Entrepreneurship education in Namibia: A study of tertiary education classroom practices

Abstract

The notion of entrepreneurship education is critical in the context of Namibia’s endeavours to become a knowledge economy by 2030. This study highlights the profile of entrepreneurship educators, identifies the teaching methods used in teaching entrepreneurship and explores whether the teaching methods differ based on the target audience. Data were collected using a survey with open-ended questions sent to educators. This was followed up with scheduled interviews. The study finds that entrepreneurship educators are variously referred to as teachers, lecturers, trainers, facilitators and tutors, depending on the target audience and the organisation they work for. The results further reveal that educators use different teaching and training methods, which are accompanied by various tools that aid teaching and that vary depending on the target audience. As highlighted by the study, the entrepreneurship curriculum should be developed bearing in mind the diversity of target audiences.

Keywords

Educator profile entrepreneurship education entrepreneurship educators Namibia tertiary education teaching methods

Since independence Namibia has witnessed an increase in entrepreneurship activities. Currently, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) contribute 12% to the GDP (MITSMED, 2019). The increase can be largely attributed to the government’s expanded efforts to support SMEs in terms of finance, regulations and education.

Namibia has made considerable effort to supporting its entrepreneurs, particularly by introducing entrepreneurship education into school curricula. Over the past decade there has been a rapid increase in entrepreneurship courses at all levels of education – at primary school, at secondary (ordinary/higher level) and at tertiary level. The tertiary level in Namibia is divided into higher education (universities) and vocational education (vocational training centres). Entrepreneurship was first introduced into the education system in 2004 by the Ministry of Education, reflecting a recognition that not all those who entered formal education were completing it with adequate and relevant skills for the world of work.

The introduction to entrepreneurship provided at secondary school is aimed at creating entrepreneurial awareness and laying a foundation for entrepreneurship education at secondary and tertiary levels, while an upgrading of skills can be achieved at vocational training centres (VTCs) and universities. Entrepreneurship in vocational education is offered to level 1–4 students as an elective stand-alone subject (the VTCs accommodate both school leavers and Grade 10 and Grade 12 graduates in their level 1–4 programmes with a minimum age requirement of 16). Higher level and formal entrepreneurship education is offered by the Namibian public and private universities in form of stand-alone degree programmes, distinct courses within degree programmes or as public short courses. For example, centres such as the Namibian Business and Innovation Institute (NBII) and the Centre of Entrepreneurial Development (CED) at the Namibia University of Science and Technology were set up to enhance the development of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions is aimed at developing entrepreneurial knowledge and an entrepreneurial culture among students. Some of the programmes offered are purposely designed to orientate students’ thinking towards starting and managing their own businesses, thereby creating jobs for themselves and others.

Although most entrepreneurship programmes and courses in tertiary education are offered at university level, some initiatives and interventions are also emerging in the vocational training centres. Furthermore, a number of entrepreneurial programmes and courses have been developed and are offered at various private and accredited smaller training institutions (April, 2015; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2017).

The notion of entrepreneurship education is critical in the context of Namibia’s endeavours to become a knowledge economy by 2030. Namibia’s Fifth National Development Plan (NDP-5) emphasises high and sustained economic growth and employment creation as two of the over-arching goals for the period 2017/18–2021/22 (National Planning Commission, 2017). According to Johansen and Lundhaug (2016), entrepreneurship education is aimed at encouraging self-employment and imparting the necessary skills to promote the creation of SMEs, thereby contributing to national socio-economic development. Therefore, teaching entrepreneurship in Namibian tertiary institutions can be seen as a move to stimulate entrepreneurial thinking among Namibian citizens and a response to overcome the educational systems of the colonial past (April, 2015).

Although the volume of research into entrepreneurship education continues to increase internationally, little has been published specifically on entrepreneurship education in Namibia. Furthermore, there is a lack of insight into the profiles of educators (lecturers, teachers and trainers) who teach entrepreneurship courses in Namibian universities, VTCs and training institutions. The body of knowledge on effective methods in entrepreneurship education is still evolving (Turner and Gianiodis, 2018); hence research on teaching practices and methods will constitute an important contribution to the development of entrepreneurship pedagogy in Namibia.

Critical to the success of entrepreneurship education are the pedagogy and role of the educator. Therefore, this article highlights the profile of entrepreneurship educators and identifies the methodologies used to teach entrepreneurship in Namibia. Additionally, the article explores whether teaching methods differ according to the target audience (undergraduate, postgraduate, SME employees and employers).

Literature review

Entrepreneurship education

Research has identified two distinct definitions of entrepreneurship education. The narrower definition associates entrepreneurship education with a specific course aimed at training young people to start their own business, while the wider definition focuses on general skills that all students should learn and that are considered helpful in preparation for life in general (Fejes et al., 2018). Previous studies have cited different objectives and purposes of entrepreneurship education, including: to acquire knowledge and skills; to identify and stimulate entrepreneurial drive, talent and skill; to encourage self-employment; to encourage new start-ups and other entrepreneurial ventures; and to impart the necessary skills to promote the creation of SMEs (Alberti et al., 2004; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2017; Johansen and Lundhaug, 2016).

According to Sirelkhatim and Gangi (2015), common practices for entrepreneurship education programme content and teaching methods may be grouped into three general themes: teaching ‘about’, ‘for’ and ‘through’ entrepreneurship (see also Lackéus, 2015; Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2014). Teaching ‘about’ entrepreneurship is teacher-centred, aiming to increase students’ awareness of entrepreneurship as a potential career choice and uses teaching methods such as lectures, guest speakers and case studies (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2014). Teaching ‘for’ entrepreneurship is learner-centred, aims to encourage students and enhance their intentions to be entrepreneurs in future, and applies the concept of learning by doing as well as experiential teaching methods (Fayolle and Gailly, 2013). Meanwhile, teaching ‘through’ entrepreneurship suggests learning ‘with’ and ‘through’ real-life entrepreneurship and aims to develop entrepreneurial competencies for graduate entrepreneurs (Bridge et al., 2010; Vincett and Farlow, 2008),

Entrepreneurship educators

There is little information available in the literature about the backgrounds of practising entrepreneurship educators (Ruskovaara and Pihkala, 2013). Entrepreneurship educators evolve in an environment where different categories of people (students, teachers and stakeholders) are interacting and have varying expectations with regard to entrepreneurship education (Foliard et al., 2018). Furthermore, they sometimes have to assume more than one identity or role (that of teacher, practitioner, ex-entrepreneur and/or researcher) as ‘transmitters’ of entrepreneurship education (Foliard et al., 2018). According to Arasti et al. (2012), the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education is largely related to the teachers’ skills and their knowledge of using different teaching methods.

According to Čechurová et al. (2016), to be successful entrepreneurship education demands entrepreneurial teachers who are able to engage young learners in the necessary experiential activities. Hence, entrepreneurship educators may need training in theoretical knowledge, practical skills and experiential pedagogies, and especially training on the key topics and methods related to entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurship education (European Commission, 2013). Certification of entrepreneurship teachers is therefore important to ensure that minimum standards are met (Čechurová et al., 2016). Apart from certification, Ruskovaara and Pihkala (2013) have emphasised that business-related training for teachers affects the entrepreneurship education practices positively. Therefore, teachers should preferably have experienced entrepreneurship themselves or have undertaken an internship in business (European Commission Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry, 2009) so they can lead an entrepreneurship education programme effectively (Ruskovaara and Pihkala 2013) and communicate in their teaching real experiences of entrepreneurship (European Commission Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry, 2009).

Entrepreneurship education teaching methods

Understanding how learning is made possible through the application of educational theory to the practice of teaching calls for an examination of teaching methods used in entrepreneurship education: these methods are considered critical in influencing how students explore, view and understand what it means to be an entrepreneur (Fayolle et al., 2016; Nabi et al., 2017).

Various methods, both student-centred and teacher-centred, are used in entrepreneurship education. As Balan and Metcalfe (2012) note, the literature identifies a wide range of teaching methods that are considered appropriate for the field. Methods and tools adopted in entrepreneurship courses include group discussion, formal lectures, group projects, simulations, problem-solving, training in an enterprise and scientific visits (see, e.g. Arasti et al., 2012; Čechurová et al., 2016; Dominik and Banerji, 2019), case studies, individual presentations, individual written reports, guest speakers, action learning, seminars, web-based learning and video recording (Foliard et al., 2018; Hindle, 2007; Lonappan and Devaraj, 2011). In addition, various other activities, such as live projects in which students collaborate with real business people (Chang and Rieple, 2013), and incubators (Vincett and Farlow, 2008) can be used in teaching and training (Fejes et al., 2018).

Although such a wide range of teaching methods exists, however, the literature on entrepreneurship education has not been able to reach a consensus on which are the most appropriate to choose (Balan and Metcalfe, 2012; Rahman et al., 2017) and which will best ensure that the teaching process is on the right path (Esmi et al., 2015). It is therefore difficult for educators to identify and select those teaching methods that are likely to be the most engaging and effective for their specific student profile. Blenker et al. (2011) note that entrepreneurship education is not generic and that each educational initiative needs to be tailored to its target audience. Samuel and Rahman (2018) argue that there is a need for a collective adoption (under given circumstances) of different methods as no one method should be used solely on its own. Arasti et al. (2012) agree that, for an effective entrepreneurship education, a combination of teaching methods should be adopted.

Methodology

The study on which this article is based aimed to highlight the profile of entrepreneurship educators/teachers and to identify the methodologies used for teaching entrepreneurship in Namibia. Additionally, the study explored whether teaching methods differed according to the target audience (undergraduate, postgraduate, SME employees and employers).

The study sample consisted of six participants: five university educators and one educator (trainer) from a VTC. One of the university educators is responsible for offering short courses on entrepreneurship to industry, while the other four teach entrepreneurship to undergraduate and postgraduate students, with two of them occasionally offering training in industry to potential and practising entrepreneurs.

This research adopts a qualitative method with an interpretive philosophy (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011) which aims to make sense of subjective meanings expressed about the phenomenon being studied (Saunders et al., 2016). Data were collected using a questionnaire survey (self-report with open-ended questions) and a follow-up interview for elaboration.

The questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was sent to the educators to complete and focused on obtaining the profile of the entrepreneurship educators and the lists of teaching methods and tools used in teaching entrepreneurship. When the questionnaire was received from the respondents, follow-up interviews were scheduled with each educator to elaborate on their responses. Based on the information provided in the questionnaire, the interviews focused on the elaboration of the different teaching methods and tools listed by the educators to determine their rationale for choosing those methods; whether the teaching methods and practices differ depending on the target group; and what pedagogical challenges were faced in delivering the entrepreneurship course/programme. The interview lasted between 15 and 20 minutes. As the data collection was done during a lockdown period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted via MS Teams and Zoom. Keeping ethical considerations in mind, the educators were informed that their identity would remain anonymous and the information they shared would be kept confidential and used for academic purposes only.

Findings

The study indicates that entrepreneurship programmes and courses in both Namibian universities and VTCs are purposely designed to orient students’ thinking towards starting and managing their own business, thereby creating jobs for themselves and others. These programmes are aimed at providing students with a foundation in and a coherent introduction to the key concepts, theories and problem-solving techniques needed to conceptualise, create and manage entrepreneurial ventures. Our study focused on entrepreneurship educators in higher education, but in this context we should not ignore the fact that these same educators also offer specific short-term entrepreneurship training to potential young entrepreneurs, SME employees and SME owners.

Entrepreneurship educators in Namibia

The results show that there are different profiles among entrepreneurship educators, who are variously referred to as teachers, lecturers, trainers, facilitators and tutors. Their profiles depend on who they are offering entrepreneurship education to and the organisation they are working for. For example, in the university context, they are called lecturers when teaching undergraduate or postgraduate students. However, the same educator is considered to be a trainer/facilitator when offering entrepreneurship training to potential and/or practising entrepreneurs outside the university. Educators at VCTs are generally called trainers. The results further indicate that the qualifications of the educators varied, as indicated in Table 1. All six hold qualifications in the field of business and management, with four of the participants having majored in entrepreneurship. All have worked as educators for five years or more and, as noted previously, their target audiences vary from undergraduate and postgraduate university students, trainees at vocational centres, to potential and practising entrepreneurs.

Table 1.

Profiles of entrepreneurship educators participating in the study.

Participant	Institution	Designation	Qualifications	Years of teaching experience	Target audience
1	University	Lecturer	MSc in Entrepreneurship and Business Dynamics, BCom Business Management	More than 5	Undergraduate and postgraduate students
2	University	Lecturer	BA Hons Psych, MBA	More than 5	Undergraduate students
3	University	Trainer	MBA and Certificate in Occupationally Directed Education and Training	3–5	Practicing entrepreneurs Potential entrepreneurs
4	University	Lecturer, facilitator and trainer	Master in Marketing, B. Hons Entrepreneurship	More than 5	Undergraduate students Practicing and potential entrepreneurs
5	VTC	Trainer	Integrated Honours Degree in Entrepreneurship, National Diploma in Business Administration	More than 5	VTC students
6	University	Lecturer, facilitator and trainer	Master of Public Administration, B. Hons Entrepreneurship, B. Tech Public Management, Advanced Dipl. Project Management	More than 5	Undergraduate and postgraduate students Practicing and potential entrepreneurs

Teaching methods and tools

The results indicate that educators are required to present students with theoretical entrepreneurship content in order to provide them with a context. This is usually done by means of lectures, notes and presentations. Various teaching and training methods are used by the responding educators, including lecture presentations, case studies, visual aids, guest lecturers from industry (ad hoc), scenario-based simulations, role play, learning by doing/hands-on, experiential learning/labs and projects. These methods are accompanied by a variety of tools that aid the teaching and training, including group activities/assignments (inside and outside class), videos, documentaries related to the courses, scenario demonstrations, problem-solving quizzes, simulation software, board games, coaching and mentorship, online tools and engaging with entrepreneurs in the various fields. These findings are corroborated in the literature on the different teaching methods and tools used in entrepreneurship education (see, e.g. Arasti et al., 2012; Čechurová et al., 2016; Dominik and Banerji, 2019; Lonappan and Devaraj, 2011).

The results further show that teaching practices vary depending on the target audience. For example, one of the educators (participant 2) teaches an entrepreneurship degree programme designed for learning by doing. Therefore, the teaching methods for this programme are different than those for other entrepreneurship courses, requiring students to register a company and run active projects through which they learn how to run a business. For this degree programme, the educator said they made use of teaching methods that fostered mutual learning and cooperation among students and focused on delivering lessons in an interactive environment. The pedagogical methods used are based on experiential training, groups and peer activities, learning by doing, and visiting SME incubation centres and various organisations to enable the students to better understand entrepreneurial organisations and the entrepreneurial environment. Programmes like this tend to be related to practice-oriented themes of entrepreneurship education which are learner-centred and teach ‘for’ and ‘through’ entrepreneurship (Fayolle and Gailly, 2013; Lackéus, 2015; Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2014).

Regarding the question of what or who determines the type of teaching methods used and the rationale for using them, the study found the following:

– For universities and VTCs, the teaching methods for entrepreneurship programmes and courses are determined and outlined by the curriculum developers. The educators have little to no direct influence on curriculum design. Nevertheless, some of the educators stated that they had discretion to decide which activities and tools to use in their teaching.

– For those providing entrepreneurship training to potential and/or practising entrepreneurs, the delivery of training is tailored to the specific participants’ needs and profiles (Blenker et al. 2011). Most of this training is needs-based (e.g. financial literacy, business planning, marketing and sales, costing and management, among many others) and therefore there is no pre-existing curriculum. Furthermore, these courses are mostly funded and requested by government ministries, which sometimes specify the types of teaching method to be used. Hence, one educator (participant 3) stated: ‘Sometimes we design training programmes from scratch and tailor-make it as per client need’. In addition, various factors, such as the educational level and experiences of the entrepreneurs and the level of English, play a role in determining the teaching method to be used.

One educator (participant 4) said that ‘most practising entrepreneurs (business owners) in Namibia have a low level of education and some do not understand the English language; hence having an appropriate method that suits their profile is very important and also quite challenging’. The study also found that the rationale for using the different teaching methods depended on various factors, such as the intended outcomes, the nature of the topic and the level of the target audience. To summarise the educators’ comments in this regard:

– Lecture presentations are used to introduce theoretical content in order to lay the foundation for the respective topics.

– Case studies tend to bring the practical side to learning and reinforce it by making it ‘real’ in showing how it is relevant to real-life situations. The same applies to guest lecturers who are entrepreneurs.

– Group activities and joint research help students to engage in learning by carrying out exercises and encourages them to apply unconventional thinking to theoretical concepts, as well as to solve problems using other disciplines (e.g. engineering, computer science), and to integrating learning.

– The use of business simulations aids in the development of students’ understanding of business decision-making, putting emphasis on running a business entity.

One tool that is commonly used by educators is cooperating with experts in industry. Participant 6 indicated that, when training young entrepreneurs in financial literacy for example, they made use of taxation officers from the Ministry of Finance in matters related to taxation, and of representatives from financial institutions for matters related to bank loans, interest rates, savings and borrowings. When dealing with university students, educators reported that they often cooperated with successful entrepreneurs and companies to obtain advice on start-up related issues. Correspondingly, the use of guest speakers (Mukata et al., 2018) and role models from business (Penaluna and Penaluna, 2015) to give professional advice and share their failures as well as their successes could be beneficial to students.

Given the different profiles and needs of their audiences, educators who teach both undergraduate and postgraduate students and/or potential and existing entrepreneurs were asked whether the teaching methods differed depending on the type of audience. There was a general consensus among the participants in this regard, with most agreeing that teaching and training methods did differ from undergraduate to postgraduate students, in that a more practical case study approach was appropriate for postgraduates who had already acquired the theoretical foundations, while at undergraduate level the required theoretical foundations were being laid and thus there were more presentations than, for instance, case studies. Furthermore, postgraduates in most cases were working students and their style of learning required more participation as they also could bring experiences that would enhance learning.

As noted above, the delivery of training for entrepreneurs is tailor-made for the clients’ needs and profiles. Participant 4 stated that they used simulation software to train students because they were computer literate, while for potential and practising small-scale entrepreneurs he made use of board games, bearing in mind their literacy level and their inability to comprehend what goes on behind the computer programs. The study findings highlight the difficulties in delivering entrepreneurship education. Participant 1 pointed out that, as an educator in a higher education institution, they were teaching a class with diverse students, some of whom had never started or been involved in a small business, some of whom were aspiring entrepreneurs and some of whom had no interest in becoming an entrepreneur. Hence, deciding on the appropriate methods for such a diverse target audience became a daunting challenge. Other views and comments are summarised below:

– There is a lack of proper training material to implement the different activities.

– Due to classroom/training settings, some of the educators found it difficult to employ some teaching methods as they did not allow students to engage with others effectively.

– The curricula are focused more on theory and less on practical activities, such as how to handle finance and operations.

Discussion

Entrepreneurship education demands entrepreneurial teachers who are able to engage learners in the necessary experiential activities. Hence, entrepreneurship teachers and trainers in Namibia may need training in experiential pedagogies and professional development to improve their teaching skills and update their expertise and industry knowledge related to entrepreneurship.

The results indicate that, although the educators have qualifications in management and/or related areas, including entrepreneurship, they have always worked in the education sector and some have no prior experience in the business sector. Those educators who were recruited immediately on completion of their studies have never worked for an entrepreneurial business and have no industry experience related to running a business and/or entrepreneurship.

Different teaching methods, tools and activities are used by the educators to assist in delivering entrepreneurship education to their varying audiences. From the results, it is evident that some entrepreneurship educators still make use of the traditional pedagogy, in which entrepreneurship learning is considered in terms of content delivery and the educator follows the learning outcomes as set by the curriculum. Penaluna and Penaluna (2015) maintain that this approach instils a reliance on the system, as it does not empower the student to develop their own learning independently. One of the educators commented, ‘The university advocates for pedagogy but entrepreneurship teaching at university and short-course level should be taking an andragogy approach’. This is in agreement with the view of Penaluna and Penaluna (2015) that, when learning and tasks are set towards andragogy, there is a degree of self-determination on the part of the student which increases motivation and allows them to demonstrate self-reliance and spot opportunities for their own learning.

The study also confirmed that, in contrast to teaching students, when the educators teach potential and/or practising entrepreneurs they act more like coaches or facilitators (Penaluna and Penaluna, 2015), guiding their participants in learning rather than merely lecturing and giving instruction. This approach could be a daunting challenge in the higher education content-driven environment, where the educator is normally evaluated on what content they create and how they manage the delivery. According to the literature, entrepreneurship educators face difficulties in their everyday work (Paloniemi and Belt, 2015) when they attempt to combine the content of entrepreneurship and the educational methods required to teach it (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Fayolle, 2013; Ruskovaara and Pihkala, 2013; Solomon, 2007). One of the educators cautioned the careful use of the chosen method: ‘One size doesn’t fit all and as a teacher/trainer, selecting the right and effective training delivery methods is really important. It involves consideration of different aspects like the purpose, audiences and learning needs’. A similar point was made by another respondent: ‘Knowing the different teaching and training methods is not enough; it is equally important to know how, when and where to use them’.

Therefore, deciding on the methods for teaching entrepreneurship involves knowing what the purpose of the training is, who is the audience, what are their learning needs and background, and what is their previous knowledge in relation to the content.

Recommendation

The educators also advised caution in the choice of teaching methods because some methods and tools could only be used effectively through face-to-face contact sessions. For example, an attempt to incorporate or blend business simulation with other delivery methods at the same time may prove complex and unfruitful. Other recommendations included the following:

– ‘Entrepreneurship should be taught via project-based learning and a multidisciplinary team approach. Hence, teaching competencies becomes important’.

– ‘Learning methods such as seminars, innovation tasks and customer projects should be incorporated in entrepreneurship education’.

– ‘To conduct effective teaching and training, entrepreneurship educators should have access to specialised training’.

– ‘Informal learning opportunities may include student enterprise clubs, awards and societies; organising networking events between students and entrepreneurs; and engaging students in business idea and business plan competitions as part of their extracurricular opportunities’.

The role of the educator is crucial to the overall effectiveness of any entrepreneurship learning programme. Reforms including new curricula and pedagogical changes cannot be implemented without the full commitment and wide involvement of teachers and trainers. If they are to be successful, educational institutions need to update current policies, practices and offerings, which should include the development and introduction of training programmes for educators to improve their teaching skills and update their expertise and industry knowledge related to entrepreneurship. Although, there is an existing policy on VET, higher education, entrepreneurship and innovation, there are no sound policy frameworks and strategies that systematically guide the teaching and learning of entrepreneurship.

Areas for future research

The study was limited to six entrepreneurship educators, and therefore generalisation of the results is not possible. Future research replicating this study might include a larger sample size of entrepreneurship educators in both vocational and higher education institutions to assess whether similar results are obtained. Furthermore, a future study could explore students’ views and attitudes with regard to teaching methodologies used in entrepreneurship education. Finally, research on the profiling of entrepreneurship educators in Namibia has received minimal attention and it would be of interest to ascertain to what extent their qualifications, skills and experience contribute to entrepreneurship in the country.

Conclusion

Entrepreneurship education in Namibia’s higher and vocational education institutions is mainly offered in combination with another field in a business discipline. In delivering entrepreneurship education to its many target audiences, educators use a variety of teaching methods, tools and activities. Teaching and training methods for entrepreneurship education vary considerably because different contexts and audiences call for different methods. Therefore, entrepreneurship educators are constantly challenged to change their teaching approaches and methodologies depending on their audience profile. This challenge can be a complex one, especially in higher education institutions where educators are presented with a range of students with different views on entrepreneurship. This needs to be borne in mind by the institutions, so that their entrepreneurship curriculum development takes into account the diversity of the targeted students (whether they aspire to be entrepreneurs, have an interest in entrepreneurship or are studying it merely because it is part of the curriculum).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Selma M Iipinge

Appendix 1

References

Alberti

Sciascia

Poli

(2004) Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate. In: 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy, 4–7 July 2004.

Alvarez

Barney

(2007) Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 1(1–2): 11–26.

April

(2015) The spirit of entrepreneurial education in Namibia: an exploratory study. In: Henry

Hill

Leitch

(eds.), Entrepreneurship Education and Training. London: IntechOpen.

Arasti

Falavarjan

Imanipour

(2012) A study of teaching methods in entrepreneurship education for graduate students. Higher Education Studies 2(1): 2–10.

Balan

Metcalfe

(2012) Identifying teaching methods that engage entrepreneurship students. Education + Training 54(5): 368–384.

Blenker

Korsgaard

Neergaard

, et al. (2011) The questions we care about: paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education. Industry and Higher Education 25(6): 417–427.

Bridge

Hegarty

Porter

(2010) Rediscovering enterprise: developing appropriate university entrepreneurship education. Education and Training 52: 722–734.

Čechurová

Vacek

Kozáková

, et al. (2016) Entrepreneurship education – theoretical framework. In: Entrepreneurship Education. Plzeň: NAVA, pp. 12–27.

Chang

Rieple

(2013) Assessing students’ entrepreneurial skills development in live projects. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 20: 225–241.

10.

Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) (2011) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

11.

Dominik

Banerji

(2019) US community college entrepreneurship educator practices. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 26(2): 228–242.

12.

Esmi

Marzoughi

Torkzadeh

(2015) Teaching learning methods of an entrepreneurship curriculum. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism 3(4): 172–177.

13.

European Commission (2013) Entrepreneurship Education: A Guide for Educators. European Commission – DG Enterprise & Industry, Brussels, (s 6). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/education/entredu-manual-fv_en.pdf.

14.

European Commission Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry (2009) Best procedure project: “Entrepreneurship in vocational education and training”: Final report of the Expert Group, European Commission, [Brussels]. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu (accessed 26 March 2021).

15.

Fayolle

(2013) Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 25(7-8): 692–701.

16.

Fayolle

Gailly

(2008) From craft to science. Journal of European Industrial Training 32: 569–593.

17.

Fayolle

Gailly

(2013) The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management 51: 315–328.

18.

Fayolle

Verzat

Wapshott

(2016) In quest of legitimacy: the theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal 34(7): 895–904.

19.

Fejes

Nylund

Wallin

(2018) How do teachers interpret and transform entrepreneurship education? Journal of Curriculum Studies 51(4): 554–566.

20.

Foliard

Le Pontois

Fayolle

, et al. (2018) The legitimacy of teachers in entrepreneurship education: what we can learn from a literature review. Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research 9A: 7–23.

21.

Hindle

(2007) Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right philosophy. In: Fayolle

(ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 104–126.

22.

Johansen

Lundhaug

(2016) Tracing study in Namibia: A survey on entrepreneurship among young adults. ENRI-working paper 01/2016. Available at: http://www.ostforsk.no/wp-content/uploas/2016/01/012016-Tracing_study_in_Namibia.pdf (accessed February 2017).

23.

Lackéus

(2015) Entrepreneurship in Education: What, Why, When and How. Entrepreneurship360 Background Paper. Brussels: European Commission and OECD LEED.

24.

Lonappan

Devaraj

(2011) Pedagogical innovations in teaching entrepreneurship. In: Eighth AIMS International Conference on Management, 1–4 January 2011. Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of Management, pp. 513–518.

25.

MITSMED (2019) Ministry of Industrialization, Trade and SME Development annual report 2018/19. Windhoek, Namibia. Available at: http://www.mti.gov.na/downloads/MITSMED%202019-1.pdf (accessed 12 December 2020).

26.

Mukata

Ladzani

Visser

(2018) The effectiveness of business management and entrepreneurship training offered by SME service providers in Namibia. African Journal of Business and Economic Research 13(2): 81–98.

27.

Nabi

Liñán

Fayolle

, et al. (2017) The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: a systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education 16(2): 277–299.

28.

National Planning Commission (2017) The Fifth National Development Plan (NDP5). Available at: https://www.npc.gov.na/national-plans/?wpfb_dl=294 (accessed July 2020).

29.

Paloniemi

Belt

(2015) Mismatch in teachers’ ontological conception of entrepreneurship education. In Sánchez-García

(ed.) Entrepreneurship: Education and Training. IntechOpen. DOI: 10.5772/59272.

30.

Penaluna

(2015) Entrepreneurial education in practice. Part 2: Building motivations & competencies. Entrepreneurship360 Thematic Paper. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Entrepreneurial-Education-Practice-pt2.pdf [Google Scholar] (accessed April 2020).

31.

Piperopoulos

Dimov

(2014) Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial selfefficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management 52(2): 970–985.

32.

Rahman

Adedeji

Uddin

, et al. (2017) Entrepreneurship mind-set for students’ entrepreneurship build-up: a review paper. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Advanced Scientific Research and Innovation 1(1): 26–34.

33.

Ruskovaara

Pihkala

(2013) Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: classroom practices. Education and Training 55(2): 204–216.

34.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2016) Research Methods for Business Students. London: Pearson Education.

35.

Samuel

Rahman

(2018) Innovative teaching methods and entrepreneurship education: a review of literature. Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management 10(1): 1807–1813.

36.

Sirelkhatim

Gangi

(2015) Entrepreneurship education: a systematic literature review of curricula contents and teaching methods. Cogent Business & Management 2(1): 1052034.

37.

Solomon

(2007) An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 14(2): 168–182.

38.

Turner

Gianiodis

(2018) Entrepreneurship unleashed: understanding entrepreneurial education outside of the business school. Journal of Small Business Management 56(1): 131–149.

39.

Vincett

Farlow

(2008) Start-a-business: an experiment in education through entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 5: 274–288.

40.

Winschiers-Theophilus

Cabrero

Chivuno-Kuria

, et al. (2017) Promoting entrepreneurship amid youth in Windhoek’s informal settlements: a Namibian case. Science, Technology and Society 22(2): 350–366.