Cultural considerations when designing

0 downloads 0 Views 573KB Size Report
Section 6 reviews the literature that links culture to entrepreneurial teaching ..... Business. 2. South African Journal of Economic. And Management Sciences. 1.

Cultural considerations when designing entrepreneurial pedagogies Ian Keith Alexander University of Copenhagen, Denmark and the Technical University of Madrid, Spain Carsten Nico Hjortsø University of Copenhagen ABSTRACT We assume that cultural variables influence the effectiveness of entrepreneurship pedagogy and as such there is need for cultural sensitivity in the design and implementation of entrepreneurship teaching progammes. With this in mind, we set out to examine whether the approaches and methods used teach entrepreneurship are culturally-based. We systematically searched the extant literature for evidence to verify our assumption. The search was conducted in two phases. In phase one we searched 79 articles to identify the major approaches and methods used in entrepreneurship. Experiential, learner-centred and problem-based approaches were commonly mentioned. The more common teaching methods were business plans, guest entrepreneurs/experts, cases, projects and lectures. Discussions/debates, simulations, internships and coaching were also frequently mentioned. In phase two we identified articles (23) that discussed the use of the approaches and methods we previously identified in different cultural settings. Hostede cultural dimensions of individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, masculinity-femininity and long term orientation-short term orientation to frame the discussion. The finding suggests that there is need for cultural sensitivity in entrepreneurship teaching. The articles we reviewed showed that the action oriented, interactive earning approaches recommended for entrepreneurship teaching are not amenable to all societies, especially in Asian societies where Confucian principles (teacher dominance/control and reflective learning styles) are at odds with the learner-centred and participative methodologies used in entrepreneurship teaching. Furthermore, cultural variables such as individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and power distance played a role in a role in shaping classroom dynamics, in particular the level of activeness and participation of learners. The study was useful in showing the need for cultural sensitivity and that entrepreneurship educators need to provide more contextualized, and hence presumably more efficient training programmes in a range of different cultural settings.

Keywords: Culture, Teachings approaches, Teaching methods, Entrepreneurship pedagogy 1 INTRODUCTION The development of entrepreneurial attitudes and cultures has been high on the political agenda of both developed and developing countries (Malinen 2007; Naudé 2008). This has led to an increasing interest in entrepreneurship education (Klein & Bullock, 2006), but there are still many ‘grey areas’ and unanswered questions, especially as it pertains to how best to enhance entrepreneurial skills and mind-sets (Alberti, Sciascia & Poli 2004). The task of creating entrepreneurship education programmes is challenged by a lack of agreement on what these courses should entail and how it should be delivered. Matlay (2006, p.705) spoke of the disparity in the content and quality of entrepreneurship education programmes on offer, including curriculum design, delivery methods and forms of assessment and Gerba (2012) also noted the lack of consensus on which methods are most effective. A major debate surrounds the level of focus that should be given to either theory or practice (Fiet 2001). However, it is widely accepted that entrepreneurship education should be based on experiential, action approaches (Gibbs 2002; Corbette 2005; Pittaway & Cope 2007) that are embedded in the political, social and cultural context (Fenwick 2001).

1

The situatedness of entrepreneurial learning underscores the need to contextualise the learning experience. Along this line, we argue that in teaching entrepreneurship, it is necessary to consider the contextual variables that are influenced by culture. The aim of this study is to examine the influence of culture on entrepreneurship pedagogy. Our goal is to show that the approaches and methods used in entrepreneurship teaching are culturally-based; hence, the need for cultural sensitivity when designing entrepreneurship teaching programmes. Ngeow and Kong (2002) remark on the importance of considering cultural variables when developing teaching and learning modalities. Similarly, McLoughlin and Oliver (2000, p. 2) argues that "culture pervades learning, and in designing instructional environments there needs to be a serious debate about issues concerning the social and cultural dimensions of task design, communication channels and structuring of information". Furthermore, Schaper (2001) contends that although entrepreneurship teaching approaches and methods seem amenable to diverse settings, it is essential to consider the effect of culture. Still, while there has been extensive discussion on culture’s impact on entrepreneurship (Davidsson 1995; Tan 2002; Hofstede et al. 2004; Kylver, Hindle & Meyer 2008), culture has not been widely discussed in the domain of entrepreneurship teaching. This study contributes to filling this gap by exploring the literature that links culture and entrepreneurship teaching approaches and methods. First, it provides empirical evidence that supports the call for culturally-based pedagogies in entrepreneurship teaching. Secondly, the discussion sheds light on which approaches and methods are more amenable to certain cultures. This will be useful when attempting to match content and methodology to the cultural setting and target population characteristics. Thirdly, this review exposes gaps in the extant literature and identifies future research needs. The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the major issues influencing the choice of pedagogy. Section 3 describes the concept of cultural dimensions. In Section 4 we describe the methodology used. Section 5 presents the major teaching approaches and methods that were identified in the literature. Section 6 reviews the literature that links culture to entrepreneurial teaching approaches and methods. Finally, Section 7 concludes, and future research needs are presented. 2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP PEDAGOGY Pedagogical considerations address learning objectives, the teaching content and the learners. Entrepreneurship education objectives determine the pedagogical technique (Fayolle 2000; Pittaway & Cope 2007). Maritz, Brown and Chich (2010) suggested that pedagogical approaches and methods should be considered only after the content is explicit and the audience needs and characteristics are identified. Mwasalwiba (2010) shared similar views. He linked the teaching methods to the type of programme, specific objectives, course content and audience. Objectives Blenker et al. (2011) argued that there are four broad categories of entrepreneurship education, which are: educating students to create new ventures; educating students to transform ideas and knowledge into initiatives that will create economic growth; facilitating entrepreneurial energy for social change; and, facilitating an entrepreneurial mind-set in everyday practice. Another more concise categorization groups the training objectives into education about entrepreneurship, education for entrepreneurship and education through entrepreneurship (Kirby 2004; Blenker & Christensen 2010). For Dahlstedt and Hertzberg (2012, p. 253-254) ‘training about entrepreneurship includes knowledge on the nature of and conditions for entrepreneurship. It provides a deeper understanding and insight into the thinking and actions of the entrepreneur. Training for entrepreneurship (the spirit of entrepreneurship) includes preparatory training for the development

2

of attitudes, abilities and attitudes that generate dynamic thinking and action. Training through entrepreneurship focuses on a concrete idea, realized in a more or less real-life situation. It develops the skills and competencies needed for the development of ideas’. The chosen paradigm determines the approaches and methods. For instance, when the objective is to increase the knowledge and understanding of entrepreneurship (education about entrepreneurship) then traditional methods suffice (e.g. lectures, seminars and text book reading). When the objective is to equip individuals with the skills and competences that can be applied directly to work (education for entrepreneurship) then methods such as business training and coaching are adequate. Lastly, when the teaching goal is to prepare individuals to act as entrepreneurs, the most effective techniques are experiential, for instance through business simulation or role playing (Hytti & O’Gorman 2004; Blenker & Christensen 2010). In its early stages, entrepreneurship courses were add-on to business management courses (Vesper 1999) and generally focused on venture creation. However, recently, the focus has shifted to the development of specialized courses, designed to enhance the entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviours (Peterman & Kennedy 2003). Dubbini and Iacobucci (2005) argued that entrepreneurship education should focus on psychological, behavioural and relational competences that firms need to grow and innovate. Rodríguez (2009) suggests that there is a pressing need for skills and attitudes to take centre stage in entrepreneurial teaching. The argument that the management skills taught in business schools are insufficient to spur entrepreneurial behaviour (e.g. Alberti, Sciascia & Poli 2004; Lautenschlager 2011) underlies the shift in paradigm (from the development of business acumen to the enhancement of attitudes and mind-sets). Furthermore, Kirby (2004) argued that entrepreneurship should not be equated with new venture creation or small business management but creativity and change. However, for nascent entrepreneurs, the two orientations, i.e. acquiring entrepreneurial mind-set and acquiring business acumens are equally important and a blended approach that combines delivery methods and approaches (Heinze & Procter 2004; Sloman 2007; Maritz, Brown and Chich 2010). There is no “universal pedagogical recipe regarding how to teach entrepreneurship” and while one method is effective in one setting it might not be amenable to another (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008, p. 579). Therefore, knowledge of the audience characteristics and educational needs is crucial in designing ‘tailor-made’ pedagogical tools and programmes (Hill, O’Cinneide & Kiesner 2003). In particular, understanding the learning style of the audience is one of the first steps to customize the learning environment and learning technologies. Learning style captures the different ways in which individuals may process and integrate information. The assumption in entrepreneurial literature is that certain learning styles predispose an individual to entrepreneurial action. For example, Corbette (2007) showed that learning asymmetries (the different manner in which individuals acquire and transform information) have important implications for the discovery of opportunities. More specifically, Bird (1988, p. 450) proposed “entrepreneurs who are active learners and who are able to learn quickly from their experiences are more likely to succeed than those whose learning style is more reactive”. Kolb’s (1981) learning style dimensions depicts the learning styles of individuals. In his model there are two modes of grasping experience (concrete experience and abstract conceptualization), as well as two modes of transforming experience (reflective observation and active experimentation). These four elements reflect an individual’s learning style and highlight the need to design educational activities that appeal to the different styles. Kolb identified 4 types of learners:

3

   

Diverger: focuses on concrete experience (“feeling”) and reflective observation (“watching”). The dominant learning ability is adaptation by observation. They are described as being strong in imaginative ability. Assimilator: focuses on abstract conceptualization (“thinking”) and reflective observation (“watching”). Learners in this grouping prefer logical theory and inductive reasoning. Converger: relies on abstract conceptualization (“thinking”) and active experimentation (“doing”). Learners in this grouping excel at problem-solving and decision making. Their preference is towards the practical application of ideas. Accommodator: uses concrete experience (“feeling”) and active experimentation (“doing”). Learners in this grouping are risk-takers (learn by trial and error), and tend to solve problems intuitively.

Referring to Kolb’s theory, Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994) argued that entrepreneur must employ a blend of learning styles. For instance, they argued that a deficiency in concrete experience may lead to an inability to formulate plans, and a deficiency in active experimentation may lead to an inability to implement the plans. Furthermore, Garavan and O’Cinneide suggested pedagogical tools associated with the different learning styles. In their opinion, the accommodator and converger learning styles are necessary for entrepreneurship and tools such as role-plays, field projects, simulations, discussions and coaching are amenable to entrepreneurship learning. 3 CULTURAL DIMENSIONS Culture, in its broadest sense, represents “a collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede 1994, p. 5). A national culture represents the underlying system of values, beliefs and preferences (Hoftstede, 1980; Baughn, Chua & Neupert 2006). A society’s propensity to generate, autonomous, risk-taking, innovative, competitively aggressive and proactive entrepreneurs and firms will depend on its cultural foundation (Lee & Peterson 2000). Cultural differences (values, norms and beliefs) between countries or regions influence a variety of individual behaviours, including the decision to undertake entrepreneurial activities (George & Zahra 2002; Hayton, George & Zahra 2002; Thomas & Mueller 2000). Several authors (Illeris 1986; Thomas & Mueller 2000; Begley & Tan 2001; George and Zahra 2002; Hayton, George & Zahra 2002; Ulhøi 2005; Urbano and Toledano 2011) have argued that cultural differences have a determining effect and influence the decision to undertake entrepreneurial activities. To depict cultural differences among nations, researchers have often relied on the work of Hofstede (1983), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) and Schwartz (1992). These authors have provided useful frameworks that can be applied to explain differences in entrepreneurial activities in different cultures. In particular, Hofstede (1983) argued that cultural factors are instrumental in directing individual motives. He identified five key dimensions of national cultures:   

Individualism-collectivism: captures the degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals or members of groups. Uncertainty avoidance: the degree to which people in a country prefer structured situations over unstructured ones. Power distance: the degree of inequality among the people that are considered normal by the general populace.

4

 

Masculinity-femininity: the degree to which ‘masculine’ values, such as assertiveness, competition, and success are emphasized. Long term orientation-short term orientation: long-term orientation stands for the fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular, perseverance and thrift. In contrast, short-term orientation represents the fostering of virtues related to the past and present, in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of “face”, and fulfilling social obligation.

The intention here is not to validate cultural dimensions or enter into a discourse as to which theory of cultural dimensions is most appropriate; instead, for this discussion, Hofstede’s framework is chosen because it is the most common measure of cultural differences (Dahl 2004; Ng, Lee & Soutar 2007). Similarly, there is a long tradition of using these dimensions to frame cultural sensitive factors in the learning environment (e.g. Wierstra et al., 1999; Niehoff et al., 2001; Wierstra et al., 2003). 4 METHODOLOGY AND DATA Stage one: Identification of entrepreneurship teaching approaches and methods To identify the major approaches and methods used in entrepreneurship teaching we searched the following six online scientific publication databases Web of Science, ERIC, EconLit, PsycInfo, Scopus and EBSCOhost. We limited the search to articles written in English and published in peerreviewed journals. Excluded were works published in books, conferences, working papers and reports. Also excluded were articles published before 2000. The search terms used were: “pedagogical methods” or “pedagogical tools” or “pedagogical models” and “entrepreneurship”. Synonyms for pedagogical methods/tools/models were also used, including “teaching methods”, “teaching tools”, “teaching models”, “training methods”, “training tools” and “training models”. Synonyms were obtained from the preliminary search. We retrieved 177 articles of which 64 were identified as relevant for the review. Also, we scanned the reference section of selected articles to identify further titles. These articles were retrieved via Google Scholar. We limited the use of Google Scholar, to ensure that the search methodology remained systematic. Google Scholar can be an adequate source of information when used in combination with other trusted sources of information (Gehanno, Rollin & Darmoni 2013). A total of 15 additional articles were identified. In the end, the search yielded 79 articles (Table 1) distributed across 46 journals (Table 2); of which ”Education + Training” provided the most titles. There is a surge in publications from 2006 (Table 3). Reading each article, we identify the pedagogical approaches and methods discussed. Subsequently, we used Wordle to represent the findings (Figure 1). McNaught and Lam (2010) suggest that word clouds can be a useful research tool to aid educational research. Table 1: Classification of articles by online database Publication Year Ebscohost EconLit ERIC PsycInfo Scopus Web of Science Google Scholar (Additional Titles) Total

Number of Articles 8 2 7 1 27 19 15 79

5

Table 2: Classification of articles by journal Amount

Journal

Academy Of Management Learning & Education American Journal of Business Education

8

1

American Journal of Public Health

1

Business: Theory and Practice

1

Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society Journal of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development Journal of Entrepreneurship Education Journal of Enterprising Culture

Cambridge Journal of Education

1

3

Computers in Human Behaviour

2

Education and Training

12

Journal of European Industrial Training Journal of International Agricultural And Extension Education Journal of Management Development

Education as Change

1

Journal of Management Education

1

Educational Research for Policy and Practice Entrepreneurial Executive

1

1

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice European Journal of Education

2

European Journal Of Engineering Education Industry and Higher Education

1

Innovations in Education And Teaching International International Entrepreneurship And Management Journal International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability International Journal of Educational Management International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & International Journal of Research Entrepreneurship and Small Business Journal of Adult Education

1

Journal of Research on Technology In Education Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development Journal of Small Business Management Journal of Technology Management & Innovation Journal of The American Medical Informatics Association Journal of Workplace Learning

2

1

Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

1

Management Research Review

1

1

Quarterly Journal of Speech

1

2

South African Journal of Economic And Management Sciences

1

Journal of Business Venturing

2

Journal of Education And Work

1

Journal

1

1

1

1

1

1

Technics Technologies Education Management Technics Technologies Education Management Technovation

Amount

1 1 1

1 1

1 3 2 3 1 1

1

1 1 2

6

Table 3: Classification of articles by publication year Publication Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Number of Articles 2 2 2 0 5 5 11 5 8 5 7 7 14 6 79

Stage two: Search strategy used to identify studies on culture and entrepreneurship teaching approaches and methods We conducted a second literature search to verify whether the approaches and methods used in entrepreneurship teaching have been related to cultural issues, and if the literature provides evidence for cultural sensitivity in entrepreneurship teaching discourse. The preliminary search was confined to the entrepreneurship literature; this search yielded very limited results. Due to the gap in the literature, as it relates to the influence of cultural variables in the design of entrepreneurship pedagogies, we expanded the search to include the wider extant literature on education. Numerous studies have focused on education across cultures (e.g. Hofstede 1986; Ogbu 1992; Cheng 1998) and as such we identified a pool of knowledge from which we can build the discussion. We progressively scanned the literature for articles discussing the teaching approaches and methods we previously identified in Stage 1 in different cultural settings. The previously identified teaching approaches and methods were used as keywords to form search strings (Table 4). We did not limit the search by age neither did we exclude books and conference proceedings. Twenty three studies were identified. The articles were mostly distributed across education journals; however, the issue has been discussed over a wide range of disciplines and contexts (see Table 4). The articles we selected were published between 1983 and 2013. Also, the discussion on culture in the realm of education has mostly focused on learning issues in the Asian region. Table 4. Search strategy and search terms used to identify studies on culture and entrepreneurship teaching approaches and methods 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

“Experiential” OR “Student based” OR “learner based” OR “Team based” OR “Group based” OR “Collaborative learning” OR “Problem based” OR “Task based” “Approach*” OR “Techniq*” OR “Method*” 1 AND 2 “Case stud*”OR “Business plan*” OR “Project*” OR “Guest entrepreneur*” OR Lecture* 3 OR 4 “Cultur*” OR “Cross cultur*” OR “Countr*” OR “Nation*” OR “Cultural dimensions” OR “Individual*” OR “Collectivist*” OR “Power distance” OR “Uncertainty avoidance” OR “Masculinity” OR “Femininity” OR “Long term orientation” OR “Short term orientation”

7

7. 8.

“Classroom” OR “Student” OR “Teach*” 5 AND 6 AND 7

5 ENTREPRENEURSHIP TEACHING APPROACHES AND METHODS In terms of approaches, as expected, there was widespread consensus that experiential methodologies (241) should be employed. Also, common was the focus on teams (23), problembased learning (11) and learner-centred methodologies (8). The most cited teaching methods were business plans (27), guest entrepreneurs/experts (20), cases (20), projects (18) and lectures (17). Discussions/debates (15), simulations (13), internships (11) and coaching (10) were also frequently mentioned. It should be noted that most of the studies focused on western societies; therefore, the approaches and methods identified are mostly designed based on western society’s notion of entrepreneurship. Figure 1 depicts the major approaches and methods.

Figure 1: Entrepreneurship teaching approaches and methods 5.1 Entrepreneurship teaching approaches Experiential learning approaches. Entrepreneurial learning is an experiential (Minniti & Bygrave 2001; Politis 2005; Pittaway & Cope 2007). Kolb (1981) describes experiential learning as a process where knowledge is created through the transformation of experiences. Similarly, Cooper, Bottomley & Gordon (2004, p. 14) argued “the value attached to experience derives from the assumption that deeper learning occurs as the learner’s level of involvement in the activity increases”. Honig (2004) commented on entrepreneur’s reliance on tacit knowledge and pointed out that tacit knowledge is most often acquired through learning by experience. Learner-centred approaches 1

The number in brackets indicates how many times the category was mentioned in the literature review.

8

Entrepreneurial learning requires learner-centred learning methods where the teacher facilitates the development of entrepreneurial behaviour, skills and attitudes (Gibb 2002; Harkema & Schout 2008). Learner-centred training is based on experiential learning, since learning cannot be isolated from practice (Harkema & Schout 2008). When the learner takes ownership of the learning process and experience, an environment is constructed that fosters active participation (Jones &English 2004). Problem-based learning approaches Problem-based learning tries to replicate real world challenges (Seng 2000). It seeks to enhance the learner’s expertise, allowing them to identify and solve “real life” or simulated problem (Gijbels et al. 2005). Exploring authentic problems using the processes and tools of the discipline is an excellent way of teaching factual information and more importantly, process skills (Wilke & Straits 2001; Coombs & Elden 2004). Tan and Ng (2006) found that problems that simulate entrepreneurial situations within the classroom environment contribute to enhancing students’ appreciation and capacity for entrepreneurship. Team-based learning approaches Collaborative and co-learning environments provide a medium for encouraging exchange of knowledge and experience (Collins, Smith & Hannon 2006). Teamwork among students or collaboration with other members of the community with different experiences has the potential for creating entrepreneurial behaviour among students. The use of teams in teaching entrepreneurship mirrors the ‘real-world’ business context. For instance, Drach-Zahavy and Somech (2001) acknowledged that most innovations are the results of team-based initiatives. 5.2 Entrepreneurship teaching methods Cases Case studies raise the learner’s knowledge about entrepreneurship (Jack & Anderson 1999) and can be useful in explaining the entrepreneurial process (Hegarty 2006). According to Rushing (1990) case studies can be effectively used for entrepreneurial education, and they are able to achieve goals such as decision making, recognition of role models, insightfulness, and learning from past successes and failures. Through case studies, learners get the opportunity to “live”/empathize with entrepreneurship. When learners focus on real world problems, they experience situations that they may face in the future (Raju 1999), as well as get a more thorough understanding of the complexity of the entrepreneurial process, knowledge that is very difficult to obtain from theoretical teaching only.. Business plans Writing a business plan is one of the most common assignments in many entrepreneurship programmes and it is arguably one of the most important elements in entrepreneurship education (White et al. 2011). The business plan is a useful approach to teaching the application of theoretical concepts to learners (Kelmar 1992). Liñán, Rodríguez-Cohard & Rueda-Cantuche (2011) views the creation of a business plan as a way to increase knowledge and increase perceived self-efficacy. Furthermore, preparing a business plan produces “an aura of formality and conviction often required before an individual’s creation of a new organization will be taken seriously” (Honig 2004, p. 260).

9

Guest entrepreneurs/experts Applied and experiential learning can be facilitated through the use of guest teachers/speakers who are themselves entrepreneurs (O’Neil 2013). Entrepreneurs and business professionals bring the outside world into the classroom. Guest entrepreneurs enable students to learn directly from those who have first-hand entrepreneurial experience, and learners may develop an appreciation of the intricacies of the entrepreneurial life (Cooper, Bottomley & Gordon 2004). Lecture-style classes still form part of entrepreneurship teaching (Sassmannshausen & Gladbach 2013). It is an adequate method to increase the understanding of what entrepreneurship is about. It is also beneficial in terms of sending the relevant information to a broader population in a relatively short time (Arasti, Falavarjani & Imanipour 2012). Projects Project-based learning is a learner-centred instructional approach used to engage learners in the investigation of authentic, real-world issues (Blumenfeld et al. 1991). The method is effective in raising interest in venture creation; as well as, increasing the level of confidence or perceived selfefficacy of learners (McMullan & Boberg 1991). Botha (2010) demonstrated that the project-based learning approach is an effective method of teaching entrepreneurship. Project-based methods fosters active learning, enhances the learner’s capacity to apply prior knowledge to solving a problem, as well as increase communicative and collaborative skills (Felder et al. 2000; Hadim & Esche 2002). 6 CULTURE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP TEACHING APPROACHES AND METHODS In the following sections we identify issues of culture that are linked to the teaching approaches and methods outlined above in Table 5. As mentioned, the approaches and methods identified are mostly developed in western societies; therefore, the discussion will often stray towards providing evidence of their use in non-western societies. 6.1 Culture and entrepreneurial teaching approaches The experiential, approach required for entrepreneurial teaching and learning necessitates the active participation of players in the learning process. However, cultural differences magnify experiential learning challenges (Kotval, Machemer & Keesler 2012), due in part to differences in the learning styles. Taking into account learning styles (a major component of experiential learning), Auyeung and Sands, (1996) showed that learners from Hong Kong and Taiwan (collectivistic cultures) were more abstract and reflexive while their counterparts from Australia (an individualistic culture) were more concrete and active, as well as less abstract and collective. Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006) noted that the learner-centred approach is sensitive to contextual effects. Evidence suggests that there is a positive correlation between individualism (a characteristic of western societies) and self-directed learning, which is at the heart of the student-based approach. Moreover, Cothran et al. (2005) argued that the principles of collectivistic/Confucian societies are at odds with the learner-centred approach. Two premises underlay their argument: 1) the roles and responsibilities of teachers and learners are mutually exclusive (e.g. learner-centeredness vs. teacher dominance/control), and 2) differences in learning strategies (e.g. activeness vs. reflection). Thus, learners from these societies have difficulty adjusting to an educational environment that was more characterised by independent learning and self-learning Thanh (2010) expanded the discussion by pointing to the difficulty of adopting pedagogies that place the teacher at risk of ‘losing face’ in

10

collectivistic/Confucian societies. Hence, teacher dominance often characterizes these learning setting. From the above discussion, it seems that the learner-centred approach is more amenable to individualistic societies. This, however, does not mean it cannot be useful in Confucian/ collectivistic societies. Richmond (2007) argued that the rote learning common in these societies inhibits creativity but also noted that there is growing awareness for the need to adopt learnercentred approaches. Table 5: Articles linking culture and entrepreneurship teaching approaches and methods Title Experiential Learning Within The Context Of International Partnerships and Study Abroad Programs A Cross Cultural Study of The Learning Style Of Accounting Students

Author Kotval, Machemer and Keesler 2012 Auyeung and Sands, (1996)

How Approaches To Teaching Are Affected By Discipline And Teaching Context

Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006)

A Cross-Cultural Investigation of The Use Of Teaching Styles Implementing A Student-Centered Learning Approach At Vietnamese Higher Education Institutions: Barriers Under Layers Of Casual Layered Analysis (CLA) Learning And Teaching: A Cross-Cultural Perspective Exploring Cultural Differences In Classroom Expectations of Students From The United States And Taiwan Quiet Or Questioning? Students' Discussion Behaviors in Student-Centered Education Across Cultures Cultural Congruence in Classroom Participation Structures: Achieving A Balance Of Rights From Silence to Talk: Cross-Cultural Ideas on Students Participation in Academic Group Discussion Inclusive Approaches to Effective Communication and Active Participation in the Multicultural Classroom An International Business Management Context Classroom Etiquette: A Cross-Cultural Study Of Classroom Behaviors Immediacy, Humor, Power Distance, and Classroom Communication Apprehension In Chinese College Classrooms Delivering Entrepreneurship Education Across Borders, Across Cultures.

Cothran et al. (2005) Thanh (2010) Watkins (2000) Niehoff et al. (2001) Frambach et al. (2013) Au & Mason (1983) Jones (1999) Devita (2000) Beckman-Brito (2003) Zhang (2005) Schaper (2001)

A Claim for The Case Method in The Teaching of Geography Learning In Cross-Cultural Online MBA Courses: Perceptions of Chinese Students Case-Based Learning and Reticence in a Bilingual Context: Perceptions of Business Students in Hong Kong Culturally Appropriate Pedagogy: The Case of Group Learning in a Confucian Heritage Culture Context An Empirical Investigation of Learning Styles in Marketing Education Learning Styles and Typologies of Cultural Differences: A Theoretical And Empirical Comparison A Cross-Cultural Study of Immediacy, Credibility, and Learning in The US and Kenya Teaching The Chinese Learner: Psychological and Pedagogical Perspectives

Grant (1997)

Nyguyen, Terlouw and Pilot (2006) Frontczak & Rivale 1991

Technology and Curricular Reform in China: A Case Study

Fang and Warschauer (2004)

Liu and Magjuka (2010) Jackson (2003)

Yamazaki 2005 Johnson & Miller 2002 Watkins and Biggs (2001)

O’Riordan and Kirkland (2008) argued that the use of teams in collectivistic countries was crucial in securing learner’s endorsement. Likewise, Watkins (2000) reported that non-western, collectivistic societies placed greater emphasis on groups and noted that, in these societies, there was a greater use of peer tutoring and student collaboration outside the classroom. Similarly,

11

Niehoff et al. (2001) found that Taiwanese (collectivistic, high power distance) learners showed a significantly higher preference in group assignments than U.S (individualistic, low power distance) learners. While the use of teams may be more ‘acceptable’ in collectivistic societies, Frambach et al. (2013) pointed out that the group relations may be constrained by their cultural perceptions. The authors argued that, in these settings, learners attempt to maintain ‘face’ in front of the group. This affected their behaviour in that they were less ready to speak up, ask questions and challenge their peers. Problem-based tasks have long been used in western societies. However, in non-western societies, the reluctance of learners to participate in such activities can also be linked to culture, which regulates conventional classroom etiquette, such as classroom participation (Au & Mason 1983; Jones 1999; Devita 2000). Problem-based tasks emphasize active, independent, self-directed learning – behaviours that are not the norm in all societies. For instance, reporting on classroom participation, Beckman-Brito (2003) found that learners from countries like China and, Taiwan, would never or rarely ask a question during class time. Zhang (2005) showed that Chinese students’ individual-level power distance influenced their anxiety or fear of actively participating in classroom activities. He reasoned that the Chinese culture places emphasis on information-packed lectures, attentive listening by students, mechanical memorization skills and there is little interaction between students and teachers. 6.2 Culture and entrepreneurship teaching methods. Schaper (2001) noted that case studies are practical solutions for providing a ‘context-oriented’ focus to entrepreneurship. He believed “an easy way to globalize entrepreneurship courses is by providing case studies drawn from overseas and local sources. This allows learners to evaluate situations in different cultures and contexts”. However, case studies are not always amenable to all societies. Case studies shift the focus from teacher to the learner (Grant 1997); a shift in the teaching paradigm that is not always acceptable. Liu and Magjuka (2010) found that Chinese learners had difficulties making the transition to case-based learning, which calls for the learner’s active participation. Similarly, Jackson (2003) showed that students from Hong Kong believed that their prior schooling had not prepared them for the interactive, problem-based learning inherent to case studies. Hence, they were ill-prepared for discussions and had problems dealing with the unambiguity of case studies. For Chandler et al. (2011), the business plan and its popularity in both entrepreneurship practice and pedagogy is another example of widespread adoption of the causation approach. The underlying logic of this approach is to try to predict the future (Sarasvathy 2001). While we found no studies discussing the use of business plan as a teaching tool across cultures, we can argue that, in countries of high uncertainty avoidance, the use of business plans as a teaching tool for entrepreneurship is acceptable. Nyguyen, Terlouw and Pilot (2006) argued that Asian learners have a low tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty and preferred structured learning, precise objectives, detailed assignments and good instructions – criteria that the business plan normally meets. This argument is also based on the fact that in cultures with high degrees of uncertainty avoidance, explicit plans may have greater normative importance (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). The value of using entrepreneurs as instructors or role models depends on the level of interaction they have with the learners. Robinson and Kakela (2006) proposed using guest speakers as an ‘active learning’ alternative using interactive approaches. However, Zhang (2005) surmise that, in Chinese classrooms, a larger power distance between instructors and students creates greater hierarchy, which engenders less interaction and participation, and hence higher degree of anxiety or

12

fear associated with classroom participation. The lack of interaction in these settings limits the possible impact of having guest speakers. Furthermore, in a study of learners’ preference for pedagogical tools, Frontczak and Rivale (1991) found that divergent learners (an orientation that stress learning by listening and interest in people) rated guest speakers the highest out of the different learning styles. Countries with divergent learners such as Japan relied on reflective observation and had a high degree of uncertainty avoidance and collectivism (Yamazaki 2005). In countries with high power distance, lectures are common (Johnson & Miller 2002). Watkins and Biggs (2001) noted that traditional Chinese teaching places a premium on information-packed lecturing. Furthermore, Niehoff et al. (2001) showed that Taiwanese student preferred more the use of theory and research-based information than did US students. In reference to learning style, Frontczak and Rivale (1991) found that assimilator learners preferred the traditional lecture and reading the assigned text, items rated fairly low by the other learning styles that prefer more active experimentation (e.g. convergers). Yamazaki (2005) described countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan (characterized by their high level of uncertainty avoidance and collectivism) as assimilator types. The project-based approach is preferred in countries with converger learners (Frontczak & Rivale 1991). These countries have weak uncertainty avoidance and high level of individualism (Yamazaki 2005). For example, Fang and Warschauer (2004) noted that while the project-based instruction improved learning processes and outcomes by increasing authentic interaction and allowing learners greater autonomy, Chinese instructors were reluctant to teach project-based courses because student-centred learning clashes with more traditional norms and incentives in the traditional Chinese education system. 7 CONCLUSIONS The internationalization of entrepreneurship education requires educators to design innovative teaching approaches and tools that deliver the experiential, action-based experiences needed to promote entrepreneurial behaviour. However, we must bear in mind that educators and learners’ acceptance of the tools we introduce are highly dependent upon the role expectations, norms, and values of the specific cultural context. In this paper, we showed that the current pedagogies are not always amenable to all societies. Accordingly, there is a need for cultural awareness and sensitivity in designing and delivering entrepreneurship training programmes. The study is not without limitations. First, some relevant articles may have been overlooked given the databases we utilized and our biases in selecting articles for the review. Secondly, most of the articles we used to support the discussion on culture focus on Asian learners and Asian (Confucian) societies. This limits our ability to make generalization to other cultures. However, we believe that we have been successful in proving the need for incorporating culturally-based pedagogies in entrepreneurship teaching programmes. We have identified the need for cultural sensitivity in entrepreneurship teaching. The next course of action is to investigate how we can implement the experiential, learner-based, problem-based methodologies that are needed for developing entrepreneurship in cultures where they are not amenable. We recommend that further research attention should be given to the interaction between culture and specific teaching approaches and methods. Such research can identify ways that pedagogies associated with entrepreneurship can be applied successfully in different cultural setting. Research should also aim to identify the influence of culture on the other components of entrepreneurship education, such as goals, content and assessment. This will guide entrepreneurship educators to provide more contextualized, and hence presumably more efficient training programmes in a range of different cultural settings.

13

REFERENCES Alberti, F., Sciascia, S. & Poli, A. 2004, "Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate", Proceedings of the 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy, pp. 4. Arasti, Z., Falavarjani, M.K. & Imanipour, N. 2012, "A Study of Teaching Methods in Entrepreneurship Education for Graduate Students", Higher Education Studies, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. p2. Au, K.H. & Mason, J.M. 1983, "Cultural congruence in classroom participation structures: Achieving a balance of rights∗", Discourse Processes, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 145-167. Auyeung, P. & Sands, J. 1996, "A cross cultural study of the learning style of accounting students", Accounting & Finance, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 261-274. Baughn, C.C., Chua, B. & Neupert, K.E. 2006, "The Normative Context for Women's Participation in Entrepreneruship: A Multicountry Study", Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 687-708. Beckham-Brito, K. 2003, Classroom Etiquette: A Cross-Cultural Study of Classroom Behaviors. SLAT Working Papers, Vol. 10. Begley, T.M. & Wee-Liang Tan 2001, "The Socio-Cultural Environment for Entrepreneurship: A Comparison between East Asian and Anglo-Saxon Countries", Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 537. Bird, B. 1988, "Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention", Academy of management Review, pp. 442-453. Blenker, P. & Christensen, P.R. 2010, "Hunting the entrepreneurial expertise: entrepreneurs in education", Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 3, pp. 43-54. Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., Neergaard, H. & Thrane, C. 2011, "The questions we care about: paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education", Industry and Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 417-427. Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M. & Palincsar, A. 1991, "Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning", Educational psychologist, vol. 26, no. 3-4, pp. 369-398. Botha, M. 2010, "A project-based learning approach as a method of teaching entrepreneurship to a large group of undergraduate students in South Africa", Education As Change, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 213-232. Chandler, G.N., DeTienne, D.R., McKelvie, A. & Mumford, T.V. 2011, "Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study", Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 375-390. Cheng, K. 1998, "Can education values be borrowed? Looking into cultural differences", Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 11-30. Collins, L.A., Smith, A.J. & Hannon, P.D. 2006, "Applying a synergistic learning approach in entrepreneurship education", Management learning, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 335-354. Coombs, G. & Elden, M. 2004, "Introduction to the special issue: Problem-based learning as social inquiry-PBL and management education", Journal of Management Education, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 523-535. Cooper, S., Bottomley, C. & Gordon, J. 2004, "Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning: an experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education", Industry and Higher Education, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 11-22.

14

Corbett, A.C. 2005, "Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 473-491. Cothran, D.J., Kulinna, P.H., Banville, D., Choi, E., Amade-Escot, C., MacPhail, A., Macdonald, D., Richard, J., Sarmento, P. & Kirk, D. 2005, "A cross-cultural investigation of the use of teaching styles", Research quarterly for exercise and sport, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 193-201. Dahl, S. 2004, "Intercultural research: The current state of knowledge", London: Middlesex University Business School. Available from: http://www.alanisguzman.com/archivos/Culture. pdf [accessed 21 May 2013] Dahlstedt, M. & Hertzberg, F. 2012, "Schooling entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurship, governmentality and education policy in Sweden at the turn of the millennium", Journal of Pedagogy/Pedagogický casopis, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 242-262. Davidsson, P. 1995, "Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship", Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41-62. Devita, G. 2000, "Inclusive approaches to effective communication and active participation in the multicultural classroom: An international business management context", Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 168-180. Drach-Zahavy, A. & Somech, A. 2001, "Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures", Group dynamics, vol. 5, pp. 111-123. Dubbini, S. & Iacobucci, D. 2004, "The development of entrepreneurial competences: entrepreneurship education in Italian universities and firms’ organizational models", EUNIP Conference, Birmigham. Fang, X. & Warschauer, M. 2004, "Technology and curricular reform in China: A case study", TesOL Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 301-323. Fayolle, A. 2000, "Exploratory study to assess the effects of entrepreneurship programs on French student entrepreneurial behaviors", Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 8, no. 02, pp. 169184. Fayolle, A. & Gailly, B. 2008, "From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education", Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 569593. Felder, R.M., Woods, D.R., Stice, J.E. & Rugarcia, A. 2000, "The future of engineering education II. Teaching methods that work", Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 26-39. Fenwick, T. 2001, "Experiential learning: A theoretical critique explored through five perspectives", Information series no, vol. 385. Fiet, J.O. 2001, "The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory", Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 101-117. Frambach, J.M., Driessen, E.W., Beh, P. & van der Vleuten, Cees PM 2013, "Quiet or questioning? Students' discussion behaviors in student-centered education across cultures", Studies in Higher Education, , no. ahead-of-print, pp. 1-21. Frontczak, N. & Rivale, G. 1991, "An empirical investigation of learning styles in marketing education", Proceedings of the Western Marketing Educators’ Association, pp. 93-100. Garavan, T.N. & O'Cinneide, B. 1994, "Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes:: A Review and Evaluation–Part 1", Journal of European industrial training, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 312. Gehanno, J., Rollin, L. & Darmoni, S. 2013, "Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews", BMC medical informatics and decision making, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 7. George, G. & Zahra, S.A. 2002, "Culture and Its Consequences for Entrepreneurship", Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 5.

15

Gerba, D.T. 2012, "The context of entrepreneurship education in Ethiopian universities", Management Research Review, vol. 35, no. 3/4, pp. 225-244. Gibb, A. 2002, "Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship: living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity", Industry and Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 135-148. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P. & Segers, M. 2005, "Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment", Review of educational research, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 27-61. Grant, R. 1997, "A claim for the case method in the teaching of geography", Journal of Geography in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 171-185. Hadim, H.A. & Esche, S.K. 2002, "Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based learning", Frontiers in Education, 2002. FIE 2002. 32nd Annual IEEE. Harkema, S.J. & Schout, H. 2008, "Incorporating Student‐Centred Learning in Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education", European Journal of Education, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 513-526. Hayton, J.C., George, G. & Zahra, S.A. 2002, "National Culture and Entrepreneurship: A Review of Behavioral Research", Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 33. Hegarty, C. 2006, "It's not an exact science: teaching entrepreneurship in Northern Ireland", Education Training, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 322-335. Heinze, A. & Procter, C. 2004, "Reflections on the use of blended learning". Education in changing environment conference proceedings", University of Salford, Salford, Education Development Unit. Hill, S., O’Cinneide, B. & Kiesner, F. 2003, "Graduate entrepreneurship education–an international ‘consumer’study", Proceedings from the International Council for Small Business 48th World Conference, Northern Ireland, 15-18 June Butterworth-Heinemann. Hofstede, G. 1980, Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage Publications, Incorporated. Hofstede, G. 1983, "National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations", International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 13, no. 1/2, pp. 46-74. Hofstede, G. 1986, "Cultural differences in teaching and learning", International Journal of intercultural relations, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 301-320. Hofstede, G. 1994, "Cultures and Organisations, Intercultural co-operation and its importance for survival, Software of the mind", McGraw-Hill, UK. Hofstede, G., Noorderhaven, N.G., Thurik, A.R., Uhlaner, L.M., Wennekers, A.R. & Wildeman, R.E. 2004, "Culture's role in entrepreneurship: self-employment out of dissatisfaction", Innovation, entrepreneurship and culture: The interaction between technology, progress and economic growth, pp. 162-203. Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. 2005, "Culture and Organizations. Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, Software of the Mind". Honig, B. 2004, "Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-based business planning", Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 258-273. Hytti, U. & O’Gorman, C. 2004, "What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries", Education Training, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 11-23. Illeris, S. 1986, "New firm creation in Denmark: the importance of the cultural background", New Firms and Regional Development in Europe, pp. 141.

16

Jack, S.L. & Anderson, A.R. 1999, "Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture: producing reflective practitioners", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 110-125. Jackson, J. 2003, "Case-based learning and reticence in a bilingual context: perceptions of business students in Hong Kong", System, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 457-469. Johnson, S. & Miller, A. 2002, "A cross-cultural study of immediacy, credibility, and learning in the US and Kenya", Communication Education, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 280-292. Jones, C. & English, J. 2004, "A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education", Education Training, vol. 46, no. 8/9, pp. 416-423. Jones, J.F. 1999, "From Silence to Talk: Cross-Cultural Ideas on Students Participation in Academic Group Discussion", English for Specific Purposes, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 243-259. Kelmar, J.H. 1992, "Business plans for teaching entrepreneurial behaviour", Education Training, vol. 34, no. 1. Kirby, D.A. 2004, "Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?", Education Training, vol. 46, no. 8/9, pp. 510-519. Klein, P.G. & Bullock, J.B. 2006, "Can entrepreneurship be taught?", Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 429. Klyver, K., Hindle, K. & Meyer, D. 2008, "Influence of social network structure on entrepreneurship participation—a study of 20 national cultures", International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 331-347. Kolb, D.A. 1981, "Experiential learning theory and the learning style inventory: A reply to Freedman and Stumpf", Academy of Management Review, pp. 289-296. Kotval, Z., Machemer, P. & Keesler, J. "Experiential learning within the context of international partnerships and study abroad programs”. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Special Issue, pp. 68-80. Lautenschläger, A. & Haase, H. 2011, "The myth of entrepreneurship education: Seven arguments against teaching business creation at universities", Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 14, pp. 147-161. Lee, S.M. & Peterson, S.I. 2000, "Culture, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Global Competitiveness", Journal of World Business, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 401. Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C. & Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. 2011, "Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: a role for education", International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 195-218. Lindblom‐Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A. & Ashwin, P. 2006, "How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context", Studies in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 03, pp. 285-298. Liu, X. & Magjuka, R.J. 2010, "Learning in Cross-Cultural Online MBA Courses: Perceptions of Chinese Students", Cases on Globalized and Culturally Appropriate E-Learning: Challenges and Solutions, pp. 168. Malinen, P. "Entrepreneurship Promotion from a University of Applied Sciences’ Point of View. The Case of Kajaani University of Applied Sciences in Kainuu Region", Cultivating Entrepreneurial Regions–Cases and Studies from the Network Project ‘Baltic Entrepreneurship Partners’(BEPART), pp. 101. Maritz, A., Brown, C. & Chich Jen, S. 2010, "A blended learning approach to entrepreneurship education", Actual Problems of Economics, vol. 13, pp. 83-93. Matlay, H. 2006, "Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 2: what is entrepreneurship education and does it matter?", Education Training, vol. 48, no. 8/9, pp. 704-718.

17

McLoughlin, C. & Oliver, R. 2000, "Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level", Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 58-72. McMullan, C.A. & Boberg, A.L. 1991, "The relative effectiveness of projects in teaching entrepreneurship", Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 14-24. McNaught, C. & Lam, P. 2010, "Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool", The qualitative report, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 630-643. Minniti, M. & Bygrave, W. 2001, "A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 5-16. Mwasalwiba, E.S. 2010, "Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators", Education Training, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 20-47. Naudé, W. 2008, Entrepreneurship in economic development, Research Paper, UNU-WIDER, United Nations University (UNU). Ng, S.I., Lee, J.A. & Soutar, G.N. 2007, "Are Hofstede's and Schwartz's value frameworks congruent?", International marketing review, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 164-180. Ngeow, K. & Kong, K.Y. 2002, "Designing culturally sensitive learning environments", Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Auckland, New Zealand.Retrieved on November, vol. 1, pp. 2007. Niehoff, B.P., Turnley, W.H., Yen, H.J.R. & Sheu, C. 2001, "Exploring cultural differences in classroom expectations of students from the United States and Taiwan", Journal of education for business, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 289-293. Nguyen, P., Terlouw, C. & Pilot, A. 2006, "Culturally appropriate pedagogy: the case of group learning in a Confucian Heritage Culture context", Intercultural Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1-19. O’Neil, J. 2013, "An Assessment of PR Educators’ Perceptions of and Approaches to Teaching Entrepreneurship", Public Relations Journal, vol. 7, no. 1. O’Riordan, F. & Kirkland, D. 2008, "Games as an Engaging Teaching and Learning Technique: Learning or playing?", Novel Approaches to Promoting Student Engagement, , pp. 77. Ogbu, J.U. 1992, "Understanding cultural diversity and learning", Educational researcher, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 5-14. Peterman, N.E. & Kennedy, J. 2003, "Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship", Entrepreneurship theory and practice, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 129-144. Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. 2007, "Simulating Entrepreneurial Learning Integrating Experiential and Collaborative Approaches to Learning", Management Learning, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 211-233. Politis, D. 2005, "The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework", Entrepreneurship theory and practice, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 399-424. Raju, P. & Sankar, C.S. 1999, "Teaching Real‐World Issues through Case Studies", Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 501-508. Richmond, J.E. 2007, "Bringing critical thinking to the education of developing country professionals", International Education Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-29. Robinson, C.F. & Kakela, P.J. 2006, "Creating a space to learn: A classroom of fun, interaction, and trust", College Teaching, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 202-207. Rushing, F. 1990, "Economics and entrepreneurship education in the elementary grades", Entrepreneurship Education, pp. 153-164. San Tan, S. & Ng, C.F. 2006, "A problem-based learning approach to entrepreneurship education", Education Training, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 416-428. Sarasvathy, S.D. 2001, "Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency", Academy of Management Review, pp. 243-263.

18

Sassmannshausen, S.P. & Gladbach, S. 2013, "Strengthening case study based teaching in entrepreneurship education in Germany: theoretical reflections and explorative research", Special Issue Guest Editors and Review Board, pp. 9. Schaper, M. "Delivering Entrepreneurship Education Across Borders, Across Cultures", Proceedings of the 2001 International Council for Small Business World Conference. Schwartz, S.H. 1992, "Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries", Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-65. Seng, T.O. 2000, "Thinking Skills, Creativity, and Problem-Based Learning", Temasek Polytechnic Singapore. Sloman, M. 2007, "Making sense of blended learning", Industrial and commercial training, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 315-318. Suonpää, M. 2013, "Constructing an opportunity centred collaborative learning model through and for entrepreneurship" Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics. Tan, J. 2002, "Culture, nation, and entrepreneurial strategic orientations: Implications for an emerging economy", Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 96-111. Thanh, P.T.H. 2010, "Implementing a student-centered learning approach at Vietnamese higher education institutions: Barriers under layers of Casual Layered Analysis (CLA)", Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 21-38. Thomas, A.S. & Mueller, S.L. 2000, "A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture", Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 287-301. Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998, "Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business", Nueva York: McGraw Hill. Ulhøi, J.P. 2005, "The social dimensions of entrepreneurship", Technovation, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 939-946. Urbano, D., Toledano, N. & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. 2011, "Socio-cultural factors and transnational entrepreneurship A multiple case study in Spain", International Small Business Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 119-134. Vesper, K.H. 1999, "Unfinished business (entrepreneurship) of the 20th century", USASBE conference, San Diego, California. Watkins, D. 2000, "Learning and teaching: A cross-cultural perspective", School Leadership & Management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 161-173. Watkins, D.A. & Biggs, J.B. 2001, Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives, Hong Kong Univ Pr. White, R.J., Hertz, G.T. & D'Souza, R. 2011, "Teaching a Craft–Enhancing Entrepreneurship Pedagogy", Small Business Institute® Journal, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1-14. Wierstra, R.F., Kanselaar, G., Van Der Linden, Jos L & Lodeewijks, H.G. 1999, "Learning environment perceptions of European university students", Learning Environments Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 79-98. Wierstra, R.F., Kanselaar, G., Van der Linden, Jos L, Lodewijks, H.G. & Vermunt, J.D. 2003, "The impact of the university context on European students' learning approaches and learning environment preferences", Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 503-523. Wilke, R.R. & Straits, W.J. 2001, "The effects of discovery learning in a lower-division biology course", Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 62-69. Yamazaki, Y. 2005, "Learning styles and typologies of cultural differences: A theoretical and empirical comparison", International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 521548.

19

Zhang, Q. 2005, "Immediacy, humor, power distance, and classroom communication apprehension in Chinese college classrooms", Communication Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 109-124.

20

Suggest Documents