Abstract
Despite the recent recognition of experiential learning as an effective pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets, it still lacks a robust and tailored conceptual foundation primed for adoption in entrepreneurship education (EE). Addressing this deficit, this research integrates action learning and design learning to propose Action Design Learning (ADL) as a bespoke and adaptable framework for experiential learning in EE. ADL fosters entrepreneurial mindsets by placing first- and second-person learning at the core of pedagogy, using emergent entrepreneurial artifacts as focusing devices. Through longitudinal insider action research, the framework is abductively evaluated across two cases in Irish universities, culminating in a functional adaptation primed for adoption. The study reveals that ADL provides a robust conceptual foundation that educators can readily apply in designing and delivering high-impact curricula that foster metacognitive abilities deemed foundational to an entrepreneurial mindset. Consequently, this study contributes to the experiential learning discourse by offering a theoretically grounded pedagogy that overcomes skepticism about the efficacy of this approach in promoting high-impact EE.
Keywords
Introduction
Entrepreneurship education (EE) has recently gravitated toward experiential learning models, which are considered effective for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in university settings (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2020; Nzembayie & Coghlan, 2024; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Experiential learning, characterized by active engagement in concrete experiences followed by critical reflection (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2009), has long been advocated across multiple disciplines as a pedagogy for promoting deep learning (Flanagan, 1954; Gibbs, 1988; Schön, 1983, 1987). It contrasts with traditional pedagogy (i.e., behaviorism) based on knowledge transmission, with learners as passive receivers. As the limitations of traditional approaches become apparent (Bewayo, 2015; Nabi et al., 2017), experiential pedagogies, exemplified by practices such as design thinking and lean startup, have garnered significant interest (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2020; Neck & Corbett, 2018; Neck & Greene, 2011; Schultz, 2022).
However, the theoretical and philosophical foundations upon which such experiential learning practices translate into entrepreneurial mindsets and capabilities remain poorly articulated. Consequently, scholars identify a deficit in conceptual and philosophical foundations that integrate education theories to articulate how learning by experience results in impactful learning outcomes such as mindsets (Bell & Bell, 2020; Hägg & Kurczewska, 2021). Accordingly, Fayolle (2018, p. 692) bemoans the lack of ‘strong intellectual and conceptual foundations, drawing from the fields of entrepreneurship and education’ to strengthen the delivery of entrepreneurial learning outcomes. Poor articulation of conceptual foundations contributes to suboptimal implementation, resulting in incoherent curriculum design, inconsistent assessment of learning outcomes, and skepticism about the efficacy of experiential learning models (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2020; O’Flynn et al., 2023). As such, this study aims to answer the question:
To answer this question, we briefly revisit contemporary debates in the EE literature, focusing on establishing a conceptual alignment between the entrepreneurial process phenomenon and experiential learning. By establishing a pedagogical alignment, we explore the learning outcomes of an experiential learning model, which are the mindsets and the related capabilities they generate. Finally, by combining two experiential pedagogies, action learning (Revans, 1982, 1998) and design learning (Schön, 1992), and aligning them with a solid conceptual understanding of the entrepreneurship phenomenon, we advance action design learning (ADL) as a tailored experiential pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets. Through longitudinal insider action research (Coghlan, 2019), we abductively evaluate its conceptual assumptions through pedagogical practices and student reflections in two Irish universities. The outcome is a functional ADL framework primed for adoption, which we discuss.
Consequently, this study makes three main contributions to the literature on experiential learning in EE. First, it provides ADL as a tailored framework for impactful experiential learning, addressing current deficits related to solid conceptual foundations. Second, it highlights the merits of the recent repositioning of entrepreneurship as a domain of design (Berglund et al., 2020; Dimov et al., 2023), affording clarity by reconceptualizing emergent entrepreneurial artifacts as focusing devices for experiential learning (Berglund & Glaser, 2022; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). Third, it provides entrepreneurship educators with an accessible conceptual framework for the coherent and consistent design of high-impact learning outcomes.
The rest of the paper unfolds as follows.The theoretical background provides a comprehensive literature review, culminating in the positioning and development of ADL as a suitable pedagogy for experiential EE. The methodology section discusses the research design, followed by the findings Section. The discussion section interpretes the findings, leading to a final conclusion.
Theoretical Background
Pedagogical Alignment & Experiential Learning in EE
A body of research argues that traditional pedagogies that dominated the earlier decades of EE, with business plan production and entrepreneurial intentions as outcomes, fail to develop genuine entrepreneurial mindsets and capabilities (Nabi et al., 2017; Schultz, 2022). Consequently, Watson and McGowan (2020) found that six months after graduation, the capabilities of students taught with traditional approaches were mainly limited to business plan production and investor pitching rather than the actual implementation of entrepreneurial projects.
Traditional approaches to EE mainly materialize behaviorism, a theory of pedagogy based on third-person knowledge transmission, with learners as passive receivers. Thus, behaviorism fails to realize pedagogical alignment, a core tenet of most successful curriculum designs. Defined as a logical consistency between the phenomenon being taught or learned, the needs of learners, and the instructional design and methods used to deliver learning outcomes, pedagogical alignment is critical to the legitimacy of formal education programs (Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Reeves, 2006). In recent years, scholars have noted the pedagogical misalignment between behaviorism and its capacity to deliver learning outcomes that prepare students for the practice of real-world entrepreneurship – hence the recent pivot toward experiential learning models (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2020; Nabi et al., 2017).
Pedagogical Alignment: Understanding the Entrepreneurship Phenomenon
To resolve misalignment issues, one must begin by unraveling the true nature of the entrepreneurship phenomenon. First, there is a broad consensus that entrepreneurship is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon defined by action under uncertainty and related imperfections (e.g., resource scarcity) in pursuing opportunities. Hence, McMullen and Shepherd (2006) argue that entrepreneurial action is a product of the amount of uncertainty perceived and the willingness to bear uncertainty. It implies that actors unwilling to bear uncertainty are less likely to act entrepreneurially. Therefore, EE should focus on developing the willingness to act under uncertainty, while bearing the ambiguities that entrepreneurial journeys unravel.
Recent scholarship more concretely articulates action in the pursuit of opportunity as the conceptualization, design, and development of problem-solving artifacts (Berglund et al., 2020; Selden & Fletcher, 2015). Such action is usually collaborative, making co-creation a core assumption in core theories of the entrepreneurial process – e.g., effectuation and bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Sarasvathy, 2001). Therefore, action and interaction involving collaborating agents result in the instantiation of artifacts that materialize entrepreneurial opportunities as solutions to societal problems (Lackéus, 2020). Given that entrepreneurial artifacts represent the interface between actors and their environments, a body of recent scholarship argues that entrepreneurship is a field of design (Berglund et al., 2020; Dimov, 2016, 2020; Dimov et al., 2023; Romme & Reymen, 2018; Seckler et al., 2021; Simon, 1969, 1996).
As design-based co-creation is fundamentally uncertain, it denotes a process marked by nonlinearity and dynamism resulting in three classes of emergent artifacts: abstract, material, and narrative artifacts (Berglund & Glaser, 2022). Abstract artifacts include new venture ideas, while material artifacts refer to physical goods or services including digital products that entrepreneurs create as concrete outcomes of entrepreneurial action. Finally, narrative artifacts consist of business models and pitches that entrepreneurs use to communicate their ideas. Appreciating a design-based perspective in EE is critical as it provides the foundation for effectively adopting experiential learning. Doing so envisions the reframing of entrepreneurial artifacts as focusing devices for experiential learning.
Experiential Re-alignment: Design Thinking & Lean Startup
While the realignment of EE from behaviorist to experiential learning has recently been embraced, the dominance of practices such as design thinking (Brown & Katz, 2011) and lean startup (Ries, 2011), raises questions about their efficacy as pedagogies for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets and capabilities (Schultz, 2022). Scholars caution that the adoption of such pedagogies as models of experiential learning has unfolded without a sound theoretical and philosophical grasp of how mindsets and skill sets are developed through practice (Fayolle, 2018, p. 692; Hägg & Kurczewska, 2021; O’Flynn et al., 2023; Sarooghi et al., 2019). This lack of a robust intellectual foundation threatens to undermine efforts toward re-aligning EE with experiential learning models.
Kolb (1984) establishes the basis of experiential learning through four key elements: concrete experience, reflective observation (Schön, 1983), abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. It denotes experiential learning as an iterative model of pedagogy that begins with experience, followed by mental processing that eventually leads to further action. This model of pedagogy departs from behaviorism, appearing more consistent with the recursive nature of action encapsulated in design-based theories of the entrepreneurship phenomenon. Since entrepreneurial action originates from the inner sanctum of individual cognition and motivation, it favors a model of pedagogy that centralizes concrete experiences at its core and entrepreneurial mindsets as learning outcomes (Dimov & Pistrui, 2022; Nzembayie & Coghlan, 2024). Therefore, a pedagogy that shifts learning from third-person knowledge transmission (behaviorism) to first-person learning that values students’ subjective experiences is better aligned. First-person learning implies the integration of cognitivism in pedagogy, a theory of education that conceptualizes learning as mental processing, typically following concrete experience in practice. Thus, unlike behaviorism, it shifts the object of entrepreneurial learning from external third-person knowledge transmission to mental processes, encapsulating critical reflections that capture and evidence entrepreneurial mindsets in action.
However, since entrepreneurial action is fundamentally collaborative (Sarasvathy, 2001), it suggests that an interactionist model of pedagogy that combines first- and second-person learning as the core of an experiential learning framework appears more robust and tailored to EE. Second-person learning emanates from the meaning we derive from taking co-creating value with others. Collaboration in entrepreneurship takes many forms, such as interacting and working with teams and target audiences and engaging with mentors. It mirrors design principles, which conceptualize entrepreneurial artifacts emerging at the interface between actors and their environment (Berglund et al., 2020; Simon, 1969).
Therefore, second-person learning must blend with first-person learning at the core of a pedagogy that places subjective and intersubjective experiences at the heart of learning. This implies that a tailored experiential learning pedagogy for EE must be underpinned by social constructivism. Social constructivism is an education theory which maintains that learning is inherently social and that interaction with peers, teachers, and the community is essential for developing the skills and mindsets necessary for personal growth (Vygotsky, 1978). As the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey argues, meaning-making through experience is the result of interaction, making education a social process (Dewey, 1944, 1946). Therefore, a robust experiential learning pedagogy for EE must create a space where learners co-create problem-solving artifacts with relevant actors, simultaneously co-constructing their own understanding of the phenomenon.
Nevertheless, since the abstract conceptualizations of experiential learning that arise from collaborative action help learners assert general truths about experiences, a degree of knowledge transmission is necessary. This implies the incorporation of behaviorist learning models by introducing entrepreneurship theories and conceptual frameworks that support students in making meaning of their first and second-person experiences. Thus, a philosophical alignment with pragmatism emerges, depicting a robust experiential pedagogy for EE as an intricate blend of varied entrepreneurship and education theories for impactful learning outcomes.
Outcomes of Experiential Learning: Mindsets & Capabilities
Exactly what learning outcomes experiential pedagogies are meant to cultivate has also suffered from poor conceptual articulation. Recently, scholars have argued that experiential models of pedagogy should focus on developing entrepreneurial mindsets and capabilities as the core of learning outcomes, marking a shift from an overemphasis on intentions and propensities associated with behaviorism (McLarty et al., 2023; Neck & Corbett, 2018). Entrepreneurial mindsets are considered more impactful and aligned because they shape a learner’s capacity to act under various entrepreneurial circumstances. However, what constitutes entrepreneurial mindsets has also suffered from articulation and fragmentation, which in turn contributes to issues of inconsistent assessment of learning outcomes (Daniel, 2016; Fayolle, 2018; Lackéus, 2020). However, research by Kuratko et al. (2021) unveils an entrepreneurial mindset framework that comprises a triad of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional dimensions, increasingly deemed valuable in articulating experiential learning outcomes.
The cognitive dimension of the entrepreneurial mindset framework is of paramount importance. It represents a complex network of mental structures that enable judgments and decisions related to opportunity assessment and action under uncertainty. As identified by Baron (2004), cognitive adaptability is a fundamental aspect of this dimension. It is characterized by flexibility and self-regulation, which are essential in managing dynamic and imperfect entrepreneurial journeys. Similarly, Haynie et al. (2010) conclude that the foundations of an entrepreneurial mindset are metacognitive, with metacognition being implicated in an individual’s capacity for creative problem-solving under challenging circumstances (Hamidi et al., 2008). As Flavell (1979) argues, metacognition relates to being aware of and controlling one’s own thought processes, which helps improve learning and problem-solving. Therefore, as the basis of an entrepreneurial mindset, cultivating strong metacognition materializes increasingly self-aware individuals who can act and reflect to gain insight. Since concrete action and reflection are hallmarks of experiential models of pedagogy (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2009), they cultivate metacognitive abilities through the crucible of concrete action, experimentation, and reflections, which leads to increased self-awareness. Thus, it underscores the importance of first-person learning at the core of a tailored experiential learning pedagogy.
Meanwhile, the
Finally, the
Additionally, Kuratko et al. (2021) point out that emotional self-regulation involves regulating the ego to promote successful outcomes. The entrepreneurial ego manifests a strong internal locus of control, which, although beneficial to entrepreneurial self-efficacy, can lead to excessive control tendencies, undermining the relational aptitude needed for the co-creation of value. Without self-regulation of the ego, collaborator input is perceived as relinquishing control (Sarasvathy, 2001). Therefore, to evaluate the efficacy of experiential learning, educators should examine how students become self-aware and self-regulate against the harmful effects of stress and ego, concurrently avoiding errors in judgment, such as confirmation bias and the escalation of commitment when confronting disconfirming evidence (Kahneman & Tversky, 1977, 1979). Based on the mindset triad, we envisage a first- and second-person core of a tailored experiential pedagogy, where critical reflection on action is central to most forms of assessments. Such pedagogy also uses emerging entrepreneurial artifacts to evaluate the behavioral dimensions of mindset cultivation, which might explain the appeal of design models in EE (Schultz, 2022).
Toward a Tailored Pedagogy for Experiential Learning in EE
Advancing a tailored experiential pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in EE requires a pragmatic combination of various learning modalities, with first- and second-person experiences remaining central. To this end, we combine the relevant facets of two established experiential learning pedagogies, action learning and design learning, into a bespoke framework.
Action Learning
Action Learning (AL) is defined as ‘learning by doing,’ which appears intuitive but belies its profound conceptual and philosophical foundations (Zuber-Skerritt, 2001). This fuzzy definition calls for fine-tuning to be ready for adoption in a specific context (Brook et al., 2012; Coghlan & Coughlan, 2010). Conceptually, AL ascends from Revans's (1982, 1998) works, which encapsulate this approach in the formula
However, tailoring AL as a tool for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in EE presents several challenges. First, educators might struggle to see how AL connects to a general conceptual understanding of the entrepreneurship phenomenon (P), making it challenging to apply and evaluate how it helps cultivate entrepreneurial mindsets. Second, since the quality of AL experiences can vary depending on the educator’s skill and knowledge, it could result in inconsistent application and uneven learning outcomes. Third, the potential for superficial learning exists if critical reflection and feedback processes are not adequately emphasized (Q) at the core of first and second-person learning. Finally, that on which AL experiences are based requires clear articulation to suit the EE context, without which the poor selection of experiential learning projects can impact experiential learning efficacy (Brook et al., 2012).
Thus, AL, in its original form, fails to fully address issues of clear conceptual articulation regarding how knowledge derives from entrepreneurial practice. To this end, we consider design learning a valuable complement to a tailored experiential pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets.
Design Learning
Grounded in the pragmatic philosophy of John Dewey, DL is an iterative pedagogy involving reflective processes in which learners engage in problem solving by creating, manipulating, and evaluating artifacts (Schön, 1992). These artifacts serve as both tools for thinking and concrete representations of ideas, enabling learners to externalize their thought processes and receive feedback from their environment (Gómez Puente et al., 2011, 2013). Through creating and refining these artifacts, learners engage in cycles of action and reflection, facilitating more profound understanding and skill development within a collaborative, social context (Schön, 1983, 1987, 1992). Thus, it adds context to action learning by conceptualizing artifacts as focusing devices for ‘learning by doing’.
Critically, DL is consistent with the notion of entrepreneurship as a form of design discussed above. From this perspective, emerging entrepreneurial artifacts (Selden & Fletcher, 2015) can similarly be conceptualized as focusing devices for experiential learning projects. As Berglund and Glaser (2022) point out, entrepreneurial artifacts typically begin as conceptual artifacts, such as venture ideas, iteratively emerging as narrative and material artifacts in subsequent stages, such as business models and product prototypes. Thus, educators can structure iterations of design learning projects around different classes of emergent entrepreneurial artifacts. Hence, Lahn and Erikson (2016) state that by emphasizing artifact-mediated action, DL may strengthen systematic self-reflection in a tailored experiential pedagogy for EE.
However, while design-based pedagogies, such as design thinking and lean start-up approaches, have attracted interest in EE (Schultz, 2022), this interest has not been matched by a deep understanding of the conceptual and philosophical underpinnings of design in pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets. Instead, they mainly provide a series of design tools and processes such as experimentation, prototyping, and co-creation (Brown & Katz, 2011; Ries, 2011) but stop short of explaining how such design practices cultivate mindsets. Therefore, while DL affords the potential to transform EE, the multitude of frameworks and tools described under this model of pedagogy fails to articulate its unifying logic and how it effectively delivers entrepreneurial learning outcomes (Sarooghi et al., 2019). Thus, integrating the more established AL framework with DL envisions a robust and tailored experiential pedagogy for EE.
Tentative Action Design Learning Framework for Mindset Cultivation
By combining AL with DL, we advance Action Design Learning (ADL) as a tailored conceptual framework for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in EE. We visualize this integration in Figure 1 below, offering a tentative conceptual framework for use in abductive analysis (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). As shown, the framework places subjective first-person learning and intersubjective second-person learning at the core of ADL, with emerging entrepreneurial artifacts as focusing devices for structuring experiential learning experiences. Through increased self-awareness emanating from collaborative action and reflection and feedback encapsulated in emergent artifacts, students harness their metacognitive abilities to become increasingly aware of themselves and self-regulate to achieve shared goals. Thus, metacognitive abilities, deemed foundational to an entrepreneurial mindset, are harnessed as outcomes. Action design learning framework for EE.
Furthermore, by designing entrepreneurial artifacts through hands-on practice, learners cultivate the behavioral dimensions of an entrepreneurial mindset, which is the capacity to rapidly sense and act under the challenges of entrepreneurial journeys (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). Consistent with Lackéus (2020), critical incidents of learning are created, whereby discrepancies emerge between students’ envisioned solutions and disconfirming feedback from end users, which triggers negative emotions and conditions for making poor judgment. Therefore, how students manage such challenging moments of stress and contain their ego toward realizing successful outcomes offers evidence in assessments of entrepreneurial mindsets in action.
Finally, through third-person learning, entrepreneurship theories are introduced, allowing students to gain insight by linking experiences at the core with abstract theories and concepts established in the entrepreneurship literature. Thus, entrepreneurship theories are introduced, such as experimental models of entrepreneurial action (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Brown & Katz, 2011; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Ries, 2011; Sarasvathy, 2001) and the external enablement framework (Davidsson et al., 2020) towards providing conceptual frameworks for aiding the design, enactment, and critical reflection on experiences in artifact co-creation. Similarly, narrative frameworks, such as the business model canvas and personas, can help develop and communicate narrative artifacts at the ADL core. Key theoretical constructs included in the framework are expatiated in a table in Appendix A.
Ultimately, ADL provides a robust experiential learning pedagogy tailored to EE by blending subjective and intersubjective learning at the core with objective learning as supportive and peripheral. Therefore, while rooted in pragmatism and anchored in cognitivist and social constructivist theories of learning, it does not disregard the merits of behaviorism. Subsequently, we empirically explore the fundamental assumptions of our tailored ADL framework through abductive insider inquiry (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).
Methodology
This study employs an insider action research design within a longitudinal framework, focusing on two cases that apply and evaluate ADL principles across Irish universities (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007; Coghlan, 2019; Nzembayie & Buckley, 2020). The multimethod insider research approach integrates three inquiry models (Nzembayie et al., 2019): first-person inquiry through reflective practice (Schön, 1983), second-person collaborative inquiry (Heron & Reason, 2006), and third-person inquiry via an abductive dialogue between data and theory (Coghlan & Shani, 2021; Timmermans & Tavory, 2012; Torbert, 2006). This approach allows native insider researchers (Brannick & Coghlan, 2007) to study their practice through lived experiences in real-time case studies (Berglund, 2007). The two cases occur across different Irish university settings. The first case explored and iteratively examined assumptions of an ADL (Case 1) approach, while the second (Case 2) applied and refined it more deliberately as an approach to EE. Following Eisenhardt (2021, p. 149), case selection was based on access to settings where the focal phenomenon is likely to occur, enhancing theory building through observed similarities and differences. This insider engagement in teaching and research positions researchers to enact, observe, reflect, and learn about best practices in the optimal delivery of EE.
The lead researcher, a serial entrepreneur turned academic, initiated the study in 2021, after noticing the gap between dominant pedagogical practices in EE and his lived entrepreneurial experiences. To address this, he co-inquired with peers and undertook a postgraduate certificate in university learning and teaching between 2021 and 2022, providing the setting for the first case (Case 1). This certification course involved structured reflection with professional educators and peers, promoting rigorous reflective practice (Schön, 1983). The process of documenting and reflecting on critical learning incidents in collaboration with peers continued into Case 2 in a different university setting in the 2022/23 academic year, resulting in a wide variety of data and archival records aiding triangulation and third-person abductive inferencing (Coghlan & Shani, 2021).
Data Collection
Data collection encompassed various recorded accounts. First, the lead educator's application of ADL practices and the documentation of critical learning incidents in a reflective portfolio provided a primary data source (Flanagan, 1954). The reflective portfolio, which included a wealth of rich data, served as an assessment tool required by the teaching certificate program, continuing post-completion. Second, student reflections, corroborated by archival records, were pivotal in demonstrating how the educator's design and delivery, using principles of ADL, impacted the cultivation of entrepreneurial mindsets. The comprehensive data collection and triangulation efforts enhanced the authenticity and trustworthiness of the reflective narratives (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). This study adhered to rigorous ethical standards of both institutions, ensuring compliance with policies on good research practice. All data were anonymized and handled in accordance with institutional guidelines, ensuring participant protection and compliance with ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from students where the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data was included in this article - e.g., Case 1 reflection and supplemental image in Appendix B.
Data Analysis
The study employed thematic narrative analysis to extract findings from rich reflective narratives in Case 1, supported by archival records (Riessman, 2003, 2008). Unlike grounded theory, which fragments data for analysis, thematic narrative analysis is holistic, examining events in their situational and temporal contexts while focusing on emerging themes to aid mechanism-based explanations (Van de Ven, 2007; Ylikoski, 2019). Using this approach, we analyzed reflections from a group of students in Case 1, who initially provided evidence of the potential impact of an ADL approach in cultivating mindsets. Case 2 then uses the critical reflections of a cohort of 32 MSc students, employing thematic analysis to select, extract, and triangulate insights that reinforce and expand on observations in Case 1. By combining educator and student reflections, the study provides mechanism-based explanations regarding how ADL contributes to developing entrepreneurial mindsets in university settings. Thematic analysis was aided by the literature and our tentative conceptual framework in Figure 1, which offered concepts and constructs to focus the search for explanations. To effectively conduct thematic analysis, data reduction began by distilling volumes of rich data into critical event narratives, with theory as a focusing instrument.
Findings
This section presents the results of the study. First, it describes the case settings, which provides a necessary backdrop for understanding the cases. Then, it concisely presents the implementation of ADL principles in pedagogical design, followed by student reflections, which evidenced its effectiveness in cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets. Finally, key challenges are explored through the reflective accounts of the lead researcher.
Case Settings: Pedagogical & Institutional Contexts
Comparison of the Similarities Between Settings of the Two Cases.
As shown, the two cases shared core similarities and several differences linked to institutional setting. In Case 1, two interrelated types of assessments were performed during the 12 weeks – individual and group. The students were tasked with keeping a reflective journal from the very beginning as part of the individual assessment. Experiential learning models from Kolb (1984) and Gibbs (1988) were also introduced on the first day to help structure students’ reflections on critical incidents of learning (Flanagan, 1954). Students initiated new venture ideas (conceptual artifacts), followed by their articulation as business models (narrative artifacts), subsequently enacting, designing, and reflecting on the process of their emergence as prototypes (concrete/material artifacts). As students progressed through the courses and participated in ongoing ADL projects, they were tasked with constantly documenting and reflecting on critical incidents of learning as a core part of assessment.
Case 2 had a similar parameter but involved more mature MSc students. As mature and highly self-motivated students in a dedicated entrepreneurship program, compared to Case 1, students had a clearer idea of what they were trying to achieve from the course and the MSc program. Therefore, they were allowed to do their projects in groups or individually. Individual projects were especially preferred by students who wanted to advance their ventures into full-fledged businesses after completing the program.
Implementation of ADL in Pedagogical Design
Experiential Learning Projects and ADL Implementation.
Entrepreneurial Mindset Cultivation: Analysis of Student Reflections
In Case 1, we sampled a student’s reflections, capturing events undertaken by her group, who took the exercise seriously and achieved outstanding results. Given that entrepreneurship education was an optional course in a degree program other than entrepreneurship, the sample reflection helped signal ADL’s potential in cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets among students with a strong motivation for studying entrepreneurship. Figure 2 presents a narrative thematic analysis of the sample. Thematic narrative analysis in Case 1.
Case 2 enabled us to determine how the deliberate application of ADL principles under more ideal conditions can foster entrepreneurial mindsets. Thus, we explored the entire cohort of 32 student reflections, extracting 10 critical samples to focus our thematic analysis (see Figure 3). The samples were selected because the students’ reflections were among the most critical, as opposed to descriptive. Thematic analysis from Case 2.
Substantial evidence appears between the two cases, showcasing the capacity of an ADL approach to foster the three dimensions of an entrepreneurial mindset.
Interpretation of Results: An Abductive Analysis
The results indicate that ADL contributes to fostering the three dimensions of the entrepreneurial mindset triad: cognitive, behavioral, and emotional (Kuratko et al., 2021). First, the cognitive and behavioral dimensions emerge more strongly as an ADL model engages students in the practice of new venture creation and critical reflection. Metacognition, deemed foundational to an entrepreneurial mindset (Haynie et al., 2010), manifests strongly as increased self-awareness, self-regulation, cognitive adaptability, and critical thinking (Flavell, 1979). As metacognition facilitates sound judgment under uncertainty, it unsurprisingly permeates behavioral and emotional mindset dimensions.
As shown, metacognition enables students to challenge their own assumptions, catch and attend to cognitive traps in decision-making such as ‘confirmation bias’ and ‘sunk cost fallacy’ (Kahneman & Tversky, 1977, 1979), which ultimately leads to sound decision-making under the error-inducing challenges of entrepreneurial journeys (Baron, 1998). For instance, in Case 1, the student states: ‘when I dealt with the customers’ frustrations, I realized that we should not only look at positive things that confirm our idea’. They also state that ‘based on the evaluation of the feedback from our MVP tests, we decided…to change our original idea’. By facing reality and making uncomfortable but sound decisions, students manifest relevant metacognitive abilities needed to adapt to the demands of entrepreneurship journeys (McLarty et al., 2023).
Second, the behavioral dimension of the mindset triad is equally recurrent and strongly integrated with the metacognitive dimension, showcasing the interrelationship between thinking and acting. This is expected, given that relevant cognitions previously discussed materialize through the crucible of rapid sensing, action, and mobilization under uncertainty and resource constraints (Kuratko et al., 2021). In particular, the capacity for venture co-creation and skills in the design of problem-solving artifacts come across in student reflections. This supports the view that experiential learning can foster entrepreneurial behavior through dynamic, interactive learning environments, thereby underscoring the merits of social constructivist theories at the core of ADL (Vygotsky, 1978). As the uncertainty and related constraints of entrepreneurship are replicated through an ADL pedagogy, students report being ‘pushed out of their comfort zone’ deemed critical in fostering resilience, which is critical to dealing with the discrepancies that emerge between expectations and the reality of inherently uncertain entrepreneurial journeys.
Furthermore, the iterative process of developing a minimum viable product (MVP), along with iterations of feedback loops, is shown to materialize the value of ‘design’ within an ADL framework, which cultivates the behavioral mindset dimension. Likewise, by applying third-person theories in context, students develop problem-solving skills using a variety of design tools and principles. For instance, when faced with resource constraints, knowledge of the principles of bricolage helps spur action, stated as follows in Case 1: ‘I learned that you do not always have to have all the necessary tools at your disposal but can improvise’. This mindset spurred action under imperfect circumstances, materializing the behavioral dimension of the mindset triad (Kuratko et al., 2021). Indeed, students’ ability to integrate a variety of third-person knowledge in context is evident as they apply concepts from experimental models of entrepreneurial action - bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005), effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001), and lean start-up (Ries, 2011) as decision-making frameworks, aiding the formulation, enactment, and refinement of problem-solving artifacts.
Finally, although less recurrent, the results also highlight some of the emotional challenges of an entrepreneurial journey that ADL brings out. Thus, students reported feeling stressed across both cases when discrepancies emerged between their assumptions and disconfirming reality. They also indicated a temptation to double down rather than reign in their ego, accept reality, and pivot accordingly. However, by honing their metacognitive abilities, they learn to self-regulate and manage stressful scenarios, eventually accepting reality. Thus, they develop the emotional resilience encapsulated in the entrepreneurial mindset triad, underpinned by related mindsets such as metacognition.
Consequently, this study supports and evidences assumptions in an ADL framework in Figure 1, affording a robust and bespoke experiential learning framework for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in university settings. This critical framework facilitates a structured and meaningful application of experiential learning in EE, blending first and second-person learning at the core with third-person learning as supportive. However, adopting an ADL approach has its fair share of challenges. Hence, an analysis of the educator’s reflections subsequently sheds light on some of these challenges, which should be anticipated and pre-empted.
Challenges in Applying ADL: Student & Educator Perspectives
Challenges of Applying ADL.
This analysis highlights the challenges and benefits of adopting an Action Design Learning (ADL) approach in entrepreneurship education, as reflected in the educator's experiences. The reflection aligns with existing literature, illustrating the complexities of shifting from behaviorist pedagogies to more dynamic experiential learning models. Key points include the need for clear communication of ADL's logic, the importance of reflective practices, the challenges associated with resource intensity, and the rewarding nature of seeing positive student outcomes that can counteract the disadvantages. This analysis emphasizes that while ADL presents significant demands on both students and educators, its potential for deep and transformative learning justifies the effort, requiring adequate institutional support. Based on the results, we subsequently expatiate the conceptual underpinnings of the ADL framework into a functional framework in Figure 4. Functional ADL pedagogy for mindset cultivation.
Discussion
This study aimed to determine how experiential learning can be more effectively articulated and tailored as a pedagogical approach to cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in university settings. It began by exploring relevant entrepreneurship and education theories, leading to a tentative conceptual framework that positions Action Design Learning (ADL) as a suitable and tailored experiential pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in EE (see Figure 1). Through insider action research, which involved applying and documenting ADL principles across two Irish universities, we affirm the value of this approach. Consequently, we develop a functional pedagogical framework at the nexus between theory and empirical results, subsequently presented in Figure 4. This detailed framework charts a process supported by concrete guidelines for operationalizing ADL as a suitable and tailored pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in university settings. We discuss its value as a tool for operationalizing ADL for experiential learning and a curriculum design aid.
Operationalizing ADL for Experiential Learning
As illustrated in Figure 4, implementing experiential learning through ADL (Action Design Learning) involves an iterative process that begins with an initial pre-step and is followed by design cycles, with emergent entrepreneurial artifacts serving as focal devices. This process is structured into four interrelated sections, each defined by the roles of actors and artifacts. The teaching section delineates the role of educators, while the learning section defines the role of students. The evidence section emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurial artifacts in structuring and demonstrating experiential learning outcomes (Berglund & Glaser, 2022). This approach underscores the importance of reframing entrepreneurship as a design-oriented field (Berglund et al., 2020; Dimov et al., 2023; Selden & Fletcher, 2015), wherein entrepreneurial artifacts are reinterpreted as tools for experiential learning. Finally, the learning outcomes section outlines the mindset triad (Kuratko et al., 2021) and the integration of first-, second-, and third-person learning perspectives, which educators should focus on when evaluating student outcomes (see Figure 1).
Empirical evidence from this study suggests that the initial interaction with students (pre-step) is critical for setting the tone for an ADL experience and managing expectations. Given that this approach reverses the traditional model of knowledge transmission (Nabi et al., 2017), which students might be more familiar with, it is crucial to introduce or emphasize models of action and reflection, such as Kolb (1984) and Gibbs (1988), during this initial encounter. Additionally, a brief introduction to ADL’s pedagogical approach and expected learning outcomes is essential, with Figures 1 and 4 also serving as helpful visual communication aids. Experiences from this study indicate that allocating at least 30 minutes to an hour in the first meeting to explain this approach can significantly enhance student understanding of the purpose of this model of pedagogy, thereby increasing engagement.
ADL as Functional Framework for Course & Program Design
The potential application of the ADL framework as a flexible tool for curriculum design and delivery is of critical significance. Rather than being a rigid structure, ADL is a versatile framework that can be adapted to various educational contexts, assisting educators in designing courses and programs that foster entrepreneurial mindsets as lasting outcomes. While ADL is most applicable to designing semester-long courses or multi-year programs, it is flexible enough to accommodate different educational constraints. The number of ADL cycles can be adjusted to fit the specific needs of a short course or an entire entrepreneurship program. However, at a minimum, a pre-step and two ADL cycles are necessary for meaningful mindset development. Therefore, ADL is encapsulating and well-suited to capturing the three key phases of most entrepreneurship and innovation processes: search (initiation), exploitation (action), and outcomes.
Course Design with ADL
When designing a semester-long course using ADL, educators must consider the constraints of the academic calendar. Given the diversity of creative ideas that students may pursue in their ADL projects, the expected learning artifacts will vary and must be assessed accordingly. For instance, developing a fully functional digital prototype, such as software or a website, is more feasible within a semester than creating physical artifacts or services, which require more time and resources. In such cases, narrative artifacts supported by computer-generated prototypes may suffice to elicit necessary feedback from target audiences, while fostering relevant mindsets.
Case 1 exemplifies this approach, where students effectively used computer-generated prototypes (Appendix B) to gather meaningful feedback from their target audiences. This case suggests that entrepreneurship education should include developing basic digital design skills as part of the behavioral dimension of the mindset triad. Non-technical business students in both cases learned to use template-based digital design platforms such as Canva and WordPress to visualize and instantiate their ideas as prototypes, demonstrating their ability to sense and act under entrepreneurial constraints. With the rise of generative AI tools like Midjourney and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, we anticipate that such rapid idea visualization and prototyping will become increasingly accessible and widespread.
Program Design with ADL
When designing an entire program using the ADL framework, it serves as a comprehensive tool for determining the focus of each course or module. For example, a module on Ideation and Business Modeling might prioritize the early stages of the entrepreneurial process, focusing on the search for scalable ideas rather than on prototyping. In such cases, the module would naturally emphasize the pre-step and first cycle of ADL, with narrative artifacts as key deliverables and learning outcomes being focused on specific aspects of the mindset triad, such as metacognitive awareness. Conversely, modules centered on the core of entrepreneurial action, such as New Venture Creation, would focus on later cycles of ADL, assessing learning outcomes related to action under uncertainty and resource constraints. Thus, when designing entire programs, Figure 4 of the ADL framework becomes a valuable tool for identifying and emphasizing relevant components for each module or course.
Moreover, Figure 4’s applicability is even broader for entrepreneurship courses that cover the entire entrepreneurial process in specific contexts such as International Entrepreneurship, Social Entrepreneurship, and Digital Entrepreneurship. Case 2, an international entrepreneurship module within an MSc program, highlights the framework’s utility in facilitating impactful experiential learning through the initiation and enactment of cross-border new venture ideas. Collectively, these cases underscore the effectiveness of the ADL framework as a powerful tool for designing and delivering experiential learning in entrepreneurship education.
Implications for Theory & Practice
This study significantly advances the discourse on experiential pedagogies in entrepreneurship education (EE) across three critical dimensions. First, it addresses the longstanding need for a solid theoretical foundation for experiential learning in EE by introducing and validating ADL (Action Design Learning) as a comprehensive and tailored framework. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of experiential learning, its growth has been stymied by a lack of robust intellectual and conceptual underpinnings (Bell & Bell, 2020; Fayolle, 2018; Hägg & Kurczewska, 2021). Although design thinking and lean startup methodologies have gained traction as experiential learning models (Sarooghi et al., 2019; Schultz, 2022), their limited conceptual and philosophical articulation as tools for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets reveals a significant knowledge gap. This study fills that gap by conceptualizing the ADL framework (Figure 1) and empirically validating its functional application (Figure 4), providing a powerful experiential tool that integrates the design-based perspective of entrepreneurship with action-oriented and design learning theories in education.
Second, this research contributes to the growing repositioning of entrepreneurship as a field of design by presenting ADL as its pedagogical counterpart (Berglund et al., 2020; Dimov et al., 2023). By framing entrepreneurship through a design lens, ADL enables the development of a new foundation for experiential learning where emergent entrepreneurial artifacts – such as new venture ideas, business models, and products – serve as central focusing devices. This approach enhances the consistent articulation of mindsets and competencies essential for evaluating the impact of experiential entrepreneurial learning. Moreover, aligning with the broader calls to expand the mission of EE beyond mere start-up creation to include societal value creation (Lackéus, 2020), ADL supports the cultivation of transformative mindsets coupled with students’ design capabilities needed in solving multiple societal challenges. Thus, it achieves a pedagogical alignment with the design-based view of entrepreneurship, positioning it as a critical component of contemporary EE.
Finally, this study offers entrepreneurship educators a practical and empirically-supported pedagogical framework (Figure 4) for designing impactful experiential learning courses and programs. By bridging the gap between theoretical constructs and practical application, the ADL framework equips educators with a versatile tool for developing and articulating the outcomes of an experiential curriculum. It ensures a coherent interpretation and consistent evaluation of experiential learning outcomes, thereby facilitating a shift from traditional knowledge transmission to a functional pedagogy that effectively cultivates entrepreneurial mindsets (Nabi et al., 2017). This transition is essential for preparing students to navigate the complexities of entrepreneurial journeys in an increasingly dynamic and uncertain world.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study set out to address the critical gap in the theoretical and conceptual foundations of experiential learning in entrepreneurship education (EE) by developing and validating Action Design Learning (ADL) as a bespoke pedagogy for cultivating entrepreneurial mindsets in university settings. By integrating the principles of action learning and design learning, ADL emphasizes both first- and second-person learning, effectively leveraging entrepreneurial artifacts to structure meaningful experiences and foster critical reflection. This approach not only grounds experiential learning in well-established educational theories and philosophies but also enhances its credibility as a robust model for EE.
Through a longitudinal insider investigation conducted across two Irish universities, this study provides compelling evidence of ADL's practical efficacy in engaging students and nurturing transformative entrepreneurial mindsets and problem-solving competencies. The findings contribute to the broader discourse on experiential pedagogies by offering a solid theoretical foundation that addresses the existing conceptual deficits, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy and impact of experiential learning in EE.
However, the insider action research design employed in this study, while rich in context and insight, presents inherent limitations that must be acknowledged. The methodology, which involved self-evaluation by insider participant researchers across two cases, may have led to potential blind spots despite rigorous efforts to mitigate these through collaborative inquiry, abductive reasoning, and triangulation. These limitations highlight the need for further research employing diverse methodologies to test, validate, and extend the ADL framework.
Looking forward, we envision a dynamic community of scholars who will engage in this ongoing inquiry, applying, testing, and critiquing the ADL framework using a range of quantitative and qualitative methods. Such continued exploration is essential for refining and expanding the theoretical underpinnings of ADL and for ensuring its adaptability and relevance in diverse educational contexts. Ultimately, this study advances EE by not only proposing a strong theoretical foundation for experiential learning but also by setting the stage for a more nuanced and evidence-based understanding of how entrepreneurial mindsets can be effectively cultivated in higher education.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Experiential Pedagogies for Cultivating Entrepreneurial Mindsets: Action Design Learning as Tailored Framework
Supplemental Material for Experiential Pedagogies for Cultivating Entrepreneurial Mindsets: Action Design Learning as Tailored Framework by Kisito F. Nzembayie, Anthony Paul Buckley, and Isilay Talay in Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy
Footnotes
Correction (March 2026):
The Ethical Consideration and Informed consent sections have been included in the article. The linked correction notice is available in this issue.
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.
Ethical Considerations
This anonymized, minimal-risk educational study did not require formal Research Ethics Committee (REC) review as determined by the research ethics guidelines of Trinity College Dublin and Technological University Dublin.
Informed Consent
We sought and obtained informed consent from participants whose samples are used after the course concluded. Specifically, participants consented to the anonymization and use of reflective excerpts and student samples for research and publication. Participation was voluntary and had no bearing on grades or standing. Data were stored securely and processed in compliance with GDPR.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
