Introduction
How can educators in entrepreneurship education apply an experiential learning perspective in their curriculum design and course planning ? Hannon (2005) suggested using the notions on teaching about, for, and through when developing and researching entrepreneurship education. However, other notions and overall understandings may provide us with new perspectives that can advance the field by taking into consideration other elementsâfor example, in, after, under, over, beside, during, and meanwhile (Naia et al. 2015; Neergaard et al. 2016; Ramsgaard and Christensen 2016) or what, when, where, and how (Pittaway and Cope 2007a; Rasmussen and Sørheim 2006).
The current conceptual chapter proposes that research in entrepreneurship education has developed a narrow perspective on learning if its focus relies only on about, for, and through. The chapter explores other points of view and furthermore discusses and explores central topics within experiential learning using the lenses of both educators and students. Research on entrepreneurship education and especially experiential learning has long pursued questions of how to apply the pedagogies and didactics of experiential learning into curriculum development and course planning (Krueger 2007; Pittaway and Cope 2007b), but the educatorâs own ability to differentiate and experiment with known learning approaches has been a highly overlooked topic.
The point of departure for the chapter will be Hannonâs work on philosophies of entrepreneurship education (Hannon 2005, 2006) combined with Jason Copeâs dynamic perspective on experiential learning (Cope 2003, 2005; Cope and Watts 2000; Pittaway and Cope 2007a; Pittaway and Thorpe 2012) and will further discuss in relation to lenses of transformative learning, entrepreneurial action , entrepreneurial reflection , and entrepreneurial identity in order to leverage an understanding of experiential learning in entrepreneurship education on a conceptual basis. Finally, the chapter will suggest a dynamic model that educators can use to design experiential learning activities that include an interplay of various models and understandings.
The chapter proposes that a narrow perspective on learning has been created in research in entrepreneurship education that focuses only on teaching about, for, and through. The purpose of this chapter is to present and further develop experiential learning philosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education.
Conceptual Background
Within theories on entrepreneurial learning, evidence suggests that experiential learning methods and approaches can enhance learning outcomes for students in higher education (Middleton et al. 2014; Neergaard et al. 2016). Hannonâs contribution to entrepreneurship education with the concept of about, for, and through entrepreneurship education has received widespread recognition (Bridge 2017). However, current debates in learning theory address developments in the conceptualization of learning processes from both educators and students (Moon 2004), and recent research on Hannonâs taxonomy suggests that the concept requires an update (Hoppe et al. 2017).
Review of Hannonâs Contributions
Paul D. Hannonâs paper âPhilosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and challenges for higher education in the UKâ (2005) proposed important questions to be considered in entrepreneurship education : (1) Is entrepreneurship education management or business related? (2) Is entrepreneurship education a part of a learnerâs life capabilities? (3) Is entrepreneurship education a process of identifying organizational opportunity? Hannon states that an âunderpinning philosophy of an educational programme will partially determine the outcomes of the educational process and influence the educational experience â (Hannon 2005). He further elaborates that if concepts and approaches in entrepreneurship education are blurred and have mixed meanings it can lead to contrasting and even conflicting beliefs for both students and educators. In his conceptual paper, he includes philosophies of the more general frameworks for adult education. In his efforts to dissect the categorizations of different approaches in entrepreneurship education, he takes a stance on a somewhat narrow perspective on the commonly applied conceptualization of about, for, and through. Being published in 2005, it could be relevant to look at the developments within learning philosophies during the next 15 years in order to fulfillingly include approaches to bring into focus (Naia et al. 2015). However, Hannon has luckily published other important works on these matters. In another paper from 2005, he has expanded the views to focus on determining curricula content (Hartshorn and Hannon 2005). A key finding is that the specific course described ensured personal learning and prepared for an unsure future in entrepreneurship. Hannon does not relate this to underlying philosophies, but a viewpoint could be that the about, for, and through notions were not sufficient and that other relevant parameters such as legitimization, mentoring , and identity would be relevant parameters. One other Hannon paper stands out as bringing important aspects into these discussions, namely, his 2006 paper (Hannon 2006), where he touches upon the complexities of a number of interrelated aspects that could be relevant to consider when designing curricula in entrepreneurship education:
- Embedding across and within different subjects
- Location and ownership
- Purpose and outcomes
- Educatorsâ roles and approaches
- Benefits
- Coherence and cohesion
- Quality (Hannon 2006)
All of these aspects can be considered as contributions to the ongoing discussions about underlying philosophies. At some points, these aspects question the above described categorizations about entrepreneurship education being management or business related, part of a learnerâs life capabilities, or a process of identifying organizational opportunity. The aspects can be seen as overlapping and therefore not fit particularly well into the three categorizations above.
A Dynamic Perspective on Experiential Learning
Jason Cope presented in his conceptual article âToward a Dynamic Learning Perspective of Entrepreneurshipâ (2005) a learning perspective of entrepreneurship that built upon existing and widely accepted theoretical approaches to understanding entrepreneurial activityâwhat Pittaway calls inquiry-based learning (Pittaway et al. 2009). Pittaway and Cope (2007b) illustrated that it is possible to simulate some aspects of entrepreneurial learning, such as emotional exposure and situated learning, but not others.
Much research on learning processes influencing entrepreneurship education has been developed with a focus on entrepreneurs (Williams Middleton 2013). However, the connections between educational activities and later entrepreneurial careers are sparsely investigated, and the learning processes might not be easily transferred (Cope and Watts 2000) because of the extremely complex interplay of what Cope and Watts (2000) call âcritical incidentsâ, incidents where entrepreneurs face emotional-laden or traumatic events in the pursuit of an entrepreneurial career. In experiential learning processes , the pedagogical activities seldom consist of traumatic events because of ethical implications. However, the dynamic learning perspective and experiential learning processes are widely used and accepted when educators design and plan courses and curricula (Honig 2004; LackĂŠus et al. 2016; Li et al. 2007).
Learning Outcomes in Entrepreneurship Education
Learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education have gained much attention (Gibb 2002, 2012; Politis 2005). Existing research shows no clear direction in the pursuit of clear understandings of approaches and broadly adopted understandings, because many elements and pedagogical activities influence curriculum design ...