A Key Competence Approach in Practice - SEECEL

The European Union’s IPA Multi – beneficiary Programme

a key competence approach in practice isced level 5-6 strategic piloting results

Co-funded by the

This project is implemented by

European Union

SEECEL

A

B

entrepreneurial learning


A Key Competence Approach in Practice

Experience from the Western Balkans and Turkey ISCED Level 5/6

1

published by South East European Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning Selska 217/IV, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia for the publisher Sandra Rončević Sonja Šegvić ©South East European Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning, 2013. All rights reserved. authors Ivana Batarelo Kokić Efka Heder Maja Ljubić ISBN 978-953-56732-5-5 Copies of this book are available at the SEECEL website at www.seecel.hr Printed in Zagreb, Croatia 2013 Printed by Magnus Gubernator d.o.o. (Četiri Boje Group) Design & Layout by Jelenko Hercog

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the National and University Library in Zagreb under 849022.

2


Organisational Profile

3

The South East European Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning (SEECEL) is a regional institution with the mission to promote the development of a lifelong entrepreneurial learning system and entrepreneurship as key competencies in eight pre-accession countries of South East Europe (SEE). SEE countries collectively expressed the need for strategic regional cooperation; one of the key areas identified for action was the integration of entrepreneurial learning on the ISCED 5/6 level. SEECEL was established in 2009 as a direct result of the initiative of the countries of South East Europe/in the pre-accession region. SEECEL is financed by the European Union (EU) through the Multi-Beneficiary Package under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance and from the state

budget of the Government of the Republic of Croatia through the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts. The SEECEL member states1 are (in alphabetical order): •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Kosovo* Macedonia** Montenegro Serbia Turkey

1 In the subsequent text, the country abbreviations are as follows (in alphabetical order): ALB, BIH, CRO, KOS*, MK, MNE, SER, TUR * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of independence ** The Former Yugoslav Republic of

4


All SEECEL member states share full ownership of the process and actively and equally participate in the governance of SEECEL and in content development and implementation. As an institution, SEECEL is governed by an international steering committee composed of two representatives from each SEECEL member state – one from the ministry of education and one from the ministry in charge of the Small Business Act for Europe (SBA). This ensures a policy dialogue between the world of education and economy. SEECEL also cooperates very closely with: the European Commission (DG Enlargement, DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Education and Culture, DG Regional Development, and DG Employment and Social Affairs), the European Training Foundation (ETF),

Organisational Profile

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC). SEECEL, as the first institutional development from the SBA, shares all of its developments with European and international institutions and agencies, EU member states, and other interested parties. SEECEL activities are an integral and complementary part of the SEE 2020 strategy and the EU 2020 Strategy. In sharing its developments and contributing to other congruent strategies and initiatives, SEECEL generates benefits for SEECEL member states as well as EU member states and fully respects all EU policy recommendations in the field of lifelong entrepreneurial learning development.

5

6


Developing a lifelong entrepreneurial learning system (LLEL) and an entrepreneurial culture is considered a key strategic policy of many countries. LLEL is highlighted in many policy documents, and both educational professionals and policy makers are becoming aware of the importance of an entrepreneurial culture and a lifelong entrepreneurial learning system to support the growth of an entrepreneurial mindset. One of the most important steps in the development of entrepreneurship in any society is the preparation of an entrepreneurial infrastructure in which the creation of entrepreneurial culture is one of the most important aspects and in which “Universities should become more entrepreneurial.”2 Current evidence suggests that “teachers and

schools are key agents”3 in the entrepreneurial infrastructural chain that leads from entrepreneurial educational institutions toward an entrepreneurially literate society. Building on these ideas, in 2010, SEECEL began structured cooperation among the eight EU pre-accession countries for the development of a common Entrepreneurial Learning: A Key Competence Approach (ELKCA) instrument. This instrument was strategically piloted at 16 higher education institutions (HEIs), out of which six teacher-training and 10 non-teacher training and non-business HEIs in eight countries during the 2011-2012 school year. This bottom-up piloting approach was aimed at the implementation of SEECEL-defined learning outcomes and modules, as well as the development of entrepreneurial HEIs.

2 European Commission (2013). Entrepreneurship 2020

3 European Commission (2012a). Guidebook Series: Building

Action Plan: Reigniting the entrepreneurial spirit in

Entrepreneurial Mindsets and Skills in the EU, Brussels:

Europe. Brussels: European Commission. p. 7. Available

European Commission. p. 13. Available at: http://ec.europa.

at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.

eu/enterprise/policies/sme/regional-sme-policies/

do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:en:PDF

documents/no.1_entrepreneurial_mindsets_en.pdf

Foreword

7

The strategic regional piloting of the SEECEL instrument does not only give concrete results for all SEECEL member states; it also provides support to existing national development in terms of experience, instruments, tools and networks. The regional pilot also gave birth to a regional network of entrepreneurial institutions and it is supporting the further development of LLEL on a daily basis. It is our wish and intention that the experiences from this pilot phase act as an impetus for the development of all HEI professionals, the curriculum, HEIs, and policy developers in the everyday development of LLEL because we believe that the developed SEECEL instrument and methodology have broader applicability. The strategic pilot generated numerous dedicated web sites, hundreds of pictures, videos, reports, and much more – not all of which could be included in this publication. This publication puts forward the analysis of the developed measurement instrument, the “Entrepreneurial Student Toolkit.” This instrument aims to evaluate the competencies acquired through piloted programs. The development and successful implementation of this instrument would not have been possible without the active participation of students, professors, and HEI managers. We would therefore like to thank all members of the SEECEL Network of Entrepreneurial HEIs who participated on a regular basis. Their support, dedication, and efforts have been the key pillars upon which the results of this publication have been built. The results obtained through this exhaustive research and the practical solution that has been im-

8

plemented can serve as an example of how entrepreneurial competencies can be effectively taught across borders, in various national curricula, but also as the foundation for future planning. We hope that the measurement instrument will enter into wider use and that all HEIs will be able to use it on an everyday basis and profit from the experience of this pilot phase. This publication is the result of continuous work of as well as the work of professors and HEIs managers over many years. It aims to showcase the current position and development of entrepreneurial learning and teaching. It also sets out some of the current implications of developments in the field and outlines future opportunities and plans, as agreed upon and signed by the respective ministries of economy and education of the eight countries at the summit meeting, “A Charter for Entrepreneurial Learning: the Keystone for Growth and Jobs.” 4 By embracing the idea that everyone can think and act entrepreneurially, we create the prerequisites for achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as set out in the Europe 2020 Strategy, the SEE 2020 Strategy and the EU Danube Strategy, particularly because the “entrepreneurs of tomorrow are in our schools today.”

4 SEECEL (2012). Statements. Entrepreneurship – Education Regional Summit: A Charter for Entrepreneurial Learning: The Keystone for Growth and Jobs. Zagreb, Croatia. Available at: http://www.seecel.hr/UserDocsImages/EL%20-%20 Charter%20s%20izjavama%20-%20OP.pdf


Acknowledgements

9

This document is the result of a broad and complex effort by SEECEL member states to promote cooperation and promote the competitiveness of SMEs through the development of entrepreneurial capacities as a key element of integrated, inclusive, intelligent, and sustainable growth. We would like to thank the governments of: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Kosovo* Macedonia** Montenegro Serbia Turkey

We would also like to express our gratitude to SEECEL member states, represented by their respective ministry of education and the relevant ministry in charge of SBA, for their full support and coopera-

10

tion as without their invaluable insights, these steps forward in the development of LLEL would not have been possible. We would especially like to thank the European Commission and the Government of the Republic of Croatia represented by the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts for their financial support. Mr. Bo Caperman (EC DG Enlargement) and Mr. Marko Curavić (EC DG Enterprise and Industry) were extremely supportive of the entire process. Their contributions helped us greatly in aligning SEE entrepreneurial learning with EU policies. We have also benefited immensely from the support of Ms. Elin McCallum (EC DG Education and Culture). SEECEL looks forward to continuing the excellent cooperation and exchange of ideas and knowledge that has already been established with the ETF. Our special thanks go to Ms. Madlen Serban, ETF Director, Mr. Anthony Gribben, and the rest of the ETF Enterprise team. For the effort and commitment put into EL developments during strategic piloting, the SEECEL team


would especially like to thank all the deans, professors, HEI managers, other HEI professional staff, and students who participated on a regular basis. The development of entrepreneurial learning in HEI would not have been possible without the contribution, willingness and knowledge of each HEI EL team: the University “Aleksander Xhuvani”, Albania; the Polytechnic University of Tirana, Albania; the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Faculty of Pedagogy, University of Bijeljina, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Croatia; University of Zadar, Centre “Stjepan Matičević,” Croatia; University for Business and Technology, Kosovo*; Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Prishtina, Kosovo*; Faculty of Agriculture, “Goce Delcev” University, Macedonia**; Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Macedonia**; Humanistic Studies, University of Donja Gorica, Montenegro; Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, Montenegro; Faculty of

Acknowledgements

Pedagogy, University of Kragujevac, Serbia; Faculty of Economics and Engineering Management, Serbia; Faculty of Engineering and Design, Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul, Turkey; and the Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Turkey.

11

12


organisational profile foreword acknowledgements list of figures list of tables list of abbreviations abstract

3 5 9 14 15 16 17

1. introduction quantitative section for the study of strategic piloting

19

2. design and methods

22

2.1 Research questions 24 2.2 Research Design 26 2.2.1 Experimental method 26 2.2.2 Entrepreneurial learning 26 2.2.3 Entrepreneurial learning in higher education institutions 27 2.2.4 Study areas 28 2.2.5 Competence-based approach - focus on learning outcomes 29 2.2.6 Target population and recruitment 30 2.3 Data collection instruments and procedures 34 2.3.1 Factorial analysis of the entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes scale 34 2.3.2 Relationships between variables and the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 35

Table of Contents

3 results

38

3.1 Results for higher education students 40 3.1.1 Entrepreneurship competence in different study areas 40 3.1.2 Entrepreneurship competence at different higher education institutions 45 3.1.3 Entrepreneurship competence in different countries 46

4 conclusions and recommendations from the quantitative study 4.1 Conclusions 4.2 Recommendations

50 51 52

5 highlights from seecel entrepreneurial HEIs 53 6 literature

57

7 annexes

60

7.1 Annex 1: Student questionnaire 61 7.2 Annex 2.: Tables with ANOVA results 67 7.3 Annex 3: List of SEECEL strategic pilot higher education institutions 71

13

list of figures

Figure 1: The strategic piloting study phases.................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 2: Questionnaires included in data analysis by HEI area of studies................................................................................................32 Figure 3: Questionnaires included in data analysis by country...............................................................................................................33 Figure 4: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy – cognitive domain.................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 5: Bloom’s Taxonomy - affective domain................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 6: Results in the cognitive domain (level of remembering and understanding) related to the area of studies......................................... 40 Figure 7: Study area-related results on the cognitive domain (higher levels of learning) outcomes scale......................................................... 41 Figure 8: Study area-related results on the affective domain outcomes scale............................................................................................42 Figure 9: Business start-up – Teacher Training Institution....................................................................................................................43 Figure 10: Business start-up – Non-teacher Training Institution............................................................................................................. 44 Figure 11: Results in the cognitive domain (level of remembering and understanding) for different HEIs......................................................... 45 Figure 12: Results on the cognitive domain (higher levels of learning) outcomes scale for different HEIs.......................................................... 45 Figure 13: Results on the affective domain outcomes scale for different HEIs............................................................................................. 46 Figure 14: Country-related results in the cognitive domain (level of remembering and understanding)............................................................47 Figure 15: Country-related results on the cognitive domain (higher levels of learning) outcomes scale............................................................ 48 Figure 16: Country-related results on the affective domain outcomes scale.............................................................................................. 49

14


list of tables

Table 1: Factorial structure of entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes scale: factorial weights and the Cronbach alpha coefficient.................35 Table 2: Explanation of entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes scale variables.................................................................................. 37 Table 3: Study area – cognitive domain (level of remembering and understanding)...................................................................................67 Table 4: Study area – cognitive domain (higher levels of learning)..........................................................................................................67 Table 5: Study area – affective domain.............................................................................................................................................67 Table 6: Higher Education Institution Level – cognitive domain (level of remembering and understanding).................................................... 68 Table 7: Higher Education Institution Level – cognitive domain (higher levels of learning).......................................................................... 68 Table 8: Higher Education Institution Level – affective domain............................................................................................................. 69 Table 9: Country – cognitive domain (level of remembering and understanding)...................................................................................... 69 Table 10: Country – cognitive domain (higher levels of learning).............................................................................................................70 Table 11: Country – affective domain................................................................................................................................................70 Table 12: Country, HEI codes, names, addresses and study area............................................................................................................... 71

List of Tables

15

list of abbreviations

CoP – Community of Practice EL – Entrepreneurial Learning EC – European Commission ECTS – European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System EU – European Union EQF – European Qualification Framework ETF – European Training Foundation HEI – Higher Education Institution ISCED – International Standard Classification of Education IPA – Instrument for Pre-Accession LLL – Lifelong Learning LLEL – Lifelong Entrepreneurial Learning LO – Learning Outcome NQF – National Qualification Framework OMC – Open Method of Coordination SBA – Small Business Act for Europe SEE – South East Europe SEECEL – South East European Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning SME – Small and Medium Enterprise TT – Teacher Training VET – Vocational Education and Training

16


List of Tables

17

Current research on the implementation of the entrepreneurship programs in higher education commonly focuses on the distinction between business and non-business programs. The special focus of this pilot study is Higher Education Institutions (HEI) offering non-business programs. The quantitative section of the larger study of strategic piloting, implemented by SEECEL in cooperation with national partners, focused on the higher education institution (HEI) as unit of change to test the impact of the entrepreneurial learning SEECEL ELKCA instrument on a student’s entrepreneurshiprelated learning outcomes. The pilot study recommendations are related to the validity of the developed questionnaire and further implementation of entrepreneurial learning in an HEI. The internal consistency of the entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes scale indicates

18

the high validity of the questionnaire. It is possible to conclude that further efforts should be made to incorporate entrepreneurial competences in teacher training programs and also to develop further entrepreneurship modules designed by SEECEL in nonteacher training HEIs to improve entrepreneurial competence in relation to the higher levels of learning in the cognitive domain and the affective domain. Additional data analysis revealed non-teacher training and teacher training HEIs that experienced significant changes in several entrepreneurial competence domains. These institutions should serve as examples of good practice and mentors. The current societal circumstances and the requirements to develop entrepreneurial universities demand additional efforts from higher education institutions and universities in implementing entrepreneurship education in current university programs.


19

Current research on implementing entrepreneurship programs in higher education commonly focuses on the distinction between business and non-business programs, with an emphasis on importance of implementing entrepreneurship education in non-business programs.5 Hence, the special focus of this strategic piloting is higher education institutions (HEIs) offering non-business programs. Non-business students have several entrepreneurship-enhancing characteristics: a large number of non-business students are an extensive pool of potential entrepreneurs; they possess domain-specific knowledge important for the recognition of business opportunities and lack of awareness of the potential for business start-up as a career choice that could be easily obtained through education.6 Another research issue explored in this pilot study was successful modes of entrepreneurship educa-

tion. A European Commission survey study7 provides information on: the current state of teaching of entrepreneurship in HEIs in Europe, good examples of entrepreneurship education, and policy recommendations for overcoming various obstacles to entrepreneurship education implementation in higher education. Furthermore, Walter and Dohse8 research findings on different modes of entrepreneurship education show that active teaching modes directly increase intentions and attitudes, while the impact of reflective modes depends on the regional context.

7 European Commission (2008b). Entrepreneurship in Higher Education in Europe: Main Report. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ policies/sme/files/support_measures/training_education/ highedsurvey_en.pdf

5 European Commission (2008a). Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially within non-business studies: Final

Entrepreneurship Education and Regional Knowledge

Report of the Expert Group. Brussels: European Commission.

Potential in Forming Entrepreneurial Intentions. Kiel

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/

Working Paper No. 1549. Kiel, Germany: Kiel Institute

files/support_measures/training_education/entr_highed_

for the World Economy. Available at: http://www.ifw-

en.pdf

members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/the-interplay-between-

6 Brand, M., Wakkee, I., & van der Veen, M. (2007). Teaching

20

8 Walter, S. G. & Dohse, D. (2009). The Interplay between

entrepreneurship-education-and-regional-knowledge-

entrepreneurship to non-business students: Insights from

potential-in-forming-entrepreneurial-intentions/

two Dutch universities. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of

the-interplay-between-entrepreneurship-education-

Research in Entrepreneurship Education (Vol. 2, pp. 52-83).

and-regional-knowledge-potential-in-forming-

Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

entrepreneurial-intentions.pdf


In addition, Lladós9 writes about programs in universities that aim to favor entrepreneurial behavior and business creation through the deployment of courses and the organization of specific activities in the curriculum. Also, the enterprising teaching style is described as the co-creation of learning with the student – negotiating learning objectives, supporting student-led and student-owned learning, a team-oriented problem solving approach, an emphasis on practice rather than theory, and helping students to generate their own knowledge.10 The extensive literature review that was conducted as part of this study indicated the importance of teacher preparation for the implementation of entrepreneurship education at all levels of schooling. The research reports cite teacher knowledge and an enterprising teaching style as critical factors for the successful implementation of entrepreneurial learning as a key competence across different lev-

els of schooling11. The above findings directed the formulation of the exploratory research questions around the area of study, where higher education institutions were separated into two groups: teacher training institutions and non-teacher training institutions. While recognizing the importance of the teaching approach and the study area, the results of the studies reviewed suggest that it is important to adjust the models of education to regional circumstances. Hence, this study also focused on the differences between countries (that are also characterized by different educational policies, specifically entrepreneurship education educational policies) and the impact of the entrepreneurial learning on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in eight pre-accession countries in South East Europe and Turkey. The main goal of the study was to gather sufficient information on the current entrepreneurshiprelated competencies among students in higher education teacher training and non-teacher training institutions that might help in formulating recommendations for entrepreneurial teaching and learning in higher-education institutions.

9 Lladós, J. (2009). Entrepreneurship: New Challenges for Higher Education Institutions. Available at: http://www. uoc.edu/symposia/scop2009/pdf/JLlados_Entrepreneurship_ newchallenges_for_HE_inst_2009.pdf 10 McLarty, L., Highley, H., Alderson, S. (2010). Evaluation of

11 European Commission (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Enabling Teachers as a Critical Success Factor. Brussels:

Enterprise Education in England. London, United Kingdom:

European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/

UK Goverment and Department for Education. Available at:

enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

education/teacher_education_for_entrepreneurship_final_

attachment_data/file/182626/DFE-RR015.pdf

report_en.pdf

21

22


The quantitative section of the larger study of strategic piloting, implemented by SEECEL in cooperation with its national partners, focused on the higher education institution (HEI) as unit of change to test the impact of the SEECEL ELKCA entrepreneurial learning instrument on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes. The quantitative section of the study addressed one primary impact question and

three exploratory questions. The questions are presented below and followed by the overall research design, sampling and recruitment methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis methods. The questions are formulated with a focus on learning outcomes. Furthermore, the exploratory questions were formulated in regard to Bloom’s revised taxonomy.12

12 Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Design and Methods

23

2.1. research questions

The primary impact question addressed by the quantitative section of the study of strategic piloting was:

preneurship-related learning outcomes in the affective domain in relation to the area of study?

•• What impact does the entrepreneurial learning project have on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the eight pre-accession countries in South East Europe and Turkey?

2. Does the study have significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in different HEIs? •• Does the study have significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the cognitive domain, at the level of remembering, and in different HEIs? •• Does the study have significant impact on student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the cognitive domain, at the higher levels of learning, and in different HEIs? •• Does the study have significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the affective domain and in different HEIs?

Three exploratory questions were also addressed: 1. Does the study have a significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in relation to the area of studies? •• Does the study have significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the cognitive domain, on the level of remembering, and in relation to the area of studies? •• Does the study have significant impact on a teacher’s and school management staff entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the cognitive domain, on the higher levels of learning, and in relation to the area of studies? •• Does the study have significant impact on the teachers’ and school management staff entre-

24

3. Does the study have significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the eight countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo*, Macedonia**, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey)?


•• Does the study have significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the cognitive domain, on the level of remembering, and in the eight countries? •• Does the study have significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the cognitive domain, on the higher levels of learning, and in the eight countries? •• Does study have significant impact on a student’s entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the affective domain and in the eight countries?

Design and Methods

25

2.2. research design

2.2.1. Experimental method

2.2.2. Entrepreneurial learning

The quantitative section of the study of strategic piloting is based on a quasi–experiment, the experimental method in which units are not randomly assigned to conditions.13 Outcome measures were taken on two occasions: before and after strategic piloting. The unit of assignment was the higher education institution, while the primary unit of analysis was ISCED 5/6 students. The outcome measure was the ISCED 5/6 student questionnaire (see Appendix 1), which consisted of demographic questions (country, higher education institution, participant’s gender, age, degree level), 20 Likert scale questions (five levels) related to the entrepreneurship, and an entrepreneurial knowledge test with eight questions.

Some research14 stresses the importance of a wide perspective in the description of entrepreneurship. It is apparent that enterprise and small business policies from the last decade generally interpret entrepreneurship as a business activity, and this narrow perspective of entrepreneurship and of entrepreneurial learning might impede the development of effective enterprise education policies and programs. More current research (e.g. Gibb)15 defines entrepreneurship in terms of sets of behaviors, attributes and skills that allow individuals and groups to create change and innovation and to cope with, and even enjoy, higher levels of uncertainty and complexity.

13 Shadish, W. R. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002).

14 Hytti, U. (2002). State-of-Art of Enterprise Education in

Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for

Europe: Results from the Entredu project. Turku, Finland:

generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.

Company. pp. 12.

Available at: http://www.entredu.com/report.pdf 15 Gibb, A. (2007). Enterprise in Education Educating Tomorrow’s Entrepreneurs. NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

26


2.2.3. Entrepreneurial learning in higher education institutions The implementation of the entrepreneurial learning in higher education institutions could be viewed in light of the challenges in defining an HEI’s purpose, role, organization and scope in society and the economy. Information and communications technology, the emergence of the knowledge economy and unfavorable funding conditions have all placed new demands on higher education systems and the formation of entrepreneurial universities’16. Also, universities should develop partnership with the world of enterprise, respond to the demands of the market and develop partnerships which harness scientific and technological knowledge.17 It is important to emphasize a university’s autonomy, which provides opportunities to implement entrepreneurship-related modules across different types of university-level

programs. A number of research studies focus on the potential benefits of the implementation of entrepreneurial learning in higher education institutions. For example, Dermol18 emphasizes that a combination of entrepreneurial competencies and self-efficacy encourages a student’s entrepreneurial intentions. Another focus of the literature review was on the ways in which entrepreneurial learning should be delivered in order to develop a certain competence. Wilson19 writes that there is a need to increase opportunities for students to acquire relevant work experience during their studies and suggests that these opportunities could be offered through sandwich degree programs, internships and work-based programs. The SEECEL experts20 proposed three models for implementation of entrepreneurial learning as a key competence.

16 European Commission (2012b). A Guiding Framework

18 Dermol, V. (2010). Development of Entrepreneurial

for Entrepreneurial Universities. Brussels: European Commission; Paris: OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/

Competences. IJEMS, 3(1), 27-47. 19 Wilson, T. (2012). A Review of Business–University

site/cfecpr/EC-OECD%20Entrepreneurial%20Universities%20

Collaboration. London, United Kingdom: UK Government.

Framework.pdf

Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/

17 European Commission (2009). A new partnership for the modernisation of universities: the EU Forum for University Business Dialogue. Brussels: European Commission.

system/uploads/attachment_data/file/32383/12-610-wilsonreview-business-university-collaboration.pdf 20 Heder, E., Ljubić, M., Nola, L. (2011). Entreprenurial

Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.

learning: A Key Competence Approach - ISCED level 5/6.

do?uri=COM:2009:0158:FIN:EN:PDF

Zagreb, Croatia: SEECEL.

Design and Methods

27

2.2.4. Study Areas While entrepreneurial learning is recognized as transversal competence, according to ECOTEC21 it should be available to all students and be taught as a theme rather than as a separate subject at all stages and levels of education. An additional literature review indicates the importance of teacher training institutions in the development of the lifelong learning entrepreneurial competence. According to the European Commission22, entrepreneurship education is defined as a process through which students acquire a broad set of competencies can bring greater individual, social and economic benefits since the competencies acquired lend themselves to application in every aspect of people’s lives.

21 ECOTEC (2010). Towards greater cooperation and coherence in entrepreneurship education. Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. Brussels: European Commission.

The European Commission22 is discussing a degree in which teacher education for entrepreneurship education is incorporated into most national strategies, the presence of entrepreneurship education in initial teacher education, and the extent to which entrepreneurship education is part of teachers’ continuing professional development. The request for schools to adapt to changing societal circumstances creates high expectations for teachers in regard to entrepreneurship education. Teachers should participate in collaborative learning communities and they should be innovators and entrepreneurs. Hence, teacher education should include these qualities in their curricula and to prepare their students to become agent of change in schools.23 The familiarity of teachers with entrepreneurship facilitates better implementation of a teacher’s own programme and subject of instruction. Communities of practice and the possibility for an exchange of ideas between different schools or access to support structure outside of the school could be beneficial.24.

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/ sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/education-trainingentrepreneurship/reflection-panels/files/entr_education_ panel_en.pdf 22 European Commission (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: Enabling Teachers as a Critical Success Factor. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/

28

23 Snoek, M. (2006) Teacher competences in an era of change. Proceedings of the 31st Annual ATEE Conference. Portoroz, Slovenia: Association of Teacher Education in Europe. 24 Hytti, U. (2002). State-of-Art of Enterprise Education in

enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/files/

Europe: Results from the Entredu project. Turku, Finland:

education/teacher_education_for_entrepreneurship_final_

Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.

report_en.pdf

Available at: http://www.entredu.com/report.pdf


2.2.5. Competence-based approach-focus on learning outcomes In study planning, we selected the competencebased approach with a focus on learning outcomes. This choice is linked to the main features of the Bologna process and the guidelines according to which all modules and programs in third level institutions throughout the European Higher Education Area should be written in terms of learning outcomes25. Furthermore, as Kozlinska26 summarizes, the European Competences Framework has fundamental grounds in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives consisting of three domains of learning: cognitive (knowledge, comprehension and critical thinking), affective (concerning attitudes, emotions and feelings) and psycho-motor (focusing on skills). Hence, in determining the entrepreneurship competence of higher education institutions, the researchers used a questionnaire that consisted of three parts, two of which measured entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes.

25 Kennedy, D., Hyland, A., Ryan, N. (2006). Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: a Practical Guide. Bologna Handbook. Available at: http://sss.dcu.ie/afi/docs/bologna/writing_ and_using_learning_outcomes.pdf 26 Kozlinska, I. (2012). Fundamental view of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education. Tartu: University of Tartu.

Design and Methods

29

2.2.6. Target population and recruitment

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

Three level assessement for entrepreneurship competence

Assignment of HEI prior to project implementation

Initial training

Developed by SEECEL

32 selected HEI in 8 countries

Delivered by research team

2 HEI in each country

PHASE 4

PHASE 5

PHASE 6

Baseline data collection (pretest)

Project implementation

Final data collection (postest)

HEI = 11

HEI = 11

Students = 733

HEI = 11 Students = 742

PHASE 7

PHASE 8

Data analysis

Educational policy

Use of descriptive and inferential statistics

Recommendations based on the quantitive study results

Figure 1: The strategic piloting study phases

30


Figure 1 depicts the eight phases of the quantitative section of the study at the centre of this report. The first phase concerns the development of a three-level assessment for entrepreneurship as a key competence at ISCED 5/6 by SEECEL. The levels include measuring the progress of any given higher education institution, the student assessment through the questionnaire, and the assessment of defined learning outcomes at ISCED 5/6 level based on Bloom’s taxonomy. The second phase deals with the assignment of higher education institutions prior to strategic piloting implementation. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the participating higher education institutions were selected according to study area and the country. The population of interest were students from one teacher training HEI and one other non-business and non-teacher HEI in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo*, Macedonia**, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. The third phase represents the initial training delivered by the SEECEL research team. The training was delivered before baseline data collection to higher education institution representatives. Recognizing that universities are complex systems, in this strategic pilot study, the target population for entrepreneurial learning implementation are faculties (HEIs). This bottom-up approach through faculties should ensure the familiarity of university staff with entrepreneurial learning and help them implement entrepreneurial learning at

university level.27 SEECEL experts developed three entrepreneurial university models that allow for maximum flexibility and minimum difficulty in implementation to account for the differences in HEIs in SEECEL member states. These three models were: optimum fully-integrated model, universityled model and external business services support model. The representatives from participating preservice teacher training HEIs selected the possibility for defining entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in relation to the learning outcomes that are offered on the ISCED2 level. Hence, another strategic pilot study aim was to enable teacher training HEI to incorporate entrepreneurship-related competencies through a variety of the teacher preparation courses. The fourth, fifth and sixth study phases include: baseline testing, project implementation and final testing. The results of the quantitative part of the study should be observed in relation to the initial differences between the ways in which entrepreneurshiprelated modules and competencies were delivered as a part of the participating institution programs. Quantitative data analysis is the focus of the seventh phase of the study. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used. The study results were presented in the form of the table and graphically. Results in the table include descriptive

27 Heder, E., Ljubić, M., Nola, L. (2011). Entreprenurial learning: A Key Competence Approach - ISCED level 5/6. Zagreb, Croatia: SEECEL.

Design and Methods

31

data (mean, standard deviation and number of participants) and measures of significance28. The last phase of the strategic piloting study is the report with policy recommendations for im provement. The recommendations include guide lines for further development of the ISCED 5/6 questionnaire for higher education students and for the further implementation of a common Entrepreneurial Learning: A Key Competence Ap proach (ELKCA). A total of 11 higher education institutions sub mit ted the pre- and post-test questionnaires for analysis. The full list of the HEIs that submitted the questionnaires can be found in Table 12 (Annex 3). Figure 2 shows a slight increase in the proportion of survey respondents between students from teacher training institutions in comparison to the students from non-teacher training intuitions for pre- and post-test. In addition, this change should be observed in relation to the change in number of survey respondents in different countries, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Questionnaires included in data analysis by HEI area of studies

500

406

400

396 346

327 300

200

100

0

pre

post

non teacher training institutions

teacher training institutions

28 The variance homogeneity hypothesis was discarded given the Levene results. Both Welch and Brown-Forsythe corrections were run and show same results. The table show results for the Welch test.

32


Figure 3: Questionnaires included in data analysis by country

500

421

400 353 300

200 140

133

111

100 54

38 0

46

37 pre

bih

cro

kos*

mac**

58

54

30 post

mtg

ser

Figure 3 shows the number of survey respondents for pre- and post-test according to country of origin. There is a noticeable increase in the number of survey respondents in post-test from Croatia and Serbia, and a decrease in the number of respondents from Macedonia**.

Design and Methods

33

2.3. data collection instruments and procedures

A variety of data collection instruments were used in the study to address the research questions. The quantitative data analysis focused solely on the main impact research question and the implementation questions. The instrument used in this quantitative section of the study consisted of three parts: (1) general demographic information on the participants; (2) a scale determining the opinions of participants on the 20 questions related to entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes; and (3) a test of entrepreneurship-related knowledge consisting of 10 questions. The same instrument was used for pre and post testing.

domains of learning. The extracted scale with the entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the affective domain consists of seven variables. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.680, which indicates an adequate level of internal consistency for the affective domain scale with this specific sample due to exploratory nature of this research.29 The second extracted scale, with entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the cognitive domain for higher levels of learning, consists of five and a Cronbach alpha score of 0.622. This result indicates an adequate level of internal consistency for the cognitive domain scale for higher levels of learning in this specific sample.

2.3.1 Factorial analysis of the entrepreneurshiprelated learning outcomes scale The second section of the questionnaire consisted of 20 questions that could be linked to a variety of entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes. Factorial analysis revealed 12 variables with two loaded factors (Table 1), which resemble the affective and cognitive

34

29 Hair, J. F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C.

(1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


Table 1. Factorial structure of entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes scale: factorial weights and Cronbach alpha coefficient

1 Factor 1: Entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the cognitive domain – higher levels of learning 02. Innovations are a central factor in the life of our HEI. 04. Entrepreneurs can bring added value to our HEI. 05. My friends value entrepreneurial activity above other activities and careers. 06. Students need to know about business associations, support bodies and other sources of assistance for entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. 07. It is important to me to have a secure job. Factor 2: Entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes in the affective domain 11. Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages. 15. I believe entrepreneurial competence can be developed. 16. I have always worked hard in order to be among the best in my field. 17. Entrepreneurs are job creators. 18. Entrepreneurship can be learned. 19. Entrepreneurship is the basis of wealth creation, benefiting us all. 20. Students should think entrepreneurially.

2

a 0.618

0.652 0.600 0.452 0.719 0.637 0.680 0.551 0.475 0.524 0.686 0.573 0.558 0.594

2.3.2. Relationships between variables and the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy The extracted factors can be further explained by Bloom’s Taxonomy action verbs for the cognitive (Figure 3) and affective (Figure 4) domains. The description of the tested learning outcomes is given in Table 2.

Design and Methods

35

Figure 4: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy – cognitive domain30

creating evaluating

Figure 5: Bloom’s Taxonomy - affective domain32

characterizing by value or value concept organizing and conceptualizing

analysing valuing applying understanding

responding

remembering

receiving

The third part of the questionnaire, the knowledge test, focused solely on the levels of remembering and understanding. In the second part of the questionnaire, the most commonly tested learning outcomes in the cognitive domain (Figure 4) are on the level of evaluating, followed by analyzing and understanding. Anderson31 emphasizes that for novices, the skill-based learning outcomes should be translated into cognitive learning outcomes. These findings are important for the further development of the questionnaire, where questions that belong to the cognitive domain and that cover higher levels of learning could be translated into the learning outcomes that belong to the psychomotor/skill-based domain. Furthermore, having a list of the measurable learning outcomes should facilitate further efforts in the project implementation.

The most commonly tested learning outcomes in the affective domain (Figure 5) were on the level of responding and valuing, followed by organization and characterization by value. This finding, suggesting the presence of a variety of levels of learning in the affective domain, provides an additional confirmation of the entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes scale for the affective domain.

30 Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman. 31 Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-406. 32 Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S. and Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book II. Affective domain. New York, NY. David McKay Company, Inc.

36


Table 2: Explanation of entrepreneurship-related learning outcomes scale variables

scale Affective domain

Cognitive domain higher levels of learning

Design and Methods

variables 11. Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages. 12. I believe that concrete results are necessary in order to judge professional success. 15. I believe entrepreneurial competence can be developed. 16. I have always worked hard in order to be among the best in my field. 17. Entrepreneurs are job creators. 18. Entrepreneurship can be learned. 19. Entrepreneurship is the basis of wealth creation, benefiting all of us. 20. Teachers should think entrepreneurially. 02. Innovations are a central factor in the life of our school. 04. Entrepreneurs can bring added value to our school. 05. My friends value entrepreneurial activity above other activities and careers. 06. School professionals need to know about business associations, support bodies and other sources of assistance for entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. 07. I believe that the authority I have at school is mainly due to my expertise in a certain area.

active verbs/levels of learning Receiving Responding; Valuing Responding Valuing Organization Organization Valuing Characterization by Value Analyzing, Evaluating Evaluating Evaluating Understanding Evaluating

37

38


This chapter presents the results of analyses that answer the primary research question: What impact does the study have on entrepreneurship competence of the students from teacher training institutions and the students from non-teacher training institutions in eight countries in South East Europe? The first section presents the results on the difference of a student’s entrepreneurship competence-related learning outcomes between area of studies (teacher training institutions and non-teacher training insti-

Results

tutions). The second section presents the results of the question on the difference in a student’s entrepreneurship competence-related learning outcomes among different higher education institutions. The third section presents the results of the question on a difference in a student’s entrepreneurship competence-related learning outcomes among the participating countries (Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo*, Macedonia**, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey).

39

3.1. results for higher education students

3.1.1. Entrepreneurship competence in different study areas When researching entrepreneurship competence at the ISCED 5/6 level and in different study areas, it is important to emphasize the importance of entrepreneurial learning implementation across different educational levels. Teacher training institutions are recognized as agents of change. In relation to the data gathered in the quantitative section of this study, the analysis of a one-way ANOVA may provide guidance on the relation between the study area and certain domains of entrepreneurship competence (cognitive and affective domain). Changes at pre- and post-test for each question for teacher training and nonteacher training institutions were tested separately. In this way it is possible to determine the relation of a particular study area and changes in learning outcomes for specific learning types (cognitive and affective learning type).

Figure 6: Results in the cognitive domain (level of remembering and understanding) related to area of studies

5 4,5

post

4,49

4

post

pre

3,72

3,5

3,96

3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0

40

pre

4,42

teacher training institutions

non teacher training institutions


Significant positive study area-related changes on a student’s cognitive domain (level of remembering and understanding) outcomes scale (Annex 2, Table 3) on the p