A model of enterpreneurship education
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №2 - 2011
Author: Feoktistova Yelena, Caspian State University of technologies and engineering in honor of S. Yesenov, Kazakhstan
Training of entrepreneurs, who are capable
of successful management of sustained business in the conditions of the world
economic crisis, is one of the priority trends of specialist training by
universities, oriented for innovation development.
In spite of the importance and great
significance of entrepreneurs training in the framework of the state, this
issue is not developed enough, in our opinion, in the areas of program
evaluation and curricula design in the sphere of specialists training for
entrepreneurship and business management.
Based on the experience of an organization
and running of the Kazakh-Korean Higher school of innovative entrepreneurship,
in cooperation with Hoseo University – an institute of global importance which
trains CEOs of many world famous and global companies with a well known
Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, and also on the basis of literature
analysis we made an attempt to design a model of entrepreneurship education.
In our opinion, entrepreneurship education
depends on many factors: approaches to education, skills and capabilities
necessary for the entrepreneur, means of stimulating entrepreneur’s creativity
(questions, activities, and assignments), techniques and activities for class
Conceptualizations of entrepreneurship vary
in nature. Entrepreneurship can be a way of thinking and behaving that is
opportunity based and holistic in approach (Timmons, 1999). Then,
entrepreneurship results in creation, enhancement, realization and renewal of
value, not just for business owners, but also for all participants and
stakeholders (Timmons, 1999). Entrepreneurs are individuals who manage the
uncertainties of the entrepreneurial environment, and embrace the chaos and
ambiguity of change. Entrepreneurship occurs in all firms, in all enterprises,
and in all sectors, imposing demands for organizations and individuals to
develop entrepreneurial skills to cope with this uncertain and complex business
It is a widely held view that entrepreneurs
are action-oriented and that much of their learning is experimentally based
(Rae and Carswell, 2000). Furthermore, entrepreneurs ‘learn by doing’ and
‘trial and error’ as well as problem solving and discovery (Deakins and Freel,
1998; Young and Sexton, 1997).
Many programs for entrepreneur training
adopt a learning approach that required cognitive flexibility (Spiro et al.,
1991), where learning results from the interaction between people having
different experiences and perspectives (Goldman-Segall and Rao, 1998).
A synergistic learning approach is
sometimes chosen to entrepreneurs’ education because it offers a high potential
for collaborative learning between participants (Siebenhuner and Hoffman,
2002). The synergetic learning approach is grounded in constructivist learning
theory; that is, the learner is actively involved in the joint enterprise of
learning with the educator and together they create new meanings (Atherton,
2003). This approach allows for the articulation and interaction between
different perceptions, interpretations and arguments by the participants
involved. These interactions might result in discovery of concrete solutions to
problems, the development of new ideas and the resolution of complex
decision-making scenarios, and is therefore an appropriate approach for
Synergistic learning makes use of participatory
methods. The following were used in the discovering entrepreneurship program by
Kanji and Greenwood (2001):
- Cooperation, where all participants
together determine priorities; the responsibility to direct the process lay
with entrepreneurs and facilitators.
- Co-learning, where all participants
shared knowledge and created new understandings and worked together to form
plans of action.
- Consultation, where nascent
entrepreneurs’ opinions were sought and existing entrepreneurs and facilitators
analyzed and decided on the course of action.
- Collective action, where nascent
entrepreneurs set their own agendas and then carried out the action without
direction from existing entrepreneurs and facilitators.
The facilitators involved in the delivery
had to be willing and comfortable with risk taking and ‘shifting goal posts’,
and had to possess good communication and sound conflict resolution skills
(Kanji and Greenwood, 2001), with an emphasis on being a co-learner rather than
Luke Pittaway and Jason Cope also support
the idea that a holistic approach can be used in entrepreneurship education,
but it needs to be developed that can present to some extent multiple levels of
analysis. For example, this thematic model suggests that study on pedagogy at
the level of individual programs is inherently embedded in a wider context of
the institution and government policy on entrepreneurship education. Inevitably,
therefore, debates about appropriate pedagogy sit within the context of what
entrepreneurship education is understood to ‘mean’ or what entrepreneurship
education ‘is’ or what it is trying to ‘do’ , axioms that are themselves guided
by contextual factors. It is also inevitable that these contextual factors are
further influenced by the wider society and particularly its culture.
It is also possible to understand
entrepreneurship education systemically; in the sense of being able to identify
contextual factors; inputs into system; educational processes; and, outputs. The
systemic nature of entrepreneurship education is, however, complicated by the
fact that there is little clarity about what the outputs are designed to ‘be’. This
lack of clarity about the intended outputs leads to significant diversity
surrounding the inputs. In this sense the idea of ‘entrepreneurship education’
as one thing would appear to be rather problematic suggesting further effort is
required to begin the development of detailed taxonomies and typologies based
on current international practice.
Thus, entrepreneurship education, as a
research domain, while gathering some momentum has a great deal more to do to
integrate understanding across the different levels of research endeavor and
needs to be better linked into general debates on adult learning, management
learning and role of HE in general.
It is important to mention that there are
some differences between Business school approach and entrepreneur real world
approach, which are reflected in the table.
Table 1. Contrasting learning approaches;
the business school approach versus and the entrepreneur real world approach
It is necessary to point out that
entrepreneurs’ training on the basis of both Hoseo University Graduate School
of Entrepreneurship (South Korea) and East-Kazakhstan State Technical
University Kazakhstan-Korean high school of innovative entrepreneurship (Kazakhstan) entrepreneur real world approach is used. Most of the professors of Hoseo University who give lectures to entrepreneurs are the owners and CEOs of real
businesses; they have necessary experience and can share it with the students.
It is very important, in our opinion, that future and present entrepreneurs can
get real experience that can be applied in real business situations.
Basic entrepreneurship skills are reflected
in table 2. The most important, in our opinion, is creativity. Timmons (1994)
has argued that creativity should be central to entrepreneurship education
provision, and the concept of creativity has been a constant focus of
educational thinking and practice (Torrance and Rockenstein, 1988).
Furthermore, Gibb (1996) proposes that certain basic stimuli for
entrepreneurial behavior lie naturally within the culture, talk structure and
learning environment in higher education.
Table 2. Discovering entrepreneurship: key
In Jonston’s (2000) opinion, systematic
approaches to the development of creativity amongst higher education students
appear to be limited, particularly in the UK. The consequence is that
prospective lectures and students find themselves with little practical
guidance to action.
To develop future entrepreneur’s creativity
it is necessary to aim the education to:
- nurture capabilities of personal and team
- promote understanding of the nature and
role of creativity within a student’s individual social and economic contexts;
- overcome barriers to the creative
- develop frameworks within which to
evaluate creative, entrepreneurial opportunities;
- enhance communication and presentation
- improve team building and working
Entrepreneurship is the innovatory process
involved in the creation of an economic enterprise based on a new product or
service which differs significantly from products or services in the way its
production is organized or in its marketing.
Personal creativity is a process of
becoming sensitive to or aware of problems, deficiency, and gaps in knowledge
for which there is no learned solution; brining together existing information
from the memory storage or external; defining the difficulty or identifying the
missing elements; searching for solutions, making guesses; producing
alternatives to solve the problem; testing and re-testing these alternatives;
and perfecting them and finally communicating the results.
Without such action there can be no
entrepreneurship. It is proposed that one key to unlocking the potential of
entrepreneurship within an individual member of society, and the degree to
which their personal creativity exists or can be stimulated, may be through
appropriate educational interventions. The above definition suggests that such
interventions should focus on the nurturing of innovation and creation, towards
commercial application, through the heightening of personal qualities of
reflecting, doing, valuing, feeling, behaving, and relating to others. They
would aim to sensitize potential entrepreneurs to the value of a disposition to
personal creativity as related to entrepreneurship, and develop skill in using
creative techniques in relation to business idea generation and
problem-solving. This contrasts quite sharply to traditional higher education
curricula that emphasize sequences of instruction and examination in bodies of
subject knowledge, and their associated methodologies, frequently organized
within established disciplinary frameworks and leading to a university degree
in a given subject of subjects (Johnston and Morrison, 1997).
In the present article we would like to
share the experience of entrepreneurs’ training on the basis of MBA
international program which was started with contract concluding on December
Graduate School of Global entrepreneurship at Hoseo University was started in March, 2005.
The purpose of this school is to teach a
systematic theory on starting new business and foster entrepreneurship to raise
global talents for starting new business and consulting through special
The goals of Graduate School of Global
Entrepreneurship are promoting global entrepreneurship, raising global
consultants for starting new business and the scope of study, support the activities
of starting new business, promoting the capabilities to coordinate with
overseas enterprises and concerning organizations.
Kazakhstan-Korean Higher School of
Innovative Entrepreneurship at East-Kazakhstan State technical university in
honor of D. Serikbayev (EKSTU) was established in April, 2009.
First master students were enrolled on
September 1, 2009.
According to the contract and the agreement
between the universities, the students study during their first year at EKSTU
with participation of Hoseo University professors. They come to EKSTU to
deliver lecturers three times a year. During the first year EKSTU organizes
advanced training in English and Korean. At the end of the first year master
students have to complete master dissertation on the topic of some business
venture and with successful completion of studies get a diploma of master of
management from EKSTU. During the second year the students of EKSTU study at Hoseo University and present a business plan of a start-up venture.
Professor Hong Kim, the dean of Graduate
School of Global Entrepreneurship conducts lectures on the discipline of
His lectures are a great stimulus for
future entrepreneurs to start new businesses. They can obtain new ideas from
the lectures and come up with their own new ones.
The contents of the lectures include:
- The questions every entrepreneur must
answer: Goals, strategies, capacity;
- How to write a great business plan;
- How entrepreneurs craft strategies that
- Milestones for successful venture
- Strategies vs. Tactics from a venture
- Bootstrap finance;
- Commercializing technology what the best
company do, etc.
1. Atherton, J.S. (2003) ‘Learning and
teaching Constructivism’ [Online] UK, available at
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/constructivism.htm, accessed 26 March
2. Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (1998)
‘Entrepreneurial Learning and the Growth Process in SMEs’, The Learning
Organization 5(3): 144-55.
3. Gibb, A. (1996) ‘Entrepreneurship and
small business management: Can we afford to neglect them in the 21st century
business school?’, British Academy of management 7: 309-21.
4. Goldman-Segall, R. and Rao, S.V. (1998)
‘A Collaborative On-line Digital Data Tool fro Creating Living Narratives in
Organizational Knowledge Systems’, in System Sciences 1998. Proceedings of the
Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference, 6-9 January, available at:
http://orion.njit.edu/merlin/ publications/publicmain.html, accessed 25 May
5. Johnston, B. & Morrison A. (1997)
‘Developing Undergraduate Creative Thinking for Entrepreneurship: A pilot
Class’, paper presented at the International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior’s Enterprise and learning conference, university of Paisley, Uk, September.
6. Kanji, N. and Greenwood, L. (2001)
Participatory Approaches to Research and Development IIED: Learning from
Experience. London: International Institute for Environment and development.
7. Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2000) ‘Using a
Life-story Approach in Entrepreneurial Learning: The Development of a
Conceptual Model and its Implications in the Design of Learning Experiences’,
Education and Training 42 (4/5): 220-7.
8. Siebenhuner, B. and Hoffman, E. (2002)
‘Participatory Learning Process in the Development of Sustainable Products’,
paper presented at the Towards Sustainable Product Design 7th International
Conference, 28-29 October, British
9. Timmons J.A. (1999) New Venture
Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century. London: McGrawHill.
10. Timmons, J. (1994) New Venture
Creation. Chicago: Irwin.
11. Torrance, E. & Rockenstein, Z.
(1988) ‘Styles of Thinking and Creativity’, in R. Schmeck (ed.) Learning
strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.
12. Young, J. E. and Sexton, D. L. (1997)
“Entrepreneurial Learning: A Conceptual Framework’, Journal of Enterprising
Culture 5(3): 223-48.
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №2 - 2011