DEVELOPING ENGINEERING EDUCATION TO SUPPORT ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR

(1)

Proceedings of the 9th International CDIO Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 9 – 13, 2013.

DEVELOPING ENGINEERING EDUCATION TO SUPPORT

ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOR

Soili Mäkimurto-Koivumaa

Kemi-Tornio University of Applied Sciences Mirja Väänänen

University of Oulu Pekka Belt University of Oulu ABSTRACT

This article describes experiences gained during efforts made to develop engineering education in support of entrepreneurial behavior in Northern Scandinavia. The data have been collected from higher education institutions (HEI) operating in Northern Finland as a part of a Pan-Scandinavian project. Traditionally, the emphasis of engineering education has been on the engineering substance, and the viewpoint of entrepreneurship has been covered by teaching business planning separately. However, recently, it has been widely acknowledged that other aspects such as cooperation skills, self-esteem, creativity, responsibility, and enthusiasm, are more relevant for entrepreneurial behavior. Specifically, the article covers current state analyses in two HEIs. Also, relevant scientific literature has been analyzed to form an adequate theoretical basis. Development actions taken separately in each HEI and those taken in cooperation are also described. For example, feedback obtained during various workshops and the action plans developed are clarified. The overall conclusion so far emphasizes understanding entrepreneurial abilities as aspects that should be included throughout curricula instead of seeing them as a separate topic to be covered by single courses. Entrepreneurial behavior and mindset should be considered as generic competences and integrated into the teaching of engineering substance.

KEYWORDS

Engineering education, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial behavior.

INTRODUCTION

In the European Union (EU), both employers and public organizations share the view that entrepreneurial mindset is an important competence for engineering graduates. Entrepreneurship is also interconnected with economic growth and can thus be considered elementary for the development of society. The Lisbon strategy of 2006 states as follows: “Combining entrepreneurial mindsets and competence with excellence in scientific and technical

(2)

studies should enable students and researchers to better commercialize their ideas and new technologies developed.” [1, 2]

The first definitions of entrepreneurship concentrated on the economic aspects by emphasizing the role of the entrepreneur either as the innovator (Kirznerian view) or as the creator and destructor of economic equilibrium (Schumpeterian view) [3, 4, 5]. Nowadays the concept of entrepreneurship should rather be seen as a process than a definition of behavioral characteristics of an individual. Thus, the focus of defining the phenomenon should be transferred from the person to the process of entrepreneurship, which includes the actions of an individual in identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities [4].

The most recent views highlight entrepreneurship through the entrepreneur’s decision processes. Sarasvathy sees entrepreneurship as a process of effectuation in which the entrepreneur makes decisions based on the available means and resources and thereafter decides the actions to take [5]. The logic of effectuation, which is typical for expert entrepreneurs especially, is based on an awareness of personal skills and competences and the utilization of networks. The purpose of the entrepreneur is to control the future, not to predict it. In addition, effectuation emphasizes entrepreneur’s creativity and tolerance for uncertainty [5, 6]. Sarasvathy uses the term causation for the more traditional process of decision making. When using causation, the entrepreneur first decides the goal or way to take and thereafter chooses the means how to get there. Success in a causation process requires that the entrepreneur collects pre-information for predicting the future events and for minimizing the risk. Recent studies argue that in a turbulent and changing operational environment, successful entrepreneurs typically use effectuation rather than causation [7, 8, 9].

The scientific literature makes a difference between entrepreneurial behavior and entrepreneurial mindset. Entrepreneurial behaviors have been outlined to include, for example, the following elements: seeking, identifying, and grasping opportunities, taking initiatives, solving problems creatively, creatively breaking patterns, managing autonomously, organizing and coordinating resources, taking responsibility for and ownership of things, seeing things through, networking effectively to manage interdependence, putting things together creatively, using judgment to take calculated risks, and exercising proactive action in complexity [10, 11, 12].

Entrepreneurial mindset, on the other hand, is an individual’s ability to be dynamic, flexible, and

self-regulating in his or her cognitions in given dynamic and uncertain task environments [11, 12]. The entrepreneurial mindset thus includes the attitude an individual has in general and entrepreneurial behavior appears through his or her actions.

Entrepreneurship can be seen as a process whereby individuals utilize available opportunities in turbulent and unpredictable environments. The challenge for educators is thus to find ways to train students to behave entrepreneurially. What kind of entrepreneurship education is effective? In this paper, we define entrepreneurship education to include active learning and human development, as well as business planning and venture development. Some scholars use the terms of enterprise education and entrepreneurship education for these two aspects [13, 14, 15]. In the early years of entrepreneurship education, the focus was on delivering explicit knowledge

about entrepreneurship. Along with the expansion of the concept of entrepreneurship has come the realization that simply increasing the amount of information might not lead to a growing number of new enterprises. Therefore, another three aspects have been specified: to train

through entrepreneurship (use of teaching methods that support entrepreneurial behavior), in

(3)

(education to support becoming an entrepreneur) [16, 17, 18]. These three aspects combine entrepreneurship education with pedagogy and practical teaching skills [18, 19].

Developing entrepreneurial behavior and mindset requires awareness and the utilization of suitable pedagogic methods. Previous research has shown that action-based teaching methods with experiential elements can be effective in developing and enabling entrepreneurial behavior [19, 20, 21]. Action-based methods mean those teaching methods that allow student enactment [22, 23]. Such methods include, for example, problem-based learning, enquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and even case studies. Thus, they can be defined as being methods that, on the one hand, force the student to participate in the learning process as an actor and not as a spectator. On the other hand, action-based learning methods enable building up both explicit and tacit knowledge bases. The latter one can be supported by communication and cooperation in student teams where the students can also learn from each other. Entrepreneurial behavior emphasizes, among other things, creativity and tolerance for uncertainty, which can be included in study projects, for example [22, 23, 24, 25].

This paper aims to clarify how engineering education could be developed to better support entrepreneurial mindset and behavior. The empirical part of this research has been conducted within Pan-Scandinavian InnoPreneurship projects aiming to enhance entrepreneurial thinking and education. Project participants include higher education institutes from Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

RESEARCH PROCESS

Figure 1 describes the research process for obtaining the empirical data used in this article.

Figure 1. The research process

In the first phase, different stakeholder groups’ understanding of entrepreneurship in general and entrepreneurship education in particular were clarified using semi-structured interviews. This phase was carried out within the project preceding the ongoing InnoPreneurship 21 project. The main sources for the empirical data were two workshops organized in Kemi and Oulu during October and November 2012. These workshops were organized as a part of the Pan-Scandinavian InnoPreneurship 21 project, which consisted of the universities of Bodo, Norway and Luleå, Sweden, and two universities in Northern Finland, Kemi and Oulu.

In order to make the workshops tempting, they kicked off with keynote speeches covering issues from modern views on entrepreneurial behavior and employers’ views on entrepreneurship education to entrepreneurial pedagogics presented by professional teachers of the topic. The number of participants in the workshop in Kemi was 29 and in Oulu 24. Participants represented different stakeholders in a versatile manner, including industrial managers, organizations supporting entrepreneurship, personnel working in research projects co-organized with industry, and teachers responsible for engineering studies.

(4)

In both Kemi and Oulu, the participants of the workshops were divided into three groups that were given different assignments. After each group had finalized their task, the groups were rotated so that each group made a contribution to each of the three assignments. The assignments given to the groups included clarification of the following questions:

 what are the skills and abilities that are required for entrepreneurial behavior and mindset;  how can the required entrepreneurial abilities be promoted in the teaching of engineering

students at a course level; and

 how can the entrepreneurial abilities be promoted in teaching when considering the bigger picture, i.e., broader than a single course?

The process began with each participant listing his or her views on a post-it paper, after which these notes were gathered on a board and discussed in the group. A permanent chairperson was named for each of the group assignments, whose task was to ensure that the crucial elements of the discussion were documented. As the final stage of the research process, the researchers analyzed the obtained material, compared it against the scientific literature, and made conclusions.

RESULTS

Theme 1: Entrepreneurial skills

In the workshops, the first group assignment aimed at clarifying what abilities and skills are required for entrepreneurial behavior and mindset. The analyzing researchers found out that the abilities identified by the participants could be categorized into three groups of personal characteristics or skills, interaction skills, and managerial or business skills as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Entrepreneurial skills

Workshop participants with a technical background, e.g., teachers of technology-related issues, tended to emphasize personal characteristics. Participants with a background in social sciences typically gave lots of answers in all three skills categories; however, person-related skills dominated. Participants from organizations supporting entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship most often mentioned sales skills. As a summary, there seems to be a large range of abilities and skills needed for entrepreneurial behavior and mindset. Engineering education curricula should be able to acknowledge these required skills. The researchers also noted that the entrepreneurial skills identified in the workshops were very general and positive in nature and would therefore benefit practically anybody, including those not aiming to be entrepreneurs.

(5)

The second group assignment aimed at clarifying how entrepreneurial abilities can be promoted in the teaching of engineering students at a course level. As the key observation, the researchers identified that the background of the participants strongly influenced the thinking. Typically, the participants with a technology background did not recognize the need for and possibilities of developing teaching methods. This observation was also clearly visible in the low number of related notes. The participants with a social science background, on the contrary, well understood the assignment and the potential for developing teaching methods. The participants representing organizations supporting entrepreneurs could be located between the two previous groups. They seem to have well understood the meaning of the assignment even though they are typically not educational experts. In their answers, they emphasized educational objectives; however, they seldom used the “correct” educational vocabulary. As a whole, the participants representing organizations supporting entrepreneurs were able to produce numerous comprehensive and useful comments.

As a summary for Theme 2, there is a strong need in engineering education to integrate substance and entrepreneurial issues together as well as universities and business life. In this context, it was considered important that students participate actively and evaluate their own learning and development at a course level as well as in the entire study process.

Theme 3: Development of engineering education at a higher level

The third group assignment aimed at clarifying how entrepreneurial abilities can be promoted in teaching when considering a broader range than a single course. The participants representing organizations supporting entrepreneurs managed to give a comprehensive view emphasizing the need to integrate multiple aspects, such as teachers of different subjects, different scientific disciplines, and universities and companies. In addition, they emphasized a down-to-earth approach in curricula. The participants with a social sciences background emphasized approaching curricula from the students’ viewpoints when aiming to develop them to support entrepreneurial abilities. The participants with a technology background can be located between the other two groups. Several good practices exist at the participating higher education institutions (HEIs) but they are neither commonly used nor acknowledged and recognized. Thus, there is a need to familiarize personnel with them through various actions.

As a summary for Theme 3, there seems to be a need to develop larger educational themes that aim for the solution of real-life challenges. This type of project learning emphasizes the recognition and acknowledgement of competences. In addition, the teacher readiness in these issues should be developed. Teachers could even behave in an entrepreneurial manner. This might mean abandoning their own little world and utilizing networking and effectuation skills.

Summary

The workshops revealed that students need a broad range of entrepreneurial abilities, and that these abilities should be acknowledged when designing curricula for an engineering education. There is a strong need to integrate, on the one hand, engineering substance and entrepreneurial issues, and, on the other hand, universities and companies together.

Abilities related to entrepreneurial behavior and mindset should be integrated into competence-based curricula as an important theme, instead of emphasizing separate courses on entrepreneurship. The abilities required for entrepreneurial behavior and mindset should be added to the learning objectives at all levels of education starting from the secondary level and continuing through the entire higher education as well.

(6)

It is currently typical in engineering education institutions that substance teachers are not always experts in utilizing and developing teaching methods. There are even different requirements concerning the pedagogic training required. One potential solution could be building multi-skill teams for developing teaching methods by connecting substance teachers, experts on teaching methods, and representatives of organizations supporting entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship.

DISCUSSION

The collected data show that developing entrepreneurial behavior and mindset is considered to be an important competence needed and valued in today’s working life. However, the engineering curricula at each HEI should be renewed to better support the development of entrepreneurial behavior and mindset. On the other hand, curricula development alone is not an adequate action; it has to be accompanied with training teachers to more efficiently use different teaching methods and approaches.

Developing teachers’ pedagogic skills is an issue that needs to be solved in each higher education institute. The competence requirements for teachers working at Finnish universities of applied sciences stipulate that the teacher has to study 30 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) (800 working hours) of pedagogy to be eligible. Teachers are responsible for the costs of the education. Consequently, there are a number of organizations that offer such education, even special arrangements for engineering teachers. For teachers working at universities, the pedagogic education could be tailor-made—or hands-on education— depending on their field of specialization. In addition, the pedagogic education could be organized in a way that benefits teachers’ work directly, through the preparation and development of courses, for example. Also, teachers need to be encouraged and enabled to study more about entrepreneurial learning and action-based learning methods, and to utilize them as well.

When the aim is to develop engineering education toward entrepreneurial learning and pedagogy, the curricula form the backbone for enabling it. The curricula renewal should contain views included in the CDIO standards such as integrated learning, active learning, design-build experiences, and CDIO workspaces. There is a need to involve different stakeholders in the curricula development process. The business life expectations have to be acknowledged as the competences of the graduates should meet the needs of their future employers.

Figure 3 describes the change process needed for developing engineering education. The figure is a result of the workshop data and discussions. The identified change process includes the three main areas of change enablers, actions to support change, and entrepreneurial behaviors and mindset.

(7)

Figure 3. Change process

Certain personal and organizational change enablers are needed for promoting entrepreneurial behavior and mindset. The workshop participants emphasized that students need to become better aware of their future professions and roles as engineers. At the same time, students need to be motivated to learn multiple subjects during their studies. Their motivation can be improved by opening possibilities for cooperation with working life and by offering challenging study projects according to the CDIO framework. Certain actions to support change are required to concretize the process. Finally, the aim of this change process is to develop entrepreneurial behavior and mindset that contain, for example, such elements as responsibility, goal-orientation, and tolerance for diversity.

The actions to support change are explained in detail below:

1. Personal development plan: The aim of the change process is to support students’ abilities to

use effectuation and increase awareness of personal skills and find ways to develop these during their studies. The personal development plan should be designed at the beginning of the study path and updated annually when students are discussing with their tutoring teachers. In addition, each student should be instructed to evaluate his or her learning against the requirements of working life. Therefore, each course implementation plan needs to specify the learning objectives from that viewpoint. Effective utilization of a personal development plan requires intensive tutoring. This could be included in the feedback processes; students need to give and receive feedback during their studies. Continuous two-way feedback supports the development of entrepreneurial behavior.

2. Curriculum renovation according to CDIO standards: This action consists of two parts. Firstly, curriculum should be competence based and include entrepreneurship as one of the generic competences needed in engineering according to the European Qualifications Framework. Secondly, the curriculum should be renewed mirroring the CDIO standards. Integrating studies for forming bigger entities or modules is especially important. This enables students to become better aware of the nexuses between different subjects and their connections with the engineering competences. Bigger modules including both demanding design-build experiences and study projects are needed as they train students to tolerate uncertainty and take responsibility. Action 2 also requires that different actors such as teachers and entrepreneurs cooperate closely both in planning courses and projects, and in developing learning environments to support entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurship should be included in the curricula as a competence that grows along with the study years. Simply increasing knowledge

(8)

about entrepreneurship is not sufficient as the approach needed in engineering education. Entrepreneurship could even be seen as a method of learning [26, 27].

3. Utilization/development of networks: Both HEIs have many partners due to various collaboration activities in research and development. Internal workshops should be arranged to share the information about existing possibilities. For instance, the available partnerships could be more effectively utilized when designing new study projects. This could enable students to create more contacts with the operational environment of the HEIs and even to improve their future employment possibilities. Even cooperation between different HEIs in course planning and implementation should be utilized for sharing experiences and good practices.

4. Teacher training: There is a need to intensify teacher training to ensure teachers’ pedagogic competences. The training should enable consultative supervision of work, and create a framework for teacher cooperation and entrepreneurial behavior in each teacher’s own profession.

Developing entrepreneurial behavior in engineering education requires that students know facts

about entrepreneurship but the learning process should be supported by entrepreneurial

learning and suitable pedagogic methods. An entrepreneurial mindset develops through the activating learning methods with experiential elements in actual entrepreneurial environments. During the first study years, learning through entrepreneurship familiarizes students with entrepreneurial behavior and entrepreneurship. Later, their knowledge and understanding starts to grow when learning aboutentrepreneurship comes along. Finally, students’ competences for

entrepreneurship, and for using effectuation, are developed further when they train in existing enterprises. The main conclusion of the entire process is that developing entrepreneurial behavior should be seen as the prerequisite for entrepreneurship.

REFERENCES

[1] Fora, Econ Pöyry, Niras Consultants, Survey of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education in

Europe, Main Report, “ 2008.

[2] EK Elinkeinoelämän keskusliitto, Uudistavaa otetta insinöörikoulutukseen. PK-yritysjohdon

näkemyksiä insinöörien (AMK) osaamis- ja koulutustarpeista, Raportti yrityskyselystä, 2009.

[3] Shane S., “Reflections of the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research,” The Academy of Management Review, v. 37, 2011, 10–20. [4] Shane S., and Venkatamaran S., “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research, “ The

Academy of management review, v. 2, 2001, 217–226.

[5] Sarasvathy S. D., “Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency,“ The Academy of Management Review, v. 26, 2001, 243–263.

[6] Sarasvathy S. D., Effectuation, Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2008.

[7] Sanz-Velasco S. A., “Opportunity development as a learning process for entrepreneurs,“ International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, v. 12, 2006, 251–

(9)

[8] Dew D., Read S., Sarasvathy S. D., and Wiltbank R., “Effectual versus predictive logics in entrepreneurial decision-making: Differences between expert and novices,“ Journal of Business

Venturing, v. 24, 2008, 287–309.

[9] Read S., and Sarasvathy, S. D., “Knowing What to Do and Doing What You Know: Effectuation as a Form of Entrepreneurial Expertise,” The Journal of Private Equity, v. 9, 2005, 45–61.

[10] Gibb A., “The Enterprise Culture and Education: Understanding Enterprise Education and its Links with Small Business, Entrepreneurship and Wider Educational Goals,” International Small Business

Journal, v. 3, 1993, 11–34.

[11] Heinonen J., and Poikkijoki S., “An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission impossible?,” Journal of management development, v. 25, 2006, 88–94

[12] Haynie J. M., Shepherd D., Mosakowski E., and Earley, C. “‘A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset’, Journal of Business Venturing, No. 25, 2010, 217–229.

[13] Harmeling S. S., “Re-storying an entrepreneurial identity: education, experience and self-narrative,“ Education + Training, v. 53 , 2011, 741–749.

[14] Kyrö P., “A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship,” International Journal

of Business and Globalisation, v. 2, 2008, 39–55.

[15] Seikkula-Leino J., Ruskovaara E., Ikävalko M., Mattila J. and Rytkölä T, ”Promoting entrepreneurship education: the role of the teacher?,” Education + Training, v. 52, 2010,117–127. [16] Fayolle A., and Gailly B., “From craft to science. Teaching models and learning processes in

entrepreneurship education,” Journal of European Industrial Training, v. 32, 2008, 569–593.

[17] Rae D., “Understanding entrepreneurial learning: a question of how?,” International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, v. 6, 2000, 145–159.

[18] Hytti U., and O’Gorman C. , “What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries,” Education + Training, v. 46, 2004, 11–23.

[19] Rae D (2003) Opportunity centred learning: an innovation in enterprise education. Education + Training 45(8/9): 542–549. Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 6(3): 145–159.

[20] Politis D., and Gabrielsson J., “Entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards failure. An experiential learning approach, “ International Journal Entrepreneurial Behaviour Research , v. 15, 2008, 364–383. [21] Hartshorn C., and Hannon P. S., “Paradoxes in entrepreneurship education: chalk and talk or chalk

and cheese?: A case approach,” Education + Training, v. 47, 2008, 616–627.

[22] Carrier C., ”Pedagogical challenges in entrepreneurship education,” in: Kyrö P. and Carriér C, (eds)

The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context., University of Tampere, Faculty of Education, 2006, 136–158.

[23] Rasmussen E. A., and Sorheim R., “Action-based entrepreneurship education,” Technovation, v. 26, 2006, 185–194.

[24] Savander-Ranne C., An Active Role for Students in Learning Process Engineering Education: A

Means to Develop Conceptual Understanding, PhD thesis, Tampere University of Technology,

Publications 408, 2003.

(10)

[25] Mäkimurto-Koivumaa S., Effectuation in embedded and enquiry based entrepreneurship education,

Essays for renewing engineering education at Kemi-Tornio University of Applied Sciences, Acta

Universitas Ouluensis, G57, Oulu, 2012.

[26] Sarasvathy, S. D., and Venkataraman S. , “Entrepreneurship as Method: Open Questions for an Entrepreneurial Future,” Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, v. 34, 2011, 113–135.

[27] Neck H. M., and Greene P. G., “Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers,”

Journal of Small Business Management, v. 49, 2011, 55–70.

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Dr. Soili Mäkimurto-Koivumaa has over 20 years’ experience in engineering education and is

currently Education manager at Kemi-Tornio University of Applied Sciences in the department of Technology. She has taken her Master’s degree in Economics at the University of Oulu in 1985 and her Dr. Phil. in Entrepreneurship at the same university in 2012. Her main research interest is in entrepreneurship education and action-based learning methods.

Dr. Mirja Väänänen received her M.Sc. in Engineering, majoring in industrial engineering and

management, in 2002 and her Dr (Tech) in 2010, both from the University of Oulu, Finland. She has been responsible for developing education system at the department of Industrial Engineering and Management (DIEM), University of Oulu. She has worked as a teacher for both master level students at the university and experts working in companies. Currently she is working as a senior research fellow at the DIEM.

Dr. Pekka Belt has extensive industrial experience at a managerial level from several

electronics enterprises, covering company functions from technology development to international marketing. Dr Belt has received both his M.Sc. in electrical engineering and his Dr (Tech) in industrial engineering & management, both from the University of Oulu. Dr Belt has an exceptionally wide experience in guiding doctoral students in the form of 40 guided journal articles and some 20 doctoral dissertations, covering a broad range of topics.

Corresponding author

Dr. Soili Mäkimurto-Koivumaa

Kemi-Tornio University of Applied Sciences Technology Tietokatu 1 94600 KEMI FINLAND +358407340405 [email protected]

This work is licensed under a Creative

Commons