Abstract
(Self-)reflection is an increasingly utilised pedagogy in entrepreneurship education. This chapter conceptualises reflection as it pertains to education about, for and through entrepreneurship. It provides a review of the empirical literature, identifies some of the issues for student learning through reflection and introduces new perspectives on the role and requirements of the educator as they seek to create suitable environments for reflection – both for teaching and assessment.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
(Self-)reflection is an important and often-used approach in entrepreneurship education (EE). It is specifically mentioned in the ‘EntreComp framework’ (Bacigalupo et al., 2016) and its accompanying practical guide, the EntreComp playbook (Bacigalupo et al., 2020), as one of the nine principles of EE. The significance of this framework is in its high rate of adoption across Europe and the UK as a standard for entrepreneurial competence. The authors emphasise the need to ‘fail, reflect and recover’, as a crucial step in the learning process. This latter role of reflection, as a type of metacognition, is well established in the paradigm of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984).
-
As an educator you can put emphasis on reflection, by embedding iterative cycles of discovery, ideation and testing in the process but also by asking learners (individually or in groups) to reflect upon their learning experience. They can do it in writing or orally. When they perform such a self-reflection exercise, their learning outcomes become apparent, in turn contributing to increased self-efficacy, which is one of the EntreComp competences.
-
Entry from EntreComp playbook, (Bacigalupo et al., 2020, p. 17)
While reflection has been an often-discussed issue in the scientific discourse on management education (Reynolds, 1998, 1999; Cunliffe, 2004; Gray, 2007) and its importance for EE is emphasised (Bacigalupo et al., 2016; Kassean et al., 2015), its conceptual basis, also in the light of increasing digitalisation, is not yet clear.
In this chapter, we will first conceptualise reflection with reference to different epistemic traditions, leading to distinct theoretical strands (for a review see Mann et al., 2009). Second, the barriers to reflection processes in EE will be discussed. In this regard, the role of educators in EE is also considered. Third, we will examine how digitalisation changes our conceptions of EE.
The goal of the chapter is to provide a sound theoretical and practical basis for incorporating reflection into EE which should enable readers to make informed decisions about their own practice.
2 The Role of Reflection Approaches in Entrepreneurship Education
Different epistemic traditions conceptualise reflection in distinct theoretical strands (for a review see Mann et al., 2009). For instance, several theoretical approaches have developed from Dewey’s (1997) pragmatist philosophy. There, reflection is conceived as a mode of dealing with practical situations and is regarded as a cognitive process, i.e. a mode of thinking. Accordingly, when a practical problem, such as the founding of an enterprise, occurs, the entrepreneur’s current observations are linked with theoretical knowledge and – if available – experience (Dewey, 1997). The pragmatist tradition of reflective thinking has been widely adopted by entrepreneurship scholars. Most prominently, Schön based his concept of ‘reflective practice’ (Schön, 1983) directly on Dewey (Schön, 1992).
In Schön’s conceptualisation, reflective practice is about developing a specific way of approaching and solving practical problems. In this definition, ‘practice’ is the key element; Schön’s concept was originally conceived as the cognitive link between problems encountered in exercise of a profession or activity, the scientific knowledge relevant for solving these problems and the mode(s) in which this knowledge can be applied. Accordingly, Schön’s concept can be directly transferred to the entrepreneurial process where it is crucial to apply scientific or theoretical knowledge not only to generate the idea for one’s enterprise but also to apply management knowledge and skills to successfully found the start-up. In EE, the concept of reflection as a way to solve a problem is well established – reflection is a way of reasoning through complicated or complex situations, rather than simple or predictable ones for which a correct answer can be known (Van Beurden et al., 2013; Moon, 2001). Furthermore, when it comes to the more complex lifeworld of the entrepreneur, self-reflection is also a valid way of overcoming the emotional and resilience burdens of practical entrepreneurship which are often connected to intense emotions (Gallos, 2012; Huxtable-Thomas et al., 2016). The entrepreneur must often lead and be confident in their actions, relying on their own self-efficacy to deliver change, in an inherently novel and uncertain situation. Self-reflection provides an opportunity for learning from this process to prevent making the same mistake twice.
However, reflective practice is more than developing automatic routines and simply implementing theoretical concepts in complex situations. Instead, to become a truly reflective entrepreneur, it is necessary to cultivate a constant ‘back and forth’ between the current problem the founders of an enterprise are facing in practice, the emotional and cognitive reactions (including unconscious biases) that these stimulate and the abstract theories, models or concepts of entrepreneurship they act upon (Schön, 1992; Gibbs, 1988). Consequently, reflective entrepreneurs need to constantly (a) test their own assumptions about how practice works, (b) try to understand why certain processes or actions do or do not work and (c) analyse why their own theories and assumptions about entrepreneurial practice are (not) viable.
With reflection on action and reflection in action, Schön (1983) proposes two reflective modes that can also be applied to entrepreneurship (e.g. Lahn & Erikson, 2016): reflection on action looks at entrepreneurial processes in retrospect, encompasses an appraisal of how a situation has been handled and has an evaluative quality. In contrast, reflection in action takes place within the situation and during action. Reflection in action involves actively invoking experiences, feelings and assumptions during a situation as it unfolds in order to create new ways of understanding and interacting. This proactive form of reflection is fundamentally different from simply ‘applying’ professional theories and models. Applying a known concept or theory is usually a result of planned behaviour, based on anticipating an outcome and imagining the potential barriers to it. This simple application differs from reflection in action as the latter involves questioning and adapting the prior conceptual understanding during the moment of a particular entrepreneurial challenge. When undertaking reflection in action, the entrepreneur is neither dwelling on a past action nor planning a future one but instead utilising their knowledge of different theoretical lenses and past experiences to assess and appraise the entrepreneurial situation as it happens in order to decide how to act (Schön, 1992).
Accordingly, the reflective practitioner recognises an unexpected or surprising situation and tries to grasp it by referring to a behavioural repertoire of examples, situations and actions he or she has used before (reflection in action). However, Schön (1983) emphasises that many practical problems cannot be solved by only referring to the existing repertoire of actions but need a novel combination of existing knowledge or the development of new problem solutions. Reflective practitioners, thus, possess strategies to enhance their repertoire to react adequately to such unexpected situations. This helps them to challenge assumptions and avoid mental fixations and cognitive biases that often lead to improper strategic decisions in business environments (Larrivee, 2008; Mahon & O’Neill, 2020).
It can be argued that both kinds of reflection are necessary to build and expand upon a person’s behavioural repertoire: reflecting in action enables practitioners to realise when their actions are inadequate and when their behavioural repertoire is insufficient. Reflection on action takes place after an unexpected situation. It involves a careful and systematic analysis aiming at understanding why the person chose to act as he or she did, to evaluate this reaction and to develop strategies for similar upcoming situations. Thus, reflection on action adds insights and action strategies to the behavioural repertoire.
In sum, reflective practice is a way of thinking, i.e. a specific intellectual method or tool to avoid potentially harmful thinking such as cognitive biases (Thomas, 2018) or post hoc fallacies. It does not, however, propose a specific attitude or stance towards the object of reflection. Other approaches stress the critical element of reflection (Cunliffe, 2004; Athanassiou et al., 2003; Dehler, 2009; Heijltjes et al., 2014). In contrast to reflective practice, critical reflection explicitly aims to question current attitudes, perceptions and practices (Reynolds, 1998). Critical reflection has its roots in critical theory (Habermas, 1983), thus aiming to realise, understand and possibly change dominant power structures.
With regard to empirically measuring students’ reflection, both reflective practices as well as critical reflection are ill-defined concepts (Kember et al., 2008). In particular, common concepts of reflection fail to identify discernible characteristics or indicators of reflection. For instance, for critical reflection, authors often refer to critical theory without further distinguishing the characteristics of such critical reflection process. If they become more concrete, the descriptions remain rather abstract with examples such as knowledge, power and reflexivity (Fook & Askeland, 2006). More concrete characteristics are necessary to distinguish reflective from less or non-reflective action and, ultimately, to operationalise it into observable measures. To develop a survey instrument measuring the quality of student reflection, Kember et al. (2000) combined the pragmatist tradition with the concept of critical reflection. This resulted in four reflection ‘levels’, which, in accordance with Mezirow (1991, 1997), are termed ‘habitual action’, ‘understanding’, ‘reflection’ and ‘critical reflection’ (Kember et al., 2000, p. 383–385). Habitual action refers to automated processes that happen without deliberate thinking. Called ‘knowing in action’ by Schön (1983), this often refers to much practiced routines, e.g. accounting procedures. Understanding is defined as an ‘academic type of learning in which the student might reach an understanding of a concept without reflecting upon its significance in personal or practical situations’ (Kember et al., 2000, p. 384). Understanding is regarded as pre-reflective as this level of thinking is rather idiosyncratic and not related to real-world circumstances. In practice, this behaviour occurs, e.g. when management principles such as shareholder value are applied without regarding its consequences for a firm’s other stakeholders. Reflection captures the core of Dewey’s (1997) ‘reflective thought’ which defines reflection as an ‘active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends’ (Dewey, 1997, p. 6). In contrast to understanding, reflective thinking tests if a concept is valid and adequate for a concrete situation. Consequently, knowledge is not regarded as idiosyncratic but needs to be tested in real-world settings using logical reasoning. This may lead a person to change her/his ‘point of view’ (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5) regarding hitherto espoused concepts and practices. Critical reflection contains an element of deliberate scepticism and an intention to change current circumstances. The aim of critical reflection is to change a person’s ‘habits of mind’ (Mezirow, 1997, p. 5), i.e. to question one’s basic assumptions, norms and values. For example, in entrepreneurial contexts, critical reflection may be targeted at an entrepreneur’s personal and business goals, balancing different kinds of values to be generated.
3 Why Is Reflection in Entrepreneurship Education So Difficult?
Reflection first appeared in the EE literature in the early twenty-first century. While it has not been possible to pinpoint the exact first use, the context is clear. The early 2000s saw a shift from the economic and theoretical view of EE towards a more pragmatic and applied view. This came at a time when work by Shepherd (2003) focussed on the emotional burdens of entrepreneurship; Hannon’s (2005) work on the philosophical underpinnings of EE highlights the role of both reflection and the concepts of learning ‘about, for or through’ entrepreneurship; and Sarasvathy (2001) introduced effectuation. In general, the realm of EE was moving away from learning ‘about’ entrepreneurship as a theoretical endeavour to be planned and predicted, towards a more immersive process to be felt and experienced (learning ‘through’ entrepreneurship) (Kakouris & Liargovas, 2021). Hence, the need for reflection as a component in the nascent entrepreneur’s toolkit was soon recognised. Initially identified as part of the ‘radical’ educational philosophy (Hannon, 2005), reflection soon became a standard expectation in EE (Bacigalupo et al., 2020; Kassean et al., 2015; Neck & Greene, 2011). While reflection on action may well be an effective cognitive process to learn from experiencing entrepreneurial failure as per the ‘Kolb cycle’ (Vince, 1998), the research that verifies this logic is still in the early stages. What has been published suggests that reflection usually occurs during the slow, creeping death of a firm, not in the ‘fail fast’ method that is advocated in higher education. In that context, individual or groups of learners are encouraged to start enterprises as fast as possible with the understanding that they will learn from their mistakes. Often, this comes with the expectation that the enterprise will not survive. Successful learning from failure has been observed as something that happens in a team or dyad, rather than isolated to individual introspection (Shepherd et al., 2016; Cope, 2003).
Nevertheless, it is still rather unclear what supports and hinders reflection. We will discuss this question further by reviewing the empirical evidence regarding antecedents and challenges of students’ reflection. Since literature on the particular challenges of reflection in EE is scarce, we include literature from other domains and transfer it to the domain of entrepreneurship.
Overall, evidence shows that students often do not meet the expected levels of reflective capabilities (Boud & Walker, 1998). While there are many suggestions about pedagogies which can foster student reflection, little is known about specific antecedents of different levels of reflection. In particular, we found hardly any research that explicitly distinguishes between different types of antecedents such as personal (e.g. cognitive capability, motivation, attitudes) and contextual (e.g. pedagogies, instructor characteristics) aspects.
As higher levels of reflection (in the sense of Kember et al., 2000) are positively correlated with students’ learning outcomes (Peltier et al., 2005), it is important to find out what supports students to reach critical reflection. Both instructor-to-student interactions and student-to-student interactions are supportive if they encourage students to raise doubts about the subject matter, critique and discuss (Peltier et al., 2005).
Findings from other disciplines, primarily medical education, teacher education and social work, show that students tend to have misconceptions about the purpose of reflection. This negatively affects students’ attitudes towards reflection (Beveridge et al., 2013). In educational contexts, it is also often unclear for students what expectations are related with reflection tasks (Dyment & O’Connell, 2010, 2011). This leads to superficial and impersonal reflection processes. In this context, it is also problematic when students consider reflection only as an academic exercise rather than a way of developing practice (Duke & Appleton, 2000). Some students have concerns about reflection because they involve their feelings. In the same vein, they have the impression that they are required to write and talk about things which they are unsure about (Platzer et al., 2000). Reflection under these conditions seems unprofessional and not academic to them, and this contradicts Bacigalupo et al.’s (2020) assertion that reflection enhances self-efficacy.
Additionally, a lack of trust in the lecturer hinders reflection (Dyment & O’Connell, 2010; Dyment & O’Connell, 2011). In this regard, it is also important to note that students whose reflection is assessed are driven to write to the assessment criteria rather than being honest or questioning their own thoughts and practices (Maloney et al., 2013).
In summary, students generally seem to be unsure what they are expected to do when they are supposed to reflect. Various studies found that uncertainty about reflection tasks results in negative emotions towards reflection. To tackle the challenge of developing students’ capabilities for reflection, some studies tested pedagogies to enhance students’ reflection. The most common interventions encompass reflective writing tasks, for instance, journaling (Cunliffe, 2004; Pavlovich et al., 2009), case studies (Rendtorff, 2015) or guided internships (Schön, 1987; Carson & Fischer, 2006).
A further underlying issue that needs to be addressed is the lack of educator competence or purpose in teaching reflection. It might be assumed that educators should be able to teach reflection for two reasons: the first is that reflection is a useful tool in enhancing lifelong learning and criticality (Bharuthram, 2018), and several authors have written at length about how to teach reflection (Bharuthram, 2018; Ryan, 2012, 2013; Smith, 2011). Second, reflection is familiar to educators because it is widely used in teacher education (Moate et al., 2019; Clarà et al., 2019). In one conceptualisation, reflection is a way to undercover values and preconceptions, contrast them with an ‘ideal’ and develop new perspectives (Alsina & Mulà, 2019). In another, reflection (on action) is a way of ‘ – evolving to a virtual simulated classroom, where reflection in action is used to respond to potential difficult learner behaviours’ (McGarr, 2021, p. 17). The conclusion that can be made from the wide range of research into reflection as a pedagogy for teacher education demonstrates that an educator’s experience of reflection is learned for a specific purpose. This purpose is to reflect on their own experiences in order to enhance their teaching practice. Therefore, it appears that while many educators learn through reflection, educators are rarely taught how to teach reflection, and as a result, they are often unaware of the ways in which reflection can be used to enhance learning in technical subjects outside of education. This subtle gap might explain issues identified above, such as reflection being assessed inadequately or reflection being used instead of similar but more suitable methods such as autobiographical analysis or participative observation.
Another challenge for educators is how and why to use reflection in assessment. On the one hand, it can be argued that the pedagogy of reflection requires constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2015). This means that reflection needs to be matched by a learning outcome of ‘reflective skill’ and ‘improved practice or performance’. In consequences, this must be matched to an assessment on the quality of a learner’s reflection on their own practice. On the other hand, any attempt to assess the practice of others or the intention to utilise specific theory or knowledge is not suitably assessed through reflection but instead through other methods such as narrative inquiry or observation journals. This is not specific to EE but is certainly a challenge that entrepreneurship educators need to address: it is relatively easy to set reflection as an assignment in order to measure a learning outcome of entrepreneurial practice, but only if the marking criteria are related to the quality, depth and understanding of reflection in and on practice, rather than on the factors of success or failure of the entrepreneurial endeavour (as is often the case). This overcomes Maloney et al.’s (2013) issue of students failing to reflect because they are instead writing to address only the marking criteria. This is because constructively aligned assessment criteria for reflection must include honesty, questioning personal practice and noting routes to improvement (Biggs & Tang, 2015).
A further enhancement to the practice of reflection could be for lecturers to understand why reflection is a suitable method for teaching and/or assessment of entrepreneurship practice. As noted by Van Beveren et al. (2018), the reasons that educators utilise (critical) reflection are diverse and sometimes contradictory. That research identified educators were using reflection to teach everything from personal awareness to aiding in social transformation as well as a critical tool with which to analyse received wisdom. This diversity suggests that reflection is a flexible tool but also that it is open to appropriation to support dominant professional or epistemological approaches. Within EE it has become a norm that is now rarely questioned.
To overcome this, an understanding of why reflection is being used to enhance teaching is needed. Reflection was first introduced to the education pedagogy as one of many stages in an experiential learning process (Steinaker & Bell, 1979) or cycle (Vince & Reynolds, 2009) based on the established cognitive theory of experiential learning. Reflection is a conscious and self-evaluative method of internalising and creating meaning from an experience and is followed by a process of dissemination or abstract conceptualisation. Therefore, the educational experience needs to be accompanied by these precursors (experiences) and subsequent actions or intentions. Further, as stated by Lynch et al. (2021), reflection is a way of overcoming cognitive overload among entrepreneurship students.
4 Implications for an Increasingly Digital Entrepreneurship Education
When looking into digital entrepreneurship education (EE), we need to first ask whether all forms of EE, i.e. teaching about, for and through entrepreneurship, are similarly feasible for digital teaching and learning. At first glance, one might argue that teaching about entrepreneurship is easily transferable to the digital world since we can easily transfer the rather teacher-centric mode of teaching about entrepreneurship (Lackéus, 2015). When looking into the characteristics of teaching for entrepreneurship, e.g. practical business tools, case studies, mentoring and on-site visits (e.g. (Kakouris & Liargovas, 2021)), transferring this part to an online mode of teaching seems to be more challenging. However, with the increase of improved options by simulation providers (Liguori & Winkler, 2020) and the potential of establishing regular small-group or 1:1 mentoring sessions online, teaching for entrepreneurship seems also possible online. So what about teaching through entrepreneurship? At first glance, this seems to be impossible to move online. However, there are at least two possibilities to rethink EE through entrepreneurship: first of all, business ideas are increasingly resulting from digitalisation processes (e.g. Finkle & Olsen, 2019), and the world of working is becoming more digital. Accordingly, founding an enterprise has for many entrepreneurs become a purely digital/online endeavour. Furthermore, if the business is not online, there is also the option to start the business offline and to accompany this process through digital education. This would result in a hybrid variant of teaching through entrepreneurship with the reflection of the knowledge and skills development to be moved online. This online aspect may afford learners the ‘arm’s length’ conditions that enable them to be honest and deeply reflective, in a way that might overcome some of the issues of trust or self-confidence previously mentioned, as noted by Beveridge et al. (2013) and Peltier et al. (2005).
In this regard, the move to increasingly digital education also provides an opportunity to improve the practice and purpose of reflection. These come in three areas:
The first is because there are more accessible experiences to reflect upon through digital and virtual interaction. E-commerce and drop shipping provide opportunities for simple and low-cost introductions to entrepreneurship practice which were not possible previously. Second, the proliferation of digital tools and more apps, like Loopme.io and SimplyIdeas, which help structure reflections through the process of experience (Lackéus & Westerberg, n.d.), as well as more mainstream journaling and reflection apps like Reflect, Reflectly, InnerHour and Questions Diary, improve the familiarity and practice of reflection by providing guided templates for learners. The increased mainstreaming of virtual learning environments has provided an opportunity to utilise these tools in an authentic way which promotes lifelong reflective ‘practice’.
Last, online formats improve possibilities for collaboration and networking both among students and between students and educators. Providing this collaborative space for reflection not only affords an arm’s length ‘safe’ space for feedback from educators and peers on the depth and quality of their reflection but also promotes the practice of action learning (Byrne et al., 2016) itself a valuable workplace tool for entrepreneurs and leaders.
5 Conclusion and Recommendations for Practice
There is an acceptance in the academe that reflection can, and should, be practiced during the teaching process; both as a way of improving learning outcomes but also as a useful tool to aid [entrepreneurial] resilience later in life. The literature reviewed suggests that there is great potential for reflective practice in EE; today’s increasingly digital education environment provides a new context in which further research should investigate the supposition that entrepreneurship can be practiced more easily and with relatively few resources – through online retail, sales and services. In turn, digital tools have been created which allow assessment of the change in entrepreneurial mindset and practical skills, through the guided reflective practices available using different applications (see above).
However, the literature also confirms that the issues of introducing reflection to education as a whole have not yet been overcome. In part, this can be attributed to a lack of understanding about the conceptualisation of reflection itself as a way of ‘reasoning’ and coping with fast moving, complex decisions. Instead, reflection has been utilised as a ‘pedagogy’, a way of ‘teaching’ and promoting independent learning. It appears that the right tool is being used for the wrong purpose. This can explain some of the issues faced by teachers and learners alike, such as, failing to include the emotional component in the reflection and its assessment.
The outcomes of empirical studies suggest that the methods and skills to operationalise good-quality reflection are used inconsistently among educators. The results can be poor attitudes towards reflection by learners, uncertainty about the purpose of the reflection in their learning journey and at the worst undermining confidence in the education process by promoting activities which appear unprofessional and non-academic.
Much of this can be ascribed to a lack of research or scholarly material about how to teach reflection. This results in a lack of appropriate training for educators. From our point of view, reflection is best taught by those that practice it themselves and that have been taught to teach it for the purpose that it is used. This is missing from much of formal education training. What is taught poorly is rarely assessed well, and so the issues appear to be further exacerbated when reflection is then set as a form of assessment. If the expected outcomes of reflection are not well understood, neither the teaching practice nor the assignment can be aligned to achieving it.
For increasingly digital EE to benefit from reflection, teachers will need to first assess their own assumptions and purposes for using it. As a result, they should set appropriate learning outcomes which recognise the value of reflection as a practice that enhances resilience and ‘decisions in entrepreneurship’. This enables the recognition of learning, rather than a form of writing which enables an assessment of competence.
References
Alsina, Á., & Mulà, I. (2019). Advancing towards a transformational professional competence model through reflective learning and sustainability: The case of mathematics teacher education. Sustainability, 11(15), 4039.
Athanassiou, N., McNett, J. M., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27(5), 533–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903252515
Bacigalupo, M., García, L. W., Mansoori, Y., O’Keeffe, W., & Punie, Y. (2020). EntreComp playbook. Entrepreneurial learning beyond the classroom. (no. JRC120487). Publication Office of the European Union.
Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Publication Office of the European Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101581. Accessed January 28, 2022
Beveridge, T. S., Fruchter, L. L., Sanmartin, C. V., & deLottinville, C. B. (2013). Evaluating the use of reflective practice in a nonprofessional, undergraduate clinical communication skills course. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(1), 58–71.
Bharuthram, S. (2018). Reflecting on the process of teaching reflection in higher education. Reflective Practice, 19(6), 806–817.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2015). Constructive alignment: An outcomes-based approach to teaching anatomy. In L. K. Chan & W. Pawlina (Eds.), Teaching anatomy (pp. 31–38). Springer.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–206.
Byrne, J., Delmar, F., Fayolle, A., & Lamine, W. (2016). Training corporate entrepreneurs: An action learning approach. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 479–506.
Carson, L., & Fischer, K. (2006). Raising the Bar on criticality: Students’ critical reflection in an internship program. Journal of Management Education, 30(5), 700–723.
Clarà, M., Mauri, T., Colomina, R., & Onrubia, J. (2019). Supporting collaborative reflection in teacher education: A case study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 175–191.
Cope, J. (2003). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection discontinuous events as triggers for ‘higher-level’ learning. Management Learning, 34(4), 429–450.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904264440
Dehler, G. E. (2009). Prospects and possibilities of critical management education: Critical beings and a pedagogy of critical action. Management Learning, 40(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608099312
Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. Dover.
Duke, S., & Appleton, J. (2000). The use of reflection in a palliative care program: A quantitative study of the development of reflective skills over an academic year. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(6), 1557–1568.
Dyment, J. E., & O’Connell, T. S. (2010). The quality of reflection in student journals: A review of limiting and enabling factors. Innovative Higher Education, 35(4), 233–244.
Dyment, J. E., & O’Connell, T. S. (2011). Assessing the quality of reflection in student journals: A review of the research. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 81–97.
Finkle, T. A., & Olsen, T. (2019). Entrepreneurship in the digital era: Creating your own online business. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127418820680
Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2006). The ‘critical’ in critical reflection. In Critical reflection in health and social care (pp. 40–53). Open University Press.
Gallos, J. V. (2012). Leadership as emotional and compassionate labour. In M. Iszatt-White (Ed.), Leadership as emotional labour: Management and the ‘Managed Heart’. Routledge studies in management, organizations and society (pp. 37–54). Routledge.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit.
Gray, D. E. (2007). Facilitating management learning: Developing critical reflection through reflective tools. Management Learning, 38(5), 495–517.
Habermas, J. (1983). Modernity: An incomplete project. In H. Foster (Ed.), The anti-aesthetic: Essays on postmodern culture (pp. 3–15). Seattle Bay Press.
Hannon, P. D. (2005). Philosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and challenges for higher education in the UK. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6(2), 105–114.
Heijltjes, A., van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving critical thinking: Effects of dispositions and instructions on economics students’ reasoning skills. Learning and Instruction, 29, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.003
Huxtable-Thomas, L. A., Hannon, P. D., & Thomas, S. W. (2016). An investigation into the role of emotion in leadership development for entrepreneurs: A four interface model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 22(4), 510–530.
Kakouris, A., & Liargovas, P. (2021). On the about/for/through framework of entrepreneurship education: A critical analysis. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 4(3), 396–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420916740
Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E., & Winkel, D. E. (2015). Entrepreneurship education: A need for reflection, real-world experience and action. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 21(5), 690–708.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., Tse, H., Webb, C., Wong, F. K. Y., Wong, M., & Yeung, E. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611442
Kember, D., McKay, J., Sinclair, K., & Wong, F. K. Y. (2008). A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369–379.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education - what, why, when, how. Background paper for OECD-LEED. Retrieved January 28, 2022, from https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/BGP_Entrepreneurship-in-Education.pdf
Lackéus, M., & Westerberg, M. (n.d.) Triggering entrepreneurial action through a “whole-cycle” strategic task method: A task design workshop for people in leadership roles, such as teachers, managers or business coaches. Retrieved January 28, 2022, from http://www.ecsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lack%C3%A9us-Westerberg_Triggering-entrepreneurial-action-through-a-%E2%80%9Cwhole-cycle%E2%80%9D-strategic-task-method.pdf
Lahn, L. C., & Erikson, T. (2016). Entrepreneurship education by design. Education Training, 58(7/8). https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2016-0051
Larrivee, B. (2008). Meeting the challenge of preparing reflective practitioners. The New Educator, 4(2), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880802014132
Liguori, E., & Winkler, C. (2020). From offline to online: Challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurship education following the COVID-19 pandemic. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(4), 346–351.
Lynch, M., Kamovich, U., Longva, K. K., & Steinert, M. (2021). Combining technology and entrepreneurial education through design thinking: Students’ reflections on the learning process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 119689.
Mahon, P., & O’Neill, M. (2020). Through the looking glass: The rabbit hole of reflective practice. British Journal of Nursing, 29(13), 777–783.
Maloney, S., Tai, J. H.-M., Lo, K., Molloy, E., & Ilic, D. (2013). Honesty in critically reflective essays: An analysis of student practice. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 617–626.
Mann, K., Gordon, J., & MacLeod, A. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 595–621.
McGarr, O. (2021). The use of virtual simulations in teacher education to develop pre-service teachers’ behaviour and classroom management skills: Implications for reflective practice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 274–286.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.
Moate, J., Hulse, B., Jahnke, H., & Owens, A. (2019). Exploring the material mediation of dialogic space - a qualitative analysis of professional learning in initial teacher education based on reflective sketchbooks. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 167–178.
Moon, J. (2001). PDP working paper 4: Reflection in higher education learning (pp. 1–25). Higher Education Academy.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
Pavlovich, K., Collins, E., & Jones, G. (2009). Developing Students’ skills in reflective practice. Journal of Management Education, 33(1), 37–58.
Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2005). The reflective learning continuum: Reflecting on reflection. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(3), 250–263.
Platzer, H., Blake, D., & Ashford, D. (2000). Barriers to learning from reflection: A study of the use of groupwork with post-registration nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(5), 1001–1008.
Rendtorff, J. D. (2015). Case studies, ethics, philosophy, and Liberal learning for the management profession. Journal of Management Education, 39(1), 36–55.
Reynolds, M. (1998). Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management Learning, 29(2), 183.
Reynolds, M. (1999). Critical reflection and management education: Rehabilitating less hierarchical approaches. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299902300506
Ryan, M. (2012). Conceptualising and teaching discursive and performative reflection in higher education. Studies in Continuing Education, 34(2), 207–223.
Ryan, M. (2013). The pedagogical balancing act: Teaching reflection in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(2), 144–155.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), 119–139.
Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Learning from business failure: Propositions of grief recovery for the self-employed. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 318–328.
Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T., Wolfe, M., & Patzelt, H. (2016). Learning from entrepreneurial failure: Emotions, cognitions, and behaviors. Cambridge University Press.
Smith, E. (2011). Teaching critical reflection. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 211–223.
Steinaker, N. W., & Bell, M. R. (1979). The experiential taxonomy: A new approach to teaching and learning. Academic Press.
Thomas, O. (2018). Two decades of cognitive bias research in entrepreneurship: What do we know and where do we go from here? Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 107–143.
Van Beurden, E. K., Kia, A. M., Zask, A., Dietrich, U., & Rose, L. (2013). Making sense in a complex landscape: How the Cynefin framework from complex adaptive systems theory can inform health promotion practice. Health Promotion International, 28(1), 73–83.
Van Beveren, L., Roets, G., Buysse, A., & Rutten, K. (2018). We all reflect, but why? A systematic review of the purposes of reflection in higher education in social and behavioral sciences. Educational Research Review, 24, 1–9.
Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304–319.
Vince, R., & Reynolds, M. (2009). Reflection, reflective practice and organizing reflection. In S. J. Armstrong & C. V. Fukami (Eds.), The sage handbook of management learning, education, and development (pp. 89–103). Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Huxtable-Thomas, L., Brahm, T. (2023). The Role of (Self-)Reflection in an Increasingly Digital Entrepreneurship Education Environment. In: Block, J.H., Halberstadt, J., Högsdal, N., Kuckertz, A., Neergaard, H. (eds) Progress in Entrepreneurship Education and Training. FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28559-2_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28559-2_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28558-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28559-2
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)