367
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Enterprise Skills for Undergrads — Never too early to start?

(Academic Developer) , (Research Officer) , (National Teaching Fellow) & (Teaching Fellow)
Pages 10-21 | Published online: 15 Dec 2015

Abstract

This paper describes a programme of innovative changes in enterprise education and a subsequent evaluation, brought about by the introduction in 2005 of the Centre of Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CETL): Institute for Enterprise at Leeds Metropolitan University. This paper discusses that programme, namely: the Innovation North Foundation and Progression Project, which was one of the first significant developments following its inception.

The project was designed to embed enterprise skills into the core curriculum in level one of Computing and Information Management studies, based on the belief that these skills will form not only a part of students’ whole University education, but also play an important role in the support for, and performance in, students’ subsequent careers. The paper, which expands on the practical paper presented at the ISBE 2006 conference in Cardiff in November, includes evaluation data collected from students and staff from two consecutive years that the module has been delivered.

This paper suggests that the project, now in its second year, is going some way to being embedded within the curriculum, is subtly introducing students to enterprise and enabling them to reflect on how they apply their skills in a project based scenario. Results from the evaluation show a positive acceptance of the innovative changes from both students and lecturers with only minimal improvements suggested to design and delivery.

1. Introduction

The Institute for Enterprise was launched in April 2005 as a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL), with funding provided from a successful bid under the HEFCE’s CETL initiative. Its aspirations are local to Leeds Met staff and students, as well as regional and national, with the aim of improving enterprise education. The vision of the Institute is “To make Leeds Metropolitan University the first choice for students seeking enterprise teaching and learning across the whole range of academic disciplines offered”, CitationPrice & Robertson (2004). This is to be achieved through:

  1. Increasing enterprise teaching capacity across the University to introduce high quality enterprise teaching and learning within the whole curriculum;

  2. Creating a focal point for established best practice;

  3. The creation of a physical presence for enterprise teaching and learning.

The project described in this paper is intended to contribute to the first aim ‘high quality enterprise teaching and learning within the whole curriculum’, and from the data collected thus far, it appears to have at least partially achieved this aim.

The opportunity to introduce enterprise teaching in this instance came about from a happy convergence of a number of developments that occurred within the Faculty. Firstly, there was a desire to have a common first year delivery across all courses in Computing, Information Management and Creative Technologies. However, Creative Technologies did not participate in the project. To this end a re-structure of the teaching delivery & timetable was implemented. Secondly, the modules involved were assigned to staff who wanted to increase the enterprise and employability content of the whole degree programme and in particular to start this process at level one. Thirdly, the Institute for Enterprise was established and was able to offer resources and support to the staff involved in the new modules.

The level one programme has been re-developed to include an introductory three-week, full-time Foundation Project module at the start of the course and a four-week, full-time Progression Project module to complete the first year of studies, for all students across the Faculty. In between these two modules, from October through to April, a further six course specific modules were delivered to all level one students. The new modules were conceived to provide all level one students with a common, useful, practical and enjoyable experience that would introduce them to the subjects required for the remainder of the first year at University and beyond.

The modules were assigned to staff who wanted to deliver teaching and learning in an innovative way, and who further wished to include enterprise and employability skills into the fabric of the module. In practice, as the modules were delivered across a substantial student cohort (around 350 per year), the specific delivery was undertaken by a large and diverse team of lecturers, who did not necessarily all share the same levels of enthusiasm as the module leaders.

The role that the Institute for Enterprise played in the module development and delivery was initially uncertain, as it was relatively new. In practice, the Institute was able to provide support with development ideas, in gathering and creating new materials, in the co-supervision of a placement student assigned to create additional materials such as website and database for the case study, in the assessment with the provision of an ‘Enterprise Award’ and in the evaluation of the module from both the staff and student perspectives.

2. Background

Enterprising individuals tend to exhibit particular sets of behaviours, attributes and skills that have value beyond the traditional narrow view of business entrepreneurship (CitationGibb, 2005). At Leeds Metropolitan University, enterprise is recognised as “an inclusive concept which provides both the context in which subject disciplines can be explored as well as an approach to learning (learning philosophy), which can be taken to the exploration and discovery of a discipline. In this respect, it can provide a challenging environment within which to explore a variety of teaching areas (such as a small business context) as well as providing a new and stimulating dimension to learning -that of being enterprising”, CitationPrice & Robertson (2004);

“Therefore, contextualising subject discipline learning, small—medium sized business can…provide an additional dimension to learning for students, by adding realism, constraints and challenges that they can appreciate, and that can heighten learning”.

Enterprise therefore can be best described as skill development and it “involves measures (skills) to encourage individuals to become entrepreneurs and equip them with the necessary skills to make a business (or other venture) successful”, Mason (2000) in CitationPrice (2005).

CitationGibb (2005) identified entrepreneurial behaviours, attributes and skills as those set out in below.

Table. 1 Identified entrepreneurial behaviours, attributes and skills, CitationGibb (2005).

To these can be added knowledge and skills in the areas of innovation, ethics and integrity, self awareness and leadership and visioning (CitationNixon, 2006).

The philosophy driving the development of these modules was that enterprise should not be an add-on but rather, be embedded into assessment, learning and teaching at the earliest possible opportunity. There was already experience within the Faculty of running a very successful problem based learning project at level two but it was felt by the development team that enterprising students will be more successful on their programme if helped to develop, and required to apply, the enterprise skills of problem solving, creativity, autonomously managing their time and work, and effective networking from the very beginning of their university course.

3. Module Overviews

Level one computing and information management students were required to complete the Foundation Project in the first three weeks of term as a full-time intensive module, based on a fictitious but highly realistic case study of a small business with problems. The students worked in teams of five, as a group of business consultants, analysing the business and identifying the problems and issues that also introduced them to the academic subjects they were to study during the remainder of their first year. The teams were organised within courses as organisational constraints prevented cross course, or interdisciplinary teams being considered. The teams presented their findings in regular tutorial slots, and ultimately at the showcase finale at the end of the module. A sense of competitiveness was intentionally fostered by announcing that the initial ‘contract’ for the consultancy work would be awarded to the most enterprising team that had met the project aims (not necessarily the same as the team that achieved the highest marks for their assessed work).

The Progression Project, which concluded the first year of study, was completed in a similar manner over a four week period, which represented the final four learning and teaching weeks of the academic year. It used the same scenario as the Foundation Project so the students could directly build upon the preliminary work done six months earlier. The students were allocated to different teams and were required to deliver two e-business solutions for the fictional organisation -a website and a database. The teams were required to deliver the solutions electronically and via a formal presentation to the ‘client’.

These two project modules were designed to enable students to develop a range of transferable and entrepreneurial skills by working through case study material relating to the fictional small business or SME (Small or Medium sized Enterprise). Input was predominantly via discipline related and enterprise related lectures. Each student project team had regular scheduled meetings with their tutors at which milestone deliverables were assessed. These deliverables included a project plan, analyses of business documents, customer questionnaires and the company website, development of a model of the business and questions to ask the staff at the business.

The materials provided to the student teams at the start of the Foundation Project were varied and included a couple of short videos showing the owner and one of the key employees at work on a typical day. There was also a great deal of business documentation in the form of e-mails and letters and there were over 100 responses to a customer feedback questionnaire. During the module itself, students were invited to an opportunity to interview an employee of the organisation and ask questions they wished to seek clarification over certain issues. Finally, the students were provided with the company website and their other IT systems and system interfaces. These materials were given to the students as handouts and via two CD ROMs containing video clips, website etc. More detail of these materials are available in CitationWilkinson & Sarmiento (2005).

The input via lectures in both modules included action planning, project management, teamwork, personal development, reflective practice and showcasing (presenting and selling).

Overall the assessment of the Foundation Project module was in three parts:

  • Milestone deliverables (30%);

  • Showcase event (50%);

  • Individual reflection (20%).

For the Progression Project module the assessment had two elements:

  • E-business solutions (60%).

  • Individual reflection (40%);

4. Project Evaluation

The evaluation of the module (Foundation and Progression Project) was carried out by means of a questionnaire, which students were asked to complete during the Showcase assessment. This was a two-page paper based survey designed to capture the student’s thoughts, concerns and ideas about the module for review purposes as well as to reevaluate the enterprise skills associated with the module. In addition, staff were asked to comment on their experience of the new modules via an e-mail questionnaire.

5. Findings of the Evaluation

The overall results were very positive. There was a universal consensus amongst students that the project had had a meaningful impact in many of the domains asked of them, relating to their student learning experiences and enterprise skills. Whilst, in addition, for the majority of questions (on both the Foundation and Progression project), open responses were also sought and the respondents reinforced their answers with positive qualitative comments.

5.1 Student Questionnaire Data — Foundation Project only

The initial three questions asked the students to rate how the Foundation Project had introduced them:

  • to modules on their first year of study;

  • to other students on their course;

  • and to small business consultancy.

These questions were asked to determine how receptive the students were to the project and obtain initial reactions to their perceptions of ‘problem-based learning’, though this was never introduced to them so explicitly.

5.2 To introduce you to the modules of your first year of study

The two years responses for this question were both very positive. For years 1 and 2 90% and 73% of students agreed, respectively, that the project had introduced them to modules in the first year of their study, reinforced by their qualitative comments. Most comments indicated that the module was a good introduction to the course; was useful in allowing students to work in a team; tested group working skills; was well planned and presented and gave a good insight into modules throughout the year.

5.3 To allow you to work with and get to know some other students on your course

A dual total of 90% of students agreed that the project enabled them to work with and get to know other students, again reinforced by their qualitative comments. For some, the project related to the benefits of team working and being put into groups with other students. The most commonly cited remarks being: made good friends; bonded quickly with other students; improved communication; and cohesiveness helped achieve goals.

5.4 Consultancy exercise for a small business

The consultancy exercise formed the core of the module and a total of 87% and 84% of students, respectively, rated the module positively. Qualitative comments from the students reinforcing this suggested that: it built confidence, provided a good example of a realistic business case and made them think about the focus of work.

6. Student Questionnaire Data - Section 2

In this section students were asked to indicate their feelings about 24 questions by rating their responses on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being ‘strongly agree’ and 5 being ‘strongly disagree’. However, of the 24 questions asked on the Foundation Project survey, there were slight differences to two of the questions asked on the Progression Project survey. Therefore, these results cannot be compared and are thus not discussed here. Following the survey, for ease of reporting the results in the evaluation, the responses were separated and categorised into three headings. Thus:

  • Higher education, learning and teaching;

  • Case study specific; and

  • Enterprise questions

The results discussed here relate to the Foundation and Progression Project and illustrate how the students’ perceptions of the project have shifted over the course of the year, from the interpretation of the responses.

Furthermore, the responses from the two years Foundation Project have been combined, as have the results from the two years Progression Project. This is due to the survey being subject to design changes in the second year evaluation and a small proportion of the data not being comparable. Notwithstanding, the absence of that particular data has no impact upon the discussion and reporting of the overall data. Therefore, datasets from both years that are comparable are only discussed in this paper and have been combined for ease of discussion.

6.1 Higher education, learning and teaching

This heading contained 12 questions, all of which had very positive responses. The questions related to issues of assessments, lectures, tutorials, support materials, physical resources, learning activities, positioning of the project vis a vis their course and that the course looked interesting. The combined responses between the Foundation and Progression project averaged out at 75% and 80% respectively. Indicating a 5% increase over the year, suggesting that the students’ view in this domain has been minimal. However, the 5% should not be viewed unenthusiastically because the initial reaction from students to the Foundation Project at the beginning of the year was 75%. This in itself is an extremely positive view. The combined percentages consisted of eight increases and four decreases in the responses over the year. However, percentage differences in the four decreases were not overly significant.

This is evidence that the introduction of this project as an innovative teaching method has been successful in its key aims of introducing the students to their degree and related modules, whilst impacting positively on the student learning experience.

6.2 The case study itself.

This heading contained two questions. The highest scores achieved from the Foundation Project survey were for the case study itself. Scores of 84% and 85% suggest that the case study was received well by the students and it retained their interest. Whilst on the Progression Project survey, a slight variation to the questions meant that there was only one question relating to the case study itself and was phrased slightly differently to take account of the tense. The response to this was 79%, a small decrease compared with the Foundation. These high responses were further reinforced by the comments made by students about the case study itself. Some of those comments being: makes you look at how companies work; case study had a lot to go at; builds confidence; enjoyed being consultant and researching the company. In addition, it also suggests that the students were responsive to the challenge of the case study, willing to undertake the ‘unknown’ aspects of that challenge and their desire to grasp it and succeed. Miflin’s ((2004) in CitationMcLean et al (2006)) view is that such projects are more conducive learning environments at the outset of a students’ studies than a lecture theatre filled with 200 or more students.

6.3 Enterprise behaviours, attributes, skills and values

There were ten headings contained in this category and responses to these questions were very positive overall. However, only 9 comparable results are discussed due to a slight variation, again, to one of the questions on the Progression survey. The responses between the Foundation and Progression averaged out at 63% and 70% respectively, indicating an increase of 7% over the course of the year. As discussed above, this increase of 7% appears minimal but should not be seen as unconstructive because the students’ initial perception of the project was significant at 63%. In the individual responses, six illustrated some significant increases in the students’ responses over the year. There were a further two responses that remained the same and one decrease, of only 1%.

The key aims of subtly introducing the students to enterprise and facilitating them through the case study to be innovative and creative appears to have had some impact and has triggered the students into thinking about how they might have applied their own skills and attributes. Again, these responses were reinforced by the student comments, some of which were: being creative; working in teams; competitiveness; problem solving; and made me think for myself.

Furthermore, what is interesting to note is that the responses that have remained the same or have increased in percentages over the year are very closely related to what could be described as entrepreneurial characteristics, which is discussed further in the next section.

7. Discussion of Evaluation Findings

As discussed earlier in Section 2 on Background, CitationGibb (2005) identified entrepreneurial behaviours, attributes and skills. It is clear here that our students are displaying such characteristics, developed and fostered as a consequence of the case study project within teaching. A view also endorsed by CitationRead & Sarmiento (2006). There is no doubt that the students would develop some level of key characteristics and potentially develop some of the entrepreneurial behaviours, attributes and skills. Some of those characteristics that can be clearly identified, and have been displayed by our students, albeit not an exact word match for those of Gibb, are evidence that the use of problem-based learning within enterprise education is having its benefits. Characteristics that we can identify are listed in the table below (.)

Table. 1 Identified Entrepreneurial Characteristics

The use of a problem-based learning case study approach in this respect has had a meaningful, positive impact upon our students and has aided the introduction of enterprise into the curriculum. CitationBeaumont, Sackville and Cheng (2003) suggest that use of the problem-based learning approach in computing may be suitable. They link this claim to the vocational nature of the computing and information systems disciplines and that those disciplines are, for the most part, problem driven anyway. They also suggest that the problem-based learning approach improves time management, motivation, research skills, group work skills and problem solving, as well as “providing a rich learning environment with opportunities to develop employability characteristics”. All of which can be allied to our research reported here.

8. Qualitative Responses from Staff

Almost two-thirds of the staff felt that the Foundation and Progression Project modules effectively introduced students to their first year of study and the vast majority of staff indicated that the modules facilitated the development of student bonding. Staff comments received in relation to this suggests that the group exercises demanded by the module enabled students to quickly and effectively work together:

  • “…students found this to be the best aspect of the Foundation Programme and as an observer it has certainly helped some students to settle in”.

  • “The module succeeded fully here. I have never seen this level of commitment from a group of students at this stage of the course before”.

  • “…inevitably it only got them meeting in small groups, but it did that very well”.

Whilst this element of the programme was widely acknowledged as successful in engaging students and encouraging them to work together, it was commented by one member of staff that “Students would get to know each other anyway regardless of course structure”.

A range of comments indicated that a number of staff viewed the delivery and content of the module positively:

  • “The first 3 weeks is an important time for new students. Anything that can help them settle in can only be good. The Foundation Module seems to do this well”.

  • “Very well organised given the various constraints”.

  • “Fun, good quality materials”.

Key factors that staff members liked most about the module included getting to know the students and the comprehensive nature of some of the materials developed for the sessions:

  • “Thanks to the excellent efforts of the people who put it together, it went well”.

  • “It went well. I think the content is quite simplistic but it did a great job of getting everyone going”.

  • “…seeing the students work together, get to know each other, work to deadlines and produce something useful”.

  • “…the thoroughness of the material preparation”.

A number of general comments from staff suggested that the student experience of the module had been positive — but the workload for staff, and the inequitable group working practices of some groups caused some concern:

  • “A lot of work for very little return”, “… there was a huge effort involved by those who had done the detailed preparation, the disproportionate nature of this — as compared to subsequent modules — and some disquiet regarding the 3-week duration of the whole exercise”.

  • “Rewarding lazy students…. with appalling study habits,…These surfaced quite quickly and generated some bad feeling”.

  • “In trying to cover the 6 Level 1 modules it may be trying to do too much”.

As with any new initiative, there are good points and bad but the majority of comments here from the staff are uplifting. However, it is documented that problem-based learning scenarios aren’t without their problems (CitationRead & Sarmiento (2006), CitationMcLean et al (2006) and Macdonald (2002)). In addition, CitationBeaumont et al (2003) reports that:

“Very often, students are not the only ones who are new to PBL. Teachers also have to change their role from the expert in control to the facilitator of the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Even for teachers who have a high level of commitment to PBL this is not easy”.

9. Conclusion

Going back to our original philosophy underpinning the development of the modules, we suggest that ‘enterprising students will be more successful on their programme if helped to develop, and required to apply, the enterprise skills of problem solving, creativity, autonomously managing their time and work and effective networking from the very beginning of their university course’. The question is, have we achieved this, and can we say objectively that we have.

While this paper discusses the results from two consecutive years’s evaluations in the context of a problem-based learning scenario, after only a short number of weeks, it does provide a useful insight. The perceptions of students and an assessment of their receptiveness to a non-traditional pedagogy designed to introduce them to enterprise, in an implicit way, whilst addressing a realistic business problem has provided evidence to suggest we are going some way to equipping our students with such skills.

The individual responses from students indicated in the survey that they were receptive to the Foundation Project and repeated this upon completion of the Progression Project survey and this shift upwards is an adequate factor in determining that our new method has impacted in our main aim, that of enterprise skills.

Furthermore, evidence from the data sets suggests many students enjoyed the opportunity to be introduced to enterprise-related skills such as creative thinking and innovative approaches to work and study and others outlined by CitationGibb (2005).

In terms of the more practical issues of the introduction of problem-based learning scenarios, there are a number of other factors that we have taken into consideration:

  • This structure of intensive projects at the start and finish of the year seems to be an effective pedagogic method, if well designed.

  • However, there are costs and issues in terms of staffing such a delivery method which include complex timetabling, large module teams and a high commitment of all staff.

  • We also conclude that day one at University is not too soon to introduce enterprise skills, in fact as they are so closely aligned with study/transferable skills, it is useful to introduce these right from the outset of a student’s career in higher education.

  • However, they need to be introduced in a relevant context, and the small business scenario is a useful way of doing this as it is so flexible -broad range of tasks can be introduced, with lots of scope for humour and individuality.

  • We believe, from the data gathered and described above, that this approach and structure was effective in helping students to see their studies in an integrated way and to consolidate what they learn in subject specific modules, which is a perennial problem in higher education.

  • Finally, despite the problems of some people not pulling their weight in teams, many students appreciated team working scenarios and they are useful in helping students settle in to both university and studying and notwithstanding some individual complaints, most students appreciated having to work with a range of people, and in differing teams.

  • As a result of this process, it appears that many students were quite open to the possibility of entrepreneurship and starting their own businesses as a future career option.

10. Final Word

Finally, Neil Warnock (former Computing student of Leeds Metropolitan University), Entrepreneur and Managing Director of a successful systems integration company, Luminary Solutions offered the following comments:

“The Foundation Project module is a shining example of how Leeds Met can bring real world business context and relevance to the ensuing components of a course. [This project will help provide] a vocational education, narrowing the (still apparent) void between educational outcomes and real world requirements.”

References

  • BeaumontC., SackvilleA. & ChengS (2003) Identifying Good Practice in the use of PBL to Teach Computing. Information Technology and Enterprise. Liverpool Hope University College.
  • GibbA. (2005). Towards the Entrepreneurial University, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, Policy Paper #003.
  • HarteV. (2006), Innovation North Evaluation of Foundation Module, Institute for Enterprise, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
  • MacdonaldR. (2002) Applying PBL in Computing: Potential and Challenge: Keynote Address. Applying PBL in Computing: Potential and Challenge, Edge Hill, Ormskirk
  • McLeanM., Van WykJ., Peters-FutreE. & Higgins-OpitzS. (2006) The small group in problem-based learning: more than a cognitive ‘learning’ experience for first year medical students in a diverse population. Medical Teacher, 28, 4, pp. 94-103
  • NixonI. (2006) Learning about Enterprise and Entrepreneurship in Science and Technology Subjects, workshop report, 4-5th May 2006 Aston Business School, Higher Education Academy Subject Centres and KSA Partnership
  • PriceA. (2005), Transforming Enterprise Education: What is Enterprise? Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
  • PriceA & RobertsonM (2004) The Institute for Enterprise HEFCE CETL Stage 2 Bid: Definition, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
  • ReadE. & SarmientoT. (2006) The benefits of using ‘live’ case studies in Entrepreneurship Education. Coventry University, Coventry.
  • Conference on International Entrepreneurship — from global to local enterprise creation and development, 29th. 2006. Cardiff.E-learning for E-business: embedding enterprise in information and computer science. SarmientoT., PickfordR. & WilloughbyL.
  • WilkinsonD. & SarmientoT. (2005), Innovation North Evaluation of Foundation Module, Institute for Enterprise, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
  • WilloughbyL. (2005), Innovation North Progression Project Module Evaluation, Institute for Enterprise, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.