Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper theorizes conditions accelerating experiential learning within venture creation programs (VCPs). Traditionally, experiential learning theory views learning as a slow and self-directed process. In contrast, VCPs offer time-compressed, enterprise-oriented training structured around predetermined plans and schedules. Our theorizing shifts the primary focus from cyclical movements (“loops”) to the speed and magnitude (“leaps”) of experiential learning. We propose a conceptual framework that identifies catalysts situating VCP students in a favorable position to make significant and rapid progress toward intended learning outcomes. Additionally, we exemplify and discuss how teaching exercises can enable educators to arrange and coordinate activities to exert force and direction in the learning process. By doing so, we explicate the theoretical mechanisms that accelerate experiential learning within VCPs, providing actionable insights for enhancing best practices in entrepreneurship education and pedagogy.

Keywords

learning loops learning leaps leverage venture creation programs experiential learning

Introduction

Learning through direct experience and active participation is often highlighted as the frontline in entrepreneurship education. One of the most progressive forms of this educational model is venture creation programs (VCPs), which offer intense enterprise-oriented training and campus-based outreach activities in close collaboration with educators and practitioners (Lackéus & Williams Middleton, 2015). VCPs are attractive to students aspiring for an entrepreneurial career because they offer the opportunity to apply theoretical knowledge in practical settings while providing valuable insights into what entrepreneurship means to them both personally and professionally (Alsos et al., 2023).

A key feature of VCPs is the acceleration of entrepreneurial learning through the actual process of starting a business (Lackéus & Williams Middleton, 2015). The blend of theoretical abstraction and hands-on practice allows students to move through learning loops characterized by dialectical movements from active participation to reflective observation and from specific involvement to general analytical detachment (e.g., Corbett, 2005; Politis, 2005; see also Kolb, 1984). Progressing through the experiential cycle enables them to overcome and learn from critical episodes and setbacks while stimulating changes in judgments, feelings, and skills (Cope, 2011; Crosina et al., 2023; Lattacher et al., 2024).

We recognize experiential learning theory as a robust conceptual foundation for developing actionable knowledge in designing and delivering VCPs. However, we also identify a critical oversight in the entrepreneurship education literature regarding the temporal conditions under which experiential learning occurs. Theory and research emphasize entrepreneurs as self-directed learners (e.g., Young & Sexton, 2003), whose self-paced learning is typically characterized as a slow and incremental process that does not follow a planned, predefined path (e.g., Deakins & Freel, 1998; Politis, 2005). In contrast, VCPs offer intensive and temporally compressed enterprise-oriented training structured around predetermined plans and schedules, which require learners to progress through the program in a timely and productive manner (Crosina et al., 2023; Gabrielsson et al., 2025). Thus, we see considerable room for intensified theorizing to understand better the time aspect embedded in VCPs. A better understanding of the temporal conditions that accelerate experiential learning in this setting holds considerable promise for advancing the research field and informing best practices for entrepreneurship education and pedagogy.

Taken together, there are limited insights into the unique conditions that accelerate the learning process within the time-compressed, pre-designed, and structured context of VCPs. The research question guiding our study is formulated as follows: What conditions accelerate experiential learning within VCPs, thereby exerting force and direction in the learning process of entrepreneurship students?

To address our research question, we develop a conceptual framework that introduces the idea of learning leaps in VCPs. From this theorizing, we introduce the concept of leverage, which represents a positional advantage that accelerates the experiential learning process. We propose four learning catalysts that situate students in a favorable position to make significant and rapid movements toward intended learning outcomes. These identified catalysts explicate how teaching exercises can create favorable conditions for learning leaps in entrepreneurship education, thereby allowing educators to arrange, combine, and coordinate learning activities to exert force and direction in the experiential learning process.

Our study advances theory and research on entrepreneurship education and pedagogy in three principal ways. First, we develop context-sensitive theorizing by focusing on the unique setting of VCPs and the conditions that accelerate the entrepreneurial learning process within these programs. Second, we extend experiential learning theory within entrepreneurship education by shifting the focus from the cyclical movements (“loops”) in the learning process to the speed and magnitude of these movements (“leaps”). Third, we offer a deeper understanding of how purposefully crafted teaching exercises empower the active, forward-moving nature of enterprise-oriented training in VCPs, contributing to developing effective strategies and best practices in entrepreneurship education. Together, these contributions underscore how tailored pedagogical approaches in VCPs can accelerate the entrepreneurial learning process.

Entrepreneurial Learning in Venture Creation Programs

This study broadly conceptualizes entrepreneurial learning as experiencing, reflecting, and acting when engaging in entrepreneurship (Lattacher et al., 2024). Learning entrepreneurship is thus an experiential process that provides multiple opportunities for both personal and professional development throughout venture creation (Pittaway & Thorpe, 2012; Rae, 2013). The process is characterized by random events and dynamic aspects that are impossible to foresee before any actions are taken (Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Embedded in this notion, we contend that starting and launching a new business venture encompasses multiple critical episodes and setbacks, which generate streams of experience that include different foci for learning, such as learning about oneself, the emerging venture, and the business context in which the venture operates (Crosina et al., 2023; Politis et al., 2019).

The design and delivery of entrepreneurship education have been mainly influenced by ideas and concepts from experiential learning theory (Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Mandel & Noyes, 2016). Early scholarly efforts in the 1990s highlighted the importance of proactive teaching methods that mirror authentic entrepreneurial behavior instead of passive classroom-based learning (e.g., Gundry & Kickul, 1996; Katz, 1999; Wolfe & Bruton, 1994). Continued scholarly conversations over the 2000s pinpointed the value and significance of action-oriented teaching and learning (e.g., Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2006; Kuratko, 2005), highlighting how innovative pedagogical methods and immersive learning experiences can deeply engage students in the practical realities of entrepreneurship (Neck & Greene, 2011). Today, a robust body of entrepreneurship education literature has matured that underscores the importance of holistic, experience-based learning, where students actively engage with curricular content, reflect on their experiences, conceptualize new ideas, and test them in practice (e.g., Gabrielsson et al., 2025; Hägg, 2021; Jones et al., 2021; Neck & Corbett, 2018; Neck et al., 2021).

The archetypical VCP exemplifies the shift towards immersive and engaging learning experiences in entrepreneurship education, where students can create actual ventures as part of their academic program. A VCP can, in this regard, be defined as an educational model that integrates theoretical knowledge with new venture incubation (Ollila & Williams-Middleton, 2011), thus bridging the gap between theory and practice in entrepreneurial learning (e.g., Neck & Liu, 2020). More specifically, VCPs are characterized by a structured academic curriculum designed to enhance the intellectual development of entrepreneurship students, combined with practical experience in starting a new business (Alsos et al., 2023).

We depict the core features in the archetypical design of a VCP in Figure 1. Although the program includes action-based pedagogical approaches, such as practical exercises, case studies, and simulations, it has several unique features that set it apart from other forms of experiential entrepreneurship education (Mandel & Noyes, 2016). First, the VCP model builds on learning entrepreneurship through the actual process of starting a business. This hands-on approach engages students in real-world challenges, fostering a deeper understanding of entrepreneurial concepts and practices. In this regard, both affective and conative learning dimensions are very high due to the real-life experiential process that students undergo (Gabrielsson et al., 2025).

Figure 1.

Core features in the archetypical design of a venture creation program.

Second, VCPs offer a structured curriculum with a content-guided and theoretical approach to provide students with a broad and comprehensive knowledge base for understanding entrepreneurship (e.g., Fiet, 2001). The program includes a series of intended learning outcomes and activities that are carefully planned and implemented to ensure that students gain the necessary knowledge and skills, including regular assessments and feedback. Courses and teaching modules are closely aligned with the venture creation process to enhance students’ intellectual development, critical thinking, and knowledge acquisition.

Third, the educational model strongly emphasizes campus based outreach activities where students and their venture projects are connected with the surrounding entrepreneurial ecosystem through mentoring and networking opportunities alongside a supportive peer-to-peer environment. The networked environment creates a semi-coordinated opportunity space that is both supportive and challenging, incentivizing students to engage in entrepreneurial activities and encouraging them to envision themselves in new roles and positions (El-Awad et al., 2024; Gaggiotti et al., 2020). By immersing students in broader communities of entrepreneurial practice (Pocek et al., 2022), VCPs provide a situated learning context outside the formal curriculum that exposes them to the entrepreneurial “way of life” (Fauchald, 2025; Jones et al., 2021).

Experiential learning theory is firmly embedded in cognitive and humanist schools of education (Kolb, 1984), which emphasizes that learning is a holistic and integrative process of inquiry and meaning-making (e.g., Dewey, 1946; see also Taatila, 2010). This means that learning is not just about acquiring knowledge or skills in isolation but involves the entire individual, including their thoughts, feelings, perceptions, and behaviors (Hoover et al., 2012). A core tenet is that knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience (Kolb, 1984). From this stance, growing personally and professionally in the entrepreneurial role can be understood as an outcome of experiencing, reflecting, and acting (Lattacher et al., 2024). This movement is triggered and energized by fundamental human processes such as thinking, feeling, perceiving, and behaving (e.g., Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Experiential learning thus has a distinctly personal dimension, with the capacity to stimulate profound changes in students’ perspectives and approaches to starting and launching new business ventures.

Grasping refers to the process of taking in information about critical episodes and setbacks that may serve as vital learning experiences in the entrepreneurial journey. However, merely perceiving the experience is insufficient for learning; it requires actions based on the experience. This involves transformation, where the learner reflects on the experience, derives concepts to understand it, and then takes action to apply the learning. Successful completion of this process stimulates knowledge creation. The quality of experiencing, reflecting, and acting is crucial to high-involvement learning, where the learner continually forms and reforms ideas and solutions to problems (Hoover et al., 2012).

A stylized version of the experiential learning cycle is illustrated in Figure 2. The figure displays the learning process as a clockwise journey around a cycle (“a loop”) that can be repeated once a new related experience is encountered. The core idea is that learning requires individuals to resolve dialectically opposing demands. On the vertical axis, two ways of acquiring knowledge are depicted—experiencing or conceptualizing. On the horizontal axis, two ways of transforming knowledge are displayed—reflecting or applying. Progressing through the cycle enables learners to continually form and reform ideas and solutions to problems by engaging in action, experience, and reflection.

Figure 2.

The experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984).

From Loops to Leaps in Entrepreneurial Learning

Experiential learning theory acknowledges that individuals engage in experiencing, reflecting, and acting through iterative cycles of learning loops (e.g., Gabrielsson et al., 2025; Lattacher et al., 2024). A learning loop has no definitive start or end, but it typically begins with entrepreneurial action through active experimentation (Corbett, 2007; Politis, 2005). Engaging in entrepreneurial action leads to concrete experiences, followed by reflective observation. This reflection allows individuals to draw conclusions from their experiences and develop ideas that stimulate changes in judgments, feelings, and skills (Neergård et al., 2022). The cognitive and motivational outcomes from this process can be used for further acts of active experimentation (Kayes, 2002). Thus, learning is both an inward-looking individual process and an outward-looking interactional process (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Learners move to varying degrees from being actors to observers and from specific involvement to general analytical detachment throughout the process (Kolb, 1984, p. 31).

The conceptualization of learning loops provides a high-level perspective on entrepreneurial learning as an ongoing experiential process that can be broken down into iterative cycles. Although the value and strength of the “learning loop” concept are generally recognized in the literature (Mandel & Noyes, 2016; Politis et al., 2019), we argue that advancing theory on its applicability and use in VCPs requires a context-sensitive re-conceptualization that acknowledges the temporal specificities of such programs. In this regard, we contend that experiential learning traditionally builds on the notion of individuals operating outside the time-compressed and pre-designed learning environments that typically characterize VCPs. For example, Politis (2005, p. 417) concludes that learning entrepreneurship from experience is a slow and incremental process that evolves throughout the entrepreneurial career. This temporal understanding of learning is also reflected in Kolb’s (1984, p. 38) original writings, where knowledge is described as an ongoing transformation process continually created and recreated through experience over time.

To advance theory about the viability and effectiveness of experiential learning theory within VCPs, we propose that the intended and ideal learning process in this setting builds on the notion of learning leaps. Learning leaps refer to significant, forceful, and rapid movements toward the intended learning outcomes of a teaching module within a specific educational intervention. While this concept acknowledges that individuals progress cognitively and emotionally through learning loops, it underscores the critical importance of time sensitivity inherent in structured and time-constrained educational settings where students participate in venture creation as the primary learning vessel (Gabrielsson et al., 2025). In this regard, there is as much emphasis on igniting learning loops in VCPs as there is on accelerating the process, where the equality of emphasis enables learners to quickly and forcefully develop cognitive and motivational entrepreneurial outcomes (e.g., Neck et al., 2021).

We contend that the notion of learning leaps is an implicit yet pervasive element in designing and delivering VCPs. These programs are designed to provide enterprise-oriented training that acts as a powerful catalyst for entrepreneurial learning in a timely manner. The authentic scenarios focus on creating coordinated learning opportunities that streamline time consumption and create complementarity, thus enhancing and completing each other (Gabrielsson et al., 2025). Navigating multiple critical episodes and setbacks in parallel accelerates the entrepreneurial learning process by igniting expeditious cycles of reflection and action. This enables students to quickly progress toward intended learning outcomes, thereby speeding up their learning process. Table 1 contrasts the notions of learning loops and learning leaps in the experiential learning process.

Table 1.

Contrasting Learning Loops and Learning Leaps in the Experiential Learning Process.

Learning loops	Learning leaps
Educator task: Opening up for a holistic integration of learning processes within a broader social and environmental context. Intended outcome: Enabling learners to move forward in the learning process cognitively and emotionally via engaging in action, experience, and reflection. Challenge: Resolving dialectically opposing demands of experiencing versus conceptualizing and reflecting versus applying when going through learning loops.	Educator task: Speeding up the learning process in a way that maintains the integrity of the learning cycle. Intended outcome: Enabling learners to move quickly and forcefully in the learning process. Challenge: Finding ways to compress or integrate distinct learning modes without sacrificing the depth and richness of the experience.

Learning loops

Learning leaps

Educator task: Opening up for a holistic integration of learning processes within a broader social and environmental context.
Intended outcome: Enabling learners to move forward in the learning process cognitively and emotionally via engaging in action, experience, and reflection.
Challenge: Resolving dialectically opposing demands of experiencing versus conceptualizing and reflecting versus applying when going through learning loops.

Educator task: Speeding up the learning process in a way that maintains the integrity of the learning cycle.
Intended outcome: Enabling learners to move quickly and forcefully in the learning process.
Challenge: Finding ways to compress or integrate distinct learning modes without sacrificing the depth and richness of the experience.

Our notion of learning leaps connects with three other concepts that underpin our understanding of the viability and effectiveness of experiential learning theory within VCPs: timespan, speed, and sequencing. Timespan refers to the expansion of time over a specific period. It is an objective concept of time that can be quantified by clocks and calendars (Johnsen & Holt, 2023). In the context of VCPs, the intense and temporally compressed enterprise-oriented training offered provides a specific timespan during which entrepreneurial learning may occur. Although different students may subjectively perceive the expansion of time as moving more slowly or more quickly depending on their level of engagement and emotional state (e.g., Wearden, 2016), the actual timespan of the VCP remains the same for both.

Speed refers to the rate at which learning moves. It can also refer to the magnitude of velocity, which indicates the direction of motion in the learning process. It is a relative indicator (e.g., Molotch, 2017) that assesses the amount of progression or change relative to the timespan. Speeding up the learning process in VCPs thus implies accelerating experiential learning within the education time span, where students progress more quickly in building the necessary skills and knowledge for successful venture creation.

Sequencing refers to the temporal order in which different learning activities are arranged and how they are combined and coordinated to accelerate the learning process. It involves focusing on the suitability or appropriateness of timing events, where real-world challenges and training activities can connect cognitively and emotionally (Crosina et al., 2023), but also synchronizing them through careful consideration of their simultaneous occurrence (Gabrielsson et al., 2025). By ordering structured and intensive activities and events in time and space, entrepreneurship educators can help students quickly build the necessary skills and knowledge for successful venture creation, thereby providing favorable conditions for accelerating their learning. Figure 3 depicts the building blocks of our conceptual model.

Figure 3.

Conceptual building blocks for advancing theory of learning leaps in VCPs.

Leveraging Learning Leaps in Venture Creation Programs

In this section, we further develop our conceptual framework by clarifying the theoretical mechanisms that constitute the conditions that accelerate the experiential learning process. The conceptualization builds on the notion of leverage, which we define as a positional advantage that enables instructors to expedite the experiential learning process. The advantage arises from arranging, combining, and coordinating learning activities in VCPs in a favorable position. Leverage, in this context, thus occurs when the theoretical mechanisms are organized to function together, thereby influencing the speed and impact of the learning process and resulting in rapid and significant progress toward intended learning outcomes.

Leverage is a function of four interconnected theoretical mechanisms that are embedded in the teaching and learning of entrepreneurship, which we label learning catalysts. Generally, these theoretical mechanisms collectively provide the driving force that accelerates the experiential learning process in VCPs. The creation of force through learning activities builds on two necessary conditions: momentum and direction. Momentum implies the force or speed gained, while direction suggests the course of the process. Together, they ignite and accelerate learning by maintaining focus and driving continuous improvement.

Momentum and direction can, in turn, each be divided into two subdimensions that exist in a dialectical state of continuous tension and change. Momentum is divided into enabling and energizing, which propel learners forward in the learning process by creating a sense of progress and motivation. Direction is divided into earthing and edifying, which ensures that momentum is effectively channeled toward specific learning goals. Table 2 depicts an overview of the characteristics of the four learning catalysts and their function in the experiential learning process.

Table 2.

Overview of the Four Learning Catalysts: Enabling, Energizing, Earthing and Edifying.

Dimension	Learning catalyst	Key characteristic	Operation
Momentum	Enabling	Facilitating access to essential resources and support while creating a sense of progress and motivation.	Propels learners forward by creating a sense of progress and motivation.
	Energizing	Evoking positive emotions and entrepreneurial passion, fostering autonomy and self-efficacy.
Direction	Earthing	Grounding ideas in practical realities, ensuring applicability and adaptability in real-world scenarios.	Ensures that momentum is channeled effectively toward specific learning goals.
	Edifying	Embedding actions in broader intellectual and moral frameworks, promoting deep learning and ethical growth.

Enabling opens up actionable opportunities by situating students in pre-defined events and networks to ensure they access essential resources and support. These networks may include mentors, industry experts, and fellow entrepreneurs who provide guidance and share their experiences with students (Meyer et al., 2020). For instance, educators may channel their contacts within the local ecosystem to enable students to interact with relevant actors more quickly than they would on their own. Similarly, inviting relevant investors to a pitching event allows students to receive timely feedback on their business ideas and gain exposure to potential future investors. The guided coaching enables students to gain valuable insights more quickly and build a foundational understanding of the entrepreneurial landscape, giving them the authority and means to continue their entrepreneurial efforts.

Energizing builds on the affective components of entrepreneurial action to evoke positive emotions among students (Neck et al., 2021). In this respect, educators encourage students to develop contacts based on personal interests and motivations. Positive emotions can be linked to developing entrepreneurial passion (Gabrielsson et al., 2025), which connects the learning process to tenacity, persistence, and high levels of personal initiative. Energizing this inner drive allows students to take ownership of their learning journey, thus fostering a sense of autonomy and self-efficacy. By actively seeking out and engaging with the surrounding entrepreneurial ecosystem, students can tailor their networks to align with their specific venture goals and personal aspirations.

Earthing connects with the pragmatic roots of experiential entrepreneurship education (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2020) by focusing on applying assumptions and ideas in real-world scenarios. It emphasizes the tangible experience of “what works,” where a proposition is considered valid if it performs satisfactorily in a particular setting. This involves ensuring that students ground their ideas in practical realities and advising them on how to get back on track if they linger too long in circles or dead ends. Authentic hands-on experience allows learners to test and refine business concepts and gain first-hand knowledge of their applicability and limitations. It enhances their ability to adapt, innovate, and develop a more personalized and meaningful entrepreneurial experience.

Edifying embeds explorative, affective, and pragmatic action in broader intellectual and moral frames of reasoning, thus aligning with the emphasis on the practical consequences of ideas in the learning process (e.g., Dewey, 1946). Intellectual and moral frames offer structured ways to understand complex phenomena by drawing from established knowledge and principles. For example, educators might edify students by incorporating learning diaries in the program, as they prompt reflection and help students to make sense of their actions, thus moving from surface to deep learning (e.g., Hägg, 2021). Another example is learning activities where students write cases based on their ventures (Larsen & Kaspersen, 2022), which allows them to structure and reflect on the significance of the practical application of ideas to accumulate theoretical and practical knowledge in entrepreneurship. These intellectual insights facilitate students’ understanding of the underlying mechanisms and the broader context of entrepreneurial activities, allowing them to grow intellectually and ethically.

To conclude, our conceptual framework explicates the temporal dynamics of Kolb’s experiential learning theory (ELT) cycle, thereby allowing for a nuanced understanding of the conditions that accelerate students’ learning process in VCPs. Moreover, by considering critical questions for each learning catalyst, entrepreneurship educators can design and implement learning experiences that lead to deeper and more effective learning, where each subdimension challenges and informs the other. This holistic approach helps learners to engage in a continuous process of experiencing, reflecting, and acting, ultimately fostering a deeper and more meaningful understanding of entrepreneurship. The key questions for each learning catalyst are depicted in Table 3.

Table 3.

Questions for Each Learning Catalyst.

Learning catalysts	Key questions for educators
Enabling	• What opportunities can I provide for learners to actively experiment and venture forth with their entrepreneurial ideas?• How can I empower learners with the necessary authority, resources, and support to take action?• What practical steps can I take to remove barriers and enable learners to engage in real-world entrepreneurial activities?
Energizing	• What engaging, hands-on experiences can I design to immerse learners in the entrepreneurial context?• How can I create learning environments that evoke emotions, spark curiosity, and motivate learners?• What sensory elements, interactive activities, or storytelling techniques can I incorporate to enhance the experiential quality of the learning process?
Earthing	• How can I facilitate structured reflection and discussion to help learners make sense of their entrepreneurial experiences?• What questions can I ask to encourage learners to consider the practical implications and consequences of their actions?• What tools or frameworks can I provide to guide learners in analyzing their experiences from multiple perspectives?
Edifying	• What conceptual models, theories, or frameworks related to entrepreneurship can I introduce to help learners develop a structured understanding?• How can I connect the practical experiences to relevant theoretical knowledge and help learners to build a robust cognitive foundation?• What opportunities can I create for learners to apply their developing knowledge and skills to new entrepreneurial situations?

Teaching Exercises in Venture Creation Programs

To connect our conceptual framework to the design and refinement of the entrepreneurship education curricula, we exemplify in this section how learning catalysts are embedded in teaching exercises to accelerate experiential learning within VCPs, thus exerting force and direction in the learning process of entrepreneurship students. The teaching exercises are intricately linked to VCPs as they are designed to reflect the real-world challenges and decision-making processes that entrepreneurs encounter during the startup phase. The four exercises, presented below, are followed by a paragraph highlighting the interconnection of the learning catalysts as part of the exercise. By doing this, we explicate the link between theoretical concepts embedded in experiential learning theory (Dewey, 1946; Kolb, 1984; Morris, 2020), their application in theorizing about the teaching and learning of entrepreneurship (Crosina et al., 2023; Gabrielsson et al., 2025; Lattacher et al., 2024), and their practical implementation in the classroom.

Feasibility Analysis

In the context of VCPs, a feasibility analysis involves a comprehensive assessment to evaluate the potential success and sustainability of a proposed venture project. The analysis is typically conducted over several consecutive days, such as one week, where students collaborate in a low-risk, high-energy environment (Bager, 2011; Hiss, 2018; Nielsen & Stovang, 2015). This process not only enhances their entrepreneurial skills but also fosters a culture of informed decision-making and risk management within VCPs. Students gain experience working with various ideas and groups, which enables them to improve their ability to conduct feasibility studies by applying lessons learned from one feasibility study to the next. Through comprehensive feasibility studies, entrepreneurship students learn to critically evaluate their business ideas, identify potential challenges, and make informed decisions about the viability and success of their proposed ventures. Additionally, they have access to a pool of previously tested ideas, as all feasibility study reports from the entire class are collected and saved each year.

During the feasibility study, educators, mentors, and alumni guide students toward valuable contacts and act as sounding boards, thereby enabling them to gain new perspectives. Like other camp-based initiatives, students are energized by the challenge of delivering high-quality results within a short deadline of just one week (Bager, 2011). The drive for high-quality outcomes is fuelled not only by the report’s grading but also by the desire to impress the panel, fellow students, and the idea provider (Kaspersen & Aaboen, 2021). The honest feedback provided by the panel grounds students’ ideas regarding the feasibility of the business concept and the quality of their information gathering and analysis. This earthing occurs both directly, through feedback to their own group, and indirectly, by observing feedback given to other groups. Structuring the information in the report and presentation at the end of the feasibility study encourages edifying through prompted written reflection at the end of the week.

Entrepreneurial Challenge

The entrepreneurial challenge is an engaging teaching exercise designed to immerse students in the excitement and intentionality of discovering, evaluating, and developing business ideas into viable entrepreneurial opportunities. This time-compressed exercise, which typically lasts for a few days, tasks students with creating and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities, thus fostering a hands-on learning experience. The assignment is usually conducted in groups to promote collaborative learning. Each group is provided with a small startup capital and tasked with generating profit within the given timeframe. The group that achieves the highest profit wins the challenge. This competitive element motivates students to apply their knowledge in a real-world context, thereby enhancing skills such as creativity, ambiguity management, planning, teamwork, resilience, financial literacy, and resource leveraging (e.g., Colombelli et al., 2022; Morris et al., 2013).

The challenge exercise encourages students to engage in early-stage venture activities, providing a foundation for understanding the tangible and tacit challenges of the entrepreneurial process. Throughout this exercise, students participate in various venture creation activities, including generating ideas, recognizing and evaluating opportunities, identifying potential customers, launching and operating the venture, and ultimately harvesting the rewards. Formative feedback from supervisors supports and accelerates their learning. At the end of the assignment, students present their entrepreneurial opportunities to the class, thereby engaging in interactive discussions and responding to questions and feedback from peers and instructors. The oral presentation concludes with a debriefing intervention where students reflect on their experiences and learnings. Following this, students write a reflection report to synthesize their actions and the insights gained during the process.

The entrepreneurial challenge exercise supports enabling by engaging students in entrepreneurial actions to navigate high uncertainty (Schlesinger, 2012). The challenge-based approach incentivizes students to excel and outperform their peers, thereby energizing the learning process (Isabelle, 2018). Formative feedback allows students to assess and adjust their propositions, thereby connecting with the concept of earthing. Additionally, the exercise promotes edifying by encouraging students to critically reflect on their entrepreneurial journeys and deepen their understanding of entrepreneurship practice.

Pitch Training

Pitch training involves teaching and preparing aspiring entrepreneurs to deliver persuasive and compelling presentations of their business ideas or ventures. A “pitch” is a concise presentation of a product or project idea to another party, such as potential customers or investors (Clingingsmith & Shane, 2018). This exercise underscores a product’s or project’s value for end users while providing a framework for prioritizing and structuring the presentation as effectively and efficiently as possible¹ (Smith & Viceisza, 2018). This includes carefully crafting a convincing marketing story for customers or investors. For instance, pitch materials for investors often include information about the entrepreneurial team’s work histories and the venture’s prospects (Hor et al., 2021; Lavanchy et al., 2022). The general rule is to keep the presentation brief, often no longer than riding an elevator, hence the term “elevator pitch.” Incorporating pitch training into entrepreneurship education helps learners develop the skills and confidence to effectively communicate their business ideas and secure support from investors, partners, or potential customers.

The pitch training teaching exercise enables learners by placing them in situations where they must convince an audience of the value of a solution, thus embedding classroom activities within the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem. The pitch training energizes learners by encouraging real-life (rather than simulated) interactions with potential customers or investors, which serves as a motivational force to help them develop their businesses. In this context, learners must express passion as an indicator of their motivation to deliver a “killer pitch” (e.g., Komulainen et al., 2020). Pitch training facilitates earthing through honest and authentic hands-on feedback from the audience, which supports the pragmatic notion of accepting a product or project proposition if it “works” satisfactorily while rejecting impractical ideas. Lastly, the exercise supports edifying as learners receive intellectual instruction on tailoring information about their business to specific audiences. This includes practicing and developing entrepreneurial competencies, such as establishing external network ties, targeting specific stakeholder groups, and using unique vocabulary to attract attention and build legitimacy (Politis et al., 2019).

Peer-to-Peer Interaction

Peer-to-peer interaction involves the exchange, transfer, and dissemination of experiences and best practices among learners enrolled in VCPs. Typically, peer-learning sessions are structured as learner-driven exercises where students meet for a few hours in an informal setting. These meetings occur regularly throughout the education program, providing a platform for students to interact on equal terms without the presence of faculty, industry professionals, or others from the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem. This exchange of knowledge is a crucial aspect of VCPs, as it allows students to learn from each other’s successes and failures, fostering a collaborative entrepreneurial mindset (Haneberg & Aadland, 2020). In the exercise, the educator’s role is to ensure that the sessions are conducted smoothly and to encourage students to learn from each other respectfully and constructively.

Peer-to-peer interaction enables students to identify peers in similar situations, thereby creating opportunities for mutual support and understanding. It energizes students by providing a safe environment to express their emotions, with peers offering help and support. Peer-to-peer interaction acts as a feedback control mechanism, allowing students to “prototype” their thoughts and ideas with peers before engaging in external interactions, thus representing earthing. The approach offers a low-threshold environment to discuss business ideas, potential business approaches, and decisions with skilled peers. Finally, it edifies students by facilitating the sorting, communication, and reflection of their experiences in a social setting, thereby transforming “tacit knowledge” into explicit knowledge through peer interaction.

The selected examples represent a balanced overall picture of different instructional approaches among the diverse teaching exercises that can occur in a VCP. The different teaching exercises can, in this regard, be linked to various phases in the development of a venture project during the VCP. The entrepreneurial challenge and peer-to-peer interaction have a broader focus on the student’s “whole-person” learning (e.g., Taatila, 2010), while feasibility analysis and pitch training are clearly connected to the students’ venture projects. In this respect, the first two teaching exercises work well before venture teams are formed, while the latter two require that projects start to materialize. Sequencing the exercises within a course or teaching module thus helps students develop essential practical skills for launching and growing a business (Haneberg & Aadland, 2020)

The selected teaching exercises have somewhat different starting points to trigger the dialectic processes of the experiential learning cycle, as depicted in Figure 2. The feasibility analysis triggers the process by testing assumptions from current beliefs (from abstract conceptualization to active experimentation), the entrepreneurial challenge ignites action to immerse students in exploring customers and markets (from active experimentation to concrete experience), pitch training opens up for professional experience-based feedback to encourage reflection (from concrete experience to reflective observation), and peer-to-peer interaction invites reflecting on current beliefs (from reflective observation to abstract conceptualization). Integrating these exercises into VCPs thus offers favorable conditions for accelerating experiential learning by allowing educators to exert force and direction in the entrepreneurial learning process.

Conclusions

This article theorizes about the conditions that accelerate experiential learning within VCPs. Embedded in these programs’ time-compressed and guided context, we propose a conceptual framework that shifts the focus from the cyclical nature of experiential learning (“loops”) to the speed and magnitude of these movements (“leaps”). A key tenet in our theorizing includes introducing the concept of learning leaps, which are significant and rapid movements toward intended learning outcomes. The conceptual framework identifies four learning catalysts—enabling, energizing, earthing, and edifying—that create favorable conditions for learning leaps. We provide examples of teaching exercises that integrate these catalysts to accelerate the learning process in VCPs.

Our study advances theory and research on entrepreneurship education and pedagogy in several ways. First, we develop context-sensitive theorizing by focusing on the unique setting of VCPs, where structured educational supports facilitate sense-making and learning (Crosina et al., 2023). In this regard, our discussion highlights how time management and allocation impact the learning process (Lévesque & Stephan, 2020), and how planned pedagogical scaffolds open up action opportunities for students, thereby providing them with the authority and means to continue their entrepreneurial efforts (Crosina et al., 2023). Second, our theorizing contributes to advancing experiential learning theory within entrepreneurship education. Although the notion of time is omnipresent in experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984), it has scarcely been addressed in entrepreneurship education and pedagogy. By shifting the focus from the cyclical movements (“loops”) in the experiential learning process to the speed and magnitude of these movements (“leaps”), we disentangle the temporal dynamics embedded in experiential learning and the conditions that accelerate the learning process. Third, by theorizing the unique conditions and learning requirements of VCPs, we contribute to the conversation on best practices in entrepreneurship education and pedagogy. In this vein, we illustrate our conceptual framework with a theory-informed discussion of how purposefully crafted teaching exercises empower students to engage in expeditious cycles of reflection and action, thereby accelerating the entrepreneurial learning process.

Our conceptual model has some limitations and boundaries that need to be acknowledged. One limitation is that it builds on the archetypical design of a VCP as a method to accelerate entrepreneurial learning. A significant boundary factor for our theorizing is that the experiential features that characterize these programs require substantial resources, including management attention and support, faculty experience, funding, mentorship, and access to networks. The intensive nature of VCPs means that they often require a high level of involvement from educators and industry (Haneberg & Aadland, 2020), which can vary significantly between programs and also be difficult to maintain over time. This makes it challenging for educators working in institutions with limited resources or those who may not have the necessary support systems in place.

Additionally, VCPs may not fully address the theoretical aspects of entrepreneurship education (e.g., Fiet, 2001). While they provide valuable practical experience, the action-oriented bias of these programs may foster an educational “laissez-faire” that compromises the depth of theoretical knowledge that other more traditional classroom-based forms of entrepreneurship education can offer (Hägg, 2021). An overemphasis on venture creation may also lead to a narrow view of entrepreneurship (Klapper & Farber, 2016), emphasizing startup creation over other entrepreneurial activities such as intrapreneurship or social entrepreneurship. This can result in a gap in students’ understanding of the broader concepts and frameworks that underpin entrepreneurial activities.

The accumulation of scholarly knowledge of the methods and approaches used by teachers to guide students in their learning is essential for the longevity of entrepreneurship as an academic field and teaching subject (Gabrielsson et al., 2020; Neck & Corbett, 2018). For future research, we suggest further developing the framework regarding how and when the four learning catalysts should be applied to accelerate the entrepreneurial learning process. Specifically, we emphasize the importance of authenticity, the role of the educator, and the transferability of the learning experience. Increased scaffolding through the use of learning catalysts may compromise the authenticity of students’ experiences (e.g., Colombelli et al., 2022; Morris et al., 2013) and the emotional events that are important for learning (Crosina et al., 2023). Thus, balancing the degree of intervention to maintain the authenticity of the experience while ensuring students acquire the necessary skills and knowledge (e.g., Haneberg et al., 2022) has become more pronounced. This balance involves managing the tension between providing a few profound experiences versus many potentially less authentic ones within a limited timeframe.

The role of educators also needs to evolve alongside conceptual developments and emerging frameworks in entrepreneurship education (e.g., Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2020). Previous studies have often categorized educators as either traditional teachers or facilitators of self-driven and organic learning (e.g., Brush et al., 2024). Our theorizing suggests a more integrative and dynamic role that lies somewhere in between. Additionally, a significant portion of experiential learning in VCPs occurs through social interactions with peers (Haneberg & Aadland, 2020) or with other actors within and across the ecosystem (El-Awad et al., 2024). In this regard, our framework emphasizes the complexities and richness of teaching and learning in state-of-the-art experiential entrepreneurship education, suggesting a more proactive, relationship-centered role for educators who seek to accelerate the experiential learning processes of their students.

Practical implications include considering how well-designed teaching exercises can speed up experiential learning to achieve the course and program objectives. Educators can refer to the four learning catalysts introduced in this paper and use them to create exercises that facilitate favorable conditions for learning leaps in VCPs. Such exercises should be linked to various phases in students’ development as entrepreneurs and/or in the development of students' venture projects, and teaching exercises can be developed and introduced to students with or without venture projects. The four teaching exercises presented in this paper illustrate how teaching exercises focus on students or venture development, and we encourage educators to consider the context, methods, and objectives of their course or program when introducing or developing teaching exercises. Moreover, a practical implication is that leverage in VCPs could motivate educators to take on new roles and purposefully choose different roles in different interventions.

Our conceptual framework is designed for VCPs, which are prime examples of time-compressed, pre-designed, and structured learning spaces for entrepreneurial learning. Nonetheless, other forms of experiential entrepreneurship education, including extra-curricular training (Pocek et al., 2022; Preedy et al., 2020) and entrepreneurial initiatives provided by incubators and accelerator programs (Metcalf et al., 2021; Politis et al., 2019) also incorporate time-compressed learning. Therefore, we advocate for future research to expand on learning leaps within these educational settings, as this could significantly improve the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Ethical Statement

This study did not require ethical approval.

ORCID iDs

Diamanto Politis

Jonas Gabrielsson

Lise Aaboen

Note

References

Alsos

Hägg

Lundqvist

Politis

Stockhaus

Williams-Middleton

Djupdal

(2023). Graduates of venture creation programs – Where do they apply their entrepreneurial competencies? Small Business Economics, 60(1), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00641-6

Bager

(2011). The camp model for entrepreneurship teaching. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0149-9

Brush

Wraae

Nikou

(2024). Understanding influences on entrepreneurship educator role identity. Education + Training, 66(10), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-01-2022-0007

Carlson

Wilmot

(2006). Innovation: The five disciplines for creating what customers want. Crown Business.

Clingingsmith

Shane

(2018). Training aspiring entrepreneurs to pitch experienced investors: Evidence from a field experiment in the United States. Management Science, 64(11), 5164–5179. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2882

Colombelli

Loccisano

Panelli

Pennisi

O. A. M.

Serraino

(2022). Entrepreneurship education: The effects of challenge-based learning on the entrepreneurial mindset of university students. Administrative Sciences, 12(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010010

Cope

(2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.06.002

Corbett

(2005). Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00094.x

Corbett

(2007). Learning asymmetries and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.10.001

10.

Crosina

Frey

Corbett

Greenberg

(2023). From negative emotions to entrepreneurial mindset: A model of learning through experiential entrepreneurship education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 23(1), 88–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2022.0260

11.

Deakins

Freel

(1998). Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs. The Learning Organization, 5(3), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810223428

12.

Dewey

(1946). Experience an education. The Macmillan Company.

13.

El-Awad

Gabrielsson

Pocek

Politis

(2024). Unpacking the early alumni engagement of entrepreneurship graduates. Journal of Small Business Management, 62(3), 1219–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2022.2125979

14.

Fauchald

R. N.

(2025). Extracurricular entrepreneurship and enterprise education: What, how, why, for whom, and when? Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 8(1), 11–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/25151274241239683

15.

Fiet

J. O.

(2001). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00041-5

16.

Gabrielsson

Galan

Politis

(2025). Learning pathways to entrepreneurial passion in venture creation programs: A configurational study of experiential and temporal conditions. Journal of Business Research, 186, Article 114944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114944

17.

Gabrielsson

Hägg

Landström

Politis

(2020). Connecting the past with the present: The development of research on pedagogy in entrepreneurial education. Education + Training, 62(9), 1061–1086. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-11-2019-0265

18.

Gaggiotti

Jarvis

Richards

(2020). The texture of entrepreneurship programs: Revisiting experiential entrepreneurship education through the lens of the liminal–liminoid continuum. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(3), 236–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419890341

19.

Gundry

L. K.

Kickul

J. R.

(1996). Flights of imagination: Fostering creativity through experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 27(3), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878196273005

20.

Hägg

(2021). The entrepreneurial diary – A reflective learning activity to enhance the judgmental abilities of student entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 27(5), 1142–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00641-6

21.

Hägg

Gabrielsson

(2020). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 829–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00641-6

22.

Haneberg

D. H.

Aaboen

Williams Middleton

(2022). Teaching and facilitating action-based entrepreneurship education: Addressing challenges towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management in Education, 20(3), Article 100711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100711

23.

Haneberg

D. H.

Aadland

(2020). Learning from venture creation in higher education. Industry and Higher Education, 34(3), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219884020

24.

Heinonen

Poikkijoki

S.-A.

(2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education. Mission impossible? The Journal of Management Development, 25(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710610637981

25.

Hiss

(2018). Talk, time, and creativity: Developing ideas and identities during a start-up weekend. Language & Communication, 60, 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.01.007

26.

Hoover

J. D.

Giambatista

R. C.

Belkin

L. Y.

(2012). Eyes on, hands on: Vicarious observational learning as an enhancement of direct experience. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0102

27.

Hor

S. C. T.

Chang

Torres de Oliveira

Davidsson

(2021). From the theories of financial resource acquisition to a theory for acquiring financial resources: How should digital ventures raise equity capital beyond seed funding. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 16, Article e00278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00278

28.

Isabelle

D. A.

(2018). Gamification of entrepreneurship education. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 18(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12203

29.

Johnsen

C. G.

Holt

(2023). Narrating the facets of time in entrepreneurial action. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(2), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211038107

30.

Jones

Meckel

Taylor

(2021). Situated learning in business incubator: Encouraging students to become real entrepreneurs. Industry and Higher Education, 35(4), 467.

31.

Kaspersen

Aaboen

(2021). Feasibility studies at CERN: CERN as a technology provider for startups. In Neck

H. M.

Liu

(Eds.), Innovation in global entrepreneurship education (pp. 196–210). Edward Elgar.

32.

Katz

J. A.

(1999). Institutionalizing elegance: When simulation becomes a requirement. Simulation & Gaming, 30(3), 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687819903000308

33.

Kayes

D. C.

(2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.8509336

34.

Klapper

R. G.

Farber

V. A.

(2016). In Alain Gibb's footsteps: Evaluating alternative approaches to sustainable enterprise education (SEE). International Journal of Management in Education, 14(3), 422–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.09.001

35.

Kolb

(2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

36.

Kolb

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

37.

Komulainen

Siivonen

Kasanen

Räty

(2020). “How to give a killer pitch?” Performances of entrepreneurial narratives as identity models in higher education. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(3), 214–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420908039

38.

Kuratko

D. F.

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

39.

Lackéus

Williams Middleton

(2015). Venture creation programs: Bridging entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Education + Training, 57(1), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00641-6

40.

Larsen

E. H.

Kaspersen

(2022). Student case development based on entrepreneurial experiences: A guide for entrepreneurship educators. In Wigger

Aaboen

Haneberg

Jakobsen

Lauvås

(Eds.), Reframing the case method in entrepreneurship education. Cases from the Nordic Countries (pp. 67–75). Edward Elgar Publishing.

41.

Lattacher

Wdowiak

M. A.

Schwarz

E. J.

Audretsch

D. B.

(2024). A holistic lens on entrepreneurial learning from failure: Continuing the legacy of Jason Cope. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 30(11), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijebr-06-2023-0635

42.

Lavanchy

Reichert

Joshi

(2022). Blood in the water: An abductive approach to startup valuation on ABC’s Shark Tank. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 17, Article e00305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2022.e00305

43.

Lévesque

Stephan

(2020). It’s time we talk about time in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00641-6

44.

Mandel

Noyes

(2016). Survey of experiential entrepreneurship education offerings among top undergraduate entrepreneurship programs. Education + Training, 58(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-06-2014-0067

45.

Metcalf

L. E.

Katona

T. M.

York

J. L.

(2021). University startup accelerators: Startup launchpads or vehicles for entrepreneurial learning? Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 4(4), 666–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420931753

46.

Meyer

M. H.

Lee

Kelley

Collier

(2020). An assessment and planning methodology for university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 29(2), 259–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355720930571

47.

Molotch

(2017). “Just time” and the relativity of speed. In Wajcman

Dodd

(Eds.), The sociology of speed: Digital, organizational, and social temporalities (pp. 117–130). Oxford University Press.

48.

Morris

N. M.

Kuratko

D. F.

Pryor

C. G.

(2013). Building blocks for the development of university-wide entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2013-0047

49.

Morris

T. H.

(2020). Experiential learning – A systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1064–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279

50.

Neck

H. M.

Brush

C. G.

Greene

P. G.

(2021). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice based approach. (2). Edward Elgar.

51.

Neck

H. M.

Corbett

A. C.

(2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286

52.

Neck

H. M.

Greene

P. G.

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

53.

Neck

H. M.

Liu

(2020). Innovation in global entrepreneurship education: Teaching entrepreneurship in practice. Edward Elgar.

54.

Neergård

G.-B.

Aaboen

Widding

Ø.

(2022). Entrepreneurial passion in entrepreneurship education. In Henry

Gabriel

B. F. C. C.

Sailer

Bernardó-Mansilla

Lahikainen

(Eds.), Strategies for the creation and maintenance of entrepreneurial universities (pp. 87–113). IGI Global.

55.

Nielsen

S. L.

Stovang

(2015). DesUni: University entrepreneurship education through design thinking. Education + Training, 57(8/9), 977–991. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-09-2014-0121

56.

Ollila

Middleton

K. W.

(2011). The venture creation approach: Integrating entrepreneurial education and incubation at the university. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 13(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeim.2011.038857

57.

Pittaway

Cope

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

58.

Pittaway

L. A.

Thorpe

(2012). A framework for entrepreneurial learning: A tribute to jason Cope. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9-10), 837–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.694268

59.

Pocek

Politis

Gabrielsson

(2022). Entrepreneurial learning in extra-curricular start up programs for students. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 29(4), 399–424.

60.

Politis

(2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x

61.

Politis

Gabrielsson

Galan

Abebe

S. A.

(2019). Entrepreneurial learning in venture acceleration programs. The Learning Organization, 26(6), 588–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-04-2018-0082

62.

Preedy

Jones

Maas

Duckett

(2020). Examining the perceived value of extracurricular enterprise activities in relation to entrepreneurial learning processes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(7), 1085–1105. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-12-2019-0408

63.

Rae

(2013). The contribution of momentary perspectives to entrepreneurial learning and creativity. Industry and Higher Education, 27(6), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0184

64.

Schlesinger

L. A.

(2012). Learning entrepreneurship means living entrepreneurially. In: #Fix young America: How to rebuild our economy and put young Americans back to work (for good). Advantage Media Group.

65.

Smith

Viceisza

(2018). Bite me! ABC’s Shark Tank as a path to entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 50(3), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9880-8

66.

Taatila

V. P.

(2010). Learning entrepreneurship in higher education. Education + Training, 52(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011017672

67.

Wearden

(2016). The psychology of time perception. Palgrave Macmillan.

68.

Wolfe

Bruton

(1994). On the use of computerized simulations for entrepreneurship education. Simulation & Gaming, 25(3), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878194253007

69.

Young

J. E.

Sexton

D. L.

(2003). What makes entrepreneurs learn and how do they do it? The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 12(2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135570301200201

From Loops to Leaps: Accelerating Experiential Learning in Venture Creation Programs

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Entrepreneurial Learning in Venture Creation Programs

From Loops to Leaps in Entrepreneurial Learning

Leveraging Learning Leaps in Venture Creation Programs

Teaching Exercises in Venture Creation Programs

Feasibility Analysis

Entrepreneurial Challenge

Pitch Training

Peer-to-Peer Interaction

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Note

References