Role of higher education in promoting entrepreneurship education across disciplines in Tanzania Perpetua Kalimasi Kilasi Abstract This paper explores the role of higher education in fostering entrepreneurship education across disciplines. Some models have been explored and the model that best suit the Tanzanian context has been suggested. Efforts shown so far and challenges that institutions face, have been highlighted. Entrepreneurship has been widely spread in terms of centers based on business schools and as „add-on‟ to non business. Hence, unclear strategies for its incorporation across faculties and insufficient resources are the challenges. The paper argues that the suggested model may suit the Tanzanian environment. However more research is needed to evaluate its impacts to different careers.

Introduction This paper address the theme of the conference by exploring the role that higher education play to promote entrepreneurship education through examining various models and suggest the model that best suit the Tanzania higher education system. Entrepreneurship education has been a debatable concept, especially in relation to higher education institutions. The increasing universities are producing massive graduates who create competitiveness in the labour market (Gibb, 2009). Globalization on the other hand has open up labour market outside national boundaries, creating more stress to graduates because they have to compete, not only to the few employment opportunities, but also to global entrepreneurial standards (Olomi, 2008, Gibb, 2002). Thus, there is a need for entrepreneurial response from higher education institutions (Gibb, 2009). This paper therefore focuses on the role of higher education institutions in promoting entrepreneurship education to different fields of study. Various models have been

developed to guide entrepreneurship development within institutions, they will be discussed in the next part of the paper and the model that best suit the higher education institution like Tanzania will be proposed. The argument of the paper is that entrepreneurial based higher education system across departments, may lead to the delivery of high technology, practical oriented graduates that will be competitive in the world of work across their professions. The increasing number of graduates can enhance higher education institutions as a tool to solve socio-economic problems in the society and reduce the existing poverty. Therefore various stakeholders are devoting much energy to entrepreneurship education due the benefits that may be achieved individually and to the entire society (Mwasalwiba, 2010). However, there have been challenges to embed entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions in different parts of the world, though there are countries like United Kingdom which are somehow ahead in its public response (Gibb and Hannon, 2006). The paper will addresses the issue of the a model appropriate to the Tanzanian higher education system by going through the following; o Examining the changing environment in higher education sector o Challenges that face Tanzania in responding to the changes in higher education sector o Exploring various models o Suggest the model that can best suit Tanzanian context

The paper will finally give the way forward to the future. It is hoped that the explanation to the above issues will shed light to the theme of the conference and address the context of entrepreneurship education within higher education institutions in Tanzania and lessons can be drawn to other African countries. 2

What is entrepreneurship education? According to Clercq and Crijns (2007:172), there is no general agreement with regard to what constitutes entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, while some scholars believe that entrepreneurship cannot be taught (Henry, Hill & Leitch, 2005), others argue that it can be taught (Kuratko, 2005). The challenge is for educators to design effective courses and programs to impart the relevant skills which will help our students to cope with uncertain environment (Solomon, 2007, Neck &Green, 2011). In its broader terms, entrepreneurship education is not limited to business or producing entrepreneurs and self-employed people, but rather to developing positive attitudes and those skills, such as creativity and flexibility, which will enable young people to cope with uncertainties in the labour market (Pretorious, 2005). This suggests that, while entrepreneurship programs, courses, centres and units of entrepreneurship have been established, there is less knowledge on how these courses and programs should be taught and how interdisciplinary approaches could be built (European Commission, 2008). The expected outcome of entrepreneurship education is entrepreneurship capacities which constitute the necessary and sufficient conditions to practice entrepreneurial behaviour in response to socioeconomic challenges (Gibb, 1998). This implies that entrepreneurial skills may enable graduates to have the capacity to apply the theories they learn in classrooms to the practical world of work in their specific careers. Though entrepreneurship is highly visible in business world, it is also relevant in other private and public sectors and thus within education institutions it should also be reflected across different fields of study (Olomi, 2008). The disagreement on what constitute

3

entrepreneurship education also has some effects on the design, assessment and objectives of entrepreneurship education within institutions (Mwasalwiba, 2010).

The Changing environment of higher education sector There are many discussions about the changes that are taking place within higher education institutions which bring about controversial arguments about the incorporation of entrepreneurship education (Gibb and Hannon, 2006). In recent years, Tanzania has been engaged in the process of expanding its universities, both public and private universities. In 2004/05, there were only 24 universities and university colleges in Tanzania, servicing a total of 37,667 students. By 2008/09, this had increased to 31 universities and university colleges, serving 95,525 students (SARUA, 2009). The increasing number of graduates has gone beyond the available job opportunities soon after graduation. In 2006, unemployment in Tanzania stood at 11%. The informal sector employed 9.3%, as compared to 5.7% in the year 2000/01, while the government employed 2.4% in the year 2006, compared to 2.2% in 2000/011. These statistics indicate that the informal sector has been the leading employer (Economic Survey of 2007). Clearly, there is a need to design new strategies to prepare young people for the fast changing and competitive world of work.

Olomi (2006) maintains that graduates in Tanzania could be self-employed, but are not psychologically and functionally prepared to think of opportunities related to their professions, because the curricula have been so traditional to meet the current demands and job requirements. In this essence despite of its short supply, the educated manpower is being

1

Integrated Labour Force Survey, 2005/06.

4

wasted in countries in some periods in which graduates are walking around with their certificates to search for jobs (Olomi, 2008). Moreover, even graduates themselves have been arguing that their degree courses are „too theoretical‟ and that they therefore do not have the relevant practical skills to enable them to explore various opportunities (Al-Samarai & Paul, 2003). But the pressures of the changing environment translate into a need to equip graduates with necessary skills as well as build them with entrepreneurial mindsets.

Challenges that face Tanzania in responding to the changes in higher education sector The pressures within the higher education sector has increased interest of researchers about the connection between entrepreneurship and education in general and various entrepreneurship education in specific (Fayolle et al, 2006). Some institutions in Tanzania, have responded to the need to impart entrepreneurship knowledge by establishing entrepreneurship centres and units catering to business students (Mkude, 2003). They have designed courses in the form of a degree/certificate programs to major entrepreneurship but there is a debate on effectiveness of the content and the approaches (Olomi, 2008). In essence there is no common understanding of how entrepreneurship education can be realised within institutions and there is little experience in incorporating it within education institutions (Olomi, 2008). The development and delivery of entrepreneurship education is often affected by the internal organizational structure of an institution, controlled by an inflexible curriculum which impedes interdisciplinary approaches to such education (European Commission, 2008). Despite the efforts that institutions are devoting in mainstreaming entrepreneurship within institutions in Tanzania, there are many challenges that are drawing back the efforts. Some includes 5

resource constraints, narrow understanding of entrepreneurship education, „ambivalence‟ of different academic units, resistance from university managers and some teaching staff as well as the expansion in enrolment (Olomi, 2008). Thus fitting entrepreneurship education in the current system of higher education structures and the way it can be fitted in the broad network of education theory is the central challenge (Gibb, 2011). Therefore the process of embedding entrepreneurship within institutions may need more time and newly designed ways of sensitizing.

Background of the country’s policy context Until in the past few years, the government of Tanzania has played a prominent role in development and has been a leading employer (Mugabushaka, et al. 2007:126). As a result, even the higher education institutions have had to reflect and structure their curricula to meet the needs of the labour market. Currently, the capacity of the national labour market to absorb new entrants is „far from sufficient‟ (ILO, 2009:5, Mwasalwiba, 2010). Even when they are found, there is little guarantee that they will last for a long time (Heinonen, 2007:1). This implies that entrepreneurship education have gain relevance today than ever before (Neck & Green, 2011), thus there is a need of new approaches to deliver entrepreneurial graduates capable to cope with development challenges through exploring opportunities around them. Entrepreneurship education has been explained using various models and various institutions have designed and some using different models to promote entrepreneurship development. Some models will be discussed in the next part of the paper.

6

Various models Traditional Business Model The Traditional Business Model adopted from Gibb‟s „nomenclature‟ indicates an „entrepreneur‟ like a „hero‟ that has been assembled from collection of parts which reflects the traditional approaches to entrepreneurship addressing entrepreneurship education in the context of business management (More in Gibb, 2006: 8, exhibit 2). This model reveals that not everybody can be entrepreneurial except the few „exceptional ones‟ who represent the “the heroic Schumpeterian heart” (Gibb, 2006:8). In many institutions in Africa including Tanzania, this is the dominant model in which entrepreneurship development has been attached to business schools and as „adds-on‟ to other faculties. Gibb (2006) also highlighted that in most business schools entrepreneurship is taught within their context and it is weak to the non-business population like education and local government. Studies indicate that lecture method is the major mode of delivery of entrepreneurship education (George, 2007, Neck & Greene, 2011). Therefore there is less practice of the theories that they learn in lectures. This model has a value to the entrepreneurship body of knowledge and it has some contribution to entrepreneurial development within institutions, but its role to the wider higher education institution‟s scope has been insufficient. Thus more research is needed to assess its value and the alternative model that suits the cross-discipline approach is needed. However, empirical research indicates that the establishment of entrepreneurship programs within various education institutions has a positive motivational influence for graduate‟s entrepreneurship career choice (Fayolle et al, 2006).

7

Integrated model for entrepreneurial performance The integrated model has been developed from the merging of two models; Entrepreneurship Performance (Mathematical) Model by Van Vuuren and Nieman (1999) and Entrepreneurial Education Model according to Pretorious (2001). The proposed model is stated as; “E for E/P= ƒ [aF ×bM (cE/S×dB/S) × (eA+fB/P)] Where; E for E/P is the Education for improved Entrepreneurial Performance F is Facilitators ability, skills and experience M is the Motivation E/S is Entrepreneurial skills B/S is Business Skills and knowledge A is the Approaches of learning used B/P is the Business Plan a to f are constants which will have a value ranging between zero and one. The implication is that the facilitator may have low skills and abilities that he would apply, but it is above zero. The same may be true for the constants of other constructs that have to do mainly with learners” (Pretorious and Nieman, 2005:422).

Being argued that the integrated model is more complex than any of its building blocks (Pretorious and Nieman, 2005), the details of the mathematical complexities is not part of this paper. But from the qualitative analysis the role of facilitators to entrepreneurship development has been accentuated and the authors have indicated that all the constructs of the integrated model have contributions in fostering entrepreneurial training programs. It is also the two 8

models that laid the foundation of programs like A BCom, A, MPhil and a PhD in entrepreneurship at the University of Pretoria as well as the entrepreneurship program at Polokwane Campus of Technikon of Pretoria (Pretorious and Nieman, 2005). The authors also pose some shortcomings of the model that it has been insufficient in its provision with reference to contexts of the three program developed and suggested a need for more research to monitor the entrepreneurial activity of the three programs (Pretorious and Nieman, 2005). In the context of this paper this model may be insufficient in promoting entrepreneurship across disciplines in the Tanzanian context, but in terms of facilitator‟s skills and knowledge, it can be very constructive because of the less Masters and PhD programs in entrepreneurship.

Intentional models Intentions are anticipated outcomes that usually guides and thus they have a role to play as a catalyst for planned actions (Fayolle et al 2006). Among intention models is Shapero‟s model of an entrepreneurial event. According to Krueger et al. (2000), the main argument of Shapero‟s model is that the intent to take up an entrepreneurial career is a result of the two perceptions of „desirability‟ and „feasibility‟. Perceptions of desirability refer to the individual‟s attraction to undertaking certain behaviour (such as entrepreneurial behaviour). Social systems which value the formation of new enterprises, innovations and other entrepreneurial behaviours are thus more likely to inspire many people to follow an entrepreneurial career path (Shapero & Sokol, 1982). Feasibility perceptions, on the other hand, refer to the individual‟s belief in his or her own capacity to carry out certain behaviour (Krueger et al., 2000). If an individual perceives the formation of new ventures as unfeasible, he/she may conclude that it is undesirable (Shapero & Sokol, 1982). According to Elfving et al. (2009), Shapero focused on the factors 9

which make an entrepreneurial event, such as venture creation. Shapero‟s conclusion was based on the fact that entrepreneurial events happen when there is an interaction between socio-cultural and situational factors which affect the perceptions of individuals. In this paper, the entrepreneurial intentions imply policy makers, lecturers‟ perceptions towards the integration of entrepreneurship education across-discipline higher education institutions. The inference here is that there are differences in the way individuals think about being entrepreneurs and about entrepreneurship in general (Shapero, 1975). The way lecturers in different disciplines perceive entrepreneurship may reflect the way it has to be incorporated in the curriculum and the extent to which it is promoted to the students. The social system, on the other hand, may include approaches to teaching and learning and other supportive resources for entrepreneurship education. This means that infrastructures in different universities may either excite or discourage the entrepreneurial spirit. The theory of planned behaviour is also part of intentional models which have been employed in explaining the gradual beginning of entrepreneurial behaviour (Fayolle et al, 2006). This theory was created to explain behaviour of human beings in different context. The main idea is that intentions may capture motivational factors that influence behaviour, and that the „stronger the intention to engage in behaviour the more likely should be its performance‟ (Ajzen, 1991:181). According to this theory, attitude towards behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control are the antecedents of intentions that influence behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Therefore it uses some conceptual meaning of Shapero and Sokol‟s model (1982) by including external elements that can influence attitudes and thus allows the assessment of the influence of various entrepreneurship education programs employing varied approaches to the intention of entrepreneurial tendencies (Fayolle et al, 2006). Therefore regardless of being used 10

in determining behaviour in different context, intentional models have also been used to explain the behavioral context of entrepreneurship education and training (Fayolle et al, 2006). In the context of this paper, intentional models are useful as they can be applied in assessing different entrepreneurship programs established within higher education institutions, but still, there is a need of more research on the understanding of entrepreneurship education, because attitude towards the behaviour may change due to more understanding of the wider concept of entrepreneurship education and the way it can be embedded in the curriculum. Ajzen (1991:206) also explained that “regardless of the evidence of the relationship between normative beliefs, and subjective norms and between control beliefs and perceptions of behavioural control, the exact form of these relations is still uncertain”.

Societal Model of Entrepreneurship This model explain entrepreneurship in a wider social environment where by students in different fields of study can be equipped with the entrepreneurial capacity and skills necessary to exploit various opportunities within their professions (Gibb, 2006). The model has been illustrated to represent an „entrepreneur‟ as „running creature‟ with different parts each with a specific role necessary to win the complexities and uncertainties in a world of globalization (More in Gibb, 2006:12, exhibit 3). It has been argued that the this model is stronger when it comes to its relevance in both worlds, business and non-business, bearing the fact that business is among many entrepreneurial management contexts (Gibb, 2006). The societal model of entrepreneurship addresses the thinking which is strategic for the future of range of organizations with continuous glancing over environment‟s weaknesses and strengths, simply because the need and scope for effective entrepreneurial behaviour varies across organizations and people (Gibb, 2006). The implication here is that for the 11

entrepreneurial program to be successful within the institution there should be supportive structures from the policy level, departmental level, up to the facilitator‟s level. The way different stakeholders within and outside the institution understand entrepreneurship education in the context of their specific disciplines, the better it can be embedded in the curriculum. This model can be an alternative to the challenges that are facing Higher education institution in Tanzania today in terms of entrepreneurship development. The reason is the dominance of „tradition business model‟ in most institutions. In theory there are some institutions that have developed policies to embed entrepreneurship across disciplines, but still the burden of implementation is left to the entrepreneurship centers and units and some of the policy makers are still reluctant in taking up the initiative (Olomi, 2008). In this essence, there still a gap on the way higher education institutions perceive the wider concept of entrepreneurship education and the way it can be embedded within the institution‟s curricular. Therefore the wider societal model of entrepreneurship may best suit the Tanzanian environment because it addresses the wider understanding of entrepreneurship education within specific context of the institutions. It also addresses the contextual differences in which opportunities can be explored. Student‟s abilities and innovations in different disciplines can be explored using the existing problems in the society. The advantage within higher education institutions is the availability of multiple professions, which through interdisciplinary research may help each other to build up the necessary skills to the students. Olomi (2008) highlighted that some entrepreneurial skills like communication, negotiation, information technology can be organized within universities through students themselves via different clubs and supported by institution‟s relevant administrative and academic departments like career guidance and counseling and quality 12

assurance units. In terms of capacity Gibb, (2011) argued that it can be examined through the academic audit which may find some staff with strong research and consultancy skills relevant to their disciplines, these may become „entrepreneurial champions‟ in their departments. However, incorporating the broader entrepreneurial paradigm does not mean fading out the value of academic work (Gibb, 2006), but rather building the Schumpeterian „creative destruction‟ (Schumpeter, 1934, in Gibb et al 2009), as the traditional departments will slowly fade to become „entrepreneurial‟ new ones. Olomi (2008: 10) indicated that some higher education managers think that mainstreaming entrepreneurship across the university is „turning prestigious institutions into vocational training centers‟. Higher education institutions may employ the societal model together with constructs within other learning models such as Bigg‟s original 3P model of learning, with the components of presage, process and product bearing on teaching. The `presage‟ factors include teachers‟ characteristics, motivations and skills, as well as the institutional context. The `process‟ factor entails the approach to teaching a particular topic. The `product‟ factor includes student learning outcomes (Biggs, 1989). Lecturers‟ characteristics are important because different teachers in the same environment can bring about either effective or ineffective learning outcomes (Biggs, 1989). Some elements of experiential learning theory can also be incorporated in teaching and learning as it sees the learning process as combining experience, perceptions, cognition and behaviour (Kolb, 1984). This theory was derived from the three learning models of Lewin, Piaget and Dewey, all of which emphasize that “learning is a process whereby knowledge is created through transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984). The philosophy of John Dewey 13

perhaps best explains the principles of experiential learning program in higher education. Examples of experiential learning tools which could be used in higher education include fieldwork, laboratory studies, studio arts, and work/study programs (DeGiacomo, 2002). In explaining Kolb‟s theory of experiential learning, DeGiacomo states: “Generally speaking, experiential learning in higher education refers to curriculum options that recognize learning experiences outside the classroom and which integrates these off-campus experiences into an academic program.” Experiential learning has been adopted by universities in Singapore, with a positive effect on changing entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions among undergraduates (Fonacier & Muller, 2006). Students were exposed to technology enterprise hubs around the world and served as interns in high technology start-ups (Fonacier & Muller, 2006). The program was successful because it was fully funded and the government was committed to a significant investment in it, knowing that at the end of the day, talented graduates would invest in high technology not only for themselves but also for the future benefit of society (Fonacier & Muller, 2006). It is argued that in whatever course that students are pursuing, they should have the capacity to relate the entrepreneurial processes or business ideas (Olomi, 2008). However, On the other hand, stakeholders like banks, regulatory authorities, customer/supplier networks, legal professions are also very important for entrepreneurship development support (Gibb, 2006).

Conclusion The paper has explored the role that higher education institution can play to foster entrepreneurship by exploring some models and suggests the model that best suits the Tanzanian context as it may foster understanding of the wider concept of entrepreneurship 14

education. Having „entrepreneurial champions‟ from different departments may create the ownership mindset of entrepreneurial skills tailored to their specific disciplines. Some studies and reviews have been assessing the attitude of graduates towards entrepreneurial career/self employment, examine the entrepreneurial activity of some business oriented entrepreneurship students, examine the extent to which entrepreneurship education is taught in business schools, challenges of integrating entrepreneurship education in the vocational training system, as well as establishing entrepreneurship education in a constrained environment. Less has been done on the role of higher education institutions in promoting entrepreneurship education across disciplines through examining various models and incorporating the understanding of the wider concept of entrepreneurship education to higher education managers. In this paper the model that may best suit Tanzanian environment has been proposed. The argument in the paper is that for the proposed model to employed successfully there is a need for all stakeholders to think flexibly and strategically (Gibb et al, 2009), with the design which will allow the interdependency between different Sections/units/Departments/Schools/Government authorities/relevant professions/Non Governmental Organizations/Agencies and the entire community. However the challenge as highlighted by Gibb et al (2009) is for top management people to be in charge of change, there may be some stress in coordinating new combinations of knowledge. Finally the author argues that in different professions there are practical problems that may be solved through entrepreneurial system of education. Business ideas can also be among its products. However more research is needed to assess the contextual implications of the model in terms of support from other stakeholders like government and relevant agencies. In 15

addition regardless of its wider scope, examining the impact of the model across disciplines, professions and careers is uncertain. This may include examining the impact of entrepreneurial based higher education system from various sectors of the economy and various aspects of life in the entire community.

Author’s Bio The Author is working with Mzumbe University, Morogoro, Tanzania as an Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Education Foundations and Management. She has been teaching education Management related courses. Currently she is a PhD student, Department of Education Management and Policy Studies, University of Pretoria, Republic of South Africa. In her PhD studies, she is conducting research on the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship education, the case of selected public universities in Tanzania. She is also conducting research in the Role of Education for the development of the rural community in the pastoral societies, northern Tanzania. She has a Bachelor of Education and a Master of Business Administration, from the University of Dar es Salaam Tanzania. She can be contacted through [email protected].

Acknowledgement The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of all the reviewers when the abstract was submitted and SIDA for the grant that facilitated the participation at this conference. Special gratitude is addressed to Dr Chaya Herman, University of Pretoria, for her academic and supervisory role in my PhD‟s work literature review. Dr Donath Olomi‟s contribution to his entrepreneurship scholarly works for the Tanzanian context was very substantial to the development of this paper. 16

Bibliography Ajzen, I. (1991). “The Theory of Planned Behaviour,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, (50), 179-211.

Allan G. (2002). “In pursuit of a New „Entreprise‟ and „Entrepreneuship‟ paradigm for Learning: Creative Destruction, New Values, New Ways of Doing Things and New Combinations of Knowledge,” International Journal of Management Review, (14)3, 233-269.

Allan, Gibb (2006). “Entrepreneurship: Unique Solutions for Unique Environment: Is it Possible t Achieve this Existing Paradigm?, ” Background Paper to the Plenary Presentation to the International Council of Small Business World Conference, Melbourne Australia, June 1821, 2006.

Allan G. and P. Hannon (2006). “Towards the Entrepreneurial University?”Available on . Accessed on April.28, 2011.

Allan, G. (2009). “Leading the Entrepreneurial University: Meeting the Entrepreneurial Development Needs of Higher Education Institutions, National Council for Graduates Entrepreneurship (NCGE),” University of Oxford.

Allan, G. (2011). “Concepts into Practice: Meeting the Challenge of Development of Entrepreneurship Educators around an Innovative Paradigm: The Case of International

17

Entrepreneurship Education Program (IEEP),” International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research, (17)2, 146-165.

Al-Samarai, S., Bennel, P. (2003). „Where has all Education Gone in Sub-Saharan Africa? Employment and Other Outcomes among Secondary School and University Leavers‟. Taylor and Fransic, Brighton, UK.

Biggs, B.J. (1989). “Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching, ” Higher Education Research and Development Journal, (8) 1, 7-25.

Clercq, D. and Crijns, H. (2007). “Entrepreneurship Education in Belgium: Findings and Implications from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,” In Fayolle, A.Ed. A handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education (Ed): Contextual Perspectives, (2), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 120-183.

Colette, Frances and C. Leitch (2005). Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Can Entrepreneurship be taught? Part 1, Education and Training, (47)2, 98-111.

Donath, O. (2006). “Unleashing Entrepreneurial Potentials of the Poor in Tanzania: Prospects, Challenges and Way forward,” Working Paper for Presentation to the high level Commission on the legal Empowerment of the poor.

18

Donath, O. (2008). Mainstreaming Entrepreneurship Education in a Resource Constrained Environment: The Experience of the University of Dar es Salaam, University of Dar es Salaam Entrepreneurship Centre.

DeGiacomo, J., A. (2002). “Experiential Learning in Higher Education,” The Forestry Chronicle (78)2 (http://0-pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.innopac.up.ac.za/journals.old/tfc78/tfc782452.pdf.

Donald K.F. (2005). “Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends and Challenges,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (29)5, 577-598.

Elfving, J. et al. (2009). “Towards a Contextual Model of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” in Carsrud, A.L. and Brannback, M. (eds), Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind, International Studies in Entrepreneurship (24). Springer Science and Business Media, 23-33. Ernest, M. (2010). “Entrepreneurship Education, a Review of its objectives, Teaching Methods and Impact Indicators,” Journal of Education and Training, (52)1, 20-47.

European Commission (2008). Best Practice Project: “Entrepreneurship in Higher Education, Especially in Non-Business Studies”. Final Report of the Expert Group. http://europa.eu.int/comm/entreprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/index.htm

Fayolle, A., (2006). “Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education Programmes: a New Methodology,”Journal of European Industrial Training, (30)9,701-720. 19

Fonacier, R., and Muller, J. (eds) (2006). “Changing Entrepreneurial Perceptions and Developing Entrepreneurial Competence Through Experiential Learning, Evidence from Entrepreneurship Education in Singapore‟s Tertiary Education Institutions, ” Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, (II) 2.

George, S (2007). An examination of Entrepreneurship Education in the United States, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, (14) 2.

Heidi, N and P. Greene (2011). “Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers,” Journal of Small Business Management, (49), 55-70.

ILO, (2009). Supporting Entrepreneurship Education, A report on the Global Outreach of the ILO‟s Know About Business Program, Geneva.

Jarna, H. (2007). “An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching Corporate entrepreneurship at University level,”Education and Training, (49) 4, 310 – 324.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning Experience a Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Marius, Nieman and J. Van Vuuren (2005). “Critical Evaluation of the Two Models for Entrepreneurial Education: An Improved Model through Integration,” International Journal of Education Management, (19) 5, 413-427.

20

Morris, Michael and A.Carsrud (2000). “Competing models of entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Business Venturing, (15)411-432.

Mugabushaka, A. et al. (eds) (2007). Higher Education and Work in Africa: A Comparative Emperical study in Selected countries‟: International Centre for Higher Education Research, Germany.

Sabokwigina, Deo (2008). “Entrepreneurship Education in Tanzania‟s Business School: A National Wide Survey,” University of Dar es Salaam.

Severina, N.K. (2010).“The Challenges of Integrating Entrepreneurship Education in the Vocational Training System: An Insight from Tanzania Vocational Education Training Authority,” Journal of European Industrial Training, (34)2,153-166.

Shapero, A. (1975). The Displaced Uncomfortable Entrepreneur, Psychology Today, London, 83-88 Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982). “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship” in Kent, C., A., et al (eds) Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 72-90

The United Republic of Tanzania, The Economic Survey 2007, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, June 2008.

21

Van Vuuren, J.J. and Nieman, G.H. (1999), “Entrepreneurial education and training: a model for syllabi/curriculum development”, Proceedings of the 45th ICSB World Conference, Naples,June.

Victor, George (2007). “Perceptions and Attitude of University Students Towards Self Employment: A case of Public Universities in Tanzania,” Master Dissertation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania.

22