Next Article in Journal
The Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Franchise Networks: Exploring the Role of Franchisee Associations
Previous Article in Journal
How Can Digitalization Mitigate Pandemic-Induced Demand Shocks? A Case Study from the Apparel Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/admsci14010001
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Identifying Constituent Elements of Entrepreneurship Curricula: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Victor Tiberius
1,2,* and
Michael Weyland
2
1
Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam, 14482 Potsdam, Germany
2
Institute of Economic Education, Ludwigsburg University of Education, 71634 Ludwigsburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010001
Submission received: 2 November 2023 / Revised: 26 November 2023 / Accepted: 13 December 2023 / Published: 19 December 2023
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Entrepreneurship education research has a strong “output” focus on impact studies but pays much less attention to the “inside” or process perspective of the way entrepreneurship education occurs. In particular, the scattered previous entrepreneurship curriculum research has not managed to provide a current and comprehensive overview of the curricular elements that constitute entrepreneurship education. To overcome this shortcoming, we aim to identify the teaching objectives, teaching contents, teaching methods, and assessment methods discussed in entrepreneurship curriculum research. To this end, we conducted a systematic literature review on the four entrepreneurship curriculum dimensions and collected all mentioned curriculum items. We used a two-stage coding procedure to find the genuinely entrepreneurship-specific items. Among numerous items (also from business management and other subjects), we found 26 objectives, 34 contents, 11 teaching methods, and 7 assessment methods that were entrepreneurship-specific. Most of these items were addressed by only a few scholarly papers.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship can be defined as the process of identifying and seizing business opportunities by introducing new products or services to the market (Alerasoul et al. 2022; Filser et al. 2020; Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Through this and by creating new jobs, entrepreneurship contributes to the domestic economic growth (Acs and Szerb 2007; Galindo and Méndez 2014; Ribeiro-Soriano 2017; Van Praag and Versloot 2007; Wennekers and Thurik 1999). As a consequence, many national governments worldwide promote entrepreneurship itself and entrepreneurship education (EE) as a means to foster entrepreneurship (Hägg and Schölin 2018; Hoppe 2016; Mei and Symaco 2022; O’Connor 2013). Over the decades, this has led to a plethora of entrepreneurship education programs worldwide, which teach students entrepreneurial attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Cui et al. 2021; Morris et al. 2013; Sánchez 2013).
In coherence with this great practical relevance, research on entrepreneurship education also has grown rapidly (Fellnhofer 2019). The majority of research focuses on the effects or impacts entrepreneurship education has (Tiberius and Weyland 2023), such as establishing or increasing entrepreneurial attitudes (Iyortsuun et al. 2021; Fayolle and Gailly 2015), entrepreneurial motivation (Oosterbeek et al. 2010), entrepreneurial intention or volition (Bae et al. 2014; Fayolle and Gailly 2015; Maresch et al. 2016; Piperopoulos and Dimov 2015; Rauch and Hulsink 2015; Zhang et al. 1987), and entrepreneurial competences or skills (Aly et al. 2021; Hahn et al. 2020; Jardim 2021; Oosterbeek et al. 2010). Among these, the literature has a strong focus on students’ entrepreneurial intention (Tiberius and Weyland 2023). In other words: Does entrepreneurship education really foster entrepreneurship? As mentioned above, this is seen as its purpose or even raison d’être (O’Connor 2013). Interestingly, Bae et al. (2014) found in their large-scale meta-analysis that there is a significant but only small positive correlation between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention. This could mean different things: (a) entrepreneurship education is not very effective, (b) entrepreneurial intention is not the most appropriate variable to measure the success of entrepreneurship education, (c) entrepreneurship is not attractive enough for students compared to permanent employment, or (d) the way entrepreneurship education occurs can be improved.
While all these conclusions are feasible, we want to take the last possible notion as a starting point. This thought is in line with the fact that, opposing the strong “output” perspective of EE research mentioned above, the “inside” or process perspective of the way entrepreneurship education occurs receives comparably little attention (Tiberius and Weyland 2023). In other words: the majority of research that focuses on EE’s impacts more or less treats EE as a homogenous good. However, it is obvious that any subject, such as languages, math, psychology, sciences, etc., can be taught in various ways. The same applies to entrepreneurship. This also addresses the practical relevance of our review: for schools and universities, it is not only relevant to provide any kind of EE but a high quality EE. To be able to evaluate the quality of entrepreneurship programs, it is necessary to take the specific pedagogy of EE into account. This requires knowledge about the curricular items that exist in EE.
To put the way entrepreneurship, as recognizing and acting upon business opportunities (Filser et al. 2020; Shane and Venkataraman 2000), is taught and learned in more concrete terms, we want to refer to the concept of the curriculum. While there is a lack of a commonly accepted definition of a curriculum (Fraser and Bosanquet 2006), there is some consensus on its main dimensions: (0) audiences or target groups, (1) teaching objectives, (2) teaching contents, (3) teaching methods, and (4) assessment methods (Alberti et al. 2004; Fayolle and Gailly 2008; Mwasalwiba 2010; Tiberius et al. 2023). EE can have various audiences, from primary school (or even kindergarten) to university and even at graduate level, with different previous educational backgrounds. After determining the audience, the actual curricular development begins. Against this background, our research question is as follows: according to the EE literature, what are the (1) teaching objectives, (2) teaching contents, (3) teaching methods, and (4) assessment methods specifically used in entrepreneurship education? In particular, we wanted to collect specific items in these four curriculum dimensions, based on a systematic literature review.
Our literature review contributes to the literature by providing a comprehensive overview of all items in the four curriculum dimensions that have been discussed in entrepreneurship curriculum research so far, by distinguishing between items that directly refer to entrepreneurship and those that refer to business management or other subjects, and by giving an impression on the research intensities of these items. Our review complements previous but outdated reviews with slightly differing methodologies, such as the ones by Maritz (2017), Maritz and Brown (2013), and Mwasalwiba (2010). However, we include their findings in our analysis. This literature review also has practical implications.

2. Methodology

To answer our research question, we conducted a systematic literature review (Kraus et al. 2020, 2022; Tranfield et al. 2003). To search for relevant papers, we used the Web of Science (WoS) on 20th August 2023 and repeated the search on the 26th November 2023. The WoS is regarded as a leading database for scholarly literature (Zhu and Liu 2020), with an especially high coverage of publications in the social sciences (Norris and Oppenheim 2007; Singh et al. 2021), which allows diverse filtering functions (Martín-Martín et al. 2021). To find as many relevant articles as possible, our first attempt was to use the topic search. However, this led to too many results, of which the vast majority were not relevant. For example, the search for “objective*” AND “entrepreneurship education” led to 175 results. After screening the first 50 results without finding a single relevant publication, we decided to use a combined search of specific title terms and the topic term “entrepreneurship education”, as shown in Table 1. The asterisk (*) was used to also include terms with a different ending (Granados et al. 2011). Several of the papers appeared in more than one of the searches.
Due to the manageable sample size, we did not narrow down the search by applying further formal inclusion or exclusion criteria, such as document types, categories (scholarly disciplines), or languages. Rather, we screened all the papers’ titles and abstracts to check for their relevance to our research goal. In this process, papers were excluded when their content did not relate to our research question. In particular, a publication was excluded for one of the following reasons: (1) The publication did not address at least one specific item of the four curriculum dimensions. (2) The paper did not deal with entrepreneurship education in general but with specific sub-types, such as social entrepreneurship education (McNally et al. 2020) or sustainable entrepreneurship education (Hermann and Bossle 2020). (3) The search term had a different meaning in the article. For example, the outcome of EE can be either a formerly set teaching or learning objective or the (un)intended consequence, effect, or impact of EE. A large share of the impact-oriented papers focused on the impacts of EE not on the individual level of students but on the level of the economy or society, which was also not the focus of our review. The same applies to the three other curriculum dimensions. For example, the search term “method*” was mostly used for research methods. The term “assessment” was also used for evaluation of the entrepreneurship program, whereas our focus was on the assessment of the students’ learning performance. Additionally, the term appeared in specific research contexts, such as the “assessment” of textbooks (Mason and Siqueira 2014). (4) One paper was excluded because it was written in Russian, which the authors do not understand. Subtracting double or multiple appearances and topical irrelevance, the total number of papers was 26 (Table 2).
For data analysis, we extracted all statements relating to the four curriculum dimensions. Some of the identified codes were too vague to be included in further analysis and were removed accordingly. For example, in the methodology category, Maritz and Brown (2013) mentions traditional and non-traditional teaching methods, which are not specific methods but root categories. Using open coding (Corbin and Strauss 2014; Miles et al. 2014), we collected 184 codes for objectives, 143 codes for contents, 90 codes for teaching methods, and 66 codes for assessments in the first coding stage. In the second stage, we consolidated and unified the code names. As a consequence, the number of codes could be reduced to 77 objectives, 67 contents, 31 teaching methods, and 15 assessment methods (Figure 1).
When analyzing the data, we did not only count the codes but also how often they were mentioned. However, this is not intended to be interpreted statistically but to provide an impression of how intensely the items are discussed in entrepreneurship curriculum research (Hannah and Lautsch 2011). A code was counted as one per article, regardless of how often it was mentioned in the article. Some numbers of mentions in the tables exceed the number of articles (26), because the summarized categories contained several codes.

3. Results

In the objective dimension, we found 77 codes, which were mentioned 185 times. The particular objective categories and the numbers of codes and mentions are summarized in Table 3. The predominant objectives relate to the fields of entrepreneurship and business management, whereas only a few codes relate to other fields.
Following our research goal and in order not to go beyond the scope, we focus on the entrepreneurship-specific objectives, which are provided in greater detail in Table 4. The conceptualizations of required entrepreneurial knowledge is somewhat weak. At its core, students should know the fundamentals of entrepreneurship, be able to define an entrepreneur, and know the stages of starting a new venture. In contrast, the literature strongly emphasizes entrepreneurial skills, which is in line with an understanding of entrepreneurship as a practice. Accordingly, acting and behaving in an entrepreneurial way requires a variety of entrepreneurial skills. Among them, entrepreneurial alertness, starting a new venture, and entrepreneurial financial skills were addressed most often. The entrepreneurial financial skills have several more sub-codes, such as being able to assess the financial feasibility of the venture, forecast the financial requirements of the new venture, choose the right financing approach, present a business idea to investors and persuade them, acquire the required funding, and plan and control the finances of the venture. Entrepreneurial attitudes are least frequently addressed as teaching and learning objectives. Here, the literature especially stresses that students should develop or increase an entrepreneurial intention and mindset. We did not include the socio-economic outcomes in Table 3, as they do not relate to the program level directly but address outcomes beyond it, such as creating new jobs (mentioned once), creating an entrepreneurial culture in the university, or creating economic and social value (twice).
In the content dimension, we identified 67 codes mentioned 115 times. Table 5 showcases the found content categories and the numbers of codes and mentions.
Again, following our research goal, we focus on the contents associated with entrepreneurship, which are listed in greater detail in Table 6. The literature suggests that entrepreneurship students should become familiar with (unspecified) fundamentals of entrepreneurship. Another strong focus of the literature is on business opportunities and business ideas, where the students should learn how to recognize lucrative business opportunities and how to generate business ideas and assess their feasibility. Further strong foci are on creativity and innovation and the stages of the process of creating a startup.
In the method dimension, we found 31 codes, which were mentioned 76 times. An overview of the different types of learning methods mentioned in the literature (with their numbers of codes and mentions) is given in Table 7.
Apart from several methods that can be used for many different subjects, we found entrepreneurship- and business-specific methods. The particular entrepreneurship-specific methods and the numbers of mentions are provided in Table 8. We used the well-established categorization of teaching and learning methods, which distinguishes between teaching “about”, “for”, and “through” entrepreneurship: teaching about entrepreneurship is teacher-centered and, consequently, instruction-based; teaching for entrepreneurship is student-centered and relates to experiential learning, taking place in a risk-free classroom setting; teaching through entrepreneurship is also student-centered and relates to experiential learning, but requires real-life contexts facing real problems and risks (Chaker and Jarraya 2021; Jamieson 1984; Mwasalwiba 2010; Sirelkhatim and Gangi 2015). The teaching-about-entrepreneurship methods are not indicated separately in the entrepreneurship section, because they are basically methods that are not specific for entrepreneurship but can be used in other fields as well. Project work (either as individual or group work), start-up case studies, and counseling/mentoring are methods addressed most often in the literature. They relate to the teaching-for- or teaching-through-entrepreneurship approach, depending on the method’s application to a fictional or real venture, which was not specified in the papers. In comparison, teaching “through” entrepreneurship is much less discussed.
When coding the assessment methods, it became obvious that the literature deals with two different levels—the assessment of the students’ learning performance and the evaluation of the entrepreneurship programs. The overall results are shown in Table 9.
Due to our pedagogic perspective on how entrepreneurship is taught and learned, our focus is on the student level. In this student assessment method dimension, we found 15 codes, which were mentioned 27 times. Among them, seven codes, mentioned 11 times, refer to entrepreneurship, with a particular focus on assessment methods that relate to experiential entrepreneurship education, i.e., teaching for or through entrepreneurship. For five codes, we were not able to distinguish between teaching for or through entrepreneurship, as the methods can be used for both fictional and real start-up projects. We did not sub-classify the general assessment methods that are applicable in other subjects as well because several of the codes found in the literature cannot be attributed to just one but various different assessment classifications. An exemplary classification of (general) assessment methods was provided by Pittaway and Edwards (2012), who distinguish between the following characteristics: (1) What is assessed? (2) How is it assessed? (3) When and where is it assessed? (4) Who is doing the assessing? (5) Is the assessment external or internal? (6) Is the assessment objective or subjective? (7) Is the assessment formative or summative? In correspondence with the question “Who is doing the assessing?,” the following can additionally be asked: (8) Who is being assessed—individual students or groups? None of these classifications could cover all the codes found in the literature; hence, using all classifications would have led to double entries; furthermore, the non-entrepreneurship-specific assessment methods do not address our research objective. Therefore, we dispensed with a separate classification.
In the program evaluation dimension, we found much more research, represented by 22 codes, mentioned 32 times, which we attributed to four categories: student, program, start-up, and societal characteristics.
The more detailed entrepreneurship-specific results are provided in Table 10. On the student level, only seven codes could be found. Among them, business plans are mentioned most often (four times). On the program level, student characteristics show both the highest number of codes and mentions. Among them, four papers have suggested to measure the students’ entrepreneurial intention during or after participating in the program. Three papers wanted to measure entrepreneurial self-efficacy. If these measures are high (possibly in comparison to before participating in the program), the program can be considered as performing well. Entrepreneurial traits as another possible measure was only mentioned once and has to be seen critically, as traits are usually conceptualized as more or less immutable characteristics of an individual. Therefore, measuring traits before and after the program should deliver almost the same values, which makes them unsuitable as performance indicators. Also critical is entrepreneurial orientation, as it usually refers not to individuals but to firms (Covin and Lumpkin 2011; Rauch et al. 2009). It also is not very reasonable to assign this code to the start-up characteristics, as entrepreneurial orientation is conceptualized as a strategic orientation usually referring to established firms and not to start-ups, which have a high entrepreneurial orientation by definition. Among the start-up characteristics, the number of new ventures started by students or alumni was mentioned most often (three times).

4. Discussion

This review aimed at identifying items for (1) teaching and learning objectives, (2) teaching and learning contents, (3) teaching methods, and (4) assessment methods specifically used in entrepreneurship education, from a research perspective, i.e., based on a systematic literature review.
The overall results show that, apart from entrepreneurship-specific curriculum items, items relating to business management play a prominent role. This shows that, from the perspective of EE research, both fields are strongly intertwined. When entrepreneurship is seen as new business venturing, it is obvious that, apart from the pre-founding and founding stage, start-ups are firms, and the knowledge and skills relevant for managing firms also applies to new or young firms. The idea that entrepreneurship is a mindset that goes beyond starting new companies and can be applied to non-business areas, such as social ventures (Gupta et al. 2020; Hota et al. 2020; Kirby 2004; Shahid and Alarifi 2021), is not yet strongly reflected in entrepreneurship curriculum research. Similarly, the potential use of entrepreneurship education for corporate entrepreneurship is still underrepresented (Glinyanova et al. 2021; Soares et al. 2021). Apart from business management, other fields that are incorporated to a limited extent include economics, law, and information technology. In line with our research goal, we will focus only on the entrepreneurship-specific items in the following.
In the objective dimension, the findings reveal a focus on entrepreneurial competences or skills, whereas entrepreneurial knowledge and attitudes received less attention. This corresponds to the idea that entrepreneurship is, first and foremost, an activity or behavior (Gartner 1988; Mueller et al. 2012) that must be mastered by prospective entrepreneurs. However, the identified competences still lack a systematic, which, for example, is provided by the EntreComp conceptual model, which differentiates three areas with several competences for each: “ideas and opportunities” (spotting opportunities, creativity, vision, valuing ideas, and ethical and sustainable thinking), “resources” (self-awareness and self-efficacy, motivation and perseverance, mobilizing resources, financial and economic literacy, and mobilizing others), and “into action” (taking the initiative, planning and management, coping with ambiguity, uncertainty, and risk, working with others, and learning through experience) (Bacigalupo et al. 2016). Whereas coping with ambiguity, uncertainty, and risk is considered highly relevant for entrepreneurship, it is underrepresented in the EE curriculum literature. The consequences of external crises has not been addressed yet (Drăgan et al. 2023). Interestingly, in the entrepreneurial knowledge category, knowing entrepreneurial theories and concepts is not explicitly mentioned. In the entrepreneurial attitude category, developing or increasing an entrepreneurial mindset (or passion or spirit) and intention was only mentioned by some papers. Future research may place more emphasis on these categories, as skilled behavior should be based on solid knowledge and is strongly influenced by attitudes.
In the content dimension, we found a comparably large number of codes, which were addressed by a relatively low number of articles each. The whole catalogue represents a broad and comprehensive entrepreneurship syllabus, in which no substantial contents are missing; its individual items have little support as many of them are only mentioned once or twice. This suggests a lack of a common canon of contents that should be taught. Future research should engage in a more holistic perspective in search for such a canon.
In the method dimension, we found several entrepreneurship-specific methods, which can all be considered as experiential methods. Experiential methods are seen as particularly suitable and effective for entrepreneurship education, as they relate to simulated or actual entrepreneurial activities and behaviors (Awaysheh and Bonfiglio 2017; Bell and Bell 2020; Kirby 2004; Lackéus 2020; Morris and König 2020; Motta and Galina 2023; Smith et al. 2022). However, the number of codes was quite small, and these were mentioned by only a few articles each. Several further entrepreneurship-specific methods are missing, such as the lean startup approach, which has been mentioned in the content but not the method dimension. Due to its incremental and iterative procedure, the lean start-up approach can be seen as an alternative to writing a business plan, which tries to holistically plan a new venture over several years (DeNoble and Zoller 2017; Schultz 2022). Similarly, the iterative process of design thinking is considered useful for EE but is underrepresented in the literature (Kremel and Wetter Edman 2019; Rösch et al. 2023). In addition, entrepreneurship projects, regardless of whether they are conducted as individual vs. group work or by referring to a fictional vs. real case, could be further refined. This also applies to business incubators (Albort-Morant and Oghazi 2016; Deyanova et al. 2022; Guerrero et al. 2020; Grimaldi and Grandi 2005) and accelerators (Dams et al. 2021; Seet et al. 2018) as methods for entrepreneurship education. As the entrepreneurship process can be subdivided into numerous partial tasks, these could also be used as entrepreneurial subprojects. For example, students could work on brand name and logo development, business idea development (Secundo et al. 2023), business model development (Bolzani and Luppi 2021; Hasche and Linton 2021; Snihur et al. 2021), company registration, entrepreneurial marketing (Amjad et al. 2020; Thanasi-Boçe 2020), (minimum viable) product/service development (White and Kennedy 2022; Wu and Chen 2021), etc. Apart from subdividing the whole entrepreneurship process into partial projects, a more demanding approach, for both students and instructors, is to undergo the whole process from idea to market. For simpler business ideas, such as a t-shirt shop, this could be realized in one semester or a year, whereas more complex ideas may take much longer, especially when they refer to real, rather than fictional, cases (teaching-through-entrepreneurship). Again, the low numbers suggest a strong potential for enhanced curricular research on teaching methods in entrepreneurship education.
In the assessment dimension, a similar picture can be observed: both the number of assessment methods and the number of times they were addressed by individual papers were low. In principle, the experiential teaching methods can also be used for assessment purposes—either by assessing the students’ performance during the process (formative assessment) or by focusing on the results the students elaborated (summative assessment). As the literature does not seem to have realized this potential sufficiently, future research should examine the validity of experiential teaching arrangements as assessment methods and investigate the advantageousness of formative or summative assessments.
As with all research, our study comes with several limitations. First, the literature review is based on (only) 26 papers, which represents the current stock of research. This relatively low number shows that research in the subfield of entrepreneurship curricula still plays a subordinate role in the otherwise extensive research on entrepreneurship education (Fellnhofer 2019; Tiberius and Weyland 2023). While the research interest may rise in the future, the current state of research may be biased simply due to the low sample size and selected priorities of individual authors.
Second, we only used English search terms, because this is the main scholarly language and because of our own language limitations. Therefore, interesting articles in other languages could not be included (e.g., Castro 2017). As a consequence, a western bias can occur, which does not take into account EE in developing or emerging countries or the perspective of immigrant entrepreneurs in developed countries (Khaw et al. 2023).
Third, we did not apply a quality threshold for the literature sample, because we did not want to diminish it any further. Some scholars might argue that articles published in journals with low average citations per article, i.e., with a low average impact or relevance, should be avoided. However, the individual citation numbers of specific articles are more important than the average citation numbers of journals—most articles are cited much more often or less often than the average citation numbers of the journal they were published in. Additionally, we did not find any further signs that clearly indicated that they should be excluded when we reviewed the articles. After all, our goal was to identify as many curriculum items as possible, and no item that we found was unreasonable.
Fourth, our findings represent only the research perspective and not the teaching practice perspective on entrepreneurship curricula, as they are based on a systematic literature review. Previous EE research could have focused on specific curriculum items due to individual research interests or the intellectual support of these items, whereas teaching practice might look different. To assess the reality of entrepreneurship education, analyses of existing curricula have to be conducted (Seikkula-Leino 2011; Tiberius et al. 2023). In addition, future research should also address ways to improve EE from educators’ and entrepreneurs’ perspectives.
Despite these limitations, our review contributes to entrepreneurship education research and especially to entrepreneurship curriculum research in several ways. First, it provides a comprehensive overview of all entrepreneurship curriculum items in the four dimensions of objectives, contents, teaching methods, and assessment methods that have been subject to curricular research so far. Whereas the individual items that have been identified through this review cannot be considered novel or unexpected, their compilation represents the current state of research.
Second, this review distinguishes between genuinely entrepreneurship-specific items and those related to business management, which are often not clearly separated. Third, even though the law of large numbers does not apply to our review, the numbers for how often the items were mentioned provides an impression on the (mainly low) research intensity in the curriculum dimensions. In particular, it shows room for improvement, especially in the teaching method and assessment method dimensions.
The findings also have practical implications. The compilation of curriculum items can be used by entrepreneurship educators and curriculum designers for entrepreneurship programs. As mentioned before, entrepreneurship programs need to be evaluated on a regular basis. For this, it is necessary not only to measure the impact of EE (outcome perspective) but also the pedagogy of EE itself (inside or process perspective) based on used curriculum items and the students’ approval.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.T. and M.W.; methodology, V.T.; formal analysis, V.T.; writing—original draft preparation, V.T.; writing—review and editing, V.T.; supervision, M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. An APC was not due.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new empirical data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Acs, Zoltan J., and Laszlo Szerb. 2007. Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Econonomics 28: 109–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Afeli, Serge A., and Georges Adunlin. 2022. Curriculum content for innovation and entrepreneurship education in US pharmacy programs. Industry and Higher Education 36: 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alberti, Fernando, Salvatore Sciascia, and Alberto Poli. 2004. Entrepreneurship education: Notes on an ongoing debate. Paper presented at the 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, Naples, Italy, July 4–7; vol. 4. No. 7. [Google Scholar]
  4. Albort-Morant, Gema, and Pejvak Oghazi. 2016. How useful are incubators for new entrepreneurs? Journal of Business Research 69: 2125–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alerasoul, Sayed Alireza, Victor Tiberius, and Ricarda B. Bouncken. 2022. Entrepreneurship and innovation: The coevolution of two fields. Journal of Small Business Strategy 32: 128–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aly, Maha, David B. Audretsch, and Heike Grimm. 2021. Emotional skills for entrepreneurial success: The promise of entrepreneurship education and policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer 46: 1611–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Amjad, Tayyab, Shamsul Huda Binti Abdul Rani, and Shiza Binti Sa’atar. 2020. Entrepreneurship development and pedagogical gaps in entrepreneurial marketing education. The International Journal of Management Education 18: 100379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Awaysheh, Amrou, and Drew Bonfiglio. 2017. Leveraging experiential learning to incorporate social entrepreneurship in MBA programs: A case study. The International Journal of Management Education 15: 332–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Azizi, Mohammad, and Roya Mahmoudi. 2019. Learning outcomes of entrepreneurship education: Entrepreneurship education for knowing, doing, being, and living together. Journal of Education for Business 94: 148–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Babatunde, Simeon, Hatem El-Gohary, and David Edwards. 2021. Assessment methods in entrepreneurship education, challenges and opportunities in developed and developing nations: A comparative study of Nigeria and England. Education + Training 63: 1092–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bacigalupo, Margherita, Panagiotis Kampylis, Yves Punie, and Godelieve Van den Brande. 2016. EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bae, Tae Jun, Shanshan Qian, Chao Miao, and James O. Fiet. 2014. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta–analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38: 217–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bechard, Jean-Pierre, and Jean-Marie Toulouse. 1998. Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training objectives in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 13: 317–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bell, Robin, and Heather Bell. 2020. Applying educational theory to develop a framework to support the delivery of experiential entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 27: 987–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bolzani, Daniela, and Elena Luppi. 2021. Assessing entrepreneurial competences: Insights from a business model challenge. Education + Training 63: 214–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Canziani, Bonnie Farber, and Dianne H. B. Welsh. 2021. How entrepreneurship influences other disciplines: An examination of learning goals. The International Journal of Management Education 19: 100278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Castro, Jessica Paños. 2017. Educación emprendedora y metodologías activas para su fomento. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado 20: 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chaker, Hajer, and Houyem Jarraya. 2021. Combining teaching “about” and “through” entrepreneurship: A practice to develop students’ entrepreneurial competencies. Industry and Higher Education 35: 432–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  20. Covin, Jeffrey G., and G. Thomas Lumpkin. 2011. Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35: 855–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cui, Jun, Junhua Sun, and Robin Bell. 2021. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial mindset of college students in China: The mediating role of inspiration and the role of educational attributes. The International Journal of Management Education 19: 100296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dams, Carolina, Virginia Sarria Allende, Magdalena Cornejo, Ricardo A. Pasquini, and Gabriela Robiolo. 2021. Impact of Accelerators, as Education & Training Programs, on female entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 12: 329–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. DeNoble, Alex F., and Ted D. Zoller. 2017. Is the business plan really dead and should it be? A case for the lean start-up approach. The Great Debates in Entrepreneurship 27: 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Deyanova, Kameliya, Nataliia Brehmer, Artur Lapidus, Victor Tiberius, and Steve Walsh. 2022. Hatching start-ups for sustainable growth: A bibliometric review on business incubators. Review of Managerial Science 16: 2083–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Drăgan, George Bogdan, Wissal Ben Arfi, Victor Tiberius, and Aymen Ammari. 2023. Gravitating exogenous shocks to the next normal through entrepreneurial coopetive interactions: A PLS-SEM and fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research 157: 113627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fayolle, Alain, and Benoit Gailly. 2008. From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training 32: 569–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fayolle, Alain, and Benoit Gailly. 2015. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management 53: 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fellnhofer, Katharina. 2019. Toward a taxonomy of entrepreneurship education research literature: A bibliometric mapping and visualization. Educational Research Review 27: 28–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Filser, Matthias, Victor Tiberius, Sascha Kraus, Tanita Zeitlhofer, Norbert Kailer, and Adrian Müller. 2020. Opportunity recognition: Conversational foundations and pathways ahead. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 13: 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fraser, Sharon P., and Agnes M. Bosanquet. 2006. The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education 31: 269–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Galindo, Miguel-Ángel, and María Teresa Méndez. 2014. Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback effects at work? Journal of Business Research 67: 825–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gartner, William B. 1988. “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business 12: 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Glinyanova, Maria, Ricarda B. Bouncken, Victor Tiberius, and Antonio C. Cuenca Ballester. 2021. Five decades of corporate entrepreneurship research: Measuring and mapping the field. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 17: 1731–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Granados, Maria L., Vlatka Hlupic, Elayne Coakes, and Souad Mohamed. 2011. Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship research and theory: A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2010. Social Enterprise Journal 7: 198–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Grimaldi, Rosa, and Alessandro Grandi. 2005. Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation 25: 111–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guerrero, Maribel, David Urbano, and Eduardo Gajón. 2020. Guerrero, Maribel, David Urbano, and Eduardo Gajón. 2020. Entrepreneurial university ecosystems and graduates’ career patterns: Do entrepreneurship education programmes and university business incubators matter? Journal of Management Development 39: 753–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gupta, Parul, Sumedha Chauhan, Justin Paul, and Mahadeo P. Jaiswal. 2020. Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research 113: 209–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hahn, Davide, Tommaso Minola, Giulio Bosio, and Lucio Cassia. 2020. The impact of entrepreneurship education on university students’ entrepreneurial skills: A family embeddedness perspective. Small Business Economics 55: 257–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hannah, David R., and Brenda A. Lautsch. 2011. Counting in qualitative research: Why to conduct it, when to avoid it, and when to closet it. Journal of Management Inquiry 20: 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hasche, Nina, and Gabriel Linton. 2021. University–industry collaboration: Constructing a business model lab for student venture creation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 27: 1241–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hägg, Gustav, and Tobias Schölin. 2018. The policy influence on the development of entrepreneurship in higher education: A Swedish perspective. Education + Training 60: 656–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Henry, Colette. 2020. Reconceptualizing the role of the future entrepreneurship educator: An exploration of the content challenge. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 32: 657–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hermann, Roberto Rivas, and Marilia Bonzanini Bossle. 2020. Bringing an entrepreneurial focus to sustainability education: A teaching framework based on content analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production 246: 119038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hoppe, Magnus. 2016. Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics 46: 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hota, Pradeep Kumar, Balaji Subramanian, and Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy. 2020. Mapping the intellectual structure of social entrepreneurship research: A citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 166: 89–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hytti, Ulla, and Colm O’Gorman. 2004. What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries. Education + Training 46: 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Iyortsuun, Akuraun Shadrach, Meshach G. Goyit, and Reuel J. Dakung. 2021. Entrepreneurship education programme, passion and attitude towards self-employment. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 13: 64–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jamieson, Ian. 1984. Schools and enterprise. In Education for Enterprise. Edited by Anthony Gordon Watts and Paul Moran. Cambridge: Careers Research and Advisory Centre, pp. 19–27. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jardim, Jacinto. 2021. Entrepreneurial skills to be successful in the global and digital world: Proposal for a frame of reference for entrepreneurial education. Education Sciences 11: 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Katz, Jerome A., Ralph Hanke, Fred Maidment, K. Mark Weaver, and Sharon Alpi. 2016. Proposal for two model undergraduate curricula in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12: 487–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Khaw, Khai Wah, Ramayah Thurasamy, Hadi Al-Abrrow, Alhamzah Alnoor, Victor Tiberius, Hasan Oudah Abdullah, and Sammar Abbas. 2023. Influence of generational status on immigrants’ entrepreneurial intentions to start new ventures: A framework based on structural equation modeling and multicriteria decision-making. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 15: 589–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kirby, David A. 2004. Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Education + Training 46: 510–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, Weng Marc Lim, Marina Dabić, Satish Kumar, Dominik Kanbach, Debmalya Mukherjee, Vincenzo Corvello, Juan Piñeiro-Chousa, Eric Liguori, and et al. 2022. Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Review of Managerial Science 16: 2577–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kremel, Anna, and Katharina Wetter Edman. 2019. Implementing design thinking as didactic method in entrepreneurship education. The importance of through. The Design Journal 22: 163–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lackéus, Martin. 2020. Comparing the impact of three different experiential approaches to entrepreneurship in education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26: 937–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Laine, Kati, Päivi Tynjälä, Anneli Eteläpelto, and Raija Hämäläinen. 2019. Students’ self-reported learning outcomes after a business start-up education program. International Journal of Training Research 17: 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lyons, Roisin, Theo Lynn, and Ciaran Mac an Bhaird. 2015. Individual level assessment in entrepreneurship education: An investigation of theories and techniques. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 18: 136–56. [Google Scholar]
  59. Maresch, Daniela, Rainer Harms, Norbert Kailer, and Birgit Wimmer-Wurm. 2016. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 104: 172–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Maritz, Alex. 2017. Illuminating the black box of entrepreneurship education programmes: Part 2. Education + Training 59: 471–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Maritz, Alex, and Christopher R. Brown. 2013. Illuminating the black box of entrepreneurship education programs. Education + Training 55: 234–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Martín-Martín, Alberto, Mike Thelwall, Enrique Orduna-Malea, and Emilio Delgado López-Cózar. 2021. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 126: 871–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mason, Jack, and Ana Cristina O. Siqueira. 2014. Addressing the challenges of future entrepreneurship education: An assessment of textbooks for teaching entrepreneurship. In Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24, pp. 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. McNally, Jeffrey J., Panagiotis Piperopoulos, Dianne H. B. Welsh, Thomas Mengel, Maha Tantawy, and Nikolaos Papageorgiadis. 2020. From pedagogy to andragogy: Assessing the impact of social entrepreneurship course syllabi on the Millennial learner. Journal of Small Business Management 58: 871–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mei, Weihui, and Lorraine Symaco. 2022. University-wide entrepreneurship education in China’s higher education institutions: Issues and challenges. Studies in Higher Education 47: 177–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  67. Morris, Michael H. 2017. Why content and lecture matter in entrepreneurship education. In The Great Debates in Entrepreneurship. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, vol. 27, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  68. Morris, Michael H., Justin W. Webb, Jun Fu, and Sujata Singhal. 2013. A competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights. Journal of Small Business Management 51: 352–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Morris, Thomas Howard, and Pascal D. König. 2020. Self-directed experiential learning to meet ever-changing entrepreneurship demands. Education + Training 63: 23–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Motta, Victória Figueiredo, and Simone Vasconcelos Ribeiro Galina. 2023. Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education 121: 103919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mueller, Susan, Thierry Volery, and Björn Von Siemens. 2012. What do entrepreneurs actually do? An observational study of entrepreneurs’ everyday behavior in the start–up and growth stages. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36: 995–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mwasalwiba, Ernest Samwel. 2010. Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training 52: 20–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Norris, Michael, and Charles Oppenheim. 2007. Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. Journal of Informetrics 1: 161–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. O’Connor, Allan. 2013. A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing 28: 546–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Oosterbeek, Hessel, Mirjam Van Praag, and Auke Ijsselstein. 2010. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review 54: 442–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pech, Martin, Petr Rehor, and Michaela Slabová. 2021. Students Preferences in Teaching Methods of Entrepreneurship Education. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science 14: 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Piperopoulos, Panagiotis, and Dimo Dimov. 2015. Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management 53: 970–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pittaway, Luke, and Corina Edwards. 2012. Assessment: Examining practice in entrepreneurship education. Education + Training 54: 778–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ramsgaard, Michael Breum, and Sara Juul Østergaard. 2018. An entrepreneurial learning approach to assessment of internships. Education + Training 60: 909–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rasmussen, Radmila M. 2016. Assessment for learning in innovation and entrepreneurship education. In Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Education. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 2, pp. 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rauch, Andreas, and Willem Hulsink. 2015. Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education 14: 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rauch, Andreas, Johan Wiklund, George T. Lumpkin, and Michael Frese. 2009. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33: 761–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ribeiro-Soriano, Domingo. 2017. Small business and entrepreneurship: Their role in economic and social development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 29: 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rösch, Nicolas, Victor Tiberius, and Sascha Kraus. 2023. Designing thinking for innovation: Antecedents, process, and outcomes. European Journal of Innovation Management 26: 160–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sánchez, José C. 2013. The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management 51: 447–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Schultz, Christian. 2022. A Balanced Strategy for Entrepreneurship Education: Engaging Students by Using Multiple Course Modes in a Business Curriculum. Journal of Management Education 46: 313–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Secundo, Giustina, Gioconda Mele, Giuseppina Passiante, and Francesco Albergo. 2023. University business idea incubation and stakeholders’ engagement: Closing the gap between theory and practice. European Journal of Innovation Management 26: 1005–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Seet, Pi-Shen, Janice Jones, Lloyd Oppelaar, and Graciela Corral de Zubielqui. 2018. Beyond ‘know-what’ and ‘know-how’ to ‘know-who’: Enhancing human capital with social capital in an Australian start-up accelerator. Asia Pacific Business Review 24: 233–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Seikkula-Leino, Jaana. 2011. The implementation of entrepreneurship education through curriculum reform in Finnish comprehensive schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies 43: 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shahid, Satar Mir, and Ghadah Alarifi. 2021. Social entrepreneurship education: A conceptual framework and review. The International Journal of Management Education 19: 100533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Shane, Scott, and Sankaran Venkataraman. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25: 217–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Singh, Vivek Kumar, Prashasti Singh, Mousumi Karmakar, Jacqueline Leta, and Philipp Mayr. 2021. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 126: 5113–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sirelkhatim, Fatima, and Yagoub Gangi. 2015. Entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review of curricula contents and teaching methods. Cogent Business & Management 2: 1052034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Smith, Kelly, Matthew Charles Rogers-Draycott, and David Bozward. 2022. Full curriculum-based venture creation programmes: Current knowledge and research challenges. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 28: 116–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Snihur, Yuliya, Wadid Lamine, and Mike Wright. 2021. Educating engineers to develop new business models: Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities in technology-based firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 164: 119518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Soares, Glauciana Gomes, Vitor Lélio da Silva Braga, Carla Susana da Encarnação Marque, and Vanessa Ratten. 2021. Corporate entrepreneurship education’s impact on family business sustainability: A case study in Brazil. The International Journal of Management Education 19: 100424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Srivastava, Sumita, Kanika Satsangi, and Nandita Satsangee. 2019. Identification of entrepreneurial education contents using nominal group technique. Education + Training 61: 1001–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Thanasi-Boçe, Marsela. 2020. Enhancing students’ entrepreneurial capacity through marketing simulation games. Education + Training 62: 999–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Tiberius, Victor, and Michael Weyland. 2023. Entrepreneurship education or entrepreneurship education? A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education 47: 134–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Tiberius, Victor, Michael Weyland, and Raj V. Mahto. 2023. Best of entrepreneurship education? A curriculum analysis of the highest-ranking entrepreneurship MBA programs. The International Journal of Management Education 21: 100753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Van Praag, C. Mirjam, and Peter H. Versloot. 2007. What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics 29: 351–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wennekers, Sander, and Roy Thurik. 1999. Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics 13: 27–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. White, P. J., and Con Kennedy. 2022. Designing a module in entrepreneurship for product design students. Industry and Higher Education 36: 217–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Williams, Jaime L., and Richard J. Gentry. 2017. Keeping it real: The benefits of experiential teaching methods in meeting the objectives of entrepreneurship education. In The Great Debates in Entrepreneurship. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, vol. 27, pp. 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Wong, Hannah Y. H., and Cecilia K. Y. Chan. 2022. A systematic review on the learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education within higher education settings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47: 1213–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wu, Yenchun Jim, and Jeng-Chung Chen. 2021. Stimulating innovation with an innovative curriculum: A curriculum design for a course on new product development. The International Journal of Management Education 19: 100561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zhang, Ying, Geert Duysters, and Myriam Cloodt. 1987. The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10: 623–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zhu, Junwen, and Weishu Liu. 2020. A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics 123: 321–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 14 00001 g001
Figure 1. Coding process.
Figure 1. Coding process.
Admsci 14 00001 g001
Table 1. Search terms and number of publications.
Table 1. Search terms and number of publications.
SearchSearch Terms for TitleSearch Terms for TopicResults
1objective* OR outcome* OR goal* OR competence*“entrepreneurship education”86
2content* OR curricul* OR syllab*“entrepreneurship education”54
3method*“entrepreneurship education”52
4assessment*“entrepreneurship education”28
5didactic*“entrepreneurship education”3
Table 2. Literature sample.
Table 2. Literature sample.
Methodology/No.Methodology/AuthorsObjectivesContentsMethodsAssessments
Reviews
1Alberti et al. (2004)✕✕− 1− 1
2Maritz (2017)✕✕✕✕
3Maritz and Brown (2013)✕✕✕✕
4Mwasalwiba (2010)✕✕✕✕
5Sirelkhatim and Gangi (2015)−✕✕✕
6Wong and Chan (2022)✕−−−
Content/Curriculum Analyses
7Afeli and Adunlin (2022)✕✕−−
8Bechard and Toulouse (1998)✕−−−
9Canziani and Welsh (2021)✕−✕−
10Hytti and O’Gorman (2004)✕−✕−
11Katz et al. (2016)−✕−−
12Pittaway and Edwards (2012)✕−−✕
13Ramsgaard and Østergaard (2018) 2−−−✕
14Rasmussen (2016)−−−✕
15Tiberius et al. (2023)✕✕✕✕
Surveys and Interviews
16Azizi and Mahmoudi (2019)✕−−−
17Babatunde et al. (2021)−−−✕
18Kremel and Wetter Edman (2019)−−✕−
19Laine et al. (2019)✕−−−
20Lyons et al. (2015)−−−✕
21Morris et al. (2013)✕−−−
22Pech et al. (2021)−−✕−
23Srivastava et al. (2019)−✕−−
Conceptual Papers
24Henry (2020)−✕−−
25Morris (2017)−✕−−
26Williams and Gentry (2017)−−✕−
Number of Papers14111010
1 The EE dimension was addressed in the paper, but no specific items were provided. 2 Based on a case study of a single program.
Table 3. Overview of teaching and learning objectives.
Table 3. Overview of teaching and learning objectives.
FieldObjectivesCodesMentions
EntrepreneurshipEntrepreneurial knowledge720
Entrepreneurial skills1552
Entrepreneurial attitudes416
(Socio-economic outcomes)(3)(4)
Business managementBusiness knowledge38
Business skills2040
EconomicsEconomic knowledge22
LawLegal knowledge22
ITIT skills11
OtherKnowledge in a specific field11
PersonalityPersonal skills1227
Personal attitudes1320
Table 4. Entrepreneurship-specific teaching and learning objectives.
Table 4. Entrepreneurship-specific teaching and learning objectives.
Objective CategoryObjectivesMentions
Entrepreneurial knowledgeKnow entrepreneurship as a career option3
Know (unspecified) entrepreneurial fundamentals4
Know what an entrepreneur is4
Know drivers and inhibitors of an entrepreneurial mindset/passion/spirit1
Know the stages of the entrepreneurial process4
Know the structure and content of business plans1
Know creativity and innovation principles and techniques 3
Entrepreneurial skillsAssess one’s own entrepreneurial potential3
Have (unspecified) entrepreneurial skills5
Think like an entrepreneur2
Recognize or create and exploit business opportunities/have entrepreneurial alertness7
Generate an innovation1
Create value for customers1
Formulate a business idea1
Evaluate the feasibility of a business idea3
Develop a business model1
Develop a business plan2
Start a new venture6
Grow and scale the venture2
Have entrepreneurial finance skills9
Acquire required (non-financial) resources4
Entrepreneurial skills in other fields (franchises, corporate entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, other fields)5
Entrepreneurial attitudesInterest in entrepreneurship1
Entrepreneurial intention6
Entrepreneurial mindset/passion/spirit7
Accountabilty towards stakeholders2
Table 5. Overview of teaching and learning contents.
Table 5. Overview of teaching and learning contents.
FieldContentsCodesMentions
Entrepreneurship fundamentals(Unspecified) entrepreneurship fundamentals812
Creativity and innovation56
Business opportunities and business ideas413
Business models12
Business plans and pitches25
Entrepreneurial finance45
New venture creation411
Entrepreneurial strategy48
Small business management13
Corporate entrepreneurship11
Business management(Unspecified) business fundamentals13
Strategic management13
Risk management13
Accounting11
Finance13
Organization12
Technology management11
Operations management 11
Marketing610
HR management36
EconomicsEconomics11
LawLaw for entrepreneurs22
Personal skills and attitudesPersonal skills and attitudes1213
Table 6. Entrepreneurship-specific teaching and learning contents.
Table 6. Entrepreneurship-specific teaching and learning contents.
Content CategoryContentsMentions
Entrepreneurship fundamentals(Unspecified) fundamentals of entrepreneurship2
Definition and typologies of entrepreneurs1
Entrepreneurial skills and attitudes2
Concepts of entrepreneurship research3
Contexts of entrepreneurship1
Evidence-based entrepreneurship research1
Social entrepreneurship1
Ethical entrepreneurship1
Creativity and innovation(Unspecified) creativity fundamentals1
Creativity techniques1
(Unspecified) innovation fundamentals2
Product development1
Commercialization of innovations1
Business opportunities and business ideas(Unspecified) fundamentals of business opportunities and business ideas3
Opportunity recognition5
Business idea generation3
Business idea feasibility analysis2
Business models(Unspecified) fundamentals of business models2
Business plans and pitchesStructure and content of business plans4
Structure and content of pitches1
Entrepreneurial financeValuation1
Venture capital2
Small business finance1
Private equity1
New venture creation(Unspecified) fundamentals of new venture creation5
New venture creation/entrepreneurial process1
Lean start-ups2
(Unspecified) practical experiences with start-ups3
Entrepreneurial strategyFormulating a vision for the start-up1
Entrepreneurial forecasting and planning1
Growth strategies4
Exit strategies2
Small business management(Unspecified) fundamentals of small business management3
Corporate entrepreneurship(Unspecified) fundamentals of corporate entrepreneurship1
Table 7. Overview of teaching and learning methods.
Table 7. Overview of teaching and learning methods.
FieldTeaching MethodsCodesMentions
EntrepreneurshipTeaching for entrepreneurship311
Teaching through entrepreneurship35
Teaching for or through entrepreneurship518
BusinessBusiness simulations17
Marketing projects44
General methods
(teaching about entrepreneurship)		Teacher-centered212
Student-centered810
Interactive36
Technology-centered13
Table 8. Entrepreneurship-specific teaching and learning methods.
Table 8. Entrepreneurship-specific teaching and learning methods.
Teaching Method CategoryTeaching MethodsMentions
Teaching for entrepreneurshipStart-up case studies4
Counseling/mentoring4
Start-up visits3
Teaching through entrepreneurshipInternships at start-ups1
Setting up a real venture3
Incubators1
Teaching for or through entrepreneurshipWriting a business plan3
Business plan competitions3
Pitching2
Entrepreneurship project—individual work5
Entrepreneurship project—groupwork/workshops4
Design thinking projects1
Table 9. Overview of assessment methods.
Table 9. Overview of assessment methods.
FieldAssessment MethodsCodesMentions
Student-Level
EntrepreneurshipTeaching about entrepreneurship11
Teaching for entrepreneurship11
Teaching for or through entrepreneurship59
General assessment methodsDiverse assessment methods816
Program Level
Evaluation methodsStudent characteristics1117
Program characteristics45
Start-up characteristics68
Societal characteristics22
Table 10. Entrepreneurship-specific assessment methods.
Table 10. Entrepreneurship-specific assessment methods.
Assessment Method CategoryAssessment MethodsMentions
Student-Level
Teaching about entrepreneurshipStart-up case study solutions1
Teaching for entrepreneurshipInternships1
Teaching for or through entrepreneurship(Unspecified) partial entrepreneurship projects2
Business plans4
Pitch1
Prototype1
Complete entrepreneurship projects1
Program-Level
Student characteristicsKnowledge (about entrepreneurship) gained1
Exam scores1
General awareness/interest in entrepreneurship1
(Unspecified) entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors2
Entrepreneurial traits1
Entrepreneurial skills1
Entrepreneurial intention4
Entrepreneurial mindset/passion/spirit2
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy3
Entrepreneurial orientation1
Program characteristicsNumber of students1
Cost per student1
Students’/Alumni’s satisfaction with the program2
Secured funding of the program1
Start-up characteristicsAchieved funding for start-up1
Number of start-ups3
Number and/or quality of innovations1
Start-up revenue1
Start-up profitability1
Start-up growth1
Societal characteristicsNumber and/or quality of created jobs1
(Unspecified) contribution to society1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tiberius, V.; Weyland, M. Identifying Constituent Elements of Entrepreneurship Curricula: A Systematic Literature Review. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010001

AMA Style

Tiberius V, Weyland M. Identifying Constituent Elements of Entrepreneurship Curricula: A Systematic Literature Review. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tiberius, Victor, and Michael Weyland. 2024. "Identifying Constituent Elements of Entrepreneurship Curricula: A Systematic Literature Review" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010001

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop