Post on 05-Mar-2018
transcript
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 1 of 21
Research in Entrepreneurship and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 1:2012
Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education
Dr. Luke Pittaway, William A. Freeman Distinguished Chair in Free Enterprise
Georgia Southern University
P.O. Box 8154, Statesboro, Georgia, 30460
Tel: 912 478 5321 Email: lukepittaway@georgiasouthern.edu
Corina Edwards
Entrepreneurship Development Officer, Swansea University
Tel: +44 (0)1792 51370 E-mail: c.j.edwards@swansea.ac.uk
KEY WORDS
Assessment Practice Entrepreneurship Education Student Assessment
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge and recognize the contribution of Scott Chaney a
graduate assistant at Georgia Southern who worked on this research by collecting course
outlines and syllabi. The author would also like to thank the entrepreneurship educators
who provided course outlines and syllabi for this research.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to develop further knowledge about the nature of student
assessment practice in entrepreneurship education. It begins by introducing some general
issues with regard to assessment practice and it highlights some key considerations for the
proposed research. Next the paper explains prior research on assessment practice in
entrepreneurship education and argues that there is too little empirical research on the
subject. The final part of the conceptual discussion outlines a typology of entrepreneurship
education, which highlights variation between: different forms; different learning outcomes;
different subjects; and, variation in the possible forms of assessment practice. The paper
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 2 of 21
introduces the methodology for the study illustrating the data used (course outlines and
syllabi), and explaining the methods applied to collect the materials and to analyse the
data. The results show that educational practice in entrepreneurship education continues to
be dominated by the ‘About’ form of entrepreneurship education. The results highlight that
there are different cultures of assessment practice in entrepreneurship education in the UK
and the US and that assessment practice generally needs to become more innovative, more
reflective in nature and include more stakeholders in the process. Finally, the paper
concludes that different forms of entrepreneurship education use assessment in different
ways.
Introduction
In a recent paper Pittaway, Hannon, Gibb and Thompson (2009) explored the role of
assessment practice in entrepreneurship education. The paper introduced current debates
on assessment practice and explored proposed learning outcomes relevant to teaching and
learning in the subject (Gibb, 2002). It then explored a series of focus groups which had
engaged over 40 subject specialists in a brainstorming exercise. The exercise was designed
to highlight potential practices and, in some cases, innovative practices that might be used
to assess key entrepreneurial learning outcomes. The Pittaway et al. (2009) paper,
therefore, highlighted entrepreneurship educators’ aspirations about assessment rather than
examining actual practice. The purpose of this paper is to build on this initial work, by
exploring the current assessment practices of entrepreneurship educators. This is an
important focus because entrepreneurship education has grown rapidly worldwide. For
example, in the US alone there are over 2,200 courses; 1,600 schools with
entrepreneurship activities; and, 277 endowed positions (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005;
Pittaway et al., 2011). First, the paper will explore assessment practice in general and
consider some of the major discussions. It will progress to reflect on the different forms of
entrepreneurship education presenting a typology and will identify the different
entrepreneurial outcomes that may derive from these different forms. In the second part of
the paper an analysis will be undertaken of a random sample of course outlines (syllabi),
exploring their articulated goals and learning outcomes and considering these alongside the
actual implementation of assessment. Reference will be given: to the form of entrepreneurship education; the articulated learning outcomes or course goals; and, the nature of assessment used. The paper will conclude by outlining what educators ‘do’ when they assess entrepreneurship education. The first part of the paper, to be introduced next, will examine the key issues in assessment practice.
Unpicking Assessment Practice
The subject of assessment scholarship is broad and includes different forms, such as,
institutional assessment, teacher assessment and student assessment (Banta, 2002; 2007).
The focus of this paper is student assessment which can be viewed as ‘the means through
which educators can gauge the link between desired educational outcomes and actual
student achievement’ (Banta, 1999; Martell, 2007; Pittaway et al., 2009). Student
assessment is a core concern for educators, being driven both by a need to assess students’
progress, and a requirement to provide certified public qualifications. The tension between
these two demands, on the one hand, supporting student progression (formative
assessment) and, on the other hand, judging student performance (summative
assessment), drives much of the general debate in the educational literature. Concerns
revolve around how assessment can be used to assist student learning, while at the same
time coping with pressures placed on assessment by accreditation systems which typically
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 3 of 21
prefer outcome-based, credit-based and modular forms of education (Ecclestone and
Swann, 1999).
Some of these tensions can be observed within research on assessment practice in
entrepreneurship education. For example, the Pittaway et al. (2009) paper provided an
initial foundation for discussions and some views from educators as to what might constitute
innovative practice. The paper has been followed up by work that explores how to assess
creativity and the lessons that might be drawn by entrepreneurship educators (Penaluna
and Penaluna, 2009). All of the recent papers have noted that assessment practice is an
important consideration and that it has been somewhat neglected by researchers (as well as
Gibb in 1998). Taking a step further Penaluna and Penaluna (2009), claim that:
“…much of the pedagogic focus has remained on the business school environment…
These pedagogies have a tendency to focus on analytical approaches with
preponderance towards positivistic engagement where assessed outcomes are clearly
defined and predictable.”
While they are likely making a valid point the evidence on which they are able to
draw to justify the argument is inherently limited as there is little existing research on what
entrepreneurship educators actually ‘do’ when engaging in assessment. For example, few
studies appear to address assessment practice to a significant degree (MacFarlane and
Tomlinson, 1993; Askham, 1997; Reid and Petocz, 2004; Bilen et al., 2005; Pittaway et al.,
2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009). It seems that while researchers can debate
assessment in entrepreneurship education based on a disciplinary or pedagogic point-of-
view, this debate may have little value unless researchers become more aware about the
actual practices used. Another obvious problem with Penaluna’s and Penaluna’s (2009)
viewpoint, even in the context of business school education, is that ‘entrepreneurship
education’ is identifiably not one thing (Gibb, 2002; Pittaway and Cope, 2007a). It varies
between: forms (about, for, through and embedded); the theme of the course (family firms,
franchising, technology entrepreneurship); the learning outcomes desired from the course,
the underlying disciplinary stance (even between disciplines within business schools); and,
the educational philosophy applied by the educator. This inherent diversity in educational
and assessment practice is documented in other disciplines. Surveys of assessment
practice, for example, show considerable diversity in what is assessed, how it is assessed,
when and where it is assessed and who does the assessing (Topping et al., 2000). So to
understand assessment practice researchers must begin to observe actual practice through
empirical research and do so in a sophisticated way to appreciate the different forms and
types that entrepreneurship education might take. The next part of the paper advances a
typology on which to base such considerations when researching assessment practice.
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 4 of 21
A Typology of Entrepreneurship Education and Assessment Practice
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 5 of 21
In order to understand assessment practice as it is undertaken by educators in the field it
was argued previously that some form of typology must be developed to take into
consideration different forms of educational practice. In a now well documented typology
researchers have recently been arguing for such distinctions and have presented a typology
based on four forms of entrepreneurship education. These forms are usually considered to
be: ‘about’; ‘for’; ‘through’ and ‘embedded’ or ‘in’ (Gibb, 2002; Pittaway and Cope, 2007b;
Handscombe et al., 2007; Pittaway, 2009). Debate revolves around the different types, for
example questions that have been asked include: which form is most effective (Gibb 2002)
and what is the exact nature of each type (Handscombe et al., 2007)? In addition to these
recent debates prior work on entrepreneurship education has presented similar stages that
view forms progressing from knowledge and awareness, through the acquisition of skills to
engagement in practice (Ashmore, 1989; Solomon and Fernald, 1991). It has also been
argued that these forms of practice provide different educational outcomes and are
complementary (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b; Pittaway, 2009). Although an explanation of
the types can be found elsewhere it is important for the purposes of this paper to outline
them here briefly. The ‘about’ type uses more traditional pedagogic forms of educational
practice and these approaches are usually didactic. They are driven by a desire to raise
awareness or share knowledge and are often content or subject led (Pittaway and Hannon,
2008). ‘For’ approaches tend to engage students in tasks, activities and projects that
enable them to acquire key skills and competencies (McMullan and Long, 1987; Vesper and
McMullen, 1988; Solomon, Duffy and Tarabishy, 2002). Approaches in this type take many
forms including: experiential, inquiry-based and project-based. In general, however, they
tend to be driven by a desire to allow students to acquire skills in preparation for future
entrepreneurial endeavours (Gibb, 2002). For example, such approaches include some
forms of business planning and most computer simulations (Gorman et al., 1997; Brawer,
1997). Although in practice there is some crossover between ‘for’ approaches and ‘through’
approaches, the difference is typically driven by the later allowing actual practice of
entrepreneurship in ‘safe’ conditions (Hills, 1988; Truell, Webster and Davidson, 1998). The
best examples of this type are courses that allow students to run ‘real’ companies or engage
in consultancy within an entrepreneurial context (Solomon et al., 2002; Gibb, 2002). The
focus tends to be on learning through doing (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). The final type
often identified is the ‘embedded’ or ‘in’ type. In this type educational practice is typically
embedded within courses focused on other disciplines or subjects (Solomon et al., 2002;
Kuratko, 2005; Handscombe et al. 2007), for example, by converting a course on polymers
in a chemistry program so that it considers aspects of intellectual property. The driving
force behind this form is to provide students, within non-business subjects, awareness and
experience of entrepreneurship directly within their discipline; so that the form of
entrepreneurship they learn about is relevant to their field of interest. One can assume that
the previous three types could still be used but ultimately they would be embedded within a
course focused on a different subject (Pittaway et al., 2009).
When moving away from the specific categories of entrepreneurship education
diversity can also be found in the underpinning learning outcomes desired by educators
(Pittaway et al., 2009). The entrepreneurial outcomes framework developed for the National
Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) by Gibb is currently the best available means
to make distinctions between expected learning outcomes in entrepreneurship. The
framework identifies eight different categories of entrepreneurial learning outcomes and
these categories can be associated with particular types of entrepreneurship education as
illustrated in Figure 1. Two sets of outcomes, understanding key business knowledge and
understanding the process of entrepreneurship (McMullan and Long, 1987; Plaschka and
Welsh, 1990), can be linked within the typology to the ‘about’ form of entrepreneurship
education. This is because the focus of these learning outcomes is to enable students to
grasp key knowledge about business start-up or other entrepreneurial contexts and,
therefore, they are focused more on knowledge than skills or experience. Two sets of
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 6 of 21
entrepreneurial outcomes can be linked to the ‘for’ form of entrepreneurship education. The
first set includes outcomes targeted at encouraging students to engage in activities that
seek to develop key entrepreneurial behaviours (e.g. opportunity seeking; initiative taking)
while the second set focuses on creating generic entrepreneurial competencies (e.g. to find
an idea, to appraise an idea). Both types are thus focused on skills acquisition. There are
two sets of learning outcomes that can be associated with the ‘through’ form of
entrepreneurship education. The first of these focuses on creating empathy with the life-
world of the entrepreneur by gaining experience of, for example, uncertainty and
complexity, while the second focuses on learning how to develop key relationships through
practice. Both types require students to engage in ‘real’ projects or activities in order to get
close to the lived experience of entrepreneurs. Finally, there are two sets of learning
outcomes in the typology that can be associated with all forms of entrepreneurship
education. These are aiming to encourage the inculcation of key entrepreneurial values and
learning objectives targeted at trying to motivate students to consider an entrepreneurial
career (Hills, 1988; Donckels, 1991). Each of these learning objectives, it seems, could be
met through knowledge, the acquisition of appropriate skills or through practice and can, therefore, be considered generic learning outcomes that may be met by any form of
entrepreneurship education.
As well as making a distinction between the different forms of entrepreneurship
education and the forms of learning outcomes that may be pursued in each form the
typology in Figure 1 also demonstrates that educational activity may vary according to the
subject focus of the course. Much of the difference in subject focus is tested in the
empirical research, however, it does vary and some common examples include:
entrepreneurship; small business; new venture or business planning; franchising; family
firms; innovation; technology entrepreneurship; corporate entrepreneurship; and, social
entrepreneurship. A different subject focus may lead to variation in the assessment practice
deemed appropriate. For example, a business planning course due to its nature may
require the submission of a business plan as its common form of assessment practice and
this can be seen to be principally led by the subject of focus. The final aspect of the
typology presented in Figure 1 outlines some of the common issues in assessment practice
that seem relevant when examining assessment practice in entrepreneurship education.
The issues highlighted have been drawn from the general review of the literature about
assessment in higher education (Banta 1999; 2002; 2007) and from the prior research work
conducted (Pittaway et al., 2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009). The specific issues that
were focused on in this part of the research were:
i) The person or persons undertaking the assessment and the extent to which
this varied away from the professor teaching the course to include other
forms, such as, self-assessment; peer assessment and assessment by
entrepreneurs and other professionals.
ii) The specific methods of assessment used in courses (e.g. exams; tests;
essays)
iii) The extent to which assessment practice was driven by internal methods (e.g.
internal to the institution) or external methods (e.g. set by accreditation
agencies or involving external stakeholders).
iv) Whether the assessment methods used were principally driven by a desire to
undertake ‘objective’ assessment of performance (e.g. via verifiable tests) or
more inclined towards ‘subjective’ methods that required greater
interpretation on the part of the assessor.
v) Whether assessment practice was of a more ‘formative’ developmental type
or whether it tended towards more summative methods used to judge
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 7 of 21
performance. The nature of the balance within courses was a particular
focus, as most courses had some formative and some summative aspects.
Overall the typology presented in Figure 1 provides a means to consider
entrepreneurship education, to make some sense of the variety of different approaches
while at the same time exploring the forms of assessment used and the balance of
assessment according to common concerns in the general educational field (e.g. formative
versus summative assessment practice). The typology will be used to map out the forms of
entrepreneurship education observed and the application of assessment practice in these
different forms within the empirical research carried out. Before introducing the field
research, however, the next part of the paper will introduce the methodology and explain
how the empirical research was conducted.
Methodology
The purpose of this research is to expand observations on the actual assessment
practices of entrepreneurship educators. The research uses as its unit of analysis courses
undertaken on any subject in entrepreneurship and small business within the United
Kingdom (UK) or the United States (USA) from 1980 to the present day. The main data
sources used for the analysis were course outlines and syllabi published or provided directly.
Such material was useful when it clearly outlined the proposed learning outcomes and the
assessment strategy used by the educator. It was typically discarded and not used in the
research when these aspects of the course were unclear. Although a somewhat limited
form of data such materials have been used previously in entrepreneurship education to
survey current educational practice (Solomon and Fernald, 1991). A random sampling
method was employed to conduct the research. This had a number of components. First,
the research undertook a random search for course outlines and syllabi that were published
and available on the internet. Secondly, it explored randomly, accredited US schools and
searched their University web-pages for published course outlines and syllabi. Thirdly,
entrepreneurship programs were identified that were highly regarded and cited in the
Entrepreneur Magazine/Princeton Review 2009 list of entrepreneurship programs. The
listed institutions web-pages were searched for published syllabi and individual academics
were approached for copies when not openly available. Fourthly, online social networks
(LinkedIn and Facebook) were used to invite connected educators to provide samples of
their course outlines (mainly UK focused) for the research and to invite other colleagues to
contribute further materials. Finally, the research used professional newsletters (e.g. USASBE and ISBE) to invite educators to send sample syllabi and course outlines to the researchers to
further contribute data sources for the research.
Using these various approaches 117 course outlines and syllabi were collected. The
first step in the data analysis was to produce a means to codify the data in each submission
according to the typology presented in Figure 1. As the research was seeking to observe
practice through a wider sample a quantitative approach was taken and the data analysis
was undertaken using SPSS. To translate the narrative information in the course outlines
into quantitative data a survey schedule (see appendix 1) was used to review each
document. The first stage of data analysis involved simple descriptive statistics in relation
to the sample and the second stage involved more analytical statistics where these were
appropriate. The key research questions guiding this approach include: what are the
principle forms of entrepreneurship education currently being used by entrepreneurship
educators? What are the main learning objectives and are these clustered around particular
forms of entrepreneurship education? What are the dominant subjects currently being
taught? What are the main forms of assessment practice? Does this vary according to type
of entrepreneurship education? Given the specific debates about assessment what are
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 8 of 21
entrepreneurship educators typically applying (e.g. formative versus summative
assessment)? Does this vary according to form of entrepreneurship education?
There are a number of research limitations that should be outlined here. The first
limitation of this research is that it seeks to understand educator’s intentions from a
secondary source (course outlines) and, therefore, requires the researcher to interpret
those intentions and convert a written narrative into empirical data. Inevitably, there is
some scope for misinterpretation and some errors of interpretation may have been included
in this data. The preferable approach of a survey of educators was not deemed appropriate
in this case as much of the data was already available from published sources and a survey
may have been limited by a low response rate. Variation in interpretation was managed
somewhat by using the analysis schedule outlined in appendix 1. The second limitation is
the use of a random sample and the size of the sample. As this was one of the first
empirical studies of assessment practice the sample size was deemed appropriate. Given
the scale of entrepreneurship education, the sample remains small and there is scope for a
more comprehensive sample in future research. A future study may also benefit from
seeking a control group so that assessment practice in entrepreneurship education can be
explored in relation to assessment practice in other subjects. The final limitation of the
study revolves around the analysis undertaken. In the original data collection syllabi were
not assessed for the extent to which assessment practice was ‘individual’ or ‘group’ focused.
While this was not essential for the purposes of this study future work would benefit from
exploring this aspect of assessment practice.
Discussion of Results
Sample
There were 117 courses sampled, 85 were from the US (72.6%), 29 were from the
UK (24.8%) and three were from elsewhere (2.6%). The vast majority of the sample
reflects the dominance of entrepreneurship education by Business and Management Schools
and 87 (74.4%) courses were for business students. No other subject area was represented
to a significant degree: vocational business (e.g. Hospitality or Sports Management) (7);
Engineering (5); Natural Sciences (4), Social Sciences (3), Humanities (6), Medical Sciences
(2), other (3). For the purposes of more detailed statistical analysis these were classified as
‘not-business’ and they constitute 25.6% of the sample. The sample size outside of
business schools was insufficient for detailed statistical analysis and is, therefore, an area
that would be appropriate for a follow-up study. There were 86 courses at the
undergraduate level (73.5%) and 30 at the postgraduate level (25.6%) and one categorized
as ‘other’ (0.90%). The sample was collected randomly and is consistent with previous
studies that examine the distribution of entrepreneurship education across disciplines
(Solomon, Duffy and Tarabishy, 2002). It is sufficient to explore differences between
business school and ‘not-business’ but the number of cases within discrete disciplines, such
as engineering, is too small to explore deeper differences.
Forms and Types of Entrepreneurship Education
Courses were categorized as being ‘About’; ‘For’; ‘Through’; and ‘Embedded’ forms of
entrepreneurship education. All courses were categorized twice, the course’s primary form
and its secondary from. When the data are explored for variations between location (e.g.
the USA versus the UK) there are no significant differences; the ‘For’ approach has been
used slightly more widely in the UK and the ‘About’ form slightly more in the US. There is
also evidence that undergraduate education tends to be somewhat more dominated by
‘About’ forms of entrepreneurship education while postgraduate level education tends to
have a greater proportion of the ‘For’ form of entrepreneurship education. Table 1
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 9 of 21
summarizes the results for the entire sample and Table 2 summarizes the results for
differences between the UK and US:
Table 1 – Forms of Entrepreneurship Education
Primary form of approach
About For Through Embedded Other None
69 32 11 5 0 0
59.0% 27.4% 9.4% 4.3% 0 0
Table 2 – Forms of Entrepreneurship Education (US versus UK)
Secondary form of approach
About For Through Embedded Other None
47 47 13 3 0 7
40.2% 40.2% 11.1% 2.6% 0 6.0%
Total – Forms of Entrepreneurship Education
About For Through Embedded Other None
116 79 24 8 0 7
49.6% 33.6% 10.3% 3.4% 0 3.0%
Primary and secondary forms of education Total
About For Through Embedded
Location of
course
USA 93
(55%)
54
(32%)
15
(9%)
7
(4%)
169
UK 20
(38%)
22
(42%)
9
(5%)
1
(2%)
52
Other 3 2 0 0 5
Total 116 78 24 8 226
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 10 of 21
This study highlights that the majority of entrepreneurship education sampled here
uses the ‘About’ form (59.0% in the primary category, 40.2% in the secondary category
and 49.6% overall). So over half of all courses surveyed in this research used a more
traditional approach that is focused on knowledge accumulation and they typically depend
upon didactic pedagogies. The second major form used in the courses sampled was ‘For’
forms (27.4% in the primary category, 40.2% in the secondary category, 33.6% overall).
While only around a 3rd of courses are specifically trying to develop entrepreneurial skills
many of the courses initially designated as being ‘knowledge’ focused do also aim to help
with skill development. Finally, the ‘Through’ form and the ‘Embedded’ forms of
entrepreneurship education are used less often (10.3% and 3.4% respectively). The data,
therefore, demonstrate that the more innovative forms of entrepreneurship education
remain somewhat peripheral and the more traditional ‘About’ form continues to dominate.
When the data are explored between ‘business school-led’ and ‘not-business school led’
there are no significant differences. For example, ‘business school-led’ courses have 50.1%
‘About’, 28.2% ‘For’, 12.6% ‘Through’ and 0% ‘Embedded’ forms and ‘not business school-
led’ courses have 51.9% ‘About’, 33.3% ‘For’, 3.7% ‘Through’ and 13% ‘Embedded’. By
definition courses outside of the business school are more likely to be categorized as being
embedded in another discipline; although courses that engage students in small business
consultancy and other forms that are categorized as being ‘Through’ tended to be slightly
higher in business schools than elsewhere. Overall the data on forms of entrepreneurship
education tend to show that
traditional ‘About’ forms of
entrepreneurship education
continue to play a dominant role
and that these forms dominant
regardless of location or discipline.
‘For’ approaches to
entrepreneurship education, do
play a crucial role and constitute
around a 3rd of all courses but
other forms of entrepreneurship
education are used less. The
focus of courses in terms of
subject is highlighted in Table 3.
The most common subjects of
course sampled were
‘entrepreneurship’; ‘business
planning’ and ‘technology
entrepreneurship’ courses. Other
forms listed occurred less often in
the sample and this seems to
agree with other studies that have
sampled entrepreneurship
programs (Solomon, Duffy and
Tarabishy, 2002). The data do
not vary in a significant way
between the UK and the US.
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 11 of 21
Learning Outcomes
The syllabi were explored for the articulated learning outcomes educators sought
(‘what’ is being assessed). Learning outcomes were dominated by traditional ‘About’
entrepreneurship forms of education as described in Figure 1 (see Table 4). Learning
outcomes that sought key business knowledge about start-up and understanding of the
processes of business entry and stages constitute 48% of the cases. Outcomes associated
with the attainment of entrepreneurial skills (‘For’) are 30% of the cases and outcomes
associated with experience (‘Through’) are 16% of the sample; while values and motivations
to become entrepreneurs, are the remainder of the learning outcomes sought (6%). The
sample of learning outcomes overall, therefore, mirrors the course categorization with
around half the sample focusing on knowledge acquisition, a third focusing on skills and the
remainder on experience. When learning outcomes were explored, as outlined in the
conceptual framework (see Figure 1), the different forms of learning outcome mapped
against the different forms of educational practice to a degree, but not completely. ‘About’
forms of entrepreneurship education tended towards learning outcomes that were focused
on ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ (59% cases). ‘For’ forms of educational practice were
unexpectedly split equally between the attainment of knowledge and understanding (39%)
and the acquisition of skills and competencies (39%) and ‘Through’ approaches focused
more on empathy and relationships (42%), while also focusing on skills and competencies
(32%). ‘Embedded’ approaches mirrored the sample as a whole as anticipated in the
conceptual framework. The distribution of cases across the sample made it difficult to
explore learning outcomes by subject focus in a statistically significant way. Some variation
was observed, ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘venture finance’ courses tended to apply learning
outcomes that were focused on knowledge and understanding while ‘business planning’
courses tended to have learning outcomes that were more focused on skills acquisition. For
other subjects the sample was too small to draw meaningful conclusions but it was evident
from observations of the data that ‘small business’ consultancy courses tended to apply
learning outcomes that were more focused on the acquisition of ‘competencies’, ‘empathy’
and the development of ‘relationships’ with entrepreneurs. Other subjects (e.g. corporate
entrepreneurship; social entrepreneurship; and, family business) tended to seek a range of
different learning outcomes and no commonalities were observed in the data.
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 12 of 21
Assessment Methods
The main focus of the data collection was assessment practice and some interesting
results were found (i.e. ‘how’ are students assessed). First, when the data were explored
with regard to method of assessment (see Table 5) traditional didactic methods, such as,
tests and exams (15%) and essays (10%) were used less extensively than might have been
expected given the large number of courses in the subject that were categorized as ‘About’
forms of entrepreneurship education. The most common forms of assessment method used
were business plans and business reports (20%); presentations (16%); and in class
assessment (16%). These forms are often associated with the acquisition of skills ‘For’
entrepreneurship and so it is interesting that they tend to dominate as the main methods of
assessment. Methods that involve self-assessment (8%) or peer assessment (4%) were
used much less often than expected.
When assessment methods are explored by country (UK versus US) some differences
emerge. Courses in the US in general have more methods of assessment in each course
than their counterparts in the UK. US courses in entrepreneurship use in-class methods, for
example credit for attendance and involvement in class, much more extensively and this
method is rarely used in the UK (66 cases versus 5 in the UK). Tests and exams are also
used more extensively by US professors and were rarely used in the UK (7 cases). Case
studies are also used somewhat more widely in the US. In the UK professors are more
likely to use essays than their US counterparts. Other methods of assessment are similar
between the two countries (e.g. business planning; business reports; peer assessment;
and, presentations). The data thus point to some notable cultural differences between the
UK and the US in terms of assessment practice in entrepreneurship education. The most
notable being the wider use of tests and exams and the inclusion of credit for in-class
activities in the US; both of which point to a slightly higher tendency in US entrepreneurship
education to focus on knowledge acquisition and retention. When methods of assessment
are explored according to discipline (business school versus not-business school) there is
little notable difference in methods used. Business schools appear to trend towards greater
use of exams, in-class assessments and case studies but these were not significant results.
Somewhat unexpectedly, therefore, the assessment methods used in entrepreneurship
education do not appear to vary much between disciplines in this sample. The data also
display little variation in the use of assessment methods between levels of education
(undergraduate versus postgraduate).
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 13 of 21
Figure 2: Methods of Assessment within Different Forms of Entrepreneurship Education by Number of Cases
Figure 3: Methods of Assessment within Different Forms of Entrepreneurship Education by Percentage
When the methods of assessment are explored within the different forms of
entrepreneurship education a number of observations can be made (see Figures 2 and 3).
First, it is evident that ‘About’ forms of entrepreneurship education that are seeking
‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ are far more likely to use tests and exams as core
approaches to assessing students. They are also more likely to use case studies than other
forms. Interestingly, in class assessment is used almost equally in all forms of
entrepreneurship education and is, therefore, driven by cultural issues (traditional US
practice) than by the form of entrepreneurship education. The data also demonstrate quite
clearly that both the ‘For’ and ‘Through’ forms of entrepreneurship education tend towards
assessment practice that uses business plans, business reports and presentations. It is also
evident in the data that the ‘Through’ form of entrepreneurship education is far more likely
to utilize reflective assessment practice; an approach that is often considered essential
when engaging in experiential learning (Pittaway and Cope, 2007b). This form is also
somewhat more likely to engage in peer assessment. The ‘Embedded’ form of
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
About
For
Through
Embedded
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
About
For
Through
Embedded
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 14 of 21
entrepreneurship education, as anticipated by the conceptual framework, is using a range of
assessment methods and no forms appear to stand out from the norm. This is somewhat
expected as such approaches to entrepreneurship education are drawing, by definition, from
many disciplines and pedagogic traditions, which leads to substantial variation between
approaches.
When exploring ‘who’ is doing the assessing the results are clear. Most professors in
entrepreneurship education assess their own courses with little input from other
stakeholders. Student’s self-assessment through reflective assessment practice was much
lower than might have been expected (5.1% of courses) and peer assessment featured in
many courses but could still be considered low (19.6% of courses). Entrepreneurs (26.8%)
and other professionals (15.4%) were certainly involved but rarely contributed to
assessments where the awarded grade would have a major impact on the student’s overall
grade. The data did not display much variation between the UK and the US. The data on
internal versus external assessment support this finding. The mean for internal versus
external is 1.53, which is explored on a 7 point scale where 1 is 100% internal and 7 is
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 15 of 21
100% external. This result demonstrates that very few stakeholders other than professors
were involved in assessment practice for the courses sampled in this study. The data show
a slightly more internal focused approach in the UK data (1.45) versus the US (1.55) but
this is not significant (see Table 6). There was no noticeable variation between disciplines
and some variation between levels where postgraduate courses were slightly more likely to
engage other stakeholders (1.74 versus 1.49 for undergraduate courses). When exploring between ‘About’ courses and other forms. ‘About’ courses are much more likely to apply
summative assessment practices (3.78) whereas ‘For’ (2.19), ‘Through’ (2.36) and ‘Embedded’ (2.40) approaches are more inclined to use formative assessment practices. Overall though, even in courses that are designed to be ‘knowledge’ based, there appears to be a reasonably healthy use of formative assessment (50% of the assessment practice is still formative in nature).
the data for variation between forms of courses there is significant variation. ‘About’
courses are dominated by internal assessment (1.23); ‘For’ courses are more likely to
engage other stakeholders (1.78); ‘Through’ courses draw much more extensively on other
stakeholders within the assessment process (2.64); and, ‘Embedded’ courses are similar to
the average for all courses (1.60). These data demonstrate that the form of course does
impact on ‘who’ is involved in assessment practice. Courses designed to engage students in
experiential learning or skills development are far more likely to engage other stakeholders
in the assessment process; including students; entrepreneurs and other business
professionals. It should be noted, however, that even the most externally focused
assessment practices remain at least 60% internal and, therefore, are driven predominantly
by the professor leading the course.
When the data for ‘objective versus subjective’ and ‘formative versus summative’
assessment are considered other interesting findings emerge (see Table 6). First, when
examining ‘objective versus subjective’ assessment the sample as a whole is split 50/50,
entrepreneurship education appears to use a balanced approach drawing equally on both
objective and subjective forms of assessment practice. There is no significant variation
between the UK and US or much variation between discipline (from limited data
entrepreneurship education in social sciences do tend to use slightly more subjective
assessment methods than other disciplines) or any difference between level (undergraduate
as opposed to postgraduate). There is once again significant variation between forms of
entrepreneurship education. The ‘About’ form tends to use objective assessment methods
more (3.99) than any of the other forms (e.g. ‘For’ is 5.19; ‘Through’ is 5.64 and
‘Embedded’ is 4.40). The data thus confirm that methods of education that are focused on
knowledge accumulation will tend towards assessment practice (e.g. tests and exams) that
judge objectively the retention of knowledge. Forms of education that aim to develop skills
or seek to engage students in practice are also more likely to accept and utilize methods of
assessment that are more subjective in nature (e.g. essays; reflections; business reports).
When the data are explored for the ‘formative versus summative’ dimension of assessment
practice similar conclusions can be drawn (see Table 6). The data once again overall show a
balanced approach with virtually equal use of formative and summative forms of
assessment but with perhaps a slight preference for formative assessment (3.15). There
are some observable differences between the UK and US with the UK preferring slightly
more formative forms (2.90 versus 3.32 for the US) but this result was not significant.
There was a significant difference between postgraduate and undergraduate level
entrepreneurship education. In postgraduate entrepreneurship education more formative
forms of assessment are used (2.41) whereas in undergraduate education more summative
forms are used (3.47). Such a result should be expected and it appears to demonstrate
that students do move from more basic knowledge driven classes into more applied classes
as they progress through entrepreneurship programs. Once again there is also a significant
difference
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 16 of 21
Conclusions
The results of this research should provide ‘food for thought’ for entrepreneurship
educators. Despite a widespread desire to promote and develop innovative forms of
entrepreneurship education it is quite evident from this study that current educational
practice remains fairly traditional. The majority of courses sampled in this study were
‘About’ forms of educational practice and they typically sought learning outcomes that were
‘knowledge-based’. There were fewer examples of educational practice focused on ‘For’
forms of entrepreneurship education and where these existed they were usually utilizing
‘business planning’ formats. More innovative forms of educational practice, such as, those
categorized as ‘Through’ approaches or ‘Embedded’ approaches were significantly more
marginal within the data. Over 50% of entrepreneurship education sampled here is,
therefore, focused on helping students understand the phenomenon rather than preparing
them for genuine entrepreneurial activity. There is little difference between the UK and the
US but there is some notable progression between undergraduate and postgraduate
education with far more emphasis on skills and practice in postgraduate courses than their
undergraduate equivalents. The sample also demonstrates the continued dominance of
business schools in entrepreneurship education although somewhat surprisingly educational
practice outside of business schools, in this study, does not differ substantially.
The learning outcomes sought by educators unfortunately mirrors this somewhat
unattractive picture; and the majority of learning outcomes aim to enable students to
acquire knowledge ‘about’ the subject. The conceptual framework in Figure 1 is broadly
supported by the data and certain learning outcomes can be mapped against particular
forms of entrepreneurship education as highlighted. When turning to assessment practice a
somewhat more complex picture emerges. While courses tend towards knowledge
accumulation and articulated learning outcomes are knowledge-based, assessment practice
is less didactic. For example, tests and exams are used less often than might be anticipated
given the focus of courses and business plans, business reports, presentations and in-class
assessment are used more widely than might have been expected. Despite this result
assessment practice cannot really be described as ‘innovative’ as discussed in the Pittaway
et al (2009) paper and it is evident that self-assessment and peer assessment are not used
as often as one might expect. The research also demonstrated some interesting cultural
differences between the UK and the US with regard to assessment practice in
entrepreneurship education, particularly the use of in-class assessment in the US and the
greater use of exams and tests versus wider use of essays in the UK. Also, when examining
‘who’ is doing the assessing it is evident that entrepreneurship courses are not engaging
other stakeholders in the assessment process as much as they should.
One of the main findings of this study is the significant variation of assessment
practice between the different forms of entrepreneurship education as anticipated in the
conceptual framework. ‘About’ forms of entrepreneurship education are much less likely to
engage other stakeholders, are much more likely to seek ‘objective’ assessment methods
and are more likely to apply ‘summative’ assessment methods. Given the dominance of this
form the assessment process. Assessment practice needs to be more innovative. Although
there were a few examples of very innovative practice in the sample these examples were
very rare and forms of of entrepreneurship education in the sample this is a somewhat
disheartening finding. Other approaches to entrepreneurship education are offering
different forms of learning design, are seeking different learning outcomes and, as a
consequence use assessments differently. In these other forms of entrepreneurship
education, assessment practice tends to be more reflective, more engaging of other
stakeholders, more accepting of ambiguity and more formative in nature.
These conclusions suggest a number of implications. Those researchers and
educators who advocate for more innovative forms of entrepreneurship education (Gibb,
1998; Pittaway et al., 2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009) need to continue their efforts.
While there is a place for ‘About’ forms of entrepreneurship education there remains a need
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 17 of 21
to rebalance the dominance of these approaches with more ‘For’, ‘Through’ and ‘Embedded’
forms of educational practice. It is evident that educators need to do more to engage
stakeholders in the assessment process particularly via peer assessment and the
engagement of entrepreneurs and other professionals in assessment that were used (with
the exception of business plans) are not inherently unique to entrepreneurship education.
In this regard there seems to be much more scope for the greater use of reflective
assessment practices and a need to develop forms of assessment that are specific to the
entrepreneurial context (e.g. elevator pitches; executive summaries; trade shows etc.).
Ultimately the contribution of this paper is to explore what entrepreneurship
educators ‘do’ when they assess entrepreneurship education. The results show that there is
much work to do to encourage a more careful consideration of assessment practice in
entrepreneurship education. The study also provides some opportunities for future
research. Assessment practice as a focus for research in entrepreneurship education seems
ripe for further effort especially as there have only been a few studies exploring the subject
(Pittaway et al. 2009; Penaluna and Penaluna, 2009). There is, for example, a need to look
at particular forms of assessment practice (e.g. reflective and peer assessment) more
deeply with a need to explore what value they provide. The study also shows that there is a
need for further research that explores assessment practice in entrepreneurship education
in disciplines outside of business schools.
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 18 of 21
References
Askham, P. (1997). An instrumental response to the instrumental student: assessment for
learning, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 299-317.
Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: planning, implementing and improving
assessment in Higher Education, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. W. (Ed) (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass/John Wiley & Sons.
Banta, T. W. (2007). Can assessment for accountability complement assessment for
improvement? Peer Review, 9(2), 9-13.
Bilen, S., Kisenwether, E., Rzasa, S. and Wise, J. (2005). Developing and assessing
students’ entrepreneurial skills and mind-set, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 233-
243.
Brawer, F.B. (1997), Simulation as a vehicle in entrepreneurship education, ERIC Digest,
97(1), 433-469.
Donckels, R. (1991), Education and entrepreneurship experiences from secondary and
university education in Belgium, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 35-
42.
Ecclestone, K. and Swann, J. (1999). Litigation and learning: tensions in improving
university lecturers’ assessment practice, Assessment in Education, 6(3), 377-389.
Katz, J.A. (2003), ‘The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American Entrepreneurship
education’, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), ‘The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, Trends
and Challenges’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.
Gibb, A. (1998), ‘Educating tomorrow’s entrepreneurs’, Economic Reform Today, 4, 32-38.
Gibb, A., (2002), In pursuit of a new enterprise and entrepreneurship paradigm for
learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations
of knowledge, International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 213-232.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), Some research perspectives on
entrepreneurship education, enterprise education, and education for small business
management: A ten year literature review, International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56-
77.
Handscombe, R., Kothari, S., Rodriguez-Falcon, E. and Patterso, E. (2007), “Embedding
Enterprise in Science and Engineering Departments”, NCGE Working Paper, No. 025/2007,
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.
Hills, G.E. (1988), Variations in university entrepreneurship education: An empirical study
and an evolving field, Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), 109-122.
Macfarlane, B. and Tomlinson, K. (1993), Managing and assessing student enterprise
projects, Education & Training, 35(3), 33.
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 19 of 21
Martell, K., (2007). Assessing student learning: are Business Schools making the grade,
Journal of Education for Business, 82(4), 189-196.
McMullan, W.E. and Long, W.A. (1987), Entrepreneurship education in the nineties, Journal
of Business Venturing, 2(3), 261-275.
Penaluna, A. and Penaluna, K. (2009), Assessing creativity: drawing from the experience of
the UK’s creative design educators, Education and Training, 51(8/9), 718-732.
Pittaway, L., (2009), The role of inquiry-based learning in entrepreneurship education,
Industry and Higher Education, 23 (3), 153-162.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J., (2007a), ‘Entrepreneurship Education – A Systematic Review of
the Evidence’, International Small Business Journal, 25 (5), 477-506.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J., (2007b), ‘Simulating Entrepreneurial Learning: Assessing the
Utility of Experiential Learning Designs, Management Learning, 38 (2), 211-233.
Pittaway, L. and Hannon, P., (2008), Institutional strategies for developing enterprise
education: A conceptual analysis, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15
(1), 202-226.
Pittaway, L. Hannon, P. Gibb, A. and Thompson, J. (2009), ‘Assessment practice in
enterprise education’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research,
15(1), 71-93.
Pittaway, L., Rodriguez-Falcon, E., Aiyegbayo, O. and King, A., (2011), The role of
entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning, International Small
Business Journal, 29 (1), 37-57.
Plaschka, G.R. and Welsch, H.P. (1990), Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education:
Curricula designs and strategies, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 55-71.
Reid, A. and Petocz, P. (2004). Learning domains and the process of creativity, Australian
Educational Researcher, 31(2), 45-62.
Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002), The state of entrepreneurship education
in the United States: A national survey overview, International Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, 1(1), 65-86.
Solomon, G.T. and Fernald, L.W. Jr., (1991), Trends in small business management and
entrepreneurship education in the United States, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
15(3):25.
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. and Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of
academic writing between postgraduate students, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 25(2), 149-166.
Truell, A.D., Webster, L. and Davidson, C., (1998). Fostering entrepreneurial spirit:
Integrating the business community into the classroom, Business Education Forum, 53(2),
28-29.
Vesper, K. H. and McMullen, W. (1988), Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow
degrees? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1), 7-13.
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 20 of 21
Appendix 1: Course Outline and Syllabi Analysis Schedule
1) Location of course
1. USA
2. UK
3. European
4. Other
2) College or discipline
1. Business (General)
2. Business (Vocational)
3. Engineering
4. Natural sciences
5. Social sciences
6. Humanities
7. Medical or Veterinary
Sciences
8. Other
3) Course level
1. Undergraduate
2. Postgraduate
3. Other
4) Principle form of
entrepreneurship education
1. About
2. For
3. Through
4. Embedded
5. Other
5) Secondary form of
entrepreneurship education
1. About
2. For
3. Through
4. Embedded
5. Other
6. None
6) Primary category of learning
outcomes
1. Key minimum
business knowledge
about start-up or
other
2. Understanding
process of business
entry and stages
3. Gain entrepreneurial
behavior and skills
4. Generic
entrepreneurship
competencies
5. Empathy with the life-
world of the
entrepreneur
6. Students understand
the nature of the
relationships they
need
7. Key entrepreneurial
values are inculcated
8. Motivation towards an
career in
entrepreneurship has
been built
9. Other
7) Secondary category of learning
outcomes
1. Business knowledge
about start-up or
other
2. Understanding
processes and stages
3. Gain entrepreneurial
behavior and skills
4. Generic
entrepreneurship
competencies
5. Empathy with the life-
8) Focus of course
1. Academic
entrepreneurship
2. Business planning
3. Corporate
entrepreneurship
4. Corporate venturing
5. Creativity and idea
generation
6. Entrepreneurial
simulations
7. Entrepreneurship
8. Innovation
9) What is assessed
1. Knowledge
2. Skills
3. Experience
4. Other
Center for Entrepreneurial Learning and Leadership: Working Paper Series
Working Paper 01.2012 – Assessment: Examining Practice in Entrepreneurship Education Page 21 of 21
world
6. Understand the nature
of the relationships
7. Entrepreneurial values
inculcated
8. Motivation towards an
career
9. Other
10. None
9. Family Firms
10. Franchising
11. Small Business
Management
12. Social entrepreneurship
13. Technology
entrepreneurship
14. Venture finance
15. Small business
consultancy
16. Other
10) How is it assessed (5 options)
1. Multiple choice tests
2. Exam
3. Essay
4. Business plan
5. Business report
6. Peer assessment
7. Learning logs or
diaries
8. Personal reflection
9. Presentation
10. Interview
11. Other
12. None
13. In class
14. Case study
15. Portfolio
11) Who is assessing (3 options)
1. Professor
2. Self
3. Student peers
4. Entrepreneurs
5. Other professionals
6. Other
7. None
12) External versus internal
1. 100% internal
assessment
2. 80 % internal and
20% external
3. 60% internal and
40% external
4. 50% internal and
50% external
5. 40% internal and
60% external
6. 20% internal and
80% external
7. 100% external
assessment
13) Objective versus subjective
1. 100% objective
assessment
2. 80 % objective and
20% subjective
3. 60% objective and
40% subjective
4. 50% objective and
50% subjective
5. 40% objective and
60% subjective
6. 20% objective and
80% subjective
7. 100% subjective
assessment
14) Formative versus summative
assessment
1. 100% formative
assessment
2. 80 % formative and
20% summative
3. 60% formative and 40%
summative
4. 50% formative and 50%
summative
5. 40% formative and 60%
summative
6. 20% formative and 80%
summative
7. 100% summative
assessment