Team Academy in Practice

Berrbizne Urzelai, Elinor Vettraino, Berrbizne Urzelai, Elinor Vettraino

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• eBook ISBN: 9781000554328
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Within entrepreneurship education, Team Academy is seen by some as an innovative pedagogical model that enhances social connectivity, as well as experiential, student-centred, and team-based learning. It also creates spaces for transformative learning to occur.

This second book of the Routledge Focus on Team Academy book series includes chapters from contributors working with the TA methodology in academic institutions around the world that discuss the challenges, benefits, and approaches to embedding the TA methodology in practice (around coaching, assessment, transformative learning, partnerships, programme evolution, etc.).

This book is aimed at academics, practitioners, and learners engaged in the Team Academy methodology, pedagogy, and model, as well as those interested in the area of entrepreneurial team learning. Readers will be inspired to innovate in their delivery methodologies and to explore learning-by-doing approaches to creating value. The book also aims to challenge the discourse around entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activities, offering insights, research, stories, and experiences from those learning and working in the Team Academy approach.

1 On the Matter of Evidencing Transformative Learning in Enterprise/Entrepreneurship Education

Elinor Vettraino and Colin Jones

DOI: 10.4324/9781003163114-2

Introduction

It would seem to be widely believed that in the Higher Education context, enterprise/entrepreneurship education (hereinafter EE) can and should produce transformative learning outcomes (see Gibb, 1993; Hannon, 2005; Lourenco & Jones, 2006; Jones, 2019). Such views typically relate to the focus EE has on developing personal attributes, competencies, and deep changes in one's perspective of self and society. Disappointingly, there is very little empirical evidence confirming that transformative learning outcomes are common outcomes for students of EE. This dilemma is not entirely unique to EE, with the broader education literature also challenged around this issue. Indeed, it would seem easier to explain how transformative learning might occur than to evidence that it actually did occur (Taylor, 2007).

At the centre of this issue is the complex nature of transformational learning (hereinafter TL). “Transformations may be epochal – sudden major reorientations in habit of mind, often associated with significant life crises or cumulative, a progressive sequence of insights resulting in changes in point of view and leading to a transformation in habit of mind” (Mezirow, 2008, p. 28). The Mezirowian process of transformation is aligned to ten distinct stages, beginning with a disorienting dilemma, stages of critical self-examination, exploring and trying new roles, and developing self-confidence to facilitate the reintegration into one's life using newly gained perspectives.

However, a clear challenge in evidencing TL is recognizing that such learning outcomes are likely to occur via different experiences and learning processes, from one individual to the next. It is difficult to measure learning outcomes when the “learner may skip one or more phases, return to a phase, or experience one phase in a more pronounced manner than another” (Cox, 2017, p. 12). This article, set in the context of EE, seeks to (1) explore the nature of TL, (2) consider the evidence that TL is widely occurring in EE before (3) providing empirical evidence of TL in an authentically unique EE context. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, the literature on TL is considered, and the minimal requirements to support transformative learning are identified. Second, the extent to which transformative learning is evidenced in the EE is discussed. Third, the research method used within the study is outlined. Fourth, the case of Team Academy at a UK University is presented, and related findings are discussed. Finally, the implications that arise from the consideration of this case are discussed and suggestions for further research in this area are presented in the concluding comments.

Transformative learning

Since the development of Transformative Learning Theory some 40 years ago (Mezirow, 1978; Mezirow & Marsick, 1978), this emancipatory approach has drawn attention to the way in which as adults we can critically identify and challenge our own assumptions and beliefs (Cagney, 2014). Essentially a critical element of adult learning is about becoming cognizant of re-enacting our own lived experiences (Mezirow, 1978). Notions of transformation in this context are actually concerned with perspective transformation. That is, without meaningful shifts in the perspectives students have, transformative learning experiences are not possible. Central to the process of TL is the adult student interacting with problematic aspects of their life. An adult student is defined as an individual who is old enough to be held accountable for their own actions (Mezirow, 2000), something students of entrepreneurship in Higher Education primarily are. As noted recently (Jones, 2019), TL relates directly to EE through (1) its centrality to problem-solving and (2) the importance of problem-solving to entrepreneurs, and/or individuals capable of self-negotiated action. The problem-solving emphasis not being on a learned process, but rather a developed capacity to objectively reframe the assumptions of others and/or subjectively reframe one's own assumptions in order to arrive at transformative insight. Whilst TL can lead to more justified habits of mind, it also represents a journey for many that contains, grief, pain, and conflict (Cranton, 2016), given that it entails a fundamental de- and reconstruction of how an individual views themselves and their relationships (Mezirow, 1978). The nature of the process is outlined below (Table 1.1) with reference to Mezirow's (2000) ten stages through which such transformative insight is possible.

Table 1.1 Meizrow's (1991) 10 stages of transformative learning

A disorienting dilemma Self-examination with feelings of fear, anger, guilt, or shame A critical assessment of assumptions Recognition that one's discontent and the process of transformation are shared Exploration of options for new roles, relationships, and actions Planning a course of action Acquiring knowledge and skills for implementing one's plans Provisional trying of new roles Building competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships A reintegration into one's life on the basis of conditions dictated by one's new perspective

Source: Authors’ own.

Cagney (2014) breaks these 10 down into four distinct parts that reconcile to a sequential learning process, these being (1) experience, (2) alienation, (3) reframing, and (4) reintegration. Through this process, students experience some form of a disorienting dilemma (as per Mezirow's stage 1). They then become alienated from prescribed social roles (as per Mezirow's stages 2–4). This leads to a reframing of one's conception of reality (as per Mezirow's stages 5–8). Finally, the student reintegrates back into society with a new perspective (as per Mezirow's stages 9–10). For Cagney, such an iterative process has the potential to enable students to restore balance to those moments in their lives where prior assumptions and beliefs are not aligned to the new experiences they encounter.

To summarize, TL is a process of education that is designed to facilitate the transformation of meaning perspectives in students (Mezirow, 1978). Whilst typically occurring within group settings, the process is focused on the transformation of individuals, specifically the psychological relations they hold with the inner and outer worlds (Jones, 2019). The stages of transformation can be viewed across 10 stages or through Cagney's (2014) distinct parts. Progression is seen as iterative (rather than linear), with stages often missed and/or repeated. The process is complex and must be driven by authentic experience of consequences in each individual student's life. The process of facilitating TL is also complex and taxing on educators. The following section will now consider the presence of TL in EE.

Transformative learning in entrepreneurship education

There is a long history of associating EE with transformational learning outcomes. For example, Ulrich and Cole (1987) noted the tendency to use pedagogies that supported active experimentation to support experiential learning outcomes. Pittaway and Cope (2007) acknowledge the importance of learning-by-doing and reflection, sometimes viewed as an alternative (Lourenco & Jones, 2006) to more traditional forms of business education. Acknowledgement that Mezirowian forms of experiential learning are embedded in EE is widely accepted (Arpiainen, Lackéus, Täks, & Tynjälä, 2013), although there is little agreement on how that might be so. There are clear examples of prescriptive agendas aimed at articulating how EE students can benefit through TL and what responsibilities, therefore, accrue to educators in the field. The recent work of Jones (2019) is proposing a (minimalist) signature pedagogy of EE places TL central to the foundations of all imaginable forms of EE, regardless of context. This work boldly highlights the issue of the types and nature of educator support for TL. In this respect, the EE literature does not speak explicitly as to the pedagogical demands on educators to facilitate TL. The work of Cranton (1994; 2016) has long been recognized as providing guidance around this issue.

To summarize, while clearly, an association between TL and EE has developed over time, exactly what constitutes TL in EE is not clear, especially from a Mezirowian perspective. Indeed, it would seem that Mezirowian TL, while often championed in the contemporary EE literature (Neck, Greene & Brush, 2014; Hägg, 2018; Jones, 2019), its implementation and effectiveness have been less considered. Given the educator factors noted above, it is timely to ask, is TL realistically possible in EE given the constraints often placed on educators in the domain of EE? This question shapes the remainder of the paper, starting with the research method used to explore this question. Then, an exploratory case study and related subsequently discussion provides the means to draw tentative conclusions as to the implications of embedding Mezirowian TL in EE.

Research method

An exploratory case study approach was chosen to enable an initial plausibility probe (Levy (2008) of the nature of TL in EE vis-à-vis educator approaches and student learning outcomes. The chosen method is considered ideal when detailed description of contextual events is required (Simons, 2014). Using triangulated data (Denzin, 1970) acquired from conversations with students and academic coaches employed to facilitate the Team Academy approach, the case data is presented as a reflection (see Becker & Renger, 2017) by one author on her role as coach, and then analyzed by both authors.

The case of Team Academy

In 1993 Johannes Partanen, at that time a marketing lecturer in the Jyväskylä University of Applied Sciences (JAMK), and frustrated with the approach taken to the delivery of his subject to HE students, decided to employ a new pedagogical approach. This approach has become globally known as Team Academy (or Tiimiakatemia). The Team Academy model requires learners to work in teams to set up and run real businesses or enterprises, where they have full ownership and control (Tosey, Dhaliwal, and Hassinen). Team Entrepreneurs (the term given to students on Team Academy programmes) engage in real-world trade-based activities.

The Team Academy model fosters risk-taking and freedom to create, developing entrepreneurial capacity through real rather than simulated experiences. The model creates a need to acquire knowledge and skills in order to develop business practice and ideas. Unlike traditional models of Higher Education delivery, the knowledge is not given or partially given by an expert (the lecturer or tutor). Instead, the coached approach catalyzes the TE to act in order to move forward. By its very nature, the coaching approach can (repeatedly) provide the disorienting dilemma Mezirow (1991) refers to. For some TEs this can prove extremely difficult and painful at times, and operating as a team can become tricky when there is an imbalance in those who have a natural desire to go and do, and those who don’t:

“The biggest difference for me was about those who wanted to go and lear...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• List of Contributors
• Introduction: Team Academy in Practice
• 1 On the Matter of Evidencing Transformative Learning in Enterprise/Entrepreneurship Education
• 2 Programme Evolution, Success Factors, and Key Challenges: The Case of Team Entrepreneurship at UWE, Bristol
• 3 HES-SO Business Team Academy: How to Evaluate Without Exams?
• 4 Fostering Students' Motivation to Be and Stay in Action
• 5 Developing a Sister Programme—The First of its Kind
• 6 Exploring a Hybrid Approach of Team Academy Model in the Conventional Entrepreneurship Postgraduate Programme
• 7 How to Develop Team Coaches at Team Academy: Different Contexts, Multiple Paths
• 8 Mondragon Team Academy and LEINN Degree: From an Educational Revolution to a Global Social Innovation Inter-cooperation Network
• Concluding Thoughts: Contributors' Conversation
• Index