The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

Teachers’ mindset and attitudes towards learners and learning

environment to support students’ entrepreneurial attitudes
in universities
Martin Toding a, *, Kaja Mädamürk b, c, Urve Venesaar a, Elina Malleus b, d
a
School of Business and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Akadeemia tee 3, 12618, Tallinn, Estonia
b
School of Natural Sciences and Health, Tallinn University, Narva maantee 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia
c
Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 5, 00170, Helsinki, Finland
d
School of Educational Sciences, Tallinn University, Narva maantee 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Supporting the development of students’ entrepreneurial skills requires efforts from teaching
Teachers’ mindset staff. It needs specific knowledge, skills, and a mindset of teachers that helps to create a sup­
Learner-centered learning environment portive learning environment for learners. The relationship between teachers’ mindset and the
Entrepreneurial attitude
creation of a learner-centered learning environment is still less studied in entrepreneurship ed­
ucation. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to identify how the university teacher’s
mindset relates to the creation of a learner-centered learning environment and their support to
learners’ entre preneurial attitudes and behavior. Learner-centered learning environment was
conceptualized using the framework of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). The data were gathered
using an online questionnaire completed by 150 university teachers from different higher edu­
cation institutions in Estonia.
The results indicated that university teachers who tend to think that entrepreneurial abilities
are fixed traits are also reporting lower scores in using teaching principles that can be described as
learner-centered and tend not to purposely support students’ entrepreneurial attitudes. Creating a
learner-centered learning environment was positively related to learners’ entrepreneurial attitude
support. The value of the study and contribution to research lies in a better understanding of the
relations between university teachers’ mindset and their tendency to use teaching strategies that
support entrepreneurial learning. This paper positions the growth and fixed mindset theory and
SDT within the context of entrepreneurial learning, adding the aspect of teachers’ mindset for
characterizing the profile of teachers. Also, the difference between entrepreneurship and non-
entrepreneurship teachers were investigated for identifying the opportunities of embedding the
principles of entrepreneurial learning in subject-specific courses. From a practical point of view,
these results are useful for university managers, program managers and educators, including non-
entrepreneurship teachers.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: martin.toding@taltech.ee (M. Toding).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100769
Received 28 May 2021; Received in revised form 24 November 2021; Accepted 27 January 2023
Available online 31 January 2023
1472-8117/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

1. Introduction

Universities have an important role in preparing students for their lives, where they need to acquire the personal competencies
needed to function as a citizen, employee, or entrepreneur (Blenker et al., 2012; Jones & Iredale, 2010). Thus, the objective of
entrepreneurship education programs in universities should not be focused solely on economic prospects but on supporting the
development of learners’ attitudes and competencies that help them manage societal challenges (Rae, 2005, 2010) and challenges to
their self-realization (Steyaert & Katz, 2004). These ideas of realizing the multiple tasks of teaching programs are reflected in the
learning outcomes of entrepreneurship education (e.g., Rasmussen et al., 2015). Here, the role of teachers is important as their per­
sonal characteristics (including mindset towards learners and the learning environment) impact pedagogical practice (Rattan et al.,
2012). Empirically validated educational psychology theories are used in this study to better explain and understand the teachers’
personal characteristics, their attitudes, and their behavior in relation to learners and the learning environment that best supports the
development of students’ entrepreneurship competence. In this article, the term “mindset” refers to Dweck’s theory describing peo­
ples’ beliefs, that is, tendencies to think more (fixed mindset) or less (growth mindset) about different abilities and intelligence as fixed
traits (Dweck, 2006). Examples can be found in the literature, where links have been described between teachers’ growth mindset and
creating supportive learning environment in the classroom (Canning et al., 2019), and effects of mindset interventions (Sisk et al.,
2018).
Teachers’ mindset (growth or fixed) has been studied more often in the lower education levels (Truax, 2018; Yeager & Dweck,
2012). To the best of our knowledge, the teachers’ mindset at the university level in relation to their attitudes towards supporting
students’ entrepreneurial attitude and creating learner-centered learning environments has not been extensively studied so far. More
specifically, many earlier studies in the field of entrepreneurship education have focused on investigating the connections between
teaching strategies and supporting entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors, but have neglected teachers’ mindset components (e.g.
Neck & Corbett, 2018; Robinson et al., 2016; Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2015).
The objectives of entrepreneurship education and its content, teaching approaches, and methods have been debated by a number of
researchers (e.g., Blenker et al., 2008; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008; Pittaway & Cope, 2007a). It has been acknowledged that there remains a
need for more studies in the entrepreneurship education context (Fayolle, 2013), which includes the studies of what helps teachers to
better support learners in developing their entrepreneurial attitude and behavior. Teachers’ efforts are important in choosing what and
how to teach, but we know very little about the profiles of individuals who teach entrepreneurship (Fayolle, 2013; Löbler, 2006), their
views and attitudes towards entrepreneurship, their support of entrepreneurial attitude, and their beliefs regarding students’ abilities
(e.g., Gutshall, 2013), or about creating a suitable learner-centered learning environment.
The learner-centered learning approach has been discussed and suggested for use as a teaching approach in a number of studies (e.
g., Forsström-Tuominen et al., 2015; Gibbs & Coffey, 2004; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Robinson et al., 2016). Learner-centered learning is
based on the social-constructivist theory, which allows to use more efficiently entrepreneurial learning in real-life learning environ­
ments (Cope, 2003; Gibb, 2008; Pittaway & Cope, 2007b). Entrepreneurial learning is often described as a continuous process that
facilitates the development of necessary knowledge for being effective in starting up and managing new ventures (Politis, 2005;
El-Awad et al., 2017) or in a wider sense the development of entrepreneurial attitudes, skills and knowledge that enable the individual
to turn creative ideas into action (European commission, 2016).
In the literature, learner-centered teaching is described as a specific way of teaching that supports students’ learning processes
(Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2007), which may be better achieved by paying more attention to students wellbeing in the classroom
settings and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, relatedness) (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Opening the
concept of learner-centered learning environment more specifically through self-determination theory (SDT) perspective in the context
of entrepreneurship education can help to understand better how to achieve a situation where the learner feels supported and
motivated to be able to participate in knowledge construction process. Self-determination theory (SDT) which helps to better un­
derstand how to create a supportive learner-centered learning environment focuses on meeting the basic psychological needs that will
facilitate learners’ autonomous self-regulation for learning, academic performance, and individual well-being (Niemiec & Ryan,
2009). Thus SDT helps to understand how autonomy support works in learning situations. The importance of autonomy as the guiding
aim of entrepreneurship education and the role of teachers in supporting students’ learning process has been explained by Van Gel­
deren (2010), but the teachers’ attitude towards learners and an autonomy-supportive learning environment has not been empirically
studied. Thus, in the context of entrepreneurship education, there is a need to better understand the underlying conceptions that guide
and determine university teachers’ teaching behavior (Fayolle, 2013; Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2019). This article adds new insights to the
entrepreneurship education literature (e.g., growth and fixed mindset and self-determination theory) and aims to fill the gap in regard
to investigating how the creation of the learner-centered learning environments and teachers’ attitude towards learners are related to
the teacher’s mindset.
In entrepreneurship education, it is important to support the development of learners’ attitude towards entrepreneurship as a way
of thinking about business that focuses on and captures the benefits of uncertainty directing individuals to take up entrepreneurial
activities (McGrath & MacMillan, 2000). An entrepreneurial attitude is characterized by initiative, pro-activity, independence, and
innovation in personal and social life, as much as in one’s working life. It also includes motivation and determination to meet ob­
jectives, whether personal goals or aims held in common with others, including at work (European Commission, 2008, p. 11).
Therefore, entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior are important to individual entrepreneurs as well as to managers and employees in
established firms if they are to think and act entrepreneurially (Daily et al., 2002), and in a wider sense, they are also needed by
individuals in everyday life (e.g., Blenker et al., 2012). Hence, the development of an entrepreneurial attitude and behavior together
with the development of other key skills can be embedded in the study process of entrepreneurship as well as in other subject-specific

2
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

courses.

1.1. Aim and research questions

The aim of the present study is to identify how the university teachers’ growth or fixed mindset (according to Dweck) relates to
creating a learner-centered learning environment and supporting learners’ entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior. Previous research
has shown that the choices of learner-supportive teaching approaches are affected by teachers’ belief that individuals’ capabilities can
be developed (Dweck, 2006; Yeager & Dweck, 2012). In current study teachers’ mindset is described using the evaluation of the fixed
mindset as it helps to better describe the different profiles of respondents. And teaching entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviour re­
quires the creation of appropriate learning environment (e.g. Toutain et a., 2017). Derived from the aim of the research and based on
the theories and concepts covered above, the first research question (RQ) is:
RQ1. How is teachers’ fixed mindset related to creation of learner-centered learning environment?
It is important to stress that the educational system plays a major role in supporting the development of students’ employability and
preparing them for future working life. According to Dweck (2006) and Gutshall (2013) teachers’ growth mindset may have a
perceptible influence on students’ learning behaviors. Therefore, it is important that education supports students’ entrepreneurial
attitude development in order to ensure their future success. The second research question is:
RQ2. How is teachers’ fixed mindset related to their support of learners’ entrepreneurial attitude and behavior?
Relying on the recommendations of European Commission universities should support the development of entrepreneurship as a
key competence for lifelong learning through entrepreneurship courses and embedding entrepreneurship also in different subject-
specific courses (European Commission, 2016). However, it is possible that entrepreneurship teachers are more aware of support­
ing students’ entrepreneurial attitude and behaviour. Thus, the differences between entrepreneurship and non-entrepreneurship
teachers are also investigated.
RQ3. How are entrepreneurship and non-entrepreneurship teachers different regarding their fixed mindset, creating the learner-
centered learning environment, and supporting students’ entrepreneurial attitudes?
The value of the study and contribution to literature lies in investigating the correlation between the teachers’ mindset and their
attitudes towards learners and learning environment to support learners’ entrepreneurial attitude relying on the growth (fixed)
mindset theory (Dweck, 2006) and SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Based on Dweck (2006), it is also proposed how the teachers’ mindset
could be changed in order to ensure the application of a more modern approach in entrepreneurship education.
In the next section, we begin with the theoretical background by describing the essence of fixed and growth mindsets and how
university teachers’ mindset relates to the learning environment and entrepreneurship. Third section includes description of the
research design, measures, sample, and procedure. The results are presented in the fourth section. Finally, the implications of our
findings are discussed.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Teachers’ mindset and attitudes towards learners and learning environment

The teachers’ role is important in designing teaching and learning programs of entrepreneurship education and choosing what and
how to teach in respect to the characteristics, previous experience, and interests of target groups. Teachers’ choices depend on their
attitudes towards entrepreneurship and the development of students’ competencies. The choice of teaching approaches is influenced
by the perceived importance of supporting students’ entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior. Birdthistle and associates (2007) have
argued that the success of enterprise learning programs depends on the level of the teachers’ commitment, knowledge, skills, and
attitudes as teachers’ opinions will intentionally or otherwise be passed onto the students.
According to Dweck (2015), people differ in their beliefs of whether different abilities and intelligence is fixed (fixed mindset) or if
they can be developed (growth mindset). It has been shown that people who believe that abilities can be developed (growth mindset)
are more determined and passionate in achieving long-term goals (Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015; Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Dweck’s
(2015) research has shown that people’s mindset can play a significant role in their achievement in many areas of their lives. Research
results have shown that students who learn that they can develop their brains (make new, stronger neural connections when they
stretch themselves to learn hard things) possess greater motivation to learn and earn higher grades and higher achievement test scores
(Dweck, 2006; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Jones, 2007). Development in a specific area (e.g., entrepreneurship skills) tends to be more
self-directed and is therefore better when people have a growth mindset. Vice versa, people with a fixed mindset may be less prone to
learn from their mistakes and find inner reasons to develop their skills. The teachers’ mindset directly affects the creation of the
learning environment (methods used, style of giving feedback, etc.) and, therefore, may support or hinder the development of students’
attitudes and knowledge about entrepreneurship or other fields. Thus, one key factor that is related to the choices of learner-supportive
teaching approaches is the teachers’ belief that individuals’ capabilities can be developed (Dweck, 2006; Yeager & Dweck, 2012). The
conclusions of Dweck (2006) and Gutshall (2013) suggest that teachers’ growth mindset may have a perceptible influence on at least
some, if not all, students’ learning behaviors. According to Remmik and Karm (2013) and Robinson et al. (2016), if a university teacher
values students’ learning process and a deeper understanding, they are willing to spend more time on discussion, debate, and

3
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

answering questions than just lecturing.

The literature refers to a lack of research about the profiles of individuals teaching entrepreneurship (Fayolle, 2013; Löbler, 2006).
While entrepreneurship teacher profiles have been studied in primary and secondary schools (Ruskovaara, 2014), the focus was on
methods and practices that teachers apply in their entrepreneurship education, and how the teacher’s background characteristics (e.g.,
previous experiences) are related to the entrepreneurship education practices in schools. If we want to understand the teaching ap­
proaches and methods used as well as the ways of creating a supportive learning environment in entrepreneurship education, we also
need to better understand entrepreneurship teachers’ mindset and their attitudes and behavior in relation to learners and learning
environment.

2.2. Creation of a learner-centered learning environment in entrepreneurship education

Entrepreneurial real-life environments are unpredictable, uncertain, and ambiguous, and they require specific skills, which is in
stark contrast to the environments we teach in (Neck et al., 2014). When looking for ways to advance entrepreneurship education,
researchers have referred to a need for creating real-life learning environments where unexpected events can occur (Cope, 2003; Gibb,
2008; Pittaway & Cope, 2007b) and students can learn to cope with real situations. Entrepreneurship education proceeds from
socio-constructivist learning theories (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle et al., 2016; Gibb, 1987, 1993, 2008; Löbler, 2006), which
support the choice of a learner-centered approach in teaching and learning. Entrepreneurship as a key or transversal competence
requires the development of skills necessary for acting in response to opportunities, that is, having the skills and attitudes which are
transferable to all types of organizations and career endeavors (Neck & Corbett, 2018). It has been suggested that entrepreneurship is a
life skill for the twentieth-first century (e.g., Costello et al., 2012, as cited in Neck & Corbett, 2018), which includes creativity,
problem-solving, and social and various other skills (The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2016; see
lifelong learning). These skills can be developed in the context of entrepreneurship education in the process of opportunity identifi­
cation and exploitation as well as in the learning processes of other subjects (e.g., engineering, history, language). Although few studies
exist that provide examples of the concepts of how to teach entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior in the context of entrepreneurship
education, we can agree with the scholarship in the literature that this requires from teachers certain knowledge, skills, and beliefs to
be able to create an appropriate learning environment (e.g., Peltonen, 2015; Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2015; Toutain et al., 2017).
Creating a specific learner-centered learning environment is a key to achieving deeper learning and desirable learning outcomes
(Uiboleht et al., 2016, 2018). Thus, it is important that teaching staff members choose suitable teaching and learning approaches and
are aware of their possibilities to support learning.
In this study, the learner-centered approach in entrepreneurship education is defined as a way of teaching, where the role of teacher
is to facilitate a learning process (Kember, 1997; Kember & Kwan, 2000; Robinson et al., 2016) that allows each student to pursue
opportunities that are personally relevant (Thrane et al., 2016). Thus, when describing ways of achieving a learner-centered learning
environment in this study, we rely on SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT posits that being able to feel well in a learning situation is a
foundation to stay motivated to work towards better understanding in the learning process (Jeno, 2015). Motivation to develop one’s
knowledge and skills in a learning situation is sustained by the feeling of satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs in the
learning environment that can be supported or even thwarted by different teaching behaviour: the need for autonomy where one feels
that it is possible to make their own decisions; the need for competence, where it is felt that one’s knowledge and skills are sufficient for
different activities; and the need for relatedness, that is, the sense of connection and self-importance with others (Ryan & Deci, 2000,
2017, 2020). For example, chosen teaching methods should help to create an atmosphere where students can be open and talk about
different topics (relatedness), but also engage in tasks that require sufficient effort from the learners (competence) where learners can
make their own autonomous decisions (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017, 2020). The need for relatedness is associated with students’ feeling
that the teacher genuinely likes, respects, and values them (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017, 2020). Thus, paying attention to principles of
SDT helps to understand how to create a learner-centered learning environment that supports students wellbeing and the growth of
autonomous motivation. Entrepreneurship education literature has reflected a similar meaning of relatedness through the
socio-constructivist learning theories. In the teaching processes, this means interaction between teachers and students, students and
students, and different active learning approaches (Hägg & Gabrielsson, 2019; Toding, 2017) to support students’ self-management
and social and other skills.
The current research combines the above mentioned theories (Dweck, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and aims to describe their re­
lationships. It combines the teachers’ mindset with the creation of a learning environment that values the support of entrepreneurial
attitudes and behaviors in everyday teaching.

3. Method

3.1. Research design and measures

The current study is relying on the assessment of relationships between teachers’ (fixed) mindset and their attitudes towards the
creation of learner-centered learning environment and entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviour of students. The study is one part of a
larger research project Entrepreneurship Education programme (Edu&Tegu), the goal of which is to support entrepreneurship studies
at all educational levels.
The questionnaire used for the study was designed according to different theoretical viewpoints, such as growth and fixed mindset
theories, self-determination theory and the principles of entrepreneurial learning considering the support of entrepreneurial attitudes

4
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

and behaviour of students.

Teachers’ mindset was assessed with a questionnaire that was based on the growth and fixed mindset theory (Dweck, 2006) and two
questionnaires from Schraw et al. (2002). In this study, only the “Fixed mindset” subfactor was used as it showed more reliable results
and better distinguished the different answers (“Entrepreneurship is a quality that cannot be changed much through learning”, “A
person needs a special innate talent to become an entrepreneur”). Teachers had to evaluate two statements and respond using a
Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = Not agree and 5 = completely agree.
Learner-centered learning environment was assessed with a questionnaire that was created based on the SDT of Deci and Ryan (2000).
Teachers answered eight statements using a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = Not agree and 5 = completely agree. Four
statements assessed teacher supported relatedness (e.g., “I encourage my students to trust me.“), two statements assessed teacher
supported competence (e.g., “My students can learn complex topics if they put effort to it.“), and two statements assessed teacher
supported autonomy (e.g., “I let students make amendment proposals related to the lecture.“).
Entrepreneurial attitude support was assessed with a questionnaire that was based on different entrepreneurship education research,
for example, that of Fayolle and Gailly (2008) and Pittaway and Cope (2007b). Teachers answered five statements (e.g., “I think it is
important to support students entrepreneurial attitude and behavior in my classes.“) with a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = Not
agree and 5 = completely agree.

3.2. Sample and procedures

The data were gathered in 2017–2019 using an online questionnaire and convenience sample. The questionnaire was sent to
university teachers through university mailing lists. The sample included 150 university teachers (96 females, 54 males) from eight
higher educational institutes in Estonia. Six of the institutes were public higher educational institutes (126 teachers) and two private
institutes (24 teachers). A total of 82 participants taught entrepreneurship subjects and 68 other disciplines (these are mentioned in the
analysis section on entrepreneurship and non-entrepreneurship teachers). From all the participants, 21% had teaching experience of
five years or less, 17% had teaching experience between 6 and 10 years, 31% between 11 and 20 years and 31% over 20 years. The
average age of the respondents was 47.42 years (Min = 27, Max = 79, SD = 11.30).
The data were analyzed using the Mplus ver. 8.6 statistical package (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA, USA) and IBM SPSS
Statistics ver. 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were used to control the factor structure of the
questionnaires. Model fit was examined using five model-fit statistics: chi-square (χ2), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tuck­
er–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).
Non-significant χ2, CFI, and TLI values above 0.90, and RMSEA and SRMR values below 0.10, indicated an acceptable model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999; Muthén & Muthén, 2017).

4. Results

4.1. Factor structure and reliability of the measures

Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s α values are presented in Table 1 and standardized factor loadings for each statement in
AppendixTable A1. The results of the confirmatory factor analyses indicated a good model fit for the three factor model of teacher
supported relatedness, competence and autonomy: χ2(17) = 28.21, p = .04; CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.05.
Standardized factor loadings of the relatedness statements varied between 0.39 and 0.75 (Cronbach’s α = 0.66), competence state­
ments .72 - 0.76 (Cronbach’s α = 0.70) and autonomy statements 0.33 - 0.78 (Cronbach’s α = 0.41). Thus, the confirmatory factor
analysis indicated good model fit for the three factor model; however, Cronbach’s alpha for the autonomy statements was rather low.
Since only two statements were used for evaluating autonomy, lower alpha is expected (Cronbach, 1951). The entrepreneurial mindset
support questionnaire had a good model fit for one factor model: χ2(4) = 10.71, p = .03; CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR
= 0.03. Standardized factor loadings of the statements varied between 0.68 and 0.81. Since the teachers’ mindset was assessed with
two statements, CFA was not controlled; still, internal reliability was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.74). Besides confirmatory factor analyses,
Harman’s single-factor test was also used to control for possible common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results of the
Harman’s test indicated that one general factor did not account for the majority of the covariance among the measures (the total
variance for single factor was 38%) suggesting low risk for common method bias.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and the internal reliabilities of the assessed constructs (N = 150).
Min Max M SD Cronbach’s α

1. Teachers’ fixed mindset 1.00 5.00 2.45 1.01 .74

2. Relatedness 2.75 5.00 4.22 0.54 .66
3. Competence 2.50 5.00 4.09 0.66 .70
4. Autonomy 2.00 5.00 4.18 0.65 .41
5. Entrepreneurial attitude support 2.00 5.00 4.16 0.71 .87

5
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

4.2. Relations between teachers’ mindset, learner-centered learning environment and entrepreneurial attitude support

Pearson’s correlations were used to answer the first and second research question. Bivariate correlations between the constructs are
presented in Table 2.
The results indicated that teachers who tended to believe that entrepreneurial abilities are predominantly fixed traits also reported
less often that they supported relatedness while teaching (r = − 0.23, p < .01) as well as competence (r = − 0.27, p < .01). Moreover,
teachers who inclined more towards the fixed mindset were less likely to evaluate students’ entrepreneurial attitude support as an
important part of teaching (r = − 0.31, p < .01). Teachers who valued entrepreneurial attitude support tended to value supporting
relatedness in the classroom (r = 0.65, p < .01). Similarly, supporting competence and entrepreneurial attitude support were positively
related (r = 0.56, p < .01), and supporting autonomy and entrepreneurial attitude support were also related (r = 0.48, p < .01).

4.3. Differences between entrepreneurship and non-entrepreneurship teachers

The independent samples t-test was used to answer the third research question. In Table 3 the teachers’ average scores in fixed
mindset, supporting relatedness, competence, autonomy, and entrepreneurial attitude are presented in both cases – whether the
teacher is an entrepreneurship teacher or a non-entrepreneurship teacher. According to the independent samples t-test, entrepre­
neurship teachers had statistically significantly lower fixed mindset towards entrepreneurship (M = 2.28, SD = 0.96) than non-
entrepreneurship teachers (M = 2.65, SD = 1.03, t(148) = − 2.29, d = 0.37, p < .05). As well, entrepreneurship teachers had statis­
tically significantly higher support for relatedness (M = 4.42, SD = 0.42) than non-entrepreneurship teachers (M = 3.98, SD = 0.57, t
(148) = 5.49, d = 0.88, p < .01). Similarly, entrepreneurship teachers tended to have higher support for competence (M = 4.22, SD =
0.56) than non-entrepreneurship teachers (M = 3.93, SD = 0.75, t(148) = 2.68, d = 0.44, p = .01) and higher support for autonomy (M
= 4.29, SD = 0.53) than non-entrepreneurship teachers (M = 4.05, SD = 0.75, t(148) = 2.23, d = 0.37, p < .05). Also, entrepreneurship
teachers more highly valued students’ entrepreneurial attitude support (M = 4.51, SD = 0.46) when compared with non-
entrepreneurship teachers (M = 3.73, SD = 0.74, t(148) = 7.96, d = 1.27, p < .01).

5. Discussion

The results indicated that university teacher’s mindset is related to the creation of learner-centered learning environment as well to
the support of learners’ entrepreneurial attitude. It also found that entrepreneurship lecturers tend to rely more on supporting the basic
psychological needs in a learning environment compared with non-entrepreneurship lecturers.
The first research question addressed the relationship between teachers’ fixed mindset and the creation of a supportive learner-
centered learning environment. Our research indicated that, if teachers incline more towards a fixed mindset, they tend to put less
effort into creating a learner-centered learning environment compared with others (those with more of a growth mindset). While
learning environment is a key influence on students’ learning, and many studies in the field of education have shown that the use of a
learner-centered approach achieves the best learning outcomes (Uiboleht et al., 2016, 2018; Jeno, 2015), it is therefore important that
teaching staff is aware and know how their teaching approaches affects their students. This enables them to design a learning envi­
ronment conducive to learning.
In this article, we approached the learning environment through the SDT because we found earlier evidence of the effect of
teachers’ support of students’ basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which facilitate students’
autonomous self-regulation for learning, academic performance, and well-being (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). In the context of entre­
preneurship education, when supporting the need for autonomy, it is essential for students to be involved in the process of making
different decisions in their learning process and move towards understanding better what motivates them. Being intrinsically moti­
vated results in higher creativity and better problem-solving ideas (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to Ryan and Deci (2017), the
satisfaction of the need for competence in entrepreneurship education requires teachers to give motivating feedback and help students
to learn from their mistakes without losing the desire to try once more and develop their skills and capacity to be successful in the field
of entrepreneurship. The need for relatedness is particularly important when students are working in teams to develop opportunities
and ideas because they should feel connected and involved with team members, and their role in the team should be recognized.
Research has revealed that autonomy support is a critical aspect of a need-supportive environment because, when there is support for
autonomy, people are also more able to seek out and find satisfaction for their need for both competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci,
2017). Therefore the application of SDT principles has strong implications for classroom practice and academic performance.

Table 2
Bivariate correlations between the constructs (N = 150).
1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Teachers’ fixed mindset –

2. Relatedness − .23** –
3. Competence − .27** .55** –
4. Autonomy − .13 .51** .40** –
5. Entrepreneurial attitude support − .31** .65** .56** .48**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

6
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

Table 3
Differences between entrepreneurship teachers and non-entrepreneurship teachers.
Entrepreneurship teachers n = 82 Non-entrepreneurship teachers n = 68

M SD M SD t df d p

1. Teachers’ fixed mindset 2.28 0.96 2.65 1.03 − 2.29 148 0.37 .02
2. Relatedness 4.42 0.42 3.98 0.57 5.49 148 0.88 .00
3. Competence 4.22 0.56 3.93 0.75 2.68 148 0.44 .01
4. Autonomy 4.29 0.53 4.05 0.75 2.23 148 0.37 .03
5. Entrepreneurial attitude support 4.51 0.46 3.73 0.74 7.96 148 1.27 .00

Moreover, entrepreneurship teachers who tend to believe that abilities are not fixed traits are more prone to create
autonomy-supportive learning environments for all students even if their motivation may not be high in the first place.
The results addressing the second research question about the relationship between teachers’ fixed mindset and their support on
learners’ entrepreneurial attitude indicated that teachers who are inclined more towards the fixed mindset value less the support to the
development of students’ entrepreneurial attitude and behavior. It is a logical result that the lecturers with fixed mindset do not
support the entrepreneurial attitude in people because they may believe that an entrepreneurial attitude is essentially heredity and
cannot be developed (Dweck, 2006). It is important in the context of beliefs that teachers become aware of their own beliefs and
analyze whether the teaching, grading, and recognition activities used to achieve the learning objectives convey a message about the
importance of striving and consistent effort, or whether they should instead stress inborn ability and talent and the importance of
demonstrating such innate abilities. Studies among different teachers from various study fields have shown that the teachers’ mindset
is important in supporting the professional development of students (Dweck & Yeager, 2019).
The results addressing the third research question comparison of entrepreneurship and non-entrepreneurship lecturers showed
differences in the teachers’ attitude towards learners and learning environment. This comparison indicated that entrepreneurship
lecturers pay more attention to creating higher support for autonomy, competence and relatedness in the learning environment and
they are also more supportive of the students’ entrepreneurial attitude than non-entrepreneurship lecturers. These are logical results
because entrepreneurship lecturers have to know how to support students’ entrepreneurial attitude and behavior (Blimpo & Pugatch,
2019). It is very important that the university supports all students’ entrepreneurial attitude and behavior and therefore prepares
students for professional working life. The results of the research show that there is a need to support the awareness of
non-entrepreneurship teachers on how to support students’ entrepreneurial attitude.

6. Conclusion

The current study aimed to identify how the university teachers’ growth or fixed mindset relates to creating a learner-centered
learning environment and supporting the development of learners’ entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior. The contribution of the
current study is that it widens the understanding of the relation of the teachers’ mindset (based on Dweck, 2006) for creating a
supportive learning environment. The empirical results that rely on SDT theory when explaining the creation of a learner-centered
learning environment have helped to better understand the teachers’ role in the entrepreneurial learning process.

6.1. Theoretical implications

This paper adds the aspect of mindset (according to Dweck) for characterizing the profile of entrepreneurship teachers, compared
with previous research. The paper brings the growth and fixed mindset theory into the context of entrepreneurial learning and provides
recommendations on how to develop the entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior among students in the teaching process. The use of
growth and fixed mindset theory and SDT in the context on entrepreneurial learning allows better to explain how to evaluate the
learner-centered learning environment through relying on the satisfaction of learners’ basic psychological needs. For learners it means
that supporting the autonomy, relatedness and competence in the learning process motivates learning and also supporting for
achieving better academic results (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2020). However, besides the better understanding and explanation of the factors
influencing entrepreneurial learning, the use of these theories of psychology (based on Dweck & Yeager, 2019; Dweck, 2006; Ryan &
Deci, 2017) also supports the understanding of how the mindsets of entrepreneurship teachers could be changed in order to ensure a
comprehensive approach in teaching and learning entrepreneurship in entrepreneurship education and other disciplines in the
curricula of universities.

6.2. Practical implications

In the context of entrepreneurial learning, it is crucial to support students’ entrepreneurial attitude, which may also influence the
performance of graduates in different contexts. According to previous studies in general education, we know that the teacher’s mindset
affects students’ academic performance (Canning et al., 2019; Dweck & Yeager, 2019). It is also important to mention here that current
research has found that teachers who value entrepreneurial attitude support tend to place more value on the students’ satisfaction of
basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness), thus contributing to the creation of a supportive learning environ­
ment which, in turn, can result in the development of students’ autonomous motivation towards learning and facilitate learning for

7
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

acquiring needful competencies (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These results are useful for university managers, program managers and teachers
as well as for non-entrepreneurship teachers.

6.3. Limitations and future directions

The main limitation of the study is that it was carried out among university teachers, but the demographic situation among teachers
of Estonian universities was not taken into account. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to all teachers of Estonian universities
nor to other countries. But, considering the interdisciplinary character of entrepreneurship education, this study can be considered as
an attempt to better understand the educators’ profile and their attitudes in the context of entrepreneurship education. Also, teachers’
own estimates of their creation of an autonomy-supportive learning environment was used, and thus, future studies should include
more objective measures.
As the university teachers’ mindset is an important factor in supporting students’ entrepreneurial attitude, the topic is worth
studying further. The same study should be repeated with a bigger and more representative sample, where both the entrepreneurship
and non-entrepreneurship lecturers are involved. This study was focused only on studying university teachers at one time point; thus,
longitudinal studies should be conducted to investigate the development of teachers’ mindset through different phases of their career.
As well, university students should also be studied to make their teachers’ mindset influence clearer. This is also supported by Dweck
and Yeager (2019) who have said that the possibility to develop the growth mindset and the creativity mindset of university teachers
must be studied more deeply, thus indicating that intervention studies are also needed.

Funding

This study was financed by the “Systematic Development of Entrepreneurship Education on All Levels of Education in Estonia”
programme implemented by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research and funded by the European Social Fund.

Declaration of competing interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Appendix A

Table A1
Standardized Factor Loadings of the Questionnaires’ Statements

Single factor model of Three-factor model of teacher supported

entrepreneurial mindset support learner-centered learning environment

Relatedness Competence Autonomy

Entrepreneurial attitude support 1: “I consider it important to support the .810

entrepreneurship of students in the subject I teach”
Entrepreneurial attitude support 2: “I consider it important that students can .687
do well in life (e.g. get a good job or become an entrepreneur)”
Entrepreneurial attitude support 3: “I know how entrepreneurship can be .680
supported in my subject”
Entrepreneurial attitude support 4: “I apply appropriate teaching methods to .731
support students’ entrepreneurship”
Entrepreneurial attitude support 5: “I consider it important that the .788
entrepreneurship of students is supported in the curricula through various
subjects”
Relatedness 1: “My students want to discuss different topics during the lecture” .388
Relatedness 2: “I make sure that my students understand the aims of the .566
lecture”
Relatedness 3: “In the lecture, I create an atmosphere for the students where .578
they feel that they can be open and discuss various topics”
Relatedness 4: “I make sure that my students trust me” .751
Competence 1: “My students also acquire complex subjects if they try” .717
Competence 2: “I do not doubt the ability of students to acquire complex topics .756
during lectures”
Autonomy 1: “I take into account the different opinions and thoughts of 0.778
students”
Autonomy 2: “I give students the opportunity to make suggestions to what is 0.330
planned in the lecture”

8
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

References

Béchard, J.-P., & Grégoire, D. (2005). Understanding teaching models in entrepreneurship for higher education. In P. Kyrö, & C. Carrier (Eds.), The dynamics of learning
entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural university context, Entrepreneurship Education Series 2/2005 (pp. 104–134). Hämeenlinna: University of Tampere, Research Centre
for Vocational and Professional Education.
Birdthistle, N., Hynes, B., & Fleming, P. (2007). Enterprise education programmes in secondary schools in Ireland: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Education +
Training, 49(4), 265–276.
Blenker, P., Dreisler, P., Faergemann, H. M., & Kjeldsen, J. (2008). A framework for developing entrepreneurship education in a university context. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 5(1), 45–63.
Blenker, P., Frederiksen, S. H., Korsgaard, S., Müller, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2012). Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: Towards a personalized pedagogy
of enterprise education. Industry and Higher Education, 26(6), 417–430.
Blimpo, M. P., & Pugatch, T. (2019). Entrepreneurship education and teacher training in Rwanda. Journal of Development Economics, 140, 186–202.
Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., Mary, C., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire
less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734
Cope, J. (2003). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: Discontinuous events as triggers for ‘higher-level’ learning. Management Learning, 34(4), 429–450.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507603039067
Costello, C., Neck, H., & Dziobek, K. (2012). Entrepreneurs of all kinds: Elements of the entrepreneurs inside experience. Babson Entrepreneur Experience Lab. https://
www.businessinnovationfactory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/elab-vol2-report.pdf.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Daily, C. M., McDougall, P. P., Covin, J. G., & Dalton, D. R. (2002). Governance and strategic leadership in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Management, 28(3),
387–412.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success (p. 320). Random House Publishing Group.
Dweck, C. S. (2015). Teachers’ mindsets: Every student has something to teach me. Educational Horizons, 93(2), 10–15. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.
1177/0013175X14561420.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569161880416
El-Awad, Z., Gabrielsson, J., & Politis, D. (2017). Entrepreneurial learning and innovation: The critical role of team-level learning for the evolution of innovation
capabilities in technology-based ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(3), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2016-
0177
European Commission. (2008). Survey of entrepreneurship in higher education in Europe. Main report. NIRAS Consultants, FORA, ECON Pöyry.
European commission. (2016). Entrepreneurship education at school in europe. Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7/8), 692–701.
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2008). From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training,
32(7), 569–593. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590810899838
Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research.
International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(7), 895–904.
Forsström-Tuominen, H., Jussila, I., & Kolhinen, J. (2015). Business school students’ social construction of entrepreneurship: Claiming space for collective
entrepreneurship discourses. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(1), 102–120.
Gibb, A. A. (1987). Enterprise culture—its meaning and implications for education and training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 11(2), 2–38.
Gibb, A. A. (1993). Enterprise culture and education: Understanding enterprise education and its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational
goals. International Small Business Journal, 11(3), 11–34.
Gibb, A. A. (2008). Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in schools and colleges: Insights from UK practice. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 6
(2), 101–144.
Gibbs, G., & Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their
students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100.
Gutshall, C. A. (2013). Teachers’ mindsets for students with and without disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 50(10), 1073–1083. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pits.21725
Hägg, G., & Gabrielsson, J. (2019). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272
Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset in education and how grit helps students persist in the face of adversity. Journal of International
Education Research, 11(1), 47–50.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Jeno, L. M. (2015). Encouraging active learning in higher education: A self-determination theory perspective. International Journal of Technology and Inclusive
Education, 5(1), 716–721.
Jones, L. (2007). The student-centered classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Jones, B., & Iredale, N. (2010). Enterprise education as pedagogy. Education + Training, 52(1), 7–19.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X
Kember, D., & Kwan, K. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469–490. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1026569608656
Löbler, L. (2006). Learning entrepreneurship from a constructivist perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(1), 19–38.
McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset. Harvard Business School Press.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41.
Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory
and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
OECD. (2016). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world. The OECD PISA Global Competence Framework. Retrived from https://www.oecd.org/
education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf.
Peltonen, K. (2015). How can teachers’ entrepreneurial competences be developed? A collaborative learning perspective. Education + Training, 57(5), 492–511.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007a). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0266242607080656
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007b). Simulating entrepreneurial learning integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management Learning, 38(2),
211–233.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x

9
M. Toding et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100769

Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5),
557–571.
Rae, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: A narrative-based conceptual model. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 323–335.
Rae, D. (2010). Universities and enterprise education: Responding to the challenges of the new era. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4),
591–606.
Rasmussen, A., Moberg, K., & Revsbech, C. (2015). A taxonomy of entrepreneurship education: Perspectives on goals, teaching and evaluation. The Danish Foundation for
Entrepreneurship Young Enterprise.
Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. (2012). “It’s ok – not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 73–737.
Remmik, M., & Karm, M. (2013). From teaching to guiding learning: Novice university teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. In E. Saar, & R. Mõttus (Eds.),
Higher education at the crossroads: The case of Estonia (pp. 199–216). Peter Lang Verlag.
Robinson, S., Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L., & Krueger, N. (2016). New horizons in entrepreneurship education: From teacher-led to student-centered learning.
Education + Training, 58(7/8), 661–683.
Ruskovaara, E. (2014). Entrepreneurship education in basic and upper secondary education – measurement and empirical evidence. In Doctoral thesis. Lappeenranta
University of Technology.
Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2015). Entrepreneurship education in schools: Empirical evidence on the teacher’s role. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(3),
1–14.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55
(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the epistemic belief inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal
epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–275). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sisk, V. K., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic
achievement? Two meta-analyses show less. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: Geographical, discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 16(3), 179–196.
Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., & Neergaard, H. (2016). The promise of entrepreneurship education: Reconceptualizing the individual–opportunity nexus as a
conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(7), 905–924. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0266242616638422
Toding, M. (2017). University Teachers’ conceptions of entrepreneurial learning within engineering education. Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern
Europe, 9(1), 30–47.
Toutain, O., Fayolle, A., Pittaway, L., & Politis, D. (2017). Role and impact of the environment on entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
29(9/10), 869–888.
Truax, L. M. (2018). The impact of teacher language and growth mindset feedback on writing motivation. Literacy Research and Instruction, 57(2), 135–157. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2017.1340529
Uiboleht, K., Karm, M., & Postareff, L. (2016). How do university teachers combine different approaches to teaching in a specific course? A qualitative multi-case
study. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(7), 854–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.118361
Uiboleht, K., Karm, M., & Postareff, L. (2018). The interplay between teachers’ approaches to teaching, students’ approaches to learning and learning outcomes: A
qualitative multi-case study. Learning Environments Research, 21, 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-018-9257-1
Van Gelderen, M. (2010). Autonomy as the guiding aim of entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 52(8/9), 710–721.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist,
47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805

10