Extracurricular Activities for Entrepreneurial Learning: A Typology Based on Learning Theories

Abstract

Extracurricular activities are increasingly being recognized for developing practical skills among entrepreneurial learners and connecting entrepreneurship curricula with real life. They offer socially situated learning experiences that can be cognitively stimulating and elicit reflective practices. However, the theoretical and pedagogical underpinnings of extracurricular activities in entrepreneurship are still in early stages, with their contribution towards entrepreneurship education requiring more empirical support. Moreover, current entrepreneurship pedagogies lack a much-needed integration of ecosystem actors’ inputs, who posses specific expertise with regards to extracurricular entrepreneurial activities. To address these issues, this study gathered the views of entrepreneurship mentors, consultants, and investors on the extracurricular activities that can be deployed to improve the skills of entrepreneurial learners, through conducting 22 in-depth interviews with experts from 13 countries across the world. We analyzed the results through a hybrid, inductive and deductive, approach. The experts recommended 34 extracurricular activities, that were discursively mapped against relevant learning theories: cognitive, experiential, social, situated, and existential. The study adds to the limited theoretical discussion on the origins of extracurricular activities and paves the way for theoretical evaluations in entrepreneurship education. It can aid educators in effectively integrating extracurricular activities in their curricula to better develop students’ entrepreneurial competences.

Keywords

entrepreneurial learning extracurricular activities learning theories entrepreneurship ecosystem experts entrepreneurship education

Introduction

Entrepreneurship scholars and educators have researched and experimented with a plethora of approaches to teach entrepreneurship, to try to fathom what works, for which groups of students and why. Indeed, any approach, method or pedagogy used to prepare an audience of learners with the essential knowledge and skills to pursue an entrepreneurial career, could be labelled as “entrepreneurship education” (EE), according to Fayolle et al. (2006).

This study investigates one of the EE approaches that have not received rightful scholarly investigation, namely extracurricular activities (ECAs). It aims at analyzing the views of entrepreneurship ecosystem experts on the types of ECAs that can be used in EE, the benefits they bring towards students’ skills development, and discusses them against relevant learning theories, aiming at developing a typology of ECAs for EE.

ECAs have been receiving increasing interest in recent years (Beaumont et al., 2022; Gedye & Beaumont, 2018; Preedy & Jones, 2015). As their name imply, they do not form part of regular curricula and are considered complementary to classroom-based teaching. They contribute, however, to the learning experience of a specific course or program (Lilischkis et al., 2015; Vanevenhoven & Drago, 2015). They are led by students and driven by their interests, hence ECAs embody a heutagogical approach to learning (Hase & Kenyon, 2000, 2007). Through nurturing independent behaviors and actions, they can be deemed essential to developing entrepreneurial careers (Bacigalupo et al., 2016; Neck & Corbett, 2018). In contrast to traditional methods such as lectures and classroom-based instruction, which were shown to have little effect on developing practical competences (Hytti, 2018; Neck & Greene, 2011), ECAs are argued to incite entrepreneurial skills. They promote entrepreneurial intentions (Fayolle et al., 2006; Linan, 2008); expand social and professional networks (Preedy et al., 2020); enhance ECs (Padilla-Angulo, 2019), and enrich students learning experiences (Jones et al., 2015; Pittaway et al., 2015; Preedy et al., 2020). This is pertained to ECAs developing students’ skills through professional experiences, social activities, sports, and cultural events (Milner et al., 2016; Preedy & Jones, 2015). They, hence, firmly build on the premise of entrepreneurial learning as a socially situated phenomena that is better explained and enacted through a series of experiences and networks of interactions within enabling contexts (El-Awad et al., 2017; Howorth et al., 2012; Neck & Corbett, 2018; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Pittaways et al., 2015; Rae, 2007; Toutain et al., 2017).

Despite their promising added value, there are several missing elements in our understanding of ECAs in EE. Firstly, we need further empirical insights on their possible utilization (Higgins et al., 2013; Pittaway et al., 2015; Preedy et al., 2020). Moreover, extant literature lacks enough theorizing of their nature, with scarce connections to learning theories (Arranz et al., 2017; Beaumont et al., 2022; Preedy et al., 2020; Preedy & Jones, 2015). It appears that most available studies apply an aggregate experiential logic to ECAs without much attention to other conjectures (Jones et al., 2015; Morris et al., 2017; Preedy et al., 2020; Shirokova et al., 2017), except for a few instances (e.g., Pittaway et al., 2011, 2015; Pocek et al., 2021; Politis et al., 2019). In addition, existing ECAs studies tend to solely focus on higher education institutions (HEI) perceptions (Lilschkis et al., 2015; Rae et al., 2012; Vanevenhoven & Drago, 2015) and classroom-based activities (Milner et al., 2016). However, EE processes usually involve several elements inside and outside HEIs (Brush, 2014), with the realization of EE benefits contingent on their effective collaboration (Isenberg, 2010; Kuratko, 2005; Lilischkis et al., 2015), and the successful inclusion of ecosystem actors (Bischoff et al., 2018; Galvao et al., 2020; Jones & Matlay, 2011; Wraae & Thomsen, 2019). Still, there is a dearth of studies incorporating ecosystem experts’ views in the EE process (Bischoff et al., 2018; Landstrom & Benner, 2010; Matlay, 2009), despite their specific expertise in ECAs and experiential activities (Ahmad et al., 2020; Gibb & Hannon, 2006; Wilson et al., 2009).

This study expounds on the types and benefits of ECAs for EE as recommended by entrepreneurship ecosystem experts. It discusses them against relevant learning theories, namely: experiential, social, situated, existential and cognitive, aiming at developing a typology of ECAs. It follows a qualitative approach though analyzing in-depth interviews conducted with 22 experts from different geographies, who have profound experiences in mentoring, consulting, and investing in startups (Amaral & Magalhaes, 2002; Bischoff et al., 2018), and identified 34 different ECAs accordingly.

The study enriches the scant literature on the nature, types, and potential value of ECAs (Arranz et al., 2017; Preedy et al., 2020). The proposed typology can provide a point of departure for the alignment of learning theories and different ECAs, and can spur theoretical discussions with regards to EE pedagogies and their evaluations. In addition, it adds cogency to the limited research at the nexus of EE and entrepreneurship stakeholders; extending its boundaries beyond HEIs walls (Bischoff et al., 2018; Lilischkis et al., 2015). It also highlights opportunities for educators to incorporate ECAs in EE, complementing classroom-based curricula. The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we discuss the relevant literature and theoretical concepts related to EE and learning theories, and ECAs. We then explain our methodology, including sampling, research approach, and data collection and analysis. Following from that, we present our findings and discuss them against extant literature. We conclude the paper by highlighting its main contributions to theory and practice, its limitations, and propose future research avenues.

Literature Review

Entrepreneurship Education and Learning Theories

Entrepreneurship education programs and research have expanded in recent years and extended to include activities occurring in the wider ecosystem (Jones et al., 2017; Kuratko & Morris, 2018; Wenninger, 2019), such as ECAs. EE aims at developing the knowledge, skills, and behaviors of entrepreneurial learners (Fayolle et al., 2006; QAA, 2018), to support them along a variety of career choices, without being confined to the narrow venture creation path (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008).

With the rapid growth in EE, the pedagogical approaches have branched and diversified as well. One common approach organizes them into teaching about, for, or through entrepreneurship, along an incremental practical spectrum. Another approach classifies the methods used in EE largely into traditional (lecture-based) or experiential (activity-based) (Decker-Lange et al., 2021; Fayolle, 2018; Hagg & Kurczewska, 2021; Lackeus, 2015). EE, herein as a reflection of entrepreneurial realities, is a dynamic and multimodal field with a plethora of learning concepts that can help define its methods and activities (Fayolle, 2018; Gibb, 2002; Kuratko & Morris, 2018; Neck & Corbett, 2018). We hereby elaborate on some of those learning theories and concepts that are more relevant to ECAs.

Heutagogy

Heutagogy emphasizes human agency in the learning process, as the person embarks independently on an intellectual journey of discovery and experience (Hase & Kenyon, 2000, 2007, 2013; Jones et al., 2019). Thus, it aligns with student-centered approaches to education (ibid), which ECAs embody (Preedy et al., 2020), which instill a learning for self and for life mindset among entrepreneurship learners (QAA, 2018). According to Blaschke and Hase (2014); Gerstein (2014); and Hase and Kenyon (2013), heutagogical approaches have essential principles, which we argue that ECAs exemplify. These are: (1) learners are directly involved in planning and assessing their learning, and they are independent from the educator and the university, (2) educators have a rather supportive than controlling role, and (3) learning is non-linear, flexible, and focuses on practical applications of theory. Thus, the heutagogical orientation of ECAs suits the very core nature of EE, as a dynamic and experientially learnt discipline (Jones et al., 2015; Neck & Corbett, 2018).

Experiential Learning

Experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) has become one of the main pursued approaches to EE in recent years (Jones, 2019; Neck & Corbett, 2018). It provides a platform that facilitates the development of practical entrepreneurial skills (Cope, 2011; Neck & Greene, 2011; van Gelderen et al., 2021), which traditional methods like lectures and readings fail to support (Higgins et al., 2013; Kuratko & Morris, 2018; Tunstall & Neergaard, 2022). The student goes through cycles of learning experiences from which he extracts and internalizes new knowledge and skills and reflects on those episodes (Corbett, 2005; Robinson et al., 2016), to update his cognitive and affective readiness (Cope, 2005; Politis, 2005; Politis et al., 2019).

ECAs are commended for their contribution to develop learners’ competences through real-life experimentation and can thus be posited as emblematic of experiential approaches (Pittaway et al., 2011, 2015; Preedy et al., 2020; Preedy & Jones, 2015; Rae et al., 2012). They allow learners to project learnt theories onto engaging activities and reflect on their experiences (Gerstein, 2014; Hagg & Kurczewska, 2021), which is difficult to achieve in curricular methods (Blenker et al., 2012; Gibb, 1993; Nabi et al., 2017). However, there has been limited attention in literature to investigate ECAs-derived learning experiences.

Social and Situated Learning

Social models of learning are derived from two streams of logic induction. One is Bandura’s (1977) original postulation that learning happens through imitation of behaviors that lead to positive consequences (Bandura, 1977). In this regard, it resembles elements of vicarious learning (Robinson et al., 2016), that is, vicarious observation and reinforcement (Bandura & Walters, 1963), as in learning from role models. Wenger (1990, 1998) argued that another dimension of social learning occurs when subjects acquire knowledge and skills and recognize opportunities through transacting with their surroundings (Rae, 2007), following a community of inquiry (COI) model (Garisson et al., 1999). It encompasses four elements: identity development, learning by doing, reflecting on experiences, and community involvement (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Learning truly happens among and through elements that exist within the context of the learner (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and is thus “situated” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 35). Similarly, entrepreneurs learn through daily situations (Cope, 2003; Cope & Watts, 2000; Rae & Carswell, 2000), which are defined by their context (El-Awad et al., 2017; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Hence, the direct environment forms an integral part of the learning process (Lans et al., 2008). Situated learning takes place in communities of practice (COP), among groups of people engaged in similar activities and aspirations (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2011). Learning in COP embodies a scaffolding or apprenticeship approach, as the novice gradually accumulates expertise through observing and interacting with more competent members and undertaking situated activities (Cope, 2005; Pittaway et al., 2023; Rae, 2002).

The social and situated learning conceptions posit that knowledge and skills flow through a myriad of situated social interactions (Wenger, 1990), rather than being imparted and transmitted in cognitive and behavioral approaches (Gherardi et al., 1998). They thus emphasize the role of context and networks as sources and facilitators for developing learner’s competences (Hanks, 1991). ECAs develop students’ skills through environmentally defined professional experiences and social activities (Milner et al., 2016; Preedy & Jones, 2015), They, hence, firmly build on the premise of entrepreneurial learning as a socially situated phenomena i.e. better explained and enacted through a series of experiences and networks of interactions within enabling contexts.

Existential Learning

In existential approaches, learners question and reflect upon the abstract reasons for their existence and engagement in various experiences (e.g., what and why?) (Marton, 1981). Existential learning is symbiotic to the reflective practices in experiential activities and extends to incorporate reflecting on oneself in action, in relation to others, and on existential matters. Consequently, learning becomes more meaningful and suitable (Mezirow, 2003) to influence a change in the learner’s identity, values, and orientation (Frick, 1987). Moreover, existential learning transcends knowledge and skills gains to effectively impact learners’ mental models, beliefs, and future choices (DeFillipi, 2001; Mathias et al., 2015; Mezirow, 2003). ECAs allow students to reflect on those multiple dimensions, and thus develop their knowledge base and adapt their skills and mindsets to entrepreneurial realities (Duval-Couetil et al., 2016; Pittaway et al., 2011).

Cognitive Learning

Cognitivism views learners as vessels to be filled with knowledge that is readily available (Fox, 1997; Freire, 2018), with learning occurring through the transmission from the source (educator) to the recipient (student), in a mechanistic approach. This model is still observed in some educational settings (Hagg & Gabrielsson, 2020; Robinson et al., 2016) that employ mass education techniques, such as lecture theaters and MOOCs, with the student assuming a rather passive role in the learning process. Cognitivism reflects a learning about entrepreneurship model which supplies learners with abstract concepts, theories, and information about the entrepreneurial process (Hagg & Kurczewska, 2021; Robinson et al., 2016). Hence, it is still regarded essential to the learning process (Bennett, 2006; Fiet, 2001; Gibb, 1993; Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004).

In summation, the richness and variety of ECAs allow for the exhibition of multiple learning concepts and modes through their enaction, as they are inclusive of an expanding array of activities (Arranz et al., 2017; Preedy et al., 2020; Preedy & Jones, 2015).

Extracurricular Activities (ECAs)

After briefly discussing common approaches to entrepreneurship education in literature, the relevant learning theories, and concepts, and hypothesizing their relationship with ECAs, in this part we elucidate on the current understanding of ECAs in literature.

Background

ECAs as activating pedagogies are receiving a growing interest from educators (Neck & Corbett, 2018; Preedy & Jones, 2017), as they support self-driven and experimental learning behaviors among students (Blaschke, 2012; Hase & Kenyon, 2000). Extracurricular activities, as their name suggest, are mostly initiated by the students, separately from the prescribed curricula (Souitaris et al., 2007). Still, their core purpose is to contribute to a course or a study program learning objectives (Milner et al., 2016; Preedy et al., 2020; Preedy & Jones, 2015, 2017). They can include cultural, employability, or socially oriented activities and tend to develop students’ practical entrepreneurial skills through active experiences (Milner et al., 2016; Pittaway et al., 2011, 2015; Rae et al., 2012).

Contribution to EE

ECAs foment students’ intentions, knowledge, and skills, and equip them with practice-based entrepreneurial competences (ECs) such as communication skills, leadership, teamwork, dealing with uncertainty, and perseverance (Arranz et al., 2017; Pittaway et al., 2015; Pocek et al., 2021; Politis et al., 2019; Preedy et al., 2020). They hence complement classroom-based EE (Lilischkis et al., 2015; Vanevenhoven & Drago, 2015). Moreover, Milner et al. (2016) argue that ECAs could help integrate remote learners with their educational institution, breaking the isolation and neglect spiral. Preedy et al. (2020) consonantly argue for a broader view of ECAs contributions as supportive instruments for personal development, employability, social and community engagement. Thus, echoing the wider definition of EE as an entrepreneurial learning endeavor (Fayolle et al., 2006).

Types of ECA for EE

ECAs feature a broad range of initiatives that occur either within the university or outside of it (Preedy et al., 2020; Souitaris et al., 2007). Arranz et al. (2017) attempted to classify ECAs in EE based on their role into cognitive-emotional (orientation); informative–formative (knowledge and competences); and instrumental support (resources). Although, they did not affix any ECA to those categories.

Additionally, several scholars developed elaborate lists of ECAs, such as startup projects, conferences and seminars, local workspaces and facilities, business simulations and company visits (Arranz et al., 2017). For example, Preedy and Jones (2015) and Preedy et al. (2020) identified several ECAs upon surveying and interviewing entrepreneurship education and support staff in UK universities. These include hackathons, seminars, mentoring sessions, guest speakers, student groups, grants, incubators, startup competitions, working spaces, and entrepreneurs in residence. Rae et al. (2012), reporting on an Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship (ISBE) led survey across UK universities, marked several ECAs including mentoring, awareness campaigns, support programs, legal and technical advice, funding matchmaking, and startup events. Pittaway et al. (2011; 2015) while investigating student-led entrepreneurship clubs and societies, cited entrepreneurship games, study exchange activities, mentoring, clubs and societies, workshops, business idea competitions, and incubators and pre-incubators. Moreover, Decker-Lange et al. (2021) in their world café study, discussed with participants several possible ECAs. The panels suggested advisory services such as coaching and startup clinics, competitions, networking events, exhibitions, and hackathons.

In conclusion, despite the evident scholarly efforts, research investigating ECAs in EE is still in its infancy (Preedy et al., 2020; Preedy & Jones, 2015). There are only a few attempts to categorize them (e.g., Arranz et al., 2017), while most studies either explored ECAs as part of a wider approach to renovate EE (e.g., Arranz et al., 2017; Decker-Lange et al., 2021; Higgins et al., 2013; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Rae et al., 2012), or focused on specific types of ECAs such as student groups (Pittaway et al., 2011, 2015; Preedy & Jones, 2015, 2017), entrepreneurship centers and consulting (Zahra et al., 2011), or venture creation programs (VCPs) (Lackeus & Williams Middleton, 2015; Pocek et al., 2021; Politis et al., 2019). Moreover, the discussions in literature on the theoretical underpinnings of ECAs are limited, and mostly apply an aggregate experiential logic without much attention to other learning conjectures such as social and situated perspectives (Preedy et al., 2020). In addition, studies on ECAs are focused on university-based inputs, with limited attention to ecosystem actors’ views (Lilschkis et al., 2015; Rae et al., 2012; Vanevenhoven & Drago, 2015).

Methodology

Approach

This study investigates what ECAs can be leveraged to improve students and nascent entrepreneurs’ competence. It followed a qualitative approach by conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews, online with 22 entrepreneurship experts (Creswell, 2013). The decision to rely on ecosystem experts’ views is attributable to their specific expertise in ECAs and experiential activities for entrepreneurship (Ahmad et al., 2020; Gibb & Hannon, 2006; Wilson et al., 2009). The interviews were planned as lengthy dialogues to allow participants to reflect on their experiences with entrepreneurs and elaborate on their feedback regarding suitable ECAs, thus improving the quality of the narrative data collected (Sykes, 1990).

Sample

In selecting our sample, we relied on three groups among the external EE stakeholder’s categories developed by Bischoff et al. (2018): financial institutions (FI), support service providers (SSP), and incubators and accelerators (IA). We borrow the definition of an entrepreneurship expert from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor as individuals who have direct involvement in the provision and evaluation of main components of entrepreneurial support mechanisms (GEM, 2023). The members of those groups are considered experts as they are closely supporting startups through mentoring, consulting, and funding on regular basis, through organizations outside HEIs (Amaral & Magalhaes, 2002; Bischoff et al., 2018).

The interviewed experts were accelerator and incubator managers, investment networks directors, venture capitalists, business angels, startup mentors, business consultants, and government support programs officers. They were located/operating in 13 countries across the United States, Latin America, Europe, Middle East, and Asia. As statistical generalizability is difficult to achieve in qualitative studies, we leveraged the diversity of the sample and the elaborate interviews data collected to ensure the validity and potential generalizability of our findings. A breakdown of the interviewed experts by country and role is provided in Table 1. We followed a purposeful sampling approach (Robinson, 2014) in identifying eligible experts who can provide comprehensive information to address the study purpose (Suri, 2011). All the shortlisted experts must have attained a postgraduate business or management degree and have been working closely with entrepreneurs for at least 5 years.

Table 1.

Experts’ Countries and Roles.

Expert	Country	Role
1	Egypt	Mentor
2	Estonia	Investor
3	US	Mentor & investor
4	Croatia	Mentor
5	France	Mentor & investor
6	US	Mentor & investor
7	US	Mentor
8	Estonia	Mentor & investor
9	Estonia	Mentor
10	Spain	Mentor & investor
11	US	Mentor
12	Denmark	Investor
13	US	Mentor
14	US	Mentor
15	Finland	Mentor
16	Egypt	Mentor
17	Portugal	Mentor
18	India	Mentor
19	US	Investor
20	US	Mentor & policymaker
21	UK & Venezuela	Mentor & policymaker
22	Yemen	Mentor

Initially, a list of experts based on author’s networks in the field was prepared (n = 87). Then, eligible experts based on the selection criteria were shortlisted and contacted (n = 36), with an additional eight recommendations received, bringing the total number of eligible experts contacted to (44). However, only half of the contacted experts responded positively to the interview request (n = 22).

Process

In the beginning, four interviews were conducted with different experts to test the question format and extract some good practices. The question settled upon after the initial phase was:

“What ECAs can be used to improve entrepreneurial competences among nascent entrepreneurs/ entrepreneurial students?”

Interviews were held based on experts’ availability. Each interview lasted between 40 min and 2.5 h, as some experts went through specific personal and program experiences to provide context to their answers. We used online conferencing platforms: Microsoft Teams and Zoom, to conduct the interviews as most participants are in a country different from that of the interviewer. This also allowed us to record the interviews, after getting experts consent, and review them as many times as needed during the data analysis process.

Data Analysis

The data collection and analysis were conducted as an iterative process using manual coding. We applied a hybrid approach to thematic analysis through integrating the codes driven from interview data with those deduced from learning theories (Creswell, 2013; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Woiceshyn & Daellenbach, 2018). We first started with open coding, to identify codes. This was followed axial coding to build relationships between codes, as in individual ECAs and their benefits (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), as reported by the experts. We used an excel sheet, with a research assistant analyzing the data separately from the author. The identified ECAs (n = 34) and their benefits were reviewed and discussed several times throughout the analysis process between the author and the research assistant to enhance our understanding, refine the codes, and reach a consensus (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002).

The codes were then grouped into themes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) derived from relevant learning theories. This approach provided us with theoretical guidance that can ensure the viability of our analysis and hence, the soundness of our proposed arguments (Robinson et al., 2016; Yin, 2015). The theming of ECAs by learning theories is demonstrated in Figure 1. In the following sections, the findings are discussed against relevant literature and theoretical concepts.

Figure 1.

A typology of extracurricular activities based on learning theories.

Analysis of the Findings

Through the interviews, experts identified and suggested a total of 34 different ECAs to improve entrepreneurial skills and competences of students. The ECAs were thematically grouped based on the nature of the activity, the intended purposes of engaging in it, and its context (Horsfall et al., 2001; Leininger, 1994) (see Figure 1). The themes were both inductively and deductively derived (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Woiceshyn & Daellenbach, 2018) to reflect pertinent learning theories and concepts in EE literature (Pocek et al., 2021; Politis et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2016), and the codes driven from interview data. The experts’ views on ECAs in the following analysis were elaborated upon and enriched with direct quotes to establish adequate rigor (Rice & Ezzy, 1999), and supported by extant literature to improve its validity.

Cognitive ECAs

Students engage in cognitive ECAs to primarily acquire knowledge related to the entrepreneurial process (Arranz et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2000, 2002). Cognitive approaches are useful to educate masses of students about entrepreneurship in a rather standardised form (Bennett, 2006; Fiet, 2001; Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004), which is essentially what experts recommended them for. ECAs of cognitive nature suggested by experts include workshops, courses, documentaries, books, industry reports and online search.

Workshops and courses that focus on financial knowledge, were regarded as “important means to supply students with needed financial mastery.” They can improve students’ confidence and self-efficacy, and could be pursued through their own universities, another education provider, government agencies, investment providers or online via MOOCs. Moreover, workshops focused on developing communication, presentation, and public speaking skills were deemed advantageous in improving students’ ability to connect with existing and future team members. Watching documentaries, reading reports, books, and articles narrating startup stories, searching and following their news online was also recommended as a starting point to develop creativity, and identify and assess entrepreneurial opportunities by “learning from anecdotes.”

Experiential ECAs

ECAs of experiential nature exposes students to situations that are difficult to reproduce in classrooms (Preedy et al., 2020; Tunstall & Neergaard, 2022). They hence contribute substantially to the learning process and outcomes (Cope & Watts, 2000; Rae & Carswell, 2000). Experiential ECAs recommended by the experts were grouped into either virtual or authentic.

Virtual Experiential ECAs

Simulations expose students to business situations that mirror real life scenarios (Neck & Greene, 2011). In the experts’ views, these can include business simulations and games, virtual stock trading, virtual companies, and accounting/financial SaaS (free/basic tier). Essentially, gamified environments can help with “practicing doing financial forecasts and crunching the numbers for any idea they got.” They allow students to practice the different aspects of running a business including planning, marketing, supply chain management, taxation, investment, and payrolls (Kriz & Auchter, 2016; Newbery et al., 2016). Additionally, students tend to learn how to deal with uncertainty and risk, preparing them for the dynamic startup world.

Simulations are exemplars of experiential learning, where projected selves of participants (avatars) learn by doing in the virtual world (Dawley & Dede, 2014), test their plans and reflect on their decisions and experiences (Hew & Cheung, 2010). They emphasize learning by experiencing rather than consumption where the learner assumes a leadership position and learns from his decisions (De Freitas et al., 2010).

Authentic Experiential ECAs

Setting up a “side hustle” alongside regular education enhances students’ entrepreneurial knowledge and skills and builds their understanding and efficacy for managing a business (Neck & Greene, 2011). Several experts advised students “not wait until everything becomes perfect” and suggested several measures including starting an entrepreneurial project, launching a crowdfunding campaign, developing, and testing a prototype, becoming a social media influencer, or franchising an established business. Students can thus “live the different experiences a real entrepreneur encounters” such as opportunity recognition, team building, strategy, marketing, finance, and legal functions (Busenitz et al., 2003). For example, working as a social media influencer “teaches them everything as they manage their accounts from A to Z, more or less like a business.” Becoming a reseller or franchisee draws parallels with entrepreneurial venturing, as students will take responsibility for managing a project independently (Combs et al., 2011; Ketchen et al., 2011).

Moreover, building and testing a prototype, pushes students beyond their comfort zones. They develop an initiative taking spirit and learn to evaluate the feasibility of their ideas. As one expert said: “students should go out and try to sell a version of their products to people and gather feedback.” Similarly, launching crowdfunding campaigns allows them to practice establishing and marketing projects, as a risk-free opportunity to learn (Hui et al., 2014; Muller et al., 2013), and receive real-market evaluation of their innovative venture ideas (Chemla & Tinn, 2020).

Social ECAs

Social learning emphasizes the role of networks and relationships as indispensable assets for entrepreneurial learning and growth, through providing collaborative learning environments (Clark et al., 2008; Pittaway et al., 2011). Learning from role models for example, plays a role in the formative development of entrepreneurs (Fellnhofer, 2017), while participating in network-based activities, enhances the development of entrepreneurial skills through social interactions (Pittaway et al., 2015).

Several ECAs recommended by the interviewees build on the social learning principles. These are based on either interaction with role models, such as mentoring (guidance) and advice from experts in co-working spaces or through social circles such as student clubs and associations, customer discovery groups, exchange programmes, and events.

Role Models

Mentors possess greater level of entrepreneurial knowledge and expertise that they share with learners upon request (Robinson et al., 2016). They hence advance their ECs and self-efficacy (Fellnhofer, 2017).

Mentorship was the ECA recommended the most by experts, as having positive correlation with entrepreneurial progress (Kuratko et al., 2021; Morris et al., 2015). They perceive it as “invaluable” and “provides most competences and support an entrepreneur need” (Cope & Watts, 2000). Mentors are particularly valuable for advising on the formation and working of entrepreneurial teams and can help draft shareholder agreements and vesting schedules. They can “use their networks to connect cofounders with complimentary skills” and “advise and guide cofounders on how to work effectively together.” Moreover, mentors with industry experience and connections, facilitate access to specific resources and knowledge (Rigg & O’Dwyer, 2012). Similarly, young entrepreneurs can resort to co-working spaces as social support places (Spinuzzi, 2012; Winkler et al., 2018), to seek advice from experts and find team members as they are typically “charged with industry professionals, freelancers, and entrepreneurs.” It is worth noting, however, that the benefit of mentoring depends largely on the founder’s coachability (Kuratko et al., 2021).

Social Circles

Entrepreneurs rely on their social capital in acquiring knowledge and resources relevant to their projects (Holland & Andre, 1987; Rigg & O’Dwyer, 2012), while the social networks available to students through universities have always been a fundamental part of their learning (Buckley & Lee, 2021). Experts recommended several social activities that entrepreneurial students can participate in. These are events, student clubs, associations and debate forums, exchange programmes, volunteering and community work, social media and online forums, and sports teams.

They suggest that going to events and “speaking with people there” can help students find team members with complementary skills and advisors within their niche. They mentioned several types of events such as universities open days, startup events, meetups, industry conferences, and exhibitions. However, experts emphasized that students should “do their homework first” by researching the audience and practicing dialogues, thus improving their self-awareness and efficacy (Pittaway et al., 2011, 2015). Additionally, they emphasized the role of participating in group projects with defined goals through student clubs, associations, and debate forums. These socially oriented ECAs can help them improve their self-esteem, communication, and teamworking skills as they practice presenting themselves and working in dynamic groups. They will also practice persuading and influencing, learn from others’ experiences, and the networks they build will prove invaluable in accessing future resources (Buckley & Lee, 2021; Pittaway et al., 2011).

Several experts highlighted the importance of university exchange programmes in improving students’ cultural awareness and developing a global entrepreneurial mindset (Felicio et al., 2015), allowing them to work among diverse groups, and complementing their entrepreneurial curricula (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Minola et al., 2016). Most experts agreed that students should survey and interview their intended customers to identify their real needs and develop relevant solutions (Eisenmann, 2021), as “building products should be based on solving customers/real world problems.” It is inevitable that they will get negative comments, but this will make them more resilient and perseverant as they will “understand the realities of doing business.”

Volunteering and community work were another ECA suggested to develop students’ ECs (Clarke & Underwood, 2011). In the experts’ opinion, students get to interact with members of their communities and expand their social circles. They also develop some understanding of planning and implementing projects through transacting with their teams (Liszt-Rohlf et al., 2021). Moreover, playing sports was recommended to help improve the resilience and perseverance of entrepreneurial students (Marnoto & Carvalho, 2016), as “they know that today’s effort will pay you back in the future.”

In addition, experts advised students to share their ideas on relevant social media groups and online forums, as these are regarded communities of inquiries (COI) (Garisson et al., 1999), that facilitate knowledge sharing, collaborative idea development, and recruitment of potential team members with similar passion and complementary skills (Dron & Anderson, 2014; Ellison, et al., 2007; Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).

Situated ECAs

Situated learning occurs when entrepreneurs get involved in COP, acquiring specific expertise and resources as they interact and learn from more experienced members, within a contextually defined environment (Cope, 2005; Rae, 2002). We classify situated ECAs recommended by the experts into two subcategories on a temporal scale. Intensive, and these are of a short duration, include hackathons, bootcamps and competitions, while more extensive ones include accelerators, incubators, and internships. Students’ involvement in these ECAs is a valid demonstration of situated entrepreneurial learning as they match startup environments (Gibb, 2002; Pocek et al., 2021).

Intensive Situated ECAs

Hackathons, bootcamps and competitions are intensive forms of situated learning, that have been receiving growing attention in policy and practice (Stolz & Sternberg, 2022; Syzmanska et al., 2020). They typically last a few days only. However, experts argue that they exhibit rich exchanges of knowledge and experiences among participating entrepreneurial actors (Passaro et al., 2017; Russell et al., 2008).

They “usually involve developing a business & financial model for their innovation,” an expert mentioned. Hence, students get to learn essential research, planning, and marketing skills (Schwartz et al., 2013; Tunstall & Neergaard, 2022). They were also regarded as “excellent opportunities to get used to preparing slides and pitching your idea,” improving students’ communication and presentation skills (Stolz & Sternberg, 2022). Students learn how to work together effectively under time constraints, distributing tasks and assuming leadership roles (Lans et al., 2021). They often “bump into others who share a similar enthusiasm,” leading to constructive dialogues. Students tend to develop better self-awareness and efficacy as they witness significant improvements in their planning, communication, and teamworking skills within a few days (Syzmanska et al., 2020). In addition, experts argue that competitions and hackathons act as “creativity beds” through developing problem solving and critical thinking skills, especially when they address specific challenges.

Extensive Situated ECAs

Accelerators and incubators can be viewed as an extended form of hackathons and bootcamps that spread over a few weeks or months. Nascent entrepreneurs get embedded within an entrepreneurial community of practice (Cope, 2005; Rae, 2002) and interact with like-minded people in socially situated learning environment (Kubberod & Pettersen, 2017; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Experts argue that students learn from their peers as well as the mentors and experts that deliver the different workshops and activities (Cope, 2005; Politis et al., 2019; Preedy & Jones, 2015). Here in, they improve their communication, presentation, teamworking, planning and management skills (Politis et al., 2019; Spigel, 2017; Williams Middleton et al., 2020). Moreover, they improve the motivation and perseverance of nascent entrepreneurs as they must “abide by certain milestones and deliverables.”

The potential for transforming ideas into viable businesses is influenced by the industry experience an entrepreneur possesses (Minniti & Bygrave, 2001; Reuber & Fischer, 1999). Hence, interning in an established business or a startup was one of the commonly suggested ECAs by experts to gain experience in a situated environment (Gault et al., 2010; Walmsley et al., 2006). Internships are regarded a form of apprenticeship; a coveted working experience for students (Simons et al., 2012). They provide guided learning experiences and equip entrepreneurial students with a variety of professional skills (Andriany et al., 2022; Ismail, 2018; Lantu et al., 2022). However, to avoid the “secretary” or “office boy” types of internships, experts recommended certain precautions. Internships must have clearly defined roles from the beginning and it is better if students work directly with decision-making executives or startup founders. Also, students “have to write a reflective report about their experience afterwards and what they learnt,” which follows the experiential learning premise.

Existential ECAs

Existential learners develop a deeper understanding of their identities, capabilities, and purposes, while revisiting and updating their convictions and values (DeFillipi, 2001; Marton, 1981). These are precursors to effective entrepreneurial learning and action (Bird, 1992; Cope, 2003; Neck et al., 2014). Learning activities of existential nature, however, are difficult to incorporate in curricular EE due to time and space constraints (Neck & Greene, 2011). Thus, it was recommended by experts to practice several ECAs that promote existential thinking and learning, outside classroom environments. These include reflective practices, opportunity walk, self-assessment tests, and participating in artistic activities.

Several experts recommended reflection to improve students’ understanding of themselves, their capabilities, and limitations (Brockbank & McGill, 2007). This was suggested whenever they conclude an activity or a task, to extract lessons from the experience they went through and improve their knowledge and skills (Neck & Corbett, 2018). Experts also argue that students should contemplate on the artefacts and events in their close environments through opportunity walks (Neck et al., 2014; Neck & Greene, 2011), that is, “try to observe simple problems at your household or neighborhood.” This will train them on identifying the root causes of problems and opportunities to design creative solutions, which are essential entrepreneurial capabilities. Experts also recommend self-assessment tests such as personality and ECs, to improve students’ self-awareness. This is especially relevant given the elusive nature of what makes an entrepreneur (Caird, 1993).

Participating in art activities, such as acting and theatre classes, were one of the few ECAs that experts recommended to improve students’ creative abilities that traditional EE pedagogies fail to address (Neck & Greene, 2011). Students “create character profiles and expand their horizons of real-life scenarios.” They go through the fictional scenarios in an experiential cycle of observing, practicing, reflecting, and learning (Heikkinen, 2002; Passila et al., 2012), which improves their self-awareness and efficacy.

In summation, the elaboration on the 34 ECAs that the experts recommended provide needed empirical insights on the benefits of ECAs towards developing entrepreneurial capabilities. Several learning theories and concepts were deduced and accordingly, the ECAs were organized against them through corroboration with extant literature. The preceding analysis of the interviews and dialogical exchanges with literature, thus provides a fecund ground for discussions on the theoretical alignments and benefits of ECAs within an EE context.

Discussion

ECAs have been receiving a growing interest from entrepreneurship educators (Neck & Corbett, 2018; Preedy & Jones, 2017), as they tend to improve the practical skills through active experiences (Milner et al., 2016; Pittaway et al., 2011, 2015; Rae et al., 2012). They promote independent knowledge and skills pursuit and development among entrepreneurial learners through embedding them in engaging and flexible socially situated experiences. ECAs thus play a complementary role to EE courses (Lilischkis et al., 2015; Vanevenhoven & Drago, 2015). This heutagogical orientation of ECAs is valuable in preparing students for the dynamic and experiential nature of entrepreneurship (Jones et al., 2015; Neck & Corbett, 2018). While consequently, ECAs are often explained through an experiential learning lens (Padilla-Angulo, 2019; Preedy et al., 2020), this study expanded the discussion on the theoretical interconnectedness of ECAs to additional conceptions, including social, situated, cognitive, and existential learning.

Throughout the analysis in the preceding section, it became more evident that entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning are essentially socially situated phenomena, that are predominantly experiential in nature (Politis et al., 2019; Rae, 2007; Robinson et al., 2016). ECAs can provide enhanced opportunities for ‘learning by doing.’ Thus, updating the entrepreneur’s knowledge, skills, and mindset through new experiences (Duval-Couetil et al., 2016; Pittaway et al., 2011). ECAs are also inclusive of the social and situated aspects through knowledge and skills sharing among networks of participants that are influenced and shaped by the context of their occurrence (Cope, 2005; Howorth et al., 2012; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Pittaways et al., 2015), which provide supportive environment for learning from and through others.

Moreover, the learning outcomes of these activities are augmented by existential reflective practices (DeFillipi, 2001; Gerstein, 2014). Existential ECAs hence exhibit a transformative role that transcends ECs development to upgrade learners’ identities, beliefs, and values (Frick, 1987; Mezirow, 2003). However, a transmissive approach of knowledge was still recommended by the experts, in line with extant literature (e.g., Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004), especially with regards to equipping students with basic financial and entrepreneurial knowledge through courses and workshops.

The conjoint nature of learning theories was exhibited across the recommended ECAs, when compared with literature. The dominance of one of them over others is thus situational and relies on the intended learning outcomes and the micro activities the learner participates in within in a specific ECA. For example, mentoring, a predominantly social learning phenomena where knowledge is shared between the mentor and the mentee, can also be framed as a situated learning mode when the entrepreneur steps into a mentoring network (Rigg & O’Dwyer, 2012) or mentorship is provided as part of an accelerator (Kuratko et al., 2021). Student clubs can also be seen as an experiential learning environment when learning occurs chiefly by working on projects (Clark et al., 2008). Also, traditional classes and workshops that are positioned as cognitive means for instilling theoretical knowledge among entrepreneurial learners (Arranz et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2000, 2002), can exhibit social learning experiences when they focus on developing communication and public speaking skills through practical exercises.

Research Contribution

The paper contributes to literature mainly through providing a basic understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of different ECAs for EE, as one of the few papers that focuses on this as its primary contribution (see also Pittaway et al., 2011; Poceck et al., 2021; Politis et al., 2019). By discussing and establishing relationships with different learning concepts, it demonstrates the versatility and richness of entrepreneurial learning approaches, more specifically ECAs, and provides much-needed rigor to the discussion on the theoretical origins of ECAs (Arranz et al., 2017; Preedy et al., 2020; Preedy & Jones, 2015). It also adds additional support to the broader EE pedagogies theoretical conceptualizations, when drawing parallels with this study, as called for by several scholars (Fayolle, 2018; Fayolle et al., 2016; Neck & Corbett, 2018). It can thus aid educators and researchers in understanding what could work and why (Robinson et al., 2016).

By providing an elaborate list of ECAs and outlining the value each can bring to ECs development (Morris et al., 2013), it enriches the growing stream of research on practice-based EE and its value in engaging students and equipping them with entrepreneurial skills (Galvao et al., 2018; Williams Middleton et al., 2019; Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2021). The study also opens the door for theory-based evaluations (Birckmayer & Weiss, 2000) to study the effectiveness of EE approaches and programs, by comparing the expected patterns of learning deduced from theories, against the nature and outcomes of the different ECAs. Theory-based approaches could prove beneficial in assessing the outcomes of an elusive and multidisciplinary educational field, such as entrepreneurship (Duval-Couetil, 2013; Pittaway & Edwards, 2012; Smith, 2015), and provide an alternative route to the prevailing economic (Nabi et al., 2017) and competency based (Morris et al., 2013) evaluations.

In addition, by relying on entrepreneurship ecosystem experts’ views, it supports their incorporation in the EE process as an important step to improving its outcomes (Isenberg, 2010; Kuratko, 2005; Lilischkis et al., 2015). This is especially relevant as existing ECAs studies, as to the wider EE literature, tend to focus on HEIs actors’ views (Bischoff et al., 2018; Rae et al., 2012; Lilschkis et al., 2015).

Practical Contribution

By leveraging the findings of this study and given the complementary nature of ECAs to curricular EE (Lilischkis et al., 2015; Vanevenhoven & Drago, 2015), educators can signpost their students to participate in different activities based on their competence profile to improve their attainment of ECs. This can further promote a student-centered approach to learning (Hase & Kenyon, 2000; Jones et al., 2019), which enhances entrepreneurial students’ engagement and drive better outcomes (Robinson et al., 2016).

For example, students with limited financial literacy, can benefit from blending cognitive (workshops and course) and experiential (simulations and games) approaches that were recommended by the ecosystem experts, to improve their financial knowledge and practical skills. Moreover, to those students having communication problems and/or lower self-confidence, several ECAs such as mentoring and participating in events and student groups, which are predominantly social in nature, can prove remedial. To cover for the experience gap among students, experts recommended activities such as interning, entrepreneurial projects, and community work. Moreover, to resolve the problem of idea-driven entrepreneurship, experts suggest that students engage in customer discovery, reflective practices, discuss ideas openly with others and online, and prototype their solutions to better identify real societal needs and build meaningful solutions.

Limitations and Future Research

The study relied on the entrepreneurship ecosystem experts’ views. While we critique previous literature for focusing solely on HEIs perspectives (Lilschkis et al., 2015; Rae et al., 2012; Vanevenhoven & Drago, 2015), a similar sampling limitation is true for this study. This can be avoided in future research by adopting a multidisciplinary sample featuring entrepreneurship educators and researchers together with ecosystem experts as in the world café study of Decker-Lange et al. (2021). It would be interesting to compare the views of the different groups as well, with regards to their recommended pedagogical approaches (ECAs). Moreover, the experts included in the study, although representing broad geographical backgrounds and diverse entrepreneurial expertise, were based on three groups among Bischoff et al. (2018) mapping of EE ecosystem. Future studies might want to expand its selection to include members of other groups.

The study is one of a few attempts to profile ECAs based on a learning conceptualization. We hence join several scholars’ calls for more discursive research of the theoretical backgrounds of ECAs (Arranz et al., 2017; Preedy et al., 2020) and EE methods in general (Fayolle et al., 2016; Neck & Corbett, 2018). Moreover, as the discussion of the theoretical grounds of ECAs in this study is based on our interpretation of extant literature, which might involve potential subjective bias (Horsfall et al., 2001; Leininger, 1994), we recommend that researchers adopt a more grounded approach in follow-up studies, to garner the perspectives of a broad base of experienced scholars. This can be achieved through applying a Delphi method, e.g., which was used effectively in studies of comparable purposes (e.g., Neck & Corbett, 2018; van Gelderen et al., 2021).

Conclusion

The paper discusses and proposes a typology of ECAs for entrepreneurship education, building on relevant learning theories and concepts, and comments on their benefits towards the development of entrepreneurial competences, based on interviews conducted with entrepreneurship ecosystem experts. It can help improve our understanding of the nature and value of these activities and provide rigor to the discussion on the theoretical origins of ECAs and similarly, the broader entrepreneurship pedagogies. The findings of this study can also help entrepreneurship educators, inside and outside HEI, better incorporate ECAs in their pedagogies and recommend them to their students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Basel Hammoda

References

Adisel

Andriany

Suryati

Putra

P. H. R.

(2022). Implementing entrepreneurship education in extracurricular activity (ECA) for students. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 10(4), 955–970. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.2621

Ahmed

Chandran

V. G. R.

Klobas

J. E.

Liñán

Kokkalis

(2020). Entrepreneurship education programmes: How learning, inspiration and resources affect intentions for new venture creation in a developing economy. International Journal of Management in Education, 18(1), 100327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100327

Altbach

P. G.

Knight

(2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542

Amaral

Magalhaes

(2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 1–21).

Arranz

Ubierna

Arroyabe

M. F.

Perez

Fdezde Arroyabe

J. C.

(2017). The effect of curricular and extracurricular activities on university students’ entrepreneurial intention and competences. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 1979–2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130030

Bacigalupo

Kampylis

Punie

Van den Brande

(2016) EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Publication Office of the European Union.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura

Walters

R. H.

(1963). Social learning and personality development.

Beaumont

Preedy

Smith

Walmsley

(2022). Special issue on Extracurricular enterprise and entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy.

10.

Bennett

(2006). Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 12(3), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550610667440

11.

Birckmayer

J. D.

Weiss

C. H.

(2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice: What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X0002400404

12.

Bird

B. J.

(1992). The operation of intentions in time: The emergence of the new venture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879201700102

13.

Bischoff

Volkmann

C. K.

Audretsch

D. B.

(2018). Stakeholder collaboration in entrepreneurship education: An analysis of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of European higher educational institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9581-0

14.

Blaschke

L. M.

(2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1076

15.

Blaschke

L. M.

Hase

(2014). Heutagogy, technology, and lifelong learning for professional and part-time learners. Transformative perspectives and processes in higher education (pp. 75–94). Springer International Publishing.

16.

Blenker

Frederiksen

S. H.

Korsgaard

Müller

Neergaard

Thrane

(2012). Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: Towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education. Industry and Higher Education, 26(6), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2012.0126

17.

Brockbank

McGill

(2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. McGraw-Hill Education.

18.

Brush

C. G.

(2014). Exploring the concept of an entrepreneurship education ecosystem. In Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century (Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, Vol. 24) (pp. 25–39). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

19.

Buckley

Lee

(2021). The impact of extra-curricular activity on the student experience. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418808988

20.

Busenitz

L. W.

West

G. P.

III Shepherd

Nelson

Chandler

G. N.

Zacharakis

(2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of management, 29(3), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063_03_00013-8

21.

Caird

S. P.

(1993). What do psychological tests suggest about entrepreneurs? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 8(6), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949310047428

22.

Chemla

Tinn

(2020). Learning through crowdfunding. Management Science, 66(5), 1783–1801. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3278

23.

Clark

Dawes

Heywood

McLaughlin

(2008). Students as transferors of knowledge: The problem of measuring success. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 26(6), 735–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242608096091

24.

Clarke

Underwood

(2011). Learning based on ‘entrepreneurial volunteering’ using enterprise education to explore social responsibility. Industry and Higher Education, 25(6), 461–467. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2011.0068

25.

Combs

J. G.

Ketchen

D. J.

Jr. Short

J. C.

(2011). Franchising research: Major milestones, new directions, and its future within entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(3), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00443.x

26.

Cope

(2003). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: Discontinuous events as triggers for ‘higher-level’learning. Management Learning, 34(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507603039067

27.

Cope

(2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(4), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x

28.

Cope

(2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.06.002

29.

Cope

Watts

(2000). Learning by doing–an exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(3), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550010346208

30.

Corbett

A. C.

(2005). Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00094.x

31.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study.

32.

Dawley

Dede

(2014). Situated learning in virtual worlds and immersive simulations. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_58

33.

Decker-Lange

Lange

Dhaliwal

Walmsley

(2021). Exploring entrepreneurship education effectiveness at British universities–an application of the World Café method. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 5(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420935391

34.

DeFillippi

R. J.

(2001). Introduction: Project-based learning, reflective practices and learning. Management Learning, 32(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507601321001

35.

De Freitas

Rebolledo-Mendez

Liarokapis

Magoulas

Poulovassilis

(2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x

36.

Dron

Anderson

(2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Athabasca University Press.

37.

Duval-Couetil

(2013). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programs: Challenges and approaches. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12024

38.

Duval-Couetil

Shartrand

Reed

(2016). The role of entrepreneurship program models and experiential activities on engineering student outcomes. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(1), n1.

39.

Eisenmann

(2021). Why startups fail: A new roadmap for entrepreneurial success. Currency.

40.

El-Awad

Gabrielsson

Politis

(2017). Entrepreneurial learning and innovation: The critical role of team-level learning for the evolution of innovation capabilities in technology-based ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(3), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-06-2016-0177

41.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

42.

Fayolle

(2018). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. A research agenda for entrepreneurship education (pp. 127–138). Edward Elgar Publishing.

43.

Fayolle

Gailly

(2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), 569–593. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810899838

44.

Fayolle

Gailly

Lassas-Clerc

(2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), 701–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590610715022

45.

Fayolle

Verzat

Wapshott

(2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(7), 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616649250

46.

Fellnhofer

(2017). Entrepreneurship education revisited: Perceived entrepreneurial role models increase perceived behavioural control. International Journal of Learning and Change, 9(3), 260–283. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLC.2017.086856

47.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

48.

Felicio

J. A.

Caldeirinha

V. R.

Ribeiro-Navarrete

(2015). Corporate and individual global mind-set and internationalization of European SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 797–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.031

49.

Fiet

J. O.

(2001). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00041-5

50.

Fox

(1997). Situated learning theory versus traditional cognitive learning theory: Why management education should not ignore management learning. Systems Practice, 10(6), 727–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02557922

51.

Freire

(2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury publishing.

52.

Frick

W. B.

(1987). The symbolic growth experience: Paradigm for a humanistic-existential learning theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 27(4), 406–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167887274003

53.

Galvao

Ferreira

J. J.

Marques

(2018). Entrepreneurship education and training as facilitators of regional development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-05-2017-0178

54.

Galvao

Marques

Ferreira

J. J.

(2020). The role of entrepreneurship education and training programmes in advancing entrepreneurial skills and new ventures. European Journal of Training and Development, 44(6/7), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-10-2019-0174

55.

Garrison

D. R.

Anderson

Archer

(1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6

56.

Garrison

D. R.

Arbaugh

J. B.

(2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and higher education, 10(3), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001

57.

Gault

Leach

Duey

(2010). Effects of business internships on job marketability: The employers’ perspective. Education + Training, 52(1), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011017690

58.

Gedye

Beaumont

(2018). “The ability to get a job”: Student understandings and definitions of employability. Education + Training, 60(5), 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-10-2017-0159

59.

GEM (2023). Global entrepreneurship Monitor 2022/2023 global report: Adapting to a “new Normal”. GEM.

60.

Gerstein

(2014). Moving from education 1.0 through education 2.0 towards education 3 (0).

61.

Gherardi

Nicolini

Odella

(1998). Toward a social understanding of how people learn in organizations: The notion of situated curriculum. Management Learning, 29(3), 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507698293002

62.

Gibb

(2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’and ‘entrepreneurship’paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 233–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00086

63.

Gibb

Hannon

(2006). Towards the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4(1), 73–110.

64.

Gibb

A. A.

(1993). Enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/026624269301100301

65.

Hagg

Gabrielsson

(2020). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 829–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-04-2018-0272

66.

Hagg

Kurczewska

(2021). Toward a learning philosophy based on experience in entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 4(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419840607

67.

Hanks

W. F.

(1991). Foreword by William F. Hanks. In Lave

Wenger

(Eds), Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (pp. 13–24). Cambridge University Press.

68.

Hase

Kenyon

(2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. UltiBASE in-Site.

69.

Hase

Kenyon

(2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8766

70.

Hase

Kenyon

(Eds), (2013). Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action. A&C Black.

71.

Heikkinen

H. L.

(2002). Whatever is narrative research. Narrative research: Voices from teachers and philosophers (pp. 13–25).

72.

Hew

K. F.

Cheung

W. S.

(2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x

73.

Higgins

Smith

Mirza

(2013). Entrepreneurial education: Reflexive approaches to entrepreneurial learning in practice. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355713490619

74.

Holland

Andre

(1987). Participation in extracurricular activities in secondary school: What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 437–466. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170431

75.

Horsfall

Byrne-Armstrong

Higgs

(2001). Researching critical moments. In ByrneArmstrong

Higgs

Horsfall

(Eds), Critical moments in qualitative research (pp. 3–16). Butterworth Heinemann.

76.

Howorth

Smith

S. M.

Parkinson

(2012). Social learning and social entrepreneurship education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0022

77.

Hui

J. S.

Greenberg

M. D.

Gerber

E. M.

(2014). Understanding the role of community in crowdfunding work. Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 62–74).

78.

Hytti

(2018). Epilogue: Critical entrepreneurship education: A form of resistance to McEducation? Revitalizing entrepreneurship education (pp. 228–234). Routledge.

79.

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.

80.

Isenberg

D. J.

(2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.

81.

Ismail

(2018). Benefits of internships for interns and host organisations.

82.

Jones

(2019). A signature pedagogy for entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-03-2018-0080

83.

Jones

Matlay

(2011). Understanding the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education: Going beyond Gartner. Education + Training, 53(8/9), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911111185026

84.

Jones

Penaluna

(2019). The promise of andragogy, heutagogy and academagogy to enterprise and entrepreneurship education pedagogy. Education+ Training, 61(9), 1170–1186.

85.

Jones

Forbes-Simpson

Maas

Newbery

(2015). Beta: An experiment in funded undergraduate start-up. Industry and Higher Education, 29(5), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2015.0271

86.

Jones

Pickernell

Fisher

Netana

(2017). A tale of two universities: Graduates perceived value of entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 59(7), 689–705.

87.

Ketchen

D. J.

Jr. Short

J. C.

Combs

J. G.

(2011). Is franchising entrepreneurship? Yes, no, and maybe so. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(3), 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00442.x

88.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

89.

Kriz

W. C.

Auchter

(2016). 10 years of evaluation research into gaming simulation for German entrepreneurship and a new study on its long-term effects. Simulation & Gaming, 47(2), 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878116633972

90.

Kubberod

Pettersen

I. B.

(2017). Exploring situated ambiguity in students’ entrepreneurial learning. Education + Training, 59(3), 265–269.

91.

Kuratko

D. F.

(2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(5), 577–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x

92.

Kuratko

D. F.

Morris

M. H.

(2018). Examining the future trajectory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12364

93.

Kuratko

D. F.

Neubert

Marvel

M. R.

(2021). Insights on the mentorship and coachability of entrepreneurs. Business Horizons, 64(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.11.001

94.

Lackeus

(2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. European Commission.

95.

Lackeus

Williams Middleton

(2015). Venture creation programs: Bridging entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Education + Training, 57(1), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-02-2013-0013

96.

Landstrom

Benner

(2010). Entrepreneurship research: A history of scholarly migration. Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research. Edward Elgar Publishing.

97.

Lans

Biemans

Verstegen

Mulder

(2008). The influence of the work environment on entrepreneurial learning of small-business owners. Management Learning, 39(5), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608098117

98.

Lans

Lubberink

Ploum

Ammann

Gondwe

(2021). Entrepreneurial learning at the boundary: How to learn from a local cheese maker. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 4(3), 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420925015

99.

Lantu

D. C.

Suharto

Fachira

Permatasari

Anggadwita

(2022). Experiential learning model: Improving entrepreneurial values through internship program at start-ups. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning, 12(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/heswbl-01-2021-0014

100.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

101.

Leininger

(1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In Morse

(Ed), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 95–115). Sage.

102.

Lilischkis

Volkmann

Gruenhagen

Bischoff

Halbfas

(2015). Supporting the entrepreneurial potential of higher education. European Union.

103.

Linan

(2008). Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(3), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-008-0093-0

104.

Liszt-Rohlf

Fields

Gerholz

K. H.

Seco

Haury

(2021). The benefits of volunteering, volunteers’ competencies, and their integration into business education. International Journal for Business Education, 161(1), 5.

105.

Marnoto

Carvalho

(2016). Developing entrepreneurship skills in children and teenagers. Education for Entrepreneurship: International Journal of Education for Entrepreneurship, 6, 67–78.

106.

Marton

(1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00132516

107.

Mathias

B. D.

Williams

D. W.

Smith

A. R.

(2015). Entrepreneurial inception: The role of imprinting in entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.004

108.

Matlay

(2009). Entrepreneurship education in the UK: A critical analysis of stakeholder involvement and expectations. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(2), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000910956100

109.

Mezirow

(2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172

110.

Milner

Cousins

McGowan

(2016). Does all work and No play make a dull graduate? Perceptions of extra-curricular activities and employability. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v4i1.183

111.

Minniti

Bygrave

(2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 25(3), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870102500301

112.

Minola

Donina

Meoli

(2016). Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder: Does university internationalization pay off? Small Business Economics, 47(3), 565–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9758-1

113.

Mitchell

R. K.

Busenitz

Lant

McDougall

P. P.

Morse

E. A.

Smith

J. B.

(2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 27(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00001

114.

Mitchell

R. K.

Smith

Seawright

K. W.

Morse

E. A.

(2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 974–993. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556422

115.

Morris

M. H.

Neumeyer

Kuratko

D. F.

(2015). A portfolio perspective on entrepreneurship and economic development. Small Business Economics, 45(4), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9678-5

116.

Morris

M. H.

Shirokova

Tsukanova

(2017). Student entrepreneurship and the university ecosystem: A multi-country empirical exploration. European J. of International Management, 11(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1504/ejim.2017.081251

117.

Morris

M. H.

Webb

J. W.

Singhal

(2013). A competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12023

118.

Muller

Geyer

Soule

Daniels

Cheng

L. T.

(2013). Crowdfunding inside the enterprise: Employee-initiatives for innovation and collaboration. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 503–512).

119.

Nabi

Liñán

Fayolle

Krueger

Walmsley

(2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026

120.

Neck

H. M.

Corbett

A. C.

(2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286

121.

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

122.

Neck

H. M.

Greene

P. G.

Brush

C. G.

(Eds), (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Edward Elgar Publishing.

123.

Newbery

Lean

Moizer

(2016). Evaluating the impact of serious games: The effect of gaming on entrepreneurial intent. Information Technology & People, 29(4), 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-05-2015-0111

124.

Padilla-Angulo

(2019). Student associations and entrepreneurial intentions. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1336215

125.

Passaro

Quinto

Thomas

(2017). Start-up competitions as learning environment to foster the entrepreneurial process. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(3), 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-01-2016-0007

126.

Passila

Oikarinen

Vince

(2012). The role of reflection, reflection on roles: Practice-based innovation through theatre-based learning. Practice-based innovation: Insights, applications and policy implications: Understanding practice-based innovation and its policy implications (pp. 173–191).

127.

Pittaway

Brush

Corbett

A. C.

Tantawy

M. M.

(2023). Doctoral programs in entrepreneurship: Building cognitive apprenticeships. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy.

128.

Pittaway

Cope

(2007). Simulating entrepreneurial learning: Integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management Learning, 38(2), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607075776

129.

Pittaway

Edwards

(2012). Assessment: Examining practice in entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 54(8), 778–800. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211274882

130.

Pittaway

Rodriguez-Falcon

Aiyegbayo

King

(2011). The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 29(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610369876

131.

Pittaway

L. A.

Gazzard

Shore

Williamson

(2015). Student clubs: Experiences in entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(3–4), 127–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2015.1014865

132.

Pocek

Politis

Gabrielsson

(2021). Entrepreneurial learning in extra-curricular start-up programs for students. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(2), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-04-2020-0206

133.

Politis

(2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(4), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x

134.

Politis

Gabrielsson

Galan

Abebe

S. A.

(2019). Entrepreneurial learning in venture acceleration programs. The Learning Organization.

135.

Preedy

Jones

(2015). An investigation into university extra-curricular enterprise support provision. Education + Training, 57(8/9), 992–1008. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-04-2015-0025

136.

Preedy

Jones

(2017). Student-led enterprise groups and entrepreneurial learning: A UK perspective. Industry and Higher Education, 31(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216689349

137.

Preedy

Jones

Maas

Duckett

(2020). Examining the perceived value of extracurricular enterprise activities in relation to entrepreneurial learning processes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(7), 1085–1105. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-12-2019-0408

138.

QAA (2018). Enterprise and entrepreneurship: Guidance for UK higher education providers. www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Enterprise-and-entrpreneurship-education-2018.pdf

139.

Rae

(2002). A narrative study of entrepreneurial learning in independently owned media businesses. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000002101299042

140.

Rae

(2007). Connecting enterprise and graduate employability: Challenges to the higher education culture and curriculum? Education + Training, 49(8/9), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910710834049

141.

Rae

Carswell

(2000). Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial learning: The development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences. Education + Training, 42(4/5), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910010373660

142.

Rae

Martin

Antcliff

Hannon

(2012). Enterprise and entrepreneurship in English higher education: 2010 and beyond. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(3), 380–401. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001211250090

143.

Reuber

A. R.

Fischer

(1999). Understanding the consequences of founders’ experience. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(2), 30.

144.

Rice

P. L.

Ezzy

(1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus.

145.

Rigg

O’Dwyer

(2012). Becoming an entrepreneur: Researching the role of mentors in identity construction. Education + Training, 54(4), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211236181

146.

Ritchie

Spencer

(2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 187–208). Routledge.

147.

Robinson

O. C.

(2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543

148.

Robinson

Neergaard

Tanggaard

Krueger

N. F.

(2016). New horizons in entrepreneurship education: From teacher-led to student-centered learning. Education + Training, 58(7/8), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-03-2016-0048

149.

Russell

Atchison

Brooks

(2008). Business plan competitions in tertiary institutions: Encouraging entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800801938739

150.

Schwartz

Goethner

Michelsen

Waldmann

(2013). Start-up competitions as an instrument of entrepreneurship policy: The German experience. European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1578–1597. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722960

151.

Shirokova

Osiyevskyy

Morris

M. H.

Bogatyreva

(2017). Expertise, university infrastructure and approaches to new venture creation: Assessing students who start businesses. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(9–10), 912–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1376516

152.

Simons

Fehr

Blank

Connell

Georganas

Fernandez

Peterson

(2012). Lessons learned from experiential learning: What do students learn from a practicum/internship? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 325–334.

153.

Smith

(2015). Measuring the impact of enterprise education and entrepreneurship support in higher education: Can routinely collected data be of use? Industry and Higher Education, 29(6), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2015.0283

154.

Souitaris

Zerbinati

Al-Laham

(2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 566–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002

155.

Spigel

(2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167

156.

Spinuzzi

(2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070

157.

Stolz

Sternberg

(2022). Do the winners really take it all? Exploring entrepreneurial learning in start-up competitions. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 5(4), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/25151274211068191

158.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

159.

Suri

(2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj1102063

160.

Sykes

(1990). Validity and reliability in qualitative market research: A review of the literature. Journal of the Market Research Society, 32(3), 289–328.

161.

Szymanska

Sesti

Motley

Puia

(2020). The effects of hackathons on the entrepreneurial skillset and perceived self-efficacy as factors shaping entrepreneurial intentions. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10030073

162.

Toutain

Fayolle

Pittaway

Politis

(2017). Role and impact of the environment on entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(9–10), 869–888. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1376517

163.

Tunstall

Neergaard

(2022). Flashmob: A heutagogical tool for social learning in entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 5(3), 472–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/25151274211017547

164.

Vanevenhoven

Drago

W. A.

(2015). The structure and scope of entrepreneurship programs in higher education around the world. Entrepreneurial learning (pp. 117–133). Routledge.

165.

van Gelderen

Wiklund

McMullen

J. S.

(2021). Entrepreneurship in the future: A Delphi study of etp and JBV editorial board members. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 1239–1275. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211010503

166.

Walmsley

Thomas

Jameson

(2006). Surprise and sense making: Undergraduate placement experiences in SMEs. Education + Training, 48(5), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610677063

167.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 2–3.

168.

Wenger

(2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.

169.

Wenger

E. C.

(1990). Toward a theory of cultural transparency: Elements of a social discourse of the visible and the invisible. University of California.

170.

Wenninger

(2019). Student assessment of venture creation courses in entrepreneurship higher education—an interdisciplinary literature review and practical case analysis. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2(1), 58–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127418816277

171.

Williams Middleton

Padilla-Melendez

Lockett

Quesada-Pallarès

Jack

(2020). The university as an entrepreneurial learning space: The role of socialized learning in developing entrepreneurial competence. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 887–909. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-04-2018-0263

172.

Wilson

K. E.

Vyakarnam

Volkmann

Mariotti

Rabuzzi

(2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century. World economic forum: A report of the global education initiative.

173.

Winkler

Saltzman

Yang

(2018). Improvement of practice in entrepreneurship education through action research: The case of coworking at a nonresidential college. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127418773410

174.

Woiceshyn

Daellenbach

(2018). Evaluating inductive vs deductive research in management studies: Implications for authors, editors, and reviewers. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 13(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-06-2017-1538

175.

Wraae

Thomsen

(2019). Introducing a new framework for understanding learning in an entrepreneurship education ecosystem. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 19(2), 170–184.

176.

Duval-Couetil

(2021). Interdisciplinary entrepreneurship education: Exploring 10-year trends in student enrollment, interest and motivation. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 4(2), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420979195

177.

Yin

R. K.

(2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford publications.

178.

Zahra

S. A.

Newey

L. R.

Shaver

J. M.

(2011). Academic advisory boards’ contributions to education and learning: Lessons from entrepreneurship centers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.10.1.zqr113