474a2ab28933541ac1523abff5c3ca02

Journal of Small Business Management 2018 00(00), pp. 1–18 https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12496 Who Is the Student Entrepreneur? Understanding the Emergent Adult through the Pedagogy and Andragogy Interplay by Gustav Hägg and Agnieszka Kurczewska Although entrepreneurship education is promoted through an active learning approach, critical concerns regarding how to educate potential entrepreneurs has increased. To remedy this, we pose the question: “Who is the student entrepreneur?” Building on conceptual work from developmental psychology, expertise research, pedagogy, and andragogy, we problematize based on the key characteristics of the emerging adult; a construct originating from developmental psychology. We illustrate an educational process moving from a pedagogical phase into an andragogical phase where the learner becomes in control of the learning process. As a result, we propose a continuum model of entrepreneurship education for emerging adults. Introduction Thompson 2016; Vanevenhoven and Liguori Entrepreneurship education is today consid- 2013). ered a main solution for preparing the coming generation of individuals, both as a subject To remedy this critical concern, we pose the and as an approach for learning (European question, “Who is the student entrepreneur?” Commission 2013; Greene et al. 2015; Building on prior conceptual work targeting O’Connor 2013). The importance of preparing pedagogy and andragogy for understanding the future generation of indiviudals with en- how to educate in entrepreneurship education trepreneurial knowledge, skills, and judgmen- (e.g., Béchard and Grégoire 2005; Bechard and tal abilities is being voiced both from a policy Toulouse 1998; Fayolle and Gailly 2008; Hägg and research perspective (Lackéus, Lundqvist, and Kurczewska 2016; Lackéus 2016; Neck and and Middleton 2016; Mandel and Noyes 2016; Corbett 2018), we problematize by departing Neck and Greene 2011). However, there is a from the student entrepreneur standpoint. By growing critical concern regarding the effec- following this approach, we put an initial focus tiveness and foundation for how to educate on problematizing the key characteristics of potential student entrepreneurs related to the emerging adulthood, which is a construct orig- promotion of a more active learning approach inating from developmental psychology. The (Béchard and Grégoire 2005; Fayolle, Verzat, emerging adult is an individual who is in a tran- and Wapshott 2016; Pittaway and Cope 2007a; sition stage between adolescence and adult- Rideout and Gray 2013; Scott, Penaluna, and hood. This relates to an early idea proposed by Béchard and Toulouse (1991) where they Gustav Hägg is a PhD at Sten K. Johnson Centre for Entrepreneurship, School of Economics and Management at Lund University, Sweden. Agnieszka Kurczewska is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Sociology at University of Lodz, Poland. Address correspondence to: Gustav Hägg, Sten K Johnson Centre for Entrepreneurship, Lund University, Scheelevägen 15B, SE-223 63, Lund, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. Hägg and Kurczewska 1

argue for the importance of taking into con- By taking a developmental psychology per- sideration differential psychology and address spective for understanding how to educate the how learners modify their learning approach as student entrepreneur, we are able to problema- they age. In addition, we include current theo- tize contemporary critical concerns (Fayolle ries from evolutionary educational psychology 2013; Rideout and Gray 2013) regarding what to and expertise research to better understand the teach and how to teach by means of either ped- learning process students go through. agogy or andragogy in entrepreneurship educa- tion. Currently, much attention has been given to The emerging adult is who we on aver- incorporate different action-oriented pedagogical age meet when educating entrepreneurship in and andragogical methods largely stemming from courses and programs at the university level. literature on experiential learning (e.g., Kozlinska The emerging adulthood, a term coined and 2011; Lackéus et al. 2016; Mandel and Noyes developed by Arnett (2000), is defined as a 2016, Vanevenhoven and Liguori 2013). However, developmental stage that ranges between the less emphasis has been put on tying these dif- ages of 18 to 29. It is a theoretical and empir- ferent methods to developmental stages that stu- ical conception describing a distinct period in dent entrepreneurs face when they go through humans’ lives that differs subjectively from both higher education, which usually coincides with adolescence and adulthood in terms of identity one of the most turbulent developmental stages explorations. In particular, the specific period in human development. The emerging adulthood of emerging adulthood is characterized by “rel- is the time when individuals engage in higher ative independence from social roles and from education, but it is also a time period when most normative expectations” (Arnett 2000, p. 469). individuals move from home for the first time Addressing the characteristics of the emerging and also move away from highly structured ap- adult and conjointly addressing guiding insights proaches of schooling. Hence, current research from andragogy (Knowles 1984) and its ap- on understanding how to conduct entrepreneur- plication in entrepreneurship makes teaching ship education at the university level has largely problematic, as andragogical assumptions and neglected to problematize the emergent adult. the emerging adulthood theorem do not pro- duce a perfect match. To solve this problem, we To highlight the importance of seeing educa- argue that a dualistic view of both andragogy tion as both a structured process and as a mean and pedagogy is needed for understanding how to develop individuals into responsible adults the systematic process of education generates (Biesta 2009; Roberts 2015), we take a multidis- a prosperous learning process for emerging ciplinary perspective, including pedagogical and adults who undertake education in entrepre- andragogical research mainly departing from neurship. We argue that it is within the interplay experiential theories on learning and education of andragogy and pedagogy we should focus (Roberts 2015). But we also bring in expertise attention (Garnett and O’Beirne 2013), for un- research (Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer derstanding how learning is developed into en- 1993; Ertmer and Newby 1996) and evolutionary trepreneurial knowledge, skills, and judgmental educational psychology (Geary 2002) focusing abilities (Hägg 2017), when emerging adults en- on instructional design (Sweller 1988, 2015) to gage in entrepreneurship education. Hence, the explicate the importance of transition phases purpose of this conceptual article is to address that a learner goes through in the educational the hidden interplay between pedagogy and an- process. By combining expertise research and dragogy when structuring learning interventions developmental psychology in relation to the for student entrepreneurs that on average is po- current pedagogy and andragogy discussion in sitioned in the developmental phase addressed entrepreneurship education research, we discuss as emerging adulthood (Arnett 2000, 2007). By and model an educational process addressing the taking this stance, we also delimit our reach in pedagogy–andragogy continuum departing from explaining learning behavior. We do not address the student entrepreneur perspective. Through or conceptualize the learning behavior of ado- the model, we highlight the importance of guid- lescents still in secondary school, which might ance and how a learner becomes more and more be engaged in, for example, the youth enterprise in control of the learning process when moving program. Neither do we conceptualize the learn- from a pedagogy phase toward an andragogy ing behavior of adults who possess professional phase. As a result, we end up with a continuum experience, who reenter higher education to model picturing the “hidden” interplay between earn MBAs (e.g., Neck and Corbett 2018). the different phases of learners’ development. 2 Journal of Small Business Management

Insights from Psychology when addressing learning to position how we and Expertise Research on can understand students and their accumula- Learning tion of knowledge, skills, and judgmental abil- ities in specific educational settings (see e.g., In the following four sections, we will ad- Hägg 2017). dress the main insights derived from develop- mental psychology with a focus on emerging To understand better the dynamics of the adulthood for understanding the student entre- cognitive development of young individu- preneur. Additionally, we will address recent als, the developmental psychologist Jeffrey advances in evolutionary educational psychol- Arnett (2000) introduces in the “American ogy that makes a differentiation between bi- Psychologist” the theory of emerging adult- ologically primary and secondary knowledge, hood. He understands emerging adulthood as which seems to be critical when discussing a phase between late adolescence and early what is learned and how it is learned in an adulthood (18 and 29 years old) and sees it as educational setting. Then, we discuss the pro- a time where complex forms of thinking are cess of moving from novice toward expert as a emerging (Arnett 2006; Arnett, Žukauskienė learner by making use of expertise research and and Sugimura 2014), which are required in research on instructional design, which takes complex societies (Arnett 2015). For him into consideration both learner proficiency and emerging adulthood is a highly challenging psychology when tailoring learning activities. phase for individuals, characterized by identity Finally, this part of the paper ends with a syn- explorations, instability, self-focus, a feeling of thesized discussion of the three sections. being in-between, and in transition from ado- lescent to adulthood, addressed as the age of Emerging Adulthood—Turbulent possibilities (Arnett 2000, 2015). It is a phase Development of Neither Adolescent Nor of change and exploration, when young indi- Adult viduals explore diverse life options and start to make enduring choices. Emerging adulthood is The period of entering the adult world is characterized through its demographic outline, loosely defined. Adolescence is usually asso- including “longer and more widespread educa- ciated with the age between 12 and 18 years tion, later entry to marriage and parenthood, old, whereas adulthood is rather reserved for and a prolonged and erratic transition to stable the age of 18 or 20 and more (Sawyer et al. work have opened up a space for a new life 2018; Steinberg and Morris 2001). The adult- stage in between adolescence and young adult- hood period is very capacious and is usually hood” (Arnett 2015, p. 8). divided into three phases: young adulthood (individuals between 18 and 39 years), mid- The theoretical construct of emerging adult- dle adulthood (individual between 40 and 64 hood is culturally constructed (Arnett 2006). years old), and old age (individuals over 64 Arnett (2015) points toward three primary years old). In developmental psychology, the factors that are foundational for the emerging transition to adulthood from adolescence are adulthood: (1) the shift in economies from an seen as a major developmental challenge that industrial to information-based ones and the individuals face in their lives. This vulnerable need for post-secondary education, (2) the dra- and turbulent period of experiencing changes matic increase in the educational and occupa- differs among individuals. Moreover, the pro- tional opportunities available to women, and cess of maturation is rarely linear and there- (3) greater tolerance of premarital sex, allow- fore difficult to capture. The transition takes ing young people in many societies to begin time and relates to cognitive, emotional, and an active sexual life long before contemplating social processes. Consequently, it is an instable marriage. A main issue that has given rise to period for humans (e.g., Arnett 2015; Bynner viewing the age span between 18 and 29 as 2005; Swanson 2016). Taking into consider- the emerging adulthood is the transition from ation an intellectual growth and following a manufacturing society toward a service soci- Piaget (1950), to reach adulthood and a stage ety where the technological revolution during of maturity where humans are able of formal the 1960s and onward created a higher de- operations, abstract reasoning, and assessment mand on individuals regarding educational of alternative solutions, there are different de- level. According to Arnett (2015), the service velopmental phases that need to be considered economy of today has created a much higher demand on postsecondary education, which is Hägg and Kurczewska 3

seen through the increased amount of young are related to what have been termed bio- individuals that pursue education beyond high logically secondary knowledge (Geary 2002), school. which is the cultural artifacts that societies have produced over a long period of time, Although critique has been brought forward and something that is needed to succeed in against the stage of emerging adulthood, being contemporary societies (Geary 2007; Sweller only a new term of a stage already discussed 2015). An important setting for developing (c.f. Côté 2014; Hendry and Kloep 2010), as and also producing these cultural artifacts well as by questioning its relevance to a lim- that make up subject domains is higher ed- ited number of individuals mainly from mid- ucation. Higher education and the increas- dle-class and from Western societies (Hendry ing number of emerging adults that enroll and Kloep 2007, 2010), our adoption of it re- could be related to the basic assumption sides to a group of individuals that are most driving the field of evolutionary educational likely to be positioned in the life stage de- psychology, as it argues that modern soci- scribed by emerging adulthood. We do not ety demands a higher amount of biologically claim that the characteristics of emerging adult secondary knowledge provided through the relate to all individuals in the age span of 18– educational system (Geary 2007). To give an 29, which has been one criticism from Hendry example, the ability of speaking a language and Kloep (2007), arguing that the theory lacks is a biologically primary knowledge, whereas to address all individuals in developing coun- learning to write and read is a biologically tries that enter into adulthood often through secondary knowledge. Humans learn epige- marriage in their early 20s. netically how to speak by mimicking parents and relatives, but to learn how to read and However, to strengthen our use of the emerg- write we need explicit instructions and guid- ing adult theory, we limit our explanatory reach ance (Sweller 2015), as this is not something to individuals in higher education that enrol that comes automatically or only from expe- in entrepreneurship courses and programs. In rience. In a subject-domain, like entrepre- connection to our primary question of “Who neurship, it could be argued that a student is the student entrepreneur?” we see merit in who lacks knowledge on the components in- conceptualizing the student entrepreneur by cluded in a business plan or the components means of the emerging adult. The empirical in an business model canvas and how to de- support for the theory of emerging adulthood velop these two will most likely not be able has increased over the years (e.g., Cohen et al. to produce a compelling pitch or explain the 2003; Eccles et al. 2003; Nelson and McNamara purpose behind a business idea, whereas a Barry 2005; Reifman, Arnett and Colwell 2007), more experienced student who has accumu- which has emphasized the group of students in lated knowledge on how to develop a busi- higher education when addressing this phase ness plan and a business model canvas and of human development. iterated their business idea will more likely perform a compelling pitch about a business Biologically Primary versus Secondary idea. Hence, when distinguishing between Knowledge and Its Effect on Subject inexperienced and experienced students, the Domains level of instructional clarity will differ due to the accumulation of biologically second- In addition to Arnett and his reasoning ary knowledge (Kalyuga et al. 2003; Sweller, on treating individuals in the phase be- Ayres, and Kalyuga 2011). tween 18 and 29 as emerging adults and the change to a service economy, also recent in- Developing Expertise: From Novice to sights in evolutionary educational psychol- Expert ogy stress the complexity of how to tailor and deliver education in the modern society The interest and also importance of exper- (Geary 2002; Paas and Sweller 2012; Sweller tise research for learning are well discussed in 2015). From an evolutionary educational the literature (Alexander 2003, 2004; Ertmer psychology standpoint, it is necessary to ac- and Newby 1996; Kalyuga et al. 2003). It is knowledge that students when engaging in highly important for conceptualizing an in- education meet subject domains (Alexander terplay between pedagogy and andragogy, for and Judy 1988) that they most likely are not understanding how to teach entrepreneurship familiar with and have little experience of. Thus, the subject domains that students meet 4 Journal of Small Business Management

(Béchard and Grégoire 2005; Bechard and the development from novice toward expert, Toulouse 1998), and in the long haul how by moving away from rationality and analyti- students learn over time and develop entre- cal modes of reasoning toward a more holis- preneurial knowledge, skills, and judgmental tic and intuitive mode of reasoning (Dreyfus abilities (Hägg 2017; Lackéus 2014). In the ex- and Dreyfus 1988). In this rests a bottom-up pertise literature, making the move from nov- approach, where a beginner relies on abstract ice toward expert has been described in two knowledge distant from experience (Dreyfus different ways, where the first has its focus on 2004), which is then altered as the individual cognition and the second on how intuition su- develops its skills within a subject-domain persedes the strictly cognitive problem-solving (Alexander 2004), where experience and intu- ability. ition supersedes abstract knowledge. On the one hand, there are theories propos- In these two distinct models on gaining ex- ing an algorithmic model with stable and trans- pertise there are also similarities, as they share ferable knowledge (Engeström, Engeström, a vertical view of expertise, characterized and Kärkkäinen 1995). The algorithmic model through stages of acquiring knowledge and argues that experts are better at handling skills (Engeström et al. 1995). In both models, complex tasks that requires a high degree of it is argued that to reach a state of expertise the problem-solving ability, based on a long time human mind processes information and sees of deliberate practice (Ericsson et al. 1993). cues in previous experience in a faster pace. In Through acquisition of knowledge by means of the algorithmic model, it is achieved through deliberate practice, the expert has developed automating the processing of information (Paas meaning schemes in the long-term memory, and Sweller 2012; Sweller 1994), whereas the and through this accumulation the processing intuitive model is taking steps away from the of information becomes automatized (de Jong structured and controlled cognitive processing 2010; Sweller 1988). The novice employs tools’ of information and moves toward a highly in- they learned in a controlled step-wise process tuitive way of reasoning on an expertise level to approach specific problem-solving situa- (Dreyfus and Dreyfus 1988), which could be tions, whereas an expert makes connections connected to ideas on entrepreneurs acting on with previous experiences and sees potential gut feeling (Gibb 1987, 1993). However, these solutions in an automated manner (Kirschner, two models on expertise could actually be seen Sweller, and Clark 2006). Through accumula- as rather close to each other, as acting on in- tion of knowledge developed from previous tuition could be seen as “the subjective expe- experiences, the expert becomes better at rience associated with the use of knowledge matching means to the end goal of solving the gained through implicit learning” (Lieberman problem at hand and reducing the complexity. 2000, p. 109). In both discussed models on de- veloping expertise, the aspect of prior expe- On the other hand, there is a view that rests rience plays an important role for separating on expertise as an intuitive mode of grasp- a novice and an expert, where dealing with ing novel and problematic situations (Dreyfus this shortage of prior experience becomes an 2004; Dreyfus and Dreyfus 1988) where the important aspect in learning, especially when process is closer to unconscious social con- relating to current discussions on guiding prin- tagion (Engeström et al. 1995). Dreyfus and ciples for how to teach entrepreneurship and Dreyfus (1988) argue that when humans learn how to design learning processes based on ex- through instruction and experience they do isting theories of learning. not just jump from a rule-guided and factual knowledge to experience-based procedural Who Is the Student Entrepreneur? know-how. Instead the intuitive model argues The emerging adult that we on average meet that a person passes through at least five stages in the skill acquisition process (Dreyfus and when teaching entrepreneurship in higher ed- Dreyfus 1988), which are qualitatively differ- ucation is facing a turbulent phase of devel- ing in perceptions over how the task and mode opment, which creates a space between the of decision-making is being carried out as the phases of adolescents and adulthood. Building person’s skills advances. These stages are: further on evolutionary educational psychol- novice, advanced beginner, competent, profi- ogy and the literature on developing expertise, cient, and expert (Dreyfus 2004). The intuitive the question of “Who is the student entrepre- model differs from the algorithmic model on neur?” becomes crucial to answer. Drawing Hägg and Kurczewska 5

from all three theories discussed and trying its characteristics based on developmental psy- to conceptualize the “student entrepreneur” chology before inquiring into the pedagogy– term, we see her/him as the emerging adult andragogy continuum. The question is how to who we on average meet in higher education transform a student entrepreneur from a nov- and who has a shortage of biologically second- ice state toward a more expert state by offer- ary knowledge in entrepreneurship and most ing the systematic process of education based often lacks relevant business experiences. Both on assumptions related to both pedagogy and shortages are highly important knowledge and andragogy. skills for thriving in the academic setting of today. Hence, when drawing on insights from To address this continuum, the following these diverse theories from psychology and the sections will address the basic assumptions expertise literature, our problematizing dis- behind pedagogy and andragogy. We are well cussion on the hidden interplay between ped- aware that there exist many different views on agogy and andragogy starts to emerge. So far, these two terms, and we are not attempting to our argument could be addressed as follows: be all-inclusive in our continued discussion, but instead aim to highlight the main differ- The emerging adult who we on average ences between the two terms and how the meet in higher education when teaching entre- insights from developmental psychology and preneurship is more complex than previously expertise literature might aid when designing conceptualized (e.g., Alexander 2004; Arnett learning activities for the student entrepreneur 2000; Geary 2007). This poses concerns about in higher education. how we address learning theory and instruc- tional design with a foundation from either Basic Assumptions behind Pedagogy pedagogy or andragogy. From evolutionary ed- Pedagogy is seen as the most traditional and ucational psychology insights on instructional design can be reaped based on the division of elementary way to educate, that is to enhance primary and secondary knowledge, and from teaching and learning practices. It is under- literature on expertise we gain insights about stood both as a philosophy explaining what the pivotal role experience plays when design- and how to learn and a method or practice ing learning activities based on the proficiency of educating with a dominating instructional level of the learner. design. In other words, it is both theory (an academic subject and a theoretical concept) Two Approaches for and practice of educating. At present, the pre- Understanding Learning in vailing viewpoint in the field relates pedagogy Education: Andragogy and mainly to the education of children, follow- Pedagogy ing the literal meaning from Greek language. However, limiting its coverage only to children Following the controversies around age and is an important shortage and misunderstand- maturity of learners highlighted within exper- ing as pedagogy has its distinctive features, tise research and developmental psychology, which makes it appropriate to apply in many together with treating the student entrepre- learning situations and contexts where the age neur as neither adolescent nor an adult, implies of learners is not the most significant element. looking beyond traditional division of educa- In general, pedagogy is regarded as built on tion into pedagogy and andragogy. Instead, an information-based and teacher-based edu- the concept of the emerging adult in conjunc- cation, with subject-matter content at its core. tion with instructional design and proficiency level of the learner rather indicate the need to The art of pedagogy is based on design- address a continuum that spans between ped- ing instructions and procedures. Dependent agogy and andragogy when conceptualizing learners follow instructions from the teacher learning in entrepreneurship education. The who is leading and governing the learning en- idea behind a continuum is not new and has vironment. Learners are accepting the instruc- been addressed in entrepreneurship education tional design delivered by the instructor and research (Jones 2006a, 2006b; Lackéus et al. are seldom critical toward the learning con- 2016; Neck and Corbett 2018). However, we tents, which are often regulated by national deviate from prior continuum discussions by curricula. The learners’ role is to receive the departing from the student entrepreneur and knowledge possessed and transmitted by the teacher, which is most often achieved through a teacher-led guided instructional design 6 Journal of Small Business Management

(Brown 2003; McCombs 1997). A pedagogical learning process becomes more autonomic approach to education is usually standard- and less reliable on instructions. ized and built on a controlled step-by-step (2) Experience: as a person matures he or she progression of learners. This step-by-step accumulates an increasing number of ex- model has its origins in the work of Comenius periences, and meaningful experiences be- (1967), who argued that to develop knowl- come a growing resource for learning. edge, learners need to pass through different (3) Readiness to learn: together with maturity stages, which starts in the general and moves of a person to learn readiness to learn be- to the specific and specialized as the learner comes directed toward the developmental acquire more and more knowledge within tasks of his or her social roles; therefore specific subject domains. learning is a socially situated process. (4) Orientation to learning: as a person ma- However, already in the 17th century in his tures his or her time perspective changes renown work “The Great Didactic,” Comenius from one of postponed application of argued that to spur curiosity among learners to knowledge to immediacy of application; continue developing knowledge and the desire therefore the orientation toward learning to know more, a life-cycle perspective is needed. changes from one of subject-centered to He explicitly argued that the exact order of in- one of problem-centered. struction must be borrowed from nature (1967, (5) Motivation to learn: as a person matures p. 98). He made a connection to the growth of the motivation to learn becomes more a tree built on four stages, where the first stage internal. is to plant the seeds of knowledge through generalized concepts that are graspable for a According to Knowles (1984), andragogy novice learner in a subject (for example what should be based on task-oriented instruc- is entrepreneurship). Second, he addresses the tions related to justified actions that are set nurture stage that aims to maintain the students’ in different contexts and in relation to differ- motivation and willingness to learn by creating ent experiences. Adults need to be engaged structures that build on the generalized knowl- in both planning and evaluating instructions edge learned (e.g., the different components in (Knowles 1973). Therefore, to contrast peda- a business plan). The third stage is based on gogy, andragogy is called a new instructional watching the students grow and take respon- paradigm, in the sense that “learning is a pro- sibility of their learning and by that making a cess of active inquiry, not passive reception of shift from instruction toward construction of transmitted content” (Knowles 1990, p. 27). knowledge (e.g., exploration of how to create Pure instruction is challenged by collabora- and actualize a business plan based on an own tive work between learner and teacher, where idea in a real-life situation). The final stage in both parts have an influence on the learning Comenius model is to let the students specialize contents and methods employed in the learn- and choose their own preferred branch of study ing activity. From an andragogical perspec- (e.g., make own choices on how to iterate and tive, the instructor is responsible for enabling make judgments whether to pivot or fail). the sources for learning, whereas the learner is expected to take ownership and respon- Basic Assumptions behind Andragogy sibility that learning is actually taking place and Their Relevance to Entrepreneurship (Béchard and Toulouse 1991). The view of an- Education dragogy resonates very well with contempo- rary argument of moving from teacher-led to Knowles andragogy is based on five as- student-led instructional practices in entrepre- sumptions: self-concept, experience, readiness neurship education research (e.g., Robinson to learn, orientation to learning, and motiva- et al. 2016), where the assumptions guiding tion to learn (Merriam 2001). These five as- this transition is largely built from andragogi- sumptions concern mostly the nature of the cal foundations (Knowles 1973) together with adult learner (Knowles 1984, p. 12): contemporary movements toward constructiv- ist views on learning (Brown 2003; Jonassen (1) Self-concept: together with maturity of 1991; McCombs 1997). a person his or her self-concept moves from one of “being a dependent per- The application of the five assumptions guid- sonality toward one of being a self-di- ing andragogy to entrepreneurship education rected human being,” therefore the Hägg and Kurczewska 7

seems to be a relatively easy task, which might entrepreneurship education a perfect match for be why andragogy quickly gained attention many researchers and practitioners in entrepre- from entrepreneurship education scholars and neurship education. started to be treated as the most adequate ap- proach to learning (Gundry and Kickul 1996; However, relating Knowles’s assumptions Neck and Corbett 2018; Weinrauch 1984), and behind andragogy to entrepreneurship educa- to some extent the experiential nature of an- tion seems to be too good to be true and sev- dragogical assumptions has acted as a way to eral critical concerns have been raised that the legitimizing the field and connected it to re- action of implementing learning theories has search on how practicing entrepreneurs learn raced ahead of the scholarly understanding of (Fayolle et al. 2016; Mandel and Noyes 2016; them in connection to education and student Neck, Greene, and Brush 2014). Andragogy need (e.g., Fayolle 2013; Fayolle et al. 2016; and its attention to experiential learning theo- Pittaway and Cope 2007a; Rideout and Gray ries has been highly popularized, and adopted 2013; Scott et al. 2016). There are at least two by entrepreneurship education scholars, as it deceptive traps of rushing an implementation answers the call of entrepreneurship education of learning theories based on andragogical as- to focus on learners’ motivation (to become en- sumptions in entrepreneurship education. trepreneur), learners’ independence (to be able to take entrepreneurial decisions), and experi- First, building on dichotomy discussions ences (as the source of entrepreneurial compe- between andragogy and pedagogy, where an- tences by practicing entrepreneurship). dragogy is explained as a more advanced form of education in comparison with pedagogy. Taking an andragogical approach to learn- The theory of adult education is discussed by ing is close to current ideals on how entre- showing the progress and difference between preneurs learn through practice (Cope and immature learner and mature/adult learner. It is Watts 2000; Deakins and Freel 1998; Wang and nested in the particularities of the adult learner. Chugh 2014), like autonomy, individuality, cre- In consequence, andragogy has started to be ativity in solving problems, and enacting op- treated as a more advanced form or stage of portunities. Like the praised experience-based education in entrepreneurship and educational approach in entrepreneurship education (Hägg models suggesting a move from pedagogy to and Kurczewska 2016; Mandel and Noyes andragogy perceiving it as a sign of educa- 2016; Neck et al. 2014), a learner’s experience tional progress (c.f. Jones et al. 2014; Neck and is treated as an essential fuel for the learner’s Corbett 2018). Educators having a choice of development in the theory of andragogy. An pedagogical and andragogical tools and noth- implementation of andragogy into learning ing in-between select the latter to legitimize interventions demands creating meaningful their teaching. However, focusing more on an- experiences for the learners and the use of dragogical methods and less on the maturation experiential techniques or methods for solv- process of learners, in case of university educa- ing real-life problems. The learning techniques tion, may not bring expected results, as most of recommended by Knowles (1980), like labora- the students actually experience this process. tory experiments, discussions, problem-solving cases, simulation exercises, and field expe- Second, selecting between pedagogy and riences, respond to the needs of entrepre- andragogy based on the characteristics of the neurship education (Mandel and Noyes 2016; domain and research insights in entrepre- Mwasalwiba 2010; Scott et al. 2016), which neurship and in consequence mixing actual focus on action and influences from how prac- profile of learners with desired characteris- ticing entrepreneurs learn ( Johannisson 2011; tics of entrepreneur-to-be, might be mislead- Sexton and Bowman-Upton 1987). ing. The potential trap is that the description of learners exposed to an andragogical ap- The logic and learning techniques depart- proach, that is learners being autonomous, ing from an andragogical perspective are very motivated, self-directed and critical are mixed close to currently promoted Lean Start-up with the desired outcomes for learners in method, Business model canvas, and the ef- entrepreneurship education. The method of fectual method. All these characteristics and teaching should be chosen in line with the the similarities between how adults learn profile of learners to be taught, not by match- and how practicing entrepreneurs learn have ing the method with the desired domain spe- made the connection between andragogy and cifics that has been largely understood by researching experts (Mitchell and Chesteen 8 Journal of Small Business Management

1995; Sarasvathy 2001). Imposing the method personal experience in the first place and from for adult learners does not automatically that builds individual processes, and therefore make learners adult. The best example here the efficiency and evidence is hard to discuss. could be teachers relying on students having Although empirical studies that has acted as accumulated enough meaningful (entrepre- input for developing theoretical models on neurial) experiences and being able to reflect adult learning behavior exist (Freire 1970; on them and learn from them, without con- Mezirow 1991), and plenty of studies in entre- sidering the level of proficiency of the stu- preneurship education have adopted theoretical dents and their actual capacity to reflect on lenses emanating from adult learning (Gundry potential (entrepreneurial) experiences (e.g., and Kickul 1996; Mitchell and Chesteen 1995; Hägg 2018). Pittaway and Cope 2007b), it has been argued that many empirical studies are still descriptive Differences in Understanding and without making active use of existing theo- Applying Pedagogy and Andragogy rizing (Fayolle et al. 2016; Rideout and Gray 2013). Hence, much research building on an- Many teachers in various fields, including dragogical assumptions, including studies in entrepreneurship, follow the assumptions of entrepreneurship education are promoting ex- andragogy in their educational endeavors. isting theories, like: transformative learning, However, andragogy with its plethora of adult experiential learning theory, or self-directed learning theories is highly context dependent learning, etc. but seldom challenges or further and loosely attached to the structural under- refine and develop current assumptions on pinnings of the educational system. how student entrepreneurs learn. First of all, adult education refers to other The difference between andragogy and ped- educative concepts, such as self-directed learn- agogy does not only concern the target group. ing, experiential learning, and transformational It is too simplistic to define the former as adult learning. education and the latter as child education. As Thompson (1989, p. 2) write: “The notion that Second, there is so far no theory of adult all adults share a set of learner characteristics education (Hartree 1984), and andragogy is that differ from the learner characteristics of rather seen as a practice of teaching that builds all children was found to be problematic.” The on a set of assumptions (Rogers 2003) than difference between the two relates also to the as a complete theory or philosophy (Knowles position of educator, role of instructions, and 1973). Although the practice-turn and move- the role of learners’ experiences, motivations, ment toward a constructivist perspective on and self-perception in learning. For example, how to educate in higher education in general in andragogy, the adult learner is assumed to (Holman, Pavlica, and Thorpe 1997; Moshman possess knowledge before starting a learning 1982; Schunk 2012) and in entrepreneurship process, which is not assumed as a basis when education in specific (Kassean et al. 2015; referring to pedagogy and the learning process. Neck et al. 2014; Robinson et al. 2016) log- ically warrants a step toward andragogi- Andragogy means supporting learners in cal approaches (Neck and Corbett 2018), it their learning, in contrast, pedagogy speak was influenced through policy in the 1980s of transmission of knowledge and skills. (Ball 1989). However, critical calls have also Learning in the view of andragogy, is a life- emerged questioning the underlying theoret- long process of continuing inquiry (Knowles ical and philosophical assumptions regarding 1980) and the mission of education is not to the practice-turn and the high emphasis on produce knowledgeable individuals (through andragogical approaches to learning in higher transmitting knowledge) but competent ones, education (Geary 2007; Kirschner et al. 2006; that is, ones who are able to apply acquired Sweller 2015, 2016), as well as in entrepre- knowledge in different contexts. The learning neurship education specifically (Fayolle 2013; process is learner-centered, autonomous, and Hägg 2017; Rideout and Gray 2013; Scott self-controlled, and has to be related to pro- et al. 2016). Following Pratt (1993), andragogy fessional lives of the learners. Hence, current is not a theory of adult learning as it does not attention in entrepreneurship education for the clarify or make explicate an understanding of development of entrepreneurial competences the learning process. might resonate well when addressing suitable learning processes derived from andragogy but Third, andragogy is difficult to test em- pirically, since it departs from the learners’ Hägg and Kurczewska 9

might not be equally suitable when having a additional level of abstraction to further dis- foundation from pedagogy. In the current liter- cuss how to teach and how to design learning ature, in entrepreneurship education, there is a activities when meeting student entrepreneurs growing interest in the development of entre- that are neither adolescents, nor adults from a preneurial competencies (e.g., Lackéus 2016), developmental psychology perspective (Arnett where experiential learning theories depart- 2007). The length and dynamics of this phase ing from how adults learn rest as a foundation of development depends on the age but are (Kozlinska 2011; Mandel and Noyes 2016; Scott also shaped by the experiences accumulated et al. 2016). due to different roles played and different cir- cumstances encountered. However, a gap in addressing the specifics of the student entrepreneur could be argued In contemporary times, the importance of a missing link when trying to connect the higher education to function in society has dots between the adopted learning theories, increased (Geary 2007), which builds on the learning process, learner in the context of en- changing societal landscape where the ser- trepreneurship, and the continuum between vice-society and knowledge-based society has pedagogy and andragogy in higher education. created higher demands on what we need to know (Arnett 2000). Education should re- Finally, the attention to developing compe- spond to different needs of individuals ex- tencies over knowledge can also be traced to periencing different life stage. From Piaget, the change in the educational discourse (Biesta we have gained plenty of knowledge on how 2009), where learning has come to dominate to educate children and adolescents, and our language over education. However, as from Knowles and others, we have gained Biesta (2004) argues, by changing the discourse insights on how to meet adults with diverse toward learning we also individualize our view life and professional experiences. The ques- on education, since learning is an individual tion is whether an andragogical perspective process, whereas education comprises both the on learning is adequate for students who, in individual and the collective group as variables a majority of cases, are in a transitional stage when structuring and developing a systematic from adolescence toward adulthood. But at educational process aiming to develop knowl- the same time, the question remains whether edge in a given field or subject domain. pedagogy is relevant for this period. What we claim in this article is that the transition Discussion—Toward a requires the solution that pedagogy and an- Continuum of Pedagogy dragogy alone cannot provide. and Andragogy Actually, reading carefully, even Knowles, The field of entrepreneurship education has the main advocate of andragogy, perceived come far in its academic development where education more as continuum where peda- the past four decades have been marked by gogy and andragogy were seen as two sides high innovativeness regarding teaching con- of education not contrasting one against tent and experimentation with teaching meth- another: ods (Mwasalwiba 2010; Solomon and Fernald 1991). Although acknowledging the great So I am not saying that pedagogy is for advancements in theorizing around student children and andragogy for adults, since learning and how to develop learning activi- some pedagogical assumptions are realis- ties in entrepreneurship education, we still see tic for adults in some situations and some a shortage of studies that tries to problematize andragogical assumptions are realistic for the relation between learning, entrepreneur- children in some situations. (Knowles 1979, ship, and psychology. p. 53) Hence, an important area that has received The idea of a pedagogy–andragogy contin- scant attention among scholars is the psychol- uum has been further developed by Garnett ogy behind the individuals that are in the en- and O’Beirne (2013). They concentrate on dif- trepreneurial classroom in higher education. ferent functioning of locus of control (from Of course, we do not neglect all the empiri- teacher, to being shared, and controlled by the cal work that engage in understanding stu- learner). The transition takes place from de- dent learning in entrepreneurship education pendency to autonomy, from “potentiality to research but try to build on it and offer an 10 Journal of Small Business Management

full order of personal capacities.” In this sense, Modeling the Transition between andragogy and pedagogy are treated not as Different Phases of Learners’ opposite but as complementary approaches Development to education, being part of united education. If we would follow the thoughts of Comenius Building on the above discussions of ped- (1967), pedagogy is to be regarded as a vital agogical and andragogical assumptions and instructional entry key for students when their relevance to entrepreneurship educa- meeting new subject domains, and as they de- tion, and based on the study of psychologi- velop their knowledge base within the subject cal aspects of learning related to developing domain, the movement, and switch to an an- expertise, the specifics of emerging adulthood dragogical instructional approach is needed to and primary versus secondary knowledge, we continue to spur epistemic curiosity (Litman claim that both andragogy and pedagogy are and Spielberger 2003) to learn more within needed for understanding how the systematic the subject domain. The switch between in- process of education generates a prosperous structional approaches has been addressed in learning process for student entrepreneurs instructional design literature as the exper- who are in transition from adolescence toward tise reversal effect in learning (Kalyuga et al. adulthood. We illustrate the learning pro- 2003), but also in literature on experiential ed- cess moving in-between the pedagogical and ucation as the invisible hand that aims to guide andragogical continuum where the learner students (Roberts 2015). becomes more and more in control of the learning process. Despite that pedagogy and andragogy is often addressed as two extremes, often moving The model consists of three interrelated in a one-way direction in entrepreneurship ed- levels: (1) the novice–expertise continuum ucation research (Neck and Corbett 2018), and is based on the awareness of the proficiency that they have different assumptions (Rogers among the students. In an ideal world, the 2003), they are not mutually exclusive or con- instructor/facilitator/teacher is aware of the tradictory, which becomes evident through the proficiency level of each individual student amount of research within instructional design and can through this move further to the and experiential education that builds on both next level, (2) which is the teacher-led versus approaches without addressing them by their self-directed continuum, where the amount of specific terms. The selection of pedagogy or guidance needed in specific learning activi- andragogy depend on multiple factors, such ties will be influenced by level one. In addi- as the particular learning situation, the social tion, and following the cardinal principle of context, the pre-exposure of similar subject Knowles (1973, p. 109), the role of planning content, and therefore, the age of the learner will also be highly affected by the proficiency may span from adolescence into emerging level of the learner. Based upon these two adulthood when organizing educational inter- levels, it is then possible to address the final ventions based on either pedagogical assump- continuum (3) between pedagogy and an- tions or andragogical assumptions. As Knowles dragogy, which also will have an impact on (1980, p. 43) argues: the different learning theories that will come in play when designing courses and programs Andragogy is simply another model of as- that build on a progression from novice to- ward expert learner in the subject domain of sumptions about adult learners to be used entrepreneurship. alongside the pedagogical model of as- The decision on where to be on the final level continuum between pedagogy and an- sumptions, thereby providing two alterna- dragogy shall not be primarly guided by current influential learning theories, such as experien- tive models for testing out the assumptions tial learning, action learning, problem-based learning, or transformational learning, as these as to their “fit” with particular situations. learning theories are built on specific assump- tions mainly stemming from how adults learn Furthermore, the models are probably most from and through experience or through tai- lored theories fitted into other subject domains. useful when seen not as dichotomous but rather as two ends of a spectrum, with a realistic assumption (about learners) in a given situation falling in between the two ends. Hägg and Kurczewska 11

The continuum presented in the model high- learner in a continuous development from lights the importance of guidance throughout novice to expert. the learning process and therefore creates an P2: Depending on the learners’ proficiency, en- interesting space to be explored further in trepreneurship education should offer tai- educational research. We suggest naming this lored guidance in learning activities, path in-between the continuum “odigogy,” the starting from more instructional, teacher- term stemming from the Greek word “odigó” led guidance in case of novices leading to- and translates into English as “guide.” Odigogy ward a more self-directed and independent addresses a path where students are guided learning process when the proficiency level in their fluid movement in-between the con- increases among the learners. tinuum. The guided movment is based on the P3: The selection of learning theory and in level of proficiency and familiarity of the stu- consequence teaching methods used in dent entrepreneur in relation to topical com- learning activities aimed at developing en- plexity and the level of biologically secondary trepreneurial knowledge should be based knowledge within the specific domain of en- on the level of proficiency of the student en- trepreneurship. It is a middle way in-between trepreneur. In case of more novice stu- pedagogy and andragogy, from teacher-led to dents, education should be more pedagogy self-directed learning, from novice to expert. oriented and in case of expert students more andragogy centered. Based on Figure 1, we have developed a P4: The role of the entrepreneurship teacher is number of propositions, which relates to the to be able to position provided education learning process of student entrepreneurs po- on the pedagogy-andragogy continuum sitioned in the developmental phase addressed and offer adequate guidance taking into as emerging adulthood: consideration the proficiency of learners and characteristics of emerging adults. P1: Entrepreneurship educators should firstly consider the characteristics of the student Hence, the argumentation in the paper and entrepreneur, including the proficiency the model build on current insights about uni- level of the learner such as accumulated versity students being in a highly turbulent experiences and biologically secondary phase of development that does not equate knowledge in the subject-domain of en- them being adults nor being adolescents. Based trepreneurship to facilitate and guide the Figure 1  A Continuum Model of Entrepreneurship Education for Emerging Adults 12 Journal of Small Business Management

on these insights, the dichotomy between how the history of social science (c.f. Jay 2005), but to teach children and how adults learn is inad- for the purpose of entrepreneurship education equate as both how to teach and how to learn we see experience as specifically linked to en- are equally important when facing university trepreneurial practice. students, that is considered to be in the phase of emerging adulthood. Therefore, it is not a one-way path from pedagogy toward andragogy, but rather a fluid Concluding Thought and movement in-between the continuum, which Implications depends on the level of student proficiency, the level of guidance based on the topical com- This article has sought to address the “hid- plexity, and the chosen learning theory when den” interplay between pedagogy and an- developing specific learning activities. Hence, dragogy when structuring learning activities different learning activities within a course or for student entrepreneurs that on average program might be based on a pedagogical ap- is positioned in the phase termed emerging proach or an andragogical approach, or some- adulthood. It has done so through building where in-between since this will be dependent on insights from developmental psychology, on the familiarity of the subject domain by the evolutionary educational psychology, and ex- students. This is also assisted by students’ feed- pertise research, but also through reexamin- back and instructors’ support in generating re- ing guiding assumptions behind pedagogy and flections, which may be helpful for developing andragogy. Although the continuum of peda- independent and responsible learners. Based gogy and andragogy is a well-discussed area on our discussion and synthesis of different in educational research, the present study has theoretical streams of literature, a more bal- sought to add some explanatory dimensions to anced terminology addressing the importance this discussion that has to our knowledge not of guidance and its continuum is by the authors been addressed in entrepreneurship education found in-between pedagogy and andragogy, research. In regard to the continuum discus- which we have termed “odigogy.” sion and the “hidden” interplay when address- ing students at higher education positioned The proposed continuum model of entrepre- in the phase of emerging adulthood, it feels neurship education for emerging adults may warranted to address a middle path, which we serve as a reference point and its different lev- have chosen to term “odigogy” that builds on els might act as guideline for entrepreneurship the Greek word “odigó,” meaning to guide. educators. The review conducted in the paper, taking into consideration theorizing from de- Following the early idea of considering dif- velopmental psychology, expertise literature, ferential psychology (Béchard and Toulouse and different learning theories aimed at edu- 1991) and building on recommendations from cation might be helpful in understanding the both developmental psychology (Arnett 2007; conceptual debates around entrepreneurship Arnett et al. 2014; Swanson 2016) and evolu- education, specifically related to issues on how tionary educational psychology (Geary 2007; to teach related to the student entrepreneur Sweller 2015), current promotion of moving that have in the past been surpassed by discus- away from pedagogy to andragogy, and in the sions on how to learn. extension to heautagogy ( Jones et al. 2014; Neck and Corbett 2018), is from the authors’ The model is particularly developed for perspective to race ahead of the underlying as- teachers hesitating which learning theory to sumptions explaining how individuals develop choose in the classroom. In designing entrepre- knowledge within the educational context of neurship course, the choice of learning theory higher education, especially since the average should be based on the maturity of learners, emerging adult who enters into higher educa- perceived not only by their age but also through tion is used to instructional designs building number and quality of their experiences and on a pedagogical idea, and most likely has previous knowledge in the field. In case of a shortage of (entrepreneurial) experiences more novice learner, the catalogue of learn- that is regarded as a key assumption in an ing theories starts with project-based learning andragogical approach to learning (Knowles and problem-based learning and expanding 1973). Of course, to define experience has been together with the increase of proficiency described as one of the most complex terms in among learners through action learning and experiential learning, to self-regulated, trans- formative, and self-directed learning. However, Hägg and Kurczewska 13

an important aspect is also the proficiency Functioning And Development. Eds. level of the teacher in understanding how to use these different learning theories in practice D. Y. Dai and R. J. Sternberg. Mahwah, and the importance of instructions when im- plementing different teaching methods based NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., on these learning theories in-between the ped- agogy and adragogy continuum. It is likewise Publishers, 273–298. of importance to select teaching methods that lead to intended learning outcomes in specific Alexander, P. A., and J. E. Judy (1988). courses and programs, which will also have an influence on the underlying learning theories “The Interaction of Domain-Specific and the focus on either individualized or col- laborative learning activities. and Strategic Knowledge in Academic In this article, we asked “Who is the student Performance,” Review of Educational entrepreneur?” and centered the discussion around this question to further problematize Research 58(4), 375–404. some assumptions about how to educate in en- trepreneurship. By questioning an andragogi- Arnett, J. J. (2000). “Emerging Adulthood: cal perspective on learning for students who are in a transitional stage between adolescence A Theory of Development from the Late and adulthood, our aim is to deepen and con- tinue the current discussion on how to teach Teens through the Twenties,” American and how students learn in entrepreneurship education in higher education. We hope that   P sych(o2l0o0g6is)t. 55(5), 469–480. in the inclusion of developmental psychology, “Emerging Adulthood expertise research, and evolutionary educa- tional psychology bring some novel insights Europe: A Response to Bynner,” Journal of on how to teach based on student characteris- tics and their development stage. However, we   Y out(h20S0tu7)d.ie“sE9m(1e)r,g1i1n1g–1A23d.ulthood: What are aware that our proposed model illustrating the pedagogy–andragogy continuum of entre- Is It, and What Is It Good For?,” Child preneurship education may serve its role for a specific group of individuals termed emerging   D evel(o2p0m15e)n. t Perspectives 1(2), 68–73. The adults, and we are aware that not all individuals Emerging Adulthood: in this age span are to be considered as emerg- ing adults (Hendry and Kloep 2010). Therefore, Winding Roadfrom the Late Teens through we make our discussion relevant for university programs, but not for secondary school pro- the Twenties, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford grams or professional trainings, like, for exam- ple, an MBA course. To check the rationale and University Press. further effectiveness of our ideas, we would en- courage scholars to advance works on assess- Arnett, J. J., R. Žukauskienė, and K. Sugimura ment of students’ developmental trajectories. (2014). “The New Life Stage of Emerging References Adulthood at Ages 18–29 Years: Alexander, P. A. (2003). “The Development of Implications for Mental Health,” The Expertise: The Journey from Acclimation to Proficiency,” Educational Researcher Lancet Psychiatry 1(7), 569–576.   3 2(8),(21000–144).. “A Model of Domain Ball, C. (1989). Towards an “Enterprising” Learning: Reinterpreting Expertise as a Multidimensional, Multistage Process,” Culture: A Challenge for Education and in Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition: Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Training. Paris: OECD/CERI. Béchard, J.-P., and D. Grégoire (2005). “Entrepreneurship Education Research Revisited: The Case of Higher Education,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 4(1), 22–43. Béchard, J.-P., and J.-M. Toulouse (1991). “Entrepreneurship and Education: Viewpoint from Education,” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 9(1), 3–13. Bechard, J.-P., and J.-M. Toulouse (1998). “Validation of a Didactic Model for the Analysis of Training Objectives in Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Business Venturing 13(4), 317–332. Biesta, G. (2004). Against Learning. Nordisk   P ed(a2g0o0g9i)k. 24(1), 70–82. in an Age of “Good Education Measurement: On the Need to Reconnect with the Question of Purpose in Education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21(1), 33–46. Brown, K. L. (2003). “From Teacher-Centered to Learner-Centered Curriculum: Improving 14 Journal of Small Business Management

Learning in Diverse Classrooms,” Engeström, Y., R. Engeström, and Education 124(1), 49. M. Kärkkäinen (1995). “Polycontextuality Bynner, J. (2005). “Rethinking the Youth Phase and Boundary Crossing in Expert of the Life-course: The Case for Emerging Cognition: Learning and Problem Solving Adulthood?,” Journal of youth studies 8(4), in Complex Work Activities,” Learning 367–384. and Instruction 5(4), 319–336. Cohen, P., S. Kasen, H. Chen, C. Hartmark, Ericsson, A. K., R. T. Krampe, and C. Tesch- and K. Gordon (2003). “Variations in Römer (1993). “The Role of Deliberate Patterns of Developmental Transitions Practice in the Acquisition of Expert in the Emerging Adulthood Period,” Performance,” Psychological Review Developmental Psychology 39(4), 657–669. 100(3), 363–406. Comenius, J. A. (1967). The Great Didactic: Ertmer, P. A., and T. J. Newby (1996). “The The Whole Art of Teaching All Things to Expert Learner: Strategic, Self-Regulated, All Men (M. W. Keatinge, Trans., 2nd ed.). and Reflective,” Instructional Science New York: Russell & Russell. 24(1), 1–24. European Commission (2013). Fayolle, A. (2013). “Personal Views on the Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan- Future of Entrepreneurship Education,” Reigniting the Entrepreneurial Spirit in Entrepreneurship & Regional Development Europe. Brussels: Enterprise Publications, 25(7–8), 692–701. European Commission. Fayolle, A., and B. Gailly (2008). “From Craft Cope, J., and G. Watts (2000). “Learning by to Science: Teaching Models and Learning Doing—An Exploration of Experience, Processes in Entrepreneurship Education,” Critical Incidents and Reflection in Journal of European Industrial Training Entrepreneurial Learning,” International 32(7), 569–593. Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Fayolle, A., C. Verzat, and R. Wapshott (2016). Research 6(3), 104–124. “In Quest of Legitimacy: The Theoretical Côté, J. E. (2014). “The Dangerous Myth of and Methodological Foundations of Emerging Adulthood: An Evidence-based Entrepreneurship Education Research,” Critique of a Flawed Developmental International Small Business Journal Theory,” Applied Developmental Science 34(7), 895–904. 18(4), 177–188. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. de Jong, T. (2010). “Cognitive Load Theory, London: Penguin Books Limited, reprinted Educational Research, and Instructional 1996. Design: Some Food for Thought,” Garnett, F., and R. O’Beirne (2013). “Putting Instructional Science 38(2), 105–134. Heutagogy into Learning,” in Self- Deakins, D., and M. Freel (1998). Determined Learning: Heutagogy in Action. “Entrepreneurial Learning and the Eds. S. Hase and C. Kenyon. London: Growth Process in SMEs,” The Learning Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 131–143. Organization 5(3), 144–155. Geary, D. C. (2002). “Principles of Evolutionary Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). “The Five-Stage Model of Educational Psychology,” Learning and Adult Skill Acquisition,” Bulletin of Science,   I ndi(v2i0d0u7a).l Differences 12(4), 317–345. “Educating the Evolved Mind: Technology & Society 24(3), 177–181. Dreyfus, H., and S. E. Dreyfus (1988). Mind Conceptual Foundations for an Evolutionary Over Machine: The Power of Human Educational Psychology,” in Educating the Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Evolved Mind: Conceptual Foundations for Computer. New York: The Free Press. an Evolutionary Educational Psychology. Eccles, J., J. Templeton, B. Barber, and Eds. J. S. Carlson and J. R. Levin. Charlotte, M. Stone. (2003). “Adolescence and NC: Information Age Publishing, 1–100. Emerging Adulthood: The Critical Passage Gibb, A. A. (1987). “Enterprise Culture—Its Ways to Adulthood,” in Well-being: Positive Meaning and Implications for Education Development Across the Life Course. Eds. M. and Training,” Journal of European H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes,   I ndus(t1r9ia93l )T.rai“nEinntger1p1r(i2s)e, 2–38. Culture and K. A. Moore. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence and Erlbaum Associates, 383–406. Education Understanding Enterprise Hägg and Kurczewska 15

Education and Its Links with Small Jonassen, D. H. (1991). “Objectivism ver- Business, Entrepreneurship and Wider sus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Educational Goals,” International Small Philosophical Paradigm?,” Educational Business Journal 11(3), 11–34. Technology Research and Development Greene, P. G., C. G. Brush, E. J. Eisenman, 39(3), 5–14. H. Neck, and S. Perkins (2015). Jones, C. (2006a). “Constructive Alignment: Entrepreneurship Education: A Global A Journey for New Eyes,” Journal of Consideration From Practice to Policy   E nterp(2ri0s0in6gb)C. ultu“Erne t1e4rp(4r)i,se291–E3d0u6.cation: Around the World. Wellesley, MA: WISE. Gundry, L. K., and J. R. Kickul (1996). “Flights of Revisiting Whitehead to Satisfy Gibbs,” Imagination: Fostering Creativity through Education + Training 48(5), 356–367. Experiential Learning,” Simulation & Jones, C., H. Matlay, K. Penaluna, and Gaming 27(3), 334–349. A. Penaluna (2014). “Claiming the Future Hägg, G., and A. Kurczewska (2016). of Enterprise Education,” Education + “Connecting the Dots–A Discussion Training 56(8/9), 764–775. on Key Concepts in Contemporary Kalyuga, S., P. Ayres, P. Chandler, and J. Sweller Entrepreneurship Education,” Education + (2003). “The Expertise Reversal Effect,” Training 58(7/8), 700–714. Educational Psychologist 38(1), 23–31. Hägg, G. (2017). Experiential Entrepreneurship Kassean, H., J. Vanevenhoven, E. Liguori, and Education: Reflective Thinking as a D. E. Winkel (2015). “Entrepreneurship Counterbalance to Action for Developing Education: A Need for Reflection, Entrepreneurial Knowledge. (PhD Real-World Experience and Action,” Compilation), Lund University, MediaTryck, International Journal of Entrepreneurial   L und.(2(104118)).. “The Reflective Novice Behavior & Research 21(5), 690–708. Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark Entrepreneur: From Habitual Action to (2006). “Why Minimal Guidance during Intelligent Action Using Experience-Based Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis Pedagogy as a Vehicle for Change,” in A of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry- Education. Ed. A. Fayolle. Cheltenham: based Teaching,” Educational Psychologist Edward Elgar, 189–223. 41(2), 75–86. Hartree, A. (1984). “Malcolm Knowles’ Theory Knowles, M. (1973). The Adult Learner: A of Andragogy: A Critique,” International Neglected Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Journal of Lifelong Education 3(3),   P ub(l1i9sh79in).g“CAonmdrpaagnoyg.y Revisited II,” Adult 203–210. Hendry, L. B., and M. Kloep (2007). “Examining   E du(c1a9t8io0n). Quarterly 30(1), 52–53. The Modern Practice of Emerging Adulthood: Investigating Adult the Emperor’s New Clothes?,” Child Education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy—   D eve(2lo0p1m0)e. n“tHPoewrspUecntiivveesr.sa1l(2I),s 74–79. Revised and Updated. New York: Cambridge Emerging   a nd(1T9h8e4)A. dAunltdErdaugocagtyioinn Company. Adulthood? An Empirical Example,” Action: Applying Journal of Youth Studies 13(2), 169–179. Principles of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Holman, D., K. Pavlica, and R. Thorpe (1997).   J oss(e1y9-9B0a).ssT. he Adult Learner: A Neglected “Rethinking Kolb’s Theory of Experiential Learning in Management Education: The Species, 4th ed. Houston, TX: Gulf Contribution of Social Constructionism and Publishing Company. Activity Theory,” Management Learning Kozlinska, I. (2011). “Contemporary Approaches 28(2), 135–148. to Entrepreneurship Education,” Journal of Jay, M. (2005). Songs of Experience: Modern Business Management 4(1), 205–220. American and European Variations on a Lackéus, M. (2014). “An Emotion Based Universal Theme. Berkeley, CA: University Approach to Assessing Entrepreneurial of California Press. Education,” The International Journal of Johannisson, B. (2011). “Towards a Practice   M an(2a0g1e6m).enVtaEludeucCarteiaotnio1n2(a3s), 374–396. Educational Theory of Entrepreneuring,” Small Business Economics 36(2), 135–150. Practice-Towards a new Educational 16 Journal of Small Business Management

Philosophy Grounded in Entrepreneurship? Neck, H. M., P. G. Greene, and C. G. Brush (2014). Teaching Entrepreneurship: A (PhD Compilation), Chalmers University of Practice-Based Approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Technology, Gothenburg. Nelson, L. J., and C. McNamara Barry (2005). Lackéus, M., M. Lundqvist, and K. W. Middleton “Distinguishing Features of Emerging Adulthood: The Role of Self-Classification (2016). “Bridging the Traditional- as an Adult,” Journal of Adolescent Research 20, 242–262. Progressive Education Rift through O’Connor, A. (2013). “A Conceptual Framework Entrepreneurship,” International Journal for Entrepreneurship Education Policy: Meeting Government and Economic of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research Purposes,” Journal of Business Venturing 28(4), 546–563. 22(6), 777–803. Paas, F., and J. Sweller (2012). “An Evolutionary Lieberman, M. D. (2000). “Intuition: A Social Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Cognitive Neuroscience Approach,” Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks,” Educational Psychological Bulletin 126(1), 109. Psychology Review 24(1), 27–45. Litman, J. A., and C. D. Spielberger (2003). Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence (M. Piercy, and D. E. Berlyne Trans.). “Measuring Epistemic Curiosity and Its Abingdon: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Diversive and Specific Components,” Pittaway, L., and J. Cope (2007a). “Entrepreneurship Education a Systematic Journal of Personality Assessment 80(1), Review of the Evidence,” International 75–86.   S ma(l2l 0B0u7sbin).es“sSJiomuurlnaatiln2g5(E5n),tr4e7p9r–e5n1e0u. rial Learning Integrating Experiential and Mandel, R., and E. Noyes (2016). “Survey of Collaborative Approaches to Learning,” Management learning 38(2), 211–233. Experiential Entrepreneurship Education Pratt, D. D. (1993). “Andragogy After Twenty- Offerings among Top Undergraduate Five Years,” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 1993(57), 15–23. Entrepreneurship Programs,” Education + Reifman, A., J. J. Arnett, and M. J. Colwell Training 58(2), 164–178. (2007). “Emerging Adulthood: Theory, Assessment and Application,” Journal of McCombs, B. L. (1997). “Self-Assessment and Youth Development 2(1), 37–48. Reflection: Tools for Promoting Teacher Rideout, E. C., and D. O. Gray (2013). “Does Entrepreneurship Education Really Work? Changes toward Learner-Centered A Review and Methodological Critique of the Empirical Literature on the Effects Practices,” Nassp Bulletin 81(587), 1–14. of University-Based Entrepreneurship Education,” Journal of Small Business Merriam, S. B. (2001). “Andragogy and Self- Management 51(3), 329–351. Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Roberts, J. W. (2015). Experiential Education in the College Context: What It Is, How It Learning Theory,” New Directions for Adult Works, and Why It Matters. New York: Routledge. and Continuing Education 2001(89), 3–14. Robinson, S., H. Neergaard, L. Tanggaard, Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions and N. Krueger (2016). “New Horizons in Entrepreneurship: From Teacher-Led to of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey- Student-Centered Learning,” Education + Training 58(7/8), 661–683. Bass Publishers. Mitchell, R. K., and S. A. Chesteen (1995). “Enhancing Entrepreneurial Expertise: Experiential Pedagogy and the New Venture Expert Script,” Simulation & Gaming 26(3), 288–306. Moshman, D. (1982). “Exogenous, Endogenous, and Dialectical Constructivism,” Developmental Review 2(4), 371–384. Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). “Entrepreneurship Education: A Review of Its Objectives, Teaching Methods, and Impact Indicators,” Education + Training 52(1), 20 – 47. Neck, H. M., and A. C. Corbett (2018). “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1(1), 8–41. Neck, H. M., and P. G. Greene (2011). “Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers,” Journal of Small Business Management 49(1), 55–70. Hägg and Kurczewska 17

Rogers, A. (2003). What Is the Difference?: Empirical Studies,” Emerging Adulthood A New Critique of Adult Learning and Teaching. Leicester: NIACE. 4(6), 391–402. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). “Causation and Sweller, J. (1988). “Cognitive Load During Effecuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Problem Solving: Effects on Learning,” Entrepreneurial Contingency,” Academy of Management Review 26(2), 243–263.   C ogni(1ti9v9e4S)c. ien“cCeog12n(i2ti)v,e257L–o2a8d5. Theory, Sawyer, S. M., P. S. Azzopardi, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional D. Wickremarathne, and G. C. Patton (2018). “The Age of Adolescence,” The Lancet Child Design,” Learning and Instruction 4(4), & Adolescent Health 2(3), 223–228.   2 95(–2301125.). “In Academe, What Is Learned, Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 6th ed. Boston, and How Is It Learned?,” Current Directions MA: Pearson Education Inc.   i n Psychological Science 24(3), 190–194. Scott, J. M., A. Penaluna, and J. L. Thompson (2016). “Working Memory, Long-Term (2016). “A Critical Perspective on Learning Outcomes and the Effectiveness Memory, and Instructional Design,” of Experiential Approaches in Entrepreneurship Education: Do We Journal of Applied Research in Memory Innovate or Implement?,” Education+ Training 58(1), 82–93. and Cognition 5(4), 360–367. Sexton, D. L., and N. Bowman-Upton (1987). Sweller, J., P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga (2011). “Evaluation of an Innovative Approach to Teaching Entrepreneurship,” Journal Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer. of Small Business Management 25(1), 35–43. Thompson, G. (1989). “The Complete Adult Solomon, G. T., and L. W. Fernald (1991). Educator: A Reconceptualization of “Trends in Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship Education in the Andragogy and Pedagogy,” Canadian United States,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(3), 25–39. Journal of University Continuing Steinberg, L., and A. S. Morris (2001). Education 15(1), 1–12. “Adolescent Development,” Annual Review of Psychology 52(1), 83–110. Vanevenhoven, J., and E. Liguori (2013). “The Swanson, J. A. (2016). “Trends in Literature Impact of Entrepreneurship Education: about Emerging Adulthood: Review of Introducing the Entrepreneurship Education Project,” Journal of Small Business Management 51(3), 315–328. Wang, C. L., and H. Chugh (2014). “Entrepreneurial Learning: Past Research and Future Challenges,” International Journal of Management Reviews 16(1), 24–61. Weinrauch, J. D. (1984). “Educating the Entrepreneur: Understanding Adult Learning Behavior,” Journal of Small Business Management 22(2), 32–37. 18 Journal of Small Business Management