The students’ enrollment in higher education institutions (HEIs) in Rwanda keeps growing (MINEDUC, 2018). There is also a simultaneous growth of graduates’ unemployment rates which leaves many of them wonder for their future (NISR, 2017). While employers and educators acknowledge the gap between market and graduates’ employability skills and appeal for joint efforts in providing a long-lasting solution to the issue, there are new market changes which leave many institutions wondering how best and fast they can structure their policies and strategies for skills development (Corominas, 2010). It is true that during the recruitment process employers look for graduates who possess specific curricula skills but also advanced sets of entrepreneurship skills, behaviours and mindset values. For reducing the skills gap, the government of Rwanda and HEIs recommended entrepreneurship education to address both employability skills and entrepreneurship competences.
Entrepreneurship skills development can be measured through entrepreneurial orientation (EO). EO involves intentions and actions related to risk-taking, autonomy, proactiveness, innovativeness and competitive aggressiveness which help firms and individuals to deal with uncertainties that characterize the environment in which they operate; to strategically and swiftly take informed decisions that impact their performance and competitiveness (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Rauch et al., 2009; Rosenbusch et al., 2013).
Studies about entrepreneurship education in Rwanda have identified an entrepreneurship curriculum deficit (too basic in content and more theoretical); a deficit of teachers trained in how to teach entrepreneurship; deficit in supportive schemes for effective teaching; deficit in practical entrepreneurship concepts and tools that stimulate proactive, interactive and creative entrepreneurial skills and mindset (Honeyman, 2016; Malunda, 2014).
In this study, the focus is put on the new entrepreneurship teaching methodologies and transmission techniques which converge on the action and experiential learning as an alternative to classical business plan. Action-learning theory capitalises on the potential that human beings have in dealing with difficult challenges and problems through own learning experiences. It acknowledges that individual development takes place through experiential learning. The latter follows pragmatic approaches where individuals come together to exchange, support and challenge each other in action and learning. Associated to action-learning is the action-research which goes through cyclic experiential learning processes; uses participative, qualitative and reflective approaches. As this study deals with EO of students that involves their intentions and actions regarding the future, people acknowledge that actions of peoples are driven by expected consequences which are mostly economically motivated:- the higher the expected benefits the higher the level of individual engagement (expectancy theory) (Renko et al., 2012).
Within this framework, the objective of the study was to develop and test a new action-oriented module on undergraduate science students in Rwanda. The purpose was to assess the effects of entrepreneurship education (EE) on students’ entrepreneurial orientation (EO). EO was measured through dimensions of risk taking, autonomy, proactiveness, innovativeness and competitive aggressiveness. The business plan module which is the most frequent model for entrepreneurship teaching was redesigned and delivered to the same target group in a control group. In the design of both modules, common concepts and pedagogies included Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship which followed an instructive method; Business Idea Generation and Selection which followed instructive and experiential methods. Both modules differed in other components. The business plan module covered different “components” by following an instructive method. The action-oriented module covered the Business Model Generation (experiential method) and Rapid Market Appraisal using participatory learning action, exploratory and investigative methods.
Two hypotheses were made. First, we assumed a positive relationship between the taught entrepreneurship modules and students’ entrepreneurial orientation. Second, we assumed the new action-oriented module induces higher effects on students’ entrepreneurial mindset values and competences than the traditional business plan. After analyzing the findings, both hypotheses were confirmed.
In this experiential and action research process, a mixture of qualitative, quantitative and observation methods were used for data collection. Targeted students were purposively selected from the final or prefinal years in departments of Civil engineering, Biotechnologies and Land Survey. They must have not attended any training in business skills development before. They were randomly split into two groups: the control group (N=49) which learned the business plan; the treatment group (N=68) which followed the New action-oriented module. Qualitative data were collected through: 1) literature review about EE, curriculum review of entrepreneurship courses delivered in different programs at INES-Ruhengeri; 2) not-structured interviews (3 program managers and 3 class representatives); 3) trainers’ observations of the whole teaching process. Quantitative data were collected using a standardized questionnaire covering 5 EO dimensions with 23 indicators. They were measured on a seven Likert scale with 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree. The questionnaire was administered to both groups before and after training; descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
Findings in the descriptive and inferential statistics showed a general positive trend in students’ mindset change after training. Compared with how they ranked themselves before the training, the differences in the mean averages were positive in 18 out of 23 indicators in the CG. They were 21 out of 23 indicators in the TG. It was also observed that differences in the mean averages were statistically significant in 2 out of 5 dimensions in the CG (risk-taking and innovativeness). However, they were 4 out of 5 dimensions in the TG (risk taking, proactiveness, innovativeness, competitive aggressiveness). Although the CG did not register significant changes in proactiveness and competitive aggressiveness, the TG recorded significant changes in the same dimensions. We argued that such differences originate from teaching pedagogies and tools used in TG. They push more for participatory learning, interaction and fact finding from the market field. On the other side, both groups did not record statistically significant changes in autonomy. This dimension recorded, at the same time, the lowest mean averages in both groups. This situation can be attributed to students’ lifestyle which is mostly characterized by a safe and stable environment at school. It may also be influenced by other local market realities which include financial inaccessibility, lack of start-up capital, weak and insufficient schemes for supporting entrepreneurial learning, especially curricula didactics. The lack of confidence in autonomy is a signal that, after graduation, students are more inclined to becoming intrapreneurial.
In the training process, it could be observed that the learning process in the business plan module was a bit challenging compared to the new action-oriented module. Major challenges were associated with reading and understanding business plan concepts (which were new to many students), and applying the concepts to group ideas within the allocated time. Contrary to the business plan, the learning process was a bit easier, flexible and straightforward in the action-oriented module. Though flexible, interactive and reflexive in nature, the new action learning requires more than just the understanding of entrepreneurship concepts and application of tools. Teaching strategies need to go beyond evaluating students’ intensions in entrepreneurial or intrapreneurial career prospects. Pedagogies should give learners the opportunity to develop product or service prototypes as well. Another area of concern is where students must feel the world of entrepreneurship and be ready for opportunity detection and exploitation. The graduates (soon to be) must be put on the map of alertness which is a factor that constitutes a major entrepreneurial trait that interacts with other factors.
This study recommends to continuously explore new ways of teaching which predominantly use experiential learning approaches. Furthermore, we recommend that EE objectives and intended purposes of learning should be well streamlined. There should also be enough time for practical teaching and learning to produce proof of concepts (evidence-based learning). Lastly, there should be changes in monitoring and evaluation strategies of the learning process.
This study contributes to the theory and didactics of entrepreneurial action and thinking in university education. It introduces new combinations of learning strategies that can help students acquire entrepreneurial skills and competences in a short time. The new training model combines concepts and tools used in business skills and value chain analysis and rests mainly on participatory learning and action learning approaches
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:DRESDEN/oai:qucosa:de:qucosa:74230 |
| Date | 24 March 2021 |
| Creators | NSHIMIYIMANA, Gonzalves |
| Contributors | Universität Leipzig |
| Source Sets | Hochschulschriftenserver (HSSS) der SLUB Dresden |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, doc-type:doctoralThesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis, doc-type:Text |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0034 seconds