This paper focuses on identifying the approaches students take to their learning, with particular regard to issues of enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation when comparing the traditional lecture format to a more applied, practice-based case study format. The notions of deep and surface learning are used to explain student learning. More active methods of teaching (such as discussion and case studies) promote a deep approach; and work elsewhere has suggested that these methods are more effective than lectures for the promotion of thought. For this study, questionnaire surveys were used to determine whether there was a difference in approach to learning between most and least beneficial course modules, and between the lecture-based and more applied, practice-based case study formats. The findings indicated that deeper learning results from a more active approach, with students who adopted deeper learning being better able to apply their learning in different entrepreneurial contexts.
BallantineJ.A.DuffA.LarresMcCourt P. (2008), ‘Accounting and business students' approaches to learning: A longitudinal study’, Journal of Accounting Education, Vol 26, pp 188–201.
2.
BiggsJ.B. (1982), ‘Student motivation and study strategies in university and college of advanced education populations’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol 1, pp 33–55.
3.
BiggsJ.KemberD.LeungD.Y.P. (2001), ‘The revised two factor study process questionnaire’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 71, pp 133–149.
4.
BiggsJ.TangC. (2011), Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 4th ed, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
5.
BlighD. (1998), What's the Use of Lectures?5th ed, Intellect Books, Bristol.
6.
BoyceG.WilliamsS.KellyA.YeeH. (2001), ‘Fostering deep and elaborative learning and generic (soft) skill development: The strategic use of case studies in accounting education’, Accounting Education, Vol 10, No 1, pp 37–60.
7.
BreslinM.BuchananR. (2008), ‘On the case study method of research and teaching in design’, Design Issues, Vol 24, No 1, pp 36–40.
8.
BridgstockR. (2009), ‘The graduate attributes we've overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills’, Higher Education Research and Development, Vol 28, No 1, pp 31–44.
9.
CBI (2011), Working Towards Your Future: Making the Most of Your Time in Higher Education, CBI, London.
10.
CopeJ. (2003), ‘Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: Discontinuous events as triggers for higher-level learning’, Management Learning, Vol 34, No 4, pp 429–450.
11.
CopeJ. (2005), ‘Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol 29, No 3, pp 373–398.
12.
CopeJ.WattsG. (2000), ‘Learning by doing: An exploration of experience, critical incidents and reflection in entrepreneurial learning’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol 6, No 3, pp 104–124.
13.
DalleyJ.HamiltonB. (2000), ‘Knowledge, context and learning in the small business’, International Small Business Journal, Vol 18, No 3, pp 51–59.
14.
DeakinsD.FreelM. (1998), ‘Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs’, The Learning Organization, Vol 5, No 3, pp 144–155.
15.
EntwistleN. (1997), ‘Contrasting perspectives on learning’, in MartonF.HounsellD.EntwistleN., eds, The Experience of Learning, 2nd ed, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh.
16.
EntwistleN. (2009), Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking, Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.
GibbA.A. (1997), ‘Small firms training and competitiveness: Building on the small business as a learning organisation’, International Small Business Journal, Vol 15, No 3, pp 13–29.
19.
GibbA. (2002), ‘In pursuit of a new enterprise and entrepreneurship paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol 4, No 3, pp 213–232.
20.
GibbsG. (1992), Improving the Quality of Student Learning, Technical and Educational Services, Bristol.
21.
HagarP.HodkinsonP. (2009), ‘Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol 35, No 4, pp 619–638.
22.
HinchcliffeG.JollyA. (2011), ‘Graduate identity and employability’, British Educational Research Journal, Vol 37, No 4, pp 563–584.
23.
KemberD.McNaughtC. (2007), Enhancing University Teaching, Routledge, London.
24.
KemberD.LeungD.Y.P.McNaughtC. (2008), ‘A workshop activity to demonstrate that approaches to learning are influenced by the teaching and learning environment’, Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol 9, No 1, pp 43–56.
LowdenK.HallS.ElliotD.LewinJ. (2011), Employers' Perceptions of the Employability of New Graduates, Edge Foundation, London.
27.
LucasU. (1996), ‘Student approaches to learning – a literature guide’, Accounting Education, Vol 5, No 1, pp 87–98.
28.
MartonF.SaljoR. (1976a), ‘On qualitative differences in learning – 1: Outcome and process’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 46, pp 4–11.
29.
MartonF.SaljoR. (1976b), ‘On qualitative differences in learning – 2: Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 46, pp 115–127.
30.
MartonF.SaljoR. (1997), ‘Approaches to learning’, in MartonF.HounsellD.EntwistleN., eds, The Experience of Learning, 2nd ed, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh.
31.
Mauffette-LeendersL.A.ErskineJ.A.LeendersM.R. (1997), Learning with Cases, Richard Ivey School of Business, London, Ontario.
32.
PeggA.WaldockJ.Hendy-IsaacS.LawtonR. (2012), Pedagogy for Employability, Higher Education Academy, York.
33.
PittawayL.CopeJ. (2007), ‘Simulating entrepreneurial learning: Integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning’, Management Learning, Vol 38, No 2, pp 211–233.
34.
PittawayL.HannonP.GibbA.ThompsonJ. (2009), ‘Assessment practice in enterprise education’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol 15, No 1, pp 71–93.
35.
ProsserM.TrigwellK. (1999), Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
36.
RaeD. (2000), ‘Understanding entrepreneurial learning: A question of how?’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol 6, No 3, pp 145–159.
37.
RaeD.CarswellM. (2000), ‘Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial learning: The development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences’, Education and Training, Vol 42, No 4/5, pp 220–227.
38.
RamsdenP. (2003), Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd ed, Routledge-Falmer, London.
39.
ReuberA.R.FischerE.M. (1993), ‘The learning experiences of entrepreneurs’, in ChurchillN.C., ed, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Centre for Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson Park, MA.
40.
RichardsonJ.T.E. (2000), Researching Student Learning: Approaches to Studying in Campus-based and Distance Education, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
41.
ShuganS.M. (2006), ‘Save research – abandon the case method of teaching’, Marketing Science, Vol 25, No 2, pp 109–115.
42.
SvenssonL. (1976), Study Skill and Learning, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg.
43.
TaitH.EntwistleN.J.McCluneV. (1998), ‘ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the approaches to study inventory’, in RustC., ed, Improving Students as Learners, Oxford Brookes University and Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford.
44.
ZhaoJ.J. (1996), ‘Using case studies for international business communication training’, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol 59, No 4, pp 11–24.
