Experiential Pedagogies for Cultivating Entrepreneurial Mindsets: Action Design Learning as Tailored Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the recent recognition of experiential learning as an effective pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets, it still lacks a robust and tailored conceptual foundation primed for adoption in entrepreneurship education (EE). Addressing this deficit, this research integrates action learning and design learning to propose Action Design Learning (ADL) as a bespoke and adaptable framework for experiential learning in EE. ADL fosters entrepreneurial mindsets by placing first- and second-person learning at the core of pedagogy, using emergent entrepreneurial artifacts as focusing devices. Through longitudinal insider action research, the framework is abductively evaluated across two cases in Irish universities, culminating in a functional adaptation primed for adoption. The study reveals that ADL provides a robust conceptual foundation that educators can readily apply in designing and delivering high-impact curricula that foster metacognitive abilities deemed foundational to an entrepreneurial mindset. Consequently, this study contributes to the experiential learning discourse by offering a theoretically grounded pedagogy that overcomes skepticism about the efficacy of this approach in promoting high-impact EE.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".