Research in Entrepreneurship and Leadership: Working Paper ... · PDF fileCenter for...

Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series

Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education of 21

Research in Entrepreneurship and Leadership: Working Paper Series

Working Paper 1:2012

Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education

Dr. Luke Pittaway, William A. Freeman Distinguished Chair in Free Enterprise

Georgia Southern University

P.O. Box 8154, Statesboro, Georgia, 30460

Tel: 912 478 5321 Email: [email protected]

Corina Edwards

Entrepreneurship Development Officer, Swansea University

Tel: +44 (0)1792 51370 E-mail: [email protected]

KEY WORDS

Assessment Practice Entrepreneurship Education Student Assessment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge and recognize the contribution of Scott Chaney a

graduate assistant at Georgia Southern who worked on this research by collecting course

outlines and syllabi. The author would also like to thank the entrepreneurship educators

who provided course outlines and syllabi for this research.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to develop further knowledge about the nature of student

assessment practice in entrepreneurship education. It begins by introducing some general

issues with regard to assessment practice and it highlights some key considerations for the

proposed research. Next the paper explains prior research on assessment practice in

entrepreneurship education and argues that there is too little empirical research on the

subject. The final part of the conceptual discussion outlines a typology of entrepreneurship

education, which highlights variation between: different forms; different learning outcomes;

different subjects; and, variation in the possible forms of assessment practice. The paper

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



introduces the methodology for the study illustrating the data used (course outlines and

syllabi), and explaining the methods applied to collect the materials and to analyse the

data. The results show that educational practice in entrepreneurship education continues to

be dominated by the ‘About’ form of entrepreneurship education. The results highlight that

there are different cultures of assessment practice in entrepreneurship education in the UK

and the US and that assessment practice generally needs to become more innovative, more

reflective in nature and include more stakeholders in the process. Finally, the paper

concludes that different forms of entrepreneurship education use assessment in different

ways.

Introduction

In a recent paper Pittaway, Hannon, Gibb and Thompson (2009) explored the role of

assessment practice in entrepreneurship education. The paper introduced current debates

on assessment practice and explored proposed learning outcomes relevant to teaching and

learning in the subject (Gibb, 2002). It then explored a series of focus groups which had

engaged over 40 subject specialists in a brainstorming exercise. The exercise was designed

to highlight potential practices and, in some cases, innovative practices that might be used

to assess key entrepreneurial learning outcomes. The Pittaway et al. (2009) paper,

therefore, highlighted entrepreneurship educators’ aspirations about assessment rather than

examining actual practice. The purpose of this paper is to build on this initial work, by

exploring the current assessment practices of entrepreneurship educators. This is an

important focus because entrepreneurship education has grown rapidly worldwide. For

example, in the US alone there are over 2,200 courses; 1,600 schools with

entrepreneurship activities; and, 277 endowed positions (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005;

Pittaway et al., 2011). First, the paper will explore assessment practice in general and

consider some of the major discussions. It will progress to reflect on the different forms of

entrepreneurship education presenting a typology and will identify the different

entrepreneurial outcomes that may derive from these different forms. In the second part of

the paper an analysis will be undertaken of a random sample of course outlines (syllabi),

exploring their articulated goals and learning outcomes and considering these alongside the

actual implementation of assessment. Reference will be given: to the form of entrepreneurship education; the articulated learning outcomes or course goals; and, the nature of assessment used. The paper will conclude by outlining what educators ‘do’ when they assess entrepreneurship education. The first part of the paper, to be introduced next, will examine the key issues in assessment practice.

Unpicking Assessment Practice

The subject of assessment scholarship is broad and includes different forms, such as,

institutional assessment, teacher assessment and student assessment (Banta, 2002; 2007).

The focus of this paper is student assessment which can be viewed as ‘the means through

which educators can gauge the link between desired educational outcomes and actual

student achievement’ (Banta, 1999; Martell, 2007; Pittaway et al., 2009). Student

assessment is a core concern for educators, being driven both by a need to assess students’

progress, and a requirement to provide certified public qualifications. The tension between

these two demands, on the one hand, supporting student progression (formative

assessment) and, on the other hand, judging student performance (summative

assessment), drives much of the general debate in the educational literature. Concerns

revolve around how assessment can be used to assist student learning, while at the same

time coping with pressures placed on assessment by accreditation systems which typically



prefer outcome-based, credit-based and modular forms of education (Ecclestone and

Swann, 1999).

Some of these tensions can be observed within research on assessment practice in

entrepreneurship education. For example, the Pittaway et al. (2009) paper provided an

initial foundation for discussions and some views from educators as to what might constitute

innovative practice. The paper has been followed up by work that explores how to assess

creativity and the lessons that might be drawn by entrepreneurship educators (Penaluna

and Penaluna, 2009). All of the recent papers have noted that assessment practice is an

important consideration and that it has been somewhat neglected by researchers (as well as

Gibb in 1998). Taking a step further Penaluna and Penaluna (2009), claim that:

“…much of the pedagogic focus has remained on the business school environment…

These pedagogies have a tendency to focus on analytical approaches with

preponderance towards positivistic engagement where assessed outcomes are clearly

defined and predictable.”

While they are likely making a valid point the evidence on which they are able to

draw to justify the argument is inherently limited as there is little existing research on what

entrepreneurship educators actually ‘do’ when engaging in assessment. For example, few

studies appear to address assessment practice to a significant degree (MacFarlane and

Tomlinson, 1993; Askham, 1997; Reid and Petocz, 2004; Bilen et al., 2005; Pittaway et al.,

2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009). It seems that while researchers can debate

assessment in entrepreneurship education based on a disciplinary or pedagogic point-of-

view, this debate may have little value unless researchers become more aware about the

actual practices used. Another obvious problem with Penaluna’s and Penaluna’s (2009)

viewpoint, even in the context of business school education, is that ‘entrepreneurship

education’ is identifiably not one thing (Gibb, 2002; Pittaway and Cope, 2007a). It varies

between: forms (about, for, through and embedded); the theme of the course (family firms,

franchising, technology entrepreneurship); the learning outcomes desired from the course,

the underlying disciplinary stance (even between disciplines within business schools); and,

the educational philosophy applied by the educator. This inherent diversity in educational

and assessment practice is documented in other disciplines. Surveys of assessment

practice, for example, show considerable diversity in what is assessed, how it is assessed,

when and where it is assessed and who does the assessing (Topping et al., 2000). So to

understand assessment practice researchers must begin to observe actual practice through

empirical research and do so in a sophisticated way to appreciate the different forms and

types that entrepreneurship education might take. The next part of the paper advances a

typology on which to base such considerations when researching assessment practice.



A Typology of Entrepreneurship Education and Assessment Practice



In order to understand assessment practice as it is undertaken by educators in the field it

was argued previously that some form of typology must be developed to take into

consideration different forms of educational practice. In a now well documented typology

researchers have recently been arguing for such distinctions and have presented a typology

based on four forms of entrepreneurship education. These forms are usually considered to

be: ‘about’; ‘for’; ‘through’ and ‘embedded’ or ‘in’ (Gibb, 2002; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b;

Handscombe et al., 2007; Pittaway, 2009). Debate revolves around the different types, for

example questions that have been asked include: which form is most effective (Gibb 2002)

and what is the exact nature of each type (Handscombe et al., 2007)? In addition to these

recent debates prior work on entrepreneurship education has presented similar stages that

view forms progressing from knowledge and awareness, through the acquisition of skills to

engagement in practice (Ashmore, 1989; Solomon and Fernald, 1991). It has also been

argued that these forms of practice provide different educational outcomes and are

complementary (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b; Pittaway, 2009). Although an explanation of

the types can be found elsewhere it is important for the purposes of this paper to outline

them here briefly. The ‘about’ type uses more traditional pedagogic forms of educational

practice and these approaches are usually didactic. They are driven by a desire to raise

awareness or share knowledge and are often content or subject led (Pittaway and Hannon,

2008). ‘For’ approaches tend to engage students in tasks, activities and projects that

enable them to acquire key skills and competencies (McMullan and Long, 1987; Vesper and

McMullen, 1988; Solomon, Duffy and Tarabishy, 2002). Approaches in this type take many

forms including: experiential, inquiry-based and project-based. In general, however, they

tend to be driven by a desire to allow students to acquire skills in preparation for future

entrepreneurial endeavours (Gibb, 2002). For example, such approaches include some

forms of business planning and most computer simulations (Gorman et al., 1997; Brawer,

1997). Although in practice there is some crossover between ‘for’ approaches and ‘through’

approaches, the difference is typically driven by the later allowing actual practice of

entrepreneurship in ‘safe’ conditions (Hills, 1988; Truell, Webster and Davidson, 1998). The

best examples of this type are courses that allow students to run ‘real’ companies or engage

in consultancy within an entrepreneurial context (Solomon et al., 2002; Gibb, 2002). The

focus tends to be on learning through doing (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). The final type

often identified is the ‘embedded’ or ‘in’ type. In this type educational practice is typically

embedded within courses focused on other disciplines or subjects (Solomon et al., 2002;

Kuratko, 2005; Handscombe et al. 2007), for example, by converting a course on polymers

in a chemistry program so that it considers aspects of intellectual property. The driving

force behind this form is to provide students, within non-business subjects, awareness and

experience of entrepreneurship directly within their discipline; so that the form of

entrepreneurship they learn about is relevant to their field of interest. One can assume that

the previous three types could still be used but ultimately they would be embedded within a

course focused on a different subject (Pittaway et al., 2009).

When moving away from the specific categories of entrepreneurship education

diversity can also be found in the underpinning learning outcomes desired by educators

(Pittaway et al., 2009). The entrepreneurial outcomes framework developed for the National

Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) by Gibb is currently the best available means

to make distinctions between expected learning outcomes in entrepreneurship. The

framework identifies eight different categories of entrepreneurial learning outcomes and

these categories can be associated with particular types of entrepreneurship education as

illustrated in Figure 1. Two sets of outcomes, understanding key business knowledge and

understanding the process of entrepreneurship (McMullan and Long, 1987; Plaschka and

Welsh, 1990), can be linked within the typology to the ‘about’ form of entrepreneurship

education. This is because the focus of these learning outcomes is to enable students to

grasp key knowledge about business start-up or other entrepreneurial contexts and,

therefore, they are focused more on knowledge than skills or experience. Two sets of



entrepreneurial outcomes can be linked to the ‘for’ form of entrepreneurship education. The

first set includes outcomes targeted at encouraging students to engage in activities that

seek to develop key entrepreneurial behaviours (e.g. opportunity seeking; initiative taking)

while the second set focuses on creating generic entrepreneurial competencies (e.g. to find

an idea, to appraise an idea). Both types are thus focused on skills acquisition. There are

two sets of learning outcomes that can be associated with the ‘through’ form of

entrepreneurship education. The first of these focuses on creating empathy with the life-

world of the entrepreneur by gaining experience of, for example, uncertainty and

complexity, while the second focuses on learning how to develop key relationships through

practice. Both types require students to engage in ‘real’ projects or activities in order to get

close to the lived experience of entrepreneurs. Finally, there are two sets of learning

outcomes in the typology that can be associated with all forms of entrepreneurship

education. These are aiming to encourage the inculcation of key entrepreneurial values and

learning objectives targeted at trying to motivate students to consider an entrepreneurial

career (Hills, 1988; Donckels, 1991). Each of these learning objectives, it seems, could be

met through knowledge, the acquisition of appropriate skills or through practice and can, therefore, be considered generic learning outcomes that may be met by any form of

entrepreneurship education.

As well as making a distinction between the different forms of entrepreneurship

education and the forms of learning outcomes that may be pursued in each form the

typology in Figure 1 also demonstrates that educational activity may vary according to the

subject focus of the course. Much of the difference in subject focus is tested in the

empirical research, however, it does vary and some common examples include:

entrepreneurship; small business; new venture or business planning; franchising; family

firms; innovation; technology entrepreneurship; corporate entrepreneurship; and, social

entrepreneurship. A different subject focus may lead to variation in the assessment practice

deemed appropriate. For example, a business planning course due to its nature may

require the submission of a business plan as its common form of assessment practice and

this can be seen to be principally led by the subject of focus. The final aspect of the

typology presented in Figure 1 outlines some of the common issues in assessment practice

that seem relevant when examining assessment practice in entrepreneurship education.

The issues highlighted have been drawn from the general review of the literature about

assessment in higher education (Banta 1999; 2002; 2007) and from the prior research work

conducted (Pittaway et al., 2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009). The specific issues that

were focused on in this part of the research were:

i) The person or persons undertaking the assessment and the extent to which

this varied away from the professor teaching the course to include other

forms, such as, self-assessment; peer assessment and assessment by

entrepreneurs and other professionals.

ii) The specific methods of assessment used in courses (e.g. exams; tests;

essays)

iii) The extent to which assessment practice was driven by internal methods (e.g.

internal to the institution) or external methods (e.g. set by accreditation

agencies or involving external stakeholders).

iv) Whether the assessment methods used were principally driven by a desire to

undertake ‘objective’ assessment of performance (e.g. via verifiable tests) or

more inclined towards ‘subjective’ methods that required greater

interpretation on the part of the assessor.

v) Whether assessment practice was of a more ‘formative’ developmental type

or whether it tended towards more summative methods used to judge



performance. The nature of the balance within courses was a particular

focus, as most courses had some formative and some summative aspects.

Overall the typology presented in Figure 1 provides a means to consider

entrepreneurship education, to make some sense of the variety of different approaches

while at the same time exploring the forms of assessment used and the balance of

assessment according to common concerns in the general educational field (e.g. formative

versus summative assessment practice). The typology will be used to map out the forms of

entrepreneurship education observed and the application of assessment practice in these

different forms within the empirical research carried out. Before introducing the field

research, however, the next part of the paper will introduce the methodology and explain

how the empirical research was conducted.

Methodology

The purpose of this research is to expand observations on the actual assessment

practices of entrepreneurship educators. The research uses as its unit of analysis courses

undertaken on any subject in entrepreneurship and small business within the United

Kingdom (UK) or the United States (USA) from 1980 to the present day. The main data

sources used for the analysis were course outlines and syllabi published or provided directly.

Such material was useful when it clearly outlined the proposed learning outcomes and the

assessment strategy used by the educator. It was typically discarded and not used in the

research when these aspects of the course were unclear. Although a somewhat limited

form of data such materials have been used previously in entrepreneurship education to

survey current educational practice (Solomon and Fernald, 1991). A random sampling

method was employed to conduct the research. This had a number of components. First,

the research undertook a random search for course outlines and syllabi that were published

and available on the internet. Secondly, it explored randomly, accredited US schools and

searched their University web-pages for published course outlines and syllabi. Thirdly,

entrepreneurship programs were identified that were highly regarded and cited in the

Entrepreneur Magazine/Princeton Review 2009 list of entrepreneurship programs. The

listed institutions web-pages were searched for published syllabi and individual academics

were approached for copies when not openly available. Fourthly, online social networks

(LinkedIn and Facebook) were used to invite connected educators to provide samples of

their course outlines (mainly UK focused) for the research and to invite other colleagues to

contribute further materials. Finally, the research used professional newsletters (e.g. USASBE and ISBE) to invite educators to send sample syllabi and course outlines to the researchers to

further contribute data sources for the research.

Using these various approaches 117 course outlines and syllabi were collected. The

first step in the data analysis was to produce a means to codify the data in each submission

according to the typology presented in Figure 1. As the research was seeking to observe

practice through a wider sample a quantitative approach was taken and the data analysis

was undertaken using SPSS. To translate the narrative information in the course outlines

into quantitative data a survey schedule (see appendix 1) was used to review each

document. The first stage of data analysis involved simple descriptive statistics in relation

to the sample and the second stage involved more analytical statistics where these were

appropriate. The key research questions guiding this approach include: what are the

principle forms of entrepreneurship education currently being used by entrepreneurship

educators? What are the main learning objectives and are these clustered around particular

forms of entrepreneurship education? What are the dominant subjects currently being

taught? What are the main forms of assessment practice? Does this vary according to type

of entrepreneurship education? Given the specific debates about assessment what are



entrepreneurship educators typically applying (e.g. formative versus summative

assessment)? Does this vary according to form of entrepreneurship education?

There are a number of research limitations that should be outlined here. The first

limitation of this research is that it seeks to understand educator’s intentions from a

secondary source (course outlines) and, therefore, requires the researcher to interpret

those intentions and convert a written narrative into empirical data. Inevitably, there is

some scope for misinterpretation and some errors of interpretation may have been included

in this data. The preferable approach of a survey of educators was not deemed appropriate

in this case as much of the data was already available from published sources and a survey

may have been limited by a low response rate. Variation in interpretation was managed

somewhat by using the analysis schedule outlined in appendix 1. The second limitation is

the use of a random sample and the size of the sample. As this was one of the first

empirical studies of assessment practice the sample size was deemed appropriate. Given

the scale of entrepreneurship education, the sample remains small and there is scope for a

more comprehensive sample in future research. A future study may also benefit from

seeking a control group so that assessment practice in entrepreneurship education can be

explored in relation to assessment practice in other subjects. The final limitation of the

study revolves around the analysis undertaken. In the original data collection syllabi were

not assessed for the extent to which assessment practice was ‘individual’ or ‘group’ focused.

While this was not essential for the purposes of this study future work would benefit from

exploring this aspect of assessment practice.

Discussion of Results

Sample

There were 117 courses sampled, 85 were from the US (72.6%), 29 were from the

UK (24.8%) and three were from elsewhere (2.6%). The vast majority of the sample

reflects the dominance of entrepreneurship education by Business and Management Schools

and 87 (74.4%) courses were for business students. No other subject area was represented

to a significant degree: vocational business (e.g. Hospitality or Sports Management) (7);

Engineering (5); Natural Sciences (4), Social Sciences (3), Humanities (6), Medical Sciences

(2), other (3). For the purposes of more detailed statistical analysis these were classified as

‘not-business’ and they constitute 25.6% of the sample. The sample size outside of

business schools was insufficient for detailed statistical analysis and is, therefore, an area

that would be appropriate for a follow-up study. There were 86 courses at the

undergraduate level (73.5%) and 30 at the postgraduate level (25.6%) and one categorized

as ‘other’ (0.90%). The sample was collected randomly and is consistent with previous

studies that examine the distribution of entrepreneurship education across disciplines

(Solomon, Duffy and Tarabishy, 2002). It is sufficient to explore differences between

business school and ‘not-business’ but the number of cases within discrete disciplines, such

as engineering, is too small to explore deeper differences.

Forms and Types of Entrepreneurship Education

Courses were categorized as being ‘About’; ‘For’; ‘Through’; and ‘Embedded’ forms of

entrepreneurship education. All courses were categorized twice, the course’s primary form

and its secondary from. When the data are explored for variations between location (e.g.

the USA versus the UK) there are no significant differences; the ‘For’ approach has been

used slightly more widely in the UK and the ‘About’ form slightly more in the US. There is

also evidence that undergraduate education tends to be somewhat more dominated by

‘About’ forms of entrepreneurship education while postgraduate level education tends to

have a greater proportion of the ‘For’ form of entrepreneurship education. Table 1



summarizes the results for the entire sample and Table 2 summarizes the results for

differences between the UK and US:

Table 1 – Forms of Entrepreneurship Education

Primary form of approach

About For Through Embedded Other None

69 32 11 5 0 0

59.0% 27.4% 9.4% 4.3% 0 0

Table 2 – Forms of Entrepreneurship Education (US versus UK)

Secondary form of approach


47 47 13 3 0 7

40.2% 40.2% 11.1% 2.6% 0 6.0%

Total – Forms of Entrepreneurship Education


116 79 24 8 0 7

49.6% 33.6% 10.3% 3.4% 0 3.0%

Primary and secondary forms of education Total

About For Through Embedded

Location of

course

USA 93

(55%)

54

(32%)

15

(9%)

7

(4%)

169

UK 20

(38%)

22

(42%)

9

(5%)

1

(2%)

52

Other 3 2 0 0 5

Total 116 78 24 8 226



This study highlights that the majority of entrepreneurship education sampled here

uses the ‘About’ form (59.0% in the primary category, 40.2% in the secondary category

and 49.6% overall). So over half of all courses surveyed in this research used a more

traditional approach that is focused on knowledge accumulation and they typically depend

upon didactic pedagogies. The second major form used in the courses sampled was ‘For’

forms (27.4% in the primary category, 40.2% in the secondary category, 33.6% overall).

While only around a 3rd of courses are specifically trying to develop entrepreneurial skills

many of the courses initially designated as being ‘knowledge’ focused do also aim to help

with skill development. Finally, the ‘Through’ form and the ‘Embedded’ forms of

entrepreneurship education are used less often (10.3% and 3.4% respectively). The data,

therefore, demonstrate that the more innovative forms of entrepreneurship education

remain somewhat peripheral and the more traditional ‘About’ form continues to dominate.

When the data are explored between ‘business school-led’ and ‘not-business school led’

there are no significant differences. For example, ‘business school-led’ courses have 50.1%

‘About’, 28.2% ‘For’, 12.6% ‘Through’ and 0% ‘Embedded’ forms and ‘not business school-

led’ courses have 51.9% ‘About’, 33.3% ‘For’, 3.7% ‘Through’ and 13% ‘Embedded’. By

definition courses outside of the business school are more likely to be categorized as being

embedded in another discipline; although courses that engage students in small business

consultancy and other forms that are categorized as being ‘Through’ tended to be slightly

higher in business schools than elsewhere. Overall the data on forms of entrepreneurship

education tend to show that

traditional ‘About’ forms of

entrepreneurship education

continue to play a dominant role

and that these forms dominant

regardless of location or discipline.

‘For’ approaches to

entrepreneurship education, do

play a crucial role and constitute

around a 3rd of all courses but

other forms of entrepreneurship

education are used less. The

focus of courses in terms of

subject is highlighted in Table 3.

The most common subjects of

course sampled were

‘entrepreneurship’; ‘business

planning’ and ‘technology

entrepreneurship’ courses. Other

forms listed occurred less often in

the sample and this seems to

agree with other studies that have

sampled entrepreneurship

programs (Solomon, Duffy and

Tarabishy, 2002). The data do

not vary in a significant way

between the UK and the US.



Learning Outcomes

The syllabi were explored for the articulated learning outcomes educators sought

(‘what’ is being assessed). Learning outcomes were dominated by traditional ‘About’

entrepreneurship forms of education as described in Figure 1 (see Table 4). Learning

outcomes that sought key business knowledge about start-up and understanding of the

processes of business entry and stages constitute 48% of the cases. Outcomes associated

with the attainment of entrepreneurial skills (‘For’) are 30% of the cases and outcomes

associated with experience (‘Through’) are 16% of the sample; while values and motivations

to become entrepreneurs, are the remainder of the learning outcomes sought (6%). The

sample of learning outcomes overall, therefore, mirrors the course categorization with

around half the sample focusing on knowledge acquisition, a third focusing on skills and the

remainder on experience. When learning outcomes were explored, as outlined in the

conceptual framework (see Figure 1), the different forms of learning outcome mapped

against the different forms of educational practice to a degree, but not completely. ‘About’

forms of entrepreneurship education tended towards learning outcomes that were focused

on ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ (59% cases). ‘For’ forms of educational practice were

unexpectedly split equally between the attainment of knowledge and understanding (39%)

and the acquisition of skills and competencies (39%) and ‘Through’ approaches focused

more on empathy and relationships (42%), while also focusing on skills and competencies

(32%). ‘Embedded’ approaches mirrored the sample as a whole as anticipated in the

conceptual framework. The distribution of cases across the sample made it difficult to

explore learning outcomes by subject focus in a statistically significant way. Some variation

was observed, ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘venture finance’ courses tended to apply learning

outcomes that were focused on knowledge and understanding while ‘business planning’

courses tended to have learning outcomes that were more focused on skills acquisition. For

other subjects the sample was too small to draw meaningful conclusions but it was evident

from observations of the data that ‘small business’ consultancy courses tended to apply

learning outcomes that were more focused on the acquisition of ‘competencies’, ‘empathy’

and the development of ‘relationships’ with entrepreneurs. Other subjects (e.g. corporate

entrepreneurship; social entrepreneurship; and, family business) tended to seek a range of

different learning outcomes and no commonalities were observed in the data.



Assessment Methods

The main focus of the data collection was assessment practice and some interesting

results were found (i.e. ‘how’ are students assessed). First, when the data were explored

with regard to method of assessment (see Table 5) traditional didactic methods, such as,

tests and exams (15%) and essays (10%) were used less extensively than might have been

expected given the large number of courses in the subject that were categorized as ‘About’

forms of entrepreneurship education. The most common forms of assessment method used

were business plans and business reports (20%); presentations (16%); and in class

assessment (16%). These forms are often associated with the acquisition of skills ‘For’

entrepreneurship and so it is interesting that they tend to dominate as the main methods of

assessment. Methods that involve self-assessment (8%) or peer assessment (4%) were

used much less often than expected.

When assessment methods are explored by country (UK versus US) some differences

emerge. Courses in the US in general have more methods of assessment in each course

than their counterparts in the UK. US courses in entrepreneurship use in-class methods, for

example credit for attendance and involvement in class, much more extensively and this

method is rarely used in the UK (66 cases versus 5 in the UK). Tests and exams are also

used more extensively by US professors and were rarely used in the UK (7 cases). Case

studies are also used somewhat more widely in the US. In the UK professors are more

likely to use essays than their US counterparts. Other methods of assessment are similar

between the two countries (e.g. business planning; business reports; peer assessment;

and, presentations). The data thus point to some notable cultural differences between the

UK and the US in terms of assessment practice in entrepreneurship education. The most

notable being the wider use of tests and exams and the inclusion of credit for in-class

activities in the US; both of which point to a slightly higher tendency in US entrepreneurship

education to focus on knowledge acquisition and retention. When methods of assessment

are explored according to discipline (business school versus not-business school) there is

little notable difference in methods used. Business schools appear to trend towards greater

use of exams, in-class assessments and case studies but these were not significant results.

Somewhat unexpectedly, therefore, the assessment methods used in entrepreneurship

education do not appear to vary much between disciplines in this sample. The data also

display little variation in the use of assessment methods between levels of education

(undergraduate versus postgraduate).



Figure 2: Methods of Assessment within Different Forms of Entrepreneurship Education by Number of Cases

Figure 3: Methods of Assessment within Different Forms of Entrepreneurship Education by Percentage

When the methods of assessment are explored within the different forms of

entrepreneurship education a number of observations can be made (see Figures 2 and 3).

First, it is evident that ‘About’ forms of entrepreneurship education that are seeking

‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ are far more likely to use tests and exams as core

approaches to assessing students. They are also more likely to use case studies than other

forms. Interestingly, in class assessment is used almost equally in all forms of

entrepreneurship education and is, therefore, driven by cultural issues (traditional US

practice) than by the form of entrepreneurship education. The data also demonstrate quite

clearly that both the ‘For’ and ‘Through’ forms of entrepreneurship education tend towards

assessment practice that uses business plans, business reports and presentations. It is also

evident in the data that the ‘Through’ form of entrepreneurship education is far more likely

to utilize reflective assessment practice; an approach that is often considered essential

when engaging in experiential learning (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). This form is also

somewhat more likely to engage in peer assessment. The ‘Embedded’ form of

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

About

For

Through

Embedded

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

About

For

Through

Embedded



entrepreneurship education, as anticipated by the conceptual framework, is using a range of

assessment methods and no forms appear to stand out from the norm. This is somewhat

expected as such approaches to entrepreneurship education are drawing, by definition, from

many disciplines and pedagogic traditions, which leads to substantial variation between

approaches.

When exploring ‘who’ is doing the assessing the results are clear. Most professors in

entrepreneurship education assess their own courses with little input from other

stakeholders. Student’s self-assessment through reflective assessment practice was much

lower than might have been expected (5.1% of courses) and peer assessment featured in

many courses but could still be considered low (19.6% of courses). Entrepreneurs (26.8%)

and other professionals (15.4%) were certainly involved but rarely contributed to

assessments where the awarded grade would have a major impact on the student’s overall

grade. The data did not display much variation between the UK and the US. The data on

internal versus external assessment support this finding. The mean for internal versus

external is 1.53, which is explored on a 7 point scale where 1 is 100% internal and 7 is



100% external. This result demonstrates that very few stakeholders other than professors

were involved in assessment practice for the courses sampled in this study. The data show

a slightly more internal focused approach in the UK data (1.45) versus the US (1.55) but

this is not significant (see Table 6). There was no noticeable variation between disciplines

and some variation between levels where postgraduate courses were slightly more likely to

engage other stakeholders (1.74 versus 1.49 for undergraduate courses). When exploring between ‘About’ courses and other forms. ‘About’ courses are much more likely to apply

summative assessment practices (3.78) whereas ‘For’ (2.19), ‘Through’ (2.36) and ‘Embedded’ (2.40) approaches are more inclined to use formative assessment practices. Overall though, even in courses that are designed to be ‘knowledge’ based, there appears to be a reasonably healthy use of formative assessment (50% of the assessment practice is still formative in nature).

the data for variation between forms of courses there is significant variation. ‘About’

courses are dominated by internal assessment (1.23); ‘For’ courses are more likely to

engage other stakeholders (1.78); ‘Through’ courses draw much more extensively on other

stakeholders within the assessment process (2.64); and, ‘Embedded’ courses are similar to

the average for all courses (1.60). These data demonstrate that the form of course does

impact on ‘who’ is involved in assessment practice. Courses designed to engage students in

experiential learning or skills development are far more likely to engage other stakeholders

in the assessment process; including students; entrepreneurs and other business

professionals. It should be noted, however, that even the most externally focused

assessment practices remain at least 60% internal and, therefore, are driven predominantly

by the professor leading the course.

When the data for ‘objective versus subjective’ and ‘formative versus summative’

assessment are considered other interesting findings emerge (see Table 6). First, when

examining ‘objective versus subjective’ assessment the sample as a whole is split 50/50,

entrepreneurship education appears to use a balanced approach drawing equally on both

objective and subjective forms of assessment practice. There is no significant variation

between the UK and US or much variation between discipline (from limited data

entrepreneurship education in social sciences do tend to use slightly more subjective

assessment methods than other disciplines) or any difference between level (undergraduate

as opposed to postgraduate). There is once again significant variation between forms of

entrepreneurship education. The ‘About’ form tends to use objective assessment methods

more (3.99) than any of the other forms (e.g. ‘For’ is 5.19; ‘Through’ is 5.64 and

‘Embedded’ is 4.40). The data thus confirm that methods of education that are focused on

knowledge accumulation will tend towards assessment practice (e.g. tests and exams) that

judge objectively the retention of knowledge. Forms of education that aim to develop skills

or seek to engage students in practice are also more likely to accept and utilize methods of

assessment that are more subjective in nature (e.g. essays; reflections; business reports).

When the data are explored for the ‘formative versus summative’ dimension of assessment

practice similar conclusions can be drawn (see Table 6). The data once again overall show a

balanced approach with virtually equal use of formative and summative forms of

assessment but with perhaps a slight preference for formative assessment (3.15). There

are some observable differences between the UK and US with the UK preferring slightly

more formative forms (2.90 versus 3.32 for the US) but this result was not significant.

There was a significant difference between postgraduate and undergraduate level

entrepreneurship education. In postgraduate entrepreneurship education more formative

forms of assessment are used (2.41) whereas in undergraduate education more summative

forms are used (3.47). Such a result should be expected and it appears to demonstrate

that students do move from more basic knowledge driven classes into more applied classes

as they progress through entrepreneurship programs. Once again there is also a significant

difference



Conclusions

The results of this research should provide ‘food for thought’ for entrepreneurship

educators. Despite a widespread desire to promote and develop innovative forms of

entrepreneurship education it is quite evident from this study that current educational

practice remains fairly traditional. The majority of courses sampled in this study were

‘About’ forms of educational practice and they typically sought learning outcomes that were

‘knowledge-based’. There were fewer examples of educational practice focused on ‘For’

forms of entrepreneurship education and where these existed they were usually utilizing

‘business planning’ formats. More innovative forms of educational practice, such as, those

categorized as ‘Through’ approaches or ‘Embedded’ approaches were significantly more

marginal within the data. Over 50% of entrepreneurship education sampled here is,

therefore, focused on helping students understand the phenomenon rather than preparing

them for genuine entrepreneurial activity. There is little difference between the UK and the

US but there is some notable progression between undergraduate and postgraduate

education with far more emphasis on skills and practice in postgraduate courses than their

undergraduate equivalents. The sample also demonstrates the continued dominance of

business schools in entrepreneurship education although somewhat surprisingly educational

practice outside of business schools, in this study, does not differ substantially.

The learning outcomes sought by educators unfortunately mirrors this somewhat

unattractive picture; and the majority of learning outcomes aim to enable students to

acquire knowledge ‘about’ the subject. The conceptual framework in Figure 1 is broadly

supported by the data and certain learning outcomes can be mapped against particular

forms of entrepreneurship education as highlighted. When turning to assessment practice a

somewhat more complex picture emerges. While courses tend towards knowledge

accumulation and articulated learning outcomes are knowledge-based, assessment practice

is less didactic. For example, tests and exams are used less often than might be anticipated

given the focus of courses and business plans, business reports, presentations and in-class

assessment are used more widely than might have been expected. Despite this result

assessment practice cannot really be described as ‘innovative’ as discussed in the Pittaway

et al (2009) paper and it is evident that self-assessment and peer assessment are not used

as often as one might expect. The research also demonstrated some interesting cultural

differences between the UK and the US with regard to assessment practice in

entrepreneurship education, particularly the use of in-class assessment in the US and the

greater use of exams and tests versus wider use of essays in the UK. Also, when examining

‘who’ is doing the assessing it is evident that entrepreneurship courses are not engaging

other stakeholders in the assessment process as much as they should.

One of the main findings of this study is the significant variation of assessment

practice between the different forms of entrepreneurship education as anticipated in the

conceptual framework. ‘About’ forms of entrepreneurship education are much less likely to

engage other stakeholders, are much more likely to seek ‘objective’ assessment methods

and are more likely to apply ‘summative’ assessment methods. Given the dominance of this

form the assessment process. Assessment practice needs to be more innovative. Although

there were a few examples of very innovative practice in the sample these examples were

very rare and forms of of entrepreneurship education in the sample this is a somewhat

disheartening finding. Other approaches to entrepreneurship education are offering

different forms of learning design, are seeking different learning outcomes and, as a

consequence use assessments differently. In these other forms of entrepreneurship

education, assessment practice tends to be more reflective, more engaging of other

stakeholders, more accepting of ambiguity and more formative in nature.

These conclusions suggest a number of implications. Those researchers and

educators who advocate for more innovative forms of entrepreneurship education (Gibb,

1998; Pittaway et al., 2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009) need to continue their efforts.

While there is a place for ‘About’ forms of entrepreneurship education there remains a need



to rebalance the dominance of these approaches with more ‘For’, ‘Through’ and ‘Embedded’

forms of educational practice. It is evident that educators need to do more to engage

stakeholders in the assessment process particularly via peer assessment and the

engagement of entrepreneurs and other professionals in assessment that were used (with

the exception of business plans) are not inherently unique to entrepreneurship education.

In this regard there seems to be much more scope for the greater use of reflective

assessment practices and a need to develop forms of assessment that are specific to the

entrepreneurial context (e.g. elevator pitches; executive summaries; trade shows etc.).

Ultimately the contribution of this paper is to explore what entrepreneurship

educators ‘do’ when they assess entrepreneurship education. The results show that there is

much work to do to encourage a more careful consideration of assessment practice in

entrepreneurship education. The study also provides some opportunities for future

research. Assessment practice as a focus for research in entrepreneurship education seems

ripe for further effort especially as there have only been a few studies exploring the subject

(Pittaway et al. 2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009). There is, for example, a need to look

at particular forms of assessment practice (e.g. reflective and peer assessment) more

deeply with a need to explore what value they provide. The study also shows that there is a

need for further research that explores assessment practice in entrepreneurship education

in disciplines outside of business schools.



References

Askham, P. (1997). An instrumental response to the instrumental student: assessment for

learning, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 299-317.

Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: planning, implementing and improving

assessment in Higher Education, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Banta, T. W. (Ed) (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass/John Wiley & Sons.

Banta, T. W. (2007). Can assessment for accountability complement assessment for

improvement? Peer Review, 9(2), 9-13.

Bilen, S., Kisenwether, E., Rzasa, S. and Wise, J. (2005). Developing and assessing

students’ entrepreneurial skills and mind-set, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 233-

243.

Brawer, F.B. (1997), Simulation as a vehicle in entrepreneurship education, ERIC Digest,

97(1), 433-469.

Donckels, R. (1991), Education and entrepreneurship experiences from secondary and

university education in Belgium, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 35-

42.

Ecclestone, K. and Swann, J. (1999). Litigation and learning: tensions in improving

university lecturers’ assessment practice, Assessment in Education, 6(3), 377-389.

Katz, J.A. (2003), ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American Entrepreneurship

education’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.

Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, Trends

and Challenges’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.

Gibb, A. (1998), ‘Educating tomorrow’s entrepreneurs’, Economic Reform Today, 4, 32-38.

Gibb, 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), 213-232.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (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), 56-

77.

Handscombe, R., Kothari, S., Rodriguez-Falcon, E. and Patterso, E. (2007), “Embedding

Enterprise in Science and Engineering Departments”, NCGE Working Paper, No. 025/2007,

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.

Hills, G.E. (1988), Variations in university entrepreneurship education: An empirical study

and an evolving field, Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 109-122.

Macfarlane, B. and Tomlinson, K. (1993), Managing and assessing student enterprise

projects, Education & Training, 35(3), 33.



Martell, K., (2007). Assessing student learning: are Business Schools making the grade,

Journal of Education for Business, 82(4), 189-196.

McMullan, W.E. and Long, W.A. (1987), Entrepreneurship education in the nineties, Journal

of Business Venturing, 2(3), 261-275.

Penaluna, A. and Penaluna, K. (2009), Assessing creativity: drawing from the experience of

the UK’s creative design educators, Education and Training, 51(8/9), 718-732.

Pittaway, L., (2009), The role of inquiry-based learning in entrepreneurship education,

Industry and Higher Education, 23 (3), 153-162.

Pittaway, L. and Cope, J., (2007a), ‘Entrepreneurship Education – A Systematic Review of

the Evidence’, International Small Business Journal, 25 (5), 477-506.

Pittaway, L. and Cope, J., (2007b), ‘Simulating Entrepreneurial Learning: Assessing the

Utility of Experiential Learning Designs, Management Learning, 38 (2), 211-233.

Pittaway, L. and Hannon, P., (2008), Institutional strategies for developing enterprise

education: A conceptual analysis, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15

(1), 202-226.

Pittaway, L. Hannon, P. Gibb, A. and Thompson, J. (2009), ‘Assessment practice in

enterprise education’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research,

15(1), 71-93.

Pittaway, L., Rodriguez-Falcon, E., Aiyegbayo, O. and King, A., (2011), The role of

entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning, International Small

Business Journal, 29 (1), 37-57.

Plaschka, G.R. and Welsch, H.P. (1990), Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education:

Curricula designs and strategies, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 55-71.

Reid, A. and Petocz, P. (2004). Learning domains and the process of creativity, Australian

Educational Researcher, 31(2), 45-62.

Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002), The state of entrepreneurship education

in the United States: A national survey overview, International Journal of Entrepreneurship

Education, 1(1), 65-86.

Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W. Jr., (1991), Trends in small business management and

entrepreneurship education in the United States, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

15(3):25.

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. and Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of

academic writing between postgraduate students, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education, 25(2), 149-166.

Truell, A.D., Webster, L. and Davidson, C., (1998). Fostering entrepreneurial spirit:

Integrating the business community into the classroom, Business Education Forum, 53(2),

28-29.

Vesper, K. H. and McMullen, W. (1988), Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow

degrees? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1), 7-13.



Appendix 1: Course Outline and Syllabi Analysis Schedule

1) Location of course

1. USA

2. UK

3. European

4. Other

2) College or discipline

1. Business (General)

2. Business (Vocational)

3. Engineering

4. Natural sciences

5. Social sciences

6. Humanities

7. Medical or Veterinary

Sciences

8. Other

3) Course level

1. Undergraduate

2. Postgraduate

3. Other

4) Principle form of


1. About

2. For

3. Through

4. Embedded

5. Other

5) Secondary form of


1. About

2. For

3. Through

4. Embedded

5. Other

6. None

6) Primary category of learning

outcomes

1. Key minimum

business knowledge

about start-up or

other

2. Understanding

process of business

entry and stages

3. Gain entrepreneurial

behavior and skills

4. Generic

entrepreneurship

competencies

5. Empathy with the life-

world of the

entrepreneur

6. Students understand

the nature of the

relationships they

need

7. Key entrepreneurial

values are inculcated

8. Motivation towards an

career in

entrepreneurship has

been built

9. Other

7) Secondary category of learning

outcomes

1. Business knowledge

about start-up or

other

2. Understanding

processes and stages

3. Gain entrepreneurial

behavior and skills

4. Generic

entrepreneurship

competencies

5. Empathy with the life-

8) Focus of course

1. Academic

entrepreneurship

2. Business planning

3. Corporate

entrepreneurship

4. Corporate venturing

5. Creativity and idea

generation

6. Entrepreneurial

simulations

7. Entrepreneurship

8. Innovation

9) What is assessed

1. Knowledge

2. Skills

3. Experience

4. Other



world

6. Understand the nature

of the relationships

7. Entrepreneurial values

inculcated

8. Motivation towards an

career

9. Other

10. None

9. Family Firms

10. Franchising

11. Small Business

Management

12. Social entrepreneurship

13. Technology

entrepreneurship

14. Venture finance

15. Small business

consultancy

16. Other

10) How is it assessed (5 options)

1. Multiple choice tests

2. Exam

3. Essay

4. Business plan

5. Business report

6. Peer assessment

7. Learning logs or

diaries

8. Personal reflection

9. Presentation

10. Interview

11. Other

12. None

13. In class

14. Case study

15. Portfolio

11) Who is assessing (3 options)

1. Professor

2. Self

3. Student peers

4. Entrepreneurs

5. Other professionals

6. Other

7. None

12) External versus internal

1. 100% internal

assessment

2. 80 % internal and

20% external

3. 60% internal and

40% external

4. 50% internal and

50% external

5. 40% internal and

60% external

6. 20% internal and

80% external

7. 100% external

assessment

13) Objective versus subjective

1. 100% objective

assessment

2. 80 % objective and

20% subjective

3. 60% objective and

40% subjective


50% subjective


60% subjective


80% subjective

7. 100% subjective

assessment

14) Formative versus summative

assessment

1. 100% formative

assessment

2. 80 % formative and

20% summative

3. 60% formative and 40%

summative


summative


summative


summative

7. 100% summative

assessment

Research in Entrepreneurship and Leadership: Working Paper ... · PDF fileCenter for...

Documents

Transcript of Research in Entrepreneurship and Leadership: Working Paper ... · PDF fileCenter for...