The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher …cluding “entrepreneurship...

Q Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2017, Vol. 16, No. 2, 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026

........................................................................................................................................................................

The Impact of EntrepreneurshipEducation in Higher Education:

A Systematic Review andResearch Agenda

GHULAM NABIManchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

FRANCISCO LIÑÁNUniversity of Seville, Spain, and Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom

ALAIN FAYOLLEEM LYON Business School, France

NORRIS KRUEGERUniversity of Phoenix, United States, and Entrepreneurship Northwest, United States

ANDREAS WALMSLEYPlymouth University, United Kingdom

Using a teaching model framework, we systematically review empirical evidence on theimpact of entrepreneurship education (EE) in higher education on a range of entrepreneurialoutcomes, analyzing 159 published articles from 2004 to 2016. The teaching model frameworkallows us for the first time to start rigorously examining relationships between pedagogicalmethods and specific outcomes. Reconfirming past reviews and meta-analyses, we find thatEE impact research still predominantly focuses on short-term and subjective outcomemeasures and tends to severely underdescribe the actual pedagogies being tested. Moreover,we use our review to provide an up-to-date and empirically rooted call for less obvious, yetgreatly promising, new or underemphasized directions for future research on the impact ofuniversity-based entrepreneurship education. This includes, for example, the use of novelimpact indicators related to emotion and mind-set, focus on the impact indicators related tothe intention-to-behavior transition, and exploring the reasons for some contradictory findingsin impact studies including person-, context-, and pedagogical model-specific moderators.

........................................................................................................................................................................

Since the first entrepreneurship course at HarvardBusiness School was delivered in 1947, entrepre-neurship education (EE) programs in higher educa-tion have grown rapidly and globally (Kuratko, 2005;Solomon, 2007). This growth reflects increasing rec-ognition that university-based EE programs (here-after referred to as EE programs) promise to supporta range of potential entrepreneurial outcomes (Nabi

Prof. Fayolle, Prof. Krueger, and Prof. Walmsley made an equalcontribution to the paper. The authors thank Associate Editor Prof.Siri Terjesen and the anonymous reviewers for providing con-structive and helpful guidance throughout the review process. Wealso thank Prof. Béchard, Prof. Henry, and Prof. Solomon for theircomments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Dr. Christina Purcelland Imran Akhtar for their technical support.

Address all correspondence to: Dr. Ghulam Nabi, Departmentof Management, Business School, All Saints Campus, OxfordRoad, Manchester, M15 6BH, UK. Email: [email protected]

277

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’sexpress written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026mailto:[email protected]

& Liñán, 2011; Rideout & Gray, 2013). For example,enhanced student venture creation skills, knowl-edge, and attitudes (Greene & Saridakis, 2008) andgraduatebusiness start-upsandoverall job creation(Greene, Katz, & Johannisson, 2004; Rideout & Gray,2013) ultimately contributing to economic growthand development (Bosma, Acs, Autio, Coduras, &Levine, 2008).

Synthesizing this fast-growing body of empiricalresearch and reviews on EE outcomes suggeststhree main patterns. First, reviews highlight a focuson short-term, subjective impact measures such asentrepreneurial attitudes and intentions, ratherthan longer term ones such as venture creationbehavior and business performance, and call forfuture research to address this gap (e.g., Garavan& O’Cinneide, 1994; Henry, Hill & Leitch, 2005;Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Promoting and implement-ing EE programs entails substantial investment oftime and resources, so it is critically important totake stock of what we currently know about therange of EE outcomes and provide benchmarks forfurther research.

Second, recent reviews suggest that the impact ofEE programs on attitudes and behavior is equivocalbecause studies suggest both positive and negativeoutcomes (Dickson,Solomon,&Weaver, 2008;Fayolle,2013; Martin, McNally, & Kay, 2013; Thompson, Jones-Evans, & Kwong, 2010). These reviews tend to arguethat the contradictory findings of EE impact studiesmay be due in part to methodological or statisticalartifacts such as cross-sectional survey methodologyand lack of control groups; notably, Rideout andGray’s (2013) review and recent meta-analyticalstudies by Martin et al., (2013) and Bae, Qian, Miao,and Fiet (2014). However, also likely are other sub-stantial reasons for the contradictory findings in EEimpact research that can be teased out with singlestudies/interventions: for example, the nature andcontext of pedagogical interventions as well as con-textual factors. In their extensive 1970–2004 review ofEEresearch,PittawayandCope (2007)concludethere isa lack of research that directly links student/graduateentrepreneurial outcomes to different pedagogicalmethods and call for deeper investigation. Pedagogi-cal methods may emphasize, for example, “explora-tion, discussion, or experimentation (e.g., library, webor other interactive searches, labs, field trips, simula-tions)” (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005:111).

As well as examining a range of EE impact mea-sures, it is therefore necessary to examine the dif-ferent pedagogical methods that underpin them, notjust methodological issues. Confusion regarding the

impact of EE may result from the wide diversity ofpedagogical methods employed in EE programs(Fretschner & Weber, 2013). This is further compli-cated by the lack of detail on pedagogical in-terventions studied (Martin et al., 2013), and the needfor a stronger, more theory-driven framework forassessing the impact of such interventions (cf.Baptista & Naia, 2015; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008;Krueger, 2015; Lackéus, 2015; Neergaard, Tanggaard,Krueger, & Robinson, 2012). It is therefore important totakestockofresearchonthepedagogy-entrepreneurialoutcomes link within a coherent framework.Third, few reviews focus on EE specifically in

higher education. Notable exceptions are Pittawayand Cope (2007) and Rideout and Gray (2013), butthe former is limited to data fromover a decadeagoand the latter focuses on articles until 2010/2011.We cover 100 articles published in the past 5 years,which have not been covered in previous reviewsof university-based EE impact (e.g., Rideout &Gray, 2013) or meta-analyses of EE outcomes ofeducation in general (e.g., Martin et al., 2013).There is still, therefore, a need for a current reviewthat focuses on EE pedagogy and outcomes inhigher education.These three distinct yet related research gaps

form the rationale for this article. Our aim is to re-view systematically the empirical evidence on theimpact of higher education-based EE published inthe last decade. Using the teaching model frame-work outlined below, we focus on assessing therangeof EEoutcomes in impact studies.A secondaryaim is to examine the extent of the relationship be-tween the pedagogical methods used and the spe-cific outcomes achieved. While the former offersa broad overview of the evidence of EE impact, thelatter explores whether the mixed results in impactstudies are related to different pedagogicalmethods. To advance understanding of how to re-search EE impact, we need both.Webelieve that themain strength of ourworkhere

is the adoption of an integrated teaching modelframework (Figure 1) to offer a coherent, overarchingtheoretical structure that covers both a broad rangeof entrepreneurial outcomes and pedagogicalmethods (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle &Gailly, 2008). Our teaching model framework in-tegrates a range of impact measures and peda-gogies. This is particularly useful here because forthe first timewecannowevaluate not only the rangeof EE outcomes in higher education impact studies,but also any patterns that connect specific types ofpedagogical methods and impact measures. Our

278 JuneAcademy of Management Learning & Education

framework therefore permits empirical review witha pedagogical slant and responds to calls for morerigorous research to explore reasons for the contra-dictory findings in EE research (cf. Martin et al.,2013). The teaching model approach provides criti-cal grounding for researchers and practitioners inthe field of EE.

Conceptual Framework

Pedagogical research highlights how the evalua-tion of impact should be a key dimension of anyteaching program and therefore needs to be con-sidered at the program design stage (Fayolle &Gailly, 2008). In our research, types of EE impacthave been integrated into the broader context ofa teaching model framework (Béchard & Grégoire,2005, 2007; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). We explore twodimensions in our review—types of impact and un-derpinning pedagogy—given the paucity of researchthat directly links student/graduate entrepreneurialoutcomes todifferentpedagogicalmethods (Pittaway& Cope, 2007).

In the absence of a single impact measure withinthe teaching model framework, Henry, Hill, andLeitch (2003, building on Jack & Anderson, 1998)propose an impact classification system (incor-porating several types of impact measures) that canbe employed to assess the level of impact of EEprograms. This classification system draws on ear-lier research on entrepreneurship (Block & Stumpf,1992) andeducational impact (Kirkpatrick, 1959), andcomplements the impact dimension of the teachingmodel framework because it highlights a range ofimpactmeasures from thebeginning to the endof anEE program and beyond (see Figure 1 for a more

detailed explanation), thereby providing a basis forthe systematic evaluation of EE impact studies.Reflection on different types of EE impact mea-

sures raises the issue of underpinning pedagogicalmethods. Béchard and Grégoire (2005) address thisissue through identifying three “archetypical”teaching models in higher education: the supplymodel, the demand model, and the competencemodel, plus two hybrid teaching models. The sup-ply model focuses on pedagogical methods high-lighting a behaviorist paradigm, in terms of the“transmission and reproduction of knowledge andapplication of procedures” (e.g., lectures, reading,watching/listening; Béchard & Grégoire, 2005: 111).The demand model focuses on pedagogicalmethods highlighting a subjectivist paradigm,involving personalized meaning through partici-pation in terms of “exploration, discussion andexperimentation” (e.g., library use, interactivesearches, simulations; Béchard & Grégoire, 2005:111). The competencemodel focuses on pedagogicalmethods, highlighting an interactionist theoreticalparadigm, in terms of active problem solving in real-life situations, where “teaching is conceived asa strategic intervention to allow for—and influen-ce—how students organize the resources at theirdisposal (e.g., knowledge,abilities) intocompetencesthat can be mobilized for action” (Béchard &Grégoire, 2005: 115–116). This model focuses onmethods emphasizing “communication and dis-cussion” (e.g., seminar, presentations, debates) andknowledge “production” (e.g., essays, modeling,portfolios).In contrast to the supplymodel,which emphasizes

a behaviorist perspective, both the demand andcompetence models fit within the constructivist

Nature of EE Pedagogical Methods (Béchard& Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008)

• Supply model focusing on reproductionmethods such as lectures, reading, and soforth.

• Demand model focusing on personalized/participative methods (e.g., interactivesearches, simulations).

• Competence model focusing oncommunication, discussion, and productionmethods (e.g., debates, portfolios).

• Hybrid models (i.e., mixture of above).

Impact Indicators (Jack & Anderson, 1998)Operational Level

• Level 1: Current and on-going measuresduring the program (e.g., interest andawareness).

• Level 2: Pre- and postprogram measures(e.g., knowledge, entrepreneurialintentions).

• Level 3: Measures between 0 and 5 yearspostprogram (e.g., number and type ofstart-ups).

• Level 4: 3 to 10 years postprogram (e.g.,survival of start-ups).

• Level 5: 10 years plus postprogram (e.g.,contribution to society and economy).

FIGURE 1An Integrated Teaching Model Framework Encompassing EE Impact and Underpinning Pedagogy

2017 279Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, and Walmsley

approach to EE (Löbler, 2006; Neergaard et al., 2012).Behaviorism assumes learning is primarily thepassive transfer of knowledge from the teacher tothe student, while constructivism assumes thatlearning involves actively participating in the con-struction of new understanding. Often, pedagogicalmethods in EE in higher education are highly be-haviorist: lectures, homework, quizzes, and so forth,that focus on knowledge acquisition, rather than thedeeply experiential approaches of the constructivistperspective (Neergaard et al., 2012). Béchard andGrégoire (2005) apply these teaching models (sup-ply, demand, competence) in EE to a higher educa-tion context. This allows us to classify and analyzevarious pedagogical models and review empiricalevidence on the link between EE pedagogy andimpact.

Systematic Review Methodology

We analyze 159 EE impact studies published from 1February 2004 to 2 January 2016, continuing wherePittaway and Cope’s (2007) study left off. Followingbest practice from the methodological (Tranfield,Denyer,&Smart, 2003), synthesis (Cooper, 1989; Fink,2009), and entrepreneurship literature (Pittaway &Cope, 2007; Wang & Chugh, 2014), we use a “sys-tematic review process.” Initially, we use the rootword “education” to search through all 11 entrepre-neurship journals listed in the Association of Busi-ness Schools (ABS) as medium- and high-rankingentrepreneurship journals (Harvey, Kelly, Morris, &Rowlinson, 2010).1We then use three databases (ABIProQuest, Emerald, and Science Direct) to searchfor a broader range of keywords/search terms. Thehighest number of hits were from search terms in-cluding “entrepreneurship education,” “higher ed-ucation,” “pedagogy,” “educational interventions,”“graduate,” “undergraduate,” or Boolean variationsof these terms and an extensive range of others.

Only article citations that met the following cri-teria were included: (a) empirical in nature rather

thanpurely conceptual; (b) peer-reviewedpublishedjournal articles rather than working/conferencepapers or unpublished material; (c) primarily fo-cused on higher education in terms of entrepre-neurship education (or elements thereof) and itsempirical impact on entrepreneurship outcomes(broadly defined to include both attitudinal andbehavioral outcomes); (d) sampled recipients of EEfrom higher education institutions (rather thanprimary/secondary school, or nonhigher educationlevel); and (e) analyzed primary rather than sec-ondary data (Bae et al., 2014 and Martin et al., 2013were included because of their use of meta-analysis,but reviews or research agendas were excluded).We also added searches for articles from bibli-

ographies, key authors, andGoogle Scholar, aswellas checking relevant references in recent reviews ofEE outcomes (e.g., Bae et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2013;Rideout &Gray, 2013).We screened these additionalcandidates using our selection criteria. For exam-ple, Martin et al. (2013) includes articles that areunpublished or focus on schoolchildren, and weretherefore excluded from our review.2 Two coauthorsindependently read the original collection of arti-cles. We identified two first-order themes: (1) Typesof Impact and (2) Pedagogical Methods. We thenidentified second-order themes by mapping our ar-ticles onto Henry et al.’s (2003) classification for im-pact measures (Levels 1 to 5) and Béchard andGrégoire’s (2005) framework of pedagogical models(e.g., supply, demand, and competence). For exam-ple, traditional lectures and business plan writingsuggested a supply model, active participation inseminars, events or out-of-class projects reflecteda demand model, and real-life entrepreneurial sit-uations indicated a competence model.

REVIEW FINDINGS:THEMES AND TRENDS

Webegin by examining background characteristicsof our articles. This is useful when interpretinggeneral patterns, for example, the most prominentjournal outlets, country contexts, and types ofstudents/graduates. We then analyze our articlesregarding types of EE impact and relationships be-tween types of impact and different pedagogicalmethods.

1 The ABS incorporates blind peer-reviewed journals for rankingentrepreneurship journals and expert assessment of journalquality (Harveyetal., 2010).Our 11ABS journals include: JournalofBusiness Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Jour-nal of Small Business Management, International Small BusinessJournal, Small Business Economics, Entrepreneurship and Re-gional Development, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, FamilyBusiness Review, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise De-velopment, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviourand Research, and Venture Capital: An International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Finance.

2 Further examples of excluded articles (with reasons for exclu-sion) are available from the authors.


Background Characteristics of the Data Set

Our sample covers research published in 61 jour-nals, predominantly in entrepreneurship and smallbusiness journals (39%) and management and edu-cation journals (47%). The eight journals publishingthe most EE impact articles account for 86 out of the159 articles (54%).3

Overall, the majority of our articles were pub-lished in the last 5 years and are dominated byEuropean, undergraduate, and entrepreneurship/business student samples. A majority are from 2011onward (100 articles, 63%) and were not covered inprevious reviews or meta-analyses (e.g., Martinet al., 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Data comes from38 countries, dominated by Europe (81 articles, 51%,especially the UKwith 28/18%); US (27/17%); Asia (26/16%); and then followed by Africa (16/10%); Australia(2/1%); and international comparisons (5/3%). Stu-dents in our sample aremostly undergraduate (53%)or postgraduate (12%), or alumni or unspecifieduniversity students. The majority studied entrepre-neurship and business (35%) or business combina-tion courses (24%).

Types of Impact

In the articles reviewed (see Table 1), we distinguishbetween studies focusing largely on our frame-work’s (see Figure 1) lower level impact indicators(typically short-term/subjective indicators at Levels1 and 2) and on higher level ones (typically longerterm/objective indicators at Level 3 or above). Morespecifically, themost common impact indicators arerelated to lower level indicators of subjective/personal change: attitude (32 articles), skills andknowledge (34 articles), perceived feasibility (42 ar-ticles), and entrepreneurial intention (81 articles). Bycontrast, higher level indicators of longer term, ob-jective, or socioeconomic impact are much less fre-quent: 21 articles study start-ups and 8 articlesconsider venture performance, both typically within10 years of the program. Last, 41 articles report re-sults not falling into any of these categories. Thesearticles measure impact in terms of other variables,such as subjective norms (Souitaris, Zerbinati, &

Al-Laham, 2007), dispositionaloptimism(Crane,2014),or satisfaction with the EE program (Rae & Woodier-Harris, 2012).Most articles in the review claim a positive link

between an EE programand subjective (e.g., personalchange) or objective (e.g., business start-up activity)impact indicators (205 instances overall, see Table 1).Regarding lower level impact indicators, the mostcommon indicator by far is entrepreneurial intentions(Level 2 in our framework). Most of the reviewed arti-cles (61 articles out of 81, 75%) report a positive linkbetween EE and participants’ start-up intentions.Nonetheless, several studies report mixed, negative,or nonsignificant/ambiguous results for the link withentrepreneurial intentions (18 articles or 22%, seeTable 1). Of these, some articles suggest that EE re-duces entrepreneurial intention for certain groups, forexample, male German students (Packham, Jones,Miller, Pickernell, & Thomas, 2010), female Finishstudents (Joensuu, Viljamaa, Varamäki & Tornikoski,2013), Greek students (Petridou&Sarri, 2011), studentswith previous entrepreneurial exposure (Fayolle,Gailly, & Lassas-Clerc, 2006b), or students withaweaker entrepreneurial university culture (Wang& Verzat, 2011). Our results suggest we know con-siderably more about the direct EE-intentions re-lationship in general than about the moderatingrole of gender (e.g., Joensuu et al., 2013; Shinnar,Hsu, & Powell, 2014), culture- (e.g., Bernhofer &Han,2014; Crane, 2014), or context-specific patterns(e.g., Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Turker & Selçuk,2009), with only nine studies focusing clearly onsuch relationships.Further, using a meta-analysis of 73 studies, Bae

et al. (2014) report a small but significantly positiveEE–entrepreneurial intentions relationship, but thatcultural values act as a moderator. For example,a high collectivistic culture or a low uncertaintyavoidance culture reinforces the impact of EE. Theyalso report that after controlling for pre-educationentrepreneurial intentions, the EE-intentions re-lationship is not significant nor is gender a signifi-cant moderator. Although their research does notfocus specifically on the impact of EE in higher ed-ucation (they look at average effects across all ed-ucation levels), we include them here because theirfindings provide some indicative evidence.Compared to entrepreneurial intentions (51%), far

fewer studies exist on the relationship between EEand other subjective impact indicators (Levels 1 and 2of our framework) including psychological variablessuch as attitude (20%, e.g., Boukamcha, 2015; Chang,Benamraoui, & Rieple, 2014; Vorley &Williams, 2016);

3 Education1 Training (31 articles), The International Journal ofManagement Education (12), Journal of Small Business andEnterprise Development (10), International Journal of Entre-preneurial Behavior & Research (9), Journal of Small BusinessManagement (7), International Entrepreneurship and Manage-ment Journal (6), International Small Business Journal (6),Academy of Management Learning & Education (5).


TABL

E1

MainTy

pesof

Impa

ctsin

Impa

ctStud

ies

Person

alch

ange

Busine

ss

Other

(41articles

,26%

)1.Attitud

e(32articles

,20%

)

2a.S

killsan

dkn

owledg

e(34articles

,21

%)

2b.F

easibility

(42articles

,26%

)2c

.Entrepren

eurial

intention

(81articles

,51%

)3.Bu

sine

ssstart-

up(21articles

,13%

)

4/5.

Performan

ce&

Socio-ec

on.

(8articles

,5%)

Bako

tic&Kruzic,

2010

P;Ba

su,201

0P;

Bouk

amch

a,20

15P;

Byab

asha

ija&

Katon

o,20

11P;

Can

zian

ieta

l.,20

15P;

Cha

nget

al.,20

14P;

Fayo

lle&Gailly,

2015

P;Fretsc

hner

&W

eber,201

3P;

Friedrich&Visse

r,20

06P;

Gerba

,201

2P;

Harriset

al.,20

07A;H

enry

etal.,20

04P;

Hietane

n,20

15P;

Idog

ho&Ba

rr,

2011

P;Izqu

ierdo&

Buelen

s,20

11P;

Karlsso

n&Mob

erg,

2013

P;Kas

sean

etal.,20

15P;

Ken

ny,

2015

P;Kirby

&Hum

ayun

,201

3P;

Lane

roet

al.,20

11A;

Liñá

n,20

04P;

Men

toor

&Friedrich,

2007

N;

Pack

ham

etal.,20

10M;P

etrido

u&Sa

rri,

2011

M;P

ittaway

etal.,20

15P;

Shariffe

tal.,20

10P;

Solesv

ik,

2013

P;So

uitariset

al.,20

07A;

Stam

boulis

&Ba

rlas

,201

4P;

Vorley&W

illiam

s,20

16P;

Walter&

Doh

se,201

2P;

Walteret

al.,20

13P

Brink&Mad

sen,

2015

M;B

urrows&

Wragg

,201

3P;

Cha

ng&Rieple,

2013

M;C

hang

etal.,2014

P;Collins

etal.,20

06PI;

DeT

ienn

e&

Cha

ndler,20

04P;

Diaz-Cas

eroet

al.,

2012

PI;

Dom

ingu

inho

s&

Carva

lho,

2009

P;Fa

oite

etal.,20

04N;

Galloway

etal.,

2005

P;Garalis

&Strazd

iene

,200

7P;

Gielnik

etal.,2015

P;Gilbe

rt,2

012P;

Gon

dim

&Mutti,

2011

A;G

undryet

al.,20

14P;

Harms,

2015

P;Hen

ryet

al.,

2004

P;Jone

s&

Jone

s,20

11P;

Kirkw

oodet

al.,

2014

P;Klapp

er,

2014

P;La

nset

al.,

2013

A;L

eeet

al.,

2005

P;Martinet

al.,

2013

P;Morriset

al.,

2013

P;Mun

ozet

al.,

2011

P;Ohlan

det

al.,20

04P;

Prem

and

etal.,20

16P;

Tan&

Ng,

2006

P;Th

ursb

yet

al.,20

09P;

Toun

èset

al.,20

14P;

Ulven

blad

etal.,

2013

PI;v

on

Aba

hoet

al.,20

15P;

Arm

strong

,201

4P;

Baraka

teta

l.,20

14P;

Basu

,201

0P;

Bouk

amch

a,20

15P;

Burrow

s&

Wragg

,201

3P;

Byab

asha

ija&

Katon

o,20

11P;

Diaz-Cas

ero

etal.,20

12PI;

Fayo

lle&Gailly,

2015

P;Gerba

,20

12P;

Gielnik

etal.,20

15P;

Gilbe

rt,2

012P;

Harms,20

15P;

Harriset

al.,

2007

A;H

attab,

2014

N;H

eino

nenet

al.,20

11A;

Hen

ryet

al.,20

04P;

Izqu

ierdo&

Buelen

s,20

11P;

Jone

s&Jone

s,20

11P;

Karim

iet

al.,20

16P;

Karlsso

n&

Mob

erg,

2013

P;Kas

sean

etal.,

2015

N;K

irkw

ood

etal.,20

14P;

Lane

roet

al.,20

11P;

Laviolette

etal.,20

12P;

Limaet

al.,20

15N;

Liñá

n,20

04P;

Men

toor

&Friedrich,

2007

N;

New

bold

&

Ahm

edet

al.,20

10N;

Alm

obaireek

&Man

olov

a,20

12P;

Arm

strong

,201

4P;

Aslam

etal.,20

12P;

Azim

&Akb

ar,201

0P;

Bako

tic&

Kruzic,2010

P;Ba

raka

tet

al.,20

14P;

Basu

,201

0P;

Bernho

fer&Han

,201

4P;

Bouk

amch

a,20

15P;

Byab

asha

ija&Katon

o,20

11P;

Can

zian

ieta

l.,20

15P;

Cha

ng&Rieple,

2013

M;

Che

nget

al.,20

09N;

Cod

uras

etal.,20

08P;

Crane

,201

4P;

DeClercqet

al.,20

13P;

DeGeo

rge&

Fayo

lle,

2008

P;Diaz-

Cas

eroet

al.,20

12PI;

Farash

ah,201

3P;

Fayo

lle

&Gailly,20

15M;F

ayolle

etal.,20

06aP;

Fayo

lleet

al.,

2006

bM;F

lorinet

al.,20

07P;

Fran

coet

al.,20

10P;

Friedrich&Visse

r,20

06P;

Gerba

,201

2P;

Gielnik

etal.,20

15P;

Gilbe

rt,201

2P;

Ham

idie

tal.,

2008

P;Hattab,

2014

P;Hen

ryet

al.,

2004

P;Heu

er&Kolve

reid,

2014

P;Hyttiet

al.,20

10A;

Ismaile

tal.,

2009

P;Joen

suuet

al.,20

13N;Jon

eset

al.,20

08P;

Jone

set

al.,

2011

P;Ba

eet

al.,20

14A;

Karim

ieta

l.,20

16P;

Karlsso

n&Mob

erg,

2013

P;Kas

sean

etal.,20

15P;K

eat

etal.,20

11P;

Kirby

&Hum

ayun

,201

3P;

Lane

roet

al.,20

11P;

Laviolette

et

Burrow

s&W

ragg

,20

13P;

Con

nolly

etal.,20

06P;

Dag

hbas

hyan

&Hårsm

an,201

4P;

Dom

ingu

inho

s&

Carva

lho,

2009

P;Don

nellon

etal.,

2014

P;Dutta

etal.,20

10P;

Gielnik

etal.,

2015

P;Gilbe

rt,

2012

P;Hen

ryet

al.,20

04P;

Jans

enet

al.,20

15P;

Karlsso

n&

Mob

erg,

2013

P;La

ngeet

al.,20

14P;

Martinet

al.,

2013

P;McA

lexa

nder

etal.,20

09P;

Pei-Le

e&Che

n-Che

n,20

08P;

Poblete&

Amoros

2013

A;

Prem

andet

al.,

2016

P;Rau

ch&

Hulsink

,2015P;

Støren

,201

4A;

Vince

tt&Fa

rlow

,20

08P;

Wilso

net

al.,20

09P

Alarape

2007

P;Don

nellon

etal.,

2014

P;Gordo

net

al.,20

12P;

Hen

ryet

al.,20

04P;

Lang

eet

al.,20

14P;

Martinet

al.,20

13P;

Matlay20

08P;

Voise

yet

al.,20

06P

Azim

&Akb

ar,201

0P;

Bell,2

015,P;

Burrow

s&W

ragg

,20

13P;

Crane

,201

4P;

Crane

&Mey

er,

2007

P;Cruzet

al.,

2009

P;Don

nellon

etal.,20

14P;

Gilbe

rt,201

2P;

Gordo

net

al.,20

12P;

Groen

ewald

2012

P;Ham

idi

etal.,20

08P;

Harris&Gibso

n,20

08N;H

egarty,

2006

P;Heino

nenet

al.,20

11A;

Hus

sain

etal.,20

10N;K

irby

&Ibrahim,2

011P;

Lack

eus,20

14P;

Lane

roet

al.,20

11P;

Lean

,201

2P;

Li&

Liu,

2011

P;Lo

uren

ço&

Jaya

warna

,201

1PI;

Louren

çoet

al.,20

13PI;M

artin

etal.,20

13P;

Matlay,

2011

P;McC

rea,

2013

P;Millm

anet

al.,

2008

P;Mue

ller

&And

erso

n,20

14P;

New

bold

&Erwin,

2014

P;Ohlan

det

al.,20

04P;

Pittaw

ayet

al.,

2011

P;Pittaw

ayet

al.,20

15P;

(table

continues)


TABL

E1

Con

tinu

ed

Person

alch

ange

Busine

ss

Other

(41articles

,26%

)1.

Attitud

e(32articles

,20%

)

2a.S

killsan

dkn

owledg

e(34articles

,21

%)

2b.F

easibility

(42articles

,26%

)2c

.Entrepren

eurial

intention

(81articles

,51%

)3.Bu

sine

ssstart-

up(21articles

,13%

)

4/5.Pe

rforman

ce&

Socio-ec

on.

(8articles

,5%)

Graev

enitzet

al.,

2010

M;V

orley&

William

s,2016

P;W

atts

&W

ray,

2012

P

Erwin,201

4P;

Pei-

Lee&Che

n-Che

n,20

08P;

Pipe

ropo

ulos

&Dim

ov,2

015P;

Rau

ch&Hulsink

,20

15P;

Saee

det

al.,

2015

P;Sá

nche

z,20

11P;

Shinna

ret

al.,20

14M;

Solesv

ik,201

3P;

Souitariset

al.,20

07A;T

oled

ano&

Urban

o,20

08A;

Wilso

net

al.,20

07P;

Wilso

net

al.,20

09P;

Zainud

din&Rejab

,20

10P;

Zainud

dinet

al.,20

12P

al.,20

12P;

Leeet

al.,20

05P;

Limaet

al.,20

15N;L

iñán

,20

04P;

Martinet

al.,20

13P;

Milleret

al.,20

09P;

Moh

amad

etal.,20

14N;

Moh

amed

etal.,20

12P;

Muo

fhe&du

Toit,2

011P;

New

bold

&Erwin,2

014P;

Pack

ham

etal.,20

10M;

Petridou

&Sa

rri,20

11M;

Pipe

ropo

ulos

&Dim

ov,

2015

P;Rap

osoet

al.,20

08P;

Rau

ch&Hulsink

,201

5P;

Sánc

hez,20

11P;

Shariffe

tal.,20

10P;

Smith&

Beas

ley,

2011

A;S

oles

vik,

2013

P;So

lesv

iket

al.,20

13P;

Solesv

iket

al.,20

14P;

Souitariset

al.,20

07P;

Støren

,201

4P;

Turker

&Se

lcuk

,200

9P;

Varam

äkie

tal.,20

15A;V

onGraev

enitz

etal.,20

10M;W

alter&

Doh

se,201

2P;

Waltere

tal.,

2013

M;W

ang&Verza

t,20

11M;W

esthea

d&

Solesv

ik,201

5M;W

ilso

net

al.,20

09P;

Yag

hmae

ieta

l.,20

15PI;Zainu

ddin

&Rejab

,20

10P;

Zainud

dinet

al.,

2012

P;Zh

anget

al.,20

14P;

Zhao

etal.,20

05P

Prem

andet

al.,20

16P;

Rae

&W

oodier-

Harris,2012

PI;

Sánc

hez,20

11P;

Souitariset

al.,20

07P;

Tan&Ng,

2006

P;Vince

tt&Fa

rlow

,20

08P;

Wee

,200

4P;

Man

&Fa

rquh

arso

n,20

15P;

Woo

dier-H

arris,

2010

PI;Y

usoffe

tal.,

2012

P

P=26

P=25

P=32

P=61

P=19

P=8

P=34

PI=0

PI=3

PI=1

PI=2

PI=0

PI=0

PI=4

M=2

M=3

M=1

M=9

M=0

M=0

M=0

N=1

N=1

N=4

N=5

N=0

N=0

N=2

A=3

A=2

A=4

A=4

A=2

A=0

A=1

Total=

32To

tal=

34To

tal=

42To

tal=

81To

tal=

21To

tal=

8To

tal=

41

Note:In

firstrow

,num

bero

fpap

ers(and

percen

tage

oftotal)indica

ted.

Percen

tage

sroun

dedup

.Som

earticles

cons

ider

morethan

oneim

pact

mea

sure,a

ndare,therefore,

includ

edmorethan

once

inthetable.

Find

ings

:P=po

sitive

;PI=

positive

indirect;M

=mixed

;N=ne

gative

;A=am

bigu

ous/no

tsignifica

nt.


perceived feasibility (26%, e.g., Rauch&Hulsink, 2015;or skills and knowledge (21%., e.g., Burrows&Wragg,2013; Premand, Brodmann, Almeida, Grun, & Barouni,2016). Most studies suggest a positive link betweenthe program and these variables, but some articlesreport results that are not significant or negative.These include, for example, the absence of a signifi-cant link between EE and entrepreneurial attitudesamongSpanish students (Lanero, Vázquez,Gutiérrez,&Garcı́a, 2011), andanegative linkbetweenEEandat-titudes toward entrepreneurship among South Africanstudents (Mentoor & Friedrich, 2007), or perceivedentrepreneurial and management skills amongBritish students (Chang & Rieple, 2013). So again,limited studies explore the context-specificity ofEE’s impact.

Novel ways of assessing EE impact in higher ed-ucation are limited. Only four studies explore emo-tion or related approaches to assessing EE impact.For example, inspiration (not learning) emerges asthe most important benefit of EE, implying a “changeof heart” as well as a positive link to entrepreneurialintentions (Souitaris et al., 2007). A few other studiesalso suggest a positive EE-outcomes link regardinguncertainty and ambiguity tolerance (Lackéus, 2014);dispositional optimism (Crane 2014); and sense ofpsychological ownership (Man & Farquharson,2015). Similarly, four studies focus on EE impacton intention-to-nascent start-up activity or entre-preneurial identity. These suggest either a non-significant impact of EE on nascency (Souitaris et al.,2007), or a positive link through a dynamic process ofinternal self-reflection and social engagement(Donnellon, Ollila, & Middleton, 2014; Lackéus, 2014),and personal development, for example, a multiplesense of responsibility, independent thinking, andconnecting to one’s ownand others’ needs (Mueller &Anderson, 2014). Other emotion- or transition-basedindicators are also completely absent from our re-view. For example, outside of our review, researchhighlights EE’s role in developing the importance ofentrepreneurial passion (intense positive emotionand drive, see Cardon, Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek,2009), yet it is strikingly missing from the articles inour review.

Our reviewsuggests 29 instances (corresponding to25 articles, see Table 1) focusing on objective impactindicators, typically over a longer timeframe corre-sponding to the higher Levels 3 (0–5 years), 4 (3–10years), or 5 (over 10 years) in our framework. Becausethese types of studies are limited in our review, someexamplesaregiven.Suchstudies include thepositiveimpact of undergraduate (Pei-Lee&Chen-Chen, 2008)

and postgraduate (Dominguinhos & Carvalho, 2009)EE programs on start-up rates at Level 3 of ourframework. Furthermore, Lange, Marram, Jawahar,Yong, and Bygrave (2014) provide a notable exampleof the long-term positive impact of EE on Babsongraduate performance over a 25-year period, in-cluding a major economic contribution, for example,1,300 new full-time businesses were started, withaverage annual revenues of $5.5 million and an av-erage of 27 employees. Last, using a meta-analyticalapproach (includingpre-andposteducationdata,N516,657), Martin et al. (2013) found small but positiverelationships between EE and entrepreneurial out-comes incorporating nascent behavior, and start-upand venture performance (e.g., financial success andpersonal income).AswithBaeetal., (2014), theydonotspecifically focus on higher education (they look ataverage effect across all educational levels), but weinclude them here because their findings providesome indicative evidence. Most of our higher impactstudies report a positive link between EE and objec-tive indicators, but one suggestsa relationship that isnot significant. Using a sample of 2,827 universitygraduates in Norway, Støren (2014) reports graduateswho have had EE are not more frequently self-employed than other graduates. Thus, our reviewsuggests high-impact studies are scarce andneednotshow positive impact.A final finding relates to the measurement meth-

odology of the articles. Typically, articles use cross-sectional survey methodology (68%). Nonetheless,some notable exceptions employ a longitudinaldesign and/or a control group. These generally dem-onstrate a pattern of positive EE impact for entrepre-neurial intentions (Souitarisetal., 2007), competencies(Sánchez, 2011), and start-ups (Karlsson & Moberg,2013). However, even in more methodologically rigor-ous studies, a few still report a lack of significant re-sults for entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Souitaris et al.,2007) or significantly negative impact on entrepre-neurial attitudes (Mentoor & Friedrich, 2007). Overall,the review suggests reasonable evidence of positiveEE impact. This holds especially for entrepreneurialattitudes and intentions (impact Levels 1 and 2 of ourframework), but even here some examples demon-strate differential impact depending on context andthebackgroundofparticipants (Fayolle&Gailly, 2015;Fayolle et al., 2006b).

Pedagogical Methods Underpinning Impact

Next, we examine the extent of the relationshipbetween the pedagogical methods used and the


TABL

E2

Ove

rview

ofAlterna

tive

Peda

gogies,

Com

pariso

nStud

ies,

andTy

pesof

Impa

ct

Type

sof

Impa

ctb

1.Attitud

e2a

.Skillsan

dkn

owledg

e2b

.Fea

sibility

2c.E

ntrepren

eurial

intention

3.Bu

sine

ssstart-up

4/5.Pe

rform.

&so

cioe

con.

Other

Type

sof

Teac

hing

Mod

elPe

dago

gya

Supp

lySá

nche

z,20

11P;

Shinna

reta

l.,20

14M

Crane

2014

P;Sá

nche

z20

11P;

Solesv

iket

al.,

2013

P;So

lesv

iket

al.,20

14P

Crane

2014

P;Sá

nche

z20

11P

Supp

ly-

Dem

and

Fretsc

hner

&W

eber,

2013

P;Hen

ryet

al.,20

04P;

Izqu

ierdo&

Buelen

s,20

11P;

Liñá

n,20

04P;

Shariffe

tal.,

2010

P;Stam

boulis

&Ba

rlas

,201

4P

Hen

ryet

al.,20

04P;

Klapp

er,201

4P;

Thursb

yet

al.,

2009

P

Hen

ryet

al.,20

04P;

Izqu

ierdo&

Buelen

s,20

11P;

Liñá

n,20

04P

Ham

idie

tal.,

2008

P;Hen

ryet

al.,20

04P;

Liñá

n,20

04P;

Shariffe

tal.,

2010

P

Hen

ryet

al.,20

04P

Hen

ryet

al.,

2004

PCrane

&Mey

er,200

7P;

Ham

idie

tal.,

2008

P

Dem

and

Bouk

amch

a,20

15P;

Fayo

lle&Gailly,

2015

P;Kirby

&Hum

ayun

,201

3P;

Souitariset

al.,

2007

A

Lans

etal.,20

13A;

Mun

ozet

al.,20

11P;

Prem

andet

al.,

2016

P

Bouk

amch

a,20

15P;

Fayo

lle&Gailly,

2015

P;So

uitaris

etal.,20

07A

Bouk

amch

a,20

15P;

Fayo

lleet

al.,

2006aP;

Fayo

lle&

Gailly,

2015

M;

Kirby

&Hum

ayun

,20

13P;

Millere

tal.,

2009

P;So

uitaris

etal.,20

07P;

Varam

äkie

tal.,

2015

A

McA

lexa

nder

etal.,

2009

P;Prem

and

etal.,20

16P

Bell,2015P;

Millm

anet

al.,20

08P;

Mue

ller

&And

erso

n,20

14P;

Pittaw

ayet

al.,

2011

P;Prem

and

etal.,20

16P;

Souitariset

al.,

2007

P

Dem

and-

Com

pet.

Friedrich&Visse

r,20

06P;

Harris

etal.,20

07A;

Hietane

n,20

15P;

Kas

sean

net

al.,

2015

P;Ken

ny,201

5P;

Vorley&

William

s,20

16P

Burrow

s&W

ragg

,20

13P;

Cha

ng&

Rieple,

2013

M;

DeT

ienn

e&

Cha

ndler,20

04P;

Garalis

&Strazd

iene

,200

7P;

Gon

dim

&Mutti,

2011

A;H

arms,

2015

P;Jone

s&

Jone

s,20

11P;

Kirkw

oodet

al.,

2014

P;Morris

etal.,20

13P;

Toun

èset

al.,2014

PVorley&

William

s,2016

P

Aba

hoet

al.,20

15P;

Arm

strong

,201

4P;

Burrow

s&W

ragg

,20

13P;

Harms,

2015

P;Harris

etal.,20

07A;Jon

es&Jone

s,20

11P;

Kas

sean

etal.,

2015

N;K

irkw

ood

etal.,20

14P;

Pipe

ropo

ulos

&Dim

ov,2

015P;

Rau

ch&Hulsink

,20

15P

Arm

strong

,201

4P;

Cha

ng&Rieple,

2013

M;D

eGeo

rge

&Fa

yolle,

2008

P;Florin

etal.,20

07P;

Friedrich&Visse

r,20

06P;

Kas

sean

etal.,20

15P;

Pipe

ropo

ulos

&Dim

ov,2

015P;

Rau

ch&Hulsink

,20

15P

Burrow

s&W

ragg

,20

13P;

Dutta

etal.,

2010

P;Jans

enet

al.,20

15P;

Rau

ch&Hulsink

,20

15P

Burrow

s&W

ragg

,20

13P;

Man

&Fa

rquh

arso

n,20

15P;

Tang

&Ng,

2006

P;W

ee,200

4P

(table

continues)


TABL

E2

Con

tinu

ed Typ

esof

Impa

ctb

1.Attitud

e2a

.Skillsan

dkn

owledg

e2b

.Fea

sibility

2c.E

ntrepren

eurial

intention

3.Bu

sine

ssstart-up

4/5.Pe

rform.

&so

cioe

con.

Other

Com

pet.

Cha

nget

al.,20

14P;

Pittaw

ayet

al.,

2015

P

Brink&Mad

sen,

2015

M;C

hang

etal.,20

14P;

Gielnik

etal.,20

15P;

Gilbe

rt,2012P

Gielnik

etal.,20

15P;

Gilbe

rt,2

012P;

Toleda

no&

Urban

o,20

08A

Baeet

al.,20

14A;

Gielnik

etal.,20

15P;

Gilbe

rt,201

2P

Don

nellon

etal.,

2014

P;Gielnik

etal.,20

15P;

Gilbe

rt,2

012P;

Vince

tt&Fa

rlow

,20

08P

Don

nellon

etal.,20

14P;

Gordo

net

al.,20

12P

Don

nellon

etal.,

2014

P;Gordo

net

al.,20

12P;

Lack

eus,20

14P;

McC

rea,

2013

P;Pittaw

ayet

al.,

2015

PCom

par

ison

sW

alter&Doh

se,

2012

PW

alter&Doh

se,

2012

P;W

ang&

Verza

t,20

11M

Lang

eet

al.,20

14P

Lang

eet

al.,

2014

P

Note:Articleswitho

utteac

hing

mod

elinform

ationno

tsho

wn(13forL

evel

1,13

forL

2a,21forL

2b,53forL

2c,9

inL3

,4in

L4/5an

d22

inothe

r).S

omearticles

cons

ider

morethan

oneim

pact

mea

sure,a

ndare,

therefore,

includ

edmorethan

once

inthetable.

aBa

sedon

ourfram

eworkdraw

ingon

Béch

ard&Grégo

ire(2005).

bBa

sedon

ourfram

eworkdraw

ingon

Hen

ryet

al.’s

(200

3)clas

sifica

tion

.See

Table1forde

tailson

thesign

ofim

pacts(pos

itive,

nega

tive

,mixed

,oram

bigu

ous).F

orthe

compa

riso

nstud

ies(Lan

geet

al.,20

14;W

alter&Doh

se20

12;W

ang&Verza

t201

1),s

upplymod

elsareco

nsistently

foun

dto

have

less

positive

impa

ct.


specific outcomes achieved (see Table 2). In our re-view, studies that provide sufficient pedagogicaldetail are limited. Only 72 of our 159 articles (45%)provide enough detail for us to determine theirpedagogical approach. The following section fo-cuses on these 72 articles.

Supply and Supply–Demand Model Pedagogy

Only five articles can be classified in terms ofsupply model pedagogy. These are positively re-lated to self-efficacy (Sánchez, 2011) and entrepre-neurial intentions (e.g., Crane, 2014; Solesvik et al.,2013, 2014). For example, Sánchez (2011) focuses ontransmitting knowledge to students so that they“know about entrepreneurship,” and this mainlybehaviorist course has a positive impact on a rangeof student perceptions (at Level 2 of our framework,e.g., intention, self-efficacy). This suggests a supplymodel link to lower level impact indicators, al-though Shinnar et al., (2014) find mixed results, pri-marily at Level 2, based on a moderating effect ofgender. In turn, programs that combine pedagogiesfrom the supply and demand model tend to be pos-itively related to lower levels of our framework. Ofthe 12 supply–demand articles, only one (Henryet al., 2004) addresses impact at higher levels. Atypical example of a supply–demand article is theprogram analyzed by Hamidi, Wennberg, andBerglund (2008) which despite concentrating onknowledge transmission, includes some experien-tial learning, in this case, creativity developmentexercises whereby the authors report a positive linkwith entrepreneurial intentions.

Demand and Demand–CompetenceModel Pedagogy

Fifteen articles analyze interventions adhering todemand model pedagogy. These typically focuson short-term intensive experiential programs(e.g., Fayolle & Gailly, 2015), or longer experientialresidential-based programs (e.g., Boukamcha, 2015).They also include student-led entrepreneurshipclubs that allow students to work on collaborativeprojects and gain awareness from experienced entre-preneurs (Pittaway, Rodrı́guez-Falcon, Aiyegbayo, &King, 2011), and a pedagogical method that goesbeyond formal classroom teaching, incorporating,for example, network events and interaction withentrepreneurs (Souitaris et al., 2007). All these stud-ies share a focus on exploration, discussion, andexperimentation, with a preoccupation on students’

needs and interests.Moreover, these studies largelysuggest a positive link of this model’s pedagogywith lower level impact indicators—our frame-work’s Level 2 indicators (entrepreneurial intention,Fayolle et al., 2006a; Souitaris et al., 2007), or otherpersonal change, such as satisfaction with thecourse or participation (Millman,Matlay, &Liu, 2008;Pittaway et al., 2011).Of the EE programs studied in the review, 27 are

consistent with demand–competence model peda-gogy. They share the inclusion of an important ele-ment of realism, such as real-life problems tobe solved. This is powerful, because despite thechallenges to the learner, the learning is moretransferable to the real world (cf. outside our re-view, Neergaard et al. 2012). In the articles in thisstream, the pedagogical methods are experi-ential and entail working side by side with, forexample, entrepreneurs (e.g., Chang & Rieple,2013); realistic entrepreneurial exercises (e.g.,Gondim & Mutti, 2011); starting and running a“real” business (e.g., Burrows & Wragg, 2013); andproblem-based learning (e.g., Kirkwood, Dwyer,& Gray, 2014). Again, these studies report a posi-tive link with lower level impact measures(skills and knowledge, and feasibility, e.g., Jones& Jones, 2011). However, ambiguous or mixed re-sults are also found for intention and feasibility(Chang & Rieple, 2013; Harris, Gibson, & Taylor,2007). Overall, the pattern suggests a positivelink between demand and demand–competencemodel pedagogy and primarily lower level impactindicators.

Competence Model Pedagogy

Twelve articles fall into this category. Pedagogicalmethods entail students who are starting up busi-nesses by consulting external experts, typically forlegal, accounting, and sales help (Vincett & Farlow,2008) or dealing with real-world problems or oppor-tunities in industry-engaged environments to en-hance social interaction and deeper learning(Gilbert, 2012). These articles are positively relatedto Level 2 (skill development, learning; Gilbert, 2012),Level 3 (actual start-ups; Gilbert, 2012; Vincett &Farlow, 2008), and Level 4 of our framework (positivechanges in the person andbusiness that run 5 yearsafter the course: e.g., increase in social capital andsocioeconomic bonds; Gordon, Hamilton, & Jack,2012). Given the limited number of articles in thiscategory, we see our results as indicative ratherthan confirmatory.


Comparison Studies

Only three articles compare EE programs usingcompeting pedagogical methods. Lange et al.(2014) suggest that experiential courses (featuringdemand and competence models) better predictmultiple entrepreneurial behaviors: The rare be-haviorist courses in their study (“how to writea business plan”) are essentially a negative pre-dictor. They measure impact at the highest im-pact level of our framework (Level 5) and showa positive socioeconomic impact up to 25 yearspostprogram. Similarly, Walter and Dohse (2012) com-pare active learning (constructivist) to traditionallearning (behaviorist) in locations with eitherweak or already-strong entrepreneurial cultures,finding the constructivist model to have a strongerimpact in terms of, for example, entrepreneurialintention.

Overall, our review highlights that each categoryof pedagogical methods (supply, demand, compe-tence, hybrids) has some positive relationship withthe lower level impact indicators of our teachingmodel framework (e.g., attitudes and intentions).However, the demonstrated pattern of pedagogyimpact depends to an extent on the aims of re-searchers. Although articles featuring fewer experi-ential programs (supply, supply–demand, demand)focusmore onbasic or lower levels of our framework,articles examining more experiential programs(demand–competenceandcompetence)also focusonimpact at higher levels (e.g., actual start-ups andsocioeconomic impactover time).These latter studiesask more from their programs and typically obtainhigher impact.

DISCUSSION

Guided by a unique, theory-driven teachingmodelframework, we undertook a systematic review ofa range of EE impacts in higher education, draw-ing on empirical evidence published since 2004.This entailed a thematic analysis of the evidenceusing our adopted teaching model framework toclassify different types of outcomes and peda-gogies. We also explored the extent of the re-lationship between pedagogical methods andoutcomes achieved.

Reaffirmation of Past Reviews

Despite the increase in the amount of research onEEand entrepreneurial outcomes in higher education

over the past 12 years (nearly two thirds of our 159articles are published in the last 5 years), there isstill a general focus on lower level, short-term,subjective impact indicators, especially the EE–entrepreneurial intentions link (51%), and the lack ofspecifying even minimal pedagogical detail (55%).Hence, in general, we reconfirm the findings andrepeat the calls of previous reviews for more re-search on entrepreneurialbehavior (e.g., Pittaway&Cope, 2007) and greater pedagogical detail (cf.Martin et al., 2013). Our teaching model frameworkurges a focus on higher level impacts such as start-ups, firm survival rates, business performance, andsocietal contribution. Furthermore, it also meansthat future researchers provide detailed informationabout the pedagogical methods, so we can un-derstand the impact of pedagogical designs andmethods.Extending previous reviews, our findings lead us

to focus on new or underemphasized calls for futureresearch. As a general pattern from our findings,progress on the previous calls outlined above hasbeen slow, and EE impact research continues to belimited. For example, in our review, it is rare to seearticles on novel EE impact measures or exploringthe reasons behind the contradictory findings inhigher education-based EE research that go beyondstatistical/artifactual reasons (cf. Martin et al., 2013;Rideout & Gray, 2013). Table 3 presents our recom-mendations for future research and these are dis-cussed in more detail below.

Types of EE Impact

Focus on Novel Impact Indicators Related toEmotion-Based Approaches

Given the dominance of entrepreneurial intentionsas an impact indicator in our research, we suggest itis important to understand alternative impact mea-sures. Although entrepreneurship is considereda “journey of the heart” and the importance of un-derstanding entrepreneurial emotion (affect, emo-tions, feelings), especially during the new venturecreation process is acknowledged (Cardon, Foo,Shepherd, & Wiklund, 2012), there is surprisinglylittle empirical research in our review that focuseson emotion-based impact indicators. We thereforeurge scholars to pursue the following importantavenues.First, we are surprised by the scarcity of research

that addresses emotion or affect. Given the growingconsensus on their importance in entrepreneurial


thinking, for example, passion (Cardon et al.,2009, 2012; Gielnik et al., 2015), this is startling.For example, only one empirical study in our sam-ple measures EE program-derived entrepreneurialinspiration (Souitaris et al., 2007) that identifiesemotional inspiration (not learning or incubationresources) as the most important EE “programmebenefit” with inspiration also positively related toentrepreneurial intentions (Souitaris et al., 2007).Moreover, they define it as “a change of hearts(emotion) and minds (motivation) evoked by eventsor inputs from the programme and directed towardsconsidering becoming an entrepreneur” (Souitaris

et al., 2007: 573). Thus, we consider it of central im-portance as both an impact indicator in its own right(i.e., if EE increases inspiration), and as a predictorof other impact measures. Indeed, Souitaris et al.(2007: 587) conclude: “Universities that want to as-sess the effectiveness of their programmes shouldcapture not only how much their students learnabout entrepreneurship or whether they are satis-fied with the courses, but also whether they are in-spired from theprogramme.”Despite its importance,inspiration from EE programs in higher educationremains an under-researched phenomenon andwarrants further research attention.

TABLE 3Future Research Directions: Types of EE Impact and Pedagogical Models

Reaffirmation of past reviews

1. Ongoing requirement for increased research on higher level impact indicators by examining objective and higher level measures atLevels 4 and 5 of our teaching model framework (see Figure 1) including entrepreneurial behavior.

2. More detail about the specifics of the pedagogy in impact studies.

New or underemphasized research directions

1. Types of ImpactA. Focus on novel impact indicators related to emotion-based and mind-set approachesi. Explore role of EE program-derived inspiration in higher education as an impact indicator and a mediator between EE and a range of

other impact measures. For example, does inspiration mediate the EE-behavior relationship?ii. Examine the development of the entrepreneurial mind-set in higher education such as dispositional optimism, uncertainty and

ambiguity tolerance.B. Focus on impact indicators related to the intention-to-behavior transitioni. Build on Souitaris et al. (2007) to generate new knowledge about why there is (or is not) a transition from entrepreneurial intentions into

nascent or start-up behavior, specifically for example, why do some recipients of higher education-based EEwith high entrepreneurialintentions start up their own businesses after graduating, while others (despite high intentions) do not?What is the role of EE in highereducation in this process?

ii. Explore the development of entrepreneurial identity in higher education.C. Explore contextual reasons for some contradictory findings in impact studiesi. Explore individuals’ background in terms of previous entrepreneurial exposure and pre-educational intentions to clarify the impact of

higher education-based EE.ii. Directly examine if the impact of EE programs in higher education on a range of entrepreneurial outcomes is gender-specific and for

which outcomes.iii.Consider contextual factors in higher education, e.g., type of course, type of institution.iv. Expand existing research by looking at relationship between culture and national context in EE impact studies. For example, how do

cultural valuesmoderate the impact of EE on outcomes?What outcomes are culture specific? Our teachingmodel framework could beexpanded to incorporate culture-specific frameworks (e.g., Hofstede, 2003; Schwartz, 2004).

v. Explore underexamined fast-growing/emerging countries/continents in our sample e.g., Brazil, Russia, Africa, and Australia.vi.Examine double-moderator interaction effects. For example, does EE impact outcomes as a function of culture and gender?2. Pedagogical methods underpinning impactA. Investigate competence model-related pedagogical methods to determine if they are truly more effective than other models, and why

they are effective.B. Building on our teaching model framework, directly compare and contrast a broad range of pedagogical models (supply, demand,

competence, and hybrids) in terms of their impact on a range of impact indicators (from Levels 1 to 5).

General recommendations

1. Explore EE at other levels, i.e. other than higher education.2. Explore impact of university-based EE on stakeholders other than students and graduates. For example, university faculty, donors/

investors, and community.


A second key knowledge gap centers on impactmeasures focusing on the development of the en-trepreneurial mind-set, defined here as cognitivephenomena deeper than intent4 (Krueger, 2007, 2015;Lackéus, 2015). Few studies in our review even ref-erence this phenomenon. One rare example (Crane,2014) suggests dispositional optimism as a key in-dicator of EE impact because of its self-regulatoryfunction anddealingwith uncertainty and setbacks.They find their program improves such optimism,suggesting another fruitful avenue to explore. Sim-ilarly, under OECD’s Entrepreneurship360 initia-tive, Lackéus (2015) identifies the importance ofuncertainty/ambiguity tolerance as impact indica-tors for action-based EE programs that tie back tothe issue of emotions in entrepreneurial thinking.

Focus on Impact Indicators Related to theIntention-to-Behavior Transition

Our findings also suggest a paucity of studies of EEin higher education that bridge the transition fromintention to behavior, that is Levels 2 to 3 in ourteaching model framework. This is an importantavenue because intention does not always translateinto entrepreneurial behavior and little is knownabout this transition. Indeed, Pittaway and Cope(2007: 498) conclude “what isnot known . . . iswhetherpropensity or intentionality is turned into ‘entre-preneurial behavior’, either in its broad sense orwhen focused narrowly on venture creation.” Al-though we re-emphasize their claim here, we alsoextend their call, by suggesting two specific ave-nues that we encourage more scholars to pursue.

First, our review suggests very little empiricalattention on analyzing how entrepreneurial in-tention translates into nascent or start-up activities.Although this relationship is examined in our re-view regarding start-up activities for nascency afteran EE program (e.g., Souitaris et al., 2007), the lack ofa positive significant relationship (albeit via entre-preneurial intentions) suggests more research isrequired on how intention follows through to action(or not). For example, why do some recipients of EEwith high entrepreneurial intentions start up theirown businesses after graduating, while others (de-spite high intentions) do not? What is the role ofEE in this process? Second, very few studies in ourreview analyze the development of entrepreneurial

identity, although we see hints that EE relates topersonal development beyond knowledge and skillacquisition, for example, by a change in thinkingstyle (Mueller & Anderson, 2014), internal self-reflection, and external engagement (Donnellonet al., 2014; Lackéus, 2014). Given how little weknow of how intent becomes behavior, this is ex-ceptionally important for further research.

Explore Contextual Reasons for ContradictoryFindings: Background, Gender, and Culture

As our results report, most papers suggest positiveresults between EE and a broad range of impact in-dicators, but with some contradictory studies (con-sistentwithMartinetal., 2013).Theseauthorsadvancemethodological concerns as an explanation of suchcontradictory results; however, it would be remiss notto also assess person- and context-specific factors.Concerning student backgrounds, for those who

have less exposure to entrepreneurship, the generaleffect tends to be positive, because they usuallyincrease their entrepreneurial intention, attitudes,and self-efficacy by participating in the programs(e.g., Fayolle &Gailly, 2015; Fayolle, Gailly, & Lassas-Clerc, 2006a; Sánchez, 2011). In contrast, for thosestudents who already have entrepreneurial experi-ence, family background, or high previous entrepre-neurial intention, theeffectsaregenerallyweakerandmay even be negative (see, e.g., Fayolle et al., 2006b;Von Graevenitz, Harhoff, & Weber, 2010). Similarly,Bae et al. (2014) found that after controlling for pre-educational entrepreneurial intentions, the relation-ship between EE and postprogram entrepreneurialintentions is not significant. However, given that Baeet al.’s (2014) meta-analysis did not focus specificallyon higher education, we encourage more studies tofocuson the roleof studentbackground in this context.Regarding students’ background, gender-specific

differences are also an important source of contra-dictory findings. Few studies in our review focus onthe differential impact of EE for male and femalestudents/graduates, although those that did identifygender-specific effects. For example, Wilson, Kickul,andMarlino (2007) showthatEEhasastronger impacton self-efficacy among females than males. Otherstudies also suggest the impact of EE on entrepre-neurial intentions is gender-specific (e.g., Joensuuet al., 2013; Packham et al., 2010), although there aretoo few studies to indicate if this favors males orfemales. A controversial finding in Bae et al.’s (2014)article concludes that gender does not signifi-cantly moderate the EE–entrepreneurial intention

4 Education researchers often refer to “noncognitive skills” todifferentiate from more surface level learning such as facts androte-learned skills (e.g., Krueger, 2015).


relationship. However, Bae et al. (2014) did not spe-cifically examine studies of EE in higher education(aswedo), but rather lookedataverages fromameta-analysis across educational levels. Furthermore,unlike Bae et al. (2014), we look at higher level impactin terms of entrepreneurial behavior. Although wedid not find any reported gender-specific effects atthis level, in our view, this doesnotmean that theydonot exist, merely that studies have not specificallyfocused on these effects.

Looking at further aspects of context (e.g., type ofprogram: optional or compulsory; type of institution),there is evidence from our review that initial positiveattitudes toward entrepreneurship, which are, how-ever, not fully formed, change once they are con-frontedwith the complexities and pitfalls of businessstart-up during EE. In our review, Hytti, Stenholm,Heinonen, and Seikkula-Leino (2010) analyze themotivations of students taking a compulsory EE pro-gram, finding that students with intrinsic motivationreport lower learning and less satisfaction with thecourse (they expected more). Those taking the pro-gram with extrinsic motivation express a greaterdegree of satisfaction. Similarly, Petridou and Sarri(2011) find that attitudes and intentions are raised byanEEprogram inageneralist university, but loweredin a technology institute. The latter can be explainedby the realization of the complexities involved instarting up a technology venture.

Similarly, culture and national context are likelysignificant factors but rarely tested directly becausealmost all studies in our review focus on a single-country or culture (or at least do not investigateculturaldifferences).However, Baeetal.’s (2014)meta-analysis suggests some salient cultural dimensions,at leastwith respect to entrepreneurial intentions. Forexample, some national or cultural contexts may behigher on some cultural dimensions, on average, likeuncertainty avoidance (level of comfortableness withuncertainty and ambiguity; Hofstede, 2003, also seeKrueger, Liñán, & Nabi’s, 2013 Special Issue in thisarea). This suggests culture-specific moderators areworthy of further consideration. In addition, oursample is dominated by studies in the United King-dom,UnitedStates, andAsia, but only 5%are from thefast-growing emerging BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India,and China) economies. There are no studies fromRussia or India, and Africa and Australia are alsounder-represented, suggesting such countries andcontinents are largely absent from studies.

Moreover, culture is also likely to exhibit in-teraction effectswithother impact factors likegenderas implied in a handful of our articles regarding

culture- and gender-specific findings. Packhamet al.(2010), for example, suggest findings that EE nega-tively relates to entrepreneurial intentions for maleGerman students. This double-moderator effect isconsistent with limited research outside our review,for example, Shneor, Camgöz, and Karapinar (2013),who look at gender effects in two cultural settings,while analysis of Culture x Gender effects is absentfrom the studies reviewed here.Considering our discussion on how student back-

ground and context (the “audience” dimension of theteaching model; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008) seem to ex-plain contradictory findings in previous studies, fu-ture research in this field is especially promising.Knowing the background and the profile of the stu-dents (e.g., prior entrepreneurial knowledge andskills, motivators, gender) and context (e.g., type ofprogram, type of institution, program and countrycontext) can also lead to better design and imple-mentation of EE programs, and ultimately to moreefficient learning processes, environments, andhence, impact (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle &Gailly, 2008, 2015). It also opens the door for futureimpact research that is more mindful of potentialmoderating factors and exploring a range of rela-ted questions. For example, to what extent is the im-pact of EE programs in higher education on a rangeof entrepreneurial outcomes gender-, culture-, andcontext-specific? Which impact indicators in ourframework are dependent on moderator effects andwhich are more universally applicable? Our teach-ing model framework could also be expanded to in-corporateculture-specific frameworks (e.g.,Hofstede,2003; Schwartz, 2004) allowing further considerationof the impact of higher education-basedEEprogramsin different international and cultural contexts.

Pedagogical Methods Underpinning Impact

Pedagogical Reasons for Contradictory Findings:Differences in Pedagogical Methods

Our review suggests that all the pedagogicalmethods (supply, demand, competence, hybrids)have positive impact at Levels 1 and 2 of our teach-ingmodel framework (e.g., attitudes and intentions).However, our reviewed studies suggest that peda-gogical methods based on competence are bettersuited for developing higher level impact. The evi-dence suggests that competencemodel pedagogy isassociatedwith both subjective measures at Level 2(e.g., entrepreneurial intention), and objective onesat Levels 3 (e.g., actual start-ups up to 5 years


postprogram) and 4 (longer term impact on businessup to 10 years postprogram). To put it more simply,such deeper, more experiential pedagogies seem tohave the most potential to have impact at higherlevels because students focus on developing be-havioral competency in solvingproblems in real-lifeentrepreneurial situations.

Our findings suggest that the use of different ped-agogicalmethods is at least partially responsible forthe inconsistent findings in impact studies. However,given that our findingsare based onapartial sampleof our population of articles, they are indicativerather than confirmatory.5 To the best of our knowl-edge, this is the first systematic review that usesa teaching model framework to assess the impact ofEE. In our view, this provides novel and meaningfulinsights. EE makes strong claims to have significantimpact and a strong bias toward experiential peda-gogies. This review confirms that we need to focusstrongly in this direction. For example, it is essentialto expand research on competence-model-relatedpedagogical methods. Do they really have strongerimpact than othermodels, especially at higher levelsof our teachingmodel framework? How do they workregarding underlying processes?

Focus on Comparison Studies to ComparePedagogical Methods

Our review reveals very few comparison studies thatdirectly compare the impact of different pedagogicalmethods. Considering the growing number of EEprograms and the growing demand to assess them,should we not ask for evidence of what pedagogicalmethods work, desired impact, and actual impact?We thus encourage researchers to compare typesof impact across different teaching pedagogicalmethods. This is the onlyway for us to understand EEimpact in an incremental and meaningful way.

Our review includes comparison studies thatlink EE pedagogical methods in higher educationto a broad range of impact measures usinga teaching model framework. However, compari-son studies in our review only tend to comparepedagogical methods in a limited way (e.g., supplyversus competence; Lange et al., 2014; Walter &Dohse, 2012; Wang & Verzat, 2011). In our review,we identify five different pedagogical models

including hybrid versions (supply, supply–demand,demand, demand–competence, competence). Weurge scholars of future comparison studies to di-rectly compare the impact of a broader rangeof pedagogical methods using a teaching modelframework. We believe that such a comparativeapproach offers great opportunities to explorea number of theoretically, practically, and empiri-cally meaningful research questions that mayhelp to explain the contradictory findings on theimpact of higher education-based EE programsand increase generalizability. For example, whatpedagogical models work for which types of im-pact and in which contexts? We encourage futureresearchers to rigorously isolate the impact of a ped-agogical intervention, controlling for the context- andperson-specific factors outlined earlier.

Limitations and General Recommendations

Three limitationsof our reviewarenoteworthy. First,we only cover EE in higher education, although EEalso flourishes in high school programs, and adult(nondegree and non-academic) education. Focusingon other educational levels and means of deliveryoutside higher education was outside the scope ofour research, but our findings do open the door forassessing EE impact at other levels.Second, data onwhether an individual is exposed

to multiple training before, during, and after highereducation is limited. However, some articles in ourreview do use more sophisticated research designs,for example, adopting a pretest–posttest controlgroup design (e.g., Souitaris et al., 2007), or control-ling for prior entrepreneurial exposure (e.g., Fayolle& Gailly, 2015). Although focusing on methodologi-cal designs is outside the primary scope of our re-search and is covered elsewhere (e.g., Rideout &Gray, 2013), we still include a range of articles withdifferent methodologies in our research, and ourfindings confirm those of existing reviews with anemphasis onmethodological rigor (e.g.,Martinet al.,2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Rather than reiteratethe methodological weaknesses that other reviewsfound, we sought to identify perhaps less obvious,yet greatly promising new or underemphasized di-rections for future research.Third, our review focuses on the recipients of

university-basedEEprogramsandtheirentrepreneurialattitudes, knowledge, skills, and behaviors. How-ever, such programs obviously also influenceawider set of stakeholders, such as the instructorsthemselves and, in the case of field projects, the

5 Reduced from 159 to 72 due to insufficient pedagogical in-formation from 55% of our articles. Further, we suspect that itcould be extremely valuable to assess the quality of pedagogy,not just its intended characteristics.


individuals and organizations involved. For exam-ple, “real-life cases”where students work on variousconsultancy tasks (such as market validation stud-ies). The impact of EE can be on entrepreneurialbehavior of staff and lecturers, when teaching en-trepreneurship influences academics to become en-gaged in it themselves (whether in commercializingresearch or in nonresearch-based entrepreneurialactivity at the side of academic work). EE programswhere students engage in market validation studiesand so forth also expose students to the entrepre-neurial community. This can be built into higherlevels of our teaching model framework to examinestakeholder impact. For example, we can assess thevalue of EE to university faculty, donors/investors,and communities at Levels 3, 4, and 5 of our frame-work (cf. Duval-Couetil, 2013).

CONCLUSIONS

While confirming the weaknesses in EE impact stud-ies (e.g., dominance on lower level attitudinal andintentionality impact measures, and a lack of keydetail concerning pedagogy), wealso identify threemainways ofmoving forward. First, as indicated inTable 3,weaddvaluebyprovidinganup-to-date andempirically rooted call for future research in highereducation. Second, by applying a teaching modelframework, we offer several intriguing and under-emphasized suggestions for improving EE research.Last and relatedly, we provide some critical insightsinto the reasons for the contradictory findings in EEresearch (e.g., rarityof cross-cultural, gender-specificand pedagogical-comparison research) that can befurther teased out through single studies/interven-tions, so we can understand how EE really works intheory and practice.

REFERENCES

Abaho, E., Olomi, D. R., & Urassa, G. C. 2015. Students’ entre-preneurial self-efficacy: Does the teachingmethodmatter?Education 1 Training, 57(8/9): 908–923.

Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., Ahmad, Z., Shaukat, M. Z., Usman, A., &Rehman, W. 2010. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurialcareer intentions: Evidence from business graduates. Euro-pean Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2): 14–22.

Alarape, A. A. 2007. Entrepreneurship programs, operational ef-ficiency and growth of small businesses. Journal of Enter-prising Communities: People and Places in the GlobalEconomy, 1(3): 222–239.

Almobaireek, W. N., & Manolova, T. S. 2012. Who wants to be anentrepreneur? Entrepreneurial intentions among Saudi uni-versity students. African Journal of Business Management,6(11): 4029–4040.

Armstrong, C. E. 2014. I meant to do that! Manipulating entre-preneurial intentions through the power of simple plans.Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(4):638–652.

Aslam, T. M., Awan, A. S., & Khan, T. M. 2012. Entrepreneurialintentions among university students of Punjab, a provinceof Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities and SocialScience, 2(14): 114–120.

Azim, M. T., & Akbar, M. M. 2010. Entrepreneurship education inBangladesh: A study based on program inputs. South AsianJournal of Management, 17(4): 21–36.

Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. 2014. The relationshipbetween entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurialintentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 38(2): 217–254.

Bakotic, D., & Kruzic, D. 2010. Students’ perceptions and intentionstowards entrepreneurship: The empirical findings fromCroatia. The Business Review, Cambridge, 14(2): 209–215.

Barakat, S., Boddington, M., & Vyakarnam, S. 2014. Measuringentrepreneurial self-efficacy to understand the impact ofcreative activities for learning innovation. InternationalJournal of Management Education, 12(3): 456–468.

Baptista, R., & Naia, A. 2015. Entrepreneurship education: A se-lective examination of the literature. Foundations and Trendsin Entrepreneurship, 11(5): 337–426.

Basu, A. 2010. Comparing entrepreneurial intentions amongstudents: The role of education and ethnic origin. AIMS In-ternational Journal of Management, 4(3): 163–176.

Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. 2005. Understanding teachingmodels in entrepreneurship for higher education. In P. Kÿro,& C. Carrier (Eds.), The dynamics of learning entrepreneur-ship in a cross-cultural university context: 104–134. Tampere,Finland: Faculty of Education, University of Tampere.

Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. 2007. Archetypes of pedagogicalinnovation for entrepreneurship education: Model and il-lustrations. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in en-trepreneurship education: Vol. 1: 261–284. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bell, R. 2015. Developing the next generation of entrepreneurs:Giving students the opportunity to gain experience andthrive. International Journal of Management Education,13(1): 37–47.

Bernhofer, L., & Han, Z. 2014. Contextual factors and their effectson future entrepreneurs in China: A comparative study ofentrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Tech-nology Management, 65(1-2-3-4): 125–150.

Block, Z., & Stumpf, S. A. 1992. Entrepreneurship education re-search: Experience and challenge. In D. L. Sexton, & J. D.Kasarda (Eds.), The state-of-the-art of entrepreneurship:17–42. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

Bosma, N., Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levine, J. 2008. 2008Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Executive Report. Well-esley, MA & London.

Boukamcha, F. 2015. Impact of training on entrepreneurial in-tention: An interactive cognitive perspective. European Busi-ness Review, 27(6): 593–616.


Brink, T., & Madsen, S. O. 2015. Entrepreneurial learning requiresaction on the meaning generated. International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(5): 650–672.

Burrows, K., & Wragg, N. 2013. Introducing enterprise. Researchinto the practical aspects of introducing innovative enter-prise schemes as extra curricula activities in higher educa-tion. Higher Education. Skills and Work-Based Learning, 3(3):168–179.

Byabashaija, W., & Katono, I. 2011. The impact of college entre-preneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and inten-tion to start a business in Uganda. Journal of DevelopmentalEntrepreneurship, 16(1): 127–144.

Canziani, B., Welsh, D. H. B., Hsieh, Y, & Tullar, W. 2015. Whatpedagogical methods impact students’ entrepreneurial pro-pensity? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 25(2): 11–42.

Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. 2009. Thenature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academyof Management Review, 34(3): 511–532.

Cardon, M. S., Foo, M., Shepherd, D., &Wiklund, J. 2012. Exploringthe heart: Entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic. Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice, 36(1): 1–10.

Chang, J. Y. C., Benamraoui, A., & Rieple, A. 2014. Stimulatinglearning about social entrepreneurship through incomegeneration projects. International Journal of EntrepreneurialBehaviour & Research, 20(5): 417–437.

Chang, J., & Rieple, A. 2013. Assessing students’ entrepreneurialskills development in live projects. Journal of Small Businessand Enterprise Development, 20(1): 225–241.

Cheng, Y. M., Chan, S. W., & Mahmood, A. 2009. The effectivenessof entrepreneurship education in Malaysia. Education 1Training, 51(7): 555–566.

Coduras, A., Urbano, D., Rojas, Á., & Martı́nez, S. 2008. The re-lationship between university support to entrepreneurshipwith entrepreneurial activity in Spain: A GEM data basedanalysis. International Advances in Economic Research,14(4): 395–406.

Collins, L. A., Smith, A. J., & Hannon, P. D. 2006. Discovering en-trepreneurship: An exploration of a tripartite approach todeveloping entrepreneurial capacities. Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Trai

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher …cluding “entrepreneurship...

Documents

Transcript of The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher …cluding “entrepreneurship...