BLENDED LEARNING IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION

Alex Maritz: Agse, Melbourne, AustraliaChris Brown: Swinburne University, Hawthorn, Australia

∼

Contact: Alex Maritz, AGSE, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, 3122 Melbourne, Australia, Email:

amaritz@swin.edu.au

ABSTRACT

This paper explores a blended learning approach to entrepreneurship education by discussing the

integration of this pedagogical initiative aimed at infusing entrepreneurial skills and behaviour among

students in a higher education setting. We employ a pragmatic perspective, using an inductive

paradigm. The classification is exploratory in nature, based upon a grounded theory strategy. As such,

the initiative seeks an interpretative process, with blended learning being an integral pedagogical

technique in the vast array of available entrepreneurship education interventions. The value of this

approach is in integrating desirability, propensity to act and feasibility to enhance entrepreneurial

intentionality within an entrepreneurship program.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship education, blended learning, pedagogy.

Paper type: Conceptual.

INTRODUCTION

The entrepreneurship-directed approach to learning is based on the idea of experiential learning, in

which new activity produces a new experience and new thinking through reflection (Heinonen &

Poikkijoki, 2006). We further enhance this reflection by introducing blended learning as an innovative

pedagogical initiative within an entrepreneurship education context. Blended learning is defined as

learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of

teaching styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved

with a course (Heinze & Procter, 2004).

This paper is based upon the exploration of blended learning approaches to entrepreneurship education

by proposing different teaching techniques aimed at infusing entrepreneurial skills and behaviour

among students (Maritz, 2010a). It is proposed that a blended learning approach (Heinze & Procter,

2004; Harris, Connolly & Feeney, 2009; Mitchell & Honore, 2007; Yeun, Deng & Fox, 2009) seems to

be well suited to entrepreneurship education (Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2006) as it encourages students

to broaden their perspectives, and also develop the entrepreneurial skills and behaviour required for

their studies. Online resource and integration includes application of the Stanford Technology

Ventures Entrepreneurship online resource portal (see: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/) and online

discussion boards.

Whilst literature on blended learning is abound, the integration of entrepreneurship is scant. This

project will not only facilitate blended learning application, but add to the body of knowledge between

these two constructs. We commence by conceptualising entrepreneurship education.

Conceptualising entrepreneurship education

Given that entrepreneurship is the “engine that drives the economy of most nations” (Gorman et al.,

1997, p. 56), an environment that encourages and allows for entrepreneurship to happen is “congenial

to creating potential entrepreneurs” (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994, p. 99). Entrepreneurship education

xxx

1

programs, which empower entrepreneurs and provide them with the tools necessary to undertake a new

business, have arisen and are growing in most nations with the primary goals of increasing the quantity

and quality of entrepreneurs (Matlay, 2005). In this section, we identify two prominent

entrepreneurship education constructs, teaching entrepreneurship and components of entrepreneurship

education programs (EEP).

Teaching entrepreneurship The question of whether entrepreneurship can be taught must precede any discussion of how to teach

entrepreneurship; the question of “if” must be answered before any question of “what” or “how” can

take place. One difficulty in knowing whether entrepreneurship can be taught is due to the infancy of

the field (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999), which is why conceptual and methodological debates persist.

Fiet (2000a, p. 4) points out the danger in not answering the fundamental questions, stating that “we

weaken our teaching effectiveness when we try to teach the answers to questions that have not been

addressed in the literature from a theoretical stream of research.” However, Fiet (2000a) later points

out that students can be taught imperfect theory if they are cautioned regarding its imperfections.

Students may actually be able to strengthen theory if they think critically on how it can be improved.

Another interesting view of teaching entrepreneurship is that, while some may not believe

entrepreneurship can be taught, students can learn it by studying the successes of other entrepreneurs

(Fiet, 2000a).

Components of entrepreneurship education programs (EEP)

An entrepreneurship education program consists of various components that are designed to meet

program goals. Program components are necessarily interrelated, and an understanding of the nature of

such relationships is necessary to run an effective EEP. The relationship between components of an

EEP can be seen in Figure 1, which is based on the framework created by Alberti et al. (2004).

Concerning teaching models or frameworks, entrepreneurship education scholars Fayolle and Gailly

(2008, p. 571) state that such models are “rarely used in the entrepreneurship field [since] there is no

common framework or agreed good practices regarding how to teach or educate.” Béchard and

Grégoire (2005b, p. 107) define a teaching model as, “the representation of a certain type of setting

designed to deal with a pedagogical situation in function of particular goals and objectives, that

integrates a theoretical framework justifying this design and giving it an exemplary character.” (as

cited in Fayolle and Gailly, 2008, p. 571)

In specifying basic questions such as why (objectives), what (content), how (pedagogies), and for

whom (audiences), EEPs are likely to run more effectively and efficiently, as well as being more

susceptible to assessment measures, which will ideally improve programs over time. The components

of an EEP are interrelated and it is necessary, in order to design an effective EEP, to understand the

nature of these relationships. There are essentially five components with eight relationships, some of

which are reciprocal in nature (Alberti et al., 2004). The first component consists of the objectives of

6 3

8

2

7

1

4

5

Objectives Audiences

Pedagogies Content Assessment

Figure 1. Components of an EEP framework (source: Alberti et al., 2004)

xxx

2

an EEP, which will depend on the intended audience (relationship 1). For example, an audience of

students will most likely have the objective of seeking a degree or qualification, while an older

audience may be seeking to actually start a business. The second component, assessment, should assess

the objectives (relationship 2). If the objectives are fixed and explicit then a proper assessment can be

used. In an audience of existing small business owners, the assessment may include, for example,

completion of a 3-year growth plan. The contents of the EEP, then, will depend on both its objectives

(relationship 3) and audience (relationship 4). For example, if the objective is to teach marketing

directors how to write a market plan, then the content could consist of dissecting a marketing plan.

Pedagogical approaches and methods should be considered after the content is explicit (relationship 5)

and based on audience needs and characteristics (relationship 6). Assessment will depend on both the

content (relationship 7) and pedagogies (relationship 8). If the content is based on the objective of

writing a personal development plan, then assessment may include a scale to measure the quality of the

plan.Whilst each component within an EEP framework is interdependent, this study particularly places

emphasis on a blended learning approach, hence, highlighting the integration of pedagogical initiatives.

Pedagogical initiatives in entrepreneurship education

The chosen pedagogical methods and contents of EEPs “will be decisive factors of success for

entrepreneurship education in the twenty-first century” (Fayolle et al., 2006, p. 711; Volkman, 2004).

Pedagogy should be seen as a means to achieve the objectives of the program, and not as an end in

themselves (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008). In continuing the discussion of content regarding the theoretical

vis-à-vis the practical, the discussion of pedagogical methods and approaches will continue to

incorporate these ideas. Pedagogical methods may differ significantly based on content, and content

has already been distinguished as some combination of theory and practice. It is important to

emphasize that theoretical content does not necessarily lead to more “traditional” teaching methods

(e.g. lectures), and, similarly, practical content is not always taught with more experimental methods

(e.g. business simulations) (Fiet, 2001a). This section will discuss traditional and experimental

methods of teaching entrepreneurship (see Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.Figure 2).

Common pedagogical methods are depicted in Table 1. Applications and assessment of

entrepreneurship pedagogigical initiatives has been identified by Maritz, 2010a.

xxx

3

Table 1. Common pedagogical methods (source: compiled by author)

Methods Observations Indicative

literature

Business plans

This is typically an outcome measure, but is also a

method when the longer-term outcome is the

creation of a new venture. Business plans may be

prepared individually or in groups; business plan

competitions are also becoming more common.

Ideally these would follow a feasibility plan.

Wyckham and

Wedley, 1990;

Honig and

Karlsson, 2004;

Mason and Stark,

2004; Hindle and

Mainprize, 2006;

Liao and Gartner,

2006; Hindle,

2007; Lange et al.,

2007; OECD, 2008

Business

simulation

Participants start and manage either a real venture or

a virtual venture, e.g., computer-assisted programs.

Case studies may also be used.

Hytti and Gorman,

2004; Hytti and

Kuopusjärvi, 2004

Case studies

Presentation and discussion of cases of real

companies and entrepreneurs who succeeded (or

failed) in setting up a new venture, and subsequent

management of growth. These should focus on

problems potential entrepreneurs will most likely

encounter (OECD, 2008). One of the most common

methods (Ahiarah, 1989).

Shepherd, 2004;

Hegarty, 2006

Classroom

lectures

Typical lectures include the use of a textbook, and

are themes such as marketing, accounting,

financing, strategy, etc. Entrepreneurial methods of

teaching and approaches to learning are becoming a

major area of research in entrepreneurship

education.

Hytti and Gorman,

2004; Shepherd,

2004; Hegarty,

2006; OECD, 2008

Clubs and

networks

Societies and networks can be created to discuss

entrepreneurship issues and for those who seek

mutual support.

OECD, 2008

Communicatio

n training

Presentation skills, including the use of Power

point, public speaking, writing, etc.

Sexton and Upton,

1987; Solomon et

al., 1994

Feasibility

studies

Usually conducted to determine whether a business

plan, and ultimately a venture, is worth undertaking. Vesper, 1986

Games and

competitions

This may include computer-assisted programs or

business plan competitions. An increasingly

common and experimental method to build

ambiguity and real decision-making, including

dealing with the consequences, into the program.

Solomon et al.,

1994; Hytti and

Gorman, 2004;

Hytti and

Kuopusjärvi, 2004;

Hegarty, 2006

Guest

lecturers

Typically from the local business community. These

may include owners of start-ups or those with a

specialization in a topic, e.g., accounting,

marketing. This is an excellent opportunity for EEPs

to connect with the business community.

Shepherd, 2004;

Hegarty, 2006;

Brand et al., 2007

xxx

4

Traditional methods

Traditional teaching methods, such as lectures, seminars, workshops, and case studies, have some

advantages as pedagogical methods, but also disadvantages in terms of delivering entrepreneurship

education, although these continue to be the most common forms of delivering entrepreneurship

education. For instance, research done by Hytti and O'Gorman in 2004 found that traditional methods

were the most common among education programs, followed by business simulation, workshops,

counselling/mentoring, study visits, setting up a business, games, and practical training. The benefit of

traditional approaches is that they are helpful in presenting information in a “consistent and predictable

manner” (Honig, 2004, p. 264). Ahiarah (1989) found that traditional methods, such as lectures and

cases, were the most commonly used pedagogical tools. Lectures are excellent for delivering

information to a large audience in a short period of time, and case studies of real-life entrepreneurs can

provide insight into a “behind-the-scenes” look at an entrepreneur’s life, thus possibly providing

inspiration to the audience (OECD, 2008).

However, the form of communication in these methods is more likely to be one way, from the teacher

to the program participant, as opposed to two-way, as a dialogue between teacher and participant, or

multi-way between all participants. This lack of interaction has the problem of receiving little feedback

from participants, and little discussion (Hegarty, 2006). Team work, or group work, can be used in

many ways, both traditional and experimental. For example, group projects that include written

assignments may be better than lectures for entrepreneurship education, but do not explore the greater

possibilities and synergies that can come from group work. They also can become unstructured and

more chaotic without a facilitator with the skills to organise effective teams and activities (Hegarty,

2006). In contrast, groups that use more creative methods and that are given creative activities (e.g.

creating a television advertisement; see Fiet, 2001a) can explore one another’s innovations. This

allows the audience to express themselves and to learn while doing, which is more characteristic of the

“real world”. As an example of using teams in non-traditional ways, Pittaway and Cope (2007) suggest

the team be required to develop a business idea, a business plan or proposition, and then to present the

proposition to actual investors. Benefits of the task include the presentation of a real-world problem,

the time and context elements of entrepreneurship, and the teams’ need to engage the attention of

investors, who actually may be looking to invest in a business idea.Less-traditional pedagogy can

include guest speakers and interviews with real entrepreneurs. Obvious advantages of these methods

include the knowledge that comes from seeing and hearing someone who has gone through an

entrepreneurial process and most likely who has experienced failures and successes. Guest speakers

and interviews are also engaging, where the audience can ask questions and receive practical advice.

Mentors

Individual and/or group mentoring for advice on a

business plan, business idea, a specific business

topic (e.g., accountancy); mentors are typically

teachers, business people, entrepreneurs or other

experts.

Hytti and Gorman,

2004; Hytti and

Kuopusjärvi, 2004

Placements

with

SMEs/Consulti

ng projects

Short-term placements with SMEs can be used to

allow participants to assist with business

development projects. This may require significant

resources and preparation time. However,

participants may end up creating a new venture

within an existing company.

Solomon et al.,

1994; OECD, 2008

Practical

training

Students work inside an existing organisation for a

period of time.

Hytti and Gorman,

2004; Hytti and

Kuopusjärvi, 2004

Setting up a

business

Real companies are set up and managed within the

program. This is typically a business incubator

program.

Hytti and Gorman,

2004; Hytti and

Kuopusjärvi, 2004

Study visits

Participants go on-site to visit an entrepreneurial

company and to become more familiar with the

inside operations of a company.

Hytti and Gorman,

2004; Hytti and

Kuopusjärvi, 2004

Workshops May mean group work, group discussions or

project-based work.

Hytti and Gorman,

2004; Hytti and

Kuopusjärvi, 2004

xxx

5

The audience is therefore actively seeking learning instead of being given what they should learn from

a teacher (who perhaps has not had actual experience).

However, there are disadvantages associated with speakers and interviews. Speakers, if not briefed as

to the content of the program or nature of the audience or topic, can ramble on about something not

relevant or pertinent to the audience. It is also possible that the speaker is egotistical (Hegarty, 2006) or

too pessimistic. In short, if the audience does not identify with the speaker in some way, it could be

that they decide all entrepreneurs fit into the personality of the speaker, thus dissuading them from

continuing the entrepreneurial process. In addition, the use of speakers and interviews does not always

incorporate theories, which may be generalised to other contexts (Fiet, 2001a). However, the skills of

the teacher could help to overcome this after a discussion of the speaker’s remarks. Because of the

disadvantages of traditional methods in teaching the inherently practical and creative process of

entrepreneurship, many “non-traditional” methods of teaching have arisen and are becoming more

common (see Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.Figure 2).

Non-traditional methods

Non-traditional, or experimental, methods are becoming increasingly more utilised in entrepreneurship

education. “Experiential” learning may be more conducive to teaching entrepreneurship (Fiet, 2001a),

and many researchers have advocated that entrepreneurship be taught based on the action-learning

approach (cf. Jack and Anderson, 1999; Leitch and Harrison, 1999; Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004) and

that entrepreneurship should be viewed as a process, not just an event (e.g. starting a business).

Interestingly, this is a return to the debate of the economic theories of the entrepreneur. Many static

theories of the entrepreneur do not incorporate the dynamic process of entrepreneurship (Kirzner,

1973) and a static approach may be responsible for teaching methods that are also more static, i.e.

more traditional.

Action learning is one approach where the participants’ role is primary and teachers act as coaches or

facilitators of learning (Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004). Entrepreneurship, in many ways by its very nature

unpredictable, would benefit from a teaching style that aims to mirror the risk and unpredictability

(uncertainty) that come with entrepreneurship (Knight, 1921). Experiential models can be used to help

students experience and learn from failure. Managerial skills would be learned as part of such a

program through the actions and experiences of program participants. In contrast, when knowledge and

skills are taught using traditional methods, Honig (2004, p. 264) argues that such methods often “fail to

transfer to the actual environment where they might be utilized, in contrast to non-formal techniques.”

In 1994, Solomon et al. expressed their hope for a move toward more “unconventional, experiential-

based teaching and evaluation methods” (p. 350). They advocated such a shift due to their view of

what entrepreneurship learning and teaching should be: to increase the horizons and perceptions of

individuals, who then go on to “blaze new trails for others to

follow” (Solomon et al., 1994, p. 350).

Pittaway and Cope (2007) also detail ways to stimulate entrepreneurial learning. For example, if the

objective is to help participants cope with uncertainty and ambiguity, they recommend project-based

learning to learn how to deal with problems in a “real-world” environment. They argue that, in order to

increase experiential learning, essays, exams, and case studies (i.e. traditional teaching methods)

should be abandoned. In this way, the teams’ performance—which is a more realistic view of the

entrepreneurial activity they will be engaged in—is also linked to their performance on the program.

Project-based learning of this type also builds more emotional exposure into the program. Maritz

(2010b) also identified that assessment items directed to real world entrepreneurial opportunities

provided student stimulation and active participation.

Psychological theories of the entrepreneur contain personality traits that are also more likely to be

learned by the use of non-traditional methods. Sexton and Upton (1987) suggested that EEPs be used

to teach students psychological traits (Solomon et al., 1994), by which they mean programs with less

structure and more problems that require novel solutions, and with ambiguity and risk built into the

program. Over two decades ago, Vesper (1986) found that many new methods were being used.

Programs that used computers were then (and still are) seen as more experimental. Live cases were

also beginning to be used instead of written cases. Other novelties included evaluation of business

plans by venture capitalists and other program participants. Additionally, the assessment measures

regarding the theoretical and practical methods will vary according to content and pedagogy.

According to Peterman and Kennedy (2003), practical, real-world programs may be more useful to

xxx

6

enhance intentionality, which is determined by perceived desirability and perceived feasibility.

Relevant pedagogical methods would then focus on “applied, hands-on activities, resulting in

experiential learning, as opposed to the teaching of general principles” (Honig, 2004, p. 264).

xxx

7

Whilst many of these pedagogical initiatives involve integration appropriate to objectives, it is apt to

provide a short overview of blended learning within entrepreneurship education.

Integrating blended learning pedagogy to entrepreneurship education

Many higher education institutions have embedded blended and e-learning approaches as a key priority

and “preferred approach”, highlighting the many advantages of such approaches. Other than enhancing

meaningful educational experiences, such approaches provide cost and resource effective

methodologies (Harris, Connoly & Feeney, 2009). Its first appearance in 2001 could be seen as a

response to the perceived failure of e-learning to achieve its potential (Sloman, 2007).

Sloman (2007: p36) defines blended learning as, “an approach to education and training design that

involves a combination of delivery methods and in some cases learning methodologies. In particular,

blended learning suggests that e-learning will be the most effective when it is part of an overall

strategy involving the classroom and on-the-job workplace learning”. It has been found that a similar

approach, referred to as, ‘theory for practice sake’, has successfully been implemented in postgraduate

education in an entrepreneurship context (Maritz, 2010a). Mitchell & Honore (2007) further

emphasise the e-learning and blended learning integration as learning involving multiple methods and

approaches, commonly a mixture of classroom and e-learning.

Heinze & Procter (2004: p16) provide a somewhat broader perspective, by including the

communications component; “ learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different

modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent

communication amongst all parties involved in a course”. They postulate that most communication

efficiency is achieved online on discussion boards, and maximum efficacy is achieved in the face-to-

face sessions. For example, discussion boards can be recommended for use by students to support each

other, thereby enhancing efficiency. The resolution of more challenging issues can be met in face-to-

face sessions with members of staff. Yuen, Deng & Fox (2009) found that students prefer e-learning

as a supplement to face-to-face interaction, rather than its replacement. They considered the traditional

lecture as more effective and efficient to grasp concepts and principles. The importance of the basic

lecture must not be negated, albeit the addition of alternative innovative pedagogical initiatives (Maritz,

2009).

In a higher education context, Ennew & Young (2006) found that models of online learning that

exclude any face-to-face contact may have limited opportunities, but blended models offer

considerable potential both on and off campus. A study by Adam & Nel (2009) also found that where

integrating blended learning using face-to-face teaching, digital media and digital communication with

simple navigation between the content items leads to positive student perceptions. Baldwin-Evans

(2006) identifies the following key steps to implementing a successful blended learning strategy:

• Ensure learner readiness

• Presentation

• Demonstration

• Practice

• Assessment

• Provide support and assistance

• Coaching

• Collaboration

The value of blended learning in a higher education environment has the proven potential to enhance

both the effectiveness and efficiency of meaningful learning experiences (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004).

In this study, we propose the application of blended learning as complimentary to, and not in place of

other pedagogical initiatives discussed (Maritz, 2010).

Discussion and conclusion

We propose the integration of e-learning and experiential pedagogical initiatives discussed within a

unit of study in the higher education environment. Particular application includes the use of Stanford

Technology Ventures Entrepreneurship online resource portal, commonly referred to as “e-corner”

(see: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/). Evaluation will, predominantly be longitudinal in nature, using the

xxx

8

measurement of entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger et al., 2000) and self-efficacy (Zhao et al., 2005).

Models of such assessment include Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour; and Shapiro’s (1982)

model of the entrepreneurial event. The latter highlights the effect of perceived desirability, propensity

to act and perceived feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions.

Not only have we identified traditional and experimental pedagogical initiatives applicable to

entrepreneurship education, but an appropriate approach to integrate blended learning within these

methods. Whilst experiential initiatives may well have identified e-learning and computer-based

simulations as appropriate entrepreneneurship education pedagogical methods, this study has identified

blended learning as an appropriate initiative. In line with the literature, we propose that such

integration will not only enhance student self-efficacy and intentionality, but may well lead to a cost

reduction and resource efficiency. We also propose Faculty and University wide application (once the

pilot test has been concluded), with possible application in a wider higher education domain.

Limitations are predominantly centred on the integration within a particular unit of study (pilot project),

however, transferability of knowledge is certainly not limited within this constraint. The proposed next

stage in this research process is the application and assessment of blended learning in the pilot-project,

with further publication of the effectiveness and efficiency of the project.

References

Adam, S., Nel, D. (2009). Blended and online learning: student perceptions and performance.

Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 6(3), pp 140-155.

Ahiarah, S. (1989). “Strategic management and entrepreneurship courses at the undergraduate level:

Can one inform the other?”, Proceedings of the 1989 Small Business Institute Director’s Association

National Conference, Arlington, VA, pp. 60-66.

Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., and Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate.

In: 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, Italy, July 4-7.

Baldwin-Evans, K. (2006). Key steps to implementing a successful blended learning strategy.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(3), pp 156-163.

Béchard, J.P. and Grégoire, D. (2005b). “Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for entrepreneurship

education: model and illustrations,” in Fayolle, A. (ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship

Education Vol. 1, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot, p. 21-34.

Brand, M., Wakkee, I., and van der Veen, M. (2007). “Teaching entrepreneurship to non-business

students: insights from two Dutch universities,” in A. Fayolle (ed.), Handbook of Research in

Entrepreneurship Education: Contextual Perspectives (vol. 2), Edward Elgar, London.

Brazeal, D. and Herbert, T.T. (1999). “The genesis of entrepreneurship,” Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 23(3), p. 29-45.

Carrier, C. (2007) ‘Strategies for teaching entrepreneurship: what else beyond lectures, case studies

and business plan?’, in A. Fayolle (Ed.) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education,

London: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Carroll, J.J. and College, G.C. (1993). “Course and curriculum designs for transitional small business,”

Proceedings of the International Council for Small Business, p. 254-263.

Ennew, C.T., Young, A.F. (2006). Weapons of mass destruction? The rhetoric and reality of online

learning. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(2), pp 148-157.

Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2008). “Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship

education,” Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7), p. 569-593.

xxx

9

Fiet, J.O. (2001a). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,

16(1), p. 1-24.

Garrison, D.R., Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher

education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, pp 95-105.

Gibb, A. (1993b). “The enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise education and its

links with small business entrepreneurship and wider educational goals,” International Small Business

Journal, 11(3), p. 11-34.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship

education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature

review. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), p. 56-78.

Harris, P., Connolly, J., Feeney, L. (2009). Blended learning: overview and recommendations for

successful implementation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(3), pp 155-163.

Hegarty, C. (2006). “It’s not an exact science: Teaching entrepreneurship in Northern Ireland,”

Education and Training, 48(5), p. 322-335.

Heinonen, J., Poikkijoki, S-A. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship

education: mission impossible? Journal of Management Development, 25(1), pp 80-94.

Heinze, A., Procter, C. (2004). Reflections of the use of blended learning. Education in a Changing

Environment, Conference Proceedings, University of Salford, Salford.

Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and training, Ashgate

Publishing, England.

Hills, G.E. (1988). “Variations in university entrepreneurship education: An empirical study of an

evolving field,” Journal of Business Venturing, 3(2), p. 109-122.

Hindle, K. and Mainprize, B. (2006). “A systematic approach to writing and rating entrepreneurial

business plans,” Journal of Private Equity, Summer, p. 1-17.

Hindle, K. (2007). “Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right

philosophy,” in Fayolle, A. (ed.) Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education, Edward Elgar,

Cheltenham.

Honig, B. (2004). “Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-based business

planning,” Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), p. 258-273.

Honig, B. and Karlsson, T. (2004). “Institutional forces and the written business plan,” Journal of

Management, 30(1), p. 29-48.

Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004). “What is ‘enterprise education’? An analysis of the objectives and

methods of enterprise education programs in four European countries,” Education and Training, 46(1),

p. 11-23.

Hytti, U. and Kuopusjärvi, P. (2004). “Three perspectives to evaluating entrepreneurship education:

Evaluators program promoters and policy makers,” paper presented at the 34th

EISB Conference,

Turku, Finland.

Jack, S. and Anderson, A.R. (1999). Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture:

producing reflective practitioners. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research,

5(3), p. 110-125.

Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

xxx

10

Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit, Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, MA.

Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), p. 91-104.

Lange, J., Mollov, A., Pearlmutter, M., Singh, S. and Bygrave, W.D. (2007). “Pre-start-up formal

business plans and post-start-up performance: A study of 116 new ventures,” Venture Capital: An

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 9(4), p. 237-256.

Leitch, C. and Harrison, R.T. (1999). “A process model for entrepreneurship education and

development,” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(3), p. 83-109.

Liao, J. and Gartner, W. (2006). “The effects of pre-venture plan timing and perceived environmental

uncertainty on the persistence of emerging firms,” Small Business Economics, 27(1), p. 23-40.

Maritz, P.A. (2010). A blended learning approach to postgraduate entrepreneurship education across

marketing and international business units of study. FBE Grant Applicationfor Funding for Innovation

Grant, July.

Maritz, P.A. (2010a). Excellence in Postgraduate Entrepreneurship Education. Finalist, USASBE

International Entrepreneurship Education Awards, Nashville, TEN.

Maritz, P.A. (2010b). Postgraduate research and practice: An entrepreneurship perspective. Global

Business and Economics Anthology, 4(1), 17-26.

Matritz, P.A. (2009). Academic leadership and research-led development in entrepreneurship-directed

approaches within postgraduate entrepreneurship education. Australian Learning Nad Teaching

Council Citation.

Matlay, H. (2005). Researching entrepreneurship and education part 1. Education and Training,

47(8/9), p. 665-677.

Mason, C. and Stark, J. (2004). “What do investors look for in a business plan? A comparison of

investment criteria of bankers, venture capitalists and business angels,” International Small Business

Journal, 22, p. 227-248.

Mitchell, A., Honore, S. (2007). Criteria for successful blended learning. Industrial and Commercial

Training, 39(3), pp 143-149.

OECD. (2008). Entrepreneurship and Higher Education, OECD, Paris, France.

Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: perceptions of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), p. 129-144.

Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007). “Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence,”

International Small Business Journal, 25(5), p. 479-510.

Sexton, D.L. and Upton, N.B. (1987). “Evaluation of an innovative approach to teaching

entrepreneurship,” Journal of Small Business Management, 25(1), p. 35-43.

Shepherd, D. (2004). “Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from failure,”

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), p. 274-287.

Sloman, M. (2007). Making sense of blended learning. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(6), pp

315-318.

Vesper, K.H. (1986). “New developments in entrepreneurship education,” in D.L. Sexton and R.W.

Smilor (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, p. 379-387. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.

xxx

11

Volkman, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship studies—an ascending academic discipline in the twenty-first

century. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2), p. 177-185.

Wyckham, R.G. and Wedley, W.C. (1990). “Factors related to venture feasibility analysis and business

plan preparation,” Journal of Small Business Management, 28, p. 48-59.

xxx

12