A Comprehensive Framework for Entrepreneurship Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACTWe report on application of a novel and comprehensive framework for assessment and development of entrepreneurship education programs. By building on models available in current literature, and by incorporating key constructs from Theory of Planned Behaviour and from Stakeholder Theory, we present a framework that places design of an entrepreneurship education program into a broad context where decisions of program content and pedagogy are driven by considerations of role of program in social, economic, and institutional environment. This situating of design into a broader context results in programs that are more responsive to environmental circumstances and stakeholder needs and aspirations, and that exhibit greater coherence in performance measurement. We illustrate application of this framework through a review of design of two entrepreneurship programs, one in Canada and one in Germany.INTRODUCTIONNew venture creation is a vital contributor to a healthy economy. New ventures contribute to economic growth by commercializing innovation, bringing forth novel resource combinations, and driving production of markets through new competitive pressures (Wong, Ho, & Autio, 2005). The entrepreneurial actions of new ventures leads to discovery (Webb, Ireland, Hitt, Kistruck, & Tihanyi, 2011) and increased productivity (Martin & Osberg, 2007), and thence to broad social and economic progress (Wennekers & Thurik, 1999). Policymakers in most Western countries therefore believe that greater levels of entrepreneurship are required to reach higher levels of economic growth and innovation (Oosterbeek, van Praag, & Ijsselstein, 2010; Williams, Balaz, & Wallace, 2004). Donald Kuratko called entrepreneurship the most potent economic force world has ever experienced (2005: 577). Despite this, levels of entrepreneurship remain uneven across countries, societies, and communities (Xavier, Kelley, Kew, Herrington, & Vorderwulbecke, 2012).In response to perceived need for more entrepreneurs, there has been a dramatic rise in entrepreneurship education at a post-secondary levels (Kuratko, 2005; Mars & Rios-Aguilar, 2010; Solomon, 2007; Vesper & Gartner, 1997). Chamey and Libecap (2000) suggest that reasons for such sudden growth of entrepreneurship education at universities are economic shifts, a growing demand from students, an increase in funding for entrepreneurship education, and a desire to increase technology transfer and innovation generation at post-secondary level. The benefits of entrepreneurship education include positive student benefits and economic outcomes (Chamey & Libecap, 2000), and significant institutional benefits (Finnila, 2006). These benefits result in increased innovation, increased new venture creation, a propensity for selfemployment, higher annual incomes, and higher job satisfaction.The rise in demand for post-secondary entrepreneurship education has led to emergence of new programs at existing educational institutions, expansion and renewal of existing programs, and creation of entirely new institutions dedicated to entrepreneurship (e.g., Founders Institute). Yet it is not clear that these efforts towards education are very effective. For instance, a recent paper by Rideout and Gray (2013) reviewed a decade's worth of empirical studies on topic and found majority of entrepreneurship education programs lacked methodologies robust enough to yield reliable results. And some studies have even found evidence that effects of entrepreneurship education can even be negative (Nabi, Holden, & Walmsley, 2010; Oosterbeek, et al, 2010; von Graevenitz, Harhoff, & Weber, 2010).There has been surprisingly little research on performance of entrepreneurship education programs. Relatively few studies have examined influence of such programs on student attitudes, goals, competence, and behaviours (Duval-Couetil, 2013; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».