Nature of the intervention

Nature of the Intervention

Of the 102 articles reviewed, it has already been noted that not all are precisely “entrepreneurship education” as many might define it. (Several looked at the impact of higher education per se on entrepreneurship-related outcomes.) This is both a weakness of the research on entrepreneurship education and a strength. Critics note that good education research must be very clear on two dimensions that we often neglect: the specifics of the pedagogical interventions and the context. On the latter point, it was heartening to see studies that examined the impact of EE on various outcomes (not just intentions) and a few even examined key influences upon EE. The most frequent example of this are studies that focused on university support mechanisms such as incubators (Marvel; Marvel & Lumpkin; Voisey, et al.) and student organizations (Pittaway).  Given the prevalence of incubators as institutional commitment to entrepreneurial learning and the track record of non-class activities such as clubs, it was not surprising to see those mentioned. (While not covered by this review, the student-developed Design Factory and Startup Sauna at Aalto University were student-designed and run.)

However, if we are to draw generalizable conclusions about the impact of EE, it is imperative that we have a strong framework to categorize the actual learning experiences. “An entrepreneurship class” tells us relatively little. It was striking how most of the articles reviewed here did not give us enough detail to accurately assess the nature of the intervention beyond generalities. Even then, it was often unclear about important specifics. (Seemingly experiential pedagogy need not be truly experiential, etc.) We recognize that going into adequate detail is rarely (if ever) demanded by reviewers and editors and may even be deemed superfluous. We all know what “an entrepreneurship class” is, right? Or do we?

If we were to attempt a meta-analysis, one critical moderator would be the nature of the pedagogy, if possible at a fine-grained level. We would also need to test the effects of instructors and of students. We have some of this information, particularly about students, but not nearly enough. For example, it would have been powerful to know whether instructors had entrepreneurial expertise themselves. This is a burning discussion in entrepreneurship education where it might be very useful to know the limits and delimits of instructor competences. How much does it help to have educators who share the expert entrepreneurial mindset? (If to become a chess master you need at least a chess master to mentor you, does that carry over to entrepreneurship?)

Fortunately, twenty of the articles made reasonably specific reference to their pedagogical approach. Of those, 20 described highly experiential pedagogies. For the majority who did not clearly describe their methods, it might be risky to assume that they were significantly less experiential. However, large-scale surveys of EE suggest that experiential learning may be growing but it is still far behind “writing a business plan” and other more classroom-focused activities. Entrepreneurship educators, to be blunt, talk a good game about being deeply experiential but bureaucratic and budget constraints can prevent it (e.g., Löbler, 2006; Smith, et al., 2006).

Education: Filling a pail or lighting a fire?

Why does this matter? How many entrepreneurship educators have read even one article (let alone taken coursework) about how humans actually learn? Educational psychology has much to offer but a sampling of the articles reviewed show the near-absence of references. 

The biggest distinction that educational psychologists make is about the core assumptions that educators have about human learning. What they believe about learning shows up in their pedagogy; their pedagogy usually reflects their core beliefs about learning. At the simplest, there are two schools of thought in education: Behavioristic and constructivistic.

To use Yeats’s classic quote, behaviorism assumes learning to be the relatively passive transfer of knowledge from teacher to student (“filling a pail”) while constructivism assumes that learning is about how knowledge is structured and how those structures evolve (“lighting a fire”). Almost all higher education, at least in business schools, is highly behavioristic: Lectures, homework, quizzes, highly-structured exercises, etc. 

Constructivistic education is by nature deeply experiential and focused on the mindset, changing not what we know but how we know it. In current parlance, are students learning about entrepreneurship or learning to think like an expert entrepreneur?

The most successful entrepreneurial training programs globally are practitioner-driven and deeply experiential, such as the leading venture accelerator program TechStars, the leading technology commercialization program, the lean startup-based Lean Launchpad and even short programs like Startup Weekend. They all share deep immersion experiences, considerable realism, hands-on tools, strong ecosystem engagement (e.g., intensive mentoring), and an implicit focus on growing the expert entrepreneurial mindset – all are highly constructivistic.

It is not hard to see that entrepreneurship education has always had constructivistic elements and the very best pedagogies are deeply constructivistic. Yet it is also a reality that while most entrepreneurship programs think they are constructivistic, most are decidedly not (Löbler, 2006; Krueger 2009). However, that does suggest if a program is experiential, not traditional, mention will be made. As noted, of the 20 studies where we might make a reasonable judgment as to constructivistic or behavioristic, 19 explicitly described themselves as experiential in one form or another, only 1 seemed explicitly behavioristic.

Consider the example of Lange, et al. (2011) who surveyed 3,894 Babson alumni as to what entrepreneurial activity they have engaged in and what courses they took. The experiential courses were much more predictive of multiple entrepreneurial behaviors; the rare behavioristic courses (“how to write a business plan”) were if anything a negative predictor.

What would be interesting here would be to look at those 19 studies here which at least claimed to be significantly experiential. So what are the markers of constructivistic education in the article reviewed here?

Of the 19 studies that mentioned their pedagogic strategy, we noticed several categories: Realism, Immersion/Intensive Programs, Providing Experiential Tools, Ecosystem Engagement and Entrepreneurial Mindset – all are key facets of constructivistic learning that are shared by the best training programs.

Realism: Situated learning is powerful because despite its challenges to the learner, the transferability of what one has learned is more direct. Chang & Rieple (2013) looked at the impacts from working side by side with entrepreneurs, finding that perceived skills declined as part of a reality check. Guedes, Gondim & Mutti (2011) tested an experiential program, EMPRETEC, finding that hypothetical activities did not affect entrepreneurial thinking, but realistic exercises did. Harris, Gibson & Taylor (2009) looked at students doing field projects with small businesses and found an increase in entrepreneurial attitudes while Jones & Jones (2011) found that students required creating a “real” business in a month raised intentions and enterprise skills. Tan & Ng (2006) looked at problem-based learning and found impact increased with realism. Similarly, Wee (2004) reported on a successful implementation of PBL in a setting long-used to traditional pedagogies. Vincett & Farlow (2008) tested impact of classes where students created actual ventures. But how to deliver “realism”?

Immersion/Intensive Programs: If TechStars and Startup Weekend are any indication, immersion is important to genuine entrepreneurial learning. Fayolle, et al. (2006) tracked engineering students longitudinally in an intensive experiential program where students appeared to become more entrepreneurial. Martin et al. (2013) offers a meta-analysis finding that focused academic training was more efficacious while McAlexander et al. (2009) found the impact of intensive experiential learning increased entrepreneurial behavior.  This clearly merits further research.

Experiential Tools:  We can also provide learners with experiential tools, direct and indirect that entrepreneurs need. Ben-Zvi (2010) found that business simulation games that were not inherently entrepreneurial in content, nonetheless had positive impact while Millman et al. (2008) looked at the ILO’s experiential Know About Business business-skills toolkit program for developing countries. Gilbert (2012) tested the use of rapid prototyping tools to build entrepreneurial capacity in novices. Hamidi, Wennberg & Berglund (2008) found that experiential creativity training raised entrepreneurial intentions. We are intrigued by whether we can identify specific changes in the entrepreneurial mindset to various specific tools.

Ecosystem Engagement: Again looking at the most effective entrepreneurial training programs like Startup Weekend and TechStars, deep co-immersion in the entrepreneurial ecosystem is imperative for entrepreneurial development. Gordon, Hamilton & Jack (2012) found that training for higher-growth entrepreneurship benefited significantly from strong engagement with the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Pittaway et al. (2010) found broad positive effects from participating in entrepreneurship clubs. Given the strong belief by entrepreneurs and policymakers that ecosystem engagement is critical, we need much more research here.

Focus on Growing the Entrepreneurial Mindset: This is the heart of constructivistic learning and we have two studies that address that. Sanchez (2010) found that while a relatively behavioristic course had positive impact, there was a clear need to grow the entrepreneurial mindset while Souitaris, et al. (2007) found that increasing the entrepreneurial mindset was the critical element to future entrepreneurial behavior, not merely raising self-efficacy and intent.

Testing Constructivistic versus Behavioristic EE?

Two studies in our sample explicitly tested the competing models. Walter & Dosche (2012) compared constructivistic versus behavioristic finding that active learning had broadly positive impacts while traditional learning only worked in locations with an already-strong entrepreneurial culture. Wang & Verzat (2011) compared an action learning program to a superior school using traditional behaviorist classes; in the former, entrepreneurial intent went up but declined in the latter. 

These findings are “old hat” in the educational psychology literature and would surprise neither researchers nor practitioners. It might, however, surprise administrators in higher education.

As researchers, we also conclude that to increase generalizability of research into EE that scholars be very clear about the specifics of the pedagogies being studied and give us more detailed information about instructors and students.