Educational Action Research

ISSN: 0965-0792 (Print) 1747-5074 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

The benefits and challenges of enterprise

education: results from an action research project
in the third grade in Finnish basic education

Janne Elo

To cite this article: Janne Elo (2015): The benefits and challenges of enterprise education:
results from an action research project in the third grade in Finnish basic education,
Educational Action Research, DOI: 10.1080/09650792.2015.1113886

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1113886

Published online: 08 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=reac20

Download by: [University of Sussex Library] Date: 11 December 2015, At: 08:21
 Educational Action Research, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1113886

The benefits and challenges of enterprise education: results

from an action research project in the third grade in Finnish
basic education
Janne Elo 
Faculty of Education and Welfare Studies, Department of General Education and Adult Education, Åbo
Akademi University, Vasa, Finland
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article is the result of an action research project conducted in 2014 Received 17 September 2015
in a primary school in the city of Vaasa in Finland. The project focused Accepted 24 October 2015
on developing the practice of integrating enterprise education as a KEYWORDS
part of everyday teaching in Grade Three. The project involved three Enterprise education;
class teachers, the headmaster and a university researcher. This article entrepreneurship education;
focuses on the teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges primary school; action
of the project. The teachers viewed the project as beneficial to their research
own professional development as well as to the students’ learning.
The process, however, also revealed several challenges associated with
applying enterprise education in Grade Three, such as time or different
personalities. Based on the experiences from this particular project,
the article broadens the understanding of how enterprise education
can be realised in Grade Three, as well as its benefits and challenges.

Introduction
Entrepreneurship education and enterprise education have emerged as key themes in debates on
education over the last few decades as a result of larger developments in society and the labour
market, in particular. On an international policy level, schools have been criticised for not being
able to adapt to the societal changes that have influenced the development of entrepreneur-
ship and enterprise education (Mahieu 2006). Public education has been criticised for resting
on a teacher-centred and subject-centred view of learning by the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), amongst others. Entrepreneurship education has been
a part of the national core curriculum in Finland since 1994 and emerges as a cross-curricular
theme (National Board of Education 1994, 2004). The implementation has varied largely, however,
and different surveys suggest that it has not become a significant part of the teaching approach
in Finnish basic education (Niemi 2012; Seikkula-Leino 2007).
Traditionally, research on the topic has been especially scarce in the lower grades of
primary school (Mahieu 2006). According to the Finnish Ministry of Education (2009), the

CONTACT  Janne Elo  janne.elo@abo.fi 

© 2015 Educational Action Research
 2    J. Elo

focus in lower grades should be on pupils’ attitudes, traits, abilities and competences, with
focus shifting gradually towards business and cognitive goals at higher levels. The same
progression is apparent in policy documents on an international level (European Union and
OECD), as well as on a national level in Sweden (Berglund and Holmgren 2013). Research
has shown that teachers are not necessarily opposed to enterprise education; however, they
experience difficulty in transforming what are perceived as abstract and elusive goals into
teaching practice, and request guidance (Backström-Widjeskog 2008; Elo 2015). There is thus
a call for research elucidating how this current but ambiguous theme could be enacted in
the classroom, especially in lower grades in basic education.
This article addresses the challenge that teachers face in attempting to turn enterprise
education into teaching practice. The article is based on an action research cooperation
project between a primary school and the researcher in the city of Vaasa in Finland in 2014,
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

spanning over six months. The project aimed to explore how the ambition to develop the
enterprising mind-set of pupils in Grade Three can be turned into teaching practice. The
project involved the entire Grade Three of the primary school, consisting of three paral-
lel classes, three class teachers, the headmaster and the researcher. During the course of
the project, the teachers and headmaster, in cooperation with the researcher, planned and
realised a four-week teaching programme focusing on integrating ‘enterprise’ in teaching.
This article aims to explore the teachers’ thoughts and experiences regarding the benefits
and the challenges of implementing this enterprise education programme. The evidence,
or data, used for this article consists of recorded meetings, as well as individual interviews,
which cover the entire research process and research period.
The article consists of eight sections. After the Introduction, the next section positions the
article in the current field of enterprise education. The third section focuses on the action
research process, and the subsequent section describes the teaching programme planned
and implemented in the project. The fifth section concerns methods of data collection and
analysis. The sixth section presents the results, which are discussed in the penultimate sec-
tion. The conclusions are drawn in the final section.

Background
Entrepreneurship education and enterprise education are to some extent problematic concepts.
Although they are used and discussed from both an educational and economic perspective, there
is no clear and consistent use of these concepts in either field of research (Jones and Iredale 2010;
Mahieu 2006). Research on entrepreneurship and enterprise education in Finland has suffered
from a lack of an educational perspective (Seikkula-Leino 2007). Mahieu (2006) indicates a similar
situation in Sweden, where discussions on these topics have been dominated by voices from
economics and business. Dahlstedt and Hertzberg (2011) argue that the aims of enterprise edu-
cation have been described quite clearly but that the underlying pedagogical ideas are vague.
In the Finnish context the concept of entrepreneurship education is used in national
policy documents and emerges in the current core curriculum as a cross-curricular theme
called Participatory Citizenship and Entrepreneurship (Ministry of Education 2009; National
Board of Education 2004). However, the majority of the learning goals associated with this
theme are consistent with the definition of enterprise education, as defined by Jones and
Iredale (2010). The focus is on developing a proactive and enterprising mind-set that can be
expressed and utilised in a variety of contexts beyond just business and the wider economy.
 Educational Action Research   3

This conceptual ambiguity can contribute to the difficulties teachers face when trying to
grasp and implement enterprise education.
Despite the alleged lack of educational perspective on this research field, numerous
sources have described the principles, characteristics and features, as well as the educa-
tional practices, of enterprise education. These can support teachers attempting to realise
enterprise education and provide input for the development of this approach. Enterprise
education is generally described as resting on a learner-centred and real-world oriented
view on learning, and social constructivism has been suggested as its pedagogical founda-
tion (Rytkölä, Kesler, and Karhuvirta 2011; Seikkula-Leino 2007). Enterprise education has
been defined by attempting to contrast it with ‘traditional teaching’. Traditional teaching is
portrayed as teacher-centred, subject-focused, un-inspiring and obsolete, while enterprise
education is presented as real-world oriented, authentic and inspiring. Stereotypical dichoto-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

mies or generalisations, however, have not significantly increased an understanding of what

a teaching practice focusing on enterprise might be, or what the real-life challenges of such
an approach are. Creating dichotomies is perhaps not a suitable strategy for bridging the
gap between theory and practice. In the following paragraph I will provide a brief summary
of some characteristics of enterprise education as described in earlier research. These are
relevant since they provided the input in the initial stages of the action research process.
The characteristics outline what kind of teaching practice enterprise education is associated
with, but are not intended to be interpreted as a complete description of it.
Enterprise education is often characterised as relying on problem-based projects that con-
cern pupils’ life-worlds. These projects employ investigation, experimentation and research
using different ways of working and are based on authentic questions or authentic prob-
lems. In this context, authenticity refers to tasks or questions that the learner experiences
as authentically interesting and intriguing. These projects give pupils the opportunity to be
proactive and are described as the opposite to ‘the pedagogy of correct answers’ (Kupferberg
2014; Røe-Ødegård 2003). Enterprise education builds on an interaction between convergent
and divergent thinking, and is grounded in pupils’ ideas and thoughts and the transforma-
tion of those ideas into action (Falk-Lundqvist et al. 2011; Kupferberg 2014). This practice
supports decision-making in situations where both questions and answers are ambiguous
and no self-evident solution exists (Elo 2015). Making the process of learning in school ori-
ented toward situations relevant to real life is emphasised in this approach, as is interaction
between schools and the surrounding society (Falk-Lundqvist et al. 2011; Røe-Ødegård 2003).
Encouraging pupils to take risks and view mistakes as learning opportunities rather than
failures, as well as the importance of a cross-curricular approach, have been stated as char-
acteristics for enterprise education (Røe-Ødegård 2003; Seikkula-Leino 2007). Involving
pupils in the planning, realisation and evaluation of teaching, as well as emphasising their
own responsibility for their learning, has been highlighted (Falk-Lundqvist et al. 2011;
Røe-Ødegård 2003). Pupils’ inner motivation, intentional learning and desire to learn is
emphasised in this scholarship, as is the development of a culture of doing things in mani-
fold ways, as opposed to monotonous practice (Einarsson 2014). Longer cooperative learning
processes are seen as preferable to short and individual exercises (Falk-Lundqvist et al. 2011;
Johannison, Madsén, and Wallentin 2000). Finally, Dahlbeck (2014) points out that goals
associated with enterprise education differ from subject goals regarding the duration of time
it takes to achieve them. Goals associated with enterprise are long-term goals that cannot
be evaluated, nor strived for, in a short timeframe.
 4    J. Elo

The above compilation shows that there are characteristics to support teachers in real-
ising enterprise education, but simultaneously it raises an important question. If these are
indeed features specific to enterprise education, then what sets this approach apart from
other contemporary understandings of optimal conditions for learning or ‘good education’?
For instance, Illeris (2007) describes learning in ways that are very similar to the features
listed without ever mentioning ‘enterprise’. It would seem as if enterprise education is not
a pedagogical phenomenon with unique characteristics, but rather one perspective on a
contemporary understanding of best practice in learning. This is another factor possibly
adding to the ambiguity of enterprise education. Distinguishing it as a teaching practice
is a challenge for teachers if its pedagogical foundation does not differ from best practice
in general.
As this discussion shows, the school is criticised for being too ‘traditional’ and for not
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

rising to the challenges of society. In this context, enterprise education is presented as an

appropriate and contemporary approach to teaching. At the same time, however, conceptual
ambiguity and a perceived lack of research in lower grades is not providing teachers with
the support they request for realising enterprise education. This study presents some of
the existing research in dialogue with practitioners in an attempt to explore how enterprise
education can be enacted in a primary school setting, thus attempting to bridge the gap
between theory and practice.

The action research process

The basic principles of action research are traditionally described as ‘plan – act – observe
– reflect’ (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon 2014; Rönnerman 2012). Kemmis, McTaggart,
and Nixon (2014) emphasise that action research involves an actively critical approach to
one’s own practices in order to develop an understanding, for example, of their possible
irrationalities. Action research is thus not necessarily characterised by faithful obedience
to the afore-mentioned steps but rather by a commitment to better understanding and
developing one’s own practice. In this project, the ambition was to use action research
as a ‘practice changing practice’ (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon 2014). The choice of the
participating school in this study was made based on personal contacts; I knew the school
and headmaster to be dynamic with an interest in pedagogical development. The choice of
participating teachers was made in dialogue between the headmaster and the teachers. The
headmaster participated in the planning phase of the project, but not in the realisation. At
the outset of the project the researcher, headmaster and teachers had a common interest
in and concern about the difficulties in implementing enterprise education as a part of
everyday teaching. The participants perceived the topic as important but ambiguous and
elusive, and there was a common interest in developing an understanding of what forms
enterprise education can take in primary school, and the third grade in particular. The work
began with an initial planning phase consisting of three meetings, held in the spring of 2014.
The meetings focused on common goals, as well as guidelines, expectations, research scope,
and so forth, for the project. Each meeting was summarised in minutes that were sent to all
participants for comments.
This initial discussion phase is a crucial tool for bridging different traditions, fields of
knowledge and practices (Rönnerman 2012). As a result of the discussions, a common
understanding of enterprise education formed, and the goal was set of planning and
 Educational Action Research   5

implementing a four-week teaching programme focusing on fostering an enterprising

mind-set in the pupil as an integrated part of the curriculum in order to develop the prac-
tice, as well as the understanding, of enterprise education. This timeframe was chosen
due to the practical limitations of the context, even though a longer-term commitment
could have been preferable. The planning process was supported by a compilation of
enterprise education characteristics summarised from the literature already described,
as well as from policy documents. According to Rönnerman (2012), basing an action
research process on tendencies in research is favourable; the challenge lies in making
these tendencies visible and recognisable in one’s own practice. The compilation of
relevant principles was critically discussed during two meetings in order to examine
different perspectives on enterprise education, as well as narrow down the specific
focus for the project. This discussion process can be seen as communicative action,
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

as described by Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon (2014). As a result, the teachers’ theo-
ries and experiences were brought into conversation with evidence from the literature
review. Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon (2014) point out the importance of bringing
practitioners’ theories in dialogue with research theories through a process controlled
by the practitioners themselves. During this process, I as the researcher actively partic-
ipated in this merging of two fields of knowledge: that of the practitioner and that of
academic research.
The discussions resulted in consensus on five principles for the project: it should be
cross-curricular, combining different school subjects; it should be based on the pupils’
questions and should focus on the pupils turning ideas into action; it should focus on
the pupils taking active responsibility for their learning, and they should be involved
in the planning, realisation and evaluation of the process; it should focus on approach-
ing the subject content from many different angles and in many different ways; and it
should focus on pupils’ inner motivations and intentional learning. The programme was
built around the theme ‘the plants of the yard’, focusing on biology but also integrating
arts, mother tongue, and information and communications technology teaching. The
selection of subject content was based on the guidelines in the curriculum and the usual
lesson progression in the different school subjects.
The planning process resulted in a framework for the four-week programme that was
implemented in autumn 2014. The framework was adapted to some degree along the
way to suit the different classes and the teachers’ teaching styles. Implementing the same
basic plan in three different classes with three different teachers was beneficial for the
research since the different outcomes and experiences provided diversity in the teachers’
perspective and reflections. Their experiences and reflections were discussed in weekly
communal meetings throughout the process. I was present in the classrooms during
most of the lessons that were a part of the project, participating as well as observing.
My ambition as a researcher was to have the role of a ‘critical friend’ (Kemmis, McTaggart,
and Nixon 2014; Wennergren 2012), problematising and participating actively in the
reflective discussions, as well as in teaching. During the reflective meetings, discussion
focused on the teachers’ experiences and critical reflections on what had been done
so far, as well as on planning ahead. After all of the classes had completed the project,
the process was concluded with individual interviews with each teacher to review their
thoughts and experiences on the project. All of the communal meetings and interviews
were recorded and constitute the evidence for this article.
 6    J. Elo

The teaching programme

In this section I will describe the basic framework for the teaching programme. The subject con-
tent focused on the plants that can be found in the schoolyard and on the roadside. The learning
project began with the teacher presenting the theme and outline of the project to the pupils.
This was followed by a brainstorming session where the pupils gave suggestions of information
they would like to know about the plants. Their questions were written on the whiteboard and
discussed collectively. After brainstorming, the pupils were divided into groups of three and
were randomly given responsibility for three plants. Each group had the task of agreeing on five
questions from those listed on the board that they would focus on, providing the opportunity
for them to select the questions they found most interesting. The pupils were also informed that
the project would culminate in the presentation of their research findings in front of the class.
Each group was then given a tablet computer and was sent out into the yard to find their
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

plants, collect them and take photographs of them in their natural surroundings. In order
to find out what their plants looked like, the pupils consulted their textbook or a book on
local flora, which they took outside to assist with their search. When all had succeeded in
finding and collecting their plants, the pupils returned indoors to make cards for the game
‘memory’ using the plants they had collected. Enough cards were made so that all groups
could play with cards of all the plants. The pupils played the game with the cards several
times during the programme. At first, the task was to match plant and plant, but later on an
additional set of cards was made that only had the plants’ names on them. Thus, the task
became matching plant and name, which aided the students in learning the plants’ names.
After the cards were made and played with for the first time, the pupils’ focus turned to
seeking answers to the five questions agreed upon. Textbooks, several flora books and the
Internet were sources for their investigations. Some groups were not able to find answers
to all of the questions they had chosen and had to agree on new questions.
The pupils made factsheets about each of their plants, which also used the photographs
they had taken. The pupils also drew or painted pictures of their plants during the arts les-
sons. At the end of the programme, the pupils practiced their presentations by questioning
their groups’ members about their chosen plants. Finally, each group presented the results
of their efforts in front of the class, using their factsheets, paintings and photographs. The
teachers also evaluated the learning outcomes in their respective classes, varying from a
written test to an estimation of the learning results compared with previous experiences.
During the project, the role of the teachers was mostly to facilitate rather than lecture or
give instructions on how to perform specific tasks, as a ‘traditional’ teacher might do. The
pupils were given a relatively large amount of freedom, which also required a relatively large
amount of responsibility. The pupils had to be active in all stages. The first of the five charac-
teristics agreed upon as the basis for the programme was that it should be cross-curricular,
combining biology, mother tongue and arts subjects, as well as integrating information and
communications technology teaching. Although the subject content focused on all of these,
they were integrated into the same project and not clearly distinguishable from the pupils’
point of view. The second characteristic, basing the project on the pupils’ questions and
allowing pupils to turn their ideas into action, was essential since the pupils were responsible
for formulating the questions that their research was based upon.
Pupils had a large amount of freedom and responsibility, and the teachers reasoned that
an open and unstructured approach gave pupils active responsibility for their learning. Pupils
 Educational Action Research   7

were not given ready-made tasks to perform; instead, they were given goals to achieve and
the responsibility for coordinating their actions. This gave them the opportunity to come up
with their own ideas on to how to reach their aims, as well as the opportunity to turn these
ideas in to action. Therefore, the third characteristic – pupils taking active responsibility for
their learning and involving pupils in the planning, realisation and evaluation of the pro-
cess – was implemented since they had the responsibility to coordinate their efforts within
the group. The fourth principle was approaching the same content in manifold ways. This
was realised by the pupils learning about the plants in several different activities, including
searching, finding, photographing, collecting, tasting, smelling, reading, playing, drawing,
writing, speaking, listening and presenting. The fifth principle was a focus on the pupils’ inner
motivation and intentional learning. This principle did not manifest itself in any particular
element of the project programme but was rather a basis for many decisions during the
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

process. The teachers strived to create a learning experience that would motivate the pupils
and encourage them to intentionally focus on learning.

Methods for data collection and analysis

The data used for this study consisted of audio-recordings of the six communal meetings
or group discussions, as well as the concluding individual interviews with each of the three
teachers. Three of the discussions were planning meetings held prior to the realisation of the
teaching programme and three were weekly meetings held during the realisation. The indi-
vidual interviews were held within a timeframe of two weeks after the teaching programme
had been completed. This resulted in a total of seven hours, three minutes and 41 seconds of
audio-recordings. The interviews were semi-structured thematic interviews revolving around
a few key themes, allowing plenty of space for teacher reflection (Hirsjärvi and Hurme 2008).
The teachers’ group discussions and individual interviews were analysed using the prin-
ciples of open coding (Rubin and Rubin 2005) and data-driven coding (Gibbs 2007). No
pre-defined theory or model was applied to the evidence; the different categories formed
during the analysis. Analysis focused on revealing aspects of the process that teachers found
beneficial in comparison with the way the subject content would normally have been taught.
It also strived to reveal aspects that teachers experienced as challenging, difficult or having a
negative impact. The analysis was done in several stages or laps, each lap resulting in more
focused and balanced categories.

Teachers’ views on the benefits and challenges of the project

The results of the analysis are divided into two overall categories: the perceived benefits of
the teaching programme, consisting of seven sub-categories; and the perceived challenges
of the teaching programme, consisting of six sub-categories.

Benefits
Meta-reflection
Teachers found that the most profound benefit of the process was that it forced them to
reflect upon their teaching methods, on their teaching philosophy and on the aims of edu-
cation. Participating in a research process that spanned over six months incited the teachers’
 8    J. Elo

questioning of their own routines and teaching habits. One teacher described the experience
as follows: ‘The most valuable thing for me was that it made me think along these tracks,
because it’s so easy to just continue along your old tracks’. The process as a whole, and the
weekly meetings in particular, served as a forum for ‘taking a brake’ for the teachers to reflect
upon their teaching and resulted in meta-reflection and a changed perspective. Teachers
experienced further benefits because this reflection took place amongst their colleagues;
the challenge of turning abstract goals and principles into teaching action was supported
when done collegially. Overall, the process resulted in an improved focus on the pupils and
the pupils’ questions. As a result of the project, the teachers’ focus shifted away from short-
term goals and subject content towards long-term goals and the development of the pupils’
abilities and competences. Mastery of subject content was not seen as the end goal but
rather as a means to reach other goals. It had been a personal challenge for the teachers to
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

complete the project, which was generally perceived positively.

Increased focus on pupils’ ideas

An increased focus on creating room for and bringing the pupils’ ideas to the fore was another
benefit of the project. The teachers became more aware that pupils have relevant ideas
and therefore utilised these ideas in their teaching. This led to greater pupil participation in
the planning, implementation and evaluation of learning activities. Teachers reported that
making room for the pupils’ ideas in these teaching phases required conscious effort. One
teacher expressed this as follows: ‘How often do I serve them my own ideas, and how rarely
do I ask for their ideas?’ In the planning phase of the project, teachers expressed some doubt
about the possibility of giving pupils’ ideas weight in the preparation and execution of the
project. It seems as though the norm had been structuring learning activities on the basis
of teachers’ ideas; focusing on pupils’ ideas was seen as an alternative approach.

Brought learning outside the classroom

Another benefit was learning taking place outside the classroom to a greater extent than
normal. Taking pupils to the school’s surroundings to find, collect and photograph their
plants was seen as beneficial for learning. Teachers noticed that the pupils became more
observant of their surroundings and were motivated and excited about learning outside.
Making learning ‘real’, by taking it outside to the plants’ natural environment, led to better
learning results, according to the teachers. They also mentioned that taking learning out-
side was not a new approach, but they felt that as part of this programme they utilised its
potential in a more conscious and focused way.

Supported pupils’ independence and responsibility

Teachers believed that pupils’ independence and responsibility was fostered by the project.
Pupils were given more freedom and responsibility than normal, and this also made it appar-
ent to the pupils whether or not they had assumed the appropriate amount of responsibility.
The teacher’s role was more focused on facilitation than in traditional teaching, which meant
that it was noticeable when a pupil failed to take adequate responsibility. The teachers expe-
rienced that pupils took the learning process seriously. Since teaching did not revolve around
the traditional textbooks and also involved flora books, the Internet and nature itself, the
pupils were forced to adopt a responsible and active approach to their learning. They could
not simply follow the textbook but had to actively search, find and interpret information.
 Educational Action Research   9

The teachers mentioned that they were sometimes slightly surprised by how independent
the pupils were in this process.

Supported cooperation and social skills

The relatively open and group-oriented way of working was seen as beneficial for the
development of pupils’ social skills and cooperation. Since most of the work was done in
cooperation between three pupils, they were dependent on each other for completing
the project. During the project, pupils worked within the same groups for the entire
four-week period throughout all of the lessons that were involved. Cooperation started
with choosing which questions they would focus on. In all stages of the process, the
pupils cooperated and also faced situations where differing opinions had to be sorted
out through negotiations. Teachers also noted that this way of organising learning meant
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

that the pupils had more natural opportunities to help and support each other than
they normally would, which teachers thought strengthened the groups’ social relations.
Teachers experienced that these aspects were more present during this project than
during normal lessons, where pupils either worked individually or cooperated on smaller
and more restricted tasks.

Supported pupils’ motivation

The teachers noted that the pupils in general had a very positive attitude towards the pro-
ject. The pupils were motivated to participate actively in the project and took their learning
seriously. Teachers also noted that a few students who were generally regarded as ‘difficult’
were motivated by the project and performed very well. The group-focused and independent
ways of working allowed the different competences of the pupils to become visible. Pupils
with different strengths could complement and support each other within the groups to
a larger extent than normal. Pupils were very engaged in the project, and several pupils
repeatedly used their breaks to working on the project instead of going out to play.

Better learning results

The final category of benefits consists of the teachers’ view that the subject-related learning
results were better than normal. According to the teachers, the pupils had mastered ‘the
plants of the yard’ and were much more aware of their surroundings in general. When reflect-
ing on the reasons for this, teachers stated that the chapter was given much more time than
it usually was, allowing the content to be approached in manifold ways. During the course of
the project, the pupils engaged in a wide variety of learning-related activities. The pupils had
an active and independent role; something that teachers thought had a positive impact on
the learning results. Alongside learning facts about the plants, the project developed other
skills and behaviours, such as ‘learning to learn’, taking initiative, taking responsibility, social
interaction and acting independently. The focus was thus on long-term goals rather than
short-term goals. The subject content as a means to reach other goals is expressed in the
following quote: ‘The actual learning lies somewhere else than on these facts about these
plants; they learn how to find out, where to find out, and that’s something they learn for life.
It’s irrelevant what content we practice on’. Teachers felt that the project laid the foundation
for a way of working and learning that would be beneficial for the pupils later on.
These seven aspects summarise the main benefits of the project, as expressed by the
teachers. The teachers also experienced several challenges during the project. In order to
 10    J. Elo

give a balanced picture of the process and to deepen an understanding about the nuances
of conducting such a project, the following section will focus on the challenges.

Challenges
Although the teachers’ experiences of the project were mainly positive, many challenges
and frustrations arose during this process. The challenges were of varying character, from
relatively concrete challenges to more abstract ones.

Balance between structure and pupil responsibility

One challenge teachers experienced throughout the process was finding a balance between
the degree of structure and the degree of pupil responsibility. They concluded that too little
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

structure would not appropriately match the level of the pupils’ capacity to take responsibil-
ity. This would probably lead to the pupils not feeling in control of the task, losing focus and
becoming overwhelmed, eventually resulting in ‘chaos’ and missed learning opportunities.
It was, however, also critical that the structure was not too rigid, since this would limit the
pupils’ opportunity for action and for making individual, responsible decisions. This placed
emphasis on the teachers’ planning and structuring of the tasks and of the entire project.
The following quote exemplifies this: ‘We’ve discussed this before. They are so very much in
the beginning so it’s not possible to give too much responsibility cause they can’t handle it
and become lost and insecure’. The possibility of pupils making mistakes was also discussed
in relation to the degree of structure. The teachers were prone to set up learning activities
in a way that mistakes and disappointments were avoided because these were seen to have
a potentially negative impact on pupils’ self-confidence.

The pupils’ age

The pupils’ relatively young age was discussed repeatedly. According to the teachers, children
around the age of nine have a limited capacity to focus actively on learning or to take large
amounts of individual responsibility in the context of school learning. A challenge related
to age was that the pupils were neither good readers nor good writers. Thus, finding and
understanding facts was challenging, since most sources – books as well as the Internet –
were targeted at an adult audience and consisted of language difficult for third-graders to
comprehend. Finding, interpreting and documenting relevant facts was thus challenging
for many pupils. This emphasised the teachers’ responsibility for finding relevant sources
that were appropriate for the pupils’ age.

Different pupil and teacher personalities

One challenge that was discussed several times was pupils’ different capacities for handling
self-oriented forms of working, due to their different personalities. Some pupils were ben-
efitted by the project’s approach, but others were not. Teachers felt that the relatively free
and group-oriented ways of working gave the pupils’ personalities more visibility. This made
the group dynamics more apparent, which had positive as well as negative effects. Some
personalities had great difficulties in focusing on the tasks and in handling situations that
were not as structured as in ‘normal’ teaching. The teachers stated that it is easier for some
pupils to stay focused in teacher-centred lessons and those in which they worked individ-
ually. These pupils were not benefitted by the project, since they were unlikely to use this
 Educational Action Research   11

freedom in a beneficial way. Overall, an open way of working was much more challenging
in ensuring different personalities function together. However, teachers also stated that
their own personalities were not always compatible with this way of working. During the
course of the project, some aspects of the process did not necessarily feel natural for their
individual style of teaching. Whether this is the result of habit or of more fundamental per-
sonal characteristics and traits is a relevant question; however, it cannot be commented on
within the scope of this research project.

The challenge of ‘helping too much’

On several occasions, the teachers noted that they were in the habit of assisting the pupils
to a much larger degree than actually necessary. This took the responsibility away from the
pupils, and to a certain degree hindered them from learning. Teachers saw this as an uncon-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

scious habit and had to actively focus on not over-helping the pupils. This was exemplified
with letting the pupils sort out the problems that they encountered on their own or letting
the pupils take responsibility for negotiating their division of work, arranging their work
environment, and so forth. Two of the teachers had worked with their class from Grade One
and reflected that their roles as teachers had to transform as the children grew. Letting go
of some control and gradually giving more and more responsibility to the pupils demanded
active attention. Otherwise, it was easy to ‘fall back’ into the habit of helping the pupils to
an excessive degree, which also includes over-structuring the tasks and learning activities.

The challenge of transforming abstract characteristics into concrete action

One challenge that was especially prevalent during the planning phase was the difficulty
in transforming the five agreed-upon characteristics of enterprise education into concrete
teaching and learning activities. Teachers reasoned that it would have been easier to have
concrete examples to accompany these characteristics. They generally experienced finding
new and varying approaches to their teaching to be a challenge. Enterprise, in general, was
experienced as an elusive concept and difficult to connect to specific teaching and learning
practices. This was also related to a perceived difficulty in evaluating pupils’ progress with
regards to developing an enterprising mind-set. In comparison, subject goals were more eas-
ily transformed into teaching and learning activities and were more easily evaluated. Overall,
the teachers experienced enterprise to be significantly more elusive than subject goals.

Time consuming
The final category of challenges relates to the fact that the ways of working implemented
in the project are significantly more time consuming than ‘normal’ teaching. An average of
four lessons per week was used for the project during the four-week period, resulting in a
total number of lessons of approximately 16. An estimate from one of the teachers was that
this chapter previously had been completed in as little as four lessons. Time was an issue in
planning as well as in carrying out the teaching programme. The teachers were not opposed
to allowing time for the process, but they pointed out that it is not possible to work in this
manner with all subject content because the curriculum contains too much content to allow
it. Teachers requested a shift in curricular policy with less focus on large amounts of subject
content to a policy with less content and more room for adapting varying ways of working.
Teachers pointed out that letting the pupils take responsibility for formulating questions,
doing research, planning their work process, and so forth, inevitably consumes more time
 12    J. Elo

compared with a practice where the teacher formulates the questions, provides the facts and
structures the learning activities in detail. From this perspective, a focus on large amounts
of subject content is in conflict with a focus on enterprise. The teachers also felt that having
the weekly meetings was sometimes an element of stress and frustration. Although they saw
the meetings as a good forum for collegial discussion and reflection, the amount of ‘other’
work to be done was given as an argument for not spending excessive time on meetings.
These six aspects summarise the challenges of the project as perceived by the teachers.
The following section discusses the results.

Discussion
Previous studies have suggested that Finnish teachers have an underlying positive atti-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

tude towards enterprise education, which is supported by this study. The study also
supports the notion that turning enterprise education into teaching practice is chal-
lenging. In addition to this, planning and implementing a teaching programme based
on previous research was also time-consuming. The teachers’ overall attitude towards
the process, however, was positive. The teachers’ attention was drawn to aspects of their
teaching approach and philosophies that had not necessarily been reflected upon to the
same degree previously. Examples of this could be the habit of over-helping the pupils,
or the importance of striking a balance between structure and pupil responsibility. As a
whole, teachers felt that their views on pupil activity and pupil participation had shifted
and they were positively surprised by the pupils’ ability to take active responsibility for
their learning. The project thus seems to have served as a forum for reflection on and
development of the teachers’ teaching philosophies as well as their teaching practices.
Based on the experiences from this process, action research can serve as a forum for
collegial discussion and support for realising enterprise education.
The study revealed that, from the teachers’ point of view, a lack of time is a constant issue.
Many of the programme’s perceived benefits were counteracted by a notion of it taking too
much time. The amount of subject content in third grade did not allow enough room for
the teaching approach adopted here becoming the norm; having spent this much time on
‘the plants of the yard’ meant that other lessons had to be neglected. This is a critical point,
since the perceived benefits of the approach are counteracted by a curricular focus on a
certain quantity of subject content.
Taking learning outside the classroom was another benefit counteracted by time con-
straints. Teachers saw that this gave the pupils a concrete understanding of the plants and
made the whole learning process more authentic. The pupils were no longer studying an
abstract plant in a textbook but a concrete plant that they themselves had found and col-
lected from nature. This supported the pupils’ motivation and made them connect emo-
tionally with the learning process. Teachers, however, pointed out that it would have been
much more time-efficient if the teacher had collected the plants and presented them in
class. Changes enacted based on the need to save time would thus have the consequence
of pupils missing out on the multiple benefits of engaging in learning practices outside.
The teachers also problematised the relationship between subject goals and cross-curricu-
lar goals. Short-term subject goals were seen as a means to reach long-term goals associated
with enterprise and pupils’ personal development. Once again, however, teachers pointed
out the time constraints. There seems to be a conflict between a focus on quantity in the
 Educational Action Research   13

goals of subject content and a cross-curricular focus on enterprise and quality of learning.
Teachers called for a shift in educational policy away from quantity and towards quality.
On a few occasions, teachers also expressed that all of the teaching approaches adapted
in this project did not suit their individual teaching styles or personalities. Even if the condi-
tions for cross-curricular and student-focused teaching were improved, some teachers might
still prefer other forms of working, unless their pedagogical philosophy and repertoire of
teaching approaches develops. Individual teachers’ pedagogical philosophies are therefore
highlighted. The teachers acknowledged that they have autonomy and responsibility for
their pedagogical development but stated that such development is often secondary to
more tangible and acute matters.
Based on the teachers’ statements, it would appear that the current practice architec-
ture in school does not necessarily support a focus on enterprise education and that time
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

constraints counteract pedagogical development, meta-reflection and manifold ways of

working. However, discussions on time constraints can also be interpreted as an expression
of a school culture and teachers’ pedagogical philosophies, where a focus on subject content
is still the norm. Where time constraints are an issue, the norm appears to be the prioriti-
sation of short-term goals regarding subject content at the expense of long-term personal
development goals. Decisions on the focus of teaching are thus made in interplay between
teachers’ pedagogical philosophies and contextual factors. An action research project can
serve as a forum for directing focus toward long-term goals and questioning the status quo.
Highlighting time as a challenge can also be the result of no extra time resources being
provided for the teachers to participate in the research process by the school’s administration.
This emphasises the importance of school leaders creating the foundation and prerequisites
for such a process, as well as the importance of the participants’ genuine motivation and
commitment (Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon 2014; Rönnerman and Edwards-Groves 2012;
Söderström 2012). Better conditions and high-level support through the provision of extra
time could also have influenced the research process; for instance, by enabling teachers to
document their reflections in diaries. In this project, teachers were not willing or able to set
aside time for diary reflection. This would have provided wider material for analysis and sup-
ported teachers’ reflection. On the other hand, this also reveals that teachers do not neces-
sarily see these kinds of development activities as a part of their professional responsibilities.

Conclusions
This study can be seen as a contribution to the understanding of the challenges practitioners
face when enacting enterprise education, and as an example of how enterprise education
can be interpreted in practice. The study suggests that there is a conflict between a focus on
quantity in subject goals and enterprise education. The teachers concluded that in enterprise
education the subject goals are merely a means to reach goals of personal development
associated with enterprise. The practice architecture, however – and possibly individual
teachers’ pedagogical philosophies to some extent – still supports a focus on subject goals.
The challenge of realising enterprise education thus involves the interplay between teach-
ers’ pedagogical philosophies and the context, and any attempts to shift the focus towards
enterprise therefore concerns both.
The results also indicate that efforts targeted at teachers’ practice, such as action research
cooperation, are required in order to develop enterprise education as a part of school
 14    J. Elo

teaching. Teachers’ testimony shows that time and space for professional or pedagogi-
cal development is scarce and more tangible and acute matters are in the foreground for
teachers. In this setting, the challenge of questioning and developing one’s own practice
individually may easily be set aside. Providing collegial support, support from educational
research as well as involving a researcher in a common project, appears to create an arena
where development can occur.
The study also raises questions regarding enterprise education itself. Like any other
educational practice, enterprise education has its own challenges. For instance, teachers
expressed a concern for certain student personalities’ ability to handle the unstructured way
of working involved in this particular project, or the difficulties in evaluating the development
of students’ enterprising mind-set. In further research, a critical perspective is therefore of
importance. In the discussion on the theoretical background for this study, I also questioned
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

whether the characteristics of enterprise education presented in the literature are in fact
unique to this form of education. They can just as well be interpreted as characteristics of
a general contemporary view on learning. The teachers’ reflections support this view, since
none of the characteristics presented were seen as new, nor were the ways of working
regarded as original. The difference between enterprise education and ‘normal’ education,
from the teachers’ perspective, was the focus on enterprising ways of working and the
dominance of enterprising ways of working rather than these taking a secondary role. One
teacher expressed this as follows: ‘Or could we say it like this: we’ve worked enterprisingly
for 30 years! We’ve done all of these things before. It’s just that we are immersed in this now,
gave it more time and paved the way for success’.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID
Janne Elo   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3293-8752

References
Backström-Widjeskog, B. 2008. Du kan om du vill. Lärares tankar om fostran till företagsamhet [You can
if you want. Teachers’ thoughts on entrepreneurship education]. Vasa: Åbo Akademi.
Berglund, K., and C. Holmgren. 2013. “Entrepreneurship Education in Policy and Practice.” International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 5 (1): 9–27.
Dahlbeck, P. 2014. “Kortsiktiga och långsiktiga mål [Short-term and long-term goals].” In Entreprenöriellt
lärande i skolan, edited by B. Lelinge and P. Widén, 15–28. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Dahlstedt, M. and F. Hertzberg. 2011. “Den entreprenörskapande skolan. Styrning, subjektskapande
och entreprenörskapspedagogik [The entrepreneurial school. Governance, subjection and
entrepreneurial pedagogy].” Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige 16 (3): 179–198.
Einarsson, A. 2014. “Entreprenöriellt lärande i dramapedagogik [Entrepreneurial learning in drama
pedagogy].” In Entreprenöriellt lärande i skolan, edited by B. Lelinge and P. Widén, 55–72. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Elo, J. 2015. Företagsamhet i skola och utbildning. Lärares tankar om förutsättningarna att nå målen
i temaområdet Deltagande, demokrati och entreprenörskap [Enterprise in school and education.
Teachers thoughts on the preconditions for reaching the goals of the cross-curricular theme
Participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship]. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
 Educational Action Research   15

Falk-Lundqvist, Å., P-G. Hallberg, E. Leffler and G. Svedberg, 2011. Entreprenöriell pedagogik i skolan -
Drivkrafter för elevers lärande [Entrepreneurial pedagogy in shool – incentives for students’ learning].
Stockholm: Liber.
Gibbs, G. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Sage Publications.
Hirsjärvi, S. and H. Hurme, 2008. Tutkimushaastattelu. Teemahaastattelun teoria ja käytäntö [The
research interview. The theory and practice of the thematic interview]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus Helsinki
University Press.
Illeris, K. 2007. How We Learn: Learning and Non-Learning in School and beyond. London: Routledge.
Johannison, B., T. Madsén and C. Wallentin. 2000. Aha! Företagsamt lärande! En skola för förnyelse [Aha!
Enterprising learning! – a school for change]. Stockholm: Sveriges Utbildningsradio.
Jones, B., and N. Iredale. 2010. “Enterprise Education as Pedagogy.” Education + Training 52 (1): 7–19.
Kemmis, S., R. McTaggart, and R. Nixon. 2014. The Action Research Planner – Doing Critical Participatory
Action Research. London: Springer.
Kupferberg, F. 2014. “Entreprenörskap som problembaserat lärande [Entrepreneurship as problem-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 08:21 11 December 2015

based learning].” In Entreprenöriellt lärande i skolan, edited by B. Lelinge and P. Widén, 73–97. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Mahieu, R. 2006. Agents of Change and Policies of Scale: A Policy Study of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
in Education. Umeå: Umeå University.
Ministry of Education. 2009. Guidelines for Entrepreneurship Education. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.
National Board of Education. 1994. Grunderna för grundskolans läroplan 1994 [National core curriculum
1994]. Helsinki: National Board of Education.
National Board of Education. 2004. Grunderna för läroplanen för den grundläggande utbildningen 2004
[National core curriculum 2004]. Helsinki: National Board of Education.
Niemi, E., ed. 2012. Aihekokonaisuuksien tavoitteiden toteuttamisen seuranta arviointi 2010 [Evaluation
of goal achievement in cross-curricular themes 2010]. Helsinki: National Board of Education.
Røe-Ødegård, I. K. 2003 Læreprosesser i pedagogisk entreprenørskap. Å lære i dilemma og kaos [Learning
processes in pedagogic entrepreneurship. To learn in dilemma and chaos]. Kristiansand: Norwegian
Academic Press.
Rönnerman, K. 2012. “Vad är aktionsforskning? [What is action research?]” In Aktionsforskning i praktiken
– förskola och skola på vetenskaplig grund, edited by K. Rönneman, 13–30. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Rönnerman, K., and C. Edwards-Groves. 2012. “Genererat ledarskap [Generated leadership].” In
Aktionsforskning i praktiken – förskola och skola på vetenskaplig grund, edited by K. Rönneman,
171–190. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Rubin, H., and I. Rubin. 2005. Qualitative Interwiewing – The Art of Hearing Data – 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Rytkölä, T., M. Kesler and T. Karhuvirta. 2011. “Yrittäjyys-, kansalais- ja tiedekasvatus yhteisen
sateenvarjon alla [Entrepreneurship-, civic-, and science education under a common umbrella].”
In Yrittäjyyskasvatus perus- ja toisella asteella – näkökulmia pedagogiikan kehittämiseen, edited by T.
Rytkölä, E. Ruskovaara and M. R. Järvinen, 125–143. Helsinki: Kerhokeskus.
Seikkula-Leino, J. 2007. Opetussuunnitelmauudistus ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen toteuttaminen [The
Curriculum Reform and Realisation of Entrepreneurship Education]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education.
Söderström, Å. 2012. “Att lära av egen praxis [Learning from your own practice].” In Aktionsforskning
i praktiken – förskola och skola på vetenskaplig grund, edited by K. Rönneman, 123–140. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Wennergren, A.-C. 2012. “På spaning efter en kritisk vän [In search of a critical friend].” In Aktionsforskning
i praktiken – förskola och skola på vetenskaplig grund, edited by K. Rönneman, 71–88. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.