The assessment of students' entrepreneurship competence: Results from an interfaculty event based on Google Design Sprint
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7346/-fei-XXI-03-23_03Keywords:
Google Design Sprint, Problem based learning, EntreComp framework, Entrepreneurship education, Program evaluationAbstract
This contribution assesses the entrepreneurship competence that students cultivated during an interfaculty and innovative initiative grounded on Google Design Sprint methodology. It adopts a combined set of tools to gather data, including an online questionnaire leaning on the EntreComp framework, with both Likert scales and open-ended questions, as well as focus groups asking the participants what they learnt during the initiative. The analyses triangulate both descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results contend that the most important competence cultivated is groupwork in heterogenous groups, while a notable offshoot is the nurturing of diverse EntreComp related competences. The conclusion argue that EntreComp is suitable to assess competences from a prescriptive approach, i.e., as standard, especially when it is combined with a contextual approach such as the theory of constructive alignment, focusing on performance and on the learning outcomes students achieved.
References
Bacigalupo, M. (2022). The European Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp). A Conceptual Model Built and Tested by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. Journal of Creative Industries and Cultural Studies, (4), 38–53. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/43287
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (European Commission), Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2791/593884
Bacigalupo, M., Lilian, W. G., Yashar, M., & O’Keeffe, W. (2020). EntreComp Playbook: Entrepreneurial Learning Beyond the Classroom. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/77835
Baena-Luna, P., García-Río, E., & Monge-Agüero, M. (2020). Entrecomp: marco competencial para el emprendimiento. Una revisión sistemática de la literatura sobre su uso y aplicación. Información Tecnológica, 31(2), 163–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07642020000200163
Bassett, J., Cleveland, A., Acorn, D., Nix, M., & Snyder, T. (2017). Are they paying attention? Students’ lack of motivation and attention potentially threaten the utility of course evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1119801
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem‐based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/Constructive_Alignment36087.pdf
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1989). Towards a model of school-based curriculum development and assessment using the SOLO taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, 33(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/168781408903300205
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. New York: McGraw-hill.
Blenker, P., Trolle Elmholdt, S., Hedeboe Frederiksen, S., Korsgaard, S., & Wagner, K. (2014). Methods in entrepreneurship education research: A review and integrative framework. Education + Training, 56(8/9), 697–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2014-0066
Boyas, E., Bryan, L. D., & Lee, T. (2012). Conditions affecting the usefulness of pre- and post-tests for assessment purposes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.538665
Castoldi, M. (2012). Valutare a scuola. Dagli apprendimenti alla valutazione di Sistema. Roma: Carocci.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2018) Qualitative Evaluation: Methods, ethics and politics with stakeholders. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of Qualitative Research, Vol. 5 (pp. 867–886). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7
European Commission, D.-G. for E., Youth, Sport and Culture. (2019). Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/569540
Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Vol. 5 (pp. 444–461). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070
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, 75(1), 27–61. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027
Golding C., & Adam, L. (2016) Evaluate to improve: useful approaches to student evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.976810
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hung, W. (2009). The 9-step problem design process for problem-based learning: Application of the 3C3R model. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.12.001
Koenen, A. K., Dochy, F., & Berghmans, I. (2015). A phenomenographic analysis of the implementation of competence-based education in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 50, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.04.001
Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days (First Simon&Schuster hardcover edition). Simon & Schuster.
López-Núñez, M. I., Rubio-Valdehita, S., Armuña, C., & Pérez-Urria, E. (2022). EntreComp Questionnaire: A Self-Assessment Tool for Entrepreneurship Competencies. Sustainability, 14(5), 2983. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052983
Mortari, L., & Silva, R. (2020). Valutare un Teaching Program attraverso l’esperienza degli alumni: Una ricerca empirica che offre stimoli alla riprogettazione didattica. ITALIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 25, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.7346/SIRD-022020-P137
Morselli, D. (2018). Teaching a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship with constructive alignment in tertiary non-business contexts. Education + Training, 60(2), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2017-0093
Morselli, D., & Gorenc, J. (2022). Using the EntreComp framework to evaluate two entrepreneurship education courses based on the Korda Method. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(1), 100591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100591
Mulder, M., & Winterton, J. (2017). Introduction. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education (Vol. 23, pp. 1–43). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_1
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030: The future we want. OECD Publishing. Retrieved December 10, 2023, from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A., & Papadakos, P. (2014). Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want. Get started with. Wiley.
Paniagua, A., & Istance, D. (2018). Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological (Second edition). Sage.
Richter, N., Schildhauer, T., & Jackson, P. (2018). Meeting the innovation challenge: Agile processes for established organisations. In N. Richter, P. Jackson, & T. Schildhauer (Eds.), Entrepreneurial innovation and leadership (pp. 109–121). Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71737-1
Savery, J R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002
Sprintlab. (2021). Javelin Board: Cos’è, A Cosa Serve, Come Compilarla. Blog.Sprintlab.It. https://web.archive.org/web/20230923204251/https://blog.sprintlab.it/javelin-board/
Viganò, R. (2020). Valutare l’insegnamento nell’istruzione superiore. A cosa serve veramente? Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 13(24), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.7346/SIRD-012020-P120
Wangsa, K., Chugh, R., Karim, S., & Sandu, R. (2022). A comparative study between design thinking, agile, and design sprint methodologies. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 15(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJASM.2022.124916
Yanchar, S. C. (2011), Using numerical data in explicitly interpretive, contextual inquiry: a ‘practical discourse’ framework and examples from Engeström’s research on activity systems, Theory & Psychology, 21(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310393777
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth edition). Sage.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Daniele Morselli, Guido Orzes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Formazione & insegnamento is distributed under Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
For further details, please refer to our Repository & Archiving Policy, as well as our Copyright & Licensing Terms.
