Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study explores teachers’ professional development in entrepreneurship education (EE). It examines empirically the change in teachers’ EE practices among Finnish teachers in 2011–2017. Overall, the quantitative analysis reveals that entrepreneurship education practices are increasing, albeit unevenly. Three groups of teachers, EE experimenters, EE critics, and EE selectors show different profiles in their use of EE practices. Furthermore, these groups seem to represent different stages of EE professionalization. The analysis shows that teachers’ EE practices increase on the introductory stage but decrease deeply after. Moreover, the study suggests that teachers’ implementation of EE evolves along with their teaching experience. It reveals that teachers in different stages of professional development need different types of support and that the adoption of EE practices depends on the institutional and social support offered to teachers. The results of the investigation contribute to the literature of EE by introducing a new typology of teachers, also presenting empirical evidence of the teachers’ ability to absorb EE as a new approach. Furthermore, the study shows that for the adoption of EE it is not enough to emphasize the introductory stage but instead also the later stages of teacher’s professionalization need to be considered.

Keywords

entrepreneurship education teacher professional development basic education secondary education

Introduction

This quantitative study is about how teachers develop professionally in implementing entrepreneurship education (EE). Using factor analysis it assesses empirical data (n = 309) that represents a change in teachers’ conduct in applying EE. The respondents of this study are primary and secondary level teachers (vocational education and training (VET) included)¹ in Finland, representing all teaching disciplines.

Entrepreneurship education, henceforth referred to as EE, aims to support students’ ability to act upon opportunities and ideas (Kuratko, 2005) and transform them into value for others (Lackeus, 2013; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010). Achieving the goals of entrepreneurship education, the ultimate responsibility lies in the hands of individual teachers in their classroom practices (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2013b). Entrepreneurship education is considered pivotal in enhancing employment, social inclusion, active fulfillment, and development of all citizens. Hence, it is increasingly included in the national curricula in Europe (Eurydice, 2016). Throughout the past decades EE has gained rising acceptability (Jones & Matlay, 2011). Yet, according to recent research, entrepreneurship education research is still seeking teachers’ legitimization (Fayolle et al., 2016; Foliard et al., 2018), which is essential as they are in the front-line of any systematic educational change (Härkki, et al., 2021). This empirical study responds to the need for further research into teachers’ professional development in entrepreneurship education (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2013b; Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2014b; Fayolle et al., 2016).

Entrepreneurship education has been implemented in the national curricula in Finland since 1994, but up until now its application has been a challenge for teachers. The multitude of concepts and contradicting terminology in the field of entrepreneurship, enterprise and entrepreneurial education may seem problematic to comprehend (Ruskovaara, 2014a). Similarly, to the need for a clear taxonomy of entrepreneurship education (Fellnhofer, 2019), common consensus on the need for generally accepted paradigms and theories is stressed in several studies (Fiet, 2001a; 2001b; Kuratko 2005; Blenker et al., 2011; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Penaluna et al., 2012; Lackeus 2013; Ruskovaara, 2014a; Sommarström et al., 2017; Penaluna et al., 2021). Thus, to overcome these challenges it is important to allow entrepreneurship education to continue growing as a discipline (Katz, 2003).

Based on theoretical studies by Gibb (1996, 2000, 2000a, 2005), entrepreneurship education concerns learning through, for and about entrepreneurship. Furthermore, at its best entrepreneurial learning involves creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity (Ruskovaara, 2014a). Researchers and trainers have sought to build systematic capacity by adding knowledge about the needs, contents, and methods of entrepreneurship education (Fiet 2001a; Solomon, 2007; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Jones & Iredale, 2010; Neck & Greene, 2011; Sommarström et al., 2017). Nevertheless, research has suggested that the adoption of entrepreneurship education by teachers has not been easy (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010), due to aspects such as the teachers’ lack of understanding of the concept, aims, practices, results, and methods of EE (Sommarström et al., 2017).

Teachers’ professional development (i.e., professionalization) has been studied for decades (Avalos, 2011; Vescio et al., 2008). The phenomenon of teacher professionalization can be observed especially in educational or policy reforms (Kirsten, 2020) where teachers are required to adopt new models of behavior in a relatively short time (Fischer et al., 2018). The professionalization literature suggests that teachers’ ability to adopt new pedagogical frameworks depends (among other things) on the teachers’ professional competence (Ben-Peretz, 2001), their attitude toward education change (Anghelache & Bentea, 2012), and their professional vulnerability in educational reforms (Kelchtermans, 2005; Foliard et al., 2018; Kirsten 2020). For these reasons, teachers’ conviction and commitment become decisive aspects in the undertaking of pedagogical innovation. In summary, the recognition of the professional status of teachers in entrepreneurship education warrants careful analysis (Fayolle et al., 2016; Hargreaves, 2010).

Earlier research on entrepreneurship education has built on the idea that providing teachers with an understanding of the concepts, contents, and methods of EE will lead to the adoption of entrepreneurship education in teaching (Lackeus, 2013; Foliard et al., 2018; Hargreaves, 2010) and support the actual performance of teachers (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010; Ruskovaara, 2014a). Orland-Barak & Yinon (2007, 958) refer to this as a provision of a concrete “toolbox of ideas and activities” for novice teachers to survive the induction stages of their teaching careers. In this study, we suggest that a deeper understanding of the teachers’ ability to adopt new pedagogical models would help advance EE in schools. Therefore, in this study we analyze different teacher groups based on their classroom performance and focus on their professional development in entrepreneurship education. We take an empirical look at the change in the studied teachers’ entrepreneurship education practices and analyze them from the perspective of professional development. The research question of this study is: How do teachers develop professionally in implementing entrepreneurship education?

By studying this question, this article contributes to the existing literature in two ways. First, it combines the question of the adoption of entrepreneurship education with the topic of professional teacher development. Earlier research on EE has merely concentrated on the possibilities for increasing the quantity and quality of information offered to teachers to lower the threshold to adopting it in their teaching (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010; Ruskovaara, 2014a). In this paper, we show that the conditions arising from professional development should be considered, and therefore support for teachers should take different forms, depending on their level of progress.

Second, our paper provides empirical evidence of teachers’ professional development in entrepreneurship education. According to Gore et al. (2017), the robust evidence of the effectiveness of professional development for teachers is limited, thus leaving room for the theoretical models to be tested. Our literature search suggests that there are no earlier empirical studies on teachers’ professional development in entrepreneurship education. In this study, we present teachers’ professional development in entrepreneurship education over a 7-year period and analyze the results vis á vis the literature on teachers’ professional development and the literature on entrepreneurship education.

This paper is divided into four sections. First, we outline the background to the current state of the art in entrepreneurship education, and present a theoretical framework for entrepreneurship education practices. We state the previous evidence on professional teacher development in entrepreneurship education, and investigate also theories concerning the continued professional development models and learning stages for teachers and consider their integrative role in entrepreneurship education and professionalization. Second, we present a methodology on how to measure the change in entrepreneurship education practices of primary and secondary education teachers. Third, we present empirical results on the professional development of entrepreneurship education provision according to measurements of change over a 7-year period. Fourth, we discuss the study outcomes, summarize the results, and discuss the limitations.

Teachers’ Entrepreneurship Education Practices from a Theoretical Point of View

Entrepreneurship education sets new expectations for teachers and their approach to teaching. In entrepreneurship education, the teacher’s role as a coach (Ketelaar et al., 2012) or mentor for learning is highlighted. Foliard et al. (2018) categorize the teacher’s role as a facilitator. In practice, this means that teachers should remain in the background, working more like learning enablers, while the students take the lead, own the learning process, and take an active role (Birdthistle et al., 2007; Garnett, 2013; Ruskovaara, 2014a). Furthermore, learning-by-doing activities are important, especially when students are solving authentic, real-world problems (Cope & Watts, 2000). According to Draycott and Rae (2011, 138) EE is at its best when “students get their hands dirty and have fun; they learn by experimenting, doing and discovering unexpected outcomes.” Moreover, positive results are reported, especially when students interact with external stakeholders from outside of the school or when parts of the course are organized outside the classroom (Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2014b).

Entrepreneurship education emphasizes a close connection to the real world beyond the school. From teachers, it requires ability, motivation, and skills to seek out, set up, and follow real-life cases or entrepreneurial role models within their context to utilize authentic learning environments (Cope & Watts, 2000; Cope, 2005; Matlay & Carey, 2007; Draycott & Rae, 2011; Powell, 2013). These methods enhance the students’ ability to become active citizens ready to face and solve difficulties in their own lives and society.

There is a wide variety of teaching and learning methods that support the goals of entrepreneurship education (Fiet 2001a, 2001b; Jones & Iredale, 2010; Seikkula-Leino, 2006, 2007; Solomon, 2007; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Neck & Greene, 2011; Ruskovaara, 2014a). The methods vary from learning-by-doing activities (Cope & Watts, 2000), project work (Cooper et al., 2004; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Solomon, 2007; Richardson & Hynes, 2008), practice enterprise exercises (Ruskovaara, 2014a) to company visits (Sommarström et al., 2017). Furthermore, these methods provide opportunities for real networking; and at the same time, they improve students’ social skills (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). All these entrepreneurship education methods are built to support the active and participatory actions of the students themselves (Gibb, 2002).

The daily duty of any teacher, in the first place, is to foster the learning of each student; to keep order in the classroom; encourage the shy, and calm down the eager students, while maintaining the learning interesting according to study plan and book chapters; not to mention keeping up with and managing all the other multifaced interests, rules and expectations from the curricula, school leadership, parents, and students themselves (Kennedy, 2004). Thus, any additional approach in teaching may be seen an enthusiastic opportunity and a constructive value creation benefit for the students (Lackeus, 2013), or on the contrary it may be viewed as an undesirable, additional task, or even too bold an idea (Kennedy, 2010).

Teachers’ Professional Development in Entrepreneurship Education as a Learning Process

Professional development is about teachers’ learning—learning how to learn and transforming competence and knowledge into practice for the benefit of their students’ growth (Avalos, 2011). As to the concept of professional development, the literature seems to be divided into two perspectives. First, professional development is considered a synonym for professionalization, that is, it is a learning process that leads to mastering one’s tasks at the highest level (Willemse et al., 2015). Second, the literature conducted over the past decades suggests that professional development experiences share all or most of these features having a significant, positive influence on teachers’ classroom practice and students’ achievement (Desimone et al., 2002). Further, the literature seeks to define “critical elements” of teacher learning by paying attention to active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation’ according to “an operational theory of how professional development works to influence teacher and student outcomes” (Watson, 2014; see also Desimone, 2009, p. 183). Third, the literature composes professional development in a constructive manner on different stages (Kegan 1982, 1994). In addition, Drago-Severson et al. (2013) note that teachers, who are adults at various stages of ego and intellectual development respond differently to coursework and learning (Drago-Severson et al., 2013). Some of the literature (e.g., Gore et al., 2017; Avalos, 2011) treats professional teacher development as a phrase meaning training programs for teachers. Following this, the focus is on the quality of the training programs. For example, Gore et al., (2017) point out that robust evidence of the effectiveness of professional teacher development is limited. For the purposes of this study, we refer to professional development as a learning process (Avalos, 2011; Willemse et al., 2015).

Traditionally, professional development is “the provision of activities designed to enhance the knowledge, skills and understandings of teachers in ways that lead to changes in their thinking and classroom behavior” (Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1983, 4). The conventional model merely builds on the assumption that an increase in the teachers’ knowledge base, pedagogical preparedness, and need-based information will affect their attitudes and will lead to better educational performance (Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1983). According to the literature (Drago-Severson, 2009; Drago-Severson et al., 2013; Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2014; Sprott, 2019), while learning their profession, teachers are going through four developmental stages—the instrumental, socializing, self-authoring, or self-transforming stages.

In these different learning stages, the individual teacher is expected to require different types of support (Drago-Severson, 2016). In the instrumental stage, teachers are primarily driven by external rule-based systems; they want to do things the “right” way. For this reason, educators are faced with expectations of clear-cut rules, norms, and guidance for right conduct. In the socializing stage, teachers focus on interpersonal needs; they find meaning through the approval of other teachers and their superiors. This can be supported by positive examples of high-performing colleagues and by affirmative comments from the educational administration or research. The first two stages could be understood as learning a new concept and learning about other users and models for good performance.

In the last two stages, teachers as learners start creating their own model and convictions. Self-authoring learners possess strong “internal authority” and view conflict as something that is natural and enriches their ability to reach organizational goals (Sprott, 2019). Here the learners not only know the concept, but they are so experienced with it that they are no longer dependent on the social acceptance of the model. Finally, at the stage of self-transforming learning, learners can handle high levels of complex ambiguity. They possess an elevated ability to harmonize their meaning-making systems with others (Sprott, 2019; Drago-Severson, 2009). The self-transformational learning augments teachers’ cognitive, affective, interpersonal, and intrapersonal capacities (Weiner & Lamb, 2020; see also Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2014) that are essential also in EE practices.

To understand the teachers’ ability to adopt entrepreneurship education in their teaching and perform at a professional level in their tasks, we look at the stages (Drago-Severson, 2009) of professional development. However, we stress the first two stages because of their importance in containing the inherent elements which inhibit the adoption of entrepreneurship education. The first stage is related to its position as an educational model, philosophy, ideology, or even a policy reform. For many teachers, this new entrant is not welcome; it is not helpful in their daily practice. On the contrary, it seems to increase the teachers’ workload. In this sense, offering teachers information about entrepreneurship education faces a reluctant audience. Direct organizational requests for the teachers’ participation have often been required to ensure that this learning stage even takes place at all.

In the second stage, the social legitimacy of the new entrant seems to be the decisive element. For majority of teachers, entrepreneurship education represents a new entrant, an innovation, or even an educational reform (Kirsten, 2020; see also Stoll et al., 2006) as a change. As such, it is natural that teachers are not naturally inclined towards EE but rather are suspicious of it. Ben-Peretz (2001) suggested that for teacher educators, the introduction of new environmental demands and educational standards for teachers facing their inherent professional needs seems an impossible task. In this sense, the teachers’ professional vulnerability in educational reforms (Kelchtermans, 2005; Foliard et al., 2018; Kirsten 2020) grows in importance.

Quantitative Methodology

This study is conducted by using data collected via the Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship Education (MTEE) in 2011–2017. The MTEE is a research-based self-assessment tool measuring teachers’ entrepreneurship education practice (Ruskovaara, 2014a). It is an open access, online, self-assessment questionnaire that is designed for primary and secondary school teachers and it has been utilized since 2010 (Ruskovaara, 2014a). The tool assesses teacher’s competence in entrepreneurship education by measuring the methods and practices applied via 140 questions. The contents and understandability of the MTEE was carefully secured in a long development process with test groups, and its reliability and validity have been tested (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2015). The aim of the self-assessment tool is to introduce EE concepts and develop teachers’ awareness; and at the same time to collect data for scientific purposes. In the empirical study we selected nine EE practices for analyzing the change in teachers’ EE conduct by frequency. The informants consisted of a selection of teachers (n = 309) who responded to the questionnaire on two occasions. Some of the teachers responded more than two times but to measure the change of these teachers’ practices we analyzed the first and last response of each of these teachers. The time between the two responses was 662 days on average.

Context in Finland

As a research context, entrepreneurship education in the curriculum is a special case in Finland. Entrepreneurship education has been defined as a cross-curricular theme to be embedded in all subjects at all levels of primary and secondary education already since 1994. In line with the future generation workforce (OECD, 2018) the Finnish primary and secondary education curriculum emphasizes a work orientation with EE aims, methods, and contents (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2013b). According to the employment statistics in Finland for 2017, the total number of primary and secondary school teachers was 70,247 (Saari & Anttila, 2019). Further, teachers must have a formal qualification as defined in law (Ministry of education and culture 1999).

Measuring Entrepreneurship Education Practices

To observe the teachers’ education practices, we measured their use of different entrepreneurship education teaching methods. In this analysis, nine items were used (see below). The items were generated based on earlier evidence on teachers’ EE practices (Ruskovaara, 2014a). In the responses, the teachers estimated how many times during the past 6 months (frequency) they had utilized any of the following entrepreneurship education contents and methods:

Used entrepreneurship stories: Entrepreneurship-related narratives play a growing role in entrepreneurship education, allowing students an opportunity to mirror and identify the emotions, challenges, and success real-world entrepreneurs face. The stories themselves are real-life cases that allow students be analytical and/or even creative (Gartner, 2007; Fletcher, 2007; Shepherd, 2004).

Arranged a field trip to a business enterprise: Company visits are useful for many purposes during the school year. For example, companies are authentic learning environments and can be used to enhance learning (Cope & Watts, 2000; Cope, 2005; Matlay & Carey, 2007; Draycott & Rae, 2011; Powell, 2013; Sommarström et al., 2017), and they can enhance students’ understanding of the outside world.

Invited an entrepreneur to present his or her work in the school: Entrepreneurs visiting schools contribute as real role models for EE (Pittaway & Hannon, 2008; Shepherd, 2004; Solomon, 2007) and enhance students’ understanding of the outside world.

Arranged sales stands, canteens, or the like with students: According to Blenker et al., (2011), entrepreneurship as an everyday practice (such as setting up sales stands or canteens) augments the students’ ability to handle the diversity and complexity of common life issues. They stress that practicing from early on will develop the student’s mindset toward new opportunities in context.

Enabled students’ own projects: Project work enables students to carry out activities themselves (Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2013a). Project works allow students to actively engage in the design, implementation, and evaluation of their achievements. Upon completion, the students’ reflection on successes and failures act as learning lessons (Gibb, 2002).

Enabled real-world working assignments: Project assignments with real enterprises have resulted in positive outcomes (Cooper et al., 2004; Pittaway & Cope, 2007; Solomon, 2007; Richardson & Hynes, 2008; Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2014b). Kohl (2009) suggests that authentic company assignments develop students’ range of communication and preparation skills necessary for teamwork (Garnett et al., 2016). Furthermore, real experience develops resilience to cope with uncertainty, strengthens problem-solving skills and understanding of controlled risks (Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2014b).

Had students complete a business idea assignment: Business idea assignments are widely used in EE (Gibb, 2002; Neck & Greene, 2011). Solomon (2007) argues that drafting a business plan assignment is one of the most popular approaches in entrepreneurship education.

Enabled students to create a practice enterprise or a business of their own: Initiatives like “Year as an entrepreneur” and “Junior Achievement” (JA Finland, 2021) give students a true experience in entrepreneurship. The usefulness of authentic learning settings has been highlighted by researchers (Powell, 2013; Neck & Greene, 2011).

Organized a theme day or study module related to entrepreneurship: Theme days and study modules related to entrepreneurship (Gartner, 2007; Shepherd, 2004) are smaller or larger entities often involving experimental learning approaches (Kolb, 1984).

Apart from entrepreneurship stories, inviting an entrepreneur to the classroom and student-led business idea assignments (Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2014b), all the other items emphasize the teacher’s role as a facilitator (Foliard et al., 2018). The quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS software. First, the general descriptive studies and mean values from the individual teachers’ first and last measurements for the nine selected items are analyzed. Following this, the change between the means together with the respondent distribution between different items were examined. After that, we continued with a cluster analysis and finally analyzed the teachers’ distribution in different clusters.

Results

Our data was collected from 309 teachers from primary and secondary education (see Table 1) who responded twice to the MTEE questionnaire. Of the respondents, 217 (70.2%) were women and 92 (29.8%) were men. The work experience of the teachers was quite evenly distributed, representing teachers with just a few and more years of teaching practice. The data represents teachers from primary and secondary level education including vocational education and training (VET). In the survey, the teachers reported the amount of entrepreneurship education training they had received by selecting from a choice of none, some training days or many training sessions. The measure reflects the respondents’ own assessment of their participation in EE-related training. The share of teachers who have had no training in entrepreneurship education was quite high: 35.6%. From this perspective, it seems that the data is not severely biased toward teachers who would be positively familiar with entrepreneurship. On the other hand, almost half of the respondents 45.6 % had participated in some entrepreneurship education training—which was to be expected, as EE is part of the national curriculum and teachers are expected to follow it.

Table 1.

Respondent characteristics.

Characteristics	Category	N	%
All		309	100
Gender	Men	92	29.8
Gender	Women	217	70.2
Participation in EE training	None	110	35.6
	Some	141	45.6
	Much	58	18.8
Work experience	0–5 years	50	16.2
	6–10 years	54	17.5
	11–20 years	115	37.2
	21–30 years	71	23.0
	Over 31 years	19	6.1
School level	Primary education	200	64.7
	Secondary education—General	41	13.3
	Secondary education—VET	68	22.0

Table 2 shows the results from the first and second measurement by the same respondents. The results indicate that in the first measurement, the most popular methods of EE were entrepreneurship-related stories, students’ own projects, and business idea assignments. Storytelling and business idea assignments represent a lightweight in-class method that is considered teacher-led and requires only a few resources (Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2014b). In that sense, it not surprising that these assignments score highest in the study.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics of the EE practices (n = 309).

	First measurement		Second measurement		Change
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean
Entrepreneur stories	5.08	7.77	5.50	7.73	+.42
Students’ own projects	3.28	5.66	3.18	5.23	-.1
Business idea assignment	2.74	6.22	3.25	7.12	+.51
Company visits	2.35	4.83	2.47	5.09	+.12
Org. sales stands, canteens, etc.	2.30	4.75	2.50	5.44	+.2
Practice enterprise or own business	2.26	5.72	2.33	5.93	+.07
Entrepreneur day	2.13	5.09	2.72	6.46	+.59
Real-world working assignments	2.06	4.90	2.42	6.02	+.36
Entrepreneur visits to school	1.43	4.19	1.64	4.43	+.21

In table 2, the means refer to the actual number of times teachers have used the practice during the last six months.

To understand the teacher’s change (Ben-Peretz, 2011; see also Clarke & Hollingsworth 2002) in entrepreneurship education activities within the earlier explained context, we calculated the difference between the first and second measurements (see Table 2). In most of the measured practices, the change is somewhat modest, yet positive. It seems that all but one of the measures scored higher in the second than the first measurement. The growing number of practices is good news for entrepreneurship education, although it does not say anything about the quality of the used practices. Especially entrepreneur days, business ideas or plans, and storytelling grew in popularity. The percentage of entrepreneurs’ visits to school and student company visits grew somewhat, as did organizing sales stands and canteen activities. Only the students’ own project work activities received a lower score, although the difference is minimal.

In Table 2, the means refer to the actual number of times teachers have used the practice during the last 6 months.

Next, we analyzed the respondent distribution in their use of entrepreneurship practices (see Table 3). This table shows that the development in how teachers used the different methods is rather uneven in primary and secondary education. That is, in the case of utilizing entrepreneur stories—which is the most popular approach to entrepreneurship education—one-third of the teachers reported lower frequencies, while only 29% reported their level of storytelling to be the same, and 37% increased the use of stories in EE. On the other hand, the frequency of making business plans, having entrepreneur visits to schools, engaging in real projects, and visiting real enterprises seems more stable, with more than 50% of the teachers implementing these activities at the same level of use.

Table 3.

Respondent distribution in the use of EE practices development (n = 309).

	Reduced%		Unchanged%		Increased%
Entrepreneur stories	103	33.3	91	29.4	115	37.2
Students’ own projects	103	33.3	95	31.1	110	35.6
Company visits	84	27.2	127	41.1	98	31.7
Entrepreneur day	75	24.3	146	47.2	88	28.5
Org. sales stands, canteens	75	24.3	150	48.5	84	27.2
Business idea assignment	60	19.4	168	54.4	81	26.2
Entrepreneur visits to school	63	20.4	172	55.7	74	23.9
Real-world working assignments	70	22.7	172	55.7	67	21.7
Own enterprise	58	28.8	187	50.5	64	20.7

The analysis was continued with a cluster analysis, in which we used the calculated change in EE practices. The cluster analysis led to a three-cluster model (see Table 4) that reveals three distinct teacher groups in terms of applying entrepreneurship education. The first cluster consists of 85 people. In this cluster, all items showed a positive change: stories, company visits, theme days, and entrepreneur visits got high positive values. These items can be considered less arduous in the planning and implementing phases. Therefore, the respondents in this cluster can be labeled EE experimenters. The second cluster is characterized by negative development in all EE practices, meaning a more frequent use of these methods in the first than in the second measurement. The cluster consists of 110 teachers’ responses. Interestingly, the students’ own projects and the entrepreneur days received the highest reductions. This group of teachers could be labeled EE critics. Compared to the two other clusters, the third cluster of 114 teachers shows an uneven profile, with both increasing and decreasing scores for EE practices. This group especially increased the use of students’ own projects (cluster centroid 0.61), while they reduced the use of entrepreneur stories. In that sense, they seemed to emphasize the students’ own activities through entrepreneurship while spending less time on teacher-led knowledge about entrepreneurship. Furthermore, larger projects can be more time-consuming to plan and to execute than single company visits or simply inviting visitors into the school. The rest of the items show quite a stable development. The cluster could be labeled EE selectors.

Table 4.

A three-cluster solution concerning development in EE practices (n=309).

	EE Exper.	EE critics	EE selectors
	Cl. 1 (85)	Cl. 2 (110)	Cl. 3 (114)	F value
Practices
Entrepreneur stories	.86	−.17	−.37	39.64***
Company visits	.65	−.34	−.04	26.68***
Entrepreneur visits to school	.49	−.25	−.03	22.36***
Org. sales stands, canteens	.41	−.37	.13	18.08***
Students’ own project	.24	−.75	.61	41.45***
Real-world working assignments	.28	−.35	.10	16.03***
Business idea assignment	.47	−.24	.06	29.19***
Own enterprise	.35	−.27	.05	19.99***
Entrepreneur day	.50	−.40	.00	40.53***

					Total
Gender %	Men	33.7	31.5	34.8	100
	Women	24.9	37.3	37.8	100

	Men	36.5	26.4	28.1
	Women	63.5	73.6	71.9
	Total	100	100	100
					Total
EE training %	None	24.1	32.8	43.1	100
	Some	28.4	36.2	35.5	100
	Much	32.7	40.4	26.9	100

	None	32.9	34.5	43.9
	Some	47.1	46.4	43.9
	Much	20.0	19.1	12.3
	Total	100	100	100
					Total
Work experience %	0–5 years	28.0	28.0	44.0	100
	6–10 years	24.1	33.3	42.6	100
	11–20 years	26.1	39.1	34.8	100
	21–30 years	32.4	39.4	28.2	100
	Over 31 years	26.3	26.3	47.4	100

	0–5 years	16.5	12.7	19.3
	6–10 years	15.3	16.4	20.2
	11–20 years	35.3	40.9	37.2
	21–30 years	27.1	25.5	17.5
	Over 31 years	5.9	4.5	7.9
	Total	100	100	100

The abbreviated Exper. signifies the Cluster 1. The Experimenters.

To conclude, we analyzed the teacher distribution in the three clusters. Table 4. shows the distribution of teachers according to three background measures: gender, teacher training, and work experience. In terms of gender, the teachers seemed quite evenly distributed between the three clusters. However, the analysis of teachers’ participation in EE training revealed three interesting findings. First, more than 67% of the teachers in Cluster 1 (the experimenters) had had at least some EE training. This seems to be in line with earlier findings and EE training had an important role in supporting EE practices (Ruskovaara, 2014a). In terms of work experience, different groups seemed quite equally represented in the first cluster. Second, the finding regarding Cluster 2 is that the teachers in Cluster 2 (the critics) seemed to have a lot of working experience and they had participated in several EE training events (over 70% had had EE training). However, they are reducing their EE practices. Third, more than 43% of the teachers in Cluster 3 (the selectors) had had no EE training, and simultaneously the cluster seems to have the shortest work experience. Interestingly, in all the clusters majority of teachers had participated in at least “few” EE training events, while the second biggest category was “none” for their participation. Moreover, the “selectors” cluster had the highest number of cluster members. Finally, the analysis of teachers’ work experience shows an interesting finding: the “EE experimenters” had of the least experience as teachers, whereas the “EE selectors” in general had the most experience.

Discussion

Our research question was: How do teachers develop professionally in implementing entrepreneurship education? In the absence of generally accepted entrepreneurship education paradigms and theory (Fiet, 2001a; 2001b; Kuratko, 2005; Blenker et al., 2011; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Penaluna et al., 2012; Lackeus, 2013; Ruskovaara, 2014a), it is not a surprise that teachers are confused about EE. As teachers are central in delivering EE in schools, understanding teachers’ professionalization in EE is vital for promoting the implementation of EE.

Our empirical study validates an overall positive change in Finnish primary and secondary level teachers. It reveals that all but one of the nine variables measuring EE practices attained higher scores in the second than in the first measurement. Even though our results align with earlier findings that EE in general is progressing among teachers in Finland (Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2013), the analysis suggests that the ascending development is not straight forward but contains multiple conflicting streams.

The three-cluster model reveals differences in teachers’ EE practices. The smallest group of teachers, “experimenters,” seemed to increase their EE practices in all measures. At the same time, a sizeable group of “critics” seemed to reduce their use of EE in all measures, and the third group, “selectors,” directed their EE efforts away from teacher-led instruction towards more student-driven practices. We suggest that this finding is integrative and deeply related to the different professional development status of the teachers at different professional development stages, suggested by Drago-Severson (2009).

The first cluster showed an increase in all measurements of EE practices, and majority of teachers had received EE training. In that sense, the cluster reflects the “model teacher” for EE training. The training provides EE knowledge on contents and methods, which then leads to an increase in EE practices. The early instrumental and socializing stages of professional development (Drago-Severson, 2009) are regarded as an educational model, philosophy, ideology, or even policy reform, as a new entrant.

These teachers seem to be at the instrumental stage of their professional development (Drago-Severson, 2009), and they show a strong commitment to applying EE in their work. Their commitment, however, may be dependable on the social and institutional support they receive from their colleagues and leaders (Murphy et al., 2006). Should they not receive social support from their peers or superiors, their EE performance might become lower, and there is a possibility of abandoning it. Thus, it is evident that the adoption of EE practices requires more support and reflection through explicit activities (Vesper & Gartner, 1997) during the instrumental and socializing stages of the teachers’ professional development (Drago-Severson, 2009; Sprott, 2019). Without reflecting on their own EE learning practices with peers or superiors, teachers may not realize the relevance of EE to their future teaching, and they feel uncomfortable with it (Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007).

The second cluster of teachers shows a decrease in their EE practices. Teachers in this cluster had received a sizeable amount of EE training and had used different methods of EE previously quite actively. In the second stage, social legitimacy seems to be the decisive element among teachers, not so much a compulsory, but rather in a sense of a social duty. For most teachers, entrepreneurship education represents an innovation, an educational reform or a systematic change that pulls teachers in multiple directions (Kennedy, 2010).

It seems that this cluster of teachers represents the second stage of the professional development model (Drago-Severson, 2009; Sprott, 2019) referred to as the socializing stage by Drago-Severson (2009). After the introductory phase, the teachers may face competence-related problems, professional vulnerability, or lack of social or institutional support. If the support is not available, the adoption of the new educational reform may be unsuccessful (see also Sprott, 2019). Reasons for the teachers reducing their EE practices can be various. For example, there may have been trailblazers and initially interested, who after some time found an alternative theme. On the other hand, the reduction in EE practices may be traced to school leadership. Even if headteachers do not actually take part in EE instruction, active leadership has an effective role in encouraging, planning, and implementing learning activities for teachers along the curricula guidelines (Murphy et al., 2006).

The third cluster of teachers seemed to apply more advanced EE methods, bearing close resemblance to the professional development of self-authoring or self-transforming suggested by Drago-Severson (2009), where teachers adjust their approach and show high internal authority in choosing their own EE methods. Surprisingly, more than 40% of teachers in this cluster had received no EE training. In that sense, their capability for selecting the student-oriented EE methods was based on something other than teacher training on EE.

Finally, teachers at the highest levels of professional development in terms of mastering EE form an interesting group for further analysis. It is evident that there are no clear educational paths or programs supporting the whole EE process, from the introductory to self-transforming professional development stage. It is important to find out how these teachers have mastered EE practices on their professional paths.

Following the model of professionalization (Sprott, 2019) suggests that the role of legitimacy is likely to vary at different professional learning stages. For the teachers’ adoption of EE, legitimacy seems to be essential in the first two stages of their professional development while in the latter two stages, teachers carry out intentional experiments and find their own solutions that run against the generally accepted truths. In this context, school leadership has a key role to play supporting teachers in their professional development (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2014) in EE and in terms of legitimizing the adoption of EE (Foliard et al., 2018).

According to our measurement analysis, this difference between the earlier and later stages of professional teacher development seems to confirm that there are variations in teachers’ (n = 309) EE practices. The overall change is positive but modest. Analysis of the change in the use of different EE practices showed an uneven application of the methods and led to clustering the teachers into three groups according to the changes which had occurred in their practices.

The earlier EE research relies on the idea that providing teachers with tools for understanding the concepts, contents, and methods of entrepreneurship education will lead to its successful adoption in teaching (Foliard et al., 2018; Ruskovaara, 2014a; Lackeus, 2013; Hargreaves, 2010). However, when learning their profession, teachers go through four stages of professional developmental learning: instrumental, socializing, self-authoring, or self-transforming (Drago-Severson, 2009; Sprott, 2019).

To summarize our findings, the different professional development learning stages suggested by Drago-Severson (2009) seem to integrate and relate to teachers adopting entrepreneurship education. It integrates evidence with the earlier studies of the effectiveness of teachers’ professional development (Gore et al., 2017) as well as entrepreneurship education practices. The study highlights the importance of peers and superiors’ support while learning to apply any new pedagogical practices (Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007) on instrumental and socializing stages (Drago-Severson, 2009; Sprott, 2019).

Conclusion

Our empirical study reveals that the adoption of EE integrates with the different professional development status of the teachers at different learning stages of professional development suggested by Drago-Severson (2009). It contributes to the EE literature by introducing the new typology of teachers’ ability to absorb EE. In this study we categorize teachers as EE experimenters, EE critics and EE selectors.

By responding to research needs in teachers’ professional development in EE (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010; Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2014b; Fayolle et al., 2016), this study highlights the important role of the introductory stage of professional learning and development. Teachers seem to respond to this introduction ideally, even devotedly trying out every method measured in this study. In addition, while recent studies have sought teachers’ legitimization of EE (Fayolle et al., 2016; Foliard et al., 2018), our study reveals that teachers may have multiple opportunities for gaining their first insights into EE. Further, a lack of the right kind of support (Drago-Severson, 2009) and limited motivation to change (Anghelache & Bentea, 2012; Fischer et al., 2018) may have a contrary effect on teachers’ professional development. These issues are a big challenge for EE teacher training and for headteachers leading their staff in schools.

Therefore, to systematically build EE capacity in schools, it is essential to seek a deeper understanding of what eventually leads to enhanced teacher professionalization concerning EE. Observing multiple positive streams (Flyvbjerg, 2006) will reveal details about teachers’ learning paths (Avalos, 2011; Willemse et al., 2015). This study calls for further in-depth research to recognize the kind of support required during the different professionalization stages. The teachers’ work experience played a critical role in the adoption of EE and thus we suggest further studies. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that teachers’ motivation plays a role in the uptake of EE at schools. While there is a limited number of studies targeting teachers’ motivation, we suggest that further studies are needed to uncover the relationship between teachers’ professionalization, motivation, and the implementation of EE. In addition, an alignment of the teachers’ development in EE practices and students’ progression could reveal the real status of teacher professionalization and thus warrants further study. The teachers’ professionalization in EE, and distinguishing how teachers organize their practices are central to successful change (Härkki et al., 2021) in the adoption of EE.

Limitations

As with any study, this study also has its limitations. First, the findings are from Finland and are country specific. Many countries are developing their entrepreneurship education policies, but at distinctive paces, meaning that international data would suffer from validity problems. By focusing on Finland, we study the first European Union country that embedded EE in curricula (European Commission, 2002). In Finland, EE has been part of national curricula since 1994 (Ruskovaara, 2014a). From this perspective, the results may provide interest and value to the international audience and a general lesson to learn. Second, from a theoretical perspective, we have built our analysis on the model by Drago-Severson’s (2009) professional learning stages. It is likely that using other models such as constructivist and social learning theories would provide further insights into teachers’ professional development in EE. We recommend that future studies should utilize the available alternative theoretical approaches. Third, as the present study builds on self-reported data, our results may suffer from problems of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, the standard deviations for each research item are quite large, which reflects the low social desirability of certain answers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID id

Lea Oksanen

Note

References

Anghelache

Bentea

(2012). Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards professional activity. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51(33), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.139

Avalos

(2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and in teacher education over ten years. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007

Ben-Peretz

(2001). The impossible role of the teacher educators in a changing world. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052001005

Ben-Peretz

(2011). Teacher knowledge. What is it? how do we uncover it? What are its implications for schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.015

Birdthistle

Hynes

Fleming

(2007). Enterprise education programmes in secondary schools in Ireland: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Education + Training, 49(4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910710754426

Blenker

Korsgaard

Neergaard

Thrane

(2011). The questions we care about: Paradigms and progress in entrepreneurship education. Industry & Higher Education, 25, 6, 417–427. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2011.0065

Clarke

Hollingsworth

(2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(02)00053-7

Cooper

Bottomley

Gordon

(2004). Stepping out of the classroom and up the ladder of learning. An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Industry & Higher Education, 18(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000004773040924

Cope

(2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x

10.

Cope

Watts

(2000). Learning by doing – an exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6(3), 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550010346208

11.

Desimone

L. M.

(2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: toward better conceptualizations and measures, Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08331140

12.

Desimone

L. M.

Porter

A. C.

Garet

M. S.

Yoon

K. S.

Birman

B. F.

(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081

13.

Drago-Severson

(2009). Leading adult learning; supporting adult development in our schools. Corwin Press.

14.

Drago-Severson

(2016). Teaching, learning and leading in today’s complex world: reaching new heights with a developmental approach. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(1), 56–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1096075

15.

Drago-Severson

Blum-DeStefano

(2014). Leadership for transformational learning: A developmental approach to supporting leaders’ thinking and practice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 9(2), 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775114527082

16.

Drago-Severson

Blum-DeStefano

Asghar

(2013). Learning and leading for growth: Preparing leaders to support adult development in our schools, Journal of School Leadership, 23(6), 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461302300602

17.

Draycott

Rae

(2011). Enterprise education in schools and the role of competency frameworks. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 17(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551111114905

18.

European Union/EACEA/Eurydice (2016). Entrepreneurship education at school in Europe. Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2797/731298.EC-02-16-104-EN-E.

19.

Fayolle

Gailly

(2008). From craft to science: teaching models and learning. Processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), 569–593. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810899838

20.

Fayolle

Verzat

Wapshott

(2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616649250

21.

Fenstermacher

Berliner

(1983). A conceptual framework for the analysis of staff development. santa monica: Rand corporation. Document number: N-2046-NIE. Retrieved December 21st, 2019, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N2046.html

22.

Fellnhofer

(2019). Toward a taxonomy of entrepreneurship education research literature: A bibliometric mapping and visualization. Educational Research Review, 27, 28–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.10.002

23.

Fiet

J. O.

(2001a). The Theoretical Side of Teaching Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00041-5

24.

Fiet

J. O.

(2001b). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00042-7

25.

Fischer

Fishman

Dede

Eisenkraft

Frumin

Foster

Lawrenz

Levy

A. J.

McCoy

(2018). Investigating relationships between school context, teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a nationwide science reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.011

26.

Fletcher

(2007). “Toy story”: The narrative world of entrepreneurship and the creation of interpretive communities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.10.001

27.

Flyvbjerg

(2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363

28.

Foliard

Pontois

S. L.

Fayolle

Diermann

(2018). The legitimacy of teachers in entrepreneurship education: What we Can learn from a literature Review. In Higgins

Jones

McGowan

(Eds.) Creating Entrepreneurial Space: Talking Through Multi-Voices, Reflections on Emerging Debates(pp. 7–23). Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research, 9A, Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2040-72462018000009A001

29.

Garnett

(2013) Enterprise pedagogy in music: An exploration of multiple pedagogies. Music Education Research, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2012.703175

30.

Garnett

Abraham

(2016). Using work-based and work-applied learning to enhance the intellectual capital of organization. Journal of Work-Applied Management 8(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/jwam-08-2016-0013

31.

Gartner

W. B.

(2007). Entrepreneurial narrative and a science of the imagination. Journal of Business Venture, 22(5), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.10.003

32.

Gibb

A. A.

(1996). Entrepreneurship and small business management. Can we afford to neglect them in twenty-First business schools? British Journal of Management, 7(4), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00121.x

33.

Gibb

(2000a). Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship. Living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity. Industry and Higher Education, 16(3),135–148. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000002101296234

34.

Gibb

A. A.

(2000). SME policy, academic Research and the growth of ignorance, mythical concepts, myths, assumptions, rituals and confusions. International Small Business Journal, 18(3), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242600183001

35.

Gibb

(2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship ’paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews 4(3), 233–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00086

36.

Gibb

(2005). The future of entrepreneurship education: Determining the basis for coherent policy and practice? In Kyrö

Carrier

(Eds.), The Dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context, Entrepreneurship education series 2/2005, University of Tampere, Research Center for Vocational and Professional Education, 44–67.

37.

Gore

Lloyd

Smith

Bowe

Ellis

Lubans

, (2017). Effects of professional development on the quality of teaching: Results from a randomised controlled trial of quality teaching rounds. Journal of Teacher and Teaching Education, 68, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007

38.

Hargreaves

(2010). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: History and Practice, 6(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/713698714.

39.

Hargreaves

(2010). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: History and Practice, 6(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/713698714.

40.

Härkki

Vartiainen

Seitamaa-Hakkarainen

Hakkarainen

(2021). Co-teaching in non-linear projects: A contextualised model of co-teaching to support educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education 97(7), 10318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103188.

41.

Jones

(2010). Entrepreneurship Education: Revisiting our role and purpose. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), 500–513. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001011088697

42.

Jones

Matlay

, (2011). Understanding the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education: going beyond gartner. Education + Training, 53(8/9), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911111185026

43.

Junior Achievement/JA Finland (2021). Retrieved April 15th, 2021, from https://nuoriyrittajyys.fi/en/info/

44.

Katz

J. A.

(2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of the American entrepreneurship education 1876-1999. Journal of Business Venturing 18(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(02)00098-8

45.

Kegan

(1982). The evolving self: Problems and process in human development. Harvard University Press.

46.

Kegan

(1994). Over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press.

47.

Kelchtermans

(2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micro-political literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.009

48.

Kennedy

M. M.

(2004). Reform ideals and teachers’ practical intentions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(13). Retrieved August 25th, 2019, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n13/L. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n13.2004

49.

Kennedy

M. M.

(2010). Against boldness. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347876

50.

Ketelaar

Beijaard

Boshuizen

H. P. A.

Den Brok

P. J.

(2012). Teachers positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sensemaking and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.004

51.

Kirsten

(2020). A systematic research review of the teachers’ professional development as a policy instrument. Educational Research Review, 31, 100366, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100366

52.

Kohl

(2009). The herb kohl reader: Awakening the heart of teaching. The New Press.

53.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984): Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

54.

Kuratko

D. F.

(2005). The emergency of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00099.x

55.

Lackeus

(2013). Developing entrepreneurial competencies: An action-based approach and classification in education, Division of Management of Organizational Renewal and Entrepreneurship, Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology. ISSN: 1654-9732 Licentiate Thesis. Retrieved December 21^st, 2019, from http://vcplist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lackeus-Licentiate-Thesis-2013-Developing-Entrepreneurial-Competencies.pdf

56.

Löbler

(2006). Learning entrepreneurship from constructive perspective. Technology Analysis Strategic Management, 18(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320500520460

57.

Matlay

Carey

, (2007). Entrepreneurship education in UK: A longitudinal perspective. Journal of Small Business Enterprise and Development, 14(2), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000710746682

58.

Ministry of Education and Culture. (1999). Asetus opetustoimen henkilökunnan kelpoisuusvaatimuksista [Decree on qualification requirements for teaching staff] Voimaantulo: 01.01.1999; jätetty voimaan, ks. [Entry into force: 01.01.1999; submitted in force, see Section] L 531/2017 142 § ja L 714/2018 64 §. Retrieved on April 13th, 2021 from https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/smur/1998/19980986

59.

Murphy

Elliott

S. N.

Goldring

Porter

A. C.

(2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. The Wallace Foundation.

60.

Neck

H. M.

Greene

P. G.

(2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627x.2010.00314.x

61.

OECD . (2018). The future of education and skills education 2030: The future we want, resource document. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved March 21st, 2021, from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%2520Position%2520Paper%2520(05.04.2018).pdf.

62.

Orland-Barak

Yinon

(2007). When theory meets practice: What students teachers learn from guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 957–969. https://orcid.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.005

63.

Penaluna

(2021). Search of entrepreneurial competencies: Peripheral vision and multidisciplinary inspiration. Industry and Higher Education, 35(4), 471–484. https://orcid.org/10.1177/0950422220963796

64.

Penaluna

Jones

(2012). The context of enterprise education: Insights into current practices. Industry and Higher Education, 26(3), 163–175. https://orcid.org/10.5367/ihe.2012.0098

65.

Pittaway

Cope

(2007). Simulating entrepreneurial learning: Integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management and Learning, 38(2), 211–233. https://orcid.org/10.1177/1350507607075776

66.

Pittaway

Hannon

(2008). Institutional strategies for developing enterprise education. A review of some concepts and models. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(1), 202–226. https://orcid.org/10.1108/14626000810850937

67.

Podsakoff

P.M.

MacKenzie

S.B.

Lee

J-Y.

Podsakoff

N.P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://orcid.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

68.

Powell

B. C.

(2013). Dilemmas in entrepreneurship pedagogy. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, In Anitsal

(Ed.), 16, 99–112. Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc

69.

Richardson

Hynes

(2008). Entrepreneurship education: Towards an industry sector approach. Education + Training, 50(3), 188–198. https://orcid.org/10.1108/00400910810873973

70.

Ruskovaara

Pihkala

(2013a). Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: classroom practices. Education + training, 55(2), 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911311304832

71.

Ruskovaara

(2014a). Entrepreneurship Education in Basic and Upper Secondary Education – Measurement and Empirical Evidence Ph.D. thesis. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland. http://lutpub.lut.fi/handle/10024/101021

72.

Ruskovaara

Pihkala

(2014b). Education in Schools: Empirical Evidence on the Teacher's Role. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(3), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.878301

73.

Saari

Attila

(2020). Opettajatiedonkeruu 2019. tutkimusseloste. Tilastokeskus. Retrieved April 2^nd, 2021, from https://www.stat.fi/index_en.html

74.

Seikkula-Leino

(2006). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelmauudistus 2004–2006 ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen kehittäminen. Paikallinen opetussuunnitelmatyö yrittäjyyskasvatuksen näkökulmasta. [The curriculum reform in basic education 2004–2006 and the development of entrepreneurship education] (Publications of Finnish Ministry of Education No. 2006:22. Department of Education and Science Policy. ISBN 952-485-152-0. Yliopistopaino/Universitetstryckeriet

75.

Seikkula-Leino

(2007).Opetussuunnitelmauudistus ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen toteuttaminen [Curriculum reform and the implementation of entrepreneurship education] Publications of Finnish Ministry of Education No. 2007, 28. Department of Education and Science Policy. ISBN:978-952-485-424-5. Yliopistopaino/Universitetstryckeriet

76.

Seikkula-Leino

Ruskovaara

Ikävalko

Mattila

Rytkölä

(2010). Promoting entrepreneurship education: The role of the teacher? Education + Training, 52, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011027716

77.

Seikkula-Leino

Ruskovaara

Ikävalko

Kolhinen

Rytkölä

(2013b). Teachers’ reflections on entrepreneurship education: their understanding and practices. In: Conceptual Richness and Methodological Diversity in Entrepreneurship Research. Edward Elgar publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547310.00015

78.

Seikkula-Leino

Satuvuori

Ruskovaara

Hannula

(2015). How do Finnish teacher educators implement entrepreneurship education? Education + Training, 57(4), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2013-0029

79.

Shane

Venkataraman

, (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://orcid.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611

80.

Shepherd

D. A.

(2004). Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from failure. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 274–287. https://orcid.org/10.5465/amle.2004.14242217

81.

Solomon

(2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168–182. https://orcid.org/10.1108/14626000710746637

82.

Sommarström

Ruskovaara

Pihkala

(2017). Company visits as an opportunity for entrepreneurial learning. Journal of International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 10(3), 298–315. https://doi.org/10.1504/JIBED.2017.08550

83.

Sprott

R.A.

(2019). Factors that foster and deter teacher’s professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 312–331. https://orcid.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.001

84.

Stoll

Bolam

McMahon

Wallace

Thomas

(2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. https://orcid.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8

85.

Vescio

Ross

Adams

(2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning., Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://orcid.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

86.

Vesper

K. H.

Gartner

W. B.

(1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403–421. https://orcid.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00009-8

87.

Watson

(2014). Effective professional learning communities? The possibilities for teachers as agents of change in schools. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 18–29. https://orcid.org/10.1002/berj.3025

88.

Weiner

J. M.

Lamb

A. J.

(2020). Exploring the possibilities and limits to transfer and learning: Examining a teacher leadership initiative using the theory of action framework. Journal of Educational Change, 21(2), 267–297. https://orcid.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09378-z

89.

Willemse

T. M.

Dam

G. T.

Geijsel

van Wessum

Volman

2015). Fostering teachers’ professional development for citizenship education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 118–127. https://orcid.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.008

Adopting Entrepreneurship Education—Teachers ′ Professional Development

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Teachers’ Entrepreneurship Education Practices from a Theoretical Point of View

Teachers’ Professional Development in Entrepreneurship Education as a Learning Process

Quantitative Methodology

Context in Finland

Measuring Entrepreneurship Education Practices

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Limitations

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID id

Note

References