Danish University Colleges
Impact of Interdisciplinary Teaching Practices in an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
Agerbæk, Lise; Wraae, Birgitte
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34190/EIE.20.129
Publication date:
2020
Link to publication
Citation for pulished version (APA):
Agerbæk, L., & Wraae, B. (2020). Impact of Interdisciplinary Teaching Practices in an Entrepreneurial
Ecosystem. 1-9. Paper presented at 15th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE20), Rom, Italy. https://doi.org/10.34190/EIE.20.129
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Download policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Download date: 24. Mar. 2022
Impact of Interdisciplinary Teaching Practices in an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
Prof. Elisabeth Agerbaek, Ph.D. Prof. Birgitte Wraa, UCL – University College, Odense, Denmark ela@ucl.dk
biwr@ucl.dk
Abstract: This conceptual paper explores how changing educational practices towards interdisciplinary collaboration influences innovation and entrepreneurship processes for both students and educators when involved in a real-life project in cooperation with an external organisation. Recent research in entrepreneurship education suggests that the educational sector plays an important role as an actor in an entrepreneurship ecosystem. The ecosystem's five elements are students, educators, educational institution, community and external organisations (often a company). Furthermore, the entrepreneurship education ecosystem is characterised by the individual participants mutually influencing each other through dialogic relationships.
Working with innovation and entrepreneurship processes in education can pose a challenge for educators, who are used to thinking within the traditional learning environment with educators and students as the main participants. There can be a discrepancy between the perception of an innovation and entrepreneurship project within the external organisation and within the educational institution. In the latter, the project will be viewed through the point of view of the different disciplines, in which any education is divided, whereas the project, in the former, will be seen more as a whole. Often projects are part of the teaching in a single discipline only, and the students will have other disciplines at the same time - which are then seen as unrelated. Working with the project in all disciplines will allow students and educators to view the project as a whole, thus mirroring the more holistic view of the external organisation.
Our paper will present a didactic approach as well a practical tool for how to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration as a method to support the educational institution in becoming an important and equal actor in the ecosystem as well as enhancing the transversal skills of the students. This would be of interest to educators who are in the process of planning and executing innovation and entrepreneurship projects involving several educational disciplines.
1. Introduction
In her exam portfolio a student at UCL - University College, Odense, Denmark writes: “I gained learning ... by helping customers find solutions to current challenges in their company, because of this educations' framework.
Some customers find it difficult to define what they want and then they approach us so that we can help them find the most ideal solutions for their business. This is also where this program differs significantly from my former education.” The student indicates two characteristics of this ‘different’ education. One is that the perceived learning derives from solving challenges from external companies, the other that it is the framework of the education that enables this. Without putting too much emphasis on one student’s words she describes what this article aims to conceptually examine: When understanding themselves as an integrated part of an entrepreneurial education ecosystem, how can educators support learning through interdisciplinary collaboration?
In this article, we begin by introducing the entrepreneurial education ecosystem and from there move to discuss the impact for the educators and the education framed by the didactical relational model. Finally, we discuss how this can be used as a tool for planning and executing a semester’s teaching based on interdisciplinary collaboration.
2. The entrepreneurship education ecosystem
Universities of applied sciences in Denmark is generally known for their collaborative work with both the private and the public sector. Our study is therefore founded in an acceptance of that educational institutions play a vital role in delivering and developing students, so that while they are students they are able to interact with the surrounding society, while at the same time making them ready to act in a job after their studies have been finalized. Brush (2014) describes the educational institutions as ‘a complex community and environment where the learning interacts within a blended environment where time, place and space are ever changing’ (p. 28). This article would like to argue for and present a method which facilitates how the educators granulate the curriculum of a specific entrepreneurial education by interpreting the learning goal into teaching so it aligns with the goals of external organisation.
The collaborative role can be illustrated by using an entrepreneurship education ecosystem (figure 1) that incorporates each actor alongside learning processes as central element of this interaction (Wraae and Thomsen, 2019, 2018). As such the actors are connected through dialogic relationships to underline how each actor is dependent on each other (Jones and Matlay, 2011). Moreover, and inspired by Bruyat and Julien (2001), the dialogic relationships includes reasoning that a connection between two actors in the system (for instance student and external organisation) can be viewed as a formed system that cannot be separated if our goal is to understand said system.
Figure 1. The entrepreneurship education ecosystem. Source: (Wraae and Thomsen, 2019, 2018)
Before zooming in on each actor we look towards Brush’s (2014) description of the stakeholders as those that
‘are social and human components of the school…all of those involved in the three aspects of entrepreneurship curriculum, co-curricular activities and research’ (p. 32). Thus, each stakeholder represents different needs, motivation, and connections which are vital when establishing a productive ecosystem (Brush, 2014). Even though this paper has a wider perspective that the entrepreneurial curriculum entirely, we have applied the above thoughts to all interdisciplinary teaching practices.
Zooming in on the different elements presented in figure 1, we here focus on four of the elements: students, educators, educational institution and the external organisation. Beginning with the students, we perceive them as a diversified group with different backgrounds: ‘from where have your students travelled? How different have their life paths been? What differences in prior learning and future aspirations do they hold? Finding answers to these three simple questions will reveal an abundance of diversity’ (Jones and Matlay, 2011, p. 695). The represented student diversity is an important factor to take into consideration for the educator when planning and executing teaching. On the other hand, the students are expected to be able to develop different skills, including personal maturity skills (Chang and Rieple, 2013), as an actor in the ecosystem.
The students are enrolled at the educational institution, that bears the responsibility of offering studies, hiring competent educators and having the responsibility of acting with the surrounding society among a lot of other tasks that need to be performed in relation to administering studies. According to Ratten (2017) the educational institution has the role of the changer of mindsets. Furthermore, universities can transform ‘the businesses and lives of people in the community’ (Ratten, 2017, p. 312). The educational institutions are therefore expected to connect with their surroundings in a quest to offer entrepreneurial activities and to act entrepreneurial (Etzkowitz, 2013)
Moving on to the educators, educators often act in the role of liaison officers as they try to connect students with the external organisations and the community. Also, they act in the role of intermediaries between the educational institution and the students, for instance by delivering information or by interpreting the learning goals into teaching. Fulgence (2015) argues, that the educator acts in a lot of different roles; trainer, a participant in outreach activities and the responsibility for creating a learning environment.
These outreach activities are often in cooperation with the external organisations, which mostly are seen as representing the private companies. However, this element also contains both the public sector and NGOs (Wraae and Thomsen, 2019, 2018). No matter who the external organisations are, they are expected to have a need for and an interest in cooperating in innovative projects.
The above described elements are linked together through educational processes, whether that be delivering useful knowledge, entrepreneurial co-curricular activities (Brush, 2014) or working ‘with the individual’s capacity to embrace a combination of experience/knowledge and deeper understanding of a life world of uncertainty and complexity (Gibb and Haskins, 2013, pp. 14–15).
3. Planning and executing learning
Illeriis argues, that ‘the external conditions of learning are features outside the learner that influence learning possibilities and are involved in the learning processes.’ (Illeriis 2009, p. 17). The learning processes are in other words influenced by the educational processes, which may hinder or further the above mentioned ‘change of mindset’.
Still following Bruyat and Julien (2001), we argue that the dialogic relationships between institution, educator and student as a formed system, are reflected in and can be transferred to the didactical relational model (Hiim and Hippe 2014) presented in figure 2. It highlights six aspects of this dialogue. In the thinking of the entrepreneurship education ecosystem we add a further actor - the external organisation - which changes the dialogue. This collaboration with external organisations poses didactical challenges for educators, who are used to regarding the educational process as one where educators and students are the only participants.
Founded in Hiim and Hippe (2014) we use their definition of didactics as a ‘practical-theoretical planning, completion, evaluation and critical analysis of teaching and learning’ (Hiim and Hippe 2014, p. 14).1
1 We are aware that this is not the common English use of the term didactic as moral education. However, we want to keep the ‘nordic’ use of didactics as used by Hiim and Hippe (2014).
Figure 2. The didactical relational model. Source Hiim and Hippe 2014, p. 114.
We use the model to highlight how the entrepreneurship educational ecosystem impacts the didactics. The dialogical relationships in the ecosystem have impact on all of the six categories of the didactical relations.
Qvortrup & Keiding (2016) argue that recent discussions tend to focus on a ‘methodication of didactics in HE’
and thus emphasise the need for a holistic reflection focusing on the relations between and interdependency of the categories.
The category ‘pedagogical framework’ should be viewed as relationally dependant on the category ‘educational content’ when this is perceived by the educator as a having an impact on ‘possibilities for teachers and students’
(Hiim & Hippe 2014). For example, an interpretation of the totality of the learning goals for a specific education as divided into different educational disciplines, in each of which the students achieve specialised competences, can be seen both as a ‘pedagogical framework’ and as ‘educational content’. Viewing the disciplines as educational framework may mean that the educator perceives it as unchangeable, whereas interpreting the disciplines as educational content allows the teachers more leeway for working across disciplines.
3.1 Goals and objectives
In Denmark the goals and objectives of an education are described in governmental acts as knowledge, skills and competences, following the Framework of Qualifications for the European Higher Education Area (The Framework of Qualifications 2018), to be met for the student to be perceived as educated. These are further described through a set of disciplines stipulated in a national curriculum.
As a part of the entrepreneurship education ecosystem the external organisation has a non-specialised viewpoint. For this actor the division of the education into several disciplines has little consequence. The external organisation expects the students to work with all the knowledge, skills and competences they possess, no matter how this is taught. In this way, the point of view of the external organisation is more holistic in relation to the students' overall competencies. This actor also evaluates a totality of competences in future employees.
Berglund emphasize how an entrepreneurial approach to education has become linked to employability during the last two decades (Berglund 2013).
Following Hafeez and Esmail, Chang (2014) argues that the employability of graduates is closely linked to innovative solutions, and that student’s employability ‘involves extra efforts to develop their innovation
capability by implementing appropriate curricula through strategic partnerships’ (Chang 2014, p. 871). Regarding an external organisation as a strategic partner for an education is precisely to make room for innovation by allowing the students to work with a challenge put forward by this partner.
The goal of this industry/university collaboration is not to have the industry challenge be just an “add-on” to the normal teaching. To mirror the more holistic view of the external organisation the educator wants it to frame the totality of learning goals within knowledge, skills and competences, that students are supposed to achieve in a specific semester.
3.2 Educational content or subject matter
Hiim and Hippe discuss the merits of regarding the content or subject matter of an education as separated from the teaching methods. Even in traditionally theoretical disciplines they question this separation: ‘The question is whether it may not be possible here also to turn towards practical, real-life tasks that can help to structure the content in a meaningful way. This will require a relatively high degree of subject integration, theme teaching and problem-solving learning (Hiim and Hippe 2014, p. 220, authors’ translation).
Agerbaek (2016) argues that to use an industry challenge as educational content requires that this challenge is authentic following Pirinen (2009), who explains that: “In this context: the term “authentic” means that all transactions and implementations of learning situations are simultaneously connected to real development cases within the world of work and have a definite value in the value network”. Authentic challenges are real unsolved problems for which the external organisation, as well as the educators, does not have a set solution. If the innovation challenge is the educational content, the external organisation should be as unsure of the best result as the students (and educators) are.
Wahlgreen (2016) argues that the students experience the urgency of learning a skill or competence, the shorter the distance is between the learning period and the time when they need said skill to solve a real-life situation.
As such, there will be no transfer if the time between learning and the point of application is too long. The benefit of giving the students a challenge from an external organisation as educational content is that they have reason to use theories and methods taught immediately.
In our experience the students understand the interdisciplinary interplay of the disciplines, if the external organisation challenge is brought into all disciplines, so every topic is explained and trained in light of this challenge. Thus, the understanding of different disciplines and the interplay between them can be learned through the work with the external organisation challenge.
3.3 Learning process or teaching and learning methods
The didactical relational thinking implies the educator’s main role is that of a counsellor, Hiim and Hippe (2014) writes. This entails putting the student’s work, experience and learning at the centre of the learning process. To enable the interdisciplinary understanding of a challenge put forward by the external partner, a team of educators, who teach all the different disciplines of an education in a semester, need to plan the learning process together.
Collaborating in a team of educators on an innovation challenge requires a double understanding. An educator must understand how his or her own discipline can be interpreted in relation to the challenge, as well as understanding how the interdisciplinary interplay may influence each discipline. The coherence and order of each discipline, as well as the overall professional progression should be considered.
3.4 Pedagogical framework conditions and scope
Hiim and Hippe describe the pedagogical framework conditions as preconditions for the teaching. This includes laws and acts but also more concrete organisational preconditions as the number of students in a class or the physical room in which teaching takes place (Hiim & Hippe 2014, p. 168). To integrate industry challenges
framework conditions include allowing ample resources for team collaboration among educators as well as liberty to reinterpret learning goals.
Hiim and Hippe also argue that the teacher him/herself can be viewed as a part of the pedagogical framework:
‘If we … choose to regard the teacher as a framework condition, the teacher’s qualifications and attitudes towards his or her subject, is perhaps one of the most important factors, which may further or hinder the teaching and learning’ (Hiim & Hippe 2014, p. 169, authors’ translation). An educator who regards his or her subject or discipline as too separate or unique for it to be involved in interdisciplinary collaboration thus may hinder the integration of an industry challenge into the curriculum. This means that institutional support for this type of collaboration is of the essence.
3.5 Student’s learning resources
As already mentioned when we introduced the entrepreneurship education ecosystem, students are a diversified group. Jones and Matlay (2011) sum this up nicely: “Students differ in terms of the commitments they hold towards employment, volunteering and/or other personal commitments. Students differ in terms of their ability to engage in their studies due to the circumstances of their lives, many that lay beyond the responsibility and/or control of their educators. Students differ in terms of their preferred styles of learning.”
(p. 696). All considerations the educator must work around when planning and executing teaching in general, and in the case of working interdisciplinary consider how to emphasize and strengthen each student with the above in mind.
Hiim and Hippe emphasize that the learning resources of the students are fundamental in the teaching and learning processes, and that the point is to ‘get the students to mobilize their own resources’ (Hiim and Hippe 2014, p. 147, authors’ translation). They argue, that meaning and motivation is related to proximity to reality.
‘Teaching that is related to the pupil’s real and practical life, is often perceived as meaningful’ (Hiim and Hippe 2014, p. 149, authors’ translation). Also, they describe how the students’ learning resources are in constant evolvement, so they recommend that teachers never cease to adapt to these. This impacts how evaluation and assessment is framed, another of the six categories of the didactical relational model.
3.6 Evaluation and assessment
Besides the more traditional normative assessment methods applied to the traditional teaching we argue, that working interdisciplinary also invites to applying other forms for assessment. Chang and Rieple (2013) suggest to consider introducing reflective accounts that are more in alignment with working with real life projects and thus supports students being able to work with and solve both complicated and unstructured problems.
Furthermore, other studies show, that reflective assessment elements heighten the students’ understanding of their own learning (Wraae et al., 2018).
Portfolio as an assessment method has been widely acclaimed as a way of enhancing students’ reflective practices. Qvortrup et al. (2017) describes three decades of pedagogical discussion surrounding this assessment method. Qvortrup (2006) describes the portfolio as “a particular interface for interaction between the individual student and the teacher, among students, but also between the individual student and the education system”.
Thus, the portfolio could be seen as an assessment method that supports the dialogical relationships within the entrepreneurial educational ecosystem.
4. Putting the tool into practice
Several ways of adding an innovation challenge to a semester-flow can be envisioned. Firstly, you can have different challenges for each discipline. Secondly, you can work with the challenge as “breaks” between otherwise not directly related teaching in each discipline. Thirdly, you can use the challenge as a frame around all disciplines taught in a specific semester, so each taught discipline relates all topics to finding a solution to the challenge. The three ways are illustrated below:
Figure 3. Ways of integrating industry challenges
As discussed above, working with a challenge presented by an external organisation in all disciplines of an education allows students and educators to see this project as a whole and thus reflect the more holistic view of the external organisation. As mentioned this requires extensive interdisciplinary cooperation. In a working paper Agerbaek and Houmøller (2019) suggest a didactical tool to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration.
The purpose of this tool is to facilitate the educator’ understanding of the industry challenge in light of each discipline (e.g. through lesson plans) as illustrated as option three in Figure 3. A, B and C are different disciplines granulated into topics. They are encompassed by the innovation challenge, presented by the external organisation, through the entire semester.
The didactical tool is a semester preparation tool. It entails using a whiteboard, but adding "micro whiteboards"
to the mix. Each educator granulates her/his discipline into a number of topics (theories or methods), which he or she writes on various micro whiteboards. This allows an educator to shift the sequence of his/her topics around – by moving the micro whiteboards - while having a dialogue on how these may be relevant to the challenge presented by the external organisation. By the end of this preparation workshop each educator has a sequence of topics that translates directly into a lection plan for the following semester. Together the lection plans of all disciplines translate to a semester plan.
Figure 4. The result of the use of the tool.
Figure 4 shows how the granulated topics from each discipline have been moved around for the purpose of being meaningful in relation to the innovation challenge. In the terms of the didactical relational model the learning process is planned in a pedagogical framework of interplay between disciplines. The industry challenge becomes the educational content across disciplines, and the students’ learning resources are considered, because of the challenge’s proximity to reality. Lastly the assessment method supports reflective practices of the students.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In the above we have presented a didactical approach and a tool for incorporating interdisciplinary projects in the curriculum with the purpose of conceptually examine how educators can support learning through interdisciplinary collaboration. Our understanding of interdisciplinary collaboration is founded in the entrepreneurship education ecosystem (figure 1) and the linkage between students, educators and external organisations through dialogical relationships that benefit them all. The external organisations obtain new aspects on a challenge they struggle with while at the same time they see first-hand the skillset of the students and how these can assist in any given organisation. At the other end of this dialogical relationship the students learn to use learned topics in a mix to solve a given challenge. Moreover, they gain insight into themselves and their own competencies; in other words, into their employability (Chang and Rieple, 2013). The educators act in the role of planners and executors of teaching including acting as liaison officers between the students and external organisations. Working with an external organisation adds to the educator’s knowledge about ‘real life’
challenges and how the correspond to the education. Further, they assist the students in preparing for their future employability. Moreover, the tool presented is setting the stage for educators when they plan an interdisciplinary project. We argue, that the dialogical relationships present in the ecosystem connect to the didactical relational model (Hiim and Hippe 2014). Finally, these elements are to be considered during the planning phase with the model’s six elements (figure 2). As such, we show how the educator can move from using the didactical tool in the planning phase and into the practice phase.
The interdisciplinary collaboration as well as incorporating different disciplines to solve a challenge can in itself be viewed as a novelty. Therefore, it should give leave to discuss introducing other assessment methods as a part of this try-out. Chiang and Rieple (2013) argue for assessment methods that includes a reflective element.
The students will benefit from such an element threefold. Firstly, reflections add to deeper learning rather than superficial learning (Biggs, 1999). Secondly, reflections assist in creating meaning for the students: “.. reflection is a systematic process of self-introspection in order to develop one’s meaning and new perspectives about experiences undertaken. While reflecting, the learner may profit from accumulation of previous experiences, use prior knowledge, or be in the process of actual doing, but the final aim of this learning process is to develop knowledge” (Hägg and Kurczewska, 2016, p. 708). Thirdly, reflections aid the students in viewing themselves in an employability perspective. No doubt, we consider the reflective element as crucial for students to understand their own role in the ecosystem both in view of their current students’ role as well as how a future role could be like. The employability path could be investigated further, for instance by using the same methodological approach as Chiang and Rieple (2013).
Understanding the students and where they come from is essential for the educator if the educator wants the students to exploit their personal skills in combination with their professional competencies in an interdisciplinary project. For this to happen, the educator must, as proposed by Jones and Matlay (2011), and Hiim and Hippe (2014), understand and accept each student’s learning resources to be able to assist each student to put them into use in relation to working with practice.
Our suggested approach could be investigated further. We have argued for the entrepreneurship education ecosystem in an entrepreneurial context, here widely defined. We propose to investigate whether our presented framework can be applied to all educations in an institution of higher education, thereby broadening the concept as well as study the effects from working interdisciplinary compared to executing traditional teaching.
Furthermore, we propose to investigate how each actor view their role and perceive their learning in relation to the ecosystem (Wraae & Thomsen, 2019, 2018). This would add new insights into how each actor learns in this
context including adding new insights into how we understand the dialogical relationships. We propose a qualitative methodological approach with interviews and observations (Chang and Rieple, 2013). Assuming the students are the centre of our interest, we propose to let students reflect on their learning journeys, for instance by using video clips where the students are allowed to reflect on their own role and learning (Wraae et al., 2020, 2018). This video clip approach could be introduced in the beginning and at the end of the course in order to discover differences.
From a quantitative perspective we propose to use an online survey to all actors about the value of the concept, including questions about learning. Here, we propose to scale the questions using the Lichard scale to measure their attitudes. We suggest an ex-ante/ex-post to measure any differences in the participants’ attitude at the start of the interdisciplinary project and again at the end.
6. References
Agerbaek, Lise & Houmøller, Ellen (2019) Working Paper: Framing Employ Skills through university/industry cooperation, UCL, https://www.ucviden.dk/portal/da/publications/framing-employ-skills-through-
universityindustry-cooperation(4c3ba489-ab05-4589-a4ad-985909cf1900).html (downloaded 04152020) Agerbaek, Lise (2016) "What are the right kind of problems to solve in a university/industry collaboration?" in Proceedings, ICERI2016 pp. 4087-4093
Berglund, Karin (2013), "Fighting against all odds: Entrepreneurship education as employability training". In Ephemera - Theory & Politics in Organization Vol 13 (4) pp. 717-735.
Biggs, J., 1999. “What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning”. Higher Education Research &
Development 18, 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180105
Brush, C.G., 2014. “Exploring the Concept of an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem”, in: Hoskinson, S., Kuratko, D.F. (Eds.), Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century, Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Economic Growth. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, pp.
25–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1048-473620140000024000
Bruyat, C., Julien, P.-A., 2001. ”Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship”. In Journal of business venturing 16, 165–180.
Chang, Chi-Cheng (2014),"An instructional cycle for enhancing innovation-embedded employability", in Education + Training, Vol. 56 Iss 8/9 pp. 870 - 883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2014-0021 (Downloaded 04132020)
Chang, J., Rieple, A., 2013. “Assessing students’ entrepreneurial skills development in live projects”. In Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 20, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001311298501
Darsø, Lotte (2009) Innovation in the Making, Frederiksberg, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur
Etzkowitz, H., 2013. “Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university”. In Social Science Information 52, 486–511.
Fulgence, K., 2015. “Assessing the status of entrepreneurship education courses in higher learning institutions:
The case of Tanzania education schools”. In Education + Training 57, 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05- 2013-0063
Gibb, A.A., Haskins, G., 2013. “The University of the Future. An Entrepreneurial Stakeholder Learning Organisation?”, in: Fayolle, A., Redford, D.T. (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurial Education Volume 4 –Entrepreneurial University Handbook. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA.
Hägg, G., Kurczewska, A., 2016. “Connecting the dots: A discussion on key concepts in contemporary entrepreneurship education”. In Education + Training 58, 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2015-0115
Hiim, Hilde & Hippe, Else (2014) Læring gennem oplevelse, forståelse og handling, Gyldendal
Illeriis, Knus (2009) “A comprehensive understanding of human learning” in Illeriis, Knud (ed) (2009) Contemporary Theories of Learning, Routledge, London
Jones, C., Matlay, H., 2011. “Understanding the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education: going beyond Gartner”. In Education + Training 53, 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911111185026
Pirinen, Rauno (2009) "Action Research in Integrative Action" in Proceedings of the 8th WSEAS International Conference on EDUCATION and EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Qvortrup, A., Keiding, T. (2016) “The Mistake to Mistake Learning Theory for Didactics” in Qvortrup, A., Wiberg, M., Christensen, G. & Hansbøl, M. (ed.) On the Definition of Learning, Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark
Qvortrup, A., Hansen, J., & Christensen, I.-M. (2017). ”Portfolio, refleksion og feedback”. In Tidsskriftet Læring Og Medier (LOM), 10 (17).
Qvortrup, L (2006) Knowledge. Education and Learning: E-learning in the Knowledge Society, Samfundslitteratur Ratten, V., 2017. “Entrepreneurial universities: the role of communities, people and places”. In Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 11, 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC- 03-2017-0021
THE FRAMEWORK OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA (2018) http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2018_Paris/77/8/EHEAParis2018_Communique_AppendixIII_9527 78.pdf (downloaded 04072020)
Wahlgren, B. (2016). “Adult educators’ core competences” in International Review of Education, 62(3), 343-353.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11159-016-9559-4
Wraae, B., Tigerstedt, C., Walmsley, A., 2020. “We had the experience but missed the meaning” – Using reflective videos to enhance entrepreneurial learning. To be published in Journal of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy.
Wraae, B., Tigerstedt, C., Kratzer, J., 2018. “Introducing Student Self-assessment as a New Assessment tool in Entrepreneurship Education”. In Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 18.
Wraae, B., Thomsen, J., 2019. “Introducing a New Framework for Understanding Learning in an Entrepreneurship Education Ecosystem”. In Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 19.
Wraae, B., Thomsen, J., 2018. Entrepreneurial Learning in Higher Education Through Ecosystems. Presented at the University - Industry Interaction Conference, London June 19-20 2018.
