Entrepreneurship at the École Hôtelière de Lausanne: what teaching model?

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by idUS. Depósito de Investigación Universidad de Sevilla Entrepreneurship at the École Hôtelière de Lausanne: what teaching model? Anne-Flore Malachie Tel : +33 4 50 75 96 99 anne-flore.malachie@ehl.ch Alain Fayolle Tel : +33 4 78 33 78 00 fayolle@em-lyon.com KEY WORDS: entrepreneurship education, teaching model, hotel schools 1 ABSTRACT This article is an exploratory case study of the École Hôtelière de Lausanne (EHL) and its teaching model for entrepreneurship education, drawing on the conceptual framework developed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008). In view of its history and favourable environment for entrepreneurship, the École Hôtelière de Lausanne (EHL) appears as a relevant field of study for this initial descriptive approach. The study shows that the ontological dimension of entrepreneurship teaching at EHL is homogeneous and shared by all the actors involved. On a didactic level, no obvious contradiction was noted between the various stakeholders’ points of view. However, the objectives, assessment criteria, course contents and pedagogical methods were found to differ depending on the entrepreneurship courses taught. Based on the conceptual framework developed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008), the overall teaching model nevertheless appeared coherent and structured. Implications for future research: This article can lead to a broader study of entrepreneurship teaching models for the hospitality industry. Similar studies could be conducted on a representative sample of European hotel schools to establish if there is a specific teaching model for entrepreneurship education in European Hospitality schools. More generally, this article could lead to expanding our knowledge of the teaching models in use for entrepreneurship education. 2 Introduction At the threshold of the new millennium, tourism has been declared top industry by several countries (Rivera and Upchurch, 2008). It is the sector where job creation increased the most. Thus, it appears that tourism is a strategic research field. Rivera and Upchurch (2008) underlined that the literature review and knowledge about tourism are extending. It exists several academic journals dedicated to this sector: the references being Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Annals of Tourism Research, Tourism Management (Li, 2008). However, although the tourism industry is a fertile ground for entrepreneurship, only 2% of the articles published in these journals concerned this subject (Li, 2008). There is thus a research opportunity to address regarding entrepreneurship in the tourism industry. Moreover, Li (2008) emphasizes that education is one of the least studied subject of this field – only 6 articles over 97 about entrepreneurship in the tourism industry. Some authors already mentioned that research in hospitality management in particular should include other stakeholders than practitioners, like students and teachers (Lugosi, Lynch and Morrison, 2009). Others asserted that research should give a new direction for courses and how they could be delivered (Rivera and Upchurch, 2008). So, this article stems from the mentioned opportunities and is about teaching entrepreneurship in the tourism industry. More specifically, it studies the hospitality industry within the tourism industry and focuses on the European hotel schools. Why focusing on entrepreneurship education within hospitality schools particularly? First of all, the hospitality industry is characterized by a number of unique characteristics, even if its contours are somewhat vague (Thomas and Harris, 2001). Jauhari (2006) identifies a number of key competencies that are critical success factors in the hospitality industry: customer orientation, an effective marketing strategy, and effective operations and cost management. He also underlines the importance of employee performance, quality of service, managing customer demand, and asset protection. Finally, Jauhari (2006) underlines the necessity to show empathy in order to understand customers’ problems and ensure good customer relations and working relationships. Maintaining high professional and ethical standards, a professional appearance and good oral and written communication skills are also crucial. Sigala & Baum (2003) complete the list by adding the necessity of collaborative and multicultural skills. All these specificities influence directly hospitality education (Sigala et al., 2003). Then, it appears than the entrepreneurship option is more popular within hospitality students than business students (Cullen and Dick, 1989). Thus, the authors stressed that, although the academic programs in hotel schools neglected entrepreneurship, there is a great need to develop entrepreneurial skills of hospitality students. Furthermore, entrepreneurship education is distinct from management education (Hegarty, 2006). As explained by Cheng, Chan and Mahmood (2009), entrepreneurship education is more than traditional business management: it implies the ability to identify opportunities, to understand the needs of markets and customers, to evaluate environments and develop networks. As a consequence, teaching entrepreneurship must differ from teaching management and must be specific to the industry. 3 Drawing on the premise that hospitality management requires specific education programmes and that entrepreneurship education is distinct from management education, then it appears relevant to look into how entrepreneurship is taught in hotel schools. What are the specificities of the teaching models used in these institutions? In line with a descriptive and exploratory approach, this article focuses on the case of the École Hôtelière de Lausanne (EHL). The first part of our paper describes and discusses the conceptual framework developed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008), which applies principles of education science to the field of entrepreneurship education. In the second part, we present the École Hôtelière de Lausanne and its entrepreneurship education programme. The third part of this article provides an overview of our data collection method before presenting and discussing our results. 1. A teaching model for entrepreneurship education The present study draws on an article by Fayolle and Gailly (2008), in which they apply education science to the field of entrepreneurship education. Insights from education science have also been applied by Béchard and Grégoire (2005, 2007) to develop several teaching models in the field of entrepreneurship. The concept of teaching model is well-known in education science (see, for instance, Anderson, 1995 or Joyce and Well, 1996), but it has rarely been used in entrepreneurship, a discipline which suffers from a lack of consensus and common framework on “best practices” in terms of pedagogical methods and contents (Brockhaus et al., 2001; Fiet, 2000a and 2000b). Quoting Legendre (1993), Béchard and Grégoire (2005: 107) define the notion of teaching model as: “the representation of a certain type of setting designed to deal with a pedagogical situation in function of particular goals and objectives, that integrates a theoretical framework justifying this design and giving it an exemplary character”. For these authors, “the relevance of teaching models is that the concept focuses on the link connecting the conceptions that scholars and educators have about teaching and their actual teaching behaviour” (Béchard and Grégoire, 2005: 108). This implies that the concept of teaching model incorporates both the ontological and didactic dimensions of a pedagogical intervention. Fayolle and Gailly (2008) therefore address both levels in the presentation of their general entrepreneurship teaching model (see Figure 1). In addition to the development of their conceptual framework, the authors make seven propositions for entrepreneurship education. This general framework is aimed at helping teachers design and develop teaching programmes for entrepreneurship. 4 Figure 1. General teaching model for entrepreneurship education (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008) ONTOLOGICAL LEVEL What does entrepreneurship education mean? What does education mean in the context of entrepreneurship? What are the respective roles of educators and participants? EDUCATIONAL LEVEL For whom? Audiences Targets What? Contents Why? Objectives How? Methods Pedagogies For what results? Evaluations Assessments The article will specifically apply this model to the hospitality industry. The first goal is to answers the ontological questions in the context of a hotel school (Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne). Then, it will describe the educational dimension in this institution (who are the students, what are the objectives of the entrepreneurship courses, what is their content, how are they taught and assessed?). 1.1. The ontological dimension The first proposition made by Fayolle and Gailly (2008) concerns the definition of entrepreneurship as a teaching field. Depending on the teachers’ perceptions of entrepreneurship, teaching perspectives and approaches used are bound to differ. For instance, according to a group of European experts, entrepreneurship education should include, on the one hand, the development of specific attitudes, skills and personal attributes, independently 5 from new venture creation; and on the other hand, specific knowledge on how to start a new venture.1 Shane and Venkataraman (2000) believe that teaching entrepreneurship should be defined as knowledge transfer about how to pursue business opportunities. Hence the position developed by the authors (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008) that any entrepreneurship education programme should be designed around a clear and explicit definition of entrepreneurship. This practice should clarify any ambiguity about entrepreneurship as a teaching domain. Fayolle and Gailly (2008) also address the question of how entrepreneurship can be “taught”. They stress the difference between “teaching” and “educating”. “Teaching” means imparting knowledge, conditioning to a certain action or frame of mind, whereas “educating” refers to developing innate capacities, encouraging learning through example or experience. Once this distinction is established, various teaching approaches can be used. The subjectteacher-student relationship can therefore be addressed in three different ways, each of them reflecting a philosophical position: objectivist (the teacher is a “presenter”), subjectivist (the teacher is a “tutor”) or interactionist (the teacher acts as a “coach”) (Béchard and Grégoire, 2005). With this in mind Fayolle and Gailly (2008) establish that for any entrepreneurship programme, teachers should clarify their philosophical position. In addition to this ontological perspective, the authors address the design and structure of entrepreneurship education programmes through a didactic approach. 1.2. The didactic dimension When designing an entrepreneurship education programme, teachers must consider the five following parameters in this order: the course objectives and goals, the targeted audience, the course evaluation and impact, the course contents, methods and pedagogical tools.  Objectives and goals The authors first define the main objectives of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship education can be “about” enterprise (raising awareness about entrepreneurs and their roles in the economy and society); “for” enterprise (developing key attributes and skills of successful entrepreneurs in the students); or education “through” enterprise (using new venture creation simulation in order to develop business understanding and acquire necessary and transferable skills). Depending on the approach adopted by teachers, entrepreneurship education can relate to learning or socio-economic objectives. The learning objectives include personal development (independence, creativity), they stimulate entrepreneurial attitudes, and encourage students to see entrepreneurship as a possible career choice. The socio-economic objectives relate to the transfer of tools and techniques in order to 1 European Commission, 2002. 6 increase the entrepreneurial potential of students and prepare them to successfully start and run businesses, analyse situations and act as entrepreneurs. The third proposition put forward by Fayolle and Gailly (2008) relates to the necessity to clearly and explicitly state these objectives, at both the micro and macro level.  Target audience The authors stress the importance for teachers to define the students’ profiles and their background regarding entrepreneurship before designing entrepreneurship courses. Indeed, socio-demographic factors, prior exposure to entrepreneurship and family context notably, affect students’ profiles. Courses must therefore accommodate these parameters.  Evaluation and impact After having defined the course objectives and the audience’s background, teachers should select relevant evaluation criteria and measurement methods. Evaluation criteria can be of varying nature: knowledge, skills, level of commitment, participation or motivation shown by students. The choice of criteria will depend largely on what the teachers want to measure, and their ability to do so. Secondly, it is important to measure the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes. In order to do so, it is necessary to consider the effects of time. For instance, evaluation criteria could be measured during, immediately after, at some point during the first five years following the programme, and after five years (Block and Stumpf, 1992). Contextual variables (family environment, perceived social status of entrepreneurship, etc.) must also be considered in the evaluation process.  Contents According to the sixth proposition by Fayolle and Gailly (2008), course contents must be defined in relation to the objectives set and the participants’ profile and background. The contents can be structured based on a combination of three dimensions: professional, spiritual and theoretical. The professional dimension concerns practical know-how relating to making decisions and acting in a given context, learning how to face particular situations, and identifying resource people and networks that must be activated in a given context. 7 The spiritual dimension consists in understanding one’s spatiotemporal position as regards the entrepreneurial phenomenon. In other words, it implies identifying the entrepreneurial opportunities that are coherent with one’s profile, and knowing when it is desirable and possible to engage in an entrepreneurial process. In order to be appropriate, the situation must be coherent with the person’s profile. The theoretical dimension refers to the scientific knowledge necessary to understand the entrepreneurial phenomenon.  Methods and pedagogical tools The final proposition made by Fayolle and Gailly (2008) concerns the pedagogical methods used. These should be selected to accommodate the aforementioned parameters: objectives, audience, and contents. Pedagogical methods should also be aligned with institutional constraints. They can be of a varying nature: real case studies, role-plays, interviews with entrepreneurs, or coaching of young entrepreneurs for instance. 2. Presentation of our study 2.1. Presentation of the École Hôtelière de Lausanne and its courses in the field of entrepreneurship  École Hôtelière de Lausanne We will now present the world’s oldest hotel school, the École Hôtelière de Lausanne (EHL). Since 1893, EHL has been offering specific training for the hospitality industry. The programmes have evolved over time in order to adapt to the environment and new demands. Nowadays, the students are trained in hospitality management. In the highly competitive environment of graduate hospitality management schools, EHL has become a reference for quality. Accredited by the University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland (HES-SO – Hautes Écoles Spécialisées de Suisse Occidentale) and on the international level by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, it was ranked among the top five hospitality management schools in the world by leading industry professionals in 2007.2 Several programmes are taught at EHL, among which a Bachelor programme, which is the focus of our study here. As stated on the school’s website, the four-year programme is designed to prepare students to assume “senior management positions and an international business career in hospitality” and “to provide students with the advanced knowledge and 2 Hospitality schools ranking, Laureate international universities, October 2007. 8 competences needed for strategic decision-making”.3 The first year is devoted to operational work, followed by three years of more theory-based contents. Classes are given in French and in English, and were followed in total by 1707 students from 88 different nationalities in 2010.4 One of the main assets of EHL is its alumni network of 25,000 graduates in 106 countries all over the world.5 The importance given to entrepreneurship education within this institution justifies our study.  Entrepreneurship education at EHL Entrepreneurship is taught as an academic major during the fourth year of the Bachelor programme. Indeed, during their final year, students can choose between three majors: marketing, finance and entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurship major is based on three core courses: Innovation and Business Intelligence, Entrepreneurship and Risk Management, and Performance Monitoring in SMEs. Although the entrepreneurship major has been taught for three years at EHL, it has been operating in its current form only since the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. Additionally, students in their final year can complete a “student business project”, which consists in finding solutions, innovations and new concepts for the hotel industry.6  Entrepreneurship and EHL Entrepreneurship is also present at EHL in aspects other than just education. Entrepreneurship and innovation are indeed one of the three cornerstones of the school’s 2012 development plan. The school operates its own Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (INTEHL) whose objective is to help entrepreneurs start their own businesses, to support existing firms in developing new business opportunities, and to nurture students’ creative skills. Additionally, EHL also has its own business incubator, the first-ever created specifically for the hospitality industry, thus reinforcing the school’s pioneering position in this industry that requires constant innovation. The incubator offers support to entrepreneurial projects from the development of the concept to the preparation of the business plan. It thus supported the creation of eight start-ups over a period of five years.7 In 2010, the INTEHL Institute officially launched the Paul Dubrule Chair of Innovation, with an aim to support various projects in Switzerland, with help from Paul Dubrule (co-founder of the ACCOR group) and his network and reputation.8 EHL thus clearly emphasizes its will to become a hospitality industry cluster. 3 http://www.ehl.edu/fre/Enseignement/Programmes/Bachelor/Concept-du-programme. http://www.ehl.edu/fre/A-propos-de-l-EHL/Profil/Chiffres-cles/Nos-etudiants. 5 http://www.ehl.edu/fre/A-propos-de-l-EHL/Profil/Bref-apercu-de-l-Ecole. 6 http://www.ehl.edu/fre/content/search?SearchText=sbp 7 Interview with the INTEHL Director, on 2 March 2011. 4 8 http://www.ehl.edu/fre/content/search?SearchText=chaire+dubrule. 9 As a graduate hotel management school and a pioneer in the creation of a start-up incubator specialized in the hospitality industry, EHL therefore appeared as the obvious choice for the study of its entrepreneurship teaching model. 2.2. Data collection method The present article examines the teaching model for entrepreneurship at EHL, we will therefore start with the role of entrepreneurship education in the school. In order to collect our research data, we solicited the opinions of various EHL stakeholders, which include senior members of the faculty and the school’s management involved with entrepreneurship education and development, entrepreneurship teachers, and students who took courses in this subject. We used several data collection methods depending on the informants concerned, depending on their availability, time and distance constraints, and the nature of the data we were trying to elicit. The professors and managers were thus questioned individually using semi-structured interviews, while students’ opinions were collected using an online qualitative questionnaire9.  The interviews In the context of this study, seven interviews were requested and five effectively took place, resulting in a 71% response rate. Interviews were semi-structured and lasted about 30 minutes each. Interviews were requested from two members of the school’s senior management (100% response rate): the Director of Education and Research and the Director of the Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (INTEHL). The objective was to define the role of entrepreneurship at EHL from a strategic point of view. Three interviews were organized with entrepreneurship professors (response rate of 60%), with an aim to establish what teaching model is used and define the strategic importance of entrepreneurship at EHL, using the conceptual framework developed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008). The professors interviewed are respectively involved in the Performance Monitoring in SMEs courses (French- and English-speaking section), and Innovation and Business Intelligence courses (French- and English-speaking section). It must be noted, however, that the professor in charge of Entrepreneurship and Risk Management was not interviewed, which means his perceptions were not taken into account. The professors’ profiles are rather homogeneous: all come from the business world or are former entrepreneurs who switched to a teaching career. 9 In appendix 10  The online questionnaire 114 questionnaires were sent to the students who attended the courses within the entrepreneurship major in its current form. Among them, 61 were enrolled in the Englishspeaking section, and 53 in the French-speaking section. The questionnaires related to the entrepreneurship major (all three courses) and the importance of entrepreneurship at EHL. Students from both sections received identical questionnaires, albeit translated into English for the English-speaking section. The aims of the questionnaire were twofold: to elicit the students’ perceptions of the entrepreneurship major at EHL and compare them with those of their teachers using the conceptual framework developed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008), and to study their perceptions of the strategic importance of entrepreneurship at EHL. The questionnaire contained 22 questions, among which eight were open questions. The questionnaire was made available online and sent by email to each student at their EHL email address. They were given five days to reply, with a reminder sent on the fourth day. The total response rate was 30% (23% for the English-speaking section and 38% for the Frenchspeaking section). It is worth noting that 62 students out of the 114 had finished courses at the time the questionnaire was sent, which means they may no longer have checked their EHL email address. If we hypothesize that only the 52 students still present on the campus knew of the questionnaire, our global response rate rises to 65%. The respondents’ profiles are similar in both sections. 68% of the respondents are female, and aged between 22 and 27; and 76% are Swiss. 79% see entrepreneurship as a possible career path, while 71% consider that their network and prior experience provide them with a favourable environment for new venture creation. 3. Our results In order to establish (or not) the specificity of the hospitality industry regarding entrepreneurship, the various people interviewed were asked a range of entrepreneurshiprelated questions. Their answers reveal that entrepreneurship is perceived independently from the various industries in which it occurs. As is the case in any industry, hospitality management professionals must master the specific skill set required in their industry as well as all the typical competences required of entrepreneurs, such as analytical and social skills, for instance. However, some specificities have emerged: the hospitality industry requires a broad-ranging set of skills right from the start, as well as a sizeable network. Moreover, the hospitality industry is characterized by a higher level of risk, due to the fact that the market comes before the product, which means the product must be constantly rethought, in order to remain aligned with the market. The hospitality industry is also characterized by a significant financial barrier to entry and a low return on investment, which means that business angels’ and investors’ motives will be different from other industries. Finally, for restaurant firms in particular, margins are low, consequently there is little room for error and strategic decisions are crucial. 3.1. The role of entrepreneurship at EHL 11  The interviews The importance of entrepreneurship at EHL was addressed during the interviews with entrepreneurship professors, the Director of Education and Research, and the Director of the Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (INTEHL). Several observations seem to indicate that entrepreneurship is considered as a strategic subject at EHL. Indeed, the interviewees underlined the fact that Entrepreneurship is one of the three majors proposed to final-year Bachelor students, along with Finance and Marketing. Moreover, during that same year, the students can choose to carry out a “student business project”, in the context of which they learn how to prepare a business plan. Finally, the presence of the Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the first-ever incubator for hospitality-related business ventures support this view. This last point is further confirmed by the 2011 project to develop the existing structure into a fully-integrated incubator providing support to nascent entrepreneurs from the generation of business ideas to start-up launch. On the whole, the non-student informants all consider that EHL provides tools and opportunities favourable to entrepreneurship, highlighting just how strategic this subject is for the school.  The online questionnaire The students could also express themselves on the topic via the online questionnaire. On a scale of 1 to 4 (1 being “totally disagree”, and 4 being “totally agree”), 71% all sections taken together “rather agree” or “totally agree” with the statement that students are encouraged to develop entrepreneurial attitudes at EHL. 73% “rather agree” or “totally agree” that EHL supports entrepreneurial projects. However, using the same scale, only 42% agree that entrepreneurship education is a priority at EHL, while 38% rather disagree with the statement (2 on the scale). The results are presented in the following table. Table 1. Results of the students’ online questionnaire regarding the perceived strategic importance of entrepreneurship at EHL FR EN FR+EN According to me, EHL encourages students to develop an entrepreneurial behaviour, whether it be through education or extracurricular activities 1 Totally disagree 0% 0% 0% 2 35% 21% 29% 3 45% 57% 50% 4 Totally agree 20% 21% 21% 0% 0% 0% According to me, EHL supports entrepreneurial projects (associations, set up of companies, etc.): logistics, financing, moral help 1 Totally disagree 12 2 30% 14% 24% 3 40% 57% 47% 4 Totally agree 25% 29% 26% 5% 0% 3% 1 Totally disagree 20% 21% 21% 2 35% 43% 38% 3 20% 21% 21% 4 Totally agree 25% 14% 21% No answer According to me, entrepreneurship education is a priority at EHL The students’ opinions concur with those of the faculty and management on the fact that EHL provides a favourable environment for the development of entrepreneurial attitudes, but not on the fact that entrepreneurship is a strategic subject. 3.2. The teaching model for entrepreneurship education at EHL As underlined above, the entrepreneurship teaching model at EHL was analysed using Fayolle and Gailly’s conceptual framework (2008).  The ontological dimension It is worth briefly recapping the propositions developed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008) and used as reference here. Proposition 1: all entrepreneurship education programmes should be based on a clear definition of entrepreneurship itself, as a social and economic phenomenon, a set of attitudes and skills, or the act of new venture creation. Proposition 2: educators and teachers in charge of entrepreneurship courses should clearly state their philosophical positions as regards entrepreneurship teaching, which should include their definition of “teaching”, and the roles played by teachers and students. The teachers interviewed appear to have a homogeneous ontological approach (see Table 3). They mostly view entrepreneurship as a social and economic phenomenon as well as a specific set of attitudes and skills. It emerged from the interviews that although new venture creation is an underlying theme of all entrepreneurship courses, it often appears as an end in itself without being addressed directly. All interviewed professors agree on the fact that teaching is an interactive process based on an exchange with students (who are active participants), and in which teachers generally assume a coaching role. Table 2. Summary of interviews with entrepreneurship professors regarding the ontological dimension of their teaching model. What concept of entrepreneurship did you use as a basis for designing your entrepreneurship course? 13 A social and economic phenomenon A set of attitudes and skills New venture creation / business takeover 67% 67% 0% How would you define “teaching” in the context of your course? Impart information Ensure that students have acquired the knowledge Exchange with students in order to co-construct knowledge How would you define your role as a teacher in the context of your course?10 Presenter Facilitator / tutor Coach How would you define students’ roles in the context of your entrepreneurship course? Passive recipients Neutral participants Active participants involved in the construction of knowledge 0% 0% 100% 33% 33% 100% 0% 0% 100% The students’ opinions are partly consistent with these results (see Table 4). Overall, the conception of entrepreneurship as a set of attitudes and skills was conveyed (79%). Entrepreneurship as a social and economic phenomenon seems more acutely perceived in the English-speaking section than in the French, but the overall percentage remains low. Moreover, although 38% of the respondents do not perceive clearly what roles the teachers play in the teaching process, for the majority of respondents teaching is perceived as interactive, based on a professor-coach/student exchange (35%). Additionally, 89% view themselves as “participants” of the course, among and 68% as “active participants”, which confirms the teachers’ vision. Table 3. Results of the students’ online questionnaire regarding the ontological dimension of the teaching model for entrepreneurship at EHL FR Generally speaking, the proposition which defines the best “entrepreneurship” as it was taught to me during the entrepreneurship major is: A social and economic phenomenon Attitudes, skills and personal qualities New business venture The three courses were too different, I cannot answer Generally speaking, my teachers in the entrepreneurship major mainly played the role of: Presenter: imparted information Facilitator / tutor : ensured the acquisition of knowledge Coach : conversed with the students about knowledge 10 EN FR+EN 5% 90% 5% 0% 14% 64% 7% 14% 9% 79% 6% 6% 10% 20% 35% 7% 7% 36% 9% 15% 35% The roles of “presenter” and “facilitator” correspond to temporary roles assumed during the presentation of tools and during exercises. 14 The teaching methods were too different, I cannot answer No answer As student, throughout the entrepreneurship major, I saw myself as a: Passive recipient Participant Active participant in the construction of knowledge The way the different courses were organized was to different, I cannot answer 30% 5% 50% 0% 38% 3% 0% 10% 80% 10% 0% 36% 50% 14% 0% 21% 68% 12% Entrepreneurship as a teaching subject is therefore homogeneously defined by the various teachers involved. The students have integrated the vision of entrepreneurship as a set of attitudes and skills, and perception of entrepreneurship as a social and economic phenomenon albeit to a lesser extent. Concerning the definition of entrepreneurship education, the teachers’ vision did not clearly emerge from students’ responses. However, the majority of students agree on the fact that entrepreneurship education is interactive, and gives students a central role in the process, with professors acting as coaches.  The didactic dimension The article by Fayolle and Gailly (2008) recommends that teachers must define a number of parameters prior to designing entrepreneurship courses. These include stating the objectives and goals of the course (proposition 3: entrepreneurship courses should have clear and intelligible objectives, both at the micro- and macro-level); identifying the participants (proposition 4: teachers should define students’ profiles and backgrounds in relation to entrepreneurship prior to developing entrepreneurship programmes); defining evaluation and outcomes (proposition 5: teachers should select relevant evaluation criteria and effective measurement methods); selecting contents (proposition 6: course contents should be defined in accordance with the objectives and target audience); and selecting pedagogical tools and methods (proposition 7: appropriate pedagogical methods should be selected based on their adequacy and a priori efficiency in relation to the course objectives, target audience, and institutional constraints). Teachers’ opinions are summarized in Table 4 and the results of the online questionnaires are presented in Table 5. Regarding the objectives and goals of the course, teachers unanimously replied that they delivered a “for” entrepreneurship type of training, in other words, they aim at developing entrepreneurs’ key success characteristics in students. Indeed, among the learning objectives, they list the development of necessary skills for new venture creation (such as the ability to synthesize and analyse situations), and socio-economic objectives such as the identification of opportunities. The majority also declares that they provide “about” entrepreneurship education, which refers to raising students’ awareness of the role of entrepreneurs in society and the economy. Thus, courses address innovation in its broad sense, social innovation, and the role of entrepreneurs. It must also be noted that the course on monitoring SME performance for the French-speaking section involves one week’s immersion shadowing an 15 entrepreneur, which contributes to the students’ experience of enterprise. Students seem to share this point of view. Indeed, if we consider that propositions 2 and 3 of the “what for” question relate to teaching “for” entrepreneurship and proposition 1 to teaching “about” entrepreneurship11, then for 88% of the students, the courses were perceived as training “for” entrepreneurship, while for 50% courses were “about” entrepreneurship. Concerning the target audience, 67% of teachers declare that they adapt their courses to the type of audience concerned. Among them, some use questionnaires to formally find out about their background, while others simply try to form an idea of the students’ profiles over time. 33% of teachers choose not to adapt the contents to the type of audience, in order not to deviate too far from the course’s core objectives. 65% of students perceive the adequacy between the contents and the audience. Among the remaining 35%, some stress that not all contents are adapted to the students’ prior knowledge and experience, and even mention “mistakes” in relation to the recruitment of students for this major, which can result in a certain inadequacy between students’ backgrounds and experience and course contents. As regard to the programme’s evaluation and outcomes, all teachers claim that evaluation criteria are carefully selected in relation to the course objectives, as recommended by Fayolle and Gailly (2008). Thus, in line with the specificities of entrepreneurship teaching, the following variables are tested: feasibility of the project, coherence, originality, students’ commitment, ability to synthesize and analyse, creative approach, etc... These are measured using various activities (case studies, business model analysis), and/or visual aids. Evaluation of the course outcomes is carried out during the course, and no measurement is made in the short or long term after completion of the programme. 85% of the students confirm that the evaluation criteria are coherent with the course objectives. Concerning the relevance and adequacy of course contents, it emerged from the interviews that the three dimensions of entrepreneurship (professional, spiritual, and theoretical) are all addressed. The professional dimension is dealt with through the one-week immersion with an entrepreneur and the design of a business plan, the spiritual dimension was addressed through opportunity identification, and the theoretical dimension was taught through the identification of practices and indicators through research activities. These contents relate to education “for” enterprise, “about” enterprise, and “in” enterprise. Most students perceived the spiritual aspect (62%) and the professional aspect (41%). Concerning training methods and tools, this is what the teachers replied, in addition to the objectives aforementioned. How Enterprise immersion programme / students’ presentations with feedback from teachers Case studies, business model analysis, SPSS 11 Objectives Development of entrepreneurial skills, ability to create a new venture Development of analysis skills, introduction See table 5 16 manipulation External interventions, exchanges and discussions, computer simulations to the role and importance of innovation Introduction to the entrepreneur’s role in society, introduction to social innovation It emerges that professors adapt their pedagogical methods to the set of objectives. Despite only 32% of students having perceived the homogeneity between the various teachers, the majority nevertheless states that the learning methods are adapted to the participants and objectives. Table 4. Summary of interviews with entrepreneurship teachers regarding the didactic dimension of their teaching model What for Education “about” enterprise Education “for” enterprise Education “through” enterprise/entrepreneurship Education in enterprise For whom Adaptation of the contents to participants’ profiles and background No adaptation of course contents to participants For what results Implementation of evaluation criteria Measurement of impact during the course Evaluation of the course impact in the long term 67% 100% 0% 0% 67% 33% 100% 100% 0% Table 5. Results of the students’ online questionnaire regarding the didactic dimension of the teaching model for entrepreneurship at EHL FR According to me, the proposition(s) which best describe(s) the objectives of the three courses taught in the entrepreneurship major is/are  What for 1. To understand the role and function of entrepreneurship in the economy and society 2. To develop the attributes and personal qualities of a successful entrepreneur 3. New venture creation tools (know-how) According to me, the pedagogical methods used by the teachers in the entrepreneurship major are appropriate for the objectives and the audience  How 1. Yes 2. No 3. It depends on the course Generally speaking, I think that the contents of the entrepreneurship major…  What 1. Allowed me to learn about practical knowledge (know how/know what/know who) 17 EN FR+EN 55% 43% 50% 55% 15% 50% 64% 53% 35% 70% 5% 25% 57% 43% 65% 3% 32% 30% 57% 41% 2. Allowed me to identify the entrepreneurial situations which are consistent with my profile and to recognize the moment when it is possible and desirable to engage in an entrepreneurial project 3. Allowed me to master theories and scientific knowledge to understand the entrepreneurial phenomenon (articles, research) I think that the evaluation criteria used by the teachers assessed efficiently the objectives of the courses  For what results 1. Yes 2. No 3. It depends on the course According to me, the courses were adapted to students' profiles and to their attitudes regarding entrepreneurship  For whom 1. Yes 2. No 3. It depends on the course 60% 64% 62% 20% 7% 15% 85% 5% 10% 86% 7% 7% 85% 6% 9% 80% 15% 5% 71% 14% 14% 76% 15% 9% Each proposition by Fayolle and Gailly (2008) can be found in the didactic approach adopted by the teachers. Entrepreneurship education at EHL is coherent and structured. This is also confirmed by students’ opinions, which show that the professors’ positions are perceived clearly by the majority of them. Conclusion The hospitality industry presents a number of unique characteristics and therefore deserves specific attention. Specific management training for the hospitality industry has been in place for several years. Moreover, it has been established that entrepreneurship education is distinct from management education. There is thus a research opportunity to address regarding the teaching of entrepreneurship in hospitality management schools. This topic is all the more relevant since it is largely understudied in the literature. Given its place in the history of hospitality management training and the strategic importance of entrepreneurship in its programmes the École Hôtelière de Lausanne has emerged as an interesting case study for this initial descriptive approach. We examined its teaching model for entrepreneurship based on the conceptual framework developed by Fayolle and Gailly (2008), using interviews and questionnaires to collect the opinions of the various people involved (senior management, faculty, students). What emerges is that entrepreneurship education at EHL is homogeneous with a vision shared by the various actors involved. All agree on the fact that the students are central to the learning process and that courses are interactive. Entrepreneurship is considered as both an economic and social phenomenon and a set of attitudes and skills, while new venture creation is an underlying theme of the courses taught. From a didactic point of view, there is no obvious contradiction between the visions of the various stakeholders. However, the range of answers given show that the objectives, evaluation criteria, course contents or pedagogical methods are not identical in all the courses taught as part of the entrepreneurship major. This may be explained by the fact that the various courses are complementary and address different aspects of entrepreneurship. Based on the conceptual framework used as reference, the teaching model as a whole nevertheless remains coherent and structured. Future research could examine other teaching models for entrepreneurship from a sample of 18 European hotel schools using that same framework, in order to define, on a more global scale, the specificities of entrepreneurship teaching in the hospitality industry. 19 APPENDIX Questionnaire for students registered for the entrepreneurship option at EHL (BOS B and C) In order to study how entrepreneurship is taught at EHL, I need your help! I would highly appreciate if you could take some time to fill in that questionnaire, keeping in mind that the quality of the study will mainly rely on your answers. My opinion about how entrepreneurship is taught at EHL (third-year option) The questions in that section only concern the following courses: - Innovation and business intelligence - Entrepreneurship and risk management - Performance monitoring in SMEs. 1. Generally speaking, the proposition which defines the best "entrepreneurship" as it was taught to me during the entrepreneurship option is: Only one answer required  An social and economic phenomenon  Attitudes, skills and personal qualities  New business venture  The three courses were too different, I cannot answer 2. Generally speaking, my teachers in the entrepreneurship option mainly played the role of: Only one answer required  Presentator : imparted information  Facilitator / tutor : ensured the appropriation of knowledge  Coach : conversed with the students about knowledge  The teaching methods were too different, I cannot answer 3. As student, throughout the entrepreneurship option, I saw myself as a: Only one answer required  Passive recipient  Participant 20  Active participant in the construction of their knowledge  The way the different courses were organized was to different, I cannot answer 4. According to me, the proposition(s) which describe(s) the best the objectives of the three courses thaught in the entrepreneurship option is/are: More than one answer accepted  To understand the role and function of entrepreneurship in the economy and society  To develop the attributes and personal qualities of a successful entrepreneur  New venture creation tools (know-how) 5.1 According to me, the pedagogical methods used in the entrepreneurship option by the teachers are appropriate to the objectives and to the audience:  Yes  No  It depends on the course  Option 4 5.2 If "no" or "it depends", why? 5.3 Methods I would have preferred: 21 6. Generally speaking, I think that the content of the entrepreneurship option: More than one answer accepted  Allowed me to learn about practical knowledge (know how/know what/know who)  Allowed me to identify the entrepreneurial situations which are consistent with my profile and to recognize the moment when it is possible and desirable to engage in an entrepreneurial project  Allowed me to master theories and scientific knowledge to understand the entrepreneurial phenomenon (articles, rechearsh) 7.1 I think that the evaluation criteria used by the teachers assessed efficiently the objectives of the courses:  Yes  No  It depends on the course 7.2 If "no" or "it depends", why? 7.3 Evaluation criteria I would have preferred: 22 8.1 According to me, the courses were adapted to students' profiles and to their attitude regarding entrepreneurship:  Yes  No  It depends on the course 8.2 If "no" or "it depends", why? 8.3 What I would have done differently: My opinion about how important is entrepreneurship at EHL 23 9. According to me, EHL encourages students to develop an entrepreneurial behavior, whether it be through education or extrascolar activities: 1 2 3 4 Totally disagree Totally agree 10. According to me, EHL supports somehow entrepreneurial projects (associations, companies' set up, others...): logistic, financing, moral help... 1 2 3 4 Totally disagree Totally agree 11. According to me, entrepreneurship education is a priority at EHL: 1 Totally disagree 2 3 4 Totally agree About me 12. Age 13. Gender  Masculine  Feminine 14. Nationality 24 15. Entrepreneurship is a possible career path for me:  Yes  No  Maybe 16. My past experiences and my network created a positive environment and could help me to set up a company:  Yes  No 25 REFERENCES Anderson, L.W. (1995). International Encyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher Education, 2nd ed.. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Béchard, J.P., Grégoire, D. (2005). “Understanding teaching models in entrepreneurship for higher education”, in P. Kÿro and C. Carrier (Eds.), The Dynamics of Learning Entrepreneurship in a Cross-Cultural University Context. Tampere: University of Tampere, Faculty of Education, pp. 104-134. Béchard, J.P., Grégoire, D. (2007). “Archetypes of pedagogical innovation for entrepreneurship education: model and illustrations”, in Fayolle, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, vol. 1. Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing. Block, Z., Stumpf, S.A. (1992). „Entrepreneurship education research: experience and challenge”, in Sexton, D.L., Kasarda, J.M. (Eds), The state of the Art of Entrepreneurship. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing, pp. 17-45. Brockhaus, R.H., Hills, G.E., Klandt, H., Welsch, H.P. (2001). Entrepreneurship Education: A global view. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Cheng, M.Y., Chan W.S., Mahmood A. (2009). “The effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in Malaysia”. Education + Training, vol. 51, n°. 7, pp. 555-566. Cullen, P.T., Dick, T.J. (1989). “Tomorrow's entrepreneurs and today's hospitality curriculum”. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, vol. 30, n°.2, August, pp. 54-57. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. (2008). “From Craft to Science: Teaching Models and Learning Processes in Entrepreneurship Education”. Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 32, iss: 7, pp. 569 – 593. Fiet, J.O. (2000a). “The Theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship”. Journal of Business Venturing, vol.16, n°1, pp.1-24. Fiet, J.O. (2000b). “The pedagogical side of teaching entrepreneurship”. Journal of Business Venturing, vol.16, n°2, pp.1-17. Hegarty, C. (2006). “It's not an exact science: teaching entrepreneurship in Northern Ireland”. Education + Training vol. 48, n° 5, pp. 322-335. Jauhari, V. (2006). “Competencies for a career in the hospitality industry, an Indian perspective”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 18, n°. 2, pp. 123-134. Joyce, B.R., Weil, M. (1996). Models of Teaching, 5th ed.. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Legendre, R. (1993). Dictionnaire Actuel de l’Éducation, 2ème édition. Montréal : Guérin. 26 Li, L. (2008). “A review of entrepreneurship research published in the hospitality and tourism management journals”. Tourism Management, vol.29, n°. 5, pp.1013-1022. Lugosi, P., Lynch, P., Morrison, A. (2009). “Critical hospitality management research”. The Service Industries Journal, vol. 29, n°. 10, pp.1465-1478. Rivera, M.A., Upchurch, R. (2008). “The role of research in the hospitality industry: A content analysis of the IJHM between 2000 and 2005”. International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 27, n°. 4, pp.632-640. Sigala, M., Baum, T. (2003). “Trends and issues in tourism and hospitality higher education: visioning the future”. Tourism and Hospitality Research, vol. 4, n°. 4, pp. 367-376. Shane, S., Venkataraman, S. (2000). “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”. Academy of Management Review, vol.25, n°1, pp. 217-226. Thomas, R., Harris, V. (2001). “Exploring connections between teaching and research in hospitality management”. International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol.20, n°3, pp. 245-257. 27