Abstract
Constructivism holds that learners construct knowledge when they make sense of the world. It provides the basis for the movement from teacher-centered towards student-centered learning in entrepreneurship, which is accelerating. Yet, research into using constructivism in the entrepreneurship classroom of community colleges in the USA is seriously lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by exploring the learning avenues and challenges that college students face in the student-centered entrepreneurship classroom. Evidence indicates that participants embrace the student-centered classroom by connecting with instructors and peers, engaging in real-life application activities, taking responsibility for learning and adopting a reflective practice. However, data show that students also face challenges. They lack basic knowledge in certain areas, and need more extensive support and learning technology systems. The study proposes a path to position students as co-designers of the classroom while mitigating challenges. Implications for entrepreneurship education and future directions are discussed.
During the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in entrepreneurship education (EE) programs in higher education in various formats offered to students from increasingly diverse backgrounds (Nabi et al., 2017). Yet opportunities and challenges continue. Various authors consider EE both a craft and a science (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). Entrepreneurship is still thought of as a difficult topic to teach because there is no consensus as to how it should be taught (Gibb, 2002) due to its nature, characterized by complexity, variability, ambiguity and uncertainty. According to Neck and Greene (2011), EE must reach beyond the “known world” to uncertainties and contingencies of the unknown.
Constructivism, a theory of learning based on which individuals construct rather than discover knowledge (Richardson, 2003), is increasingly seen as offering solutions to entrepreneurial learning in the EE literature (Mueller and Anderson, 2014). This is in line with research on entrepreneurial learning, which highlights how entrepreneurs actively construct knowledge from entrepreneurial experience (Politis, 2005). Student-centered learning (SCL) is synonymous with constructivism (Zielinski, 2016; Abualhaija, 2019) and thus the two terms are used interchangeably. While there is no consensus definition of SCL, there is wide agreement that this approach focuses on students who are placed at the center of the learning process and take an active role in meeting their own learning objectives (Abualhaija, 2019).
The movement from teacher-centered to SCL methods in EE is accelerating as constructivist SCL guides students through a process of transforming their ideas into market offerings by taking action and obtaining experience. Teacher-centered learning approaches transmit theory and skills to students and focus on the instructor and the curriculum while student-centered experiential approaches concentrate on supporting students to develop experiences and, thus, entrepreneurial learning (Politis, 2005; Neck and Greene, 2011).
Entrepreneurship is a process of designing solutions for uncertain problems (Knight, 1921), often involving the creation of new businesses whose exact type and goals are not necessarily known. In this way, entrepreneurship leads to change though this process of creation, necessitating educators to adopt learning methodologies that reflect the nature of this processual phenomenon (Mäkimurto-Koivumaa and Puhakka, 2013). Consequently, entrepreneurship educators increasingly shift their pedagogical approaches towards process-based, constructivist SCL methodologies. Effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001; Read et al., 2009), a set of principles used by experts when starting businesses, is a process-based approach and thus is considered an excellent match as a core learning theory and practice in entrepreneurship (Mäkimurto-Koivumaa and Puhakka, 2013; Günzel-Jensen and Robinson, 2017). Effectuation guides students to get started by focusing on their means (bird in hand principle), taking action continuously (pilot in the plane principle), investing based on what they can afford to lose (affordable loss principle) and generating entrepreneurial value in cooperation with committed partners (crazy quilt principle), rather than by using causation principles with their emphasis on goal-oriented business planning (Read et al., 2009). Additionally, the effectual process encourages student entrepreneurs to embrace surprises (lemonade principle) in their start-ups. Accordingly, effectuation simulates the trial-and-error process that entrepreneurs often face in real life.
Although research addressing the use of constructivism-based approaches in EE at universities is progressing, there is a serious lack of studies exploring the learning avenues and challenges that students of community colleges (CCs) face in the constructivist entrepreneurship classroom. While CCs boast similar EE program growth to that of universities (DoBell and Ingle, 2009), they represent a domain neglected by research (Liguori et al., 2019). Most EE studies are geared towards 4-year schools (e.g., Solomon et al., 2002; Vanevenhoven and Liguori, 2013) even though CCs educated about 29% of all college students in the USA in 2016 and 2017 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). In other words, research into the learning avenues and challenges that community college students face in the constructivist entrepreneurship classroom is seriously lacking and there is hardly any guidance for CC educators to support nascent entrepreneurs.
This study aims to fill this research gap by investigating the learning avenues and challenges that community college students faced when they took a process-based SCL entrepreneurship course that used effectuation as its core theory of learning and practice. This research contributes to the literature through: (1) studying constructivist SCL in EE in the neglected CC environment; (2) shedding light into the nature of the learning avenues and challenges that CC students face in the constructivist SCL entrepreneurship classroom; and (3) providing strategies to support nascent entrepreneurs in the constructivist SCL CC classroom and their entrepreneurial lives.
The paper proceeds as follows. The next section describes the pedagogy of constructivist SCL in EE in further detail and points to the need for further research in CCs. The third section describes the methodology of this study while the fourth presents its findings and analyzes them in light of the current literature and practice. The final section discusses and summarizes the findings and offers implications for EE and future directions.
Constructivism and entrepreneurship education
Constructivism emphasizes how learners create meaning through knowledge in context (Mueller and Anderson, 2014). It is one of the most influential learning theories and trends in education in the 21st century (Krahenbuhl, 2016). Based on Piagetian theory (Piaget, 1947), cognitive constructivism is based on individual cognition and happens when learners try to make sense of the world. Critiques of the Piagetian theory with its emphasis on the individual have led to the development of social constructivism: based on social interaction and thus social constructivism, individuals construct knowledge within the social environment (Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, constructionism is based on constructivism and emphasizes learning through building things, prototypes encapsulating what is learned, and sharing them with others socially (Papert, 1991). Despite and beyond the debates among proponents of these approaches, constructivism highlights how learning transforms acquired cognition into knowledge and how this knowledge is constructed individually or through interaction with others and teams.
Entrepreneurship is characterized by additional distinctness as it often involves uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity and uses different skills from various business fields at different stages (O’Connor, 2013). As a result, entrepreneurship researchers have made a strong case that EE needs to go beyond the confines of teacher-centered learning towards taking action and doing and, thus, developing entrepreneurial experiences and competencies for students (Neck and Greene, 2011; Lackéus, 2013). EE requires practice through the use of authentic, real-life, activities that build uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity similar to what is encountered in actual entrepreneurial processes (Svensson, 2018). Authentic learning tasks are crucial as they can provide higher motivation, deeper learning, engagement and the achievement of learning outcomes (Macht and Ball, 2016). In this direction, effectuation provides a solution as a core learning theory with its emphasis on taking action and interacting with and attracting potential partners such as suppliers, competitors and even customers, and embracing surprises (Svensson, 2018).
The EE literature showcases how constructivism, or SCL, provides a solution for entrepreneurial learning (Mueller and Anderson, 2014). Based on constructivism, the educator takes on the role of a facilitator or coach by: (a) guiding learners to learn and reflect on their learning; (b) scaffolding the process to support learners in the new constructivist SCL learning environment; and (c) facilitating social interaction with others and groups. Assessing student learning is most often based on students’ reflections on the learning process and their observation (Bell and Liu, 2019). Most importantly, the EE literature emphasizes how learners construct knowledge though active experiential learning (Gibb, 2002; Neck and Greene, 2011).
Entrepreneurship educators guide students to learn and reflect on their learning and provide feedback (Mueller and Anderson, 2014). In doing so, they support students to learn by doing and from doing (Lackéus, 2013). Instructors scaffold students through the process of engaging in entrepreneurial activities and sharing their experiences and outcomes and thus their learning process. Reflection is deemed necessary because it facilitates structured learning though experience (Coulson and Harvey, 2013). When entrepreneurship instructors see that students have mastered the skill of reflection and learning from reflection, they can remove the scaffolding (Bell, 2020).
Based on social constructivism, individuals construct knowledge by interacting with others and teams in their social environment (Vygotsky, 1978). Korsgaard and Anderson (2011) emphasize that entrepreneurship is considered both an economic and a social process. Moreover, there is strong evidence that entrepreneurship involves both networked individuals and the networking of individuals (Drakopoulou-Dodd and Anderson, 2007). Therefore, facilitating group work and networking activities is an essential ingredient in entrepreneurial learning (Rasmussen and Sørheim, 2006).
While traditional teacher-centered approaches based on behaviorism dominate EE, they do not provide the level of facilitation of learning required for entrepreneurship (Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006). Interactive and action-oriented approaches are required for training future entrepreneurs (Zarha and Welter, 2008). Research shows that active learning through enjoyable activities can lead to both higher motivation and increased learning (Karns, 2005) and can support higher-order thinking skills (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) by connecting theory to skilled action and personal sense-making structures (Middleton and Donnellon, 2014). In sum, entrepreneurship research demonstrates that approaches based on constructivism are superior (Balan and Metcalfe, 2012).
In EE, constructivist learning is identified as a key ingredient in developing the entrepreneurial mind (Assudani and Kilbourne, 2014). Moreover, the movement from teacher-centered towards constructivist SCL experiential methods is becoming “mainstream” (Svensson, 2018). Thus, SCL experiential methods are becoming paramount in EE programs: they are increasingly used in venture creation programs, entrepreneurship centers and incubators (Lackéus and Williams-Middleton, 2015) and are found effective in both higher and vocational educational settings (Bell and Bell, 2018).
While constructivism and active experiential approaches are gaining momentum as methods of choice for entrepreneurial learning, they are not without challenges and criticisms. Günzel-Jensen and Robinson (2017) identified three barriers to teaching effectuation in the undergraduate SCL classroom: (1) students’ novice status made it difficult to grasp and work with effectuation; (2) students considered projects as “school” rather than “real-life” activities; and (3) there were tensions regarding the legitimacy of the process and the instructors. Neergaard and Christensen (2017) showcased how students felt uncomfortable when transitioning into constructivist active learning environments and recommended scaffolding and the introduction of new structures and rituals. Sioukas (2022) also found that students questioned the weaker structure of a process-based SCL program that combined effectuation and causation in EE. These studies highlight the challenges students face when they transition into constructivist action-based learning environments.
Second, there are criticisms. Krahenbuhl (2016) identifies a number of serious issues when constructivism is imposed as the norm and novices are approached as experts. Students need to be offered opportunities for background knowledge and scaffolds. This is how they can engage in the “expert” skills assumed and expected by constructivism and SCL. Clark et al. (2012) emphasize that traditional fully-guided instruction is more effective than constructivist learning approaches. In this direction, Bell and Liu (2019) discuss the need for a balance between teacher-centered learning and SCL, pointing out that traditional, teacher-centered pedagogies provide the framework for students to understand their experiences in the world, a necessary process for constructing knowledge. Therefore a balanced approach between behaviorist and constructivist learning might be indicated, depending on students’ needs and the nature of the educational environment.
To summarize, although the EE literature showcases how constructivist active-learning SCL approaches are gaining traction at 4-year schools, research into the entrepreneurship classroom of CCs in the USA is lacking (Liguori et al., 2019). More specifically, studies on the core ingredients of constructivist SCL learning in the entrepreneurship classroom of CCs are virtually non-existent. Consequently, this study aims to fill this void by shedding light on the learning avenues and challenges that students face in the constructivist SCL entrepreneurship classroom.
Setting and methods
Given the lack of research on the constructivist entrepreneurship classroom of CCs, this study presents a qualitative case study (Creswell, 2013), exploring the learning avenues and the challenges that a group of CC students encountered in a constructivist SCL course. Exploratory case studies are chosen because they allow in-depth exploration of a process (entrepreneurial learning) in a specific environment, such as a community college (Creswell, 2013). This study is grounded on how students experience the entrepreneurial activities of their start-ups and the different aspects of their learning.
Setting
This course was funded by a grant of the Strong Workforce Program of California and offered in a non-credit format. Participants were novice entrepreneurs interested in starting their own businesses. They were motivated to join by the knowledge and hands-on activities offered by the course and focused on their own projects while still having the opportunity to work in pairs and teams to share ideas and best practices. A total of 22 students signed up and 19 completed the course, 10 males and 9 females. Most of the students were in their twenties (53%), some were in their thirties (21%) and the rest (26%) were over 40 years of age. The mixed-age breakdowns reflected the usual demographics of CC students (Miranda, 2009). The small class size provided for a more intimate setting allowing participants to feel comfortable to ask questions and receive the necessary support. The course was designed around the principles of SCL, driven by effectuation principles, and complemented by methodologies that rely on causal planning such as customer development (Reis, 2011) and market planning. Four instructors with start-up experience co-taught the course. One of the instructors, the author of this paper, had a double role as instructor and researcher.
Each session included a lecture and a working lunch, and emphasized hands-on exercises whereby participants participated actively in designing their start-up and engaged in learning by and from doing (Lacké us, 2013). Students reflected and reported on their weekly progress with regard to learning and taking action on their start-up. Reports were oral and informal in nature. The course began with idea generation techniques, brainstorming and the choice of a start-up and quickly guided participants to design a mission statement and an elevator pitch. All effectuation principles were outlined, but emphasis was placed on the principles of bird in hand, pilot in the plane, affordable loss budgeting and, especially, the crazy quilt. The class prepared students to interact with potential partners, a process referred to as the ASK (Read et al., 2009). Participants had a week to engage in the ASK and attract committed partners to their business. The remainder of the course emphasized talking to clients to determine their needs and wants (Reis, 2011) and planning the marketing mix of the business. The entire class was offered in 7 weeks, including the week when participants interacted with potential partners, leading up to final presentations, getting input and determining the next steps of starting-up.
Data sources
The data for this study came primarily from two sources: (1) individual half-way and final program evaluations by 19 students; and (2) typed notes from semi-structured, retrospective interviews with nine finalists of the program.
Half-way evaluations provided information on the students’ learning and application of effectuation principles, their reflections on the results they had obtained, their overall satisfaction and their needs for program improvements. In the final evaluations students were asked to provide further data on what they had learned about the principles and tools of effectuation and causation, their results and key lessons, their overall satisfaction with the entire program and further input and reflections on the course as a whole.
The purpose of the post-course interviews was to enrich the data of the study rather than to question the half-way and final program evaluations. All completers were invited for interview: nine students were available and participated. Interviews were semi-structured and lasted about 45 minutes each. They focused on the program effectiveness overall, the application of effectuation and causation principles and various aspects of the learning process, including learning avenues and challenges for developing knowledge and starting-up, course dynamics, interaction with the instructors, students and speakers, the pace of the instruction and the hands-on activities.
Data analysis
Evaluation and interview data sets were initially kept and analyzed separately. This was done with the purpose of following the principle of triangulation for validating themes. Based on triangulation, researchers use two (or more) data sources (sets) and check for corroboration and converging evidence among codes. This method was used to validate the themes of this research (Jonsen and Jehn, 2009; Creswell, 2013).
Bell (2020) outlined the process of analysis that was followed in this study. For each data set, the process started with familiarization with the data. The data were then coded and labelled. Subsequently, the data were collated and analyzed to develop themes and subthemes related to the learning avenues and challenges of students using a data-driven inductive approach. The themes and subthemes were reviewed for coherence (Braun and Clarke, 2006) and finally they were named.
After the data analysis, codes from the evaluation and interview data sets were compared. The comparison showed that each of these sets led to similar codes, which were then combined into the study’s themes. This process provided corroborating evidence that the same topics related to learning avenues and challenges were discussed by students in both evaluations and interviews, thus validating the themes of this qualitative case study research (Jonsen and Jehn, 2009).
Results
Overall findings
Students embraced the program and their learning and took action on their start-up projects. Something extraordinary occurred within the first two sessions. The program included a total of 15 projects. Two of the participants had planned to start a restaurant, but after the first session’s overview of effectuation they decided to get started right away based on their means and affordable loss budget. During the third session, they announced that they had actually started a food-stand with immediate profits. Several other students were also actively engaged in getting started and enthusiastically reported on their project progress. This flurry of entrepreneurial activity created remarkable enthusiasm and support among participants: they were all thirsty to learn from the program and from each other while they took action week after week. They rooted for each other and actively helped and encouraged one another: the class had the energy of an entrepreneurial “ball game”. By the end of the program, nine projects had been launched and six were showing significant progress. Thus, participation in this program increased the entrepreneurial intention of the participants and their motivation to work on their start-ups (Souitaris et al., 2007).
Thematic analysis revealed four themes with regard to learning avenues and three with regard to challenges. These themes will now be presented and discussed, using evidence from the data against the backdrop of the current literature and practice.
Learning avenues
The four themes were connecting with peers and instructors, real-life application, responsibility for learning and reflective practice.
Connecting with peers and instructors.
This theme was subdivided into two subthemes: (i) collaborative skills and (ii) motivation for learning.
With regard to collaborative skills, the program facilitated connecting with peers by providing students with a chance to work with each other in pairs and teams and by arranging the classroom in a circle to promote exchange among participants. Connecting with peers played a crucial role in the learning process and particularly in developing collaborative skills, as demonstrated by the data and reflected in comments such as: “Classmates are willing to help out and give constructive feedback.” “I enjoyed sharing my business progress with others and getting good feedback such as new ways of approaching things.”
One interviewee encapsulated the program’s collaborative learning process: “This program provided an excellent method of learning. Read on your own and then come to the program with your work to discuss, contribute, learn with others and figure it all out.”
The data highlighted how students worked with their peers to collaborate: they shared with each other, got help and obtained feedback. Exchanging ideas along with help and feedback often leads to augmented ideas and even to new concepts, thus enhancing entrepreneurial learning. In this way, students developed collaborative skills, advanced their entrepreneurial learning and constructed or even co-created new knowledge. These findings showcase the role of socialization in the process of learning in the constructivist classroom, highlighting how entrepreneurship is both a social and an economic phenomenon (Korsgaard and Anderson, 2011). The results are also in agreement with previous findings on the constructivist classroom at community colleges to the effect that student interaction and collaboration are useful and effective (Zielinski, 2016).
With regard to motivation, students saw connecting with each other as a source of motivation, as well as encouragement and inspiration for action: “I was so inspired and motivated by everyone’s vision and stories of progress and success.” “I met some great people and I feel encouraged to get going further with my own business.” “They motivated me as I motivated them.”
Students also connected extensively with the instructors, all of whom had entrepreneurial experience. Students valued the instructors’ experience and lectures, which they viewed as a source of engagement, motivation and inspiration, as shown by the data and underlined in comments such as: “Lectures were highly engaging, motivating and inspirational. I valued the instructors’ experience and enthusiasm.” “I was compelled to take action by the courage and the experience of the instructors. They encouraged the group. I thought, you can do this!”
These comments indicate how learners were motivated by each other and the instructors. They thus created the internal energy necessary (Weiner, 1985) – the motivation – to learn and act on accomplishing their goals. Motivation translated into obtaining answers to questions related to learning (“What do I need to learn from and with others?”), as well as questions related to acting on their start-up goals (“How do I go about achieving my start-up goals?”). These findings are in line with Johannisson’s (1991) classification of the five levels of learning from EE, one of which relates directly to motivation. Inspiration, also noted in these findings, has been argued to encompass motivation towards a new target (Souitaris et al., 2007).
Real-life application.
Effectuation served as the vehicle for authentic learning tasks and real world experiences for the participants. The learning avenue of real-life application is divided into three subthemes: (i) taking action; (ii) individual skill sets; and (iii) engaging external partners.
With regard to taking action, the data revealed that students identified taking action as a key driver in this program. They emphasized its importance in comments such as: “Just get started by taking action. You don’t have to have all the answers. Act, adapt and overcome.” “Taking action was key so we can get out of our comfort zone and get it done.”
The program provided participants with opportunities to have their own experiences in a self-directed authentic entrepreneurial process (Svensson, 2018), whereby they applied and acted on what they learned (Neck and Greene, 2011). In the program’s first session, students designed their start-up’s mission, motto and pitch. They then started pitching to each other and the class as a whole. Thus, it was clear from the start this was not a traditional class where they might hide behind traditional lectures. As a result, three students dropped out almost right away: the rest remained engaged with constructing knowledge and acting on their start-up.
With regard to individual skill sets, activities around the bird in hand principle guided participants to understand their strengths and weaknesses during the first session. Participants in their twenties expressed uneasiness with this activity: “It was a difficult process and I am still discerning my strengths and weaknesses.” “It was a bit difficult to go through this self-reflection.”
The finding of uneasiness is in agreement with EE research indicating that students experience this type of uncertainty and challenge when transitioning into action-based learning environments (Neergaard and Christensen, 2017; Svensson, 2018). Ultimately, the facilitation process of the course supported younger students in clarifying their strengths and weaknesses: “The course helped me to get know myself better.” “The program allowed my strengths to surface.”
Older, more mature students found the process easier: “I was easily guided and comfortable in identifying my strengths and my weaknesses.” “It was not difficult to identify my strengths and my weaknesses.”
Ultimately this activity was fruitful for students. The data highlighted that students felt that understanding themselves and their skill sets filled them with self-confidence: “I had an opportunity to self-reflect and get to know myself better. I feel more confident now.” “I felt confident regarding my own strengths. I also know my weaknesses.”
This constructivist SCL classroom used effectuation and causation (planning) and allowed students to consider their means (who they are, what they know and who they know), get in touch with themselves and construct their own identity (Nielsen and Lassen, 2012). In this way, the program helped them to identify their strengths, leading to self-efficacy, self-confidence and a can-do attitude. Weaknesses pointed to skills they needed to develop or acquire through partners (the crazy quilt principle of effectuation).
With regard to engaging external partners, the crazy quilt principle of effectuation and its ASK process, engaging with potential external partners and asking for commitments, were a core aspect of the program. This was another part of the learning process that caused uneasiness to some students as they were not accustomed to asking for commitments: “The ASK process is difficult [...] it takes courage to ask.” “It is hard and uncomfortable to ask.”
In constructivism, instructors facilitate and coach participants. Therefore, the instructors offered a task-list so that students could prepare for the ASK. Participants also engaged in role playing exercises to practice for the ASK. The data indicated and participants recognized the value of planning and the importance of preparation: “You must be very well prepared before talking with partners.” “You had to give specific reasons and explanations why they should do business with you.”
Despite the initial hesitation and insecurity of some students, the SCL classroom process was successful. The findings indicated that students engaged with external partners and discovered how it became easier with practice, as the following comments illustrate: “The process gets easier once you get started and keep doing it.” “It gets easier to do with time. Still difficult though.”
Other students simply completed the process: “I took it at face value. I reached out and got pricing agreements and commitments from various partners. It really helps with taking action on your business.” “People want to help. You learn to say: I need your help. This opens doors to opportunities. Partners did open doors for me.”
All students engaged with external partners successfully and all but one secured committed partners, which constitutes one of most significant highlights of the program. The findings concerning the uneasiness of some students are in agreement with EE research that shows that participants transitioning into action-based learning environments experience difficulties with new class rituals and structures, such as exercising self-direction (Neergaard and Christensen 2017; Svensson, 2018). The strategy used by the program to guide students through uncertainties and difficulties is compatible with the facilitative role of instructors in constructivist environments. Ultimately, the findings showcase that the constructivist classroom is about taking action, experiencing and continuous learning.
Responsibility for learning.
To form the right expectations regarding the nature of the SCL class environment, and to prepare and encourage participants to take full responsibility for their own learning, the program started by facilitating a class discussion that clarified the roles and responsibilities of both students and instructors (Günzel-Jensen and Robinson, 2017; Sioukas, 2022). The purpose was to encourage participants to accept ownership of their learning and their entrepreneurial process. The data show and students’ comments confirm that this approach was successful: “The session sealed the responsibility for us.” “Very helpful session. Instructors are there to offer support but not to handhold.”
Students who were not ready to engage responsibly in their own learning and in taking action on their start-ups dropped out. Three left the program, stating that it interfered with their school work and other personal priorities. In active SCL environments, responsibility has been shown to be a key driver of the student’s own learning process (Mueller and Anderson, 2014). As expected, those students who persisted and completed the program took active responsibility for their learning and for transforming their business idea into a viable market offering.
Reflective practice.
Reflection is an essential component of entrepreneurship education (Neck and Greene, 2011) and constructivist learning (Mueller and Anderson, 2014) and was designed into the program. The data indicated that weekly program reports, facilitated class-wide discussions and exercises and the preparation and delivery of final presentations provided extensive avenues for reflective learning. Students reported on this practice of reflection: “The weekly program reports helped me to reflect by clarifying what I know and what I still need to learn.” “I had an opportunity to self-reflect and get to know myself better. It helped. I feel more confident now.” “As I worked on the final presentation, I reflected on what I accomplished and what I still needed such as support with bookkeeping, social media, etc. As a result, I placed ads in the school’s placement service and got interns.”
The data highlight how reflection led students to: (i) construct and clarify new knowledge; (ii) understand their own skill sets; and (iii) determine the skills they still needed. Clearly, reflection provided a learning avenue for both promoting learning and higher-order thinking (Hägg and Kurczewska, 2016). Furthermore, it guided students to engage in independent thinking, which constitutes both a learning process and a critical ability for entrepreneurship students (Mueller and Anderson, 2014).
Challenges
There were three themes with regard to challenges students faced: (i) a need for support; (ii) a lack of the basics; and (iii) a need for learning technology systems.
Need for support (scaffolding).
Students appreciated the instructors’ entrepreneurial experience and support. The data indicated that some students needed more time for practice, additional checklists and visuals, step-by-step instructions and one-on-one mentoring: “It would be great if we had more visuals and more step-by-step instructions.” “I would like to have more time set aside for practice.” “A checklist would be helpful. This will give us an opportunity to reflect on what we have and what we still need.” “The program would be enhanced by more one-on-one mentoring.”
While these findings showcase how educators should ensure that participants fully access their learning through scaffolding (Bell and Liu, 2019; Neergaard and Christensen 2017), they were surprising as instructors provided extensive mentoring and support. Mentoring is a common practice in the SCL classroom (St Jean and Audet, 2012) and was designed into the program. Additionally, the class included extensive visuals and step-by-step templates for principles, tools and the project presentations. Yet students came to the course with different experiences and knowledge, which may explain why some found it challenging to keep up with program demands. Some deliverables were difficult for newcomers to the business field. Alternatively, this finding shows that some students might have been uneasy with the weaker structure of this process-based constructivist course (Neergaard and Christensen, 2017; Sioukas 2022). In that case, it is understandable that they would need more support and even handholding compatible with traditional teacher-centered instruction (Clark et al., 2012).
Lack of the basics.
The data revealed challenges regarding basic foundational knowledge in some areas of the program such as budgeting and the marketing mix (product/service design, pricing, location and distribution and promotion). Some students verbalized a desire to master the basics in some parts of the program before moving on to constructing their own experiences and knowledge: “I needed to know the basics before working on promotion. This session was hard for newcomers.” “I found some of the guidelines hard to follow. I need more of the basics and step-by-step instructions.”
Students with a need for the basics were newcomers to business with limited or no exposure to areas such as budgeting and marketing. Some had extensive science and technology backgrounds and, while they understood the technical aspects of their venture, lacked a business sense for launching a start-up. This challenge is in the line with issues identified by Krahenbuhl (2016), who noted that students who lacked knowledge of the basics could not effectively engage in the constructivist classroom. Scaffolding and, perhaps, fully guided instruction (Clark et al., 2012) are needed before they can fully engage in constructing their own knowledge.
Need for learning technology systems.
Some participants indicated a need for enhancing teaching and learning through using technology. For example: “Online class resources would allow us to have access to all the presentations and the how-to materials.” “It would be helpful to have access to a website with online resources.”
Using learning technology systems, such as online websites with all the class materials, can increase student engagement and enhance student learning (Zielinski, 2016). This can be achieved easily by “flipping” the classroom using websites in online technology learning systems such as Canvas or Blackboard. These technology systems allow users to interact with each other and with the instructors online, thus enhancing the constructivist classroom. Moreover, an online classroom experience would allow adding “the basics”, thus supporting students to catch up and direct their own instruction in areas in which they needed new or additional know-how before fully engaging in constructing entrepreneurship knowledge.
Discussion and conclusion
Constructivist experiential learning is increasingly seen as a solution for the challenges and idiosyncrasies of the entrepreneurship classroom (Mueller and Anderson, 2014). Yet, research into the learning avenues and challenges that students face in the constructivist SCL entrepreneurship class is seriously lacking (Liguori et al., 2019). This research is a first step towards addressing this gap.
This study provides insight into the constructivist entrepreneurial learning process in a community college context. Evidence highlighted that students embraced the constructivist classroom by connecting with instructors and peers, engaging in real-life application activities, taking responsibility for learning and adopting a reflective practice. However, the data also show that students faced challenges: they lacked basic knowledge in certain areas and were in need of more extensive support and learning technology systems. The program included some distinctive contextual parameters: (1) students were chosen based on their interest in working on their own start-up; (2) it started with a facilitation exercise that clarified the SCL roles and responsibilities and the importance of responsibility for learning and taking action; (3) students worked in pairs and teams to share ideas, but focused on their own start-ups rather than fictitious class projects; (4) it was offered in a non-credit format; and (5) it was taught by instructors with start-up experience.
The data highlighted that students took responsibility for learning and for acting on their start-ups. They connected with peers, brainstormed ideas and shared knowledge and experiences, thus developing collaborative skills. They worked enthusiastically to construct their own knowledge. Connecting with peers and instructors was an engine for motivating students to learn and to act on accomplishing their start-up goals. By the end of the program, 60% of the program’s 15 projects had been launched while the rest were making progress towards getting started – providing evidence that the class had a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention.
The findings indicate that students engaged fully with the program activities. Effectuation served as an effective vehicle for taking action, identifying strengths and weaknesses and attracting committed partners. Taking action allowed participants to use and apply what they had learned (Neck and Greene, 2011). The data revealed that the bird in hand exercises led participants to self-efficacy as they felt secure in their strengths while they also identified the skills they needed to develop or acquire. They thus engaged in identity work, as is expected when working with effectuation (Günzel-Jensen and Robinson, 2017). Students networked effectively and all but one attracted committed partners with additional means. Younger students experienced challenges in identifying strengths and weaknesses and some students were uncomfortable with engaging external partners. However, this is to be expected when students transition into action-based learning environments (Neergaard and Christensen, 2017; Svensson, 2018). Instructors supported participants during these challenges, primarily through process facilitation and sometimes through the use of planning tools. Ultimately, students felt uncomfortable and were forced to overcome these challenges, a process known to support them in developing their entrepreneurial identity (Günzel-Jensen and Robinson, 2017).
Reflection is a key activity of constructivist learning environments (Mueller and Anderson, 2014) and this program. Weekly program reports, facilitated class discussions and exercises and the final project presentations provided extensive avenues for reflective learning. Thus students reflected on knowledge construction and clarification, identifying their own skills (strengths) and figuring out which skills to develop or acquire (weaknesses).
Transitioning from a teacher-centered to a student-centered classroom is, however, not without its challenges. The data indicated that, while students appreciated the one-on-one support of the instructors, they needed additional support: practice; one-on-one mentoring; and checklists, step-by-step instructions and visuals for some of the exercises and parts of the final project presentations. While these scaffolding methods are expected by instructors when they support student learning in constructivist environments (Bell and Liu, 2019), this challenge showcases that some of the students might have felt uncomfortable with the weaker structure of the SCL classroom (Neergaard and Christensen, 2017; Sioukas, 2022). In this regard, the extent of all this handholding appears reminiscent of traditional teacher-led instruction (Clark et al., 2012).
There was also evidence that students lacked the basics in some parts of the program. This was particularly true for students from fields other than business. Constructivist learning in the SCL classroom cannot happen effectively when novices lack adequate knowledge and understanding of the basics (Krahenbuhl, 2016). Novice students cannot act as experts who contribute to their own development without extensive background preparation.
Finally, the data indicated a need for learning technology systems such as online technology platforms. Online technology platforms, though not a panacea, have been found to enhance student learning (Zielinski, 2016) and to allow participants to connect with peers and instructors further, with potential benefits for collaborating, engagement and knowledge construction.
Designing a path forward
Based on these challenges, a complete shift towards student-centered methodologies might not be warranted, but students can drive program design and instruction and their own learning process. The most serious challenge is the lack of the basics in certain areas. Programs can assess students to identify knowledge gaps and customize instruction to cover them through fully guided instruction (Clark et al., 2012). The use of learning technology systems with hybrid or online technology platforms may enhance this effort, offer more opportunities for interaction and engagement and improve the learning process. This way, students can master EE methodologies and use them by acting on their start-ups. Therefore, the program can use multiple pedagogical approaches (Bell and Liu, 2019), including primarily constructivist SCL methodologies, learning technology systems and scaffolding, as well as teacher-centered instruction for mastering some of the basics as determined through assessing students.
Implications for EE
Based on this research, it is expected that, when students get an opportunity to work on their own business venture instead of a conventional class team project, they take responsibility for constructing their own learning and commit to the entrepreneurial process. Responsibility is a key driving force in the constructivist SCL entrepreneurship classroom (Mueller and Anderson, 2014) and facilitating a session that clarifies roles and responsibilities may prepare students for transitioning into SCL environments and increase their responsibility levels. This study indicates that the EE constructivist classroom energizes social interaction among students and instructors and creates an environment of collaboration and motivation for constructing learning and taking action. Certainly, reflection needs to be designed and facilitated by educators to increase engagement, learning and independent thinking (Mueller and Anderson, 2014). Programs may also use effectuation as a vehicle of authentic learning and real-life application. Consequently, this research provides some guidance to community college entrepreneurship instructors on supporting nascent entrepreneurs.
Some of the contextual parameters, including the students’ interest in working on their own start-ups and the non-credit nature of the program, may have contributed to the program’s overall effectiveness in enhancing student learning and engagement, as well as their entrepreneurial intention. These contextual parameters are not easily duplicated in entry-level credit entrepreneurship classes. Such classes could start with a facilitated session to clarify the roles and responsibilities in the constructivist classroom, thus leading to higher levels of student ownership. Still, some of the challenges related to the novice status of students and the nature of the constructivist SCL classroom (Günzel-Jensen and Robinson, 2017) would have to be overcome. That stated, research demonstrates and this study confirms that participation in EE classes increases the entrepreneurial intention of students and their motivation to work on launching their venture (Souitaris et al., 2007). Therefore, it is expected that advanced credit courses for students who have completed introductory EE classes and are highly interested in starting their own business will obtain similar results.
Future directions
This case study research was completed at one community college in one region of the USA (Los Angeles). The results may apply to other US CCs interested in adopting constructivist learning methods and authentic innovative curricula such as effectuation in the entrepreneurship classroom. Therefore, the results may be transferrable to other CCs, particularly in Southern California as they often have similar demographics and classroom practices. However, to assess the generalizability of the results across CCs of the USA, further research in other regions is required so that similarities and differences can be unveiled.
Neck and Corbett (2018) point out that entrepreneurship educators need to be trained in delivering EE to support the transition of students into action-based constructivist learning environments. Educators are hired based on their subject matter expertise and often lack the skills required in the constructivist classroom, including strong facilitation and coaching skills. The findings of this research could provide the basis for a professional development program that would train entrepreneurship instructors to enhance learning avenues and overcome challenges faced by students. Yet this research does not include data from the instructor’s point of view. Future research might include and analyze such data, thus shedding light on the challenges facing educators in the constructivist EE classroom. These findings would help to enhance the design of professional development programs for delivering EE in the constructivist classroom.
Finally, while this program supported the entrepreneurial learning of students, it would be interesting to investigate whether these results would be replicated and challenges overcome in a larger non-credit program or in an advanced entrepreneurship course.
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.
