurship th
employability. It is too early to deny or support this assumption in theory, but apparently
employability, intrapreneurship or
entrepreneur, intrapreneur or employee possesses a certain combination of attitude, knowledge
and skills, but developed differently. Therefore, the question of
of the learning outcomes on the socio
provided that key parameters are selected in both groups.
The subsequent question is what particular constituen
have stronger linkages with the constituen
outcomes as a result. While Tables 2
some of them clearly overlap (e.g. ambition and drive with initiative), coincide (e.
orientation and need for achievement) or repeat (e.g. self
on Saris and Gallhofer (2007), the fewer variables a model contains, the easier it is to test. The
key to Figure 1 (see below) shows the sele
a, b), ECOTEC (2010), Fisher et al. (2008) and Gibb (2005), where repetitions are eliminated,
and coinciding and overlapping formulations unified.
number of variables in each outcome.
For instance, innovation as an attitude is disputable
problems is included (“solving problems creatively”), and innovative solutions can be seen as a
result of creative attitude and thinking. “Se
confidence”, “self-esteem” and subsequently “social confidence”, while “entrepreneurial spirit”
can be perceived as an antecedent to “action orientation”
Integrated educational and socio-economic EE outcomes*
The question remains open, which learning outcomes have more influence on the
production of employability, intrapreneurship and new ventures. Following the logic of Table 5,
of the prioritisation of teaching aims, modes and socio
outcomes in subsection 2.3, one can make the assumption that entrepreneurial attitude has
stronger influence on intrapreneurship than skills on venture creation, and knowledge on
early to deny or support this assumption in theory, but apparently
employability, intrapreneurship or venture creation requires all three learning outcomes: an
entrepreneur, intrapreneur or employee possesses a certain combination of attitude, knowledge
and skills, but developed differently. Therefore, the question of the stronger or weaker influence
e learning outcomes on the socio-economic outcomes must be answered empirically,
provided that key parameters are selected in both groups.
The subsequent question is what particular constituents of attitude, skills and knowledge might
linkages with the constituents of socio-economic outcomes, and generate th
outcomes as a result. While Tables 2–4 list over 20 components per learning outcome in total,
some of them clearly overlap (e.g. ambition and drive with initiative), coincide (e.
orientation and need for achievement) or repeat (e.g. self-efficacy, creativity, networking). Based
Gallhofer (2007), the fewer variables a model contains, the easier it is to test. The
shows the selected learning outcomes components based on EC (2012
Fisher et al. (2008) and Gibb (2005), where repetitions are eliminated,
coinciding and overlapping formulations unified. However, it is still possible to limit the
ables in each outcome.
For instance, innovation as an attitude is disputable once the creative approach to solving
problems is included (“solving problems creatively”), and innovative solutions can be seen as a
e and thinking. “Self-efficacy for entrepreneurship” implies “self
esteem” and subsequently “social confidence”, while “entrepreneurial spirit”
can be perceived as an antecedent to “action orientation”, “determination to meet objectives” and
Inna Kozlinska
the stimulation or
production of employability, intrapreneurship and new ventures. Following the logic of Table 5,
prioritisation of teaching aims, modes and socio-economic
ion that entrepreneurial attitude has a
and knowledge on
early to deny or support this assumption in theory, but apparently
venture creation requires all three learning outcomes: an
entrepreneur, intrapreneur or employee possesses a certain combination of attitude, knowledge
stronger or weaker influence
must be answered empirically,
s of attitude, skills and knowledge might
economic outcomes, and generate those
4 list over 20 components per learning outcome in total,
some of them clearly overlap (e.g. ambition and drive with initiative), coincide (e.g. achievement
efficacy, creativity, networking). Based
Gallhofer (2007), the fewer variables a model contains, the easier it is to test. The
cted learning outcomes components based on EC (2012
Fisher et al. (2008) and Gibb (2005), where repetitions are eliminated,
However, it is still possible to limit the
once the creative approach to solving
problems is included (“solving problems creatively”), and innovative solutions can be seen as a
efficacy for entrepreneurship” implies “self-
esteem” and subsequently “social confidence”, while “entrepreneurial spirit”
“determination to meet objectives” and
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 19
“ambition” – as part of the “need for achievement”. In the “knowledge” component, an
“understanding of entrepreneurship ethics” and “understanding the broad picture and context of
work life and economy” are seen as less important given the presence of the “understanding of
entrepreneurship theory and the phenomenon per se”. “Marketing, selling and persuasion”
incorporate the skill of getting people excited about one’s own ideas, whilst “setting priorities and
focusing on goals” coupled with “analysis” involve the skill to work independently.
*The key to Figure 1:
Real-life outcome
Intrapreneurship INTR
Employability EMPL
Venture creation = “true” entrepreneurship VECR
Learning outcome Component Key
Attitude (9)
Need for achievement, motivation to excel
Curiosity, drive, initiative
Tolerance of failure and risk propensity
Solving problems creatively
INTR, EMPL, VECR
Entrepreneurial spirit
Self-efficacy for entrepreneurship
INTR, VECR
Passion for entrepreneurship
Independence
Commitment to business venture
VECR
Knowledge (8)
Basics of accounting, finance, IT, marketing, business planning
Opportunity recognition (in everyday life)
Understanding entrepreneurship theory and the phenomenon per se
Understanding business start-ups and knowledge of procedures
EMPL, INTR, VECR
Understanding of entrepreneurship and creativity processes
Knowledge (and insight) of how to get things done given limited
resources
Understanding risk (of starting-up)
INTR, VECR
Knowledge of personal fit with entrepreneurship career VECR
Skills (14)
Teamwork, working with people (incl. conflict resolution,
networking and negotiation)
Setting priorities and focusing on goals
Market research and analysis
Marketing and selling, persuasion
Active and on-going learning
Adaptability to new and uncertain situations
Creative problem solving
EMPL, INTR, VECR
Organisation and control (of projects, internal processes)
Leadership, managing people
Creativity, imagination, lateral thinking
Opportunity recognition (for innovation/starting-up)
Intuitive decision-making in conditions of uncertainty
INTR, VECR
Business planning, incl. strategy and vision development,
identification of strategic partners, attracting financing, etc.
Risk management and risk-taking
VECR
Source: based on EC (2012 a, b) and ECOTEC (2010), Fisher et al. (2008) and Gibb (2005)
20 Inna Kozlinska
The key to Figure 1 also discloses which components of the learning outcomes might generate
concrete real-life outcomes. In most of cases, it is rather hard to theoretically elicit components
that provide projections to a single outcome. Each particular component carries different
exposures for an employee, intrapreneur or entrepreneur, although it might generate all three real-
life outcomes. As an example, networking and negotiation skills are certainly vital in any self- or
paid- employment, but an entrepreneur presumably has developed these skills better than an
employee. However, there are some components that are clearly attributable to entrepreneurs,
equally projecting to the “venture creation” real-life outcome – “passion for entrepreneurship”,
“commitment to business venture”, “knowledge of personal fit with entrepreneurship career” and
“risk-taking”.
One more vital aspect pertaining to Figure 1 is the relationship between intrapreneurship,
employability and new venture creation. In casual employment, the transition towards
intrapreneurship or self-employment is tied to enterprising behaviour. It can be an example of an
enterprising personality, who has not found a good fit with a company he/she worked for as an
intrapreneur, or is naturally inclined towards working on his/her own, which provides a way to
transit from self-employment to a company founder in the future by attracting other people to
his/her initiated project. Therefore, Figure 1 emphasises the links between employability and
venture creation through intrapreneurship, when the latter means an enterprising personality and
the ability to take on managerial positions. Put simply, an ordinary employee cannot become an
entrepreneur unless he/she possesses or develops/acquires enterprising and entrepreneurial
attitudes and skills. Simultaneously, this scheme does not oblige “inborn” entrepreneurs to go
through employment and intrapreneurship before setting up their own companies, or
intrapreneurs to go through ordinary employment either; it does, however, cover failure cases,
when a start-up is not successful and an entrepreneur transits (back) to intrapreneurship or
employment.
To elaborate on the selection of the components for measuring real-life outcomes, we should refer
back to the conclusion of section 3, which, from the range of socio-economic components,
suggested selecting those that concern specifically the entrepreneurial or enterprising
performance of graduates in the period from the 1st year in higher education to 2 years after
graduation (Bachelor or Master), but omitting the success measures for their start-ups. Table 7
shows the resulting measures selected. Employability is expressed in how fast students/graduates
find jobs, how long they stay in contract and how satisfied they are with the jobs in the period
studied. Intrapreneurship measures cover managerial positions that the students/graduates
undertake, new initiative implementation within the company, and, in line with the “classical”
meaning of the concept, the number of company subsidiaries and spin-outs created, which will
most probably be rather low. Finally, venture creation focuses on the number of new companies
followed by the level of innovativeness, size of the companies, first revenues/losses and so on, as
per the table.
By diversifying the composition of study programmes, universities can satisfy the different aims
of EE, as entrepreneurship per se is clearly not suitable for all students. At the same time, EE
prepares graduates for a professional life, no matter whether in their own enterprise or in self- or
paid employment. Thus, “enterprise for life” or intrapreneurship becomes the central most
important outcome as being broader and relevant for most students, enhancing employability and
providing the foundation for new venture creation (Bridge et al., 2010).
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 21
Table 7. Components of the socio-economic outcomes selected
Real-life outcome Component
Employability Speed of entering into an employment contract
Number of employers and employment periods
Change and/or growth in undertaken positions
Annual income
Job satisfaction
Self-employment (also – attempts to transit and freelancing)
Plans to start own company
Intrapreneurship Company spin-outs and subsidiaries
New initiative implementation with managerial support
New company profits/reduction of costs
Managerial positions undertaken
Venture creation Number of new companies before and after graduation
Level of innovativeness
Size of company and jobs created
First revenues/losses
Failures/discontinuation
Growth ambitions
Source: based on Blenker et al. (2006), Braun (2011), Bridge et al. (2010), EC (2012a), Martinez et al. (2010),
OECD (2009), OFEM (2008)
The “container knowledge” approach in EE proved to be unsuccessful (Braun, 2011). Delivered
in the form of training, EE should provide knowledge when it is needed, apply experiential
teaching methods and follow a process approach, where educators measure results at different
steps starting from changes in key competences (Hytti et al., 2004). The explicit target remains
enhancing entrepreneurial attitudes, or teaching “to become entrepreneurial”, which corresponds
to the education “through” entrepreneurship mode. Hence, the “about” teaching mode carries an
implicit role, and only then, for a ready or prepared audience, is the last mode applied (see Figure
2).
Figure 2. Prioritised aims of EE
Possible relationships between entrepreneurship education/training and subsequent behaviour
have already been discussed by Martinez et al. (2010). The methodology of the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) attempts to track connections between entrepreneurship and
22 Inna Kozlinska
economic development, where EE is one of efficiency enhancers. However, GEM’s
entrepreneurial behaviour is equal to engagement in early-stage entrepreneurial activity (nascent
entrepreneurs and new business owners, TEA), which does not include intrapreneurship in this
indicator. GEM uses the “gain from training” measure of the effect of compulsory training on
how to start a business (versus no training on awareness, attitudes, intentions to start a business
and TEA), which proves to be higher for innovation-driven countries (Martinez et al., 2010).
The European Commission report “Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in
Higher Education” published in March 2012 is one of the known exceptions, which empirically
approaches both groups of outcomes (EC, 2012a). The study based on a survey of a total of 1139
entrepreneurship alumni and 1443 control group alumni researched the impact of EE on the
entrepreneurial key competences – knowledge, attitude and skills – necessary for achieving the
entrepreneurial goals students set in their lives, as well as its impact on intentions towards
entrepreneurship, individual employability, society and the economy. The results demonstrate
that the scores of trained individuals for all indicators proved higher than in individuals from the
control group. However, the research does not account for interrelations among the researched
outcomes, intrapreneurship (directly), and does not provide a theoretical justification for the
measures used.
To sum up, the learning and socio-economic outcomes of EE were integrated in this section into a
holistic framework, which is both novel and justified from the viewpoint of educational theory
and entrepreneurship research. The framework is also a means of measuring the impact of
entrepreneurship education at educational and socio-economic levels, but suggests testing the
linkages between the components of learning and real-life outcomes and their constituents in
further research. This is the first time that these particular linkages have been presented and
elaborated on in detail, bringing a novel contribution to the field of EE. Apart from the
measurement of the impact of EE, the resulting discussion drew upon implications for the aims of
study programmes and modes of teaching entrepreneurship.
5. CONCLUSION
The fundamental view of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education proposes two groups of
outcomes at educational and socio-economic levels, which are hypothetically interconnected:
attitude, knowledge and skills, and intrapreneurship, employability and venture creation,
respectively. To construct this framework, the scientific origins and the applicability of the
European Competence Framework (ECF) for EE were initially investigated. Secondly, the
venture creation approach was challenged as the most popular way of measuring EE outcomes in
real life.
The analytical retrospect revealed that the ECF, commonly used in EE, has theoretical grounds in
educational theory (i.e. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives) and strong influences
from psychology (e.g. Theory of Planned Behaviour) (Kennedy et al., 2006; Fayolle et al., 2006;
Krathwohl, 2002; Bandura, 1994). In spite of these developments, it features entrepreneurship-
specific content, though the constituents vary across different sources. The ECF as such is
universal and can be applicable to any discipline, including entrepreneurship, thus, it proved to be
consistent for measuring EE outcomes at the educational level given some hierarchical and
content refinements.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 23
A range of prominent sources in entrepreneurship research (e.g. Blenker et al., 2006; Braun,
2011; Martinez et al., 2010; OECD, 2009; OFEM, 2008) provided grounds for the second group
of EE outcomes, the socio-economic outcomes, and made it possible to assert that these real-life
outcomes are the indivisible part of a holistic view of the issue. Since EE does not aim to make
every student an entrepreneur from the onset, the question is how to measure the impact of EE
among those students, who do not start up or start up at a later stage? As the ultimate goal of
higher education is to prepare students for an economically viable working life, whether in self-
or paid employment, two other indicators have to be considered in addition to venture creation –
employability and intrapreneurship – where the latter is the universal real-life outcome that can
lead either to entrepreneurship as a career path or higher employment positions. This article
promotes the expanded meaning of intra-corporate venturing, or intrapreneurship, which also
comprises undertaking managerial positions within companies, not limited to spinning-out or new
subsidiaries (e.g. Bridge et al.; 2010 OFEM, 2008).
It became evident throughout this research that the socio-economic, or real-life, aspect truly
distinguishes EE from other disciplines in higher education. What is more, deriving from the
previous study (e.g. Rideout, 2008), which concluded that EE produces measurable outcomes
only through mediating mechanisms, such as personal characteristics, networks, self-efficacy,
etc., the resulting assertion is that the learning outcomes condition the achievement of the socio-
economic outcomes. In the same manner, employability, intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship,
the real-life outcomes of EE, are inter-linked with the educational outcomes – attitude, knowledge
and skills – together forming an integrated framework, where not only are the components
connected, but also the constituents.
As in any research, this paper has a number of limitations and delimitations:
1. Some elements of the integrated outlook already appear in existing research (EC, 2012a;
Martinez et al., 2010), although these have a different purpose. At the same time, the new
framework offers a lot of variables and new linkages between them, which may entail a deeper
analysis rather pertaining to the future. For instance, the paper does not examine connections
among the components at educational and socio-economic levels within the two groups of
outcomes apart from hypothesising that they are interconnected.
2. There are a number of terminological limitations, for instance, in the synonymous treatment of
aims, objectives and goals in EE programmes; outcomes, effects and impact of EE;
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning and training.
3. The discussion of the differences between learning outcomes in traditional university
education and training remained beyond the tasks of this paper.
4. The paper does not go into the details of the means of achieving the aims of EE programmes,
or pedagogical issues, and does not set evident boundaries between learning and teaching EE.
5. The selected constituents in the target framework were selected considering the fact that a
longitudinal study was not feasible due to the time constraints of the doctoral project. The
socio-economic part of the framework focuses on the measurement of the performance of EE
students, but is limited to the period from the 1st year in higher education to 2 years after
graduation (Bachelor or Master).
6. The current discussion relates to higher education only.
24 Inna Kozlinska
7. As far as its aims, tasks and general scientific research methods are concerned, the paper is
purely theoretical.
Although this article is theoretical, the new framework introduced here had not been used or
discussed before in the existing literature, hence, it makes a novel contribution to the field of EE.
The holistic framework partly solves the problem of writing the learning and real-life outcomes
of EE, allowing for academic or practical freedom to select the most relevant components or to
argue for the importance of some as opposed to others. Clearly set and defined outcomes are a
prerequisite for measuring the results of EE, and these do not exist as a well-established system in
most Eastern European institutions of higher education, so the framework provides ready content
for this purpose. This is especially relevant in light of the generation of socio-economic impact
through EE put forward in the EU policy essentials.
This extended framework of EE outcomes carries wider curriculum development implications,
where the aims of EE, the perceived outcomes, teaching/learning approaches, and educational and
real-life outcomes should be aligned. An adjacent implication relates to intrapreneurship.
Entrepreneurs are capable of being intrapreneurs, or self-employed, while all intrapreneurs, in
turn, are entrepreneurial employees; however, not all employees are intrapreneurs. Consequently,
intrapreneurship is a generic socio-economic outcome to be targeted by EE programmes,
implying the development of entrepreneurial personalities and an enterprise culture as noted by
Fayolle et al. (2006), Hytti (2008), Kirby (2006), Blenker et al. (2006) and other experts. Then
employability or entrepreneurship in the sense put forward by Schumpeter or Kirzner is one of
the available paths, including transitioning employment into one’s own venture through
intrapreneurship or self-employment.
However, the most applicable implication of this framework in the short term is its further
application in empirical studies within this doctoral project – formulating hypotheses based on
inter-linkages among the outcomes, elaborating a questionnaire and measuring and comparing EE
results in different countries. In the long-term, a longitudinal study can be carried out based on
the framework, which will have been tested by that time. Above all, the teaching methods applied
in EE might have a direct influence on how well the formulated outcomes are achieved.
Consequently, further research whether in the short- or long-term should address this relationship
by all means.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 25
REFERENCES
Bandura A. (1994) “Self-Efficacy”, in: Ramachaudran, V.S., ed. Encyclopedia of Human
Behaviour, Vol. 4, New York: Academic Press, 71-81.
Béchard, J.-P. & Grégoire, D. (2005) “Understanding Teaching Models in Entrepreneurship for
Higher Education”, in Kyro, P. & Carrier, C., eds. The Dynamics of Learning
Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context. Entrepreneurship Education Series
2/2005, University of Tampere, 104-134.
Blenker, P., Dreisler, P. & Kjeldsen, J. (2006) “Entrepreneurship Education – the New Challenge
Facing Universities”. Working paper 2006-02, Aarhus School of Business.
Braun, G. (2011) “Evaluating International Entrepreneurship Training Programmes –
Intercultural Concepts and Practical Experiences in Developing Countries”, in Müller, K.-D. &
Diensberg, C., eds. Methoden und Qualität in Gründungslehre, Gründungscoaching und
Gründungsberatung. Lohmar, Rheinland: J. Eul Verlag.
Bridge, S., Hegarty, C. & Porter, Sh. (2010) “Rediscovering Enterprise: Developing Appropriate
University Entrepreneurship Education”. Journal of Education and Training, 52(8/9): 722-
734.
Charney, A. & Libecap, G. (2008) “Impact of Entrepreneurship Education”, Kauffman Research
Series.
Choi, Y. (1993) Paradigms and Conventions: Uncertainty, Decision Making and
Entrepreneurship. USA: University of Michigan, 45-46.
Churches, A. (2008) “Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy”. Available at:http://www.techlearning.com/techlearning/archives/2008/04/AndrewChurches.pdf.
Davies, H. (2002) “A Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education”. Norwich: Crown
Copyright.
EC (2012a) “Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in Higher Education”. DG
Enterprise & Industry, March 2012.
EC (2012b) “Call for Proposals in Entrepreneurship Education”, No.
28/G/ENT/CIP/12/E/N01C01.
EC (2007) “Key Competences for Lifelong Learning: A European Framework”. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
EC (2004) “Euro-Mediterranean Charter for Enterprise”. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu.
EC (2000) “The European Charter for Small Enterprises”. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu.
ECOTEC (2010) “Towards Greater Cooperation and Coherence in Entrepreneurship Education”,
Birmingham: Ecorys.
EU (2008) “Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 on
Establishment of the European EQF for Lifelong Learning”. Official Journal of the European
Union C 111/1 of 06.05.2008.
EU (2006) “Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006
on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning”. Official Journal of the European Union L
394/10 of 30.12.2006. The summary available at:http://ec.europa.eu.
Fayolle, A. (2007), ed. Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education. Volume 1. A
General Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). “Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship
Education Programmes: A New Methodology”. Journal of European Industrial Training,
30(9): 701-720.
26 Inna Kozlinska
Fayolle, A. & Klandt, H., eds. (2006) International Entrepreneurship Education. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fayolle, A. & Kyrö, P., eds. (2008) The Dynamics Between Entrepreneurship, Environment and
Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fisher, S., Graham, M. & Compeau, M. (2008) “Understanding the Learning Outcomes of
Entrepreneurship Education”, in Harrison, R. & Leitch, C., eds. Entrepreneurial Learning:
Conceptual Frameworks and Applications. New York: Routledge.
Gibb, A. (2011) "Concepts into practice: meeting the challenge of development of
entrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm: The case of the International
Entrepreneurship Educators' Programme (IEEP)", International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, 17(2), 146-165.
Gibb, A. (2005) “The Future of Entrepreneurship Education – Determining the Basis of Coherent
Policy & Practice”, in Kyro, P. & Carrier, C., eds. The Dynamics of Learning
Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context. Entrepreneurship Education Series
2/2005, University of Tampere, 44-67.
Gibb, A. (1996) “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management: Can We Afford to Neglect
Them in the 21
st
Century Business School”. British Journal of Management, 7(4): 309-324.
Gibb, A. (1993) “Training the Trainers for Small Business”. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 14(1): 17-25”.
Gibb, A., Haskins, G. & Robertson, I. (2009) “Leading the Entrepreneurial University”. The
paper published in cooperation with NCGE & Oxford University’s Said Business School.
Grün, G., Tritscher-Archan, T. & Weiß, S. (2009) “Guidelines for the Description of Learning
Outcomes”. Zoom Partnership, UK.
Haase, H. & Lautenschlager, A. (2011) “The Teachability Dilemma of Entrepreneurship”.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7:145-162.
Hannula, H. & Pajari-Stylman, S. (2008) “Entrepreneurship Incubators at HAMK University of
Applied Sciences”, in van der Sijde, P., Ridder, A., Blaauw, G. & Diensberg, C. “Teaching
Entrepreneurship. Cases for Education & Training”, Springer Physica Verlag.
Harrison, R. & Leitch, C., eds. (2008) Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and
Applications. New York: Routledge.
Heder, E., Ljubic, M. & Nola, L (2011) “Entrepreneurial Learning: A Key Competence
Approach. ICSED Level 2 & 5/6”. Zagreb: South East Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning.
Heinonen, J. & Poikkijoki, S. (2006) “An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship
education: mission impossible?” Journal of Management Development, 25(1): 80-94.
Helgoy, I. & Homme, A. (2011) “Implementation of the European Qualifications Framework in
Education”. The paper presented at the 33rd EGPA conference, Bucharest, 07-10 September,
2011.
Hilgard, E.R. (1980) “The Trilogy of the Mind: Cognition, Affection, and Conation”. Journal of
the History of Behavioral Sciences, 16: 107-117.
Hytti, U. (2008) “Enterprise Education in Different Cultural Setting and at Different School
Levels”, in Fayolle, A. & Kyrö, P., eds. (2008) The Dynamics Between Entrepreneurship,
Environment and Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Hytti, U. (2002) “State-of-art of Enterprise Education in Europe. Results From the ENTREDU
Project”. Turku: Small Business Institute, Business Research and Development Centre, Turku
School of Economics and Business Administration and ENTREDU project partners.
Hytti, U., Kuopusjarvi, P. & the Entreva project team (2004) “Evaluating and Measuring
Entrepreneurship & Enterprise Education: Methods, Tools & Practices”, Small Business
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 27
Institute, Business Research & Development Centre, Turku School of Economics & Business
Administration. Available at:http://www.entreva.net.
Hytti, U., Stenholm, P., Heinonen, J. & Seikkula-Leino, J. (2010). “Perceived Learning
Outcomes in Entrepreneurship Education”, Journal of Education and Training, 52(8/9): 587-
606.
Kennedy, D., Hyland. A. & Ryan, N. (2006) “Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: A Practical
Guide”. Available at:http://sss.dcu.ie/afi/docs/bologna/writing_and_using_learning_outcomes.pdf.
Kirby, D. (2006) “Can Business Schools Meet the Challenge?” in Fayolle, A. & Klandt, H., eds.
International Entrepreneurship Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Kozlinska, I. (2011) “Contemporary Approaches to Entrepreneurship Education”. Journal of
Business Management, 4: 205-220.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. & Salas, E. (1993) “Application of Cognitive, Skill-Based and Affective
Theories of Learning Outcomes to New Methods of Training Evaluation”. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78: 311-328.
Krathwohl, D. (2002) “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview”. Theory into Practice,
41(4): 212-218.
Kyrö, P. (2008) “A Theoretical Framework for Teaching and Learning Entrepreneurship”.
International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 2(1): 39-55.
Kyrö, P. (2005) “Entrepreneurial Learning in a Cross-Cultural Context Challenges Previous
Learning Paradigms”, in Kyro, P. & Carrier, C., eds. The Dynamics of Learning
Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context. Entrepreneurship Education Series
2/2005, University of Tampere, 68-102.
Kyrö, P. & Carrier, C., eds. (2005) The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-
Cultural University Context. Entrepreneurship Education Series”, Entrepreneurship Education
Series 2/2005, University of Tampere.
Kyrö, P., Seikkula-Leino, J. & Myllari, J. (2008) “How the Dialogue Between Cognitive,
Conative and Affective Constructs in Entrepreneurial and Enterprising Learning Process is
Explicated Through Concept Mapping?” Procedures of the 3
rd
International Conference on
Concept Mapping A. J. Cañas, P. Reiska, M. Åhlberg & J. D. Novak, Eds. Tallinn, Estonia &
Helsinki, Finland 2008.
Marmer, M., Herrmann, B., Dogrultan, E. & Berman, R. (2012) “Startup Genome Report Extra
Premature Scaling”. Available at:http://www.startupgenome.com/.
Martinez, A., Levie, J., Kelley, D., Saemundsson, R. & Schott, T. (2010) “Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor Special Report: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship
Education and Training”.
Matlay, H. (2008) “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes”.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 382-396.
Mets, T. (2010) “How to Train Educated Entrepreneurs: Small (Post) Transition Country Case”.
Social Research, 4(21): 20-27.
Mets, T. (2006) “Teaching basic entrepreneurship and business plan in university: subject, goals
and some experience”. Unpublished material.
Müller, K.-D. & Diensberg, C. (2011) Methoden und Qualität in Gründungslehre,
Gründungscoaching und Gründungsberatung. Lohmar, Rheinland: J. Eul Verlag.
Mwasalwiba, E. (2010). A review of its objectives, teaching methods and impact indicators,
Journal of Education and Training, 52:1, 20-47.
28 Inna Kozlinska
OECD (2009) “Evaluation of Programmes Concerning Education for Entrepreneurship”. Report
by the OECD Working Party on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, OECD.
OFEM (2008) “L’Intrapreneuriat ou «Comment avoir l’agilité de la gazelle quand on est dans une
configuration d’éléphant»”. Paris Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
Rideout, E. (2011) “Bounded Rationality and the Supply Side of Entrepreneurship: Evaluation
Technology Entrepreneurship Education for Economic Impact”. Raleigh: North Carolina State
University.
Rouhotie, P. and Koiranen, M. (2000) “In the pursuit of conative constructs into entrepreneurship
education”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 3, 9-22.
Saris, W. and Gallhofer, I. (2007) “Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for
Survey Research”. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Say, J.-B. (1803) “Traité d’économie politique”/(eng.)“A treatise on political economy”.
Translated from the 4
th
edition in French by C. R. Prinsep. Available at:http://www.econlib.org/library/Say/sayT.html.
Schumpeter, J. (1934) “The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital,
Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Snow, R. & Jackson, D. (1997) “Individual Differences in Conation: Selected Constructs and
Measures”. Centre for Research on Evaluation: Stanford University.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 29
KOKKUVÕTE
Fundamentaalne vaade ettevõtlushariduse väljunditele
Artikkel esitab ettevõtlushariduse väljundite tervikliku raamistiku nii hariduse perspektiivist kui
sotsiaal-majanduslikul tasandil. Kasutades üldisi teadusliku uurimise meetodeid, monograafilist
ning loogilist konstrueerimist uurib autor ettevõtlikku õppimist soodustava Euroopa
Kompetentsiraamistiku põhialuseid ning toob välja selle rakendamise teadusliku põhjenduse.
Käesolev töö on samuti esimene, mis rakendab ettevõtlikkuse lõimitud vaadet kui kombinatsiooni
värvatavusest, ettevõttesisesest ettevõtlusaktiivsusest ning uute ettevõtete loomisest. Tehes seda
selleks, et mõõta ettevõtlushariduse mõju ning luua seoseid reaalse elu põhiste ja hariduspõhiste
õpiväljundite vahel. Käesoleva kirjutise sihtlugejaskonnana näeb autor ettevõtlusõpetuse pakkujaid,
teadlaseid ning ettevõtlusharidust puudutavate otsuste langetajaid.
doc_627030045.pdf
Outline interpret fundamental view of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education inna kozlinska.
University of Tartu
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
FUNDAMENTAL VIEW OF THE OUTCOMES
OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION
Inna Kozlinska
Tartu 2012
ISSN-L 1406-5967
ISSN 1736-8995
ISBN 978-9985-4-0729-5
The University of Tartu FEBA
www.mtk.ut.ee/research/workingpapers
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 3
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education
Inna Kozlinska
1
Abstract
The research paper presents a holistic framework of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education
(EE) at educational and socio-economic levels. Employing the general scientific research methods,
monograph and logical construction, the author investigates the fundamental origins of the
European Competence Framework for entrepreneurial learning and identifies a scientific
justification for its implementation. This work is also the first to exploit an integral view of
entrepreneurship as a combination of employability, intrapreneurship and venture creation – for
measuring the impact of entrepreneurship education, and to set linkages between learning outcomes
in real life and educational settings. The target audiences for this paper include entrepreneurship
educators, researchers and EE decision-makers.
JEL Classification: I21, I25, M13, M53
Keywords: entrepreneurship education, training/learning outcomes, European Competence
Framework, intrapreneurship, fundamental research.
1
Inna Kozlinska ([email protected]) is a project researcher in the Centre for Entrepreneurship, Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, Estonia; ([email protected]) and PhD student in
BA School of Business and Finance, Riga, Latvia.
The author acknowledges financial support of the European Social Fund provided by BA School of Business and
Finance (project No. 2009/0164/1DP/1.1.2.1.2/09/IPIA/VIAA/012) for doctoral students in cooperation with the
Investment and Development Agency of Latvia. She is also grateful to the Archimedes Foundation and Estonian
Ministry of Education and Research for the scholarship programme open to researchers and PhD students from the
Republic of Latvia.
4 Inna Kozlinska
1. INTRODUCTION
By far, the majority of researchers, practitioners and policy makers admit that entrepreneurship
education (EE) produces measurable outcomes (Charney & Libecap, 2008; EC, 2012a; Harrison
& Leitch, 2008; Martinez et al., 2010; Müller & Diensberg, 2011; OECD, 2009), which vary
across countries and institutions, study programmes and participants (Fayolle, 2007; Fayolle &
Klandt, 2006; Fayolle & Kyrö, 2008; Kyrö & Carrier, 2005; OECD, 2009). In practice,
formulations can be divided into two groups or levels: educational and socio-economic.
Educational or learning outcomes are scattered throughout the European Competence Framework
(hereinafter – “ECF”), which puts forward knowledge, attitude and skills as learning outcomes
(EC, 2004; EC, 2012a; EC, 2012b; ECOTEC, 2010; EU, 2006; Heder et al., 2011), as well as
similar “triadic concepts”. EE outcomes can also be grouped by learning types: cognitive,
affective and skill-based, business-specific and interpersonal (Fisher et al., 2008; in Harrison &
Leitch, 2008); other views consider: behaviours, attributes and skills (Gibb, 2005); knowledge,
skills, behaviour (Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2006); attitudes, capabilities and skills (Hytti, 2002), to
mention a few.
Some sources refer to the “impact” and/or “effect” and broaden our understanding of EE
outcomes from the purely educational to the socio-economic level, entailing employability,
intrapreneurship and new venture creation (Blenker et al., 2006; Bridge et al., 2010; EC, 2012a;
Martinez et al., 2010; OECD, 2009). In effect, these are real-life outcomes pursuing the ultimate
aim of higher education – preparing students for an economically viable working life (Gibb et al.,
2009). Still, a number of variations using these terms can be found in the thematic literature; for
instance, the “impact of training on entrepreneurial outcomes” (Matlay, 2008), the “impact of
EE” (Charney & Libecap, 2008), meaning the measurable influence of EE. This article relies on
the sources that use the terms “impact” and/or “effect” in relation to the socio-economic aspect
and treats them synonymously with “outcomes”.
However, the learning outcomes of EE remain largely detached from real-life outcomes, and the
interrelations among these have not been researched extensively. As entrepreneurship itself is a
result of many influences, different views on EE outcomes exist, and therefore, a single model
cannot meet the requirements of a wide stakeholder group. Along with the need for understanding
paradigms and models of learning and teaching entrepreneurship (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005;
Kyrö, 2005; in Kyrö & Carrier), there is a need to establish a systemic view of EE outcomes,
since, in line with the continental approach to education (Fayolle & Kyrö, 2008), models and
paradigms precede actions (Choi, 1993).
This research paper presents a holistic framework of the outcomes of EE at both educational and
socio-economic levels (Mets, 2006) for application in further empirical studies within a related
doctoral project – formulating hypotheses based on inter-linkages among the outcomes,
elaborating a questionnaire and measuring the results. The paper employs general scientific
research methods – logical construction, and monographic and graphic tools. The main research
tasks are:
- to investigate the scientific origins of the ECF for entrepreneurial learning and identify a
scientific justification for its existence/implementation
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 5
- to compare the ECF with other views of EE outcomes, and evaluate them from the
perspective of the latest developments in entrepreneurship research (including those in
psychology and education)
- to integrate the socio-economic and learning outcomes of EE.
First of all, when determining the learning outcomes of EE, we have to distinguish between the
learning outcomes of general education and EE, as well as justify bringing models from education
and psychology to EE (i.e. general training outcomes described by Kraiger et al. (1993) reflected
in Fisher et al. (2008) or Snow & Jackson’s (1997) constructs transferred to EE by Rouhotie &
Koiranen (2000; cited in Kyrö, 2008)) – to what extent they are relevant and what
entrepreneurship-specific elements are considered. Secondly, it is necessary to align the
objectives and outcomes, since the aims
2
of EE programmes and the means for achieving them
determine the outcomes being sought (Gibb, 2005; OECD, 2009). Thirdly, once fundamental
arguments for existing views have been found, the assertion is that the socio-economic and
learning outcomes will be interconnected, but real life truly differentiates EE from other
disciplines in higher education.
The following section provides insights into writing the ECF-based learning outcomes in general
education and attempts to explain why the ECF is broadly used in EE. In addition, it contains a
discussion of alternative approaches to outcomes at the educational level, and some aspects of
aligning the teaching modes, aims and outcomes of EE. As a result, the next section introduces
the first part of the target framework that addresses the learning outcomes of EE. The third
section focuses on the socio-economic outcomes of EE, and offers arguments for a broader view
of entrepreneurship, beyond the common idea of “venture creation”, to bring in core measures of
EE for the second part of the framework this paper introduces. The final section, preceding the
conclusion, combines and expands the results of the analytical overview from the previous
sections to construct the holistic framework of EE outcomes.
2. FIRST PART OF THE FRAMEWORK: LEARNING OUTCOMES
OF EE
2.1 ECF approach to writing learning outcomes
The European Competence Framework (ECF), as a key competence-based approach to learning
outcomes, is widely accepted in Europe (especially, for higher education and lifelong learning) –
it is used in reports and documents for the European Commission (EC, 2012a,b; EC, 2007; EU,
2006, etc.), in research by European organisations; for example, the South-East European Centre
for Entrepreneurial Learning (Heder et al., 2011), the Stationery Office of the UK (Davies, 2002)
and in publications and works by individual authors (Gibb, 1993; Matlay, 2008; Mets, 2010). In
order to go into the details of the application of the ECF in EE, it is necessary to first answer
some questions that relate to general education: what are competences and what is the theoretical
foundation of the ECF.
2
In this paper, “aims” are synonymous with “objectives” and “goals”.
6 Inna Kozlinska
Within the ECF, competences are the combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and at the
same time, learning outcomes (e.g., EU, 2006; Heder et al., 2011), but this is not the only
accepted interpretation, even among official European sources. For example, the European
Qualifications Framework (EQF) interprets “competences” in a more narrow sense and sets them
together with knowledge and skills jointly referred to as “learning outcomes” – what a learner
knows, understands and is able to do on completion of a study process (EU, 2008; Grün et al.,
2009; Helgoy & Homme, 2011). In contrast, a broader meaning based on Hannula and Pajari-
Stylman (2008) incorporates action management, especially, social interaction, flexibility, coping
with uncertainty and a willingness to change. This leads to the issue of constituents, since, for
instance, the ability to interact socially is a skill, and the willingness to change is an attitude. In
case the ECF allows classification of diverse educational outcomes into its three major categories,
then there should be no conflicting arguments in defining competences, with an exception for
hybrid outcomes, such as creativity, which can represent both a skill and an attitude.
Irrespective of the fact that both the ECF and EQF are purely educational frameworks (i.e. they
carry a broad meaning and can be applied to any study programme), only the former is widely
used in EE. Why is that? Up until now, practically no other source, apart from Fisher et al. (in
Harrison & Leitch, 2008), supplied, or even attempted to supply, enough theoretical reasoning for
the application of the ECF in EE. This paper will reveal the theoretical foundation of this
framework dating back to the 1950s.
A retrospective analysis of literature sources revealed that the ECF has fundamental grounds in
the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Originated by the American educational psychologist
Benjamin Bloom (1956), its current version consists of three domains of learning: cognitive
(dealing with knowledge, comprehension and critical thinking), affective (concerning attitudes,
emotions and feelings) and psycho-motor (focusing on change/development in behaviour/skills)
(Churches, 2008; Kennedy et al., 2006; Krathwohl, 2002). All three domains are hierarchical,
where the essentials exist at earlier levels, and each level assumes mastery at lower levels. For
example, cognitive outcomes evolve from knowledge (the ability to recall or remember facts) to
evaluation (the ability to judge the value of material). The taxonomy also features an ascending
order of complexity within the outcomes components.
In the 1950s cognitive learning paradigm, where the idea of knowledge served as an
epistemological basis with no relation to the environment, was still relevant (Kyrö, 2005).
Notwithstanding the constructivist paradigm brought into play during the postmodern transition
in the 1970s, Kraiger et al. offered three-dimensional constructs for general education and
training in 1993, featuring many similarities with Bloom’s Taxonomy, in effect being derived
from it. However, Kraiger et al. (1993) suggest a slightly different order, still starting the ladder
from cognitive, proceeding to skills-based (or psycho-motor) and ending with affective outcomes.
Otherwise, every dimension replicates Bloom’s Taxonomy very closely in terms of content,
mentioning abilities, values, behaviour and skills (e.g. naturalisation vs. automaticity,
characterisation vs. motivational disposition, etc.). Table 1 shows the composition of these
learning outcomes.
It is quite evident that those constituents of general educational outcomes in Table 1 (except
“imitation”) focus on the individual isolated from other people and mainly his/her cognitive,
analytical abilities, which is natural for a supply teaching model in higher education (Béchard &
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 7
Grégoire, 2005). Even in skills-based outcomes, Kraiger et al. (1993) mentions procedural
knowledge, and both sources tend to highlight precision and accuracy – in a sense, error-
avoidance.
Table 1. General education and training outcomes featuring an ascending order of complexity
B. Bloom (1956) K. Kraiger (1993)
1. Cognitive outcome 1. Cognitive outcomes
Knowledge
The ability to recall or remember
facts without necessarily
understanding them.
Declarative
knowledge
Information about what:
verbally-based, task-relevant
knowledge.
Comprehension
The ability to understand and
interpret learned information.
Mental models
Cognitive maps developed by
trainees to organise and integrate
received knowledge.
Application
The ability to use learned material
in new situations
Meta-cognitive
skills, self-insight
Knowledge of one’s own
cognition: planning, monitoring
and revising goal-appropriate
behaviour; self-regulation, self-
control and self-assessment.
Analysis
The ability to break down
information into its components.
Synthesis
The ability to put parts together.
Evaluation
The ability to judge the value of
material for a given purpose.
2. Affective outcomes 2. Skill-based outcomes
Receiving A willingness to receive
information.
Composition Mental grouping of steps by
linking earlier learned
procedures into a more complex
production.
Responding Active participating in own
learning.
Valuing
Acceptance and commitment to
chosen values.
Proceduralisation Building discrete behaviour into
a routine; procedural knowledge.
Organisation
Refers to the process that
individuals go through as they
bring together different values.
Automatic
processing, tuning
A shift from controlled to
automatic processing; enables
task accomplishment without
verbalisation; improved
accuracy, generalised
applicability.
Characterisation
The individual has a value system
in terms of beliefs, ideas and
attitudes that control behaviour in
a consistent manner.
3. Psycho-motor outcomes 3. Affective outcomes
Imitation
Observing the behaviour of
another person and copying this
behaviour.
Targeted object,
attitude strength
Organisational commitment,
creative individualism, tolerance
of diversity, inner growth, self-
awareness, changing values,
behavioural modelling.
Manipulation
Ability to perform certain actions
by following instructions and
practicing skills.
Precision
The ability to carry out a task with
few errors.
Motivational
disposition, self-
efficacy, goal
setting
Mastery and performance
orientation, perception of own
capabilities to perform
endeavours; motivated
behaviour, expertise.
Articulation
Ability to co-ordinate a series of
actions by combining two or more
skills.
Naturalisation A high level of performance
naturally (“without thinking”).
Sources: Kennedy et al. (2006); Kraiger et al. (1993)
8 Inna Kozlinska
However, if we think of an individual as a purely social being, mistakes are very natural and part
of his/her learning process. A willingness to receive information might not appear at all in the
context of emotional discouragement from the constant transmission and memorising of
information. On the contrary, when placed in a context necessitating interaction with the external
environment, the individual obtains affective knowledge, which is easier to memorise and
reproduce; authentic social settings imply the development of social competences especially
relevant for EE. For this reason the composition of the learning outcomes in Table 1 are rather
out-dated not only for EE, but also for general education. The question remains, whether the
general structure of the ECF can be used in EE – is the application of this framework justified?
2.2 ECF-based learning outcomes of EE
The authors and sources that deal with EE and research particularly represent two groups: those
following the ECF and those using other frameworks or schemes of learning outcomes for EE.
This subsection sheds light on the ECF-based learning outcomes of EE.
Along with the shift in the learning paradigm towards constructivism, teaching in higher
education also developed towards competence-based approaches, broadening within EE to meet
real-life demands (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005; Braun, 2011). Within the European Framework for
Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (EC, 2007; EU, 2006), entrepreneurship is defined as
one of eight basic competences (together with mathematical, linguistic, digital and others) and the
foundation for all developments required to contribute to social or commercial activity, where the
basis for entrepreneurship lies in educational sciences and theories. Hence, it is not surprising
that in order to define the learning outcomes, the model from education was also adopted in
entrepreneurship programmes, being the most influential channel for making a societal change.
Still, proof of its applicability lies in components of entrepreneurship-specific outcomes coupled
with empirical factors that are no less relevant.
The European Commission has recently published results of an empirical study, where
researchers assessed every EE learning outcome, measuring its constituents (as per Table 2) and
found that EE had a positive impact on the key competences of individuals (EC, 2012a:8). In fact,
the study proved that the ECF matches entrepreneurial key competence
3
education (Braun, 2011).
The ECOTEC report “Towards Greater Cooperation and Coherence in EE” (2010:10) refers to
knowledge, skills and attitudes as “the desired outcomes of EE”. Generally, attitudes refers to
taking responsibility for one’s own learning and career (i.e. the set of skills needed to turn ideas
into actions and knowledge), and having a broad understanding and knowledge of
entrepreneurship including the role entrepreneurs play in modern economies and societies (ibid,
2010).
The overview shows that interpretations of ECF-related learning outcomes within EE differ (see
Table 2). Once again, the issue of prioritisation emerges. For instance, the EC (2012a) prioritises
outcomes starting from attitudes to skills and knowledge, while EC (2012b) – from knowledge to
skills and attitudes. Heder et al. (2011) and Fisher et al. (2008), in turn, use the same order as in
the ECF for general education, or as in Kraiger et al. (1993), from knowledge to skills and
attitudes. In these cases, the learning outcomes are hierarchical; similar to the earlier constructs of
learning outcomes in general education. There is no clear theoretical explanation, however, for
why motivation is a part of “skills” in EC (2012a), while in EC (2012b) and ECOTEC (2010) it is
3
A composition of an entrepreneurial attitude, skills and knowledge of entrepreneurship (EC, 2012a).
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 9
an attitudinal component; the position of “creativity” likewise differs; we can also regard
“opportunity recognition” as the “skills” component, and “commitment” as “attitude”.
Table 2. Constituents of the ECF
EC (2012a)
1. Attitude 2. Skills 3. Knowledge
Risk propensity
Need for achievement
Self-efficacy
Structural behaviour
Creativity
Analysis
Motivation
Networking
Adaptability
Understanding of
entrepreneurship theory and
the phenomenon per se
EC (2012b) &
ECOTEC (2010)
1. Knowledge 2. Skills 3. Attitudes
Opportunity recognition
Understanding the broad picture
and context of work life and
economy
Understanding of business start-
ups and procedures
Innovation and creativity pro-
cesses
Entrepreneurial process
Ethics of enterprises
Planning
Organisation
Management
Leadership
Team and individual
work
Negotiation
Risk-taking
Lateral thinking
Commitment
Independence and inno-
vation
Social confidence
Motivation
Determination to meet
objectives
Creativity and imagination
Curiosity
Ambition and drive
Initiative
Tolerance to failure
Self-belief
The most important elements in the new composition shown in Table 2 are the presence of such
constituents as “team work”, “negotiation”, “lateral thinking”, “creativity”, “ethics” and so on, as
well as a number of affective aspects (like “tolerance of failure” and “social confidence”), crucial
in effect in the life of any individual, not only entrepreneurs. These constituents evidently form a
different meaning here than in Bloom’s original Taxonomy.
Fisher et al. (2008) provide another solid example based on over 25 prominent experts in
entrepreneurship research and EE that supports ECF (e.g. Baron, 2000; Baron & Locke, 2003;
Gibb, 1993; Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994; Timmons, 1995; Rae, 2000; etc.), although the three-
dimensional approach is anchored in Kraiger et al. (1993). This time, the social element is not
transparent in the “affective” outcomes, though it appears in the “skills-based” outcomes. As
Table 3 shows, the outcomes are divided into business-specific (related to business concepts and
actions) and interpersonal (social, psychological) aspects. This classification envisages more
skill-based components to measure than outlined in Table 2. Indeed, commenting on the
prioritisation of domains, the authors admit that “the framework’s explicit recognition of
cognitive learning may provide a necessary counterweight to the emphasis on skill-based learning
of entrepreneurs” (Fisher et al., 2008:319). However, since the adaptation of Bloom’s Taxonomy,
it is the cognitive aspect that has been overemphasised as fundamental. Once again the attitudinal
component remains rather underestimated, although Fisher et al. also provide empirical evidence
for this approach.
Given the competence-based model in contemporary education and the justified applicability of
the ECF in EE, it is more important to propose developing and measuring those constituents,
which are inherent to enterprising and entrepreneurial personalities. Once they repeat or open
10 Inna Kozlinska
different angles in various entrepreneurship (and EE) research sources, we can select or omit
particular constituents for further measurement purposes.
Table 3. EE learning outcomes according to Fisher et al. (2008)
Business-specific content Interpersonal content
Cognitive
Basics of accounting, finance, technology,
marketing
Knowledge of how to get things done without
resources
Understanding risk
Knowledge of personal fit with entrepreneurship
career
Skill-based
Conducting market research, assessing the
marketplace
Marketing products and services
Recognising and acting on business
opportunities
Creating a business plan, incl. financials
Obtaining financing
Developing a strategy
Identifying strategic partners
Risk management
Persuasion, getting people excited about your ideas
Listening
Setting priorities and focusing on goals
Defining and communicating the vision
Leadership, motivating others
Active learning
Dealing with customers
Managing people
Resolving conflict
Adapting to new situations, coping with uncertainty
Affective
Entrepreneurial spirit
Passion for entrepreneurship
Self-efficacy for entrepreneurship
Commitment to business venture
Self-confidence, self-esteem
Need for achievement, motivation to excel
Source: Fisher et al. (2008)
In addition to the ECF-based approaches there are other prominent views of the learning
outcomes in EE (e.g. Alan Gibb and Paula Kyrö). One more relevant topic in this discussion is
teaching aims in entrepreneurship pedagogy and how they relate to the learning outcomes.
2.3 Other views of learning outcomes in EE and their alignment with
teaching aims
Despite the ECF being widespread, no universally accepted approach to writing learning
outcomes for EE exists even in entrepreneurship research. Moreover, not only do developments
in education and entrepreneurship influence approaches to EE learning outcomes, but so do
developments in the field of psychology. This subsection highlights alternatives to the ECF that
offer relevant comparisons and draw out implications for the target framework. Furthermore, this
necessitates the discussion of matching learning outcomes with modes of teaching and the aims
of entrepreneurship study programmes, which has a direct influence on the concluding arguments
in this article.
In the latest call for proposals in EE, the European Commission (EC, 2012b) elaborates the
approach to writing learning outcomes from Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006), who state that the
objectives of the EE programme are “to increase understanding and knowledge of
entrepreneurship, thus, infusing entrepreneurial skills and behaviour” (p.81) for the
entrepreneurial process, which can be attributed to outcomes for the purposes of this discussion.
However, an investigation of this approach uncovered that behaviours, skills and attributes were
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 11
transformed into attitudes, skills and knowledge, and the subsequent entrepreneurial process and
behaviour in the EC’s sources (2012a; 2012b).
Gibb (2005), in turn, sets the triadic variation of behaviours, attributes and skills as EE outcomes
too. Table 4 demonstrates that the constituents mostly coincide with the ECF, though less its
cognitive dimension. “Attributes” here resemble “attitudes”, and “behaviours” – “skills” in the
ECF. The presence of creativity is apparent in every outcome: “creative problem solving” in
“skills”, “creativity” as an attribute; “putting things together creatively” and “solving problems
creatively”, but in “behaviours”. Since the beginning of the 19
th
century, when J.-B. Say (1803)
coined the term “entrepreneur”, he also emphasised vital and creative roles of entrepreneurs in the
economy. A century later, J. Schumpeter (1934) connected the term closely with innovation and
creative destruction. Most probably, Gibb, the bright representative of entrepreneurship research,
avoids the cognitive aspect on purpose as overemphasised in other sources, and underlines the
intrinsic components, such as creativity, independence/autonomy, intuition, etc. What is also
important, he underlines “preference for learning-by-doing” as a typically entrepreneurial
attribute.
Table 4. EE learning outcomes according to Gibb (2005)
Behaviours • opportunity seeking and grasping
• taking the initiative to make things happen
• solving problems creatively
• managing autonomously
• taking responsibility for/ownership of things
• seeing things through
• networking effectively to manage
interdependence
• putting things together creatively
• using judgment to take calculated risks
Attributes - achievement orientation and ambition
- self-confidence and self-belief
- perseverance
- high internal locus of control (autonomy)
- action orientation
- preference for learning-by-doing
- hard-working
- determination
- creativity
Skills creative problem solving
persuading
negotiating
selling
proposing
holistically managing business/
projects/situations
strategic thinking
intuitive decision-making in the context of
uncertainty
networking
Source: Gibb (2005)
Apart from strong educational input, EE outcomes are seriously affected by psychological
influences (especially Social Cognitive Theory and Behaviourism) that are indeed very natural in
any attempt to decode entrepreneurial personalities, their motivation, behaviour, self-esteem etc.
These influences are particularly salient in the theoretical framework for teaching and learning
entrepreneurship introduced by Kyrö (2008) based on Rouhotie and Koiranen’s (2000)
Personality and Intelligence Constructs (PIC), which is particularly relevant to the current
discussion. The framework also suggests three constructs or domains emerging in the process of
the interaction between personality and intelligence, which differ slightly from the ECF –
affection (temperament and emotions, incl. attitudes), conation (volition and motivation, incl.
self-efficacy) and cognition (declarative and procedural knowledge, incl. skills), where affection
is the basis of further developments. From this viewpoint, the ECF lacks the conative construct,
12 Inna Kozlinska
since motivation, need for achievement, behaviour and self-efficacy cannot be attributed to the
attitudinal component, and attitudes belong to affection.
However, there are a number of comments to make. Firstly, Gibb (2011:155) views self-efficacy
based on Bandura’s theory (1977) as an “emphasis on self-action, role model coding leading to
attitude development”. Self-efficacy is defined as the conviction that one can successfully execute
the behaviour required to produce outcomes (Bandura, 1994). Ajzen’s Theory of Planned
Behaviour (1985), in turn, states that attitudes form behaviours through entrepreneurial intentions
as predictors of the latter (Fayolle et al., 2006). Hence, attitude as part of affection in the PIC
does not necessarily precede self-efficacy; or, along with entrepreneurial behaviour and
intentions, self-efficacy can be attributed to attitudes in the ECF. Secondly, affection, conation
and cognition are known in psychology as the three parts of the human mind (Hilgard, 1980),
where conation “seems to include aspects of both “personality” and “intelligence”, but these
concepts are “cloudy, too molar and vague” (Snow and Jackson, 1997:3). Therefore, the PIC and
ECF do not contradict each other, and the most crucial implication from the PIC framework is its
consistency with the constructivist learning paradigm as it starts with an affective/attitudinal
component.
Gibb (2005) stresses the importance of aligning the aims of EE programmes with the outcomes
sought. From first sight, the common feature of the existing frameworks is a widespread
admittance of the general aims of EE and corresponding teaching modes. Table 5 illustrates these
aims: teach/learn to understand entrepreneurship, to become entrepreneurial, and teach/learn to
become an entrepreneur – aligned with the teaching modes – education about, through and for
entrepreneurship.
Table 5. Core aims of EE aligned with teaching modes and learning outcomes
Aim Explanation Mode Explicit learning outcome
To understand
entrepreneurship
The study of entrepreneurship as a phenomenon
and academic subject
ABOUT Knowledge
To become
entrepreneurial/
enterprising
Focusing on the entrepreneurial process:
enterprising/entrepreneurial individuals
discovering, evaluating and exploiting
opportunities
THROUGH Attitude, “enterprising”
skills
To become an
entrepreneur
The knowledge base and the skills needed to
start, develop and grow businesses
FOR “Entrepreneurial” skills
Sources: Blenker et al. (2006); EU (2006); Gibb (2005); Heinonen & Poikkijoki (2006); Hytti et al. (2010; 2004)
According to Hytti et al. (2010), the ?rst aim and mode (about) emphasises the study of
entrepreneurship as a phenomenon and academic subject, which actually matches the
“knowledge” outcome in the ECF. The second aim and mode (through) implies a process
approach to EE, where entrepreneurial and innovative individuals discover, evaluate and exploit
opportunities, develop enterprising skills, and this coincides with the “attitude” outcome and
“skills” in the meaning of a general readiness for entrepreneurship. The third goal (for)
emphasises both the knowledge base and entrepreneurial skills needed to start, develop and grow
businesses. However, one can hardly find a study programme that sets only the first aim – it is
rather a combination of two–three aims. Thus, Table 5 emphasises the explicit, or salient,
learning outcomes of the given aim-mode combinations.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 13
This subsection has shown how alternative views of the outcomes of EE grounded in
entrepreneurship research (A.Gibb) and psychology (P. Kyrö) differ from the education-grounded
ECF. This analysis underlined the particular importance of the attitudinal or ultimately the
behavioural component that can also be freely used in the ECF. As every aim and mode of EE
features the corresponding explicit outcome at the educational level, it can be argued that
teaching/learning to become enterprising and educating through entrepreneurship should be set at
the core of educational practices. The preceding subsection, therefore, provided a fundamental
explanation for the use of the ECF in EE, and set the scene for its further application, given some
hierarchical refinements.
Despite the theoretical discoveries concerning learning outcomes in general education and EE,
they represent only one aspect of the outcomes that EE produces. The next section entirely
focuses on the socio-economic outcomes that truly differentiate entrepreneurship from other
disciplines in higher education. Moreover, it is further hypothesised that these two groups of EE
outcomes are interconnected.
3. SECOND PART OF THE FRAMEWORK: SOCIO-ECONOMIC
OUTCOMES OF EE
The results of EE are typically measured on the basis of the number of start-ups generated, which
is explicable given the “tangibility” and ease of this measure. Another less tangible but quite
popular approach is to measure them in terms of entrepreneurial intentions (Mwasalwiba, 2010).
When indicating the outcomes of EE at educational and socio-economic levels respectively, both
measures encounter the problem of narrowness. Firstly, on the one hand, intentions to start an
enterprise evolve over time, and on the other hand, they do not always result in action. Secondly,
as far as EE is concerned, it does not set out to make every student an entrepreneur; therefore, the
question is how to measure the impact of EE among students that do not start up enterprises or
start them up much later. It has been admitted that along with a broader view of the objectives of
EE, the rate of new venture creation is not the only indicator for evaluating the results of
entrepreneurship programmes (Kozlinska, 2011), especially if a longitudinal study is not feasible
to accomplish. This section suggests two further important indicators to take into account in the
socio-economic part of the holistic framework.
Gibb (1996) states that there are three reasons for contemporary interest in entrepreneurship and
the education of new entrepreneurs: job creation and economic development, strategic
adjustment/realignment and deregulation of public utilities and state-owned enterprises.
According to Kirby (2006), competences developed as a result of EE should lead to self-
employment, economic self-sufficiency or employment generation, business survival or growth.
Moreover, entrepreneurship is an economic process that also organises social processes, but at
present society has to rely upon itself and develop a greater sense of enterprise and self-help
(Fayolle & Klandt, 2006), where the challenge is to develop entrepreneurial personalities going
beyond the commercial and apart from pure venture creation (Hytti, 2008; Kirby, 2006). This
position accords with the European socio-economic goals of EE programmes – to enhance the
attractiveness of graduates for employers, improve their role in society and economy and
encourage innovative business start-ups (EC, 2012a).
14 Inna Kozlinska
Based on Blenker et al. (2006), Braun (2011), Bridge et al. (2010), EC (2012a), Kirby (2006),
OECD (2009), OFEM (2008) and Martinez et al. (2010), employability and intrapreneurship are
distinguished as the main socio-economic outcomes of EE in addition to the common venture
creation.
Employability means being prepared to work for other people, equipped to obtain existing jobs –
by “selling” oneself to employers and by making progress over time (Bridge et al., 2010). The EC
(2012a) includes attempts to transit into self-employment in this category. These attempts can be
regarded as the highest level of employability, when a person feels ready to employ
himself/herself, which is hardly possible without him/her being enterprising. The concept of
intrapreneurship was introduced by Pinchot in 1976 and characterises entrepreneurial/enterprising
employees that are able to identify and exploit lucrative opportunities within a company (OFEM,
2008). Its tangible form can be a spin-out, the company’s new subsidiary or the launch of a new
product line – as a result of the implementation of an entrepreneurial initiative, which is usually
innovation-based, by an employee (ibid, 2008). Given that this is not a regular accomplishment, if
we limit ourselves to the “classical” meaning of intrapreneurship (OFEM, 2008), and not all
companies might explicitly support spin-outs or innovative activities, an intrapreneur is also
someone able to take on leading managerial positions within the company, thus acquiring
authority and a certain degree of independence for implementing his or her own ideas and
managing other people by behaving in an enterprising way (Hytti, 2008; Kirby, 2006) with the
difference that he/she takes less risks and, possibly, benefits financially in the long-term
compared to an entrepreneur. Finally, new venture creation is commonly tied to the establishment
of a new company, whether before or after graduation and its level of innovativeness (ibid, 2010;
EC, 2012a).
Employability, intrapreneurship and venture creation can also be regarded as second-level
outcomes of EE since they become salient as a result of learning outcomes. Contribution to
employment is predicated by understanding what the job requires appropriate knowledge and
skills (Bridge et al., 2010). Intrapreneurship is a wider concept of entrepreneurial behaviour, also
called “corporate entrepreneurship” or “intra-corporate venturing”, closely linked with creativity,
innovation, risk-taking, new learning, redistribution of resources and featuring a lot of similarities
with “attitude” as a learning outcome (Hytti, 2008; OFEM, 2008). New venture creation assumes
concrete entrepreneurial activity backed up by relevant knowledge (most often – business
planning), awareness, attitude, intentions and behaviour (Martinez et al., 2010). Whilst attitude,
knowledge and skills are the learning outcome categories generally attributable to any discipline
in higher education, the combination of employability, intrapreneurship and venture creation is
the distinct real-life combination of outcomes from EE specifically. In sum, learning and socio-
economic outcomes together result in augmented entrepreneurship, and in more innovative
enterprises, increased economic activity and job creation (Blenker et al., 2006).
In line with the OECD (2009) approach, three broad categories of EE programmes can be
subsumed: learning entrepreneurial skills and attitudes, enhancing business start-up and
entrepreneurial behaviour, which corresponds to the “through” and “about” teaching modes; the
development of business start-ups and entrepreneurial skills, or the “for” mode aiming at new
business creation. Indeed, the latter may not always be appropriate even for those pre-motivated
to start businesses, but this approach clearly omits explicitly using the “about” mode as a separate
line of teaching. Nonetheless, the OECD categories correspond with employability and/or
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 15
intrapreneurship and venture creation outcomes, while the ability of the “for”, “through” or
“about” entrepreneurship programmes to elicit positive outcomes is highly dependent on the
quality and appropriateness of the programme delivered (OECD, 2009). Therefore, the teaching
methods applied might have a direct influence on how well the socio-economic outcomes are
achieved. These methods also distinguish one teaching mode from another.
As in the learning outcomes, “real-life” outcomes also consist of numerous components. Table 6
summarises these constituents, which also serve as measures of employability and venture
creation. Braun (2011) regards them as the “macro-level effects of entrepreneurship training
programmes”. Here venture creation is associated with the number of new enterprises, additional
taxes and foreign currency generated by start-up companies, survival rates, effects on female
entrepreneurship, turnover and profit, level of innovation and so on. Employability covers
entering employment, number of creative and innovative positions, job satisfaction, annual
income, attempts to transit into self-employment, effects on employment rates and so on, as per
the table.
Table 6. Socio-economic outcomes of EE: employability and new venture creation
Details
Employability How quickly students can find their first job, whether local or abroad
How long they stay in employment
How often they change jobs, the number of employment periods
How they progress over time
Self-development
Innovative and creative positions
Job satisfaction
Annual income (capability of getting better paid positions or growing salaries)
Attempts to transit into self-employment
Involvement in self-employment as freelancers or liberal professionals
Planning a start-up and the likeliness of starting an enterprise
Participation in voluntary work
Participation in non-commercial work (e.g. charities or hobby clubs)
New venture creation The number of new enterprises
The number of new innovative enterprises
Survival and discontinuation rates
Start-up before graduation
Taxes and foreign currency generated by start-up companies
The number of jobs created
Annual growth rates in terms of turnover and employees
Helping others to start an enterprise
Female entrepreneurship
The number of years between graduation and first enterprise
The number of years in business and in current business
Improved processes
Improved goods/services
Improved forms of organisation, business structures or practices
Ambition for business growth: future business size
Net annual income
Turnover growth
Sources: Blenker et al. (2006), Braun (2011), EC (2012a), Martinez et al. (2010), OECD (2009)
16 Inna Kozlinska
Although study programmes usually undermine intrapreneurship, it is tied to the following
results:
- Generation of new revenues owing to the development of new markets, products and
activities
- Reduction of costs and improvement of practices, internal processes and the
organisation as a whole
- Encouragement of novel behaviour and attitudes of other employees, development of
internal culture (OFEM, 2008).
Consistent with Bridge et al. (2010), “enterprise for life” in the project by the Northern Ireland
Centre for Entrepreneurship (NICENT) is somewhat similar to intrapreneurship, representing a
broader approach to EE, which encourages the development of enterprising competences rather
than focusing on business start-ups, and opposing the widespread view of a narrow focus on
business creation. NICENT’s Enterprise for Life:
is a foundation for subsequent “enterprise for new venture creation”
supports subsequent idea spin-out and business creation
enhances employability through “intrapreneurship”
is a foundation for social entrepreneurship
is an essential approach for careers in various areas, where project management,
finances, administration and so on, are important
develops the capacity to respond positively to change.
Therefore, similar sub-measures can be used to express intrapreneurship as a whole, when
assessing the impact of EE among students. This wider understanding of intrapreneurship helps
focus on certain constituents that can be measured directly upon completion of the EE study
programme/course or within the short term.
The real-life outcomes of EE put forward in this section – employability, intrapreneurship and
venture creation – comprise a broad range of components. However, in order to use them in
further measurements and to create linkages with the learning outcomes in the final framework
and model, it is necessary to prioritise them.
In terms of OECD (2009) methodology, the socio-economic outcomes primarily concern the
entrepreneurial or enterprising performance of graduates as expressed in firms, employment and
private wealth rather than through a measurement of the economic impact – economic growth and
poverty reduction. Therefore, to reduce the number of measures to a relevant minimum, the
model will not consider such components as “taxes and foreign currency generated”, “annual
growth rates” and in fact most indicators related to the future success of a start-up. This is due to
the fact that most companies undergo a survival period within the first 2 years of existence, and
irrespective of the fact that most (90%) start-ups fail (Marmer et al., 2012).
The success measures are viable for use in a longitudinal study, which is not possible to
accomplish in a 2-year time frame. For this reason, the model will focus on the performance
measurement of EE students, limited to the period from the 1st year in higher education to 2 years
after graduation (Bachelor or Master). The proposed linkages between education and real life are
new and challenging enough to prove even provided that delimitation. Moreover, the longitudinal
research can be carried out at a later stage as an extra replication study. The following section
elaborates on the issue of prioritising the outcome components and builds the resulting
framework.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 17
4. HOLISTIC FRAMEWORK OF EE OUTCOMES AND
DISCUSSION
Since both parts of the target framework – outcomes of EE at educational and socio-economic
levels – are introduced, the present task is to integrate the identified categories and the
constituents. The selection of constituents should be a careful and critical process, since so many
linkages appear at present that it is obligatory to prioritise. This section combines and expands on
the results of the analytical overview from previous sections to construct the holistic framework
of EE outcomes.
Based on early Gibb (1993), Fisher et al. (2008), Kraiger et al. (1993) and Krathwohl (2002) or
Kennedy et al. (2006), the current form of the ECF is theoretically justified using both
educational and entrepreneurship-related sources as containing both generic and
entrepreneurship-specific components. The generic components are those that come from
education theory (as per Table 1) and the entrepreneurship-specific are derived from
entrepreneurship research and practice (as per Tables 2–4). Such components as “creativity”,
“analysis”, “motivation” and “planning” are also general but applicable to the business context,
while “risk propensity”, “managing people” and “opportunity recognition” clearly belong to the
entrepreneurship context. Other “triadic concepts” – more recent Gibb (2005), Heinonen and
Poikkijoki (2006) – do not contradict the ECF either but their deeper exploration is beyond the
core tasks of this paper.
When compared with the PIC having a strong background in psychology, the ECF also proves to
be consistent, with slight hierarchical (relating to “attitude”) and content (relating to the
standardisation of components) refinements. Furthermore, to make direct comparisons between
the PIC and the ECF, a common denominator of competences should be used, and both
frameworks have to be for teaching/learning or writing outcomes. In their present form, the ECF
and PIC are self-sufficient frameworks that can be applied to any discipline, while empirical
studies (EC, 2012a; Fisher et al., 2008; Kyrö et al., 2008) verify they can also be used for EE.
What truly differentiates the outcomes in EE from other disciplines in higher education is the
socio-economic, or real-life, aspect. Drawing upon Blenker et al. (2006), Braun (2011), Bridge et
al. (2010), EC (2012a), Kirby (2006), OECD (2009), OFEM (2008) and Martinez et al. (2010),
the assertion is that employability, intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship and the real-life
outcomes of EE are inter-linked with education – attitude, knowledge and skills – to form an
integrated framework. The research of Rideout (2011) revealed that EE produces measurable
outcomes only through mediating mechanisms, such as personal characteristics, networks, self-
efficacy and so on. Put another way, learning outcomes condition the achievement of the socio-
economic outcomes. Furthermore, socio-economic outcomes provide “hard” evidence that is
easier to track and measure (e.g. the number of start-ups or positions in employment) as opposed
to “soft” evidence (e.g. changes in attitude) that is difficult to ascribe quantifiable measures for
(OECD, 2009). Braun (2011) notices that difficulties may also arise when measuring socio-
economic outcomes due to the crowd-out effects of start-up programmes and limited coverage of
potential entrepreneurs by these programmes. Nonetheless, the necessity of this “hard” group of
outcomes in the target framework becomes even more evident given the subjectivity of the “self-
efficacy” measure for “soft” outcomes widely used in EE. Figure 1 visualises the proposed
framework.
18
Figure 1. Integrated educational and socio
The question remains open, which learning outcomes have more influence on
production of employability, intrapreneurship and new ventures. Following the logic of Table 5,
coupled with the discussion of the
outcomes in subsection 2.3, one can make
stronger influence on intrapreneurship th
employability. It is too early to deny or support this assumption in theory, but apparently
employability, intrapreneurship or
entrepreneur, intrapreneur or employee possesses a certain combination of attitude, knowledge
and skills, but developed differently. Therefore, the question of
of the learning outcomes on the socio
provided that key parameters are selected in both groups.
The subsequent question is what particular constituen
have stronger linkages with the constituen
outcomes as a result. While Tables 2
some of them clearly overlap (e.g. ambition and drive with initiative), coincide (e.
orientation and need for achievement) or repeat (e.g. self
on Saris and Gallhofer (2007), the fewer variables a model contains, the easier it is to test. The
key to Figure 1 (see below) shows the sele
a, b), ECOTEC (2010), Fisher et al. (2008) and Gibb (2005), where repetitions are eliminated,
and coinciding and overlapping formulations unified.
number of variables in each outcome.
For instance, innovation as an attitude is disputable
problems is included (“solving problems creatively”), and innovative solutions can be seen as a
result of creative attitude and thinking. “Se
confidence”, “self-esteem” and subsequently “social confidence”, while “entrepreneurial spirit”
can be perceived as an antecedent to “action orientation”
Integrated educational and socio-economic EE outcomes*
The question remains open, which learning outcomes have more influence on the
production of employability, intrapreneurship and new ventures. Following the logic of Table 5,
of the prioritisation of teaching aims, modes and socio
outcomes in subsection 2.3, one can make the assumption that entrepreneurial attitude has
stronger influence on intrapreneurship than skills on venture creation, and knowledge on
early to deny or support this assumption in theory, but apparently
employability, intrapreneurship or venture creation requires all three learning outcomes: an
entrepreneur, intrapreneur or employee possesses a certain combination of attitude, knowledge
and skills, but developed differently. Therefore, the question of the stronger or weaker influence
e learning outcomes on the socio-economic outcomes must be answered empirically,
provided that key parameters are selected in both groups.
The subsequent question is what particular constituents of attitude, skills and knowledge might
linkages with the constituents of socio-economic outcomes, and generate th
outcomes as a result. While Tables 2–4 list over 20 components per learning outcome in total,
some of them clearly overlap (e.g. ambition and drive with initiative), coincide (e.
orientation and need for achievement) or repeat (e.g. self-efficacy, creativity, networking). Based
Gallhofer (2007), the fewer variables a model contains, the easier it is to test. The
shows the selected learning outcomes components based on EC (2012
Fisher et al. (2008) and Gibb (2005), where repetitions are eliminated,
coinciding and overlapping formulations unified. However, it is still possible to limit the
ables in each outcome.
For instance, innovation as an attitude is disputable once the creative approach to solving
problems is included (“solving problems creatively”), and innovative solutions can be seen as a
e and thinking. “Self-efficacy for entrepreneurship” implies “self
esteem” and subsequently “social confidence”, while “entrepreneurial spirit”
can be perceived as an antecedent to “action orientation”, “determination to meet objectives” and
Inna Kozlinska
the stimulation or
production of employability, intrapreneurship and new ventures. Following the logic of Table 5,
prioritisation of teaching aims, modes and socio-economic
ion that entrepreneurial attitude has a
and knowledge on
early to deny or support this assumption in theory, but apparently
venture creation requires all three learning outcomes: an
entrepreneur, intrapreneur or employee possesses a certain combination of attitude, knowledge
stronger or weaker influence
must be answered empirically,
s of attitude, skills and knowledge might
economic outcomes, and generate those
4 list over 20 components per learning outcome in total,
some of them clearly overlap (e.g. ambition and drive with initiative), coincide (e.g. achievement
efficacy, creativity, networking). Based
Gallhofer (2007), the fewer variables a model contains, the easier it is to test. The
cted learning outcomes components based on EC (2012
Fisher et al. (2008) and Gibb (2005), where repetitions are eliminated,
However, it is still possible to limit the
once the creative approach to solving
problems is included (“solving problems creatively”), and innovative solutions can be seen as a
efficacy for entrepreneurship” implies “self-
esteem” and subsequently “social confidence”, while “entrepreneurial spirit”
“determination to meet objectives” and
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 19
“ambition” – as part of the “need for achievement”. In the “knowledge” component, an
“understanding of entrepreneurship ethics” and “understanding the broad picture and context of
work life and economy” are seen as less important given the presence of the “understanding of
entrepreneurship theory and the phenomenon per se”. “Marketing, selling and persuasion”
incorporate the skill of getting people excited about one’s own ideas, whilst “setting priorities and
focusing on goals” coupled with “analysis” involve the skill to work independently.
*The key to Figure 1:
Real-life outcome
Intrapreneurship INTR
Employability EMPL
Venture creation = “true” entrepreneurship VECR
Learning outcome Component Key
Attitude (9)
Need for achievement, motivation to excel
Curiosity, drive, initiative
Tolerance of failure and risk propensity
Solving problems creatively
INTR, EMPL, VECR
Entrepreneurial spirit
Self-efficacy for entrepreneurship
INTR, VECR
Passion for entrepreneurship
Independence
Commitment to business venture
VECR
Knowledge (8)
Basics of accounting, finance, IT, marketing, business planning
Opportunity recognition (in everyday life)
Understanding entrepreneurship theory and the phenomenon per se
Understanding business start-ups and knowledge of procedures
EMPL, INTR, VECR
Understanding of entrepreneurship and creativity processes
Knowledge (and insight) of how to get things done given limited
resources
Understanding risk (of starting-up)
INTR, VECR
Knowledge of personal fit with entrepreneurship career VECR
Skills (14)
Teamwork, working with people (incl. conflict resolution,
networking and negotiation)
Setting priorities and focusing on goals
Market research and analysis
Marketing and selling, persuasion
Active and on-going learning
Adaptability to new and uncertain situations
Creative problem solving
EMPL, INTR, VECR
Organisation and control (of projects, internal processes)
Leadership, managing people
Creativity, imagination, lateral thinking
Opportunity recognition (for innovation/starting-up)
Intuitive decision-making in conditions of uncertainty
INTR, VECR
Business planning, incl. strategy and vision development,
identification of strategic partners, attracting financing, etc.
Risk management and risk-taking
VECR
Source: based on EC (2012 a, b) and ECOTEC (2010), Fisher et al. (2008) and Gibb (2005)
20 Inna Kozlinska
The key to Figure 1 also discloses which components of the learning outcomes might generate
concrete real-life outcomes. In most of cases, it is rather hard to theoretically elicit components
that provide projections to a single outcome. Each particular component carries different
exposures for an employee, intrapreneur or entrepreneur, although it might generate all three real-
life outcomes. As an example, networking and negotiation skills are certainly vital in any self- or
paid- employment, but an entrepreneur presumably has developed these skills better than an
employee. However, there are some components that are clearly attributable to entrepreneurs,
equally projecting to the “venture creation” real-life outcome – “passion for entrepreneurship”,
“commitment to business venture”, “knowledge of personal fit with entrepreneurship career” and
“risk-taking”.
One more vital aspect pertaining to Figure 1 is the relationship between intrapreneurship,
employability and new venture creation. In casual employment, the transition towards
intrapreneurship or self-employment is tied to enterprising behaviour. It can be an example of an
enterprising personality, who has not found a good fit with a company he/she worked for as an
intrapreneur, or is naturally inclined towards working on his/her own, which provides a way to
transit from self-employment to a company founder in the future by attracting other people to
his/her initiated project. Therefore, Figure 1 emphasises the links between employability and
venture creation through intrapreneurship, when the latter means an enterprising personality and
the ability to take on managerial positions. Put simply, an ordinary employee cannot become an
entrepreneur unless he/she possesses or develops/acquires enterprising and entrepreneurial
attitudes and skills. Simultaneously, this scheme does not oblige “inborn” entrepreneurs to go
through employment and intrapreneurship before setting up their own companies, or
intrapreneurs to go through ordinary employment either; it does, however, cover failure cases,
when a start-up is not successful and an entrepreneur transits (back) to intrapreneurship or
employment.
To elaborate on the selection of the components for measuring real-life outcomes, we should refer
back to the conclusion of section 3, which, from the range of socio-economic components,
suggested selecting those that concern specifically the entrepreneurial or enterprising
performance of graduates in the period from the 1st year in higher education to 2 years after
graduation (Bachelor or Master), but omitting the success measures for their start-ups. Table 7
shows the resulting measures selected. Employability is expressed in how fast students/graduates
find jobs, how long they stay in contract and how satisfied they are with the jobs in the period
studied. Intrapreneurship measures cover managerial positions that the students/graduates
undertake, new initiative implementation within the company, and, in line with the “classical”
meaning of the concept, the number of company subsidiaries and spin-outs created, which will
most probably be rather low. Finally, venture creation focuses on the number of new companies
followed by the level of innovativeness, size of the companies, first revenues/losses and so on, as
per the table.
By diversifying the composition of study programmes, universities can satisfy the different aims
of EE, as entrepreneurship per se is clearly not suitable for all students. At the same time, EE
prepares graduates for a professional life, no matter whether in their own enterprise or in self- or
paid employment. Thus, “enterprise for life” or intrapreneurship becomes the central most
important outcome as being broader and relevant for most students, enhancing employability and
providing the foundation for new venture creation (Bridge et al., 2010).
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 21
Table 7. Components of the socio-economic outcomes selected
Real-life outcome Component
Employability Speed of entering into an employment contract
Number of employers and employment periods
Change and/or growth in undertaken positions
Annual income
Job satisfaction
Self-employment (also – attempts to transit and freelancing)
Plans to start own company
Intrapreneurship Company spin-outs and subsidiaries
New initiative implementation with managerial support
New company profits/reduction of costs
Managerial positions undertaken
Venture creation Number of new companies before and after graduation
Level of innovativeness
Size of company and jobs created
First revenues/losses
Failures/discontinuation
Growth ambitions
Source: based on Blenker et al. (2006), Braun (2011), Bridge et al. (2010), EC (2012a), Martinez et al. (2010),
OECD (2009), OFEM (2008)
The “container knowledge” approach in EE proved to be unsuccessful (Braun, 2011). Delivered
in the form of training, EE should provide knowledge when it is needed, apply experiential
teaching methods and follow a process approach, where educators measure results at different
steps starting from changes in key competences (Hytti et al., 2004). The explicit target remains
enhancing entrepreneurial attitudes, or teaching “to become entrepreneurial”, which corresponds
to the education “through” entrepreneurship mode. Hence, the “about” teaching mode carries an
implicit role, and only then, for a ready or prepared audience, is the last mode applied (see Figure
2).
Figure 2. Prioritised aims of EE
Possible relationships between entrepreneurship education/training and subsequent behaviour
have already been discussed by Martinez et al. (2010). The methodology of the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) attempts to track connections between entrepreneurship and
22 Inna Kozlinska
economic development, where EE is one of efficiency enhancers. However, GEM’s
entrepreneurial behaviour is equal to engagement in early-stage entrepreneurial activity (nascent
entrepreneurs and new business owners, TEA), which does not include intrapreneurship in this
indicator. GEM uses the “gain from training” measure of the effect of compulsory training on
how to start a business (versus no training on awareness, attitudes, intentions to start a business
and TEA), which proves to be higher for innovation-driven countries (Martinez et al., 2010).
The European Commission report “Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in
Higher Education” published in March 2012 is one of the known exceptions, which empirically
approaches both groups of outcomes (EC, 2012a). The study based on a survey of a total of 1139
entrepreneurship alumni and 1443 control group alumni researched the impact of EE on the
entrepreneurial key competences – knowledge, attitude and skills – necessary for achieving the
entrepreneurial goals students set in their lives, as well as its impact on intentions towards
entrepreneurship, individual employability, society and the economy. The results demonstrate
that the scores of trained individuals for all indicators proved higher than in individuals from the
control group. However, the research does not account for interrelations among the researched
outcomes, intrapreneurship (directly), and does not provide a theoretical justification for the
measures used.
To sum up, the learning and socio-economic outcomes of EE were integrated in this section into a
holistic framework, which is both novel and justified from the viewpoint of educational theory
and entrepreneurship research. The framework is also a means of measuring the impact of
entrepreneurship education at educational and socio-economic levels, but suggests testing the
linkages between the components of learning and real-life outcomes and their constituents in
further research. This is the first time that these particular linkages have been presented and
elaborated on in detail, bringing a novel contribution to the field of EE. Apart from the
measurement of the impact of EE, the resulting discussion drew upon implications for the aims of
study programmes and modes of teaching entrepreneurship.
5. CONCLUSION
The fundamental view of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education proposes two groups of
outcomes at educational and socio-economic levels, which are hypothetically interconnected:
attitude, knowledge and skills, and intrapreneurship, employability and venture creation,
respectively. To construct this framework, the scientific origins and the applicability of the
European Competence Framework (ECF) for EE were initially investigated. Secondly, the
venture creation approach was challenged as the most popular way of measuring EE outcomes in
real life.
The analytical retrospect revealed that the ECF, commonly used in EE, has theoretical grounds in
educational theory (i.e. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives) and strong influences
from psychology (e.g. Theory of Planned Behaviour) (Kennedy et al., 2006; Fayolle et al., 2006;
Krathwohl, 2002; Bandura, 1994). In spite of these developments, it features entrepreneurship-
specific content, though the constituents vary across different sources. The ECF as such is
universal and can be applicable to any discipline, including entrepreneurship, thus, it proved to be
consistent for measuring EE outcomes at the educational level given some hierarchical and
content refinements.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 23
A range of prominent sources in entrepreneurship research (e.g. Blenker et al., 2006; Braun,
2011; Martinez et al., 2010; OECD, 2009; OFEM, 2008) provided grounds for the second group
of EE outcomes, the socio-economic outcomes, and made it possible to assert that these real-life
outcomes are the indivisible part of a holistic view of the issue. Since EE does not aim to make
every student an entrepreneur from the onset, the question is how to measure the impact of EE
among those students, who do not start up or start up at a later stage? As the ultimate goal of
higher education is to prepare students for an economically viable working life, whether in self-
or paid employment, two other indicators have to be considered in addition to venture creation –
employability and intrapreneurship – where the latter is the universal real-life outcome that can
lead either to entrepreneurship as a career path or higher employment positions. This article
promotes the expanded meaning of intra-corporate venturing, or intrapreneurship, which also
comprises undertaking managerial positions within companies, not limited to spinning-out or new
subsidiaries (e.g. Bridge et al.; 2010 OFEM, 2008).
It became evident throughout this research that the socio-economic, or real-life, aspect truly
distinguishes EE from other disciplines in higher education. What is more, deriving from the
previous study (e.g. Rideout, 2008), which concluded that EE produces measurable outcomes
only through mediating mechanisms, such as personal characteristics, networks, self-efficacy,
etc., the resulting assertion is that the learning outcomes condition the achievement of the socio-
economic outcomes. In the same manner, employability, intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship,
the real-life outcomes of EE, are inter-linked with the educational outcomes – attitude, knowledge
and skills – together forming an integrated framework, where not only are the components
connected, but also the constituents.
As in any research, this paper has a number of limitations and delimitations:
1. Some elements of the integrated outlook already appear in existing research (EC, 2012a;
Martinez et al., 2010), although these have a different purpose. At the same time, the new
framework offers a lot of variables and new linkages between them, which may entail a deeper
analysis rather pertaining to the future. For instance, the paper does not examine connections
among the components at educational and socio-economic levels within the two groups of
outcomes apart from hypothesising that they are interconnected.
2. There are a number of terminological limitations, for instance, in the synonymous treatment of
aims, objectives and goals in EE programmes; outcomes, effects and impact of EE;
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning and training.
3. The discussion of the differences between learning outcomes in traditional university
education and training remained beyond the tasks of this paper.
4. The paper does not go into the details of the means of achieving the aims of EE programmes,
or pedagogical issues, and does not set evident boundaries between learning and teaching EE.
5. The selected constituents in the target framework were selected considering the fact that a
longitudinal study was not feasible due to the time constraints of the doctoral project. The
socio-economic part of the framework focuses on the measurement of the performance of EE
students, but is limited to the period from the 1st year in higher education to 2 years after
graduation (Bachelor or Master).
6. The current discussion relates to higher education only.
24 Inna Kozlinska
7. As far as its aims, tasks and general scientific research methods are concerned, the paper is
purely theoretical.
Although this article is theoretical, the new framework introduced here had not been used or
discussed before in the existing literature, hence, it makes a novel contribution to the field of EE.
The holistic framework partly solves the problem of writing the learning and real-life outcomes
of EE, allowing for academic or practical freedom to select the most relevant components or to
argue for the importance of some as opposed to others. Clearly set and defined outcomes are a
prerequisite for measuring the results of EE, and these do not exist as a well-established system in
most Eastern European institutions of higher education, so the framework provides ready content
for this purpose. This is especially relevant in light of the generation of socio-economic impact
through EE put forward in the EU policy essentials.
This extended framework of EE outcomes carries wider curriculum development implications,
where the aims of EE, the perceived outcomes, teaching/learning approaches, and educational and
real-life outcomes should be aligned. An adjacent implication relates to intrapreneurship.
Entrepreneurs are capable of being intrapreneurs, or self-employed, while all intrapreneurs, in
turn, are entrepreneurial employees; however, not all employees are intrapreneurs. Consequently,
intrapreneurship is a generic socio-economic outcome to be targeted by EE programmes,
implying the development of entrepreneurial personalities and an enterprise culture as noted by
Fayolle et al. (2006), Hytti (2008), Kirby (2006), Blenker et al. (2006) and other experts. Then
employability or entrepreneurship in the sense put forward by Schumpeter or Kirzner is one of
the available paths, including transitioning employment into one’s own venture through
intrapreneurship or self-employment.
However, the most applicable implication of this framework in the short term is its further
application in empirical studies within this doctoral project – formulating hypotheses based on
inter-linkages among the outcomes, elaborating a questionnaire and measuring and comparing EE
results in different countries. In the long-term, a longitudinal study can be carried out based on
the framework, which will have been tested by that time. Above all, the teaching methods applied
in EE might have a direct influence on how well the formulated outcomes are achieved.
Consequently, further research whether in the short- or long-term should address this relationship
by all means.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 25
REFERENCES
Bandura A. (1994) “Self-Efficacy”, in: Ramachaudran, V.S., ed. Encyclopedia of Human
Behaviour, Vol. 4, New York: Academic Press, 71-81.
Béchard, J.-P. & Grégoire, D. (2005) “Understanding Teaching Models in Entrepreneurship for
Higher Education”, in Kyro, P. & Carrier, C., eds. The Dynamics of Learning
Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context. Entrepreneurship Education Series
2/2005, University of Tampere, 104-134.
Blenker, P., Dreisler, P. & Kjeldsen, J. (2006) “Entrepreneurship Education – the New Challenge
Facing Universities”. Working paper 2006-02, Aarhus School of Business.
Braun, G. (2011) “Evaluating International Entrepreneurship Training Programmes –
Intercultural Concepts and Practical Experiences in Developing Countries”, in Müller, K.-D. &
Diensberg, C., eds. Methoden und Qualität in Gründungslehre, Gründungscoaching und
Gründungsberatung. Lohmar, Rheinland: J. Eul Verlag.
Bridge, S., Hegarty, C. & Porter, Sh. (2010) “Rediscovering Enterprise: Developing Appropriate
University Entrepreneurship Education”. Journal of Education and Training, 52(8/9): 722-
734.
Charney, A. & Libecap, G. (2008) “Impact of Entrepreneurship Education”, Kauffman Research
Series.
Choi, Y. (1993) Paradigms and Conventions: Uncertainty, Decision Making and
Entrepreneurship. USA: University of Michigan, 45-46.
Churches, A. (2008) “Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy”. Available at:http://www.techlearning.com/techlearning/archives/2008/04/AndrewChurches.pdf.
Davies, H. (2002) “A Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education”. Norwich: Crown
Copyright.
EC (2012a) “Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in Higher Education”. DG
Enterprise & Industry, March 2012.
EC (2012b) “Call for Proposals in Entrepreneurship Education”, No.
28/G/ENT/CIP/12/E/N01C01.
EC (2007) “Key Competences for Lifelong Learning: A European Framework”. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
EC (2004) “Euro-Mediterranean Charter for Enterprise”. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu.
EC (2000) “The European Charter for Small Enterprises”. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu.
ECOTEC (2010) “Towards Greater Cooperation and Coherence in Entrepreneurship Education”,
Birmingham: Ecorys.
EU (2008) “Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 on
Establishment of the European EQF for Lifelong Learning”. Official Journal of the European
Union C 111/1 of 06.05.2008.
EU (2006) “Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006
on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning”. Official Journal of the European Union L
394/10 of 30.12.2006. The summary available at:http://ec.europa.eu.
Fayolle, A. (2007), ed. Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education. Volume 1. A
General Perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). “Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship
Education Programmes: A New Methodology”. Journal of European Industrial Training,
30(9): 701-720.
26 Inna Kozlinska
Fayolle, A. & Klandt, H., eds. (2006) International Entrepreneurship Education. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fayolle, A. & Kyrö, P., eds. (2008) The Dynamics Between Entrepreneurship, Environment and
Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fisher, S., Graham, M. & Compeau, M. (2008) “Understanding the Learning Outcomes of
Entrepreneurship Education”, in Harrison, R. & Leitch, C., eds. Entrepreneurial Learning:
Conceptual Frameworks and Applications. New York: Routledge.
Gibb, A. (2011) "Concepts into practice: meeting the challenge of development of
entrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm: The case of the International
Entrepreneurship Educators' Programme (IEEP)", International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, 17(2), 146-165.
Gibb, A. (2005) “The Future of Entrepreneurship Education – Determining the Basis of Coherent
Policy & Practice”, in Kyro, P. & Carrier, C., eds. The Dynamics of Learning
Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context. Entrepreneurship Education Series
2/2005, University of Tampere, 44-67.
Gibb, A. (1996) “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management: Can We Afford to Neglect
Them in the 21
st
Century Business School”. British Journal of Management, 7(4): 309-324.
Gibb, A. (1993) “Training the Trainers for Small Business”. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 14(1): 17-25”.
Gibb, A., Haskins, G. & Robertson, I. (2009) “Leading the Entrepreneurial University”. The
paper published in cooperation with NCGE & Oxford University’s Said Business School.
Grün, G., Tritscher-Archan, T. & Weiß, S. (2009) “Guidelines for the Description of Learning
Outcomes”. Zoom Partnership, UK.
Haase, H. & Lautenschlager, A. (2011) “The Teachability Dilemma of Entrepreneurship”.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7:145-162.
Hannula, H. & Pajari-Stylman, S. (2008) “Entrepreneurship Incubators at HAMK University of
Applied Sciences”, in van der Sijde, P., Ridder, A., Blaauw, G. & Diensberg, C. “Teaching
Entrepreneurship. Cases for Education & Training”, Springer Physica Verlag.
Harrison, R. & Leitch, C., eds. (2008) Entrepreneurial Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and
Applications. New York: Routledge.
Heder, E., Ljubic, M. & Nola, L (2011) “Entrepreneurial Learning: A Key Competence
Approach. ICSED Level 2 & 5/6”. Zagreb: South East Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning.
Heinonen, J. & Poikkijoki, S. (2006) “An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship
education: mission impossible?” Journal of Management Development, 25(1): 80-94.
Helgoy, I. & Homme, A. (2011) “Implementation of the European Qualifications Framework in
Education”. The paper presented at the 33rd EGPA conference, Bucharest, 07-10 September,
2011.
Hilgard, E.R. (1980) “The Trilogy of the Mind: Cognition, Affection, and Conation”. Journal of
the History of Behavioral Sciences, 16: 107-117.
Hytti, U. (2008) “Enterprise Education in Different Cultural Setting and at Different School
Levels”, in Fayolle, A. & Kyrö, P., eds. (2008) The Dynamics Between Entrepreneurship,
Environment and Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Hytti, U. (2002) “State-of-art of Enterprise Education in Europe. Results From the ENTREDU
Project”. Turku: Small Business Institute, Business Research and Development Centre, Turku
School of Economics and Business Administration and ENTREDU project partners.
Hytti, U., Kuopusjarvi, P. & the Entreva project team (2004) “Evaluating and Measuring
Entrepreneurship & Enterprise Education: Methods, Tools & Practices”, Small Business
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 27
Institute, Business Research & Development Centre, Turku School of Economics & Business
Administration. Available at:http://www.entreva.net.
Hytti, U., Stenholm, P., Heinonen, J. & Seikkula-Leino, J. (2010). “Perceived Learning
Outcomes in Entrepreneurship Education”, Journal of Education and Training, 52(8/9): 587-
606.
Kennedy, D., Hyland. A. & Ryan, N. (2006) “Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: A Practical
Guide”. Available at:http://sss.dcu.ie/afi/docs/bologna/writing_and_using_learning_outcomes.pdf.
Kirby, D. (2006) “Can Business Schools Meet the Challenge?” in Fayolle, A. & Klandt, H., eds.
International Entrepreneurship Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Kozlinska, I. (2011) “Contemporary Approaches to Entrepreneurship Education”. Journal of
Business Management, 4: 205-220.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. & Salas, E. (1993) “Application of Cognitive, Skill-Based and Affective
Theories of Learning Outcomes to New Methods of Training Evaluation”. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78: 311-328.
Krathwohl, D. (2002) “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview”. Theory into Practice,
41(4): 212-218.
Kyrö, P. (2008) “A Theoretical Framework for Teaching and Learning Entrepreneurship”.
International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 2(1): 39-55.
Kyrö, P. (2005) “Entrepreneurial Learning in a Cross-Cultural Context Challenges Previous
Learning Paradigms”, in Kyro, P. & Carrier, C., eds. The Dynamics of Learning
Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context. Entrepreneurship Education Series
2/2005, University of Tampere, 68-102.
Kyrö, P. & Carrier, C., eds. (2005) The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-
Cultural University Context. Entrepreneurship Education Series”, Entrepreneurship Education
Series 2/2005, University of Tampere.
Kyrö, P., Seikkula-Leino, J. & Myllari, J. (2008) “How the Dialogue Between Cognitive,
Conative and Affective Constructs in Entrepreneurial and Enterprising Learning Process is
Explicated Through Concept Mapping?” Procedures of the 3
rd
International Conference on
Concept Mapping A. J. Cañas, P. Reiska, M. Åhlberg & J. D. Novak, Eds. Tallinn, Estonia &
Helsinki, Finland 2008.
Marmer, M., Herrmann, B., Dogrultan, E. & Berman, R. (2012) “Startup Genome Report Extra
Premature Scaling”. Available at:http://www.startupgenome.com/.
Martinez, A., Levie, J., Kelley, D., Saemundsson, R. & Schott, T. (2010) “Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor Special Report: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship
Education and Training”.
Matlay, H. (2008) “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes”.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 382-396.
Mets, T. (2010) “How to Train Educated Entrepreneurs: Small (Post) Transition Country Case”.
Social Research, 4(21): 20-27.
Mets, T. (2006) “Teaching basic entrepreneurship and business plan in university: subject, goals
and some experience”. Unpublished material.
Müller, K.-D. & Diensberg, C. (2011) Methoden und Qualität in Gründungslehre,
Gründungscoaching und Gründungsberatung. Lohmar, Rheinland: J. Eul Verlag.
Mwasalwiba, E. (2010). A review of its objectives, teaching methods and impact indicators,
Journal of Education and Training, 52:1, 20-47.
28 Inna Kozlinska
OECD (2009) “Evaluation of Programmes Concerning Education for Entrepreneurship”. Report
by the OECD Working Party on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, OECD.
OFEM (2008) “L’Intrapreneuriat ou «Comment avoir l’agilité de la gazelle quand on est dans une
configuration d’éléphant»”. Paris Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
Rideout, E. (2011) “Bounded Rationality and the Supply Side of Entrepreneurship: Evaluation
Technology Entrepreneurship Education for Economic Impact”. Raleigh: North Carolina State
University.
Rouhotie, P. and Koiranen, M. (2000) “In the pursuit of conative constructs into entrepreneurship
education”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 3, 9-22.
Saris, W. and Gallhofer, I. (2007) “Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of Questionnaires for
Survey Research”. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Say, J.-B. (1803) “Traité d’économie politique”/(eng.)“A treatise on political economy”.
Translated from the 4
th
edition in French by C. R. Prinsep. Available at:http://www.econlib.org/library/Say/sayT.html.
Schumpeter, J. (1934) “The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital,
Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Snow, R. & Jackson, D. (1997) “Individual Differences in Conation: Selected Constructs and
Measures”. Centre for Research on Evaluation: Stanford University.
Fundamental View of the Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education 29
KOKKUVÕTE
Fundamentaalne vaade ettevõtlushariduse väljunditele
Artikkel esitab ettevõtlushariduse väljundite tervikliku raamistiku nii hariduse perspektiivist kui
sotsiaal-majanduslikul tasandil. Kasutades üldisi teadusliku uurimise meetodeid, monograafilist
ning loogilist konstrueerimist uurib autor ettevõtlikku õppimist soodustava Euroopa
Kompetentsiraamistiku põhialuseid ning toob välja selle rakendamise teadusliku põhjenduse.
Käesolev töö on samuti esimene, mis rakendab ettevõtlikkuse lõimitud vaadet kui kombinatsiooni
värvatavusest, ettevõttesisesest ettevõtlusaktiivsusest ning uute ettevõtete loomisest. Tehes seda
selleks, et mõõta ettevõtlushariduse mõju ning luua seoseid reaalse elu põhiste ja hariduspõhiste
õpiväljundite vahel. Käesoleva kirjutise sihtlugejaskonnana näeb autor ettevõtlusõpetuse pakkujaid,
teadlaseid ning ettevõtlusharidust puudutavate otsuste langetajaid.
doc_627030045.pdf