The Role of Self-Directed Learning in Enhancing Entrepreneurial Learning of Students in Higher Education Institutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper is well-written and has the makings of the supporting the title.  I would like to suggest that the authors consider aligning the paper squarely with the title, stating somewhere that SDL shows promise as a learning approach that fosters the underlying competencies of Entrepreneurial Learning (EL). This is the central theme: "This paper discusses the analyses of the role and importance of self-directed 14 learning in the process of entrepreneurial learning for students in higher education institutions informed by an exploratory systematic literature review."

Regarding this central theme, I suggest simply adopting it as a disposition of the paper. As written, the manuscript seems to imply that SDL is the resulting solution to the problem, section 4. ("To bridge this gap of knowledge, a literature review was used to explore the characteristics of SDL that are significant in supporting EL in HEIs", lines 186-187).  It is a jump in logic to go from "We have a problem with knowing how to teach EL" to "SDL is the solution."   What seems more accurate is that the authors saw overlap in SDL and EL (theory: SDL as an effective means of teaching EL); the review was done in support of the theory. 

My comments below come from my point of view that the paper would be most effective if it focused as described by the title. 

BIGGER STRUCTURAL THINGS of Editing Nature
There seems to be a lot of overlap in the Introduction (35-90) and the Background (94-131) and Rationale for the research (145-160).   You might consider condensing these sections into one coherent introduction. 

To me, section 11, while I understand your interest in connecting to other teaching approaches, detracts from the paper by introducing the new idea of teaching approaches that can be delivered in a SDL manner.  I wonder what other reviews think.  It could be just me. 

Section 8, where SDL is introduced, is very clear and concise.  In this section, the author opens with a definition and elaborates, providing references and specific qualities of SDL (277-322). It serves as an excellent model for introducing EL or EM (mindset). 

Regarding Section 9, I feel this section would be strengthened by a broader set of references that have a wider basis, such as: Wang, C.L. and Chugh, H. (2014), Advancing Entrepreneurial Learning Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16: 24-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12007
Or
Politis, D. (2005). The Process of Entrepreneurial Learning: A Conceptual Framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x
Perhaps this one is too old for consideration, but it could be useful. 

I think these two references will strengthen your choice of SDL as a learning approach that supports EL. 

SMALL THINGS of Editing Nature
Might it be possible to provide a reference to the assertion in lines 35-38?  That is, can you provide some reference to poverty and unemployment among graduates?  Maybe a different way to approach this is to state that this study comes from the perspective of developing countries (South African school system is later referenced, line 197) and also provide a reference, if possible, reporting the pattern of unemployment/poverty among graduates.

There is some confusion for me in line 66-67, "as reported in this chapter."  Also in line 68 "this chapter", line 557, 563. Is the word "Chapter" meant to refer to the "article?"  I think the word "chapter" reserved for books and "article" for journals. Can the editor confirm the international use of this word, chapter?  

The definition of Entrepreneurial mindset (lines 80-81) feels too general; I feel it dilutes the purpose of your manuscript.  What is quoted could be the same definition of "values," or "mental models" or "worldview".   While I understand that you are directly quoting from the Toutain and Fayolle reference, I feel it is important to note that the context of the quote is INSIDE the primary purpose that Toutain and Fayolle define, page 7 "In short, the learning object is above all determined by the didactic goal of entrepreneurship education (the ‘why’), which translates primarily into two complementary visions of teaching and entrepreneurship: learning how to start and develop a business, and developing an entrepreneurial mindset."   By quoting out of context, it seems to delete the first primary vision "learning how to start and develop a business," which is the 'why' of the EM.  To address this, may I suggest that somewhere early in the manuscript, you define "EL" to include the first primary vision? 

I offer the following potential references to inform a clear definition of the entrepreneurial mindset.  They may or may not be helpful to you.  This one provides a 3-dimension framework for EM: 
Kuratko, D. F., Fisher, G., & Audretsch, D. B. (2021). Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 1681-1691.

This one draws on a review of other works to create an integrated definition: 
Daspit, J. J., Fox, C. J., & Findley, S. K. (2021). Entrepreneurial mindset: An integrated definition, a review of current insights, and directions for future research. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(1), 12–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1907583

I do not know if these are minor or major revisions.  To me they feel like a lot of work, but I did not want to characterize them as major revisions, as I don't believe they change the character of what is presented; I feel they simply have the potential to refine what is presented and be compassionate to the reader. 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive comments. I have provided answers to them in the attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Your paper aims to present an informative and comprehensive review on the relevance of self-directed learning for entrepreneurial learning in higher education. The connection between SDL and entrepreneurship has been widely researched recently, yet, as you suggest, there are still some gaps and promising niches to explore. In order to do this, the key concepts need to be more clearly identified, described and discussed in the paper with reference to relevant research. One of the major issues with the paper is that it lacks clear focus and aim, and consistency in the search for emerging patterns in the reviewed literature. You need to clarify the connection between SDL and the development of EL.

The structure of the paper does not entirely correspond to the purpose you’ve stated at the beginning, namely that you intend to present a review of the existing literature on the topic. Review papers usually synthesize existing research, highlighting and comparing main findings and outlining conflicting points or debates in the respective area of study. Sections such as Background to the study and Rationale for the research create an expectation of a research paper based on a study, which contradicts the previously stated intention of reviewing relevant literature on the stated topic. The same refers to the section titled Theoretical framework, which is too short and unclear in terms of its significance for the review. The section called Overview of the research methods again leaves one wondering whether you mean research methods used by authors in the reviewed literature or the methodology used in your own study.  The remainder of the chapter (or is it a paper), namely parts 8 to 11, list what you have identified as key topics or themes in the existing research. This, however, is not clear from the numbering of the sections in your paper which, instead of bringing clarity to your discussion, add further confusion. One might wonder how you have identified these themes and how they are related to particular studies that you have reviewed. Furthermore, if your research focuses on the time period between 2014 and 2024, why do you discuss in great detail research dating back to 1975 (Knowles 1975 in part 8)?  Why is it necessary to describe at length such well-known teaching and learning paradigms as problem-based or project-based learning? This unnecessarily detailed information creates the feeling of excess and leads the reader astray, diminishing the value of your findings.

Finally, part 12 about the contributions of the chapter to the body of knowledge does not really belong to a literature review as it should be left to the reader to decide on the value of the chapter. Well-presented specific conclusions should have a better effect on the readers, convincing them of the value of the research conducted.

Author Response

Thank you for the constructive comments. I attached a document explaining the actions taken in the main document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A little additional background on the argument over the viability of entrepreneurial learning should be provided.

-Do HEIs already have any examples of entrepreneurship initiatives in place? To what extent have these efforts been effective in lowering unemployment?

Defining entrepreneurial learning (EL) is complex, as there is no universally agreed-upon definition of the concept. However, one narrow definition describes EL as the process of acquiring skills and knowledge to become an entrepreneur and create a venture (UNESCO-UNESVOC, 2020). This definition emphasizes the development of entrepreneurial skills for self-employment and small business start-ups. In the background section of this study, a more general definition of EL is provided: the development of relevant skills, competencies, and an entrepreneurial mindset to turn innovative ideas into entrepreneurial activities. While entrepreneurship education focuses on venture creation, EL involves the broader development of skills, knowledge, and attitudes that are not necessarily geared toward becoming an entrepreneur. In this chapter, the author views EL within the context of higher education institutions (HEIs) as a dynamic process that equips students with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to identify, create, and pursue opportunities for innovation. Entrepreneurial learning is an active learning approach that motivates students to think creatively, take risks, and succeed in entrepreneurial endeavors.

IN the conculsion part,by emphasizing the function of self-directed learning (SDL) and its influence on students' growth, the paragraph tackles a significant facet of entrepreneurial learning. You make a strong connection between SDL and developing students' creativity, problem-solving abilities, and entrepreneurial competencies—all of which are essential for their success in the future.

Advantages:

Emphasis on SDL: You make it abundantly evident how crucial self-directed learning is to improving the entrepreneurial learning process. It is clear how SDL and the growth of entrepreneurial abilities are related.

Emphasis on Active Learning: One of the strongest points is the emphasis on interactive and meaningful learning practices, which are crucial for encouraging students' deep learning and engagement.

For students in higher education institutions (HEIs), self-directed learning (SDL) is essential to improving the entrepreneurial learning (EL) process. Teaching-learning techniques should be engaging, encourage social learning, and have purpose for students in order to successfully foster entrepreneurial skills and competences. In this regard, SDL allows students to assume personal accountability and work together to manage cognitive and contextual processes, resulting in more significant learning outcomes both in and outside of the classroom. SDL improves students' entrepreneurial abilities, competences, and mentality in addition to supporting EL by using an experience-based approach to solve real-world challenges. These qualities are vital for developing creativity and problem-solving skills, both of which are necessary for future success in the job.

Author Response

Thank you for the time to review my manuscript. I have attached the responses to your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the corrections and improvements made by the author.