The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of

Management Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

An evaluation of teaching methods of entrepreneurship in

T
hospitality and tourism programs
Syed Zamberi Ahmada,∗, Abdul Rahim Abu Bakarb, Norita Ahmadc
a
Management Department, College of Business Administration, Abu Dhabi University, United Arab Emirates
b
College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University (PSU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
c
School of Business Administration, American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Entrepreneurship has become an important subject in many undergraduate and postgraduate
Entrepreneurship programs in hospitality and tourism schools since it aims to prepare and train future en-
Education trepreneurs to venture into business. This paper critically reviews and evaluates different
Teaching methods of teaching the subject. In particular, it provides discussions about the aims of teaching
Pedagogy
entrepreneurship and refers to the challenges and difficulties of doing so in hospitality and
Hospitality and tourism program
tourism programs (HTP). An emerging conclusion of the paper is that although traditional
techniques such as lecturing, tutorial and the case study seem to have been commonly used in
delivering entrepreneurship subject, no single teaching method appears to be adequate to achieve
the objectives of the course. There has to be a link between theory and practice in order to ensure
future innovation in HTP. Therefore, instructors teaching entrepreneurship should consider the
contextual factors and, based on this, combine a number of teaching methods in order to provide
students with wide range of required skills and an up-to-date knowledge of the entrepreneurial
process.

1. Introduction

Under different titles such as entrepreneurship, small business management, entrepreneurial growth, new ventures creation, new
ventures management or enterprise development, many undergraduate and postgraduate programs in hospitality and tourism
management offer entrepreneurship education (EE) as compulsory or elective subject (Ahmad, 2015). The offering of EE related
subject is seen very important since the aim is to provide students with the essential knowledge in starting a business and equipped
students with the necessary skills and competences to become effective managers in the hospitality and tourism industries. Students
will also get an exposure towards a better understanding of the entrepreneurship concept and learn how to be innovative and
successful business owners. In other words, the main rationale for offering this subject is to facilitate graduates moving into self-
employment as well as enhancing their employability to work in the hospitality and tourism industries characterised by volatile,
complex and uncertain business environment.
One of the major issues in entrepreneurship is how the subject should be taught (Pittaway & Cope, 2006). Educators are still
struggling to find the appropriate educational objectives and little is known about effective teaching techniques for EE (Brockhaus,
Hills, Klandt, & Welsch, 2001). Despite the fact that studies in this area do exist, majority of these studies were undertaken within
business school perspectives (Kuratko, 2005; Solomon, 2007). Studies on EE that were done outside business schools include sport

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: drszamberi@yahoo.com (S.Z. Ahmad), aAbubakar@psu.edu.sa, drrahimbakar@gmail.com (A.R. Abu Bakar), nahmad@aus.edu (N. Ahmad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.11.002
Received 4 October 2016; Received in revised form 14 November 2017; Accepted 15 November 2017
Available online 25 November 2017
1472-8117/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

management (Ratten, 2011), engineering and science (Handscombe, Rodriguez-Falcon, & Patterson, 2008), veterinary medicine
(Henry & Treanor, 2010), art (Gose, 1997), geography, earth, environmental science (Maguire & Guyer, 2004), nursing (Dickerson &
Nash, 1999), medical degree (Padilla, White, Bovee, & McQueen, 2011), and history and music (Mangan, 2004).
Given the scarcity of studies carried out outside of the business school, a number of scholars have called for a new approach to EE
(Gibb, 2005; Kirby, 2004; Volkmann et al., 2009) while others were more conservative by arguing that the current pedagogy in EE
should mainly be revised to provide an effective and efficient teaching and learning strategy (Mwasalwiba, 2010). Developing an
‘entrepreneurial mind-set’ within the classroom environment is a challenge for any educator let alone to create a new venture (Gibb &
Price, 2014). It demands the formulation of an integrated learning and teaching strategy that aligns intended learning outcomes with
the effective selection of pedagogy. Pedagogy or teaching method is of paramount importance in the learning process, involving
effective method, competent instructor and sufficient teaching facilities. Given there is somehow a consensus among EE scholars that
entrepreneurship can be taught (Ismail, 2010), the emphasis now shifted to what should be taught and how it should be taught
(“Chief Scientist”, 2015; Fayolle, 2007; Lourenco & Jones, 2006). However, Rideout and Gray (2013) argued that even though there
has been some progress in EE, the field is still at a very early stage of development.
The increase in growth of the hospitality and tourism industry in recent years creates a huge opportunity for entrepreneurs
particularly the young entrepreneurs between the ages of 20–35 years old (Hospitalitynet, 2016). Given this fact, it is particularly
important for educators to ensure that this generation of students graduate with a mix of skills that will equip them for this pro-
fession, with the ability to be flexible, adaptive and proactive. The term entrepreneurship is always revolving and varies across
different industries and fields, making it difficult for people to define it. For example, Jones and English (2004) define en-
trepreneurship as “the process of providing individuals with the ability to recognise commercial opportunities and the insight, self-
esteem, knowledge and skills to act on them”. Sewell and Poll (2010) on the other hand define entrepreneurship as “the desire,
motivation and skills necessary to start and manage a successful business.” According to Olsen and Mykletun (2012), there is no
controversy free operational definition of entrepreneurship, such as those defined above; therefore they proposed the use of foun-
dational objective as a basis for framing entrepreneurship.
One of the most commonly used foundational objectives of entrepreneurship education is to encourage students to create their
own businesses (Harkema & Schout, 2008). However, creating own business is not the main focus of hospitality and tourism edu-
cation; therefore, this definition is not quite applicable to HTP (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012). Thus, they proposed a new term that they
called “entrepretality”, a combination of the words “entrepreneurship” and “hospitality”. Entrepretality focuses on the process of
using available resources to create value to a customer while EE focuses on starting a new venture (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012). In other
word, given the nature of hospitality and tourism industry, EE in HTP should focus on creating a service-value proposition instead of
focusing on new venture creation only. Scholars also noted that most hospitality and tourism graduates would remain employed in
organizations and never become independent entrepreneurs (e.g. Ahmad, 2015). The skills that they acquired in EE, however, would
help them to act entrepreneurially within the company.
The importance of how EE should be taught or the appropriate teaching method in HTP is still a fundamental issue in EE that is
part of an ongoing scholarly debate in the hospitality and tourism literature (Deale, 2016). Teaching contents and methods would be
the decisive factors of success for teaching EE in HTP in the twenty-first century (“Chief Scientist”, 2015). Unfortunately, very little is
known about effective teaching techniques for entrepreneurship education (Deale, 2016; Olsen & Mykletun, 2012) and research and
knowledge about how to teach entrepreneurship in HTP remains relatively underdeveloped despite the growing demand for more
entrepreneurial-oriented graduates (“Chief Scientist”, 2015). Having recognised this gap, this paper aims to critically review and
evaluate the main teaching methods of EE and discuss the effectiveness of the specific teaching method in relation to HTP at the
university level.

2. Focus and scope

This paper hopes to determine the “source” of the teaching method effectiveness within the HTP specifically. However, this article
is not intended to be a compendium that provides all the possible techniques on how to teach entrepreneurship but rather an analysis
of the widely used teaching pedagogy applied in the EE. The first step was to perform an evaluation or assessment of the past and
present teaching methods of EE in terms of their strengths and limitations. While there exist many different definitions of teaching
methods or practices (e.g. Sanders & McCutcheon, 1986), we define teaching method as the general principles, pedagogy and
strategies used in teaching. One of the greatest challenges for educators is determining the effectiveness of teaching methods for
students. According to Read and Kleiner (1996), in order to measure the effectiveness of a teaching method, we need to understand
how people learn. People learn when they are actively involved in the learning process and when learning is followed by positive
reinforcement such as praises (Read & Kleiner, 1996). It is important to note that in this paper, we only focus on the effectiveness of
teaching method and not teacher effectiveness. However, teaching effectiveness can be understood by looking at what effective
teachers do. Effective teachers have high expectations for student learning, provided clear instructions, monitored student learning
progress, used incentives and rewards to promote learning, highly efficient in the classroom routines, and maintained excellent
personal interactions with their students (Hunt, 2009). Specifically, when looking at the effectiveness of teaching method we focus on
the learning objectives, introduction of new knowledge, practice to deepen students understanding, students' engagement and par-
ticipations, classroom management, student teacher relationships and multiple measures of students’ achievements (Marzano, 2007).
The concept will be further elaborated in the following sections.

15
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

3. Effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in hospitality and tourism program

The challenges that EE faces in the past have shifted from legitimacy issues to quality issues (Béchard & Grégoire, 2007). The
debate is no longer whether entrepreneurship can or should be taught but rather how to continuously improve its content and
delivery methods to meet the needs of current students and industries (Fayolle, 2007; Gendron, 2004; Lourenco & Jones, 2006).
There has been a longstanding discontent and criticisms among EE educators (e.g. Ronstadt, 1987) that the delivery of EE has been
too rigid and theoretical that it failed to achieve its objectives. Ahmad (2015) argued that the focus and process of EE is too
mechanistic and does not promote or encourage entrepreneurial behaviour and there is no statistically significant relationship be-
tween education and entrepreneurial intention of tourism students (Gurel, Altinay, & Daniele, 2010).
With reference to HTP, it is still considered very much vocational and action oriented, and many questions the extent to which it
prepares students for thinking critically and working outside existing practices. The current teaching method is argued to be mainly
concerned with creating human resources to work for others not to work for oneself, which calls for a new approach in EE (Ahmad,
2015; Deale, 2016; Echtner, 1995). Integrating an entrepreneurship module in the HTP curriculum will provide students with the
essential knowledge and skills to become effective managers with entrepreneurial skills and capabilities in the hospitality and tourism
industries (Ahmad, 2015). HTP differs from that in other business disciplines due to the strong service-oriented, hands-on nature of
work in the hospitality industry and the frequent interaction between students and industry professionals Deale, O'Halloran, Jacques,
& Garger, 2010). The mismatch between skills acquired at the university and those needed by the students affected the en-
trepreneurial skills as well since it was poorly developed within their university study and showed adverse effects among students to
engage in entrepreneurship (Rengiah, 2013). Olsen and Mykletun (2012) argued that most universities failed to understand the multi-
faceted nature of the hospitality and tourism education. and focused mainly on traditional teaching methods such as lectures, tu-
torials, and examinations. The traditional methods were criticised over their emphasis on theory and conceptual thinking and using
teacher-centred learning styles (Deale, 2016) and focusing too much on functional knowledge (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012).
Mwasalwiba (2010) also attributed the existing shortfall in teaching pedagogy to traditional methods, which are less effective in
encouraging entrepreneurial attributes and make students become dormant participants. With respect to the arguments and un-
favourable comments of higher education institutions (HEI) teaching ineffectiveness, it is time for HEI offering EE to reconsider their
philosophy on pedagogy and adjust it to support more pragmatic approaches. According to McKeown, Cindy, Srikanth, Kelly, and
Lynn (2006), p. 86 per cent of the HEI programs in the United Kingdom is still using traditional teaching and learning methods. These
are the exact same methods used in other business-related courses, which according to Bennett (2006) are passive and less effective in
influencing entrepreneurial attributes.
Despite the shortcomings of the traditional teaching methods and an overwhelming result of studies that suggest entrepreneurship
should be taught using “innovative” methods (Arasti, Falavarjani, & Imanipour, 2012; Deale, 2016; Musa, 2009), teaching methods
such as lectures, case studies and group discussions continues to be the most commonly used pedagogies in many universities world-
wide (McKeachie, 2002). The study by Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy (2002) highlighted that the most popular teaching methods in
EE are lectures, case studies and the creation of business plans. U.S. News and World Report (2004) found that 78 out of 100 top
universities in the United States incorporated business plan in their curricula format of teaching. Some universities around the world
even sent competitive teams to enter the business plan competitions held overseas (Honig, 2004). As a result, many universities have
incorporated business plan as part of their HTP but only few went beyond teaching students in starting a new venture and explore
innovation within an existing venture (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012). Although there has been a significant change in HTP's curriculum
structure in offering EE related courses, the degree to which the new curriculum is effective in capturing both operational and
management areas of hospitality and tourism industry needs to be further explored. This is especially important in HTP as the
industry is often based on providing experiences to others.

4. Determining the underlying factors of teaching effectiveness in entrepreneurship education

The methods for teaching entrepreneurship varied extensively (Porter, 1994). These differences are due to the assumptions about
what EE ‘is’ (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012). Therefore, before any discussion about the effectiveness or the suitability of a particular
teaching method is carried out, there is a need to resolve the conceptual confusion of the various definitions concerning en-
trepreneurship. This confusion not only impact adversely upon efforts to develop EE as an academic field, but also in the minds of
learners. The overlaps and distinctions of meaning can cause confusion if not clearly defined, especially as entrepreneurship and
other elements of it (e.g. innovation) are closely linked with governmental policy and business strategy in many countries (Olsen &
Mykletun, 2012). The problem with this definition of EE is that it places the entrepreneur narrowly into an economic and business
context (Cheng, Chan, & Mahmood, 2009). The main focus of EE in business schools for example, is still on new venture management,
small business and the business planning process that purportedly goes with it.
This is also noted in HTP where Brizek and Khan (2008) argued in hospitality academia “entrepreneurship is considered mostly in
terms of individuals who started new ventures.” Thus, Bosma and Levie (2010) proposed that “intrapreneurship” which refers to the
creation or new innovation within an organisation, is a key factor for the development of companies, especially those in the hos-
pitality and tourism industries (Morrison, Carlsen, & Weber, 2010). Hence, based on the differences in definition of what en-
trepreneurship is, it would be fallacious to argue that a particular teaching method is effective or ineffective compared to other
methods when all the programs do not share similar definition or objective. Pardo (2013) reiterated the same argument that before
making any appraisal about the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education, one needs to understand the teaching goals of en-
trepreneurship educators and why they pursue those goals. Additionally, it would also be flawed to assume that all EE objectives are

16
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

to develop new venture creation. In fact, some educators still oppose the idea of students venturing into the business while they are
still pursuing their studies (Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). In spite of this “diagnosis”, little is known about the expected outcomes and
intentions of entrepreneurship instructors (Pardo, 2013).
Although previous work in entrepreneurship education has pointed out the existence of several possible teaching goals in en-
trepreneurship courses (i.e. Bechard & Toulouse, 1998), most articles within the topic simply described what they did without further
consideration of the goals behind the teaching activities (e.g Rae, 2003; Rae & Craswell, 2000; Shepherd, 2004). Hytti and O'Gorman
(2004) substantiated an argument where they stated that depending on the objectives of EE, there are many ways to offer en-
trepreneurship education. If the objective of the education is to increase the understanding of what entrepreneurship is about, the
most effective way to accomplish the objective is to provide information through public channels such as media, seminars, or
lectures. These methods are effective in terms of sending the relevant information to a broader population in a relative short time
period if it is used in a way that encourages involvement from the audience (Read & Kleiner, 1996). If the objective is to equip
individuals with entrepreneurial skills, which are applicable directly to work, the best way is to provide education and training that
enable individuals to involve directly in the entrepreneurial process, such as industrial training. It is important to note that lecturers
or trainers play a key role in determining the effectiveness of the presentation or training (Read & Kleiner, 1996). Lastly, if the
objective of the education is to prepare individuals to act as entrepreneurs, the most effective technique is to facilitate experiments by
trying entrepreneurship out in a controlled environment, for instance through business simulation or role playing where students are
encouraged to use their creativity (Deale, 2016) and experience the elements of real situation (Read & Kleiner, 1996).
Looking at this issue in a holistic manner, the problem lies in determining which objectives suits for a particular EE stage.
Arranging the sequence of this EE learning progression would provide clarity in determining the objective for each entrepreneurship
stage and the corresponding teaching pedagogy. Therefore, the effectiveness of a teaching method or the best approach would differ
depending on the stage of the entrepreneurship program that delineates the definition and objectives of EE. For the purpose of
consistency in accessing the effectiveness of the respective teaching method, the objective of EE can be categorised as follows. EE can
be broadly divided into three primary objectives: teaching about, in, and for entrepreneurship (Hytti & O'Gorman, 2004; Kirby, 2004).
Teaching about entrepreneurship is aimed at providing students a general perspective and understanding of entrepreneurship as a
phenomenon (Hytti & O’Gorman, 2004). The objective is to educate different stakeholders, including government, policy-makers,
financers, and the general public on the role of entrepreneurs in the community. The training of individuals in entrepreneurship is
aimed at making them more entrepreneurial in their work as well as increasing their innovativeness, skill and creativity. Finally,
educating for entrepreneurship refers to the creation of an entrepreneur, the individual who decides to start his or her own business
ventures (Jamieson, 1984; Olsen & Mykletun, 2012). Based on these objectives, EE can be classified and properly designed depending
on the progression or stage of becoming an entrepreneur.

5. A review of current teaching pedagogy in entrepreneurship education

It seems that most authors categorise teaching methods into two groups, “traditional methods” which comprise of normal lec-
tures, seminars, reading, business plan, project works and “innovative methods” which are more action-based pedagogy. The former
is also known as “passive methods” or teacher-centred learning and the latter is also referred to as “active methods” or student
centred (Hytti and O’ Gormon, 2004; Mwasalwiba, 2010; Tasnim, 2012). In this paper, we proposed an additional category called
experiential method that can easily be incorporated in the hotel and tourism curriculum such as hotel design or attraction man-
agement courses.
Traditional method approach to teaching and learning involves the directed flow of information from instructor as sage to student
as receiver. Typically it is based on pre-packaged learning materials, fixed deadlines, assessment tasks and criteria determined by
instructors. Innovative teaching methods on the other hand seek to improve students' creativity and analytical thinking. The active
methods expect the instructor to facilitate learning, not to control and apply methods that enable students’ self-discovery. Innovative
teaching methods include business simulations that can provide students with experiences of simulated new venture decision-making
and develop their skills in complex decision-making. Other methods include visits and attachments to companies to gain practical
experience (Balan, 2014; Solomon, 2007). The following paragraphs elaborate the common teaching methods applied in EE in HTP.
These teaching and learning methods are briefly reviewed as follows:

5.1. Passive methods

5.1.1. Lecture and exams

This method is perhaps the most widely used and oldest methods of teaching EE (McKeachie, 2002). EE is taught through lectures,
taking exams and writing essays. By following a textbook, the instructors introduce different concepts and tools of entrepreneurship
and explain how they can be used in hospitality and tourism companies. Although this method is effective in delivering information,
it has several numbers of limitations. The extent to which students can participate in the class is minimal, the method is ineffective in
developing individual skills and it is difficult for some students to engage in an active learning during lecture session (Deale, 2016;
Read & Kleiner, 1996). The effectiveness of this approach relies on the instructor's experiences, abilities and knowledge. As stated by
Hindle (2007), this approach may not be suitable for students who wish to learn the EE process through active experimentation. In
order to overcome the limitations of lecturing, other teaching methods can be integrated with it, such as role-playing, workshop,
seminar series, and mini case discussions (Read & Kleiner, 1996). With the integrated method, students can be active participants
during class and answer specific questions during or before the lecture.

17
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

5.1.2. Case studies

A case study is usually a “description of an actual situation, commonly involving a decision, a challenge, an opportunity, a
problem or an issue faced by a person or persons in an organisation” (Leenders, Mauffette-Leenders, & Erskine, 2001). It may include
scenarios of a complex situation and also the beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices of the individuals involved and their actions. Cases do
not provide simple or explicit answers; rather, cases provoke students’ critical thinking, illustrate how to think professionally, and
urge students to use theoretical concepts to highlight a practical problem. This method is important when the educator is seeking to
develop the higher-level skills needed for critical thinking and decision-making. Case studies allow students to “experience” real
client situations that they may not have access to in a hospitality and tourism setting. They promote development of critical thinking
skills by offering the chance for direct data analysis that includes consideration of the outcomes. For example, by exposing hospitality
and tourism student to a practical scenario in the classroom, it gives students a “hands on” experience. They can read and examine
real life data and attempt to resolve the situation, or at least find potential solutions to the situation without having to be in the
situation. The effectiveness of a case study depends on active participations from the students and the trainer, acceptable solution and
reasons for the actions taken (Read & Kleiner, 1996). Despite its advantages, this method has been criticized as well (Biagio & Mark,
2014). The criticisms include: the inaccuracy or misrepresentation of the case, the imbalance participation of the students during case
discussions, and the outdated case materials.

5.1.3. Business plan

A business plan may be defined as a written document that describes the current state and the presupposed future of an orga-
nisation (Honig, 2004; White, Hertz, & D’Souza, 2010). Preparing a business plan produces an aura of formality and conviction often
required before an individual's creation of a new venture would be taken seriously. Business plan is meant to be the first step toward a
specific process widely known as entrepreneurship, but unlike the activity of entrepreneurship, it focuses primarily on ideas as
opposed to actions (Honig, 2004). A well-crafted business plan is one of the most important communication tools for an entrepreneur
that provides a sense of legitimacy to the firm and the founders. A well-written plan is concise, yet comprehensive and requires a
myriad of decisions about all aspects of new venture creation, from exploiting the opportunity to garnering resources and building the
top management team. Constructing a convincing business plan requires a deep understanding of the product, the competitive
landscape, the business model, and the prospective financial model. Since the main objective of a business plan is teaching students to
start a new venture, it does not add much value to the hospitality and tourism students because the industry is mainly based on
providing experiences to others within the same venture and not starting a new venture (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012).

5.2. Active methods

5.2.1. Business simulation games

A business simulation game can be defined as a dynamic model of the real entrepreneurial process in which a balanced number of
decision variables require strategic integration (Keys & Wolfe, 1990). The simulation game provides firsthand experience of man-
agement interdependencies and competition in one common marketplace. Simulation games can help to develop critical abilities and
practice important entrepreneurial behaviours by remodelling certain aspects of reality in a secure and risk-free environment
(Carrier, 2007; Shepherd, 2004; Smith, Kickul, & Coley, 2010). Students get the chance to reflect on their own action and the
resulting outcomes, while also being provided with a chance to react to the result by taking corrective action. Since all decisions
happen in real-time, it produces a realistic highly contextualised learning environment.
Carrier (2007) and Shepherd (2004) additionally underline the benefits of students experiencing failure and negative emotions,
which will help students in learning to deal with failure. Each round of simulation should be followed by a debriefing element that
encourages participants to share their experiences with others. This requires an experimental learning environment that is char-
acterised by trust, openness, and mutual respect (Smith et al., 2010). To further improve the learning through simulation games,
Smith et al. (2010) have compared different time periods between simulation and debriefing. They found reflection to be more
effective within 48 h after the simulation compared to one week later. Despite its advantages, this method has a number of limitations
(Read & Kleiner, 1996). For instance, the simulations are not based on real companies; they may therefore fail to reflect real and
realistic business life experience. In addition, some students may view it as a fun game and may not take it seriously. The cost of
simulation games and the time required to run them are the other limitations.

5.2.2. Guest speakers

Entrepreneurship speaker's program draws celebrated and successful entrepreneurs in hospitality and tourism industries to the
educational institution to discuss ideas, opportunities and business management. This program exposes students to unique experi-
ence, lessons that are acquired and issues and challenges as experienced by the entrepreneurs in real life situations. Students in the
groups can interact directly with the entrepreneurs to share experience and interests (Norasmah, Othman, & et al, 2008). Role models
have been recognised in general as an important source of “vicarious learning” (Bandura, 1986). Based on the interviews and focus
group, the lecturers admitted that this approach is one of the most effective ways in delivering the entrepreneurial knowledge.
Another practice is to make students find their ‘own’ entrepreneurial role model to interview about his or her experiences and
then report back to class. The idea behind the latter is that students will be more likely to choose role models that they can relate to
and therefore be more realistic to them. Either way, students have the chance to contact industry representative and receive future
employment opportunities (Volkmann et al., 2009). Because this method can provide first-hand information, it may attract the
attention of students. However, the cost of inviting guest speaker and their availability to come to institutions to give seminar may be

18
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

a concern.

5.2.3. Business visits and field trips

Field visits often comprise of hotels, restaurants, travel agencies and other tourist enterprises that are usually arranged by the
lecturers or administration of the educational institution. This practice provides students and lecturers up to date information about
the latest trends in the travel and hospitality industry. HTP is always based around providing experiences to other, therefore field
visits would allow students to receive valuable first-hand information concerning specific businesses, which they can use while
preparing their business plans (Sandage, Cook, Hill, Strawn, & Reimer, 2008). At the same time, field visits could provide feedback
from the business stakeholders about how the teaching program should be adjusted in order to correspond to the industry needs.
Despite its advantages, there are some challenges in using the method. Finding participant companies from the industry and ob-
taining full cooperation may be difficult. Additionally, a single field trip will not serve the purpose. In order to fully understand the
experience, it requires building blocks of knowledge that are learned over a given period of time (Sandage et al., 2008).

5.3. Experiential methods

5.3.1. Consultancy project

In this method, partner companies from tourism and hospitality industry allow a group of students from institutions to act in a
consultancy role to handle a specific business and management issues. Students carry out research and development both inside and
outside the participating company and learn by handling those issues in professional ways. A number of results can be accomplished
using this method. They include an increased understanding of real business life context, learning how to apply theoretical concepts
into actions, and improved problem solving, communications, and interpersonal skills (Ardley & Taylor, 2010). Despite it ad-
vantageous, this method may have some difficulties. Developing contact and relationships with tourism and hospitality companies
can be a hurdle and time consuming. Companies may be unwilling to cooperate due to the confidentiality of the information. In
addition, managers may be busy to approach and uncooperative in providing essential information.

5.3.2. Project-based learning (PBL)

According to Henry, Hill, and Leitch (2003) and Johannisson, Halvarsson, and Lövstål (2001), a project based learning approach
is more effective in teaching entrepreneurship than case studies. A focus on students' own projects is said to increase student mo-
tivation (Kailer, 2010; Welter & Heinemann, 2007), due to the emotional and intellectual involvement and its personal relevance to
the student (Robinson & Malach, 2007). Robinson and Malach (2007) and Deale (2016) pointed out that students should also learn to
deal with uncertain, complex, and stressful situations. Leaving one's comfort zone and working under pressure is an important
learning experience for future entrepreneurs (Robinson & Malach, 2007). Experimental and action based learning activities, followed
by reflection can help students build confidence in their individual and team skills (Deale, 2016; Jones, 2010) because they work on
real business settings.

5.3.3. Counselling/mentoring
Zachary (2000) describes a mentor as being a “guide on the side” rather than a “sage on the stage”. However a mentor can be
defined as a trusted advisor, teacher, confidante, advocate, and friend that can be formally allocated for work or study purposes. Each
of these mentors brings different experience and roles, therefore it is important that one understands and establishes this unique
mentoring relationship from the beginning. Mentoring is designed to facilitate both personal and professional growth in a mentee,
with a mentor's willingness to share insights and knowledge. This notion of a learning partnership or learning-centred paradigm
enables the focus to be on the mentee rather than the teaching of specific skills or procedures. Choosing to work with a skilled coach
or mentor can help individuals achieve their goals and increase their effectiveness in the particular job or task with which they are
involved (Deale, 2016). The benefits to the mentor include opportunities to be stimulated by a challenging relationship, develop
skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for the successful implementation of quality procedure including subject reviews and
benchmarking exercises. Additionally, the mentor can also improve organisational skills and reputation and learn from the mentee
and analyse one's own theoretical base through the exploration of issues relating to teaching, learning, assessment and evaluation.

5.3.4. Practical training and working with entrepreneurs

The main objective of practical training is to let students work for a period of time in a real hospitality and tourism company in
order for them to gain the real-life work experience. Through the internship programs, students get awareness of the business world
and learn the fundamental skills of starting or managing a business (Cheung, 2008). Chen and Shen (2012) argued that internship is
more successful than others at preparing students for an entrepreneurial career. The concept of being in the actual work environment
is also known as situated learning, which can be expressed as cognitive apprenticeship (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012).
Cognitive apprenticeships provide students with an opportunity to acquire and develop knowledge by learning from a skilled
individual. It introduces learners with an actual context of practice by focusing on the importance of authentic context seen in
teamwork, interaction, and decision-making in creating the service-value proposition (Chan, Miller, & Monroe, 2009). Apprentice-
ships are a natural fit for HTP as they offer business education tailored to a specific industry.
Even though apprenticeships is seen as very effective in HTP, a study of small business owners in the US indicated some dis-
agreement about which aspects of the programs should be emphasised on (Elmuti, Khoury, & Omran, 2012). Some business owners
placed budgeting and cash flow management as the most important while others ranked people management as their priority. As such

19
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

we can conclude that the content, strategy and evaluation of apprenticeships effectiveness remain largely to be researched.

5.3.5. Start your own business

Start your own business method is often designed to help individuals with limited work experience or skills, which is the case for
most undergraduate students. It includes common activity of starting and operating a real business such as team size, amount of
startup capital, planning time, operating time, and budget management (Malach & Malach, 2014). In this program students are
encouraged to take risk and try out new things and then reflect on the outcomes of their efforts to understand why they achieved and
did not achieve some desired result (Politis & Gabrielsson, 2009). Very few universities and learning institutions have adopted this
method due to its risk and complexity (Dhliwayo, 2008). Among those few institutions are Babson College, Stanford School of
Business, MIT Sloan School of Management, The London Business School, and The National University of Singapore where students
were asked to create and run small ventures on campus and work on small consulting jobs. Given the importance of this method,
Neck, Greene, and Brush (2014) called for a reform in EE to include start your own business program. It is however important to note
that start your own business program is very narrow in scope as it focuses on start-up and small business.

6. Practical teaching methods of entrepreneurship education in hospitality and tourism program

One of the greatest challenges in teaching is either to teach a standardised subject matter or attending to students' needs (Darling-
Hammond, 2012). Within the EE, standardised subject matter emphasises on theory, scientific thoughts, and knowledge acquisition
while students’ focus emphasises on practical, entrepreneurial methods, value creation and action. The former is predictable, easy to
measure, meet the “requirements” of HEIs procedure and denotes passive learning (like any other courses) while the latter is un-
predictable, difficult to measure, does not conform to institutional procedures, costly and requires active learning. Although chal-
lenging, the main aim of an EE in HTP is to achieve an integrated emphasis of both approaches.
This can be illustrated from Bill Bygrave (1993) statement, Director of Entrepreneurial Studies at Babson College where he stated,
“there are two ways to ruin an entrepreneurship course. The first way is to have it consist entirely of the practical application. The
second way is to have it be entirely theory”. We reasoned that the effectiveness of teaching method depends on the entrepreneurship
objective and the student's previous experience. However, coming up with a perfect combination of teaching methods is not easy. By
integrating a myriad of approaches, it may confuse the instructors and make it difficult to administer. A possible solution to this
predicament is to blend the demands of the subject matter while integrating the practicality side of it.
We concur with Gedeon (2014) and Valliere, Gedeon, and Wise (2014) that in designing an entrepreneurship program, especially
within HTP, it is crucial to have a proper definition of the program's objective. Without a good understanding of ontology, it will be
difficult to teach and assess the effectiveness of the course. Generally, EE is designed to expose what entrepreneurship is about,
maximise the potential for stimulating entrepreneurial attributes and insight and finally equip students with action. However, within
the current literature of EE, there is a strong emphasis upon teaching “for” as opposed to “about”. This can be seen in the comments,
arguments and feedback about the specific teaching methods particularly the traditional approach that failed to nurture students to
become entrepreneur. Olsen and Mykletun (2012) clearly argued that there should be a strong emphasis in teaching “for” as opposed
to ‘about” in EE.
We propose that there should be a continual progression of entrepreneurial development in the entrepreneurship program in HTP.
In the “foundation” level of EE, it is likely that more students would enrol in the course. As the emphasis in that stage is to provide the
necessary theoretical knowledge, mass lectures provide the practicality and the “coverage” of transmitting the knowledge.
Classrooms should be a world of ideas in which students learn theories that teach them what they ought to do to succeed (Fiet, 2001).
However, as the “attrition” rate in the course increases, it is possible to conduct smaller learning groups that focus on the interactive
aspect of learning. Students at this stage are more motivated by more dynamic methods of teaching, such as business games and
simulation, interviews with high-growth tourism entrepreneurs, lectures from tourism entrepreneurs, practical case studies, and
group and team techniques for creating new business ideas (Ahmad, 2015). When students reached the peak of the business creation
stage, this comprises of highly motivated students who may wish to test their ideas further. Experiential methods such as counselling
and practical training are highly suitable for this purpose.
‘For’ courses focuses upon creating enterprising mindsets and exploring what it feels like to be an entrepreneur. ‘About’ en-
trepreneurship tend to draw upon a traditional pedagogy of lectures and text book to explore trends with small businesses and sectors
and are therefore assessed through more traditional methods of written exams. Within this classification, these courses are taught
using distinctly different pedagogies, as well as being assessed differently; with teaching ‘for’ referring to the constant targeting of the
practice of learning upon the ‘know how’, the ‘know who’ and the ‘need to know’.
We argue that studying a single entrepreneur (through guest speakers and interviews) cannot effectively explain the differences in
contingencies and resources that entrepreneur must manage (Fiet, 2001). As there is a high failure rate among nascent entrepreneurs,
teaching students to pattern their efforts after this population seems irrational. It is also difficult to conclude that we can learn much
from studying those who survive because of the mediating factors such as luck and bias. We suggest caution in using entrepreneurs as
guest speakers if our purpose is to teach students what they should do to be successful. However, entrepreneurs, with some help from
scholars, should be able to develop contingency frameworks in which they examine facts and make predictions based on insights
gained from divergent theoretical perspectives.
Consequently, it is important to understand how learning occurs since it is critical to the development of effective entrepreneurial
learning and teaching strategy. A widely referred learning classification in education is based on Bloom (1956). Bloom's (1956)
taxonomy divides educational objectives into three overlapping ‘domains’ – cognitive (knowledge) affective (attitude) and

20
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

Experiential Individual
Situated

Mastery of Knowledge
Active – Small
Group Practice

Passive – Mass Lecture Theory

Number of students in classroom

Fig. 1. Hierarchy of learning methods.

psychomotor (skills). Each domain is explored as a hierarchy, which builds in complexity. To build mastery of any of these domains,
the lower level skills are learnt first; as mastery is created from working from lower through higher levels. A full appreciation of this
model clearly impacts learning strategy that needs to be employed to support effective student learning. For example, to achieve
lower cognitive objectives, such as the transmission of facts or knowledge, mass instruction techniques (mainly passive approach such
as lectures) are most effective. To meet the objective of affective, it requires student involvement in the learning process, which is
most effectively achieved in innovative approaches (such as business simulations). Finally, in order to achieve the skills demanded in
the specific industry, experiential approaches are the most effective (such as mentee, and practical training).
Based on Bloom's taxonomy, the corresponding approach of passive, active or experiential is then chosen. For cognitive level, the
emphasis is on the development of knowledge (issues concerning entrepreneurship). Therefore, mass instruction techniques such as
lecturing are most effective at transmitting information for recall. As the level moves to affective, a more appropriate method for
nurturing entrepreneurial attributes aim at students should be chosen. Methods such as business simulations and consultancy project
could be utilised. With regards to psychomotor, a more hands on methods that emphasised experiential knowledge is suggested. In
the hospitality and tourism industry, this is an important stage where practical and experiential methods (situated learning) are
emphasised (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012). In short, we argue that understanding the program objective and learning taxonomy is the
foundations of an effective teaching and learning strategy of EE in HTP. Fig. 1 illustrates our discussion on the hierarchy of learning
methods.
Based on the elaborated discussions and analysis of the issue, Table 1 summarised various pedagogical methods and its classi-
fications. It can be concluded that each teaching method has its own strengths and limitations.

7. Concluding remarks and recommendations

The main aim of this paper was to discuss and highlight issues related to the effectiveness of the current teaching methods of EE in
HTP. A number of conclusions and recommendations can be suggested based on our analysis. We argue that the “origins” towards the
elaborate discussions of teaching effectiveness in EE, particularly the criticism towards the passive or traditional approaches is due to
the bias towards “for” entrepreneurship objective. To make the matter worse, there is no consistency among entrepreneurship
educators of what an entire program or course should look like. These arguments were based on an analysis of 18 different en-
trepreneurship courses provided by participants at a retreat for entrepreneurship scholars, which showed that the course has a
coverage of 116 different topics (Fiet, 2001). The content of the courses varies so much that it was difficult to conclude if they even
have a common purpose (Fiet, 2001). Recent scholars (Olsen & Mykletun, 2012; Van der Sluis, Van Praag, & Vijverberg, 2008;
Weaver, Dickson, & Solomon, 2005) have voiced the same concern that entrepreneurship instructors teach different things under the
same umbrella of entrepreneurship courses.
EE program in HTP should be developed based on the framework that includes a common objective, which would correspond to
the learning taxonomy and the related teaching methodology. Each teaching method has its own merits and limitations. Despite the
huge criticism on traditional approaches, it is interesting to note that the most frequently used teaching method in the classroom in
many countries remain relatively traditional. These findings confirm those of Hytti and O'Gorman (2004), who have analysed 50
entrepreneurship education programs targeting all levels of education in Austria, Ireland and the UK that the teaching methods used
(in decreasing frequency of occurrence) are as follows: “traditional” teaching methods, business simulations, workshops, counselling/
mentoring, setting up a business, study visits, games and competitions, and practical training. A plausible reason for this could be the
EE objectives themselves. A study of 15 leading US entrepreneurship education programs found that the primary goal for the majority
of the programs was to increase the awareness and understanding of entrepreneurship as a process (Hamidi, Wennberg, & Berglund,
2008). The second major goal was to increase students' awareness of entrepreneurship as a career possibility. This illustrates our
argument that the appropriate teaching methods depend largely on the entrepreneurial learning stage and objective.

21
 S.Z. Ahmad et al.

Table 1
Classifications of teaching methods adopted in entrepreneurship education.

Objective Approach Domain Implication Method Strengths Limitations

About Passive Cognitive Description Lecture and Exam • Can provide up-to date information • Potential of low students' participation
• Easier to control class • Less effective with students who prefer active learning
• Can focus on specific issues ad topics experimentation
• Course materials can be easily updated
• Face-to face interaction
Case Study • Illustrate real business context • Outdated case material
• Effective in linking theory and practice • No best answers/solutions
• Improve problem solving and decision making • Require much time of discussions
skills • Instructor can dominate the discussions
• Interactive educational process
• engages students' minds and enhances their
learning more
Business Plan • Create business strategy • Difficult to access information
• Can improve writing skills • Students may seek additional guidance
• Involves preparation and research
In Active Affective Prediction Business Simulation Games • Provides hands-on learning experience • Costly
• Effective in developing team-work skills • Can be time-consuming

22
• Able to see the effects of decision • Lack of realism
Guest Speaker • May provide latest information from the industry • Costly
• Real life examples • May not connect theory to practice
• First-hand information
Business Visits and Field Trips • Connect to real world • Difficult to access to companies
• Allow students to observed real business
environment
For Experiential Psychomotor Action Consultancy Project • Develops research skills • Companies may not be cooperative
• Lead to contact with business community • Not suitable for undergraduate students
Problem-based Learning • Develops problem-solving skills • Students may unable to propose meaningful
• Put knowledge into practice recommendations
• Students may work independently • Students can lose direction
• May develop team-work skills
Counselling/Mentoring • Provides hands-on guidance • Students may experience a sense of tight control
• Focus discussion • Difficult to access students' learning
Practical Training and Working with • Lead to direct contact with business people • Companies may not be cooperative
Entrepreneurs • Improves communication skills • May be difficult to access students' performance at the
• Direct observation of business activities companies
• Independent learning process
Derived from Ahmad (2015); Balan (2014); Biagio and Mark (2014); Fatoki (2014); Arasti et al. (2012); Darling-Hammond (2012); Smith et al. (2010); Cheng et al. (2009); Béchard, J.-P., and Grégoire, D. (2007); Carrier (2007);
Okumus and Wong (2005).
The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

Fiet (2000) explains that instructors rely on lecture-based methods because they can be easily accomplished, and require less
investment. On the other hand, in a practical sense, most of the advocated action-based teaching methods are costly and somehow not
well aligned with the conventional university system of teaching (Mwasalwiba, 2010). Therefore, it would be counterproductive to
continue arguing that a particular teaching method is ineffective in ‘activating” students of becoming an entrepreneur. Nor is it
worthwhile to continue receiving feedback from students that a particular teaching method is “boring” and ineffective simply because
students do not “see” or “get” the immediate benefits. Each teaching method serves a particular purpose and it is important to
complement the overall process of entrepreneurship. Based from the analysis and discussion of this paper, it appears that the key
attributes to teaching effectiveness in EE should be based on the foundation of EE build upon clear definition and aims, learning
approach and entrepreneurial stage. At the same time, entrepreneurship educators need to have a rich repertoire of teaching stra-
tegies, the ability to combine approaches and the knowledge of how and when to use certain methods and strategies. Finding the right
balance is especially important in the HTP curriculum as the industry is highly practical, more service-oriented, and hands-on
compared to most fields.
Finally, HEIs facilities and teaching “rules” and procedures itself limit the possible introduction of any “innovative” teaching
pedagogy. Non-traditional teaching methods such as inviting guest speakers and business role models, business simulations and field
studies are rarely used due to procedural complexity (Fatoki, 2014). To equip students adequately for their future careers, there is a
need to expand pedagogies and introduce innovative approaches, by encouraging student-led activities in the classroom to foster
involvement in the learning process while stressing the importance of the underlying theories (Deale, 2016). HEIs need to be more
flexible and accommodative to allow entrepreneurship instructors to experiment in the classrooms.
Ultimately, we believe more studies need to be done in determining the effectiveness of the respective teaching method. Future
studies need to be clear on the relationship of the relevant factors with the effectiveness of the chosen pedagogy. Olsen and Mykletun
(2012) argued that for effective entrepreneurship education there should be a relationship between the goals of the entrepreneurship
program, the audiences to which the program is delivered, the content of the entrepreneurship courses, the method of delivery or
pedagogy and finally the assessment method. These issues were studied in isolation or were not discussed in previous studies. We
hope the discussion in this paper is useful to provide an analysis of the directions of published research and also in setting up future
research agenda.

References

Ahmad, S. Z. (2015). Entrepreneurship education in tourism and hospitality programs. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 27(1), 20–29.
Arasti, Z., Falavarjani, M., & Imanipour, N. (2012). A study of teaching methods in entrepreneurship education for graduate students. Higher Education Studies, 2(1),
2–10.
Ardley, B., & Taylor, N. (2010). The student practitioner: Developing skills through the marketing research consultancy project. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(7),
847–861.
Balan, S. M. (2014). Methods and means used in teaching entrepreneurship in high school can improve entrepreneurial skills. International Journal of Management, 5(7),
51–61.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Béchard, J.-P., & Grégoire, D. (2007). Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for entrepreneurship in higher education: Model and illustrations. In A. Fayolle (Ed.).
Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education volume 1: A general perspective (pp. 261–284). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Bechard, J. P., & Toulouse, J. M. (1998). Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training objectives in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4),
317–332.
Bennett, R. (2006). Business lecturers' perception of the nature of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 12(3), 165–188.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550610667440.
Biagio, P., & Mark, U. (2014). Is the case study method an effective pedagogical method for students to learn the fundamentals of financial accounting? Proceeding
american society of business and behavioral sciences, 21st annual conference, las vegas february 20–23. Available http://asbbs.org/files/ASBBS2014/PDF/P/Pilato_
Ulrich(P541-554).pdf.
Bill Bygrave, W. D. (1993). Personal conversation quoted in Fiet, J.O. (2000). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16,
101–117.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). (The Cognitive Domain, Longman London)Taxonomy of educational objectives, Vol. 1.
Bosma, N., & Levie, J. (2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2009 global reportBoston, MA: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.
Brizek, M., & Khan, M. (2008). Understanding corporate entrepreneurship theory: A literature review for culinary/food service academic practitioners. Journal of
Culinary Science & Technology, 6(4), 221–255.
Brockhaus, R. H., Hills, G. E., Klandt, H., & Welsch, H. P. (Eds.). (2001). Entrepreneurship education: A global view. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Carrier, C. (2007). Strategies for teaching Entrepreneurship: What else beyond lectures, case studies and business plan? In A. Fayolle (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of research in
entrepreneurship education. Vol. 1. Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (pp. 143–159). Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing.
Chan, P., Miller, R., & Monroe, E. (2009). Cognitive apprenticeship as an instructional strategy for solving corporate training challenges. TechTrends: Linking Research
and Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 35–41.
Chen, T., & Shen, C. (2012). Today’s intern, tomorrow’s practitioner? – The influence of internship programmes on students’ career development in the hospitality
industry. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 11(1), 29–40.
Cheng, M. Y., Chan, W. S., & Mahmood, A. (2009). The effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in Malaysia. Education+Training, 1(7), 555–566.
Cheung, C. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in Hong Kong's secondary curriculum. Education+Training, 50, 500–515.
Chief Scientist (2015). Australian government office of the chief scientist. Boosting High-impact Entrepreneurship in Australia: A Role for Universities. Available
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Boosting-High-Impact-Entrepreneurship.pdf.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in
Education.
Deale, C. S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education in hospitality and tourism: Insights from entrepreneurs. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 16(1), 20–39.
Deale, C., O'Halloran, R., Jacques, P., & Garger, J. (2010). An examination of current hospitality and tourism teaching methods. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Education, 22(2), 20–29.
Dhliwayo, S. (2008). Experiential learning in entrepreneurship education: A prospective model for south african tertiary institutions. Education+Training, 50(4),
329–340.
Dickerson, P., & Nash, B. A. (1999). Nurse entrepreneurs as educators. American Journal of Nursing, 99, 25–26.
Echtner, C. M. (1995). Entrepreneurial training in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 119–134.

23
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

Elmuti, D., Khoury, G., & Omran, O. (2012). Does entrepreneurship education have a role in developing entrepreneurial skills and venture effectiveness? Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 83.
Fatoki, O. (2014). An examination of the teaching methods for entrepreneurship at a south african university. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 512–518.
Fayolle, A. (2007). Essay on the nature of entrepreneurship education. [Online] Available http://www.kmu.unisg.ch/rencontres/RENC2006/Topics06/A/Rencontres_
2006_Fayolle.pdf.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning Processes in Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of European Industrial Training,
32(7), 569–593.
Fiet, J. O. (2000). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 101–117.
Fiet, J. (2001). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 1.
Gedeon, S. A. (2014). Application of best practices in university entrepreneurship Education: Designing a new MBA program. European Journal of Training and
Development, 38(3), 231–253.
Gendron, G. (2004). Practitioners' perspectives on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 302–314.
Gibb, A. (2005). Towards the entrepreneurial university: Entrepreneurship education as a lever for change. Policy Paper No. 003Birmingham: National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship.
Gibb, A., & Price, A. (2014). A compendium of pedagogies for teaching entrepreneurship. International entrepreneurship educators programme. ncee.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2013/ … /Compendium-of-Pedagogies.pdf.
Gose, B. (1997). A crafts program teaches students the fine art of making a living. Chronicle of Higher Education, B8–B9.
Gurel, E., Altinay, L., & Daniele, R. (2010). Tourism students' entrepreneurial intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 646–669.
Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 15(2),
304–320.
Handscombe, R. D., Rodriguez-Falcon, E., & Patterson, E. A. (2008). Embedding enterprise in science and engineering departments. Education + Training, 50, 615–625.
Harkema, S., & Schout, H. (2008). Incorporating student-centred learning in innovation and entrepreneurship education. European Journal of Education, 43(4),
513–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.00372.x.
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and training. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Henry, C., & Treanor, L. (2010). Entrepreneurship education and veterinary medicine: Enhancing employable skills. Education + Training, 52(8/9), 607–623.
Hindle, K. (2007). Teaching entrepreneurship at university: From the wrong building to the right philosophy. In A. Fayolle (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of research in
entrepreneurship education. Vol. 1. Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (pp. 143–159). Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing.
Honig, B. (2004). A contingency model of business planning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 258–273.
Hospitalitynet (2016). Hospitality: A world of opportunities for young entrepreneurs. Available http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4076923.html.
Hunt, Barbara C. (2009). Teacher effectiveness: A review of the international literature and its relevance for improving education in Latin America. Washington, DC: PREAL.
Hytti, U., & O'Gorman, C. (2004). What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European
countries. Education+Training, 46(1), 11–23.
Ismail, M. Z. (2010). Developing entrepreneurship education: Empirical findings from malaysian polytechnicsUnpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Hullhttp://ethos.bl.uk/
OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.519234.
Jamieson, I. (1984). Schools and enterprise. In A. G. Watts, & P. Moran (Eds.). Education for enterprise, careers research and advisory centre (CRAC) (pp. 19–27).
Cambridge.
Johannisson, B., Halvarsson, D., & Lövstål, E. (2001). stimulating and fostering entrepreneurship through university training - learning within an organizing context. In
R. H. Brockhaus, G. E. Hills, H. Klandt, & H. P. Welsch (Eds.). Entrepreneurship education: A global view (318-340). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Jones, C. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: Revisiting our role and its purpose. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), 500–513.
Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education+Training, 48, 416–423.
Kailer, N. (2010). Entrepreneurship education at universities in German-speaking countries: Empirical findings and proposals for the design of university-wide
concepts. In A. Fayolle (Ed.). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education volume 3: International perspectives (pp. 248–273). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1990). The role of business simulation and management games in education and research. Journal of Management, 16(2), 307–336.
Kirby, D. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Education+Training, 46(8/9), 510–519.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–598.
Leenders, M. R., Mauffette-Leenders, L. A., & Erskine, J. A. (2001). Writing cases (4th ed.). Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School.
Lourenco, F., & Jones, O. (2006). Developing entrepreneurship Education: Comparing traditional and alternative teaching approach. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 4, 111–140.
Maguire, S., & Guyer, C. (2004). Preparing geography, earth and environmental science students for employment in the enterprise culture. Journal of Geography in
Higher Education, 28, 369–379.
Malach, R. L., & Malach, S. E. (2014). Start your own business assignment in the context of experiential entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education
Outreach and Engagement, 18(1), 169–186.
Mangan, K. S. (2004). Entrepreneurs in every department. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, A10–A11.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria: ASCD.
McKeachie, W. J. (2002). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
McKeown, J., Cindy, M., Srikanth, R. S., Kelly, S., & Lynn, M. (2006). Graduate entrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom. Education+Training, 48(8/9),
597–613 London.
Morrison, A., Carlsen, J., & Weber, P. (2010). Small tourism business research change and evolution. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(6), 739–749.
Musa, M. B. (2009). Archive for the an education system worthy of Malaysia category. Assessed on 10 March 2016 from http://www.bakrimusa.com/archives/
category/an-education-system-worthy-of-malaysia .
Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education+Training, 52(1), 20–47.
Neck, H., Greene, P., & Brush, C. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Norasmah, Othman, et al. (2008). Entrepreneurial studies in institute of higher Learning: Methods for delivering entrepreneurship education, in enhancing the quality of higher
education through Research: Shaping the future. The Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (MoHE).
Okumus, F., & Wong, K. F. (2005). In pursuit of contemporary content for courses on strategic management in tourism and hospitality schools. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 24(2), 259–279.
Olsen, M. A., & Mykletun, R. J. (2012). Entrepretality: Entrepreneurship education in the hospitality industry [Electronic version]. Retrieved [10 March 2016], from
Cornell University, School of Hospitality Administration site http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/35.
Padilla, P. M., White, J. F., Bovee, C., & McQueen, M. E. (2011). An innovative, interdisciplinary healthcare entrepreneurship and innovation program for medical
students. USASBE 2011 Proceedings (pp. 48–61). . Available from: http://usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/proceedingsDocs/2011/PaperID110.pdf.
Pardo, C. A. (2013). Is business creation the mean or the end of entrepreneurship education? A multiple case study exploring teaching goals in entrepreneurship
education. Journal of Technology Management Innovation, 8(1), 1–10.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship. Working Paper 002/
2006. 1–33 http://www.ncge.org.uk/research.php.
Politis, D., & Gabrielsson, J. (2009). Entrepreneurs' attitudes towards failure: An experiential learning approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, 15(4), 364–383.
Porter, L. W. (1994). The relation of entrepreneurship education to business education. Simulation & Gaming, 25(3), 416.
Rae, D. (2003). Opportunity centered learning: An innovation in enterprise education? Education & Training, 45(8/9), 542–549.

24
S.Z. Ahmad et al. The International Journal of Management Education 16 (2018) 14–25

Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2000). Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial learning: The development of a conceptual model and its implications in the
design of learning experiences. Education & Training, 42(4/5), 220–228.
Ratten, V. (2011). Sport-based entrepreneurship: towards a new theory of entrepreneurship and sport management. International Entrepreneurship Management, 7,
57–69.
Read, C., & Kleiner, B. (1996). Which training methods are effective? Management Development Review, 9(2), 24–29.
Rengiah, P. (2013). Effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in developing entrepreneurial intentions among Malaysian university studentsDBA thesis. Lismore, NSW:
Southern Cross University.
Rideout, E., & Gray, D. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really Work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of
university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351.
Robinson, P., & Malach, S. (2007). Multi-disciplinary entrepreneurship clinic: Experiental education in theory and practice. In A. Fayolle (Ed.). Handbook of research in
entrepreneurship education volume 1: A general perspective (pp. 173–186). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Ronstadt, R. (1987). The educated entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. American Journal of Small Business, 11(4), 37.
Sandage, S., Cook, K., Hill, P., Strawn, B., & Reimer, K. (2008). Hermeneutics and psychology: A review and dialectical model. Review of General Psychology, 12(4),
344–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.4.344.
Sanders, D. P., & McCutcheon, G. (1986). The development of practical theories of teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(1), 50–67.
Sewell, P., & Pool, L. D. (2010). Moving from conceptual ambiguity to operational clarity: Employability, enterprise, and entrepreneurship in higher education.
Education and Training, 52(1), 89–94.
Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from failure. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 274–287.
Smith, B. R., Kickul, J., & Coley, L. (2010). Using simulation to develop empathy and motivate agency: An innovative pedagogical approach for social entrepreneurship
education. In A. Fayolle (Ed.). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education volume 3: International perspectives (pp. 13–24). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168–182.
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal
of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 65–86.
Tasnim, N. (2012). Playing Entrepreneurship: Can games make a difference? Entrepreneurial Practice Review, 2(4), 4–18.
Valliere, D., Gedeon, S. A., & Wise, S. (2014). A comprehensive framework for entrepreneurship education. Conference proceedings, EEP entrepreneurship education
project conference Tampa Florida 28–29 March 2014.
Van der Sluis, J., Van Praag, M., & Vijverbery, W. (2008). Education and entrepreneurship selection and performance: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of
Economic Surveys, 22(5), 795–841.
Volkmann, C., Wilson, K. E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S., & Sepulveda, A. (2009). Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs. Retrieved Febuary 22, 2011,
from World Economic Forum https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GEI/2009/Entrepreneurship_Education_Report.pdf.
Weaver, M., Dickson, P., & Solomon, G. (2005). What is known and not known about the links between education and entrepreneurial activity. The small business
economy for data year 2005: A report to the president Washington, DC.
Welter, F., & Heinemann, D.. Gründerstudie 06/07 der Universität Siegen: Auf dem Weg zur Unternehmer-Uni. (2007). Retrieved March 25, 2011, from
Universitätsbibliothek Siegen http://dokumentix.ub.uni-siegen.de/opus/volltexte/2007/293/pdf/Gruenderstudie_ cited from Kleemann, M. (2011). Insights in
Entrepreneurship Education: Integrating Innovative Teaching Practices. Master Thesis in Business Administration. Jönköping International Business School.
Jönköping University.
White, R. J., Hertz, G. T., & D'Souza, R. (2010). Entrepreneurship education Pedagogy: Using technology to learn about fundable business plans in: 14th annual conference
(Nciia) (San Francisco).
Zachary, L. (2000). The Mentor's guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

25