This presentation describes a research study exploring the inclusion of supportive technology and real-world experiences into entrepreneurship education.

1. Regina Collins
Dr. César Bandera
Dr. Katia Passerini
October 18
2014

2. Tech Supported
DISTRIBUTED
COLLABORATION
SOFTWARE-as-a-
SERVICE = SaaS
MOBILE APPs for
MOBILE
LEARNING
Tech Supported
HANDS-ON
•Doing, then
Learning
•Reflective
Learning
•Practice
under
uncertainty
• simulation
•Google docs
•Dropbox,
SugarSync
•Skype
•Access to
cheap, self-
maintaining
systems
•Consistency
across the
enterprise
•Webex
•E-Readers
•Useful on-
the-go
•Push-based
Mobile
Messaging
2

3. 3
Framework Characteristics SampleActivities Technologies
Supporting Sample
Activities
Context: World of value creation and
prediction
Validation of value propositions Google Docs, Moodle
Forums
Focus: exposing students to a
portfolio of techniques
Data collection, guided data
analysis
Google Maps, mobile
devices, Remote Desktop
Level of analysis: the entrepreneur,
her team and firm
Interview and work with
founders of EDC start-ups
Skype, GoToMeeting,
Moodle Forums
Primary Pedagogy: business
planning, observation, practice,
reflection, design
Financial models and forecasts Google Finance, Google
Docs (financial models)
Language: Do-learn-reflect Elaborate start-up, defend and
adjust
Market data aggregators,
Skype, Remote Desktop
Pedagogical Implication: Iterative
loops of prediction and action
Definition of minimum viable
product, business pivoting
All of the above

4. 4
Asynchronous,Thematic
Secure
Analytics

5. 5

6. 6
The applicationAutodesk 3DS runs on one computer, shared
live among participants via Skype desktop sharing. Any
participant controls it remotely via LogMeIn.

7. Financial model
in Excel
Financial model
in Google Docs
7

8. 8
Secondary market data (regional markets for a residential makeup service) on Google Maps

9. 9
batchgeo.com

10.  ENTR 410: New Business Mgt
 MGT 680: Entrepreneurial Strategy
 MGT 390H: Interdisciplinary Design Studio
10

11. 11
ENTR-410
New Business
Venture
Focused on
students hoping to
launch a new
venture within 6
months
Students work
independently on
their ideas
Interactions with
entrepreneurs
limited to guest
speakers
MGT-680
Entrepreneurial
Strategy
Focused on MBA
students planning
to work for
established
companies
Students work in
groups
Students become
“interns” for start-
ups from the EDC
MGT-390H
Interdisciplinary
Design Studio
Final course of
program requiring
students to design
company
Students work in
groups of 3 to 5
Students interact
with C-level
executives from
local companies

12. 12

13.  Starting new ventures
 Serving as “intrapreneurs”
 Hearing from other
entrepreneurs
13

14. 14
Learner
Characteristics
Usefulness of
Tools
RiskTaking
Interactions with
EDC
Entrepreneurial
Intention
H1
H2H3a
H3b
H4a
H4b
H5a
H5b
H5c
Self-Efficacy,
Subjective Norm,
Resilience,
Creative Problem Solving,
Opportunity Recognition
Google Docs, Google Maps
Online forums, Skype, Cell phone/tablet,
Seeing files on someone else’s computer,
Controlling files on someone else’s computer
EDC and effective interactions,
EDC and Learning,
EDC and Entrepreneurship

15. ENTREPRENEURIAL
INTENTION
 Theory of Planned Behavior (Azjen
1991)
 Measuring EI within given period of
time (von Graevenitz, Harhoff, and
Weber 2010)
 Mixed results of entrepreneurship
education on EI (see for example Gibb
2002; Kuratko 2005; Oosterbeek, van
Praag and Ijsselstein 2010; Souitaris,
Zerbinati, and Al-Laham 2007)
 Differences in types of courses and EI
(Higgins 1997; Piperopoulos and
Dimov 2014)
RISKTAKING
 Risk propensity and willingness to
take risks (see for example Busenitz
1999; Palich and Bagby 1995)
 Positive risk attitudes and
entrepreneurship (Caliendo, Fossen
and Kritikos 2010; Shepherd and
Douglas 1997)
 Desire for self-employment
positively related to risk taking which
increased after entrepreneurship
program (Sanchez 2011)
15

16.  H1. Learner entrepreneurial
characteristics will positively impact their
attitudes toward entrepreneurial
intention.
 H2. Learner entrepreneurial
characteristics will positively impact their
attitudes toward risk taking.
 H3a. Learner entrepreneurial
characteristics will positively impact the
perceived usefulness of information and
communication technologies in
entrepreneurship courses.
 H3b. Positive perceptions of technology
usefulness will positively impact the
relationship between learners’
entrepreneurial characteristics and risk
taking.
 H1 = LC  EI
 H2 = LC RT
 H3a = LC  PU_ICT
 H3b = LC  PU_ICT  RT

17. H4a. Learner entrepreneurial characteristics will
positively impact their perceptions regarding
experiential interactions (with the EDC) in an
entrepreneurship course.
H4b.The perceived usefulness of practical
experiences gained through exposure to the
EDC will positively impact the relationship
between learner entrepreneurial characteristics
and risk taking.
H5a. Learners’ perceptions of technology
usefulness will impact their entrepreneurial
intention.
H5b. Learner’s risk taking perceptions will
impact entrepreneurial intention.
H5c. Learners’ perceptions of experiential
interactions (with the EDC) will impact their
entrepreneurial intention.
 H4a = LC  PU_EDC
 H4b = LC PU_EDC  RT
 H5a = PU_ICT  EI
 H5b = RT  EI
 H5c = PU_EDC EI

18. 18
• Longitudinal study polling students’ perceptions at beginning and end
of course
• Data from beginning of course used to explore student differences
between courses (N=69)
 (Self-selection bias)
• Data from end of course used to analyze student perceptions of
experiential, technology-supported learning
 Small sample size (N=47)
 Used non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis, MannWhitney) for
between course differences
 Used SmartPLS to evaluate theoretical model

19. 19
ENTR-410 MGT-680 MGT-390H
Beginning of course survey 14 (56%) 22 (65%) 33 (77%)
End of course survey 11 (44%) 17 (50%) 19 (44%)
Total enrollment 25 34 43

20. 20
ENTR-410
• MR = 47.79
MGT-680
• MR = 40.70 MGT-390H
• MR = 25.77
Based on first survey at beginning of course
N = 69, K = 15.710, p = 0.000

21. 21
ENTR-410
• MR = 47.25
MGT-680
• MR = 35.80 MGT-390H
• MR = 29.27
Based on first survey at beginning of course
N = 69, K = 8.402, p = 0.015

22. 22
ENTR-410
• MR = 47.25
MGT-680
• MR = 35.80
MGT-390H
• MR = 29.27
Based on survey at end of course
N = 47, K = 8.068, p = 0.018

23. 23
ENTR-410 MGT-680 MGT-390H
Based on survey at end of course
N = 47, no significant difference

24. 24
Example:
My family and friends will support me if I chose
to be an entrepreneur:
 Now
 Six Months Ago
• Technology Use
• Subjective Norm
• RiskTaking

25. 25
• Tested withWilcoxon two-sample paired
signed rank test
• Only RiskTaking showed statistically
significant change
• (W = 103.5, z = 2.538, p = 0.011)

26. 26
Initial Model with Entrepreneurial Intention as Outcome based on survey data from
beginning of course

27. 27
Final Model withTaking Risks as Outcome based on survey data from end of course

28.  Model R2 = 0.538
 AverageVariance Explained (AVE),
Composite Reliability (CR), and Cronbach’s
alpha values all above minimum
recommended values.
 All paths in 2nd model significant except path
from Interactions with EDC toTaking Risks
28

29. 29
Hypothesis Outcome
H1 = LC  EI Not supported
H2 = LC RT Supported
H3a = LC  PU_ICT Supported
H3b = LC  PU_ICT  RT Supported

30. 30
Hypothesis Outcome
H4a = LC  PU_EDC Supported
H4b = LC PU_EDC  RT Not Supported
H5a = PU_ICT  EI Not Supported
H5b = RT  EI Not Supported
H5c = PU_EDC EI Not Supported

31. 31
 Supports and contextualizes previous inconsistent results of
Entrepreneurial Intention as outcome variable
 Identifies risk taking as more salient measure of successful
entrepreneurship education
 Learner’s entrepreneurial characteristics positively impact
perceptions of experiential learning opportunities

32. 32
 Offers risk taking as a more meaningful evaluative measure
assessing efficacy of entrepreneurship course.
 Offers deeper understanding of inconsistencies of
entrepreneurial intention as evaluative measure.
 Highlights the importance of an integrated approach to
entrepreneurship education.

33. 33
 Increase students’ risk propensity.
 Incorporate topics such as risk aversion and
managing risk.
 Draw on industry resources to provide relevant and
meaningful experiences

34. 34
 Internal validity limitations
• Sample bias
• Experimental mortality
• Construct validity/instrumentation
• History/Maturation/Testing
 External validity limitations
• Limited sample size
• Reactive effects of experimental arrangements:
• Instructor
• Technology/experiential learning

35. 35
 From pilot to full study
 Consider different experimental design models (e.g. pre-post
with control group)
 Looking at additional variables (e.g. Creativity and Control)
 Replicate at additional institutions
 Looking for partners

36. 36

37. From: Neck &
Greene (2011)
Entrepreneur world Process world Cognition world Method world
World of…
Heroes, myths, and
personality profiling
Planning and prediction Thinking and doing Value creation
Focus
Traits, nature versus
nurture
New venture creation
Decision-making to
engage in
entrepreneurial activity
Portfolio of techniques
to practice
entrepreneurship
Level of Analysis Entrepreneur Firm Entrepreneur and team
Entrepreneur, team and
firm
Primary Pedagogy
Business basics,
lecturers, exams,
assessment
Cases, business plans,
business modeling
Cases, simulations,
scripting
Serious games,
observation, practice,
reflection, co-curricular,
design
Language
Locus of control, risk
taking propensity,
tolerance for ambiguity
Hockey stick
projections, capital
markets, growth,
resource allocation,
performance
Expert scripts,
heuristics and decision
makings, schema,
mental models,
knowledge structures
Practice, self-
knowledge, fit, action,
do-learn, cocreation,
create opportunities,
expect and embrace
failure
Pedagogical
Implication
Description Prediction Decision Action
Process + Method
37

38. Shorter-term
(Fayolle, Gailly et al. 2006)
Longer-term
(Pittaway 2009)
 Skills and knowledge—how well
students have understood concepts
 Student interest
 Student awareness (inventor,
entrepreneur, and/or intrapreneur?)
 Entrepreneurial intention (i.e.
attitudes towards self-employment)
 Attendance rates (physical, virtual)
 Participation
 Entrepreneurial behaviors, skills, and
attitudes
 Empathy with the entrepreneurial life
 Entrepreneurial values such as
independence and ownership
 Motivation toward an entrepreneurial
career based on comparative benefits
 Understanding the venture creation
process
 Developing generic entrepreneurship
competencies how-to’s
 Developing key business how-to’s
 Networking and managing relationships
with key stakeholders
Source: adapted from Duval-Couetil (Duval-Couetil 2013)
38

39. Online and
Hybrid
Course
Personality
Traits &
Subjective
Norm
Entrepreneurial
Intention
Knowledge & Skills:
Learning outcomes
assessment
Attitudes: Initiative, risk
propensity, self-efficacy,
need for achievement
Experiences: Value of
exposure to
entrepreneurial
environments
• Morris et al, “A competency-based
perspective on entrepreneurship education.”
JSBM v51 i3
• Fretschner,Weber, “Measuring and
understanding the effects of entrepreneurial
awareness education.” JSBM v51 i3
39
PRE POSTTREATMENT

40.  Action-orientation (method world)
 Non-linear, complex systems
 Portfolio of tools
 Planning and prediction (process world)
 Progression
 Breaking-down complexity
▪ “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything”
 Dwight D. Eisenhower, From A speech to the National Defense Executive Reserve Conference in
Washington, DC on Nov. 14, 1957
40