The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

Academy of Management Learning & Education
Pe
er
R
ev
The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher
education: A systematic review and research agenda
ie
Journal: Academy of Management Learning & Education

w
Manuscript ID AMLE-2015-0026-RES.R1
Manuscript Type: Research & Reviews

Pr
Entrepreneurship Education, Higher Education, Impact, Outcomes,

Submission Keywords:
Pedagogy, Teaching Model, Systematic Review
oo
f-
No
tF
in
al
Ve
r si
on
Page 1 of 42 Academy of Management Learning & Education
1
2
Pe
3 The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education:
4
5
6 A systematic review and research agenda
er
7
8
9
10
R
11
12 GHULAM NABI*
ev
13
14 Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
15
16 FRANCISCO LIÑÁN
ie
17
18 University of Seville, Spain
w
19
20 ALAIN FAYOLLE
21
22 EM LYON Business School, France
Pr
23
24 NORRIS KRUEGER
25
oo
26 Center for Global Business Research, School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix, USA
27 Entrepreneurship Northwest, USA
28
29 ANDREAS WALMSLEY
f-
30
31 Plymouth University, UK
32
33
No
34
35 Acknowledgments: Prof. Fayolle, Prof. Krueger and Prof. Walmsley made an equal contribution to the
36 paper. The authors thank associate editor Prof. Siri Terjesen and the anonymous reviewers for providing
37
constructive and helpful guidance throughout the review process. We also thank, Prof. Béchard, Prof. Henry
tF
38
39 and Prof. Solomon for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Dr Christina Purcell and Imran
40 Akhtar for their technical support.
41
in
42 *Corresponding author: Ghulam Nabi, Department of Management, Business School, All Saints Campus,
43
Oxford Road, Manchester, M15 6BH, UK. Email: G.Nabi@mmu.ac.uk.
44
al
45
46
47
48
Ve
49
50
51
52
r
53
si
54
55
56
on
57
58
59
0
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education Page 2 of 42
1
2
Pe
3 Abstract
4
5
Using a teaching model framework, we systematically review empirical evidence on the impact of
6
er
7
8 entrepreneurship education (EE) in higher education on a range of learning outcomes, analysing 159
9
10 published articles from 2004-2016. The teaching model framework allows us for the first time to
R
11
12 start rigorously examining relationships between pedagogical methods and specific outcomes. Re-
ev
13
14 confirming past reviews and meta-analyses, we find that EE impact research still predominantly
15
16
ie
17
focuses on short-term and subjective outcome measures and tends to severely under-describe the
18
actual pedagogies being tested. Moreover, we use our review to provide an up-to-date and
w
19
20
21 empirically rooted call for less obvious, yet greatly promising, new or underemphasised directions
22
Pr
23 for future research on the impact of university-based entrepreneurship education. This includes, for
24
25
example, the use of novel impact indicators related to emotion and mindset, focus on the impact
oo
26
27
28 indicators related to the intention-to-behaviour transition, and explore the reasons for some of the
29
f-
30 contradictory findings in impact studies including person-, context- and pedagogical model-specific
31
32 moderators.
33
No
34
35
36
37
tF
38
39
40
41
in
42
43
44
al
45
46
47
48
Ve
49
50
51
52
r
53
si
54
55
56
on
57
58
59
1
60
1
2
Pe
3 INTRODUCTION
4
5 Since the first entrepreneurship course at Harvard Business School was delivered in 1947,
6
er
7 entrepreneurship education (EE) programmes in higher education have grown rapidly and globally
8
9
10 (Kuratko, 2005; Solomon, 2007). This growth reflects increasing recognition that university-based
R
11
12 EE programmes (hereafter referred to as EE programmes) promise to support a range of potential
ev
13
14 entrepreneurial outcomes (Nabi & Liñán, 2011; Rideout & Gray, 2013). For example, enhanced
15
16 student venture creation skills, knowledge and attitudes (Greene & Saridakis, 2008), graduate
ie
17
18
business start-ups and overall job creation (Greene, Katz & Johannisson, 2004; Rideout & Gray,
w
19
20
21 2013), ultimately contributing to economic growth and development (Bosma, Acs, Autio, Coduras
22
Pr
23 & Levine, 2008).

24
25 Synthesizing this fast-growing body of empirical research and reviews on EE outcomes
oo
26
27 suggests three main patterns. First, reviews highlight a focus on short-term, subjective impact
28
29
measures like entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions, rather than longer-term ones such as venture
f-
30
31
32 creation behaviour and business performance, and call for future research to address this gap (e.g.
33
No
34 Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994; Henry, Hill & Leitch, 2005; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Promoting
35
36 and implementing EE programmes entails substantial investment of time and resources, so it is
37
tF
38
critically important to take stock of what we currently know about the range of EE outcomes and
39
40
41 provide benchmarks for further research.
in
42
43 Second, recent reviews suggest that the impact of EE programmes on attitudes and
44
al
45 behaviour is equivocal as studies suggest both positive and negative outcomes (Dickson, Solomon
46
47 & Weaver, 2008; Fayolle, 2013; Martin, McNally & Kay, 2013; Thompson, Jones-Evans &
48
Ve
49
50 Kwong, 2010). These reviews tend to argue that the contradictory findings of EE impact studies
51
52 may be due in part to methodological or statistical artefacts such as cross-sectional survey
r
53
si
54 methodology and lack of control groups, notably, Rideout and Gray’s (2013) review and recent
55
56
on
meta-analytical studies by Martin et al., (2013) and Bae, Qian, Miao and Fiet (2014). However,
57
58
59
2
60
1
2
Pe
3 there are also likely to be other substantial reasons for the contradictory findings in the EE impact
4
5 literature that can be teased out with single studies/ interventions, for example, the nature and
6
er
7 context of pedagogical interventions as well as contextual factors. In their extensive 1970-2004
8
9
10 review of EE research, Pittaway and Cope (2007) conclude there is a lack of research that directly
R
11
12 links student/graduate entrepreneurial outcomes to different pedagogical methods and call for
ev
13
14 deeper investigation. Pedagogical methods may emphasise, for example, “exploration, discussion,
15
16 or experimentation (e.g. library, web or other interactive searches, labs, field trips, simulations)”
ie
17
18
(Béchard & Grégoire, 2005:111).
w
19
20
21 As well as examining a range of EE impact measures, it is therefore necessary to examine
22
Pr
23 the different pedagogical methods that underpin them, not just methodological issues. Confusion
24
25 regarding the impact of EE may result from the wide diversity of pedagogical methods employed in
oo
26
27 EE programmes (Fretschner & Weber, 2013). This is further complicated by the lack of detail on
28
29
pedagogical interventions studied (Martin et al., 2013), and the need for a stronger, more theory-
f-
30
31
32 driven framework for assessing the impact of such interventions (cf. Baptista & Naia, 2015;
33
No
34 Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Krueger, 2015; Lackéus, 2015; Neergaard, Tanggaard, Krueger &
35
36 Robinson, 2012). It is therefore important to take stock of research on the pedagogy-entrepreneurial
37
tF
38
outcomes link within a coherent framework.
39
40
41 Third, few reviews focus on EE specifically in higher education. Notable exceptions are
in
42
43 Pittaway and Cope (2007) and Rideout and Gray (2013), but the former is limited to data from over
44
al
45 a decade ago and the latter focuses on articles until 2010/11. Importantly, we cover 100 articles
46
47 published in the past five years, which have not been covered in previous reviews of university-
48
Ve
49
50 based EE impact (e.g. Rideout & Gray, 2013) or meta-analyses of EE outcomes of education in
51
52 general (e.g. Martin et al., 2013). There is still therefore a need for a current review that focuses on
r
53
si
54 EE pedagogy and outcomes in higher education.

55
56
on
57
58
59
3
60
1
2
Pe
3 These three distinct yet related research gaps form the rationale for this article. The aim of
4
5 this article is to systematically review the empirical evidence on the impact of higher-education-
6
er
7 based EE published in the last decade. Using a teaching model framework outlined below, we focus
8
9
10 on assessing the range of EE outcomes in impact studies. A secondary aim is to examine the extent
R
11
12 of the relationship between the pedagogical methods used and the specific outcomes achieved.
ev
13
14 Whilst the former offers a broad overview of the evidence of EE impact, the latter explores whether
15
16 the mixed results in impact studies are related to different pedagogical methods. To advance
ie
17
18
understanding of how to research EE impact, we need both.
w
19
20
21 We believe that the main strength of our paper is the adoption of an integrated teaching
22
Pr
23 model framework (Figure 1) to offer a coherent, overarching theoretical structure that covers both a
24
25 broad range of entrepreneurial outcomes and pedagogical methods (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005;
oo
26
27 Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). Our teaching model framework integrates a range of impact measures and
28
29
pedagogies. This is particularly useful here because for the first time we can now evaluate not only
f-
30
31
32 the range of EE outcomes in higher-education impact studies but also any patterns that connect
33
No
34 specific types of pedagogical methods and impact measures. Our framework therefore permits
35
36 empirical review with a pedagogical slant and responds to calls for more rigorous research to
37
tF
38
explore reasons for the contradictory findings in EE research (cf. Martin et al., 2013). The teaching
39
40
41 model approach provides critical grounding for researchers and practitioners in the field of EE.
in
42
43
44
al
45 Conceptual framework
46
47 Pedagogical research highlights how the evaluation of impact should be a key dimension of any
48
Ve
49
50 teaching programme and therefore needs to be considered at the programme design stage (Fayolle
51
52 & Gailly, 2008). In our research, types of EE impact have been integrated into the broader context
r
53
si
54 of a teaching model framework (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005, 2007; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). We
55
56
on
explore two dimensions in our review – types of impact and underpinning pedagogy - given the
57
58
59
4
60
1
2
Pe
3 paucity of research that directly links student/graduate entrepreneurial outcomes to different
4
5 pedagogical methods (Pittaway & Cope, 2007).
6
er
7 In the absence of a single impact measure within the teaching model framework, Henry, Hill
8
9
10 and Leitch (2003, building on Jack and Anderson, 1998) propose an impact classification system
R
11
12 (incorporating several types of impact measures) which can be employed to assess the level of
ev
13
14 impact of EE programmes. This classification system draws on earlier research on entrepreneurship
15
16 (Block & Stumpf, 1992) and educational impact (Kirkpatrick, 1959), and complements the impact
ie
17
18
dimension of the teaching model framework because it highlights a range of impact measures from
w
19
20
21 the beginning to the end of an EE programme and beyond (see Figure 1 for a more detailed
22
Pr
23 explanation), thereby providing a basis for the systematic evaluation of EE impact studies.
24
25
oo
26 INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

27
28
29 Reflection on different types of EE impact measures raises the issue of underpinning
f-
30
31 pedagogical methods. Béchard and Grégoire (2005) address this issue through identifying three
32
33 ‘archetypical’ teaching models in higher education: the supply model, the demand model and the
No
34
35
36
competence model, plus two hybrid teaching models. The supply model focuses on pedagogical
37
methods highlighting a behaviourist paradigm, in terms of the “transmission and reproduction of
tF
38
39
40 knowledge and application of procedures” (e.g. lectures, reading, watching/listening) (Béchard &
41
in
42 Grégoire, 2005:111). The demand model focuses on pedagogical methods highlighting a

43
44
subjectivist paradigm, involving personalised meaning through participation in terms of
al
45
46
47 “exploration, discussion and experimentation” (e.g. library use, interactive searches, simulations)
48
Ve
49 (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005:111). The competence model focuses on pedagogical methods
50
51 highlighting an interactionist theoretical paradigm, in terms of active problem-solving in real-life
52
r
53 situations, where “teaching is conceived as a strategic intervention to allow for – and influence –
si
54
55
56
how students organize the resources at their disposal (e.g. knowledge, abilities) into competences
on
57
58 that can be mobilized for action” (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005:115–116). This model focuses on
59
5
60
1
2
Pe
3 methods emphasising “communication and discussion” (e.g. seminar, presentations, debates) and
4
5 knowledge “production” (e.g. essays, modelling, portfolios).
6
er
7 In contrast to the supply model, which emphasises a behaviourist perspective, both the
8
9
10 demand and competence models fit within the constructivist approach to EE (Löbler, 2006;
R
11
12 Neergaard et al., 2012). Behaviourism assumes learning is primarily the passive transfer of
ev
13
14 knowledge from the teacher to the student, while constructivism assumes that learning involves
15
16 actively participating in the construction of new understanding. Often, pedagogical methods in EE
ie
17
18
in higher education are highly behaviourist: lectures, homework, quizzes, and so forth that focus on
w
19
20
21 knowledge acquisition, rather than the deeply experiential approaches of the constructivist
22
Pr
23 perspective (Neergaard et al., 2012). Béchard and Grégoire (2005) apply these teaching models
24
25 (supply, demand, competence) in EE to a higher education context. This allows us to classify and
oo
26
27 analyse various pedagogical models and review empirical evidence on the link between EE
28
29
pedagogy and impact.
f-
30
31
32
33
No
34 Systematic review methodology

35
36 We analyse 159 EE impact studies published from 1 February 2004 to 2 January 2016, continuing
37
tF
38
where Pittaway and Cope’s (2007) study left off. Following best practice from the methodological
39
40
41 (Tranfield, Denver & Smart, 2003), synthesis (Cooper, 1989; Fink, 2009) and entrepreneurship
in
42
43 literature (Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Wang & Chugh, 2014), we use a ‘systematic review process’.
44
al
45 Initially, we use the root word ‘education’ to search through all 11 entrepreneurship journals listed
46
47 in the Association of Business Schools (ABS) as medium- and high-ranking entrepreneurship
48
Ve
49
50 journals (Harvey, Kelly, Morris & Rowlinson, 2010).1 We then use three databases (ABI ProQuest,
51
52
r
53 1
The ABS incorporates blind peer-reviewed journals for ranking entrepreneurship journals and expert assessment of
si
54 journal quality (Harvey et al., 2010). Our 11 ABS journals include: Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
55 Theory and Practice, Journal of Small Business Management, International Small Business Journal, Small Business
56
on
Economics, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Family Business
57 Review, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
58 Research, and Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance.
59
6
60
1
2
Pe
3 Emerald and Science Direct) to search for a broader range of keywords/search terms. The highest
4
5 number of hits were from search terms including ‘entrepreneurship education’, ‘higher education’,
6
er
7 ‘pedagogy’, ‘educational interventions’, ‘graduate’, ‘undergraduate’, or Boolean variations of these
8
9
10 terms and an extensive range of others.
R
11
12 Only article citations that met the following criteria were included: (a) empirical in nature
ev
13
14 rather than purely conceptual; (b) peer-reviewed published journal articles rather than working/
15
16 conference papers or unpublished material; (c) primarily focused on higher education in terms of
ie
17
18
entrepreneurship education (or element thereof) and its empirical impact on entrepreneurship
w
19
20
21 outcomes (broadly defined to include both attitudinal and behavioural outcomes); (d) sampled
22
Pr
23 recipients of EE from higher education institutions (rather than primary/secondary school, or non-
24
25 higher education level); and (e) analysed primary rather than secondary data (Bae et al., 2014 and
oo
26
27 Martin et al., 2013 were included because of their use of meta-analysis, but reviews or research
28
29
agendas were excluded).
f-
30
31
32 We also added searches for articles from bibliographies, key authors, Google Scholar, as
33
No
34 well as checking relevant references in recent reviews of EE outcomes (e.g. Bae et al., 2014; Martin
35
36 et al., 2013; Rideout & Gray 2013). We screened these additional candidates using our selection
37
tF
38
criteria. For example, Martin et al. (2013) includes articles that are unpublished or focus on
39
40
41 schoolchildren, and were therefore excluded from our review.2 Two co-authors independently read
in
42
43 the original collection of articles. We identified two first-order themes: (1) ‘Types of impact’ and
44
al
45 (2) ‘Pedagogical methods’. We then identified second-order themes by mapping our articles onto
46
47 Henry et al.’s (2003) classification for impact measures (levels 1 to 5) and Béchard and Grégoire’s
48
Ve
49
50 (2005) framework of pedagogical models (e.g. supply, demand and competence). For example,
51
52 traditional lectures and business plan writing suggested a supply model, active participation in
r
53
si
54
55
56
on
57
58 2
Further examples of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) are available from the authors.
59
7
60
1
2
Pe
3 seminars, events or out-of-class projects reflected a demand model, and, real-life entrepreneurial
4
5 situations indicated a competence model.
6
er
7
8
9
10 REVIEW FINDINGS: THEMES AND TRENDS
R
11
12 We begin by examining background characteristics of our articles. This is useful when interpreting
ev
13
14 general patterns, for example, the most prominent journal outlets, country contexts and types of
15
16 students/graduates. We then analyse our articles regarding types of EE impact and relationships
ie
17
18
between types of impact and different pedagogical methods.
w
19
20
21
22
Pr
23 Background characteristics of the dataset

24
25 Our sample covers research published in 61 journals, predominantly in Entrepreneurship and Small
oo
26
27 Business journals (39%) and Management and Education journals (47%). The eight journals
28
29
publishing the most EE impact articles account for 86 out of the 159 articles (54%).3
f-
30
31
32 Overall, the majority of our articles are published in the last 5 years, and dominated by
33
No
34 European, undergraduate, and entrepreneurship/ business student samples. A majority of our articles
35
36 are from 2011 onward (100 articles, 63%) and not covered in previous reviews or meta-analyses
37
tF
38
(e.g. Martin et al., 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Data comes from 38 countries, dominated by
39
40
41 Europe (81 articles, 52%, especially UK with 28/18%), USA (27/17%), Asia (26/16%), and then
in
42
43 followed by Africa (16/10%), Australia (2/1%), and international comparisons (5/3%). Students in
44
al
45 our sample are mostly undergraduate (85/53%) or postgraduate (19/12%), or alumni or unspecified
46
47 university students. The majority studied entrepreneurship and business (35%) or business
48
Ve
49
50 combination courses (24%).
51
52
r
53
si
54 3
Education + Training (31 articles), The International Journal of Management Education (12), Journal of Small Business
55 and Enterprise Development (10), International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research (9), Journal of Small
56
on
Business Management (7), International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal (6), International Small Business
57 Journal (6), Academy of Management Learning & Education (5).
58
59
8
60
1
2
Pe
3
4
5
6
er
7 Types of impact
8
9
10 In the articles reviewed (see Table 1), we distinguish between studies focusing largely on our
R
11
12 framework’s (see Figure 1) lower-level impact indicators (typically short-term/subjective indicators
ev
13
14 at levels 1 and 2) and on higher-level ones (typically longer-term/objective indicators at level 3 or
15
16 above). More specifically, the most common impact indicators are related to lower-level indicators
ie
17
18
of subjective/personal change: attitude (32 articles), skills and knowledge (34 articles), perceived
w
19
20
21 feasibility (42 articles), and entrepreneurial intention (81 articles). By contrast, higher-level
22
Pr
23 indicators of longer-term, objective or socioeconomic impact are much less frequent: 21 articles
24
25 study start-ups and 8 articles consider venture performance, both typically within 10 years of the
oo
26
27 programme. Finally, 41 articles report results not falling into any of these categories. These articles
28
29
measure impact in terms of other variables such as subjective norms (Souitaris, Zerbinati & Al-
f-
30
31
32 Laham, 2007), dispositional optimism (Crane, 2014), or satisfaction with the EE programme (Rae
33
No
34 & Woodier-Harris 2012).

35
36 Most articles in the review claim a positive link between an EE programme and subjective
37
tF
38
(e.g. personal change) or objective (e.g. business start-up activity) impact indicators (205 instances
39
40
41 overall, see Table 1). Regarding lower-level impact indicators, the most common indicator by far is
in
42
43 entrepreneurial intentions (level 2 in our framework). Most of the reviewed articles (61 articles out
44
al
45 of 81, 75%) report a positive link between EE and participants’ start-up intentions. Nonetheless,
46
47 several studies report mixed, negative, or non-significant/ambiguous results for impact on
48
Ve
49
50 entrepreneurial intentions (18 articles or 22%, see Table 1). Of these, some articles suggest that EE
51
52 reduces entrepreneurial intention for certain groups – for example, male German students
r
53
si
54 (Packham, Jones, Miller, Pickernell & Thomas, 2010), female Finish students (Joensuu, Viljamaa,
55
56
on
Varamäki & Tornikoski, 2013), Greek students (Petridou & Sarri, 2011), students with previous
57
58
59
9
60
1
2
Pe
3 entrepreneurial exposure (Fayolle, Gailly & Lassas-Clerc, 2006b) or students with a weaker
4
5 entrepreneurial university culture (Wang & Verzat, 2011). Our results suggest we know
6
er
7 considerably more about the direct EE-intentions relationship in general than about the moderating
8
9
10 role of gender (e.g. Joensuu et al., 2013; Shinnar, Hsu & Powell, 2014), culture- (e.g. Bernhofer &
R
11
12 Han, 2014; Crane, 2014), or context-specific patterns (e.g. Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Turker &
ev
13
14 Selçuk, 2009), with only nine studies focusing clearly on such relationships.
15
16 Further, using a meta-analysis of 73 studies, Bae et al. (2014) report a small but significantly
ie
17
18
positive EE-entrepreneurial intentions relationship, but that cultural values act as a moderator. For
w
19
20
21 example, a high collectivistic culture or a low uncertainty avoidance culture reinforces the impact of
22
Pr
23 EE. They also report that after controlling for pre-education entrepreneurial intentions, the EE-
24
25 intentions relationship is not significant nor is gender a significant moderator. Although their
oo
26
27 research does not focus specifically on the impact of EE in higher education (they look at average
28
29
effects across all education levels), we include them here because their findings provide some
f-
30
31
32 indicative evidence.
33
No
34 Compared to entrepreneurial intentions (51%), far fewer studies exist on the relationship
35
36 between EE and other subjective impact indicators (levels 1 and 2 of our framework) including
37
tF
38
psychological variables such as attitude (19% e.g. Boukamcha, 2015; Chang, Benamraoui & Rieple,
39
40
41 2014; Vorley & Williams, 2016), perceived feasibility (25% e.g. Rauch & Hulsink, 2015) or skills
in
42
43 and knowledge (21%., e.g. Burrows & Wragg, 2013; Premand, Brodmann, Almeida, Grun &
44
al
45 Barouni, 2016). Most studies suggest a positive link between the programme and these variables,
46
47 but some articles report results that are not significant or negative. These include, for example, the
48
Ve
49
50 absence of a significant link between EE and entrepreneurial attitudes amongst Spanish students
51
52 (Lanero, Vázquez, Gutiérrez & García, 2011), and a negative link between EE and attitudes towards
r
53
si
54 entrepreneurship amongst South African students (Mentoor & Friedrich, 2007) or perceived
55
56
on
57
58
59
10
60
1
2
Pe
3 entrepreneurial and management skills amongst British students (Chang & Rieple, 2013). So again,
4
5 limited studies explore the context-specificity of EE’s impact.
6
er
7 Novel ways of assessing EE impact in higher education are limited. Only four studies
8
9
10 explore emotion or related approaches to assessing EE impact. For example, inspiration (not
R
11
12 learning) emerges as the most important benefit of EE, implying a ‘change of hearts’ as well as a
ev
13
14 positive link to entrepreneurial intentions (Souitaris et al., 2007). A few other studies also suggest a
15
16 positive EE-outcomes link regarding uncertainty and ambiguity tolerance (Lackéus, 2014),
ie
17
18
dispositional optimism (Crane 2014), and sense of psychological ownership (Man & Farquharson,
w
19
20
21 2015). Similarly, four studies focus on EE impact on intention-to-nascent start-up activity or
22
Pr
23 entrepreneurial identity. These suggest either a non-significant impact of EE on nascency (Souitaris

24
25 et al., 2007), or a positive link through a dynamic process of internal self-reflection and social
oo
26
27 engagement (Donnellon, Ollila & Middleton, 2014; Lackéus, 2014), and personal development, for
28
29
example a multiple sense of responsibility, independent thinking, connecting to one’s own and
f-
30
31
32 others’ needs (Mueller & Anderson, 2014). Other emotion- or transition-based indicators are also
33
No
34 completely absent from our review. For example, outside of our review, research highlights EEs
35
36 role in developing the importance of entrepreneurial passion (intense positive emotion and drive,
37
tF
38
see Cardon, Wincent, Singh & Drnovsek, 2009), yet it is strikingly missing from the articles in our
39
40
41 review.
in
42
43 Our review suggests 29 instances (corresponding to 25 articles, see Table 1) focusing on
44
al
45 objective impact indicators, typically over a longer time frame corresponding to the higher levels 3
46
47 (0–5 years), 4 (3–10 years) or 5 (over 10 years) in our framework. Since these types of studies are
48
Ve
49
50 limited in our review, some examples are given. Such studies include the positive impact of
51
52 undergraduate (Pei-Lee & Chen-Chen, 2008) and postgraduate (Dominguinhos & Carvalho, 2009)
r
53
si
54 EE programmes on start-up rates at level 3 of our framework. Furthermore, Lange, Marram,

55
56
on
Jawahar, Yong and Bygrave (2014) provide a notable example of the long-term positive impact of
57
58
59
11
60
1
2
Pe
3 EE on Babson graduate performance over a 25-year period, including a major economic
4
5 contribution, for example, 1,300 new full-time businesses were started, with average annual
6
er
7 revenues of $5.5 million and an average of 27 employees. Finally, using a meta-analytical approach
8
9
10 (including pre- and post-education data, N=16,657), Martin et al. (2013) found small but positive
R
11
12 relationships between EE and entrepreneurial outcomes incorporating nascent behaviour, and start-
ev
13
14 up and venture performance (e.g. financial success and personal income). As with Bae et al.,
15
16 (2014), they do not specifically focus on higher education (look at average effect across all
ie
17
18
educational levels) but we include them here as their findings provide some indicative evidence.
w
19
20
21 Most of our higher-impact studies report a positive link between EE and objective indicators, but
22
Pr
23 one study suggests a relationship that is not significant. Using a sample of 2827 university
24
25 graduates in Norway, Støren (2014) reports graduates who have had EE are not more frequently
oo
26
27 self-employed than other graduates. Thus, our review suggests high-impact studies are scarce and
28
29
need not show positive impact.
f-
30
31
32 A final finding relates to the measurement methodology of the articles. Typically (68%),
33
No
34 articles use cross-sectional survey methodology. Nonetheless, some notable exceptions employ a
35
36 longitudinal design and/or a control group. These generally demonstrate a pattern of positive EE
37
tF
38
impact for entrepreneurial intentions (Souitaris et al., 2007), competencies (Sánchez, 2011), and
39
40
41 start-ups (Karlsson & Moberg, 2013). However, even in more methodologically rigorous studies, a
in
42
43 few still report a lack of significant results for entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Souitaris et al., 2007) or
44
al
45 significantly negative impact on entrepreneurial attitudes (Mentoor & Friedrich, 2007). Overall, the
46
47 review suggests reasonable evidence of positive EE impact. This holds especially for
48
Ve
49
50 entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions (impact levels 1 and 2 of our framework), but even here
51
52 some examples demonstrate differential impact depending on context and the background of
r
53
si
54 participants (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Fayolle et al., 2006b).

55
56
on
INSERT TABLE 1 AND 2 ABOUT HERE

57
58
59
12
60
1
2
Pe
3
4
5 Pedagogical methods underpinning impact
6
er
7 Next, we examine the extent of the relationship between the pedagogical methods used and the
8
9
10 specific outcomes achieved (see Table 2). In our review, studies that provide sufficient pedagogical
R
11
12 detail are limited. Only 71 of our 159 articles (45%) provide enough detail for us to determine their
ev
13
14 pedagogical approach. The next section focuses on these 71 articles.
15
16
ie
17
18
Supply and supply-demand model pedagogy
w
19
20
21 Only five articles can be classified in terms of supply model pedagogy. These are positively related
22
Pr
23 to self-efficacy (Sánchez, 2011) and entrepreneurial intentions (e.g. Crane, 2014; Solesvik et al.,
24
25 2013; Solesvik et al., 2014). For example, Sánchez (2011) focuses on transmitting knowledge to
oo
26
27
28 students, so that they “know about entrepreneurship”, and this mainly behaviourist course has a
29
f-
30 positive impact on a range of student perceptions (at level 2 of our framework, e.g. intention, self-
31
32 efficacy). This suggests a supply model link to lower level impact indicators, although Shinnar et
33
No
34 al., (2014) finds mixed results based on a moderating effect of gender. In turn, programmes that
35
36
combine pedagogies from the supply and demand model tend to be positively related to lower levels
37
tF
38
39 of our framework. Of the 10 supply-demand articles, only 1 article (Henry et al., 2004) addresses
40
41 impact at higher levels. A typical example of a supply-demand article is the programme analysed by
in
42
43 Hamidi, Wennberg and Berglund (2008) which despite concentrating on knowledge transmission,
44
al
45 includes some experiential learning, in this case, creativity development exercises whereby the
46
47
48 authors report a positive link with entrepreneurial intentions.
Ve
49
50
51
52 Demand and demand–competence model pedagogy
r
53
si
54 Fifteen of the articles analyse interventions adhering to demand model pedagogy. These typically
55
56
on
57
focus on short-term intensive experiential programmes (e.g. Fayolle |& Gailly, 2015), or longer
58
59
13
60
1
2
Pe
3 experiential residential-based programmes (e.g. Boukamcha, 2015). They also include student-led
4
5 entrepreneurship clubs that allow students to work on collaborative projects and gain awareness
6
er
7 from experienced entrepreneurs (Pittaway, Rodríguez-Falcon, Aiyegbayo & King, 2011), and a
8
9
10 pedagogical method that goes beyond formal classroom teaching, incorporating, for example,
R
11
12 network events and interaction with entrepreneurs (Souitaris et al., 2007). All these studies share a
ev
13
14 focus on exploration, discussion and experimentation, with a preoccupation on students’ needs and
15
16 interests. Moreover, these studies largely suggest a positive link of this model’s pedagogy with
ie
17
18
lower-level impact indicators – our framework’s level 2 indicators (entrepreneurial intention,
w
19
20
21 Fayolle et al., 2006b; Souitaris et al., 2007), or other personal change such as satisfaction with the
22
Pr
23 course or participation (Millman, Matlay & Liu, 2008; Pittaway et al., 2011).
24
25 Of the EE programme studies in the review, 19 are consistent with demand–competence
oo
26
27 model pedagogy. They share the inclusion of an important element of realism, such as real-life
28
29
problems to be solved. This is powerful because, despite the challenges to the learner, the learning
f-
30
31
32 is more transferable to the real world (cf. outside our review, Neergaard et al. 2012). In the articles
33
No
34 in this stream, the pedagogical methods are experiential, and entail working side by side with, for
35
36 example, entrepreneurs (e.g. Chang & Rieple, 2013); realistic entrepreneurial exercises (e.g.
37
tF
38
Gondim and Mutti, 2011); starting and running a “real” business (e.g. Burrows & Wragg 2013); and
39
40
41 problem-based learning (e.g. Kirkwood, Dwyer, & Gray, 2014). Again, these studies report a
in
42
43 positive link with lower-level impact measures (skills and knowledge, e.g. Jones & Jones, 2011;
44
al
45 Tang & Ng, 2006) and feasibility (Jones & Jones, 2011). However, ambiguous or mixed results are
46
47 also found for intention and feasibility (Chang & Rieple, 2013; Gondim & Mutti, 2011; Harris,
48
Ve
49
50 Gibson, & Taylor, 2007). Overall, the pattern suggests a positive link between demand and
51
52 demand–competence model pedagogy and primarily lower-level impact indicators.
r
53
si
54
55
56
on
Competence model pedagogy

57
58
59
14
60
1
2
Pe
3 Twelve articles fall into this category. Pedagogical methods entail students who are starting up
4
5 businesses by consulting external experts, typically for legal, accounting and sales help (Vincett &
6
er
7 Farlow, 2008) or dealing with real-world problems or opportunities in industry-engaged
8
9
10 environments to enhance social interaction and deeper learning (Gilbert, 2012). These articles are
R
11
12 positively related to level 2 (skill development, learning, Gilbert, 2012), level 3 (actual start-ups,
ev
13
14 Gilbert, 2012: Vincett & Farlow, 2008), and level 4 of our framework (positive changes in the
15
16 person and business that run five years after the course e.g. increase in social capital and
ie
17
18
socioeconomic bonds, Gordon, Hamilton, & Jack, 2012). Given the limited number of articles in
w
19
20
21 this category, we see our results as indicative rather than confirmatory.
22
Pr
23
24
25 Comparison studies
oo
26
27 Only three articles compare EE programmes using competing pedagogical methods. Lange et al.
28
29
(2014) suggest that experiential courses (featuring demand and competence models) better predict
f-
30
31
32 multiple entrepreneurial behaviours; the rare behaviourist courses in their study (“how to write a
33
No
34 business plan”) are essentially a negative predictor. They measure impact at the highest impact level
35
36 of our framework (level 5) and show a positive socioeconomic impact up to 25 years post-
37
tF
38
programme. Similarly, Walter and Dohse (2012) compare active learning (constructivist) to
39
40
41 traditional learning (behaviourist) in locations with either weak or already-strong entrepreneurial
in
42
43 cultures, finding the constructivist model to have a stronger impact in terms of, for example,
44
al
45 entrepreneurial intention.
46
47 Overall, our review highlights that each category of pedagogical methods (supply, demand,
48
Ve
49
50 competence, hybrids) has some positive relationship with the lower level impact indicators of our
51
52 teaching model framework (e.g. attitudes and intentions). However, the demonstrated pattern of
r
53
si
54 pedagogy impact depends to an extent on the aims of researchers. While articles featuring less
55
56
on
experiential programmes (supply, supply-demand, demand) focus more on basic or lower levels of
57
58
59
15
60
1
2
Pe
3 our framework, articles examining more experiential programmes (demand-competence and
4
5 competence) also focus on impact at higher levels (e.g. actual start-ups and socio-economic impact
6
er
7 over time). These latter studies ask more from their programmes and typically obtain higher impact.
8
9
10
R
11
12
ev
13
14 DISCUSSION
15
16 Guided by a unique, theory-driven teaching model framework, we undertook a systematic review of
ie
17
18
a range of EE impacts in higher education, drawing on empirical evidence published since 2004.
w
19
20
21 This entailed a thematic analysis of the evidence using our adopted teaching model framework to
22
Pr
23 classify different types of outcomes and pedagogies. We also explored the extent of the relationship
24
25 between pedagogical methods and outcomes achieved.
oo
26
27
28 INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
29
f-
30
31
32 Re-affirmation of past reviews
33
No
34 Despite the increase in the amount of research on EE and entrepreneurial outcomes in higher
35
36 education over the past 12 years (nearly two thirds of our 159 articles are published in the last 5
37
tF
38 years), there is still a general focus on lower-level, short-term, subjective impact indicators,
39
40
especially the EE-entrepreneurial intentions link (51%), and the lack of specifying even minimal
41
in
42
43 pedagogical detail (55%). Hence, in general, we re-confirm the findings, and repeat the calls, of
44
al
45 previous reviews for more research on entrepreneurial behaviour (e.g. Pittaway & Cope, 2007) and
46
47 greater pedagogical detail (cf. Martin et al., 2013). Our teaching model framework urges a focus on
48
Ve
49 higher-level impacts such as start-ups, firm survival rates, business performance and societal
50
51
52
contribution. Furthermore, it also means that future researchers provide detailed information about
r
53
si
54 the pedagogical methods, so we can understand the impact of pedagogical designs and methods.
55
56
on
57
58
59
16
60
1
2
Pe
3 Extending previous reviews, our findings lead us to focus on new or underemphasised calls
4
5 for future research. As a general pattern from our findings, progress on the previous calls outlined
6
er
7 above has been slow and EE impact research continues to be limited. For example, in our review, it
8
9
10 is rare to see articles on novel EE impact measures or exploring the reasons behind the
R
11
12 contradictory findings in higher-education-based EE research that go beyond statistical/artefactual
ev
13
14 reasons (cf. Martin et al., 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Table 3 presents our recommendations for
15
16 future research and these are discussed in more detail below.
ie
17
18
w
19
20
21 Types of EE impact
22
Pr
23 Focus on novel impact indicators related to emotion-based approaches

24
25 Given the dominance of entrepreneurial intentions as an impact indicator in our research, we
oo
26
27 suggest it is important to understand alternative impact measures. Although entrepreneurship is
28
29
considered to be a ‘journey of the heart’ and the importance of understanding entrepreneurial
f-
30
31
32 emotion (affect, emotions, feelings), especially during the new venture creation process is
33
No
34 acknowledged (Cardon, Foo, Shepherd & Wiklund, 2012), there is surprisingly little empirical
35
36 research in our review that focuses on emotion-based impact indicators. We therefore urge scholars
37
tF
38
to pursue the following important avenues.
39
40
41 First, we are surprised by the scarcity of research that addresses emotion or affect. Given the
in
42
43 growing consensus on their importance in entrepreneurial thinking, e.g. passion (Cardon et al.,
44
al
45 2009, 2012; Gielnik, et al. 2015), this is startling. For example, only one empirical study in our
46
47 sample, measures EE programme-derived entrepreneurial inspiration (Souitaris et al., 2007) that
48
Ve
49
50 identify emotional inspiration (not learning or incubation resources) as the most important EE
51
52 ‘programme benefit’, with inspiration also positively related to entrepreneurial intentions (Souitaris
r
53
si
54 et al., 2007). Moreover, they define it as “a change of hearts (emotion) and minds (motivation)
55
56
on
evoked by events or inputs from the programme and directed towards considering becoming an
57
58
59
17
60
1
2
Pe
3 entrepreneur” (Souitaris et al., 2007:573). Thus, we consider it of central importance as both an
4
5 impact indicator in its own right (i.e., if EE increases inspiration), and as a predictor of other impact
6
er
7 measures. Indeed, Souitaris et al. (2007:587) conclude: “Universities that want to assess the
8
9
10 effectiveness of their programmes should capture not only how much their students learn about
R
11
12 entrepreneurship or whether they are satisfied with the courses, but also whether they are inspired
ev
13
14 from the programme”. Despite its importance, inspiration from EE programmes in higher education
15
16 remains an under-researched phenomenon and warrants further research attention.
ie
17
18
A second key knowledge gap centres on impact measures focusing on the development of
w
19
20
21 the entrepreneurial mindset, defined here as cognitive phenomena deeper than intent4 (Krueger,
22
Pr
23 2007, 2015; Lackéus, 2015). Few studies in our review even reference this phenomenon. One rare
24
25 example (Crane, 2014) suggests dispositional optimism as a key indicator of EE impact because of
oo
26
27 its self-regulatory function and dealing with uncertainty and setbacks. They find their programme
28
29
improves such optimism, suggesting another fruitful avenue to explore. Similarly, under OECD’s
f-
30
31
32 Entrepreneurship360 initiative, Lackéus (2015) identifies the importance of uncertainty/ambiguity
33
No
34 tolerance as impact indicators for action-based EE programmes that tie back to the issue of
35
36 emotions in entrepreneurial thinking.
37
tF
38
39
40
41 Focus on impact indicators related to the intention-to-behaviour transition
in
42
43 Our findings also suggest a paucity of studies of EE in higher education that bridge the transition
44
al
45 from intention to behaviour, that is level 2 to 3 in our teaching model framework. This is an
46
47 important avenue as intention does not always translate into entrepreneurial behaviour and little is
48
Ve
49
50 known about this transition. Indeed, Pittaway and Cope (2007:498) conclude “what is not known …
51
52 is whether propensity or intentionality is turned into ‘entrepreneurial behaviour’, either in its broad
r
53
si
54 sense or when focused narrowly on venture creation”. Although we re-emphasise their claim here,
55
56
on
57 4
Education researchers often refer to “noncognitive skills” to differentiate from more surface level learning such as
58 facts and rote-learned skills (e.g. Krueger, 2015).
59
18
60
1
2
Pe
3 we also extend their call, by suggesting two specific avenues that we encourage more scholars to
4
5 pursue.
6
er
7 First, our review suggests very little empirical attention on analysing how entrepreneurial
8
9
10 intention translates into nascent or start-up activities. Although this relationship is examined in our
R
11
12 review regarding start-up activities for nascency after an EE programme (e.g. Souitaris et al., 2007),
ev
13
14 the lack of a positive significant relationship (albeit via entrepreneurial intentions) suggests more
15
16 research is required on how intention follows through to action (or not). For example, why do some
ie
17
18
recipients of EE with high entrepreneurial intentions start-up their own businesses after graduating,
w
19
20
21 whilst others (despite high intentions) do not? What is the role of EE in this process? Second, very
22
Pr
23 few studies in our review analyse the development of entrepreneurial identity, though we see hints
24
25 that EE relates to personal development beyond knowledge and skill acquisition, for example a
oo
26
27 change in thinking style (Mueller & Anderson, 2014), internal self-reflection and external
28
29
engagement (Donnellon et al., 2014; Lackéus. 2014). Given how little we know of how intent
f-
30
31
32 becomes behaviour, this is exceptionally important for further research.
33
No
34
35
36 Explore contextual reasons for contradictory findings: Background, gender and culture
37
tF
38
As our results report, most papers suggest positive results between EE and a broad range of impact
39
40
41 indicators, but with some contradictory studies (consistent with Martin et al., 2013). These authors
in
42
43 advance methodological concerns as an explanation of such contradictory results; however, it would
44
al
45 be remiss not to also assess person- and context- specific factors.

46
47 Concerning student backgrounds, for those who have less exposure to entrepreneurship, the
48
Ve
49
50 general effect tends to be positive since they usually increase their entrepreneurial intention,
51
52 attitudes and self-efficacy by participating in the programmes (e.g. Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Fayolle,
r
53
si
54 Gailly, & Lassas-Clerc, 2006a; Sánchez, 2011) . In contrast, for those students who already have
55
56
on
entrepreneurial experience, family background or high previous entrepreneurial intention, the

57
58
59
19
60
1
2
Pe
3 effects are generally weaker and may even be negative (see for example, Fayolle et al., 2006b; Von
4
5 Graevenitz, Harhoff, & Weber, 2010). Similarly, Bae et al. (2014) found that after controlling for
6
er
7 pre-educational entrepreneurial intentions, the relationship between EE and post-programme
8
9
10 entrepreneurial intentions is not significant. However, given that Bae et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis
R
11
12 did not focus specifically on higher education, we encourage more studies to focus on the role of
ev
13
14 student background in this context.
15
16 Regarding students’ background, gender-specific differences are also an important source of
ie
17
18
contradictory findings. Few studies in our review focus on the differential impact of EE for male
w
19
20
21 and female students/graduates, although those that did, identify gender-specific effects. For
22
Pr
23 example. Wilson, Kickul and Marlino (2007) show that EE has a stronger impact on self-efficacy
24
25 among females than males. Other studies also suggest the impact of EE on entrepreneurial
oo
26
27 intentions is gender-specific (e.g. Joensuu et al., 2013; Packham et al., 2010), though there are too
28
29
few studies to indicate if this favours males or females. A controversial finding in Bae et al.’s
f-
30
31
32 (2014) article concludes that gender does not significantly moderate the EE-entrepreneurial
33
No
34 intention relationship. However, Bae et al. (2014) did not specifically examine the studies of EE in
35
36 higher education (as we do) but rather looked at averages from a meta-analysis across educational
37
tF
38
levels. Furthermore, unlike Bae et al. (2014), we look at higher-level impact in terms of
39
40
41 entrepreneurial behaviour. Though we did not find any reported gender-specific effects at this level,
in
42
43 in our view, this does not mean that they do not exist, merely that studies have not specifically
44
al
45 focused on these effects.

46
47 Looking at further aspects of context (e.g. type of programme – optional or compulsory;
48
Ve
49
50 type of institution), there is evidence from our review that initial positive attitudes towards
51
52 entrepreneurship, which are, however, not fully formed, change once they are confronted with the
r
53
si
54 complexities and pitfalls of business start-up during EE. In our review, Hytti, Stenholm, Heinonen,
55
56
on
and Seikkula‐Leino (2010) analyse the motivations of students taking a compulsory EE programme,
57
58
59
20
60
1
2
Pe
3 finding that students with intrinsic motivation report lower learning and less satisfaction with the
4
5 course (they expected more). Those taking the programme with extrinsic motivation express a
6
er
7 greater degree of satisfaction. Similarly, Petridou and Sarri (2011) find that attitudes and intentions
8
9
10 are raised by an EE programme in a generalist university, but lowered in a technology institute. The
R
11
12 latter can be explained by the realisation of the complexities involved in starting up a technology
ev
13
14 venture.
15
16 Similarly, culture and national context are likely significant factors but rarely tested directly
ie
17
18
as almost all studies in our review focus on a single-country/culture (or at least do not investigate
w
19
20
21 cultural differences). However, Bae et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis suggests some salient cultural
22
Pr
23 dimensions, at least with respect to entrepreneurial intentions. For example, some national/ cultural
24
25 contexts may be higher on some cultural dimensions, on average, like uncertainty avoidance (level
oo
26
27 of comfortableness with uncertainty and ambiguity) (Hofstede, 2003, also see Krueger, Liñán, and
28
29
Nabi’s, 2013 Special Issue in this area), suggesting culture-specific moderators are worthy of
f-
30
31
32 further consideration. In addition, our sample is dominated by studies in the UK, USA and Asia, but
33
No
34 only 5% are from the fast-growing emerging BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) economies.
35
36 There are no studies from Russia or India, and Africa and Australia are also under-represented,
37
tF
38
suggesting such countries and continents are largely absent from studies.
39
40
41 Moreover, culture is also likely to exhibit interaction effects with other impact factors like
in
42
43 gender as implied in a handful of our articles regarding culture-/gender-specific findings. Packham
44
al
45 et al. (2010), for example, suggest findings that EE negatively relates to entrepreneurial intentions
46
47 for male German students. This double-moderator effect is consistent with limited research outside
48
Ve
49
50 our review, for example, Shneor, Camgöz and Karapinar (2013) who look at gender effects in two
51
52 cultural settings, while analysis of culture x gender effects is absent from the studies reviewed here.
r
53
si
54 Considering our discussion on how student background and context (the ‘audience’
55
56
on
dimension of the teaching model, Fayolle Gailly, 2008) seem to explain contradictory findings in
57
58
59
21
60
1
2
Pe
3 previous studies, future research in this field is especially promising. Knowing the background and
4
5 the profile of the students (e.g. prior entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, motivators, gender) and
6
er
7 context (e.g. type of programme, type of institution, programme and country context) can also lead
8
9
10 to better design and implementation of EE programmes, and ultimately to more efficient learning
R
11
12 processes, environments and hence impact (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008,
ev
13
14 2015). It also opens the door for future impact research that is more mindful of potential
15
16 moderating factors and exploring a range of related questions. For example, to what extent is the
ie
17
18
impact of EE programmes in higher education on a range of entrepreneurial outcomes gender-,
w
19
20
21 culture-, context- specific? Which impact indicators in our framework are dependent on moderator
22
Pr
23 effects and which are more universally applicable? Our teaching model framework could also be
24
25 expanded to incorporate culture-specific frameworks (e.g. Hofstede, 2003; Schwartz, 2004)
oo
26
27 allowing further consideration of the impact of higher-education-based EE programmes in different
28
29
international and cultural contexts.
f-
30
31
32
33
No
34 Pedagogical methods underpinning impact

35
36 Pedagogical reasons for contradictory findings: Differences in pedagogical methods
37
tF
38
Our review suggests that all the pedagogical methods (supply, demand, competence, hybrids) have
39
40
41 positive impact at levels 1 and 2 of our teaching model framework (e.g. attitudes and intentions).
in
42
43 However, our reviewed studies suggest that pedagogical methods based on competence are better
44
al
45 suited for developing higher-level impact. The evidence suggests that competence model pedagogy
46
47 is associated with both subjective measures at level 2 (e.g. entrepreneurial intention), and objective
48
Ve
49
50 ones at levels 3 (e.g. actual start-ups up to five years post programme) and 4 (longer-term impact on
51
52 business up to 10 years post programme). To put more simply, such deeper, more experiential
r
53
si
54 pedagogies seem to have the most potential to have impact at higher levels because students focus
55
56
on
on developing behavioural competency in solving problems in real-life entrepreneurial situations.

57
58
59
22
60
1
2
Pe
3 Our findings suggest that the use of different pedagogical methods is at least partially
4
5 responsible for the inconsistent findings in impact studies. However, given that our findings are
6
er
7 based on a partial sample of our population of articles, our findings are indicative rather than
8
9
10 confirmatory.5 To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that uses a teaching
R
11
12 model framework to assess the impact of EE. In our view, we believe this provides novel,
ev
13
14 meaningful insights. EE makes strong claims to have significant impact and a strong bias toward
15
16 experiential pedagogies. This review confirms that we need to focus strongly in this direction. For
ie
17
18
example, it is essential to expand research on competence-model-related pedagogical methods. Do
w
19
20
21 they really have stronger impact than other models, especially at higher levels of our teaching
22
Pr
23 model framework? How do they work regarding underlying processes?

24
25
oo
26
27 Focus on comparison studies to compare pedagogical methods
28
29
Our review reveals very few comparison studies that directly compare the impact of different
f-
30
31
32 pedagogical methods. Considering the growing number of EE programmes and the growing
33
No
34 demand to assess them, should we not ask for evidence of what pedagogical methods work, desired
35
36 impact and actual impact? We thus encourage researchers to compare types of impact across
37
tF
38
different teaching pedagogical methods. This is the only way for us to understand EE impact in an
39
40
41 incremental and meaningful way.
in
42
43 Our review includes comparison studies that link EE pedagogical methods in higher
44
al
45 education to a broad range of impact measures using a teaching model framework. However,
46
47 comparison studies in our review only tend to compare pedagogical methods in a limited way (e.g.
48
Ve
49
50 supply versus competence). Walter & Dohse, 2012; Wang & Verzat, 2011; Lange et al, 2014). In
51
52 our review, we identify five different pedagogical models including hybrid versions (supply, supply-
r
53
si
54 demand, demand, demand-competence, competence). We urge scholars of future comparison

55
56
on
57 5
Reduced from 159 to 71 due to insufficient pedagogical information from 55% of our articles. Further, we suspect
58 that it could be extremely valuable to assess the quality of pedagogy, not just its intended characteristics.
59
23
60
1
2
Pe
3 studies to directly compare the impact of a broader range of pedagogical methods using a teaching
4
5 model framework. We believe that such a comparative approach offers great opportunities to
6
er
7 explore a number of theoretically, practically and empirically meaningful research questions that
8
9
10 may help to explain the contradictory findings on the impact of higher-education-based EE
R
11
12 programmes and increase generalizability. For example, what pedagogical models work for which
ev
13
14 types of impact and in which contexts? We encourage future researchers to rigorously isolate the
15
16 impact of a pedagogical intervention, controlling for the context and person-specific factors
ie
17
18
outlined earlier.
w
19
20
21
22
Pr
23 Limitations and general recommendations

24
25 Three limitations of our review are noteworthy. First, we only cover EE in higher education, while
oo
26
27 EE also flourishes in high school programmes, and adult (non-degree and non-academic) education.
28
29
Focusing on other educational levels and means of delivery outside higher education was outside
f-
30
31
32 the scope of our research, but our findings do open the door for assessing EE impact at other levels.
33
No
34 Second, data on whether an individual is exposed to multiple training before, during and
35
36 after higher education is limited. However, some articles in our review do use more sophisticated
37
tF
38
research designs, for example, adopting a pretest/posttest control group design (e.g. Souitaris et al.,
39
40
41 2007) or controlling for prior entrepreneurial exposure (e.g. Fayolle & Gailly, 2015). Although
in
42
43 focusing on methodological designs is outside the primary scope of our research and is covered
44
al
45 elsewhere (e.g. Rideout & Gray, 2013), we still include a range of articles with different
46
47 methodologies in our research and our findings confirm those of existing reviews with an emphasis
48
Ve
49
50 on methodological rigour (e.g. Martin et al., 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Rather than reiterate the
51
52 methodological weaknesses that other reviews found, we sought to identify perhaps less obvious,
r
53
si
54 yet greatly promising new or underemphasised directions for future research.

55
56
on
57
58
59
24
60
1
2
Pe
3 Third, our review focuses on the recipients of university-based EE programmes and their
4
5 entrepreneurial attitudes, knowledge and skills, and behaviours. However, such programmes
6
er
7 obviously also influence a wider set of stakeholders such as the instructors themselves and, in the
8
9
10 case of field projects, the individuals and organizations involved. For example, ‘real life cases’
R
11
12 where students work on various consultancy tasks (such as market validation studies). The impact
ev
13
14 of EE can be on entrepreneurial behaviour of staff and lecturers, when teaching entrepreneurship
15
16 influences academics to become engaged in it themselves (whether in commercialising research or
ie
17
18
in non-research-based entrepreneurial activity at the side of academic work). EE programmes where
w
19
20
21 students engage in market validation studies and so forth also expose students to the entrepreneurial
22
Pr
23 community. This can be built into higher levels of our teaching model framework to examine
24
25 stakeholder impact. For example, we can assess the value of EE to university faculty,
oo
26
27 donors/investors and communities at levels 3, 4, and 5 of our framework (cf. Duval-Couetil, 2013).
28
29
f-
30
31
32 Conclusions
33
No
34 Whilst confirming the weaknesses in EE impact studies (for example, dominance on lower-level
35
36 attitudinal and intentionality impact measures, and a lack of key detail concerning pedagogy), we
37
tF
38
also identify three main ways of moving forward. First, as indicated in Table 3, we add value by
39
40
41 providing an up-to-date and empirically rooted call for future research in higher education.
in
42
43 Secondly, by applying a teaching model framework we offer several intriguing and under-
44
al
45 emphasised suggestions for improving EE research. Finally and relatedly, we provide some critical
46
47 insights into the reasons for the contradictory findings in EE research (e.g. rarity of cross-cultural,
48
Ve
49
50 gender-specific and pedagogical-comparison research) that can be further teased out through single
51
52 studies/ interventions, so we can understand how EE really works in theory and practice.
r
53
si
54
55
56
on
REFERENCES
57
58
59
25
60
1
2
Pe
3 Studies included in our review are marked with an asterisk (*).
4
5 *Abaho, E.,Olomi, D. R., & Urassa, G. C. 2015. Students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy: does the
6 teaching method matter? Education + Training, 57(8/9): 908-923.
er
7 *Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., Ahmad, Z., Shaukat, M. Z., Usman, A., Rehman, W.-u., & Ahmed, N.
8
2010. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial career intentions: Evidence from business
9
10 graduates. European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2): 14-22.
R
11 *Alarape, A. A. 2007. Entrepreneurship programs, operational efficiency and growth of small
12 businesses. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
ev
13 Economy, 1(3): 222-239.
14 *Almobaireek, W. N., & Manolova, T. S. 2012. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Entrepreneurial
15 intentions among Saudi university students. African Journal of Business Management, 6(11):
16 4029-4040.
ie
17 *Armstrong, C. E. 2014. I meant to do that! Manipulating entrepreneurial intentions through the
18
power of simple plans. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(4): 638-
w
19
20 652.
21 *Aslam, T. M., Awan, A. S., & Khan, T. M. 2012. Entrepreneurial intentions among university
22 students of Punjab, a province of Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Pr
23 Sciences, 2(14): 114–120.

24 *Azim, M. T., & Akbar, M. M. (2010). Entrepreneurship Education in Bangladesh: A Study Based
25 on Program Inputs. South Asian Journal of Management, 17(4), 21.
oo
26 *Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. 2014. The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship
27 Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta-Analytic Review. Entrepreneurship Theory
28
and Practice, 38(2): 217-254.
29
*Bakotić, D., & Kružić, D. (2010). Students' perceptions and intentions towards entrepreneurship:
f-
30
31 the empirical findings from Croatia. The Business Review, Cambridge, 14(2), 209-215.
32 *Barakat, S., Boddington, M., & Vyakarnam, S. 2014. Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to
33 understand the impact of creative activities for learning innovation. The International Journal
No
34 of Management Education, 12(3): 456-468.

35 Baptista, R., & A. Naia, A. 2015. Entrepreneurship Education: A Selective Examination of the
36 Literature. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 11(5): 337–426.
37 *Basu, A. 2010. Comparing entrepreneurial intentions among students: The role of education and
tF
38
ethnic origin. AIMS International Journal of Management, 4(3): 163-176.
39
40 Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. 2005. Understanding teaching models in entrepreneurship for higher
41 education. In P. Kÿro, & C. Carrier (Eds.) The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a
Cross-cultural University Context: 104-134. Faculty of Education, University of Tampere,
in
42
43 Tampere.
44 Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. 2007. Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for entrepreneurship
al
45 education: model and illustrations. In A. Fayolle (Ed.) Handbook of Research in

46 Entrepreneurship Education Volume 1: 261-284. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar
47 Publishing.
48
Ve
*Bell, R. 2015. Developing the next generation of entrepreneurs: Giving students the opportunity to
49
50 gain experience and thrive. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(1): 37-
51 47.
52 *Bernhofer, L., & Han, Z. 2014. Contextual factors and their effects on future entrepreneurs in
r
53 China: a comparative study of entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Technology

si
54 Management, 65(1-2-3-4): 125.

55 Block, Z., & Stumpf, S. A. 1992. Entrepreneurship education research: experience and challenge. In
56
on
D. L. Sexton, & J. D. Kasarda (Eds.) The State-of-the-Art of Entrepreneurship: 17-42. Boston

57 MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.
58
59
26
60
1
2
Pe
3 Bosma, N., Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levine, J. 2008. Global Entrepreneurship
4 Monitor. 2008 Executive Report. Wellesley: MA & London.
5 *Boukamcha, F. 2015. Impact of training on entrepreneurial intention: an interactive cognitive
6 perspective. European Business Review, 27(6): 593-616.
er
7 *Brink, T., & Madsen, S. O. 2015. Entrepreneurial learning requires action on the meaning
8
generated. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(5): 650-672.
9
10 *Burrows, K., & Wragg, N. 2013. Introducing enterprise - research into the practical aspects of
R
11 introducing innovative enterprise schemes as extra curricula activities in higher education.
12 Higher Education, Skills and Work - Based Learning, 3(3): 168-179.
ev
13 *Byabashaija, W., & Katono, I. 2011. The impact of college entrepreneurial education on
14 entrepreneurial attitudes and intention to start a business in Uganda. Journal of Developmental
15 Entrepreneurship, 16(01): 127-144.
16 *Canziani, B., Welsh, D. H., & Tullar, W. 2015. What Pedagogical Methods Impact Students'
ie
17 Entrepreneurial Propensity? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 25(2): 97.
18
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. 2009. The nature and experience of
w
19
20 entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 511-532.
21 Cardon, M. S., Foo, M., Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. 2012. Exploring the heart: Entrepreneurial
22 emotion is a hot topic. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(1):1-10.
Pr
23 *Chang, J. Y. C., Benamraoui, A., & Rieple, A. 2014. Stimulating learning about social
24 entrepreneurship through income generation projects. International Journal of
25 Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 20(5): 417-437.
oo
26 *Chang, J., & Rieple, A. 2013. Assessing students' entrepreneurial skills development in live
27 projects. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 20(1): 225-241.
28
*Cheng, Y. M., Chan, S. W., & Mahmood, A. 2009. The effectiveness of entrepreneurship
29
education in Malaysia. Education+ Training, 51(7): 555-566.
f-
30
31 *Coduras, A., Urbano, D., Rojas, Á., & Martínez, S. 2008. The relationship between university
32 support to entrepreneurship with entrepreneurial activity in Spain: a GEM data based analysis.
33 International Advances in Economic Research, 14(4): 395-406.
No
34 *Collins, L. A., Smith, A. J., & Hannon, P. D. 2006. Discovering entrepreneurship: An exploration
35 of a tripartite approach to developing entrepreneurial capacities. Journal of European
36 Industrial Training, 30(3): 188-205.
37 *Connolly, R., O'Gorman, B., & Bogue, J. 2006. An Exploratory Study of the Process by which
tF
38
Recent Graduate Entrepreneurs (RGEs) Become Self-Employed. Irish Journal of
39
40 Management, 26(2): 185-210.
41 Cooper, H. M. 1989. Integrating research: a guide for literature reviews, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
Calif;London: Sage Publications.
in
42
43 *Crane, F. G. 2014. Measuring and Enhancing Dispositional Optimism and Entrepreneurial Intent
44 in the Entrepreneurial Classroom: An Bahamian Study. Journal of the Academy of Business
al
45 Education, 15: 94-104.

46 *Crane, F., & Meyer, M. 2007. Teaching dispositional optimism in the entrepreneurial classroom.
47 International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 5: 163-174.
48
Ve
*Cruz, N. M., Escudero, A. I. R., Barahona, J. H., & Leitao, F. S. 2009. The effect of
49
50 entrepreneurship education programmes on satisfaction with innovation behaviour and
51 performance. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(3): 198-214.
52 *Daghbashyan, Z., & Hårsman, B. 2014. University choice and entrepreneurship. Small Business
r
53 Economics, 42(4): 729-746.

si
54 *De Clercq, D., Honig, B., & Martin, B. 2013. The roles of learning orientation and passion for
55 work in the formation of entrepreneurial intention. International Small Business Journal,
56
on
31(6): 652-676.
57
58
59
27
60
1
2
Pe
3 *Degeorge, J. M., & Fayolle, A. 2008. Is entrepreneurial intention stable through time? First
4 insights from a sample of French students. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
5 Small Business, 5(1): 7-27.
6 *DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. 2004. Opportunity Identification and Its Role in the
er
7 Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test. Academy of
8
Management Learning & Education, 3(3): 242-257.
9
10 *Díaz-Casero, J. C., Hernández-Mogollon, R., & Roldán, J. L. 2012. A structural model of the
R
11 antecedents to entrepreneurial capacity. International Small Business Journal, 30(8): 850-
12 872.
ev
13 Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. 2008. Entrepreneurial selection and success: does
14 education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 239-258.
15 *Dominguinhos, P. M. C., & Carvalho, L. M. C. 2009. Promoting business creation through real
16 world experience: Projecto Começar. Education + Training, 51(2): 150-169.
ie
17 *Donnellon, A., Ollila, S., & Middleton, K. W. 2014. Constructing entrepreneurial identity in
18
entrepreneurship education. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3):
w
19
20 490-499.
21 *Dutta, D. K., Li, J., & Merenda, M. 2010. Fostering entrepreneurship: impact of specialization and
22 diversity in education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2): 163-
Pr
23 179.
24 Duval‐Couetil, N. 2013. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programs: challenges
25 and approaches. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3): 394-409.
oo
26 *Faoite, D. D., Henry, C., Johnston, K., & Sijde, P. v. d. 2004. Entrepreneurs' attitudes to training
27 and support initiatives: evidence from Ireland and The Netherlands. Journal of Small Business
28
29
and Enterprise Development, 11(4): 440-448.
*Farashah, A. D. F. 2013. The process of impact of entrepreneurship education and training on
f-
30
31 entrepreneurship perception and intention: Study of educational system of Iran. Education +
32 Training, 55(8/9): 868-885
33 Fayolle, A. 2013. Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship &
No
34 Regional Development, 25(7-8): 692-701.

35 Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. 2008. From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in
36 entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7): 569-593.
37 *Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. 2015. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial
tF
38
39
Attitudes and Intention: Hysteresis and Persistence. Journal of Small Business Management,
40 53(1): 75-93.
41 *Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. 2006a. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship
in
42 education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training,

43 30(9): 701-720.
44 *Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. 2006b. Effect and counter-effect of entrepreneurship
al
45 education and social context on student's intentions. Estudios de economía aplicada, 24(2):
46 509-524.
47 Fink, A. 2009. Conducting research literature reviews: from the Internet to paper. , 3rd ed.
48
Ve
49
London; Los Angeles;: SAGE.
50 *Florin, J., Karri, R., & Rossiter, N. 2007. Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: An
51 attitudinal approach. Journal of Management Education, 31(1): 17-42.
52 *Franco, M., Haase, H., & Lautenschläger, A. 2010. Students' entrepreneurial intentions: an inter-
r
53 regional comparison. Education+ Training, 52(4): 260-275.

si
54 *Fretschner, M., & Weber, S. 2013. Measuring and understanding the effects of entrepreneurial
55 awareness education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3): 410-428.
56
on
57
58
59
28
60
1
2
Pe
3 *Friedrich, C., & Visser, K. 2006. Building Human Capital in Difficult Environments: An
4 Empirical Study of Entrepreneurship Education, Self-esteem, and Achievement in South
5 Africa, Developmental Entrepreneurship: Adversity, Risk, and Isolation, Vol. 5: 355-378.
6 *Galloway, L., Anderson, M., Brown, W., & Wilson, L. 2005. Enterprise skills for the
er
7 economy. Education + Training, 47(1): 7-17.
8
*Garalis, A., & Strazdienė, G. 2007. Entrepreneurial skills development via simulation business
9
10 enterprise. Socialiniai tyrimai, 10: 39-48.
R
11 Garavan, T. N., & O′Cinneide, B. 1994. Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes:: A
12 Review and Evaluation – Part 1. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(8): 3-12.
ev
13 *Gerba, D. T. 2012. Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of business
14 and engineering students in Ethiopia. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies,
15 3(2): 258-277.
16 *Gielnik, M. M., Frese, M., Kahara-Kawuki, A., Katono, I. W., Kyejjusa, S., Ngoma, M., Munene,
ie
17 J., Namatovu-Dawa, R., Nansubuga, F., Orobia, L., Oyugi, J., Sejjaaka, S., Sserwanga, A.,
18
Walter, T., Bischoff, K. M., & Dlugosch, T. J. 2015. Action and Action-Regulation in
w
19
20 Entrepreneurship: Evaluating a Student Training for Promoting Entrepreneurship. Academy of
21 Management Learning & Education, 14(1): 69.
22 *Gilbert, D. H. 2012. From chalk and talk to walking the walk: facilitating dynamic learning
Pr
23 contexts for entrepreneurship students in fast-tracking innovations. Education+ Training,

24 54(2/3): 152-166.
25 *Gondim, G. M. S., & Mutti, C. 2011. Affections in learning situations: a study of an
oo
26 entrepreneurship skills development course. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(3): 195-208.

27 *Gordon, I., Hamilton, E., & Jack, S. 2012. A study of a university-led entrepreneurship education
28
programme for small business owner/managers. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
29
24(9-10): 767-805.
f-
30
31 Greene, F. J., & Saridakis, G. 2008. The role of higher education skills and support in graduate self‐
32 employment. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6): 653-672.
33 Greene, P. G., Katz, J. A., & Johannison, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship education. Academy of
No
34 Management Learning and Education, 3: 238–241.

35 *Groenewald, D. 2012. Assessment of teaching corporate entrepreneurship to master’s level
36 students.
37 *Gundry, L. K., Ofstein, L. F., & Kickul, J. R. 2014. Seeing around corners: How creativity skills in
tF
38
39
entrepreneurship education influence innovation in business. The International Journal of
40 Management Education, 12(3): 529-538.
41 *Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. 2008. Creativity in entrepreneurship education.
in
42 Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 304-320.

43 *Harms, R. 2015. Self-regulated learning, team learning and project performance in
44 entrepreneurship education: Learning in a lean startup environment. Technological
al
45 Forecasting and Social Change. 100: 21-28.

46 *Harris, M. L., & Gibson, S. G. 2008. Examining the entrepreneurial attitudes of US business
47 students. Education + Training, 50(7): 568-581.
48
Ve
49
*Harris, M. L., Gibson, S. G., & Taylor, S. R. 2007. Examing the Impact of Small Business
50 Institute Participation on Entrepreneurial Attitudes. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(2):
51 57.
52 Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H., & Rowlinson, M. 2010. The Association of Business Schools
r
53 (ABS): Academic Journal Quality Guide Version 4. UK: ABS.

si
54 *Hattab, H. W. 2014. Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions of

55 University Students in Egypt. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1): 1-18.
56
on
*Hegarty, C. 2006. It's not an exact science: teaching entrepreneurship in Northern

57
Ireland. Education + Training, 48(5): 322-335.
58
59
29
60
1
2
Pe
3 *Heinonen, J., Hytti, U., & Stenholm, P. 2011. The role of creativity in opportunity search and
4 business idea creation. Education + Training, 53(8/9): 659-672.
5 Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. 2003. Entrepreneurship Education and Training.
6 Aldershot: Ashgate.
er
7 Henry, C., Hill, F. M, , & Leitch, C. M. 2005. Entrepreneurship education and training: Can
8
entrepreneurship be taught?.Education + Training, 47: 98–111.
9
10 *Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. 2004. The Effectiveness of Training for New Business
R
11 Creation A Longitudinal Study. International Small Business Journal, 22(3): 249-271.
12 *Heuer, A., & Kolvereid, L. 2014. Education in entrepreneurship and the Theory of Planned
ev
13 Behaviour. European Journal of Training and Development, 38(6): 506.
14 *Hietanen, L. 2015. Facilitating employees’ and students’ process towards nascent
15 entrepreneurship. Education + Training, 57(8/9): 964-976.
16 Hofstede, G. H. 2003. Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
ie
17 organizations across nations. Southand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
18
*Hussain, J. G., Scott, J. M., & Matlay, H. 2010a. The impact of entrepreneurship education on
w
19
20 succession in ethnic minority family firms. Education+ Training, 52(8/9): 643-659.
21 *Hytti, U., Stenholm, P., Heinonen, J., & Seikkula‐Leino, J. 2010. Perceived learning outcomes in
22 entrepreneurship education: The impact of student motivation and team behaviour. Education
Pr
23 + Training, 52(8/9): 587-606.

24 *Idogho, P. O., and Barr, A. A. 2011. Entrepreneurship Education and Small-Scale Business
25 Management Skill Development among Students of Auchi Polytechnic Auchi, Edo State,
oo
26 Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(3): 284-288.

27 *Ismail, M., Khalid, S. A., Othman, M., Jusoff, H. K., Rahman, N. A., Kassim, K. M., & Zain, R. S.
28
29
2009. Entrepreneurial intention among Malaysian undergraduates. International Journal of
Business and Management, 4(10): 54-60.
f-
30
31 *Izquierdo, E., & Buelens, M. 2011. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions: the influence
32 of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and attitudes. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
33 Small Business, 13(1): 75-91.
No
34 Jack, S. L., & Anderson, R. 1998. Entrepreneurship education within the condition of
35 entreprenology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Enterprise and
36 Learning, Aberdeen.
37 * Jansen, S., van de Zande, T., Brinkkemper, S., Stam, E., & Varma, V. (2015). How education,
tF
38
39
stimulation, and incubation encourage student entrepreneurship: Observations from MIT, IIIT,
40 and Utrecht University. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(2), 170-
41 181.
in
42 * Joensuu, S., Viljamaa, A., Varamäki, E., & Tornikoski, E. (2013). Development of entrepreneurial
43 intention in higher education and the effect of gender–a latent growth curve analysis.
44 Education+ Training, 55(8/9), 781-803.
al
45 * Jones, A., & Jones, P. (2011). “Making an impact”: a profile of a business planning competition in
46 a university. Education+ Training, 53(8/9), 704-721.
47 * Jones, P., Jones, A., Packham, G., & Miller, C. (2008). Student attitudes towards enterprise
48
Ve
49
education in Poland: a positive impact. Education+ Training, 50(7), 597-614.
50 * Jones, P., Miller, C., Jones, A., Packham, G., Pickernell, D., & Zbierowski, P. (2011). Attitudes
51 and motivations of Polish students towards entrepreneurial activity. Education+ Training,
52 53(5), 416-432.
r
53 *Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J. A., Lans, T., Chizari, M., & Mulder, M. 2016. The Impact of
si
54 Entrepreneurship Education: A Study of Iranian Students' Entrepreneurial Intentions and

55 Opportunity Identification. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1): 187-209.
56
on
57
58
59
30
60
1
2
Pe
3 *Karlsson, T., & Moberg, K. 2013. Improving perceived entrepreneurial abilities through
4 education: Exploratory testing of an entrepreneurial self efficacy scale in a pre-post setting. The
5 International Journal of Management Education, 11(1): 1-11.
6 *Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E., & Winkel, D. E. 2015. Entrepreneurship education: a
er
7 need for reflection, real-world experience and action. International Journal of
8
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(5): 690-708.
9
10 *Keat, O. Y., Selvarajah, C., & Meyer, D. 2011. Inclination towards entrepreneurship among
R
11 university students: An empirical study of Malaysian university students. International
12 Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(4): 206-220.
ev
13 *Kenny, B. 2015. Meeting the entrepreneurial learning needs of professional athletes in career
14 transition. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(2): 175-196.
15 *Kirby, D. A., & Humayun, H. 2013. Outcomes of an Entrepreneurship Education Programme: An
16 Empirical Study in Egypt. International Journal of Management, 30(3): 23-35.
ie
17 *Kirby, D. A., & Ibrahim, N. 2011. Entrepreneurship education and the creation of an enterprise
18
culture: provisional results from an experiment in Egypt. International Entrepreneurship and
w
19
20 Management Journal, 7(2): 181-193.
21 Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1959. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American
22 Society of Training Directors, 13: 3-26.
Pr
23 *Kirkwood, J., Dwyer, K., & Gray, B. 2014. Students' reflections on the value of an
24 entrepreneurship education. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(3):
25 307-316.
oo
26 *Klapper, R. G. 2014. A role for George Kelly's repertory grids in entrepreneurship education?
27 Evidence from the French and Polish context. The International Journal of Management
28
Education, 12(3): 407-421.
29
Krueger, N. F. 2007. What Lies Beneath? The Experiential Essence of Entrepreneurial Thinking.
f-
30
31 Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1): 123-138.
32 Krueger, N. 2015. What Do Students Learn From Entrepreneurship Education?,
33 Entrepreneurship360 Thematic Paper: OECD.
No
34 Krueger, N., Liñán, F., & Nabi, G. 2013. Cultural values and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
35 & Regional Development, 25(9-10): 703-707.
36 Kuratko, D. F. 2005. The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and
37 challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5): 577-598.
tF
38
*Lackéus, M. 2014. An emotion based approach to assessing entrepreneurial education. The
39
40 International Journal of Management Education, 12(3): 374-396.
41 Lackéus, M. 2015. Entrepreneurship in Education-What, Why, When, How. Trento, Italy:
Background paper for OECD-LEED.
in
42
43 *Lanero, A., Vázquez, J. L., Gutiérrez, P., & García, M. P. 2011. The impact of entrepreneurship
44 education in European universities: an intention-based approach analyzed in the Spanish area.
al
45 International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 8(2): 111-130.

46 *Lange, J., Marram, E., Jawahar, A. S., Yong, W., & Bygrave, W. 2014. Does an entrepreneurship
47 education have lasting value? A study of careers of 3,775 alumni. Journal of Business and
48
Ve
Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 1-31.

49
50 *Lans, T., Gulikers, J., & Batterink, M. 2013. Moving beyond traditional measures of
51 entrepreneurial intentions in a study among life‐sciences students in the Netherlands. Research
52 in Post‐Compulsory Education, 15(3): 259-274.
r
53 *Laviolette, E. M., Radu Lefebvre, M., & Brunel, O. 2012. The impact of story bound
si
54 entrepreneurial role models on self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. International

55 Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(6): 720-742.
56
on
*Lean, J. 2012. Preparing for an uncertain future, the enterprising PhD student. Journal of Small
57
Business and Enterprise Development, 19(3): 532-548.
58
59
31
60
1
2
Pe
3 *Lee, S. M., Chang, D., & Lim, S.-B. 2005. Impact of entrepreneurship education: A comparative
4 study of the US and Korea. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
5 1(1): 27-43.
6 *Li, Z., & Liu, Y. 2011. Entrepreneurship education and employment performance: An empirical
er
7 study in Chinese university. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 3(3): 195-203.
8
*Lima, E., Lopes, R. M., Nassif, V., & da Silva, D. 2015. Opportunities to Improve
9
10 Entrepreneurship Education: Contributions Considering Brazilian Challenges. Journal of Small
R
11 Business Management, 53(4): 1033-1051.
12 *Liñán, F. 2004. Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa / Small
ev
13 Business (2004): 11-35.
14 Löbler, H. 2006. Learning entrepreneurship from a constructivist perspective. Technology Analysis
15 & Strategic Management, 18(1): 19-38.
16 *Lourenço, F., & Jayawarna, D. 2011. Enterprise education: the effect of creativity on training
ie
17 outcomes. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 17(3): 224-244.
18
*Lourenço, F., Jones, O., & Jayawarna, D. 2013. Promoting sustainable development: The role of
w
19
20 entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal, 31(8): 841-865.
21 *Man, T. W. Y., & Farquharson, M. 2015. Psychological ownership in team-based entrepreneurship
22 education activities. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(4):
Pr
23 600-621.
24 *Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. 2013. Examining the formation of human capital in
25 entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of
oo
26 Business Venturing, 28(2): 211-224.

27 *Matlay, H. 2008. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes. Journal
28
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 382-396.
29
*Matlay, H. 2011. The influence of stakeholders on developing enterprising graduates in UK
f-
30
31 HEIs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 17(2): 166-182.
32 *McAlexander, J., Nelson, R., & Bates, C. 2009. Developing an Entreprenuerial Education in a
33 Residential College: An Exploratory Case Study. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship,
No
34 12(2): 1-14.
35 *McCrea, E. A. 2013. Adding to the Pedagogical Portfolio: Launching a Student Business in a
36 Semester Course. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 16(1): 31-39.
37 *Mentoor, E. R., & Friedrich, C. 2007. Is Entrepreneurial Education at South African Universities
tF
38
Successful? An Empirical Example. Industry and Higher Education, 21(3): 221.
39
40 *Miller, B. K., Bell, J. D., Palmer, M., & Gonzalez, A. 2009. Predictors of entrepreneurial
41 intentions: a quasi-experiment comparing students enrolled in introductory management and
entrepreneurship classes. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 21(2): 39-62.
in
42
43 *Millman, C., Matlay, H., & Liu, F. 2008. Entrepreneurship education in China: a case study
44 approach. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(4): 802-815.
al
45 *Mohamad, N., Lim, H.-E., Yusof, N., Kassim, M., & Abdullah, H. 2014. Estimating the choice of
46 entrepreneurship as a career. The case of universiti Utara . International Journal of Business
47 and Society, 15(1): 65-80.
48
Ve
*Mohamed, Z., Rezai, G., Nasir Shamsudin, M., & Mu'az Mahmud, M. 2012. Enhancing young
49
50 graduates' intention towards entrepreneurship development in Malaysia. Education+ Training,
51 54(7): 605-618.
52 *Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., Fu, J., & Singhal, S. 2013. A Competency-Based Perspective on
r
53 Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business

si
54 Management, 51(3): 352-369.

55 *Mueller, S., & Anderson, A. R. 2014. Understanding the entrepreneurial learning process and its
56
on
impact on students' personal development: A European perspective. The International Journal

57 of Management Education, 12(3): 500-511.
58
59
32
60
1
2
Pe
3 *Muñoz C., C. A., S. Mosey and M. Binks (2011). "Developing Opportunity-Identification
4 Capabilities in the Classroom: Visual Evidence for Changing Mental Frames." Academy of
5 Management Learning & Education, 10(2): 277-295.
6 *Muofhe, N. J., & Du Toit, W. F. 2011. Entrepreneurial education's and entrepreneurial role
er
7 models' influence on career choice: original research. SA Journal of Human Resource
8
Management, 9(1): 1-15.
9
10 Nabi, G., & Liñán, F. 2011. Graduate entrepreneurship in the developing world: intentions,
R
11 education and development. Education+ Training, 53(5): 325-334.
12 Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L., Krueger, N., & Robinson, S. 2012. Pedagogical Interventions in
ev
13 Entrepreneurship from behaviourism to existential learning, Proceedings, Institute for Small
14 Business and Entrepreneurship. Dublin, Ireland.
15 *Newbold, K. F., Jr., & Erwin, T. D. 2014. The education of entrepreneurs: An instrument to
16 measure entrepreneurial development. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(1): 141-
ie
17 178.
18
*Ohland, M. W., Frillman, S. A., Zhang, G., Brawner, C. E., & Miller, T. K. 2004. The Effect of an
w
19
20 Entrepreneurship Program on GPA and Retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4):
21 293-301.
22 *Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D., & Thomas, B. 2010. Attitudes towards
Pr
23 entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis. Education+ Training, 52(8/9): 568-586.

24 *Pei‐Lee, T., & Chen‐Chen, Y. 2008. Multimedia University's experience in fostering and
25 supporting undergraduate student technopreneurship programs in a triple helix model. Journal
oo
26 of Technology Management in China, 3(1): 94-108.

27 *Petridou, E., & Sarri, K. 2011. Developing" Potential Entrepreneurs" In Higher Education
28
29
Institutes. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 19(01): 79-99.
*Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. 2015. Burst Bubbles or Build Steam? Entrepreneurship Education,
f-
30
31 Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Small Business
32 Management, 53(4): 970-985.
33 *Pittaway, L. A., Gazzard, J., Shore, A., & Williamson, T. 2015. Student clubs: experiences in
No
34 entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(3-4): 127-153.

35 Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. 2007. Entrepreneurship education a systematic review of the evidence.
36 International Small Business Journal, 25(5): 479-510.
37 *Pittaway, L., Rodriguez-Falcon, E., Aiyegbayo, O., & King, A. 2011. The role of entrepreneurship
tF
38
39
clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International Small Business Journal, 29(1):
40 37-57.
41 *Poblete, C., & Amorós, J. E. 2013. University Support in the Development of Regional
in
42 Entrepreneurial Activity: An Exploratory Study from Chile/Apoyo de las Universidades en el

43 desarrollo de la actividad emprendedora regional: un estudio exploratorio de Chile.
44 Investigaciones Regionales(26): 159-177.
al
45 *Premand, P., Brodmann, S., Almeida, R., Grun, R., & Barouni, M. 2016. Entrepreneurship
46 Education and Entry into Self-Employment Among University Graduates. World Development,
47 77: 311-327.
48
Ve
49
*Rae, D., & Woodier‐Harris, N. 2012. International entrepreneurship education: Postgraduate
50 business student experiences of entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 54(8/9):
51 639-656.
52 *Raposo, M. L. B., Ferreira, J. J. M., do Paço, A. M. F., & Rodrigues, R. J. G. 2008. Propensity to
r
53 firm creation: empirical research using structural equations. International Entrepreneurship

si
54 and Management Journal, 4(4): 485-504.

55 *Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. 2015. Putting Entrepreneurship Education Where the Intention to Act
56
on
Lies: An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial

57
Behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2): 187.
58
59
33
60
1
2
Pe
3 Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. 2013. Does Entrepreneurship Education Really Work? A Review and
4 Methodological Critique of the Empirical Literature on the Effects of University-Based
5 Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3): 329-351.
6 *Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S. Y., Yani-De-Soriano, M., & Muffatto, M. 2015. The Role of Perceived
er
7 University Support in the Formation of Students' Entrepreneurial Intention. Journal of Small
8
Business Management, 53(4): 1127-1145.
9
10 *Sánchez, J. C. 2011. University training for entrepreneurial competencies: Its impact on intention
R
11 of venture creation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2): 239-
12 254.
ev
13 Schwartz, S. H. 2004. Mapping and Interpreting Cultural Differences around the World. In
14 Comparing Cultures, Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative Perspective, edited by H.
15 Vinken, J. Soeters, and P. Ester, 43–73. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
16 *Shariff, A. M., Hasan, N. F. H. N., Mohamad, Z., & Jusoff, K. 2010. The relationship between
ie
17 active teaching and learning with graduate's entrepreneurial intention and
18
interest. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(1): 283-294.
w
19
20 *Shinnar, R. S., Hsu, D. K., & Powell, B. C. 2014. Self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions, and
21 gender: Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. The International
22 Journal of Management Education, 12(3): 561-570.
Pr
23 Shneor, R., Camgöz, S.M., & Karapinar, P.B. 2013. The interaction between culture and sex in the
24 formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9-10):
25 781-803.
oo
26 *Smith, K., & Beasley, M. 2011. Graduate entrepreneurs: intentions, barriers and
27 solutions. Education+ Training, 53(8/9): 722-740.
28
*Solesvik, M. Z. 2013. Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: investigating the role of
29
education major. Education+ Training, 55(3): 253-271.
f-
30
31 *Solesvik, M. Z., Westhead, P., Matlay, H. & Parsyak, V. N. 2013. Entrepreneurial assets and
32 mindsets, Education + Training, 55(8/9): 748-762.
33 *Solesvik, M., Westhead, P., & Matlay, H. 2014. Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention: The
No
34 role of entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 56(8/9): 680-696.

35 Solomon, G. 2007. An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of
36 Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14: 168-182.
37 *Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
tF
38
entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning,
39
40 inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4): 566-591.
41 *Stamboulis, Y., & Barlas, A. 2014. Entrepreneurship education impact on student attitudes. The
International Journal of Management Education, 12(3): 365-373.
in
42
43 *Støren, A. L. 2014. Entrepreneurship in higher education: Impacts on graduates' entrepreneurial
44 intentions, activity and learning outcome. Education + Training, 56(8/9): 795.
al
45 *Tan, S., & Ng, C. F. 2006. A problem-based learning approach to entrepreneurship education.
46 Education+ Training, 48(6): 416-428.
47 Thompson, P., Jones-Evans, D., & Kwong, C. C. Y. 2010. Education and entrepreneurial activity: A
48
Ve
comparison of White and South Asian Men. International Small Business Journal, 28(2):
49
50 147-162.
51 *Thursby, M. C., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, J. 2009. An Integrated Approach to Educating
52 Professionals for Careers in Innovation. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
r
53 8(3): 389-405.
si
54 *Toledano, N., & Urbano, D. 2008. Promoting entrepreneurial mindsets at universities: a case study
55 in the South of Spain. European Journal of International Management, 2(4): 382-399.
56
on
57
58
59
34
60
1
2
Pe
3 *Tounés, A., Lassas-Clerc, N., & Fayolle, A. 2014. Perceived entrepreneurial competences tested
4 by business plan pedagogies. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
5 21(4): 541-557.
6 Tranfield, D. R., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
er
7 informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
8
Management, 14: 207-222.
9
10 *Turker, D., & Selçuk, S. 2009. Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university
R
11 students? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2): 142-159.
12 *Ulvenblad, P., Berggren, E., & Winborg, J. 2013. The role of entrepreneurship education and start-
ev
13 up experience for handling communication and liability of newness. International Journal of
14 Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(2): 187-209.
15 *Varamäki, E., Joensuu, S., Tornikoski, E., & Viljamaa, A. 2015. The development of
16 entrepreneurial potential among higher education students. Journal of Small Business and
ie
17 Enterprise Development, 22(3): 563-589.
18
*Vincett, P. S., & Farlow, S. 2008. “Start‐a‐Business”: an experiment in education through
w
19
20 entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 274-288.
21 *Voisey, P., Gornall, L., Jones, P., & Thomas, B. 2006. The measurement of success in a business
22 incubation project. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(3): 454-468.
Pr
23 *Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. 2010. The effects of entrepreneurship education.
24 Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1): 90-112.
25 *Vorley, T., & Williams, N. 2016. Not just dialling it in: Examining cognitive-based approaches in
oo
26 enterprise education using a smartphone application. Education + Training, 58(1): 45-60.

27 *Walter, S. G., & Dohse, D. 2012. Why mode and regional context matter for entrepreneurship
28
29
education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9-10): 807-835.
*Walter, S. G., Parboteeah, K. P., & Walter, A. 2013. University Departments and Self-
f-
30
31 Employment Intentions of Business Students: A Cross-Level Analysis. Entrepreneurship
32 Theory and Practice, 37(2): 175-200.
33 Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. 2014. Entrepreneurial Learning: Past Research and Future Challenges.
No
34 International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1): 24-61.

35 *Wang, Y., & Verzat, C. 2011. Generalist or specific studies for engineering entrepreneurs?:
36 Comparison of French engineering students' trajectories in two different curricula. Journal of
37 Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(2): 366-383.
tF
38
39
*Watts, C. A., & Wray, K. 2012. Using toolkits to achieve STEM enterprise learning
40 outcomes. Education + Training, 54(4): 259-277.
41 *Wee, K. N. L. 2004. A problem-based learning approach in entrepreneurship education: promoting
in
42 authentic entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(7-

43 8): 685-701.
44 *Westhead, P., & Solesvik, M. Z. 2015. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention:
al
45 Do female students benefit? International Small Business Journal: 1-25.

46 *Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. 2007. Gender, entrepreneurial Self‐Efficacy, and
47
entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship Education1.
48
Ve
49
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3): 387-406.
50 *Wilson,F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D., Barbosa, S. D., & Griffiths, M. D. 2009. An analysis of the
51 role of gender and self-efficacy in developing female entrepreneurial interest and behaviour.
52 Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(2):105–119
r
53 *Woodier‐Harris, N. R. 2010. Evaluating the impact of SPEED on students' career choices: a pilot
si
54 study. Education + Training, 52(6/7): 463-476.

55 *Yaghmaei, O., Ardestani, H. S., Ghasemi, I., Baraeinezhad, S., & Parsa, R. 2015. Relationship
56
on
among Influential Factors of Entrepreneurial Intention: An Associational Study. Modern

57
Applied Science, 9(9): 114-121.
58
59
35
60
1
2
Pe
3 *Yusoff, M. N. H., Nasir, W. N. B. W., & Zainol, F. A. B. 2012. Assessing the impact of
4 knowledge of government business support services on propensity of new graduates to venture
5 into business. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(16): 106-117.
6 *Zainuddin, M. N., & Rejab, M. R. M. 2010. Assessing “ME generation's” entrepreneurship degree
er
7 programmes in Malaysia. Education + Training, 52(6/7): 508-527.
8
*Zainuddin, M. N., Rahim, M. F. A., & Rejab, M. R. M. 2012. Reconstruct creative destruction
9
10 knowledge through creative disruption. On the Horizon, 20(1): 34-48.
R
11 *Zhang, Y., Duysters, G., & Cloodt, M. 2014. The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor
12 of university students' entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and
ev
13 Management Journal, 10(3): 623-641.
14 *Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. 2005. The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the
15 Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1265-1272.
16
ie
17
18
w
19
20
21
22
Pr
23
24
25
oo
26
27
28
29
f-
30
31
32
33
No
34
35
36
37
tF
38
39
40
41
in
42
43
44
al
45
46
47
48
Ve
49
50
51
52
r
53
si
54
55
56
on
57
58
59
36
60
1
2
Pe
3 Figure 1. An integrated teaching model framework encompassing EE impact and underpinning pedagogy
4
5
6
er
Nature of EE Pedagogical Methods (Béchard Impact Indicators (Jack and Anderson, 1998)
7
& Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle and Gailly, 2008) Operational level
8
9 • Supply model focusing on reproduction • Level 1: Current and on-going measures
10
R
methods such as lectures, reading and so during the programme (e.g. interest and
11 forth. awareness).
12 • Demand model focusing on personalised/ • Level 2: Pre- and post- programme
ev
13 participative methods e.g. interactive measures (e.g. knowledge, entrepreneurial
14 searches, simulations. intentions).
15 • Competence model focusing on • Level 3: Measures between 0 and five
16 communication, discussion and production years post-programme (e.g. number and
ie
17 methods e.g. debates, portfolios). type of start-ups).
18 • Hybrid models i.e. mixture of above. • Level 4: 3 to 10 years post-programme
(e.g. survival of start-ups).
w
19
20 • Level 5: 10 years plus post-programme
21 (e.g. contribution to society and economy).
22
Pr
23
24
25
oo
26
27
28
29
f-
30
31
32
33
No
34
35
36
37
tF
38
39
40
41
in
42
43
44
al
45
46
47
48
Ve
49
50
51
52
r
53
si
54
55
56
on
57
58
59
37
60
1 Pe
2
3
4 er
Table 1. Main types of impacts in impact studies
Personal Change Business
Re
Other
5 1. Attitude 2a. Skills and Knowledge 2b. Feasibility 2c. Entrepreneurial Intention 3. Business Start Up
4/5. Performance & (41 articles, 26%)
Socio-Econ.
6 (32 articles, 20%) (34 articles, 21%) (42 articles, 26%) (81 articles, 51%) (21 articles, 13%)
(8 articles, 5%)
7
vie
Bakotic and Kruzic 2010 Brink and Madsen 2015 Abaho et al 2015 P; Armstrong Ahmed et al 2010 N; Almobaireek and Manolova 2012 P; Burrows and Wragg Alarape 2007 P; Azim and Akbar 2010 P; Bell
8 P; Basu 2010 P; M; Burrows and Wragg 2014 P; Barakat et al 2014 P; Armstrong 2014 P; Aslam et al 2012 P; Azim and Akbar 2013 P; Connolly et al Donnellon et al 2014 2015 P; Burrows and Wragg
9 Boukamcha 2015 P; 2013 P; Chang and Rieple Basu 2010 P; Boukamcha 2010 P; Bakotic and Kruzic 2010 P; Barakat et al 2014 P; 2006 P; Daghbashyan & P; Gordon et al 2012 2013 P; Crane 2014 P; Crane and
10 Byabashaija and Katono 2013 M; Chang et al 2014 2015 P; Burrows and Wragg Basu 2010 P; Bernhofer and Han 2014 P; Boukamcha 2015 Hårsman 2014 P; P; Henry et al 2004 P; Meyer, 2007 P; Cruz et al 2009
2011 P; Canziani et al 2015 P; Collins et al 2006 PI; 2013 P; Byabashaija and P; Byabashaija and Katono 2011 P; Canziani et al 2015 P; Dominguinhos and Lange et al 2014 P; P; Donnellon et al 2014 P;
w
11 P; Chang et al 2014 P; DeTienne and Chandler Katono 2011 P; Diaz-Casero et Chang and Rieple 2013 M; Cheng et al 2009 N; Coduras et Carvalho 2009 P; Martin et al 2013 P; Gilbert 2012 P; Gordon et al
12 Fayolle and Gailly 2015 P; 2004 P; Diaz-Casero et al al 2012 PI; Fayolle and Gailly al 2008 P; Crane 2014 P; De Clercq et al 2013 P; DeGeorge Donnellon et al 2014 P; Matlay 2008 P; 2012 P; Groenewald 2012 P;
13 Fretschner and Weber 2013 2012 PI; Dominguinhos 2015 P; Gerba 2012 P; Gielnik and Fayolle 2008 P; Diaz-Casero et al 2012 PI; Farashah Dutta et al 2010 P; Voisey et al 2006 P Hamidi et al 2008 P; Harris and
Pr
P; Friedrich and Visser and Carvalho 2009 P; et al 2015 P; Gilbert 2012 P; 2013 P; Fayolle and Gailly 2015 M; Fayolle et al 2006a P; Gielnik et al 2015 P; Gibson 2008 N; Hegarty 2006 P;
14 2006 P; Gerba 2012 P; Faoite et al 2004 N; Harms 2015 P; Harris et al Fayolle et al 2006b M; Florin et al 2007 P; Franco et al Gilbert 2012 P; Henry et Heinonen et al 2011 A; Hussain
15 Harris et al 2007 A; Henry Galloway et al 2005 P; 2007A; Hattab 2014 N; 2010 P; Friedrich and Visser 2006 P; Gerba 2012 P; Gielnik al 2004 P; Jansen et al et al 2010 N; Kirby and Ibrahim
16 et al 2004 P; Hietanen Garalis and Strazdiene Heinonen et al 2011 A; Henry et al 2015 P; Gilbert 2012 P; Hamidi et al 2008 P; Hattab 2015 P; Karlsson and 2011 P; Lackeus 2014 P; Lanero
17
18
19
2015 P; Idogho and Barr
2011P; Izquierdo and
Buelens 2011 P; Karlsson
and Moberg 2013 P;
2007 P; Gielnik et al 2015
P; Gilbert 2012 P ;
Gondim and Mutti 2011
A; Gundry et al 2014 P;
et al 2004 P; Izquierdo and
Buelens 2011 P; Jones and
Jones 2011 P; Karimi et al
2016 P; Karlsson and Moberg oo
2014 P; Henry et al 2004 P; Heuer and Kolvereid 2014 P;
Hytti et al 2010 A; Ismail et al 2009 P; Joensuu et al 2013
N; Jones et al 2008 P; Jones et al 2011P; Bae et al 2014 A;
Karimi et al 2016 P; Karlsson and Moberg 2013 P; Kassean
Moberg 2013 P; Lange
et al 2014 P; Martin et al
2013 P; McAlexander et
al 2009 P; Pei-Lee and
et al 2011 P; Lean 2012 P; Li and
Liu 2011 P; Lourenço and
Jayawarna 2011 PI; Lourenço et
al 2013 PI; Martin et al 2013 P;
20
21
22
Kassean et al 2015 P;
Kenny 2015 P; Kirby and
Humayun 2013 P; Lanero
et al 2011 A; Liñán 2004 P;
Harms 2015 P; Henry et al
2004 P; Jones and Jones
2011 P; Kirkwood et al
2014 P; Klapper 2014 P;
2013 P; Kassean et al 2015 N;
Kirkwood et al 2014 P; Lanero
et al 2011 P; Laviolette et al
2012 P; Lima et al 2015 N; f-
et al 2015 P ; Keat et al 2011 P; Kirby and Humayun 2013
P; Lanero et al 2011P; Laviolette et al 2012 P; Lee et al
2005 P; Lima et al 2015 N; Liñán 2004 P; Martin et al 2013
P; Miller et al 2009 P; Mohamad et al 2014 N; Mohamed et
Chen-Chen 2008 P;
Poblete and Amoros
2013 A; Premand et al
2016 P; Rauch and
Matlay 2011 P; McCrea 2013 P;
Millman et al 2008 P; Mueller
and Anderson 2014 P; Newbold
and Erwin 2014 P; Ohland et al
23
24
25
Mentoor and Friedrich
2007 N; Packham et al
2010 M; Petridou and Sarri
2011 M; Pittaway et al
Lans et al 2013 A; Lee et
al 2005 P; Martin et al
2013 P; Morris et al 2013
P; Munoz et al 2011 P;
Liñán 2004 P; Mentoor and
Friedrich 2007 N; Newbold
and Erwin 2014 P; Pei-Lee and
Chen-Chen 2008 P; No
al 2012 P; Muofhe and du Toit 2011 P; Newbold and Erwin
2014 P; Packham et al 2010 M; Petridou and Sarri 2011 M;
Piperopoulos and Dimov 2015 P; Raposo et al 2008 P;
Rauch and Hulsink 2015 P; Sánchez 2011 P; Shariff et al
Hulsink 2015 P; Støren
2014 A; Vincett and
Farlow 2008 P; Wilson
et al 2009 P
2004 P; Pittaway et al 2011 P;
Pittaway et al 2015 P; Premand
et al 2016 P; Rae and Woodier-
Harris 2012 PI; Sánchez 2011 P;
tF
2015 P; Shariff et al 2010 Ohland et al 2004 P; Piperopoulos and Dimov 2015 2010 P; Smith and Beasley 2011 A; Solesvik 2013 P; Souitaris et al 2007 P; Tan and
26 P; Solesvik 2013 P; Premand et al 2016 P; Tan P; Rauch and Hulsink 2015 P; Solesvik et al 2013 P; Solesvik et al 2014 P; Souitaris et al Ng 2006 P; Vincett and Farlow
27 Souitaris et al 2007 A ; and Ng 2006 P ; Thursby Saeed et al 2015 P; Sánchez 2007 P; Støren 2014 P; Turker and Selcuk 2009 P; 2008 P; Wee 2004 P; Man and
Stamboulis and Barlas et al 2009 P; Tounès et al 2011 P; Shinnar et al 2014 M; Varamäki et al 2015 A; Von Graevenitz et al 2010 M; Farquharson 2015 P; Woodier-
28
in
2014 P; Vorley and 2014 P; Ulvenblad et al Solesvik 2013 P; Souitaris et al Walter and Dohse 2012 P; Walter et al 2013 M; Wang and Harris 2010 PI; Yusoff et al 2012
29 Williams 2016 P; Walter 2013 PI; von Graevenitz et 2007 A; Toledano and Urbano Verzat 2011 M; Westhead and Solesvik 2015 M; Wilson et P
30 and Dohse 2012 P; Walter al 2010 M; Vorley and 2008 A; Wilson et al 2007 P; al 2009 P; Yaghmaei et al 2015 PI; Zainuddin and Rejab
al
et al 2013 P Williams 2016 P; Watts Wilson et al 2009 P; Zainuddin 2010 P; Zainuddin et al 2012 P; Zhang et al 2014 P; Zhao et
31 and Wray 2012 P and Rejab 2010 P; Zainuddin al 2005 P
32 et al 2012 P
33
Ve
P=26 P=25 P=32 P=61 P=19 P=8 P=34
34 PI=0 PI=3 PI=1 PI=2 PI=0 PI=0 PI=4
35 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
36
rs
A=3 A=2 A=4 A=4 A=2 A=0 A=1
37 Total =32 Total =34 Total=42 Total=81 Total=21 Total=8 Total=41
38 Note: In first row, number of papers (and percentage of total) indicated. Percentages rounded up. Some articles consider more than one impact measure, and are, therefore, included more than once in the table.
39
40
Findings: P = positive; PI = positive indirect; M = mixed; N = negative; A = ambiguous/not significant
38 io
41
42
43
44
n
45
46
47
48
1 Pe
2
3
4 er
Table 2. Overview of alternative pedagogies, comparison studies, and types of impact.
Types of Impact2
Re
2c. Entrepreneurial Intention 3. Business Start- 4/5. Perform
5 1. Attitude 2a. Skills and Knowledge 2b. Feasibility
Up & socio-econ
Other
6 Crane 2014 P; Sánchez 2011 P ;
7 Supply Sánchez 2011 P; Shinnar et al Solesvik et al 2013 P; Solesvik et al Crane 2014 P; Sánchez
vie
2014 M 2014 P; 2011 P
8
9 Fretschner and Weber 2013 P;
10 Supply- Henry et al 2004 P; Izquierdo Henry et al 2004 P; Izquierdo Hamidi et al 2008 P; Henry et al 2004
Henry et al 2004 P; Klapper 2014 Henry et al Crane and Meyer 2007 P;
Demand and Buelens 2011 P; Liñán and Buelens 2011 P; Liñán P; Liñán 2004 P; Shariff et al 2010 P; Henry et al 2004 P
w
11 2004 P; Shariff et al 2010 P;
P; Thursby et al 2009 P
2004 P;
2004 P Hamidi et al 2008 P
12 Stamboulis and Barlas 2014 P
Types of Teaching Model Pedagogy1
13 Boukamcha 2015 P; Fayolle et al Bell 2015 P; Millman et al
Pr
Boukamcha 2015 P; Fayolle 2006a P; Fayolle and Gailly 2015 M; 2008 P; Mueller and
14 and Gailly 2015 P; Kirby and Lans et al 2013 A; Munoz et al
Boukamcha 2015 P; Fayolle
Kirby and Humayun 2013 P; Miller
McAlexander et al
Anderson 2014 P;
15 Demand and Gailly 2015 P; Souitaris et 2009 P; Premand et
Humayun 2013 P; Souitaris et 2011 P; Premand et al 2016 P et al 2009 P; Souitaris et al 2007 P; Pittaway et al 2011 P;
al 2007 A; al 2016 P
16 al 2007 A; Varamäki et al 2015 A Premand et al 2016 P;
17
18
19 Friedrich and Visser 2006 P;
Burrows and Wragg 2013 P; Chang
and Rieple 2013 M; DeTienne and
Chandler 2004 P; Garalis and
oo Abaho et al 2015 P; Armstrong
2014 P; Burrows and Wragg
2013 P; Harms 2015 P; Harris
Armstrong 2014 P; Chang and Rieple
2013 M; DeGeorge and Fayolle 2008 Burrows and Wragg
Souitaris et al 2007 P
f-
Burrows and Wragg 2013
Harris et al 2007 A; Hietanen Strazdiene 2007 P; Gondim and et al 2007 A; Jones and Jones P; Florin et al 2007 P; Friedrich and 2013 P; Dutta et al
20 Demand-
2015 P; Kasseann et al 2015 P; Mutti 2011 A; Harms 2015 P; 2011 P; Kassean et al 2015 N; Visser 2006 P; Kassean et al e2015 P; 2010 P; Jansen et al
P; Man and Farquharson
21 Compet. 2015 P; Tang and Ng 2006
Kenny 2015 P; Vorley and Jones and Jones 2011 P; Kirkwood Kirkwood et al 2014 P; Piperopoulos and Dimov 2015P: 2015 P; Rauch and
P; Wee 2004 P
22 Williams 2016 P; et al 2014 P; Morris et al 2013 P; Piperopoulos and Dimov Rauch and Hulsink 2015 P; Hulsink 2015 P
23
24
25
Tounès et al 2014 P Vorley and
Williams 2016 P
Brink and Madsen 2015 M; Chang

2015P: Rauch and
Hulsink2015 P
No
Gielnik et al 2015 P; Gilbert
Donnellon et al
2014 P; Gielnik et
Donnellon et
Donnellon et al 2014 P;
Gordon et al 2012 P;
tF
Chang et al 2014 P; Pittaway Bae et al 2014 A; Gielnik et al 2015 al 2014 P;
Compet. et al 2014 P; Gielnik et al 2015 P; 2012 P; Toledano and Urbano al 2015 P; Gilbert Lackeus 2014 P; McCrea
26 et al 2015 P
Gilbert 2012 P; 2008 A
P; Gilbert 2012 P
2012 P; Vincett and
Gordon et al
2013 P; Pittaway et al
27 2012 P
Farlow 2008 P 2015 P
28 Compar- Walter and Dohse 2012 P; Wang and Lange et al
in
Walter and Dohse 2012 P; Lange et al 2014 P
isons Verzat 2011 M 2014 P;
29
Note: Articles without teaching model information not shown (13 for Level 1, 13 for L2a, 21 for L2b, 53 for L2c, 9 in L3, 4 in L4/5 and 22 in other). Some articles consider more
30
al
than one impact measure, and are, therefore, included more than once in the table.
31 1
Based on our framework drawing on Béchard and Grégoire (2005);
32 2
Based on our framework drawing on Henry et al.’s (2003) classification. See Table 1 for details on the sign of impacts (positive, negative, mixed or ambiguous). For the
33
Ve
comparison studies (Lange et al. 2014; Walter and Dohse 2012; Wang and Verzat 2011), supply models are consistently found to have less positive impact.
34
35
36
37
38
rs
39
40 39 io
41
42
43
44
n
45
46
47
48
1
2
Pe
3 Table 3. Future research directions: Types of EE impact and pedagogical models
4
5 Re-affirmation of past reviews
6 1. Ongoing requirement for increased research on higher-lever impact indicators by examining
er
7 objective and higher-level measures at levels 4 and 5 of our teaching model framework (see Figure
8 1) including entrepreneurial behaviour.
9 2. More detail about the specifics of the pedagogy in impact studies.
10
R
New or underemphasised research directions
11
12 1. Types of Impact
ev
13 A. Focus on novel impact indicators related to emotion-based and mindset approaches
14 i. Explore role of EE programme-derived inspiration in higher education as an impact indicator
15 and a mediator between EE and a range of other impact measures. For example, does inspiration
16 mediate the EE-behaviour relationship?
ie
17 ii. Examine the development of the entrepreneurial mindset in higher education such as
18 dispositional optimism, uncertainty and ambiguity tolerance.
w
19
B. Focus on impact indicators related to the intention-to-behaviour transition
20
21 i. Build on Souitaris et al., (2007) to generate new knowledge about why there is (or is not) a
22 transition from entrepreneurial intentions into nascent or start-up behaviour, specifically for
Pr
23 example, why do some recipients of higher-education based EE with high entrepreneurial

24 intentions start-up their own businesses after graduating, whilst others (despite high intentions)
25 do not? What is the role of EE in higher education in this process?
oo
26 ii. Explore the development of entrepreneurial identity in higher education.

27 C. Explore contextual reasons for some contradictory findings in impact studies
28
i. Explore individuals’ background in terms of previous entrepreneurial exposure and pre-
29
educational intentions to clarify the impact of higher-education based EE.
f-
30
31 ii. Directly examine if the impact of EE programmes in higher education on a range of
32 entrepreneurial outcomes is gender-specific and for which outcomes.
33 iii. Consider contextual factors in higher education e.g. type of course, type of institution
No
34 iv. Expand existing research by looking at relationship between culture and national context in EE
35 impact studies. For example, how do cultural values moderate the impact of EE on outcomes?
36 What outcomes are culture-specific? Our teaching model framework could be expanded to
37 incorporate culture-specific frameworks (e.g. Hofstede, 2003; Schwartz, 2004).
tF
38
v. Explore under-examined fast-growing/ emerging countries/ continents in our sample e.g. Brazil,
39
40 Russia, and Africa and Australia.
41 vi. Examine double-moderator interaction effects. For example, does EE impact outcomes as a
in
42 function of culture and gender?

43 2. Pedagogical methods underpinning impact
44 A. Investigate competence-model-related pedagogical methods, to determine if they are truly more
al
45 effective than other models, and why they are effective.

46 B. Building on our teaching model framework, directly compare and contrast a broad range of
47
pedagogical models (supply, demand, competence, and hybrids) in terms of their impact on a range
48
Ve
49 of impact indicators (from levels 1 to 5).

50 General recommendations
51 1. Explore EE at other levels, i.e. other than higher education.
52 2. Explore impact of university-based EE on stakeholders other than students and graduates. For
r
53 example, university faculty, donors/ investors, and community.

si
54
55
56
on
57
58
59
60
1
2
Pe
3 Autobiographical notes
4
5 Ghulam Nabi (PhD) is a senior lecturer in entrepreneurship and organisational behaviour in the
6 Business School at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU). His principal research interests
er
7 include student-to-entrepreneur transition, entrepreneurship education and outcomes, and
8
entrepreneurial intentions. He is also interested in cultural values, entrepreneurial risk perception and
9
10 entrepreneurial emotion. He has published several articles in journals such as Entrepreneurship and
R
11 Regional Development, Journal of Education and Work, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
12 Behaviour & Research, and Journal of Small Business and Development. Dr Nabi has been funded to
ev
13 carry out a number of research projects, including for the UK National Council for Graduate
14 Entrepreneurship (NCGE). He has also been a Guest Editor for a number of special issues on graduate
15
entrepreneurship and published a recent book on Cultural Values and Entrepreneurship (with Prof
16
ie
17 Liñán and Prof Krueger).
18
Francisco Liñán (PhD) is an associate professor in applied economics at the University of Seville
w
19
20 (Spain), and has been invited Professor in different master’s and PhD programs at Barcelona, Madrid,
21 Paris (France), Guadalajara (Mexico), among others. He is a Member of “ESU-European university
22 network on entrepreneurship research”. His teaching and research interests include entrepreneurship
Pr
23 as a process, entrepreneurial intentions and cultural values, leading to several articles published in
24 international books and academic journals such as Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Small
25 Business Economics, Journal of Small Business Management, Entrepreneurship and Regional
oo
26 Development or International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. He has participated in

27 national as well as international research projects funded by the EU or the OECD. He is Director of
28 the master’s programme in Entrepreneurship Development.
29
f-
30 Alain Fayolle (PhD) is a professor of entrepreneurship, the founder and director of the
31 entrepreneurship research centre at EM Lyon Business School, France. His research interests cover a
32 range of topics in the field of entrepreneurship. He has been (or still is) acting as an expert for
33 different governments and international institutions (OECD, EC, UNIDO).
No
34 Prof Fayolle published thirty books and over 150 leading international and French-speaking journals.
35 Among his editorial positions, he is notably an Associate Editor of JSBM and an Editor of two leading
36 French-speaking journals. In 2013, Prof Fayolle got the 2013 European Entrepreneurship Education
37 Award and has been elected officer of the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Division (a five
tF
38 year commitment culminating with position as Chair of Division in 2016). In 2015, he has been
39 awarded Wilford L. White Fellow by ICSB
40
41 Norris Krueger (PhD) is Research Fellow for the Center for Global Business Research at the School
in
42 of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix and founder of Entrepreneurship Northwest, his vehicle
43 to support his speaking and consulting on developing entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial
44 training. He is passionate about understanding how we can develop the entrepreneurial mindset
al
45 effectively and productively. He is the most-cited author on entrepreneurial intentions, research that
46 has led him to deeper cognitive phenomena (and coined the term ‘neuroentrepreneurship’). He is also
47 very active in the entrepreneur community (e.g., Startup Weekend organizer, 1 Million Cups
48 organizer).
Ve
49
50 Andreas Walmsley (PhD) is an associate professor with the School of Tourism and Hospitality at
51 Plymouth University, UK where he oversees the delivery of three undergraduate programmes and
52
r
teaches across a range of business subjects. His main areas of research revolve around graduate
53 entrepreneurship and employment, particularly youth employment. He has recently published a book
si
54 on youth employment in tourism and hospitality and continues to link employment with issues around
55 corporate social responsibility Andreas has also undertaken a number of consultancy projects for
56
on
national tourism associations in the UK and is currently on the Institute of Travel and Tourism’s
57 Education and Training Committee.
58
59
60

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education A Systematic Review and Research Agenda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Learning & Education

Journal: Academy of Management Learning & Education

Manuscript Type: Research & Reviews

Entrepreneurship Education, Higher Education, Impact, Outcomes,

23 & Levine, 2008).

54 EE pedagogy and outcomes in higher education.

26 INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

42 Grégoire, 2005:111). The demand model focuses on pedagogical methods highlighting a

34 Systematic review methodology

23 Background characteristics of the dataset

34 & Woodier-Harris 2012).

23 entrepreneurial identity. These suggest either a non-significant impact of EE on nascency (Souitaris

54 EE programmes on start-up rates at level 3 of our framework. Furthermore, Lange, Marram,

54 participants (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Fayolle et al., 2006b).

INSERT TABLE 1 AND 2 ABOUT HERE

Competence model pedagogy

23 Focus on novel impact indicators related to emotion-based approaches

45 be remiss not to also assess person- and context- specific factors.

entrepreneurial experience, family background or high previous entrepreneurial intention, the

45 focused on these effects.

34 Pedagogical methods underpinning impact

on developing behavioural competency in solving problems in real-life entrepreneurial situations.

23 model framework? How do they work regarding underlying processes?

54 demand, demand, demand-competence, competence). We urge scholars of future comparison

23 Limitations and general recommendations

54 yet greatly promising new or underemphasised directions for future research.

23 Sciences, 2(14): 114–120.

34 of Management Education, 12(3): 456-468.

45 education: model and illustrations. In A. Fayolle (Ed.) Handbook of Research in

53 China: a comparative study of entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Technology

54 Management, 65(1-2-3-4): 125.

D. L. Sexton, & J. D. Kasarda (Eds.) The State-of-the-Art of Entrepreneurship: 17-42. Boston

45 Education, 15: 94-104.

53 Economics, 42(4): 729-746.

34 Regional Development, 25(7-8): 692-701.

42 education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training,

53 regional comparison. Education+ Training, 52(4): 260-275.

23 contexts for entrepreneurship students in fast-tracking innovations. Education+ Training,

26 entrepreneurship skills development course. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(3): 195-208.

34 Management Learning and Education, 3: 238–241.

42 Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 304-320.

45 Forecasting and Social Change. 100: 21-28.

53 (ABS): Academic Journal Quality Guide Version 4. UK: ABS.

54 *Hattab, H. W. 2014. Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions of

*Hegarty, C. 2006. It's not an exact science: teaching entrepreneurship in Northern

23 + Training, 52(8/9): 587-606.

26 Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(3): 284-288.

54 Entrepreneurship Education: A Study of Iranian Students' Entrepreneurial Intentions and

45 International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 8(2): 111-130.

Entrepreneurship, 25(2), 1-31.

54 entrepreneurial role models on self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. International

26 Business Venturing, 28(2): 211-224.

53 Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business

54 Management, 51(3): 352-369.

impact on students' personal development: A European perspective. The International Journal

23 entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis. Education+ Training, 52(8/9): 568-586.

26 of Technology Management in China, 3(1): 94-108.

34 entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(3-4): 127-153.

42 Entrepreneurial Activity: An Exploratory Study from Chile/Apoyo de las Universidades en el

53 firm creation: empirical research using structural equations. International Entrepreneurship

54 and Management Journal, 4(4): 485-504.

Lies: An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial

34 role of entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 56(8/9): 680-696.