Online Support for Education in Entrepreneurial and Intrapreneurial Competences: A Proposal for an Assessment Tool and Support for Tailor-Made Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The article has the merit of presenting a digital proposal for assessing entrepreneurial skills in a platform format. Through an in-depth review, authors can provide a higher quality article. In this regard, I recommend the following:

1 - The title could be made more explicit. In this regard, I propose the following: Online support for education in entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial competencies: a proposal for an assessment tool, and support for tailor-made training

2 - You can improve the abstract. As it stands, the abstract does not follow the logic required for a quality scientific publication. To this end, I propose reformulating the following: a very brief presentation of the investigation context, problem or gap in the investigation, objective to be achieved with this study, synthesis of the method/procedures/instruments used, main conclusion, and proposal to continue the study.

3 - Keywords can be reformulated. I propose the following keywords: entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurial competencies; intrapreneurship; digital platform; assessment.

4 - Bibliographic references used in the literature review need to be based on more recent concerns – especially in the last three years when online teaching has increased exponentially. In addition, some reference authors in this field were not mentioned. I ask the authors to do this work, looking for those recent studies that best fit this project and integrating them into the article.

5 -  The methods followed need to be explained. Therefore, point 2 - Background and objectives, should be transformed into Methods, background, and objectives - and all the methods and procedures followed should be presented.

6 - Section 3. Methodology – should be titled “Description of the construction of the Competence Framework, the Competence Monitor, and the Development Kit

7 - In point 4, the results obtained are presented. But no discussion takes place. That's why I propose to call it Results.

8 - The discussion should be made later and should contain the description and interpretation of the similarities and differences between the results achieved in this project and the results presented by the studies presented in the literature review.

9 - At the end of the conclusion, it is necessary to add the limitations of this study and how this proposal for an entrepreneurial skills assessment tool can continue to be studied.

It is worth the effort to reformulate this publication for the novelty of the research and its usefulness in entrepreneurship education.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

The authors have received your observations about our article “Online support for education in entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial competences with an assessment tool and tailored-training support” for Education Sciences special issue “Experimenting with Online Pedagogical Resources for European Universities (OpenU)”. 

First of all, we would like to thank you for the time dedicated to the revision and also thank you for the comments and suggestions on how to improve our contribution. We uploaded a newer version of the paper, with all the changes of all the reviewers  highlighted in blue letters . In order to better follow up the corrections from your side, please find in blue color  in this answer text the specific changes regarding you)

As follows, we provide the detailed answers to your comments:

1 - The title could be made more explicit. In this regard, I propose the following: Online support for education in entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial competencies: a proposal for an assessment tool, and support for tailor-made training

Thank you for the suggestion. We changed the title because we agree that the new title is more specific and better reflects our contribution.

2 - You can improve the abstract. As it stands, the abstract does not follow the logic required for a quality scientific publication. To this end, I propose reformulating the following: a very brief presentation of the investigation context, problem or gap in the investigation, objective to be achieved with this study, synthesis of the method/procedures/instruments used, main conclusion, and proposal to continue the study.

We revised the abstract according to your comments. The new abstract is as follows:

Higher Educations Institutions across Europe are called to offer entrepreneurship education. Despite the rising interest and the increased offer in the last decades, entrepreneurship education is yet not as mature as other disciplines, and it is still underdeveloped in some faculties and institutions. One way of embedding entrepreneurship education within different disciplines is to take a broader approach beyond teaching how to start up and focusing on developing the entrepreneurial competences of students which equip them to provide value to society (either economic, social, or cultural). This article describes an online platform -named EICAA- that support educators and trainers at aiming at teaching/guiding/coaching students or employees in developing entre/intrapreneurial competences. The platform is based on a Competence Framework, built upon a systematic literature review, which defines 18 key competences grouped in three competence areas. The platform allows the educator to assess the entrepreneurial competences of a group of students/participants, via the so-called Competence Monitor, and provides tailor-made training with the Development Kit. The platform is being used among five European universities and is open to be used by any Higher Education Institution or organisation aiming at developing the entrepreneurial competences of their students and/or employees. Future developments of the tool can be enriched from the experiences of the participant institutions and could become an open collaborative online tool.

3 - Keywords can be reformulated. I propose the following keywords: entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurial competencies; intrapreneurship; digital platform; assessment.

Thank you. We changed the keywords according to your suggestion.

Keywords: entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurial competencies; intrapreneurship; digital platform; assessment.

4 - Bibliographic references used in the literature review need to be based on more recent concerns – especially in the last three years when online teaching has increased exponentially. In addition, some reference authors in this field were not mentioned. I ask the authors to do this work, looking for those recent studies that best fit this project and integrating them into the article.

Thank you for the suggestion. We included more references to online entrepreneurship education and linked these approaches to our platform. Briefly, we referred to a recent literature review on online entrepreneurship education and its main findings (Chen et al., 2021). We also referred to another initiative which uses an online assessment tool, with the same purpose as our platform (i.e., assessing entrepreneurship student traits and facilitating tailored teaching) (Hayes & Richmond, 2017). Finally, we expand on the idea that online entrepreneurship education is still not widespread, mainly because of the experiential nature of this learning (Kassean et al., 2015). Based on these previous studies, our approach provides a tool to teachers and educators that allows tailored recommendations based on students’ assessments and offers a set of activities both in face-to-face (experiential) as online formats. Please, see the introduction for the final version.

This is the list of the new references included in the introduction:

Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S.  The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25(1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611

Jensen, T. L. A holistic person perspective in measuring entrepreneurship education impact – Social entrepreneurship education at the Humanities, The Int. J. Manag. Ed., 2014, 12(3), 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.07.002

Chen, L; Ifenthaler,D; Yau, JYK. Online and blended entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of applied educational technologies. J. Entrep. Educ. 2021, 4(2), 191-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-021-00047-7

Welsh, D.H.B.; Dragusin, M. The New Generation of Massive Open Online Course (MOOCS) and Entrepreneurship Education. Small Bus. Inst. J. 2013, 9(1), 51-65.

Hayes, D.; Richmond, W. Using an online assessment to examine entrepreneurship student traits and to measure and improve the impact of entrepreneurship education. J. Entrep. Educ. 2017, 20(1), 88-107.

Kassean, H.; Vanevenhoven, J.; Liguori, E.; Winkel, D. E. Entrepreneurship education: A need for reflection, real-world experience and action. Int. J. Entrep. Beh. & Res. 2015, 21(5), 690-708.

Morris, M. H.; Webb, J. W.; Fu, J.; Singhal, S. A competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 51(3), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12023

Rasmusen, A.; Nybye, N. Entrepreneurship education: Progression Model. The Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship – Young Enterprise, 2013.

Bolzani, D.; Luppi, E. Assessing entrepreneurial competences: insights from a business model challenge. Educ. + Train., 2020, 63(2), 214-238. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2020-0072

Tittel, A.; Terzidis, O. Entrepreneurial competences revised: developing a consolidated and categorized list of entrepreneurial competences. Entrep. Educ., 2020, 3, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-019-00021-4

 

5 -  The methods followed need to be explained. Therefore, point 2 - Background and objectives, should be transformed into Methods, background, and objectives - and all the methods and procedures followed should be presented.

We changed the title of this section to “Background, Methods and Objectives”. The order of these three words is the same as the contents of the section. In this section, we included the methods followed to develop the three components (The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework, the Competence Monitor and the Development Kit).

 

"Background, Methods, and Objectives"

The lack of information on entrepreneurial proficiency levels of learners creates a variety of challenges for HEI educators and trainers with regards to outlining entrepreneurial learning activities appropriately. Knowing which entrepreneurial competences need to be developed as well as to what level facilitates the planning of entrepreneurial learning activities and, and most likely, increases the efficiency of entrepreneurship education. Without such information, a good match between what is offered by educators and what is needed by learners may be difficult to achieve.

The same is true for determining entrepreneurial competences on an organisational level. Organisations that are knowledgeable of their entrepreneurial competence portfolio are in a better position to identify and address present entrepreneurial skills gaps - within or outside the organisation – as well as to determine whether internal staff development plans with regards to entrepreneurial traits have been achieved.

EICAA project has been established to address these “black box like” phenomena. The underlying logic of the platform is to provide tailored learning recommendations for groups of students/employees based on their current entrepreneurial competence assessment. It builds a Digital Platform for the assessment and development of entre/intrapreneurial competences. The platform consists of three main components, the Entrepreneurship Competence Framework, the Competence Monitor and the Development Kit. By identifying developmental needs of their target group(s) through a competence assessment, EICAA platform enables educators and trainers to better customize entrepreneurship education activities. Additionally, teachers/trainers can track the progress of their group as well as benchmark different groups. EICAA Digital Platform suggests entrepreneurial learning interventions upon which the users can improve the proficiency level within the group that underwent the self-assessment. These suggestions are derived from the self-assessment results. Its resources have been designed to be ready for micro-credential uptake, following the guidelines of the European Commission Higher Education Consultation Group [37] and of the OpenU project [38].

The methods followed to build the three components of EICAA Digital Platform are:

1. Entrepreneurship Competence Framework: it has been developed after a systematic literature review of a sample of 138 documents, both from scientific literature and grey literature. The review was coded using NVivo software tool and the identified competences were matched with the existing EntreComp framework. Then, the team of researchers studied new additions and simplifications of the EntreComp framework, synthesized a proposal, which was refined in several iterations.
2. Competence Monitor: it consists of a survey for self-assessment of entre/intrapreneurial competencies. The development of the EICAA Competence Monitor followed a mixed method approach. In a first stage, it consisted of the development and iterative refinement of a rubric system. Then, item statements were elaborated and refined using a Delphi process with 15 educational and entrepreneurship researchers and experts. The survey was tested in several rounds with several samples of students.
3. Development Kit: it is the repository of stackable learning modules targeting every competence at basic and advanced levels, designed under the micro-credentials guidelines [38].

The objectives of EICAA Digital Platform are to offer providers of entrepreneurship education (e.g., educators or trainers) and senior management representatives or human resource managers inside and outside higher education the possibility to gain a better understanding about the entrepreneurial proficiency of any group of individuals. It also allows for the exploitation of this knowledge to tailor entrepreneurial teaching activities that better fit the actual learning needs. This facilitates entrepreneurship education and provides an instrumental basis for a more efficient development of entrepreneurial competences inside universities, enterprises, and other types of organisations.

On the long run, EICAA bears the potential to offer guidance for policy makers once a critical mass of organisations has exploited the Digital Platform or are regularly making use of it. This would enable the EICAA consortium to provide (policy) reports that summarise entrepreneurial competence proficiencies on state or country level (e.g., of enterprises or universities) or to compare aggregated entrepreneurial proficiency levels between regions and states.

 

6 - Section 3. Methodology – should be titled “Description of the construction of the Competence Framework, the Competence Monitor, and the Development Kit”

The titles have been changed. To make it shorted we finally used the title: “Construction of the Competence Framework, the Competence Monitor, and the Development Kit”. We omitted the word “Description” because we believe it is implicit in the title. We also changed the subtitles accordingly.

7 - In point 4, the results obtained are presented. But no discussion takes place. That's why I propose to call it Results.

We followed your recommendation and section 4 is entitled “Results”.

8 - The discussion should be made later and should contain the description and interpretation of the similarities and differences between the results achieved in this project and the results presented by the studies presented in the literature review.

We created a new section “Discussion” where we review the EICAA Digital Platform and we compare its functionality and benefits with respect to the approaches mentioned in the literature review (Introduction section) (i.e., other competence framework, online assessment tools and online teaching resources). Please, see the Discussion section.

"Discussion"

The EICAA Digital Platform offers an innovative instrument to facilitate blended entrepreneurship education for higher education teachers as well as those seeking to foster entrepreneurial learning in the corporate sector. By following and carrying on with the pathways of EntreComp, it is based on a wide and domain neutral conceptualisation of entrepreneurship. This broad conceptual understanding is also embraced by its two substituent components – the EICAA Competence Monitor and the EICAA Competence Development Kit. Consequently, they have been designed to be applicable for a wide range of disciplines and beyond the scope of preparing learners to start-up businesses or similar purposes.

The EICAA Digital Platform relies on the identification of the entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship competences collected under the EICAA Competence Framework. The Competence Framework keeps the same structure as EntreComp [21], the reference framework designed by the Joint Research Center (European Commission), while reducing its complexity to four progression levels, and adding three key competences, namely, Design, Digital and Process management. While the reduction makes the framework more accessible and manageable, the new additions update the framework to the newer trends on entrepreneurship. Particularly, we give a greater emphasis to the current practitioner’s and teaching practices -i.e., a scientific approach to entrepreneurship and agile development- while keeping the neutrality with respect to any particular entrepreneurship method. EICAA Competence Framework has also being benchmarked with other extant competence frameworks [33-35,42,43], and we ensured that all competences relevant for successful entrepreneurship identified in these frameworks are represented in EICAA Competence Framework.

The EICAA Competence Framework sets the basis for the definition of a rubric system and in turn, for the Competence Monitor, a survey for self-assessment of entrepreneurial and intrapreneurship competences. The survey is answered by the individual student/employee and aggregated to the group level and presented to the educator/trainer. Thus, it allows the educator to diagnose the current development of entrepreneurship competences of their group of learners and apply tailored interventions. Adapting teaching interventions to the results of entrepreneurship competence assessment was also reported in a previous case study, although restricted to entrepreneurship personality traits and fewer skill dimensions [31]. The EICAA diagnosis tool also allows for enhanced functionalities such as comparisons pre-post interventions and/or among different groups. Furthermore, if we compare with other cited platforms, note that EICAA has been set up to enable large scale applications by allowing the self-assessment of entire organisations (e.g., entire study body of university), providing a dashboard that delivers an aggregate analysis of all assessment data, and by suggesting suitable education activities to improve entrepreneurial competences.

The third component, the EICAA Development Kit offers a set of stackable learning modules that the educator can use following the recommendations for the target group or by freely selecting among the set of available modules. Compared with Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS), the development kit provides resources for teachers, educators and trainers and give greater flexibility for selection and adaptation to the teaching objectives.

Notwithstanding this, the real benefits the EICAA Digital Platform may offer can only be evaluated once a series of use cases has been established in different contexts. This is particularly true for applications that are not of large scale and outside the context of higher education. In fact, using the EICAA Digital Platform only for a low number of self-assessments jeopardizes the statistical value of the metrics delivered by the dashboard of the EICAA Competence Monitor as well as of the course/training interventions suggested by it.

To add, the EICAA Digital Platform has been developed as an open educational resource. Its use is for free upon prior user registration. It is published under the European Union Public Licence (EUPL 1.2). However, the consortium was not able and willing to licence the platform entirely open source as this would allow the commercialisation of its code by externals. Rather, EICAA makes use of the “commons clause” which serves as a legal wrapper text to EUPL and turns the EICAA Digital Platform into a source-available solution. The prevention of commercialisation of open-source code appears to be an unsolved issue given that there seems to be no ideal licencing model yet strong enough to prevent such scenario.

Furthermore, the EICAA Digital Platform is GDPR compliant which, however, appears to be challenging when trying to collect data of students and/or employees and when the technical infrastructure is not provided by the very organisation running the self-assessment. Apart from the self-assessment of entrepreneurial competences, the EICAA Competence Monitor also asks self-assessment participants a very basic set of demographic questions (e.g., age, gender, county where university/organisation is located). While large scale applications are the preferred scenario, use cases that collect only a few self-assessments and, in principle, bear the potential to infringe data privacy of self-assessment participants, cannot be entirely ruled out. Defining a threshold for data volume that prevents such (unlikely) abuse appears to be challenging. Thus, the trade-off relation between guaranteeing data privacy and allowing for a meaningful data analysis is hard to balance when trying to establish a digital instrument as the EICAA Digital Platform. As a result, innovative digital tools that collect participant data with a good and non-commercial intention behind are legally challenging to establish. It will need to be reflected whether the current legislation is still incentivising the establishment of such digital innovations that are developed as open educational resource sufficiently.

9 - At the end of the conclusion, it is necessary to add the limitations of this study and how this proposal for an entrepreneurial skills assessment tool can continue to be studied.

Thank you for the suggestions. Based on this, we rebuilt the conclusions significantly by summarising the key aspects of the Digital Platform, its current state and the foreseen next pilots which will gather the experiences of the users and test whether the platform is able to keep users engaged. Additionally, we included potential future scenarios for the tool such as one in which the tool becomes an open collaborative online tool. Please, see the revised conclusions section.

"Conclusions"

This article presents the EICAA Digital Platform which is aimed at helping educators and trainers to develop the entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial competences of their students/employees. It has three main components: the Competence Framework, which sets a taxonomy and a rubric of entre/intrapreneurial competences, the Competence Monitor, a self-assessment survey for learners, and the Development Kit, a set of learning modules for every competence. Within the framework, the user (educator or trainer) can assess the entrepreneurial competences of their group of students/employees, analyse their developmental needs and apply tailored trainings.

The EICAA Competence Framework and Competence Monitor have been validated with several samples of students in the five partner universities of the consortium and it is ready for a massive pilot round of university and business application cases during the winter term 2022/23. This pilot will prove the adequacy of the Competence Monitor and the benefits of the Development Kit in helping educators further develop the entrepreneurship competences of their target group. The pilot will collect feedback from users, which will be synthesized in a public report, and will serve to improve the tool and as a case study to inspire other entrepreneurship education programs. Ultimately, the success of this beta round will also serve as an indicator whether the platform has the potential to substantially grow its user base as well as to keep users using it over time. Following the beta pilot round, the platform will be ready for the open launch and available to any educator or trainer upon free registration.

Beyond all the above-mentioned functionalities, the platform will allow the educator to collect their own data for research purposes. Thus, educators will be able to assess their impact of their own interventions. The EICAA community behind may also become a valuable point of reference for national and European policy makers as it offers new data on entrepreneurial competences or learners within and across organisations. As such, the EICAA Digital Platform may also be understood as a proof of concept for whether a wider understanding of entrepreneurship is still practical enough to be translated into a clear-cut measurement tool that leads to relevant data about entrepreneurial competences.

The EICAA Digital Platform can become a reference source of entrepreneurship teaching modules that can be enriched with the experiences of the users. Thus, ensuring ways of collecting feedback and suggestions from users will help further improve the platform. Beyond this, future developments of the platform could consider an open collaborative tool where educators and trainers become content creators by including their own teaching designs and resources. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback which helped improve the paper significantly.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper offers a fresh perspective on entrepreneurial studies in that it gives predominance to connecting theoretical insights and real-world praxis. In the paper, the author(s) present a newly developed tool for enhancing entrepreneurial education.

Nevertheless, a few slight adjustments are called for before being published, as outlined below.

·         It is stated that “The fourth version of the survey was subjected to a first quantitative pre-test round (N=72).” and that “The result of this round led to the development of the fifth version, which was subjected to a second pre-test round (N=202)…”. From reading the text, it is not clear who were the participants of the survey. Therefore, the author(s) should make a brief statement about their sample characteristics.

·         Next, in the text, it says that “Variable Inflation Coefficients (VIF) for all factors were all below 0.64, showing no collinearity issues.” I suspect that what was meant is the Variance Inflation Factor.

·         Lastly, the paper shows Figures 2, 3 and 4 without describing them. Given that they contain some interesting statistical information, the author(s) should briefly interpret those results.

 

That said, I believe this paper is of high value and should be published once the issues outlined above are resolved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

The authors have received your observations about our article “Online support for education in entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial competences with an assessment tool and tailored-training support” for Education Sciences special issue “Experimenting with Online Pedagogical Resources for European Universities (OpenU)”. 

First of all, we would like to thank you for the time dedicated to the revision and also thank you for your comments, which have helped us improve the paper. Attached you’ll find the revised paper with the changes introduced in blue colour. As follows, we provide the detailed answers to your comments:

1. It is stated that “The fourth version of the survey was subjected to a first quantitative pre-test round (N=72).” and that “The result of this round led to the development of the fifth version, which was subjected to a second pre-test round (N=202)…”. From reading the text, it is not clear who were the participants of the survey. Therefore, the author(s) should make a brief statement about their sample characteristics.

Please find in the revised some clarifications:

 

The fourth version of the survey was subjected to a first quantitative pre-test round (N=72). The participants of this pre-test and the one that followed were students across different disciplines and different educational levels (Bachelor’s, Master’s, PhD) at the Higher Education Institutions of the EICAA Consortium. This comment has been added in section 3.2.

2. Next, in the text, it says that “Variable Inflation Coefficients (VIF) for all factors were all below 0.64, showing no collinearity issues.” I suspect that what was meant is the Variance Inflation Factor.

Thank you. We corrected the mistake.

 

3. Lastly, the paper shows Figures 2, 3 and 4 without describing them. Given that they contain some interesting statistical information, the author(s) should briefly interpret those results.

We added the explanation of the three Figures as follows (please, see section 4.2 of the paper):

 

Based on the original models, Figures 2, 3, and 4 convey the standardised loadings [numbers on the one-sided arrows] between the variables and the factors for the three domains respectively, describing the influence of each variable on their respective factors. The figures also display the estimated variances for each factor [numbers above the factor] and the estimated covariances between factors [numbers on the double-sided arrows]. From these, we can foresee improvements to further optimise the models and obtain better fit including calibrating each model using a stripping logic, starting from the full hypothetical model, then stripping the non significant paths. This will be further investigated in a follow-up publication.

 

Thank you for your constructive feedback.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to get familiarized with one of the assessment and development instruments for entrepreneurship education. Any attempt in this area deserves attention. In particular, the introduction of process-related competence to the list of competences should be noted. It is also worth noting the development of metrics instruments in an international scope, where the diversity of the linguistic context often has to be overcome.

Despite the positive aspects of the authors' endeavour, the reviewer has essential observations regarding the authors' conceptual approach.

1. General approach

The authors have uncritically chosen a general conceptual approach. The broad approach to so-called entrepreneurship remains poorly justified. Entrepreneurship is defined through the entrepreneurial process as one of the main features of entrepreneurship (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Shane, 2012; many others), i.e., using the dynamic context. The entrepreneurial process is also feedback-driven and iterative (Bhave, 1994). Unfortunately, the process aspect is not reflected in the introductory overview. Introducing process management into the broad concept of so-called entrepreneurship is controversial. It is not clear what (entrepreneurial?) process competence the authors have in mind. There is no justification for how the approach to the process, which has so far been considered in the so-called narrow approach, is positioned in the authors' broad approach to entrepreneurship (directed to personal characteristics). There is also no theoretical justification for the questionnaire used, as well as the questionnaire itself.

Also, "providing value to others", considered a feature of so-called broad entrepreneurship, occurs in very different areas that are not considered entrepreneurship (creation of a work of art, production process, etc.).

2. Methodology

The lack of self-assessment questions-statements does not allow understanding of how general competencies and the process view have been taken into account. In addition, to understand the empirical results of the competences, their measurement and monitoring framework, a descriptive overview of the educational intervention is necessary, especially in terms of new dimensions.

3. Results and Discussion

The competencies/sub-competences listed in EntreComp and Table 1 (Results, excluding the Process aspect) are social in nature, and their mastery does not mean entrepreneurship competence in an entrepreneurial process context. Consequently, it also does not correspond to the substantive (process) approach to entrepreneurship. At best, these can be entrepreneurial behaviour competencies that do not yet mean entrepreneurship (see definitions cited above).

Although the authors point out that improved EntreComp framework with a process view: “A process view of entrepreneurship including iterative cycles, adaptability to the phases; management of the process of the new venture”. The authors do not explain how they connect the "broad view" of entrepreneurship with the “management of the process of the new venture”, which is an element of the so-called narrow view.

The interpretation of models in Table 2-4 requires a much more thorough explanation.

More notes:

The term pre-test is used – this would also imply the use of post-test. However, the term seems to refer to preliminary testing.

The platform's name EICAA, from which it derives, would also need to be explained.

Conclusion: As it stands, the entire report is fragmentary and uninformative for the qualified reader. Since the topic is extensive, it would be practical to present all the material as several complete articles on the main topics.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors have received your observations about our article “Online support for education in entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial competences with an assessment tool and tailored-training support” for Education Sciences special issue “Experimenting with Online Pedagogical Resources for European Universities (OpenU)”. 

First of all, we would like to thank you for the time dedicated to the revision and for the issues and suggestions that you raised, which have helped to improve the article. As follows, we provide the detailed answers to your comments (in blue color the new added or modified  texts) . Let us also to take advantage of this opportunity not only to correct what can be improved, but also to open a discussion in some points.

1. 1. General approach

 

(1) The authors have uncritically chosen a general conceptual approach. The broad approach to so-called entrepreneurship remains poorly justified.

Answer (1)

The understanding of entrepreneurship that is taken in the article is the so-called “broad approach”, which includes “acting upon opportunities and ideas and transform them into (financial, cultural, or social) value for others”. Particularly, we adhere to the definition by FFE-YE (2014):

 

"Entrepreneurship is when you act upon opportunities and ideas and transform them into value for others. The value that is created can be financial, cultural, or social" (FFE-YE, 2014, p.14).

Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we added an extended justification of this approach. First, we have changed the previous expression “providing value to others” to specify that this value can be financial, cultural or social, as in the definition above. Additionally, we have also referred to the study conducted by the EC’s Joint Research Center in which they provide a more detailed definition of the broad approach as follows :

 Entrepreneurship is considered as a “transversal competence, which applies to all spheres of life: from nurturing personal development, to actively participating in society, to (re)entering the job market as an employee or as a self-employed person, and also to starting up ventures (cultural, social or commercial)” (Bacigalupo et al., p. 6)

Following such consideration we have improved "1. Introduction" 3 paragraph:

(...) Nevertheless, despite all the efforts in the last decade [15], education in entrepreneurship is not yet as mature as in other disciplines, due to uncertainties in the definition of entrepreneurship itself, the aim of entrepreneurship education, and the variety of contents and teaching methodologies (what needs to be learnt and how) [16,17]. With respect to the definition of entrepreneurship, while pioneer approaches were predominantly framed under a narrow perspective of entrepreneurship as starting up new business, there is an increasing tendency to undertaking broader approaches to entrepreneurship as “providing value to others” [18,19]. That is, in narrow terms entrepreneurship is understood as an occupational option mostly measured through self-employment of individuals [20], while broader perspectives include a broader set of initiatives defining entrepreneurship, e.g., as “acting upon opportunities and ideas and transform them into (financial, cultural, or social) value for others” [21]. The latter perspective also includes providing value in existing organisations through innovation, a term which is well known as intrapreneurship [22,23]. Along with this broader perspective, there is a need to devise and implement ways of teaching entrepreneurship as a broad concept within the HEI system which relies on the development of entre/intrapreneurship competences of students [19, 24-26] far beyond teaching how to start up a new business. Along with this broader perspective, there is a need to devise and implement ways of teaching entrepreneurship as a broad concept within the HEI system which relies on the development of entre/intrapreneurship competences of students [19, 24-26] far beyond teaching how to start up a new business.

 

Additionally, within the context of entrepreneurship education, we aim at targeting different faculties in higher education, not necessarily business schools, where the focus might be predominantly on starting up new ventures. Thus, in the article, we added that by adhering to the broader definition of entrepreneurship, it can be better integrated and accepted in different faculties beyond business schools, such as the Humanities (please see the text added at the end of  "1. Introduction"  (blue color).

Within this context, the European Commission developed EntreComp (European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework) as the reference framework of competences for entrepreneurship education which was established on the basis of a comprehensive multi-step mixed-method approach [21]. The main theoretical rationale and, ultimately, justification for relying on a broader conceptual view of entrepreneurship in EntreComp, however, has resulted of the study “Entrepreneurship Competence: An overview of existing concepts, policies and initiatives (OvEnt)” [19] funded by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. As a result of this study, entrepreneurship is considered as a “transversal competence, which applies to all spheres of life: from nurturing personal development, to actively participating in society, to (re)entering the job market as an employee or as a self-employed person, and also to starting up ventures (cultural, social or commercial)” [21]. By adhering to this broader perspective, education of entrepreneurship, and thus of their associated competences, can be better integrated and accepted in educational programs and faculties beyond business schools. For example, students in Humanities are normally more interested in social entrepreneurship, because of the social value and non-profit dimensions [27].

EntreComp is an exhaustive and complete framework encompassing 15 competences, 60 threads and 442 learning outcomes. It is designed as a reference framework for educators aiming at designing and implementing entrepreneurship educational programs. However, its translation into practical course contents and methods may require some effort and guidance due to its exhaustivity.

Furthermore, the advent of online learning and its rapid acceleration during the COVID-19 pandemic have shown the benefits of online education and have moved students to feel more inclined towards this type of training [28,29]. Online learning offers new opportunities, such as innovative methods of teaching, assessment and monitoring, and personalised education [28]. A recent literature review [29] found three main innovative approaches to online entrepreneurship education: social media (i.e., Wiki), serious games (to engage and motivate students) and Massive Online Courses (as a platform of high-quality educational resources) [30]. Another initiative used an online assessment to examine students’ entrepreneurship traits and proved that students became more aware of their developmental needs as well as it allowed educators to tailor their teaching approaches to the personality traits of their students [31]. Despite these pioneering and innovative approaches, the offer of online entrepreneurship education is still lower than in other disciplines and it is underreported in scientific publications as well [28]. One of the attributed causes is the belief, supported by evidence, that learning entrepreneurship is better achieved through hands-on activities, experiential approaches, and real-world immersive experiences [32]. However, blended approaches can benefit from both online and experiential approaches and provide enhanced teaching and learning opportunities to educators and students [28,32].

 In this contribution, we present EICAA, an initiative based on the research in entre/intrapreneurship competences that delivers an open online platform for educators and trainers aiming at teaching/guiding/coaching students or employees in developing entre/intrapreneurial competences. EICAA stands for Entrepreneurial and Intrapreneurial Competences Assessment Alliance and is being developed under an Erasmus+ project funding (European Commission). In short, EICAA provides a revised entrepreneurship competence framework, a self-assessment survey for students or employees, and a competence development kit. EICAA Competence Framework presents a revised and exhaustive competence framework, built upon a Systematic Literature Review, taking EntreComp as a reference framework and benchmarking with other frameworks [33,36]. EICAA Competence Framework enhances EntreComp with new competences related to current methods to entrepreneurship and at the same time, reduces its complexity to make it more accessible to educators. Second, EICAA provides a validated entrepreneurship survey, where the educator analyses the stage of development of the entrepreneurial competences of their group. Third, the educator gets recommendations of teaching modules which are tailored to the group. These teaching recommendations can be either online or experiential and face-to-face activities, depending on the adequacy of the methodology to the characteristics of every entrepreneurship competence and its learning goals. The platform allows the teacher/trainer the flexibility to use the recommendations or access the full repository of learning modules. Every learning module follows the same design methodology with hands-on activities, resources and suggestions for competence development and assessment. After some promising pilot tests, the platform is fully deployed and further tested in winter semester 2022/23 within the five universities that belong to the consortium as well as within businesses associated to the project.

 

(2) Entrepreneurship is defined through the entrepreneurial process as one of the main features of entrepreneurship (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Shane, 2012; many others), i.e., using the dynamic context. The entrepreneurial process is also feedback-driven and iterative (Bhave, 1994). Unfortunately, the process aspect is not reflected in the introductory overview.

Answer (2)

Indeed, entrepreneurship is seen as a process by many authors such as those mentioned by the reviewer. We did not include any reference to entrepreneurship as a process in the introduction, because both the narrow and the broad approaches can be seen as a process. In both cases, entrepreneurship is a process consisting of entrepreneurial intent, opportunity discovery/recognition/creation, evaluation and exploitation (Hisrich et al., 2007). Also, the OvEnt study (Komarkova et al., 2015), which is framed under the broad approach, mentions the process side of entrepreneurship as a key factor of the entrepreneurship concept and it also identifies the same phases of the entrepreneurial activity as those mentioned above.

 

The way in which EntreComp is structured already reflects the process of entrepreneurship: “from ideas and opportunities” to “into action” by “gathering resources”. The different competences that are considered in EntreComp include the detection of opportunities, the generation of ideas, valuing the ideas, managing risk and uncertainty, initiating action, etc. (Komarkova et al., 2015). Thus, they cover an exhaustive set of competences that the entrepreneur should possess or develop to “navigate” through this process successfully.

Given this understanding, we also observed that EntreComp does not include any explicit competence related to the management of the process itself. Management of the process means, to our understanding, that the entrepreneur is aware of this process and takes ownership of the process. Thus, we included this competence in the EICAA competence framework. In the next answer, we elaborate this in more detail.

 

(3) Introducing process management into the broad concept of so-called entrepreneurship is controversial. It is not clear what (entrepreneurial?) process competence the authors have in mind. There is no justification for how the approach to the process, which has so far been considered in the so-called narrow approach, is positioned in the authors' broad approach to entrepreneurship (directed to personal characteristics).

 

Answer (3)

The competence “Process management” in our framework is contextualised under the concept that entrepreneurship is a process which is dynamic, iterative, and feedback-driven, as mentioned by the reviewer. This process can be decomposed in several phases, from intention, to opportunities and ideas, to evaluation and deployment. Different entrepreneurship methods (e.g., effectuation, business planning, lean start-up) implement these phases in different ways (Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020; Komarkova et al., 2015; Chell, 2013). Our competence framework does not focus on any particular entrepreneurship method. Rather, we look at what competences the entrepreneur should have considering that there is a dynamic, iterative, and feedback-driven process in which the entrepreneur needs to navigate and, most importantly, own/lead. According to Chell (2013), the process approach to entrepreneurship emphasizes two aspects: engagement with structure and the human relationships involved in the process.

 

“Engagement with the structure theorises the dynamic nature of the entrepreneurial process, the constant flux and unpredictable change, and the engagement with others in the process in order to gain insight and further understandings that underpin decisions and action […] Relationships highlight how group and teams come together within the process, and in many cases communities” (p.19)

In the systematic literature review, we coded 478 references - belonging to 59 different documents- related to the entrepreneurial process. Based on the analysis of these references, we defined the competence “Process management” with five threads (threads are like sub-competences in EntreComp framework, which are further decomposed in eight progression levels):

• Monitor progress: set indicators and monitor your progress according to them.
• Be flexible and adapt to changes: Be able to accept change as a fundamental element of the value-creating activity. Anticipate and include change along the value-creating process.
• Redirect your strategy: agency over the entrepreneurial process, especially in relation to new information, failures and surprises (Mansoori & Lackéus, 2020). Revise the assumptions of the new-venture based on information gathered from repeated testing. Be able to balance the need of persevere versus the need of changing the orientation of the value-creating idea.
• Manage transitions: Be able to manage the role transitions of myself (and my team’s) as the new value-creating idea develops. Identify the need for training, mentoring or coaching to manage the transition between roles to effectively manage the value-creating idea and achieve the intended goals.
• Work agile: Use agile methodologies to work in short cycles and get feedback from stakeholders that help validate the value-creating idea along the process.

Following the reviewer’s comment, we understand that the reader might have some doubts about how the new competences are defined and implemented in the Competence Framework. Thus, we added a paragraph (at the end of section 4.1) with definitions of the new competences and its deployment in threads.

(...)

The three new competences included in the framework are Design (in competence area “Ideas & opportunities”), Digital management (in competence area “Resources”), and Process management (in “Into action”). These new competences are decomposed in several threads each, following the same structure as EntreComp, and four progression levels:

• Competence “Design” is defined as the ability to interact with customers (or the target group) and other stakeholders to identify needs, prototype, test and co-create. Thus, it includes threads “Immerse with your users”, “Identify needs”, “Prototype and test” and “Co-create”.
• “Digital management” involves the confident, critical and responsible use of, and engagement with, digital technologies for the value creating activity. It includes the following threads: “General digital competences at work”, “Digital competences for the value creating activity”, “Information and data literacy” and “Safety and cybersecurity”.
• Competence “Process management” is contextualised under the concept that entrepreneurship is a process which is dynamic, iterative, and feedback-driven [9,19,47]. Thus, it includes threads “Monitor progress”, “Be flexible”, “Redirect your strategy”, “Manage transitions” and “Work agile”.

Figure 1 depicts the visual representation of EICAA Competence Framework, which holds the idea of the process of entre/intrapreneurship from ideas and opportunities to taking action, by means of a set of resources. EICAA Digital Framework supports the assessment, analysis and improvement of these competences (the full public report can be accessed through the web site of the project www.eicaa.edu).

(4) There is also no theoretical justification for the questionnaire used, as well as the questionnaire itself.

Answer (4)

The questionnaire is based on the EICAA Competence Framework, which was designed after an extensive systematic literature review (please, see answer n. 8). Thus, the theoretical justification for the Competence Framework relies on the systematic literature review, which includes 138 reviewed documents, a review of EntreComp and also other competence frameworks documented in literature.

 

Relying on the EICAA Competence Framework, the survey was developed following this methodology:

1. Definition of a Rubric System, which deployed every competence and thread in four progression levels, with statements coming from EntreComp and the SLR. We implemented a Delphi process with several iterations to revise the rubric.
2. Statement writing with a 5-point Likert Scale, corresponding the four levels of the rubric and an additional zero level (“no proficiency”). Five versions of the survey were developed. Each version was developed through a combination of at least one focus group with the evaluators, and a Delphi process with asynchronous review rounds.
3. Validation of the survey: We performed two tests with two samples of students (N=72 and N=202, respectively) and we performed statistical analysis (reliability and confirmatory analysis), followed by item reformulation.

The process to develop the survey is explained in Section 3.2, while Section 4.2 summarises the results of the validation of the survey. In both sections, we added some clarifications. In particular, in Section 4.2, we provided better explanations about the validation of the survey after conducting the two tests with two different samples.

"4.2. Validation of the survey"

The confirmatory factor analysis was performed using AMOS 28 on each of the three domains separately, as the competencies in each domain are expected to show greater internal consistency than between domains. Variable Inflation Factor (VIF) for all factors were all below 0.64, showing no collinearity issues. We built the initial models based on the structure in the Competence Framework, the parameters of which were borderline, or not acceptable in some cases. On further modelling, we could identify trends which suggested trimming or splitting of factors, for example Design in the domain Ideas and Opportunities. Based on original models, Figures 2, 3, and 4 convey the standardised loadings (numbers on the one-sided arrows) between the variables and the factors for the three domains respectively, describing the influence of each variable on their respective factors. The figures also display the estimated variances for each factor (numbers above the factor) and the estimated covariances between factors (numbers on the double-sided arrows). From these, we can foresee improvements to further optimise the models and obtain better fit including calibrating each model using a stripping logic, starting from the full hypothetical model, then stripping the nonsignificant paths. This will be further investigated in a follow-up publication.

Appendix A displays the statements of the survey. The complete survey can also be accessed through the web site of the EICAA project (www.eicaa.edu).

 

(5) Also, "providing value to others", considered a feature of so-called broad entrepreneurship, occurs in very different areas that are not considered entrepreneurship (creation of a work of art, production process, etc.).

Answer (5)

We have clarified this aspect as it is explained in the previous answer (n.1).

 

2. Methodology

(6) The lack of self-assessment questions-statements does not allow understanding of how general competencies and the process view have been taken into account.

Answer (6)

Indeed, we agree that providing the survey statements would greatly enrich the paper. We included an appendix with the survey items associated with the competences of the Competence Framework (please see it at the end of this text message as "Appendix A" ). Additionally, the public documents of the project with the rubric system and the survey can be accessed from the web site: www.eicaa.eu. This is also stated in the article.

(7) In addition, to understand the empirical results of the competences, their measurement and monitoring framework, a descriptive overview of the educational intervention is necessary, especially in terms of new dimensions.

 

Answer (7)

We provided more information on the three new competences of the Competence Framework, by defining them through their threads (sub-competences) -see at the end of Section 4.1.-

...

The three new competences included in the framework are Design (in competence area “Ideas & opportunities”), Digital management (in competence area “Resources”), and Process management (in “Into action”). These new competences are decomposed in several threads each, following the same structure as EntreComp, and four progression levels:

• Competence “Design” is defined as the ability to interact with customers (or the target group) and other stakeholders to identify needs, prototype, test and co-create. Thus, it includes threads “Immerse with your users”, “Identify needs”, “Prototype and test” and “Co-create”.
• “Digital management” involves the confident, critical and responsible use of, and engagement with, digital technologies for the value creating activity. It includes the following threads: “General digital competences at work”, “Digital competences for the value creating activity”, “Information and data literacy” and “Safety and cybersecurity”.
• Competence “Process management” is contextualised under the concept that entrepreneurship is a process which is dynamic, iterative, and feedback-driven [9,19,47]. Thus, it includes threads “Monitor progress”, “Be flexible”, “Redirect your strategy”, “Manage transitions” and “Work agile”.

Figure 1 depicts the visual representation of EICAA Competence Framework, which holds the idea of the process of entre/intrapreneurship from ideas and opportunities to taking action, by means of a set of resources. EICAA Digital Framework supports the assessment, analysis and improvement of these competences (the full public report can be accessed through the web site of the project www.eicaa.edu).

 

We also included the formulation of the statements of the Competence Monitor and explained that the answers are a 5-Point Likert scale ranging from 0 (“none”, no proficiency) until 5 (“expert”, highest proficiency) -see Appendix A-. Additionally, the reader is referred to the web site where they will find detailed information of the Competence Framework and the Competence Monitor. The Development Kit (educational intervention) consists of a set of modules with activities that are aimed at developing a given competence, as depicted in Fig. 7. Every learning module has the same structure: Overview of the module, Educator Tasks, Resources, and Rating (which depends on every particular activity). Please, see the text added  at the end of Section 4.3 where we included a general description of the Development Kit.

(...)

The Development Kit (educational intervention) consists of a set of modules with activities that are aimed at developing a given competence, as depicted in Figure 7. Every learning module has the same structure: Overview of the module, Educator Tasks, Resources, and Rating. The Module Overview is structured in learning goals, competences that are developed under this module (main competence and additional competences), target group, students’ workload, and format (online or face-to-face activity). The Educator Tasks contains the details of how to conduct the activity (contextualisation of the activity, information and resources to materials and documents necessary to develop the activity, step-by-step process of the activity and guidelines to grade the students). The Resources section provides links to complementary resources related to the activity or the competence and Rating represents the score of the activity as valued by the educators that had accessed and tested the learning module.

 

3. Results and Discussion

(8) The competencies/sub-competences listed in EntreComp and Table 1 (Results, excluding the Process aspect) are social in nature, and their mastery does not mean entrepreneurship competence in an entrepreneurial process context. Consequently, it also does not correspond to the substantive (process) approach to entrepreneurship. At best, these can be entrepreneurial behaviour competencies that do not yet mean entrepreneurship (see definitions cited above).

Answer (8)

EICAA Competence Framework relies on EntreComp and thus preserves great part of its structure and competences, with the addition of three new competences, the reduction of progression levels and fine-tuning some of the threads. The resulting EICAA Competence Framework is based on an extensive systematic literature review containing 138 articles. These articles have been coded using NVivo as a tool and we have matched all the competencies identified in these contributions to the competences of EntreComp. Whenever a competence could not be matched with the existing EntreComp framework, a new code was generated and later discussed with the team of researchers.

To further confirm our competence framework, we also compared the list of competences of EntreComp with six relevant competence frameworks of the literature: Bird (1995/2019), Mitchelmore & Rowley (2010), Morris et al. (2013), Rasmusen & Nybye (2013), Bolzani & Luppi (2020) and Tittel & Terzidis (2020). All the competences included in these competence frameworks were matched with EntreComp and, the ones that were not already covered by EntreComp were considered as new competences (or new threads in the existing competences).

All these frameworks were built after a careful analysis of the competences required by entrepreneurs and thus, we consider that EntreComp, and thus EICAA Competence Framework, are frameworks that address the broad approach of entrepreneurship, including the narrow one, and entrepreneurship as a process as well. In fact, the same structure of EntreComp in three competence areas, “Ideas and opportunities”, “Resources” and “Into Action” already reflects the process that goes from opportunity discovery/recognition/creation until the deployment of the new venture (value creating activity). In a closer look, the competences deployed into threads include behaviour, knowledge and attitudes for the value creating activity, including entrepreneurship as a process (e.g., thread “Test and experiment” in competence “Coping with Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk”, or the whole competence named “Process management”, as it is explained before).

The findings gathered after this literature review is that EntreComp is an exhaustive competence framework that covers the majority of competencies identified in the literature. Thus, we only considered that three new competences, Design, Digital Competence and Process Management, were necessary to be included.

In order to address the comment arisen by the reviewer and provide further evidence that the resulting competence framework does address the competences required, we included a new paragraph in the article, where we make explicit that our research also included other competence frameworks reported in literature (see what add at the end of Section 3.1).

(...)

A team of reviewers supervised by three senior researchers conducted the coding and intercoder reliability was taken into account by having regular meetings and discussions on potential disagreements. To further confirm the competence framework, the list of competences of EntreComp was compared with six relevant competence frameworks of the literature: Bird’s (1995/2019) [42], Mitchelmore & Rowley’s (2010) [43], Morris et al.’s (2013) [33], Rasmusen & Nybye’s (2013) [34], Bolzani & Luppi’s (2020) [35] and Tittel & Terzidis’s (2020) [36]. All the competences included in these competence frameworks were matched with EntreComp and the competences that were not already covered by EntreComp were considered as new competences (or new threads in the existing competences). 

The synthesis phase was performed by the three senior researchers, which came up with a proposal for the competence framework which was debated in a workshop with the remaining team of researchers and progressively refined in several iterations. The final competence framework is briefly presented in Section 4.1.

 

(9) Although the authors point out that improved EntreComp framework with a process view: “A process view of entrepreneurship including iterative cycles, adaptability to the phases; management of the process of the new venture”. The authors do not explain how they connect the "broad view" of entrepreneurship with the “management of the process of the new venture”, which is an element of the so-called narrow view.

Answer (9)

We included “value-creating activity” when “new venture” appears in the definition to include both the broad and the narrow approaches.

Please, also see answers n.2 and n.3.

(10) The interpretation of models in Table 2-4 requires a much more thorough explanation.

 

Answer (10)

Regarding table 2.3 to 2.4., please find in the revised manuscript a better explanation (Section 4.2):

(...)

The confirmatory factor analysis was performed using AMOS 28 on each of the three domains separately, as the competencies in each domain are expected to show greater internal consistency than between domains. Variable Inflation Factor (VIF) for all factors were all below 0.64, showing no collinearity issues. We built the initial models based on the structure in the Competence Framework, the parameters of which were borderline, or not acceptable in some cases. On further modelling, we could identify trends which suggested trimming or splitting of factors, for example Design in the domain Ideas and Opportunities. Based on original models, Figures 2, 3, and 4 convey the standardised loadings (numbers on the one-sided arrows) between the variables and the factors for the three domains respectively, describing the influence of each variable on their respective factors. The figures also display the estimated variances for each factor (numbers above the factor) and the estimated covariances between factors (numbers on the double-sided arrows). From these, we can foresee improvements to further optimise the models and obtain better fit including calibrating each model using a stripping logic, starting from the full hypothetical model, then stripping the nonsignificant paths. This will be further investigated in a follow-up publication

Appendix A displays the statements of the survey. The complete survey can also be accessed through the web site of the EICAA project (www.eicaa.edu).

 

More notes:

 

(11) The term pre-test is used – this would also imply the use of post-test. However, the term seems to refer to preliminary testing.

Answer (11)

We corrected the expression pre-test and changed it to “preliminary test”, as you observed.

(12) The platform's name EICAA, from which it derives, would also need to be explained.

Answer (12)

EICAA stands for Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship Competences Assessment Alliance. It is explained in introduction.

(13) Conclusion: As it stands, the entire report is fragmentary and uninformative for the qualified reader. Since the topic is extensive, it would be practical to present all the material as several complete articles on the main topics.

Answer (13)

 

We followed your suggestions to provide a better explanation of the Digital Platform and its constituents. We believe that the current version of the manuscript is more explanatory and cohesive.

We greatly appreciate the suggestion of presenting the material in more detail as several complete articles. Our approach in this proposal is to present the EICAA Digital Platform for entrepreneurship education through entre/intrapreneurial competences, with the three components: the Competence Framework of entrepreneurial competences, the Competence Monitor and the Development Kit (with its recommender module, which aims at providing guidance and tools to learn the underdeveloped competences in a group of students or employees). In this sense, we believe that the paper provides value for educators by using the approach to teaching entrepreneurship as:

• Competence Framework: Identifying the set of competences that students and employees should/could develop for entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship.
• Competence Monitor: Analysing or diagnosing the current development of these competences of a class or group.
• Development kit: Adapting tailored interventions to the group, based on the results of the survey.

We believe that this logic is of value to the educator because it represents a shift from traditional approaches to teaching towards more personalised education, because it provides recommendations adapted to the needs of the particular group. Additionally, entrepreneurship education is often taught through the (simulated) practice of the process of entrepreneurship (opportunity recognition, idea generation, prototyping, evaluation…). The Digital Platform provides a set of resources that can be used as teaching through entrepreneurship, in the context of an entrepreneurship course and in a decontextualised way as well.

 

We also find value in presenting the material for every component (e.g., the Competence Framework, the Competence Monitor, and the Development Kit) in more detail for those educators and researchers who aim at getting a deeper understanding of these modules and the research behind them. The proposal of this paper could serve as a proxy to those more in-depth presentations. The project website has the following documents available:

• EICAA Competence Framework (Full version & Exec. Summary)
• EICAA Rubric (under Competence Monitor)
• Intervention Collection of EICAA Competence Development Kit
• Existing Tools for Entrepreneurial Assessment and Inventory of Tools

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback which helped improve the paper significantly.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

New References added :

Bacigalupo, M.; Kampylis, P.; Punie, Y.; Van den Brande, G. EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. JRC Science for Policy Report, European Commission, 2016.

Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. The Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25(1), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611

Bird, B. Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency. In J.A. Katz, & A.C. Corbet (Eds.), Seminal Ideas for the Next Twenty-Five Years of Advances (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Vol. 21), 1995/2019 (115-131). Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1074-754020190000021011

 

Bolzani, D.; Luppi, E. Assessing entrepreneurial competences: insights from a business model challenge. Educ. + Train., 2020, 63(2), 214-238. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2020-0072

 

Chell, E. Review of skill and the entrepreneurial process. Int. J. Entrep. Beh. Res. 2013, 19(1), 6-31.

 

FFE-YE. Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Denmark - 2011. Odense: The Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship - Young Enterprise, 2014.

 

Hisrich,R.; Langan-Fox, J.; Grant, S. Entrepreneurship Research and Practice. A Call to Action for Psychology. Am. Psych., 2007, 62(6), 575-589.

 

Komarkova, I.; Gagliardi, D.; Conrads, J.; Collado, A. Entrepreneurship competence: an overview of existing concepts, policies and initiatives. In JRC Science and Policy Reports. Final Report; Bacigalupo, M.; Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., Eds.; European Commission, 2015.

 

Mansoori, Y., & Lackéus, M. Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, lean startup, and design thinking. Small Bus. Econ., 2020, 54, 791-818.

Mitchelmore, S.; Rowley, J. Entrepreneurial competencies: A literature review and development agenda. Int. J. Entrep. Beh. & Res. 2010, 16(2), 92–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011026995

 

Morris, M. H.; Webb, J. W.; Fu, J.; Singhal, S. A competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual and empirical insights. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 51(3), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12023

 

Rasmusen, A.; Nybye, N. Entrepreneurship education: Progression Model. The Danish Foundation for Entrepreneurship – Young Enterprise, 2013.

 

Tittel, A.; Terzidis, O. Entrepreneurial competences revised: developing a consolidated and categorized list of entrepreneurial competences. Entrep. Educ., 2020, 3, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-019-00021-4

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... Here the added Appendix A / Table 2 (copy and paste as a table)

Appendix A. Table 2. EICAA Competence Framework and EICAA Competence Monitor (survey items)

Competence area	Competence	Survey item
Ideas & opportunities	Spotting opportunities	1.      Scanning the environment to obtain relevant information. 2.      Identifying challenges by questioning mainstream ideas. 3.      Creating opportunities by actively using my knowledge. 4.      Discovering opportunities by interacting with others (like peers, colleagues, mentors, etc.)
	Creativity	5.      Challenging the status quo, i.e., question the current solutions and ways of operating and providing alternative points of view. 6.      Promoting and leading disruptive changes. 7.      Solving problems creatively. 8.      Generating ideas and developing them. 9.      Developing and implementing innovations (product, technology, process, marketing, etc.)
	Vision	10.    Developing an inspiring vision for an entrepreneurial idea.
		11.    Thinking strategically in alignment with my long-term vision. 12.    Guiding action by building and implementing an action plan or a to-do list.
	Valuing ideas	13.    Developing strategies to assess the value of new ideas. 14.    Identifying which stakeholder prefers which value type of a new idea (economic, influence, harmony, etc.) 15.    Protecting and sharing intellectual property by using appropriate strategies (like patents, copyrights, trademarks, agreements, etc.)
	Ethical and sustainable thinking	16.    Adopting and promoting ethical behavior when turning an idea into action. 17.    Thinking about the sustainable impact of my actions before executing them. 18.    Monitoring and assessing the impact of what I do. 19.    Ensuring accountability for my actions.
	Design	20.    Developing a user-oriented offering. 21.    Identifying the needs of relevant target groups 22.    Anticipating future needs. 23.    Identifying basic functions of a prototype 24.    Testing a prototype. 25.    Co-creating products, services or solutions with others.
Resources	Self-awareness and self-efficacy	26.    Following my aspirations by translating them into achievable goals. 27.    Identifying my strengths and weaknesses regularly. 28.    Implementing a project, even in difficult circumstances. 29.    Shaping my future by developing necessary skills.
	Motivation and perseverance	30.    Maintaining my focus on long-term tasks. 31.    Staying motivated and passionate when realising an entrepreneurial idea. 32.    Persevering in the pursuit of my goals, despite difficulties. 33.    Showing resilience (staying emotionally well) in the face of adversities.
	Mobilising resources	34.    Making the most of limited resources (like money, people, time, etc.). 35.    Acquiring the resources needed to make an entrepreneurial idea successful. 36.    Building a network that supports me and my ideas.
	Financial and economic literacy	37.    Understanding economic and financial concepts (such as supply & demand, cash flow, profit & loss). 38.    Proactively designing a budget plan 39.    Securing funding by raising money from diverse sources. 40.    Understanding and complying with the basic mechanisms of taxation. 41.    Developing the key processes and actions required to implement an entrepreneurial idea, like marketing operations, sales, HR, legal aspects.
	Mobilizing others	42.    Seeking inspiration from role models. 43.    Inspiring others by maintaining momentum even in adverse circumstances. 44.    Persuading others to engage them with an entrepreneurial idea. 45.    Developing ethical negotiation strategies 46.    Communicating my message clearly and effectively. 47.    Developing effective media (social and other) strategies to mobilise others.
	Digital management	48.    Knowing when and how to use general digital tools (MS Office, virtual communication, etc.) best suited for my purpose. 49.    Employing complex digital tools (CRM, web analytics, etc.) to grow an entrepreneurial idea. 50.    Reporting data in meaningful and clear ways like graphs and charts. 51.    Ensuring own and others’ safety against cybersecurity risks through protective measures (e.g., anti-phishing guidelines, malware protection, etc.).
Into action	Taking the initiative		52.    Taking responsibility while performing tasks. 53.    Working independently when required. 54.    Initiating action on new ideas and opportunities.
	Planning and management		55.    Defining clear and achievable goals. 56.    Planning and organizing carefully to make an entrepreneurial idea successful.  57.    Defining priorities for tasks, even in uncertain circumstances.   58.    Developing a sustainable plan of action for an entrepreneurial idea.
	Process management		59.    Monitoring progress by using appropriate metrics. 60.    Redirecting my plans when necessary. 61.    Being flexible and adaptive to changes. 62.    Anticipating team changes and being able to respond to them:       63.    Working agile by planning short-term and achievable goals and adapting my plans according to my results.
	Coping with uncertainty, ambiguity and risk		64.    Coping with uncertainty, ambiguity, risk. 65.    Calculating the risk versus the benefit of an entrepreneurial idea. 66.    Developing risk management strategies for an entrepreneurial idea. 67.    Testing and refining the key assumptions underlying an entrepreneurial idea.
	Working with others		68.    Promoting the diversity in my team by being open to different profiles and points of view. 69.    Developing and displaying emotional intelligence: 70.    Listening actively to my users and other relevant stakeholders:   71.    Building a team with balanced and complementary skills: 72.    Working with others structurally and harmoniously: 73.    Developing emotionally positive relationships with project partners (including mentors, invest­­­­­­­­­­­ors, etc.):  74.    Expanding my network proactively.
	Learning through experience		75.    Reflecting on and learning from failures and achievements. 76.    Actively engaging with opportunities to grow on my strengths and reduce my weaknesses. 77.    Learning from my or others’ prior experiences.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Congratulations on the revision work done.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you and also thanks for your work.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have worked hard to improve their article. Kudos for that.

Unfortunately, some of the problems that the researchers of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship so far have not solved in connecting these two fields are also transferred to this article.

In the first version of the article, it was not identifiable what the authors meant by process competencies. Without wanting to be nagging, the fact that the authors do not distinguish between generic social competencies (used in various areas of life, including entrepreneurship) and specific entrepreneurship/entrepreneurial competencies (related to the whole of the entrepreneurial process and its parts) stands out. The model lacks competencies of the entrepreneurial process as a whole phenomenon. Competence in the entrepreneurial process is achieved in education through experiential learning - i.e., through going through the entrepreneurial process (usually - through a simulated entrepreneurial process, see, e.g., Pittaway and Cope, 2007). Although the authors declare the respective competences, the competencies given in the list (Process management - Appendix A) do not cover the (specific) entrepreneurial process as a whole. The sources cited in the article have the same shortcoming. Since the article does not open the general methodological approach of the entrepreneurship training/education underlying the platform, it is also difficult to decide to what extent the entrepreneurial process is the focus of the education/training.

Recognizing these shortcomings in its approach, the article could be published.

Some technical notes:

It is unclear whether the authors distinguish between the terms competency (plural - competencies) and competence (pl. - competences).

Figure 7 – the text in parentheses is not explained.

Numbering in Appendix - Table 2 (there is no Table 1 in the Appendix).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your comments on the revised version of the paper. We introduced your suggestions in the final version of the paper. As follows, we also provide our detailed answers to your comments. Please see attached the file with the responses.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf