22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Argumentation-based Learning for Health Management Students
Dorit Alt1, Lior Naamati-Schneider2
1Tel Hai College, Israel; 2Hadassah Academic College, Israel
Presenting Author: Alt, Dorit
General description on research questions and objectives
This qualitative study sought to ascertain the implications of argumentation-based learning online activity in relation to two learning outcomes: First, students’ epistemological beliefs, regarding the nature of learning, often reported as valuable precursors of their adaptive learning (Greene et al., 2018), and second, students’ high-order thinking skills. This study’s main objective is to shed light on this instructional activity, by analyzing qualitative data reflecting the participants’ epistemological and ontological standpoints, and their perceived thinking levels experienced during the activity.
Theoretical Framework
Argumentation-based Learning and Epistemological Beliefs
Teachers’ and students’ epistemological point of view regarding the nature of knowledge and learning might influence their approach to teaching and learning and how they make important instructional decisions and/or set their learning goals (Fives & Buehl, 2016). There are three distinct levels of epistemological belief. Absolutists believe that knowledge is finite and unchanging and that objective truth exists. Multiplists hold a higher level of epistemological belief in which knowledge is seen as inherently subjective, consisting not of facts but of opinions, generated by human minds, indefinite and not subject to evaluation (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016; Kuhn et al., 2011). The highest level is called evaluativism, according to which individuals recognize the significance of weighing evidence and addressing contradictory claims (Kuhn et al., 2000).
Encouraging students to reach the highest level of epistemological beliefs – evaluativism – is considered a foremost learning goal in health education. Evidence-based decision-making programs (Hinneburg et al., 2020) and evidence-based practices for physicians, medical and nursing students (Cira et al., 2020) are considered imperative for ensuring patient safety. Students should recognize the value of weighing evidence, which can be achieved by continually practicing teaching and learning methods that encourage conscious use and application of a wide variety of knowledge sources. This requires formulating structured queries; and conducting searches of resources from which trustworthy and reliable evidence can be acquired (Horntvedt et al., 2018).
Argumentation-based Learning and High-order Thinking Skills
Encouraging high-order thinking skills is deemed important in health education (Medina et al., 2017). These skills can be developed by carefully designing learning activities within courses and the curriculum as a whole, such as argumentation-based learning. The term “argument” in this paper refers to the artifacts that a student creates when asked to justify claims, whereas the term “argumentation” refers to the process of constructing these artifacts (Sampson & Clark, 2008). Argumentation is suggested as a means to improve high-order thinking skills of conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Asterhan and Schwarz, 2016) rather than mere factual knowledge. Factual knowledge pertains to the basic elements that students must know to be sufficiently acquainted with a discipline or solve problems (Anderson et al., 2001). Beyond merely memorizing facts, conceptual knowledge refers to understanding similarities and patterns in factual knowledge and is centered on the interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure (Wilson, 2016). Procedural knowledge pertains to knowing “how” to do something, for example, how to use particular methods to achieve a specific learning goal (Anderson et al., 2001). Metacognitive knowledge is the knowledge of general strategies for learning and thinking. Weinberger and Fischer (2006) maintained that these types of knowledge can be achieved by encouraging students to construct arguments to justify their position. Advancing higher-order thinking skills is considered an important learning outcome in health education (Medina et al., 2017).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
Participants
Data for the analysis were gathered from 65 Israeli undergraduate students enrolled in a Management of Health Service Organizations program. The students were enrolled in a 3rd-year course entitled ‘Assimilation of service quality in health systems.’ Data were gathered following the intervention, as described in the next section. The study was pre-authorized by the college’s Ethics Committee.
The intervention
The students were presented with a problem relevant to their course content, dealing with accreditation. The students were asked to argue for or against the implementation of the accreditation process within hospitals. The task had two phases. In Phase 1, participants were asked to detail five arguments to establish their decision by using a concept map. Group work was allowed, although individual work was preferred and encouraged. In Phase 2, relying on the materials taught in their courses, the students were asked to search for and obtain the necessary supporting in¬formation to substantiate their arguments and to associate ethical values with at least two of the arguments they had provided. Next, the participants were instructed to specify and explain in detail the differences or similarities between their respective arguments.
Data collection and analysis
The students were asked to contemplate their personal learning process during the activity and to submit a reflective journal at the end of it. In the journal they were instructed to write about their self-perceived progress from the point of their preliminary argument to a more complex one and to describe their challenges and gains in light of the experience.
65 reflective journal entries were analyzed. Each entry was summarized to provide a general view of the essence of participants’ reports. Next, the entries were coded. The most important data were filtered and clustered into categories. To increase interrater reliability, two researchers engaged in the iterative dialogue aimed at capturing the essence of the research findings.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults
Five main categories were detected in the analysis:
Epistemic change
During the learning process, the students experienced a perceptual change regarding the learning process and the acquisition of knowledge. It began with their personal feelings and intuition while building the first argument. However, during construction of the second argument, the understanding grew that it is necessary to establish the facts before making rational decisions.
Social perspective-taking
During the assignment, the students were provided with an opportunity to reexamine their ideas/beliefs, which, in turn, motivated them to reconcile the cognitive conflict by explaining their views to their group members. The students realized that there is a discrepancy between their existing knowledge and the point of view of others. This raised doubts about the validity of one’s point of view.
Domain-based knowledge
Based on the literature review, argumentation is suggested to improve conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge rather than merely factual knowledge. Analysis of the students’ journals revealed that for many of them, the assignment helped develop high-level thinking, on a continuum from conceptual to procedural and metacognitive knowledge, rather than merely supporting factual knowledge.
Prior knowledge and experience
This theme deals with students’ ability to relate to their own background knowledge. The participants reported that the opportunity they were given throughout the experience to apply prior knowledge in the activity helped them during the learning process. Some drew upon prior knowledge acquired throughout their lifetime which was found to be beneficial when proposing a solution to the dilemma they had been given.
Online collaboration with other students
According to the students’ reports, using an e-platform for constructing the arguments helped group members to cooperate efficiently. However, the students also attested to experiencing some technological problems. They were unfamiliar with the digital platform and had to learn it from the instructor.
ReferencesAnderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruiskshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., . . . and Wittrock, M.C. (2001), A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing, Longman, New York, NY.
Asterhan, C.S. and Schwarz, B.B. (2016), “Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 164-187.
Cira, M.K., Tesfay, R., Zujewski, J.A., Sinulingga, D.T., Aung, S., Mwakatobe, K., . . . and Dvaladze, A. (2020), “Promoting evidence-based practices for breast cancer care through web-based collaborative learning”, Journal of Cancer Policy, Vol. 25.
Fives, H. and Buehl, M.M. (2016), “Teachers’ beliefs, in the context of policy reform”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 3, pp. 114-121.
Greene J. A., Cartiff B. M., Duke R. F. (2018). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between epistemic cognition and academic achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 110 1084–1111. 10.1037/edu0000263
Hinneburg, J., Hecht, L., Berger-Höger, B., Buhse, S., Lühnen, J. and Steckelberg, A. (2020), “Development and piloting of a blended learning training programme for physicians and medical students to enhance their competences in evidence-based decision-making”, Journal of Evidence, Education, and Quality in Health Care, Vols. 150-152, pp. 104-111.
Horntvedt, M.E.T., Nordsteien, A., Fermann, T. and Severinsson, E. (2018), “Strategies for teaching evidence-based practice in nursing education: A thematic literature review, BMC Medical Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 172.
Kuhn, D. and Crowell, A. (2011), “Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking”, Psychological Science, Vol. 22, pp. 545-552.
Medina, M.S., Castleberry, A.N. and Persky, A.M. (2017), “Strategies for improving learner metacognition in health professional education”, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 81 No. 4.
Sampson, V. and Clark, D.B. (2008), “Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions”, Science Education, Vol. 92, pp. 447–472.
Weinberger, A. and Fischer, F. (2006), “A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning”, Computers and Education, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 71-95.
Wilson, L.O. (2016), “Anderson and Krathwohl–Bloom’s taxonomy revised”, Understanding the New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved from https://quincycollege.edu/content/uploads/Anderson-and-Krathwohl_Revised-Blooms-Taxonomy.pdf
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Mapping Research on Graduate Entrepreneurship: a Systematic Review of 84 papers from 1996 to 2023
Xiaohua WAN1, Hei-hang Hayes Tang2
1The Chinese University of Hong Kong; 2The Education University of Hong Kong
Presenting Author: WAN, Xiaohua;
Tang, Hei-hang Hayes
In the era of the post-massification of higher education, superfluous graduates are swarming into the increasingly competitive workplace. However, faced with the labor market with over-supplying talents and full of uncertainty, graduates with university degrees are no longer entitled to a voucher for employability but only gain a pre-requisite and entry ticket to the limited seats (Gibb & Hannon, 2004). And the rolling wave of the ICT revolution with the development of artificial intelligence has demanded higher skills and left graduates with narrower space for job seeking, which has been even recently worsened by the economic downfall caused by COVID-19. However, those pressing challenges also present opportunities seized by adventurous graduates. Instead of following the regular trend of being job seekers, they opt for job creators as another career alternative, that is, to be self-employed and create new start-ups. According to the 2021 GUESS Global Report, 10.8 percent of graduates have established their ventures, and nearly 30 percent of students are in the act of creating new ones (Sieger et al., 2021). Graduate entrepreneurship (GE) has also been a significant agenda promoted by global governments as one of the remedies for the overpopulation of the crowded workplace and a vital source for the economy. Shouldering the third mission of responding to the socio-economic needs and acting as the seedbeds of qualified talents, universities are therefore urged to exert various strategies to cultivate potential graduate entrepreneurs. Given this significance, multiple studies have investigated why (the determinants of GE intentions), how (the factors of GE behaviors), and what (the outcomes of GE practices). Despite increasing academic attention, there is a lack of systematic literature review for GE research to synthesize and reflect on the current stock critically and comprehensibly. Without looking back at the achievements and deficiencies of previous GE studies, we can hardly revise, reflect, and refresh existing piles by identifying possible gaps and bridging them with promising perspectives.
Prior review studies (conducted in 2004 and 2006 separately) have provided illuminating reflections on GE literature, but surprisingly, no up-to-date reviews have emerged to portray the current GE landscape. The first GE literature review was brought up by Hannon (2004), who summarized the motivation studies of GE and concluded that there was a paucity of evaluation studies. He pointed out that researchers have failed to give robust and holistic studies to justify the mechanism of GE. Conducting a literature view on graduates' career-making and start-up, Nabi, Holden and Walmsley (2006) later revealed that GE literature was fragmented and atheoretical with incomplete and somewhat contradictory results. Specifically, a uniform standardized definition was absent. Solid theory models and longitudinal research with in-depth qualitative explanations are also desperately needed. Their studies have both briefly pointed out some crucial gaps neglected by scholars then. However, it remains unknown whether the current literature has addressed previous gaps and what’s been newly encountered and discovered after more than a decade, as the GE literature review hasn’t been updated since 2006.
Given the significance of GE and the shocking absence of a timely literature review on GE, this study takes stock of current GE literature and revisits this field with four questions:
- Is GE a worldwide concerned topic in academics?
- How do studies define GE and discuss its significance?
- How do studies address the factors promoting or constraining GE?
- How do studies discuss the measurement of outcomes of GE?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedGuided by the PRISMA 2020 statement , we provide a systematic literature review of GE by analyzing 84 papers sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus from 1996 to 2023.We conducted research searching in two databases: Web of Science and Scopus. They were chosen as they both represent the leading databases containing a stream of high-quality international peer-reviewed literature in multiple disciplines. They have been adopted by various authors like van Lankveld et al. (2017) and Fellnhofer (2019) in the field of education review. Also, they enable researchers to access bibliographic information and organize citation reports for further refining and analyzing work.
After the authors’ discussion, we used the following searching parameter: “graduate entrepreneurship” OR “graduate start-up*” OR “graduate startup*” OR “alumni entrepreneurship” OR “alumni start-up*” OR “alumni startup*”. We include peer-reviewed journal papers, conference papers, and review papers for more comprehensiveness of eligible studies. Meanwhile, we limit to English-written ones to better compare and synthesize results. After searching the terms in titles, abstracts, and keywords, 200 articles in total from 1996 (the earliest year GE literature showed) to 2023 (the last year GE literature was published) were found and included in our study to revisit the whole discourses of GE. To select and include more eligible pieces, this study established exclusion criteria inspired by previous works on systematic literature reviews (Schott et al., 2020; Hascher & Waber, 2021). Firstly, after removing the duplicates and papers inaccessible for whole-text reading (96 papers remained), we scrutinized the titles and abstracts of them and excluded papers if:
1. GE is not the principal and core topic but is merely mentioned as one aspect of the main topics.
2. Graduates as the main stakeholder are not emphasized but with a focus on other stakeholders (e.g., teachers, current students).
After the first abstract-scanning phase, 79 papers remained for the whole-text analysis to further examine the pertinence of those papers. During the second phase, we excluded papers if they did not address any of our research questions (provide no clues or insights to our questions). Therefore, four papers were excluded as GE was merely peripherally discoursed. At the same time, 9 papers were manually added when we read the articles and identified more relevant ones. At last, 84 papers remained for systematic review.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study found that: Firstly, despite still being dominated by UK researchers, GE has been a global academic concern. Secondly, despite substantial elaborations on the significance of GE as the economic catalyst, there is a lack of comprehensive and interdisciplinary definitions. Thirdly, researchers have empirically explained various factors influencing GE within diversified frameworks but presented scattered or controversial views on certain factors, especially on the role of universities in GE education and enhancement. Fourthly, empirical studies about the measurement of GE outcomes are shockingly rare. Fifthly, longitudinal studies are also rare to examine the transition from a student to an entrepreneur or narrate the experiences of entrepreneurs over a long period.
Based on the systematic review, this study establishes a Triple Framework of GE factors and calls for 1) an interdisciplinary, cross-sectional, and intercultural approach to defining GE; 2) grounded theories and analytical frameworks of GE for examining the factors and intersection between various stakeholders; 3) more in-depth longitudinal studies to track the progress of GE; 4) a comprehensible measurement of GE outcomes across the life span.
ReferencesAl-Dajani, H., Dedoussis, E., Watson, E., & Tzokas, N. (2014). Graduate Entrepreneurship Incubation Environments: A Framework of Key Success Factors. Industry and Higher Education, 28(3), 201–213.
Bosompem, M., Dadzie, S. K. N., & Tandoh, E. (2017). Undergraduate Students’ Willingness to Start Own Agribusiness Venture after Graduation: A Ghanaian Case. Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research 14(7), 75–105.
Colombo, M. G., & Piva, E. (2020). Start-ups launched by recent STEM university graduates: The impact of university education on entrepreneurial entry. Research Policy, 49(6), 103-113.
Hannon, P. D., Collins, L. A., & Smith, A. J. (2005). Exploring Graduate Entrepreneurship: A Collaborative, Co-Learning Based Approach for Students, Entrepreneurs and Educators. Industry and Higher Education, 19(1), 11–23.
Hooley, T., Bentley, K., & Marriott, J. (2011). Entrepreneurship and UK Doctoral Graduates. Industry and Higher Education, 25(3), 181–192.
Hussain, J. G., Scott, J. M., & Hannon, P. D. (2008). The new generation: Characteristics and motivations of BME graduate entrepreneurs. Education + Training, 50(7), 582–596.
Matlay, H. (2006). Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 2: what is entrepreneurship education and does it matter? Education + Training, 48(8/9), 704–718.
Lasen, M., Evans, S., Tsey, K., Campbell, C., & Kinchin, I. (2018). Quality of WIL assessment design in higher education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 788–804.
Nabi, G., Holden, R., & Walmsley, A. (2010). Entrepreneurial intentions among students: Towards a re‐focused research agenda. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), 537–551.
Nabi, G., Walmsley, A., & Akhtar, I. (2021). Mentoring functions and entrepreneur development in the early years of university. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1159–1174.
Nabi, G., Walmsley, A., & Holden, R. (2015). Pushed or pulled? Exploring the factors underpinning graduate start-ups and non-start-ups. Journal of Education and Work, 28(5), 481–506.
Nguyen, T. T. (2020). The Impact of Access to Finance and Environmental Factors on Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediator Role of Entrepreneurial Behavioural Control. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(2), 127–140.
Oakey, R. P., Mukhtar, S.-M., & Kipling, M. (2002). Student perspectives on entrepreneurship: Observations on their propensity for entrepreneurial behaviour. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 2(5), 308.
Zhao, X. (2011). The causes and countermeasures of Chinese graduate entrepreneurship dilemma: Based on the analysis of entrepreneurship cases and entrepreneurial climate. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 215–227.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: new apprenticeships
Ana Luísa Rodrigues
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Presenting Author: Rodrigues, Ana Luísa
Entrepreneurship education is a loosely defined concept that is used in different ways in different perspectives and contexts. As scientific field, has been developing in recent decades, namely with links between education for entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the development of entrepreneurial skills, and cultural context (Oliveira, 2016).
Fostering entrepreneurship education (EE) can be important to equip young people with skills, knowledge and attitudes that are indispensable for the development of entrepreneurial culture, not only in the work and business context but also in general context of life (Eurydice, 2016). It highlights the need to develop various skills, referred to in several studies (eg. McCallum, 2018; O'Brien, & Hamburg, 2019; Reis et al., 2020, or Tittel, & Terzidis, 2020), namely innovation, autonomy, creativity, communication, critical thinking, adaptability, planning and management, financial literacy, technological, teamwork, and problem-solving.
Entrepreneurial competencies in a broad sense are part of the European Reference Framework of Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2006) and are currently embodied in EntreComp: the Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. In this, entrepreneurship is a competence defined as the capacity to act upon opportunities and ideas to create social, cultural, or financial value for others, whether in the school curriculum, innovation in the workplace, community or at university (McCallum et al., 2018). Additionally, entrepreneurship skills build competencies in students and enhance their abilities to put knowledge into action, contributing to their employability and advantage to the workforce, the community, and ultimately the economy (Mittal, & Raghuvaran, 2021).
In this regard, due to the direct positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and employability, confirmed also by Iglesias-Sánchez (2019), entrepreneurship in recent years has been included as part of the curriculum in many universities and colleges. However, in Europe, educational institutions have not yet managed to consistently implement EE in the curricula or in the real context, nor yet promote the necessary pedagogical innovations (Oliveira, 2016; Eurydice, 2016), so it would be important its study and effective integration at all levels of education and in various areas of study, particularly in higher education.
This way, pedagogical approaches in entrepreneurship education may constitute a key factor for the development and consolidation of this field of study. Experiential approaches are common in the pedagogical process especially when one of the goals is to develop entrepreneurship skills and mindset, so it is important to relate educational theory to pedagogical practice (Bell, & Bell, 2020).
In the literature, experiential learning theory defined by Kolb (1984), is the pedagogical approach associated with entrepreneurship education most often referred to (e.g. Healey & Jenkins, 2000; Koustas, & Elham, 2021) and seems to be the most consensual and appropriate for the development of entrepreneurial skills (Minai, 2018).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study aims to conduct a literature review on the concept of entrepreneurship education, the characterisation of pedagogical approaches in entrepreneurship education, especially experiential learning, and the most commonly used instructional methods in entrepreneurship education programmes in higher education.
This will be illustrated with a case study of the Entrepreneurship Education (EE) Programme that is being implemented at the University of Lisbon, Portugal, enriched with the data collected in one of the curricular units of this programme running in the Education and Training degree.
The University of Lisbon (ULisboa) aims to foster an environment and culture favourable to open innovation and entrepreneurship, leading to the co-creation of social, cultural or economic value, so it created in the academic year 2022/23 an Entrepreneurship Education programme for the training and capacity building in entrepreneurship and innovation of its undergraduate, master and doctoral students (https://www.ulisboa.pt/eii).
Based on the curricular units (CU) already existing in the various faculties related to entrepreneurship and innovation, an internal mobility programme was created for students who can attend free of charge the CUs in this area in other faculties, integrated into their course curricula.
Whenever the study cycle curricula include the possibility of students taking optional CUs, places in entrepreneurship and innovation CUs will be made available for internal mobility of students in the different faculties. These students can also take these CU as isolated curricular units, additionally, as a supplement to the diploma.
In addition, an exploratory study was conducted on the UC of Entrepreneurship at the Institute of Education, optional for the 3rd year of the degree in Education and Training, starting in the 2nd semester of 2022. It was aim to i) observe and analyze the level of development of entrepreneurial skills, supported by technology, built by students over a semester of classes; and ii) test and analyze which pedagogical methodologies are best suited to the development of entrepreneurial competencies and assess students' perceptions regarding the evolution of their entrepreneurial skills.
Participant observation, document analysis of the written reflections produced by the students, and a final evaluation questionnaire at the end of the semester were used to collect the data.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsGiven the importance of entrepreneurship education for the development of skills at the personal, social and professional levels, and its contribution to the increase of employability, there is a growing interest and increasing integration of this subject in the curricula of higher education courses. This happens not only in business schools but also in non-business schools in an interdisciplinary perspective relevant to students in all areas of knowledge given the contemporary socio-economic and political challenges.
It seems that entrepreneurial skills can be learned, and their development can "promote better educational initiatives, improve business performance and help in new venture's success" (Reis et.al., 2020, Conclusion, para. 3).
In the case illustrated, students considered that the entrepreneurship lessons were important both personally and for their professional future, promoting their creativity and capacity for innovation, allowing them to acquire new skills, such as problem-solving, management skills, financial literacy, knowing how to start a business, taking risks, and working better in teams, so that they can have more active participation in the community. We also emphasize the significance that entrepreneurial skills can have for the world of work and for the students' future as active and participatory citizens in society.
ReferencesBell, R., & Bell, H. (2020). Applying educational theory to develop a framework to support the delivery of experiential entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(6), 987-1004. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-01-2020-0012.
European Commission (2006). Competências Essenciais para a Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida do Quadro de Referência Europeu [Key Competences for Lifelong Learning of the European Reference Framework]. Serviço das Publicações Oficiais das Comunidades Europeias.
Eurydice (2016). Educação para o Empreendedorismo nas Escolas Europeias [Entrepreneurship Education in European Schools]. Relatório Eurydice. Serviço de Publicações da União Europeia, Comissão Europeia. https://www.dgeec.mec.pt/np4/np4/%7B$clientServletPath%7D/?newsId=192&fileName=EC0216104PTN_002.pdf.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and Its Application in Geography in Higher Education. Journal of Geography, 99(5), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221340008978967
Iglesias-Sánchez, P. P., Jambrino-Maldonado, C., & de las Heras-Pedrosa, C. (2019). Training Entrepreneurial Competences with Open Innovation Paradigm in Higher Education. Sustainability, 11(17), 4689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174689
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Koustas, S. N., & Elham, S. S. (2021). Entrepreneurship Education and Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 4(1), Article 8. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/elthe/vol4/iss1/8
McCallum, E., Weicht, R., McMullan, L., & Price, A. (2018). EntreComp into Action: get inspired, make it happen. In M. Baci-Galupo, & W. O’Keeffe (Eds.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/574864
Minai, M. S., Raza, S., Hashim, N. A., Zain, A. Y., & Tariq, T. A. (2018). Linking entrepreneurial education with firm performance through entrepreneurial competencies: a proposed conceptual framework. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(4). https://www.abacademies.org/articles/Linking-entrepreneurial-education-with-firm-performance-1528-2651-21-4-218.pdf
Mittal, P., & Raghuvaran, S. (2021). Entrepreneurship education and employability skills: the mediating role of e-learning courses. Entrepreneurship Education, 4, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-021-00048-6
O'Brien, E, & Hamburg, I. (2019). A critical review of learning approaches for entrepreneurship education in a contemporary society. European Journal of Education, 54, 525-537. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12369
Oliveira, D. G. (2016). A evolução conceitual da educação para o empreendedorismo como um campo científico [The conceptual evolution of entrepreneurship education as a scientific field]. Revista Alcance, 23(4), 547-567. https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/4777/477749961007/477749961007.pdf.
Reis, D. A., Fleury, A. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2020). Consolidating core entrepreneurial competences: toward a meta-competence framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2020-0079
Tittel, A., & Terzidis, O. (2020). Entrepreneurial competences revised: developing a consolidated and categorized list of entrepreneurial competences. Entrepreneurship Education, 3, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-019-00021-4
|
