The implementation of entrepreneurship education through curriculum reform in Finnish comprehensive schools

Abstract

How has entrepreneurship education been implemented in Finnish comprehensive schools. A two‐part survey was undertaken in 43 municipalities with different educational and socio‐economic backgrounds. The first part, in 2005, dealt with the local curriculum reform with a focus on the development of entrepreneurship education. The second part, in 2006, dealt with the implementation of entrepreneurship education. Questionnaires were sent to the representatives of the education and business sectors in the municipalities. The research questions were: (1) What is the sense of responsibility for implementing entrepreneurship education? (2) What kind of knowledge is there about entrepreneurship education? The results indicate that an atmosphere of responsibility for implementing entrepreneurship education is developing, although teachers do not possess knowledge of how to implement entrepreneurship education in practice. To develop such new curricular fields, such as entrepreneurship education, one could develop partnership forms of curriculum reform in order to develop teachers’ learning, school/work partnerships, and local curriculum work. Reforms need to be framed in practice‐oriented terms, thus strengthening the realization of aims and contents.

Keywords:

• comprehensive school
• curriculum reform
• entrepreneurship education
• partnership model

Acknowledgements

This paper presents a study which was conducted for the Finnish Ministry of Education. The research was made possible by the Finnish Ministry of Education, the Finnish Ministry of Trade and Industry, Yrjö Uitto’s Foundation, Private Entrepreneurs’ Foundation, Foundation for Economic Education, and Ahti Pekkala’s Foundation.

Notes

1. Corporate entrepreneurship and ‘intrapreneurship’ refer to the interplay between individual and organizational entrepreneurship (Kyrö 2005).

2. The only major distinction between these two is that ‘entrepreneurial’ traditionally refers to business activity, whereas ‘enterprising’ can be used in any context (e.g. Gibb 2005).

3. The distribution of the respondents in 2005 was as follows: teachers (grades 1–6; n = 115; grades 7–9; n = 116); guidance counsellors (n = 14); headmasters and principals (n = 53); education officials or equivalent office‐holders, (n = 29); trade and industry officials (n = 30); representatives of local entrepreneurs (n = 35). The distribution of the respondents in 2006 was as follows: teachers (grades 1–6; n = 94; grades 7–9; n = 135); guidance counsellors (n = 8); headmasters and principals (n = 47); directors of education and cultural services departments (n = 33); trade and industry officials (n = 23); representatives of local entrepreneurs (n = 21).

4. Question: ‘I know enough about entrepreneurship education’; 1 = I totally disagree; 2 = I disagree; 3 = I agree; 4 = I totally agree.

5. Question: ‘How do you understand the content of entrepreneurship education?’

6. The reliability of the measurement was also assessed. According to preliminary measurements it was possible to estimate that the questionnaire was usable for the study and there was no need to make major changes to the questionnaire (preliminary questionnaire: alpha = 0.6–0.7). In the survey, the reliability of the questionnaire was also quite good (alpha = 0.7–0.9).

7. n = 311, linked to the number of statements connected to aims.

8. n = 137 linked to the number of statements connected to contents.

9. n = 149, linked to the statements connected to working methods.