Keywords

1 Introduction

To date, the view that entrepreneurship education should be based on experiential approaches continues to gain grounds. While there have been few attempts to examine the extent to which entrepreneurship education improves the quality of start-ups (Galloway & Brown, 2002; Wilson et al., 2009; Fayolle & Gailly, 2015), many of the questions which require propounding remain to be answered. In fact, tensions between the effectiveness of various entrepreneurship programmes and teaching delivery are perhaps the most widely posed concerns of the field (Gibbs, 2005; Kuratko, 2005). The problem of delivery, for example, invariably involves articulating new understandings, meanings and knowledge in a way that is co-generated from the interactions between faculty and students. The resulting effect, if effectively applied, influences graduate entrepreneurial proficiency. This remains critical as standard approaches to delivering entrepreneurship should be devoted to the identification of opportunities and the activity of setting up a business (Crammond et al., 2018; Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019).

Nonetheless, the practice of effectively teaching entrepreneurship is by no means an easy feat. While most entrepreneurship course have been criticised for their reliance on business plans (Mason & Arshed, 2013) and their detachment from the start-up process (Honig, 2004; Dutta et al., 2011), others contend that the over-reliance on theoretical underpinnings imported from other disciplines may have diminished the distinctiveness of entrepreneurship as a subject (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Solomon, 2008). To a large extent, an effective delivery requires an emphasis on scholarly considerations, such as entrepreneurial intent, opportunity recognition, start-up models and the economic importance of entrepreneurship. These are likely to stimulate entrepreneurship across students.

One of the virtues of putting right such concerns is making explicit the standards needed for quality entrepreneurship education. We are more concerned with the aspect that embraces experiential learning. Following Hasse and Lautenschlager and Lange et al., we recognise that the effectiveness of entrepreneurial learning lies in an experiential delivery approach (Haase & Lautenschläger, 2011; Lange et al., 2007). This remains critical as existing programmes have failed to develop the skill and entrepreneurial competencies needed in the fast-changing global market. Indeed, an approach in the right movement would be committed to addressing teaching effectiveness and delivery standards.

In this light, the purpose of this study is to present and discuss the findings from an experiential learning assignment towards evaluating the course effectiveness, as well as the approaches influencing teaching delivery. In seeking to identify best practice for teaching entrepreneurship education, the analysis of our findings is focused around one sub-question:

RQ1

How do learners and educators perceive best practice in the delivery of entrepreneurship education?

Compared to previous studies that have explored enterprise education as pedagogy (Jones & Iredale, 2010; Murray et al., 2018), our study recognises the relative paucity of research that have explored the role of experiential learning through the lens of both the learner and educator. Our findings reveal the essence of experiential approach to entrepreneurship education and, more interestingly, how it facilitates learning through reflective action.

Our main theoretical contribution confirms, first, that the logics of transformative reflexivity, which necessitates an understanding of behaviour located within social contexts, address the strengths and the equally active nature of making sense of reality. Secondly, we suggest that knowledge should ideally be grounded on a self-introspection, whereby uncertainties are suspended towards maintaining a positive expectation. From a methodological perspective, our study is useful in its application of a qualitative methodology, as it seeks to underscore the focus on critical issues by allowing a rich interpretation of our findings. This paves the way for an analysis of how learning experience is created and given meaning. We contend that the educator and learner’s objectives can be best explained in terms of subject matter mastery and attainment of specific competencies (Mezirow, 1997). Hence, achieving these goals requires the critical reflection of one’s own assumptions, while engaging effectively in introspection to validate beliefs through the experiences of others.

The remainder of this chapter describes transformative reflexivity and its embedded ties to experiential learning. We describe our findings and elaborate a framework that draws on students’ reflections towards extending knowledge. Following an inductive approach, our method is explained before presenting our framework.

2 Logics of Transformative Reflexivity for Entrepreneurship Education

The delivery of effective entrepreneurship education demands creating an approach that encompasses student reflections. Following Lay and Mcguire (Lay & McGuire, 2010), we believe that by introducing a reflexive standpoint in the way students learn, educators can devise pedagogical strategies that enable development of the critical skills needed to practice effectively. This, we recognise, has a strong impact on student learning.

So what is reflexivity exactly? Reflexivity involves probing thought processes, prejudices, assumptions and habitual actions, towards understanding one’s complex roles in relation to others (Bolton, 2009). It differs from reflection which is an action of fixing one’s thoughts on a particular subject. In reflection, one attempts to identify links from one experience to another. However, reflexivity suggests that one can locate oneself and appreciate how one’s own self influences their actions. While both reflection and reflexivity are important for responsibility teaching practice, the idea of reflexivity is more complex as it facilitates the identification and modification of experiences towards shaping an enhanced action.

In a review of reflexive models, (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019) provide an apt definition by suggesting that reflection is a process that enables a learner to embed understanding sourced through one’s experience to accelerate choices as well as enhance one’s effectiveness. Shaw offers the following suggestion: ‘Reflexivity is a complex concept to understand and to teach’. She goes on to emphasise that reflexivity is about ‘standing back and reflecting on experience…the ability to initiate thoughts and action which involve imaginations, solutions for change’ (Shaw, 2013).

Despite its potentials for positive outcomes, the concept of reflexivity has often been misunderstood (Okely & Callaway, 1992; England, 1994). The challenge stems from the absence of effective strategies designed to guide students in achieving learning outcomes. And as such, it becomes a difficult concept to apply in practice (Ash & Clayton, 2004). Concerned with the desire to connect student experiences to learning and a need to demonstrate a good application of their knowledge plus cognitive development, (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019) introduced a new approach to reflexivity which posited the logics of transformation as defining the structure and meaning of reflexivity.

The focus of reflection was no longer devoted to students alone, rather it embraces the reflections of educators. For them, the logics of transformative reflexivity induce introspection on the path of the learner and educator by allowing a scrutiny of entrepreneurial learning and teaching approaches. Put succinctly, the logics of transformative reflexivity is an overall inclusive process which provides insights into quality teaching process (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019). Embodied in entrepreneurship practice, its appeal lies in integrating teaching and student learning in a reinforcing manner. The emphasis is on the methods of entrepreneurial learning which probes the inner texture of adopted teaching practices.

According to their definition (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019), the logics of transformative reflexivity provide a link between an enterprising content delivery and the constructed reflexive ability to stimulate student knowledge. It contends that entrepreneurship education for students needs to be experiential. This approach to reflexivity integrates the educators’ introspections and that of the students as two necessary and complementary elements of transformative reflexivity.

While definitions of reflective learning vary in their emphasis, they all presuppose cognitive development for students to imagine in different ways, while developing alternative interpretations of their learning experiences. With transformative reflexivity, it requires going beyond student reflections and experiential learning, to embracing the introspection of the educators and the application of such reflections to practice. So located, together they regularise behaviour and provide an opportunity to assess the efficacy of entrepreneurship education.

3 Meta-theory of Logics of Transformative Reflexivity

The logics of transformative approach incorporate two underpinning meta-theories of how entrepreneurship education through introspection and experiential learning facilitates a richer application and understanding of the subject matter. Here, we articulate two guiding aspects that in our perspicacity underpin the meta-theories. This may provide well founded and valid insights for future theoretical refinement. We posit that transformative reflexivity should manifest at two different levels, that of the educator and the learner. These mutually reinforcing levels establish the foundations for reflective activity, thereby enhancing the quality of teaching entrepreneurship and student learning.

3.1 Transformative Reflexivity at the Educator Level

Perhaps an important aspect of the transformative reflexivity approach is that the educator’s role and competence are embedded within their introspection. Teaching delivery is an outcome of the reflexive standpoint in their thinking process. This is useful in enhancing their ability to devise pedagogical strategies that facilitate critical thinking on the part of the students. While most educators appear to rely on lectures and workshops to navigate complexities surrounding entrepreneurship courses, the effectiveness of delivery is determined by their ability to provide students with experiences that facilitate the integration of real-world experiences to their teaching content (Lay & McGuire, 2010; Zlotnik, 2003).

At this level of analysis, the transformative reflexive aspect exists on the part of the educator who provides the impetus for knowledge. A major characteristic of award-winning entrepreneurship educators lies in their desire to be reflexive after collecting feedback on their teaching approaches (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019; Dunkin & Precians, 1992; Biggs & Tang, 2011). As the term reflexivity goes, it is a mirror through which one can make introspections and satisfactory outcomes. In relating this to effective entrepreneurship education delivery, the goal is to ensure that the perspective of the educator influences what is known and how it is known (Fook, 2002). This serves to determine the quality of graduate start-ups, as well as the intellectual attitudes of student entrepreneurs in the longer term (Galloway & Brown, 2002).

For transformative reflexivity, a series of articulated intellectual standard questions are posed at critical teaching periods to understand student learning and to know when knowledge has been imparted. It is expected that this will assist the educator in developing the skills, knowledge and ability that will foster the development of their intellectual capabilities.

Examples of the articulated standard questions which an educator may pose to define the breadth and depth of behind their teaching approach are as follows: ‘What was good or bad about my teaching?’ ‘Was I able to convey the complexities about entrepreneurship to the students?’ ‘What could I have done better in stimulating entrepreneurship among the students?’ ‘How can I ensure that learning outcomes have been achieved?’ ‘Have I been able to transfer the knowledge and skills needed to operate a new business venture?’

For us, these series of reflexive questions present guiding blocks that provide the basis for improving entrepreneurship teaching delivery. It is because educators are required to challenge existing assumptions and to possess the ability to analyse power relationships in the classroom (Brookfield, 1995). This presupposes that the reflexive introspection demands that an educator’s delivery must be aligned to achieve best learning outcomes. Put succinctly, an educator-level transformative reflexivity provides a self-critical introspection of the teacher’s strategic approach which induces new insights for improvement.

3.2 Transformative Reflexivity at the Learner’s Level

A key assumption of the logics of transformative reflexivity is that entrepreneurial learning must be located in a way that stimulates entrepreneurship among learners. In broad terms, the key approach is centred on the need to enhance the learners’ general attitude to entrepreneurship, as well as promoting entrepreneurship as a useful career prospect for students (Kolvereid & Moen, 1997). In explaining the learner-level transformative reflexivity, (Omeihe & Omeihe, 2019) argue that structures must be put in place to guide the way students reflect. This involves helping students connect their experiences by assessing the quality of learning. Thus, the underlying assumption is not on the quantity of reflective exercises; instead the focus is on how reflexivity challenges student’s perspective of entrepreneurship, thereby providing richer explanations of their experiential learning.

Based on the work of Ash and Clayton, we contend that at the learner level, students should be guided in their reflexive process to exploring the interplay between theory and practice (Ash & Clayton, 2004). While we recognise that students vary not just in the study skills but in their approach to learning and particularly in the extent to which they reproduce material, the extent to which educators exert their guidance on the student’s reflections is by amplifying the essence of learning objectives. As students identify with objectives, they effectively align their experiences in their journals. Through this, they can confidently identify the essence of varying learning entrepreneurial exercises.

In all of this and for transformative reflexivity to take place, emphasis must be placed on the learner’s active reflection. Ensuring that students can actively think about what they are trying to do when it is applied is the cornerstone to student development (Gibbs, 2005). Examples of the articulated standard questions which educators can use in guiding student’s transformative reflexive process are as follows: ‘What did you learn?’ ‘How did you feel about it?’ ‘What do the objectives mean and why are they important? ‘How is this useful is to your entrepreneurial development?’ ‘How does this contribute to your knowledge of start-up process?’ ‘How can you improve your chances of meeting your career goals?’ Although similar to Kolb’s experiential learning cycle and the articulated learning of Ash and Clayton (Kolb & Kolb, 1984; Ash & Clayton, 2004), these six questions are designed to address the issues of entrepreneurial intent and, therefore, are likely to influence graduate entrepreneurship. In essence, we contend that it is through the engagement of students’ reflexive process and the outcome of their learning that real entrepreneurial progress is achieved.

4 Methods

4.1 Data

Because students and educators are active participants in the reflexive process, they provide a particularly good context in which to explore transformative reflexivity. We relied on data from an enterprise creation third-year cohort enrolled on the BA business programme at the University of the West of Scotland and a small sample of enterprise educators. Our first data source grew out of an analysis of a first semester assignment which had the keeping of a journal as a key component. Students were required to critically consider their personal development needs and skills. An integral part of the learning process was for them to be reflexive in their actions, as the assessment element requires each student to write about their own personal development. The journals had a 3,000-word requirement.

Our data collection strategy evolved matching our theoretical understanding (Glaser & Straus, 1967). Moving across the submitted assignments, we located 16 submissions that fit our emerging definition of transformative reflexivity and proceeded to dedicate special attention to them. As our understanding of transformative reflexivity grew, we decided to increase our knowledge of learners who were not engaged in the reflexive process, and we included for a deeper study 2 submissions to our existing 16 samples.

Our second source of data collection consists of case studies initiated between 2019 and 2021 to investigate the contemporary phenomenon which exists between learners and educators. In explicating this, our choice of using a qualitative case study approach was to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life narratives using multiple sources of evidence pertaining to reflexive processes of learners and educators.

In essence the case study was used to complement the first data study. This enabled a much deeper understanding of how transformative reflexivity looks from the perspective of educators and learners being studied. Therefore, the cases allowed a range of similarities and contrasts and thereby added confidence to the findings of the study (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2014, p. 45).

The comparison of different cases provided for clearer conclusions in explaining the concept of transformative reflexivity. The point being that it is expedient to uncover how educators also make sense of their reflexive practice from a particular vantage point.

We began by approaching enterprise educators, and we relied on a purposive sampling, beginning with educators who had taught on the course and proceeded to invite those who had taught on other venture creation courses. The choice of adopting a purposive sampling fits perfectly within the frame of this study, as the logic behind our strategy for selecting cases was dependent on the needs of our emerging theory (Marshall & Rossman, 2014). Much of what we learned came from a comparison of findings from both data sources. For our interviews, the conversations were not recorded. So, our quotes in this study are a product of written notes captured during the interviews. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the educators and Table 2 an overview of the characteristics of leaners.

Table 1 Characteristics of educators
Full size table
Table 2 Characteristics of learners
Full size table

4.2 Analysis and Data Procedure

In examining learners and educator’s experiences about transformative reflexivity, we made effort to adopt the best approaches for data analysis. We structured our analysis according to established procedures for thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Our analysis was done at two levels. First, we focused on identifying reflexive descriptions from the students’ reflective diaries. We then examined the case studies of educators comparatively and coded the responses based on a series of simple typologies that emerged (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Baker & Nelson, 2005). An important aspect of the coding process involved the domains where the educators engaged in the reflexive process, supported by the coding from the students’ journals. Part of this process involved a within-case and cross-case synthesis of the evidence, as quotes were used to build evidence for the readership.

Following an iterative process, we were able to refine the themes before proceeding to undertake a second-order audit. We then compared the overall reflexive experience towards developing an overall reflexive narrative. This was useful in ensuring that the data collected was indicative of the true responses of the participants. The analysis focused more on the similarities rather than the differences across our findings. To a broader extent, this provided an opportunity for rich and valid data to support this study.

In presenting our results, we have relied on quotes from the interviews and selected examples from the journals to describe our findings. For our selected examples, we have chosen alphabets to introduce the educators involved and relied on indexed numbers for the learners.

5 Findings

Our qualitative data indicate that the standard reflexive questions were useful in capturing outcomes and opportunities relevant for the application of entrepreneurial knowledge. The structured questioning process provided an opportunity for both learners and educator to achieve a rich level of critical reflexivity (Ash & Clayton, 2004).

5.1 Entrepreneurial Awareness

From our empirical findings, there is evidence from the journals that the educators’ approach to teaching provided a rich sense of entrepreneurial awareness. We tried to evaluate the efficacy of this observation and identified this was a product of the educators’ ability to be reflexive on two of the standard questions: ‘was I able to convey the complexities about entrepreneurship to the students?’ and ‘what could I have done better in stimulating entrepreneurship among the students?’. Some of the below excerpts captured in the student’s journal are presented below:

Due to this course, I now have an overview of what it is to create a business. It has motivated me to create my own business. Now I know the work that is behind every business creation (Learner One)

This module was really useful for me. Indeed, I may be creating my own business sooner than expected and having courses on it will help me (Learner Two)

I have been able to develop new skills and attributes thanks to this module. I feel I am now able to run my own business. It was a concrete module that permits us to familiarise with the business world (Learner Three)

Indeed, it seems relevant that a fundamental element of transformative reflexivity is the educator’s need to recognise their individual teaching approach as a basis for the development of entrepreneurial teaching and learning strategy. Table 3 captures a range of selected feedback to buttress our findings.

Table 3 Illustrative reflective quotes demonstrating entrepreneurial awareness achieved from the course
Full size table

5.2 Learning Outcomes

One of the principal arguments advanced in this study is the achievement of entrepreneurial learning outcomes. The objective of learning outcomes across entrepreneurial courses is broadly the same: which is to encourage students to be more entrepreneurial. A key aspect of the transformative reflexivity process is a simple question that captures how an educator’s understanding of the learning outcomes is captured in the reflective process: ‘how can I ensure that learning outcomes have been achieved?’. This in turn is used as a guide to improving new teaching experiences. The following excerpts captures selected responses from the educators:

In my teaching, I am always conscious of what student should know, so I that don’t deviate in my explanation. This includes the skills and knowledge which should be acquired at the end of the class, course, and assessment. This is useful in ensuring that students understand why knowledge and skill is useful to their entrepreneurial capacity. (Case E)

I am careful about the topics to teach so that I can ensure an understanding that provides entrepreneurial coverage. Relevant topics are prioritised to ensure student understanding. (Case C)

Table 4 portrays more findings from the educators’ and learners’ interpretations of learning outcomes. Our method for summarising the relationship between our qualitative evidence builds on Sutton and Callahan (Omeihe, 2019) cross-site analysis developed by Miles and Hubermann (1994) for identifying similarities among data. The cross-site display in Table 4 was constructed to indicate evidence from their reflexive response. Here we have gone ahead to capture a combination of evidence that projects a good fit in teaching and learning approaches. This evidence is elaborated below.

Table 4 Cross-site display of evidence demonstrating reflection of entrepreneurial learning outcomes (ELO)
Full size table

5.3 Personal Development

Becoming an entrepreneur requires a time of rapid development. Good entrepreneurship courses have an orientation to support the development of students. This is supported by a careful creation of peer learning communities, mentoring and a good teaching delivery. Evidence from the students’ reflections indicated that the course was useful to their personal development. All the 16 students including the two students who had not engaged fully in the process reported that they had enhanced their personal development. Some of the key entrepreneurial development themes that emerged were confidence, application of new knowledge, creative and innovative skills and entrepreneurial intent and capacity. For the educators, a majority identified that students were always interested in challenges and had to be stimulated. Hence, students were recognised as fully engaged in the course delivery only if there is a vehicle for change and personal development. Table 5 provides an overview of illustrative quotes for personal development.

Table 5 Illustrative quotes for personal development
Full size table

5.4 Educators’ Perspective

From our empirical findings, there is evidence that entrepreneurship education is enhanced by a transformative reflexive process through which educators can critically analyse their approaches. In this vein, a reflect-evaluate-restrategise approach is undertaken to improve teaching and student engagement. This involves changing key aspects of teaching styles in a systematic way by drawing from evidence available to the teacher. A typical excerpt is provided by one of the respondents:

Teaching for me is a passion, however students seem not to enjoy my teaching. I tend to notice this through their levels of engagement, and this is not satisfying. I always go back home and try to be better the next day. I try to engage them more and try to seek their attention. It works most times for me, but I know I need more application (Case E)

The above evidence involves a self-induced reflexivity which enables the teacher to critically review aspects of one’s teaching. This ensures that such action supports the adjustment of teaching approaches through self-monitoring. The respondent refers to a reflexive cycle which aims at improving teaching approaches. Although much can be achieved through reflexivity, the empirical findings further point to the need for suitable learning activities which will shape the entrepreneurial mindset of the students.

When asked about the suitability of the intended learning outcomes, one of the respondents provided the below excerpt:

It is always important to go back to the drawing board. My approach is to ensure that I achieve the learning outcomes through my teaching approach. This includes providing unique learning activities to stimulate student development. (Case C)

Interestingly, the transformative reflexive process enhances the pedagogical message transmitted to the student. Here the educator ensures that tasks and activities are designed to support the development of student entrepreneurship. Crucially and within the students’ journals, we found that a major barrier to entrepreneurship teaching was a proficiency in this area. One of the respondents implied that proficiency was not only related to theory but also with the ability to have educators who have run their own businesses.

Quality entrepreneurship education was identified as ensuring student engagement, providing mentorship and stimulating the cognitive process of the students. Teaching delivery was essential, but more importantly, there is a need to stimulate class tasks and assessments. This should be based on real-life projects and evaluated by real entrepreneurs.

A typical excerpt indicated the role of group assessments and projects:

To bring the best from students with regards to entrepreneurship, demands good assessments and tasks. This should be based on real life projects and must be demanding in capturing key concepts of the business formation. Traditional individual class work and assessments are not enough. (Case D)

The above excerpt indicates the need for relevant assessments and class activities that provide support for improvement. Through this approach, students are tasked with taking ownership and control of their learning. Here, the obstacles faced while learning are confirmed as the educator is expected to keep track of teaching shortcomings with strategies for improvement.

6 Logics of Transformative Reflexivity Model

Based on the foregoing, our five-stage model (Figs. 1 and 2) existing at both levels (educator and learner) demonstrates how entrepreneurship teaching and learning are translated into reflections to serve as a guide for enhancing new experiences. As the model’s title indicates, the logics of transformative reflexivity affirm the essence of reflective introspections as a basis for new entrepreneurship teaching and learning action and an evaluation of the consequences.

Fig. 1
A five-level cyclic model begins with what was good or bad about my teaching. Was I able to convey entrepreneurship to my students? What could I have done better? How do I ensure learning outcomes have been achieved? And have I been able to transfer the knowledge and skills needed to start a business venture?

Educator-level transformative reflexivity

Full size image
Fig. 2
A 5-level spoke diagram includes what did you learn and how did you feel about it? What do the objectives mean and why are they important? How is this useful to your entrepreneurial development? How does this contribute to your knowledge of the startup process? And, how can you improve your chances of meeting your career goals?

Learner-level transformative reflexivity

Full size image

7 Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter has examined the experiences of educators and students as it relates to the structure of reflexivity. It is precisely the feature of transformative action that would explain how quality teaching can be imparted. While admitting its relevance, the chapter has contended that effective entrepreneurship education cannot fully stand out without an introspection of teaching and learning approaches.

In addressing entrepreneurship teaching approaches (research question one), the educators’ excerpts support an enacted transformative introspective approach to teaching and learning. As a matter of fact, the argument to be made in maximising opportunities indicates that the educator’s reflections should be shaped around a series of standardised questions that include firm commitments to enhancing teaching delivery.

Evidence seems to suggest that for this is to be possible, an appropriate set of learning activities should be in place to shape students’ entrepreneurial mindset. Indeed, evidence across the responses embraces the need for personal development and mentorship.

It must be pointed out that our findings were not dedicated to educators alone but learners inclusive. As is evident, one fact that needs to be given recognition is that intervention aimed at improving student learning is required. For example, students need to be guided along a set of structured reflexive process to create opportunities for learning enhancements. As a result, we have argued that capturing learning experiences supports the entrepreneurial process (Crammond et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2018), such that it emboldens students to take control of their learning. Indeed, the challenges on the part of the educator demand the need to recognise their teaching shortcomings, in the view of undertaking strategic improvements.

From a broader perspective, the potential usefulness of quantitative data would have limited the findings derived in this study. We recognise that using quantitative methods may not provide a rich understanding of the issues we seek to uncover. Unlike qualitative approaches that bring us closer to the research phenomenon, quantitative approaches are known to provide casual explanations and numerical measurements (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Omeihe, 2019). Thus, a qualitative study was considered applicable as it provided a rich understanding of transformative reflexivity in entrepreneurship education.

Its apparent that a potential weakness of our data may have to do with the sample size. It remains the case that plausible future studies could consider cross-institutional comparisons which include leaders of higher education.

To say that our contribution provides insights into approaches for enhancing quality entrepreneurial teaching and learning is not enough. We contend that entrepreneurship education demands creating a unique climate which encompasses holistic educators’ and learners’ reflexive practices. We believe this has a strong impact on entrepreneurship education.

In short, while some may see limitations to entrepreneurial learning from a student perspective, we argue that success expectation lies at the doorstep of the curriculum/programme design and approach. This presupposes an application of a set of introspections which educators must adhere to.

Ultimately, universities should seek to address the associated interventions needed to create an entrepreneurial culture. As such, the appeal of this study lies in the opportunity to probe the inner texture of adopted teaching and learning practices. Our chapter points that effective entrepreneurship education should incorporate transformative reflexivity for both educators and learners by allowing a scrutiny of their teaching and learning process.