Shaping students' entrepreneurial intentions into actions: South African lecturers' views on teaching strategies and the ideal educator

Makwara, Tendai; Iwu, Chux Gervase; Sibanda, Lucky; Maziriri, Eugine Tafadzwa Article Shaping students' entrepreneurial intentions into actions: South African lecturers' views on teaching strategies and the ideal educator Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Makwara, Tendai; Iwu, Chux Gervase; Sibanda, Lucky; Maziriri, Eugine Tafadzwa (2024) : Shaping students' entrepreneurial intentions into actions: South African lecturers' views on teaching strategies and the ideal educator, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 12, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120341 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321143 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Makwara, Tendai, Chux Gervase Iwu, Lucky Sibanda, and Eugine Tafadzwa Maziriri. 2024. Shaping Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions into Actions: South African Lecturers’ Views on Teaching Strategies and the Ideal Educator. Administrative Sciences 14: 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14120341 Received: 30 November 2024 Revised: 16 December 2024 Accepted: 18 December 2024 Published: 20 December 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Article Shaping Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions into Actions: South African Lecturers’ Views on Teaching Strategies and the Ideal Educator Tendai Makwara 1,2 , Chux Gervase Iwu 3, Lucky Sibanda 1,3,* and Eugine Tafadzwa Maziriri 3 1Oxford Business College, 65 George Street, Oxford OX1 2BQ, UK; [email protected] 2 Department of Business Support Studies, Faculty of Management Sciences, Central University of Technology, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa 3Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Bellville 7535, South Africa; [email protected] (C.G.I.); [email protected] (E.T.M.) *Correspondence: lucky[email protected] Abstract: For several decades, entrepreneurship education (EE) has been identified as vital for preparing students to succeed in a changing economic landscape. Specifically, EE shapes students’ entrepreneurial intentions into actions. Considering the evolving expectations from graduates, this study explores South African entrepreneurship educators’ perspectives regarding the ideal educator and effective teaching strategies to shape the development of students’ entrepreneurial intentions. This empirical qualitative study examines data collected from 14 entrepreneurship educators across various South African public higher education institutions, collected using an open-ended questionnaire. Thematic analysis revealed a strong consensus on the importance of real-world experience teaching and the limited integration of online methodologies in EE. The results also emphasized the need for educators to embody entrepreneurial qualities, such as practical experience and a hands-on approach, to foster students’ transition from intention to action. Despite the desire for more innovative, action-oriented teaching strategies, traditional teaching theory in entrepreneurship remains an essential modality in the EE framework. These findings suggest that effective EE practices should integrate experiential learning and innovative strategies while maintaining core theoretical foundations. Keywords: entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurial intentions; teaching strategies; South Africa; pedagogical approaches; ideal educator; educator characteristics 1. Introduction Who should teach entrepreneurship and determining an ideal teaching strategy in different contexts are recurring thematic questions in EE studies (Radipere 2012), exemplified by a recent work by Hägg et al. (2024) titled ‘Who is the entrepreneurial educator?’. This question arises amidst emerging consensus that entrepreneurship is teachable (Iwu et al. 2021;Mwasalwiba 2010) and the broader EE objectives to deliver EE that produces graduates who can either start a business (Otache et al. 2024) or find employment (Daskalou and Komninou 2016) in ways that contribute towards achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDs are realizable if EE can move intentions to entrepreneurial action, particularly given literature reports that few EE students end up transforming into practicing entrepreneurs. Concerning EE educator attributes, several studies have found that faculty teaching entrepreneurship is not a homogeneous group (Brush et al. 2023;Levie 1999), with many drawn from various disciplines and specializations besides entrepreneurship (Brush et al. 2023). Moreover, entrepreneurship educators teach in diverse contexts using different methodologies to achieve specific objectives. Fayolle et al. (2006) stressed that EE varies Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120341 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 2 of 16 widely between countries and educational institutions across various dimensions, such as its objectives, target audiences, format, and pedagogical approaches. For example, in South Africa, Arasti et al. (2012) similarly argued that there is no universal pedagogical recipe (objectives, contents, and institutional contexts) for teaching entrepreneurship. Consequently, other scholars opine that as EE expands globally, the gap towards understanding how it can best be taught may be increasing (Ahmad et al. 2018;Lackéus et al. 2016), pointing towards the importance of context in EE. An entrepreneurship educator is an individual who facilitates the teaching and learning of entrepreneurship principles, skills, and mindset within higher education institutions (Syed et al. 2024). Their mandate depends on context but generally dovetails towards introducing students to entrepreneurship, developing intentions, imparting business management skills, identifying opportunities, and starting, managing, and sustaining a business. In South Africa, EE is structured to increase the levels of entrepreneurship (Radipere 2012) as a panacea to unemployment problems (Iwu et al. 2018). However, owing to its perceived inefficiencies related to the teaching competencies of lecturers and teaching strategies, there have been calls to reconceptualize EE in South African universities (Ramchander 2019), which are the focus of this study. Importantly, the literature further suggests that EE curricula objectives determine who should teach entrepreneurship and the appropriate teaching methods. Thus, the literature (Fayolle et al. 2006;Hägg et al. 2024) contends that EE approaches vary based on learning objectives and how the educator interprets and translates them into the teaching process. However, these studies are neither prescriptive nor precise on who must teach and how in all possible contexts. Teaching Entrepreneurship Moreover, the research shares diverse perspectives on confounding factors that inform EE and its prospects for success measured, among others, the transition from entrepreneurship intention development into action. These include claims that EE seeks to arm-twist teaching pedagogy to suit the innovative and creative mindset of students with an entrepreneurial mindset (Solomon 2008) and whether EE should focus on teaching entrepreneurship ’for’ instead of ’about’ entrepreneurship (Levie 1999). Edelman et al. (2008) asserted the presence of a gap between what is taught in entrepreneurship and the practices of entrepreneurs, highlighting a conflict between theory and practice. Lackeus (2015) also shares this view. Given this finding, Ratten and Jones (2021) deduced that EE focuses on bridging the theory–practice gap. In their study, Stenholm et al. (2021) challenged limiting EE to entrepreneurship educators, noting that non-entrepreneurship educators often help students develop entrepreneurial competencies such as creativity, experiential learning, and financial literacy in their teaching domains. Therefore, there are direct and indirect means of imparting entrepreneurship skills and attributes. Jones (2019) also suggested viewing entrepreneurship as more of a daily practice than just a course, implying that teaching methodologies must incorporate the psychology of social engagement. It has also emerged that incompatible entrepreneurship definitions and differences in teaching approaches have complicated efforts to guide lecturers on effective EE (Fayolle and Gailly 2008). For example, different configurations of EE, such as ‘learning to understand entrepreneurship, learning to become entrepreneurial, and learning to become an entrepreneur’ (SeikkulaLeino et al. 2010, p. 119), call for differentiated teaching methodologies, curricula designs, and educator profiles. The implosion of remote, distance education and digital technologies has added a new dimension to EE discourse, generating calls for realigning EE teaching frameworks and equipping educators with digital technology skills (Daskalou and Komninou 2016;Kraus et al. 2021). Thus, digital-oriented teaching methodologies are now central to emerging EE designs, with justifications that integrating technology in the classroom through virtual reality, online collaborative platforms (Mu and Zhao 2024), and digital marketplaces further enriches the learning experience. However, such calls for technology-based models ignore Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 3 of 16 their incongruence with technology-constrained learning environments in many developing countries and educators’ readiness to embrace new technologies. For example, there are gaps in digital literacy among African students and educators, constraining the effective adoption of e-learning (Adeniyi et al. 2024). Research also found that resourcing limitations remain a significant challenge for higher education students and staff, both onand offcampus (Kaliisa and Picard 2019) in Africa, rendering the effectiveness of technology-based learning idealistic. Furthermore, as a heterogeneous domain (Fayolle 2013), EE lacks substantive approaches to various EE phenomena, including hybrid, refugee, social, digital, and oldage entrepreneurship. Thus, assumptions that generic EE premises serve well for all entrepreneurial dimensions can also be problematic, contributing to adverse entrepreneurship uptake outcomes. Research further asserts that EE is connected to the structure of society (Kurczewska et al. 2014). It derives relevance from contextual realities (Mwasalwiba 2010), suggesting that environmental factors such as modern-day digital availability provide a new reality of entrepreneurship mindset development approaches. Hence, Mosbah and Queiri (2024) propose a selective approach to EE in Education 5.0. Moreover, substantial literature reveals that EE curricula design is assumed to improve entrepreneurial competencies solely (Stenholm et al. 2021) and is focused on the ideal traditional entrepreneurship aspirant who is assumed to start a business for self-employment (Iwu et al. 2021), neglecting realities that can also occur in existing organizations (Shane and Venkataraman 2007) through for example hybrid entrepreneurship. This oversight also ignores realities that many EE students harbor employment-seeking rather than self-employment behavioral apparatus (Makwara et al. 2022), even when opportunities to practice entrepreneurship are available. The above theoretical, empirical, and speculative contentions confound structural questions about the effective EE teaching practices universities grapple with, particularly regarding who must teach and how EE must be taught. As centers of education, higher education institutions are tempted to amalgamate entrepreneurship as any other additional program among many they offer without regard to its peculiarities. Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006) argued that a typical university environment is unlikely to include many entrepreneurial components, with its conventional teaching methods that may hinder the development of essential entrepreneurial attitudes and skills. Therefore, universities must adopt methodologies that activate entrepreneurship traits (Heinonen and Poikkijoki 2006), student behaviors, and entrepreneurial actions. In light of this possibility, this study extends entrepreneurship educator characteristics and discourse on teaching strategies by gathering views from HEI practitioners in South Africa to fill a knowledge gap that continues to exist in EE. Turner and Gianiodis (2018) stressed that, notwithstanding a broader work of research, there are unresolved questions about what content should be taught, how it should be taught, who is qualified to teach it, and which students should be the focus. Similarly, Morris (2014) noted that while there is commendable progress in EE, contesting findings persist regarding what works effectively in EE. In line with these views, this study aims to answer the following questions: 1. Who should teach entrepreneurship? 2. What is the ideal teaching strategy for entrepreneurship? In answering these questions, practitioners can thereafter reflect on the impact of existing EE frameworks on transforming intentions into entrepreneurial action, perceptions towards organizing entrepreneurial projects, and the importance of educator-designed teaching methodologies. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Theoretical Framework One of the peculiar features of EE is the absence of a cohesive theoretical framework (Kuratko 2005;Mwasalwiba 2010), resulting in a lack of ‘sufficient theoretical rigor to arrive at a consensus on fundamental questions’ (Fiet 2000, p. 4) demonstrated by how researchers Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 4 of 16 rely on a broad spectrum of theoretical alternatives when investigating related questions. When studying EE issues, researchers have applied experiential learning theory, human capital theory, theory of planned behavior, and social cognitive theory (Otache et al. 2024). Arising out of this trend, a multidimensional theoretical framework may be suitable for a study that seeks to answer more than one question. Following this line of argument, this study adopted human capital theory and experiential learning theory as lenses to interrogate who should teach entrepreneurship and the ideal teaching strategy. The human capital theory posits that education influences the marginal productivity of labor (Marginson 2019), suggesting that entrepreneurship educators’ efficiency and effectiveness in influencing students’ entrepreneurship mindsets depend on their theoretical and practical skills. Thus, this study believes that educators’ qualifications, practical entrepreneurial experience, and theory impact the quality and effectiveness of EE. It also locates EE and educators’ relevance towards imparting and developing human capital capabilities such as entrepreneurship knowledge, intentions competencies, opportunity identification, and experiences. Concurrently, according to the experiential learning theory, knowledge is created through a transformative experience (Kolb et al. 2014), which informs emerging thoughts in EE, emphasizing using teaching strategies such as simulations, real-life projects, and internships that combine theory and practice. In this regard, the role of teaching is to enable students to mirror the actual practice of entrepreneurs. 2.2. EE and Its Importance There is a growing body of research on EE due to its increasing popularity as a means of influencing youths towards pursuing self-employment (Agarwal et al. 2020; Kassean et al. 2015) in a world of increasing youth unemployment and few formal job opportunities. EE has also made significant inroads into academia, particularly the higher education institutions (HEIs), which are seen as the final outlet for student training before joining the employment-seeking pool. EE has several differentiated definitions (Mwasalwiba 2010), and their shared view of EE can reconcile to introduce, sustain, and reinforce entrepreneurship-related behaviors. As a result, developing a capable infrastructure for effective teaching and developing students into entrepreneurs is increasingly becoming critical. Central to these infrastructure issues are determining who is best suited to teach entrepreneurship and how best to teach it. Several studies find that educators play a key role in realizing EE objectives (Ruskovaara and Pihkala 2013;Seikkula-Leino et al. 2010). EE effectiveness is closely linked to who teaches and the teaching methods employed. However, Ruskovaara and Pihkala (2013) discovered that the absence of definitive pedagogical guidelines for EE places the onus on integrating EE into their teaching and identifying the most effective and valuable practices. 2.3. Educator Characteristics and Teaching Strategies for Entrepreneurship The literature posits that one critical challenge to EE’s success is the shortage of qualified lecturers for entrepreneurship (Agbonlahor 2016;Otache 2019). It is not yet clear which attributes make the best EE educator. Moreover, entrepreneurship educators vary in perspective and background (Cascavilla et al. 2022;Hindle 2007) even as they possess the required expertise in pedagogy, theoretical frameworks, and the ability to design and deliver structured EE curricula. Thus, while credited with developing critical thinking and analytical skills necessary for entrepreneurial success (Neck and Corbett 2018), critics worry about academics’ lack of practical experience essential to imparting real-world entrepreneurial skills. The argument is that they cannot bridge the gap between academic content and the practical realities of entrepreneurship (Pittaway and Edwards 2012). Other views suggest using practitioners such as successful entrepreneurs and business professionals who can bring a wealth of practical experience to EE. However, this too can be problematic as it idolizes individuals whose views of EE differ from the philosophies underpinning existing EE curricula provided by institutions. Thus, the assumption that practical experience predisposes one to become an effective EE educator ignores the possibility that Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 5 of 16 some practice-based educators can harbor contradictory perceptions that entrepreneurs are born and cannot be taught. Nonetheless, practitioners are believed to promote experiential learning (Kolb 2014), which means they can close the gap between theory and practice (Rasmussen and Sørheim 2006). Still, exclusive reliance on either academics or practitioners is likely to mask their respective limitations; hence, there are suggestions for embracing hybrid models involving collaboration between academics and practitioners. Fayolle and Gailly (2008) argued that hybrid models provided a teaching framework combining theoretical knowledge and practical application. As a result, students can gain cognitive skills to analyze business opportunities and practical skills to execute their ideas. In context, the existing discourse suggests no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of who should teach entrepreneurship. A combination of academics, practitioners, and interdisciplinary experts will likely provide the most effective entrepreneurial education. While academics offer essential theoretical knowledge and pedagogical expertise, practitioners bring valuable real-world experience. A hybrid model that integrates these strengths, possibly within an interdisciplinary framework, appears to be the most comprehensive approach to teaching entrepreneurship. Regarding teaching approaches, there are still uncertainties about effective techniques for entrepreneurship educators (Brockhaus et al. 2001), and the understanding of how to teach entrepreneurship remains relatively limited (Kirby 2004). Nani (2014) pointed out that no universally agreeable teaching method for entrepreneurship exists. Ratten and Jones (2021) cite literature indicating a lack of consensus on the best approach for teaching entrepreneurship. Arasti et al. (2012) argue that training institutions’ content, objectives, and challenges influence the ideal teaching method. Nonetheless, emerging discourse regarding teaching strategies inherently focuses on contrasts between a ‘traditional’ and an ‘entrepreneurial’ way of teaching (Lackeus 2015) based on innovative, experiential, and interdisciplinary techniques that include simulations, case studies, internships, and projectbased learning; guest speakers, role models, and social persuasion (He et al. 2024;Kraus et al. 2021;Lima et al. 2015;Samašonok et al. 2020). The literature reveals an emerging trend where traditional EE teaching ways are beginning to be replaced by new methods (Alberti et al. 2004). Scholars argue that these ‘entrepreneurial’ methods replicate real-world entrepreneurial activities and decision-making processes, enhancing students’ practical skills and confidence (Samašonok et al. 2020). However, there is a paucity of evidence validating their effect on crucial dimensions, such as learning outcomes, motivation, and entrepreneurial intent (Mason and Arshed 2013), and transition to entrepreneurial action. Others (Bell and Bell 2020;Kakouris and Liargovas 2021) contend that an effective pedagogical framework for EE must comprise didactic methods (lectures, provision of selected readings, textbooks, and seminars) to provide new information, skills-building methods (case studies, group discussions, brainstorming) to enhance existing and develop new skills, and discovery methods (learning by doing) to improve learning through discovery and experiential learning (Hynes 1996). In the digital era, integrating technology in the classroom through computer simulations, virtual reality, online collaborative platforms, and digital marketplaces further enriches the learning experience and prepares students for the technological advancements in the entrepreneurial landscape (Gan et al. 2015;Huang et al. 2022). These theoretical literature findings reveal complexities emerging from how scholars frame the desirable attributes that produce successful entrepreneurs, from creativity and risk-taking to strategic planning, financial management, and intuition. 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants’ Description and Sampling This qualitative study gathered data from 14 faculty members, as shown in Table 1, from different South African HEIs who offer entrepreneurship as a module or manage a program in entrepreneurship. These are faculty in various roles, including the executive dean, senior lecturers, professors, entrepreneurship coordinators, technology transfer officers, entrepreneurship coaches, and department heads. This sample of 14 participants Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 6 of 16 is consistent with Creswell (1998), who suggested 5–25 interviews and justified using Kuzel (1992), who recommended six to eight interviews for a homogeneous sample as in this study. However, the reality within qualitative research is that no universal rule dictates the maximum and minimum number of interviews for one qualitative research study (Bekele and Ago 2022). This study’s sample homogeneity among the participants is perceived through faculty belongingness, teaching, and support in EE. A purposeful sampling approach was used to reach out to the participants, and an open-ended interview questionnaire was distributed for data collection. Purposeful sampling was chosen as it guarantees that a selection of respondents is most likely to yield appropriate and useful information (Kelly 2014). It also enables one to study only the population of specific interest (Andrade 2021), in this case, academics, and gather their views regarding who must teach and how to teach entrepreneurship in HEIs. Due to its qualitative nature, the study also adopted an interpretive paradigm, which Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) confirm, enabling the researcher to understand study findings as participants’ subjective experiences. Table 1. The participants’ demographic characteristics. # Participant Gender Attribute 1Business Faculty Executive Dean Male Over twenty years of entrepreneurship teaching, learning, research, and community engagement. 2 Senior lecturer Female Facilitator Entrepreneurial Action Us (ENACTUS), students in entrepreneurship; 10 years of experience. 3 Senior lecturer Female Coordinator, departmental advisory board, lecturing entrepreneurship, and marketing for over 20 years. 4 Professor/Business Management Head of Department Male More than 10 years of teaching, research, and leading a department. 5Entrepreneurship Faculty Coordinator Male 12 years in this role. 6Technology Transfer Officer—Entrepreneurship Male Encouraging innovation, patents, and trademarks. 7Part-time lecturer/full-time entrepreneurship coach Female More than 10 years of experience. 8Retail/Tourism Entrepreneurship lecturer Female 15 years of experience. 9 Professor Male Graduate supervision/Lecturer. Two decades. 10 Entrepreneurship Lecturer Female Eight years. 11 Senior lecturer Female Coordinator, Student entrepreneurship. 11 years. 12 Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship and Innovation Male Teaching and research in entrepreneurship. 8 years. 13 Entrepreneurship lecturer Male Teach modules in entrepreneurship. 5 years. 14 Head of Entrepreneurship department Male Six years teaching entrepreneurship at university. Source: Authors’ compilation. 3.2. Questionnaire Design However, before data collection, the questionnaire was designed and pretested. An initial draft questionnaire was sent to an expert panel with EE academic specializations at some participant universities. This practice aligns with Creswell (2013), who advocates for using reviewers with homogeneous traits as target participants. After finalization, Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 7 of 16 the questionnaire was emailed to 30 selected faculty members from public universities, both male and female, who teach or are involved in EE and research. Only sixteen completed questionnaires were received, and two were excluded during data analysis. Thus, 14 responses, six females and eight males, proceeded to the analysis stage, the results of which are reported in this study. 3.3. Data Analysis The collected responses were analyzed following a thematic data analysis approach. Clarke and Braun (2017, p. 297) define thematic analysis as a ‘method for identifying, analyzing and interpreting patterns of meaning (’themes’) within qualitative data’. The researcher also approached the analysis cognizant that where qualitative data emerge from purpose sampling-based research, participant homogeneous experiences concerning the research domain will likely expedite data saturation reach (Guest et al. 2006). Thus, fewer research interviews are required. The current study focused on identifying and reporting themes related to who must teach entrepreneurship and how it must be taught in HEIs. Hence, Dawadi (2020) stressed that thematic analysis is a search for themes that can capture the narratives in the data sets. When applying this approach, the researchers followed its key steps as recommended by the literature: familiarization with the data, coding, searching for themes, reviewing themes, and defining and naming themes (Clarke and Braun 2017; Vaismoradi et al. 2013). Firstly, the researchers familiarized themselves with the data by reading the transcripts multiple times and making notes. The next step involved creating codes by identifying key phrases, concepts, or ideas reflecting participants’ views on who should teach entrepreneurship and how it can be taught. These codes were then collated into ideas that formed themes relevant to the research questions. The researchers reviewed these themes by revisiting the original data to confirm if they are supported by the evidence and accurately reflect participant views. The researchers then finalized the theme and compiled the report. 4. Findings 4.1. Key Data Concepts Table 2shows the key phrases and ideas used by the respondents to express views about who must teach entrepreneurship and the desirable teaching approaches. Table 2. Responses from participants. Participant Key Concepts: Educator Characteristics Key Concepts: Ideal Entrepreneurship Teaching Strategy 1 Academics with general management training. Applied teaching style: the theory taught in class should be backed by contextual examples, case studies, and guest lecturers. 2 Educators with entrepreneurial ventures of their own, instructors with practical experience and a personal entrepreneurial background. Case studies, simulations, and experiential learning opportunities. 3 A combination, perhaps people with industry experience or an entrepreneur, all with the requisite academic qualification. Collaborative manner. 4 Those who possess a formal university qualification and those who have business experience in the form of having started their businesses. Workshops and seminars. 5A mix of academic experts and industry experts (entrepreneurs themselves). Experiential learning; Case Studies and Group Discussions; Individual and Group Projects; Operating Theatre Classroom. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 8 of 16 Table 2. Cont. Participant Key Concepts: Educator Characteristics Key Concepts: Ideal Entrepreneurship Teaching Strategy 6Someone who has had an experience of starting or running a real-life business of their own Combination of theory and practice through experiential learning 7External practitioners: Invite successful entrepreneurs and business owners. Experiential Learning; Flipped Classroomonline modules; participate in entrepreneurship competitions. 8 Entrepreneurship educators should have experience in business ownership. There is no best teaching style, coaching, or mentoring. 9 Teaching should never be left solely in the hands of pure academics; it should include practicing entrepreneurs and innovators from informal SMEs and corporates. Blended methods of online, face-to-face and Work integrated learning; Visitations to startups; Working in groups in design thinking methods. 10 Experienced entrepreneurs, industry experts, entrepreneurship educators, and mentors. Experiential learning infused with interactive activities. 11 Results-driven, dynamic, curious, and success-oriented leaders. Case studies and practical application of concepts. 12 Seasoned entrepreneurs and academic experts. Experiential learning: simulations, role-playing, case studies, and real-world projects. 13 Industry experts and entrepreneurs should be invited as guest speakers. In-class teaching; seminars/workshops. 14 Taught by practitioners, entrepreneur academics might be able to teach the theory. Facilitation of theoretical learning; case study and simulation; business coaching. Source: Authors’ compilation. Academics included in this study presented mixed opinions about who can best teach entrepreneurship and the appropriate teaching strategies. They drew these views based on their experiences and beliefs about EE curriculum design and a focus on entrepreneurship mindset development and practice. Broadly, they hold a progressive view towards practice-oriented framing of the EE teaching architecture, although their responses show less orientation towards embracing technology-based technology when teaching entrepreneurship. These views are summarized under the themes developed from the data in Table 2above. 4.2. Question One: Who Should Teach Entrepreneurship? 4.2.1. Educator Attributes The dataset shows a demonstrable consensus on real-world experience, with participants emphasizing practical entrepreneurship experience as a key aspect of effective teaching. Participants suggested combining academic theorists and practicing entrepreneurs, including industry experts and guest speakers, to teach entrepreneurship. In that way, the role of qualified educators, while still essential, is supported by the presence of these experienced professionals. Mentors and entrepreneurship educators with teaching expertise and industry experience are also considered ideal facilitators of EE. This preference for external involvement underscores the need for a dynamic and practical approach to teaching entrepreneurship, where theoretical knowledge is complemented by direct industry insights, allowing students to learn from real-world successes and challenges. Specifically, 50% of the participants preferred a combination of those who teach theory and those with a practical background. They used phrases such as “Teaching should never be left solely in the hands of pure academics; it should include practicing entrepreneurs and innovators from informal SMEs and corporates” ( Participant 9 ) Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 15 of 16 Lackeus, Martin. 2015. Entrepreneurship in Education: What, Why, When, How. Paris: OECD. Lackéus, Martin, Mats Lundqvist, and Karen Williams Middleton. 2016. Bridging the traditional-progressive education rift through entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 22: 777–803. [CrossRef] Laukkanen, Mauri. 2000. Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: Creating micromechanisms for endogenous regional growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 12: 25–47. [CrossRef] Leal Filho, Walter, Diogo Guedes Vidal, Chen Chen, Maria Petrova, Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis, Peter Yang, Steven Rogers, Lorena Álvarez-Castañón, Ilija Djekic, Ayyoob Sharifi, and et al. 2022. An assessment of requirements in investments, new technologies, and infrastructures to achieve the SDGs. Environmental Sciences Europe 34: 58. [CrossRef] Levie, Jonathan. 1999. Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education in England: A Survey. London: London Business School, pp. 1–41. Lima, Edmilson, Rose M. Lopes, Vânia Nassif, and Dirceu da Silva. 2015. Opportunities to improve entrepreneurship education: Contributions considering Brazilian challenges. Journal of Small Business Management 53: 1033–51. [CrossRef] Makwara, T., L. Sibanda, and C. G. Iwu. 2022. To what extent is entrepreneurship a sustainable career choice for the youth? A post-covid-19 descriptive analysis. In The Future of Entrepreneurship in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities Post-pandemic. London: Routledge, pp. 59–79. [CrossRef] Marginson, Simon. 2019. Limitations of Human Capital Theory. Studies in Higher Education 44: 287–301. [CrossRef] Mason, Colin, and Norin Arshed. 2013. Teaching Entrepreneurship to university students through experiential learning: A case study. Industry and Higher Education 27: 449–63. [CrossRef] Montiel, Ivan, Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Junghoon Park, Raquel Antolín-López, and Bryan W. Husted. 2021. Implementing the United Nations’ sustainable development goals in international business. Journal of International Business Studies 52: 999–1030. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Morris, Michael H. 2014. Preface: Establishing moorings and foundations in entrepreneurial education. In Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy—2014. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., pp. xiii–xviii. [CrossRef] Mosbah, Aissa, and Abdelbaset Queiri. 2024. Rethinking entrepreneurship education (EE) in the era of education 5.0: Towards a selective approach. In Preconceptions of Policies, Strategies, and Challenges in Education 5.0. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 63–74. Mu, Qing, and Yanyan Zhao. 2024. Education in the age of artificial intelligence. Resources Data Journal 3: 2–20. [CrossRef] Mutisya, Dorothy N., and George L. Makokha. 2016. Challenges affecting adoption of e-learning in public universities in Kenya. E-Learning and Digital Media 13: 140–57. [CrossRef] Mwasalwiba, Ernest Samwel. 2010. Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education and Training 52: 20–47. [CrossRef] Nani, Gwendoline Vusumuzi. 2014. Teaching of ’entrepreneurship’as a subject in Zimbabwean schools-what are the appropriate teaching methods?–A case. Zimbabwe Journal of Science & Technology 9: 21–27. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/ download/112655321/volume-7-2012.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2024). Neck, Heidi M., and Andrew C. Corbett. 2018. The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1: 8–41. [CrossRef] Otache, Innocent. 2019. Enhancing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: The role of entrepreneurial lecturers. Education and Training 61: 918–39. [CrossRef] Otache, Innocent, James Edomwonyi Edopkolor, Idris Ahmed Sani, and Kadiri Umar. 2024. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: Do entrepreneurial self-efficacy, alertness and opportunity recognition matter? International Journal of Management Education 22: 100917. [CrossRef] Pittaway, Luke, and Corina Edwards. 2012. Assessment: Examining practice in entrepreneurship education. Education and Training 54: 778–800. [CrossRef] Radipere, Simon. 2012. South African university entrepreneurship education. African Journal of Business Management 6: 11015–22. [CrossRef] Ramchander, Manduth. 2019. Reconceptualising undergraduate entrepreneurship education at traditional south african universities. Acta Commercii 19: 1–9. [CrossRef] Rasmussen, Einar A., and Roger Sørheim. 2006. Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation 26: 185–94. [CrossRef] Ratten, Vanessa, and Paul Jones. 2021. Entrepreneurship and management education: Exploring trends and gaps. International Journal of Management Education 19: 100431. [CrossRef] Ruskovaara, Elena, and Timo Pihkala. 2013. Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: Classroom practices. Education and Training 55: 204–16. [CrossRef] Samašonok, Kristina, Margarita Išorait ˙ e, and Lina Žirnel ˙ e. 2020. Education of entrepreneurship by participation in a business simulation enterprise activities: Conditions of effectiveness and opportunities for improvement. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 7: 3122–44. [CrossRef] Seikkula-Leino, Jaana, Elena Ruskovaara, Markku Ikavalko, Johanna Mattila, and Tiina Rytkola. 2010. Promoting entrepreneurship education: The role of the teacher? Education and Training 52: 117–27. [CrossRef] Shane, Scott, and Sankaran Venkataraman. 2007. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. In Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Theory and Perspective. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 171–84. [CrossRef] Solomon, George. 2008. Entrepreneurship Education in the United States. Paris: OECD, pp. 95–118. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 341 16 of 16 Stenholm, Pekka, Joachim Ramström, Riikka Franzén, and Lenita Nieminen. 2021. Unintentional teaching of entrepreneurial competences. Industry and Higher Education 35: 505–17. [CrossRef] Syed, Raihan Taqui, Urwa Tariq, Marina Arnaut, and Reena Agrawal. 2024. Entrepreneurship educator: A vital cog in the wheel of entrepreneurship education and development in universities. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 13: 66. [CrossRef] Turner, Tobin, and Peter Gianiodis. 2018. Entrepreneurship unleashed: Understanding entrepreneurial education outside of the business school. Journal of Small Business Management 56: 131–49. [CrossRef] Vaismoradi, Mojtaba, Hannele Turunen, and Terese Bondas. 2013. Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences 15: 398–405. [CrossRef] Wraae, Birgitte, and Andreas Walmsley. 2020. Behind the scenes: Spotlight on the entrepreneurship educator. Education and Training 62: 255–70. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.