Abstract
This paper presents the results from train-the-trainer workshop held for Tanzanian university faculty from four different universities. The aim of the workshop was to build entrepreneurial education capacity and competencies of local faculty. Findings from the workshop were planned to be integrated into the existing curricula of the universities together with activating and student-centred teaching methods. Main approaches were Problem based Learning and Design thinking.
This was the first workshop in a multi-year project with main intention and focus set on innovative and entrepreneurial education from the perspective of knowledge, skills and mindset.
The results show that participants of the workshop understood both at a general and at a context level how to add entrepreneurial practices and mindset to the natural sciences based curriculum. This was also the main aim of the workshop. Concerning educational content challenges there was more distribution among answers. Participants had different challenges concerning the topic. Process wise the practical and activating approach to the training was well understood and received. One of the main challenges was the question how to implement new approaches to the existing curricula.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Innovation
- Entrepreneurial education
- Design thinking
- Problem based Learning
- University curricula
- East Africa
1 Introduction
This paper presents the results from train-the-trainer workshop held for East African faculty from four different universities from Tanzania. The aim of the workshop was to work on learn together how adding entrepreneurial competencies could be integrated into the existing curricula of the universities and what kind activating and student-centred teaching methods could be used.
The title of the workshop was; “Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Education”. There were 12 participants, out of those 9 answered the survey, from junior faculty to professors with experience of department level management. All the participants were from natural sciences backgrounds mostly from either IT or Geography. Survey focused on knowledge base, quality of subject content, competencies and learnings from the workshop before and after. Workshop lasted for three full days and a half day. There were two coaches, both of whom are authors in this paper.
Looking through scientific silos or lingua academica underlying epistemological approach in training meant adding both pragmatic and social-constructivist worldviews to a typically positivistic, neo-, or post positivistic worldviews [1]. In practice it meant integrating activating teaching methods coupled with business approaches such as Problem based Learning, and Design thinking at the level of activities, processes, mind-set and methods [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Method wise the workshop consisted team based challenges and tasks that included ideation, need finding, and prototyping in a team and project based environment with open challenge settings. The program also included some business concept exercises and basics [2,3,4,5,6,7,8].
2 Methodology
For the most part the results were derived from the anonymous feedback survey that was disseminated after the workshop. It had both quantitative and qualitative parts. The quantitative data using Likert-scale was analysed using statistical tools and average was calculated [1]. The qualitative data was analysed thematically using thematic analysis and also ethnographic observation [1]. The analysis happened through first reading the open data several times, then finding different themes that emerged from the text and then coding the qualitative data based on those themes. The approach was close to thematic analysis method and had some elements from Grounded Theory Method as well [1].
3 Results and Discussion
The results show that the main aim of the workshop that is how to add entrepreneurial practices and mindset to the natural sciences based curriculum was well understood both at general and at context level. Concerning the challenges of the content there was distribution of the answers. Participants had different challenges concerning the topic. Process wise the practical and activating approach to the training was well understood and received. One of the main challenge found was the question how to implement new approaches to the existing curricula.
3.1 Relevance to Work and Understanding
As seen Table 1, in terms of workshop topic relevance to participants work the average was 4.7 out of 5.0. Participants were however somewhat confused about the content as the average for content coherence was only 3.9. This is a clear point that needs to be taken into consideration when planning for the iteration of the next workshop.
3.2 Gaining of Practical Skills
As seen Table 2, on an average 4.2 out of 5.0 felt that their theoretical knowledge about the topic had increased substantially and average 4.4 felt that their practical skills had increased substantially. Especially the increased practical skills can be seen as one of the main aims of the workshop. In Table 3 the respondents share their view on their theoretical and practical knowledge and skills in terms of the topic. As can be seen here the average 2.94, which is relatively low.
3.3 Most Important Learning and What Supported It
In Table 4 the respondents described the most important things that they learned during the workshop. Five persons answered that understanding the link between theory and practice was the most important one. Also understanding the importance of business was emphasized to some extent. In Table 5 this is taken into workshop material level in terms of how the material supported the learning. Here the fact that the respondents felt that they did not receive enough theoretical background is understandably as the workshop focused on experiential and Problem based Learning and practical processes and methods. Coaching team decided that learning theoretical background is something that the participants can learn by themselves.
4 Conclusion
It is important to understand that entrepreneurial education is not about giving answers or even paths and tools for solving them. It is about creating an environment for disruption where the learner is able to go through experiential cycles of learning and through that understanding the uniqueness of each context and situation. This creates a mind-set that enables innovation through testing. As the results show especially the set goals of the faculty learning practical skills and understanding the linkage between theory and practice were achieved. Although the duration of the workshop was four days it was still seen as too short. The future practical interventions and research will focus on furthering and deepening the approach of building-to-think, and going through experiential learning cycles in an actual open challenge setting utilizing different activating methods from lean management and design thinking. Given the setting of this study one of the future emphasis could be on grassroots innovations. Grassroots innovations is one of the foundational contexts for East Africa and it has an important role to play in creating sustainable development and reduces inequality. Inequality is a very common challenge in developing countries and reducing it is actually one of the sustainable development goals 2030. One of the main hypothesis for one track of future studies is that that education and especially entrepreneurial education with the help of technology can function as a bridge builder between grassroots and systemic innovation. The general situation in East Africa now, sees a lot of top down approaches to innovations and less of the bottom up. The idea is that adding entrepreneurial education to the university’s curricula will help students to empower themselves and empower others. Taking into account that everybody is creative and/or has the capacity to be creative, university graduates will be able to contribute into building an inclusive innovation ecosystem by emphasizing grassroots innovations.
References
Creswell, J.W.: Research Design - Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach, 3rd edn. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2009)
Savin-Baden, M.: Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham (2000). 126 and 124
Graaff, E., Kolmos, A.: Characteristics of problem-based learning. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 19(5), 657–662 (2003)
Edström, K., Kolmos, A.: PBL and CDIO: complementary models for engineering education development. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 39, 539–555 (2014)
Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Du, X., Thrane, M.: Problem-oriented and project-based learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 33(3), 283–295 (2008)
Kimbell, L.: Beyond design thinking: design-as-practice and designs-in-practice. In: CRESC (2009)
Kimbell, L.: Rethinking design thinking: part I. Des. Cult. 3(3), 285–306 (2011)
Kimbell, L.: Rethinking design thinking: part II. Des. Cult. 4(2), 129–148 (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Taajamaa, V., Nkonoki, E., Järvi, A., Hooli, L. (2019). Promoting Innovation by Adding Entrepreneurial Education to a Natural Sciences Curriculum-Case Tanzania. In: Tatnall, A., Mavengere, N. (eds) Sustainable ICT, Education and Learning. SUZA 2019. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 564. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28764-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28764-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28763-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28764-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)