Education + Training

Emerald Article: From chalk and talk to walking the walk: Facilitating
dynamic learning contexts for entrepreneurship students in fast-tracking
innovations
David H. Gilbert

Article information:
To cite this document: David H. Gilbert, (2012),"From chalk and talk to walking the walk: Facilitating dynamic learning contexts
for entrepreneurship students in fast-tracking innovations", Education + Training, Vol. 54 Iss: 2 pp. 152 - 166
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400911211210260
Downloaded on: 09-11-2012
References: This document contains references to 42 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by DAYSTAR UNIVERSITY

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

ET
54,2/3
From chalk and talk to
walking the walk
Facilitating dynamic learning contexts
152 for entrepreneurship students in
Received 22 December 2010
fast-tracking innovations
Revised 29 April 2011
8 July 2011
David H. Gilbert
13 July 2011 College of Business, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University,
Accepted 12 August 2011 Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the notion of designing and developing applied,
industry-engaged learning environments that embrace ambiguity and uncertainty in overcoming
pedagogical inertia in educating young entrepreneurs and innovators. The research reported on
proposes a solution to the dual expectations of producing entrepreneurship graduates who can either
hit the ground running in driving innovation for employers, or create, launch and sustain their own
ventures.
Design/methodology/approach The research is longitudinal in nature, employing a mixed
methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative instruments in measuring outcomes, along
with development and validation of the proposed Create-Substantiate-Activate (CSA) scale.
Findings Significant triangulated evidence is provided that validates the proposed dynamic,
industry-engaged learning model. The skill and capability development of the entrepreneurship
students, as well as the positive impacts upon self-confidence and self-efficacy, support the approach
adopted in moving beyond the business planning paradigm into rapid innovation prototyping.
Research limitations/implications The paper reports on one program within an undergraduate
Entrepreneurship degree at one Australian university. Therefore, the suitability for adoption of the
proposed model will be subject to factors germane to particular contexts.
Practical implications The research provides direction for designing and managing collaborative
industry-engaged learning programs for students of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Critical
elements of the learning process are identified that foster contexts for producing Entrepreneurship
graduates that are both highly valued by employers and capable of launching and sustaining
innovative new businesses.
Originality/value The Innovation Fastrack Program reported on in this paper is ground-breaking
in the way it engages industry, promotes rapid and deep learning contextualised by creativity,
curiousity, uncertainty and volatility and in the way it fosters social interaction in dealing with
real-world problems and opportunities.
Keywords Australia, Universities, Business studies, Entrepreneurialism, Innovation,
Rapid prototyping, Higher education, Work-based learning, Enterprise learning
Paper type Research paper

Education Training
Vol. 54 No. 2/3, 2012
pp. 152-166
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/00400911211210260
Introduction
Educators worldwide are being asked to develop new and novel ways in designing and
delivering higher educational courses that are effective in producing graduates able to
hit the ground running. A recent survey of 500 chief executives by the Australian
Industry Group and Deloitte (2009) found that more than 50 per cent of the CEOs
surveyed were dissatisfied with the relevant work experience of graduates, moreover
only 10 per cent of employers were highly satisfied with the work-readiness skills of
graduates. Yet, critically employability skills (encompassing skills in communication;
teamwork; problem solving; initiative and enterprise; planning and organising; Facilitating
self-management; and learning and technology) were considered to be the most dynamic
important factor when hiring graduates. Policy makers and educational institutions in
Europe, North America and Australia have targeted the need for higher education learning
institutions (HEIs) to focus on work-based learning (WBL) and enterprise education as
effective pedagogical approaches in addressing critical skills shortages. The
underlying thrust for this according to Keep (2006) is the assumption that higher 153
standards of living will be enabled through higher skill levels which promote greater
workforce productivity and effectiveness.
For educators in the entrepreneurship and innovation field this push is even more
explicit for most developed and many developing countries have strategic policies that
focus on producing more enterprising cultures. One of the primary facilitators of this
drive to create knowledge economies based on innovation is HEIs; as the OECD (2007)
review of HEIs observes, for countries to be more globally competitive yet locally
engaged HEIs are critical in the knowledge creation and transfer process. The review
also highlights that many HEIs are increasingly focused on creating entrepreneurship
programmes with WBL components in developing strategic human capital that will
position countries at the forefront of the knowledge-based global economy. However,
researchers such as Gibb (1996, 2002), Cope and Watts (2000), Hannon (2004), Pittaway
and Cope (2005) and Rae (2010) point to the tension between bureaucratic control
approaches to enterprise learning predicated upon standardised methods that
facilitate tangible and measureable outcomes and the movement towards more
dynamic approaches underpinned by experiential learning that promote learning
for rather than about entrepreneurship (Rae, 2010, p. 594, italics added). The question
arises in the entrepreneurship and innovation disciplines whether this strategic
human capital will go forth from HEIs to create and grow new businesses (or ways
of doing business) or work for employers in existing businesses and thus how do
we design and develop learning environments that meet these dual needs? Authors
such as Smith et al. (2006, p. 555) note significant frustration with the way
entrepreneurship is taught in Higher Education Institutions in the UK, and sought
(with reported limited success) to develop alternate approaches to fostering
entrepreneurial capacity in students. This frustration is understandable as in broad
terms we approach the teaching of entrepreneurship and innovation in (rather static)
ways that are often incompatible with the dynamic and fluid nature of the activity
itself. Confounding things further, entrepreneurship and innovation is often taught in
HEIs by, no doubt well-intentioned individuals, who have, however, often never
actually walked the walk. Research reported on in this paper presents a case study
from an undergraduate Entrepreneurship degree programme in Australia and how a
dynamic, industry-engaged approach to experiential learning sought to bring
convergence to the issue of graduate employability and new venture creation via
innovation conceptualisation, rapid prototyping and commercialisation. Two research
questions were developed for this study in addressing highlighted issues concerning
entrepreneurship and innovation education and the dual requirements of such
education in terms of enhancing graduate skills and employability and building
enterprising capacity:

RQ1. How can higher education entrepreneurship programmes foster opportunity

recognition and realisation capabilities in largely inexperienced
undergraduates?
ET RQ2. What are the key determinants that may contribute to developing
54,2/3 entrepreneurial and innovative work-ready skills in undergraduate
entrepreneurship students?

Our approach to teaching entrepreneurship and innovation has been observed to

depend largely upon tried and trusted approaches. Solomon (2005), in a White Paper
154 for the US Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship analysed 1,600
entrepreneurship courses at American HEIs noting the most common tool used by
educators in teaching entrepreneurship was the ubiquitous business plan. This
approach has been utilised for many decades and indeed continues to be a mainstay of
how entrepreneurship education is delivered in Australia and elsewhere. Whilst the
value of this approach cannot entirely be discounted it does exemplify the learning
for rather than about entrepreneurship paradigm. As Bill Sahlman from the
Harvard Business School so cuttingly notes, judging by all the hoopla surrounding
business plans, you would think that the only thing standing between a would-be
entrepreneur and spectacular success are glossy five-colour charts, a bundle of
meticulous looking spreadsheets, and a decade of month-by-month financial
projections. Nothing could he further from the truth! (1997, p. 98). One of the most
difficult tensions to overcome is the need to achieve scholarly integrity yet provide
a structured but creative context for innovation and entrepreneurship to flourish,
hence the business plan often serves as a fall back option. Likewise, it is often difficult
to find educators who are experienced in new venture creation and development
and who are PhD qualified (an increasingly common requirement for universities to
meet international accreditation benchmarks).
In 2007 the author, following an extensive career in international business creation
and development was asked to lead the restructure of the entrepreneurship programme
reported on in this paper. An audit of the programme revealed that of the 24
entrepreneurship-specific courses offered in the degree, 18 of those courses required
students for their major assessment to write a business plan on businesses they hoped
to start sometime in the future. Reality was largely divorced from this process and
indeed the sum outcome of this approach was that students viewed conceptualising
and launching a business as easy and that at some time in the very near future
success would surely follow. It was clearly evident that asking students to produce
business plans that were in essence pro-forma in nature with largely secondary data
(and/or poor primary data) cut and pasted into the required sections (executive
summary, industry analysis, production plan, operations plan, marketing plan,
organisational plan, financial plan, etc.), was not an effective approach in producing
graduates who understood the realities of commercialising new products and
services. This is particularly so when it comes to innovative products and services,
where customers, markets and financial targets are difficult to predict and where
networking, collaboration, knowledge transformation and serendipity can have
considerable impact on whether a business is successful or not. In re-engineering the
entrepreneurship programme extensive consultation with industry partners and
alumni of the programme was undertaken with significant skills/capabilities gaps
being identified. Of primary concern was the gap between static knowledge
delivered in class (albeit from passionate and experienced educators) and how this
knowledge was applied in real commercial settings. Much has been written about
WBL, however, a concerning breadth of the literature describe students undertaking
placements whereby they virtually are required to ape the expert in the field with
various results. The challenge in terms of entrepreneurship and innovation essentially Facilitating
is one of providing context and substance for learning-by-doing without constraining dynamic
the inherent creativity and dynamism required in being entrepreneurial and
innovative. learning
Literature review
In endeavouring to meet this challenge an epistemological issue becomes immediately 155
apparent as WBL has been defined as learning for work, learning at work and
learning through work (Levy et al., 1989; Brennan and Little, 1996). Inherent in this
definition is the notion that student learning is strongly bound to the job role,
yet innovation and entrepreneurship cannot be interpreted or defined as a job
more a state or way of evolving interaction with an ever-changing environment. Part of
the conundrum appears to be that prescriptive approaches to WBL are inherently
problematic and whilst there may be common elements germane to what Bransford
et al. (2000) call the new science of learning grounded upon experiential learning
(Dewey, 1938; Polanyi, 1966; Kolb, 1985), it would seem effective WBL programmes
are both content and context juxtaposed. Boud and Symes (2000, p. 3) note that work-
based learning is still an idea in search of a practice, a pedagogy that is undergoing
development as it accommodates itself to the exigencies of the workplace and the
university. Raelin in developing his Comprehensive Model of Work-Based Learning
reports that in North America, unfortunately, classroom and real-world development
experiences are typically provided independently as if there was no need to merge
theory with practice (1997, p. 574). Raelin argues the dynamics of WBL extend
beyond the experiential learning paradigm which he observes adds a layer of
experience onto conceptual knowledge, to an amalgam of theoretical and practical
modes of learning underpinned by explicit and tacit forms of knowledge. Critically,
Raelin highlights that experience is not always an effective teacher; it is not the extent
of experience but the quality and context of the experience that is important.
The notion of dynamic learning has likewise been addressed at length in the
enterprise education literature. Gibb (1993, 1996, 2002) notes the discord between
didactic learning approaches and uncertain and volatile environments where
entrepreneurial activities tend to flourish. Indeed, he advocates the teaching and
research of entrepreneurship be broadened beyond the business discipline through
creative destruction of the higher education sector so that more widespread diffusion
of enterprising processes and behaviours can be realised. Gibb notes that the
enterprise culture banner has become one of all things, apparently indispensable to
an organisation and nations response to global competitive pressures. Yet the efficacy
of this broad brush approach is questionable in terms of academic rigour and
pedagogical foundation and hence others have joined Gibb in endeavouring to
disengage enterprise learning and education from motherhood tokenism to provide
some degree of clarity, synthesis and development to the individualistic vs process
perspectives witnessed in much of entrepreneurship theory. Cope (2005) sought to
develop a conceptual framework that builds upon these dominant theoretical
perspectives presenting a dynamic learning perspective. His work answers Deakins
(1996) plea to refocus research away from winner/loser attribution to closer
examination and theoretical development regarding the key issues and process of
entrepreneurial learning. Cope is particularly interested in the initiation and growth
of entrepreneurial ventures and the cumulative learning from learning history and
the learning task. He and others (e.g. Chell, 1998; Cope and Watts, 2000) argue the
ET usefulness of critical learning events in investigating the life cycle of both personal and
54,2/3 organisational growth and development.
In educational settings, Rae (2010, p. 594) distinguishes between enterprise
education and enterprising learning noting the former is beholden to institutional
control, order, accountability, and ultimately learning which is programmed by
prescribed and measurable outcomes, while the latter is led by creativity, informality,
156 curiosity, emotion and its application to personal and real-world problems and
opportunities. Furthermore, there has been a concerted call for a practitioner-based
approach outside the domain of programmed formal education that encompasses
experiential learning but also moves towards a more micro-exposition of the
macro-level view that we learn by doing, suggesting critical issues such as confidence,
self-belief, social relationships and achievement are worthy of greater investigation
(Gibb, 1987; Deakins and Freel, 1998; Rae and Carswell, 2001; Rae, 2010). The
Innovation Fastrack Programme (IFP) reported on in this paper is one approach using
rapid prototyping that embraces learning led by creativity, informality, curiosity
(and) emotion that uncompromisingly immerses entrepreneurship students in real-
world problems and opportunities resulting in a more granular view of important
elements of the learning process such as self-efficacy, achievement, dealing with
uncertainty and complexity, social interaction and leadership.

Design and approach

As previously noted, frustration has been expressed in the UK, USA, Australia and
elsewhere at how entrepreneurship and innovation is taught in HEIs. Moreover,
analysts such as Gleeson and Keep (2004), Hillier and Rawnsley (2006) and Edmond
et al. (2007) among others have diagnosed shortcomings in current and past
approaches to WBL and experiential learning pointing to differing stakeholder
perspectives regarding learning aims, problems relating to variability of student
experience and inadequate levels of employer engagement. Sobiechowska and
Maisch (2007, p. 183) in consideration of UK government policy aims in reinforcing
the links between educational curricula and the world of work sought to overcome the
divide between university-based curricula and work-based expectations by proposing
a model based on continual dialogue between the stakeholders. Their approach
resulted in both educators and students wrestling with ingrained expectations and
this tension led to:
. students taking an unexpectedly long time to produce their Learning Agreement
and Portfolio of Evidence;
. attendance at peer group meetings being inconsistent;
. quality issues regarding work produced; and
. evolving expectations on the part of tutors overseeing the learning.
The IFP was conceived in collaboration with a key industry partner, the Accelerated
Innovation Group at Deloitte Digital. The IFP in no small part came about due to the
frustration regarding lack of successful outcomes from current and past approaches
in building entrepreneurial and innovative capacity alluded to by researchers in the
field. At the risk of verging on the utterance of yet more motherhood statements,
educators must be innovative in overcoming institutionalised pedagogical inertia if
they truly want to design and develop learning environments that reflect the nature of
entrepreneurial and innovative approaches to business creation and sustainability. Facilitating
Credibility is critical in first, being able to foster collaborations with industry partners dynamic
that have the resources and capabilities to enable things to happen. Second, being
able to develop a value proposition that benefits students, industry partners and the learning
university and thirdly, being able to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. In light of
acknowledged shortcomings, the IFP was built upon an extensive review that
benchmarked approaches to WBL and enterprise education both nationally and 157
internationally and from direct input from the innovation team at Deloitte Digital in
terms of ideal graduate capabilities, with a conceptual delivery model developed
to inform operational aspects of the project (see Appendix). Shortcomings of
approaches to WBL and enterprise education were categorised into three main
streams: differing stakeholder perspectives and evolving expectations; variability
in student experience; and level of industry partner engagement. This has enabled
direct responses to be modelled in formulating a more successful approach to
facilitating contexts for learning in regard to entrepreneurship and innovation. An
overview of the current programme design is now offered[1], illustrating how
constraining issues germane to WBL programmes may be overcome.
Differing stakeholder perspectives and evolving expectations. Prior to the programme
commencing, a workshop involving students, coaches, mentors and academic staff is
held (including PhD students associated with participating academics). The workshop
is opened by the CEO of Deloitte Digital, a champion of the programme who is an
engaging public speaker and acknowledged thought leader on entrepreneurship
and innovation. It is essential to have support for programmes such as the IFP from
key decision makers in the organisation of the industry partner moreover it is highly
beneficial to have such individuals participate in the programme as it sends a strong
message of validation regarding the value of the programme to students, fellow
industry colleagues and to academic staff. Students are walked through the
programme in terms of the IFP Lifecycle, a pattern of events and critical incidents
observed over the four years of the programme. Encapsulated in this lifecycle are
expectations mapped to timelines, war stories from past offerings that help
contextualise the expectations, successful outcomes from previous programmes
and roadblocks and pitfalls to avoid. The CEO of Deloitte Digital is assisted in the
presentation by graduates of the IFP who in frank terms detail their experiences of the
highs (e.g. working with highly knowledgeable industry partners in creating
innovative responses to problems or opportunities) and the lows (e.g. performance
pressures and stress in dealing with uncertainty and complexity). We have found
this peer-to-peer model is profound in terms of increasing motivation and reconciling
disparate expectations.
Following presentation from Deloitte, the academic project leader covers
expectations concerning conduct and representation by students in respect to their
peers, others in the degree programme and the university at large. Clear benchmarks
are articulated in reference to; attendance and time required on a weekly basis;
weekly scheduling with particular attention paid to key milestones; assessment and
evaluation criteria developed in close consultation with both Deloitte staff and
graduates of previous programmes. These are reviewed and refined following each
programme with innovations such as participant reflection e-journals using digital
video uploaded to the IFP YouTube channel for the academic project leader to access.
Variability in student experience. One obvious advantage the IFP has over for
example, single student placements is the ability to accommodate between 20 and 30
ET students in each programme offering. Students are allowed to self-determine their
54,2/3 teams of no more than four with one proviso, there must be at least one international
student in each group. Limiting the groups to three to four means there is nowhere to
hide and the team must manage work and time expectations collectively ( just as we
must in the majority of workplace settings). Weekly, three hour workshops are held on
a nominated day and each team presents on progress and roadblocks which are then
158 discussed and action plans developed in situ by all members of the IFP. Following this,
teams head to Deloitte where dedicated space is afforded the innovation teams. These
weekly workshops serve to iron out the creases regarding student experience and
again peer-to-peer learning is highly useful in both solving problems and in illustrating
the amount of work each team has undertaken (or not, as the case sometimes may be).
The peer-to-peer engagement is also supported by digital collaborative platforms
like Basecamp which enable issues such as student dislocation in self-directed learning
to be overcome. This approach is also highly effective in improving international
student socialisation and in reducing their stress and as one student put it feeling of
helplessness.
Level of industry partner engagement. It is obvious that a high level of engagement
from an industry partner(s) is essential for any programme such as the IFP to be
successful. It is useful to undertake a resource audit of any such programme so there
are no misconceptions as to what is required from all key stakeholders. Likewise, if
strong commitment is desirable then this must be acknowledged in the work plans of
the industry coaches and mentors. We have also found that physical space is important
in terms of design-driven innovation and Deloitte provide the teams with work stations
and also access to meetings rooms that are booked on demand. Essentially, the teams
become part of the family for the duration of the programme and this has significant
implications in terms of one of the most cited positive outcomes by participants; that
they belong!
Approaches developed and adopted in designing responses to constraints identified
by researchers, participants and practitioners in the field have been briefly discussed
to provide some level of prescription to educators wishing to craft and implement
their own programmes. The discussion also illustrates the level of analysis required to
enable better outcomes to be realised in fostering opportunity recognition and
realisation capabilities. Likewise, in better understanding the key determinants that
may contribute to developing entrepreneurial and innovative work-ready skills.
Attention is now turned to findings of on-going research conducted into the IFP and
implications for practice and further research.

Findings
Outcomes from the IFP have been longitudinally measured in four ways:
(1) By responses to the pre-test, test quantitative and qualitative surveys.
(2) Via feedback from debriefing workshops following the completion of each IFP.
(3) Through triangulation of Course Experience Surveys of students in the
programme conducted independently by the Survey Centre at the University.
(4) By measuring the impacts of the IFP on the employability of graduates of the
programme.
Data has been collected over four years and aggregated to enable factor analysis in
creating a scale or typology of variables addressing the research questions thus
providing a framework for others in designing and delivering practitioner-based Facilitating
learning programmes. The sample size of n 132 for the proposed scale (labelled dynamic
the Create-Substantiate-Activate or CSA scale) remains relatively small, however,
responses to the measurement items are quite consistent over the four year period and learning
indicate that at an underlying level key stakeholders in the IFP place significant value
on this approach to learning. In addition, the influences of the IFP on graduate
employment and the enterprise formation patterns of the students post-graduation 159
are significant. The scale essentially groups factors that measure key aspects of the
IFP into five components that are helpful in enabling us to interpret participants
views regarding learning expectations, critical reflection, capability development and
learning outcomes. The questionnaire was developed from previous work by
Templeton et al. (2002), Bailey et al. (2004), Brodie and Irving (2007) and Freestone et al.
(2007) and then pilot tested to ensure that data collected in investigating the research
questions related directly to testing the efficacy of the IFP model.
Of the 132 students who have participated over the four years of the IFP, 130
indicated the IFP exceeded their expectations, whilst the remaining two rated the
IFP as meeting their expectations. Similarly, in terms of overall level of satisfaction
the mean score over the four years tracks strongly at 4.88 (on a five-point Likert
scale with 1 to very poor and 5 to exceptional). Supporting overall expectations
and satisfaction outcomes, results for the Course Experience Survey (independently
carried out by the University) continue to trend upwards and remain well above
university averages. For 2009, a Good Teaching Scale (GTS) of 97.4 per cent was
achieved benchmarking favourably against School of Management aggregated
average of 51.6 per cent and College of Business average of 58.7 per cent, whilst 2010
results were 100 per cent (GTS) with an Overall Satisfaction Index of likewise 100 per
cent. Given students can at times be our harshest critics these solid results are
encouraging and support findings from the longitudinal data collection and analysis.
To emphasise, a consistent theme to emerge from the qualitative analysis is typified
by the following student responses to the question What is your overall impression of
the program? Student A responded, I would pay the 16 grand for my entire degree
just to do the Fastrack Program, it is just the most unbelievable way to learn, while
student B responded, we all know that the program has helped lots of students
get jobs with top companies and I hope I can do the same, it feels like Ive just
completed an MBA in 12 weeks!!!. Student Bs response reflects the final data
presented in this paper relating to the impacts of the IFP on graduate employability.
Apart from the now 11 students directly offered positions with Deloitte as a result of
the programme, a further two international students were offered positions in Deloitte
Singapore. Graduates of the IFP are contacted one year after they have completed the
programme and evidence from three cohorts (of both domestic and international
students) indicates there is a strong link between the outcomes of the IFP in terms of
skill and capability enhancement and greater graduate employability and level of
enterprise formation. Just over 96 per cent of students surveyed indicated employers
specifically asked about the IFP in job interviews while just under 77 per cent of
students indicated employers directly hired them because of the skills and capabilities
they developed and utilised in the programme. Of the just over 35 per cent of graduated
students who actually launched their own ventures, 100 per cent of respondents
indicated the IFP was highly influential in both their decision to launch their own
business and in their belief they had the necessary skills and capabilities to establish
and grow a successful and sustainable business.
ET Preliminary scale development
54,2/3 The longitudinal research conducted on the IFP is a critical component of its continued
innovation. The research informs changes made each year and underpins pedagogical
innovation that is now being adopted by other courses and programmes in achieving
better outcomes from WBL initiatives. The CSA scale is robust and reliable and has
been developed following a systematic approach laid out by Hair et al. (1998) and
160 Bryman and Carter (2001). Reliability analysis using SPSS 17.0 was undertaken at two
levels; first, to measure internal consistency of the measures and secondly, to measure
the reliability of the extracted component structure. Results from these tests more than
met minimum criteria, meaning we can be confident the scale does indeed measure
factors such as skill and capability application and development, coaching and
mentoring satisfaction, group dynamics and leadership, self-confidence and self-
efficacy. The data were analysed in SPSS17.0 using principle component analysis with
varimax rotation. Five significant components with eigenvalues of 41 were extracted
with 76.8 per cent of the model variance being explained. The results presented
in Table I indicate the components and their constituent factors provide strong
preliminary explanatory power.
Table II presents the rotated five component matrix with significant variables and
their loadings (in bold). The components provide insights in regard to interpreting
factors found to be significant in addressing issues raised in the literature review. In
particular, the views expressed by authors such as Gibb (2002) and Rae (2010)
regarding the need for greater deconstruction of the macro-level view that we learn by
doing in terms of critical issues such as confidence, self-belief, social relationships and
achievement are supported by the findings.

Interpretation of components
Component 1 is labelled industry engagement. Results, given the variance explained
and the magnitude and nature of the factors grouped in this component, point to the
compelling need for substantial and active engagement by industry partners for any
practitioner-based learning programme to be of value. This is particularly so given the
high level of uncertainty involved in creating and developing innovations. It also points
to a bimodal model being useful in overcoming issues concerning level of industry
partner engagement and links graduate employability to the approach by virtue of
graduates of the programme being employed by the industry partner then given an
active role as coaches in subsequent programmes. This serves to ease the operational
strain on high-level industry experts and contributes to the sustainability of such

Extraction sums of Rotation sums of

Initial eigenvalues squared loadings squared loadings
(%) of Cumulative (%) of Cumulative (%) of Cumulative
Component Total variance (%) Total variance (%) Total variance (%)

1 3.679 28.301 28.301 3.679 28.301 28.301 2.601 20.005 20.005

2 2.284 17.567 45.868 2.284 17.567 45.868 2.045 15.732 35.737
3 1.554 11.954 57.822 1.554 11.954 57.822 1.914 14.725 50.461
4 1.297 9.979 67.800 1.297 9.979 67.800 1.824 14.035 64.496
5 1.173 9.021 76.821 1.173 9.021 76.821 1.602 12.325 76.821
Table I.
Total variance explained Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis
 Component
Facilitating
1 2 3 4 5 dynamic
learning
Level of coaching 0.918 0.019 0.078 0.043 0.102
Level of mentoring 0.861 0.000 0.069 0.079 0.334
Working with industry experts a valuable experience 0.776 0.356 0.203 0.118 0.075
Appropriate capstone course of degree 0.182 0.876 0.067 0.013 0.073 161
Learning will be valuable in future business
endeavours 0.059 0.790 0.099 0.314 0.302
Ability to deal with uncertainty and complexity 0.121 0.717 0.043 0.246 0.201
Employability enhanced 0.114 0.016 0.896 0.135 0.054
Skills and capability gaps identified 0.200 0.319 0.850 0.191 0.288
Greater understanding of product/service
commercialisation 0.155 0.321 0.832 0.281 0.168
Ability to think in novel and creative ways 0.213 0.112 0.798 0.103 0.087
Effective team dynamics 0.040 0.295 0.021 0.862 0.168
Self-confidence in skills and abilities increased 0.440 0.178 0.149 0.764 0.011
Able to apply directly knowledge and abilities
gained in degree 0.135 0.368 0.302 0.760 0.124
Able to develop new skills and abilities 0.143 0.321 0.054 0.122 0.843
More likely to take on a leadership role if required 0.245 0.134 0.198 0.210 0.811
New skills in dealing with team dynamics developed 0.098 0.464 0.213 0.127 0.714
Table II.
Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: varimax with Kaiser Rotated component
normalization. aRotation converged in six iterations matrixa

programmes. The students strongly support the value of working with highly
skilled and experienced innovators and likewise coaches/mentors value the fresh
perspectives brought to the table by student innovators. The qualitative responses
collected similarly support the notion that such an approach to applied learning must
be of value to all stakeholders in the process. Component 2 is labelled future
foundation supporting the appropriateness of a capstone unit in an entrepreneurship
degree that eschews the chalk and talk approach to learning, instead facilitating a
learning environment that enables students to be forward looking so that opportunities
may be recognised and importantly acted on. This result underlines that HEI
entrepreneurship programmes would be well served by looking to build long-term
collaborations with, and this is key, industry (or community) partners that recognise
the importance of developing learning environments for essentially inexperienced
undergraduates characterised by creativity, informality, curiosity and social
interaction. Through immersion in real-world problems and opportunities educators,
their students and industry partners are afforded greater insights into important
elements of the learning process such as self-efficacy, achievement, dealing with
uncertainty and complexity, group dynamics and leadership.
Component 3 is labelled graduate employability expressing the viewpoint that
the dynamic framework the IFP provides will enhance graduate employability as a
result of critical reflection regarding skill and capability gaps. The duality of actively
reflecting on shortcomings whilst being deterministic in regard to skill/capability
development and enhancement, speaks to the efficacy of requiring students to think in
novel and creative ways in prototyping innovations as part of the new product/service
commercialisation process, as opposed to a class-based business plan approach.
ET Component 4 is labelled confidence in skills and capabilities and supports Raelins
54,2/3 (1997) research on the impacts of explicit and implicit knowledge as worthy of
attention. By creating a learning environment where there is nowhere to hide, that
requires students to extend and apply their knowledge, skills and capabilities we
effectively enable young innovators to discover they belong; that they can operate at a
level even they did not feel possible, and one of the hallmarks of the IFP is that each
162 year we see more creative, innovative and outstanding performances and results. The
power of self-belief cannot be overstated and a strong component of the lifecycle
of the IFP is the growth in how students deal with volatility by developing the ability
to articulate and validate their position on critical decisions and actions. They come to
realise it is not essentially about being right or wrong but more about the process in
reaching a state of action. Critical to this, is the way they self-organise and deal with
team dynamics understanding that effective social interaction is not necessarily about
liking everyone or being liked themselves but more about harnessing the diversity and
power in the collective towards achieving outcomes of common purpose.
Component 5 is labelled new knowledge, skills and capabilities. This component
explicitly groups factors that reflect the approach to learning in the IFP results
in students not only being more self-confident, they also come to develop greater
self-efficacy by understanding that collectively they can perform at a level lauded by
even the very best in business. Underlying this increase in self-belief students in the
qualitative section of the survey instrument consistently point to their growth in
leadership skills. The following response from a graduate of the 2010 programme is
indicative, when I started this program I was so nervous, as an international student
I never speak up or lead a group I usually sit quietly and hope nobody asks me
anything. But I am a new person now, I no (sic) I can be a leader because my teacher
and my coaches and mentors have encouraged me and my team mates to not worry
about failing but to focus on being action minded to build up what teacher calls the
thousand building blocks of experience. Conversely, students more overt in taking
on leadership positions report they find taking on more of a team player role highly
satisfying, as one student noted what a blast to not have to worry about making sure
everyone does their thing it was heaps fun to enjoy achieving stuff I didnt think
possible with people I hardly knew.

Conclusion and implications

This paper has presented research on a dynamic approach to overcoming the issue of
pedagogical inertia in shaping learning contexts for undergraduate entrepreneurship
students. Knowledge economies underpinned by innovation are reliant upon the ability
of key agents to enable knowledge transfers and spill-overs and it is essential that
supporting linkages are developed in collaborative ways by HEIs and industry
partners. The outcomes presented address research questions that investigated issues
concerning entrepreneurship and innovation education and the dual requirements of
such education in terms of enhancing graduate skills and employability and building
enterprising capacity. Creating learning experiences for students that go beyond the
static, into a domain dynamic and uncertain in nature enable us to move beyond merely
researching and writing business plans to creating business concepts, establishing
proof of concept, developing mock-ups and prototypes and formulating and testing
business models that enable both the students and industry partners to see first
hand the path an innovation (which can be seen, touched, heard or smelt) will take to
market. This is powerful learning and as many students have commented, they have
learnt more from the IFP than from their entire degree. Similarly, industry partners Facilitating
and prospective employees have access to graduates that are ready to hit the ground dynamic
running and in an environment of skills shortages and ageing populations this becomes
significant in terms of new and fresh knowledge being infused into organisations and learning
likewise in cost reductions associated with training and development. It also enables
new venture creation given some 40 graduates of the IFP now operate their own viable
businesses. These positive outcomes in terms of graduate employability and new 163
venture creation skill and confidence support the notion that more widespread
adoption of the developed approach (at not just the tertiary level) may have positive
impacts upon entrepreneurial and innovative capacity building in a variety of contexts.
The paper also provided insights into overcoming challenges relating to designing
and managing learning programmes that have at their heart an unwavering desire to
go beyond merely providing students with an experience. Specifically, the issues of
differing stakeholder perspectives and evolving expectations, variability in student
experience and level of industry partner engagement were examined. Future research
around how we overcome variability in student experience where the nature of the offer
is for single placements will need, in all likelihood, to focus even more acutely on
reconciling expectations and ensuring appropriate engagement by industry partners
as the IFP has deliberately engaged a small team-based approach in achieving greater
uniformity of experience. The IFP model also offers educators and practitioners an
alternative to the class-based business planning paradigm. By using rapid prototyping
of innovations in a nested industry-partnered model we afford students a greater
measure of reality regarding product/service conceptualisation, development and
commercialisation. This reality, however, it is tempered to some degree as we are
reducing commercial risk for the student entrepreneurs by leveraging upon the
resources of the industry partner. Not withstanding this, we have found the benefits
from doing so outweigh potential for inappropriate learning outcomes as students must
substantiate and validate their decisions and actions continually so as to understand the
implications involved. This raises the possibility for educators to look at business
accelerators developed in collaboration with industry partners as a long-term vehicle to
revolutionise current approaches to contextualising entrepreneurial learning.
Finally, the factors that emerged in empirically investigating key determinants
contributing to developing entrepreneurial and innovative work-ready skills shift
analysis beyond the macro-level view that we learn by doing. A more granular view of
important elements of the learning process such as self-efficacy, achievement,
mentoring and coaching, dealing with uncertainty and complexity, social interaction
(both in physical and virtual forms), group dynamics and leadership is required.
Underpinning this lens adjustment we must carefully design learning contexts in
collaboration with committed industry partners that facilitate creativity, informality,
curiosity and emotional intelligence by uncompromisingly requiring that we walk the
walk through immersion in real-world problems and opportunities.

Note
1. A more extensive overview of the program design will be forthcoming in a subsequent
paper.

References
Australian Industry Group and Deloitte (2009), National CEO Survey: Skilling Business in Tough
Times, The Australian Industry Group, Sydney.
ET Bailey, T.R., Hughes, K.L. and Moore, D.T. (2004), Working Knowledge: Work-based Learning and
Educational Reform, Routledge-Falmer, New York, NY.
54,2/3
Boud, D. and Symes, C. (2000), Learning for real: work-based education in universities, in
Symes, C. and McIntyre, J. (Eds), Working Knowledge: The New Vocationalism and Higher
Education, SRHE and OUP, Buckingham, pp. 14-29.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L. and Cocking, R.R. (2000), How People Learn: Brain, Mind
164 Experience, and School, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Brennan, J. and Little, B. (1996), A Review of Work-Based Learning in Higher Education,
Department of Education and Employment, Sheffield.
Brodie, P. and Irving, K. (2007), Assessment in work-based learning: investigating a pedagogical
approach to enhance student learning, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 11-9.
Bryman, A. and Carter, D. (2001), Quantitative Data Analysis, Routledge, London.
Chell, E. (1998), The critical incident technique, in Symon, G. and Cassells, C. (Eds),
Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organisational Research, Sage, London,
pp. 14-29.
Cope, J. (2005), Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 373-97.
Cope, J. and Watts, G. (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. 104-24.
Deakins, D. (1996), Entrepreneurship and Small Firms, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (1998), Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 144-55.
Dewey, J. (1938), Education and Experience, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Edmond, N., Hillier, Y. and Price, M. (2007), Between a rock and a hard place. The role of HE
and foundation degrees in workforce development, Education Training, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 170-81.
Freestone, R., Williams, P., Thompson, S. and Trembath, K. (2007), A quantitative approach to
assessment of work-based learning outcomes: an urban planning application, Higher
Education Research & Development, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 347-61.
Gibb, A.A. (1987), Enterprise culture-its meaning and implications for education and training,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11, pp. 1-38.
Gibb, A.A. (1993), Enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise education and its
links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals, International
Small Business Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.
Gibb, A.A. (1996), Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglect
them in the twenty-first century business school?, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 309-21.
Gibb, A. (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. 233-69.
Gleeson, D. and Keep, E. (2004), Voice without accountability: the changing relationship
between employers, the State and education in England, Oxford Review of Education,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 37-63.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hannon, P. (2004), Making the Journey from Student to Entrepreneur: A Review of the Existing Facilitating
Research into Graduate Entrepreneurship, National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham. dynamic
Hillier, Y. and Rawnsley, T. (2006), Education, education, education or employers, education learning
and equity: managing employer and employee expectations of foundation degrees, in,
Trowler, P. (Ed.), University of Lancaster, Lancaster, pp. 24-6.
Keep, E. (2006), Market Failure in Skills, Catalyst, No. 1, Sector Skills Development Agency, 165
Wath-upon-Dearne.
Kolb, D.A. (1985), Learning style inventory, TRG Hay/McBer, Training Resources Group,
Boston, MA, available at: http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/33/1/5.refs (accessed 5
November 2010).
Levy, M., Oates, T., Hunt, M. and Dobson, F. (1989), A Guide to WBL terms: Definitions and
Commentary on Terms for WBL in Vocational Education and Training, WBL Project,
FE Staff College.
OECD (2007), Education at a glance, available at: www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,
en_2649_39263238_39251550_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed 12 October 2010).
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, Garden City, NY.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2005), Entrepreneurship education a systematic review of the
evidence, paper presented at ISBE Conference, Blackpool, 1-3 November.
Rae, D. (2010), Universities and enterprise education: responding to the challenges of
the new era, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 591-606.
Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2001), Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial
learning, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 150-8.
Raelin, J. (1997), A model of work-based learning, Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 563-78.
Sahlman, W.A. (1997), How to write a great business plan, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75
No. 4, pp. 98-108.
Smith, A.J., Collins, L.A. and Hannon, P.D. (2006), Embedding new entrepreneurship
programmes in UK higher education institutions: Challenges and considerations,
Education Training, Vol. 48 Nos 8/9, pp. 555-67.
Sobiechowska, P. and Maisch, M. (2007), Work-based learning and continuing professional
development, Education Training, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 182-92.
Solomon, G (2005), Keystones of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, Blackwell Publishing,
Malden, MA.
Templeton, G.F., Lewis, B.R. and Snyder, C.A. (2002), Development of a measure for the
organizational learning construct, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 175-218.

Further reading
Chell, E. and Baines, S. (2000), Networking, entrepreneurship and microbusiness behaviour,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 195-215.
Miller, N (2008), Thinking outside the uni square, The Age, 4 March, p. 7.
Rae, D. (2005), Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model, Journal of Small
Business & Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 323-35.
Rae, D. (2007), Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fiddell, L.S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics, Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA.
ET Appendix
54,2/3

M
Students e
Strategic n A
t c
166 CS
I
development
of innovation
o
r
a
d
Presentation of
d final report and
Content e s e
Previous m prototype
and a
project i
context Teams t
c showcasing to
debrief i firm executive
development C
o o
n Operational s and senior
ENT a t
management c university staff
a
h
of innovation e
f
f
development s

Progress report 1
prototype conceptualisation
proof of concept
Figure A1.
Innovation fastrack
programme delivery Progress report 2
model prototype and business
model development

Corresponding author
David H. Gilbert can be contacted at: david.gilbert@rmit.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints