Abstract
This paper examines the target groups and competences addressed in entrepreneurship education research. A systematic literature review was conducted, analyzing 1,419 abstracts using the EntreComp framework. The results indicate a general focus on postsecondary and tertiary education, particularly students (ISCED levels 5–8), and specific competences, such as creativity, self-awareness, and self-efficacy. The literature review highlights the current state of research, quantifies and systematizes the publications, and identifies research gaps and possible research questions for further research projects.
Keywords
Introduction and Contribution to Entrepreneurship Education Research
Permanent change, complexity, and globalization are only some of the aspects that can be found in current discussions about economic and societal changes. Economic and social transformations seem to be advancing rapidly. However, it is questionable whether today’s society can keep pace with these changes and is able to shape the future. As early as the beginning of the 20th century, Schumpeter (1912) postulated that it is a matter of educating creative people who initiate the process of economic as well as social change by opening up to current problems, finding new solutions, and implementing them. Baecker (1998) agreed with this view a little later and saw the task of entrepreneurs as contributing to the determination of the situation and exercising the function of a gap finder for a new business idea. Lackéus (2015) summarized these considerations and defined entrepreneurial thinking and acting as the identification of problems and finding solutions. To achieve more entrepreneurial thinking and acting, it seems necessary to promote the development of entrepreneurial competences and social innovation within the broader society as a way to address economic and social challenges and stimulate further development (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, 2020). To overcome economic and social challenges, new approaches in entrepreneurship education, such as considering students’ attitudes (epistemic stances) and needs regarding entrepreneurship, are important. By integrating students’ attitudes as well as needs for individual development into teaching, it is possible to think, teach, and learn beyond management rationality and therefore enhance entrepreneurship education (Bhatia & Levina, 2020; Winkler et al., 2018). By using new methods from entrepreneurship education, students step outside of their comfort zones and (further) develop creativity, independence, problem solving, and resilience (Kennedy et al., 2021). Diversity in business increases by promoting specific groups of students, for example, future women entrepreneurs (Paravastu & Paravastu, 2023) or students from STEM (Eager & Cook, 2020; Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2012). The entrepreneurship education discipline gains pedagogically practical and research-relevant insights by testing different methods (Decker-Lange et al., 2022; Eager & Cook, 2020; Winkler et al., 2018) in a broad approach to entrepreneurship education.
The establishment and sustainable anchoring of entrepreneurship education have been a central goal of many countries worldwide, including the European Union (EU). For example, in the Lisbon Agreements, the development of entrepreneurial competences and establishment of sustainable and sequential entrepreneurship education represent core points of the future shaping of the EU. Today, the (further) development of entrepreneurial competences is one of the facets of the competence portfolio for promoting lifelong learning (see, e.g., the European Commission, 2005, 2013). Based on these efforts, education ministries worldwide have developed different national action plans for entrepreneurship education by developing new educational programs and initiatives for different age groups. In the process, content-related and structural coordination processes are often neglected, and the focus then turns to the development of disjointed individual initiatives, which is also visible in the literature reviews (Nabei et al., 2017). However, questions often remain unanswered as to what extent educational offers are still available, how they can be implemented in the education system, and what sustainable effects can be achieved. Which competences should be developed at which education level, and which topics should be discussed with the learners?
In this regard, Lackéus (2015) emphasizes the need for greater awareness of entrepreneurship education as a pedagogical approach relevant to all learners at different levels of education. Therefore, educational institutions at all levels are challenged to address the design of entrepreneurship education and design target group-appropriate educational offers to promote entrepreneurial competences. In this context, Fernandez et al. (2022) called for entrepreneurship education to be seen as a holistic process focused on the individual. To understand what learners need to further develop entrepreneurial competences, it is necessary to know which entrepreneurship education can delimit target groups; this requires more collaboration between research and practice to close the gap between the stated and desired impacts of entrepreneurship education. This information is especially needed for entrepreneurship education across all ISCED levels. Furthermore, a better understanding of when, how, and why entrepreneurship education stimulates the process of developing entrepreneurial competences needs to be gained (Lackéus, 2015). Following Lackéus, it seems necessary not to consider educational levels and target groups separately from each other and to separate educational programs, but rather to create opportunities to continuously develop the entrepreneurial competences of individuals, here by taking into account the entry requirements.
The present paper addresses this problem and attempts to answer the following research questions: (1) Which learners (following the ISCED levels) are addressed by entrepreneurship education research? (2) Which entrepreneurial competences or competence areas are addressed for which target group in entrepreneurship education research thus far?
The present article includes a framework of entrepreneurship education formed with a competence perspective and a discussion focusing on the target groups of entrepreneurship education at the international level (ISCED). Building on this theoretical framework, a systematic literature analysis will answer the research questions about target groups and promoted competences. Here, a transparent and comprehensive literature review is described, conducted, and presented through a systematic research question–guided literature review that follows the PRISMA method. The results include the findings about the target groups researched thus far and their focus on competence promotion. Therefore, this approach for analyzing all possible target groups is the first holistic literature review that considers all ISCED levels and clearly illustrates which age groups or educational areas are the focus of entrepreneurship education research. In addition, trends can be identified regarding which competences are being researched more intensively for which target groups. This can also implicitly lead to assumptions being made that these competences will also be taught more frequently. On the other hand, in addition to the comprehensive, holistic literature analysis, the research gaps for further research in business education can be seen as a second research contribution.
Theoretical Background
Competences in Entrepreneurship Education
Different Concepts to Foster Entrepreneurial Competences Over Time.
Competences were already considered relevant to educational practice in the 1970s. Competences are identified as enabling a better assessment of learners than intelligence tests. McClelland’s (1973) criticism of the tendency to use intelligence tests in the American education system has been discussed frequently. The author argued that tests should reflect changes in what has been learned and assess the specific competences needed in life (McClelland, 1973). In the meantime, numerous research projects have addressed competences and competencies, and the differentiation between the terms is not always clear (Moore et al., 2002; Vazirani, 2010; Wong, 2020). The explanations and research on competences or competency have focused on person-oriented or behavior-oriented approaches. The focus on personal characteristics supports an area of work. This approach is particularly widespread in the United States. The behavior-oriented functional approach is the second approach addressing competence(s) and is concerned with describing a range of work tasks or work performance. This approach is particularly prevalent in the UK (Wong, 2020). Another form of differentiation of competence (models) for entrepreneurs is with regard to the narrow or broader integration of competences. Therefore, entrepreneurship competence has two dimensions: (1) narrow one tied closely to enterprise functions (like financial and economic literacy) and (2) broader, linked to entrepreneurial mind-set and behavior (like autonomy, teamwork and collaboration, communication, sense of responsibility, idea generation, organization and management, taking the initiative, negotiation, and decision-making) (Komarkova, Conrads & Collado, 2015). The wide approach to entrepreneurship education is perceived as an opportunity to reach and support all people across various educational levels (Baggen et al., 2022). There has already been some preliminary work about models or descriptions of entrepreneurial competences.
In this paper, we focus on EntreComp because this model is widely used in the entrepreneurship education literature and is also used as a validated and holistic model in various research studies (Cooney & Brophy, 2023; Joensuu-Salo et al., 2021; Morselli & Orzes, 2023). Furthermore, EntreComp is recognized as an important driver of “competence in entrepreneurship education which can increase motivation and understanding of entrepreneurship education in different transnational contexts” (Raţiu et al., 2023, p. 22). This is particularly relevant as we want to identify the competences in the papers and thus gain insights.
Target Groups in Entrepreneurship Education
Education systems and international data on education vary greatly between countries. Therefore, UNESCO developed a classification for all countries as a way to propose sound criteria for the allocation of education programs to levels that can be considered comparable. The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) was developed in the mid-1970s and was first revised in 1997, reviewed and redesigned in 2011, and finally adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in November 2011. The ISCED is the reference for the international classification for organizing educational programs and related qualifications by levels and fields. The ISCED 2011 (levels of education) has been implemented in all EU data collections since 2014 (EUROSTAT, 2023). The ISCED 2011 distinguishes between nine levels of education, from elementary to advanced research qualifications. The basic concepts and definitions of ISCED are intended to be internationally valid and comprehensive for the full range of educational systems (UNESCO, 2012).
In the current research, the authors have identified the ISCED levels in the literature. Additionally, if possible, the authors divided the higher ISCED levels (5–8) according to economic and noneconomic studies because entrepreneurship education at universities can often be assigned to business and economics (Uebe-Emden, 2019). In particular, the area of technical-scientific courses of studies represents a special target group of entrepreneurship education because they exhibit a high, economical course of studies with quite comparable establishment potential (Bauer & Kailer, 2003; Kailer & Daxner, 2010). The students in technical-scientific courses have a high level of technical expertise and have, in some cases, already produced prototypes of products with high (but not explicitly analyzed) market potential. However, their curricula usually do not include any or only a limited amount of business administration content or content specifically related to the topic of business start-ups and entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship (Wunderer & Bruch, 2000) and need more interdisciplinary cooperation among faculties of different disciplines during curriculum development and in promoting extracurricular activities (Stenard, 2023). This is also consistent with more in-depth studies. Business students are more likely to develop networking skills and self-confidence because they have to communicate more and perform interaction activities during their studies. Engineering students are more likely to be proactive because they are used to carrying out project work and teamwork (Lee et al., 2018).
Finally, we can say that numerous studies on the different target groups already exist in the literature. However, it remains unclear which target groups have been researched under which aspects and where there is still a need for further research based on this.
Application of the Systematic Research Question-Guided Literature Review Method
Our research question-guided literature review (Frank & Hatak, 2014) was guided by the question of which learners and competences are being considered in entrepreneurship education. Are there any differences in terms of the competences that are considered for the different target groups? The empirical entrepreneurship education literature was analyzed to ascertain which target groups and competences are described in the context of entrepreneurship education within which target group. A systematic literature review contributes to developing a concept for entrepreneurship education which is appropriate for the specific target groups identified. A systematic literature review is an appropriate methodology at this juncture, firstly because literature reviews are becoming increasingly relevant in organizational, business, and management contexts (Kunisch et al., 2018), and secondly “to analyze and synthesize prior research to develop new knowledge for academia, practice and policy-making” (Kunisch et al., 2023, p. 11).
Methodological Approach
For the systematic literature review, the authors followed the best practices from the methodological literature (Tranfield et al., 2003), including the latest research about the quality of literature reviews (Snyder, 2019) and the structure of published literature reviews in EE&P (Keyhani & Kim, 2021; Maragh, 2024). This study did not require ethical approval. Informed consent was not required.
Given the large number of publications in recent years, the following criteria were used to select the studies: (1) Scientific articles on entrepreneurship education. (2) Empirical articles relating to one or more identifiable target groups. (3) Abstract available. (4) Literature in English or German. (5) Published scientific journal articles, book contributions, edited works, final research reports from research institutes, and reports from renowned governmental organizations/institutions. (6) Type of research approach: empirical (quantitative and/or qualitative), conceptual, or theoretical. (7) Publication year 1990 onward.
Based on the above selection criteria, we created three-part search strings in English and German.
Selection Process
Electronic Resources for Systematic Database Research.
The next step included identifying and eliminating duplicates (20,818). Afterward, 50,427 titles remained on the list. Because of having numerous documents, further restrictions had to be made; the title had to contain either “entrepren*” or “unternehm*.” This reduced the number of titles to 19,537. The next step was to check whether a target group reference was identifiable in the titles, which was done by using the educational levels used in the search terms and then automatically searching the titles, leaving 6,700 titles. At this point, the identification phase was complete. The next step was to use additional terms to indicate potential target groups. All titles were assigned to the appropriate target group terms. For each title, an additional manual check was performed to determine whether a reference to the research question was discernible. If this was not the case, the titles were discarded. In this step, the inclusion criteria for the existing abstracts were also checked. This leaves a total of 3,417 titles. During the screening phase, two edited volumes were incorrectly stored as monographs in the reference management software (Tables 3–5). As a result, the number of final articles was corrected from 3,417 to 3,427. Subsequently, 1,992 articles were excluded for the following reasons: • No relation to the research question. • No exact ISCED level identifiable. • No abstract available. Overview of the Number of Terms for Pre-sorting. Overview of the Number of Terms in the Final Assignment. Terms of the Competence Coping With Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Risk.
Afterward, all titles and abstracts were manually checked and categorized based on the ISCED levels. All titles and abstracts read were analyzed for the specified categories if the following information was available: • Authors (e.g., renowned research institutes) and details of publications (especially year of publication and publication medium). • Objective and focus of the contribution. • Research questions. • Research approach and details of method (focus: empirical research results).
Because of the volume of data, the present literature review did not analyze the full texts. The aim was not to know all the studies carried out in detail but to identify trends in the published literature concerning the target groups and competences under consideration.
In the end, 1,419 papers were classified according to ISCED levels. Sixteen additional papers were categorized as reporting on more than two ISCED levels. To ensure the quality and accuracy of the ISCED-level assignments, all assignments were checked by at least two coders. The diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the selection approach, which used the PRISMA procedure (Liberati et al., 2009; Moher et al., 2009). PRISMA procedure.
Evaluation Procedure
Once the contributions had been classified according to ISCED levels, the next step was to examine all abstracts concerning the competences under consideration. The EntreComp framework of competences was used for this purpose. Kunc et al. (2018) used a similar approach in their bibliometric analysis of system dynamics and also identified trends in topics based on abstracts.
EntreComp is the European reference framework for entrepreneurial competences that aims to raise awareness among all stakeholders to bridge the gap between education and the world of work (Bacigalupo, Kampylis, Punie, & van de Brande, 2016). It “identifies the knowledge, skills and attitudes” (European Union, 2018, p. 1) and could serve as a basis for the development of curricula and learning activities to promote entrepreneurship as competence and can be used to determine the essential parameters for assessing learners’ entrepreneurial competences (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). Moreover, EntreComp underscores the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurship, encompassing a spectrum of competences essential for success in a myriad of entrepreneurial pursuits (Baggen & Kaffka, 2022; European Commission, 2019).
EntreComp maps out three key areas of entrepreneurship competence: 1. Ideas and opportunities; 2. Resources; and 3. Into action. Each area contains five competences, and together, these areas comprise 15 competences that create an entrepreneurial mindset. EntreComp delineated the 15 entrepreneurial competences through a process of elimination, ultimately identifying three to six threads (60 threads in total). Each thread is elucidated and detailed on the eighth level of progression, resulting in 442 learning outcomes (four main levels: Foundation, Intermediate, Advanced, and Expert). Each level is in turn subdivided into two sub-levels. The sub-levels are as follows: Level 1 (Discover), Level 2 (Explore), Level 3 (Experiment), Level 4 (Dare), Level 5 (Improve), Level 6 (Reinforce), Level 7 (Expand), and Level 8 (Transform). At the foundation level, learners rely on the support of others and focus mainly on discovering their own potential and interests and exploring different approaches to problems. At the intermediate level, the value of entrepreneurship is created with an increasing degree of autonomy. At the advanced level, the capacity to transform ideas into action is cultivated. At the expert level, the value created considerably impacts its reference domain. The aforementioned proficiency levels provide a framework for the reader to examine the learning outcomes. It should be noted that the progression model is not prescriptive and does not suggest that all learners should necessarily acquire the highest level of proficiency in the competences, nor that they should reach the same level of proficiency across all the competences (Bacigalupo 2016; McCallum et al., 2018).
In this paper, however, we limit our discussion to the 15 competences, as a subdivision based on the eight progression levels is not a productive use of our time. Our focus is not on the development of learners over time but on recording the competences under consideration. Therefore, a panel of experts selected specific terms for each of the 15 competences. The analysis was conducted through automation and relied on the frequency of term occurrences.
We proceeded as follows: For all three key areas of EntreComp, terms from the EntreComp competence descriptions (cf. Bacigalupo et al., 2016) (deductive coding) and the abstracts themselves (inductive coding) were used to ensure accurate mapping (Table 3). The terms from the abstracts were written manually. This resulted in 380 terms assigned to the competences. The duplicate terms were then removed, and a check was performed to determine how many times the terms appeared in total in the abstracts. In addition, the terms had to be assignable to EntreComp competences, resulting in 112 terms from the abstracts for the expert panel. A total of 113 terms were taken from EntreComp competence descriptions. All terms were presorted by the authors into the three key areas.
These lists of terms were then presented twice to expert groups so that the terms could be specifically assigned to each five competences of each key area. Therefore, all terms in the final assignment were assigned identically by at least two expert groups (Table 4). The experts were academic staff who have studied vocational and business education and who worked as university lecturers and researchers. There was no agreement for only 10 terms, so the authors made the final assignment. The EntreComp descriptors were taken into account and included in the decision. Table 5 gives an example of the final assignment of terms to the competence coping with uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk of the competence area into action.
To ensure the accuracy of the term count, all terms were checked in both English and German. This process involved an examination of both the English and German contributions. The process of assigning terms to EntreComp competence areas and the involvement of experts is shown in Figure 2. Term assignment process involving expert groups.
Results of the Literature Review
The general results are presented first, followed by the specific results regarding the competences on specific ISCED levels and the evolution of the research discourse in the EE&P.
General Results
First, the 1,419 papers showed that publications have generally increased over time. As of 2010, there were more than 25 publications per year, but by 2014, there were more than 50, and since 2017, there have been more than 100. Some possible reasons for the increase in publications are growing interest and a growing research community, technological progress, research funding (political and institutional support), and the increasing importance of entrepreneurship (Liñán & Fayolle, 2015; Sirelkhatim & Gangi, 2015). Figure 3 and Table 6 show the number of publications per year according to the ISCED level assigned. Overview of years published according to ISCED levels. Summary of the Distribution of the Included Contributions to the ISCED Levels.
Notably, the number of publications decreased slightly in 2020 and 2021, possibly because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. For 2023, the data for this systematic literature review were collected in June 2023. Therefore, the data for 2023 did not cover the entire year. However, more than 80% of the publications were classified at ISCED levels 5 to 8. Sixty-four percent of the 1,419 publications were already categorized as universities, the largest share. As a result, the proportion of ISCED levels 0 to 5 was only 16%. This illustrates where the focus of research has been thus far. Insofar as was feasible, the publications of ISCED levels 5 to 8 were divided into business and non-business categories. Of the 1,195 publications from ISCED levels 5 to 8, 93 were allocated to the business sector and 79 to the non-business sector. A total of 1,023 publications could not be categorized as either business or non-business based on an analysis of the abstracts.
A total of 97.96% of the articles in the systematic literature review were published in English (1,390), and only 2.04% were published in German (29 articles). Of the 29 German articles, approximately one-quarter (28%) were classified within ISCED levels 5 to 8, just under three-quarters (69%) within ISCED levels 3 to 5, and 3% within ISCED level 2. This does not represent a general trend for all the articles considered. This means that there was a difference between German and English publications regarding the number of articles and age of focus. There were fewer (approximately 1/4) German publications at ISCED levels 5 to 8 than English-language publications (approximately 3/4), potentially because German-speaking countries have very representative vocational training programs. This successful concept has been—and still is being exported—while also being extensively researched (Fürstenau et al., 2014).
Overview of the Types of Publications.
Excerpt From the List of Journals Included in the Literature Review.
**2023 Journal Impact Factor from https://jcr.clarivate.com/
Competence-Based Entrepreneurship Education at Specific ISCED Levels
Focus on the Percentage Shares of the Competence Areas per ISCED Level.
Total Relative Frequency of Competences (The bold print indicates the total numbers for the respective competence area).
Development of the Research Discourse in the EE & P
A review of the articles included in this literature review from the journal Entrepreneurship Education & Pedagogy shows the development in one journal as an example and provides detailed insights into individual contributions (Table 11). This analysis reveals that six out of the eight articles were assigned to the ISCED levels 5 to 8, while the remaining two articles focus on levels 3 to 5. Note that the article by Eager and Cook (2020) cites the article by Lee et al. (2018). The article by Nunfam et al. (2022) cites the article by Lavelle (2021).
In the first paper (Lee et al., 2018), the authors recognize that the target groups of business and engineering students are different, and therefore suggest on the one hand that business and engineering departments should teach and develop different entrepreneurial skills (like networking skills, proactiveness, and self-confidence) to their students as part of their curriculum. On the other hand, the authors “recommend that students should actively seek out courses from other departments and become involved in networking events, initiative programs, pitch competitions, conferences, and activities that are provided by entrepreneurship centers” (Lee et al., 2018, p. 319). In the second article (Winkler et al., 2018), the authors state that it is commonly asserted that “entrepreneurship education is not 'one size fits all' and appropriate pedagogies and methods are seldom aligned with students’ unique personal characteristics and entrepreneurial development levels” (p. 141). Action Research is used as a systematic framework to help entrepreneurship educators better understand the impact and efficacy of their entrepreneurship education programs, curricula, methods, and pedagogies (Winkler et al., 2018).
The third article (Eager & Cook, 2020) presents a report on micro-credential and focused on developing students’ individual-level capability and competency in designing products/services that address customers’ needs (Eager & Cook, 2020). In article four (Lavelle, 2021), the author put forth the argument that entrepreneurship education is a process whereby individuals learn concepts and skills needed to recognize entrepreneurial opportunities and act upon them. Additionally, the author concludes that an important distinction should be made between entrepreneurship pedagogy offered at top universities compared with vocational colleges (Lavelle, 2021). In article five (Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2021), the authors posit that universities must equip graduates with a greater understanding of how their individual talents and uniqueness can generate value in organizations and society. “Entrepreneurship education is considered by many to be particularly challenging to assess due to its diverse target populations, potential outcomes […], and varied pedagogical approaches […], which can lead to complexity in developing and implementing evaluation research designs” (Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2021, p. 103).
Insights Into EE&P Papers From the Database.
The articles discuss different aspects of entrepreneurship education, particularly in higher education. Several key themes emerge from the articles: • Tailored entrepreneurship education: Different groups of students (e.g., business and engineering) require different entrepreneurial skills. • The importance of practical experience: Hands-on learning, industry projects, and micro-credentials are emphasized to bridge the gap between theory and practice. • Student-centered approaches: Creating a supportive and inclusive learning environment is critical to fostering entrepreneurial development. • Challenges in entrepreneurship education: Evaluating effectiveness, addressing gender inequalities, and overcoming the one-size-fits-all approach are common challenges. • The role of governments and universities: Policy makers and universities are encouraged to promote entrepreneurship education and create supportive ecosystems.
In conclusion, the eight articles emphasize the importance of a broad approach to entrepreneurship education that considers diverse target groups, experiential learning, and the challenges involved. The articles highlight the need for a more personalized and experiential approach to entrepreneurship education, tailored to the specific needs of students and the changing landscape of the entrepreneurial world.
Discussion
Focusing Competence Areas
The distribution within several competence areas varied greatly. In the ideas and opportunities competence area, for example, the creativity competence was the most pronounced, with more than twice as many mentions as the ethical and sustainable thinking competence. In the resources competence area, this can also be seen in the strongly pronounced self-awareness and self-efficacy competence and less pronounced motivation and perseverance and financial and economic literacy competences. In the competence area of into action, the most pronounced competence was planning and management, which was mentioned more than twice as often as the competences of taking initiative and learning through experience.
Ideas and Opportunities
Creativity was the most pronounced in the ideas and opportunities competence area at all ISCED levels. This may be because creativity can be fostered at different levels of education and because learning spaces are ideal environments for the expression and development of creative thinking and action (Beghetto, 2019; Kaufman et al., 2022; Lucas & Anderson, 2015) and industry partners called for integrating creativity into engineering education (Eager & Cook, 2020). Vision was the least developed competence, especially at lower ISCED levels. According to the EntreComp descriptor, 1 it is understandable that dealing with future-related ideas would be more difficult in younger age groups (Carstensen & Reynolds, 2023). Some aspects of this competence may already be covered by creativity or at least stimulate some discussion about it. It seems surprising that competence in ethical and sustainable thinking is the weakest at ISCED levels 5 to 8. In tertiary education, the issue of sustainability is becoming increasingly important. With the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the United Nations (UN) has adopted a global agenda for sustainable development, including education (UN, 2015). Kopnina (2020) highlighted the increasing demand for the enhanced incorporation of sustainability topics into tertiary education curricula. Moreover, there has been increasing enthusiasm for connecting entrepreneurship education with sustainability practices. Here, the aim is to enable students to develop entrepreneurial activities that combine economic, environmental, and social aspects (Terán-Yépez et al., 2020). However, implementing this link is complex and associated with several challenges (Amatucci et al., 2013). The scientific literature has shown that linking entrepreneurship education and sustainability has great potential to contribute to sustainable development. However, further research and innovative teaching approaches are needed to address these challenges.
Resources
In the area of competence resources, self-awareness and self-efficacy were the most pronounced at all ISCED levels. The focus here was on self-efficacy. There was recognition of the importance of self-efficacy in dealing with possible challenges and coping with them in different areas of life. Therefore, some papers combine that with risk taking and mobilizing resources (e.g., Decker-Lange et al., 2022). At the same time, very little has been done in financial and economic literacy. 2 A lecturer may not know how to address such competence specifically or may underestimate its importance. However, it is important to realize that solid financial education plays a crucial role in the success of start-ups (Calcagno et al., 2019). Action Research can improve practice and deeper understanding of individual entrepreneurial needs (Winkler et al., 2018). Conducting more research to deepen the understanding and importance of financial and economic education in entrepreneurship education would be worthwhile. At the same time, there may be a link here to the equally underresearched area of ethical and sustainable thinking from the areas of ideas and opportunities competence (Burchi et al., 2021). The fact that mobilizing resources is low at lower ISCED levels makes sense in light of the age structure. This could be because the descriptor 3 has a certain complexity, which can only be reflected with increasing ability in older age.
Into Action
The results of the into action competence area partly contradicted the objectives of entrepreneurship education. One characteristic mentioned was the reference to into action (Bijedic, 2013; Melyoki & Gielnik, 2020; Rasmussen & Sørheim, 2006; Riebenbauer & Stock, 2015). However, our analysis showed that, on the one hand, this area has received the least attention in entrepreneurship education research as a whole. On the other hand, almost half of all competences considered in the area of into action competence were found in planning and managing. This aspect relates more to cognitive aspects 4 than to the other four competences. The competence-taking the initiative 5 had the lowest level in almost all ISCED levels. Several studies have shown that entrepreneurship education can increase the propensity to start a business (Zhang et al., 2022). In EE&P papers a strong focus lies on taking the initiative through a broad understanding of entrepreneurial intention and proactiveness, and entrepreneurial experiences (Lavelle, 2021; Lee et al., 2018; Nunfam et al., 2022; Winkler et al., 2018). The research on entrepreneurship education has not necessarily focused specifically on the aspect of student’s propensity to start a business, but it may be partly a byproduct of addressing other aspects of entrepreneurship. The implementation of visionary ideas and visionary leadership should be supported (Ratten & Usmanij, 2021). The fact that learning through experience 6 competence was sometimes the weakest may be purely pragmatic because this area focuses more on metacognitive aspects, which are difficult to identify in research and address in teaching because they are often individual, implicit, and difficult to verbalize (Akturk & Sahin, 2011).
Overall, different priorities have been set, depending on the competence area and ISCED level. Here, more generic competences were given more attention than the very specific competences for entrepreneurship. This may be because more cognitive aspects are easier to capture for research. Nevertheless, at the same time, entrepreneurship-specific competences need to be addressed more specifically in education to identify patterns. Entrepreneurial thinking and acting are very much addressed in entrepreneurship education research. Nevertheless, based on the available data, the focus on the action component currently has been in the background.
Broad and Narrow Approaches Regarding Entrepreneurship Education in Levels 5 to 8
As mentioned above, a distinction can be made between a narrow or broad integration of competences. The narrow approach focuses specifically on entrepreneurial functions and thus financial and economic competences, which are often promoted in general business administration. If entrepreneurial competences are supported in other areas (non-business), this includes the broad approach. This is fundamentally about promoting an entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial behavior (e.g., autonomy, teamwork and collaboration, communication, responsibility, idea generation, organization and management, taking initiative, negotiation, and decision making) (Komarkova, Conrads & Collado, 2015). The broad approach is seen as an opportunity to support non-business learners across different ISCED levels (Baggen et al., 2022 and in more depth see the papers in section 4.3).
The results in ISCED levels 5 to 8 were evaluated to determine which competences in the business and non-business studies are increasingly being researched and presumably taught. It can be determined (through comparing the amounts of papers in each competence field between business and non-business studies) that the competences self-awareness, self-efficacy, vision, valuing ideas, ethical and sustainable thinking, and mobilizing resources are researched more in business than in non-business studies and presumably taught in a narrow approach. Especially self-efficacy in particular is a very popular scale in business studies or entrepreneurship research, which is often used to confirm the effects of a teaching intervention (Guo et al., 2022). While spotting opportunities, financial and economic literacy, mobilizing others as well as creativity are researched more in non-business studies and presumably taught in a broader approach. This may be related to the fact that in non-business studies, there is a particular interest in whether the targeted support leads to an expansion of these competences (Eager & Cook, 2020). Also, it is not surprising in light of the fact that creativity is important in many facets and in many subject areas independent of entrepreneurship and that finding opportunities as a form of problem solving is also inherent in many activities in other disciplines (Nisula & Olander, 2023).
At the same time, however, there are also findings that weaknesses in financial and economic literacy can be identified in business studies, which can be mitigated with entrepreneurship education (Saptono, 2018). It could also be seen that in business studies, compared to non-business studies, the competence of planning and management is more likely to be researched and presumably promoted in teaching in comparison to other competences. It is true that the same competence is also given priority in non-business studies compared to other competences in the action competence area. However, in comparison, more scientific papers in non-business studies than in business studies focus the competences working with others and coping with uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk. Presumably, the competence of planning and management is a general business competence that corresponds to classical economic teaching, while in comparison, dealing with uncertainty is a specific feature of entrepreneurship research and education (Shinato et al., 2013).
In the non-business studies sector, creativity (56), spotting opportunities (54), and planning and management (42) are the three competences most frequently researched, and it may be presumed that they are also most frequently taught. In comparison, planning and management (60), vision (54), and creativity (49) are the three competences most frequently researched in business studies, and it may be presumed that they are also most frequently taught. In both cases, the focus is quantitatively on the competence area ideas and opportunities. This may be due to the fact that the development of a business idea based on the research results represents a future professional activity for the students. The scientific papers are often specifically about pedagogically practical and research-relevant insights by testing different methods (Decker-Lange et al., 2022; Eager & Cook, 2020; Winkler et al., 2018).
It is becoming clear that entrepreneurship education should not be a ‘one size fits all' solution (Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2021). Therefore, appropriate pedagogies and methods should be aligned with students’ unique personal characteristics and entrepreneurial development levels. However, it is also clear that it is not easy to emphasize individual student needs in a flexible and student-driven community. It may be helpful to concentrate on aspects of social and environmental support and content support (Winkler et al., 2018). In non-business studies kind of traditional forms of engineering education use practice-based pedagogy. This includes industry-based project work in conjunction with micro-credentialing (Eager & Cook, 2020). The authors argument that “although having its origins in handson practice-based learning approaches, engineering courses are often heavily theoretical, with knowledge acquired primarily through a ‘sage on the stage’ pedagogy and textbooks, and assessed by examination” (Eager & Cook, 2020, p. 353).
It is recognized that the target groups of business and engineering students have different requirements. Therefore, it is suggested that the respective faculties should develop and teach specific entrepreneurial competences as part of the curriculum. Furthermore, it is argued that business and engineering students are likely to have different levels of entrepreneurial competences as different educational approaches and perspectives shape them. It is recommended that students actively take courses from other disciplines and participate in networking events, initiatives, pitch competitions, conferences, and incubator activities. Furthermore, universities should expand the range of business-related courses in business, engineering, and other disciplines and actively make these courses available to all students (Lee et al., 2018).
Thus, the purpose of entrepreneurship education itself differs across initiatives and stakeholder groups, which leads to different results and effects. “The findings regarding entrepreneurship education effectiveness have been inconclusive so far [...], [possibly because there is a] broad range of indicators used and, related to that, the different notions of entrepreneurship education effectiveness, not least different stakeholder perceptions of its purpose and outcomes” (p. 117). Therefore, any effectiveness measure in entrepreneurship education needs to consider different learners (Decker-Lange et al., 2022).
It is imperative that entrepreneurship research undergoes further development if the advancement of entrepreneurship education is to be achieved. This suggests that previously considered competences or ISCED levels should be subjected to further investigation, whether from a narrow or broad perspective (gap 2). The focus may be on individual ISCED levels, specific competences, or competence areas. A more detailed discussion of this topic will be presented in the third section of the discussion.
Suggestions for Further Research
This comprehensive literature review identifies research gaps in the field of entrepreneurship education research. Concurrently, potential approaches to addressing these gaps are proposed. In conclusion, three main research gaps can be derived from the data. Research gaps 1 and 2 pertain to entrepreneurship education, and it is important to note that the results presented here are solely reflective of the research perspective and may not necessarily align with the actual practice of teaching. Research gap 3 focuses on research in entrepreneurship education, particularly the publication and handling of results. These findings have significant implications for the further development and analysis of entrepreneurship education research.
Gap 1: Competences that Have Been Researched Little or not at all
The results have shown very little research on the topics mentioned at ISCED levels 0, 1, and 2 and little on the topics mentioned at ISCED levels 3–5. When analyzing the individual competence areas and competences, there were very few publications on the following competences or topics: ethical and sustainable thinking, financial, and economic literacy, and taking the initiative or learning through experience.
Addressing Gap 1: “Don’t mind the Gap!”—or “More than Just Business Plans: The Forgotten Entrepreneurial Competences”
Levels 0 to 2 and 3 to 5 should be considered more in especially English-language publications. In other words, more research should be conducted on several ISCED levels. In vocational and business education, for example, promoting entrepreneurial competences at ISCED levels 3 to 5 compared with ISCED levels 5 to 8 could be addressed.
When looking at competences that have been researched very little or not at all, the competences of ethical and sustainable thinking (competence area: ideas and opportunities), financial, and economic literacy (competence area: resources), and taking the initiative (competence area: into action) are suitable for ISCED levels 5 to 8. This is also interesting because there is one competence from each competence area. Research should be conducted to explore the connections between individual competences in different competence areas. This will help prepare learners for future challenges by teaching them future-oriented and sustainable ways of thinking.
Gap 2: Focus on Individual Competences or Simple Solutions
In the competence area of ideas and opportunities, for example, creativity is the most researched competence at all ISCED levels. In the competence area resources, most publications have been published on self-awareness and self-efficacy. Only in the competence area of into action are two competences more frequently researched. The first is planning and management (639 notations) at ISCED levels 1 to 8, and the second is working with others (413) at ISCED levels 0 and 2. A further observation is that individual entrepreneurial skills, such as those mentioned above, have often been cited as the decisive factor in reducing unemployment in African countries because of the increasing number of self-employed people.
Addressing Gap 2: Complexity Instead of Simplification: Entrepreneurship Education for the Challenges of the Real World
Given the focus on individual competences, it makes sense to compare the findings on these competences across the ISCED levels. In addition, it would be possible to accompany cross-level interventions on specific competences, such as those mentioned: creativity, self-awareness and self-efficacy, planning and management, and working with others.
The direct correlation between the promotion of entrepreneurial skills and a reduction in unemployment appears desirable, but this effect cannot be directly observed. Instead, after the first entrepreneurship courses, learners tend to be reluctant (deterred), and only further support motivates them to become self-employed. The previous emphasis on general functional competences, such as creativity, self-efficacy, planning, and management, in entrepreneurship education should be broadened to encompass specific entrepreneurial competences, such as financial and economic literacy, taking the initiative, and learning from experience.
Gap 3: Unclear, Unspecific, and Redundant Intervention Studies
When analyzing the individual abstracts for allocation to specific ISCED levels, in some abstracts, it was unclear which ISCED level can be assumed. It is often not possible to identify whether it is levels 3 to 5 or 5 to 8.
At the same time, intervention studies, such as those focusing on entrepreneurial intention or mindset, have often been carried out. The research often appeared redundant at this point. Additionally, argumentation for selecting the competence or competence area was sometimes missing in abstracts. This criticism is similar to the findings of another literature study. Impact research in the field of entrepreneurship education was still predominantly focused on short-term and subjective outcome measures, tending to inadequately describe the actual educational methods tested (Nabi et al., 2017).
Addressing Gap 3: Quality Over Quantity: For More Meaningful Research in Entrepreneurship Education
One conclusion for future research is that the ISCED level should be clarified in the abstract. In addition, when entrepreneurial competences are mentioned at the beginning, the competences to be researched should also be specified.
On the one hand, broadening the research foci is necessary for the further development of entrepreneurship education research. This means that the competences or ISCED levels that have been considered to date should be considered for more in-depth research (gap 2). This can be focused on individual ISCED levels across the board or on individual competences or competence areas. Different opportunities for getting into more depth are possible.
At the same time, entrepreneurship education research needs to be focused on and, thus, narrowed down. Here, the focus should be on competences that have not been researched much to date, such as those from gap 1, which offer some opportunities for new research.
There has been little cross-level research on this topic. For this reason, we also recommend projects and research on the overarching promotion of entrepreneurial competences. This can lead to the development of overall educational concepts or programs. The findings can then show what the various entrepreneurial target groups need to develop entrepreneurial competences.
Critical Remarks to Entrepreneurship Education Research
Based on the systematic research question-guided literature review and the analysis results, it is possible to determine the extent to which learners are being researched. For this purpose, the entrepreneurial target groups were identified at the respective ISCED levels. The frequencies provided information about preferred groups, such as students in ISCED levels 5 to 8. This is presumably the case because this target group was easy to reach for researchers, who were often teachers and the researchers did not require any detours via parental authorization. This raises the question of whether such a research approach may result in a bias in the findings, given that “easily accessible” target groups are often researched about whom we already have a great deal of knowledge. Is there a bias within our discipline towards higher education, and should we exercise caution when extrapolating findings beyond the contexts in which they have been found? It is not uncommon for research results to suggest a universal claim. To what extent should we critically examine the results? Is there a risk of self-referentiality? Universities exert a significant influence on entrepreneurship education research due to their role in perpetuating themselves. Therefore, we suggest to mention the ISCED Level (UNESCO, 2012) clearly and be aware of the diversity in possible target groups (Kailer & Daxner, 2010). Researchers and teachers should focus on different entrepreneurial skills for business and engineering students (Decker-Lange et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2018) and do not see entrepreneurship education as “one size fits all” education (Winkler et al., 2018). Therefore, entrepreneurship education should address entrepreneurial competences on an individual-level (Eager & Cook, 2020; Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2021) and focus on practical actions (Nunfam et al., 2022) while considering diversity (Paravastu & Paravastu, 2023).
Additionally, it remains unclear why certain competence areas have not yet been the subject of academic research, despite universities' extensive reach and ease of access to certain target groups. To what extent does practicality play a role in this? In this context, we wish to draw attention to the first and second research gaps that have been identified. Two research gaps focus on entrepreneurial competences that have rarely been researched in teaching and, on the other hand, that have been researched very extensively. Researchers intensively investigated creativity, self-awareness and self-efficacy, planning and management, and working with others. For further developing entrepreneurial competences it is necessary to focus especially on financial and economic literacy (Calcagno et al., 2019; Eager & Cook, 2020), taking the initiative (Lavelle, 2021; Lee et al., 2018; Nunfam et al., 2022), and learning from experience (Akturk, 2011). These are essential next steps for further fostering entrepreneurial competences.
A third research gap has addressed previous intervention studies and their methodological approaches. In this context, it is also pertinent to consider the appropriate usage of the term “entrepreneurship education.” Does the mere mention of the term creativity automatically imply entrepreneurship? It is pertinent to question whether entrepreneurial competences are already being consciously promoted in kindergarten. Alternatively, might the findings indicate a more prudent application of the concepts and terminology? What methods do educators employ to instill entrepreneurial abilities in their students? Furthermore, what entrepreneurial competences are there on a consensus, particularly when considering multiple target groups? The objective of these remarks is to prompt reflection on research into entrepreneurship education. With reference to the aforementioned quote: “Entrepreneurship education is considered by many to be particularly challenging to assess due to its diverse target populations, potential outcomes […], and varied pedagogical approaches […], which can lead to complexity in developing and implementing evaluation research designs” (Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2021, p. 103), we can conclude that defining on the one hand entrepreneurship education including its narrow or broad approach is one necessity. On the other, the already mentioned ISCED level (UNESCO, 2012) categorization and the allocation of competence areas (Bacigalupo, Kampylis, Punie, & van de Brande, 2016) is a scientific and pedagogical necessity in order to meet the quality requirements of research and teaching to enable the discipline itself to develop.
Limitations
Although the systematic literature review has several advantages because of its systematic approach, it also limits the results because potentially relevant literature may not have been found via the search databases. For example, certain publications, especially books, working papers, and dissertations, were underrepresented in Scopus (Schneider & Albert, 2019). Analyzing digitally available publications tends to bias older print-only media. This could influence the number of publications. Selection criteria, such as language, were defined for the database search. The searches were performed accordingly. However, articles in other languages were also found and manually sorted during the process. It should also be noted that the search strings in German and English were not strictly comparable in structure because of their linguistic peculiarities. The restriction on English and German was based on the language proficiency of the authors. The first automated evaluation based on terms like entrepreneurial education and kindergarten used in the full text. The second automated evaluation based on terms from EntreComp and ISCED-levels used in abstracts was also a limitation of this systematic literature review because no full texts were analyzed in detail. However, because of the numerous articles included, general trends in entrepreneurship research could be identified.
Of course, focusing on the competences of the EntreComp framework was also a limitation regarding the competences considered. In selecting EntreComp as a competence framework, an attempt was made to select a model that would exclude as few competences as possible. At the same time, EntreComp was sometimes criticized for being too generic and vague, making it challenging to derive specific interventions. In addition, EntreComp has sometimes been criticized for focusing too much on individual skills and neglecting the structural conditions for entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, EntreComp can be seen as a helpful tool for promoting entrepreneurial competences and provides a valuable point of reference for policymakers, curriculum specialists, and trainers (Sandberg, 2023). It should also be noted that the authors are aware that EntreComp is a progression model but that the analysis was not carried out in these subdivisions. It can be seen that often, not even the competence is mentioned, and even less often, what outcome is ultimately to be expected (i.e., the level of competence). The focus on ISCED levels was intended to ensure that all levels of education would be considered and to guarantee international comparability. In the current paper, it must certainly be mentioned that the assignment had to be given via the abstracts; otherwise, this would lead to exclusion. This can be understood as a limitation.
Conclusion
Because of the comprehensive and constantly increasing number of publications on competence development in entrepreneurship education, this holistic analysis with a systematic literature review is a valuable contribution to the ongoing evolution of the field of entrepreneurship education and its associated research. In conclusion, this paper presents a comprehensive overview of entrepreneurship education research, which will serve as a foundation for future research in this field. In order to achieve this, a consistent research design was employed, and a kind of bird’s-eye view was adopted in order to facilitate the drawing of conclusions. The identified research gaps indicate potential avenues for further development in both research and teaching/learning entrepreneurship. The objective of the present study was to make a substantial contribution to the field of research pertaining to the categorization of entrepreneurial target groups and the analysis of the frequencies and foci of these groups. Based on this, it is anticipated that future research will focus on the objectives, content, and methods that are most suitable for the target group, and that this will also be reflected in the implementation of teaching entrepreneurship at different ISCED levels.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We received financial support for English proofreading from the University of Paderborn.
