PROJECT PRESENTATION: MEASUREMENT TOOL FOR ENTREPRENEUSHIP EDUCATION Elena Ruskovaara Lappeenranta University of Technology Finland
[email protected] Jaana Seikkula-Leino Lappeenranta University of Technology Finland
[email protected]
Abstract This article aims to present a three-year project calling Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship Education. The project is coordinated by Lappeenranta University of Technology and it has three aims: Create a measurement tool for teachers Write a manual for the tool, and with them establish the role of entrepreneurship education in teaching and training Together with the aims of the project this article presents the definitions of policy and theoretical background of entrepreneurship education, especially in Finnish context. Also the main research steps while creating a measurement tool, the milestones of the project as well as the target group of the project will be presented. This project presentation is one of three articles presented in EFMD Conference and the related articles are concentrated on teachers’ role as entrepreneurship educators and the results of a qualitative analysis on teachers’ views on entrepreneurship education - the goals, methods and results as a group of teachers see them. Keywords: entrepreneurship education, teaching, self-assessment, measuring INTRODUCTION The strategy of the European Union highlights the importance of the development of entrepreneurial culture by fostering the right mindset, entrepreneurship skills and awareness of career opportunities (Commission of the European Communities 2006). Finland in particular has extensively promoted entrepreneurship education mainstreaming it at all educational levels. This process has been supported administratively. For example, The Ministry of Education announced an initiative entitled The Clarification and the Action Program of Entrepreneurship Education in 2004. (see Opetusministeriö 2004) Entrepreneurship education has long, since 1994, been included in the Finnish national core curriculum. And for example, concerning the basic education level, the latest curriculum reform in 2004, stresses the theme of entrepreneurship education which is called “Participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship”. The national core curriculum is the basis which the local and regional education providers follow but they may put their own emphasis in the curricula. The crosscurricular themes represent central emphasis of the educational and teaching work and the educational challenges of the time are met through them. (Finnish National Board of Education 2004) In the context of developing entrepreneurship education, the educational legislation, local decision making and school curricula do not involve the systematic monitoring process of practical implementation. Moreover, teachers contribute and try to contribute the teaching of entrepreneurship education according the common aims, but still, it’s up to a teacher how he fulfils the aims of the curricula. Teachers have difficulties in identifying aims, contents and ways to implement entrepreneurship education (Seikkula-Leino 2006; 2007; 2008) and developing
1
entrepreneurship education is not enough internalised by the teachers. Therefore, the realization of entrepreneurship education varies. Not to mention, Finnish universities which train future teachers have a quite different overall picture about the theme and what teaching of entrepreneurship education should consist. That means the field of entrepreneurship education is full of opinions, contradiction and expectations. Needless to say, it is quite a long way from the strategy of EU and initiatives emphasised by the Ministry of Education to the teaching at schools. Obviously, teachers’ still need concrete examples of how to implement the theme in daily work. Moreover, there is a need to develop assessment of implementation. For example, at the basic education level the aims of entrepreneurship education are linked to innovativeness, entrepreneurial activity and providing information on entrepreneurship as vocation. The time span between the first grades at school and career choice decision making is long. Therefore, it has been all too difficult for teachers to assess how their teaching and training are met with this aim. Furthermore, the other aims as innovativeness, entrepreneurial activity are less concrete – so it’s easy to understand teachers’ feel a bit insecure and disoriented. The project presented here is aiming to create a tool for teachers to self-assess their teaching and training in case of entrepreneurship education. We believe “you get what you measure”, so we are aiming to answer that phrase with the project presented here. Developing the assessment of entrepreneurship education will empower the development of entrepreneurship education. This will provide better possibilities to meet the international and national aims in strengthening society and education. We next will present the essential definitions of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education in our context, the main lines of entrepreneurship education in curricula and then the aims, milestones and practices of the project Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship Education. Finally, we will consider the challenges of this process and will conclude this paper with the value of this project stressing its uniqueness and possibilities in developing entrepreneurship education.
Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education The understanding of the concept of entrepreneurship is fundamental for defining entrepreneurship education. As Gartner (1990) argues, entrepreneurship has many different meanings attached to it. This unresolved concept has different focuses according to times and contexts. The present-day entrepreneurship has the characteristics of individual, self-orientated behaviour; the creation, management and ownership of a small enterprise; corporate or organizational entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship referring to the interplay between the individual and organizational entrepreneurships (Kyrö & Carrier 2005). Moreover, the definition of entrepreneurship could involve the sources of opportunities which then refer to processes of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities: and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit them (Shane & Venkataraman 2000). Entrepreneurship is a complex idea and entrepreneurship subsumes a wide range of beliefs. Some believe that entrepreneurship must refer to risk-taking individuals who start new innovative and fastgrowing ventures. Others may only focus on the idea that entrepreneurship is about starting new ventures (Gartner 1990). To define entrepreneurship education we may consider terms such as enterprising and entrepreneurial. The only major distinction between these two is that entrepreneurial traditionally refers to business activity, whereas enterprising can be used in any context (e.g. Gibb 2005). In order to avoid confusion and to be exact, this article uses both concepts explicitly: entrepreneurial (referring to the business context) and enterprising (referring to general education and learning processes). Kuratko (2005) points out that this perspective may be exhibited both inside and outside an organization and in profit or not-for-profit enterprises, as well as in business or non-business activities including the perspective of bringing forth creative ideas.
2
Teaching younger students’ entrepreneurship education is more about enterprise education. The purpose is for students to take more responsibility for themselves and their learning, to try to achieve their goals, be creative, discover existing opportunities and in general to cope in our complicated society. Moreover, the aim is for them to take an active role in job markets and consider entrepreneurship as a natural career choice. This education involves developing behaviours, skills and attributes applied individually and/or collectively to help individuals and organizations of all kinds to create, cope with and enjoy change and innovation. This involves higher levels of uncertainty and complexity as a means of achieving personal fulfilment and organizational effectiveness. Enterprising education is the process by which such behaviour is practised and supported. These skills, behaviours, and attributes are exhibited in organizations of all kinds ranging from within the family to the wider community context. It may embody elements of learning for the pursuit of some task. Moreover, it involves learning through a particular pedagogy and learning about, which then refers to cognitive learning (e.g. Gibb 2006). According to Kyrö (1997), entrepreneurship education deals with three main components: 1) selforiented, 2) internal and 3) external entrepreneurship. Self-orientated entrepreneurship refers to an individual’s self-oriented behaviour. Self-oriented entrepreneurship is the basis for developing internal and external entrepreneurship (Remes 2004: 84). Internal entrepreneurship deals with entrepreneurial and enterprising behaviour. External entrepreneurship is about doing business (Ristimäki 2003: 6). Even though self-orientated and internal entrepreneurship resemble each other, the difference between them is in the collectivistic sense which emerges in internal entrepreneurship development and which could be developed in organizations (Remes 2001). If an organization possesses internal entrepreneurship, it realizes its opportunities, makes use of them and demonstrates self-trust (Heinonen 2001). Self-orientated entrepreneurship is basically only about an individual’s development. As Kyrö (2005: 89) argues concerning self-orientated entrepreneurship: ´In general, entrepreneurial and enterprising behaviour involves the idea that the human being, looking around him and combining different elements, creates holistic realities, which have their consequences in action. Even when the environment is full of paradoxes and events, the entrepreneur chooses what is suitable for him and his ideas. He does not select his elements from a single environment; on the contrary, his ideas can spring from anywhere and this combines different elements and this enhances the creation of something new.` The younger the students are, as in basic education, self-orientated entrepreneurship should be emphasized (Remes 2001). As a consequence, the focus is not only on developing factors related to motivation, self-awareness and creativity (e.g. Menzies & Paradi 2003), and responsibility for learning (Heinonen 2004), but also on co-operation and interaction, which refer to internal entrepreneurship development. In comparison, in the school context, external entrepreneurship education is about developing innovation (see also Gibb 2005: 48), and business ideas as well as strengthening co-operation between schools and work life, including such activities as work experience and study tours. Through these processes we have a chance to develop an enterprising society, which means entrepreneurship and the development of an enterprising mindset in societies. In traditional teaching, the teaching is structured so that one content is studied at one time. The learning situations are controlled and students do not feel insecure during the learning processes (e.g. Gibb 2005). The following working methods could be considered for activating students’ interactive learning and reflections: co-operative learning, problem-based learning, group and peer work, project work, team work, learning by doing, pedagogical drama and learning diaries. This is different from traditional teaching where the teacher gives for example lectures and aims at transmitting his knowledge, the pieces of information that he masters, to students. As Gibb (2005) argues, the pedagogy of entrepreneurship education is focused on students’ activity in learning, and this approach could be considered as a non-traditional teaching method. The learning situations are flexible, interactive and based on multidimensional knowledge development. Knowledge is built together and mistakes are regarded as a part of the learning process. Therefore we may assume that the pedagogy of entrepreneurship education is based on socioconstructivism. Learning communities have a major role in these processes (e.g. Blenker et al. 2006: 99, Jack & Anderson 1999), and experiences are crucial in learning. Therefore in entrepreneurship education and its pedagogical discussion we could rely on Kolb’s (1984) experimental learning theory.
3
As a summary of definitions entrepreneurship education is seen here through three aims that are learn to understand entrepreneurship, learn to become entrepreneurial and learn to become an entrepreneur (e.g. Hytti 2002). Like Gibb (2001, 2005) has stated, entrepreneurship education is about learning for entrepreneurship, learning about entrepreneurship and learning through entrepreneurship. Therefore entrepreneurship education should be considered both as a method of learning as well as a content of learning (see Remes 2003). The Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship Education is based on definitions where entrepreneurship education is understood as external entrepreneurship and enterprising behaviour as well as methods, contents and aims of teaching Entrepreneurship Education and the Measurement Tool While building the measurement tool for teachers to self-assess once acting as entrepreneurship educator it is essential to know and understand the context, Finnish school environment, teaching practices and the aims set by Finnish curricula (Finnish National Board of Education 2003; 2004; Opetusministeriö [Ministry of Education] 2004). In order to create a reliable and transferable tool for teachers a survey of the practices, contents of teaching and teaching methods is needed. The tool takes the form as a sum of different strategies from European Union and Finnish Curricula, the practices used at schools and feedback from teachers. When labelling, categorising and analysing the practices knowledge of theory and current literature of entrepreneurship education is needed. The aims, practices and the tool creating process can be seen in picture 1.
Picture 1. The aims, practices and analysing in the process of building a measurement tool for entrepreneurship education. Next we will expose the project, its aims and target group and after that we will present the development partners of project, recruited test group of teachers.
The Project Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship Education is a three-year (2008-2011) ESF development project during which a measurement tool and a related manual will be prepared for
4
entrepreneurship education. The tool is intended for basic education and will be modified for the purposes of secondary education where applicable. The tool will be built to support the work of teachers, principals and decision-makers, and to guide entrepreneurship education. The project is coordinated by Lappeenranta University of Technology and implemented in part by Kerhokeskus – koulutyön tuki ry (Centre for School Clubs). The project is funded by the Finnish National Board of Education, and private funding has been granted by Yksityisyrittäjäin Säätiö (foundation for entrepreneurship). In addition, partners in the project include a number of municipalities and educational organisations from all around Finland. As mentioned earlier, entrepreneurship education is here seen through three aims that are learn to understand entrepreneurship, learn to become entrepreneurial and learn to become an entrepreneur (Hytti 2002). Gibb (2001, 2005) has stated that entrepreneurship education is about learning for entrepreneurship, learning about entrepreneurship and learning through entrepreneurship. Therefore entrepreneurship education should be considered both as a method of learning as well as a content of learning (see Remes 2003). In the building process of the tool the aims described before will be turned from the aims of learning to the aims of teaching. The tool is for teachers, so it will measure teaching, the content of teaching and the methods used. In order to become useful for basic and secondary education, the tool is based on the definition of entrepreneurship education where external entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and enterprising behaviour all have their significant part. The outcome of the project will be a measurement tool for entrepreneurship education and a related manual, which will unfold the concept of entrepreneurship education and support the implementation of the tool. The tool will explain in specific terms the teacher’s work as an entrepreneurship educator, provide guidelines for teaching and its organisation and it’s a tool for school quality management and its development. The set of tested and research-based tool may also be employed by decision-makers as they assess the state of entrepreneurship education (grade, region, and later also international comparison). The tool aims to steer development in the long run, manifest in understanding of entrepreneurship, and the presence of entrepreneurship education as a content and method in education. The measurement tool will serve to establish the role and importance of entrepreneurship education. This project will support the incorporation of entrepreneurship education into the contents of teacher education and the continuing education of teachers. The tool will be implemented during the course of the project through teachers in the trial group. In the trial stage, the tool will be applied by the trial group and their organisations. At the end of the project, the tool and manual will be published for use at the national level. The picture 2 illustrates the main steps of the project and the rough timetable. The project started February 2008 and since then planning has geared the process towards the final product, the measurement tool. Research plays a major role when processing the literature and practices described by teachers. Recruited trial group, group of approximately thirty teachers, have given valuable feedback for the process and their testing assignment and role as developers continues till the end of the project (January 2011) while they both are testing the tool but also are helping to implement it to the schools.
5
IMPLEMENTATION of the tool and the manual
TESTING: recruiting the group of teachers to test, comment on and to develop the tool: RE-TESTING by the new group
RESEARCH: processing the literature and test results, developing the tool
PLANNING: the project plan, the shape of the measurement tool and content of the manual
2008
2009
2010
2011
Picture 2: The milestones of the Project. As a summary, the tool is made for teachers to self-evaluate their work. There, it is guiding their teaching and working as entrepreneurship educators. The main target group is teachers, but the principals can utilise parts of the tool at school quality management and decision-makers while assessing the state of entrepreneurship education in their area. The tool will be made with teachers and for teachers. Next we will present the role of development partners, a trial group of teachers.
Teachers’ role in the development process At the beginning of the project, approximately thirty teachers recruited from basic education, general upper secondary education and vocational education and training. Their mission is to comment on, further develop and pilot the tool at different stages. This helps to ensure that the final measurement tool turn out reliable and wide-ranging. The teachers came from twelve organisations, from different parts of Finland. Their work started in September 2008 when they got their first task. The teachers were asked to answer the questions about their aims of entrepreneurship education, how they put the entrepreneurship education into practise and what kind of results they have achieved, there. They also were asked to describe the needs and hopes for how to develop the entrepreneurship education. Teachers had four weeks time to reply the mentioned questions by e-mail and the results were analysed by the group of researchers. The results created a starting point, general picture of the field and the task was meant to act as a development orientation to the process teachers taking part to. The first results will be reported in other paper in EFMD conference. Two months after the orientation task the teachers were invited to a work-shop, brainstorming seminar where they worked in groups and individually. There, they were asked to both draw a mind map and write a text about the title: “How teacher practices entrepreneurship education meaningfully?” As a group work they constructed lists of aims, contents and working methods of entrepreneurship education and described what kind of a learning environment and culture is needed for entrepreneurship education and how to measure and assess entrepreneurship education. The trial group worked hard, they were enthusiastic about the theme and no doubt the
6
atmosphere was encouraging and they had “development mood” on. The results and findings there will be presented later, in the next stage of the project. The teachers in the trial group represent their school and according to the contract between the coordinator of the project and the educational institutes, the teachers may use their working hours for development work. Their role involves individual work (like orientation task), taking part in workshops, brainstorming seminars and local meetings as well as working in pairs and groups. The brainstorming seminars are one-day work-shops meant for the whole trial group and local meetings are shorter, two-to-three hour long seminars, concentrating local and cultural aspects of entrepreneurship education and the participants come from near-by area.
IMPLEMENTATION
TESTING: BRAINSTORMING SEMINARS – LOCAL MEETINGS
RESEARCH PLANNING
2008
2009
2010
2011
Picture 3. The role of teachers (the test group) and their timetable
Picture 3 illustrates the role and the timetable of the trial group. It’s essential to collect and document all the data the teachers produce. The materials are of great interest for a group of six researches who analyse, label and categorise the data and report the findings in different forums. In the final stages of the project, approximately twenty new teachers will be recruited for the project as a re-testing group to confirm the intelligibility and transferability of the indicators. After the both groups of teachers have tested, used and commented the tool the final version of it will be launched and implemented first to the schools and educational institutes by the trial groups. Then, in the beginning of the year 2011 both the tool and guide book is nationally spread and utilised by teachers, headmasters and local decision makers.
Challenges of the process Although entrepreneurship education has long been included in the Finnish national core curriculum and the curriculum is a norm for the teachers it has been very difficult to assess the implementation of entrepreneurship education (Seikkula-Leino 2006; 2007). The measurement tool rises to that challenge. The tool will explain in specific terms teachers’ work as entrepreneurship educators and the tool is also for school quality management and its development. Decision-makers may utilise it when assessing the state of entrepreneurship in their region. By that, the tool aims to steer the development in the long run and serve to establish the role and importance of entrepreneurship education.
7
As noticed, it’s challenging work to build a measurement tool for entrepreneurship education while there are many levels and bunch of actors representing different point of views to take into consideration. For example, the aims for entrepreneurship education the Government, Ministry of Education and local decision-makers have stated and the goals the nearby business life and school system have set may vary. We assume these sectors have a bit different purposes and they may not speak the same language, but still there are parts of the tool they all may utilize. The target group of the project is wide, teachers from three educational levels. There are different nuances of entrepreneurial aims the comprehensive, secondary and vocational schools have, and in the tool there is going to be collective part for all levels and parts emphasised by different users. The building process is not going to be easy and at least all mentioned challenges must be taking into account. There different levels of decision-makers and educational institutes should be conducted to create and implement a common language and understanding. We here argue, knowing the challenges the tool needs to focus on teaching, not learning. The most important questions then are how teachers are teaching entrepreneurship educational contents and what they consider as an entrepreneurship education.
Conclusion As a conclusion we would like to emphasis the value of the project and the expected value of the measurement tool. The measurement tool is made for teachers, principals and decision-makers and by the tool they can see how teachers’ actions, selected working methods and contents used do correspond the aims stated in the curricula. The tool will operationalize the aims from the strategy into concrete duties and by that label and develop them into the form that can be measured. Teachers are here considered as key persons and the most important is what teachers do and do not in the field of entrepreneurship education and by that means, how they see once own decisions made as entrepreneurship educators compared to the aims at the curricula. The measurement tool will serve to establish the role and importance of entrepreneurship education, so it’s of great importance for decision-makers as well as for teachers and teachers-to-come when establishing entrepreneurship into teacher education system. The tool is made for Finnish teachers and it is all too early to say if there were parts for users abroad. Although, we have been pleased to notice the global interest of the tool and the project. This is not only because of the challenges mentioned before, but also due to its novelty value. It has been noticed that - nationally and internationally – a measurement tool for entrepreneurship education has been missing. The tool will be launched nationally in the end of year 2010 / in the very beginning of the year 2011. Till then, there is a lot to do but we feel honoured to be rising to that challenge, “you get what you measure!”
References Blenker, P., Dreisler, P. & Kjeldsen, J. (2006) Entrepreneurship Education – the New Challenge Facing the Universities. A framework for understanding and development of entrepreneurial university communities. Working Paper. Department of Management. Aarhus School of Business. Commission of the European Communities (2006) Communication from the commission to the council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through education and learning. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0033en01.pdf Finnish National Board of Education. (2003) National Core Curriculum for Upper Secondary Schools 2003. Vammalan kirjapaino Oy. Vammala
8
Finnish National Board of Education. (2004) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Vammalan kirjapaino Oy, Vammala. Gartner, W. B. (1990) What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing 5, 5--28. Gibb, A. (2001) ”Creating Conducive Environments for Learning and Entrepreneurship. Living with, dealing with creating and enjoying Uncertainty and Complexity.” Conference Paper 21.–24.6.2001: Naples. Gibb, A. (2005) ”The future of entrepreneurship education – Determining the basis for coherent policy and practice?” Teoksessa The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context. Kyrö, P. & Carrier, C. (toim.), Entrepreneurship Education Series 2/2005, 44-67. Hämeenlinna: University of Tampere, Research Centre for Vocational and Professional Education. Gibb, A. (2006) Entrepreneurship/Enterprise Education in Schools and Collages: Are we really building the onion or peeling it away? In National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, working paper 039/2006. Available online at: http://ncge.com/communities/research/reference/detail/880/7 ed 20 September 2007. Heinonen, J. (2001) Sisäinen yrittäjyys organisaation kehittämisen välineenä [Internal entrepreneurship as a medium for developing organization]. Aikuiskasvatus [Adult Education], 2, 122- 132. Heinonen, J. (2004) Yrittäjyyskasvatus meillä ja muualla [Entrepreneurship education here and abroad]. Presentation at the meeting of entrepreneurship educators, Turku, The University of Applied Sciences, 24 March 2004. Hytti, U. (2002) “State-of-Art of Enterprise Education in Europe – Results from the Entredu Project.” Small Business Institute, Business Research and Development Centre, Turku School of Economis and Business Administration, Turku. Jack, S. L. & Anderson, A. R. (1999) Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5 (3), 110-- 25. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Kuratko, D. F. (2005) The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (5), 577--597. Kyrö, P. (1997) Yrittäjyyden muodot ja tehtävä ajan murroksessa [The forms of entrepreneurship and their tasks in the revolution of time], Jyväskylä Studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics 38, Jyväskylän yliopisto.
Kyrö, P. (2005) ”Entrepreneurial learning in a cross-cultural context challenges previous learning paradigms”, P. Kyrö & C. Carrier (eds), The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a CrossCultural University Context, University of Tampere, Research Centre for Vocational and Professional Education. Entrepreneurship Education Series 2/2005 (Saarijärvi: Saarijärven Offset), 68--102. Kyrö, P. & Carrier, C. (eds.) (2005) Entrepreneurial Learning in Universities: Bridges across Borders. In P. Kyrö & C. Carrier, The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context, University of Tampere, Research Centre for Vocational and Professional Education. Entrepreneurship Education Series 2/2005 (Saarijärvi: Saarijärven Offset), 14--43.
9
Menzies, T. V. & Paradi, J. C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and engineering students. Career path and business performance. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 4 (2), 121--132. Opetusministeriö. 2004. Yrittäjyyskasvatuksen linjaukset ja toimenpideohjelma. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2004:18. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Remes, L. (2001) Yrittäjyyskasvatus pedagogisessa toimintatehtävässä [Entrepreneurship education in pedagogical task]. Kasvatus [The Finnish journal of education] 32 (4), 368--381. Remes, L. (2001) Yrittäjyyskasvatus pedagogisessa toimintatehtävässä [Entrepreneurship education in pedagogical task]. Kasvatus [The Finnish journal of education] 32 (4), 368--381. Remes, L. (2004) ”Yrittäjyys.” Teoksessa: Loukola, M-L. (toim.). Aihekokonaisuudet perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelmassa. (83–90). Jyväskylä. Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy. Ristimäki, K. (2003) Yrittäjyyskasvatus – enemmän metodi kuin sisältö [Entrepreneurship education – more method than content]’ in Taloudellinen tiedotustoimisto (ed.), Yrittäjyyskasvatus, Yrittäjyyttä ja kasvatusta [Entrepreneurship education, Entrepreneurship and Education] (Saarijärvi: Gummerus), 12--15. Seikkula-Leino, J. (2006) ”Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelmauudistus 2004 – 2006 ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen kehittäminen. Paikallinen opetussuunnitelmatyö yrittäjyyskasvatuksen näkökulmasta.” Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2006:22. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki. Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007) ”Opetussuunnitelmauudistus ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen toteuttaminen.” Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2007: 28. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki. Seikkula-Leino, J. (2008) Advancing entrepreneurship education in the Finnish basic education – the prospect of developing local curricula. In A. Fayolle & P. Kyrö (eds.) The Dynamics between Entrepreneurship, Environment and Education. Cheltemham: Edward Elgar. Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 217--226.
10
