Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework of reflection that opens the way to a fuller understanding of what is meant by learning to be enterprising in schools, particularly during the basic schooling of students (at both the primary and secondary levels). Working from Dewey's philosophy of experience, the paper advances a new definition, in processual terms, of being enterprising and a related model of learning to be enterprising. Design/methodology/approach The backdrop of this theoretical article is enterprise education, currently associated with a broader view of entrepreneurship. The text begins with a critique of existing definitions of being enterprising, showing their limitations from an educational point of view. It then proposes an exploration of Dewey's philosophy of experience and its educational corollaries, all with a view to sketching out a model of learning to be enterprising. Findings John Dewey's philosophy of experience provides a basis for characterizing the notion of being enterprising in relation to two distinct phases – namely, charting a guiding direction for the action to be undertaken and putting the plan of action to the test in experience. Dewey also highlights the importance of reflexivity throughout this entire process. The coherent structuring of these elements lays the groundwork for a model of learning to be enterprising that simultaneously takes into account action and reflection in the classroom entrepreneurial experience. Originality/value Being enterprising is closely bound up with action, thus prompting many authors to set out a parallel between enterprise education and experiential learning, with most working from the model proposed by Kolb. The paper returns to the philosophical bases elaborated by Dewey and his vision of experiential learning, associated with his oft‐quoted maxim of “learning by doing.” The value of this conceptual effort consists in acquiring a more operational representation of learning to be enterprising in schools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".