Stakeholder Engagement in a Large Enterprise Class Showcase

Abstract

In the business or enterprise classroom, industry engagement within the curriculum can provide opportunities for students to gain a professional network, an understanding of the world of work, and to develop their mastery of business concepts. This article presents a case for educators to foster collaboration with external stakeholders in the assessment of undergraduate students. To increase purposeful industry involvement in a large university module of enterprise education, an innovative showcase assessment method was developed and implemented. Leveraging the power of a large class cohort, business professionals and university staff were invited to contribute to student assessment at a poster showcase that was run to scale. Through careful planning, this instructional innovation allowed a large student body (450-500 students) to have direct contact with industry representatives, while retaining standards of care and grading legitimacy. The authors describe and analyse this innovation, share challenges faced, and offer suggestions for application in future or remote (virtual) settings. A number of recommendations for the logistical and scholarly application of such a method are provided, to aid educators aiming to replicate such a pedagogical technique.

Keywords

poster presentation gamification enterprise education curriculum design industry engagement large class teaching large class pedagogy

Introduction

Universities currently face many obligations and challenges in their efforts to develop job-ready graduates who are critical thinkers, capable communicators and are prepared for a changing employment landscape (Choy & Delahaye, 2009; Tymon, 2013). Consequently, universities must nurture close ties with industry to keep up with the evolving role of universities in society, and to provide authentic learning opportunities for students using real-world challenges (Gentelli, 2015). Inserting industry expertise into the curriculum usually manifest as case studies, site visits, or guest speaker seminars, all considered to promote student engagement, satisfaction, and learning (Rodrigues, 2004; Smith et al. 2009). At their most effective, these opportunities are hoped to be experiential in nature, wherein the student as learner undergoes an intentional process of active experimentation, experienced action and reflective thought, said to develop new knowledge and skills and prepare them for the job market (Lewis & Williams, 1994). As such, the design of an undergraduate enterprise programme should value industry engagement for experiential learning, while balancing the constraints of academic governance, to ensure programme learning outcomes are achieved.

Parallel to these requirements, universities are now also highly attended and deeply internationalised, and thus face challenges in teaching large classes (Maringe & Sing, 2014; Saunders & Hutt, 2015). Reasons for this growing trend are multiple and complex; including marketization, student mobility increases and stagnation in staff hiring strategies (Maringe & Sing, 2014). Coupled with cuts to higher education budgets and funding issues, educators are often forced into “economy of scale” type teaching models, with larger class contexts and more automated assessment (Cullen, 2011; Trees & Jackson, 2007). In this study, the authors propose an innovative, experiential pedagogy for a large undergraduate enterprise class in an Irish university to respond to these challenges. The “large class” typology, is said to contain more than 100 students, typically found in undergraduate foundational courses, and which can pose challenges to adequately design, deliver, resource, and assess due to its size (Maringe & Sing, 2014). For successful execution of such a module, advanced logistical skill, pedagogical knowledge, and an awareness of capacity requirements are all requisites for facilitating staff (Hornsby et al., 2013). To deal with sheer capacity, there is usually the need for a greater emphasis on collaboration (team-teaching), participative learning and innovative approaches to interaction and assessment (Bowman & Akcaoglu, 2014; Maringe & Sing, 2014). Yet to make these approaches sustainable across multiple years, these innovative instructional modes must be resource efficient, and cannot be leveraged on individual module champions or a few obliging colleagues.

This article describes a pedagogical intervention that aimed to foster direct industry contact between stakeholders and the students of a large undergraduate enterprise module. Focusing on the management education and business school setting, enterprise and innovation modules are now prolific, stemming from a call for universities and higher education institutions to equip graduates with increased skills, knowledge, and business ingenuity (Cooney & Murray, 2008; Rasmussen & Sørheim, 2006). Yet while these enterprise subjects are required to be experiential and dynamic in their pedagogies, they are often bound by the constraints of large class sizes, traditional teaching environments, and a lack of teaching support (Henry, 2013). The challenge for enterprise educators is to develop resource-efficient courses and curricular models that integrate the standards set in academia while also resembling the reality of the business world (Bailey et al., 2005). Attempting to provide tangible industry engagement opportunities to students within this reality requires innovative curricular strategies, which are both efficient and sustainable to run.

This article presents an authentic learning experience for students of a first-year enterprise class, involving external stakeholders in the experiential process. In considering authentic student learning experiences, we adopt the framing of Rule (2006) which suggests that authentic learning relates to problems rooted in the real-world, which contain inquiry activities that practice thinking skills and metacognition, involve discourse among a community of learners, and provide student empowerment through choice. While the consensus permeating academic literature is that large class sizes are ineffectual in engaging students (Carbone & Greenberg, 1998; Gibbs et al., 1996), and require additional resources to support learning (Connell et al., 2016; Elliott et al., 2016) we argue, that given the right approach, large class sizes can offer opportunities for innovation and scale. The case presented, describes an instructional innovation, which harnesses the power of a large class cohort, rather than viewing it as a limitation. Within this case, industry experts were used as a conduit of engagement and assessment, invited as critics and judges of an interactive student poster showcase event.

External Stakeholder Engagement in Large Class Teaching

This article outlines the challenges faced by courses, specifically those of enterprise education, in creating experiential and industry-geared learning opportunities for students in a large class context. Large class sizes are considered to contain more than 100 students, typically found in undergraduate foundational courses, and defined by Maringe and Sing (2014) as “any class where the numbers of students pose both perceived and real challenges in the delivery of quality and equal learning opportunities to all students in that classroom” (p. 763). This definition echoes the commonly held belief that the large class context is a lesser alternative to a small class size, and offers only challenges or limitations to the students and educators involved, as also noted by Saunders and Hutt (2015):

This is not to say that all traditional lectures provide an effective platform for student learning; a good lecture will include well-delivered, engaging core material, accompanied by ample opportunities for students to test their understanding, ask questions and receive feedback—a challenging endeavour with cohorts in excess of 200 students. (p. 1234)

This view has empirical support, with Cuseo (2007) finding a positive relationship of smaller classes to college satisfaction and course retention. The OECD’s “Education at a Glance 2018” report notes that smaller classes allow educators to focus more on the needs of individual students (OECD, 2018). The large class context in particular has been criticised for first-year class groups as it may begin a pattern of disengagement or social loafing (free-riding). Spear (1984) considered that first year students “learn what it is to be a student, what is required to get by. If students are taught to be passive seekers and transcribers of information, that is what they become” (pp. 6-7). Thus, if the first-year experience is exclusively set within this large class context of “massification,” students may adopt the habitus of reduced engagement (Heaslip et al., 2014). The problem of social loafing has also been highlighted as a key issue in the undergraduate enterprise classroom (Lyons et al., 2017).

A classroom context of unfettered disengagement can lead to practices such as memorisation in place of learning, and scenarios where “inattention or absence from class and mediocre student performance seem to be tolerated simply as unfortunate realities” (MacGregor et al., 2000, p. 1). To remedy this, Maringe and Sing (2014) recommend the diversification of assessment and increased student participation to address the large class size challenge. In addition, the use of guest speakers and external stakeholders from industry can be leveraged in a classroom to inspire, motivate, and build self-efficacy in students (Bosma et al., 2012). These individuals can act as providers of mastery experience (developed through hands-on experience); vicarious experience (developed from observing the completion of tasks, e.g., work shadowing); social persuasion developed through interaction and feedback of others; and psychological/emotional states developed from within which are fundamental factors in building self-efficacy (general or contextual). Sheridan and Fallon (2015) note that stakeholder engagement for student development can manifest as activities associated with curricular development, course review panels, site visits, placements, applied projects, and mentorship. Its purpose, as highlighted by Burns and Chopra (2017, p. 2) is to provide the student community with:

life-changing experiences that can: (a) enhance students’ networking connections with professionals who can potentially provide employment references and future job positions, (b) give students an opportunity to gain practical experience by observing and applying the methods and theories learned in classroom to real-world scenarios, (c) allow students to gain experience in their prospective career path, and (d) improve students’ professional communication skills

While employment-based training and experience may be more effective in developing employability skills in a student cohort (Tymon, 2013), effective classroom-based linkages to industry also play a part. In the reality of a large classroom context, however, the provision of such opportunities to the student can be inconsistent due to the mechanism of delivery. Considering student centricity, a guest speaker will provide much insight, inspiration and the benefit of vicarious learning to the large class, however, their engagement with students or the programme may be light-touch, ad hoc, and the information provided may be didactic or passive in nature (Schumann, 2019). On the other hand, developing a “client” or “applied” project for/with a company or external industry stakeholder can be quite taxing and time consuming on the part of both the educator or administrator, and the client itself. Entrepreneurial education, teaching methodologies, role models, and reward systems are suggested to be sources of key stakeholder alignment for universities (Guerrero & Urbano, 2014). However, due to the variability in university–industry relationships, their management can prove to be difficult, especially as each relationship is unique (Choy & Delahaye, 2009). The variety of industries involved and a lack of protocol for expansion for unit coordinators, educators, and tutors can lead to difficulties in effectively implementing work-integrated learning in undergraduate courses. Thus, many undergraduate courses may seek to take advantage of industry links without established protocols and by less conventional means.

In the teaching of enterprise or entrepreneurship education, the blending of experiential learning with skill development is paramount, and is aided by interactions with external stakeholders as sources of information and validation. At its most fundamental, enterprise education¹ aims to develop practical business, personal and entrepreneurial skills, knowledge, and acumen; to nurture general societal competencies, and increase the propensity for both future entrepreneurs and enterprising actors in alternate business contexts (Martin et al., 2013). To accommodate this, there is a suggested science and art involved in the teaching of enterprise (Henry et al., 2005). The “science” relates to business content knowledge, feasible to teach using conventional delivery methods such as lectures to impart knowledge relating to planning, commercialisation, marketing/management processes, product development, and risk management (Gibb, 2007; Rasmussen & Sørheim, 2006). The “art” seeks to instil competencies, motivational cues, and skills related to creativity and innovation, employing experiential pedagogical means (using techniques such as emotional exposure, situated learning, action-orientation, etc.; Mwasalwiba, 2010; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Rather than rely on traditional teaching methods which are considered somewhat ineffectual in enterprise education for certain elements (Garbuio et al., 2018), these applied and experiential activities give students exposure to pseudo real-world experience of entrepreneurship, yet where the cost of failing is relatively low (Kirby, 2004; Neck & Greene, 2011). The sense of realism brought by external expertise can increase ownership of learning, problem solving, decision making based on incomplete information, and generally enhance the learning experience (Kirby, 2004); providing students with skills once labelled by an OECD report as the “third passport” (Ball, 1989):

Personal dispositions, abilities and competences related to creativity, initiative, problem-solving, flexibility, adaptability, the taking and discharging of responsibility and knowing how to learn and relearn. (p. 10)

Literature on assessment pedagogies used in higher education explicitly link assessment types with the effectiveness of student learning and attainment of intended learning outcomes (Black & William, 1998). Formative assessment is considered the antidote to high-stake summative measures of student learning, providing students with opportunities to learn, take risks, and make mistakes. However, educators of large classes face practical constraints that limit their use of formative assessment methods. These challenges include reduced face-to-face time with learners, issues of equity, and consistency across multiple campuses and graders; and a lack of means to provide high quality, individual feedback to large cohorts of students (Broadbent et al., 2017). In large class contexts, it is not as simple as allocating more assessment to markers or increasing the number of markers, as there is a need for quality checks and evaluation of consistency in marking. These challenges often mean that established pedagogies—often designed, tested, and evaluated in much smaller contexts—require modification to meet the needs of the large class context. In turn, these concessions threaten to undermine the quality of the pedagogy. The provision of insightful feedback to students can be a time-consuming activity, particularly in cases of personalised feedback. The larger the number of students, the more complex it is to deliver this feedback, yet no less important in influencing the student’s future achievement (Boud & Molloy, 2013). Though there is much research available regarding quality pedagogical assessment practice, there has been little research showing how these elements transfer to the large class context.

This case recounts the efforts taken to attain stakeholder engagement in a large-class enterprise module. It details the curriculum development, and a simple but effective assignment and event which engaged the large cohort in a team-based poster showcase, integrating both external stakeholder interaction and experiential learning. The process enabled the student teams to engage with external parties in gathering research, and multiple judges during their subsequent poster showcase. A number of measures taken to augment the experience are discussed below which helped to increase the reliability of the grading process and the participation of the student teams. Last, some feedback from participating judges and students are presented, along with reflections from the educators involved.

Case: Learnings From a Poster Showcase in a Large Enterprise Education Class Context

This case centres on the experience of the delivery and assessment of a yearlong enterprise and digital innovation module, delivered to over 450 students who participate in business, accounting and enterprise computing undergraduate programmes. The module is experiential, and focused on developing skills and knowledge pertinent for both the wider business context and entrepreneurship alike. Students experience learning through content lectures, guest speaker seminars, and applied team projects (see learning outcomes in Table 1). While there are many elements of note within the module itself, this case study relates to the applied gamification project and its related poster showcase event which was held in 2018 and 2019, with 100+ student teams assessed each year. The case is discussed in its component parts; considering curriculum design, the pedagogical and logistical aspects related to the event itself, the external stakeholders as judges, and the assessment.

Table 1.

Module Learning Outcomes.

	Learning outcomes (On completing this module, students should be able to)
1	Discuss the main theoretical perspectives principles, concepts, and techniques relating to innovation, creativity and enterprise.
2	Understand the entrepreneurial processes and reflect on the role of the entrepreneur
3	Explain and apply different tools and techniques for generating and conceptualising product ideas.
4	Analyse and evaluate business trends based on content provided in seminars, online tutorials and group-tasks
5	Develop interpersonal skills relating to team-working and networking, as well as effective communication skills relevant for both offline and online interactions.

The Assignment

The span of topics considered pertinent for enterprise education has caused much curricular breadth and ambiguity for universities and instructors (Matlay, 2006). In turn, assessing such courses based on “number of companies formed” does not capture the range of opportunities for growth of the individual student (Gianiodis & Meek, 2020). Consequentially, as a taught subject it is widely disparate, and driven more by general educational norms than research-based theory (Rideout & Gray, 2013). In an effort to consider a topic that would engage students, necessitate ideation and divergent thinking, and develop a number of enterprise competencies such as resource gathering, market research and pitching, the curriculum team bounded an enterprise assignment within the concept of gamification.

Gamification is the utilization of game elements to engage individuals, motivate behaviour and solve problems (Kapp, 2012). It involves enhancing experiences with motivational affordances which can invoke the psychological feelings of a game experience (Hamari et al., 2014). As a novel and student-friendly approach to curriculum topics, it presents a unique opportunity for educators to address challenges around motivation and engagement (Filippou et al., 2014; Kenny et al., 2017; Limantara et al., 2019). For the assignment, student teams were asked to ideate a simple game concept that would help teach a selected target group about a specified topic. In the 2018 iteration, students were asked to create a simple educational game focusing on themes of innovation, business, social media, and social issues (e.g., topics such as “What is a SWOT analysis” and the “Diffusion of Innovation”). In the 2019 iteration of the module, teams chose projects related to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, of which the module staff created over 110 subtopics for selection (see Tables A1 and A2 in the appendix). Topics ranged from “What is income inequality”; “The importance of bees” to “Cyberbullying and the student.” Encouraging students to develop an understanding of these domains and transfer relevant ideas to devise an innovative game, engaged them in mental stimulation and analogical reasoning which are both cognitive practices of design thinking (Garbuio et al., 2018).

In creating their game concept, teams considered the use of gameplay elements and techniques such as characters (avatars), levels, bonus points, and leader boards. They were required to choose a target market and align their game concept and design to this cohort. Students in the module attended lectures pertaining to idea-generation, target market analysis and wider innovation concepts, so they could draw associations and frame their ideas before ideation (Dong et al., 2016; Garbuio et al., 2018). They were introduced to the principles of gamification and gamified learning from a leading expert in their guest seminar series, and were provided with related resource materials. In the first submission of the project, student teams pitched their game idea in an online blog—using written descriptions, visuals, and minor interactive elements, noting the target market focused on, background reference information and general gameplay. In terms of their experiential process, this assignment allowed the teams to engage in experimentation, increasing their potential for active learning through team decision making and social interaction (Egbert & Mertins, 2010). The assignment offered students the opportunity to explore and ideate to solve a complex and ambiguous problems, an aspect which is said to be lacking in many business education courses (Garbuio et al., 2018).

In the second semester, following feedback from the module staff, teams were encouraged to conduct primary research within their target market, or interview an expert, to decide whether their current game idea would be feasible, desirable, and/or marketable. This aspect of the curriculum design promotes innovative abduction as students were asked to attain inferences about this new game concept. While still iterating their innovative game concept, teams were aware of the function of their intended final product (educational game), its mode of operation (online), yet were still clarifying the roadmap for delivery (look/feel/gameplay/rules; Dong et al., 2016; Garbuio & Lin, 2019). Teams were required to describe their game concept, discuss their process of attaining feedback, and provide recommendations on how the game concept should be further developed on an A0 sized research poster. They were asked to present their poster and answer questions at a poster showcase event. This poster was required to be engaging, creative, informative, and well-designed. Student knowledge and competency of poster creation was enhanced through guest seminars with a leading graphic design artist, and with internal staff support and templates. Students received additional supports such as questions to consider and section guides to help them break up the problem (problem decomposition) into more manageable pieces (Dong et al., 2016).

The Logistics

Initially, the concept of the showcase originated from a few key staff involved in the module and aware of the challenges of a large student cohort. Brennan et al. (2005) suggest that to encourage enterprise education at university, “trialetic” thinking should be adopted which allows multiple stakeholder relationships to be recognised. Programme heads were invited to participate in the conversation and broad objectives were set in place. The planning process took a top–down approach in this sense and once the strategies were determined, the logistical and operational planning came into effect. As the module was a large class group and yearlong, there were a number of staff involved, including two members of the lecturing staff (module coordinators) and three teaching assistants. While there were no coordinated tutorials for the module, these teaching assistant staff were engaged in much of the planning and resource creation for the poster showcase event.

Among the major early decisions, of critical importance was the date and location for the showcase. The space needed to be large with extensive wall space to mount posters, with room to allow a free flow of traffic and to mitigate the volume of many students and judges discussing projects in parallel. Strategically, the showcase was aligned with a large digital technology event also being held in the university. During a planned interlude within this event, conference attendees were invited to participate in the poster showcase as industry judges. Interested parties received verbal instructions, a judging manual, were informed their obligation would be 30 to 45 minutes and were provided with tea/coffee and light refreshments for their service. The second wave of judges were university staff, including key administrative staff and resource educators who are not often brought into the classroom context. This was a novel addition, and one school secretary later said it was her favourite day in years, meeting with students and discussing their projects. Considering both recruitment strategies, between 50 and 60 judges were sourced, staggered in their arrival over a 2-hour period.

On the day of the event, teaching support staff ensured the space was fully prepared, with team numbers marked out on walls and poster boards. Students were provided maps in advance (via email) marking the plots for their posters (see Figures A1 and A2 in the appendix), and were given the essential materials to affix their posters on arrival. The event lasted 2 hours, with 50 teams presenting in each hour. Poster placement was allocated bearing this in mind, optimising space by positioning teams who were to present in the first hour next to those in the second. Maringe and Sing (2014) consider the use of student-created posters can enhance engagement and learning with a large class group, noting it also allows students to “walk-about” and benefit from the observations of their peers on the topic of the course or assignment. By staggering the event over 2 hours, the event was more feasible to facilitate and allowed students time to engage with the event itself and the posters of their peers before or after their allocated presenting times.

On arrival to the event, judges were welcomed, provided with judging kits and given a short briefing (one staff member). Each judge was allocated up to five student team posters to evaluate, allocated at the judge reception desk by a second staff member coordinating the rota on an online spreadsheet. The coordination of the poster placements and allocations were carefully monitored by the reception desk, to ensure teams were judged by both academic and business judges. Judges were asked to spend approximately 5 to 8 minutes with each team listening to their idea and asking questions. Following this, they graded the team on their judging booklet, then handed this back to the reception desk and signed out. Considering the size of this initiative—in each hour, approximately 250 students and 30 judges were together discussing projects. In parallel, newly arrived judges were being briefed by module staff in the judging area, or networking with one another over coffee in the interim. In total, there were two teaching support staff and two module coordinators active during the event (reception desk, judge briefing and support, student support). Finally, but crucially, once the poster session was concluded and teams asked to leave, the core module staff team evaluated each poster once more (excluding the team questioning criterion of the marking scheme). This last grading procedure added an additional workload burden,² but was conducted to ensure that the team were in agreement with the final grades given to student teams.

The Assessment

Maringe and Sing (2014) recommend diverse assessment approaches for the large classroom including the use of posters, role-play, and presentations; however, they forewarn that the grading of these methods may induce issues of reliability and validity. In the poster showcase, assessment rigor was imperative, while still providing students with a novel experience and occasion for multiple sources of feedback. Assessment methods must ensure consistency across markers, to ensure they are guided by accurate information, and interpret the grading rubric in the same manner (Broadbent, 2018). Judging kits were produced with care, providing a simple but robust marking scheme that evaluated the idea, the poster design and the team’s ability to answer questions (see Figures A1 and A2 in the appendix). In addition, all judges received a briefing before commencing with exemplar questions to use.

Once the teaching staff logged the results, an interrater reliability analysis was conducted to study the patterns of judging, noting that each poster had been judged three to four times in total. This was achieved by entering the data into SPSS and obtaining the intraclass correlation coefficient (two-way mixed, consistency agreement). The intraclass correlation coefficient value was deemed to be strong above 0.8 (McHugh, 2012). Below this, it would infer that certain judges may have been overly generous or stringent in their grading (as was the case once in 2018). In this situation, the analysis revealed that two judges had a mean value score deviating highly from the others, and their grades were removed. In any other cases of distinct inconsistency in the grading of a poster (where the standard deviation between scores was +8%), the grade reverted to the judging from the module team grading. This was only necessary in a minimal number of cases per year (>3). If the grades received from the academic and industry judge were deemed consistent, the average mark was used as the final grade. This technique provided a level of rigor and fairness in the assessment procedure, and leveraged the power of having multiple judges.

The Outcome: Challenges and Changes Recommended

The industry guests and staff were impressed by the creativity of the student cohort, and were in many cases proud to be of service. In turn, the event fostered a connection between these external stakeholders and the module itself, which led to extended networking benefits for the class. To attain some indications of the student perspective, a short feedback survey was conducted by the module staff. This short survey was sent to 50 students in June 2020 to the class who participated in the module 1 year previously. From this, 11 students responded and provided some commentary. As can be seen in Table 2, the negative student comments received related to the logistics of the event in terms of timing (wait-times between judging) and communication to the students.

Table 2.

Selected Student Feedback/Recommendations.

Please comment on the overall impression you had on the event. Do you think this poster showcase method has merit?	In an online world, what do you think teachers should do for large classes?
The event was very nice. It was a great opportunity to present our ideas in front of interested people	I think that there is not much difference between large classes online or in actual lecture halls
Lots of students well organized	Small group interaction projects
Many successful people were invited to share some of their stories. Remember some interesting examples	Divide the key points and increase the connection between students and classroom
I enjoyed the time explaining app brief. I wanted to go home after I finished	Not sound boring. Give people a reason/motive to attend class. Group work will be harder online however. Make sure no one comes enters 5 minutes or so after. It disrupts the class
Overall, the event I feel had the potential to be outstanding in terms of changing the way students looked at business and impacting social change. On the day, there wasn’t enough communication in regards to what was going on, the marking criteria that the judges were using and what was expected on students on the day. However, some students at the time were clear that they enjoyed the event overall	I would nearly suggest that large classes be broken down into smaller meetings where a module such as maths or something of that nature is being taught
Yes, it was very professional and well set up	Fun activities such as quizzes to keep students engaged
Yes—was the module I engaged the most with in first year	More smaller, frequent assignments for constant engagement
Very busy	Make lecture notes accessible and have a question forum that teachers respond in regularly
Good atmosphere and layout with so many different ideas being showcased	Have an active way of asking the teacher of the class questions as may be difficult or impossible to do in large online class, feedback interview like this may be useful as gets students thinking about whether they fully understand what is happening in lecture
It was very loosely structured also and posters were not the best way to present information like this	Larger classes are fine provided that they be supplemented with classes with more intimate groups that require more engagement. Workshops based around the skills one would need as an entrepreneur throughout the year in preparation would be brilliant and would prepare students for any end of year events such as last year’s hackathon
Fun event, but didn’t get much contact time with judges	Lots of participation live through live polls. Use videos where possible to change up the voice the students have to listen too. Don’t be surprised if some students decide not to go to the class live so they can watch it at 1.5X or 2X speed later

On the day there wasn’t enough communication in regards to what was going on, the marking criteria that the judges were using and what was expected on students on the day.

I enjoyed the time explaining app brief. I wanted to go home after I finished.

On reflection, when dealing with undergraduate students (particularly first years), while we aim to adopt design thinking practices, experimentation and provide students the opportunity for “creativity, mental flexibility, the ability to be open to conflicting feedback, and a willingness to fail and learn from experience” (Garbuio et al., 2018), we must lessen any procedural ambiguity for this cohort. Advance sending of personal schedules, marking schemes, specific role clarity specifications and other elements would be an important addition for students in subsequent iterations. Students that indicated they enjoyed the event noted that it was fun, engaging and “a great opportunity to present our ideas in front of interested people.” Another student respondent noted that he or she remembered some interesting examples, which implies that this student visited the posters of other teams. A short-form feedback survey was also sent to the 2019 judges, which was filled by 15 respondents. A selected number of comments were included in Table 3 which provide insight on the process (the remaining comments were considered to be in agreement with those included). Interestingly, even some individuals who have concerns about the efficacy of large class teaching, were still positive about the benefits of the showcase event. In favor of the event, some noted its efficacy in creating a vibrant atmosphere:

It was an excellent event with a real buzz in the room. Students were very engaged and some were incredibly passionate about their work. 100% agree that this format has incredible merit.

However, in considering some of the negative comments that arose from the judge feedback comments, there were considerations that social loafing or free-riding was still noted:

Like all group work, I think this approach works better for some students than others. It was a great chance for students to utilize their learned skills and apply them, however the engagement levels from participants varied.

Table 3.

Selected Judges Comments for Poster Showcase.

Please comment on the overall impression you had on the event. Do you think this poster showcase method has merit?	What are your thoughts on large class teaching in general?
Excellent, well organised event, great module, and really well informed students!	With VLE’s today and advancements in blended learning techniques I think that the number in a class should not affect learning outcomes.
It was an excellent event with a real buzz in the room. Students were very engaged and some were incredibly passionate about their work./100% agree that this format has incredible merit	Large class teaching has its challenges but when managed correctly and led with appropriate pedagogical approaches, it can be a very effective approach for teaching and learning.
Exciting community positive energetic buzzing./Yes, you have to know your topic to explain it quickly	Problem with assessment, advantages for interactions, and motivation
The event was well attended and interesting./Like all group work, I think this approach works better for some students than others. It was a great chance for students to utilize their learned skills and apply them, however the engagement levels from participants varied.	I do not think it benefits either educators or students. Large classes tend to be heterogeneous, and heterogeneous classes are especially problematic when they are large
Well organised, students enthusiastic about their work and willing/keen to engage. There was a good buzz.	Challenging in a world where content is ubiquitous
Well run. Good opportunity for students to be out of their comfort zone and thrive./Yes, it is important in many ways combining communication skills—oral in presenting, written concisely on the poster, and visual on the poster.	Difficult to engage large groups
I really enjoyed it. Great opportunity to see the student projects and talk to them about their work. There was a great atmosphere./In some ways; it allows students to speak to a formal piece of work. However, the large numbers and hustle and bustle makes it a bit more challenging for me to say it is not also a flawed pedagogical technique. I prefer the idea of presentations/mini pitches, etc. However, given the huge numbers in these modules, this definitely has merit	I think it can be great, as long as the in class room experience extends beyond the “lecturer knows all and says all” dynamic. More interaction, less content, more critical thinking activities with in class prompts
I thought it was a very interesting event and the students did a great job of showcasing some really creative ideas./Yes, I believe that it is a much more interesting and engaging method of designing and showcasing a project in comparison to an essay, for example	I personally prefer smaller classes as I feel it can be difficult to connect with large groups, especially on more intricate and complicated subjects
This was an excellent teaching and learning opportunity for the students, supporting the development of a broad range of skills, knowledge and attitudes./Yes. This was a very novel, though person intensive, way to support whole class teaching, learning and assessment	Whole class teaching when done well can be effective
It came across as a lively, well-run event on an interesting topic. I enjoyed attending it. It was a little hard to find some of the designated posters./It was clear from most the students I spoke with that they needed to think in more depth about their projects and the potential ethical risks, in particular. However, these were 1st year students who would probably not have much experience working collaboratively (so perhaps this approach could be seen as a positive starting point for working in groups?)	Large classes don’t have to be a barrier to good pedagogy! Technology can help—it’s not the be all and end all—but it can help reach large numbers in a sustainable way

A key feature of the successful large class assessment intervention is the deliberate and iterative use of a variety of tools and stakeholders, which progressively build student learning. The most important feature of this case is not the use of any particular assessment tool, but the planning, organization, and execution. Considering both the critical success factors and the limitations noted in the instructional innovation, as reflected on by the module team, we note the following points:

Curriculum considerations: Prior to any considerations about the method of assessment or presentation of any student outputs, a strong sense of the learning outcomes and curricular objectives must be developed and clearly stated to all involved. Thanks to large research initiatives in the field, robust instructional efforts such as the EntreComp framework and HEInnovate tool can direct course creators and department heads to effectively develop these courses and learning outcomes in a systematic manner for enterprise education. Within this module described, the intention was to allow students experience ideation and design cognition, using modes a student base finds engaging or even fun (gaming). The poster showcase was intended to be a creative mapping of this journey, with a novel method to allow scaled interaction with external guests for feedback. The use of gamification or game theory as the mode in this fashion was novel, and avoids the negatively reported features of gamification noted in other studies, such as increased competition and design features (Hamari et al., 2014; Kenny et al., 2017; Limantara et al., 2019).

Judge preparedness: Pertaining to the student perception of the event, a small number of teams who were extremely adept and well prepared reported disappointment by the basic (or standardised) line of questioning. Efforts must be taken to clarify expectations to judges, perhaps by showing examples of high and low level projects from previous years during the introductory talk. An idea to mitigate this would be to send judging kits and examples electronically to involved parties in advance of the event itself.

Leveraging university events to procure judges: Scheduling the event concurrently to an existing university-led digital technology conference was beneficial, but may not be feasible for other educators willing to replicate. Suitable alternatives may include running the event entirely with university staff, collaborating with specific corporate contacts to send delegations of judges (e.g., groups of alumni graduates or corporate social responsibility volunteers). In addition, module staff could use a postgraduate class as junior judges to supplement numbers, or could engage a specific dimension of the university to conduct the judging (preferably an internal incubator or accelerator).

Development of assessment rubrics and checks: We recommend that educators develop a considered marking scheme that is easy to understand and use by all, and pilot it before use. In situations where there are student concerns about judging or grading, it is necessary that the team itself have also judged the posters independently. An online record of the poster (e.g., a pdf version uploaded) is also useful for instructors, so they can easily access and check any aspect following the event.

Internal Support: Birdthistle et al. (2007) determine the stakeholders involved in enterprise education are students, educators, the institution itself, and potential employers. Expanding this, we find administrative staff and auxiliary support companies also have significant bearing on resourcing and organisation. To coordinate an event of this nature, marketing officers, timetable administrative staff, and events/security teams were required, in preparation for the showcase event. As such, it is necessary that these events be planned in advance and the relevant parties notified in a timely fashion. As universities evolve, many have technology transfer offices which may be able to assist in creating links between relevant stakeholders in the ecosystem who would be able to assist in this regard.³

Inclusivity considerations: On reflection of the event itself, one area of weakness was in relation to accessibility and inclusivity, particularly in relation to students who may suffer from high-anxiety, crowds or agoraphobia, and those with autism. While creating a vibrant and energetic forum such as a poster showcase may be valuable for some, it could be highly distressing for others. To remedy this, we would recommend that students are asked to indicate if they would prefer a “quiet-space” poster display and utilise some private rooms or corridors for this purpose. For delivery that fully embraces digital innovation, students may even prerecord aspects of their pitch and allow guests move around the showcase with headphones, learning about the projects as one would in an audio tour.

The Future of Stakeholder Engagement in Events

In an increasingly difficult era to make predictions about education, industry, or the workplace, the linkages between corporates and educational institutes may change, blend, or partner. Industry engagement is a hallmark in many institutions, and the considerations of the triple helix (Galvao et al., 2019) continue this ethos. The development of employability in students continues to be critically sought by employers, and grappled with by educational institutes (Tymon, 2013). Universities are becoming internally entrepreneurial; developing and licencing technology or research knowledge, as well as building accelerators and technology parks (Gianiodis & Meek, 2020). In addition, universities may partner more formally into consortia, allowing for each institution to specialise without competition in a selected field, or to collaborate on experiential projects with external stakeholders (Dean & Forray, 2020). Such changes will require institutional and curricular innovations, such as the one expressed herein, to patch these networks together and find synergies in the collective efforts of these members.

Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, many institutions are faced with the reality of having to deliver entire semesters of content online. The expectation that we are facing into a period of prolonged social distancing and by implication, continued disruption to the traditional university model. Virtual learning environments will feature prominently in our teaching and learning tools as social restrictions will disrupt traditional teaching and assessment for large classes.

Students asked about the poster showcase, were also asked to consider: In an online world, what do you think teachers should do for large classes? The responses noted in Table 2 highlight the need to create small group experiences for the student, break content into more digestible sections, and create ways to retain engagement through interactivity and variation in presenter voice/tone.

Acknowledging the fact that involving multiple stakeholders on site may not be feasible for many educators, there is grounds to consider hosting this event remotely. In addition, as universities may move toward a consortium model, educators may need to find remote ways to connect student groups and experiences (Dean & Forray, 2020). As a simple model, the posters could be sent to external parties as a series of pdf documents or a slide deck, while the judges could ask their questions to the team remotely and score the posters on an online form. More technically minded students or cohorts may consider modifying posters to be interactive and digital, employing tools like Glogster (see Figure 1), Thinglink, or by hyperlinking content on their poster templates.

Figure 1.

Glogster interactive poster example.

Allen (2020) encourages management educators to embrace the digital mind-set, to ensure “that our curricula will be based on traditional business education fundamentals while keeping an eye on the future” (Allen, 2020, p. 384). For topics in enterprise education, innovation and gamification in particular, the use of technology and digital tools should be weaved into the curriculum where they can contribute to the learning outcomes. Examples like Netland et al. (2020), who used virtual reality in an operations management course to give students the experience of being in a manufacturing company, are even more interesting now given that students may not be able to travel or engage in site visits. Techstars and other companies have conducted online start-up events and hackathons to engage entrepreneurial students and members, using online conference tools like Remo (Figure 2), which allow for breakout tables, general announcements, and networking. Even blended approaches to content may be of value, such as Schumann (2019) requiring students to create a “joint presentation” with a famous entrepreneur by integrating their pitch with taped recordings of successful start-up founders.

Figure 2.

Remo online conference platform.

Taking inspiration from the calls of Allen (2020) and others, we considered the disrupted version of our case herein, and engaged in elements of design thinking and exploration of our own. Considering the online high-technology version of this curricular innovation (devoid of budget or technical expertise restrictions), we imagine an online platform which allows students to engage with the relevant sections/questions of the game idea (addressing themes of target market, gameplay etc.) similar to a business simulation. The completing of sections would themselves be part of a gamified system, where teams would attain points for completing sections, awards for novelty and robustness, avatars and a team image (similar to picking a character in an online game), and scenarios where they may enter mini competitions against other teams for additional participation points (which could accrue to minutes of extra feedback time with staff or other merits). If indeed feasible, this platform would also allow students to curate this content submitted and create their posters or interactive content together, avoiding issues of multiple tools, formatting issues, and submission record failure.

Within this curriculum idea, the poster showcase would be an online gala event where student teams convene in an online conference virtual room (similar to the Remo example) where judges and the public visit them, ask questions and provide instant reactions/comments/up voting, as well as formal balloting/grading. Teams could lure the public to their game poster through digital marketing, achieving additional merits for creating a social media buzz. For other educator needs or modules, this gala platform could be recast for video pitches, company case reports or many other assessment types. While this idea could address many of the goals of an innovative enterprise course, it would be a significant undertaking for any institute or e-learning agency to create, thus the reality of such a tool may be more a remote possibility, than a remote learning solution.

Conclusion

To prevent teacher overload and distraction from research commitments, Maringe and Sing (2014) recommend student–teacher ratios be small. However, these circumstances are not the norm in the university setting, as support is fragmented and student numbers continue to rise, resulting in large class modes of teaching (Holtham et al., 2006; Saunders & Hutt 2015). Increasingly, third-level educators who teach undergraduate students must “grapple” with increased class size in their curriculum development and delivery (Cullen, 2011).

Of key concern in this large class context is the dilution of the active or applied nature of the curriculum essential for student learning (Freeman et al., 2014). This is particularly taxing for enterprise modules that necessitate a rich experiential and action-based curriculum design, with large investment of time and capital by both the staff and the university (Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004). In bringing the experiential and practical elements of these large enterprise modules to the fore, stakeholder engagement and industry contact needs to be carefully considered. In response, traditional university teaching practices have expanded to allow for work-integrated learning, where students learn skills and knowledge directly applicable to their future employment needs (Bailey et al., 2005). In addition, as many of the aspects of entrepreneurship such as opportunity recognition are considered creative processes (Lumpkin et al., 2004), it is necessary to include vignettes of discovery, experimentation, and creativity in enterprise education courses (Garbuio et al., 2018).

In the case example discussed herein, the authors have argued that even a large class context can be leveraged to provide an opportunity for direct industry contact and authentic learning. It details a collaboration that allows students to have direct and purposeful contact with industry representatives, while retaining quality assurance standards and grading legitimacy. In the case, a facilitation and grading moderation process was implemented, providing students with an opportunity to interact, network, receive varied feedback from multiple stakeholders. Kourilsky and Carlson (1997) note four stages of curriculum development denoting enterprise education programmes; pilot, enhancement, custom, and mass transfer. The module described in this study, while acknowledging its ongoing need for improvement, has overcome the pilot stage of its development, resulting in more time to work on specific elements such as the poster showcase. It is hoped that using the observations gathered from this article, other institutions might gain knowledge they can apply in the development of future modules. The lack of a more robust analysis of the student perception or voice is a limitation of this case study and would be recommended for future iterations, to provide a more nuanced understanding of its efficacy as a curricular method. We welcome others to engage in this in a purposeful manner (e.g., Tymon [2013] as an inclusion of the student voice in the narrative). In turn, we anticipate that there may be areas of diversification and development for this method, integrating online, peer-assessment and others avenues mentioned above. We hope this case will provide educators encouragement to create their own instructional innovations, so that we may learn and replicate from them in the future also.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A2.

Student Team Projects (2019).

Sustainable development goal subtopics
No poverty	Awareness of the homeless crisis	What is income inequality?	Innovations that have helped combat poverty	Irish organisations supporting the poor	What does developed and developing mean?	The homelessness crisis in Ireland
Quality education	What is and is not fake news?	Understanding BREXIT	What is continued professional development	Autism and its impact on the student	Dyslexia and its impact on the student	Innovations that have helped promote quality education
Climate action	Recycling	What is climate change?	Preparing yourself for adverse weather (extreme)	Reducing our carbon footprint	Waste on the sea	Plastic and our oceans
Zero hunger	The importance of bees	Agricultural biodiversity	What will we be eating in the future?	Global food security	Sustainable agriculture	Child obesity
Gender equality	Female entrepreneurship in Ireland: supports and information	Gender equality in Ireland: governmental action	Gender equality in Ireland: a history	Women on Walls movement	STEM and the female student	Innovations that have helped to support gender equality
Life below water	Understanding the fishing industry in Ireland	Waste on the sea	Ocean acidification	Plastic and our oceans	Innovation in action: saving our oceans	Sustainable aquaculture
Good health and well-being	Reduce your sugar intake	Looking after your mental health	Increasing exercise	Reducing online addiction (social media)	Solving and understanding online gambling issues	Solving excessive alcohol consumption
Affordable and clean energy	Renewable energy in Ireland (solar)	Renewable energy in Ireland (wind)	Renewable energy in Ireland (tidal)	Solar power in Ireland: popularity	The effect of mining	What is a carbon footprint?
Reducing inequality	Care for the elderly	Understanding equality worldwide	Corporate social responsibility	Cultural awareness in teams	Cultural awareness in corporations
Sustainable cities and communities	Anticorruption regulation	The role of the free press in tackling corruption	Freedom-of-information laws and policies	The role of transparency and accountability in promoting sustainable development

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

Roisin Lyons

Notes

References

Allen

S. J.

(2020). On the cutting edge or the chopping block? Fostering a digital mindset and tech literacy in business management education. Journal of Management Education, 44(3), 362-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920903077

Bailey

Sass

Swiercz

P. M.

Kayes

D. C.

(2005). Teaching with and through teams: Student-written, instructor-facilitated case writing and the signatory code. Journal of Management Education, 29(1), 39-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904269641

Ball

(1989). Towards an” enterprising” culture: A challenge for education and training (No. 4). OECD/CERI.

Birdthistle

Hynes

Fleming

(2007). Enterprise education programmes in secondary schools in Ireland. Education + Training, 49(4), 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910710754426

Black

William

(1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

Bosma

Hessels

Schutjens

Van Praag

Verheul

(2012). Entrepreneurship and role models. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2), 410-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.03.004

Boud

Molloy

(2013). Decision-making for feedback. In Boud

Molloy

(Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 202-218). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203074336

Bowman

Akcaoglu

(2014). “I see smart people!”: Using Facebook to supplement cognitive and affective learning in the university mass lecture. Internet and Higher Education, 23(October), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.003

Brennan

McGowan

Wall

(2005). Academic entrepreneurship: Assessing preferences in nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000510612240

10.

Broadbent

(2018). Large class teaching: How does one go about the task of moderating large volumes of assessment? Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417721360.

11.

Broadbent

Panadero

Boud

(2017). Implementing summative assessment with a formative flavour: A case study in a large class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1343455

12.

Burns

Chopra

(2017). A meta-analysis of the effect of industry engagement on student learning in undergraduate programs. Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering, 33(1), 1-20. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/776/

13.

Carbone

Greenberg

(1998). Teaching large classes: Unpacking the problem and responding creatively. To Improve the Academy, 17(1), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.1998.tb00355.x

14.

Choy

S. C.

Delahaye

B. L.

(2009, June 23-26). University-industry partnership for pedagogy: Some principles for practice [Proceedings]. 16th World Association for Cooperative Education Conference, Vancouver, Canada. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27484094_University-industry_partnership_for_pedagogy_some_principles_for_practice

15.

Connell

G. L.

Donovan

D. A.

Chambers

T. G.

(2016). Increasing the use of student-centered pedagogies from moderate to high improves student learning and attitudes about biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-03-0062

16.

Cooney

T. M.

Murray

T. M.

(2008). Entrepreneurship education in the third-level sector in Ireland. Institute of Minority Entrepreneurship, Dublin Institute of Technology. http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=imerep

17.

Cullen

J. G.

(2011). The writing skills course as an introduction to critical practice for larger business undergraduate classes. International Journal of Management Education, 9(4), https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/297012896.pdf

18.

Cuseo

(2007). The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention of first-year students. Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 5-21. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Empirical-Case-against-Large-Class-Size%3A-on-the-Cuseo/e356d8e0d5c773400235e61d1f1e988048911d03

19.

Dean

K. L.

Forray

J. M.

(2020). Let’s get together, yeah yeah yeah: Teaching and learning consortia in management education. Journal of Management Education, 44(3), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920915754

20.

Dong

Garbuio

Lovallo

(2016). Generative sensing: A design perspective on the microfoundations of sensing capabilities. California Management Review, 58(4), 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.97

21.

Egbert

Mertins

(2010). Experiential learning with experiments. International Review of Economics Education, 9(2), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1477-3880(15)30050-5

22.

Elliott

E. R.

Reason

R. D.

Coffman

C. R.

Gangloff

E. J.

Raker

J. R.

Powell-Coffman

J. A.

Ogilvie

C. A.

(2016). Improved student learning through a faculty learning community: How faculty collaboration transformed a large-enrolment course from lecture to student centered. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), Article ar22. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-07-0112

23.

Filippou

Cheong

(2014). Improving study habits using a behaviour change framework incorporating social motivation and gamification [Proceedings]. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Improving-Study-habits-using-a-Behaviour-Change-and-Filippou-Cheong/905533b97671583b4e0c725772d9e8392d20b536

24.

Freeman

Eddy

S. L.

McDonough

Smith

M. K.

Okoroafor

Jordt

Wenderoth

M. P.

(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

25.

Galvao

Mascarenhas

Marques

Ferreira

Ratten

(2019). Triple helix and its evolution: A systematic literature review. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(3), 812-833. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-10-2018-0103

26.

Garbuio

Dong

Lin

Tschang

Lovallo

(2018). Demystifying the genius of entrepreneurship: How design cognition can help create the next generation of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 41-61. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6266&context=lkcsb_research

27.

Garbuio

Lin

(2019). Abductive reasoning in new venture ideas. Academy of Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.15663abstract

28.

Gentelli

(2015). Using industry professionals in undergraduate teaching: Effects on student learning. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12(4), Article 4. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1063846.pdf

29.

Gianiodis

P. T.

Meek

W. R.

(2020). Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(4), 1167-1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09742-z

30.

Gibb

(2007, April 28). Enterprise in education: Educating tomorrow’s entrepreneurs keynote address to finnish conference on futureless present? [Conference session]. Expert Seminar of Entrepreneurship and Technology Education. University of Oulu, Department of Teacher Education. Kajaani, Finland.

31.

Gibbs

Lucas

Simonite

(1996). Class size and student performance: 1984–94. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381201

32.

Guerrero

Urbano

(2014). Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9526-4

33.

Hamari

Koivisto

Sarsa

(2014, January 6-9). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification [Conference session]. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

34.

Heaslip

Donovan

Cullen

J. G.

(2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514648.

35.

Henry

(2013). Entrepreneurship education in HE: Are policy makers expecting too much? Education + Training, 55(8/9), 836-848. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2013-0079

36.

Henry

Hill

Leitch

(2005). Entrepreneurship education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Education + Training, 47(2), 98-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910510586524

37.

Holtham

C. W.

Melville

R. R.

Sodhi

M. S.

(2006). Designing student group work in management education: Widening the palette of options. Journal of Management Education, 30(6), 809-817. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906287967

38.

Hornsby

D. J.

Osman

De Matos-Ala

(2013). Large-class pedagogy: Interdisciplinary perspectives for quality higher education. Sun Press.

39.

Hytti

O’Gorman

(2004). What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Education + Training, 46(1), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910410518188

40.

Kapp

K. M.

(2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. Wiley.

41.

Kenny

Lyons

Lynn

(2017, August). Don’t make the player, make the game: Exploring the potential of gamification in IS education [Paper presentation]. 23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=amcis2017

42.

Kirby

D. A.

(2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Education + Training, 46(8/9), 510-519. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910410569632

43.

Kourilsky

Carlson

(1997). Entrepreneurship education for youth: A curricular perspective In Sexton

Smilor

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp. 193-213). Upstart.

44.

Lewis

Williams

(1994). Experiential learning: Past and present. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 1994(62), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719946203

45.

Limantara

Hidayanto

A. N.

Prabowo

(2019). The elements of gamification learning in higher education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 10(2), 982-991. http://www.iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/Journal_uploads/IJMET/VOLUME_10_ISSUE_2/IJMET_10_02_103.pdf

46.

Lumpkin

G. T.

Hills

G. E.

Shrader

R. C.

(2004). Opportunity recognition. In Welsch

H. P.

(Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The way ahead (pp. 73-90). Routledge.

47.

Lyons

(2018). An investigation of factors that influence student and team outcomes in entrepreneurship education [Doctoral dissertations, Dublin City University]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332174415_PhD_Thesis_An_Investigation_of_Factors_that_Influence_Student_and_Team_Outcomes_in_Entrepreneurship_Education

48.

Lyons

Lynn

Mac

Bhaird

(2017). Social loafing in student entrepreneurship teams. In Santos

S. C.

Caetano

Mitchell

Landström

Fayolle

(Eds.), The emergence of entrepreneurial behaviour (pp. 140-164). Edward Elgar.

49.

MacGregor

Cooper

J. L.

Smith

K. A.

Robinson

(2000). Editor’s notes. In MacGregor

Cooper

J. L.

Smith

K. A.

Robinson

(Eds.), Strategies for energizing large classes: From small groups to learning communities: New directions for teaching and learning (pp. 1-4). Jossey-Bass.

50.

Maringe

Sing

(2014). Teaching large classes in an increasingly internationalising higher education environment: Pedagogical, quality and equity issue’s. Higher Education, 67(6), 761-782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9710-0

51.

Martin

B. C.

McNally

J. J.

Kay

M. J.

(2013). Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(2), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.002

52.

Matlay

(2006). Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 2: What is entrepreneurship education and does it matter? Education + Training, 48(8/9), 704-718. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610710119

53.

McHugh

M. L.

(2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031

54.

Mwasalwiba

E. S.

(2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training, 52(1), 20-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011017663

55.

Neck

H. M.

Greene

P. G.

(2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x

56.

Netland

T. H.

Flaeschner

Maghazei

Brown

(2020). Teaching operations management with virtual reality: Bringing the factory to the students. Journal of Management Education, 44(3), 313-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562919892028

57.

OECD. (2018). Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en

58.

Pittaway

Cope

(2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607080656

59.

Rasmussen

Sørheim

(2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26(2), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.012

60.

Rideout

E. C.

Gray

D. O.

(2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12021

61.

Rodrigues

C. A.

(2004). The importance level of ten teaching/learning techniques as rated by university business students and instructors. Journal of Management Development, 23(2), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410517256

62.

Rule

(2006). Editorial: The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning. 3(1), 1-10.

63.

Saunders

F. C.

Hutt

(2015). Enhancing large-class teaching: A systematic comparison of rich-media materials. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1233-1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.91126

64.

Schumann

H. O.

(2019). The use of student-copresented virtual guest speakers in entrepreneurial education. Journal of Education for Business, 94(6), 418-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1538094

65.

Sheridan

Fallon

(2015). An exploration of a higher education institution’s response to the need for enhanced engagement with enterprise [Conference session]. Higher Education in Transformation Conference, Dublin, Ireland. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=st4

66.

Smith

Brooks

Lichtenberg

Mcllveen

Torjul

Tyler

(2009). Career development learning: Maximising the contribution of work-integrated learning to the student experience (Final Project Report). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216258441_Career_development_learning_Maximising_the_contribution_of_work_integrated_learning_to_the_student_experience

67.

Spear

(Ed.). (1984). Rejuvenating introductory courses. Jossey-Bass.

68.

Trees

Jackson

(2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880601141179

69.

Tymon

(2013). The student perspective on employability. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 841-856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.604408