The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm New horizons in New horizons in entrepreneurship: entrepreneurship from teacher-led to studentcentered learning Sarah Robinson Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Helle Neergaard Department of Management, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Lene Tanggaard 661 Received 1 March 2016 Revised 6 May 2016 29 May 2016 Accepted 30 May 2016 Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, and Norris Krueger Entrepreneurship Northwest, Boise, Idaho, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discussion about the complexity and heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education. In order to achieve this objective, this paper combines educational psychology with perspectives from entrepreneurship education research to make explicit educators tacit assumptions in order to understand how these assumptions guide teaching. Design/methodology/approach – Using ethnographic analysis, the paper reports data from the continuous development and implementation of a single course over a period of ten years bringing in the educator’s and the students perspectives on their achievements and course content. Findings – The authors find that it is sometimes advantageous to invoke and combine different learning theories and approaches in order to promote entrepreneurial awareness and mindset. It is also necessary to move away from entrepreneurship education as being teacher led to being more student-centred and focused on experiential and existential lifelong learning practices. Practical implications – Practically, the authors make suggestions for the design and delivery of a course that demonstrates how four diverse learning theories can be combined to consolidate entrepreneurial learning in students invoking experiential and curiosity-based learning strategies. Originality/value – There are very few examples of concrete course designs that have been researched longitudinally in-depth using ethnographic methods. Moreover, most courses focus on the post-foundation period, whereas this paper presents a course that is a primer to the entrepreneurial process and exclusively centred on the pre-foundation phase. Rather than building on a single perspective, it combines a range of theories and approaches to create interplay and progression. Keywords Psychology, Entrepreneurship education, Pedagogy, Student-centered, Teacher-led Paper type Research paper Introduction Learning, understood as little more than remembering, has been conceptualized and operationalized broadly in higher education as placing and retrieving knowledge from an inner mental apparatus. Through this perspective, educational institutions are perceived as impersonal learning sites concerned mainly with transmitting knowledge from educators to pupils as effectively as possible with an emphasis on reproduction rather than reflection. This approach was previously seen as more or less synonymous This research was generously sponsored by the Innovation Fund Denmark and carried out within the PACE project www.badm.au.dk/pace. The usual disclaimers apply. Education + Training Vol. 58 No. 7/8, 2016 pp. 661-683 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0040-0912 DOI 10.1108/ET-03-2016-0048 ET 58,7/8 662 with learning: “to say that people were “educated” was interchangeable with saying that they had gone to school” (Lave, 2011, p. 19). The individual is also reduced to an anonymous body whose potential for experiencing and acting in the real world is overlooked (Holzkamp, 1995). The practical consequence is that a de-contextualized and de-subjectivized discourse about education has prevailed. Hence, students are detached from rather than attached to their knowledge through reflective practices. Given the present focus on entrepreneurship at the national level, the question becomes whether a continued implementation of traditional approaches to learning is going to be helpful for students to develop entrepreneurial awareness, mindsets, skills and competences. In entrepreneurship education research, most would agree that there are three types of courses: about, for and through (Gibb, 1987; Pittaway and Edwards, 2012). “About” courses typically teach theories about entrepreneurship. “For” involve providing tools for coping with concrete tasks of entrepreneurship. “Through” courses move the students through a process of enterprising behaviour and make the students do some of the actions of an entrepreneur by starting a business (fictive or real). Of these only the “about” matches with the traditional educational practice. According to Pittaway and Edwards (2012), it is also still the most prevalent. In their analysis of the three types of courses, they find that it is the “through” type that has the most potential to produce entrepreneurs, because they get students to mimic and simulate what entrepreneurs do. Therefore higher education institutions (HEIs) should provide more “through” courses. However, they fail to acknowledge that HEIs have institutionalized structures and frameworks, which regulate how courses can be structured and teaching be performed and “about” and “for” courses are dominant because they meet the requirements of what it means to be academic. Thus, if HEI educators want to implement any other type of course, they contravene what is considered required practice. It may also be easier to implement “for” courses because they stress the attainment of knowledge and understanding in combination with the acquisition of skills and competences. Such courses already exist in most business schools in the form of accounting, financing, marketing, strategy, etc. However, about and for courses are less likely to promote entrepreneurial mindsets in students and more likely to produce knowledge acquisition. This paper is thus motivated by a concern about how it is possible for HEIs to combine “being a good student” with “becoming entrepreneurial individuals”. How educators conceptualize the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship also influences how they design courses and educate students. Therefore, the mental prototypes of what construe “effective/appropriate pedagogy” also matter deeply (Krueger et al., 2011) and as Pittaway and Cope (2007) point out, we need to begin to evaluate our own pedagogies. Hence, we suggest that creating an understanding of how entrepreneurship education links up with the various models of learning will enhance our understanding of what works and does not work and will assist us in designing better courses for the future. We thus respond to the invitation extended by Jones and Matlay (2011) to contribute to the discussion about the complexity and heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education. The aim of this paper is thus to demonstrate how we can move from teacher led to more student-centred models of learning. We achieve this aim by analysing the learning theories underlying the current approaches (about, for and through) and illustrating how this combination may be achieved in practice. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: we commence with a comparative discussion of four approaches from psychology with similar perspectives in entrepreneurship education: behaviourism, social learning, situated learning and existential learning to help identify the gaps in entrepreneurship education research. This is followed by a conceptualization of existing entrepreneurship education research and an examination of the underlying learning theories. After a short presentation of the methodology applied, we then link these learning theories to entrepreneurship in the classroom. We provide and discuss examples of strategies for integrating theory with practice in the classroom. In conclusion, we address the implications and perspectives for educators and students. Prior work Entrepreneurship research has borrowed extensively from psychology when trying to understand how intentions are formed and to measure outcomes of enterprise education (Krueger, 2007). However, very often educators/researchers develop new curricula intuitively without explicitly addressing the psychological or pedagogical foundation. Indeed, there are widely different perspectives on answering the question: “what is it you need to learn to become a good entrepreneur?” Further, the effect of entrepreneurship education programmes may depend on the delivery method chosen and this choice invariably reflects the educator’s embedded beliefs about what works (Abaho et al., 2015). In the following, we spell out these differences and relate them to the perspective of learning to become an entrepreneur. However, according to Jones and Colwill (2013) the choice of teaching style and method should relate to the nature of the learners. Recent systematic reviews, e.g., Pittaway and Cope (2007), Fayolle and Gailly (2013) of the literature on entrepreneurship education show that whilst there are many papers published on how entrepreneurs learn in the context of running business ventures, the literature does not draw sufficiently on psychology and other educational theory. With some exceptions, it is equally light on empirical contributions, particularly in formal learning settings, even though there is much in the basics of educational psychology that offer considerable value to those seeking to design and deliver entrepreneurial learning (see, e.g. Penaluna et al., 2015). Typically, the main distinction made is been between an objectivist and a constructivist approach to learning (Löbler, 2006). Simply put, the former focuses on knowledge content (facts, skills, etc.), while the latter focuses on how knowledge is structured: what we know vs how we know it. It is surprising that no research suggests that an objectivist approach to education is superior nevertheless it remains dominant in educational systems globally. As evidenced in the following, this is probably due to the doctrine of behaviourism and various forms of cognitive behaviourism within educational psychology, which continues to inform educational models and practices. Behaviourism The doctrine of behaviourism is that only what can be measured and observed can serve as the foundation for a scientific study whilst ideas, mental constructs or emotions are counted as explanatory factors concerning human action. Indeed, behaviourism is often criticized for embracing a mechanistic view of the learning process, and the individual is seen as more or less passive. Behaviourism was developed as a model of learning in the age of industrialism and modern mass education. Within the typical model of mass education, students learn that at a lecture, there is one person who speaks, whilst all others are quiet. Students are seated in long rows behind each other. This learning environment encourages reproduction rather New horizons in entrepreneurship 663 ET 58,7/8 664 than reflection and the preferred examination forms used to “test’ students” knowledge include, e.g., multiple-choice methods. The view of the student is that of a person who has to be extrinsically motivated, e.g., through grades. However, behaviourism does not in itself support a stand and deliver model of teaching as it is more precisely a programme for designing learning in highly controlled circumstances. Nevertheless, this programme fitted the need for functional and effective mass education as it developed in the twentieth century (Cooper, 1993). Behaviourism and cognitive behaviourism thus fit the “learning about” entrepreneurship representing the traditional way of controlling learning in tight circumstances in the classroom. From this perspective, entrepreneurship education must therefore establish the right conditions for students to reproduce the appropriate behaviour. Learning “about” entrepreneurship can be achieved in three ways: the first is simply to introduce students to the theory “about” entrepreneurs. Indeed, there still seems to be a very strong behaviouristic streak in many entrepreneurship classes, especially at the beginner level or in larger classes. However, if students merely learn to reproduce the knowledge gained from the theory without reflecting on insight gained, it is questionable what kind of learning will occur (Marton, 1981). The second is to make students mimic entrepreneurial behavior, for example, through making them establish a “make-believe” entrepreneurial business. This may be real in the sense that they have to go through the motions, but fake in the sense that the environment in which it is undertaken is a safe school setting, and they cannot really fail. Moreover, particularly introductory classes, still use the lecture-homework-objective testing mode. Consider, for example, the single most frequently used exercise in entrepreneurship education: learning how to write a business plan. While seeming experiential on the surface, all too often the student learns a linear, relatively mechanical process. The important point here is that even where classroom activities seem visibly hands on and learning by doing, it is surprising rare for them to be truly experiential. Although numerous entrepreneurship modules still tend invoke rather mechanical models of teaching, in many schools these have been replaced by more experiential approaches that are inspired by, e.g., social learning theory and existentialist learning. Social learning theory Social learning theory, for its part, questions the central doctrine of behaviourism. It takes into account social aspects to a much higher degree than the early behaviourism. For example, reinforcement is also conceived of as vicarious. In other words, we can learn not only from experiencing the results of our own actions but also by observing those of others. Social learning theorist such as Miller and Dollard (1941/1967) and later Bandura (1977) also conceive learning as the processes by which culture is transferred from generation to generation and, while developing an interest in imitation, they endeavour to combine sociology and psychology. To them imitation is effective when successful individuals, through their actions, serve as role models, and they become attractive because their behaviour is reinforced and all their needs seem to be fulfilled. In the mid-1970s it became clear that there was a gap within the behavioural theoretical framework. According to Bandura (1977) this is related to the fact that behaviourism does not take into account the individual’s self-belief and its role in human well-being and the ability to handle one’s own life. One aspect, which Bandura stresses, in relation to the educational system, is thus the need to take the students’ belief in their own abilities into account when solving concrete tasks. Whilst behaviourism focused on reinforcement, according to Bandura (1997), the most important aspect is that individuals experience some kind of mastery of specific practices and not least that this mastery matters to other people. In relation to the role of educators, the educator cannot be solely a knowledge transmitter, but must stand out as a personal example. Within entrepreneurship education, self-efficacy has become extremely popular: it is conceived of as easy to measure and reasonably valid. Bandura (1997) would say that we need to understand the mental models that self-efficacy influences: if we change the cognitive maps of what is feasible and desirable, then we will also change the model of what students perceive as an opportunity and especially whether or not they will act on that opportunity. Mastery experiences involve participating in activities that bring about a more competitive, risk-taking, self-confident and/or ambitious attitude and therefore such activities have a positive influence on self-efficacy (Neergaard and Krueger, 2012), but students may take away the wrong lessons from a given experience (the half-empty vs the half-full glass). Thus, reliable and realistic role models are also essential. The implication from social learning theory is that the educator needs to be a role model, and therefore has to be an educator-cum-entrepreneur. Particularly, in American HEIs, entrepreneurs are brought into the classroom to teach entrepreneurship classes. The challenge is then twofold: on the one hand, the entrepreneur may not have the expertise in the theory, on the other hand, if the educator poses as a role model this might raise questions of legitimacy. Elsewhere, the emphasis has been on bringing in real-life entrepreneurs to talk to the class to share their experiences first hand with students, a practice also referred to as “master class”. Another practice is to make students find their “own” entrepreneurial role model to interview about his or her experiences and then report back to class. The idea behind the latter is that students will be more likely to choose role models that they can relate to and who will therefore be more realistic to them. A recent trend builds implicitly on the social learning model by providing a rapid succession of mastery experiences wherein students receive feedback from peers and experts alike. Recently, social learning theory has been supplemented with various forms of situated learning theory. Situated learning As presented by Lave and Wenger (1991), the theory of situated learning questions our great belief in the merits of formalized education. It is also an approach, which has evidenced the lack of student perspectives within learning theory and practice. Situated learning or learning in social practice can be approached from at least two angles. On the one hand, it is an analytical perspective, which questions the perspective from which educational design is constructed, e.g., ignoring the learner perspective (Haug, 2009). On the other hand, it has been embraced as a rather specific learning theory where learning is seen as situated in a specific environment and as involving apprenticeships that build on the idea of “scaffolding”: the apprentice starts with the most peripheral assignments, which provide a position from which s/he can observe which tools are necessary for which assignments, and thus slowly builds an idea of the structuration and meaning of the community of practice s/he has joined (Lave and Wenger, 1991). The apprentice advances from observing to participating in increasingly more difficult assignments until s/he becomes fully skilled. Thus, the focus is on how and what the student learns through participation and that the student from feeling like a novice increasingly feels like an expert. To our knowledge few entrepreneurship programs or classes make use of the more specific models of situated learning. Ordinarily apprenticeships are typically only New horizons in entrepreneurship 665 ET 58,7/8 666 found in, e.g., craft or service sectors. However, students may choose to take an internship period in an entrepreneurial venture, which one could argue constitutes a kind of situated learning. Further, many business schools today offer opportunities for enterprising activity in the form of “student growth houses” where students may retain a mentor and receive advice from real entrepreneurs (Lackéus et al., 2013). However, it is common that such initiatives are extra-curricular and ungraded. Situated learning may also take place at “innovation camps” or “start-up weekends” in which students experience the intense pressures of the full entrepreneurial process over a compressed period of time and may receive mentoring. Indeed, the mentor-mentee relationship is a method that assists the mentee in reflecting on his/her behaviour in specific and critical situations. What this paper shares with situated learning as presented by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Tanggaard and Nielsen (2011) is the emphasis on the need to actually study what students experience and learn while being part of entrepreneurship programs, a perspective also embraced by existential learning. Existential or significant learning In an existential learning perspective, learning needs to be significant and meaningful for the individual learner in order to be transformative (Mezirow, 2000). This a perspective at the other end of the scale to that concerned with accumulation of facts. Indeed, existential learning points to the issue that learning permeates all parts of an individual’s life. Meaningful, genuine and significant learning will moreover change an individual’s personality, values and ultimately future life (Frick, 1987). The basic assumption within humanistic psychology, and the philosophical frame surrounding existential learning, is that we often mix up the concepts of learning and teaching. Usually, when people can do something new after being instructed or having been part of teaching, we conclude that this individual has been part of a learning process (Colaizzi, 1998). However, an individual who remembers or recalls something, for example, in an examination situation, might not have learned something of particular value for his/her later life. The basic premise within existential learning is therefore that we also need to understand and examine whether the process of learning is meaningful for the ongoing and future existence of the person. Hence, we need to make distinctions between reproduction of existing knowledge and the kind of learning, which becomes personally significant, namely, reflective learning (Mezirow, 2000). Learning in this latter and more genuine sense takes place when people experience radical breaks or intensified situations in their lives. These situations result in the individual starting to understand him- or herself in a new way. They restructure their connectivity to the world, so to speak, and this is exactly what is necessary if students are going to learn to reinterpret themselves as entrepreneurs. Thus, existential challenges assist the individual in reinterpreting certain aspects of his/her own reality (Marton, 1981). One could therefore argue that what students should experience in the entrepreneurial classroom should be so radically different from what they have experienced so far in the educational system that they simply have to reinterpret their reality. Such deep experiential and transformative learning is aimed at changing the learners’ mindset at a correspondingly deep level, changing scripts, maps and mental prototypes, which might be referred to as imprinting the learner (Mathias et al., 2015). What is more authentic than learning how to pursue one’s passion? Existential learning is implicit in much entrepreneurship education but entrepreneurship education may benefit from a move from implicit to explicit. Hence, to address this from an existential learning perspective the challenge is threefold; first, to design a module or a programme, which invokes such critical learning experiences; second, to motivate students to draw on existing, and may be dormant, critical learning experiences; and finally, to manage the process. Before proceeding to address these challenges, in Table I, we briefly summarize the four approaches accounted for above in relation to entrepreneurship education. The “why” concerns the tacit assumptions linked to the pedagogical and psychological choices for teaching in a certain manner; the “what” addresses the content of that which is being taught; the “where” defines the place, which is most fertile for learning to take place; the “when” involves the period/s of time that are most expedient and where individuals are most susceptible for learning to take place and finally, the “how” is the manner in which the learning is being communicated. New horizons in entrepreneurship 667 Research design and setting The insights presented here reports data from the continuous development and implementation of a single course over a period of ten years bringing in the educator’s and the students perspectives on their achievements and course content. It is important to note that this course focuses exclusively on the pre-idea phase of the entrepreneurial process, which according to Krueger and Welpe (2014) is an under-researched subject. In order to achieve a different level of reflection, an educational anthropologist was invited to observe all the teaching in two iterations of the module and carry out reflective interviews with the educator at the end of each class. In total more than 60 hours of observation and 15 hours of interviews, which were afterwards transcribed. The close observations of the teaching created a unique opportunity for the educator to Behavioural Social learning Situated learning Existential learning Why To encourage change of To enhance behaviour and learning of self-efficacy “facts” To encourage “lived” experience To trigger recall and and increased participation in encourage reflection the community of entrepreneurs What Skills and tools such as business plans Simulations with regard to decision making Mastery experiences Vicarious experiences (role models) Placements and internships or extended stays at student growth houses Critical experiences that “rock your boat” Simulated settings Real-life settings Student growth houses Memory triggering instigated in the university setting Before, during and after studies During studies and/or after Before, during and after studies Where University setting When During studies, particularly undergraduate How Reproduction Vicarious, role Participation/mentoring/ models reflection Enaction/reflection Table I. The four different approaches to learning ET 58,7/8 668 engage in discussions with someone who was able to explicitly probe into and expand on the observations made in the classroom. The following provides an ethnographic account, which is substantive, processual and contextualized. This involves a reflective investigation making interpretations (meaning making) of the functions and meanings of human actions in a certain context following an individual or group of individuals around and being with them and understanding them in situ. Ethnography thus entails an encounter with “another” an immersion in another world in order to understand how this other world works. Thus, as the ethnographer stepping into the classroom making observations of what goes on and listening to the encounters and observing how relationships are built, having conversations with the educator, a deeper multifaceted understanding of the subjects’ world is achieved. The ethnographer uses the experiences of this encounter to produce narratives and analyse and reflect on what can be learned (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007). The findings can therefore be transferred (analogous generalization) in terms of a continuous categorization of which types of behaviour are appropriate in which type of context, thus recognizing the complexity of the real world (Neergaard 2007). Analysis The underlying philosophy of the module was that in order to influence students to develop the mindset of an entrepreneur (note: not to become an entrepreneur), it was important to stimulate reflection by the students in order to question their unreflected attitudes/modes of behaviour. Fundamentally, the educator’s conviction was that traditional modules educated students to become corporate employees and not entrepreneurs; and that the traditional university lecture promoted reproduction and not reflection. The educator set out to surprise the students from the outset, to do the unexpected and to ask the unexpected in order to open their minds to “a new world”. As the account will show this was more difficult than imagined. Three distinct elements make up the module: first, theory and presentation; second, interventions that took place in the class environment; and third, the home assignments and learning logs. Although the format of each tutorial follows a similar structure, each tutorial varies to some extent dependent on its content. Each meeting in the course usually commenced with a description of the individual elements of the tutorial taking as the starting point a debriefing on the home assignment. The debriefing involved a discussion between the educator and students about the goals of the assignment and reflections on the experience of completing it. What did they learn? What did they struggle with? What were the areas that challenged them? The educator usually discussed with the students; their reflections, their understanding of the process and their learning from the assignment. The educator then provided feedback on the learning logs, which were a weekly requirement and are explained in more detail below. Each week one group of students was assigned the task of relating the theory to the prescribed text. This was usually the second part of the teaching. Following the group’s presentation the educator then presented the theory for the next week illustrating the “new” theory through a number of practical examples. Finally, the students worked together in a group exercise (intervention) that required active involvement. The class concluded with a debriefing and a short explanation of the next week’s home assignment. Theory Rather than building on a single perspective the course combined a range of theories. The theoretical themes were chosen to reflect a process that starts with developing individual awareness of own entrepreneurial potential. It moves to idea exploration originating from the individual’s everyday practice, and ends with understanding and unfolding this idea in context. The process brings the students to the individualopportunity nexus without actually ever articulating this. Thus, there was no designated “textbook” but a collection of required readings limited to two articles per class. The module incorporates theory on identity, storytelling and narrative, effectuation-causation, disharmonies and anomalies, bricolage, opportunity mapping and context. Table AI provides a brief argument for the inclusion of the various theoretical perspectives. The whole process aims at giving genesis to ideas that originate from within the individual, which are therefore unique. The educator introduces ideas about mindset and identity through exposure to particular activities. In addition storytelling, creativity tools are used to further fine-tune ideas and effectuation was used to make them act. Apart from the required readings, Tom Szarky’s (2009) account of Revolution in a Bottle: How Terracycle is Redefining Green Business was used as an illustration of the unfolding of an entrepreneurial process. This is used as a mirror against which it was possible to discuss the theory. Theory remains a foundational element in the teaching and the use of Szarky’s book is a tool to not only present “new” theory but also to develop an understanding of theory in practice and relate it to real-life entrepreneurial experiences. The educator intersperses the theoretical interpretation with a number of personal experiences and stories that encourage the students to extrapolate the theory to their own experience. This is crucial as some of the home assignments hinge on the students’ ability to extrapolate experiences from their own life that will help them “grow” an entrepreneurial identity. Each theoretical framework is also accompanied by an “intervention”. These are explained in the next section. Interventions Interventions are exercises or experiments illustrative of the theory that require active participation by the students in the class environment, assisting students to reflect on and remember the theory better than if they had just heard or read about it (Penaluna et al., 2015). Initially, the educator intuitively introduced these exercises and it was only later that she came to understand that according to educational theory, if you have to undertake a dramatic presentation, simulate the real thing or carry out the real thing you recall it better (Dale, 1969). Therefore embodying the theory through the use of carefully planned interventions is crucial to a deep understanding of the theory. Interventions are usually implemented as the final element of each module to engage students actively with the teaching. Table AII provides an overview of the interventions corresponding with the theoretical themes. Home assignments Home assignments assist students in reflecting on their learning and to reinforce the experience obtained through the in-class exercises and experiments. Home assignments are not graded but participation in the final exam is dependent on the completion of six assignments along with weekly learning logs. An increasing number of group assignments have been used in order to promote collaboration among the students, given that entrepreneurial activities often happen in teams. Further, the intention is to promote a forum for discussion that will encourage reflection on the assignments and internalize learning to a greater degree. New horizons in entrepreneurship 669 ET 58,7/8 670 Home assignments take two forms: individual assignments and group assignments. For the individual assignments students have to, e.g., write an essay on a critical and significant event that has influenced their life dramatically. These were sent directly to the educator as many of the essays are of a personal nature. The following debriefing involved a discussion about the individual learning that they had taken away from that event. This is then extrapolated to entrepreneurial behaviour to illustrate that entrepreneurship is not for the chosen few but that all individuals have the capacity to be entrepreneurial. Group assignments involve, e.g., constructing a product from waste material (bricolage) and obtaining a price for it or creating buy-in by staging a flashmob. The purpose of the former is to activate students’ ability to see potential where others may only see waste and to construct a saleable product. The purpose of the latter is to push student boundaries to utilize the talent of at least one person in the group and to secure buy-in from outsiders, e.g., through Facebook or passers-by and to nudge their risk adversity. Table AIII provides a list of assignments corresponding with the theoretical themes. Home assignments are discussed using a method called “feed-forward” (Nielsen and Tanggaard, 2011, p. 43). Feed-forward is designed to assist students in developing the capability to evaluate their own effort with a focus on the process, which is documented through a learning log. (The learning logs are described in detail in the next section). Feed-forward is managed by the educator through a set of explicit questions that include the cognitive, affective and conative levels. Students are asked to discuss these first in their groups and then in the forum of the classroom. Learning logs The ideology behind the use of the learning logs is to stimulate the students to reflect on the teaching and to encourage an understanding of what is required to change and develop individual learning. The students are asked first to describe what happened in the class, then to reflect on what they thought and felt, to reflect on what they learned about themselves and about others, and finally to explain what they would do differently, or would like to change as a result of the learning experience. The educator spends some time with the students discussing what could be learned from using the learning logs as a personal learning journal. There are always a few who are able to articulate their learning in a variety of ways, however, a larger group remains at the descriptive level and seems unable to move towards any deep reflection. Based on this experience, the educator designed explicit questions that directly relates to what happens during the class and in carrying out home assignments. Through this form of prompting the students gradually become better able to articulate their learning journey. Indeed, it is through the learning logs that the educator was able to understand the effect of the different elements of her teaching on the group as individuals. Exam and grading The final and for many students most important element of a course is the exam for which they are graded. The exam is a natural extension of the work carried out in a course. In this particular course, it links to the home assignments and the learning logs. In the take-home 48-hour exam the students are asked to imagine themselves in five years’ time being invited back to the entrepreneurial classroom to talk about the development of their project. The aim is for the students to analyse their learning and to become aware of the potential for realistic development of self and resources. The students understand that the assignments and learning logs are tools, which they will be able to use in their development and analysis of their project. Using the assignments and learning logs they explore what they have learned, relate it back to theory, analyse their own learning and mastery of skills in examining the development of their project. New horizons in entrepreneurship 671 Findings The course invokes all the educational learning theories outlined earlier. What is interesting to note is that these can co-exist and that in combination they seem to enhance learning. This is in line with the findings presented in Penaluna et al. (2015), and we propose it is because the approach takes into consideration that individuals have preferred learning styles in different situations. In the following, the account is analysed according to the four learning theories presented. The learning cycle model is illustrated in Figure 1, was chosen as a basis for promoting reflection among the students by first focusing on their identity as students and second reflecting on the links between their experiences and competences and how these affect their future career desires rather than simple reproduction of theories on how to become an entrepreneur. Behavioural elements As can be seen from the above account, the theory lecture is still anchored in the behaviourist approach. The focus is on the input-output relation of educator transmission (stimulation) and learner internalization (response). Its intention is to stimulate the students to think of themselves in entrepreneurial terms within a rather Theory Purpose Providing academic foundation Intervention • seeing it done/simulating the real experience • reinforces theory Theory • hear and see (Powerpoint/Youtube) Presentation Purpose Providing feedback and feed forward Intervention Purpose Reinforces theory Illustrates home assignment Home assignment • simulating the real experience • reading theory Presentation in class • giving a talk • participating in discussion Home Assignment Purpose Providing dramatic, symbolic experience Reflecting on theory and self Figure 1. The learning cycle in a studentcentred setting ET 58,7/8 672 controlled teaching situation as well as becoming an impetus for certain kinds of learning. However, the theory presented in the classroom is perceived as a tool that consolidates students’ ability to act entrepreneurially by immediately discussing the theory against the textbook. This also develops analytical skills to deepen understanding of how theory relates to practices – which acts as a “role model” thus enhancing subliminal learning (Penaluna et al., 2015). The whole module also contains a certain element of “make-believe” and although students are specifically prevented from going beyond the idea development, they have to carry out certain actions that include an entrepreneurial component. Social learning aspects The experiences invoked through exercises and participating in activities that bring about a more competitive, risk-taking, self-reliant and/or ambitious attitude are clear elements of social learning. These activities have a definite positive influence on selfefficacy. Further, this approach provides role models in whom the students can mirror themselves. These role models encompass real-life entrepreneurs, collaborative learning with their peers (which is important if you are going to be an entrepreneur) and interactions with the educator. It is evident that the educator is using herself as a “role model” by giving examples of experiences she has had and by making the students reflect. Through this, the students learn vicariously that problems encountered in everyday life can be responded to by, e.g., inventing new products, recycling or upcycling old materials (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, the entrepreneur brought into the classroom also functions as a potential role model. Furthermore, the teaching seeks to promote the students’ self-efficacy by making them believe in their own agency in life (e.g. the achievement of doing a flashmob gave some of the students a “high”) and promoting collaborative work, something, which the formal individual examination tends to undermine. Situated learning In essence the whole module is designed around the “apprenticeship” model: letting the students take one step at a time towards unfolding their idea, using illustrative interventions and home assignments that simulate what entrepreneurs do but without a predetermined “entrepreneurial setting”. Furthermore, the module clearly allows for construction of student identities, a departure from what the students have learned about themselves so far. Within situated learning, a basic idea is that identity is constituted in the nexus of the individual person and the horizon of resources and barriers for participation within social practices (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Identity refers to either the collective (“we are students”) and/or personal experience of being situated in particular social practices in and beyond the educational setting. In a higher education setting such identity construction very often concerns the coming into being of a preconceived student identity. However, the module presented here requires that students reflect upon the diverse possibilities and barriers encountered in order to imagine themselves in a range of possible career trajectories, among which is entrepreneurship. Indeed, student learning within an educational setting and beyond is not only an epistemological project concerning knowledge acquisition and skills formation, but also requires that identities come into being, that is: “changing knowledgeable skills is constituted as part of life more broadly” (Lave, 2011, p. 65). Analytically this means that learning is never only a matter of engagement in cognitive tasks but also a process of becoming (someone else). In the above narrative, this point is developed into a set of concrete teaching elements, which legitimates the identity aspect of learning. When students are in a formal learning organization, physically placed as a student in an accredited course (classroom), you are limited in reaching the real world and practice within it. Therefore, we need to be able to bring our students into different arenas that allow them to learn, act and practice, reflect and then bring that experience back to the classroom (Lackéus, 2016), so that they start to think more broadly about their own identities. By combining these four approaches in one course, we enable our students to have this experience. Existential learning processes Existential learning processes are central in entrepreneurial learning particularly when dealing with students who have little or no experience with how they can be entrepreneurial. In order to provide an anchor for them, it is necessary to help them become aware of those experiences in the past that have shaped them and given them routines and ways of acting that can be invoked as entrepreneurial. As described previously, we are all shaped by our experiences. What students do not realize is how they can use these experiences, and it is therefore the task of the educator to enhance this awareness. So how can we create existential learning processes? There are two existential learning elements in the module: the first element lies in the individual assignment about a critical event (symbolic growth experience) that has influenced them, and a reflection on how this has influenced them. The second lies in carrying out the flashmob – or rather reflecting on the flashmob. Both of these assignments create an existential conflict for many of the students, because they have to share some deeply emotional experience with others; and because they have to deal with fear and need for control. Because entrepreneurs encounter difficulties all the time, we hook into student past experiences to draw on how they have acted in the face of difficulties to enable them to understand that they have the ability to overcome difficulties because they have already done it before. This reflection creates an awareness of how they have changed as a result of dealing with those difficulties. Further, we create frustrations so that they learn to deal with lack of control and cope with potential fear of failure. Control is related to knowing what is going to happen next, but entrepreneurs often work in unpredictable environments that are inherently uncontrollable. Thus, students need to know how they react in unpredictable situations and what opportunities they have to act differently, and learn to understand and overcome their fear. They are often deeply frustrated and find it extremely difficult. However, it is when you are frustrated, that you learn the most. Learning in this genuine sense takes place when people experience radical breaks, frustrations or extreme situations in their lives (Frick, 1987). These situations mean that the individual starts understanding him- or herself in a different way, which is exactly what entrepreneurship educators try to invoke in students – moving from an interpretation of themselves as students to a reinterpretation as entrepreneurs. Discussion In Béchard and Grégoire’s (2005) review of entrepreneurship education literature they identified four main themes and called for scholars to develop a dual expertise in management and education issues. Our paper attempts to meet this challenge by demonstrating the integration of a research agenda with theoretical concepts, encouraging us as scholars and educators to make a rigorous alignment between what New horizons in entrepreneurship 673 ET 58,7/8 674 we think we do and what we do. The above account has allowed us to begin answering the question why certain learning activities work better than others. If we accept that a reinterpretation of student identity is the ultimate aim of all entrepreneurship teaching, whether invoking behaviourism, social learning, situated learning or existential learning, then as educators we have an obligation to assist the students in the best possible way to achieve this. Institutions therefore need to make room for more experimental approaches to learning and teachers need to be supported, encouraged and provided with resources and space to do this. Further, according to Penaluna et al. (2015, p. 951) there are widely different perspectives on the question: what is it you need to learn to become a good entrepreneur? These perspectives are influenced greatly by context ( Jones and Matlay, 2011). In fact, students in many countries are acculturized throughout their studies to the idea that they are going to work either in the private or public sector, once they graduate and are not at all focused on alternative career routes. Thus, they find it difficult to accept the entrepreneurial paradigm. We therefore suggest that in such situations, courses based on existential learning need to precede courses explicitly focused on, for example, learning how to complete a business plan. In this paper we have presented a particular pedagogy that has been developed for a particular course specifically for students at the pre-idea phase – let us call it “entrepreneurial pedagogy”. The course brings together different kinds of teaching because different kinds of teaching elicit different kinds of learning. It is delivered in an experiential fashion, where first students co-create experiences, and second theory is used to consolidate the learning, which according to Penaluna et al. (2015) provides a better learning experience. The paper shows that the use of interventions and home assignments with an emphasis on student activity help students reflect and reinforce each of the theories introduced. This mix of theory with activity should help students recall and remember much more of what has taken place in the class (Dale, 1969). Moreover, if we seek to move from teaching about entrepreneurship to educating students to think like an entrepreneur, then shifting away from behaviourism and its underlying assumptions is necessary. Figure 2 depicts the basic premise of how Change in what we know (content) Student mindset Change in how we know it (knowledge structures) Change in deep beliefs Figure 2. From novice to expert entrepreneurial mindset Critical, cumulative, and developmental experiences Source: Based on Krueger (2007) Entrepreneurial mindset student mindset evolves towards a more entrepreneurial mindset as changes in deep beliefs drive changes in how knowledge is structured (Krueger, 2007, 2009). We posit that these deep beliefs may be altered through exposing students to critical developmental/symbolic growth experiences, or by triggering their recall of experiences that they have already encountered but which may have been suppressed or forgotten. By bringing these to the surface and provoking awareness, students may experience an epiphany, which enables them to use such memories actively for (entrepreneurial) identity development (Frick, 1987). According to Frick (1987, p. 413) significant learning experiences are intrinsic manifestations of the needs for development and self-actualizing potential of an individual. It is therefore necessary to stimulate and trigger the pre-conceptual, non-cognitive forces in human development and “the creative self” before moving on to develop a business. The data from the learning logs provide indicative evidence that they are an essential tool in evaluating and developing future initiatives in teaching entrepreneurship. It suggests that learning/reflection logs greatly enhance the learning process and help students reflect on their progress. This is a tool that once learnt can be used broadly to enhance their learning across the board. However, they must be carefully constructed so that they are calibrated to the aims and goals of each tutorial. The educator found that for the majority of the students (17 out of 20), their analysis and development was not “make-believe” but in fact a realistic acknowledgement of their potential. This result clearly demonstrated that it is possible to foster entrepreneurial thinking and behaviour. In addition, we have to recognize that the concepts of “mindset” and “deep beliefs” apply equally to educators. Differences in educators’ mental prototype lead to marked differences in module content and module structure. Indeed, findings from a Welsh study note that “experiential and curiosity-based learning strategies are essential” and that educators need to be entrepreneurial themselves, both in the design and delivery of their courses (Penaluna et al., 2015, p. 950). The insight presented in this paper provides an example of how such a course can be designed and delivered. From a methodological perspective the contributions made during the observation of teaching and subsequent reflective interviews often resulted in the educator making decisions about adjusting future practices both in the short term, concerning what she would do next week, and in the long term, what would be adjusted in the coming years. In effect reflective interviewing allows educators to look deeper into their own assumptions and empowers them to further develop their exercises, classes and programs in ways that matter both to learners and the entrepreneurial community. However, entrepreneurship modules are mostly funded through the traditional channels (possibly with the exception of universities in the USA) and therefore have to adhere to the traditional rules of the educational system, which as we have argued, are still anchored in behaviouralism. These require that students have to receive grades and modules that have to include a significant theory component, which may limit, what can be done with regard to promoting entrepreneurial behaviour. If one looks at what takes place in student growth houses where grades and theory are not requirements, activities differ greatly. Here entrepreneurship is not an academic discipline, but a practical one. Hence, it may be time that university management started to realize the importance and potential of bringing such activities into the classroom and investigate ways of combining them with the academic foundation. Finally, in terms of a future research agenda, while the trend towards more deeply experiential programs appears to be accelerating much remains to be done to encourage New horizons in entrepreneurship 675 ET 58,7/8 676 this trend (Neck and Greene, 2011; Penaluna et al., 2015). In particular, the notion that “hands on” or even practitioner involvement is sufficient warrants further investigation. Simultaneously, if we argue that these different pedagogical approaches generate different impacts, ought we not to find new ways of assessing those different impacts? Focusing on the nurturing/imprinting an entrepreneurial mindset also requires a deeper understanding on what that mindset looks like and its origin as well as identifying potential markers for that. We are seeing the first signs of what deeper beliefs are associated with expert entrepreneurial thinking but empirical research is still at early stages (Krueger, 2007; Krueger and Neergaard, 2011). However, if we are willing to invest the effort, there is much theory and powerful tools that can help us to understand the extent to which we influence student identity and mindset through entrepreneurship education in order to achieve the aims and avoid the pitfalls. Indeed, the psychological impact on students of specific interventions requires further investigation. Conclusion The insight gained from developing the course over the past ten years is that to promote entrepreneurial awareness and mindset, we need to move away from entrepreneurship education as being teacher led to being more student-centred and focused on lifelong learning practices. We are not advocating a complete move to student-centred, but we need to involve students as co-creators of the classroom in order to promote ownership of the learning process. Thus, creating a balance between the two may be advisable, depending on what it is that we are trying to achieve with our teaching. Like Voltaire’s character, who is astonished to realize that he has been speaking prose his whole life, we believe that many entrepreneurship educators may be surprised to learn that they intuitively invoke educational psychology models most of their careers without explicitly addressing their underlying pedagogical assumptions. However, what is taught and especially how it is taught reflects deep beliefs about, not just the nature of entrepreneurship, but also how it is best learned. We hope that providing educators with the opportunity for closer scrutiny of their own assumptions they will feel empowered to further develop in ways that matter to learners and to the entrepreneurial community. Most educators want to make a difference, and it is crucial that we make a positive one. Therefore, as educators it is valuable to understand the effect of one’s teaching particularly because this has far-reaching impact not only on students but also on social praxis in terms of fostering new, sustainable entrepreneurs. We can be the make or the break of whether students believe they have it within them to become entrepreneurs or not. Finally, entrepreneurship research has borrowed extensively from psychology when trying to measure outcomes of enterprise education. The paper shows that we may need to add methods inspired by, e.g., ethnography, to understand and improve our teaching practices. References Abaho, E., Olomi, D.R. and Urassa, G.C. (2015), “Students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy: does the teaching method matter?”, Education+Training, Vol. 57 Nos 8/9, pp. 908-923. Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215. Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, WH Freeman & Co., New York, NY. Béchard, J. and Grégoire, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education research revisited: the case of higher education”, Academy of Management, Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 22-43. Colaizzi, P.F. (1998), “Læring og eksistens. (learning and existence) I”, in Hermansen, M. (Red.), Fra læringens horisont – en antologi. (From the Horizon of Learning – an Anthology), Klim, Århus, pp. 185-213. New horizons in entrepreneurship Cooper, P.A. (1993), “Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: from behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism”, Educational Technology, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 12-19. Dale, E. (1969), Audiovisual Methods in Teaching, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY. Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2013), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: hysteresis and persistence”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 75-93. Frick, W.B. (1987), “The symbolic growth experience: paradigm for a humanistic-existential learning theory”, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 406-423. Gibb, A.A. (1987), “Designing effective programmes for encouraging the business start-up process: lessons from UK experience”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 24-32. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (2007), Ethnography: Principles in Practice, Routledge, Abingdon. Haug, F. (2009), “Teaching how to learn and learning how to teach”, Theory and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 245-273. Holzkamp, K. (1995), “Alltägliche Lebensführung als subjektwissenschaftliches Grundkonzept (Everyday conduct of life as basic concept of a scientific theory of the subject)”. Das Argument No. 37. Jahrgang, Heft 6, November/December (in German). Jones, C. and Matlay, H. (2011), “Understanding the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education: going beyond gartner”, Education+Training, Vol. 53 Nos 8/9, pp. 692-703. Jones, P. and Colwill, A. (2013), “Entrepreneurship education: an evaluation of the Young Enterprise Wales initiative”, Education+Training, Vol. 55 Nos 8/9, pp. 911-925. Krueger, N. (2007), “What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 123-138. Krueger, N. (2009), “The microfoundations of entrepreneurial learning and education”, in Gatewood, E. and West, G.P. (Eds), The Handbook of University Wide Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 35-59. Krueger, N. and Neergaard, H. (2011), “Rethinking the cognitive developmental trajectory of entrepreneurship: the role of critical developmental experiences”, Babson Research Conference, Syracuse, NY, 8-11 June. Krueger, N. and Welpe, I. (2014), “Neuroentrepreneurship: what can entrepreneurship learn from neuroscience?”, Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 2014, p. 60. Krueger, N., Hansen, D., Michl, T. and Welsh, D. (2011), “Thinking ‘sustainably’: the role of intentions, cognitions and emotions in understanding new domains of entrepreneurship”, in Lumpkin, T. and Katz, J. (Eds), Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 13, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 279-313. Lackéus, M. (2016), “Value creation as educational practice: towards a new educational philosophy grounded in entrepreneurship?”, doctoral thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M. and Middleton, K.W. (2013), “How can entrepreneurship bridge between traditional and progressive education?”, ECSB Entrepreneurship Education Conference, Aarhus, 29-31 May. Lave, J. (2011), Apprenticeship in Critical Ethnographic Practice, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL and London. 677 ET 58,7/8 678 Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Löbler, H (2006), “Learning entrepreneurship from a constructivist perspective”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 19-38. Marton, F. (1981), “Phenomenography: describing conceptions of the world around us”, Instructional Science, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 177-200. Mathias, B.D., Williams, D.W. and Smith, A.R. (2015), “Entrepreneurial inception: the role of imprinting in entrepreneurial action”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 11-28. Mezirow, J. (2000), “Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformation theory”, in Mezirow, J. et al. (Ed.), Learning as Transformation. Critical Perspectives on Theory in Progress, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-33. Miller, N.E. and Dollard, J. (1941/1967), Social Learning and Imitation, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Neck, H.M. and Greene, P.G. (2011), “Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 55-70. Neergaard, H. (2007), “Sampling in entrepreneurial settings”, in Neergaard, H. and Ulhøi, J. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 253-278. Neergaard, H. and Krueger, N. (2012), “Still playing the game?”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 18-31. Nielsen, K. and Tanggaard, L. (2011), Pædagogisk psykologi – en grundbog (Educational Psychology – a Primer), Samfundslitteratur, København. Penaluna, K, Penaluna, A, Usei, C and Griffith, D. (2015), “Enterprise education needs enterprising educators”, Education+Training, Vol. 57 Nos 8/9, pp. 948-963. Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 479-510. Pittaway, L. and Edwards, C. (2012), “Assessment; examining practice in entrepreneurship education”, Education+Training, Vol. 54 Nos 8/9, pp. 778-800. Szarky, T. (2009), Revolution in a Bottle: How Terracycle is Redefining Green Business, Penguin, New York, NY. Tanggaard, L. and Nielsen, K. (2011), “School memories situating school”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 71-88. New horizons in entrepreneurship Appendix 1 Theoretical theme Argument Mindset and identity – so what does it do? Is it the behavioural, social or existential Identity construction is used to set the stage for the rest of the course. The concept of self-efficacy is used to illustrate how our mindset is shaped by experiences throughout childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy refers to individual’s assessment of their competences and ability to overcome adverse conditions and obstacles and the belief that future actions will be successful. It concerns the extent to which an individual believes in his or her capacity to become motivated, utilize cognitive resources and understand what causes of action are needed to meet everyday demands. These beliefs influence decisions about what challenges to accept, how much effort to spend, and how long to persevere in the face of difficulties. Thus, an individual’s self-efficacy reflects the impact of past experiences on his or her assessment of capacity for performance attainment Stories of entrepreneurship abound. Numerous books and movies tell inspirational stories about how the author’s created their business producing a variety of insights or “aha” moments for those reading or watching them. Such stories act as powerful means for transforming mental schemes among other things because they often invoke role models and imagination. That storytelling constitutes an important means of communication is nothing new. It builds on the logic that stories and narratives have been shared over centuries in every culture as a means of education to create worlds of shared understandings and meanings. Stories create their own bonds, and their meanings constitute powerful means for replacing the existing ideology with a new mindset. We therefore perceive entrepreneurship as the ability to construct and communicate stories that enable and produce action to make these stories “come true”. Thus, narratives and storytelling become pathways to create the world in which students want to carry out action and opportunities are narrated into being Effectuation is used to enable students to identify their inherent capabilities, capabilities that they may not have realized they possessed, or capabilities that they may not have realized could be used in a new way. In general, business students (as well as students from the natural sciences) learn to think causally rather than effectually, so this element focuses on bringing about effectual thinking. Hence, effectuation focuses attention on all the positives: who you are, what you know, what you are good at, what you like to do, and removes the focus from the negatives: on what you are not good at, what you are unable to do and what you do not like to do, e.g., not having an idea, money or skills. Using effectuation draws on existing experience and education, and forces students to reflect on how these can be used in idea creation Disharmony thinking focuses on inspiring students to create opportunities by reflecting upon the disharmonies (personal), anomalies (disharmonies acknowledged by others) and problems they encounter in everyday experiences. Entrepreneurial opportunities and successful businesses often have their origin in entrepreneurs’ ability to perceive problems and disharmonies in own everyday practise. It is therefore important to develop didactics and methods that enable students to reflect deeply on problems encountered in their everyday practice and life world, and to develop these into opportunities for creating value for others as well as transforming existing forms of social Storytelling and narratives Effectuation-causation Disharmonies and anomalies (continued ) 679 Table AI. Theoretical themes ET 58,7/8 680 Theoretical theme Bricolage Context Unfolding Table AI. Argument practice into new opportunities. The aim is to create insight into the genesis of opportunities and their development based on intimate engagement with everyday practices and how this may produce multiple forms of value Bricolage is about accumulating odds and ends that may come in handy “some day” and recombining existing and sometimes discarded resources for new purposes. Entrepreneurs are often faced with a lack of resources and have to make do with what’s at hand, in particular because these are often available very cheaply or for free, because others judge them to be useless. It stresses that firms are idiosyncratic in their relationships with the resource environment. Bricolage embraces resource constraints and involves a refusal to enact received limitations. Hence, it involves the serendipitous combination of existing components that are reused for different purposes than originally intended. Simultaneously, it accepts that individuals construct resources differently; i.e., it involves “scavenging”, the collection of bits and pieces that other people may not see as resources. Bricolage further involves ignoring barriers, constraints, codes and standards and an active engagement with problems in the shape of improvization Context builds on the premise that history, heritage and legacy, community, and culture matter. Basically, it focuses on “what came before” and “what is already there” in terms of an entrepreneurial setting’s history, culture, past practices, values, norms and rules focusing on the special characteristics from which value can be derived. Even if the importance of context is recognized, most analyses neglect the importance of what came before, though every country, region, city and village community has a history and heritage that may either facilitate or hinder the emergence of enterprising activity. Thus, inherent in this perspective is that the ideas generated by individuals are both space and time contingent. This also means that ideas conceived in a remote, rural economy differs from those originating in urban inner cities, those conceived by a student in nanotechnology in the Western world, differs from the idea conceived by a student from the humanities, and both differ from those conceived by inhabitants of a remote village in South Africa, who have none or little education and who are more concerned with meeting their basic needs than with self-actualization Unfolding is about envisioning the different ways in which an idea can be manifested and builds on the understanding that ideas are multidimensional and in flux. It takes as it departure point the “world after” where the anomaly no longer exists. Depending on the idea, the enactment or manifestation may involve establishing a venture, or a new product which needs to have a lasting effect. Thus, ideas can be unfolded in a multitude of different ways. Unfolding involves looking at the practices, which constrain the anomaly, identifying and qualifying the idea, defining user-groups and potential alternative ways of acting in the world. Pivotal to this is the ability to communicate the value of an idea to potential stakeholders. Communication is not only verbal, it is also visual and both should find resonance with potential stakeholders. Thus, students need to engage in a “knowledge duet” by activating similar or shared memories of experiences and to present themselves as likable and passionate collaborators. Hence, unfolding rounds off the lectures by returning to and engaging with the mindset and storytelling elements introduced in the first lectures New horizons in entrepreneurship Appendix 2 Theoretical theme Interventions Mindset and identity Draw an entrepreneur: individual. After having drawn the entrepreneur, students have to share the “qualities” or characteristics of their entrepreneur with the student next to them. Illustrates the capabilities and characteristics that students’ believe an entrepreneur to possess. During the debriefing students come to realize that they actually possess numerous of these characteristics and abilities, and are able to learn the others. Finally, they realize that becoming an entrepreneur may be more realistic than they had thought previously Out of the box thinking: groupa. Students are asked to bring a cardboard box to class. They are asked to stand inside their box (in a circle) and are questioned by the educator about the boundaries that they have met in life and how they have dealt with these. Finally, they are asked to break out of the box Resource profile: in pairs. Students have to interview each other about their skills/ competences, interests, networks /personal background in order to enhance their awareness of their own capability portfolio Symbolic growth experience mapping: individual. Students have to draw a timeline of their life story and mark the various SGEs and explain how these have influenced their life path Boy with the violinb: individual. Students are asked to write a short story about the picture of the boy in five minutes. The stories are discussed. The exercise helps reveal their basic mind frames Who is the entrepreneur?: group. Students are given a picture of a product and asked to construct a story about the product filling in the: who, what, where and how. This exercise illustrates among other things the entrepreneurial stereotypes held by the students, e.g., gendered perceptions (women invent baby products, men are IT oriented) Meet an entrepreneur: (live or YouTube) YouTube may be preferable because if students do not turn up, they can still complete the home assignment. Discuss the presentation in class LEGO and puzzles exercise: group. Figuring out appropriate interventions is not always easy. The educator drew on existing models for inspiration sometimes adapting them to suit the students. For example, to illustrate effectuation she asked the students to complete a children’s jigsaw puzzle in their groupsc. The first group to finish were each designated as leaders of design teams. While the other groups finish their jigsaws the new leaders were taken to another room where they were asked to pick 20 pieces of Lego from a box of mixed Lego pieces. As team leaders they were given the task of designing a product. When the next group finish their jigsaw they picked 15 pieces of Lego and were asked to choose a team to join. Now the leaders had to be ready to negotiate with potential team members individually to convince them to join their team and to add their pieces to the product. The team leaders had to cope with designing and negotiating for new members as well as coordinating the design of the product. When all the students are present the team leaders are asked to signal when their product is complete. The educator then concludes by asking each leader to explain the product. While the negotiations were in process and the designs were being constructed the educator noted the comments and reactions of the students. In this case, she noted that the students found out that, apart from having a lot of fun, many of them became surprisingly competitive. However, there were some who expressed surprise and commented that “there were no wrong answers” and that they all felt a degree of success with their product. One student commented “we could not fail – it was just so much fun!” This is essential in terms of enhancing student self-efficacy Identifying and solving everyday problems: individual and group. Participants are randomly divided into groups of four. Participants are asked to individually write down as many “everyday problems” – problems they encounter at home, at the workplace or in their leisure time – as possible. Participants are asked to reduce these to four. Participants explain their everyday problems to group members – only two minutes Storytelling and narratives Effectuationcausation Disharmonies and anomalies (continued ) 681 Table AII. Interventions ET 58,7/8 Theoretical theme 682 Bricolage Context Unfolding Table AII. Interventions per problem. The groups are asked to reduce all their problems to one for each group member. Groups swap problems and are asked to further reduce and choose just one problem. A representative of the group writes the chosen problem on the black/ whiteboard. Participants vote on a problem for which all groups should work on a solution. Participants are not allowed to vote for their own problem. Groups work on identifying a solution to the same problem. Groups present their solution, which are invariably different. Thus, the exercise illustrates that even if you work with the same problems because of individual differences the solutions will always be unique and tied to who team members’ experience, knowledge, etc. Types of bricolage: class. Various illustrative YouTube clips on bricolage businesses are shown and each is discussed in terms of what makes it bricolage and what type of bricolage we are dealing with Storytelling: interventions have continually evolved and many have taken on a very personal dimension. For example, in order to illustrate the theory of bricolage two stories about the educator’s youth and her grandmother are invoked. First, the educator produced a bag full of old jeans that she distributed among the students. Then she told a story about how she loved to go to the beach to sunbathe as a youth. However, she hated that her towel would always get sandy when it became wet. Lacking money she could not just buy a beach blanket (if such a thing existed back then) and decided to make one from old jeans and jean jackets that she got from friends and family. These had the advantage that they would have pockets to safely store her keys, hairbands, books, etc. As the story is told, the actual beach blanket was displayed. The educator acknowledged that had she known then what she knows now, she could probably have made a business of manufacturing beach blankets, cushion covers, etc. This story is followed by the intervention: the educator’s Grandmother’s old “mending mushroom”, used for darning holes in socks in the old days, (an obsolete product and unknown to students), is passed around class so students can examine it; the students are then asked to imagine new avenues for using and selling the product. The fact that they have no prior knowledge of its former use is a quality that is essential for this exercise. The educator found that when students recognized an object they tended to adapt its uses rather than think in novel ways about its uses. Therefore, the object had to be one that was unrecognizable to the students. The aim of the exercise is to open students’ minds to new applications of an object, which has been discarded by others or is a waste product. Students are asked to brainstorm good ideas for uses of the product All ideas are written on the whiteboard after which their operationalizability and value are discussed. The interventions are then used as an anchor for the following week’s home assignmentd Upcycling jeans – see description later in text Mending mushroom: class. See description later in text Recall a place: think about a place (house) you know well and reflect on how culture, community (people), history, heritage, etc. is unfolded in this place and how that is important. Interview one of your peers on their “place” and be interviewed. Connect to disharmony/anomaly Storytelling: about the influence of culture, community, history and heritage on the development of products, sites, events: pashmina shawls, salt production, umukoko nut jewellery No interventions Notes: aThis intervention is borrowed from Rita Klapper; bthis intervention has its origin in McClelland’s work but we were inspired to use it by Bill Gartner; cthis particular intervention is an adaptation of an intervention used at Babson and invented by Heidi Neck and Len Schlesinger, based on the metaphor of “the crazy quilt”. However, xxx (nationality) students would not relate in the same way to the quilting exercise (and it may be gender biased), but most young people have some experience with LEGO; dthis intervention was inspired by a presentation by Jeff Stamps given at the ICSB conference in Turku New horizons in entrepreneurship Appendix 3 Theoretical theme Home assignments Mindset and identity Individual: write a reflective essay about a critical event in your life that has taught you something about your abilities to overcome difficulties (1 page). You should also consider what defines you: who you are, what you know, what you like to do, what you are good at doing and who you know – and what would you most like to achieve with your life (1 page) Group: write a story about the entrepreneur: the story has to be told in best “fairy tale” tradition. Guidelines are provided in the lecture. The story should be no longer than 3 pages. Another assignment involved writing a fairy tale about the real-life entrepreneur who was brought into class as one of the interventions. The students were asked to move away from re-telling the entrepreneur’s story and were forced to think alternatively, to use their rightbrain and their imagination in ways that they are unused to. In many cases this causes significant discomfort among the students who, although they had been introduced to the storytelling framework, were unsure about what constituted a good story. In past years the educator experienced significant resistance to the fairy tale form of storytelling. It required a certain amount of courage on her part when the students were resistant to the exercise to insist on this form. However, this was precisely the effect sought since it is only when you are frustrated or experience an intensified situation that learning really begins, resonating with the situated and existential learning theories mentioned above Group: effectuate a flashmob in a public place. The flashmob should incorporate competences of at least one person in the group. Stakeholder commitment from individuals outside the group and class needs to be secured. At least one other person for each person in the group. The flashmob is videotaped to be shown in class Individual: identify and describe a disharmony in your own life. Remember that this has to be an everyday disharmony associated with yourself, that a solution should not already be available. This written assignment should be no longer than 2 pages Individual or pairs: find some resource, which has been discarded and is available for free. Use your inherent abilities to construct a saleable “product”. Bring the product to class Products must not exist in the marketplace already. Products should be constructed in such a way that they are re- or upcycled Group: each group has to identify a section of the city to investigate for entrepreneurial potential and describe their ideas either with a “model” or in a powerpoint presentation Individual: this takes place in the exam and is closely linked to the personal disharmony Storytelling and narratives Effectuationcausation Disharmonies and anomalies Bricolage Context Unfolding Corresponding author Helle Neergaard can be contacted at: Helle.Neergaard@badm.au.dk For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com 683 Table AIII. Home assignments Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.