Keywords

Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurship Learning.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship education has gained increasing importance and is being introduced as a panacea to youth unemployment in many countries (Filion & Dolabela, 2007; Nabi & Lnan, 2011). The importance of entrepreneurship education (EE) stems from the fact that it holds great value for students in different fields of study. It equips individuals with the necessary entrepreneurial knowledge, skill, attitudes and motivation to help them establish and manage their businesses. The importance of entrepreneurship education places pressure on universities to provide high quality entrepreneurship education (Jones et al., 2017). Therefore, a dynamic, effective and holistic entrepreneurial profile has become a competitive advantage for universities. High quality entrepreneurship education is seen as a policy tool that helps create new businesses, enhance growth, generate more job opportunities and create innovative and flourishing economies (Gibb et al, 2013).

In this respect, if a country wants to improve the frequency of successful entrepreneurial intentions, it needs to expose entrepreneurs to modern and adapted techniques fostering the ability to find new business opportunities and the venture creation process. How universities can fulfil this task is an area of research attracting much interest? During the last 20 years, many studies have been undertaken to assess entrepreneurship education and examine the entrepreneurial education practices in different countries (Jones et al., 2017; Filion & Dolabela, 2007; Klapper, 2004; Isaacs et al., 2007; Karimi et al, 2010; Solomon et al., 2002; Katz, 2003; Sirelkhatim & Gangi 2015). Most of these studies evaluate entrepreneurship education practices in the country context. None identified the main characteristics and the best practices across different countries. This presents lacuna in the literature that compares and ranks entrepreneurial education practices across different countries (Jones et al., 2017; Vesper & Gartner, 1997; Packham et al., 2010).

This article attempts to bridge the aforementioned gap by identifying the best practices in entrepreneurship education. Specifically, it explores the best practices regarding curriculum content, teaching strategies and methods. To do so, an extensive literature review of the studies in this area is performed to identify a synthesis of common factors. The literature review is enhanced by conducting a survey of the four top-ranked entrepreneurship programmes at undergraduate and graduate levels in the US and EU. These programmes are selected according to the academic accreditation criteria undertaken by different accreditation institutions in the US and EU, as detailed in the methodology section. The first example at the undergraduate level is the one provided by Babson College (EQUIS accredited), which the Princeton Review ranks as the top undergraduate entrepreneurship programme in America in 2015. The second graduatelevel example is offered by the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (AACSB Accredited), which is ranked first for postgraduate programmes. In addition to these, two other examples are taken from the EU, which are a postgraduate programme -MBA- in Vienna offered jointly by The Vienna University of Technology (TU Vienna) (Accredited by EFMD EQUIS, AACSB and Association of MBAs) and the Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU) (Accredited by the Association of MBAs, FIBAA and EFMD EQUIS). The second European programme is an undergraduate program in the United Kingdom at Lancaster University (AACSB accredited). Those four examples are discussed thoroughly using the curriculum contents and teaching method classification. Based on the results from the four cases, a conceptual framework for the best entrepreneurship education is developed from which the primary propositions of this study are derived. The next section presents the literature review to explore the different entrepreneurship education practices and suggests the best practices of entrepreneurship education.

Literature Review

Although many studies have examined issues related to entrepreneurship education, such as trends in the field and its impact on entrepreneurs’ motivations and intentions, relatively less attention has been paid to the best practices of entrepreneurship education. There is an increasing trend for scholars from different disciplines to address entrepreneurship education. They address it from different aspects, including curriculum contents, teaching methods and their impacts on entrepreneurs, competence, intentions, and motivations, to name a few. However, this is not an easy task. It requires synthesis through the review of the literature and a critical review of top ranked entrepreneurship education programmes. This section reviews the relevant literature while the next section reviews the top four ranked entrepreneurship programmes.

Robinson et al. (2016) stated that it is occasionally helpful to use and mix several learning theories and methodologies to increase entrepreneurial awareness and mindset. Additionally, entrepreneurial education needs to change from being teacher-led to being more student-centred and centred on existential and experiential lifetime learning techniques.

The contents frequently appearing in entrepreneurship courses highlight that the teaching methods fall into various categories, such as case studies, individual presentations, group projects, formal lectures, seminars, guest speakers, web-based learning, and group discussions (Araujo & Davel, 2018; Rocha & Freitas, 2014). Entrepreneurial training, emphasising entrepreneurial skills, competencies, and intent, argues that the two perspectives conduct EE practice. The first focuses on education about entrepreneurship, while the second is education for entrepreneurship. It means that the first is a theoretical approach to the theme, while the latter combines theory with practice with an emphasis on acting.

Like any other field of education, entrepreneurship education practices vary and contain a broad spectrum. To name some, it includes “About”, “For”, “Through” entrepreneurship and “Embedded” or “In” entrepreneurship (Gibb, 2002; Sirelkatim & Gangi, 2015). Scholars have sought answers to questions like which type of entrepreneurship education practices is most effective Gibb (2002) and the exact nature of each type. Bennett & Barkhuizen (2014) argue that no consensus has been reached on the components that should be included in effective entrepreneurship education programmes. Nonetheless, some authors questioned the viability of entrepreneurship education for either economic or individual outcomes (Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Along this line of thinking, they call for further studies to develop conceptual and theoretical for effective and viable entrepreneurship education programmes (Greene et al., 2004;).

The three generic themes of entrepreneurship education provision are:

1) theoretical-oriented courses that teach “about” entrepreneurship (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2014) and aim to increase awareness about entrepreneurship, encourage students to choose entrepreneurship as a potential career choice Fayolle & Gailly (2008); Fayolle & Gailly, (2015) and consider self-employment (Klapper & Tegtmeier, 2010).

2) practical-oriented courses that teach “for” entrepreneurship (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2014) aims to encourage students and enhance their intentions to be entrepreneurs in future and “through” entrepreneurship, which aim to graduate entrepreneurs (Vincett & Farlow, 2008), support new venture creation Lundqvist & Williams Middleton (2013) and develop entrepreneurial competencies (Bridge et al., 2010).

Neck & Greene (2011), after a thorough review of the three main themes of entrepreneurship education, propose a new approach to teaching entrepreneurship known as the method approach. This approach depends on teaching a method rather than specific entrepreneurship material. They believe that approaching entrepreneurship as a method means teaching a way of thinking and acting built on assumptions using a portfolio of techniques to encourage the creation of new businesses. The method forces students to go beyond understanding, knowing, and talking. In addition to this, it requires using entrepreneurial tools, applying business ideas, and acting as entrepreneurs. This method requires the practice of entrepreneurship, which creates a culture of entrepreneurship among students in classrooms and beyond. To explain this approach, they argue that the entrepreneurship method is teachable, learnable, but not predictable. Moreover, they state that method is people-dependent but not dependent on a type of person. Furthermore, they explain that entrepreneurship method goes beyond understanding, knowing, and talking and demands using, applying, and acting. Most importantly, the method approach of entrepreneurship education requires practice.

The best practices for developing entrepreneurial competencies in undergraduate programmes. The evidence from this investigation suggests that the students should participate in the learning process and do something interactive since they learn by doing. Student participation in the learning process is considered important for improving entrepreneurial competencies.

Neck et al. (2014) classify entrepreneurship education into five core practices, namely the practice of play, the practice of empathy, the practice of creation, the practice of experimentation, and the practice of reflection. By the practice of play, they mean the development of a free and imaginative mind, allowing one to see a wealth of possibilities, a world of opportunities, and a pathway to more innovative ways of being entrepreneurial. On the other hand, the practice of empathy refers to a social and emotional skill that helps students feel and understand the emotion, circumstances, intentions, thoughts, and needs of others. The practice of creation relates to unleashing the creative ability of students to produce something of value with what they have rather than not producing because of constraints based on what they think is needed. The practice of experimentation is best described as students acting in order to learn rather than learning before acting or applying. Finally, reflection requires metacognition-a practice of thinking about thinking to codify one’s learning.

Welsh et al. (2016) argued that entrepreneurship students should take more courses than business students at universities. To start a company, one must acquire as many skills as possible. This cannot be gained unless students study a wide range of courses. Furthermore, they argued that entrepreneurial education needs to take a process-oriented approach that creates persistence in students so that they can continue through occasions of failure and disappointment. Beyond declaratively acquired cognitive knowledge and achieved educational goals, there is an educational process.

One of the early attempts undertaken by Fiet (2001) concluded that it is a challenge to suggest what could be described as best practices because the field of entrepreneurship education is in its infancy and lacks a framework to assess best practices. However, it is important to explore best practices, as it assists universities in planning and developing their entrepreneurial provision and programmes (Nurmi & Paasio, 2007).

Moreover, the objectives of entrepreneurship education programmes vary widely (Sirelkatim & Gangi, 2015), and best practices should be measured by the extent to which the programme has achieved its objectives (Mwasalwiba, 2010). Also, when providing EE programmes, we should be mindful not to provide ‘only’ programmes that aim to graduate entrepreneurs; instead, the EE programmes should address a broad range of students who might want to be incubator managers, Intrapreneurs or PhD students (Rasmussen & Sørheim, 2006).

It is well established in entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning literature that experiential pedagogical approaches create optimal entrepreneurial learning environments. Many researchers have considered the components that could describe a programme as best practices. Jones & Jones (2011) and Lourenc et al. (2013) agreed that the programmes should include theoretical and real-life business components. Lourenc et al. (2013) also suggested that the educational session should be divided based on a 30/70 structure methodology. This is where the tutor delivers 30% of the programme to provide concepts and tools and create learning scenarios, while 70% of the session allows students to practice and learn by doing (Lourenc et al., 2013). Jones & Jones (2011) emphasised the importance of mentoring and business planning competitions as components of a best practice programme.

Furthermore, the educational side of building entrepreneurial competency is insufficient, as Galvão et al. (2020) argue. Entrepreneurship education programmes need to be accompanied by essential financial support and other technical facilities necessary for creating new companies. Otherwise, government’s funding of entrepreneurship education and training programmes would not provide the results for which this policy instrument aims to achieve. Some of the results governments expect from funding entrepreneurship training are fostering innovation, creating new companies, promoting human resource development, and improving economic development.

Linton & Klinton (2019) argue that the concern of universities should be to prepare students to teach them to think, analyse, and act autonomously and independently. If we address the demands of policymakers promoting EE to increase numbers of entrepreneurs (Bridge et al., 2010), researchers should strive to extract best practices. Rideout & Gray (2013) suggested that answering a set of questions for each programme would enable educators and researchers to extract best practices. These questions are what are the EE objectives, who is the teacher, what is the university type, what is the curricula content, how to teach it, and are the accepted students the ones who should be chosen for the programme’s specific goal? (Rideout & Gray, 2013). This article will only elaborate on the curricula content and how to teach it for educational programmes that aim to transform graduates into entrepreneurs.

The study of entrepreneurship education for teachers highlights that it requires significant changes in how teachers are educated. One suggested way is to adopt innovative methods to train teachers in entrepreneurship (The Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education in Europe). Although what should be taught in entrepreneurship courses is under continuous debate Ronstadt (1987); Fiet (2001); Solomon (2007), several major themes have emerged and are widely recognised as the most significant subjects in entrepreneurship education (Kuratko, 2005). Some of these themes are venture financing, entrepreneurial strategies, entrepreneur cognition, entrepreneurship ethics, strategic business management (e.g. innovation management, entrepreneurship networking, internationalisation, organisational learning, human resource management, new venture growth, see Ireland, Hitt, Camp, Sexton & Bowman (1984), corporate entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and family business management.

The measurement of EE’s success and effectiveness remains subjective, with conflicting viewpoints and benchmarks, and its usefulness is fairly understudied (Honig, 2004; Fayolle, 2018; Rideout & Gray, 2013). In this article, another source will be explored to clarify best practices. This includes looking into the curricula and teaching methods provided by the four top-ranked entrepreneurship programmes. These programmes are selected according to the academic accreditation criteria undertaken by different accreditation institutions in the US and EU in 2018, which are EQUIS, AACSB, EFMD EQUIS, the Association of MBAs and FIBAA. In contrast, the data regarding curricula content and teaching methods have been collected from the websites of those institutions.

Tiberius et al. (2023) undertook a curriculum analysis that examined the objectives, learning contents and teaching as well as assessment methods of the 50 best MBA programmes in entrepreneurship. The results indicate that the programmes are primarily business and management programmes, with a relatively low focus on entrepreneurship per se. About onethird of the programmes mention entrepreneurship-specific goals, such as entrepreneurial leadership, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial skills, opportunity creation, and opportunity identification. In addition to many business, management, and legal modules, the learning content in the 43 programmes explicitly references entrepreneurship. They cover entrepreneurial failure, management, mindset, and general entrepreneurship. Teaching methods are typically found in higher economics and management education. Business planning and prototyping were mentioned only a few times. There are no company-specific evaluation forms for evaluation methods, but there are common methods as well.

Rasmussen & Sørheim (2006) reviewed action-based entrepreneurship education at five Swedish universities. They found that many reviewed programmes are student-based or rely heavily on student participation. However, the other models, where students are paired with business ideas believed to have high potential, may require more resources but create viable new businesses. Based on the four cases, they found that various activities aimed at fostering entrepreneurs and encouraging the creation of new businesses. Nevertheless, most of these programmes are characterised as action-based or learning-by-doing. Moreover, they argued that the four cases in this study indicate that action-based entrepreneurship education can be accomplished in many ways depending on the operational context and the university’s ambitions.

Solomon (2007) performed an analytical review of the state of entrepreneurship education in the USA for the years 2004?2005. He found that using old models to provide entrepreneurship education programmes is still common and very popular. For example, colleges and schools are still using the old way of having students write business plans. Moreover, he argued that entrepreneurship educators are progressively substituting class lectures for guest speakers and class dialogues.

An important goal of entrepreneurship education is positively changing people’s established attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Zeng & Honig (2016) identified four variables commonly used to assess the effectiveness of entrepreneurial education: entrepreneurial selfefficacy, entrepreneurial attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and entrepreneurial learning outcomes. We have categorised them into four groups of learning outcomes. According to entrepreneurial self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his or her ability to accomplish a task or specific set of tasks associated with starting a new business. Student entrepreneurship influences the likelihood of being an entrepreneur.

The Four Cases Review

This section briefly reviews the four top-ranked entrepreneurship education programmes from different parts of the World. Babson College, University of Michigan, Lancaster University, and Technische Universität Wien & WU Executive Academy provide these programmes. Each programme in these universities represents a different entrepreneurship education model. The first example at the undergraduate level is the one provided by Babson College (EQUIS accredited), which the Princeton Review ranks as the top undergraduate entrepreneurship programme in America in 2015. The second example at the graduate level is offered by the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (AACSB Accredited), which is ranked first for postgraduate programmes. In addition to these, two other examples are taken from the EU, which are a postgraduate programme -MBA- in Vienna offered jointly by The Vienna University of Technology (TU Vienna) (Accredited by: EFMD EQUIS, AACSB and Association of MBAs) and the Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU) (Accredited by: Association of MBAs, FIBAA and EFMD EQUIS). The second European programme is an undergraduate program in the United Kingdom at Lancaster University (AACSB accredited).

These four case studies’ curricula content and teaching methods are analysed thoroughly using the categorisation discussed by Sirelkhatim & Gangi (2015), which are: “Education about Entrepreneurship”, “Education for Entrepreneurship”, and “Education through Entrepreneurship”. The first category provides students with the cognitive knowledge to help them become entrepreneurs. Whereas the second provides students with practical experience with entrepreneurs’ actions and day-to-day activities.

Babson College has been a leader in entrepreneurship education programmes for 26 consecutive years. It offers 19 entrepreneurship courses; a few are traditional courses (e.g. business plan), and most are experiential in content and teaching methods. Some of the offered programmes are: living the entrepreneurship experience, designing products or services, and the ultimate entrepreneurial challenge that resembles Donald Trump’s TV show (Babson, 2014).

Unlike Babson College, which provides detailed descriptions of course objectives, content and teaching methods, the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor’s website generalises its entrepreneurial courses. The programme is designed for students interested in pursuing technology entrepreneurship; some courses are opportunity recognition and systems innovation, and all are taught in parallel with a practicum element (University of Michigan, 2014).

At Lancaster University, the BSc programme is designed to support students in developing entrepreneurial skills in creativity, opportunity identification, social networking, business startup and selling (Lancaster University, 2017). According to its website, the content is divided between 3-4 years of studies into stages that build entrepreneurial skills gradually. An example of the curriculum content for the first year (discovery as they name it) is entrepreneurial discovery and business analytics. The second year (pace year) includes modules like the social innovation challenge and business module, which are at the core of the ‘learn by doing’ modules. While the third year is optional, where students are given the opportunity to experience working in another country. The final year is compulsory, where students will immerse in the entrepreneurial process by participating in the entrepreneurial challenge.

The fourth programme is a professional MBA in entrepreneurship and innovation in Vienna. This practice-oriented programme targets professional executives, innovation managers and entrepreneurs with a technological background. The content is innovation-focused, including innovation sources, strategy, marketing, organising and financing, and a module on entrepreneurial leadership. While the programme’s website did not offer details of its teaching methods, however, some unusual methods are used, like some sessions held in museums and outdoor spaces (www.tu-wu-innovation.at.2017).

Table 1 presents a review of the curriculum contents and teaching methods of the four case studies. The review’s focus is on the courses offered and the methods used to deliver these courses. Our aim in doing this review is to answer the question of what top-ranked entrepreneurship programmes taught and how they taught. Therefore, there is a need for a model of entrepreneurship education institutions can use to design and implement their entrepreneurship education programmes.

Table 1 Curriculum Contents And Teaching Methods Of The Top-Ranked Entrepreneurship Programme
	Case 1 Babson College	Case 2 University of Michigan	Case 3 Lancaster University	Case 4 Technische Universität Wien & WU Executive Academy
Curriculum	Experiential content (e.g. Entrepreneurship and opportunity recognition; Starting and running a digital media business Living the life in Silicon valley)	Content focused on entrepreneurship and technology (e.g., Opportunity exploration, Entrepreneurial accounting and Legal aspects of entrepreneurship)	Content that gradually build entrepreneurial skills (e.g., Entrepreneurial Discovery; Business Analytics)	Practice-oriented management knowledge with special focus on innovation (e.g., Sources of innovation; the marketing of innovation; Managing people)
Teaching method	Experiential teaching methods (e.g., Creating an actual business; Develop a business solution)	Actual business experience (e.g., Business and Technology Bootcamp and Practicum Startup Experience incubator)	The students are exposed to various challenges in which they take various roles in (e.g., Leadership and Social Innovation Challenge; Working in an organisation or studying abroad)	Practice-oriented- the programme is designed to be implemented in the participants daily work (e.g., Outdoor team building session and Business simulations)

From the above, the four case studies which are top-ranked programmes engage students by ‘learning-by-doing’. Nevertheless, the mission to extract best practices is complicated and includes answering many questions besides ‘What is the curriculum?’ or ‘How it is taught?’ (Rideout & Gray, 2013). Other questions that can be explored in other research endeavours are what is the programme objective, who is the teacher, what is the university type and the selection criteria of students by these top-ranked programmes. Nevertheless, the general consensus is that the more the programme is experiential, the better it would contribute to graduating entrepreneurs (Cope, 2005).

The cases show that entrepreneurship education not only focuses on the traditional teaching of individuals but has also increased the focus on business opportunities and contextual issues. Entrepreneurship education also pays less attention to teaching cases and focuses more on students’ active involvement. Moreover, in teaching methods, traditional teaching methods where the instructor provides material and the learner has a passive role, are rarely used in the four cases. The teaching methods used in the four cases are suitable for advancing students’ interpersonal skills, leadership traits, creativity, and problem-solving skills. As such, they can be classified as teaching through the entrepreneurship method using the classification in Figure 1.

Conceptual Framework and Propositions

The extensive literature review and the four case studies formed the basis for developing the proposed conceptual framework. According to the proposed model, the main focus of the best entrepreneurship programmes should be on curriculum contents and teaching methods that equip students with the required entrepreneurial skills by engaging them in entrepreneurship practising during their study of the programme. Figure (1) shows the programme contents and teaching methods of the best entrepreneurship programmes.

Figure 1 map the provisions of entrepreneurship education curricula content and teaching methods along the lines drawn by the research questions of what are best practices. It explains the relationship between the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of an entrepreneurship education programme, and how the programme provision engages students in practising entrepreneurship. As can be observed from the figure, in entrepreneurship education programmes that adopt teaching about entrepreneurship, the role of instructor is central, student engagement is limited, and the teaching material is theoretical. In this case, everything is done by teachers and students being passive recipients. The main learning objectives of this type of education are to promote students’ understanding of entrepreneurship and to encourage students to choose entrepreneurship as a potential career choice. Furthermore, this type of entrepreneurship education is built upon behaviourism theories of knowledge. On the other hand, the teaching through entrepreneurship programme requires the active engagement of students in entrepreneurship projects where the instructor is the facilitator and the focus is on soft-skills techniques. This kind of entrepreneurship education is derived from the constructivism theory of knowledge, in which learners mostly gain knowledge from experiences and practices. There is a third type of entrepreneurship education: teaching for entrepreneurship education. The contents and teaching methods in this type of education are a mix of the previous two types of entrepreneurship education. It focusses on enlightening students on entrepreneurial operations and procedures and different aspects of entrepreneurship. Therefore, the learning process focuses on the provision of skills and knowledge necessary to establish a new business venture and to promote the entrepreneurial attitude with practical case studies.

So far, a broad guideline is displayed about good quality entrepreneurship education and the best practices in entrepreneurship education. Nevertheless, the factors influencing the quality of entrepreneurship education have not been determined. The next section proposes a conceptual framework explaining the presumed relations between different components of entrepreneurship education, such as the student, the teacher, the institutions and the community. Based on our review of the literature and the four cases, it seems evident that a good quality entrepreneurship education has various requirements. It is not as simple as a change in teaching methods or materials taught only. Rather, it requires a holistic approach encompassing various elements, such as enabling university institutions, curriculum contents, pedagogical practices and suitable learners. These four elements are organised into a systematic framework for measuring the effectiveness and quality of entrepreneurship education. Figure 2 outlines the main elements of effective and good-quality entrepreneurship education.

The proposed conceptual framework includes the basic building blocks for a good quality entrepreneurship education programme. It includes each block’s main specification, the underlying elements that guide entrepreneurship education institutions, and the roles of educators and students. This framework subjects to presumptions that the conventional pedagogical approach does not suit entrepreneurship education because some entrepreneurial skills (such as creativity and innovation) cannot be delivered through a conventional didactic approach. Rather, it requires modern integrated and experiential pedagogical approaches that cover the four main pillars of a successful entrepreneurship education programme. Experimental learning should involve practical experiences such as internships, projects, and simulations that allow students to apply what they learn in real-life situations. Moreover, it should emphasise creativity and innovation by encouraging students to think outside the box and develop innovative solutions to problems. Furthermore, it should provide mentorship and coaching that guide and support students to pave their way towards successful entrepreneurship education.

Proposition 1: Successful entrepreneurial learning is more strongly associated with course content incorporating practical and experiential methods. The more the course content is practical and experiential in methods, the more it would be a successful entrepreneurial education programme.

In addition, successful entrepreneurship education programmes require specific facilities for entrepreneurs to flourish. Such facilities include entrepreneurship centres. An entrepreneurship centre is a hub dedicated to supporting budding entrepreneurs by providing them access to resources, mentorship, and networking opportunities. It helps entrepreneurs to refine their business ideas, strengthen their skills, and connect with other entrepreneurs and industry experts. Incubators: Incubators are like accelerators that extensively support entrepreneurs in developing and growing their businesses. They offer services such as office space, funding, mentorship, training, and networking opportunities. Funding institutions provide the financial support, investment, and resources entrepreneurs need to start their business ventures. They help entrepreneurs secure funds and capital for their startups, enabling them to overcome financial hurdles. In conclusion, entrepreneurship centres, incubators, and funding institutions are vital in shaping the entrepreneurial ecosystem. A comprehensive entrepreneurship education programme should incorporate these facilities to provide aspiring entrepreneurs the necessary support and resources to succeed.

Proposition 2: There is overwhelming evidence that the availability and effectiveness of entrepreneurial facilities such as entrepreneurship centres, incubators, and funding institutions play a significant role in the success of an entrepreneurship education programme.

Entrepreneurship education programmes can equip students with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes to succeed as entrepreneurs. However, entrepreneurial facilities must complement these programmes offering practical exposure, support, and resources to turn students’ ideas into viable businesses. The following are reasons why entrepreneurial facilities are important to the success of entrepreneurship education programmes. Firstly, it provides access to resources. Entrepreneurship centres, incubators, and funding institutions have a wealth of resources such as mentorship, networking opportunities, market research, and legal and accounting services, and funding options. These resources can help students validate their business ideas, refine their products or services, and navigate the complex business landscape. Secondly, it fosters collaboration and innovation: Entrepreneurial facilities create a conducive environment for students to collaborate, share ideas, and learn from each other. These interactions can spark creativity, motivate students to take risks, and expose them to diverse perspectives and experiences. Thirdly, it enhances experiential learning: Entrepreneurial facilities offer hands-on learning experiences that complement classroom instruction. For instance, incubators provide access to laboratory equipment, manufacturing facilities, and testing centres where students can prototype and test their products. On the other hand, funding institutions allow students to apply for seed or venture capital to launch their businesses. Finally, it increases the chances of success: Entrepreneurship is risky, and many startups fail within the first few years. However, entrepreneurs with access to entrepreneurial facilities tend to have higher success rates. This is because they have access to the resources, networks, and expertise needed to overcome common challenges such as lack of funding, inadequate market research, and poor product-market fit.

Given that the success of an entrepreneurship education programme relies heavily on the availability and effectiveness of entrepreneurial facilities, these facilities provide the resources, collaborations, experiential learning, and support needed to turn students’ ideas into thriving businesses. Therefore, policymakers, academic institutions, and stakeholders in the entrepreneurship ecosystem should invest in entrepreneurial facilities to enhance the outcomes of entrepreneurship education programmes.

Proposition 3: The success of an entrepreneurship education programme depends on the student motivations, incentives, ability, and willingness to learn.

Student motivation plays a vital role in determining the success of entrepreneurship education programmes. The level of motivation and drive to succeed fosters an entrepreneurial mindset among students. Students who are motivated to learn about entrepreneurship exhibit a desire to acquire new knowledge, develop problem-solving skills, and take calculated risks. These traits are critical for any successful entrepreneur and are essential components of entrepreneurship education programmes. Thus, motivated students are more likely to engage themselves in learning actively and absorb the concepts taught, leading to better outcomes.

Moreover, the ability to learn is another crucial factor influencing the success of entrepreneurship education programmes. Students with pre-existing knowledge are more likely to retain and apply the concepts taught during these programmes. The ability to learn also determines the pace of learning, which can affect the programme’s overall efficiency. Students with strong foundations in business, management, or finance have a better understanding of the concepts taught in entrepreneurship education programmes. However, this does not imply that students without prior knowledge are incapable of learning new concepts.

Last but not least, incentives play a pivotal role in driving the success of any entrepreneurship education programme. Incentives can include financial benefits, recognition, awards, or the opportunity to network with industry leaders. These incentives motivate students to put in more effort and take their learnings seriously. Such incentives encourage students to participate actively in entrepreneurship education programmes and create a competitive atmosphere that drives them to achieve better results.

Conclusion

This article aimed to provide a valuable overview of the best practices in entrepreneurship education and establish a useful framework and set of propositions to guide future research and practice. With the continued growth of the entrepreneurship ecosystem, entrepreneurship education will become increasingly important in supporting the development of aspiring entrepreneurs and fostering economic growth and prosperity. This paper aims to explore common and best practices and to what extent any practice can be correlated to entrepreneurial learning suggestions for best practices to engage students in practising entrepreneurship. Our conclusions were built upon analysing the four top-ranked entrepreneurship educational programmes in 2018, based on the three themes identified by which are learning “About”, “For” and “Through” entrepreneurship. The analysis suggested that the best practice programmes will be more experiential, consistent with suggested. However underlined a serious lack of research on the outcomes and effectiveness of ‘different types’ of entrepreneurship education programmes. This lack is observed from the analysis of the four case studies where none of the programme providers published the actual number of graduates who start or grow a business from each of the programmes.

To conclude, this research has analysed the curricula content and teaching method of four top-ranked programmes and found that the more the course is experiential, the better the probability that students will learn entrepreneurship. Describe a programme as best practice, the question of whether the programme has fulfilled the objectives for which it was designed in the first place needs to be answered.

This paper does not aim to generalise its findings, rather, it aims to build evidence that the higher quality EE programmes are experiential. This study also intends to appeal for more evidence-building that includes exploring other educational experience elements: who is the teacher, what is the university type and the selection criteria of the students. All of this is envisaged to help entrepreneurship educators and curricula designers learn from previous experiences and better build programmes that would achieve policymakers’ priorities of enterprise and job creation, economic growth, experiential exercises, guest speakers, simulations and personal professional experiences to help bring business reality into the classroom.

Experiential learning is a viable pedagogical approach to entrepreneurship education. The role of an educator must include a continuous improvement effort not just to facilitate the transfer of inert professional and foundational knowledge but also to empower the student to execute that knowledge in practice. Entrepreneurship education is characteristically a contextual phenomenon, and in this perspective, the educator’s relevant context and background are central factors for understanding their background and the teaching infrastructure available for entrepreneurship education.

References

Babson, (2014). Course Catalogue.

Bennett, M., & Barkhuizen, N. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of an adult entrepreneurship training programme. InBalkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education1(1),17-22.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Bridge, S., Hegarty, C., & Porter, S. (2010). Rediscovering enterprise: developing appropriate university entrepreneurship education.Education+ Training,52(8/9), 722-734.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,29(4), 373-397.

Fayolle, A. (2018). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. InA Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education, 127-138.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education.Journal of European Industrial Training.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence.Journal of Small Business Management,53(1), 75-93.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Fiet, J.O. (2001). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship.Journal of Business Venturing,16(1), 1-24.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Filion, L.J., & Dolabela, F. (2007). The making of a revolution in Brazil: The introduction of entrepreneurial pedagogy in the early stages of education.Chapters.

Galvão, A., Marques, C., & Ferreira, J.J. (2020). The role of entrepreneurship education and training programmes in advancing entrepreneurial skills and new ventures.European Journal of Training and Development,44(6/7), 595-614.

Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’and ‘entrepreneurship’paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge.International Journal of Management Reviews,4(3), 233-269.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Gibb, A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I. (2013). Leading the entrepreneurial university: Meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions.Universities in Change: Managing Higher Education Institutions in the Age of Globalization, 9-45.

Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning.Academy of Management Learning & Education,3(3), 258-273.

Isaacs, E., Visser, K., Friedrich, C., & Brijlal, P. (2007). Entrepreneurship education and training at the Further Education and Training (FET) level in South Africa.South African journal of education,27(4), 613-629.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Jones, A., & Jones, P. (2011). “Making an impact”: a profile of a business planning competition in a university.Education+ Training,53(8/9), 704-721.

Jones, P., Pickernell, D., Fisher, R., & Netana, C. (2017). A tale of two universities: graduates perceived value of entrepreneurship education.Education+ training.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Karimi, S., Chizari, M., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship education in Iranian higher education: The current state and challenges.European Journal of Scientific Research,48(1), 35-50.

Google Scholar

Katz, J.A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999.Journal of business venturing,18(2), 283-300.

Klapper, R. (2004). Government goals and entrepreneurship education–an investigation at a Grande Ecole in France.Education+ Training.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Klapper, R., & Tegtmeier, S. (2010). Innovating entrepreneurial pedagogy: examples from France and Germany.Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,17(4), 552-568.

Kuratko, D.F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,29(5), 577-597.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lancaster University, (2017). BSc Entrepreneurship and Management.

Linton, G., & Klinton, M. (2019). University entrepreneurship education: a design thinking approach to learning.Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,8(1), 1-11.

Lundqvist, M.A., & Williams Middleton, K.L. (2013). Academic entrepreneurship revisited–university scientists and venture creation.Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,20(3), 603-617.

Mwasalwiba, E. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators’, Education and Training,52(1), 20-47.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Nabi, G., & Lnan, F. (2011). Graduate entrepreneurship in the developing world: intentions, education and development.Education+ Training,53(5), 325-334.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Neck, H.M., & Greene, P.G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers.Journal of Small Business Management,49(1), 55-70.

Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G., & Brush, C.G. (2014). Practice-based entrepreneurship education using actionable theory. InAnnals of Entrepreneurship Education and pedagogy–2014. 3-20.

Nurmi, P., & Paasio, K. (2007). Entrepreneurship in Finnish universities.Education+ Training,49(1), 56-65.

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D., & Thomas, B. (2010). Attitudes towards entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis.Education+ training,52(8/9), 568-586.

Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self?efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions.Journal of Small Business Management,53(4), 970-985.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence.International Small Business Journal,25(5), 479-510.

Rasmussen, E.A., & Sørheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education.Technovation,26(2), 185-194.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rideout, E.C., & Gray, D.O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university?based entrepreneurship education.Journal of Small Business Management,51(3), 329-351.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Robinson, S., Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L. and Krueger, N.F. (2016) "New horizons in

Rocha, E.L.D.C., & Freitas, A.A.F. (2014). Evaluation of entrepreneurship teaching among university students through the entrepreneurial profile. Contemporary Administration Magazine, 18, 465-486.

Sexton, D.L., & Bowman, N.B. (1984). Entrepreneurship education: Suggestions for increasing effectiveness.Journal of Small Business Management (pre-1986),22(000002), 18.

Google Scholar

Sirelkhatim, F., & Gangi, Y. (2015). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review of curricula contents and teaching methods.Cogent Business & Management,2(1), 1052034.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States.Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,14(2), 168-182.

Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis.

Tiberius, V., Weyland, M., & Mahto, R.V. (2023). Best of entrepreneurship education? A curriculum analysis of the highest-ranking entrepreneurship MBA programs.The International Journal of Management Education,21(1), 100753.

University of Michigan, (2014). Master of Entrepreneurship.

Vesper, K.H., & Gartner, W.B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education.Journal of Business Venturing,12(5), 403-421.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Vincett, P.S., & Farlow, S. (2008). “Start?a?Business”: an experiment in education through entrepreneurship.Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,15(2), 274-288.

Welsh, D.H., Tullar, W.L., & Nemati, H. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: Process, method, or both?.Journal of Innovation & Knowledge,1(3), 125-132.

Zeng, Z. E., & Honig, B. (2016). How should entrepreneurship be taught to students with diverse experience? A set of conceptual models of entrepreneurship education. InModels of Start-up Thinking and Action: Theoretical, Empirical and Pedagogical Approaches, 18, 237-282.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 19-Apr-2023, Manuscript No. AJEE-23-13515; Editor assigned: 21-Apr -2023, Pre QC No. AJEE-23-13515(PQ); Reviewed: 05-May-2023, QC No. AJEE-23-13515; Published: 12-May-2023