WORK PACKAGE 1c REPORT
W
ORK
R
ELATED
L
EARNING
;
I
NITIAL
T
EACHER
T
RAINING
(ITT) P
ROGRAMMES
I
NCLUDING A RESEARCH SECTION
BY
P
ROFESSOR
R
OBERT
H
ÖGHIELM
Table of Contents
Table of Contents...2
Initial Teacher Training Programmes ...3
The purposes ...3 The aims...3 Responsibility ...3 Start/Finnish/Duration...4 Conference activities...4 The role/tasks ...4 Methods/Technique...4 Expected outcomes ...4
The Work Package 1c Conference...4
Conference Schedule ...5
Conference background purpose and aims ...6
Conference Programme ...6
The Case of Åbo Akademi University...13
- An educational ideology in sloyd education and “Handcraft – Young Entrepreneurship through Sloyd” ...13
The Sloyd Activity of the pupils ...14
The view of Sloyd Teacher Education...19
Some components in Sloyd education that are related to entrepreneurial thinking:....22
Handpower project - Young Entrepreneurship through Slojd ...23
Overall purposes of the Handpower project ...23
Responsible Members ...24
Research section by Professor Robert Höghielm……….26
Initial Teacher Training Programmes
The purposes
The purpose is to influence and support the teachers training system to create modules and/or models of work related learning courses. Best practice of different types of ITT programme activities based on work related learning in the participating regions will be described, analysed, assembled and disseminated through the GEBP-project. These best practices will be presented in the GEBP database and evaluated by the GEBP-project. In the long term we will study the effect on the educational system focusing on experiences and learning in the ITT programme systems. Main
responsible regions for this package 1c are Stockholm Institute of Education together with Österbottens Högskola in Vaasa and Gotland University. Package leader is professor Robert Höghielm, Stockholm Institute of Education
Best practice of different types of work related learning in the participating regions will be described, analysed, assembled and disseminated through the GEBP-project. This will be used for different types ITT activities and will be spread to all
participating regions as well as other parts of Europe. Work related experience is one main subject/area analysing different pedagogical methods of ITT Curriculum involvements and in service training.
These best practices will be presented in the GEBP database and evaluated by the GEBP-project. In the long term we will study the effect on the educational system focusing on experiences and learning in the ITT curriculum systems.
Is it possible to enhance the number of entrepreneurs and develop them in the educational system in order to nurture new enterprise and ideas and influence the teacher training system to remain in a lifelong learning perspective?
The aims
1 To influence, encourage and promote a teacher training system involving modules and/or models of work related learning courses.
2 To define, identify and analyse how different types of Entrepreneurial education systems appear in different contexts within the participating regions.
3 To influence, encourage and promote an increasing number of young enterprise examples and good practices in the vocational education systems of the participating regions.
Responsibility
Main responsibility is Stockholm Institute of Education (S) in association with Österbottens Högskola and Gotland
University
Start/Finnish/Duration
2003-2005Conference activities
Start Conference in Hillerød January 2003 Follow-up conference in Stockholm May 2005 Evaluation conference in Helsinki September 2004 Final conference on Gotland December 2005
The role/tasks
Assembling, identifying, analysing best practice, different types of work related learning and enterprise/ entrepreneurship education examples within the above-described area in the participating region systems.
Methods/Technique
Documentation and disseminating Good practice of work related learning concerning the above area into the project database
Expected outcomes
1 Influence the initial teacher training system to introduce and use work related learning approaches in connection with the surrounding local schools and businesses. 2 Increase teachers use of work related pedagogical approaches.
3 Encouraging the promotion of lifelong learning.
The Work Package 1c Conference
This conference is related to the previous conference about Entrepreneurial Promotion carried out May 23-25 at Visby, Gotland within the Global Education Business
Partnership (GEBP)project. The conference will take place at Gotland University, starting at 9.30 hours on May the 26th, 2005.
The conference is a part of package 1c – Initial Teacher Training Programmes. The aim of the package is to influence and support the teacher training systems to create models of different types of entrepreneurial education. It is organised in collaboration between Stockholm Institute of Education, Vaasa Academy of Education and Gotland University.
The aims of the conference are to investigate in which extent teacher training is engaged in entrepreneurial educational activities not only within the 19 partners participating in the GEBP project but within EU as well. Some best practices will be presented at the conference.
Conference Schedule
May the 26th9.30 – 10.00 Introduction: What is work related learning?
Professor Robert Höghielm, Stockholm Institute of Education
10.00 – 10.30 Some entrepreneurial experiences from Centre for Flexible Learning, Söderhamn
10.30 – 11.00 Coffee
11.00 – 12.00 The meaning of Entrepreneurial education in teacher training
Key note speaker: professor Henning Johansson, Jönköping University of Education/ School of Education and Communciation
12.00 – 13.00 Lunch
13.00 – 13.45 The case of Stockholm Institute of Education
13.45 – 14.45 The case of Åbo Akademi – Österbottens högskola /Vaasa 14.45 – 15.00 Coffee
15.00 – 16.00 Panel consisting of different participating partners. Experiences of entrepreneurial teacher training programmes are expected to be presented. Moderator: professor Kenneth Abrahamsson, Luleå Technical University
16.00 – 17.30 Work shops : Transition of entrepreneurial knowledge in teacher training programmes.
17.30 – 18.00 Conclusions
18.00 – 18.15 Conference finished 19.00 Dinner
Conference background purpose and aims
This conference was related to the previous conference concerning Research & Evaluation - Promoting Entrepreneurship carried out on Gotland, May 23-25, 2005 The conference was a part of package 1c – Initial Teacher Training Programmes in the GEBP – network. The aim of the package is to influence and support the teacher training systems to create models of different types of entrepreneurial education. The Conference was organised in collaboration between Stockholm Institute of Education, Åbo Akademi University, Vasa and Gotland University.
The aims of the conference were to investigate in which extent teacher training is engaged in entrepreneurial educational activities not only within the 19 partners participating in the GEBP project but within European Union as well. Some best practices will be presented at the conference.
Conference Programme
• Opening of Conference• Work related learning in Initial Teacher Training Programme
• Some entrepreneurial experiences from Centre of Flexible Learning in Söderhamn, Sweden
• The meaning of Entrepreneurial Education in Teacher Training Phi. Doctor Anders Olofsson, Mid Sweden University, Östersund. • The case of Stockholm Institute of Education
Professor Robert Höghielm, Stockholm Institute of Education, Sweden • The case of Åbo Akademi University, Vasa
• Professor in Sloyd Education, Christina Nygren-Landgärds, Åbo Akademi University, Finland
• Project Leader Handcraft - Young entrepreneurship true Sloyd, Ann-Chatrin Snickars, Åbo Akademi University, Finland • The case of Gotland University
• Project Leader Lisa Lindell
• Work shop: Transition of entrepreneurial knowledge in teacher training programmes.
• Closing of conference
The research on
entrepreneurship education tends
to turn into ideology in a negative
sense, as the norm system
prohibits critical thinking about
these circumstances
The Transition Myth
Knowledge is recognized in general theories,
views and interpretations which can be transported
by effective pedagogical methods to the
individual
VOCATIONAL
CULTURE
VOCATIONAL
PRACTICE
VOCATIONAL
KNOWLEDGE
BASIC
SKILLS
GENERIC
SKILLS
SPECIFIC
SKILLS
LIFELONG
LEARNING
REAL COMPE-TENCE. + FORMAL; NON-FORMAL & INFORMAL COMPETEN-CE.Key Qualifications
School Practice
Working life
[email protected]Focus on:
• The individual learner
• Rational and cognitive aspects on work place
related learning
• Work process is described as a process of
thinking, reflection and doing
• Learning is expected as granted
• Organizational, cultural and social factors are
down seized
The alternative
• The learning process as a process of
participation
• Emphasize a successive “in schooling” to
the community of vocation
• No vocation can be internalized by only
theoretical standpoints or through a
deductive method based on theory, method,
observation and practice
The alternative
• The learning process as a process of
participation
• Emphasize a successive “in schooling” to the
community of vocation
• No vocation can be internalized by only
theoretical standpoints or through a deductive
method based on theory, method, observation
and practice
The good vocational learning
TRADITIONAL WAY
• School based vocational education and
learning provides theoretical contents to be
applied on production
THE GOOD WAY
• Production based learning which guides when
theory is questioned, not the other way round
i.e.
The Chinese Box
• Vocational Culture sets the agenda for
• Vocational Praxis which decides
• Vocational knowledge
Sequential
Pedagogical
Parallel
School based
incitement
vocational
based
qualification
goal
production
exchange
value
use
supply
drive
demand
explicit
learning
implicit
standardised
programme
tailored
algorithm
acting
heuristics
predictable
learning
unpredictable
environment
You cannot get entrepreneurship
e.g. by practicing at a mechanical
enterprise
Thus entrepreneurial education
cannot generally be the amalgamation
of school and working life
Training of teacher trainees is
work related learning
The main issue is to get an attitude
for an entrepreneurial approach to the
role of becoming a teacher
Entrepreneurial ship is not a
subject but an attitude to the
environment or the context within
you act.
The Case of Åbo Akademi University
- An educational ideology in sloyd education and “Handcraft –
Young Entrepreneurship through Sloyd”
The case of Åbo Akademi University consists Professor in Sloyd Education, Christina Nygren-Landgärds, Åbo Akademi University research and Project Leader
Ann-Chatrin Snickars, Handcraft - Young entrepreneurship true Sloyd, example of best practice.
Sloyd education is an academic field at Åbo Akademi University in Vaasa. Students of Sloyd will become subject teachers in textile work and technical work study. This case of Sloyd education is based on thoughts that the sloyd subject has special opportunities to educate into entrepreneurship. The ideas presented in the case can be used to influence education in other subjects.
The needs relating to education and research in sloyd education, as well as in general education, at Åbo Akademi University are based on the special educational responsibilities of this particular university and its position as the only Swedish-speaking university in Finland. Therefore, the university not only educates sloyd teachers for every level of teaching in the educational system but also researchers in sloyd education. During the years of educational activity, a special sloyd educational theory has been developed.
The theory of the sloyd educational knowledge is called the productional theory. This theory describes verbally and with the aid of conceptual models “what there seems to be” and “what kind of processes seem to go on”. The productional theory is built on the sloyd activity of the pupil and understood as a holistic sloyd activity made up of parts or elements.
The Sloyd Activity of the pupils
Evaluation Analyse of the idea Idea Realization Evaluation Suggestionsfor realization Evaluation
Test Evaluation Analyse of the idea Idea Realization Evaluation Suggestions
for realization Evaluation
Test
For the holistic activity to be meaningful, it is necessary that the elements are related to each other in a way that allows the system – the holistic activity – to have a certain structure. An element can for instance be a phenomenon, an organ, an idea or a quality. The work object, the aids, the material results, the formal results and the person performing the sloyd activity itself are elements within the theory of sloyd as an individual system of activities. The person performing the sloyd activity stands out as a superior element in the system, while all the other elements are subsystems. The system of sloyd activities is, in turn, a part of a complicated super-system, society. The construction of sloyd activity and sloyd learning in the productional theory may be clarified as “actions in sloyd education consist of specific sloyd actions (psychical and physical processes) as well as interactionally conditioned social and communicative processes. Different areas of sloyd technological knowledge will be used in connection with sloyd actions, and the actions will end up as internal and external formative results”.
The holistic activity system involves four aspects: 1) The actor’s own world – the individual-related aspects – depending, as far as it concerns sloyd activity and sloyd learning, on 2) the technological/aesthetic world, 3) the world of social interaction and 4) the surrounding world; aspects related to nature and culture. These aspects have, in turn, a historical relation to culture and society, while the individual aspect is mainly concerned with learning, developing a world picture, a lifestyle (attitudes and
interests) and a self-image in relation to the personal history of the actor. Starting from these superior systems, there are possibilities to activate cognitive, affective and sensormotor systems that in turn regulate the sloyd activity. Accordingly, at these levels, within the individual hierarchy, learning takes place in relation to the sloyd activities and to the aspects related to the individual which depend on the personal history of the person performing the sloyd activity.
The general core, representing the ontology of “pure” sloyd or crafts and design, is dependent on the actor him/herself as a person, on sloyd activities connected with the production of sloyd objects, and on the technological/aesthetic substance of sloyd. These form the world of the actor and the technological-aesthetic world. Disciplines within the world of the actor are sloyd psychology and sloyd aesthetics, and within the technological-aesthetic world, sloyd technology, sloyd ergonomics and sloyd economy. The core of sloyd activity is surrounded with a shell consisting of the world of social aspects and the surrounding world. Disciplines within the world of social aspects are sloyd sociology and sloyd ethics, while disciplines within the surrounding world are sloyd ecology and sloyd ethnology. The surrounding world consists of both physio-chemical activities (ecological systems) and the place where the products of these exist (socio-cultural systems).
The generated knowledge of the sloyd educational system, consisting of the worlds described above, has been crystallized into a main theory of educative sloyd activity as a holistic system. In the model, the activity is organized and regulated by the individual (the actor) in action, and the expansion and progression within the system are drawn as vertical and horizontal axes through the system. The sloyd activity proceeds from the aim towards the result.
The sloyd activity
The actor
The process The product
The worlds are shown to consist of theoretical, practical and productional knowledge and activity. When an educational dimension is added to the system, the content of the
worlds is related to sloyd teaching, sloyd education and research in sloyd education. In this connection, the sloyd activity is far more complex than individual self-steered sloyd activity.
What does this mean regarding education to entrepreneurship? The main characteristic didactical features of the system, in this research, are interpreted and summarized as follows:
The consideration of each pupil is a condition, i.e., consideration of the preparedness and the qualities of each individual pupil within the sloyd educational system. When pupils are grouped into different teaching classes this creates different constellations of pupil groups, but still each pupil has his/her own individual preparedness for education to entrepreneurship through sloyd activities. Consequently, sloyd teaching that aims to entrepreneurship qualities should consider each pupil’s individuality and psychophysical level of development, social qualities, socio-cultural consciousness and motivation.
Creativity
Will
Purpose-fullness
Assiduity
Flexibility
Social
intelligens
Trust in
oneself
Ability to
make decisions
Self-confidence
Sloyd
activities
Creativity
Will
Purpose-fullness
Assiduity
Flexibility
Social
intelligens
Trust in
oneself
Ability to
make decisions
Self-confidence
Sloyd
activities
16And as the pupils are formed into groups, the teaching should also be able to consider the norms, roles and values that have been created in the group. Accordingly, the total preparedness of the pupils should be the basis for planning, implementing and evaluating the teaching process.
The goal is not only the sloyd product but also sloyd actions. A central discussion in sloyd education concerns what outcomes are to be expected. The central goal of sloyd teaching should be to develop preparedness for acting. That is an integration of knowledge and actions (theory and practice), the will, competence, picture of the world and apprehension of the knowledge of each pupil based on his individual paradigm. Given this, the main goal of sloyd educational activity cannot be the physical sloyd product but the process needed to produce the sloyd product. A proportionate allotment between the content connected with the production process and the physical product is a condition for good sloyd teaching.
Sloyd education is seen as a democratic process. The teacher’s consciousness of the potentialities of the pupils is seen as a condition for good results of teaching. As the planning of teaching, the teaching and the evaluation of teaching, as well as the goals of the teaching, start from the preparedness and the expectations of the pupils, the teaching should, in every sense, be democratic. The teacher must make sure that the pupils are conscious of every stage or event within the teaching process.
Thus, a fundamental idea of the productional theory is a holistic theory of the experienced sloyd teaching-studying-learning process and the steering systems. In the process the teacher, the pupil and the components of the teaching situation form a democratic system of interaction. Attention is paid to the needs of the pupil, with a view to developing knowledge and abilities, i.e., preparedness to act.
The aim of my earlier research was to become aware of the educational ideology of sloyd education at Åbo Akademi University. In this connection my aim is to elaborate upon the ideology that is built on the productional theory in relation to education in entrepreneurship.
Most of the students taking part in teacher education today will still be teachers in the 2040’s. At least some of the pupils they teach will live into the 22nd century.
In what way should we educate teachers so that they will manage to teach according to the demands of a society half a century or more in the future, or in other words, so that they will be able to change their teaching according to changes in the world? Should we educate the students in teaching methods, in technology or maybe in bureaucracy?
It is often said that the discussion of how to prepare for the future, which is unknown, has been too little to the fore when schools have planned their activity and also in educational debates in general. The unwillingness to discuss the future may, of course be due to our general ideas regarding the future. Bjerstedt that is a Swedish researcher in education illustrates these ideas with two different pictures of the future. One picture is a ride on a rollercoaster on a dark night. We are placed in one of the wagons
rushing forward. When sitting there we know that the wagon has to follow the rail, but we do not know where the rail takes us because it is dark. Now and then there is a light and we are able to see a little part of the rail, but soon it is black again and we cannot see anything. The other picture of the future is an involuntary trip on a powerful, unknown river. We are sitting in a very small boat equipped with elementary oars. We have to follow the stream of the river, but we can – if we are skilful – avoid some obstacles and choose the direction as the river branches. The pictures present two quite general pictures of the future that are commonly accepted. The pictures express conceptions of the future being chiefly fated and therefore they make it justifiable not to deal with troublesome questions of the future. But as Bjerstedt asks “If school does not prepare for the future, what duty does it then have?” In other words, education is for the future and therefore it requires dealing with questions concerning the future.
With regard to sloyd education I ask myself, “What kind of knowledge should a sloyd teacher get from teacher education in order to succeed in his/her teaching duties, say 40 years hence? In other words, in order to provide such sloyd education for children that they will get a sloyd base to stand on for the rest of their lives?”. Pondering on this question I further ask myself, “Is it technology, i.e., knowledge and skills with respect to techniques, material, history and economics that the students in sloyd education will need? Or is it knowledge based on science of education and didactics, i.e, general knowledge and skills in education and teaching? Or is it a combination of these two kinds of knowledge that they need?” In answer to these questions I would say, “It depends on what we want”. If we want sloyd teachers to be skilful in sloyd activity, we should educate them in technology, and if we want the teachers to be skilful in educating and teaching, we should give them instruction in education and didactics. But if we want them to become good sloyd teachers, we should instruct them in sloyd education. This means that the sloyd teachers should not only master sloyd activities but also the theory of sloyd education and teaching sloyd activities. They will understand in a scientific, sloyd educational and didactical way what happens when a person is engaged in sloyd activity. The aim of sloyd education is then not only to gain insights into sloyd activity, but to obtain a complete picture of sloyd as a school subject and to get to know in what way we can promote a many-sided development of our children and pupils. In other words, the goal is that the students should gain insight into how we are able to educate through sloyd activity. Then the sloyd activity itself will not be of central importance to the students, but will be seen as an instrument to reach the goals of the curriculum at different levels of the educational system. My assumption is that we have to know the possibilities and the problems of sloyd education to be able to prepare ourselves for future duties within sloyd education. There is no use in empty talk. One has to know what one is talking about, in other words, talk that is built on conscious individual experience, results of research or general discussions within the science of sloyd education, to show how, why and when sloyd activity will promote a human being’s development. One also has to know one’s own personal stand on each question. Only in this way will the sloyd teacher be able to take part in a discussion concerning education in the future. On this assumption we easily pass on to the components building the foundation for discussing the views of the students in relation to sloyd teacher education and education to entrepreneurship through sloyd activities.
The view of Sloyd Teacher Education
•
A sloyd educational interest
•
An understanding of the sloyd subject
as a whole
•
Sloyd educational and sloyd didactical
thinking
•
Responsibility for teaching and
learning
1. The first component to be discussed is the component called “having a sloyd
educational interest”. In my research I have established that it is not
necessarily the ambition to become a sloyd teacher that entices students into teacher education. The most important reason for choosing the profession of sloyd teacher is shown to be not the education but the possibility of pursuing their sloyd hobbies. This situation is not satisfactory when we consider the study achievements and also the students’ interest in getting to know teaching as a professional field. If the teacher identity and the wish to master sloyd as a subject field are poorly integrated, this creates a state of conflict and stress. The more positive and sure the students are regarding their choice of profession, the more positively they relate to the education and the better they succeed in their studies. Accordingly, to have a sloyd educational interest stands for an educational interest in the fields of different kinds of sloyd technology, which helps the student or the teacher to develop a deeper knowledge of the sloyd subject. This also enables him/her to think educationally in connection with the subject; in other words, to be interested, in an ethical educational way, in values concerning sloyd activity and sloyd education in connection with didactical and educational questions. Sloyd educational interest also helps the teacher to teach successfully in a longer perspective, because the main interest is not focused on technology, but on both technology and education.
2. Secondly, there is the component “an understanding of the sloyd subject as a whole”. This component is based on the fact that sloyd education builds on a holistic view of personality, integrating thinking, activity and opinions. This means that the education has to be many-sided. Human beings are also seen to have different prospects of learning different types of sloyd education constituents, so the teaching methods have to differ. Using different teaching methods gives every human being an opportunity to learn, and it is never too late to learn. When discussing the basic dimensions of sloyd activity in an
educational context, it may be argued that the pupil is the subject of both the sloyd activity and the sloyd learning. Pupils have the whole process at their disposal, because of their various abilities and qualities, their consciousness, energy, intentions and wishes. They perform sloyd activities, as modelling (actions of perceiving, imagining, foreseeing, constructing and evaluating), transforming (symbolizing, concretizing and documenting a working map) and realization (moulding, manufacturing and evaluating sloyd work) in relation to their own qualifications, their aims and according to what the teaching situation permits. The teaching situation, again, is regulated, on the one hand, by overall aims (instrumental and humanistic) and on the other hand, by teaching-learning objectives, external (knowledge about the sloyd content, method, situation and the work object) and internal (sloyd activities, social and communicative processes). The activity leads to formative (external and internal) and long-range (instrumental and humanistic) results. The ability to see a specific sloyd technological field in relation to sloyd activities as a holistic educative system is said to involve “an understanding of the sloyd subject as a whole”. To concretize this even more, it is possible to say that we may look at sloyd activity as expertise in the sloyd activity itself or as expertise in sloyd education. The expert in sloyd activity looks, first of all, at the concrete sloyd product that is the result of the activity, evaluating its aesthetic, rational and technical qualities. The expert in sloyd education looks at the sloyd activity from an educational point of view. In this case, it is impossible only to look at the concrete product of the process. The process as a whole is seen as an educational activity and the result of the process might, for the pupil, be the concrete product. But, for the sloyd educator, the value of the activity is the, hopefully, successful development of the pupil, such as, the ability to decide and to find individual solutions. The aim in teacher education of understanding the sloyd subject as a whole is to develop the teacher students’ ability to see the parallels between studies in every different sloyd technological field, and educative sloyd activity as a holistic system.
3. The third component is “sloyd educational and sloyd didactical thinking”. The basic idea of this component is that it is generally said that you do not necessarily have to be a good teacher of a subject, even though you master the subject very well. For instance, an expert on sewing machines does not necessarily have the know-how to teach the use of sewing machines. It might even be more difficult to teach a technique and be conscious of its educational possibilities if the technique is so familiar to you that the process of using it is automatic. Teacher education provides ample opportunities to analyze the techniques, skills and abilities that are required. By analyzing the motoric, affective and cognitive abilities that a practical activity requires, the teacher student becomes aware of the elements on which the activity is based. The analysis indicates what steps in the process require more teaching, less teaching, a different kind of teaching or special teaching materials or equipment. This means specifying critical points in sloyd teaching and is called “sloyd educational and sloyd didactical thinking”. More precisely, it means that when you see knowledge of a sloyd activity in relation to school sloyd, you will be aware of the educational qualities that the activity offers.
4. The last component of the teacher educator’s educational and teaching ideology is “responsibility for teaching and learning”. Teacher education is to educate teachers to feel responsibility for their pupils, so that in their work they are able to use their individuality, their professional know-how, their interest and a will of their own. In addition, teachers should allow themselves the freedom of respecting themselves, use their professional knowledge, love their pupils and work; renew themselves, get interested, succeed and fail and also learn from others. During a teaching sequence in sloyd as a teaching subject, the students are offered a special teaching substance. The choice of teaching content is made out of what is seen to be of interest according to the questions discussed and the goals of the teaching. By planning, writing, performing sloyd tasks and undergoing teacher training, the students form a conception of the sloyd educational value of the technological teaching content. The teaching activity thus aims at active sloyd educational and didactical comprehension, which requires that the technological courses should comprise something more than mere technology. Therefore, an educationally and didactically based course in technology makes considerable demands on the student. It requires consideration of the future profession as a teacher, clear ideas about the nature and duties of sloyd education, and an ability to apply the teaching content at different educational levels. For example, one has to know and be able to decide what kind of sewing activities are suitable for a seven- and a fourteen-year-old child respectively; or for an adult. Anyway, it is to be noted that what the students focus their attention on depends on their picture of the world. The students’ picture of the world is seen in their ideas about the socialization process of the pupils, but also in what their attention in teacher education is focused on. Consequently, students should take responsibility for their own learning. The teacher educator supervises and supports the students but the motivation, the will, the activity and the responsibility needed for learning rests on the students. Thus, the responsibility for learning is the students’, while the responsibility for teaching is the teacher’s. The goal is that the students in teacher education should be aware that it is only their own activity that can help them to become good sloyd educators.
Thus, one of the main objectives in sloyd teacher education, and in education in general, is to develop the ability to learn. The duty of the sloyd teacher is to support the learning and the development of the pupils. Thus, this kind of education enables the students to look on education as a phenomenon that is never static and where it may be impossible for the teacher to manage to teach everything that is needed. The teacher should not even aim at this, but give the pupils opportunities to learn by themselves. In the Finnish curriculum for compulsory school it is established that education has to pay special attention to the powerful changes in society that characterize our time. Internationalization and the increasing mobility of citizens – the new migration – bring new elements into our culture and require us to revise our understanding. Moreover, it is established that the quick development within trade and industry requires a flexible attitude to re-education. At the same time, centrally managed functions have tended to decrease and society tends to organize itself into networks of small units. This means that education, even more than before, has to
concentrate on everybody’s right to express their opinions in different situations and train them to be aware of their own opinions, as well as to actively discuss the opinions.
Some components in Sloyd education that are related
to entrepreneurial thinking:
• The duty of the sloyd teacher is to support the learning and the development of the pupils.
• The teaching has to be many-sided, the methods have to differ which gives every human being an opportunity to learn, and it is never to late
• The central goal of sloyd teaching should be to develop preparedness for acting. Attention is paid to the needs of the pupil, with a view to developing knowledge and abilities, i.e., preparedness to act.
• Sloyd education is seen as a democratic process. ; The teacher must make sure that the pupils are conscious of every stage or event within the teaching process.
• The goal is that the students in teacher education should be aware that it is only their own activity that can help them to become good sloyd educators • Consequently, students should take responsibility for their own learning. The
teacher educator supervises and supports the students but the motivation, the will, the activity and the responsibility needed for learning rests on the students.
• Thus, the responsibility for learning is the students’, while the responsibility for teaching is the teacher’s.
• sloyd teaching that aims to entrepreneurship qualities should consider each pupil’s individuality and psychophysical level of development, social qualities, socio-cultural consciousness and motivation.
• The total preparedness of the pupils in a group should be the basis for planning, implementing and evaluating the teaching process.
Handpower project - Young Entrepreneurship through
Slojd
H
H
a
a
n
n
d
d
p
p
o
o
w
w
e
e
r
r
Y
Y
o
o
u
u
n
n
g
g
E
E
n
n
t
t
r
r
e
e
p
p
r
r
e
e
n
n
u
u
r
r
s
s
h
h
i
i
p
p
t
t
h
h
r
r
o
o
u
u
g
g
h
h
S
S
l
l
o
o
y
y
d
d
The Handpower project was presented by Project leader Ann-Christin Snickars. Handpower is a co-operation between University, Åbo Akademi, teachers and pupils in 40 schools and with Loftet shop, run by Ostrobothnia handicraft rf, i.e. business life. The overall aim of the project is to give teachers and pupils in the compulsory school possibilities to work with issues of entrepreneurship in sloyd. And the project is built on the ideas of sloyd education presented above.
Overall purposes of the Handpower project
• To promote inner and outer entrepreneurial development trough Sloyd • To give teachers an opportunity to a widened understanding for
Entrepreneurship Education
• To give new ideas for modern teaching in Sloyd • To encourage networking activities between regions The projects includes:
• Further education • School projects • Sloyd happenings
With special focus on developing following abilities of the pupils: • Creativity • Purposeful thinking • Will • Independence • Social intelligence • Self confidence • Resolution • Flexibility 23
- to be able to , prepared, to become an entrepreneur.
Responsible Members
Stockholm Institute of Education, Sweden
Robert Höghielm
E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +46 87375570
Mobile: +46 704621400
Åbo Akademi University Vasa, Finland
Anna Smirnoff
E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +358 63247125 Mobile: +358 505489515
University of Gotland, Sweden
Kerstin Gustafson
E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +46 498299855
Mobile: +46 706129855
WORK PACKAGE 1c REPORT
W
ORK
R
ELATED
L
EARNING
;
I
NITIAL
T
EACHER
T
RAINING
(ITT) P
ROGRAMMES
R
ESEARCH SECTION
BY
P
ROFESSOR
R
OBERT
H
ÖGHIELM
This is a report about problems related to the concept of entrepreneurial teacher training and teacher trainees in particular. The work package was supposed to find good examples concerning how the entrepreneurial thinking was visualised in regular programmes for teacher trainees. However the members of the package group did not find any traces of organised thinking about entrepreneurial ship in programmes for teacher trainees in Sweden but in Finland. In Sweden the concept of entrepreneurship in educational settings usually is
associated to courses about how to start new enterprises. The Swedish government has in the beginning of the 21st century allocated rather large sums of money to Nutek1. They have in their turn primarily distributed the money to a number of municipalities which have used the money to start different kind of upper secondary schools or institutes which provide courses in the art of starting firms, particularly in the technical sector. However there are a number of Swedish upper secondary schools which have started small enterprises within the school, with good results, which was demonstrated at some of the GEBP project conferences e.g. the one in Murcia, December 2004, Spain.
The report is organised as follows: The authors of the first chapter, “Models for entrepreneurship education and theories in educational research” by Jörgen From, Carina Holmgren and Anders Olofsson from Department of Education, Mid Sweden University show that there has been an almost explosive growth in the interest in entrepreneurship as a
generator of employment, economic growth and global competitiveness. In parallel with this political interest there has been a dramatic increase in the extent of research about
entrepreneurship. In chapter two, under the title “Entrepreneurial Education the solution to amalgamate School culture and working Life Culture?” Robert Höghielm, Stockholm Institute of Education analyses the relationship between upper secondary school programmes of
vocational education and training (VET) and working life from a perspective of cultural and general education. In chapter three, ”An educational ideology in sloyd education”Christina Nygren-Landsgärds, Åbo University presents a theoretical reference model which is applied on the sloyd programme for vocational teacher trainees. In the fourth chapter Kersin
Gustafson, Gotland University, presents “SuperMarit” which is an example of an entrepreneurial project related to teacher training. The aim of the project is to encourage women to start enterprising in the area of videogames in Gotland specifically, but also in the whole of Sweden. SuperMarit wants to support and strengthen girls´ and women´s position in the game world. Finally the package group of 1c (Anna Smirnoff, Robert Höghielm and Kerstin Gustafson) make a brief conclusion in chapter five.
Jörgen From Carina Holmgren Anders Olofsson
Department of Education Mid Sweden University
1
Nutek:
studies of research and policy documents in the field of entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship education. In this article will be discussed the question of how those involved in research about entrepreneurship/entrepreneurship education view education, or more precisely – what is meant by education in entrepreneurship education.3
During the last few decades a stronger market orientation has become more evident in politics as well as in social change in general, not least in the EU. Examples can be given both from the labour market and the educational field. There has been an almost explosive growth in the interest in entrepreneurship as a generator of employment, economic growth and global competitiveness. In parallel with this political interest there has been a dramatic increase in the extent of research about entrepreneurship (see e.g. Audretsch, 2000; Landström & Sexton, 2000).
The idea that entrepreneurship may be of central significance for the economy has made researchers, as well as politicians, pay attention to entrepreneurship education (cf Ulrich, 2001). Launching studies in entrepreneurship is seen as a cornerstone of economic growth on a national level (Black, 2003). Most importantly studies in entrepreneurship are viewed as a way of increasing the number of new enterprises (McMullan & Gillin, 2001; Morrison, 1998), but they are also described as having other advantages. One of those is that entrepreneurship education in itself has a market potential in the so-called information society (Welsch & Kickul, 2001). The very fact that entrepreneurship education is given these favourable connotations, as a means of future wealth, makes the phenomenon interesting.
Entrepreneurship education
In the EU two meanings of entrepreneurship education are used, one wider which refers to developing an entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial competences, and a more narrow one which refers to business start-ups. Entrepreneurship education is intended to embrace the whole of the educational system. On the lower levels of primary school the education should have the wider focus, and its aim should be to promote personal qualities. This will then continue on the higher levels of primary school and in secondary school but will be
supplemented with the more specific focus, all of which with the aim to increase awareness about starting and operating a business of one’s own as a career alternative. On the university level, entrepreneurship education is mostly about start-ups.4
In the EU, at least on the policy level, this model of entrepreneurship education is meant to be a complement, or even a substitute, of what is called traditional education. One interesting observation is that this wish and conviction about the necessity of entrepreneurship education is completely shared by researchers in the field. In another article (Holmgren & From, 2005)
2
The project is funded by the EU and Västernorrland County Council.
3
This text is a revision of a conference paper presented at NFPF/NERA-conference in Oslo, March 10-12, 2005 (From, Holmgren, Olofsson, Snyder & Karlsson, 2005).
4
See e.g. European Commission, 2004 and Europeiska Kommissionen, 2004.
“The educational system traditionally teaches young people to reproduce facts and to look for work as an employee. Entrepreneurs, in contrast, need an education which gives them attitudes, and skills such as self-motivation, creativity, opportunity seeking and the ability to cope with uncertainty.” (European Commission, 1999, p. 7).
“The educational system traditionally teaches young people to reproduce facts and to look for work as an employee. Entrepreneurs, in contrast, need an education which gives them attitudes, and skills such as self-motivation, creativity, opportunity seeking and the ability to cope with uncertainty.” (Miettinen, 2003, p. 4).
In other words, it is possible to claim that politicians and researchers speak with similar or even the same voice, and the message that comes across is clear. Their urge is to widen the strictly economic argumentation about the significance of entrepreneurship education, so that more generally human qualities are given higher priority. In this way entrepreneurship
education is attributed a dual utility, one being economic (jobs and growth are generated) and the other being personal (personal development and self-confidence are promoted) (cf
Stevenson & Lundström, 2002). Entrepreneurship education is to result in a set of personal attributes, attitudes and ways of behaviour, plus knowledge and skills. Thereby it is claimed to form a kind of citizen’s competence which is suitable for every situation in life, and which, in addition, are useful when a business of one’s own is started and operated.
The personal qualities that are to be elicited by entrepreneurship education are many and varied, and they all carry positive connotations, for example: independence, imagination, creativity, organizational and decision-making skill, flexibility and the ability to see opportunities (see e.g. Glas, 1998; Henry, & Titterington, 2001). In accounts of the kind of entrepreneurship education that serves the interest of the individual’s personal development there is a tendency that explicit connections to economy will be left out: “Learning
entrepreneurship and innovation is rather a matter of personal education to do with qualities that are essential for all adolescents who are on the threshold of a changeable society: creativity, flexibility, initiative, responsibility and problem solving.” [our translation] (Johannisson, Madsén & Wallentin, 2000, p 10).
Some researchers also claim that entrepreneurship education is about general school development, or something that can characterize how the school is operated (see e.g.
Lähdeniemi, 1997). Entrepreneurship education is in itself attributed a general value, besides the economic sphere, which is good for everyone. In accordance with this, the necessity – and use – of entrepreneurship education will turn into an overall question of providing “...a
necessary asset for both employees and self-employed alike, or even any individual in developed or developing economies.” (Owusu-Ansah & Flemin, 2002, p 92).
Because of the underlying economic rationale, however, others feel hesitant to generalize entrepreneurship education to include a new direction for all education: “It is our view that we will have to stop talking about ‘pedagogic entrepreneurship’. We believe that everybody is agreed, however wide or narrow we wish the definition of the concept to be, that the concepts
However general the usefulness of entrepreneurship education is described, it is connected to the potential that the education is believed to have and not to its actual results (cf
Holmgren, From, Olofsson, Karlsson, Snyder & Sundström, 2004). On the contrary it is claimed that researchers know too little about whether entrepreneurship education works as intended. Identified knowledge gaps are for example about the influence of different teaching methods and the significance of different contexts, or about more long-term effects
(Brockhaus, 2001; Laukkanen, 2000; Lundström & Stevenson, 2002). Convictions about the potential of entrepreneurship education, as well as about causal relationships between it and desirable behaviour, are normative points of view rather than empirically based: “Although the alleged benefits of entrepreneurship education have been much extolled by researchers and educators, there has been little rigorous research on its effects.” (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003, p 130).
The What of entrepreneurship education
In the field a number of different education approaches or specializations have been
identified as feasible, which is regarded as problematic. The distinction between about and for entrepreneurship is central (Henry, Hill & Leitch, 2003). The former implies an education whose aim is to study and understand entrepreneurship, and the latter implies an education whose aim is to produce entrepreneurs (Hytti, 2001). The former is described as particularly problematic, and the latter is put forward as exemplary (cf Cooper, Bottomley & Gordon, 2004). The most ideal is an education which produces entrepreneurs by focusing on the hands-on aspects; only in that way can entrepreneurship education come into its own: “The educational system has to be oriented towards ‘doing’ more than ‘thinking’. Knowledge has to be converted into solutions that benefit customers in the market place.” (Formica, 2002, p 171).
One basic belief in the field of research on entrepreneurship education is a focus on for entrepreneurship. Only with such a focus is it believed that entrepreneurship education can generate more new firms, which in other words is the overall goal for all entrepreneurship education (cf Holmgren & From, 2005). This means that elements of business administration, i. e. the kind of knowledge needed to start, operate, market, etc a business of one’s own, are self-evident parts of the content of any entrepreneurship education. Moreover, it is generally assumed that studies in communication and the language of management are necessary ingredients (Landström, 2000).
One other dominating idea in entrepreneurship education can be described as model examples of successful entrepreneurs. What these role models have in common is that they are successful in that they have managed to start, operate and develop their own business, something that gives them a strong sense of satisfaction. Such exemplary case studies are so central and important that – with descriptions included of how they are used in teaching – they are published in referee journals (see for example Bell & Winn, 2003; Evans & Varaiya, 2003; Gilinsky, 2002; Kets de Vries & Florent-Treacy, 2003; Tompson, 2003).
active are not only confined to starting, operating and developing companies. They can also reinforce those personal qualities that are important for future entrepreneurship.“ [our translation] (Hansemark, 1999, p 12). In order to develop these personal qualities specific teaching methods are prescribed. Entrepreneurship education is claimed to be experience-based, problem-experience-based, action-oriented, practical, student-centred, interactive, situational, project oriented, etc (Bird, 2002-2003; Fayolle, 2001; Landström, 2000).
In entrepreneurship education it is the student who is considered responsible for the
learning (Carland & Carland, 2001; Duchénaut, 2001). The message to the student ought to be that responsibility is not something that rests with others – it always rests with you (Guedalla, Herlau, Armer, & Qasier, 2001). In order to reinforce the desired personal qualities it is regarded as important that the students themselves learn to take responsibility for their own lives (Sjøvoll & Skåland, 2002). This should be possible to achieve by using for example project work, role-play or student companies (Stevenson & Lundström, 2002). In all this the element of competition is viewed as important, where the best students are rewarded
(Miettinen, 2003).5
The courses or teaching models promoted in the literature have some features in common. They start from a problem, which the students are required to solve through their own activity, where a stepwise process/procedure will lead to the desired/expected solution (cf Fiet, 2001; Guedalla, Herlau, Armer, & Qasier, 2001; Lerner, 2002-2003). Some researchers put
constructivism forward as the basis of entrepreneurship education (Ehrste´n & Kjellman, 2001). The idea that knowledge is not something that you find but something that you create is considered an argument for student companies, where for the student it is a matter of learning by doing (Sjøvoll & Skåland, 2002).
In other words it seems as if entrepreneurship education is not about a purely constructivist education, but rather about a mix of pragmatism, constructivism and programmed learning. In our view, a behaviouristic basis is evident, albeit not explicit, in the models that are described, not least in the idea that a sequential processing of a problem will lead to a result that has been determined in advance (see Skinner, 1971). With this in mind it is possible to make the
importance of competition understandable in terms of stimulus-response, behaviour modification and reward.
What is education in entrepreneurship education?
In many quarters entrepreneurship education is described in a way that is well known from the history of the field of educational science. For example, some researchers ague that it could be an effective way of allocating (educational) resources where they give the best returns (Dana, 1993; Duchénaut, 2001). In such cases entrepreneurship education is a matter
5
The importance of the element of competition seems to be a central concept in the field, which deserves a study in its own right. As examples can be mentioned that descriptions of ‘best practice’ are quite numerous in the research literature, and that the big conference in the field (Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training) every year chooses one contribution, which is given the prize ‘Best Paper Award’, and the sum of 1000 euros.
support, grant aid or financial investment, then the risk factors associated with small business start-ups could be significantly reduced, and state or private investment could be rationalized to ensure the optimum return.” (Henry & Titterington, 2001, s 376). An obvious parallel can be drawn to early research in education. In his inauguration lecture on April 22, 1933, John Elmgren talked about the task for educational science: “A realistic kind of educational research has to start from the assumption that the most essential thing, after all, has to be the selection of individuals who from the point of view of heritage are worthy of being
educationally influenced.” [our translation] (Elmgren, 1988, p 85). A concept like educational potential seems to be unknown in the field of entrepreneurship education.
Generally speaking there are strong similarities between research about entrepreneurship education and the paradigm that was dominant in educational research up to the end of the 1960s. Education is looked upon as a typical input-output model. In Urban Dahllöf’s words the lid of “the black box” [our translation], which contains the pedagogical processes in between, has not been opened (1992, p 159). Instead focus is on normative prescriptions about how, by using the right input, the desired output can be achieved, i. e. an increased number of start-ups. The smallest common denominator for entrepreneurship education is to get the students to be able to start a business of their own, and to get the students to want to start a business of their own, and to make sure, in as cost-effective a way as possible, that those best suited do so.
Normativity
The research about entrepreneurship education is characterized by the same orientation that is prescribed for the education, i. e. it is for entrepreneurship. It is on the whole made up of exemplary models, prescriptions and action guides about how education should proceed in order to yield the desired result. It has all the characteristics that Herwig Blankertz at the end of the 1960s attributes to normative didactics: “In scientific contexts, however, the term normative didactics signifies something quite different, more precisely a system which starts from superordinate, pre-pedagogical normative attitudes to human life, humankind’s position in the world or to human nature. These normative assumptions are then put forward as educational goals, from which the content of the education is derived. This, then, also means that syllabi are based on these norms, and that teaching methods and models are affected in the next deductive step. Thus a chain of deduction leads from the norms to accounts about what “the teaching” of reality should be like.” [our translation] (1987, s 25) The impact of the normative didactics is in the fact that the system gives clear guides for action to beginners who share the fundamental norms. The system gives the illusion of logical consistency or even scientificness – ideas about what reality should be like turn into becoming reality itself (Blankertz, 1987).
The prescriptions for entrepreneurship education that are put forward also display those shortcomings that Blankertz identifies in normative didactics. They are ahistorical and neglect the complexity and changeability in the prevailing circumstances under which actual
education is carried out. The research on entrepreneurship education therefore tends to turn into ideology in a negative sense, as the norm system prohibits critical thinking about these
What is overlooked is the simple fact that education simply seen as input-output, with no consideration given to the pedagogical processes in between and to the prevailing
circumstances under which the education is carried out, makes it impossible to understand the actual result of the education (cf e. g. Franke-Wikberg, 1992). On a principle level Basil Bernstein’s (2000) definition of pedagogical practice can be used for exemplification. According to this all pedagogical practice is characterized by the fact that all instruction is embedded in moral regulation. All education, however it is carried out, means moral education/socialization as a result of the power and control mechanisms that are at work. Bernstein (2000) himself gives as an example how carpentry, which outside of education follows its own logic, in an educational context changes over into woodwork, which follows the logic of pedagogical practice, not least because of the fact that in the educational context the very woodworking itself as well as its result and the individual involved in it are subject to continuous assessment.
A curriculum for entrepreneurship education?
The discussion can be carried further by using the normativity of the research in the field. This will make it possible to see the research as a project to develop a European curriculum for entrepreneurship education. The kind of education that such a curriculum proposes is an activity characterized by what Bernstein (1977) calls an integrated code. As opposed to a collection code, with clear demarcation lines between subjects and where mediation is the responsibility of the teacher, the integrated code is characterized by eroded subject boundaries and many and varied relationships between teachers and students. The erosion of subject boundaries is the result of the subordination of subjects to an overall ideal, which also gives guidelines as to how the education is to be carried out. This type of activity requires a high degree of ideological consensus, or differently put, that those involved adhere to the overall ideal.
This overall ideal refers to the pedagogical identity that the education is supposed to produce (Bernstein, 1997). In other words it is all about what specific moral disposition, motivation and aspiration are to characterize teachers as well as students at all in terms of behaviour, achievements and the pedagogical practice. Essentially the production of the pedagogical identity is the answer to the question of how changes of a moral, cultural and economic nature is to be achieved/prevented, regulated and governed (Bernstein, 1997).
If entrepreneurship education aims to make people able to start their own business and to make them want to do so, it is possible, in accordance with Bernstein, to say that the
instruction is about being able, and that the moral regulation is about wanting, and that wanting is superordinate to ability.6 The overall ideal for entrepreneurship education, i. e. the
6
In our research project Learning entrepreneurship we have also conducted empirical research on entrepreneurship education. Our empirical findings indicate that different entrepreneurship education efforts, when put together with other, for entrepreneurship supporting, activities in the local context make a difference in how youth value entrepreneurship (see Holmgren, Lundström, Olofsson, &Viklands, 2005).
If the literature on entrepreneurship education is viewed in this way it will seem to be a form of symbolic control, which contribute to the regulation of cultural reproduction, particularly in formal and informal pedagogical practices (Bernstein, 2000). In this case the pedagogical identity displays considerable similarities with a decentralized market identity (cf Bernstein, 1997; 2000). The quality of this identity is determined by its exchange value on the market, which makes phenomena such as loyalty seem like trade impediments to be avoided. Considering the almost total agreement in ideological points of view with regard to
entrepreneurship education among researchers and EU politicians it seems likely that the strength of the symbolic control is substantial. At the same time it reveals a fundamental opposition: All educational systems in the EU shall, in the same way and according to the same regulations, produce the same type of decentralized identities – centrally controlled decentralization?
References
Audretsch, D. (2000). Entrepreneurship in Germany. In H. Landström & D. L. Sexton. (eds.) Handbook of Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Pp. 107-127.
Bell, J. R. & Winn, J. (2003). Artemis Images: Providing Content in the Digital Age. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. (ET & P) Vol. 28, No. 2, Winter 2003, pp. 173-190.
Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, Codes and Control. Vol. 3. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bernstein, B. (1997). Official Knowledge and Pedagogic Identities. In: I. Nilsson & L. Lundahl. (eds.) Teachers, Curriculum and Policy – Critical Perspectives in Educational Research. Umeå: Umeå University, Department of Education. Pp. 165-179.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc.
Bird, B. J. (2002-2003). Learning Entrepreneurship Competences: the Self-Directed Learning Approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. Volume 1, Issue 2, Academic Year 2002-2003, pp. 203-227.
Black, L. (2003). The Contribution of “worls view” to pupils’ attitudes on enterprise, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial learning. Manchester: Graduate Business School, Manchester Metropolitan University. Manchester Metropolitan University Business School working paper series (online), 03/05.
Blankertz, H. (1987). Didaktikens teorier och modeller. [Theories and models of didactics.] Stockholm: HLS förlag.
Brockhaus, R. H. (2001). Foreword. In R. H. Brockhaus, G. E. Hills, H. Klandt, & H. P. Welsch. (eds.) Entrepreneurship Education. A global view. Burlington: Ashgate. Pp. XIII-XIX.
7
In the literature in this field it is claimed that entrepreneurship education is important to create correct/favourable attitudes to entrepreneurship in the eyes of the general public. (see e. g. Cooper, Bottomley & Gordon, 2004).
Cooper, S., Bottomley, C. & Gordon, J. (2004). Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: an experimental learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Industry and Higher Learning, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 11-22.
Dahllöf, U. (1992). Hardet svenska pedagogikämnet någon identitet? [What is the identity of Swedish educational science?] I S. Selander. (red.) Forskning om utbildning.
Stockholm/Skåne: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag. Symposium. S. 156-167.
Dana, L. P. (1993). An international survey of entrepreneurship education. Journal of enterprising culture, Vol. 1, 1993, no. 1, pp. 67-92.
Duchénaut, B. (2001). Entrepreneurship and Higher Education from Real-life Context to Pedagogical Challenge. In R. H. Brockhaus, G. E. Hills, H. Klandt, & H. P. Welsch. (eds.) Entrepreneurship Education. A global view. Burlington: Ashgate. Pp. 128-146.
Ehrste´n, M. & Kjellman, A. (2001). Rethinking education: from homo industialis to homo entreprenaurus. Preliminära forskarrapporter, Nr 218. Åbo: Åbo akademi.
Elmgren, J. (1988). Uppfostrans möjligheter och gränser. [The possibilities and limits of education.] I L. Lindberg & B-M. Berge. Pedagogik som vetenskap – vetenskap som
pedagogik. Lund: Studentlittertur. S 80-85.
European Communities (1999). Action plan to promote entrepreneurship and
competitiveness. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/best/
European Commission. (2004). Final Report of the Expert Group “Education for
Entrepreneurship”. Making progress in promotion entrepreneurial attitudes and skills through Primary and Secondary education. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/index.htm
Europeiska Kommissionen. (2004). Att hjälpa till att skapa entreprenörsanda. En
vägledning med god praxis för att främja entreprenörsanda och entreprenörsförmåga genom utbildning. [To contribute to the creation of an entrepreneurial spirit. A guidance containing best practices for promoting entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial competence by education.] Luxenburg: Byrån för Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella publikationer.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/training_educatio n/index.htm
Evans, A. G. & Varaiya, N. (2003). Anne Evans: Assessment of a Biotechnology Market opportunity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. (ET & P) Vol. 28, No. 1, Fall 2003, pp. 87-105.
Falkäng, J. (2000). The Assessment of Entrepreneurship Education. Industry and Higher Education. Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000, pp. 101-108.
Fayolle, A. (2001). Teaching Entrepreneurship: Outcomes from an Innovative Experience. In H. Klandt. (ed.) (2001) IntEnt 98. Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training. Lohmar; Köln: Joseph Eul Verlag. Pp 62-83.
Fiet, J. O. (2001). Education for Entrepreneurial Competency: a Theory-based Activity Approach. In R. H. Brockhaus, G. E. Hills, H. Klandt, & H. P. Welsch. (eds.)
Entrepreneurship Education. A global view. Burlington: Ashgate. Pp. 78-93.