Learning Style and Entrepreneurial Tendency: Analysis of Entrepreneurial Tendency with Learning Style for Non-Business Students
Wen-Hao Huang, Ph.D MBA
Jeong Hwan Choi, MBA
Sun Joo Yoo
Human Resource Education
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
351 Education, 1310 South Sixth Street
Tel.) 217 333-0807
Dec. 01, 2007
ABSTRACT
This exploratory study investigated the relationship between learners’ learning styles and entrepreneurial tendencies. By understanding such relationship, entrepreneurship educators would be able to customize learning environments that compliment learners’ learning styles while developing their entrepreneurship. The study used Gregorc Style Delinear (GSD) to measure learning styles and General Enterprising Test (GET) to assess entrepreneurial tendency. The results, based on 91 participants’ data, suggested significant positive and negative correlations between certain learning styles and entrepreneurial tendency. For instance, Concrete-Sequential learners are more likely to have higher tendency in Needs for Achievement (from GET). The implication of this study suggested an empirical approach to design pedagogically sound entrepreneurship education programs. The alignment between educational interventions for developing certain aspects of entrepreneurial tendency and learning styles is crucial.
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship is very important to sustain innovative activities which provide economic vitality of an organization as well as a country, which is a mindset of taking risk, searching for opportunities, capitalizing on creative ideas, and practicing systematic innovations (Lee, 2005), where innovation is defined as the successful development or commercialization of new products, services, and business systems (Lee, 1999). Such entrepreneurial activities are crucial to provide sustainable and competitive advantages to organizations or society and individuals need to have strong entrepreneurial tendency in order to successfully carry out innovative initiatives (Cromie, & Callaghan, 1997).
By realizing the importance of developing sustainable entrepreneurship within organizations, many business organizations and educational institutes have established entrepreneurship development programs for their employees and students. The pedagogical effects of such entrepreneurship education programs, however, remain ambiguous and unexplored. To initiate this inquiry we first and foremost need to identify the role of learning styles in the process of developing entrepreneurship intended by entrepreneurship education programs; and we also need to take learners’ entrepreneurial tendency into account. Thus educators and HRD practitioners can customize the design of entrepreneurship education programs to accommodate different learning styles and various levels of entrepreneurial tendency, in order to enhance the learning outcome.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Many researchers have attempted to measure entrepreneurship (Engle, 1997; Hazeldine, 2007) by applying entrepreneurial orientation (EO), Intrapreneurship Assessment Instrument, Conceptualized Perspective of Entrepreneurship (CE), Kirton’s Adoption-innovation Inventory (KAI), and Rotter’s locus of control scale (LOC). Durham University Business School (1988) developed the General Enterprising Test (GET) with five key characteristics: need for achievement, locus of control, need for autonomy, creative tendency, and moderate/calculated risk taking. Although these instruments have suggested that entrepreneurial tendency is measurable and could be indicative for entrepreneurship development (Cromie & Jansen, 1992), the link between entrepreneurial tendency and how to effectively scaffold desired learning process in entrepreneurship education, however, is still missing. In other words, we still do not know how to design learning environments in entrepreneurship education that compliment learners’ entrepreneurial tendency.
To establish the missing link, first, we must understand the implications of learning styles in designing learning environments for entrepreneurship education. Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD has been widely used to measure learning styles (Drysdale, 2001; Orr, 1999, Ross, 1999, 2002). Ross (1999; 2002) suggested that different learning styles might induce different levels of performance in computer-aided instructions implying the feasibility of customizing educational interventions according to learners’ learning styles, to enhance the learning experience. In the context of entrepreneurship education, Loebler (2006) suggested that entrepreneurship education should be designed via (1) Transmission approach (e.g., conventional lecturing) and (2) Constructivist approach (e.g., focusing on developing learners’ proactive learning through experiential learning). Entrepreneurship educators should provide entrepreneurial learning environments for learners to cultivate autonomy, self-reliance, independent thinking and self-governing ability (Loebler, 2006). For example, Kilbane, Theroux, Sulej, Bisson, Hay, & Boyer (2004) reported the effectiveness of Real-Time Case Method (RTCM) in teaching business school students about innovative thinking in entrepreneurship. The students dealt with real cases in real-time by working with real companies to generate innovative business solutions. By using advanced Information Technology, RTCM successfully created an interactive and constructivist learning environment to improve the teaching and learning process in entrepreneurial education.
Second, we must consider the entrepreneurial tendency when designing supportive learning environments. For example, if students have low tendency of need for achievement (from GET), the learning environments ought to provide more opportunities to develop that particular tendency. Such opportunities, however, might not align with students’ learning styles hence impedes the entrepreneurship development process.
Therefore the purpose of the study is to empirically investigate the relationship between different learning styles and entrepreneurial tendency. So that entrepreneurship educators can customize the learning environments to reinforce such relationships, to facilitate the process of entrepreneurship development.
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Fall 2006 in a public Midwestern university in the U.S. Correlation analyses were conducted to identify the relationships between two sets of survey data from 91 participants with non-business majors (e.g., education, science, etc.). All data were collected via voluntary participations by a web-based survey interface.
For the first survey data set Gregorc Style Delineator was applied to measure participants’ learning styles. Participants answered ten ranking questions and the results is categorize into four different learning styles. See Table 1.
Durham Business School’s General Enterprising Tendency (GET) (CITATION) was used to identify the entrepreneurial tendency as the second survey data set. The GET has 54 explanatory questions and test takers answer with Yes or No. By synthesizing the results, five different sections can be assessed. See Table 2.
On the other hand, Gregorc Style Delineator is applied to assess the different learning style. Ten ranking questions are handed on to participants and the results are synthesized to categorize into four different learning styles. Table 2 shows the style comparison.
The survey questions were delivered to undergraduate education department students at a mid-west university through internet and the total responses were 91.
RESULTS
According to Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD), 91 participants learning styles are identified as Figure 1.
Figure
Table 13.
Statistical Analysis
of Learning Style
Learning Style |
CS |
AS |
AR |
CR |
Binomial |
Total |
Number of Participants |
31 |
7 |
28 |
14 |
|
91 |
Percentage |
34 % |
8 % |
31 % |
19 % |
12 % |
100 % |
Figure
Table
24.
Descriptive Statistical
Analysis of Entrepreneurial Tendency
Entrepreneurial Tendency |
N |
Min. |
Max. |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
Suggested
Mean |
Section1 (Need for achievement) |
91 |
4.0 |
11.0 |
7.9 |
1.37 |
9.0 |
Section2 (Need for autonomy/independence) |
91 |
1.0 |
6.0 |
3.5 |
1.21 |
4.0 |
Section3 (Creative tendency) |
91 |
2.0 |
12.0 |
7.6 |
1.98 |
8.0 |
Section4 (Moderate/calculated risk taking) |
91 |
2.0 |
11.0 |
7.2 |
1.82 |
8.0 |
Section5 (Drive and determination) |
91 |
1.0 |
11.0 |
5.6 |
1.60 |
8.0 |
Figure 2 shows the statistical analysis results for Entrepreneurial Tendency in accordance with the Durham GET Test. Comparing with the original average score for each section shown in Table 1, we can say that the group’s entrepreneurial tendencies are lower than the suggested mean. Especially Section 1 (Need for achievement), and Section 5 (Drive and determination) are significantly lower than the average, which can be interpreted that the group have little characteristics in achievement and drive/determination.
Correlation analysis of entrepreneurial tendency (GET), learning style (GSD) and entrepreneurial willingness is conducted and the results are shown in Figure 3. CS style is positively correlated with entrepreneurial tendency in particular drive and determination characteristic (Section 5) is significantly correlated with CS style. However, CR style is negatively correlated with entrepreneurial tendency. It is also significantly correlated with Section 5. The willingness to be entrepreneur is the answer from participants about the question “Would you like to have your own business someday in the future.” And it is negatively related with AS style.
Table 5.
Correlation Analysis of Entrepreneurial
Tendency (GET) and Learning
Style (GSD)
|
|
Section1 |
Section2 |
Section3 |
Section4 |
Section5 |
CS |
AS |
AR |
CR |
S1_Need for
achievement |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.028 |
.225(**) |
.320(***) |
.259(**) |
.189 (*) |
-.083 |
.063 |
-.178 (*) |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.790 |
.032 |
.002 |
.013 |
.072 |
.433 |
.553 |
.092 |
S2_Need for
autonomy/independence |
Pearson Correlation |
|
1 |
.091 |
.139 |
-.006 |
.132 |
.045 |
-.047 |
-.143 |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
.392 |
.190 |
.954 |
.213 |
.675 |
.660 |
.176 |
S3_Creative tendency |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
1 |
.180 |
.222(**) |
.192 (*) |
-.001 |
-.159 |
-.053 |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
.087 |
.035 |
.068 |
.995 |
.132 |
.619 |
S4_Moderate/calculated
risk taking |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
1 |
.391(***) |
.147 |
-.057 |
.079 |
-.184 (*) |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
.000 |
.163 |
.589 |
.458 |
.080 |
S5_Drive and
determination |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
1 |
.212(**) |
.175(*) |
-.111 |
-.256(**) |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
.044 |
.096 |
.297 |
.014 |
CS Practical |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
.157 |
-.525(***) |
-.635(***) |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.137 |
.000 |
.000 |
AS Probable |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
-.507(***) |
-.479(***) |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.000 |
.000 |
AR Potential |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
.015 |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.889 |
CR Possible |
Pearson Correlation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Correlation
is significant at the 0.1
level (2-tailed).
**Correlation
is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed).
***Correlation
is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
discussion
As we discussed in results, entrepreneurial
tendency is related with learning style. We can interpret the results that CS
style students who are practical and focus on material reality have strong
entrepreneurial tendency to achieve their visionary goals. But CR style
students who have strong sense of ego and focus on process have negative minds
to be entrepreneurs for their concern of risk. The negative relationship
between AS style and willingness to be entrepreneur can be translated that AS
style students didn’t show their true tendency for their hedging of complexity.
When we started this research we hoped to
answer the question “What is the best ‘optimizing educational interventions’
for each different learning style to promote entrepreneurship” and our results
shows the seed of possibility for developing a optimal educational
interventions for promoting entrepreneurship. If we can identify a group’s
learning style, we can supply the matched effective learning environment to
improve the educational performances. On the other hand, if we can apply the
educational technology with individual computer system by implementing
e-learning system, we can improve entrepreneurial education performance by
using individually adaptive educational contents. As shown in Table 3, each
different style students have their own preferable media, teaching methods and
practices. As we already showed in our research, learning style is related with
entrepreneurial tendency. Then we can hypothesize that if we can provide
optimal environments and contents in accordance with different learning style,
we can conduct a more effective entrepreneurial education.
Table 1 General Enterprising Tendency (GET) Test Assessment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source:
The Durham Business School General Enterprising Tendency (GET) Test, © Small Enterprise Development Unit – Durham Business School, 2003
Table 2 Style Comparison by Grogorc Style Delineator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source:
Greogrc Style Delineator, Gregorc Associates, Inc.
Table 3 Learning Styles & Preferences of Media, Teaching Methods and
Practices
Gregorc Style Delineator |
Concrete Sequential (CS) |
Concrete Random (CR) |
Abstract Sequential (AS) |
Abstract Random (AR) |
Preference |
Deriving information through direct, hands-on experience. Touchable,
concrete materials |
Experimental, trial-and-error attitude, Flashes of insight |
Strong skills in working with written and verbal symbols. Grasp concepts
and ideas vicariously |
Receive information in an unstructured manner and like group discussions
and multi-sensory experiences |
Methods |
Workbooks, Demonstration teaching, programmed instruction, Well-organized
field trips, Practical orientation |
Games, Simulations, Independent study projects, problem-solving
activities, optional assignments |
Reading and listening, Rational presentations given by authorities |
Medium movie, group discussion, question-and-answer sessions, and
television |
Media, Teaching methods and practices |
l
Workbooks l
Handouts l
Drill l
Demonstrations l
Results orientations l
Practical lessons l
Hands-on practice l
Projects l
Models l
Manuals l
Step-by-step directions l
Programmed instruction l
Orderly classroom l
Orderly lab l
Direct application problems l
Computer-aided information |
l
Experiments l
Simulations l
Mini-lectures l
Critical issues l
Interactive video l
Problem-solving curriculum l
Independent study l
Computer and other games l
Trial and error discovery l
Optional reading assignments l
Invent new ways of doing things l
Stress challenges and probing questions l
Insist students think for themselves |
l
Lecture l
Textbooks l
Audiotapes l
Documented evidence l
Study carrels l
Likes scope & sequence l
Evaluate by formal testing l
Intellectual debate l
Guide individual study l
Likes long-range plans l
Teach from a base of content expertise l
Supplemental reading assignment l
Develop blueprint from an idea to visualize final
produce |
l
Group discussion l
Use media l
Flexible with time demands l
Personalized classes l
Concerned with mood of class l
Use thematic approach to content l
Create aesthetic or interpretative products l
Assign group rather than individual activities |
Source: 1) Claxton, Charles, S; Murrell, Pratricia H. (1987). Learning
styles: Implication for improving educational practices
2) Butler, T. J. & Pinto-zipp, G. (2006). Students’ learning styles and
their preferences for online instructional methods, Journal of educational
technology systems, 34(2), p. 199-221
'Theory and Practice of Leadership > 4.Entrepreneurship' 카테고리의 다른 글
대한민국헌법 22조와 과학기술자-김준효 (0) | 2010.07.12 |
---|---|
Human Resource Development for International Scientists & Engineers (0) | 2008.08.13 |
댓글