University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning

(USC Thesis Other)

Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Supporting Faculty in Preparing Entrepreneurship:
An Exploration in the Context of Active Learning
by
Jose D. Hug

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Jose D. Hug 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jose D. Hug certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Monique Datta
Koichi Okumura
Helena Seli, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This study explored the extent to which faculty members in a Japanese university fostered
students' entrepreneurial skills through active learning-aligned instruction practices. To explore
faculty members' ability to provide an innovative learning environment, the study employed the
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. The study participants were full-time faculty
from three departments within the organization. To collect and analyze qualitative data,
PowerPoint decks and syllabi were analyzed in addition to conducting individual online
interviews. Data analysis findings indicated that both assets and gaps existed in the
organization's current instructional practices. In addition to recommending problem-based
learning (PBL) as an instructional approach across the university, this study makes several other
recommendations to support faculty in implementing a PBL curriculum. The new world
Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was recommended as part of a faculty
development program for the training and evaluation of faculty members' instructional practices.
The study’s recommendations are aimed at closing identified gaps, creating a PBL curriculum,
and creating a faculty development program designed to support faculty members to meet the
organizational mission.
Keywords: active learning, cultural model, cultural setting, declarative knowledge,
entrepreneurship, expectancy-value theory, gap analysis framework, Japan, KMO framework,
Kotter’s eight step model, new world Kirkpatrick model, procedural knowledge, problem-based
learning, self-efficacy, utility value

v
Dedication
To Reiko Sumiyoshi Hug, my wife, best friend, and eternal companion who has suffered with me
to overcome unbelievable obstacles. I would not have been able to start my journey in higher
education without your love, support, and advice. All I have accomplished is due to your
understanding. You are my happiness each day and the one thing I cherish the most in this life.

To Theodora Sanchez Hug, my mother, who only completed elementary school, but who taught
me profound lessons about myself through deep discussions about psychology and sociology.
Thank you for your love, for sitting with me to study when I cried every day as a child, feeling I
could not learn English and wanted to quit school. You never gave up on me. You protected me
and always helped me love myself.

To David Earl Hug, my father, who never made it past junior high school, but taught me that
hard work is honorable. Among the thousands of people, I have met, you were the only one who
never displayed anger. I only had a few years with you before you went to heaven, but your
memory lives on in my heart.

vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you, to Dr. Helena Seli, you are a truly impressive, kind, and understanding
mentor. Without your quick feedback and advice, my journey would have been impossible. The
Japanese have an expression that translates into, “I do not have the words to express my deepest
gratitude and appreciation,” which is how I feel and wish to thank you once again.
To my dissertation committee members Dr. Monique Datta and Dr. Koichi Okumura,
your insight and advice allowed me to think clearly and consider points that brought value to my
writing. A special thank you to Dr. Okumura, who took the challenge to frequently discuss my
dissertation and provided advice for improving my ideas. You are a true friend and colleague.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 3
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 4
Organizational Goal ............................................................................................................ 5
Description of Stakeholder Group ...................................................................................... 5
Stakeholder Group for the Study ........................................................................................ 6
Stakeholder Performance Goals .......................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 8
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ........................................... 9
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 12
Japan’s Educational Reforms ............................................................................................ 12
Overview of Active Learning ........................................................................................... 15
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) ....................................................................................... 19
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Framework ........................................................................................................................ 23
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ..................................... 24
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 37

viii
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 41
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 41
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 41
Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan ........................................................ 42
Ethics and Role of Researcher .......................................................................................... 50
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 51
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 51
Research Question 1: What Are the Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Related
to Implementing Instructional Practices Aligned With an Active Learning
Approach? ......................................................................................................................... 53
Research Question 2: What Is the Interaction Between the University Culture and
Context and the Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Related to Implementing
Instructional Practices Aligned With Active Learning? ................................................... 70
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 77
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion......................................................................... 79
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 79
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 86
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 97
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 98
Implications for Connection to the Rossier Mission......................................................... 99
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 100
References ................................................................................................................................... 101
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 116
Questions......................................................................................................................... 116
Conclusion to the Interview ............................................................................................ 118
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 119

ix
Syllabi, Slides, and Handout Analysis Prompts.......................................................................... 119

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Group’s
Performance Goal 8
Table 2: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences 29
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Motivational Influences 33
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Organizational Influences 37
Table 5: Data Sources 42
Table 6: Summary of Participant Pseudonyms, Teaching Experience, and Education
Level 52
Table 7: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Assets or Gap Findings 54
Table 8: Varied Definitions of Active Learning from Interview Participants 56
Table 9: Faculty’s Perceptions of Active Learning as a Means of Learning
Entrepreneurship 61
Table 10: Comparison of Faculty’s Active Learning-Aligned Instructional Practices 63
Table 11: Summary of Assumed Motivation Assets or Gap Findings 69
Table 12: Summary of Assumed Organizational Findings 71
Table 13: Comparison of Faculty Expressed Mixed Levels of Need for Training and
Development 76
Table 14: Summary of Knowledge Assets or Gaps Findings and Recommendations 88
Table 15: PBL Faculty Development Sequence Training Stages and Recommendations 89
Table 16: Summary of Motivation Assets or Gaps Findings 92
Table 17: Kotter’s Eight-Step Model and Accelerators 93
Table 18: Summary of Organization Influences Gap Findings and Recommendations 94

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 39

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
This study examined faculty instructional practices that support student learning and
motivation of Japanese university students. Since 2000, Japan has continuously scored highly on
PISA assessments and maintained its high ranking in subsequent years (OECD, 2012). Yet the
government has introduced periodic reforms to improve overall educational performance,
specifically to meet future skill requirements (OECD, 2019). The same study observed that high-
performing nations, such as Japan, reported high levels of student anxiety about failure. In
addition, according to OECD (2017a), only 40% of Japanese teens were motivated to excel in
school, compared with an OECD average of 65%. Further, a second study found that due to a
lack of instructor excitement, Japanese students lacked enthusiasm and perseverance (OECD,
2017b).
The evidence suggests that despite their academic excellence, many Japanese students are
under-motivated, have poor self-esteem, and fear failure. Therefore, schools at all levels should
evaluate existing teaching practices and explore alternative teaching methods to improve both
student motivation and academic achievement. The active learning method is a promising
learning approach that supports faculty in delivering motivational and skill-based instructions to
engage and motivate students. The aim of the study was to explore and ultimately recommend
faculty instructional practices for supporting entrepreneurial skill acquisition through the lens of
an active learning approach.
Background of the Problem
Studies of Japanese classrooms have explored the connections between academic
performance and low motivation (MacWhinnie & Mitchell, 2017; Pribyl et al., 2004), as well as
demotivation (Hamada, 2011; Kikuchi, 2019; Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009). Similarly, in their
2

research, Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) determined that in Japan teachers' actions have a direct
bearing on student motivation. In order to understand the relationship between faculty members
and students' motivation, various factors were considered in this study.
First, the Japanese educational system entrusts teachers with a great deal of responsibility
for leading classroom instruction and directing activities. Yet, according to OECD (2015), while
75% of teachers reported receiving feedback from leaders (average was 54%) they also reported
low self-esteem in several areas. For example, only 24% of educators felt they were qualified to
teach the content or pedagogical aspects of their classes, and only 16% were confident in their
ability to help students learn critical thinking skills. Further, 86.4% reported work conflicts with
professional development efforts (the average was 50.6%). In addition, only 28.1% of teachers
reported feeling their profession had value in Japanese society, while 58.1% of them said they
would keep their job if given a second chance to choose another career (OECD, 2015).
Second, to achieve positive results on tests, Japanese teachers tend to rely on rote
learning practices. Rote learning characterizes exam hell in Japan (Falout et al., 2009; Komatsu
& Rappleye, 2018). According to OECD (2012), Japan is a meritocratic society where high-
school and university entrance exams are used as a gateway to status. Studying hard for these
exams is considered more important in Japan than innate ability. Moreover, success in exams
reflects not only on the student but also on parents, family, and teachers. By combining elements
of support, an expectation of success is created, and failure is taken seriously. The result is that
schools have encouraged teachers to use top-down teaching methods (Zembylas, 2004) and
deliver lecture-style classes to encourage students to memorize facts for tests (Ida et al., 2015;
Norris, 2004). Hence, Japanese teachers have placed a high priority on rote test-taking learning,
since they know that the results of exams can shape a student's entire future (Ellis & Ellis, 2014).
3

Japan's government has undertaken educational reforms to modernize its education
system. Reports from the OECD (2012) show that the government has restructured its national
curricular standards such as requiring fewer credits for a high school diploma, reducing school
days from six to five, and giving students more choices for electives. Schools are also given
more discretion over their budgets and teacher staffing levels. Additionally, several new
measures have been implemented to recognize and award excellent teachers, as well as to move
those with questionable records from the teaching profession. Japanese higher education is also
transitioning from teacher-centered lectures to active learning, according to Yamada and Yamada
(2019).
Teachers in Japan are aware of the need to promote active learning, but they may lack the
confidence necessary to implement such practices in their classrooms. Some scholars have
expressed their concern that Japanese university instructors do not understand or apply active
learning appropriately (Ito & Takeuchi, 2020). Therefore, it is important to further assess how
teachers can promote student motivation and learning in the classroom. PBL is one method
teachers can use when teaching their classes. In a PBL-centered environment, students take
responsibility for solving problems and working through them, thus increasing their motivation
to learn (Walker et al., 2015). The authors further suggested that PBL is engaging, motivating,
and a method of experiential learning. They conclude that PBL has solid philosophical and
epistemological foundations that go beyond passing teaching fads.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
A number of factors contributed to the importance of addressing the problem of low
student motivation in this study. Japan has improved its education position and has achieved high
scores on International Large-Scale Assessments like PISA (OECD, 2018). However, several
4

significant social changes have taken place. One important change has been the liberalization of
educational practices in Japan. As a result, parents are demanding that schools teach practical
skills that will facilitate their children's futures. Further, the respect for teachers and trust in
schools to deliver quality education has declined, leading to the growth of an after-school
tutoring industry (Gordon, 2005).
Japan is facing a demographic crisis due to a decline in birthrate (Oshio, 2008).
Consequently, schools have closed, and student recruitment has become more competitive
(Gordon, 2005). Therefore, to remain competitive, schools have come to realize the increasing
need to implement effective instructional approaches beyond passive learning (Aranil, 2004),
and a need to improve teachers’ professional development (Aranil & Fukaya, 2020).
The twenty-first century has brought new economic challenges such as globalization and
the need for a knowledge-based society. These challenges necessitate changes in educational
policies, curriculum, and teaching methods (Aranil, 2004; Aranil & Fukaya, 2020). Accordingly,
Oga-Baldwin and Nakata (2017) argue that teachers need to create engaging classroom
environments to motivate students for long-term learning.
Organizational Context and Mission
Kyōiku University (KU, pseudonym) is a recently established professional university in
Tokyo, Japan. The Japanese professional university category is defined as a school that conducts
teaching and research in specialized fields. These schools are designed to help students become
professionals in various fields by providing them with the knowledge to develop practical skills
(MEXT, n.d.).
Kyōiku University’s organizational mission is to provide an innovative learning
environment where students can actively learn entrepreneurial skills to establish their own
5

companies. KU university provides one undergraduate degree program. The school has 28 full-
time Japanese professors, and two non-Japanese professors assigned to one of three departments:
Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Business, and Global Communication.
There are 100 visiting lecturers from all over the world, representing both academia and business
sectors. The first-year student body comprises 230 Japanese, 220 males and 10 females (ages 18–
50). There are 10 non-Japanese from South Korea, China, or Mongolia, five males and five
females (ages 18–20). Every year, 230 new students enroll, and the same courses are taken as
part of the undergraduate degree program. Under government regulations, every classroom has
only 25 registered students.
Organizational Goal
Kyōiku University has several goals, but its primary aim is to equip all graduating seniors
with all the skills and abilities necessary to start up their own companies. KU plans to provide
100% of its faculty with the support they need to move toward an active learning environment
that fosters entrepreneurship by March 2024. The goal is aligned with the university's mission
and vision, as well as with government initiatives on national education reform. Progress toward
the stated goals will be assessed annually based on faculty performance evaluations.
Description of Stakeholder Group
To help students create their own companies by graduation, Kyōiku University works
with several stakeholder groups. However, the primary stakeholders are the university
administrators who support organizational goal achievement, and faculty who share
responsibility for promoting those goals. The administrators conduct biannual evaluations on
full-time faculty members to make sure that organizational objectives are met. Evaluation results
comprise student educational achievements, indicators of engagement and motivation, and
6

progress in the establishment of innovation projects (IP). These IP projects are designed for
students to gain real-world entrepreneurial skills to create their own startup companies. Faculty
members are assigned to serve on university committees that encourage the development of IP
initiatives and ensure organizational goals are met.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although all internal stakeholder groups were included in a comprehensive analysis, this
study focused only on the full-time faculty at Kyōiku University (KU). An important aspect of
this study was the fact that it involved all Japanese nationals since it took place in a university in
Tokyo, Japan. The majority of the faculty members were conversant in English, which facilitated
research objectives. Further, KU is a recently established university with the freedom to institute
educational changes, something not possible for conventional institutions.
KU University administrators established the organizational vision, mission, and goals.
The primary aim of the undergraduate program is for students to learn entrepreneurial skills to
start their own businesses after graduation. To meet this precise aim, the university conducts bi-
annual faculty teaching effectiveness reviews to evaluate faculty members' ability to meet set
goals. KU university administrators consider the educational policy of the Japanese government,
which encourages schools to emphasize student-centered learning, promote 21st-century skills,
and encourage active learning. Thus, faculty are encouraged to design courses that emphasize
facilitating entrepreneurial skills based on government guidance. Students are expected to
demonstrate their ability to start their own companies by completing an IP, an internship, and
developing entrepreneurial skills before graduating.
Based on an active learning framework, this study examined faculty teaching practices
within a context that supports student motivation and performance. There were three major areas
7

of focus in the study: faculty knowledge and skills of active learning-aligned instructional
practices; faculty value and self-efficacy to implement active learning; and organizational assets
and barriers that impact faculty ability to implement active learning. Each of these areas are
addressed in the following chapter.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Kyōiku University’s organizational mission and the goals of the key stakeholders are
outlined in Table 1. The founding executives drafted the university’s mission statement.
University organizational performance goals describe the desired result for every student. The
first organizational performance goal relates to the intended outcome for all graduates. The
second goal is the faculty performance goal that affects students and was the desired outcome of
this study. Each year, university administrators review the goals of the organization and decide if
modifications are necessary by the year 2024. The purpose of this study was to examine
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on faculty capacity to plan, implement,
and evaluate an active learning curriculum that aligns with organizational goals.

8

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal
Organizational mission
The mission of Kyōiku University is to provide innovative learning for a changing society.

Organizational performance goal
By 2024, 100% of Kyōiku University graduating seniors will have attained the skills, funding,
and capabilities to establish their own companies.

Kyōiku University faculty performance goal
By April 2023, 100% of Kyōiku University faculty will integrate active learning in their
curriculum.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of the study was to explore the degree to which the university faculty
members could foster students’ entrepreneurial skills to establish their own companies. The
analysis focused on faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
implementing instructional practices aligned with active learning as an established framework
that supports student motivation and performance. Understanding how these factors influence
faculty's ability to teach entrepreneurial skills in an active learning environment can enable the
university to better support faculty in helping students create their own startups. Ultimately, the
study provides recommendations to enhance faculty teaching practices. The following research
questions guided the study:
1. What are the English-speaking faculty knowledge and motivation related to
implementing instructional practices aligned with an active learning approach?
9

2. What is the interaction between the university culture and context and the English-
speaking faculty's knowledge and motivation related to implementing instructional
practices aligned with active learning?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis served as the conceptual framework for this
study. This framework helped to examine how knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
influence faculty members’ ability to integrate an active learning curriculum at Kyōiku
University. The gap analysis analytical framework aids in clarifying organizational goals and
identifying performance gaps between the desired goal and actual performance. When a
performance gap is identified, the framework helps to analyze stakeholder knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that contributed to the gap (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The methodological framework for this study was a qualitative approach. The initial
method was an online recruiting questionnaire distributed to the entire stakeholder population.
By using the online questionnaire, volunteers were recruited to conduct individual online
interviews. A recruitment strategy engages participants to join a study by identifying their
eligibility to participate and informing them about the study (Guest et al., 2013). After the
questionnaire, a purposeful selection was used to identify volunteers that were willing to speak in
English for interviews. Purposeful sampling involved selecting cases with rich information
(Patton, 2015) and considering criteria for the selection of sampling sites (Billups, 2021; Flick,
2014). Each volunteer was interviewed individually using an online platform. Conducting online
interviews was possible with the help of a variety of information and communication
technologies (ICTs) (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Salmons, 2015). In addition, course syllabi and
supplementary materials from all three departments were analyzed. It was possible to acquire
10

documents and artifacts with the permission of gatekeepers who have the authority to grant
access (Billups, 2021).
Definitions
• Active learning is a student-centered approach that promotes critical thinking, active
participation, group activities, increases retention and understanding, and whereby
teachers assume the role of mentor and evaluator of students' progress (Hernández-
de-Menéndez et al., 2019).
• Demotivation “concerns various negative influences that cancel out existing
motivation” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 138).
• Faculty implies university lecturers and professors who are full-time. In this study
part-time lecturers and visiting professors are excluded.
• Problem-based learning (PBL) is a way of using “problem scenarios to encourage
students to engage themselves in the learning process” (Savin-Baden & Major, 2004,
p. 3).
Organization of the Project
A five-chapter format was used to organize this dissertation. Chapter One outlines an
overview of the problem of practice, and the importance of addressing the problem. Additionally,
topics in this chapter include the organizational context, mission, and goals; the stakeholder
group; and the conceptual and methodological frameworks. Chapter Two was a review of
applicable current literature that highlights the problem of practice. Topics include Japan’s
educational reforms, an overview of active learning, problem-based learning, and the study’s
conceptual framework. The chapter was also organized by knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences, an aspect of faculty capacity in teaching entrepreneurship.
11

Chapter Three details the methodology of assessing the KMO influences and encompasses the
why and how participants were selected, data was collected, and an analysis of findings. In
Chapter Four, the findings of the study are discussed in relation to the questions regarding KMO
influences. Chapter Five concludes the study, in which findings are outlined and
recommendations are provided for closing identified gaps.
12

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize recent literature related to active learning in
higher education. In the first section, an overview of the recent Japanese educational reforms and
the reason for their implementation was outlined. The next section introduces active learning, its
benefits, problems, and approaches. Then, followed by a discussion about problem-based
learning as an effective active learning model follows. After that, faculty knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences are examined. The chapter concludes with a description of the
study's Clark and Estes (2008) KMO conceptual framework.
Japan’s Educational Reforms
The following section presents a brief history of the three major education reforms. The
reforms comprise a variety of aspects, such as defining national educational standards,
implementing performance assessments, reforming university admissions, and improving teacher
training (Yamanaka & Suzuki, 2020). Other underlying reasons for the reforms in government
also exist; however, only those relevant to this study were addressed.
The First Basic Plan
The Japanese government announced the First Basic Act on Education in 1947 and
sought to provide educational opportunities to create an education-based nation (Kwietniewski,
2017; Zabit, 2010). Previously, the cost of education was mainly available to the wealthy, but
this change allowed the general population to afford the cost of education. In 1961, technical
colleges were first introduced, followed by junior colleges in 1964 (Kitamura et al., 2019). Soon
after, in 1976, a yutori (freedom from government pressure) reform was introduced (Takayama,
2008) which focused on enriching the humanity and creativity of citizens as a path towards the
nation’s future and outlined 18 articles covering subjects such as lifelong learning, equal
13

opportunity, education systems, teachers, and administrators amongst others (MEXT, 2006). Yet,
Article 17 placed the burden upon local governments to create their own educational programs to
align with the government’s mandates. The result was that schools across the country did not
adhere to one standard teaching method.
The deregulation of central government control, specifically during the 1970s and 1980s,
prompted schools to rely on rote-learning environments to prepare students for what came to be
known as exam hell. This gave rise to commercially operated after-school institutions known as
gakushū juku (Kitamura et al., 2019) which also focused on rote-learning classes. Faculty
recruitment was also a local decision, and the qualifications of teachers would differ between
each prefecture while new teachers had to learn about the school’s local organizational teaching
culture (Ishikida, 2005). Thus, in 1984, An Ad Hoc Council within MEXT recommended further
reforms to the original Basic Act on Education (Schoppa, 2011). Through these initiatives, the
government hoped to enhance students' individual thinking, judgment, and responsibility, as well
as eliminate rote learning among other problems (Balan & Metcalfe, 2011; Santateresa, 2016).
The National Curriculum Standard was implemented during this period, emphasizing
independent thinking instead of rote learning for tests, while the 5-day school week was
reinstituted (Yamanaka & Suzuki, 2020). In addition, the government initiated an emphasis on
students’ motivation and improving teacher certification requirements (Kitamura et al., 2019).
Then, in 2002, another update called manabi no susume, further encouraged self-motivated
learning in a zest for life pressure-free environment for primary and lower schools (Kitamura et
al., 2019; Takayama, 2008). However, after the 2003 and 2006 PISA results, the media
proclaimed a PISA shock had occurred. Japan’s rankings fell dramatically, public criticism
followed, and the government began plans for a new reform (Yamanaka & Suzuki, 2020).
14

The Second Basic Plan
The Second Basic Plan of 2013–2017 expanded upon the goals of the previous initiatives
(OECD, 2015), and was in response to the rapid social changes around the world. It sought to
cultivate students’ zest for life through improved individual independence, collaboration, and
creativity skills as well as develop global human resources for participation in society (MEXT,
2013). Student cognition and practical skills for real-world applications were emphasized
(Kimura & Tatsuno, 2017). Moreover, the plan’s achievement indicators include students’ self-
awareness, improved self-esteem and motivation, dreams for future goals, and aims to decrease
school attrition rates (Hogue et al., 2011). Kitamura et al. (2019) noted that autonomy was
considered critical during the first and second stages of reforms and was therefore regulated by
the government and administered by institutions. However, it can be difficult to change the
mindset of politicians and academics who developed their traditions over time. Consequently,
rote learning and studying for exams are still common in Japan today.
The Third Basic Plan
The Third Plan of 2018–2022 aims to align with social changes to become a more
knowledge-based society (e.g., knowledge of the Internet of Things, big data, AI, etc.) that are
necessary for the 21st century (MEXT, 2018). The initiative, according to Yamanaka and Suzuki
(2020), described the government’s new focus on compulsory education, extending school hours
by 10%, promoting students’ autonomy for learning, and the need to move beyond rote learning.
Japan’s government established New National Curriculum Standards as part of the third plan to
improve classroom teaching, motivate students, and develop their cognitive skills. Further,
teachers are encouraged to emphasize what (declarative knowledge) and how (procedural
knowledge) students can learn by following these standards.
15

The goal of the Japanese government’s initiative was to design new curricula to foster
students' problem-solving skills, creativity, and cognitive abilities (OECD, 2018). However,
according to OECD (2018), it will require reforms in pedagogy and instruction even if teachers
have the expertise and professionalism to implement changes. The development of new
competencies will require systematic training to update current teaching methods. Overall, the
OECD recommends that curriculum reform priorities include training teachers on how to
implement a new curriculum, by incorporating active learning. The literature evidence indicated
that the Japanese government has implemented several reforms to promote cognitive thinking,
academic excellence, and active learning among students.
Overview of Active Learning
This section examines active learning as well as its benefits, problems, and associated
learning styles. Additionally, the use of problem-based learning (PBL) as an instructional method
was discussed. However, it was important to note that comparing all active learning formats
would exceed the scope of this study and was not the intent.
The term active learning has several definitions in academic studies. According to Prince
(2004), active learning refers to any instructional method that makes students think
(metacognition) and engage actively in the learning process. Although Prince's (2004) research
was based on engineering education, his findings presented the importance of active learning
teaching practices in the higher education context. The literature review for this study revealed
several academically recognized active learning-aligned instructional practices.
Active Learning Approaches
Active learning has been described in a variety of formats in academic publications.
These include project-based learning (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019), case study method
16

(Tan & Ng, 2006), collaborative learning, and cooperative learning (Bishop & Verleger, 2013),
and problem-based learning (Prince, 2004) among others. Scholars have also described the terms
flipped learning and blended learning as teaching approaches that promote active learning (Børte
et al., 2020).
Active learning teaching approaches share similar characteristics that sometimes lead to
conceptual confusion. According to Børte et al. (2020), the common characteristic between these
approaches is that they all emphasize the active participation of students rather than passive
learning. The following sections briefly introduced four interrelated active learning concepts and
then describe problem-based learning as an effective learning model in detail.
Case Study Method
The case study method is a complex and multidimensional system of linked aspects.
Škudienė (2012) suggested an inductive approach that consists of five paradigms: social
constructivism, procedural and declarative knowledge, interactivity, and situation-specific, based
on constructive positivism. The following section describes a general overview of Škudienė's
(2012) chapter from a textbook on the case study method.
Each of the five case study method paradigms were summarized in this section. Škudienė
(2012) asserted that the case study method promotes motivation and clear understanding for
students by avoiding traditional passive lectures. Additionally, dynamic workshops mark the
distinction that encourages critical thinking and learning. Škudienė also maintained that case
studies offer opportunities to bring reality into the classroom, by simulating real-life business
situations. Moreover, classes emphasize student-teacher interaction yet require collaborative
efforts to keep discussions lively. However, Škudienė clarified that a limitation of the case study
methodology is that case solutions are difficult to predict in comparison to real-life situations.
17

Instead, cases offer an opportunity for students to gain knowledge about specific situations, not
to find the right answers. Further, the case study method includes opportunities for expressing
individual opinions while also fostering declarative and procedural knowledge through critical
thinking. Lastly, the case study method encourages the teacher to lead discussions by asking
questions rather than lecturing (Škudienė, 2012).
Design Thinking
According to Moallem et al. (2019), with the use of an iterative exploration process,
Design Thinking (DT) expands its scope and relevance from product innovation to a range of
non-design disciplinary spaces. Through an integrated approach, DT and PBL have been
increasingly used in science, engineering, and business courses in higher education. In addition,
DT shares many characteristics with PBL, which initially uses an ill-defined problem to begin
the learning process. The difference is that more time is dedicated to a problem-finding phase
and that feedback is based on consumer needs rather than on classroom observations (Moallem et
al., 2019). Thus, DT assumes that each learner has a responsibility toward a client, and each
client has a responsibility toward a consumer.
Project-Based Learning and Problem-Based Learning
There are similarities between the two active learning approaches of project-based
learning and problem-based learning. In their book on engineering education, Graaff and Kolmos
(2007) explained that both approaches were created during the same period. A second
characteristic is that they were both created in higher education institutions to move beyond rote
learning. A third characteristic is that both methods are relevant for teaching and learning 21st
century skills (Anazifa & Djukri, 2017). Further, medical schools have embraced PBL as a
holistic approach to acquiring new knowledge that surpassed rote learning outcomes. In
18

Denmark, project-based learning (PjBL) was developed as an experiential and hands-on
approach to learning (Graaff & Kolmos, 2007).
There are differences between the two active learning approaches. According to Graaff
and Kolmos (2007), the distinction centers on the idea that PBL provides a context for learning
by posing open-ended and ill-defined problems. On the other hand, PjBL involves a task or
project that students are required to complete. Kolmos (2009) further clarified that while the
fundamental principles of project-based learning and problem-based learning are nearly the
same, the models themselves are different. The differences can generally be summed up as
selecting a project versus a problem for students to solve.
Benefits Associated With Active Learning
Active learning can be more effective than traditional passive rote learning. In a seminal
qualitative study, Michael (2006) discussed several key findings that describe how active
learning can be more effective than traditional teacher-centered passive instruction. First, the
principle of active learning follows the constructivism concept of the learner creating meaning.
As students acquire new (procedural) knowledge, they begin to make connections between it and
prior (declarative) knowledge. Second, students learn more from active learning group
interaction than from learning alone. In conversations with one another, students can better
understand the subject matter (Michael, 2006). Third, active learning involves two key
constructs, namely declarative and procedural knowledge. Michael defined declarative
knowledge as what we know and procedural knowledge as how to do something.
Active learning positively impacts student motivation, cognition, retention, and
engagement. Hernández-de-Menéndez et al. (2019) outlined hallmarks of active learning such as
student engagement in learning activities to accomplish meaningful tasks, and teachers taking on
19

the role of mentors. Further, active learning promotes student-centered education by actively
involving the students directly in the learning process (Prince, 2004). This can be accomplished
by teachers providing opportunities to practice skills and then offering feedback on their
performance. Prince further suggested that to foster engagement, students must participate in
activities that are designed around meaningful learning outcomes. Michael and Modell (2003)
defined meaningful learning as acquiring knowledge that is both declarative and procedural.
Problems Associated With Active Learning
Active learning is an effective instructional method, yet despite empirical evidence,
findings are inconclusive. In his research on active learning, Prince (2004) identified two
problems. First, active learning articles examine different approaches which may result in
confusion regarding each method's efficacy. Second, there is the question of what specific
learning outcomes are being measured. Likewise, the issue of knowing when improvements have
taken place is also problematic (Prince, 2004). Based on Prince's explanation, there is often no
reliable data that shows how each active learning approach affects learning outcomes, making
comprehensive assessment challenging. Despite debates in academia regarding active learning,
one method known as PBL has been shown to assist teachers in guiding students toward active
learning objectives (Watson, 2004).
Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
PBL has a long history, and it has been used in various higher education study programs.
The origin of PBL can be traced back to U.S. medical institutions (Bell, 2010; Khoiriyah &
Husamah, 2018) where it was applied to prepare students for situations they would face in real-
world practice. As a pedagogical strategy, PBL in its broadest definition has become one of the
most extensively documented aspects of educational reform (van Barneveld & Strobel, 2009).
20

Problem-based learning has been applied across different disciplines (van Barneveld &
Strobel, 2009). Higher education business schools have used it to enhance students' skills,
increase motivation, improve retention (Siddique et al., 2011) and enrich teaching effectiveness
in entrepreneurial programs (Ahmed, 2017; Dobson et al., 2019; Hanke et al., 2005; Hasanah &
Malik, 2019; Morselli, 2019; O’Brien & Hamburg, 2019; Tan & Ng, 2006). Despite its
variations, PBL remains a flexible, robust, and versatile pedagogical approach that adapts to a
wide variety of contexts and instructional needs (Hung, 2011). Further, Hartikainen et al. (2019)
recommended that active learning be viewed as an instructional approach rather than just a
learning technique.
Problem-Based Learning as an Instructional Approach
Teachers can employ PBL in different ways to facilitate student learning. Ibrahim (2018)
interviewed a focus group to explore results after PBL was used to promote active learning
during a 14-week undergraduate course. Ibrahim found that in a PBL environment students may
be frustrated at first, when faced with unstructured problems, and may not know how to proceed.
Therefore, to promote positive outcomes within PBL classrooms, teachers are crucial at the
beginning of the learning process (Ibrahim, 2018). Ibrahim argued that by introducing PBL
incrementally in a blended approach, learners' confidence improved. Moreover, the PBL blended
approach led to students developing a sense of autonomy and self-directed learning.
Teachers can facilitate PBL to achieve different learning outcomes. According to Bell
(2008), the aim of selecting a PBL model is to ensure that learning is active, integrating, and
constructive by considering several social and contextual factors. A PBL framework includes
commonly accepted assumptions, such as incorporating student-centered learning and
emphasizing the importance of teamwork. Bell argues that students' metacognitive skills need to
21

be developed in order to engage in this type of learning. Yet, according to Bell, most students
cannot acquire this skill on their own during the early stages of learning. Thus, teachers' primary
role should be to facilitate learning. Therefore, teachers must foster an environment that helps
students to develop self-directed learning.
Problem-Based Learning for Entrepreneurial Education
PBL has successfully been applied in business programs to foster entrepreneurial skills.
Studies have shown that PBL is an effective method of learning entrepreneurship (Morselli,
2019; Santateresa, 2016; Tan & Ng, 2006). Entrepreneurial education (EE) and PBL are similar.
According to Balan and Metcalfe (2011), in entrepreneurial education, teachers assist students to
develop a set of attitudes, behaviors, and new knowledge. Similarly, Sumarni (2015) conducted a
literature review and argued that a PBL approach leads to increased student knowledge, skills,
and attitudes.
A problem-based learning approach can help entrepreneurs gain the real-world skills they
need to succeed in a competitive environment. Based on a qualitative study of a university
entrepreneurial program in Singapore, Wee (2004) argued that traditional curricula tend to focus
more on functionally control-oriented topics rather than critical real-world case studies. Wee
maintained that entrepreneurial students should take on generative learning skills to create new
knowledge instead of passively consuming it. Moreover, PBL is a viable teaching option for
entrepreneurship because it helps students to confront the challenges they might face in real-life.
Further, PBL encourages students to become independent learners, which results in improved
motivation, ownership of learning, and meeting learning objectives (Wee, 2004).
22

Problem-Based Learning Benefits
PBL benefits are well documented. Research has shown that PBL can foster student-
centered learning (Hoidn & Kärkkäinen, 2014) is related to student engagement, and has a
positive effect on teacher self-efficacy (Choi et al., 2019). Besides enhancing cognitive attributes
and new knowledge acquisition, PBL enhances the use of previous knowledge (Yaqinuddin,
2013). Moreover, PBL aids in determining how to improve instructional practices (Burton et al.,
2005; Schmidt et al., 2009). In their qualitative study, Pawson et al. (2006) evaluated the
suitability of PBL in the curricula of a university geography course. The study aimed to identify
PBL best practices and analyzed experiences from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.
Three stakeholder groups were explored, showing PBL risks and rewards from the perspective of
students, teachers, and administrators.
In the student category, Pawson et al. (2006) listed five benefits of PBL. The benefits are
student-centeredness, enjoyment, deep understanding, high self-regulation, and lifelong learning.
A PBL curriculum may present potential risks such as inadequate students’ prior knowledge,
time-consuming learning, a perceived loss of security, impingement on group dynamics, and low
knowledge gain.
In the teacher category, the authors identified five benefits, including improved
attendance, intrinsic rewards, and promoting interdisciplinarity. Pawson et al. (2006) detailed the
benefits, including improved class attendance, intrinsically rewarding, higher-level
understanding, motivation to study, and is interdisciplinary. The potential risks arising from a
paradigm shift where teachers may not be adequately prepared for. Pawson cited, among the
risks, the requirement for teachers to develop suitable case studies, the need to resolve student
inquiries, the need for group moderation, and not knowing what to assess exactly.
23

In the administrator category, the benefits include prioritizing student learning, fostering
learning outcomes, valuing teaching, and exhibiting individuality and innovation in the
organization's branding. However, despite the tangible costs, the benefits are difficult to quantify
(Pawson et al., 2006). In summary, it is essential to understand there are both benefits and
difficulties when implementing PBL. Pawson describes the potential risks as the need to shift
away from lecture-based practice, the need for teacher training and development, dependence on
classroom flexibility, and a willingness to adapt when evidence is limited.
Problem-based learning has strengths and weaknesses, yet how teachers and
organizations apply it ultimately determines its success. According to Hung (2011), the success
of an intervention depends not only on its theoretical soundness but also on its proper execution.
Additionally, van Barneveld and Strobel (2009) contended that more research is needed to
successfully integrate PBL and transform university curricula, especially regarding
organizational barriers, drivers, and challenges.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Framework
The gap analysis model developed by Clark and Estes (2008) served as the conceptual
framework for this study. The framework was designed to systematically identify and then
analyze performance gaps between actual and desired outcomes. Once a performance gap has
been identified, the framework was used to examine the stakeholder's influence on the gap. The
knowledge (K) and motivation (M) were explored as major influences on stakeholder
performance in an organization's culture (O). According to Clark and Estes (2008),
understanding the correlation between the three influences is crucial to achieving goals and
realizing change. Using the KMO gap analysis framework, this section aimed to identify and
24

analyze any gaps in faculty capability to incorporate active learning-aligned instructional
practices. In the literature review, KMO factors that influence PBL implementation are
discussed.
In terms of knowledge influences, Krathwohl (2002) classified knowledge as follows: (a)
factual, (b) conceptual, (c) procedural, and (d) metacognitive. To achieve performance goals,
these types of skills and knowledge components are required. As for motivational influences,
Clark and Estes (2008) proposed three motivated behaviors: active choice, persistence, and
mental effort. Moreover, self-efficacy, attributions, values, and goals are factors that determine
whether a stakeholder engages in choice, persistence, and mental effort (Rueda, 2011). Finally,
the organizational influences as discussed by Clark and Estes (2008) are: work processes,
resources, and organizational culture were further examined in Chapter Three.
Faculty Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The faculty stakeholder goal is for 100% of Kyōiku University (KU) faculty to integrate
active learning-aligned instructional practices in their curriculum by 2023. For faculty to be
successful in achieving this goal, they must possess knowledge and motivation concerning active
learning instruction best practices. Moreover, to support faculty success, organizational
influences must be aligned. The following sections describe how knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors influence faculty success to integrate active learning into coursework.
The primary performance goals to be considered in this section include faculty
knowledge and skills influences. The purpose of this section was to explore the types of
knowledge faculty at KU need to implement PBL in their curriculum. As shown in Table 2, this
study considered declarative knowledge as well as procedural knowledge and their relation to
assumed knowledge influences.
25

Knowledge Influences
Key components to assisting KU students in acquiring entrepreneurial skills are faculty
members' knowledge, implementation, and self-reflection of their ability to implement active
learning best practices. It was critical to identify where KMO gaps are, regarding these best
practices. Therefore, this section aims to review the literature on knowledge-related influences
on faculty to support the stakeholder goal of incorporating active learning-aligned instructional
practices.
The purpose of this section was to explore KU faculty members' knowledge of active
learning instruction using Krathwohl's (2002) knowledge framework. The authors identified
three types of knowledge: declarative, procedural, and metacognitive. Declarative knowledge is
then further subcategorized into factual and conceptual knowledge. According to (Pintrich et al.,
2000), declarative knowledge includes knowledge of what different strategies can cultivate
memory and thinking and help to solve problems. Procedural knowledge refers to how to use and
apply cognitive strategies. Conditional knowledge is to know when and why to apply different
cognitive strategies.
The following sections explore Krathwohl and Anderson's (2010) knowledge areas as
they relate to faculty integration of active learning best practices in entrepreneurial coursework.
First, the subject of faculty knowledge of PBL and active learning-aligned instructional practices
was explored. Next, the benefits of PBL and active learning are compared to a traditional
curriculum. Then, the faculty’s ability to integrate PBL and active learning into an
entrepreneurial program follows.
26

Faculty Knowledge of PBL and Active Learning-Aligned Instructional Practices
Several characteristics of PBL have been described in academic studies. Major features
include the use of problems as precursors to learning, collaborative group learning, student-
centered learning, and faculty serving as tutors and facilitators of discussions (Hmelo-Silver,
2004; Schmidt et al., 2009). To begin the PBL teaching and learning process, students are
presented with ill-structured problems (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Hung, 2013; Hung et al., 2008).
However, because ill-structured problems have no established solutions (Plowright & Watkins,
2004) faculty must explain inquiry discussions rather than students’ attempts to solve the
problem (Wijnia et al., 2019).
According to Wijnia et al. (2019), there are two approaches to guiding teachers to
develop expertise in PBL and active learning-aligned instructional practices. First, procedural
knowledge is needed to develop reasoning and decision-making skills that stimulate student
learning. Second, there is a need for declarative knowledge to explain the phenomenon of the
problem presented to students. There is a difference between the two approaches in how they
emphasize declaratory knowledge as a mental model structure and procedural skills as a
simulation of professional practice (Wijnia et al., 2019).
Each member of the KU faculty has been specifically selected for their entrepreneurial
background or current declarative knowledge of the business industry. The faculty’s declarative
knowledge can be used to stimulate classroom discussion by presenting students with real-world
problems. Declarative knowledge, however, requires procedural knowledge to be effectively
integrated into an entrepreneurial program. Therefore, documents such as syllabi that guide
faculty’s classroom environment should be aligned with the need to develop required procedural
knowledge.
27

Faculty Knowledge of PBL and Active Learning-Aligned Benefits Compared to Traditional
Curriculum
In considering active learning as part of an entrepreneurial program, faculty should
consider academic research that confirms the value of an established framework such as PBL. It
is possible however that faculty are unaware of PBL and active learning-aligned benefits in
comparison to traditional curricula. For instance, faculty may not possess procedural knowledge
to use ill-structured problems, foster student-focused discussions, or how to stimulate learning by
being a tutor rather than relying on traditional lectures.
As previously discussed, and according to (Pintrich et al., 2000), procedural knowledge
refers to how to use and apply cognitive strategies. Therefore, KU faculty need to understand and
develop the skills to foster PBL and active learning-aligned instructional practices. These
strategies should align with those indicated by literature on PBL in higher education and
entrepreneurial programs. According to Farmer (2004), three key stages help faculty to develop
and implement PBL-aligned curriculum changes. These three stages are the curriculum-change
stage, curriculum-implementation stage, and curriculum-advancement stage.
As part of the curriculum change stage, faculty members can understand, embrace, and
experience PBL. It is possible to do this by first explaining the purpose and advantages of using
PBL, followed by tutorials that teach PBL skills (Farmer, 2004). Facilitators with PBL
experience carry out PBL program faculty development training. After the training has been
held, live demonstrations with students can take place for faculty to demonstrate declarative
knowledge. Finally, faculty can make use of PBL to engage in self-reflection after learning
different ways to use it.
28

During the implementation stage of the curriculum, faculty PBL procedural knowledge
and skills can be strengthened. During this stage, faculty introduce PBL to students and facilitate
student-centered discussions regarding any ill-structured problems that have been presented. For
faculty to gauge the effectiveness of a PBL class, they solicit student feedback about how the
lesson has been conducted. In addition, faculty can give students feedback on their performance,
creating a feedback loop.
In the curriculum advancement stage, a rewards system can be developed to show the
organization's value and sustainable support for faculty's change initiatives. Farmer (2004)
reasoned that there may be some faculty members who would like to learn more advanced PBL
skills, and the organization may foster this knowledge demand with additional education and
training. To conclude, faculty leadership and skill scholarship must be nurtured. To nurture
faculty, the organization can provide talented and motivated faculty with the opportunity to take
active roles in further developing PBL initiatives.
Faculty Ability to Implement PBL and Active Learning-Aligned Entrepreneurial Curriculum
Faculty should understand the active learning factors that facilitate the ability to
implement PBL in an entrepreneurial program. In a qualitative article on global entrepreneurship,
Kirby (2005) described three attributes of entrepreneurs: role orientation, abilities, and
motivation. To develop these attributes, several learning approaches are required. First, it is
important for faculty to empower students by giving them a sense of ownership over their
education. As a result, this can boost student motivation, enhance autonomy, and gain role
orientation experience. Second, faculty should involve students in teams to discuss ill-structured
problems in simulated real-world scenarios. Despite any initial difficulties, this method benefits
students by developing their coping skills with ambiguity. Third, faculty should encourage
29

students to develop and make data-driven decisions. Through this approach, students develop the
ability to manage uncertainty. Last, students require role models in their assessment and learning
process (Kirby, 2005).

Table 2
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type
Faculty need knowledge of active learning-aligned instructional
practices

Declarative
Faculty need knowledge of active learning-aligned instructional
practice benefits compared to traditional curriculum

Declarative
Faculty need the knowledge to implement active learning-
aligned instructional practices in their curriculum
Procedural

30

Motivational Influences
The previous section discussed which types of knowledge faculty members need to
contribute to the organization's goals. Motivational influences were examined in this section, as
well as their impact on faculty performance. According to Rueda (2011), most people perceive
motivation as an innate and stable trait. Yet, it was important to note that the ability to perform a
task does not necessarily mean that a person is motivated to complete it. This is because
motivation has a direct impact on an individual's performance (Rueda, 2011). Motivation,
according to Clark and Estes (2008) involves three processes: active choice, persistence, and
mental effort.
Employee motivation is affected by several factors that are interconnected. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), motivation processes can lead to opportunities or potential problems that
lead to gaps. An aspect of motivation is that it enhances belief in accomplishing a task.
Employees first select a goal; then they commit to that goal until they reach it; and then, they
decide how much mental effort to invest in attaining that goal. Ultimately, it is vital to recognize
held beliefs about our personality, experiences, and colleagues which can affect motivation
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The ability to focus on the most important task despite multiple goals or
distractions characterizes persistence. Additionally, mental effort involves drawing on past
experiences to achieve goals. Clark and Estes (2008) argued that mental effort is highly
correlated with confidence and that a person who misjudges their abilities may not invest a great
deal of mental effort.
It was important to understand the relationship between the types of knowledge and
motivation processes to determine whether faculty can achieve organizational goals. The purpose
of this section was to explore KU faculty's perceptions of active learning-aligned practices such
31

as PBL as effectively supporting student entrepreneurial achievement. The faculty teaching
practices were examined and how they aligned with active learning in the curriculum to meet the
KU organizational goals. Moreover, understanding motivation and self-efficacy can help to
clarify faculty behavior. The pioneering work of Eccles and others who developed expectancy-
value theory (EVT) helps to understand how expectations and values influence choices,
persistence, and performance (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). The following sections examined
EVT as it applies to both value and self-efficacy.
Faculty Value for Problem-Based Learning
Performance, persistence, and task choice are thought to be directly affected by
expectations and values (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Further, expectations and values are
determined by beliefs about the task, such as perceptions of its difficulty and competence, and
personal goals. According to Eccles and Wigfield (2002), task value consists of four
components: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. A task's attainment value
refers to how much emphasis is placed on doing well on a task. Intrinsic value refers to how
much a person enjoys and performs a task. Utility value refers to the reasons for performing a
task to accomplish short- and long-term goals. Lastly, cost refers to what an individual has given
up by choosing to do a task (Wigfield & Cambria, 2015). It also describes the negative aspects of
undertaking a task, such as fear, anxiety, and failure (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Using expectancy-value theory, this study examined how the utility value element
influences faculty motivation. As an example, Lee and Blanchard's (2019) quantitative study
describes a professional development scenario in which teachers express their desire to learn
more about PBL for personal development or to achieve organizational goals. Similarly, as part
of this study, KU faculty utility value in implementing active learning-aligned instructional
32

practices was explored. Faculty persistence was also examined, as well as mental effort to
develop and implement active learning-aligned curricula such as PBL.
Faculty Self-Efficacy to Implement Active Learning
Self-efficacy is an important aspect of achieving goals. According to Bandura (1997),
efficacy beliefs are the capacity to plan a course of action, execute it, and produce findings.
Bandura (1977a, 1977b) reasoned that people’s performance, motivation, and, ultimately, their
belief directly influenced their success or failure in their ability to accomplish desired outcomes.
Additionally, Bandura (2000) maintained that perceived self-efficacy facilitates positive
outcomes and contributes to success. Similarly, Pintrich (2003) suggested that self-efficacy and
competence beliefs can influence motivation through effort, persistence, and choice based on
developing competence, expertise, and skills. Thus, self-efficacy is a vital construct in
understanding learning attitudes and performance (Vera et al., 2011).
Research on higher education faculty self-efficacy has been largely overlooked (Burton et
al., 2005). In a seminal study, Berman et al. (1977), defined teacher self-efficacy as the degree to
which a teacher believes they can impact student achievement. The researchers applied a mixed-
methods format to examine teacher self-efficacy and student outcomes in 18 school districts over
two years. It was found that a teacher's self-efficacy positively influences student achievement
and performance and could even motivate the most unmotivated students (Berman et al., 1977).
Further, it is possible to understand teachers' confidence, persistence, and enthusiasm by
extending the definition of teacher self-efficacy (Burton et al., 2005) specifically in a higher
education setting (Vera et al., 2011).
The construct of self-efficacy has been found to be an essential factor in entrepreneurial
education (Peltonen, 2008). Therefore, KU faculty members' self-efficacy was examined to
33

determine their current confidence in their ability to implement active learning-aligned
instructional strategies such as PBL to promote entrepreneurial skills. Furthermore, these
influences were also analyzed in terms of the faculty’s motivation to incorporate PBL into course
curricula. Table 3 summarizes the motivational influences of utility value and self-efficacy
explored in this study.

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivation construct Assumed motivation influence
Utility value Faculty need to perceive active learning as an effective approach to
supporting student entrepreneurial achievement.

Self-efficacy Faculty need to be confident in their ability to implement active
learning-aligned instructional strategies that advance the
development of entrepreneurial skills.

34

Organizational Influences
The previous two sections examined faculty knowledge (K) and motivation (M) assumed
influences to implement PBL. The purpose of this section was to examine assumed
organizational (O) influences on faculty members' ability to meet organizational and stakeholder
performance goals. The primary goal is that by March 2024, 100% of the KU faculty will have
the capability to incorporate PBL-aligned instructional practices using the KMO gap analysis
framework to foster entrepreneurship. It is further imperative to keep in mind that although
motivation is important, institutional support plays a vital role in achieving goals (Johnston &
Tinning, 2001).
The first section discussed cultural settings. As Clark and Estes (2008) maintained,
organizational culture plays a key role in the success of performance improvement efforts. The
authors believe that the key to organizing an effective enterprise is by designing processes that
rely on mutual interdependence of knowledge, motivation, and skills. And that organizational
culture filters and affects all attempts to improve performance. The two organizational influences
examined in this study are indicated in Table 4 at the end of this section.
Cultural Model Influences
Cultural settings and cultural models can influence organizations. According to
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), cultural settings are observable aspects such as rituals and
behaviors. On the other hand, cultural models are invisible and are unnoticed or taken for granted
by those within the organization. Unique aspects can determine an organization’s culture. Schein
(2017) provided a dynamic definition of culture as a process in which groups solve external
adaptation and internal integration problems and build up knowledge that is transmitted to new
members. Further, employees may eventually become accustomed to cultural models without
35

being aware of them (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) as it becomes part of their group identity
(Schein, 2017).
As a newly established university, it was important to explore the current organizational
culture of KU in relation to supporting faculty capacity to implement PBL. KU university was
examined in regard to its need to create a culture based on implementing a non-traditional,
innovative curriculum that would support its entrepreneurial students effectively. First, the
university was explored for its need to foster an acceptance of change and a willingness among
faculty to modify existing teaching methods. Also explored was the university's need to foster a
culture of trust between administration and faculty to achieve its organizational goal of helping
students to launch their own businesses.
Cultural Setting Influences
To understand an organization’s culture, it may be necessary to examine its elements.
According to Schein (2017), cultural analysis comprises three main levels. First, artifacts are
visible and tangible phenomena, such as observable routines and rituals. To better understand
artifacts, it was often useful to ask group members the reasons they do certain things. The second
level was the espoused beliefs and values as outcomes of the inquiry into why members do
something. Schein explained that a group’s transformational process occurs in taking actions
together and observing outcomes. However, the author forewarned that when beliefs and values
are not transformed, it may be difficult to connect performance to strategy. The third level
comprises basic assumptions which are sometimes taken for granted. Schein (2017) asserted that
at this level, repeated application of deeply held principles, beliefs, attitudes, and values achieved
consensus, and any deviation is unacceptable to the group. Similarly, according to McGregor's
(1960) Theory X and Theory Y, the fundamental beliefs of leaders influence organizational
36

management. Using Maslow's (1954) hierarchy of needs as a framework, McGregor examined
leadership and employee motivation. Theory X describes how employees satisfy their lower
needs through work. On the other hand, Theory Y posits that higher-level needs such as self-
actualization and esteem remain unfulfilled (McGregor, 1989, 2006). As a result, leaders need to
understand how to create a culture that meets employees' needs. Thus, a leader who understands
the significance of the organizational culture can shape more efficient and productive
organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
For KU University to establish a culture of achievement and meets employees' higher-
level needs, it must set clear goals that influence a non-traditional, innovative curriculum that
supports students' entrepreneurship. Hence, this study explored faculty needs in this area related
to what kind of training may be most appropriate, including the material resources faculty need
to achieve goals. Two aspects of KU’s ability to influence the organizational setting were
examined. The first aspect was the organization's establishment of clear goals and
accountabilities based on an active learning model. The second aspect was the organization’s
need to implement and effectively use an active learning model. Table 4 outlines the study's
examination of the cultural model and setting influences.

37

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational influence
category
Organizational influences
Cultural Model Influence 1 Kyōiku University needs to cultivate a culture of general
acceptance and willingness among faculty to change
existing teaching strategies.

Cultural Model Influence 2 Kyōiku University needs to have a culture of trust between
administration and the faculty to achieve the institutional
goal of supporting students to create their own companies.

Cultural Setting Influence 1 Kyōiku University needs clear goals and accountability based
on an active learning model.

Cultural Setting Influence 2 Kyōiku University needs to implement and effectively apply
an active learning model.

Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework contains key concepts, assumptions, beliefs, and theories that
encompass the research design (Maxwell, 2013) and is developed through data collection and
analysis (Robson & McCartan, 2016). The role of the framework was to inform and support the
study’s design to develop research questions, identify the conclusion’s validity, and justify the
study (Maxwell, 2013). Detailed descriptions of the conceptual framework of this study were
provided in the following sections.
The gap analysis analytical framework aids in clarifying organizational goals and
identifying performance gaps between the desired goal and actual performance. The framework
helps to identify which factors contributed to a performance gap by analyzing stakeholder
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl (2002)
categorized knowledge into four categories: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognition.
38

An analysis of the taxonomy allows one to analyze curriculum alignment, relative emphasis, and
missed opportunities for learning. Further examination also assists teachers in identifying how
and where to improve curriculum planning and instruction (Krathwohl, 2002). Faculty
motivation describes the process by which faculty members initiate, sustain, and regulate their
goal-directed behavior (Daumiller et al., 2020).
Related to the role of the organization, Clark and Estes (2008) outlined three causes of
organizational gaps: alignment of structures and processes with organizational goals, and the
interaction between organizational culture and change processes. According to Clark and Estes,
organizational problems can often be traced back to work processes, which should be altered
whenever the knowledge or motivation levels of the organization change. Knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences are discussed in the following sections.
In Figure 1, this study's conceptual model illustrates the relationship between knowledge
(K), motivation (M), and organizational (O) influences. The conceptual model represents the
interrelationships of the KU environment, faculty influences, and the knowledge and motivation
essential to supporting the stakeholder and organizational goals. When viewed from the inside of
the framework, two smaller circles represent the faculty stakeholder group's knowledge (K) and
motivation (M) influences as they relate to active learning-aligned instructional practices such as
PBL. The circles are not meant to overlap, but rather to represent circles that complement one
another. The larger circle that envelops them is the organization (O) cultural model and setting
and represents the environment in which the faculty conduct their classes. The large arrow points
downward from the larger circle, indicating that all three elements (i.e., K, M, and O) must
converge in order for the faculty to meet the stakeholder goal.

39

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Organization

Culture model
Willingness to change teaching strategies, a culture of trust
between administration and faculty.

Culture setting
Need for clear goals and accountability, implement an active
learning model.

Faculty knowledge

Declarative
Faculty need knowledge of active learning-
aligned instructional practices such as
PBL.
Faculty need knowledge of benefits of
active learning such as PBL compared to
traditional curriculum

Procedural
Faculty need to be able to implement
active learning such as PBL in an
entrepreneurial curriculum
Faculty motivation

Utility value
Faculty’s perception of active learning as an
effective approach to supporting student
entrepreneurial achievement.

Self-efficacy
Faculty’s confidence in their ability to
implement active learning-aligned
instructional strategies that advance the
development of entrepreneurial skills.

Stakeholder Goal
By April 2023, 100% of Kyōiku University faculty will integrate active learning-aligned
instructional practices in their curriculum.
40

Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to review the current literature concerning the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that are assumed to affect teachers'
capacity to implement active learning-aligned instructional strategies. The literature review has
shed light on a challenge that needs addressing, which was that while active learning has benefits
in primary and secondary schools, and outside academia, there are no long-term studies that
reflect the promises of short-term results in higher education. An impediment to published
articles on active learning was that many of the observations include populations of students who
are already extraordinary, including students accepted into medical, engineering, law, and other
advanced schools and programs (Norman & Schmidt, 2000), and do not reflect an average
university student. Finally, PBL programs require institutional approval and support, which
become further complicated across different cultures (Azer, 2001).
41

Chapter Three: Methodology
The design of this study aimed to explore and understand Kyōiku University (KU)
faculty members' ability to utilize active learning-aligned instructional best practices in a
program designed to support student development into entrepreneurs. This chapter includes a
description of the research design, data collection, instrumentation, and analysis of the data. Data
collected facilitated recommendations for improving organizational performance. The chapter
concludes with the ethics and roles of the researcher.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the faculty knowledge and motivation related to implementing instructional
practices aligned with an active learning approach?
2. What is the interaction between the university culture and context and the faculty
knowledge and motivation related to implementing instructional practices aligned
with active learning?
Overview of Methodology
The methodological design for this study was a qualitative method. This study was
guided by the knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences conceptual framework
developed by Clark and Estes (2008). Interviews and document analysis were used in this study
to collect qualitative data. These methods assisted in exploring the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences as they impact faculty practices. A summary of the data sources used in
this study is shown in Table 5.

42

Table 5
Data Sources
Study research questions Interviews
Documents and
artifacts
What are the faculty knowledge and motivation related to
implementing instructional practices aligned with an
active learning approach?
✔ ✔
What is the interaction between the university culture and
context and the faculty knowledge and motivation related
to implementing instructional practices aligned with
active learning?
✔ ✔

Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan
The data collection, instrumentation, and analysis plan for this study were conducted
using qualitative methods. The interviews and document analysis were guided by the research
questions and conceptual framework. Qualitative document analysis examined KU course
syllabi, presentations, and handouts used by faculty members. The aim of both the interview and
document analysis method was to gain an in-depth understanding of faculty experiences and
faculty active learning knowledge. Through document analysis, organizational influences and the
value placed on student learning were assessed. In addition, the faculty procedural knowledge
regarding active learning based on best practices was explored. Detailed information about the
data collection methods, instrumentation, and analysis plan is provided in the following sections.
Interviews
A Qualtrics® questionnaire was used to recruit participants for this study. I asked the
head of the faculty development (FD) group to announce an initial questionnaire to recruit
volunteers for interviews. The online questionnaire was sent to all faculty, asking for their
43

response. The questionnaire asked questions related to which department the faculty work in,
self-rated level of English-speaking ability, and willingness to be interviewed. An agreement to
participate in an interview was requested along with the volunteer’s name and preferred method
of contact. Information collected from this form remains confidential, was used to select
qualified volunteers, and for scheduling interviews.
Based on the recruitment questionnaire findings, participants were selected to participate
in online interviews. Semi-structured interviews were used as the primary data collection
instrument in this study. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), in qualitative studies,
interviews are often the primary method of data collection. Interviews help to capture the
holistic, integrated perspective of phenomenon from the participants who experience it. Further,
interviews offer a high level of flexibility, resulting in the participant providing detailed and
explicit details (Billups, 2021).
Participants
The entire full-time KU faculty represented the stakeholder population for this study. The
stakeholder group was selected for their experience and knowledge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016),
and their ability to contribute their experiences and opinions to a qualitative study (Patton, 2015).
The participation criteria and rationales were that faculty members had been teaching a minimum
of one term at KU, were full-time faculty, and were willing to be interviewed in English. The
faculty self-rated their English-speaking ability on a scale between 1 (very low) to 10 (very high).
A non-probability purposive sampling approach was used and based on my desire to
select volunteers who can speak English to facilitate in-depth conversations that provided
information relevant to the study’s objective. The use of English, as the lingua franca, enabled
accurate representations of the phenomenon under investigation (Irvine et al., 2008; Vassy &
44

Keller, 2010). Participants were asked if they were willing to participate in a 30 to 45-minute
one-on-one interview via the Zoom
©
application. The study participants were chosen according
to their availability, convenience, and needs for the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
target number of volunteers sought for this study was between eight to 10 faculty members.
Interview Instrumentation
The interview protocol used a semi-structured interview approach, guided by eight
questions. A semi-structured approach provides flexibility to adapt as the interview unfolds
(Billups, 2021). The study interview protocol included open-ended questions and probes. Open-
ended questions and probes aim to generate rich responses about stakeholders’ experiences,
perceptions, opinions, and knowledge (Patton, 2015).
The Clark and Estes's (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization Influences’
(KMO) conceptual model served as the framework for this study. It also guided the development
of the interview protocol. To facilitate the description of participants’ experiences, the interview
protocol included several types of questions. There are six basic types of interview questions:
behavior and experience, opinions and values, feelings, knowledge, sensory, and background
(Billups, 2021; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These types of questions were included in the protocol
to examine KU faculty KMO influences.
The purpose of the interviews was to explore faculty members’ declarative knowledge of
active learning best practices and their procedural knowledge of how to practice them in their
classrooms. Likewise, I assessed the interviewee’s perception of the organization’s cultural
model values and the cultural setting resources that foster active learning. The interview protocol
for this study was presented in Appendix B.
45

Interview Data Collection Procedures
Interviews took place during the fall semester of 2021 after participants completed the
initial recruitment questionnaire. The interviews were scheduled for a 30 to 45-minute period at
the volunteer’s convenience. Before interview commencement and recording, volunteer
participants’ verbal permission was asked concerning interview recording preference. Interviews
were scheduled over a 4-to-8-week period.
During the current global pandemic situation, current IRB guidelines recommend that
research interviews be conducted online. Therefore, interviews were conducted online via
computer-mediated online interaction using the Zoom
©
application. This web conferencing
application provides recordings, transcript function, and password protection. In the event of a
technological malfunction during the interview, a telephone was to be initiated to complete it. To
capture the information, backup notetaking was used. Immediately after the interviews, notes,
and Zoom audio transcripts were downloaded and saved for transcription purposes. The
interview transcripts were made available to participants upon request.
The purpose of Incentives Is to reward Interview participants. Because of Japanese
cultural norms, incentives were not offered to participants in this study. The participants received
formal written appreciation for their contribution to the study in lieu of incentives.
Interview Data Analysis
The qualitative analysis design was emergent, recursive, and dynamic. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) suggested that data collection and analysis be carried out simultaneously. Further,
when multiple datasets are analyzed simultaneously, different categories, themes, or conclusions
emerge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To create a system of management, and as data are collected,
they were coded by the theoretical framework that guided this study.
46

To guide analysis, I utilized the Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO influences outlined in the
study’s conceptual framework to code and categorize variables. The knowledge influences
included declarative and procedural knowledge. Motivation influences included utility value and
self-efficacy. Organizational influences included those related to the cultural model and cultural
setting. Additional codes were developed in response to emerging information not indicated by
predetermined codes. In the event that additional codes are generated, the data was analyzed for
its thematic significance to the study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure credibility and trustworthiness, several strategies were employed. As a first
step, this study applied triangulation by incorporating both interviews and documents as sources
of data. In triangulation, multiple data sources are used to obtain a deeper and broader
understanding (Billups, 2021). Second, qualitative research requires honesty and authenticity
about a researcher’s positionality (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Disclosure of my positionality or
reflexivity explained my biases, dispositions, and assumptions about the research that was
conducted. Finally, peer review, which is an integral part of a dissertation committee’s role
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was used. Moreover, the study provides readers with thick rich
descriptions of the participants and setting to determine the transferability of the study’s content
to other circumstances (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Document Analysis
In qualitative research, documents are both parts of the setting and a source of data, much
like interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, document content analysis was an obtrusive
technique used to examine data relevant to the study. Further, document analysis provides insight
47

into the expressive content, meaning, and symbolism of the data contained (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
The document analysis in this study comprised of KU course materials. Full-time faculty
create course documents and upload them into the Universal Passport (UniPa) learning
management system (LMS) and are shared between departments. Volunteer interview
participants were asked to provide syllabi, slides, and handouts for the current course they were
teaching. In the event faculty could not or forgot to provide a copy, I contacted the appropriate
KU administrative office gatekeepers to gain access to de-identified course-related documents
such as syllabi, slides, and handouts that did not have an associated faculty name. In research
sites, gatekeepers are individuals who provide access to the site, study participants, and other
resources needed to carry out the research (Billups, 2021). Current KU University procedures do
not require prior approval by faculty for the release of course documents. Thus, to ensure faculty
anonymity, I requested the administrative office to deidentify any documents were provided for
this study.
The course syllabi served as the primary type of document analysis. Syllabi were used to
triangulate data collected from interviews and documents. Triangulation aimed to determine the
faculty’s ability to apply active learning-aligned instructional practices and to explore evidence
of the faculty’s knowledge of active learning best practices in their coursework. The review of
best practices included examples such as the structure of student in-class activities, instructor
feedback given to students, grading rubrics, and the use of active learning instructional processes
such as group work and the development of problems for group discussions. Any documents
provided by faculty ensured student anonymity by removing student names.
48

Besides data garnered from interviews, documents provided evidence for the degree to
which, if at all, faculty implemented PBL and active learning-aligned instructional practices. The
documents created by faculty were considered to reflect intentions and not necessarily behavioral
execution in teaching approaches. Therefore, document analysis explored organizational
influences related to the creation of the syllabi and the value placed on student learning. Other
documents such as course-related presentation slides and handouts were reviewed to explore the
faculty’s declarative knowledge of active learning best practices, and their procedural knowledge
of implementing them.
Document Data Collection Procedures
Documents are generally not created for research purposes, so the data may not be useful,
but can be used as evidence to support conclusions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Faculty members
were asked to provide copies of their course documents for use in this study. The documents
requested for analysis encompassed the Fall 2021 semester. These documents were analyzed
immediately after each interview was completed. To protect the confidentiality, the name of the
instructor, the course number, and identifying information were removed from these documents
prior to analysis. The documents were assigned original, unidentifiable names and numbers for
the purposes of cataloging.
Document security was of the utmost importance. A password-protected personal
computer and an encrypted external hard drive keep all documents and other data collected. The
data was analyzed using Microsoft
©
Excel spreadsheets and stored on the encrypted password-
protected external hard drive. Appendix C contains the protocol for document analysis used in
this study.
49

Document Data Analysis
Document analysis is described as being similar to interviewing where data collection is
guided by research questions and emerging findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Hence, like the
interviews, upon the collection of documents, they were coded based on an a priori codebook of
predetermined categories. Further, these categories were based on the document analysis
protocol, and open coding allowed for emergent themes relevant to the application of active
learning best practices.
By using best practices as evidenced in the documents collected, the study was able to
explore the organizational influences that facilitate or impede faculty’s abilities to apply active
learning-aligned instructional practices. Moreover, this data helped in understanding the
relationship between what the syllabi specify and what students are expected to accomplish.
Given the vast scope of collected data, the focus was on assessing if faculty are currently
implementing active learning-aligned instructional practices to facilitate students’ entrepreneurial
skills.
In analyzing documents for this study, an important caveat was that all syllabi created by
faculty were required to meet the approved requirements of KU, based on the Japanese Ministry
of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) guidelines. Hence, syllabi
reviews evaluated the central influences of the organization instead of the intentions of
individual faculty. On the other hand, other materials including handouts and slides handcrafted
by individual faculty are independent of similar organizational influences. As such, all faculty
documents were reviewed and coded according to the predetermined categories in the document
analysis protocol.
50

Ethics and Role of Researcher
The ethical considerations for this study were implemented through all the stages of the
research process. Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggest the following ethical checkpoints: before
conducting the study, the beginning of the study, data collecting, data analyzing, and the
reporting, sharing, and storing of data. These stages are summarized in the following section.
Before the beginning of the study, Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training was
completed, which reflects the University of Southern California’s (USC) Code of Ethics.
Additionally, an application to the USC institutional review board (IRB) was submitted. When
IRB approval was given, key gatekeepers were informed to aid in the study’s research and ensure
that any power relationships were identified and vetted. The aim was to conduct transparent
communication with all parties. When collecting data, disruption at the selected research site was
limited. Several items were considered during the final stage of reporting, sharing, and storing
data. They involve measures such as avoiding falsification of authors, evidence, findings, or
conclusions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Finally, all collected data has been and will continue
to be stored for no less than five years to provide proof of compliance if requested to do so. Data
has been stored in a password-protected external hard drive and remains in the personal
possession of the researcher.
51

Chapter Four: Findings
The collected data findings of the study are presented in this chapter. The study
incorporates assumed influences as they relate to Kyōiku University (KU) faculty members’
ability to implement active learning-aligned methodologies in their curriculum. Three
performance goals were explored, they were knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational
(O) influences. Each assumed KMO influence was informed by the Clark & Estes (2008) gap
analysis framework and was presented in two sections to reveal explored gaps or assets. The
following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the faculty knowledge and motivation related to implementing instructional
practices aligned with an active learning-aligned approach?
2. What is the interaction between the university culture and context and the faculty
knowledge and motivation related to implementing instructional practices aligned
with active learning?
Participating Stakeholders
The population in this study consisted of 26 full-time KU full-time faculty who
conducted classes during the 2021–2022 academic year. Fourteen faculty were identified who
met the recruiting criteria outlined in this study. As a result, recruiting efforts generated a 93%
response rate and 86% participation rate. Twelve (n = 12) respondents agreed to participate in the
interview, one declined, and one did not reply. Qualitative online interviews were conducted for
8 weeks from December 2021 to January 2022.
Research interviewees’ relevant demographic data are shown in Table 6. The table
presents the assigned pseudonym, prior teaching experience in a higher education organization,
and each participant’s formal educational level. Seven of the 12 faculty interviewed hold
52

doctorates, two have master’s degrees, and three have bachelor’s degrees. Table 6 lists assigned
pseudonyms for each participant which are used in this chapter when referring to the study
participants, prior teaching experience, and level of formal education.

Table 6
Summary of Participant Pseudonyms, Teaching Experience, and Education Level
Participant pseudonym
(n = 12)
Gender Prior teaching experience
in a higher education
organization
Formal educational
level (degree)
Participant 1 or P1 Male Yes Doctorate
Participant 2 or P2 Male Yes Doctorate
Participant 3 or P3 Male Yes Masters
Participant 4 or P4 Male Yes Bachelors
Participant 5 or P5 Male No Doctorate
Participant 6 or P6 Male No Doctorate
Participant 7 or P7 Male No Doctorate
Participant 8 or P8 Male No Doctorate
Participant 9 or P9 Male No Doctorate
Participant 10 or P10 Male No Master
Participant 11 or P11 Male No Bachelors
Participant 12 or P12 Male No Bachelors

53

Research Question 1: What Are the Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Related to
Implementing Instructional Practices Aligned With an Active Learning Approach?
As part of the university’s mission, faculty must ensure that 100% of 2024 graduating
seniors have the skills, funding, and capabilities to establish their own companies. A critical
component in achieving the organization’s goals was faculty knowledge and motivation.
Specifically, the study sought to answer the research question related to the faculty knowledge
and motivation related to implementing active learning-aligned instructional practices.
Data analysis results are presented in this section, along with emerging findings of the
themes guided by the study’s conceptual framework. The literature review presented in Chapter
2 of this study discussed the importance of key terminology, concepts, and practices associated
with the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis. According to the authors, work performance was
directly influenced by stakeholder knowledge and motivation. Hence, the first research question
(RQ1) explored the assumed knowledge (K) and motivation (M) influences as they impact KU
faculty instructional practices. In the following sections, each influence category was represented
under its own heading for clarity.
Knowledge Findings
Interviews and document analysis were conducted to explore the knowledge influences of
the KU faculty. Research Question 1 (RQ1) specifically explored the faculty’s declarative and
procedural knowledge related to instructional practices. As a result of the analysis, three key
findings emerged. First, interview and document data analysis indicated both assets and barriers
in declarative knowledge of active learning-aligned instructional practices. Second, interview
evidence reflected a difference in how faculty viewed the benefits of active learning-aligned
instructional practices. Third, based on interview and document analysis data, it appeared that
54

faculty had varying levels of ability to implement active learning-based teaching methods. Table
7 summarizes declarative and procedural knowledge categories of assumed knowledge assets
and indicates findings as assets or barriers.

Table 7
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Assets or Gap Findings
Knowledge
category
Assumed knowledge influence Finding
Declarative
Faculty have knowledge of active learning-
aligned instructional practices
Both an asset and a
gap
Declarative
Faculty have knowledge of active learning-
aligned instructional practice benefits
compared to traditional curriculum
Both an asset and a
gap
Procedural
Faculty have the knowledge to implement
active learning-aligned instructional
practices in their curriculum
Both an asset and a
gap

55

Faculty’s Uncertainty About Active Learning-Aligned Instructional Practices
The first knowledge influence gap observed was related to the interview participants’
declarative and procedural knowledge of active learning-aligned instructional practices. The
purpose was to determine any knowledge gaps. The first type of knowledge explored and
determined to be a gap in this study was declarative knowledge of active learning-aligned
instructional practices.
Interview Findings. To explore faculty knowledge influences, the interview participants
were asked to describe active learning and whether they felt active learning teaching strategies
benefit KU students’ learning about entrepreneurship. The interview protocol questions were
designed to obtain responses that explored knowledge influences in the context of implementing
active learning-aligned instructional practices. Faculty members articulated their understanding
of active learning in response to questions.
Interviewed participants provided different definitions of active learning. Two faculty
members did not directly answer the question, while the majority of participants (10 out of 12, or
83%) provided their individual definitions of active learning. Overall, the faculty articulated
varied definitions of active learning. Table 8 lists alphabetically listed definitions of active
learning as they were expressed by the 10 participants. The table illustrates two gaps in
knowledge among KU faculty. The first gap was a lack of declarative knowledge in terms of
being able to define what active learning means. In addition, faculty members expressed
uncertainty regarding how active learning-aligned instructional practices work.

56

Table 8
Varied Definitions of Active Learning From Interview Participants
Definition
Participant articulating this
definition
Active learning includes discussions and debate. P1, P3, P9, P11
Active learning includes group work and presentations. P1, P8, P12
Active learning is about doing tests or experiments. P7
Active learning is about the environment or tools used. P5, P6
Active learning is similar to a flipped classroom. P5
Active learning is student-centered. P8, P11
Active learning must contain curiosity. P4
Active learning must have purpose. P4
Faculty are not involved in discussions. P9, P11
Faculty ask many questions. P10
Students have autonomy. P4, P7, P8, P9
Students learn on their own / are proactive. P2, P7, P10, P11
Students study outside the classroom. P5

Data analysis indicated that faculty members have different definitions of active learning
and are uncertain about their definitions. This suggests that there was a knowledge gap regarding
active learning. Yet, it was important to consider how the participants communicated their
uncertainty. Communication in Japan may sometimes appear ambiguous. Several researchers
have documented the ambiguous answers Japanese are likely to provide to questions (Adnyani,
2014; Pizziconi, 2020; Tatsumoto, 2017). Scholars symbolize traditional Japanese values such as
preserving harmony (wa) and the importance of group orientation (shuudan shugi) (Haugh,
2003). Hence, KU faculty members' expressed doubt may not imply a lack of knowledge, but
rather a strategy for preserving group unity through ambiguity.
57

The findings illustrated that some KU faculty members might not be aware of how active
learning differs from traditional teaching. Active learning involves the application of both
declarative and procedural knowledge. Understanding these two aspects was essential to
implementing instruction that aligns with active learning. An analysis of the data indicated that
some faculty members were unclear about what comprised active learning and how to implement
it. The primary gap was based on faculty uncertainty about the importance of active learning
versus passive learning. Eight faculty members with no prior teaching experience in higher
education communicated ambiguous answers and uncertainty. Examples of expressed
uncertainty were made by Participant 6, who stated, “I do not fully understand what active
learning is” and “Are my classes using active learning or not?” Nonetheless, he demonstrated
declarative knowledge as he resumed the interview, saying, “I think active learning is when
students have some kind of [special] environment or the tools to do it. What we [faculty] need to
do is to prepare [the] environment.” Similarly, Participant 4 expressed “I think I understand
active learning.” He then articulated his doubts about the organization’s understanding of a
classroom environment to promote active learning, “the administrative staff must prepare the
environment … the KU university staff do not understand how active learning [works].”
Participant 8 provided another example of ambiguity, disclosing, “I cannot exactly define active
learning.” He went on to convey that while active learning was not the issue, he found that “a
problem with active learning is the teacher” and the type of skills they “may or may not possess.”
Participant 11 reported that he had “read several books on active learning” and other student-
centered teaching methods but could not tell the “differences between methods.” Expanding on
his belief, he added, “I believe that students can more easily learn from their peers. But perhaps
active learning depends on the actual teacher’s ability [too].”
58

Interview participants expressed knowledge that active learning promotes teamwork and
engagement in meaningful activities. However, there was a gap in that faculty were unsure of
how to facilitate learning by taking on the role of facilitators and providing feedback on observed
student performances. The interview findings highlighted several examples of instructors
preferring to deliver passive lectures. Participant 1 explained, “I often use a lecture format” and
prefers to “provide the answers to questions … and explain the answers” rather than enabling
student-centered collaborative learning. A similar example came from Participant 6 who said,
“Most of my class is very passive.” He added that most of his class is “just an explanation from
me.”
Document Analysis. Each academic year, KU faculty upload their syllabi to a shared
learning management system. As part of the interview protocol, participants were asked to
provide a syllabus and course materials used for a recent course they are teaching. Among the 12
participants, all shared their syllabi, nine provided PowerPoint slides, and three stated that they
preferred discussions or lectures instead of creating visuals. Document-based data analysis
demonstrated that KU faculty are familiar with creating syllabi that meet the university’s mission
to provide students with entrepreneurial knowledge and skills.
Based on document analysis, nine KU faculty members develop their own visuals,
primarily PowerPoint slides, to deliver course content and contribute to achieving the learning
goals. Alternatively, two faculty use videos and one other utilizes published business case
studies. Faculty members who currently elect not to create materials indicated a preference for
lectures and discussions. Document analysis for two participants was not possible. Participant 11
stated that “I try not to take too much of my time to make materials” while Participant 9
explained choosing not to create materials from previously published sources. He stated that he
59

does not create any type of materials because he does not want to use “old information from the
past.” He continued to illustrate his teaching method, “I don’t want to use my time or resources
to make the visuals.” Both Participants 9 and 11 responded that “just talking and having
discussions” was their preferred teaching method.
In analyzing the alignment of class materials with active learning, two gaps emerged.
First, two faculty members expressed no need to create materials to support students' knowledge
and skills and preferred teacher-centered discussions as the preferred method of teaching.
Participant 8 selects topics of interest for each week’s discussions and Participant 9 prefers to
invite guest speakers to facilitate the class. Invited guests drive the discussions because he
prefers “not to speak during my classes.”
The second observed gap was the explanation of the teaching approach described in
course documents. During the interviews, faculty members explained what active learning meant
to them. However, syllabi and documents did not present teaching strategies that aligned with the
faculty's perception of active learning. A review of the syllabi provided by faculty members
revealed that none of the syllabi or class materials specifically stated that active learning
approaches would be employed.
Faculty’s Divergence in Considering the Benefits of Active Learning-Aligned Instructional
Practices
Faculty perceptions of the benefits of active learning-aligned instructional practices were
the second knowledge influence explored. All participants except one (11 out of 12, or 92%)
expressed that active learning was beneficial and helps students learn entrepreneurship. Three
examples of expressed benefit were provided by Participants 3, 8, and 10. Participant 3
expressed that “entrepreneurship itself is sort of active learning. I think it is very synergetic with
60

entrepreneurship.” According to Participant 8, “Active learning helps students to develop
entrepreneurial skills. Students can self-realize their own ability to solve problems. Giving
opportunities to learn through active learning is very important.” Participant 10 also expressed
his belief that “Active learning makes people much more independent. I always [want] students
to understand who they are, what are their strengths, and what is a challenge for them. So, active
learning helps them.” The one exception came from Participant 5 who provided his definition of
active learning but did not directly answer the question about its benefits. All faculty
perspectives on active learning benefits are shown in Table 9. Perspectives are presented in
alphabetical order and are categorized as a perceived benefit or not. The table also points out the
participants’ department of employment.

61

Table 9
Faculty’s Perceptions of Active Learning as a Means of Learning Entrepreneurship
Benefit Perception Participant Department
Yes Active learning helps in
learning entrepreneurship.

P1, P2, P6, P7, P9, P12
Business, ICT, Global
Communication
Yes Active learning helps student to
become independent.

P10 Business
Yes Active learning is important /
essential.

P4, P10 Business
Yes Active learning is similar to
entrepreneurship.

P3 Business
Yes Active learning helps students
to crystalize the idea of
entrepreneurship.

P11 Global Communication
Yes Active learning helps to
develop entrepreneurial
skills.

P8 Global Communication
No Active learning fits well with
some subjects but not
computer programming.

P2 ICT
No Active learning is not practical.

P5 ICT
No Active learning, like group
work, is not effective in ICT
classes.
P6 ICT

Overall, the participating faculty agreed that active learning was beneficial in learning
entrepreneurship. Yet, there was a difference in their perspectives regarding the benefits of active
learning in faculty members' own courses or departments. Based on the data from the interviews,
the three Information Communications Technology (ICT) faculty members interviewed did not
62

perceive active learning as beneficial for their classes or departments. Faculty in the ICT
department perceived active learning to be beneficial in teaching entrepreneurship but not in
learning ICT-related subjects. Participant 2 explained, “I believe certain subjects fit well with an
active learning format. But other subjects do not need active learning … subjects like computer
programming.” Participants 5 and 6 agreed that active learning was beneficial in learning
entrepreneurship. However, Participant 5 added, “not so much for ICT.” Similarly, Participant 6
reflected on his understanding of active learning components and added, “ICT classes are not
always effective by introducing workgroup.” Participants 2, 5, 6, and 7 shared the same rationale
that active learning in ICT classes was not helpful since these classes are “not directly related to
entrepreneurship.” Ultimately, a knowledge gap exists between ICT and other department faculty
members in terms of how active learning benefits their classes.
Faculty’s Differing Levels of Ability to Implement Active Learning-Aligned Instructional
Practices
In this section, the third explored the assumed knowledge influence gap focused on
procedural knowledge. The procedural knowledge explored was the faculty members' ability to
implement active learning teaching strategies. During the interviews, participants were asked
probing questions about how their classes are conducted from start to finish. All faculty, except
one, self-reported as currently using different active learning-aligned instructional practices. The
approaches are shown in Table 10 and sorted by the participant. The table's data was arranged by
the participant and represents the faculty's active learning-aligned instructional practices.

63

Table 10
Comparison of Faculty’s Active Learning-Aligned Instructional Practices
Participant
Passive
lecture
Posing an
ill-defined
problem
Collaborative
learning/group
work
Students
expressing
opinions as
presenters
Teacher
as
facilitator
Teacher
provides
feedback
during
class.
P1 ✔
P2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
P3 ✔ ✔
P4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
P5 ✔
P6 ✔ ✔ ✔
P7 ✔ ✔
P8 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
P9 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
a

P10 ✔ ✔ ✔
P11 ✔ ✔ ✔
P12 ✔ ✔

a
Participant permits visiting speakers to facilitate class, pose questions to students, and provide
feedback on students’ performance.

Interview Findings. The interview findings revealed 11 faculty members articulate a
variety of teaching styles that support active learning. One participant prefers teacher-centered
passive lectures as a method of instruction. Eight faculty members (67%) described beginning
their classes with a passive lecture, while three others mentioned using a combination of three
methods. Combinations of methods used include allowing students to work in groups, asking
students to perform a presentation on their findings, and receiving feedback from peers. The
wide approach used by the three faculty who incorporate the three teaching techniques in class
was exemplified by Participant 2's brief explanation:
64

I give some sort of problem or issue at the start of the class. Students are placed in
smaller groups for discussions. Based on the problem or issue … students will then make
presentations about what they discovered. I then provide feedback.
Although interview participants mentioned using different teaching strategies, it was
unclear whether the faculty understood best practices in the context of active learning.
Participant 8 noted, “I don’t understand what active learning is … [the] problem with active
learning is the teacher. If teachers just make groups and tell students to do [something] …
students get confused.” Participant 10 had a similar opinion, “Perhaps active learning depends on
the actual teacher’s ability. A teacher’s ability is also our limitation, our constraint.” While
Participant 9 reported implementing most of the important elements associated with active
learning, based on the examples he provided, it appears that he invites guest lecturers to give
lectures. He provided detail about his teaching style, stating that he prefers “not to speak during
class.” As a result, although some guest speakers utilize active learning components, while others
are mostly passive lectures, as Participant 9 explained, “it is just a keynote speech from the guest
speaker.”
As documented in this study’s literature review, active learning is concerned with gaining
knowledge about specific situations, not about finding the correct answers. However, interview
analysis showed that only three participants stated they provide feedback. Participant 1 described
an active role as a facilitator, providing verbal feedback to students during the class based on
student performance. He reasoned, “Students … don’t really answer [questions].” He continued
to explain that at the end of the class, students wait for him to provide the answers and “explain
the solution” to posed questions or ill-defined problems. Participant 2 expressed the same format
of ending his class, “I provide feedback and explain possible answers and or recommendations”
65

to the questions of problems given to students at the start of class. A different type of feedback
was discussed by Participant 10. He expressed providing feedback during class, but only “when
[students] have a lot of output” and then usually limits his feedback to short statements like “This
is good!” and “Perhaps you should change this.” Participant 8 explained that his style of
feedback was to provide “a model example of how to” do something.
Document Analysis. To further understand the varying levels of active learning-aligned
instructional practices, interview participants were asked to provide de-identified class materials.
Seven interviewees shared PowerPoint slides decks and syllabi, while five only provided syllabi.
Among the five, three participants said they do not create additional materials, and two stated
preferring to use published business case studies. To keep faculty anonymity, document analysis
was summarized in this section.
The interview findings highlighted that PowerPoint slide decks differed in terms of active
learning details and instructional approaches. As required by university learning management
systems (LMSs), the 12 syllabi provided included information about the courses, term dates,
instructors, course outcomes, weekly schedules, and textbooks required. Data shows that faculty
members have the basic factual knowledge regarding accessible course content in terms of
syllabi.
The document analysis of PowerPoint decks revealed a variation in declarative
knowledge of how to create and use visuals that align with active learning. Faculty PowerPoint
decks varied in both the number of slides and level of detail. The smallest number of slides in
one deck numbered five slides and the largest count was sixty-nine slides. The majority (four out
of seven, or 57%) of shared PowerPoint slide decks had an average of three diagrams, charts, or
pictures per slide, while other slides were primarily text. Four participants disclosed information
66

in their slide decks indicating that students must pre-read slides and be prepared to participate in
group discussions during the class. One participant provided two samples of his slides; one was a
clean version students received before the class and the other contained handwritten notes made
during the lesson and uploaded to the LMS for students to review afterward. Lastly, the faculty
members who use business case studies in class do not create PowerPoint slide decks.
Motivation Findings
The purpose of this section is to explore the influence of faculty members' subjective
utility value component and self-efficacy on their capacity to implement active learning-aligned
instructional practices to teach entrepreneurship. An important consideration of this study was
that the majority of faculty were new to teaching, making them a unique group of study
participants in a higher education setting. Therefore, it was crucial to explore faculty members’
motivation to use active learning-aligned instructional practices to help students develop
entrepreneurial skills. The findings from each of the three emergent themes identified from the
interview data were discussed in the following sections.
Faculty’s Perception of Active Learning As Critical for Supporting Entrepreneurship
The purpose of this section was to explore faculty members’ level of depth, or lack
thereof when expressing their perceived utility value for active learning. Understanding
perceptions is important because people's perceptions of reality influence their performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). As determined by data analysis, faculty members' perceptions of active
learning as a teaching approach varied by department, which was similar to findings presented in
a previous section of this chapter.
Based on data analysis, there was broad agreement among faculty members that active
learning was important for learning entrepreneurship. Examples of expressed benefit perception
67

were provided by participants from all three departments. Participant 3’s explanation that
“Active learning is very synergetic with entrepreneurship” and Participant 4’s statement that
active learning “is very important for entrepreneurs” are two affirming examples. The difference
lies in the specifics of articulated perception that active learning supports entrepreneurship
learning. Faculty members from the Business and Global Communication departments provided
specific examples and discussed how they strive to develop students' entrepreneurial skills.
Participant 7 provided an explanation that included details of active learning-aligned
instructional practices:
Active learning helps students to learn entrepreneurship. I believe so. Definitely. Because
entrepreneurship requires some sort of energy or motivation or group work skills. So, it
cannot be simply learned by individual self-learning. Active learning is also about doing
tests or experiments or such work also. I don’t always do it, but project-based learning or
such a style of learning is very efficient. I intentionally use [an] active learning strategy.
Another extensive explanation was given by Participant 11. In his teaching style, he
reported incorporating aspects of active learning. He also stated that active learning helps with
the development of entrepreneurial skills:
My understanding of active learning, it is … a peer-to-peer or student-centered type of
instruction. I believe the most important thing in a peer-to-peer approach is that students
teach each other. I believe that students can more easily learn what their peers teach them
rather than a lecture even if the topic is the same. Active learning means that students can
learn through discussion and suggestions to solve a problem or create a new idea. I try to
do this in my classes. My class structure helps students to crystalize the idea of a startup.
68

Every class is a way to help students to work in groups and create things with others. It is
a way to learn about startups.
While all the ICT faculty stated that active learning supports entrepreneurship learning,
they did not explain how it could be applied in their departments. Examples of expressed distinct
perceptions came from the three ICT interviewed participants. Participant 2 said, “I think that
active learning helps a lot for students to become entrepreneurs.” He continued to explain that
“certain subjects fit well with an active learning format. But there are other subjects that do not
need active learning.” Another ICT faculty member, Participant 5, suggested “I think active
learning means that students [should] study before the class. So, it is a flipped classroom.”
However, he reasoned that in his courses, “only about 20% of the students download”
PowerPoint slides before class, and thus “active learning is not practical.” Participant 6
expressed his beliefs, “I think that active learning could help to learn entrepreneurship ... because
it is always difficult to create a new business or new technologies.” Analysis of the data revealed
few specific reasons why KU faculty members believed active learning was crucial for learning
entrepreneurial skills. It was also significant to note that the three ICT faculty members believed
that active learning was essential for learning entrepreneurship, but not for their courses.
Faculty’s Varying Levels of Self-Efficacy to Implement Instructional Practices Aligned With
Active Learning
In this section, data focused on exploring faculty self-efficacy are presented. Faculty
members were asked two distinct questions about their level of confidence in employing active
learning in their classes. The interview data revealed a relationship between faculty members’
teaching experience and expressed confidence. Faculty with prior teaching experience articulated
greater confidence, while those who had no prior teaching experience expressed varying levels of
69

self-efficacy. Although data analysis revealed varying levels of confidence, slightly over half the
participants (eight out of 12, or 67%) communicated a high degree of confidence in employing
active learning-aligned instructional practices.
The four participants who did express high levels of confidence are discussed in this
section. According to Participant 7, KU university has provided training on active learning, but
stated, “I am not so confident in my ability to use active learning.” Participant 5 expressed
concern about his online classes and explained, “I can't expect good results whether active
learning is used or not.” Participant 10 provided both a confident and unconfident response and
said, “My confidence in my ability to use active learning is yes and no.” Yet, despite being
asked, he did not specify why he felt this way. The fourth interviewee, Participant 12, did not
directly respond to the question. These four participants, who gave less-than-confident responses,
are among those who are new to teaching in academic contexts, which was of particular interest.
Table 11 summarizes the findings which explored assumed motivation influences.

Table 11
Summary of Assumed Motivation Assets or Gap Findings
Motivation
construct
Assumed motivation influence Finding
Utility value Faculty’s perception of active learning as an effective
approach to supporting student entrepreneurial
achievement.

Both an asset and
a gap
Self-efficacy Faculty’s confidence in their ability to implement active
learning-aligned instructional strategies that advance
the development of entrepreneurial skills.
Both an asset and
a gap

70

Research Question 2: What Is the Interaction Between the University Culture and Context
and the Faculty Knowledge and Motivation Related to Implementing Instructional
Practices Aligned With Active Learning?
Concerning the research question, this section summarizes the outcomes and findings of
interviews and document data analyzed and based on assumed organizational factors. Each
finding was given its own heading and a summary section. Some components of the research
yielded only interview data and no beneficial document analysis data. For clarity, beneficial data
findings are presented in the narrative sections.
Consideration of organizational features is a third component in conducting performance
gap analysis, according to Clark and Estes (2008). Assessment and examination of cultural
models and settings are among the organizational features described by Rueda (2011). Assumed
organizational influences were explored, as indicated in the study’s conceptual framework, to
understand how KU either supported or hindered faculty members' knowledge of and ability to
engage in active learning-aligned instructional practices. Table 12 summarizes the findings of the
interviews performed to explore assumed organizational influences and divided into cultural
models and cultural settings. Rueda (2011) defines cultural models as invisible aspects such as
shared understanding, are dynamic not static, and are a result of expressed practices. On the other
hand, cultural settings are visible aspects considered as social context (Rueda, 2011).

71

Table 12
Summary of Assumed Organizational Findings
Organizational
influence category
Assumed organizational influence Finding
Cultural model Kyōiku University needs to cultivate a
culture of general acceptance and
willingness among faculty to change
existing teaching strategies.

Gap
Cultural model Kyōiku University needs to have a culture of
trust between administration and the
faculty to achieve the institutional goal of
supporting students to create their own
companies.

Gap
Cultural setting Kyōiku University needs clear goals and
accountability based on an active learning
model.

Gap
Cultural setting Kyōiku University needs to implement and
effectively apply an active learning model.
Gap

Evidence of Limited Collaboration Across Departments
In conducting interview data analysis, an unexpected organizational culture finding
emerged regarding the lack of collaboration across departments at KU University. Although
faculty members were not directly asked questions about collaboration within and outside of
their departments, a few participants provided comments that addressed the topic of
collaboration. According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational culture involves beliefs about
the importance of group processes and collaboration. An examination of data in relation to KU
University’s culture was conducted to explore faculty members' collaborative capacity in
implementing active learning-aligned instructional practices as a common goal.
72

The focus of this section was on the interview data analysis in the context of
collaboration and applying the “I” and “We” cultures as defined by Clark and Estes (2008).
According to the authors, employees in “I” cultures are less likely to take part in collaborative
efforts unless their contributions to the group are being evaluated. At KU, the organization’s
policy requires each faculty member to be evaluated biannually based on personal achievements
and not on internal collaboration efforts. Based on the data analysis, it appears that an “I” culture
has emerged, which could be a factor in the lack of collaboration between the three departments.
A summary of participants' comments on collaboration was provided in this section. As
revealed by interview data, KU faculty members believed the organization generally lacked
collaboration between the three departments. One example came from Participant 4 who
explained that his department does not currently have meetings but that he “tried to hold
meetings during the first year. But I came to understand that some faculty did not want to do that.
They did not want to be bothered.” In the past, he had the impression that colleagues wanted to
tell him, “Don't bother me!” when he tried to plan meetings with them. Participant 4 also
disclosed that some faculty do not collaborate with others because they “don’t want to change.
They don’t have the motivation to change. So that’s the problem.” He suggested that perhaps it
“is a lack of leadership or discipline. Why? I do not know.” Participant 11 articulated his
perspective and said that “In the end, we are a team. The university [has] three pillars … the
three departments need to work as a big team.” He further indicated that instead of standard
training, faculty members also needed teambuilding as a way to “learn our own roles and find
our leadership abilities to collaborate with each other.” A synopsis of why collaboration was not
occurring was made by Participant 12 who conveyed that the university was “still at the halfway
[point] as an organization.” His rationale was based on the university’s relatively brief history
73

since its foundation and the fact that few faculty members had met in person due to the
coronavirus pandemic. He concluded, “there has to be a certain level of mutual understanding
between faculty and the administration so that we can understand how to suggest or ask for
support from each other.”
Uncertainty About Organizational Policy for Online Teaching
Establishing clear organizational policies and communicating them can help faculty
members accomplish goals. As explained by Clark and Estes (2008), individuals are not able to
achieve their goals if they lack the requisite knowledge and skills. To explore assumed
organizational influences, participants were asked how the organization affected their self-
efficacy to implement active learning-aligned instructional practices. During the period this study
was conducted, KU faculty members conducted classes online. As a result of data analyses, this
section presents an emerging theme of faculty members’ uncertainty regarding the organization’s
online education policy.
Based on the findings of the interviews, the majority of faculty members (nine out of 12,
or 75%) are unaware of a university policy for conducting online classes. According to the
interviews, because there was no established online teaching policy, faculty members expressed
uncertainty about the policy for teaching online classes regarding aspects such as the auditory
and visual presence of students during live classes. On the topic of online classes, specifically
about asking students to be present via a video camera so the faculty member can see their faces,
nine participants indicated a lack of knowing the organization’s online teaching policy and
articulated a similar response, “I don’t know if KU has written rules about online classes.” The
identical responses highlight faculty members’ perception that there was no clear organizational
policy regarding online classes. Therefore, faculty members chose to deliver lectures and not
74

require students to show their faces in the Zoom classroom. Participant 3 provided the most
detailed comment about policy uncertainty, a sentiment that was articulated by the majority of
the participants’ responses. As he discussed his online class, he also voiced uncertainty about the
policy regarding students displaying their faces in a Zoom class environment:
In Zoom classes, students do not show their faces, unfortunately. I asked students, I asked
them to. Well, first of all, KU university staff said, don't force [students] to show their
faces because it could be harassment. And so, I can't force [students]. I [only] ask them to
show their faces when they are presenting. But I can't force them to do that either. Right?
I think KU has a written online class policy … umm … I don’t know if they have a
written policy. But sometimes it was discussed in the faculty meetings. But I don't know
if it's written. I think it's written. I don't think it's given out to the students. But I think [it
is] provided to the faculty. I think it’s official that you can't force the students to show
their faces. Maybe.
The remaining three participants either did not teach an online course or did not believe
the policy was significant to conduct their classes. Participant 4 stated, “I had no online classes
during the last school year.” Therefore, he was not asked about his understanding of online class
policy. Participant 6 expressed not being concerned with an online teaching policy, “I really
don’t care about such things [because] most of the students are not willing to show their faces
anyway.” He explained that he gives students assignments and “they need to study on their own
and learn via their own projects.” He did express concern, though, that when lecturing online “I
want to believe that the students are listening to my explanations. But maybe they are not.”
Similarly, when asked about knowing if the organization had an online teaching policy,
Participant 9 replied, “For me, it doesn’t matter.” He explained, “I ask students to show their
75

faces when the guest speaker is talking. But I never force students to show their faces when I am
speaking.”
It was essential to create policies to guide faculty members' ability to teach online. Data
analysis revealed faculty members’ expressed uncertainty regarding the organization’s absence
of a policy related to online classes. This represents a gap in the organization providing the
necessary support for faculty to engage in active learning-aligned instructional practices.
Faculty’s Expressed Mixed Levels of Need for Faculty Training and Development
The second cultural model influence explored in this study focuses on faculty members’
express needs for training and development. A critical component of higher education
institutions is faculty development and training. The findings of those faculty members who
reported training and development needs are presented in this section. According to the
qualitative data analysis, the reported training and development needs among faculty were
varied. Table 13 provides a comparative view of the 12 participants’ who expressed mixed levels
of satisfaction and need for training and development.

76

Table 13
Comparison of Faculty Expressed Mixed Levels of Need for Training and Development
Participant
Satisfied with
training
Neither satisfied nor
unsatisfied with training
Unsatisfied with training
P1
✔ ✔ ✔
P2
✔

✔
P3
✔ ✔
P4
✔
P5
✔ ✔
P6
✔

P7
✔

P8
✔
P9
✔

✔
P10
✔
P11
✔ ✔ ✔
P12
✔

✔

While the majority of faculty members (10 out of 12, or 83%) recognized a clear need for
training and development, an emerging theme of mixed levels of interest in training was noted.
An example of mixed levels came from Participant 1 agreeing that training was “good.” But he
also said, “I do not think about the training” and his feelings about training were “so-so.” While
speaking about a recent training session, he reported “basically it was just watching a video. I did
not need that training.” Another example came from Participant 2, stating, “The frequency of the
faculty training is fine. The problem is perhaps the content.” He felt that training was “geared
towards classes that are able to apply active learning.” Furthermore, he determined that “training
lacks or has not covered” technical fields, causing him to feel “concern about the content of the
training.” Participant 9 stated that training was not “bad, or a waste of time” but that it was also
“not good” and did not “work well” for him because “Active learning or other teaching methods
77

are taught by teachers or people inside the academic industry,” and thus believes training was
“worthless for me.” Participant 11 reasoned that individual faculty “may not know” what type of
training they need but that “once a training theme is selected” the training facilitators should
“explain why we are doing the training” because “Sometimes it seems that there was no
explanation.”
Data analysis revealed that faculty members expressed varying levels of need for training
and development, both individually and in comparison, with other participants. Though the
faculty members’ expressed needs were not specific to active learning-aligned instructional
practices, the findings demonstrate that faculty members are conducting classes without clear
organizational policy guidance. Furthermore, the faculty members expressed the desire for
training and development and was related to the perceived knowledge influences identified in
this study, leading to potential recommendations for training content and best practices policies.
Summary
Faculty members' knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influence findings
were presented in Chapter Four. Performance goals were explored to determine if gaps exist that
may impact faculty members’ ability to implement active learning-aligned instructional practices
in their curriculum. Based on interview data, both assets and gaps were identified in the faculty’s
declarative and procedural knowledge. Similarly, both assets and gaps were identified in the
faculty’s utility value and self-efficacy. In the organizational influences, only gaps were
identified in both cultural models and cultural settings. The KMO performance goal assets and
gaps are summarized in Table 14. In Chapter Five, recommendations were discussed with a
focus on closing identified gaps related to implementing active learning-aligned instructional
practices.
78

The knowledge, motivation, and organization Influences (KMO) conceptual framework
developed by Clark and Estes (2008) was utilized to explore the assumed gaps and assets. Most
of the study’s findings were anticipated because the organization had been recently established
and the majority of faculty had no prior teaching experience in a higher education setting.
However, the gap findings linked to how the ICT department faculty expressed low self-efficacy
were revealing. Interview data findings suggested that ICT faculty members, most of whom had
no prior teaching experience, will require education and training that focuses on self-efficacy and
motivation as a determinant of choice, effort, and persistence.
79

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
The aim of the study was to explore the degree to which Kyōiku University (KU) faculty
members foster students’ entrepreneurial skills through active learning-aligned instructional
practices. Two research questions guided this study. The first question asked how knowledgeable
and motivated the KU faculty were in terms of implementing instructional practices aligned with
active learning. The second question asked how the university context and culture were linked to
the faculty knowledge and motivation for implementing active learning practices. In both
questions, the focus was on understanding faculty members' instructional practices and the
alignment of the practices with active learning. An active learning pedagogy has been shown to
be effective in entrepreneurial education (Cooper et al., 2004; Manimala & Thomas, 2017). The
study employed a qualitative design intended to examine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences associated with instructional practices aligned with active
learning.
This chapter synthesized the literature and data analysis regarding the influence of KMO
factors and presents key findings. Next, in separate sections, recommendations for practice are
outlined and guided by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four levels of evaluation in the new
world model. A section follows that outlines the limitations and limitations of the study. The
chapter then concludes with recommendations for future research.
Discussion of Findings
A discussion of the findings related to the extent to which KU faculty members apply
active learning-aligned instructional practices to assist students in their entrepreneurial
development was presented in this section. In the following sections, the findings of the data
analysis are compared with the literature outlined in Chapter two.
80

The interview protocol consisted of three questions that explored knowledge and
motivation to address Research Question 1 (RQ1). Faculty members were asked to describe their
teaching strategies, share documents used in their classes, and explain what active learning
meant to them. Key findings from the interview data are described as assets or gaps based on
identified KMO influences. The first influence examined was the faculty's declarative and
procedural knowledge of active learning-aligned instructional practices. The next influence
examined how faculty members' utility value and self-efficacy impact their capacity to integrate
active learning-aligned instructional practices. The final influence explored how KU as an
institution supports or hinders faculty members' understanding and adoption of active learning
practices. Specifically, this final influence explored the organizational culture and setting.
The findings of the study broadly supported previous studies illustrating the importance
of a teacher's declarative and procedural knowledge in an active learning classroom.
Nevertheless, when comparing this study to previously published reports, it was noted that most
higher education faculty typically had some teaching experience. This was not the case with this
study. Therefore, based on the data analysis finding, it was concluded that the lack of prior
teaching experience played a significant role in observing some unexpected findings.
Discussion of Declarative and Procedural Knowledge Gaps
There were two aspects of learning considered in this study: declarative and procedural
knowledge. According to the constructivist theory, learning involves both declarative knowledge
and procedural knowledge (Isemonger, 2020; Michael, 2006, 2007; Michael & Modell, 2003;
Sewagegn & Diale, 2018). Research has also demonstrated the importance of both declarative
and procedural skills in entrepreneurial education (Lakéus, 2015; Löbler, 2006). To understand
instructional practices in this study, it was crucial to analyze the knowledge influences of KU
81

faculty. As a result of the data analysis, three findings emerged which are further discussed in
separate sections.
Faculty Members’ Assets and Gaps in Understanding Active Learning Instructional Practices
The analysis of faculty members' understanding of active learning-aligned instruction
practices revealed two key observations. The first observation was that faculty members
articulated uncertainty and defined active learning as comprising different elements. The variety
of definitions offered by faculty was among those that are generally understood to be central to
active learning such as dynamic class discussions (Wolfe, 2006), learning in groups and a
student-centered approach (Waniek & Nae, 2017), the use of many questions to stimulate higher-
level thinking (Brame, 2019), and the development of student autonomy (DiYanni & Borst,
2020). Findings suggest that KU faculty members are familiar with active learning-aligned
instructional practices and were therefore considered assets. Based on the analysis of the data,
four faculty members articulated providing feedback to students. Most participants, however,
failed to articulate two key aspects of active learning including classroom discussions and
providing feedback. Activating creativity through group discussions and providing feedback is a
key component of active learning instructional practices in university entrepreneurial programs
(Morrison & Johnston, 2003). Therefore, it was reasonable to consider the faculty members’
limited understanding of active learning as a procedural knowledge gap.
The syllabi were also analyzed because they serve as the first point of contact between
faculty and prospective students. The document analysis indicated that the faculty understood
and completed all sections as required by the university. The findings aligned with previous
research which recognized that a syllabus gives students an idea of what to expect and how the
course will be conducted (Richmond et al., 2019; Sutherland, 2005). According to the document
82

analysis findings, few of the syllabi indicated that active learning strategies would be applied in
the classroom. Despite the few syllabi that mentioned active learning strategies, no explanation
was provided about why specific strategies were selected, how students would learn, or what the
expected outcomes were. Findings contrast with Richmond et al. (2019), who reason that
syllabus design plays a critical role in learner-centered education such as active learning. Thus,
failing to recognize the connection between active learning and course documents was
interpreted as a declarative knowledge gap. Yet, it remains unclear whether faculty members
intentionally chose not to include it in their syllabi or believe they are not required to.
Faculty Members’ Assets and Gaps in Understanding Benefits of Active Learning in ICT
Courses
Generally, KU faculty members viewed active learning as beneficial in learning
entrepreneurship. As a result, interview data analysis findings were viewed as evidence of
declarative and procedural knowledge assets. However, the ICT faculty expressed not being able
to utilize it in their courses despite knowing its benefits. In this respect, this finding conflicts
with studies that show active learning is widely used in ICT courses (Arbelaitz et al., 2015;
Caceo et al., 2018; Goswami et al., 2020), is favored by ICT students (Arbelaitz et al., 2015), and
produces student-centered learning (Smeets & Mooij, 2001). The unexpected finding thus
indicated that there was a procedural knowledge gap, and that additional research was needed to
determine why KU’s ICT faculty are unable to recognize the value of active learning in their
courses. It remains unclear why faculty from ICT did not consider active learning applicable to
their courses, as opposed to faculty from other departments.
83

Faculty Members’ Gap in Ability to Implement Active Learning-Aligned Instructional
Practices
As the third faculty knowledge finding, data analysis revealed that all faculty members
expressed using different active learning instructional practices in their classrooms. The use of
different active learning approaches was indicative of a procedural knowledge asset. Knowledge
of facts, definitions, general principles, or the relationship between concepts comprises
declarative knowledge (Michael & Modell, 2003). Despite this, most faculty members expressed
a preference for rote teaching or allowing visitors to conduct lectures. Rote instruction for
memorization is not unusual in specific cultural settings such as in Japan (Yamada & Yamada,
2018). However, lecturing contrasts with active learning instructional practices. According to
Michael (2006), active learning can be more effective than rote instruction. Furthermore, faculty
members did not explain why they used different active learning-aligned approaches nor what
results they expected. Faculty need to understand why they use active learning and what the
expected outcomes are when using this approach. Effective instruction incorporates describing
the clarity of instruction and the intended expected outcomes (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, 2002;
Mayer, 2011). The inconsistencies of not outlining why approaches were used nor for what
outcomes suggest a gap in procedural knowledge of active learning instructional practices.
Discussion of Motivational Gaps
The second dimension in this study explored the utility value and self-efficacy motivation
influences of KU faculty members. Several academic studies have examined both student and
teacher motivation. The study’s data findings were guided by Wigfield and Eccles’ (2000) utility
value as a component of expectancy-value theory and Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory. As
84

a result, the motivational findings of this study further addressed the first Research Question 1
(RQ1).
Based on the data analysis, findings illustrated a similarity between the knowledge and
motivation influences and their relationship to prior teaching experience. According to the first
motivational finding, faculty members self-reported their perception that active learning was
supportive of entrepreneurial education. Studies that have demonstrated how active learning-
aligned instructional practices, such as problem-based learning (PBL), are effective in
entrepreneurial studies (Morselli, 2019; Tan & Ng, 2006; Santateresa, 2016). Yet, the
information and communications technology (ICT) faculty members questioned active learning's
effectiveness for their classes. This finding seemed to echo what was found in the knowledge
section, that faculty agreed active learning was useful but not for ICT courses. Furthermore, all
three ICT faculty members lacked prior teaching experience and were generally unfamiliar with
active learning, indicating a motivational gap. A second motivation gap varying levels of
expressed confidence in implementing active learning. This finding is important because self-
efficacy affects faculty members' ability to attain desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1997).
The findings suggested that faculty members without prior teaching experience were
more likely to show a lack of motivation to employ active learning-aligned instructional
practices. As the second motivational finding, self-efficacy was explored, and analysis of data
revealed that a lack of prior university teaching experience was also associated with expressed
low self-efficacy. Hence, this finding drew attention to the faculty members of the ICT
department who were more likely to be new to teaching in a higher education setting. This led to
the identification that low expressed self-efficacy is associated with low motivation. In this
respect, the findings concurred with Bandura’s (1977, 1997) research on motivation which found
85

that self-efficacy was linked to motivation and was the determinant of choice, effort, and
persistence.
Discussion of Organizational Gaps
The study explored the influence of the KU organization in terms of both the cultural
models and settings. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) reason that looking at both concepts
together through a cultural lens can help to understand how models inform settings and in turn,
settings shape models. In analyzing the interview data, the culture model and the setting concepts
were explored separately, leading to three key themes.
Based on the cultural model influence, the first theme that emerged was the lack of
collaboration among faculty members across the three departments. This finding demonstrated
what Clark and Estes (2008) described as an “I” culture. It appears that this finding ran contrary
to what academics have described as the collectivist culture of Asia (Anderman & Dawson,
2011; Wentzel & Miele, 2016). The finding related to the lack of collaboration was a potential
issue because the absence of a collectivist culture can negatively affect the organizational culture
as well as the members' self-efficacy (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Further, data analysis
revealed that due to the Coronavirus pandemic, faculty members reported not having been able
to meet peers from other departments during the school year. Additionally, some faculty
explained that because the university had only been in existence for a short period, the
organizational culture was still evolving. A lack of willingness amongst faculty to exchange
existing teaching strategies continued, once the classes returned to fully face-to-face, and thus
considered an organizational gap.
Within educational settings, cultural models include underlying schema such as assumed
policies, values, and practices that are invisible to individuals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
86

A second cultural model theme that emerged was that most faculty were teaching online classes
and articulated uncertainty about how to conduct their classes. The faculty members expressed
that the administration had not communicated information about how to conduct online classes.
Further, a few other faculty members expressed that they did not believe the policy was
significant to conduct their classes. This was identified as an organizational gap as faculty
expressed a need for policies to support them in implementing classes. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), without the required skills and knowledge, individuals are not able to achieve their
goals.
In terms of a cultural setting, the third emerging theme was the need for the organization
to support faculty members in integrating active learning into their curriculum. The data analysis
finding illustrated that faculty members had varying levels of training and development needs. In
general, faculty members agreed that there was a need for training focusing on active learning-
aligned instructional practices. Yet, they also stated that the quality, frequency, and objectives of
the training should be defined more clearly before training begins. This finding highlights the
importance of developing an organizational culture setting that meets employee needs in order to
improve productivity and efficiency (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
Recommendations for Practice
In light of this research study analysis and emerging findings, comprehensive
recommendations are provided to enhance faculty members' ability to complete the stated
organizational goal. The first recommendation was the implementation of a comprehensive
training program. The recommended training program will support faculty members who had no
previous higher education teaching experience in providing best practices for active learning-
aligned instructional practices. The second recommendation expands on the recommended
87

training program to address emerged motivation gaps related to the faculty members’ utility
value and self-efficacy constructs. The aim of the training program will be to provide faculty
members’ short- and long-term goals to design active learning-aligned curriculum via clarified
performance goals. The third recommendation was to implement a PBL curriculum and to
implement collaborative discussions and feedback sessions in order to achieve organizational
goals.
To support the recommendations, relevant academic theories are referenced to provide
scientifically peer-reviewed empirical research. Recommendations for practice used the new
world Kirkpatrick model (NWKM) (2016), as a recommended training and evaluation
framework. The NWKM model provides an effective evaluation system by applying evaluation
at four levels: reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
following three recommendations are provided to help the organization meet its stated goal of
providing 100% of students with entrepreneurial skills.
Recommendation 1: Standardize Faculty Development to Enhance Declarative and
Procedural Knowledge of Problem-Based Learning
To explore knowledge influences, Krathwohl's (2002) revision of Bloom's taxonomy was
used as a guide. An analysis of this study's data revealed a knowledge gap in active learning-
aligned instructional practices. To address the knowledge gap, it was recommended for the
faculty development (FD) group to plan, create, and implement a problem-based learning (PBL)
training program as a concrete, comprehensive framework that is aligned with active learning.
The training program should focus on strengthening faculty members’ current declarative
knowledge assets and reducing procedural knowledge gaps. Table 14 illustrates the summary of
knowledge influence as declarative (D) and procedural (P) gaps and specific recommendations.
88

Table 14
Summary of Knowledge Assets or Gaps Findings and Recommendations
Knowledge influence Finding Recommendation
(D) Faculty knowledge of active
learning-aligned instructional
practices
Both an asset
and a gap
The faculty development (FD) group
should provide a training and education
program to enhance faculty members’
declarative knowledge of active
learning-aligned instructional practices
such as problem-based learning (PBL).

(D) Faculty knowledge of active
learning-aligned instructional
practice benefits compared to
traditional curriculum
Gap The FD group should develop a quarterly
program that aligns with PBL and
active learning instructional practices
and enhances declarative knowledge of
their benefits.

(P) Faculty knowledge to
implement active learning-
aligned instructional practices
in their curriculum
Both an asset
and a gap
The FD group should introduce a pre- and
post-training evaluation system and
analyze data findings to help adjust
training programs. Additionally, the
organization should introduce a training
and evaluation program. The evaluation
program should include class
observations to evaluate knowledge and
provide feedback to faculty members
about implementing active learning-
aligned instructional practices such as
PBL into their curriculum.

Over 80% of interview participants had some knowledge of active learning. Despite this
finding, nearly 70% of faculty expressed uncertainty about using active learning in their classes.
A primary recommendation was for faculty members to be educated and trained on active
learning-aligned instructional practices, such as problem-based learning (PBL), and to
incorporate them into their courses. Clark and Estes (2008) stressed the importance of increasing
knowledge, skills, and motivation in order to achieve organizational goals. Similarly, Stürmer et
89

al. (2013) argued that having declarative knowledge of effective teaching is crucial to effectively
plan and implement instruction.
Active learning-aligned instructional practices such as PBL require a logical
implementation process. For PBL implementation to be successful, Lim and Choy (2014)
recommended comprehensive and structured training programs that emphasize reshaping
teaching beliefs. Chapter two of this study discussed Farmer’s (2004) comprehensive program
for faculty development aligned with PBL. Despite using the term curriculum, the recommended
program refers to education and training to develop pedagogical practices aligned with PBL.
Farmer's three stages and brief recommendations are summarized and shown in Table 15.

Table 15
PBL Faculty Development Sequence Training Stages and Recommendations
Name of stage Recommendations
Curriculum change stage Provide rationale for implementing problem-based
learning (PBL), theory, and evidence.
Provide PBL tutorials with skilled facilitators.
Provide PBL live demonstrations.
Provide post-instructional reflection opportunities.

Curriculum implementation stage:
activated only after the PBL
curriculum has been
implemented
Provide peer mentors as PBL tutors to provide feedback.
Provide regular brief sessions.
Provide confidential formal evaluations and feedback
based on class observations.

Curriculum advancement stage Provide and advocate a PBL teaching reward system.
Provide advanced PBL training.
Provide PBL refresher training.
Provide PBL training roles for motivated faculty.

90

In addition to the PBL training program, which follows Farmer's (2004)
recommendations, a further recommendation was to implement a training evaluation program.
An effective training evaluation program is the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) new world
Kirkpatrick model (NWKM). The NWKM utilizes four levels of training and evaluation which
recommends the model be applied in a reverse approach beginning with Level 4. The faculty
development (FD) group should begin by defining desired outcomes (Level 4) before
implementing training programs and then determine the desired behaviors (Level 3). In this
study, the findings demonstrated both procedural and declarative knowledge gaps. Thus,
identifying gaps to determine what faculty members know will assist in achieving performance
goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Next, faculty skill levels should be identified (Level 2) to create a
training program that meets the required level of training (Level 1).
As part of the training program, the FD group should introduce a pre- and post-training
evaluation system and analyze data findings to help them adjust training. Data analysis resulted
in nearly all faculty members articulating a variety of instructional practices that supported active
learning-aligned instructional practices. Yet, faculty members did not explain why they used
different instructional approaches nor what results they expected. Moreover, 67% of faculty
expressed a preference for rote teaching or allowing visitors to conduct lectures. Furthermore,
document analysis revealed that nearly half of the faculty members chose not to create visuals
such as PowerPoint decks. Those who did create visuals varied widely in the number of slides
and level of detail. These findings indicated key items that should be included in a post-training
evaluation and class observation program.
A performance evaluation is crucial to closing identified gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Once a program has been created, evaluations can be conducted during (formative) and after
91

(summative) training. For the NWKM Levels 1 and 2, formative evaluations, Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) provided several suggestions for evaluation. As a formative method to assess
the effectiveness of training, the authors recommended evaluating participants during the course
of the training. For summative evaluations, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick recommend using
surveys that are timely and simple. The NWKM Levels 2 and 4 suggest evaluation of key
leading indicators as an opportunity for both formative and summative evaluation.
Recommendation 2: Sustain Faculty High Utility Value and Enhance Self-Efficacy for
Problem-Based Learning
The Wigfield and Eccles’ (2000) utility value component of the expectancy-value theory
and Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory guided the exploration of the motivation influences.
Interview data analysis revealed both assets and gaps related to faculty members' utility value
(UV) and self-efficacy (SE). To address these motivation gaps, the FDgroup should emphasize
utility value in the training program to incorporate problem-based learning (PBL). Training
should also provide opportunities for faculty to participate in developing and implementing their
own PBL curriculum and receive peer feedback as a way to increase their self-efficacy. Table 16
illustrates the summary of motivation influence as UV and SE gaps and specific
recommendations.

92

Table 16
Summary of Motivation Assets or Gaps Findings and Recommendations
Motivation influence Finding Recommendation
(UV) Faculty’s perception of
active learning as an effective
approach to supporting
student entrepreneurial
achievement.
Both an
asset and a
gap
The faculty development (FD) group should
develop a training program that
emphasizes utility value (UV) to
implement PBL. The training program
should link content to the short- and long-
term organizational performance goals.
The FD group should utilize Kotter’s
(1996, 2014) eight step model to further
facilitate change.

(SE) Faculty’s confidence in
their ability to implement
active learning-aligned
instructional strategies that
advance the development of
entrepreneurial skills.
Both an
asset and a
gap
The FD group should adapt Farmer’s (2004)
curriculum implementation and
advancement stages. This will provide
faculty members the opportunity to
practice taking active roles in developing
and implementing a PBL curriculum and
receive feedback.

Motivation is perceived as an innate stable trait, but performance does not imply
motivation to complete a task (Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) maintained that motivation
to complete a task involves three processes: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. As a
result of this study's data analysis, it was found that there was broad agreement that active
learning is important to entrepreneurship education, and that several active learning-aligned
instructional strategies were utilized. Despite similar perceptions, faculty members from the
information, communication, and technology (ICT) department felt active learning was not
practical for their classes. These results lead to the identification of a UV motivation gap.
The new world Kirkpatrick model (NWKM), developed by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016), suggests that motivation rather than knowledge is usually to blame for poor performance.
93

To close the motivational gap, the NWKM Level 2 commitment and confidence components
should be included in the FD training program. Kotter's (1996, 2014) change model can be useful
to foster faculty members' commitment and confidence for change to reach organizational goals.
Kotter's eight steps and accelerators are summarized in Table 17.

Table 17
Kotter’s Eight-Step Model and Accelerators
Focus Eight steps Accelerators
Creating a climate for
change
Step 1: Establish a sense of
urgency.
Align urgency around a big
opportunity.
Step 2: Create the guiding
coalition.
Attract and guide others to
accelerate movement.
Step 3: Develop a change vision. Develop a change vision and a
list of potential strategic
initiatives for staff to focus
on.

Engaging and
enabling the whole
organization
Step 4: Communicate the vision
for buy-in.
Extend and amplify original
urgency using training and
communication.

Step 5: Empower broad-based
action.
Step 6: Generate short-term wins. Acknowledge small wins
(accomplishments). Implementing and
sustaining change
Step 7: Never let up.
Step 8: Incorporate change into the
culture.

94

Recommendation 3: Implement a Collaborative Problem-Based Learning Curriculum
Including Meetings to Discuss Organizational Mission Progress
An examination of cultural models (CM) in organizations and cultural settings (CS)
formed the third explored influence. Cultural models and settings, as defined by Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) guided the identification of organizational gaps in this study. Table 18
provides a summary of organizational influence as well as a classification between CMs and
CSs.

Table 18
Summary of Organization Influences Gap Findings and Recommendations
Organizational influence Finding Recommendation
(CM) Kyōiku University needs to
cultivate a culture of general
acceptance and willingness
among faculty to change
existing teaching strategies.
Gap KU University should implement
collaborative discussions and feedback
sessions on best practices among faculty
members from the three departments
including administrative staff.

(CM) Kyōiku University needs to
have a culture of trust between
administration and the faculty
to achieve the institutional goal
of supporting students to create
their own companies.

Gap KU University should conduct monthly full-
time faculty meetings to discuss topics
related to achieving the institutional goal.
(CS) Kyōiku University needs
clear goals and accountability
based on an active learning
model.
Gap KU University should create a culture of
expectations and accountability to meet its
institutional goal of implementing active
learning-aligned instructional practices.

(CS) Kyōiku University needs to
implement and effectively
apply an active learning model.
Gap KU University should implement and
support a program that utilizes active
learning-aligned instructional practices
such as problem-based learning.

95

Faculty members were not specifically asked about collaboration within or outside their
departments in this study. However, some participants expressed concern about a lack of
cooperation between the three departments. The analysis of data revealed the first organizational
influence theme, similar to what Clark and Estes (2008) called an “I” culture. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick's (2016) new world Kirkpatrick model (NWKM) provides an opportunity for
organizations to overcome silos and clarify their institutional purpose and mission through Level
4. By implementing frequent collaborative sessions between faculty and administrative staff, the
organization can achieve its institutional goals. Therefore, it was further recommended that the
organization hold monthly full-time faculty meetings to share updates and feedback. The
recommendation in this section aligned with Kotter's (1996, 2014) change model steps 4 and 5.
Incorporating training into the existing monthly faculty meetings will facilitate training goals.
Scheduling training with the monthly all-staff meetings provides broad exposure to the staff who
attend. By integrating training, faculty workload and resistance to training will be reduced.
Additionally, in an effort to encourage their participation, faculty will be informed about how
other universities have incorporated active learning instructional practices into their curriculum.
It is possible to motivate individuals to maintain their knowledge and skills to improve
performance by creating an accountability culture (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Based on
data analysis, most faculty members were unaware of any policies guiding them in teaching
online courses. For faculty members to achieve the institutional goal of implementing active
learning-aligned instructional practices, several policy implementations are recommended. As a
first step, the administration office should share policies about the Japanese government's
definition of active learning and what the organization also considers it to mean. The Japanese
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) defined active learning
96

as an active ( 主体的), interactive ( 対話的), and deep ( で深い学び) type of learning (MEXT, 2016).
Based on Kamegai and Croker’s (2017) analysis of the government report, which is written in
Japanese, the three terms are considered generalizations, although the government did provide
explanations. The authors noted that rather than being prescriptive, the government
recommended that educators should define active learning based on the needs of individual
students. Furthermore, MEXT considers active learning as taking part in active and cooperative
discovery and problem-solving which allows students to develop the ability to think, judge, and
express themselves, as well as the ability to reflect on information to increase their knowledge,
skill, and disposition (Kamegai & Croker, 2017).
As a second step, a policy should be drafted to provide guidance for both face-to-face and
online classes that use active learning-aligned instruction, such as problem-based learning (PBL).
Following that, a clear policy should be established regarding faculty training to implement PBL.
Accountability should be linked to a policy outlining faculty development that will include
classroom observations, post-training evaluations, and student surveys to evaluate faculty
classroom performance.
A final recommendation was for the organization to embrace an active learning-aligned
program such as the utilization of PBL. For the organization to signal what Kotter (1996, 2014)
calls a climate of change, the organization should openly announce a change vision following
steps one, two, and three. The vision may be further integrated into internal and external modes
of communication including revision of syllabus content, discussion in all-hands meetings, and
promotional materials that display progress made towards an active learning-aligned classroom.
97

Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations and delimitations to this study. According to Burkholder et
al. (2020), the limitations of the study identify its methodological or design weaknesses.
Delimitations, on the other hand, explain how the study was intentionally narrowed based on
what was excluded.
The limitations of this study are summarized in this section. First, self-selection bias was
identified as a primary significant limitation, which could introduce an element of non-response
bias. Further, self-report bias was a concern since faculty responses may or may not have
represented their actual practices. In addition, some faculty elected not to participate or respond
to some of the interview questions, which may have introduced non-response bias. Second, the
organization in this study has a representative body of twenty-six full-time Japanese faculty
members. As a result, the number of stakeholders who could converse in the English language
was limited. Third, the population was primarily comprised of male faculty due to initial
employment practices controlled by KU. Hence, the study interviews consisted only of male
participants. Fourth, faculty members at this private university are not representative of typical
academic professors with extensive higher education teaching experience typically seen in public
institutions and may bear distinct differences in collected data. Study participants were Japanese
nationals with business acumen rather than previous experience teaching in higher education.
Fifth, the hiring of full-time KU faculty was based on employing facilitators with extensive
business acumen to promote the organization’s mission, vision, and goals, while formal teaching
background was a secondary requirement. Sixth, research interviews followed strict guidelines
during the current global pandemic situation. Thus, interviews were conducted online according
to participants’ time availability. Moreover, the KU faculty have not met in person because of
98

the Coronavirus pandemic, and personal relationships have not developed. As a result, recruiting
faculty for online interviews was difficult. Seventh, the honesty of answers and knowledge of
PBL, could not be completely expected nor controlled. It may reflect a potential bias on PBL in
the answers to questions and probes. Eighth, the possibility of introducing personal bias because
of the researcher’s study design was another limitation. Finally, this study was guided by a
novice researcher with limited research experience, whereby data collection was influenced by
this element. A further limitation made by the researcher was to include only stakeholder
participants who could converse in English. There is only one full-time female faculty member at
KU University who does not speak English and could have potentially been identified if included
in the study. As a result, there were no female participants in this study.
The study included several delimitations. First, the questions pertaining to the survey
were driven by the KMO conceptual framework. Therefore, this delimited the interview
questions. As a result, survey and interview questions were created to specifically study active
learning-aligned instructional practices. Additionally, the study evaluated one university, to
understand faculty knowledge, motivations, and experiences in the application of active learning-
aligned instructional practices, and the findings cannot be generalized across all higher education
institutions in Japan. Also, findings in this study were influenced by the primary instruments of
data collection and by the questions created and applied during the research.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study’s data analysis suggests future research on the implementation of active
learning-aligned instructional practices such as problem-based learning (PBL). According to
Hitchcock and Mylona (2009), few studies have documented an evidence-based approach to
faculty development in the context of PBL instructional practices. Therefore, it was
99

recommended that further research be conducted to analyze the creation, implementation, and
effectiveness of a faculty development program with a focus on implementing a PBL curriculum
to foster entrepreneurship.
Using a qualitative approach, interviews and document reviews were used to gather data
for this study. A quantitative study within the same organization was recommended because
descriptive and inferential statistics may provide a further understanding of instructional
practices. Additionally, it was recommended that classroom observations be conducted as part of
a faculty development training program and include part-time faculty. Class observations aid in
the triangulation of multiple sources of information (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) and are a
primary source of information gathered in the context of a phenomenon (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Moreover, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested that observations provide firsthand
knowledge of activities or situations where a fresh perspective is desired.
Implications for Connection to the Rossier Mission
Unique to this study were the promising implications it offered in several contexts and
settings. The implications align with the University of Southern California’s (USC) Rossier
School of Education's mission to prepare leaders in achieving educational equity through
practice, research, and policy. Recommending the use of an active learning-aligned instructional
approach such as problem-based learning (PBL) also aligns with the USC mission of innovative
thinking and research to solve intractable educational problems. A comprehensive, evidence-
based training and evaluation system is recommended to facilitate the implementation of a PBL
program because faculty members have shown varying levels of active learning knowledge.
Finally, the research data, analysis, findings, and recommendations are meant to further explore
100

and understand opportunities that align with the pillars of USC: leadership, learning,
accountability, and diversity.
Conclusion
KU faculty members' knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences
were explored to understand how they impact their ability to implement active learning-aligned
instructional practices in their curriculum. Findings provided insight into the factors that impact
faculty members' ability to meet the organizational mission and vision of teaching
entrepreneurial skills. Furthermore, the findings outlined in the chapter were based on
accumulated and analyzed qualitative interview and document data. Collected data were
analyzed and informed by the conceptual framework based on Clark and Estes's (2008) gap
analysis framework. Emerging themes were identified from analysis and used to present
recommendations for solutions to the influences identified as leading to gaps and based on the
evidence drawn from the data findings.
Findings from the data analysis highlighted the importance of prior teaching experience
and its link to faculty self-efficacy and motivation to implement instructional practices. Further,
the findings indicated that while faculty members may be aware of the benefits of active
learning, those who facilitate technology-related courses may resist its use. In addition, the study
provided insights into key recommendations that can be implemented in the form of an education
and training program that focuses on faculty needs based on their prior and current knowledge.
By addressing the knowledge and motivation of KU faculty members the organization will
benefit in creating the foundation of core values that align with the mission and vision to provide
valuable courses that utilize active learning-aligned instructional practices in its entrepreneurial
program.
101

References
Ahmed, N. O. A. (2017). Career commitment: The role of self-efficacy, career satisfaction and
organizational commitment. In World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/wjemsd-06-2017-0038
Anazifa, R. D., & Djukri, D. (2017). Project-based learning and problem-based learning: Are
they effective to improve students’ thinking skills? Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia,
6(2), 346–355. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v6i2.11100
Aranil, M. R. S. (2004). Policy of education for the 21st century in developed and developing
countries: Focus on Japan and Persian Gulf region. Journal of International Cooperation
Studies, 11(3), 101–130.
Aranil, M. R. S., & Fukaya, K. (2020). Japanese national curriculum standards reform: Integrated
study and its challenges. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation, ideology and education
reforms: Emerging paradigms (pp. 63–77). Springer Nature B.V.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1743-2
Balan, P., & Metcalfe, M. (2011). Identifying teaching methods that engage entrepreneurship
students. Education and Training, 54(5), 368–384.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211244678
Bandura, A. (1977a). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social Learning Theory. In Social learning theory (Vol. 1) (pp. 1–46).
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813251-7.00057-2
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
102

Bell, J. R. (2008). Utilization of problem-based learning in an entrepreneurship business planning
course. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 53–61.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83, 39–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M. W., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs
supporting educational change: Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Vol.
4).
Billups, F. D. (2021). Qualitative data collection tools: Design, development, and applications.
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 120th
ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22585
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
In Reframing Organizations (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Børte, K., Nesje, K., & Lillejord, S. (2020). Barriers to student active learning in higher
education. Teaching in Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1839746
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (2020). Research design and
methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Burton, J. P., Bamberry, N.-J., & Harris-Boundy, J. (2005). Developing personal teaching
efficacy in new teachers in university settings. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2), 160–173.
103

Choi, J., Lee, J. H., & Kim, B. (2019). How does learner-centered education affect teacher self-
efficacy? The case of project-based learning in Korea. Teaching and Teacher Education,
85, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.005
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publicaitons, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among
five approaches (4th ed., Vol. 53, Issue 9). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Daumiller, M., Stupnisky, R., & Janke, S. (2020). Motivation of higher education faculty:
Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. International Journal
of Educational Research, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101502
Dobson, J. A., Castro Nieto, Y., Dobson, L., & Moros Ochoa, A. (2019). Success through failure:
Towards a problem-based approach to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and
Pedagogy. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419884132
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (C. N. Candlin & D. R.
Hall, Eds.; 2nd ed.). Pearson Education Limited. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833750
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational, beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Ellis, G., & Ellis, S. (2014). What are some issues surrounding the phenomenon of Japanese
students sleeping in class and has this pattern changed over time? 02(01), 5–14.
Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes.
System, 37(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.004
104

Farmer, E. A. (2004). Faculty development for problem-based learning. European Journal of
Dental Education, 8, 59–66.
Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (U. Flick, Ed.; 5th ed.). SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gordon, J. A. (2005). The crumbling pedestal: Changing images of Japanese teachers. Journal of
Teacher Education, 56(5), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105282579
Graaff, E. de, & Kolmos, A. (2007). History of problem-based and project-based learning. In E.
de Graaff & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Management of change: Implementation of problem-
based and project-based learning in engineering (pp. 1–8). Sense Publishers.
Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual
for applied research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hamada, Y. (2011). What demotivates and what prevents demotivation? Annual Research Report
on General Education: 2011, 13, 59–60.
Hanke, R., Kisenwether, E., & Warren, A. (2005). A scalable problem-based learning system for
entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2005(1), E1–E6.
Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The concept of active learning
and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher
education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276
105

Hasanah, & Malik, M. N. (2019). Implementation of problem-based learning to improve critical
thinking skills in entrepreneurs learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1387(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1387/1/012037
Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., Tudón Martínez, J. C., Hernández Alcántara,
D., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2019). Active learning in engineering education: A review
of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. International Journal on Interactive
Design and Manufacturing, 13(3), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00557-8
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.
Hogue, A., Kapralos, B., & Desjardins, F. (2011). The role of Project-Based Learning in IT: A
case study in a game development and entrepreneurship program. Interactive Technology
and Smart Education, 8(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/17415651111141830
Hoidn, S., & Kärkkäinen, K. (2014). Promoting skills for innovation in higher education: A
literature review on the effectiveness of problem-based learning and of teaching
behaviours. In OECD Education Working Papers (No. 100).
https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3tsj67l226-en
Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529–552.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9198-1
Hung, W. (2013). Problem-based learning: A learning environment for enhancing learning
transfer. In L. M. R. Kaiser, K. Kaminski, & J. M. Foley (Eds.), Learning Transfer in
Adult Education: New Directions for Adult Continuing Education (Issue 137, pp. 27–38).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20042
106

Hung, W., Jonassen, D. H., & Liu, R. (2008). Problem-based learning. In Handbook of research
on educational communications and technology (pp. 485–506).
Ibrahim, E. H. E. (2018). Problem-based learning (PBL) in sociolinguistics as a way of
encouraging active learning. MATEC Web of Conferences, 150.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815005075
Ida, Y., Yuda, M., Shimura, T., Ike, S., Ohnishi, K., & Oshima, H. (2015). Trends in Japanese
geography education research in recent years. In Y. Ida, M. Yuda, T. Shimura, S. Ike, K.
Ohnishi, & H. Oshima (Eds.), Geography Education in Japan (pp. 175–184). Springer
Japan.
Irvine, F., Roberts, G., & Bradbury-Jones, C. (2008). The researcher as insider versus the
researcher as outsider: Enhancing rigour through language and cultural sensitivity. In P.
Liamputtong (Ed.), Doing Cross-Cultural Research: Ethical and methodological
perspectives (34th ed., pp. 35–48). Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
Ishikida, M. Y. (2005). The education system. In Japanese Education in the 21st Century (pp. 1–
41). Center for US-Japan Comparative Social Studies.
http://www.usjp.org/jpeducation_en/jpEdContents_en.html
Ito, H., & Takeuchi, S. (2020). The demise of active learning even before its implementation?
Instructors’ understandings and application of this approach within Japanese higher
education. Education Inquiry, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1860283
Johnston, A. K., & Tinning, R. S. (2001). Meeting the challenge of problem-based learning:
Developing the facilitators. Nurse Education Today, 21(3), 161–169.
https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2000.0526
107

Khoiriyah, A. J., & Husamah, H. (2018). Problem-based learning: Creative thinking skills,
problem-solving skills, and learning outcome of seventh grade students. Indonesian
Journal of Biology Education, 4(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5804
Kikuchi, K. (2019). Motivation and demotivation over two years: A case study of English
language learners in Japan. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1),
157–175. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.1.7
Kikuchi, K., & Sakai, H. (2009). Japanese learners’ demotivation to study English: A survey
study. JALT Journal, 31(2), 183–204.
Kimura, D., & Tatsuno, M. (2017). Advancing 21st century competencies in Japan (Issue
February). http://asiasociety.org/files/21st-century-competencies-south-korea.pdf
Kirby, D. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? In Z.
G. Li, R. Chen, & M. Cannice (Eds.), 2005 San Francisco-Silicon Valley Global
Entrepreneurship Research Conference (pp. 173–193). The Entrepreneurship Program
University of San Francisco School of Business & Management.
Kitamura, Y., Omomo, T., & Katsuno, M. (2019). Education in Japan: A comprehensive analysis
of education reforms and practices (Y. Kitamura, T. Omomo, & M. Katsuno, Eds.).
Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2632-5
Kolmos, A. (2009). Problem-based and project-based learning. In University science and
mathematics education in transition (pp. 261–280). Springer Science + Business Media,
LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09829-6
Komatsu, H., & Rappleye, J. (2018). Is exam hell the cause of high academic achievement in
East Asia? The case of Japan and the case for transcending stereotypes. British
Educational Research Journal, 44(5), 802–826. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3468
108

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–219.
Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom’s
Taxonomy. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64–65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433562
Kwietniewski, K. (2017). Literature Review of Project Based Learning.
http://cte.buffalostate.edu/.Followthisandadditionalworksat:http://digitalcommons.buffalo
state.edu/careereducation_theseshttp://digitalcommons.buffalostate.edu/careereducation_t
heses/1
Lee, H. C., & Blanchard, M. R. (2019). Why teach with PBL? Motivational factors underlying
middle and high school teachers’ use of problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary
Journal of problem-based learning, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1719
Lewis, L. (2019). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(2nd ed.). Wiley.
MacWhinnie, S. G. B., & Mitchell, C. (2017). English classroom reforms in Japan: a study of
Japanese university EFL student anxiety and motivation. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second
and Foreign Language Education, 2(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0030-2
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row, Publisher, Inc.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill Education.
McGregor, D. (1989). The human side of enterprise. In H. J. Leavitt, L. R. Pondy, & D. M. Boje
(Eds.), Readings in Managerial Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 314–324). The University of
Chicago Press.
McGregor, D. (2006). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
109

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
MEXT. (n.d.). Principles guide Japan’s educational system. Retrieved August 7, 2021, from
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/senmonshoku/08060508.htm
MEXT. (2006). Basic act on education. Law and Plan.
https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/lawandplan/title01/detail01/1373798.htm
MEXT. (2013). The second basic plan for the promotion of education (provisional translation).
Law and Plan.
MEXT. (2018). The third basic plan for the promotion of education (provisional translation).
Law and Plan.
https://www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/education/lawandplan/title01/detail01/1373799.html
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology
Education, 30, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Michael, J. A., & Modell, H. I. (2003). Active learning in secondary and college science
classrooms: A working model for helping the learner to learn. In British Journal of
Educational Technology (Vol. 35, Issue 6). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Moallem, M., Hung, W., & Dabbagh, N. (Eds.). (2019). The Wiley handbook of problem-based
learning. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Morselli, D. (2019). Teaching a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship through problem-based
learning. Form@re - Open Journal per La Formazione in Rete, 19(2), 149–160.
https://doi.org/10.13128/formare-25176
110

Norris, R. W. (2004). Some thoughts on classroom management problems faced by foreign
teachers at Japanese universities.
http://www2.gol.com/users/norris/articles/classman2.html
O’Brien, E., & Hamburg, I. (2019). A critical review of learning approaches for entrepreneurship
education in a contemporary society. European Journal of Education, 54(4), 525–537.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12369
OECD. (2012). Lessons from PISA for Japan. In Lessons from PISA for Japan. OECD.
https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118539-en
OECD. (2015). Education policy outlook: Japan. In OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017a). How is students’ motivation related to their performance and anxiety? PISA in
focus #92. In PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en
OECD. (2017b). Students’ motivation to achieve. In PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’
Well-Being. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-9-en
OECD. (2018). Education policy in Japan: Building bridges towards 2030.
OECD. (2019). Programme for international student assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018:
Japan. In Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results from PISA
2018: Japan. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-japan.pdf
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q., & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive
model for Japanese young language learners. System, 65, 151–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.011
Oshio, T. (2008). The declining birthrate in Japan. Keizai Koho Center, 69(March), 1–10.
111

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Pawson, E., Fournier, E., Haigh, M., Muniz, O., Trafford, J., & Vajoczki, S. (2006). Problem-
based learning in geography: Towards a critical assessment of its purposes, benefits and
risks. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 30(1), 103–116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260500499709
Peltonen, K. (2008). Can learning in teams help teachers to become more entrepreneurial? The
interplay between efficacy perceptions and team support. LTA, 3(8), 297–324.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. a, & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated
learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the Measurement of
Metacognition (pp. 43–97). Buros Center for Learning.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=burosmetacog
nition
Plowright, D., & Watkins, M. (2004). There are no problems to be solved, only inquiries to be
made, in social work education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
41(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329042000208701
Pribyl, C. B., Sakamoto, M., & Keaten, J. A. (2004). The relationship between nonverbal
immediacy, student motivation, and perceived cognitive learning among Japanese college
students. Japanese Psychological Research, 46(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-
5368.2004.00238.x
112

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work?: A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Salmons, J. (2015). Qualitative online interviews (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Santateresa, P. I. (2016). Fostering entrepreneurship in higher education, by problem-based
learning. In M. Peris-Ortiz, J. A. Gómez, F. Vélez-Torres, & C. Rueda-Armengot (Eds.),
Education Tools for Entrepreneurship (pp. 167–182). Springer International Publishing
Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24657-4
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. Open
University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schmidt, H. G., van der Molen, H. T., te Winkel, W. W. R., & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2009).
Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular
comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227–
249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213592
Schoppa, L. J. (2011). Education reform in Japan. OECD Economics Department Working
Papers, No. 888. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg58z7g95np-en
Siddique, A., Aslam, H. D., Khan, M., & Fatima, U. (2011). Impact of academic leadership on
faculty’s motivation, and organizational effectiveness in higher education system.
International Journal of Academic Research, 3(3), 730–737.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED183043
113

Škudienė, V. (2012). Case study education. In P. Ammerman, A. Gawel, M. Pietrzykowski, R.
Rauktienė, & T. Williamson (Eds.), The case study method in business education (pp. 9–
24). UNI-DRUK. http://www.adam-europe.eu/prj/7401/prd/3/2/Case study in business
education EN.pdf#page=83
Sumarni, W. (2015). The strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of project based
learning: A review. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 4(3), 478–484.
https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v4i3/SUB152023.pdf
Takayama, K. (2008). The politics of international league tables: PISA in Japan’s achievement
crisis debate. Comparative Education, 44(4), 387–407.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060802481413
Tan, S. S., & Ng, C. K. F. (2006). A problem-based learning approach to entrepreneurship
education. Education + Training, 48(6), 416–428.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610692606
van Barneveld, A., & Strobel, J. (2009). Problem-based learning: Effectiveness, drivers, and
implementation challenges. In X. Du, E. de Graaff, & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Research on
PBL Practice in Engineering Education. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-
5015.1180
Vassy, C., & Keller, R. (2010). Qualitative methods in health research. In I. Bourgeault, Ro.
Dingwall, & R. de Vries (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health
research (pp. 621–638). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Vera, M., Salanova, M., & Martín-del-Río, B. (2011). Self-efficacy among university faculty:
How to develop an adjusted scale. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 27(3),
800–807.
114

Walker, A., Leary, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Ertmer, P. A. (2015). Essential readings in
problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows (A.
Walker, H. Leary, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & P. A. Ertmer, Eds.). Purdue University Press.
Watson, G. (2004). Integrating problem–based learning and technology in education. In O.-S.
Tan (Ed.), Enhancing thinking through problem-based learning approaches (pp. 187–
201). Cengage Learning.
Wee, K. N. L. (2004). A problem-based learning approach in entrepreneurship education:
Promoting authentic entrepreneurial learning. International Journal of Technology
Management, 28(7–8), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2004.005777
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2015). Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and prospective. In
The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement. (pp. 35–
70). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A005
Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M. M., & Rikers, R. M. J. (2019). The problem‐based learning Process:
An overview of different models. In The Wiley handbook of problem‐based learning (pp.
273–296). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119173243
Yamada, A., & Yamada, R. (2019). The new movement of active learning in Japanese higher
education: The analysis of active learning case in Japanese graduate programs. Active
Learning - Beyond the Future. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80836
Yamanaka, S., & Suzuki, H. (2020). Japanese education reform towards twenty-first century
education. In F. M. Reimers (Ed.), Audacious Education Purposes: How Governments
transform the goals of education systems (pp. 81–104). Springer Open.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3
115

Yaqinuddin, A. (2013). Problem-based learning as an instructional method. Journal of the
College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 23(1), 83–85.
Zabit, M. N. M. (2010). Problem-based learning on students critical thinking skills in teaching
business education in Malaysia: A literature review. American Journal of Business
Education, 3(6), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i6.436
Zembylas, M. (2004). The emotional characteristics of teaching: An ethnographic study of one
teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 185–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.008

116

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
The entire full-time Kyōiku University (KU) faculty represented the stakeholder
population for this study. The participation criteria and rationale were that faculty members had
been teaching a minimum of one-term at Kyōiku University, are full-time faculty, and are willing
to be interviewed in English.
● self-Introduction (name of the researcher, identify as a doctoral student, university,
and program name)
● thanks (agreeing to participate, for time, and insight)
● explain the purpose of the study (exploration of current teaching practices, how and
what is being taught)
● ensure participant privacy (confidentiality of names and responses)
● request permission to record (and can provide a copy of transcripts if requested)
● start interview
Questions
1. Could you tell me about your educational history? [overview]
a. Probe: What type of degree did you complete?
2. Could you please tell me about your work experience? [overview]
a. Probe: What is your background in teaching?
b. Probe: What is your background in business?
c. Probe: How long have you been teaching at KU?
Transition
From this point forward, questions were be based on the study’s inquiry into the school’s
goal to develop entrepreneurial skills.
117

3. Could you describe some of the materials you use in your classes? [RQ1; (K)
declarative and procedural] *Before interviews, I asked faculty to bring/prepare some
materials used in their classes.
a. How do you use the materials in your classes?
b. Could you tell me how you use the materials to develop entrepreneurial skills?
4. Could you tell me about the teaching strategies you use to prepare students to learn
entrepreneurship? [RQ1; (K) declarative and procedural; (M) utility value)]
a. How do you begin your classes?
b. How do you end your classes?
5. Could you tell me about your understanding of active learning? [RQ1; (K) declarative
and procedural]
a. To what degree, if at all, do you feel active learning helps students to learn
entrepreneurship? [(M) utility value]
6. How confident do you feel about your ability to use active learning in your classes?
[RQ1; (M) self-efficacy]
a. How has KU impacted your self-efficacy, if at all? [(O) cultural model]
7. What are your thoughts about faculty continuing education and training at KU? [RQ2;
(M) utility value; (O) cultural model and cultural setting]
a. Could you tell me about a faculty development training session you have
recently attended?
8. What are some ways that KU could help faculty to incorporate active learning into its
curriculum? [RQ2; (M) utility value and self-efficacy; (O) cultural setting]
a. What incentives would influence you?
118

b. What incentives would not influence you?
Closing Question
At this time, do you have any questions about the interview, topics we covered, or some
additional insight you can provide?
Conclusion to the Interview
Once again, I thank you for your valuable time and personal contribution. If for any
reason in the future, I find that I may need to ask for confirmation or clarification of any points
during our discussion, I appreciate your kind acceptance to allow me to reach out and contact
you once more.
jhug@usc.edu

119

Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol
This study includes document analysis of Kyōiku University (KU) course syllabi, slides,
and handouts from all three departments, for two school years (SY) during 2019-2022. The focus
has several goals to identify (a) the degree to which, if at all, instructors implemented PBL- and
active learning-aligned instructional practices in the KU curriculum; (b) whether there is a
specific active learning teaching strategy identified in syllabi. The analyzed documents for this
study include the following:
● Analysis of course syllabi for Kyōiku University courses from all three departments.
The Innovation Project (InnoPro) course, which is considered a zemi (seminar)
course, will not be included.
● Analysis of assignment descriptions provided to students that are external from
course syllabi.
● Analysis of assignment rubrics provided to students if external from course syllabi
and external from assignment description documents.
Syllabi, Slides, and Handout Analysis Prompts
1. Review course descriptions in class syllabi. Look for any indications of how
instructors will act as facilitators versus lecturers. [RQ1; (K) declarative and procedural;
(M) utility value; (O) cultural model]
2. Look for indications on syllabi that describe how students are graded on their
performance in class. [RQ1; (K) procedural; (M) utility value; (O) cultural setting]
3. Review course syllabi and objectives for indications of how instructors will deploy
active learning-aligned methodologies. [RQ1; (K) declarative and procedural; (M)
utility value; (O) cultural model and cultural setting]
120

4. Explore course descriptions, goals, materials to be used, and any emphasis on specific
skills (e.g., active learning, group activities, etc.) which emphasize how students
acquire entrepreneurial skills. [RQ1; (K) declarative and procedural; (M) utility value
and self-efficacy; (O) cultural model]
(Some possible examples may be group-based activities, taking turns for students to
lead discussions, posing a problem, and allowing students to discover their own
solutions. The emphasis will be if classes are mainly lecturing or not).
5. Study additional course materials (e.g., slides and handouts) which signify
requirements for students to develop entrepreneurial skills. [RQ1 and 2; (K)
declarative; (M) utility value and self-efficacy; (O) cultural model and cultural
setting]
6. Understand if and how faculty implement active learning activities in their classroom.
[RQ1; (K) declarative and procedural; (M) utility value and self-efficacy; (O) cultural
setting]

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explored the extent to which faculty members in a Japanese university fostered students' entrepreneurial skills through active learning-aligned instruction practices. To explore faculty members' ability to provide an innovative learning environment, the study employed the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework. The study participants were full-time faculty from three departments within the organization. To collect and analyze qualitative data, PowerPoint decks and syllabi were analyzed in addition to conducting individual online interviews. Data analysis findings indicated that both assets and gaps existed in the organization's current instructional practices. In addition to recommending problem-based learning (PBL) as an instructional approach across the university, this study makes several other recommendations to support faculty in implementing a PBL curriculum. The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was recommended as part of a faculty development program for the training and evaluation of faculty members' instructional practices. The study’s recommendations are aimed at closing identified gaps, creating a PBL curriculum, and creating a faculty development program designed to support faculty members to meet the organizational mission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

Societal violence against women and national insecurity: an evaluation study of teaching a gendered security perspective

PDF

Theory-practice gap: MBA curricula as preparation for business practice in marketing

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

Implementing problem-based learning to develop student supply chain skills

PDF

An analysis of online engagement of secondary teachers at high need schools during COVID-19 shutdowns

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Intelligent Learning Quotient

PDF

Using mastery learning to address gender inequities in the self-efficacy of high school students in math-intensive STEM subjects: an evaluation study

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Line staff and their influence on youth in expanded learning programs: an evaluation model

PDF

An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM

PDF

Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Multi-tiered system of support as the overarching umbrella: an improvement model using KMO gap analysis to address the problem of school districts struggling to implement MTSS

Asset Metadata

Creator Hug, Jose David (author)

Core Title Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/18/2022

Defense Date 07/28/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag active learning,cultural model,cultural setting,declarative knowledge,entrepreneurship,expectancy-value theory,gap analysis framework,Japan,KMO framework,Kotter’s eight step model,New World Kirkpatrick Model,OAI-PMH Harvest,problem-based learning,procedural knowledge,self-efficacy,utility value

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Okumura, Koichi (committee member)

Creator Email jhug@usc.edu,joehug@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376960

Unique identifier UC111376960

Legacy Identifier etd-HugJoseDav-11142

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hug, Jose David

Type texts

Source 20220819-usctheses-batch-974 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu