This article was downloaded by: [University of Wyoming Libraries]On: 23 September 2013, At: 16:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovations in Education and TeachingInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20

Learning-by-doing as an approach toteaching social entrepreneurshipJane Chang a , Abdelhafid Benamraoui b & Alison Rieple aa Department of Marketing and Business Strategy, WestminsterBusiness School, London, UKb Department of Finance, Business and Law, Westminster BusinessSchool, London, UKPublished online: 10 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Jane Chang , Abdelhafid Benamraoui & Alison Rieple , Innovationsin Education and Teaching International (2013): Learning-by-doing as an approach toteaching social entrepreneurship, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, DOI:10.1080/14703297.2013.785251

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.785251

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Learning-by-doing as an approach to teaching socialentrepreneurship

Jane Changa, Abdelhafid Benamraouib* and Alison Rieplea

aDepartment of Marketing and Business Strategy, Westminster Business School, London,UK; bDepartment of Finance, Business and Law, Westminster Business School, London, UK

Many studies have explored the use of learning-by-doing in higher education,but few have applied this to social entrepreneurship contexts and applications:this paper addresses this gap in the literature. Our programme involvedstudents working with different stakeholders in an interactive learning environ-ment to generate real revenue for social enterprises. Our results show thatlearning-by-doing enables students to develop their entrepreneurial skills andenhance their knowledge of social businesses. The findings also show thatstudents became more effective at working in teams and in formulating andapplying appropriate business strategies for the social enterprises. Overall, thelearning-by-doing approach discussed in this paper is capable of developingthe entrepreneurial skills of students, but there are challenges that need to beaddressed if such an approach is to be effective.

Keywords: interactive learning environment; learning-by-doing; pedagogy;revenue generation; social entrepreneurship

Introduction

In recent years, social entrepreneurship (SE) has been encouraged by the perceptionthat private businesses can solve social issues effectively (Dees, 2001), and proba-bly better than the government departments that have often been responsible forsuch affairs in the past. In recent years, SE education has also been on the rise as asubject of study in British and North American higher education institutions (Gunn,Durkin, Singh, & Brown, 2008; Schlee, Curren, & Harich, 2009). At present, theapproach to SE education varies widely, encompassing teaching techniques such asclassroom-based lectures and workshops to consulting in live projects (Frank, 2005;Gunn et al., 2008). However, the engagement of students in generating real reve-nues for social enterprises as a learning approach to social entrepreneurial learninghas not been fully explored.

This article describes an innovative teaching approach that uses a fund-raisingactivity as a method of acquiring SE skills and knowledge. This approach adds newlearning attributes into the knowledge-acquisition cycle (Kolb, 1984); it helps tocreate a more rounded interaction between students and the real social enterpriseworld, and thereby develop the appropriate SE skills. Another contribution is theadoption of a synergistic learning platform (Collins, Smith, & Hannon, 2006) usingdifferent types of stakeholders to support students’ learning. In this case, these were

*Corresponding author. Email: a.benamraoui@westminster.ac.uk

Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.785251

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

the social entrepreneurs, learning facilitators (comprising both academic andnon-academic staff from the university) and local businessperson who wereprepared to sponsor students’ fund-raising efforts.

This article starts by explaining how SE skills and knowledge can be acquired. Arationale is offered for the selection of the learning-by-doing approach and theadoption of a synergistic learning platform. The research method and design is thendescribed. We then discuss our findings, and assess how, and what, students learntfrom this approach, and what needs to be in place for it to be effective. Finally, wediscuss how this approach may be used to improve SE education, and make recom-mendations for further research.

Learning-by-doing and social entrepreneurship education

Our adoption of a new approach to teaching SE grew out of a frustration with theway SE is taught in higher education. We believed that a different approach couldresult in increased social entrepreneurial capabilities and a better understanding ofthe context in which social enterprises operate (Gibb, 1987, 2002). Most SEprogrammes engage students at classroom level, with negligible opportunities forstudents to learn how to create wealth or take risks (Schlee et al., 2009). Being ableto cope with emotions such as fear of failure and the ability to deal with uncertaintyare also important entrepreneurial attributes that classroom teaching barely addresses(Rae & Carswell, 2000).

A synergistic learning platform (Collins et al., 2006) involves variousstakeholders – in this case students, social entrepreneurs, facilitators and businesssponsors – bringing their own respective knowledge, skills and experiences to thelearning path (Boud & Costley, 2007). This type of learning environment allows forthe exploration of opportunities and the implementation of value creation (Rae, 2003,2009), but in which unsuccessful value creation is not penalised as it would be in thereal world. Although the social enterprises benefited from any funds the studentswere able to generate, they lost nothing if no funds were generated. The studentssimilarly were not penalised if their fund-raising efforts were unsuccessful; instead,the academic assessment was based on a reflective log of their learning journey.

Most of the research on SE pedagogy (e.g. Frank, 2005; Schlee et al., 2009) hasstudied the use of case studies, live projects and the development of business plans.Since social entrepreneurs have similarities with mainstream entrepreneurs (Harding,2006), it can be assumed that some of the skills needed and appropriate learningmethods are similar (Rae & Carswell, 2000). Thus, opportunity-centred learning(Rae, 2003) may be an appropriate pedagogic approach for SE as it has been shownto be for ‘normal’ entrepreneurs (Deakins & Freel, 1998; Young & Sexton, 1997).The key elements of this learning approach include: (a) trial and error; (b) doing;(c) discovery; and (d) problem solving.

Through social interactions, people can learn and further their knowledge (Lave& Wenger, 1998). Learning is also influenced by individuals’ emotional intelligenceand culture (Gibb, 2002). The behaviours that should be observed by students toreinforce their learning include exploring new opportunities, taking risks, commit-ment to work, applying intelligence and determination (Caird, 1990). Anotherimportant epistemological aspect of learning is people feelings (Gibb, 2002). InGibb’s view, cognitive, connative and affective developments are highly driven bypersonal motivations and emotional intelligence.

2 J. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

A learning-by-doing programme enriches the student experience and therebyenhances the development of their entrepreneurial skills and knowledge (Rae &Carswell, 2000). Kanji and Greenwood (2001) argue that experiential and opportu-nity-centred learning is best achieved by setting out actions that have to beconducted by nascent entrepreneurs.

In many SE curricula, inside and outside of the classroom, the pedagogy rotatesaround academic development (Gunn et al., 2008; Kickul, Griffiths, & Bacq, 2010).The creation of a business plan, as described by Gunn et al. (2008) and Heriot, Cook,Simpson, and Parker (2008), is very much in a shadowing role and does not givestudents direct experience of the business development role. Such methods do notprovide the opportunity for students to make real business decisions or to discoverthe problems that social enterprises encounter, or how they actually generate funds.

There is strong evidence from the literature that experiential projects are apowerful tool in making learning environments meaningful (Higgins & Simpson,1997), as they allow for interaction and effective learning to take place, whichfosters the development of reflective skills (Graham, 2004) by introducing ambiguity(Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2006).

The experiential projects used in this study provided an interactive environmentthat enables students to foster the development of their critical thinking andproblem-solving skills. Students are indirectly forced to resolve the various issuesarising in their fund-raising events. They are required to analyse the environment ofthe sponsoring entities, and in the process locate, identify and assess relevantinformation in order to create a solid business plan. This process was deliberatelyuncertain and complex (Collins et al., 2006) as entrepreneurship entails the solvingof complicated and unstructured problems.

A number of researchers have suggested that moving individuals outside theircomfort zone to an engaging and active environment allows for a more expressiveself-discovery and learning process to take place (McMullan & Boberg, 1991;Munro, 2008). The range of knowledge and skills involved in developing the finan-cial, technical, legal and market aspects of the business plan also heightenedemotions by asking students to address problems with which they lacked familiarity.Besides, the need to develop skills in time management, planning, negotiation andpersuasion (Collins et al., 2006) help students to overcome the uncertainties andcomplexities of new business venture.

The learning programme and methodology

Having been briefed about the task, students were required to decide on the entre-preneurial activities needed to generate funds for the social enterprise. The courseteam acted as facilitators of the process, and encouraged students to be creative andinnovative, but students were expected to come up with their own ideas. Being anindependent learner and thinker (Collins et al., 2006) were important pedagogicobjectives set by the educators.

Five types of stakeholders facilitated the learning process: (1) students themselves(other team members); (2) university lecturers; (3) university corporate services staff;(4) social entrepreneurs; and (5) sponsors. The module leader ensured that there wascohesion and communication between the various stakeholders and the students. Thefive social entrepreneurs included two charities that provided international aid, ahospice and a local medical charity. Sponsors included local businesses such as

Innovations in Education and Teaching International 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

business consultants, printing companies and shopkeepers, the university’s StudentUnion and the university itself.

In addition to carrying out the tasks necessary to raise funds, the 99 studentsthat participated in this module were required to reflect on their own progress andcomplete online wiki logs on a weekly basis. These form the principal source ofdata for this study. The other stakeholders’ comments on their interactions withstudents, which were recorded by two of the present authors as contemporaneousnotes, also formed part of our data-set and were used to triangulate the students’learning process as well as to identify the role that the different stakeholders playedin this. Table 1 lists the different sources of data.

We were looking for evidence of learning discussed in the review of literatureabove. This included how students enhanced their learning, what type of knowledgewas acquired and the link between a priori (known without prior experience) andposteriori knowledge (gained by experience). Data analysis and presentation in thefollowing section was guided by the six stages of the Linking Personal Learning toNew Business Process Development discussed by Gibb (2002, p. 267): induction;developing valid ideas; developing operational plans and resource identification;negotiation of opportunity; implementation; and survival. The study uses Gibb’sapproach because it captures the different stages of the study programme and thestudent learning experience by tracking their progress of meeting the outcomesexpected in each stage of the module. Table 2 shows the weekly timetable for themodule, expected learning, and the equivalent stages of Gibb’s (2002) model.

Students are made aware that they are part of the research project during thefirst week of the module delivery. Each student had to sign a consent form in accor-dance with the university code of ethics and research practice. In addition, studentswere informed about the role played by each stakeholder and their responsibilities.

Valuation of the learning journey

Stage 1 – induction

Week one was a central focus point of the module as it provided an opportunity toorientate the students to their tasks and establish clear methods of collecting datafor evaluation and analysis. The induction period also enabled the educators toestablish compliance from all participating stakeholders (Kanji & Greenwood,

Table 1. Data sources.

Source of data

Students’ reflective logs. Weekly wikis submitted to the university’s online learningenvironment (Blackboard)

Business plan development notes, including students’ entries (using wikis) on theirpreparation for the fund raising events

Video recordings of presentationsField notes of e.g. meetings between educators and social entrepreneurs, socialentrepreneurs and students

Evidence of students activities, including pictures taken by the studentsStakeholders communication: examination and review of relationships between theacademic staff and social entrepreneurs and sponsors

4 J. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 2. Skill matrix programme.

Session Activity Skills development Learning outcomes

Developmentalstages (Gibb, 2002,p. 267)

1. Introduction to theprogramme by theparticipating socialenterprises and theuniversity staffteam whichincludes personnelfrom differentdepartments

Group working,management ofinformation,innovation,planning,reflection,interaction,organisation,exploration

To understand theneed for risktaking, creativityand team buildingin order toeffectively planthe activities

Stage 1: start witha raw idea

To understand thatthe modulerequires self-motivation

2. Field work –students visit thesocial enterprises

Group working,communicationautonomy,problem solving,management ofinformation

To identify thekey aims andobjectives of thesocial enterprisethey are workingwith

Having assembleda team andobtained theguidelines of theprogramme theteams meet thesocial enterprisethey are workingwith (both at theuniversity and atthe offices of theenterprise) andbegin to developappropriateactivities

To undertake fieldresearch intopossible viableproject ideas

3. Students liaisewith socialenterprises anddevelop plans

Group working,communication,problem solving,management ofinformation

To developpotentially viableplans

Stage 2: movingfrom raw idea tovalid idea

To developappropriatetimescale

The teamsconstruct theirinitial plans basedon informationfrom the socialenterprise

To identifypotential resourcesand facilities

The team identifybarriers, test if theidea will work andunderstand theoperatingconditions

(Continued)

Innovations in Education and Teaching International 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 2. (Continued).

Session Activity Skills development Learning outcomes

Developmentalstages (Gibb, 2002,p. 267)

To co-ordinateteam roles andresponsibilities

4. Studentpresentation ofplans in front ofsocial enterprises

Group working,communication,autonomy,problem solving,management ofinformation, self-evaluation

To demonstrateeffectivepresentation skills

Stage 3: Validideas to scaleoperation andresourceidentification

To developnegotiation andcommunicationskillsTo developinterpersonal andteam workingskills

The teamincorporatefeedback fromtheir clients intotheir plans andindicate how theywill deliver theirplans.

5–6. Students run afund raising eventor activity

Group working,communication,autonomy,problem solving

To develop eventmanagement andco-ordinationskills

Stage 4: Scale tobusiness plan andnegotiation

To developpresentation andcommunicationskills

This includes thefollowingconsiderations:

To developmonitoring andevaluation tools

Developingappropriatesystems toeffectively run theactivities;

To developgeneralmanagement skills

Identifying theappropriateresources;Negotiating withcustomers,suppliers, premisesmanagers and allstakeholders toensure successfulproject outcomesincluding raisingfunds for the socialenterprises;Evaluating theevents and makingappropriate

(Continued)

6 J. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Table 2. (Continued).

Session Activity Skills development Learning outcomes

Developmentalstages (Gibb, 2002,p. 267)

adjustments forfuture projectdevelopments;Developingbusiness plans forfuture developmentbased on learningfrom the initialproject

7 Trial run ofpresentationsevaluating the fundraising eventactivities

Communication,autonomy,presentation skills,management ofinformation, self-evaluation

To evaluate theeffectiveness ofthe projects andactivities andpresent thefindingsTo reflect on theirindividual andgroup learning

8 Studentpresentation ofactions in front ofsocial enterprises

Communication,autonomy,presentation skills,management ofinformation, self-evaluation

To demonstratehow the teamhave met clientexpectations

To developpresentation skillsbased on clientfeedback

9 Final plans andpresentationsincluding feedbackfrom socialenterprises

Communication,autonomy,presentation skill,management ofinformation, self-evaluation

To develop criticalthinking thatallows the team toproduce plans forthe future

Stage 5: Fromnegotiation to birth

To further developtheir presentationskills toinvestigatealternative fundraising models

This includesdemonstrating theviability of theprojects for longterm fund raising.The completedevents provideevidence for futurelarger scale fundraising projects

10 Final Presentationgiven to a panel ofjudges

Group working,communication,autonomy,presentation skill,management ofinformation, self-evaluation

To develop aviable exitingstrategy

Stage 6: Frombirth to survival

(Continued)

Innovations in Education and Teaching International 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

2001). The students learned that they need to collaborate with other stakeholders inthe process of idea generation and evaluation.

The reflective logs from this stage showed that students were excited about thechallenge. The planning wikis revealed students sharing their ideas, considering thecommerciality of their ideas, such as the need to generate sponsorship, thinking ofpotential venues for their events and activities, calculating the time required andassessing the likely income from the various options.

Stage 2 – developing valid ideas

An important aspect of the programme was for the student teams to conduct fieldresearch outside of the university environment in order to obtain a greaterunderstanding of the social enterprises they would be working with and how theirfund-raising events would contribute to the objectives of these enterprises. Thisalso provided an opportunity for the teams to identify the key priorities of theirown work. This stage helped to reinforce the notion of the project being a realone with real outcomes, and the importance of cooperation (Kanji & Greenwood,2001) where students work with social entrepreneurs and educators to jointlydetermine priorities.

During this stage, students had to present their ideas for revenue-generatingevents to the social enterprises. This interaction provided direct feedback as towhether their ideas were seen to work or not. The students also learned aboutorganising an event within a specific timescale. For instance, the students generatedmany ideas but had to prioritise these based on viability and time. In addition,learning to accept feedback from the social enterprise encouraged the students toexplore new avenues.

Stage 3 – developing operational plans and resource identification

Students realised the importance of working collectively in evaluating their plans andin managing their relationship with each stakeholder. The plans covered marketing

Table 2. (Continued).

Session Activity Skills development Learning outcomes

Developmentalstages (Gibb, 2002,p. 267)

To demonstrateadequate andeffectivemonitoringsystems

This is throughpitching long termfund raising plansto independentjudges. Thisenables the team toverify theeffectiveness andviability of theirprojects

To developbusiness plans forpotential futureprojects

8 J. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

research, financial feasibility, human resources, risk assessment and possible alterna-tives in case the initial plan failed. Each plan was evaluated by both students andeducators in terms of the groups’ capacity to deliver the project and whether it wouldbe likely to receive the approval of the social entrepreneur.

During this stage, students were also involved in searching for the resources thatwere needed to organise the fund-raising events. These included university facilities,services offered by sponsors in the community and resources obtained from friendsand families. The students used the weekly wiki action plan to evaluate theirprogress in terms of whether they had obtained the necessary resources, and todecide on the next steps. During this period, the students also worked on identify-ing suitable venues for their events and negotiated with venue managers thefacilities that would be made available to them.

Stage 4 – negotiation of opportunity

A key feature of the module was to encourage the students to be creative intheir approach to overcoming what could be significant challenges, such as thegeneration of revenue without a budget. The teams had to think proactively inorder to obtain the resources required. This included negotiating the free use ofthe university facilities for their events, obtaining support from the StudentsUnion, utilising the existing merchandise of the social enterprises and securingsponsorship from businesses and individuals. Negotiation with sponsors involvedstudents highlighting the positive benefits of participating in the fund-raising pro-jects, such as improving their reputation for corporate social responsibility andvalues.

In general, our data showed that the majority of the students had difficulty inknowing how to pitch for sponsorship. As a result, the university staff decided toinvite students who had prior experience of pitching for sponsors to network withthe student teams and share their experiences and expertise. This was organisedthrough a special session run jointly with the National Consortium of UniversityEntrepreneurs. The data also revealed that students were more likely to bemotivated by their peers rather than the academic staff; the number and quality ofideas increased following this intervention. For example, students in their reflectivestatements stated that they have been encouraged by the evidence presented byother teams on how to pitch for sponsors, which increased their self-belief inconvincing potential sponsors to fund their projects.

Stage 5 – implementation

Out of 19 groups, 18 successfully generated revenue. The team that failed to raisefunds was unsuccessful as they did not have a realistic timescale to implement theirplans. They also encountered numerous communication and operational difficultiesthat resulted in their failure to run their fund-raising event. Despite this failure, thelearning logs indicated considerable learning about what could and should havebeen done differently, indicating the benefits of learning in a relatively risk-freeenvironment.

The real-life experience enabled students to realise that the business develop-ment plan is to reduce risk and that any risks taken are informed based on evidence(see Table 2 for the skills matrix programme). This experience could not be gained

Innovations in Education and Teaching International 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

in a classroom environment as they learned to discern the meaning of reducing riskthrough business plan development. The students discovered that they have tomeet all the legal requirements for hosting their events and set up appropriatesupporting business systems. Student teams also discovered that marketing andpromoting the events through social media such as Facebook, Bebo, Myspace andTwitter to their target customers, pricing, timing and the venue of the eventscontributed to the desired amount of fund raised.

Stage 6 – survival

During the final stage, a business plan competition was organised in order to moti-vate the students and to provide a competitive element similar to those they wouldexperience in real life. Other student teams observed mock presentations of theirfellow students’ business plans. This provided an opportunity for the students torehearse the pitching of their plans and to determine whether their ideas wouldsurvive as long-term projects for raising funds for the social enterprises.

The real competition brought external judges from the business community togive feedback on the viability and quality of the students’ plans. The group whodid not generate the revenue did not meet the criteria that the judges deemed wouldenable survival in a real business environment. This failure was not penalised instudents’ academic assessment but was used as a learning tool to reflect on theirfailures.

Implications of the study

From the reflective logs, it was apparent that students had developed a variety ofentrepreneurial capacities as a result of the experience of fund raising. This includedan understanding of the need to set targets, knowledge of the factors likely to affectthe progress of the plan and the resources available to them within a specified timeframe. This approach also made students enhance their reflective capability and theability to evaluate their own work during each of the six stages of the revenuegeneration activity. Self-reflection enabled students to challenge their own ideas andhence find new ways of understanding of what would otherwise have been regardedas given.

It was evident also that the social entrepreneurs were able to actively engagewith the students and the educators in order to deliver a successful programme.They offered their own expertise and the know how to students, and provideddetailed feedback on the chosen events. Their feedback revealed that they werehighly satisfied with the revenue-generation activities organised by the students asthey enabled them to reach a new audience.

This research project has clearly indicated that universities should consider newways to teach social entrepreneurship using innovative learning tools, such asraising funds for social enterprises. The potential educators, however, need to raiseto the challenge of managing a new learning environment where students deal withdifferent stakeholders and interact with the real world of business. Such challengecan be attained through further educational-based training involving business profes-sionals.

10 J. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Conclusions

In this paper, we have argued that a learning-by-doing approach is an effectivetool in the delivery of SE education. The three main areas of contribution madein this study are: (1) to provide an insight into how SE education can be deliv-ered more effectively through the use of real world projects; (2) enhance ourunderstanding of the nature and use of a collaborative learning approach withinhigher education; and (3) provide a model on which university lecturers canbuild to help students develop the required skills and competences of a socialentrepreneur.

It is apparent from this study that students’ ability to learn from practice isnot just important to the students, but also to the social entrepreneurs and the uni-versity. In line with Gibb’s (2002) argument, we agree that universities shouldplay a strong role in the personal and educational development of students. This,however, cannot be achieved without great emphasis on course design and out-comes and requires a different approach from that typically taken by universityeducators. For future research, therefore, we suggest an examination of how otherdepartments in the university and large social enterprises may be beneficiallyincluded into the development of the SE curriculum. There is also a need toresearch alternative models of SE educational practice, focusing especially on thefactors that enrich students’ learning and the skills needed for the new generationof social enterprises. Our study is limited, in that it did not examine the students’propensity for either founding or working in social enterprises, although our datasuggest that the greater awareness of them as organisations may result inincreased participation. We would also want to know if the students who work inthem are more skilled as the result of their experiences working on fund-raisingprojects.

Notes on contributorsJane Chang is a senior lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management at theUniversity of Westminster and a European Entrepreneurship Educator fellow. She hasconsiderable corporate experience in a range of industries and has set up six successfulcompanies before commencing an academic career. Her research interests includeentrepreneurship, strategic management in relation to corporate entrepreneurship,entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial learning.

Alison Rieple is professor of Strategic Management at the University of Westminster andhead of the IDEaS Research Group. She has an MBA and a PhD from Cranfield School ofManagement. She has run very successful workshops on the management of innovation andchange and has been a keynote speaker at numerous conferences worldwide. Her researchfocuses on the management of design and innovation and strategic management in general.She is the co-author of two books on strategic management and numerous articles on themanagement of change, design and innovation.

Abdelhafid Benamraoui is a senior lecturer in Finance at the Westminster Business School.He obtained his PhD from the University of Greenwich Business School. His long-termresearch interests are in the area of financial reforms, international finance andentrepreneurship education. His research has been published in a number of refereedacademic journals and the proceedings of national and international conferences.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

ReferencesBoud, D., & Costley, C. (2007). From project supervision to advising: New conceptions of

practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 119–130.Caird, S. (1990). What does it mean to be enterprising? International Journal of Manage-

ment, 1, 137–145.Collins, L. A., Smith, A. J., & Hannon, P. D. (2006). Applying a synergistic learning

approach in entrepreneurship education. Management Learning, 37, 335–354.Deakins, D., & Freel, M. (1998). Entrepreneurial learning and the growth process in SMEs.

The Learning Organisation, 5, 144–155.Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.” Center for the advancement

of social entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. Retrieved May7, 2010, from http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_sedef.pdf

Frank, A. (2005). Developing entrepreneurship skills in the context of higher education.Built environment education symposium: Building the future. Retrieved July 15, 2010,from http://cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/news/past_events/bee/files/Andrea%20Frank.doc

Gibb, A. A. (1987). Enterprise culture and its meaning and implications for education andtraining. Journal of European Industrial Training, 11(2), 1–36.

Gibb, A. A. (2002). In pursuit of new enterprise and entrepreneurship paradigm for learning:Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations ofknowledge. International Journal of Management Review, 4, 233–269.

Graham, J. J. (2004). Live projects: A dynamic, collaborative and an interactive processwhereby students research elements of business activity. Retrieved December 28, 2010,from http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/documents/employability/napieradditionalcase-study1.pdf

Gunn, R., Durkin, C., Singh, G., & Brown, J. (2008). Social entrepreneurship in the socialpolicy curriculum. Social Enterprise Journal, 4, 74–80.

Harding, R. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Monitor United Kingdom. London BusinessSchool. Retrieved July 12, 2010 from. http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/faculty-andresearch/GEM_UK_2006_Social_Entrepreneurship_Monitor.pdf

Heinonen, J., & Poikkijoki, S. A. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneur-ship education: Mission impossible? Journal of Management Development, 25, 80–94.

Heriot, K. C., Cook, R. G., Simpson, L., & Parker, R. (2008). The use of micro studentconsulting projects as an alternative traditional field-based student consulting projects:An exploratory. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 11, 59–74.

Higgins, M., & Simpson, F. (1997). Work-based learning within planning education: A goodpractice guide. London: University of Westminster Press.

Kanji, N., & Greenwood, L. (2001). Participatory approaches to research and developmentin IIED: Learning from experience. London: International Institute for Environment andDevelopment.

Kickul, J., Griffiths, M., & Bacq, B. (2010). The boundary-less classroom: Extending socialinnovation and impact learning to the field. Journal of Small Business and EnterpriseDevelopment, 17, 652–663.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and devel-opment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1998). Situated learning – Legitimate peripheral participation. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

McMullan, C. A., & Boberg, A. L. (1991). The relative effectiveness of projects in teachingentrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 9, 14–24.

Munro, J. (2008). The small enterprise as the authentic learning environment opportunity(SEALEO). Aslib Proceedings, 60, 686–700.

Rae, D. (2003). Opportunity centred learning: An innovation in enterprise education? Educa-tion + Training, 45, 542–549.

Rae, D. (2009). Connecting entrepreneurial and action learning in student-initiated new busi-ness ventures: The case of SPEED. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 6, 289–303.

Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2000). Using a life-story approach in entrepreneurial learning: Thedevelopment of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experi-ences. Education and Training, 42, 220–227.

12 J. Chang et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Schlee, R. P., Curren, M. T., & Harich, K. T. (2009). Building a marketing curriculum tosupport courses in social entrepreneurship and social venture competitions. Journal ofMarketing Education, 31, 5–15.

Young, J. E., & Sexton, D. L. (1997). Entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework.Journal of Enterprising Culture, 5, 223–248.

Innovations in Education and Teaching International 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:19

23

Sept

embe

r 20

13