1

Studying Teachers’ Teaching Methods and Working Approaches in Entrepreneurship

Education

Ruskovaara, E., Pihkala, T., Rytkölä, T. & Seikkula-Leino, J.

Abstract:

It is generally known that entrepreneurship education is a wide subject and there are various methods with which teachers promote in their teaching. However, there are no studies so far that could provide us with information on to what extent are different teaching methods and working approaches used.

In Finland, entrepreneurship education is included in the national core curricula as a

cross-curricular theme at all education levels. Therefore, a follow-up system for teachers to self-evaluate their actions as entrepreneurship educators was required. Our preliminary data consists of almost 200 questions and we here concentrate on 43 of them, concerning the ways of putting entrepreneurship into teaching. Teachers answered the question by choosing a number from 0 to 30 which best describe their actions during the last six months.

The purpose of this paper is to present preliminary results of the quantitative study,

concerning the teaching methods and working approaches used by Finnish teachers (N 28) at basic and secondary education level. The study took place in 2010. The results show that the most used methods were learning by doing, problem based learning, group and pair work, entrepreneurship stories and narratives and discussions. Learning diaries and study visits were scarcely used. E-Learning seems to be either regularly used or not used at all. Although the data is limited our research shows viewpoint for further development of entrepreneurial pedagogy and teaching entrepreneurship.

The study concludes with set of implications for the further development of measuring

entrepreneurship education. First, what methods seem to be the most used in school practice. Second, how can entrepreneurship education be measured and third, how these single elements form a system of entrepreneurship education for both teachers and schools.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education has been defined as a Europe-wide development target. In the Green Paper of the European Union (Commission of the European Communities 2003), the promotion of entrepreneurship was named as an area of emphasis in primary and secondary education. Furthermore, the Commission of the European Communities (2006) has stated that entrepreneurship is a key competence of European citizens. In Finland the need to promote entrepreneurship has been recognized as well. (See e.g. Ministry of Education, Finland 2004; 2008; Finnish Government 2007). Consequently, entrepreneurship education should be present in the everyday education delivered in Finnish

2

comprehensive schools (Finnish National Board of Education 2004) and upper secondary schools (Finnish National Board of Education 2003), in accordance with the curricula that regulate their activities. The theme is still being discussed, as the Finnish Ministry of Education (2009a) has published guidelines for entrepreneurship education in the spring of 2009. The guidelines depict the national targets until the year 2015, and the aspects highlighted at each level of education.

Because of the high expectations set on both the EU- and the national levels, there is a

great need for models of successful entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship education research has been mainly conducted at the adult education level, and has not dealt with basic education, upper secondary education and basic vocational training. Furthermore, while the research on entrepreneurship education has largely concentrated on the conceptual difficulties of entrepreneurship and on the possibilities of implanting the promotion of entrepreneurship into the school curricula, the empirical results on the entrepreneurship education practices in the schools are practically non-existent. This study seeks to focus on this research gap.

We propose the view that in teachers’ daily work they meet several simultaneous

transformation processes embedded in entrepreneurship education. Teachers build the bridge between the general aims of entrepreneurship education and their actual outcome, i.e. increasing entrepreneurial activities in the society, as they transform the aims of entrepreneurship education into teaching activities and into learning outcomes. Whilst the entrepreneurship promotion programmes do not explicitly identify the methods best suitable for entrepreneurship education, the teachers are in the central role in operationalizing entrepreneurship education, and more specifically, in finding the best practices. However, according to Seikkula-Leino (2006; 2007) and Fiet (2000a; 2000b), teachers have at times had difficulties in identifying contents and means by which to respond to challenges posed by entrepreneurship education. In our earlier studies we found out that entrepreneurship education in practice is rather limited since it is not a part of normal schoolwork. Instead, separate projects and theme days are carried out to fulfil the requirements set out in the curricula. In addition, many teachers do not know enough about the curricula or strategies connected to entrepreneurship education. (Seikkula-Leino et. al. 2010; Ruskovaara et al, forthcoming)

The purpose of this article is twofold: first, we present results from a pilot study on the

teachers’ entrepreneurship education practices. In this article we present preliminary results from the pilot data which was gathered from group of 28 teachers, representing basic and secondary education level. The group was invited to take part in development project during which a measurement tool for entrepreneurship education will be prepared. The second purpose of the study is to provide some tentative implications for the development of entrepreneurship education practices. We see highlighting the teachers’ working methods in terms of entrepreneurship education is warranted in several ways. First, there is a constant lack of information on the methods the teacher’s are applying in their entrepreneurship education. Second, there is a lack of tools which could enhance teachers’ development as entrepreneurship educators. Finally, there is a lack of information connecting between methods applied in classroom and successful outcomes of entrepreneurship education. Building this link is central if the government is to add resources to entrepreneurship education in the future.

3

2. Concepts and theoretical background 2.1. Entrepreneurship education

The research of entrepreneurship education builds its basis largely on the conceptual understanding of entrepreneurship and learning. As Gibb (2005) has stated, entrepreneurship education is about learning for entrepreneurship, learning about entrepreneurship and learning through entrepreneurship. Therefore, entrepreneurship education should be considered both as a method of learning as well as a content of learning (see Remes 2003). On the content of entrepreneurship education, Gibb (2005) has further distinguished between enterprising behaviour and entrepreneurial behaviour. The only major distinction between these two is that entrepreneurial traditionally refers to business activity, whereas enterprising can be used in any context (e.g. Gibb 2005). In order to avoid confusion and to be exact, this article uses both concepts explicitly: entrepreneurial (referring to the business context) and enterprising (referring to general education and learning processes).

As the outcome of entrepreneurship education, learning has been presented to include several layers. Entrepreneurship education introduces entrepreneurship as a career choice, it supports the entrepreneurial way of seeing and doing things and it characterises a way of teaching and learning (Steyaert & Katz 2004; Berglund & Johansson 2007). Entrepreneurship education for younger students has been suggested to concern more about learning the spirit and ways of doing and seeing than about business activity. The aim is that students could take more responsibility for themselves and their learning. (e.g. Gibb 2006, Remes 2001; 2004). In other words, entrepreneurship education should supports the students’ feeling of their internal locus of control. As a learning outcome, the students would also try more persistently to achieve their goals, to be creative, to discover existing opportunities and in general to cope with the complicated society. This education involves the development of attitudes, behaviors, skills and attributes applied individually and/or collectively to help individuals and organizations of all kinds to create, cope with and enjoy change and innovation. (Gibb 2006; Frank 2007) This process involves higher levels of uncertainty and complexity as a means of achieving personal fulfillment and organizational effectiveness.

While the learning outcomes of entrepreneurship education has been under careful research, the viewpoint of teaching has been seemingly underdeveloped. According to Kyrö (1997), entrepreneurship education deals with three main components: 1) self-oriented, 2) internal and 3) external entrepreneurship. Self-orientated entrepreneurship refers to an individual’s self-oriented behavior. Self-oriented entrepreneurship is the basis for developing internal and external entrepreneurship (Remes 2004: 84). Internal entrepreneurship deals with entrepreneurial and enterprising behavior. External entrepreneurship is about doing business (Ristimäki 2003: 6). Within fairly young students, self-oriented entrepreneurship is emphasized (Remes, 2001). As a consequence, the focus is not only on developing factors related to motivation, self-awareness and creativity (e.g., Menzies & Paradi 2003), and responsibility for learning (Heinonen, 2004), but also on co-operation and interaction, which refer to internal entrepreneurship development. In comparison, in the school context, external entrepreneurship education is about developing innovation (see also Gibb 2005: 48) and business ideas, as well as strengthening co-operation between schools and the world of work, including such activities as work experience and study tours.

4

2.2. Entrepreneurship education in Finnish curricula

In Finland, the core curriculum describes the implementation of learning and defines learning as an individual and communal process, and interactive cooperation aids individual learning. The learning environment must support interaction between teachers and students and among students, and guide students in working as members of a group sharing responsibility. Learning is situational, so special attention must be given to the diversity of the learning enviroment. The wider constructed enviroment outside the school building is also part of the learning enviroment. (Finnish National Board of Education 2003; 2004)

The core curriculum defines so-called cross-curricular themes, which are themes integrating upbringing and education. The objective of integrating instruction is to guide pupils in examining phenomena from the perspectives of different fields of knowledge. In formulating the curriculum, cross-curricular themes are to be included in the subjects and in joint events such as assemblies, and are to be manifest in the school’s operational culture. The objective is an open, interactive operational culture that supports cooperation both within the school and with the home and the rest of the society. Entrepreneurship education is a cross-curricula theme for both basic education and upper secondary education. Especially intrapreneurship is considered as a main target in the school context. (Finnish National Board of Education 2003; 2004)1

The theme in curricula for basic education is called “Participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship” and for upper secondary education it is called “Active citizenship and entrepreneurship”. For basic education the goals of the “participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship” are to help the pupil perceive society from the viewpoints of different players, to develop the capabilities needed for civic involvement, and to create a foundation for entrepreneurial methods. The school’s methods and culture of learning must support the pupils’ development as independent, initiative-taking, goal-conscious, cooperative, engaged citizens, and help the pupils form a realistic picture of their own possibilities for influence. (Finnish National Board of Education 2004, 40-41)

The goals of the “Active citizenship and entrepreneurship” are very similar with the goals of “participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship”. The main focus in the implementation must be on practical exercises and on the creation of personal experiences of participation and influence. In addition to the school’s own active efforts, the learning environment may be developed in co-operation with other bodies operating in society, different organisations and business enterprises. (Finnish National Board of Education 2003, 25) Currently, there is a curricula reform concerning vocational education and training. During the years 2007–2010 vocational education curricula will be updated and every study

1 National core curricular diverges in basic vocational training level, although every study module of vocation includes own section of entrepreneurship education. The conception of learning is similar than basic and upper secondary level though intrapreneurship is much less highlighted. (Finnish National Board of Education 2009a; 2009b)

5

programme will contain studies about entrepreneurship, involving elements developing an enterprising attitude. (Finnish National board of Education 2009a; 2009b)

Even though the curriculum basis for developing entrepreneurship education in Finland is strong, we can find teachers having difficulties in finding contents and means to respond to challenges posed by entrepreneurship education (e.g. Seikkula-Leino 2006; 2007). The translation of the learning targets explicated in the curricula into distinct teaching practices may be both too challenging and tacit for teachers. Thus it seems that entrepreneurship education has not yet established its position in e.g. teacher education and in the continuing professional education of teachers (Seikkula-Leino 2007). Because of that, there is no doubt that the inclusion of the subject in school curricula remains very challenging (Seikkula-Leino et. al. 2010). In this study we suggest that more attention should be paid for the operational teaching intructions and advice that could support the teachers in their efforts of entrepreneurship education. We have labelled the operational teaching choices as entrepreneurship education working approaches. Next, in the following chapter we will briefly present some working approaches and teaching methods in the context of entrepreneurship education. 2.3. Working approaches and teaching methods in entrepreneurship education

In the field of entrepreneurship education, there is a wide range of working approaches and teaching methods used (e.g. Fiet 2000a; 2000b; Seikkula-Leino 2006; 2007; Fayolle 2008). We here propose those that could be useful in basic and secondary education.

Working approaches give a ground for students to develop their knowledge and their

skills according the aims of teaching (Fiet 2000b; National Board of Education 2004, 17). Working approaches involve students` active participation, communication, interaction with community and logical thinking (see for example Joyce & Weil 1980). In line, the Finnish core-curricula (National Board of Education 2004) stresses the function of the working approaches which are to develop social, learning, thinking, working, and problem-solving skills, and to foster active participation. The approaches must further the development of information and communication technology skills. They must also provide opportunities for the creative activity and experiences. Teachers select the working approaches and it is their task to teach and guide the working and learning. As working approaches teachers choose, for example, how they support learning that occurs through interaction among pupils, as well as how to promote social flexibility and ability to function in constructive cooperation. Also the assumption of responsibility for others, developing skills for acquiring, applying and evaluating information are mentioned as supported skills. (National Board of Education 2004, 17)

As Gibb (2005) argues, the pedagogy of entrepreneurship education focuses on

students’ activity in learning, and this approach could be considered as a non-traditional teaching method. The learning situations are flexible, interactive and based on multidimensional knowledge development. According to Seikkula-Leino (2007, 35-37) in the implementation of entrepreneurship education could be considered for activating students’ interactive learning, problem solving, creativity and reflections. Usable working approaches are co-operative learning, problem-based learning, group and peer work, project work, team

6

work, learning by doing, pedagogical drama, learning diaries, school and business co-operation, working life experiences and practise enterprise through real processes.

Fiet (2000b) presents an interesting variety of working approaches and teaching

methods. His context is American higher-education level and hi especially proposes ideas how to successfully teach and learn the theoretical side of entrepreneurship, still there are useful insights for our purpose. Fiet (2000b) argues that both teachers and students might get bored in classroom if teaching is predictable and students never feel surprised. He proposes teachers’ could evaluate their involvement in the classroom by asking themselves if their goals is to have students leaving class talking about how great they are as a teacher, rather than about how wonderful it would be to be an entrepreneur. He continues that if the students leave talking about being entrepreneurs instead of about teacher, teachers probably have figured out how to involve students in activities that help them to develop personal competencies. Fiet (2000a) also encourages teacher to begin each class by introducing the concept to be mastered and the associated learning activities. The learning activities should be extensions of previously assigned reading material that provides the theoretical basis for the competency to be mastered. In the learning activities students are working actively in pairs or groups and during the student-led activities the teacher participates by initiating discussion and facilitating learning. Fiet (2000a) argues that using theory-based activities positions the teacher as a coach or mentor rather than lecturer who delivers information in a boring predictable manner. He also argues that theory-based activities potentially involve every student in the learning process.

Hynes (1996, 13) divides the teaching focused on entrepreneurship education into

didactic methods, skills building methods and discovery methods. By didactic focus she especially mentioned readings and lectures where students become accustomed to using immediate data, analysis and interpretations of the data. Skills building methods, like case studies, group discussions, presentations, simulations and projects, are used to generate increased effectiveness in the behaviour of the students. Meanwhile discovery methods encourage learning through discovery and experiential learning. Not only learning by doing and problem based learning but also networking with external organizations and students’ hands-on experience with the firm sector were mentioned, there.

We here have presented student activating teaching methods and can see there are no contradictions between working approaches valuated in the core-curricula and methods useful for entrepreneurship education.

3. Methodology

In this chapter we will priefly present the framework for data gathering and describe the

methods used in the data analysis.

7

3.1. The Measurement Tool Project – a framework for data gathering

The project Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship Education (see www.lut.fi/koke/entre) is an approximately four-year (2008-2011) development project funded by European Social Fund. During the project a measurement tool will be prepared for teachers working in basic and upper secondary education and in basic vocational training. The aim of the tool is to support the work of teachers, principals and decision-makers, and to guide entrepreneurship education.

The tool is developed together with teachers for teachers, and it measures teaching, the content of teaching and the methods used. At the beginning of the project, a trial group of approximately thirty teachers was put together from basic and upper secondary education and basic vocational training. The mission of the group is to comment on, further develop and pilot the tool at different stages. The group has acted as an evaluation panel in many stages of the project. The teachers in trial group have commented, among others, the theories about entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education and working methods and how these are connected to their work and how they see them. They also have participated on creating the content of the tool. They, for example, have contributed on how to formulate questions about entrepreneurship education in both general and specific, understandable way, which themes are stressed in different educational levels etc. Using teachers’ pilot group in the development of the measurement tool helps to ensure that the final measurement tool is valid, reliable and wide-ranging. In the final stages of the project, new teachers will be recruited to the group to confirm the phrasing and transferability of the tool. The original questionnaire, the first stage of the tool teachers answered, is in Finnish. 3.2. Data gathering and analyses

In this study, the data was collected from 28 teachers who take part in the Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship Education project. The data was collected between February and June 2010. The respondent teachers represent ten different municipalities and educational organisations, and come from different parts of Finland. Of the 28 respondents there are eighteen female and ten male teachers. Totally sixteen of the teachers work at the basic education level (elementary and upper levels of comprehensive school), five at the upper secondary level, and seven in basic vocational training. The average age of the respondents is 40 years, and they have an average of 10-15 years of teaching experience.

The pilot version of the measurement tool is a web-based form and the preliminary data consists of almost 200 questions. In this study we concentrate on 43 of them, concerning the methods used by teachers as entrepreneurship educators. Teachers were asked how many times they had used specific methods of entrepreneurship education during the last six months. The teachers responded by choosing a number from 0 to 30 which best describe their actions during the last six months. In the questionnaire the range of 0-30 counted for actual times of using a method, and in case a teacher had used a specific method for more than 30 times, they were instructed to respond with the number 30.

8

In the analysis we present the data as a whole without for example differentiating between different educational levels, since the number of respondents is rather limited. The data was analyzed with SPSS software.

4. Results from the data

The pilot study analysis contains two main interests. The first interest concerns the individual items – their functionality and variance in responses. That is, the pilot study concerns the actual testing of the questionnaire items. Secondly, the pilot study responses can be analysed as regular data reflecting the teachers’ entrepreneurship education practices taking place in the classrooms. 4.1. The methods in entrepreneurship education

The first part of questions in the questionnaire concerned the teachers’ use of different teaching methods in entrepreneurship education. (See table 1.) The question was built up of 21 items that represented different ways of teaching the students about entrepreneurship. The pilot group answered in all of the items, and the item-variance shows, that teachers react differently to each item. That is, the responses of each item vary according to the respondents’ situations. “During the last six months, how many times have you …” users mean range

1. talked about entrepreneurship with students 26 10,79 0-30

2. discussed (with students) about entrepreneurship connected to subject 23 10,46 0-30

3. facilitated students’ projects (party, disco, other events) 22 1,68 0-6

4. discussed (with students) about topical economical news 21 9,96 0-30

5. guided (or taking part in) a project where students have created an act, exhibition, newspaper, book, video etc. 21 3,64 0-30

6. used entrepreneurship stories as teaching material 19 4,36 0-20

7. guided students how to manage with their money 18 5,50 0-30

8. used materials about entrepreneurship as added teaching material 17 4,32 0-20

9. had students to write an essay / article about entrepreneurship 15 1,36 0-5

10. organized an entity connected with entrepreneurship 14 1,39 0-10

11. organized a visitor from a company 14 0,96 0-4

12. enabled an entrepreneurship project 14 1,11 0-8

13. had students to make a business plan 13 3,61 0-30

9

14. had students to make a presentation connected to entrepreneurship 13 3,43 0-30

15. enabled a product development process (for students) 12 3,04 0-30

16. had study visits to companies 12 1,96 0-30

17. enabled students to organize a bring-and-buy sale etc. 11 0,93 0-5

18. organized an entrepreneurship course 11 0,68 0-3

19. enabled students to create their own company 9 1,00 0-10

20. used entrepreneurship games 9 0,61 0-4

21. enabled students to create marketing etc. material for companies 8 1,14 0-10

(The items freely translated from Finnish)

Table 1. The teachers’ use of different methods of entrepreneurship education (n = 28).

The results in table 1 suggest that teachers’ practical approaches to entrepreneurship

education are surprisingly diverse. The items “talked about entrepreneurship with students”, “discussed (with students) about entrepreneurship connected to subject” and “discussed (with students) about topical economical news” are the most popular ways to connect entrepreneurship into the entrepreneurship education practices. It seems that for teachers, talking about entrepreneurship is the easiest way to promote entrepreneurship education, and almost all teachers in the pilot study use this approach. The mean scores of the discussion approaches also suggest that this method is used in a regular basis. Whilst it is promising that entrepreneurship is discussed, also more active approaches are needed. Teaching materials like entrepreneurship stories and materials about entrepreneurship are widely used as well, although the average number stays low. It seems that those materials are quite well known but they are not used very frequently.

Surprisingly, facilitating the students’ projects in schools seems to score very high in the analysis. Roughly two-thirds of the pilot study teachers have taken an active part in these projects. At the same time it can be noticed that the average number of use within a semester stays rather low. These activities are often so massive that it is understandable that these actions are used quite seldom. In fact, the relatively sparse use of the entrepreneurship projects could be understood by the large scale of the methods and their need for extra resources. Only half of the group has used these methods, and they are used only about once in a semester.

About half of the teachers’ group have applied study tours or company visitors in their entrepreneurship education. It seems that even if these methods would seem to be fairly easy to arrange, they are not widely used and even among the users of these methods, they are used only a few times in a semester. The responses don’t tell us, for example, how big the groups of pupils in study tours were and how many pupils were present and listening the company visitor. Although the numbers might indicate that only a part of teaching groups had opportunity to take part those activities. The item “enabled students to create their own

10

company” showed an interesting view: Nine of the teachers marked they have used that method. That number seems to be quite high, especially when remembering that a large number of respondents work at the basic education level which could be associated to be quite far from “students own companies”. Finally, it seems that educational games about entrepreneurship are not yet introduced in schools. Only 9 of 28 teachers have used the method. It could be suggested that this direction includes a huge promise.

The analysis in table 1 shows also another interesting finding. As we presented earlier, entrepreneurship education is one of cross-curricular themes that is meant not only to integrate to schoolwork, but also to enhance cooperation between school and surrounding society, and not to mention the using of different learning environments. Therefore, entrepreneurship education practices need to be divided into those practices that can be applied in the normal daily school work and those practices that only can be applied in a few times in a semester. That is, it is possible for a teacher to organize 10 discussions within the semester without any inconveniences whilst doing company visits 10 times in the period would require manifold organizing and planning. Taking this into account, communication about possibilities within entrepreneurship education would not be too misguided but rather give the teachers new insights on the ways how they could build up their entrepreneurship education plans.

11

method is possible to organize in the classroom

method is likely to require operations outside classroom

Frequently used

Talked about e-ship with students

Discussed about e-ship connected to subject

Discussed (with students) about topical economical news

Used e-ship stories as teaching material

Guided students how to manage with their money

Used materials about e-ship as added teaching material

Had students to write an essay / article about entrepreneurship

Facilitated students’ projects (party, disco, other events)

Guided (or took part in) a project where students have created an act, exhibition, newspaper, book, video etc.

Seldom used

Had students to make a business plan

Had students to make a presentation connected to entrepreneurship

Organized an entrepreneurship course

Used entrepreneurship games

Organized an entity connected with e-ship

Organized a visitor from a company

Enabled an entrepreneurship project

Enabled a product development process

Had study visits to companies

Enabled students to organize a bring-and-buy sale etc.

Enabled students to create their own company

Enabled students to create marketing etc. material for companies

Table 2. Grouping the different methods of entrepreneurship education into four themes.

The table 2 show a rough grouping of different methods used in entrepreneurship education. The grouping is not meant to valuate whether a method should be used frequently or seldom, nor where teaching and learning should take place. Also, we do not categorize methods into different educational levels. We only think that in the context of entrepreneurship education these labels could be the first steps for categorizing practices.

In the table we can see that quite a many frequently used methods take place in

classroom, whereas there are only a few methods that likely require operations outside classroom and are frequently used. The table also shows that there is a large variety of methods where the near-by firms and other different organisations can be utilized to both

12

enlarge the learning environment and to enrich the teaching itself. Development into those directions could be useful as they show a great deal of potential in order to fulfill aims about learning environment and entrepreneurship education set in the cross-curricula.

4.2. Teachers’ entrepreneurial working approaches

The second part of question in the questionnaire concerned entrepreneurial pedagogy and especially used working approaches (see table 3). The question was built up of 22 items that represented the teachers’ different entrepreneurial working approaches. Again, the pilot group answered in all of the items, and the item-variance shows, that teachers react differently to each item. The number of teachers using the methods seems fairly high for almost all methods presented, and the mean count of usage during the six months seems high, as well. However, the variation for each item seems plausible.

“During the last six months, how many times have you utilised (in your teaching) working approaches like …” users mean range

1. group work 28 15,86 2-30

2. working in pairs 27 18,93 0-30

3. learning by doing 26 21,64 0-30

4. collective learning 26 12,39 0-30

5. problem based learning 25 14,71 0-30

6. project based learning 25 9,57 0-30

7. learning by developing 23 9,43 0-30

8. lecture 21 15,96 0-30

9. real world simulation 21 9,39 0-30

10. learning in teams 21 9,07 0-30

11. creative problem solving techniques 21 7,29 0-30

12. theme days 19 2,71 0-20

13. study visits to companies / visitors from companies 17 2,25 0-19

14. e-learning 16 6,14 0-23

15. debates 15 2,75 0-17

16. pedagogical drama 12 2,50 0-18

17. periods of working experience 12 1,82 0-13

18. learning diaries 11 3,00 0-30

13

19. bees 10 0,93 0-10

20. long term company - school co-operation 8 1,21 0-16

21. practice enterprise 8 3,61 0-30

22. games about entrepreneurship 6 0,43 0-5

(The items freely translated from Finnish)

Table 3. The working approaches to entrepreneurial pedagogy: the descriptive statistics (n = 28).

According to table 3, working approaches like working in pairs, group work and

cooperative methods are very popular and regularly used. For example, all respondents use group work, 26 of 28 teachers’ use collective learning and three-fourth of teachers’ use learning in teams as a working approach. We can see that working approaches that are considered as activating students (e.g. Seikkula-Leino 2007, 35-37; Fiet 2000b; Hynes 1996) are used. As many as 26 respondents use “learning by doing” and the average numbers of use in the semester are high. Three-fourth of the group use real world simulation and creative problem solving techniques. Further, 25 respondents reported the use of problem based learning and project based learning. On the contrary, debates, pedagogical drama or learning diaries, which activating students as well, are used less. Also, numbers connected to learning diaries show a large variety in respondents: more than one-third use them, all the values between 0 to 30 were used and those who use the approach use it quite a many times.

Despite the guidelines of the core-curricula (see Finnish National Board of Education 2004, 17) and easiness of information technology, surprisingly few (less than two-third) use e-learning as a working approach and the average number stays seemingly low. This was rather interesting finding as e-learning and using information technology are mentioned to be an essential part of the young people’s every-day-life and therefore perhaps well received and useful way to activate the pupils in learning. This rather low number also might be connected to fairly low number in item “games about entrepreneurship” (see also table 1, “used entrepreneurship games”) as many games are on internet or are utilized by computer. One interesting point in using the games is also that only a few teachers use them and those who using are not using them on a regular basis.

The results in table 3 provide an interesting insight into teachers work. The use of

different types of group work seems to characterize the daily teaching fairly well. These approaches seem to be something that can be applied in a classroom as a whole and every pupil is a part of it. This pattern seems very promising as these methods have a direct impact on the learning processes. However, those methods that are more directly related to entrepreneurship such as study visits to companies, are seemingly less popular among the pilot group, only about half of the group have used the methods during the last 6 months. Both the practice enterprise or long term company - school co-operation are rarely used, less than one-third of the teachers have used them. Approaches like bees, long term co-operation and practice enterprise are long-lasting and more demanding as well as stable in a nature and therefore lower numbers are understandable. They also need more preparation, at least in the beginning, than for example discussing about entrepreneurship in a classroom. Seemingly high respondents use practice enterprise approach when taking into account that quite a big

14

amount of the teachers are working at the basic educational level where those models perhaps are not yet established their role in teaching.

5. Discussion

In the introduction of this paper the purpose of this article was set to present results from the pilot study on the teachers’ entrepreneurship education practices and to provide some tentative implications for the development of entrepreneurship education practices.

The data analysis suggests that the entrepreneurship education by teachers’ pilot group

could be characterised by a wide array of activating teaching approaches that can be organised easily in the regular classroom. Yet, there can be seeing a great potential of both enlarging the learning environment and enriching teaching when operating outside of the classroom with entrepreneurs, firms and other organisations. The entrepreneurial education contains discussions about entrepreneurship and possibly could include students’ projects where teacher operates more as a facilitator than controlling teacher (Fiet 2000b). It could be concluded that in this group the basis for entrepreneurship education is well under way.

The results give, however, reason to further findings. Teachers’ entrepreneurship

education seems rather lightweight in its application. That is, the teachers seem to follow those methods and working approaches that can be applied without large scale organizing with other parties. This finding suggests that there is much room for enriching the teachers’ entrepreneurship education practises by providing them support and resources for more challenging but possibly effective methods. Should this be the case, it is important to invite the school principals to commit themselves more deeply into the implementation of entrepreneurship education in their schools. Furthermore, it could be concluded that the teachers’ networking capability seems to be the key to enriching entrepreneurship education in schools. Again, the principals seem to be in central role in supporting the teachers to create and exploit both schools’ and personal networks in their entrepreneurship education.

It is also likely that a wide array of entrepreneurship education methods could be

followed more easily in teachers’ joint projects. That kind of approach, at least in the very beginning, might need extra resources, but could be useful way to enhance co-operation between teachers. It also might be a concrete way to put the genuine idea of cross-curricula theme into practise where integration between different subjects takes place. Also, by developing entrepreneurs’ pedagogical know-how, more fruitful co-operation between school and firm could be developed: mutual commitment can provide long-span co-operation easier, it can open new doors as well as create networks (Hynes 1996) and bring up novel ways to operate further. The innovative ideas seldom take place if only organising a study visit every once and while. We presume that in a long term co-operation can a win-win situation be achieved where learning and contents that are important for entrepreneur and firm are linked. There the students’ get a real-life experience and they also might have fresh ideas for companies of how to plan marketing materials or company presentations.

Our study presents that a large variety of teaching methods was used. Group work,

working in pairs, learning by doing, collective learning and problem based learning were the most used methods. Also project based learning and learning by developing were used by most of the respondents quite frequently. Interesting enough, debates, pedagogical drama or

15

learning diaries are used less. It is rather interesting, that discussions were widely used (see table 1), but debates show much lower number. This might indicate that the discussions are led and organized by the teachers and also that discussions are not developed into natural, interactive debate where skills – mentioned as aims in curricula – like presenting and stating ones’ own opinion are trained. This is understandable while it is easier to just simply discuss about entrepreneurship, than organize a debate for a class.

The aims of entrepreneurship education are to help the pupil to perceive society from

the viewpoints of different players, to develop the capabilities needed for civic involvement, and to create a foundation for entrepreneurial methods. There, the schools’ learning culture and learning environment should support the students’ development as independent, initiative-taking, goal-conscious, cooperative and engaged citizen (Finnish National Board of Education 2004, 40-41). Although a large variety approaches in entrepreneurship education was used among the pilot group, we may wonder whether the approaches were in balance according to what Gibb (2005) has stated: entrepreneurship education is about learning for entrepreneurship, learning about entrepreneurship and learning through entrepreneurship. By the methods used presumable social skills, for example, were learned, but methods strongly connected to real companies and “world out there” were scarcely used. In line didactid, skills developing and discovery methods presented by Hynes (1996) seem all be in quite a nice balance among teachers, however students’ real hands-on experience with company sector is one theme which should be enhanced.

The results show that computers may not be tightly attached to entrepreneurship

education teaching. It would be interesting to know whether students’ should have to choose the methods used would they emphasise for example e-learning and entrepreneurship games. This provides also an interesting point of view for the Measurement Tool project. The tool is web-based so it is worth of detailed thinking how to activate, motivate and courage teachers to use the tool, while it is in form not that much used by them.

6. Conclusions and implications for practice

Increasing amount of research deals with teaching entrepreneurship and students activating methods. Although a clear definition about entrepreneurial pedagogy is still missing. We haven’t found articles that are especially linked to working approaches in entrepreneurship education. Therefore, we see our article is of value to open up this discussion, as we would like to develop useful practices for teachers to utilise in entrepreneurship education. This article will offer information on entrepreneurship education practices and it points out many interesting themes. Not only the preliminary data can be used when steering the entrepreneurship education methods and practices in the future, but also shows possible contents for teachers’ training and it pinpoints the building of measurement tool for entrepreneurship education.

The study concludes with set of implications for the further development of steering

entrepreneurship education. First, what methods seem to be the most used in school practice. Second, how and in what direction teachers’ training could be developed and third, how can methods used in entrepreneurship education be measured.

16

As a summary, it seems that working approaches in entrepreneurship education are linked to those presented and valued in core-curricula. Although, it might be, that used approaches are mainly chosen by the teachers where the active role of students does not beginning in the early steps of learning processes. The results show that group work and working in pairs are widely used and students presumably learn co-operation. What the results then do not show is whether networking and studying in groups take place between classes, or are there any sources outside of school context involved. Also we could not get answers, whether the teaching and it’s planning is led by one teacher or by group of teachers, although we presume the culture of working alone might sit quite tight. These questions, for example, could be the basis for further research with larger data.

The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to present the results from a pilot study on

the teachers’ entrepreneurship education practices and second, to provide some tentative implications for the development of entrepreneurship education practices. Although our data is quite limited and context is Finland, our research shows some interesting viewpoint for further development of entrepreneurial pedagogy and teaching entrepreneurship that could be utilised in other contexts, as well. References Berglund, K., and A. W. Johansson (2007) “Entrepreneurship, Discourses and

Conscientization in Processes of Regional Development.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 19: 499–525.

Commission of the European Communities (2003) Green Paper – Entrepreneurship in Europe. European Comission. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/entrepreneurship_europe.pdf/ (accessed October 22, 2009).

Commission of the European Communities (2006) Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Fostering Entrepreneurial mindsets through Education and Learning, European Commission, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0033en01.pdf (accessed 21 September 2009).

Fayolle, A. (2008) “Entrepreneurship education at a crossroads: Towards a more mature teaching field” Journal of Enterprising Culture 16(4): 325-337.

Fiet, J.O. (2000a) “The Theoretical Side of Teaching Entrepreneurship”. Journal of Business Venturing 16(1): 1-24.

Fiet, J.O. (2000b) “The Pedagogical Side of Entrepreneurship Theory.” Journal of Business Venturing 16(1): 101-117.

Finnish National Board of Education (2003) National Core Curriculum for Upper Secondary Schools 2003. Vammala: Vammalan kirjapaino Oy.

Finnish National Board of Education (2004) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Vammala: Vammalan kirjapaino Oy.

Finnish National board of education (2009a) Student Assessment Guide for Vocational Education and training 2008a. http://www.oph.fi/SubPage.asp?path=1,17627,1561 (accessed February 8,2009).

Finnish National Board of Education (2009b) Student Assessment Guide for Vocational Education and training 2008b.

17

http://www.oph.fi/binary.asp?path=1;17627;5238;6610;67070;86043&field=FileAttachment&version=3 (accessed February 8, 2009).

Finnish Goverment (2007) The Programme of the Government of Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen [in Finnish]. Helsinki: Edita Prima oy.

Frank, A. I. (2007) “Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Skills: A Missing Element of Planning Education.” Planning, Practice & Research 22(4): 635-648.

Gibb, A. (2005) “The future of entrepreneurship education – Determining the basis for coherent policy and practice?” In The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context, eds. P. Kyrö, & C. Carrier, Entrepreneurship Education Series 2/2005: 44-67. Hämeenlinna: University of Tampere, Research Centre for Vocational and Professional Education.

Gibb, A. (2006) “Entrepreneurship/Enterprise Education in Schools and Collages: Are we really building the onion or peeling it away?” Paper presented in National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, working paper 039/2006. Available online at: http://ncge.com/communities/research/reference/detail/880/7 (accessed September 20, 2007).

Hynes, B. (1996) “Entrepreneurship education and training – introducing entrepreneurship into non-business disciplines” Journal of European Industrial Training 20(8): 10-17.

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1980) Models of Teaching. London: Prentice-Hall international. Kyrö, P. (1997) Yrittäjyyden muodot ja tehtävä ajan murroksessa. Jyväskylä Studies in

Computer Science. Economics and Statistics 38. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

Menzies, T. V., & J.C. Paradi (2003) “Entrepreneurship education and engineering students. Career path and business performance.” The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 4(2): 121–132.

Ministry of Education, finland (2004) Guidelines for Entrepreneurship education and operation program [in Finnish]. Publications of the Ministry of Education 2004:18. Helsinki: University Print.

Ministry of Education, Finland (2008) Education and research strategy 2007-2012 [in Finnish] Publications of the Ministry of Education 2008:9. Helsinki: University Print.

Ministry of Education, Finland (2009) Guidelines for entrepreneurship education. Publication of the Ministry of Education, Finland 2009:9, Helsinki, University Print.

Remes, L. (2001) ”Yrittäjyyskasvatus pedagogisessa toimintatehtävässä.” Kasvatus 32(4): 168-181.

Remes, L. (2003) Yrittäjyyskasvatuksen kolme diskurssia. Jyväskylän yliopisto, Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Printing House.

Remes, L. (2004) “Yrittäjyys.” In Aihekokonaisuudet perusopetuksenopetussuunnitelmassa, ed. M-L. Loukola, 89-90. Jyväskylä: Gummerus.

Ristimäki, K. (2003) ”Yrittäjyyskasvatus: Enemmän metodi kuin sisältö.” In Yrittäjyyskasvatus: Yrittäjyyttä ja kasvatusta, ed. Taloudellinen tiedotustoimisto, 12-15. Saarijärvi: Gummerus.

Ruskovaara, E., T. Rytkölä, J. Seikkula-Leino, M. Ikävalko, and J. Mattila (2010) Opettajien toteuttama yrittäjyyskasvatus ja reflektoinnin merkitys. Forthcoming

Seikkula-Leino, J. (2006) Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelmauudistus 2004-2006 ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen kehittäminen. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2006:22, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.

18

Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007) Opetussuunnitelmauudistus ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen toteuttaminen. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2007:28, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.

Seikkula-Leino, J., E. Ruskovaara, M. Ikävalko, J. Mattila and T. Rytkölä (2010) “Promoting entrepreneurship education: the role of the teacher?” Education + Training 52(2): 117-127.

Steyaert, C., and J. Katz (2004) “Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 16: 179-196.