Matching Time (T) to Learning – a unifying “2T Framework” for action-based entrepreneurial education

Paper in proceeding, 2016

Questions we care about (Objectives): There is still little consensus around how to set up and evaluate entrepreneurial education. This paper builds the argument that, for action-based entrepreneurial education, there are some main design features as well as types of learning outcomes that are relatively independent of length of education (T) as well as of participant background. The purpose, thus, is to propose and empirically illustrate a unifying “2T Framework” for action-based entrepreneurial education. Therefore, the questions we care about are: 1. How relevant are Value-creation, Iteration and Team-work in different educational formats? 2. What kind of Outcome- and Process-learning can be expected given different time formats? 3. What is the importance of control variables, such as background diversity, in action-based entrepreneurial education? Approach: We approached this through insider action-research, building from more than a decade experience from setting up, executing and evaluating these type of educations. The framework is illustrated through four empirical examples with T being minute, day, month and year. Four educational experiences at the foundation proposing the framework, are not used for anything more than empirical illustrations, hopefully helping to legitimize and stabilize proposed concepts, but not to verify their general relevance. The analysis focuses on the relevance of the design features of the framework (Value-creation, Iteration and Team-work), what kind of Outcome- and Process-learning can be accomplished given different timeframes, and on the importance of control variables such background diversity of participants. Our ambition is that the framework can be increasingly used by researchers, allowing for verification and improvement over time. Results: The educational examples all relied upon the three proposed design features. Outcome-learning and Process-learning display both similarities and differences. A main similarity is the multi-opportunity for Outcome-learning stemming from the iterative design of the educations, emphasizing not only final Outcome-learning but multiple intermittent Outcome- and Process-learning. A main difference is the impact related to Time: longer term design delivers novel and team-specific Outcome-learning, whereas shorter term have Outcome-learning which is shared and determined by teachers’ choices. Control variables, such as background diversity of participants have not been detected as having any large effect. Implications: The proposed “2T Framework” holds promise to function as a generally applicable framework in setting up and evaluating action-based entrepreneurial education, relatively independent upon time-frames of the education. The design-features of Value-creation, Iteration and Team-work are derived from entrepreneurship theory and appear relevant across different empirical examples. Value/Originality: While none of these design features are common in more traditional education, they have the potential of being definitional features of action-based entrepreneurial education, regardless of the time-frame of such an education.