European Journal of Engineering Education

ISSN: 0304-3797 (Print) 1469-5898 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

About, for, in or through entrepreneurship in

engineering education
Soili Mkimurto-Koivumaa & Pekka Belt
To cite this article: Soili Mkimurto-Koivumaa & Pekka Belt (2015): About, for, in or through
entrepreneurship in engineering education, European Journal of Engineering Education, DOI:
10.1080/03043797.2015.1095163
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1095163

Published online: 23 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceee20
Download by: [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto]

Date: 28 October 2015, At: 23:14

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1095163

About, for, in or through entrepreneurship in engineering

education
Soili Mkimurto-Koivumaaa and Pekka Beltb
Lapland University of Applied Sciences, Rovaniemi, Finland; bUniversity of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

Engineering competences form a potential basis for entrepreneurship.

There are pressures to nd new approaches to entrepreneurship
education (EE) in engineering education, as the traditional analytical
logic of engineering does not match the modern view of
entrepreneurship. Since the previous models do not give tangible
enough tools on how to organise EE in practice, this article aims to
develop a new framework for EE at the university level. We approach
this aim by analysing existing scientic literature complemented by
long-term practical observations, enabling a fruitful interplay between
theory and practice. The developed framework recommends aspects in
EE to be emphasised during each year of the study process. Actionbased learning methods are highlighted in the beginning of studies to
support students personal growth. Explicit business knowledge is to be
gradually increased only when professional, eld-specic knowledge has
been adequately accumulated.

Received 2 April 2015

Accepted 19 August 2015
Keywords

Engineering education;
entrepreneurship education;
entrepreneurial mindset;
entrepreneurial behaviour

1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship is globally considered to be an important source for economic development and
prosperity (e.g. Schumpeter 1989; Fayolle and Gailly 2008). Engineering science and technology
development have had a central role in enhancing economies (Romer 1990; Jones 2002), and it
can be assumed that the same inuence continues in the future. An entrepreneurial mindset is therefore important for engineering graduates (Commission of the European Communities 2006).
When setting objectives for engineering education to meet the requirements of modern workinglife, there is a tension between two conicting needs: increased technical knowledge and broad
general competences (de Graaff and Ravesteijn 2001). The CDIO (conceive, design, implement and
operate) framework was developed to address these outcome-based requirements for engineering
education by aiming to dene the skills and competences for graduating engineers (Crawley et al.
2007, 2011). Another way to approach this challenge is to view it from the teaching method perspective, specically by applying problem- and project-based methods to engineering education (de
Graaff and Kolmos 2003; Edstrm and Kolmos 2014).
In traditional engineering education, theoretical understanding is required prior to practical experimentation. As a consequence, one has to have engineering competences before one can be creative
and innovative (MacLeod 2009). However, entrepreneurship in the modern turbulent world often
means simultaneously creating and learning new knowledge; therefore, traditional analytic and systematic approaches may not be adequate (Engestrm 2001; Sarasvathy 2001). Thus, it is interesting to
discuss how to promote entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours within engineering education. In
CONTACT Soili Mkimurto-Koivumaa Email:
2015 SEFI

soili.makimurto@lapinamk.

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

addition, engineering graduates need to be able to collaborate and work in teams, utilise creativity
and have adequate self-condence (Gibb 2005). Entrepreneurship is not only a question of cognitive
information processing, but also a question of emotions, feelings and motivations, which should be
acknowledged in entrepreneurship education (EE) (Ruohotie and Koiranen 2000; Kyr 2008).
Traditionally, entrepreneurship literature has emphasised the individual and behavioural attributes (Venkataraman 1997) that are difcult to be taught (Henry, Hill, and Leitch 2005). More
recent literature highlights entrepreneurship as an episodic and situational phenomenon and
argues that entrepreneurship should be seen as a process (Shane and Venkataraman 2000),
leaving more room for education. Earlier, some researchers dened entrepreneurship as alert
people discovering existing opportunities (e.g. Kirzner 1978). Today, entrepreneurship is more commonly explained through the opportunity creation theory (Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray 2003; Alvarez
and Barney 2007). The creation theory may better t todays continuously changing and turbulent
operational environment, where entrepreneurship is seen to require active and creative individuals
that are able to exibly utilise their available means (Sarasvathy 2001).
The general challenge for EE is how to support opportunity creation and the development of the
entrepreneurial mindset instead of simply delivering explicit knowledge of entrepreneurship (Rae
2000, 2010). According to Hjorth and Johannisson (2007), the focus of EE should be in developing
an ability to see life as a creation process.
Research on EE has concentrated on understanding entrepreneurial intentions and the impact of
EE (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007; Hytti et al. 2010; Oosterbeek, van Praag, and Ijsselstein
2010; Seikkula-Leino et al. 2010; Snchez 2013). Some research has analysed the contents and structures of separate EE programmes (e.g. Hytti and OGorman 2004) or developing different approaches
for actualising EE (Rae 2000; Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006). The focus of past research has been
either on business students or on secondary level education (e.g. Seikkula-Leino et al. 2010; Johansen
and Schanke 2013). Scientic literature seems to lack descriptions on how to integrate EE into nonbusiness school curricula and therefore higher education institutions (HEIs) have difculties in the
practical realisation of effective EE. Also, Matlay and Carey (2007), and Fretschner and Weber
(2013), realised the absence of design instructions for curricula and course development.
The aim of this paper is to study how engineering education, or other non-business school education at the university level, could be renewed to enhance students entrepreneurial mindsets and
behaviours in their future professional practice. Specically, this study analyses how EE could be pedagogically organised for meeting the competence requirements of the modern engineering profession. We conducted a literature analysis to clarify the important aspects to be included in EE.
The theoretical analysis is then complemented with observations during practical EE development
enabling a fruitful interplay between theory and practice. We aim to introduce a framework to
clarify what teaching methods could be optimal and what aspects we recommend to be emphasised
during each year of the study process.

2. Literature analysis
2.1. Entrepreneurship in a modern, turbulent environment
In entrepreneurship literature, there is paradigm shift taking place describing the very nature of
entrepreneurship. Some researchers describe this shift as a move from opportunity discovery to
opportunity creation (Shane and Venkataraman 2000; Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray 2003; Alvarez
and Barney 2007), while others call this phenomenon a shift from causation to effectuation (Sarasvathy 2001; Dew et al. 2008). Turbulent changes that are constantly taking place in modern business
environments signicantly contribute to this change. Causation refers to traditional systematic
decision-making processes where the entrepreneur rst denes the goal and thereafter chooses
the means of how to get there. Success in a causation process requires the entrepreneur to collect
pre-information for planning and predicting future events and for minimising risks (Read and

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

Sarasvathy 2005; Sanz-Velasco 2006; Dew et al. 2008). The logic of causation matches well with the
logic dominant in engineering.
According to recent studies, successful entrepreneurs typically use effectuation instead of causation in turbulent operational environments (Read and Sarasvathy 2005; Sanz-Velasco 2006; Dew et al.
2008). Effectuation is typical especially for expert entrepreneurs. In effectuation, entrepreneurs do not
start with a given goal; they start by thinking of who they are, what they know and whom they know
(Sarasvathy 2001). Effectual logic is thus based on the awareness of available means and resources
including personal competences and skills as well as networks of partners. Instead of pre-set
goals, effectuation starts with given means and allows goals to develop over time from the imagination and aspirations of involved people. In effectuation, an entrepreneur does not aim to calculate
possible prots, but only assesses affordable losses (Read and Sarasvathy 2005; Dew et al. 2008).
Because the logic of effectuation does not t well with the traditional logic of engineering it is challenging for educators to promote entrepreneurship within engineering education.
Teaching students how to write business plans is not enough for developing an entrepreneurial
mindset because collecting facts and planning systematically are not in the core of entrepreneurship
(Gibb 1996; Honig 2004). On the contrary, it is crucial to have a positive attitude and self-efcacy, to
believe in ones capabilities and to see rather possibilities than obstacles. Consequently, entrepreneurship education ought to aim for increasing optimism and self-condence. However, exaggeration and consequent over-condence should be avoided as the failure rates of newly established
rms are already high (Block and Koellinger 2009; Hmieleski and Baron 2009).
Kyr (2008) approaches entrepreneurial learning from a holistic human viewpoint by taking into
account emotions, values and interests instead of seeing human beings purely as objective and
rational decision-makers. In addition, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour is, to a great
extent, a social phenomenon (Grling and Rehn 2008; Dew 2009). Previous studies have pointed
out that social networks, including those with weak ties, are crucial in entrepreneurship (Granovetter
1973; Burt 1992).
When discussing entrepreneurship, the scientic literature separates entrepreneurial behaviours
from entrepreneurial mindsets. According to the literature, entrepreneurial behaviours include
seeking, identifying, grasping or creating opportunities, taking initiatives, solving problems, breaking
patterns creatively, organising and coordinating resources, taking responsibility for and ownership of
things, networking effectively, combining things innovatively, taking calculated risks and acting
proactively in complex situations (Gibb 1993; Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006; Haynie et al. 2010).
An entrepreneurial mindset includes an individuals ability to be dynamic, exible and self-regulating
in his or her cognitions in an uncertain environment (Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006; Haynie et al.
2010). An entrepreneurial mindset thus refers to the abilities and general attitude of an individual,
while entrepreneurial behaviour appears through the individuals actions.
Entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours are valid concepts not only when dealing with business,
but also in all human activities. Therefore, EE should dene entrepreneurship broadly and include
enterprising behaviours even outside the business context (Gibb 1993; Rae 2000; Kirby 2004a; Seikkula-Leino 2008). In business, there is a need for both managerial and entrepreneurial competences.
Traditionally, it has been viewed that, rst and foremost, entrepreneurship requires systematic managerial competences. More recently, it has been realised that the turbulent and constantly changing
world and business environment require innovative, entrepreneurial competences. Entrepreneurship
education has typically emphasised knowledge and managerial competences. However, distributing
knowledge does not adequately promote entrepreneurial mindset and behaviour, and therefore,
new approaches are needed to cover the broader denition of entrepreneurship (Bennett 2006).

2.2. Education for turbulent environment

According to Engestrm (2001), traditional teaching methods aim to facilitate the learning of stable
knowledge. There is a presupposition that the skill or knowledge to be learned is well dened and

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

stable. In addition, it is self-evidently believed that there needs to be a procient teacher who masters
the subject. However, in modern societies, organisations and individuals need to continuously learn
something new that is neither dened nor stable. There cannot be competent teachers because
forms of activities are created and learned at the same time (Engestrm 2001). Action-based learning
methods may help in enhancing this type of learning.
EE needs to acknowledge the competences required in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship in the
modern, uncertain world highlights the importance of courageous experimenting and a reliance on
ones own competences and on those of personal networks (Sarasvathy 2001). In addition, entrepreneurial learning may require personal self-regulation (Zimmerman 2008), reection and assessment
(Schn 1983) of the learning process. This type of learning is in line with the objectives of actionbased learning methods, which may help in acquiring these entrepreneurial qualications. Learning
often takes place in social interactions with co-students. In addition to the core substance, tacit
knowledge, which includes learning from others working methods and experiences, is transferred.
This breadth and versatility in learning is important for entrepreneurial behaviour (Gibb 2002).
The constructivist learning theory forms the basis for the present understanding of the learning
process in action-based learning. Knowledge construction means that learners develop their cognitive knowledge structures or revise their current concepts to incorporate new information (Piaget
1977). Dewey (1974 1974) emphasises the learners own active role, over being a passive spectator.
Socio-constructivism that is to a great extent based on the ideas of Vygotsky (1978), emphasises the
social, interactive and collaborative aspects of learning. Individual learning thus depends not only on
the actions of that individual but also on the interactions that take place in a group.
Following the views of Kincheloe (1991) and Thayer-Bacon (1999), Gordon (2009) describes his
views of constructivism, saying that knowledge about the world does not simply exist out there,
waiting to be discovered but is rather constructed by human beings in their interaction with the
world. This view is in line with the modern understanding of entrepreneurship, emphasising the
opportunity creation view over opportunity discovery (Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray 2003). Opportunities are endogenously created due to the actions of the entrepreneur in his/her interaction with the
surrounding world.
Entrepreneurial behaviour does not only mean cognitive fact processing but is, to a large extent,
connected to emotions and passion. Education that offers chances for experiences promotes the
development of positive feelings (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007). According to Souitaris,
teachers should receive training not only on how to teach entrepreneurship, but also on how to
change hearts and minds. Knowledge and resources may increase the likelihood of successful
venture creation (Gorman, Hanlon, and King 1997), but it is the inspiration that raises attitude and
intention. EE should enhance these soft aspects within students.
According to Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000), entrepreneurial learning and the process of becoming
entrepreneurial contain cognitive, conative and affective aspects (see also Kyr 2008). The cognitive
aspect includes an individuals ability to process information, the conative aspect includes intrinsic
motivation and volition to strive for an objective and the affective aspect refers to the individuals
feelings on reaching a goal or taking an action (Ruohotie and Koiranen 2000; Kyr 2008).
One of the objectives of learning events should be that students experience autonomy, competence and relatedness that constitute the three innate human psychological needs described in
the self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000). When students participate in decision-making,
they have a sense of autonomy. Students experience having competencies when they feel that
they have the skills to solve tasks. Students experience relatedness if they consider themselves as
independent, important and benecial members at the study community that acknowledges their
contribution. Students appreciate humane teachers that really care about their students as human
beings (kland 2012). Learning is more motivating and efcient when education is realised using
varying working modes, such as lectures, action-based learning methods, role playing and project
work. According to kland (2012), autonomy experienced by the students is increased if decisions
are decentralised from the teacher to the students.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

We conclude that successful learning requires an active information construction by the student
supported by teachers professional expertise. Team-based learning is suitable when a subject or a
problem is hard to understand because interaction with co-students supports learning. Peer feedback
also supports the learning of both the feedback provider and the receiver.

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

2.3. Action-based learning methods for engineering education

The aim of EE is to train students for the continuously changing working-life. Entrepreneurship is not
only about knowing facts, it is a way of thinking and acting (Gibb 1993). Therefore, it is necessary that
the learning process enhances the development of skills and abilities needed in different situations
and environments. Knowledge is often created and learned simultaneously, in which case there are
no competent teachers and therefore learners need to participate in and take responsibility for the
learning process. Expansive learning theory by Engestrm (2001) emphasises that learning in organisations takes place both vertically (top-down) and horizontally (between teams and individuals). We
argue that the action-based learning methods permit the same kind of process when students study
together in teams. Thus, students learning process is supported by the teachers (top-down) and by
their fellow students (learning from co-students). This type of learning process enables the transfer of
both explicit and implicit knowledge.
When action-based learning methods are used, students learn not only during the actual learning
event, but also afterwards when learning is reected and self-evaluated. This is phrased by Schn
(1983) as in and on action. Reection in action, the way we evaluate, think and describe our
actions for developing understanding (see Schn 1983), is a focal element in action-based learning.
Reection on action supports the development process of an individual and his/her construction of
knowledge. Action-based learning methods utilise the possibilities for learning experiences, continuous reection, teamwork co-operation and collaborative learning (see Zuber-Skerrit 2002). Lack of
reection hinders learning. The teachers or instructors role is to support the process and to
create the context and learning environment to enable learning. Action-based learning methods
enhance deeper learning and understanding compared to cramming and learning by heart (Arvaja
et al. 2002).
The main idea of action-based learning methods is to enhance students active participation in the
learning process and to enable inspiring learning experiences following Kolbs (1984) experiential
learning cycle. In experiential learning, the student builds his/her own understanding based on concrete experiences and reective observations. According to previous research on EE, students should
have varying learning experiences in a versatile manner during their study paths (see Rae 2000; Hytti
and OGorman 2004; Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006; OConnor and Ramos 2006; Souitaris, Zerbinati,
and Al-Laham 2007; Fayolle and Gailly 2008).
In action-based learning, the learner is expected to actively take responsibility for processing information and knowledge to develop new understanding on the basis of the learners existing knowledge base. However, it is crucial not to leave the student alone, on the contrary, the teacher should
intensively support the learning process (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn 2007; see also Kirschner,
Sweller, and Clark 2006). Action-based learning methods include, for example, problem-based learning (PBL), project-based learning, enquiry-based learning, case studies and collaborative learning
methods (see Appendix for detailed information on action-based learning methods). The roots of
action-based learning methods are in PBL and medical education in the 1960s (Barrows and
Tamblyn 1980; de Graaff and Kolmos 2003). For action-based learning methods to be effective, the
learning environment should allow students to act differently than in a traditional classroom
setting (Arvaja et al. 2002; Bennett 2006). In addition, the teachers way of teaching and his/her personal characteristics are of great importance for students (Snchez 2013).
Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits (2000) prefer project-based learning over PBL in engineering education as project tasks are closer to professional reality. Project work is more directed to the application of knowledge, while PBL is more suitable for the acquisition of knowledge. In addition,

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

project work groups tend to be smaller than PBL groups and project tasks typically result in concrete
outputs. Moreover, self-direction is more intensive in project-based learning than in PBL, since the
learning process is less structured and less directed by the problem (Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits
2000). As a consequence, project-based learning follows the teamwork arrangements typical of
modern working environments. The CDIO framework emphasises that learning by action and consequent experiences can support students comprehension of their future professions and develop
engineering competences. According to kland (2012), project-based learning enables the integration of new information into larger and more tangible entities to be utilised easier in practice.
Putting concepts and theories into practice automatically forces the student to compare the new
information against prior personal experience (kland 2012).
In action-based learning, emotions are also important; that is, besides cognitive learning, even
affective and conative aspects need to be taken into account (Snow, Corno, and Jackson 1996; Ruohotie and Koiranen 2000; Kyr 2008). Hjorth (2004) uses the expression space for play and invention
when describing an environment suitable for entrepreneurship. Learning entrepreneurial mindsets
and behaviours is thus possible if the learning environment allows, and even promotes, creativity.
Willingness to learn, that is, motivation, is a prerequisite for learning. Moreover, motivation to
learn entrepreneurship can be assumed to be high in a space for play and invention (Hjorth
2004). Therefore, the learning environment in EE should provide possibilities for such experiences.
If action-based learning events are designed carefully, then they can create a state of ow as
described by Cskszentmihlyi (1988, 2009). In practice, the ow state can be reached when the
student experiences that he/she has the condence and skills to solve challenging problems. In
order to reach their full creative potential, students should be fully focused on the task in question
and enjoy performing it for purely intrinsic purposes rather than for some external goal (Hennessey
2003). Immediate and clear feedback supports achieving a ow state (Cskszentmihlyi 1988, 2009).
Scientic literature tends to see ow as an individual phenomenon. We believe that students may
experience similar positive states if they feel that team-learning is both efcient and inspiring. Therefore, team-learning is potentially applicable for entrepreneurial learning.
Entrepreneurial behaviours have often been analysed using Ajzens (1991) theory of planned
behaviour. According to the theory, the behaviour of an individual can be predicted through his/
her intentions. In the model, intention is the result of three conceptual determinants: attitude
towards the behaviour, perceived subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Krueger,
Reilly, and Carsrud (2000) state that perceived behavioural control overlaps Banduras (1986) view
of perceived self-efcacy, which is the perceived ability to execute a target behaviour. In EE, students
efcacy perceptions may be promoted by hands-on experiences, emotional arousals and vicarious
learning (Bandura 1986). Action-based learning methods enable positive experiences that can be
expected to support the development of self-efcacy and entrepreneurial mindsets. People who
believe they can perform well, that is, those with high self-efcacy, are more likely to see possibilities
than obstacles (Bandura 1986). In order to develop self-efcacy in EE, students need experiences in a
versatile manner to enhance self-perception.

2.4. Entrepreneurship education in literature

Entrepreneurship education in higher education is typically run by business schools and the target
group is mainly business students (Matlay and Carey 2007). Successful entrepreneurship may
require competences in a special area, such as engineering, and therefore EE should also include students outside business schools. According to Hjorth (2003), the mainstream EE aims to develop students competences as managerial entrepreneurs. However, post-industrial entrepreneurial actions
require the entrepreneur to have creative and playful characteristics (Hjorth 2004; Steyaert and
Katz 2004).
Earlier literature states that in order to enhance students self-condence, EE pedagogy should
activate students and favour learning-by-doing instead of passive reading or lectures (Gibb 1993).

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

The learning environment should enable experimenting with entrepreneurial behaviour. This type of
entrepreneurship-promoting environment can either mean a physical space or pedagogic choices of
the teacher. Because earlier literature has highlighted the importance of social networks for entrepreneurship, and in order to support network building, students should not only learn about entrepreneurship but also get to know co-students and acting entrepreneurs (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1992).
Personal networks that are built during EE may prove useful years after graduation. For example, the
student may contact former co-students or the companies they visited during their entrepreneurship
courses. Project-based learning may provide positive experiences through using social networks.
Research in EE has about 30 years of history. The focus of EE has traditionally been on the knowledge issues, emphasising mainly business aspects (Garavan and Cinneide 1994; Hytti and OGorman
2004). However, some researchers have later shown interest in expanding EE from purely considering
cognitive knowledge processing to include even conative and affective aspects. Jamieson (1984) and
Henry, Hill, and Leitch (2005) identify a three-category framework when organising EE: about enterprise, for enterprise and in enterprise. Jack and Anderson (1999) and Jamieson (1984) view that students need theories and knowledge about entrepreneurship for developing their management skills;
however, they need to become reective practitioners and be able to combine theories with practice
when acting entrepreneurially. Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006) have specied three aims of entrepreneurship education: (1) learn to understand entrepreneurship; (2) learn to become entrepreneurial;
and (3) learn to become an entrepreneur.
The scientic literature gives some information on what these three prepositions (about, for and
in) could mean within the context of EE. Learning about enterprise is needed for making students
aware of the importance of entrepreneurship and for building the knowledge base about entrepreneurship. This knowledge is required for understanding business operations (Henry, Hill, and Leitch
2005). The purpose of for enterprise is to prepare students to be self-employed, to act as entrepreneurs or to create new business ventures (Kirby 2004b; Johansen and Schanke 2013). Most researchers emphasise the for enterprise aspect educating new entrepreneurs in order to support
economic growth (Garavan and OCinneide 1994). Learning in enterprise is crucial for established
entrepreneurs when developing the skills needed in business growth and development (Henry,
Hill, and Leitch 2005; Taatila 2010). According to Kirby (2004a), EE should aim to develop in students
the aptitudes and capabilities of an entrepreneurial person. However, a signicant transformation is
needed in the way entrepreneurship is taught and, instead of the traditional classroom setting, enterprising environments and approaches to learning should be adopted.
Even though most researchers agree on the three aspects dened by the three prepositions introduced above, they seem not to cover entrepreneurial behaviour. Consequently, some researchers
have added pedagogical methods used to teach entrepreneurship. For instance, Fayolle and Gailly
(2008) emphasise the importance of entrepreneurial environment, and Kyr (2008) emphasises the
importance of pedagogical methods. Therefore, we argue that an understanding of the ways for
learning and teaching entrepreneurship has evolved during the last few years. The understanding
of EE has gradually expanded from about entrepreneurship to include new aspects as described in
Figure 1.
EE researchers seem to have a common perception of about and for. However, EE researchers
seem to use either in or through as the third preposition. In addition, there seems to be at least
two different types of interpretations concerning the preposition through. Through entrepreneurship
seems to relate to a business context, for example, in articles by Kirby (2004b) and Johansen and
Schanke (2013). On the other hand, Kyr (2008), Gibb (2005) and Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006)
highlight the importance of pedagogical approaches. It is noteworthy that the researchers tend to
explain various aspects of EE using only three prepositions, while we view that there are four different
aspects that the organisers of EE should take into account. According to our understanding, the
research using the preposition in as the third preposition and the research using through in a business
context can be combined as shown in Figure 1.

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

Figure 1. Aspects to be acknowledged by EE.

When discussing through business context, Kirby (2004b) emphasises that the utilisation of the
new venture creation process helps students gain both business understanding and transferable
enterprise skills or competences. At a practical level, this could mean conducting projects for
businesses in pre-incubators, incubators and science parks. Kirby (2004b) uses the term through
enterprise for this aspect. Also, Johansen and Schanke (2013) seem to use the preposition
through in business context as they describe through entrepreneurship using the entrepreneurial
process aimed at developing an enterprise or projects based on collaboration between schools
and local businesses.
Kyr interprets through entrepreneurship as pedagogical methods. She further describes the roles
of students and teachers: The students are the ones who look after and take responsibility for acquiring the knowledge they need, and in teaching the focus is on supporting the pedagogical process.
(Kyr 2008). Also, Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006) and Hytti et al. (2010) include pedagogical methods
as an important aspect in EE. In addition, the recent development seems to support the views introduced by Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000), that learning entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour is interlinked with cognitive, conative and affective factors. The development of an
entrepreneurial mindset is inuenced not only by cognition but also by emotions, feelings and the
motivation of the learner (Souitaris, Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007; Kyr 2008). Pedagogical choices
inuence these soft aspects, which are important for entrepreneurship.

3. Developing a framework
The aim of this study was to nd a model for improving the efciency and effectiveness of EE for
engineering students at the university level. We approached this aim mainly through theoretical
analysis of existing scientic literature combined with hands-on observations during practical work
in EE in HEIs giving engineering education. We analysed the literature to clarify how other researchers
understand EE. The areas covered included entrepreneurship in a modern environment, education
for a turbulent environment and action-based learning methods. Based on our literature analysis,
we conclude that the scientic literature on EE has gradually expanded by including new aspects
to EE that can now be seen to include the four key areas of about entrepreneurship, for entrepreneurship, in business context and through pedagogy.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

Our goal was to develop a framework to clarify important aspects of EE, including what is potentially benecial to teach, what teaching methods could be effective and what aspects we recommend
to be emphasised during each year of the study process.

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

3.1. Study-year dependent emphasis variation in EE

As reported by Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000) and Kyr (2008), pure cognitive knowledge processing
is not enough for developing entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours. Also conative and affective
aspects are necessary. We thus conclude that, in the beginning of engineering studies, conative and
affective aspects should be emphasised more than they are in the current traditional engineering
education. Systematic business knowledge may be optimal to offer at the end of the studies when
the students potentially have developed competences and consequent self-condence.
Field-specic professional competences, such as engineering competences, form a potential basis
for entrepreneurship; however, according to our experiences, entrepreneurial competences typically
require a long time to develop. According to Sarasvathy (2001), expert entrepreneurs use effectuation, which requires experience. Consequently, a starting engineering student may not have the
self-condence needed for recognising or creating business opportunities. In the beginning of the
studies it is therefore important to support the development of students self-condence. Young students live in uncertainty and typically think about their future roles; however, they are often unaware
of their potential capabilities. Emphasising business knowledge too early in EE may therefore not be
optimal since entrepreneurial self-condence and emotion may not yet be established.
When organising education, not only EE, but also when teaching professional eld-specic competences, it may be reasonable to utilise experiential learning (Kolb 1984) methods as they enable
entrepreneurial behaviour by emphasising students practical experimentation and observations
over a theory-driven approach. There should be possibilities to train entrepreneurial behaviour
before one must seriously consider ones own business cases. A space for play and invention
(Hjorth 2003) should thus be strived for even when learning basic topics such as physics or basic
engineering. An optimal timing for systematic business knowledge is only when there is already a
demand for such information. Entrepreneurship is a complicated phenomenon and certain personal
growth is needed before an individual has the potential competences and the personal maturity to
act entrepreneurially.
Engineering education typically takes four or ve years. This relatively long time-frame enables a
variation in teaching methods and in the topics to be taught. Therefore, different viewpoints may be
emphasised in the beginning, middle and end of the studies. Figure 2 illustrates our view for
scheduling EE within the curriculum for university students outside business schools. This type
of study-year dependent emphasis variation in EE seems to be a new thought for the scientic
literature.
We see the development of an entrepreneurial mindset and competence as a process requiring
time to mature as shown in the upper part of Figure 2. Seamless integration of professional (engineering) and business knowledge is the fundamental philosophy behind the lower part of the gure. In
addition, it is crucial to acknowledge the importance of conative and affective aspects of learning and
not to solely rely on the pure cognitive information processing. Therefore, in the beginning of the
studies, the aim is to support the development of personal growth, that is, the entrepreneurial
mindset and behaviour. Systematic business knowledge is emphasised only in the latter part of
the studies when there may be a stronger desire for such information. This arrangement also supports the optimal learning of those committed to entrepreneurship.

3.1.1. Year 1: Through

Utilisation of action-based learning methods to boost the entrepreneurial mindset: In the beginning, the
aim is to encourage the students to become curious, self-condent, active, and to tolerate uncertainty. Using multiple action-based learning methods in a versatile manner instead of relying on a

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

10

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

Figure 2. Emphasis of EE during different study years.

single teaching approach may support these objectives. This arrangement pushes students to take
responsibility for their own learning and motivates their learning as it allows them inuence the practical learning arrangements. A key aim in the beginning of the studies is thus to create a space for play
and invention, which, according to Hjorth (2004), is a requirement to learn entrepreneurship.
PBL is potentially effective as it emphasises students participation and involvement in the learning process. However, being a structured method, it may not be the optimal solution for building a
space for play and invention. Project-based learning may be more appropriate for EE as it allows more
exibility for the realisation of actual learning situations. The practical arrangements should emphasise teamwork, which enables learning from others, and helps the students realise that there are multiple ways of thinking. In addition, projects typically aim to create concrete artefacts that are easier to
comprehend. Projects should be organised so that they are experienced as students own, that is, are
associated with ownership. Project-based methods may also include typical activities for real-life projects, such as project planning, goal setting, reporting, making presentations, meetings and negotiations. Other action-based learning methods potential for EE may include case studies, laboratory
exercises, collaborative learning methods and enquiry-based learning.

3.1.2. Year 2: Through & about

Developing the knowledge base about entrepreneurship: During the second year, the use of actionbased learning methods will continue, but will be complemented by gradually including information
about entrepreneurship. The students are expected to learn about entrepreneurship as a phenomenon, that is, about the economic and societal meaning of business life and entrepreneurship in
general, especially in contexts strongly connected to their discipline. The possible learning arrangements may be, for example, traditional lectures, expert lectures, visits and exercises in teams.
Additional knowledge-base building may be arranged through study projects including aspects of
business and entrepreneurship. The main objective is to integrate business aspects into substance
teaching rather than teaching business as a separate topic.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

11

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

3.1.3. Year 3: through, about & in

Practicing and expanding the knowledge base on entrepreneurship: During the third year, the study
methods of the rst two years will continue, however, they will be complemented by experiences
students gain when training in existing companies. HEIs should encourage students to maximally
utilise opportunities to learn both technical and business aspects if and when they work in companies
outside the study year or parallel to their studies. Engineers often operate in business environments
and therefore it is logical to integrate engineering education and EE. On the other hand, entrepreneurship competences are a crucial part of engineering competences. Therefore, the training
periods could be utilised to support the development of both engineering and entrepreneurship
competences through assignments. These assignments should include both technical and business
aspects. In addition, knowledge about business can be expanded by organising separate courses on
some business aspects, such as accounting, marketing and/or management. Alternatively, these
issues can be included in education through study projects. Working in a pre-incubator or a training
camp may also be an appropriate environment for learning entrepreneurship.

3.1.4. Year 4: through, about, in & for

Learning to be entrepreneurial and an entrepreneur: The purpose of the fourth year is to strengthen
students entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours, and to give tangible tools for those who want
to become entrepreneurs. During the fourth year, the students will gain systematic business knowledge in an integrated manner using real-life cases. The business knowledge to be adopted may
include strategic planning, marketing, leadership and management, venture nancing and management accounting. When learning tools for business planning, divergent thinking should be emphasised, as recommended by Honig (2004) rather than by teaching traditional convergent thinking
based on causation. This is because there are multiple potential paths in entrepreneurship. Additionally, the nal thesis can be utilised for meeting the needs of this stage. Enquiry-based learning
methods may be appropriate to obtain the objective of the fourth year.

3.2. Organisational aspects in curriculum development

Based on the feedback we have obtained through multiple workshops, interviews and cooperation
projects, it is a common view that HEIs and their top management should see EE as a strategic issue
that affects the entire organisation. However, teachers play important roles and pure top-down
decisions are not effective, and therefore HEIs should pay signicant attention to teacher commitment. The commitment of top management is also in the scientic literature seen crucial for any
change processes both in private and public organisations (see e.g. Sirkin, Keenan, and Jackson
2005). The same view is valid for universities aiming to enhance entrepreneurship (Gibb, Haskins,
and Robertson 2013).
According to Kelchtermans (2009), a teachers identity or self-understanding consists of two components; the personal theoretical perception of learning/teaching and how the teacher views her/
himself as a teacher. A teachers perceptions develop in an interaction with the cultural, social and
structural environment (Kelchtermans 2009). Therefore, changes in teaching may take a long time.
Furthermore, in order to make changes in educational practice one must change teachers beliefs
(Quinlan 2002). Horizontal cooperation between teachers, for example, co-teaching, may prove successful. This is in line with Engestrms (2001) views on organisational learning.
Teachers backgrounds, including their own eld of expertise, may impact the way they teach the
subject matter and how they view the learning process (Prosser et al. 2005). According to Prosser et al.
(2005), teachers with a background in science and engineering tend to prefer teacher-focused
approaches and aim to transfer information to their students. Paloniemi and Belt (2015) have discovered that teachers ontological perceptions of both education and entrepreneurship are interlinked.
They found that teachers with a background in engineering tend to view entrepreneurship according

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

12

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

to causation/discovery theory. Changing this view towards effectuation and creation theory might be
challenging.
Curriculum development is a central tool for HEIs to boost EE and to realise the pedagogical objectives dened in the HEI-level strategy. It would be benecial if each HEI had a general frame for teachers to follow in their teaching. This article aims to develop such a frame for EE for engineering, or
other non-business, students in universities.
Entrepreneurship is a complicated phenomenon and therefore there should be a versatile range of
measures for learning it (Hytti and OGorman 2004). Engineering education curricula should be able
to acknowledge a large number of abilities and skills needed for entrepreneurial behaviours and
mindsets. EE should, however, not be seen as a separate subject. It is more benecial to integrate
substance teaching, such as engineering education, and EE. Developing curricula that effectively
address the diverse requirements of EE is a demanding task. Therefore, it may require building
multi-skilled teams by connecting teachers of engineering substance, experts on pedagogy and
external experts on entrepreneurship. This arrangement is also supported by the fact that people
with different backgrounds and different working environments tend to understand entrepreneurship differently.
Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits (2000) favour project-based learning in engineering education.
According to the feedback from our workshops, interviews and our practical experience from our
HEIs, there is a need to develop larger educational themes that aim to solve real-life challenges.
Study projects based on industrial assignments may be a functional solution for engineering students
as these assignments are typically relatively large and versatile, often containing both technical and
business aspects.
Networking is crucial for entrepreneurship (Granovetter 1973; Burt 1992; Sarasvathy 2001). EE
should also enable creating functional networks and learning how to network in general. Training
periods in companies and industrial assignments support this objective. Action-based learning
methods and teamwork help individual students learn collaboration and networking. During their
studies, students may be able to build personal relationships with other students, university staff
and companies.
According to the literature and our own experience, complementary teacher education is needed
for efcient EE as teachers tend to have a narrow view on entrepreneurship and EE. In addition,
modern teaching methods are often relatively poorly managed, especially by teachers of engineering
with a technical background. This viewpoint is also supported by the feedback from our workshops
revealing that teachers background has a strong impact how entrepreneurship is understood. Teachers with technical education tend to emphasise an entrepreneurs personal characteristics, implying that entrepreneurship cannot be learned. Teaching entrepreneurship within engineering
education requires mastery of technology, business, entrepreneurship and pedagogy a fact that
needs to be acknowledged in actual teaching.

4. Discussion
The results of this paper have signicant implications for both the theory and practice of EE.

4.1. Theoretical implications

Most researchers emphasise the business aspects and see that the purpose of EE is to create new
ventures and the aim of education is to deliver explicit knowledge. Researchers tend to use different
prepositions for describing the focus of EE. Jamieson (1984) uses about enterprise, for enterprise and
in enterprise in his framework. Jack and Anderson (1999), on the other hand, use only two prepositions for enterprise and in enterprise. Johanson and Schanke (2013) clarify the aim of entrepreneurship education using three prepositions (about, for and through), where new venture creation is

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

13

described by the preposition through. In addition, Kirby (2004b) sees that an understanding of entrepreneurship can further be developed in the context of incubations (in enterprise).
In this paper, we expand and clarify the theoretical discussion and develop a new illustrative framework for EE by using four prepositions: about entrepreneurship, for entrepreneurship, in business
context and through pedagogy. The meanings of prepositions about and for are the same as dened
in the earlier literature. When using the preposition in (in a business context) we emphasise the need
to understand entrepreneurship in practice. The fourth aspect, through pedagogy, highlights the
importance of pedagogic aspects and the need to boost students entrepreneurial mindsets and
behaviours. Kyr (2008) shares this view on the meaning of through.
Our reasoning for expanding the previous theoretical discussions is based on the views of Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000; see also Gibb 1993; Kyr 2008), who state that developing an entrepreneurial
mindset also requires conative and affective aspects and cannot only be based on cognitive aspects.
The development of students entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours is a long process, which
should be acknowledged in EE throughout the study years. When the education process is organised
well and is effective, students self-condence can be expected to strengthen. Self-condence is
needed in turbulent environments that require students to be creative and capable of using effectuation in their decision-making. Our framework includes pedagogic aspects in supporting the development of an entrepreneurial mindset and is therefore in line with the modern scientic view on
entrepreneurship as a creation process (Sarasvathy 2001; Ardichvili, Cardozo, and Ray 2003).
Our framework includes a study-year dependent emphasis variation in EE, which is new to the literature of EE. The framework acknowledges the fact that developing entrepreneurial mindsets and
behaviours is a long process that is connected to personal growth. In the beginning of students
studies, action-based learning methods are to be emphasised in order to support the development
of personal growth. The amount of explicit business knowledge is to be gradually increased when
professional, eld-specic knowledge has adequately accumulated. In other words, different
aspects, described by the prepositions through, about, in and for, are to be emphasised during different study years.
Traditional EE solutions tend to emphasise the about and especially the for viewpoints. However,
according to our understanding, one should understand entrepreneurial behaviour and mindsets
broadly and act in an enterprising way in ones different life domains. We understand that the bottleneck typically is a students attitude and mindset rather than knowledge. Therefore, we emphasise
the through aspect in our model. In addition, the for aspect is relevant only when one has committed
to entrepreneurship.
The CDIO framework seems to follow a traditional view on entrepreneurship by concentrating
purely on the about and for aspects (Crawley et al. 2011). As a consequence, entrepreneurial
mindset and behaviour are not mentioned as objectives. In addition, CDIO seems to view entrepreneurship as causation rather than effectuation. Even though de Graaff and Kolmos (2003) do not
specically discuss entrepreneurship education, they emphasise the importance of activating learning methods to support the students personal development in the learning process. This view is in
line with our emphasis on the through aspect.

4.2. Practical implications

We see that our results can be primarily used in EE for engineering students at the university level.
National as well as international policy-makers may utilise the framework when planning and executing teacher education.
We recommend that each university denes a university-level pedagogic strategy that supports
the objectives of EE. The pedagogic strategy may be used as a guideline for designing and implementing curricula. Teachers working in technical universities would especially benet from being
aware that engineers may need to utilise entrepreneurial effectuation together with causation,
which is typical of engineering logic. In practical realisation of the curriculum design, the varying

14

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

roles of the prepositions through, about, in, and for are to be recognised. In the beginning of students
studies, action-based learning methods should be emphasised while knowledge about entrepreneurship is to gradually increase by acknowledging the development of students abilities.
From the students viewpoint, our framework aims, from the very beginning, to develop entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours. In the beginning of students studies, action-based learning
methods are emphasised, giving students more possibilities to inuence learning events and to
gain various experiences supporting the development of self-condence. Explicit knowledge about
entrepreneurship will be emphasised during the latter part of studies when the professional competence, and related self-condence, has hopefully developed. In addition, the student can decide how,
when and if this entrepreneurship knowledge will be used. Students can expect to benet from their
enhanced entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours when they enter the labour-market either as
employees or as entrepreneurs.

4.3. Generalisability of the ndings and recommendations for further research

We developed a new model for EE at the university level because the previous models did not give
tangible enough tools on how to organise EE in practice and because the impact of EE has not been
satisfactory for enhancing entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours among students.
We believe the new model will give practical tools for realising EE. The research method used in
this study can, however, be criticised. In our literature analysis, we have tried to include different relevant aspects of EE in a comprehensive manner. Our action research includes subjective thinking and
an ample amount of tacit knowledge that we as researchers have not been able to fully document.
Therefore, our conclusions can be criticised. However, the results of numerous EE development projects we have participated in have been adequately documented.
The main ndings of this study have already been applied in engineering curricula in our HEIs, but
the impact of renewed EE on students entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours is yet to be
evaluated.
The conclusions of this study raise needs for further research, including systematic quantitative
assessment of the impact of the proposed model on entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviours.
Research outside the engineering discipline and in other countries and cultures could also be
benecial.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr Mirja Vnnen for her valuable insight and constructive discussions.

Notes on contributors
Dr Soili Mkimurto-Koivumaa has over 20 years experience in engineering education. She is currently Principal Lecturer
and responsible for Masters Degree Programmes at Lapland University of Applied Sciences in engineering education.
She has taken her Masters degree in Economics at the University of Oulu in 1985 and her PhD in Entrepreneurship at
the same university in 2012. Her main research interests are entrepreneurship education and action-based learning
methods.
Dr Pekka Belt obtained his PhD in industrial engineering and management from the University of Oulu, Finland. Dr Belt
has extensive industrial experience from several electronics enterprises, covering company functions from technology
development to international marketing. Dr Belts key research interests include entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship
education, technology development, product development, and internationalisation of small high-tech companies.

References
Ajzen, I. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2): 179211.

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

15

Alvarez, S. A., and J. B. Barney. 2007. Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal 1 (12): 1126. doi: 10.1002/sej.4
Ardichvili, A., R. Cardozo, and S. Ray. 2003. A Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identication and Development.
Journal of Business Venturing 18 (1): 105123.
Arvaja, M., P. Hkkinen, H. Rasku-Puttonen, and A. Pelto. 2002. Social Processes and Knowledge Building During Small
Group Interaction in a School Science Project. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 46 (2): 161179.
Bandura, A. 1986. The Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Barrows, H. S., and R. Tamblyn. 1980. Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education. New York, NY: Springer.
Bennett, M. 2006. Business Lecturers Perception of the Nature of Entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 12 (3): 165188.
Block, J., and P. Koellinger. 2009. I Cant Get No Satisfaction Necessity Entrepreneurship and Procedural Utility. Kyklos
62 (4): 191209.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Fostering Entrepreneurial Mindsets
through Education and Learning. European Commission. Accessed July 2. http://europa.eu/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0033:FIN:EN:PDF
Crawley, E. F., J. Malmqvist, W. A. Lucas, and D. R. Brodeur. 2011. The CDIO Syllabus v2.0 An Updated Statement of Goals
for Engineering Education. Accessed July 2. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/local_143186.pdf
Crawley, E., J. Malmqvist, S. stlund, and D. Brodeur. 2007. Rethinking Engineering Education, The CDIO Approach.
New York, NY: Springer.
Cskszentmihlyi, M. 1988. The Flow Experience and its Signicance for Human Psychology. In Optimal Experience:
Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, edited by M. Cskszentmihlyi and I. Selega, 1535. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cskszentmihlyi, M. 2009. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Deignan, T. 2009. Enquiry-based Learning: Perspectives on Practice. Teaching in Higher Education 14 (1): 1328.
Dew, N. 2009. Serendipity in Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies 30: 735753. doi:10.1177/0170840609104815
Dew, D., S. Read, S. D. Sarasvathy, and R. Wiltbank. 2008. Effectual Versus Predictive Logics in Entrepreneurial Decisionmaking: Differences Between Expert and Novices. Journal of Business Venturing 24: 287309. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.
2008.02.002
Dewey, J. 1974 1974. The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education. In John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings,
edited by R. Archambault, 315338. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dillenbourg, P. 1999. What Do You Mean by Collaborative Learning?. In Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and
Computational Approaches, edited by P. Dillenbourg, 119. Oxford: Elsevier.
Edstrm, K., and A. Kolmos. 2014. PBL and CDIO: Complementary Models for Engineering Education Development.
European Journal of Engineering Education 39 (5): 539555.
Engestrm, Y. 2001. Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity Theoretical Reconceptualization. Journal of
Education and Work 14 (1): 133156.
Fayolle, A., and B. Gailly. 2008. From Craft to Science. Teaching Models and Learning Processes in Entrepreneurship
Education. Journal of European Industrial Training 32 (7): 569593.
Fretschner, M., and S. Weber. 2013. Measuring and Understanding the Effects of Entrepreneurial Awareness Education.
Journal of Small Business Management 51 (3): 410428.
Garavan, T., and B. OCinneide. 1994. Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A Review and Evaluation.
Journal of European Industrial Training 18 (8): 312.
Gibb, A. A. 1993. The Enterprise Culture and Education: Understanding Enterprise Education and its Links with Small
Business, Entrepreneurship and Wider Educational Goals. International Small Business Journal 11 (3): 1134.
Gibb, A. A. 1996. Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management: Can We Afford to Neglect Them in the Twenty-rst
Century Business School?. British Journal of Management 7 (4): 309321.
Gibb, A. A. 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): 233269.
Gibb, A. A. 2005. The Future of Entrepreneurship Education and Culture Determining the Coherent Policy and Practice.
In The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-cultural University Context, edited by P. Kyr and C. Carrir, 44
66. Tampere: University of Tampere, Faculty of Education.
Gibb, A., G. Haskins, and I. Robertson. 2013. Leading the Entrepreneurial University: Meeting the Entrepreneurial
Development Needs of Higher Education Institutions. In Universities in Change, Managing Higher Education
Institutions in the Age of Globalization, edited by A. Altmann and B. Ebersberger, 945. New York, NY: Springer
Science+Business Media.
Gordon, M. 2009. Toward a Pragmatic Discourse of Constructivism: Reections on Lessons from Practice. Educational
Studies 45 (1): 3958.
Grling, S., and A. Rehn. 2008. Accidental Ventures A Materialist Reading of Opportunity and Entrepreneurial Potential.
Scandinavian Journal of Management 24 (2): 94102.

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

16

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

Gorman, G., D. Hanlon, and W. King. 1997. Some Research Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Education, Enterprise
Education and Education for Small Business Management: A Ten-year Literature Review. International Small
Business Journal 15 (3): 5677.
de Graaff, E., and A. Kolmos. 2003. Characteristics of Problem-based Learning. International Journal of Engineering
Education 19 (5): 657662.
de Graaff, E., and W. Ravesteijn. 2001. Training Complete Engineers: Global Enterprise and Engineering Education.
European Journal of Engineering Education 26 (4): 419427.
Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The Strength of the Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 13601380.
Haynie, J. M., D. Shepherd, E. Mosakowski, and C. Earley. 2010. A Situated Metacognitive Model of the Entrepreneurial
Mindset. Journal of Business Venturing 25 (2): 217229.
Heinonen, J., and S. Poikkijoki. 2006. An Entrepreneurial-directed Approach to Entrepreneurship Education: Mission
Impossible?. Journal of Management Development 25 (1): 8894.
Helle, L., P. Tynjl, and E. Olkinuora. 2006. Project-based Learning in Post-secondary Education Theory, Practice and
Rubber Sling Shots. Higher Education 51 (2): 287314.
Hennessey, B. 2003. The Social Psychology of Creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47 (3): 253271.
Henry, C., F. Hill, and C. Leitch. 2005. Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can Entrepreneurship Be Taught? Part I.
Education + Training 47 (2): 98111.
Hjorth, D. 2003. Rewriting Entrepreneurship For a New Perspective on Organisational Creativity. Lund: Wallin and Dalholm
Boktryckeri AB.
Hjorth, D. 2004. Creating Space for Play/Invention Concepts of Space and Organizational Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 16 (5): 413432.
Hjorth, D., and B. Johannisson. 2007. Learning as an Entrepreneurial Process. In Handbook of Research in
Entrepreneurship Education. Vol. 1, edited by A. Fayolle, 4666. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., R. G. Duncan, and C. A. Chinn. 2007. Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-based and Inquiry
Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist 42 (2): 99107.
Hmieleski, K., and R. Baron. 2009. Entrepreneurs Optimism and New Venture Performance: A Social Cognitive
Perspective. Academy of Management Journal 52 (3): 473488.
Honig, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship Education: Toward a Model of Contingency-based Business Planning. Academy of
Management Learning and Education 3 (3): 258273.
Hytti, U., and C. OGorman. 2004. What is Enterprise Education? An Analysis of the Objectives and Methods of
Enterprise Education Programmes in Four European Countries. Education + Training 46 (1): 1123.
Hytti, U., P. Stenholm, J. Heinonen, and J. Seikkula-Leino. 2010. Perceived Learning Outcomes in Entrepreneurship
Education: The Impact of Student Motivation and Team Behavior. Education + Training 52 (8/9): 587606.
Jack, S. L., and A. R. Anderson. 1999. Entrepreneurship Education Within the Enterprise Culture: Producing Reective
Practitioners. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 5 (3): 110125.
Jamieson, I. 1984. Education for Enterprise. In Education for Enterprise, edited by A. G. Watts and P. Moran, 1927.
Cambridge, MA: CRAC, Ballinger.
Johansen, V., and Schanke, T. 2013. Entrepreneurship Education in Secondary Education and Training. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research 57 (4): 357368.
Jones, C. 2002. Sources of U.S. Economic Growth in a World of Idea. The American Economic Review 92 (1): 220239.
Kahn, P., and K. ORourke. 2005. Understanding Enquiry-based Learning. In Handbook of Enquiry & Problem Based
Learning, edited by T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrainn, and H. Fallon, 111. Galway: CELT.
Kelchtermans, G. 2009. Who I am in How I Teach is the Message: Self-understanding, Vulnerability and Reection.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 15 (2): 257272.
Kincheloe, J. L. 1991. Teachers as Researchers: Qualitative Inquiry as a Path to Empowerment. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Kirby, D. A. 2004a. Entrepreneurship Education: Can Business Schools Meet the Challenge?. Education + Training 46 (8/
9): 510519.
Kirby, D. A. 2004b. Entrepreneurship Education and Incubators: Pre-incubators, Incubators and Science Parks as
Enterprise Laboratories. Paper presented at 14th annual international ENT conference, University of Napoli
Federico II Naples, Italy, July 47.
Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and J. E. Clark. 2006. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of
the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational
Psychologist 42 (2): 7586.
Kirzner, I. 1978. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Krueger, N. F. Jr., M. D. Reilly, and A. L. Carsrud. 2000. Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of
Business Venturing 15 (56): 411432.
Kyr, P. 2008. A Theoretical Framework for Teaching and Learning Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Business
and Globalisation 2 (1): 3955.

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION

17

MacLeod, I. 2009. The Education of Innovative Engineers. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 17 (1):
2134.
Matlay, H., and C. Carey. 2007. Entrepreneurship Education in the UK: A Longitudinal Perspective. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development 14 (82): 252263.
OConnor, A., and J. M. Ramos. 2006. Empowering Entrepreneurship Through Foresight and Innovation: Developing a
Theoretical Framework for Empowerment in Enterprise Programs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 11
(3): 207232.
kland, J. M. 2012. Determinants of Learning Outcome for Students at High School in Norway: A Constructivist
Approach. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 56 (82): 119138.
Oosterbeek, H., M. van Praag, and A. Ijsselstein. 2010. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurship
Skills and Motivation. European Economic Review 54 (3): 442454.
Paloniemi, K., and P. Belt. 2015. Mismatch in Teachers Ontological Conception of Entrepreneurship Education. In
Entrepreneurship Education and Training, edited by J. C. Snchez. InTech. http://www.intechopen.com/books/
entrepreneurship-education-and-training/mismatch-in-teachers-ontological-conception-of-entrepreneurshipeducation
Perrenet, J. C., P. A. J. Bouhuijs, and J. G. M. M. Smits. 2000. The Suitability of Problem-based Learning for Engineering
Education: Theory and Practice. Teaching in Higher Education 5 (3): 345358.
Piaget, J. 1977. The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. Translated by A. Rosin. Oxford: Blackwell.
Plowright, D., and M. Watkins. 2004. There are No Problems to Be Solved, Only Inquiries to Be Made, in Social Work
Education. Innovation in Education and Teaching International 41 (2): 185206.
Prosser, M., E. Martin, K. Trigwell, P. Ramsden, and G. Lueckenhausen. 2005. Academics Experiences of Understanding of
Their Subject Matter and the Relationship of this to their Experiences of Teaching and Learning. Instructional Science
33: 137157. doi 10.1007/s11251-004-7687-x
Quinlan, K. M. 2002. Scholarly Dimensions of Academics Beliefs about Engineering Education. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice 8 (1): 4164.
Rae, D. 2000. Understanding Entrepreneurial Learning: A Question of How?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research 6 (3): 145159.
Rae, D. 2010. Universities and Entrepreneurship Education: Responding to the Challenges of the New Era. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development 17 (4): 591606.
Read, S., and S. D. Sarasvathy. 2005. Knowing What to Do and Doing What You Know: Effectuation as a Form of
Entrepreneurial Expertise. The Journal of Private Equity 9 (81): 4561.
Romer, P. 1990. Endogenous Technological Change. The Journal of Political Economy 98: 71102.
Ruohotie, P., and M. Koiranen. 2000. In the Pursuit of Conative Constructs into Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education 3: 922.
Ryan, R., and E. Deci. 2000. Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development,
and Well-being. American Psychologist 55 (1): 6878.
Snchez, J. C. 2013. The Impact of an Entrepreneurship Education Program on Entrepreneurial Competencies and
Intention. Journal of Small Business Management 51 (3): 447465.
Sanz-Velasco, S. A. 2006. Opportunity Development as a Learning Process for Entrepreneurs. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 12 (5): 251271.
Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001. Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to
Entrepreneurial Contingency. The Academy of Management Review 26 (2): 243263.
Schn, D. A. 1983. The Reective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Schumpeter, J. 1989. Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History. Reprinted from Change and the Entrepreneur.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949. In Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the
Evolution of Capitalism, edited by R. Clmence, 253231. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Seikkula-Leino, J. 2008. Implementing Entrepreneurship Education Through Curriculum Reform. Paper presented at the
international Council for Small Business world conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, June 2225.
Seikkula-Leino, J., E. Ruskovaara, M. Ikvalko, J. Mattila, and T. Rytkl. 2010. Promoting Entrepreneurship Education: The
Role of the Teacher?. Education + Training 52 (2): 117127.
Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Academy of
Management Review 25 (1): 217226.
Sirkin, H. L., P. Keenan, and A. Jackson. 2005. The Hard Side of Change Management. Harvard Business Review 83 (10):
108118.
Snow, R. E., I. Corno, and D. Jackson. 1996. Individual Differences in Affective and Conative Functions. In Handbook of
Educational Psychology, edited by D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee, 243310. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Souitaris, S., S. Zerbinati, and A. 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): 566591.
Steyaert, C., and J. Katz. 2004. Reclaiming the Space of Entrepreneurship in Society: Geographical, Discursive and Social
Dimensions. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 16 (3): 179196.

18

S. MKIMURTO-KOIVUMAA AND P. BELT

Taatila, V. 2010. Learning Entrepreneurship in Higher Education. Education + Training 52 (1): 4861.
Thayer-Bacon, B. 1999. The Thinker Versus a Quilting Bee: Contrasting Images. Educational Foundations 13 (4): 4765.
Venkataraman, S. 1997. The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. In Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm
Emergence and Growth. 3 Vols., edited by J. Katz, 119138. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. 2008. Investigating Self-regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological
Developments and Future Prospects. American Educational Research Journal 45 (1): 166183.
Zuber-Skerrit, O. 2002. The Concept of Action Learning. The Learning Organization 9 (3): 114124.

Appendix

Downloaded by [Aalto-yliopiston kirjasto] at 23:14 28 October 2015

Some action-based learning methods, their main features and practical examples.
Method
Problem-based
learning

Project-based
learning

Enquiry-based
learning

Collaborative
learning

Case studies

Main features

Examples and techniques

Learning is based on students solving predened (reallife) problems

Student-centred learning in groups of 812
Teachers operate as facilitators during learning process
Systematic process that follows a xed procedure (de
Graaff and Kolmos 2003; Perrenet, Bouhuijs, and Smits
2000)
Learning process is based on real-world tasks resulting in
concrete output/end product
Students-centred learning in small teams of 57
Teachers as advisors and creators of learning
environments
Resembles real-life project work (Helle, Tynjl, and
Olkinuora 2006)
Student-directed and research-oriented

Studying phenomenon of physics or chemistry

Promotes active and deep learning

Emphasises students existing knowledge
Teachers as supporters/facilitators
Often includes peer teaching
Emphasises reection and collaboration
Can utilise activities of other methods (PBL, study
projects, cases) (Plowright and Watkins 2004; Kahn and
ORourke 2005; Deignan 2009)
Students at various performance levels work together in
small groups towards a common goal
Participants not only deliver existing knowledge but also
create new knowledge through social interaction
Students are responsible for one anothers learning
besides their own.
Working in small groups increases interest among the
participants and also promotes critical thinking.
Teachers as organisers of the learning event (Dillenbourg
1999)
Students use descriptions of real-life cases during the
learning process
A new problem is solved by adapting an old solution or
merging pieces of several old solutions.
Teachers control the process (Henry, Hill, and Leitch 2005)

Building an amplier (Analogue Electronics),

Designing a vehicle (Mechanical Engineering),
Building Christmas-lights (Basics of Electrical
Engineering)
Final thesis
Product development process
Field-work

Principles of b-to-b marketing

Technique examples: Jigsaw, Round table,
Think-Pair-Share, Three-Step Interview,
Focused listing

Strategic management