The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

Using the EntreComp framework to evaluate two entrepreneurship

education courses based on the Korda Method
Daniele Morselli a, *, Janez Gorenc b
a
University of Bolzano, Faculty of Education, Italy
b
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Slovenia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper tests the Korda method, a problem-based learning method for entrepreneurship edu­
EntreComp cation for both secondary- and tertiary-level students and describes how the EntreComp frame­
Entrepreneurship competence work was utilized to evaluate these programs. The research questions inspect: (1) to what extent
Problem-based learning
the EntreComp framework can be used to evaluate entrepreneurship courses, and (2) to what
Korda method
Constructivism
extent the Korda Method is suitable for EE as a student-centred pedagogy. This study was planned
Experiential learning as a multiple case study designed and carried out in two different contexts. A quantitative and
qualitative questionnaire was based on the three competence areas of EntreComp and on the 15
sub-competences. In the results, this paper highlights possibilities and challenges in the use of the
EntreComp framework. On the practical side, it is useful to evaluate and compare our EE pro­
grams as this represented a starting point with a variety of competences. On the theoretical side,
EntreComp’s view of competence tends to lose sight of the contexts where competence is
developed; and is well complemented by a theory of curriculum delivery to deliver the expected
learning outcomes. Concerning the Korda method, students in both settings developed all the sub-
competences related to EntreComp, especially teamwork and learning through experience skills.

1. Introduction

In recent years, much space in this journal has been devoted to pedagogies for management education entailing real-life situations,
purposeful learning, teamwork, and problem solving. These concern action learning (Brook & Pedler, 2020), project-based learning
(Kłeczek, Hajdas, & Wrona, 2020), practice-based-learning (Matzembacher, Gonzales, & doNascimento, 2019), experiential learning
(Ortiz & Huber-Heim, 2017; Seow, Pan, & Koh, 2019; Tan & Vicente, 2019), and problem-based learning (Carriger, 2016; Deck­
er-Lange, 2018; Garnjost & Brown, 2018).
The Korda method is an innovative didactic for entrepreneurship education grounded in problem-based learning, and its impact has
thus far never been scientifically evaluated. This paper reports on a multiple-case study that tested whether the Korda Method is a
suitable method for teaching entrepreneurship to both secondary as well as tertiary-level students. Contemporaneously, to measure the
impact this method had on improving the students’ entrepreneurship competences in the two contexts, this paper makes use of the
EntreComp framework. The explorative research questions this paper tackles are:
RQ1. To what extent can the EntreComp framework be used to evaluate entrepreneurship courses?

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: daniele.morselli@unibz.it (D. Morselli), janez.gorenc@gimnm.org (J. Gorenc).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100591
Received 27 July 2020; Received in revised form 9 October 2021; Accepted 17 December 2021
Available online 22 December 2021
1472-8117/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
D. Morselli and J. Gorenc The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

RQ2. To what extent is the Korda Method suitable for entrepreneurship education, and how does it connect to other student-centered
pedagogies?
The article starts with a literature review of the EntreComp Framework and problem-based learning, and then introduces the Korda
Method. Then it presents the case studies methodology used in the research; next it shows the results of the application of an Italian
University context and a Slovenian secondary-school setting. The discussion is divided into two parts. The first part discusses the
strengths and challenges, both practical and theoretical, of the EntreComp framework. The second part draws preliminary results on
the Korda Method and connects it with student-centered pedagogies.

2. Literature review

2.1. The EntreComp framework

According to the OECD (2018), our societies are changing deeply and rapidly, and the societal, economic, and environmental
challenges humanity will have to face in the coming years are unparalleled and unrivalled in history. In this context, education plays a
key role in nurturing the key competences in everyone, allowing people to find new solutions for an inclusive and sustainable future. In
Europe, the entrepreneurship competence is part of the eight key competences for lifelong learning; those that everyone should
develop for personal fulfilment, full employment, citizenship, and social inclusion (European Commission, 2019). A key competence is
as a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes appropriate to the context. This is known as the K–S-A (knowledge, skills and
attitudes) model (Komarkova, Conrads, & Collado, 2015), whereby competence is situated at the crossing between the individual and
the demands of the environment. This model is holistic, since it spans a range of activities and processes, and embeds the cognitive,
behavioral, and volitional spheres (Deakin Crick, 2008).
Despite the large interest in the entrepreneurship competence, no agreement was present about its distinctive parts. The EntreComp
Framework (Bacigalupo, Kampylis, Punie, & Van den Brande, 2016) sought to tackle this issue with a consensus process around a
common understanding that identified three competence areas (Into Action, Resources, Ideas and Opportunities). For each of these,
five entrepreneurship competences and accompanying descriptors with learning outcomes were defined, and eight proficiency levels
drawn out. The concept of the 15 entrepreneurship competences as defined by EntreComp was tested and validated by Armuña,
Ramos, Juan, Feijóo, and Arenal (2020) in their study on the relationship between entrepreneurship competences and entrepreneurial
intentions, albeit not using items offered by EntreComp, but rather substituting them with items developed by or adapted from Liñán,
Rodríguez-Cohard, and Rueda-Cantuche (2011) and Liñán and Chen (2009). The EntreComp progression model has also been used to
set the goals of an entrepreneurship education program in rural Sardinia (Floris & Pillitu, 2019), and the participants found the
program impactful. Additionally, Czyzewska and Mroczek (2020) tested all 15 competences of the EntreComp framework on all eight
levels on students of economics from Poland to explore the interrelatedness of the competences and the levels, thus scientifically
validating the competence model. Eventually, Gianesini, Cubico, Favretto, and Leitão (2018) studied the EntreComp competence
model and showed that, in terms of balancing the number and type of competences, it outperformed two other entrepreneurship
competence models.

2.2. Problem based learning

Student-centered approaches are based on constructivist paradigms, where the student is at the center of the educational practice.
This is achieved by making the learner responsible for their learning and having them actively and autonomously construct their own
knowledge (Macht & Ball, 2016). Such approaches are characterized by a switch from what the teacher does or what the student is, to
how the student learns (Biggs & Tang, 2011). In an OECD policy document, Paniagua and Istance (2018) describe the teacher as a
designer of learning environments, and identify six clusters of innovative pedagogies, one of which is experiential learning defined as
“an approach where learners are brought directly in contact with the realities being studied” (p. 110). This cluster is characterized by
the need to learn from evidence and to nurture the inquiry skills that allow students to tackle problems, hence in a lifelong learning
perspective. The cluster of experiential learning revolves around three pedagogies to help students deal with real and complex
challenges: teaching of uncertainty, service-based learning, and project-based learning.
Savery (2015, p. 9) defines problem-based learning as an “instructional learner-centered approach that empowers learners to
conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem”.
According to Barrows (1986), problem-based learning is characterized by the following features: learning is student-centered, learning
occurs in small student teams, teachers are facilitators or guides, problems form the organizing focus and stimulus for learning,
problems are a vehicle to cultivate problem-solving skills, and new information is acquired through self-directed learning.
Additionally, Dochy, Segers, Bossche, and Gijbels (2003) suggest final presentations with an authentic audience and judges, while
Gijbels, Dochy, Van Den Bossche, and Segers (2005) suggest that the students’ problem-solving skills are assessed through authentic
tasks that are new to the students, which should show the students’ transferability as well as their comprehension of the influencing
contextual factors. Various meta-analyses have been carried out to test the effectiveness of problem-based learning. While Dochy et al.
(2003) found a robust positive effect on the students’ skills and a negative effect on their knowledge, Gijbels et al. (2005) discovered
that the effectiveness of problem-based learning is maximized when the principles connecting concepts are assessed. However, the
most comprehensive review on what works best in school learning was carried out by Hattie (2009, p. 9); who reviewed 800
meta-analyses summarizing 285 studies on problem-based learning, and found that this pedagogy has a rather modest effect size (0,15)

2
D. Morselli and J. Gorenc The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

on learning, especially when compared with other similar didactics, for example when the teacher explains the steps towards the
problem solution (named problem-solving teaching, 0,61). The conclusion is that problem-based learning has a beneficial effect when
it tackles deep learning, while this pedagogy could have a negative effect on learning when it targets surface learning.

2.3. The Korda method

The Korda method was designed by Doris Korda and can be defined as a highly structured problem-based learning method for
entrepreneurship education that engages students in deep learning. The Korda method is suited for upper secondary education, but is
also experimented with at the university level (Morselli, 2019). Yet, recalling Barrows’ (1986) principles of problem-based learning
and Paniagua and Istance’s (2018) metaphor of teacher as designer of learning environments, in the Korda method, the teacher’s role
shifts “from being an arbiter of knowledge to being a designer of transformational learning experiences” (S. Korda, 2019).
One example of a full Korda program consists of four cycles done in one school year, each cycle containing a different and pro­
gressively more difficult challenge. The first three challenges can come from local start-ups, non-profit organizations, or communities,
while the fourth is a start-up project. When the entrepreneur comes to class and launches one of the first three challenges, the student
teams search for information to comprehend the challenge the company is facing, and then develop a solution. The students then
present the solution to the organization that gave them the challenge (D. Korda, 2019b). In the start-up project, teams of students strive
to solve a problem they themselves have detected in their local communities, and then present their solution to local start-up founders.
The challenge begins when the students visit the entrepreneurs in their companies and learn about the problem they are to solve.
They are also given a tight deadline (three to four weeks) to formulate a solution; the students work in teams and eventually present
their solution to the entrepreneur. During the course of the challenge, the teacher provides the students with tools to work on the
problem and find innovative solutions, for instance design thinking challenges (Kelley & Kelley, 2013), teamwork activities such as the
jigsaw (Aronson, 2011), the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), and the Lean LaunchPad (Blank, Engel, &
Hornthal, 2013). The teachers also conduct short workshops, for instance on how to do web search, how to interview possible cus­
tomers, how to make user personas, and how to deliver effective presentations. Guidance is not given in a directive way, and once a
week, each team meets with the teacher for a share-out meeting (D. Korda, 2019a) to receive constructive feedback on how the group is
proceeding towards the final presentation. In doing so, the instructor creates the conditions for deep learning. The following section
illustrates how a cycle of this pedagogy was applied in the two settings.

3. Methodology

This research is based on a comparative case study, which is defined as an intensive analysis of single units (Schwandt & Gates,
2018). Case studies are a promising research strategy for entrepreneurship education research, since they point to the unexploited
potential in making explicit the contextual and local aspects of the cases, the commitment to depth and richness, and the integration of
exploratory and explanatory aspirations (Blenker, Elmholdt, Frederiksen, Korsgaard, & Wagner, 2014).
Before the course took place, the authors of this article planned common learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and
the assessment to base the course on the theory of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) to promote deep learning in students.
At the same time, we formulated research questions and the final questionnaire, so that our data could be comparable. A first cycle of
the Korda Method was applied in a university compulsory 5-credits course in ‘Methods of Teamwork’ for second-year students in a
graduate program in social education delivered by a faculty of Education in Northern Italy, and in a secondary Slovenian general
education school with second-year students in an interdisciplinary course named ‘From Mathematics to Entrepreneurship’. The courses
were delivered contemporaneously in fall 2019.

Table 1
Comparative description of the two contexts.
Name of the Methods of group work From Math to Entrepreneurship
course

Study course University Bachelor for social educators in a faculty of education in 2nd year secondary school
Northern Italy
Language of English English
instruction
Number of 28 students (3 males and 25 females aged between 20 and 21) of 12 students, 11 of which: Slovenian native speakers and 1 Bosnian
students which: 17 German native speakers; 6 Italian native speakers; 5 native speaker.
Spanish native speakers.
Length of the 30 h – frequency was not mandatory. 30 h, half of which was done in class, and the other half in the field.
course
Age of students 22–23 years old 16–17 years old
Challenge Find an inclusive program, either a course, a camp, or workshops, Design a stylish staircase railing for a construction company’s HQ
for children or youth with and without learning disabilities that building, where the design would follow the Golden Ratio rules, the
nurtures the learning to learn competence. railing would satisfy safety standards, and the cost would not exceed a
given budget.
Teams 8 groups of 4 members each 3 teams of 4 members each
Making of the Randomly, distributing students according to their first language as Randomly, making sure the team members were not all from the same
groups much as possible. class.

3
D. Morselli and J. Gorenc The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

Concerning the assessment, it was both summative and formative, in line with the theory of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang,
2011). The final presentations and the written reflections were used for summative assessment. The grading was performed by the
experts who had launched the challenge by means of scoring rubrics with criteria, such as: feasibility/innovativeness of the solution
proposed, quality of group work, and style of the presentation. Moreover, weekly share-out meetings provided students with formative
feedback regarding the learning process related to the challenge and final presentations. The typical share-out meeting lasted 30 min
with all team members present. It started with a short presentation where the students showed what they had done thus far, what they
had learned, and what they would do next, and continued with Q&A and suggestions from the teachers. Table 1 summarizes simi­
larities and differences of the two pilot projects.
The main dataset was obtained with a questionnaire with multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The questionnaire was
administered through the Opinio software on the last day of the course and mirrored almost verbatim the EntreComp Framework. The
wording was sometimes slightly changed to make it more accessible to students who spoke English as a second language. The students
answered five-point Likert scale questions with ordinal responses (‘not at all’, ‘a little bit’, ‘moderately’, ‘considerably’, ‘very much’).
Contemporaneously, in an accompanying open-ended question, the students were asked where or how they had developed the
described competence, thus connecting the competence to the context of its acquisition. Table 2 shows a sample question.
Finally, five additional open-ended questions asked the students about the course: what they found distressing, what they liked and
did not like, how they would improve the following year, and whether a similar course should be proposed to the next generations of
students.
Data analysis made use of an integrative approach by Ravitch and Carl (2019, p. 223) by integrating formative data analysis into
the research process; integrating the diverse data sources to find possible connections; engaging with the relating theory and in re­
flexive and collaborative process; acknowledging that the overall framing to data analysis is systematic and intentional, but also
emergent and creative; using the emergent conceptual framework as a guide. Moreover, the data analysis used a mixed method
approach, thus integrating quantitative (multiple-choice answers) and qualitative (open-ended answers) data as components of the
research and study outcomes (Ponce & Pagán-Maldonado, 2015). As for the multiple-choice answers, given the limited number of
participants, we decided to show only descriptive statistics with the medians of the answers, and not to carry out statistical tests. In line
with Yanchar (2011), numbers were used to enrich and clarify explicitly interpretive results in real-world settings.
Concerning the thematic analysis done on the open-ended questions, we now describe how trustworthiness, credibility, and rigor in
the qualitative research were ensured. First, transferability is the modality in which qualitative studies are transferable or applicable to
broader contexts while preserving their richness (Ravitch & Carl, 2019). Methods to ensure transferability pertain to a detailed
description of the data and context, which we described in Table 1. Second, dependability entails that the researchers have an
argument for how they collected data, and data are consistent with their argument. Since the Korda method is didactics for entre­
preneurship education, we based our questionnaire on the 15 competences listed in EntreComp (three competence areas, 5 compe­
tences each) that together constitute the fundamental units of entrepreneurship as a key competence. Each question was taken directly
from Bacigalupo et al. (2016, pp. 12–13) under the column ‘Hints’, while the column ‘Descriptors’ was used as possible examples.
Furthermore, since competence is always context-dependent (Wheelahan & Moodie, 2011), the open-ended questions inspected the
situations where the competence had been developed. Third, confirmability (Ravitch & Carl, 2019) starts from the fundamental
premise in qualitative inquiry that the world is a subjective place, and that researchers cannot look for objectivity, not ever through
data triangulation of quantitative and qualitative results. Fourth, Descriptive validity refers to the factual data accuracy, and in this
regard, we used the Opinio software to collect data and did the analysis on the data reports produced by the same software. Fifth,
interpretive validity entails the accuracy of the analysis. The coding of the open-ended answers was qualitative, recursive, and fol­
lowed data engagement with multiple readings and discussions to vet themes and ensure data trustworthiness (Ravitch & Carl, 2019).
Each author read their dataset several times and found possible codes for each question. The general rule was that each code had to
represent at least three students’ answers, although (occasionally) a student’s answer could be used for two different codes if it
expressed two very different ideas. During this phase, we also wrote memos next to the answers. Next, each author went through the
other’s dataset to search for possible codes without having seen the colleague’s coding beforehand. Subsequently, a discussion fol­
lowed to find the best possible codes and fit. Up to this point, the two datasets were kept separated. Finally, another discussion followed
to harmonize the codes of the two datasets if and when possible, as the codes were often similar. For example, ‘Through the course’ and
‘Learning through the process’ were coded as ‘Through the project development’.

Table 2
Example of a Question from the questionnaire.
1) The course helped me to learn how to use my imagination and abilities to identify opportunities for creating value (for □ Not at all
others). Examples: □A little bit
● Identify and seize opportunities to create value by exploring the social, cultural and economic landscape (… exploring/ □Moderately
observing your immediate environment) □Considerably
●Identify needs and challenges that need to be met (identify what needs and challenges people have) □Very much
●Establish new connections and bring together scattered elements of the landscape to create opportunities to create
value (view your immediate environment in a different light, which helps you identify before unimaginable opportunities
and come up with innovative ways to create value)
When (or how) did you learn this competence in the course (or in which activity)? Please comment:
______________________________________________________________________________

4
D. Morselli and J. Gorenc The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

4. Results

Table 3 reports the quantitative results of the final questionnaire according to the EntreComp framework for both settings.
The quantitative results are very similar in both applications, with the two most developed competences in both groups being part
of the ‘Into Action’ cluster of EntreComp, especially ‘working with others’ and ‘learning through experience’. Moreover, in Italy, the
students also felt they had developed ‘how to mobilize others’ and to ‘take the initiative’ ‘very much’, and felt they had not developed
their ‘financial and economic literacy’, which was in fact not an object of the course. In the Slovenian application, the results were for
the most part like the Italian context. Notable exceptions were ‘financial and economic literacy’, which the students had improved
‘considerably’, and ‘mobilizing others’, which had only been developed ‘moderately/considerably’. Table 4 shows the results of the
thematic analysis of the open questions related to the ‘Ideas and Opportunities’ competence area of EntreComp. For each competence,
Table 4 shows the results of the qualitative analysis in the Italian and then in the Slovenian context followed by N, the overall number
of answers scrutinized; each theme that emerged from the analysis is displayed in brackets, firstly in absolute numbers and then in
percentage.
The results of the ‘Ideas and Opportunities’ cluster of EntreComp are partly similar in both settings and indicate that the design
thinking and the project development experiences were noteworthy for the students as they allowed them to improve the competence
area regarding ideas and opportunities, while also learning how to develop their ideas. In the Italian application, the students asso­
ciated what they had learned in this area with their teamwork activities. In Slovenia, the students, though also highlighting their
teamwork experience, mostly indicated that the competences from this cluster had most been improved when they had to make tough
decisions.
Table 5 displays the results of the thematic analysis of the open questions related to the ‘Resources’ competence area of EntreComp.
In the ‘Resources’ cluster, the results of the thematic analysis are partially similar, especially in the question on ‘Mobilizing Others’,
which the students found was done by motivating and supporting each other in the team, though it was difficult and did not always
work well. Another similarity is the importance of teamwork to learn the competences connected to the ‘Resources’ area. The Italian
students also pointed out that they had learned to persevere by staying focused on the challenge, while the Slovenian students had
learned to endure all hardships by dealing with the problems they had to tackle. Similar to the quantitative analysis, the students
confirmed that in Italy, financial and economic literacy was not really dealt with during the course, while in Slovenia, the students
developed some economic and financial literacy as they had budgetary constraints to consider.
Table 6 reports the results of the thematic analysis of the open questions related to the ‘Into Action’ competence area of EntreComp.
The results of the EntreComp ‘Into Action’ cluster are strikingly similar in both settings. The students commented that the course
was pretty much based on experience, that they improved their teamwork abilities, and learned how to manage time, tasks, and team
members, as well as how to make decisions and cope with uncertainty.
Beyond the EntreComp framework, the last five open questions enquired about the course itself. The results of the thematic analysis
are displayed in Table 7.
The results are again similar in both contexts; the students found time management related to the tight deadline for the final
presentations stressful. However, they liked the practical orientation of the course, and many students in both groups pointed out that
there was nothing specific they did not like. In fact, they opined that the course should be proposed in the same form the following year.
In the Italian context, the instructions concerning the coursework were to some extent unclear at the beginning, and the random
formation of the teams was not appreciated by some students. This was demonstrated by stating that some teams were difficult to work
with. The students did, however, like the innovative didactics and the support they received from the teacher. In Slovenia, the students
pointed out that the course demanded much work from them, and that time management was a task they could have done better. But
they also pointed out that they liked the autonomy the course had enabled them to have during their work.

Table 3
Quantitative results of the questionnaire.
Dimension of Entre Comp Course “Methods of group work” (N Course “From Math to Entrepreneurship” (N
= 20) = 12)

1 Ideas and Spotting opportunities Considerably Considerably

2 opportunities Creativity Considerably Considerably
3 Vision Considerably Moderately
4 Value ideas and opportunities Considerably Considerably
5 Ethical and sustainable thinking Considerably Considerably
6 Resources Self-awareness and self-efficacy Considerably Considerably
7 Motivation and perseverance Considerably Considerably
8 Mobilizing resources Considerably Considerably
9 Financial and economic literacy A little bit Considerably
10 Mobilizing others Very much Moderately/Considerably
11 Into action Taking the initiative Very much Considerably
12 Planning and management Considerably Considerably
13 Coping with uncertainty, ambiguity, Considerably Considerably
and risk
14 Working with others Very much Very much
15 Learning through experience Very much Very much

5
D. Morselli and J. Gorenc The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

Table 4
Qualitative results of the questionnaire concerning the ‘Ideas and opportunities’ area of EntreComp.
Ideas and opportunities Course “Methods of group work” N Course “From math to entrepreneurship” N

1 Spotting opportunities Design thinking experience (12, 60%) 20 We had to come up with different ideas (7, 58%) 12
Through teamwork (6, 30%)
Identify needs of others (3, 15%)
2 Creativity Design thinking exercise (11, 55%) 20 Design thinking process (3, 25%) 12
During the whole course (6, 30%)
The fever pitch exercise (5, 25%)
By developing our ideas (4, 20%) By developing our ideas (3, 25%)
3 Vision Through the project development (9, 50%) 18 Through the project development (6, 50%) 12
During the whole course (5, 28%)
4 Value ideas and During teamwork by listening and discussing (7, 16 During the selection and evaluation of ideas (10, 83%) 12
opportunities 44%)
5 Ethical and sustainable Thinking about our users, i.e. children with 10 When we had an idea that had to be suitable for the 12
thinking special needs (4, 40%) construction company (7, 58%)

Table 5
Qualitative results of the questionnaire concerning the ‘Resources’ area of EntreComp.
Resources Course “Methods of group work” N Course “From math to entrepreneurship” N

6 Self- awareness and self- Through teamwork (11, 69%) 16 I learned my strengths (4, 33%) 12
efficacy During the whole course (3, 19%) By solving the problems that we were facing (3, 25%)
Through positive feedback from others (3, 19%) By overcoming my fears (3, 25%)
7 Motivation and Concentrating on the challenge we had to tackle (10, 15 By dealing with problems and staying focused (10, 12
perseverance 66%) 83%)
By supporting each other in the team (9, 60%) Through teamwork (5, 42%)
8 Mobilizing Resources Sharing tasks with team members (3, 25%) 12 By gathering materials and data (7, 58%) 12
During searches (3, 25%) By having to stay within a certain budget (3, 25%)
9 Financial and economic Dealt with only marginally (9, 75%) 12 By having to stay within a certain budget (6, 50%) 12
literacy The only resource was time, which was not enough Through workshops on the topic (5, 63%)
(3, 25%)
10 Mobilizing Others By motivating each other in the team (8, 53%) 15 By motivating each other in the team (4, 33%) 12
It was difficult to motivate the other team members It was difficult to motivate the other team members
(4, 27%) (5, 42%)

Table 6
Qualitative results of the questionnaire concerning the ‘Into Action’ area of EntreComp.
Into action Course “Methods of group work” N Course “From math to entrepreneurship” N

11 Taking the initiative The fever pitch (6, 43%) 14 By trying out our ideas (5, 42%) 12
During the whole process (4, 29%)
Through teamwork (4, 29%) Through teamwork (3, 25%)
12 Planning and management We learned to manage time (3, 30%) 10 We learned to manage time (6, 50%) 12
We learned to manage team members and We learned to manage team members and tasks (4,
tasks (3) 33%)
During the whole process (3)
13 Coping with uncertainty, ambiguity, We learnt to be flexible (4, 36%) 11 Yes, because we were not sure about our idea (4, 12
and risk 33%)
There was no such thing (3, 27%) Yes, because we had to make decisions (6, 50%)
Yes, because we had to make decisions (3,
27%)
14 Working with others We learnt to work in a team and it was nice (5, 12 We learned that working in a team was key to 12
42%) success (7, 58%)
It was difficult to teamwork (3, 33%) Through solving disagreements in the team (5,
42%)
15 Learning through experience The course was pretty much based on 9 The course was pretty much based on experience (8, 12
experience (8, 89%) 67%)

5. Discussion

Our study contributes to better understanding the challenges and opportunities for practitioners of entrepreneurship education and
constructivist pedagogies by looking into the suitability of the European EntreComp Framework and the Korda Method for use in
entrepreneurship education.
Answering RQ 1, which was: “To what extent can the EntreComp framework be used to evaluate entrepreneurship courses?“, we found
there were several opportunities and challenges in the use of the EntreComp framework. On the practical side, we found it useful to

6
D. Morselli and J. Gorenc The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

Table 7
Thematic analysis of the students’ answers concerning the course itself.
Question about the course Course “Methods of group work” N Course “From math to NN
entrepreneurship”

1 What did you find stressful? Group work (5, 29%) 17 Time management (3, 25%) 12
Having to deal innovatively with a challenge (5,
29%)
Time management (3, 18%)
At the beginning, instructions were unclear (3,
29%)
2 What did you like? The innovative didactics (8, 44%) 18 Doing things our way (6, 50%) 12
Working in group (7, 39%)
The support from the teacher (6, 33%)
Practical approach of the course (5, 28%)
That I learned a lot (4, 22%)
To be creative (3, 17%) Practical approach of the course (3,
25%)
3 What did you not like? I liked everything (6, 37%) 16 I liked everything (5, 42%) 12
The course required much effort (4,
33%)
4 What do you think should be improved Clear instructions at beginning (4, 23%) 17 Different challenge (3, 25%) 12
The final presentations (3, 18%) Better time management (3, 25%)
Form groups better (3, 18%)
4 Should this course be taught the same next Yes definitely (14, 82%) 17 Yes, definitely (9, 75%) 12
year? With slight improvements (6, 35%)

evaluate and compare our courses. This represented a starting point with a variety of competences most associated with entrepre­
neurship. We found the three main competence areas of EntreComp particularly meaningful, since we could benchmark the findings of
our thematic analysis against them. Concerning the spectrum of the 15 entrepreneurship competences (5 for each competence area),
we found it rather comprehensive. However, we did not find much about skills like pitching or presenting an idea, or problem-solving,
which are certainly a foundational part of entrepreneurship as a key competence. Moreover, we found it not fully correct that ‘learning
through experience’ is considered a competence in EntreComp: although learning through experience is certainly a key characteristic
of entrepreneurship education as claimed by diverse authors (Pepin, 2012; Pittaway & Cope, 2007), ‘learning through experience’ is
the way in which competences are learnt, rather than a competence in itself.
The creation of EntreComp, where the entrepreneurship competence was broken down into a set of competences, was an agreement
process. Since EntreComp is a framework and therefore represents a more general view of entrepreneurship, this consequently means it
loses sight of the various contexts and situations where competence is developed. We thus found it useful to integrate quantitative with
the qualitative aspects of the competence with open-ended answers to better understand the context where the competence was ac­
quired. The qualitative analysis of the open-ended questions was useful for understanding the students’ point of view without ques­
tions predetermined by the researchers, thus embedding an interpretative view of the competence as suggested by Sandberg and
Pinnington (2009), where professional competence is tied to its context of acquisition and is constituted by knowledge and skills, as
well as an understanding of the work situation (Komarkova et al., 2015). Such models are considered “holistic”, because they see the
whole person in interaction with the environment (Deakin Crick, 2008).
Finally, the fact that EntreComp is a general framework also makes complementing it with a theory necessary for curriculum
delivery. We used constructive alignment theory. On the one hand, EntreComp expresses a list of learning outcomes according to
proficiency levels (Bacigalupo et al., 2016), but on the other, learning outcomes represent what learners are expected to do or to know
upon the completion of a course. They therefore present the end of the learning process. A curriculum theory is thus necessary to
maximize the students’ deep learning and intended learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2011).
Our RQ2 was: “To what extent is the Korda Method suitable for entrepreneurship education, and how does it connect to other student-
centered pedagogies?” Our evaluation of the two courses through the EntreComp framework suggests that the application of the
Korda Method does in fact develop the competences and areas connected to the entrepreneurship competence.
The fact that in both settings, when asked about what they liked least, the students answered that they liked everything connected
to the course, and that the following year the course should be offered to students in just the same form/setting, supports the notion
that the students enjoyed the course. This is in line with Paniagua and Istance (2018), who suggest that the cluster of experiential
learning didactics (such as problem-based learning) increase engagement and motivation, and consequently promote deep learning
(Biggs & Tang, 2011). This finding seems also to question Carriger (2016) as well as Garnjost and Brown (2018), who found that in
business education, learning outcomes in lecture-based and problem-based learning courses are not different. Quite to the contrary,
our students admit that thanks to the didactics involved in experiential learning, they learnt much more than in other courses. This is in
line with Hattie (2009), who suggests that problem-based learning should be used for deep learning when the learning outcomes are
other than knowledge.
Another point typical of problem-based learning that we found meaningful in the Korda method, as suggested by Biggs and Tang
(2011), is the switch in the teacher’s mindset, thus dropping the role of expert and becoming a coach, for example during the share-out
meetings. Concerning this switch of mindset, we observed the initial bewilderment of the students when they had to switch from a

7
D. Morselli and J. Gorenc The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

traditional lecture mindset, when they have to follow the teacher’s instructions, to this problem-based learning modality, where they
are thrown into the arena and have to start steering their learning. The fact that students steer their learning with the help of the
teacher (who sets the structure) is according to Jones, Penaluna, and Penaluna (2019) an andragogical perspective; the initial
bewilderment experienced by the students is referred to in the Korda method as ‘deschooling’ (S. Korda, 2019; Morselli, 2019), and
future research will shed light on this process that starts with initial resistance and ends in enthusiasm in participation.
Concerning the students’ engagement, following the theory of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011), we concentrated on
the teaching and learning activities to achieve the intended learning outcomes in the delivery of this course. We suggest that the
students’ engagement in these courses was a consequence of the teaching and learning activities rather than a consequence of un­
intended learning outcomes as suggested by Scott, Pavlovich, Thompson, and Penaluna (2019).

6. Conclusion

This comparative case study used the theory of constructive alignment to define coherent learning outcomes, teaching and learning
activities, and assessment, after which it employed the EntreComp framework as a de-facto benchmark.
In both applications of the Korda method, the students developed teamwork skills and their learning through experience ability the
most. This finding is also supported by the open-ended questions on what the students liked about the course. In the university context,
they liked group work, and in both contexts, they liked the practical approach. This connects well to the experiential learning cluster of
Paniagua and Istance (2018) and its three distinctive pedagogies. The cluster is particularly interesting in entrepreneurship education,
since most literature implicitly or explicitly supports the idea of constructivist, learner-centered, and experiential courses (Hägg &
Gabrielsson, 2020; Macht & Ball, 2016).
Showing that both the EntreComp framework and the Korda Method are suitable tools for entrepreneurship education, our paper
contributes to the literature of entrepreneurship education and problem-based learning. Our findings are relevant for both entre­
preneurship education practitioners as well as researchers, specifically because it allows for the integration of the theory of
constructive alignment and its practical applications.

7. Limitations

Concerning the limitations and future perspective related to this study, our research was, firstly, carried out in two settings with
university and high school students, thus ruling out lower secondary students, for which the Korda method could be also suitable.
Future studies could include more settings with participants of different ages - even adults - and from different school types, even
embedding vocational education. Secondly, our experimentation concerned only the first cycle of the Korda method, and future re­
searches could carry out the whole Korda program made of four cycles, thus monitoring the students’ progressions cycle after cycle,
and finding qualitative differences in learning between cycles. Thirdly, we gathered quantitative and quantitative data that was
conducted through an online questionnaire at the very end of the duration of the project. Future studies could continue using this
method by using a similar questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of the learning process to find differences in students because
of the pedagogy. Moreover, most of our findings were based on the students’ self-evaluations, while future studies could involve other
forms of assessment. Fourthly, future studies could concentrate on the analysis of the students’ reflective journals to capture the
meaning that students attribute to this pedagogy even further. Finally, concerning the EntreComp, we explored only one part of the
framework with the three competence areas and the 15 competences, whereas future studies could test to the practice the levels of
proficiency and their descriptors.

Credit author statement

Daniele Morselli: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing -
Original Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration. Janez Gorenc: Formal
analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing - Original Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & Editing.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Open Access Publishing Fund of the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano.

References

Armuña, C., Ramos, S., Juan, J., Feijóo, C., & Arenal, A. (2020). From stand-up to start-up: Exploring entrepreneurship competences and STEM women’s intention. The
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00627-z
Aronson, E. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom : The jigsaw method. Printer & Martin Ltd.
Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, L. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Joint Research Centre. https://doi.org/
10.2791/593884
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (IV ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
Blank, S., Engel, J., & Hornthal, J. (2013). The lean LaunchPad Educators teaching Handbook lean LaunchPad evidence-based entrepreneurship ™ Educators guide.
September.

8
D. Morselli and J. Gorenc The International Journal of Management Education 20 (2022) 100591

Blenker, P., Elmholdt, S. T., Frederiksen, S. H., Korsgaard, S., & Wagner, K. (2014). Methods in entrepreneurship education research: A review and integrative
framework. Education and Training, 56(8/9), 697–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2014-0066
Brook, C., & Pedler, M. (2020). Action learning in academic management education: A state of the field review. International Journal of Management in Education, 18(3),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100415
Carriger, M. S. (2016). What is the best way to develop new managers? Problem-based learning vs. lecture-based instruction. International Journal of Management in
Education, 14(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.02.003
Czyzewska, M., & Mroczek, T. (2020). Data mining in entrepreneurial competencies diagnosis. Education Sciences, 10(8), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci10080196, 196.
Deakin Crick, R. (2008). Key competencies for education in a European context: Narratives of accountability or care. European Educational Research Journal, 7(3),
311–318. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2008.7.3.311
Decker-Lange, C. (2018). Problem- and inquiry-based learning in alternative contexts: Using museums in management education. International Journal of Management
in Education, 16(3), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.08.002
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Bossche, P. V. D., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning : A meta- analysis (Vol. 13, pp. 533–568). https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0959-4752(02)00025-7
European Commission, E. E. (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/291008
Floris, M., & Pillitu, D. (2019). Improving entrepreneurship education in primary schools: A pioneer project. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(6),
1148–1169. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2018-0283
Garnjost, P., & Brown, S. M. (2018). Undergraduate business students’ perceptions of learning outcomes in problem based and faculty centered courses. International
Journal of Management in Education, 16(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.004
Gianesini, G., Cubico, S., Favretto, G., & Leitão, J. (2018). Entrepreneurial competences: Comparing and contrasting models and taxonomies. In Entrepreneurship and
the industry life cycle (pp. 13–32). Cham: Springer.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van Den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational
Research, 75(1), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027
Hägg, G., & Gabrielsson, J. (2020). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 829–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A Synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to Achievement (1st ed.). Routledge.
Jones, C., Penaluna, K., & Penaluna, A. (2019). The promise of andragogy, heutagogy and academagogy to enterprise and entrepreneurship education pedagogy.
Education + Training, 61(9), 1170–1186. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2018-0211
Kelley, D., & Kelley, T. (2013). Creative confidence : Unleashing the creative potential within us all (1 ed.). New York: Crown Business.
Kłeczek, R., Hajdas, M., & Wrona, S. (2020). Wicked problems and project-based learning: Value-in-use approach. International Journal of Management in Education, 18
(1), 100324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100324
Komarkova, I., Conrads, J., & Collado, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship competence: An Overview of Existing concepts, Policies and initiatives - in-depth case studies report. JRC
Working Papers(JRC96180).
Korda, S. (2019). Reinventing teaching. Childhood Education, 95(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2019.1565808
Korda, D. (2019a). [Project Setup – Korda method].
Korda, D. (2019b). [What Happens when We do school better? Getting Smart.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, 33(3), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x
Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. The International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z
Macht, S. A., & Ball, S. (2016). “Authentic Alignment” – a new framework of entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 58(9), 926–944. https://doi.org/
10.1108/ET-07-2015-0063
Matzembacher, D. E., Gonzales, R. L., & do Nascimento, L. F. M. (2019). From informing to practicing: Students’ engagement through practice-based learning
methodology and community services. International Journal of Management in Education, 17(2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.03.002
Morselli, D. (2019). Teaching a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship through problem based learning. Form@re - Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 19(2),
149–160. https://doi.org/10.13128/formare-25176
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030: The future we want.
Ortiz, D., & Huber-Heim, K. (2017). From information to empowerment: Teaching sustainable business development by enabling an experiential and participatory
problem-solving process in the classroom. International Journal of Management in Education, 15(2), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.008. Part B.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challangers. Hoboken: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Paniagua, A., & Istance, D. (2018). Teachers as designers of learning environments. Educational Research and Innovation.
Pepin, M. (2012). Enterprise education: A deweyan perspective. Education and Training, 54(8), 801–812. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211274891
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Simulating entrepreneurial learning: Integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management Learning, 38(2),
211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607075776
Ponce, O. A., & Pagán-Maldonado, N. (2015). Mixed methods research in education: Capturing the complexity of the profession. International Journal of Educational
Excellence, 1(1), 111–135.
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage Publications.
Sandberg, J., & Pinnington, A. H. (2009). Professional competence as ways of being: An existential ontological perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7),
1138–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00845.x
Savery, J. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.
Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Thousand Oaks, CA (pp. 341–358). UK: London, England: Sage
Publications.
Scott, J. M., Pavlovich, K., Thompson, J. L., & Penaluna, A. (2019). Constructive (mis)alignment in team-based experiential entrepreneurship education. Education and
Training, 62(2), 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2019-0113
Seow, P.-S., Pan, G., & Koh, G. (2019). Examining an experiential learning approach to prepare students for the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA)
work environment. International Journal of Management in Education, 17(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.12.001
Tan, T. A. G., & Vicente, A. J. (2019). An innovative experiential and collaborative learning approach to an undergraduate marketing management course: A case of
the Philippines. International Journal of Management in Education, 17(3), 100309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100309
Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2011). Rethinking skills in vocational education and training: From competencies to capabilities (p. 13). NSW Department of Education
Communities.
Yanchar, S. C. (2011). Using numerical data in explicitly interpretive, contextual inquiry: A “practical discourse” framework and examples from engeström’s research
on activity systems. Theory & Psychology, 21(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310393777