Entrepreneurship Education Pedagogical Approaches in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This has potential to be a significant contribution to EE literature. Excellent review of the literature and would recommend revisiting the methodology - appears to be mixed as opposed to pure qualitative.  The time frame, choice of module and the conducting of the observations is not clear.  Much is made in literature review of the wider definition of entrepreneurship - yet the findings and discussion appears to focus on the 'business' perspective -other areas are mentioned - but this is a key opportunity to enhance the contribution of this paper.  Would also need to strengthen the link between mixed pedagogies and impact on multi competency acquisition - perhaps a future longtitudinal study? 

Question why use 'pretend' regarding the CU - line 376?

The contribution of the study based on the discussion appears to refer more to the competencies and development of a meta-competency framework - which is a wonderful contribution - but if this is key to the discussion and contribution - may be worth revisiting title of this particular paper and in turn may lead nicely to a future paper based on an extended longtitudinal study - a thought?

Appears to be repetition of lines 497 - 500 - "professional future, promoting their creativity and capacity for innovation, al- lowing them to acquire new skills such as problem solving, management skills, financial literacy, knowing how to start a business, take risks, and work better in teams, so that they  can have a more active participation in the community".

This paper is well written and referenced and comments are purely to enhance the value of its contribution to the EE - thank you for this excellent insight and look forward to reading it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment/response and the new version of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Many thanks for your submission to the Education Sciences journal. I believe that it is an interesting manuscript which somewhat aligns to the journal.

However, I believe that some revisions should be made, in order to strengthen the manuscript.

Please see comments below:

·         I believe that the abstract could further emphasise the problem/gap/justification for this manuscript.

·         The context (where the study focusses on, by country perhaps?) should be highlighted in the title and abstract.

·         The opening section appears to shift from EE to entrepreneurial competences. I believe that EE could be discussed further and a sharper focus on what is the central theme of the manuscript. For example, forms of EE rather than shifting towards competences and skills. These are more motivations and products of EE which can be discussed later in the manuscript.

·         The introduction section (section 1) must include a paragraph on the value and contributions of the manuscript, as well as explain the following elements of the paper, section by section.

·         The opening sentences of sections 1 and 2 should refer to multiple sources, as they appear to be general statements which allude to multiple studies and perspectives.

·         The literature review is helpful and addresses many topics. However, a closing set of paragraphs which brings together the key points of the review should be provided before section 3.

·         Much more detail should be provided in the discussion section, to specifically highlight emerging themes and how these relate and/or advance existing literature and perspectives.

·         The conclusion section requires that the manuscript: revisits the aim and rationale of the manuscript, state the key questions and themes towards the methodology, present the findings, and explain the impact of these findings to theory and practice with some recommendations ending the section.

·         A thorough English language proof read is required, to ensure that there is greater clarity and flow in the reading.

Please ensure that the sentence structure is concise, clear, towards improving readability and clarity. Many sentences are too long, and can be expressed more simply and shorter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment/response and the new version of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for submitting your paper. I found it interesting but struggled to identify a clear contribution. I recommend a thorough re-write to bring forward what is novel in your paper, i.e. beyond identifying the value of what is done at the author’s university. At present this is a case study of a course at one university with some student feedback on it. I’m not sure this qualifies as an academic paper alas, as interesting as your case study is. Below are some further comments which hopefully help you develop the paper further.

Overall the language was good, but there is scope for a proof-read to ensure flow in places. Maybe a native/near-native speaker good give this a quick read through to iron out any peculiar expressions? This shouldn’t be a big job but would help I feel enhance the paper’s value.

 

The literature review overall was good, though in relation to the overall length of the text quite lengthy. At the end of the literature review it would be useful to conclude it with a summary or problem statement (at present it just seems like a lengthy review of different approaches to entrepreneurship education, interesting, but with no real purpose).

 

I would question the seemingly inevitably positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and employability. While there are strong links (overall the relationship is positive), the relationship is complex. See for example:

- Killingberg, Nils Magne, Elin Kubberød, and Inger Beate Pettersen. 2022. "Exploring the Transition to Working Life of Entrepreneurship Education Graduates: A Longitudinal Study." Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy   0 No.(0): 25151274221108354. https://doi.org/10.1177/25151274221108354. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/25151274221108354.

- Walmsley, Andreas, Carolin Decker-Lange, and Knut Lange. 2022. "Conceptualising the entrepreneurship education and employability nexus." In Theorising Undergraduate Entrepreneurship Education. Reflections on the Development of the Entrepreneurial Mindset., edited by Guillermo Larios-Hernandez, Andreas Walmsley and Itzel Lopez-Castro, 97-114. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Towards the end of section 2.2 I was surprised to see the literature turn towards the notion of democratic and global values. It’s not that I have anything against EE developing these, it is just that to this point this doesn’t appear to have been the focus of the paper at all. Why is there this sudden focus on democracy and ‘global values’?

 

When you write ‘participant observation’ this is not the same as using a questionnaire to elicit answers to predetermined question. Were participants actually observed?

The methodology should include more on sampling. How many students were ‘observed’/responded to the survey? It seems from the results that the actual number of students completing the questionnaire was very small (around 10)?

 

The discussion begins by focussing on the educator which is fine, but at the same time, data weren’t collected from teachers but from students so claims such as ‘it is important the teacher recognises their own learning style’ is potentially an implication of the study rather a discussion of the study’s findings. I’d make a clearer distinction between what the study actually found out and then what the implications of these findings are.

Where you write: “How to teach entrepreneurship, what are the most relevant entrepreneurial competences, how to develop them, and also how to train teachers to educate for entrepreneurship, will be important questions for future research“ again this is an implication. But can you be more specific about what this study’s contribution is? Apart from highlighting the value of experiential learning which, after all, exists in many studies, I would recommend you bring to the fore what is novel about your study. What, effectively, is its key contribution? In terms of adding value to your paper this is a very important consideration.

In the discussion there is a paragraph that presents and discusses someone else’s study (Reis et al. 2020). I’m not sure why this is placed in the discussion of your research. Either place this in the literature review and then review your findings in light of this study or discuss your study and then make reference clearly to how it relates to Reis et al.’s (2020) work.

 

The conclusion read more like a ‘results’ section.

Please see previous comments. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment/response and the new version of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Many thanks for your resubmission to the Education Sciences journal. I believe that the changes made respond to the reviewer comments provided.

I am happy to recommend an accept decision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for responding to and addressing my queries from Round 1 of the review. I like your paper which is improved. I am happy to recommend publication.