Evaluation of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education revisited evidence from Estonia and Latvia
Date
2016-11-22
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Käesolev väitekiri täidab kaht olulist lünka kaasaegses ettevõtlushariduse uuringute valdkonnas: esiteks, ettevõtlushariduse eri vormide, näiteks, traditsiooniline ja kogemuspõhine ettevõtlusõpe, võrdlevate uuringute puudumine, millega kinnitaks laialt levinud väidet, et kogemuspõhine ettevõtlusharidus on soovitud õpitulemuste saavutamisel tõhusam, ja teiseks, tõendite puudumine selle kohta, kuidas ettevõtluskäitumise objektiivsed väljendused ettevõtjate ja palgatöötajate puhul olenevad ettevõtluspädevustest, mida ettevõtlusõpingute käigus arendatakse. Nende lünkade täitmiseks väitekirjas pakutakse välja ja testitakse ettevõtlusõppe õpiväljundite integreerivat hindamisraamistikku, mis tugineb Bloomi õppe-eesmärkide taksonoomiale (Kraiger jt 1993; Bloom jt 1964), inimkapitali teooriale (Becker 1964) ja ettevõtluse õpetamismudelitele kõrghariduses (Béchard ja Grégoire 2007, 2005b). Kohaldatav kontseptuaalne raamistik lahendab mitu ettevõtlushariduse valdkonna kirjanduses välja toodud valupunkti, sealhulgas, ülemäärane tuginemine ettevõtluskavatsuste mudelitele, mis muuhulgas ei võta hindamisel arvesse ettevõtlusõppe kavandamise ja teostamise üksikasju. Uudne hindamisraamistik esitab ettevõtlusõppe kognitiivsete, oskuspõhiste ja afektiivsete õpiväljundite kolmikmudeli ettevõtlushariduses ning selle objektiivsed tulemused edasises tööalases konkurentsivõimes, ettevõttesiseses ja isiklikus ettevõtlustegevuses. Selles mõtestatakse kogemuspõhine ettevõtlusharidus läbi nõudluse ja pädevuse õpetamise mudelite prisma, traditsioonilist ettevõtlusharidust vaadeldakse aga pakkumismudeli analoogina (ibid 2007).
Uuring keskendub kahele väikesele üleminekujärgsele avatud majandusega naaberriigile: Eestile ja Lätile. Analüüsis kombineeritakse mitme juhtumi uuringu, läbilõike- ja võrdlusmeetodeid. Andmed koguti kaheksa (nelja Eesti ja nelja Läti) kohaliku kõrgkooli 16-lt ettevõtluse õppejõult ja 559-lt viimase aasta bakalaureusetudengilt, kes osalesid äriga seotud õppekavades, ning nende õppekavade hiljutistelt lõpetajatelt. Kvalitatiivsete ja kvantitatiivsete andmete kogumine toimus poolstruktureeritud silmast-silma-vestluste ja veebipõhise küsitlusena, kasutati vastavalt ettekavatsetud ekspert- ja homogeenset valimit. Vestlustes kogutud andmete põhjal tuvastati, millist õppetöö meetodit erinevates kõrgkoolides peamiselt kasutatakse. Küsitluse andmeid kasutati hüpoteeside testimiseks. Kvalitatiivsed andmed kodeeriti nende sisu analüüsimiseks. Kognitiivsete, oskuspõhiste ja afektiivsete õpiväljundite (omavaheliste) statistiliste seoste analüüsiks kasutati struktuurse modelleerimise meetodit. Kovariatsioon-analüüsiga selgitati, kas peamiselt traditsioonilise ja kogemuspõhise õpetamise ja vastavate õpitulemuste vahel on statistiliselt olulisi erinevusi. Peale selle hinnati mitmesuguste regressioonimudelite abil traditsioonilise ja kogemuspõhise õppe väljundite ning ettevõtluskäitumise objektiivsete näitajate vahelisi seoseid.
Uuringu tulemused seavad kahtluse alla eespool osutatud tavapärased eeldused ning kinnitavad osaliselt põhihüpoteese. Kogemuspõhine ettevõtlusharidus seostus traditsioonilisega võrreldes paremate oskuspõhiste ja afektiivsete tulemustega, kuid seda ainult Eestis. Analüüs näitas, et kogemuspõhine õppimisvorm ei anna alati paremaid õpitulemusi ja mõnel juhul seostub see isegi negatiivse mõjuga ning tulemusi mõjutavad oluliselt ka muud tegurid (nt. eelnevad ettevõtluspüüdlused, suhtumine õppejõududesse). Afektiivsed õpiväljundid ennustavad lõpetajate konkurentsivõimet tööturul, algusjärgu isiklikku ning samuti ettevõttesisest ettevõtlust. Ükski ettevõtlikkuse objektiivne näitaja ei kinnitanud aga hüpoteesis oletatud sõltuvust kognitiivsetest ja oskuspõhistest õpitulemustest. Mis puudutab ettevõtluskäitumise objektiivseid väljendusi uuringuperioodil, siis ei olnud Eesti puhul erilist vahet, kas ettevõtlust õpiti traditsiooniliselt või kogemuspõhiselt, ning Läti puhul osutus kogemuspõhisemas ettevõtlushariduses osalemine isegi vähem kasulikuks. Need tulemused erinevad suurel määral inimkapitali teooria tava-arusaamast ja näitavad, et ettevõtlusega seotud inimkapitali tehtud investeeringud ei täida kõnealuses kontekstis päriselt ootusi.
Uurimistulemuste arutelu annab parema arusaama sellest, miks kogemuspõhine ettevõtlusharidus ei pruugi anda oodatud tulemusi. Uurimistulemusi hinnatakse ettevõtluspedagoogika ning kohaliku ettevõtlushariduse arengut mõjutavate väliste tegurite seisukohast, samuti muude mõõtmete seisukohast, mis on seotud ettevõtlusõppe kavandamise ja pakkumisega ning õpitu ülekandega kahes riigis. Muude mõjurite seas võib esile tuua õpingute mahu, õppejõudude pedagoogilised ja ettevõtluskogemused, tudengite õpiharjumused, õppe-eesmärkide sidususe meetodite ja oodatavate tulemuste vahel, samuti riigipoolse toetuse ning ettevõtlushariduse infrastruktuuri olemasolu. Väitekirja lõpus antakse soovitused kõrgkoolide õppejõududele ja otsustajatele, tulevastele üliõpilastele, poliitikakujundajatele ja ettevõtlushariduse valdkonna uurijatele. Kokkuvõtteks annab väitekiri uudsete teoreetiliste, metoodiliste ja empiiriliste tulemuste näol panuse ettevõtlushariduse uurimisvaldkonna aktuaalsete küsimuste arutelusse.
This dissertation addresses two major gaps discernible in contemporary entrepreneurship education (EE) research: firstly, the lack of comparative studies on different forms of EE, such as traditional and experiential, which would test the widely accepted assertion that experiential EE is more effective in generating the desired outcomes in learners; secondly, the lack of evidence of how objective expressions of entrepreneurial behaviour in self- or paid employment are dependent upon entrepreneurship-specific competences that can be developed throughout EE. In bridging these gaps, the dissertation proposes and tests the integrative framework for evaluating the outcomes of EE that conceptually relies on Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Kraiger et al. 1993; Bloom et al. 1964), human capital theory (Becker 1964), and teaching models in entrepreneurship for higher education (Béchard and Grégoire 2007, 2005b). The applied framework overcomes several trending points of concern in the literature on the impact of EE including the over-reliance on models of entrepreneurial intentions, overlooking, among others, the details of EE design and delivery in the evaluations performed. This novel evaluation framework puts forward the triad of cognitive, skill-based and affective outcomes of EE in the domain of education, and the triumvirate objective outcomes: employability, intrapreneurship and private early-stage entrepreneurial activity (EA) in the domain of entrepreneurship. It conceptualises experiential EE through the prism of demand and competence teaching models, while traditional EE is viewed as analogous of a supply model (ibid 2007). This study focuses on two small, open neighbouring post-transition economies: Estonia and Latvia. The analysis applies a mixed methods embedded design by combining multiple case study, cross-sectional and comparative designs. Data were collected from 16 entrepreneurship educators and from 559 final-year bachelor students participating in business-related programmes, and recent graduates from these programmes taught at 8 local HEIs (4 per country). Purposive expert and homogeneous sampling were employed, respectively, at the qualitative and quantitative data collection stages that involved face-to-face semi-structured interviews and an online survey. The interview data were used to diagnose the prevailing form of intervention at each HEI. The survey data were used to test the hypotheses. Content analysis by means of data coding was performed to process the qualitative data. The structural equation modelling was applied to estimate cognitive, skill-based and affective outcomes. The analysis of co-variance was used to determine if statistically significant differences exist between predominantly traditional and experiential teaching and their learning outcomes. In addition, various regression models were run to estimate the association between learning outcomes and objective outcomes as well as between experiential EE and objective outcomes. The findings of the study question the common assumptions mentioned earlier, having brought partial support for the principal hypotheses. Experiential EE was associated with higher skill-based and affective outcomes than traditional EE, but only in Estonia. The analysis indicated that the experiential form of intervention does not necessarily lead to higher levels of learning outcomes – in some cases even being associated with adverse effects; and that other factors (e.g. prior entrepreneurial aspirations, attitudes to educators) exhibit a significant influence on these outcomes. Affective outcomes acted as a consistent predictor of graduate employability, private early-stage EA as well as increasing the propensity of graduates to engage into nascent intrapreneurship. However, none of the objective outcomes showed the hypothesised dependency upon cognitive and skill-based learning outcomes. As far as the objective expressions of entrepreneurial behaviour were concerned in the period of the study, it did not matter significantly whether entrepreneurship was studied traditionally or experientially in Estonia, and the attendance of more experiential EE even tended to be less beneficial in Latvia. These results were largely divergent from conventional wisdom within human capital theory implying that investments in entrepreneurship-related human capital assets do not quite meet the expectations in the given context. The discussion of the results advances our understanding of why experiential EE might not work as expected. The findings are appraised from the viewpoint of entrepreneurship pedagogy, external factors affecting the development of local EE as well as other dimensions pertaining to EE design, delivery and the transfer of learning in the two countries. In particular, I find pertinent the intervention volume, the pedagogical and entrepreneurial experience of educators, the learning habits of students, coherence among teaching aims, methods used and outcomes expected as well as government support, and the availability of EE infrastructure, among other contextual influences. The dissertation concludes with recommendations for educators and decision-makers at HEIs, prospective students, policy makers in charge as well as EE scholars. Overall, this work contributes to topical debates in EE research with novel theoretical, methodological and empirical results.
This dissertation addresses two major gaps discernible in contemporary entrepreneurship education (EE) research: firstly, the lack of comparative studies on different forms of EE, such as traditional and experiential, which would test the widely accepted assertion that experiential EE is more effective in generating the desired outcomes in learners; secondly, the lack of evidence of how objective expressions of entrepreneurial behaviour in self- or paid employment are dependent upon entrepreneurship-specific competences that can be developed throughout EE. In bridging these gaps, the dissertation proposes and tests the integrative framework for evaluating the outcomes of EE that conceptually relies on Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Kraiger et al. 1993; Bloom et al. 1964), human capital theory (Becker 1964), and teaching models in entrepreneurship for higher education (Béchard and Grégoire 2007, 2005b). The applied framework overcomes several trending points of concern in the literature on the impact of EE including the over-reliance on models of entrepreneurial intentions, overlooking, among others, the details of EE design and delivery in the evaluations performed. This novel evaluation framework puts forward the triad of cognitive, skill-based and affective outcomes of EE in the domain of education, and the triumvirate objective outcomes: employability, intrapreneurship and private early-stage entrepreneurial activity (EA) in the domain of entrepreneurship. It conceptualises experiential EE through the prism of demand and competence teaching models, while traditional EE is viewed as analogous of a supply model (ibid 2007). This study focuses on two small, open neighbouring post-transition economies: Estonia and Latvia. The analysis applies a mixed methods embedded design by combining multiple case study, cross-sectional and comparative designs. Data were collected from 16 entrepreneurship educators and from 559 final-year bachelor students participating in business-related programmes, and recent graduates from these programmes taught at 8 local HEIs (4 per country). Purposive expert and homogeneous sampling were employed, respectively, at the qualitative and quantitative data collection stages that involved face-to-face semi-structured interviews and an online survey. The interview data were used to diagnose the prevailing form of intervention at each HEI. The survey data were used to test the hypotheses. Content analysis by means of data coding was performed to process the qualitative data. The structural equation modelling was applied to estimate cognitive, skill-based and affective outcomes. The analysis of co-variance was used to determine if statistically significant differences exist between predominantly traditional and experiential teaching and their learning outcomes. In addition, various regression models were run to estimate the association between learning outcomes and objective outcomes as well as between experiential EE and objective outcomes. The findings of the study question the common assumptions mentioned earlier, having brought partial support for the principal hypotheses. Experiential EE was associated with higher skill-based and affective outcomes than traditional EE, but only in Estonia. The analysis indicated that the experiential form of intervention does not necessarily lead to higher levels of learning outcomes – in some cases even being associated with adverse effects; and that other factors (e.g. prior entrepreneurial aspirations, attitudes to educators) exhibit a significant influence on these outcomes. Affective outcomes acted as a consistent predictor of graduate employability, private early-stage EA as well as increasing the propensity of graduates to engage into nascent intrapreneurship. However, none of the objective outcomes showed the hypothesised dependency upon cognitive and skill-based learning outcomes. As far as the objective expressions of entrepreneurial behaviour were concerned in the period of the study, it did not matter significantly whether entrepreneurship was studied traditionally or experientially in Estonia, and the attendance of more experiential EE even tended to be less beneficial in Latvia. These results were largely divergent from conventional wisdom within human capital theory implying that investments in entrepreneurship-related human capital assets do not quite meet the expectations in the given context. The discussion of the results advances our understanding of why experiential EE might not work as expected. The findings are appraised from the viewpoint of entrepreneurship pedagogy, external factors affecting the development of local EE as well as other dimensions pertaining to EE design, delivery and the transfer of learning in the two countries. In particular, I find pertinent the intervention volume, the pedagogical and entrepreneurial experience of educators, the learning habits of students, coherence among teaching aims, methods used and outcomes expected as well as government support, and the availability of EE infrastructure, among other contextual influences. The dissertation concludes with recommendations for educators and decision-makers at HEIs, prospective students, policy makers in charge as well as EE scholars. Overall, this work contributes to topical debates in EE research with novel theoretical, methodological and empirical results.